Democratic Primary Overview
While the Tea Party folks have gotten a lot of attention from the media in the Republican primaries so far, there are a few Democratic primary races which may have just as interesting an impact on the Democrats as the Tea Party challenges are having for Republicans. And since last week I took a look at the effect of the Tea Partiers in Republican races, today I thought it would be worth paying some attention to the Democratic side of the aisle. Because the anti-incumbent "throw the bums out" feeling seems to be happening to some degree in both parties this year. What it all means for the general election remains to be seen, of course. For now, let's take a look at a handful of these upcoming primary races.
Pennsylvania (Senate)
The first of these races is the most unique, since Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania hasn't been a Democrat all that long. Specter jumped the aisle to become a Democrat when it became increasingly clear that he didn't have a chance to win the Republican primary against Pat Toomey. Specter beat Toomey's primary challenge the last time Specter was up for re-election, when they were both Republicans, but only by the skin of his teeth (by a margin of 17,000 votes). And Specter was pretty obvious, when making the party switch, that a large part of why he was doing so was that it was the only way he could keep his job. If he had faced Toomey in a Republican primary this year, Specter likely would have been crushed.
But Specter, although given a free pass from leading Democrats as part of the price for his party switch (President Obama and other Democrats have supported Specter), Representative Joe Sestak did not go along with this deal. He's running as the "real Democrat" in the race, and making much political hay over Specter's political opportunism. And it appears this message is beginning to work, especially after Sestak ran a strong television ad pointing it out in no uncertain detail. The last two polls released for the Pennsylvania Democratic primary show Sestak with a four or five point lead over Specter -- which he hasn't managed to do until now. Now, both polls had a fairly small sampling (around 400 "likely voters"), meaning that the margin of error is higher than normal. But Sestak does seem to be gaining momentum, so it is possible that he could beat Specter in the primary to face Toomey in November. Specter faces a potential problem this summer as well, with President Obama's Supreme Court pick, since (when he was a Republican) Specter voted against confirming her to the job she now holds -- meaning Specter is going to have to explain either why he's about to flip-flop and support her, or why he's going to vote with Republicans not to confirm her. Neither of these positions is likely to win him a lot of Democratic voter support. All in all, Sestak may have the best chance of any Democratic primary challenger who is taking on a sitting senator this year.
Both Specter and Sestak poll similarly against Toomey, but the bad news is that they both poll about ten points behind Toomey. It may not matter which one of them wins the Democratic nomination, if Toomey wins the general election. The choice for Pennsylvania Democrats is going to be which of the Democratic candidates would have a better chance against Toomey.
Pennsylvania's primary will take place next Tuesday.
Arkansas (Senate)
Senator Blanche Lincoln, unlike Arlen Specter, was never formally a Republican, but she is one of the bluest of Blue Dog Democrats (or perhaps "one of the doggiest"... not sure how that metaphor breaks down, personally) in the Senate, and she is being targeted from her left in the Democratic primary in Arkansas. Her challenger is Bill Halter, who has received a lot of support from Big Labor, because they are absolutely incensed at Lincoln for repeatedly voting against their interests in the Senate, which included her being one of the obstructionist Democrats in the health reform battle.
Halter isn't any sort of "far left" candidate, but Big Labor doesn't particularly care about the details, as they are not only looking to take Lincoln down, but also to use the race as a serious warning to other Democratic officeholders. Expressed in clear language, this warning might be worded: "Do not take Union support for granted -- if you work against our interests, then we will work against you." So far, they have pumped a million dollars into Halter's race, and could spend even more by the time it is over. Lincoln still has a comfortably large campaign chest of her own, however, but the ad wars on the airwaves are getting pretty brutal in Arkansas.
So far, if the polls are correct, Lincoln has been doing a fairly good job of shoring up her base support in the primary. She's got a healthy double-digit lead over Halter so far, and even the flood of Union ads on his behalf hasn't beefed his numbers up much. Unions have never had an enormous presence in the state, which is home (after all) to Wal-Mart. And with time fast running out, it looks like Halter will fall short of his effort to unseat this particular Blue Dog.
But the real bad news for Democrats is that this race may be the Republicans to win, no matter which Democrat they have to run against in the general election. Lincoln's approval ratings are pretty dismal in the state, and in head-to-head matchups, neither Lincoln nor Halter are even close to their Republican opponent -- both poll significantly lower, sometimes over 20 percent lower. Meaning the Democratic primary may (other than sending a Big Labor message to other Democrats) ultimately be meaningless this year.
Arkansas' primary will also take place next Tuesday.
Colorado (Senate)
The third sitting Democratic senator having problems from within his own party is Michael Bennet in Colorado. Bennet was not elected to his Senate seat, he was appointed to fill the vacancy left when President Obama named Ken Salazar as his Secretary of the Interior. So Bennet doesn't really have a long history of being a national officeholder from his state to fall back on.
A former Democratic speaker of Colorado's House, Andrew Romanoff jumped into this race even though national Democrats (all the way up to the White House) tried to clear the primary field for Bennet. A recent quote from Romanoff pretty much sums up not only his reason for running, but also a lot of voters' frustration: "It is not only the stubbornness of Republicans that's at fault here; it is too often the spinelessness of Democrats."
Colorado doesn't have a lot of polling numbers available, so it's really anybody's guess what will happen in the primary. A poll two months ago showed Bennet over Romanoff by six points, but at 40-34, this still leaves a lot of undecided voters in the mix. At this point, the race is truly a tossup. Both Bennet and Romanoff do about equally well against the likely Republican nominee, but the bad news is that both are polling about seven points behind Republican Jane Norton.
Colorado could actually become the most interesting race in the nation this November, if both sides split their support into a true four-way race. In essence, voters would get the chance to choose between two Democrats, and two Republicans. Meaning it may be a real free-for-all type of race.
Colorado's Democratic state convention will be on May 22.
Hawai'i (House)
One House race is worth mentioning here as well, from Hawai'i, because a lot of people are going to read far too much into the tea leaves of the upcoming special election here. A Republican is likely to win, which will lead some to anoint him as the next Scott Brown, ushering in an era where Republicans take Democratic strongholds like Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat, and the home district of Barack Obama (by a very loose definition of "home"). Ironically, this could actually help the Democrats in November, in a tiny way. Which is why I say the pundits are likely going to get this one wrong.
This fracas all got started when longtime Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie stepped down from his House seat to run for governor. Because he resigned his seat, Hawai'i is holding a special election to fill it. But special elections have no primary. So two very strong Democratic candidates wound up on the ballot, and only one strong Republican candidate. Neither Democrat is going to back down and hand the seat to the other, which means even though Hawai'i is overwhelmingly Democratic, the Republican could easily win in this three-way race (it's actually a lot more than "three," but there are really only three strong contenders in a wide field of candidates on the ballot).
So, if the pundits were smart, they'd compare this race to what happened in a special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, but more than likely if Republican Charles Djou wins, people will be proclaiming him "the next Scott Brown."
He'd better enjoy this while it lasts, because it likely will not last very long at all. Because, as with all House seats, he'll be up for re-election in less than six months. And in November's election there will be a primary, so he'll only be facing one Democrat. Who will, most likely, win.
The recent news from this race looked grim, as the national Democratic Party itself just threw up its hands and decided to pull their money out of the special election, and let the chips fall where they may. But even if the Republican wins later this month, look for both Democrats to re-file for the real 2010 race, where they will have an orderly primary to decide which of them will have the honor of winning the seat back for the Democrats.
As I said, in a tiny way, this is going to help Democrats this November. Because there aren't going to be a whole lot of races where Democrats defeat incumbent Republicans in the House (according to most estimates), so this will most likely be at least one bright spot in the election returns later this year for Democrats.
Hawai'i holds its special House election on May 22, the filing date for the regular election is July 20, and the primary for the regular election is September 18.
Conclusion
While groups on the Left haven't captured the attention of the mainstream media the way the Tea Party faction has over on the Right, they are equally serious about challenging sitting members of Congress on their side of the aisle in the primary season, at least in a few places. After watching the Blue Dogs push the entire Democratic Party around in the health reform debate, some on the Left feel that it's time to get some authentic Democrats into office to replace people who just seem to have a "D" by their name as some sort of convenience.
But ousting sitting members of Congress (especially senators) is not an easy task, even in an anti-incumbent year. The real question, as on the Right, is whether officeholders will attempt third-party independent (or even write-in) campaigns in the general election, in a last-ditch effort to keep their job. Joe Lieberman proved it can indeed be done successfully, and Charlie Crist may be about to prove the same thing from the Republican side in Florida. Arlen Specter has already changed parties once, so it's not too much of a stretch to imagine him attempting to run under no party banner if he loses to Sestak. He might even have a better chance in a three-way race. So might Blanche Lincoln, if the polls turn out to be wrong and if she is beaten by Halter next week. Bennet is already collecting signatures, in case this is the only way to get his name on the ballot.
One thing which has been proven already -- to both parties -- is that this is not the year to take your "base" for granted. There are a lot of very angry voters out there (for various different reasons) who are looking to purge the two parties of those deemed insufficiently pure. While this may only affect a few seats come November, it still puts a healthy fear into every officeholder to placate their own voters. Even if the effect is just a message sent by base voters to national party leaders, I think all politicians are going to be a lot more cautious in what they vote for (and against) for the remainder of this year, at least. Because the biggest message is that voters are not in any kind of forgiving mood this time around.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
Jeeze, CW...
Do you have any GOOD news for Democrats??
Every primary race you mention still ends up with a Republican winning the Election...
Almost makes me feel sorry for Democrats.. :D
hehehehehehehe
Seriously, though..
Representative Joe Sestak did not go along with this deal.
I am surprised you didn't mention the White House maneuvering on behalf of Specter in PA.. For those who still believe that Obama et al walks on water, it seems that the White House offered Sestak a bribe if he would not challenge Specter in the Primary. That, I believe IS a felony.
"I believe I have just committed my first felony. Yes, yes, I have committed many misdemeanors, but I do believe that is my first felony."
-Oliver Platt, BEETHOVEN
The voters of PA would probably be very interested to know that their President had attempted to illegally influence the Primary election.
This could explain, in part, why Sestak is gaining over Specter...
Regardless, it WILL be nice to see Specter squirm during Kagan's confirmation hearings. :D
Michale.....
Chris, I'd also point out that in Pennsylvania there is a divide between the union leadership that has swooned for Specter on one hand and rank-and-file members on the other. The activists are all about Sestak (you couldn't go five minutes at Netroots Nation last year without hearing his name).
My own home primary is turning into quite a tussle between three very good Democratic candidates. The incumbent
DemocratRepublican is likely to lose to a teabagging wackaloon."the White House offered Sestak a bribe if he would not challenge Specter in the Primary"
Chris, I call nontroversy. In fact, the Washington Examiner reports otherwise:
Unless there's a time-machine involved, of course. In which case, let's hold hearings straightaway.
CW,
One serious question...
If an incumbent loses a primary race, shouldn't the winner of the primary become the de-facto legislator??
Shirley,
Sestak said it was made over the summer, before he entered the race against incumbent Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter, Pa. Emphasis mine)
You should really leave the law to those who actually understand it..
18 U.S.C. ยง 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html
Nothing in the law says that the bribe has to be offered to a person who is already in a political race or not..
Hell, the person being offered the bribe doesn't even have to be announced for the race..
The Obama White House offered Sestak a position in the administration......
... directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit....
.... if Sestak would not run against Specter in the PA DP Primary...
for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office...
Face it, Shirley.. Obama committed a felony.
"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale.....
Looks like Dems are really in trouble..
Rep. Mollohan's Loss Signals Potential Trouble For Dems
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/11/rep-mollohan-loss-signals-potential-trouble-dems/
It's going to be 1994 on steroids this mid term...
Michale.....
"Nothing in the law says that the bribe has to be offered to a person who is already in a political race or not"
Chris, does this mean every administration can be prosecuted for every appointment it has ever offered? Since Sestak wasn't a declared candidate (and let's face it, he'd be perfectly suited to the SecNavy position), there's no THERE there, no matter how much someone might WANT a "there" there or struggle mightily to invent a "there" there.
The word for this sort of thing is "nontroversy."
Shirley,
Chris, does this mean every administration can be prosecuted for every appointment it has ever offered?
Yes, if there was a quid pro quo, then every administration who offered such quid pro quo can be prosecuted.
Let me break it down for you because apparently you cannot grasp the concept.
If I am the President of the United States and I come to you and say, "Shirley.. I really don't want you to run against our newest bestest friend, Arlen Specter."
You would come back with, "But Mr President, I don't know if I am even going to run or not."
And I say, "Yea I know, Shirley. But, if you DON'T run against our newest bestest friend, I'll make you Secretary Of The Navy."
THAT is what occurred between the Obama White House and Congress-critter Sestak, according to said Congress-critter Sestak...
And THAT is illegal.. A Class 2 Felony, if I am not mistaken. Could be Class 3.
Irregardless, it IS a felony..
Now I know what you are thinking, Shirley. You are thinking, "Well, it's not a REAL felony, because it was committed by a Democrat administration. Or maybe it's a REAL felony, but it's not big deal because everyone knows that Democrats are above the law."
Sad news for you, Shirley..
Democrats are NOT above the Law..
And Obama's White House committed a felony.
These are the facts.
Deal with it..
Now, if you are claiming that Sestak is lying and there was no offer from the White House, then by all means.. Make that claim..
But trying to falsely claim that there was no crime committed when it is perfectly obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that there WAS a crime committed...
Well, that's really disingenuous...
Even for you...
Michale.....
Michale [4] -
If an incumbent loses a primary race, shouldn't the winner of the primary become the de-facto legislator??
Um, no. And stop calling me 'Shirley'! Heh.
You got any proof Obama or the White House offered Sestak a job? I have to admit, I haven't heard of this, one way or the other, so I've got an open mind, but in general I bet even if it took place it'd be impossible to prove in a court of law. Even convicting Blagojevich is going to be tough, most likely, and they've got reams of tape of his phone calls. Just thought I'd throw that in there, without knowing any of the facts or accusations in this case.
You seem awfully quick on the trigger to assume anyone's guilty here, though, I have to say.
[7] -
Oh, OK, you're calling Osborne "Shirley"... but why? Has he never seen "Airplane"?
As for your "case" -- while this sort of thing happens all the time in the world of politics (in both parties), because almost all concerned are lawyers, nothing technically illegal is ever phrased anywhere near as explicitly as you imagine. It's all implied. They know what to say and what not to say, in other words.
We are a legitimate businessmen's club.
-- Fat Tony, from The Simpsons
Which, like I said, is where Blaggy might skate -- all they need is "reasonable doubt" which (as any good lawyer knows) is awfully easy to manufacture. So I wouldn't get your hopes up, even if it did happen remotely as you suggest.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything here about Democrats. I'm saying "politicians think they're above the law, mostly because they write those laws," but I wouldn't put any particular party label on that. Both sides do it. I'm not saying it's right or anything, just that that's the way it is.
-CW
Damn!! You sneak these responses in on me... :D
You got any proof Obama or the White House offered Sestak a job?
I have Sestak's word...
Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the White House offered him a federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state's Democratic primary.
The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.
"Was it secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked.
"No comment," Sestak said.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Sestak-I-turned-down-Obamas-bribe-84790707.html
Now, if you (like Shirley over there) want to call Sestak a liar, that's kewl..
He *IS* a Democrat, after all.. :D hehehehehe Sorry, low blow.. :D
Probably should have said, "He *IS* a politician after all.. Probably more bi-partisan.. :D
Anyways, if Sestak's word is true there can be no doubt that a felony was committed..
Of course, ole Gibbsy has been stonewalling the whole inquiry so....
You seem awfully quick on the trigger to assume anyone's guilty here, though, I have to say.
Considering the initial report came from a "real" Democrat (as opposed to a SPECTER-type Democrat) and the White House has refused to deny it, I would say that I am on pretty safe ground with the accusation..
Wouldn't you? :D
If you want any more info on it, just GOOGLE 'Sestak' and 'bribe'.. You will get a wealth of info...
Oh, OK, you're calling Osborne "Shirley"... but why? Has he never seen "Airplane"?
Probably not..
But since he likes to call me 'Chris' (I know, don't you feel complimented... :D) I call him 'Shirley'.. :D
It's all implied. They know what to say and what not to say, in other words.
All I know is what Sestak said happened.. That, coupled with the White House stonewalling..... What would a reasonable person infer??
Both sides do it. I'm not saying it's right or anything, just that that's the way it is.
Yes, YOU say both sides do it and you're right. YOU even condemn both sides when they do it.. That's why I am waiting for you to chime in on the Sestak bribe.. :D
But my point was that YOU are (once again) the exception that emphasizes the rule. Not a peep from anyone else here about it?? Yet, if it had been a Republican Administration...???
Well, do I need to go on?? :D
I mean, there are those on here who even deny it's a crime, even though the law is very black and white... That same person would be screaming for the head of the President, if it had been a GOP president..
True?? :D
Michale.....