Translate

Friday, July 12, 2019

Senate: Three is the Number


The most direct route to ending the Mitch McConnell Machinations which have been the greatest single source of the partisanship divide that has opened, through which the Chief TWITtch snuck in, is to defeat the Kentucky senator in his 2020 Senate re-election campaign. With the entry into the race of Amy McGrath, such speculation becomes justified.

The arithmetic of Democrats' gaining control of the Senate requires a net gain of +3 for the Democrats, assuming they regain control of the White House. So, the Democrats need to eliminate the likelihood of loss of any of their (47) seats, and find three to take from the Republicans.

The 2020 map of Republican incumbents to attack is what Rumsfeld would call "a target-rich environment". That being said, it must also be admitted that many of the targets are hardened beyond the Democrats' ability to atttack successfully. The Democrats' policy-rich national campaign should translate well to local races, but the firmly anti-Trump posture won't work against the likes of Republican senators in Idaho, Wyoming, Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc.

The Plus-Three strategy needs to begin with the Southwestern states of Colorado and Arizona. Cory Gardner and Martha McSally are incumbents with weak holds on their Senate seats, representing states where the balance has been shifting toward the Democrats. The Third One is Susan Collins', in Maine. She is the New England holdout among moderate Republicans, a voting bloc of one. She will be challenged severely for her vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

There are others, like GA, NC, TX, and IA, where the right candidate can make the NRSC sweat, and strong challengers will make them use heavy resources there. Each is a must-hold for the Republican side; similarly, states like NM, MI, and NH for the Democrats must be safely held. Taking one of those four would be a huge result for the Democrats; losing any of the three would be disastrous for them.

The toughest hold for the Democrats, though, is Alabama. The best hope is that the Republicans fracture in this race., in which case Democrat incumbent Doug Jones' 45% or so of likely voters would prevail. In that regard, the threatened entry of Jeff Sessions (to regain his seat! Oh, Patron of Lost Causes!) drew a counter-threat from the Dimwit (who was going against his own interests). One can hope there, but the Democratic strategy must aim at four takeaways or more and not rely on holding Alabama.

The real deal-maker--for both the 117th Congress and to end the Tortugafication of the Senate--is to chop McConnell's head off when he has to come out of his shell, as he will do in 2020. For the Democrats to win, they will have to counter his policy: insistent advancement of the Drumpfist agenda and suppression of all others. That will earn Mitch plenty of votes in white Kentucky. Unlocking the potential support for Democrats, which does exist, even on a statewide basis, requires uniting moderate whites and minority voters, but it could provide a shot for a vital fourth pickup, beyond Maine.
  • Amy McGrath is the strongest candidate the Democrats could field, so her announcement that she is indeed running this week is a very big deal, immediately followed by a big haul of online donation. Her initial ad, in which she mourned Mitch's failure to respond to her constituent-level appeal for help, was hugely effective. She immediately made a misstep on a question of her hypothetical vote on the Kavanaugh nomination. The correct answer is a) I did not have to make that decision--go away; or b) I would have voted against kKvanaugh, a partisan without principle, regardless of the sexual assault allegation. Probably because her suppressed instinct for b) confused her thinking, Amy made the mistake of first saying she would have supported him (a no-no for national Democrats, but OK for some Kentuckians) and then reversing her course.

McGrath will have a challenge threading the needle on policy and will need to focus on how 'Washington' Mitch has become, which is a strategy that has worked well for challengers of both parties. The question for Kentucky voters is whether the machinations of McConnell have done anything for them. If the economy there is strong in 2020--not just in the population centers, but in the smaller towns--he will probably win. If not, though, Amy McGrath could be the story of the year in the Senate races.

I could go on at length on the history of Mitch McConnell's strategic skill--another time, maybe. Let's just say that this architect of corruption has very strategically kept himself out of the dubious business dealings of his wife (a typical Trump Cabinet crony appointment). McTurtle makes for an easy target, but much is likely to bounce off his shell. This election could expose a strategic weakness, though, and this former Marine pilot and colonel has an edge that could slice him out of the picture entirely. I want to see him on his back, legs twitching uselessly.

Winning control of the Senate is hugely important--in terms of scaling election priorities, 50% weight would be on the Presidency, 30% the Senate, and 10% each for the state legislature contests and retaining control of the House. Without capturing the Senate, or at least decapitating the Republicans' leadership and looking to break control over time, a Democratic President will be hamstrung.

1 comment:

Chin Shih Tang said...

I should have added that one of the top criteria for choosing the Presidential nominee and eventual ticket should be to provide a big assist in those marginally-contested Senate race states: AZ, CO, IA, MI, GA, ME, NC would be ones I would want to consider. (All these, except CO and sort-of ME, gave their electoral votes to Trump in '16, so they also have that relevance.)
Any good-quality head-to-head general election polls in such states would be valuable information. Note that these are NOT the ones getting all the attention now (except IA, which has very good statewide polling).