A long and complex post.

When the Republicans in the State Legislature redistricted and did their best to make sure a Democrat couldn’t win in Utah-2, the assumption (made by many commentators and watchers and apparently Jim Matheson) was that he needed to run to the right to keep his seat.

As a result, Matheson, who in first term seemed relatively progressive, remade himself into a Blue Dog Democrat – and has been consistently conservative since then. Matheson has run not as a centrist but as a conservative. And while he keeps winning re-election, he may have miscalculated.

Running some numbers over the last few days has made me wonder if Matheson has misread the political reality of his district. In every race since the redistrciting (2002, 2004, 2006, and now 2008) the voters in Salt Lake County have kept Matheson in the house while he’s sweated like a whore in church to keep voters of Washington county happy. And they’ve still voted against him every time.

Matter of fact, without Salt Lake County voters, Matheson would have lost badly every year except 2008. Yet somehow, Matheson continues to be a conservative Democrat who has sided with Bush, missed his own party’s convention and in almost every way seems to have become a model Joe Lieberman turncoat right wing Democrat.

With Democrats like him, one begins to wonder who needs Republicans.

The problem, of course, lies in the utter ineffectiveness of the Blue (aka Bush) Dog Democrats. These Dems claim to be fiscally conservative but they’ve been utterly incapable of doing a darn thing to slow down the profligacy of the Bush Administration. In point of fact,the Bush Dogs have done little more than provide Bush and his cronies cover to pretend to be bi-partisan.

But wait, you may say, Matheson’s district covers almost all of Eastern and Southern Utah – he needs to be conservative to win.

Look at the numers:

In 2000, when Utah-2 was entirely Salt Lake County, Matheson won his first term with a comfortable 56% of the voter over Derek Smith (41%) and several third party and independent candidates.

After redistricting, Matheson eked out a win over John Swallow. Salt Lake County voters delivered 71% of Matheson’s votes (giving him a 26000 vote cushion for the rest of the State). By the time everything was counted, Matheson beat Swallow by 1641 votes.

In 2004, Salt Lake County voters gave Matheson a commanding 66,000 vote lead – one that carried him over the top despite losing badly in almost every other county in his district. The final tally Matheson won by almost 40,000 votes.

In 2006, Salt Lake voters again voted for overwhelmingly for Matheson – 52,000 more of us than for his challenger Lavar Christensen. Matheson did better in 2006 outside of Salt Lake County before, but he still lost Washington and Utah Counties. Matheson’s won by 49,000 votes in 2006.
So what happened (at least unofficially) in 2008?

Salt Lake County voters voted for Matheson by almost 2.5 to 1 over Dew. After winning in Salt Lake, Matheson had an 80,000 vote lead. Matheson sailed to an easy victory of Dew – coming out ahead by 92,000 votes.

It looks as if Matheson’s strategy is working:
2002:
County Matheson % of Vote
Carbon 69.32%
Daggett 53.83%
Duchesne 34.98%
Emery 45.13%
Garfield 23.13%
Grand 52.12%
Iron 31.45%
Kane 27.54%
Piute 37.40%
Salt Lake 58.65%
San Juan 46.25%
Uintah 31.95%
Utah 29.15%
Wasatch 49.20%
Washington 28.00%
Wayne 36.65%

2004
Carbon 67.61%
Daggett 43.44%
Duchesne 33.91%
Emery 48.44%
Garfield 28.34%
Grand 57.98%
Iron 37.40%
Kane 32.42%
Piute 34.35%
Salt Lake 65.42%
San Juan 51.44%
Uintah 29.71%
Utah 35.91%
Wasatch 50.85%
Washington 34.63%
Wayne 40.85%

2006
Carbon 74.90%
Daggett 64.44%
Duchesne 45.72%
Emery 62.91%
Garfield 37.67%
Grand 65.39%
Iron 42.78%
Kane 40.17%
Piute 42.21%
Salt Lake 68.11%
San Juan 65.66%
Uintah 40.23%
Utah 40.22%
Wasatch 56.97%
Washington 40.70%
Wayne 48.45%

2008 (unofficial)
Carbon 79.26%
Daggett 69.37%
Duchesne 57.28%
Emery 66.89%
Garfield 47.54%
Grand 71.01%
Iron 50.39%
Kane 51.03%
Piute 53.99%
Salt Lake 71.08%
San Juan 65.90%
Uintah 53.84%
Utah 45.45%
Wasatch 64.05%
Washington 48.39%
Wayne 58.63%

Anyone can look at these numbers and see that Matheson is, with each passing election, gaining ground outside of Salt Lake – but he’s also gaining it inside the county. IOW, the longer he’s in office, the more he is benefitting from the incumbent effect. But he still loses in Utah and Washington Counties. Matheson’s success is creating a dilemna for other Democrats.

Matheson isn’t a very good Democrat but wins elections. His success has created a trap for Other Utah Democrats – Matheson is the safe, boring, unprogressive face of the party. When the Democratic wing of the Democratic party tries to field candidates, their going to feel trapped by Matheson’s move to the right strategy. In fact, Matheson himself is trapped by it – he’s spent so long trying to be the Blue Dog that his inner progressive can’t be safely unleashed.

For years now, bloggers have been complaining that the Democrats strategy of moving to the right is ultimately self-defeating. Starting in 2001, a great many Dems moved to the right believing that opposing the “popular” Bush was a mistake; Dems misjudged Bush’s popularity, which was always softer than they believed, and avoided playing the role of a vocal, strong opposition party. In missing that opportunity, Democratic officials missed the chance to articulate an alternative vision, to rally the nation and to oppose the Administration’s disastrous policies. John Kerry’s painful “I was before it before I was against it” moment typifies the dilemna of an entire cohort of Democratic leaders. On issue after issue, they entered into false compromises (i.e. the Iraq authorization) in the misguided belief that bipartisanship was itself a goal. They’ve spent so much energy no opposing Bush when they should have that they can’t now articulate a clear vision. Every failure of the last Congress can be located in that strategy. Jim Matheson, an otherwise good man, could be the poster child.

So now, as the conservative era comes crashing to a disastrous close, in Utah we are facing a dilemna. We know Matheson can win elections. But by running as a conservative Dem, Matheson has made it harder to run Progressives – Utah voters see in Matheson the iconic Democrat they think they like. But taking Matheson on means bucking the party apparatus that supports him. It means running a spirited challenge from left that articulates and fights for progressive positions. The outcome would be an already weak Utah Democratic party deeply divided. Matheson’s lack of political courage, however, has led him to rarely publicly fight for progressive policies in Utah, which has served to reinforce conservative framing around public policy in Utah. Matheson’s electorcally secure seat should have allowed him to be a public voice for reform – instead he’s opted for the path of least resistance at all times.

And created a dilemna for a party with few wins and resource. Democrats don’t dare oppose Matheson even as we hold our noses and vote for him. Matheson has run as a Southern Utah Democrat to win votes he hasn’t yet won and in doing so has, failed to be the progressive voice he could have been. And it makes it harder to turn Utah purple than it needs to be.