Challenges and Challengers in the Senate

by: Mike Lux

Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 11:49


Between health care reform, financial reform, and analyzing the fascinating and disturbing trends in right wing ideology over the last 15 months, I haven't written that much about the 2010 elections lately, but that will be changing in the months to come. This election season will be intriguing.

Back in March of last year, I started warning my fellow Washington, DC Democrats that we could be headed for a 1994 style train wreck if we didn't watch out. By following the Geithner/Summers plan to coddle the big banks and accept the classical trickle-down economic idea that "jobs would be a logging indicator," I feared we were both discouraging base voters and ticking off working class swing voters. My worst fears proved in the New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts elections, as working class swing votes turned against us with a vengeance and Democratic base voters - young people, unmarried women, and people of color - did not turn out to vote in very high numbers.

It is way too early to tell what will happen in November. There are signs that Democrats are starting to understand what they need to do to improve their chances. The passage of health care reform shows that Democrats have the guts and ability to get big things done. Pushing back harder and picking a fight with the big bankers and their Republican allies (thank you, Mitch McConell!) is incredibly important, and the Obama administration has been willing to do that. Going to the mat for immigration reform will help turn out Hispanic and young voters. And if the real economy - meaning jobs and wages, not the stock market or bankers' profits - starts to see real improvement, Democratic performance in 2010 might surprise some people. However, it's still too early to tell how all this is going to play out.

One thing that is clear to me, though, is that the mood of voters is more anti-establishment and anti-incumbent than it is purely anti-Democrat. When a formerly popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist is being trounced by 30 points in the polls to a previously unknown far right-winger like Rubio, when a republican icon like McCain is struggling with a primary challenge, and when a longtime, well-liked Republican Senator like Chuck Grassley sees his approval rating go from the mid 70s to the low 40s in a year, you know that voters' ire is at least as much about incumbency as it is about party.

In that context, I want to raise a big red flag about one of the most traditional strategies political parties fall back on in a challenging election cycle, which is what I call the "defend the flag" strategy. The assumption is that they have to defend all incumbents at all costs, and give up on challengers breaking through. I think that is a major mistake in an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year like this one. Usually, party committees and the numbers prove that in an average election cycle, saving incumbents is easier than electing challengers. In a year like this one, I think it's a huge mistake for Democrats to make. It's the outsiders, the anti-establishment, anti-status quo candidates who have more traction in this election.  

In Florida, Kendrick Meek has a very solid chance at taking out far right extremist Rubio after he wins his ugly primary fight with Crist. In Ohio, both Lee Fisher and Jennifer Bruning are strong candidates to take out a Bush administration hack in Rob Portman. In NH, Paul Hodes is strongly positioned to win the Gregg's Senate seat given the nasty primary on the Republican side. In Missouri, Robin Carnahan is a very appealing alternative to Tom DeLay's closest ally in Roy Blunt. In Kentucky, if Jack Conway wins that primary, his reformer credentials give him a solid shot at beating extremist libertarian Rand Paul. And in Iowa, crusading anti-corporate lawyer Roxanne Conlin might have the stuff to beat ancient insider Grassley. These would all be pick-up seats for the Democrats. That's 6 races where Democratic challengers have a decent shot at taking a Republican seat.

My strong advice to my friends at the party committees and in the donor community: don't forget about races like these. Pulling back and playing only defense to save incumbents and seats we currently hold is a formula for bigger losses this year. We have a chance at holding our own this cycle if we play some offense well.  

Mike Lux :: Challenges and Challengers in the Senate

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I agree with most of this (0.00 / 0)
but in no way is Robin Carnahan going to be able to sell herself as either a breath of fresh air or anti-incumbent.  The best she can do there is 'remember how much better then '90s were?'

Compared to Blunt, she (0.00 / 0)
is a breath of fresh air.

She was first elected in 2004 and relected as Sec of State in 2008.  While her father was governor and her mother was a senator for two years, she is relatively new on the scene.

I think she can tag Blunt as a DC insider (hell, his wife is a Big Tobacco lobbyist) and she has good rural and urban creds.  She lives outside Rolla on a farm.  Yes, she is reasonably progressive.  

Besides, the 90s look good to many Missourians compared to what Bush and baby Blunt did to the state.

Carnahan has an excellent chance of winning.  Blunt has much baggage.  


[ Parent ]
Believe me, I know that the '90s were a lot better in MO (0.00 / 0)
I'm from St. Charles.  My parents still live there.  

All I'm saying is that it's hard to pull off the outsider thing when you're from a family that has close to dominated the Democratic side of the aisle since 1992.  She's not a bad candidate, and people still seem to feel fondly of the Carnahans, and I have a bit of a bitter spot about the Carnahans*.  

And yes, the Blunts are the complete mirror image of this, and Roy Blunt has been a massive wingnut for a huge amount of time, and Matt Blunt was wildly incompetent as governor.  All this does, however, is neutralize how much Robin Carnahan is totally not an outsider.  

*Mel's aggressiveness about three strikes and you're out and the death penalty very nearly pushed me out of the Democratic party entirely.


[ Parent ]
Robin (0.00 / 0)
Robin is a pretty progressive person, and has been a reformer as Sec. of State in MO. She's never lived or worked in DC. Yeah, she has a well-established name, but she is a lot more of an outsider than Blunt.

[ Parent ]
Agreed 100% (4.00 / 2)
Those folks you named have a much better chance of winning than Reid or Lincoln. The party leadership may support those folks, but individual donors should give directly to the candidates they think have the best chance at winning close races.  

Chris Bowers and Nate Silver Don't Seem To Agree With You (0.00 / 0)
Here's how Silver rates these races currently as Democratic pickup opportunities:

New Hampshire: 43%
Missouri: 38%
Ohio: 36%

Not great odds at the moment, although it could improve over the next 6 months of course. Democrats meanwhile have a 50% chance or better of losing 7 Senate Seats.

Colorado and Pennsylvania could improve, although holding PA probably depends on Arlen Specter losing his primary challenge. PA might not be so much anti-Democrat as anti-Specter.

That might be the BEST proof of your argument, because you can bet that Obama and the Democratic committees are going to go all out to ram Specter down all our throats, even at the cost of losing a seat!

The REAL party in Washington is the INCUMBENT PARTY!


[ Parent ]
Odds (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad we're not all lockstep on this stuff, that would be pretty boring.
Both Nate and Chris are a lot more numbers based in their analysis than I am. I have the same view of politics that I do of basketball- statistics are really important to know about, but you shouldn't base everything you think on stats alone. Otherwise, you'd have to rate Wilt Chamberlain as a better player than Russell, Jordan, or Magic, and I just don't buy that.
I think you have to weigh a whole range of things: the quality of organization in the campaigns, state parties, and the left/right infrastructure; how the candidates hold up under stress and in debates; the underlying weaknesses that will show up in the oppo research reports, etc.
I also think Nate and Chris are assuming a strong Republican tide this year. While that isn't a bad bet, the point I was making in this post is that there's a chance it won't be that kind of year, and if it's not, these candidates are in the ballgame. If it's tsunami, of course, none of them wins.

[ Parent ]
Primary fight with Meek??? (0.00 / 0)
Um, Crist is going to run as an independent, not a Democrat.

misuderstood. (0.00 / 0)
You misunderstood my sentence, which I have to admit could be misinterpreted. I was making the point that after Rubio wins his tough primary against Crist, he will be easier to beat. If Crist pulls out of the primary, that does make for a different scenario, but not a bad one for Meek.  

[ Parent ]
A dangling (0.00 / 0)
modifier, perhaps? :-)

Crist's veto last night ended his days as a Republican.  


[ Parent ]
This is advice that Obama should also heed. (4.00 / 1)
He is now the "establishment," and since he is supporting Bush's old policies, he will be out in 2012.  I will help make that a reality, just as I worked to help him win.  Until he gets rid of domestic spying, these 2 ugly wars, etc., etc., I vow to work against his re-election, so help me god.

Any progressives running in Florida? (0.00 / 0)
Or are the dems pushing DLCer Meek?  

USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
Donate to Open Left





QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search