Because a senate term is six years and takes up three-quarters of a two-term president’s time in office, I’m of the opinion that no senate seats should go uncontested if at all possible. There are always seats that are obviously safe, but in our current political climate the Republicans can make that claim on only a small handful of seats.
It’s also true that at certain points in the political cycle it makes more sense to concentrate on holding on to what you already have than on expanding your numbers. Fortunately, the Democrats have not yet reached that point. It’s more likely that the Democrats will gain senate seats in 2010 than that they will lose them. Since the Democrats are sitting with a stronger hand, they should go all out to win every available seat. I think 2012 will be different. By 2012, the Democrats will be defending some vulnerable seats in a presidential election year. But, in 2010, the Democrats should push their advantage and try to get as close to seventy seats as possible. I think it’s possible to get to sixty-six seats. Anything higher would require excellent recruitment and a lot of good luck. But we should concede only three or four seats. With enough financing, we can win the vast majority of contested seats.
Real progressive change in this country has always been achieved in narrow windows. We need to create that window in 2011-12.
No seat — Senate, Congress, state legislatures, elected judges — should go uncontested. Just as a matter of principle.
Every voter in the US should have the opportunity to choose a progressive candidate in primaries and in general elections. In every election.
Just because 2008 was such a good year doesn’t mean that we should abandon the 50-state strategy. Failing to have a strong candidate for office and passing on races weakens state parties. Having strong candidates strengthens them. Having multiple strong candidates duke it out in a primary strengthens them, providing the candidates don’t engage in divisive personal attacks in a win-at-all-costs strategy.
In fact, we progressives should be mounting primaries in Republican-controlled states to develop progressive candidates. Utah, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina should all be states in which progressives develop candidates and issues through hot primaries. Change the terms of the political debate in a primary.
I agree.
It annoyed me when no one ran against Dick Lugar. Could anyone have beat him? Hell no. But at least put someone on the ballot.
I think Democrats will gain in the Senate next year, too, but I’m disgusted that Arlen Specter expects (and will probably get) a free ride. He, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and all the other Corporate Dems believe their Senate seats should belong to them for life, party affiliation be damned. Talk about entitlement programs.
we’ll see. Specter is probably unbeatable because, believe it or not, he’s got an 81% approval rating among Pennsylvania Democrats right now. That’s inflated because we’re happy that he switched parties, but he’s very popular in this state among labor (regardless of EFCA) and among a big percentage of Dems that used to be Republicans.
Yet, the Democratic activist class hates his guts an is ready to go to war if we get a candidate to rally around. If it’s Sestak, then it will have to be Sestak despite our differences with him.
Specter could get a free ride. But he might not.
I don’t disagree, but I would add that the Democrat vs. progressive distinction shouldn’t be forgotten here. The DSCC can probably dig up some corporatecrat for nearly any race, but that’s not automatically good for the progressive agenda. DE, PA, and IL are all good opportunities for a progressive to win. I would also like to see serious primary challenges in CT and NV given the performance of the current office-holders. (There are lots of seats that could be challenged for performance reasons but those are most important IMHO.)