Tweet
Some bad news out of Maine: Chellie Pingree, the progressive member of Congress who considered running for Senate after Olympia Snowe retired, backed out of the race today. The presence of independent former Governor Angus King in the race was enough to get her to drop her plans. Here’s part of her thinking, per Greg Sargent:
But Pingree, after looking closely at her chances, determined that entering the race could pose too great a risk to Dem chances of holding the Senate, the Democrat familiar with her thinking tells me. Pingree did see a path to winning, and passing on the race cut against her competitive nature. But the entry of independent former governor Angus King would have meant they’d compete for many of the same voters, making a Republican victory more likely — a risk she was not prepared to take, the Democrat says.
Public Policy Polling did extensive polling of this race after King announced, and it showed that Pingree had a big edge in a Democratic primary and would win handily in a head-to-head matchup against all Republicans likely to run. However, in a three-way race with King, he wins 36-31-28 over Pingree and the best-polling Republican. However, check out PPP’s Dean Debham’s analysis of the race:
“Angus King and Chellie Pingree look like the early favorites in Maine,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “King will have a hard time holding onto his
early Democratic support without a pledge to caucus with the party if he’s elected to the
Senate.”
According to that analysis, as King faded, Pingree would benefit, and she only started out five points behind with King at the height of his announcement bounce. Pingree appears to have been scared off by the experience of 2010, where a Democrat and independent candidate similar on the issues gave away the race to Paul LePage, a Tea Party Republican. But the electorate will look far different in Maine in 2012.
Pingree and King are personally close, and that probably determined this more than anything. But Maine voters are getting shortchanged. King carries a business-friendly streak along with a socially liberal profile. There’s talk that the DSCC, with few other options, will now move to back King. The only other high-profile candidate out there on the Democratic side is former Governor John Baldacci, and he has a very similar profile as King. So this represents a step backward on ideological terms. And if King refuses the entreaties from the DSCC, and steadfastly refuses to caucus with either party, he becomes a non-entity at the committee level if he wins election, and he threatens to lose support from all sides during the election, for consigning Maine to insufficient representation.
Ultimately, this is a consequence of first-past-the-post voting. In an instant-runoff scenario, there would be virtually no opportunity for a Republican to sneak in when the Democrat and the independent have more overall support. First past the post, in this case, led to a less progressive outcome for the seat. And control of the Senate could also be at stake.
UPDATE: See if you can get through this interview with King without retching. I predict a migration of the nation’s High Broderist pundits to Maine just to have the honor of casting a ballot for one of their own.
16 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Why would Democrats vote for King with out a promise to caucus with the them? I heard rumblings that the DSCC was recruiting King to run. Is that true? Is King going to be a real jerk and wait to see what election night holds and see what he can secure from either party if he determines who controls the Senate?
This is the same Dimocrank party that turned on Ned Lamont in favor of Droopy Dog Liberman, sounds like more of the same.
That’s okay.
The US Senate probably has enough women now anyway.
Somebody’s got to fill the gaping hole left by the simultaneous departure of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. Looks like Angus fits the bill.
I know right?
The Democratic leadership is full of morons. The only way you get a working platform for women is to actually have women within the system that understand what being a women entails. I guess they like losing on issues like choice.
Except, of coure, that DSCC head Patty Murray seems to have welcomed Angus King with open arms, facilitating the departure of her fellow female, Pingree. Sad.
Oh some of the women in the party are part of the problem. Nancy Pelosi allowed the anti choice contingency to co opt the debate on health care and ultimately set us on this course where we are discussing access to contraception for people on religious grounds(the exact reason that was given for the conscience clause).
Democratic leadership sucks, they either don’t know or don’t care how negotiation and the Republican’s version of the Overton window works. The cynic in me says it is the latter rather than the former.
It’s not like any of this really matters. They’re just competing for an opportunity to enrich themselves at the corporate trough, at the expense of their constituents, and join the millionaires club in the Senate.
Even if that is the case, it matters.
FWIW, Pelosi is a devout Catholic. Perhaps that creates an impediment for science and womens rights. (Ya think?)
Harry Reid has used his own religiosity to ratfuck womens rights.
The two of them as as useless as a million tits on social security.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like the national Democratic apparatuses want to do everything in their power to keep Progressives at bay. Too close to the hated Occupy Movement I guess. Or if you are a cynic like me. Obama doesn’t want a Democratic congress, exploiting the 10% approval rating of Congressional incumbents, to upset Obama’s debt cutting agenda and his proud commitment to King Kong: Coal, Oil, Nukes and Natural Gas.
Obama is a Milton Friedman/Prescott Bush Republican dressed in a “Democratic” suit. He offers token resistance to the Republicans before instituting their policies, without any vigorous objections from the “Democrats”, because he’s one of their own.
This is one conspiracy theory I believe. Electing too many progressives pollutes the Democratic “brand,” which is center-right.
Regarding this post though, I had to read it twice and I still don’t understand: A Democrat is leaving the race because she doesn’t want to run up against someone with no party affiliation and hasn’t said he will caucus with the Democrats? But if King has no party, he would not be running against her in the primary – unless there will be no primary for this race.
As a devout Catholic she is certainly entitled to avoid having medical procedures that she does not agree with. She, however, should not be basing law that will apply to everyone on the basis of her personal religious beliefs.
It is completely unfair to carve out exceptions for some belief systems and to tell others to pound sand in regards to government.
Using her logic I should be exempt from paying my taxes towards the faith based initiatives because my personal belief system says that religion can corrupt government and government can corrupt religion.
Maybe he’d be a jumpin’ Jim Jeffords, but on steroids — caucus with the flavor of the week, then change.
If every one of them did that life would be more interesting. Cut the nuts off the leadership and keep them all playing musical chairs.
That sounds about right. Also I think the gov’t can’t properly recognize a religious entity seeking special favors, via exemption, which are denied to others.
Getting rid of premiums and mandates entirely is the key. Replace ACA with single payer / single source ultimately, and pay for it through the taxation system. For an antichoice advocate, then there is no soapbox to stand on in the revenue regime, which becomes treatment neutral.