I scheduled a no-Internet trip for the first three days of 2009 (my first prolonged break from the web in more than two years!), and I thought it was unlikely that many developments would unfold in what are typically slow news days. Little did I know that in that short time period Colorado would get a new Senator and Minnesota’s recount would evolve dramatically - not to mention the contradictory reporting on Caroline Kennedy’s New York chances and the increasingly tense standoff between Roland Burris and Senate Democrats.
You are probably aware of all of these stories by now, but here is my belated take on soon-to-be Senator Michael Bennet. (An update on Minnesota will follow soon.)
—
There was a long list of Democrats lined up for Ken Salazar’s Senate seat, but Governor Bill Ritter went for a dark-horse candidate few people had thought of including in their list of serious contenders. Colorado’s new Senator will be Michael Bennet, the Denver School Superintendent who was also on the short list to be Obama’s Secretary of Education.
Ritter is known as a conservative Democrat, and it was considered unlikely that he would pick someone who would satisfy progressives. That said, Bennet looks to be among the most centrists of Ritter’s potential choices. As School Superintendent, he is known as a “reformer” and a supporter of merit pay and tough standards for teachers. This suggests a tasty relationships with union leaders - this could be crucial in the upcoming Senate battle over card-checks, expected to be one of the hottest issues facing the 111th Congress. (For more about Bennet’s work with Denver schools, this 2007 New Yorker profile is the place to go.)
Ritter himself emphasized Bennet’s centrist politics, describing him with the “postpartisan” terminology that has become the cloak of the ideological center. “He is practical, pragmatic, not ideological. And he is not dogmatic… He has an impressive record of bringing people together to find common ground.” Bennet described himself similarly and pledged to follow in Ken Salazar’s “bootsteps” (Salazar is known as one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate).
Commentators are indeed comparing Bennet’s politics to those of Ritter, Salazar and Betsy Markey, all conservative Democrats. Meanwhile, the Colorado Republican Party chairman commented that Bennet had done “admirable” things in Denver; Bennet was also described as “fairly moderate” by Scott McInnis, a potential GOP candidate in 2010; and another School Superintendent called Bennet’s pick “encouraging” “from a Republican perspective.”
Besides frustrating progressives, Ritter’s choice could also worry the DSCC and those Democrats who care about retaining the seat in 2010, and this for three simple reasons:
- Bennet has had little experience in politics and has never held elected office. It is always dangerous for someone who has never had to seriously campaign to be suddenly thrust in the limelight (see Clark, Wesley; Palin, Sarah; and even Thompson, Fred), and missteps could be costly in what is sure to be one of the top races of the 2010 cycle. This is not to say that Bennet has failed to engage with meaty policy issues like Caroline Kennedy (as the New Yorker profile attests to), simply that the policy and electoral worlds are very different.
- A number of highly credible Republicans are thinking of jumping in the race, and Bennet lacks the profile to scare them away from the race in a way Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper might have. Furthermore, Bennet lacks the political network to be a terrifying fundraising machine, something else that might have kept challengers from jumping in. In other words, it looks fairly certain that Bennet will attract strong opposition in two years.
- Republicans are already salivating at Bennet’s Denver-centrist record. This Rocky Mountain News story is certainly worth a read to get a sense of rural Democrats’ annoyance at Ritter’s choice. While this is certainly not a damning problem (Mark Udall was supposedly too Boulder-centric to win statewide), it could prove one if Bennet does not prepare himself sufficiently to address concerns like conservation and water that matter in Colorado. Fortunately for him, he now has 18 months to study these issues before the general election heats up.
At the very least, Bennet should not be that worried about a primary challenge. The Denver/rural Colorado split could be his biggest liability, followed by the fact that he lacks an obvious constituency that could form his electoral base. But it is hard to see who could rise to challenge him: He and Hickenlooper (the highest profile Democrat in the state) are friends, and the other Democratic contenders are either not high-profile enough or would have to give up a safe House seat for a difficult primary race. In other words, the Democratic nomination is Bennet’s to lose.
I think Bennett was a good choice and it will help having someone with first hand education experience in the senate, rather than just another practising lawyer.
Fred Thompson had campaigned for Senate in Tennessee, so you can`t say he didn`t really have to campaign and then say Bennett’s lack of elected experience is a big problem. I don`t agree that his lack of elected experience is a problem. I could add Hillary Clinton as someone who never held elected office and made a success of it. Jim Webb is another. Mark Warner as Governor of Virginia another still.
In terms of electoral strength, it’s true that Bennet is probably weaker than the Dever mayor and other possible candidates, but he isn’t weaker than how Ken Salazar would have been. Maybe he won’t scare away top tier GOP challangers, but the GOP bench is both weak and thin in Colorado. Short of former governor Owens, any Republican would be having a hard time.
(1) You could argue that Jim Webb did not run that great a campaign. He had many issues of his own, ran into trouble on the trail and has a reputation of not liking the campaign (which was one of his main drawbacks in the veepstakes). (2) Fred Thompson never faced a competitive race, so you could still argue that he was untested in a tough campaign until September 2007 - and we saw how quickly he disappointed everyone whose hopes he’d raised.
That said, a lot of people jump in politics and turn out to be very good at connecting to people and on the trail. The point isn’t that Bennet’s lack of campaigning will be a problem; the point is that there is a risk it could be a problem: some people turn out to be good on the trail, others less so (and for now Caroline Kennedy seems to be in the latter camp for now).
With John Elway pursuing business (and football) interests, I agrre the GOP bench is pretty thin in Colorado. Hickenlooper would have been a stronger appointment, but he may still have had trouble appealing to outstate voters.
It’s going to depend on how Benbet handles himself. The big downside will taht the DSCC will have take some money from other races and spend it in Colorado in 2010.
Taniel - all fair points but Bennett will have two years to establish himself and in Colorado (as in Virginia) having a centrist, non ideological Democrat will do well. Both of these states are recent red states trending blue but are not blue enough (like say Massachusetts or California) for a true liberal to run and win easily.
Mikeel, the DSCC would have probably had to spend money for Ken Salazar’s reelection based on his relativly weakness as an icumbent, so having to spend money for Bennet in 2010 isn’t a big loss.