If Richard Lugar ran as an independent/write-in for Senate in 2012...

[PolitiJunkie]

There doesn't seem to be a board to discuss Election What-Ifs for non-presidential races, but a couple interesting Senate what-ifs have crossed my mind lately, so I guess this is the best board to post them.

If Richard Lugar ran as an independent or write-in in 2012 after losing the Republican Primary in Indiana, would he have won? Two notable cases where Senators have won reelection after being ejected in their primaries are Joe Lieberman, as a third-party candidate, in 2006, and Lisa Murkowski, as a write-in candidate, in 2010. My opinion is conflicted.

One side of me thinks that since Indiana is closer to the center than both Connecticut and Alaska, and since Lugar was even more seasoned and respected than Murkowski or Lieberman, that he could have pulled it off.

The other side of me, however, thinks that Joe Donnelly was a more credible opposite-party challenger than either Alan Schlesinger in CT or Scott McAdams in Alaska. In other words, vote-splitting was never a concern in either of those races: Alaska was a contest between the two Republicans, Miller and Murkowski, and Connecticut was a contest between the two Democrats, Lamont and Lieberman. In Indiana, however, Donnelly was perfectly credible, so you'd see a three-way contest between Lugar, Mourdock, and Donnelly, to the extent that vote-splitting between the two Republicans might allow Donnelly to win narrowly.

What are your thoughts?

[PolitiJunkie]

Well, Lugar won by at least 2:1 in his previous four elections, so in theory at least, he'd survive even if half his voters went elsewhere. It's complicated by the fact that Donnelly was probably stronger than his previous opponents, but on the other hand, three way races tend to drain everyone's votes.

Right, it's a tough call. Even though precedent would dictate that Lugar would pull it out like Murkowski and Lieberman (especially since Indiana is MORE moderate than either AK or CT and Lugar is MORE respected/seasoned than either Murkowski or Lieberman), the comparison might not hold because the CT race was Lieberman v. Lamont, the Republican being a non-factor, and AK was Murkowski v. Miller, the Democrat being a non-factor. In Indiana, Donnelly WOULD be a factor, perhaps more so than Mourdock, so vote-splitting may affect Lugar in a way that Murkowski or Lieberman never experienced.

[PolitiJunkie]

Lugar wins 44 Lugar-28 Mourdock-27 Donnelly. Mourdock would lead and Lugar would be in second until the rape thing, and then Lugar surges to the lead. Donnelly is anonymous enough to be third the whole time.

I think NewYorkExpress's numbers make a lot more sense. There's no way that Lugar and Mourdock are getting a combined 72% of the vote.

[PolitiJunkie]

Lugar wins 44 Lugar-28 Mourdock-27 Donnelly. Mourdock would lead and Lugar would be in second until the rape thing, and then Lugar surges to the lead. Donnelly is anonymous enough to be third the whole time.

I think NewYorkExpress's numbers make a lot more sense. There's no way that Lugar and Mourdock are getting a combined 72% of the vote.

Why not? Last time Lugar ran against a Democrat he got 67% - and I imagine a lot of voters who might otherwise back Donnelly strategically picking Lugar over Mourdock.

Yes, but his 2000 opponent, "David Johnson" was a man so random and so obscure that he not only lacks a Wikipedia page, but on the 2000 US Senate Election in Indiana Wikipedia page, he is only listed as "David Johnson," not even "Businessman David Johnson" or whatever other title he could have. Donnelly was a reasonably known/respected blue dog Democrat in the House, and he strategically ran in 2012 because he knew this was the first time the seat would be competitive with Mourdock challenging Lugar in the primary.