In Backing Insurgents, Republicans Face November Risks (Nate Silver)

[jefferson_dem]

In Backing Insurgents, Republicans Face November Risks
by Nate Silver @ 6:15 AM

In a column on Friday, the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel asserted that Democrats -- not Republicans -- are more at risk of harming themselves with ideologically-driven primary challanges:

What do Joe Sestak, Bill Halter and Colleen Hanabusa have in common? The left loves them. This is yet another reason Democrats are in trouble this fall.

Given the obsessive coverage of the Republican "civil war," you may not realize Democrats are also feuding.<...>

While some Republican primaries are proving bloody, most are turning out candidates largely in tune with today's public frustration with Washington.

The Democratic primaries, by contrast, are generating nominees who are embracing, or even going beyond, the president's unpopular agenda. This is the feud that may have the bigger consequences for this fall's midterms.

Although Strassel's position is well-argued, it isn't really supported by the evidence**. If she had consulted the polling, she'd learn that, while insurgent Republican candidates are generally polling worse than their establishment counterparts, the same is not usually the case for Democrats.

Let's first look at the Republicans. In almost every place where there's a competitive Republican primary for the U.S. Senate, we can fairly clearly identify one or more establishment candidates (who are generally more moderate), and one or more insurgent candidates (who are generally more conservative). What's interesting is that, in every single case, the establishment candidates are polling better than the insurgents when one takes a simple average of the last five general election polls:



<SNIP>

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/in-backing-insurgents-republicans-face.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[depakid]

1. Gee, a Wall Street journal writer lying... what a surprise

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. Oh please! It's not as if they're owned by Rupe.... oh wait ......nevermind. ;-) nt

[DCBob]

3. The McCain/Hayworth is the biggie.. I think the Dem nominee can win over Hayworth..

Hayworth is such a pathetic idiot. Reminds me of a dumbed down Rush Limbaugh.

[Jennicut]

4. I find this very interesting regarding how Dems win elections vs Rethugs:

"A great deal of American politics derives from the fact that the Democratic base is pluralistic (but therefore sometimes incohesive), whereas the Republican one is more homogenous (but therefore sometimes overly narrow). The Republicans' cohesiveness has helped to reinforce their enthusiasm, and they are likely to have an excellent November. However, they could conceivably cost themselves 1-3 Senate seats, and 5-10 House seats, by nominating suboptimal (electorally speaking) candidates. By contrast, the effects of Democratic primary challenges are more ambiguous, and may be as much of a help to the party as a hindrance."

Dems need a coalition of liberal activists, moderates, youth, hispanics, african americans, etc. Nate makes the explanation that liberal online activists make up only about 15% of the Dems that vote in primaries. Therefore, to even get through the primary process, Dems have to appeal to a lot of different groups. Rethugs have always had it easier being in lockstep unless they start turning on each other.

[CTyankee]

5. Yes, very interesting. Also, we Dems, esp. those once considered "radical" tend to be proven correct

in the long run. At one point it was considered radical to be against the Vietnam War, now it is largely a consensus issue. Recently, we lefties have been proven right on the dangers of off shore drilling and on the need for government regulation of Wall Street. And look what happened!

[Cha]

6. KR