Centerfield

What was the main difference between the two?

I know Cuellar was endorsed by the Club for Growth so he's obviously a Clinton-like Dem in terms fiscal policy.

But was Ciro's stance on fiscal policy? Was that the key distinction? He was obviously more Left than Cuellar but what was the major disctinction that pushed the votes to Cuellar?

I also understand that TX has open primaries. true? that would mean that the GOP leaning voters pushed the vote to the center more than the Dem base.

I'd be interested to see how many of those who voted for Cuellar were angry Republican voters and how much that changed the vote.
I'll also note that the "angry left" - your characterization - will dump tons of money in Cuellar's campaign.
Maybe they should be the angry pragmatic left.

Not exactly "open," the rules are a bit odd. You can vote in either party's primary, but NOT in both. Once you vote in the primary, you automatically become a registered member of whichever party you voted in for the next two years, or until the next primary. If there's a runoff for the party ballot slot, only party members can vote. Essentially you can switch party registration at the polls if you like, but no matter what you were regitered as going into the primary, you're stuck for a while with the party whose ticket you voted.

Rodrigeuz was mainstream-to-left Dem for his first three terms. When the seat was redistricted in 2003, making it a completely "safe" Dem district instead of a weakly Dem district, he moved hard left--and got aced by Cuellar, who ran as a centrist.

As I noted in the previous post, SW Texas Dems are NOT liberals in the coastal sense. They're more like Yellow Dog or Blue Dog Democrats. Rodriguez could take the Dem vote in San Antonio (a major metropolis) but not in Laredo, a fairly conservative border city. And he couldn't pick up enough votes in the little counties to make up the difference.

Good luck on figuring it out, Marcus. You'd have to do county-by-county registration comparisons on a voter-by-voter basis to get good numbers. But I will note that overall turnout in Texas was extremely anemic this time, barely breaking 4% statewide. Going back to basics, Cuellar either did a much better job of turning out his base, or had a bigger base to turn out. As near as I can tell, Rodriguez lost ground in every single county as compared to his 2004 run, in both ratio and absolute terms.

The Angry Left won't dump a single dime on Cuellar, and there's no reason for them to bother. I thought I made that clear--this WAS the race for all practical purposes. Even if they were inclined to support any Dem over any Republican, there's no Republican in the race. (It's a VERY safe Dem district.) They pulled out all the stops "pragmatically" backing Rodriguez, and lost.

I'd be pretty surprised if the "Angry Left" suddenly decided to dump tons of money into Cuellar's campaign, given that no Republican is running against him. The Angry Left (a pretty good characterization if we're talking about Kos and crowd, I'd think) put their money on a horse that lost and lost fairly badly given the disparate differences in funding and attention paid. They thought their money and attention could get a man elected who probably didn't hold views consistent with those of his constituency and it seems that shows how out of touch they are with what gets people elected.

Thinking that they'll now dump money into a centrist campaign after ridiculing his policies (policies geared towards his constituents--Imagine that!) and those of other centrist Democrats seems odd to me, especially given the fact that the GOP isn't opposing him. Am I missing something?

Damn it Tully, do you ever do work? How's a guy supposed to get a point in around here if you just sit there watching your post for commenters? :-P

I remember reading Kos' post supporting Rodriguez, and being surprised he was supporting such a centrist. The only Indeed, I think he lost more because he was an unenthusiastic campaigner.

Be careful of the coastal thing, Tully. People supported by Kos have fallen all over the US, on both coasts, in Texas, everywhere....

Hey, it's oh-beer-thirty where I am! I didn't start the post until I was done for the day.

True, Jon. But the principle stands.

P.S.: In Texas, if you vote in the primary, you lose the ability to sign a petition for an independent candidate to go on the ballot.

Wow! Fast turnaround there, Tully!

LOL. Like you should talk....

"Be careful of the coastal thing, Tully. People supported by Kos have fallen all over the US, on both coasts, in Texas, everywhere...."

Markos (at DailyKos) has something that I find appealing and something I find appalling.

The appealing thing is his drive to make elections people powered and reduce the influence of the wealthy who in general have a massive sway in national elections thru donations. This very fundamental "GrassRoots has the power, USE IT!" kinda attitude is a good one. His book covers this in detail (thouygh I haven't read it)

The appalling thing is his rationalization of what each party stands for and how "we must elect Dems at all costs or we're going to hell in handbasket". That's just a bit much.

The irony is that, fiscally, he's not really that liberal and he'll admit it.

Lieberman is sweating?

I don't know what it is, but Kos pisses me off. It isn't that he has got an opinion about the direction of his party, which is his right, it is that he thinks he ACTUALLY has that much influence to beat Joe Lieberman. Give me a break. I think we need a Centerfield endorsement of the great Senator from the state of Connecticut.

And Marcus, when the angry left dumps tons of money into Cuellar's campaign let me know about it, and I will be the first one to tell you I was wrong. This was your average political stoning of a guy that is pretty much a typical Texas Democrat. And why? Because the Presiden't likes him. Justice was served in my book, and then Tom Delay went and took it away by winning his primary.

On the bright side, Mathew, DeLay's district is not nearly as "safe" as Cuellar's. He could well lose--especially if a less tainted Republican runs as an independent and splits the GOP-leaning side of the ticket. And one is threatening to do so.

The Angry Left won't dump a single dime on Cuellar

I smell a bet.

My guess is Cuellar will see a lot more than a dime from the "angry left" as you put them even if it is a "safe seat". If it came down to a close race you'd see thousands of dollars. After all, to a moderate or angry lefty democrat which is worse? A moderate Democrat or another 2 years of GOP House majority?

BTW, these organizations you lump into "the angry left" are also made up of angry moderate democrats. After all, if you're a moderate democrat wouldn't you be PO'd at the total Washington clusterfuck going on right now? But if you want to call someone an angry lefty for being against an overreaching justice department, torture, domestic spying, castrating environmental and workplace regulations, depleting 2 centuries of international reputation and flushing that down the deepest sewer in the world, running up tremendous deficits that place more burdens on the middle class than the wealthy, spending hundreds of billions on a war based more on ideology and pretext than the facts....go ahead. You just described half of the American electorate.

"They thought their money and attention could get a man elected who probably didn't hold views consistent with those of his constituency"

I think the post is spot-on. But reading just that portion of that comment, I wonder if Jack Abramhoff ever thought this about the Indian Tribes he was fleecing...?

My guess is Cuellar will see a lot more than a dime from the "angry left" as you put them even if it is a "safe seat". If it came down to a close race you'd see thousands of dollars...

Um, marcus. Cuellar's not running against anyone, which is the point. No GOP opposition. It's a stroll now, at most an indie with no chance at all against him on the ballot in November. He won the seat yesterday. The left already put hundreds of thousands down on Rodriguez, tons more money than Cuellar had, and he lost. The only money Cuellar's gonna see from the far left now is lobby money he'd get anyway for being in Congress, and apology money from pros making amends. The rank & file isn't sending anything but bile.

(Scott--Abramoff said the tribes now have a "Kumbaya of hate" going for him....)

The rank & file isn't sending anything but bile.

You're a poet and don't know it. ;-)

Kos spent lots of people's money on a long of list of his cherry picked leftist candidates.

Not of them have ever won, not one.

If Kos is influential, what is his influence beyond wasting money on candidates who lose?

As tempting as it may be to think of this race in terms of centrism vs. liberalism, it's doubtful policy even played that big a role in the race. Cuellar challenged Rodriguez in the TX-28 after it was redistricted to include large portions of Cueller's hometown of Laredo (where he is much the favorite son). He won by 50 votes.

This time around, it appears the biggest factor in Cuellar's victory seems to be good old fashioned incumbency. He was the homeboy this time and they voted for him.

Anyone have any evidence that Lieberman is sweating? Anyone? Bueller? Frye?

How many times has he been re-elected? Joe Lieberman is a reasonably liberal multi-term incumbent democrat , a Jewish man who unsurprisingly is hawkish on the middle east, and he's running in Connecticut. He represents his constituents very, very, very, well. And he's built a long list of friends during his time in office.

So where's his challenge going to come from, a more liberal democrat in the primaries? Possibly, but in order to win the primary, such a candidate would have to sail far enough left of Lieberman to look substantively different. Such a candidate, should he or she win the primary. would find himself or herself in the postion of being a poor match for the views of the overall constituency faced in the general election. So IMO, if a more liberal democrat manages to beat Lieberman, that'll end up being a pyrrhic victory.

But it won't happen. The party just HAS TO BE smart enough to target its resources to replacing vulnerable GOP incumbents, not replacing "heretics" with true believers.

Talk about delusional. These people need to get out more because they are living in some sort of wormhole. Wow! I hope to God they don't represent the base of the Democratic Party like they think because if they do, it's going to be Republican control for the next millenium. It's almost like a cult of personality, but what's funny is that they trash each other for any deviation from the correct line. They're even angry with each other.

Of course, the really funny thing is they think they really have influence, that Lieberman is somehow sweating. It's a weird combination of cynicsim and naivete.

But if you want to call someone an angry lefty for being against an overreaching justice department, torture, domestic spying, castrating environmental and workplace regulations, depleting 2 centuries of international reputation and flushing that down the deepest sewer in the world, running up tremendous deficits that place more burdens on the middle class than the wealthy, spending hundreds of billions on a war based more on ideology and pretext than the facts....go ahead. You just described half of the American electorate.

Marcus, you just described the Reagan Administration

To expand this to centrism vs. liberalism within the Democratic party, anyone have any idea on the chances to redefeat McKinney?

Another point to bring up in the debate about which party is more hospitable to centrists or which is more controlled by its wingnut base. We see here an example of a Democrat being replaced by another Democrat who is closer to the center. In contrast, according to Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, whenever a Republican has been replaced by another Republican (whether through a primary challenge or retirement), the replacement has always been to the right of the previous one.

This time around, it appears the biggest factor in Cuellar's victory seems to be good old fashioned incumbency. He was the homeboy this time and they voted for him.

Yeah, that was the MyDD rationalization. Incumbency's an appealing explanation, except that Rodriguez held the seat for eight years, and has only been out of it for the fourteen months Cuellar has held it.

The county-by-county breakdowns are here. Yep, the new district includes Laredo. It also includes Rodriguez's home stomping grounds of San Antonio. Rodriguez swept SA, Cuellar swept Laredo.

Anyone else see the problem with that reasoning? I'll illustrate. Cuellar, favored son of Laredo in Webb County: 98,744 registered voters. Rodriguez, favored son of San Antonio in Bexar County: 877,484 registered voters.

It's actually not nearly that lopsided as not all of SA is in the 28th, but you get the idea--Rodriguez had at least as big of a base to draw on as Cuellar. In fact, Rodriguez had 102 precincts to draw on in Bexar, where Cuellar had 68 in Webb & Zapata, and Rodriguez's precincts have higher populations. For all the money spent by Rodriguez, for all the assistance from the national Dem party leadership and the national PACs and KOS and MyDD and Atrios and so on, he couldn't turn out his base. Cuellar did. That simple.

Sounds more like the Johnson administration to me. Still irrelevant to the subject, straight conflationary diversionism. "Angry Left" is simply an accurate descriptive term, and whining that you don't like it doesn't change anything, Marcus.

I don't give too much credence to Hacker (Yale) and Pierson (Harvard). They did some good primary research, but their interpretations of the data offered for public consumption leave a lot to be desired. Their book is more polemic than anything else. Even the New York Times wasn't buying it as anything else.

Hacker and Pierson can't seem to find any significant fault among Democrats at all, save for their chronic but so darn lovable disunity. Like Frank and Lakoff, the authors seem to prefer the more self-ennobling explanation that conservatives have seized power from an unwitting electorate. For all its pretensions to objectivity, "Off Center" deteriorates into just the latest example in our political discourse of what might be called confirmational analysis - that is, a work whose primary purpose is to confirm what its audience already believes.

In the end, for all its talk about the political center, there is a radical current that runs through "Off Center" - an insinuation that American democracy no longer works simply because Democrats haven't been winning.

Good link, Tully.

Marcus, I agree a lot of people are unhappy with the Administration and for good reason. But there is a difference between being unhappy and being irrational and I think the Kos people are way beyond rational. There are people there worried about concentration camps for liberals. That does way beyond reasonable discontent.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to call the them the "angry left" because, well, they are angry. I think they are a lot more angry than most Americans, even those that don't like Bush (like me). I don't think this kind of almost nihilistic anger resonates well with the American electorate whether right or left. Buchanan's angry jeremiad about the culture wars at the '92 GOP convention went over like a lead balloon. People don't like anger, they like optimism. The left Dems don't seem to understand that the most successful Democratic candidates--FDR, Truman, Kennedy, even Clinton--didn't run on anger but on a vision for making a great country greater. The idea that adopting a sort of a 1984-the sky is falling attitude will appeal to voters is just delusional and ahistorical. And it's pretty obvious that no realistic candidate will ever satisfy them.

I have always thought that the hard left just does not get it about America. They have this romanticized notion of the working class as "progressive" that has never been accurate. And they assume that there is this great latent desparate unhappiness in the country that is just waiting to be released by the proper left-wing movement. That's probably because they are projecting their own sentiments onto the rest of the country.

Now, I happen to think that the Kos-types are full of themselves about how important they are. I doubt they have much influence in the party--you aren't going to see Dennis Kucinich being the nominee. The pervasiveness of the internet tends to magnify and exaggerate the actual imporance of these groups.

My bad to some extent for using the verbal shorthand. Too many will take "Angry Left" to mean ALL of the left, and I'm specifically referring to the less rational and more obsessed elements. Much of the Democratic party "gets it" quite well, but they're stuck in an internal struggle with their radical elements--as are the Republicans. And both parties need their radical base elements to hold onto what they've got.

The trick is how to move far enough away from those radical elements to make electoral gains. Moving towards the radical elements alienates the middle, and in most of the nation you don't win elections without a majority of the middle, regardless of which party they belong to (or don't).

Their book is more polemic than anything else. Even the New York Times wasn't buying it as anything else.

I read Matt Bai's hatchet job. Basically Bai looks at it from the point of view of an analyst of Democrats, sees nothing within his purview and concludes that there is nothing. A fairer evaluation from Daniel Drezner

By injecting normative factors back into their analysis of the body politic, Hacker and Pierson have written a polemic that is light years better than anything Michael Moore or Sean Hannity could ever dream of publishing. This does not mean that their analysis is correct – indeed, Off Center suffers the flaws of most polemics, topped off with a few even bigger flaws. But this is a book that cannot and should not be ignored by either political scientists or pundits.

It also does not address any substantive issue in the book, let alone the specific one about right-wing Republicans replacing moderate ones. If you have a problem with that assertion, instead of relying on ad hominem attacks on the authors why not point to examples of moderate Republicans either defeating incumbent right-wing Republicans in a primary or taking the seat of a retiring right-wing Republican since the Republican takeover of Congress. On the Democratic side, we have the example of Cuellar defeating Rodriguez and whoever it was who defeated McKinney albeit surrendering that seat back to McKinney in 2004 to run for the Senate.

Marc: You took the words out of my mouth. I support many left-leaning policies, but came to the conclusion many years ago the country is generally conservative. I'm willing to take a half a loaf, or even a quarter of a loaf. To me that's better than what we're getting now. But try to make that argument on a "progressive" thread and be prepared to be called everything from an appeaser to a fascist.

Hatchet job, Scott? Having read the book when it came out a few months ago, I found Bai pretty well on target. Hacker and Pierson reach the conclusions they set out to reach because they set out to reach them. Their destination was fixed before their journey began, and the data presented is fuel pumped to order. They picked it because it supported their polemic.

And what ad hominem? I noted that I thought their (selective) base data was good but I found their conclusions flawed, and I called it a polemic. Something you (and Drezner and others) have copiously confirmed. I didn't insult the personal character of Hacker and Pierson (until now, and then only moderately), I noted flaws in their work and reasons to treat it as what it is, which isn't a serious academic work but a political polemic. How about the rest of Henry Farrell's quote, the front side that you lopped off? (And please note that Drezner was quoting Farrell there, not himself as you asserted.)

Hacker and Pierson are attempting something unusual and even laudatory in political science (and I say this as a Republican). They are trying to use the tools and data of political science to make an explicitly political argument.

I think Farrell got the cart before the horse there. H & P are making an explicitly political argument using the tools and methods of political "science" as support. That doesn't make it scientific. H & P's argument is that the GOP has pulled the "natural order" of American politics out of balance. Reduced to essentials, their claim that the GOP has shifted America (and its government and policies) unnaturally far to the right hinges on some very subjective claims and assumptions.

Their associated argument, while expressed in loftier terms, is essentially no different than that of Thomas Franks'. Namely, that those wascawwy Wepubwicans have hoodwinked the Great Middle into voting against their best interests--which interests, of course, are achievable only through restoring the power of the superior Democratic Party. I find that incredibly egotistical and condescending, just a more erudite uttering of the alienative Stupid Red-State Masses and Superior Liberal Cognitive Elite memes.

The bit about moderate GOP'ers is neither here nor there--that's YOUR issue. But I note that what I have seen out here in the red states, where centrist/moderate GOPer's often have real trouble winning primaries against more extreme opponents, is moderate and centrist Democrats taking offices away from conservative Republicans. As Cuellar damn near did to Henry Bonilla in 2002, before the 2003 redistricting put him in Rodriguez's district.

What it all boils down to is that while both parties certainly have their extremes, and those extremes certainly have more sway over our elected officials than I think they should, the GOP is currently in the majority because as a group they come closer to representing what their constituents believe than the Democrats do as a group. H & P are mad because they think those constituents believe the wrong things. They just don't know what's really good for them!

Those all that interested can read H & P's reply to Bai here. IMHO, they misrepresent Bai more than Bai misrepresents them.

I think you misunderstand the benefits of incumbency & just what makes the stuff of elections. It's more diffucult for people who frequent a site like this because people (like this site's audience) who think alot about politics, already think about politics in a fundamentally different way than most people do.

Rodriguez was the homeboy last time, but his new district included large swathes of Laredo where Cuellar is a celebrity, that put him over the edge. This time around, Cuellar was the incumbent. He didn't win over Rodriguez simply because of Laredo this time; Webb county was one of his three worst districts this time around, but he improved his percentage across the board in almost all the districts that were favorable to Ciro the last time around, most likely due to the fact that Henry was the incumbent this time.

No one is denying that Cuellar probably does excellent constituent service & works hard to bring lots of federal dollars home to his district and his constituents are thankful. But in a part of the country where the biggest factor beyond incumbency for victory is most time little more than who has the most hispanic sounding name, looking at this through the frame of "Centrism vs Lieberalism" is faulty.

Local politics note: Barbara Ann Radnofsky, by far the perrenial favorite of the Democratic establishment to take on Kay Bailey Hutchison in 06', was forced into a runoff in the Senate primary by "Gene Kelly", a nobody who filed at the last minute, has done no campaigning, taken no issues stands of any kind and who nobody even knows, yet he somehow managed to nab 37% of the vote. Why? because many of the primary voters (who remember, tend to be more politically involved than General Election voters) walked into the booth, had no idea who either of them were and simply picked the one who had the most congenial sounding name.

I think you misunderstand the benefits of incumbency & just what makes the stuff of elections.

So much so that I get paid well to work elections, Dustin. And have for over twenty years. I'm in groundwork on four state-race primary bids right now. As well as having been elected to public office a few times myself, including as an incumbent. Nope, not a clue here about what makes the stuff of elections.

Webb county was one of his three worst districts this time around

Pardon? Cuellar took Webb county this round by 12,341 to 1,475. And incumbency didn't prevent Bonilla from nearly being beaten by Cuellar in 2002, or Rodriguez from losing to Cuellar in 2004. Do note that those are all fine Hispanic surnames.

Having read the book when it came out a few months ago, ...

The bit about moderate GOP'ers is neither here nor there--that's YOUR issue.

Care to reconcile those two statements Tully. The part about moderate Republicans IS in the book. One of the examples cited of the GOP's rightward shift is the case of Marge Roukema in norther New Jersey. For years, she had been a target of the right because of her ideological heterodoxy, ie. her steadfast centrism. Finally, after receiving no support from the Republican establishment, she bailed out in 2004 and the Republicans nominated Scott Garrett, a more right wing Republican, to take her place and won by dint of the district being solidly Republican. H & P then claim every recent intra-Republican substitution has been to the right of the previous one. I did not read the whole book, as evidently you haven't either, but I did not see any indication that H & P would have any serious objections to Republicans like those dominant in the 70's, such as Roukema, being in power.

Since that is the subject of my initial comment on this thread, and closest to the topic of the overall thread, that's what deserves fleshing out. It is the easiest falsifiable assertion, if it is indeed inaccurate. There are a finite number of cases in which a Republican succeeded another Republican. Point to any in which the successor was closer to the middle than the predecessor and I will accept that that argument by H & P is fallacious.

H & P are mad because they think those constituents believe the wrong things. They just don't know what's really good for them!

That's a gross simplification. H & P's point is not that the voters are wrong to prefer the Republican's positions, but that the voters are wrong in their assessment of the Republican's positions. To be more specific, they're not complaining that the voters are clamoring for a tax structure that's skewed to the super-rich, or even that they consciously acquiesce with skewing the tax structure to the super-rich because of preferences in other policy areas. The complaint is that the public does not know how skewed the tax structure is to the super-rich, that the Republicans run a slick disinformation campaign to keep them ignorant of that, and thus the voters don't weigh the impact of the tax structure in their decision.

Care to reconcile those two statements Tully.

Reconcile? Why? It's not my issue, it's yours. But I'll clarify, since you seem to be intent on missing the obvious. You imposed that factoid on the thread in support of something you wanted to expound on that was peripheral to the thread subject--namely, comparitive partisan demonology utilizing the H & P polemic as "evidence." But it's not science, it's a selective polemic, utilizing pseudo-quantified anecdotal and subjective data adding up to "The Republicans are worse than the Democrats." By your own admission it really doesn't apply much to the thread, which is about a moderate-to-conservative Democrat winning elections in a moderate-to-conservative Democratic district by better representing his moderate-to-conservative Democratic constituents than the leftist Democrat he replaced, and how a concentrated effort to pull that electorate back to the more-left candidate failed miserably.

Yes, I did read the entire H & P book. Of course my Cliff's Notes version is a gross simplification! I wasn't going to reproduce the entire damn book, I don't give a damn about dissecting tens of thousands of words of faux science in entirety (not for free, I don't) and I summarized. Which summary, please note, includes exactly what you accuse me of missing. Indeed, I led with it. To wit:

Namely, that those wascawwy Wepubwicans have hoodwinked the Great Middle into voting against their best interests...

The Frank/Lakoff thesis, dressed up with better credentials--same pig, prettier lipstick. And yes, I find that view incredibly egotistical and condescending, at best another variation of the Stupid Red-Stater meme offered by the self-appointed Cognitive Elite. No matter how eruditely or aggressively it's offered.

I'll stop there--it's pushing CPD in utilizing entirely subjective interpretations of non-quantified anecdotal data to go on. And all we'd be arguing about is whether people elect Republicans over Democrats because they've been suckered, or because they find the Democrat candidates offered to be less representative of their interests than the Republican ones. Number 2 does not require the use of CPD, or the assumption that the electorate is a bunch of hoodwinked idiots. I vote for #2.

Well I was taking the subject as being the broader intra-party contests between centrists and the base with Cuellar/Rodriguez just being the example. H & P weighed in on that topic with a claim that intra-Republican successions are always to the right. You seem intent on ignoring that point! Either you are constuing the subject narrowly, that is the one moderate-base contest, or you are engaging in your own faux scientific arguments to discredit an attack on your favored party.

Namely, that those wascawwy Wepubwicans have hoodwinked the Great Middle into voting against their best interests...

Let's keep the debate to the issue of the intra-party contests. Cuellar/Rodriguez was not the only success for centrists in the Democratic party. There was also the temporary defeat of McKinney in 2002. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said on the Republican, enlighten me if you have any contrary evidence, that is of Republican moderates succeeding Republican right-wingers. As another example of the opposite, the 2000 redistricting in New York pitted moderate Gillman against right-wing Sweeney (of Florida 2000 fame). Gillman didn't even bother to contest the race.

Ya'll really ought to just go ahead and change the name to rightfield.

When I could read pretty much the same post on Redstate, this is no longer a centrist blog.

I think we should start collecting idiotic drive-by insults, so that we can provide a nice cross-section of both types, those accusing us of being unrepentant lefties and the ones accusing us of being zealous righties.

H & P weighed in on that topic with a claim that intra-Republican successions are always to the right. You seem intent on ignoring that point!

Scott, why not say what you think, instead of quibbling? Do you or do you not honestly think that this supposed phenomenon is some sort of natural law that hs been discovered, and that proves that Republicans are more zealous, partisan, and biased than democrats?

Or do you think it's much more true simply to assume these:

• when a district is relatively moderate, an incumbent that strays too far to one wing risks replacement

• when a district is more staunchly red or blue, an incumbent that is too moderate may get knocked out in the primary by a wingier substitute

•moderate incumbents who do a good job of representing their constituents tend to get re-elected even when their positions are out of step with party loyalists

Well, it's been like talking to a tape loop. But, since you insist....

H & P then claim every recent intra-Republican substitution has been to the right of the previous one. You seem intent on ignoring that point!

You seem intent on ignoring that clue-hammer repeatedly slapping you upside your cranium. I've ignored it because it's not my issue and is not germane to the thread. You vehemently demand a GOP example as disproof--but those who make claims bear the burden of proof, and your sole "proof" for the claim is a parroting of H & P. Very well. Since the claim is "every" and utilizes H & P as the source, by "appeal to authority and evidence," any single contradictive example suffices for a falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus impeachment of H & P's usefullness for "authority and evidence" in its entirety. "False in one, false in all." (IOW, if they're wrong, the rest of the work is also impeached as to veracity and cannot be used as a reliable source.)

Bob Schaeffer lost his 2004 bid against Pete Coors in the GOP Colorado Senate primary for the seat of the retiring Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 38-61. While Coors is no centrist, he's definitely the less ideologically conservative of the two, down to and including a long history of providing full benefits for domestic partners of his gay employees, despite his stated opposition to gay marriage. (Coors lost to Democrat Ken Salazar in the general election, 51-47.)

I only need the one example to impeach, but since you're so vociferous about it, I'll throw in another. In 2004 the pro-choice Republican Joe Schwarz of Michigan handily beat pro-lifer Brad Smith in the GOP primary for the retiring Nick Smith's GOP seat in Congress, and went on to win the general election. (Nick Smith is Brad's father, BTW.) Schwarz is a centrist Republican, so much so that the Club for Growth has "targeted" him this year just as they targeted Arlen Specter with Pat Toomey (CfG's now-president!) in 2004. Smith the younger, like his father, ran on his father's pro-life, social-conservative, and fiscal-conservative platform. There's no doubt at all that Schwarz is by far the more moderate of the two. By leaps and freakin' bounds. And he won.

The H & P "every" claim is thus clearly shown to be false, and for purposes of evidentiary reliability, falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus. When the credibility of a purportedly authoritative source has been substantively impeached in ANY of its particulars, there is no need to impeach the remainder, as credibility is already forfeited.

Beware of buying into polemics, and mistrust academics grinding axes who write them. They're unreliable data sources.

Ohhhhhhhh, and DOWN_GOES_SMITH! DOWN_GOES_SMITH! DOWN_GOES_SMITH! DOWN_GOES_SMITH!

I don't think you all are all 'zealous righties.' However, this blog has certainly tilted more and more to the right over the last few years. I actually started reading this blog back near the launch and remember all the sentiments expressed about how this blog is part of some sort of centrist movement. I hadn't checked the place out in quite a while until a post on the moderate voice led me here. Since that point I've noticed that the majority of the posters seem ideologically tilted to the right. It seems silly to me to label a blog as one for centrists when the posters and commentariat are rather one sided with a very few exceptions. All the posters seem like fairly reasonable people. However, there are reasonable people on dkos and redstate as well.

I was actually thinking of this post when I read yours. http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/8/82648/66775

It's actually more reasonable than yours.

Heh. "Reasonable" generally means "agrees with me," regardless of the evidence. When Clinton was Prez, I got called a leftie a lot for debunking the American Spectator crowd's paranoid histrionics. As with Bush, there were many good reasons to not like Clinton. As with Bush, the ones offered publicly often had little to do with rational analysis and everything to do with completely emotional factors.

I note the Redstate article suggests that only left-wing netrooters are failing. I disagree with them on the causes of those failures, and their contention that the right-wing netrooters are succeeding all that well. I haven't noticed that they are.

What I consistently see is that the national netrooters are lousy at picking local candidates to support. Candidates need to be ideologically matched to the district. Beginning and end of story. Instead, netrooters pick candidates to fit their ideology and hope to help push them into a win, regardless of the political demographics of the district itself. Backing a candidate that doesn't at least somewhat "fit" the district remains mainly an exercise in futility. All politics is local. That's where the term "netroots" falls down. They aren't local. The more local the race, the less positive effect netrooters can have for the candidate, other than sending money.

In parimutuel terms, if you consistently back the long shots, you're gonna lose a lot. And if you continually back the odds-on favorite, you're gonna lose a lot less often. If you don't pay attention to the odds and the payoffs, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you're better at picking winners when you're betting the favorites--but the effective use of and return on your "investment" is the question.

When the left's netrooters DO finally win one (and they will) it'll be a "big" payoff, because they keep betting against the odds. And the right's netrooters will keep cashing their little tickets, convincing themselves they're geniuses. But how their respective wins stack up against their investments (and the inevitable house percentage) is the real question when it comes to assessing effectiveness.

Bob Schaeffer lost his 2004 bid against Pete Coors in the GOP Colorado Senate primary for the seat of the retiring Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 38-61....

Thank you for answering my question. As I said, I stand corrected. It would have been a lot easier if you had just posted that when I offered to admit error.

As an aside, would you have raised the same objections if I had stuck with the prospects for redefeating McKinney?

Scott, why not say what you think, instead of quibbling? Do you or do you not honestly think that this supposed phenomenon is some sort of natural law that hs been discovered, and that proves that Republicans are more zealous, partisan, and biased than democrats?

Note that I avoided speaking with my own voice. I asked Tully for data to inform my opinion, which he provided after the second request.

Heh. I'll forbear. I said it all before shovelling out the manure. Anyone all that interested can puzzle it out.

But I will repeat: Those who offer claims bear the burden of proof for those claims. It is NOT up to others to provide "negative proof" debunkings of those claims. Selective citations from partisan polemics are NOT considered sound data for purposes of serious discussion.

For more fun with the middle versus the wings, move on up to the Everything You Know is Wrong thread. Some neat stuff in King's research.