HI 2014 Congressional Elections

[Benj]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

That's a reason for you not to vote for her, not a reason for her not to run.

I think the personal-vendetta part of this is ridiculous. Hanabusa certainly wasn't "entitled" to the seat, and every time her supporters whine about that, she loses legitimacy. But there's nothing wrong with running in a primary against a decent incumbent. Doesn't mean I'll vote for you if I prefer the incumbent on the issues (or competence), but the fact that Hanabusa isn't the incumbent should not, by itself, stop anyone from supporting her. Schatz is no more entitled to the seat than Hanabusa is.

[Benj]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

That's a reason for you not to vote for her, not a reason for her not to run.

I think the personal-vendetta part of this is ridiculous. Hanabusa certainly wasn't "entitled" to the seat, and every time her supporters whine about that, she loses legitimacy. But there's nothing wrong with running in a primary against a decent incumbent. Doesn't mean I'll vote for you if I prefer the incumbent on the issues (or competence), but the fact that Hanabusa isn't the incumbent should not, by itself, stop anyone from supporting her. Schatz is no more entitled to the seat than Hanabusa is.

Well, sure, that's fine for her to run, I'm not disputing that. And Schatz isn't entitled to the seat either. It's just that I think there needs to be a reason for running, however flimsy it may be. You can go "blah blah blah we need leadership in Washington, the incumbent hasn't provided leadership" or "My opponent voted no on giving orphans a hug" or whatever, I just think that if you're running for a seat, you need to provide a legitimate reason for why you're better than the current holder. And that applies to both parties. I'm not in favor of needless incumbency, but if Schatz has proved to be a decent incumbent, then what specific reason does she have for challenging him?

There has to be something she can run against Schatz if she's going to primary him. I just don't like the idea of running for barely-disguised ambition. If Hanabusa can give one reason why Schatz must go, then fine, my objections will vanish. If she's running against him from the right, fine. If she's running against him from the left, fine. If she's running on a single issue, fine. If she doesn't think Schatz has pushed hard enough on something, okay. If she thinks he's been embarrassing to Hawaii, alright.

But to challenge him for no reason other than advancement is silly.

You're saying that the default should be that incumbents are reelected. That's faintly ridiculous. Why does Schatz not have to justify why he should be running? Being an incumbent doesn't entitle you to run for reelection.