Were Yesterday’s Voters Anti-Incumbents or Anti-Centrists?

Summary: Why all the “anti-establishment” rhetoric is only half of the story.

Last night, the May 18th Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania and Arkansas were characterized as anti-incumbency elections while the GOP primary in Kentucky was noted - at the very least - for being an anti-establishment contest.



In Pennsylvania, five-term Senator Arlen Specter was defeated in a Democratic primary against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA). In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln was forced into a run-off against Lt. Governor Bill Halter in their Democratic primary. Meanwhile in Kentucky, the Tea Party candidate Rand Paul crushed Washington-backed candidate Trey Grayson in a Republican primary.

Politico had this to say:

The anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fevers on display Tuesday are not new…[but] what’s now clear, in a way that wasn’t before, is that these results reflect a genuine national phenomenon, not simply isolated spasms in response to single issues or local circumstances.

This is a stark and potentially durable change in politics. The old structures that protected incumbent power are weakening. New structures, from partisan news outlets to online social networks, are giving anti-establishment politicians access to two essential elements of effective campaigns: publicity and financial support.

In effect, the anti-institutional forces that coalesced in recent years now look like an institutional force of their own.

There certainly was an anti-incumbency and anti-establishment mood among voters yesterday - there’s no denying that.

Last month we pointed to a Gallup poll that found voters more upset with incumbents than ever. For the first time in 20 years, less than a majority of Americans (49%) said that their member of Congress deserved re-election while an incredible 40% said they did not.


But this is only half of the story.

If you look at all the incumbents who lost in primaries in recent elections, there is one thing that makes them all similar - they were centrists.

In 2006, Senator Joe Lieberman was upset by the viscerally liberal Ned Lamont in a Democratic primary because of the incumbent’s support for the Iraq War. Lieberman was forced to become an independent in order to keep his Senate seat.

Similarly, Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) has been forced out of the GOP in the Florida Senate race. Although he had not yet faced the more conservative Marco Rubio in a primary, Crist dropped out from his party and is now running as an independent.

Specter made a similar move last year to avoid a risky Republican primary with the more conservative Pat Toomey. He hoped that by becoming a Democrat he could hang on to his seat. In the end he was forced out of office in a Democratic primary by a more liberal opponent.

Even in Arkansas - a state that is by no means liberal - Blanche Lincoln is still fighting off a challenge from a more liberal primary contender. The Paul-Grayson matchup in Kentucky also characterizes a loss for the middle-of-the-road.

So why is this the trend?

An important rule for political success is “keep your base happy” - once they’re less than thrilled with your performance they’ll either stay home in a general election or vote you out in a primary. The base is the source of support that is constantly motivated politically.

Moderate voters don’t pay all that much attention to politics and they don’t vote as regularly - and they certainly don’t vote as often in primaries. They don’t tend to knock on doors or make phone calls. They’re not dependable for political success.

In recent years these facts have become all the more important - when raising small amounts of money online from your base is easier than getting a few large contributions from richer non-political donors, appealing more to the base is critical.

Ultimately this is very characteristic of why the American political landscape is as polarized as it is at the moment.

So as much as it’s true that Washington is unpopular and the incumbency effect seems like a less positive trait than usual, keep this in mind: incumbents and establishment candidates will do fine this year.

So long as they steer clear of the middle.

Is the Political Landscape Simply Unfavorable for Incumbents?

Summary: Local politicians and the dangers of incumbency - close proximity to voters can lead to victories for challengers.

Typically incumbents are the politicians with the least to worry about. The incumbency effect can often keep you in office for as long as you want because you have the name recognition, resources, and record to make you more credible than a challenger.

However, Politico reports in a new article that the current landscape - troubled by the impacts of the national recession - may simply be unfavorable for incumbents at the moment. Rather than starting in Virginia and New Jersey - which pundits are watching closely for their 2010 implications - the article points to the races that are not getting the same national attention: mayoral elections.

From the article:

Some incumbent mayors have already lost their races. Others have held on to win—or are likely to win next week—with greatly diminished margins from their previous re-election bids. Either way, local incumbents are bleeding badly after being buffeted by the pressures of high unemployment, low tax revenues and a volatile, impatient electorate…

…"People are lashing out, have less patience with the elected officials closest to them," said Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson, the longest-serving mayor in city history and a former president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "That kind of angst materializes either in walking away from the system or in deciding that whoever is up for election must have played some role, somehow, in some way, in the international financial crisis."…

…Tom Cochran, the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, recently attended a mayors' conference in Seattle where he met with an alarmed group of city leaders.

"Many mayors have talked to me about—those that are not running and those that are running—sometimes how difficult it is to deal with people in ordinary places like coffee places, bars, churches," Cochran said. "They had great hopes for the stimulus, providing jobs, that's been late coming."

It's not just mayors who should be spooked, Cochran warned: "If I were a congressman I'd be looking at this baby right now, because they are going to hit reality when they go back home for Christmas."

Where are these anti-incumbent tendencies coming from?

The article continues:

[Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’] defeat had little to do with partisan politics—both his rivals were Democrats. Seattle consultant Randy Bannecker suggested it emerged from the city's restive mood.

"It is sort of this combination of an interest in progressiveness, in progressive issues, coupled with a yearn for an anti-government or an outsider figure," Bannecker said. "You’d talk to people in various parts of the city, various constituencies; they couldn’t really articulate why they opposed [Nickels]."…

…Some veterans of mayoral politics caution against reading too much into the outcomes of local races. Instead of reflecting national trends, they argue, mayoral elections often have more to do with the mechanics of local government and the delivery of city services.

"There's a little bit of variety in these local races that makes generalization a bit problematic," said former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith.

But while the national mood isn’t the sole factor driving mayor's races, Goldsmith acknowledged that those forces can help set the terms of the local debate.

Indeed, the city Goldsmith once governed was home to the most surprising mayoral upset of 2007, when Democratic Mayor Bart Peterson lost to an unknown and underfinanced Republican after a debate over property taxes spun out of control.

So will anger towards local incumbents mean a bad political landscape for Congressional or even state incumbents? We’ll have to wait until next November to really know for sure.