A Few Things For The Day

First up, its primary day in Texas (coverage here, here, and here). For the best coverage of the race (from the more liberal perspective), check out the Burnt Orange Report. While the Rick Perry / Kay Bailey Hutchison tilt started out as a real clash of the titans, the campaign since hasn't really lived up to the hype. It seems clear that Perry is going to win handily with the only real question whether he will top 50% and thus avoid a run-off with the runner up. The wild card in the race is Debra Medina. Medina, who is by far the candidate furthest to the right, has seen her numbers take a hit since voicing some support for "truther" claims about 9-11. Nonetheless, her polling suggests that she may be able to force a Perry/Hutchison run-off or even sneak into second place herself. Hutchison's campaign has been, from all accounts, a complete disappointment. Despite having high approval ratings throughout her career she has clearly been out-Texased by the incumbent Perry. He has artfully tied Hutchison to Washington despite her votes against the economic stimulus plan and other parts of the Obama agenda. Former Houston mayor Bill White is expected to easily clinch the Democratic nomination.

Once numbers start coming in we'll try to provide some quick analysis.

Second up today is a report from my home state, Wisconsin, that former four term governor, and Bush II era Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson is considering enterning this year's Senate race against incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold. Since leaving the governor's office in 2001, talk about Thompson's return has bubbled up regularly--often stoked by Thomspon himself. Despite his abysmal presidential run in 2008 (he dropped out even before the caucusing in Iowa) Thompson is often portrayed as a political juggernaut in Wisconsin. While he is clearly the most successful Republican in recent Wisconsin history, count me as skeptical about his chances against Feingold.

The first thing to keep in mind about a Thompson potential run is that while he has been extremely successful in the past, he hasn't been elected to anything in 10 years. Not only has he not campaigned in Wisconsin since 2000 he hasn't been on the scene in the state either. Almost all of his time has been spent in Washington and, since leaving HHS, on a number of corporate boards and government relations firm rosters (which will no doubt be used in any campaign against him). While long departed politicians oftentimes assume they can return home to past glories, things rarely work out that easily.

Second, while Feingold has never racked up huge numbers state wide in his three elections, he does have a constant base of support that never seems to wane. Despite receiving 51%, 53%, and 55% in '92, '98, and '04 respectively, Feingold is not an easy target to knock off. He is not easily pigeonholed and has enough votes and positions that make it hard for Republican opponents to portray him as out of touch with Wisconsin and its oftentimes quirky political culture. Also, despite having a reputation as a campaign finance zealot, Feingold has built up a considerable war chest, currently totaling about $3.5 million.

A third point to keep in mind--and this is something that probably won't receive a lot of coverage--is that Wisconsin voters tend not to vote out incumbents. Of the current House delegation (8 members), none of them were elected by beating an incumbent. Over the last twenty years only two Wisconsin House members have been defeated. The most recent was Peter Barca (1st District) in 1994 who was completing the term of Les Aspin who became President Clinton's Secretary of Defense. Before him, Scott Klug (2nd District) defeated long time incumbent Robert Kastenmeier in 1990. Otherwise, the House delegation, save for retirements, has been very stable. Likewise, Wisconsin Senate races have been largely uneventful in recent years. In fact its Feingold who was the last to win via an incumbent knock-off, downing two term incumbent Robert Kasten in 1992. Feingold and his couterpart Herb Kohl (first elected in 1988 via an open seat upon the retirement of five term incumbent William Proxmire) have kept the Senate delegation in Democratic hands ever since. Despite a political environment that seems rabidly anti-Washington and anti-incumbent, Feingold seems like the type of politician--aided by an electorate that tends to value stability--who could weather the storm.

Finally, and related to last week's post about Evan Bayh of Indiana, a piece about the top Democrat running to replace him, incumbent House member Brad Ellsworth (8th District). The takeaway is that despite progressives' grumblings about Bayh's record on liberal issues, Ellsworth is in fact considerably more conservative especially on social issues.

Virginia Guv Primary Reminiscent of Feingold's Badger State Breakthrough

Multicandidate primaries are always tricky to predict. Turnout is usually low. Candidates have different bases of support. Each needs to decide which of their opponents they should attack and how. As a result, the final outcome is oftentimes completely out of whack compared to pre-voting polls and expectations. Such was the case with yesterday's stunner in the Virginia Democratic Governor's primary (see coverage here, here, here, and here). Prior to the vote, polling suggested an extremely tight race between Terry McCauliffe, Brian Moran, and the eventual winner Creigh Deeds. While Clinton booster and former DNC head McCauliffe was the early favorite in the race, based largely on his fundraising prowess and ties to the establishment Democratic machinery, downstate State Senator Deeds had been gaining momentum in recent days. Moran, a former state legislator from vote rich northern Virginia, was counting on a huge turnout among his suburban base to put him over the top. With three relatively evenly matched candidates one would have expected a nail biter. The result???--a Deeds landslide as he captured 50% compared to McCauliffe's 26% and Moran's 24%.

As I was reading the commentary on the race and looking at the results, something about this contest seemed awfully familiar to me. It hit me that yesterday's outcome, and the campaign leading up to it, mirrored almost exactly a campaign that I witnessed firsthand back in Wisconsin. In 1992, Democrats were looking for a nominee to challenge incumbent GOP Senator Bob Kasten. The three Democrats who emerged were 1) Joseph Checota, a wealthy Milwaukee attorney and former head of the Wisconsin Democratic party; 2) Congressman Jim Moody, a multi-term House member from Milwaukee, the state's largest vote center; and 3) Russ Feingold, a relatively unknown State Senator from Middleton, a suburb of Madison. Checota and Moody were by far the best funded and best tied to the party establishment and supporting interests. Feingold, while respected in the State Senate, was seen as the weakest of the three and least likely to win. The campaign quickly devolved into a nasty and expensive spat between the Checota and Moody. Checota was able to contribte considerable sums of his own wealth to the race and Moody was able to tap into numerous reliable sources of Democratic donors. As these two spent months attacking each other, Feingold plodded on, an afterthought to most. When the early September vote was held, Feingold scored a massive upset, capturing 70% of the primary vote, with Checota and Moody evenly splitting the remainder. See some coverage of the race here).

Fast forward to Virginia's race this year and the parallels are striking. You have a wealthy former party head (McCauliffe/Checota) with no previous elective experience, a well known legislator from the state's largest bloc of voters (Moran/Moody), and a relatively unknown, folksy, yet respected, State Senator (Deeds/Feingold). In Virginia this year, as in Wisconsin in 1992, McCauliffe and Moran spent much of the race focusing their fire on each other, especially given how much of the vote was expected to come from the place both resided--northern Virginia. Checota and Moody fought heavily over the Milwaukee area's bounty of voters in their back yards. The candidate most expected to trail far beyond the frontrunners was left to develop his own campaign, almost in isolation of the others. In doing so they were able to court a bloc of voters seemingly being ignored by those at the top. In '92, Moody and Checota were both seen as somewhat distant from Wisconsin's progressive tradition--Checota for his wealth and Moody (though sporting a generally liberal voting record) for his tenure on the Ways and Means committee. Feingold, on the other hand, came to the race with unblemished progressive bona fides. In Virginia, Moran and McCauliffe positioned themselves toward the left end of the spectrum while Deeds, hailing from the rural western part of the state, espoused a more Blue Dog-like platform.

While there are no doubt some differences between these races--most notably the fact that Deeds had run, and barely lost, a state-wide race previously whereas Feingold had no such state-wide exposure--the commonalities are worth noting for no other reason than how much the highlight the unpredictability of primaries. With each additional candidate in the race, the tactical calculus becomes much more complicated. While focusing attention on one candidate might seem obvious, such a decision may in fact present opportunities to those being ignored. When nobody is paying attention to a particular candidate, that candidate not only evades some scrutiny and bloodying, they also don't have to worry about their campaign devolving into a series of reactions and tit for tat responses. They can, in a sense, define their own candidacy, something that is no doubt how most candidates would like to appeal to voters.

When it comes to making predictions in these contests, perhaps these examples suggest that, when in doubt, pick the candidate running last. They oftentimes win.