Republicans wrong. The real reason Deeds and Corzine lost: The Underdog Theory

November 5th, 2009 8:00 am  |  by  |  Published in Activism, Commentary, Constitution, Election, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Peter Schiff, Politics, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul Republicans, rule of law  |  6 Responses

Republicans displaying their “Red State pride” following the results of Tuesday’s elections need to face reality. The two GOP gubernatorial election victories in Virginia and New Jersey were unsurprising and expected. Now if a true limited government conservative beat out Bloomberg in the New York mayoral race there would be a reason for celebration.

The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.

The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.

What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:

America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.

After 8 years of Clinton, George W. Bush was the underdog. In 2004, Bush was still the underdog largely due to his perceived strength (however false it was) in fighting “those who attacked us on 9/11″. That quickly soured so much that by 2006 the Democratic Party was the underdog so they won control of Congress. If Bush was up for re-election himself in 2006, he’d have lost.

The 2008 election cemented the underdog theory with America getting the chance to elect the first African American President. McCain, largely a Bush twin, had no chance.

Tuesday’s election results demonstrated that the Republicans are now, once again, the underdogs. This bodes well for them in the 2010 election and it could carry over to the 2012 Presidential contest. Of course, that depends on who has the perceived power at that time.

The point of this “underdog theory” is that we are not happy with the blue nor the red team. When the time comes we just want to take away power from whichever team has it.

For liberty champions this eternal game is growing extremely tiresome.

When everyone buys into the two team league yet no one wants either team to finish in first place, isn’t it time to expand the league?

It just so happens that there is a liberty-loving team already in place ready to be added to the league. Here are their names:

  • Rand Paul
  • David Hedrick
  • Adam Kokesh
  • Peter Schiff
  • Ray McBerry
  • Chris Simcox
  • Debbie Medina
  • Bill Hunt
  • RJ Harris
  • John Dennis
  • David Ratowitz
  • Jake Towne
  • Randy Brogdon
  • Robert Broadus
  • Collins Bailey
  • Jaynee Germond
  • Bob Parker
  • Bill Connor
  • Peg Luksik

These are the candidates being celebrated today on the anniversary of Ron Paul’s 5th of November money bomb. To learn more about these candidates please check out If you find a candidate you like, then please don’t hesitate to support that candidate with a generous donation.

These are the real underdogs and outcasts. Let’s help make them winners and keep them winning.


  1. Zep says:

    November 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm (#)

    Terrible, tortured, naive "analysis". First, America does NOT root for the underdog. Second, Jon Corzine was not "expected to lose". Va. was lost because it ran the wrong candidate. Disgusted Democrats stayed home in droves rather than turn out for a health care opposing climate change denialist. NJ was lost because Corzine was scapegoated over the economy. I do not expect Christie to finish the term he was was elected.
    Extremists who follow Ron Paul will never capture more than a very narrow percentage of the electorate's support.

  2. Zep says:

    November 5th, 2009 at 3:53 pm (#)

    Furthermore, the two national elections both went to Democrats and both were in traditional Republican strongholds. As Republicans continue to turn off the young and the Hispanics, the advantage will continue to trend to the Democratic party.

  3. Jason says:

    November 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm (#)

    Zep obviously hates freedom and individual liberty, as his distain can almost be tasted by his responses. He must love the idea of being a slave.

    Although, I actually also agree on one point of his, that the reason the Republican's won was not due to the underdog theory, although I am sure some people voted for this reason. ..

    I believe the Republicans won the Virginia and NJ races because deep down at least 50% of the country believe in a fiscally responsible government that should not be 12 trillion in debt. (aka fiscally conservative) and support a small government mindset. What people lack to understand or "see" is that the Republican party is not fiscally conservative or small government, they just give lip service to this idea. Except for a few exceptions (Ron Paul) very few Republican politicians believe in a limited 'fiscally conservative' constitutional government.

    I also find it funny that Zep equates "truth' to extremism. Well, sadly these days 'truth' is extreme, and 'lies' are the norm. 'Old Right' conservatives (libertarians) can win, but the public must be educated… The problem is that the people have been brainwashed to believe and love 'Statism'. (They love the idea of looting their neighbors and call it government) Even today's conservatives cannot see the disaster called the FED, or our country's constant 'warfare' state and how this is inconsistent with liberty. This must be 'educated' out of them, through the constant 'truth' of the benefits and prosperity that freedom and liberty provide.


  4. marcg says:

    November 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm (#)

    Good points Jason…

    I think the underdog theory may not be the right name for what is happening after all (event though I came up with it). It is misleading, or may need some further explanation.

    The idea is that in general people have an innate desire for freedom (especially in America) yet they also want to be "protected" and "taken care of". I think they vote for whichever party is NOT currently wielding power. And they do it subconsciously. And they do it because they really don't like either party, but mostly they don't like the party in power.

    This is more a phenomenon that illustrates in America there really is a big government two party duopoly where the "people" never get their voices heard. They latch on to campaign promises only to be abandoned by their own hope once the candidate gets into office. So then, the pendulum swings back to the other party, and so on. The never ending swing from right to left just continues unabated… I fear something quite drastic will have to happen before that changes.

    Enjoy and thanks for your thoughts,

  5. Mark McLain says:

    November 5th, 2009 at 7:22 pm (#)

    I was first offended by Zep calling me an extremist because i belive in Liberty. ~sigh…. But Jason saves the moment when he points out that Truth is certainly extreme when Lies are the norm. I've been in this Freedom movement for a long time now and though i hate the current attack on our economy by the central bankers (The Fed, Goldman & Sachs, TriLateral Commission) but the optimistic side is that many people are crossing that pain threshold causing them to wake up and take action. But this is the key moment where we educate those while they are waking. Catch them, educate them, and point them to the front lines!

    It is our Paramount mission in this battle to save America & preserve her Liberty. How? First: End The Fed. To get started on this huge task, follow Ron Pauls push to audit the fed in the legislation.

    Second: Buy Ron Pauls book on Amazon rightly titled "End The Fed"

    Third: Broaden your understanding on this movement by watching Alex Jones on Youtube.

    GO NOW!!! Get in the Fight!

  6. Jason M says:

    November 5th, 2009 at 9:34 pm (#)

    Your calling of Obama "African-American" in your story is not entirely accurate. He is 50% irish, 45% arab, and only 5% black. Just through I'd clarify.