Just a quick note to say Happy Holidays from the entire staff of the Rothenberg Political Report. We wanted to express our thanks to you for reading and following the election with us. We're looking forward to a break, but we'll be ready to start all over again next year. Happy Holidays!
-Stu & Nathan
The December 15, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. This is our final edition of the year. Our first issue in January will be our 2008 Senate overview. To read the complete analysis of what happened in these two races, you must subscribe.
Illinois 6: Money Pit
By Nathan L. Gonzales
Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth received more attention and media coverage than any House candidate in the country. She spent more money than any Democratic challenger in the country and was running in an open seat in suburban Chicago that was supposedly trending Democratic. And there was that national Democratic wave. Yet on Election Night, she lost.
For virtually the entire year, Illinois's 6th District was locked firmly in the sights of both parties. The seat abuts the 5th District represented by Democratic Congressional Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel and lies in Speaker Dennis Hastert's backyard.
The race evolved into a symbolic fight, with both parties adopting a "whatever it takes" strategy. While it was costly for both parties, Republicans bucked the national trend and state Sen. Peter Roskam (R) was elected to Congress.
Now, strategists can reflect on whether the money spent in this race could have been used to pull candidates in closer races elsewhere to victory.
Pennsylvania 4: To the Beat of Her Own Drum
With the political environment crumbling around her, Republican Cong. Melissa Hart remained steadfast to the end in her belief that she would survive and that her campaign strategy would prevail. The problem is that Hart had never faced a reelection race quite like this one and never experienced an election cycle like the one Republicans encountered in 2006.
She didn't comprehend the seriousness of her situation until very late in the race and ignored the advice of campaign team when they proposed a survival strategy. The congresswoman refused to go negative against her opponent, Jason Altmire, allowing the Democrat to stay in the contention until late in the race, when he could deliver the only knockout blows he could afford.
Now, Pennsylvania's 4th District lies in the Democratic column and other incumbents should take note of what happens when you start late and fail to run a good race.
For the whole issue, just fill out the form and send it along with your check
By Stuart Rothenberg
Every so often, we have a very odd political year. The year 2006 was one of them.
Here’s a little test. Which one of the following things did you expect to happen 12 months ago? Please, be honest.
• Democrats would win the Senate;
• Republican Reps. Jim Leach (Iowa), Jeb Bradley (N.H.) and Jim Ryun (Kan.) would lose in the same election in which Republican Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.), Jim Gerlach (Pa.) and Heather Wilson (N.M.) would win;
• Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) would find out that he’s Jewish;
• A former Prince George’s County executive and five sitting County Council members — all of them Democrats and all of them black — would endorse the Republican Senate candidate in Maryland; or
• Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) would announce that he would not run for president in 2008.
And for good measure, let’s add another development. How many of you figured that a sitting Senator would lose his bid for renomination and yet win his campaign for re-election?
(I’m not even going to factor in the time in February that Vice President Cheney shot his friend in the face or the e-mail scandal of the fall surrounding former Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley.)
Like I said, it was a very strange year.
The victories of Shays, Gerlach and Wilson, given the Democratic wave that washed over the country and resulted in the defeat of 21 incumbents, still strikes me as incredible. Two of the three were running against the same opponents who almost beat them in 2004, and all three represent precisely the kind of districts likely to swing Democratic in a wave election.
Their victories should prove once and for all that campaigns matter. Sure, district fundamentals are very important, and the national environment explains many of the House outcomes this year. But if Shays, Gerlach and Wilson had not run the types of campaigns they did, each would have lost. Their efforts allowed them to overcome the national trends that sent other Republican candidates down in defeat.
A year ago, we all were talking about the possibility that the 2008 presidential contest could pit two Virginians, Allen and Warner, against each other. (I remember scurrying to the reference books to find out the last time that had happened.) And now, neither man is a candidate for the nation’s top job.
Then there was the fundraising by the Democrats’ campaign committees this cycle, which, frankly, blew my socks off. Both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee proved their fundraising mettle, with the DSCC outraising the National Republican Senatorial Committee by more than $30 million, $119 million to $88 million through Nov. 27. Wow.
Thinking back to the beginning of the year, nobody in their right mind, and certainly not the folks over at the DSCC, thought that the Democrats would have a chance to net six Senate seats and win control of the Senate. By the beginning of the year, it seemed certain that Democrats would gain seats, maybe even as many as four or five. But the sixth seat wasn’t even a dream. Waves, though, have a way of changing possibilities, since waves come about only when there is considerable voter frustration and anger.
There is one other way in which I found 2006 strange, politically. Normally, after a party sweeps to victory, its leaders (and its rank-and-file members) say their victory was a ratification of their agenda. But most Democrats have been stunningly and unexpectedly realistic about why they won. Over and over, I’ve heard Democratic elected officials comment that the elections were a referendum on the president and his policies.
“The election was largely a rejection of George Bush. Voters are giving us a chance. Our job is to close the deal,” said a Democratic leader days after the results were in. My goodness, how refreshing! Sure, Democrats have an agenda that many Republicans will disagree with, and Democratic Congressional leaders eventually may drive their bus off the cliff. But so far, Democrats are sounding unusually measured.
And of course we all have our favorite
nonpolitical surprises of 2006. Maybe for you it was the break-up of Kid Rock and Pamela Anderson or the wholly unimpressive St. Louis Cardinals winning the World Series or Google spending more than $1.6 billion to buy YouTube or even Bob Barker announcing his retirement (next year) from “The Price is Right.”
For me, it was the performance of New York Yankees outfielder Bernie Williams hitting a surprising .281 this year and playing his 16th year with the same grace, class and dignity that he had back in the early 1990s.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 11, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By Stuart Rothenberg
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) was an orphan before being adopted by a couple in Pittsburgh. His adoptive mother struggled with alcoholism.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan-born economist who was educated at Harvard and a white woman from Kansas. He grew up in Indonesia before returning to the United States and eventually graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
After graduating from the Naval Academy, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) served in the Navy. He was shot down and endured five years of torture as a prisoner of war in the “Hanoi Hilton” in Vietnam.
Everybody loves a good story, don’t they? Why do you think people pay money to go to the movies? But it is reporters and editors who get particularly excited about a good story (which probably is one reason why Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass got as far as they did with major print organizations).
And media consultants? They get downright misty-eyed when thinking about what they can do with a candidate with a personal story that pulls at the heartstrings. What could be better than being raised in a broken home or coming from a town called Hope, Ark. (as Bill Clinton and likely ’08 GOP presidential hopeful Gov. Mike Huckabee did)?
Writing about Vilsack, who recently announced that he’s running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Washingtonpost.com’s Chris Cillizza wrote that “any argument for Vilsack starts with his life story — perhaps the most compelling of any candidate on either side considering the 2008 race.”
Vilsack does have an interesting story, but if he is counting on that to get him a long, hard look from Democratic activists, donors and the national media, I hope he has a backup plan. While a great story may get you elected mayor of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, or to the Iowa state Senate, count me as skeptical that it’s enough to get you the campaign war chest necessary to make a decent run at the White House.
Many presidential hopefuls have something in their life stories that can paint as a personal test or a hurdle that they overcome. The old “born in a log cabin” chestnut is about as old as the country.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had his Vietnam service. President George H.W. Bush was shot down over the Pacific in World War II. Even George W. Bush, who didn’t exactly grow up in a log cabin, could talk during his White House bid about how he changed from a hard-drinking, fun-loving guy to a mature adult.
But let’s not go overboard about the value of a personal story. Democratic House candidate Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs as a helicopter pilot in Iraq, had a great one; Democratic political operatives were so smitten with her candidacy that they told me they were absolutely certain that she would win the Congressional race in Illinois’ 6th district. Yet she lost to Republican Peter Roskam at the same time that Democrats with far less appealing stories were winning contests in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa and Pennsylvania.
A candidate’s “story” may get voters’ attention, but a story is by its very nature backward-looking, while presidential contests are about the future. Ultimately, a candidate must offer more compelling reasons than a résumé to justify why he or she deserves to be nominated and elected. Remember: No matter his personal history, which included great hardships and great courage, McCain’s incredible personal story didn’t win him the GOP presidential nomination in 2000.
What matters most to voters in selecting a nominee for the White House? Lots of things, of course, but the most important question is whether, after months of campaigning, enough primary voters and caucus attendees in the early states think that a particular hopeful has passed the smell test. Does he or she have the experience, leadership ability and stature to be president and commander in chief? Can you envision so-and-so in the Oval Office, keeping the nation safe and prosperous?
Last time, Iowans decided that the answer was “no” when they were offered then-frontrunner Howard Dean (D).
It’s far too early to rule out anyone from either party’s presidential mix. Obviously, a handful of candidates begin with considerable assets, from name recognition to undisputed fundraising ability to early institutional support. Some already seem to have the stature of a future president of the United States. Having an interesting story to tell is nice, but starting off with real advantages is a whole lot better.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 7, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By Stuart Rothenberg
OK, it’s that time of year again when we can all vote for the best and worst candidates and campaigns. Here are my nominees:
Please Don’t Ever Run Again
• Francine Busby (D-Calif.)
• Patty Wetterling (D-Minn.)
• Bill Gluba (D-Iowa)
• Bill Weld (R-N.Y./Mass.)
Analysis: All of these candidates have had their chances, and each has demonstrated that his or her time is past. Of course, Weld could move again and try to win somewhere else.
Earned Another Run for Something
• Tessa Hafen (D-Nev.)
• John Gard (R-Wis.)
• Darcy Burner (D-Wash.)
• Michael Steele (R-Md.)
• Dan Seals (D-Ill.)
Analysis: All of these unsuccessful candidates either exceeded my expectations or demonstrated potential. They shouldn’t give up on politics just yet.
Best Unsuccessful Campaign/Candidate
• Anne Northup (R-Ky.)
• Rob Simmons (R-Conn.)
• Jim Talent (R-Mo.)
• Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.)
• Clay Shaw (R-Fla.)
• Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.)
Analysis: What is there to say about this bunch? They are talented and didn’t deserve to lose.
Most Overhyped Candidate of ’06
• Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)
• Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)
• Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)
• Scott Kleeb (D-Neb.)
• Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)
Analysis: Media hype. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hype. Sorry, Tammy, but a good story doesn’t always result in a winning campaign. Way too much hype.
Worst Showing by a Famous Name
• Tom Osborne (R-Neb.)
• Rod Grams (R-Minn.)
• Jake Ford (I-Tenn.)
• Pat DeWine (R-Ohio)
• George Allen (R-Va.)
Analysis: This is a tough choice. Pat DeWine, who ran in a special election, did worse than anyone imagined, but Allen turned an easy win into a loss. Of course, Grams may have fallen the furthest.
Surprise Loser
• Lois Murphy (D-Pa.)
• Diane Farrell (D-Conn.)
• Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.)
• Patricia Madrid (D-N.M.)
• Jim Leach (R-Iowa)
Analysis: I thought Lois Murphy was sure to win.
Oy Vey! Noteworthy Embarrassing Campaigns/Candidates
• Matt Brown (D-R.I.)
• Katherine Harris (R-Fla.)
• Don Sherwood (R-Pa.)
• Coleen Rowley (D-Minn.)
• Joshua Rales (D-Md.)
Analysis: Let’s see, what was worse, Harris’ strangeness, Rales’ horrendous initial and closing ads or Brown’s questionable fundraising?
Dumbest Press Release of the Year
• Senate Candidate Jerry Zandstra (R-Mich.): “Poll Results: Zandstra Skyrockets, Bouchard Drops Significantly When Racial Preference Position Known”
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, on Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.): “Alexander Suffers First Setback of 2008 Campaign”
• House candidate Paul Aronsohn (D-N.J.): “Aronsohn Calls On Garrett to Stop Coddling the Terrorist Government of Iran”
• DCCC: “Pelosi Statement on Busby Victory in California”
• Senate candidate John Spencer (R-N.Y.), who was challenging Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D): “Spencer Gains 10 Points in Latest Poll”
Analysis: I can’t choose between these really, really stupid releases. I’m leaning toward the DCCC and DSCC releases.
Candidates for Hair Club for Men
• Joe Sulzer (D-Ohio)
• Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.)
• Stuart Rothenberg
• Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
One-Term Wonder?
• Nick Lampson (D-Texas)
• Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.)
• Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.)
• Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.)
Analysis: Lampson will have his hands full getting re-elected.
Non-Incumbent Candidates I Liked … Who Won!
• Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.)
• Peter Roskam (R-Ill.)
• Jason Altmire (D-Pa.)
• Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
• Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
• Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
Lamest Rothenberg Column of the Year
• “This one.”
• “I’m still looking for one that isn’t total drivel.”
• “Pick one. You can’t go wrong.”
• “Each one reaches new levels of lameness.”
This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 4, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
How’d we do? Not bad. Not bad at all.
For the Senate, we pretty much hit the nail on the head. In our last issue before the election, we wrote: “While Senate control is in doubt, with anything from a 51-49 Republican Senate to a 52-48 Democratic Senate possible, we do not think the two sides have an even chance of winning a majority in the Senate. Instead, we believe that state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control of the United States Senate.”
And, of course, astute readers will note that our chart again had it right, with all six seats that turned from GOP to the Democrats at least leaning that way.
For governors, we narrowed our projection in the last issue from 6-10 to 7-9. The final number came in at six. I’ll take it. Don Carcieri squeaked by in Rhode Island, as did Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota.
For the House, our last newsletter projected Democratic gains of 34-40 seats. We lowered that a bit in my last Roll Call column to 30-36 seats. The final outcome appears to be 29 or 30, depending on how you count. Again, I’ll take it, especially given that so many close House races went Republican.
We got the Senate exactly right because we “pushed” close races Democratic, believing that in a wave the tight races would go to the Democrats. That didn’t happen as much as I expected in the House. If it had (and if the machines in Sarasota County had worked properly), Democrats would have netted 34-38 seats.
But forget all of this self-examination. You want to know the truth about picking the final outcomes in the House and Senate? It’s a whole lot of luck. Remember that when you see someone bragging about how great they did.
Why is it luck, you ask? Because there are so many variables and so many close contests that getting the House or the Senate exactly right is simply a matter of chance. Look how close the Allen-Webb race was in Virginia. Look at tight House contests in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New York, New Mexico, Connecticut and even Wyoming. Then look at the couple of upsets that nobody could have expected, in Iowa and New Hampshire.
How often have you been in an NCAA basketball pool where the person who knows the least about college basketball wins? Too often, right? It’s the same way with Election Night.
Our job is to cover campaigns 365 days a year, but we think we’re particularly useful early in the cycle, when everyone else is paying attention to other things. For the ‘08 election cycle, we’ll again try to give you an early heads-up about developing races and the candidates to watch. We’ll interview the hopefuls and talk with campaign operatives and strategists. And we’ll try to filter out all of the mindless propaganda. We’ll do it, because that’s what we do.
You’ll get one more issue after this one in ’06. Hope you enjoyed our coverage.
– Stu & Nathan
This Back Page first appeared in the November 29, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. To subscribe, click here.
By Stuart Rothenberg
I’ll bet that Rep. Tom Cole, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma and the new chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean of Vermont agree on very little. But they are singing from the same songbook when they argue that there are dozens of House seats ripe for the picking if only the parties would recruit strong candidates and spend enough money to elect them.
This year, Dean spent DNC funds to put political operatives on the ground in reliably Republican states to build grass-roots Democratic political operations and to improve his party’s electoral opportunities.
Now, with Democrats winning the House and the Senate and picking up loads of gubernatorial and state legislative seats, the party chairman is claiming success. And the Association of State Democratic Chairs apparently agrees: That group adopted a resolution recently praising Dean for "never retreating from what was right for every Democrat in every state." (Of course, state parties received DNC resources, giving Democratic chairs a reason to be grateful for Dean’s 50-state strategy, regardless of whether it actually produced results.)
Cole, much as Dean and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did last cycle, now talks about working "aggressively to expand the playing field."
"The idea that there are only three dozen competitive congressional districts in America is a myth," Cole wrote in a Nov. 9 memo that asked GOP members to support his bid for NRCC chairman. "If we accept it, we doom ourselves to playing on a constricted battlefield that will benefit the incumbent majority party. ... 2008 will be a year to hunt with a shotgun, not a rifle."
If politics makes strange bedfellows, then Dean and Cole are a perfect team. There is only one problem: They are both wrong about the size of the playing field. It is still small, and there is very little the parties can do to change that.
Whatever Dean accomplished in his role as DNC chairman, he isn’t responsible for electing many new Democratic officeholders, whether to Congress or to state legislatures. Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) didn’t lose because the state Democratic Party had a communications director. If anyone is responsible for the GOP losses, it’s President Bush.
If you want to give Dean credit for boosting Democratic enthusiasm, and possibly Democratic turnout, in a number of Republican areas, fine. The DNC’s 50-state strategy may have energized some previously unenthusiastic Democrats in very red states.
But in the end, all that talk about Democratic Congressional victories in reliably Republican territory - in Colorado’s 4th, Idaho’s 1st, Colorado’s 5th, Nebraska’s 3rd and Washington’s 5th - turned out to be nothing but talk, and anyone who credits the DNC for Jon Tester’s Senate win in Montana couldn’t have followed that race.
Yes, Democratic candidates in some long-shot districts got close, but that’s like Republicans saying that they were close to winning the Virginia Senate race, and therefore close to retaining the Senate. Sorry: Close doesn’t count.
But weren’t there more House seats in play this year than anyone expected? Of course, but that’s not because of the DNC’s 50-state strategy. The president’s unpopularity, combined with the Iraq War, created an abnormal political environment, one in which independents behaved like Democrats. That put races into play that in a "normal" year wouldn’t be the least bit competitive. The DNC doesn’t deserve credit for that — nor does the DCCC or the Democratic blogs.
Indeed, given the horrendous environment for Republicans, the fact that just 60 or so Republican-held seats were in play on Election Day proves the "narrow playing field" assessment that Dean and Cole seem to dispute. In 1994, close to 100 Democratic seats were in play.
But isn’t it wise to recruit strong candidates and build a party infrastructure to take advantage of a political wave, as both Cole and Dean have argued?
Sure. Who can argue with Cole’s assertion that Republicans must "recruit as many qualified candidates as possible"? It’s always better for a party to have more good candidates. But for the DCCC or the NRCC, there is a huge difference between trying to run the best challengers possible, thereby giving voters a true choice, and investing in every race, thereby wasting some of those valuable resources.
And it’s also true that spending resources on things that possibly might take advantage of a wave that never comes inevitably diverts resources away from other projects or personnel that might be more important in a "normal" year. How much time will Cole’s NRCC spend recruiting challengers to Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.)? None, I expect.
We can’t know what the political environment will be like in ’08, but it’s almost always wise to assume, at least initially, that we will have a relatively "normal" election cycle. And normalcy, given the current House lineup, our divided government and the current district lines, argues once again - strongly - for relatively few seats being in play.
Dean obviously has his own reasons for claiming credit for the Democratic victories on Nov. 7, and Cole made his argument in an effort to boost his prospects for winning the NRCC chairmanship. But a dispassionate assessment of the political playing field, as well as the election results this year, strongly suggests that if the ’08 election cycle at all resembles a normal one, the two parties will be fighting it out on a very narrow playing field.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 27, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
The November 29, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. To read the complete analysis of the two runoff races, you must subscribe.
Texas 23: The Lone Ranger
By Nathan L. Gonzales
Republicans are still reeling from their losses and coming to grips with life in the minority. But one of their own, Cong. Henry Bonilla (R), is still fighting for reelection in the sprawling South Texas 23rd District.
Bonilla failed to reach 50% in the November 7 balloting in what was actually an open primary race necessitated by new district lines. Now, the incumbent faces former Cong. Ciro Rodriguez (D) in a December 12 runoff.
For the whole story, just fill out the form and send it along with your check.
Louisiana 2: "He Ain't No Saint"
Few people disagree that Democratic Cong. Bill Jefferson will be removed from Congress at some point. The only question is whether he's voted out of office in Louisiana's 2nd District or taken out by federal investigators.
Jefferson became a household name and a late-night punch line after FBI agents raided his Washington, D.C. home and found $90,000 wrapped in foil in his freezer. The congressman hasn't been charged with a crime and the investigations are ongoing. But there are plenty of Democrats who are privately hoping that Jefferson will lose reelection on Saturday, December 9 so that new Democratic majority's message of reform and integrity won't be tarnished by Jefferson's presence next year.
For the whole story, just fill out the form and send it along with your check.
By Stuart Rothenberg
After every election, I offer a list of the best and worst, the most and the least. I started doing that the other day, but I ended up filling an entire column with a single category: The Worst Self-Inflicted Wound of 2006.
I will get back to a more exhaustive list of the best and worst campaigns and candidates before the end of the year, but since there were so many self-inflicted wounds this election cycle, I figure I might as well devote an entire column to the nominees, as well as to my logic in picking a winner.
So, without further DeLay, uh, I mean delay, here are the nominees this year:
Don Sherwood (R-Pa.)
Bob Ney (R-Ohio)
George Allen (R-Va.)
John Kerry (D-Mass.)
John Sweeney (R-N.Y.)
Mark Foley (R-Fla.)
I know, I know. This is an impossible choice. How can anyone choose from among these all-time, self-inflicted screw-ups? All of the nominees would be worthwhile winners, and in any other year any of them could have taken home the award. But, alas, life isn’t fair, and I have to choose a single winner for ’06.
I’m eliminating Foley right away, since his self-inflicted wound actually occurred well before his abortive re-election bid and over an extensive period of time, though it came to light only during his campaign. His problem was a series of wounds, not a single one, and frankly, I don’t even want to spend time thinking of the things that Foley wanted to do.
Ney’s problems also occurred over an extended period, though they obviously impacted his race for re-election. I guess we could call that golf trip to Scotland a decisive event, but it occurred in 2002. So, like Foley, he gets a pass.
That leaves four. The problem with Sherwood is that I’m not sure whether he had a self-inflicted wound or he inflicted a wound on his girlfriend. I am not sure whether we are talking about a single act or two, whether having a girlfriend (along with a wife) and allegedly (note my legal disclaimer) trying to choke her are two self-inflicted wounds or two parts of a single wound. Since Sherwood admits to one but not the other, he seems to come down on the side of the two separate incidents. Who am I to argue? He’s off the hook.
Sweeney is in a bit of the same situation as Sherwood. Obviously, the suggestion that the New York Republican got into a physical scuffle with his wife damaged Sweeney’s re-election prospects. But was that photograph of him drinking with college students necessary for the second alleged personal scandal to lead to his defeat? If so, then it was the two scandals together that cost Sweeney his seat, not a single self-inflicted wound. I’m afraid I have to drop him from contention.
That leaves us with Allen and Kerry, two Senators who did their best to destroy their reputations with stupid, ill-timed comments that meet the single "wound" criterion.
Somehow, it seems only right that two Senators are battling it out for the award.
On one level, the Kerry comment about getting good grades or you’ll end up in Iraq was worse than Allen’s "macac" comment, since Kerry wasn’t even on the ballot and, as my wife pointed out, he compounded his goof by insisting that he was trying to tell a joke when he almost certainly wasn’t.
Moreover, Kerry’s comment could have not only hurt his party’s prospects in 2006, he could also have seriously derailed his own presidential hopes for ’08. Impacting two election cycles, not just one, with a single comment is a stunning achievement, even for Kerry.
Having said that, even the Massachusetts Democrat couldn’t keep his party from winning the House and the Senate. While some conservative talk radio windbags apparently got angry when I expressed doubt that Kerry’s comment would have much of an effect on the midterm elections, most voters apparently shrugged off the Massachusetts Democrat’s inept remark.
And if Kerry’s comment undermined his potential presidential bid for 2008, I doubt it hurt him very much, since his chances weren’t very good to begin with.
Allen’s :macaca" comment, on the other hand, had a profound impact. It turned a laugher of a race into a close contest. And since Democrat Jim Webb eventually won the race - thereby giving Democrats control of the Senate and unified control of Congress - the Virginia Republican not only brought about his own defeat and destroyed his once considerable chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 but he also realigned the nation’s entire governing balance for the next two years.
Because of that jaw-dropping achievement, the award for worst self-inflicted wound must go to Allen. But it was a very close contest.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 20, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By Louis Jacobson
This year was a busy one for ballot measures. But in many cases, voters weren't buying what was on offer.
Jennie Drage Bowser, who tracks ballot measures for the NCSL, identified 17 measures that sought to limit government, and of these, she was surprised to discover that only one passed. "The whole reason the initiative process was created in this country was to limit government," she said. "And these limiting-government sorts of measures are historically very successful on the ballot."
The results buoyed liberals who have increasingly used initiatives as a political tool. Most notably, voters easily approved all six statewide measures to increase the minimum wage. But liberals also chalked up other successes - and not always in states that experienced a pro-Democratic wave in Congressional or statewide races.
In South Dakota, a hard-line anti-abortion measure went down to defeat, as did a far-reaching initiative called Jail for Judges that would have stripped judges of their protections from being sued. Voters in Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon also turned down measures to curb judges.
Liberals also scored wins on Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, measures that limit government spending. After six TABORs were stripped from the ballot prior to the election, voters in Maine, Nebraska, and Oregon rejected the rest. In the meantime, Washington state voters solidly rejected a measure to repeal the state's estate tax and South Dakota voted down a property tax limit.
While voters in seven states approved measures to ban same-sex marriage, Arizonans narrowly rejected the same-sex marriage ban on their ballot - the first time that any such ban has been voted down.
A second generally conservative state, South Dakota, saw its same-sex marriage ban approved by the surprisingly small margin of four points. In the meantime, a legislature-written measure in Colorado to create gay domestic partnerships short of marriage failed narrowly.
In another loss for social conservatives, Missouri voters narrowly backed a high-profile measure to promote embryonic stem-cell research to cure. The Missouri stem-cell measure "was driven by biotech Republicans, and they're lucky they won it," Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center.
"They outspent the opponents by probably one of the biggest margins of the year - $31 million to $929,000- and still they only eked by."
Measures in California and Oregon to require parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking an abortion both failed, though fairly narrowly.
Elsewhere, strict anti-smoking measures passed in Arizona, Nevada and Ohio - even though each state's ballot had a similar-sounding, but less-stringent, measure backed by hospitality or tobacco interests. In the past, voters have often thrown up their hands at such pairings and rejected both measures - but not this year. The results "indicate some notable sophistication on the part of voters," Bowser said.
Animal welfare groups, which have had a strong though not perfect record of success with initiatives in recent years, chalked up victories in Arizona, where voters easily passed a measure to set minimum care standards for breeding pigs, and in Michigan, where voters by a wide margin rejected a measure that would have legalized the hunting of mourning doves. But Georgia hunters won overwhelming passage of a measure that requires the state to preserve the "tradition of fishing and hunting."
Voters approved eight ballot measures designed to sidestep the Supreme Court decision allowing governments to use eminent domain to benefit private developers, while voters in California, Idaho, and Washington rejected property rights initiatives that critics say could have gutted local zoning regulations. Arizona voters, however, approved a similar property rights measure by a 2-to-1 margin.
"It was a good start to the property rights movement," said conservative activist Grover Norquist. "We'll see more of these."
Voters in the Golden State approved about $43 billion in bonds for infrastructure expansion and maintenance. Analysts credited their success to the bipartisan nature with which the measures were drawn up.
However, voters in California were not persuaded by a ballot measure designed to use revenues from taxing in-state energy producers to fund $4 billion in alternative energy research over 10 years. The proposition, generously funded and backed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and a bevy of Hollywood figures, failed by a 10-point margin, thanks to a withering advertising attack by the oil industry that cost perhaps $100 million. The industry argued that that the tax increase would be passed on to consumers.
Voters in Washington state were friendlier to renewable energy. Voters there narrowly approved an initiative that sets benchmarks for electricity generation using alternative sources.
The only health care measure on the ballot this year - to allow Oregon residents without prescription drug coverage to participate in a state program - passed by a 3-to-1 margin. But Oregon voters rejected a measure that would have prohibited the use of credit scores when calculating insurance premiums - a win for the insurance industry, which mounted a several-million-dollar ad campaign against it.
Conservatives also chalked up some big wins on Election day. Michigan voters easily passed a measure to curb affirmative action, while Wisconsin voters gave solid support for a non-binding measure on whether to bring back the death penalty.
On immigration, Arizona voters backed a package of four propositions designed to crack down on illegal immigration. All passed with at least 70 percent of the vote. More narrowly, Colorado passed a referendum that bars businesses from deducting wages paid to illegal aliens, and one that directs the attorney general to sue the federal government to enforce immigration laws.
On law enforcement, Arizonans acted to limit probation for methamphetamine convicts, Californians increased penalties for sex crimes and Hawaii allowed legislators to set the standard for conviction in cases of sex crimes committed against minors.
North Dakota voters rejected a proposal to require joint custody of children after divorce.
Oregon voters declined to restore a term limit rule for legislators that had been struck down by the courts.
One thing is certain: A lot of money was spent on ballot measures this year. According to BISC, preliminary numbers suggest that proponents and opponents of 12 of the most expensive initiatives together spent $329 million. Given this small sample of races, it's hard to guess whether this year's outlay approaches a record. California's renewable energy measure set a spending record for a single initiative, with more than $153 million forked out by both sides.
By Stuart Rothenberg
It quickly has become conventional wisdom that last week’s Democratic House victory swept in a crop of moderate and conservative Democrats who’ll both keep party liberals in check and help remake the image of the party of former Vice President Al Gore, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Well, I met dozens of Democrats running in 2006 - no, not everyone, but most of them - and I can’t find much more than a couple who merit the label "conservative." That’s not meant to be either criticism or praise. It’s merely a statement of fact.
North Carolina Rep.-elect Heath Shuler surely qualifies as a culturally conservative Democrat, but the pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who is a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes is the exception, not the rule. Virtually all of the Democrats I interviewed were pro-choice, favored rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts and sounded traditional Democratic themes on education, the environment and foreign policy.
In Connecticut, Reps.-elect Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney are pretty typical Northern liberals. In New York, Rep.-elect John Hall, who I didn’t meet, appears to be quite left of center. Two upstate Democrats, Reps.-elect Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Arcuri, have more moderate personas, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call them conservatives, or even moderates.
Arcuri often referred to himself as a "Boehlert Democrat," a label that won’t make conservatives who cringed at the voting record of retiring Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) the least bit comfortable. Gillibrand, who is impossible not to like, didn’t sound like a liberal firebrand, but I’d be surprised if her record was much different from that of most Northeast Democrats.
In Pennsylvania, there is no reason to believe that Reps.-elect Patrick Murphy and Joe Sestak will be anything but typical suburban Philadelphia Democrats: If you are a liberal, you’ll like them, and if you aren’t, you probably won’t.
In Florida, Rep.-elect Ron Klein’s state legislative voting record seems consistent with a liberal Democrat, and while some observers have pointed out that Rep.-elect Tim Mahoney talked a moderate line during his campaign and is a former Republican, my notes from my interview with him show that he has not supported a Republican presidential nominee for more than 20 years and seems likely to vote along traditional Democratic lines.
Texas Rep.-elect Nick Lampson may have to vote like a moderate or conservative if he has any hope of winning re-election in Texas’ 22nd district in two years, but his record when he was in Congress was not what one normally would identify as conservative, or even moderate.
My interview with California Rep.-elect Jerry McNerney suggests he’s quite liberal. The same goes for Rep.-elect Steve Kagen in Wisconsin. I didn’t interview Iowa’s newly elected Member, Dave Loebsack, but his profile — he’s a political science professor at Cornell College and ran against middle-of-the-road GOP Rep. Jim Leach from the left — suggests he’s no moderate.
In Ohio, Rep.-elect Charlie Wilson is conservative on cultural issues, so that makes him a relatively moderate Democrat. But fellow Buckeye State Rep.-elect Betty Sutton certainly isn’t a moderate, and although I didn’t meet Rep.-elect Zack Space, I am told by people who did that his views seem fairly liberal.
I wrote after the previous cycle that I liked Indiana Democrat Joe Donnelly and hoped he’d run again, but I’d never call him a conservative Democrat. On the other hand, Rep.-elect Brad Ellsworth told me that he is pro-life, supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage and supports capital punishment, so he does appear to be a moderate Democrat.
Then there is Rep.-elect Baron Hill, who, if you ask him, probably will call himself a moderate Democrat. The only problem is that voters in Indiana’s 9th district fired him two years ago because they thought he was a cultural liberal who tried to have issues both ways.
I’ve never met Rep.-elect John Yarmuth, who knocked off Rep. Anne Northup (R-Ky.) and has a reputation for being both very personable and very liberal. Kansas Rep.-elect Nancy Boyda is pro-choice, and as far as I can tell, there is no reason to see her as a moderate.
Kentucky Democrat Ken Lucas would have been a conservative Democrat, but he lost. Florida’s Christine Jennings, a bank president, might have been moderate on business issues, but she apparently lost narrowly.
Colorado Rep.-elect Ed Perlmutter? Liberal. Iowa Rep.-elect Bruce Braley? Very liberal. Arizona Rep.-elect Gabrielle Giffords? Liberal, I think.
Now let me be very clear about my point. I’m not saying that it’s good or bad that most of these Democrats are likely to be pretty typical members of their party. I’m only saying that’s where they fit. A bunch of conservative Democrats didn’t win election last week.
So how and why did the buzz get going that the Democrats elected last Tuesday foreshadow a different Democratic Party? I’m not sure.
Part of it may have been all the hype about Democrats "broadening the playing field" and possibly taking very Republican seats in Idaho, Nebraska, Colorado, Washington, Wyoming and Indiana. That didn’t happen, though in some cases the Democrats running for those seats performed well above what would be expected for their party.
Though there were obvious exceptions, most of the House takeovers occurred in swing and Democratic-leaning districts, and those districts elected pretty conventional Democrats.
The election of Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) to the Senate may have added to the impression that Democrats were sending moderates and conservatives to Washington, D.C. But again, Casey - who opposes legal abortion - is the exception, not the rule.
House Democrats way well attempt to steer a more moderate path between now and 2008, especially since their opportunities are limited with Bush in the White House. But if that happens, it would be the result of a pragmatic decision by party leaders, not the result of an infusion of moderates and conservatives into their party last week.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 16, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By Stuart Rothenberg
Yes, I know. Leadership fights on Capitol Hill are the ultimate political insider contests. Voters don’t care about them, and once they are over, they are quickly forgotten.
Having said that, Nancy Pelosi’s decision to pick a public fight with her second in command, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, is so incomprehensible, so politically stupid that it has raised eyebrows among political journalists and insiders of all type.
For weeks, I have been suggesting that Pelosi will be a lot smarter and more subtle that her conservative critics warned, and that she won’t drive the Democratic bus off the cliff. But now I’m not so sure.
Pelosi’s political antennae appear much less sensitive than I assumed, and if you are a Republican looking for a quick reason to think that you may be able to take back the House in 2008, the incoming Speaker’s intervention in the majority leader race – a race that her candidate lost rather decisively – has to give you some reason for optimism.
Instead of generating front page stories about the Democrats’ agenda, Pelosi has made herself and divisions within her party the story du jour.
In publicly backing Rep. John Murtha – and apparently strong-arming Democrats to support him over Hoyer – Pelosi threw her support to someone who has plenty of ethics baggage and contempt for the reformist agenda that many Democrats, and many Americans, seem to want.
Pelosi doesn’t have to like Hoyer to work with him. Her effort to crush him suggests considerable personal flaws that could come back to haunt her. Just as bad, she has taken a non-story for most people and turned it into a lose-lose proposition for herself.
Now, reporters will have the Pelosi versus Hoyer story to kick around for the next couple of years, and Pelosi will forever have started off her historic speakership with a stinging, and very unnecessary, defeat.
This item first appeared on Political Wire on November 16, 2006.
By Stuart Rothenberg
In the past, it’s been the AFL-CIO against the Democratic Leadership Council. But not this year. This time, the conservative and moderate wings of the Republican Party have the pleasure of blaming and pointing fingers at each other for the party’s loss.
The blame game remains a staple in Washington, D.C., but it has been elevated to an art form in the national media, which is constitutionally unable to pass up the opportunity to get grown men and women to sneer at each other and launch unsupported accusations and recriminations.
Already, the Republican Majority for Choice and the Republican Main Street Partnership, both moderate groups, have criticized conservatives for the party’s defeat last week. Not surprisingly, conservative talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh has blamed the party’s “non-partisan identity” for its defeat.
I’ve watched (or been on) enough panels with Al From or Will Marshall on one side and Robert Borosage or someone from organized labor on the other to know that they tend to confuse rather than clarify. But that doesn’t mean these confrontations don’t draw an audience.
The early signs suggest that Republicans are no better than Democrats at finding the real reason for their party’s defeat or looking for ways to move forward productively.
The AFL-CIO, the DLC and a wide range of Democratic groups were all on the same side this year, but not because of anything they did. This year’s elections were about President Bush, and criticism of his performance in office united all Democrats.
The White House’s reliance in the past few years on a mobilize-the-base approach rather than a broaden-the-base strategy ought not obscure an obvious political reality: When it comes to elections, more votes are better than fewer votes, and a party with broad appeal is likely to be more successful at the ballot box than one with narrow appeal.
So get ready for the inevitable discussion: What do Republicans do now? Do they need to emphasize contrast with the Democrats and move rightward, or do they need to shift toward the middle to regain those independent voters they lost?
It’s a silly mistake for Republicans to want to choose between moderates and conservatives. The party needs both elements to maximize its chances every two years at the polls. That formula boosted Bush to two terms in the White House.
A party that moves too far to the right and makes conservatives completely happy runs the risk of alienating moderates and political independents. And a party that moves too far to the center to attract moderates will lose the energy of its base and risks losing its reason for being.
To dredge up the old formulation for former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis (D), what cost the Republicans Congress this year wasn’t ideology, it was competence.
The Iraq War has been a disaster, and the president and his administration looked out of touch and ineffective in dealing with a number of important issues that surfaced in the past two years.
Bush critics rightly will point out that some of his mistakes followed from ideological assumptions, and in that sense his values and belief system weren’t totally irrelevant. But my point is a bit different: Republicans didn’t lose because they were too conservative. They didn’t lose because of their position on abortion or even because they may have favored personal accounts under Social Security, though in that case their ideology did lead them down a legislative blind alley.
Rather, the Republican Party lost last week because it — and particularly the president — didn’t do the job.
Politics is about arithmetic, and the GOP needs moderates and conservatives to get back to 218 seats in the House and 51 seats in the Senate sometime soon. Arguments about who “caused” the party’s defeat last week are just as irrelevant and mind-numbing as were the Democrats’ arguments after 1994 and 2004.
For the GOP, the fact that the party holds just one of 22 House seats in New England ought to be more than disquieting. It should be seen as disastrous. The same is true about growing Republican weakness in northern suburbs in the orbit of New York, Philadelphia and Chicago, which have shown a willingness to vote even for relatively weak Democratic presidential nominees.
Conservatives ought to wake up, smell the coffee and consider themselves and their party lucky to have had on their team retiring Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (N.Y.), now-defeated moderates like Reps. Sue Kelly (N.Y.) and Nancy Johnson (Conn.) and — yes — even Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.). Conservatives often may have been frustrated by some of their votes, but those moderates were able to win in territory ranging from marginal to hostile.
As in 1982, GOP moderates took a disproportionate hit last Tuesday, since they represented districts in which their continuance in office depended on getting Democratic votes. Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.) and Jim Walsh (N.Y.) were the exceptions, since they narrowly survived. Republicans aren’t likely to regain most of these districts in 2008, and they may have to wait for a midterm election with a Democrat in the White House to do so again.
The bottom line is simple: Conservative and moderate Republicans need each other to gain power.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 13, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
By Stuart Rothenberg
Well, don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Tuesday’s balloting was about what we expected. A relatively large political wave swept almost 30 House Republicans out of office and appears to have delivered the Senate to Democrats. Of course, we won’t know the status of control of the Senate for a while, but whatever happens in Virginia and Montana, Democrats had a big night in that chamber, as well.
Actually, Republicans got lucky on Election Day. Many of the close House contests went to the GOP. Had squeakers in districts such as New Mexico’s 1st, Virginia’s 2nd, New York’s 25th and 29th, North Carolina’s 8th, Nevada’s 3rd, Ohio’s 1st, New Jersey’s 7th, Connecticut’s 4th and Wyoming’s at-large seat gone Democratic, we could be talking about a 38- to 40-seat swing.
There were a lot of noteworthy things about Tuesday’s voting, so let me touch on a few of them.
First, what the South was to Democrats in 1994, the Northeast was to Republicans this year. Two seats in Connecticut appear to have fallen, along with another pair in New Hampshire, three in New York and four in Pennsylvania.
The New England and Mid-Atlantic landscape is littered with moderate Republicans, from Charles Bass and Jeb Bradley to Sue Kelly to Nancy Johnson and, possibly, Rob Simmons, and Republicans may find that it was easier to lose those seats than it will be to get them back. Add liberal Republican Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa) to the mix, and you have a national weeding out of moderates that impacted the northeast corner of the nation greatly.
True, moderates such as Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.) survived, but even their wins were ugly, and they stand out as exceptions to the rule.
Second, partisan voting devastated Republicans in Democratic-leaning districts. When Leach loses to an underfunded, fourth-tier Democratic challenger, you know that districts carried by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 saw plenty of straight-ticket voting by Democrats.
But these elections weren’t about partisans after all. Exit polls showed that few partisans defected on Tuesday, and the real story was independents. While independents constituted only about 26 percent of the electorate, those voters went Democratic 57 percent to 39 percent. That 18-point margin is gigantic when it comes to normal independent voting patterns.
Third, all of the talk about a Republican surge during the final days of the campaign was bunk, as I believed (and wrote in this space) at the time.
You aren’t likely to have large moves in public opinion after a lengthy campaign without events that force people to change their assessments and intentions. And given the likelihood that late deciders would move toward Democrats (which is exactly what happened), it was hard to see a Republican surge.
Once again, people overreacted to a couple of polls, particularly the generic ballot in the first Washington Post/ABC News survey and then, even more importantly, the late Pew Research poll, ignoring contradictory polling that suggested Democrats still held a significant advantage in the generic ballot going into Election Day.
It was stunning how quickly people jumped on the "Chafee Resurgent in Rhode Island Senate" bandwagon after seeing just one poll.
That’s not to say there wasn’t any closing toward the end. Montana tightened up in the final week, and there was data showing some increased GOP interest in the elections and likelihood to vote as Nov. 7 neared.
Fourth, we seem to have discovered the base Republican vote in many districts, and we found out where and how the Republicans’ structural advantages from redistricting sheltered some Republican candidates from the wave.
Allegedly vulnerable Republicans in what appeared to be bulletproof GOP districts, such as Reps. John Doolittle (Calif.), Cathy McMorris (Wash.) and Mark Souder (Ind.) and incoming Reps. Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Bill Sali (Idaho), Adrian Smith (Neb.) and Tim Walberg (Mich.) held on despite the wave. Their margins were down, of course, but they survived, some even comfortably.
Republicans now must figure out what they are going to do. They can expect a number of retirements of senior Members now that the party is in the minority, and many GOP House Members will have to deal with being in the minority for the first time in their Congressional tenures.
President Bush, of course, is the biggest loser in a number of ways. He loses at least one chamber, and he is the reason Republicans took a bath on Tuesday. He may console himself by believing that he has the right policy in Iraq and history will judge him kindly. But his performance in office has destroyed a number of noteworthy political careers, and he would be wise to never forget that.
This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 9, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
You know you've arrived when you're on both the Situation Room and YouTube. It's all downhill from here. Anyway, here's a clip of our election predictions from November 2.
By Stuart Rothenberg
This column is available free at RollCall.com for a limited time.
With only a few hours remaining until the votes start being counted, there is little uncertainty about the fight for the House, except for questions about exactly which Republican incumbents will be lucky enough to survive.
Polls over the past few weeks have seen many Republicans who once held clear, if not overwhelming, leads scrambling to try to stay ahead. GOP strategists say that voters increasingly have been focusing on Iraq, and that the added attention has worked to the disadvantage of Republican candidates.
Republican chances for retaining the House have moved from small to smaller, and public and private polling now suggests a solid Democratic win. The majority’s losses this year will be lower than during the wave elections of 1958, 1974 and 1994, but only because of structural factors: The way districts have been drawn and the relatively small number of Republicans holding Democratic districts effectively minimize potential Democratic gains.
Having said that, this fight still is taking place almost entirely on Republican turf. With Republican House seats such as Idaho’s 1st district, Kansas’ 2nd, California’s 11th and even Wyoming’s at-large in play, it’s clear which party is on the offensive.
National polls continue to show the Democrats with an advantage on the generic ballot, though there is no agreement on its size. Is it 4 points, as the Pew Research survey found; 6 points, as The Washington Post/ABC News poll has it; or 20 points, as CNN’s poll says? Obviously, those numbers could produce dramatically different national outcomes.
Still, even the most optimistic Republican insiders I can find seem to think a loss of 18 or 19 seats is inevitable, while others counter that a loss of more than 30 is more likely. Most GOP insiders would be ecstatic if the party held its losses to two dozen or less.
Democratic gains of anywhere from 25 to as many as 40 seats are possible. Last week, I went on record saying I expected a Democratic gain of 34 to 40 seats as the most likely range. That now strikes me as a bit high, but only at the low end. So, I am adjusting my House estimate/projection slightly, to a Democratic gain of 30 to 36 seats.
Of course, even more GOP seats could fall if all of the endangered Republicans lose and we see more than a couple of surprises.
The House results are likely to wipe out many moderate Republicans, who are taking the brunt of the wave because they represent Democratic-leaning or competitive districts.
Over in the Senate, things remain far less clear. While I have been widely credited with predicting a six-seat Democrat gain (and therefore control of the Senate), what I’ve written is that Democrats will net five to seven seats. I’d now like to widen that range to four to seven seats.
According to some polls, races in Maryland, Montana and Rhode Island have tightened, making the net outcome less certain. But I’m still expecting Democrats to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana and Rhode Island, and, less confidently, Virginia.
Two seats, Tennessee and Missouri, have looked tight for months, and they could go either way.
Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) has run a good race, but he isn’t facing a longtime incumbent, and he may not win the undecided voters the way other Democratic challengers will. All things being equal, that probably is enough reason to push the race to Republican Bob Corker.
But a big enough national Democratic wave across the country — or maybe more accurately, an anti-Bush, anti-Republican wave — could sweep Ford to victory. I’d consider it a mild surprise, though.
In Missouri, Sen. Jim Talent (R) is locked in a tight race against Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, and most polling shows little daylight between the two candidates. I’ve seen polls with McCaskill ahead, and I’ve seen polls with Talent leading.
The prudent thing to do, of course, is to leave the race as a tossup, since either candidate could win. But, of course, I didn’t do that in my most recent newsletter. I pushed the race toward McCaskill, since in “wave” elections, virtually all of the close races go to the party benefiting from the wave, and this year that is the Democrats.
In reality, I won’t be surprised no matter who wins in Missouri.
GOP prospects seem to have faded significantly in New Jersey, and the better chance for a Republican upset now seems to be Maryland.
The outcome in the Senate remains cloudy, no matter how much I would like to be able to predict party control. I expect Democrats to gain at least four seats, and I’m more than a bit skeptical about the Republican “surge.”
Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gain of 30-36 seats.
Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 4-7 seats and state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control
By Nathan L. Gonzales
Even for the diehard political junkie, following ninety races for the House, Senate, and governor on Election Night would be quite a feat. So, here is a simple game plan for tackling November 7, to give you a good idea as to what's happening nationwide.
7pm (EST) - The House
Kentucky 4 – Rep. Geoff Davis (R) is running for a second term in a heavily Republican district that voted 63% for President Bush. Combined GOP spending has overwhelmed former Rep. Ken Lucas (D) and the Democrats in the final weeks. If Davis loses, even with the nature of the district and an overwhelming financial edge, the GOP majority is in serious jeopardy.
Kentucky 3 - Rep. Anne Northup (R) is facing yet another challenge in her Louisville-based district. Northup's district is certainly more Democratic than the 4th District (John Kerry took 51%), but it looks like she'll go into Election Night with a narrow lead, but under 50%. If she loses, that means undecided voters are breaking heavily and convincingly for the Democrats and other battle-tested incumbents like Clay Shaw (Florida 22) and Heather Wilson (New Mexico 1) are in a lot of trouble.
Kentucky 2 – If state Rep. Mike Weaver (D) defeats Rep. Ron Lewis (R), Democrats are in for a huge night. The 2nd District voted overwhelmingly (65%) for President Bush in 2004 and it would bring a whole series of heavily Republican districts into play. A loss would be particularly troubling since Lewis doesn't have the burden of personal or ethical baggage, just the weight of President Bush.
Republicans are likely to come out of the hour, including Ohio and North Carolina at 7:30pm, down by at least seven or eight seats (half-way to a Democratic majority). If a Democratic tsunami is hitting, Republicans could realistically lose the majority before the polls close in the 8pm states (IN 2, IN 8, IN 9, OH 1, OH 2, OH 12, OH 15, OH 18, NC 8, NC 11, KY 2, KY 3, KY 4, VA 2, VA 10). But if Republicans can escape these early states down by only three or four seats, it should be a considered a moral victory.
8pm (EST) – The Senate
Missouri Senate– Sen. Jim Talent (R) is in a neck-and-neck contest with state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D). Missouri is a competitive, but GOP-leaning state, featuring a Republican incumbent who has run a great campaign. If Talent loses, the GOP majority is in serious jeopardy, and its gone completely if Sen. George Allen (R) loses earlier at 7pm in Virginia.
New Jersey Senate– This is the single best Republican opportunity in the Senate, as state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R) attempts to unseat appointed-Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Kean has run effectively on "change" in the face of a Democratic wave in a Democratic state. A GOP victory in the Garden State would likely signal a very narrow Republican Senate majority next year.
Control of the Senate will likely be decided by the time the votes are tallied in the 8pm states. Mike DeWine (R) will already be gone (7:30pm poll closing in Ohio), followed by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania). Assuming Democrats prevail later in the night in Rhode Island (9pm) and Montana (10pm), as expected, Democrats would need to hold New Jersey and Maryland and win both Missouri and Tennessee to take the majority. But if Sen. George Allen (R-Virginia) loses at 7pm in Virginia, Democrats would only need to win one of the Missouri-Tennessee contests.
9pm (EST) – Governors
Minnesota Governor– Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) appears to be falling victim to the national environment. He remains fairly popular, yet he's locked in a tight battle with state Attorney General Mike Hatch (DFL). The third party candidate's campaign has stalled, and that is making it difficult for Pawlenty to win. The governor won his first term with only 44%.
Rhode Island Governor– Gov. Don Carcieri (R) is also popular and goes into Election Night with a significant lead. But the state is hostile toward Republicans and is likely to throw out their Republican U.S. Senator.
Democrats are almost certain to gain at least five governorships (Arkansas, Ohio, Massachusetts, Colorado, and New York) by the time the 9pm states are finished counting. If Pawlenty loses in Minnesota, Gov. Jim Doyle (D) has probably held on in Wisconsin, and Democrats are closer to a seven-seat gain in governorships. And if Carcieri falls, Democrats could net up to ten governorships by the time the night is over. (Remember that Democrats lost ten governorships in 1994.)
*Senate Wave Watch – If Democrats successfully knock off Jon Kyl (R) in Arizona, they have likely won control, even if all the votes haven't been tallied in the earlier states.
11pm (EST) – Hip-Waders or Life Rafts?
Idaho Governor – All eyes should be on Idaho for the size of the Republican wave. Rep. Butch Otter (R) is facing an unexpectedly close and competitive race against 2002 nominee Jerry Brady (D). Otter has some Washington baggage because he is a member of Congress, but he doesn't produce the hate from within his own party that 1st District nominee Bill Sali (R) gets. A Sali loss could be passed off, in part, as a local problem, but an Otter loss would represent something much, much bigger.
This guide first appeared on Political Wire on November 3, 2006.
By Stuart Rothenberg
This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 2, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
With less than a week to go before Election Day, we now know the GOP’s October surprise: Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). And you wondered why White House political guru Karl Rove sounded so upbeat and certain that Republicans would hold both chambers of Congress?
Kerry, who already destroyed one election for his party, apparently is trying to make it two in a row. It will be a tough job for the Massachusetts Democrat, but he’s doing his best, first by saying something silly and inappropriate, then compounding it by going on the attack instead of apologizing immediately.
Alas, the die is cast, and at this point, even Kerry can’t cost his party control of the House. But the louder he complains about the president, and the more names he calls White House aides, the more he could energize Republicans, which would help the GOP hold another seat or two.
In most respects, the national political environment has changed little since the beginning of the year. Yes, there have been bumps along the way — President Bush’s job approval has gone down, then up, then down again — but the fundamental elements of the election cycle remain unchanged.
The news from Iraq has not improved — in fact, it has gotten worse — and Americans have become increasingly pessimistic about the president’s policies. A majority of Americans believe the United States made a mistake in invading Iraq, and only about one in three Americans believe that we are winning the war against terror. That shouldn’t be surprising, given that Bush often has repeated that Iraq is the front line in the war against terror.
Congress’ already bad reputation was made worse by the page scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and by the way GOP leaders handled it. All of that has played into the Democrats’ message of “change,” making the 2006 elections a classic referendum on the party in power and the president.
Democrats didn’t “nationalize” these midterms — events and circumstances did. When the news is bad, voters naturally look for someone to blame. And when one party controls all of the levers of government, that party gets 100 percent of the blame.
Still, even if the Democrats didn’t create that wave, they have done a good job riding it.
GOP prospects in the midterm elections have been further damaged by inept Republican behavior, from the disastrous campaign of self-inflicted wounds by Sen. George Allen (Va.) to a messy Republican Tennessee Senate primary that enhanced the chances of Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in what had seemed like an almost impossible race.
And over in the House, the behavior (or alleged behavior) of a number of current and former Republican Members— former Reps. Tom DeLay (Texas) and Foley and Reps. Bob Ney (Ohio), Don Sherwood (Pa.) and Curt Weldon (Pa.) — have put otherwise safe seats into play.
The greatly expanded playing field makes it quite obvious that these midterm elections are a Republican nightmare. Few Democratic seats are at any risk, while normally safe Republican districts are endangered.
At least a couple of dozen Republican incumbents trail in polling or hold narrow leads and are well under 50 percent of the vote — a dangerous position this late in an election cycle. In many ways, this situation mirrors 1994, the most recent major partisan wave in a midterm election. A dozen years ago, Democratic incumbents were well under 50 percent of the vote in trial heats against their GOP opponents. Most of them lost.
In district after district, undecided voters disapprove of the president’s performance, think the country is on the wrong track and generally fit a demographic profile that suggests they are more likely to vote for Democratic challengers than for GOP incumbents, if they vote at all.
Quality Republican incumbents who began the cycle well-liked and viewed as thoughtful and effective, as well as strong campaigners — including three relatively moderate House Republicans in Connecticut, plus Reps. Anne Northup (Ky.), Clay Shaw (Fla.), Jim Walsh (N.Y.) and Heather Wilson (N.M.) — could find themselves drowning in a Democratic wave.
But I remain skeptical that large numbers of GOP candidates in solidly Republican districts are likely to lose. In 2004, Nebraska’s 3rd district gave Bush 75 percent of the vote, while Indiana’s 3rd went 68 percent for Bush. The president won Idaho’s 1st with 69 percent, Wyoming with 69 percent and Colorado’s 5th with 66 percent. Democratic Congressional candidates will come close in some of those districts, but any Democratic victories still would constitute major upsets.
Few Republican voters will vote for Democratic candidates, and the GOP’s “micro-targeting” get-out-the-vote operation could well result in an electorate that is more Republican than some GOP strategists fear.
Luckily for Democrats, their nominees don’t have to knock off Republicans in such solidly Republican districts to net 25 or even 30 seats.
Over in the Senate, recent polling in the Virginia Senate race has brought more bad news to Republicans. New public and private polling suggests that Democrat Jim Webb has pulled ahead of Allen. Again, given Allen’s incumbency and his inability to find wedge issues to portray his Democratic challenger as an unapologetic liberal, the Republican Senator will have real problems making Webb unacceptable to undecided voters.
The outlook for Republicans is a little brighter in Missouri, where some private poll numbers last week had showed state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D) opening up a significant lead over Sen. Jim Talent. Newer numbers suggest that the race remains competitive. But even so, Talent continues to face a very difficult bid for re-election.
Here are some excerpts from the new November 2 print edition of The Rothenberg Political Report. (To subscribe, click here.)
The Senate:
"While Senate control is in doubt, with Democrats most likely to win from 5 to 7 seats, we do not think the two sides have an equal chance of winning a majority in the Senate. Instead, we believe that state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control of the United States Senate."The House:
"Going into the final days before the 2006 midterm elections, we believe the most likely outcome in the House of Representatives is a Democratic gain of 34 to 40 seats, with slightly larger gains not impossible. This would put Democrats at between 237 and 243 seats, if not a handful more, giving them a majority in the next House that is slightly larger than the one the Republicans currently hold. If these numbers are generally correct, we would expect a period of GOP finger-pointing and self-flagellation after the elections, followed by a considerable number of Republican House retirements over the next two years."Governors:
"With Republican seats like Idaho, Alaska, and Nevada in play for state-specific reasons, and Minnesota vulnerable to a Democratic wave, the ceiling for possible Democratic gains is high. We have narrowed our earlier projection from Democratic gains of 6-10 to 7-9."These excerpts first appeared on Political Wire on November 2, 2006.
By Louis Jacobson
The Rothenberg Political Report is changing its call on three legislative chambers: the New Hampshire Senate and the Michigan House and Senate. All three are held by the Republicans, and while all three will continue to lean to the GOP, there is now a real possibility that some or all of them could be taken over by the Democrats.
In New Hampshire, Republicans hold a 16-8 edge, but observers say that it's not out of reach for the Democrats to pick up four seats, forcing a 12-12 tie. The big factors here have been the general national trend towards the Democrats, particularly in the Northeast, combined with the astronomical approval ratings of Gov. John Lynch (D), which could provide some coattails for downballot candidates. Shift this chamber from Likely Republican to Lean Republican. (The partisan gap in New Hampshire's enormous state House is too large to flip in one year.)
In Michigan, both chambers are now in play. While the improving fortunes of once-vulnerable Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) have helped her party, the bigger issue may be that a Kalamazoo-based millionaire, Jon Stryker, is spending several million dollars on independent expenditure TV ads that slam GOP incumbents in key districts.
Of the two chambers, the likelier to switch is the Senate, where a net gain of three seats would secure the Democrats a tie (which would be broken by the Democratic lieutenant governor) and a net gain of four would flip the chamber outright. Insiders say that there are enough Senate seats within reach for the Democrats that a shift looks plausible. The state House is a slightly longer shot, but it's mathematically possible. Shift both chambers from Likely Republican to Lean Republican.
[November 4, 20o6 Upate]
The Rothenberg Political Report is making some small changes to its state legislative rankings. No new chambers are moving from non-competitive to competitive status, however.
All the changes benefit the Democrats, based on statewide as well as national trends. We are shifting the GOP-held Pennsylvania House from Lean Republican to Toss-Up, moving the Democratic-held Colorado Senate from Toss-Up to Lean Democratic, shifting the GOP-controlled Oregon House from Lean Republican to Toss-Up, and moving the Democratic-held North Carolina House from Toss-Up to Lean Democratic.
In addition, we are moving the South Dakota Senate from Safe Republican to Likely Republican. This means that the chamber is not fully competitive, but that the minority party could well pick up seats. The turmoil in South Dakota over the passage of a strict anti-abortion law - which critics forced onto the ballot for public approval - gives Democrats a chance to gain some seats, though in our view it will not be enough to flip the 25-10 GOP-held chamber.
This leaves the list of 24 competitive chambers as follows:
Democratic-held Toss-Ups (4)
The new November 2, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The new ratings are available online, but for the full explanation and analysis, you must subscribe to the print edition. This is our final print edition before the election. Stay tuned to the website for late breaking analysis and rating changes.
House Ratings
Senate Ratings
Gubernatorial Ratings
For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here.
Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gain of 34-40 seats.
For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here.
Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 5-7 seats, and state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control.
