The big question in Left Blogovia right now is whether it is Good or Bad for My Party (or the country, or the world) to have the Other Party nominating a bunch of loons, grebes and assorted waterfowl to the Senate. There are a bunch of different ways to look at it.\n
On the one hand, there is the point that nominees chosen for ideological purity will be less electable than nominees chosen for, well, electability. It appears to be true that in Delaware, for instance, the polls are showing good things for the Democratic nominee<\/a>. This way of thinking says that, essentially, if it helps elect Our Team, then it’s a Good Thing. As you would expect (if you have been hanging out in this Tohu Bohu for a while), this is very much me.\n On the other hand, there is the point that in reality the nominees in a statewide general election don’t matter very much. The important things are the economy, the popularity of the President, and the demographic makeup of the state. In Kentucky, for instance, things don’t look so good for the Democratic nominee<\/a>. Given that, having the Republicans nominate a bunch of boobies, gulls and skimmers just means that the Senate will have more waterfowl in it, and that’s a Bad Thing, both for My Party (because it makes it harder to get anything done) and for the country and the world (because it’s more likely that something really bad will get passed). As you would expect, given my concerns with process and so on, this is very much me.\n On the other other hand, there is the point that actually, there isn’t that much difference between having Tom Coburn or a great auk in the Senate, as that whole Party is going to vote the same way on just about everything anyway. And if they are trading an incumbent with some seniority and a bit of clout for some short-tailed shearwater with a loud squawk, so what? Are they going to push that Party’s agenda to the right<\/i>? Is it going to have a more radical platform? Frankly, that doesn’t seem very likely to me, so here I am in this camp.\n