Game of Thrones, Episode Two: Volunteers for Exile in Washington
Press play and have this music play throughout, to enhance your reading pleasure, and to give the appropriate musical backdrop….
Before we begin talking about who our great First State will send to Congress to get nothing at all done, I must note that our readers yesterday mentioned a name that I had completely forgotten as a possible Democratic nominee for Governor: Senator Karen Peterson. So…
She would make a more likely successful progressive candidate than John Kowalko, but I think she has less reason to jump into the race than he does. Still, having a Peterson v. Gordon v. Carney race would be wonderful, and I can see Peterson winning that.
I have also been asked about my criteria in deciding who is going to run for which office. I admit it is highly subjective. First, I take the rumor and the knowledgeable speculation that we politicos hear and discuss while drinking a beer or taking on the street. For example, Tom Gordon and John Carney have not said anything publicly that I am aware of that would indicate they are running or thinking of running for Governor. But the conventional wisdom and rumor says they both are if Beau Biden does not. And like I said yesterday, Beau Biden is not, so there we are.
Second, then we have candidates out there who have publicly said that they are thinking about or intend to run for higher office in 2016. For example, New Castle County Council President Chris Bullock, former Markell and Carper staffer, and 2014 Treasurer nominee Sean Barney, 2014 Auditor nominee Brenda Mayrack, Senator Bryan Townsend, and Representative Bryon Short have all made public statements saying they want to run or are thinking about running. When you say something publicly, it usually means you have been thinking and talking about it privately for quite a while, indeed, usually a great amount of planning has already been undertaken. So here is what they have said to Celia Cohen, about the prospect of running for Congress or another office in 2016:
Chris Bullock […] notes sagely that his commitment to the Obama-Biden legacy could suit him for running for either lieutenant governor or federal office, although this is easier said than done. The fund-raising rules are different for state and federal office, and time is already passing.
“I’m hoping it’s something the next governor would embrace, whatever position I’m in,” Bullock said, not without adding that his political credentials come with also being an African-American pastor, “and it’s time we have a woman or minority in Washington to represent Delaware.”
Then there are Brenda Mayrack, the Democrat who ran for auditor, and Sean Barney, the Democrat who ran for treasurer. They sounded like they were reading from the same script.
“My good friend John Carney is our congressman now. I would not be challenging him, obviously,” Mayrack said, although also mentioning, “I built a statewide organization. I am personally committed to doing what I can to make our state a better place.”
Barney put it this way, saying, “I support Congressman Carney. I hope he’s running for re-election. Not that I will matter much, but I will do what I can to support him. I’d like to still be making a difference and making a contribution in some way. It depends on what’s out there.” […]
Townsend[:] “People have suggested that I take a look at that. I hope Beau is in a position to run. If he was not to be, and the congressional seat were to open up, then I would consider that possibility.”
[S]hort[:] “Things are fluid and not fluid at the same time. If there’s a spot that’s a good fit for me to expand the service I do for Delaware, I would be interested.”
So there are five potential candidates that are interested in running for higher office in 2016. They are not all going to run for the same office. Hence, the Game of Musical….er ah.. Thrones. But I will include them all below when we talk about our At Large Congressional Seat.
Finally, another criteria I look at, and this is where it gets very subjective, is who do I think has the skill, the style, the ambition, and, for a lack of a better word, the “chops” to run, and then I couple that with who do I want to run. Take the example of Karen Peterson above. I want her to run. I think she has the skill to do it, and she has enough “gravitas” to it. The only question is her ambition. But right now, I am making that leap of faith for her.
Now onto to the main event…
Congress
From the top to the bottom, left to right: New Castle County President Chris Bullock (D), Sean Barney (D), Brenda Mayrack (D), Sen. Bryan Townsend (D), former head of the Delaware ACLU and Markell staffer Drew Fennell (D), State GOP Chairman and former Senator Charlie Copeland (R), perennial candidate and 2014 GOP nominee Rose Izzo (R), former state 7th District Senate nominee and business owner Fred Cullis (R), former state 4th District Representative nominee Rob Keesler, and finally, former Kent County GOP Chairman Hans Reigle.
That’s a lot of potential candidates, and there is a good reason for it. If John Carney were to vacate this congressional seat for a run for Governor, this would be the first truly open race for Delaware’s At Large Seat in 40 years, since 1976. Think about it. When Representative Pete du Pont retired from Congress in 1976 to run for Governor and was succeeded by Tom Evans, there has always an incumbent or a far and away favored frontrunner. Evans held the job until he was defeated by Treasurer Tom Carper in 1982. Carper held the job until he and Governor Mike Castle traded jobs in 1992. Castle held the job until he retired to run for Senate in 2010, but that year, everyone expected John Carney to run and win.
I did not mention Rep. Bryon Short above, because I view him as more suited for another office that we will discuss next week. With respect to Sean Barney and Brenda Mayrack, while yes, each has a dormant campaign operation and mailing and donor lists left over from the last campaign, and both possess the desire to run again, I just do not see it for Congress. I see Brenda being more successful in running for Treasurer or Auditor again in 2018. I see Sean Barney being more successful running for Lt. Governor, and we will discuss that next week. But my honest advice for Sean would be to run for the State Senate in 2016. Senator David Lawson is up for reelection in 2016 in the 15th Senate District, which is where Sean lives.
El Som brought up Drew Fennell as a possibility in the comments yesterday, and I included it here as an intriguing possibility. She could raise money, and she has the skill. I just question the ambition. Does she want to? I am not sure, and crossing that bridge from politico and staffer to candidate is a difficult one to cross. Ask Sean Barney. Ask me. I love politics, but I know I will never be a candidate because I am no salesman. To be a candidate, part of you has to be a salesman, and you are selling yourself.
The two most likeliest candidates for U.S. Representative, on the Democratic side, are Bullock and Townsend. Will there be a primary? It sounds to me like Bullock is definitely running, and I think he definitely more suited for federal office since he could do more for the Obama-Biden legacy as a Congressman than a Lt. Governor.
I have been high on Bryan Townsend’s future as a statewide politician for three years now, since he first defeated Tony Deluca in an upset. But I was always picturing state statewide, not federal statewide. It seems that his interests are more with state issues right now, like education, so I think a Congressional campaign might detract from that. Sen. Townsend is not up for reelection to his 11th District this year, so he can run for something and not lose his position in the General Assembly. But I think that something will be more state-oriented.
On the Republican side, a truly open race should bring out the credible candidates rather than the also ran perennials and the crazies. I see Charlie Copeland being that credible candidate. Rose Izzo will run, because she always runs. By the way, has anyone checked out her Twitter feed recently? It’s quite strange, as she has been heaping kind words and praise on Democrats of all kinds. Not a smart strategy for a Tea Party candidate.
Fred Cullis ran for State Senate against Patti Blevins in 2010. He has been mentioned as a potential candidate for Congress this time. He might as well, if Copeland doesn’t get in. Former Kent County GOP Chair Hans Reigle has also been mentioned as a potential candidate, but I’d imagine he’d been only viable if it were a free for one without Copeland. Finally, Rob Keesler, a young libertarian-ish Republican who ran against Gerald Brady in the 4th RD in 2014, is a possible candidate as well. I’d imagine the GOP’s best shot is with Copeland, but Keesler, if he gets in the race, could surprise.
Tags: Featured
but Keesler, if he gets in the race, could surprise.
Love it when Democrats try to assign credibility to folks who have no where near earned it yet.
Odd comment. Why the singling out of Democrats? Do you “hate” it when Republicans or Independents try to assign credibility to folks who have no where near earned it yet? Is the assigning of unearned credibility a uniquely Democratic problem in your eyes? And is that what I am doing?
Chris Bullock has neither qualifications nor a constituency. His argument seems to be “it’s a black man’s turn.” I hope he does run for such an office, because that will be the quickest route to getting him out of public office altogether.
Also, I see no way Charlie Copeland runs. I doubt he wants to spend that much time away from Delaware and his business.
Agree on Bullock. Self-regarding mediocrity. He wanted to run as a Republican in ’96.
Don’t agree on Copeland. He’d consider running if a Democratic cluster looked to yield a clown or wounded candidate. He’s punched a number of civic tickets since ’08 and would love to play whist with Paul Ryan, and ride the rails with former classmate Coons. Business is duty; election to Congress is legacy. Tom Evans shed his business in a minute when he went to DC.
A nit about Carney. The drama in the 2010 campaign only ended when Michelle Rollins performed in the primary as well as the bank she had helped run.
Is the assigning of unearned credibility a uniquely Democratic problem in your eyes?
I should have said: Love it when Democrats try to assign credibility to Republicans who have no where near earned it yet.
“Tom Evans shed his business in a minute when he went to DC.”
And found Paula Parkinson. I think the difference is that Charlie actually likes his family.
True enough Cass, but we have to do that or else there would only be one Republican candidate with any credibility in the state.
We have to do that? Why? Why can’t they earn their credibility the old fashioned way?
Reigle is a great candidate! He’s the type of Republican that we wish all Republicans would be like!
Bryan Townsend for Congress hell yes.
Karen Peterson would be a great governor. She’s progressive, she’s tough, she knows how to get things done. She’s not afraid of using sharp elbows, as she turned back Tom Sharp’s designated successor (construction trades guy Tim Sheldon) in the state senate primary, overcoming slashed tires and whisper campaigns with ease in the process. She actually has ‘The Vision Thing’. I know what conventional wisdom says, but a true progressive who can win would upset the conventional wisdom in that race. I don’t think she’d want to go to Washington, though.
Nah, I wasn’t suggesting Karen for Congress, just as an add on for Governor.
Re Mayrack and Barney: If I never see them run in another campaign, it’ll still be too soon.
Both ran in an overwhelmingly blue state and lost by pretty large margins.
Barney is a Carper clone, and ran a terrible campaign. Mayrack is a John Carney lifer, and ran a terrible campaign.
What makes anybody think they’d do better next time?
If D’s want to lose elections, then, by all means, give them a second shot.
Otherwise, next!
I live in the 15th and i would love for sean barney to knock off lawson
I think it would help of El Som told us his definition of “overwhelmingly blue state”. If you base that on statewide elections and offices held, you would be right. If you are thinking of party registration, you would be wrong. The fact is that the Democrats account for less than 50% of the total registration-the exact figure is currently 47%. This means that Democrats win if the turn out their registered voters at a percentage near that of the Republicans and/or if they make up the balance with enough voters registered in minor or no parties. Neither of these factors worked in 2014 in non-incumbent Democrat races. Incumbents won big because of name recognition, huge money advantages and weak and/or underfunded opponents. Brenda Mayrack and Sean Barney were non-incumbents, had qualified and well-funded opponents AND Democrats voted at a percentage far below the turnout of the Republicans, especially in New Castle County. Minor and No Party voters hardly voted at all.
I will not opine on whether or not Sean and Brenda should seek office next year, but they are both intelligent, honest and worked hard.
As to the “overwhelmingly blue state” comment; one could argue that Massachusetts and Maryland are even bluer, but both states elected Republican governors in 2014.
The Democrats have a clear numerical advantage (305K to 180K) statewide over the Republicans. The Republicans have a mere 20K more voters than the All Others. The bottom line is, that if the Democrats show up in decent numbers, the only way the Republicans can win is if they capture a good number of the All Others. Of course that’s the only way the Democrats can also lose. So, the easy way to victory for Democrats is to show up and to make sure the All Others do not vote Republican. The crux of it is the All Others (mostly independents). Who are they and what do they want?
Dave, doesn’t contradict what I said. Current registration is 305,086 DEM, 180,403 REP and 158,527 OTHER. Very few “other” voters go to the polls in off-year elections. There are too many voters who believe the only offices that matter are President and Governor-especially for 18-25s who voted barely in double digit percentages in 2014.
Too many Democrats and Democrat-leaning NPs stayed home. We would need polling to really know why. Is it:
1. Just don’t vote in off-year elections
2. Unhappy with Party, Obama, or local candidates.
3. Figured they don’t need to vote in a “Blue state” (which seems to be what happens in Special elections.
Bottom line is Barney and Mayrack would have won if Dems had voted in percentages closer to that of Reps.
Or maybe they would have won if they had excited/incited voters to vote. It’s not as if they were helpless. Not saying that it’s all their fault, just saying that they did little to stem the tide, and even less to engage the voters.
As for Massachusetts electing an R governor, perhaps it’s b/c that they gave someone who had performed as a Barney/Mayrack type (Martha Coakley, losing a race no one thought she would lose) the chance to run again. And she lost again. Just a bad candidate.
George Bernard Shaw once described second marriages as ‘the triumph of hope over experience’. So was Martha Coakley’s candidacy for governor, and so would be another run by Barney or Mayrack.
@Mitch,
I wasn’t contradicting, just elaborating or rather putting a different spin on things. Democrats are not monolithic. A great many are affinity Democrats. They’ve always been, or feel better, or their parents were. It gives them a sense of belonging, but that’s about as far as it goes. Coons received 130K votes. Barney received 100K. I have trouble believing that 30K Democrats turned out to vote for Coons but not Barney. I also believe that generally the 100K that voted for Barney also voted for Coons. So the delta is 30K. Who are they? My opinion is that they were the independents or unaffiliateds or whatever you want to call them. If you look at Simpler’s number (123K) it would appear that the bulk of the 30K voted for Simpler.
Further Wade got 98K, Izzo – 85K and Kittila 90K. So the Republicans voted lock step. So the 30K must be comprised of (D)s or (I)s. My guess is that in addition to the Ds staying home, the (I)s showed up and voted in enough numbers to swing the election.
In summary, it was more than a question of (D)s staying home, it was also that (I)s did not stay home and the (I)s are much more than disaffected (R)s. My takeaway is that many (D)s are affinity (D)s and many (I)s are serious voters. You’ll almost always get the hardcore (D)s but, especially in off years, the serious (I)s need to be courted.
I vote for Fennell. Tremendous compassion and intellect. Hard to get better than that in an elected official.
@Dave ( see I am not too old to learn new things):
Another reason for the vote difference is, as I wrote initially, that Coons, Carney and Denn did not have well-financed opponents-and they were. Mayrack and Marney had well-financed opponents ( Wagner an incumbent and Simpler a winning slogan).
There was a drop off in TOTAL votes for offices. The number of people who vote for an OFFICE went down as people went down ballot. 7,000 fewer people voted for Auditor than voted for US Senator.
Your takeway about turnout is wrong. Statewide 44.5% of registered Republicans voted. The Democratic turnout was 35.4%.. That alone reduced the Democratic margin from 125,000 (registered voters) to 40,000 (actual voters).
The turnout of those registered No Party? 28.4%! 45,000 voters.
If the Democratic turnout had been equal to the Republican…an additional 27,000 Dems would have voted. Barney and Mayrack would have won. Same hold true in Sussex. In the 41st RD, there are 500 more registered Dems than Reps. The Republicans had 500 more voters than the Dems. Atkins lost to Collins by 250 votes.
Happy Valentines Day.
@Mitch: You’re just wrong about the Democratic identification. Delaware isn’t among the very top states, but Democratic self-identification is 50.5% (not all Democrats register as Democrats). The top states are only a couple of percentage points above that.
Here’s a link to a story from 2012; I don’t think the percentages have changed much since then: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/map_hawaii_maryland_and_massachusetts_are_the_most_democratic_states_.html
The reason Democrats didn’t go out to vote is that the Democrats who hold and run for office in this state don’t exhibit Democratic values outside the social-issue realm. Democrats pointedly did NOT vote for Sean Barney because Barney made it a referendum on Carper, who betrays Democratic values at every opportunity. Mayrack ran against a longtime incumbent, which presented a different set of problems. If someone had run oppo research competently, Wagner’s financial problems would have won her that race.
This also held true last November at the national level, where Democratic timidity inspired voters to stay home in droves. It takes true incompetence to lose to a Republican Party that alienates more Americans every day. Sadly for us, today’s Democrats are up to that task.
Also, you reference the 41st rep district contest. Shame on you. There were no Democrats in that race, no matter what letter John Atkins put after his name.
And, finally, you were innumerate in knocking down the Democratic voting advantage: Yes, the D vote was cut by nearly two-thirds, but you forgot to cut R voters by more than one-half.
@Elsom:
“Also, you reference the 41st rep district contest. Shame on you. There were no Democrats in that race, no matter what letter John Atkins put after his name.”
Your point is well taken, but I do not feel shamed. At least I avoided any reference to a better Dem turnout it the Venables-Richardson race. Do I get back some of the “shame”?
“And, finally, you were innumerate in knocking down the Democratic voting advantage: Yes, the D vote was cut by nearly two-thirds, but you forgot to cut R voters by more than one-half.”
You are correct in that I did not even look at that drop off.
We ARE in agreement that the Democratic failed on a national scale to promote the positives of the last 6 years and to promote a progressive Demorcatic agenda.
Wagner was hardly well-financed against Mayrack. Don’t know where that came from.
Also have no idea where this came from:
“@Elsom:
“Also, you reference the 41st rep district contest. Shame on you. There were no Democrats in that race, no matter what letter John Atkins put after his name.”
Where did I reference that race in this thread?
sorry-it was Geezer.
@Mitch: Sorry, didn’t literally mean “shame.” Just looking for a fussbudgety-sounding expression.
Sean Barney for Lt. Gov.? That guy is about as inspired and engaged as the teacher that played by Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
Geezer took a an unwarranted shot at Chris Bullock – and his argument “seems to be….. ” I’ll allow people to use their judgment – for how appropriate that remark was- my judgment inappropriate and then some—- Chris has shown the ability to work with a whole host of folks with differing opinions, backgrounds as NC President— even skeptical insiders give him overall good marks– he is quite qualified to run for a higher office-
Sorry, chief, but that’s what he said: It was time for a black or woman to hold that office. He made no other argument. Shove your racial grievances up your ass.
Chris has shown exactly nothing in the way of promise or ability to anyone who hasn’t had personal contact with him. Never has. As far as most voters know, he’s an imaginary person. Other than his demographic qualities, I see nothing he brings to the table.
I want to elaborate on that a bit: Too many people seem to think that elective office is a reward. Why else was Beau Biden in public office? Has anyone ever seen the slightest bit of evidence that he was capable of accomplishing anything, large or small, other than getting elected? He accomplished nothing substantial before or during his time in the AG’s office, yet Democrats are eager to cast votes for him. Why?
Chris Bullock is a lower-profile example of the same thing. He’s a preacher who wants to play in the political sandbox. I have no reason to enable it.
I don’t think its fair lumping the Mayrack and Barney losses together. IMO Barney was beaten badly in each of the debates he competed in. The charge of him not being a compelling candidate sticks for me.
In Mayrack’s case I thought she beat Wagner in their debates – I just don’t think enough people were paying attention.
If you are an incumbent D or R who’s happy with the status quo, who would you rather have as state auditor?
Rather fair time to be asking this question – don’t you think????
This state is a train wreck because of democrats.
Gop? Cullis uncle fester. Copeland nah
You guys are sooooo stupid
Rufus: They both ran terrible campaigns, but terrible in different ways.
Barney was inarticulate, and may have ‘lost’ debates against Simpler. Which may have influenced the 12 people listening who didn’t already have a dawg in the hunt. He stood for nothing, other than his association with his friend and former boss, Tom Carper.
He gave most voters no reason to vote for him. So, they didn’t.
OTOH, Brenda Mayrack, who had been a key campaign official for both the Party and for Carney, made the mistake that candidates are warned against at the first campaign training meetings:
“You can either be the candidate or the campaign manager. You can’t be both.”
If, as a candidate, you micromanage your own campaign, you take time away from the things that the candidate, and ONLY the candidate, can and must do:
1. Raise money.
2. Reach out to voters.
It is, admittedly, not unusual for a first-time candidate to make such a mistake. What concerns me about Brenda as a candidate going forward is that she alienated people who were with her and who became less enthusiastic as the campaign went on.
She COULD do better next time. Or…she just might be better suited to be a political operative than she is to be a candidate.
If John Carney is elected governor, I, for one, would hope that Brenda would have a key position in that administration. I’m not sure that there’s ever been a female Secretary of State in Delaware, but she’d be a great choice.
Addendum: Harriet Smith Windsor was SOS under Ruth Ann Minner. She did nothing during her term that should have warranted her being indicted, which, for the Minner inner circle, is an accomplishment unto itself.
El Som: You probably have inside info that I don’t. What bothered me about the campaign was that Mayrack made a number of claims directly related to Wagner’s performance and directly relevant to the election, they were all true but the voters seemed to just blow it off as more election cycle BS.
For the Democratic party powers that be, the results were perfect.
How do you get voters to pay attention?
Jason330 sets the needle down once again on the broken record. Neither campaigns broke through because neither made a case for what a “Democratic” treasurer or a “Democratic” auditor’s office would look like. That silence was be design of course, but nobody should be surprised when Democrats, not finding any democrats to vote for, stay away from the polls in droves.
Just contrast Barney and Mayrack’s wishy-washy bi-partisan efforts with how Matt Denn ran for AG as a Democrat:
When Democrats run as Democrats, they win. Yes. It really is that simple.
Rufus: The meme and should-have-been theme for Mayrack’s campaign was so obvious, yet she didn’t push it until the very end, if at all:
“For over twenty years, we’ve had an auditor who hasn’t done his job. His failure to do so has cost this state a lot of money. I will change that.”
What’s that? About 15-20 seconds? Then everything else she says builds on that theme. She really didn’t have a theme. If she had hammered that theme every single time she spoke she would have won, IMHO.
Here comes Jason with his Matt Denn slurping. Denn came out against banning the death penalty, against marijuana legalization, for an amendment to allow judges to hold more suspects without bail, and he was unanimously supported by all law enforcement unions.
Doesn’t sound like a liberal to me. Sounds like a typical blue dog democrat Attorney General who is going to arrest, detain, and execute more poor people. And that’s not hyperbole; I am basing that on the platform that he ran on which Jason and others have conveniently forgotten.
I know full well that I’m going to be disappointed by Denn eventually. Ive written that on many occasions. He is a politician. Being against banning the death penalty, and against marijuana legalization doesn’t get me there – but stay tuned.
On her blog, Celia is not ruling out Jack Markell for Congress if (when?) Beau bails.
Yeah, I’m sure Jack checked in with her. She’s a good source for when you need to know what the conventional wisdom has wrong.