It was only about four-and-a-half months ago that the Democratic primary for the Arkansas senate seat currently held by Blanche Lincoln was a big story threatening to create division within the Democratic Party. The outcome of that primary was that Blanche Lincoln, a conservative Democratic incumbent senator, defeated Bill Halter who was challenging her from the left in a Democratic primary. The primary drew national attention as labor unions and activist groups supported Halter, while the conservative incumbent got support from the party leadership, former President Bill Clinton and the White House.
Today, Lincoln is given little chance of retaining that seat against Republican candidate John Boozman who is leading in most polls. The heated Lincoln-Halter primary has faded into memory and will probably garner very little attention in the future. Nonetheless, there are some lessons which that primary has to offer. At the time of the primary, the major argument for supporting Blanche Lincoln was that she was more electable than Halter because as a more moderate Democrat with years of incumbency she would be more popular in November. There is, of course, no way of knowing whether or not Halter would be doing better than Lincoln if he were the nominee, but it is clear that Lincoln is not as electable as many thought.
Nominating a more conservative candidate because she or he is the more electable Democrat is sometimes necessary, but nominating more conservative Democrats who can't win anyway is pointless. This is not just an abstract point, because candidates like Blanche Lincoln, even if she were to win, often stand in the way of successfully passing legislation once they are elected. Therefore, if they are not more electable in November, there is very little strategic reason to nominate these types of candidates in primaries.
Assuming that the more conservative Democrat is the more electable one is a reasonable and intuitive approach, but it is not clear that this is always the case. The national political environment indicates that this was probably going to be a tough year for any Democrat running in Arkansas, but Lincoln's incumbency and moderate record have not turned out to be of great value to her during a year when voters are frustrated with Democratic incumbents and not so open to hearing senators who have been in Washington for decades explain that they are somehow different from the rest of the Democrats in congress.
This narrative, that it is necessary to nominate conservative Democrats, is so dominant that it is barely ever challenged. However, the evidence, beginning with the presence of Barack Obama in the White House indicates that the story is more complicated. The inability to articulate a platform or concrete differences between your party and the other party is not as much of a campaign asset as this narrative suggests. Similarly it should not be overlooked that many conservative Democrats lack the ability to connect with and mobilize the party's liberal and African American base. Clearly this is not true of all moderate and conservative Democrats, but it applies to many of them.
There is also a cost to the Democratic Party and its leadership for pursuing this path. When the White House decides to get involved in a campaign in support of a candidate who has run afoul of the party's base, and in opposition to a candidate who, like Halter, had very strong support from a key constituency, in Halter's case organized labor, the relationship between the White House and the party's activist base gets further strained. Many progressives are already disappointed with the Obama administration. To further alienate these voters so that Blanche Lincoln, or somebody like her, can lose by ten points in November is not smart politics.
The widespread support which Lincoln got from the Democratic establishment was not unlike the support Joseph Lieberman received when he was challenged by Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary in 2006 and sends another message to the party's progressive activist-that while their support is great, and their volunteer hours and money is valuable, they should leave important party decisions to the leadership. The irony of the Obama administration either deliberately or inadvertently sending this message notwithstanding, this runs the risk of eventually pushing away key parts of the party's base.
When a close race in November is expected, electability is an issue which should be taken into consideration when nominating a candidate. Politicians, interest groups and individuals should all weigh this issue when deciding who to endorse, assist or even just vote for. Obviously, the Democratic Party gains nothing from nominating progressives who cannot defeat Republicans, but they may gain even less by nominating conservatives who lose in November. It is lazy, short-sighted and politically unwise to simply conflate electability with being a conservative Democrat, yet it seems Democratic politicians continue to do this year after year.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Thanks alot.
“Obama’s Shifts Could Prove Costly” (Democrat and Chronicle newspaper, Rochester, New York)
July 17, 2008
http://www.latticetheory.net/media/pdf/Democrat_and_Chronicle_Essay_II.pdf
You never hear Republicans saying, "We can't nominate this person because Democrats won't vote for him."
Republicans do not reward their own Senators for threatening to filibuster (and actually filibustering) their own party's agenda on several occasions; they firmly show them the door and tell them to not let it him them on the way out. Democratic leaders line up and support any conservadem willing to railroad their own party's agenda, offer them powerful chairmanships, and then get laughed at when those same jokers continue to derail the agenda.
Democratic leadership's unfettered support of status quo, change blocking, corporate pandering, conservadems is disgraceful and it has destroyed the enthusiasm needed to aggressively pursue a strong agenda that is not riddled with loopholes and watered down results.
The message Democrats should be sending is... you can vote however you like but if you even threaten to filibuster your own party on anything, it's time for you to stop calling yourself a Democrat and we will actively pursue your defeat. Of course that would require courage though, and that isn't exactly the MO of the Democratic Party. Capitulation and appeasement is much easier, but it sure isn't a winner's mentality.
(I miss Halter; Demo corporatists again backed the wrong horse.)
Make no mistake, I'm not out to defend Blanche Lincoln here. I place the blame for this whole fiasco squarely at her feet. She is a terrible candidate who ran from her own party, blasted not Halter but his supporters (unions and 'far-left' netroots) and then proceeded to act shocked when those supporters were disenfranchised and that the ideological right would not be swayed by a few votes against cloture while their party was busy rushing headlong into the extremity.
Meeting in the middle does not endear you to either party nor is it any kind of solution except when both positions are equidistant. The middle of 'lets pass any kind of health insurance reform at this point' and 'they're going to kill grandma!' is an ugly, textbook case of false equivocation that helps no one at all.
I agree that Lincoln has not so much blurred the line between 'moderate' and 'conservative' as flaunted it but the fact of the matter is she was the 60th vote for the stimulus, for health care, for financial reform, etc and the Democratic party is worse off with her gone. How do you think John Boozeman (R-) will vote on those things?
..yeah that was painful to type so please stop making me defend her.
The Dems message should not be Obama's "hope and change."
It should not even be Clinton's "The best economy is when the rich get richer and the poor get richer."
Kennedy's "Ask not........" would not work in today's greed generation.
No, the Dems message should be that of the very rich president who said he welcomed the white hot hatred of the economic royalists.
The Dems message should be FDR's New Deal.
Imagine today the economic shape this country would be in if there was no SEC, FDIC or unemployment insurance program.
All three born of the New Deal
Imagine if today we did not have the benfeit of the massive public reclaimation projects of that era; Hoover Dam, TVA, electrification of the rural south.
Imagine trying to do that stuff today.
It's worked for 80 years and has created for American's a standard of living the envy of the world. No WAY private enterprise alone would have provided such fortune to so many.
The New Deal now; the New Deal tomorrow; the New Deal forever.
THAT is a campaign slogan for a New America.
The rural state of Arkansas looks poised to oust the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot....and all because she has a (D) by her name. Sometimes change is not good. This is one of those times. Blanche Lincoln should be the one staying in DC.
Even if you may not agree with her all the time, at least you know where her contributors come from and who they are. Something the republicans don't have to report. Who know Boozman could be owned by Russia or Indonesia. The voters and teabaggers will never know.
At least the (D) beside Lincoln's name stands for more than Democrat. It stands for Democracy, Decency, and Disclosure. Think about "red state" and teabaggers, you are having the biggest con run on you and you don't even know it.
Not a true Democrat.
Never again should the Democratic Party reward its own members for filibustering, or even threatening to filibuster, its own agenda!
I can't wait to watch her concession speech. Can't wait.
Support and vote for progressive democrats with everything you have.
Let the Republicrats down just like they let us down.