Should Democrats Take the Risk in the Senate?

Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski (R-NH)

This past week, President Donald Trump appeared at a rally in Manchester, NH.  Like most Trump events, there were moments of sheer horror (his admonishment of a protester for their weight seems like something virtually any Democratic candidate right now would be forced to drop out of the race for, but for Trump we'll have forgotten that it happened by Monday), but there was something that probably would have an impact on the 2020 elections that happened during his speech.  Trump, for all intents-and-purposes, lent his support to his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who is exploring a bid for the Senate in 2020 against Democratic incumbent-Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.  I wanted to take a look at this, and the "be careful what you wish for" situation that several Senate races are encountering in 2020.

Lewandowski, for those that need a refresher, comes with a significant amount of personal baggage despite the president's kind words about him at the rally (to quote Trump, "He's tough...he's smart...he would be fantastic" he said in relation to Lewandowski's potential bid for the Senate).  Lewandowski was Trump's first campaign manager, and as campaign manager, he attracted a number of headlines that would be huge problems for him in a Senate race.  He grabbed reporter Michelle Fields at a press conference in Florida, resulting in him being charged with battery (State Attorney Dave Aronberg ultimately declined to prosecute), and there was an additional situation in Arizona later that month where Lewandowski grabbed a protester by the collar.  Lewandowski left the campaign the next month, but has been a frequent talking head for Trump in the years since, but again not without controversy.  In 2018, he mocked an immigrant girl with Down Syndrome, and in 2017 he was accused of sexually harassing singer Joy Villa.  This is all on top of the fact that Lewandowski had a very public (alleged) affair with Hope Hicks, and isn't really a great campaigner; he's lost his previous two bids for public office, and you can't really give him any credit for Donald Trump being president.  Lewandowski left months before Trump seemed like someone who could win the general election, and it's Kellyanne Conway, not Lewandowski, who deserves the credit for that.

Suffice it to say, Lewandowski comes with a mountain of baggage, all of which Shaheen could (and would) exploit in a Senate campaign.  It's almost to the point where a Democrat might hope he's her challenger, in that it would make Shaheen theoretically have an easier go at a third term.  After all, New Hampshire is one of the very few (I'd argue one of only three, along with Alabama & Michigan) states where the Republicans could theoretically make a play for a Senate seat pickup in 2020.  But the question is-is this the reaction that we should be having?  Should Democrats actively hope for the most incendiary candidate as their opponent, or is it not worth the risk because they might win?

Gov. Edwin Edwards (D-LA)

I can think of three cases right now that address this question, two of which would say it's worth the risk, and a third of which would not.  The first is the 1991 Louisiana governor's race.  That race is the stuff of legend (enough so we could do a few posts about it), but suffice it to say the Democrats had screwed up badly.  Former Gov. Edwin Edwards, who had spent most of his third term under indictment & wildly unpopular for wanting to legalize gambling statewide in order to subsidize the education cuts Edwards had been forced to make in a down economy, still had enough popularity in the party to force Public Service Commissioner Kathleen Blanco out of the race by claiming a woman could never win in Louisiana (Blanco would prove him wrong in 2003 when she'd be elected the first female governor).  With Blanco out, Edwards, a crook, ran largely unopposed as the Democratic nominee, ensuring he'd get a spot in the jungle primary runoff.  Most assumed, despite being wildly unpopular, that Republicans would pick incumbent-Gov. Buddy Roemer as their challenger in the runoff, likely beating Edwards in a rematch of the contest from four years earlier when Roemer bested Edwards, but they didn't.  In a shocking election night upset, the Republicans instead went with KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.  This resulted in Edwards winning the runoff in a landslide, earning endorsements (despite his party label from) Roemer (who publicly & privately detested Edwards) and even President George Bush.  Edwards (and by proxy the Democrats) would have lost to virtually anyone else...except David Duke.

The second such circumstance happened in Missouri in 2012.  Sen. Claire McCaskill was running behind in her bid for reelection, and seemed a certain goner come November.  But McCaskill, an ace politician & a veteran Missouri insider, knew her best shot at a win was against Rep. Todd Akin, one of three Republicans running for the chance to be her challenger.  She ran ads proclaiming that he was "too conservative" for the state, which only helped him in the primary to win, besting State Treasurer Sarah Steelman & businessman John Brunner.  Akin's views on women then became well-known after Akin won the nomination, giving an infamous speech about "legitimate rapes" not resulting in pregnancy, comments rightfully proclaimed offensive & factually inaccurate.  McCaskill was able to turn those comments into a case that, like Edwards running an "anyone but Duke" campaign, she was better in an "anyone but Akin" campaign, and it worked.  McCaskill won reelection in a landslide.

You can see where I'm going here.  "Anyone but Duke" and "Anyone but Akin" both worked, but "Anyone but Trump" showed that occasionally you lose even when the stakes are high.  Hillary Clinton surely thought she had the White House in the bag when the Republicans picked Donald Trump, whose closet was brimming with skeletons and who made incendiary comments on the daily.  As we all know, this was not the case, as Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election by a minuscule margin against Donald Trump, giving the Democrats four years of weeping that might have been four years of grumbling with someone like Jeb Bush in the Oval Office.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

So it's worth asking-is it worth it to go against someone like Lewandowski, Kobach, and Moore, even though with the advantage of a weaker opponent, you might still lose?  I'd argue that it depends on the situation, because as Trump illustrated, sometimes the stakes are too high for you to take such a risk.  With Lewandowski, I'd argue it's probably worth it.  Jeanne Shaheen is the frontrunner regardless of whom the Republicans in New Hampshire pick (this probably stayed "Lean D" or better the second Gov. Chris Sununu declined the race).  As a consequence, the end result here doesn't change, but it certainly will hurt Republicans in the state who want to distance themselves from Trump (like Sununu) but now will also have to have to distance themselves from Lewandowski.  Sununu is probably going to be the challenger against Sen. Maggie Hassan in 2022 if he wins reelection here; this might be the best way to end his political future before Hassan has to have a top-tier race.  If I'm a Democratic strategist, the extremely slim chance that Lewandowski wins is worth the increased odds that you take the governor's mansion in 2020 & make it considerably easier for Hassan to win reelection three years from now.

Alabama & Kansas are not the same.  Alabama, in particular, is not worth the risk.  In a presidential election in a state as red as this (where Trump is going to be winning by 25-points), I just can't imagine Doug Jones outrunning any Republican nominee, even Moore.  And Moore getting ahold of the filibuster and the powers of an individual US Senator feels like too much of a risk.  When your options are probably "Moore wins by 8-points" or "Bradley Byrne wins by 15-points," I'd prefer it just go to Byrne all-things-being-equal.

Kansas, though, is a conundrum.  Kansas is red, but it's shown an antipathy toward Trump, and the state has a weird history of Republicans screwing themselves over by alienating their moderate base (I talk about this more in-depth here if you're interested).  According to Morning Consult, Trump's approval rating in Kansas has decreased 19-points since he was inaugurated, and he currently only has a net-5 approval rating in the state; this makes Kansas similar in a lot of ways to a state like Texas or Georgia, which are considered outside-possibility swing states.  Last year, the Democrats picked up a House seat in the state, nearly won a second, and watched as State Sen. Laura Kelly crushed controversial Secretary of State Kris Kobach in the governor's race.  Kobach is still a lightning rod, but without a ringer (like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo), it's entirely possible that candidates like Rep. Roger Marshall, State Treasurer Jake LaTurner, & Kansas Senate President Susan Wagle split the non-Kobach vote in an echo of 2018's Republican primary, and he gets through on a plurality.  I'd feel better if the Democrats had recruited State Sen. Barbara Bollier as their nominee (she's still publicly considering the run, but most people privately speculate that she's not interested enough to wage such a tough battle), but even against someone like Rep. Nancy Boyda or US Attorney Barry Grissom, it's entirely possible that the stars would align to get the Democrats a second victory off of Kobach.  It's a risky affair, as Kobach would still be a favorite in the general (for federal office), but if Trump is actually only going to win Kansas by 5-6 points, someone like Bollier/Boyda/Grissom would be able to outrun that against Kobach.  And the stakes are high enough (with a Democratic victory here likely getting Chuck Schumer to a majority), that it'd probably be worth it to hope for Kobach as the GOP nominee.  But like Trump illustrated, you're playing with a lot of fire when you make such a bet.