Did Democrats Just Have Their First Tea Party Moment Of The 2018 Primaries?

[DonViejo]

MAY 16, 2018 AT 7:29 AM

By Nathaniel Rakich

The Democratic Party woke up this morning with a clear signal from Tuesday’s primary elections: The #Resistance means business. The more progressive candidate won in Democratic primaries around the country. The question, however, is whether those more liberal candidates will hurt the party’s chances in November.

The biggest — and most surprising — news of the night was nonprofit executive Kara Eastman’s nomination in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. Although former U.S. Rep. Brad Ashford had both the money and the backing of national Democrats, Eastman defeated him 51 percent to 49 percent. Like many of yesterday’s victorious Democrats, Eastman won by throwing red (blue?) meat to the liberal base: Where Ashford touted his ability to build consensus in Congress, Eastman promised confrontation and, well, resistance to President Trump.1
The potential problem for Democrats is that Eastman’s outspoken liberalism may turn off general-election voters in Nebraska’s 2nd District, which, while not ruby red, is still red. True, Barack Obama carried it 50 to 49 percent in 2008 — but that was 10 years ago and in an election where Democrats won the popular vote by 7 percentage points. Since then, Mitt Romney carried the district by 7 points (while losing nationally by 4 points), and Trump won it by 2 (while losing nationally by 2). All in all, the 2nd is 6 percentage points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole, according to FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean metric.2 Democrats currently lead the generic ballot by that same 6 points. If that’s true in November, that would theoretically translate to a tie ballgame in the 2nd District — the kind where small considerations, like a candidate’s appeal to the median voter, could tilt the outcome.

And Ashford would have probably bought Democrats a few extra percentage points. In 2016, he lost his re-election race in Nebraska’s 2nd District by 1 percentage point, running slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton. In 2014, he won the seat by 3 points in a year in which Democrats lost the national House popular vote by 6 points. While it’s possible that excitement for Eastman’s candidacy among the progressive grassroots will draw more Democrats out of the woodwork, she may have trouble winning over persuadable voters too. There’s plenty of evidence that candidates closer to the ideological poles do worse than moderate ones; it’s been demonstrated in political science research, and we saw real–life examples of it in 2010, when Republicans had a wave election of their own against an unpopular first-term president. Although Eastman could certainly still win in a strong Democratic year, we may also look back on her nomination as Democrats’ first “tea party” moment: a general-election opportunity squandered in the primary (or, at least, made more difficult).

more
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-democrats-just-have-their-first-tea-party-moment-of-the-2018-primaries/

[riversedge]

1. I do not care to have Democrats contrasted with the vile Tea Party.

[cynatnite]

8. Yeah, that's just...ugh! n/t

[Hortensis]

14. Yes. Dissident left groups didn't officially back Eastman.

Last edited Wed May 16, 2018, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

In this red-leaning district it makes perfect sense that one of our more strongly liberal Democrats hoped they would support her progressive ideals even though she didn't seek official association with Sanders and Our Revolution. Of course everyone hoped this would happen, as seems to be the case.

Notably, this uniting behind good candidates seems to be happening more, and that's really bad news for the Republicans!

"I am very humbled and honored to accept the Democratic nomination tonight," Eastman told her supporters, talking about how her mother helped inspire her to run for office. "Here's the thing — when I win in November," Eastman said as cheering erupted once more, "I will be the first ever Democratic woman elected from this district in Nebraska."

On the side, I'm also unhappy that this article deliberately misidentified as our base a generally dissident minority that includes a significant percentage of volatile, uncommitted people who might walk and either not vote or choose a third party or even vote Repub if they didn't get their way.

Some media pull this dishonest maneuver a lot, even after the more unreliable members of this "base" did not vote Democrat in our last big election.

The Democratic base are, of course, our far more numerous, longtime, mostly quiet Democrats who turn out reliably every 2 and 4 years to vote generally liberal positions. Our base is represented, though, in all factions in our extremely diverse party. Reliable commitment to the values and goals we all seek through the Democratic Party is our commonality. That's just the simple truth, and that's why bases are called bases and not flippers or something.

Kara Eastman will run against a Republican incumbent who ran unopposed in November. Go, Kara!!! And the very best of luck.

[NewJeffCT]

2. It seems like a pretty close district

with the anti-Trump surge meaning at least a 10-15 point swing in many elections so far, I still think this is a winnable race for Eastman.

[shanny]

3. All this hand-wringing over progressive candidates

defeating more "traditional" Democrats overlooks the fact that in 2016 tRump ran as a populist and won in working class districts. We all knew he was lying about what he could or would do, but not everybody did, and clearly his message resonated with more than racist deplorables (i.e. the Obama to tRump switchers).

[Demsrule86]

9. People are worried that such candidates could lose and if we don't get at least the house, we are

in trouble...there is still a gerrymander...and even the house is not a walk in the park.

[shanny]

10. I know that they are worried--who would not be?

The fate of the country and even life on earth is at stake. I am worried that we will not learn the very expensive lesson tRump taught us. Sticking with what we have been doing doesn't make me worry less.

[scarytomcat]

12. you are correct ... people want more progressive candidates

that is why many did not show up to vote Hilary was too right leaning

[shanny]

13. +1

[George II]

4. Why did you post an article saying that the Democratic Party had a "Tea Party" moment?

There have been dozens of primaries and special elections in recent months, this is the first so-called "establishment" Democrat that lost, and there are reasons for that other than the tea party analogy.

[zipplewrath]

5. Campaign locally

I suspect all she has to do is to campaign on local issues and she'll do as well as Ashford would. Whether that will be good enough is obviously the question. But either candidate had the opportunity to lose in the general. It's a close race typically and many factors will influence the outcome. Hope the DCCC doesn't bail on her just because she's not an incumbent.

[Wounded Bear]

6. The Tea Party was astroturf, I choose to believe this is real grass roots activism...

Just sayin'. Progressives don't have the kind of media push that the TPers got from Fox, and we don't have the kind of deep pocket resources that rich RW assholes provided. Dems are doing this the right way. Indivisible, Emily's List, the women's marches. Putting millions of people in the streets is a bit more impressive than the bussed in dozens of the TP rallies.

[Orsino]

7. Democratic candidates engaging with real-world issues...

...have little in common with Tea Partiers campaigning on lies and fear.

But I suppose a weak analogy can be made, in that this blue wave, revolution, or whatever it is, is a reaction to a powerful political current. I would hope that Dems winning isn't just a fad, though.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Weren't one (or both of)

the Democrats that lost ex-Republicans (and one was even a Trump supporter)? I don't know why the fact that progressives won portends bad things for the party.

BTW was Barack Obama really considered "unpopular" in 2010? Republicans hated his guts and obstructed him at every turn but was he considered by most to be unpopular?