The state of the Delaware 2024 race: U.S. Senate
Back in September, I said it was time for the players to emerge. Since then, a few have and my first in-depth look is at the U.S. Senate race.
For the first time since 2020, Delaware has a U.S. Senate race, and for the first time since 2010 it involves an open seat. That’s a rarity in Delaware politics, since federal offices aren’t term-limited and people who win tend to like to stay. But because Tom Carper is retiring after four terms, the powers that be in the Delaware Democrat Party have seemingly decided they didn’t need a primary, just a coronation for LBR* to move up from the House to the Senate.
Indeed, it seems to be that the primary will be pro forma in that race this year. While there’s still some time before the filing deadline, the time is really past to begin a campaign on a statewide scale without name recognition. (Being a known quantity is about the only way you can get away with a late campaign start - witness the last-minute entry of former governor Larry Hogan into Maryland’s race for a similarly open U.S. Senate seat.)
At this time, I am aware of three candidates who are running for Delaware’s Senate seat, which will be a term lasting through 2030.
Obviously LBR has the Democrat side sewn up, and the twin facts that a) she’s sitting on a $2.3 million war chest and b) practically every statewide seat up this year is an open seat as Democrats jockey for position means that all but the most illogical perennial candidate will leave her alone for the primary. Basically her being a woman and POC has insulated her from scrutiny as she runs to flaunt those surface characteristics into yet another seat, eight years after milking those assets into winning her House spot and essentially being a back-bencher in a state that needs a leader. (By the way, I’ll look at the House race in an upcoming post.)
Certainly her incumbency makes LBR a prohibitive favorite despite an actual lifetime voting record somewhat to the left of the incumbent Carper. (At that point, though, it’s a distinction without a difference.) Yet there are two other men trying to knock her off, one from the GOP and the other presumably seeking a nomination from the Independent Party of Delaware.
Initially back in September when I did my original look at this 2024 election the announced Republican was a gentleman named Bill Taylor, who by appearances was in the initial stages of campaigning.
However, while Taylor still has an FEC filing, it appears he has abandoned his effort, leaving the GOP field to a former Walmart executive by the name of Eric Hansen, who believes in his campaign enough to loan it $360,000 to get it underway - plus another $50,000 personal contribution. That’s most of the $400,000 or so he has on hand.
In looking at Hansen’s priorities, he currently has them in the order of education, health care, environment, crime, economy, abortion, “defending democracy,” and trust in government. It’s definitely not all I’d want in a Senator; however, knowing that LBR will vote against the state’s best interests at every opportunity, I would just have to invoke the Reagan 80% agreement policy and Buckley Rule on this one should no other more interesting candidate come along. Hansen is a bit mixed up on role of government, but give me a little time with him and I think I can straighten the guy out.
He’s door number two, so let’s see what’s behind door number three.
Running as an independent, but given a ballot spot in November should he receive the nod of the Independent Party of Delaware is Dr. Mike Katz. His campaign has perhaps the most unique hook of any you’ll see this year:
Dr. Mike Katz Refuses Donations! His Campaign for U.S. Senate is assisted by all Volunteers. Dr. Mike believes that the millions of dollars other candidates spend on their campaigns can be better spent helping Americans in need and improving our education and health systems.
Join Dr. Mike Katz in his mission to recover America’s democracy in which every citizen’s voice matters, not just those with the biggest bank accounts.
When we remove the influence of money from our elections and governance, we ensure a government that is accountable, transparent, and works for the benefit of all Americans.
So in a way I am performing a service to him by mentioning his place in the race.
Yet besides his idea about taking money out of politics, his top issues are economy and jobs, health care, education, home ownership, veterans, and first responders. And one very important thing to know about him is that this isn’t his first rodeo, as he was a member of the Delaware Senate from 2009-13. As Katz describes it, he “irritated those in power so much that he was gerrymandered out of his seat during redistricting.”
When I first heard about his tactic, I was a bit skeptical. So I asked Dr. Mike a question on social media:
I have a couple serious questions on this: is the political money the symptom or the disease? Would we be spending all this money on political donations if there weren't vast honey pots of taxpayer dollars nested in our state capitals and Washington D.C.?
You ran for and won office before and I presume you didn't have the same "no contribution" rule for that race. Why the change? What lesson did you learn in the interim?
It doesn't do me much good if you don't take contributions but keep the same old system in place.
And, by the way, we're a Constitutional republic and not a democracy.
Mike was kind enough to respond with a lengthy, well thought-out reply that I’m simply going to link to rather than blockquote for now, because I want to make a point about where he stands.
At first glance, the idea about not taking political contributions and having a volunteer-based campaign sounds rather noble. But there are fewer than 1% of people who have the ambition to spend their lives that way, and only a fraction of them have the time to work for free.
I was one of those political volunteers for nearly a quarter-century. I went from door-to-door and working the polls on Election Day to serving as an elected party official for ten years in Maryland (plus four more as an appointee in Ohio.) And I did it for the best of reasons: I wanted to make a positive difference in people’s lives and saw conservative governance as the best vehicle for necessary change. Unfortunately, I was rarely successful because most voters listen to whoever has the best heart-stirring 30-second commercials that promise the most goodies with the least amount of effort on their part. And those commercials weren’t created and time bought by volunteers, if you catch my drift.
I happen to agree with Citizens United: money is speech. But at the same time, our side especially is plagued by grifters trying to make a quick and easy buck for themselves, and since they’re the side out of power that’s how they get their fix. (The other side does graft the old-fashioned way, with taxpayer money. Ten percent for the Big Guy and all that.)
Dr. Katz is a candidate who wants to get the money out of campaigns, but when it comes to actual governing, he looks like a moderate Democrat. Of course, even moderate Democrats prefer a nice, big honeypot of money in Washington, D.C. and that’s how the trouble began in the first place.
So it’s shaping up to be an interesting race, with an experiment that will likely only affect things a little bit. Give the guy credit for trying, though: he seems like a good guy and not a slick politician. I’d trust him more than the lady who only wants the position to score intersectionality points.
*I get tired of typing out Lisa Blunt Rochester, so this is my occasional reminder that my convention for her is LBR.
Sounds like it's going to be interesting.