Lessons from Florida; or, the dangers of ideological purity and forgetting the main thing

By Richard K. Barry

Two stories caught my eye in recent days that are, I think, related in a very interesting way. The first was about prospective Republican challengers to Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson as he seeks re-election in 2012. I wrote about this a few days ago.

It seems that GOP candidate State Senator Mike Haridopolos is in trouble with conservatives over mixed messages on his support for the Ryan budget plan, which has given his Republican rival, Adam Hasner, something with which to beat him up. Another Republican seeking the nomination, former U.S. Senator George LeMieux, has also been criticized by Hasner for his lack of ideological purity on the same issue.

Hasner's campaign manager, Rick Wilson, said the following:

It took Mike Haridopolos and Senator George LeMieux more than a week to give a straight answer about the only plan in Washington that would cut spending, reform entitlements and save Medicare.

That's not leadership; it's typical finger-in-the-wind politics that define Washington today. What's worse, after being pushed by the media, Senator Haridopolos chose to side with Bill Nelson and Barack Obama to undercut conservatives on the Ryan plan and defend the status quo in Washington.

For his part, LeMieux said later that he would have voted for the Ryan plan and Haridopolos, without specific mention of the plan itself, provided a rather defensive statement of his conservative bona fides in response to the charges. So, those contesting the Republican senate nomination in Florida are going at each other to prove who is a pure enough conservative using the Ryan plan as the litmus test.

Clearly we are going to see more of this sort of thing in congressional and senate races across the country.

The second story I came upon was about comments made by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour reported by Politico that any requirement for ideological purity in the presidential primaries will put the GOP at risk of losing the general election:

We're going to nominate someone for president who doesn't agree with you on everything and who you don't agree with on everything. But I'll tell you what. You're going to agree with them a whole lot more than you agree with Barack Obama.

Barbour went on to say the following:

Remember, in politics, purity is the enemy of victory. We cannot expect our candidate to be pure. Winning is about unity. Winning is about us sticking together to achieve the main thing.

Whatever Barbour's other failings, he has always been a smart political operative, as truer words about the ins an outs of elections were never spoken.

It is true that Barbour's comments were about the GOP presidential nomination process, but they also apply to senate and house races in an interesting way.

Historically, it is well-known that a Republican politician in Maine is not the same as one in Texas or that a Democratic politician in New York is not the same as one in Arkansas or West Virginia. If your goal is to have as many members of your party in the House or the Senate, then it is generally wise to understand that regional flexibility is important, that national ideological litmus tests do not provide that flexibility.

I don't think it's a stretch to guess that there might be a lot of older voters in Florida who might be rather attached to their Medicare program just as it is. Having one of the Republican senate candidates in the state parsing every statement of his party rivals to ensure that they are in lock step with every nuance of the Ryan plan is a gift to the Democratic incumbent, plain and simple.

Florida Republicans like Haridopolos know that in order to beat a sitting Democratic senator, it will be wise to attempt to square the circle, to indicate support for conservative budgetary principles without necessarily committing, holus bolus, to a plan that is currently and may be even more unpopular by election day.

I am not in the habit of giving advice to Republicans, but they might all want to think about adopting the Barbour mantra: "Purity is the enemy of victory." Say it together now.

Hell, for absolutely no extra charge, I'll offer the same advice to Democrats. Get behind your team with unqualified support no matter how much you may disagree on some particulars because, as Barbour says: "Winning is about sticking together to achieve the main thing."

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson's chances for re-election

By Richard K. Barry 

In my never ending quest to get a better handle on the more interesting political races coming up in 2012, I now turn my attention to Democrat Bill Nelson's Florida senate seat.

It's always interesting to see a politician who won the last time by such an overwhelming margin be considered in either a toss-up situation, as both The Cook Report and Roll Call have it, or as only marginally well placed to win, as Rothenberg sees it.

Nelson beat Republican Kathleen Harris in 2006 by a margin of 60.3% to 38.1%. You may recall that, as Florida Secretary of State, Harris played a pivotal role in stealing the presidential election for George W. Bush in 2000 and was, on account of that, a polarizing figure in the campaign before self-destructing. But I digress.

The point is simply that Nelson won handily in 2006 and yet is getting little respect from the leading political prognosticators in the business.

So what do we know?

Well, I think the first thing you'd have to notice is that the relatively new Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott is one of the least popular politicians in the country, and that can't hurt an incumbent Democratic senator's chances in 2012 in the same state. Scott is not alone as an unpopular Republican governor, but he has distinguished himself as a particularly loathsome hack, if I do say so myself.

As Bloomberg reports:

Scott took office in January and by April his disapproval among voters doubled after he called for cutting spending in schools and health care to close a $3.8 billion deficit. In May, his popularity was at the lowest in five months.

So, there's that working in Nelson's favour.

What else can we say?

A Quinnipac University poll released on May 26th had Obama's approval rating in Florida at 51%, admittedly fueled by the killing of Osama bin Laden, but a bump's a bump.

Accord to The Miami Herald, the poll also indicated that the Republicans may have quite a task ahead of them in their attempt to unseat Senator Nelson:

Nelson holds leads of between 20 to 25 points over three hypothetical contenders: former U.S. Senator George LeMieux, Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos and former state Representative Adam Hasner.

It is no doubt early days in determining who the GOP challenger will be, but those are not good numbers for any of them.

Although, Peter Brown, the assistant director at Quinnipac, says that while Nelson appears to be in good shape, he does not win 50% against any of the three putative contenders. For some reason unclear to me Brown calls 50% the "magic threshold" that signals an incumbent will be difficult to beat. It is a nice round number. Maybe that's it.

Whatever the reason, that could be why the major handicappers are calling it a toss-up or very nearly. But Nelson still seems awfully strong especially considering one more number from the poll indicating that he has an approval rating of 51%, including 39% among Republicans.

I do note that a Public Policy Polling poll from December 2010 had Nelson with a job approval rating of just 36%, a disapproval rating of 33%, and another 31% not sure. This, of course, would have been back in the dark days after the disastrous midterm elections, but it does indicate a certain volatility amongst voters in The Sunshine State.

The same poll suggested that Jeb Bush would be the only Republican with a realistic chance of beating Bill Nelson, but, so far, apart from a Facebook page urging Jeb to run, I'm not finding much indication that Mr. Bush is so inclined. I suppose that could change.

Not for nothin', but, baring surprising developments, this race sure looks like the kind that hinges strongly on how well Obama ends up doing. In fact, we could say that about almost all of the Democratic senate races that are deemed close at this point, which may end up being good news for the Dems since I think Obama will do just fine in 2012.

Come to think of it, I'm not all that worried about Senator Nelson after all, no matter what Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg think. What do they know?

But in all seriousness, if you go back to just after the midterms, it seemed like it wasn't that hard to find people writing Nelson's political obituary and now not so much. I wonder how many twists and turns there will be on this one before November 2012? Maybe that's what Cook and Rothenberg know.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)