Flip a coin

One guy go after Trent Loot's seat now, the other guy go after Thadeus's in November. That was easy.

---

by: mike20169 @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:33:25 AM CST

Not that easy

Thadeus is a lock for re-election, so it isn't that simple.  Neither one of them (Moore or Musgrove) needs to be a sacrificial lamb, which is what they would be against Cochran.  

Democrats can't afford a primary either.  I say go with Moore.  I ASSUME he hasn't lost statewide before, and he has always been the heir apparent when a vacancy arose.

Barbour's solid win just two weeks ago shows the voters don't have any 'remorse' for defeating Musgrove.  

This is a winnable seat, but the Dems will need a lucky break or two (such as a divisive GOP primary) to have a real shot at it.  

Mississippi is red and getting redder, but if the GOP image continues to suffer, and the Dem runs a GREAT campaign, it is possible to pull it out.

BTW, is there ANY chance of the Dems picking up either Wicker or Pickering's seat with a vacancy?        

---

by: vicupstate @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:57:55 AM CST

fun in MS...

Mike Moore hasn't been defeated in his 4 elections.  He retired after the 2003 election, possibly hoping that Lott would retire in the near future.  Who knows?  Musgrove lost his 2003 reelection against a rediculously well-funded Haley Barbour in what was a terrible year for Democrats. But his loss was only 47%-53%.

Musgrove is originally from Wicker's district in northern Mississippi, but he moved to Pickering's district after being defeated in 2003.  If Musgrove ran for the open seat in Wicker's district, he'd do well.  Upper NE Mississippi has a LOT of Republicans, but the rest of the district is full of old-school Democrats that are along the same ideological lines of Musgrove.  But since Musgrove is now in Pickering's district, it's unlikely Musgrove will run for the House.  Pickering's seat is heavily Republican, not likely to swap parties anytime soon.  There might be some state senators that might be persuaded into running for an open seat, should Wicker be appointed to the seat.  He'd probably be a Blue Dog, so let's try to not get our panties in a wad that he's not a mold of Pelosi.

---

by: mississippiboy @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:37:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

do you think one will back down for another

or are they both willing to primary themselves to defeat?  we need to be united on this.  while deciding which top tier challenger to run is a good problem to have, it's still a problem.

being normal is for the mediocre.

---

by: doug_tuttle @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:06:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No primary

Technically they both could run in the special election:

Secretary of State Eric Clark said "a primary election does not take place for special elections. The candidate receiving a majority of the votes will be the winner. If no candidate gets a majority on Nov. 4, a runoff will be required. The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes will face off three weeks later."

---

by: James L. @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:10:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Two Dems would not be the way to go ...

Unless there were three or more strong GOP candidates.  Otherwise, you might end up with two GOP candidates in the runoff.  As weak as the Dems are in MS, they need to be united.  

Why exactly has Moore been so successful, and Musgrove unsuccessful in his re-election bid?  

Has Moore faced stiff opposition or mostly token opposition?  Didn't he win a big Tobacco lawsuit as AG?  

Did Musgrove lose because Barbour slammed him hard on issues or because he was the biggest spender in a GOP state?

How old are they?  The 'send a young man to Washington until he isn't young anymore' is a long tradition in MS.        

---

by: vicupstate @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 13:04:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My take on it

I'm guessing Moore has less baggage and more of a positive image than Musgrove.  However, if we get Musgrove instead of Moore, I don't think anyone should be crying... He just hasn't had the strong victories like Moore to give me as much confidence in him.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:50:19 AM CST

i want moore and i want it now

all the variables in a case like this make my head hurt but i'll try to wade through-

are we sure there's no primary? we're well ahead of the election which could follow the regular schedule for federal '08 elections (along with the house seats).  i don't seee the point in setting a different schedule for this - unless it's to depress turnout or mess the election up.

if there's no primary then it's just as likely that one or two ambitious republicans run as well as pickering making it possible for a democrat to win with 40-45%.  but that won't happen.

primary or no primary, it's pickering vs. moore (or musgrove) with either having to run a populist triangulation campaign against everyone in washington dc.  moore seems well positioned to do it, though musgrove did a good job of laying out the issues.

and i don't want to hear the hate from the progressives when moore/musgrove tries to define himself as a conservative democrat (ala harold ford or lloyd bentsen way back when).

---

by: st paul sage @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 13:12:09 PM CST

Musgrove is a sure defeat

Picking Musgrove instead of Moore to run would hand the seat to the Republican candidate on a silver platter, no matter how unknown he is.  Despite 2002 being a bad year overall for Democrats, the real underlying reason behind Musgrove's loss was his support for changing the state flag a year earlier.  That still has a bad taste in the mouths of many Mississippi voters that are needed to cross the 50% threshold.  No overall nationwide Democratic boost can change that fact.  Moore has never lost a statewide race and has less baggage than Musgrove.  Moore might lose too, but if I had to gamble my right arm, I'd go with Moore.  

---

by: shaunnol @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 13:20:20 PM CST

Now I remember that flag issue...

Being from SC, where a Repub got beat partially due to seeking to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse dome, I wholeheartedly agree that that issue would hurt Musgrove. While to was the right thing to do(changing the flag), there are voters that would vote D, but wouldn't based solely on that.  A Dem can't win with any baggage like that.  

Your logic sounds solid to me. Moore sounds like the better choice.

BTW, in regards to a different post, NO candidate can win with anything less than 50%, there will be a RUNOFF between the top two candidates if no one receives 50% plus one.

   

---

by: vicupstate @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 14:40:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed

Yeah, good to see you agree.  I'm not saying he was wrong doing what he did, but having grown up in the South (living in Minnesota now) I understand the nature of Southern politics.  God, I sound like Hillary making that comment.  Plus, the current Mississippi AG won on the coattails of Moore, showing his power.

---

by: shaunnol @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 19:30:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sec. of State Clark

As much as I really like Eric Clark, I really think he's screwing up this election and maybe even the law.  

It's going to be very, very tough for Musgrove/Moore to do well in November with all the Republicans turning out to keep Hillary out of the White House.  There just aren't enough Democrats around these days to keep the Republican numbers down.

A March election would have been much more preferable.  It'll still be one hell of an election.  Don't get me wrong.  Musgrove/Moore are just going to have to haul ass to get the votes.  They can do it.  They've done it plenty of times before.

---

by: mississippiboy @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 13:27:43 PM CST

A special election would be much easier for a Dem to win

but there is no guarantee that Hillary will be the Democratic presidential nominee.  If I had to bet today, I think Obama is the most likely nominee.  

Speaking of which, if he were the nominee, would that help or hurt Moore/Musgrove?   No doubt it would drive up black turnout, which helps Moore/Musgrove, but would whites that might vote for Moore/Musgrove be less likely to do so with Obama at the top of the ticket???  

---

by: vicupstate @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 14:44:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

doesn't matter

Doesn't matter if it's Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.  The Democratic nominee is going to be a drag on the rest of the ticket.  That's been the case since Reagan.

The only way I can see the GOP nominee being a drag is if it's Rudy.  My fellow Mississippians aren't too keen on the former NYC Mayor.  Strangely enough, a lot of folks are jumping on Fred Thompson's bandwagon.  A lot of Republicans will end up staying home if Rudy's the nominee.  You can take that to the bank.

---

by: mississippiboy @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 15:15:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't get me wrong..

I don't expect any Dem to win Missippi's electoral vote. No sane person would.

But Hillary will bring out the anti-Democrat vote in droves.  The nursing homes will be emptied, so they can all vote against her.  Obama may have the same effect, but maybe that is too stereotypical and old-school?  Edwards would not have that effect since he is 1) male, 2) white, 3) not Hillary.  

You're probably right about Rudy, but not if he is opposing Hillary.

Ideally, the election is held in 100-120 days from now, to eliminate the potential presidential drag, but I doubt that will happen.  
     

---

by: vicupstate @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 16:54:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Personally I hope it's Moore.

Moore may not be a progressive by national standards but he's still pretty good, much like the first incarnation of John Edwards from what I'm told.  He's certainly the most popular Democrat in Miss and probably one of the state's most popular contemporary figures, plus he established a pro-consumer record as attorney general by taking on big tobacco.

Here in east Arkansas, we have to suffer through the political ads coming out of Mississippi...99% of which are terrible.  I remember the Musgrove/Barber election and how nasty it got, but I remember being distinctly unimpressed with Musgrove and irritated by a little bit of gay baiting he did over the gay adoption ban down there.  Moore's the better choice of the two, by far.

Stop complaining and whining and get to work.

---

by: ARDem @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 16:11:11 PM CST

How old is Moore BTW?

I know he was MS AG for 16 years (88-04), and I've seen him in THE INSIDER and in pictures, but he looks pretty young for someone with such a long tenure (not as long as some, but still..). Reason I ask is that, if he were to run and win, I would hope he'd be able to serve a long and successful tenure and not have to worry about him retiring after 1-2 terms.

Seems like a solid guy. Anyone from the Deep South with the guts to take on Big Tobacco has my support.

---

by: corran horn @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 16:23:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

55 years old.

He was born in 1952.

---

by: James L. @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 19:12:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]