Althouse: "Tuesday night was bad for Democrats, good for the GOP establishment and great for incumbents of both parties."

June 25, 2014

"Tuesday night was bad for Democrats, good for the GOP establishment and great for incumbents of both parties."

A quick summary of what just happened.

ADDED: "There is something a bit strange, there is something a bit unusual about a Republican primary that’s decided by liberal Democrats."

40 comments:

The Crack Emcee said...: My take-away:

Cochran won - with Dem help - and Ted Cruz's guy lost.

It's a win all around,….; 6/25/14, 8:32 AM
Robert Cook said...: The question: was any of it good for the people?

This is a distinct and separate matter from which party is up and which down, as neither party can be assumed (or has shown itself in recent years) to be responsive to or good for the people.; 6/25/14, 8:46 AM
Birkel said...: "It's a win all around..."

Let's note that the economy shrank 2.9% in the first quarter of the year and juxtapose the "win(ning) all around" with the suffering of Americans.

And just to appeal to Crack:
Reparations must be smaller if the economy is smaller.; 6/25/14, 8:51 AM
Brando said...: What this and the Cantor race proves is that each campaign is going to be unique. We can't really predict if the Tea Party is rising or falling based on the results this year--they've been all over the map, and each for unique, often local reasons.

I don't see any of the results as having much effect on November, though--Hickenlooper is still a likely favorite for Colorado Governor, I doubt McDaniel would have lost in Mississippi in the general (though it would have been closer), and Oklahoma is sending a Republican to the Senate no matter what.

The thing is, the GOP will have a couple more senators who had shots taken at them by the Tea Party bigwigs, and those shots missed. Those senators will be less beholden to the Tea Party than before. And Cochran if anything is now beholden to black voters, which is probably a new one for him.; 6/25/14, 8:55 AM
Tank said...: 1. Rangel should be in jail. I would if I did what he did.

2. Open primaries ... wtf ... how do they make any sense?; 6/25/14, 8:57 AM
wendybar said...: America lost.; 6/25/14, 8:58 AM
Hagar said...: Cochran won ugly, very ugly, and it is difficult to see that as anything but a Pyrrhic victory for the GOP "Establishment."
There is such a thing as "guilt by association," and "you lie down with digs, you get up with fleas."; 6/25/14, 9:28 AM
Hagar said...: Dogs, dogs, dogs!; 6/25/14, 9:28 AM
Jon Burack said...: Amazingly enough, I agree with Crack.

Neither the Republican "establishment" nor the tea party has an agenda that makes much sense to the country, and therefore it is good that neither get any sense of the tide running with them - but especially good that the tea party fanatics do not find encouragement for their crusading radicalism.

Meanwhile, the Democrats likewise have no agenda of any understandable sort, which is why they rely relentlessly now on all the identity fear mongering - race, war on women, climate catastrophe, yada yada - to the exclusion of serious policy ideas. As they do, Obama's presidency is sliding into a deeper and deeper trench of incoherence and scandal.

What we need is BOTH an invigorated and intellectually tough liberalism that acknowledges the dangers of massive bureaucratic bloat in the blue model social welfare federal government, and a redefined conservatism that focuses on both on a reformed and effective social safety net and plausible plans for promoting growth. The mantra of "less government, no new taxes" is a complete dead end, but no deader a dead end than the mantra of tax the rich and trust the government.; 6/25/14, 9:32 AM
Unknown said...: branding tea-party as racist then appealing to the black vote on the basis of racism -- wasn't there a recent Althouse post....; 6/25/14, 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Robert Cook: This is a distinct and separate matter from which party is up and which down, as neither party can be assumed (or has shown itself in recent years) to be responsive to or good for the people.

Yeah, but "the people" keep putting the unresponsive party whores back into office, with rare exception.

Either the "the people" are all very stupid or have false consciousness or something, or "the people" doesn't comprise the people you think it comprises. One man's "unresponsive" is another man's gravy train.; 6/25/14, 9:34 AM
Unknown said...: add to last from unknown

http://c6.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_corner.jpg; 6/25/14, 9:38 AM
Mark said...: Everyone is against open primaries for their side.

I remember when Rush kept talking about using open primary states for part of his 'Operation Chaos' a few years back.

No hand wringing when that happened that I recall from the right.; 6/25/14, 10:24 AM
Tank said...: @Mark

You recall incorrectly.; 6/25/14, 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: A Republican primary decided by liberal Democrats is for Democrats. When Republicans stay home against their nominees' foul play, Democrats win. If the Republican nominees return to office, they owe the Dems and provide Dems with their "bipartisanship" cover.; 6/25/14, 10:41 AM
donald said...: Gee Jon, I'm real interested in what you think the Tea Party is and what that agenda is.

Oh, and where do I find this Tea Party?; 6/25/14, 10:47 AM
Krumhorn said...: Rush was using a system that was in place. That's not the same as supporting open primaries, which make no sense. Why bother with parties if you cannot conduct a debate for policy without the interference of those that have no interest in either side of the debate?

While most conservatives have little regard for the Republican establishment, that's all we have. By we, I mean Tea Party conservatives. As enrolled members of the Republican party, we should be able to have our philosophical debate with other Republicans about policy and have that debate decided in primaries. The looselugnut libruls and thumb-sucking fence-squatters, such as Jon Burack above, have no reasonable role to play at that point. Their votes should be cast in the general election when the contest for governance is in play.

- Krumhorn; 6/25/14, 10:53 AM
jr565 said...: Mark, I think they should close the primaries to the opposite side. But if they don't, then republicans should take advantage of the same loop hole as Rush mentioned. Why are they not doing it more?; 6/25/14, 10:58 AM
Brando said...: There's nothing wrong with open primaries--they're a good way for the party holding the primary to ensure that the nominee is someone more likely to win the general election by appealing to voters outside the party. They're also a good way to allow people from other parties--or even unaffiliated voters--to have at least some say in who will represent them, in states/districts where one party has a near lock. Consider Democrats in Mississippi, who otherwise have to sit idly as the GOP voters decide who will represent the state, or consider Maryland (which has no open primary) where Republicans get to watch the Democrats decide who will govern the state.; 6/25/14, 11:00 AM
Æthelflæd said...: The GOP establishment just cut off its nose to spite its face. It is one thing to monetarily support the senile incumbent so that he can retire and give a Barbour nephew the seat. It is quite another to do it by such deception and demagoguery. Yea, it was perfectly legal and I don't think McDaniel should challenge. But a bunch of us will be telling the GOP when they call for donations this fall, "Why don't you go ask your new Democrat base for donations?" Screw them. They don't represent me anymore.; 6/25/14, 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: "A furious Chris McDaniel "

"There’s something strange about a Republican primary that’s decided by liberal Democrats"

He sounds furious.; 6/25/14, 11:41 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Jon Burack,

"The mantra of 'less government, no new taxes' is a complete dead end, but no deader a dead end than the mantra of tax the rich and trust the government."

Agreed, but you can't get these guys to see common sense. They like illogical messages and bouncing around on the extremes:

Say blacks should get reparations and the white mob hears ALL aggrieved groups should get them.

Say reparations can't cover everything done and that becomes NO reparations should be paid.

Plus, they're the type of (self-declared) non-racists who pat themselves on the back for telling blacks A) slavery has no effect on the present but B) blacks still have a "slave mentality" and C) the Democrats are exploiting it - so we'd better run to these OTHER whites, who we hear insulting us for sport, for help.

None of it makes consistent sense to anyone but themselves.

Just like the rest of their political agenda,...; 6/25/14, 11:54 AM
Michael said...: These wins by the establishment are not triumphs. It would be stupid for the winners to regard the wins as mandates and for them to ignore the concerns of the small government voices in the party.

It would be even stupider for the losers to withhold support for the winners in the general election on some moral premise.

It is imperative that the GOP win the general election and not cede seats over being in a snit.; 6/25/14, 11:55 AM
Krumhorn said...: There's nothing wrong with open primaries--they're a good way for the party holding the primary to ensure that the nominee is someone more likely to win the general election by appealing to voters outside the party. They're also a good way to allow people from other parties--or even unaffiliated voters--to have at least some say in who will represent them, in states/districts where one party has a near lock.

This is the usual argument, but it is not remotely accurate. Please explain how any of the interfering libruls, spurred on by the Kos, will possibly vote in the general for the guy that beat Cantor with their votes? What realistic possibility is there that the Dem voters who helped Cochran will consider, for even an instant, voting for him in the general election?

The only purpose served by an open primary is (i) to sabotage the other party or (ii) moderate the policies of the party likely to win. Neither of these purposes is legitimate, and none of the unenrolled voters voting in the primary will provide financial support in the campaign or do the door-to-door legwork that is indispensable to running a political organization and winning elections.

The interlopers are, at best, parasites and, at worst, saboteurs.

If unenrolled voters want a voice in early policy development, then enroll in a party and lift a friggin' finger to help run the organization get out the vote on election day. Otherwise, butt out!

- Krumhorn; 6/25/14, 11:59 AM
Brando said...: Different state parties have used different processes to pick their nominees, whether at a party convention, local caucus, open primaries, closed primaries, with runoffs, no runoffs, etc. Each process was likely put into place by those in the party that believe the process will best help them get the nominees they want--in some cases, nominees that reflect the wishes of the registered voters of the party, in others, the nominees that can appeal beyond the party.

Why is the open primary considered such an awful thing by so many commenters here? Is it simply because in this case it backfired against McDaniel? Would you really feel the same way if McDaniel won because a bunch of unaffiliated libertarians provided him the margin in this primary?

All of these nominating systems have their pluses and minuses. And sure, incumbents and establishment types can game the system often because they have the money, connections and know-how to do so. But a closed primary can be just as much a boost to an insider (where the outsider needs unaffiliated voters).

As a Maryland voter, I would much prefer if we had an open primary system--then the Democrats (who dominate this state as much, if not more, than the Democrats dominate Massachusetts) might have a chance of nominating candidates who have at least some appeal to those outside the party.; 6/25/14, 12:01 PM
buwaya said...: "What we need is BOTH an invigorated and intellectually tough liberalism that acknowledges the dangers of massive bureaucratic bloat in the blue model social welfare federal government"

There is no such thing and can never be. Some few can pine for this but it is impossible, given human nature. There is no way to make a self regulating bureaucracy, nor one that can be held in check by its friends. There are no philosopher-kings. Anyone who imagines he is is fooling himself, and more so anyone who imagines that someone else is. The only way to limit a bureaucracy is for its enemies, crude or barbaric as they may seem, to defeat it and purge it periodically.; 6/25/14, 12:08 PM
Mid-Life Lawyer said...: The Cochran people put out flyers and ran radio ads declaring the racism of the tea-party and that the tea-party wants to take things back to "how it used to be" etc. I'm not talking rumor. I heard the radio ad and while I did not see an original flyer yet, I've seen photos. There is a lot of talk about money paid directly to black pastors etc. "Walking around money" as they call it.

Check out the numbers in the above posted Nate Silver post. Without the crossover votes, McDaniel win's by 8%, as several polls indicated going in. It's one thing to campaign hard but to unfairly smear your same party opponent as a racist is beyond the pale. McDaniel is talented and could have a future if not hamstrung by his own party. Cochran had no intention of running again until McDaniel declared. Rather than fielding their own candidate, the Haley Barbour machine convinced Cochran to run. They determined it would be easier to use his name and thought they would waltz though the primary without much campaigning and Cochran went along. No one who is informed thinks Cochran is going to serve his term. Gov. Bryant, formerly Gov. Barbour's Lt. Gov., will appoint the next Senator when the sham is finalized in November.; 6/25/14, 12:10 PM
Brando said...: "The only purpose served by an open primary is (i) to sabotage the other party or (ii) moderate the policies of the party likely to win. Neither of these purposes is legitimate, and none of the unenrolled voters voting in the primary will provide financial support in the campaign or do the door-to-door legwork that is indispensable to running a political organization and winning elections.

The interlopers are, at best, parasites and, at worst, saboteurs.

If unenrolled voters want a voice in early policy development, then enroll in a party and lift a friggin' finger to help run the organization get out the vote on election day. Otherwise, butt out!"

Why is "moderating the policies of the nominee" an illegitimate purpose? Both as a public policy matter--producing representatives that more broadly reflect their constituencies--and as a partisan goal--nominating someone more likely to win--this seems perfectly legitimate to me.

The party functionaries who decide how they're going to do their own party's nominations obviously have all sorts of agendas, but I doubt they intend to set it up so that the other party's membership may sabotage their nomination process. Sure, this can be the result, but then there's also no way to prevent such saboteurs from joining the party just in time to sabotage the closed primary.

If you'd rather go an extra step and have the nominees picked by party bosses like in the old days, go right ahead, but that wouldn't seem to get you more McDaniels and fewer Cochrans.; 6/25/14, 12:32 PM
Krumhorn said...: All of these nominating systems have their pluses and minuses. And sure, incumbents and establishment types can game the system often because they have the money, connections and know-how to do so. But a closed primary can be just as much a boost to an insider (where the outsider needs unaffiliated voters).

It's important to think deeply about what a political party is. While it may appear to be some entrenched self-sustaining institution, it is merely a group of people with some common core beliefs who have joined together to maximize their political impact.

Any political party is, essentially, a collection of local organizations. Those organizations are made up of local working citizens who devote some of their free time to raising money and endless legwork. It's all volunteer work. You seldom find actual paid employees below the county level, and even then, it's pretty thin.

In the process, those local organizational people try to reach agreement about policies and candidates that can sell those policies in elections. When there is disagreement, primaries break out...and they aren't pretty internally. They often leave deep and lasting scars. However, win or lose, the organization will support the winner, as painful as it may be for some.

This is no place for unenrolled voters. They don't belong. If unenrolled voters want a policy voice outside the general election cycle, then they should hold their nose and enroll and fight for policy changes internally. It takes a lot of hard work consistently applied.

What makes unenrolled voters think that they are entitled to influence the decisions if they are unwilling to actually do any work or support the party?

- Krumhorn; 6/25/14, 12:44 PM
Kirk Parker said...: David @ 10:34am,

Nice thought, but not at all what happened here. This was a primary election. Most of those crossover voters will be back on the (D) side for the general.

ALJ,

Open primaries are worse than dumb--IF the First Amendment is held to guarantee freedom of association, a case can be made that open primaries are clealy unconstitutional.

Brando,

"They're also a good way to allow people from other parties--or even unaffiliated voters--to have at least some say in who will represent them, in states/districts where one party has a near lock."

If they want that say in the primary, then they should have to join that party.; 6/25/14, 12:45 PM
Æthelflæd said...: I am not against open primaries per se, I am against the nat'l party players sticking it in the eye of the local constituency. A huge betrayal.; 6/25/14, 1:08 PM
Krumhorn said...: Why is "moderating the policies of the nominee" an illegitimate purpose? Both as a public policy matter--producing representatives that more broadly reflect their constituencies--and as a partisan goal--nominating someone more likely to win--this seems perfectly legitimate to me.

When reduced to organizational principles, it's not up to unenrolled voters to moderate policy so that the candidates will be more 'acceptable'. That is a marketing decision that belongs exclusively to party members. There are good and legitimate arguments for unmoderated policy choices.

Gnerally, the unenrolled voters are fence-squatters. Which is the same as saying that they don't know what they believe other than a-pox-on-all-of-ya'

I like and admire Ann for many reasons, not the least of which is her cold-eyed calculus and searing honesty (in general). But she's a fence-squatter. She seems to have developed an affinity for conservative governing principles and style, but she is repelled by the abortion thing and the gay thing. As far as she is concerned, the libruls can wreck the place and burn the house down so long as conservatives refuse to 'moderate' the abortion thing and the gay thing.

Her view, directed at Republicans, is: I'll consider you so long as you don't repel me. In the meantime, the brownshirt leftie fascists are torching the Reichstag.

As far as I am concerned, mainstream establishment country club Republicans (of which Cochran is one, Cantor is not) are weaklings and lame. In many ways, they are enablers of the worst problems we have, such as crony capitalism. Why on earth would it be desirable for cross-over unenrolled primary voters to 'moderate' the Republican candidate so that, in the end, it's still a choice between tweedledee and tweedledum?

We need considerably lower taxes, a strong military and a vastly reduced federal government. And, just for the heck of it, let's abolish public employee unions.

- Krumhorn; 6/25/14, 1:47 PM
Brando said...: "If they want that say in the primary, then they should have to join that party."

Well, that's certainly how the closed primary works--and the result is single party states and districts where all the real action goes on within those parties. And that's fine--but I don't see how that stops "saboteurs" who would then join the party to influence it. What's the difference between voters influencing the party as enrolled members or as unaffiliated? It's not as though there are special responsibilities when you're registered in a party. Maybe this extra hoop would weed out some folks who can't stomach being registered in a party that they feel like they're in the minority of, but as people can generally change registration pretty quickly it doesn't seem much of a bar.

"It's important to think deeply about what a political party is. While it may appear to be some entrenched self-sustaining institution, it is merely a group of people with some common core beliefs who have joined together to maximize their political impact."

In a sense that's true, and such a group of people can decide to make themselves as exclusive as they want. For example, they could pass a rule that you can't vote in your party's primary unless you've been registered in it for a year, or have paid party dues (though the Supreme Court has had issues with such rules where the party is effectively running the state, as the Democrats were in Jim Crow era, and used the rules to keep blacks out). But besides the legal issues with this, that sort of rule may not produce the nominees that the party establishment wants.

That comes back to the long fight between whether you want ideological purity (as defined by those who want such purity) and pragmatic goals (electability). I suspect open primaries are generally favored by those who want the more "electable" candidate, though as I mentioned earlier it won't always work out that way--outsiders can pull the winning nominee more to the extreme as easily as they can to the center.; 6/25/14, 2:16 PM
Brando said...: "As far as I am concerned, mainstream establishment country club Republicans (of which Cochran is one, Cantor is not) are weaklings and lame. In many ways, they are enablers of the worst problems we have, such as crony capitalism. Why on earth would it be desirable for cross-over unenrolled primary voters to 'moderate' the Republican candidate so that, in the end, it's still a choice between tweedledee and tweedledum?"

That's a legitimate complaint. Where I differ is that ultimately you have to get things done, and that requires not only winning elections but winning elections with people who can accomplish those reforms. Sure, that means sometimes getting half a loaf, or seeing what you wanted watered down, and from time to time it will mean getting someone elected who sells out their ideals and becomes corrupt. But watching the loss of winnable elections--which means officeholders even more hostile to the reforms you want--or getting people in there who will vote "no" on a lot of things but get you no closer to any of those goals, makes me a lot more amenable to the nasty sausagemaking required to get things done.; 6/25/14, 2:45 PM
richard mcenroe said...: "There is something a bit strange, there is something a bit unusual about a Republican primary that’s decided by liberal Democrats."

That's called "California", where the CA GOP colluded with the Democrats to establish a winnder-take all "primary" with all candidates on the same ballot regardless of primary.

The result was supposed to be NO Republicans on the ballot in most of the state... and in those districts where a GOP candidate did get on the ballot through local efforts, the state GOP sent in "spoiler" candidates to split the vote in the run-off and throw the seat to the Democrats.

I worked for two candidates where that happened.; 6/25/14, 3:07 PM
Krumhorn said...: That's a legitimate complaint. Where I differ is that ultimately you have to get things done, and that requires not only winning elections but winning elections with people who can accomplish those reforms. Sure, that means sometimes getting half a loaf, or seeing what you wanted watered down, and from time to time it will mean getting someone elected who sells out their ideals and becomes corrupt. But watching the loss of winnable elections--which means officeholders even more hostile to the reforms you want--or getting people in there who will vote "no" on a lot of things but get you no closer to any of those goals, makes me a lot more amenable to the nasty sausagemaking required to get things done.

Don't mistake my point for antipathy to the sausage-making. No rational conservative expects all-or-nothing to be a successful legislative strategy. The problem this country has faced is that the Democrats have been particularly intransigent for almost a decade. Not a single budget has made it to the floor of the Senate for years. No amendments on Senate bills from Republicans ever reach a vote (in sharp contrast to the current House). Obamacare was rammed through on a partyline vote when no major social legislation has ever passed without substantial bi-partisan support.

In short, the problem with ideological extremism and intransigent politics has not been conservatives. Obamacare has got to go. But everyone can be dead certain that something very acceptable will replace it if Tea Party legislators are involved.

We don't need 'moderate' Republicans for that. To the contrary, 'moderate' Republicans won't do anything at all except feed their fave piggies at the public trough.

-Krumhorn; 6/25/14, 3:25 PM
Original Mike said...: "The only purpose served by an open primary is (i) to sabotage the other party or (ii) moderate the policies of the party likely to win. Neither of these purposes is legitimate,"

They seem legitimate to me. To my knowledge, the Constitution says nothing about Parties, only voters.

If a Party wants to close a primary, they can damn well pay for it themselves.; 6/25/14, 3:54 PM
SGT Ted said...: The question: was any of it good for the people?

This is a distinct and separate matter from which party is up and which down, as neither party can be assumed (or has shown itself in recent years) to be responsive to or good for the people.

This.; 6/25/14, 8:43 PM
Kirk Parker said...: "If a Party wants to close a primary, they can damn well pay for it themselves"

Oh, well that's a good point.

If the local (e.g. county) election apparatus has significant experience in running elections (and equipment for it) maybe the parties can contract with the counties to run their primaries for them.; 6/26/14, 3:14 AM
Robert Cook said...: Robert Cook: "'This is a distinct and separate matter from which party is up and which down, as neither party can be assumed (or has shown itself in recent years) to be responsive to or good for the people.'

"Yeah, but 'the people' keep putting the unresponsive party whores back into office, with rare exception.

"Either the 'the people' are all very stupid or have false consciousness or something, or 'the people' doesn't comprise the people you think it comprises. One man's 'unresponsive' is another man's gravy train."

The people who still vote--an ever diminishing cohort--have been habituated to the myth that we remain a self-determining people, and that their votes matter insofar as having any significant influence on political outcomes or in bringing about policies that meet the people's needs or concerns. They believe the lesser of two evils is really the lesser of two evils and so continue to vote for "evil," figuratively and, sometimes literally.

I still vote, but almost never for the two major parties. So my vote is as futile as is everyone else's, but I know it.; 6/26/14, 5:08 AM