Politico: If Dems lose, blame Harkin, Johnson, Baucus, Levin, and Rockefeller

[JRP1994]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/if-democrats-lose-the-senate-blame-these-guys-112117.html#.VEmQ-Xk0afo

[Adam Griffin]

Especially Rockefeller. How could he? Unfortunately for us, I doubt any of them will care once they're in their new cushy private-sector jobs.

[Maxwell]

Rockefeller would've lost to Capito anyways. Dems should especially blame Harkin.

[DrScholl]

They should have retired in 2008.

[IceSpear]

While it's true Democrats would've had much better odds at holding the Senate had they all run, retirements happen. It's not like you can force them to run at gunpoint if they don't want to.

[Indy Texas]

While it's true Democrats would've had much better odds at holding the Senate had they all run, retirements happen. It's not like you can force them to run at gunpoint if they don't want to.

Seriously, and most of those guys are pushing 80. Do we really need more senators who fall asleep 10 minutes into committee hearings and can't remember the names of half the chamber?

[SWE]

Why Levin? His seat is safe.

[IceSpear]

Why Levin? His seat is safe.

If he didn't retire they wouldn't have had to spend millions defending it (granted, Republicans wouldn't have spent millions there either).

[dmmidmi]

Levin's seat is now a safe Democratic hold, so I don't quite understand that. Rockefeller torched every bridge he could on his way out, so he could've lost (though Democrats' chances of holding the seat would be astronomically higher with him running). Braley should've been able to hold the Iowa seat, so I lay blame squarely at his feet. Johnson almost lost in 2002, so he wasn't a sure bet for re-election.

So...blame Baucus? I'm fine with that.

[GLPman]

They should have retired in 2008.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

IA and MI would have been Safe D with Harkin and Levin. Even before Braley started messing up, the contest still wasn't seen as Likely or Safe D by any major prognosticator. The Michigan contest was initially viewed as Toss-Up/Lean D by every major prognosticator, it's only because of Land's terrible campaign that it's now in the Likely/Safe categories of everyone but Charlie Cook.

However, Baucus, Rockefeller, and Johnson were very vulnerable, especially the latter two, and while the democrats would have a better chance at holding those seats if they hadn't retired, the races wouldn't have been anywhere near Safe D.

[Potus]

Shelley would have defeated Rockefeller.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Dems in swing/red states should time their retirements to presidential election years when we have the boost in turnout. Retiring in midterms is just brutal.

[IceSpear]

Shelley would have defeated Rockefeller.

Even if she would have, the point is that the GOP would've needed to fight for it rather than have it as an automatic pickup.

[Mister Mets]

They should have retired in 2008.

There's a strong argument.

Politicians have a tendency to stick around during what look like good cycles, and to leave before bad cycles. It's a bit like the snake eating its own tail. The fear of being in the minority leads to popular incumbents quitting which increases the chances they'll be in the minority.

That said, some incumbents are in trouble as well. If Rockefeller had left in '08, there's no indication that the Democratic candidate would be as strong.

[muon2]

To me the argument makes no sense in a representative democracy. Essentially it says that a politicians job is primarily to protect their party's majority. That's the same argument that leads to gerrymandered districts. How about considering that a politician should serve the public interest and if they feel that age, health, family or any other factor leads them to believe that the public is better served with a new representative then retirement is an appropriate decision.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Levin is being replaced with another Democrat. Harkin will definitely be missed. Rockefeller was probably the best we could get for WV. Johnson and Baucus were both crappy anyways.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have no problem with senators who retire because they are tired or for whatever reason don't want to do it anymore. This must be a pretty tedious job, after all. However, I utterly despise the cowards who quit because they face the prospect of a tough reelection campaign. If you have an ounce of dignity, you've got to face the voters and go down with a fight - and who knows, you might even end up winning.

[dmmidmi]

The Michigan contest was initially viewed as Toss-Up/Lean D by every major prognosticator, it's only because of Land's terrible campaign that it's now in the Likely/Safe categories of everyone but Charlie Cook.

That's because most prognosticators don't know their @ss from a hole in the ground. Had they actually paid attention to Terri Lynn Land as a candidate, they'd have known that she was a lightweight. And they should've known that Peters was a skilled campaigner.

Their own ignorance is their fault.

[Nichlemn]

They should have retired in 2008.

There's a strong argument.

Politicians have a tendency to stick around during what look like good cycles, and to leave before bad cycles. It's a bit like the snake eating its own tail. The fear of being in the minority leads to popular incumbents quitting which increases the chances they'll be in the minority.

That said, some incumbents are in trouble as well. If Rockefeller had left in '08, there's no indication that the Democratic candidate would be as strong.

Andrew Gelman posted about this on 538.

[nclib]

Probably only Harkin would have won. All four (not counting Levin/Peters) would have had to win for Dems to keep control.

[Mr.Phips]

Probably only Harkin would have won. All four (not counting Levin/Peters) would have had to win for Dems to keep control.

My thoughts exactly.  Even Harkin may have had a scare.

[ElectionsGuy]

Blame Harkin (especially) and Baucus. Most of the others would've gone Republican anyway (or D in MI) regardless. Even then, that's only 2 losses, they would have to blame their own incumbents for their losses instead of retirements.

[IceSpear]

Blame Harkin (especially) and Baucus. Most of the others would've gone Republican anyway (or D in MI) regardless. Even then, that's only 2 losses, they would have to blame their own incumbents for their losses instead of retirements.

I'm pretty sure Baucus would've lost as well. Only Harkin really mattered here, I think.

[Mr.Phips]

Blame Harkin (especially) and Baucus. Most of the others would've gone Republican anyway (or D in MI) regardless. Even then, that's only 2 losses, they would have to blame their own incumbents for their losses instead of retirements.

I really doubt Baucus could have won.  He was pretty unpopular and Montana is fairly Republican.