The House race in Georgia’s 12th district just got a lot more interesting: after winning by 800-some votes in 2006, it was looking like John Barrow would get an almost-free ride against a third-tier GOP challenger with little money. However, Barrow is now getting a plausible challenge… in the primary. State Senator Regina Thomas is running against him.
Barrow is a Blue Dog, and has one of the most conservative records among House Democrats, by any measure: his Progressive Punch score for the 07-08 session is currently 67.80%, the lowest of any Dem. His Progressive Punch Chips are Down score is only 31.22%, 3rd worst of any Dem. National Journal’s score for him for the 2007 session was 45.8, which is also 3rd worst of the Dems, and actually more conservative than three Republicans. But unlike Blue Dogs with similar track records, who sit in districts that are R+10 or worse, Barrow is in a Democratic-leaning district (D+2). He’s one of the most glaring instances of a rep out of his step with his district’s lean.
Regina Thomas (no campaign site yet; this is her senate site) has been a state senator since 2000, representing part of Savannah. The 12th is bookended by the African-American parts of Augusta and Savannah, and contains a lot of rural territory in between.
The district is 44% African-American, so in all likelihood African-Americans make up well more than half of the Democratic electorate. (Thomas is African-American; Barrow is white.) Unlike Barrow, for starters, she’s opposed to the war in Iraq and pro-choice.
Ordinarily, I’m kind of lukewarm about running primary challenges against Blue Dogs and their ilk, but this race is something of a unique opportunity: perhaps the single most egregious example of a very conservative Dem in a Dem-leaning district, a viable challenger who already represents a sizable portion of the district as state senator, and unlike Lipinski vs. Pera, no urban machine propping up the incumbent. Thomas lacks two main things: probably very few people in the rest of the district (like Augusta, which will be key) know who she is… and money (as far as I can tell, she has none).
Georgia should be gaining a seat in 2012. The odds of dems controlling either chamber of legislature is slim to nil.
It seems to me that the Republicans are more likely to draw the lines further against Burrow or Marshall (into majority minority districts) while giving the new seat to their own party. It seems to me that if someone in Georgia, especially an African American like Sen Thomas wants to move up, it would be smarter to bide their time until that cycle. I mean, If I were a Georgia Republican I’d redraw district 12 to include more of Augusta and Savannah while removing more of the rural stuff in between. Subtract more urban areas in 8, give it some of 12’s rural parts. The new district gets showed in somewhere.
Barrow is a terrible Democrat but doesn’t have any “voting the district” excuse. In fact he is one of the worst Democrats compared to his district:
http://www.swingstateproject.c…
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind Democrats like Chet Edwards and others who manage to be fairly progressive in district that are very Republican. But in a D+2 district he doesn’t have a excuse for being THIS reactionary. Hopefully at the least Thomas will scare Barrow into being more progressive so he at least fits his district. Even better would be replacing him.
Could this be the next Donna Edwards? We shall see. I certainly don’t know why the netroots, EMILY’s List, labor groups and green groups shouldn’t get involved as they did with Donna. In IA-03 Boswell at least has made some decent votes. Barrow is far worse.
I am honestly so tired of this primary crap. Heaven forbid we have democrats that actually vote their conscience. Heaven forbid we forget that the democrats of Georgia are probably going to be a little different in their political ideology than democrats in other areas of the country. I am so tired of this, its okay to be different as long as the congressperson is in a highly republican district, but if you’re in one that leans slightly democratic, you have to vote exactly the way the same as all other democrats. All this will do in southern states like Georgia is reinforce that all democrats are exactly the same. If Barrow was representing San Francisco, yeah, I might be able to agree. But this is still Georgia, and the democrats there are going to significantly more conservative than those elsewhere. Republicans did so well for so long by there ‘big tent strategy.’ As long as Barrow remains a democrat and continues to cast his vote for Nancy Pelosi, I say let him be the kind of democrat HE wants to be, not the kind you think that he should be. That’s the only vote he casts that is really important to me.
As long as Democrats control the legislature, you want a more progressive caucus. Seats like those of Al Wynn and Dan Lipinski should have much more progressive candidates and now thanks to Donna Edwards, Wynn,s will have such a member. Democrats need to have enough Democrats to get their agenda by, and with a bunch of blue dogs around, they can’t always do that even if we do hold a super majority of the house.
Something doesn’t add up here (or more likely I’m just missing it). Barrow, a Democrat, is supposedly far to the right of his district. Yet, as the Democratic incumbent, he barely wins the general election in 2006, a Democratic tidal wave. If the Democratic incumbent barely hangs on in 2006, doesn’t that suggest that he is not too far right for his district? You would think he’d get all the Democratic votes plus a big chunk of the middle voters. Is he simply a woeful candidate?