One thing that should concern Democrats generally is whether Sarah Palin can effectively out-change Barack Obama, the ultimate change candidate. For those undecided voters, Palin could well present something fresher and new and perhaps even more attractive than Obama himself. This unlikely but a concern nonetheless.
With that in mind, I reconsidered the best way to approach Palin. On the one hand, there is a strong urge to work hard to expose Palin's extremist views and lack of experience. On the other hand, what if it might be better to avoid making this election about Palin and McCain-Palin, and keeping it about McCain himself? There is no question in my mind that an election about McCain alone and not McCain-Palin is better for Obama and the Democrats. The reason? Palin is much more attractive and likeable, and by herself, she will only buoy the GOP ticket.
Consequently, it might be wise for Team Obama to respond to Palin with a two-pronged approach: bringing stern, but not overly-nasty attention to Palin, but keeping fire focused on John McCain himself. The smart thing to do may be to (1) hit Palin for her extremism instead of her lack of experience (as that latter line of argument opens Obama up to criticism AND it could come across as sexist bullying), and (2) keep fire on McCain alone. If Obama can keep the election about Obama vs. McCain, he is still favored. Adding Palin to the equation in any serious way can only make the McCain ticket more attractive, at least when and until Palin is better defined in a negative way for voters.
One more thing. I strongly disagree with the argument that having a minimal Republican convention will end up helping McCain. There are good reasons for this position, as not having Bush and Cheney giving national speeches will not weigh down McCain. Furthermore, letting McCain go to Mississippi and maybe Louisiana could help raise not only McCain's favorables, but the broad lasting perception that Bush and the GOP did an awful job in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
These are very fair points, and surely McCain had little choice but to scale down the convention. However, this overall argument is mainly wishful thinking. On its face, a national convention guarantees several days of prime, continuous, and positive coverage of your ticket and your ticket alone. The other side falls by the wayside, as last week's coverage of the Democratic convention demonstrated. Losing that stream of glowing coverage is never a good thing. Being able to have some (bs) photo-ops re: Hurrican Gustav is nice, but it will be through a handful of 30 second news reels. This is not nearly as valuable as a big convention sucking out all the political media oxygen. Bush or no Bush. Besides, even though having Bush/Cheney on national TV on the podium at St. Paul was a painful prospect Team McCain could not avoid, what is one more Bush speech to a country that has seen him every day for eight plus years?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Strategy for Democrats 48 Hours After the Palin Shocker
Since we've had some time to digest the Palin pick and think it over some (though I am still shocked), here are some more quick-hit thoughts on McCain-Palin.
(1) Democrats must tread carefully. A first instinct for many -- myself included -- was to savage this choice because of Palin's utter lack of experience or qualifications for the job, McCain's hypocrisy given his attacks on Obama for being inexperienced, and other areas. I've calmed down some. Clearly, Democrats will need to attack Palin, but they will need to be methodical and careful about it. They can't engage in behavior that might seem like they are ganging up on Palin. Case in point: the veep debate. That Biden will be shockingly more skilled, knowledgeable and qualified Palin is the precisely the reason to be careful. Biden will need to go into the debate, and carefully take Palin apart. Given the stakes involved, Dems should not underestimate Palin.
(2) Democrats should focus on Palin's extremism first, then her lack of qualifications. The first instinct is to look at Palin's resume, mouth agape, and wonder how in God's name anyone could be nominated to be Vice President with such thin qualifications. However, I think Democrats must set out to define Palin as an extremist before focusing on her lack of qualifications. Bashing her lack of experience right off the bat is tricky, and it could be more open to criticism. Indeed, had McCain tapped Tim Pawlenty or even Mitt Romney, the natural response for Palin would be that she possesses nearly as much if not equal political experience as either man, and that as a woman, people are unfairly focusing on qualifications. It would be much harder to respond to extremist attacks. Palin is against abortion in all cases, she opposes the use of birth control even for married couples, she is currently suing the Bush administration to keep the polar bear from being listed as a threatened species, she wants to teach creationism in school, and she is opposed to stem cell research. If Democrats can define Palin as an extremist early, they can then move onto experience, making a lethal one-two punch.
(3) Attacking Palin as grossly inexperienced can be exploited to also blast McCain as a hypocrite. As we discussed yesterday, Palin might be the least qualified person on a national ticket in modern, if not all history. This is a huge liability, and one that could resonate. Going further, if properly executed, these attacks could implicate McCain too. McCain has based the very premise of his campaign that Obama is not ready to lead because of lack of experience. Picking Palin smacks of rank, almost breath-taking hypocrisy, and McCain is wide open to the attack. Democrats need to make McCain's life hard immediately on this score, and let him try to execute a quick pivot.
(4) Democrats should also consider a broad attack that Palin's nomination is dangerous, and one made purely for political expediency. Given the historic nature of the choice, this line of attack is also tricky, but it would fit into any broad offensive against McCain. You can call me overly political here, but I think this issue goes beyond politics. Having Sarah Palin as the veep for a 72-year old who has had numerous health scares is plainly dangerous. She has almost no qualifications to be commander and chief of this country, all the garbage of her heading the Alaska National Guard aside. It is a dangerous proposition, and in my opinion, for all his posturing of being the best man to protect America, McCain has clearly made a political move that could actually threaten this country should he win. McCain likely thinks that he is in fine health, and nothing is likely to happen to him, but who can ever predict the future? Tapping Palin is a political move, and Palin would be plainly unqualified to be President.
(5) I am not as nervous about Palin attracting female voters and HRC supporters. Clearly, the number one motivation behind this pick was attracting increased swaths of the female electorate, and perhaps even lots of bitter Hillary supporters. Every other consideration, like pumping up conservatives and evangelicals, while important, is secondary. This top aim may well come to fruition, but I am not as fearful of it as I was yesterday.
There are several reasons for this change of heart. First, I never really considered the potential for backlash from women; in other words, I think it was foolish to even accept as a given that female voters would flock to McCain because of his tapping Palin. A lot of women might well take this as insulting, and the very early polling seems to confirm this. Second, when many women, especially those who were supporting or attached to Clinton, learn of Palin's extremely conservative and evangelical-pleasing views, many of them will turn away from the GOP ticket in disgust. Opposing the use of contraceptives is the not the way to win many female voters, especially those on the fence and are not already predisposed to vote Republican anyway.
(6) Republicans are already over-stating Palin's value. Yesterday, when Obama's spokesman assailed the Palin pick, mentioning that less than two years ago Pail was mayor of Wasilla, a town of 9,000, Republicans pounced, arguing that this background will help Palin make inroads with small-town voters, independents, and voters in places like central Pennsylvania, and Ohio, to name a couple. Perhaps Palin will make good inroads with these segments of the electorate, but if so, it will be on other grounds; that Palin is from small-town Alaska is almost absolutely irrelevant to this type of outreach. Just because someone is from a small town does not make it likely that anyone else in a small town elsewhere will back that person for the second-highest office there is. Furthermore, even if small town Americans like this part of Palin's background, it does not follow that all or even many of them want a small town politician with no experience to be a step away from the presidency. This argument is wishful thinking by Republicans, and nonsense in this author's opinion.
(7) This pick could be a game-changer, but in a unique way: by turning this election into a referendum on social wedge issues. This is an interesting issue, and one that was kind of overlooked initially. Up to this point, the underlying key issue in this election has been the economy. With Palin's strongly outspoken conservative views now coming into focus, there is a good possibility that the same social issues that have been largely off the table this cycle -- but always under the proverbial surface -- will take a more central role, and this is something Republicans may invite.
With the economy encountered a score of problems right now, Republicans might welcome the opportunity to turn this election into one on abortion, stem cell research, and gun rights. This is certainly familiar terrain to national Republicans: they have excelled for years in turning elections on wedge affairs. It is through this time-and-tested approach that they have adeptly cobbled together majorities in key elections, and with an environment as anti-GOP as this one, it might be a better option than running on the economy and the Iraq war. This tact would certainly please the base, and it is apparent that the base is delighted with Palin for these very reasons. Now, whether or not this type of field would ultimately result in a McCain victory is another story entirely -- as it is unclear that many moderate and conservative minded independents will vote on social issues this year with every thing else going on -- but the pick certainly creates the potential for this scenario, and it is worth watching.
(8) Palin won't be a game-changer in the Alaska Senate and House races. When Palin was announced, one of views was that having her on the ticket would save the endangered House and Senate seats up in Alaska this November. While Palin's name on the top of the ballot will undoubtedly help Republicans hold both seats, it is not a game-changer. There are important reasons for this.
In terms of the Senate seat, what happens will depend on Sen. Stevens' impending corruption trial. Should he be convicted, he will almost certainly lose, Palin or no Palin. An acquittal before November 4 would obviously bolster the Senator's chances. The House seat is more complicated, as the primary outcome is still in doubt. Should Don Young go on to win, he has been down double-digits in general election polls for months. Furthermore, like with Stevens, Palin has been a bitter critic and enemy of the longtime incumbent, which will certainly weigh on voters; in other words, Palin's candidacy is in no way an endorsement of Young. Palin recruited her Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell to run against Young! Now, if Parnell comes out ahead on the absentee ballots (an eventually we've calculated is not a given), he would get a big boast from Palin. But this may not even happen.
(9) The gloves are going to have to come off eventually. Since the big news, Sen. Obama has been entirely complimentary of Palin (he even repremanded his spokesman's early attack on Palin), as has Clinton, though she did take a jab at the choice. This is both smart and entirely expected. It would be foolish for the big Democratic guns themselves to savage the pick on day one. However, once things have settled, the Obama campaign, Hillary, and especially Obama will need to take the gloves off (to varying degrees, of course), and tear the bark off of, McCain-Palin.
In sum, with both men down double digits in their contests, even Palin would have a hard to time delivering victories to save the seats. But don't count out the possibility either.
I'm sure we will have more thoughts on McCain-Palin in the coming weeks and months. To be honest, I am still stunned that it happened!
(1) Democrats must tread carefully. A first instinct for many -- myself included -- was to savage this choice because of Palin's utter lack of experience or qualifications for the job, McCain's hypocrisy given his attacks on Obama for being inexperienced, and other areas. I've calmed down some. Clearly, Democrats will need to attack Palin, but they will need to be methodical and careful about it. They can't engage in behavior that might seem like they are ganging up on Palin. Case in point: the veep debate. That Biden will be shockingly more skilled, knowledgeable and qualified Palin is the precisely the reason to be careful. Biden will need to go into the debate, and carefully take Palin apart. Given the stakes involved, Dems should not underestimate Palin.
(2) Democrats should focus on Palin's extremism first, then her lack of qualifications. The first instinct is to look at Palin's resume, mouth agape, and wonder how in God's name anyone could be nominated to be Vice President with such thin qualifications. However, I think Democrats must set out to define Palin as an extremist before focusing on her lack of qualifications. Bashing her lack of experience right off the bat is tricky, and it could be more open to criticism. Indeed, had McCain tapped Tim Pawlenty or even Mitt Romney, the natural response for Palin would be that she possesses nearly as much if not equal political experience as either man, and that as a woman, people are unfairly focusing on qualifications. It would be much harder to respond to extremist attacks. Palin is against abortion in all cases, she opposes the use of birth control even for married couples, she is currently suing the Bush administration to keep the polar bear from being listed as a threatened species, she wants to teach creationism in school, and she is opposed to stem cell research. If Democrats can define Palin as an extremist early, they can then move onto experience, making a lethal one-two punch.
(3) Attacking Palin as grossly inexperienced can be exploited to also blast McCain as a hypocrite. As we discussed yesterday, Palin might be the least qualified person on a national ticket in modern, if not all history. This is a huge liability, and one that could resonate. Going further, if properly executed, these attacks could implicate McCain too. McCain has based the very premise of his campaign that Obama is not ready to lead because of lack of experience. Picking Palin smacks of rank, almost breath-taking hypocrisy, and McCain is wide open to the attack. Democrats need to make McCain's life hard immediately on this score, and let him try to execute a quick pivot.
(4) Democrats should also consider a broad attack that Palin's nomination is dangerous, and one made purely for political expediency. Given the historic nature of the choice, this line of attack is also tricky, but it would fit into any broad offensive against McCain. You can call me overly political here, but I think this issue goes beyond politics. Having Sarah Palin as the veep for a 72-year old who has had numerous health scares is plainly dangerous. She has almost no qualifications to be commander and chief of this country, all the garbage of her heading the Alaska National Guard aside. It is a dangerous proposition, and in my opinion, for all his posturing of being the best man to protect America, McCain has clearly made a political move that could actually threaten this country should he win. McCain likely thinks that he is in fine health, and nothing is likely to happen to him, but who can ever predict the future? Tapping Palin is a political move, and Palin would be plainly unqualified to be President.
(5) I am not as nervous about Palin attracting female voters and HRC supporters. Clearly, the number one motivation behind this pick was attracting increased swaths of the female electorate, and perhaps even lots of bitter Hillary supporters. Every other consideration, like pumping up conservatives and evangelicals, while important, is secondary. This top aim may well come to fruition, but I am not as fearful of it as I was yesterday.
There are several reasons for this change of heart. First, I never really considered the potential for backlash from women; in other words, I think it was foolish to even accept as a given that female voters would flock to McCain because of his tapping Palin. A lot of women might well take this as insulting, and the very early polling seems to confirm this. Second, when many women, especially those who were supporting or attached to Clinton, learn of Palin's extremely conservative and evangelical-pleasing views, many of them will turn away from the GOP ticket in disgust. Opposing the use of contraceptives is the not the way to win many female voters, especially those on the fence and are not already predisposed to vote Republican anyway.
(6) Republicans are already over-stating Palin's value. Yesterday, when Obama's spokesman assailed the Palin pick, mentioning that less than two years ago Pail was mayor of Wasilla, a town of 9,000, Republicans pounced, arguing that this background will help Palin make inroads with small-town voters, independents, and voters in places like central Pennsylvania, and Ohio, to name a couple. Perhaps Palin will make good inroads with these segments of the electorate, but if so, it will be on other grounds; that Palin is from small-town Alaska is almost absolutely irrelevant to this type of outreach. Just because someone is from a small town does not make it likely that anyone else in a small town elsewhere will back that person for the second-highest office there is. Furthermore, even if small town Americans like this part of Palin's background, it does not follow that all or even many of them want a small town politician with no experience to be a step away from the presidency. This argument is wishful thinking by Republicans, and nonsense in this author's opinion.
(7) This pick could be a game-changer, but in a unique way: by turning this election into a referendum on social wedge issues. This is an interesting issue, and one that was kind of overlooked initially. Up to this point, the underlying key issue in this election has been the economy. With Palin's strongly outspoken conservative views now coming into focus, there is a good possibility that the same social issues that have been largely off the table this cycle -- but always under the proverbial surface -- will take a more central role, and this is something Republicans may invite.
With the economy encountered a score of problems right now, Republicans might welcome the opportunity to turn this election into one on abortion, stem cell research, and gun rights. This is certainly familiar terrain to national Republicans: they have excelled for years in turning elections on wedge affairs. It is through this time-and-tested approach that they have adeptly cobbled together majorities in key elections, and with an environment as anti-GOP as this one, it might be a better option than running on the economy and the Iraq war. This tact would certainly please the base, and it is apparent that the base is delighted with Palin for these very reasons. Now, whether or not this type of field would ultimately result in a McCain victory is another story entirely -- as it is unclear that many moderate and conservative minded independents will vote on social issues this year with every thing else going on -- but the pick certainly creates the potential for this scenario, and it is worth watching.
(8) Palin won't be a game-changer in the Alaska Senate and House races. When Palin was announced, one of views was that having her on the ticket would save the endangered House and Senate seats up in Alaska this November. While Palin's name on the top of the ballot will undoubtedly help Republicans hold both seats, it is not a game-changer. There are important reasons for this.
In terms of the Senate seat, what happens will depend on Sen. Stevens' impending corruption trial. Should he be convicted, he will almost certainly lose, Palin or no Palin. An acquittal before November 4 would obviously bolster the Senator's chances. The House seat is more complicated, as the primary outcome is still in doubt. Should Don Young go on to win, he has been down double-digits in general election polls for months. Furthermore, like with Stevens, Palin has been a bitter critic and enemy of the longtime incumbent, which will certainly weigh on voters; in other words, Palin's candidacy is in no way an endorsement of Young. Palin recruited her Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell to run against Young! Now, if Parnell comes out ahead on the absentee ballots (an eventually we've calculated is not a given), he would get a big boast from Palin. But this may not even happen.
(9) The gloves are going to have to come off eventually. Since the big news, Sen. Obama has been entirely complimentary of Palin (he even repremanded his spokesman's early attack on Palin), as has Clinton, though she did take a jab at the choice. This is both smart and entirely expected. It would be foolish for the big Democratic guns themselves to savage the pick on day one. However, once things have settled, the Obama campaign, Hillary, and especially Obama will need to take the gloves off (to varying degrees, of course), and tear the bark off of, McCain-Palin.
In sum, with both men down double digits in their contests, even Palin would have a hard to time delivering victories to save the seats. But don't count out the possibility either.
I'm sure we will have more thoughts on McCain-Palin in the coming weeks and months. To be honest, I am still stunned that it happened!
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Palin Pick: Big-risk, big-reward
Wow. Today I wish I had been wrong. Way back in June we wrote that John McCain's best choice for his running mate was the very dark horse, Sarah Palin. While writing that, we never figured he would pull the trigger. By not picking Hillary, Obama left himself wide open for this.
Today, the Republicans showed what makes them different from the Democrats: they have serious cajones. This a bold choice, though it is both high-reward and high-risk. Assuming all the reports are true, here's what the pick means, what it could do for both sides, and the implications going forward.
Benefits to the Palin pick
(1) This pick is immensely bold. The McCain Team threw out the political playbook on this one. Rather than go with a McCain ally, a seasoned political hand, or someone with any type of national profile, McCain grabbed a fresh face that is totally outside of the box. Perhaps more than anything else, picking Palin represents the McCain campaign's view that it needed to stir things up to make this a race. While the polls have been razor close or tied for weeks, the campaign came to the conclusion that to win against Obama in this national environment, it needed to take a gamble, to swing for the fences. And swing they did. Even as a Democrat, I respect that.
(2) McCain is making the ultimate push to exploit the Hillary wound. In taking this gamble, McCain is making a push for a big chunk of the female electorate, primarily those voters still irked at Hillary losing. As we wrote right after the Biden pick, by picking Delaware Joe, Obama left himself enormously wide open to McCain picking a female running mate. Perhaps Team Obama never seriously though McCain would do it, or maybe they just were not scared by the possibility; more likely, as we've discussed, Obama and his inner circle just never had any interest in tapping HRC. Well, what was a tiny possibility is now reality. McCain and his inner circle had decided to make a huge play for women and angry Hillary-ites. This is a titanic danger to Obama.
(3) Palin attempts to add some youth, vigor, and party excitement to GOP ticket. In addition to the plain political benefits Palin brings, she also adds some youth to McCain. Let's be fair: McCain is not terribly charismatic, and he simply looks old and slow. That is not meant to be an insult, it is fact. Palin could help balance that. She is young (44), telegenic (very pretty for a politician), and plainly vigorous (she has a large brood of kids, and just had another one months ago). But at the same time she is not too young to contrast too strongly with McCain's age. How this will play on TV should only help McCain.
(4) Palin is also an outside the beltway figure, which will contrast not just with Obama-Biden, but the GOP establishment. Palin was elected governor of Alaska in 2006 under a large reform banner, and ethics has been her signature issue for years. McCain can tap into both with this pick: ethics and national reform. McCain can appeal to people by saying Palin is outside of the beltway, and also that she has made cleaning up Alaska's corrupt politics her top fight. This could contrast nicely with not only Democrats, but the nation's politics in general.
(5) The pick could save a likely lost Senate seat. While this may seem like a small matter to many people, today John Ensign is smiling widely for a simple reason: Sarah Palin as veep could likely save Ted Stevens' Senate seat. With Palin on the ballot, not only is Alaska off Obama's radar, but it could unite enough voters to back the indicted and disgraced Stevens. Saving a Senate that could be lost for 20 years to the Democrats is a big deal. And Senate seats are a big deal, with the DSCC and NRSC spending tens of millions on U.S. Senate seats.
(6) Palin could excite the GOP base. By being pro-life, and having little record otherwise, Palin likely will not offend any key constituencies, and may, for the first time, excite what has been a down GOP base and get them out to work hard for the campaign. Right now, many Republicans are and should be nervous, but they likely also will believe they have a chance to win right now after what was an excellent Obama speech just last night.
There are also big risks to picking Palin
(1) Palin is grossly inexperienced. Before being elected governor in November 2006, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, a fast-growing Alaska community, but still only a town with only a few thousand people. Making the jump from being mayor of a few thousand to one step from the nuclear football in under two years is a big stretch, even though McCain is running against a man who became Senator in 2005. Obama has gravitas to push away inexperience accusations, Palin does not. This leaves the pick open to enormous criticism.
(2) Palin's good government credentials are currenly being soiled by a scandal back home. In recent weeks, Palin has come under heavy fire for firing Alaska's public service commissioner. As the story goes, the commissioner refused heavy pushing from Palin, her husband, and her administration to fire a state trooper who was in a nasty divorce proceeding with Palin's sister. This story has already undercut the governor's sterling ethics record, and has only begun to get bigger as the Democratically-controlled state senate has appointed an investigator to look into the matter. McCain clearly believes that the story is minor, and has no legs. Maybe Palin has reassured him that the scandal is really no scandal. If either McCain is wrong or Palin is lying, then she could be a quick and massive liability.
(3) Palin has no experience in foreign affairs and probably zero knowledge of major foreign or domestic issues, which could make her a liability on the stump. Palin is the polar opposite of Joe Biden. In a debate with Joe, she will likely get her clock cleaned. It is hard to imagine a larger chasm of experience between two politicians. Love him or loathe, Biden is 1000x more experienced and more knowledgeable about almost any salient issues. It is almost embarrassing how much more qualified Biden is than Palin.
(4) While a fresh face, Palin could be too fresh, and thus undercut McCain's message that he is a stable agent of experience who can protect America. McCain has clearly made "ready to lead" on day one the centerpiece of his campaign. Palin's complete lack of tangible and valuable experience is so great that it could severely undercut this message. In other words, how can McCain, who has been running on his experience advantage over Obama, all of sudden pivot and run in the other direction? It might fail miserably.
(5) Palin might not be ready for the bright lights of the campaign and frenetic pace of the race. Palin has never come anywhere near to what she is going to face over the next two months. Generally, she gives speeches to a roomful of people in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Wasilla. Now she is jumping to the national stage. Will she be ready?
(6) This pick only became an option a week ago, after HRC was not tapped, meaning that Team McCain really only made the big choice in one week. While they probably vetted her, the fact is that Palin would never have been picked if Obama had tapped Hillary. In other words, this pick was really made in the last few days, and there is a good chance Palin was not fully vetted or thought out as much as a veep should be. This could be a danger later if Palin is clearly not ready, or has some skeletons that went undiscovered.
(7) While he will want to, McCain will still have a hard time highlighting ANWR. We've seen in the last month that depserate Republicans are trying to highlight Democrats' refusal to drill as the reason for the deepening energy crisis. Few people are better positioned to talk about ANWR than Palin, who is obviously a big supporter. But McCain's past opposition to ANWR drilling will make it tough for him to change his mind right now, and if he does, he could open himself to attacks flip-flopping and making a big decision for politicial expediency.
(8) This pick could be seen a as cheap gimmick, and maybe ever a sign of desperation. That might be true. I wrote the same thing in June. This should be the immediate goal of Team Obama in framing the pick.
Will Palin's lack of experience matter?
In making this pick, McCain is hoping that his large swath of experience will cover up for Palin; in other words that he will get all the benefits of picking her, and very few of the downsides. I believe Palin will run heavily as a change agent, someone outside of the beltway. It might contrast with McCain's message, but they will have no choice. They will have to run this way. This pick might be a 40 yard pass, but McCain's people believed he had to do it. They did not believe they could win without taking a gamble, and this might be the ultimate gamble. The pick could fail miserably. But it could also bring scores of women to support the GOP ticket, both angry Hillary supporters and women in general. Anyone scoffing at this pick should remember one thing:
More times than not, people vote on emotion over logic.
This is precisely what Team McCain is counting on. Sure, Palin knows nothing compared to Biden, but that might not matter if she can appeal to women and run on change. Besides, that veep debate will likely not matter much. McCain is hoping Palin's lack of experience, her being from Alaska, the Troopergate scandal, and everything else will fall by the wayside, and her simply being young, attractive, and a woman will help him.
What Democrats need to do
Team Obama needs to do two things right now.
First, Obama needs to be on the phone to Hillary. Now. Already. He needs to tell her: "I need you on the trail just about every day to the end. I need you." Whatever it takes, Hillary's role takes on increased significance. Swallow your pride, and do what it takes, Barack. Show some LBJ, win-with-whatever-it-takes instinct.
Second, they need to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. All politics aside, all of my own politiical views aside, Team Obama needs to tear the bark off of this choice immediately, and rip it down. Palin is grossly, GROSSLY inexperienced. She has been governor for less than two years, and before that she was mayor of a town with less people than a few blocks of Philadelphia, PA. Obama's state senate district had more voters than Wasilla.
They need to methodically highlight not just her inexperience, but also extremist positions: her poor environmental record and strong pro-life views (both anathema to many women and Hillary supporters), her connection to the Troopergate inquiry and how hypocritical it reflects on her reform mantra, and other factors.
Attacking her will be tricky, but of anyone, Hillary can blast Palin. The pick should be called not just one of inexperience, but a DANGEROUS pick. A woman with this little experience has no business being one step from the nuclear football. Democrats cannot let the GOP frame this pick: they need to do it themselves, and fast. They should attack Palin as an inexperienced extremist, and not a sweet reformer.
Hillary and perhaps others should hone on these words: astonishingly inexperienced, anti-environment, mired in corruption back home, and dangerously inexperienced for a 21st Century world. McCain is particularly vulnerable as he has run as someone who can protect America, and Democrats -- read Hillary -- can say this is a choice made of pure political expediency, and it puts the country's security at risk.
One more thing: Team McCain will use these inevitable attacks against Obama himself by saying Palin is no more inexperienced that Palin, and that as a governor, she might be more experienced than Obama. Team Obama should welcome this, and let the people decide who has the experience to lead: Obama and Biden, both of whom can speak fluently on and to these critical issues, or Palin, who probably, seriously could not point out Georgia or Pakistan on a map.
Conclusion
This pick may fail miserably. I don't doubt that. But one has to admit this is a bold choice. McCain is swinging for the fences, and as a political follower, I respect that. With the Palin pick, Hillary becomes hugely important to Team Obama, and they need to swallow their pride reach out to her, if they haven't already.
In the coming days, things will develop a bit, and we can evaluate more then. But right now this is an astonishing pick, a smart pick, and I can assure you, both Team Obama and Team McCain are nervous right now.
Today, the Republicans showed what makes them different from the Democrats: they have serious cajones. This a bold choice, though it is both high-reward and high-risk. Assuming all the reports are true, here's what the pick means, what it could do for both sides, and the implications going forward.
Benefits to the Palin pick
(1) This pick is immensely bold. The McCain Team threw out the political playbook on this one. Rather than go with a McCain ally, a seasoned political hand, or someone with any type of national profile, McCain grabbed a fresh face that is totally outside of the box. Perhaps more than anything else, picking Palin represents the McCain campaign's view that it needed to stir things up to make this a race. While the polls have been razor close or tied for weeks, the campaign came to the conclusion that to win against Obama in this national environment, it needed to take a gamble, to swing for the fences. And swing they did. Even as a Democrat, I respect that.
(2) McCain is making the ultimate push to exploit the Hillary wound. In taking this gamble, McCain is making a push for a big chunk of the female electorate, primarily those voters still irked at Hillary losing. As we wrote right after the Biden pick, by picking Delaware Joe, Obama left himself enormously wide open to McCain picking a female running mate. Perhaps Team Obama never seriously though McCain would do it, or maybe they just were not scared by the possibility; more likely, as we've discussed, Obama and his inner circle just never had any interest in tapping HRC. Well, what was a tiny possibility is now reality. McCain and his inner circle had decided to make a huge play for women and angry Hillary-ites. This is a titanic danger to Obama.
(3) Palin attempts to add some youth, vigor, and party excitement to GOP ticket. In addition to the plain political benefits Palin brings, she also adds some youth to McCain. Let's be fair: McCain is not terribly charismatic, and he simply looks old and slow. That is not meant to be an insult, it is fact. Palin could help balance that. She is young (44), telegenic (very pretty for a politician), and plainly vigorous (she has a large brood of kids, and just had another one months ago). But at the same time she is not too young to contrast too strongly with McCain's age. How this will play on TV should only help McCain.
(4) Palin is also an outside the beltway figure, which will contrast not just with Obama-Biden, but the GOP establishment. Palin was elected governor of Alaska in 2006 under a large reform banner, and ethics has been her signature issue for years. McCain can tap into both with this pick: ethics and national reform. McCain can appeal to people by saying Palin is outside of the beltway, and also that she has made cleaning up Alaska's corrupt politics her top fight. This could contrast nicely with not only Democrats, but the nation's politics in general.
(5) The pick could save a likely lost Senate seat. While this may seem like a small matter to many people, today John Ensign is smiling widely for a simple reason: Sarah Palin as veep could likely save Ted Stevens' Senate seat. With Palin on the ballot, not only is Alaska off Obama's radar, but it could unite enough voters to back the indicted and disgraced Stevens. Saving a Senate that could be lost for 20 years to the Democrats is a big deal. And Senate seats are a big deal, with the DSCC and NRSC spending tens of millions on U.S. Senate seats.
(6) Palin could excite the GOP base. By being pro-life, and having little record otherwise, Palin likely will not offend any key constituencies, and may, for the first time, excite what has been a down GOP base and get them out to work hard for the campaign. Right now, many Republicans are and should be nervous, but they likely also will believe they have a chance to win right now after what was an excellent Obama speech just last night.
There are also big risks to picking Palin
(1) Palin is grossly inexperienced. Before being elected governor in November 2006, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, a fast-growing Alaska community, but still only a town with only a few thousand people. Making the jump from being mayor of a few thousand to one step from the nuclear football in under two years is a big stretch, even though McCain is running against a man who became Senator in 2005. Obama has gravitas to push away inexperience accusations, Palin does not. This leaves the pick open to enormous criticism.
(2) Palin's good government credentials are currenly being soiled by a scandal back home. In recent weeks, Palin has come under heavy fire for firing Alaska's public service commissioner. As the story goes, the commissioner refused heavy pushing from Palin, her husband, and her administration to fire a state trooper who was in a nasty divorce proceeding with Palin's sister. This story has already undercut the governor's sterling ethics record, and has only begun to get bigger as the Democratically-controlled state senate has appointed an investigator to look into the matter. McCain clearly believes that the story is minor, and has no legs. Maybe Palin has reassured him that the scandal is really no scandal. If either McCain is wrong or Palin is lying, then she could be a quick and massive liability.
(3) Palin has no experience in foreign affairs and probably zero knowledge of major foreign or domestic issues, which could make her a liability on the stump. Palin is the polar opposite of Joe Biden. In a debate with Joe, she will likely get her clock cleaned. It is hard to imagine a larger chasm of experience between two politicians. Love him or loathe, Biden is 1000x more experienced and more knowledgeable about almost any salient issues. It is almost embarrassing how much more qualified Biden is than Palin.
(4) While a fresh face, Palin could be too fresh, and thus undercut McCain's message that he is a stable agent of experience who can protect America. McCain has clearly made "ready to lead" on day one the centerpiece of his campaign. Palin's complete lack of tangible and valuable experience is so great that it could severely undercut this message. In other words, how can McCain, who has been running on his experience advantage over Obama, all of sudden pivot and run in the other direction? It might fail miserably.
(5) Palin might not be ready for the bright lights of the campaign and frenetic pace of the race. Palin has never come anywhere near to what she is going to face over the next two months. Generally, she gives speeches to a roomful of people in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Wasilla. Now she is jumping to the national stage. Will she be ready?
(6) This pick only became an option a week ago, after HRC was not tapped, meaning that Team McCain really only made the big choice in one week. While they probably vetted her, the fact is that Palin would never have been picked if Obama had tapped Hillary. In other words, this pick was really made in the last few days, and there is a good chance Palin was not fully vetted or thought out as much as a veep should be. This could be a danger later if Palin is clearly not ready, or has some skeletons that went undiscovered.
(7) While he will want to, McCain will still have a hard time highlighting ANWR. We've seen in the last month that depserate Republicans are trying to highlight Democrats' refusal to drill as the reason for the deepening energy crisis. Few people are better positioned to talk about ANWR than Palin, who is obviously a big supporter. But McCain's past opposition to ANWR drilling will make it tough for him to change his mind right now, and if he does, he could open himself to attacks flip-flopping and making a big decision for politicial expediency.
(8) This pick could be seen a as cheap gimmick, and maybe ever a sign of desperation. That might be true. I wrote the same thing in June. This should be the immediate goal of Team Obama in framing the pick.
Will Palin's lack of experience matter?
In making this pick, McCain is hoping that his large swath of experience will cover up for Palin; in other words that he will get all the benefits of picking her, and very few of the downsides. I believe Palin will run heavily as a change agent, someone outside of the beltway. It might contrast with McCain's message, but they will have no choice. They will have to run this way. This pick might be a 40 yard pass, but McCain's people believed he had to do it. They did not believe they could win without taking a gamble, and this might be the ultimate gamble. The pick could fail miserably. But it could also bring scores of women to support the GOP ticket, both angry Hillary supporters and women in general. Anyone scoffing at this pick should remember one thing:
More times than not, people vote on emotion over logic.
This is precisely what Team McCain is counting on. Sure, Palin knows nothing compared to Biden, but that might not matter if she can appeal to women and run on change. Besides, that veep debate will likely not matter much. McCain is hoping Palin's lack of experience, her being from Alaska, the Troopergate scandal, and everything else will fall by the wayside, and her simply being young, attractive, and a woman will help him.
What Democrats need to do
Team Obama needs to do two things right now.
First, Obama needs to be on the phone to Hillary. Now. Already. He needs to tell her: "I need you on the trail just about every day to the end. I need you." Whatever it takes, Hillary's role takes on increased significance. Swallow your pride, and do what it takes, Barack. Show some LBJ, win-with-whatever-it-takes instinct.
Second, they need to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. All politics aside, all of my own politiical views aside, Team Obama needs to tear the bark off of this choice immediately, and rip it down. Palin is grossly, GROSSLY inexperienced. She has been governor for less than two years, and before that she was mayor of a town with less people than a few blocks of Philadelphia, PA. Obama's state senate district had more voters than Wasilla.
They need to methodically highlight not just her inexperience, but also extremist positions: her poor environmental record and strong pro-life views (both anathema to many women and Hillary supporters), her connection to the Troopergate inquiry and how hypocritical it reflects on her reform mantra, and other factors.
Attacking her will be tricky, but of anyone, Hillary can blast Palin. The pick should be called not just one of inexperience, but a DANGEROUS pick. A woman with this little experience has no business being one step from the nuclear football. Democrats cannot let the GOP frame this pick: they need to do it themselves, and fast. They should attack Palin as an inexperienced extremist, and not a sweet reformer.
Hillary and perhaps others should hone on these words: astonishingly inexperienced, anti-environment, mired in corruption back home, and dangerously inexperienced for a 21st Century world. McCain is particularly vulnerable as he has run as someone who can protect America, and Democrats -- read Hillary -- can say this is a choice made of pure political expediency, and it puts the country's security at risk.
One more thing: Team McCain will use these inevitable attacks against Obama himself by saying Palin is no more inexperienced that Palin, and that as a governor, she might be more experienced than Obama. Team Obama should welcome this, and let the people decide who has the experience to lead: Obama and Biden, both of whom can speak fluently on and to these critical issues, or Palin, who probably, seriously could not point out Georgia or Pakistan on a map.
Conclusion
This pick may fail miserably. I don't doubt that. But one has to admit this is a bold choice. McCain is swinging for the fences, and as a political follower, I respect that. With the Palin pick, Hillary becomes hugely important to Team Obama, and they need to swallow their pride reach out to her, if they haven't already.
In the coming days, things will develop a bit, and we can evaluate more then. But right now this is an astonishing pick, a smart pick, and I can assure you, both Team Obama and Team McCain are nervous right now.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Confessions of a Political Junkie
It is now 4:04 am on Wednesday morning, and I am staying up watching the Alaska Republican congressional primary, refreshing the Alaska's elections web page ten times a minute.
Right now, this is an all-time close race. With 70.55 percent reporting
Rep. Don Young 39,370 (45.25 percent)
Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell 39,602 (45.52)
Nevertheless, even though I am on vacation here in lovely northern New Jersey, I badly, desperately need a life. And I have to admit: I was looking forward to this election today even more than my Hillary's speech (very good job, by the way).
Somebody please help me.
Right now, this is an all-time close race. With 70.55 percent reporting
Rep. Don Young 39,370 (45.25 percent)
Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell 39,602 (45.52)
Nevertheless, even though I am on vacation here in lovely northern New Jersey, I badly, desperately need a life. And I have to admit: I was looking forward to this election today even more than my Hillary's speech (very good job, by the way).
Somebody please help me.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Quick thoughts on Joe Biden
A few more (final?) thoughts on the Democratic veepstakes and Joe Biden. As we pointed out here, Joe Biden was, at the start of the process, one of the best possibilities for Barack Obama, just below Jim Webb, Mark Warner, and Ted Strickland. A few weeks ago, when it became apparent that John McCain was going to conduct a largely negative race, and with that troika long-since out of the running, we saw Biden as arguably the best possibility (along with Hillary Clinton), largely because Obama would need an attack dog to go after McCain.
Despite our late insistence that Obama should have tapped Clinton, this was by no means an attack on Biden. While he was not the best of possible choices, he is certainly a good choice and likely won't hurt Obama in his quest for the White House.
With all of that in mind, let's go over a couple general points on the all-new Obama-Biden ticket in fast, quick-hit fashion.
(1) In the end, this pick will not determine the election outcome -- Barack Obama and John McCain will. We love politics, so do most of the pundits, and probably anyone who reads this blog regularly. As a result, we tend to overstate and over-analyze minor political issues and events. The veepstakes is easily Exhibit A of this syndrome, with the 24/7 media covering this whole ordeal so much because there was nothing better to do.
Let's be totally honest: when it is all said and done, the Biden choice -- and McCain's pick as well -- will very likely have little impact on the ultimate outcome of this race. In the end, voters will cast their ballots on the main candidates, Obama and McCain. At most, Biden will have a big negative effect, were he to make a big mistake, or something bad came out about him going forward. But neither Biden, nor almost any others, would likely turn a vital state, or the race itself.
(2) Picking Biden is an extension of Obama's "big game" electoral strategy. Had Obama picked either Tim Kaine or Evan Bayh, either pick would have been with the implicit recognition that both men were on the ticket in large part because of how they would have been able to help carry Virginia or Indiana's electoral votes. By picking Biden, Obama continued to avoid this small-ball strategy, and focus on a broader outlook, as Biden will likely not have a huge influence in helping to carry any big toss-up state. While the pick and this strategy are open to some criticism, we continue to support it given the national anti-GOP environment and the advantages Obama's enormous financial war chest will bring.
(3) Joe Biden will not help much in Ohio or Pennsylvania. A lot of early reports on Biden have zeroed in on his blue collar background in Scranton, and have argued that this upbringing will help the ticket attract lower middle whites and perhaps turn Ohio and bolster Obama's standing in Pennsylvania. For the most part, I disagree. While Biden's life story can only help, it won't help much. Biden has lived in Delaware for decades, and he has no tangible connection to the Buckeye State that would help win over skeptical voters in southeast Ohio (the state's key swing region for Obama). I think this argument is largely wishful thinking.
(4) Joe Biden's best asset will be his ability to tear down John McCain. As we noted a couple of weeks ago, Joe Biden will be a very good attack dog for the ticket, and I believe this was one of the key reasons he was tapped. Biden is a skilled speaker, and because he is so strong on policy matters and politics, he will be an effective weapon to blister Republicans in ways that Obama cannot himself say out loud. As a longtime political pro who has chaired two major Senate committees and has appeared on countless Sunday morning talk shows, Biden will be able to slide into the national stage with ease.
What's more important, because of his knowledge of foreign affairs and his control of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has the credibility to lodge attacks that individuals like Kaine, Bayh, and Kate Sebelius would have had a harder time pulling off. Credibility is key, and is a major reason that we believed Hillary Clinton would have been a good fit for the ticket at this stage. As the race gets more and more nasty, Biden's value as an attack dog surrogate will quickly become apparent. I have strong personal confidence that Biden will flourish in this role.
(5) The Obama team played out the process extremely well in two respects. Both the Obama campaign's conduct of the veep search, as well as its precise execution, were done quite well, and this reflects strongly on both the candidate and his inner circle. First, that there were basically zero substantive leaks throughout the process is pretty impressive. Sure, these things generally remain in the dark until the announcement, but never before has a veepstakes been subjected to level of intense scrutiny analysis as that present during this campaign. The campaign's skilled tight-lippedness reflects well on Obama's campaign's focus and loyalty.
Second, by ducking the conventional wisdom -- and past history -- and making the selection so late in the game, Team Obama showed restraint and foresight. More importantly, the roll-out was executed well, and the campaign played the insatiable CNN/Fox/MSNBC media beast to perfection. The campaign was able to maximize coverage of the choice, and Obama generally with how it announced the decision. When I first heard about the whole text message business, I scoofed, but the Obama plan exceeded my expectations.
One caveat is that I would not have dumped the story on Saturday. No one was paying attention at that point, particularly on a summer Saturday in August. They should have done it Monday or Thursday/Friday. But this does not take away from how well the overall process was conducted.
(6) The search was executed with regards to the Hillary situation. One exception to the campaign's professionalism was with its treatment of the Hillary quagmire. Immediately before and after the Biden pick came to light, stories were released saying that Obama never formally vetted Clinton, and his veep team never requested a single document from Clinton. These stories served merely to open up old wounds from the primary.
Personally, I believe that a lot of the bad stuff was leaked from the hardcore bitter Clintonistas in her inner circle, nothing more. I also feel that Obama really did meet with Clinton on the veep search, albeit probably informally. But Team Obama did screw up by not formally requesting some background stuff from the Clintons, if for nothing else than for show. By not doing so, they left themselves open to criticism, even if they never had any intention of picking HRC, which I believe they did not. For Obama's sake, I hope the matter blows over.
(7) By not picking Clinton, Obama makes himself more vulnerable with women. Already, Team McCain is trying to really exploit this opening, and is surprisingly using HIllary Clinton herself as the vehicle. A commercial just created by McCain criticizes Obama for not picking Clinton -- apparently using some stories circulating out there that Obama did not even formally vet his former rival. This ad is geared towards opening newer and wider wounds with the female electorate.
While it is entirely unclear if this is a wise strategy, and whether many former Clinton supporters and women generally will vote Republican this November, McCain is smart to push the issue. If it doesn't work or move poll numbers, he can always move on. But if McCain is truly committed to winning a big slice of the female electorate, he should follow the course we outlined here last month and look seriously at tapping a woman as his running mate -- specifically Sarah Palin. If McCain were to take that bold course, the Biden pick could really backfire for the Democrats.
Despite our late insistence that Obama should have tapped Clinton, this was by no means an attack on Biden. While he was not the best of possible choices, he is certainly a good choice and likely won't hurt Obama in his quest for the White House.
With all of that in mind, let's go over a couple general points on the all-new Obama-Biden ticket in fast, quick-hit fashion.
(1) In the end, this pick will not determine the election outcome -- Barack Obama and John McCain will. We love politics, so do most of the pundits, and probably anyone who reads this blog regularly. As a result, we tend to overstate and over-analyze minor political issues and events. The veepstakes is easily Exhibit A of this syndrome, with the 24/7 media covering this whole ordeal so much because there was nothing better to do.
Let's be totally honest: when it is all said and done, the Biden choice -- and McCain's pick as well -- will very likely have little impact on the ultimate outcome of this race. In the end, voters will cast their ballots on the main candidates, Obama and McCain. At most, Biden will have a big negative effect, were he to make a big mistake, or something bad came out about him going forward. But neither Biden, nor almost any others, would likely turn a vital state, or the race itself.
(2) Picking Biden is an extension of Obama's "big game" electoral strategy. Had Obama picked either Tim Kaine or Evan Bayh, either pick would have been with the implicit recognition that both men were on the ticket in large part because of how they would have been able to help carry Virginia or Indiana's electoral votes. By picking Biden, Obama continued to avoid this small-ball strategy, and focus on a broader outlook, as Biden will likely not have a huge influence in helping to carry any big toss-up state. While the pick and this strategy are open to some criticism, we continue to support it given the national anti-GOP environment and the advantages Obama's enormous financial war chest will bring.
(3) Joe Biden will not help much in Ohio or Pennsylvania. A lot of early reports on Biden have zeroed in on his blue collar background in Scranton, and have argued that this upbringing will help the ticket attract lower middle whites and perhaps turn Ohio and bolster Obama's standing in Pennsylvania. For the most part, I disagree. While Biden's life story can only help, it won't help much. Biden has lived in Delaware for decades, and he has no tangible connection to the Buckeye State that would help win over skeptical voters in southeast Ohio (the state's key swing region for Obama). I think this argument is largely wishful thinking.
(4) Joe Biden's best asset will be his ability to tear down John McCain. As we noted a couple of weeks ago, Joe Biden will be a very good attack dog for the ticket, and I believe this was one of the key reasons he was tapped. Biden is a skilled speaker, and because he is so strong on policy matters and politics, he will be an effective weapon to blister Republicans in ways that Obama cannot himself say out loud. As a longtime political pro who has chaired two major Senate committees and has appeared on countless Sunday morning talk shows, Biden will be able to slide into the national stage with ease.
What's more important, because of his knowledge of foreign affairs and his control of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has the credibility to lodge attacks that individuals like Kaine, Bayh, and Kate Sebelius would have had a harder time pulling off. Credibility is key, and is a major reason that we believed Hillary Clinton would have been a good fit for the ticket at this stage. As the race gets more and more nasty, Biden's value as an attack dog surrogate will quickly become apparent. I have strong personal confidence that Biden will flourish in this role.
(5) The Obama team played out the process extremely well in two respects. Both the Obama campaign's conduct of the veep search, as well as its precise execution, were done quite well, and this reflects strongly on both the candidate and his inner circle. First, that there were basically zero substantive leaks throughout the process is pretty impressive. Sure, these things generally remain in the dark until the announcement, but never before has a veepstakes been subjected to level of intense scrutiny analysis as that present during this campaign. The campaign's skilled tight-lippedness reflects well on Obama's campaign's focus and loyalty.
Second, by ducking the conventional wisdom -- and past history -- and making the selection so late in the game, Team Obama showed restraint and foresight. More importantly, the roll-out was executed well, and the campaign played the insatiable CNN/Fox/MSNBC media beast to perfection. The campaign was able to maximize coverage of the choice, and Obama generally with how it announced the decision. When I first heard about the whole text message business, I scoofed, but the Obama plan exceeded my expectations.
One caveat is that I would not have dumped the story on Saturday. No one was paying attention at that point, particularly on a summer Saturday in August. They should have done it Monday or Thursday/Friday. But this does not take away from how well the overall process was conducted.
(6) The search was executed with regards to the Hillary situation. One exception to the campaign's professionalism was with its treatment of the Hillary quagmire. Immediately before and after the Biden pick came to light, stories were released saying that Obama never formally vetted Clinton, and his veep team never requested a single document from Clinton. These stories served merely to open up old wounds from the primary.
Personally, I believe that a lot of the bad stuff was leaked from the hardcore bitter Clintonistas in her inner circle, nothing more. I also feel that Obama really did meet with Clinton on the veep search, albeit probably informally. But Team Obama did screw up by not formally requesting some background stuff from the Clintons, if for nothing else than for show. By not doing so, they left themselves open to criticism, even if they never had any intention of picking HRC, which I believe they did not. For Obama's sake, I hope the matter blows over.
(7) By not picking Clinton, Obama makes himself more vulnerable with women. Already, Team McCain is trying to really exploit this opening, and is surprisingly using HIllary Clinton herself as the vehicle. A commercial just created by McCain criticizes Obama for not picking Clinton -- apparently using some stories circulating out there that Obama did not even formally vet his former rival. This ad is geared towards opening newer and wider wounds with the female electorate.
While it is entirely unclear if this is a wise strategy, and whether many former Clinton supporters and women generally will vote Republican this November, McCain is smart to push the issue. If it doesn't work or move poll numbers, he can always move on. But if McCain is truly committed to winning a big slice of the female electorate, he should follow the course we outlined here last month and look seriously at tapping a woman as his running mate -- specifically Sarah Palin. If McCain were to take that bold course, the Biden pick could really backfire for the Democrats.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Southern Re-realignment: Mississippi
Like Alabama, Mississippi was once staunchly Democratic, turning to the Republican Party for good in the last few decades. Today, it is one of the strongest GOP states in presidential elections, having not delivered its electoral votes to the Democratic candidate since 1976, when Georgian Jimmy Carter narrowly won the state. John Kerry lost here by 60-40, and Al Gore did only slightly better, losing 57-42.
This is a state where senatorial re-realignment has been painfully elusive for Democrats, not just because of the politics, but also because Mississippians are generally so loyal to sitting incumbents. As late as the seventies, Democrats held both of Mississippi's U.S. Senate seats with the duo of James O. Eastland, the long-serving chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the legendary John C. Stennis. When Eastland retired in 1978, Congressman Thad Cochran won the seat, and when Stennis finally decided to leave Washing, he was replaced by GOP Rep. Trent Lott. With the exception of Lott's first Senate campaign in 1988 (which he won 54-46 over another congressman), neither man ever faced a hard race, with both becoming iconic figures in the Magnolia State, much like their Democratic predecessors, and have been unbeatable electorally.
Governor
Prior to Kirk Fordice's election in 1991, Mississippi had not sent a Republican to the governor's mansion since Reconstruction. After Fordice was term-limited from seeking a third term, he was replaced by Democrat Ronnie Musgrove, who served from 2000 to 2004 before being defeated by longtime Republican operative Haley Barbour by 53-46. Very popular today, Barbour was re-elected in 2007 by 58-42, and will serve through 2011.
With the next governor's race in November 2011, talk about it is pretty pointless. Needless to say that because it will be an open seat and because it is not a federal office, Democrats will have a shot to win it.
Naturally, it could be tough for them to win the office because of Mississippi's current political bent, as well as because all but one of the statewide offices are occupied by Republicans. Out of the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Agriculture Commissioner, and Insurance Commissioner, only the state's AG is a Democrat. Therefore, there will be a glut of GOP officials with statewide name recognition able to run in three years.
That the governorship has only been held by two Republicans in 150 years, and that Musgrove won the job in 1999 do demonstrate that Democrats can be competitive in winning the job, but it should be noted that Musgrove only won when the Democratically-controlled state house voted him in after neither he nor his opponent won over 50 percent of the general election vote (though Musgrove did finish ahead of said opponent, then-congressman Mike Parker, in the general vote tally). Indeed, Barbour's win in 2003 and strong re-election in 2007 may have signaled the the governorship is now also an office where Mississippians prefer a Republican over a Democrat in general, thereby making it likely that Barbour will succeeded by a fellow party member. Time will tell on this score.
It is also worth noting that Democrats remain a force in the state legislature, where they control the lower chamber, 73-46, and the senate by a narrow 27-25. However, because Mississippi is not set to gain or lose any of its four congressional seats any time soon, this control will not have any impact on redistricting. Nor would it matter a great deal if any of the current district lines were tinkered with any, as Democrats hold three of the four seats, and movement of more Democratic voters into the GOP-controlled Third District would be unlikely to flip it, particularly at risk to the safe siting incumbents. Besides, with the districts as they are -- i.e. nearly all unquestionably red -- it would not matter much anyway. Still, it is noteworthy that Democrats have continued to hold influence at the state level, and certainly plays into the narrative that Democrats can be competitive in state elections -- including the governorship -- more than in federal races.
Mississippi's congressional delegation is surprisingly Democratic
The congressional delegation is much more promising for Democrats, with Dems holding three of the state's four seats. The way Democrats have been able to win these seats is certainly a good primer on achieving political success in the South.
The Second District is the state's only safe Democratic seat. Nearly two-thirds black, and including Jackson and the Delta region on the state's west coast, it is D+10 and probably out of reach for Republicans even in this state. It is an especially poor part of both Mississippi, and it has had black representation in Congress for over 20 years: first by Mike Espy, who would eventually go on to become President Clinton's Agriculture Secretary, and now by Bennie Thompson, who is the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
This is both a district that probably will not be seriously contested by the Republicans in the near future, but at the same time it will not produce a Member of Congress who can win statewide office. Thompson, to both his credit and to his detriment, has a record that is far too liberal to help him win statewide election. This is to say nothing for the concerns that a black man could win statewide in Mississippi for any office today, particularly Governor or Senator. While the state is around 37 percent black, the largest percentage in the nation, the white vote generally goes overwhelmingly to any and all Republican candidates, making it very hard to win statewide for Democrats. This is a problem that we will discuss further in the context of this year's Senate race.
The rest of the state is more interesting. The First District is R+10, the Third is R+13, and the Fourth in southeastern Mississippi along the Gulf Coast is R+16. Yet, the First and Fourth are both in the hands of Democrats. I've already looked at Travis Childers' stunning win, so I won't bother rehashing the election here; my post provides all the information one might interested in for the purposes here.
Needless to say that Childers was able to win a R+10 seat through a near-perfect confluence of events: Childers was a great and enthusiastic campaigner, he possessed conservative social views in great sync with the District, he exploited a nasty Republican primary fight which left scars and hurt feelings as well as geographic tensions unique to the District between the "Memphis" part of the First and the "Tupelo" part from which the District's historic representation had generally come from, a national environment which disfavored Republican candidates for all offices, and Childers had robust financial support from the national Democratic Party when it counted between the first round of general election voting and the run-off. In a nutshell, Childers was just the right candidate (if not the only candidate) who could have won. While the national GOP waded into the race, do not expect a repeat in November: with funds tight all around, and the Republican nominee losing by a surprising eight points then, he will receive many NRCC aid, and will lose again to Childers.
That Democrats have been able to hold the state's most conservative district is perhaps more impressive than Childers' victory. Gene Taylor was first elected in the Fourth District in a 1989 special election, and remains very popular there. Shockingly, Taylor has never faced a tough contest since his initial election. Like Childers, Taylor has strong socially conservative views, opposing abortion rights, gun control measures, and other popular Democratic causes, but he tempers that with populist economic positions which keep him allied with his caucus. Consequently, Taylor has never won less than 58 percent of the vote -- he even won 60 percent in 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution when dozens of congressional Democrats were ousted -- an amazing number, especially when one considers that he sits in the most conservative district in Mississippi, and one of the reddest district in America; one which gave President Bush 65 and 68 percent of the vote in his two races.
Childers and Taylor thus show that Democrats can still win in the heart of Mississippi, so long as they have the right social views, the right circumstances (a special election following the death of the sitting congressman for Taylor, and an open seat necessitated by a congressman quitting to go to the Senate in the case of Childers), and are the right men with a lot of positive energy to win initially, something both men had in spades. I suspect that barring an unforeseen development, Childers will win a full term this November by an impressive margin -- heck, he won his special election 54-46 -- and therefore be able to hold his seat, so long as he never strays too far from his constituents.
The Trent Lott resignation and Ronnie Musgrove
The Senate race this fall between appointed Senator Roger Wicker and former Governor Musgrove will be probably the most important election in Mississippi in decades, at least from the Democrats' perspective. Simply put, it represents the first time in 20 years, that they have a legitimate chance to win a Mississippi United States Senate seat.
Last year, all of the talk was on whether Senator Thad Cochran -- who has been in the Senate since 1979 -- was going to retire rather than run for another term in November 2008. At 70 years old, Cochran had been chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee from 2005 to the start of 2007, but after Democrats retook the Senate in 2006, he was ousted from the position, and many observers speculated that Cochran could be a good bet to retire given his age and loss of the chairmanship. Cochran himself fed into this speculation when he did not do any fundraising -- though, in fairness, given his electoral invincibility in the state, he needn't have to raise a nickel to win re-election -- and did not deny that he at least considering retirement as option.
For their part, Democrats eagerly watched Cochran. While the Senator himself remained obviously unbeatable, Democrats believed that they could contest an open seat with former four-term state Attorney General Mike Moore, arguably the most popular Democratic figure in the state. Moore had served in the position for 16 years, and was widely respected for his stewardship of the tobacco litigation where state attorneys general banded together and successfully sued the tobacco companies in the 1990s. For years, Democrats had been trying to recruit him for higher office, but with neither of the Senate seats opening between 1988 and 2007, Moore had had no opportunities to run. Democrats, as well as Republicans, believed he would be the favorite of either party to win an open seat.
When Cochran announced at the end of 2007 that he was running again, Democrats were certainly dispirited, but not long afterwards, Senator Trent Lott stunned the political world by announced that he would resign his Senate seat at the end of 2007. The timing of Lott's move was certainly interesting: a new ethics law was to go into effect in 2008 which would have forbidden former Members of Congress from lobbying for two years following the Member's last day in office; the law still on the books in 2007 set the moratorium at one year. In order to get around this impending change, Lott left office on December 31 so he would be able to lobby one year earlier.
Naturally, the resignation set off a scramble. Because Lott had won re-election in 2006, his term was not set to expire until 2012. Thus, there were five years remaining on his term. Governor Barbour had the power to appoint a sitting replacement until a special election could be held to determine who would hold the seat for the remainder of the term. While Mississippi state law stipulated that a special election had to be held within 90 days of a Senate resignation, thereby seemingly requiring a special election for March or April, Governor Barbour ordered that the special be held in November when the regular presidential and other state and congressional races were held. His reasons for this holding were purely political, but nonetheless smart given his perspective.
After Lott announced his resignation, two names were being bandied about on the Democratic side: Mike Moore and former Governor Ronnie Musgrove. Both men had won statewide office before (Moore four times as state AG, and Musgrove twice as Lieutenant Governor and Governor), and were seen as especially strong challengers. In short, even many Republicans concurred that both would not only be the Dems' best (and perhaps) only hopes to grab the seat. With this in mind, Barbour recognized that whoever he appointed would need time to build up the necessary name recognition to best either well-known Democrat. Holding the election in November as opposed to March or April would achieve this end.
Furthermore, Barbour calculated that putting the Senate race on the same ballot with the presidential contest would undoubtedly benefit the Republican appointee, as Mississippi was assured of going heavily Republican in the presidential election, regardless of who either party ended up nominating.
In sum, while his decision was irksome to Democrats, Barbour certainly made the wise choice in order to protect his party. Had the election been just a few months after Lott's departure, a Moore or Musgrove would have had a much easier time beating a lesser-known Republican, but with the election in November the playing field would be evened out, if not slanted to the Republicans.
Given the plain language of state law which seemed to require a quick special election, Democrats complained raucously, and the state Attorney General (Jim Hood, a Democrat), challenged Barbour in court. Hood won at the lower court level, but predictably, the heavily Republican Mississippi Supreme Court sided with Barbour 7-2, and upheld the November election date.
The decision for who to tap for the seat was important for Barbour, but complicated. In our previous post on the Childers race, we recapped it in some detail. To just summarize, the obvious choice was Third District congressman Chip Pickering, a young, telegenic, and very conservative rising star. Long before Lott's plans to leave the Senate became public, Pickering was seen as a natural heir for the next open Senate seat. However, shortly before Lott made his plans public, Pickering made a shock announcement that he was retiring at the end of the his current term to spend more time with his family. Therefore, both he and Gov. Barbour were put in a difficult position: Pickering had clearly expressed aspirations to be a Senator in the past, but going back on his word, while not at all impossible, was potentially distasteful, and could have been a turnoff. Ultimately, Barbour tapped Mississippi's other Republican Representative, Roger Wicker of the northern First District.
Wicker v. Musgrove
The November Senate election is of monumental importance to both state and national Democrats. A Democratic win in Mississippi would have tremendous implications for potential Southern re-realignment in perhaps the very most conservative Deep South state.
All hyperbole aside, a Musgrove victory would be one of, if not the most significant Democratic win in the South in a generation. A loss would likely assure that Democrats would be unable to win the Lott seat for the next generation. Sure, Sen. Cochran is likely to retire in 2014 when he is in his 80s, but Democrats can't count on that; Taylor, Childers, and Hood may all be out of office by then for we know now. Democrats will never have as good a nominee, as good a national atmosphere, and as mediocre a Republican opponent all together at once as they do for the Wicker-Musgrove race.
Musgrove is a natural and tireless campaigner. He has universal name recognition in the state from his terms as Lieutenant Governor and then Governor. Musgrorve also possesses strongly conservative social views akin to Travis Childers. And while Musgrove likely would have won in an April election, the November election has one benefit that will help him slightly: because it is a special election, state law requires that no party ID be next to the candidates' names; therefore, neither Wicker nor Musgrove will be identified with their parties on the election day ballot.
In a state as Republican-centric as Mississippi, this can only help the Democratic candidate; though, to be perfectly honest, I think many commentators overstate its value, and I think that when it is all said and done, nearly every voter in the state will know Wicker's and Musgrove's party affiliations, ensuring that the unique ballot will likely be only marginally helpful to the Democrat at best. (Furthermore, the Governor and Secretary of State are already showing machinations to try to and move the special election to the very bottom of the ballot. While the reasons for this are nakedly political, they will probably succeed. It is hard to predict how this would impact the contest, but it probably would not be helpful to Musgrove.)
Despite all of these favorable factors, Musgrove should still be considered the underdog in the race for two key reasons. First, he has been heavily outraised by Senator Wicker. For all the complaints by Republicans that Wicker is not terribly charismatic and not as energetic a candidate as Musgrove, he has raised a mint in cash since he was appointed to the Senate, while Musgrove has done mediocre at best. Thee DSCC has vast resources to help fix this imbalance, and indeed it has already begun funding ads across Magnolia State TV blasting Wicker. Because of the NRSC funding problems, it will have a hard time matching the DSCC here and elsewhere. Still, Wicker's money advantage is vast and thus huge.
Second, Musgrove still faces the Mississippi electorate, and the state's electorate is, simply hostile to Democratic candidates. While the state is around 37 percent black, and that segment votes overwhelmingly Democratic in all races, the other two-thirds -- the white part of the state -- goes almost equally strongly to Republicans. Statewide, it an achievement where the Democratic candidate can break 20 percent of the white vote. As shocking as that may sound, it is fact and the reason Democrats have no much trouble winning all of Mississippi.
With Barack Obama on the top of the ticket, Musgrove may well win the black vote 95-5, but he has to find a way to win a share of the white vote that Democratic candidates almost always fail to garner. That's it. If he can do that, he will likely be the first Democrat since John Stennis to represent Mississippi in the Senate. And make no mistake: while Obama will almost certainly bring out unprecedented numbers of black voters to the polls, voters who will vote almost universally for Obama and down-ballot Dems, there are perils to this calculus. It is absolutely unclear if while at the same time Obama is bringing out and winning more black voters, he will win more or even less white voters than most Democratic presidential candidates.
My personal sense with regards to Obama's impact on the white vote is that despite conventional wisdom (and Mississippi's own past), Obama will do better statewide than John Kerry (he lost the state by 20 points) given the national anti-GOP environment. He will obviously get just about every black vote, but I think he will probably be as successful as most Dems with the state white vote: not much better or worse. Consequently, at least by my logic, Musgrove will get a boast with the black vote but not be badly hurt among the white vote, thereby making his mission of garnering a certain percentage of the white electorate not as difficult.
I will close with that and note that as of now, the race is close by many polls, though the last two polls, both from Rasmussen, have shown Wicker with a nine-point lead after being tied for several months. This is probably the result of Musgrove's name being tied to a federal bribery investigation which has not actually charged the former governor with any wrong-doing. Specifically, in the Rasmussen August poll showing Wicker up 52-43 (47-42 without leaners included), Musgrove garners 22 percent of whites, but his deficit seems to be solely because Wicker is polling 17 percent of blacks. If Wicker gets even half that number come election day, Musgrove is toast.
Outlook
Forgive me for getting to deep in the weeds on these races. My interest is not really in handicapping races so much as providing the appropriate background and context. In terms of Mississippi and Musgrove v. Wicker, the big question is not so much who will win, but rather what the outcome means for the state's politics.
Currently, Democratic prospects in Mississippi, despite Travis Childers's win, are not superb. This is not surprising, as the state is deep, deep red and has been for decades. This is precisely why the Senate race for the Trent Lott seat is so important for the party. It might be the Democrats' greatest opportunity to win and hold a United States Senate seat. Should they fail, they may have to wait another generation for a new opportunity to present itself.
Winning the seat will not re-realign Mississippi to the Democratic Party in the same way that the Webb and (pending) Warner wins have done for Virginia. Mississippi will never vote Democratic in a presidential election. If that is the goal, they may as well take their ball and go home; it ain't ever going to happen with a party that nominates the likes of Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama.
But what Democrats can accomplish this year is elect a conservative Democrat. Given Mississippi's inclination towards re-electing incumbents (excluding the green Wicker, Mississippi has only elected four men to the Senate since 1947: John Stennis, James Eastland, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott), Musgrove would have a great chance to get into office and hold the seat for the long haul.
As for my own gut look at the race, for most of the campaign I have felt Musgrove would ultimately win, by these two polls giving Wicker a nine-point advantage are bad news for the Democrat. Musgrove needs to shake these stories connecting him to the beef plant bribery scandal and turn the election focus on the economy, much as Travis Childers did with his special election contest. I still believe that Chuck Schumer will invest heavily in the state -- and already has -- but that will change if Musgrove can't keep it close.
Right now Wicker has the decided advantage because he is polling so well among blacks. As we noted, Musgrove must win blacks almost unanimously and then get around a quarter of the white vote. Right now, he apparently has work to do in the black community.
This is a state where senatorial re-realignment has been painfully elusive for Democrats, not just because of the politics, but also because Mississippians are generally so loyal to sitting incumbents. As late as the seventies, Democrats held both of Mississippi's U.S. Senate seats with the duo of James O. Eastland, the long-serving chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the legendary John C. Stennis. When Eastland retired in 1978, Congressman Thad Cochran won the seat, and when Stennis finally decided to leave Washing, he was replaced by GOP Rep. Trent Lott. With the exception of Lott's first Senate campaign in 1988 (which he won 54-46 over another congressman), neither man ever faced a hard race, with both becoming iconic figures in the Magnolia State, much like their Democratic predecessors, and have been unbeatable electorally.
Governor
Prior to Kirk Fordice's election in 1991, Mississippi had not sent a Republican to the governor's mansion since Reconstruction. After Fordice was term-limited from seeking a third term, he was replaced by Democrat Ronnie Musgrove, who served from 2000 to 2004 before being defeated by longtime Republican operative Haley Barbour by 53-46. Very popular today, Barbour was re-elected in 2007 by 58-42, and will serve through 2011.
With the next governor's race in November 2011, talk about it is pretty pointless. Needless to say that because it will be an open seat and because it is not a federal office, Democrats will have a shot to win it.
Naturally, it could be tough for them to win the office because of Mississippi's current political bent, as well as because all but one of the statewide offices are occupied by Republicans. Out of the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Agriculture Commissioner, and Insurance Commissioner, only the state's AG is a Democrat. Therefore, there will be a glut of GOP officials with statewide name recognition able to run in three years.
That the governorship has only been held by two Republicans in 150 years, and that Musgrove won the job in 1999 do demonstrate that Democrats can be competitive in winning the job, but it should be noted that Musgrove only won when the Democratically-controlled state house voted him in after neither he nor his opponent won over 50 percent of the general election vote (though Musgrove did finish ahead of said opponent, then-congressman Mike Parker, in the general vote tally). Indeed, Barbour's win in 2003 and strong re-election in 2007 may have signaled the the governorship is now also an office where Mississippians prefer a Republican over a Democrat in general, thereby making it likely that Barbour will succeeded by a fellow party member. Time will tell on this score.
It is also worth noting that Democrats remain a force in the state legislature, where they control the lower chamber, 73-46, and the senate by a narrow 27-25. However, because Mississippi is not set to gain or lose any of its four congressional seats any time soon, this control will not have any impact on redistricting. Nor would it matter a great deal if any of the current district lines were tinkered with any, as Democrats hold three of the four seats, and movement of more Democratic voters into the GOP-controlled Third District would be unlikely to flip it, particularly at risk to the safe siting incumbents. Besides, with the districts as they are -- i.e. nearly all unquestionably red -- it would not matter much anyway. Still, it is noteworthy that Democrats have continued to hold influence at the state level, and certainly plays into the narrative that Democrats can be competitive in state elections -- including the governorship -- more than in federal races.
Mississippi's congressional delegation is surprisingly Democratic
The congressional delegation is much more promising for Democrats, with Dems holding three of the state's four seats. The way Democrats have been able to win these seats is certainly a good primer on achieving political success in the South.
The Second District is the state's only safe Democratic seat. Nearly two-thirds black, and including Jackson and the Delta region on the state's west coast, it is D+10 and probably out of reach for Republicans even in this state. It is an especially poor part of both Mississippi, and it has had black representation in Congress for over 20 years: first by Mike Espy, who would eventually go on to become President Clinton's Agriculture Secretary, and now by Bennie Thompson, who is the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
This is both a district that probably will not be seriously contested by the Republicans in the near future, but at the same time it will not produce a Member of Congress who can win statewide office. Thompson, to both his credit and to his detriment, has a record that is far too liberal to help him win statewide election. This is to say nothing for the concerns that a black man could win statewide in Mississippi for any office today, particularly Governor or Senator. While the state is around 37 percent black, the largest percentage in the nation, the white vote generally goes overwhelmingly to any and all Republican candidates, making it very hard to win statewide for Democrats. This is a problem that we will discuss further in the context of this year's Senate race.
The rest of the state is more interesting. The First District is R+10, the Third is R+13, and the Fourth in southeastern Mississippi along the Gulf Coast is R+16. Yet, the First and Fourth are both in the hands of Democrats. I've already looked at Travis Childers' stunning win, so I won't bother rehashing the election here; my post provides all the information one might interested in for the purposes here.
Needless to say that Childers was able to win a R+10 seat through a near-perfect confluence of events: Childers was a great and enthusiastic campaigner, he possessed conservative social views in great sync with the District, he exploited a nasty Republican primary fight which left scars and hurt feelings as well as geographic tensions unique to the District between the "Memphis" part of the First and the "Tupelo" part from which the District's historic representation had generally come from, a national environment which disfavored Republican candidates for all offices, and Childers had robust financial support from the national Democratic Party when it counted between the first round of general election voting and the run-off. In a nutshell, Childers was just the right candidate (if not the only candidate) who could have won. While the national GOP waded into the race, do not expect a repeat in November: with funds tight all around, and the Republican nominee losing by a surprising eight points then, he will receive many NRCC aid, and will lose again to Childers.
That Democrats have been able to hold the state's most conservative district is perhaps more impressive than Childers' victory. Gene Taylor was first elected in the Fourth District in a 1989 special election, and remains very popular there. Shockingly, Taylor has never faced a tough contest since his initial election. Like Childers, Taylor has strong socially conservative views, opposing abortion rights, gun control measures, and other popular Democratic causes, but he tempers that with populist economic positions which keep him allied with his caucus. Consequently, Taylor has never won less than 58 percent of the vote -- he even won 60 percent in 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution when dozens of congressional Democrats were ousted -- an amazing number, especially when one considers that he sits in the most conservative district in Mississippi, and one of the reddest district in America; one which gave President Bush 65 and 68 percent of the vote in his two races.
Childers and Taylor thus show that Democrats can still win in the heart of Mississippi, so long as they have the right social views, the right circumstances (a special election following the death of the sitting congressman for Taylor, and an open seat necessitated by a congressman quitting to go to the Senate in the case of Childers), and are the right men with a lot of positive energy to win initially, something both men had in spades. I suspect that barring an unforeseen development, Childers will win a full term this November by an impressive margin -- heck, he won his special election 54-46 -- and therefore be able to hold his seat, so long as he never strays too far from his constituents.
The Trent Lott resignation and Ronnie Musgrove
The Senate race this fall between appointed Senator Roger Wicker and former Governor Musgrove will be probably the most important election in Mississippi in decades, at least from the Democrats' perspective. Simply put, it represents the first time in 20 years, that they have a legitimate chance to win a Mississippi United States Senate seat.
Last year, all of the talk was on whether Senator Thad Cochran -- who has been in the Senate since 1979 -- was going to retire rather than run for another term in November 2008. At 70 years old, Cochran had been chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee from 2005 to the start of 2007, but after Democrats retook the Senate in 2006, he was ousted from the position, and many observers speculated that Cochran could be a good bet to retire given his age and loss of the chairmanship. Cochran himself fed into this speculation when he did not do any fundraising -- though, in fairness, given his electoral invincibility in the state, he needn't have to raise a nickel to win re-election -- and did not deny that he at least considering retirement as option.
For their part, Democrats eagerly watched Cochran. While the Senator himself remained obviously unbeatable, Democrats believed that they could contest an open seat with former four-term state Attorney General Mike Moore, arguably the most popular Democratic figure in the state. Moore had served in the position for 16 years, and was widely respected for his stewardship of the tobacco litigation where state attorneys general banded together and successfully sued the tobacco companies in the 1990s. For years, Democrats had been trying to recruit him for higher office, but with neither of the Senate seats opening between 1988 and 2007, Moore had had no opportunities to run. Democrats, as well as Republicans, believed he would be the favorite of either party to win an open seat.
When Cochran announced at the end of 2007 that he was running again, Democrats were certainly dispirited, but not long afterwards, Senator Trent Lott stunned the political world by announced that he would resign his Senate seat at the end of 2007. The timing of Lott's move was certainly interesting: a new ethics law was to go into effect in 2008 which would have forbidden former Members of Congress from lobbying for two years following the Member's last day in office; the law still on the books in 2007 set the moratorium at one year. In order to get around this impending change, Lott left office on December 31 so he would be able to lobby one year earlier.
Naturally, the resignation set off a scramble. Because Lott had won re-election in 2006, his term was not set to expire until 2012. Thus, there were five years remaining on his term. Governor Barbour had the power to appoint a sitting replacement until a special election could be held to determine who would hold the seat for the remainder of the term. While Mississippi state law stipulated that a special election had to be held within 90 days of a Senate resignation, thereby seemingly requiring a special election for March or April, Governor Barbour ordered that the special be held in November when the regular presidential and other state and congressional races were held. His reasons for this holding were purely political, but nonetheless smart given his perspective.
After Lott announced his resignation, two names were being bandied about on the Democratic side: Mike Moore and former Governor Ronnie Musgrove. Both men had won statewide office before (Moore four times as state AG, and Musgrove twice as Lieutenant Governor and Governor), and were seen as especially strong challengers. In short, even many Republicans concurred that both would not only be the Dems' best (and perhaps) only hopes to grab the seat. With this in mind, Barbour recognized that whoever he appointed would need time to build up the necessary name recognition to best either well-known Democrat. Holding the election in November as opposed to March or April would achieve this end.
Furthermore, Barbour calculated that putting the Senate race on the same ballot with the presidential contest would undoubtedly benefit the Republican appointee, as Mississippi was assured of going heavily Republican in the presidential election, regardless of who either party ended up nominating.
In sum, while his decision was irksome to Democrats, Barbour certainly made the wise choice in order to protect his party. Had the election been just a few months after Lott's departure, a Moore or Musgrove would have had a much easier time beating a lesser-known Republican, but with the election in November the playing field would be evened out, if not slanted to the Republicans.
Given the plain language of state law which seemed to require a quick special election, Democrats complained raucously, and the state Attorney General (Jim Hood, a Democrat), challenged Barbour in court. Hood won at the lower court level, but predictably, the heavily Republican Mississippi Supreme Court sided with Barbour 7-2, and upheld the November election date.
The decision for who to tap for the seat was important for Barbour, but complicated. In our previous post on the Childers race, we recapped it in some detail. To just summarize, the obvious choice was Third District congressman Chip Pickering, a young, telegenic, and very conservative rising star. Long before Lott's plans to leave the Senate became public, Pickering was seen as a natural heir for the next open Senate seat. However, shortly before Lott made his plans public, Pickering made a shock announcement that he was retiring at the end of the his current term to spend more time with his family. Therefore, both he and Gov. Barbour were put in a difficult position: Pickering had clearly expressed aspirations to be a Senator in the past, but going back on his word, while not at all impossible, was potentially distasteful, and could have been a turnoff. Ultimately, Barbour tapped Mississippi's other Republican Representative, Roger Wicker of the northern First District.
Wicker v. Musgrove
The November Senate election is of monumental importance to both state and national Democrats. A Democratic win in Mississippi would have tremendous implications for potential Southern re-realignment in perhaps the very most conservative Deep South state.
All hyperbole aside, a Musgrove victory would be one of, if not the most significant Democratic win in the South in a generation. A loss would likely assure that Democrats would be unable to win the Lott seat for the next generation. Sure, Sen. Cochran is likely to retire in 2014 when he is in his 80s, but Democrats can't count on that; Taylor, Childers, and Hood may all be out of office by then for we know now. Democrats will never have as good a nominee, as good a national atmosphere, and as mediocre a Republican opponent all together at once as they do for the Wicker-Musgrove race.
Musgrove is a natural and tireless campaigner. He has universal name recognition in the state from his terms as Lieutenant Governor and then Governor. Musgrorve also possesses strongly conservative social views akin to Travis Childers. And while Musgrove likely would have won in an April election, the November election has one benefit that will help him slightly: because it is a special election, state law requires that no party ID be next to the candidates' names; therefore, neither Wicker nor Musgrove will be identified with their parties on the election day ballot.
In a state as Republican-centric as Mississippi, this can only help the Democratic candidate; though, to be perfectly honest, I think many commentators overstate its value, and I think that when it is all said and done, nearly every voter in the state will know Wicker's and Musgrove's party affiliations, ensuring that the unique ballot will likely be only marginally helpful to the Democrat at best. (Furthermore, the Governor and Secretary of State are already showing machinations to try to and move the special election to the very bottom of the ballot. While the reasons for this are nakedly political, they will probably succeed. It is hard to predict how this would impact the contest, but it probably would not be helpful to Musgrove.)
Despite all of these favorable factors, Musgrove should still be considered the underdog in the race for two key reasons. First, he has been heavily outraised by Senator Wicker. For all the complaints by Republicans that Wicker is not terribly charismatic and not as energetic a candidate as Musgrove, he has raised a mint in cash since he was appointed to the Senate, while Musgrove has done mediocre at best. Thee DSCC has vast resources to help fix this imbalance, and indeed it has already begun funding ads across Magnolia State TV blasting Wicker. Because of the NRSC funding problems, it will have a hard time matching the DSCC here and elsewhere. Still, Wicker's money advantage is vast and thus huge.
Second, Musgrove still faces the Mississippi electorate, and the state's electorate is, simply hostile to Democratic candidates. While the state is around 37 percent black, and that segment votes overwhelmingly Democratic in all races, the other two-thirds -- the white part of the state -- goes almost equally strongly to Republicans. Statewide, it an achievement where the Democratic candidate can break 20 percent of the white vote. As shocking as that may sound, it is fact and the reason Democrats have no much trouble winning all of Mississippi.
With Barack Obama on the top of the ticket, Musgrove may well win the black vote 95-5, but he has to find a way to win a share of the white vote that Democratic candidates almost always fail to garner. That's it. If he can do that, he will likely be the first Democrat since John Stennis to represent Mississippi in the Senate. And make no mistake: while Obama will almost certainly bring out unprecedented numbers of black voters to the polls, voters who will vote almost universally for Obama and down-ballot Dems, there are perils to this calculus. It is absolutely unclear if while at the same time Obama is bringing out and winning more black voters, he will win more or even less white voters than most Democratic presidential candidates.
My personal sense with regards to Obama's impact on the white vote is that despite conventional wisdom (and Mississippi's own past), Obama will do better statewide than John Kerry (he lost the state by 20 points) given the national anti-GOP environment. He will obviously get just about every black vote, but I think he will probably be as successful as most Dems with the state white vote: not much better or worse. Consequently, at least by my logic, Musgrove will get a boast with the black vote but not be badly hurt among the white vote, thereby making his mission of garnering a certain percentage of the white electorate not as difficult.
I will close with that and note that as of now, the race is close by many polls, though the last two polls, both from Rasmussen, have shown Wicker with a nine-point lead after being tied for several months. This is probably the result of Musgrove's name being tied to a federal bribery investigation which has not actually charged the former governor with any wrong-doing. Specifically, in the Rasmussen August poll showing Wicker up 52-43 (47-42 without leaners included), Musgrove garners 22 percent of whites, but his deficit seems to be solely because Wicker is polling 17 percent of blacks. If Wicker gets even half that number come election day, Musgrove is toast.
Outlook
Forgive me for getting to deep in the weeds on these races. My interest is not really in handicapping races so much as providing the appropriate background and context. In terms of Mississippi and Musgrove v. Wicker, the big question is not so much who will win, but rather what the outcome means for the state's politics.
Currently, Democratic prospects in Mississippi, despite Travis Childers's win, are not superb. This is not surprising, as the state is deep, deep red and has been for decades. This is precisely why the Senate race for the Trent Lott seat is so important for the party. It might be the Democrats' greatest opportunity to win and hold a United States Senate seat. Should they fail, they may have to wait another generation for a new opportunity to present itself.
Winning the seat will not re-realign Mississippi to the Democratic Party in the same way that the Webb and (pending) Warner wins have done for Virginia. Mississippi will never vote Democratic in a presidential election. If that is the goal, they may as well take their ball and go home; it ain't ever going to happen with a party that nominates the likes of Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama.
But what Democrats can accomplish this year is elect a conservative Democrat. Given Mississippi's inclination towards re-electing incumbents (excluding the green Wicker, Mississippi has only elected four men to the Senate since 1947: John Stennis, James Eastland, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott), Musgrove would have a great chance to get into office and hold the seat for the long haul.
As for my own gut look at the race, for most of the campaign I have felt Musgrove would ultimately win, by these two polls giving Wicker a nine-point advantage are bad news for the Democrat. Musgrove needs to shake these stories connecting him to the beef plant bribery scandal and turn the election focus on the economy, much as Travis Childers did with his special election contest. I still believe that Chuck Schumer will invest heavily in the state -- and already has -- but that will change if Musgrove can't keep it close.
Right now Wicker has the decided advantage because he is polling so well among blacks. As we noted, Musgrove must win blacks almost unanimously and then get around a quarter of the white vote. Right now, he apparently has work to do in the black community.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Give Us the Dream Ticket, Barack
I am going to do another Democratic veep post. I'm sorry. The political junkie in me cannot help it. Today, I had a spirited e-mail discussion with a couple of friends Eric and Eli, and because there has been increased chatter on the Hillary-for-veep issue and I have been thinking about it all day, I wanted to make a short post on Hillary and the veepstakes. In fact, I will also paste up some of our exchange.
As I have noted in passing several times here, I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. While I was pretty bitter in the aftermath of Clinton's defeat, I have always been intent on voting for Senator Barack Obama in November. I still am. But up to this week, I have never entertained thoughts of there being a so-called "united" or "dream" ticket for a simple reason: the hatred between the candidates, and more broadly, the campaigns, is likely to still be very present, and as result, Obama's interest or willingness towards tapping Clinton as his running mate is probably non-existent.
As the veepstakes speculation has been churning furiously in the media -- as well as here in numerous posts -- I have changed my mind. I now feel differently, particularly with McCain going on the offensive in recent weeks. The polls have absolutely tightened, and, at least right now, McCain has all of the momentum and Obama is sputtering. This is unbeatable in my mind.
I am not panicking, nor I am overly nervous, though I am concerned. Perhaps most saliently, a core of the Democratic base is siding either with McCain or on the sidelines. This is untenable, and without your base, you cannot win an election. Obama needs to be bold, and he needs to show true leadership in picking his running mate to fix these problems.
Senator Obama should take Hillary Clinton for his Vice President.
I know, I know. It appears that I am being reactionary, that I am panicking in the face of some momentary polls, and worst of all, that I am making this contention because of my bias, bitterness, and loyalty to Hillary Clinton. That is a fair way to look at this just-espoused viewpoint, and maybe it is not entirely wrong. No matter. It is exactly how I feel. And I feel very strongly about it.
Generally, as just about every one of my posts plainly shows, I like to write out all of my thoughts on something in good detail. There's no question, as all my friends tell me, I write too much. Taking this in mind just this once, I am going to paste some of the e-mails my friends and I exchanged today on the Hillary-for-veep issue, because I think they speak for themselves and well speak for what I feel on the matter and why I think Obama needs to pick Hillary Clinton.
Because there were a lot of e-mails, I have done a couple things. First, I have deleted my friends' last names and e-mails for obvious reasons. I have not, however, really edited the comments. All grammar mistakes and misspellings are there in all their glory. Second, I have not included every e-mail, just the ones that get the point(s) across, as want to keep this post short. I think the e-mails pasted below speak for themselves, and more importantly for my views. If you are really strapped for time, just scroll down to the next-to-last e-mail, as I think it most captures what I would like to say here.
The exchange
From Eli
To Mark; Eric
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Subject: Dream ticket
Just curious what you make of the theory that since Obama has blown his lead and one in two Clinton supporters are not backing him and one in five Clinton supporters are even backing McCain, then he should pick Hillary as veep.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mark
To Eli; Eric
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
Well, Eric strongly disagrees with me here and thinks I am a biased Clinton supporter, but I think that he absolutely should take her. There are several good reasons for this. With all the veep buildup, a name like Kaine is never going to live up to the hype. Picking Clinton would be enormous. It would dominate the news for weeks and McCain would cease to exist on TV. I really believe he would be up 10 within a week of taking her. Second, while you get all the baggage, you get two for the price of one: both Hillary and Bill as 24/7 campaign surrogates, and there is basically no one who could get the pub or has the credibility of either one of them. It would be a smart move. And yes, I know Bill is angry and does not like Obama BUT should HRC be on the ticket, that all goes away because now Bill has an incentive to work hard to get his wife elected, and he would do so.
He won't do it though. Not only that, I don't think he has even considered for an instant. But you can't tell me that would not scoop up a lot of chagrined women who are irritated (and especially if McCain shrewdly went with a woman (read Palin)), but Obama picked a running mate who finished 10th in the primaries before the one who finished second.
Again, I agree with Eric that in the end the veep does little, and maybe this is how it should be. But Hillary would do a LOT. Unless Obama thinks he has it in the bag, he should do it. One thing I will concede is that picking Billary would be harmful on downticket races. If you're Bobby Bright running in rural Alabama for Congress, McCain and every GOPer in America is going to call the pairing the "most liberal ticket in history", and it might stick. That would be problematic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eli
To Eric; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Subject RE: Dream ticket
I never thought I'd say this but the more I think about it, I like the HRC idea. In my mind, she virtually guarantees an Obama victory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eric
To Eli; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
Eli, when you say things like she "guarantees" an Obama victory, well, I'm just speechless.
It's not neat and linear. It's not like Obama + HRC = victory where HRC is an obvious net positive. She's just not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eli
To Eric; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Subject RE: Dream ticket
I acknowledge that there are some ENORMOUS potential downsides, but they are drastically outweighed by the ENORMOUS GIGANTIC GINORMOUS plus-sides that I believe would assure an Obama victory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
I acknowledge there are some very significant upsides to picking HRC, all of which you have mentioned. But for you to say that there are no downsides shows how blind you are to reality. I actually don't hate HRC or the Clintons. If I thought they could help Obama win, I would gladly endorse him picking her. And as I mentioned I think she would very effectively deliver the crushing blows to McCain that he so richly deserves but has thus far failed to receive, and I would relish that.
But Mark, you are letting your personal warm feelings for the Clintons trump your judgement. It's obvious. You're still bitter.
1. Who has Bill been sleeping with?
2. Not all media is good media. Just because it would generate huge coverage doesn't mean it would all be positive. Many in the media and in the public despise the Clintons and would immediately turn to McCain.
3. Who has Bill been sleeping with?
4. How does Obama credibly continue to assert himself as the change candidate -- his campaign's NUMBER ONE theme -- with a Clinton on the ticket? How can he honestly make that argument with a straight face? You know he can't.
5. How does Obama keep Bill disciplined on the stump? And combat arguments that he will keep him disciplined as the Veep's husband?
6. What does a Clinton on the ticket do to the energy and enthusiasm there is out there for Obama? Call that enthusiasm and energy naive -- I wouldn't necessarily disagree -- but it would damage it badly.
7. Who has Bill been sleeping with?
Mark, answer these questions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mark
To Eric; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
The fact that Obama or you would try to frame Bill as unstable is a joke. The guy is one of the best ever on the stump. If your worry is people mouthing off, then cross off Biden off the list and maybe Kaine too. For crying out loud, you are pulling at straws there.
And if Bill has been sleeping around since 2000, why wasn't that a story in the primary? Since the media loved Hillary so much, there's just no way they would have sat on that story, right?
And in terms of Obama's narrative -- what narrative? Right now he is being defined as the elitist. That change argument has basically disappeared over the last month. Does Obama want to show that he is able to govern from day one? If so, how does Tim Kaine or even Even Bayh fix that? Answer: not very much. And in terms of Biden, how does it help a change candidate to pick a man who has been in Congress for 36 years? Is that change? The point being that every single nominee has perils. But Barack can pivot and take Hillary and still run on change. Only an orator as talented as Barack can do that, and he can do it saying that it was time to unite the Party and America by taking his runner-up (and one-time bitter enemy) in the primary.
The positives outweigh the negatives. Realize now that we are sitting here debating which boring second-rate white guy Obama should take, when has a huge option sitting right there. And calling me bitter is foolish: I am going to vote for the guy. I am not the problem. The fact that you think Obama loyalists will be pissed is laughable. Let the huge liberal loyalists complain for a couple of days -- in the end they will vote for him and work for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
"And if Bill has been sleeping around since 2000, why wasn't that a story in the primary?"
John Edwards was able to cover-up his little shenanigans for the duration of the primaries. Nobody in their right mind believes Billdoes not have his own transgressions since he left office. All it would take is one of them -- just ONE -- to become public, and therace is over.
"The fact that Obama or you would try to frame Bill as unstable is a joke."
I will spare us all from revisiting a litany of quotes from Bill on the stump during the primaries. Since his surgery, and since he begancampaigning on behalf of his wife and not himself, he has become partially unhinged, if not totally unhinged. Your failure toacknowledge this is a blindness to reality.
I will concede your points on the change narrative. What it comes down to is a cost/benefit analysis of the risks of each Veep. I think that given Obama is, at worst, even in the polls with McCain, an HRC pick, while it brings with it some huge benefits, is sufficiently risky that Obama should not pick her. You are too jittery about the polls. One of the things I truly love about Obama is his even-keeled temperament. Not only do I think it makes him a better candidate, more importantly I think it will make him a much better president once he wins.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mark
To Eric; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
What this debate comes down is a simple premise: you believe that while Hillary would bring great benefits, given the closeness of the race, she would bring too much potential baggage which could sink Obama, and that more importantly, Obama can win on his own.
I believe that the positives would heavily outweigh the negatives, that she is head-and-shoulders a more valuable potential pick than anyone else out there, and that given the closeness of the race Obama needs some more energy and way to shore up his base but good.
Let me concede three points to you, all of them important.
One, the Bill affair issue, I concur, is enormous, and if it got out late, it could deal incalculable damage. Great point. I cannot really defend this, and I agree that sadly, it is out there.
Two, Obama could pick a Biden, Bayh, Kaine et al., and still win. In fact, there is a good shot of this. A veep pick, in the end, really does not nor should not really matter. Here, it could do harm while with the others the potential for actually doing harm is much lower.
Three, one big drawback is that an Obama-Clinton ticket would really hurt downballot candidates -- Ronnie Musgrove in Mississippi, Bobby Bright in Alabama, Gary Trauner in Wyoming and other Dems who have a great shot to win GOP seats -- by being labeled the "most liberal ticket in history" and thereby turning off conservative voters who might have considered voting for Dems downballot.
All three are huge concerns, I agree. On the flip side, you should agree that:
One, a big segment of the base is unhappy. Let's not whine about why this is so, or that these people who are upset are being bitter or illogical. Let's instead look for a solution. Only one candidate would be assured of uniting the base. This is clear. And the argument that ultra liberals would be pissed holds no water with me. They've all been invested in Obama like he is their son for the last year. These voters ain't flipping. In fact, I would contend that some of them, while still not loving HRC, have softened their hard stances of a few months ago. Some prominent blogs over the last couple days prove this.
Two, this campaign is getting pummeled right now. Maybe it is something that will dissipate as we move forward, but right now we need an infusion of energy. Badly.
Three, Obama is not an adept attack dog. That's fine, he is a talented orator. But I fear Obama is not skilled enough, or really nasty enough to go on the offensive. There is no better attack dog -- that also has vital credibility -- than Hillary. Plus, as I keep saying, we get Bill, and here is where Bill's talents matter when we can dispatch him across rural America. Someone like Tim Pawlenty or Joe Lieberman can't hold a candle to that tandem. On this albeit narrow, but major issue, Billary's positives outweigh the potential negatives.
So we both have good points. I guess the bottom line is that the option of Hillary should definitely not have been pushed aside as quickly as it was. And it would say a LOT about Obama that he was willing to swallow his own ego to take Hillary. A heckuva lot. Am I wrong?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I completely agree with absolutely every word of this email.
This was a dialectic ancient Greece would have been proud of.
END-------------------------------------------------------------------------------END
Closing thoughts
Ok, I admit I added the last one to give myself a pat on the back. I too was pleased with what I perceived to be the clarity and succinctness of my key argument e-mail. I think I may have swayed Eli a little, I do not think I convinced Eric; I just think he agreed with how I stated our two stances on the issue.
In all seriousness, though, I stand by strongly what I argued. Do I think it will happen? Well, I believe that regular readers here know that I am a glass-90 percent-empty kind of guy, so the answer to that is "no". I simply believe that right or wrong, Obama, and of equal importance, his inner circle has never seriously considered the HRC-veep option out of anger, sore winnerness (I just made up a word, sorry), pride, ego, a belief that it is too risky, a feeling that the veep should never "do wrong", and a fear of what Bill might do or what he has done already that might come out and sink both halves of an Obama-Clinton ticket as well as Democrats' chances to win.
What makes this unfortunate is that I am certain that Obama's top advisors -- Axelrod, Plouffe, Holder, Michelle -- share his views and dislike of the Clintons. And I don't completely blame them! The primary was intensely vicious, nasty, and draining. It is understandable they would feel this way, even today. Consequently, if Obama does not want to tap Clinton, and everyone who communicates with him on an hourly basis at the top of his inner circle repeatedly echoes his views, when is he ever going to hear the merits of tapping Hillary? When you are surrounded by yes-men (and I do not mean this in a pejorative sense, but merely to state what it means on its face), your views on a topic will not change.
For these reasons, I view the chances of Obama-Clinton at being no better than zero to ten percent at the absolute highest. But if Obama wants to infuse energy into his campaign, if he wants the two best political prizefighters and bulldogs of the last 50 years on his side tearing into his opponent, if he wants to guarantee his base, and if he wants to win, he should pick Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is a risk, but is is a risk that should be taken.
I concede completely that if Bill has engaged in or is engaging in "extracurricular activities" and they get out over the course of the general campaign, it could single-handedly destroy the ticket and elect John McCain. That is a terrifying prospect. In terms of hurting the downballot House and Senate campaigns being waged in places like Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, and elsewhere, Obama-Clinton would not be helpful, but it also would not be fatal in my humble opinion. Furthermore, it certainly would not be a deal-breaker in the vast majority of close races, even those in red-leaning states and districts. So, I think that the positives do outweight the negatives (with a potential "bimbo eruption" being a BIG possible minus).
Am I wrong? Think about it.
And in the very, very, very off-chance that any one of influence in the Obama campaign or Obama inner circle or maybe Obama himself (hey, a political junkie writer/blogger can dream) has read this:
Give Democrats the Dream Ticket. It's risky, yes, but it is right, and it will get Democrats to the White House in January.
As I have noted in passing several times here, I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. While I was pretty bitter in the aftermath of Clinton's defeat, I have always been intent on voting for Senator Barack Obama in November. I still am. But up to this week, I have never entertained thoughts of there being a so-called "united" or "dream" ticket for a simple reason: the hatred between the candidates, and more broadly, the campaigns, is likely to still be very present, and as result, Obama's interest or willingness towards tapping Clinton as his running mate is probably non-existent.
As the veepstakes speculation has been churning furiously in the media -- as well as here in numerous posts -- I have changed my mind. I now feel differently, particularly with McCain going on the offensive in recent weeks. The polls have absolutely tightened, and, at least right now, McCain has all of the momentum and Obama is sputtering. This is unbeatable in my mind.
I am not panicking, nor I am overly nervous, though I am concerned. Perhaps most saliently, a core of the Democratic base is siding either with McCain or on the sidelines. This is untenable, and without your base, you cannot win an election. Obama needs to be bold, and he needs to show true leadership in picking his running mate to fix these problems.
Senator Obama should take Hillary Clinton for his Vice President.
I know, I know. It appears that I am being reactionary, that I am panicking in the face of some momentary polls, and worst of all, that I am making this contention because of my bias, bitterness, and loyalty to Hillary Clinton. That is a fair way to look at this just-espoused viewpoint, and maybe it is not entirely wrong. No matter. It is exactly how I feel. And I feel very strongly about it.
Generally, as just about every one of my posts plainly shows, I like to write out all of my thoughts on something in good detail. There's no question, as all my friends tell me, I write too much. Taking this in mind just this once, I am going to paste some of the e-mails my friends and I exchanged today on the Hillary-for-veep issue, because I think they speak for themselves and well speak for what I feel on the matter and why I think Obama needs to pick Hillary Clinton.
Because there were a lot of e-mails, I have done a couple things. First, I have deleted my friends' last names and e-mails for obvious reasons. I have not, however, really edited the comments. All grammar mistakes and misspellings are there in all their glory. Second, I have not included every e-mail, just the ones that get the point(s) across, as want to keep this post short. I think the e-mails pasted below speak for themselves, and more importantly for my views. If you are really strapped for time, just scroll down to the next-to-last e-mail, as I think it most captures what I would like to say here.
The exchange
From Eli
To Mark; Eric
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Subject: Dream ticket
Just curious what you make of the theory that since Obama has blown his lead and one in two Clinton supporters are not backing him and one in five Clinton supporters are even backing McCain, then he should pick Hillary as veep.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mark
To Eli; Eric
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
Well, Eric strongly disagrees with me here and thinks I am a biased Clinton supporter, but I think that he absolutely should take her. There are several good reasons for this. With all the veep buildup, a name like Kaine is never going to live up to the hype. Picking Clinton would be enormous. It would dominate the news for weeks and McCain would cease to exist on TV. I really believe he would be up 10 within a week of taking her. Second, while you get all the baggage, you get two for the price of one: both Hillary and Bill as 24/7 campaign surrogates, and there is basically no one who could get the pub or has the credibility of either one of them. It would be a smart move. And yes, I know Bill is angry and does not like Obama BUT should HRC be on the ticket, that all goes away because now Bill has an incentive to work hard to get his wife elected, and he would do so.
He won't do it though. Not only that, I don't think he has even considered for an instant. But you can't tell me that would not scoop up a lot of chagrined women who are irritated (and especially if McCain shrewdly went with a woman (read Palin)), but Obama picked a running mate who finished 10th in the primaries before the one who finished second.
Again, I agree with Eric that in the end the veep does little, and maybe this is how it should be. But Hillary would do a LOT. Unless Obama thinks he has it in the bag, he should do it. One thing I will concede is that picking Billary would be harmful on downticket races. If you're Bobby Bright running in rural Alabama for Congress, McCain and every GOPer in America is going to call the pairing the "most liberal ticket in history", and it might stick. That would be problematic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eli
To Eric; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Subject RE: Dream ticket
I never thought I'd say this but the more I think about it, I like the HRC idea. In my mind, she virtually guarantees an Obama victory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eric
To Eli; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
Eli, when you say things like she "guarantees" an Obama victory, well, I'm just speechless.
It's not neat and linear. It's not like Obama + HRC = victory where HRC is an obvious net positive. She's just not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eli
To Eric; Mark
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Subject RE: Dream ticket
I acknowledge that there are some ENORMOUS potential downsides, but they are drastically outweighed by the ENORMOUS GIGANTIC GINORMOUS plus-sides that I believe would assure an Obama victory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
I acknowledge there are some very significant upsides to picking HRC, all of which you have mentioned. But for you to say that there are no downsides shows how blind you are to reality. I actually don't hate HRC or the Clintons. If I thought they could help Obama win, I would gladly endorse him picking her. And as I mentioned I think she would very effectively deliver the crushing blows to McCain that he so richly deserves but has thus far failed to receive, and I would relish that.
But Mark, you are letting your personal warm feelings for the Clintons trump your judgement. It's obvious. You're still bitter.
1. Who has Bill been sleeping with?
2. Not all media is good media. Just because it would generate huge coverage doesn't mean it would all be positive. Many in the media and in the public despise the Clintons and would immediately turn to McCain.
3. Who has Bill been sleeping with?
4. How does Obama credibly continue to assert himself as the change candidate -- his campaign's NUMBER ONE theme -- with a Clinton on the ticket? How can he honestly make that argument with a straight face? You know he can't.
5. How does Obama keep Bill disciplined on the stump? And combat arguments that he will keep him disciplined as the Veep's husband?
6. What does a Clinton on the ticket do to the energy and enthusiasm there is out there for Obama? Call that enthusiasm and energy naive -- I wouldn't necessarily disagree -- but it would damage it badly.
7. Who has Bill been sleeping with?
Mark, answer these questions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mark
To Eric; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
The fact that Obama or you would try to frame Bill as unstable is a joke. The guy is one of the best ever on the stump. If your worry is people mouthing off, then cross off Biden off the list and maybe Kaine too. For crying out loud, you are pulling at straws there.
And if Bill has been sleeping around since 2000, why wasn't that a story in the primary? Since the media loved Hillary so much, there's just no way they would have sat on that story, right?
And in terms of Obama's narrative -- what narrative? Right now he is being defined as the elitist. That change argument has basically disappeared over the last month. Does Obama want to show that he is able to govern from day one? If so, how does Tim Kaine or even Even Bayh fix that? Answer: not very much. And in terms of Biden, how does it help a change candidate to pick a man who has been in Congress for 36 years? Is that change? The point being that every single nominee has perils. But Barack can pivot and take Hillary and still run on change. Only an orator as talented as Barack can do that, and he can do it saying that it was time to unite the Party and America by taking his runner-up (and one-time bitter enemy) in the primary.
The positives outweigh the negatives. Realize now that we are sitting here debating which boring second-rate white guy Obama should take, when has a huge option sitting right there. And calling me bitter is foolish: I am going to vote for the guy. I am not the problem. The fact that you think Obama loyalists will be pissed is laughable. Let the huge liberal loyalists complain for a couple of days -- in the end they will vote for him and work for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
"And if Bill has been sleeping around since 2000, why wasn't that a story in the primary?"
John Edwards was able to cover-up his little shenanigans for the duration of the primaries. Nobody in their right mind believes Billdoes not have his own transgressions since he left office. All it would take is one of them -- just ONE -- to become public, and therace is over.
"The fact that Obama or you would try to frame Bill as unstable is a joke."
I will spare us all from revisiting a litany of quotes from Bill on the stump during the primaries. Since his surgery, and since he begancampaigning on behalf of his wife and not himself, he has become partially unhinged, if not totally unhinged. Your failure toacknowledge this is a blindness to reality.
I will concede your points on the change narrative. What it comes down to is a cost/benefit analysis of the risks of each Veep. I think that given Obama is, at worst, even in the polls with McCain, an HRC pick, while it brings with it some huge benefits, is sufficiently risky that Obama should not pick her. You are too jittery about the polls. One of the things I truly love about Obama is his even-keeled temperament. Not only do I think it makes him a better candidate, more importantly I think it will make him a much better president once he wins.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mark
To Eric; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
What this debate comes down is a simple premise: you believe that while Hillary would bring great benefits, given the closeness of the race, she would bring too much potential baggage which could sink Obama, and that more importantly, Obama can win on his own.
I believe that the positives would heavily outweigh the negatives, that she is head-and-shoulders a more valuable potential pick than anyone else out there, and that given the closeness of the race Obama needs some more energy and way to shore up his base but good.
Let me concede three points to you, all of them important.
One, the Bill affair issue, I concur, is enormous, and if it got out late, it could deal incalculable damage. Great point. I cannot really defend this, and I agree that sadly, it is out there.
Two, Obama could pick a Biden, Bayh, Kaine et al., and still win. In fact, there is a good shot of this. A veep pick, in the end, really does not nor should not really matter. Here, it could do harm while with the others the potential for actually doing harm is much lower.
Three, one big drawback is that an Obama-Clinton ticket would really hurt downballot candidates -- Ronnie Musgrove in Mississippi, Bobby Bright in Alabama, Gary Trauner in Wyoming and other Dems who have a great shot to win GOP seats -- by being labeled the "most liberal ticket in history" and thereby turning off conservative voters who might have considered voting for Dems downballot.
All three are huge concerns, I agree. On the flip side, you should agree that:
One, a big segment of the base is unhappy. Let's not whine about why this is so, or that these people who are upset are being bitter or illogical. Let's instead look for a solution. Only one candidate would be assured of uniting the base. This is clear. And the argument that ultra liberals would be pissed holds no water with me. They've all been invested in Obama like he is their son for the last year. These voters ain't flipping. In fact, I would contend that some of them, while still not loving HRC, have softened their hard stances of a few months ago. Some prominent blogs over the last couple days prove this.
Two, this campaign is getting pummeled right now. Maybe it is something that will dissipate as we move forward, but right now we need an infusion of energy. Badly.
Three, Obama is not an adept attack dog. That's fine, he is a talented orator. But I fear Obama is not skilled enough, or really nasty enough to go on the offensive. There is no better attack dog -- that also has vital credibility -- than Hillary. Plus, as I keep saying, we get Bill, and here is where Bill's talents matter when we can dispatch him across rural America. Someone like Tim Pawlenty or Joe Lieberman can't hold a candle to that tandem. On this albeit narrow, but major issue, Billary's positives outweigh the potential negatives.
So we both have good points. I guess the bottom line is that the option of Hillary should definitely not have been pushed aside as quickly as it was. And it would say a LOT about Obama that he was willing to swallow his own ego to take Hillary. A heckuva lot. Am I wrong?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Eric
To Mark; Eli
Date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Subject Re: Dream ticket
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I completely agree with absolutely every word of this email.
This was a dialectic ancient Greece would have been proud of.
END-------------------------------------------------------------------------------END
Closing thoughts
Ok, I admit I added the last one to give myself a pat on the back. I too was pleased with what I perceived to be the clarity and succinctness of my key argument e-mail. I think I may have swayed Eli a little, I do not think I convinced Eric; I just think he agreed with how I stated our two stances on the issue.
In all seriousness, though, I stand by strongly what I argued. Do I think it will happen? Well, I believe that regular readers here know that I am a glass-90 percent-empty kind of guy, so the answer to that is "no". I simply believe that right or wrong, Obama, and of equal importance, his inner circle has never seriously considered the HRC-veep option out of anger, sore winnerness (I just made up a word, sorry), pride, ego, a belief that it is too risky, a feeling that the veep should never "do wrong", and a fear of what Bill might do or what he has done already that might come out and sink both halves of an Obama-Clinton ticket as well as Democrats' chances to win.
What makes this unfortunate is that I am certain that Obama's top advisors -- Axelrod, Plouffe, Holder, Michelle -- share his views and dislike of the Clintons. And I don't completely blame them! The primary was intensely vicious, nasty, and draining. It is understandable they would feel this way, even today. Consequently, if Obama does not want to tap Clinton, and everyone who communicates with him on an hourly basis at the top of his inner circle repeatedly echoes his views, when is he ever going to hear the merits of tapping Hillary? When you are surrounded by yes-men (and I do not mean this in a pejorative sense, but merely to state what it means on its face), your views on a topic will not change.
For these reasons, I view the chances of Obama-Clinton at being no better than zero to ten percent at the absolute highest. But if Obama wants to infuse energy into his campaign, if he wants the two best political prizefighters and bulldogs of the last 50 years on his side tearing into his opponent, if he wants to guarantee his base, and if he wants to win, he should pick Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is a risk, but is is a risk that should be taken.
I concede completely that if Bill has engaged in or is engaging in "extracurricular activities" and they get out over the course of the general campaign, it could single-handedly destroy the ticket and elect John McCain. That is a terrifying prospect. In terms of hurting the downballot House and Senate campaigns being waged in places like Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, and elsewhere, Obama-Clinton would not be helpful, but it also would not be fatal in my humble opinion. Furthermore, it certainly would not be a deal-breaker in the vast majority of close races, even those in red-leaning states and districts. So, I think that the positives do outweight the negatives (with a potential "bimbo eruption" being a BIG possible minus).
Am I wrong? Think about it.
And in the very, very, very off-chance that any one of influence in the Obama campaign or Obama inner circle or maybe Obama himself (hey, a political junkie writer/blogger can dream) has read this:
Give Democrats the Dream Ticket. It's risky, yes, but it is right, and it will get Democrats to the White House in January.
Southern Re-realignment: Virginia
More than any other Southern state, Virginia has come full circle. In 2001, both U.S. Senators, a super-majority of the congressional delegation, both houses of the state legislature, and all three statewide offices -- Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General -- were Republican-controlled. Today, the governorship is held by a moderate Democrat, the State Senate flipped control from the Republicans to the Democrats, Barack Obama is in strong shape to be the first Democrat to win the state's 13 electoral votes since LBJ in 1964, and Democrats are all but assured of holding both U.S. Senate seats come January. Therefore, the salient question for Virginia Democrats is not so much what they can do to re-realign the Commonwealth's politics, but rather how can they best preserve their astonishing gains and maybe go even further.
The Senate picture is tremendous for Democrats
This November, Warner is facing fellow former Governor Jim Gilmore in the contest to replace the retiring John Warner. If M. Warner's popularity and the polls are any indication, he is a virtual shoo-in. Assuming the unlikely does not happen, Democrats would thus be in fairly firm control of both Senate seats (though, given the closeness of his win over George Allen in 2006, a race which was decided by 1,900 votes out of over 2.3 million cast, Senator Jim Webb could face a strong challenge in 2012). As we've been saying throughout this series of posts, this is precisely the ultimate goal Democrats need to be looking to achieve in order to establish true re-realignment. So, where does that leave us, as Virginia is on the threshold of that goal?
Developments at the state level are also favorable
Well, Democrats can look to the state level. With Governor Tim Kaine barred from seeking a second because of Virginia's silly one-and-done term limits law for governors, the big chair will be open next year. The GOP appears poised to nominate conservative sitting Attorney General Bob McDonnell, while southern State Senator Creigh Deeds (who lost the 2005 AG's race by ~300 votes to McDonnell) will face off against northern State Del. Brian Moran in a classic geographic primary battle for the Democratic nomination. At this point, the race appears to be a toss-up regardless of which man the Democrats choose.
Because of the unique nature of Virginia's governorship, it is difficult to gauge what a single outcome means for the state's political alignment and use it as a litmus test for future movements; though a loss would certainly be a set-back to Democrats' recent statewide gains. With McDonnell likely running, the Attorney General's slot is going to open, and that will certainly be contested, as it is one of the top (and only) springboards that can be used to develop political talent and future statewide candidates. GOP Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling has agreed to run for another term as LG, but apparently, should Governor Kaine agree to be Senator Obama's running mate, or otherwise leave office before his term runs out, Bolling will run for Governor, and McDonnell will not pursue the promotion.
The congressional delegation remains lop-sided in favor of the GOP
Democrats will also look to maintain their narrow hold on the state senate (which they won back in 2007), and try to wrest control of the House of Delegates. Here, the implications are important with redistricting looming in 2011. While Virginia is not slated to gain or lose any seats in Congress, Democratic control of the legislature and governorship would allow them to draw new lines. The current delegation is split 8-to-3 in favor of Republicans. Democrats have firm control over their three seats in the Third, Eighth, and Ninth Districts (though the last district is GOP-leaning at R+7, and could well turn when the 13-term incumbent Rick Boucher decides to retire). On the GOP side, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Districts are pretty darn safe for the Republicans, though the middle two -- the 4th (R+5) and 5th (R+6), both held by conservative Republicans -- could one day be contested under near-perfect circumstances for Democrats.
The other three seats are of greatest interest over this and the next electoral cycle. With the shrewd Rep. Tom Davis retiring from his northern Virginia seat, Democrats nominated a strong nominee, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerry Connelly, and will almost certainly flip it in November over an unknown, albeit well-funded Republican. In 2006, Democrats came close to ousting then-first-term Rep. Thelma Drake of the Second District in southeastern Virginia, and while she is favored this cycle,. her race is worth watching. In the Tenth District, longtime GOP Rep. Frank Wolf will very likely win again this November, in spite of a vigorous opponent (the same one he beat in 2006), but his seat in northern Virginia continues to trend blue (it is currently R+5), and when Wolf retires -- at 69 years old and in his 14th consecutive term, that may not be far away -- or perhaps before then, should Democrats have firm control of redistricting, his seat is a prime candidate for flipping to blue.
Outlook
Democrats' outlook in Virginia is at this time, and probably going forward, better than anywhere else in the South, perhaps excepting Arkansas. While the party may face a good challenge to hold the governorship, this is not necessarily a sign of weakness or decline in a state that replaces its chief executive every four years, and has only two other statewide offices. Besides, Democrats may well win the office anyway; it is hard to get a good feel for the contest so early and with several possible eventualities unsettled.
Elsewhere, the two Senate seats are as good in the Democrats' hands, and Warner could likely hold what will be his seat for as long as John Warner held it, assuming M. Warner does not one day become President. And while Democrats should not take Webb's seat for granted given the closeness of his 2006 election, and because he is not nearly as popular as Warner, he is still well-positioned right now and 2012 is a ways away.
Democrats' best case scenario
In terms of the Senate, the best case scenario is already realized (or will be come November). In other matters, the best outlook for the next two cycles would be to hold the governorship and find a way to grab both halves of the legislature. Finally, Democrats' best outlook for the congressional delegation would be to turn the current 8-3 deficit into a 6-5 advantage by winning the 2d, 10th, and 11th districts by 2010.
Likely outcome
While the future is pretty bright for the blue-siders, it ain't as good as what's presented immediately above. The Senate will be held by Webb and Warner from next January through 2012. With the GOP holding a 53-45 majority in the state house of delegates, it likely will not flip soon, while Democrats have a slight advantage to hold their narrow 21-19 margin in the senate. As we said, the governor's race is up in the air, but that could change in the off-chance that Tim Kaine is selected to be Obama's Vice President, and then wins. In that case, Lieutenant Gov. Bill Bolling would assume the job and have its incumbency when he runs for a full term next year. That would make him a clear favorite in the race.
With the governor's race a toss-up right now, redistricting will be up in the air for now. The 11th District will turn this November, but the 2nd and 10th almost certainly will not, but look for Wolf's seat to go Democratic upon his retirement, whenever that may be, an advantage that could be off-set when Rick Boucher gives up his red southwester 9th district seat.
Finally, the presidential results in Virginia will be important. Should Obama do well and perhaps win, it could portend very well for Democrats. Indeed, as northern Virginia becomes bigger and bigger -- and by extension, Virginia becomes bluer and bluer -- it may just be a matter of time before the Commonwealth supports Democratic candidates in statewide contests.
All in all, things look much better for Democrats in Virginia than in several decades. Re-realignment has certainly hit the Commonwealth.
The Senate picture is tremendous for Democrats
This November, Warner is facing fellow former Governor Jim Gilmore in the contest to replace the retiring John Warner. If M. Warner's popularity and the polls are any indication, he is a virtual shoo-in. Assuming the unlikely does not happen, Democrats would thus be in fairly firm control of both Senate seats (though, given the closeness of his win over George Allen in 2006, a race which was decided by 1,900 votes out of over 2.3 million cast, Senator Jim Webb could face a strong challenge in 2012). As we've been saying throughout this series of posts, this is precisely the ultimate goal Democrats need to be looking to achieve in order to establish true re-realignment. So, where does that leave us, as Virginia is on the threshold of that goal?
Developments at the state level are also favorable
Well, Democrats can look to the state level. With Governor Tim Kaine barred from seeking a second because of Virginia's silly one-and-done term limits law for governors, the big chair will be open next year. The GOP appears poised to nominate conservative sitting Attorney General Bob McDonnell, while southern State Senator Creigh Deeds (who lost the 2005 AG's race by ~300 votes to McDonnell) will face off against northern State Del. Brian Moran in a classic geographic primary battle for the Democratic nomination. At this point, the race appears to be a toss-up regardless of which man the Democrats choose.
Because of the unique nature of Virginia's governorship, it is difficult to gauge what a single outcome means for the state's political alignment and use it as a litmus test for future movements; though a loss would certainly be a set-back to Democrats' recent statewide gains. With McDonnell likely running, the Attorney General's slot is going to open, and that will certainly be contested, as it is one of the top (and only) springboards that can be used to develop political talent and future statewide candidates. GOP Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling has agreed to run for another term as LG, but apparently, should Governor Kaine agree to be Senator Obama's running mate, or otherwise leave office before his term runs out, Bolling will run for Governor, and McDonnell will not pursue the promotion.
The congressional delegation remains lop-sided in favor of the GOP
Democrats will also look to maintain their narrow hold on the state senate (which they won back in 2007), and try to wrest control of the House of Delegates. Here, the implications are important with redistricting looming in 2011. While Virginia is not slated to gain or lose any seats in Congress, Democratic control of the legislature and governorship would allow them to draw new lines. The current delegation is split 8-to-3 in favor of Republicans. Democrats have firm control over their three seats in the Third, Eighth, and Ninth Districts (though the last district is GOP-leaning at R+7, and could well turn when the 13-term incumbent Rick Boucher decides to retire). On the GOP side, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Districts are pretty darn safe for the Republicans, though the middle two -- the 4th (R+5) and 5th (R+6), both held by conservative Republicans -- could one day be contested under near-perfect circumstances for Democrats.
The other three seats are of greatest interest over this and the next electoral cycle. With the shrewd Rep. Tom Davis retiring from his northern Virginia seat, Democrats nominated a strong nominee, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerry Connelly, and will almost certainly flip it in November over an unknown, albeit well-funded Republican. In 2006, Democrats came close to ousting then-first-term Rep. Thelma Drake of the Second District in southeastern Virginia, and while she is favored this cycle,. her race is worth watching. In the Tenth District, longtime GOP Rep. Frank Wolf will very likely win again this November, in spite of a vigorous opponent (the same one he beat in 2006), but his seat in northern Virginia continues to trend blue (it is currently R+5), and when Wolf retires -- at 69 years old and in his 14th consecutive term, that may not be far away -- or perhaps before then, should Democrats have firm control of redistricting, his seat is a prime candidate for flipping to blue.
Outlook
Democrats' outlook in Virginia is at this time, and probably going forward, better than anywhere else in the South, perhaps excepting Arkansas. While the party may face a good challenge to hold the governorship, this is not necessarily a sign of weakness or decline in a state that replaces its chief executive every four years, and has only two other statewide offices. Besides, Democrats may well win the office anyway; it is hard to get a good feel for the contest so early and with several possible eventualities unsettled.
Elsewhere, the two Senate seats are as good in the Democrats' hands, and Warner could likely hold what will be his seat for as long as John Warner held it, assuming M. Warner does not one day become President. And while Democrats should not take Webb's seat for granted given the closeness of his 2006 election, and because he is not nearly as popular as Warner, he is still well-positioned right now and 2012 is a ways away.
Democrats' best case scenario
In terms of the Senate, the best case scenario is already realized (or will be come November). In other matters, the best outlook for the next two cycles would be to hold the governorship and find a way to grab both halves of the legislature. Finally, Democrats' best outlook for the congressional delegation would be to turn the current 8-3 deficit into a 6-5 advantage by winning the 2d, 10th, and 11th districts by 2010.
Likely outcome
While the future is pretty bright for the blue-siders, it ain't as good as what's presented immediately above. The Senate will be held by Webb and Warner from next January through 2012. With the GOP holding a 53-45 majority in the state house of delegates, it likely will not flip soon, while Democrats have a slight advantage to hold their narrow 21-19 margin in the senate. As we said, the governor's race is up in the air, but that could change in the off-chance that Tim Kaine is selected to be Obama's Vice President, and then wins. In that case, Lieutenant Gov. Bill Bolling would assume the job and have its incumbency when he runs for a full term next year. That would make him a clear favorite in the race.
With the governor's race a toss-up right now, redistricting will be up in the air for now. The 11th District will turn this November, but the 2nd and 10th almost certainly will not, but look for Wolf's seat to go Democratic upon his retirement, whenever that may be, an advantage that could be off-set when Rick Boucher gives up his red southwester 9th district seat.
Finally, the presidential results in Virginia will be important. Should Obama do well and perhaps win, it could portend very well for Democrats. Indeed, as northern Virginia becomes bigger and bigger -- and by extension, Virginia becomes bluer and bluer -- it may just be a matter of time before the Commonwealth supports Democratic candidates in statewide contests.
All in all, things look much better for Democrats in Virginia than in several decades. Re-realignment has certainly hit the Commonwealth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
