Statewide Officials Not Always the Senate Recruits They’re Cracked Up to Be

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrats cheered when Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (R) announced he would not challenge newly appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) in 2010. And Republicans breathed a sigh of relief when New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) decided not to take on Sen. Judd Gregg (R) next year. Both were considered strong potential challengers because they are popular statewide officeholders. But looking back over the past four cycles, holding statewide office by no means equals a guaranteed ticket to the U.S. Senate.

There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction by partisan activists to immediately elevate current or former statewide officeholders into the top tier of potential candidates, even though candidates with that profile have had mixed success in recent elections.

Indeed, there are plenty of factors that go into a candidate’s ultimate success — including the partisan leanings of the state, the nature of the cycle (which also impacts a candidate’s willingness to run) and the strength of the incumbent or opponent, among other factors. But recent history shows that there is no correlation between Senate success and holding statewide office.

Only seven of the 39 Senators who have been elected over the past four cycles were sitting statewide officials. Meanwhile, over the same time period, seven sitting statewide officials lost bids for Senate.

Former statewide officials make up only eight of the 39 new Senators since 2002, while three former statewide officeholders lost general election bids over the same time period.

This means that of the Senators elected over the past four cycles, less than half were either sitting or former statewide officeholders.

This is encouraging news for the parties when they are recruiting, but it also means their seats aren’t safe just because a statewide candidate on the other side of the aisle decides not to run.

Of the 10 freshman Senators elected in 2008, Idaho Lt. Gov. James Risch (R) was the only sitting statewide officeholder to make it to the Senate. State Treasurer John Kennedy (R) lost his race in Louisiana.

Five candidates were former statewide officeholders: now-Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), as well as former Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) who lost his bid.

In 2006, at-large Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) were elected to the Senate, the only statewide officials in their class. Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) lost his bid in Maryland.

That same year Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was a former statewide official who ran while out of office. The rest of his class included two sitting House Members, a mayor, a county attorney, a state Senator and a war hero who had never held elected office.

In 2004, only one of the nine new Senators was elected while holding statewide office: Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar (D). On the flip side, Missouri state Treasurer Nancy Farmer (D) and South Carolina Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum (D) were unsuccessful in their Senate bids.

That class of Senators included four sitting Members of Congress (and one former Member), former Cabinet secretary Mel Martinez (Fla.), who had never held statewide office and Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama (D). Former Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles (D) came up short, but former Rep. John Thune (R), who previously represented an at-large seat, won in South Dakota.

And back in 2002, Arkansas Attorney General Mark Pryor (D) and Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (R) were the only statewide elected official out of the 10 new Senators. Meanwhile, three statewide officials lost, including Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury (D), Louisiana Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell (R) and Thune, who won two years later.

[This story was updated on 2/3/09 to reflect the fact that Claire McCaskill was the sitting state auditor when she was elected to the Senate.]

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 28, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2009-2010 Gubernatorial Ratings

Here are our latest gubernatorial ratings. 2009 races in italics.

*Changes made to reflect the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich (D). Illinois moved to Currently Safe.

Lean Takeover (3 R, 3 D)

• CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
• HI Open (Lingle, R)
• RI Open (Carcieri, R)
• KS Open (Sebelius, D)
• OK Open (Henry, D)
• WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (2 R, 4 D)

• Gibbons (R-NV)
• SD Open (Rounds, R)
• MI Open (Granholm, D)
• PA Open (Rendell, D)
• TN Open (Bredesen, D)
• VA Open (Kaine, D)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

• Brewer (R-AZ)
• Douglas (R-VT)
• Pawlenty (R-MN)
• Corzine (D-NJ)
• NM Open (Richardson, D)
  

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 5 D)

• Rell (R-CT)
• AL Open (Riley, R)
• GA Open (Perdue, R)
• SC Open (Sanford, R)
• Doyle (D-WI)
• Paterson (D-NY)
• Strickland (D-OH)
• ME Open (Baldacci, D)
• OR Open (Kulongoski, D)

Currently Safe (5 R, 7 D)

• Crist (R-FL)
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Otter (R-ID)
• Palin (R-AK)
• Perry (R-TX)
• Beebe (D-AR)
• Culver (D-IA)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• O'Malley (D-MD)
• Quinn (D-IL)
  
• Patrick (D-MA)
• Ritter (D-CO)

2010 Senate Races: Another Tough Cycle For the Republicans

By Stuart Rothenberg

It’s been less than three months since voters went to the polls, but the 2010 Senate cycle is off to one of the fastest starts in memory.

After being pummeled two cycles in a row — losing six seats in 2006 and what looks like eight seats in 2008 — Senate Republicans face another challenging cycle. Even though they hold just 41 Senate seats, they are defending 19 of the 36 Senate seats that will be on the ballot next year.

The 2010 class includes 19 GOP-held seats, while the 2012 class has just nine and 2014 has only 13.

Democrats begin with at least half a dozen good opportunities, depending on candidate recruitment and how President Barack Obama performs over the next two years.

While the GOP remains battered, Democrats are likely to have a substantial financial advantage, and four incumbent Republican Senators have already announced they won’t seek re-election. Still, the end of the Bush administration and complete Democratic control of the nation’s capital could well make things a bit tougher for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this cycle than they have been over the past four years.

Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R), a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame and the first pitcher to win 100 games and record 1,000 strikeouts in both leagues, faces a very difficult race. Three high-profile Democratic statewide officials are looking at a possible challenge, and even GOP insiders are worried about Bunning’s strength after his surprisingly narrow 2004 victory against a lightly regarded challenger who is now the state’s lieutenant governor.

Bunning, who pitched no-hitters in both leagues (including a perfect game for the Philadelphia Phillies against the New York Mets on Father’s Day in 1964), says he is going to run for a third term. But he has plenty of time to reconsider that decision, and the 78-year-old conservative could ultimately conclude that retirement is an appealing option. That decision would not upset party strategists whose first priority is holding the seat.

All four of the GOP’s open seats could be battlegrounds, with the safest one on paper, Kansas, actually becoming the most difficult one for Republicans if outgoing Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) opts to make the race. Rep. Jerry Moran (R) is already running and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R) is looking at entering the race — either one would be a credible contender.

The retirements of Sens. Kit Bond (Mo.), Mel Martinez (Fla.) and George Voinovich (Ohio) surely enhance the DSCC’s chances of adding to its 59 seats (provided Democrat Al Franken is eventually seated as the Senator from Minnesota), but the GOP will not give up those seats readily.

Former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who most recently served as director of the Office of Management and Budget and was also the U.S. trade representative, is running in Ohio and gives the National Republican Senatorial Committee a solid candidate. While the DSCC is already portraying him as the “architect” of the Bush administration’s economic policies, Portman’s mainstream conservatism should fit the state well.

A number of Democrats are looking at the race, including Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Rep. Tim Ryan, and it’s virtually certain that the DSCC will have a strong nominee to support financially.

In Missouri, GOP Rep. Roy Blunt is said to be eyeing a possible Senate race, but other Republicans are mentioned as well, including former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman and former Sen. Jim Talent. Party insiders seem inclined to line up behind Blunt, a former secretary of state, if he announces his candidacy.

On the Democratic side, all eyes are on Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, daughter of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan (D) and former Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.). State Attorney General Chris Koster (D) receives mention as well.

In Florida, both parties could see crowded primaries now that former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) and state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) have announced they will take a pass on the Senate contest.

On the GOP side, former state Speaker Marco Rubio, Attorney General Bill McCollum and a handful of Republican House Members, including Rep. Connie Mack IV, are mentioned. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) has already jumped in the race, and least two other Congressional Democrats and the state Senate Minority Leader are said to be mulling bids. Just don’t pay too much attention to the early polling in that state.

After those contests, the focus turns to candidate recruitment against incumbents, with Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and David Vitter (R-La.) topping the list of possible Democratic targets and with Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) topping the NRSC’s list.

There are a few other seats that are worth mentioning. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is serving his fifth term, so Democrats will try to recruit a strong challenger, if only to try to encourage him to consider retirement.

Some observers regard the Illinois Senate seat to which Ronald Burris (D) was just appointed as a tossup. I don’t. I see it as clearly favoring Democrats.

While there are a number of scenarios that would put that seat into play, each would require a series of developments that would enhance GOP prospects — from the candidacy of Rep. Mark Kirk (R) to Burris running for re-election and state voters seeing the Senate race as a referendum on embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and state Democratic corruption.

While all of that is possible, it strikes me as far too premature to assume that all of the dominos will fall the GOP’s way in a state that has become reliably Democratic.

Democrats are well-positioned to add to their numbers in the Senate in next year’s elections. But how the public’s mood evolves during the next 20 months will tell us the extent of that opportunity, or whether it even exists.

Correction: In the Jan. 22 edition of my column, I misidentified Henry Barbour. He, of course, is the nephew of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 26, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Obama Begins Presidency With High Marks Across the Board

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Barack Obama begins his presidency with stratospheric marks among Democrats and the support of a fair amount of Republicans who voted against him.

According to a Research 2000 poll done for the liberal blog Daily Kos and released Friday afternoon, Obama enjoys 77 percent favorable/20 percent unfavorable ratings among all adults. Unsurprisingly, Democrats gave him a 93 percent favorable/4 percent unfavorable rating, but Obama’s numbers among Republicans weren’t terrible either (43 percent favorable/54 percent unfavorable). The survey of 2,400 adults was conducted Jan. 19-22.

While Obama cruised to a 365-173 Electoral College win, his popular vote victory of 53 percent to 46 percent was much narrower. More than 69 million people voted for the former Illinois Senator, but 60 million people voted against him.

Now, Obama voters and many McCain voters approve of the transition, are happy about the inauguration and feel as patriotic as ever.

According to a Jan. 12-15 Opinion Research Corp. poll for CNN, 84 percent of adult Americans approved of Obama’s handling of the transition, while only 14 percent disapproved. In 2001, 61 percent approved of former President George W. Bush’s transition from the Clinton administration after the contentious election, while 25 percent disapproved.

Sixty-eight percent of adults said they were thrilled or happy about the inauguration before it happened, while only 16 percent were unhappy or depressed. By comparison, 50 percent said they were thrilled or happy about Bush’s second inauguration in 2005, and 22 percent were unhappy or depressed.

And once again, Americans are feeling patriotic in this inaugural season. According to the CNN poll, 83 percent said they were extremely or very proud to be an American, the same percentage as in January 2005. In 2001, 87 percent said they were extremely or very proud to be an American.

Finally, Obama enjoyed a 78 percent favorable/17 percent unfavorable rating in the mid-January CNN poll. Bush had a 62 percent favorable/36 percent unfavorable rating when he entered the White House and left with a 35 percent favorable/60 percent unfavorable rating.

Although Obama starts his presidency with high approval numbers, these polls were conducted before he had to make concrete policy decisions that could alienate some voters. Only time will tell how long Obama can sustain this level of popularity.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 24, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Kentucky Senate: Bunning - Mongiardo Trading Cards

Back in 2004, Dr. Daniel Mongiardo (D) took on Sen. Jim Bunning (R) and lost narrowly, 51%-49%. The Democratic challenger tried to spoof Bunning's Hall of Fame baseball career with a set of trading cards. Mongiardo, who is now Kentucky's lieutenant governor, just announced he will challenge Bunning again in 2010. Maybe we'll get a new set of cards out of it.

2004 Mongiardo-Bunning Trading Cards

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Politics & Governmen Presentations & Slid elections baseball

2009-2010 Gubernatorial Ratings

Here are our latest gubernatorial ratings. 2009 races in italics.

Lean Takeover (3 R, 3 D)

• CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
• HI Open (Lingle, R)
• RI Open (Carcieri, R)
• KS Open (Sebelius, D)
• OK Open (Henry, D)
• WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (2 R, 4 D)

• Gibbons (R-NV)
• SD Open (Rounds, R)
• MI Open (Granholm, D)
• PA Open (Rendell, D)
• TN Open (Bredesen, D)
• VA Open (Kaine, D)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

• Brewer (R-AZ)
• Douglas (R-VT)
• Pawlenty (R-MN)
• Corzine (D-NJ)
• NM Open (Richardson, D)
  

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 6 D)

• Rell (R-CT)
• AL Open (Riley, R)
• GA Open (Perdue, R)
• SC Open (Sanford, R)
• Blagojevich (D-IL)
• Doyle (D-WI)
• Paterson (D-NY)
• Strickland (D-OH)
• ME Open (Baldacci, D)
• OR Open (Kulongoski, D)

Currently Safe (5 R, 6 D)

• Crist (R-FL)
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Otter (R-ID)
• Palin (R-AK)
• Perry (R-TX)
• Beebe (D-AR)
• Culver (D-IA)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• O'Malley (D-MD)
• Patrick (D-MA)
• Ritter (D-CO)

RNC Race Too Close to Call as Election Approaches

By Stuart Rothenberg

Races for national party chairman invariably are covered as if they are presidential campaigns. That’s understandable, since elections are involved. But it’s also misleading.

When Republican National Committee members gather in the nation’s capital at the end of this month to select a new party chairman, the contest will much more resemble a fraternity chapter meeting rather than an election for the U.S. House.

Veterans of contests for party chairman say that these races are more about the national committee members — whom they have built relationships with and are comfortable with — than about where the contenders stand on issues, what states they come from or, sometimes, even what specific assets they would bring to the post.

National committee members are an insular group, greatly valuing their experiences on the national committee and doubting the ability of anyone who has not been part of their fraternity to make decisions that will guide their party to victory. Anytime there is a fight for national party chairman, that attitude plays a significant role in advantaging some contenders and all but disqualifying others.

Since few national party chairman hopefuls bring the perfect combination of media skill, ideological fit, fundraising ability, organizational skill and experience, and unimpeachable neutrality (for internal party maneuverings) that would make them ideal for the job, chairmanship decisions often turn on personal factors.

This year’s RNC race increasingly appears to be a three- or possibly four-person contest, with the current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, holding a tenuous but not insignificant advantage over former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, with Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis and South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson fighting it out for third.

Former Tennessee GOP Chairman Chip Saltsman hurt himself seriously by circulating a controversial song, while former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has never been on the RNC and therefore lacks a crucial credential in this election.

Blackwell has the support of many high-profile conservative activists, including some whose influence has waned over the past 20 years, but while supporters are fervent, his ceiling in this contest is relatively low.

Dawson’s membership in an all-white country club and his Southern base are problems, especially after Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former national chairman who remains extremely popular and influential within the RNC, suggested that the party would not benefit from picking a Southerner to head the national party. Still, two recent endorsements, by Mississippi national committeeman Henry Barbour (Haley’s brother) and New Jersey’s David Norcross, have boosted Dawson’s standing in the race.

Duncan leads at the moment because he is a known quantity and is perceived as a safe choice by committee members. He has interacted with his colleagues on the national committee for years, building the kind of personal relationships that often pay off in these kinds of votes.

Well-placed sources also say that the current RNC chairman is the choice of one-time master White House strategist Karl Rove, who apparently believes that he can continue to exert significant influence on the direction of the party as long as Duncan is in charge.

But Duncan’s election would send a bizarre message of continuity and status quo to a party that has suffered two consecutive election cycles of stinging defeats. Even RNC members who feel personally comfortable with the sitting RNC chairman might not be willing to do that. And even though Duncan surely isn’t responsible for his party’s problems, even party insiders understand that they need to send a message of change.

Steele, who chaired the Maryland GOP (or what’s left of the state party after decades of atrophy), obviously has plenty of assets, including a strong TV presence and the fact that he, like Blackwell, is black. Some complain that he isn’t conservative enough, and even some of his friends say that he can be a loose cannon. But he surely would send a message of change to the country.

Anuzis is a savvy political insider who has spent the past couple of years increasing his visibility (including his use of new media). He’s outgoing and personable, with a style that’s more blue-collar than country club. But he’s also widely seen more as a political operative than a leader, and the Michigan GOP’s recent electoral failures are hampering his bid.

The Michigan Republican’s strategy is both interesting and astute. He is, as one insider described it, “just trying to hang around,” hoping to become something of a consensus alternative if RNC members ultimately decide that they cannot afford to send a status quo message by re-electing Duncan or risk the uncertainty of turning the national party over to the unpredictable Steele.

Right now, the RNC race is clearly up for grabs, with no candidate within shouting distance of a majority. That may well be the case when national committee members gather in Washington next week to select a party chairman.

The election of the next RNC chairman won’t make or break the Republican Party. The party’s image cannot be resurrected overnight, and President Barack Obama’s performance is much more important as a factor in a GOP revival than is the selection of the next chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Still, the selection will send a message and, possibly, elevate a new party spokesman. And while this is just the first of many tests for the GOP, often the first test can set the stage for others.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 22, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: 2009-2010 Gubernatorial Outlook

The January 23, 2009 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers.

The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. 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 preview of this edition:

2009-2010 Gubernatorial Outlook
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Last year was considered a “light” year for governors, with only eleven states electing a chief executive. But over the next two years, 38 states will vote for governor, including at least 17 open seats, and nine of the ten most populous states in the country.

Democrats gained a governorship in 2008, bringing their nationwide advantage to 29-21. But Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s (D) appointment to the Obama cabinet, and the subsequent succession by Secretary of State Jan Brewer (R) to the state’s top office, brought the governors back to pre-2008 levels: 28 Democrats and 22 Republicans.

It’s way too early to handicap overall prospects, but Republicans could make significant gains in governorships in 2010. Democrats must now defend in a number of GOP-leaning states (such as Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Tennessee) that they’ve held for six years but are coming open because of term limits. On the other hand, Republicans will have difficulty holding California and smaller Democratic states such as Hawaii and Rhode Island.


Subscribers to the print edition get a state-by-state rundown and analysis of all 38 races.

New York 20: Treadwell Not Running

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With Republican and Democratic candidates scrambling for position in the special election in New York's 20th District, 2008 GOP nominee Sandy Treadwell is not jumping into the race, according to GOP sources.

Treadwell, who spent almost $6 million of his own money last cycle in his 61%-38% loss to Cong. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), expressed interest early on, and even released public statements saying as much, but will not ultimately throw his name into consideration. According to GOP insiders, he is currently out of the Empire State and is not making immediate moves toward another run.

Meanwhile state Sen. Betty Little (R) who has already announced her candidacy. And according to the Albany Times-Union, the Saratoga County GOP has decided to back Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco and the Greene County GOP is with 2006 gubernatorial nominee John Faso.

There will not be a primary for the special election, instead the party nominees will be chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees. Saratoga carries the most weight in the 10-county district.

Not only would Treadwell not have Saratoga County, but he likely wouldn't have his home county of Essex, where he is the former county party chairman.

"[Little] is our state senator, and before that she was our assemblywoman," Essex County GOP Chairman Ronald Jackson said Saturday night. "It's unlikely we'd support anyone else as long as she's in the race."

"I'd say she's the best candidate. She has the experience. And it would be a woman replacing a woman," Jackson added. The current Essex chairman also said that he spoke with Treadwell about a week ago about his interest in the race, but hasn't heard from him since.

Gov. David Paterson (D) recently appointed Cong. Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate to fill the vacany left by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, prompting a special election in the 20th Congressional District.

2010 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings.

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 0 D)

• Bunning (R-KY)
• FL Open (Martinez, R)
• MO Open (Bond, R)
• OH Open (Voinovich, R)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 2 D)

• Burr (R-NC)
• Gregg (R-NH)
• Specter (R-PA)
• Vitter (R-LA)
• Bennet (D-CO)
• Reid (D-NV)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)

• Grassley (R-IA)
• KS Open (Brownback, R)
• Dorgan (D-ND)
• Feingold (D-WI)
  

Currently Safe (9 R, 13 D)

• Bennett (R-UT)
• Coburn (R-OK)
• Crapo (R-ID)
• DeMint (R-SC)
• Isakson (R-GA)
• McCain (R-AZ)
• Murkowski (R-AK)
• Shelby (R-AL)
• Thune (R-SD)
• Bayh (D-IN)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Burris (D-IL)
  
• Dodd (D-CT)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
  
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Kaufman (D-DE)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Lincoln (D-AR)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Wyden (D-OR)

California 44: Hedrick Readies Rematch

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrat Bill Hedrick came close to becoming one of the surprise winners of the 2008 Election, when the president of the Rialto Education Association lost to Republican Cong. Ken Calvert 51%-49% in California’s 44th District.

He was severely outspent by the incumbent, approximately $1.1 million to $180,000, received no help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and his candidacy was nowhere near the national discussion of potential Democratic takeovers across the country.

Hedrick told the Report in an interview on Thursday that he has no interest in becoming a perennial candidate, but is committed to running again in 2010. And he’s making his case to potential donors and supporters who ignored him last cycle.BillHedrickforCongress2010Packet

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Politics & Governmen Presentations & Slid california republican

Recruiting Battles Set To Kick Off

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Each election cycle, the competing interests of the various campaign committees collide when it comes to candidate recruitment efforts, as a victory for one arm sometimes leaves an open-seat headache for another.

There are already a handful of House Members being mentioned as possible candidates for Senate and governor in 2010 whose departures would leave big holes for their respective parties to fill.

In Illinois, Republicans want Rep. Mark Kirk to run for the seat now held by appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D). He might be Republicans’ best chance for capturing the seat, but holding his House seat is another story.

Even though Kirk scored an impressive re-election win last fall, the National Republican Congressional Committee would have great difficulty retaining the 10th district seat without the incumbent. Barack Obama won 61 percent in the district, according to analysis compiled by the community at Swing State Project, a Democratic blog.

Senate Republicans would also like Rep. Mike Castle (Del.) to run for Joseph Biden’s former seat and for Rep. Peter King (N.Y.) to run for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D) seat if she is confirmed as secretary of State. That would put two more traditionally Democratic Senate seats in play for the GOP but would result in more NRCC migraines.

But as a Senate GOP strategist explained, parochial interests often trump partisan ones when it comes to recruiting, especially with Democrats almost at the 60-seat filibuster-proof threshold.

“One to two seats make a difference in the Senate,” the strategist said. “The House has a ways to go to regain the majority.”

At this point, more House Republicans appear to be looking at gubernatorial races, and by and large the seats they leave behind won’t be as difficult to hold.

Rep. Zach Wamp (R) has already announced his bid for governor in Tennessee, but he leaves behind a heavily Republican district. Similarly, the NRCC shouldn’t have to worry about the seats held by GOP Reps. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Jo Bonner (Ala.), Mary Fallin (Okla.) and Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) if they all run for governor. Hoekstra has already announced he will not seek re-election.

The one problem spot could be in Pennsylvania, where Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) has said he is thinking about running for governor in 2010. His suburban Philadelphia seat would be a prime Democratic pickup opportunity.

GOP Reps. Mike Rogers (Mich.) and Greg Walden (Ore.) have also both been mentioned as possible gubernatorial candidates, and Democrats would certainly make a play for their seats if they were to vacate them. But both men were just given new leadership roles at the NRCC, so their departures seem unlikely.

One House GOP operative said that the desire of Members to advance politically is par for the course and that committees learn to expect, and deal with, the open seats.

“Both Democrats and Republicans will face their share of House Members seeking higher office,” the strategist said.

Ultimately, a party’s ability to hold on to a difficult seat depends on several factors, including the overall political climate and the bench of aspiring candidates waiting to run.

In Texas, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) appears to be running for governor in 2010 and party strategists want her to remain in the Senate while she runs — her seat is not up for re-election until 2012 — instead of resigning early and forcing a special election. Houston Mayor Bill White (D) has said he will run if there is a special election in 2010, and GOP strategists worry that he might have a shot at winning, depending on when the special election is scheduled.

Over the past three cycles, Democrats have held 15 of 16 House seats vacated by Members running for higher office, and one of two Senate seats. Republicans have had more trouble recently, holding 14 of 21 open House seats where a Member left to run for something else.

Last cycle, House Democrats were able to limit the number of retirements, in part because only 11 states elected governors and only three of those races were open seats. In 2010, 36 states will elect a governor, including at least 15 open seats, allowing for a lot more upward movement.

Among Democrats, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) is widely believed to be interested in her state’s open governorship next year. She’s probably the only Democrat who could win the top executive job, but she’s also probably the only Democrat who could hold her at-large seat in the House.

“Committees know and respect that candidate recruitment is paramount for all of us,” Democratic Governors Association Executive Director Nathan Daschle said. “Sometimes this puts the committees at odds with one another, but everyone understands that we are all working toward the same goal — supporting Democratic leadership at all levels of government.”

South Dakota is one example of a seat the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would have difficulty defending. President George W. Bush won there by 22 points in 2004 and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won by 8 points in November.

The DCCC would also have a tough time holding Tennessee’s 4th district if Rep. Lincoln Davis (D) runs for governor. Bush won the district by 17 points in 2004 and McCain carried it by 10. (Correction- McCain won it by 30 points!)

“If a Member thinks this is their moment, it would be difficult to dissuade them,” one House Democratic strategist said.

Alabama Rep. Artur Davis (D) is also exploring a gubernatorial bid, but he would leave behind a very Democratic district. Democratic candidates would also start with the advantage if Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) run for governor.

Other potential House vacancies would be more problematic for the DCCC.

New York Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) has met with Gov. David Paterson (D) about being named to Clinton’s Senate seat. She beat a scandal-tainted GOP incumbent in 2006, but her easy 2008 re-election belies the Republican lean of the district.

Similarly, Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) is mentioned as a potential candidate for Senate and an open 18th district seat would be a GOP opportunity.

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler (D) is creating a buzz as a potential Senate candidate as well, particularly since former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to be in Raleigh next week for a fundraiser on Shuler’s behalf. He could probably have his 11th district seat as long as he wants it, but if he leaves, Republicans would target the seat McCain carried by 5 points and Bush by 14 points in 2004.

In Florida, Democratic Reps. Allen Boyd and Ron Klein are eyeing running for Senate, although Boyd’s district would be harder to hold than Klein’s would be.

And some Democrats want Rep. Ben Chandler (D) to challenge Sen. Jim Bunning (R) in Kentucky. Chandler was first elected to Congress in a February 2004 special election, succeeding Rep. Ernie Fletcher (R), who had been elected governor.

The Kentucky seat was the only one House Republicans lost in the 2004 cycle because of a Member leaving to run for higher office. The GOP held all seven seats vacated by Members running for Senate and even picked up one Democratic-held open seat vacated because of a Senate run.

Two years later, in 2006, Republicans lost swing districts in Colorado, Wisconsin and Iowa when Members ran for governor, but they held on to six other open seats that were more Republican in nature.

Democrats held onto all of their open seats that year, on their way to winning the House and Senate majorities.

Last cycle, Republicans lost a seat in Mississippi and two in New Mexico when Members left to run for the Senate. They only managed to keep now-Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) seat in Louisiana. Democrats had to defend and hold only very Democratic districts in Maine, Colorado and New Mexico.

“Fortunately, we are living in an era when the Democratic message is resonating all across the country,” Daschle said. “With so many qualified candidates out there, I am certain that we’ll all meet our recruiting goals.”

This story first appeared in Roll Call on January 20, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Bad News Comes Early for Senate Republicans

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The 2010 election cycle is just a couple months old, and Senate Republicans have almost equaled their number of retirements from last cycle, when their party lost eight seats. But this time around, Senators with one foot out the door appear to be making their decisions earlier, instead of keeping party strategists guessing.

Just in the last two weeks, Ohio Sen. George Voinovich (R) and Missouri Sen. Kit Bond (R) announced their decisions not seek re-election. They join Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (R) and Florida Sen. Mel Martinez (R), who announced last year their plans to exit the chamber.

“These Senators did the right thing for the party by making their decisions early, and in each state, Republicans now have a solid bench of potential candidates who are already hard at work,” said Brian Walsh, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Last cycle, then-Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) officially announced he wouldn’t seek re-election in January 2007, more than 20 months before Election Day. But the next four Republican announcements didn’t come until much later.

Former Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) didn’t announce their retirements until September 2007. And former New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) waited even a month later. Former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) never officially said he wasn’t seeking re-election, but now-Sen. Jim Risch (R) launched his campaign to succeed Craig in October 2007.

Republicans lost three of the five open seats last November, only retaining control of the seats in the two most Republican states (Idaho and Nebraska).

“At a time when statewide candidates need to raise millions of dollars to run a competitive campaign, there is no getting around the fact that an extra six months to raise money, develop an organization and travel around the state provides a tremendous advantage,” Walsh said.

There is no guarantee that Republicans would have won Virginia or New Mexico last cycle if Warner and Domenici had announced earlier. An early Allard decision didn’t help the GOP effort in Colorado.

Republicans would have preferred their incumbents run for re-election. But the early retirement decisions are better than waiting in limbo, and while an early start can’t change the political environment, it does give candidates more time for critical fundraising.


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 16, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Gubernatorial Race Will Show if Jersey GOP Has a Pulse

By Stuart Rothenberg

This year’s gubernatorial race in New Jersey would seem to be a prime opportunity for a Republican pickup. But sometimes, things aren’t as they seem.

On the plus side for the GOP, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine hasn’t had the easiest first term, the state’s budget problems are likely to grow as the recession shrinks state revenue and Republicans finally seem to have the candidate they’ve been waiting for: former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie.

But this is New Jersey, a state where Republican prospects have gone from bad to worse recently, and where Republicans often seem more interested in attacking each other than in defeating Democrats.

In 2006, state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. ran a spirited but underfunded Senate campaign, losing by 9 points to Democrat Bob Menendez. And Kean’s 44.3 percent statewide was a pretty good showing compared to other recent elections. Only President George W. Bush’s 46.6 percent showing in 2004 was better.

Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) drew just 41.7 percent against President-elect Barack Obama, while GOP Senate candidate Dick Zimmer drew just 42 percent against Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D). Four years ago, Republican Doug Forrester drew 43 percent against Corzine in an open-seat contest, and four years before that, in 2001, conservative Republican Bret Schundler drew 41.7 percent against Democrat Jim McGreevey.

Over the past 30 years, only two Republicans running for president, governor or the Senate in New Jersey drew a majority of the total votes cast — Ronald Reagan twice and George H.W. Bush in 1988. Even Christine Todd Whitman, who won two terms as governor in the 1990s, failed to crack the 50 percent mark in either of her races.

But partisanship generally means less in gubernatorial races than in Senate contests, and the Bush era has finally passed (or has it?), so the GOP’s national problems are likely to be less relevant in this year’s gubernatorial race in the Garden State.

The race for the Republican nomination currently includes four candidates: Christie, Morris County state Assemblyman/former deputy state Attorney General Rick Merkt, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan (Bergen County) and Franklin Mayor Brian Levine (Somerset County).

Christie, 46, served briefly on the Morris County board of freeholders but lost a bid for re-election. He then made a huge name for himself as a corruption-fighting prosecutor.

He was appointed a U.S. attorney by George W. Bush on Dec. 7, 2001, and stayed on in that office until late November 2008, when he resigned. Christie was mentioned as a possible candidate for governor in 2005 but passed on that race.

As U.S. attorney, Christie prosecuted well over 100 public officials, getting convictions against then-Essex County Executive Jim Treffinger (R), then-Newark Mayor Sharpe James (D), former state Senate President John Lynch (D) and Camden County state Sen. Wayne Bryant (D), among others.

Many GOP insiders have already started to rally behind Christie, including Kean, the state Senate Minority Leader, and Rep. Frank LoBiondo.

The most notable of Christie’s competitors at this point is Lonegan, a legally blind former three-term mayor of a small town in North Jersey and an anti-tax, anti-illegal-immigration conservative. Lonegan ran unsuccessfully for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 2005 and for Congress, against Rep. Steven Rothman (D), in 1998.

Lonegan’s top consultant, Richard Shaftan, has been active in Garden State politics for years and invariably sees every campaign in ideological terms. It’s no wonder, then, that Lonegan has already said that the race for the Republican nomination will be “a battle for the soul of the Republican Party.” (Someone might want to tell Lonegan that the battle actually is a contest for governor of New Jersey.)

Conservatives can pull surprises in primaries, and we don’t yet know how this race will develop. Christie’s position on issues, particularly on controversial ones, is the subject of some discussion among those on the right. But it’s pretty clear that Lonegan would have zero chance of defeating Corzine in November, and consultant Shaftan didn’t exactly make himself look like the Oracle of Trenton when he was quoted in December by PolitickerNJ.com as saying that Christie is “absolutely not running.”

Polls show Christie within range of Corzine. But incumbents always seem to underperform in the state, and even Democrats who won with some ease recently started off looking as if they were in tough races.

A Nov. 12-17 Quinnipiac University poll showed Corzine holding a 42 percent to 36 percent lead over Christie in a trial heat, but 70 percent of those polled said that they didn’t know enough about the Republican to have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him. Corzine’s name ID in the survey stood at 42 percent favorable/43 percent unfavorable. A Sept. 9-11 Research 2000 poll for the Record in Bergen showed Corzine leading Christie 43 percent to 41 percent.

Corzine has been telling insiders for months that he expects a Christie challenge and that the former U.S. attorney would be a formidable opponent. But the governor’s personal financial resources, his incumbency and his Democratic label are all assets in his bid for re-election, and he has become a confident, politically astute officeholder since he first ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000.

Moreover, the GOP race could well get nasty, and Christie’s performance is uncertain.

Republicans have an opportunity in the Garden State, but they will need to overcome recent political trends as well as their own penchant for self-destruction. Given that, it’s probably unwise at this point to bet too heavily against Corzine winning another term.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 15, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Louisiana Senate: Jindal Not Endorsing Vitter For Now

By Nathan L. Gonzales

While Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) can point to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) attendance at a recent fundraiser for his 2010 re-election race as evidence of the popular governor’s support, well-placed Republican insiders say that Jindal definitely is not yet in Vitter’s camp.

Instead, they say that Jindal is firmly in wait-and-see mode and has not endorsed the Senator.

“He’ll have to answer to the voters. He’s going to have a chance to do that in the next few years,” Jindal said recently, telling the Baton Rouge Advocate that it was too early to decide support. “I was asked to attend a fundraiser.”

Jindal’s neutrality is unusual, of course, because in virtually all cases, the sitting governor of a state supports the sitting Senator if they’re from the same party. But Vitter’s career has been anything but typical.

In July 2007, the Republican admitted to a “serious sin” after his phone number appeared on a client list of a high-end prostitution ring that was under investigation. According to GOP sources, private polling shows that the once-popular Vitter has close to even favorable and unfavorable ratings and is doing particularly poorly among women.

“Vitter has worked hard to sell the idea that he has fully recovered,” according to a GOP operative familiar with Louisiana. “That’s interesting, but not reflected in polling.”

At the moment, Vitter’s political prospects are uncertain. While some Republican insiders would like to find a strong primary challenger to the Senator, so far no one has come forward. And even Vitter’s critics within the GOP acknowledge that he has done a good job of securing the support of key donors in the state.

Vitter also appears to be trying to use votes to shore up conservatives. On Thursday he was the lone vote on the Foreign Relations Committee against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) nomination for secretary of State.

Part of the Republican concern about Vitter stems from doubts about his strength against a formidable Democratic opponent.

“Our chances of holding the seat are shaky. If [Vitter is] nominated, his chances depend on who he’s running against,” according to the concerned Republican operative, adding that Vitter is operating from a “very significant level of weakness.”

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is already looking to recruit a serious candidate into the race, and the longer Vitter’s numbers remain weak, the better the DSCC’s chances of succeeding.

Rep. Charlie Melancon, Louisiana’s only Democratic House member, could be the Republican’s worst nightmare, but it is unclear whether he has any interest in running. Former Rep. Chris John (D) could give Vitter problems as well, even though he ran an underwhelming race six years ago and some party insiders say that he isn’t likely to run.

It would certainly be helpful to Vitter to have Jindal on board, but it’s very unclear if or when the governor might get involved. Last cycle, he did late television ads for now-Reps. Bill Cassidy (R), John Fleming (R) and Anh “Joseph” Cao (R), as well as unsuccessful Senate nominee John Kennedy. But none of them had the ethical baggage that Vitter possesses.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 15, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

In Memoriam: the Paul Weyrich Whom I Knew and Admired

By Stuart Rothenberg

Paul M. Weyrich, one of the founders of the “New Right,” passed away shortly before Christmas. Many of the twentysomethings and thirtysomethings in the nation’s capital today have never heard his name or know only what they read in a few obituaries published in the days following his death.

Those who remember Paul and are familiar with his activities, particularly during the late 1970s and 1980s, likely see him either as a principled conservative who helped build a movement based on “traditional” values and a strong defense, as well as mobilized millions of socially conservative evangelicals, or as an intolerant right-winger who sought to impose his views on others.

It’s easy to see how those two very different views of Paul Weyrich came about. Paul had strong opinions, was outspoken and rarely pulled his punches. This made him many friends and at least an equal number of enemies. It also turned some of his friends into enemies, as when he attacked the appointment of Texas Republican Sen. John Tower as secretary of Defense in 1989 (Tower was never confirmed by the Senate).

I first met Paul when I moved to the nation’s capital during the summer of 1980, less than six months before Ronald Reagan won the White House and Republicans made substantial gains in the House and Senate. Hard as it is to believe, I had never heard of Paul when I began as a reporter for the Political Report, a newsletter he published.

Paul initially made his name in candidate and grass-roots training — teaching candidates how to put together successful campaigns and local activists how to mobilize supporters. Later, with Republicans in the White House or in control on Capitol Hill, he changed his focus much more to D.C., even trying to launch a conservative television network (well before Fox hit the airwaves).

Paul’s foray into TV did not prove successful. He was the ultimate “idea” person and a creative strategist, but he was not nearly as successful in completing projects or building institutions.

After he helped start the Heritage Foundation, Paul quickly moved on to found a variety of much smaller organizations, from the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress (a political action committee) to the Free Congress Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization, to Coalitions for America, a 501(c)(4) organization, which can advocate legislation.

Paul never built those organizations into true institutions. Instead, for the most part, each merely was a platform for Paul. He was the top fundraiser, strategist, spokesman and face of each.

But focusing only on Paul Weyrich’s political successes and failings, his assets and liabilities, his weaknesses and strengths, ignores the human side of a man who was much kinder, compassionate and, frankly, more reasonable than his critics know.

This, after all, was a man who was obsessed with trains. He published magazines about trains and trolleys and loved to talk about anything from light rail to Amtrak.

A one-time reporter in Wisconsin, Paul valued straight reporting and independent analysis so much that he published two newsletters that were free of ideological bias. This surprised both his enemies and his friends.

I recall one example vividly. In 1984, I wrote an article in the Political Report that raised doubts about then-Sen. Roger Jepsen’s ability to win re-election in the face of a challenge from then-Rep. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Jepsen, a conservative Republican whom Paul helped elect, telephoned Weyrich to read him the riot act about the story and analysis, only to be told by Paul that he, as the publisher, stood behind the piece. (Harkin defeated Jepsen by almost a dozen points in that race.)

Another time, when Paul’s foundation published a brief monograph about campaign finance reform that did not argue for the elimination of the Federal Election Commission, a high-profile Virginia conservative who was one of Paul’s closest political allies asked him to withdraw the monograph and discipline the writer because the monograph’s conclusions were at odds with the “conservative movement’s” position. Paul did no such thing.

I am certain that veteran political reporters who spoke with Paul often over the years will attest to his ability to be both dispassionate and analytical when dissecting politics even though he was, at the same time, committed to a particular outcome.

This isn’t to say that Paul didn’t have a vision for the country. He did. But the values that he admired and cherished went beyond his strongly held pro-life, conservative political views to include intellectual and personal integrity, analytical ability, and the importance of one’s personal religious views and one’s family.

A Catholic who is most often credited (or blamed, depending on your point of view) with bringing conservative evangelicals into the political arena, Paul took great pains to bridge the gulfs that existed between evangelicals and Catholics and between evangelicals and Jews.

Though it was never publicized, Paul put together a meeting of politically conservative Jewish political and religious leaders and intellectuals and of high-profile evangelicals to talk about common interests and break down walls of distrust. As far as I could tell, he didn’t have an ounce of racial or religious intolerance in him.

Paul Weyrich’s style and agenda rubbed many the wrong way. That’s understandable. But the man from working-class roots was one of the most astute political observers and strategists in the country for years, and, in spite of a well-known volcanic tempter, he was always incredibly fair, loyal and kind to me.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 12, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2010 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings.

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 0 D)

• Bunning (R-KY)
• FL Open (Martinez, R)
• MO Open (Bond, R)
• OH Open (Voinovich, R)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 2 D)

• Burr (R-NC)
• Gregg (R-NH)
• Specter (R-PA)
• Vitter (R-LA)
• Bennet (D-CO)
• Reid (D-NV)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)

• Grassley (R-IA)
• KS Open (Brownback, R)
• Dorgan (D-ND)
• Feingold (D-WI)
  

Currently Safe (9 R, 13 D)

• Bennett (R-UT)
• Coburn (R-OK)
• Crapo (R-ID)
• DeMint (R-SC)
• Isakson (R-GA)
• McCain (R-AZ)
• Murkowski (R-AK)
• Shelby (R-AL)
• Thune (R-SD)
• Bayh (D-IN)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Burris (D-IL)
  
• Dodd (D-CT)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Kaufman (D-DE)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Lincoln (D-AR)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Wyden (D-OR)
• NY Open (Clinton, D)
  

Alaska Senate: Polar Opposite Polling

By Nathan L. Gonzales

A newly released Dittman Research (R) poll showed Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) leading Gov. Sarah Palin (R) by a wide margin in a hypothetical 2010 GOP Senate primary matchup. The results were also the complete opposite of another public poll taken during the same time period.

Murkowski led 57 percent to 33 percent in the Dittman survey, taken Dec. 5-20, and paid for by the Alaska Standard, a Republican Web site. A Dec. 15-17 survey by the nonpartisan Research 2000 for the liberal, Democratic Web site DailyKos.com showed Palin leading a primary 55 percent to 31 percent.

Even though Palin defeated Lisa Murkowski’s father, the incumbent governor, in the 2006 gubernatorial primary, there is no indication that a 2010 matchup will materialize.

“In my opinion, Alaska is hard to poll accurately,” Dittman said, “Many outside research firms have problems here — Rasmussen is the exception, they have a very good record — but Kos is one of the worst. In the recent general election here, the final Kos survey was probably the most inaccurate poll in the nation.”

“One thing we learned in 2008, it’s that Alaska is clearly a difficult place to poll,” said Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos.com about the Senate and House races. “The state wasn’t kind to any pollster last year.” But Moulitsas did point out the accuracy of Research 2000 at the presidential level in Alaska.

Maryland-based Research 2000 showed Sen. John McCain (R) with a 58 percent to 39 percent lead in an Oct. 28-30 survey. Anchorage-based Dittman Research showed McCain with a 56 percent to 37 percent advantage in an Oct. 24-29 poll. And Rasmussen had McCain up 16 points on Oct. 28. The GOP nominee won the state 59 percent to 38 percent.

Pollsters inside and outside the Last Frontier took their lumps last year in Alaska’s downballot races.

In the House race, no public polls, dating back as far as fall 2007, showed Rep. Don Young (R) ahead of Democratic challenger Ethan Berkowitz, and most had him trailing by at least 5 points. Young, who is under investigation, was re-elected 50 percent to 45 percent.

In the Senate race, most of the polls gave Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) a slight to narrow advantage over then-Sen. Ted Stevens (R) throughout the race, but there were only a couple of public polls after the Senator’s conviction on seven counts of corruption.

An Oct. 28-30 Research 2000/DailyKos.com (D) poll gave Begich a 22-point lead, Rasmussen gave Begich an 8-point advantage in an Oct. 28 survey, and Alaska-based Hays Research showed the mayor with a 7-point edge. Begich won the race 48 percent to 47 percent.

According to Dittman, his firm has correctly predicted every primary and general election winner for Senate and governor of Alaska for 34 years, even though its margin in last year’s Senate race was also wider than the final result. A Dittman poll on the House race was not listed on Pollster.com.

The strange thing about the 2010 Senate polls is that the difference is not really one of margin. The results are totally opposite, and the explanation is not clear.

Dittman expressed concern about the Research 2000 methodology in local media stories, but declined to give specifics.

His poll surveyed 505 adults, with an over-sample of 430 Republicans for a sample for the primary question, from Dec. 5-20 (much longer than the traditional research period). The survey was paid for by the Alaska Standard, a conservative, Republican Web site that lists Dittman and Lisa Murkowski as contributors. The site’s publisher, conservative talk show host Dan Fagan, is a well-known Palin critic.

Research 2000 surveyed 600 likely voters, including 400 likely GOP primary voters for the Senate question, from Dec. 15-17. The poll was paid for by Kos Media LLC, but Moulitsas does not have a hand in the way the survey is conducted and posts all crosstabs and results on his Web site. Research 2000 President Del Ali noted in an interview that screening and predicting likely primary voters almost two years before an election is difficult and a potentially fruitless exercise.

Even though the ballot question results were different, the surveys agreed that Palin and Murkowski are popular.

In the Research 2000 poll, Murkowski had a 51 percent favorable/43 percent unfavorable among all voters (including 72 percent favorable/22 percent unfavorable among Republicans), compared to 60 percent favorable/38 percent unfavorable for Palin among all voters and an overwhelming 88 percent favorable/10 percent unfavorable among Republicans.

Dittman Research tested job approval instead of person favorability. Seventy-six percent of all respondents gave Murkowski a “very good” or “quite good” job rating compared to 17 percent “not too good” or “pretty bad.” Palin held a lower 65 percent “very good” or “quite good” job rating and 34 percent “not too good” or “pretty bad.” Job numbers among just Republicans were not available.

For now, there are two very different polls for a race that will likely never exist. And in general, Dittman appears unwilling to specifically criticize the methodology because that would then give away the secret recipe to polling the state. So who is right? We’ll probably never know.

“I have no interest in a pissing match,” Moulitsas remarked. “Aggregating multiple polls gave us great predictive power in 2008 in pretty much every race except Alaska Senate and Alaska at-large. I want more polling. I see no point in trashing anyone doing reputable work.”


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 9, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Change That at Least Some People Can Believe In

By Stuart Rothenberg

Although he hasn’t yet taken the oath of office, President-elect Barack Obama has already made appointments, offered comments about the Middle East and sketched out the elements of an economic stimulus package that he hopes to be able to sign.

Predictably, some observers are already talking about the “several hits” that Obama has taken, a reference to the withdrawal of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s (D) nomination for the top job at Commerce and the mishandling of the appointment of Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

But these problems are minor, and the reaction to most of the incoming administration’s appointments has been positive. But that doesn’t mean everyone is thrilled with everything Obama has done.

Republicans are unhappy with the size of the stimulus package, while liberals are worried that his foreign policy advisers are too conservative. Gays are angry that he’s picked a conservative evangelical minister to offer the benediction at his inauguration.

The Club for Growth is skeptical about another big jobs program and wants across-the-board tax cuts instead. Self-styled Democratic outsiders wonder how Paul Volcker, Lawrence Summers, Panetta, Tom Daschle, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Gates constitute change.

CODEPINK is upset that Obama hasn’t taken a strong stand against the violence in the Middle East and against Israel’s military actions in Gaza. And, of course, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is very unhappy that Obama didn’t discuss his selection for CIA chief with her before it was leaked to the media.

All in all, that adds up to a pretty good start for the incoming commander in chief. Any politician who has ruffled so many feathers from such diverse constituencies must be doing something right.

Every new president causes some grumbling within his own base and even more from the political opposition, but incoming President Obama is particularly vulnerable to complaints from the peanut gallery.

That’s because when he ran for president promising change, the Illinois Democrat was purposely vague. There are many forms of change, and Obama’s campaign message allowed each person to define what he or she thought that change would be.

For some, change merely meant different people and a different agenda in the White House. For others it meant a different political party calling the shots.

For some, change meant a quick exit from Iraq, while others simply thought change meant a new approach in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For some, change meant a sharply more liberal approach to government, including greater income redistribution, a much stronger commitment to “green” alternatives and programs and policies that would be praised by organized labor, the gay community and the minority community.

For others, change merely meant competence — an administration that would not see every decision in ideological terms but would emphasize management and problem solving.

Now, we are starting to see how the incoming president defines change in the days leading up to his swearing-in.

Anybody who has followed campaigns and presidential administrations over the past three or four decades understands that campaigning and governing are two different worlds.

Presidential campaigns tend toward the thematic, with broad brushes about change or security or energy independence or “getting the economy going.” But governing is about choices and trade-offs, and often about building coalitions, even if one party holds 59 seats in the Senate.

For the moment, the new president seems more interested in de-emphasizing ideology and partisanship, and even in reaching out to Republicans. He apparently is trying to “change the tone in Washington” and in the nation at large. That’s the kind of change that many Americans will approve of, even if isn’t going to please some of Obama’s most committed supporters immediately.

But four years is a long time, and the “change” Barack Obama seems to be pursuing at the moment may be very different from the “change” he pursues two or three years from now, particularly if the economy has rebounded by then and the nation’s financial problems are in the rearview mirror.

People who are satisfied now may be less satisfied in two years, while those disappointed in the incoming administration’s initial steps may be more than happy.

One thing that seems certain is that all of the harping on the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) problems, the delay in seating Minnesota’s Al Franken (D) in the Senate, the controversy over whether Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the New York Senate seat, and Richardson’s withdrawal as the nominee to be secretary of Commerce are momentary distractions that will not undermine Obama’s reputation or power.

A few months from now, all of these embarrassments will be largely forgotten, overshadowed by important White House and Congressional decisions, as well as the news of the day.

If Obama falters, it won’t be because of Bill Richardson or Rod Blagojevich. And if he succeeds, it will be because he continues down the path he has already begun.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 9, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: 2010 Senate Overview

The January 9, 2009 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers.

The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. 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 preview of this edition:

Senate Overview – The Lay of the Land

While Democrats are likely to have a 59-41 Senate majority in this Congress (once the Minnesota race is finalized and Al Franken is seated), the party has more opportunities this cycle, giving Democrats a good shot at reaching or exceeding 60 seats in the 2010 elections. Of course, much depends on how successful the Obama Administration is in turning around the country and “bringing Americans together.”

A huge number of seats are up this cycle, 36, because of three special elections (Colorado, New York and Delaware). Republicans are defending 19, while Democrats are defending 17 – a far more equal distribution of risk than during last cycle.

Even a quick look at the states and incumbents, however, suggests better Democratic opportunities, even without considering the Democrats’ greater national fundraising potential and the damage to the Republican brand from the past four years.

Subscribers get the rest of the overview, a state-by-state look at each 2010 race, and current polling.

It May Not Be the Economy, Stupid, in the End

By Stuart Rothenberg

The 2008 presidential race ultimately turned not on the war in Iraq (as many of us thought it would 18 months ago) but on the dramatic crisis in the nation’s financial industry. So it isn’t surprising that the health of the nation’s economy — an economy plagued by rising unemployment, the specter of large corporate bankruptcies and the threat of deflation — has become the top priority of the incoming Obama administration.

But politics, given both recent history and the events in the Middle East over the past week, takes interesting twists and turns, and if recent history is any guide, incoming President Barack Obama may find himself spending more of his time and energy on foreign policy than on any other single issue within the next year or two.

George W. Bush, after all, was initially elected to cut taxes, to turn the page on Bill Clinton’s personal failings and to reverse the country’s cultural drift to the left, not necessarily to begin a war in Iraq.

Four years later, Bush won a second term on his perceived ability to lead the fight in the war on terror, only to have to deal with domestic crises from Hurricane Katrina to a slowing economy and a mortgage crisis and financial meltdown.

But twisting priorities didn’t start with the current President Bush. Jimmy Carter, for example, was elected after Watergate to clean up Washington, D.C., but ended up looking overwhelmed by an energy shortage, stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis.

Vice President-elect Joseph Biden surely was correct when he predicted during the presidential campaign that Obama would be tested by one of America’s adversaries shortly after his inauguration.

The current list of international problems includes a head-spinning litany of instabilities, dangerous personalities, longtime animosities and potential hot spots that would make even the most experienced diplomat shake her head in concern.

Islamic terrorism continues to be a serious danger, whether domestically or internationally, as the recent attack in Mumbai, India, demonstrated.

Bush’s initial optimistic assessment of Vladimir Putin now looks like a self- delusion, as Russia talks increasingly tough about missiles and flexes its muscle. After invading Georgia (and using the same old Soviet-style excuses and accusations), the Russian government could well crank up the heat on Ukraine (indeed, it already is doing so), trying to take advantage of ethnic and political differences in the country.

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez is seeking to change his country’s constitution to allow himself to stay in office, and he continues to try to cause trouble in South America, where a number of left-of-center governments have backed away from the free market and may be backing away from democratic principles. Chavez’s over-the-top rhetoric makes him easy to dismiss, but the Obama administration may still have to figure out how to deal with him, especially if he seeks to destabilize U.S. allies in the region.

Iran continues to be a problem, and if intelligence reports in the near future suggest that that country is closer to attaining nuclear weapons than some now assume, the Obama administration would be faced with a huge problem.

And who knows what other trouble spots will emerge in the next year or two?

Obama has received almost universally good reviews (except from a handful on the left) for his foreign policy team. Even Republicans and many conservatives have praised Hillary Rodham Clinton’s and Janet Napolitano’s toughness and smarts, and Robert Gates and James Jones bring years of experience, knowledge and dedication to their jobs.

But we ought not forget that the national security team assembled eight years ago by the then-incoming President Bush, which included Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President (and former Defense Secretary) Dick Cheney, was also generally viewed as smart, experienced, tough and even pragmatic.

Forty years before that team was brought together, the foreign policy team assembled by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, which included such accomplished men as Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, McGeorge and William Bundy, Clark Clifford and Nicholas Katzenbach, began America’s road down a war in Southeast Asia. Journalist David Halberstam titled his book on those decision makers “The Best and the Brightest,” a reference to their credentials — but not to their performance.

I’m not at all suggesting that Obama’s team will make the same mistakes that Bush’s did or that Kennedy’s and Johnson’s did. Nor am I arguing that experience, smarts and credentials are unimportant. Not at all.

I’m merely noting that no matter how good a team looks — whether it’s the 2008 Detroit Tigers or the Bush or Obama foreign policy teams — it’s performance that matters most.

Even more important in the case of a foreign policy team, it’s the “decider,” the president, who matters the most. His decisions are final, even if he is the only one arguing one side of an issue.

Anyone who is absolutely certain that Barack Obama’s reputation (let alone the 2010 or 2012 elections) will turn on the new president’s decisions during the first 100 or 200 days of his term — or on the economy — might want to recall how quickly issues changed over the past couple of years.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 6, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Nevada Senate: Unpopular Reid Jabs Unpopular Bush — Again

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took another opportunity Sunday to attack the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, despite his own mediocre polling numbers.

“I really do believe that President Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had,” Reid said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The Majority Leader is consistent, as he said the very same thing almost three years ago.

“I really do believe this man will go down as the worst president this country has ever had,” Reid told the New York Times in March 2006.

But Reid isn’t exactly the best critic of job performance, because he’s establishing his own track record of unpopularity.

For the past two years, Reid has presided over one half of an extremely unpopular Congress. According to national exit polling in the November elections, just 24 percent of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing, compared with 73 percent who disapproved. Bush was at 27 percent approve/71 percent disapprove among Nov. 4 voters.

The news for Reid isn’t any better back home in the Silver State.

A Mason-Dixon survey taken in May 2007 for the Las Vegas Review-Journal showed Reid with a personal rating of 32 percent favorable and 51 percent unfavorable. In comparison, Nevada’s other Senator, Republican John Ensign, enjoyed 51 percent favorable and 19 percent unfavorable ratings in the same poll.

According to a December 2007 Review-Journal poll, 58 percent of Nevadans gave Reid a fair or poor job rating, while 41 percent said he was doing an excellent or good job. In comparison, Ensign received 57 percent excellent or good job ratings and 40 percent fair or poor, even though he was also in leadership as the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Reid isn’t even particularly well-liked among some folks within his own party, particularly those on its left. Just 10 percent of Daily Kos readers who participated in an unscientific, online survey approved of Reid’s job as Majority Leader, while 81 percent did not approve. The survey was conducted in October 2007 on the prominent liberal Web site.

A more recent (and scientific) Nov. 23-25 Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos showed Reid leading then-Rep. Jon Porter (R) 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical 2010 general election matchup.

Even then, Reid was upside down in both his personal rating (38 percent favorable/54 percent unfavorable) and job rating (39 percent approve/57 percent disapprove. Porter, who lost re-election in the 3rd district in November, had 40 percent favorable and 39 percent unfavorable ratings.

Only history will show whether Reid’s critique of the Bush administration is correct. But his self-appointed role of presidential historian isn’t making him many friends.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 5, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Rothenberg Archives: 2002 Letter from Obama

This is our final bit of nostalgia for now, a letter from October 2002 from Obama to us following our initial September 13, 2002 meeting. Again, this meeting was for his 2004 race. Thanks for walking down memory lane with us. If we didn't think it was an auto-pen, we might hawk it on eBay for millions of dollars.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Campaigns and Electi Politics obama 2004

Rothenberg Archives: 2004 Obama Senate Campaign Prospectus

Here is a campaign prospectus from Barack Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate run. This was from our September 26, 2003 meeting with Obama, but we first met with him on September 13, 2002. That was almost two months before the 2002 election and he was already focused on 2004.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Campaigns and Electi Politics president obama