After Tuesday's Delaware primary shocker, I think there are two important questions:
- Where will progressive dollars go furthest in Senate races?
- Will spending in those races help end or reform the filibuster, the one thing above all else that has blocked the progressive change America voted for in 2008? (No more of that "we need 60 votes" stuff. Thomas Geoghegan had an excellent summary in 2009 of why the filibuster has to go.)
The tea partiers have probably given Democrats a shot at winning more Senate seats, most notably by nominating Christine O'Donnell in Delaware this week. But each senator gets one vote whether he or she comes from a state of 626,000 (Alaska), 12.3 million (my state - Pennsylvania) or 33.9 million (the most populated, California). (Figures are from the 2000 census.) I think highly of Barbara Boxer but my money might go 50 times further in Alaska (plus incumbents can usually raise money more easily).
(Also, I don't see California electing a Palin-endorsed, anti-choice failed former corporate executive. :-)
I think the three Senate races where our money can go furthest are:
- Scott McAdams - Alaska, population 626,000, which gives it 1 House member
- Paul Hodes - New Hampshire, which has 2 House members
- Chris Coons - Delaware, which has 1 House member
(UPDATE: New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote Thursday about her visit to Alaska to observe McAdams and included this: "An Alaskan political campaign costs less than a tenth of one in big-media states like Florida and New York. He could probably run a competitive race for a million dollars, which is about the equivalent in California of Barbara Boxer’s postage budget.")
All three of these potential senators would prevent more far-right Republicans from reaching the Senate, especially extremists like Joe Miller (who thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional! ) and of course Christine O'Donnell. Hodes' opponent Ayotte was the establishment choice, but how moderate can Ayotte be if Palin endorsed her?
Two of these Democrats have expressed support for reforming the filibuster -- Hodes and Coons.
And I'm encouraged by the signs about McAdams on this issue:
While I haven't found a comment from McAdams about the filibuster, I think he would probably listen to fellow Alaska Democratic Senator Mark Begich, who has expressed his frustration with it and his support for reform.
From what I've read, McAdams also seems to be mostly progressive, not a Lieberman or Ben Nelson type. (Plus, why would McAdams want to spend all that time and effort getting elected, plus all that travel time between D.C. and Alaska, just to let Mitch McConnell and the rest of the minority stall practically everything?)
So if these candidates win, they represent at least two votes in January to change the Senate rules, and probably three.
Here's my ActBlue page for these 3 potential filibuster-enders.
FAQ:
1. Don't we have Delaware won now that the nutty lady got the Republican nomination?
It looks good. But we can't take it for granted. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews went overboard Tuesday night on MSNBC talking about how Republican enthusiasm from these primaries could propel far-right candidates like O'Donnell in Delaware to a win less than 7 weeks from now. The general public in these states is much more mainstream than the small narrow base that turns out in primaries, which are often closed to independents (like Delaware's is).
On the other hand, these 3 are low-population states where a couple busloads of tea partiers or people paid by some Republican group could knock on a LOT of doors and make a bigger difference percentage-wise than they probably would in Ohio or Pennsylvania. Dave Weigel made a good point on Countdown tonight: Republicans may say we're only talking about examples of tea party nominees' craziness like O'Donnell's anti-masturbation video because the economy is bad. So we can't take Delaware for granted.
2. Why haven't you included Nevada or other states?
I left Harry Reid and low-population Nevada off that list because he's raised a ton of money (not surprising for an incumbent, let alone majority leader) and he seems to have things reasonably under control against nutty Sharron Angle. He doesn't need our money nearly as much as Hodes, McAdams or Coons do. If you live in Nevada, Reid could probably use a few hours from you to make calls or door-knock, but I'm focusing on money here. Reid has money.
Secondarily, in a somewhat larger state, there's Jack Conway. Kentucky has enough population that it has 6 House districts instead of 1 like Delaware or Alaska or 2 like New Hampshire. And of course Conway is running against an out-there extremist too. If you have money to spare, of course he can use it too. From there, the states in play just get larger - Colorado has enough population for 7 House members, Missouri has 9, etc.
3. What about other races - where do those candidates stand on the filibuster?
To see if a Democratic Senate candidate (incumbent or not) supports filibuster reform, click here. (Note: Reform supporter Chris Coons wasn't on that "whip count" as of Aug. 5 since it looked like he'd be facing Mike Castle at the time.)
4. What about the House?
We definitely need a majority there too, but that's not the focus of this post. I'll just say the Huffington Post recently spotlighted 5 progressive House Dems running well in tough districts, like Ohio's Mary Jo Kilroy.
And the more progressives return as part of the House majority, the better. Yep, I think we'll keep the House. (P.S. Helping Paul Hodes in New Hampshire also helps our progressive candidates for the state's two House seats, including newly nominated Ann McLane Kuster.)
If you are tired of watching conservaDems like Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln squash democracy in the Senate, sending some money to McAdams, Hodes and Coons is probably the most effective way to change that.