The reversal of fortunes for Democrats in the Delaware Senate campaign two weeks ago, precipitated by Christine O’Donnell’s upset victory in the Republican primary, has reinvigorated an old watercooler discussion among Democratic pundits. Are Dems better off with less-polished, reactionary candidates winning Republican nominations? In the same vein, would Democrats be better off if Sarah Palin were to win the 2012 Republican nomination for President? From where I sit, the answer is a big “yes” to both questions.
Not everyone agrees. For example, Peter Daou and Matthew Yglesias have articulated the two main arguments against Democrats benefiting from the rise of Republicans like O'Donnell. Daou has been warning Democrats not to cheer for tea party candidates, and other Palin-type reactionaries, because they actually can win general elections (for example, Ken Buck in Colorado and Sharron Angle in Nevada). Yglesias has argued that the rise of Palin and reactionary right-wing candidates in Republican primaries is a net negative, because it means that when Republicans eventually take back power, it will result in more damaging policy outcomes.
I believe Yglesias and Daou are underestimating the impact of less popular Republican candidates on both electoral and legislative outcomes. For example, take Sarah Palin. Pollster.com shows Palin at 38.0% favorable, and 51.1% unfavorable, for a net unfavorable of 13.1%. By contrast, Romney is at a net 0.4% unfavorable, and Huckabee is at a net 5.7% favorable. As such, while it is likely that Palin is more reactionary than either Romney or Huckabee, if Palin were to win the Republican nomination in 2012, it would be a positive for Democrats. In fact, even if she were to go on to become President, I say better her than either Romney or Huckabee.
Allow me to explain both points further:
1. Less electable: No matter how much grassroots energy a person can generate, Palin’s favorability rating (which, admittedly, can change) would make her a much less formidable opponent for President Obama in 2012 than any other top-tier Republican (with the possible exception of Newt Gingrich). She would still have a shot to win, as anyone who gets nominated by a major party can win the Presidency in the right combination of circumstances. However, she would be less likely to win. Additionally, she would likely have a less positive impact on Republicans downticket, putting Democrats in a better position in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 congressional elections.
2. Less dangerous if elected: Even if Palin were to win the White House, it is likely she would start her Presidency (shudder) with weaker poll numbers than any of the other potential Republican Presidents. This would make it relatively more difficult for her to pass damaging legislative initiatives than it would for any of the other potential Republican Presidents.
The ability of a President to pass legislation through Congress is significantly dependent upon his or her popularity. This is even the case with George W. Bush, who is often thought of as a President who was able to pass a lot of legislation despite his low popularity. However, most of Bush Jr.’s major legislative initiatives passed Congress from 2001-2003, during the peak of his popularity. To a very significant degree, political power is derived from popularity.
The same goes for competence--less competent Republican candidates and elected officials are better for Democratic and progressive causes. Again, George W. Bush is not an effective counterpoint to that statement. Ask yourself if a more competent version of Bush would have resulted in such strong elections for Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Ask yourself if a more competent version of Bush, with the same ideological views, would have been able to push the envelope of public policy even further to the right. A more competent version of Bush would have been more dangerous to progressives.
Ultimately, a two-party system is a zero sum game. One side is better off when the other side is unpopular and incompetent. As such, no matter how disturbing the trend may appear on the surface, Democrats are better off as a result of the continuing rise of Palin and O’Donnell-type candidates within the Republican Party. Even if they are more reactionary, the less popular and less competent Republicans are, the better the situation is for us.