UT-04: Global Strategy Group (D): Matheson holding on

[Miles]

Article.

Matheson (D)- 48%
Love (R)- 41%

[tmthforu94]

My prediction is that Romney's coattails pulls Love across the finish line.

[Zioneer]

I genuinely do not understand either how Matheson keeps bouncing back, or how people who know full well that he's a Republican with a D behind his name can figure that the Tea Party choice is better.

That, and I can't understand why Utah liberals still support him, for the same reason. Matheson is terrible, and I'm pretty sure the Utah Dems can find a moderate/conservative Democrat who is better than Matheson. They just don't think he'll lose, so they haven't prepared a successor for him. Literally any other Democrat in Utah would be better than him.

[Badger]

I genuinely do not understand either how Matheson keeps bouncing back, or how people who know full well that he's a Republican with a D behind his name can figure that the Tea Party choice is better.

That, and I can't understand why Utah liberals still support him, for the same reason. Matheson is terrible, and I'm pretty sure the Utah Dems can find a moderate/conservative Democrat who is better than Matheson. They just don't think he'll lose, so they haven't prepared a successor for him. Literally any other Democrat in Utah would be better than him.

How can you not understand that any Dem even a smidge more liberal than Matheson, and not named Matheson, gets trounced by a far right Tea Partier who gets the seat for life?

But please, vote for a Green if that'll make you feel better.

[Zioneer]

I genuinely do not understand either how Matheson keeps bouncing back, or how people who know full well that he's a Republican with a D behind his name can figure that the Tea Party choice is better.

That, and I can't understand why Utah liberals still support him, for the same reason. Matheson is terrible, and I'm pretty sure the Utah Dems can find a moderate/conservative Democrat who is better than Matheson. They just don't think he'll lose, so they haven't prepared a successor for him. Literally any other Democrat in Utah would be better than him.

How can you not understand that any Dem even a smidge more liberal than Matheson, and not named Matheson, gets trounced by a far right Tea Partier who gets the seat for life?

But please, vote for a Green if that'll make you feel better.

Maybe that's true now, with the gerrymandered districts, but before now, Matheson had a (relatively) fairer district; we could have had a slightly more moderate candidate (Matheson is quite honestly, with his voting record and rhetoric, a conservative Dem or an average pre-Tea Party Republican), who could have survived until maybe this year due to incumbency. I don't want a liberal, and I don't think liberals are a good fit for Utah politics for this point; I just want an honest moderate. Matheson is dishonest and if the Tea Party hadn't have happened, he would've been seen as a conservative.

And please don't assume that just because I have a Green avatar that I'm your average Green Party true believer. I'm only using this avatar because of dissatisfaction with certain Democrats, Matheson among them. I honestly haven't decided whether to vote for him or not; otherwise (besides for the presidency) I'm going to go straight-ticket Democrat.

And in any case, Matheson's votes aren't going to be in favor of even moderate policy (especially since he's been forced into the most gerrymandered conservative district possible), so it doesn't really matter.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I genuinely do not understand either how Matheson keeps bouncing back, or how people who know full well that he's a Republican with a D behind his name can figure that the Tea Party choice is better.

That, and I can't understand why Utah liberals still support him, for the same reason. Matheson is terrible, and I'm pretty sure the Utah Dems can find a moderate/conservative Democrat who is better than Matheson. They just don't think he'll lose, so they haven't prepared a successor for him. Literally any other Democrat in Utah would be better than him.

How can you not understand that any Dem even a smidge more liberal than Matheson, and not named Matheson, gets trounced by a far right Tea Partier who gets the seat for life?

But please, vote for a Green if that'll make you feel better.

Maybe that's true now, with the gerrymandered districts, but before now, Matheson had a (relatively) fairer district; we could have had a slightly more moderate candidate (Matheson is quite honestly, with his voting record and rhetoric, a conservative Dem or an average pre-Tea Party Republican), who could have survived until maybe this year due to incumbency. I don't want a liberal, and I don't think liberals are a good fit for Utah politics for this point; I just want an honest moderate. Matheson is dishonest and if the Tea Party hadn't have happened, he would've been seen as a conservative.

And please don't assume that just because I have a Green avatar that I'm your average Green Party true believer. I'm only using this avatar because of dissatisfaction with certain Democrats, Matheson among them. I honestly haven't decided whether to vote for him or not; otherwise (besides for the presidency) I'm going to go straight-ticket Democrat.

And in any case, Matheson's votes aren't going to be in favor of even moderate policy (especially since he's been forced into the most gerrymandered conservative district possible), so it doesn't really matter.

Even if one assumes that you are right and a slightly less conservative Democrat could have won the old UT-2 (and I have my doubts about that, to say the least), that isn't the district he is running in now.  So the current choice really is between Matheson and a far-right tea-partier who will hold the seat for life (and Love strikes me as a pretty strong candidate so even if the Democrats did find someone else who could win, I doubt she'd lose as an incumbent).  I'd rather have a conservative Democrat from Utah who votes with us 50% or even 40% of the time (and could potentially come through for us if his vote was truly needed) than a tea-partier who will never vote with us on anything.  Think of it this way, as long as Matheson can hold this seat, that's one less seat that we need to retake the House.  If Love wins because some Democrats support the green candidate, you still get someone who will be more conservative than you want them to be and we'll be that much farther away from retaking the House.

[Zioneer]

But Matheson hasn't come through on important votes; he voted against Obamacare, he voted for the NDAA, he voted in favor of the Bush Tax Cuts, he voted against pulling out of Afghanstan, he voted against repealing indefinite military detention, he voted in favor of repealing EPA and business regulations, and he's even voted in favor of weakening clean water regulations!

Literally the only things I like that he's voted for is the extension of student loans and the prohibition of insider trading. That's it. Matheson has voted exactly like a Republican on basically everything, and he talks just like a Republican in rhetoric. He's even publicly insinuated that he'd be beneficial for a president Mitt Romney (giving Romney a "bipartisan" agreement), and didn't vote for Pelosi as Democratic leader last time, so he probably won't do so again.

And to be honest, you might be right about Mia Love holding the seat for life, but she's not as good a candidate as everyone thinks. She's had her desired district gerrymandered in her favor and she still can't beat Matheson.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

But Matheson hasn't come through on important votes; he voted against Obamacare, he voted for the NDAA, he voted in favor of the Bush Tax Cuts, he voted against pulling out of Afghanstan, he voted against repealing indefinite military detention, he voted in favor of repealing EPA and business regulations, and he's even voted in favor of weakening clean water regulations!

Literally the only things I like that he's voted for is the extension of student loans and the prohibition of insider trading. That's it. Matheson has voted exactly like a Republican on basically everything, and he talks just like a Republican in rhetoric. He's even publicly insinuated that he'd be beneficial for a president Mitt Romney (giving Romney a "bipartisan" agreement), and didn't vote for Pelosi as Democratic leader last time, so he probably won't do so again.

And to be honest, you might be right about Mia Love holding the seat for life, but she's not as good a candidate as everyone thinks. She's had her desired district gerrymandered in her favor and she still can't beat Matheson.

But he wasn't the deciding vote on any of those things, my point is that he very well could've come through on some of those things if he would be the deciding vote.  Since he wasn't, political expediency obviously carried the day.  But let's say you are right that he wouldn't come through if he were the deciding vote (which is certainly a reasonable opinion), there is still one other thing to consider: A Matheson victory is strategically important because it still gets us that much closer Democratic House Majority (not that he'd ever want to remind anyone of this ).  Also, Republicans should (and normally would) have a lock on this seat without Matheson, voting against him in the general election for being conservative would be like Republicans in MA-06 refusing to vote for Tisei because he is presumably well to the left of the national party.  If this was a seat where even a slightly less conservative Democrat could win and hold the seat, I'd be fine with primarying Matheson.  But this race is essentially conservative Democrat who will vote for a Democratic Speaker vs. hyper-conservative tea-party who will probably hold this seat for life. 

[memphis]

Love is a black, you see.

[adma]

A Matheson Dem vs a Huntman GOPer: from a "Utah left" perspective, which is better?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

A Matheson Dem vs a Huntman GOPer: from a "Utah left" perspective, which is better?

Love is not a "Huntsman Republican"

[Zioneer]

A Matheson Dem vs a Huntman GOPer: from a "Utah left" perspective, which is better?

Love is nowhere near a Huntsman Republican. She's more like a Rick Perry or Santorum Republican.

[adma]

I know that; I'm just offering an alternative hypothesis.  (Remember: just as Dems in Utah fare best when they are DINOs, Republicans can fare pretty well when they're RINOs.)

[Zioneer]

But Matheson hasn't come through on important votes; he voted against Obamacare, he voted for the NDAA, he voted in favor of the Bush Tax Cuts, he voted against pulling out of Afghanstan, he voted against repealing indefinite military detention, he voted in favor of repealing EPA and business regulations, and he's even voted in favor of weakening clean water regulations!

Literally the only things I like that he's voted for is the extension of student loans and the prohibition of insider trading. That's it. Matheson has voted exactly like a Republican on basically everything, and he talks just like a Republican in rhetoric. He's even publicly insinuated that he'd be beneficial for a president Mitt Romney (giving Romney a "bipartisan" agreement), and didn't vote for Pelosi as Democratic leader last time, so he probably won't do so again.

And to be honest, you might be right about Mia Love holding the seat for life, but she's not as good a candidate as everyone thinks. She's had her desired district gerrymandered in her favor and she still can't beat Matheson.

But he wasn't the deciding vote on any of those things, my point is that he very well could've come through on some of those things if he would be the deciding vote.  Since he wasn't, political expediency obviously carried the day.  But let's say you are right that he wouldn't come through if he were the deciding vote (which is certainly a reasonable opinion), there is still one other thing to consider: A Matheson victory is strategically important because it still gets us that much closer Democratic House Majority (not that he'd ever want to remind anyone of this ).  Also, Republicans should (and normally would) have a lock on this seat without Matheson, voting against him in the general election for being conservative would be like Republicans in MA-06 refusing to vote for Tisei because he is presumably well to the left of the national party.  If this was a seat where even a slightly less conservative Democrat could win and hold the seat, I'd be fine with primarying Matheson.  But this race is essentially conservative Democrat who will vote for a Democratic Speaker vs. hyper-conservative tea-party who will probably hold this seat for life. 

But part of my point is that he hasn't voted for Pelosi in the past; and with an even more conservative district, he wouldn't vote for her as Speaker now either. He is effectively a Republican.

[DrScholl]

He voted for Pelosi in 2005, 2007 and 2009. The only time he didn't vote for her was 2011 and that is when several Blue Dogs abstained.

[Zioneer]

He voted for Pelosi in 2005, 2007 and 2009. The only time he didn't vote for her was 2011 and that is when several Blue Dogs abstained.

Fair enough, but that just proves my point; if he didn't vote for Pelosi in 2011 because he would've been kicked out of office, how much less likely would he be to now that he's been redistricted to political oblivion?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

He voted for Pelosi in 2005, 2007 and 2009. The only time he didn't vote for her was 2011 and that is when several Blue Dogs abstained.

Fair enough, but that just proves my point; if he didn't vote for Pelosi in 2011 because he would've been kicked out of office, how much less likely would he be to now that he's been redistricted to political oblivion?

Do you think that Pelosi cares? She has been and will continue to be fully supportive of political expedient moves made by blue dogs in these deeply "red" districts. Matheson voting against her is actually a move that is good for the "team".