There’s an interesting post on National Review‘s “Sixers” blog on the recent Virginia primary election between Democrats James Webb and Harris Miller. Webb was the choice of blogger Markos Zúniga – aka kos, and the Kossacks poured a rather substantial amount of money into Webb’s run. The CW on Webb is that he’s a much tougher challenger to incumbant Senator and ’08 hopeful George Allen. On that, the CW is probably right. However, the wins of “netroots”-endorsed candidates like James Webb and Jon Tester in Montana in Democratic primaries may end up benefitting the GOP in the long run.
First of all, James Webb is a political enigma. Webb got Kos’ nod because he’s a paleoconservative who’s against the war in Iraq. However, on social issues he’s far more conservative than the Democratic base. After all, he was a former Republican and member of the Reagan Administration. However, in order to win in Virginia, a Democratic candidate has to pick up the support of minority voters in the large urban areas in order to offset the strongly Republican rural vote. Webb did very poorly in “majority-minority” districts and very well in the affluent DC suburbs. In order to beat the very popular Allen, Webb has to motivate the minority vote – but to win crossover voters he also will have to take positions which are sure to alienate the “netroots”.
Like John Kerry, who endorsed him, Webb is basically a walking uniform for the Democrats. The Democrats love to wrap themselves in the flag and put former military men up as candidates – instead of actually being substantive on the issues. One’s heroism 40 years ago does not by itself make one qualified to lead today. Webb may be more charismatic than Kerry and a much toughter campaigner than Miller would have been, but the Democrats are basically replaying the same strategies as they did in 2004 – with the same likely results. Webb will have to do better than Kerry did in Virginia in order to win. Allen has $7.5 million in his war chest, while Webb trails with less than $200,000 – not a good position for someone to be in. In order to get the big money, Webb will have to do something to piss the netroots off, and there’s nothing that the Kossacks hate more than heretic. Webb was almost certainly the better candidate of the two, but that doesn’t mean he can unseat Allen.
In Montana, Jon Tester won with the help of the Kossacks against establishment pick John Morrison. Incumbent Senator Conrad Burns is smarting from the Abramoff scandal, but he’s also running in a state that’s redder than Ted Kennedy’s face after an all-you-can-drink whisky tasting. Again, Tester is caught up in the netroots. The sort of “progressive” politics that the Kossacks slurp up won’t even begin to fly in Montana. Either Tester moves to the center and bites the hand that feeds him, or he goes down in flames. It’s a no-win situation for him.
Had Morrison won, Conrad Burns would be almost sure to lose. However, with Tester, Burns has a chance at keeping his Senate seat. Tester can easily be called an “out-of-touch” liberal due to his association with the Kossacks, and Montana voters may disapprove of Burns, but they’re not going to vote in someone who is so closely associated with the liberal left. Again, the “netroots” are a political negative for Democratic candidates in red states – the last thing a Democrat wants in a conservative district is a bunch of Kossacks door-knocking and alienating every swing voter they meet.
This is what happened to Howard Dean in Iowa – he pioneered the techniques of the “netroots” and showed how powerful it can be – until it comes to winning actual elections. Dean’s dingdong volunteers probably alienated more voters than they attracted, causing the conservative Iowan voters to swing towards more “electable” candidates like Kerry and Edwards. Dean’s “I Have A Scream” speech was simply the coup de grace for a candidacy which was doomed to failure. The same holds true today – the Kossacks and the MoveOn.org activists are so far removed from the mainstream of American politics that they hurt the candidates they support. Smart Democrats should be running like hell from a Kos endorsement, and sooner or later a Democratic candidate will get smart and publicly give them a drubbing down, thus showing true moderate credentials.
As economist and political theorist Anthony Downs pointed out 50 years ago in An Economic Theory of American Democracy, elections are won and lost by who controls the center. A candidate who has to rely on the lunatic fringes for votes has a much more difficult time capturing the vital center in the race that actually counts. The more the Kossacks get involved, the more money they raise, the harder it becomes for a candidate to publicly repudiate their extremism when it comes time to face the mainstream voters of this country. There’s a reason why the only electoral successes Kos has had so far are in light-turnout Democratic primaries. A few activists can swing an election in which turnout is only 6-7%. When it comes to an election where a candidate has to appeal to the masses, the “netroots” are more of a liability than an asset.
“The Democrats love to wrap themselves in the flag and put former military men up as candidates – instead of actually being substantive on the issues.”
That has to be one of the most idiotic statements I’ve seen on a weblog.
Military heros who have made life and death decisions make some of the best leaders. Certainly much better than the crew we have in the White House right now.
I think you’re wrong on the Morrison-Tester race. Morrison lost because he had an affair. With a woman whose husband later got some good treatment from his office. I’d rather not have to answer to that in a Senate race. Both Tester and Morrison can beat Burns (both are polling ahead right now) because that race will not be at all about the Democrat–it will be about Conrad Burns and Jack Abramoff. The Burns camp knows this–had Burns preferred running against Tester, Burns would have spent some money and resources taking Morrison down a few notches in the primary to make sure Tester won.
Bottom line is that Burns will try to make this about the Democrat in order to win, and an opponent that has had an affair makes that much easier to accomplish.
“However, the wins of “netrootsâ€-endorsed candidates like James Webb and Jon Tester in Montana in Democratic primaries may end up benefitting the GOP in the long run.”
The arrogance of both sides of the blogosphere community is mind-blowing. The few people who will care (or even be aware) of the association between Tester and Webb with Kos are politically engaged hard-right Republicans who would have never voted for Tester or Webb anyway.
“However, in order to win in Virginia, a Democratic candidate has to pick up the support of minority voters in the large urban areas in order to offset the strongly Republican rural vote.”
Considering Webb will be running against an incumbent who draped himself in the Confederate flag throughout his youth and still today proudly displays a lynch mob noose in his D.C. office, motivating the minority vote shouldn’t be difficult.
“Allen has $7.5 million in his war chest, while Webb trails with less than $200,000 – not a good position for someone to be in”
Again, if polling indicates Webb is within striking distance, the money will come rolling in from one source or another. It’s essentially a non-issue.
“Incumbent Senator Conrad Burns is smarting from the Abramoff scandal, but he’s also running in a state that’s redder than Ted Kennedy’s face after an all-you-can-drink whisky tasting.”
A blood-red state that has a wildly popular and unapologetically liberal Democrat Governor……and a Democratic State Senate….AND a state House at numerical parity with the Republicans…..oh, and a Democratic senior U.S. Senator. The only way your analogy can work in the year 2006 is if Kennedy has enjoyed so many years of sobriety that his face no longer turns red at all-you-can-drink ginger ale tastings.
“Tester can easily be called an “out-of-touch†liberal due to his association with the Kossacks”.
And a GOP campaign ad drawing attention to that theme will not be mistaken for aliens by the 2% of Montanans familiar with the term “Kossacks”. As for the other 98%…..
“the Kossacks and the MoveOn.org activists are so far removed from the mainstream of American politics”
Yes, they are very removed from the mainstream of American politics…..just as you right-wing bloggers who fancy yourselves relevant to the outcomes of elections are.
“A candidate who has to rely on the lunatic fringes for votes has a much more difficult time capturing the vital center in the race that actually counts”
An interesting statement coming from a party that just criminalized abortion for rape victims against the will of more than 70% of Americans, among one of countless hundreds other examples in which the Republican party platform represents the minority viewpoint.
Chad:
Military leaders can (and frequently do) make better leaders, true. However, that doesn’t make them immune from being wrong or doing bad things. I won’t criticize Murtha’s personal heroism in Vietnam – but I will criticize his position on Iraq. The idea that maintaining an “over the horizon” position is at all tenable is a sham – we’d end up back in Iraq anyway. We cannot afford to cut and run in Iraq, and our troops deserve better than to have their job called futile.
Seth:
You’re not the only one to think that, and that is probably right. Had Morrison not gotten sacked with that affair, he would have had a much better chance.
Possibly, although Tester polled slightly more weakly than Morrison did. In the end, I think Burns will squeak by. Tester will have to move to the center to win, and if he can do that credibly he has a chance.
I should probably my own Second Rule of Polling: Polls don’t matter until people are really paying attention, and midseason campaigns don’t really begin until August. When Burns starts crafting a message, we’ll see if Tester can get traction against him. It’s very difficult to unseat an incumbent, and the “netroots” won’t be much help to Tester in such a strongly conservative state.
1.) Tester polls slightly worse because his name recognition is lower. That won’t be a problem in November.
2.) Burns already has his message. He’ll be talking about all the pork he brings to Montana. Ask Daschle how well that works out. He could also bring up the tired old Republican knee jerkers–abortion, immigration and homosexuals–but people are going to be pretty sick of that when one considers the legislative agenda the Republicans are about to put us through in the next 4-5 months.
3.) Montana is conservative but not a Republican state.
4.) Burns is currently battling it out with Santorum for the title of least popular Senator. It’s a Democratic year. Tester is a down-home aw shucks guy who’s won in Montana. Burns spent $900,000 on ads in the primary and his approvals went down 5 points. A Democratic governor with approvals in the high 70s. A Democratic Senator with approvals in the mid 60s. You want to put some money on Burns getting reelected?
“Webb did very poorly in “majority-minority†districts and very well in the affluent DC suburbs. In order to beat the very popular Allen, Webb has to motivate the minority vote – but to win crossover voters he also will have to take positions which are sure to alienate the “netrootsâ€.”
Minorities will reluctantly vote for a former Reaganite but they will not actively support Webb. Just a fact of politics in Virginia. Having said that, Allen has the same problem with the chrisitan conservation faction of the Republican party. They will reluctantly vote for him but he does not energize them. Both candidates in trying to reach their base run the risk of alienating the 5-10 per cent of the swing voters that will decide this election. I think the odds are in favor of Webb. It wasn’t the netroots that drove the win but rather the open primary that allowed Republicans looking for a change to vote for the candidate in the primary that held “common ground” views.
An open primary can prevent the election of the anoited candidate. It also occured a few years ago when the Virigina Republican hierarchy was ready to purge Senator Warner from the party for his moderate views. As an incumbent he chose a primary vice a nominating convention and with the crossover vote won.
I wonder would the purging of the moderate Republicans in the SD primary have occured if they had been open primaries.