Politics Monday: The Primary Double Edged Sword

Party primaries are the best chance for the party faithful to declare which candidate best matches their values and often which one they think can likely win in a general election. However, they serve as a sharp doubled edge sword. If primary votes take into account a mix of positions on issues with electability, a future policy maker can emerge. However, if they turn a blind eye to either the candidate's positions or electability, general election disaster is likely the result.

Good Primary (issue focused with an eye on the general election): A healthy primary pits a few legitimate candidates against each other with some fringe voices sometimes thrown in for good measure. As a primary voter one looks for the candidate that inspires support (both in money and time), performs well on the stage for the position, and seems to have a winning message and strategy. The idea is that if the party members have an opportunity to see would-be candidates perform in a mini-battle for the hearts and minds of the party, it is a preview for the main event. This works for both open seats and primaries against incumbents. The additional bonus of primary races against incumbents is that it can help pull a moderate officer holder back into the values of the party. For example, the best thing that happened for the Dems in the Senate is Congressman's Sestak's primary campaign against Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Specter had switched parties to be a Democrat because re-elecction would be easier that way but in the first few weeks of his switch he wasn't being very progressive. Sestak announces he'll run against Specter and all of a sudden Specter makes a left turn toward supporting health care and labor issues. Many think a primary of Blanche Lincoln would move her from public option blocker to happy progressive warrior. And it has given a Colorado Senator some testicles for the health care fight.

Bad Primary (horribly personal attack, purity pledges, and ignoring November): The primary that is not so good for parties are the types likely to pop up on the right side of the aisle next year. In Florida, the Republicans are throwing a likeable electable candidate under the bus because he supported the stimulus bill and are backing (with the help of big-monied ideologues like the Club for Growth) the more conservative candidate (who happens to oppose amnesty even though amnesty is the only reason his parents are here illegally). Good for conservatives? Sure, but they have lost sight of the electability portion of the primary race. Another example of primaries gone wrong is the 2006 primary for Nevada's CD2. It was between now Congressman Heller, right-wing nutcase Sharron Angle and Dawn Gibbons. The Republican voters in CD made the right choice in going with Heller. He was more electable and was with them on many of their issues. However, the primary was so close and the battle was so fierce that it poisoned a likable moderate Republican leader and turned him into Congressman who has taken his marching orders directly from the far right of his party (including voting against health care for children in 2007ish). If you think of the NY-23 race like a quasi-party, Republicans took the more pure ideologue over the moderate Republican and ended up losing a Congressional seat they had held since the Civil War. It even looks like the national GOP might go for this type of screening as a basis for their strategy in 2009 as conservative members of the party are demanding a "purity pledge" for their candidates. Their argument is that if Republican candidates don't
- hate stimulus or other Obama spending
- rail against health care reform
- attack cap and trade (market) strategies to fight global warming
- strap the hands of labor unions
- personally deport illegal immigrants
- push for more war everywhere (ignoring cost of both life and treasure)
- push for even more war (like in Iran and N. Korea)
- prevent more people from getting married
- demand back-alley wire hanger abortions
and
- give a gun to everyone
If Republican candidate don't do ALL of the list, this portion of the GOP wants to make sure those types of candidates don't get any conservative party money.

An establishment, political machine barrier is no way to have a healthy primary. Your party's primary voters should be able to decide for themselves who represents their values and has the greatest chance of winning. The worst part of this ugly side of the primary sword is that good people are afraid to run if they think they'll be personally torn apart by the organization they belong to.