Is It a Problem When the Party Decides?

There are lots of interesting things in the Denver Post story about the Democratic Party's efforts to protect Sen. Michael Bennet from Andrew Romanoff's primary challenge. But what struck me in particular was the claim that voters push back when a party tries to force a nominee on them.

The article lists several recent instances of the Obama White House taking sides in upcoming nominations battles, including its public attempts to push NY Gov. David Paterson aside and to get former VA Gov. Douglas Wilder to endorse a gubernatorial candidate. And then we hear this:

"It may make the situation worse for Bennet for them to play the game this way," said state Rep. Kathleen Curry, a Gunnison lawmaker who is supporting Romanoff.

"People in Colorado have an adverse reaction to the external forces coming down and telling them how to think," she said.

We heard these same sorts of claims a few weeks ago when it appeared that the NRSC was pushing to make Jane Norton the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat.

So here's a question: do voters ever push back? Think about some other recent examples of state or national party leaders trying to pick nominees before primary voters had a chance to weigh in:

• In the 2004 U.S. Senate race, the Democratic Party pushed Ken Salazar over Mike Miles, while Republican leaders pushed Pete Coors over Bob Shaffer.
• In the 2006 governor's race, Democratic Party leaders converged quickly around Bill Ritter, forestalling other challengers. Marc Holtzman spent a lot of money and energy to deprive Bob Beauprez of the Republican nomination, but the party had essentially frozen him out.
• Last year, the Democrats pushed Mark Benner aside to protect Mark Udall's hold on the U.S. Senate nomination, while Republicans invoked "Rule 11" to guarantee Bob Shaffer the slot.

In all these cases, the passed-over candidates pushed back, but it's hard to find any evidence that voters did. Indeed, how would they? Republican voters still managed to vote for their party's nominees, and Democratic voters did the same. Meanwhile, I know many Democratic activists who are pulling strongly for Andrew Romanoff and still love Barack Obama, despite the latter's messing with the former's life.

The lesson: Romanoff faces a very tough race. He could still win the nomination, but if he does, it won't be because Colorado's Democratic voters are angry at party leaders for meddling with the race.

(x-posted at Enik Rising)

 

 

Follow Seth Masket on Twitter: www.twitter.com/smotus

Comments

[MrsPeel]

I still wear my Mike Miles "Be the Change" t-shirt. What's he up to these days?

[MrsPeel]

I meant this comment as a reply to Wade Norris below.

[conniptionfit]

What's that small print that always goes onto ads for mutual funds? "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance". I believe we have a very different political climate now than we did in 2004 or '06. With Obama's mishandling of Health Insurance Reform, specifically his tossing of Single Payer before he even began negotiation, and mealy mouthed support for the Public Option, along with allowing Blue Dogs to ignore the 75% public support for a Public Option, I think we have a very new dynamic coming into play. Many, many Dems are angry and outraged that their clear wishes have been defied. I would submit that there is a significant number of Dems that will be willing to support more progressive primary challengers next year. What, after all, is the point of voting in a majority, if they refused to side with their own constituency?

[Wade Norris - Huffpost Blogger]

observations:
1) Miles was the only candidate for the dems for 2 years because Ben Nighthorse - Campbell was seen as unbeatable. It was only his sudden departure that brought Salazar into the race - and to victory.

2) Ritter was the only candidate that jumped in early. In 2005 most thought that the Bush regime of Republicanism was going to last forever - and a statewide dem victory risky at best.
Many people were asking other candidates to get in - Hickenlooper and Romanoff specifically.

3) As for Mark Benner? I met Mark and he is a nice guy and all, but he was not a serious candidate.
He even said on the stump he was not sure if he would file. His sole purpose for being in the mix was to oppose Udall's vote for the Iraq war.

Democrats have pushed back against their party.
The chair of the Democratic Party, Chris Gates, was voted out in early 2005, bringing in Pat Waak, even after the successful election of Salazar and the take back of the Colorado House and Senate by Dems, specifically for the way he tried to muscle out Mike Miles supporters, and most specifically for failing to report to the DNC that there were 2 democratic candidates in the race for the Senate.

These are the same democratic primary voters who will be deciding the outcome of the Bennet vs Romanoff race - their votes will be definitive proof of whether voters have any power