With a few inexperienced Republican Senate candidates struggling, some analysts are suggesting that the Tea Party damaged the party's chances in November by helping weak candidates win primary elections. That may be true in the Senate, but the GOP has always been more likely to regain its majority in the House. Despite the influence of the Tea Party, Republicans actually have more candidates who have previously held elected office than the Democrats in competitive House races. On candidate quality, Democrats are still at a disadvantage.
Last week, the New York Times' Kate Zernike examined all the Republican candidates running nationwide and identified 129 House candidates and nine Senate candidates who are closely affiliated with the Tea Party movement. She notes that "the Tea Party has... handed opportunities to the Democrats by nominating candidates who have struggled" -- particularly Senate nominees Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), Sharron Angle (Nevada), and Rand Paul (Kentucky). However, in terms of candidates, the movement's impact may be overstated. As Zernike notes, "the bulk of the Tea Party candidates are running in districts that are solidly Democratic."
To make this finding more concrete, I combine Zernike's coding of 2010 House candidates with historical data on House elections compiled by UCSD's Gary Jacobson and 2008 and 2010 data generously shared by Dave Rohde, one of my mentors in graduate school at Duke.* (Comparable data for the Senate are not available.)
To assess the strength of the GOP candidates, I consider one of the key indicators from the political science literature on congressional elections -- previously holding elected office, which Jacobson has identified as a key proxy for candidate quality. While there are exceptions to the rule, experienced politicians tend to be better vetted and less likely to make race-changing mistakes (as O'Donnell and Paul have demonstrated).
When we examine the data, it's clear that the favorable electoral environment has attracted a strong group of Republican candidates. Despite the influence of the Tea Party movement, the GOP actually has more House candidates who have previously held elected office running for open seats than the Democrats do:
Similarly, there are significantly more Republicans who have previously held electoral office challenging incumbents in potentially competitive districts than Democrats (defined as districts in which the presidential nominee of the incumbent's party received less than 60% of the two-party vote in the most recent election):
The quality of the Republican candidates running with Tea Party backing also differ substantially depending on the type of race they are in:
Given the odds that they face, it's not surprising that very few of the challengers in non-competitive districts (where the incumbent party's presidential nominee received more than 60% of the two-party vote) have previously held elected office regardless of whether they are affiliated with the Tea Party movement. The large number of amateur Tea Party candidates in this group (56 out of 58 total TP candidates) are therefore unlikely to significantly hurt the GOP.
More importantly, while it's true that Tea Party candidates are less likely to have previously held elected office in more contested races, the differences are smaller than one might think -- 48% of non-TP challengers in competitive districts (25 of 52) versus 33% of TP challengers in competitive districts (18 of 54) and 53% of non-TP open seat candidates (15 of 28) versus 43% of TP open seat candidates (6 of 14).
In short, the Tea Party movement has affiliated itself with a surprising number of non-amateur politicians in competitive and open-seat races. As a result, the GOP still has a candidate quality advantage in the House races that matter most.
Update 10/22 10:22 AM: More from Slate's Dave Weigel:
If this is surprising, a lot of that has to do with 1) a weird occasional media focus on noncompetitive races and 2) the ability of some smart politicians to brand themselves as "Tea Party" candidates. Marco Rubio, for example, could have run in a previous year as a savvy politician mentored by Jeb Bush. Instead, he introduced himself as the Tea Party in one man. Same happened with Ken Buck, a seasoned local politician who simply defined himself against a politician who'd held a higher office.
As to that first issue, I'm continually surprised that fringe candidates like Ohio's Richard Iott get so much attention; his penchant for dressing up as a Nazi is, of course, weird and stupid, but he never had a chance of winning. I'd add a bit to Nyhan's model, because the Tea Party has swung behind some first-time candidates in House races, mostly businessmen, who are going to win where token candidates used to lose.
* Thanks also to Aaron King and Frank Orlando, my former grad student colleagues at Duke, for doing the hard work of compiling these data. Neither Rohde nor King nor Orlando bear any responsibility for this analysis.
Crossposted with brendan-nyhan.com.
Follow Brendan Nyhan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brendannyhan
There is no social justice anymore. There is more honor among thieves, and the thieves and liars get all the attention from the media.
The republicans played a cynical game since January 21, 2009 on voting AGAINST all that would provide jobs, help the economy, bring about some sanity to Wall Street so that the economy would not meltdown again.
I watched republicans say NO, NO to all job creations that the govt could provide: helping small businesses, tax cuts for middle class. Now it's election time - they run negative ads saying the dems/Obama didn't create jobs or provide the environment to create jobs. The media repeats the lying ads, the people believes what they media says. And the republicans are smiling all the way, reaping electoral success because they played a diabolical, cynical game that hurts, harms the same American people they claim to represent.
Our fourth estate (media) has done a very poor job of being objective. They should lose the right to freely use our airwaves.
I respect this populist movement alot I don't respect the Democrats this season, because they are painting a lot of really good people as extreme, racists, and other negative labels.
I wouldn't do that even to win, so this strategy really has lost my support.
The Tea Party has pushed a lot of candidates onto GOP tickets. Whether their quality is good or bad, those candidates have espoused some pretty extreme views in order gain to TP support and get themselves nominated. Whether it is dismantling SS and MediCare, replacing income tax with a regressive sales tax, removing virtually all regulation of business, or making Christianity the nation's religion, TP candidates have expressed one or more of these extreme views.
Further, the GOP professionals have mostly smiled and nodded at these extreme views providing tacit and often active approval of the Republican Party to them. In effect, the official GOP is going along with the extremists.
Democrats see this extremism and are motivated to turn out to vote. Independents see the extremism and become less likely to align theselves with the Tea Party and GOP's vague promises to lower taxes and be fiscally responsible. Even some long-time, moderate Republicans are frightened of what their party is becoming and are less likely to vote as a result.
That is the real effect of the Tea Party on this election and I think the undercurrents the TP has created are just now starting to play out. I believe the shift in polling recently support this theory.
History: Reagan's "tax cuts" included a tripling of FICA (its current level), half of which is a taxable tax on the worker. The other half is a deduction to the employer, but it's money the worker doesn't get, making the 12.5% payroll tax the HIGHEST tax for 75% of Americans. Reagan's payroll tax increase put it into large surpluses and violated the "pay as you go" intent of the original law. Then he borrowed the surplus to offset the shortfall in income tax revenues. Those borrowings now comprise $4 trillion of our federal debt--and are a claim on future INCOME TAXES.
Get it? The plutocrats want to run SS funds through Wall Street and further enrich their buddies, but this isn't the main intent. They want those highly regressive payroll taxes (which nearly equal income tax revenues) to be the main source of federal funds. They can continue tax cuts for the rich while poor mouthing social security and Medicare so they can cut benefits. Bingo! They've transferred most of the cost of government onto working people and skimmed billions off the flow of money. Worst case scenario: the "privatized" system goes down with the next market crash. Taxpayer bailout here we come.
So, for the most part, I believe that the Tea Party is a good thing. Honestly, I'm tired of the right vs. the left thing ... as if there are only two views in the US. As Angle so uneloquently stated, we are a melting pot. How can two political parties be enough to house our political affiliations?
Is there some controversy with some of their choices? Sure there always will be. But in the end, whether you agree with their policies or not, new voices are a positive our political process.
As far as the left/right thing, I'm tired of demonizing the other side. I definately lean right, however, I have good friends who are far left. I know that I'm not evil for being "right" and I know that they are not evil for being "left". We both love our country and want what's best ... we just disagree on the best way to do it.
good thing.
Mike
Thank you. You made an old man feel good, plus your point was right despite folks
who will disagree with you. Take care.
Fanned & faved
Mike:
WOW !! With such brilliant political savey, I'm sure that NPR will be hiring you.
GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table'
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102210dnmetbroden.1b2338185.html