RSS Feed Menu
In their quest to impose a narrative onto the primary season, pundits and newscasters have latched onto the idea that we’re witnessing a wave of anti-incumbent anger directed against all of Congress. This is simply not backed up by any evidence: while it is true that, in contested races, anti-establishment candidates have tended to prevail, most races have not been contested at all. Over four hundred and fifty Congressmen and Senators up for re-election have either been re-nominated or have witnessed their establishment successor win the nomination.
Republican or Democrat, win or lose, however, the party-favored nominees who have faced legitimate challenges have invariably been more moderate than those they were opposed by. The left presented Blanche Lincoln and Michael Bennet with serious opponents, while Arlen Specter was successfully toppled. Thanks to the Tea Party, the right’s challenges have been more fruitful, knocking off Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski, denying nominations to Mike Castle and Charlie Crist, and giving John McCain a scare. None of these people’s challenges have had anything to do with ethical reasons, or because they were unpopular with the state at large: they were all punished for not adhering to ideological orthodoxy.
A new Public Policy Polling survey shows that two-thirds of Republican primary voters want to ditch Olympia Snowe in 2012 for a more conservative candidate. In an environment like this, what can Snowe, popular amongst Maine voters as a whole, do? If she switches parties, she may well face the same fate Arlen Specter did. Ben Nelson, also up for re-election in 2012, faces similar questions.
Is there any room for moderates in national politics? One may point to the Blue Dogs, but they comprise an astonishingly high proportion of the Democrats likely to lose their House seats this November. We are witnessing an incredible polarization of the parties. But politicians like Ben Nelson, Mike Castle, and Olympia Snowe — with American Conservative Union ratings of roughly 50 — have to go somewhere. There is no obvious party for such people; it comes down to a matter of priorities. Are today’s political activists ready to deny all of them seats at the table?
At the bottom of things, the problem may rest with the closed-primary system. Americans are not nearly as polarized as the parties are. New Hampshire’s open system may be worth emulating: Republicans vote in their primary, Democrats vote in theirs — but independents may select either ballot. If Delaware had such a system, the state could never have produced a Christine O’Donnell. It will weaken the power of state parties, of course, which is why such policies aren’t as common as they should be. But the results it produces are undeniably sane.
Fewer people vote in primaries than in general elections. Those who do vote in primaries tend to be more committed to political causes and less moderate than general election voters as a whole, who are themselves more politically aware than the mass of nonvoting citizens. So the candidates that come out of the primaries are more likely to be more ideologically extreme (in either direction) than the average citizen. This is not news.
The average voting Democrat blames the last administration for most of our current problems and to the extent that Democrats in office are moderates (i.e., don’t vote with other Democrats) they blame them for obstructing efforts to fix things. I’m less qualified to guess what the average voting Republican thinks, but it seems safe to say that they don’t like what the Democrats are trying to do and to the extent that Republicans in office are moderates (vote with Democrats at least some of the time), they want them gone.
So, even out of office, President Bush is a polarizing figure in that his (perceived) legacy is invigorating Democratic will to enact policies that simultaneously enrage Republicans, making this a dangerous time to be a moderate officeholder. As a non-moderate non-Republican, I doubt that my analysis will find much favor here, but after all it doesn’t much matter why moderates are endangered, simply that they are.
The left presented Blanche Lincoln and Michael Bennet with serious opponents, while Arlen Specter was successfully toppled.
Poor comparisons to the Tea Party’s slate of inexperienced candidates taking on incumbents with strong appeal across party lines.
Lincoln, for example, still won her primary, despite demonstrating throughout the last Congress that she would join GOP filibusters on crucial legislation. And I doubt that Lincoln will pull any GOP vote support, which is very unlike a Castle, who most certainly would have drawn some Democratic voters.
Bennet, meanwhile, was a Governor appointee for the job of US Senator (replacing Ken Salazar) – and his challenger, CO Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, had considerable backing at that time to replace Salazar. This was not a “Tea Party” revolt, but simply a competition between very qualified men with competing ambitions.
As for Spector – he lost to a US Naval Academy Graduate who is a three-star Vice Admiral, and served on Clinton’s National Security Council, prior to being elected a Congressman. You’re really calling Joe Sestak an “anti-moderate”?
A reasonable perception re: anti-incumbent versus anti-moderate though the real test is the general. How many incumbents will survive this time versus prior mid-terms?
It does invite some consideration of the merits of the party-system itself. What about the party concerns that a minority non-party group can derail the party majority candidate in an open primary? Seems there is something wrong about allowing a non-party member waltz in and vote in your party primary potentially deflecting the will of the majority of actual party members.
I see no basis for the prediction that the outspoken and courageous O’Donnell would have fared worse if it were an open primary.
Washington State’s Top Two primary is another option. Here, all candidates run on the same primary ballot and the top two advance to the general, regardless of party. So far, it seems to be working as a way to keep extremist ideologues at bay.
Both parties hate the Top Two system – which is a strong recommendation for keeping it, in my book. If the parties want to control the primaries, then let them pay all the costs.
jdipeso, if the GOP and Dems hate that system why don’t they just change it? Aren’t a majority of them in control of the legislature?
Political scientists who have studied primary systems have found that there is no correlation between polarization and what kind of primary system a state uses. Just Google Boris Shor, a political scientist who spent years looking at state legislatures over the past 15 years. Political scientist Seth Masket looked at the Shor data and concluded that there is no correlation between how open a primary is, and what kind of state legislators get elected. And look at Louisiana, which has the most experience with this type of primary. In the gubernatorial elections of 1991, and 1995, and 1999, the most extreme candidates got into the run-off. That is true in the US Senate election in 1990 also in that state. And Washington state top-two primaries in 2008 and 2010 put a very liberal Democrat and a very conservative Republican into the November election for Governor and US Senator.
Blanche Lincoln is incredibly unpopular in Arkansas. Native son and ex-President Bill Clinton had to drag her across a finish line of not just a primary…but the primary’s run-off. Lincoln was nearly dethroned for re-nomination by Ark. Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. While she won her Senate races in 1998 and 2004 by 11 and 12 points, she’s now the most endangered Democratic Senate incumbent, to a point in which opponent John Boozman [R-Ark. #03] is polling 2-to-1 over Lincoln. That’s about a 45-point shift in that race alone. For the “progressives,” they should be glad Lincoln won re-nomination because “The Left” will not be responsible for Lincoln’s defeat (though several figures in that party’s national level will pedal the b.s.).
In Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet is more a novice since he was appointed to the seat. If this was 2006 he’d win. But it’s a Republican wave election that’s taking shape in 2010, and [Interior Secretary] Ken Salazar won that Senate seat, in a 2004 flip to the Democrats, by just over 4 (but less than 5) points. Ex-Colo. House Speaker Andrew Romanoff ran as the more progressive candidate, and fell shy about 10 points (winning major counties of Denver and Boulder while Bennet prevailed in other much-populated counties like Arapahoe, Jefferson, and Larimer, each having voted in 2008 for Barack Obama, who carried Colo. by 8.95%; and, in the primary, Bennet carried Republican presidential counties Douglas, El Paso, and Greeley, home of Republican nominee and county D.A. Ken Buck).
Between the two major parties, Republicans are the ones who did the job well in denying re-nomination for “establishment” figures [Sens. Lisa Murkowsi, R-Alaska, and Bob Bennet, R-Utah] who weren’t living up to the party’s platform. For the Democrats, Arlen Specter, in Pennsylvania, was a party switch and Joe Sestak capitalized on that. In Michigan, 7-term congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich. #13, lost her bid for re-nomination, to Hansen Clarke, due mainly to the sins of her son: ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.
Let me just throw out 2 points:
In heavily conservative districts the winning candidate tends to be slightly to the right of the median Republican voter. I.E. someone who can win the primary and not be so far off center to throw away an easy seat.
In heavily liberal districts the winning candidate tends to be slightly to the left of the median Democratic voter, for the same reason as above.
In moderate districts the winning candidate tends to be moderate.
But…. moderates have to raise the most money because they have to focus on advertising to independents. And thus moderates are the most influenced by special interests. In an environment where people on both parties are concerned about corruption that’s really bad. I like Snowe, I did like Specter; I don’t like Nelson and I don’t like Collins. But I dislike corruption way more than I like good quality moderates. Until we get corruption under control I’d rather have ideologues, have outside the system.