Comparison of 2008 and 2016 polling until the first day of primary contests, via the New York Times
Hillary Clinton has had a rough time recently after news broke that she used private email to conduct all business as secretary of state. Never mind that it was
likely legal, or that
Republican predecessors did it too. The situation and how poorly she's handled it renewed calls for a progressive primary challenger in Elizabeth Warren. Yet this is a waste of time and money, because Clinton would almost certainly win the nomination anyway.
Her polling lead is far larger than it ever was in 2007. She has consolidated her support among party elites since then. In 2000, a serious, progressive primary challenge by former Senator Bill Bradley did little to improve Al Gore as a candidate. Instead of wasting time and energy pining for Warren to run, progressives should focus on what actually can improve a Clinton presidency by winning back Congress.
I will readily acknowledge my own disdain with Clinton, wishing instead that Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown were running. Her oftentimes strategically poor political decisions can induce heartburn and Elizabeth Warren would without a doubt be better on the issues. However, this ideological difference is almost trivial compared to the disparity between unified government under Clinton and continuing today’s gridlock under Warren.
The most important difference come 2017 would be potential Supreme Court vacancies. Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 83, Anthony Kennedy 80, Antonin Scalia 80, and Stephen Breyer 78. It would not matter how much more progressive Warren is than Clinton if Republicans still hold the Senate then. A Democratic majority would likely use the nuclear option if needed to defeat a filibuster given unprecedented recent abuse of that tool by Republicans. However, a Republican majority might demand a very centrist nominee or someone unacceptable to progressives entirely.
Other appointments matter as well, but there’s also legislation. Healthcare reform, financial reform, the stimulus; these all took unified government to accomplish. But 2009 also showed that it matters to have progressive Democrats in Congress as well. Both Warren and Clinton would support immigration reform, climate legislation, raising the minimum wage, and equal pay for women. Republicans in Congress would continue to block all of these things, even if executive actions might work at the margins. Fortunately for Democrats, the 2016 cycle is nearly all offense thanks to successive Republican midterm waves.
Head below the fold to see which races in particular are important for progressive pick-up or primary opportunities.
Senate Republicans initially elected in 2010 will have to face the voters after causing six years of gridlock. Seven seats the party holds are in states Barack Obama carried twice, as is every Democratic seat. Thus, Democrats have a solid shot at picking up the four seats they need for a majority if they win the presidency (with the vice president breaking ties).
Two potential rematches also feature a wide ideological divide between strongly conservative first-term Republicans and progressive Democrats. Former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak upset party-switching incumbent Arlen Specter in the 2010 primary and nearly won despite the wave. Former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold authored the 2003 campaign finance restrictions and was the only senator to vote against the 2001 Patriot Act.
Republicans are also defending Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois after a 2010 upset. If progressives want to ever win a majority, they absolutely must carry these states that have voted Democratic in the last several presidential races. They also must be pragmatic, recognizing that sometimes solid progressives might not be able to win.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio is expected to run for president, likely leaving his seat open. While many progressives admire Rep. Alan Grayson, his polarizing style makes him a very poor candidate, as evidenced by his self-defeating 2010 Taliban Dan ad. In a swingy state, even moderate Rep. Patrick Murphy provides a strong opportunity to move policy leftward. With several tough states to defend in 2018, there’s the possibility of another bad midterm if Democrats hold the White House. The party needs every seat it can get next year to hold a majority for long.
While the Senate will be closely fought, the House is almost a foregone conclusion of continued Republican control. Slightly over half of the districts were drawn to favor Republicans, while just over a tenth were drawn for Democrats. Largely due to gerrymandering, a majority of the districts voted for Mitt Romney. Consequently, in 2014 Republicans won their largest majority since 1928.
Democrats need to gain thirty seats for control in 2016. However, with twenty-six Republicans holding seats Obama carried, and only five Democrats in Romney seats, Democrats will very likely make gains. Even a smaller minority improves the party’s bargaining position and builds a bench for higher office. If 2016 becomes an election cycle like 2008, Democrats might even win a majority.
There are also lessons progressives can learn from tea-partiers on the importance of primaries and open safe seats. Over the last several decades, Republicans have steadily moved to the right. This has frequently happened recently when an incumbent retires or is defeated in a primary, with his or her replacement being a more conservative tea partier. Progressives have often lacked an equivalent disciplined, national organization.
An open Senate seat in Maryland is an opportunity for the Warren wing of the party to demonstrate its clout. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the house leadership, already has the support of Harry Reid. Rep. Donna Edwards, one of the most progressive members of Congress, is running as well with the backing of Daily Kos. Edwards also increases demographic diversity in a body sorely lacking it.
In the House, Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski’s 3rd district voted for Obama by thirteen percent. Despite that, he voted against Obamacare in 2010 and has one of the worst records on abortion rights among congressional Democrats. Can you imagine Republicans letting a pro-Obamacare congressman stay in office? Progressives must be willing to vigorously primary wayward incumbents in safe seats.
Progressives have legitimate concerns about Hillary Clinton, both ideologically and as a campaigner. But nothing is gained from tilting at windmills by hoping for a nonexistent, doomed primary challenge. Conservatives realized long ago the presidency is not the only game in town. The last six years are evidence enough that Congress is essential too.