I know I’ll get eviscerated for this, but oh well.
First of all met just start off by saying that 95% of the time we should challenge a seat even when it looks hopeless because sometimes you get a Bunning-type situation, or even symbolically to show that we have a presence in those states.
But I think their are those rare occassions where not having a candidate in the race is beneficial, because of lower ballot races. I’ll use the Wyoming and Indiana 2006 senate races as an example.
In Wymoing, Dale Groutage seemed like a nice guy but there was never any indication that Craig Thomas was even slightly vulnerable. At the end of the day Thomas won by 40 points. The same happened in the Governor’s race where Freudenthal beat his sacrificial lamb GOP opponent by 40 points. As we all know, Wyoming had an extremely competitive House race. We ended up losing this race by the slimmest of margins. Because both Freudenthal and Thomas had sacrificial lamb opponents they basically cancelled each other out. If Groutage had not been in the race maybe Freudenthal would’ve been a little more powerful and Thomas may have decided not to campaign very hard, which could’ve perhaps been enough.
Indiana was the only Senate race we didn’t contest. I think this was to our benefit. Lugar has never been known as an overly political person. Because he didn’t have a race he really didn’t do any real campaigning. We ended up winning 3 House races in Indiana. I’m sure if he wanted to Schumer could’ve convinced some State Rep. to do the race, but it would’ve been pointless. If Lugar had a real opponent he would’ve actually campaigned and maybe one of those House races would’ve swung the other way.
Also, in 2002 the Mass. GOP’s decision not to challenge Kerry likely ended up being beneficial as Kerry spent his time campaigning in Iowa and NH and if Kerry had an opponent maybe Mitt doesn’t get elected.
In the long run strategy is more important. When there are limited resources then what you say may be a reasonable way to decide (tactically) between what races to push hardest to find candidates and/or to support them. Still, having a candidate in every race is the best strategy. That is what builds the bench, lets us pick up the unexpected seat when scandal/tragedy strikes, and builds up the Democratic brand in the long term.
How putting up some sacrificial lamb is beneficial to the Democratic brand in the long run, especially if it comes at the expense of downballot races. What would be better for the Democratic brand in WY, what it is right now, or Congressman Gary Trauner and Craig Thomas getting re-elected with 99% instead of 60. Or in Indiana’s case, Lugar getting re-elected with 70% instead of 99 or whatever he ended up getting at the expense of one of those House seats?