Dump Primaries?

Some recent events point to our need to reflect on what our nation is about. Primaries in both parties produced candidates appealing to the extremes of the electorate. Longtime Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana lost their reelection bids due to a perceived lack of loyalty to Donald Trump. He endorsed their primary challengers, and his loyal base did his bidding. While these were the most prominent, the President also prompted other Republicans to retire amid primary challenges or the threat of one.

Democratic Socialists challenged more moderate Democrats with solid results in such Blue Strongholds as New York, Maine, and the District of Columbia. In one-party areas, the primary is the election.

No one believes either the Trump-backed or the Democratic Socialists’ nominees are stronger general-election contenders. In fact, in the Texas Senate race, Trump backed Ken Paxton in what is a safe seat with Cornyn, now in jeopardy.

If the actions of Donald Trump and the Democratic Socialists result in weaker general election candidates, why would you back the less electable? Power! If you’re contemplating a career in elective politics, you must win a place on the general election ballot by winning a primary. If you fail to tow the extreme line, you may have little or no chance of advancing.  

Primaries attract far fewer voters than general elections. Even the contested House seats in New York State failed to draw many people. These small turnouts allow the dedicated minorities to determine winners. For instance, Public employees and their Unions are directly affected by who employs them and have every reason to turn out. The average voter, not so much.

If you don’t bow towards Trump on the right or bend your message towards Marxists on the left, you’ll likely face a competitor who does. Even if you manage to win the nomination, you’ve expended so much and are so bruised that you’re weakened in the general election.

In my series, The Future Party,” I predicted the homelessness of prospective candidates espousing policies similar to those of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. I pointed to primaries as a major culprit.

Continue reading

November’s First Week

Next week will be much more impactful than usual. Elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York City will provide us with real-time insight into the electorate’s mood. On November 5th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the Tariff cases. We may get a grasp on how the court will rule in this momentous area.

Off-year elections tend to favor the out-of-power party, and polls show Democrats leading in these elections. However, polls show the races in New Jersey and Virginia favor the Democratic Party. However, the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia are narrowing. Instead of being on the attack, the Democrats are back on their heels.

In New Jersey, the incumbent Governor is highly unpopular. High taxes and energy prices plague the state. Fealty to the “Green New Deal” sees unsightly windmills on the famous Jersey Shore. Yet the Democratic candidate seems devoid of workable ideas to right the ship, leaving the energetic Republican candidate on the offensive.  

The vast majority of Virginians oppose biological men on girls’ sports teams and in their bathrooms. An 80-20 issue, and Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic candidate, can’t find a way to align with the girls. Menacing messages from the Democratic Attorney General candidate included threats to an opponent’s children. Spanberger can’t even say he should drop out.

New York City is among the bluest places in America, but it has faced myriad problems. Businesses and people, especially high-value taxpayers, are moving out. High taxes, crime, deteriorating services, bad schools, and very high-priced housing have diminished the “Big Apple’s appeal since the heady Giuliani and Bloomberg mayoralties. The city has long been a creative melting pot. For instance, almost one in eight New Yorkers is Jewish.

Continue reading

Only The Next Rung Is Important

Successful politicians are those with an ear for what people are thinking. Recognize what’s bothering most people and let them know you hear them; if possible, offer a solution. At least, I thought I understood how it works, but I was wrong. How else can you explain why so many politicians are staking out positions with only minority support?

On the left, politicians have taken positions supporting biological men competing in women’s sports. Blue State leaders stand in the way of banning this unfair competition. Criminals here illegally get support from the same group when the federal government tries to remove them.

On the right, we have an administration levying tariffs willy-nilly against both friends and foes. The same administration berates Ukraine while asking nothing of Russia in their conflict. Neither position has majority support.

What do these positions have in common? They are highly unpopular. Sizable majorities deplore these positions, so why do supposedly intelligent politicians stand foursquare for them? The realization is that in today’s politics, you climb one rung at a time. If you don’t grab the lower rung, you have no upside.

In most cases, that lower rung is your party’s nomination. This situation means winning primaries. In my series on “The Future Party,” I noted that while primaries appear to be the democratic expression of the people’s will, the results often fall short of this ideal.

It isn’t hard to see why primaries fail to reflect the mood and concerns of the general electorate. It has to do with turnout. Primaries typically draw less than half the participation of a general election. For instance, according to the last statistics I could find, the 2022 Utah primary drew 19% of eligible voters. The General Election drew 44%. Most primaries draw less than a quarter of voters, while the General election draws 40 to 50%. Presidential elections draw over sixty percent.

Continue reading

Changing Times

In line with my efforts to see all sides of an issue, I keep up with ideas on both the left and the right. CNN and Washington Post (WP) columnist Fareed Zakaria usually provides good insight into establishment thinking, especially on foreign affairs. His latest  WP column is an eye-opener. He calls into question the left’s efforts to benefit the working class.

Most noncollege graduates in Red states voted for Trump and Republicans, even though the Biden administration made significant efforts to provide job-producing projects there. Instead of appreciating their benefactors, the ingrates voted for the opposition.

Zakaria feels the left’s prevailing theory is to move away from a market-oriented economy to one with sweeping government interventions. “It passed massive infrastructure and climate spending bills, explicitly designed to help noncollege educated Americans.” Zakaria points to two congressional districts, one in Texas and the other in Mississippi, that received the most significant government-backed projects but still voted increasingly Republican.

Attributing the continuing working-class Republican migration to race, identity, and culture issues among noncollege-educated whites, he thinks the Democrats should concentrate on their “solid base of college-educated professionals, women and minorities,” and strive to add moderate swing voters. He observes, “Biden keeps touting his pro-union credentials but is increasingly speaking of a bygone era. In 2023, only 6 percent of private sector workers belonged to a union.” The votes to win are elsewhere.

Shortly after reading the Zakaria article, I read Peter Suderman, Reason Magazine’s features editor, “Biden’s Legacy: He Didn’t Build That,” “…over and over again, that’s what happened under Biden: Vast sums were spent or authorized, but nothing came of it.” Maybe that’s why the people in Texas and Mississippi aren’t thrilled if there is no lithium refinery or battery factory. Because of red tape, opposition, and slow-moving bureaucracies, building things in the U.S. takes forever or never gets done.  

Continue reading