Things are just getting warmed up in Georgia’s 2010 gubernatorial race with about six weeks to go.
If current projections hold up, just a handful of loyal activists in either primary could decide the future direction of the political landscape in Georgia for a decade. After all, Georgia’s next governor and legislature will redraw the legislative and Congressional lines. And each party’s chances in the General Election on November 2, 2010 will necessarily rise and fall based on who each party nominates as their party’s gubernatorial nominees in the Primary Election.
So, the parties and the candidates are zeroing in on the voters they believe will actually show up and vote on Primary Election Day and on the groups who can actually deliver them. So far, other election contests from around the country have provided some valuable insights regarding who those voters might be. Here are some of the trends.
Tea Party voters are motivated - BIG TIME. Elections around the country have confirmed what political insiders have known for some time. Tea Party voters have had enough and they are going to do something about it. They believe in their cause strongly enough to spend Saturday afternoon at the fairgrounds at a rally AND Election Day at the polling place casting their vote. Indeed, this commitment has already had a huge impact on Republican primaries around the country in a very real way.
Tea Party activists have a solid anti-incumbent/anti-establishment sentiment. As a result, incumbents, like Senator Bob Bennett in Utah, did not survive the Tea Party surge on May 8, 2010 at the Utah Republican Convention. On the other hand, anti-establishment candidates like Rand Paul in Kentucky pummeled the Republican candidate who was backed by the Republican establishment and insiders.
In Georgia, where the Tea Party Movement is strong, this anti-incumbent/anti-establishment mood has created some interesting dynamics. The traditional campaign strategy of depending on a wink and a nod from party insiders to select the nominee can have exactly the opposite effect. After all, in this political environment, the last thing a candidate wants to be is the establishment / status quo candidate.
This unusual dynamic - where backing from powerbrokers likely backfires - has produced a rather funny looking dance where the candidates line up endorsements while insisting that they are nonetheless outsiders. Candidly, the resulting confused message has done little but lead to a level of apathy that is just frightening.
Of course, Democratic incumbents have not fared much better in this primary season. Congressman Alan Mollohan (West Virginia’s First Congressional District) lost in the Democratic Primary. Senator Arlen Specter was defeated in the Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania. And, Senator Blanche Lincoln has been forced into a runoff in the Democratic Primary in Arkansas.
Why?
Well, three interesting dynamics have started to dominate the Democratic side of the primary process. First, unions have proven to be especially effective at motivating their active membership to show up at the polls. In the low turnout models, these reliable votes can effectively determine the outcome of the race.
Second, African-Americans have not showed up since 2008. After historical voter turnout in 2008 for President Barack Obama, African-American voters have simply not returned to the polls since. Democrats see this pattern clearly and have started to take increasingly aggressive steps to motivate African-American voters to get back to the polls.
Third, neither the President nor the Democratic party can control their core partisan activists. There once was a time when the Democratic Party’s political hardwiring permitted the party machine to actually control party loyalists without regard to candidate performance. That time is no more. Neither President Obama’s support of Senator Arlen Spector nor Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s and her leadership’s support of Congressman Alan Mollohan was enough. They both lost.
Instead, with the internet, cable news, social networking, and electronic communication, ideologues and special interest groups in both parties can hold candidates strictly accountable for every vote they cast and every position they take. As a result, the middle has disappeared. Now, there is all or nothing. There is either an “A” rating (or a “90%+” rating), or there is not an “A” rating (or not a “90%+” rating). Everything other than an “A” or “90%+” is not only unacceptable but also instantly communicated to every interested voter likely to show up to vote in a primary election.
These are the dynamics that swirl around the Democratic and Republican Primaries in Georgia - fewer total voters, but a higher concentration of voters who really believe. They will show up to turn those beliefs into reality. There is no better way to do that than by voting in the Primary.
