 |
| Christine O'Donnell (R-DE) |
Few primary victories (or losses, depending on how you look at it) that I can remember have so totally transformed the dynamics of a race. While I've seen races ultimately decided by a primary, this went from "Likely Republican" to "Likely Democrat" pretty much overnight, and making it more glaring-Republicans knew it. There was no indication going into this election that Castle was tarnished by a scandal, there was no mystery about O'Donnell's credentials or ability-to-win. Just days before the election, a PPP poll had shown Castle up on Coons by ten-points, while Coons led O'Donnell by more than that. A political gadfly with no (successful) elective experience, O'Donnell was a treasure trove of opposition research (for all that is holy, she ended up having to release an ad where she said "I'm not a witch...I'm you"!). It was perhaps the biggest shot-in-the-foot I've ever seen in the decades I've watched electoral politics. While ultimately it didn't matter for the majority (the Democrats lost 7, not 11, seats), it very nearly cost them the Senate. Keep in mind that Michael Bennet, Patty Murray, & Harry Reid were all in dead-heats (or in Reid's case, an underdog) headed into Election Night. All three of them go, and suddenly Delaware decides the majority of the US Senate. Suffice it to say, it was entirely possible that the Republicans knowingly gave up their future majority simply because they didn't want to endorse a moderate (who had been beloved to that point).
This Tea Party mentality, the conservative-at-literally-all-costs (even losing) tactic to politics has become a mainstay of Republican politics in the years since. It's impossible to think of Donald Trump or Roy Moore winning their nominations in an era without Christine O'Donnell. This has resulted in the hard-right scoring the occasional major victory (Trump being the clearest case), but losing most of these elections or at the very least alienating their moderate wing, which could result in them getting blown-out-of-the-water in suburban swing districts this November. But it has also mostly stayed on the right side of the aisle. Democrats have by-and-large given little heed to challenging incumbents of their own party, and usually when incumbents were ousted in primaries, it was because of something other than ideology (like a scandal or a clearly "out of touch" incumbent). Incumbents like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Blanche Lincoln have survived liberal challenges, and even people like Hillary Clinton or Jeff Merkley have taken being the "Democratic frontrunner" in a primary and taken down hard-left challenges. But the cracks in the Democratic establishment's armor are showing a bit more in 2018, which makes me wonder if we might be about to see a Tea Party emerge within the Democratic Party.
This past week, after all, longtime Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is a California institution (and really a political institution in general) wasn't able to win the Democratic endorsement of the California Democratic Party, favoring State Senate President Kevin de Leon (though neither received a high-enough percentage of the vote to win the actual endorsement). In Illinois, Chicago fixture Rep. Dan Lipinski is facing the true "fight of his political life" against a first-time candidate Marie Newman, who has used Lipinski's anti-gay rights and anti-abortion views against him in a district that has usually been more socially conservative. State Sen. Jeff van Drew, a New Jersey pol who was seen as one of the best recruits by the DCCC this cycle, appears in danger of losing from the left over the donations he received from the NRA while he represented a conservative State Senate seat. And Laura Moser is wearing her recent criticisms as a badge that she's "too progressive," railing against the DCCC in a way you rarely see on the left but oftentimes see on the right.
These are all major politicians in major races, albeit with differing layers of consequence. California Senate and Illinois-3, for example, will likely go to the Democratic nominee regardless of whom they are considering who the GOP put up & the tilt of their districts, while NJ-2 and TX-7 are much more up-for-grabs in a battle to get to 24 seats. However, this is all indicative of what the Democratic Party will tolerate. The DCCC made headlines when it publicly questioned whether or not it would endorse pro-life candidates earlier this year, and activists were furious when they said that they would. In the wake of Trump, it's probable that these differences will matter less because people will hold-their-nose if it means a defeat to the president in the midterms, but going into 2020 when there are several dozen Democrats looking at the race for the White House, it's sure to make Hillary vs. Bernie look like a kind-hearted picnic.
As for me, I tend to think that ideological purism in a party is usually bad, with the only exceptions being when we don't have to risk Republican victory. With gerrymandering and simple geography against us (Democrats live in denser neighborhoods than Republicans), the reality is that the Republicans can run conservatives in every district in America and get to 218 seats, but Democrats cannot. As a result, I'm not comfortable, with, say, throwing Jeff van Drew out in NJ-2 for a hard-left challenger when it's clear that would cost us a very winnable seat. I also think that dying on the Laura Moser cross is idiotic, both because she has a mountain of baggage that could cost her the election, but also because it's an historically Republican seat and a more moderate candidate would probably be better until it proves itself a bit more reliable. Van Drew may be more conservative than I am and Moser may be more in-line with my politics, but I am a pragmatist first-and-foremost. I grew up in Collin Peterson's district, after all-I know what it takes to get a Democrat elected in red country, and occasionally it's admitting you aren't going to get everything you want.
Conversely, though, Lipinski's seat is a surefire Democratic winner (it's a Hillary district where the Republican candidate is a Holocaust denier), and he has been a thorn-in-the-side of women's rights and gay rights for far too long. I'm very proudly supporting Newman there, and hope she takes him out because we shouldn't have to worry about a Democrat in a district that blue being in favor of basic progressive causes. That might sound like political purism, and to some extent it is, but it also is a way of reflecting the views I have, albeit while not costing my party a seat (Newman's going to be a Pelosi vote the same way Lipinski has been). I also theoretically would be fine with challenging Feinstein, though I am supporting her more because with Trump still in office, I think we need at least one major moderate vote on the Senate Judiciary in case we have an impeachment trial, though I am leery about the Democrats getting 51 seats and then Feinstein being the vote that lets Anthony Kennedy be replaced with a Trump-appointee (if some moderator could ask Feinstein about that, I'd be pleased). But right now I'm fine with Feinstein, even if I'm aware that de Leon isn't going to cost us the seat in deep blue California.
Still, though, this is a movement to keep an eye on. Jeff van Drew is the most extreme end of "sacrificing a seat," but no one saw Christine O'Donnell coming either. Currently there are Z-Grade liberal challengers to people like Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, & Heidi Heitkamp that would completely doom the Democrats' prospects at getting to 51 seats. Right now they're just gadflies, but in a year where the Democrats are getting far more active in their primaries, it's worth watching if 2018 produces another September 14, 2010.
 |
| Marie Newman (D-IL) |
These are all major politicians in major races, albeit with differing layers of consequence. California Senate and Illinois-3, for example, will likely go to the Democratic nominee regardless of whom they are considering who the GOP put up & the tilt of their districts, while NJ-2 and TX-7 are much more up-for-grabs in a battle to get to 24 seats. However, this is all indicative of what the Democratic Party will tolerate. The DCCC made headlines when it publicly questioned whether or not it would endorse pro-life candidates earlier this year, and activists were furious when they said that they would. In the wake of Trump, it's probable that these differences will matter less because people will hold-their-nose if it means a defeat to the president in the midterms, but going into 2020 when there are several dozen Democrats looking at the race for the White House, it's sure to make Hillary vs. Bernie look like a kind-hearted picnic.
As for me, I tend to think that ideological purism in a party is usually bad, with the only exceptions being when we don't have to risk Republican victory. With gerrymandering and simple geography against us (Democrats live in denser neighborhoods than Republicans), the reality is that the Republicans can run conservatives in every district in America and get to 218 seats, but Democrats cannot. As a result, I'm not comfortable, with, say, throwing Jeff van Drew out in NJ-2 for a hard-left challenger when it's clear that would cost us a very winnable seat. I also think that dying on the Laura Moser cross is idiotic, both because she has a mountain of baggage that could cost her the election, but also because it's an historically Republican seat and a more moderate candidate would probably be better until it proves itself a bit more reliable. Van Drew may be more conservative than I am and Moser may be more in-line with my politics, but I am a pragmatist first-and-foremost. I grew up in Collin Peterson's district, after all-I know what it takes to get a Democrat elected in red country, and occasionally it's admitting you aren't going to get everything you want.
Conversely, though, Lipinski's seat is a surefire Democratic winner (it's a Hillary district where the Republican candidate is a Holocaust denier), and he has been a thorn-in-the-side of women's rights and gay rights for far too long. I'm very proudly supporting Newman there, and hope she takes him out because we shouldn't have to worry about a Democrat in a district that blue being in favor of basic progressive causes. That might sound like political purism, and to some extent it is, but it also is a way of reflecting the views I have, albeit while not costing my party a seat (Newman's going to be a Pelosi vote the same way Lipinski has been). I also theoretically would be fine with challenging Feinstein, though I am supporting her more because with Trump still in office, I think we need at least one major moderate vote on the Senate Judiciary in case we have an impeachment trial, though I am leery about the Democrats getting 51 seats and then Feinstein being the vote that lets Anthony Kennedy be replaced with a Trump-appointee (if some moderator could ask Feinstein about that, I'd be pleased). But right now I'm fine with Feinstein, even if I'm aware that de Leon isn't going to cost us the seat in deep blue California.
Still, though, this is a movement to keep an eye on. Jeff van Drew is the most extreme end of "sacrificing a seat," but no one saw Christine O'Donnell coming either. Currently there are Z-Grade liberal challengers to people like Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, & Heidi Heitkamp that would completely doom the Democrats' prospects at getting to 51 seats. Right now they're just gadflies, but in a year where the Democrats are getting far more active in their primaries, it's worth watching if 2018 produces another September 14, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment