Senior Senators Face Serious 2010 Challenges

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Former Rep. Rob Simmons, a Republican who represented Connecticut’s very blue (it went for Obama by 19 points) second congressional district from 2000 to 2006, announced on Sunday that he will challenge Sen. Chris Dodd in 2010. Despite the (R) next to his name, Simmons stands a chance: a recent poll showed him ahead of the once-popular incumbent.

Dodd is the victim of a series of largely self-inflicted wounds—he received a “VIP” loan from Countrywide, the disgraced mortgage lender, and has faced questions over his 1994 purchase of an Irish cottage with a man who was the business partner of an investor who received a presidential pardon with Dodd’s help. Still, Simmons has weaknesses: he’s tied to the very unpopular era of Bush-Republican rule, and he has some minor ties to Jack Abramoff (as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is already pointing out). But with all that in mind, DSCC chair Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) can’t be happy about having to spend money in 2010 defending a five-term incumbent in dark-blue Connecticut. Even if Dodd manages to move the focus away from his controversies and survives, the money and resources spent defending him will cost Democrats trying to pick up seats elsewhere.

One of those places is Pennsylvania, where Dodd’s fellow five-term incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican, is caught between a rock and a hard place. Specter’s moderate-Republican voting record (he was one of three GOPers to vote for President Obama’s economic stimulus package) has made him a favorite whipping boy of the right-wing, and he faces a very serious primary challenge from Pat Toomey, who he barely beat in a 2004 primary contest. But that same voting record also makes Specter electable in increasingly blue Pennsylvania, where he’s consistently received votes from Democrats and union members. If Specter moves to the right, and votes against the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it easier for unions to organize, he’ll probably have less trouble in the primary. But then he’d have to face the wrath of the unions in a general election, which have promised to support Specter if he votes for EFCA. The most logical solution, as Matt Yglesias has suggested, would be for Specter to switch parties, avoiding the primary. Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, and Vice President Joe Biden have apparently already asked, but Specter doesn’t seem willing to budge.

Between the Dodd and Specter situations, it’s quite likely that the Senate will look very, very different in 2010. Dodd and Specter are the 10th and 12th most-senior Senators, respectively. They are incredibly powerful—Dodd chairs the banking committee, and Specter is the ranking member on the judiciary committee and a crucial swing vote on many issues (the stimulus, for one). Since they’re both vulnerable, now seems as good of a time as any for some popular, bi-partisan legislation to boost their approval ratings. Steve Benen notes that denying the incompetent jerks at AIG their hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses has already brought together Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Al.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Dodd’s banking committee counterpart in the House, in “common revulsion.” But AIG’s lawyers are insisting that the company is legally required to pay the bonuses. Perhaps Dodd and Specter can write some well-timed legislation to make sure that doesn’t happen.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate