2014 Governor

Analysts are noticing the Democrats’ efforts to meddle in Republican primaries. In a Wall Street Journal article from last month, Janet Hook writes “Democrats increasingly are running ads against GOP candidates even before they win their party’s nomination. By attacking GOP candidates while they are still embroiled in a primary election campaign, some Democrats have seen an opportunity to promote the GOP candidate they think is easiest to beat, or to weaken the one they consider strongest.” Hook points to attempts by Democrats to swing the Republican nomination in North Carolina to candidates other than Thom Tillis, whom many viewed as the most electable Republican. Although Democrats failed to produce a potentially weaker Republican nominee in the Tar Heel State (Tillis won the GOP nomination), they have been more successful in other races. Perhaps most famously, Democrats devoted resources toward enhancing Rep. Todd Akin’s chances of winning the Republican nomination in the 2012 Republican Senate primary in Missouri. Shortly after winning the nomination, Akin made his infamous comments suggesting that a woman who was “legitimate[ly]” raped could not become impregnated, mostly guaranteeing that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) would win reelection. In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) likewise helped

Much of the debate about elections today revolves around the “Emerging Democratic Majority” thesis, taken from the 2002 book of the same name. The thesis is pretty straightforward: Because of demographic changes, the GOP is on a path toward irrelevance unless it can remake itself and appeal to the rising electorate. The theory has congealed into something of conventional wisdom among those who follow politics, at least as it relates to presidential elections. I’ve long been a skeptic of the argument. It’s not that I believe that it is impossible or necessarily wrong. I just think there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that we’re drifting toward a situation where Republicans are locked out of the White House except in the worst of circumstances. I’ve written extensively about this elsewhere, and touched on it here. Because the issue will probably come up repeatedly, especially as we march toward 2016, it seemed like a good chance to lay out some basic arguments in response to the thesis for the Crystal Ball’s audience. I’ll be using this column, “The GOP’s Political Reconstruction Project,” published by Pete Wehner in Commentary last month, as an interlocutor. To be clear, I do this not

How deep is the class divide in American politics today? According to some scholars and pundits, it is very deep indeed. In a recent post on the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog, Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt University, the author of Unequal Democracy and a highly regarded public opinion scholar, presented evidence from a multi-nation public opinion survey that showed the relationship between income and support for cuts in government spending was considerably stronger in the U.S. than in other industrial democracies. Because of the disproportionate political influence wielded by upper-income citizens in the U.S., Bartels argued that their strong support for spending cuts has had a powerful influence on elite attitudes and ultimately on government policies. Bartels’ findings were cited by Paul Krugman of the New York Times, one of the nation’s most influential liberal pundits, as evidence that the United States has become a “class-ridden” society in which income has a powerful influence on political attitudes and behavior. But is this really true? Before accepting results from one study as authoritative, we should examine evidence from other recent national surveys on the impact of social class on political attitudes and behavior in the U.S. to see if they show

In Arkansas’ Senate contest, Rep. Tom Cotton (R) has a new ad that goes after Sen. Mark Pryor (D) for his comment that Cotton feels a “sense of entitlement” because of his military service. Cotton humorously utilizes his Army drill sergeant to talk about how his time in the military taught him “accountability, humility and putting the unit before yourself,” all qualities that voters might desire in a senator. Cotton’s military background and Pryor’s ill-considered remark about it could conceivably matter more in Arkansas than in some other places (though there’s little evidence it has mattered so far). Based on 2013 estimates of adult and veteran populations, the Razorback State has the 13th-largest percentage of veterans as a proportion of its adult population (11.1%). That means there are a fair number of potential veteran voters in Arkansas: about 250,000, although the actual number who will turn out in a midterm will be far less. Hypothetically, these voters might be more receptive to Cotton’s candidacy because of his military background. Examining Arkansas’ veteran population naturally led us to look at the country as a whole. Below is a map of states colored by what portion of their adult populations are veterans.