The Dems fall right into the trap

Now it's time for some actual analysis on what the Democrats' nomination of David Cox means.

I should note that I observed a primary somewhat similar to this two years ago when Shaun Kenney tried to knock off Delegate Robert Orrock. The local Democrats had someone waiting in the wings, but largely kept the would-be nominee there. In the end, the Dems never put a candidate forward; I'm guessing it's because they didn't think Orrock would go down (he won by about eight points in the primary).

In this case, however, the Democrats have decided to go "above ground," and not only put forth their nominee (Cox), but had him rip Scott Sayre up one side and down the other. It was left to former Senator Frank Nolen to go after Hanger. From this, I can draw a couple of conclusions (admittedly from afar).

The Democrats think Sayre will win: They wouldn't have bothered with a nominee, let alone finding someone to push aside the would-be tax-cutter Will Hrovat, if they thought Hanger would pull this out. Cox will have little, if any, appeal to Sayre voters if Hanger wins. Moreover, a Democrat running against Hanger would put some local Dems in a pickle. Clearly, this is a scenario they don't see coming.

More to the point, the Dems want Sayre to win: The strategy the Democrats are employing is right out of their Republican-primary-reaction playbook - run a candidate who will supposedly appeal to those who voted for the moderate primary loser. Of course, Cox will run no matter what happens, but no Democrat outside the 24th will care as much if Hanger is renominated. Conventional wisdom holds that Hanger is tougher to beat than Sayre is (said conventional wisdom is wrong, but I'll get to that later).

Local Democrats know this as much as anyone else, which bring us to the most important point, Hanger cannot rely on a single Democrat to support him in a primary: The partisan Dems won't be looking at the primary choice as the lesser of two evils (as many did in the aforementioned Kenney-Orrock race), they'll be looking at the best chance to take the seat. That will mean sitting the primary out, or for the more Machiavellian types, actually voting for Sayre in the primary (note: in the land of my birth and upbringing - New Jersey - cross-party primary sabotage was routine).

So will the Democrats win the seat if Sayre knocks off Hanger?

No.

As I've mentioned before, the presence of Liberatarian Arin Sime throws a monkey wrench into the Democrats' plan, for reasons I mentioned earlier:

Sime will have to oppose Sayre from the left, in which case he and the Democrat will be fishing in the same pond. So in a general election, Sime and the Democrat will battle for the liberal minority while Sayre has the conservative majority all to himself, and as such, he (Sayre) will cruise to victory.

This is why I have always considered Sayre the stronger general election candidate than Hanger. As I expected, most Democrats disagree, including the Democrats in the 24th. So thanks to their mistake, Scott Sayre is not only better positioned in the general election, but the primary election as well.

The Sayre campaign couldn't have had it better if they had planned it all.

Now that there's a Democrat in the race

According to the New Dominion (h/t Now at the Podium), the Democrats have an (unnamed) candidate to run in the general election for the 24th State Senate seat. It's been at least two and a half hours since then, and surprisingly, I have yet to see a Hanger supporter seize upon this as "proof" that only their man can win the general election. Still, we all know they'll get around to that line of argument eventually, so allow me to debunk it now.

The fact is, this will be a three-way race in November; the candidates will be Libertarian Arin Sime, the unnamed Democrat, and either Hanger or Sayre. Conventional wisdom holds that Hanger, as the moderate, will be better positioned in the general election. The trouble is, Hanger and Sayre only disagree on one major issue - taxes. Thus, the only voters Hanger can gain in a general election that Sayre cannot are "big-government conservatives," i.e., folks who tack right on social issues but are OK with tax hikes of the Warner and Chichester variety. The problem for Hanger is that there aren't many of those voters left, far fewer than the anti-tax voters who will leave him in droves for the self-described pro-life libertarian Arin Sime, who will be in prime position to attack Hanger from the right.

In other words, Sime and Hanger will battle for the support of the conservative majority in the 24th, leaving the Democrat to have the liberal minority entirely to himself (or herself), and putting said Democrat in position to "sneak up the middle" if Sime can take enough votes away from Hanger.

Sayre, by contrast, will be able to hold those voters with him. Sime will have to oppose Sayre from the left, in which case he and the Democrat will be fishing in the same pond. So in a general election, Sime and the Democrat will battle for the liberal minority while Sayre has the conservative majority all to himself, and as such, he (Sayre) will cruise to victory.

Hanger will have no such luck in a general election. The nature of the district and the state of the race make him the weaker general election nominee compared to Sayre, not the stronger one.