Will the Democrats' Terrific Senate Recruitment Matter?

Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)

I was thinking about doing a "State of the Senate" article this week, but I think we're going to wait until August before we do another one, as there are clearly some races that are still getting settled.  Instead, I wanted to do a discussion today about Senate recruitment, and specifically the strange difference between the quality of the recruits from the Democratic and Republican sides at this point.

Senate recruitment is something that gets a lot of headlines, but is rarely something that genuinely matters in an increasingly polarized country.  Look at 2020 for an example-the Montana Senate race managed to convince Gov. Steve Bullock to get into the contest, a huge coup for the DSCC, and he raised boatloads of money.  He also lost by ten points as Donald Trump's strength in Montana sank Bullock's candidacy.  You could make a sincere argument that the four pickups the Democrats pulled off in 2020 (Colorado, Arizona, and the two seats from Georgia) were less about quality Senate recruitment, at least in terms of getting a big name, and more about the dynamics of the electorate.

That said, candidate recruitment can matter, though it's hard to tell until after the fact if it did.  In 2018, there's no way that anyone other than Beto O'Rourke manages to capitalize and nearly beat Ted Cruz-his star quality made the difference there.  Susan Collins deciding to run for reelection in 2020 made what would've otherwise been an easy pickup in Maine for the Democrats into a noteworthy hold for the GOP.  And you could make a sincere argument that had the Democrats nominated, say, Jeff Jackson (a standup, devoted husband war hero who was also a state senator) rather than Cal Cunningham, Jackson's crossover appeal might've just gotten him past the finish line against the unpopular Thom Tillis.  Recruitment, especially incumbent retention, can matter, though it rarely will change the actual dynamics of a race that would've otherwise been competitive.

So where do we stand with the 2022 Senate races?  For the Republicans, it's a bit of a series of whiffs.  The Republicans have lost three incumbents in potentially competitive races (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, & Ohio), while two others in potentially competitive races (Ron Johnson in Wisconsin & Chuck Grassley in Iowa) are still on the fence.  Their best challengers in Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, & Missouri all run-the-risk of getting outmaneuvered by a less palatable nominee from the right (with Trump lurking in the shadows, ready to endorse against more establishment figures), and they still don't have a top tier candidate in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Georgia.  There are exceptions (Marco Rubio seeking reelection is a big win), and this might not matter, especially if they get strong candidates in those last three races (particularly Chris Sununu), but this is a miserable recruiting cycle, and the Republicans have to be hoping that it's more a national referendum (similar to 2014) than about candidate quality in 2022 (similar to 2012).

The Democrats, on the other hand, are in a fine position.  They have managed to convince every Senate incumbent (save maybe for Pat Leahy, who is in a safe seat regardless) to run for reelection, so we aren't getting a repeat of 2010 or 2014.  The Democrats have gotten top-tier candidates in Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, & Wisconsin, in some cases more than one quality challenger, and as of this week have gotten strong insurance policies in two states that don't look competitive, but might need insurance policies: Al Gross in Alaska, who was a strong fundraiser in 2020, and former Rep. Abby Finkenauer in Iowa.  While there are more figures that get into the races (specifically Rep. Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania), the only figure that the DSCC is clearly actively pursuing is former Gov. Jay Nixon in Missouri.  Compare that to the NRSC, which has at least a half dozen major names on their wish lists (and at least a few more on their "please don't run" lists), and you see a different state-of-the-race.

This is only a small part of the race, and I do want to point out that this doesn't indicate that one side will win or lose, but it is important to have top tier candidates ready in case there's a race you didn't expect or a national environment that you could exploit to get an extra seat.  You saw that in 2012, when lousy campaigns in North Dakota & Indiana by the Republicans managed to get two Democrats elected...but only because the Democrats had recruited A+ challengers who barely had a shot.  The same could be true for Cory Gardner in 2014, and (though they lost) Jason Kander in 2016 and Beto O'Rourke in 2018.  This is why Finkenauer & Tim Ryan are running-they're hoping for a major missed foul that could get them a spot at a Senate seat (and with that, a six-year guarantee of national spotlight), and why the DSCC is actively pursuing Jay Nixon, even if he's almost certain to lose that race-Senate seats are tough to get, and if you have even a infinitesimal chance at taking one, you bring your A-game because if you pull off a miracle, it can be a majority maker in a country where the two presidential candidates split their state count down the middle. The DSCC is doing that this year, the NRSC (so far) is not...we'll find out in about 15 months if that left the Democrats with an opportunity, or if the cards were stacked too hard against the left to matter. If the Democrats hold or make gains in the Senate, recruitment will probably have been a factor.