Home › Blogs › NoMoreBlatherDotCom's blog ›

Why the tea parties probably made Chris Dodd happy

Submitted by NoMoreBlatherDotCom on Thu, 04/16/2009 - 12:54

Glenn Reynolds opines (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/76738): "Hartford Courant: Hartford Tea Party Draws Thousands. That can't make Chris Dodd feel any better" and links to the contention that 3,000 turned out at that event (link).

Actually, the "party" probably made Dodd feel a little bit better and might have made him quite happy.

First, some numbers. The 3000 who turned out represent:

  • 0.3% of those in the Hartford MSA
  • less than 0.1% of those in the state
  • 0.3% of Dodd's 2004 votes
  • 0.6% of Dodd's 2004 GOP challenger's votes
  • 33% of Dodd's 2004 Libertarian Party challenger's votes (write-in)

There are at least three ways all of that could make Dodd happy:

  1. He'll be encouraged by just how weak his overall opposition is.
  2. If the GOP decides to go after the "tea party vote" and push a very strong fiscal conservative, most likely Dodd will cruise to an easy victory since I'm going to guess that "strong fiscal conservative" isn't exactly going to appeal to most CT voters.
  3. If Dodd were slick he'd encourage the "partiers" at the same time as encouraging a strong Libertarian Party candidate or similar in order to split the GOP vote. If the GOP pushes a squishy moderate, that's probably not going to make the "tea partiers" too happy and they could be encouraged in one way or another to vote for the Libertarian or similar.

If anyone cares to present a logical, non-magical, statistically-correct argument how Dodd would actually care what a tiny amount of "partiers" think, please leave it in comments.

P.S. The intelligent way to reduce Dodd's chances is for someone familiar with one of his issues to press him on that on video at one of his personal appearances. I.e., someone should ask Dodd the questions the MSM won't ask and then upload it to video sharing sites. That would be the intelligent thing to do, and I'm not surprised that others are doing other things. There are lots of things to ask Dodd about; I'd choose this obscure funding issue since it's one I'm familiar with.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

You're wrong, not that Reynolds is all that right

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 04/16/2009 - 18:59.

The Tea Party probably didn't help Dodd for the following reasons.

a) CT has no history of activism. We are the antithesis of rabble rousers. 3.000 activists is a lot.  Especially for the middle of the afternoon on Wednesday. The unions scared up that many for universal health care and half were on the clock.  The Catholics turned out a thousand more for opposition to a unconsitutional bill; but they had every priest in the state promoting the event.

The percentages are low, and in states where crowds turn out for this stuff, it would be low. Compared to similar events this was pretty good, especially as there were numerous other events elsewhere in the state that day.

b) One immediate problem conservatives have in CT is the feeling we are so outnumbered that we'd best pipe down and adjust.  The GOP establishment is no help--in most towns they discuss crap like whether the Registar of Voters needs a pay raise or not.  So just letting people know there IS an opposition is a plus in this state. Some new live foot soldiers is something CT Dems haven;t seen in quite awhile around here; and the tired Dodd is not going to inspire folks without dangling wads of cash to get help.

c) Almost every right of center person in CT is so disgusted with Dodd they would vote for Mikhail Gorbachev if he were the Republican candidate.  I know I would. The actual GOP nominee is going to be either Rob Simmons or Sam Caligiuri, who have won elections in Democrat leaning districts in the past.  We aren't going to nominate Peter Schiff and this will be one race where protest voting is going to be low.

D) if fiscal conservatism is such a millstone in CT, why do 63% of the voters say the state budget deficit can be resolved without a tax increase? 

Reynolds is overcaffeinated in the impact this will have on Dodd; the fact the local MSM stopped drinking his kool aid is a far more damaging development to his re-election bid. (Which is why I agree with you on continuing to put Dodd on the spot on his substantive record.).

And go ahead, ignore my opinions. I've only been around CT politics for 25 years; what would I know?

You might be right

Submitted by NoMoreBlatherDotCom on Thu, 04/16/2009 - 22:48.

However a commenter at fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-least.html says: "When CT implemented a state income tax in the early 80s, some 40,000 people rallied in Hartford with much more passion and vitriol than was shown by the some 3000 protestors yesterday. PS CT still has their income tax."

And, from the GOP perspective, the point about new activists might be a good one. However, the question becomes why those who wave John Galt signs would want to agitate for the GOP.

State income tax was a bit different

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 04/16/2009 - 23:04.

This1991  rally was much bigger than people expected and sucked in a lot of loosely attached folks, especially blue collar Democrats who resented the tax but had little common ground with the GOP. The main ire was directed at the 3rd party Governor, Lowell Weicker. There were a lot of bodies, but pre-internet hard to know who they were and how to keep them involved.

Had Weicker been on the ballot the next November, both he and the tax woulda been sent out the door.(see e.g., Jim Florio)  But he wasn't. in 1992 Bush 41 was on the ballot and the Democrats redirected the loosely attached into voting against him on economic issues. A few income tax supporters in the legislature lost seats, but Bush's defeat impacted downballot and squelched any GOP surge.

It's interesting that 1992 was also the only year Dodd was held under 60% by a very flawed candidate  (rich guy who knew nada).  This was even though Dodd had zippo to do with Weicker's tax proposal and the GOP was blamed for the national economy. 

Weicker stood down in 1994 instead of being ousted, but by then the income tax had been around for three years and the state had plugged the revenue stream into all their financial assumptions. So it's been nibbled a bit since and had the rate fluctuate.

why the frowny face?

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 04/16/2009 - 23:53.

I know you aren't just a left-wing troll, so I'm having a hard time understanding why you are so negative about the tea parties.  You're right, the couple hundred thousand that turned out don't represent a voting bloc of any significant size, but that really wasn't the point.  The protest was almost a primal scream, an expression of existential angst about where our country is headed given the massive debt burdens that we face and the bailout culture that we now labor under.  And we conservatives aren't naturally prone to protesting.  We're kinda new at this.  We are as yet unpolished and disorganized.  We don't have the hordes of Rent-A-Mobs at our beck and call that the Left does.  But we're getting there, and I'd think despite all of the warts, we should be happy to see any signs of activism on our side of the ideological spectrum at all!

Furthermore you claim that a person with a strong fiscally conservative message can't win in CT.  Previously, we've been lectured (perhaps by you, I can't recall) that social conservatives can't win in places like CT either.  So in your opinion what kind of conservative CAN win in CT?  Does one exist at all?  Is CT just a lost cause?

this directed at me?

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 04/17/2009 - 00:21.

I may not be as hyped over tea parties as some other folks but they play a role. If for no other reason than to break the "everybody loves Barack" narrative from the MSM. And they attract an activist group that we aren;t going attract with boring conventional approaches.

The GOP has won four straight elections for Governor in CT. The state is not a lost cause, but you'd better have your act together or don;t bother.

CT governors

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 04/17/2009 - 08:42.

No it was more directed at NoMoreBlather but thanks for your contribution!  I didn't realize CT had such a strong record at GOP governors.  Have they governed actually conservative or are they wishy-washy Lincoln Chafee types?

More like Eisenhower Republicans

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 04/17/2009 - 09:11.

No interest in social issues and little success is rolling back the previous spending programs, but have done an effective job of thwarting further efforts to socialize the state economy.