The Democrats’ “Nobody Problem”
By G. Terry Madonna & Michael L.Young
“You don’t beat somebody with nobody.” That familiar old maxim expresses a very modern political truth. Well-known candidates tend to win elections running against unknown candidates. The well-known candidate may be unpopular, may be flawed or even worse. But having high name identification among voters becomes a huge advantage that often predicts winning or losing.
The importance of name identification is something state Democrats ought to remember even as they salivate publicly at the prospects of taking on embattled gubernatorial incumbent Tom Corbett in 2014; they should do so because at the moment Democrats are offering a field of gubernatorial candidates, none of whom is widely known across Pennsylvania. These candidates are in that sense “nobodies,” and one of them is going to be running against “somebody” Tom Corbett in 2014.
It’s not that state Democrats are offering up second-rate opponents for Corbett. Indeed, the Democrat field may be the best in modern times for a non-open seat election. Consider these likely or announced so far--still 20 months from Election Day: former Department of Environmental Affairs Secretary John Hanger; Philadelphia businessman Tom Knox; State Treasurer Rob McCord; Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski; Congresswomen Allison Schwartz; former Congressman Joe Sestak; state Senator Mike Stack; and former Revenue Secretary and businessman Tom Wolf.
The field is impressive, but not one of them is well known statewide. Of the eight, only three have even run in a statewide election. Schwartz ran in a Democratic primary for the U.S Senate in 2000, placing second in a five candidate race. Sestak won a U. S. Senate primary in 2010 before losing the fall election. McCord has won two statewide state treasurer elections (2008 and 2012) and may be the best known of the aspiring candidates.
Clearly, what Democrats need are not more candidates or better candidates. What they need are better-known candidates. And one sure way to accomplish that is to hold a good old-fashioned party primary, one that will give their candidates a chance to offer their vision for Pennsylvania, while giving those voters a chance to size up the candidates.
Not surprisingly, this is not a popular view. In fact, proposing a contested party primary while running against an incumbent flies in the face of much conventional wisdom. It’s widely believed that contested primaries usually waste limited campaign resources, gratuitously offer general election opponents juicy targets and turn off voters.
Sometimes this is true. We need look no further than last year’s presidential contest to illustrate an instance when a contested primary probably hurt the party candidate in the fall. Almost certainly, both the tone and the length of the GOP presidential primary diminished Romney’s 2012 presidential chances. But we find the opposite result coming out of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Few can imagine Obama winning the presidency without going through that primary.
In state politics, Pennsylvania offers up even better examples of contested gubernatorial primaries that probably strengthened general election prospects. Dick Thornburgh built a statewide reputation dispatching six primary opponents in 1978. In 1994, Tom Ridge faced multiple opponents, garnered only about one-third of the primary vote, but still went on to a comfortable victory. In 2002, perceived underdog Ed Rendell squared off in a tough primary against Bob Casey. All three, despite spirited primaries, took a united party into the fall campaign.
Clearly, the conventional wisdom that primaries are always bad is wrong. Much depends on the candidates, the context of the race, and the issues. Party primaries can offer a chance for little known candidates to introduce themselves to voters while gaining invaluable experience running.
Why then are state Democrats so unenthusiastic about a primary? Partly, it’s the flawed thinking about primaries. But mainly, Democrats think they don’t need one. They reason that given Corbett’s low standing in the polls and other well publicized problems, they cannot lose in 2014. In this conclusion, they are dangerously mistaken.
Wounded Corbett may be, but his political resources are still impressive. Since the 1970’s, Pennsylvanians have not unseated an incumbent governor running for re-election, a powerful tradition in his favor. Moreover, any momentum in the economy will help him. In addition, Corbett, as incumbent, will be able to raise impressive campaign funds as well as command public attention. He has already done so with a set of ambitious budget proposals. Finally, Pennsylvanians have long shown a penchant for electing governors from parties other than the party in power in Washington.
For these reasons, Democrats probably need a serious primary in 2014 if they hope to win the governorship. Few Democrats buy that argument right now, instead advocating the party avoid a primary contest and endorse an early “consensus” candidate.
If they do so, state Democrats may end up squandering their best chance to defeat an incumbent governor in modern state history.
------------------
Politically Uncorrected™ is published twice monthly, and previous columns can be viewed at http://politics.fandm.edu. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any institution or organization with which they are affiliated. This article may be used in whole or part only with appropriate attribution. Copyright © 2013 Terry Madonna and Michael Young.
+ Top Story
President Barack Obama’s appointment of UN Ambassador Susan Rice as his National Security Adviser was a great move for two reasons. Rice has the same superb qualifications that would have made her an exemplary Secretary of State.
Eighty-eight years after the birth on May 19, 1925, and 48 years after the assassination of black nationalist leader Malcolm X, the tragedy and triumph of his life and work still clouds and uplifts us. The years have seen Malcolm ignored, reviled, and praised.
Sometimes, white privilege isn't about stuff. It's not always about better opportunities, or more money, or even greater access to those things than people of color. Sometimes, white privilege is as simple as knowing that, generally speaking, if you're white, you'll be perceived as competent and hard-working until proven otherwise...
If Charles Ramsey is an American hero or another American casualty of media-induced racial stereotyping or both after helping save the lives of the three kidnapped Cleveland women, one thing is now clear. Ramsey has done the seemingly impossible. He's turned racial stereotyping on its head.
African Americans have spent much of our history fighting for equal treatment. Just two generations ago, our parents and our grandparents were banned from eating at certain restaurants, attending certain schools, and working in certain professions.
When then President George W. Bush submitted the names of his judicial court nominee picks it took the Senate on average 18 days to take a vote on his picks. When now President Obama submits the names of his judicial court picks it takes 132 days on average to get a Senate vote on them.
President Obama’s cautious admonition not to rush to judgment about the Boston Marathon terror bombing until all the facts were in put a momentary check on the media and some in the public who were rushing to spew the perennial “Muslim terrorists” did it line.
The fact that I didn't go any further than calling him useless was my being nice. If I said what I really felt about Sen. Reid, then you could call me mean. In fact, you could feasibly ask me if I kissed my late Mother with that mouth....