The Case for Primaries

Mark Schmitt notes a few instances of districts featuring vulnerable Republicans where the "wrong" Democratic candidate prevailed in the primaries against an establishment-backed moderate, only to have the establishment write the seat off (at least temporarily), and then the Democrats won the seat anyway. "Is there a lesson here? It's not a big sample size, but it suggests that in a district where a Republican was vulnerable to defeat, a plain-spoken progressive could do it at least as easily as a focus-grouped moderate. Perhaps even better."

Maybe that's the lesson. I'm inclined, however, to see a different lesson. Consider once again Carol Shea-Porter. Mark observes that she "won a four-way primary, defeating a veteran state legislator who had the support of the DCCC, got a campaign visit from Tom Daschle, and out-raised Shea-Porter 10 to 1." My guess would be that the real lesson here is that a candidate who manages to win a four-way primary against, among others, a veteran state legislator who had the support of the DCCC, got a campaign visit from Tom Daschle, and out-raised Shea-Porter 10 to 1 probably just had strengths as a candidate that weren't obviously there on paper. As everyone knows, actual issues and policy views have only a limited impact on voting behavior -- there are a lot of intangible factors in play, and primaries put those intangibles to the test.

One of the oddities of 2004 was that because Dean and Gephardt focused so much of their fire on (successfully!) bringing each other down, and then John Edwards waged a "nice guy" campaign aimed at securing the Vice Presidency, Kerry emerged victorious without really being tested. It's better, I think, to have real races insofar as their are real disagreements between the candidates. In a way, this is especially true for more moderate candidates who'll have a better chance at getting credit for their moderation if, like Bill Clinton, they actually succeed in facing-down alternatives and securing a mandate for re-positioning the party.

Comments

I am a little confused, since after the Lieberman for Lieberman situation it is clear that we no longer have Democratic Party primaries. When CT has the largest turnout ever for a party primary, and the Demcratic Party establishment goes on to back the _loser_ of that primary, there is really no reason to hold them anymore. Just let the Dem DC insiders pick all the candidates (pretty much the way that Anna Quindlen has terminated the 2008 Dem primary season and selected Hillary Clinton as the nominee).

For the moment the DNC will continue getting donations from me, as of course will individual Dem candidates. But the DCCC and DSCC will not get another penny from me. They will get an earful the next time they send me a fundraiser though.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 13, 2006 12:17 PM

You're entitled to your own opinion, Cranky, but not your own facts. The DSCC didn't back Lieberman in the general election. It is true that they backed him in the primary, and didn't expend a lot of effort to get Lamont elected in the general. I imagine that close races in Missouri, Montana, Virginia, and Tennessee against Senators who'd caucus with the Republicans were higher on the priority list than backing a guy 10-20 points behind an annoying independent who would caucus with the Democrats. Schumer had the right priorities.

It's curious you're not blaming Lamont for the Lamont campaign's shortcomings. It's not as if the guy didn't have enough money to get his message out on his own. And didn't we keep hearing how Bill Hillsman was the Greatest Ad Guy Who Ever Lived? Much better than those insider DSCC ad people anyways? What ever happened to that?

Posted by Chris | November 13, 2006 12:44 PM

While I do blame Lamont's campaign for its own failures and while I see your point about why his general election run might not have been highest priority while there were seats to pick up, it still disturbs me that the party did so little for Lamont after Connecticut's Democrats nominated him. Bill Clinton went to campaign for Lieberman in the primary. Why didn't he go to campaign for Lamont in the general? Lamont made serious mistakes in the general election. But, national Democrats and the party as a whole could have, and should have, done a lot more for him.

Posted by Mike M. | November 13, 2006 12:56 PM

When CT has the largest turnout ever for a party primary, and the Demcratic Party establishment goes on to back the _loser_ of that primary, there is really no reason to hold them anymore.

I think that's really silly. Lieberman deserves to burn in hell for his refusal to abide by the primary verdict, but as the discussion I was trying to have about House candidates shows, in the overwhelming majority of instances Democrats do, in fact, respect primary outcomes -- these contests are very much meaningful.

At the end of the day, you can't think about the CT Senate race without considering that it was an odd situation in which the GOP failed to produce an even semi-credible nominee. This allowed Lieberman to run as the de facto Republican candidate and thus have a realistic hope of prevailing as, indeed, he did. Had their been a reasonable GOP nominee, I doubt Lieberman would have run, and had he run under those circumstances, he would have lost. I don't think that election has any broader implications whatsoever.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 13, 2006 1:10 PM

> I don't think that election has any broader
> implications whatsoever.

I think that's really silly. It has been no secret for 7,000 years that people who are put in positions of substantial political power have a tendency to enjoy that power and eventually start manipulating the system to ensure that they continue to enjoy it.

While I don't put much store in political philosopies or slogans, the Democratic Party tends to claim that it is the party of "the people" (particuarly in its fundraisers). It certainly asks great masses of "the people" to get themselves out on the street every two years to beg their neighbors to vote for people neither the citzen nor the neighbor really knows.

The question becomes, is the management structure of the Democratic Party oriented toward providing even some basic nod to what "the people" would like in return for all this effort and cash? Or is it oriented toward a Rovian "51% solution" whereby it does just enough to ensure that it gets its chance to sup at the K Street Trough?

To me, the very deep support for Lieberman by the DC Dem insiders was a clear signal as to what they actually hope to accomplish with the reins of power.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 13, 2006 1:17 PM

there are a lot of intangible factors in play, and primaries put those intangibles to the test

That's true. OTOH, primaries can also at times serve to unduly damage candidates, where such damage probably would not have occurred in the absence of a primary. Think, for example, of the primary for NYC mayor in 2001. The Ferrer-Green primary probably caused damage to Green that wouldn't have otherwise occurred, and resultingly lost the general election to Bloomberg. (Past NY primaries have been similarly damaging - think 1992 Senate primary.) Unfortuantely, I don't think there's a way to know ahead of time whether the primary will help or damage the winner.

That said, I agree that there's a lot to be said for intangible qualities that don't show up in resumes, fund-raising abilities, and endorsements. Think, for example, of Patricia Madrid, who had those qualities (I think), but was a bad candidate, and lost an eminently winnable district.

Posted by Al | November 13, 2006 1:23 PM

I cannot stand Lieberman, but I cannot see any analysis that indicates Democrats did not play this exactly as they should.

Harry Reid will likely be the Senate Majority leader by a single vote, razor thin and exactly the same as if Lamont had won. In CT everything was a much needed win unless Schlessinger won (precisely zero chance), or Lieberman won and decided to caucus with the Republicans. Since Lieberman's downside is his tendency to mutiny, the only chance for a truly bad outcome, loss of control of the senate, was to push lieberman to the other side. There seems also to be a linear relationship between how bad you think Joe is, and how likely he would jump ship.
Purity is great and all, but I am much happier with the Senate.

Posted by theCoach | November 13, 2006 1:36 PM

To the extent that the national republican party becomes an unbearable burden for republican house and senate candidates in northern states, perhaps Lieberman will be a trend-setter. In other words, the absence of a semi-credible republican nominee may not be an anomaly. Independents could become a more effective opposition in congressional elections in some states than republicans. And in southern states and districts where no democrat can win because of the national democratic party, independent candidates may become more viable.

Posted by henry evans | November 13, 2006 1:45 PM

One of your premises is all wrong, because Clinton in 92 had a much easier primary than Kerry in 04. He was not tested.

Dukakis was tested.

Posted by David Weman | November 13, 2006 2:58 PM

Did Clinton really have it that easy? I remember when I saw Hillary speak early in the primary season I was the only one out of my circle of friends who supported Clinton. Someone supported Harkin. Someone supported that Tsongas guy (who the heck?). I don't remember it as a one-note coronation, I remember it more as Clinton simply emerging as the star after a few tests.

On a separate note, I wonder what would have happened if Lieberman had won the primary and there had been a two-way race. Surely he wouldn't have won 90-10, on this we all agree, right? What I'm suggesting is that while Schlesinger was a weak candidate, I'm not sure he was UNIQUELY weak. Generally when you have a strong incumbent who is favored by the state's partisan balance, there's going to be a sacrificial lamb on the other side.

Posted by Steve | November 13, 2006 4:10 PM

I think that the Democrats should work on Snowe, Specter, and Collins, point to what happened to Chafee, and offer them Lieberman's seniority if they switched. The new Democrat(s) would be loyal because they'd be hated by the Republicans, and Lieberman could do whatever he wanted.

Posted by John Emerson | November 13, 2006 5:26 PM

Clinton in 92 had a much easier primary than Kerry in 04. He was not tested.

Really? I can't count the number of times he was written off. Harkin won Iowa. Tsongas won New Hampshire. The thinking was that Clinton would be knocked out of the race by Super Tuesday. Instead he managed to "win" by coming in second to Tsongas in NH, all while the first "bimbo eruption" (Matalin's coinage, you'll recall) was swirling and he had to appear on 60 Minutes with his wife, which up to that point was the single most appalling episode in politics I could remember experiencing. (It was like watching someone try not to sweat. I swear Clinton was sucking perspiration back into his pores somehow.)

Then Tsongas began to stumble outside the Northeast, and Clinton began to actually win. After Chicago it was a cakewalk. After Chicago.

Posted by dan hartung | November 13, 2006 6:28 PM

Switch 3 or 4 more Senate seats in 2008 and then strip holy Joe of his seniority. Maybe JL becomes a champion reformer as chair of the Homeland Security Committee and this will all be moot.

Posted by idea | November 13, 2006 8:05 PM

In Minnesota, I am pretty sure Al Franken will be the "establishment" candidate to unseat Norm Coleman. Unfortunately he is inarticulate and while (mostly) well meaning, not altogether too sharp. His gut reaction to Iraq kept him from seeing the fiasco early. I just hope he does not get the nomination; he will almost certainly lose.

Posted by della Rovere | November 13, 2006 10:43 PM

I suppose this is way too late to be noticed by anybody, but winning a 4-way race proves nothing. Indeed, our Plurality voting system (aka First Past the Post) works very badly when there are more than two candidates (remember Nader?). This is the main reason primaries are staggered geographically through time: to try and induce potential spoilers to drop out of the race.

So if anything, that somebody won a 4-person race means it's pretty likely they didn't have very broad support at all.

Posted by fling93 | November 24, 2006 2:57 PM