Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Will 2010 be the year of the primary challenge?

serious_primary_challenges_are_declining.png

For all the talk of anti-incumbent fever, we've not actually seen that many incumbents defeated in primary challenges yet. Bill Halter has forced Blanche Lincoln into a runoff, but we don't know who'll win. Bob Bennett didn't lose in a primary; he lost in a convention poll that chooses the candidates who get to compete in Utah's Republican primary. Arlen Specter left the Republican Party to avoid a primary challenge and then lost in a Democratic primary. Perhaps the best example of a straightforward primary challenge was Alan Mollohan's loss to Mike Oliviero in West Virginia.

But primaries -- and the anti-incumbency sentiment that's supposedly generating them -- are the big news of the day. To get some context, I called Robert Boatright, a professor of political science at Clark University. Boatright had previously written a paper (pdf) tallying every primary challenge in which the challenger received more than 25 percent of the vote since 1970. It's an interesting data set, and as you can see in the graph atop this post, it suggests that, in the aggregate, serious primary challenges are declining rather than increasing. That doesn't mean 2010 won't see a spike (look at how 1992 skews those results), but it helps keep things in perspective.

Boatright predicts that "when the 2010 election is over and we look back at the number of challenges, it'll probably be about what it was in 2006 or 2008." The media attention, he says, is evidence of another trend he pointed out in the paper: Activist groups such as the Club for Growth, MoveOn.org and others have become better at picking a couple of primary challenges a cycle and pushing them aggressively to both their constituents and the national media. But that can't drive very many primary challenges: "These groups have a limited fundraising base," Boatright says. "The people who would contribute money can make a difference if all of them are thinking about Arkansas and Pennsylvania, but not if they're thinking about a dozen races."

But as you can see with the spike in primaries in 1992, there are years when the mood of the country tilts sharply against incumbents and all bets are off. It's probably too soon to say whether we're in one of those yet, but there's a self-fulfilling nature to this stuff: Now that the media is saying all incumbents are in danger it's probably going to be easier for challengers to get funded and get people excited about their candidacies, which could in turn make their candidacies more likely to succeed. A long-shot campaign that would've been ignored in 2004 might get serious attention in 2010, and that might lift it from long-shot status altogether.

By Ezra Klein  |  May 19, 2010; 5:10 PM ET
Categories:  2010 Midterms  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Reid loses cloture vote on financial regulation
Next: Reconciliation

Comments

As November nears, it's best to look at what seems to be the most conventional wisdom. Whatever that convention wisdom is, figure what will happen will either be the exact opposite, or a "split down the middle" result. So, either incumbents will actually do better than expected, or just about exactly what you'd expect for a first term mid-term.

I'm rooting for a Republican sweep, where the right-wingers and Tea Partiers take the big prize. But that will just be a pleasant surprise. I'm not really anticipating it, no matter how much conservative punditry assures me that the rest of America feels "just like me".

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | May 19, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"'These groups have a limited fundraising base,' Boatright says."

I think the national mood -- even if incumbents aren't being defeated more than usual -- should persuade Obama and the DCCC to recruit candidates who are seriously anti-Washington. The Murtha election should be a model to beat back conservative activists in '10.

The Dems finally beat Repubs on national security in 04 and 06 by using recent Iraq War vets to better frame the debate and bring in new voices, making the Party credible on the subject.

Similarly, if the Dems could convince more weak incumbents to retire and recruit more anti-DC candidates, this would continue transforming the Tea Party narrative (sick of socialism) into the anti-incumbent narrative (sick of DC). These sorts of general complaints certainly helped Sestak.

I mean, the fact that Specter wasn't *forced* out by Obama is just dumb. A huge effort to get some anti-Washington types, if nothing else, would be something for the left to rally around (now that they're suddenly energized). And, it'd seriously help the Dems in 2010, and make them more credible in taking on the anti-Washington-type issues like the deficit after the '10 elections.

Posted by: Chris_ | May 19, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

1. http://www.smalltrade.net
2. Jame shoes $40
3. Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
4. Jordan Spizike shoes $35
5. Jordan 2010 shoes $40
6. Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
7. Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
8. Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16
9. AF tshirt $25
10. Jean(True Religion,VERSACE,coogi) $30
11. Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
12. New era cap $15
13. FREE sHIPPING
14. http://www.smalltrade.net

Posted by: itkonlyyou70 | May 19, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company