Friday, May 30, 2008

New Print Edition: Virginia 11 & Kentucky Senate

The May 30, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks and the content is not available online. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

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

Virginia 11: Viva! Democrats!
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Unlike a few other Republican open seats this cycle, this one isn’t a surprise. But exactly why it’s open is another matter.

When Sen. John Warner (R) announced his retirement, Cong. Tom Davis (R) looked like a virtual lock to run to succeed him. But when former Governor Jim Gilmore announced his candidacy for the Senate and state Republicans opted for a convention rather than a primary, the moderate congressman knew his road would be tough, if not impossible. So he bowed out.

But instead of running for reelection, Davis has decided to end his political career, at least for now, leaving the GOP with another tough House seat to defend. For the rest of the story, you must subscribe to the print edition of the Report.

Kentucky Senate: Follow the Leader


There’s no running away from the Republican Party label when you’re leading the party in the Senate. But Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) is touting his leadership position in his reelection this year at the same time Democrats are trying to use it to drag him down.

DSCC Chairman Chuck Schumer and the Democrats would love to have Kentucky’s Senate seat in their trophy case as an exclamation point to another good cycle and a partial payback for Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s (D) loss in 2004.
For the rest of the story, you must subscribe to the print edition of the Report.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

New York 26: GOP Field Clearing for Lee

The Republican field to replace former NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds in New York's 26th District is about to be cleared for businessman Chris Lee. Iraq war veteran David Bellavia is expected to exit the race soon, according to GOP sources, leaving Lee with a clear path to the nomination. The Democratic field is still uncertain and a primary is likely.

Louisiana Senate: A Tossup All the Way Until Election Day

By Stuart Rothenberg

In some House and Senate contests, the incumbent can “put away” the challenger with an early negative media blitz that discredits him before he has been able to get himself known. At other times, the incumbent can safely ignore the challenger rather than giving him the credibility he will never get. You can never be sure.

In more than a few instances, you need look only at fundraising numbers to figure out who will win and who’ll come up short. And in many cases — too many cases — you can ignore the candidates, fundraising numbers and even the campaign. A state’s or district’s partisanship or demographics is all you need to look at to predict who will win in November.

The Louisiana Senate race isn’t likely to be any of those contests or scenarios just cited. Instead, the contest between Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) and her challenger, state Treasurer John Kennedy (R), is likely to be decided by a point or two — too close for anyone to be able to pick a winner at this point, or, possibly, even on election eve.

Landrieu has run for the Senate twice and had two uncomfortably close contests. In 1996, she narrowly beat Republican Woody Jenkins by fewer than 6,000 votes out of 1.7 million votes in the runoff. Yes, that’s the same Woody Jenkins who couldn’t even win a Congressional special election earlier this month in a Republican-leaning district.

Six years later, Landrieu beat Republican state Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell by a larger margin, 52 percent to 48 percent. Terrell, like Jenkins, wasn’t initially regarded as an ideal Republican Senate nominee, and Landrieu used her considerable fundraising advantage ($7.4 million for Landrieu and $2.8 million for Terrell) to her benefit.

This year, Landrieu is facing Kennedy, who was just elected to his third term after serving the first two as a Democrat.

Kennedy, 56, holds law degrees from the University of Virginia and Oxford. He served as legal counsel to Gov. Buddy Roemer (when the governor was first elected, as a Democrat), and managed Roemer’s unsuccessful gubernatorial effort in 1995 (when Roemer was running as a Republican).

In between those two contests, Kennedy himself ran for office, finishing third in a 1991 race for state attorney general. Roemer, who was seeking re-election that year, finished third in the gubernatorial contest as well.

Although Kennedy managed Roemer’s unsuccessful race in 1995, the winner of that contest, Republican Gov. Mike Foster, picked Kennedy to be his secretary of revenue.

In 1999, Kennedy ran for state treasurer, knocking off the sitting incumbent, Democrat Ken Duncan. Kennedy was re-elected without opposition in 2003 and 2007. In 2004, he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate, finishing well behind fellow Democrat Chris John and the winner, Republican David Vitter.

Democrats (and even a Republican or two) argue that Landrieu is well-positioned to win re-election, noting that she has been extremely visible since Hurricane Katrina ripped through her state, and that she has received high marks for her effort. Some also denigrate Kennedy as a mediocre campaigner who has lost more than his share of earlier contests for office.

Surprisingly, Kennedy says he’s unconcerned about Landrieu’s incumbency advantages or her inevitable argument that she can help the state as part of the Democratic majority. He will run the way many Democrats are running — as a vehicle for change.

“I’m not real impressed with what Washington has done for Louisiana or for the American people,” he said recently during an interview. “The system isn’t working,” he added.

Both parties agree that the state has lost Democratic voters since Katrina, but Democrats say the impact on a statewide election is very minor. Republicans counter that any way you look at it, the state is trending Republican, and they cite last year’s victory by Bobby Jindal (R) in the gubernatorial election, without a runoff, as evidence.

Landrieu starts with a considerable financial advantage. She had more than $4.5 million in the bank at the end of March. But Kennedy came out of the box quickly, showing $1.6 million on hand on March 31 and taking in another $500,000 or so from a fundraiser with President Bush late last month. As the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s lone takeover prospect, Kennedy should have the resources he needs to be competitive against Landrieu.

Exactly where the race begins is anybody’s guess, in part because surveys conducted in the state by Louisiana polling firms are suspect.

A December survey conducted by SurveyUSA for Roll Call showed Landrieu leading Kennedy by a mere 4 points, 46 percent to 42 percent, while a March/April Southern Media/Opinion Research poll conducted inexplicably over two weeks showed the Senator up by a dozen points, 50 percent to 38 percent.

Together, the two surveys probably set a reasonable range of where the race really is. And both of them undoubtedly are closer to the truth than a ridiculous Zogby poll for Kennedy in October that showed the Republican leading Landrieu by 7 points.

My guess is that the combination of two quality candidates, the presidential race, the rare opportunity for a Republican takeover, the general drift of the state’s electorate toward the GOP and an incumbent with plenty of resources and political savvy guarantee a race so close that it’s unwise not to get caught up in the ebb and flow of the contest. Keep your eye on this race all the way until November.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 27, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Idaho Senate: LaRocco vs. American Idol

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The stage is set for the U.S. Senate race in Idaho. Jim Risch won the GOP nomination Tuesday, the first step for the lieutenant governor in his effort to keep the seat in Republican hands after the Larry Craig debacle. Former Cong. Larry LaRocco won the Democratic nomination, but earned a surprisingly low 72% against a candidate who raised and spent less than $5,000.

So who took 28% in the Democratic primary against a former congressman? The answer: David Archuleta.

That’s a household name if you’re one of the millions of people who watch American Idol. But that’s not the same David Archuleta who was on Idaho’s ballot.

David J. Archuleta is a Native American news reporter, attorney, and Vietnam War veteran, who received over 11,000 votes in the Democratic race. He may be a great guy, but he undoubtedly benefitted from sharing the same name as the teenage crooner.

You see, David James Archuleta of Utah, received roughly 44% of the 97.5 million votes cast (by phone or text) in the finale of televisions top-rated show. An estimated 31.7 million people tuned in watch American Idol’s conclusion, less than a week before Idaho’s primary. Like his namesake, the singing Archuleta finished second in his contest.

But LaRocco has bigger problems. Unlike other states around the country, three times the number of people voted in the Republican primary on Tuesday than the Democratic primary (123,584-40,141). And twice as many people voted for Risch than LaRocco.

The Democrat continues to struggle in fundraising. LaRocco brought in $591,375 through May 7 and had $204,102 on hand. Risch raised over $1.2 million through May 7 and had $902,907 in the bank. And LaRocco shouldn’t expect the DSCC to make up the difference. They don’t even need to spend in Idaho in a formula that gets them to 60 Senate seats.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Kentucky Senate: McConnell Poll Sets the Record Straight

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Sen. Mitch McConnell may not be quite as vulnerable as a recent, and questionable, public poll suggests. The Kentucky senator leads wealthy businessman Bruce Lunsford (D) 50%-39% in a new poll released by McConnell’s campaign. The numbers fly in the face of a Rasmussen Poll showing Lunsford ahead of the incumbent 49%-44%.

McConnell’s survey, conducted May 21-22 by Voter/Consumer Research, smells like the most logical starting point for the general election race, which just began. A May 7-9 Research 2000 poll for the Lexington Herald-Leader and WKYT showed McConnell ahead of Lunsford 48%-36%, a very similar margin to the senator’s poll.

The senator’s poll also showed McConnell had a 57% job approval rating, compared to 30% disapproval. And he stood at 54% favorable/32% unfavorable name identification. In comparison, Lunsford had a 34% favorable/20% unfavorable rating.

There is little question that the GOP Senate Minority Leader's numbers are depressed and that he should have a fight on his hands this fall. But there’s still flimsy evidence that McConnell is losing the race.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Last Word (I Hope) on Mississippi and the GOP’s Troubles

By Stuart Rothenberg

Much has been made of the fact that President Bush won Mississippi’s 1st district by more than 20 points against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004. Too much.

Newly elected Rep. Travis Childers’ (D) district isn’t the only one that voted solidly for Bush and yet sends a Democrat to Congress.

Even before the 2006 Democratic sweep, a half-dozen Democrats won in districts that gave Bush at least 60 percent of the vote in 2004: Jim Marshall, Georgia’s 8th (61 percent Bush); Gene Taylor, Mississippi’s 4th (68 percent), Ike Skelton, Missouri’s 4th (64 percent), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota’s at-large (60 percent), Jim Matheson, Utah’s 2nd (66 percent) and retiring Democrat Bud Cramer, Alabama’s 5th (60 percent).

In addition, Democratic Reps. Baron Hill (Indiana’s 9th), Charlie Melancon (Louisiana’s 3rd), Dan Boren (Oklahoma’s 2nd), Lincoln Davis (Tennessee’s 4th) and Alan Mollohan (West Virginia’s 1st) have multiple wins in districts that the president carried with 58 percent or 59 percent of the vote.

Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana’s 8th took over a 62 percent Bush district in 2006, at the same time that Democratic Congressional candidates fell just short of winning districts, such as Idaho’s 1st and Wyoming’s at-large, which Bush carried with 69 percent in 2004.

No, I’m certainly not dismissing or minimizing Republican problems, and I’m not arguing that the Democratic victory in Mississippi’s 1st district is standard fare. It isn’t. Six or eight years ago, the Republicans likely would have held the seat, even with the nominee they had this time. The Democratic brand was so battered in the South, and the Republican brand so strong, that a GOP nominee would have had a significant advantage.

Nationally, Republicans currently stand to lose eight to 12 House seats, just two years after they lost 30 seats. Of course, my projected numbers could change, in either direction, as the cycle develops. Still, Democrats have reason to brag about their prospects, and Republicans ought to be trying to figure out how to turn things around.

But we’ve seen this for months — at least anyone has who has been paying attention to the avalanche of polls that bury us each week.

Obviously, the Republican brand is damaged and the president’s unpopularity has created a mood for change that allows strong Democratic candidates to take advantage of the public’s dissatisfaction with Bush and his party. That’s what 2006 was about, and nothing has changed. None of this is new or warrants the breathless coverage that it has been receiving.

While Rep. Tom Davis’ memo about the state of the GOP was generally on the mark, the Virginia Republican has been saying the exact same things for the past year. The fact that Davis put his thoughts on paper and distributed them widely is noteworthy, but it doesn’t change the political reality on the ground, which has been apparent to anyone who cared to look and to read what has been written certainly since last year.

Luckily for Democrats, the dynamics in each of the three special elections they won this spring have played into their hands. Woody Jenkins’ loss in the Louisiana 6th district special election was due overwhelmingly to his own shortcomings. And in Mississippi, Republican Greg Davis’ high personal negatives, combined with Childers’ ideology and personal appeal made the Democrat a safe choice for swing voters. Even in Illinois, Republican Jim Oberweis turned out to be his own worst enemy.

Nor does the Mississippi 1st district result mean that “there is no district that is safe for Republican candidates,” as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said recently. That’s just silly hyperbole and something the Maryland Democrat undoubtedly will be embarrassed to have said.

You don’t have to look very far for evidence that not all Republican seats are in play. Just drive south a few counties from Tupelo and you’ll be in the state’s 3rd district, where Democrats aren’t seriously contesting another GOP open seat. Then drive south over to Louisiana’s 1st district, which Republican Steve Scalise won with 75 percent of the vote the same day that Jenkins lost in the adjoining 6th district.

Of course, since the Mississippi results came in, there has been an upsurge in interest in third-tier Democratic candidates. If Republican seats flipped in Louisiana and Mississippi, could Indiana GOP Reps. Steve Buyer and Mark Souder be in trouble? Maybe for Souder, but probably not for Buyer.

How about California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher? Seems unlikely. How about Rep. Mike Rogers, who currently represents Alabama’s 3rd district? Could Josh Segall, a 28-year-old Jewish, Brown University graduate and lawyer knock off the Alabama Republican? Not as long as Mike Rogers runs a campaign.

There are other supposedly reliable Republican districts that Democrats have a good chance to win in the months ahead. But as long as Republican voters continue to vote for Republican candidates for Congress, Democrats won’t see a repeat of 2006. District demographics and candidate quality cannot be ignored.

Special elections often produce odd results when an unpopular president sits in the White House. They offer voters an opportunity to send a message. And swing voters and conservative Democrats surely did. But for those who seem shocked and hysterical by the GOP’s problems, I have only one question: Where have you been?

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 22, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Friday, May 23, 2008

2008 House Ratings

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

We've changed our rating of Oregon's 5th District from Toss-Up to Lean Democratic. Wealthy businessman Mike Erickson won the Republican nomination, but allegations that he paid for a girlfriend's abortion make him an underdog in the general election, even though he still won the primary. Sen. Gordon Smith (R) declined to endorse Erickson and Oregon Right to Life is likely to sit on the sidelines. State Sen. Kurt Schrader will carry the Democratic mantle in the race to replace Cong. Darlene Hooley (D).

PURE TOSS-UP (7 R, 7 D)
  • AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
  • AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
  • CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  • FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
  • KS 2 (Boyda, D)
  • LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
  • MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
  • MS 1 (Childers, D)
  • NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
  • NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
  • NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
  • OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
  • OH 16 (Open; Regula, R)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (7 R, 1 D)
  • AK A-L (Young, R)
  • IL 10 (Kirk, R)
  • LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
  • NY 13 (Open; Fosella, R)
  • NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
  • NC 8 (Hayes, R)
  • TX 22 (Lampson, D)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (1 R, 2 D)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
LEAN REPUBLICAN (8 R, 0 D)
  • CT 4 (Shays, R)
  • FL 24 (Feeney, R)
  • MI 7 (Walberg, R)
  • MI 9 (Knollenberg, R)
  • MO 6 (Graves, R)
  • NV 3 (Porter, R)
  • OH 1 (Chabot, R)
  • OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
LEAN DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 9 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
  • IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
  • IN 9 (Hill, D)
  • KY 3 (Yarmuth, D)
  • KS 3 (Moore, D)
  • MN 1 (Walz, D)
  • NY 25 (Open; Walsh, R)
  • OR 5 (Open; Hooley, D)
  • PA 4 (Altmire, D)
  • VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D)
REPUBLICAN FAVORED (12 R, 0 D)
  • AL 2 (Open; Everett, R)
  • CA 4 (Open; Doolittle, R)
  • CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
  • FL 8 (Keller, R)
  • FL 13 (Buchanan, R)
  • IL 6 (Roskam, R)
  • KY 2 (Open; Lewis, R)
  • MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
  • NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  • PA 18 (Murphy, R)
  • WV 2 (Capito, R)
DEMOCRAT FAVORED (0 R, 6 D)
  • IL 8 (Bean, D)
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • NY 20 (Gillibrand, D)
  • OH 18 (Space, D)
  • PA 8 (Murphy, D)
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)

Thursday, May 22, 2008

The House GOP Blame Game That Just Won’t Let Up

By Stuart Rothenberg

There is panic in the Republican streets these days. GOP elected officials and strategists ranging from Reps. Tom Davis (Va.) and Tom Cole (Okla.) to former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Karl Rove all think their party is in free fall and needs to change. This is news? The polls have shown this for more than two years.

Welcome to another round of Republican finger-pointing and blame assigning. If you aren’t getting enough of it now, don’t worry. It will continue at least until and probably through November.

Who exactly is at fault for recent Republican House losses? House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), many believe, has the long knives out for National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Cole. Others think Boehner and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) bear much of the blame.

In fact, Republican losses in 2006, in recent House specials and undoubtedly in 2008, cannot be blamed primarily on Cole or Boehner or Blunt or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) or National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign (Nev.). I’m not saying they haven’t made mistakes. But they aren’t the real problem.

President Bush is the main culprit, but the entire party bears some responsibility.

Political parties do well when their leaders are popular and Americans are satisfied and optimistic. That’s not where we are today, and even though Democrats control Congress, it’s the president’s party that gets a disproportionate part of the blame for bad news.

But let’s not pull any punches about the state of the GOP: You can’t nominate mediocre candidates or candidates from divided state or local parties, have Members of Congress admitting to affairs that produced children, have Members’ homes and offices raided by the FBI, have Members go to jail, have Members picked up in airport bathrooms and have an unpopular president pursuing an unpopular war during a time of increased economic anxiety and still expect to be popular — or to turn things around.

Yes, I know, the Democrats have had their share of embarrassments. For every Republican embarrassment (New York Rep. Vito Fossella and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter), there is a Democratic one (former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann). Republicans have former Reps. Duke Cunningham (Calif.) and Bob Ney (Ohio) and Rep. Rick Renzi (Ariz.), and Democrats have former Congressman Frank Ballance (N.C.) and Rep. William Jefferson (La.).

Still, it seems to me, and to most people I talk with, that far more Republicans are involved in these problems and investigations of late, especially involving Washington, D.C., figures. Democrats haven’t had anything close to resembling the Jack Abramoff fiasco, for example, during the past few years.

Even state scandals have damaged the GOP’s national reputation more than the Democratic Party’s. In 2006, the Ohio Republican Party seemed to self-destruct, and national Republicans paid a price. This year it could be the Alaska GOP.

So far, state Democratic scandals in places such as Illinois and New Jersey haven’t spilled over into federal races or even fundamentally improved short-term Republican prospects.

I have to chuckle when I see Gingrich lecturing Congressional Republicans that it’s time for them to regroup.

In a Human Events article, the former Speaker offers “nine acts of real change” that he says could “restore the GOP brand.” The list includes overhauling the census and cutting its budget, declaring English the official language of government and reminding Americans “that judges matter.” Oh brother.

Of course the GOP brand is damaged and House Republicans need to offer an appealing, positive agenda and a new aggressiveness in promoting it. Tom Davis certainly is correct about that.

But the primary problem for Congressional Republicans is that the nation is in the middle of a presidential campaign and the GOP’s standing is so low that it now doesn’t have the credibility to rebrand itself unilaterally between now and November. Any rebranding has to be done in connection with Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) message and agenda.

House Republicans are irrelevant right now, so relying on them to seize the mantle of “change” and “restore the GOP brand” is asking for the impossible.

Sometimes you have to take your medicine. For the Republican Party, that undoubtedly means another spanking at the polls (though it may not be as bad as some now think is inevitable). A McCain victory would help ease the pain of more defeats at the House and Senate level, and it would shatter Democratic dreams of complete control of the government. But even a McCain victory wouldn’t solve all of the party’s problems.

Anyone who has lived through wave years can remember the intraparty fights that they created. For Democrats, it often was the Democratic Leadership Council and organized labor arguing who was at fault and what the party needed to do.

So Congressional Republicans will have to suck it up, find opportunities to criticize Democrats and rally around McCain, hoping that he can change the discussion and offer a broadly acceptable party agenda. Republicans who don’t latch onto at least some of McCain’s reformist message are making a huge mistake.

If the party is skunked in the fall, which is very possible, then Congressional Republicans will be able to take the next step and rebuild from the ground, articulating their own change agenda and counterpunching against Democratic moves. That’s the way it works. Welcome to reality.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 19, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

2008 House Ratings

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

We've updated the chart to reflect Democrat Travis Childers' win in the Mississippi 1 special election, making him the incumbent in November. But we're keeping the race as a Toss-up for now until we know more about the national environment and the effect of the presidential race. And after Cong. Vito Fossella's retirement announced in New York 13, we're moving the race to Toss-Up/Tilt Republican until there is some clarity in the field of replacement candidates.


PURE TOSS-UP (7 R, 8 D)
  • AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
  • AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
  • CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  • FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
  • KS 2 (Boyda, D)
  • LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
  • MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
  • MS 1 (Childers, D)
  • NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
  • NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
  • NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
  • OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
  • OH 16 (Open; Regula, R)
  • OR 5 (Open; Hooley, D)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (7 R, 1 D)
  • AK A-L (Young, R)
  • IL 10 (Kirk, R)
  • LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
  • NY 13 (Open; Fosella, R)
  • NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
  • NC 8 (Hayes, R)
  • TX 22 (Lampson, D)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (1 R, 2 D)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
LEAN REPUBLICAN (8 R, 0 D)
  • CT 4 (Shays, R)
  • FL 24 (Feeney, R)
  • MI 7 (Walberg, R)
  • MI 9 (Knollenberg, R)
  • MO 6 (Graves, R)
  • NV 3 (Porter, R)
  • OH 1 (Chabot, R)
  • OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
LEAN DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 8 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
  • IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
  • IN 9 (Hill, D)
  • KY 3 (Yarmuth, D)
  • KS 3 (Moore, D)
  • MN 1 (Walz, D)
  • NY 25 (Open; Walsh, R)
  • PA 4 (Altmire, D)
  • VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D)
REPUBLICAN FAVORED (12 R, 0 D)
  • AL 2 (Open; Everett, R)
  • CA 4 (Open; Doolittle, R)
  • CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
  • FL 8 (Keller, R)
  • FL 13 (Buchanan, R)
  • IL 6 (Roskam, R)
  • KY 2 (Open; Lewis, R)
  • MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
  • NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  • PA 18 (Murphy, R)
  • WV 2 (Capito, R)
DEMOCRAT FAVORED (0 R, 6 D)
  • IL 8 (Bean, D)
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • NY 20 (Gillibrand, D)
  • OH 18 (Space, D)
  • PA 8 (Murphy, D)
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Mississippi Senate: Musgrove Leads in New Democratic Poll

Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D) leads appointed-Sen. Roger Wicker (R) 48%-40% in the Mississippi Senate race, according to a new poll released by the Democrat's campaign and the DSCC. Musgrove benefits from higher name identification, and the race will close, but the initial numbers are good for the Democrat.

Musgrove had a total name identification of 95% -- 57% favorable/30% unfavorable -- in the survey of 600 likely voters, conducted May 15-18 by Hamilton Campaigns. Wicker’s name I.D. was only 70% (42% favorable/14% unfavorable).

In the 1st Congressional District, which Wicker represented and Democrats recently picked up in the special election, Wicker leads Musgrove 48%-43%.

Like the 1st District race, party labels will not appear on the ballot beside Wicker and Musgrove’s name, because the November race is technically a special election to fill Republican Trent Lott’s seat. That factor could help Musgrove win voters who are also planning to vote for Republican Sen. John McCain, who is winning the state 50%-41%, according to the poll. President Bush won Mississippi 59%-39% in 2004.

Even though he has the lead today, the race is still a difficult one for Musgrove, since the state leans Republican in federal races. But it can no longer be considered Safe for the Republicans. We’re moving the race to Clear Advantage for the Incumbent Party.

2008 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings.

Likely Takeover (1 R, 0 D)
  • VA Open (Warner, R)
Lean Takeover (2 R, 0 D)
  • NM Open (Domenici, R)
  • Sununu (R-NH)
Toss-Up (2 R, 1 D)
  • CO Open (Allard, R)
  • Coleman (R-MN)
  • Landrieu (D-LA)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)
  • Smith (R-OR)
  • Stevens (R-AK)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 0 D)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Dole (R-NC)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Wicker (R-MS)
Currently Safe (12 R, 11 D)
  • ID Open (Craig, R)
  • NE Open (Hagel, R)
  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Chambliss (R-GA)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Enzi (R-WY)
  • Graham (R-SC)
  • Inhofe (R-OK)
  • Roberts (R-KS)
  • Sessions (R-AL)
  • Baucus (D-MT)
  • Biden (D-DE)
  • Durbin (D-IL)
  • Harkin (D-IA)
  • Johnson (D-SD)
  • Kerry (D-MA)
  • Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  • Levin (D-MI)
  • Pryor (D-AR)
  • Reed (D-RI)
  • Rockefeller (D-WV)

Monday, May 19, 2008

Mississippi 1 Special: Why Childers Won and Why Davis Lost

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Friday, May 16, 2008

New Print Edition: 2008 Senate Overview

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

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


Senate Overview – The Lay of the Land


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

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

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Are Republican Ads That Attack Obama and Pelosi Effective?

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, May 12, 2008

Few Pollsters Get High Marks in ’08 Presidential Races

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

The worst-performing poll has been Suffolk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Thursday, May 08, 2008

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

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

2008 House Ratings

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

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


PURE TOSS-UP (8 R, 7 D)
  • AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
  • AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
  • CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  • FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
  • KS 2 (Boyda, D)
  • LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
  • MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
  • MS 1 (Open; Wicker, R)
  • NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
  • NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
  • NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
  • OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
  • OH 16 (Open; Regula, R)
  • OR 5 (Open; Hooley, D)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (6 R, 1 D)
  • AK A-L (Young, R)
  • IL 10 (Kirk, R)
  • LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
  • NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
  • NC 8 (Hayes, R)
  • TX 22 (Lampson, D)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (1 R, 2 D)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
LEAN REPUBLICAN (8 R, 0 D)
  • CT 4 (Shays, R)
  • FL 24 (Feeney, R)
  • MI 7 (Walberg, R)
  • MI 9 (Knollenberg, R)
  • MO 6 (Graves, R)
  • NV 3 (Porter, R)
  • OH 1 (Chabot, R)
  • OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
LEAN DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 8 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
  • IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
  • IN 9 (Hill, D)
  • KY 3 (Yarmuth, D)
  • KS 3 (Moore, D)
  • MN 1 (Walz, D)
  • NY 25 (Open; Walsh, R)
  • PA 4 (Altmire, D)
  • VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D)
REPUBLICAN FAVORED (13 R, 0 D)
  • AL 2 (Open; Everett, R)
  • CA 4 (Open; Doolittle, R)
  • CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
  • FL 8 (Keller, R)
  • FL 13 (Buchanan, R)
  • IL 6 (Roskam, R)
  • KY 2 (Open; Lewis, R)
  • MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
  • NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
  • NY 13 (Fosella, R)
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  • PA 18 (Murphy, R)
  • WV 2 (Capito, R)
DEMOCRAT FAVORED (0 R, 6 D)
  • IL 8 (Bean, D)
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • NY 20 (Gillibrand, D)
  • OH 18 (Space, D)
  • PA 8 (Murphy, D)
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Open Season in 2010

By Nathan L. Gonzales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, May 05, 2008

May Is a Special Month for House Campaign Teams

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

Normally, May is the month of college graduations, flowers and the Kentucky Derby. This year, you can add special elections to that list.

On Saturday, voters in the special election in Louisiana’s 6th Congressional district will pick either Woody Jenkins (R) or Don Cazayoux (D) to fill the Baton Rouge-area seat left vacant by the resignation of Rep. Richard Baker (R), who held it since 1986.

Ten days later, Travis Childers (D) will face off against Greg Davis (R) for now-Sen. Roger Wicker’s (R) former House seat. Mississippi’s 1st district includes the northernmost quarter of the state, is the most rural and most blue-collar of the state’s four districts, and was represented by Wicker since he cruised to an open-seat victory in 1994.

Jenkins is an underdog in his race, while Mississippi’s 1st is a tossup. But turnout always is a huge question mark in special elections, and both parties are acting as if the contests are up for grabs.

If the election in Louisiana is about Jenkins, he loses. His negatives remain high, even with some Republicans. So GOP campaign operatives are doing everything they can to drive up Cazayoux’s negatives and to nationalize the House contest into a purely partisan fight.

Initially, it was unclear whether conservative and Republican groups would invest money in this race. Jenkins is widely viewed as a seriously flawed candidate who refuses to raise campaign cash, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has well- documented money problems.

But the NRCC is spending more than $300,000 on an independent expenditure against Cazayoux, and two “outside” conservative groups, Freedom’s Watch and the Club for Growth, are also up on TV against the Democrat. Baton Rouge businessman Lane Grigsby is also spending about $75,000 on IE television ads against Cazayoux.

If the Louisiana election is any indication, Freedom’s Watch could well be a huge player this election cycle, helping to rescue Republican House and Senate candidates from the party’s disastrous financial position.

The group, which had a staff shake up in March, is spending more than $500,000 on TV ads in Louisiana’s 6th. The Club for Growth’s TV buy is $100,000. Jenkins’ campaign, in comparison, has made only a token TV buy.

Democratic and Republican spending on the race (combining the candidates’ TV ads with that of the parties and outside groups) looks roughly comparable, though Republicans seemed to have an advantage during the final week –– at least until a late TV buy by the Service Employees International Union to help Cazayoux.

“If Woody wins,” says one knowledgeable Republican, “it won’t be through any fault of his own. He’ll have nothing to do with it. But, he’ll think that he won because he waved signs.”

Interestingly, Jon Lerner, a political consultant who works regularly with the Club for Growth, has raised questions about the content of the NRCC’s ads, which link Cazayoux to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Lerner, who used references to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Pelosi in his Louisiana ads, questions the use of Obama in the spot, since the district is about one-third black. “Using Hillary makes the same point without running the risk of inflaming a large group of voters [African Americans] who aren’t all that motivated to vote in the special election,” he said.

GOP consultant Curt Anderson of OnMessage Inc., which created two TV spots for the NRCC’s IE, counters that the chances of motivating unmotivated Democratic voters is small and that, in any case, using Pelosi and Obama in the NRCC’s ads is the best way to frame the special election as a choice between the two parties and their philosophies.

And, Anderson adds, the fact that Michael Jackson, the black legislator who lost to Cazayoux in the Democratic primary, has a TV ad noting that he is running in the fall, points out that Democrats are already divided.

In Mississippi’s 1st district, Republicans have not yet united behind the candidacy of Davis, who narrowly won a runoff against a Tupelo-based Republican.

Davis represents a community in the northwestern corner of the district (suburban Memphis), and he is likely to have problems in the eastern half of the district. In fact, some observers believe Childers should try to turn the special election into a race against Memphis.

So far, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee appears to be heavily outspending the NRCC and Davis’ campaign combined — the DCCC could spend $1 million in the race — though a major ad buy by Freedom’s Watch could have a significant effect on the outcome. The group has not yet announced any plans to run TV ads in the race.

As in Louisiana, Republicans are going to try to “nationalize” this election, hoping that voters will see the choice as far bigger than merely Davis and Childers, but, rather, conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats.

There is, of course, considerable irony with the GOP strategy in Mississippi and Louisiana, since in most of the country Republicans are trying to “localize” elections to inoculate themselves against the strong anti-Bush, and often anti-Republican, environment.

But both the Louisiana and Mississippi districts are conservative and Republican, and while President Bush is not wildly popular in them, Obama’s, Clinton’s and Pelosi’s numbers are far worse, according to multiple sources.

Friday, May 02, 2008

New Print Edition: Mississippi 1 & Florida 24

The May 2, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks and the content is not available online. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

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

Mississippi 1: Something Special
By Nathan L. Gonzales

It won’t be easy for Republicans to explain away a loss in Mississippi’s 1st District. But they might want to start working on their excuses now.

Two months ago, Republicans lost former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s seat in Illinois, but blamed the special election loss on a flawed nominee. The party also had a damaged candidate in the special election in Louisiana 6. That’s simply not the case in Mississippi, and yet Republicans are in jeopardy of losing a very conservative district.

Gov. Haley Barbour (R) tapped Cong. Roger Wicker for the U.S. Senate when Trent Lott announced his resignation, opening up the 1st District. Southaven Mayor Greg Davis (R) and Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers (D) will battle in the November general election, but because of the election schedule, they are also facing off in the May 13 special election runoff to fill the remainder of Wicker’s House term. Subscribers get the whole story in the print edition.


Florida 24: Race to November

Tom Feeney knows his congressional district. Heck, he drew it for himself.

By the numbers, Florida’s 24th District doesn’t look particularly vulnerable, but the Republican congressman’s connection to incarcerated former lobbyist Jack Abramoff have plenty of GOP strategists uneasy.

Feeney’s profile appears similar to some of his colleagues who lost in 2006, in districts that Republicans normally win easily. But the congressman’s supporters believe he’s handled the issue far better.

Democrats went out and recruited Suzanne Kosmas, whom they believe will be a strong challenger to the congressman. The former state representative is proving to be a terrific fundraiser and should be a more than credible candidate for voters concerned with Feeney’s ethical questions.

This race isn’t in the regular conversation about the most vulnerable House seats nationwide, but talking to Republican operatives, there is plenty of nervousness about this race. The rest of the story is in the print edition for subscribers only.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

For McCain, There’s Only One Perfect Candidate for Veep

By Stuart Rothenberg

We all hear the same names mentioned as prospective running mates for John McCain: former Office of Management and Budget Director and one-time U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and even former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.

Each one would bring something to the ticket. Some come from crucial swing states that could help McCain reach 270 electoral votes. A number are governors, adding a non- Washington, D.C., piece to the ticket. By most standards, all are good-looking and articulate.

And yet, none of them would change the partisan political equation in the fall election, and I’m not at all sure any of them would increase McCain’s chances of winning in the fall. Certainly none of them would constitute a statement by McCain about his presidency, the kind of statement that would send a message to voters.

There is, however, somebody who would fill that bill and therefore be a near-perfect pick for McCain: Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman, 66, served in the Connecticut House (including a stint as Majority Leader) before winning election as state attorney general. In 1988, he won a Senate seat by upsetting incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, a very liberal Republican who was both arrogant and aloof.

After easy re-election victories in 1994 and 2000, Lieberman, of course, narrowly lost renomination in 2006, after anti-war groups and angry voters mobilized behind Democratic primary opponent Ned Lamont. But spurning the pleas of his Democratic colleagues, Lieberman ran for another term as an Independent and defeated Lamont by 10 points, with solid support from the state’s GOP voters.

Lieberman’s selection to McCain’s ticket would send a clear message about bipartisanship and about McCain’s desire to change the way things are done. While the Democratic nominee surely will talk about bringing people together and “change,” a truly bipartisan McCain-Lieberman ticket would trump any and all Democratic rhetoric.

The selection of Lieberman would have particular appeal to independent voters, who are likely to be a key swing group later this year.

Second, Lieberman is clearly ready and able to be president, if need be. Even many of his critics acknowledge that he is a man of accomplishment, experience and integrity. Since Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore selected Lieberman for his running mate in 2000, Democrats would have a hard time attacking the Connecticut Senator on anything but his position on Iraq.

Third, selecting Lieberman would anger both conservatives and Democrats. In other words, it’s a “two-fer” for McCain, who seems to relish those moments when he can stick it to people he doesn’t like. Just think how McCain would chuckle at the thought of annoying both ends of the political spectrum.

But wouldn’t social conservatives, in particular, go bananas, since Lieberman is moderate or liberal on most issues other than Iraq? He supports abortion rights, generally votes with organized labor and is an unapologetic environmentalist. Conservatives would revolt, wouldn’t they?

Probably not. While there would be the usual fist-pounding from some “movement conservatives,” their anger at the selection would quickly dissipate when they saw the fury unleashed by liberals and Democratic bloggers.

When, during the previous cycle’s Senate race, I wrote a column that included some favorable mentions of Lieberman, I was belted by bloggers on the left, all of whom see the Connecticut Senator as a sellout and the chief cheerleader of a war they regard as outrageous. They wouldn’t be able to control their fury, which would both allow McCain to appear reasonable in the face of their anger and make Lieberman more palatable to those on the right.

In addition, McCain strategists could note that Lieberman very publicly criticized Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky as “immoral” and has spoken over the years about the dangers of violence coming from Hollywood, another conservative bogeyman. That too would placate some conservatives.

And Lieberman is an observant Jew, which would resonate with both evangelicals and Jewish voters.

But doesn’t McCain need someone significantly younger as a running mate? Lieberman is only a few years younger than McCain, so the ticket would be very old, especially compared with the likely Democratic ticket.

Possibly, but does anyone really believe that by picking a 50-year-old governor McCain would erase age as an issue and neutralize the Democrats’ advantage on change? It wouldn’t.

Wouldn’t the selection of Lieberman only emphasize Iraq and McCain’s support for the surge, making an unpopular war even more front and center for McCain?

Of course, but does anyone really believe that Democrats won’t wrap the surge around McCain’s neck if that’s in their interest? It doesn’t matter who McCain picks for his running mate. Even if he picks a governor from Minnesota or South Carolina, McCain owns the surge already.

I don’t expect McCain to pick Lieberman. It’s a quirky pick with risks, some of which I’ve noted in this column. But no matter whom he selects, McCain ought to think outside the box. Picking a younger governor who is acceptable to conservatives but brings little else to the table would be passing up an opportunity to make a statement.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 28, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.