Chait: More Primaries
Jon Chait says that what progressives need is more primary challenges against wayward members of the House and Senate. As I noted in a Daily Beast article making a similar argument there’s not even a particular need for the challenges to be successful:
But there are at least two senators who haven’t given the White House a peep of trouble recently—Specter and Gillibrand. This may come as a bit of a surprise. Gillibrand was one of the most conservative House Democrats and Specter was, though not very conservative for a Republican, still more conservative than every single Democratic senator. Now, though, they’re loyalists. And this is no coincidence—both senators are facing possible primaries and both know perfectly well that their records will provide plenty of grist for a challenger’s mill. Consequently, they’re determined not to provide any new instances of deviation. Obama’s inability to clear the field for these incumbents is actually critical to his ability to get them to vote for his agenda. In other words, if avoiding primaries is really the test of Obama’s political strength, his success in changing policy may depend on him finding some more opportunities to fail.
Of course one problem here is that raising the money to mount a credible Senate primary can be difficult. If you represent a far-right ideological faction slavishly devoted to the interests of high-income Americans, this problem can be finessed. It’s somewhat more difficult to conjure up tens of millions of dollars to advance the interests of Medicaid recipients.
40 Responses to “Chait: More Primaries”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 13th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Why would the left want to commit the same error that the Club for Growth and Focus on the Family have been committing on the right?
July 13th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Why would the left want to commit the same error that the Club for Growth and Focus on the Family have been committing on the right?
Club for Growth went after Specter in Pennsylvania. Gillibrand is a senator from New York.
The “same error” would be primary challenges against Nelson or Lincoln. Any Republican would have to be very moderate (like Snowe or Collins) to beat Gillibrand , so liberal Democrats have nothing to lose.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Just Dropping By: There’s a middle ground between the two extremes. Pushing Ben Nelson out in a primary challenge, as satisfying as that would be, would probably be a bad idea: no liberal is going to win Nebraska, so he’s the best we can realistically expect. But New York is not Nebraska, and Pennsylvania is not Nebraska either, although it’s closer. Pushing Democrats to be more progressive if progressives can win is a fairly good idea.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Specter and Gillibrand are also in Pennsylvania and New York respectively, two heavily Democratic states that would very likely elect a challenger who beat the incumbent. That’s an entirely different situation than people who want to challenge a Nelson, or even a Bayh, are facing.
And accordingly, I think Chait overlooks an important consideration: he treats this as a question of the interests of the national party versus the interests of the individual members of Congress. But it isn’t just Nelson and Bayh who don’t want to see themselves replaced with a non-incumbent nominee who then loses the general, it is also the Democratic Party members in Nebraska and Indiana who don’t want to see that happen. And those are the people you really have to convince in order to mount a credible primary challenge.
So why doesn’t the same logic apply to the Republicans? Because, to be blunt, their base has gone batsheet crazy, in part because the noncrazy ones are no longer in their base. Accordingly, that is why you get the remaining rump of the Pennsylvania Republican Party supporting a Toomey, despite how obviously insane that is from both an electoral perspective and for the medium-term future of their party in the state.
But barring a similar outbreak of insanity among the Democrats in places like Nebraska and Indiana, you probably aren’t going to get them to go along with a challenge to their incumbents. That’s not to say outside groups shouldn’t keep putting pressure on the incumbents (e.g., through media buys). But I do think it is unrealistic to expect the state parties in non-Democratic states to go along with a plan to actually primary their incumbents.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:27 am
How about we rethink this entire thing. Instead of punishing the representatives we have for not following lock-step, why don’t we rethink completely how we got them in. How about removing all primaries and using instant runoff voting? Instantly the moderates win all races because you remove the plurality option where moderate votes are spread out over three voters and the crazy right (or left winger) wins more than the moderate vote.
People too partisan on either side are bad. IRV destroys partisan nature because you have to appeal to broader group, not just “your base.”
July 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
How do you primary Nelson or Bayh? You can live with rogue senator or you can. You
Can live without senators from Montana and Nebraska.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Pushing Ben Nelson out in a primary challenge, as satisfying as that would be, would probably be a bad idea: no liberal is going to win Nebraska, so he’s the best we can realistically expect.
Someone who raises expectations for the Democrats (giving them a “filibuster-proof” – on paper – majority) while also kneecapping them from actually *achieving* any of those expectations is the best the *Republicans* can expect. Or imagine in their wildest dreams.
The Republicans’ entire strategy is to obstruct everything the Democrats do and then paint them as failures. Nelson is the biggest ally they could have for this strategy, because he’s officially a Democrat but actually a reliable vote for Republican obstruction.
If he were replaced with a real Republican the public and the media would have a more accurate idea of the real balance of power in the Senate and why a progressive agenda that passes the House with the support of the President is going there to die.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I can live very nicely without faux-Democratic Senators from red states. They drag the Democratic caucus to the right yet end up voting like Republicans anyway. What good are they,
exactly?
July 13th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I can live very nicely without faux-Democratic Senators from red states. They drag the Democratic caucus to the right yet end up voting like Republicans anyway.
Except that they don’t. The faux-Democrats may not vote like real Democrats, but they don’t vote like Republicans either. Ben Nelson votes with the Democrats more than any Republican senator, and far more than any Republican senator that Nebraska would elect.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am
On “safe”, meaningless votes, sure. But when he’s really needed on things that really matter? Not so much. You think he’ll vote for cloture on health care? I don’t.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
On “safe”, meaningless votes, sure. But when he’s really needed on things that really matter? Not so much. You think he’ll vote for cloture on health care? I don’t.
You are aware that “he’s not that helpful anyway” is the same logic Republicans had to justify a primary challenge threat against Specter, yet it is now pretty obvious how much he actually helps.
Plus, do not forget that you at least have the option to apply gentle pressure to people in your tent, an option that goes away if you cut off your nose to spite your face. You need SOME idealogical purity, otherwise what is the point, but don’t be a moron about it.
That said, as a Republican who has watched the Dem caucus grow rapidly due in large part to the Dem leadership’s focus on finding canidates who are a good fit for their district/state rather than canidates who are a good fit for idealogical purity I would like nothing more than to see you back off of the strategy immediately after your first real success with it. Having moronic foes is nice.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am
It’s somewhat more difficult to conjure up tens of millions of dollars to advance the interests of Medicaid recipients.
Especially given our idiotic campaign finance restrictions. Why not let George Soros and Steve Jobs and (insert the names of sundry other rich progressives here) write fat checks to strong liberal challengers, with full disclosure, of course? Just a thought…
July 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am
On “safe”, meaningless votes, sure. But when he’s really needed on things that really matter? Not so much.
Nelson voted with his fellow Democrats on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. He voted with them on SCHIP reauthorization. He voted with them on the final stimulus bill. He actually voted with them on the final omnibus spending bill, which lost a few Democrats.
You think he’ll vote for cloture on health care? I don’t.
I’ll take some of that action. At the end of the day, I doubt he will view it as in his personal interests to actually join a filibuster of a health care bill. The real action for Nelson is all in trying to influence the form of the final bill, not in ultimately opposing its passage.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Not really. With him or without him it will take reconciliation to pass an even minimally decent health care bill, if that can even be achieved. With or without his support of EFCA, it’s going nowhere. And without Democratic acquiescence- largely driven by the conservadems themselves- in the Republican remaking of the filibuster into a routine supermajority requirement, the conservadems would be almost completely irrelevant right now, in any case.
Mocking Republican party discipline (whether that mockery comes from a moderate Democrat, or a moderate Republican like you) is extremely short-sighted. Because of it they were able to pass much more of their agenda than the Democrats will be able to do of theirs with a much larger majority. Conservatives know that no majority lasts forever, that sooner of later they’ll be back in power, and that this cycle will then repeat itself and the rightward ratchet effect will continue. They play the long game while everybody else is fixated on short-term tactics.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
What filibuster? There are no filibusters anymore. Just a simple vote that fails to reach 60, and the Democratic leadership meekly drops the whole thing. (The rules are so fucked up that actually mounting a filibuster would require only one Republican to be on the floor at a time, while the Democrats would have to maintain a quorum 24/7.) That’s why he will do it- it’s completely painless for him, far more painless than having to explain to his paymasters why he didn’t block a bill that badly hurts their interests.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:36 am
What filibuster? There are no filibusters anymore.
I guarantee you that in the unlikely event a health care bill actually fails a cloture vote in the Senate, it will be loiudly declared the victim of a filibuster by many, many people.
Anyway, whatever you want to call it, at the end of the day I highly doubt Nelson is going to vote against his caucus on a final health care bill. You can predict otherwise if you wish . . . we shall see.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I will add the proviso that in the not unlikely event that the Senate comes up with a neutered bill that the insurance companies like, then Nelson of course will happily vote for cloture on that, and even on the actual bill.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:42 am
To put my point succinctly, if the Club for Growth is so stupid, how come we’re living in their world- a world of low taxes for the rich and huge bonuses for Wall Street in the middle of a depression that Wall Street caused?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Because of it they were able to pass much more of their agenda than the Democrats will be able to do of theirs with a much larger majority.
By the way, this is completely wrong. As a general matter, the Republicans failed to get the major items on their domestic agenda through Congress unless they had substantial Democratic support (e.g., No Child Left Behind or the Medicare drug benefit). So, in the end there was no Social Security privitization, the Bush tax cuts weren’t made permanent, immigration reform was a bust (in part due to a failure of party discipline, I might note), and so on.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am
[i]How do you primary Nelson or Bayh? You can live with rogue senator or you can.[/i]
I’ve been wondering about this, and I’ve begun to think that this isn’t actually the case. Let’s say we have an equivalent of the Club for Growth on the left that will suicidally primary (or run independent candidates) anyone that doesn’t follow certain aspects of a progressive agenda.
The idea isn’t that the more liberal primary candidate would stand a chance. The idea would be that opposing this group would hurt the blue dog or whatever senator that stood up to them. As long as the threat is credible, someone would like Kyl would face the choice between “facing an expensive kamikaze primary challenge that could kill my election chances” or “voting in particular ways on key issues and doing whatever I want anyhow.”
The important thing is to remain credible, even if that means throwing the election. If their influence means a Republican wins, it simply enhances that conceit that you need to walk their line (in some cases) to get re-elected.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
The real major item on their agenda was tax cuts for the rich. They did just fine with that. Also with funding imperialist wars (regardless of tax cuts) and with the continued aggrandizing of the Executive and erosion of civil liberties. And they made these things such a fixture of the political climate that Obama doesn’t even want to reverse them, let alone is able to do so. Wake me up when the Democrats achieve anything 1/100 as far-reaching as those things.
I love the double standard here- the Republicans are claimed to have failed because they didn’t enact everything on their agenda, while the Democrats somehow get credit for achieving not much of anything since retaking Congress in 2006. This blinkered approach is a perfect example of why moderatism is part of the problem, not of the solution.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Go for it!! I mean it worked so well with Joe Lieberman, didn’t it?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I will add the proviso that in the not unlikely event that the Senate comes up with a neutered bill that the insurance companies like . . .
OK, so this is your automatic escape hatch when Nelson defies your original prediction. Personally, I think if a bill with a robust public option gets to this point, Nelson will vote for cloture, but I assume even if that happens, you are going to claim that it is a “neutered” bill anyway.
To put my point succinctly, if the Club for Growth is so stupid, how come we’re living in their world . . .
First, we’re no where close to living in the exact world they want. Second, they had the benefit of executive orders and other administrative action under Bush’s direction, which didn’t require legislation. Third, 9/11 bought them some time–but again, it actually failed to translate into success in Congress.
The bottomline is that they managed to trash the economy, but they actually got very little permanent structural change enacted into law.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Only because support from the Democratic establishment for Lamont was much less than lukewarm, while the Republicans de facto adopted Lieberschmuck as their candidate while ignoring the official one.
In other words, Liebershmuck is actually yet another triumph of moderatism.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
No I won’t- in the unlikely event that actually happens (robust meaning available to all on day 1 and not starved of subsidy by “level playing field” crap while the insurance companies are being stuffed with subsidies from the employer-provided insurance tax exemption); and if so I’ll take that bet. I think he’ll obey his paymasters.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
You’re missing the big picture. Thanks to their combination of big tax cuts and profligate spending the well has been thoroughly poisoned for progressive policy initiatives and will remain so for quite some time, and this is the result their corporate masters most wanted to achieve.
And again, this is a far more profound and long lasting effect than anything the Democrats have produced or are likely to. As I said, you’re applying a blatant double standard in order to make the conclusion come out your way.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
The real major item on their agenda was tax cuts for the rich. They did just fine with that.
No, not really. Because they didn’t have 60 votes, they had to go around the Byrd Rule, and that means their tax cuts are going to sunset. So making the tax cuts permanent was a major part of Bush’s second term agenda, and they failed. They are very much not “fine” with that outcome.
Also with funding imperialist wars . . . .
For good or ill, that was a bipartisan position.
and with the continued aggrandizing of the Executive and erosion of civil liberties.
That was mostly just a matter of not doing anything in Congress, thus letting the Bush Administration do what it wanted.
Wake me up when the Democrats achieve anything 1/100 as far-reaching as those things.
I’d say the stimulus and FY2010 budget are just as far-reaching as the Bush tax cuts, certainly well within your 1/100th standard.
I love the double standard here- the Republicans are claimed to have failed because they didn’t enact everything on their agenda, while the Democrats somehow get credit for achieving not much of anything since retaking Congress in 2006.
Huh? Were we even talking about the 110th Congress? It is certainly true that no one accomplished much of anything in the 110th Congress, which is the predictable result when you have a lame-duck President of a different party from Congress.
But more relevantly to what we were actually discussing, even in the 108th and 109th Congresses, the Republicans accomplished little in terms of lasting effect through legislation.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Ask yourself WHY that was so. It’s because conservative assumptions about foreign policy and the military have become so entrenched that “moderate” Democrats don’t dare question them (even now) and opponents are automatically labeled as “extremists”. The same is true of regulating the financial system, or rather not regulating it. Yet again I point out that you’re missing the big picture- the dramatic rightward shift in the Overton window since Reagan (actually it started even before him).
July 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
robust meaning available to all on day 1 and not starved of subsidy by “level playing field” crap while the insurance companies are being stuffed with subsidies from the employer-provided insurance tax exemption . . . .
In other words, one way or another you will give yourself an out from your original prediction. Fine–I consider that original prediction moot at this point.
Thanks to their combination of big tax cuts and profligate spending the well has been thoroughly poisoned for progressive policy initiatives . . . .
I don’t think you understand how ambitious they once were. For example, they really thought they could privatize Social Security, and any sort of universal health care is WAY outside of what they wanted to achieve (public option or no). Seriously, they are at least as pissed off as you are with the outcomes we are seeing today.
As I said, you’re applying a blatant double standard in order to make the conclusion come out your way.
I think the opposite is far more the case. I get that the Democrats are unlikely to pass legislation as progressive as you would like. But the Republicans actually failed to pass legislation as conservative as your right-wing equivalents would have liked. So you are failing to apply your standard for the Democrats to the Republicans.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Original Steve:
New Steve:
These, of course, are completely different claims. I agree that we have recently gone through a roughly 30-year period in which conservative framing was dominant. On the other hand, I think future historians will look back to this as a period in which a new framing began to emerge. In any event, again, this is now a very different conversation from where we started.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Obama had better get everything he needs from Specter PRIOR to the primary–if Specter wins it, it will be back to backstabbing time.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
They’re not, not at all, and your failure to understand that is precisely the problem here. When you have a prty effectively controlled disciplined ideologues on one side and an incoherent coalition full of unreliable weathervanes (and outright turncoats) on the other, such an Overton window shift is the inevitable result. Which is why the claim that a more liberal, more disciplined Democratic Party would somehow be bad for liberal causes is just wrong.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
They’re not, not at all . . . .
Sure they are. In the first claim, you were talking about actually passing legislation, which in fact they failed to do in many notable instances. In the second claim, you have shifted to a different topic, that of political framing, which of course relieves you of the burden of backing up your original claim about legislation.
Anyway, I guess we now both agree that your original claim is moot, so we can leave it at that.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
On the other hand, I think future historians will look back to this as a period in which a new framing began to emerge.
How? When is this new framing going to start? All I see are Democrats – Obama most of all – campaigning on platforms of new and better tax cuts.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Obama had better get everything he needs from Specter PRIOR to the primary–if Specter wins it, it will be back to backstabbing time.
I doubt it, actually. Specter doesn’t have much of a hard ideological core, and certainly not one that puts him at great odds with the Democratic caucus. So there is no real reason for him to suddenly revert to his old ways, at least not as long as Pennsylvania remains solidly Democratic.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
How? When is this new framing going to start? All I see are Democrats – Obama most of all – campaigning on platforms of new and better tax cuts.
If that is really all you can see going on right now, then I won’t bother to argue with you.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Yet again the focus on process rather than real-word results. This is what donning the moderate’s blinkers does to one’s political perceptions.
You are also ignoring that a large part of the conservative agenda is purely negative- preventing progressive initiatives. Their seemingly insane fiscal policies have been deliberately crafted to achieve that since the days of David Stockman, and very successfully. The Democrats, on the other hand, were highly ineffective in blocking the conservative takeover of the judiciary, so they can’t even manage to execute a negative agenda.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You just say that because you see things like Wall Street insiders running economic policy for the benefit of their old comrades-in-arms, and an expansion of the unjustifiable imperial war in Afghanistan. I mean, who you gonna believe, DTM or your lying eyes?
July 13th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Ben Nelson doesn’t actually do anything for us. It isn’t counter productive to push him out, because we have 59 other Senators. Since having 60 votes doesn’t REALLY matter because people like Ben Nelson aren’t voting with the other 59 to break filibusters anyway, you lose absolutely nothing whatsoever by removing him from office.
If ALL 60 Senators voted for cloture, it would be counter productive to remove Ben Nelson. Since they do not, there is no functional difference between 59 Senators and 60. Indeed, there is no functional difference between 51 Senators and 60 Senators.
Republicans didn’t lose because of ideological purity. They lost because their policies brought the country to it’s knees.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
And because memories of this will fade over time, they will win again- and much sooner than the moderates think- if the Democrats keep farting around and doing nothing for ordinary people.