Brian Faughnan's here yesterday deserves some follow up and elaboration. What's most interesting about the "Obama Leaves Red State Democrats Cold" narrative is how it differs from the spin echoing in the halls of Congress.
Over the past six months, many Democratic political "pros" (and Obama supporters) have tried to cast this down-ticket debate only in anti-Clinton terms. For example, many worried privately and publicly that "her polarizing personality," among other things, would create a drag on congressional candidates in certain pivotal regions. Former Democratic Majority Leader (and Obama surrogate) Tom Daschle openly fretted about the impact of Senator Clinton at the top of the ticket in key battleground states in the Midwest and Rocky Mountains--an argument that cost her the endorsements of many well-respected red/purple state lawmakers, such as Senators Claire McCaskill (MO), Ben Nelson (NE), Tim Johnson (SD), Russ Feingold (WI), Byron Dorgan (ND), and Kent Conrad (ND), and a slew of House members from these same pivotal areas. "Many Democratic Senators and other elected officials from the middle part of the country are scared to death about the prospects of her leading the ticket on other races," a Democratic campaign strategist told me, repeating a common inside-the-Beltway refrain.
Far less speculation to date, however, has focused on Obama's down-ticket impact. And the small amount of conjecture about his influence on congressional races was significantly more positive. So the article Brian refers to in his post is one of the first to raise similar doubts about Obama. Obama was supposed to help Democrats expand support, not chase it away. So will the Obama candidacy mean down-ticket candidates might don cement fleeces in the choppy waters of congressional elections this November?
I recently had a chance to interview Ken Spain, press secretary at the National Republican Congressional Committee, about the impact of an Obama candidacy on House and Senate races. He also believes the "Obama will help Democrat congressional candidates more than Clinton" argument is a pipedream.
"In the districts where we need to win, Barack Obama will almost assuredly be handily defeated," Spain told me yesterday. "Obama's so-called red state appeal cannot transcend the partisan discrepancy in places like suburban Houston, Northeastern Pennsylvania, Georgia, or Arizona. The situation couldn't be any more different for Republicans at the top of the ticket. John McCain is a candidate with widespread national and bipartisan appeal who can impact races across the board while Obama faces a steep drop-off in support in certain regions of the country, particularly in post-industrial areas. Republican congressional candidates have been handed the best possible scenario for them at the top of the ticket while Democrats continue to watch in bewilderment as a long, protracted battle continues to take place, thus further bloodying up their potential nominee."
Many Democratic elected officials fueled the Obama-drama by stoking fears about the impact of Senator Clinton at the top of the ticket on down-ballot races. But gambling on Obama--particularly in the battleground states and congressional districts that President Bush won in 2004--may turn into the bigger bust.
