Control of the Senate is just as important as the Presidency

[courtesy of Blog for America]

I have read a lot of news stories ever since Obama secured the Democratic nomination about potential Vice Presidential contenders, and some of them concerned me. Not because I don't like the people he is considering for the job- I love most of them. The reason I am concerned is because some of them are Senators from states which were hard fought and won with slim margins.

While I do understand that Obama wants his Presidential campaign to win (I want Obama to win too), and he may believe that picking someone from a state that he may have trouble winning is a good strategic move, there are other factors to consider.

Nevermind that picking a Senator from a particular state doesn't guarantee victory in that state (Kerry didn't carry Edwards' home state in 2004).  The most important thing Obama has to consider is the party's control of the Senate, and beyond that- the party's margin of control in the Senate. Even if the party picks up Senate seats as expected this year, a filibuster needs 60 votes to be overcome, and we can expect the Republicans to try and use them as often as possible. If we really want to end this war and get progressive legislation passed- we can't afford to pull Democratic Senators out of states that were difficult to win in the first place.

Senators who won by two percentage points need to stay in their seats so that when their seat comes up for re-election they are running as incumbents. Even if it were from a state with a Democratic governor who can appoint a replacement, who can run as an incumbent, there is no guarantee that the replacement Democrat will be as popular as the existing incumbent currently holding the seat.