Periodically on dKos, there are calls for a challenge to an incumbent Democratic officeholder for renomination. I would like to outline my ideas for when such a challenge makes sense.
A few notes before I begin:
- I have no interest in doing a “reverse-Gilchrest.” Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R, MD-01) was defeated in the GOP primary in 2008 by a challenger who went on to lose the general election in November. Doing a primary challenge only makes sense if the challenger can go on to be elected.
- Obviously there is overlap between the categories identified below.
- Post-redistricting in 2012 there will be a number of incumbent vs. incumbent primaries. This discussion does not apply in those cases.
Ideology—General.
The amount of ideological slack I’m willing to give a politician depends on large part upon their constituency; it would pointless to primary Rep. Walt Minnick (D, ID-01), for example. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D, IL-03), on the other hand, takes conservative positions on issue after issue, despite the fact that he represents a progressive district that gave 64% to Obama in 2008 and 59% to Kerry in 2004. He needs to go.
Ideology—Specific Vote.
Occasionally, a legislator who otherwise has a good record has to go because, inexplicably, they cast a career-ending vote on a litmus-test issue. The vote of Rep. Stephen Lynch (D, MA-09) against health care reform was one such deal breaker.
Incompetence.
Anyone who has been in a position to hire people has selected a few people who haven’t worked out. Similarly, there are politicians who need to go because they are simply not up to the job, and have failed to earn the respect of their colleagues and constituents. Recent examples are former Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) and Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL).
Ethics.
Anyone with a major scandal (or a series of minor scandals, such as Rep. Laura Richardson (D, CA-37)) has to go.
Political Problems.
Sometimes, fairly or unfairly, a politician just becomes politically toxic and needs to stand aside for the good of the party, as Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) did this year. Those who can’t take the hint need someone to run against them in the primary.
Age.
Call me ageist, but, generally speaking I don’t think any politician over 80—certainly over 85—should run for reelection. For example, I find it appalling that Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) is planning to run again in 2012, when he’ll be 88. He is begging for a primary challenge.
Dead Wood.
It is said that Congresspeople fall into one of two categories, “show horses” or “work horses.” Some go on TV to promote a set of issues, while others craft legislation in committees. A few, however, do neither. They show up and have perfectly acceptable voting records, but otherwise are totally invisible, and have zero accomplishments to point to, Moreover, they are blocking the path for other, more ambitious, Democrats. A perfect example is Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D, CA-34). Who? That’s the point. She has been in Congress since 1992—following her father, Edward Roybal (1962-92)—but I suspect this is the first time her name has been mentioned on dKos.
Conclusions.
Given this framework, how do I see this year’s Senate primaries? Blanche Lincoln, in Arkansas, falls into the first category; on issue after issue she has opposed and undercut the positions supported by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The only reason why I would hesitate to support Bill Halter in the primary and runoff would be if there were evidence that Lincoln would win in November while Halter would lose. Since that’s not the case, I support Halter.
In Pennsylvania, I would put Arlen Specter into the second category; I disagree with many of the positions he has taken over the past thirty years, but they all roll up into the fact that he used to be a Republican. The dude supported Rick Santorum! I can overlook a lot, but not that.
In Colorado, I can’t see how Michael Bennet falls into any of these categories. He has earned nomination and election for a full term.