GOP Senate Race Reality Check

There's a lot of grousing that Republicans don't yet have any clear candidates for the nomination for U.S. Senate to take on incumbent Democrat Dick Durbin next year. But there are some institutional realities to this race that have to be taken into account. It is, by no means, a worthless nomination. But it is the political equivalent of venture capital - a high-risk opportunity that offers a big return with ultimate success, but long odds against achieving that success. There are limitations on who can take on that type of risk.

First the problems. Durbin is a high-ranking member of Democratic leadership in the senate. He will start with access to all the resources he needs. He is a Democratic incumbent in a blue state. He is identified as an outspoken opponent of the war; a war that, whatever its merits, is currently both at the top of peoples minds and very unpopular.

If nothing significant changes in the political landscape, any serious GOP candidate would have to largely self-fund. The State Republican Party is coming off a devastating cycle. That dampens the ability of the state party to raise money for the next cycle. While it can't give directly to a federal candidate anyway, it puts serious hurdles in the way of it being of serious help in offering support services in improving the climate or helping in direct fundraising appeals.

The Washington Republican establishment (regular party apparatchiks, vendors, and conservative organizations) regards Illinois as a lost cause. The terms I hear most frequently to describe it are, 'hopeless, sinkhole and career-eater.' Sometimes, when a campaign looks as if it must run on a shoestring, ideological leaders will counter that by launching an intense, focused grass-roots effort to take up the slack. But the conservative movement in Illinois is in at least as much disrepute with national conservative leaders as the regular party is with national party leaders.

To give the short version of how we got to this pass, when the Reagan Revolution swept Republican politics throughout the nation, it largely bypassed Illinois because of the then-successful center-left Republican politics of former Governors Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar. A mature conservative leadership, combining both ideology and practical political skills, never took deep root here. Besides its own flaws, efforts to participate in Republican leadership were often blocked.

Now the issues most publicly identified with the Illinois conservative movement are minimalist procedural issues rather than broad philosophical ones: who will hold relatively obscure party posts, how will they be elected, etc. These sorts of issues have limited appeal to committed conservatives; they put average voters to sleep. I don't argue here whether they are right or wrong, merely that they are not the stuff average folk decide to get up to fight and bleed for. So conservatives are not busy winning new converts and filling them with principled resolution at a time when we are a minority. Instead, we are putting average people to sleep and driving other sympathetic-minded people away because we resemble a movement less than we do an ongoing food fight.

Meanwhile, with the passing of Thompson and Edgar, the institutional Republican Party in Illinois was set adrift, disconnected from the broad themes that animated Republican resurgence in other parts of the country. Without a conservative leadership that could prioritize issues for broad appeal and with a regular leadership that was fumbling with themes that time has passed by, Illinois Republicans have little to inspire confidence in anyone outside Illinois. One might argue that this is not the way it should be, but when real candidates are contemplating putting their lives and fortunes on the line for a year or two they have to deal with how things are; not how they should be.

So if outside money comes in at all it will come in a trickle. Inside money won't be much more robust. That leaves two types of candidates who can reasonably run for this nomination. The first is one who can self-fund. The second is a mid or low-level politician who goes into it knowing defeat is nearly certain, but runs a shoestring campaign as a placeholder in service of the party with the benefit of getting some broader recognition for the future.

As I said at the beginning, the nomination is by no means worthless. Politics is very volatile. While Durbin's position on the war effort is currently very favorable for him, dramatic upheavals often happen in wartime. Because Durbin is so deeply rooted in that position, a dramatic change in public opinion on the matter could leave him mortally vulnerable. Dramatic upheavals also happen occasionally in the normal course of politics.

You might remember that in 1991 many of the Democrats of the greatest national stature were deciding against seeking what many considered a worthless nomination against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush, whose approval ratings were then at about 274%. Their reticence paid off quite nicely for a relatively little-known former Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. This is not pollyannish: the top names in the Democratic Party made what was, for them, a rational decision and Clinton made what, for him, was a rational decision.

The odds of such dramatic turn-arounds happening in public opinion happening in any given cycle run anywhere between 5-1 and 20-1. For a well-established name to take on such a venture carries a lot more downside than upside. Victory only marginally improves his status. Defeat sows doubts about his prowess that may not have existed before. But for someone who is not so well-established and has not already spent much political capital in losing efforts, it is a great opportunity. Defeat carries no great sting, as victory was not expected in the first place. The very act of taking on impossible odds creates a bond of affection with many party loyalists the candidate had not known before, thus expanding his reach rather than contracting it. Unexpected victory against such long odds immediately propels the candidate into the top ranks of his party. Huge upside, almost no downside.

Offhand, I can think of four potential candidates with some political presence who could self-fund at least enough to make a credible go of this race: Kathy Salvi, Jim Oberweis, Ron Gidwitz and Andy McKenna.

As I mentioned last week, Salvi's is the only name that has some people actively working. She probably is the best conventional fit. She ran a creditable race for the 8th District Congressional nomination last time. The downside is that some tend to lump hers and her husband Al's races together, and so a loss would have a bigger sting here than for the average candidate who has only run once before. Further, if she had a clear path to the nomination to oppose incumbent Democrat Melissa Bean in Illinois 8th Congressional District, that would be a race less dependent on outside intervention of either events or money to pull off an upset. It has almost all the potential benefits without nearly as much risk.

Jim Oberweis is coming off three consecutive state-wide losses. It would be a very bad bet for him to take on such a high-risk proposition. Besides, he has a much better option. Presuming former Speaker Denny Hastert does not run for re-election, Oberweis would be the clear front-runner to replace him (that will be the subject of another column).

Ron Gidwitz is a prudent man with a very sharp learning curve. Following a heavily-funded race for the gubernatorial nomination that yielded deeply disappointing results, he would be unlikely to either come back so soon or take such a high-risk flier following a loss. He is much more likely to help others this cycle while taking a hard analytical look at how to improve performance in a future run for another office.

Andy McKenna has his platter full as state party chairman. If he runs again for high office, it would likely not be such a high-risk proposition as this. His stature right now is more dependent on recruiting an articulate candidate who can lay groundwork for the future rather than running himself.

Depending on what Salvi does, then, the table is set for either an unknown millionaire or a little-known politician to take this nomination. If they run a clumsy campaign, it is another Illinois Republican embarassment. If they run a prudent, technically sound campaign focusing our attention on issues of general import, the worst case is they lay a hopeful seed for the future and serve as a sign of unity - minority unity, but unity, nonetheless. The best case is they end up rocketing to the top levels of national leadership. It's a good bet, even a no-lose bet, for the right person.

Cross-posted at Illinois Review