The peculiarity of House races in the nation’s smallest states is that legislators are far less attractive candidates than they would be elsewhere while statewide officials can make particularly formidable contenders since they don’t have to adapt to a new constituency.
Unfortunately for Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who represents the entirety of South Dakota, she landed both varieties of opponents this week. And the one she’ll thus have to worry about the most is Secretary of State Chris Nelson, whose candidacy sets up what will probably be the Democrat’s toughest re-election campaign since she was first elected in a 2004 special election.
In November 2004, Herseth Sandlin faced the same man she had just defeated in a special election; while Larry Diedrich was a strong contender in that first race, it is very rare for a regularly scheduled election to reverse the results of a special. In 2006, she crushed an opponent whose biggest political experience was to serve as a county-level party chairman. In 2008, she received 68% of the vote against a candidate so low-profile that his campaign website’s URL contained “typepad.”
By contrast, Nelson should at the very least make the race worth watching. He has held his current position since 2002, which means that he has represented all of Herseth Sandlin’s constituents for nearly two more years than she has. The NRCC is sure to tout his candidacy, which should mean far stronger fundraising hauls than that of Herseth Sandlin’s previous opponents - not to mention the probable involvement of the national party.
Obviously, that does not make him the favorite - the congresswoman’s name recognition is surely superior to Nelson’s, for one - but South Dakota is conservative enough that a credible Republican nominee should be able not to fall under the 40% floor. That makes Nelson an obviously attractive candidate for the NRCC.
That this is happening in 2010 is of course no coincidence: Whether or not you or I think that the midterms will be a disaster for Democrats (and there are many reasons to think the party is not walking off the cliff), there is no doubt that Republicans think all they need to do is show up and Democratic incumbents will self-implode - which explains why the party is proving increasingly successful at scoring high-profile recruits.
Nelson declared his candidacy just two days after another Republican jumped in the race: state Rep. Blake Curd. While Curd already looked like a step-up from the GOP’s prior nominees, a SD legislator running in the House is less meaningful than it would be in other states, where a state representative often already represents a large share of the congressional district he’s running in. In South Dakota, however, a single House district fits 35 legislative ones.
As such, this is really a far larger stage Curd is stepping into. If he wins the GOP nomination, he might have a shot at defeating the incumbent but it would take quite a disastrous environment for Democrats.
Indeed, Herseth Sandlin is no obvious target. She might represent a hostile district, but she has a lot of factors going for her. For one, South Dakota has a history of electing Democrats to federal races. Second, she has a popular last name since her grandfather served as Governor; that could protect her even if voters turn against Democrats. Third, and perhaps most importantly, incumbency is a big advantage in small states like SD, which rely on their congressmen’s seniority-fueled clout to have a disproportionate share of influence in the federal government.
That Herseth Sandlin finds herself facing a potentially competitive re-election race confirms that losing a substantial number of seats in 2010 will not necessarily damage Barack Obama’s agenda (at least as long as Democrats keep the majority). Indeed, many of the incumbents the NRCC is actively targeting are members of the Blue Dog Coalition, which have been reluctant to support the Democratic leadership on tight roll calls to start with; Herseth Sandlin herself is one of that group’s 3 co-chairs. She has recently taken a leading role in organizing opposition to a strong public option among House Democrats.
That said, Herseth Sandlin’s re-election race is important beyond the composition of the House: With South Dakota’s history of electing House members to the Senate, she is Democrats’ main hope of successfully defending Senator Tim Johnson’s Senate seat when he’ll choose to retire, presumably in 2014.
I just don’t see Herseth Sandlin going down. She’s genuinely moderate unlike Tom Dashle (and even Tim Johnson, who’s certainly more liberal then she is), she could actually fit in to either party fairly comfortably, and as you said, South Dakota has a history of sending Democrats to national office.
I don’t know much about Chris Nelson. Obviously, a statewide officeholder should be formidable, but Herseth Sandlin is pretty much the perfect fit for the state and does a really good job distancing herself from the national party.
That said, given how this seems to suggest she’ll actually have to fight for re-election anyway, I didn’t honestly expect that after ‘06 and ‘08, I’m wondering if she’s not regretting running for Governor.
If Herseth-Sandlin loses, Democrats will have nobody to run for Tim Johnson’s Senate seat when it will likely be open in 2014.
Ron - not necessarily. If she lost (big if) she could come back. There are examples of politicians coming back from a previous loss (Mitt Romney to Kennedy in 1994) to win major statewide office.
So did Maria Cantwell after losing reelection to a House seat in 1994. However, that is usually the exception to the rule.
One thing that I believe that will help her is that she has a larger share of positive national news coverage than a great majority of her colleagues. This may just be me, but I seem to hear her name a good deal, while who hears, say, Brad Sherman’s name frequently?
I think its wiser to sit back and watch how Nelson handles a higher-profile campaign and Curd’s challenge (Which will likely come from the right).
Minor Republican statewide office holders in South Dakota have a long and recent history of being busts in bigger races, because it really doesn’t take much exertion to win the offices (The SDDP is perenially bankrupt), and they don’t garner that much attention when they have them.
Lt. Gov Carole Hillard (R) lost the 1996 GOP House Primary to a relatively unknown John Thune, receiving only 40% of the vote
Five-Term State Treasurer David Volk (R) only got 28% of the vote against then-Freshman Rep. Tim Johnson in the 1988 House race.
Those are only two examples, there are actually more.
Nelson ran about even with the GOP ticket in 2002 (Against a person whose next job was the Head of SD Planned Parenthood). His 2006 Election was unopposed, but saw a sizable 35% undervote in a state not known for undervoting. Nelson somehow managed to receive fewer votes than an opposed Herseth that year.
I’m sure Nelson is a fine candidate, but Herseth is understandably popular. However, if it is a huge year for the GOP, many seemingly safe incumbents can go down with the ship.
Maurice - just curious, do you live in Sherman’s district too?
I’ve heard of Brad Sherman, but that’s because I use to work for HFAC. :)
Herseth Sandlin is a very strong incumbent so it indeed would take a 1994 scenario for the race to even be close altho I strongly suspect that Nelson can make the race into single digits. He would be a far stronger candidate in a open seat race but I guess he didnt’ want to wait until Herseth Sandlin leaves.
Also Cliff, Herseth Sandlin would have been the underdog in the gubernetorial race: while Democrats have some sucess at the federal level, at the state level South Dakota is heavily Republican and she would be going against the tide. Even in a competive race in her house seat, she has incumbency on her side, so unlike in a guberneotrial race, she is the one with the advantage.
I recognize that a gubernatorial race would have been tougher, for essentially the reasons you stated, but given her popularity and the lower profile of her likely Republican opponents, and the fact that she is seen correctly as a true moderate (at least so far) I think would have made her at worst a 50/50 shot. And her big reason for not running, according to her, was that she just had a kid, and that she was just now settled into her life. Sine she’ll now have to run a real race, which will obviously take energy, I wonder if she doesn’t just regret not going for it.
Cliff, as I said before, it will be much easier for her to run as an incumbent House Representive in which voters are comfortable (and have a history) voting Democratic then merely being a challanger in a gubernentorial race in which the last Democrat to be elected was in 1970. She has less than 50/50 chance, she would more likely start at 45/55 against a generic Republican. The current announced Republicans in the gubernentorial race are not “low profile”, the State Majority Leader and the Lt. Governor are both running for the GOP nominaton for Governor. Either of those two would have an advantage over Hearth Sandlin, no matter how beloved she is as a House Reprensentive.
At least she has has icumbency and much better history for Democrats in federal office going for her in a House race, and certainly its easier for a mother to raise her young child if she knows she won’t be an underdog in a political race.
One thing that I believe that will help her is that she has a larger share of positive national news coverage than a great majority of her colleagues. This may just be me, but I seem to hear her name a good deal, while who hears, say, Brad Sherman’s name frequently?