The Democrats Can Win Without Kay Hagan

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Yesterday's announcement that Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) would not run for the Senate in 2016 was a pretty devastating blow for the DSCC and the Democrats in general.  Hagan ran a close and politically-praised battle for reelection last year and barely lost amidst one of the worst Midterm environments in eons.  Many thought that she would start out with a huge advantage in the primary and potentially be able to make the Tarheel Senate seat competitive, with two-term Sen. Richard Burr (R) running in a state that will be a tossup in the race for the White House.  With Hagan out, Republicans are gleeful that this means that the Democrats won't have their top choice and Democrats are now scouring the State Senate and US House delegations, likely landing on either State Treasurer Janet Cowell or former Rep. Heath Shuler as their nominee.

However, there is a larger question here-does it matter if the DSCC doesn't get their top recruit?  The answer, quite frankly, seems to be "no" more and more of the time.  The last few cycles have shown us that the days of, say, a congressional delegation of all Democrats from ruby red South Dakota is not something voters will tolerate anymore.  Certainly on a congressional level, people seem to vote less about the person and more about the party (though every independent in the country would argue they do the opposite...even though they don't).  The reality is that only five Democrats represent states that were won by Mitt Romney in 2012 (Sens. Heitkamp, Tester, McCaskill, Donnelly, and Manchin) while eleven Republicans represent states won by President Obama (all but four of whom are up for reelection next year, meaning that number is near certain to go down).  That is a number that a few decades ago would have been eye-raising, and shows that people don't really see the difference between the Democrats who run for the White House and those that run for their congressional seats.  As a result, Hillary Clinton, were she to win in North Carolina, would be a huge help to a viable Democrat.

Just look at some recent examples of races that still resulted in wins from the out-of-office party even when the top choice said no.  In 2014, for example, Republicans were all wondering how they could possibly compete against Rep. Bruce Braley without Rep. Tom Latham in the race while Republicans in North Carolina wanted pretty much any member of the congressional delegation over Thom Tillis.  In 2012, former Sen. Russ Feingold (D) seemed like the only Democrat who could compete against Gov. Tommy Thompson (conversely, two years earlier Thompson seemed like the only Republican who could possibly take out Feingold), but in the end neither Feingold nor Thompson won those races.  2008 saw the motherload of "they can't actually win" candidates who ended up winning anyway.  Oregon saw former Gov. John Kitzhaber and Rep. Earl Blumenauer take a pass on a race against seemingly unbeatable Sen. Gordon Smith, all to watch Jeff Merkley leap frog them into the upper chamber.  Al Franken got into a race that Rep. Betty McCollum declined in Minnesota, likely costing her any chance of ever gaining a promotion.  And of course the reason for this article, the seemingly unbeatable Kay Hagan?  She was well behind Govs. Mike Easley and Jim Hunt, as well as Rep. Brad Miller on any potential candidate lists when the DSCC finally decided to see if she'd be interested in a statewide race.

So yes, every cycle we have disappointments like this that pop up, but they don't spell disaster for the party.  Unbeatable candidates are beaten every year, and a lot more depends on the national environment, how your state is voting for the White House, and what happens to the incumbent and their strategy.  Kay Hagan not running for the Democrats is a blow, for sure, but as Joni Ernst, Tammy Baldwin, and Kay Hagan herself can back up, it's not the end of the road.