« Newsweek: Obama's Appalachia Problem Is Real | Home | Ad Wars At Full Throttle In Top-Tier Senate Race »
GOP Senate Seat At Risk In Deep-Red State Of Mississippi?
In a sign that Republicans may sense they are at risk of losing a Senate seat in even the deep-red state of Mississippi, appointed incumbent Roger Wicker (R) has a new ad up introducing himself to voters five months before the election:
Recent polling has shown Wicker in a close race against former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D).
In the wake of a surprise House special election victory for the Democrats in the state a couple weeks ago, the possibility that a GOP Senate seat is even in play in Mississippi is a stunning reminder of the extent to which Republicans are on defense all over the map heading into this Fall.
Advertisement
Now it does say something about Obama's electability, doesn't it? When was the last time red states were in the contest for blues? The only reason MSM (newsweek for example) are focusing on Obama electability is because he's is the nominee. It doesn't mean Hillary doesn't have her share of serious electability issues.
May 26, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wicker's ad mentions 3 Senators by name, none of whom are Obama.
May 26, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's really the point. Obama is, in all likelihood, the nominee. That's been known for almost two weeks now.
The fact that a well known Republican in MS feels compelled to introduce himself to voters in May suggests that that Republican doing the introducing feels that the Democratic nominee may have some coattails. Or, conversely, that the Republican nominee has no coattails.
I would say that Wicker's failure to mention Obama suggests that he thinks Obama really has coattails. If Obama were perceived as a weight, Wicker would mention him every ten seconds. What's surprising, in other words, is that he doesn't mention Obama.
May 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
May be I should be clearer: Obama has been running unprecdented voter registration drives and GOTV campaingns in some of these southern states. Also, to be blunt, large AA popolation in the south who felt disenfranchised are excited by a AA nominee on the head of the ticket and seem more willing to commit to other dem candidates. In the recent special election in MS for instance, GOP ran anti-Obama ads but thanks to large turnout for the dem candidate he won convincingly.
May 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got your point. I was responding to Constantinople. The fact that a Wicker add mentions three other senators, and not Obama, isn't surprising, given Obama's a Dem, and Wicker's a Repub, but it also suggests that Obama isn't the drag Wicker wants him to be.
Talking about Roger Wicker's ads is a lot more fun than talking about the "words" from the last few days, btw.
Never thought I'd say THAT about a race in Miss.
May 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thought. I think you're right, CTV. Now, maybe after another dozen or so so-called red seats tilt blue for credible Dem opponents, maybe the MSM will drop, already, the Dean-wasted-the-DNC's-bucks-on- hopeless-red-districts meme. (Back again this weekend in the WaPost). Though to be fair, there seem to be a fair no. of Dem officials happy to spread that dumbo virus as well.
May 27, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wicker is the Republican. Why would he mention Senator Obama unless it was to attack? In fact, given he isn't attacking Obama is a sign that Obama is not the negative wedge issue the Republicans hoped he would be when they attacked him in other recent contests... and then lost those contests.
May 26, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He mentions the Senators to demonstrate his bipartisanship. He is trying to bamboozle the viewers into forgetting that he is a Republican.
Wicker is never identified as a Republican once in the ad.
From a real GOP point of view, he might as well be a Democrat - for all his praises of what the GOP calls government handouts and Federal help!
Musgrove should run ads talking about this, saying, "Vote Musgrove, the REAL Democrat in the race!"
Can there be any further proof that the Reps are going to be swept in November that this guy in the heart of RedStates is trying to make voters forget there is an (R) after his name?
May 26, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please read the Kentucky poll just to the right of your blissfully wishful comment. Read it and weep .....
May 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep...KY hurts me.
May 26, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but this says nothing about Obama's electability. He might not be a huge weight on the Democratic candidate in this race as John Kerry would be and a strong black turnout will help, but McCain will still win this state in November by 10 points or more.
Mississippi is most certainly not in play this fall. I think it's great to build the party there, as evidenced by Rep. Travis Childers, but there is no way I'd call Mississippi "in the contest for blues" as far as the electoral map.
I wouldn't exactly call former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove a "Barack Obama Democrat." He has some pretty conservative positions on most issues and I doubt he's going to really want Obama to stump with him. In fact, Musgrove would probably be a Republican in most other states, but almost any Democrat is better than a Republican in a Senate seat.
May 26, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can feel 60 dems plus in the senate this November in excess of traitor joe. Finally, maybe we can get something done in this country.
May 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0YnnsguziE
"Well, in 2004, I expect to be campaigning for the reelection of President George W. Bush, and by 2008, I think I might be ready to go down to the old soldiers home and await the cavalry charge there."
-- Sen. John McCain, in an interview with Jim Lehrer in 2000.
Also, check out how McCain looked in 2000,
compared to now, and then project what the next
eight years would do to him.
May 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The South is changing, can't say the same for the north and growing so-called "Appalachia".
May 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
We didn't need to change. We never had slaves. Don't rest just yet, you have a LONG way to go.
May 26, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We never had slaves".
So that's why "we don't need to change"?
Seriously?
May 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money! Money ! Money!
Spend it GOP! Spend it!
Thank you Trent!
May 26, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding this Senate race in Miss., I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, we not only need Dems elected from red states, but we need Dems with a different mind set than many of the Blue Dogs.
Ben Nelson of Neb is a Democrat but his voting record is Republican. Apart from the war, I'd rather have Lieberman than Nelson when it comes to voting for Dem issues.
May 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
More and better Dems, in other words.
I used to live in Oxford, MS, and I find this development, in MS, to be pretty surprising.
Ronnie Musgrove has name recognition, sure, but while he's sometimes described as a "popular former Governer", I never got the sense that he was all that popular when he was governor.
He got elected, in part, because the previous Republican governor was so dreadful (tried to sue the Attorney General when the AG sued the tobacco companies,e.g.) that the governorship was ripe for any Dem. When in office, Ronny wasn't particularly beloved.
So for the race to be this close....
May 26, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the problems with Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) is that he's absolutely terrified of being a Democrat in a solidly-Republican state, so he does everything he can to make people forget that. He's been one of George W. Bush's biggest supporters in the Senate (maybe that has been changing recently, since Bush's approval ratings have dropped, I don't know). And he's always trying to out-conservative the Republicans. If he were a Republican, maybe he wouldn't be so scared of appearances.
And it sounds like Musgrove would be much, much worse. Nelson is conservative, but at least he's not a religious nut. I grit my teeth and vote for Nelson, but if I lived in Mississippi, I'd be voting for the Republican in this contest. Besides, we've seen what accepting any Democrat, just because he IS a Democrat, can do for us, when our Senators start supporting Republican candidates for president. (Incidentally, Nelson is an Obama supporter.)
May 27, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone notice the absence of the following words and phrases:
liberal
conservative
Republican
Democratic or Democrat
"San Francisco values"
abortion
May 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or "Obama".
May 26, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
With a little luck this will prove not to a good career move for Wicker nor a good decision by the Mississippi GOP. After losing Wicker's house seat to a Democrat, also losing the Senate seat he was appointed to, would be like being kicked in both shins.
I am a Liberal Democrat. I believe that diversity in a political party is crucial. The lack of diversity leads to a weakened party like the GOP. Where ideology has become more important than the will of the people. Lack of diversity turns a national political party into a regional party.
May 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
you gotta figure that these polls are over-represented by repuglitards, since repuglitard membership is in freefall
so there's that ...
May 26, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post and the comments are all about Wicker. None consider the fact that Musgrove, as governor, was embroiled in that fiasco about displaying the Ten Commandments in the state capitol. He also signed a law mandating that "In God We Trust" be depicted in all public school classrooms, cafeterias, and auditoriums. To top it all off, he signed a law making it illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children.
It really bothers me that the enthusiasm within the netroots for a broadened Democratic majority can prevent us from looking critically at our candidates. I think this it is an embarassment to to the party and what it stands for that Chuck Schumer and the DSCC has put its support behind a candidate of this ilk.
Childers is an example of the type of Democrat we should be supporting in the south. Sure, he is conservative - very much so. But he supports core Democratic principles like withdrawal from Iraq and tax cuts for the middle class. There's no good reason why the party is backing a guy who's made a career out of deconstructing the wall between church and state.
May 26, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look. In extremely backward areas like Mississippi we have to first go for numbers, and once the numbers are achieved, then we work in the primaries to improve the quality.
It's like when Edwin Edwards ran for Governor of Louisiana against the ex-KKK David Duke on the slogan "Vote for the Crook. It's important."
It's a matter of priorities. The Blue-dog Democrats we support should every one of them have an asterix ("*") beside their name, if only mentally. Primaries are important too.
May 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardxx, I'm certainly not ill-disposed towards your viewpoint. Under ordinary circumstances, blue-doginess is a necessary evil the party has to endure in order to maintain its diversity and regional appeal. But like I said, this goes way beyond basic divisions between the conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic Party. With the little I know about Wicker, his resume does not appear to include any of the major blights burnished by Musgrove. A Washington-based Mississippian, Republican or Democrat, has to acclimate his views to the lowest common dominator on social issues. Musgrove, because he's made his career in Mississippi state politics has had his political views nurtured by a state Democratic party that has remained largely unchanged since the Compromise of 1877. To be perfectly honest, I'm more comfortable with Republican from Mississippi who has made his career in Washington than a Democrat with Musgrove's track-record in state politics. I don't think any long-term goals justify the legitimization within the Democratic Party of positions that have been held and executed by Musgrove.
May 26, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as a follow-up: I'd direct you to Musgrove's website, mussgroveforsenate.net, in order to back up my hesitancies about the enthusiasm for his candidacy, but he doesn't have an issues page on the website. Think about that. Not only is this a candidate that has a long and firm track-record of supporting fundamentally undemocratic public policy, but he fails to even make a case as to what he offers Mississippi and the country that Wicker does not offer. I find this extremely troublesome and problematic. I'd be very appreciative if someone could explain what I'm not seeing here. I'm willing to be convinced.
May 26, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul1950,
I believe that the opening field of candidates for the 2008 Republican Party's nominee for President proves you wrong . . . There were nine old white men representing every bat-shit crazy wing of the Repbublican Party AND to prove how diverse they are the chose the oldest, whitest and most bat-shit insane one as their nominee.
To prove how diverse their candidate is . . . The Straight-ish Swalk Ex-pressed carries represenation from every corporate and despot cause not supporting Clinton . . . Actually that's not true most of them are supporting Clinton also . . . HEY! Even more diversity than I originally thought!
May 27, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thad Cochran (R) is running for reelection to Mississippi's other Senate seat and is totally safe. The last time a state simultaneously voted for Senators from different parties was in 1966, in South Carolina.
This doesn't bode well for Musgrove.
May 27, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink