Senate elections matter... for House Democrats

There has been growing consensus among both liberals and conservatives that the Senate is more important than it used to be. In the last two decades, the filibuster and secret holds have been abused to the dismay of many a ruling party. This did not used to be a problem, though in the 111th Congress, it was a major consideration in most major pieces of legislation. This is the main reason why most of the attention this election cycle has gone to the Senate.

There is a more important reason, however, why Senate elections truly matter this year. With no presidential candidate up for election during the midterms, Senate candidates often appear at the top of the ballot. Senate candidates have the rare opportunity to bring out voters from all over the state, something that is not possible for individual House races. Therefore, good turnout for a Senate candidate means good turnout for all the House races in the state for that candidate's party. 

Lets take a look. In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak (D-PA) is running against former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) for the seat of Arlen Specter (D-PA). Joe Sestak, though a strong candidate, has been having difficulty making headway in a strong anti-Democratic year. The RCP poll average for the race has Pat Toomey winning by 6.5%. Similarly, Nate Silver has a 92% chance of a Republican takeover. Pennsylvania has many swing districts held by vulnerable Democrats who will not be benefiting from a strong Democratic wave this year. I will list the key races below:

                     PA-03: R+6

                     PA-10: R+14

                     PA-11: R+11

                     PA-12: R+4

Notice there are no Republican seats in play. Some would argue Jim Gerlach (R-PA) is endangered, but I do not believe he will loose. Among the incumbents above, several have been in the House for more than two terms. Now lets take a look at a state which the Democrat is running an effective campaign. In Washington State, Incumbent Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is fending off a challenge from perennial Republican candidate Dino Rossi. The RCP poll average for the race has Murray winning by 5.3%. Lets now look at the key House races.

                     WA-02: R+4

                     WA-03: R+9

                     WA-08: R+13

                     WA-09: D+3

Washington and Pennsylvania are relatively comparable states, when it comes to partisan identification. Both are strongly Democratic, but have many swing districts in the more rural areas. The four most likely to flip districts in Pennsylvania all lean or are Republican blowouts, and all controlled by Democrats. The Washington situation is somewhat different. Dave Reichert (R-WA) is vulnerable to the Democrats even in a bad year and the close Democratic races are all close to the margin of error. 

There is also a similar effect of Governor's races on those down ballot, though it is not as clear as their Senate counterparts. Many governors have cross-party appeal and make turnout for House candidates much less reliable. If the Democrats want to hold on to their majority in the House of Representatives, they should start by looking to shore up of their winnable Senate races.

Goodbye, Arlen Specter.

It is official. Arlen Specter, who has served as Pennsylvania's senator since 1980, has lost the Democratic nomination to congressman Joe Sestak. This is very significant. Arlen Specter, since switching to the Democratic Party, has received the endorsement of many prominent Democrats. These endorsements include numerous local mayors all the way up to President Barack Obama. Many have been commenting that this proves an endorsement from the White House means absolutely nothing. Indeed, Obama campaigned with Specter earlier this year and many ads have featured his support. The question nobody is asking is: is the White House making the wrong endorsements?

Arlen Specter won the support of the Administration for several reasons. They needed his 60th vote for health care reform at its most critical stages, and knew he would not switch parties without firm White House support. Furthermore the White House clearly does not want to anger him by remaining neutral, as he might change his liberal voting record he has accumulated since his party switch. Finally, Arlen Specter is an old Senate buddy of Obama.

What we do know is, the White House has made a huge miscalculation here. The electorate is clearly frustrated with Arlen Specter and not impressed by his blatant political maneuvering. If the Obama Administration wants the 2010 midterm elections to turn out as an anti-incumbent year rather than an anti-Democrat one they should heed the will of the voters. Joe Sestak polls better against Republican nominee Pat Toomey than does Specter, therefore should have been a natural choice for a WH endorsement.

We will see how this dynamic plays out in the Arkansas Democratic primary currently in progress. More on what's going on in Arkansas later tonight.

Just give up, Arlen

So it looks like Arlen Specter's blatant political opportunism is finally catching up to him. After trailing in polls against his conservative Republican primary opponent, Pat Toomey, he switched to the Democratic Party and has since become a reliably Democratic vote. This stands in contrast with his increasingly conservative voting record while a Republican senator. His current Democratic primary opponent, Joe Sestak, is running against his "false" issue stances and his coziness with both Obama and Bush.

I have never been a fan of Arlen Specter. Though I think moderate Republicans are essential to a working bipartisan coalition, Specter was becoming increasingly pressured by his base to be a reliable Republican vote. Now that he is a Democrat, he has been a reliable vote though there is nothing stopping him from resuming his "independent" voting record when the election is over. People like Arlen Specter are not the type of people we need in Washington. They respond to public pressure in the most manipulative possible way, putting their job ahead of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans. Specter has been preserving his job since 1980, its time we elect somebody who actually represents the people of Pennsylvania.

White House, stop meddling in Dem primaries!

Anti-incumbent rage is sweeping the nation. Incumbent Utah Senator Robert Bennet just lost the Republican nominating process, after being in the senate for 18 years and earning himself a spot on the Republican leadership circle. West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan is now about to suffer the same fate. Arlen Specter, the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat, is now trailing in polls against primary challenger Joe Sestak (D). Blanche Lincoln is being given a run for her money against primary challenger Bill Halter.

There is no doubt that many of these incumbents' situations were made worse by votes they cast, but there is no denying that the electorate wants new people representing them. In the case of Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter, the primary electorate thinks them too conservative for their constituencies. This is healthy. Strong primary challenges to incumbents is a sign of a healthy democracy. If the party/constituents are fed up with a particular officeholder, they can either vote them out of office or pressure them to represent them in a better way.

President Barack Obama clearly doesn't think so. He has shown consistent support for both Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter, even though they both have voted consistently against his agenda (Arlen Specter when he was a Republican). He is likely protecting them because of the personal relationships he forged with them during his time in the senate. This is wrong. The United States senate can no longer be treated like a country club. Neither can the United States government. Obama, lets allow the people decide who they want to represent them, not their former friends in the senate.

Lets help resurrect the New England Republican

The New England Republican is an endangered species these days, being forced out of their own party by a Southern Republican party far more conservative than it. This is not to say that there aren't anyone who is a Republican in New England anymore, on the contrary, there are far more Republican leaning people in a liberal state like Vermont than one would think. The big problem for the New England GOP is that these Republican voters aren't voting Republican in federal races. The prime example of this is the election of Bill Owens to fill the seat of John McHugh. The Republican candidate was Dede Scozzafava though she was eventually forced out of the race by Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, handing the Democrats a victory in the conservative NY-23.

So why do I argue that we should be resurrection a moderate GOP? What benefit does this bestow on the progressive agenda? First of all, let me open by saying that Medicare passed the senate with at least 10 Republican votes. Where did these votes come from? The answer is moderate areas like New England. Progressive strategists hailed Howard Dean's 50 state strategy that attempted to make the Democratic Party competitive in every area of the United States. This works well when there is a landslide and ample campaign funds, not so well for most election years.

This leads me to believe that we should prioritize investments in candidates that are running against conservative candidates in areas where they are the only liberal candidate. Lincoln Chafee, a liberal Republican senator, was unseated in 2006 with help by the DNC and the DSCC. Why are we, as a Democratic Party, wasting money to oppose people who already vote with our party most of the time? A much better use of the money would be to protect and capture seats that would be occupied by conservative Republicans if they were not represented by Democrats. This would also increase the number of GOP moderates, leading to legitimate bipartisan cooperation and possibly a softening of the GOP leadership's ability to rigidly control its members' voting patterns. Olympia Snowe commented after Arlen Specter's primary switch;

"I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans."

By investing in races opposing conservative republicans, we could help change the GOP back into a party that we can work with in solving the country's issues. We won't get back our New Deal Coalition, but we can try to emulate its strategy.