Mississippi 1 Special: Why Childers Won and Why Davis Lost

By Stuart Rothenberg

Some of the things I have said over the past few weeks about the Mississippi 1st district special election I now think were wrong.

Initially, I assumed (without a lot of thought, actually) that Greg Davis would win narrowly. I imagined that if he lost, the major reason would be the mood of the electorate. I readily accepted the view that the district is a Republican bastion. I bought the line that the GOP primary bitterly divided the Republican Party, handing Democrat Travis Childers an unexpected victory. Most of these views were ill-informed.

My reassessment of this race comes after extensive discussions with a number of strategists and Mississippi experts, as well as after examining some additional survey data. Let’s look at some of the things journalists and Washington, D.C., observers believe account for Davis’ defeat.

Hypothesis No. 1: Davis lost because he failed to unite the GOP after a bitter primary and failed to win the votes of supporters of former Tupelo Mayor Glenn McCullough (R).

There is only limited empirical evidence of this. Republican polling showed Davis with strong numbers among Republicans, white voters and McCullough voters coming out of the April 1 primary runoff.

And for those of you who don’t believe Republican numbers, Democratic polling showed the same thing. According to a post-primary survey by Anzalone-Liszt Research, which polled for Childers (and Democrat Don Cazayoux, who won the special election recently in Louisiana’s 6th district), Davis came out of the GOP primary runoff with a 65 percent favorable and 10 percent unfavorable rating among self-identified Republicans, and leading Childers 73 percent to 13 percent among Republicans.

In the last Democratic survey before Tuesday’s special election, Davis had a 71 percent favorable and 13 percent unfavorable rating among Republicans and held a 71 percent to 17 percent lead among GOP voters.

In other words, the data don’t show that Davis had a major problem with Republicans coming out of the primary, even though I am well aware that that already has become the conventional wisdom.

It’s certainly true that Davis did poorly in Lee County (Tupelo), where his primary opponent came from, and in the eastern half of the district. But Davis drew almost the same percentage of the vote in Lee County as the unsuccessful GOP nominee for state attorney general did in 2007. I believe the results demonstrate that Republicans nominated a candidate from the wrong part of the district.

Hypothesis No. 2: Any Republican with a pulse should have won this district, so Davis’ defeat is a sign of the deep, deep national problems in the Republican Party.

This seems logical. The only problem is that it is wrong. The national GOP’s problems are many and may have had some slight effect on the race, but they aren’t the main reason for Childers’ win.

Mississippi’s 1st district actually is a conservative district that will normally go Republican in federal races — a far cry from how the district has been characterized, including initially by some well-placed Republicans who dismissed early Democratic assertions that the seat could be in play.

Most of the state legislators in the district outside the Memphis suburbs are Democrats, and statewide Democratic candidates, including Attorney General Jim Hood (D) in 2007 and Secretary of State Eric Clark (D) in 2003, have carried the district.

The Republican Congressional nominee should have an edge in this district not because it is such a red district but because Republican candidates normally draw at least a quarter of the white Democratic vote — conservative Democrats who have become accustomed to voting for Republican candidates in federal races.

Hold on, you may be thinking. Isn’t Davis’ inability to hold conservative Democrats a strong indication that President Bush and the damage to the Republican brand are responsible for Childers’ win? Maybe, but that’s far from certain.

Polling in the district showed Bush’s “favorables” well above 50 percent, and Democratic pollster Anzalone minced no words when he told me, Louisiana’s 6th and Mississippi’s 1st “are not referenda on Bush and Republicans in Congress.”

Hypothesis No. 3: Republican strategy in the race was flawed. They made a mistake by going negative on Childers too strongly and too quickly, and the effort to tie Childers to presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) failed.

I believe that this probably is correct. While Davis’ first TV ad after the primary runoff was positive — an endorsement spot that featured quotes from Gov. Haley Barbour, former Congressman Roger Wicker and Sen. Thad Cochran — knowledgeable observers close to the race agreed that Davis should have made much more of an effort to connect with district voters before attacking Childers.

“They never told voters what Davis stood for. They never built a foundation about who Davis was [as a person],” said one Democrat, who believes that Childers’ TV ads with the candidate talking “to camera” helped sell him to conservative voters.

Republican attempts — both by the Davis campaign and by the National Republican Congressional Committee’s independent expenditure — to polarize the race merely by calling Childers a liberal and linking him to Obama and Pelosi simply didn’t work. That approach was sufficient to produce a victory at one time, and it may have resonated with GOP voters in this race. But they weren’t the swing group in the contest, and those sort of generic messages seem less effective now.

Because Childers already successfully defined himself as a pro-life, pro-gun conservative Democrat, the GOP attacks bounced off him. Conservative Democratic voters didn’t believe the generic Republican attacks that Childers was a liberal.

To one smart Mississippian, the special election is easy to explain: “Travis Childers got the Bubba vote. He’s more like Bubba than is Davis, who hails from the Memphis suburbs.”

There is a lot more to talk about, including the nature, effectiveness and timing of the GOP ads; the fundamental appeal of the candidates; and Vice President Cheney’s visit to the district for Davis. But I’ve run out of space.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 15, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: 2008 Senate Overview

The May 14, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks and the content is not available online. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

Here is a brief sample of what's in this edition...


Senate Overview – The Lay of the Land

While the Presidential race has tightened, Senate Democrats are still headed for a good year. Three GOP opens are at great risk – Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado – while incumbents in New Hampshire and Minnesota appear particularly at risk. Alaska also has emerged as a Democratic opportunity. Republican incumbents in Oregon and Maine still must be concerned about the national political environment, but Sens. Gordon Smith and Susan Collins look less at risk than colleagues John Sununu, Norm Coleman and Ted Stevens. On the Democratic side, only Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu looks to be at considerable risk. The DSCC will have a big financial advantage over the NRSC, so Republicans are waiting to see how and where DSCC chair Chuck Schumer spends his cash. Democrats are certain to gain Senate seats in November – with 3-5 our most likely guess right now.

Print Edition subscribers get a state-by-state analysis and a summary of the latest polls.

Are Republican Ads That Attack Obama and Pelosi Effective?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Hours after the results were tallied in Louisiana’s 6th district special election, both parties issued assessments about the efficacy of GOP ads linking the winner, Don Cazayoux (D), to presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Democrats proclaimed the strategy a failure, while the National Republican Congressional Committee disagreed, asserting that its ads cut Cazayoux’s lead and made the May 3 race closer than it would have been. Republicans blamed their own nominee, Woody Jenkins, for the defeat.

Did the ads redefine Cazayoux and move voters away from him? Regardless of the results, was the strategy a reasonable one? And even if the strategy wasn’t completely effective in Louisiana, could it work down the road?

The district, which includes Baton Rouge and surrounding parishes, gave President Bush 59 percent in 2004. It is about one-third black, and it is widely regarded as Republican-leaning.

After each candidate won in the April 5 runoffs, Jenkins began the special election trailing Cazayoux.

An April 7 Club for Growth poll conducted by Basswood Research found the Democrat leading 46 percent to 38 percent. An April 16-17 NRCC poll conducted by Ayres, McHenry & Associates showed an almost identical situation, with Cazayoux leading 47 percent to 40 percent (48 percent to 41 percent when leaners were included).

The problem for the NRCC was that its survey found Cazayoux with solid 45 percent favorable and 24 percent unfavorable ratings among whites, while Jenkins’ 49 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable ratings among whites were much worse.

The NRCC independent expenditure effort ran three different ads in the district, all produced by OnMessage Inc., the consultants for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), trying to drive up Cazayoux’s negatives by using issues, and personalities, designed to polarize the race along more traditional partisan lines.

The first spot branded Cazayoux as a tax raiser (calling him Don Tax You, playing off the pronunciation of his last name), while the next two ads sought to link him in voters’ minds with Obama and Pelosi. Both ads used photographs of the two Democrats, with one ad explicit in asking voters to see the special election as a referendum on Obama and Pelosi.

A second NRCC brushfire poll was conducted April 23-24, almost a week after the “Tax You” ad began airing. It showed Cazayoux’s unfavorable rating among white voters had increased by 6 points, going from 24 percent to 30 percent. The NRCC’s message seemed to be working, and Jenkins at that point trailed Cazayoux on the ballot test by only 3 points, 44 percent to 41 percent (including leaners).

The problem for Republicans was that while Jenkins’ unfavorable rating among whites had improved, one-third of whites who said they were very likely to vote in the special election still had an unfavorable opinion of him.

That’s when, with little prospect of improving Jenkins’ reputation (especially in light of Democratic attacks on his integrity), the NRCC tried to make the special election about Obama and Pelosi. Republicans had little choice, even though Jenkins’ high negatives limited the chances of any GOP strategy working.

If the NRCC’s April 23-24 survey was accurate, and I certainly have no reason to doubt it, then there isn’t much hard evidence that the ads linking Cazayoux to Obama and Pelosi worked. After all, Cazayoux’s 3-point margin of victory was identical with the NRCC’s second survey. That’s the good news for the Democrats.

Of course, Republicans have been trying the same strategy in the Mississippi 1st district special election, and we will soon know whether they have any better results with it in that race. But even if they don’t, the danger for Democrats is that when Obama is the Democrats’ official nominee, he will be regarded as the leader of his party, defining what it means to be a Democrat.

Right now, being a Democrat still means that you aren’t responsible for Iraq or the economy. It means that you aren’t George W. Bush. It means that you represent a change in direction. But if and when Obama starts to be identified with certain policies, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as well as Democratic candidates running in largely Republican and conservative districts, could have considerable problems.

The NRCC’s April 16-17 survey found Obama’s personal ratings among white voters in Louisiana’s 6th district at a horrendous 23 percent favorable and 65 percent unfavorable. Both the Club for Growth and NRCC’s surveys found Pelosi’s unfavorable rating twice her favorable rating among all voters in the district, and the NRCC survey found her ratings among white voters at 21 percent favorable and 57 percent unfavorable.

I’ll admit that I was skeptical that many people in Louisiana’s 6th district even knew who Pelosi was. But the two sets of poll numbers can’t be ignored, and it’s now easy to understand why Republican strategists believe that she is becoming a polarizing figure and think that they will be able to use her as a punching bag in the fall and beyond.

Democratic incumbents running for reelection in 2008 (and after), won’t automatically be tossed out of Republican districts because Obama is leading his party (or the nation). Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and former Reps. Anne Northup (R-Ky.) and Jim Leach (R-Iowa) survived Bill Clinton’s victories, and Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) have been re-elected in GOP years.

But it isn’t even debatable that Obama and Pelosi have the potential to hurt Democrats running for Congress in Republican districts in 2008, and even more so in 2010 if Obama wins the White House and Democrats turn the country in a decidedly more liberal direction.

If that happens, the GOP strategy will look prescient and incredibly astute, no matter its limited effect in Louisiana’s 6th district last week. Remember, Northup and Leach didn’t lose in 2006 because of what they did. They lost because of their party and their party’s leadership.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 12, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Few Pollsters Get High Marks in ’08 Presidential Races

By Stuart Rothenberg

Everyone seems to conduct polls these days, but not everyone conducts good ones. That’s the message I drew after reviewing dozens of presidential polls conducted from Iowa through Indiana and North Carolina.

It’s beyond time for those of us who write about politics to evaluate the seemingly endless number of polls conducted in the race for the White House. A few thoughtful souls monitor and write about polls on a regular basis, including ABC News’ Gary Langer and Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com, a wonderful Web site that everyone should read regularly. Unfortunately, too many people mindlessly accept any and all numbers, treating them as if they are equally accurate.

I did not examine every poll conducted in every state. Instead, I looked at most of the high-profile contests, especially where a considerable number of different polls were available on RealClearPolitics.com (from which I gathered the numbers that follow). I stopped looking at GOP primaries after it became clear that Arizona Sen. John McCain would be his party’s nominee.

I also looked at the so-called RealClearPolitics average in each state, which is available from the Web site with the same name.

Ultimately, I focused on five different polls that have received considerable attention: American Research Group, Rasmussen Reports, the Reuters/Zogby/C-SPAN poll, SurveyUSA and the Suffolk University poll.

The worst-performing poll has been Suffolk.

Suffolk University’s pre-primary survey correctly predicted the winner in only five of nine contests. It was wrong in both New Hampshire primaries, the California Democratic primary and, incredibly, the Democratic primary in Massachusetts, the state where the university is located.

The other five contests in which Suffolk polled, the results were quite good, within a couple of points of the actual results. But in polling, being right about half the time isn’t a record to be proud of.

Rasmussen, Reuters/Zogby/C-SPAN and ARG produced better results — but not by much. Each firm picked the winner a little under two-thirds of the time.

ARG correctly picked the winner in seven contests but blew four. It missed the Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic contests badly (everyone botched New Hampshire), missed the South Carolina Republican contest badly and picked the wrong winner in the Michigan GOP race.

Rasmussen got 11 primaries right and six wrong (the Democratic races in New Hampshire, California, Missouri and Texas, and the GOP primaries in California and Alabama), a mediocre record at best. Even more disconcerting, in five of the primaries that Rasmussen got “right,” the firm was embarrassingly far off from the actual vote.

For example, while Rasmussen’s last poll in Massachusetts had Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) up by 6 points, she actually won by more than 15 points. The firm had Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) up by 4 in Wisconsin; he went on to win Wisconsin by more than 17 points.

The Reuters/Zogby/C-SPAN’s overall results mirror Rasmussen’s. Zogby’s California Republican and Democratic polls were an embarrassment. The firm was way off in the Granite State Democratic race, but it wasn’t alone. The firm’s Ohio poll was bad (showing a tie while Clinton won by a comfortable 10 points), and it picked the wrong winner in the Michigan GOP and Indiana Democratic contests.

But unlike Rasmussen, when Zogby got the right winner, the firm usually came pretty close to the winner’s margin, as in North Carolina on Tuesday.

The best pollster, by a wide margin, was SurveyUSA, which coincidentally has conducted some House and Senate race polls for this newspaper.

I’ll admit to not being a fan of SurveyUSA’s automated polling, and some of the firm’s past results have struck me as simply wrong. But in examining presidential primary polling, SurveyUSA stands well above its competition.

SurveyUSA called 11 of 14 races correctly, missing the Missouri Democratic primary badly and picking the wrong winner in two close races, the GOP contest in Alabama and the Democratic primary in Texas. The firm did not poll in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, which was missed by every major polling firm.

Until this week, SurveyUSA could boast that not only did it pick the winners, it also forecast the margin of victory. The poll was spot on in the South Carolina and Missouri GOP races and in the California and Ohio Democratic contests, for example.

This week, however, SurveyUSA got the winners in the two Democratic primaries but was far off in predicting the Clinton margin in Indiana and the Obama margin in North Carolina.

Finally, RealClearPolitics’ own “RCP average,” which averages a handful of recent polls, improved on the individual polls that I checked. The average got only four of 21 contests “wrong”: Democratic primaries in New Hampshire, California and Missouri, as well as the GOP primary in Alabama. But in some state contests, the RCP average was way off, including in Massachusetts, Georgia and Wisconsin.

Polling is a tricky business, and even the methodologically most rigorous firms get things wrong. That’s why every poll comes with a statistical margin of error.

On the other hand, I have to ask why pollsters with such dubious track records continue to get as much attention as they do. “Given how wrong some of these firms have been,” one partisan pollster told me recently, “they wouldn’t be rehired next time if they worked for a candidate.”

Of course, I know how they exist and why they are hired and rehired. Most of what is written or aired on TV is for mere amusement, and people in charge of Web sites, hosting TV programs or booking guests don’t know much about politics or methodology, or they don’t care about those things. For them, it’s about the sizzle, not the steak — even if the steak isn’t worth eating.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 8, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Oregon Senate: Will Democrats in Oregon Go Quirky or Traditional?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Two weeks from tomorrow, we’ll know whether Oregon Democrats have nominated Jeff Merkley or Steve Novick to take on incumbent Gordon Smith (R) in the Senate race. The primary, with anti-war candidate Candy Neville a wild card, has been far more entertaining — and much more competitive — than most observers initially assumed.

Voting actually begins in the Beaver State immediately, since mail ballots are in the process of being sent out to registered voters.

Democratic consultant Novick, who was born without a left hand and uses a hook, has run the kind of quirky campaign he promised, badgering his opponent in press releases and airing offbeat ads that play up the fact that he is not just another politician.

When he began his bid for the Democratic nomination, Novick acknowledged that he would pattern his campaign after previous efforts by now-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and the late Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone (D). Early on, he even promised that his campaign would be “the Wellstone campaign on steroids.” He’s certainly done that, including using Feingold’s media consultant.

Feingold and Wellstone began as long shots and presented themselves as political outsiders and reformers, emphasizing that they wanted to change Washington, D.C. So has Novick.

And Feingold and Wellstone relied on off beat television ads to deliver their messages of change. One Novick ad shows him opening a beer bottle with his hook, while another starts out as a stereotypical ad — until he pulls an oversized plug on it and says, “Sorry, but I refuse to run the same old ads as ordinary politicians.”

While Novick has some institutional support — former Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) and former Rep. Les AuCoin (D) have endorsed him, as has the Oregon Education Association — Merkley, the Speaker of Oregon’s House, is widely viewed as the establishment candidate.

Merkley’s endorsements include Gov. Ted Kulongoski and former Gov. Barbara Roberts, Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, state Treasurer Randall Edwards and Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo, as well as the mayors of Portland, Eugene, Corvallis and Bend.

The leaders of the state Senate and House have also endorsed their colleague Merkley, as have much of organized labor, the Sierra Club and the Humane Society. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is officially neutral in the primary, helped recruit Merkley into the Senate race and is widely seen as preferring the Oregon Speaker.

Perhaps the most surprising endorsement in the primary has come from The Oregonian, the biggest newspaper in the state, which endorsed Novick last week, calling him “a bold choice for Democrats” and “an unusual man with an unusual résumé.”

Merkley has a considerable financial advantage, but it isn’t overwhelming. Through the end of March, he had raised just over $1.3 million to Novick’s just under $900,000. Merkley ended the quarter with $473,000 in the bank, while Novick had $197,000.

Observers note that with only a couple of weeks left in the contest, neither man has pulled ahead (more than one poll shows a statistical dead heat), but Merkley is out-buying Novick on TV, which could have an impact on the Democratic horse race. It’s unclear who will benefit from the expected big primary turnout fueled by the presidential race.

Novick has proved to be a more resilient and appealing candidate than some assumed. Even if his greatest appeal is with journalists, political consultants and Portland liberals, he has, so far at least, given Merkley more than the Oregon Speaker wanted.

In the campaign’s final days, the question is whether Novick can broaden his appeal and convince state voters that he really has something to contribute in the Senate, or whether he’s more interested in the electoral process.

While Novick has an interesting story to tell — he graduated from college at the age of 18 and from Harvard Law School at 21, worked for the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., and for Oregon’s Senate Democrats, was policy director for Kulongoski and worked actively on state ballot measures — he often seems more interested in shocking or amusing rather than impressing.

Merkley lacks Novick’s pizzazz, but he appears more substantive and serious (and, yes, less engaging) than the consultant. He holds a master’s in public policy from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, was a presidential management fellow who worked in the Department of Defense on nuclear forces issues, worked at the Congressional Budget Office, worked for Habitat for Humanity and spent seven years as president of the World Affairs Council of Oregon.

Both Merkley and Novick have predictably liberal records and agendas, and each attacks Smith for being too conservative and for “canceling out” the vote of the state’s other Senator, Democrat Ron Wyden.

But Democratic observers worry about Novick as a general election candidate. They fret about his appeal to swing voters and moderates and fear voters will tire of what they regard as his gimmicky campaign.

An upset win by Novick could catapult him into the general election with just the momentum he needs. Or it could convince some voters and Democratic contributors that defeating Smith is a pipe dream.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 5, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2008 House Ratings

Here are our latest House ratings. Any seats not listed are currently considered to be at limited risk for the incumbent party. For our race-by-race analysis, you must subscribe to the print edition of the Report.

We've updated the chart to reflect Democrat Don Cazayoux's win in the Louisiana 6 special election, making him the incumbent in November. But we're keeping the race as a Toss-up for now until we know more about the national environment and the effect of the presidential race, the potential independent bid by African-American state Rep. Michael Jackson (D), and whether or not Woody Jenkins will carry the GOP banner in November.

PURE TOSS-UP (8 R, 7 D)

• AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
  
• AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
• CA 11 (McNerney, D)
• FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
• KS 2 (Boyda, D)
• LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
  
• MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
• MS 1 (Open; Wicker, R)
• NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
• NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
  
• NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
• OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
• OH 16 (Open; Regula, R)
  
• OR 5 (Open; Hooley, D)
  
• PA 10 (Carney, D)
  

TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (6 R, 1 D)

• AK A-L (Young, R)
• IL 10 (Kirk, R)
• LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
• NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
  
• NC 8 (Hayes, R)
• TX 22 (Lampson, D)
  
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
  

TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (1 R, 2 D)

• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
• NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
• NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
  

LEAN REPUBLICAN (8 R, 0 D)

• CT 4 (Shays, R)
• FL 24 (Feeney, R)
• MI 7 (Walberg, R)
• MI 9 (Knollenberg, R)
• MO 6 (Graves, R)
• NV 3 (Porter, R)
• OH 1 (Chabot, R)
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)

LEAN DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 8 D)

• AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
• AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
• IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
  
• IN 9 (Hill, D)
• KY 3 (Yarmuth, D)
  
• KS 3 (Moore, D)
• MN 1 (Walz, D)
• NY 25 (Open; Walsh, R)
  
• PA 4 (Altmire, D)
• VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
  
• WI 8 (Kagen, D)

REPUBLICAN FAVORED (13 R, 0 D)

• AL 2 (Open; Everett, R)
  
• CA 4 (Open; Doolittle, R)
• CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
• FL 8 (Keller, R)
• FL 13 (Buchanan, R)
  
• IL 6 (Roskam, R)
• KY 2 (Open; Lewis, R)
  
• MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
• NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
  
• NY 13 (Fosella, R)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  
• PA 18 (Murphy, R)
• WV 2 (Capito, R)
  

DEMOCRAT FAVORED (0 R, 6 D)

• IL 8 (Bean, D)
• IL 14 (Foster, D)
• NY 20 (Gillibrand, D)
• OH 18 (Space, D)
  
• PA 8 (Murphy, D)
• PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)

Open Season in 2010

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrats aren’t losing much sleep over their open seats this cycle. But 2010 may be a whole different story.

This year, Democrats control only seven of the 31 open seats in the House. They simply aren’t leaving Washington, D.C., the way the Republicans are, whether it’s due to excitement about the new majorities or peer pressure.

But it also could be due to a lack of opportunity. Along with no open Senate seats on the Democratic side, a mere 11 governorships are up this cycle (including only three open seats), and Democratic Members of Congress aren’t running for any of them.

Contrast that with 2010, when 36 governorships will be on the ballot, including at least 19 open seats. If Democratic House Members make the move, the Democratic Governors Association stands to benefit while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee can only wait and prepare to defend.

“We are fortunate to have such a talented pool of possible 2010 candidates, and we are confident that Democrats’ interests are aligned,” said DGA press secretary Brian Namey. “The first step in building a long-term majority in Congress is electing Democratic governors.”

In South Dakota, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) is expected to run for the state’s open governorship. Her family has a long political history in the state that includes her grandfather, former Gov. Ralph Herseth, and grandmother, former Secretary of State Lorna Herseth. The Congresswoman’s father, Lars Herseth, was a longtime state legislator who lost his own gubernatorial bid in 1986. Herseth Sandlin could run in part to redress his loss.

Herseth Sandlin already represents the entire state in her at-large district, and would be a formidable gubernatorial candidate. But her seat will be a tough hold for the DCCC. She had the family history in the state and one statewide bid under her belt before winning under unusual circumstances.

She lost her first House race in 2002 to former Gov. Bill Janklow (R), earning 46 percent. But Janklow resigned the seat in January 2004 after killing a motorcyclist in a car crash and being convicted of second-degree manslaughter. Herseth Sandlin won the subsequent June special election with 51 percent over former state Sen. Larry Diedrich (R). She won a full term, 53 percent to 46 percent in a rematch five months later, and cruised to re-election in the previous cycle.

But South Dakota still is a Republican state, and Democrats will struggle to find someone to follow Herseth Sandlin in the House. President Bush carried the state 60 percent to 38 percent in 2004.

In Tennessee, Rep. Lincoln Davis (D) is mentioned as a potential gubernatorial candidate. If he chooses to run, he may face primary opposition from former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., the 2006 Senate nominee, or former Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell.

Bush did well in Davis’ 4th district, carrying 22 of 24 counties and winning it 58 percent to 41 percent. Davis initially won the seat in 2002, when GOP Rep. Van Hilleary decided to run for governor. The Blue Dog Democrat was elected with 52 percent that year and re-elected with 55 percent two years later in a district that stretches across central Tennessee from the Kentucky border south to Alabama and Georgia.

Republicans are trying to make some noise in the district this cycle with businessman Monty Lankford (R), but their best shot would be in an open seat. Democrats likely would need another socially conservative candidate to keep the open seat.

Rep. Artur Davis (D) is sitting on $881,000 in campaign cash without a serious 2008 race and is a potential gubernatorial candidate in Alabama next cycle. But his 7th district seat would not be at risk for a takeover. The district’s population is 62 percent black, and Bush received only 35 percent there in 2004.

Other Democratic districts could become competitive, particularly in a midterm election of a Democratic president, if Members vacate them.

Minnesota Rep. Tim Walz (D) is focused on re-election this cycle to his 1st district seat, but he’s also mentioned as a future gubernatorial candidate. Walz was swept in with the Democratic wave of 2006, defeating then-Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R) with 53 percent, in a district that Bush carried by 4 points. Former Sen. Mark Dayton (D) is also mentioned as a potential gubernatorial candidate in 2010.

Rep. Mike Michaud (D) won Maine’s 2nd district in 2002 when John Baldacci (D) vacated the seat to run for governor. Even though Michaud has had two easy re-elections, the district could be competitive once again. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) used to represent the district, and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) won it by only 6 points in the 2004 White House election. Baldacci will be term-limited as governor next cycle and Michaud is mentioned as a potential candidate.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) is also mentioned as a potential 2010 statewide candidate. The 69-year-old Congressman might be eyeing the governorship because it doesn’t look as if either of Hawaii’s Senate seats is opening up anytime soon. Abercrombie had close races in both 1994 (54 percent) and 1996 (50 percent), and Kerry won the district with only 53 percent in 2004. Under the right circumstances, the seat could become competitive.

Regardless of who runs for governor, the DGA is already preparing and planning for next cycle with its Project 2010. The committee is on pace to break its 2006 fundraising record in 2008, even though this year is considered an “off-cycle” for gubernatorial races. And with so few competitive races this year, the DGA will finish the cycle with money in the bank.

Of course, House Democrats aren’t the only ones eyeing governorships.

“If you’re a member of the minority, sitting in Congress today, you might take a gamble on becoming a chief executive,” said GOP consultant Phil Musser, the former executive director of the Republican Governors Association.

Oregon Rep. Greg Walden (R) is a potential gubernatorial candidate, and is already being attacked by the Oregon Democratic Party. But the National Republican Congressional Committee is not likely to have much trouble holding his massive 2nd district seat. Bush won the district with 61 percent in 2004 and the rural area is conservative, despite significant growth in the Bend area.

In New York, Rep. Peter King (R) is publicly exploring a gubernatorial bid. He’s represented the Long Island-based 3rd district since 1992, and Republicans would likely have some difficulty holding the seat in the current political environment. Bush won the district by only 5 points in 2004, and Empire State Republicans are becoming an endangered species in the Congressional delegation. King is publicly looking, but he may not actually make the jump next cycle.

Other Republican Members who are potential gubernatorial candidates include Candice Miller (Mich.), Zach Wamp (Tenn.) and Darrell Issa (Calif.), who was pushed aside during the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis (D) but still contributed financially to the effort to oust Davis.

At this early stage, there look to be more Republican Senators seriously eyeing governorships. Sen. Sam Brownback (R) is a strong bet to run for governor of Kansas next cycle, simultaneously abiding by his term-limits pledge. He’ll be looking to replace term- limited Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) who will, in turn, receive heavy pressure to run for Brownback’s Senate seat, creating a rare Democratic opportunity and National Republican Senatorial Committee headache in Kansas.

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) is widely expected to run for governor in 2010, replacing Gov. Sonny Perdue (R). Isakson ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1990 and would need to get past state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine (R), who has already announced for the race. At one point, Perdue was mentioned as a Senate candidate for Isakson’s seat, but that scenario may be in doubt.

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison could be headed for a Republican primary for governor as well, where she could face off against incumbent Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on May 1, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.