Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Was June a boom or bust?
Next Post: Harold tries to turn ad around on Raoul
Posted in:
* One thing you can always count on is that lots of political reporters will too often try to make isolated election results into some sort of a national trend.
After conservative Congressman Dan Lipinski won his Democratic primary in March against a Bernie Sanders supporter, many seemed convinced that the Sanders wing of the party was washed up. For instance…
* Centrist Incumbents Edge Out Rivals in Illinois Primaries: The result was championed by centrist activists who said Mr. Lipinski’s victory showed some voters have an appetite for middle-of-the-road politics in the Trump era
* Illinois election shows Democrats can win by embracing the center
* Lipinski win stings liberals
In reality, Lipinski had far superior name ID (mainly from his father) and an experienced, capable, machine-based field organization that managed to drag him across the finish line. Local politics won out over national politics.
* These days, the national media has flip-flopped and is using another congressional primary to warn centrist Dems they’re in trouble. Like Lipinski’s March victory, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s surprising primary win in New York over a machine Democrat is somehow evidence of a new national trend. And Sen. Tammy Duckworth has taken some heat on social media over her recent interview with the Guardian, in which she said that Ocasio-Cortez’s brand of Democratic socialism couldn’t win a national race. But I think the critics are missing her main point…
Duckworth said Ocasio-Cortez’s appeal was likely limited to her district, which bridges the Bronx and Queens.
“I think it’s the future of the party in the Bronx, where she is,” Duckworth said. “I think that we, as legislators, need to listen to our constituency and get out there. I think what she did was, she did the hard work. She pounded the pavement, and she was out there talking to every one of her constituents. And I think that was the difference.
“She turned out her voters and reflected the needs of her district.”
Duckworth said the same of Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Democratic senators in states that voted for Trump who are thought likely to support his forthcoming supreme court pick.
The three red-state Democrats “vote in whatever they need to do to take care of the people of their state”, Duckworth said. “They put their constituents first.”
Not to mention that the most liberal Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Illinois (Daniel Biss) had to dump his DSA running-mate because of the guy’s views on Israel.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 11:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Was June a boom or bust?
Next Post: Harold tries to turn ad around on Raoul
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Sanders endorsed record overall is very poor. one election on either end of the spectrum does not an indicator make.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 11:44 am
Congressman Crowley was basically the NYC area version of Phil Crane. He was/is lazy and did not work his district. He even skipped a debate.
The vote total in this primary was also only 27,000-28,000. That is a low turnout.
Comment by Exclamation Point Deleted Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:13 pm
The challenge for the Democrats is that the news media keeps celebrating the Bernie wing of the party. The party may not be moving further left, but that’s not how the MSM is portraying things. Look how much attention the NY senator’s call for shutting down I.C.E. got over the weekend.
Comment by Downstate Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:20 pm
I agree, it’s not a trend until it’s a trend. If all the National League teams lost one night, it wouldn’t mean the American League is better, it just means all the National League teams lost that night.
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:20 pm
It’s important to make a distinction between primaries and general elections.(Duckworth’s comments kinda of blurred the two.) Primaries for both parties have always been heavily influenced by the ideological pure, but the movement further away from the center has definitely intensified. Lipinki’s surprisingly close survival and Crowley’s loss are proof of that.
The real debate for Dems is which direction they should the trend in general elections — move left to fire-up and turn-out the base, or try to hold the middle to win independent voters? My sense is in “purple” states and district they should move left, but in places like South Dakota and West Virginia that would be suicide.
Comment by Roman Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:21 pm
==The Sanders endorsed record overall is very poor.==
Not surprising. The people running Our Revolution seem to have been selected solely on who was most loyal to Sanders and not on competence, an ironically Clinton-esque problem. They seem to mostly generate enthusiasm for candidates online among people who do not live in the state/district. To say the least, that’s not where the votes are.
Comment by Nacho Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:22 pm
Overshadowed by the Annapolis shooting was that four centrist Maryland senate Democrats losing in the Tuesday primary to progressives as well as establishment gubernatorial candidate:
“In addition to powering Democrat Ben Jealous’s victory over establishment favorite Rushern L. Baker III on Tuesday, progressive voters in Maryland ousted at least four incumbents allied with Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) — causing a shift in the state Senate.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/political-earthquake-progressives-oust-democratic-incumbents-in-statehouse-primaries/2018/06/27/26994782-7a08-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8c0a36881ea3
Comment by King Louis XVI Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:23 pm
Regardless of whether a D or an R is after your name, listening to and representing your local constituents on specific issues (which sometimes means you should not vote in lockstep with your national party) is how it is supposed to work but so often doesn’t. It’s a good reminder to all. Well said, Tammy.
Somewhat related to Tammy’s comments I just read the recently released book The Great Revolt by reporter Selena Zito. It is filled with lengthy interviews, interesting polling and serious analysis in trying to understand what happened in Iowa, WI, MI, Ohio and Pennsylvania in Nov 2016. Drilling down into the numbers and reasons of 2-time Obama voters who crossed over in these states in 2016, and also the numbers of women who felt other specific issues were more important to them than helping someone symbolically break a glass ceiling were only two of the key findings. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political history. There is much of value in the pages of this book for both political parties to process if they are open to it.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 12:40 pm
- Exclamation point deleted - makes a good point. Crowley’s status as a Washington insider probably hurt him most. Unlike Lipinski, he really wasn’t out of step ideologically with the Dem base. Meanwhile, Lipinski survived, in part, because he spends as little time possible in DC and works his district pretty hard.
Their districts are different, too. Crowley’s has a higher number of Latino and black voters. Which proves the point that you can’t “nationalize” every race.
Comment by BC Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:07 pm
The incumbent Democrat (Crowley) had also been redistricted into the Bronx and was unlikely to perform well against Ocasio-Cortez. The voters in the district had no relationship with Crowley.
Comment by Practical Politics Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:36 pm
First, I’d like to admit I was wrong about Lipinski’s election. It was closer than I expected. His opponent, Marie Newman, will be back and this time she has name recognition. I view her twitter feeds and she continues to frequently post progressive issues, while avoiding messages about Lipinski.
While the Lipinski name is well known, he is also viewed as a long term incumbent for people who just want a change. He has a chance to veer left a little bit, but seems like he is running the same course for the most part.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 1:46 pm
Crowley is/was a longterm machine Dem elitist. Plus is 50 plus older white male. It appears he has been taking advantage of his position for a while.
The very young attractive female who has no record gets the benefit of very low voter turnout.
Game over
Comment by cannon649 Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 2:02 pm
====While the Lipinski name is well known, he is also viewed as a long term incumbent for people who just want a change.
He may get a visit if they feel he’s too weak and offered a cushy retirement while they find a better candidate. I like Newman and hope she can win next time, but I don’t think it will necessarily be Lipinski.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 2:16 pm
Some of the most recent analysis suggests she did best in the areas that were gentrified. He did better in the Bronx with heavier minority precincts. While it’s counter the narrative, it actually makes sense as urban gentrified areas often are some of the most activist and liberal.
Chuy is pretty liberal too, but he didn’t have to defeat a Crowley to get the nomination. As Duckworth says though, Chuy fits the district as does Ocasio-Ortiz.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 2:19 pm
===I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political history. There is much of value in the pages of this book for both political parties to process if they are open to it.
I’ll take a look-does she deal with the possibility of the different mostly being mobilization? Trump seemed to create an increased turnout in rural/exurban areas which I would think is more important than those that might have switched.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 2:21 pm
Ms. Cortiz did a very good job on Meet the Press yesterday. Her voice was very good and answered Chuck Todd’s questions. She had Chuck wanting to crawl over the desk and hold her hand.
Comment by Hickory Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 2:36 pm
ArchPundit @ 2:21PM–
Hi, I just saw your note. You need to read the book.
I can’t and won’t attempt to summarize the analysis. It’s really too detailed and complex for that. But yes, to answer your question: amid the interviews and post-election polls there were identified significant numbers both of first time voters and voters who had not cast a vote in a presidential election in decades but decided they wanted to do so this time. So, mobilization/motivation was a contributing factor, but not the only contributing factor according to the analysis.
The main takeaway for me, and what both parties might want to consider more seriously going forward is that it was an organic coalition of voters who voted for Trump. It was not “A Trump voter” despite some in the media’s and candidate Hillary’s attempts to characterize and pigeonhole them. This voting coalition included groupings of people in those counties and states who, on the surface might appear to have little in common with each other and seem like they shouldn’t like Trump (such as those people–and there were significant numbers of them– who were previously reliably Democratic voters.) In the reporting interviews individuals articulated their reasons for voting for Trump and they were not all the same reasons. But the combined reasons of this coalition of voters carried their states for the current president.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 3:56 pm
Progressive issues are supported by a majority of the population. This is a national trend.
Comment by Illinois Resident Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 4:01 pm
===You need to read the book.
Will try to–the to read list is always long, but this is up my alley. Thanks.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 4:30 pm
Lipinski is gonna have an even bigger problem next time when when the primary turnout is likely to be much higher thanks to a still-unsettled Democratic presidential nomination. What’s left of the old guard city ward organizations won’t be able to bail him out. Maybe he’s eased out ahead of that, as Arch speculates. But I’m guessing he goes again and tries to load up the ballot with other female candidates.
Comment by TNR Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 4:47 pm