By Stuart Rothenberg
April’s special election open primary in California’s 50th district, and the likely June runoff, give Democrats a terrific opportunity to demonstrate that an electoral wave is building, and that a return to power in one or both houses of Congress is possible in November.
If Democrat Francine Busby wins the special election (or even comes close), the national media will rightly see the results as evidence that a combination of corruption and poor presidential poll numbers are expanding the playing field and putting dozens of additional House districts into play.
But virtually every opportunity also entails risk. The Democrats could find that the election to fill the open seat of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), who resigned amid a bribery scandal, produces disappointing defeat rather than glorious victory. If that happens, Democrats have a problem, since defeat would raise questions about the effectiveness of the party’s message.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is in a bit of a bind. Does the committee throw everything it has into the race, hoping for an upset and proof that its message of corruption is effective? Or, does it downplay its chances and limit its commitment of resources, knowing that the district’s GOP bent makes it difficult for Busby to pull off a victory?
The Democrats’ problems are magnified by the fact that they won’t know what kind of Republican Busby will face in June until after the April 11 open primary.
Against an over-the-top conservative such as former Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, Busby would have a better chance of winning. But against a more centrist Republican, such as former Rep. Brian Bilbray, the Democrat would seem to face a tougher task. The GOP field is likely to be crowded and is expected to include sitting officeholders as well as political neophytes.
The DCCC’s decision also is complicated by the fact that Cunningham has resigned his seat. Without the disgraced former Congressman on the ballot, the Democrats’ “culture of corruption in Washington” argument may be a tougher sell in the special election.
Either way, California’s 50th district is a difficult one for any Democrat. Busby begins as a distinct underdog and in a normal election, she almost certainly would be regarded as a sacrificial lamb, as she was in 2004.
As currently drawn, the district gave 55 percent of its vote to President Bush in 2004 and to Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole in 1996. In 2000, Bush drew 54 percent of the vote against Democratic nominee Al Gore, and Democrat Gray Davis lost the current district during his 1998 and 2002 gubernatorial victories.
In 2004, given the district’s partisan bent and Cunningham’s incumbency, it isn’t surprising that Busby raised just $235,925 and drew only 37 percent of the vote in her Congressional bid.
EMILY’s List, the influential Democratic group that supports strong pro-choice women candidates, did not endorse her in that race. And she was not a high-priority challenger for the DCCC, which gave her no money. She received no contributions from Members of Congress.
That was just last year.
Today, the situation is much different. The DCCC is now actively supporting Busby’s challenge, offering advice to the campaign in a number of areas, including fundraising and communications. DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) gave her $2,000 in June, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) each gave $2,000 contributions in September.
And EMILY’s List has endorsed Busby this time. That endorsement is particularly significant, since the group has earned a reputation for evaluating races in a cold-blooded way. And yes, the decision to endorse puts EMILY’s List’s reputation on the line in the special election.
While the DCCC is helping Busby’s bid and while DCCC Communications Director Bill Burton calls her a “great candidate,” the committee has not yet made a decision on how much money to invest in the race. Sooner or later, however, it will have to make that decision.
So what should the DCCC do? Obviously, the committee’s decision will and should be based to a considerable extent on poll numbers. If Busby seems to have a real chance of winning, Democrats will talk up the race and throw resources into the district. If she doesn’t catch on, there isn’t much point in raising the stakes by making the special election a test of the party’s message.
True, if Busby loses badly, members of the national media may well regard the special election as a indicator of November, but Democrats can dismiss the race merely as a long shot that fell short if they haven’t hyped their prospects.
Still, it will be difficult for the DCCC not to make a big bet on Busby.
Democratic and liberal strategists believe they have learned how to run, and more importantly win, special elections, as they did in South Dakota and Kentucky in recent years, and Busby is running a much more professional campaign than last time, and in a more conducive political environment.
“She’s running a smart campaign. She is a better consumer of advice and a better candidate this time,” one operative told me.
Moreover, if the DCCC doesn’t go all out for Busby, grass-roots activists and the party’s Web loggers are likely to go bananas. For the campaign committee, investing heavily in Busby is likely to produce less criticism and second-guessing than taking a pass on the race.
If Busby wins, Democrats will receive a big boost in their bid to take back the House. The prominence of ethics issues in the San Diego area — not only in Congress but also in the San Diego mayor’s office — combined with Busby’s experience as a candidate and the payoff of a strong showing suggests that Democratic national strategists may not be able to resist making California’s 50th a test of the 2006 electoral environment.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 20, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
Monday, December 19, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
It was only a little more than one year ago thatRepublicans were united — united behind President Bush, united in their support for tax cuts and united in their fervor to defeat Democrats at the polls.
As 2005 draws to a close, Republicans are fighting among themselves over spending and domestic programs. One sitting Senator and one House incumbent already face potentially well-funded primary challengers. The party is splintering.
But if you are expecting just another “doom and gloom”column about how bad things are for Bush and his party, you’re mistaken. I’m more interested in changes inside the party (some of which certainly could add to the party’s near-term woes).
Moderate Republicans, including Rep. Mike Castle(Del.) and Sherwood Boehlert (N.Y.), long ago labeled as an endangered species within their more conservative party, have reasserted themselves by torpedoing a spending measure that would have made major cuts in domestic spending, and by standing firm against opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
But even more interesting is the apparent resuscitation of a breed that was once called the party’s “deficit hawks.”
At least since the advent of supply-side economics in the late 1970s, most establishment conservative Republicans — Bush and Sen. George Allen (Va.) among them — have been more concerned with economic growth and cutting taxes than with balanced budgets orcutting spending.
But the birth of the self-described “Fiscal WatchTeam” in the Senate, which includes conservative GOP Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.), Sam Brownback (Kan.), JimDeMint (S.C.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Lindsey Graham(S.C.), as well as slightly more moderate Sens. such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Sununu (N.H.), resurrects what was once an influential constituency within the Republican Party.
These Senate Republicans, as well as some in the House, are sounding themes reminiscent of the deficit hawks of old — that group of GOP legislators (including former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole) who put a higher priority on fiscal restraint than on tax cuts.
In the House, the anti-deficit hawks include Republican Study Committee conservatives such as Reps. Mike Pence (Ind.), Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and TomFeeney (Fla.). True, these Republicans seem more interested in cutting liberal-instituted programs than in slashing spending in general, but their focus on spending is noteworthy given the party’s tendency to throw money at constituents in recent years.
In the near term, these two GOP groups are likely tobe at odds. Any domestic spending proposal greeted warmly by one side is likely to receive the cold shoulder from the other.
These groups could well grow more significant, not less, after next November’s elections. If Democrats make significant House and Senate gains but fail to win majorities in either chamber, GOP leaders will need to find a way to bring moderate Republicans and deficit hawks together to pass major pieces oflegislation.
While narrow GOP majorities in Congress would enhance the positioning of party moderates, it also would create a problem for them. Since these Republicans represent states and Congressional districts that are less conservative (and less likely to support Bush’s policies), they are likely to be more vulnerable in next year’s election.
In fact, that’s exactly what happened in 1982, former President Ronald Reagan’s first midterm election. GOP moderates such as Reps. Larry DeNardis (Conn.), Harold Hollenbeck (N.J.), Arlen Erdahl (Minn.), Charles Dougherty (Pa.) and Margaret Heckler (Mass.) went down to defeat, largely because of the president’s unpopularity.
For Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.), as well as GOP House Members such as Charles Bass (N.H.), Jeb Bradley (N.H.), Rob Simmons (Conn.), Jim Walsh (N.Y.) and Nancy Johnson (Conn.), 1982 must be an uncomfortable memory.
GOP Congressional losses next year and the further emergence of the anti-spending wing of the party could also impact the Republican presidential race in 2007 and early 2008.
While Republican presidential candidates will always talk about lower taxes, the emergence of deficit hawks on Capitol Hill suggests that some presidential hopefuls might gain traction emphasizing spending restraint, including cuts in the pork that Republican legislators have been stuffing into legislation, rather than dramatic cuts in taxes.
For someone like McCain, who has supported thepresident’s Iraq policy but often has been at oddswith his party on spending and taxes, a Republicanpresidential primary electorate that is more concernedabout fiscal responsibility and cutting pork thanabout taxes wouldn’t be a bad thing. And it’s anotherreason to keep an eye on trends within the GOP and onthe Arizona Republican.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 15, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 12/19/2005 02:07:00 AM
Friday, December 16, 2005
The new December 16, 2005 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. (Click here for subscription information.) Here is a sample from the current issue.
California 50: Special Election Pre-Test
By Nathan L. Gonzales
Democrats are longing for the opportunity to run against corruption. They will have their next opportunity in less than four months, with the special election in California’s 50th Congressional District.
Former Cong. Duke Cunningham (R) recently resigned his seat after he pleaded guilty to felony counts of accepting bribes ($2.4 million worth), as well as tax evasion and fraud charges, all involving his relationship with a defense contractor. Cunningham announced earlier in the year that he would not seek reelection, but after his indictment and guilty pleas, the Republican resigned his seat.
A crowd of Republicans have joined the race to succeed Cunningham while the Democratic field is surprisingly sparse for an open seat race. Francine Busby, the 2004 Democratic nominee, will carry her party’s mantle again, and Democrats believe she has a good opportunity to win.
Republicans will have to sift through their field of candidates before focusing on Busby, but the seat itself leans Republican. Democrats are trying to put all the message and tactical pieces together for this race as they attempt to use this Southern California district as a building block for a larger wave next fall.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has set April 11 as the date of the primary to fill the vacancy, with the special election runoff scheduled for June 6, the date of the 2006 state primary. The April election will be an open primary, with the top vote getters from each party advancing to June if no candidate breaks the 50% mark.
Subscribe now for the rest of the story...
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 12/16/2005 03:26:00 PM
Thursday, December 15, 2005
The campaign of Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) is circulating a memo to supporters that asserts that a “recent poll of 600 likely Maryland voters,” shows Steele and Representative Ben Cardin (D) deadlocked at 46%, while Steele holds a narrow 48%-44% lead over former Representative Kweisi Mfume (D) in the Maryland Senate race. The memo does not include ballot tests against Democrats professor Allan Lichtman, forensic psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren or developer Josh Rales.
The memo thanks supporters for their “hard work,” but it also takes a shot at what it calls Democratic “dirty tricks” against Steele that have “backfired.”
An October 27-November 1 Potomac Survey Research poll for the Baltimore Sun showed Cardin leading Steele 41%-32% and Steele leading Mfume 39%-37%.
The last Republican elected to the Senate from Maryland was Charles McC. Mathias, in 1980.
We continue to regard the race as quite competitive but give the Democrats the edge to hold the open seat.
By Stuart Rothenberg at 12/15/2005 11:34:00 AM
By Stuart Rothenberg
The end of the year is always a time to assess politics and politicians, which is simply another way of saying it’s time for another “winners and losers” column. Don’t get too excited if your guys won this year, though. Everything could change in 2006. The same goes for those who lost. Remember, it’s always darkest before the dawn.
So let’s get started. I’ll offer a number of nominees for each category and pick my winner.
Biggest Electoral Winner
• Sen. Jon Corzine (D), elected governor of New Jersey
• Ex-Reps. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), named to other posts
• Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (D), elected governor of Virginia
• Wade Boggs, former third baseman, elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame
Analysis: The choice comes down to Cox/Portman and Kaine. Cox/Portman survived the House and moved out of it at just the right time. Kaine ran a solid campaign in Virginia, losing ground in the rural areas but exceeding outgoing Gov. Mark Warner’s (D) 2001 showing in the all-important suburbs. My choice: Kaine.
Biggest Bush Administration Loser
• President Bush
• Former Chief of Staff to the Vice President Scooter Libby
• Vice President Cheney
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
• Former Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown
Analysis: Nobody in the Bush administration, with the possible exception of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has had a good year, but things have been particularly rough for the White House. Sure, Libby has been indicted and Brown was fired, but the president’s job numbers have sunk dramatically and he ends the first year of his second term dramatically weaker than when he began it. That’s reason enough to select him as the “winner” of this category. My choice: Bush.
Biggest Inside-the-Beltway Loser
• Lobbyist Jack Abramoff
• Cristian Guzman, Washington Nationals shortstop
• Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
• Former Rep. Frank Ballance (D-N.C.)
• Public relations “expert” Michael Scanlon
• Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio)
Analysis: Wow, what a list of deserving contenders. I’m not sure I can pick just one winner. Can’t all of them share a piece of the award? Of the group, I’d guess that DeLay and Guzman are the least likely to do jail time, so I’d rule them out. The other four look like a photo finish to me. I can’t pick one. My choice: Let’s just call it a four-way tie.
Biggest Outside-the-Beltway Loser
• California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
• Jerry Kilgore (R), nominee for governor of Virginia
• Ohio Gov. Bob Taft (R)
• Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D)
• Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R)
• Actress Katie Holmes
Analysis: Nobody on this list had a good year, but Holmes and Taft stand out for being either particularly inept or noticeably delusional. But everybody in politics has piled on Taft already (as they should) so I’m picking someone who is a symbol of what is wrong with Hollywood and American popular culture. My choice: Holmes.
Flip-Flopper of the Year
• Rafael Palmeiro, Baltimore Orioles
• Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.)
• Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
Analysis: No contest here. Brown said he wasn’t running for the Senate, so Democratic insiders wooed unsuccessful Congressional candidate Paul Hackett into the race. Suddenly, Brown changes his mind, leaving Hackett out to dry. Not good in the karma department, Sherrod. My choice: Brown.
Weirdest Political Event
• Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) wins Powerball of $853,000
• Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) elected to the NFL Hall of Fame
• Indiana switches to Mountain Time Zone
• Harriett Miers’ Supreme Court nomination
• Wolf Blitzer forms his own 24-hour cable TV network
Analysis: OK, so only two of the things in this list really happened. But as the list proves, sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. The Miers selection was too, too strange. My choice: Miers.
Best Bush Administration Moment
• FEMA preparations for Hurricane Rita
• Judge John Roberts selected for Supreme Court
• Judge Samuel Alito selected for Supreme Court
• Dec. 31, 11:59 p.m.
Analysis: It’s a tough call between the end of a difficult year and Roberts, but I’m going to pick the judge. Nobody thought the president could find a perfect choice who could please conservatives and de-fang Democrats, but Roberts was that guy. My choice: Roberts.
MVP of 2005
• Alex Rodriguez, third baseman, New York Yankees
• Derek Jeter, shortstop, New York Yankees
• Mariano Rivera, pitcher, New York Yankees
• Hideki Matsui, outfielder, New York Yankees
• Gary Sheffield, outfielder, New York Yankees.
Analysis: Why? Because it’s my column. If you don’t like it, write your own. My choice: Rivera.
This column first appared in Roll Call on December 12, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 12/15/2005 08:55:00 AM
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
These are the states and races we are watching going into next year. Our state-by-state breakdown lists every 2006 race for governor and U.S. Senate, and the currently competitive House races. Subscribers to the print-edition of The Rothenberg Political Report get ratings for every race. Subscribe now.
June 6 Primary, June 27 Runoff
Governor. Bob Riley (R) elected 2002 (49.2%).
August 22 Primary
Governor. Frank Murkowski (R), elected 2002 (56%).
September 12 Primary
Governor. Janet Napolitano (D), elected 2002 (46%).
Senate. Jon Kyl (R), elected 1994 (54%), and 2000 (79%).
Arizona 1. Rick Renzi (R).
Arizona 5. J.D. Hayworth (R).
Arizona 8. Open; Jim Kolbe (R) not seeking reelection.
May 23 Primary, June 13 Runoff
Governor. Open; Mike Huckabee (R) term-limited.
June 6 Primary
Governor. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) elected 2003 recall election.
Senate. Dianne Feinstein (D), elected 1992 Special (54%), 1994 (47%), and 2000 (56%).
California 50. Open; Duke Cunningham (R) resigned. *June 6 Runoff. Brian Bilbray (R) vs. Francine Busby (D).
August 8 Primary
Governor. Open; Bill Owens (R), term-limited.
Colorado 4. Marilyn Musgrave (R).
Colorado 7. Open; Bob Beauprez (R) running for governor.
August 8 Primary
Governor. Jodi Rell (R), succeeded John Rowland (R) in 2004.
Senate. Joseph Lieberman (D), elected 1988 (50%), 1994 (67%) and 2000 (63%).
Connecticut 2. Rob Simmons (R).
Connecticut 4. Chris Shays (R).
Connecticut 5. Nancy Johnson (R).
September 12 Primary
Senate. Thomas Carper (D), elected 2000 (56%).
September 5 Primary
Governor. Open; Jeb Bush (R), term-limited.
Senate. Bill Nelson (D), elected 2000 (51%).
Florida 9. Open; Mike Bilirakis (R) not seeking reelection.
Florida 13. Open; Katherine Harris (R) running for Senate.
Florida 22. Clay Shaw (R).
July 18 Primary, August 8 Runoff
Governor. Sonny Perdue (R), elected 2002 (51%).
Georgia 8. Jim Marshall (D).
Georiga 12. John Barrow (D).
September 23 Primary
Governor. Linda Lingle (R), elected 2002 (52%).
Senate. Daniel Akaka (D) appointed April 1990, elected 1990 Special (54%), 1994 (72%), and 2000 (73%).
May 23 Primary
Governor. Open; Dirk Kempthorne (R), term-limited.
March 21 Primary
Governor. Rod Blagojevich (D), elected 2002 (52%).
Illinois 6. Open; Henry Hyde (R) not seeking reelection. Peter Roskam (R) vs. Tammy Duckworth (D).
Illinois 8. Cong. Melissa Bean (D) vs. David MCSweeney (R).
May 2 Primary
Senate. Richard Lugar (R), elected 1976 (59%), 1982 (54%), 1988 (68%), 1994 (67%), and 2000 (67%).
Indiana 2. Chris Chocola (R) vs. Joe Donnelly (D).
Indiana 8. John Hostettler (R) vs. Brad Ellsworth (D).
Indiana 9. Mike Sodrel (R) vs. Baron Hill (D).
June 6 Primary
Governor. Open; Tom Vilsack (D), not seeking reelection.
Iowa 1. Open; Jim Nussle (R) running for governor.
Iowa 3. Leonard Boswell (D).
August 1 Primary
Governor. Kathleen Sebelius (D), elected 2002 (53%).
May 16 Primary
Kentucky 3. Anne Northup (R).
Kentucky 4. Geoff Davis (R).
November 7 Primary, December Runoff (if necessary)
Louisiana 3. Charlie Melancon (D).
June 13 Primary
Governor. John Baldacci (D), elected 2002 (47.1%).
Senate. Olympia Snowe (R), elected 1994 (60%), and 2000 (69%).
September 12 Primary
Governor. Bob Ehrlich (R), elected 2002 (52%).
Senate. Open; Paul Sarbanes (D) not seeking reelection.
September 19 Primary
Governor. Open; Mitt Romney (R) not seeking reelection.
Senate. Edward Kennedy (D), elected 1962 Special (55%), 1964 (74%), 1970 (62%), 1976 (69%), 1982 (61%), 1988 (65%), 1994 (58%), and 2000 (73%).
August 8 Primary
Governor. Jennifer Granholm (D), elected 2002 (51%).
Senate. Debbie Stabenow (D), elected 2000 (49.5%).
September 12 Primary
Governor. Tim Pawlenty (R), elected 2002 (44.4%).
Senate. Open; Mark Dayton (D) not seeking reelection.
Minnesota 6. Open; Mark Kennedy (R) running for Senate.
June 6 Primary
Senate. Trent Lott (R), elected 1988 (54%), 1994 (69%), and 2000 (66%).
August 8 Primary
Senate. Jim Talent (R), elected 2002 Special (49.8%).
June 6 Primary
Senate. Conrad Burns (R), elected 1988 (52%), 1994 (62%), and 2000 (51%).
May 9 Primary
Governor. Dave Heineman (R), succeeded Mike Johanns (R) January 20, 2005.
Senate. Ben Nelson (D), elected 2000 (51%).
August 15 Primary
Governor. Open; Kenny Guinn (R), term-limited.
Senate. John Ensign (R), elected 2000 (55%).
Nevada 2. Open; Jim Gibbons (R) running for governor.
Nevada 3. Jon Porter (D).
September 12 Primary
Governor. John Lynch (D) elected 2004 (51%).
New Hampshire 2. Charlie Bass (R).
June 6 Primary
Senate. Bob Menendez (D), appointed by Gov. Jon Corzine (D) January 2006.
New Jersey 7. Mike Ferguson (R).
June 6 Primary
Governor. Bill Richardson (D), elected 2002 (56%).
Senate. Jeff Bingaman (D), elected 1982 (54%), 1988 (63%), 1994 (54%), and 2000 (62%).
New Mexico 1. Heather Wilson (R).
September 12 Primary
Governor. Open; George Pataki (R) not seeking reelection.
Senate. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D), elected 2000 (55%).
New York 20. John Sweeney (R).
New York 24. Open; Sherwood Boehlert (R) not seeking reelection.
New York 25. Jim Walsh (R).
New York 29. Randy Kuhl (R).
May 2 Primary, May 30 Runoff
North Carolina 11. Charles Taylor (R).
June 13 Primary
Senate. Kent Conrad (D), elected 1986 (50%), 1992 Special (63%), 1994 (58%), and 2000 (62%).
May 2 Primary
Governor. Open; Bob Taft (R), term-limited.
Senate. Mike DeWine (R), elected 1994 (53%), and 2000 (60%), vs. Sherrod Brown (D).
Ohio 1. Steve Chabot (R) vs. John Cranley (D).
Ohio 6. Open; Ted Strickland (D) running for governor. Charlie Wilson (D) vs. Chuck Blasdel (R).
Ohio 13. Open; Sherrod Brown (D) running for Senate. Betty Sutton (D) vs. Craig Foltin (R).
Ohio 15. Deborah Pryce (R) vs. Mary Jo Kilroy (D).
Ohio 18. Bob Ney (R) vs. Zack Space (D).
July 25 Primary, August 22 Runoff
Governor. Brad Henry (D), elected 2002 (43%).
May 16 Primary
Governor. Ted Kulongoski (D), elected 2002 (49%).
May 16 Primary
Governor. Ed Rendell (D), elected 2002 (54%).
Senate. Rick Santorum (R), elected 1994 (49%), and 2000 (52%).
Pennsylvania 6. Jim Gerlach (R).
Pennsylvania 7. Curt Weldon (R).
Pennsylvania 8. Mike Fitzpatrick (R).
September 12 Primary
Governor. Don Carcieri (R), elected 2002 (55%).
Senate. Lincoln Chafee (R), appointed November 1999, elected 2000 (57%).
June 13 Primary, June 27 Runoff
Governor. Mark Sanford (R), elected 2002 (53%).
South Carolina 5. John Spratt (D).
June 6 Primary
Governor. Mike Rounds (R), elected 2002 (57%).
August 3 Primary
Governor. Phil Bredesen (D), elected 2002 (51%).
Senate. Open; Bill Frist (R) not seeking reelection.
March 7 Primary, April 11 Runoff
Governor. Rick Perry (R), succeeded George W. Bush December 21, 2000, elected 2002 (58%).
Senate. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), elected June 1993 Special Runoff (67%), 1994 (61%), and 2000 (65%).
Texas 17. Chet Edwards (D) vs. Van Taylor (R).
Texas 22. Tom DeLay (R)** vs. Nick Lampson (D).
June 27 Primary
Senate. Orrin Hatch (R), elected 1976 (54%), 1982 (58%), 1988 (67%), 1994 (69%), and 2000 (66%).
September 12 Primary
Governor. Jim Douglas (R) elected 2002 (45%) by the state Legislature, and 2004 (58%).
Senate. Open; James Jeffords (I) not seeking reelection. Elected 1988 (68%), 1994 (50%), and 2000 (66%).
Vermont At-Large. Open; Bernie Sanders (I) running for Senate.
June 13 Primary
Senate. George Allen (R), elected 2000 (52%).
Virginia 2. Thelma Drake (R).
September 19 Primary
Senate. Maria Cantwell (D), elected 2000 (48.7%).
Washington 2. Rick Larsen (D).
Washington 8. Dave Reichert (R).
May 9 Primary
Senate. Robert Byrd (D), elected 1958 (59%), 1964 (68%), 1970 (78%), 1976 (100%), 1982 (69%), 1988 (65%), 1994 (69%), and 2000 (79%).
West Virginia 1. Alan Mollohan (D).
September 12 Primary
Governor. Jim Doyle (D), elected 2002 (45%).
Senate. Herb Kohl (D), elected 1988 (52%), 1994 (58%), and 2000 (62%).
Wisconsin 8. Open; Mark Green (R) running for governor.
August 22 Primary
Governor. Dave Freudenthal (D), elected 2002 (50%).
Senate. Craig Thomas (R), elected 1994 (59%) and 2000 (74%).
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 12/14/2005 10:55:00 AM
Monday, December 12, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
The analogy of Vietnam is trying to creep into the analysis of why President Bush may have to start pulling troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later, but the two wars differ dramatically in key ways that enhance the president’s options.
Bush’s overall job approval numbers are now somewhere in the upper- to mid-30s, a few points higher than the public’s evaluation of how he is handling the war in Iraq. Those numbers aren’t all that different from former President Lyndon Johnson’s in March 1968, when the Democratic president’s job approval stood at 36 percent.
Bush’s poll ratings obviously are horrendous, and there is widespread criticism of the way he led the country into war and of many of the administration’s other decisions, including the size of our military force in Iraq.
But whatever the criticism (and it certainly is growing), Bush cannot feel the pressure to leave Iraq that LBJ, and later, President Richard Nixon felt. I can say that with certainty, in part because I well remember gathering around a radio with a couple of dozen other people in Waterville, Maine, the evening of Dec. 1, 1969, to listen to the first draft lottery since 1942.
For some reason, we had missed the first few dates that were drawn, so nobody was entirely sure if they had a “low number,” which meant that you could very likely be called for military service, possibly in Vietnam, or a “high” one, which probably meant that you would not be drafted.
I still remember that evening more than 36 years ago, during my senior year, because everyone knew that the lottery was likely to have such a profound impact on all our lives, one way or the other. My classmates with low numbers immediately talked about making plans — plans to enlist, plans to head for Canada or plans to get stinking drunk that evening.
Those of us who drew high numbers felt somewhat relieved (not knowing for sure exactly what number was high enough to avoid receiving a notice to report for a physical), but we also could not ignore the feelings and fate of our friends who drew low numbers.
When I eventually saw the full list of days of the year and their corresponding draft numbers, I remember noticing that all of the dates around my birthday had low draft numbers, while my 282 jumped out like a sore thumb. Had I been born 18 hours earlier, my birthday would have been a day earlier and my lottery number would have been 80. If my mother had given birth 12 hours later, on the day after I was born, my draft number would have been 46.
The draft made Vietnam very different from Iraq.
During Vietnam, young men who opposed the war or didn’t want to get shot at found themselves drafted, and they and their families took to the streets. The war had a very direct impact on them.
But without a draft, fewer Americans feel the impact of the war, and many of those who have felt the impact of the war most directly volunteered for military service.
When, in September, I asked a Marine sniper — the son of friends — who had recently returned from Iraq about troop morale, he responded that, at least in his unit, it was high. He told me he and his colleagues knew what they were getting themselves into, and that anybody who had joined the military in the previous two years was well aware that they would be headed for combat.
I realize that many National Guard troops who were called up did not expect to find themselves fighting in the Sunni Triangle, and that some parents have not been able to accept the horrendous pain of losing a son or daughter in the war. But unlike Vietnam, this war is being fought by volunteers, and that has limited the outcry against the war and given the president much greater freedom to conduct operations than Johnson and Nixon had.
Sept. 11, 2001, also makes Iraq different from Vietnam.
Almost 40 years ago, American policymakers decided that Vietnam was simply the next domino that might fall in a worldwide communist effort to squeeze the West. Regardless of whether that theory was right, we did not suffer a direct attack or feel the sense of vulnerability that most Americans do now.
You don’t have to see a connection between the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq to understand that the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., have had a profound impact on the way many Americans view the world and U.S. security.
It is simply easier now for the president to portray terrorists as a more direct and immediate threat to the U.S. than it was for Johnson or Nixon to portray the North Vietnamese, or even the Chinese, that way.
I’m not suggesting that public opinion does not affect Bush, or that opposition to the war could not take a more confrontational turn. Pressure on Bush from Republican officeholders who want troop withdrawals prior to the ’06 elections surely will grow over the next few months. But the absence of a draft, and the very real terrorist threat — whether or not it has anything to do with the war — makes the war in Iraq very different politically from Vietnam.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 8, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 12/12/2005 10:00:00 AM
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
So far, the Democratic establishment has wisely resisted the temptation to make personal attacks on the president or to respond to the call for President Bush’s impeachment emanating from the party’s vocal “progressive” wing.
But it could prove to be increasingly difficult for party leaders to keep their members in line as liberal Web loggers, anti-war lefties, Bush haters and grass-roots activists — all who believe that their party has failed to show backbone on the issue — turn up the heat and demand confrontation.
Just last week, former radio talk show host Tony Trupiano was endorsed by ImpeachPAC, a new political action committee that endorses only Congressional candidates who “support the immediate and simultaneous impeachment of George Bush and [Vice President] Dick Cheney for their Iraq War lies.”
Trupiano, you may recall, was one of the Congressional challengers listed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as among its “strong candidates for change.” He is the likely Democratic nominee against Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) in a GOP-leaning district.
Democratic strategists surely haven’t forgotten 1998, when Republicans were so rabidly anti-Bill Clinton that they pushed impeachment when a majority of voters apparently wanted no part of a last-resort constitutional remedy. GOP attacks on then-President Clinton made them appear petty, partisan and more interested in hurting the president than improving the country.
Instead of picking up a handful of House seats in an off-year election when the opposing party controlled the White House, Republicans lost five seats.
The same thing could happen again, though with the roles reversed, if Democrats look to be more interested in taking their pound of flesh than in getting the country headed back in the right direction. That is why the party’s best strategy this cycle is to be respectful of the president while taking strong exception to his policies and his performance in office.
When only three self-marginalized Democratic Reps. — Georgian Cynthia McKinney, New Yorker José Serrano and Florida’s Robert Wexler — can support a resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, you know that party leaders understand the need to appear measured and thoughtful when it comes to the handling of U.S. troops in the field. But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (Calif.) recent adoption of Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s “get out of Iraq now” position raises some questions about whether the Democrats will continue to show restraint.
For the DCCC, then, Trupiano’s endorsement by ImpeachPAC poses something of a conundrum.
Do you stick with a guy who is calling for the simultaneous impeachment of the president and vice president and who calls impeachment “a nonpartisan idea” and “the way to hold the government accountable”? Do you keep him on your list of strong challengers, when you know that appears to stamp him with the committee’s seal of approval?
For the DCCC, the best tactic may well be to simply ignore the flap that will likely be created when the National Republican Congressional Committee and political reporters press DCCC bigwigs about Trupiano’s endorsement by ImpeachPAC.
That’s the advice veteran Democratic operatives offered when I asked them what the DCCC might do.
“It will become an issue inside the campaign, but it isn’t an issue for the DCCC any more than any other thing that happens in another candidate’s campaign,” said one operative who called the decision to accept the ImpeachPAC’s $2,100 “a mistake by a first-time candidate,” given the district’s makeup.
Another veteran Democratic campaign professional agreed, saying, “If I were at the DCCC, I’d say let’s keep our heads down at least unless it becomes a story. Then we may have to deal with it.
“But,” added the Democrat, “if I were at the NRCC, I’d be screaming bloody murder that the candidate was an extremist.”
The DCCC is in this bind, frankly, because it is unlikely to risk angering its bloggers and activists, who would likely go ballistic if the committee started to distance itself from Trupiano or his comments on the war.
For his part, Trupiano isn’t apologetic about the endorsement and doesn’t see it as a big deal. “What’s the shame in wanting to talk about truth and transparency in government?” he told me last week in a telephone interview. But Trupiano noted that his top issue is jobs.
Trupiano is only one candidate for Congress, and he isn’t making party policy. But if he isn’t an anomaly — if other candidates (or incumbent Members of Congress) echo the ImpeachPAC line — the DCCC could be faced with a more serious problem.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 5, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 12/07/2005 03:00:00 PM
Friday, December 02, 2005
The new December 2, 2005 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. (Click here for subscription information.)
2006 Gubernatorial Outlook
Republicans were dealt a symbolic blow this year, losing governors races in both Virginia and New Jersey. But Democrats already controlled both those states, leaving the GOP with a 28-22 advantage nationwide going into next year. But Republicans are defending 22 governorships in 2006, compared to 16 for Democrats, so the GOP will be hard-pressed to keep its overall majority.
To get a recap and rating on all 38 races next year, subscribe now.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 12/02/2005 03:01:00 PM
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
“What we’ve got here is ... failure to communicate.”
That’s the line actor Strother Martin uttered in the classic film “Cool Hand Luke,” but it just as easily could have been said by a thoughtful Member of the U.S. Congress in recent weeks.
Members on both sides of the aisle are sounding so frazzled these days that a few hours of professional therapy are in order. Clearly, neither party knows what to do next on Iraq.
Frustration has been building up for months on Capitol Hill, and we finally got our explosion shortly after Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha announced that it was time to pull out of Iraq.
Outraged that Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) used the words “coward” and “Murtha” in the same sentence, and that other Republican House Members had bashed Murtha’s comments, Democrats rushed to Murtha’s defense. Not that he needed it. He can take care of himself.
Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) charged across the House floor berating the recently minted Republican Congresswoman from Ohio, while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) branded the “Republican attacks” as “sickening.”
Republicans are frustrated because the war in Iraq has become an albatross around their necks. They had hoped — expected — that things would go better. For many, the only option is hunkering down and hoping that things will improve in the future. That’s not an approach that most politicians prefer, particularly when elections are approaching.
For weeks, Democrats have all but called the president of the United States a liar and a cheat who “manipulated” intelligence and “misled” the nation into war. With left-wing conspiracy theorists running amok on the Internet and Cindy Sheehan trying to confront President Bush at his ranch and at the White House to demand an end to the Iraq war, it’s no wonder many Republicans are frustrated and angry.
But Republicans also know that Democrats are trying to have it both ways when it comes to the war in Iraq — berating the president for misleading us about intelligence to drag the country into an unnecessary war and pummeling him for all the bad news emanating from Iraq, while at the same time emphasizing their support for the troops and opposition to a quick exit from Iraq.
Murtha called for the United States to withdraw all of its troops from Iraq within six months, a rash proposal by any account. More than five dozen House Democrats applauded Murtha’s proposal, but most high- profile Democratic leaders said that while they admired the Pennsylvania Congressman, they opposed his plan.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) called an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “a big mistake,” while Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, “I don’t support immediate withdrawal” from Iraq.
Republicans must feel as if they are witnessing a good cop/bad cop routine being played out, with party bigwigs such as Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Reid, Clinton and even liberal House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trying to appear as statesmen while others rip away at the president’s character and policies.
Republicans have no choice but to challenge Murtha and try to entice Democratic leaders to climb aboard the “out now” bandwagon. They have to force Congressional Democrats to declare flatly whether they support the war or oppose it.
Democrats are also frustrated.
They believe the Bush administration didn’t level with them completely before the president gave the order to attack Iraq, tricking them into supporting a position that they now believe to have been a fraud. Yet many of them can’t quite figure out how to change their positions without looking like a newer version of George Romney, the one-time governor of Michigan who undermined his own credibility by saying that he had been “brainwashed” about the war in Vietnam.
Democrats are also frustrated about their continued inability to figure out how to deal with military, defense and national security issues generally.
Remember, this is a party that thought it could inoculate itself against expected charges during the 2004 presidential race by nominating a Vietnam War veteran and by marching a dozen or so former generals onto the stage at the Fleet Center in Boston to attest to the party’s patriotism and toughness. Not only did that not work, but Iraq almost certainly cost Kerry the White House.
Now, Democrats are caught in a bind once again. Do they fall back on being the anti-war party, as many in their grass roots would prefer? Or do they try to change their image fundamentally by talking and acting tough about terrorism and Iraq? And if the party is divided, what message will that send to the American public?
In the short term, Democrats certainly are benefiting from Iraq. But neither party seems to have a good handle on where to go from here.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 28, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/30/2005 10:20:00 AM
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
While many in the national media have become infatuated with the problems of Ohio Gov. Bob Taft (R) and the possibility that Democrats can ride a wave of voter anger in the Buckeye State, neighboring Kentucky seems to offer Democrats a similar opportunity.
Like its neighbor to the north, Kentucky possesses a Republican governor with weak poll numbers and, Democrats hope, some surprising opportunities for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
But the DCCC faces the same problems in the Bluegrass State that it does in Ohio: a dearth of obvious Republican targets and a shortage of top-tier challengers. Still, if a Democratic wave develops a year from now, as Democratic insiders hope it does, the party intends to be ready with credible candidates in three or maybe even four Kentucky districts.
The administration of Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) has been the target of a criminal investigation for months over hiring practices. Eleven current or former members of Fletcher’s administration have been indicted, a stunning development for a candidate for governor who campaigned as a reformer who would “clean up” Frankfort.
Fletcher has already fired nine political appointees, including his deputy chief of staff and the director of the governor’s Office of Personnel and Efficiency, and he has accepted the resignation of Daniel Groves, a top aide and the manager of his 2003 campaign.
Fletcher has already pardoned nine people indicted in connection with the investigation into the administration’s personnel decisions, and local observers are waiting to see whether Fletcher himself may be indicted. The governor also has called for the firing of the Republican state party chairman.
Not surprisingly, given the controversy, Fletcher’s ratings have plummeted.
A Sept. 7-13 Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll of 801 adults found the governor’s job approval standing at 38 percent, while 54 percent of respondents disapproved. Another Courier-Journal poll, conducted in August shortly after Fletcher announced that he would seek re-election in 2007, found only 17 percent saying that they’d vote to re-elect him. Twice as many respondents, 34 percent, said they planned to vote to replace him.
The governor’s problems and sinking poll numbers, coinciding with President Bush’s problems, have Democrats wondering whether Bluegrass State Republicans might be hit with a “perfect storm” next year.
But you can’t beat somebody with nobody, and Democrats still have work to do to field strong challengers in a number of districts.
Democratic insiders currently are most excited about their announced challenger to 2nd district Rep. Ron Lewis (R), state Rep. Mike Weaver. Weaver is a pro-life Democrat who served 34 years in the military, both in the Navy and the Army, including two tours of duty in Vietnam.
But the legislator, 67, has never raised much money in his races and may not fully understand what he faces running against an incumbent in a Congressional district that Bush carried by 31 points, 65 percent to 34 percent. Lewis won his last re-election with 68 percent, about a point and a half below his 2002 showing.
Private Democratic poll numbers suggest that Weaver could become a credible challenger to Lewis. But Republican insiders argue that Lewis and influential Kentucky Republicans are well aware that Democrats are targeting the race, and that Lewis will have the resources he needs, as well as the ammunition, to fend off Weaver.
In Kentucky’s 3rd district, the Democrats’ longtime nemesis, Rep. Anne Northup (R), just dodged a bullet when Jack Conway, who drew 48 percent against Northup in 2002, decided not to challenge the Congresswoman next year.
Democrats insist that they will have a strong opponent for Northup, but former Kentucky Secretary of State John Brown III, another name widely floated as a possible candidate, apparently is not interested. Now, some Democrats mention former U.S. Attorney Steve Reed as a possible candidate. Reed, an African-American, is managing partner of a Louisville law firm and a member of the board of trustees of the University of Kentucky.
On paper, Northup’s district is very competitive. Both Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and then-Vice President Al Gore carried the district, and GOP strategists readily admit that Northup has to work hard all the time to hold the seat. But it’s also true that the DCCC has thrown a number of strong candidates of very different stripes against the Republican. Northup, who is now sitting on just more than $1 million, has survived each time in part because she runs excellent races.
Democrats also hope to recruit a credible challenger against 1st district GOP Rep. Ed Whitfield, who had just under $1 million in the bank on Sept. 30. A one-time lobbyist who was elected in the GOP wave of 1994, Whitfield was unopposed in 2000 and won each of his past two races with more than 65 percent of the vote.
So far, the only Democrat who has filed is former Rep. Tom Barlow, who was ousted by Whitfield in 1994. Insiders dismiss Barlow as a serious contender, pointing to his defeat by Whitfield in a 1998 rematch and his unsuccessful bid for the Senate nomination in 2002.
Finally, Democrats haven’t given up hoping that they can recruit an opponent for freshman Republican Rep. Geoff Davis, who won an open seat last year. But Davis’ district is normally a Republican stronghold, and Democrats still haven’t found a strong challenger.
Clearly, Democrats don’t yet have the candidates they need to take advantage of the GOP’s troubles, both nationally and in Kentucky. But the Bluegrass State remains the kind of political environment that Democrats want and need, and that means Republicans can’t take their incumbency for granted.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 21, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/23/2005 02:49:00 PM
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
The new November 21, 2005 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. (Click here for subscription information.) Here is a sample from the current issue.
Arizona 1: Making Up Ground
By Nathan L. Gonzales
After a surprising primary and general election loss three years ago in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District, Democrats have never been able to recover. Cong. Rick Renzi (R) is once again a target, with national Democrats excited about their likely nominee, former state Rep. Jack Jackson, Jr. (D).
Back in 2002, after redistricting created a new, open seat, Democrats were optimistic about their chances of winning the district. But businessman George Cordova won the crowded primary in an upset, and Democrats were left reeling.
Renzi won the close initial general election and coasted to reelection last year. But in their race to 218 seats and a House majority, Arizona 1 is back on the target list with Democratic hopes riding on DCCC recruit Jackson.
The GOP congressman is not safe by any means, but Jackson has some significant hurdles to overcome in order to defeat the incumbent. Click here for the rest of the story..
Georgia 8 & 12: Looking for a Silver Lining
Democrats are on the prowl nationwide, searching for congressional districts to put in play in their effort to win the majority in the House. But while Republicans will be on the defensive in most of the serious races next year, the GOP is pulling out all the stops against two Democratic congressmen in Georgia.
Freshman Cong. John Barrow (D) and two-term Cong. Jim Marshall (D) face parallel challenges. Each is running for reelection in a redrawn district against a former Republican congressman. Former members Max Burns (R) and Mac Collins (R) are hoping to be the silver lining in what could be an otherwise long election night for Republicans in 2006. But they each have a tough road ahead.
If the national environment continues to deteriorate, Republicans may need every extra seat they can get, and could look to Collins and Burns to plug the final holes in the dam. The rest of the story...
2005 Statewide Ballot Initiatives: A Review
By Louis Jacobson
Most of the attention given to ballot initiatives in the 2005 election had to do with the failure of the four-part reform package proposed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). That’s understandable, but it’s also the tip of the iceberg.
Nationally, there were more ballot measures for voters to consider this year than in any recent off-off-year election. Yet according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only two of the 18 citizen-initiated ballot measures passed on Nov. 8 – a dramatically lower approval rate than normal. (Other measures were placed on the ballot by legislators.) Read more...
For information about a one-year or two-year subscription, please go here.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/22/2005 07:52:00 AM
Monday, November 21, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
I’ve been thinking about writing this column for a few months, but this week’s reporting on President Bush finally convinced me that I could wait no longer.
On Monday night, I heard CNN’s Anderson Cooper report that “Mr. Bush’s trip [to Asia] comes as his approval rating dips to the lowest level of his presidency.”
That phrase, “the lowest level of his presidency,” or similar phrases have been uttered innumerable times over the past six months as Bush’s poll numbers have dropped. Sometimes the description has even been accurate, but in every case, the comment has added to the president’s woes.
Cooper added, “A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found only 37 percent of Americans approve of the way he’s handling the job. Sixty percent disapprove.”
That additional bit of information both clarified and corrected Cooper’s initial assertion that Bush’s numbers were at their nadir, in CNN polling, at least.
Actually, the president’s job approval has been lower in national polling. An Oct. 30-Nov. 1 survey conducted by CBS News found Bush’s job approval at 35 percent. And polls conducted by Newsweek, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and the Pew Research Center, and released before the CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey reached CNN’s air or hit the pages of USA Today, also found the president with a lower job approval rating of 36 percent.
Of course, CNN isn’t the only network to hype the “lowest” poll. On the Nov. 13 edition of “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Kate Snow referred to a “new poll” that found the president’s job approval at 36 percent, “the lowest of his presidency.”
Again, that ABC report came well after the CBS survey showing Bush’s job approval at 35 percent.
Over at CBS, things were a bit more confused (and confusing).
On Nov. 14, according to a CBS News transcript, reporter Thalia Assuras referred during “The Early Show” to “new poll numbers showing the president’s job approval his lowest ever: 36 percent according to Newsweek magazine.” But the reporter then continued that “a CBS poll showed his rating down to 35 percent.”
My point definitely is not that Bush’s problems are a creation of the media. Rather, it is that Bush has plenty of problems, from Iraq to gas prices to the indictment of the vice president’s chief of staff, and that the explosion of polls is turning out to be another headache for the White House.
Every few days, there is another survey that finds Americans unhappy with the president’s leadership, his performance on the economy, health care or Iraq. Television networks and newspapers report about their own polls, as well as about surveys released by other television networks, major newspapers or institutions of higher education.
The constant drumbeat of negativity creates a bandwagon effect. After all, if more and more people think Bush is doing a poor job, maybe he is doing a bad job. That sort of thinking can’t help Bush.
Moreover, the focus on poll results emphasizes process, not policy. The result is that the president is unable to get his message out about his agenda. (Admittedly, it probably doesn’t help the White House that it appears not to have much of an agenda. But that’s a different problem.)
The president has begun to fire back recently, arguing in speeches that his adversaries are rewriting history on Iraq. But while that White House response is necessary and politically appropriate, it isn’t likely to move public opinion very far, if at all.
Few other voices have joined the president in defending himself. Congressional Republicans would prefer the Iraq war to go away, so they haven’t become a chorus of support for Bush.
Bush’s White House team and Cabinet would seem to be an obvious place where he could generate a chorus of support, but their utility is limited. The vice president isn’t an asset at the moment, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld probably is a liability (since he serves as a reminder of earlier Bush administration claims), and the rest of the Cabinet — except for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — appears to be utterly irrelevant.
But the lack of a chorus defending him isn’t the biggest of Bush’s problems.
Opinion against the president is gelling, making it difficult for him to change public opinion merely by giving speeches. Sure, he might steel some grass-roots Republicans and remind conservatives why they supported him. But speeches aren’t likely to improve his standing with political moderates and independents, and that limits the extent to which his poll numbers can rebound.
Ultimately, the president needs some good news. He needs a reason for Americans who have become disillusioned to reassess his performance and change their opinion about the kind of job he is doing.
Unless and until that happens, all of the bad news — including all of the polling stories and survey results — will weigh Bush down. And down. And down.
This column originally appeared in Roll Call on November 17, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/21/2005 09:28:00 AM
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Republican Governors Association is making a top-level staffing move on the eve of a very challenging election cycle, and potential 2008 presidential candidate and current Gov. Mitt Romney (R) is in the middle of it.
RGA Executive Director Mike Pieper is set to become managing director at R&R Partners, Inc., in their Washington, D.C. office, in January. Pieper was originally appointed to the RGA post by Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn (R), who is also chairman of the RGA, and has served as executive director for one year. Deputy Executive Director Victoria Soberinsky is also leaving the RGA to join R&R Partners in January.
According to sources familiar with the situation, Phil Musser of the Dutko Group has been appointed by Gov. Romney, the vice chairman of the RGA, to replace Pieper.
Even though Pieper’s predecessor, Ed Tobin, served as executive director for two and a half years, this move is not particularly unusual. RGA chairmen are elected by their peers to serve one-year terms and often bring their own top level staff with them.
At their winter meetings in a couple weeks, the GOP governors are expected to elect Romney as chairman and Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue as vice chairman for 2006. With races for governor in Iowa and New Hampshire next year, Romney may be looking to oversee a strong showing in those important early primary states (and nationwide) next year in an effort to boost his 2008 presidential candidacy.
Prior to the RGA, Pieper worked as a top aide to Gov. Guinn, managed Barbara Vucanovich’s successful 1986 congressional campaign and served as her chief of staff until 1996. Pieper was also a former associate staff member for the House Appropriations Committee.
Musser is currently Vice President at Dutko Worldwide. He is a former deputy chief of staff at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under both Mel Martinez and Alphonso Jackson. Musser was also a Lead Advance Representative for Bush-Cheney 2000 and senior staff member for the 2001 Presidential Inaugural Committee.
UPDATE: RGA Political Director Steve Treubner is also leaving the committee at the end of the year. The former aide to Gov. Bill Owens is returning to Colorado to open his own political consulting business, Truebner, Inc.
By Nathan Gonzales
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/18/2005 10:07:00 AM
Thursday, November 17, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
Much of what you've read and heard about Tuesday's election results is wrong. That goes for the panicky blame-laying by some Republicans and conservatives, as well as the wild claims of resurgence by Democrats.
"Americans" did not "resoundingly" support "the new priorities of Democratic candidates over the status quo policies of President Bush and Republican leadership," as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) claimed Tuesday night. That's just being "on message." It's horrendous political analysis.
On the other side of the spectrum is columnist Robert Novak, who seems unable to explain the Virginia results beyond blaming Bush or complainingthat GOP nominee Jerry Kilgore wasn't conservative enough. But Novak needonly look to Democratic governors in normally Republican Wyoming, Arizona and Kansas, and to Republican governors in Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island to understand that states often elect governors from the "wrong"(that is, minority) party.
New Jersey is easy to decipher. Democratic presidential nominees John Kerry (Mass.) and Al Gore carried it by 7 and 16 points respectively, drawing 53percent and 56 percent. Jon Corzine drew 53 percent of the vote and won byalmost 10 points on Tuesday. In other words, a Democratic state elected a Democratic governor by a "normal" Democratic margin after a bitter, personalrace. End of discussion.
In Virginia, Democrats won the governorship (as they did in 1981, 1985, 1989and 2001) but lost the two other statewide races, albeit narrowly, forlieutenant governor and attorney general. In the state House of Delegates,Democrats gained only a single seat, so the Republicans still have a 58-39 edge over Democrats - a microscopic change from before Election Day. That's hardly a sweeping Democratic victory. It's not even close.
Anyway, Tim Kaine (D) defeated Kilgore (R) for governor by about 113,000 votes, a slightly bigger margin than Democrat Mark Warner's 96,943-voteplurality over Republican Mark Earley four years ago. Most of Kaine's victory margin (105,000 votes) came from three Northern Virginia areas -Arlington County, Fairfax County and Alexandria City. Total turnout in the three jurisdictions was largely unchanged from 2001.
The results from Fairfax County were stunning. Warner won the county by26,000 votes four years ago, while Kaine's margin ballooned to 57,000 votes. Kaine drew about 14,000 votes more than Warner did, while Kilgore drew17,000 fewer votes than Earley.
Kaine, a former Richmond mayor, did better than expected in two otherregions of note. He won Virginia Beach narrowly (Mark Warner lost it by almost 7 points in 2001), and he bested Warner's showing in Chesterfield andHenrico, near Richmond. Kaine's strategists targeted suburban voters, and their efforts apparentlywere successful. "Weak" Republicans and swing voters seem to have desertedthe GOP nominee this year, which is something that Republicans ought toworry about given the party's reliance on suburban voters nationally.
One astute Democratic insider I talked with had no doubt why the Democrat won. This observer insisted that Kaine won on leadership - convincing suburbanites that Warner had been an effective governor and that Kaine wouldstay the course and move the state forward. The Democrat noted that Kaineeffectively painted himself as a bipartisan, fiscally responsible, conservative Democrat while challenging Kilgore on crime, taxes andtransportation.
It's important to note that Bill Bolling, the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor, drew 66,000 more votes than Kilgore did, and that BobMcDonnell, the GOP's nominee for attorney general, drew 58,000 more than hisparty's nominee for governor. These discrepancies were largest in Republican areas, such as Roanoke,Virginia Beach, Chesterfield and York counties. In those places, Kilgore generally ran behind his ticket mates 4.5 percent to 10 percent.
Kilgoretrailed his colleagues in Northern Virginia, too, but much more narrowly.Kilgore's weak showing suggests that Republican voters simply didn't like him. Maybe it was his Southwest Virginia style, his ads, his record - I don't know. But for whatever reason, they didn't vote for him.
The results don't support the conclusion that Bush caused Kilgore to lose. If that were the case, Republicans would have lost all three statewide contests and many more legislative races. In reality, a number of factorsundoubtedly worked to Kaine's advantage. Mark Warner's popularity helped,and Kaine's moderate rhetoric proved effective. Plus, Kilgore didn't help himself. Bush obviously was a liability, particularly in Northern Virginia, but I doubt that it cost Kilgore more than a couple of points statewide.
One Democratic operative summed up the meaning of the gubernatorial election perfectly. "This wasn't about Democratic turnout efforts or the lack of Republican turnout. It was a persuasion win" for Kaine.
Maybe the best way to think about the '05 Virginia governor's race is tothink back to the 2000 presidential contest, when Gore sought to succeed a popular president who had a major character flaw that elevated a set ofcultural issues, which ultimately undid Gore.
Kaine, too, sought to succeed a popular officeholder from his own party, but he did not have to overcome the baggage that Gore did. Unlike Gore, whorefused to identify with or campaign alongside former President Bill Clinton, Kaine attached himself to Warner, arguing that his election wouldproduce, in effect, a second Warner term. Suburban voters liked that idea,and they didn't warm to Kilgore.
Virginia voters selected Kaine, who ran as a pro-business, bipartisan socialmoderate, at the same time they were electing two Republicans statewide andaffirming the GOP's solid control of the House of Delegates. That's hardly evidence of a Democratic wave. So while Kaine's convincing victory should give Republicans pause and concern, it ought not cause panic in Republican ranks.
Finally, I still expect 2006 to be a very good Democratic year, with the House probably coming into play and Democrats poised to make major gains in the Senate. My caveat is that Tuesday's results have nothing to do with that assessment.
This column originially appeared in Roll Call on November 14, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/17/2005 11:47:00 AM
Monday, November 14, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
Voters seem less than pleased these days with thedirection of the country, the performance of thepresident and the performance of Congress. In manystates, this sense of dissatisfaction extends to thegovernor and state legislature.
Yet when voters in California and Ohio were presentedwith the option of taking away from state legislatorsthe right to draw their own district lines, the votersturned their thumbs down. They stuck with the currentsystem.
Specifically, in Ohio, voters turned down Issue 4, astatewide ballot measure that would have created a“nonpartisan” panel to draw the state’s Congressionaldistricts every 10 years, instead of allowing thestate Legislature to do it.
The measure lost overwhelmingly (drawing only 30percent) even though scandal has ripped through thestate, discrediting Gov. Bob Taft (R) and a major GOPfundraiser at the same time an Ohio RepublicanCongressman is under a cloud for allegedly allowing alobbyist to pay for a golf outing in Scotland.
In California, Proposition 77, which would haveamended the state’s constitution to take Congressionaland state legislative redistricting away from theLegislature and handed those responsibilities over toa new three-member panel of retired judges, went downto defeat as well, 59 percent to 41 percent.
Voters don’t need me to lecture them about theirdecisions, and I won’t. I have a self-interest in thecreation of more competitive House districts, since Ihandicap those races and would likely benefit frommore competitive contests.
But I’m not the only one who thinks creating morecompetitive districts would be a healthy development,both for Congress and for the two-party system.Democracy requires competition, and too many one-partydistricts breed cynicism and politicians who seelittle or no need to compromise once they reachWashington, D.C.
Whether you agree with that or not, it is stillnoteworthy that voters who seem so dissatisfied withthe current state of the nation and national politicswere so content to stick with the status quo when itcame to the drawing of district boundaries.
Nationally, polls show that voters don’t have aparticularly high opinion of Republicans or Democratsin Congress, and I rarely meet people who trustpoliticians further than they could throw them.
Yet voters in Ohio and California rejected proposalsto change the current system that allows statelegislators to draw their own district lines. How isthis possible?
In California, Democrats had an obvious politicalreason to oppose the proposition, since new linescould undermine the party’s dominant position in thestate Legislature and cut the party’s margin in thestate’s Congressional delegation.
Politics being what it is, their opposition was bothpredictable and understandable. Some state GOPlegislators opposed the measure, fearful that newlines would put their political careers at risk.There’s principle for you, huh?
More than a few Golden State voters undoubtedlyopposed the initiative because it was supported byGov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), whose poll numbershave sunk more quickly than the Titanic.
All of the high-profile measures backed by thegovernor were defeated, so in voting againstProposition 77, some voters were simply sending amessage to the Terminator that they didn’t want topass anything that had his fingerprints on it.
In Ohio, it was Republicans who were threatened byIssue 4, so many opposed the new plan (which wouldhave required another round of redistricting prior tothe 2008 elections) in order to protect the party’slegislative and Congressional incumbents.
In both Ohio and California, some voters almostcertainly opposed the ballot measures simply becausethey regarded the entire matter as arcane, complicatedand confusing.
As one insider who supported the Ohio redistrictingballot measure told me Tuesday, it’s far easier toexplain the benefits of simplified absentee voting orthe advantages of campaign contribution limits than itis to first explain how districts are drawn, thenexplain why that system needs to be changed andfinally to propose a new system for drawing the lines.
Days before the results were in, true “reformers” —I’m not talking about partisans who jumped on thereform bandwagon but only wanted to redraw districtsto improve their electoral opportunities next time —were claiming victory of a sort. They insisted thatthey had already begun to “educate” voters and wouldpress on with the battle to change the way districtsare drawn.
Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.
A dispassionate assessment of the Ohio and Californiaballot measures can only interpret the results as ablow to those who want to change how district linesare drawn. Voters simply don’t care enough about theprocess of drawing legislative and Congressionaldistricts, and it will be hard to motivate them inother states to support changes via the ballot.
This column originially appeared in Roll Call on November 10, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/14/2005 12:15:00 AM
Thursday, November 10, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
With one year to go until the midterm elections, Democrats believe that control of the Senate is at stake. They’re optimistic, and they should be. Their fundraising and recruiting have been strong, and national poll numbers show President Bush in a hole and voters looking for change.
But netting six seats when only 15 Republican-held Senate seats are up — and when seven of those are safe for the GOP — is a daunting task. It may even be an impossible one.
While Democrats are using 1994 as a model of what could happen next year, that cycle isn’t all that helpful for the party’s case. (Coincidentally, the Senate class up this cycle was also up 12 years ago.)
That year, with a Republican wave clearly under way, Democrats lost eight seats. But six of those came in open seats, while only two incumbents — Pennsylvania’s Harris Wofford and Tennessee’s Jim Sasser — were defeated. And Wofford had won a special election only three years earlier.
This cycle, there is currently one Republican open seat (Tennessee) with another in Mississippi possible. Neither state is particularly hospitable to Democrats in federal contests. So Democratic challengers will need to unseat Republican incumbents — a more difficult task than pilfering open seats.
Interestingly, a number of Democrats held on against the GOP wave in 1994 even though they had credible opposition. The list included then-Sens. Bob Kerrey (Neb.) and Chuck Robb (Va.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.).
Two better historical models for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee may be 1980, when Republicans netted 12 seats, or 1986, when Democrats netted eight. But even these precedents have limited applicability.
In 1980, a presidential election was under way, and voters were making a big statement about the role of government that November. Moreover, Democrats held seats in a number of Republican and/or conservative states (including Alaska, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Carolina and South Dakota), and those Democrats — incumbents such as George McGovern (S.D.), Frank Church (Idaho), Birch Bayh (Ind.) and even John Durkin (N.H.) — were far to the left of their state electorates.
Voters may want to make a grand statement next year about the two parties or the responsibilities of government — or they could simply say that they want change. Incumbents have a better chance of dealing with the second alternative.
And 1986 may not be particularly relevant either. Democrats netted eight Senate seats that cycle, knocking off six elected GOP incumbents and one who had been appointed. But many of those were weak Republicans who had been swept in six years earlier. This year’s Republican Senate class is not particularly weak.
So where do Democrats stand now?
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) trails by double digits, an incredibly huge deficit for an incumbent. Challenger Bob Casey Jr. has a great name and will raise plenty of cash, but insiders acknowledge that he has some candidate weaknesses, which is probably why he has not made many media rounds yet.
Santorum will likely run a vigorous and effective campaign, but he simply starts too far behind to be anything but an underdog.
Elsewhere, Democratic prospects are less certain.
Their chances in Rhode Island, Montana and Ohio depend, to various extents, on the nature of the outcome of competitive primaries (including a GOP contest in Rhode Island).
Democrats regularly underestimate all three Republican incumbents in those states. In fact, Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) fits his state well and benefits from his reputation and approachability in a small state, and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), for all his self-inflicted wounds over the years, simply wins. He, too, reflects his state’s style and ideology.
The vulnerability of Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine (R) comes mostly from his state, where the Republican Party has taken some brutal hits on ethics in recent months. DeWine also has problems with his conservative base. But if control of the Senate comes down to Ohio, will conservatives really sit by idly while DeWine loses?
Even if Democrats win all four of those races, they still need two more if they are to net six seats. (This assumes that they hold all of their own seats, which now appears likely. While the Democrats’ open seat in Minnesota is a tossup, Republican Mark Kennedy will have trouble winning his race in the face of a strong Democratic breeze nationally.)
So where do those two more seats come from? In Missouri, polling shows Sen. Jim Talent (R) running only even against state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D). But Talent also fits his state well, and he will be hard to defeat. The same goes for GOP Sen. Jon Kyl in Arizona.
The Democrats are headed for Senate gains, and they now have enough quality challengers to give them an outside shot at 51 seats if the Democratic wave that seems to be building nationally continues to grow. But they are still likely to need something close to a clean sweep of competitive races — and that is never easy to accomplish, especially where incumbents are involved.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 7, 2005. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/10/2005 09:54:00 AM
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
By Nathan L. Gonzales
As Democratic leaders scramble for the hilltops to shout the results of last night’s victories in Virginia and New Jersey, one down ballot race in New Hampshire symbolizes part of the Democrats’ challenge next year.
Three-term incumbent Mayor Bob Baines (D) lost reelection in Manchester, 51%-48%, to Republican Alderman Frank Guinta. In his victory, Guinta not only knocked off the incumbent mayor but knocked the wind out of the sails of a top DCCC recruit.
Guinta highlighted Baines’ six-year record, including a 55 percent increase in violent crime, tax increases, and three local high schools that failed federal testing standards, according to local media reports. In the final week, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Joe Biden (D-DE), all made campaign appearances with Baines. Kerry and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) also paid for some staff for the mayor.
Though his intentions were not public, there was little secret about Baines’ plan to run for Congress in 2006. His reelection last night was supposed to be a small hurdle. Instead it was a brick wall. Baines has not made an official announcement, but according to one local Democrat, the mayor’s congressional prospects are definitely in doubt.
(On a side note, in Connecticut, two of Baines’ fellow mayors won reelection on their way to running for governor in 2006. Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy (D) won reelection 51%-46% and New Haven Mayor John DeStefano won reelection with 75%.)
Now in the Granite State, Cong. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) and the DCCC are left searching for another candidate to put New Hampshire’s 1st District in play. State Rep. Peter Sullivan (D) and attorney/U.S. Army Reserves officer Pete Duffy (D) are running. And Rye School Board Member Gary Dodds (D) is mentioned. But Baines was the clear target of Democratic recruitment efforts since he represented Manchester (population 107,006), the district’s anchor.
According to one local Democratic insider, state House Democratic Leader Jim Craig (D) of Manchester will likely field the next batch of recruiting phone calls. Steve Marchand (D), elected mayor of Portsmouth almost 24 hours ago, is also mentioned.
Cong. Jeb Bradley (R) was first elected in 2002, defeating Martha Fuller Clark (D), 58%-39%, in the open seat vacated by now-Sen. John Sununu. Bradley won reelection 63%-37% two years later over attorney Justin Nadeau (D).
The GOP congressman ended September with over $157,000 on hand, according to FEC reports. In comparison, Dodds showed almost $30,000 in the bank, while the others did not file third quarter reports.
The district is competitive by the numbers. George W. Bush won it both in 2004 (51%-48%) and 2000 (50%-47%). But Democrats cannot take back the House without credible candidates to serve as alternatives to Republican incumbents.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/09/2005 03:16:00 PM
By Louis Jacobson
Here are the latest results, as of 10 am ET Nov. 9, for the key statewideballot measures on the Nov. 8 ballot.
California Prop. 73. Requires parental notification for minors seeking anabortion, except in cases of medical emergency or with a judicial waiver. 47% Yes, 53% No, 100% reporting
California Prop. 74. Extends employment time before teachers qualify fortenure, from two years to five. 45% Yes, 55% No, 100% reporting
California Prop. 75. Requires approval in writing from union members beforetheir dues are used for political purposes. 47% Yes, 53% No, 100% reporting
California Prop. 76. Caps growth of state spending. 38% Yes, 62% No, 100% reporting
California Prop. 77. Creates a non-partisan commission of retired judges todraw new district lines. 41% Yes, 59% No, 100% reporting
California Prop. 78. Creates a voluntary program of prescription-drugdiscounts for low- and moderate-income residents. Backed by drug industry. 42% Yes, 58% No, 100% reporting
California Prop. 79. Creates a program of prescription-drug discounts forlow- and moderate-income residents. Backed by consumer groups and laborunions. 39% Yes, 61% No, 100% reporting
California Prop. 80. Re-regulates electric service providers under theauspices of the California Public Utilities Commission; bars non-utilityelectricity providers from selling power directly to consumers; and requiresthat retail suppliers of electricity increase their renewable energypurchases by 2010, seven years sooner than currently mandated. 34% Yes, 66% No, 100% reporting
Washington Initiative 912. Repeals 9.5 cent per gallon gas tax enactedby the legislature in 2005 that would fund transportation improvementsstatewide. 47% Yes, 53% No, Updated 7:00 AM PT
Washington Initiative 330. Restricts non-economic damages to $350,000in medical-malpractice lawsuits. 46% Yes, 54% No, Updated 7:00 AM PT
Washington Initiative 336. Revokes licenses of doctors with threemalpractice incidents; creates a malpractice-insurance program thatsupplements private policies; regulates insurers' ability to increase rateson malpractice policies. 41% Yes, 59% No, Updated 7:00 AM PT
Washington Initiative 901. Bans indoor smoking in public places andoutside within a certain perimeter. 63% Yes, 37% No, Updated 7:00 AM PT
Washington Initiative 900. Requires performance audits for state andlocal governments. 57% Yes, 43% No, Updated 7:00 AM PT
New Jersey Public Question: Lieutenant Governor. Creates the office of lieutenant governor. 56% yes, 44% no, 89% reporting
Maine Question 1. Should voters repeal a law passed by the legislature thatprohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation? 45% Yes, 55% No, 84% reporting
Texas Prop. 2. Defines marriage as between a man and a woman. 76% Yes, 24% No, 94% reporting
Texas Prop. 4. Expands conditions under which a judge can deny bail tocriminal defendants. 85% yes, 15% no, 94% reporting
Texas Prop. 5. Allows legislature to exempt commercial loans from state lawsthat set maximum interest rates. 43% yes, 57% no, 94% reporting
Texas Prop. 7. Allows reverse mortgages. For: Realtors, AARP, bankers,Fannie Mae. 60% yes, 40% no, 94% reporting
Ohio Issue 1. Provides $1.85 billion in bonds for infrastructure andresearch and development. 54% yes, 46% no
Ohio Issue 2. Gives citizens right to an absentee ballot for any reason upto 35 days before the election. 37% yes, 63% no
Ohio Issue 3. Would significantly reduce the amount of money thatindividuals and political action committees could give to candidates. 33% yes, 67% no
Ohio Issue 4. Would create a non-partisan system of redistricting. 30% yes, 70% no
Ohio Issue 5. Would replace the Ohio secretary of state with a nine-memberbipartisan board to oversee elections. 30% yes, 70% no
New York state Proposal 2: Authorizes the creation of a state debt in theamount of $2.9 billion for the construction, improvement, reconditioning andpreservation of transportation systems and facilities. Yes 55%, No 45%, 97% reporting
New York state Proposal 1: The proposed amendment to Articles IV and VII ofthe Constitution would change the process for enactment of the state budget. Approved by roughly 3-1 ratio
Louis Jacobson, the deputy editor of Roll Call, has covered ballot initiatives in every cycle since 1994. He also handicaps the 50 state legislatures for the Rothenberg Political Report.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/09/2005 10:13:00 AM
Monday, November 07, 2005
By Stuart Rothenberg
Longtime readers of this column are probably well aware of my habit of downplaying the national importance of off-year gubernatorial elections, on the grounds that those contests say much more about the particular candidates involved and the political dynamics of the state than about the national mood or the president.
This year, I’m not so sure.
The candidates and their campaigns still matter a great deal. So do state-specific circumstances, including the relative strength of the parties, the standing of the incumbent governor and local issues.
But I believe that gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey are worth watching this year, in part because they may tell us something about whether the president’s problems have started to filter down to Republicans running for other offices. They also may tell us something about the mood of the electorate nationally — information that could be useful as we evaluate the parties’ opportunities and vulnerabilities next year.
While Democrats are on the attack nationally about alleged Republican ethical lapses from the White House to Congress to the governors’ mansions, the shoe is on the other foot in New Jersey. Voters in the Garden State see Democrats as more ethically challenged.
New Jersey has become a Democratic-leaning state, and, all things being equal, the Democratic nominee for governor, Sen. Jon Corzine, should have a considerable advantage over his GOP adversary, businessman/unsuccessful 2002 U.S. Senate candidate Doug Forrester.
But ethics questions surrounding Corzine, coming on top of a scandal that forced then-Gov. Jim McGreevey (D) from office, have given Republicans an opportunity. Moreover, Forrester’s effective use of the property tax issue has also enhanced his chances.
By 43 percent to 22 percent, registered voters told a WNBC/Marist poll that Democrats were more to blame for government corruption in the state. The same poll found that voters favored Republican gubernatorial candidate Forrester as likely to do a better job cleaning up corruption, 41 percent to 36 percent.
A stronger-than-expected showing by Forrester — not to mention an unexpected victory — would suggest that Garden State voters, who gave Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (D-Mass.) a healthy 7-point victory, are more affected by state and local issues than by the negative national media attention that has dogged Republicans for months.
Barring an upset victory by Forrester in New Jersey, Virginia is likely to get most of the national attention, since the race has been regarded as close for months.
True, Gov. Mark Warner (D) now controls the state’s top office, so a Tim Kaine (D) victory would constitute the maintenance of the status quo, not a break from it. But when the Virginia gubernatorial race began many months ago, most observers thought the Republican nominee, Jerry Kilgore, had the edge given the Republican lean of the state. So a Kaine victory, even given the popularity of Warner, would still be noteworthy as a psychological defeat for the GOP.
One GOP insider told me that a Kaine victory, particularly if it is regarded as more decisive than polls have been predicting for weeks, would be regarded as “the canary in the coal mine.”
“It could be worse than people now know. We could be in for a big ass whipping,” said the veteran Republican insider who promised that a clear Kaine victory would produce a “meltdown” in the national party.
You can bet that a Republican loss in Virginia’s gubernatorial race will have allies of President Bush blaming the defeat on the campaign of Kilgore, while some party strategists will surely point fingers at the White House — though only under the table, so that Karl Rove doesn’t see.
Privately, Republican insiders are expressing more and more concern about Kilgore’s showing in Northern Virginia, where down-ballot Republican candidates seem to be running into a strong wind. If Kilgore fares poorly there, it would unquestionably have GOP strategists worried about the party’s standing in similar suburban areas around the country. (Obviously, weaker-than-expected Republican showings in other parts of the state would raise different questions.)
The bottom line is that the Republicans need at least a split in next week’s gubernatorial elections to change the current political psychology. If that happens, they can argue that voters are focused on individual candidates and individual races, not on Hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, the war in Iraq or Scooter Libby. And that would boost their flagging morale.
On its face, a Democratic sweep of the two gubernatorial contests would merely maintain the status quo. But it would still be a disappointing outcome for national Republicans.
This column first appeared November 3, 2005 in Roll Call. Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2005 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/07/2005 10:17:00 AM
Friday, November 04, 2005
The new November 4, 2005 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. Here is a sample from the current issue.
New Mexico 1: Repeat Defender
By Nathan L. Gonzales
First District Cong. Heather Wilson (R) is no stranger to Democratic target lists. Since her initial election back in 1998, Democrats have consistently targeted the congresswoman, and her Albuquerque-area seat, for takeover, in large part because of its Democratic performance.
But each cycle, Wilson prevails. With or without a Green Party candidate on the ballot and often without any help from the top of the ticket, she has won reelection four times. But Democrats are hoping the fifth time is a charm.
In the last few weeks, state Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D) announced she would take on the incumbent. Democrats believe Madrid is one of their strongest candidates in the country and that she is the strongest challenger Wilson has ever faced.
Wilson has heard it before, but never in the sort of environment she could face next year. President George W. Bush’s shrinking job approval numbers are a concern for Republicans nationwide, but specifically for incumbents like Wilson who sit in Democratic-tilting districts.
The Republican has proven to be a tough campaigner, but she faces her toughest fight yet. More...
Washington Senate: Crosscurrent
In a cycle where the tide is turning against the Republican Party, one candidate is trying to swim upstream. Former insurance executive Mike McGavick (R) is taking on Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) in Washington, as she seeks to solidify herself and win reelection to a second term.
The Evergreen State has a recent history of ousting incumbents. Back in 1980, Republican Slade Gorton defeated Sen. Warren Magnuson (D). Two decades later, Cantwell knocked off Gorton, albeit by a slim margin. Now, Cantwell is hoping to avoid the same fate as her predecessor.
In a state that’s trending more blue than purple, McGavick as a tough task ahead of him. But after Democrats narrowly and controversially won the governor’s race last cycle, GOPers are hoping to tap into any voter dissatisfaction with the outcome and current governor. The rest of the story...
Virginia & New Jersey Go Down to the Wire
Early on, Republican Jerry Kilgore seemed to have the edge in this year’s Virginia’s gubernatorial race, while Senator Jon Corzine (D) seemed headed for a decisive win in New Jersey.
But as the two races head to the wire, Kilgore’s advantage seems to have evaporated, and Corzine’s position has grown more uncertain. Read more...
For information about a one-year or two-year subscription, please go here.
By The Rothenberg Political Report at 11/04/2005 03:33:00 PM