The Sweep: Bipartisan Is Just Another Word for Nothing Left To Lose

2022 headwinds and the cold political math of infrastructure brinkmanship.

By and
34

Get ready for a deep dive into the 2024 GOP primary next week—this will be your one stop shop for who the likely candidates are (for now), what they’re saying, and the best advice from operatives across the spectrum on what they should be doing this early if they want a chance to compete at “the show.”

But for now …

Campaign Quick Hits

Good news for Democrats (kind of): As of now, only six House Democrats have announced their retirements. For a party that needs to hold onto nearly every seat they’ve got to maintain the majority, stemming the onslaught of redistricting retirements will be key. Why are incumbents so important to keeping the House this time around? There are all the usual reasons, plus we’re in a redistricting cycle—and a delayed one, at that—so the entire campaign cycle gets compressed until after the new district lines are announced. The result is that an incumbent’s advantages are multiplied: “they are armed with high name ID, fully funded coffers and ready-to-go campaign teams for a compressed election.”

Three of those members appear ready to hang up their political spurs in tight swing districts, but the other three are running for higher office instead. Tim Ryan is running for Senate in Ohio for the seat that Rob Portman is vacating, Charlie Crist for Governor in Florida against Ron DeSantis, and Val Demings for Senate in Florida against Marco Rubio. Conor Lamb is expected to announce soon for the Pennsylvania Senate seat that Pat Toomey is leaving behind, which would make Lamb the seventh House Democratic retirement overall. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
34
By and
Comments (34)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    BWG

    Somewhat off the topic of this post, but something I'd like to see you address: What should be the re-election campaign strategies of the "Impeachment 10"? In your TDP this week Rep Gonzalez talks about a "well informed electorate" the implication being that's enough to persuade voters that he's the clear choice. But I think they'll actually have to launch some serious get-out-the-vote efforts to get moderates who usually only vote in the general to come out for the primary. They'll have to tout the positives if they win (I can work across the aisle to pass the small set of legislation that's really necessary) and the negatives if they lose (you'll get either a MAGA-head who gets nothing substantive done, or a Dem who gets done what you really don't want). Because I'm skeptical that the I10 will be able to persuade hardcore MAGA-heads that make up a large fraction (most?) of GOP primary voters that someone who voted for Trump's impeachment is their gal or guy in the House.

    Collapse
  2. Anthony Pasquini

    Sarah, if "consevartive" is now meaningless, how describe Jonah in one of two words? Jonah and I see eye-to-eye on most things which is why I choose him for your answer. I have been using the long winded description of Hayekian Buckleyian Conservative for myself.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      A Goldbergian. Or Remnant member. I’m in a similar boat.

      Collapse
    2. David B.

      Ditto. Because a group of people don't understand the definition of a word does t mean we throw it away. It just means those people are not very knowledgeable in the ways of vocabulary.

      Otherwise we do need to come up with another word (knockbinker?) to use to describe small government proponents and then get that word out and known throughout the world. That seems like a good idea. Not.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Carol May

        Well, language evolves. How words are used in practice is eventually what they come to mean. Liberal didn’t use to mean what it now most often means either. I suspect that normal conservatives will eventually not want to be associated with the crazy and will choose another term.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      You could always go with “problematic” haha

      Collapse
      1. Anthony Pasquini

        Sarah, haha...perhaps a serious answer please.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
          Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

          I wish I had one! Sometimes I describe myself as burkean but no one knows what that is and also I’m not even sure it’s correct lol.

          Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    Pulled right out of Google. My good friend Pat believes there are not GOP members who believe the below.
    7 Core Principles of Conservatism
    Individual Freedom. The birth of our great nation was inspired by the bold declaration that our individual,God-given liberties should be preserved against government intrusion. ...
    Limited Government. ...
    The Rule of Law. ...
    Peace through Strength. ...
    Fiscal Responsibility. ...
    Free Markets. ...
    Human Dignity.

    Granted Trump Doesn't believe in the Rule of Law if it prevents him from doing something. He is less supportive of Free Markets if he feels the US is being taken advantage of and as far as Fiscal Responsibility....a definite no. However I generally could apply all the above to various GOP Senators and Governors and certainly local politicians. It is just our version or vision may be different from those whose opinions differ. I'll keep saying it, Trump is not the GOP. One day you will all see. He is a loser and sore one. He'll hold on to minority group of people and if we have 18 people running for President he may well win the nomination and promptly loose. Nobody wants a return of that undisciplined chaos....Although I would still vote against Biden....as I am a conservative.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mandy

      Hi, Earl. I’d love to believe that a significant number of GOP members and elected leaders buy into the core principles that you listed, but I can’t. If they did care about those principles in any meaningful way, they would have seen to it that former President Trump was convicted after impeachment. They chose a different path, and we’re all now paying the price. Without an absolute commitment that the rule of law must apply evenly to all, any other principles that we’d pursue as a nation are just shiny things we can no longer have. As far as I’m concerned, the Senators (and Governors etc) who repeatedly stood by idly while the rules were bent and broken in plain sight can no longer be taken seriously.

      Collapse
      1. David B.

        Agree they can't be taken seriously anymore. Disagree that they don't have these principles anymore. It's just that their guiding light beacon principle is to get reelected and that overwhelmed anything else. Which was a good test to find out the ones who believe in conservative principles when it counts and when it hurts, the politicians who will put the country above their career. And it appears there are maybe 5% of Republicans currently in Congress who will do that in an outspoken manner. Sad.

        Others have given their lives for our country and these folks won't risk losing a Congressional seat. Disgusting.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    I've been saying for a long time that Trump isn't Conservative nor is the Republican party. But sadly 538 probably has it right: Trump and the GOP *is* "conservative" by today's definition, which means the very opposite of what it meant only 10 years ago.

    So to be clear, today the word "conservative" means all of Trump's values: criminal corruption, lying, promiscuous pornographic sex, cheating your business associates, "what was in it for them?" instead of patriotism, burning your face mask in the middle of a pandemic, Stop the Steal, Q-Anon, hating on the FBI, CIA, DOJ, courts, judges, juries, and any laws that might affect members of the Republican party leadership (e.g. making Twitter illegal now that they banned Trump or forcing businesses to accept unvaccinated patrons because the GOP is pro-COVID right now).

    We've come a long way from WF Buckley...

    As for the Democrats, there's good news and bad news for the GOP. The bad news is that it doesn't work the way this article implies it works: people don't vote on policy anymore like "police" and "border security" they vote on tribe and if somebody doesn't get their facts from the Republican Media Complex then they aren't going to vote Republican ever.

    The good news for the GOP is the same as the bad news: all they have to hope for is their media increases its aggregate reach and they win.

    We live in two Americas right now with two versions of reality. Policy doesn't mean diddly squat when Republicans can vote against a bill and then brag about their bill they voted against to their constituents. Talking about this policy or that in this environment seems pretty silly...

    Collapse
    1. David B.

      So you're with Sarah that we lose this word because a group of people don't understand its meaning and therefore mis-use it? Shall we also then lose systemic, niggardly, damper (for the oft-misused "dampener") and others? Or is this just another excuse for a 3 paragraph "I hate Republicans" rant?

      Also, what is your proposal for the new word to be used for the true definition of conservative?

      Collapse
    2. Richard Kennedy

      No! Really? Well I’ll be. You are saying that the GOP electorate, let’s say 45mill of the 74 mill of those voting for Trump last time will blindly follow the portion of the media that can demonstrate less than 10mill active watchers and readers? How does that work?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        The Right Wing Media Complex consists of far more than just Fox News and the other cable stations. There are hundreds of local stations run by Republican-aligned owners who are forced to carry pro-Republican messages, right-wing radio (which is gigantic), all of the various pro-Republican websites like Breitbart, NR, WSJ, et. al., and of course all of the biggest white Evangelical churches in the US.

        And the top-10 list of Facebook posts every day is at least half Republican sources if not more.

        And then the people who aren't tuned any of *that* are influenced by those who are...

        That's how that works...

        Collapse
        1. David B.

          And these folks don't watch Fox News why??

          Collapse
        2. Richard Kennedy

          Fair point, but I don’t think you are actually familiar with much of what you mention. I know NR and WSJ. They are not, not in the tank that you suggest. They are at best nuanced. You will find good criticism of what is going on in AZ in particular at NR and more. WSJ desperately tries not to scoff and is a real news paper. Not a party organ.

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Carol May

      Don’t forget that to Carlson fans the top leader of the once sacred US Military is now a “stupid pig.”

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        It's still sacred when they slap on their "support our troops" or "thank a veteran memes and bumper stickers on their social media pages/cars. It's just not 'sacred' in practice.

        Collapse
    4. Monty Brown

      Nice riff. But throwing conservatives into the trash is to throw out those like Liz Cheney who surely isn't a follower of Trump. Nor is Joe Manchin an AOC Or BS. We live in many Americas right now, not two. And actually talking policy right now isn't silly but the only sanity left. Do our politicians of most persuasions do it; yes, but rarely do it with candor and honest meaning.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Leaving Liz Cheney aside for a moment, what we're talking about here is the *popular* definition of the word, "conservative" versus... what it used to mean.

        I've been tilting at this windmill here for a long time, but the reality is that the word, "conservative" will *never* again mean "Liz Cheney".

        And as for talking about policy, I don't mind talking about, but **not in the context of electoral strategy** like the author is doing here. They are implying that, "if the Republicans promote policy X, they will win, if not the will lose". That's not really talking about policy itself, but it's effect on voters right now--and that simply isn't the case. Policy has almost no effect on the bulk of Republican voters, it's only about tribe.

        Collapse
        1. Monty Brown

          you got me. Allow me to expand a bit on my comments. Categories rarely capture the many sub-groupings one might make into those larger categories. Strong Trump supporters don't reflect the differences that I can see among the many who like many of the policies he supported. On the other side, there are many who are in the general category of 'liberal' who are wondering what happened to the nice old man Biden who got along with the other party. These overarching categories fail to capture the underlying subgroups who if one looks closely ofter identify with a few policies and know little of others. At 47,000 feet you have it just right. at lower altitudes, it is a churn.

          Collapse
  5. Monty Brown

    this is an interesting piece. you can't figure out who is conservatives and I can't figure out your angle either. what pitch are you trying to throw? who is your role model or better what does conservative mean when it comes to political parties? Isn't more nuanced than this?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      The term *only* means, "whatever the Republican party is doing right now", which today means Trump, etc.

      Collapse
      1. David B.

        We have a word for that: "Trump-ism." Why would we give them the word conservative?

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    2sequoia

    “the Twitter version of the Democratic Party is way out of step with its median voter”. Yup. Great piece, Sarah & Chris.

    Collapse
  7. Andrew Holmes

    Respecting the term 'conservative, not long past the collapse of the USSR, the residual Communists in the Duma were resisting something or other, and were promptly denominated Conservative by the US liberal press. I thought it interesting that the press would seek to forge a link in the public's mind by using the same term for unrepentant Communists and those in America who spent their lives in adamant opposition to the USSR. And so it goes.

    Collapse
    1. John

      They literally were conservatives? If the existing system was communist, then those looking to preserve (conserve) that system were literally conservatives. Perhaps not "American Conservatives", but definitely conservatives.

      A similar confusion happens with the words moderate, centrist, and radical. Advocating for universal suffrage would be radical in an authoritarian state, therefore democrats are radicals there. A moderate or centrist in said state might be ideologically between extreme radical democrats and extreme radical authoritarians, but depending on the actually diversity of opinion and status quo could be fairly authoritarian themselves. These terms, like conservative, are all extremely relative to the time, place, and group of people they are referring to. They are extremely contextual terms, which is why it is dumb when people use them as pejoratives or compliments.

      Whether or not being a conservative is "good" depends entirely on your perspective of what is being conserved.

      Collapse
      1. Andrew Holmes

        I think that you are absolutely correct about the word's dictionary definition. However, in the context of the discussion, I was using it in the common manner as short for a set of beliefs which the left sought to impute by attempting association of a generally despised group with their US policy opponents.

        Collapse
  8. Davis Everson-Rose

    I think Chris' analysis leaves something to be desired. If the infrastructure bill passes on a party line vote, vulnerable Dems can go home to their states and talk about how they brought home the bacon, while Republicans voted against it. Voters have consistently not cared about bipartisanship, especially relative to bringing money and resources home.

    Collapse
    1. David B.

      I think the point is that if the Dems don't agree to disconnect the bipartisan infrastructure bill from the even larger Dem bill add-on, the Republicans will torpedo the bipartisan one in retaliation for perceived unfair play. My presumption is that the bipartisan one is too broad to get under the "reconciliation" limbo stick and therefore it would die. If no one blinks in this race to the cliff and all this takes place, I don't know what it means for the larger Dem "infrastructure" bill. Do the Republicans + moderate Democrats have the numbers and desire to kill that one also?

      Huge game of chicken going on with a few trillion dollars of our money right now. Good times. :-

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Jen

      Yet there is next to no polling data that suggests voters care about ‘infrastructure’. It’s just a DC media bubble creation that this popular (and thus Republicans need to support it). Republicans should remember what happened in 2009/10. They opposed all the Democrats big spending plans and won back Congress in 2010. If they sign on to infrastructure spending which then just green lights a massive reconciliation bill I think they will pay for it in the midterms.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Correlation is not causality. What we've learned about the Republican voting base is that things like "spending" doesn't matter to almost any them.

        The average GOP base voter would vote for *any* Democratic bill if Trump favored it and would vote against *any* traditional Republican bill if Trump opposed it.

        If any Republican lawmaker votes for any bill when the Democrats are in the majority they will pay for it in their next election, that election being the only one almost any of them care about, which is the primary election.

        So yes, Democrats are being idiotic in trying to do anything "bipartisan" right now since Republicans will necessarily vote "no" in the end.

        And as the other commenter points out, yes, there's bringing $$$ into their State, but here's the thing: Republicans now just go ahead and take credit for bills the Democrats pass and they vote against. Nothing matters except tribe.

        Collapse
      2. Davis Everson-Rose

        It's not about infrastructure per se, instead it's about bringing $ to the district/state. 2010 was a lot of things, but arguably most important was that the economy was still in terrible shape (perhaps if Dems spent more money they would have done better). 2022 will be very different: economy is doing well, white social liberals have moved to the Dems (and therefore midterm turnout dynamics will be neutral to good for Dems), increased polarization makes 2010-style wave all but impossible, and GOP strategy (2020 was stolen and the CRT panic) is nowhere near as appealing to swing voters as Tea Party rhetoric was. This doesn't mean Dems will win; I think they are 60-40 in the Senate and 45-55 in the House. But they are almost certainly better off spending big than not.

        Collapse