Pundits make me tired.
Among the head banging pain that follows from "losing" an election is having to read and listen to pundits who frankly don't know James Buchanan from Pat.
This column from National Review Online is a wondrous example. Jonathan Martin's premise is that the Republican Party has "lost the burbs" so bar the door because the heathens tramp without.
Citing results from Missouri and Virginia, Martin paints a bleak picture for the GOP's future in the large suburban areas of Fairfax County and St. Louis County.
He ends with this brilliant conclusion: "Statewide Republican candidates may not be able to win the mega-suburbs because of demographic shifts, but Davis and Oliver, two individuals who have a sure grip on politics local and national, agree that they must remain at least competitive to win.That much was proven in spades last week. "
Um yes....let me make a note "Must remain at least competitive to win". Wow, why didn't I think of that? This is utter nonsense. Allen and Talent lost because they got fewer votes than their opponents did.
However Allen lost by less that one half of one percent and Talent lost by about two percent. Point being? Well for starters a close race is a close race. The fact that you lost big in one area is something that absolutely should be looked at and studied to keep it from happening again. But....IF you lose narrowly and IF you lost some areas by large margins, that MUST mean you also WON some areas by large margins. Right? The key is getting 50% plus 1, not even vote distribution or "winning the burbs".
The over absorption by writers and pundits with one of the elephant's toes drives me up any and all walls, especially when it comes from a publication like NR. Don't misunderstand, both Allen and Talent failed to win enough votes in those two counties. Period. But there is no reason to feel that that in and of itself is cause for unprecedented heartburn.
As more urbanites move into suburban areas, those suburban areas will more closely resemble urban areas in their voting paterns. No surprise there. However the red voters HAVE to be somewhere. You know, the ones who voted 51% for GWB two years ago?
And that brings me to the follow up to my post of last week. Tomorrow "Why and What Now Part 2"
