In my column last week, I wrote about the Democratic Party’s dramatic change of fortune in the race to control the Senate. The expectation at the start of this election cycle was that Republicans would hold the chamber easily and, depending on the course of events, even expand their majority. After all, just to maintain the status quo, Democrats had to defend incumbents in states that President Trump won handily. And to have any chance at a majority, they would need to defeat at least one incumbent — Susan Collins of Maine, for example — and overcome the Republican Party’s home-field advantage in at least two states. A tall order if there ever was one.
But thanks to a set of Trump’s bad decisions — from his authoritarian occupations of American cities that enraged liberal voters to a war in Iran that has angered swing voters and independents with inflation and high prices — Democrats have turned what was supposed to be a bad Senate map into one where they stand a real chance of winning a decently sized majority in the chamber.
But while the fundamentals determine the overall shape of the electoral landscape, candidates and campaigns play a meaningful part in the final outcome. And it is in the realm of candidates and campaigns that I want to remark on two particular aspects of this campaign season. The first is the wide gap in candidate quality between the Republicans and Democrats. In race after race, Democrats have managed to recruit and advance candidates who are well positioned to capitalize on changing political circumstances. Even if he were not facing off against Ken Paxton, an experienced but still strikingly weak candidate, James Talarico would still be an impressive recruit. He is a natural communicator — whose seminarian background and personal faith have been a great asset in winning over Texas voters — and he has proved to be both nimble and aggressive, able to hold Paxton’s feet to the fire despite facing an onslaught of cash from outside groups and actors, like Elon Musk.
You could say similar things of Adam Hamilton in Kansas, perhaps the surprise candidate of this cycle, who is running a competitive race against the Republican incumbent, Roger Marshall. Hamilton is a religious leader — the founder and senior pastor of the Church of the Resurrection, the largest United Methodist congregation in the United States — with broad appeal in a state that is, like Texas, known for its deep religious feeling. With his moderate politics, Hamilton has successfully presented himself as a bipartisan figure, with support from prominent Republicans in Kansas. It also helps that Marshall, a doctor, has struggled in the face of revelations that he took harsh and punitive action against his patients, dragging them to court for trivial amounts of money.
Other Democratic candidates, such as Josh Turek in Iowa, Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Troy Jackson in Maine, have also successfully capitalized on the Republican Party’s worsening electoral position. And even those Democrats who might be a little more progressive than their electorates — Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan — show a great deal of political talent and are well-positioned to win. As for the Republicans, the opposite appears to be true. There are a few candidates in the field who may well outperform the fundamentals, like the Iowa Senate nominee Ashley Hinson. Michele Tafoya in Minnesota also seems to be keeping up with her opponent. But beyond them, Republicans are working with candidates who are just not up to snuff. In Georgia, Mike Collins has been marred by his associations with white nationalists and other extremists, and is headed for a crushing defeat in his race against the incumbent, Senator Jon Ossoff. Darline Graham in South Carolina is barely ahead of her Democratic opponent, and again, this is South Carolina. The aforementioned Ken Paxton is such a lackluster candidate that he may well deliver the Texas Republican Party its first stat...
Source: New York Times Top Stories · Summarized by HeadlinesBriefing