Politics as Entertainment

The internet makes following political races so much easier than it used to be. Now a number of blogs regularly post polls from races across the country. News from those races can also be followed through political blogs, local news websites or just an email from a friend. For political geeks like me it is the golden age of political information overload. Since other sites are much better at providing information, I'll add some useless insight today. Judging from what I see and what I know, I give you a few of what will be the NASTY races and why I think they'll turn that way if they haven't already. By the way, no matter what any political geek says we do enjoy nasty races as entertainment if our side is giving better than it's getting.

Nastiness has one necessary condition: competiveness. All of the campaigns I note here are competitive or they wouldn't be here. If a losing campaign turns nasty it has no meaning except to make for a bigger loser. There are other factors that enhance the first condition: a desperate incumbent, a tradition of nasty politics, and two competing candidates that just don't like each other. I'll examine these in reverse order.

The Missouri Senate race and the Minnesota Governor's race are two excellent examples of candidates who just don't like one another.
In Minnesota incumbent governor Tim Pawlenty is being challenged by Attorney General Mike Hatch. As I understand it, these two men have their official offices across the hall from one another and the hallway has become like the "neutral zone" from Star Trek -- an area not to be passed. How did such disdain for one another start? I don't know, but it will show in the campaign. Look for this race to quickly violate all Minnesota nice rules.
In Missouri Claire McCaskill is trying to build on her near miss in the 2004 governor's race to take out incumbent Jim Talent. McCaskill is still ticked off by her near miss in the governor's race and this statewide battle is the major skirmish between the parties as Missouri Democrats attempt to actually beat a Republican with the name of Talent or Blunt. Democrats are pushing ballot proposals on stem cell research and the minimum wage to motivate their voters along with a lot of emphasis on corruption connections to people named Blunt and Talent in Missouri and Washington. Republicans need to hold this seat to make a Democratic Senate a total pipedream in 2006. Look for lots of national money on both sides as each party looks to begin swaying a frequent presidential race swing state.

The New Jersey Senate race and the Illinois governor's race are two examples of nasty campaigns as a political tradition.
Both of these states simply expect that candidates will be willing and able to fight in the gutter to get your vote. If a candidate is not willing to "do what is necessary" to win, voters don't want to bother with him or her. In New Jersey this is currently being demonstrated by the use of false accusations from each side on the ethics of the other. The Republicans charges had been proven false in a public investigation and the Democratic charges relate to a law that doesn't seem to apply to the Republican candidate. I've not seen similar news from Illinois, but it will come. Neither state has a great track record for honest politics, but if they did they wouldn't be nearly as fun.

The Senate races in Connecticut and Montana are examples of a desperate incumbent. In Montana Senator Conrad Burns is tied to ethics questions related to the Abramoff scandal and is weighed down by one of the lowest approval ratings in the Senate. In Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman refuses to let a Democratic primary get in the way of his re-election as he simultaneously runs in the Aug. 8th primary and gathers petition signatures for an independent run if he loses the primary. You can call that chutzpah, but it is really just another incumbent who just can't understand why this isn't as easy as it was six years ago. Incumbents who aren't ready to retire fight dirty and have the money to make it stick. Burns is in bigger trouble right now. However, I think Lieberman overestimates how much independent voters are paying attention to his campaign as a victim of liberal bloggers. When independents wake up to the Senate race in the fall, they may be wondering why two Democrats are running and wanting to know if this is the return of what Bush supporters in 2000 dubbed "Loserman."

I'll try to post links to the more entertaining aspects of the nastiness as the year goes along.