Every time approval ratings for Congress (or for both major parties) take a dive, we hear talk of the next election cycle as portending an “anti-incumbency” wave. Then most incumbents are re-elected, with partisanship predictably being a bigger factor in who wins or loses than who has the dreaded (i) next to the name on the ballot.
But in looking back at the Cantor loss in VA-07, FiveThirtyEight’s David Wasserman notes that there has this year been an anti-incumbent effect in primaries, which led me to this commentary at Washington Monthly:

[T[he most interesting data Wasserman provides is in support of the argument that this cycle’s anti-incumbent sentiment is making primary upsets more likely, without necessarily creating any sort of tsunami:

Cantor was only the second House incumbent to lose a primary this year (the first was Texas Republican Ralph Hall), but the warning signs of discontent were abundant: Plenty of rank-and-file House incumbents had been receiving startlingly low primary vote shares against weak and under-funded opponents, including GOP Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Lee Terry of Nebraska and David Joyce of Ohio. In fact, just a week before Cantor’s defeat and without much fanfare, socially moderate Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey received just 54 percent of the Republican primary vote against the same tea party-backed opponent he had taken 61 percent against in 2012.
Overall, 32 House incumbents have taken less than 75 percent of the vote in their primaries so far this year, up from 31 at this point in 2010 and just 12 at this point in 2006. What’s more, 27 of these 32 “underperforming” incumbents have been Republicans.
In other words, while Congress’s unpopularity alone can’t sink any given member in a primary, it has established a higher baseline of distrust that challengers can build on when incumbents are otherwise vulnerable. And as the sitting House Majority Leader, Cantor was uniquely susceptible to voters’ frustration with Congress as an institution.

That makes sense. The two underwhelming incumbent GOP performances that struck me earlier in the cycle involved North Carolina’s Renee Ellmers, who won 58% against an underfunded anti-immigration-reform crusader, and Nebraska’s Lee Terry, who did even worse (52%) against a similar opponent.
Now some eager Democrats may look at this phenomenon and predict some general election upsets, and that’s possible. But there’s no real evidence yet that anti-incumbency is trumping partisanship among 2014 voters. And obviously, Democrats have a lot more incumbents being targeted in the key fight for control of the Senate.

To put it another way, there are three levels of “anti-status-quo” feeling that might have an effect in November: anti-the-party-controlling-the-White-House, anti-the-party-controlling-the-House-or-Senate, and anti-my-own-congressman. While the third is likely to be the weakest, it could have an effect on the margins.

Bill Scher’s “Why Democrats Are More United Than Republicans (And Why That’s Good)” at the Campaign for America’s Future provides a compelling takedown of the much-parroted “Dems in disarray” meme favored by conservative pundits. Scher takes particular issue with a recent Russ Douthat column arguing that Hillary Clinton’s persona is the only thing holding a fragile coalition of Democrats together.

That does not ring true. Signs of long-lasting Democratic unity abound…Unlike Republican Reps. Eric Cantor and Ralph Hall (and possibly Sen. Thad Cochran next week) no incumbent Democrats have been ousted in the 2014 primaries. Walter Shapiro of the Brookings Institution deemed the policy debates among the House Democratic primaries this year as so nonexistent that they amount to “a hefty dose of Xanax.”
And in 2012, only two Democrats lost primaries. One had ethics problems. The other was beat by a challenger on his left, but his district had become more liberal because its lines were redrawn, so it’s not much of an example of a progressive uprising.
Recent history of presidential primaries shows little evidence of Balkanization. President Obama did not suffer a primary challenge in 2012, nor did President Clinton in 1996. When presidential primaries were hard fought, in 2008 and 2000, the bruises did not prevent the party rank-and-file from coming together in the general election and winning the popular vote (notwithstanding the tiny but consequential Nader 2000 campaign).
Unity is the word not just on the campaign trail but inside the Capitol. In 2013, the Senate Democratic caucus broke the record for “party-unity votes,” in which a member votes with the majority of his or her party, with 94 percent. House Democrats were off their 2008 peak of 92%, but still tallied a strong figure of 88%.

Scher concedes, however, “While there is a basic ideological glue – belief in active government – that defines the Democratic Party, there are many areas of significant disagreement within the party’s big tent,” such as criticism of the Wall St. Bailouts, Social Security benefit modifications, carbon caps, the extent of tax hikes for the rich and trade policy. Also the “ideological range” in the Dems’ caucus is wider than that for the Republicans. Scher notes also that “the distance between Brat and Cantor is not as far as the distance between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Mark Pryor.”
But, argues Scher, “The Democratic Party is more politically united despite encompassing more ideological diversity.” Further,

…What keeps Democrats unified is not rigid political homogeneousness or leader worship, but a tolerance for differences of opinion and an acceptance of political pragmatism that many conservatives lack.
Does that dynamic make a strong stronger party for Democrats? Absolutely…Some of the left might chafe at the power of the corporate-friendly wing, but the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” wins some of these intra-party battles. For example, there have been no Social Security cuts under Obama. And fair trade advocates have held the upper hand to date in “fast-track” fight.
More often, the two wings hammer out compromises that adhere to liberal principles, such as with Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the Recovery Act. This is what effective governing parties do. As the Washington Post’s Dan Balz put it: “A party big enough to aspire to becoming a majority is a coalition of people and groups that don’t always see eye to eye.”

In stark contrast:

Meanwhile, the shrunken, ideologically purified Republican Party can’t govern its way out of a paper bag. Speaker John Boehner can only keep the government open by letting the Tea Party faction lead the party into a brick wall first. Moreover, while the right-wing keeps the party leadership on a short leash by winning scalps of Establishment favorites in primaries, some of those coups have been short-lived. What should have been easy Republican victories were given away in Delaware by nominating Christine O’Donnell, in Nevada with Sharron Angle, in Colorado with Ken Buck and in Indiana by firing incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar. The perpetual chasing of the Tea Party tail has left the Republican Party with 29% approval in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, 9 points lower than the Democrats.

Scher provides examples of Democratic primary challenges leading to electoral failure, noting that most of the challenges are not about ideology, but “perceived ethical failings or redrawn districts.” Better yet, while the GOP civil war rages on,

Democrats have gotten plenty done inside of a bigger tent thanks to a tolerance for differences of opinion and a willingness to compromise. Liberals have been able to keep conservative elements of the party in check, without scorched-earth primary challenges, through effective organizing around issues and winning arguments on the merits. And the 2016 presidential campaign begins with the Democratic frontrunner beating all possible Republican opponents handily.

Scher concludes, “That’s what deep party unity, solidly built on the parallel foundations of common belief and respect for differing views, will yield.”

The following article is cross-posted from a DCorps e-blast:
These 12 battleground U.S. Senate races take place in a country deeply discontented with the state of the country, all national leaders, and political parties. With 10 of 12 seats held by Democrats but won by Romney by 8 points in 2012, this will be a competitive year to be sure. Nevertheless, Democratic incumbents and challengers are out-performing Obama in these states, while Democratic intensity matches that of Republicans, and the U.S. Senate vote numbers suggest the parties could well split these seats, putting the Senate at close to 50 for either party.
This survey is the first survey conducted in the U.S. Senate battleground by Democracy Corps and Resurgent Republic for National Public Radio.
The Republican Senate candidates have a 3-point advantage, 46 to 43 percent in the Senate generic ballot – still within the margin of error, but perhaps an edge. But Romney carried these states by 8 points, so the Democratic candidates are running better than Obama despite massive advertising campaigns to link them to Obama and to attack them for ‘Obamacare.’ That is not a bad result and the question of control is far from settled.
But U.S. Senate races usually break toward one of the parties: the President’s standing here makes a Republican break more likely, while the standing of the Republican Party and Republicans in Congress could produce a break the other way.
Democratic and Republican partisans are equally intent on voting in the battleground. The national pattern of reduced voter enthusiasm and turnout prospects, particularly among Democratic base voters, may be offset in the Senate battleground where stakes are high and campaigning is intense.
President Obama is weak in these states, particularly on the economy: 38 percent approve of his performance, falling to 33 percent among Independents. Approval of Obama’s performance on the economy is slightly lower and Republicans have a 10 point advantage over Democrats on handling the economy.
But the Republican Party is also very weak and is a serious liability even in these Red states. In these Romney states, voters have more favorable views of Senate Democrats and its leadership than they do of Senate Republicans and Republican leadership in the House. While just a third (32 percent) approve of the way Democrats are handling their job in the Senate, just a quarter (25 percent) approve of the way Republicans are handling their job in charge of the House – the leaders defining Congress and public perception of Washington gridlock.
Intense doubts about House Republicans and GOP governors could play a role. Many of the Republican candidates have come out of the House of Representatives or played a big role in Republican-controlled states where voters have turned on the governors. Indeed, President Obama’s approval is higher than Jindal’s in Louisiana.
Fate of the middle class is stronger ground than the economy. Republicans have an advantage on the economy–but critically not on the middle class. The parties are at parity in this battleground on who would do best for the middle class.
What Obamacare liability? The Republicans have just a 3-point edge on health care in this Republican battleground, and just 46 percent oppose the law because it is big government. Every minute Republicans spend on repealing the Affordable Care Act is a minute they are not addressing the economy.
Listen to the story on NPR

Nicholas Confessore reports at the New York Times that the Koch brothers are about to launch the Freedom Partners Action Fund, “the first super PAC founded by the Koch political organization, which until now has relied almost entirely on nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors…Until now, groups supported by the Kochs and their fellow donors have relied heavily on “issue ads” that do not specifically ask listeners to vote for or against a candidate….Unlike political nonprofit groups, super PACs can spend every dollar they raise on political advertising expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.”
I like the title of Jonathan Chait’s post “Actually, Let’s Hear More From Dick Cheney on Iraq,” but for a different reason. Every time Cheney, Kristol and their ilk advocate sending other peoples’ children to fight in Iraq, it reminds the public which party started the mess and wants to crank it up again.
Here’s a counter-argument. But Yikes on the hideous neocon triptych accompanying it.
At The Daily Beast:

Sean Trende explains at The Crystal Ball why “meddling in [GOP] primaries” by Democrats is a dicey strategy, despite Sen. Claire McCaskill’s impressive example to the contrary.
From George Bennett’s Palm Beach Post article, “Who wins in 2014? Dem demographics or GOP midterm turnout“: “Democratic-leaning minorities make up a growing share of Florida voters. Hispanic voters have increased from 10.6 percent of the electorate in 2006 to 14.3 percent now. More Hispanics registered as Republicans than Democrats eight years ago, largely because of Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade. Today, Florida Hispanics are 38.3 percent Democratic and 27.4 percent Republican…The share of Florida voters who are black has increased from 12 percent to 13.5 percent, with Democratic candidates traditionally attracting 90 percent or more of the black vote…”The wind’s at our back with regard to demographics. We have to obviously take advantage of that,” said Florida Democratic Party Executive Director Scott Arceneaux.”
The hog castrator is down 4.
Greg Sargent reports “A new Department of Health and Human Services report documents the impact federal subsidies under Obamacare are having on the insurance costs of people receiving them. As the Post puts it, they “are paying an average of $82 a month in premiums for their coverage — about one-fourth the bill they would have faced without such financial help…Buried in the report are data illustrating the impact subsidies are having on costs in state where the federal government built the exchange — and, by extension, how much those people’s premiums would rise if Obamacare were repealed. This is different from the Medicaid expansion. If the expansion were repealed, people would lose coverage. But if subsidies were repealed, people would not lose coverage, instead seeing premiums jump from loss of the tax credit.”
It appears that Dems’ 2016 veepstakes field just narrowed by one

Remember the panicky debate over “rebranding” among Republicans after the 2012 elections? While GOPers didn’t all agree on what needed to be done to deal with the negative political and demographic trends displayed in two consecutive presidential defeats, they did mostly agree some sort of remedial action was in order. But as I noted at TPMCafe today, that need isn’t being felt in the 2014 cycle:

[A]side from those who chose simply to blame Mitt Romney for the 2012 defeat, there was general agreement that something needed to happen to expand or intensify the GOP’s electoral appeal before the next presidential cycle, and the midterms were regarded as a fine opportunity for a test run.
Though there were plenty of essays and even manifestos published on this subject, the most extensive (and most discussed) was actually prepared by the RNC’s own “Growth and Opportunity Project” and released in March of 2013. It bluntly contrasted the performance of the GOP in presidential and non-presidential elections and argued that the national party’s image had to change, even if that meant thinking beyond the alleged perfection of the Reagan legacy. Here are a few pertinent passages with how they have or have not been implemented in the midterm cycle:

It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies….
We are not a policy committee, but among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond, we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.

Today even the most optimistic immigration reform advocates in both parties agree that comprehensive reform will die this year at the hands of a House GOP leadership that’s afraid to bring the subject up. Attacks on “amnesty”–increasingly defined as any sort of legalization process for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country–have been a conspicuous part of several successful GOP primary campaigns, including the one that just toppled House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

When it comes to social issues, the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming.
If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues.

This call for moderation on cultural issues like abortion and same-sex marriage has been followed only to the extent that some GOP candidates talk about them a bit less. But only some of them: Leading “Republican Establishment” candidates for the Senate like Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Joni Ernst of Iowa have conspicuously identified themselves with the most extreme positions on these issues. Republican-governed states continue to pass legislation aimed at shutting down abortion clinics, and judges who defend marriage equality are still being subjected to attempted “purges.” And the entire GOP has managed to identify itself with a “religious liberty” doctrine that treats commonly used contraceptives as morally equivalent to late-term abortions.
About the most you can say about Republican “rebranding” on social issues is that GOP candidates have been trained not to publicly lecture rape victims about their responsibility to carry pregnancies to term.

Another consistent theme that emerged from our conversations related to mechanics is the immediate need for the RNC and Republicans to foster what has been referred to as an “environment of intellectual curiosity” and a “culture of data and learning,” and the RNC must lead this effort.

Though the report was talking about the willingness to learn from election analysis instead of coming up with conspiracy theories to explain defeats, I think it’s safe to say that “an environment of intellectual curiosity” isn’t the first term that comes to mind generally about a Republican Party that dismisses climate science and encourages taxpayer support for sectarian schools.

This trend in early, absentee, and online voting is here to stay. Republicans must alter their strategy and acknowledge the trend as future reality, utilizing new tactics to gain victory on Election Day; it is imperative to note that this will be a critical cultural shift within the Party. Additionally, early voting should be factored into all aspects of political strategy, messaging and budgeting so that we understand that we are no longer working in an environment where 72-hour GOTV efforts will determine an election outcome.

Instead of embracing early voting, Republicans continue to make every effort to restrict it. Hostility to an expanded franchise was best illustrated by the angry reaction of Republicans when Sen. Rand Paul suggested Voter ID initiatives were alienating minority voters.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that the authors of the 2013 report didn’t seem to have in mind a Republican Party focused on presidential “scandals” and still arguing over the best way to kill Obamacare and plough and salt the ground forever.

What’s happened to rebranding? Well, aside from the fact that the dominant conservative-activist faction of the GOP never entirely bought into the idea that changes in policy were necessary (or acceptable even if necessary) in the first place, the main culprit is almost certainly the party’s positive prospects for this November, thanks in no small part to an extraordinarily favorable Senate landscape along with a built-in midterm turnout advantage. It’s easy for Republicans to lull themselves into the belief that a good midterm means a good ensuing presidential cycle, just as they did after 2010. It didn’t work out so well in 2012, did it?