Splitting the Conservative Vote

Rich is commenting on the latest missive from the "Topinka Tattler" arguing that Sen. Bill Brady's determination to stay in the GOP Primary will split conservatives and lead to a JBT victory. Rich focuses on the threats of retribution and the more conspiratorial aspects of the posting. I wanted to try and tackle some of the assumptions that are behind it.

I think the best example of why arguing that conservative candidate A takes votes away from conservative candidate B allowing liberal candidate C to win is Ross Perot. In Change and Continuity in the 1992 Presidential Elections as well as in the 96 version, three politcal scientists poured over National Election Survey data and determined that Ross Perot didn't enough votes away from Bush 41 to swing the election to Clinton in '92. In fact, Perot brought new voters into the mix. Clinton would've won in 1992 regardless of Ross Perot's entry into the race. It's not a perfect analogy to the '06 Illinois gubernatorial primary, but it is worth looking at.

We learn from that example that the voting universe is only finite in that the country has so many registered voters and so many potential eligible voters. When only half of registered voters actually vote in a Presidential Election, who votes and why they vote can impact the race. An election isn't a zero sum game where conservative voters will vote for one guy or another.

Some liberal republican voters may choose Brady over Topinka because he is from downstate, or maybe because they are constituent's and he is good at providing them service. Voters, in fact, tend to vote on four axis: prospectively (what the candidates says about the future), retrospectively (their record), party ID and on the issues. Many conservatives are supporting Topinka, for example. The reason may be out of party loyalty. Party loyalty trumps issues in general elections, I imagine it plays a role in primaries too. Why aren't conservatives blaming party loyalty for a potential Oberweis loss? It will most likely be a factor.

Another argument is that Brady is a plant, otherwise he would've seen the writing on the wall and walked away from this mess. He can't win. Again, I think that may assume a lot. First of all, what elected official worth his salt would allow that? Would you risk your modest fortune to do that?

I've asked a couple of people, whose opinions on these matters I value, and they are guessing this will be a low turn out election. Theoretically, if JBT had 30% in the polls and Sen. Brady had 15% among likely voters and only half of Judy's voters show up on election day and all of Sen. Brady's do, then guess what? You have a tie.

In a low turn out election voter intensity counts. Maybe Sen. Brady believes that if his supporters show up in higher numbers, he can still win while down in the polls overall. He has heavily invested in Central Illinois where voters are conservative and they show up on election day. Maybe he hopes a big win downstate can help him steal the election. I'm not saying that is the case, or making in claim about voting patterns. What I am saying is that a plausible alternatives exist to the split conservative vote theory being trotted out around the state.

The split conservative vote is a common theory that we often hear about in politics. Its seductiveness lies in its parsimony. But it assumes elections are a zero sum game in a fixed universe. I tend to believe that is a mistake. And I'm not sure finger pointing at any candidate is wise.