Tweet
Alan Mollohan, a 14-term incumbent from the northern tier in West Virginia, lost his re-election bid in the Democratic primary last night. This could be cause for cheer, as Mollohan, a conservative Democrat and a member of the Stupak bloc, was not exactly a progressive’s dream. But his opponent, state Senator Mike Oliverio, ran pretty hard to his right during the campaign. You can see his issues page and see one bad position after another. Oliverio even hedged on whether he would support Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker.
However, it’s more likely this race turned on issues of corruption than ideology:
Mollohan hadn’t faced a serious primary fight in more than a decade and was seen in some circles as unbeatable, given that the state’s 1st Congressional District seat had been in his family since 1968. (His father held it for seven terms before he won it.)
But state Sen. Mike Oliverio ran hard against Mollohan’s entrenched-incumbent status and made much of the lingering whiff of ethics problems that dogged the congressman for years.
With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Oliverio had 56 percent of the vote to Mollohan’s 44 percent. In November, he will face former state delegate David McKinley, who won the Republican primary Tuesday night.
The Democratic race had become very nasty in its final weeks, with Oliverio referring to Mollohan as “one of the most corrupt members of Congress” and the incumbent retorting that his opponent was “lying” and “spreading right-wing smears.”
Mollohan barely escaped indictment last year, and his constituents knew well the long process and revelations leading up to that.
More than anything, this race may have been the inevitable outcome from yet another change electorate. As constituent John Cole notes, his Congressman has been named Mollohan for his entire life – first the father, then the son. In an anti-incumbent environment, Mollohan was a sitting duck, and he didn’t do the work to stop the challenge. He won’t be the last.
Residents who know Oliverio say he isn’t quite as conservative as his profile suggests, and Mollohan was on that side anyway, so this might be a wash from an ideological standpoint, though Oliverio now must defeat David McKinley, a popular former legislator, in the general election. But this definitely speaks to the deep anti-incumbent mood in the country.
16 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The fall elections will only go the Republicans way if they are successful at flipping the script of the last eight years onto the Obama administration.
If Americans keep their heads up where the sun does not shine about how our economy ended up in the ditch after two wars (one completely unnecessary) the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, energy policy being set by Cheney behind closed doors, the underminig of our National security by the Bush administration by not listening to the warnings of Richard Clarke, outing undercover agent Valerie Plame etc. If Americans want to ignore that many of the Republicans rubbers stamped Bush and Cheneys’a agenda. Steal from the middle class and give to the rich…then Americans deserve what they get if they are that easy to confuse
I call it a win:)
I didn’t believe Kissel et al were having trouble just because they voted against the health care bill, and don’t think Mollohan’s loss is due to the fact that he voted for it.
It’s probably unique to each district and defies attempts to pin it universally on one thing. I’d imagine West Virginia being what it is, Mollohan’s vote for cap & trade probably did him more harm.
One thing’s for certain — the anti-incumbent sentiment is extremely strong, no matter what regional shape it takes.
I hear you, but how is that so different from what’s happening now under BHO?? I ask that sincerely and with respect. I don’t see much difference.
I think that pretty much tracks with my thinking. If a challenger can find whatever reason to help a voter turn out an incumbent, the voters will do it.
Phoenix Woman has a fresh cross-post already in progress: Meet Baudoin Prot, the New Resident of Number Ten Downing Street
Mollohan, with all his baggage about being corrupt, managed to get re-elected, no problem, in ’08 when it was on the front burner. He screwed up BIG TIME by being a reliable vote for the Obama-Pelosi agenda instead of representing his constituents while we were awake and watching him. It was not just his vote for the Health Care Bill. That was the LAST straw and what did him in, as it turned the pro-lifers against him just as it did with Stupac.
We will be watching Oliverio once he’s elected, and if he doesn’t represent us, he’ll go the way of Mollohan in short order.
Yeah, you guys are real good at turning out faithless incumbents.
There are 40 year olds in your congressional district who’ve always had a Congressman Mollohan. I imagine whoever gets elected this year will have a long, comfortable stay in office.
I don’t know, the typical American has a pretty short attention span so I dobn’t think it’ll take all that much. I really think it all depends on what sort of messaging the republicans put together.
I’ve been around since Mollohan, Robert the Elder, took bribes from my Dad. It wakes up the electorate when they see their representative take his phone off the hook and vote the San Francisco way. We’re “bitter clingers” around here. After a term or two, we may go back to sleep, but until then, Oliverio will be watched and dispatched if he pulls a Mollohan.
Bingo… we have a winner.
The “pro-life” forces have put a substantial amount of money into defeating Democrats in the Stupak caucus who voted for the health care bill. These “pro-life” groups still buy the argument that the health care bill funds abortions. Which makes me think that the “pro life” movement has become what it always seemed — a Republican front group.
Oliveria might not benefit as much as he thought he would by his victory under the “pro life” banner. Democrats could very well lose this seat.
Oliverio is the next Congressman from District # 1 unless he really screws up while campaigning. Most people around here register as Democrats because that is where the action is. Once you have won the Democratic primary, most races are over. The Republican party is an oxymoron, and it is probably stronger in this part of the state than anywhere else which means it is virtually non-existent. The national Republican party wastes no time or money in WV, W PA or E OH beyond a token amount in a Presidential race. If they had, this entire area would have turned “red” long ago.
Oliverio has even pledged that he will NOT vote for Pelosi for Speaker if he’s elected which is about the ONLY thing any Republican could have used to persuade WV Democrats not to vote for him.
I’m a little dubious about corruption being the reason for his ouster – if this were an anti-corruption election, guys like Lipinski would be in big trouble. They are not, though. WV is such an atypical state that I would be hesitant to hazard a guess as to the true reasons – maybe it’s simply incumbent fatigue, or anti-Obama sentiment from both sides, or maybe just economic anger manifesting itself as anti-incumbent sentiment.
Maybe the reason this election went as it did is because the voters in WV-1 are simpletons and fools?
Seriously; look who they selected 14 times in a row before this.
There is always great temptation to generalize from the specific, and in politics early in an election period that temptation is almost irresistable. But we should resist, and try to view each district as its own universe rather than try to force-fit every local development into our own favorite narrative. “Anti-incumbent” fervor is what every out-of-power party tries to whip up, and this time is no different. Much more likely, a majority of voters will make their selections based on who they feel they know and what they think about that individual rather than some focus-group selected single-topic messaging.
The Democrats will be fine in their majority, and may even pick up a couple of Senate seats net. I will happily trade a dozen or so House losses for 61 caucus votes in the Senate.
The problem is that Obama is not significantly different from Bush where it matters. He’s still bailing out Wall St while tens of millions of Americans are out of work, and out of hope. His HCR bails out the health care insurance industry (i.e. Death Panels R US). He’s still got us in two wars. He’s still running Gitmo.
He has not created the space necessary be significantly different from Bush. His role model for making that space is obviously FDR. You can say a lot of things about Obama (and too much has been said) but he’s no FDR by a long shot.
The Republicans will lie like crazy going into 2010 (they are very good liars), and will win enough seat to gridlock Washington. Obama is probably counting on this for a chance at re-election on 2012. Honestly, he had the whole country behind him after his election, and he’s choosing to throw that advantage away.