campaigns - Subscribe to the Campaigns and Elections List at http://campaigns.listbot.com Always A Primary Concern By Chuck Todd Thursday, March 8, 2001 Ask any candidate recruiter at any of the four major campaign committees and you will get the same answer: Primaries are bad for their side, good for the opposing party. After all, primaries can be a drain to a candidate's resources, a linchpin for ongoing intra-party battles and an unintended source of opposition research for the opposing party's nominee. But there is another school of thought that says primaries can be healthy for a party, particularly a state political party looking to develop a bench of candidates for future races. And primaries can allow one party's candidates to dominate media coverage, drowning out an unopposed candidate from another party desperately trying to earn free media. For the '02 cycle, a number of key races appear to be attracting multi-candidate fields, meaning we could see more closely contested primaries than even '94, when 29 major-party nominees for governor and Senate won with less than 50 percent or needed a runoff to get their party's nod. The two biggest factors contributing to the potentially busy primary cycle are redistricting and open governor seats. Just because representatives are drawn out of their districts doesn't mean they're drawn out of their states. Look for a number of re-mapped reps to take an "up-or-out" approach -- running for either Senate or governor rather than lose an embarrassing member vs. member primary. Many governors who were elected in '94 and re-elected in '98 are now retiring because of term limits, producing plenty of open-seat contests. And in this day of "less government" on the federal level, what aspiring pol wouldn't choose to run for governor over other offices? All this talk of primaries had us wondering: Which party can best handle primaries? And statistically, are they good or bad for the parties? For our purposes, we examined every governor and Senate primary held since 1990 and pulled out any in which the nominee won with less than 50 percent or was forced into a runoff. We know that this leaves out a few competitive two-person primaries, but we believe that candidates who can win more than 50 percent of their party's support automatically have fewer problems unifying their intra-party factions than do nominees who win with less than a majority. Our Charts By our count, 108 major-party nominations for governor or Senate since '90 have gone to candidates who won with less than 50 percent or won runoffs. The "W" or "L" indicates how the candidate fared in the general election. Primaries Alaska Gov '98 GOP (Lindauer) -- L Alaska Sen '92 Dem (Smith) -- L Ariz. Sen '94 Dem (Coppersmith) -- L Ariz. Gov '94 Dem (Basha) -- L Calif. Sen '98 GOP (Fong) -- L Calif. Gov '94 Dem (Brown) -- L Calif. Sen '92 Dem (Boxer) -- W Calif. Sen '92 GOP (Herschenson) -- L Colo. Sen '92 Dem (Campbell) -- W Fla. Gov '94 GOP (Bush) -- L* Hawaii Sen '98 GOP (Young) -- L Idaho Gov '94 GOP (Batt) -- W Idaho Gov '90 GOP (Fairchild) -- L Ill. Gov '98 Dem (Poshard) -- L Ill. Sen '96 GOP (Salvi) -- L Ill. Gov '94 Dem (Netsch) -- L Ill. Sen '92 Dem (Moseley-Braun) -- W Ind. Sen '98 GOP (Helmke) -- L Ind. Gov '92 GOP (Pearson) -- L Iowa Gov '90 Dem (Avenson) -- L Ky. Sen '98 Dem (Baesler) -- L Ky. Gov '95 Dem (Patton) -- W Ky. Gov '91 Dem (Jones) -- W Kan. Gov '94 GOP (Graves) -- W Kan. Gov '90 GOP (Hayden) -- L Kan. Gov '90 Dem (Finney) -- W Maine Gov '94 GOP (Collins) -- L Md. Sen '00 GOP (Rappaport) -- L Md. Sen '98 GOP (Pierpont) -- L Md. Sen '94 GOP (Brock) -- L Mass. Gov '94 Dem (Roosevelt) -- L Mich. Gov '98 Dem (Fieger) -- L Mich. Gov '94 Dem (Wolpe) -- L Mich. Sen '94 Dem (Carr) -- L Minn. Sen '00 Dem (Dayton) -- W Minn. Gov '98 Dem (Humphrey) -- L Minn. Gov '94 Dem (Marty) -- L Minn. Gov '90 GOP (Carlson) -- W** Mo. Sen '94 Dem (Wheat) -- L Mo. Gov '92 GOP (Webster) -- L Mo. Sen '92 Dem (Rothman-Serot) -- L Mont. Gov '00 Dem (O'Keefe) -- L Mont. Sen '94 Dem (Jack Mudd) -- L Mont. Gov '92 Dem (Bradley) -- L Mont. Sen '90 GOP (Kolstad) -- L Neb. Gov '98 GOP (Johanns) -- W Neb. Gov '94 GOP (Spence) -- L Neb. Gov '90 Dem (Nelson) -- W Nev. Sen '92 GOP (Dahl) -- L Nev. Gov '90 GOP (Gallaway) -- L N.H. Gov '98 GOP (Lucas) -- L N.H. Gov '96 GOP (Lamontagne) -- L N.H. Gov '92 Dem (Arnesen) -- L N.H. Gov '90 Dem (Grandmaison) -- L N.H. Sen '90 Dem (Durkin) -- L N.J. Sen '00 GOP (Franks) -- L N.J. Gov '97 Dem (McGreevey) -- L N.J. Gov '93 GOP (Whitman) -- W N.M. Gov '98 Dem (Chavez) -- L N.M. Gov '94 Dem (King) -- L N.M. Gov '94 GOP (Johnson) -- W N.Y. Sen '92 Dem (Abrams) -- L N.C. Gov '00 GOP (Vinroot) -- L N.C. Sen '92 GOP (Faircloth) -- W Ohio Sen '00 Dem (Celeste) -- L Ohio Sen '94 Dem (Hyatt) -- L Okla. Sen '98 Dem (Carroll) -- L Okla. Gov '94 Dem (Mildren) -- L Ore. Sen '92 Dem (Aucoin) -- L Pa. Sen '00 Dem (Klink) -- L Pa. Gov '98 Dem (Itkin) -- L Pa. Sen '98 Dem (Lloyd) -- L Pa. Gov '94 GOP (Ridge) -- W Pa. Gov '94 Dem (Singel) -- L Pa. Sen '92 Dem (Yeakel) -- L R.I. Gov '90 Dem (Sundlun) -- W Tenn. Sen '00 Dem (Clark) -- L Tenn. Gov '98 Dem (Hooker) -- L Tenn. Sen '94 GOP (Frist) -- W Vt. Gov '94 Dem (Kelley) -- L Wash. Sen '92 GOP (Chandler) -- L Wash. Gov '92 GOP (Eikenberry) -- L W.Va. Gov '92 Dem (Caperton) -- W Wyo. Sen '96 GOP (Enzi) -- W Wyo. Gov '94 GOP (Geringer) -- W Wyo. Sen '90 Dem (Helling) -- L Runoffs Ala. Gov '98 GOP (James) -- L Ala. Sen '96 Dem (Bedford) -- L Ala. Sen '96 GOP (Sessions) -- W Ala. Gov '94 GOP (James) -- W Ala. Gov '90 Dem (Hubbert) -- L Alaska Sen '98 Dem (Lincoln) -- W Alaska Sen '96 Dem (Bryant) -- L Fla. Sen '94 Dem (Rodham) -- L Ga. Gov '98 Dem (Barnes) -- W Ga. Sen '96 GOP (Millner) -- L Ga. Gov '94 GOP (Millner) -- L Ga. Sen '92 GOP (Coverdell) -- W Ga. Gov '90 Dem (Miller) -- W Miss. Sen '00 Dem (Brown) -- L Miss. Sen '94 Dem (Harper) -- L Miss. Gov '91 GOP (Fordice) -- W N.C. Sen '90 Dem (Gantt) -- L S.C. Gov '94 GOP (Beasley) -- W S.C. Gov '94 Dem (Theodore) -- L Texas Sen '00 Dem (Kelly) -- L Texas Sen '96 Dem (Morales) -- L Texas Gov '90 Dem (Richards) -- W * runoff opponent dropped out, making Bush automatic nominee. ** primary winner dropped out of race; nomination awarded to Carlson days before general election. Okay, now that you are bleary-eyed from reading the above chart, here's what it tells us: Seventy-eight of these 108 primary winners lost their respective general elections -- a failure rate of 72 percent. Subtract the runoff winners and losers and the failure rate rises to 76 percent. Not surprisingly, runoffs can actually help heal a party because the eventual winner is picked by a majority. And while runoffs sometimes deplete resources, they can help the eventual runoff winner earn more free media, allowing an underdog candidate to come out ahead in the end. Of the other 28 percent (or 30 successful non-majority primary winners), nearly one-fourth faced opponents who also won primaries with less than 50 percent or in runoffs. So while no primary is preferred, if the other side has a crowded field, then it doesn't hurt too much if your side also draws a crowd. Of the 30 non-majority winners, the two parties split right down the middle, nabbing 15 contests each. However, the GOP has a much higher success rate than the Democrats in recovering from tough primaries. Of the 78 general election losers, Democrats account for 49 of the candidates, or 63 percent, while the GOP accounts for just 29 of the losers, or 37 percent. Could it be that Democrats have a way of holding grudges longer the Republicans? Surprisingly, 12 of the 30 non-majority winners went on to oust incumbents, somewhat knocking down the notion that it is easier for a non-majority primary winner to knock off a challenger candidate than an incumbent. So here ya go, campaign recruiters. Here's your evidence that about the only thing contested primaries do for a party is increase its chances for losing the seat. For the junkies out there, here's hoping candidates don't believe the evidence!
