August 11, 2010 08:49 PM UTC

Primaries 2010: Did we learn anything?

• 2 Comments
• by: Automaticftp

As the dust settles from the primaries, and as the victors and the vanquished fall over themselves to kiss and make up, the question becomes this: what, if anything, can we take away from the primary campaigns and the results?

I think there are three general lessons from the primary results.

First, both major parties splintered to varying degrees–the GOP to a larger degree, and largely philosophically, than the Democrats, who splintered more along personality lines.  That can create problems as both parties try to close ranks to push toward the general election in November.  Second, incumbency seemed to matter–while people will often rail against Congress (or the state General Assembly), far fewer people are willing to throw out their representative or senator absent a compelling reason to do so.  Third, while turnout was very strong, it is too early to say why–it is likely a combination of mail ballots making it easier to vote, voter interest in some of the primaries, and strong GOTV efforts by a variety of campaigns.  

The GOP has splintered to an almost shocking degree along philosophical lines, which means it is starting from far behind the Democrats.  There were significant differences philosophically among the GOP candidates which played out in the election results.  For example, Jane Norton vs. Ken Buck represented at its core a choice between an establishment candidate in Norton, with terrific connections, and a perceived outsider in Buck, widely seen as being much closer to the farther right grassroots supporters.  In rejecting Norton, the GOP base showed it is moving farther to the right and concentrating on a smaller and smaller, but more active, portion of the electorate as a whole.  The victory by Buck may be a Pyrhhic victory for the GOP, as Mr. Buck will face an uphill climb that will only get steeper as the general election comes closer and as his more extreme positions are publicized and examined.  

Similarly, the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate, Dan Maes, at least appears to be philosophically to the right of Scott McInnis.  Maes was able to tap into the Tea Party phenomenon and was one of the first (along with Mr. Buck) to employ the energy of the Tea Party movement to galvanize his candidacy.  I think it extremely unlikely Mr. Maes can win the general election, it is a stunning achievement for him to have won the primary.  Again, the victory may be a Pyrhhic one, since few believe he can defeat the Democratic candidate, John Hickenlooper, barring a significant development from the Hickenlooper campaign.  The entry of Tom Tancredo, formerly a Republican, on the American Constitution Party’s ticket, also will not help the GOP’s chances of winning the election for governor.

On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats splintered along personality lines.  This was perhaps most obvious (especially to those here!) in the Senate primary between Senator Bennet and Mr. Romanoff.  The philosophical differences between the two were acknowledged to be minimal by the more objective people on each side, and consequently the race came down to the candidates themselves.  On Senator Bennet’s side were President Obama, most of the national party leaders and party machinery, and many Democrats who believed he was doing a good job.  On Mr. Romanoff’s side were former President Clinton, most of the state party leaders and state party machinery (much of which, to his credit, he helped to build), and many of the people who believed he would do at least as good a job as Senator Bennet.  Another race worth mentioning is the primary in House District 7, where Angela Williams prevailed over Jon Goldin-Dubois and Mark Mehringer.  Again, philosophical differences were minimal and the major differences were personal, as they were in House District 4, where Dan Pabon prevailed over Amber Tafoya and Jennifer Coken.  

The second general lesson is that incumbency matters.  As I wrote above, people may believe that Congress or the General Assembly does a terrible job overall, most of the people who know who their legislators are believe they are doing a good job and are less likely to vote for a primary challenger.  This seemed to be a factor in the Democratic Senate primary, where a number of people said that they thought Senator Bennet was doing a good job and were unwilling to vote him out in favor of someone else.  

Third, it is too early to say why turnout was as strong as it was and what effect strong turnout had on the election results.  The general rule of thumb in political science literature is that strong turnout favors the candidates with better name recognition.  That, in turn, is often driven by fundraising and  incumbency.  With this primary being a predominantly mail-in election, it was also much easier for people to vote.  To what degree that ease of voting raised turnout, and what effect that had on the election results, is a subject that remains to be studied.

So what does it all mean?  I think the GOP has a much steeper hill to climb, as I think philosophical differences are more difficult to bridge than personality differences.  With their winning candidates generally turning harder to the right, they have turned away from the moderate center of the state, and will have farther to go to come back to appeal to the moderate center voters needed to win a statewide election.  Of course, the general political climate factors in as well, which at least appears to have a strong anti-incumbent strain.  Colorado may well be an exception given the disarray in which the state GOP has placed itself, and the overall quality of the Democratic statewide candidates.  I would be shocked if Hickenlooper does not win the gubernatorial election, and I would be surprised (but not shocked) if Senator Bennet does not win the Senate election.  Similarly, I will not be surprised either way if Stan Garnett wins the election for AG, or if Cary Kennedy wins Treasurer.  One thing seems certain–it is going to be a lively election season.