Let’s just say that I hope Obama finds someone else:
Barack Obama’s choice for secretary of Agriculture could take one Democrat from the 20-seat pickup the party gained by way of the recent elections. (Three House races have yet to be called and two seats in Louisiana will be filled on Dec. 6.)
According to reports, Obama is considering Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) for the USDA post. His transition team declined to comment on Cabinet speculation.
Should either of these seats open up, they would both be tough holds for Democrats, but Herseth’s in particular would be even harder. Obama did improve on past Democratic performances considerably in South Dakota, losing the state by 8 points (compared to Kerry’s 22-point loss here in 2004), but the Dem bench in South Dakota, by my estimation, is pretty thin. However, The Hill notes that state Senate Minority Leader Scott Heidepriem might be the Dems’ best bet in such a scenario.
Minnesota’s 7th District is also a pretty conservative area, although one with a stronger Democratic tradition. Kerry lost this CD by a 55-43 whipping in 2004, but McCain only won the district by a 50-47 margin earlier this month. If a popular state legislator with conservative creds in the mold of Peterson could be tapped, Democrats might be able to hold onto this seat, but it will undoubtedly be an expensive battle.
While I’m not automatically opposed to Obama tapping Congress for his Cabinet needs, I don’t think Obama should run the risk of giving the Republicans something to crow about with a special election victory in either of these seats. Surely another qualified candidate can be found for this job.
UPDATE (David): So I’ve done a little back-of-the-envelope math and I think the new PVI for MN-07 will be about R+8 (old PVI: R+6), while SD-AL will become R+11 (old PVI: R+10). This may seem counter-intuitive, given that Obama performed far better in both districts than Kerry & Gore did.
But given how the PVI formula works, Kerry’s 2004 performance in the district now gets compared to Obama’s 2008 nationwide results. Therefore, Obama’s strong national showing can make lagging districts – even those where we did better than in 2004 – look redder by comparison.
That said, the fact that we lost South Dakota by 8 points rather than 22 is a reason to cheer, even if the PVI now looks worse. But I still wouldn’t look forward to a special election here, no sir.
he even considering all these stupid moves. Neither are particularly qualified. He’s acting likes he’s trying to bolster the Republican party, opening up conservative districts, giving a popular Republican incumbency to help them in AZ, etc.
but more for policy reasons.
And we could cold MN-07. We’ve got a deep bench of legislators of the mold of Peterson who could hold it easily and the Republicans have almost nothing.
I thought Vilsack had this locked up?
Stephanie is going to be President in 8 or 16 years.
She doesn’t need to be wasting her time with this chump stuff.
Earl Pomeroy ND-AL (R+12) and Bobby Bright AL-02 (R+13) are still available to fill any remaining sub-cabinet positions.
A farmer and was the ranking member on the House Agriculture Comm, until he was redistricted into defeat.
In fact, we have several former Congressmen Obama can choose from: Max Sandlin (married to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin), Jim Turner, Nick Lampson, Charlie Stenholm, and Martin Frost.
There’s more to Texas than Bush and DeLay.
It worked fine in 2000 and 2004, because both were close elections. In a 50-50 nation, saying a district was 10 points more Republican than the country as a whole meant that it tended to vote around 60% Republican – very tough ground for Democrats.
But when all is said and done, Obama will have beaten McCain by probably around 7%. So that means that a district that’s 10 points more Republican than the country as a whole only voted about 53% Republican. That’s certainly a winnable district for Democrats.
In a D+7 country, R+10 doesn’t mean what it used to.
I sincerely hope President-Elect Obama does screw us over in Congress like this! Doesn’t he know he’ll need their votes to pass his agenda? Seriously, there are other folks to look at.
would result in good policy, I’d be all in favor of it. Have you checked out our majority? We’re not relying on either of these seats to pass any legislation. If it was a contentious party line vote, would either of them be in a position to vote with the caucus anyway?
It’s a moot point, because I suspect they are not great candidates for the position, but the idea that an appointment of a good Dem House rep from a super-red district is something that is we should avoid for fear of losing the seat is not recognizing the reality that loss of such a seat would have next to no difference to what policy gets enacted.
the hill says herseth was elected today as head of the blue dogs in the house of reps. im thinking obama go for vilsack
with James. I think Obama’s starting to tap too many Dems in Congress and in red states. Losing seats is one thing. But, giving them bragging rights in election victories is another. We just lost the governorship in Arizona, and essentially a Senate seat in 2010. We could lose one of the most poweful voices in the Sente if Hillary accepts the SoS job. I know he wants an all-star lineup. But, he also should consider the shape he’s leaving some of these states in.
These seats will be gone in special elections if they open up. Why would Obama even think about this?
Is that even an important post? Why would they leave safe house seats for such a job?
The guy hates being in the minority, he is retiring in 2 years, and one more Rethug out of the Senate to be replaced by a Democratic governor.
And it shows bipartisanship.