With Parker Griffith handily losing the Republican primary in Alabama's fifth congressional district last night, both members of Congress who switched parties in 2009 have now been defeated in primaries in 2010 (two weeks ago, Arlen Specter was handily defeated by Joe Sestak). Politico is likely correct to argue that this will likely have a chilling effect on party switching in general:
The upshot of the resounding losses by Specter and Griffith is that, at least in the near-term, it may be more difficult than ever to woo party-switchers. That's because implicitly or, more often, explicitly, a flip is made contingent on the basis that the new party will support the switcher.
That can mean securing a plum committee assignment, clearing the primary field, guaranteeing financial help and extending endorsements.
But if none of that adds up to persuade voters to renominate their convert, what's the point of jumping?
No one should be surprised at voters rejecting politicians who backstab their old friends in an attempt order to keep their job. There is little reason to trust politicians like that.
Still, two other examples in recent years--Joe Lieberman in connecticut and Charlie Crist in Florida-- suggest that it may be possible to still thrive if they leave their current political party, just as long as they do not join the opposing political party. First, in becoming Independents, they can skip primaries altogether, thus avoiding the wrath of base voters who are less likely to embrace a formner political opponent. Second, polling in these two examples suggests that the key to Crist and Lieberman was maintaining a decent base of support in their old party, something which cannot be done if they had overtly joined the other team.
Former partisans who become Independents require coalitions of Democratic, Independent and Republican voters in order to survive. These coalitions are tenuous, however, because different groups in the coalition like the politician for different, often conflicting, reasons. In order to maintian these coalitions, it is necessary that voters read what they want to read into the politician, something which becomes far more difficult when the politician explicitly joins a new team.
For example, in 2006, Joe Lieberman won re-election by 10%. In order to do this, he successfully built a short-term coalition that gave him received 70% of the Republican vote, 54% of the Independent vote, and 33% of the Democratic vote. This same coalition also allowed him to maintain positive approval ratings during 2007. However, the coalition began to collapse in mid-2008, when Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President. At the time, Quinnipiac found that Lieberman lost much of the center-left support of his coalition:
"Sen. Lieberman's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent for the first time in 14 years of polling, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats giving him low marks, probably because he is campaigning for Sen. John McCain," Dr. Schwartz said.
By the end of 2008, Lieberman's approval rating collapsed to a record low:
Connecticut's U.S. Senators get their lowest approval ratings ever, a negative 38 - 54 percent for Sen. Joseph Lieberman...
"Sen. Joseph Lieberman appears to be paying a high price for his embrace of Sen. John McCain in the presidential race. This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator - except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could.
By embracing McCain, Lieberman lost most of the remaining Democratic and Democratic-leaning Independent portions of coalition. He explicitly picked a side, and his Democratic support disappeared.
Similarly, in Florida Charlie Crist is receiving most of his new support from Democrats. The Pollster.com trend chart in Florida shows that presumptive Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek has experienced a collapse in support since Crist switched parties five weeks ago:
However strong he looks now, Crist's position is tenuous, for the same reason as Lieberman's. If Crist were to announce that we would caucus with Republicans if elected to the Senate, then his support among Democrats would collapse and his campaign would effectively be over. At the same time, if he were to announce that he would caucus with Democrats, then he would lose a decent amount of his commanding lead among Independents, as the Republican-leaning Independents in that group would switch to Rubio. That would also likely put Rubio in the lead, likely for good, as long as there was a Democratic nominee to oppose Crist.
In short, like Specter, Griffith and Lieberman, the worst move Crist can make right now would be to explicitly state which team he would join the the United States Senate. As such, it isn't a surprise that Crist is refusing to provide any clarity on that matter. Once he does, his campaign is probably over, because it longer seems possible for a true party switcher to survive the wrath of the voters.
POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he's switching parties to become a Republican.
According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith's district in northern Alabama.
Important notes and context on this shift:
The partisan composition of the House will now be 257-178, in favor of Democrats.
On top of Griffith, three Blue Dogs had already announced their retirement this year. Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Gordon (TN-06) and John Tanner (YN-08). However, rather than depleting Blue Dog ranks, this allowed the Blue Dogs to just welcome in three members from their waiting list: Betsy Markey (CO-04), Scott Murphy (NY-20) and Kurt Schrader (OR-05).
Blue Dogs cap their membership at 20% of the entire Democratic caucus, in an attempt to maintain cohesion. They have rejected quite a few applicants, and won't have any difficulty filling Parker Griffith's slot. In fact, while one would think that massive Blue Dog defeats would result in the caucus being discredited, even if two-dozen Blue Dogs lose in November, the list of applicants to their waiting list will probably only get longer. It simply never occurs to center-right Democrats that strengthening their relationship with the center-left base is smarter than moving to the right.
Personally, I say good riddance to Griffith. He was costing us money in re-election, and providing no key votes. He was just a monetary black hole.
In a statement likely to intensify the GOP assault on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reign, a first-term Democratic "blue dog" congressman said that he would not vote to make her the top House Democrat again. Rep. Parker Griffith, a former oncologist from Alabama, told a town hall
meeting this week that Pelosi is too divisive to be speaker. "I would not vote for her [again]," he added. "Someone that divisive and that polarizing cannot bring us together."
Voting for Speaker is the first vote of every Congress, and only two choices are offered: a Democrat and a Republican. Griffith just said he won't vote for the Democratic option, so I guess he will either abstain or vote Republican. No matter which is the case, this means that on the off chance Parker Griffith is still in Congress in 2011, Democrats will actually need 219 seats to control the House. Even if Griffth votes for a different Democrat in a write-in, it would still have the impact of an abstention and Republicans now only need 217 to force partial control over the chamber.
In addition to voting against the stimulus, the budget, the climate change bill, cramdown and, in only a little while, health care, Griffith won't even vote for a Democrat to control Congress. Is there any possible reason left to support this guy? I have heard time and time again how we have to support any Democrat over any Republican because all Democrats members of Congress vote for Democrats to control Congress. This gives us control of the legislative calendar, committees, subpoenas, vast corporate PAC donations, etc.
Well, not in Parker Griffith's case.
Given Griffith's statements, as long as he is the Democratic nominee in AL-05, it is a net negative for the party that Democrats control the Alabama fifth congressional district. The district is a ridiculous R+12, and will could very well be wiped out by redistricting in 2012 anyway. Most importantly of all, it is held by Parker Griffith. As such, it plays no role in maintaining a Democratic majority, much less a progressive majority, over the long-term.
There are, however, two roles it does play. First, Parker Griffith offers bipartisan cover, both in votes and in media quotes, to everything Republicans are doing. Second, If the the the DCCC spent $1,076,370 electing the guy. What a waste of money. That is money that could have been spent in any of the other 434 congressional districts where the Democratic nominee would actually vote for Democrats to control Congress.
If we get the money back, it can be spent electing and defending Democrats who are actually worth something to progressive, or even Democratic, causes. Right now, the only groups Parker Griffith assists--in terms of money, votes and media--are Republicans, conservatives, and corporations.
STATE BLOGS
