Sestak! Halter! Paul! Dudley! Abstinence!
Sigh. There’s one problem with this chart and this question from Ezra Klein and answer from Robert Boatright.
But primaries — and the anti-incumbency sentiment that’s supposedly generating them — are the big news of the day. To get some context, I called Robert Boatright, a professor of political science at Clark University. Boatright had previously written a paper (pdf) tallying every primary challenge in which the challenger received more than 25 percent of the vote since 1970. It’s an interesting data set, and as you can see in the graph atop this post, it suggests that, in the aggregate, serious primary challenges are declining rather than increasing. That doesn’t mean 2010 won’t see a spike (look at how 1992 skews those results), but it helps keep things in perspective.
25 percent is not a “Serious Challenge” threshold. For instance: had DC Morrison received that against Blanche Lincoln, sans the Bill Halter campaign, would anyone consider his campaign a “Serious challenge”?
BUT… interesting results last night, right?
#1: The Obama Administration reportedly braced themselves for the Pennsylvania Senate Outcome. Obama, Biden, and Kerry did their horse-trading duty in backing Specter. One more Specter Incoherency for the road: “Must Be Smoking Dutch Qualades!”: “When You talk about ‘Vigor’, it’s all on Arlen Specter’s side.”
Go Sestak!
#2: Rublican House Minority Leader John Boehner predicted Republicans will pick up 100 seats. Newt Gingrich predicted 78. If they say so. To pick up the 40 necessary for a “Speaker Boehner” Republican Majority, they really would need to win that Pennsylvania House seat — carried by McCain in 2008 — vacated by the deceased Jack Murtha, or seats with that profile. The fact that they didn’t suggests that we’ll still have Speaker Pelosi to kick around next year.
#3: I’m thinking about declaring War on Rand Paul, on this blog. I suppose the good news is his Democratic opponent is Jack Conway beat Daniel Mongiardo — meaning the “good parts” of Rand Paul where he’d outflank a Democrat are offset by a “good Democrat” as opposed to a bad Democrat. The problem is reading through Rand Paul, I get the distinct impression — as I said before — he’s like Ron Paul with everything I like about Ron Paul chopped off — his civil liberties positions are weakened as compared to his father.
I can’t quite make sense of where this race is going. Is there this base of the “sensible” within Grayson’s voters who’ll turn against Rand Paul? We’ll know fairly shortly.
I’ve been batting about this Cliff Kincaid piece, for AIM, about Alex Jones’s supposed “Infilitration” into the Tea Party. Kincaid is full of it on several counts, and something worth mentioning to Kincaid as Rand Paul declares his victory a “Message from the Tea Party”. During the primary campaign, a campaign ad popped in — a donut hole with Alex Jones shouting about how the New World Order and the Globalists, in the middle Rand Paul on the Alex Jones show saying how thankful he is for crashing his server with donations. It was up yesterday on youtube. Today, it has been “removed” by its user — perhaps a suggestion that the Grayson supporter has pulled up stakes, ready to vote for the Republican Rand Paul.
Go to the Rand Paul videos on Alex Jones — whose favorite American politicians are, in order #1: Ron Paul, #2: Ron Paul, #3 Rand Paul, #4, Ron Rand Paul, #5: Dennis Kucinich, #6: Jesse Ventura, #7: Alan Grayson, #8: Cynthia McKinney, #8: Ron Paul, #10: Rand Paul, and you will see why this comment is laughable:
I don’t worry about the general, since he could simply say that if he had to agree with the interviewers, he wouldn’t talk to anyone. He couldn’t talk to the Fox News hosts who supported the bailout.
I think it is safe to say that Alex Jones was pretty instrumental in fund-raising for Rand Paul, particularly early.
The “Tea Party Movement” is not really a unified entity — but Alex Jones fits into it more than Cliff Kincaid does — Kincaid managing to call various Libertarian strains from out of Cato and Reason magazine — and thus infiltrating the Glenn Beck Show — “Leftist“.
#4. Chris Dudley. I saw and heard the reports on Chris Dudley’s Election Day Victory Party. It was at the freaking Rose Garden. A host of Portland Trailblazers — the play by play radio announcer and former player Terry Porter — were on hand. The total effect is naseau. It is sort of telling that John Kitzhaber made his media interviews last night, and Chris Dudley took off for the night — weird, because Election Night is going to throw at the candidates softball interviews.
So, Chris Dudley is Oregon’s Celebrity Candidate. It speaks to the small fry nature of Oregon that the state’s Celebrity Candidate is a Journeyman NBA player — he holds the record for longest string of missed free-throws.
#5:Â Not an election item, but utterly hilarious, and probably more people are talking about it than goddanged Specter and Sestak:
Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) had an affair with a part-time staffer named Tracy Jackson, Fox is reporting. Jackson played the role of interviewer for a Souder Web video show on the issues of the day — including one on the value of abstinence.
Dubbed “Congressional Update with Congressman Mark Souder,” the show hit on issues like intelligent design and fencing the border.
In the November 2009 abstinence video, Jackson introduces Souder this way: “You’ve been a longtime advocate for abstinence education and in 2006 you had your staff conduct a report entitled ‘Abstinence and its Critics’ which discredits many claims purveyed by those who oppose abstinence education.”
#6: In the end, I don’t think the Bill Halter / Blanche Lincoln match-up adds up to much. Either candidate will lose in November. But yesterday was a good outcome, as Blanche Lincoln falls into a two week legislating window where she has to hew to a Primary Battle electorate — Deriviatives Reform Game On!
May 19th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Yes, 25% is not necessarily a serious challenge. If you look at the paper, there’s a graph charting challenges where the incumbent was held under 60%; the results look pretty much the same.
May 21st, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Thank you for the clarification. I admit I have not read your piece, but I will note as I re-read my first sentence that I did lay the fault with Ezra Klein’s selection of which graph to use.
You’ve done the research, but what you said here “the results look pretty much the same” — goes against what I would presume to be the case: I would suspect a number of 25 to 35 primary results as against serious primary results hitting the 40s in the 1970s and 1980s as protests to a slowly eroding, still dominant in terms of party registration, One Party South. But I guess I’d be mistaken.