What's The State Of Play For Lott's Vacant Seat?
So with Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) resigning, what's the overall state of play for his seat? The bottom line is that a Republican will immediately replace Lott, and the GOP is still favored to hold on to the seat — but Democrats might just have an opening if they can get a good candidate, and they sure have more money to throw around than the GOP does.
Mississippi's Republican Governor Haley Barbour will make an appointment to the seat, and the appointee will stay until a special election in November 2008, coinciding with the presidential race. That alone will favor the GOP, as President Bush won 60% of the vote in Mississippi in 2004, and 57% of the vote in 2000. Thus any potential Democratic nominee would need a lot of ticket-splitting in order have a chance.
On the Democratic side, the field of prospective candidates is pretty thin. The GOP won all but a single statewide office in this month's elections, leaving incumbent state Attorney General Jim Hood as the sole winning Democrat. As such, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will probably look to Hood himself, or his predecessor Mike Moore, to try and make the race. If neither Hood nor Moore run, the Democrats' already uphill fight would become even harder.
As for the appointment itself, CNN reports that Mississippi's two Republican Congressmen, Chip Pickering and Roger Wicker, are the leading choices for the job. But in another sign of just how severe the feeling is among Republicans that they won't be getting majorities any time soon, sources say that Pickering — who already announced his retirement from the House — would probably turn down a promotion to the Senate if it were offered to him.
Don't underestimate Attorney General Moore... There is also a possibility that Barbour might appoint a care-taker, which would dramatically improve Dem chances.
Here are detailed Senate rankings.
November 26, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please. Barbour had his Republican buddies take out Don Siegelman so he, Barbour, had clear sailing to the governorship; his appointment will be calculated to the nth degree to assure continued GOP hegemony in MS.
November 26, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
principle aside,
do we really want a conservative democrat in the senate who will just be another Zell Miller who will be against the democratic administration?
or is it just better to have a red blooded republican represent this backwards state in the US senate and concentrate on electing progressives from Maine and MN?
November 26, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thrackazog, you have your hideously benighted, poor, reactionary, failed states confused. Siegelman was governor of Alabama.
November 26, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) Mike Moore is no Zell Miller.
2) Better to have somebody who will vote with us half the time than never, particularly when there's a filibuster to break
3) The Dems have so much cash that they don't have to choose, while it forces Republicans to stretch themselves even further. Plus Mississippi is a really cheap state to run in - no major media markets.
November 26, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thrackazog:
Siegelman was Governor of Alabama, not Mississippi.
November 26, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
To play devil's advocate, Barbour does have RNC connections, having been the chair, and Alabama is a neighboring state which I'm sure Barbour likes having a GOP Governor. He could still have had an interest in Siegelman's defeat.
November 26, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Here's the perspective of a Mississippi Democrat.
Roger Wicker is in the 1st Congressional District, on which the Democrats had a lock before the retirement of Jamie Whitten in 1994. If Wicker moves up, there will be a fight for that seat, but, because of the white-flight suburbs of Memphis, the Republicans will have a slight advantage.
Don't count Moore out. He's a strong state-wide campaigner, and whoever noted that he is no Zel Miller is absolutely right. I think he'd be a very strong candidate against Wicker, who does not have that high a profile in South Miss., and probably against Pickering.
Hood I'd think would be somewhat less strong. I'd also have guess that Ronnie Musgrove might well throw his hat in, which would also make it a real race.
I think it's a long shot for the Democrats, but with a decent candidate it will not be a lock for the Republicans and they will have to put resources in it.
I'm wondering if Jamie Franks (ran a credible bid for Lt. Gov. and is a good guy) is hoping its Wicker that moves up, opening the congressional seat in Franks's district....
November 26, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
From an ex-Mississippi Democrat and current Virginia Democrat, I agree with TomF. Moore and Musgrove could each make it a real race. I personally like Moore a bit more(lol?). I am also wondering if Taylor (D-5) might run for it also. He has very wide margins of victory on the coast. The downside is that anything dealing with the coast tends to have negative vibes once you pass Hattiesburg.
November 26, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the Democrats' chances of picking up this seat are slim to none, the party has nothing to lose by contesting it. The Republicans will have to expend resources to defend it 4 years early — in a cycle when they're already in big trouble. With the Dems awash in cash, they ought to pour money into the seat regardless of their chances, in order to tie down the Republicans in their own backyard.
The Democratic Party's governing majority will come in the Northeast, Midwest, Mountain and Western states. Let the Republicans have Mississippi — but make them bleed for it.
November 26, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ron Thompson, my apologies to you and everyone else. I keep up with Scott Horton so religiously that I should know better, but the wires got crossed this morning.
November 26, 2007 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should check on the law? I think if he resigns by the end of the year the governor may have to call a special election to fill the seat on an interim basis.
November 26, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, you see trent lot show up in the middle of a federal investigation for corruption. Check out FBI tapes, lol, and suddenly he resigns... Its a crazy world. Why would the Lott'ster want to get out now? I cannot immagine!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/23738/1/now_veco_cbc_112307.wmv
have fun with the corrupt bastards club!
November 26, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read in several sources, including the Biloxi Sun Herald (http://www.sunherald.com/), that if Lott resigns before the end of this year (2007) Barbour must call a special election within 90 days. If Lott waits until 2008, then his appointed replacement holds office until the reguarly schedueld elections.
So it comes down to the real reason Lott is Fleeing leaving office suddenly. If it's to cash in on lucrative lobbyist deals, he'll leave before 2008 when new lobbyist laws take effect. If it's for any other reason, then I expect he'll stick around until 2008, to give his appointed replacement plenty of time to solidify his position and nake it harder for a Dem challenger.
November 26, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mississippi will elect a Republican to the Senate, especially in a presidential election year. Next topic.
November 26, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is no, Dems have no chance in Mississippi. Even if every Republican candidate in Mississippi turned out to be a homosexual pedophile, and Jesus himself was running as a Dem, the answer would still be no.
November 26, 2007 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of this stereotyping of Mississippi is EXACTLY why we Democrats have earned a reputation as an elitist party.
This is not 1965. Many progressively-minded people live in Mississippi. So do many African American voters. Nearly a third of the state is black.
And in case you were unaware, both state houses are run by Democrats.
Will the candidate from Mississippi be a hard-core progressive? No. But he or she would vote with the Democrats to caucas, and about half their votes would go along with the party, if not more.
If we really want to build our majority, we need to open our party to the economic populists who left the party in the 1980s. We need to acknowledge that not everyone who may be a Democrat believes in Gay Marriage, AA, Abortion,or other cultural issues.
What Southern Democrats do believe in, however, is economic justice, government and corporate accountability and judicious use of our military.
Not all Southern Democrats are Zell Miller -- who in all honesty confused most of his Southern colleagues with his bizzare transformation.
If we can get a victory there, we should embrace the candidate, even if he or she doesn't agree with the entire platform.
That's how you build a party.
November 26, 2007 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there anything to stop Barbour from naming himself to the seat and leaving open the govnorship?
November 26, 2007 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Ron Charest wrote.
It seems likely that Barbour is trying to play fast and loose with the law, and will try to let Lott resign in 2007 without scheduling the special election in 90 days.
I doubt Attorney General Moore will let him get away with *that*.
Even if Lott postpones his resignation until 2008, Democrats still have a chance of winning it.
November 27, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Idc, I'm from Mississippi and I agree with you. There's a lot challenges with any southern state, but I truly believe that the right message can get through. Accountability, fairness, personal choices these are all things most southerns believe in and are at the core what the Democrats stand for. It may take some time, but it's not a hopeless cause.
November 27, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink