Comments on: A Specter Is Haunting Conservatives http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/28/a-specter-is-haunting-conservatives/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:46:49 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Objectively Biased http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/28/a-specter-is-haunting-conservatives/comment-page-1/#comment-7284 Objectively Biased Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:36:35 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3098#comment-7284 <strong>A Specter of Evidence...</strong> So I’m writing about politics today because, in my opinion, today is the most exciting day in politics since we got Obama elected. There are several reasons why the news of Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat is exciting, and many of them have alre... A Specter of Evidence…

So I’m writing about politics today because, in my opinion, today is the most exciting day in politics since we got Obama elected. There are several reasons why the news of Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat is exciting, and many of them have alre…

]]> By: nadezhda http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/28/a-specter-is-haunting-conservatives/comment-page-1/#comment-7277 nadezhda Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:23:30 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3098#comment-7277 JS wrote: <em>Your ability to threaten to shift support to a primary challenger is a function of the candidate’s defiance of the base—he needs to have deviated enough that you can get people worked out about casting a ballot for someone else in protest. But an incumbent in a strong enough position to be exhibiting that level of defiance is probably in a strong enough position to be contemplating defection himself. Offhand, I’d guess the Club strategy would be more effective focusing on more vulnerable pols in their first few terms as a means of enforcing conformity on one or two super-salient issues.</em> There's one variable you're overlooking -- the overall ideological/party ID of the voting district or state. I think the base of each party can effectively challenge a deviant incumbent, or make a credible threat to throw him out in order to discipline his behavior, not only in the first couple of terms when incumbency is weaker but where the party enjoys a significant advantage qua party. When "progressives" have waged primary battles against apparently well-entrenched Democratic incumbents and succeeded in getting their candidates not just through the primary but elected, it's most likely to work in districts where Democrats have a meaningful advantage. They can mobilize their base on the grounds that the incumbent isn't representing the district's preferences. And their challenger can win the election because the non-base Dems or independents are still willing to vote for Dems, not defect to the Republicans. Note that even when this strategy failed with Lieberman, he only managed the win by running as an Independent, not as a Republican, where he would have been likely to turn off his critical historical support from non-base Dems and independents. What makes the Club strategy so stupid in Pa is that it is not only a Blue state, but has been trending even bluer. JS wrote: Your ability to threaten to shift support to a primary challenger is a function of the candidate’s defiance of the base—he needs to have deviated enough that you can get people worked out about casting a ballot for someone else in protest. But an incumbent in a strong enough position to be exhibiting that level of defiance is probably in a strong enough position to be contemplating defection himself. Offhand, I’d guess the Club strategy would be more effective focusing on more vulnerable pols in their first few terms as a means of enforcing conformity on one or two super-salient issues.

There’s one variable you’re overlooking — the overall ideological/party ID of the voting district or state. I think the base of each party can effectively challenge a deviant incumbent, or make a credible threat to throw him out in order to discipline his behavior, not only in the first couple of terms when incumbency is weaker but where the party enjoys a significant advantage qua party.

When “progressives” have waged primary battles against apparently well-entrenched Democratic incumbents and succeeded in getting their candidates not just through the primary but elected, it’s most likely to work in districts where Democrats have a meaningful advantage. They can mobilize their base on the grounds that the incumbent isn’t representing the district’s preferences. And their challenger can win the election because the non-base Dems or independents are still willing to vote for Dems, not defect to the Republicans.

Note that even when this strategy failed with Lieberman, he only managed the win by running as an Independent, not as a Republican, where he would have been likely to turn off his critical historical support from non-base Dems and independents.

What makes the Club strategy so stupid in Pa is that it is not only a Blue state, but has been trending even bluer.

]]>