 |
| Rep. Jason Lewis (R-MN) |
Lewis's entry, though, highlights a weird problem for both sides this Senate cycle-both parties are betting on a lot of recent losers. Lewis, of course, lost reelection in 2018 to Angie Craig, and so will be heading into Smith's election with his last electoral contest being an "L," but he's hardly the only one. Republicans ranging from Alabama's Roy Moore (lost a Senate election in 2017), Arizona's Martha McSally (lost a Senate election in 2018), Michigan's John James (lost a Senate election in 2018), Virginia's Scott Taylor (lost a House election in 2018), New Hampshire's Corey Lewandowski (lost a local office in 2012), Tennessee's Stephen Fincher (lost a Senate primary in 2018), and Kansas's Kris Kobach (lost a Governor's race in 2018) are all seriously looking at or already running for Senate contests in their states this year. Republicans aren't alone here-the Democrats also have their fair share of losers: Kansas's Nancy Boyda (lost a House race in 2008), Colorado's Andrew Romanoff (lost a House race in 2014), Kentucky's Amy McGrath (lost a House race in 2018), North Carolina's Cal Cunningham (lost a Senate primary in 2010), and MJ Hegar (lost a House race in 2018) are all recent losers looking for redemption, and that's not even counting Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, who couldn't make it on the ballot in Iowa for the US House but is already looking for a promotion to the Senate in 2020. Not all of these candidates will be the nominees, but in a number of cases (specifically Lewis, McSally, McGrath, Cunningham, Hegar, Greenfield, and to some degree Kobach) they're all the frontrunners for the nomination at this point in the race, so it begs the question-is it wise to trust major races that will decide the Senate majority to recent losers?
History is not kind to these people's chances, though it's worth noting that I can't find a recent Senate cycle that had so many losing candidates for office, so we're a bit in uncharted territory. By my count, we have had 76 Senate elections since the 2006 midterms (the last seven cycles) that either saw an open seat or an incumbent lost, which is the situation all of these candidates would be hoping to emulate. In that time, 76% of the races were won by candidates who had held elected public office before, and their most recent race was a victory; you'll note the focus on the above list of candidates is on people whose most recent race was a loss-it's considerably more common for someone to win an open/challenged Senate race if they had a loss earlier in their career but had more recent luck. Another 16% of the races were won by electoral neophytes-people who had never held public office before but also had never run a race. In fact, of those 76 candidates, only 6 races were actually won by someone who had lost the last election where they'd faced voters. Because you know I love a list, and because a lot of the fates of Senate candidates in 2020 rest on duplicating the success of one of these six people, I wanted to take a further examination as to why these six candidates were able to defy pretty seismic odds to actually win these races. We'll go backwards chronologically:
 |
| Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) |
The Losing Race: I suspect you know this one already, but Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee for president in 2012, and lost (in an election that's not as close as you remember it) to Barack Obama, who managed to negate lukewarm economy and lower-than-you'd-expect approval ratings to win a second term in the Oval Office.
The Winning Race: Romney flirted mightily with running for president in 2016, but ultimately passed, though he was about as noted of a critic of President Trump as one could find in the GOP that year (he undid a lot of the goodwill with Democrats after that by publicly flirting with being Trump's Secretary of State). He then turned an open seat in Utah, where he had moved after his 2012 presidential loss, into a victory in the Senate when incumbent Orrin Hatch retired, finally getting back into elected public office for the first time in sixteen years.
Why The Change: This one is kind of a technicality. For starters, Romney did win the state of Utah in his 2012 presidential campaign (by a lot), it was the national election that he lost. Plus, Romney had never faced the electorate in Utah as a statewide candidate, as his only other elected office was Governor of Massachusetts, so in many ways he resembles more someone who had never held public office there than someone who was trying to redeem a loss. As a result, I don't think any "loser" trying to become a senator in 2020 can look to Romney for inspiration for their own run.
 |
| Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) |
The Losing Race: One of the bitterest losses (one I suspect both parties involved would have preferred not to have end the way it did), Heitkamp had been a longtime political fixture in the state of North Dakota headed into the 2000 gubernatorial campaign. Popular, and having held statewide office for 14 years prior to the race (back then, it was much more common in the Dakotas to have Democrats elected statewide), Heitkamp led most polls against North Dakota Bank President John Hoeven until it was revealed in October (just weeks before the election) that Heitkamp had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Almost immediately, Hoeven rebounded in the polls as there were questions about whether or not Heitkamp could fulfill her duties as governor were she to be elected. Heitkamp ended up losing the race by 10-points, though thankfully her cancer soon went into remission.
The Winning Race: Twelve years later, the Democrats scored something of a surprise recruit when Heitkamp got into the race to succeed retiring Sen. Kent Conrad. Heitkamp had refused previous runs for higher office (there had been an open Senate race in North Dakota just two years prior), but she made a play here and it paid off big-she won the Senate race by just under 3000 votes-even in North Dakota that's less than a percentage-point.
Why the Change: Her initial entry was scoffed because she was running in a much redder state as the Dakotas had nearly seen their Democratic congressional delegations wiped out (it's hard to believe, but in 2004 every single one of the six Dakota congressional seats was held by a Democrat-with Heitkamp's 2018 loss, they've now all six changed hands). However, Heitkamp ran one of the best Senate campaigns I've ever seen, hammering Berg's slick & ambitious (he'd only held one term in the House before asking for a raise) persona with a "North Dakota Nice" punch. It worked, and might be the best lesson for some of the above candidates, because Heitkamp took a race pretty much everyone thought was unwinnable (something, say, Lewis's race in Minnesota could be described as) and turned it into a victory.
 |
| Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) |
The Losing Race: In 2004, Rep. Pat Toomey was a different kind of political candidate. He was considered a hard-right, Club for Growth-style challenger (he would eventually run that organization before getting his second chance at the Senate), who was going after Sen. Arlen Specter in the Republican Primary. Specter was still with the GOP at the time, but was one of the more moderate members of the caucus, and Toomey wanted him to drive hard-right. Pennsylvania had a longer history of electing Republican senators than Democrats, so it wasn't out of the question to assume that he'd win the general even if he outflanked Specter. He didn't, but he came close, losing by less than 2-points.
The Winning Race: Toomey was able to take the Republican nomination in 2010, and it was Specter, in fact, who lost the primary campaign, this time to Rep. Joe Sestak, who didn't think that Specter was "liberal enough" to win a Democratic Primary. Despite the state having recently gone for both Bob Casey & Barack Obama, Toomey bested Sestak in a close contest, winning by just over 2-points.
Why the Change: The big change here was the environment. It's entirely possible that Toomey would have won the Senate race in 2004, though it's not clear (it's certain that Joe Hoeffel, Specter's 2004 challenger, would have grabbed at least a few moderate votes away from the incumbent). That said, Toomey barely won in 2010 and likely would have lost to Sestak in 2008 or 2012. It's a good thing to remember that national mood matters a lot in Senate races, as frequently you can sweep most of the seats if you have the wind at your back (2018 being a weird exception to that rule). Toomey's close race streak continued in 2016 when he beat Katie McGinty by just over a percentage point, his tightest race of the three.
 |
| Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) |
The Losing Race: In 2002, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen seemed like the future of the Democratic Party. A two-term governor in New Hampshire, she'd been on the VP shortlist in 2000 for Al Gore, and there was talk about her potentially being the first female president. That came crashing down in 2002 when she lost the open Senate race in New Hampshire by 4-points against Republican Rep. John Sununu, the son of the former governor and the brother of the future governor (who was rumored for a while to be interested in taking on Shaheen earlier this year).
The Winning Race: In 2008, Shaheen was able to overcome her past obstacles with quite a bit of ease. Despite six years in the political wilderness, she was still well-liked and polls showed her crushing Sununu in the general election if she was able to be coaxed into the race (Chuck Schumer convinced her it was the right thing to do back when Schumer was unbeatable in recruiting Senate candidates). She ended up beating Sununu by 7-points as part of the Obama wave.
Why the Change: The political environment was probably the major contributor to her loss. George W. Bush was well-liked at the time (he is the last Republican to have won the state of New Hampshire in a presidential race), and the Sununus have long had a close relationship with the Bushes. Six years later, Obama was carrying this state and New Hampshire had started to look a similar shade of blue to the rest of New England. It's worth remembering, though, that the Republicans had one of the most corrupt campaigns in recent memory occur during the 2002 Senate election in the Granite State. Republican consultant Allen Raymond and NRSC Director James Tobin (among others) were convicted in an illegal phone-jamming scheme to hurt Shaheen's GOTV operation, causing 45 minutes of disruption on election day, and certainly injuring Shaheen's ability to turn out critical voters. It's impossible to know, but it's entirely possible (considering how close the results were) that Shaheen could have won in 2002 (and potentially been a presidential candidate in 2004 or 2008) had the Republicans not broken the law in an effort to win.
 |
| Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) |
The Losing Race: In 2004, Claire McCaskill made history in Missouri, becoming the first person ever to defeat an incumbent governor (Bob Holden) in a gubernatorial primary (it was the first time in twenty years an incumbent governor of any state had lost a primary, though just two years later Sarah Palin would replicate this feat in Alaska). McCaskill wasn't able to overcome the Bush victory in 2004 (this was really the first race where Missouri stopped being a national harbinger by giving Bush a sizable 7-point win despite an otherwise tight race with John Kerry), and lost the general to Matt Blunt.
The Winning Race: Two years later, McCaskill jumped into the Democratic primary to take on incumbent-Sen. Jim Talent, and polling showed them in a tight tug-of-war for over a year (neither party was able to get above 50% of the split for long), and indeed McCaskill won with only a plurality, but it was enough. She became the first women ever elected to the US Senate from Missouri.
Why the Change: Again-national mood. Missouri was still a swing-y enough state then that it was reasonable to assume a Democrat would win it in a favorable wave, and Talent was never a particularly good candidate. Lest we forget, he'd also lost a 2000 gubernatorial campaign (similar to McCaskill), and he barely beat Jean Carnahan in 2002 despite her being a political neophyte. Those things combined to McCaskill being able to best him, and win her first Senate campaign.
 |
| Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R/I/D-RI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) |
The Losing Race: In 2002, Whitehouse was the sitting-AG in Rhode Island, and was mounting a race for the open governor's race. He was in a close competition against former State Sen. Myrth York, who had been the Democratic nominee in both 1994 and 1998, losing both races by single-digit margins. Many Rhode Island Democrats thought it was time to move on from York, but not enough-in a particularly nasty primary, York beat Whitehouse by less than a percentage point, and then went on to get crushed by her Republican challenger in the general election.
The Winning Race: Four years later, Whitehouse was able to capitalize on the bright blue of this state in what was a huge wave of ousted New England Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (then a moderate member of the GOP) faced Whitehouse in the general election, and despite being personally well-liked, Chafee got crushed in the 2006 midterm waves, with Whitehouse beating him by 8-points.
Why the Change: For starters, there's a big difference between losing the primary and losing the general. This is something I'm sure Cal Cunningham in particular is hoping is true, but it's accurate-the electorate that Whitehouse faced in 2002 was very different than the one in 2006. Combined with a wave, Chafee having had a hard-right primary challenge to deal with (the rare case of the incumbent having a bruising primary but not the challenger), and it's easy to see Whitehouse was a good bet for 2006 against Chafee. Random remembrance from this race-York was still so bitter about the 2002 primary campaign that she endorsed Chafee in the general that year.
After looking at these races, it's easy to see why Cal Cunningham or even Kris Kobach might feel better about their chances here, but Jason Lewis (or any of the other recent candidates for the House trying to jump into the Senate) should be a bit flummoxed for hope. After all, every single one of these losers-turned-winners had lost a statewide (or in Romney's case, national) race rather than one in a smaller district. You have to go back to 2000 to find someone who fits the shoes of Jason Lewis, when Maria Cantwell (who had won a House seat in 1992 and lost one in 1994) was able to go from a House loser to a Senator. For the likes of Amy McGrath or MJ Hegar, you'd have to go back to 1980, where pretty much every Republican with a pulse was winning a Senate race, to find a case where a previously losing House candidate (who wasn't an incumbent) went on to serve in the Senate (that year it was Alaska's Frank Murkowski, Geogia's Mack Mattingly, & North Carolina's John East); unless you are betting on a big Democratic landslide in 2020, it'll be hard to use these men as a template for victory. All-in-all, betting on losers isn't unprecedented, but it's usually a long odds bet, which makes this year's over-reliance on the strategy quite the puzzler.
No comments:
Post a Comment