Tag: MO-Sen

The seat of GOP Sen. Kit Bond is up in 2010, and all eyes in Missouri are waiting for Bond, who will turn 71 that year, to signal his re-election plans. Missouri SoS Robin Carnahan seems to be topping a lot of short lists of potential candidates to take on Bond, but if not her, then who should run? And if Bond retires, who do you see stepping up for Team Red?

Our friends over at Public Policy Polling are once again opening the floor for you to suggest Democratic candidates to include in their 2010 Senate match-up polls of Missouri (Kit Bond) and Ohio (George Voinovich). PPP has previously tested Robin Carnahan and Susan Montee against Bond in Missouri, so it’ll be interesting to see who they’ll choose next. Former Gov. Roger Wilson or Rep. Russ Carnahan, maybe?

In the 2010 race against Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, PPP has previously tested Betty Sutton, Tim Ryan, Mike Coleman, and Jennifer Brunner — all of whom posted competitive numbers. Who should be next?

If you feel so inclined, please swing by Public Policy Polling and drop them a note with your suggestions.

Rasmussen takes another crack at Missouri’s gubernatorial race (7/7, likely voters, 6/3 in parens):

Jay Nixon (D): 49 (54)

Kenny Hulshof (R): 38 (34)

Jay Nixon (D): 46 (56)

Sarah Steelman (R): 37 (34)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

This race was bound to tighten up, and the flurry of ads and activity in the GOP primary seems have given both Republican candidates a boost.

Public Policy Polling has similar numbers (7/2-5, likely voters):

Jay Nixon (D): 47

Kenny Hulshof (R): 37

Jay Nixon (D): 44

Sarah Steelman (R): 39

(MoE: ±3.6%)

Looking ahead to the 2010 Senate race, PPP finds that Republican incumbent Kit Bond could be in for a tough race if he chooses to run again:

Robin Carnahan (D): 42

Kit Bond (R-inc): 44

Susan Montee (D): 35

Kit Bond (R-inc): 47

(MoE: ±3.6%)

Bond’s approvals are at 39%, a very poor number for a longtime incumbent, while his disapproval rating is at 33%, indicating a serious pool of disgruntled voters. Carnahan is the Secretary of State for Missouri and comes from a well-known political family; she would bring a deep pool of name recognition to a Senate race. Montee is the state Auditor, and was first elected statewide in 2006 to fill the vacant office left behind by Claire McCaskill. Both appear to be solid candidates to run against Bond (or for his open seat), if they’re interested.

Bonus findings: PPP shows McCain’t leading Obama by 47-44 in Missouri, while Rasmu pegs the race at a slightly larger margin for the GOP: 47-42.

SSP currently rates MO-Gov as Leans Democratic.

I address this screed to Congressman Kendrick Meek and Congresswoman Deborah Wasserman Schultz.  I know that both of you have been under much scrutiny here in the blogosphere, based upon your recent recusals from campaigning against your neighboring Republican congresspersons.  I suspect that you probably have your eyes on a senate race at some point in the future. In preparation for that, you probably think that you're positioning yourselves to be perceived as moderates who can work well across the aisle. However, I'm here to show you that if you consider such positioning to be part of a winning strategy, you are terribly mistaken.

One need not look further than the results of 2006 to learn that authenticity works.  During that crucial election season, the Democratic party was faced with the outrageously tall order of winning at least six senate seats.  As is the usual tendency of the deck, it was once again stacked against us.  Our GOP opponents appeared to have financial advantages.  At the outset of the year, we didn't even have six, let alone seven, viable seats, and severe party infighting threatened at least one critical race (Ohio).  From that mess, the DSCC scrounged up seven viable challengers in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, and Montana.  Of these seven, six won.  I will not focus on the Rhode Island race, since it was an unusual scenario in a state whose dynamics do not mirror those of swing states or of the nation at large.  I'll also leave out Pennsylvania, since that was an instance of an incumbent who was so off his rocker, a piece of cardboard could've defeated him.  And the Virginia race has been written about ad nauseum, so I'll skip that one as well.  I will instead focus on Ohio, Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee; three wins and a loss, and why it turned out that way.

When Sherrod Brown prevailed over Paul Hackett in the primary for the Ohio senate, many Democrats became nervous; Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, seemed like a more viable option to run against incumbent Republican Mike DeWine than the unabashedly liberal Cleveland congressman whose record on the hot-button social issues was completely progressive.  In the fabled state that won the election for Bush in 2004, it seemed like a bad idea to run a candidate whose record was to the left of John Kerry's.  Well, as it turned out, Sherrod Brown proved to be an excellent candidate. Instead of fudging his answers and trying to make himself look like something he wasn't, he proudly stood up for his principles, emphasizing his economically progressive ideals, but without attempting to conceal his stances on the social issues.  His unapologetic championing of the disadvantaged called to mind another progressive who never backed down from his core beliefs: the late, great Paul Wellstone.  

Over in Missouri, then-State Auditor Claire McCaskill waged a tough fight against Jim Talent, the incumbent GOP senator.  The stem cell initiative was on the ballot in that state, a potential risk in a state with such a high number of evangelicals.  It was, therefore, a pleasant surprise when McCaskill put Talent on the defensive on that issue, and on the issue of abortion, in nearly every debate.  In a key appearance on Meet The Press, Talent lobbed Republican talking points at McCaskill, and, rather than attempting to fit her responses into those frames, she effectively twisted them around to leave Talent as the weaker candidate, hemming and hawing and making excuses for his every statement.  McCaskill's margin of victory was small, but in a very conservative state like Missouri, it was enough!

Out on the ranges, where libertarianism runs strong, the Montana senate race saw a battle between two very colorful characters: the doddering embarrassment Republican Conrad Burns, who was often looked upon as something of a senile uncle even by his fellow GOPers, and the plain-spoken, buzz-cut-sporting Jon Tester, who won the senate primary over a less progressive state official.  Burns trotted out the old canard of fearmongering, trying to to use Tester's opposition to the PATRIOT Act as a political bludgeon.  Had Tester been a weaker candidate, he would have attempted a nuanced explanantion, trying to convince people that he could be patriot without supporting the PATRIOT Act, accepting the right wing's frames instead of creating his own.  Luckily, Tester unleashed the no-nonsense directness that is a trademark of the Mountain West; in one key debate, in which Burns accused Tester of wanting to “weaken” the PATRIOT Act (clearly a standard GOP frame, portraying the Democrats as weak on terror and weak in general,) Tester famously responded, “I don't want to weaken the PATRIOT Act, I want to repeal it.”  Had John Kerry been anywhere near this bold in 2004, Bush would not have had a second term.

After looking at the victories of Brown, McCaskill, and Tester, I now turn to the only high-profile loser on our side, Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee.  Yes, I am well aware of the racist tactics that the Republicans used against Ford in the infamous “Call Me” ad (a frame-by-frame analysis is available here,) but I remain convinced that a stronger candidate, one with more backbone and more confidence in his own platform, would have been able to fight back and prevail. Ford embodied the ideals of a DINO at best.  He appeared in a clumsy ad in a church, going too far into the territory of unsubtlety in an attempt to prove his religiosity.  (I had serious flashbacks to John Kerry's 2004 proclamation of himself to be the “candidate of conservative values.”  The minute we accept the GOP frames, we're dead in the water). On the campaign trail in '06, Ford frequently trumpeted his opposition to gay marriage.  He spoke in tones that ranged from cautious to mildly complimentary toward Bush's Iraq policies, all the while distancing himself from the Democratic leadership in the senate.  In short, he ran as a Republican.  And why would anyone vote for a Republican who doesn't have the conviction to actually run within the party that actually represents the conservative values he preaches, when they could vote for an actual Republican whose voting patterns are more sure-footed? 

You see where I'm going with this.  2006 was a Democratic tidal wave, yet Harold Ford lost because of his own spinelessness and willingness to act like a Republican.  The moral of the story here is to stick to your guns, champion your own progressive record, and be who you are.  It's obvious that if you have achieved anything in Congress, you have been able to work with the other side.  Playing “footsie” with Republicans does nothing to further your goals; in fact, it undermines them, since progressive voters might doubt your convictions.  I certainly hope that your aides and advisors read this post, as it is crucial that you absorb its message.  (For all the readers of this blog, I suggest writing to these Florida congresspersons and calling their offices to relay a similar message).  Please, be a Sherrod Brown or a Jon Tester.  Don't be a Harold Ford.  Your political futures will be brighter for it, if recent history is any indicator!