Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Jim Matheson voted against the health care bills – that’s old news already. Some Democrats have, with varying degrees of seriousness, questioned whether they should run or nominate someone else for his seat – that’s not really fresh news either. The news that I am following is that along with the ruminations regarding a new nominee there are some important questions being asked among some 2nd district Democrats:
Do you really think you’ll be better off if you take him down in the convention or a primary?
. . .
Is it more important to have the seat in your camp or feel good about pushing out anyone who doesn’t push the party line?
1) Is there anything that I’m currently getting with Jim Matheson as my “representative” that I couldn’t get with a Republican in his seat?
2) Is there anything Democrats living in the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts get with Matheson in office that they otherwise wouldn’t get.
While these are specifically being asked about Matheson by these people right now, they are the same questions that the members of any party must ask when they are unhappy with the incumbent of a seat they currently hold. It should be noted that there is no universal right answer. Sometimes it’s more important to keep a Matheson and other times it’s more important to toss a Cannon. (I chose both of those examples because they are choices that have been made in the past – I do not intend to either endorse or refute those actions nor am I trying to suggest that the actions of the past must determine the actions of the future.)
These are the same questions that Republicans all over the nation are trying to answer on a large scale as well as in individual races (just notice that the number of Republican challengers for Bennetts’ seat changes regularly). Sometimes (such as with Bennett) tossing the incumbent does not do much to endanger the chances that the party will continue to hold the seat while other times (such as with Matheson) it could seriously endanger those chances. Regardless of how it alters the outlook for the party those questions can go either way.
The choice of who to support hinges not only on how well you like the incumbent, but also on answering those questions.
6 replies on “You Must Answer These Questions”
Jim Matheson isn’t going to get a primary challenge as much as the Democrats are annoyed with him from their point of view he is better then the alternative. The amount of gerrymandering in Utah is outrageous and Matheson is the constant reminder to the Republicans drawing the district lines that their undemocratic behavior won’t be rewarded forever.
One other point I will bring up is that I think he represents the feelings of his district very well, Generally I believe that most democrats want someone who properly represents their district over a prefect progressive. Their are a few moderate democrats representing progressive districts that need to get tossed.
I used to live in Matheson’s district and I thought he did a fairly good job of representing his constituents – still, the questions I shared are the questions that must be answered by anyone who want’s to oust an incumbent from their own party.
Bob Aagard is an idiot.
Ad hominem attacks are not convincing nor appreciated – even against people whose opinions generally differ from mine.
Anonymity must be a great security blanket.
I love a good primary challenge. Almost always.
But you have to be realistic and acknowledge that the primary challenge may cost you the general election in the end. If you can afford losing a bad [insert R or D] then it’s probably better for the party to challenge the incumbent. If you can’t, well you’d better be sure your primary challenger can win, or back down recognizing your need for the imperfect [insert R or D].
I think these decisions are best left to a multi-vote litmus test on key party issues, rather than an ideological purity test (like the anti-Bennett factions are employing) or a single issue dissatisfaction (like the anti-Cannon groups employed).
In UT-3, what did conservatives gain by ousting Cannon? Well, they got a guy who stands “their way” on immigration, but they lost Cannon’s tenure in the house, and the cmmte’s he was on or was headed for. Chaffetz reduced UT-3’s influence on policy overall, but voters can tell themselves their district isn’t “soft on immigration,” so… well, it seems like a foolish trade IMHO. If those keen on calling Bennett a SOCIALIST! are successful at getting someone like Eager or Bridgewater on the ticket, you’ll see Sam Granato elected (now that Shurtleff is out).
Applying what can be learned from those two scenarios for Republicans to Jim Matheson, I’d break it down like this: Can the Democrats afford to lose him in the house? Yes. Can the state party afford to lose him for down ticket races? Considering the bind he puts them in (they couldn’t even mention a historic health care vote without crossing him), yes. Has he crossed a multi-vote line as far as voting like a “bad Democrat”? Not yet, but close. He opposed cap and trade and the health care bill, but he did vote for the stimulus.
A primary challenge wouldn’t keep the seat for Democrats unless it happens after redistricting does. So the answer for Utah Democrats frustrated with the lack of division between Matheson and Bishop/Chaffetz lies in a cost benefit analysis. The loss of Matheson in the House wouldn’t greatly effect the national party agenda, and if he’s voting like a Republican on key issues anyway, may make no difference at all. But on the state level, would down ticket races benefit more with Matheson in office, or out of office?
It’s complicated stuff, and the answer never gets better than an educated guess. It’s just important to make decisions like this for the right reason (bad voting habits, bad strategy), not reactionary impetus (i.e. Those calling Bennett a liberal are out of the freakin’ gourds!).
Jason,
Thanks for providing a good example of the type of thought that each person should apply when choosing whether or not to challenge (or support a challenger against) an incumbent from their party. I definitely agree that a multi-vote litmus test across various issues is better than ideological purity or single issue dissatisfaction as cause to challenge your party’s incumbent.
I’m not sure that I see the loss you talk about for UT-3 in ousting Cannon – it seems that Chaffetz is having a comparable level of policy influence to anything Cannon had. (Funny thing, I generally think that Chaffetz is doing just fine for his district so far. Whatever my disagreements with him his first 10 months in office appear to show him as a decent representative of his district – and this despite the fact that immigration may be one of my greatest points of disagreement with him.) Also, I think it is wishful thinking to suggest that Granato will win the general election against anyone other than Bennett – however extreme you think Eagar or Bridgewater are (I am not committed to any candidate in that race at this point). Utah is a heavily Republican leaning state. It does not seem to matter how moderate or extreme the candidate is, the Republican always has the edge in statewide offices.
I’m not one who would call Bennett liberal, but I would like to see him replaced by someone better (I have no confidence yet that such a person has stepped up). The problem with Bennett is not that he is liberal, it is that he has no clue when to say, “this problem really should be solved somewhere other than Congress.” He’s so established in Washington that he doesn’t know the boundaries anymore (if he ever did, which is hard to say for sure).