It’s simply not possible for both Democrats and Republicans to lose the Senate majority in the same election. But at this point, it seems that both parties are determined to give it their best shot. There is no other way to explain the improbable emergence of Graham Platner and Ken Paxton as their nominees in two of the most important elections in the country this fall.
There may not be any two states of the fifty that are less alike than Texas and Maine. Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the country. Maine is 42nd. Maine is tucked away in the uppermost northeastern region in the nation. Texas anchors the Southwest. Texas’ population is 40 percent Latino and has the largest number of Black residents of any state. Roughly 2 percent of Mainers are Black and an additional 2 percent are Latino.
Their politics are equally dissimilar; Texas has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1988, the same year that Maine last voted for a Republican for president. So the winners of the Senate seats in these two states this year seemed fairly predictable. Republican John Cornyn, who had won his previous four campaigns by between 10 and 27 points, seemed a shoo-in to continue in office for another six years. Democrats saw Maine as a likely pickup opportunity given embattled GOP incumbent Susan Collins’ vulnerabilities, especially given the potential candidacy of popular governor Janet Mills.
But in an angry, frustrated and frightened America, conventional politicians like Cornyn and Mills are decidedly out of style. Both parties seek to provoke their bases with a Trump-ish or Mandami-esque firebrand who can tap into those emotional resentments and mobilize their most ideologically fervent members into an election season that feels less like a campaign than a crusade. Platner and Paxton, in extraordinarily different but sometimes indistinguishable ways, have both learned how to stimulate the most excitable partisans in their ranks. Relatively subdued and occasionally collaborative officeholders like Mills and Cornryn might be better suited to attract swing voters in a general election. But we’ll never know.
Paxton’s committed conservatism and Platner’s passionate progressivism may make it somewhat more difficult for them to reach swing voters in their respective states. But it is the immense amount of personal baggage that both carry that will provide much more lucrative opportunities for their opponents to exploit. Platner will continue to face questions about his Nazi-linked tattoo, his highly offensive comments about sexual assault, and his history of racially insensitive social media postings. Paxton will deal with ongoing accusations regarding various legal and ethical troubles, including allegations of securities fraud, bribery, abuse of office for personal gain, and election-related misconduct. Both men will be forced to defend marital controversies, as embarrassing details continue to surface.
When the country is this deeply and closely divided, both parties know that the stakes in every contested congressional race are immeasurably high. They know that every House or Senate race could be the difference between being the majority party or not and that every candidate they put before the voters must be the absolute best the party has to offer. Because there is no margin for error.
Which leads us back to the potentially self-destructive nominations of Paxton and Platner. Neither man is the best his party has to offer. Measured by most objective standards of personal morality, commitment to causes greater than their own self-glory, and suitability for elected office, they both might be among the worst. Yet somehow, first Platner and now Paxton have emerged as their party’s standard-bearers in elections where a more capable, qualified or credible nominee from their party should win without much resistance. But given their personal and political shortcomings, both will face hotly contested races that they could easily lose.
But they could win too, and either one of them joining the Senate in January would immediately diminish it. Since partisan loyalties and good character are not always mutually exclusive, there are plenty of admirable Democrats and Republicans who look at their parties’ choices with portions of discomfort and embarrassment. They should hope that their party can elect 51 senators other than one of these two.
This column began with the confident assertion that it is not possible for both Democrats and Republicans to simultaneously lose control of the Senate. But candidates like Platner and Paxton – and the compromised moral standing that was required to nominate both – suggest that both parties deserve such a fate.
Want to talk about this topic more? Read more of Dan’s writing at: www.danschnurpolitics.com.
.png.webp)
