Post-Election Lesson #1: Never Again

Post-mortems are important.  To move forward, you have to know what you did right and what you did wrong.  Looking back over the post-election landscape there are several massive steaming wrongs laying about. 

So let's start at the beginning -- candidate recruitment.  The rule of thumb is that challengers should be recruited based on the requirements of the election year in which they are running. Once elected, adjustments are made, so that a candidate responds to and is prepared for the electorate he or she will face -- election by election. 

2015 was not a presidential election year.  It was not even a gubernatorial election year.  It was a partisan turnout-driven year, more like a special election.  Whoever got their partisan voters out would win.  But instead of recruiting candidates based on the requirements of 2015, those responsible for candidate recruitment selected them based on the requirements of 2012 or 2013, or maybe 2017. 

Many of the candidates recruited had no particular affinity for the average Republican voter.  This is different from the average Republican insider.  Our candidates certainly understood what was expected of them by insiders.  Many of them just failed to have any idea as to what motivates the average Republican voter to want to go out and vote.  This is not to say that they were "bad" candidates.  In another year, some would have made admirable candidates, just not this year.

For the most part, our candidates were not vetted.  Happily none turned out to have mortal faults, but proper vetting would have prepared their campaigns for the attacks that came their way.  This is what vulnerability studies are for.  In times past, they were standard.  We have had to re-learn their necessity.

We learned too that some Republicans scare easy.  They believe in the P.C. boogeyman and have failed to understand that, for too many illiberal "liberals", the "R" next to your name is all they need to condemn you.  For them, your soul is lost, so act accordingly -- or at least indifferently -- towards them.  Don't crave their favor and don't alter your course to please them. You will never have their approval, so piss on them, they should mean less than nothing to you. 

But we don't piss on them, do we?  We seek their favor, and turn on our own.  District 38 was a fine example of what happens when you fail to do a vulnerability study, and what happens is Republican on Republican sex, to the delight of Democrat onlookers.  A simple Google search would have revealed that one candidate was the author of one book and the publisher of two.  Yes, t-w-o. 

A vulnerability study would have uncovered that the first book in question was a species of comedy, while the second was a pro-LGBT confessional written by a "Gay Big Sister" (so much for the "anti-gay" myth).  It would have rendered the "anti-Asian" myth, laughable too.  With a vulnerability study the state GOP would have had the tools to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wished to defend the candidate and his book.  If so, it would have prepared them for the attacks that came.  But that is not how it was done, was it?

Instead, many thousands of dollars were spent promoting a candidate and then trashing that candidate.  Once the campaign of this "targeted" district was wrecked, the money the Democrats would have spent defending it could flow elsewhere.  And make no mistake, the Democrats would have burnt buckets of money defending District 38.  It is one of those districts that gets the Democrats emotional -- District 3 is another.  We should never allow them rest in these districts.  Make them spend buckets of money there so they don't spend it elsewhere.

But we are determined to be positive.  The contributors to this website know a thing or two or three about research.  Going forward, Jersey Conservative will conduct vulnerability studies on Republican candidates in competitive contests, and then make that research available to the party leaders responsible for candidate selection.  In this way, the NJ GOP can make informed choices and the candidates will know what they face and how to face it.

Never again.  2015 will never happen again.

Rutgers SuperPac makes bi-partisan governance difficult

In the blue state to our west, Pennsylvania Republicans managed to use low turnout to their advantage to take another Democrat legislative seat.  Yesterday's Republican win in Senate District 37 extends their control of that chamber to 31-19.  Republican Guy Reschenthaler defeated Democrat Heather Arnet by 10 percentage points (6,000 votes).  The seat had formerly been held by Democrat Matt Smith.

Ditto for the blue state to our north, where NY Republicans easily held on to a seat the Democrats had hoped to pick up.  After Republican Senator Tom Libous was convicted of lying to the FBI, Democrats were buoyed by polling that showed the 52nd Senate District in play -- even though Libous had won his last election with 59 percent of the vote.   Democrats put up Barbara Fiala, a former county executive and state motor vehicles commissioner, against Republican Fred Akshar, a county undersheriff.  The Republican received 79 percent of the vote, crushing the Democrat by more than 50 percentage points -- a 30,000 vote margin. 

Here in New Jersey Republicans watched as all their challengers to Democrat incumbents were defeated, as well as the loss of three -- possibly four -- Republican incumbents.  Much of it had to do with the intervention of SuperPACs, funded largely by the super-wealthy one-percent.  It is important to note here that while the Democrats had critical assistance from SuperPACs, the Republicans did not.  The Republican SuperPAC that could have made a difference, pulled a Lord Howe on our own General John Burgoyne (read Jon Bramnick) and went instead to New Hampshire.  And slaughter followed that decision.

The Democrats' principal SuperPAC is the Rutgers Super PAC, so named because it is controlled by Rutgers' Board of Governors member Sue McCue (thank you, Governor Christie).  Not only is Rutgers allowing Governor McCue to operate as an influence on those who fund this state university, but Rutgers will be at fault when bi-partisan governance as we know it grinds to a dead halt.

Why?  Because the presence of the Rutgers SuperPAC makes it impossible for Republican legislators to cross the aisle and make difficult votes on the tough fiscal issues facing New Jersey.

The reason for this is simple:  The Rutgers SuperPAC exists to destroy Republican legislators.  Period.  Full stop.  That is its stated purpose.

Why would Republican legislators cast a controversial vote, knowing that the Rutgers SuperPAC will eviscerate them for it, while it gives their Democrat colleagues a pass?  And for Republican legislators, the lesson from yesterday is that nobody will be able to save you when the Rutgers SuperPAC decides to destroy you.

When this comes to pass, Rutgers and its SuperPAC will have to take the blame for the end of bi-partisan governance in New Jersey.