Posted on 08/08/2014 4:40:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
The standard thing to say about the various Republican primaries this year is that the tea party movement has lost one race after another. That's a defensible conclusion but also an oversimplification.
I see more turbulence and undercurrents among Republican primary voters than usual. The evidence is that incumbents -- both those the mainstream media call tea partyers and those they call the party establishment -- have been prevailing by tenuous margins in primaries that in the pre-tea party years would almost certainly not have been seriously contested.
Take Kansas. There Sen. Pat Roberts was renominated over challenger Dr. Milton Wolf by just a 48 percent to 40 percent margin -- a victory, but an embarrassingly low margin for someone who has been in Congress for 34 years.
Wolf, a second cousin of President Obama, made much of the fact that Roberts maintains only a nominal residence in the state. But the doctor was hurt when it was revealed that he circulated X-rays of wounded patients with macabre comments.
Roberts, perhaps awakened by the near-defeat of fellow septuagenarian and longtime incumbent Thad Cochran in Mississippi, worked hard in affluent Johnson County, just outside Kansas City, which casts one-fifth of the primary vote. He held Wolf to a 107-vote margin there and carried 92 of the other 104 counties.
Also renominated was Gov. Sam Brownback, by 63 percent to 37 percent. Brownback's push for tax cuts has been controversial; critics charge it hasn't stimulated growth and has forced the state to cut needed spending. Some 100 current and past Republicans officials signed a letter supporting his Democratic opponent.
This is the latest chapter in a long-simmering intra-party fight between conservatives and moderates. Brownback prevailed, but by a margin that suggests problems in November.
Kansas also saw serious challenges of incumbents in two of its four congressional districts. In the 1st District, Tim Huelskamp, a frequent rebel against the House Republican leadership, won, but by only 54 percent to 46 percent.
There was a clearer verdict in the Wichita-centered 4th District, where incumbent Mike Pompeo led his predecessor, Tom Tiahrt, by 63 percent to 37 percent.
Tiahrt ran as a champion of earmarks, arguing they were necessary to help Wichita's troubled private plane industry. Pompeo pledged no earmarks, and various conservative groups supported each candidate.
The lesson from these results: Many Republicans are skittish about backbench rebellions that produced the government shutdown and hurt the party in the polls; many more are pleased to see earmarks go, even when they arguably help the local community.
Michigan had significant Republican primaries in six congressional districts. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, who has faced conservative challenges before, won with 71 percent in the 6th District.
In the 4th District, John Molenaar, endorsed by incumbent retiring Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, beat self-funding businessman Paul Mitchell by 52 percent to 36 percent. In the 8th District vacated by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, moderate Mike Bishop beat tea-party-identified Tom McMillin, 60 percent to 40 percent.
You could chalk these up as establishment victories. But don't count business-supported Dave Trott's 66 percent to 34 percent pounding of incumbent reindeer farmer and Santa Claus impersonator Kerry Bentivolio in the 11th District. He was a fluke winner two years ago and didn't put up much of a fight this time. And conservative incumbents in the 1st and 7th districts won with 70 percent of the vote or more.
In the Grand Rapids 3rd District, local and national business groups spent big money on challenger Brian Ellis. But he failed to oust incumbent Justin Amash, who makes a practice of tweeting his reasons for his votes, often against the party leadership, on every roll call.
On foreign policy, Amash takes a stand much like Sen. Rand Paul's, and he recently voted against funding Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. He won by 57 percent to 43 percent, a decisive margin but no landslide for an incumbent in a primary -- and he characteristically refused to take his opponent's congratulatory phone call.
Republican primary turnout continues to be more robust than Democratic turnout, a good omen for the party in November. And Republican primary voters seem reluctant to vote for firebrands who lose general elections or provoke government shutdowns.
But they are also more open to questioning incumbents. It's as if they are seeking a way forward to policies with voter appeal, with no clear idea of how to get there.
Wolf actually did well and outperformed many expectations. The bigger issue is how to get the message out to more GOP voters. We have low info voters, too, who show up at the polls but know little other than a name they heard in the news headlines.
I can’t tell you how many really solid reliable conservatives I know who voted for Romney in the 2012 primary because ‘we need more business people running government’. These are individuals as conservative as you and me but busy with their daily lives...running their business, kids, etc.
See my post #19.
I agree, we have open primaries here in TN also and I wouldn’t dream of crossing over and vote for a rat.
At least Pat Roberts and some of the others mentioned didn’t lie about their opponents to get Democrat primary votes as Cochran did.
Even if McDaniel is unsuccessful in overturning the MS Senate primary results, I hope he tarnishes the reputation of Barbour and the good ol’ boy network in MS so badly that they no longer hold sway in MS politics. That crap has to be stopped once and for all.
See my post #19. Your lesson for the day.
#4. Tea Party candidates are percieved as radicals
See my post #19. Your lesson for today.
Nonsense. See my post #19. Your lesson for today.
It looks like about half the states have closed primaries. If open primaries were a major reason for incumbent wins, you’d think we would have picked up a few of the races in closed primary states. I’m not saying open primaries don’t hurt conservatives. They do. I just don’t think you can blame all these losses on open primaries, voter fraud, or anything more complicated than most Republican voters preferred the incumbent.
That explains the primary but not the general elections of past cycles.
My comment was made after listening to solid conservative Republican friends that just don’t like the candidates that come forward from the Tea Party.
In my district a tea party congressman served one term and was replaced with a conservative that was not perceived as radical.
The tea party movement has pulled the republican party to the right and will continue to do so. Politicians know that when they start getting challenged in primaries it’s getting serious. We have men like Ted Cruz to point the light at them so they can’t hide as many of their BS votes.
Really, Mr. Barone? All it has shown me is that the primary process is incredibly corrupt.
I’d like to add it also takes more than a candidate’s professed stands on the issues. Most Republican voters are not FReepers. They prefer known quantities—incumbents—who are reasonably good on the issues. They aren’t likely to elect someone like Mark Levin for example, no matter how good Mark is on the issues. Mr. Levin would likely have to work his way up in a state first before he could win a national office. There’s a limit to incumbent power of course, but unless they do something really egregious, they’re usually reelected. Sad, but true.
Same as I say about Mrs. Palin.
A worthless target attracts no fire.
My "lesson for the day"? Do you have any idea how patronizing that comes across? Or that I already know all about the problems of open primaries, which has absolutely nothing to do with my post you're replying to?
The GOP-E has to win every time to succeed. The Tea Party only has to win once to remove the objectionable.
Alexander got less than 50 percent in a Republican primary. Roberts got less than 50 percent in a Republican primary. Cochran had to cheat to ‘defeat’ McDaniel. The GOP-E ignores these facts at their peril.
The difference between the Tea Party and the base that runs the Democrat Party — the Tea Party is made up of people who can, do and will think for themselves in general elections. Sooner or later, the GOP-E will have to realize that it’s either the base’s way or no way.
#36. Nice try.
The down ballot candidates should be considered as well. At least here in TX, Tea Party candidates have done pretty well filling the ranks of local and state offices. These are the bench players on whom we will depend for future attacks on RINOs.
I agree... the TEA Party’s intentions are noble, but tends to support candidates that lack the seasoning and sophistication to avoid unforced errors on the campaign trail. The fumbles by Sharron Angle, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock killed not only their own candidacies, but those around them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.