Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.
John Walsh is campaigning against Steve Daines. Dirk Adams and John Bohlinger are campaigning against John Walsh. The resulting dynamic distorts the differences between the three Democrats, with Walsh appearing more conservative than he probably is, and Adams and Bohlinger appearing more liberal than they may be.
But any of these Democrats would be a more liberal U.S. Senator than tea-stained Republican Steve Daines, an affable ideologue who represents the rich, and the high and the mighty, mighty rich. Ergo, the most important question for Democratic primary voters is not “who’s the most liberal Democrat of all,” but “who has the best chance of beating Steve Daines in November?”
For me, the answer is John Walsh, followed, at a significant distance, first by Dirk Adams and second by John Bohlinger.
Electability comprises more than positions on issues. It also comprises personality, organization, and the ability to raise money.
Old John Bohlinger — he’s 78 — probably has the best political personality of the three Democrats, but he has the least effective campaign organization.
Dirk Adams has a genuine campaign organization, but he’s not that good a fundraiser, having loaned himself a quarter-million dollars, more than twice what he’s raised from other sources.
Low key John Walsh makes a good impression in person. He neither threatens nor excites. He’s prosaic on the hustings. But he’s well organized, raising far more money than Adams and Bohlinger combined — and he hasn’t loaned himself a single cent.
The predicate for Walsh’s campaign is that Montana is a center-right state that leans decidedly Republican in midterm elections. Therefore, he’s presenting himself as more aware of and sympathetic to the needs of veterans than non-veteran Daines, and as a social moderate but deficit hawk in an effort to win the votes of debt-fearing Republicans who dislike their party’s stand on certain social issues, such as choice and gay marriage.
As Primary Election Day approaches, Walsh’s most dangerous primary adversary is neither Adams nor Walsh: it’s fatalistic Democratic primary voters who believe all is lost no matter who wins the primary, and that therefore they can ethically disregard electability concerns and cast their votes on issues alone.
Some conservationists, for example, steamed at Walsh for supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, are supporting Adams because he opposes the pipeline; others because he endorses NREPA, the grandiose Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that never will become law.
And some economic liberals, steamed at Walsh for his support of Sen. Mark Udall’s balanced budget amendment, a very bad idea that Sen. John Tester supports, and that Max Baucus supported, might vote for Adams or Bohliner, or not vote at all in the Democratic Senate primary, just to send Walsh a message.
My message to those “all is lost, so we can ignore electability” Democrats is: whoa, slow down, stop! Daines is ahead, but his election is not foreordained. It’s far too early to concede the election. A Montana Democrat can beat Daines, so it’s in the enlightened self-interest of Democratic primary voters to nominate the most electable Democratic candidate.
That candidate is John Walsh.