The 2012 U.S. Senate Election in Indiana Comes to an End

Joe Donnelly is the Senator-elect from Indiana. This was to be expected after Mourdock's screw-up where he tried to describe his philosophy on abortion. Those comments truly decided this race. It was a close contest up until late October but the race ended in a comfortable 5-point margin victory for Joe Donnelly when Mourdock who had been cast as an extremist by the Donnelly campaign confirmed it in front of the national and state media within two weeks of Election Day.

Mourdock gave a fairly bad concession speech on election night. The congratulations to his opponent were tame and felt forced. As he got that out of the way, he proceeded to explain how the results of the elections across the country made him fear for the future of the country. Mourdock then cried as he explained how he was attacked for standing up for his principles and he ended the speech by doubling down on his philosophy on abortion.

There is no doubt that Mourdock had to suffer harsher criticism than most candidates (and arguably the most of any candidate) in 2012. It's also true that Mourdock holds a position on abortion that many top Republicans share and which they have not been scolded for. It's also fair to say that Mourdock's comments were misconstrued to sound more extreme than they actually were. Getting attacked for saying incredibly unpopular and extreme things is the nature of politics though. Mourdock's campaign did not shy away from attacking the principles (or as he preferred to phrase it; the lack of them) of his opponents in the primary and the general election so he hardly stood above anyone else in this race.

It's a bad way for a bad candidate to end his campaign. Gracious losers respect the will of the voters by paying respects to the winner and bringing together voters from both sides behind their elected representative. A sore loser diminishes the validity of the victory by expressing fears for the future and by faulting the voters for having fallen for ads and attacks. Mitt Romney gave a classy concession speech; he congratulated the President, wished him well, noted how the country chose a different vision to his and urged people to come together to solve the problems facing the nation. Richard Mourdock congratulated his opponent at the start of the speech but went on to pity himself and imply that something awfully wrong was about to befall the country.

Dick Lugar was criticized for being out of touch with Hoosiers. That may well be true. I couldn't say, as I haven't fully explored the decades of legislative service he leaves behind himself but I know for sure that Mourdock's concession speech, as well as his campaign and his legislative philosophy of hyperpartisanship was out-of-touch with Indiana and the country at large.

Hoosiers made their choice, and they chose shameless centrism over out-of-touch, out-of-wack extremism.

Mourdock Is on the Ropes

Indiana swung 22 points to the left between the presidential elections of 2004 and 2008, leaving Obama with a narrow win in the state. Obama is far behind as of now in Indiana and the state looks set to swing back to the Republican party in the presidential election. But in the Senate race we're set for a massive swing to the left as Joe Donnelly looks to be firmly ahead in the contest against Richard Mourdock. In the wake of Mourdock's rape comments, Donnelly was 11 points ahead in a Howey/DePauw poll at the end of October and 3 points ahead in a Rasmussen poll at the start of November. Rasmussen is skewed to the right so Democrats should be happy with the results of that poll.

Indiana has historically been a red state and the six-term incumbent senator Dick Lugar had won by landslides in the last five elections. This should have put this Senate seat beyond Democratic reach and no one predicted that Republicans would lose this seat at the beginning of the year. What has done Republicans in is the tilt to the right and they have yet again squandered a chance to take control of the Senate by nominating extreme Senate candidates in 2012.

The Indiana Senate general election was a toss-up from beginning to the end of October. Everyone was waiting for Mourdock to go firmly ahead in the race and put the vicious Republican primary against Dick Lugar behind himself. That momentum never happened for Mourdock. Hoosiers remained unconvinced by the man and feared that he was too extreme. Joe Donnelly could present an easy and convincing narrative to Indiana voters that Mourdock was the Tea Party extremist who ousted Dick Lugar, the beloved moderate. Mourdock did not have to say anything overtly extreme for Donnelly to convincingly paint him as an extremist (that's how extremists are usually exposed; by saying something extreme) and put doubts in people's minds. The Republican primary was enough to put those doubts into people's minds.

That was what kept Donnelly in the race for so long. What's going to win the race for Donnelly is that Mourdock put his foot in the mouth and made it perfectly clear that he is the extremist that they've feared he was. Joe Donnelly seems to be firmly ahead in this contest and Mourdock's looks set to lose with what's ranging from a comfortable margin for Donnelly to a blowout for Mourdock. Unless polls have been way, way off.

A Grey-Faced Man with a $2 Haircut Talks About Rape

Tina Fey is surely not the only person losing their mind over the latest catastrophic remarks on rape by a Republican Senate candidate. With roughly two weeks left of this election season, Mitt Romney and other Republican Senate candidates do not want to see a focus on the perceived anti-women agenda of the Republican party. There was no mention of abortion in the presidential debates and that perhaps goes some way to explain the gains that Romney has been making in the polls with women in the last few weeks. In the debates, neither candidate succeeded in distinguishing themselves from one another on "women's issues". The fact that Democrats were left clutching at the "binders full of women" comment to spearhead their weak attack on Romney is telling of how successful Romney was at presenting himself to women voters.

Todd Akin screwed up earlier this season with his severely deficient, to say the least, understanding of human biology. But that was August. That was before the debates where Romney first stood on the national stage alongside the President in front of millions of viewers and effectively changed the race completely by appearing as sane, reasonable and likable, and by shellacking the President who gave one of the worst debate performances ever. Todd Akin was until a few days ago irrelevant to the presidential contest. This Tuesday, his comments became relevant again when Richard Mourdock stepped in it when he attempted to describe his philosophy on abortion:

"I struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen."

A good lesson for any pro-life politician who opposes exceptions in cases of rape or incest is to never ever give a thorough explanation behind the thinking process. The words will never come out right and you're bound to sound as if you support rape or that you don't care about rape. Todd Akin couldn't do it. Steve King couldn't do it. Joe Walsh couldn't do it. Rick Santorum couldn't do it. Paul Ryan couldn't do it. Akin, King and Walsh gave awful explanations for why there should be no exceptions. Their remarks were shockingly ignorant and contemptuous of rape victims. Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan and yes, Richard Mourdock, however, did not give awful explanations for their beliefs. All of these comments were misconstrued as being supportive of rape, when they were no such thing.

The basic philosophy behind Mourdock's position is that the fetus is a person and has a right to life, and therefore a woman should not be allowed to terminate her pregnancy regardless of how the pregnancy came to be. Mourdock shares a common evangelical Christian view that God is an interventionist God, and that this god is responsible for the good things in life and especially, the creation of each life. Mourdock is not of the view that God intended the rape to happen but merely the life that was created. Ricahard Mourdock is of course wrong on the issue of abortion but he's not a supporter of rape ("a rape-enthusiast") and he's not at all out of line with many Republicans on the issue. He just happened to share his beliefs, beliefs that have become acceptable in mainstream politics, in a clumsily-worded and easily-misconstrued way.

What Mourdock's comments have done is to drag the issue of abortion up on the national stage during the last two weeks of the election cycle and to rub his extreme views off on every Republican running for office on November 6th. His comments allow a lazy and sensationalist media to engage with an issue that they would usually ignore: the ever more common view among Republicans that there should be no exception for rape and incest. These comments have dominated the media in the last few days and will do so for the next few days as well. The comments are close enough to the election to stick in people's minds and for the offended parties to remain offended by election day. With the national media latching on to this, the comments will tar every Republican candidate to some degree and the issue of abortion and Republican extremism will take up precious time in the home-stretch of a campaign that Republicans want to be about Democrats' failure to revitalize the economy.

The First Debate

The first Indiana Senate debate of 2012 was this Monday. In this debate we had our Democratic and Republican nominees, as well as the Libertarian Party candidate Andrew Horning (whom I had never heard about before watching the debate). The Libertarian candidate has not featured in any polls I've seen nor have I seen him mentioned in the national or state press coverage of the race but there he was on stage with the two-party candidates. The Libertarian candidate gave the usual libertarian diatribe. Talk about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, taxation being theft, government programs being Ponzi schemes and what have you. He won't take a big chunk of the electorate but in a race as close as this he might be the spoiler candidate who will siphon off enough votes to ensure a Donnelly victory.

Donnelly focused on his bipartisan credentials and his Republican opponent's denunciation of bipartisanship. Donnelly also mentioned Dick Lugar repeatedly and expressed his admiration of the exiting Senator. Mourdock expressed how important principles should be in Washington and that his opponent lacks them. He linked his opponent to Obamacare (which is unpopular in Indiana) and President Obama (who is unpopular in Indiana). Mourdock tried to appear more moderate in the debate than he was in the Republican primaries and on the early campaign trail. He accused Donnelly of distorting his record and twisting his words to make him look extreme. Even in a state as solidly red as Indiana, implying that Medicare is unconstitutional is a very risky statement to stand by and Mourdock tried to make the case that he had never said any such thing. Donnelly responded by paraphrasing Mourdock's speech where he implied that Medicare and Social Security were unconstitutional, and he explained how Mourdock is being dishonest about what he said and did not say.

Donnelly came out a winner on that specific issue but overall I felt that both candidates did OK. I don't think this debate will have much of an impact on the race, except raising awareness of the Libertarian Party candidate who did alright (unlike the Libertarian candidate, for instance, in the first Missouri Senate race debate who came off as a clown). Neither Donnelly nor Mourdock came off as unsenatorial. Neither said anything that will change this race one way or another. I think this race will be tight until the end but I look forward to seeing fresh polls that include the Libertarian candidate. He might be a game-changer. There are a lot of disgruntled Republicans in Indiana who are not completely sold on Richard Mourdock.

Dick Lugar Finally Makes an Endorsement... in the Massachusetts Race

 This has been a fairly good week for the Democratic nominee Joe Donnelly:

• A Republican poll showed that Mourdock was only up by 3 points and within the margin of error. The poll is likely skewed in favour of the Republican candidate, which means that it should be a worry for the Mourdock campaign that they only win it within the margin of error.

• Bill Clinton appeared alongside Joe Donnelly in a high school in Indianapolis to argue on his behalf. The theme of the speech was that the country needs more bipartisanship and that Joe Donnelly will provide it. As Bill Clinton is quite respected by Democrats, Republicans and Independents, and is often seen as a bipartisan figure from a bipartisan age in politics (even though the 90s were hardly the golden age of bipartisanship that people seem to think). Clinton then made the appeal to Lugar supporters by basically lauding Lugar's record as a Senator and calling him a "bona fide conservative" who was still willing to work across the aisle. His implication was clearly that Lugar was the good kind of conservative and that Mourdock is the bad kind of conservative. Following this race, you'd think that Donnelly was a surrogate for Lugar based on the kind words he says about him every chance he gets. The purpose is obvious: attract those disenchanted Lugar voters that will win the race for Donnelly.

• Dick Lugar made an endorsement that made into the Indiana media. It was an endorsement of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race, not Richard Mourdock in the Indiana Senate race. It's become quite clear at this point that Lugar is not going to endorse Mourdock and this news story serves to illustrate that clearly to the Indiana voters that awarded him landslide victories for three decades.

The only thing that Mourdock has going for him at the moment is Romney's momentum. If Romney keeps the momentum up and Obama keeps on hemorrhaging, then this will boost turn-out among Republican voters and depress the Democratic vote. Even though Indiana is not a swing state in this presidential election, lots of people still go to the polls primarily to have their say in the presidential election. So the presidential race is relevant to this senatorial race.

The Indiana Senate race is uncomfortably close at this point for the Republican candidate. Bill Clinton's stumping and Dick Lugar's visible lack of an endorsement can only help Joe Donnelly. The only thing that will turn this race around for Richard Mourdock looks to be Romney's ongoing success in the presidential contest.

Campaign Finance

The Indiana Senate race of 2012 is set to be the most expensive in Indiana history. There are a few reasons for this.

First, there hasn't been a close Senate race in a long time. The last four Indiana Senators - Dan Coats, Dick Lugar, Birch Bayh and Dan Quayle - all won their elections by wide margins. Landslide victories don't bring a lot of political money, close elections do. Especially in a year when control of the Senate may depend on one Senate seat.

Second, a lot of money was spent in a tough Republican primary. The primary attracted a lot of attention and outside spending, and is responsible for a substantial portion of the money spent in this election.

Third, outside groups and super PACs (given rise to by the Citizens United ruling) have taken a keen interest in this vital race and have spent money against both party candidates. Mourdock gets his support from the typical Republican-backing organizations: Crossroads GPS (Karl Rove's super PAC), the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks for America, Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch brothers) and the national party. Donnelly gets his support from typical Democratic-backing sources: Majority PAC (Harry Reid's super PAC), Center Forward (a super PAC for blue dog Democrats), labor unions and VetoVets.org ("the largest progressive group of veterans in America"). These outside groups account for about half of the total spending on Senate ads during the last three weeks of September.

As the presidential debate last week revitalized Romney's campaign and supporters, we can expect more spending in the presidential race from the aforementioned super PACs. We can expect less spending from these groups in the Senate races that were contested earlier this fall/summer but where one candidate is now firmly holding the lead (Warren in Massachusetts, Kaine in Virginia, Nelson in Florida, Brown in Ohio). These factors will play into how much more outside spending there will be in Indiana. Fewer close contests will lead to more outside spending in Indiana. The Indiana Senate race looks set to be a close one until the end so we can expect it to remain one of the most expensive Senate races this fall.

I am not confident in the notion that spending in elections has a  substantial effect on the outcome of elections as long as both candidates fulfill a certain financial threshold that makes them capable of advertising across the state and running proper campaigns. Both Donnelly and Mourdock seem to have adequate funds well beyond that threshold. Any massive increase in spending for any candidate at this point will have a modest effect, if any. This race is not going to be decided by a last-month splurge.

The Republican Candidate - Richard Mourdock

Indiana has historically been a Republican stronghold and the most conservative state in the Rust Belt. Only two Democratic presidential candidates have won Indiana since World War II (LBJ in 1964 and Obama in 2008). Hoosiers (i.e. residents of Indiana) have though on occasion elected moderate Democrats to Governor and Senator (the two-generation Bayh "dynasty" - Evan Bayh and Birch Bayh - being the most notable Democratic presence in the state). The same year that Obama narrowly carried Indiana (by 0.9%), Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels was re-elected by an 18-point margin. So Obama's win hardly reflected a great trend towards the left in Indiana.

Richard Mourdock is the Republican candidate. He is a two-term Indiana State Treasurer who has been actively involved in Indiana politics since the late 80s (he ran unsuccessfully for Congress a few times). I early May, he won the Republican primary and ousted incumbent Senator Dick Lugar in a highly publicized race. Tea Party groups, top national conservative groups and conservative figures endorsed Mourdock and poured millions into a campaign to defeat Lugar. With cash, endorsements and a Republican base of voters increasingly vary of a conservatism less ideologically pure than that of Michelle Bachmann, Lugar lost the election (see this earlier post).

Nobody can accuse Richard Mourdock of being anything less than the Tea Party's wet dream. On every issue that can be placed on a left-to-right spectrum, Mourdock is firmly on the right. On social issues, he opposes abortion, same-sex marriage (and civil unions) and gun control. He opposes the DREAM Act and any form of amnesty for illegal aliens. On health-care, Mourdock has questioned the constitutionality of Medicare and Medicaid, he supports a Voucher program and he has criticized the Ryan Plan (which introduced a Voucher system, and cuts to Medicare and Medicaid) for not going far enough. He would of course never raise taxes, and he opposed the withdrawal from Iraq and would want to stay indefinitely in Afghanistan. The only issue where he seems to divert from a hardline stance is on abortion where he would be willing to make exceptions in cases of some "crisis pregnancies" (rape, incest and the life of the mother?). I somehow doubt that's enough to get Democrats in Indiana to cross party lines. The issue of bipartisanship is where Mourdock's extremism can be seen the most clearly. He seems to be completely unwilling to reach across the aisle on any issue and the only bipartisanship acceptable to him consists of "Democrats coming to the Republican point of view". What Mourdock hopes to accomplish in the Senate, a legislative body based on bipartisanship, except clogging things up, I don't know know.

Mourdock has done much poorer in the polls than can be expected from a Republican candidate in a Republican state. Dick Lugar would've easily won a general election. The tough primary race and the support for Dick Lugar in the state go some way to explain why he's doing so badly. Joe Donnelly, Dick Lugar and the national/state media have also painted a picture of him as an extremist and it would seem as if that narrative is sticking. I will look closer at the polls in my next few blog posts but it would be interesting to see how the Mourdock disapproval polls look.

Mourdock can either continue to run as an unrelenting conservative  or try to moderate his language and align himself with likable, respectable establishment Republicans (Gov. Daniels, for example) rather than the more extreme Tea Party figures who endorsed him and campaigned with him against Lugar. As Mourdock seems to be slipping in the polls (Joe Donnelly has a slim lead in the newest poll), it seems as if Mourdock might be trying to change up his campaign and paint himself more moderate.

The Democratic Candidate - Rep. Joe Donnelly

In 2008, Obama won Indiana by a single point. He became the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Despite an Obama win in 2008, Indiana is four years later a fairly safe state for Romney and remains a Republican-leaning state. While the presidential race in the state is firmly in Romney's hands, the Senate race is a toss-up. This bodes well for Democrats who at the start of the year were expecting the Indiana Senate seat to be firmly Republican (the six-term incumbent Dick Lugar would've easily won a general election).

Joe Donnelly is the Democratic nominee. He's a three-term congressman who faced a tough re-election bid this fall after redistricting turned a fairly safe seat much more conservative. This urged him to run for the Senate seat vacated by Dick Lugar. He went on to win the Democratic nomination in an uncontested primary. This means that he emerged from the primary unscathed and without having to spend any money (unlike Mourdock, the Republican nominee, who had to fight a tough primary and spend a lot).

Joe Donnelly is a Blue Dog Democrat (i.e. a moderate Democrat) with a fairly conservative voting record. On fiscal policy, he has opposed the termination of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and he has opposed any cuts to military spending. On immigration, he opposes the DREAM Act and is pushing for tougher border control. On social issues, Donnelly opposes abortion and gay marriage. He is also endorsed by the NRA and has a conservative record on gun rights. He did however vote for the Affordable Care Act and the Stimulus, something that Mourdock will undoubtedly try to focus attention on.

In a Republican leaning-state, Donnelly is going to have to talk about his bipartisan credentials and emphasize his conservative record. He will also have to point out Mourdock's lack of bipartisan credentials and make the case that Mourdock will add to the gridlock in Congress. Dick Lugar, whom Mourdock defeated in the primary, is popular statewide and Donnelly would do good to characterize Mourdock as the hardliner, the extremist, who ousted the gentle, old, beloved Dick Lugar (who will not campaign for Mourdock). Characterizing extreme politicians as extreme and getting it through to people can very hard unless they slip up and say something astoundingly stupid or extreme. An extremist like Todd Akin would most likely be far ahead in the Missouri Senate race if he hadn't slipped up with his "legitimate rape" comments. Donnelly has been blessed in that he can contrast the unknown Mourdock with the well-known Lugar, and by doing so illustrate to people how extreme he is. That's how he's going to have to attract disgruntled Lugar supporters, and moderates and conservatives that swung for Obama in '08.

Obama narrowly defeated McCain in Indiana by vastly outspending his opponent and by running a great campaign in the state. Donnelly is likely to be outspent and won't have the same advantage as Obama had in northwestern Indiana (which is part of the Chicago metropolitan area where Obama has been a prominent figure ever since he started his career in the Illinois Senate) but he has a convincing narrative on his side and his success will depend on how well he can push that narrative and hammer home the point that Mourdock is too extreme for Indiana.

In my next blog post, I will examine Richard Mourdock, Donnelly's opponent.

Introduction - The History of the Indiana Senate Race, 2012

As part of a course in U.S. Politics, we are supposed to a pick a US election to analyze this fall. Seeing as how someone had already picked the massive Elizabeth Warren-Scott Brown race for Teddy Kennedy's old Senate seat, I was left with Indiana as the most interesting race this fall. The race was first brought to my attention back in early 2012 when political commentators were noting how Tea Party groups were trying to unseat two of the most senior Republicans in the Senate - Orrin Hatch of Utah and Dick Lugar of Indiana. In 2010, Tea-Party candidates won various Republican Senate primaries at the expense of establishment Republicans... among them we had Sharron "2nd Amendment remedies" Angle in Nevada, Joe Miller in Alaska, Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell in Delaware, Ken Buck in Colorado and Mike Lee in Utah. Only Mike Lee - who defeated the reliably conservative incumbent Bob Bennett in the primary - would go on to win the general election. Had Republican primary voters chosen electable candidates instead of Sharron Angle, Ken Buck and Christine O'Donnell, Democrats would in all likelihood have lost the Senate and one Senate Majority Leader in Harry Reid.

What we're seeing in Indiana is fairly similar. Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party favorite, took on Dick Lugar, an incumbent and one of the more centrist Republican Senators. Dick Lugar, who was fairly certain to win in a general election lost against Mourdock who is now in a general election toss-up against Joe Donnelly, the Democratic nominee (whom I know nothing about at the moment, but I'll get to him in my next blog post). Or that's at least what the polls show at this fairly early stage of the election. So we may see a repeat of 2010, when Republicans squandered the chance of regaining the Senate by nominating unelectable candidates. Keep in mind though that polls at this rather early stage in local and state races without incumbents aren't particularly meaningful, and since Indiana is considered a Republican-leaning state, it would seem as if Mourdock would be better set to win this race.

So as an avid follower of U.S. politics, the Indiana race will be interesting to analyze because it relates so well to the national trend and can provide so much insight into what's going on at the national level. Here we have yet again the expulsion of a moderate Republican in favor of a Tea Party extremist. A Senator Richard Mourdock would only be in the Senate to obstruct and clog things up even further. What's Mourdock's idea of compromise and bipartisanship? His idea of compromise is that Democrats come to agree with him on everything. Is a Senator Mourdock going to be around to get that massive post-2012 debt reduction deal passed? Is he going to help push through bipartisan tax reform? Immigration reform? Education reform? No. Mourdock is only going to be a hindrance to any solutions to the problems the U.S. is facing. For me, he personifies the right-wing fundamentalism that has plagued the Republican party since 2008, and the obstructionism that has lead to a political crisis in Washington.

Regardless of whether Republicans take the Senate or not, and regardless of whether Mourdock wins this race, the right-wing faction of the Republican party has won a victory. By ousting the less than "severely conservative" Lugar in a much publicized primary race, the effect is certain to push other Republicans with a less than perfect conservative record to go further right. As Barney Frank so aptly put it: “It [the Republican majority in Congress] consists half of people who think like Michele Bachmann … and half of people who are afraid of losing a primary to people who think like Michele Bachmann.” Case in point, after Bob Bennett lost against Mike Lee in 2010, the above-mentioned Orrin Hatch immediately started preparing for a primary fight in 2012. He went from a 75 percent conservative rating in 2007 to a 100 percent conservative rating in 2012. In the process, Orrin Hatch, who once introduced the DREAM Act (which would provide permanent residency to the children of illegal immigrants if they go to school or join the military) to the Senate, became a vocal opponent of it when it was re-introduced by Democrats after Obama's election. Republicans of course filibustered (blocked the majority from passing the bill) the whole thing and a slew of Republicans who once supported the bill joined in on the filibuster.

Dick Lugar's mistake in all of this was to not prepare adequately for his primary challenge and flip-flop his way into "severely conservative" territory (like Hatch did). He was one of three Republicans to vote for the DREAM Act when Democrats re-introduced it (the other two had lost or would go on to lose primaries to Tea Party challengers). He got pounced for not living in Indiana, for his age and his status as a veteran Congressman at a time when Congress was as popular as Hugo Chavez. But his downfall was a less than ideologically perfect conservative record and a will to reach across the aisle (you might, for instance, recall how presidential candidate Obama cited his work with Lugar to bolster his bipartisan credentials in the presidential debates in 2008).

So that's the history of the Indiana Senate race for 2012 up until this point, why it interests me and how this Senate race relates to the state of the politics in the US as a whole. In my next blog post, I'll look closer at Richard Mourdock and Joe Donnelly, and the policies they stand for. I'll also take a deeper look at the demographics of Indiana and the issues at play in the state.