|
In Virginia, Mark Warner has announced that he is running… for something:
This year's ICS was a terrific success and and what could beat that surprise visit from Mark Warner and his announcement that this time next week, he was "going to be a candidate for public office!"
Since I doubt he will run for US House, jump in the presidential campaign, or start a five-year campaign to primary Jim Webb in 2012, the options for Warner appear to be running for US Senate in 2008, or running for Virginia Governor in 2009. My guess is that this early announcement means he is running for Senate, as the Virginia Gubernatorial election is more than two years away. That is fine with me, since it would basically assure a Democratic pickup in Virginia.
In Nebraska, Chuck Hagel has officially announced his retirement, and former Senator Bob Kerrey is looking at the race:
A political logjam in Nebraska that has forced a slew of potential U.S. Senate candidates to tread water for months will begin breaking Monday, when Chuck Hagel formally announces he will not seek re-election.
Democrat Bob Kerrey, Republican Mike Johanns and others likely will begin unveiling their plans for the 2008 race in the coming weeks or, possibly, days.
No matter who runs on the Republican side, Bob Kerrey could potentially win this seat. I hope he runs, because I would like to see as much pressure on Republicans in as many seats as possible around the country. Kerrey would cause further headaches for already severely pressured Republicans.
In Idaho, according to Survey USA, Larry LaRocco can make a competitive race out of it, depending on who the Republican nominee is. While well-known Republicans Mike Simpson and Dirk Kempthorne would apparently start with huge leads on LaRocco, there is no guarantee at all that either would run or, if they did run, that they would win the Republican nomination. Against four other Republicans, LaRocco is either close or statistically tied. So, it appears that Democrats can even be competitive in Idaho now, but it will depend largely on who the Republican nominee is.
****
Getting the right matchup in all three of these seats will help us toward our broader goal of more and better Democrats. This is the case even if any of the Democrats in question are not viewed as among the "better Democrat" category by some. I would argue, for example, that no matter what some int he blogosphere might think of him, Bob Casey Jr.'s extremely strong showing during the 2006 campaign freed up a lot of Democratic resources for closer wins in Rhode Island, Virginia, Montana and Missouri. In the same vein, added pressure in the form of nearly guaranteed pickups (Warner in Virginia), surprisingly competitive elections (LaRocco in Idaho) or conservative Democratic candidates for an open seat in a conservative state like Nebraska (Kerrey), will all help out candidates like Merkley or Novick in Oregon (both progressives), Franken or Ciresi in Minnesota (same story), Allen in Maine, or the eventual Democratic nominee in New Hampshire (I think Jay Buckey would be a good progressive there). Further, key primary challenges in places in Connecticut can not only help Democrats become better, but can also breed more Democrats nationwide by finally convincing them to run against the war. More Democrats can lead to better Democrats, and better Democrats can lead to more Democrats. I point this out as one way of explaining why I have no problem engaging in numerous primary challenges on behalf of progressives, while simultaneously backing conservative Democrats in general elections against Republicans. More and better Democrats is not an either / or process for progressives, and I am happy to work on the "better" just as I am happy to work on the "more."
Update: Bob Kerry certainly does not look very conservative when his voting record is examined. It seems I misspoke by calling him a conservative.
|
STATE BLOGS
