Angus King Isn't Retiring...But He Should

Sen. Angus King (I-ME)

While he had hinted at it for months, Sen. Angus King (I-ME) yesterday announced that he will be running for a third term to the US Senate.  King's career is fascinating.  His original foray into politics was as a third party candidate against two reputable options (future Sen. Susan Collins and US Rep. Joseph E. Brennan, a former governor), and he beat them both to become Governor of Maine for two terms.  Upon the retirement of Sen. Olympia Snowe in 2012, he became the de facto Democratic nominee, but when he first ran, it wasn't entirely clear what kind of a Democrat he'd be.  A few years after winning, King toyed publicly with switching parties if, as expected, the Democrats lost the Senate majority (you can read my rather perturbed thoughts on this here, as we were writing the blog regularly at the time).  But King settled down, and never left the Democratic caucus.  Indeed, much like Bernie Sanders, while King is an idiosyncratic Democrat...he's not a particularly troublesome one, and there is no worry if he wins reelection, which he is widely-expected to do, that he will switch parties.  But I was still hoping to see him retire, and I'm going to explain why here (and note, it's not because of that article-King & I made our peace a while ago).

We've talked a lot on the blog in the past couple of years about the public decline of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the 90-year-old senior senator from California whose cognitive ability has regularly been brought into question.  This has made me rethink an attitude that I have long dismissed.  While I don't believe in term limits on principle (and still don't-this hasn't changed that for me), I do think it's okay for voters to put parameters on whom they should choose to put in office, and I think one of the rules that I have is that, all-things-being-equal, I don't want to vote for someone who will turn eighty during their term in office.  This doesn't reek of ageism because if you're 80 and running for major public office...you don't need that job, this isn't like working as a Wal-Mart manager because your social security isn't making ends meet.

There are exceptions, of course.  I will be voting for Joe Biden, because he's the incumbent and because he's our best chance at holding the White House.  If I were living in West Virginia I would certainly vote for Joe Manchin, who will be 83 if he were to be reelected, because, again, he's the only plausible Democrat who can hold the seat.  These men are way more important than a self-guided principle.  

But Angus King, who will be 86 at the end of his next term, is not irreplaceable.  Maine is a state that seems to be slowly shifting right, but at such a glacial pace it's not clear that demographics are destiny on this one.  It's almost certain that any of the leading Democrats who would run if King retired (likely either Chellie or Hannah Gingree, Sara Gideon, or Jared Golden) would win the seat with Biden at the top of the ticket, and even the oldest of them (Chellie Pingree) is over ten years King's junior.  Giving the Democrats a younger senator from Maine, one with less worry about "pulling a Feinstein" would be a solid move.

But more importantly, it'd set us up for success in 2030.  2030 is so far away, it's hard to tell where it will land, but best case scenario for Democrats is that they're doing something that they haven't been able to pull off since 1942-running a third consecutive midterm while holding the White House.  In that case, it would behoove us to avoid as many open seats as possible, as that would be a brutal cycle, and open seats would be vulnerable, even in blue territory.  This is a lesson we frequently forget in politics, and one that we'd be wise to remember by looking at the Senate races of 2014.

In 2014, four Democratic senators retired: Max Baucus, Tim Johnson, Jay Rockefeller, & Tom Harkin.  While none of the men were in the "over 80" crowd we're talking about right now, all but Johnson was going to turn 70 in his next term when they ran for their final terms in 2008.  What was more important, though, was 2008 was a uniquely good year for the Democrats.  The party didn't lose a single Senate seat that they held, even in McCain territory (keep in mind, save for Harkin, all four of these men won while Obama lost their state-ticket-splitting was still en vogue).  In reality, the four of them running made the ACA reality, so it's possible that this was the right decision.  But it's also worth noting that all four of these men had very obvious successors at the time that might've been able to win an open seat...meaning we'd have incumbents in 2014 to make things easier.

Johnson's was the easiest-he won on the same ballot as Rep. Stephanie Herseth, who two years later would lose to Kristi Noem (now South Dakota's governor), but Herseth, 24 years Johnson's junior, would've been a supernova of a candidate in 2008 had she won (young, attractive, and from a red state, she'd have been on presidential shortlists pretty much instantaneously).  In Iowa, it was much easier.  Though he'd lose Harkin's seat in 2014, Rep. Bruce Braley would've won in 2008 and better established himself under Obama...of all four of these, I think Senator Braley is probably the best positioned to upset the system and get us a victory in 2014.  In 2008, Montana's best options would've been Gov. Brian Schweitzer (who honestly might have gone for it, and the fact that he might've gone for it could've been the reason Baucus ran again in the first place, given he didn't like Schweitzer).  Schweitzer might well have been to Baucus's left on a few issues, and would've been a wild card in 2014.

West Virginia also would've probably stayed blue (it was very blue down-ballot then), though I can't quite tell who might've run.  Given Alan Mollohan's ethics violations at the time, and Joe Manchin having to stand for reelection, I would assume it'd be either Rep. Nick Rahall or State Treasurer John Perdue, both of whom would've struggled in 2014...but would've been less DOA than an open seat.

You live the history you're given, but it was clear in 2008 that 2014 was going to be a tougher environment after two consecutive two-term presidents, and that bore out.  Braley, Herseth, Rahall, & Schweitzer likely would've won in 2008, keeping the ACA intact...but if 1-2 of them had won again in 2014, we're looking at the real possibility that Merrick Garland gets confirmed in a lame duck session in 2021 to replace Antonin Scalia...or Brett Kavanaugh can't get confirmed in 2018.  I personally hope that King's lack of retirement doesn't open up similar "What If's" down the road.