I've got to disagree with Jamelle: Some key primary elections across the country yesterday can teach us a few lessons about the elections in 2010. While unemployment is the driving factor in voter discontent, the candidates a party puts forward matter. If you disagree, tell me where Harry Reid would be today were he not facing Tea Partier Sharron Angle. We're seeing similar results in Colorado and Connecticut, where vulnerable Democrats who might have suffered from a structural disadvantage are now facing Tea Party conservative Ken Buck and wrestling impresario Linda McMahon, whose unusual pasts and current positions may give the Democrats a chance to hold on to these seats. Had Republicans nominated Lt. Gov. Jane Norton and moderate former Congressman Rob Simmons to those seats, the picture might be very different.
On the other hand, many are reading significance into Michael Bennet's defeat of Andrew Romanoff in Colorado's Democratic Senate primary, seeing it as a test of Obama's political clout (he endorsed Bennett and had his political machine help him out) or a sign that voters prefer inexperienced politicians (this is Bennett's first elected office) over long-standing public servants (Romanoff is the speaker of the Colorado state House). This strikes me as overdetermined spin; ultimately, there seems to be little substantive difference between the two candidates.
The real story yesterday doesn't upset Politico's treasured narrative about voter anger and anti-incumbency sentiment, since that narrative was never true. Nonetheless, the pattern of reactionary conservatives coming to the fore in Republican primaries is very real and could cost Republicans the Senate next year; where it was once possible to imagine GOP victories in Nevada, Florida, Connecticut, and Colorado, that is appearing increasingly unlikely.
-- Tim Fernholz
