Tuesday, September 30, 2008

2008 House Ratings

Here are our latest House ratings. Our latest estimate is a Democratic gain of 10-20 seats.

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.

# = Moved benefiting Democrats
* = Moved benefiting Republicans
^ = Newly added

PURE TOSS-UP (7 R, 3 D)
  • AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
  • FL 8 (Keller, R)
  • FL 21 (L. Diaz-Balart, R) #
  • FL 24 (Feeney, R)
  • MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
  • NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
  • OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (8 R, 1 D)
  • CT 4 (Shays, R) #
  • LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
  • LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
  • MI 7 (Walberg, R) #
  • NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
  • NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
  • NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
  • NC 8 (Hayes, R)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (6 R, 6 D)
  • AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
  • CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  • CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
  • FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
  • KS 2 (Boyda, D)
  • NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
  • NV 3 (Porter, R) #
  • OH 16 (Open; Regula, R) #
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D)
LEAN REPUBLICAN (9 R, 1 D)
  • AL 2 (Open; Everett, R)
  • FL 25 (M. Diaz-Balart, R) #
  • IL 10 (Kirk, R)
  • KY 2 (Open; Lewis, R) ^
  • MI 9 (Knollenberg, R)
  • MO 6 (Graves, R)
  • OH 1 (Chabot, R)
  • OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
  • PA 3 (English, R)
  • TX 22 (Lampson, D)
  • VA 2 (Drake, R)
LEAN DEMOCRATIC (1 R, 5 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
  • KY 3 (Yarmuth, D)
  • OR 5 (Open; Hooley, D)
  • PA 4 (Altmire, D)
  • VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
REPUBLICAN FAVORED (9 R, 0 D)
  • CA 4 (Open; Doolittle, R)
  • FL 13 (Buchanan, R)
  • ID 1 (Sali, R)
  • IL 6 (Roskam, R)
  • MD 1 (Open; Gilchrest, R)
  • MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
  • MO 9 (Open; Hulshof, R)
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  • WV 2 (Capito, R)
DEMOCRAT FAVORED (2 R, 5 D)
  • AK A-L (Young, R)
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • IN 9 (Hill, D)
  • KS 3 (Moore, D)
  • MS 1 (Childers, D)
  • NY 13 (Open; Fossella, R)
  • NY 20 (Gillibrand, D)
  • NY 25 (Open; Walsh, R)
Dropped : MN 1 (Walz, D) #

Monday, September 29, 2008

Kentucky Senate: Ratings Change Favors Democrats

Following the news that a SurveyUSA poll and a Louisville Courier-Journal survey of the Kentucky Senate race found Sen. Mitch McConnell and challenger Bruce Lunsford locked in a tight race, a third poll - this one not released - confirms the dead heat.

Because of that, we are moving this race from Clear Advantage for McConnell to Narrow Advantage for McConnell, and we would not argue with anyone who rated the contest as a Toss-Up.

2008 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings. Our latest estimate is a Democratic gain of 5-8 seats.

# = Moved benefiting Democrats
* = Moved benefiting Republicans

Likely Takeover (2 R, 0 D)
  • NM Open (Domenici, R)
  • VA Open (Warner, R)
Lean Takeover (4 R, 0 D)
  • Smith (R-OR) #
  • Stevens (R-AK)
  • Sununu (R-NH)
  • CO Open (Allard, R) #
Toss-Up (1 R, 0 D)
  • Dole (R-NC)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 1 D)
  • Coleman (R-MN)
  • Landrieu (D-LA) #
  • McConnell (R-KY) #
  • Wicker (R-MS)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (1 R, 0 D)
  • Collins (R-ME)
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)

Wild Polling in the Wild, Wild West

By Nathan L. Gonzales

We’ve entered the season of dueling polls, and Montana’s gubernatorial race is no exception.

Earlier this week, the Montana Democratic Party released a poll showing Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) with a huge 39-point lead over his challenger, state Sen. Roy Brown (R). The poll, conducted Sept. 16-18 by the Mellman Group, showed the incumbent with a 63-percent-to-24-percent advantage.

The results may be on the upper end of Schweitzer’s advantage, but they certainly weren’t out of the realm of possibility in a race where the governor has consistently enjoyed the political and financial upper hand. A Mason-Dixon survey for Lee Enterprises in May showed Schweitzer with a 25-point advantage.

But the Brown campaign just couldn’t let it rest. A campaign spokesman ridiculed the poll in a Great Falls Tribune story on Wednesday, and released polling numbers to counter the Democratic results, which showed Brown leading Schweitzer by 4 points, 46 percent to 42 percent.

The problem is that those numbers, taken from a Sept. 11-12 Moore Information poll, were not the initial ballot test. That distinction was not made in the Tribune story and the numbers subsequently appeared in Thursday’s Hotline.

“The Montana gubernatorial poll numbers quoted from the Brown Campaign reflect the ‘educated’ ballot numbers after a series of statements about the candidates. The poll numbers quoted do not reflect sentiment before before respondents heard statements,” according to a statement by Moore Information to the Hotline.

“In political surveys, there is often an ‘initial ballot,’ followed by statements about the candidates, followed by an ‘educated’ ballot. The numbers you quoted reflect the ‘educated’ ballot. This is an important distinction when interpreting polling data.” As an informed ballot, the numbers would have never appeared in the Hotline.

The distinction does keep Moore Information’s well-earned credibility intact, since there is no evidence or reason to believe that Brown is winning the race. And Moore Information’s explanation reflects standard polling practices.

According to a Brown campaign aide, the Republican has no intention of releasing the initial ballot numbers, which give the truest picture of the state of the race. So it’s pretty clear that the Democratic numbers are not that far off because if Brown had dramatically different results, he would have released the numbers.

For better or worse, Schweitzer’s mouth tends to make things interesting, but for now, he’s well on his way to a second term.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on September 26, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

When Campaigns Lie, What Should the Voters Do?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Now that both campaigns have lost all of their credibility by distorting each other’s records and agendas, where does the 2008 presidential contest stand?

I don’t have data on this, but I’m willing to bet that at this point in the race most voters don’t believe anything that they see or hear in Sen. Barack Obama’s (Ill.) and Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) TV ads, or from talking heads supporting the candidates. I know that I don’t.

I’m tired of the bizarre distortions and half-truths, and of the endless platitudes. McCain, the straight-talker, isn’t doing that anymore, and Obama is equally bad. Both are running blatantly misleading campaigns.

So when I see an ad, the first thing I think about is how it might be a distortion. McCain wants the war in Iraq to last at least 100 years? Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners? McCain’s Social Security plan would have cost senior citizens all of their retirement savings? Obama wants to raise everyone’s taxes?

How stupid do they think we are? Pretty stupid, apparently.

Campaign distortions are nothing new, of course. But maybe it’s the length of this campaign or, more likely, the fact that both Obama and McCain promised that they were different that makes this campaign so painful to watch.

If most people react to the charges and counter-charges as I do — and my travels around the country speaking to various groups reinforce my belief that they do — then how are people making decisions about the election?

First, voters are falling back on preconceived notions and stereotypes, the strongest of which remains the viewers’ partisan bent. Not surprisingly, polls show Republican voters are backing McCain, while Democrats are supporting Obama. When in doubt, cast your usual party vote.

In addition, voters are falling back on the “intangibles” of image, bio and mood.

McCain is the older guy who has been in government for almost three decades, so many voters see him as experienced, steadier, more reliable. Democrats, on the other hand, see him as part of the past.

Obama is younger and looks much younger than his opponent, and his governmental service is much shorter. Democrats view him as having new ideas and offering hope for the future. Republicans regard him as inexperienced and dangerously ill- prepared to serve in the nation’s top job.

And then there is race, which we are not supposed to talk about because it makes all of us very uncomfortable. But it, too, is a vote “cue.”

Many voters see an African-American politician and immediately pigeonhole him as a liberal who favors higher taxes, increased domestic spending, gun control and abortion rights and would pursue a generally left-of-center agenda.

This shouldn’t be surprising given that most of the most visible African-American political figures over the past few decades (though certainly not all) have been on the Democratic Party’s left and represented positions (including affirmative action) that many white voters don’t identify with.

I recently met a terrific African-American Congressional candidate from Louisiana, state Sen. Don Cravins Jr. (D), who is one of my favorite candidates this cycle. He’s personable, understands politics and, I expect, is going to lose.

You see, Cravins is black. He is a Democrat. He attended an Obama event during the Democratic primary. So, even though Cravins says he’s pro-life and pro-gun and describes himself as a conservative Democrat, I believe that most white voters in Louisiana’s 7th district, who are currently quite content to be represented by Republican Rep. Charles Boustany, will see him as just another black Democrat, and they’ll read a lot into that.

Because Cravins isn’t likely to be able to introduce himself well enough during the campaign to overcome stereotypes, many conservative white voters will look at him and think of Obama or embattled Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (D) — or even the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Unfair, you say? Voters shouldn’t judge a candidate by his skin color. Maybe, but is it any more unfair than, for example, saying that because McCain and President Bush are both Republicans that a McCain administration would produce a third Bush term? No, it isn’t.

One vote cue is based entirely on party, while the other is based on a combination of factors that leads voters to end up at the same place.

When voters don’t believe anything the candidates say, they’ll use these familiar vote cues to figure out which candidate they prefer.

I believe that voters are already to this point, and that’s why the presidential contest is moving in a narrow range. The fundamentals of the election still work in Obama’s favor, since change is such a strong force this cycle and the financial crisis has benefited the Democrat.

As we saw last week, news — real news, not controversies manufactured by the campaigns — does have an impact on how people will vote since it can play to the candidates’ stereotypes.

This election could well turn on those voters who feel cross-pressured on the vote cues I’ve referred to. They may prefer Obama’s party but infer things about him — because of his age and experience, or his race — that they find troubling.

For many of these older, working-class voters (we used to call them “Reagan Democrats”), their votes will be determined on which stereotype they like, or fear, more. Frankly, given the quality of the two campaigns, I can’t really blame them regardless of their eventual choice.

This column
first appeared in Roll Call on September 25, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

New Print Edition: Senate Outlook & House Ratings

The September 26, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks (even more frequently as Election Day approaches) 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


After a brief bounce that made Republicans hopeful about their prospects, public and private polling has soured some for the GOP. Republican enthusiasm following the Palin pick seems to have faded, and voters are tending to blame the nation’s financial crisis on Republicans.

Republican Senate seats in Virginia and New Mexico clearly favor Democrats, and Republican candidates continue to trail in New Hampshire and Colorado. Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) and Gordon Smith (Oregon) also look to be even or behind. Maine’s Susan Collins continues to defy the odds and remain in good shape, while Senate races in Minnesota and Mississippi remain very competitive. On the Democratic side, only Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is at risk, though she remains ahead in polling and has a narrow advantage. Democrats will gain Senate seats in November – and are raising our current estimate from 4-6 seats to 5-8 seats.

Subscribers to the print edition also get updated analysis and polling on the competitive Senate races, our new House ratings, and updated analysis and polling in ten House races.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Louisiana 6: Cazayoux’s Colleague Contributes to Independent Foe

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Louisiana Rep. Don Cazayoux (D) can’t rest easy after his special election victory in the 6th district just a few months ago. His victory expanded the Democratic Party’s House majority, but one of his new colleagues, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), contributed to an Independent candidate who is complicating Cazayoux’s re-election effort in November.

Cazayoux won the May 3 special election narrowly, 49 percent to 46 percent, but this November, he faces a Republican candidate with broader appeal, state Sen. Bill Cassidy, as well as his friend and former colleague in the state legislature, state Rep. Michael Jackson (D), who is black.

Jackson and Cazayoux faced off on April 5 in the special election primary, with Cazayoux prevailing 57 percent to 43 percent. Jackson felt snubbed by the Democratic Party establishment, who backed Cazayoux, and subsequently filed as in Independent in the general election.

Cazayoux doesn’t have a lot of room for error in a district that President Bush carried with 59 percent in 2004. And he can’t afford to lose too many Democratic votes to Jackson in a district where one-third of the voting-age population is African-American.

After Jackson announced his Independent candidacy, Butterfield donated $500 to his campaign on July 26, after meeting the Louisiana legislator at a Congressional Black Caucus event. The contribution appeared on pre-primary Federal Election Commission reports filed nearly a month ago but went unnoticed until Swing State Project, a Democratic blog, pointed it out Wednesday morning.

“It was a mistake,” said Butterfield’s communications director, Ken Willis. “[Jackson] was just introduced at the CBC event as a Congressional candidate.” Apparently, Butterfield did not realize that his contribution was for the general election and that Jackson was running as an Independent against a Democratic incumbent.

“If [Butterfield] had known it would be for the general election, he wouldn’t have done it,” Willis added. “He didn’t want to do anything to hurt the party.”

Even though Butterfield is displaying a certain political naivete, at a minimum, his contribution was to a primary challenger for Cazayoux.

Butterfield’s contribution to Jackson has him on an island. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) contributed $2,000 to Cazayoux on Aug. 15, for a total of $6,000 for the cycle. Reps. David Price (D-N.C), Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), and John Dingell (D-Mich.) contributed to Cazayoux in the last reporting period, which ended Aug. 17.

Jackson is not expected to raise a lot of money, but he demonstrated an electoral base in the special election primary. He only had $13,000 in the bank on Aug. 17. In comparison, Cazayoux showed $212,000 on hand to Republican Cassidy’s $306,000.

A Sept. 17-21 Anzalone-Liszt Research poll for Cazayoux’s campaign showed the new Congressman leading with 48 percent, compared with 32 percent for Cassidy and Jackson at 9 percent. But Cassidy is just starting his television ads, and the Congressman is in for a tough fight.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on September 24, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Kentucky 2: DCCC to the Rescue

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is exercising its financial muscle with television ads on behalf of a cash-strapped candidate in Kentucky’s 2nd district.

State Sen. David Boswell (D) has a similar political profile to southern Reps. Don Cazayoux (D-La.) and Travis Childers (D-Miss.), who were elected earlier this year in special elections. The main problem is that Boswell’s initial fundraising was startlingly low.

Two public polls showed Boswell leading the race, including a June 27-28 SurveyUSA poll that had the Democrat up 47 percent to 44 percent and Boswell’s own poll, conducted Aug. 23-25 by Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, which had him ahead 41 percent to 33 percent.

But Boswell’s lead was considered soft by race observers because he is running for an open seat in a district that President Bush won by 31 points in 2004 and because he faced a significant cash disadvantage to his opponent, state Sen. Brett Guthrie (R).

The Republican raised $766,000 through June 30 with $661,000 in the bank through the second quarter. In comparison, Boswell had a mere $45,000 on hand after taking in $238,000 through the first six months of the year.

Although he was not prohibited from raising money during his legislative session, Boswell self-imposed a fundraising ban in coordination with the law for state races. Even still, he didn’t raise a lot of money for a supposed top-tier takeover opportunity. GOP Rep. Ron Lewis is vacating the seat.

Now, the Democrat has been added to the DCCC’s exploding “Red to Blue” list and estimates he’s taken in another quarter of a million dollars since the May 20 primary. But the best news may be the DCCC reservation of $840,000 worth of ads in the district, with the ads slated to begin at the end of the week.

The DCCC’s ads could be in critical in the expensive Louisville media market, where about three-fifths of the voters reside and where neither Boswell nor Guthrie is particularly well-known. The National Republican Congressional Committee has not reserved time in the district.

Boswell was significantly outspent in his unsuccessful run for lieutenant governor in 1987. His media consultant back then, David Axelrod (now chief strategist for Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama), told him he would need more money to get out of the primary against wealthier candidates.

Now, with the DCCC’s help, it looks like Boswell could win despite a cash disadvantage to Guthrie. But Boswell’s road is still tough, considering he will have to run well ahead of Obama at the top of the ticket because Kentucky was one of the Illinois Senator’s worst-performing states in the Democratic primaries.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on September 23, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Will Schumer Get Democrats to 60 Seats This Cycle?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Nine Republican-held Senate seats continue to be at great risk, giving Democrats at least a theoretical possibility of getting to 60 seats after the November elections.

Increasingly, it appears that three seats could well determine whether the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee can reach that magic number: North Carolina, Minnesota and Mississippi.

Republican nominees in five GOP Senate seats are now running behind their Democratic opponents in at least some public polling: former Gov. Jim Gilmore in Virginia, Rep. Steve Pearce in New Mexico, former Rep. Bob Schaffer in Colorado, Sen. Ted Stevens in Alaska and Sen. John Sununu in New Hampshire.

One other GOP incumbent, Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, appears to be in a difficult race with challenger Jeff Merkley (D), based both on some limited polling and Smith’s campaign decisions.

Two Republicans under attack, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader, appear to be comfortably ahead and likely to win.

That leaves races involving Sens. Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Norm Coleman in Minnesota and Roger Wicker of Mississippi as the three most critical that will decide how close Senate Democrats get to 60 seats in the next Congress.

Of the five most vulnerable GOP seats, the two incumbents seeking re-election, Stevens and Sununu, appear to have the best chances for a surprise victory.

If the jury fails to convict Stevens in his upcoming trial, the Senate veteran would have a chance to win by reminding voters of his contributions to the state. But if he is convicted or if a decision is not yet reached by Nov. 4, Stevens’ chances seem very small.

Sununu has trailed for months in polls against challenger Jeanne Shaheen (D), but he remains confident he can remind voters why they preferred him six years ago to the former Granite State governor. Even some Democrats are worried about Shaheen, fearing she won’t be able to stand up to the Republican’s expected blows.

Smith’s recent two-ad sequence about an Oregon rapist and Merkley’s refusal to extend the statute of limitations for certain crimes is both compelling and curious.

Yes, the Smith ads drive home the point, but they are striking many observers as the sort of late-October ad that a campaign might use as a game-changer, not the kind of TV spot that a confident incumbent would run in mid-September.

Smith’s weak job ratings also ought to worry Republicans. Admittedly, Merkley isn’t a great challenger. The Democrat had only $570,000 on hand at the end of June, and he’s hardly a charismatic candidate. But with the DSCC’s resources, the mood for change, and Oregon’s Senate race turning into a referendum on Smith, the Republican clearly is in serious trouble.

Dole is increasingly regarded as political roadkill by campaign observers, but reports of her electoral demise may be greatly exaggerated.

Yes, Dole doesn’t have the financial advantage that she should at this time, hasn’t returned to her state often enough, and for too long failed to appreciate the danger that she was in. While her poll numbers were good initially, her popularity nose-dived after Democratic attacks on her ineffectiveness in the Senate.

But the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s independent expenditure effort has begun in the Tar Heel State, and Dole’s campaign has finally become more aggressive. Challenger Kay Hagan remained unscathed (and undefined) until recently, and the GOP attacks are likely to help Dole improve her position in the contest.

Still, that only means that the Republican Senator is in a dogfight and still seriously vulnerable, hardly the position Dole expected to find herself in. Of course, her state is better for a Republican than Oregon is for Smith, and unlike in Oregon, Republicans are only now starting to brand Dole’s Democratic challenger as a liberal big taxer.

In Minnesota, Coleman’s 10-point lead of the summer seems to have largely evaporated. Both Coleman and challenger Al Franken have high negatives, and that almost certainly benefits Independence Party nominee Dean Barkley. That doesn’t mean Barkley can win, but he becomes a tactical factor in the final six weeks of the race. Will Franken try to peel voters away from Barkley and to his own campaign?

Coleman may well lead by a few points (the same University of Connecticut poll that shows Franken up by a single point also showed him 3 ahead in January), and it wouldn’t be surprising if Republicans had more ammunition against Franken along the lines of embarrassing information that they used earlier.

Finally, Ronnie Musgrove now trails appointed Sen. Wicker narrowly, and Democrats remain hopeful about the contest. But anyone who has watched Mississippi politics for years ought to expect Republicans to use the 2001 referendum on changing the state’s flag against Musgrove as the campaign closes.

As governor, Musgrove proposed changing the state flag. Voters overwhelmingly defeated the proposal by a 2-1 margin, and Republican Haley Barbour used the issue to his benefit in ousting Musgrove in the 2003 gubernatorial race. Clarion-Ledger columnist Sid Salter has predicted that the issue is likely to re-emerge in this year’s Senate race.

The GOP’s only takeover opportunity, in Louisiana, is increasingly being forgotten. But while Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) currently has a comfortable lead over challenger John Kennedy (R), I’m still expecting the contest to close to the low to middle single digits, making for an interesting finish in the fall.

DSCC Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) is once again at the right place at the right time. He will have another terrific election cycle, and he deserves plenty of credit for fundraising and recruitment. But reaching 60 seats still requires him to run the table, and even in this environment, that’s not an easy task.


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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Idaho Senate Race: Over Before It Began?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Former Rep. Larry LaRocco (D) lost his 2006 bid to become Idaho’s lieutenant governor against Jim Risch (R). The two men are facing each other again this cycle for the Senate, and when LaRocco entered the race, some local Democrats and enthusiastic bloggers tried to make the case that 2008 was a much different race and that LaRocco could prevail.

LaRocco lost by 19 points in 2006, and with six weeks left, LaRocco has yet to crack 37 percent in more than a half-dozen public polls. It’s a remarkably clear trend.

Two years ago, Risch defeated LaRocco 58 percent to 39 percent. Risch was elected lieutenant governor previously but became acting governor when Gov. Dirk Kempthorne (R) left for President Bush’s Cabinet. Risch opted for re-election as lieutenant governor because Rep. Butch Otter (R) was running for governor.

Ten months later, a September 2007 SurveyUSA poll had LaRocco at 36 percent (compared with 52 percent for Risch), and a November 2007 Myers Research and Strategic Services (D) poll pegged LaRocco’s support at 34 percent, while Risch was at 48 percent. A Robinson Research (R) survey showed LaRocco down 46 percent to 27 percent.

At the end of May, LaRocco’s own poll, conducted by Lake Research Partners, showed the former Congressman losing 43 percent to 28 percent.

The Democratic scenario is multifaceted, including Risch ducking debates and the difference between state and federal office, among other points, but it is simply not bearing itself out in the polls.

A July Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos (D) had Risch leading 42 percent to 32 percent, but a just-released Sept. 16-17 R2K survey showed Republican voters solidifying behind Risch (56 percent), with LaRocco stuck at 33 percent. A separate Greg K. Smith and Associates poll had Risch leading 41 percent to 30 percent.

Part of the Democratic scenario maintained that thousands of new supporters of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) were going to boost LaRocco and that the former Congressman would benefit from the strong campaign of businessman Walt Minnick (D) in the 1st district. But according to the latest Kos polling, Obama is losing the state 62 percent to 33 percent, and Minnick trails in his race by 11 points. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) received 30 percent of the vote in Idaho in the 2004 election.

Another problem is that LaRocco doesn’t have the resources to buck the trend. He raised $786,000 through June 30 and finished the second quarter with $242,000 on hand. Risch had $1 million on hand through June, after raising more than $1.5 million and putting in $369,000 of his own money.

To add insult to injury, Idaho voters don’t seem to like LaRocco all that much, according to the latest Kos poll, where he had a 33 percent favorable/55 percent unfavorable rating.

While the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has a significant cash advantage over its Republican counterpart, Democrats don’t necessarily need to win in Idaho to get to 60 seats and are very unlikely to invest in the race.

Independent candidate Rex Rammell is out for revenge against Risch, and some Democrats believe he will take a significant portion of the vote from the Republican’s totals. Rammell is at 3 percent in the latest Kos polling.

Scenarios and rhetoric are nice, but in this case, the numbers don’t lie. This race was over before it began.


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on September 22, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Tuesday, September 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.

# = Moved benefiting Democrats
* = Moved benefiting Republicans
^ = Newly added

PURE TOSS-UP (8 R, 3 D)
  • AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
  • FL 8 (Keller, R) #
  • FL 24 (Feeney, R) #
  • MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
  • NV 3 (Porter, R)
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
  • NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
  • OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
  • OH 16 (Open; Regula, R)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (6 R, 1 D)
  • LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
  • LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
  • NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
  • NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
  • NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
  • NC 8 (Hayes, R)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (4 R, 6 D)
  • AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
  • CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  • CO 4 (Musgrave, R) #
  • FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
  • KS 2 (Boyda, D)
  • NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D)
LEAN REPUBLICAN (11 R, 1 D)
  • AL 2 (Open; Everett, R) #
  • CT 4 (Shays, R)
  • IL 10 (Kirk, R)
  • FL 21 (L. Diaz-Balart, R)
  • MI 7 (Walberg, R)
  • MI 9 (Knollenberg, R)
  • MO 6 (Graves, R)
  • OH 1 (Chabot, R)
  • OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
  • PA 3 (English, R)
  • TX 22 (Lampson, D)
  • VA 2 (Drake, R)
LEAN DEMOCRATIC (1 R, 5 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
  • KY 3 (Yarmuth, D)
  • OR 5 (Open; Hooley, D)
  • PA 4 (Altmire, D)
  • VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
REPUBLICAN FAVORED (10 R, 0 D)
  • CA 4 (Open; Doolittle, R)
  • FL 13 (Buchanan, R)
  • FL 25 (M. Diaz-Balart, R)
  • ID 1 (Sali, R)
  • IL 6 (Roskam, R)
  • MD 1 (Open; Gilchrest, R) ^
  • MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
  • MO 9 (Open; Hulshof, R)
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  • WV 2 (Capito, R)
DEMOCRAT FAVORED (2 R, 6 D)
  • AK A-L (Young, R) #
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • IN 9 (Hill, D)
  • KS 3 (Moore, D)
  • MN 1 (Walz, D)
  • MS 1 (Childers, D)
  • NY 13 (Open; Fossella, R)
  • NY 20 (Gillibrand, D)
  • NY 25 (Open; Walsh, R)

Monday, September 22, 2008

What’s the Top Electoral College State This Year?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Two months ago in this space, I identified five states that I argued would pick the next president. Tell me how these states — Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada and Michigan — will go in November, I wrote, and I’ll tell you who will be our next president (“The Big 5: Picking the States That Will Pick the President”).

As the presidential race has developed, those five states seem to hold the same predictive value now that they did then. Sure, there are a handful of additional states that could turn the election to either Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — New Hampshire, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina — but the longer the list, the less it tells us about who’ll win.

I’ve become convinced that my initial list of five states probably can be boiled down to just one — one state that is most likely to determine who will be the next occupant of the White House. And that state is Colorado.

If John McCain carries Colorado in November, I’d expect him to hold onto all of George W. Bush’s 2000 states, with the exception of New Hampshire. If he does that, and if Obama holds all of Al Gore’s states, plus New Hampshire, McCain would win 274 electoral votes to 264 for Obama.

If Obama carries the state, he has altered the arithmetic of the Electoral College so as to make it difficult for McCain to win.

It’s true, of course, that Obama could win Colorado and still lose the election. Republicans continue to look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota as possible swing states they could win to offset the loss of Colorado or Virginia. But if there is a single state among this group that is most likely to switch parties and therefore determine the winner of the presidential contest, it now appears to be the Centennial State.

Colorado, which generally has been characterized as a part of the conservative, Republican Mountain West, has voted Republican in nine of the past 10 presidential elections. George W. Bush carried it twice, including by 5 points in 2004.

But recently, the state has been trending Democratic. Democrats won a Senate seat in 2004 with Ken Salazar and the governorship two years later. With Sen. Wayne Allard (R) calling it quits, Democratic Rep. Mark Udall is a slight favorite to win the state’s other Senate seat this year. And Democrats now hold majorities in both chambers of the Colorado Legislature.

Until late July, polling in the state showed Obama ahead, from anywhere between 2 and 9 points. But recent polling has been more mixed. Polls have generally shown one candidate or the other ahead by the low single digits, making for a race that looks to be a tossup.

But my confidence in these surveys is not great. A number of the surveys are automated, and some of the internals look more than a little odd. That doesn’t mean the results are wrong. It just means that I don’t have a great deal of confidence that they are correct.

One of the recent surveys, conducted on Sept. 11 by Insider Advantage, showed Obama up by 3 points. But the survey found McCain getting an unbelievable one-quarter of the African-American vote and Obama winning both men and women by an identical 49 percent to 46 percent margin.

Given the gender gaps everywhere — with McCain running well ahead of Obama among men nationally, as well as in Colorado surveys conducted by Public Policy Polling (D) and even Rasmussen Reports for Fox News — it seems unlikely that there would be no gender gap in Colorado. And if McCain wins 25 percent of the black vote anywhere, I’d be stunned.

Still, the state looks to be made for a tight contest. With upscale white voters who would seem likely to prefer Obama, Hispanics, Boulder liberals and plenty of swing suburbanites, Colorado looks like a one-time Republican state where Obama should have appeal.

One of the problems facing Obama is that the Democratic nominee for president has not won more than 47 percent of the vote in the state since 1964, when Colorado went for Lyndon Johnson (D). Bill Clinton carried the state with only 40.1 percent of the vote in a three-way race in 1992, and John Kerry drew 47 percent last time.

Of course, with Bob Barr running as a Libertarian, Cynthia McKinney as a Green and Ralph Nader as an Independent (to say nothing of the 11 other tickets on the ballot in the state), the presidential candidate who carries the state need not win a majority of the total votes cast.

A month from now, the national landscape could look very different. The contest for the White House might have blown wide open. But at this point, with the race looking very tight, Colorado surely is one of the key swing states, and it now looks like the best indicator of how the nation will go.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 18, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2008 Presidential Battleground Ratings

Total Electoral Votes
(270 needed to win)

Obama - 197 (safe/likely) + 63 (lean) = 260
McCain - 160 (safe/likely) + 67 (lean) = 227
Toss-ups = 51

Toss-Ups

  • Colorado (9)
  • Nevada (5)
  • New Hampshire (4)
  • Ohio (20)
  • Virginia (13)
Lean McCain
  • Florida (27)
  • Indiana (11)
  • Missouri (11)
  • Montana (3)
  • North Carolina (15)
Lean Obama
  • Michigan (17)
  • Minnesota (10)
  • New Mexico (5)
  • Pennsylvania (21)
  • Wisconsin (10)
Safe/Likely McCain
  • Alabama (9)
  • Alaska (3)
  • Arizona (10)
  • Arkansas (6)
  • Georgia (15)
  • Idaho (4)
  • Kansas (6)
  • Kentucky (8)
  • Louisiana (9)
  • Mississippi (6)
  • Nebraska (5)
  • North Dakota (3)
  • Oklahoma (7)
  • South Carolina (8)
  • South Dakota (3)
  • Tennessee (11)
  • Texas (34)
  • Utah (5)
  • West Virginia (5)
  • Wyoming (3)
Safe/Likely Obama
  • California (55)
  • Connecticut (7)
  • Delaware (3)
  • Hawaii (4)
  • Illinois (21)
  • Iowa (7)
  • Maine (4)
  • Maryland (10)
  • Massachusetts (12)
  • New Jersey (15)
  • New York (31)
  • Oregon (7)
  • Rhode Island (4)
  • Vermont (3)
  • Washington (11)
  • D.C. (3)

Sunday, September 21, 2008

2008 Gubernatorial Ratings

Here are our latest gubernatorial ratings. Democrats currently hold 28 governorships compared to 22 for the Republicans.

# - Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans

LEAN TAKEOVER (1 R, o D)
  • MO Open (Blunt, R)
TOSS-UP (0 R, 2 D)
  • Gregoire (D-WA) *
  • NC Open (Easley, D) *
NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 0 D)
  • Daniels (R-IN)
CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 0 D)
  • Douglas (R-VT) #
CURRENTLY SAFE (2 R, 4 D)
  • Hoeven (R-ND)
  • Huntsman (R-UT)
  • Lynch (D-NH)
  • Manchin (D-WV)
  • Schweitzer (D-MT)
  • DE Open (Minner, D)

Friday, September 19, 2008

With Risk Comes Some Loss for EMILY’s List

By Nathan L. Gonzales

EMILY’s List has earned a reputation as a powerful interest group and has had its share of political victories through the years. When EMILY’s List endorses a candidate, people take notice. But you only have to look at last week’s primaries in New York to understand that the road isn’t always easy for the Democratic women’s group.

Open seats are key to helping EMILY’s List achieve its goal of electing more Democratic women who support abortion rights — particularly open seats in Democratic districts where winning the primary is tantamount to winning the seat, like in New York’s 21st district.

In the 21st district, EMILY’s List endorsed Tracey Brooks (D), a former regional director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), in the race to replace retiring Rep. Mike McNulty (D). Brooks earned the EMILY’s List nod early, but former Assemblyman Paul Tonko (D) got into the race late and won the multi-candidate primary 39 percent to 30 percent.

EMILY’s List passed on endorsing environmental lawyer Alice Kryzan in New York’s open 26th district being vacated by Rep. Tom Reynolds (R). She ended up winning the primary with 42 percent of the vote over young Iraq War veteran Jon Powers (36 percent) and 2006 nominee and multimillionaire Jack Davis (23 percent).

In EMILY’s List’s defense, Kryzan’s victory was a surprise to everyone, but it shows that the group’s vetting process is not foolproof.

EMILY’s List worked with Kryzan before the primary and has now endorsed her for the general election, but she did not meet the group’s threshold for an endorsement in the primary.

“Every pro-choice Democratic woman who wants our help can get it,” EMILY’s List Communications Director Ramona Oliver said. The group is willing to work with every candidate to try to create opportunities, but not every Democratic woman who supports abortion rights receives an endorsement.

According to strategists at EMILY’s List, the organization analyzes the strength of the candidate and campaign operation, and looks for a path to victory. Kryzan attended the group’s candidate training last year, and the group gave her guidance on staffing decisions. But ultimately, EMILY’s List never saw her path to the nomination against a self-funding candidate with high name identification and a candidate who was endorsed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and supported by most of organized labor.

Kryzan won because the two men attacked each other and she slipped through the middle. If EMILY’s List had endorsed Kryzan, she probably would have raised more money, been taken more seriously and been unable to slip through the primary unscathed. An endorsement might have changed the dynamic of the race, if not the outcome.

Even with last week’s results, EMILY’s List already considers this cycle a success. Four women who support abortion rights have been added to Congress in special elections since 2006, and two of those won tough Democratic primaries: Niki Tsongas (Massachusetts’ 5th district) and Donna Edwards (Maryland’s 4th).

Other EMILY’s List candidates to win primaries this cycle include Chellie Pingree (Maine’s 1st district), Judy Baker (Missouri’s 9th), and Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), who was in political trouble because of the scandal surrounding her son. Also, gubernatorial candidates Jill Long Thompson in Indiana and Beverly Perdue in North Carolina won with the group’s backing.

But EMILY’s List has taken its lumps this cycle, starting with Clinton’s loss in the presidential primary.

In Tennessee’s 9th district, African-American attorney Nikki Tinker lost her primary challenge to Rep. Steve Cohen (D) by 60 points in the majority-black district. EMILY’s List actually came out against its endorsed candidate at the end of the race, after she ran controversial and racially loaded television ads.

In Virginia’s 11th district, former Rep. Leslie Byrne failed in her comeback attempt, losing by 25 points in the primary to Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerry Connolly.

In Colorado’s 2nd district, former state Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald finished second in the three-way primary, losing 42 percent to 38 percent against free-spending Jared Polis.

And in Minnesota’s 3rd district, state Sen. Terri Bonoff failed to get the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party endorsement against young Iraq War veteran and political neophyte Ashwin Madia. After Madia took 58 percent on the eighth ballot at the party nominating convention, she dropped out.

On one level, EMILY’s List’s win-loss record doesn’t match up with the group’s public image. Last cycle, when Democrats were picking up 30 seats nationwide, many EMILY’s List candidates lost top tier races, including in New Mexico’s 1st, Connecticut’s 4th Pennsylvania’s 6th, New Jersey’s 7th, and Ohio’s 15th.

Kirsten Gillibrand’s win over incumbent Rep. John Sweeney in New York’s 20th district was a rare bright spot in the House. Carol Shea Porter (N.H.) and Nancy Boyda (Kan.) defeated incumbents without EMILY’s List support. The group has endorsed the Granite State Congresswoman this year.

Like any other group, EMILY’s List has had difficulty defeating incumbents. Along with Gillibrand, Claire McCaskill (2006), Melissa Bean (2004), Debbie Stabenow (2000) and Maria Cantwell (2000) unseated incumbents in the general election over the last four cycles.

And history paints a tough road ahead for EMILY’s List. Of the 14 Congressional challengers they have endorsed this cycle, some are top-tier opportunities, like Betsy Markey (Colorado’s 4th) and Dina Titus (Nevada’s 3rd), while others are real long shots, like Becky Greenwald (Iowa’s 4th) and Annette Taddeo (Florida’s 18th).

EMILY’s List candidates continue to have some of their best opportunities in top tier open-seat races, including Ann Kirkpatrick (Arizona’s 1st) and Debbie Halvorson (Illinois’ 11th). And some of last cycle’s challengers are now open-seat candidates, including Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio’s 15th) and Linda Stender (New Jersey 7th).

To strategists at EMILY’s List, their strategy is inevitably risky, trying to get newcomers elected and often promoting candidates in tough races. The group is unafraid to challenge incumbents and get involved in messy primaries.

In one way, EMILY’s List is in the political venture capital business, where risky investments are sometimes necessary for long-term gains and where not every investment pays off.

Instead of giving money directly to candidates, EMILY’s List recommends candidates to its membership and advises donors to contribute to the candidates’ campaigns. As long as their members understand the risk, then EMILY’s List will continue to have the freedom to take some losses.

As some candidates will attest, the EMILY’s List endorsement is not easy to obtain and the group’s seal of approval brings a level of legitimacy to a candidate’s campaign. But while EMILY’s List candidates have demonstrated a path to victory to gain an endorsement, all of the paths are not equal in difficulty.


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on September 17, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Gubernatorial Outlook, House Ratings, Presidential Battleground

The September 18, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks (even more frequently as Election Day approaches) 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...


2008 Gubernatorial Outlook

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Republican prospects are actually improving in the handful of competitive gubernatorial races this cycle.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) is in better shape than he was six months ago, while Washington is a tight race, even after four years, and North Carolina has emerged as a legitimate takeover opportunity. Republicans are still mending fences after their primary in Missouri, but still have a chance to hold that governorship.

Currently, the most likely range of outcomes in this cycle’s gubernatorial races is from D +1 to R +1.

Subscribers to the print edition get the entire issue, including race-by-race analysis and recent polling in the most competitive gubernatorial races, our updated competitive House races chart, and our first-ever handicapping of the states in the presidential race.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Now It’s the DCCC That Is Swimming Against the Tide

By Stuart Rothenberg

In a curious coincidence of timing, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has added a number of Congressional districts to its various lists of competitive contests at exactly the same time that Republicans are seeing an uptick in their poll and fundraising numbers and an improved political landscape.

GOP strategists are quick to point out that they don’t know whether their brightened prospects will last, but one noted that recently received survey data “were the most encouraging that I’ve seen in two years.” A number of different surveys have shown a closer Congressional generic ballot and a better GOP image recently.

“We are seeing a real change up and down the ballot, from state legislative races to Congressional to the presidential,” said one enthusiastic Republican operative.

Given that, it certainly appears that the DCCC is running a risk by promoting some candidates who have little or no chance to win in the fall, and by lumping together very strong contenders with second-tier campaigns.

The DCCC’s “Red to Blue” program, which presumably includes the committee’s top takeover targets, includes some likely winners, such as Ethan Berkowitz in Alaska, Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona, Betsy Markey in Colorado, John Adler in New Jersey, and Michael McMahon and Dan Maffei in New York. But it also includes candidates with far less chance of winning.

The long shots include Sam Bennett, who is newly added to the program and faces an uphill fight against Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). Dent, according to one knowledgeable GOP insider, is very popular in his Democratic-leaning district and is “in good shape for re-election.” Interestingly, in a year when observers have been flooded with upbeat Democratic polls, neither Bennett nor the DCCC has released survey data to prove her viability.

State Sen. David Boswell (D), running in Kentucky’s open 2nd district and also just added to Red to Blue, had a lead in some initial polling but faces considerable problems in his bid to win the GOP-held seat. He showed $45,000 in the bank on June 30, while his GOP opponent, state Sen. Brett Guthrie, had $661,000 on hand at the same point.

Boswell starts with a bit better name identification than Guthrie, but neither man is known in the all-important — and expensive — Louisville media market, which is why Boswell has serious problems in this race. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) isn’t likely to help Boswell at the top of the ballot, either.

Boswell certainly has a chance in this race, but only if the DCCC and its labor allies come in with a huge media buy.

Also on the list is Judy Feder (D), who has a long way to go to become a top-tier challenger to Rep. Frank Wolf (R) in Virginia’s 10th district. As she did two years ago when she drew 41 percent against Wolf, Feder is raising plenty of cash.

But Wolf’s numbers are in the stratosphere. He is personally popular and holds a huge lead over her in an expensive media market. And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is winning this district, which President Bush carried with 55 percent four years ago.

Democrat Anne Barth, who is also on Red to Blue, is challenging Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) in West Virginia. Capito is also wildly popular and holds better than a 2-1 lead over Barth. And to no one’s surprise, McCain is clobbering Obama in the district.

But if Red to Blue is a mishmash of serious and long shot races, the committee’s two other candidate lists — “Emerging Races” and “Races to Watch” — include some truly odd contests.

The DCCC recently added Jim Harlan (D) of Louisiana’s 1st district to its Emerging Races list even though the district’s Democratic Performance Index is a microscopic 34.3 percent, meaning it is a rock-solid Republican seat. Bush drew 71 percent in the district four years ago, and when it became open earlier this year following then-Rep. Bobby Jindal’s (R) election as governor, Rep. Steve Scalise (R) won the special election easily.

Democrats say they have a self-funder in the race, but that alone doesn’t make this seat competitive. Nor does it make South Carolina’s 1st district (DPI 41.6 percent) a serious takeover opportunity, though it too is classified as an Emerging Race.

And then there is the DCCC’s all-new Races to Watch list. Quite simply, it is bizarre.

Included on the list are Josh Zeitz, running against Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), and Rob Hubler, running against Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). Zeitz, who had $125,000 in the bank on June 30, is challenging a Republican Congressman who is both incredibly popular and holds a commanding lead in the race. Hubler, who had only $27,000 in the bank on June 30, is running in by far the most Republican district in Iowa, where McCain will run up a huge margin.

Some Democrats note that their party isn’t committed to spending money on the Emerging Races and Races to Watch, and go so far as to acknowledge that those contests are only long shots, at best.

But if the DCCC is going to go out of its way to promote certain races, it ought to be responsible for those selections. And if it puts absurd races on its list, it devalues those lists altogether.

The reality, of course, is that these lists are gimmicks — gimmicks to try to drive resources and media coverage to them without the committee necessarily having to spend its own money on candidates who have little or no chance of winning. In fact, these gimmicks often work.

But if the national landscape continues to move even slightly more back toward the Republicans, eroding (but certainly not eliminating) the Democrats’ huge early advantages, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) might find himself promoting dozens of candidates with no chance of winning. And that would be embarrassing and self-defeating.


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

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

NRCC’s Spending Points to Potential Hot Spots

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Strapped for cash, the National Republican Congressional Committee will have to be more efficient than its counterpart when it comes to spending on House races. Recent independent expenditure spending on polling shows that the NRCC is searching for the best use of the money and proves that the playing field is still stacked against them.

From Sept. 3-9, the GOP committee spent a total of $73,046 on polling in a handful of Congressional districts. President Bush carried all five districts four years ago, and all are currently held by Republicans.

The two most Democratic districts of the lot are likely to be the toughest holds. In Nevada’s 3rd district, 2006 gubernatorial nominee Dina Titus (D) was a late entry into the race but is a serious threat to Rep. Jon Porter (R). The rapid population growth and Democratic trend of the district makes Porter’s task extremely difficult. And in New Jersey’s 3rd district, former Lockheed Martin vice president Chris Myers (R) is trying to hold the seat of retiring GOP Rep. Jim Saxton against state Sen. John Adler (D).

The NRCC also polled in Alabama’s 2nd district. Even though President Bush carried it handily in 2004 with 66 percent, Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright (D) looks like a strong candidate and Democrats believe they will win this open seat just like they won special elections in Mississippi and Louisiana earlier this spring. State Rep. Jay Love is trying to hold the seat for Republicans.

The last two seats are heavily Republican and shouldn’t be competitive, except they feature weak incumbents. President Bush carried Idaho’s 1st district with 68 percent and Ohio’s 2nd district with 64 percent, but the NRCC’s IE is rightly testing the vulnerability of GOP Reps. Bill Sali and Jean Schmidt. In the end, the presidential year and the recently energized GOP base could save both incumbents since the Democratic challengers —1996 Idaho Senate nominee Walt Minnick and Victoria Wulsin, the 2006 nominee against Schmidt — would need a sizable crossover vote from the presidential race.

The polls are being conducted by multiple firms including Tarrance Group (Nev.), Public Opinion Strategies (Ala.), National Research (N.J. and Idaho) and McLaughlin and Associates (Ohio).

The poll results are not likely to see the light of day, but observers shouldn’t assume the worst since neither party committee’s IE arm makes a habit of releasing the valuable data. But the spending does indicate where the committee is currently focused.


This item first appeared on RollCall.com on September 12, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Indiana 3: Democrats Claim Souder Is Vulnerable — Again

By Nathan L. Gonzales

A new poll done for young Democratic attorney Mike Montagano’s campaign claims that voters in Indiana’s 3rd district are tired of their incumbent, Rep. Mark Souder (R). But the results show Montagano still has some considerable ground to make up, and the polling looks similar to two years ago, when Souder ended up winning by 8 points.

The just-released Sept. 9-10 Cooper & Secrest Associates poll showed Souder leading Montagano 50 percent to 37 percent in a general election matchup. That’s an improvement from April, when the Democrat trailed by 27 points, but Montagano has been on television since, boosting his name identification.

Recently, the problem for Democrats hasn’t been fundraising or keeping Souder near 50 percent. The problem is winning the district.

Two years ago, Democratic polling at the end of July showed Souder with a 50 percent-to-32 percent lead, and it found almost half of the voters willing to elect “someone new” to Congress. A late October poll by the nonpartisan Research 2000 showed the Congressman with an underwhelming 52 percent-to-40 percent advantage as well.

On Election Day, Souder prevailed over Democrat Tom Hayhurst 54 percent to 46 percent.

Montagano also likes to boast about his fundraising this year, compared with Souder’s lackluster totals. Through June 30, the challenger had more cash on hand than the incumbent, $352,000 to $323,000, and held his own in fundraising, $468,000 to Souder’s $559,000.

But the money discrepancy is no surprise. Two years ago, Hayhurst outspent Souder $708,000 to $642,000 and it wasn’t enough.

It’s unlikely Souder will ever have stellar poll numbers, and Democrats picked up three seats in the Hoosier State last cycle, but Democrats have dozens of better opportunities than Indiana’s 3rd. Montagano remains on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s list of “Emerging Races” this cycle, meaning that the contest has not yet broken through to the top tier of competitive “Red to Blue” races.


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on September 12, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Beyond Congressional Battleground, Close Gubernatorial Races Lurk

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Even with the tightening of the presidential race and renewed GOP excitement, Democrats are still widely expected to gain seats in the House and the Senate in November. But Republicans could actually see a net gain of seats in this year’s small crop of gubernatorial races.

Only 11 states are electing a governor this year, and really only four of those races are up for grabs. The competitive races are divided evenly between the two parties, with the most likely outcome ranging from Democrats gaining a governorship to Republicans gaining one.

North Carolina is proving to be a battleground up and down the ballot. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are battling for the Tar Heel State’s electoral votes, and Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) is in the fight of her political life for a second term.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R) are locked in a tight race to replace outgoing Gov. Mike Easley (D). Poll results over the past three weeks range from each candidate being up by a couple points to a dead heat. Historically, Republicans aren’t usually in this position.

Perdue won the Democratic nomination by a convincing margin over a well-financed statewide officeholder. McCrory got into the race late, but he overtook the underwhelming GOP field with high name identification and a large geographic base.

North Carolina has had only two Republican governors in the past 70 years, but if McCrory can put together the money to compete in a state with expensive TV markets, he could make this a race until the end.

In Missouri, Republicans caught a break when unpopular Gov. Matt Blunt (R) decided not to run for a second term. Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R) subsequently won a bitter primary, and Republicans are still healing their wounds.

State Attorney General Jay Nixon (D) has yet to put the race away, despite a divided GOP and the fact that he’s been running for more than two and a half years. An Aug. 13-17 Public Policy Polling (D) survey and a July 29-31 SurveyUSA poll showed Nixon with an identical advantage over Hulshof, though he was leading with less than 50 percent. Nixon still has the edge, but it looks to be a close race in a state McCain should win.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) made some unpopular decisions during his first term as governor, and he once looked like a prime Democratic target. His Democratic opponent, former Rep. Jill Long Thompson, narrowly won her primary (50.6 percent to 49.4 percent) against a wealthy opponent, but she’s having difficulty keeping up with Daniels in the polls and in fundraising.

An Aug. 29-30 Howey-Gauge poll had the governor ahead 53 percent to 35 percent. Almost two weeks earlier, SurveyUSA showed Daniels up 52 percent to 38 percent. And a July poll for the governor’s campaign had him up by 18 points. He’s not out of the woods, but Daniels is a good campaigner and it will be tough for Thompson to set the tone without more resources.

Meanwhile in Washington, Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) can’t shake her 2004 opponent, former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R). The two battled to a near draw four years ago, with Gregoire prevailing by 133 votes. Almost four years later, the race remains virtually unchanged.

Gregoire and Rossi were within 3 points of each other in all but one of six public polls since July. And because of Washington’s new “top two” primary, the two faced the voters on Aug. 19. Of course, Gregoire edged out Rossi, 48 percent to 46 percent.

Rossi outspent the governor in August, but Gregoire should enjoy a financial advantage during the stretch run. Obama is expected to carry the state easily, but Rossi is certainly still in the game, and that’s all Republicans could hope for at this point.

Finally, in Delaware, state Treasurer Jack Markell proved that “change” is still a potent message. His opponent, Lt. Gov. John Carney, had the support of outgoing Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D), organized labor and most of the establishment. But Markell prevailed in Tuesday’s Democratic primary and is the heavy favorite in November.


This story first appeared on Roll Call.com on September 12, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Latest Polls Raise Questions About the Political Landscape

By Stuart Rothenberg

Don’t assume that the first flurry of polls we’ve seen this week will reflect the 2008 electoral landscape two or three weeks from now. Like the Democratic convention bounce that benefited Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Republican bounce that now benefits Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is likely to dissipate.

Where the race will be a month from now depends not only on what happens during the daily campaign war, but also on whether the most recent CNN/Opinion Research survey is a mirage or an accurate indicator of a fundamental change that has occurred in public opinion.

The CNN survey, and to a lesser extent some of the other recent surveys, suggest an electorate that is hardening along traditional lines, with half the country preferring change, Democrats and Obama, and half opting for strength and experience, Republicans and McCain.

If that’s true, it suggests a return to the partisan equilibrium that we saw in 2000 and 2004, and a tight race all the way to November. Given the strong mood for change and the sense of impending doom in Republican ranks just a few weeks ago, that would be disappointing news for Democratic partisans who hoped to avoid a nail-biter.

The most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found a dramatic rebound by the Republican Party. If that has occurred — and it still is nothing more than an “if” — then it changes the entire dynamic of the election.

The survey showed a significant drop in the public’s view of the Democratic Party — from 56 percent favorable/35 percent unfavorable in late April to 51 percent favorable/40 percent unfavorable now — and a corresponding improvement in the GOP’s image, from 38 percent favorable/53 percent unfavorable in April to 48 percent favorable/45 percent unfavorable now. That still leaves the Democratic Party with a better image, but the difference between the parties’ standings is far less dramatic than it was.

It also showed what can only be described as the total collapse of the party’s advantage in the “generic Congressional ballot” question, which asks respondents whether they plan to vote for the Republican or the Democratic candidate for Congress.

The Sept. 5-7 CNN poll showed Democrats with a 3-point advantage on the generic ballot, 49 percent to 46 percent. In November, the Democrats held an 11-point advantage (53 percent to 42 percent), and in June of 2007, their advantage was a dozen points (53 percent to 41 percent).

Most surveys have shown the Democratic Congressional generic ballot advantage to be 8 points to 15 points for more than a year, so a dramatic narrowing of those numbers would be significant. I’m not yet ready to believe that has happened until I see corroborating data.

For months, I’ve argued that the public’s disconnect between McCain’s brand and the GOP brand was filled with both risk and opportunity for Republicans. Either the party’s terrible image could rebrand McCain, causing him to plummet in the polls and dragging him down to defeat, or McCain could redefine the Republican Party and improve its image.

While the CNN poll suggests that McCain’s image — or running mate Sarah Palin’s — has re-branded his party, it is far too early to conclude that that is exactly what has happened. The recently released NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, which rarely jumps around erratically and therefore has earned my admiration, showed less redefinition of the parties.

That survey found Republicans now with a 40 percent positive/43 percent negative image, compared with a 27 percent positive/48 percent negative image in April. The obvious explanation is that rank-and-file Republican partisans are now feeling better about their party and have responded that way to pollsters. Unlike the CNN survey, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed the Democrats’ image essentially unchanged from the spring, and that they have a far better reputation than the GOP.

Unfortunately, none of the NBC News/ Wall Street Journal, the USA Today/Gallup or the ABC News/Washington Post poll included questions about the generic Congressional ballot.

Whether or not the Republican Party’s image has improved is no small matter.

McCain has been forced to swim against a strong current, and his task would be made easier if voters had a significantly more positive view of the GOP. Just as importantly, a much closer generic Congressional ballot, especially combined with a more positive image for the Republican Party, would improve GOP prospects in upcoming House and Senate elections, reshaping a landscape where some Republican incumbents are at risk primarily because of their partisan label.

Republicans, quite naturally, will prefer to believe the CNN numbers. But unless and until other surveys confirm a new political reality in the electorate, it’s wise to be cautious and assume that Republicans are still swimming against a strong tide.

This column
first appeared in Roll Call on September 11, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

2008 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings.

Likely Takeover (2 R, 0 D)
  • NM Open (Domenici, R)
  • VA Open (Warner, R)
Lean Takeover (2 R, 0 D)
  • Stevens (R-AK)
  • Sununu (R-NH)
Toss-Up (3 R, 1 D)
  • CO Open (Allard, R)
  • Dole (R-NC)
  • Smith (R-OR)
  • Landrieu (D-LA)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)
  • Coleman (R-MN)
  • Wicker (R-MS)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
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)

Friday, September 12, 2008

Pentecostal Democrats Lead Party’s Faith Outreach

By Nathan L. Gonzales

After diving headlong into GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s past, the media is questioning the governor’s Pentecostal background and treating it as if it were a liability to her candidacy.

Yet for months, the media has been obsessed with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and the Democratic Party’s outreach to evangelicals and other faith voters in the presidential race. And two Democrats with Pentecostal roots have been put in charge of those efforts. So far, that has gone unmentioned.

“Pentecostalism obscured in Palin Biography,” the Sept. 5 Associated Press story headline read, clearly with an undertone that, if unearthed, Pentecostalism could torpedo her candidacy.

“Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian,” the piece began, “Yet [Arizona Sen.] John McCain’s running mate has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world. It’s often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike.”

CNN sent a team of reporters to Alaska to find out more about Palin and became fascinated by her former church. “Pastor: GOP Downplaying Palin’s Pentecostal Past,” read the headline of a piece that ran on Monday night’s Anderson Cooper 360 program. “For decades, Sarah Palin went to church with people who spoke in tongues and believed in faith healing and the ‘end times.’”

Of course, all Christians do not believe in Pentecostal theology. But aside from the fact that Palin left Wasilla Assembly of God six years ago, Pentecostalism is not a fringe set of beliefs.

Palin’s former church belongs to the Assemblies of God, a denomination of 12,000 churches nationwide, including a constituency of more than 2.8 million people. It is the second largest evangelical denomination in the country, behind the Southern Baptists, and the world’s largest Pentecostal denomination.

Aside from the lack of context, the vast majority of the media coverage of Palin’s Pentecostal background has also failed to mention the roots of two key Democratic staffers involved in the presidential race.

Both Obama’s national director for religious affairs Joshua DuBois and Democratic National Convention Committee CEO Leah Daughtry boast Pentecostal résumés.

DuBois is a lay minister with a Cambridge, Mass., congregation affiliated with the United Pentecostal Council of the Assemblies of God, a small, largely African-American denomination with about 35 congregations in the United States and the Caribbean, not affiliated with the Assemblies of God (USA). DuBois originally worked for Obama’s Senate office before moving to the campaign.

Daughtry is chief of staff at the Democratic National Committee and heads up the party’s Faith in Action program. She pastors a small Pentecostal church in Washington, D.C., that is affiliated with the House of the Lord Pentecostal Church, the small denomination her grandfather started.

Democrats have been promoting the Pentecostal résumé item as a connection point with voters of faith who may normally vote Republican.

The second volume of the Obama campaign’s “American Values Report” featured a testimonial from “Jason H.,” a self-described “born again Pentecostal believer in the Assembly of God tradition.” Clearly the campaign would not have included his testimonial if they didn’t believe it was a credible view and an asset to Obama’s candidacy.

Religion News Service’s Adelle Banks wrote a piece Aug. 27 titled “Pentecostals leading Democrats’ Faith Outreach,” just two days before McCain’s pick of Palin was announced. But her story didn’t draw any particular curiosity, and it didn’t spark teams of investigative reporters visiting the Democrats’ churches.

In fact, countless other stories about Daughtry and DuBois have included their Pentecostalism, but if the media thought twice about it, it was in a positive sense.

Because Palin is running for office, one could make the case that her background should be more heavily vetted than a staffer. But if Pentecostalism is a fringe belief that should be shunned, then the media should question Obama and the DNC about leaving their faith outreach to a couple Pentecostal aides.


This item first appeared on RollCall.com on September 10, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

For Obama, McCain, Standing Pat May Be The Wrong Approach

By Stuart Rothenberg

The final phase of the 2008 presidential campaign has begun. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has the edge over Republican standard-bearer Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), but the race is competitive, so the next two months will determine the winner.

McCain has the ability and a strong incentive now to change his emphasis as he tries to appeal to swing voters. Obama doesn’t appear to have as urgent a need to make a statement about himself and his candidacy, but if he does, he could dramatically improve his prospects in a race that he has not yet wrapped up.

After solidifying and energizing his right flank with the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, McCain surely has a newfound freedom to run back to the political center, emphasizing his maverick credentials and differences with his party. He should do so, and he began that process with his acceptance speech.

While voters now tell pollsters that the economy is the top issue, Palin and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani spent much of their time Wednesday night in St. Paul, Minn., declaring what one convention Republican delegate called a “culture war,” pitting rural America against the national media, Hollywood and the nation’s elite.

That may seem strange, but it isn’t.

True, many Americans are concerned about the health and direction of the economy, and they surely want the next president to have a detailed economic agenda to restore the economy’s health. But because neither party has an easy answer to the nation’s problems, the nation’s still-deep cultural divide becomes an obvious place for the McCain/Palin ticket to go to energize conservatives and to appeal to voters who otherwise might think about voting for the Democratic ticket because of economic uncertainty.

Democrats still don’t understand the cultural divide — they think that talking about values or religion will automatically attract religious voters even if the party’s policy positions are totally at odds with those voters’ positions — and they have nominated a ticket that apparently still has limited appeal in small-town and culturally conservative America.

But McCain’s problem — and Obama’s advantage — is that it is very unlikely that there are enough voters in small-town America to elect McCain to the presidency this time. He cannot win by getting every Republican vote out there, since most polls show Democrats with about a 10-point generic advantage.

McCain must return to his maverick image, and he and Palin are well-positioned to deliver a reform message that diverges from Republican orthodoxy. This would, of course, require McCain to talk again about some issues and themes that will make Republican regulars and conservatives uncomfortable, not merely to ramble on about how Washington, D.C., is broken or how he will shake things up when he gets to the White House.

McCain will need to offer specifics and new ideas, something that he did not do Thursday evening. It’s his only way to appeal to swing suburbanites and working-class Democrats, two key constituencies for November.

Conservatives no longer find McCain merely acceptable as an alternative to Obama. They are with the McCain/Palin ticket wholeheartedly, which gives him considerable freedom over the next two months to tack left.

And Obama? The Democrat’s game plan looks pretty clear: Continue to ride the wave of change, convince still-undecided voters that he is a safer choice than they now think, and continue to portray McCain as little more than a Republican successor to President Bush.

It’s a good plan, and it may well be good enough to win at least 270 Electoral College votes, especially if Palin falters, McCain performs poorly in the debates, or Democrats truly have changed the political arithmetic by registering new voters.

But Obama has not done one thing that I was sure he would do by now — one thing that could have already improved his prospects in the fall. He needs to find an issue or controversy with which he strongly disagrees with his party — or with a core Democratic constituency group — to prove to swing voters that he’s not merely another elitist Northern liberal.

Obama talks a good game about disagreeing without being disagreeable and about coming together to solve the nation’s problems. But Republicans have rather successfully portrayed him as a man who is all talk and no action. And, they are sure to say, when he takes action, it’s predictably liberal.

I thought for sure that by now Obama would have found an issue or two to break with his anti-war left or with his labor union allies or with his environmental allies. But so far he hasn’t found that Sister Souljah moment that grabs the nation’s attention, causes real upset among some of his supporters and proves his political independence. He may need to find one to guarantee victory in the fall.


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

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

New Print Edition: 2008 Senate Overview

The September 10, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks (even more frequently as Election Day approaches) 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

The last three months has seen two more Republican seats put at considerable risk, as Alaska’s Ted Stevens has to fight both an indictment and a tough Democratic challenger, and North Carolina’s Elizabeth Dole has been damaged by a barrage of Democratic attacks. The DSCC’s financial advantage has been apparent on the ground for weeks, as the Committee has launched attacks against Republican candidates across the country. The NRSC has largely stayed on the sideline, but that is now changing.

Two GOP seats now appear to be gone: Virginia and New Mexico, with Republican candidates in New Hampshire and Colorado trying to mount counterattacks. Maine’s Susan Collins continues to defy the odds and remain in good shape, while Senate races in Minnesota, Oregon and Mississippi could well determine what kind of year the two parties have.

On the Democratic side, only Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is at risk, though Democratic strategists express doubt that she is still vulnerable. The DSCC continues to have a big financial advantage over the NRSC, giving DSCC chair Chuck Schumer plenty of flexibility about where he spends his cash. Democrats are certain to gain Senate seats in November – with 4-6 our current estimate. A gain of nine seats, which would get the party to 60 seats, is not impossible, but remains unlikely, at least at this point.

Subscribers to the print edition get the race-by-race analysis and the latest polls.