Democrats do not want to run for the Senate and who can blame them?

A prominent new Democrat seems to decide pretty much every day that serving in the Senate is a rotten proposition.

With the arrival on Thursday of Colorado Senator Michael Bennet – of course, why not? – Seven Democratic senators are running for the party presidential candidacy. Most or all of them will lose and return to the Senate, yes, but to serve alongside whom? In states like Montana, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, and Texas, a number of reputed Democratic recruits recently decided not to launch a campaign in the Senate either because these recruits run for president but are also re-elected to the House. or simply do nothing, because apparently nothing beats the fact that running for the Senate, the legislative chamber where the pleasure disappears.

Decisions by three candidates in key states to choose presidential offers rather than Senate elections have provoked episodes of apoplecticism among many Democratic voters and agents. Former Beto representative O 'Rourke chose to spend the cycle on different objects in Iowa instead of doing it in Texas, where he almost toppled Senator Ted Cruz last year. and could have chosen to overthrow Sen. John Cornyn by 2020. John Hickenlooper, a two-term Colorado popular governor, decided to launch an unprecedented presidential campaign instead of challenging the Republican's extremely vulnerable Republican senator , Cory Gardner. And it now appears that Montana's Governor, Steve Bullock, one of two Democrats able to win elections in Montana – the other, Jon Tester, already sits in the Senate – will also launch a presidential campaign unprecedented instead of running against Republican Sen Steve Daines.

A number of other renowned Democrats who do not show up for the presidency – there is still time! – also refused candidatures to the Senate. The Texas representative, Joaquin Castro, announced this week that he would not challenge Cornyn, unlike Iowa's first term representative, Cindy Axne, chose not to challenge Senator Joni Ernst, just like the former governor and secretary for agriculture Tom Vilsack in February. Perhaps the most remarkable of all, Stacey Abrams, who captivated Democrats in the run for governorship in Georgia last year, recently informed Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer that she would not contest this. Republican Senator, David Perdue.

Republicans have had a tumultuous time pouring salt into the wound with every decision. Whenever a rookie repels Schumer, they make fun of him and suggest that the Democrats are gearing up for 2020. (If the rookie had agreed, like Mark Kelly in Arizona, they would rather have qualified the candidate for "chosen to "by the leader of the harmful minority.)

Doing nothing is apparently better than running for the Senate, the legislative chamber where the pleasure is at the rendezvous. die.

Democrats put forward several arguable arguments that the recent wave of declensions adds nothing to the narrative of the Senate-Dems-en-Désarroi that pushes the Republicans. First of all, it is still very early in the cycle, and the announcements of the presidential campaign have generally "skewed", as a Democratic Senators campaign committee aide told me, the perception of the Battle of the Senate, where candidates often declare themselves only much later. Bullock, Hickenlooper and O. Rourke would be among the candidates who could later declare, who would still have time to apply if / when (OK, when) their presidential candidacy runs out, as the senator Florida Rubio made it in 2016. They also note that Republicans do not have the easiest time either, as they still have not recruited strong recruits to run against Democrats practicing in Michigan or New Hampshire and are facing the prospect of wicked primaries in Kansas and Alabama. Meanwhile, the Democrats were able to recruit Kelly to Arizona, and there is a host of respectable candidates in Colorado, even without Hickenlooper.

But there is something that separates Arizona and Colorado from states like Iowa, North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Montana and Maine, where Democrats have had more difficulty , up to now, to face challenges: they are, by far, the two most important opportunities for recovery. . In Colorado, Gardner is the most threatened Republican since he represents what has now become a near-safe Democratic state, and Arizona Senator Martha McSally is considered beatable because Senator Kyrsten Sinema just beat her six months ago. Other opportunities, although still "opportunities", are much riskier. It is not surprising that prominent politicians with something to lose do not throw themselves on it.

Take Iowa, for example. The state chose Donald Trump for 10 points in 2016. The Democrats won a few seats in the House of Commons in 2018, with voters expressing the buyer's remorse, but that does not mean that it's not the same. Ernst, which is popular in the state, is somehow of grave danger. If you are Axne, you might decide that the best career choice would be to defend the seat of the House you just won, and if you are Tom Vilsack, you could continue to enjoy the political retreat.

In North Carolina, Senator Thom Tillis is still recovering from his legendary flip-flop on Trump's national emergency declaration. But it's a lean Republican state that Trump won in 2016, just like Georgia. It makes sense that Abrams, who has said he prefers an executive role to a legislative role, wants to turn to the presidency, the vice-presidency or retaliation for the governorship if legislative work at the table is a challenge. cut.

Texas, during the transition, is always redder than any of these states and, as one democratic official said, "John Cornyn does not have the most punishable face in politics." we could discuss, with the face of the Texas senator for reelection in 2018, who still managed to defeat a national star in a big democratic year. If you're O & # 39; Rourke, it makes sense to want to try to capitalize on your momentum in a very open presidential race rather than face a less polarizing Senate opponent, which would most likely make you a loser of the Senate twice and permanent. nobody. And with the generational change in the House in the next term, why would Castro risk the seniority he's building there?

Yes, it's early, and some of these stars testing their national appeal could find their minds once they've placed 56^th out of 55 candidates in Iowa caucuses. The other high-potential recruits might just need a few more months of persuasion from the Democratic Leader in the Senate before being awarded the NRSC "puppet chosen by Schumer" label. If the Democrats do not gather their team of candidates in all these areas The races do not mean that the rejectionists are irrational. The explanation is much simpler: The 2020 Senate card, although better than the 2018 Senate card, is still not excellent. Even if two of the best rookies could win, the Democrats could still end up in the minority of Mitch McConnell's Legislative Cemetery. Why go to a notoriously broken place just to sit with the losers?