Over in Quick Hits, there were two posts consecutive posts this afternoon that bear mentioning on the front page. In the first, demoinesdem points us to new Progressive Punch scores that compare how members of Congress vote to the partisan voting tendencies of their distracts. In the second, bruoton tells us about a new, non-partisan primary system in California, where the top two vote getters move on to the general election, regardless of party. According to this Quick Hit, Nate Silver thinks that conservative Democrats will be the biggest beneficiary of the new system. These two developments are worth looking at simultaneously, because they impact each other.
The new Progressive Punch tool is extremely useful, since it serves as a quick reference on which Democrats are voting more conservatively than their districts, and thus are vulnerable to a left-wing primary challenge. However, the new California laws probably render, as I think Nate Silver argues, either a left-wing or a right-wing primary challenge to a Congressional incumbent far more difficult. While an upstart progressive might be able to use the new law to reach the general election against one of California's many Blue Dog incumbents, those Blue Dogs can now fend off the challenge in the general election through the support of Republicans, ala Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate campaign. Similarly, Blue Dog type Democrats will now have a greater chance to reach the general election in one of California's many lean-red districts that are held by arch-conservative Republicans, thus giving LieberDems a second way of retaining or winning more U.S. House seats in California. At least, that is the theory. In practice, I think it will turn out quite differently, and put an end to the totalitarian control the Republican House leadership holds over California Republican U.S. House members.
If I were wagering money, I would bet that the most important thing that this new law will accomplish will be to put an end to right-wing primary challenges--and also the threat of such challenges--to California House Republicans once and for all. Progressive Democrats such as Donna Edwards are occasionally able to knock of an Bush Dog type incumbent who is too conservative for his district, but the truth is that such victories are extremely rare--probably one every two or three cycles (I'd love to see a comprehensive list of House incumbents defeated in primaries, from 1992 forward, but I can't find one). By contrast, the conservative movement has a well-established primary machine that knocks off two or three "moderate" Republicans every single two-year electoral cycle, and which keeps dozens more Republicans in line through threats of such primary challenges. However, at least in California, this new law wipes away the threat of such right-wing challenges once and for all.
I was once told by a progressive working high-up in the efforts to run more primary challenges that, in addition to taking out conservative Democrats in blue districts, someday he wanted to be able to replace right-wing Republicans in red districts with moderate Republicans who were backed by labor and environmental groups. This new California law now actually makes this possible. With redistricting in 2012, this new law might just lead to a wave of such challenges four years from now.
As such, while I can see, in theory, why the new California law might benefit conservative Democrats, in practice I think it will be an incumbent protection racket for the many conservative Blue Dogs in California, while freeing up the Republican delegation in the state from the clutches of the Republican House leadership. And that could be a real step forward for progressivism.
STATE BLOGS
