Is Olympia Snowe In Trouble?
On Tuesday, Public Policy Polling came out with a set of extended numbers showing Olympia Snowe with a dramatic base problem in Maine.
Facing a national mood which is turning decidedly anti-establishment and anti-incumbent, and also facing a Republican party which is growing increasingly angry with any lawmaker who steps outside the rules of party orthodoxy – Snowe is threatening to lose the support of her party, which at this point is about the only thing that can threaten her political future.
On top of those numbers, news recently broke that the Family Research Council would support a primary challenge against Snowe. They smell blood, and can’t wait to jump in. I assume Club for Growth is just as eager as the rest. Their stupendous record in knocking off “liberal Republicans” with “conservatives” who then go down in giant balls of fire is of course, remarkable.
But more than that, I was forwarded something this morning that would seem to indicate that PPP’s polling is on to something.
The Aroostook County Republican Committee – a key part of Snowe’s 2nd district political base – is demanding she resign from the party:
A Resolution of the Aroostook County Republican Committee
Demanding Olympia Snowe’s Resignation From the Republican PartyWHEREAS Olympia Snowe’s Senate Finance Committee vote on October 13, 2009, regarding health care reform has been preceded by a long pattern of publicly stating she believes in Republican principles and the Republican platform while consistently voting to the contrary;
WHEREAS Olympia Snowe takes being a politician very seriously, but does not take being a Republican seriously;
WHEREAS Olympia Snowe has become a major obstacle to furtherance of the
principles, platform and general good work of the Republican Party;WHEREAS the Maine Republican Party has fallen into the untenable condition of being expected to set aside its mission, principles and efforts in order to avoid interfering with the personal political security and agenda of Olympia Snowe;
WHEREAS continuing to allow the above described pretense by Olympia Snowe is neither good for our political system, the Republican Party, nor our nation;
NOW THEREFORE the Aroostook County Republican Committee hereby respectfully demands that Olympia Snowe remove herself from the official rolls of the Republican Party.
Signed this 17th day of October, 2009.
Gloria Duncan, Secretary
Aroostook County Republican Committee
Not a register of protest calling on her to oppose healthcare reform. Not a demand to vote with the party’s principles more frequently – an outright demand that she resign from the party. A move, by the way, which if it were successful in getting her resignation, would undoubtedly burn the bridge between Snowe and the party so thoroughly that she would likely refuse to caucus with the GOP in the Senate, and guarantee a speedy passage of more radical leftist legislation. Brilliant.
So the question is – how indicative is this move by the Aroostook Country Republican Committee (which we must keep in mind, by the way, is only a handful of Republican leaders in the county – hardly the voice of the voter) of the general GOP primary voter in the state.
In the last few years, the Republican Party has lost roughly 20,000 voters who have either unenrolled from parties, or changed to Democrats. This is obviously a response to the national mood from 2005-2008 that was poisonous for the Republican party – but none the less represents the flight of the more centrist voters from the GOP. That means that the remaining 250,000 or so Republicans are less “moderate”, and are in fact more ideologically right, and in many cases less tolerant of elected officials who stray from the Republican platform.
If presented with a choice between a conservative true believer of significant enough profile, and Snowe – would the GOP primary voters reject Maine’s most senior Republican, and a woman who is essentially an institution in the state of Maine?
Perhaps. But will she face real competition? Keep in mind, that even if a “real conservative” (we all know how much I love that term) ran against her, were that person to be a “nobody”, there is no way that person would take down Snowe – I don’t care how radical the primary voters are. For a primary challenge from the right to happen, it will have to be someone with legitimacy and/or name ID.
In 2006, Snowe did not have any primary competition. In 2000, Snowe did not have any primary competition. In 1994, Snowe did not have any primary competition. Part of the reason she didn’t have any competition is because the state party had absolutely no desire whatsoever to see anyone run against her. The party has felt since the 1990s that there have been no candidates of significant stature that could win statewide that could take her on – and quite frankly even despite her long history of “moderation”, grassroots anger with her had only been a minor consideration.
In short – she dominated the state, nobody else to her right had a prayer of winning, so they actively discouraged any challenge. Snowe’s stature by itself dissuaded plenty of people.
But will the party continue to try to keep people out of a race against Snowe? That remains an open question.
Remember that Margaret Chase Smith was in many ways very similar to Snowe. She “never lost an election”, and routinely destroyed her competition in the state. She became an institution in the state, and gained a national profile. But what ultimately doomed her to lose her 1972 re-election race was a primary challenge from the right which assailed her for being out of touch with the state – something that destroyed the perception that she was untouchable and allowed her Democratic opponent (Bill Hathaway) to take her down.
Could something similar happen to her? Possibly. Personally, however, I do not think there is anyone in the state who has sufficient stature to beat her in the primary from the right who would be interested in taking her on. Taking out Snowe and handing the election to a radical leftist is not something I would personally want on my resume.
And on top of that, I can’t imagine the bloodlust that we are seeing lasting all the way until 2012. The 2010 elections will likely satiate a great deal of that as incumbents are wiped out nationwide – and I have to believe Snowe will spend some of the next four years trying to mend fences with the right.
And lets not forget that Senator Snowe has quite a few chips on her side of the table. Those who hate her love to ignore all the things she does that put her firmly in the Republican camp, but I have little doubt she will be happy to remind us. She has plenty of ammunition – consider the following votes:
- 1996 Welfare Reform – Yes
- 2001 Bush Tax Cut – Yes
- 2001 Patriot Act – Yes
- 2001 Authorize use of force against Afghanistan/etc – Yes
- 2002 Authorize use of force against Iraq – Yes
- 2003 Bush Tax Cut – No (but her no vote was because she wanted the tax cut to be slightly smaller out of concern for the deficit – gee… novel idea)
- 2005 Appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court – Yes
- 2006 Appointment of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court – Yes
- 2006 Patriot Act Re-authorization – Yes
Yes, she voted for the stimulus. The stimulus that conservative hero Sarah Palin took 99% of what was offered her state. A bad vote, no doubt – but one borne out of a desire to moderate the insanity of Obama’s original proposal that was dramatically worse than what we ended up with.
Yes, she voted for the Baucus healthcare bill in committee – but she did that for many of the same reasons as she voted for the stimulus. And, on top of that, let us keep in mind I am still unconvinced she will vote for the final bill on the floor of the Senate.
The point is of course that the angry GOP primary voters who want to toss her out of the party are reacting to a handful of recent votes and behaviors. With a few years to throw the right some red meat, a state Republican party who has no interest in knocking her off, and a complete and total lack of quality primary opponents who could really make a serious run, I remain exceedingly skeptical that she will even be primaried, let alone successfully.
I find it much more likely that the bloodthirsty, angry grassroots activists – like those in Aroostook county apparently – push her out by their constant ankle biting.
As voters, we get what we deserve. I have heard more vitriolic pontifications about being sick of “accepting the lesser of two evils”, and supporting people who do not represent “real Republicans” in the last six months than I ever cared to hear.
What these people fail to understand, of course, is basic politics. Governing coalitions are not, and never have been, built out of rigid ideological purity. Political coalitions that move the needle in the direction you want are always built by a large and diverse group of allies.
In other countries with multi-party democracy this means coalition governments between 2, 3, 4 or more political parties of all different stripes who agree on basic principles. In America, due to our winner take all districts and the strength that established parties offer, we have two parties, so those coalitions are forged WITHIN the party itself.
That may offend the sensibilities of true believers who think parties are supposed to be about absolute adherence to a unified platform – but it is the truth. In 1994, the “Republican Revolution” that took over Congress, forced Bill Clinton to balance the budget and then maintain a surplus, forced through welfare reform, held the line against taxes – was build on the back of a very ecclectic group of Republicans who had varying levels of adherence to GOP orthodoxy, but mostly unified sensibilities. There were dozens upon dozens of Olympia Snowes in the party during that “revolution”, and the result was the most conservative government since FDR took power in the 1930s.
Similarly, the Democrats didn’t just pass the most radically leftist reform to the American healthcare industry since the creation of Medicare because they have 250 hyper-liberal Democrats in the Pelosi mold who toe an absolutist line on the Democratic platform. They passed it because they created a governing coalition complete with pro-life Democrats (Stupak), fiscally conservative blue dogs (39 of which voted against healthcare reform), and a variety of other political ideologies.
Indeed, it may shock all of these party purists to realize, but the center-right movement, including a huge number of anti-establishment, anti-incumbent, angry tea partiers, is actually made up of a dozen or more different types political philosophy. These people calling for the heads of Snowe are a mix of culturally conservative big government conservatives, religious moralists, radical libertarians who themselves hate cultural conservatives, small government Republicans who just want to “throw the bums out”, war hawks who don’t have much of an opinion on fiscal or social issues, non-interventionist limited government advocates, and a whole host of others.
I wonder then, what these people would think if they actually succeeded in replacing all the people in power. I think they’d find that what united them (hating the establishment Republican Party) would fall apart VERY quickly once they all had to put together a governing coalition and realized they were all very different politically.
So, the real point here is all of this absolutist nonsense is a lot of hot air. The goal of every member of the Republican Party – specifically its leadership – should be to run and elect the most “conservative” candidate possible in all 435 congressional districts, and all 33 Senate races every two years. In other words, find the most conservative person who has a chance of winning each particular district, and run them.
The folly of New York’s 23rd Congressional district was that the local GOP nominated a (very) liberal Republican in a center to center-right district. They could have done a lot better – so grassroots activists were right to be outraged.
But in Maine, Snow is (currently) the most conservative person who can win a statewide Senate race against a strong Democrat. This is partly due to Maine’s political nature, and party due to the extremely thin bench of potential Republicans who could challenge her and actually make an impact.
So, with all due respect to the Aroostook County Republicans, the FRC, and everyone else salivating at the thought of “sticking it to” Snowe as some kind of childish punishment for her political gamesmanship – I think it is time to take more seriously the creation of a real governing majority.
In other words, leave blue state Republicans the hell alone if they are the best you can do there, and focus on electing better people nationwide.
Demanding Olympia Snowe’s Resignation From the Republican Party
WHEREAS Olympia Snowe’s Senate Finance Committee vote on October 13,
2009, regarding health care reform has been preceded by a long pattern … Read More
of publicly stating she believes in Republican principles and the
Republican platform while consistently voting to the contrary;
WHEREAS Olympia Snowe takes being a politician very seriously, but does
not take being a Republican seriously;
WHEREAS Olympia Snowe has become a major obstacle to furtherance of the
principles, platform and general good work of the Republican Party;
WHEREAS the Maine Republican Party has fallen into the untenable
condition of being expected to set aside its mission, principles and
efforts in order to avoid interfering with the personal political
security and agenda of Olympia Snowe;
WHEREAS continuing to allow the above described pretense by Olympia
Snowe is neither good for our political system, the Republican Party,
nor our nation;
NOW THEREFORE the Aroostook County Republican Committee hereby
respectfully demands that Olympia Snowe remove herself from the
official rolls of the Republican Party.
Signed this 17th day of October, 2009.
Gloria Duncan, Secretary
Aroostook County Republican Committee
Popularity: 3% [?]


You wrote that Margaret Chase Smith in 1972 had a primary challenge from the right. Yes, she did have a primary challenge, but it was not from the right. Robert (“Bob”) A.G. Monks was her challenger, and he was (and is) no right winger. He was the GOP US Senate nominee against Ed Muskie in 1976 and lost the 1996 US Senate nomination to Susan Collins.
The issue in the 1972 primary campaign was Margaret Chase Smith’s age. I believe that she was 74 then. Monks represented youth. I believe that he was 36 then. Monks was by no stretch of the imagination a right wing conservative. In fact, he has become very liberal in recent years and has even supported Democrats both politically and financially. I also seem to remember that Monks supported Ralph Nader in one of his several presidential runs.
Marc,
That is a fair point – the 72 election was hardly a political philosophy fight, so perhaps I chose that particular phrasing in error. However, that being said – Monks has steered himself very far left in recent years, but he wasn’t ALWAYS that way. In his earlier career he was much more right wing than he is now, that’s for sure. And lets not forget that MCS was pretty centrist herself, so being to her right wasn’t hard.
Anyway – you are correct, though. The issues were predominately how MCH had lost touch with her constituency, her health, and her age.
The larger point wasn’t about ideology though – it was that a strong primary challenge popped the bubble of invincibility around her and allowed the Democrat to take advantage.
Snowe is going to be there as long as she wants. But I would look for her to make an announcement about 2012 election around January 2011.
And at the time, actually, Monks was a right-winger. He’s changed dramatically over the years, from being a diehard true believer into being a fake Republican who only supports Democrats and uses his registered Republican status to screw the GOP every election cycle.
He may not have been a right-winger when he lost Collins, but he was when he ran against Smith. The only consistent thing throughout the years is that Monks has always been a sleazy scumbag who loses elections, regardless of his ideology.
Moreover, MCS did face an ideologically driven primary challenger before then, in 1954. McCarthy sponsored a primary challenger to her after she began criticizing his tactics. He (and his challenger) got his ass handed to him on a silver platter, and I suspect the same would happen if anyone challenged Olympia.
“The Aroostook County Republican Committee – a key part of Snowe’s 2nd district political base”
Sorry but this is just not true. The Aroostook GOP Committee is a fringe group of loonies, dominated by a guy named Steve Martin, who is also head of the Maine chapter of the 9/11 truthers. As a matter of fact, I would bet the Aroostook GOP is specifically void of ANY of Olympia’s 2nd CD political people.
This resolution doesn’t reflect at all on Olympia’s support in the second district, it just reflects on the ineptitude of the Maine GOP that they can’t keep their party structure from being hijacked by crazies like Martin.
And in general, in Maine politics, the party doesn’t represent support for anyone, especially snowe and collins. Both senators are net donors to the party, rather than the other way around. The field structure of both senators is independent from the party, basically because the party has no field structure. So the net result is that the inept Maine GOP ends up void of any serious figures, and is instead populated in its thin ranks by crazies and zealots.
Leave a comment!
The Town Hall »
Mainers Calling for Competent Management
The jaw-dropping victory by Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race completes an I-95 trifecta that started in Virginia, headed north to New Jersey, and landed in the Bay State. Where does the momentum go …
Commentary »
Is The Information Age Killing Genial Maine Elections?
I had always been told growing up that Maine politics was something different and special. Contrary to other states, elections in Maine were viewed as civil contests of substance, generally pitting good people vs. good …
...So Goes The Nation »
New York Rejects Gay Marriage In The Senate
Advocates of gay marriage suffered yet another blow yesterday, as the New York State Senate voted 24-38 to reject a proposal that would have legalized same-sex marriages in the state of New York. Governor Patterson …
Media Appearances »
Matt Gagnon on Drive Time Bangor 1.27.10
This morning, Matt Gagnon of Pine Tree Politics called in to Drive Time Bangor to talk about what to expect from the State of the Union address from President Obama, and the mini rhetorical war …
Fan Us On Facebook
Authors
Most Popular Articles
Recent Comments
Democratic Politics
Government
Maine Political Blogs
Media
Republican Politics
Archive
Tag Cloud
2008 Election 2010 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary 2010 Gubernatorial Race 2010 Republican Gubernatorial Primary Announcement Bill Beardsley Bruce Poliquin Campaign Finance Chellie Pingree Democratic Politics Drive Time Bangor Election Day Eliot Cutler Gay Marriage Gubernatorial Interviews Hannah Pingree Healthcare Reform John Baldacci John Richardson Kevin Raye Les Otten Libby Mitchell Maine's First Congressional District Maine's Second Congressional District Maine House Maine House Legislation Maine Presidential Leadership Series Maine Republican Party Maine Senate Matt Jacobson Mike Michaud New Media Olympia Snowe Pat McGowan Paul LePage Peter Mills Republican Agenda Republican Politics Rosa Scarcelli Steve Abbott Steve Rowe Susan Collins TABOR Tax Reform US SenateRandom Posts
Latest Video Post
Most Commented
Most Popular