Showing posts with label Olympia Snowe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Olympia Snowe. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Snowe Job

I've been following politics in America for a long time, and I have to admit that I never saw Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe's decision not to seek a fourth term coming.

I'm not alone in that. A lot of people are surprised, but I suppose none of us should be. Snowe is, after all, 65 years old. She would be in her 70s when her seat will be up for election again. She is at the age that most Americans have been conditioned to expect to be retired — even though, given the state of the economy, few can expect to retire.

But Snowe has spent one–third of a century in Congress — and she is the only woman to have served in both chambers of a state legislature and both chambers of the U.S. Congress in a career that spans four decades.

She is also something of a dinosaur — a centrist in an increasingly conservative Republican Party. That fact has made her a true swing vote, courted by both sides on many issues.

Apparently, though, the obvious polarization in our national politics has played a significant role in her decision not to remain in Washington.

"I am a fighter at heart, and I am well prepared for the electoral battle," she said. "Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term."

From everything I have read, I have the impression that Snowe is popular with her constituents. In three previous Senate elections, her share of the vote went up each time. She was elected with 60% in the Republican year of 1994, re–elected with 69% in 2000 and re–elected again with 74% in the Democrat year of 2006.

My understanding is that she got consistently high marks from her constituents, even though the state has been trending Democrat in national elections, and she almost certainly would have won a fourth term if she sought it.

It would have been good news for Republicans if she had run for re–election — not because modern Republicans could count on her to vote the party line but because her withdrawal takes away what was probably a safe seat for the GOP and turns it into a tossup.

Things are complicated by the calendar. The deadline for gathering enough signatures to be on the ballots in Maine's primaries is March 15, as Matthew Gagnon observes in the Bangor (Maine) Daily News.

"This is not something that can be done by a political novice in two weeks," writes Gagnon, "indeed it is a difficult task for established figures."

Chaos can be expected, and that's bad news for Republicans, who need only a net gain of four seats (three if the Republicans win the presidency) to seize control of the U.S. Senate.

They were counting, I am sure, on retaining Snowe's seat. Because the Democrats were so successful in 2006, Republicans have only 10 seats to defend in the 2012 cycle — and, until yesterday, eight were considered reasonably safe (including Snowe's). Democrats had (and still have) good reason to be concerned about six of their seats, possibly more, but they have more breathing room now.

As Stuart Rothenberg observes, Snowe's decision "places [her seat] firmly in the center of the fight for the Senate majority." He rates it a tossup — a prudent position to take, given that no nominees will be chosen until the primaries on June 12.

Larry Sabato's "Crystal Ball" contends that the seat now leans to the Democrats — even though the candidates for the office are not yet known.

It is, at the very least, something of a field leveler. If Democrats can win Snowe's seat, that makes the mountain that Republicans must climb that much steeper.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Drawing the Party Lines

The U.S. Senate approved the compromise version of the economic stimulus package. Now the House and Senate have to hammer out their differences and approve the same bill before it goes on to Barack Obama's desk.

Obama has said he expects to see it on his desk by Monday.

But Scott Wheeler, executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC, is playing rough. He's threatening to actively support any Republican who runs against a Republican senator who votes for the final version of the package. Three Republicans — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania — supported the compromise bill, but all three have said they might not support the final version.

Specter might be vulnerable to Wheeler's brand of browbeating. He struggled to win re-election in 2004, and he will face the voters again in 2010. But Specter may feel somewhat torn — he was, after all, a guest at the White House on Super Bowl Sunday, where he was treated to Obama's hospitality and, presumably, his political charm.

Obama did win Pennsylvania, but his share of the vote there — less than 55% — lagged behind others outside the South.

Like Maine, for example.

In Maine, Obama got nearly 58% — a share of the vote that pales compared to Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut, where Obama received 60% plus, but you have to keep in mind that two Republicans represent Maine in the Senate — the only state northeast of Kentucky and north of South Carolina in which that is so.

Snowe should not feel much political pressure. She was re-elected with nearly 74% in the Democratic year of 2006. Her seat won't come up again until 2012.

Collins also should feel comfortable but for different reasons. She was just re-elected in 2008 so she won't face the voters again until 2014. but her share of the vote was much lower than Snowe's had been two years earlier. Collins received slightly more than 61% of the vote, but she outpolled Obama in Maine, anyway, in spite of the fact that it was not a good year for Republicans.

If the Democrats only lose Specter's vote the next time, they should still have enough votes to succeed. But if they lose Specter and either of the Maine senators, they have a problem.

That should be the strategy — keeping Snowe and Collins happy. How do you accomplish that? That is where the leadership talents of the president and the legislative talents of the majority leader come into play.

This is the kind of test that tends to determine whether a president really is destined for greatness — or mediocrity.