The Democrats’ Worst Race

Despite thriving in Montana recently, the party has failed to find a viable Senate candidate with just three months left before the election.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer, D-MT, testifies before a Senate Joint Economic Committee Hearing on funding the Iraq War on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 12, 2008. (UPI Photo/Patrick D. McDermott)
National Journal
Alex Roarty
Aug. 7, 2014, 1:39 p.m.

Sen. John Walsh’s de­cision Thursday to pre­ma­turely end his cam­paign for a full term in the Sen­ate caps an 18-month tumble for Demo­crats in the Montana con­test. The party has been forced to dis­card — de­pend­ing on whom you count — up to three dif­fer­ent can­did­ates and watched its chances of re­tain­ing the red-state seat drop from likely vic­tory to nearly in­ev­it­able de­feat.

It’s hard to re­mem­ber than when the polit­ic­al cycle began, most Demo­crats pegged long­time Sen. Max Baucus as a re­l­at­ively safe bet to win reelec­tion. Of the sev­en red-state seats the party must de­fend this year, Montana’s was con­sidered the least likely to flip.

But Baucus’s un­ex­pec­ted de­cision to re­tire, an­nounced in April of last year, flipped the race on its head and touched off a still-on­go­ing scramble to find a re­place­ment. The pro­cess has been a dis­astrous one for the Demo­crat­ic Party, and left it in the un­en­vi­able po­s­i­tion of ef­fect­ively launch­ing the cam­paign of a new can­did­ate just three months be­fore Novem­ber’s elec­tion.

The Demo­crats had one Hail Mary pass in former Gov. Bri­an Sch­weitzer, whose name ID could would have made him the only truly vi­able can­did­ate in the race. But after Sch­weitzer de­clined to run last sum­mer, most took it as a sign he was wor­ried about the dirt Re­pub­lic­ans had on him. Not to men­tion that con­tro­versy of late has dam­aged his repu­ta­tion as a ser­i­ous politi­cian. Hours after Walsh’s de­cision, Sch­weitzer an­nounced he would not be run­ning for the seat. 

With or without him, the party is in ser­i­ous danger of los­ing a seat it has held for more than 100 years and giv­ing Re­pub­lic­ans a key boost in their ef­forts to re­take the Sen­ate ma­jor­ity. And Demo­crats — who are non­ethe­less con­sid­er­ing a host of pos­sible re­place­ments for Walsh — are left to pon­der how they squandered a race once lean­ing in their fa­vor.

It’s an un­usu­al spot for Montana Demo­crats, who un­like many of their red-state coun­ter­parts have a strong re­cent re­cord of vic­tor­ies. Sen. Jon Test­er won reelec­tion in 2012 along­side Demo­crat­ic Gov. Steve Bul­lock (Walsh was his run­ning mate). Baucus had served since 1979 while win­ning most of his elec­tions with ease, and the state had even spawned an un­usu­ally strong class of Demo­crat­ic op­er­at­ives, like former Obama cam­paign man­ager Jim Mess­ina.

In­stead, it’s Re­pub­lic­ans who are do­ing the gloat­ing.

“[Rep.] Steve Daines is one of the strongest Sen­ate can­did­ates in the coun­try, was in the pro­cess of de­feat­ing Sen­at­or Walsh, and will de­feat whichever Band-Aid can­did­ate Demo­crats can per­suade to get in the race,” Brad Dayspring, spokes­man for the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­ori­al Com­mit­tee, said in a state­ment Thursday.

No Sen­ate race has un­der­gone as many trans­form­a­tions in the last year-and-a-half than the Montana con­test. Since Baucus’s an­nounce­ment, Demo­crats have penciled in the pop­u­lar former gov­ernor, Sch­weitzer, to take his place; settled on then-Lt. Gov. Walsh when Sch­weitzer un­ex­pec­tedly bailed on a bid; then cel­eb­rated when Baucus (again un­ex­pec­tedly) be­came the U.S. am­bas­sad­or to China, which let Walsh take his seat in the Sen­ate.

But then the newly christened sen­at­or, already an un­der­dog in his race against the GOP’s Daines, was dealt a cam­paign-end­ing blow when The New York Times re­por­ted last month that he had blatantly pla­gi­ar­ized a thes­is he wrote at the Army War Col­lege. That led to his de­cision Wed­nes­day to drop out, and left Demo­crats look­ing for a new can­did­ate yet again.

The Demo­crats’ his­tory of suc­cess in Montana ex­plained why Demo­crats were ini­tially con­fid­ent about the chances of Baucus and later Sch­weitzer, and why some held out hope that Walsh could make a late charge in the race. There was some lim­ited evid­ence he was do­ing just that last month, be­fore the Times story broke. But the pla­gi­ar­ism scan­dal brought harsh re­bukes from some of the state’s largest news­pa­pers, which called on him to end his Sen­ate cam­paign.

The cri­ti­cism was also start­ing to seep in­to some of the sen­at­or’s Demo­crat­ic al­lies.

“I’m troubled by the pro­pos­i­tion that I need to sup­port a can­did­ate who’s a Demo­crat who has severe de­fi­cien­cies in his judg­ment like that,” Demo­crat­ic state Sen. Dave Wan­zen­ried told Na­tion­al Journ­al be­fore Walsh dropped out the race.

Whomever Demo­crats nom­in­ate to re­place Walsh, they face an un­usu­al, and up­hill, task in pulling to­geth­er a statewide cam­paign in such a short time. It’s a daunt­ing pro­spect, and one that could scare away oth­er­wise cred­ible nom­in­ees — es­pe­cially giv­en Walsh’s struggle to make the race com­pet­it­ive even be­fore the pla­gi­ar­ism scan­dal.

Demo­crats aren’t de­terred, but they are real­ist­ic.

“We only have 90 days to get this cam­paign put to­geth­er,” said John Bo­hlinger, a former lieu­ten­ant gov­ernor who fin­ished a dis­tant second to Walsh in the party’s primary this year. “It would be a scramble, but it could be done.”

Bo­hlinger him­self said he would be in­ter­ested in ac­cept­ing the party’s nom­in­a­tion, but only on the con­di­tion that it guar­an­tee he would have enough money and staffers to run a com­pet­it­ive race.

Up­date: This story has been up­dated to re­flect Bri­an Sch­weitzer’s de­cision not to run in Montana.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×