Political Notes: Hard to envision Johnny Isakson losing

I recently asked Democratic political consultant Beth Schapiro to describe how her party might unseat U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson.

By Larry Peterson, Savannah Morning News — Mar 01, 2009

“How long do I have to think about it?” responded Schapiro, whose Atlanta-based firm also does campaign polling.

There was a pause as she contemplated the prospects for ousting the freshman Republican, who’s up for re-election next year.

“It’s hard to conceive of that happening,” Schapiro finally said. “I really don’t see a scenario under which he can be beaten.”

Martin Matheny, spokesman for the State Democratic Party, is paid to do better than that. So he did, sort of.

“You have to talk about his record,” Matheny said.

He said there is “no daylight” between Isakson and U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia’s other GOP senator, on most major issues.

It took a runoff for Chambliss, once a heavy favorite, to beat Democrat Jim Martin last year.

In opposing President Obama’s economic stimulus plan, Matheny said, Isakson “voted against the interests of the people they work for.”

The only problem, Schapiro says, is that most Georgians don’t see it that way.

“He generally represents the state in a way people approve of,” she said.

And unlike Chambliss, she adds, he has a knack for not saying things that rub voters in general - and key GOP constituencies - the wrong way.

Moreover, the Democrats’ larger problem is that Georgia remains a GOP state; no non-incumbent Democrat has won statewide since 1998.

Last year, the Democrats had the wind at their backs. The unpopularity of the Bush administration and the galvanizing appeal of Barack Obama were enough for them to win in most places.

But not in Georgia.

While Obama did better here than other recent statewide Democratic nominees, he still lost by more than 200,000 votes.

So were his coattails, such as they were - too short to pull fellow Democrat Jim Martin across the finish line ahead of Chambliss.

Of course, Obama, who drew many blacks and young people to the polls in Georgia and elsewhere last year, won’t be on the ballot in 2010.

Even so, his record - not Bush’s - is likely to be a political football. Matheny holds out some hope that the economy will have improved enough by then for Obama to be a political plus, or at least not a minus. Maybe, but I wonder what his bookie thinks.

Meanwhile, University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock, among others, raises an additional point.

The Democrats, he says, are much more likely to focus on trying to win the governor’s race, in which there will be no incumbent.

“Winning the governor’s office,” he said, “would do much more to help them with party-building in Georgia than would winning the Senate seat.”

Moreover, Bullock notes, Isakson is already in the race, is well-known, and has raised $2.3 million. In contrast, he added, Democrats might not know the identity of their nominee until after next July’s primary election.

Not to worry, Matheny insists.

He says he knows of prospective candidates who are considering a run but has pledged not to disclose their names.

“We’re not going to let Isakson set our timeline for us,” he said.

But the problem is, as they say, you can’t beat something with nothing.

In Isakson, the Republicans have something indeed.

And, for the moment at least, the Democrats have nothing.