The Arrogance of Incumbency: What Three Primaries Reveal About the Electorate and the Establishment

By Cliff Smith

In his autobiography, former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil tells of having lost his first race by only a few votes. To his further dismay, he discovered that his own neighbor hadn’t voted for him. Why? The neighbor explained that O’Neil hadn’t asked for his vote. When O’Neil protested, saying the neighbor known him for years and years, the neighbor simply responded, “But I still like to be asked.” O’Neil took the lesson to heart, never again failing to ask people for their votes.

In the most high profile races in last Tuesday’s primaries, “establishment” politicians went one for three, losing in Florida and Alaska but winning in Arizona. The two losers took their voters for granted. The winner did not.

It was the Arizona Senate primary that attracted the most national media attention: GOP presidential candidate John McCain, with Sarah Palin’s support, fending off a challenge from perceived tea party candidate, former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. McCain trounced Hayworth with nearly 60% of the vote to Hayworth’s 30%. Ten percent went to self-styled constitutionalist Jim Deakin.

There were several reasons for this. McCain far outspent Hayworth, and while McCain had some credibility issues vis a vis his conservative base, Hayworth had more than his share of problems when his record came under scrutiny. But the bottom line is McCain recognized the threat Hayworth posed, took it seriously, and made his case to the voters forcefully and without a sense of entitlement. Essentially, he reminded voters why they elected him in the first place and asked them for their support again.

Florida was a little different. Attorney General Bill McCollum lost a close, nasty, divisive primary to former Columbia/HCA CEO Rick Scott, 46% to 43%.  For McCollum, who also served 20 years in Congress, it must have brought back bitter memories of losing to former Senator Mel Martinez in the 2004 Senate primary.  But it was even worse this time because he didn’t see it coming.

Scott started his campaign very late, dumping buckets of his own money into the effort. McCollum, not expecting to have a primary opponent had planned to preserve his resources for the general election. He fell seriously behind in the polls once Scott’s millions began blanketing the airwaves.

Scott, like Hayworth, had serious flaws. His company settled with the government for $1.7 million dollars in the biggest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history. While Scott himself was never implicated, the case clearly raised serious questions about his integrity. Yet, McCollum only aired ads raising these issues in the last weeks of the campaign, and by then it was too late. Many Floridians vote before Election Day due to Florida’s early voting system. McCollum made a comeback in the polls, but he fell short.

The biggest shocker Tuesday night, however, was Alaska. Virtually every pollster and pundit thought Senator Lisa Murkowski was safe, but the race was too close to call. As of Thursday evening, Murkowski was trailing her challenger, attorney and former magistrate Joe Miller, by about 2000 votes.  There are still absentee ballots to be counted, but the odds are they will not provide Murkowski the votes she needs for victory.

Murkowski should have seen it coming.  The same thing happened to her father and political benefactor, former Senator and Governor Frank Murkowski, at the hands of Sarah Palin.

From 1981 through 2003, the same three people, the late Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Frank Murkowski, and Representative Don Young, represented Alaska in Congress. None of the three was ever seriously threatened.  In 2002, Senator Frank Murkowski returned home to run for Governor. He won easily.

And that’s when the problems started.

Governor Murkowski chose his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, to complete his unexpired Senate term. Having served in Alaska’s House of Representatives and being chosen as Majority Leader, Lisa was not unqualified for the office. But Alaskans didn’t like it and heaped an avalanche of criticism on their new governor. In fact, Murkowski’s approval ratings never recovered.  A federal probe of numerous shady dealings, eventually landing his chief of staff and several others in jail, didn’t help.

Lisa Murkowski survived a lame primary challenge in 2004 (the Bush White House had strong-armed all serious challengers out of the race), and beat former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles in a close general election.  In 2006, her father wasn’t so lucky.  Frank Murkowski, in spite of low approval ratings, confidently told newspapers, “If I run, I’ll win,” and decided to run for re-election as Governor. He was wrong. He lost, badly to Sarah Palin in the 2006 primary.

Nonetheless, with Palin out of office and her father’s defeat never quite seeming to harm her as it might have, Lisa Murkowski seemed relatively safe.  She raised a lot of money, had decent approval ratings, and in the end, was expected to win her primary overwhelmingly. Sure, in the last couple of months, Palin aided Miller and helped him raise some money, and the Tea Party Express threw in $500K to help him out as well.  But he was still badly outspent and the polling suggested that Murkowski would win handily.  She apparently thought so too as she had around a million dollars left in her campaign account.  She agreed to a debate, but didn’t seem to prepare for it, apparently expecting to coast to victory.

Why she didn’t take Miller seriously probably has to do with listening to professionals who spend too much time talking to one another.  The thumping of her father in the 2006 primary, the controversy surrounding her own appointment to the Senate, and her own voting record, moderate for someone from such a conservative state – - she’s pro-choice and initially hesitated when asked if she favored repeal of Obamacare, should have alerted her to trouble ahead.  Miller, a West Point and Yale Law School graduate with also has a masters in economics from the University of Alaska, is a very attractive candidate, especially in the Year of the Outsider.

Whereas Murkowski should have seen the challenge coming, McCollum almost couldn’t have.  McCollum was prudently running a general election strategy, trying to build a network and preserve funds for a difficult fight against Florida’s Democratic CFO, Alex Sink.  He couldn’t have predicted the last-minute entry of a billionaire into the race.  Murkowski, on the other hand, had longstanding weaknesses a mile wide and counted on the Alaska good ole’ boys network to protect her.  She apparently didn’t realize that with the death of Ted Stevens and the discrediting and defeat of her father, it didn’t really exist anymore.  This, coupled with the power of Sarah Palin’s endorsement, spelled her downfall.

On the merits, the voters were right twice and wrong once.  Love him or hate him, McCain has stature and political skill, and he stands firm for conservative causes most of the time, while Hayworth is more noisemaker than serious reformer. I think the voters correctly identified McCain as a serious man, regardless of flaws, who deserves their support.

Scott is another story. McCollum, while devoid of charisma, is a great conservative and a dedicated public servant.  He clearly deserved better. Scott has, to say the least, a questionable background. He ran a gutter campaign against McCollum. Conservatives and Republicans might rightly question not only whether he can win the Governor’s mansion, but also whether they even want him there.  What happened at Columbia/HCA seems to be the result of either outright corruption or incompetence, and the campaign he ran suggests he knows a lot more about trashing his opposition then being a constructive, forward-thinking leader.  Not exactly inspiring as to what kind of governor Scott will make or what he will do as the leader of Florida Republicans.  What’s worse was that voters were starting to realize this.  McCollum likely lost due to early voting, where people voted as of yet unaware of Scott’s background.

Murkowski, on the other hand, deserved her fate.  For one thing, she’s far more moderate on a number of issues than Republican voters in her state, and she comes from the same good ole’ boys network that has in the past few years seriously impeded good governance. This is not to impugn any wrongdoing on the part of Senator Murkowski herself. But fresh leaders will better serve Alaskans more representative of their views and responsive to their wishes. Murkowski was never going to be such a person. Miller likely will be.

Voters do not want to be ignored, patronized or taken for granted. McCain knew this all along because he’s experienced and understands what it is to be responsive to one’s constituents. McCollum realized a little too late.  Murkowski still doesn’t seem to get it.  Consequently, her political career is likely over.