5 Thoughts on Mitch McConnell's Retirement

We are making a habit of talking about Senate retirements on the blog, and we're getting our first Republican stepping down this cycle today with the announcement of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the former Senate Majority Leader and the second-longest serving member of the Senate, deciding to step down as US Senator at the end of his current term.  With that, let's talk about what this means for 2026.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

1. Mitch McConnell Retires

Sen. Mitch McConnell's long career came very close to not happening.  In 1984, McConnell was in a weird position, as the only Republican to flip a Senate seat in a night where Ronald Reagan was winning a landslide national victory, defeating incumbent Sen. Walter Dee Huddleston (Democrats did weirdly well during the Reagan landslide, picking up seats in Iowa, Illinois, & Tennessee in the same night, and even odder-all three of those new senators-elect would unsuccessfully run for president).   Unlike most Southern states, Kentucky was not a state that was totally averse to electing Republicans to the Senate, but thanks to Sen. Huddleston and Sen. Wendell Ford, the Democrats had dominated the Bluegrass State for much of the 1970's.  McConnell was a scrappy campaigner, though, winning the race by less than half a percentage point, attacking Huddleston for being "out of touch" with Kentucky, something that would prove a bit ironic for McConnell, one of the most consistent "creatures of DC" for virtually all of my lifetime (McConnell was elected to the Senate the year I was born, so I don't remember a time he wasn't in Congress).

McConnell's legacy will be complicated, less so because of McConnell, an ardent Republican famous for securing a conservative Supreme Court majority not just for the rest of his life, but for the rest of all of our lives at the current rate, but more so because of Donald Trump.  McConnell recently made headlines for voting against Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, & Robert Kennedy, Jr. to Trump's cabinet, something unthinkable when he was Majority Leader, and likely spurred by his fervent support of NATO and countries like Taiwan, Israel, & Ukraine.  His retirement means that the Republican Party is losing its highest-profile supporter of the post-WWII democratic order that GOP presidents like Eisenhower, Reagan, and both Bush's made a hallmark of during their presidencies.  In that regard (and in that regard only, as I despise McConnell for what he's done to this country) I feel a little bad about what is going to come from him leaving.

Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R-KY)

2. The Republican Primary Will Be Brutal

Kentucky is a dark red state, and the Republican nominee will not just be the favorite, but a safe bet for the win.  Former Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who lost a close race for governor in 2023, has already announced his candidacy, and it's possible that McConnell will use what's left of his clout back home to get Cameron the nomination (the 39-year-old was McConnell's legal counsel and is seen as the closest thing McConnell has to a protégée).

But Cameron will not get the race to himself.  Rep. Andy Barr, who recently lost a bid to chair the Financial Services Committee in the House, is expected to jump in given he couldn't get this plum House seat, and wealthy businessman Nate Morris is already running.  Other names (Ambassador Kelly Craft, Rep. Thomas Massie, Secretary of State Michael Adams) could also get into the race, given how rare it is to see an open seat for the Senate in Kentucky.  First attacks have been fired, with the Club for Growth very clearly against Barr (who for years had a more moderate House district, and it shows in terms of his public statements), and Cameron & Morris both playing the "who can MAGA harder?" card.  I don't see a world where Donald Trump doesn't feel the need to insert himself into this race, which has to make Cameron nervous (Trump & McConnell hate each other...if Cameron is seen as McConnell's preference, Trump might speak up against him).

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY)

3. Democrats Look to Andy Beshear

The only name that any Democrat cares about in this race is two-term Gov. Andy Beshear.  Beshear will be heavily courted (I would imagine he's already talked to Chuck Schumer & Kirsten Gillibrand today), but I would be stunned if he ran, for two reasons.  First, Beshear is widely-expected to be considering a presidential run in 2028, and would be a top tier candidate.  Similar to Gretchen Whitmer & Brian Kemp, running a Senate campaign would be too risky.  If he won, he just went through a grueling session that will leave him exhausted headed into a POTUS race, and if he doesn't win...he's a loser headed into a POTUS race.

Also, Beshear won't win (unlike Whitmer or Kemp).  We've been to this dance too many times to count, and it always ends up the same.  The last Governor to win an open Senate seat in a state that his party lost the previous cycle was Joe Manchin in 2010.  Since then, figures from Evan Bayh to Ted Strickland to Larry Hogan to Phil Bredesen to Steve Bullock have all tried, and all have failed.  It's simply not possible to do this, and Beshear is smart enough to know that.  He won't run.

House Minority Leader Pamela Stevenson (D-KY)

4. Should Democrats Field No Candidate?

House Minority Leader Pamela Stevenson has already announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination, and given her position as one of the most powerful Democrats in the state not named Beshear, I assume she'll get the nomination and become the sacrificial lamb in the race.  But I will admit-the one thing I'd like to see here is not Stevenson or Beshear, but instead "no candidate."  Rather than a Democrat, having a moderate Independent, one who threatens not to caucus with either party in DC, would be my suggestion.  We have seen this come close to working a few times (AK 2020, KS 2014, NE 2024), and it's a strategy with some credence...if we have red states we can't win, why not see if there's a way to get the Republicans to lose?  In all three of those cases, the candidates outperformed what a Democrat would do, though being the de facto Democratic nominee ultimately ended up costing them actual wins.  If I was the DSCC, I'd be looking for another Dan Osborn, not Andy Beshear.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

5. Will We See More Republican Retirements

We've focused pretty heavily in these Senate articles on Democratic retirements, both because of recent retirements from Tina Smith & Gary Peters, and because so many Democrats up this cycle (Markey, Shaheen, Durbin) are old, and I think likely to step aside.  But as McConnell indicated, there are Republicans who could also skip town.

Generally I think this is a case where you retire because you don't think you'll have the majority, but since Republicans are heavily favored to win, Republican retirements feel more about being old (like McConnell) or being a bad fit for MAGA 2.0 (again, also like McConnell).  Sen. Jim Risch is the next oldest Republican up this cycle, and while the low-key Risch is unlikely to face a conservative challenge, he's 81-years-old and may want to head back to Idaho after over 50 years in politics.  The MAGA threat could be more an issue for people like Bill Cassidy (who voted to impeach Donald Trump, something he'll never escape if he runs) or John Cornyn (who has plenty of threats from his right from more devoted Trump loyalists).  I also still maintain that Susan Collins should be on the retirement watch until early 2026, because Collins prides herself on having never lost her race, and I think (if she runs) that will be a test she can't win with a second Trump midterm taking her down.  Any of these could join McConnell in what is increasingly looking like a turnover cycle in DC.

5 Thoughts on Tina Smith's Retirement

I have largely been off of social media today, so I'm doing a bit of catchup, but I wanted to talk a little bit about my home state of Minnesota, which had huge political news today with the retirement of Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith.  As we frequently do on the blog for major announcements like this, I am doing a "5 Thoughts" article on the subject.

Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN)

1. Sen. Tina Smith Retires

Sen. Tina Smith's path to the Senate was unusual.  Amidst the Al Franken scandal, she was tapped by Gov. Dayton (she was his lieutenant governor) to replace Franken when the latter resigned in 2018.  Smith quickly won steady (but not Klobuchar-style) reelections in 2018 and 2020, and while she initially seemed to meld into the background of the Senate, eventually she seemed to stick-out a bit.  As the only former employee of Planned Parenthood in the upper chamber, Smith has been ardently pro-choice, and honestly is one of the most consistently progressive voices in the chamber, even becoming one of the first senators to talk about expanding the Supreme Court.  Franken's resignation, seven years after the fact, is still a source of consternation amongst DFL circles (if you've followed this blog long, you'll know that I was very supportive of him resigning at the time, and still think that was the right decision), but one of the realities that is rarely discussed when talking about Franken leaving office is that Smith might actually have been more progressive than Franken would've been in the remaining years of his term.  She certainly kept the seat blue when Franken would've struggled to do in 2020 (when he certainly would've under-run Joe Biden).  As one of her constituents, she's my favorite senator I've ever had, and though I'm glad she's leaving pragmatically (I think more Democrats in blue/purple districts should consider leaving in 2026 when it'll be a good midterm year so it'll be easier to hold in an open seat election-Jeanne Shaheen & Dick Durbin, this means you), she's the member of Congress I'm most consistently proud to claim I elected, and I'll miss her.

Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN)

2. What Will Tim Walz Do?

Similar to the recent announcement by Sen. Gary Peters that he would retire from the Senate after two terms in Michigan, the first name on everyone's list is going to be the governor, in this case 2024 vice presidential nominee Tim Walz.  While Gretchen Whitmer quickly ruled out a run in Michigan, Walz seemed open to the idea, though there are definitely indications that he might skip the race (more on that in a second).  Walz would be the heavy favorite if he ran.  While he lost last year's vice presidential race, he remains popular in Minnesota, and this would allow him to stay in office while avoiding running for the dreaded third term as governor, as Minnesota voters generally have turned governors who reach for it down (just ask Rudy Perpich).  Walz's political future is hazy-unlike Whitmer, it's not clear if he still has national ambitions to run in 2028 for president, and it's also possible that even if he did, he'd be a footnote (failed vice presidential candidates like Joe Lieberman & John Edwards are good examples of how it's not a great launchpad for your future endeavors).  But if he runs, Walz would be the heavy favorite for both the primary and the general.

Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (D-MN)

3. A Walz vs. Flanagan Primary is Unlikely (But Not Impossible)

The best indication that Walz is not considering running, however, is that his lieutenant governor is already in the race.  There are downsides to calling "first!" in a Senate primary, but the upsides are honestly high if you're a big enough name, and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan already getting into the race like this is a way to sort of force a lot of other Democrats' hands.  It's still not clear, for example, whether or not Walz is interested in a race at all (there were some indications that Walz was looking at retiring if he didn't win the vice presidency last year), so there are Democrats who could be interested in running for Governor.  Though Walz & Flanagan's relationship was once really strong, (according to reports) Tim & Gwen Walz did not like how Flanagan handled herself during the 2024 election, and their relationship has soured to the point that they rarely do public events together.  Still, I struggle to see a world where they both pursue this seat, particularly given that Flanagan could've had a clear shot at whatever race Walz didn't go for and will be a very big underdog against Walz in a Senate primary.  If they are in a primary against each other, it would be a tabloid sensation, and also really foolish on Flanagan's part as she'd likely lose when she could've won another race.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

4. The Rest of the Bench is a Mixed Bag

I'll be totally transparent in saying that, as a voter, if Walz doesn't run, I'm leaning toward Rep. Angie Craig or Secretary of State Steve Simon.  Both out-performed their tickets, and both are in the same profile of Klobuchar & Smith: progressives who act like moderates (though one could make the argument that Craig is an actual moderate, at least more so than Smith or Simon) but are generally loyal to the party.  The Minnesota Senate race will start out, in my opinion as Likely Democrat, and given her public feud with Walz, I do wonder if Flanagan might be a risky bet right now, though I do also think she'd be the favorite if she got the nomination.

There are a few names, though, that would struggle on the DFL bench.  Despite having a solid up-ballot lead for Walz & Simon, State Auditor Julie Blaha and Attorney General Keith Ellison both nearly lost their races, and honestly I think would pose a serious risk of losing this seat if they were the nominees.  The same could be said for Rep. Ilhan Omar, who has publicly indicated she's looking at a bid.  Omar has the worst under-performance of the Harris ticket of any incumbent Democrat in Congress...and that's after having the worst under-performance of Joe Biden.  Were she to run, she'd almost certainly lose the primary, and honestly it'd be a godsend for DFL-ers who are tired of her in the 5th district (which is ultimately why I don't think she will, as I think she'll be able to hold the 5th again in 2026 in the primary even after the falls of Cori Bush & Jamaal Bowman last cycle).

The one name I worry most about is Franken's.  Franken currently lives in New York City (not Minnesota), but remains popular with the progressive base (just look on social media right now and you'll see many calls for him to be the nominee).  I think (absent Walz) he'd be the frontrunner for the nomination...but would lose the general election.  The long assumption amongst his acolytes is that there was nothing more to the accusations in 2018 (which still feels like a stretch...a risk that's not worth taking), and having him run would mean that Democrats would have to stake a controversial Senate nominee while they attempt to make gains elsewhere.  It is not worth it, and I pray that Franken will avoid the race.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN)

5. The Republicans Need a Candidate Too

While the Democrats have a wide bench (even if some aren't worth their time for this race), there will be a Republican in the race, and if Franken or Omar or Ellison or Blaha is their opponent...they would be taken seriously.  Who that person is is a genuine question.  Rep. Tom Emmer is already out of the race (he likely would've gotten right of first refusal), so my eyes are now on Rep. Pete Stauber, who picked up this seat in 2018 one of the only Republicans to flip a seat red that cycle, who ruled out a gubernatorial race, but might be interested in running here.  Stauber is also the only major name that might be considered A-List in the same vein as Walz, Flanagan, Craig, & Simon (you could claim Brad Finstad or Michelle Fischbach are as well, but neither seems to be signaling an interest).  State Sens. Michelle Benson & Paul Gazelka, NBA player Royce White, & State Sen. Scott Jensen would all be potential candidates...they also all lost their last statewide bids.  State Rep. Kristin Robbins would be an interesting choice, but she's also the rare suburban Republican in the State House...which would mean her seat would be potentially gettable as the DFL tries to win back sole control over the House next year.

The Disturbing Reality of Nancy Mace

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC)

When Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) was first elected to Congress in 2020, she was elected largely under the guise of being a more moderate figure in the party.  Running against incumbent Rep. Joe Cunningham in a right-leaning (but moving to the center) swing district, she needed to strike a more moderate tone, as Cunningham was popular & well-positioned & was very much in the running to win a second term if she didn't pull things together.  Mace won that election, and like many candidates, became more partisan while in office, but generally did try to strike a more moderate balance.  On abortion, for example, she made a point of wanting exemptions for rape victims, talking about how she was sexually assaulted as a teenager, and she voted in favor of the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act in 2021, one of only a handful of Republicans who backed the bill which would provide easier access to birth control.  She also voted in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which provided protection for same-sex marriage under federal law, and initially stood behind her colleague Liz Cheney when there was an attempt to oust her from the GOP leadership.

Mace's public profile over the past few months, though, has caught significant public attention and honestly concern from neutral observers.  Mace's physical appearance has transformed quite a bit (she has lost a significant amount of weight), which on its own would not be particularly noteworthy, but coupled with some of her actions is something I feel needs to come up in today's article (also, she has blamed the change in her appearance on Twitter by saying it is a result of "PTSD").  Her public statements have become increasingly erratic.  She has talked about drones invading from outer space, or "outside the universe."  She has become deeply transphobic in her public statements, yelling trans slurs during congressional hearings and staging bizarre photo shoots, including accusing someone of attacking her (she even wore a sling in public) when most onlookers observed that the man she accused of assault merely shook her hand.  Mace has publicly worn costumes (including a shirt with the letter "A" on it, referencing The Scarlet Letter), and claimed on Fox News that she had "uncovered" a program funded by the federal government to "make animals trans."  Last night, on the House floor, she claimed to have been drugged-and-raped by her former fiancé and three other men who were part of a pornography ring.  This was done seemingly out of the blue (there are no current pieces of legislation that she was obviously referencing here), and drew condemnation, including from the Attorney General of South Carolina, who pointed out that Mace had never brought these charges to his office, and there was no ongoing investigation against any of the men that Mace showed (publicly) on the floor of the US Congress.

There's a couple of things I want to talk about here.  First, I think it's worth noting that Mace did this on the floor of the US House, not just because it is a foundational bed of a (currently teetering) democracy, but also because it likely makes what she did protected under the first amendment in a way it would not be for an average American.  Members of Congress are given wide latitude under the Constitution in what is called the "Speech and Debate Clause" to be able to speak without punishment.  The exact wording is "for any Speech or Debate in either House, members shall not be questioned in any other Place," the latter referring for all intents and purposes to a courtroom.  There have been nicks in the armor of this through the years, specifically Hutchinson v. Proxmire in 1979 where Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) was sued for defamation, and the case went forward because Proxmire made statements against Mr. Hutchinson outside of his congressional role (the case was settled out of court), but largely it has remained intact.  I note this because had Mace made these claims in, say, an interview on Fox News it is almost certain that she would be opening herself up for a lawsuit from these four men...doing it in Congress probably means she can't be punished by anyone other than her fellow members of Congress.

Secondly, this is really disturbing behavior from anyone, but especially from someone with as much influence over US policy as Mace.  I am going to point out that this is my opinion (Mace seems to be weirdly good at finding things people say about her on the internet, and I want to be clear this is just my read on the situation, and will throw in this is just alleged for that reason), but she seems to be genuinely going through a public breakdown.  Her behavior is erratic, frequently feeling like she is lying for attention, and that she seems to be going through some sort of mental health issue in real-time in front of the nation.  I don't condone what she's done in the past few months, particularly her bigoted attacks on transgender people, but there is obviously something wrong here.  Mace posted on social media in 2023 that she had two sisters and a brother whom she is close with...I genuinely (no sarcasm whatsoever) hope that one of them is trying to help her because this is someone who needs help.

But it is also a testament to the modern Republican Party that this is happening without any sort of public reckoning.  Twenty years ago, if someone did what Mace has done the past few weeks, they would've been asked to resign from Congress from pretty much all sides.  Rep. Joe Wilson yelled "you lie" during a State of the Union address and it was a major headline for months...that wouldn't even survive an hour-long news cycle today.  Mace feels different to me because it feels (in my opinion) like a call for help from someone who is struggling & trying to get people to notice any way that she can, but against figures like Donald Trump, Byron Donalds, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, & Lauren Boebert, it's hard to tell.  The modern media infrastructure rewards people with more headlines if they say cruel, dangerous, or wacky things, and the modern Republican Party's base loves this, seemingly gloating at how this insane, bizarre behavior is "owning the libs."  Some have said that Mace's posturing is simply her trying to get a leg-up in next year's gubernatorial and Senate races in South Carolina, and maybe that's truly the case.  We are officially in a world where it's not apparent if a sitting member of Congress is having a mental breakdown or if she's just trying to act crazy to help her in a primary...because for Republicans in 2025, these things look so similar it's hard to tell the difference.