[dllthomas]

Democrats vote for her because they prefer her to a Republican. However, we recently changed how our primary system works. If there were an anti-surveillance Democrat that ran in the primary, and if enough people were to wake up, things would look very different - a lot of people I talked to last go 'round didn't realize our primary system had changed.

And I don't mean "wake up and see that the other guys are right" but just "wake up and realize the rules were changed and a different strategy might better get you what you want." If some democrats vote for Dem-who-isn't-Feinstein because they want to lock down the general for Dem-vs.-Dem, and some Democrats vote for DwiF because they agree more with DwiF than F, and enough Republicans vote for DwiF because good god please anyone but F, things could look quite a bit different.

[dragonwriter]

> Democrats vote for her because they prefer her to a Republican. However, we recently changed how our primary system works. If there were an anti-surveillance Democrat that ran in the primary, and if enough people were to wake up, things would look very different - a lot of people I talked to last go 'round didn't realize our primary system had changed.

If she was running for, say, a House district focussed on San Francisco, the primary-system changes might make a difference. Running for a statewide seat, they really don't make a lot of difference -- it would be just as easy for a Democrat with more appeal to the left to unseat her in the old-style partisan primary than in California's non-partisan primary.

> enough Republicans vote for DwiF because good god please anyone but F

Strategically voting Republicans would be taking a pretty big risk of doing that, because that means they stand a good chance of ending up with a general electing of DwiF vs. F, and the realistic anti-surveillance Democratic candidates tend to be more opposed to Republican positions in every other area than Feinstein is.

[dllthomas]

"it would be just as easy for a Democrat with more appeal to the left to unseat her in the old-style partisan primary than in California's non-partisan primary."

You'll have to actually make a case here, rather than simply asserting it. In a general election, F vs. DwiF, with Republicans breaking to DwiF, F has much less of a downhill battle than typical.

"Strategically voting Republicans would be taking a pretty big risk of doing that, because that means they stand a good chance of ending up with a general electing of DwiF vs. F, and the realistic anti-surveillance Democratic candidates tend to be more opposed to Republican positions in every other area than Feinstein is."

They stand a good chance of yet another Republican losing to Feinstein, if they all vote for the Republican. Depending on who DwiF is, that may or may not be preferred. It may very well be that there's no one with the right positioning in the field at present; there very well could be by 2014.

None of this is to say that Feinstein is guaranteed (or even likely) to lose in 2014; simply that pointing out that the last races weren't close doesn't tell us much, and I think there is more of a chance then there has been.

Of course, she's also 80, so it could plausibly even be that she retires before we find out.

[dragonwriter]

> They stand a good chance of yet another Republican losing to Feinstein, if they all vote for the Republican

In a primary election, there is likely to be more than one Republican, and the opening of the primary system means that, instead of the Republican with most support from Republican activists being moved forward to the general election, in the absence of substantial cross-major-party-voting or massive supermajority Democratic primary turnout (unlikely in a statewide primary), the Republican with the most appeal to Republicans and Republican leaning independents voting in the primary will move forward.

The very same changes to the primary system that you are going on about are exactly why it doesn't make much sense for Republicans to cross-party vote, since the problem that has made them noncompetitive in statewide general elections is mitigated in the new primary system and, unlike registration-switching in the old partisan-primary system, cross-party voting actually means your party is less likely to even have a candidate in the general.

As a California Democrat, I'd love it if Republicans followed your plan, because I'd like nothing more than a D v. D general election.

[dllthomas]

"Republicans are more likely to nominate a candidate that is broadly appealing" is a reasonable theory, and to the degree that this dynamic dominates it's true that it would lend the Republicans more of a chance; if that's enough to make a difference, the Republicans should indeed focus on their own candidate. The one data point we have so far lost 38-61.

"As a California Democrat, I'd love it if Republicans followed your plan, because I'd like nothing more than a D v. D general election."

That's precisely why it might work. Democrats should like it for the reason you specified; Republicans should like it if there is someone they prefer to Feinstein. If enough of both get on board, it happens.

[dllthomas]

Note also that it doesn't necessarily take Republican involvement - that just helps. If every Democrat who was going to vote for Feinstein had instead flipped a coin, and voted for her on a heads and some particular other Dem on a tails, it would have been Dem vs. Dem in 2012.