With Sen. Lamar Alexander‘s (R-TN) Thursday primary win, every GOP Senate incumbent has successfully navigated an increasingly treacherous primary landscape. So what, if anything, should we take away from a cycle that saw five of them dip, unusually, under 60% in those nominating contests?
— First of all, the data: Those five sub-60% GOP showings equal the number from both parties in 2010, a tumultuous anti-incumbent year. There’s simply been a sharp uptick in competitive Republican primaries in the last three elections. The House, which gives us more data, shows this well. The number of GOP incumbents running essentially unopposed has fallen from around 80% to a little over 50%, while the number getting under 60% or 70% has climbed. In 2014, 1-in-5 House Republican incumbents got less than 70% in their primaries, and more than 1-in-10 got less than 60%.
— Of course, elections exist to crown a winner, and you can’t argue with Senate Republicans’ perfect record this year. In the House, there’s ample evidence that weaker-than-usual primary results can bring stronger challengers out of the woodwork, which seems to have happened to Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) this year, for example. The six-year Senate cycle makes that more difficult.
— There’s no question that the environment is riper for challengers now, though, starting with fundraising. An entire anti-incumbent fundraising apparatus now exists to push challengers closer even to popular incumbents like Alexander (though the return on investment may not be as high). That money may simply ensure some level of competition no matter what. But it’s a reality the establishment has to handle, not an excuse, and it’s tempting to wonder whether there are more viable 2016 and 2018 challengers out there who have watched some current GOP challengers with fatal flaws get around 40%, and think, “I could do better.”
In turn, that raises another question: What’s the overlap between the type of challengers who have in the past succumbed to inside pressure not to challenge Alexander et al, and the type of challengers the GOP anti-incumbent financial industry will support? We may find out in 2016 and beyond. For now, though, Senate Republicans have managed to achieve their first electoral objective of the year.— Scott Bland
What We're Following See More »
"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."
After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."
Evan McMullin came out on top in a Emerson College poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clinton took third with 24%. Gary Johnson received 5% of the vote in the survey.
A new Quinnipiac University poll finds Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” vanished from the university’s early October poll. A new PPRI/Brookings survey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a virtual dead heat, with Trump taking 41% of the vote to Clinton’s 40% in a four-way matchup.