Fear is a powerful thing in politics, and not just among voters. Many a maneuver down at the Gold Dome has been explained by legislators’ fear of drawing a primary opponent.
In a state as red as ours, with districts drawn as safely as they are, fear of losing a general election isn’t much of a motivator. Such upsets are exceedingly rare. But we see so many red-meat issues, particularly in election years, that you might not realize primary defeats aren’t much more common.
Since 2010, the first election after the birth of the tea party, Republican incumbents are a combined 58-13 in primaries (for the House and Senate combined). That’s about four losses per election, never more than six in one year.
Keep in mind, Republicans have held more than 150 seats in recent years. So only about 1 in 5 incumbents even faces a primary challenge — and only about 20 percent of those actually lose. That's about a 4 percent loss rate, or about half the rate of attrition from those who retire, die or seek higher office. More people leave the General Assembly willingly than unwillingly each year. Is this threat really large enough to play such a guiding role in legislation?
Now, I recognize that’s easy for me to say. I’m not the one out there knocking on doors, passing out yard signs and asking friends to chip in to a campaign. Fair enough.
And there’s also the chance that the red meat is having its desired effect, inoculating lawmakers from challenges both successful and not. I would argue, however, that legislators who took unpopular votes have been less apt to lose than those with problems specific to them or their districts.
Here’s a thought: With so many pressing issues facing the state, and with so much said about how demographic trends are working against Republicans, maybe — just maybe — GOP lawmakers would be better off legislating without worrying so much about primary season.
Take the issue of transportation and gridlock, solutions to which have long vexed legislators. There was so much worry in 2015 about passing a package of tax increases and funding shifts to boost the DOT’s budget by some $1 billion a year. And I’ve heard a smattering of complaints among conservative activists about that legislation.
But in the end, the number of primary challenges to Republicans this year is pretty much in line with what we’ve seen in the past three cycles: Nine in the Senate vs. an average of six, and 21 in the House vs. an average of 18. And with gasoline only now getting back to $2 a gallon in much of the state after a year well below that, an ever-so-slightly higher fuel tax seems unlikely to cost many Republicans their jobs.
Or look at education. Changes to boost the longest-lagging public schools in our state have been slow in coming themselves. Fear of angering voters has been cited by many a legislator.
The alternative, however, was apparent in the 2014 gubernatorial race: Democratic candidates whose plans carry $1 billion price tags. There are conservative ideas that are more cost-efficient, but they need to be implemented with enough time to prove themselves. Why waste more time putting them in place? The greater risk is that the public will finally lose patience with too little being done.
About the Author
