The Indiana Democratic Party is now tasked with placing a Senate candidate on the general election ballot. As we have discussed repeatedly over the past few days, the two men most likely to secure the appointment are Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill. A few other names are mentioned, including Rep. Joe Donnelly, but the odds that the party’s Senate candidate comes from the House only increased since former Governor Joe Kernan and Evansville Mayor Jon Weinsapfel took themselves out of the running.
As such, I put together a simple table looking at the House records of all the Democratic members of Indiana’s delegation so we get to know them better. (While it would be a huge surprise if Indiana’s executive party committee chose Progressive Caucus-member Joe Andre Carson and it is virtually impossible that they go for Rep. Pete Vislosky, since the longtime congressman is embroiled in investigations for corruption, there is no reason not to get as full a picture as possible. Also, I understand that this exercise is inherently flawed since it leaves out those Democrats who are not members of the House, and there are indeed a few names of non-congressmen that have been floated in recent days. But throwing them in this mix would come to comparing apples to oranges.)
While three of these five Democrats have served less than two terms, they have already taken plenty of interesting votes along the way. I analyze their voting records after this table:
Ellsworth |
Hill |
Donnelly |
Carson |
Visclosky |
|
Dates in House |
07-now |
99-05
|
07-now |
08-now |
85-now |
Age |
51 |
56 |
54 |
35 |
60 |
Caucus |
Blue Dog |
Blue Dog |
Blue Dog |
CPC |
- |
Patriot Act (01) |
- |
Yes |
- |
- |
No |
Iraq resolution (02) |
- |
Yes |
- |
- |
No |
FMA (03) |
would have supported |
No |
- |
- |
No |
Unborn Victims of Violence Act (04) |
- |
Yes |
- |
- |
No |
Stem-cell Research (07) |
No |
Yes |
No |
- |
Yes |
Redeployment (07) |
No |
No |
No |
- |
Yes |
Free Trade with Peru (07) |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
- |
No |
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (07) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
FISA Act (08) |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
- |
bailout 1 (08) |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
bailout 2 (08) |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
stimulus (09) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
war supplemental (09) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
cash-for-clunkers (09) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
foreclosure bill (09) |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
cap-and-trade (09) |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
GOP’s motion to recommit on health-care (09) |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
health-care reform (09) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Stupak amendment (09) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
financial regulation reform (09) |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
With Ellsworth, Hill and Donnelly all prominent members of the Blue Dog Coalition, they have all repeatedly bucked their party over the years. For instance, they all voted in favor for the Stupak amendment, which severely restricted abortion funding, and they all opposed legislation providing for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq. Inversely, all three supported the health-care bill back in October; the conservative trio’s unlikely unanimous support was much commented at the time.
Ellsworth’s two most eye-popping votes occurred on legislation to expand stem-cell research in 2007 and on 2009’s stimulus bill; he joined just 15 and 10 Democrats to oppose these bills. While I was aware of Ellsworth’s stance on these two issues, a third vote surprised me: While he supported the health-care bill, Ellsworth did so only after backing the GOP’s motion to recommit, a measure that would have essentially killed the measure; he was the only Indiana Democrat to do so.
Other votes on which Ellsworth bucked the majority of his party: Supporting free trade with Peru, opposing the Waxman-Markey Act (which established a cap-and-trade system) and the foreclosure bill (which allowed judges to impose mortgage renegotiations). He also said he would have voted for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, though he joined the chamber after the 2004 and 2006 votes took place.
While Hill has taken numerous votes that place him to the chamber’s right, I am unable to identify a roll call that leaves him quite as far to the right as Ellsworth’s stem cell and stimulus votes, two bills Hill supported. He also voted for the Waxman-Markey Act and he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, a noteworthy move considering that three dozen conservative Democrats voted to ban gay marriage that same day. Another issue on which I was surprised by Hill’s vote is the bill amending FISA by allowing warantless wiretaps: While nearly half of the Democratic caucus supported the bill (including Ellsworth and Donnelly), Hill opposed it.
That leaves many votes on which Hill bucked his party, notably his opposition to redeploying troops out of Iraq, his support for Stupak and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. While Hill supported his party’s “Big 3″ in 2009 (stimulus, Waxman-Markey, health-care), he opposed two major Democratic initiatives: The foreclosure bill, which I mention above, and also the financial regulation bill,which both Ellsworth and Donnelly supported.
Donnelly, meanwhile, opposed stem-cell research, Waxman-Markey and redeployment out of Iraq; he also backed the FISA bill. However, he supported both the foreclosure bill and the financial regulation bill on top of the stimulus and health-care reform. The only vote that stands out here is his opposition to stem-cell research given how few Democrats voted that way; also noteworthy is that he was the only one of Indiana’s 3 Blue Dogs to oppose free trade with Peru, indicating he might have a more hostile stance towards free trade.
Conclusion
Democrats want to defend Indiana’s Senate seat, but they should also want to govern, by which I mean pass legislation - any legislation (2009 showed how difficult it is to do that, since even the student loan bill is blocked in the Senate). A look at his House record indicates that Brad Ellsworth could be even harder for the Democratic caucus to win over on important and not-so-important votes than Evan Bayh. Besides his opposition to the stimulus, foreclosure reform and stem-cell research, his vote for the health care-bill’s recommit motion also opens questions about his willingness to use procedural maneuvers rather than a more straightforward opposition to block a bill.
Baron Hill appears generally less willing to put himself in the front lines of conservative opposition and to buck his party if a significant share of his fellow Democrats are not doing so as well; his “no”s on the FMA and FISA and his “yes” on the 2009 Big 3 are particularly noteworthy. Yet, other votes (his opposition to foreclosure reform and the financial regulation bill) raise questions as to whether he tends to buck Democrats on lower-profile votes, which are as important as those that spark headlines on CNN. While Hill is much less likely to emerge as a Ben Nelson, his background as a former lobbyist raises a whole other series of questions about his ideological profile, not to mention his electability.
If it comes down to these two congressmen, do progressives have enough to gain from Hill to not choose based on that latter factor? In any case, Evansville Mayor Jon Weinsapfel’s decision to pull his name out was a blow to those looking for a less conservative alternative, and I don’t know enough about the other options the state party might consider. Based on this Vote Smart profile of state Senator Vi Simpson, she does look to be further to the left than Hill and Ellsworth. The party might also consider someone who hasn’t held elected office, but in that case it will obviously be much harder to know much about their political beliefs until they start voting in the Senate.
—
Corrections and update: I had Joe Donnelly and Andre Carson’s votes on the second version of the financial bailout wrong, as they both supported it whereas I had written that they both oppose it. Also, it is worth pointing out that Ellsworth supported the stimulus bill’s conference report (which only 7 Democrats opposed), though that doesn’t make him any less isolated for opposing the House version (only 11 Democrats voted no).
Finally, I apparently missed a major vote: Ellsworth and Donnelly were among just 17 Democrats to oppose the Matthew Shepard Act, the hate-crimes bill that passed with the support of 18 Republicans.
Hill is a former lobbyist. Selecting him would undercut the Dem’s biggest talking point against Coats. On the other hand, Hill has nothing left to lose — he is likely to lose his bid for re-election in the 9th District, which may end his political career.
Ellsworth, IMHO, is the stronger statewide candidate. However, he has a very promising future in Indiana politics and I wonder if he really wants to risk it with a 2010 Senate run. In almost any other cycle, I think he would be a strong favorite to win the race. But given the dynamics of 2010 he may lose — even against a weak candidate like Coats. So he faces a dilemma similar to that faced by Beau Biden: win certain re-election in his current position (unlike Hill, Ellsworth is not an endangered incumbent) or risk trying to move up in an inhospitable environment.
I’m torn between wanting Hill and wanting Ellsworth.
Ellsworth departing will hand a House seat to the R’s that they won’t win unless he leaves. Hill, on the other hand, is likely to lose his house seat in any event.
Ellsworth, on the other hand, has a better chance of winning the house seat, although Republicans will still be favored. Hill, frankly, will get murdered. He’s not all that popular in his district, the youtube video of his town hall meeting isn’t going to help, and he’s not conservative enough for Indiana.
So, in the end, :shrugs:. They both have their ups and downs. It’s still a disastrous situation for D’s.
The above post should say Ellsworth has a better chance of winning the SENATE sead, not house seat.
If Ellsworth or Hill runs for the senate, their seat will be picked by the Republicans. IN-8 is an R+8 district, and Hill’s district is an R+6 district. Ellsworth is more conservative than Hill, or at least from what I can tell. If I was a betting man, I would imagine that Ellsworth will run for the Senate this year and Hill will either make a run for Governor or Senate, should Lugar retire.
Truth of the matter is that I’m a big Lugar fan. He’s a good ole fashion conservative that doesn’t get caught up in the finger pointing that goes on in DC. I thought that Bayh and Lugar complimented each other well as Indiana Senators. I think Ellsworth is along the same mold as Bayh, maybe a bit more socially conservative. He’s a principled person that can take a lot of the partisanship out of the equation. I’m also a big Bayh fan. I hear the argument that he supported most of all of Obama’s major initiatives, but the same could be said about Lugar and George W. Bush. These guys have a rare ability to listen to the opposing side without being a jerk about it. The Indiana GOP candidates are much more partisan in nature than Ellsworth or Hill.
but the same could be said about Lugar and George W. Bush
Right.
But it’s a center-right country, not a center-left country. There’s a much greater price to be paid in supporting a President who’s pushing leftism on a center right country, less in reverse.
Yes Cliff, the United States is a “center-right” nation. I agree. If you compare the Democrats and the Republicans to other major parties of industrialized nations, you will see that both parties are “center-right”. Both parties are not really that opposite of each other if you do objectively compare them to other countries. Both parties promote Capitalism, although Obama would love to change that for the Democrats. Both parties promote freedom. The US Democratic and Republican parties are far superior to any other National political party in the world.
Obama is definitely left of center, no question about it. I’m no fan of Obama, so I won’t try to beat that dead horse. Luckily for our nation the soon to be ex-Senate Majority Leader Reid is a weak leader. He can’t lead his caucus because he’s trying to be more “left-of-center” than he’s comfortable with. Evan Bayh doesn’t care for Reid one bit at all, and I’m sure that’s one of the many reasons why he’s hanging his hat. Bayh was also a thorn in Reid’s backside. That’s a good thing too. If you are disgusted with the Democrats, you should only imagine what legislation would have been passed if Bayh wasn’t in the majority party’s caucus. He’s more effective than Landrieu and Nelson in the fact he won’t take a “kickback” for his state. That’s admirable. It’s also important for both the Democrats and the Republicans to have “thorns in their backside” to keep the respective parties grounded. the Democrats have Lieberman and Bayh and the Republicans have Snowe and Collins. There should be more of them in the Senate, but instead both parties follow the dreaded herd mentality of follow the leader.
Thanks for the detailed rundown on the records of the probable leading candidates to be chosen by the people in the back room as the Democratic nominee to succeed the disgraceful Bayh. My own analysis of civil liberties votes showed me that Hill was way more progressive than either Ellsworth or Donnelly (who are pretty much like DINO twins). So, since I’d rather be indirectly represented by the real thing (a Republican) than a DINO, I hope, regardless of the prospects of winning, that they go with Hill if it’s going to be one of the three. Hill would be lousy on a few votes, but the other two (being DINOs) would be lousy on a lot of them.
Why do you get every name wrong!!!!! It’s Andre Carson not Joe Carson.
Cliff, I do think Democrats would have a shot at keeping IN-8 if Ellsworth departs because the GOP does not have a top-tier candidate field (and the filing deadline has passed), whereas Democrats could appoint a top-tier contender and at least have a shot at defending the seat, even in this environment.
steve, I apologize if, in spending many hours a day blogging for no revenue, I at times mess up the first names’ of the dozens of people I mention.
Taniel, I don’t mind the occasional typos, because it’s always clear what you’re saying and that’s what matters. Thanks for blogging.
Cicero, I agree with what you’re saying about the political process in America, and the need for independent-minded legislators in both parties. I also think what you said about Reid deserves some attention. People forget that Reid was considered a fairly conservative, very Mountain-Westish Democrat before becoming Majority Leader. Associated with the leftist elements of the Democratic Party and its legislative agenda has severely imperiled his reelection chances, just as it torpedoed Tom Daschle before him. The Dems would be well served by avoiding agenda items that anger independent voters in the future–or, more realistically, they should choose a leader from a more liberal state. Schumer would be a good choice, from a political perspective, because it’s hard to imagine his NY seat becoming vulnerable.
Nathan,
Interesting ideas on majority leaders. The bigger question might be why is it that many leaders allow themselves to get pulled to the left for Dems, or right for the GOP. I guess they stay in power too long.
Schumer would actually be a good majority leader for simple reason that he isn’t a far left liberal. He worked really hard as leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and thus understands that if he wants his members to get reelected, they have to have legislation that they can be comfortable voting for and have a leader that they aren’t embarrassed to be seen with in public. Schumer even went hunting in Nebraska with Sen. Nelson. I can’t picture Nancy Pelosi shooting a pheasant, unless it was under glass.
After this fall, Reid will most likely be gone. The Dems will probably choose between Schumer and Sen. Durbin of Illinois, a good man, but prone to putting his foot in his mouth on occasion. Schumer is a great fighter, something the Dems will need, since their numbers are going to be around 50, slightly above or slightly below.
Congressman André Carson is flattered by the mentions of course. He got 65% of the vote in Indianapolis but he also understands this is not the cycle for an African-American and a Muslim to run statewide…
Assuming that Reid loses his job this year, I would definitely vouch for Schumer over Durbin for Majority leader because Durbin just isn’t that interesting while Schumer has his experience as head of the DSCC and is telegenic on camera. I also see him being much more effective in whipping up Dem votes than Durbin (certainly more than Reid).
I will always say that Trent Lott was a fine Majority Leader. He and Tom Daschle were a fine team. They worked better together than any minds in recent history. The two men respected each other, knew that they needed each other and need the other to succeed. Reid and McConnell should be a reality show. Both of them have the leadership of an amoeba. Give me a Schumer from the Democrats and a Lamar Alexander from the Republicans, and we will see some good leadership. Lamar is a heck of a lot better than McConnell, and he has brains. He’s a lot smarter than Frist was too, although Frist was glad to tout his medical degree.
Cicero, I agree with you about the political process.
It is a shame the Democrats and Republicans alike voted down the President’s and Senator Gregg’s idea of a binding commission looking into tax and spending. Instead the President is enacting by executive order a commission to look into the deficit. A shame some of the partisans on here who complain about the deficit (Cliff looking at you) don`t complain about their side letting politics enter into the process. They are putting politics before the nations well-being, so much for being patriotic Americans.
Cicero, I respect your views but find it hard to understadn why you say Obama is weak on foreign policy when you see the Dalai Lama coming to visit the WH tomorrow (pissing of the Chinese) and allowing arms to be sold to Taiwan (again pissing of the Chinese). Not the actions of a weak, apology only President.
Jaxx, I agree with you about having Schumer as majority (or minority) leader. As Cliff has approvingly observed having 40 senators is good enough to stop anything - by over using the filibuster. In the interests of consistency I assume he would not complain if the Dems with 40+ senators do the same when the GOP has a majority. I won`t hold my breathe though!
A shame some of the partisans on here who complain about the deficit (Cliff looking at you) don`t complain about their side letting politics enter into the process.
As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about and are debating what you want me to say, as opposed to what I actually say.
Notice, I recently said:
BTW, I agree that the Republicans were cynical on the debt commission thing though.
http://campaigndiaries.com/2010/02/16/when-democrats-are-left-hoping/#comment-54969
I believe an apology is in order.
But I seriously doubt you are man enough to extend one. Prove me wrong.
Cliff, I do think Democrats would have a shot at keeping IN-8 if Ellsworth departs because the GOP does not have a top-tier candidate field (and the filing deadline has passed), whereas Democrats could appoint a top-tier contender and at least have a shot at defending the seat, even in this environment.
Ellsworth is a REALLY exceptional candidate and Hostettler was an exceptionally poor one (I would have voted for Ellsworth most likely in ‘06) and because of it he was able to hold the district. There is not another Ellsworth in the district and the district is very, very R. “Generic Republican” who isn’t a insane (read Hostettler) beats “Really Good Democrat” in this district. You need “Bad Republican” vs.”Great Democrat” to win. Particularly in this cycle.
Dr. Larry Bucshon is the likely R nominee and while he’s hardly top-tier, he’s a physician and a vet, has raised nearly $100K and at the very least is the sort of candidate that, given sufficient resources (which he’ll get for an open seat), will win this district against a non-”Great Democrat.” In a district like this in a year like this, his lack of political experience could actually be a plus. And I’m pretty sure there is no other Brad Ellsworth in this district.
Do I think it’s IMPOSSIBLE that the D’s would hold the seat? No. But I’d give them roughly the same chance as Republicans holding Delaware’s House Seat and the D’s don’t have the wind at their back.
I dont think Ellsworth should throw away his career on this very iffy Senate race in a horrible year for Democrats. It would be like Michael Steele running for Senate in Maryland in 2006.
Not all of Obama’s foreign policy is wrong. However, he’s apologized several times too many for us being a world military power. I don’t think we were wrong whatsoever for going into Iraq or Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war should have been over many years ago, but the Rumsfield powers-to-be ruined the objective. Same with Iraq. I could care less that no WMD’s were found. Saddam was a cold-blooded killer who needed to be knocked out. That war has probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives, lives that would have been executed because of Saddam. We did the job, but we won’t leave the nation. We need to get out, and the heck with the consequences of leaving. If Obama was a strong-willed president, he would get our men and women back home so they can reunite with their families. Instead, he’s following the failed strategies of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield with a twist of an apology.
Taniel, a few things:
-Donnelly is younger than 57.
-Ellsworth voted AGAINST the House version of the stimulus bill, but FOR the conference report.
-I think you have some of the votes wrong on what you describe as “bailout 2.”
Ernie, thanks for the corrections. I updated my post with a notice at the bottom.
Cliff, I apologise that I missed a one line sentence in a very long comment by you. I put my hands up to an honest mistake.
I therefore assume you approve of the Presidents executive order? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Cliff, I graciously accept your apology since you “seriously” doubted I would be “man enough”.
It looks at though Ellsworth is going to run. He’ll be running in a tough environment, but, against Coats, he’ll do well. He was against cap and trade and for healthcare, something most Dems could live with. He not only beat Hostettler in 2006, a good year for Dems, but, in this Republican leaning district, he clobbered him taking a margin of over 20 points. Ellsworth is strong and confident, Indianans will be very comfortable voting for him.
Ellsworth is already behind according to the first polling on the race from Rasmussen. He doesn’t even break 32%. Yikes!
He only represents 1 of 9 congressional districts in the entire state, in other words, only 11% of the state even know him, he was only in Congress for a little over 3 years, and was the Sheriff before that. He has plenty of room to grow. Coats, as a former Senator, is under 50% against someone most people don’t know. I realize it will be a tough race this year, but Ellsworth has plenty of room to grow. Just wait until the Dems are replaying the Coats video in their commercials, the video where Coats says he wants to retire to North Carolina.
The Rasmussen polls do not look good for Ellsworth. I’m not surprised by the polls results, except that Hostettler outperforms Coats in head to head matchups with Ellsworth. That was surprising.
I imagine that Bayh’s quick withdrawal has a certain influence on this poll. Many could conclude that Bayh is right, that DC is too partisan and therefore a Republican should be elected. If that is the case, I wonder if that will subside as the race goes on.
“Just wait until the Dems are replaying the Coats video in their commercials . . .” — Gerard
Just wait until the GOP plays their commercial detailing Ellsworth’s embrace of the Pelosi-Obama health care plan. And their second commericial detailing Ellsworth’s embrace of the Wall Street bank bailouts. I bet those are a couple of votes that Ellsworth would like to have back.
I doubt the Obamacare is polling much above 35% in Indiana. And support for the bank bailouts is probably running at about 20%.
Obamacare is not popular among those of us who don’t want spikes in our insurance premiums and medical costs. I’ve looked at the numbers, and the next 4-6 years you will see medical cost escalate. They might level out in 10 years, but by that time we all are going to be doling out money to the doctors in an unaceptable rate.
On the flip side of things, the Republicans have contributed not a thing to the health care debate. I hear a lot of whining and very little action except to say “no”. Maybe the Democrats and Republicans should determine what the problems are and a solution to fix it. Take baby steps. It doesn’t have to solve everything overnight.
I saw the Ras poll that TJ mentioned. Obama is not popular in Indiana. Luckily for the Dems, Ellsworth is not in the Obama mold…he’s in the moderate-conservative Indiana Democrat mold. What is just as telling is that none of the Republicans are polling over 50%. Ellsworth fits Indiana well. He and Lugar will make Indiana proud. Hostettler is a dangerous wacko, and I hot Coats wipes the floor with him. Coats was ineffective in his 8 years in the Senate. I will say that I don’t blame him for wanting to live in NC. NC is a beautiful state, and they don’t have the cold winters like Indiana.
Cicero - the GOP has its chance to show it plan (or plans) when they meet Obama. Lets see if they can get past “No”.