While the Daily Caller takes a look at how the Tea Party might affect various Senate races, I’d like to look at a broader set of concerns related to how our midterm elections might shake things up in both major parties.
The big enchilada is obviously Majority Leader Harry Reid’s reelection campaign. If he loses, regardless of who he loses to, it will be a big story and it will in some ways serve as a mark against the legitimacy of what the Democrats have done over the first two years of Obama’s presidency. It will also set off a battle royale between Sens. Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer to serve as leader of the Senate. Reid is currently trailing even little known Republican challengers, and he has an eleven-point RCP Average deficit against the front-runner, Sue Lowden. However, Lowden’s health care plan of bartering chickens in exchange for medical attention is bizarre enough to make you wonder if she can stand the spotlight of a high profile campaign. This is also a race where a Tea Party candidate(s) might split the anti-Reid vote, handing him a fortuitous victory.
Next in prominence is the contest in Florida where Marco Rubio has surged so strongly that he appears to have forced Gov. Charlie Crist out of the Republican Party altogether. Yet, just as Rubio seems to be on a smooth sail to the nomination (and piling up major endorsements), the IRS and FBI announced that they are investigating his abuse of party credit cards. Could the Tea Partiers have succeeded in denying Crist the nomination only to see their champion’s campaign implode? If so, and it’s still too early to tell, could this open the door to Crist winning as an independent? And would he then caucus with the Democrats? While some may see this as good news for Democrat Kendrick Meek, he needs the right to split their votes fairly evenly. A total implosion is not in his interests.
The next most compelling Senate race is probably in Kentucky where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has endorsed Trey Grayson, while retiring Sen. Jim Bunning has endorsed the anti-choice libertarian-running-as-a-Republican, Rand Paul. Establishment Republicans are so concerned about Rand Paul’s anti-imperial views that Dick Cheney and Rudy Guiliani have accused him of Blaming America First and having zero commitment to their endless humping of 9/11. Socially conservative Kentucky is not a likely candidate for a libertarian surge, but the polls favor Rand by a wide margin. The Democrats have a contested primary, too, between Attorney General Jack Conway and Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo. Conway appears to be the near-universal preference of progressives, but he remains narrowly behind in the polls.
Some question whether Rand Paul’s odd views can stand up to scrutiny over a long campaign. In this political environment, I believe they can, and will. And if he behaves in the Senate like his father Ron does in the House, we’ll see obstruction on an epic level that disturbs the Republicans nearly as often as the Democrats. There’s not a serious committee that the Republicans will want see Paul serve on because he will not be a reliable vote on anything.
In all three of these races, there is an unusual amount of uncertainty, and how they play out will have profound affects on our national politics. What happens to Reid will drive perceptions about Obama’s agenda leading into primary season. If he survives because of a splintering of the right between the GOP and Tea Party candidates, it will be a source of much anger and recriminations on the right.
If Rubio flames out and Crist is elected and caucuses with the Democrats, the Tea Party will earn even more wrath from the Republican Establishment. If Rubio and Crist split the Republican vote and hand the seat to Kendrick Meek, we’ll have an African-American senator from Florida, reinforcing the message that the moment has arrived for blacks to win in statewide elections.
And, if Rand Paul beats out Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked candidate, it will make the Minority Leader look foolish. If Paul wins the seat, he’ll be a thorn in the side of Senate Democrats and Republicans alike. It could be the beginning of a libertarian boomlet in the Republican Party with very unpredictable consequences on matters of military spending, foreign policy, and financial and banking matters. If a Democrat wins in Kentucky (particularly over Rand Paul), it would amplify the perception that the Tea Party isn’t helping the Republican Party regain its former glory.
Stay tuned.
If Crist wins in FL, he’ll probably caucus with the GOP, even though they’ve taken turns crapping all over him in their eagerness to endear themselves to the over-hyped teabaggers. Compared to Rubio, Crist is a flaming liberal. But then again, so were Reagan and Nixon. As a Floridian who has observed Crist’s governing style for a number of years, I’d expect him to keep on being a moderate who mostly votes GOP but wanders off the reservation occasionally.
I doubt it. First, if Crist wins he’ll remember all those knives the GOP stuck in his back. Second, what would be the point? The GOP is in the minority. If he caucuses with the Dems, like Lieberman, he has a shot at chairmanships, etc. He’ll be a moderate for sure, but to the left of anyone in the Republican party. He’ll also be one of the most important politicians in the country.
Yeah, I have to second Betty in that I’m not sure why you would assume that Crist would caucus with the Dems. Maybe because they are the majority, and he’d get a little more power in that case? It seems just as likely that he’d stick with the GOP, for they’d all fall over backwards to take him back in a heartbeat if he won.
I guess the most interesting aspect would be if he held out until after the election to decide who he’d caucus with. See how the chips fall nationally before he picks a team. I still hope that Meek is able to slide in there. If he runs a positive “outsider” campaign, I think he’s not as far back as many think. Rubio is imploding, and hopefully some moderates in FL didn’t like the hard right turn Crist took – that and Rubio will scorch the earth to keep Crist from winning.
I don’t know much about about Rand Paul…but I’m curious. Would he basically be a liberal vote on defense and civil rights issues, then with the GOP on basically everything else? Would he attack Dems from the left on those issues? If so, would he be better or worse than McConnell’s pick?
I still want a Dem to take the race…but I’m an information junkie, and I like to ponder the what-ifs.
Meeks is black? Florida is not Illinois. How many black voters are there in Florida? I’d assume 90+% for Rubio among Cubans regardless of what they think of him. He’d be the first Cuban-American Senator wouldn’t he?
Uh, first I’d point out that his name is Meek, not Meeks. There’s no “s”.
And I have to say, that’s a rather cynical way to look at the race. But even so, about 15% of the FL population is black, according to the 2000 Census. Also, Meek currently represents Miami…so it’s not like he isn’t known in the Cuban community or lacks an outreach program.
I still think he’s a long shot, but he shouldn’t be written off just because he’s a black guy running in FL.
Misread the name and had no intent to write him off.
No way Jose, (or Robierto! or Mel!)
Do you forget so soon!!!! Do you remember who won Florida in the last Presidential election(hint: It wasn’t the old, pasty, white guy)?
In fact, the old, pasty, white guy lost by 236,450 votes.
Mel Martinez has elected in 2004 and served until 2009. He’s a Cuban-American.
And I’d echo what others have said. Meek’s race is not any more of an insurmountable obstacle in Florida than Obama’s race was.
Not insurmountable, but not a help with independents either.
Not insurmountable, and I know that Pres. Obama won FL by over 200k votes…but believe me, we worked our asses off to get that result. I was knocking on doors on election night until 10 min. before the polls closed. I hope that getting on the ballot with signatures pays off for Meek when it comes to building a ground operation. He has decent favorables, and supposedly not terrible fundraising.
I still think it’s a long shot, but it should be one heck of a show.
Also, Bob Menendez of NJ is Cuban-American.
I didn’t know that. Being from NJ, I assumed (always dangerous) that he was Puerto Rican.
i’d bet money of rand paul pulling it off. kentucky is socially conservative, true, but it’s also got a really strong “leave me alone” streak as well, very independent-minded. I know quite a few kentuckians, and in general they are less than happy with Mitch, and even less happy with Bunning, who makes them look like fruitcakes.
maybe political consultants and the media will take a reid defeat as “a mark against the legitimacy of what the Democrats have done over the first two years of Obama’s presidency”, but for those of us who’ve been paying attention, it will have more to do with Reid’s ineffectiveness as a leader, which has been noted for years.
Socially conservative, sure, but how in hell does Paul justify being an anti-choice libertarian? One can oppose abortion personally and still argue that it’s none of government’s business.
If he’s being opportunistic on that issue to pander to voters, I’d have to assume he would be on other issues, too. He might not be as much of an obstructionist as his father.
What does this do to La Palin’s chances if her teabaggers ruin the show?
If a Rand Paul win could spark a real debate about the wisdom, not to mention the cost, of America’s default policy of global imperial hegemony, it might be worth it.
It sure would be interesting to see how much he sticks to his notions in the real world. Theoretically he should be an agitator for troop withdrawal, downsizing the military, ending the drugwar, ending illegal detention by the US, and restoring civil liberties.
From the little I’ve seen of him, however, he appears to be as intellectually dishonest as his daddy, so I’d expect just another rightwing hack.
Good post and thread.
One thing I’ll be watching in terms of how the fall Senate elections (and the months leading up to them) shake things up is what happens with Senate rules reform.
Assuming Democrats retain a majority:
*will they change Rule 22 to weaken or eliminate the filibuster?
*will they weaken or eliminate the ability of a senator or senators to place a hold (secret or public) on a presidential nominee?
*will they change their caucus rules and customs to require a greater degree of party discipline (e.g., on cloture votes)?
*will they elect committee chairs rather than going strictly by seniority?
If the politics of the rest of 2010 play out so that a majority of the Democratic caucus votes to change their own caucus rules, or (a much longer shot) so that 51 Democrats will vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster and/or hold, then even if Republicans pick up several Senate seats, they could have less power to obstruct progressive change than they do now.