If the challenger wins, can the party keep the seat?
The Republicans seem to give little thought to how red a district is before they start challenging. We should be more nuanced, and consider whether the incumbent Democrat is the only sort of Democrat who could win that seat. My sense is Republicans don't ask that question, which may explain Doug Hoffman in NY 23. Though the district long leaned Republican, Obama did win it, so maybe the local Republicans picked the sort of Republican who could win the seat. Maybe a candidate who brown-noses Glenn Beck wasn't the best choice. By contrast, when the netroots got behind Donna Edwards in Maryland 4 to defeat blue dog Al Wynn, this was a safe Democratic seat, with little likelihood of handing it the Republicans. However, to make the risk clear, I know of no instances of an intraparty challenger improving the odds of holding a seat except where the incumbent was involved in a scandal. If anyone knows of an example, please tell us in the comments (and I'll get into where I think I see one such instance for 2010, but no fair skipping ahead).
We especially have to be careful given how only a wingnut can win a Republicans nomination currently. Maybe a blue dog who opposes his party on half the important votes is an improvement. A corporate Democrat attached to reality would be an improvement over a Republican who is principled and delusional.
What will the incumbent do if he survives the challenge?
We may not have thought Joe Lieberman couldn't be worse, or might be chastened into voting like a Democrat again, but he instead has lost any semblance of party unity. That link is a spoof, but I expect readers recall his lying about Obama at the Republican convention, and he now threatens to filibuster any bill with a public option. My guess is the chance to screw over the Democrats is just too good to pass up. So should he have been allowed to cruise in the primary so he wouldn't get mean later? I don't know, but I am saying it's a consideration that the challenged incumbent might retaliate if in a position to do so. He might even switch parties, as Arlen Spector did when his primary defeat seemed certain. I expect there are examples where the challenged politician hung on, but took a warning and got more in line with his party, and I'm just not thinking of those cases right now --- so again, please use comments for examples.
There's nothing cowardly about pondering this question when deciding whether to mount a challenge. It's just a matter of thinking a move ahead: if the challenge fails, what are the consequences?
Is there a strong enough challenger?
We hate to tell an earnest candidate we won't help because he has no hope, especially if he's a big improvement on the issues. In words I might regret if ever I run for something someday, resources are limited and we have to pick our fights. Republicans might have screwed up NY 23 by backing a lousy candidate, though an off-year election doesn't raise the same resources issue, and the activists did defeat the candidate they wanted out. On the other hand, both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann defeated GOP incumbents, and despite what most of us on the liberal side think of them, they're natural politicians in terms of appealing to the conservative base, which is enough in Alaska and Bachmann's old district, at least as the district was then. Then again, Obama lost heavily to Rep. Bobby Rush, Illinois 1, so even a natural politician can lose.
What is unique about this district?
Every state or district has it's unique circumstances, and those have to be considered. Ned Lamont for example ran a strong campaign to defeat Lieberman in the primary, but Connecticut law allowed Lieberman to file as an independent too, and Lamont was generally considered unready to defeat him in a general election. When Democrats tried to defeat Richard Jefferson in Louisiana 2 (New Orleans) in 2006 due to the money in the freezer (not an ideological challenge, but illustrative of this point), the voters were scattered all over the country and probably worried more about getting their lives back together than with politics back home. Though the state party backed the challenger, I'm guessing they didn't get the word out to absentee voters. So I'm suggesting failing to consider the unique circumstances of that district is both a frequent mistake and a critical one.
Is there opposition in the district?
It should seem obvious that challenges have to be driven from inside the district, but judging from the way national conservatives drove the NY 23 special election, not obvious enough. Money can come from all over the country for a high profile race, but volunteers have to be overwhelmingly local if they're going to be there for many weeks and not give the impression of outsiders telling locals how to vote. Moreover, the unique aspects of a race might be apparent only to those with local knowledge, as Hoffman's utter lack of knowledge about St. Lawrence shipping illustrates. Especially when a race is too low profile for polling, it takes local knowledge to get a feel for how a race is going.
Let's do a couple thought experiments: Rep. Colin Peterson, MN 7
Peterson jumps to mind because he's from Minnesota, but also because he's not merely a blue dog who frequently votes against his party, but in the health care vote, he voted no despite getting every concession. So let's ask my suggested questions in regard to Peterson.
If we challenge and beat him, can we win the general election? The short answer is I hope someone who knows the 7th better than me will give a definitive answer. The long answer is his district is generally considered to be Republican-leaning. He had a good case when he first won election that he was the only sort of DFLer who could win the 7th. Since then there has been a redistricting and the passage of time. Is the district bluer? If I recall correctly, McCain and Coleman won. But Peterson had 72%. Pending more information, I'd call the 7th purple leaning reddish. So a challenger might win, but the odds are longer than if we keep running Peterson.
What would Peterson do if he was challenged but reelected? He might be angry at Democrats, but his chairmanship while the democrats hold the majority depends on remaining a Democrat. He already votes against us often, so little loss there. I could see him switching parties if Republicans gain the majority, but only if they let him keep his seniority and maybe his chairmanship. So my assessment is the risk of retaliation is low.
Is there a strong enough challenger? No idea, so I again plead for someone from the 7th district to chime in. The fact I've heard nothing makes me suspect the answer is no.
What is unique about this district? It's heavily agricultural, and Peterson's position as agriculture chair puts him in a position to bring home the goodies. Asking DFL delegates and/or primary voters to replace him means asking them to give up having their representative in such a powerful position. Then general election voters might vote for Peterson and his seniority, but not for a DFLer in an open seat.
Is there opposition to Peterson in the district? I don't know. Again, I'll defer to someone from the 7th.
This experiment's result: the likely lack of a challenger makes the other questions moot. If there is a challenger and a party base looking for a challenger, both beating Peterson and winning the general election would be possible, but tough. In terms of all possible challenges, this just doesn't stand out as an opportunity. The next experiment, however, does.
Next experiment: Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Lincoln gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor yesterday about the need to debate the health care bill, which would have been more impressive if she hadn't been the one other Democrats had spent so much time trying to convince. In other words, she's one of those useless people of self-importance so common in the Senate. Can we find someone better?
The answer to the first question, could a challenger win the general election, is probably no. Arkansas has become more Republican, and even unknown Republicans are polling well against Lincoln. However, if Democrats will lose the seat anyway, this might be the exception where a strong challenger could have a better chance than the incumbent.
What will she do if she's challenged and wins? She could switch parties, though at the risk of losing seniority, and of having no influence while the Democrats hold the majority. Her voting record is lousy but could be worse. However, since her odds of winning the general election are so small, I'm calling the risk low.
Is there a challenger? Maybe. Lt. Governor Bill Halter is being pushed from the left to challenge Lincoln, and hasn't said no. He's won statewide office once. His support for health care reform and role in organizing the free clinic in Little Rock yesterday put him in a strong place to challenge. He might be the ideal challenger.
What's unique? As already mentioned, Lincoln is unpopular and likely to lose. If keeping the seat depends on having the Republican implode, what is the risk of replacing her? She would not only have to buck the Republican trend, but if she filibusters health care reform, the base will at best not help her. A challenger would at least have a chance of winning Arkansas Democrats and financial support from outside the state. Halter wouldn't be getting a serious look if he didn't have support from within the state. My conclusion: this is a prime opportunity to remove a conservadem.
What was the point of this whole exercise?
I'm not interested in just analyzing elections instead of collecting stamps (though analyzing elections while collecting stamps: we got a party!). I'm interested in channeling liberal political activism to avoid problems like we have with health care reform, where a few conservadems can blow apart party initiatives supported by huge majorities of Democrats. Think about it: almost the entire health care debate is about just a few members of each house of Congress. These few members refuse to do what their party wants, ran on, and won a majority on. If they had been behind reform from the beginning, we would have had a bill passed long ago, and a better bill too. To get there, we need to be thinking strategically so enough of us recognize opportunities and combine resources.
So while health care is the line in the sand for the next election, this isn't about just health care. It's about all the legislative fights to come.
Update
What timing. Some of the members of the RNC are indeed proposing a rigid purity test. Get eight out of ten correct, or you're out. Period. Judging from what's happened to state legislators who voted to override Pawlenty's transportation veto, the Minnestoa GOP is going to sign on to these. |
