Democratic Primary Voters Choose Wisely in MT and VA
In a stunning reversal of their usual addiction to losing, Democratic voters seem to be making smarter choices in selecting their candidates recently. I don't know if it's a fluke or a sign of competent decision-making by voters in America's minority party, but last week's Montana primary and this week's Virginia primary yielded hopeful signs for the Democrats' prospects in winning two GOP-held Senate seats this fall.
Starting with Montana, the June 6 primary pitted State Auditor John Morrison, a bland and mushy centrist, against State Senate President Jon Tester, a downhome prairie populist who farms in one of Montana's most Republican State Senate districts. Morrison had long been the establishment candidate poised to take on scandal-plagued GOP incumbent Conrad Burns. He seemed like a passable candidate up until recently, likely to take down the unpopular Republican criminal he was poised to face in November, despite a complete lack of inspiration motivating his candidacy. But then a "sex scandal plus" emerged that put into question Morrison's ability to run as the pure candidate against the corrupt Burns. Given his statewide name ID advantage, it still seemed likely that Morrison would prevail in the primary, but out of nowhere, the more compelling and charismatic challenger Tester creamed Morrison by a margin of 60-36 in the primary. Barring the revelation of a scandal of his own, or a colossal campaign gaffe, Tester should be able to put Conrad Burns out of his misery and win the Montana Senate race by a reasonably comfortable margin for a strong GOP state. Had Morrison been the nominee, skeletons in his closet and all, that outcome would have been less certain.
Then just last night in Virginia, another former Republican who has "seen the light" beat back a challenge by an establishment Democrat. In this case, it was war hero former Reagan Navy Secretary James Webb, who walked away from the Republican Party after George Bush's election and has become a passionate anti-war critic. Webb is more conservative on social issues than the Democratic Party at large, but Virginia primary voters were willing to overlook that on the basis of Webb's gravitas and electability. There was nothing wrong with establishment candidate Harris Miller, other than the fact that he had very little chance of beating incumbent Republican and likely GOP Presidential candidate George Allen. Even Allen's strongest supporters confess that Allen has a dogfight on his hands up against the well respected and articulate Webb, particularly in military-friendly Virginia where Webb's credentials will command a great deal of respect from otherwise reliable Republicans. Single-handedly, the 53% of Virginia primary voters who opted for James Webb made it possible for the Democrats to win the elusive "sixth seat" they'll need if they hope to win the Senate in the fall. It's still a huge longshot, but with Virginia now on the table, it's at least possible.
For every bit of bad news that surfaces regarding the Democratic Party's prospects in 2006, it seems there's a corresponding piece of good news such as the Tester and Webb primary wins to counter it. While I still believe the Dems could be mauled over their idiotic embrace of the Bush and McCain sponsored immigration bill, the party is doing very well for itself with its selection of candidates to run in conservative states and districts.
Starting with Montana, the June 6 primary pitted State Auditor John Morrison, a bland and mushy centrist, against State Senate President Jon Tester, a downhome prairie populist who farms in one of Montana's most Republican State Senate districts. Morrison had long been the establishment candidate poised to take on scandal-plagued GOP incumbent Conrad Burns. He seemed like a passable candidate up until recently, likely to take down the unpopular Republican criminal he was poised to face in November, despite a complete lack of inspiration motivating his candidacy. But then a "sex scandal plus" emerged that put into question Morrison's ability to run as the pure candidate against the corrupt Burns. Given his statewide name ID advantage, it still seemed likely that Morrison would prevail in the primary, but out of nowhere, the more compelling and charismatic challenger Tester creamed Morrison by a margin of 60-36 in the primary. Barring the revelation of a scandal of his own, or a colossal campaign gaffe, Tester should be able to put Conrad Burns out of his misery and win the Montana Senate race by a reasonably comfortable margin for a strong GOP state. Had Morrison been the nominee, skeletons in his closet and all, that outcome would have been less certain.
Then just last night in Virginia, another former Republican who has "seen the light" beat back a challenge by an establishment Democrat. In this case, it was war hero former Reagan Navy Secretary James Webb, who walked away from the Republican Party after George Bush's election and has become a passionate anti-war critic. Webb is more conservative on social issues than the Democratic Party at large, but Virginia primary voters were willing to overlook that on the basis of Webb's gravitas and electability. There was nothing wrong with establishment candidate Harris Miller, other than the fact that he had very little chance of beating incumbent Republican and likely GOP Presidential candidate George Allen. Even Allen's strongest supporters confess that Allen has a dogfight on his hands up against the well respected and articulate Webb, particularly in military-friendly Virginia where Webb's credentials will command a great deal of respect from otherwise reliable Republicans. Single-handedly, the 53% of Virginia primary voters who opted for James Webb made it possible for the Democrats to win the elusive "sixth seat" they'll need if they hope to win the Senate in the fall. It's still a huge longshot, but with Virginia now on the table, it's at least possible.
For every bit of bad news that surfaces regarding the Democratic Party's prospects in 2006, it seems there's a corresponding piece of good news such as the Tester and Webb primary wins to counter it. While I still believe the Dems could be mauled over their idiotic embrace of the Bush and McCain sponsored immigration bill, the party is doing very well for itself with its selection of candidates to run in conservative states and districts.
posted by Mark at 6:44 PM
6 Comments:
I'm happy for the Montana and Virginia Democrats for choosing wisely too. I was also rooting for Webb and Tester.
On to November!
I have a feeling the same thing may happen with the governorship back home, though I am not as certain about this as I am on Webb and Tester.
Westly was seen as the "establishment centrist" candidate that most Democrats were hoping would win the primary; he fared better in the polls against the Governator than Angelides did, and seemed less likely to be demagogued as a "tax-and-spender" though Westly and Angelides both supported props 81 and 82.
From what I heard from my friends back home, Angelides seemed to be the more liberal candidate that would rouse up the base like Tester and Webb did. I don't know if this will happen (especially after the nasty primary that turned even me off), but I am hoping for the best for my home state.
sara, I'm not as informed about the California gubernatorial race as I should be, but I think the Dems have erred in not going with Westly. California is growing increasingly averse to high taxation and Angelides promise to raise them may be honest politicking, but as Walter Mondale can allude to, seldom winning politicking.
And from what I hear about the nastiness of the primary, I think Angelides could possibly be battered beyond repair moving towards November. Six months ago, I wouldn't thought there was a chance in hell that Schwarzenegger could be elected to another term. Much as I hate to say it, it looks like he may have an advantage now. I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that California Democrats may have done as much to screw up a sure thing as California Republicans did in 2002 when they managed to lose a seemingly unloseable race against wildly unpopular Gray Davis.
I too have a bad feeling about this race; I was wishing the primary would not be nasty, and I also wish that Angelides had not dropped the "T" bomb so soon. I was leaning towards Westly after being undecided for most of the primary. I guess we'll have to see. A lot of my friends were Angelides supporters throughout most of the primary, even after the "T-bomb", so maybe they know something we don't (plus I've only been back to Cali once in the 12 years since I moved).
I also heard that 81 and 82 failed probably because of low Dem turnout (thanks a lot Angelides and Westly).
Sara, just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on this netroots-endorsed primary challenge to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut? Frankly, I think it's a terrible idea for a couple key reasons. First, Lieberman is a national figure...and a hero to alot of conservative Democrats. He's the kind of guy viewed as "consensus-builder" and above petty partisan spats. If he's taken out in the primary, I fear it'll send an ugly message to centrist Democrats and independents out there that the Democratic Party has went off its rocker into left-wing moonbat territory.
Secondly, if Lieberman loses in the primary to Lamont (which is looking more and more like a serious possibility) he will probably run as an independent....and he will win. Given the lack of love from the Democrats, the Republicans could compel Lieberman to caucus with them if he wins as an independent. This would be an even worse example of pissing away a sure thing than the California gubernatorial primaries of both parties in '02 and '06.
While Lieberman is not my favorite Democrat, I don't believe this is the year we should be trying to slay a dragon in our own party. Despite his AWOL soldier status on the war and a couple other key issues, he still votes with his party more often than netroots hero Russ Feingold. I really think the Dems are making a grave mistake here. What are your thoughts?
I too think the Dems are making a big mistake here with Lamont. We are supposed to be the "party of inclusion", and that includes conservative Dems as well. Plus I don't know what will happen with Courtney and Farrell in the House races if Lamont is on top of the ticket. I personally think their chances of winning would decrease with Lamont on top of the ticket. I am crossing my fingers and hope Lieberman pulls it out, much as I dislike him.
Post a Comment
<< Home