Tester-Rehberg a Dead Heat: A follow-up

Politico has a story this morning about Senator Tester's vote on healthcare reform. The NRSC has put out a press release to "remind" Montanans that Tester was the "60th vote" and "deciding vote". You can read Politico's story here and the NRSC press release here.

According to Politico, Tester's staff responded with video showing that Tester was the 52nd--not the 60th--vote for the healthcare plan. The NRSC responds that with 60 votes needed for passage, every vote was critical.

This, of course, relates back to what I had posted earlier in the week. Note that the NRSC story calls the healthcare plan the "Obama-Tester" Overhaul. Obama is unpopular in Montana, and so is (depending on how you spin it) his healthcare plan. You'll see Tester constantly tagged to Obama by the Republican Party because the Obama brand isn't so hot at the moment. Senator Tester, meantime, needs to decide if he should pivot away from the healthcare reform or educate Montanans as to why his vote was necessary and good from the state. It would seem that Tester has decided to defend his vote and point out all the benefits the plan brings to the state.

Is this a good strategy? Again, it depends upon which framing of the issue sells among voters. Tester blasts Congressman Rehberg for defunding healthcare reform when he has a nice healthcare plan provided by government. This populist story line has the potential to work: it makes Congressman Rehberg look heartless. Rehberg, of course, will focus on the negatives of the plan: it costs too much, takes away too much control from patients/doctors, and places an undue burden on small businesses. This also can work. The key, I think, is which story will work with independent voters.

Recruiting Quality Challengers

MSNBC is reporting that incumbent Democratic Senator, Jim Webb, will not be running for reelection.

For all the attention paid by the media to the Tea Party and the election of newcomers during the 2010 cycle, the candidates who have the best chance to win election to Congress are those with previous electoral office experience. And the best chance for a party to keep a seat is by running an incumbent, unless they are scandal-ridden or have serious health problems.

One sure bet is that quality challengers and incumbents pay close attention to shifts in the political winds affecting their election prospects. And one good way to gauge party prospects is by looking at the decisions made by quality challengers and incumbents to run or not.

Democrats had good years in 2006 and 2008, in part, because they congressional committees recruited excellent challengers who saw the prospects of the Democratic Party on the rise. In the same vein, a number of Democratic incumbents in the Senate and the House chose retirement in 2010 knowing the political winds where blowing fast in the other direction.

Congressman's Rehberg's decision to run against Jon Tester and today's announcement by Senator Webb to return to the private sector are two indicators of each party's prospects going into the 2012 cycle. The Republicans have recruited perhaps the best possible challenger for Tester, and Democrats have lost their conservative incumbent in Virginia. Both states have moved in the red direction and represent excellent pick up opportunities for the Republicans. With the electoral math already stacked against them with so many Democratic incumbents up for reelection, both of these developments bode ill for Democratic prospects to retain the Senate.
Republican prospects, on the other side of the coin, look particular bright at this moment.

Watch closely the decision of incumbents and quality challengers in both parties. Good recruitment coups are signs that the party is doing well, while retirements suggest the opposite.