Replies

With every senate race, it all comes down to the candidate the Parties choose to run.

In theory yes, but as a practical matter the Parties' "choice" is apt to be quite limited. Most states have at least two or three certifiable Republican heavyweights who would start with a strong organizational and fundraising base and decent statewide ID. Same for the 'rats. The issues are (1) whether the heavyweights are actually interested in the Senate (usually yes, but not always) and (2) whether they see '06 as a good year to gamble their political careers for the big step up. In most states, especially those of any size, that decision needs to be made mid to late '05.

If Bush and the pubbies are polling well this summer and fall, recruitment will be easy. The RNC and the White House will probably have to crack heads to avoid fratricide -- i.e., they will do their best to clear the field for a consensus choice. However, if the polling tanks, we'll be out in the nominal swing states scratching for the least bad forlorn hope and crossing our fingers that the Senate race doesn't cripple the rest of the ticket.

These are standard calculations at this point every cycle. The thing that makes them interesting this time around is that Bush has an ambitious second term agenda. Does Social Security or tax reform help or hurt candidate recruitment in swing states? Don't misunderstand: I hope Bush pushes strongly for rightward reform. All I'm saying is that the recruitment could be tougher than usual if by August we're neck deep in third rail politics and our top contenders in tough states start deciding it's not the time to risk their careers.

At some point, high strategery comes into play. The Republican leadership in the White House and on the Hill need to make some cold-blooded decisions fairly early on about what we can realistically hope to pass in '05 and '06. If we just flat out, simply and unmistakably don't have the votes in this Congress on Issue X, how hard do we fight for it as a symbolic gesture to the base if it's killing our '06 chances? It's not an easy question if you really think, as I do, that we really, really, really need 60 solid votes in the Senate to get a whole buncha things done.

I realize, and it disappoints me, that the Parties' "choice" is quite limited. I am saying that we need a good recruitment effort. Obviously, the Parties have that idea going into every election. But why do I think it will be an easier sell in 2006? For one, President Bush just got reelected and Republicans control the House and the Senate. I feel like Bush's ambitious agenda will help recruitment efforts, as many of these potential candidates want to make a difference, and with a Republican President who wants to reform the tax code and social security, they could.
Another reason to run is the success of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is making history in the way it has taken control of the government, and I think people will want to be a part of that. Not to mention the fact that being a Republican will help, not hurt, the potential candidates in most of these states.
As for "fratricide", I don't think (I'm disagreeing with Karl Rove) that it is a bad thing, unless the ideal candidate (Johanns or Osborne in Nebraska, Guiliani in New York, etc.) is running. We saw this in Oklahoma when Humphries was running against Tom Coburn. Humprhies was the GOP leadership's pick, but wasn't the "ideal" candidate to most observers. So Coburn ran, got the nomination, and won? Would Humphries have won? Possibly, but I'm not certain, and I even doubt that he would have. Carson probably could have defeated him. So, in cases like this when the ideal candidate isn't running, fratricide is a good thing, in my opinion.
I hope it isn't, but right now may be the high point of the Republican Party. We need to ensure that we elect more Republicans so that we can change America for the better. I'm sure there is nothing more convincing than a call from President Bush asking these potential candidates to be a part of history and help the country by running. I am quite certain he has probably already started doing that. I just hope we don't have any missed opportunities, although I am quite certain we will, and that is why I think that we will fail in the effort to acquire a super-majority. I still think we will only pick up 3 seats due to mistakes and failures in the recruiting process.