So long as reporters are writing about Republican partisans claiming to be happy [1] about the outcomes of certain Democratic primaries they should go ahead and write about the Democrats who are happy about who came out on top in the big Missouri GOP primary.
Here's a specific tip: Missouri Democrats were elated when Kenny Hulshof barely held off a charge from Sarah Steelman and won the gubernatorial nomination by a handful of points a week ago. Though either Republican nominee would ultimately be defeated, Hasselhoff's Hulshof's primary victory allows Democratic nominee Jay Nixon to run against a candidate that's far easier to beat in a general election. Here's why:
1) Kenny Hulshof has to defend his time in Washington DC record in an election that's all about change and anti-Washington sentiment. Kenny's part of the old politics, following the Republican Revolutionaries into office and now following them out. Sarah Steelman had no time spent in Washington and could plausibly have claimed to be free of that taint.
2) Hulshof has a decade-long history of damaging Congressional votes. Ten years of wacky votes --like his support for the bridge to nowhere-- will give Democrats plenty of reasons to cite for why Hulshof just doesn't have the fiscal responsibility that the chief executive of the state needs. Steelman has a much shorter legislative record, developed in the state legislature and without hundreds of endorsements of Congressional pork projects.
3) Hulshof's primary win allows a more advantageous campaign narrative for state Democrats. A Steelman victory would have helped a storyline flourish about a Republican nominee who is "a giant-killer" who has already pulled off a huge upset win. There would have been media fawning about her "maverick" status and David vs. Goliath demeanor. Instead, Hulshof won --as he was supposed to-- while severely underperforming expectations and barely doing what he needed to. His win serves only to underscore the already developed narrative about his listless, Fred Thompson-esque candidacy.
4) Hulshof will do worse with Independent voters than Steelman would have. Let's be clear: public polling makes it plain that Jay Nixon is likely to dominate among independent voters in November. Nevertheless, Sarah Steelman's outside-the-establishment posture and the nature of her campaign lent themselves to greater appeal among independent voters than did Kenny's by-the-GOP-books gameplan. Sure, Hulshof won the primary by virtue of having done a little better among your hardcore Republican partisans, but all those people were going to vote in November for whomever the GOP nominee was anyway. Steelman might also have pulled along some indie voters with them.
5) Hulshof's nomination lets Matt Blunt live on for a few more months as a political issue and a GOP handicap. From the beginning of the primary, Hulshof was the pro-Blunt candidate, Steelman the anti-Blunt candidate. In addition to getting public and behind the scenes support from the Governor's political operation, Hulshof essentially embraced every portion of the failed Matt Blunt agenda. While lauding the Blunt Medicaid cuts might be a reasonable tactic in a GOP primary, doing so is general election poison. Democrats get the bonus with Hulshof of having a Matt Blunt clone to run against.
Republican primary voters, whatever their intention, did us a big favor last Tuesday. Let me be the first to thank them publicly on behalf of Democrats across the state.