If Everyone Is Looking at the Economy, Watch Foreign Policy

By Stuart Rothenberg

It was more than 10 months ago (Jan. 6, It May Not Be the Economy, Stupid, in the End) that I wrote in this space that, despite the nation’s focus on the economy and multiple assessments that Barack Obama’s presidency would depend on his actions on the economy during the first 100 days, the president’s ultimate standing might turn on international issues.

I continue to believe that is the case.

Given the primacy of domestic issues to the public, particularly the undeniable importance of unemployment, health care and spending issues, that may seem an unwise guess. But if there are any issues that can rival, or in fact trump, kitchen-table concerns, one of them surely is national security.

While his Afghanistan policy has generated some controversy, foreign policy remains Obama’s strength.

The public’s evaluation of his overall job performance has slipped since the early days of his presidency, when his job approval was artificially high, but his approval still stands generally in the low 50s, certainly a decent number considering the administration’s level of activity and the problems still facing the country.

While his job approval on domestic issues such as health care and the federal budget deficit has slipped noticeably — with more adults saying they disapprove of the president’s performance in those two areas than those who approve — Obama’s numbers on international issues and fighting terrorism have remained stronger. For example, 6 in 10 Americans said they approve of his handling of international issues.

But foreign policy remains fraught with danger for the White House.

While the president has more latitude to create policy in the international arena, he is dealing with an array of state and nonstate actors who don’t necessarily have America’s interests at heart. For a White House that enjoys being proactive and staying on message, foreign policy can be frustratingly reactive.

Figuring out how Blue Dogs and liberals can sign onto the same health care or climate change bills is difficult, but it’s easier than having to worry about whether Russia and China are serious about ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, how close the government of Iran is to acquiring nuclear weapons or deciding whether to put more troops into Afghanistan.

For all the problems that Obama has on Capitol Hill with moderate Democrats who are trying to demonstrate their independence from the administration and from Republicans who have a very different vision of health care reform and economic policy — and who score political points by discrediting the president’s agenda and defeating his efforts — at least those domestic players (and adversaries) have America’s best interests at heart.

True, some partisan crackpots treat Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) or South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) as traitors because they don’t always agree with their party’s leaders, but there should be little doubt about their allegiance.

But nobody in their right mind thinks that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will make decisions on the basis of what the United States wants or needs.

Since foreign policy remains one of Obama’s assets to date, he could create dramatic problems for himself when forced to make difficult decisions involving U.S. foreign policy.

Afghanistan is the most obvious problem, and a perfectly reasonable decision in late November could look like a horrible one six months later.

Even before his decision about how to respond to calls for additional troops, Obama’s disapproval on his handling of the war in Afghanistan (48 percent) is higher than his approval (45 percent). Those are worrisome numbers given that his decision on future troop levels could well anger those on the right and the left.

But beyond Afghanistan, Iran looks to become a nightmare for Obama unless his current strategy of encouraging Iran to give up his nuclear program bears fruit. And for many Americans, only the most naive of presidents would truly believe that international pressure on Iran would succeed in persuading the current government to “walk through the door” that the president has said the international community has opened.

Like everything else, foreign policy is about the results, and it is easy to see the president looking too weak to moderates and conservatives, as well as to pro-Israel liberals, if he fails to act decisively on Iran, and looking too hawkish to anti-war liberals if he supports military measures aimed at damaging Iran’s nuclear capability.

Right now, Obama represents restraint and multilateralism in foreign policy. But as George W. Bush found out, sometimes strengths turn into weakness during the four years of a presidency.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 23, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

KS 3 Moved to Toss-Up

Kansas Cong. Dennis Moore's surprise announcement that he would not seek reelection next year creates an instant headache for the Democrats. Barack Obama won the 3rd District 51%-48% in 2008, but Republicans are going to be running very strong at the top of the ticket next year (in races for governor and the U.S. Senate) and Democrats will have difficulty holding onto a seat that Moore made to look safer than it really is. The candidate fields are far from settled, but for now, the seat vaults from Currently Safe to Toss-Up.

Here are our latest House ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans

Pure Toss-Up (2 R, 14 D)

• AL 2 (Bright, D)
  
• FL 8 (Grayson, D)
  
• ID 1 (Minnick, D)
• IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
• KS 3 (Open; Moore, D) *
  
• MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
• MS 1 (Childers, D)
• NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
• NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
• NM 2 (Teague, D)
• NY 23 (Owens, D)
  
• OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
• OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
• PA 6 (Open; Gerlach, R)
  
• PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
• VA 5 (Periello, D)
  

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (1 R, 1 D)

• LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
  

Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 4 D)

• CO 4 (Markey, D)
• FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
• IL 14 (Foster, D)
• MI 7 (Schauer, D)

Lean Republican (2 R, 0 D)

• CA 3 (Lungren, R)
• CA 44 (Calvert, R)
  

Lean Democratic (0 R, 3 D)

• AL 5 (Griffith, D)
  
• NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
  
• NY 29 (Massa, D)
  

Republican Favored (9 R, 0 D)

• AK A-L (Young, R)
• CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
• MI 11 (McCotter, R)
• MN 3 (Paulsen, R)
• MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
• NE 2 (Terry, R)
  
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
  
• PA 15 (Dent, R)
  

Democrat Favored (2 R, 11 D)

• AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
• CA 47 (Sanchez, D)
  
• DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  
• LA 2 (Cao, R)
  
• MO 4 (Skelton, D)
  
• NY 19 (Hall, D)
• NY 20 (Murphy, D)
• NC 8 (Kissell, D)
  
• OH 18 (Space, D)
• PA 10 (Carney, D)
  
• TX 17 (Edwards, D)
• VA 2 (Nye, D)

Total seats in play: 49
Republican seats: 16
Democratic seats: 33

Sarah Palin? Frankly, My Dear, I Don’t Give a Damn

By Stuart Rothenberg

If you are planning on reading a column about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s presidential prospects, you will be deeply disappointed.

I don’t know whether Palin will run for president in 2012, and right now I don’t really care. Most in the media do care, of course, which is why they can’t seem to stop buzzing about her book, her book tour and her political intentions. You’d think the Iowa caucuses were right around the corner.

Even “real” news programs, such as CNN’s “State of the Union,” hosted by John King, spent too much time for my taste on Palin last weekend, both during the program’s political roundtable, during an interview with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and then during an unnecessarily long piece about her book.

Most — maybe all — of the current media coverage of the race for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 will be irrelevant for anyone who wants to know whom the GOP will nominate to take on President Barack Obama three years from now. There will be so many other developments over the next two years that will color that race that Palin’s book will be barely an asterisk.

Of course, if you are simply looking for entertainment rather than trying to understand how the next GOP presidential field will develop, then it’s certainly reasonable to pay attention to anything Palin, as well as to every speech by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

There are many in the media who will wax poetic about Palin and the 2012 race, so you won’t have trouble finding people who want to talk about the contest, even though there is no race now and there won’t be one for many, many months.

Ultimately, you have a simple choice: Do you get more enjoyment out of watching “The Biggest Loser,” “CSI” or “The Office,” or would you rather watch politics? If your answer is politics, then following all of the speculation about Palin and other potential candidates is the right thing for you to do.

And if you hate politics, you can watch Palin the way you watch any other pseudo-celebrity — on “Oprah” or “Entertainment Tonight.”

But don’t think for even a moment that any chatter now about the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president has any bearing on the 2012 GOP contest.

True, who will be in the race and who is raising big money for “next time” matters, but you don’t need to follow the Palin book tour or opinions about Pawlenty’s last speech to do that.

Even with their victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, the Republicans are pretty much irrelevant now. That’s not terrible for them, and it’s not unusual for the “out” party to be irrelevant.

All of the nation’s focus right now is on Obama, and almost every day there is some news item that seems to put the White House or the Democratic Party in an unflattering light.

Whether it’s unemployment, the deficit, health care, Afghanistan, the president bowing to the emperor of Japan or the ill-advised comments from a single Florida House Democrat, Democrats seem to have more problems than they need.

Democratic activist Al Sharpton commented over the weekend how happy he was that Palin is getting so much attention. The more attention, she gets, said the Rev. Sharpton, a man who is no stranger to media attention or to self-induced controversy, the better for the Democrats.

That may be true today, but not 10 months from now, when the midterm elections are likely to be about Obama no matter what wacky things Palin does now.

Yes, both the national media and Democrats are likely to keep Palin in the spotlight as long as possible.

For the media, the former governor of Alaska is a celebrity with an “interesting” family, while for Democrats, she is an easy target — a political lightweight of uncertain substance, who drives “tea party” conservatives into a euphoric frenzy but divides the GOP into two very different camps.

Palin may or may not be particularly relevant in early 2012, as the first states begin to select delegates to the next Republican National Convention. Right now, I’d guess she won’t. But that’s still two years away, so I’m not going to spend much more than a few seconds thinking about it.

Instead, I’m going to watch the last episode of “The Office,” which I missed.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 19, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

PA Senate Moved to Toss-Up

Democrats are headed for a primary war between Sen. Arlen Specter (D) and Cong. Joe Sestak (D) while former Cong. Pat Toomey (R) awaits the winner. Earlier in the year, many people weren't giving Toomey a shot at winning statewide, but he could benefit from the Democratic primary and a potentially favorable political environment and is now running even in general election polls. We're moving the Pennsylvania Senate race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.

Here are our latest Senate ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
*- Moved benefiting Republicans

Lean Takeover (0 R, 1 D)

• DE Open (Kaufman, D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 4 D)

• KY Open (Bunning, R)
  
• MO Open (Bond, R)
• NH Open (Gregg, R)
• OH Open (Voinovich, R)
• IL Open (Burris, D)
• Dodd (D-CT)
• Reid (D-NV)
• Specter (D-PA) *
  

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

• Burr (R-NC)
• Vitter (R-LA)
• Bennet (D-CO)
• Lincoln (D-AR)
  

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)

• Grassley (R-IA)
• FL Open (LeMieux, R)

Currently Safe (10 R, 12 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)
• KS Open (Brownback, R)
• Bayh (D-IN)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Dorgan (D-ND)
• Feingold (D-WI)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Wyden (D-OR)
• MA Open (Kirk, D)

2009 Election Results Show How the Context Has Changed

By Stuart Rothenberg

The discussion about whether the election results earlier this month reflected local factors or constituted a referendum on President Barack Obama creates a false choice.

Candidate quality, fundraising and local issues are always significant factors in gubernatorial races. But the national political and economic environment creates the context within which those state races are fought, and the context creates a perspective that voters use to make their choices.

It is as simple as this: If George W. Bush was still in the White House, Democrats would have won the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races. In that sense, Republicans won both races because Barack Obama is president.

But local concerns undoubtedly were paramount in New Jersey, where an unpopular governor was seeking another term from voters who disapproved of his performance in office.

The state’s budgetary problems were Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) undoing, and as Monmouth University Polling Institute Director Patrick Murray argued so persuasively in a post-election memo, his toll plan from last year drove turnout and produced huge majorities for Republican Chris Christie in two GOP-leaning counties, Monmouth and Ocean.

Virginia was less of a referendum because the sitting governor couldn’t seek re-election. That allowed other factors, including the context, to be more important. Bob McDonnell (R) outspent Creigh Deeds (D) on TV, and Deeds handed Republicans an issue when he botched an answer about his position on taxes.

The argument that each gubernatorial contest was simply a referendum on the president’s performance simply doesn’t hold water.

Obama’s job approval stood at 57 percent in New Jersey, so if the election in that state had been primarily about Obama, Corzine would have won. And in Virginia, one in five voters who approved of the job the president was doing voted for McDonnell.

Moreover, the victory of Democrat Bill Owens in New York’s 23rd district is further evidence that voters weren’t merely sending an anti-Obama message on Election Day. If that’s all Nov. 3 was about, Owens couldn’t have pulled out a narrow victory.

On the other hand, Owens’ victory doesn’t prove that Obama wasn’t a drag in New York, only that other factors in what was a weird race anyway trumped the national context.

The gubernatorial results should remind us that context matters and that over the past six months, the political context has changed dramatically.

In February, Democrats held on to an upstate New York Congressional seat because now-Rep. Scott Murphy (D) ran as the candidate of change and of action on the economy, while Republican Jim Tedisco ran as an opponent to the new president’s stimulus package. Did voters really want to go back to Bush, or did they want to give Obama a chance?

Now, Obama owns the economy — the rising unemployment, in particular. The deficit is growing. His health care agenda — or at least Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) health care bill — has generated emotional opposition in many quarters.

Unlike 2006 and 2008, Republicans running in 2009 didn’t have to spend all of their time during this year’s elections on the defensive because of Bush. He is finally yesterday’s news (though I expect Democrats will try to bring him back for the midterm elections).

In Virginia, McDonnell could talk about his own agenda without having to explain where he agreed or disagreed with Bush. And McDonnell interjected Democratic Congressional initiatives, particularly cap-and-trade, into his gubernatorial race every chance that he could. He tried to make Deeds embrace the national Democratic Party’s agenda or distance himself from it, knowing that either way, Deeds would lose support from liberals or swing voters.

In New Jersey, while Corzine tried to inject Bush into the race, voters clearly thought the race was about the governor. Democratic turnout was down across the board. Had Bush still been in the White House, Democratic turnout would have been higher and independents would not have gone nearly so heavily for Christie. And Corzine would have been able to make Bush a major issue.

Again, that doesn’t mean the New Jersey race was “about Obama.” But it does mean that the Obama presidency hung as a cloud over Corzine’s candidacy.

This has considerable meaning for the 2010 midterms. Now it will be the GOP who can push the “culture of corruption” argument that Democrats used so successfully in the recent past. Now Republicans will complain about high unemployment numbers, about causalities in Afghanistan and the administration’s foreign policy and about the government’s inability to get H1N1 flu shots to the American public.

Moreover, as we are already seeing with health care reform, the internal contradictions of the Democratic Party are becoming apparent. For the past year, the national media have been focused on internal Republican divisions. But now, a fracturing in the Democratic ranks is likely to give plenty of fodder for journalists, columnists and talking heads. This is likely to further erode Democratic poll numbers.

There is nothing unnatural about this, of course. It’s the inevitable result of a party gaining more than 50 seats over the past four years, including in districts that are conservative and lean Republican. And it always happens when one party controls both chambers of Congress and the White House.

So if you want to believe either that the 2009 elections were primarily about Obama or that he was irrelevant, go right ahead. But you’ll be wrong.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 16, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Pennsylvania Senate & Michigan 7

The November 17, 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 updated 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 the introduction to this edition:


Pennsylvania Senate: Primarily Focused
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrats came up short of a filibuster-proof majority on Election Night 2008, but Sen. Arlen Specter’s party switch in April finally gave them the 60 seats they desired.

The Democratic primary, Specter’s softening numbers among Republicans and Independents, and a shifting national political landscape has turned a virtually safe Democratic seat into a competitive general election contest. Subscribers get the rest of the story in the print edition of the Report.

Michigan 7: Schauer Power
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Mark Schauer is no stranger to winning in competitive districts, but winning reelection next year could be the Democrat’s greatest feat yet.

In a state with deep economic troubles and a competitive gubernatorial race at the top of the ticket, Schauer will have to work hard to hold onto a district with deep conservative and Republican roots.

And Republicans are even more energized after taking over Schauer’s former state senate seat just a couple weeks ago in the heart of the congressional district. Subscribers get the rest of the story in the print edition of the Report.

Democrats Face Pros and Cons in Nationalizing 2010 Races

By Nathan L. Gonzales

David Axelrod has a cure that may be worse than the disease he’s trying to alleviate.

The senior White House adviser admitted that low turnout among base Democratic voters contributed to the party’s gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey last week. And the White House plans to nationalize the 2010 elections around President Barack Obama in order to regain the 2008 enthusiasm.

But some of the most vulnerable House Democrats represent districts won by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) last year, and those Members may not be all that excited about a national referendum on Obama’s job performance. Furthermore, nationalizing the 2010 midterms could throw fuel on an already inflamed GOP electorate.

“The goal looking forward to 2010 —when we will in fact have a broad national election for Congress — is to motivate those independent voters who voted for us last time but stayed home this time,” Axelrod told Fox News last week.

The White House plans to nationalize the 2010 elections on its own terms by putting the president front and center in order to minimize the party’s losses, Axelrod explained to NBC’s “First Read.” The plan is to use the 2002 elections — when Republicans gained eight House seats and two Senate seats in President George W. Bush’s first midterm elections — as a blueprint.

But there is an underlying assumption that Obama will be at least as popular next November as he is this year. And Democrats appear to want the turnout benefits that a national election may bring without any of the backlash.

“We need to localize, not nationalize,” said one Democratic consultant who has a philosophical difference with Axelrod but declined to go on the record speaking against the White House.

Democrats had tremendous success nationalizing the past two elections by running against Bush and the “culture of corruption.” Now as the party in power, some Democratic strategists believe the party needs to take a different approach by running a series of local elections, framing them as a choice between two candidates, and systematically disqualifying the Republican challengers with their financial advantage.

“I don’t believe if they nationalized Virginia it would have changed anything,” added the Democratic source. Even though Axelrod dismissed last week’s losses as local elections, Republicans are happy to point out that instead of helping state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) across the finish line in Virginia, the White House cut ties to him when it became apparent he wasn’t going to win. Obama campaigned with incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in New Jersey until the very end.

Meanwhile, Republicans are ready and waiting for a national fight.

“Super,” National Republican Senatorial Committee Executive Director Rob Jesmer said about Axelrod’s plan. “I can’t possibly imagine nationalizing the election helps [Blanche] Lincoln, [Michael] Bennet, [Paul] Hodes, or [Robin] Carnahan,” Jesmer added, talking about four of the most competitive Senate contests in the country in Arkansas, Colorado, New Hampshire and Missouri.

For example, the Democrats’ best strategy to take over the open Senate seat in Missouri would seem to be making the race a choice between Carnahan, the secretary of state, and former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R) instead of a referendum on Obama, who lost the state narrowly last November.

The 2010 midterms will be the White House’s best opportunity yet to prove that Obama’s appeal is transferable to other candidates without the president on the ballot.

Even now, some Democratic incumbents aren’t buying what the president is selling and don’t believe his agenda is politically in-tune with their districts. Three dozen Democrats just voted against the health care bill that Obama will likely tout as the hallmark of his presidency. And at least a dozen or so Democrats have voted against other key legislation put forth by the party’s leadership and the White House.

Every Member wants to be thought of as independent and thoughtful, and with Obama touting his agenda next year, some Democratic incumbents will have to choose their opportunities to show their independence and hope it’s enough for the voters in the district.

Two years ago, Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.), then the mayor of Montgomery, wouldn’t even admit who he was supporting in the presidential election, and now he’s one of 48 Democrats who represent districts that McCain won. Republican challengers in those districts are anxious for a national referendum on Obama and the White House agenda.

Democrats in their first and second terms will have to learn how to run against national trends in the vein of Reps. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah) — both of whom have held on to win in their overwhelmingly conservative districts despite being targeted for defeat.

Some strategists believe the national White House strategy and local Member strategy are complimentary. But one Democratic source cautioned against the White House “being too ‘ivory tower’” with their plan.

Other Democratic strategists are on board, and some are resigned to the fact that next year’s elections will be a referendum on Obama regardless of whether they want it to be.

“There is a degree to which we all live under the Democratic brand — as defined by President Obama — and 2009 taught us that the smartest political move is to accept, if not embrace, that fact,” Democratic Governors Association Executive Director Nathan Daschle explained.

“Ultimately, [the 2010 elections] will be about what we’ve been able to do,” said former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Executive Director John Lapp, who is now a media consultant and agrees with Axelrod’s strategy.

“Republicans left a horrible mess,” Lapp explained. “Together, we’ve either been able to work through problems or we haven’t.”

Some Democrats believe that a national election focused on health care reform and an economy on the mend bodes well for their party and that the president will be the best salesman for his own policies in order to motivate the Democratic base.

“By next November, Democrats will have made progress addressing the two biggest challenges America faces: the economy and health care,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Communications Director Eric Schultz predicted.

But there is obviously no guarantee that the president, party or the agenda will be popular with voters, and it’s unclear if the White House can even succeed in creating a national election in their favor, even if they wanted to.

Obama “needs to remain popular for it to be successful,” according to one Democratic strategist.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a significant factor in boosting Bush’s standing and nationalizing the subsequent 2002 elections. Bush’s 67 percent job approval rating (according to an Oct. 30, 2002, to Nov. 3, 2002, ABC News/Washington Post poll) and a positive round of redistricting contributed to Republican gains in the House. President Obama will enter 2010 with a job approval rating at least 10 points lower and lacking the redistricting component.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on November 11, 2009 and CQPolitics.com on November 12, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

CT Gov Moved to Toss-Up

Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (R) announced she would not seek reelection, handing Democrats an excellent pick-up opportunity. It may be a little while before the candidate fields are set, so for now, the race moves from Clear Advantage for Rell to a Toss-Up.

With victories in New Jersey and Virginia, Republicans now control 24 governorships compared to 26 for the Democrats heading into 2010. Next year, 37 states will elect a governor including the nation's largest states such as California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

Here are our latest gubernatorial ratings.
# - Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans

Lean Takeover (4 R, 4 D)

• CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
• HI Open (Lingle, R)
• RI Open (Carcieri, R)
• VT Open (Douglas, R)
  
• KS Open (Parkinson, D)
• OK Open (Henry, D)
• TN Open (Bredesen, D)
• WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 6 D)

• Brewer (R-AZ)
• Gibbons (R-NV)
• CT Open (Rell, R) #
  
• FL Open (Crist, R)
  
• MN Open (Pawlenty, R)
• Culver (D-IA)
  
• Paterson (D-NY)
  
• Ritter (D-CO)
  
• MI Open (Granholm, D)
• PA Open (Rendell, D)
• WI Open (Doyle, D)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (1 R, 2 D)

• GA Open (Perdue, R)
• Patrick (D-MA)
  
• Strickland (D-OH)

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

• AL Open (Riley, R)
• SC Open (Sanford, R)
• Quinn (D-IL)
• ME Open (Baldacci, D)
• NM Open (Richardson, D)
  

Currently Safe (6 R, 4 D)

• Herbert (R-UT)
  
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Otter (R-ID)
• Parnell (R-AK)
• Perry (R-TX)
• SD Open (Rounds, R)
  
• Beebe (D-AR)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• O'Malley (D-MD)
• OR Open (Kulongoski, D)

Learning the Right Lessons From 2009 Results

By Stuart Rothenberg

Everyone and his brother has opinions about what happened on Tuesday, but not all assessments are equally correct, just as not all of the descriptions of the contests, while they were in progress, were equally on the mark.

What were some of the mistakes and mischaracterizations during the campaigns and after the voting?

One of the worst, I thought, was the widespread characterization of Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in New York’s 23rd district, as a moderate. I realize that those of us in the media use that term to distinguish certain Republicans and Democrats from their more ideologically consistent colleagues, but in this case, the label was inappropriate.

Scozzafava doesn’t only support abortion rights — often a marker for Republican “moderates” — she supports gay marriage. But she doesn’t only support gay marriage; she supported President Barack Obama’s stimulus proposal that not a single House Republican favored. But she didn’t just support the stimulus package; she supports the Employee Free Choice Act (what opponents call “card check”), which is opposed by virtually the entire business community. And in the end, of course, she endorsed the Democrat in the race.

Scozzafava is a liberal Republican by any standard, and she should have been labeled as such. She is more liberal than every Republican in the House of Representatives and many Democrats.

The Republican county chairmen who picked Scozzafava should have appreciated how much opposition her selection would have generated, and they should have been aware of the likelihood that the Conservative Party would have picked its own nominee, thereby dividing the GOP.

Of course, Scozzafava would have in all likelihood held the seat for the GOP if Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman had not been in the race. And Hoffman might not have held it as the Republican nominee.

I also thought it amusing that by the end of the elections in Virginia and New Jersey so many observers were talking about how terrible Democrat Creigh Deeds and Republican Chris Christie were as candidates.

Sorry, but a year ago everyone I talked with, including New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), told me that Christie was by far the GOP’s strongest candidate in the Garden State. It’s not as if the state’s Republican Party has produced a large stable of potential statewide candidates to choose from.

It’s certainly fair to criticize the governor-elect’s campaign and his performance during the race, but let’s not rewrite history. Christie was good enough to win. And he did.

Deeds soundly beat two Northern Virginia primary opponents, winning more than 45 percent in Fairfax and Arlington counties. Moreover, after his primary victory, he was widely hailed as the kind of Democrat who could keep the governorship in Democratic hands. Most mid-June polls showed the gubernatorial race close.

Again, he and his campaign had plenty of weaknesses and mistakes, but portraying him as some kind of inept buffoon who never really had a chance is rewriting history. And former Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) ran an extraordinarily good campaign.

The “Pollster of the Cycle Award,” in my opinion, goes to SurveyUSA, which once again proved its worth, at least in pre-election polls. The firm’s final Virginia numbers were eerily close — the firm showed McDonnell winning 58 percent to 40 percent in its Oct. 30 to Nov. 1 poll, just shy of the actual final margin: McDonnell 59 percent, Deeds 41 percent.

In New Jersey, where Christie won by 4 points, the last SurveyUSA poll showed Christie up by 3.

Public Policy Polling was the runner-up in Virginia (it had McDonnell up by 14 points), while in New Jersey PPP (Christie by 6 points) and Quinnipiac University (Christie by 2 points) were narrowly behind SurveyUSA in accuracy.

SurveyUSA, PPP and Quinnipiac, however, dramatically overstated the support of Independent Chris Daggett in New Jersey.

Where there are winners, there are usually also losers. None of the major public pollsters was dramatically wrong in Virginia, but Research 2000, which polled for DailyKos, showed McDonnell with only a 10-point lead in late October, primarily because it overstated Deeds’ support.

In New Jersey, the Monmouth University/Gannett poll erred when it showed Corzine up by 2 points in its last survey. But by far the worst-performing survey in either state was Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Democracy Corps in New Jersey.

Democracy Corps polling showed Corzine pulling ahead in his race in early October and stretching his lead to 4 points (41 percent to 36 percent for Christie) among likely voters and 5 points in a higher-turnout electorate in its Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 survey. The survey showed Daggett drawing in the midteens. He actually drew just less than 6 percent.

Finally, after the results were in, I received e-mails — one from a group favoring public financing of campaigns and another from a candidate running against wealthy opponents — claiming that Corzine’s defeat and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s (I) narrow victory constituted a statement about voters’ views of wealthy self-funders.

“Millionaire self-funders beware” is how the Senate campaign of former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) put it. “Voters ... are tired of self-financed, Wall Street-connected candidates,” Public Campaign wrote in a press release.

The idea that Corzine lost because he spent so much money or self-funded is laughable. His defeat was a referendum on the past four years and particularly the state’s economy and tax issues. As for Bloomberg, his spending did cause a backlash, but so did his perceived arrogance, especially his efforts to change the law that would have prevented him from seeking a third term.

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

Florida 8: Eisnaugle Declines To Run

State Rep. Eric Eisnaugle is the latest Republican candidate to decline to run against freshman Rep. Alan Grayson (D) in Florida's 8th District. Eisnaugle is expected to make an official announcement soon, according to GOP sources.

Businessman Bruce O'Donoghue (R) and state Rep. Kurt Kelly (R) are still considering their options.

Young developer Armando Gutierrez is already in the race and has created a bit of a splash by garnering some quick congressional endorsements from inside and outside the state. But Gutierrez just moved to the district from Miami and it's clear that national House GOP strategists are looking elsewhere.

After Hoffman, Rubio Is Likely Conservatives’ Next Challenge

By Stuart Rothenberg

The defeat of Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman in New York’s 23rd district isn’t likely to change conservatives’ plans to turn their attention quickly to Florida’s GOP Senate primary.

The Club for Growth’s endorsement of former state Speaker Marco Rubio (R) now seems inevitable, since he has positioned himself as the conservative insurgent against Gov. Charlie Crist (R), whom Rubio defines as an ally of President Barack Obama and an unreliable soldier in the struggle against liberalism.

Earlier this year, I wrote in this space (“Florida Senate Race: Just What Is Marco Rubio Up To?” June 22) that I was “agnostic” about whether Rubio could beat Crist for the GOP nomination. Too many questions still needed to be answered.

Now, however, it is clear that Rubio, bankrolled by the Club for Growth and conservatives across the nation, will offer a serious threat to Crist. Even some of the governor’s supporters expect a nail-biter. But while Rubio has the potential to beat Crist, don’t bury the governor just yet. This is going to get very interesting.

Crist’s initial advantage over Rubio — 53 percent to 18 percent in a mid-May survey by Mason-Dixon — reflected Rubio’s lack of name identification and the public’s lack of attention to the 2010 contest.

And while Rubio has moved strongly in the polls, reaching 35 percent in the Republican primary ballot test in Quinnipiac’s latest survey, Crist’s slide in the primary matchup hasn’t been all that dramatic, probably about 4 or 5 points. Still, he is now sitting right around the 50 percent mark in the Quinnipiac and St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald surveys, a dangerous place to be for a universally known governor in tough economic times.

More than a few opinion leaders in Florida see the governor as someone who avoids making tough decisions but is great at taking credit for the accomplishments of others.

Rubio’s big problem continues to be statewide visibility. Quinnipiac’s most recent survey found 55 percent of Republicans said they hadn’t heard enough about him to have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion, while only 5 percent said they hadn’t heard enough of Crist to have an opinion of him.

And for all his problems, Crist’s name ID among Republicans is 63 percent favorable/30 percent unfavorable. That’s certainly a high negative for an incumbent governor, but, as it stands now, it isn’t enough for Rubio to defeat Crist for the Senate nomination.

Crist has decent numbers among Democrats (47 percent favorable/35 percent unfavorable) and good numbers among independents (65 percent favorable/24 percent unfavorable) in the Quinnipiac survey, but since Florida holds a closed primary, those voters can’t participate unless they re-register as Republicans. Look for Crist to try to do that much as Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) did five years ago when he was seeking renomination as a Republican.

Rubio and the Club for Growth will need to pummel Crist from now until the Aug. 24 primary, and they will certainly do so — on Crist’s support for Obama’s stimulus package and cap-and-trade legislation, among other things.

But Crist is only now gearing up for a fight, and he’ll have plenty of ammunition, both defensive and offensive. Unlike Specter and state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) in New York’s 23rd district special election, Crist is culturally conservative (“pro-life” and “pro-gun”), positions he’ll surely use to rebut Rubio’s characterizations of him. And as a former state attorney general, Crist’s anti-crime record is long.

Moreover, the governor will go after Rubio on everything from his redecorating of the Speaker’s office to his voting record in the Legislature.

Local observers say Crist is guaranteed to make a major issue of Rubio’s support for a steep hike in the state’s sales tax when he was state Speaker. Rubio’s supporters will cry foul, complaining that the then-Speaker proposed the sales tax increase in exchange for the elimination of the state’s property tax on primary residences, and, of course, they’ll be right.

But Crist doesn’t have to portray Rubio’s record that way. He can and will focus only on the tax hike part of Rubio’s proposal, which would have been a boon to homeowners but not to renters. The debate should drive the folks at the Club for Growth crazy.

“By the time Crist gets done with him, ‘Marco Rubio’ and ‘sales tax’ will be tied together,” chuckled one journalist about the governor’s likely strategy.

Crist’s financial advantage also can’t be underestimated in a state where a major statewide TV buy of 1,000 gross ratings points costs about $1.5 million.

By its own admission, the Club for Growth spent $645,000 in this week’s New York special election, and it bundled another $376,000 from its members, for a total investment of about $1 million. That’s a huge amount in a single House race, but it isn’t such a dramatic number in a Florida Senate race, where Crist is likely to spend many millions.

Moreover, the club has other opportunities, in Utah and Pennsylvania, for example, and former Club for Growth President Pat Toomey (R) will expect a major effort by his former organization on his behalf in the Senate race in Pennsylvania. Even the anti-tax organization’s resources are not unlimited, so it’s not clear how much money the group can and will commit to Florida.

Finally, Florida political observers say it’s a huge error to underestimate Crist. In something of a back-handed compliment, one observer put it this way: “Charlie doesn’t care about anything but Charlie Crist. That means he’ll do anything to win. He always wins, even when it looks like he shouldn’t.”

This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 5, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New York 23 Remains a Toss-Up

Bill Owens' victory in New York's 23rd was the good news for Democrats this week and continued the party's winning streak in competitive House special elections. But the dynamic that helped Owens win- including a divided Republican Party- can't be ignored and aren't likely to be replicated again. For now, his reelection next year is a Pure Toss-Up.

Here are our latest House ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans

Pure Toss-Up (2 R, 13 D)

• AL 2 (Bright, D)
  
• FL 8 (Grayson, D)
  
• ID 1 (Minnick, D)
• IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
• MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
• MS 1 (Childers, D)
• NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
• NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
• NM 2 (Teague, D)
• NY 23 (Owens, D)
  
• OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
• OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
• PA 6 (Open; Gerlach, R)
  
• PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
• VA 5 (Periello, D)
  

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (1 R, 1 D)

• LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
  

Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 4 D)

• CO 4 (Markey, D)
• FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
• IL 14 (Foster, D)
• MI 7 (Schauer, D)

Lean Republican (2 R, 0 D)

• CA 3 (Lungren, R)
• CA 44 (Calvert, R)
  

Lean Democratic (0 R, 3 D)

• AL 5 (Griffith, D)
  
• NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
  
• NY 29 (Massa, D)
  

Republican Favored (9 R, 0 D)

• AK A-L (Young, R)
• CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
• MI 11 (McCotter, R)
• MN 3 (Paulsen, R)
• MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
• NE 2 (Terry, R)
  
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
  
• PA 15 (Dent, R)
  

Democrat Favored (2 R, 11 D)

• AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
• CA 47 (Sanchez, D)
  
• DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  
• LA 2 (Cao, R)
  
• MO 4 (Skelton, D)
  
• NY 19 (Hall, D)
• NY 20 (Murphy, D)
• NC 8 (Kissell, D)
  
• OH 18 (Space, D)
• PA 10 (Carney, D)
  
• TX 17 (Edwards, D)
• VA 2 (Nye, D)

Total seats in play: 48
Republican seats: 16
Democratic seats: 32

Florida 8: A Lesson on How Not to Win Re-Election

By Stuart Rothenberg

After almost 30 years doing this, I shouldn’t be surprised by anything Members of Congress do. But even I was taken aback when Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) referred to an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.”

Democratic colleagues called the comment “absurd” (Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey) and “inappropriate” (Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland), and Rep. Anthony Weiner (N.Y.) even said that the freshman Congressman is “one fry short of a Happy Meal.”

I didn’t meet Grayson during either of his two Congressional runs (2006 and 2008), but I heard plenty about him. My first and only meeting with the Congressman occurred earlier this year, in late March, in Orlando, Fla., when we spoke at the same event.

At the time, a handful of names of possible GOP challengers were already floating around, including former state Sen. Dan Webster and Orange County Mayor Richard Crotty. Both have since passed on the race.

Smart freshmen from difficult districts, when asked about their re-election prospects, will respond either that they are focused on doing their job on Capitol Hill or that they know that they’ll have a tough fight on their hands and will do everything they can to deserve re-election. Some even say something nice (e.g., “he’d be formidable”) about a potential opponent.

Grayson did none of those things. Instead, with not a whit of humility, he proceeded to bash, then dismiss, Webster and Crotty. A Grayson aide has since said in print that potential opponents have decided against challenging the Congressman because “they don’t want to be gutted like a fish.”

Grayson’s problems, from what I can tell, include an exaggerated sense of his intellect to cover up some self-esteem issues and a misguided belief that voters supported him because they actually liked him.

The Congressman has terrific academic credentials. He graduated in three years, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Harvard. He has a law degree, with honors, from Harvard Law School, and he’s only a doctoral dissertation short of a Ph.D. in government from Harvard.

He’s also made millions in business and as an attorney, making him one of the wealthiest Members of the House.

But Grayson’s official House Web site provides some clues to Grayson the man.

His bio begins with a quote from Deuteronomy, “Justice, justice, ye shall seek,” and continues, “There is right, and there is wrong. We in Central Florida have sent someone to Washington who fights for what’s right.”

Note that the Congressman isn’t merely fighting for what he believes to be right, or that he is trying to work with others to improve things. His side stands for right, while the other side is wrong.

The bio continues by telling us that Grayson “was admitted to an exclusive public high school,” and while in that school, “he achieved the highest test score among almost 50,000 students who took the test.”

It also asserts that “life at Harvard wasn’t easy. Alan cleaned toilets, and worked as a night watchman.” And he “graduated from Harvard in the top two percent of his class.” Surprisingly, given what he does include, Grayson does not include his SAT scores or his IQ.

Grayson clearly has some issues with who he is and where he came from. And that shows, not only in his bio but also with the way he deals with those who may disagree with him.

Grayson was elected to Congress not because of who he is and was, but because he wasn’t Ric Keller, the incumbent Republican. The challenger won because of a big Democratic wave in a competitive but Republican-leaning district that President George W. Bush won with 55 percent in 2004. Barack Obama carried it with 52 percent last year — roughly the same showing as Grayson. The district’s Democratic Performance Index is only 44 percent, making it a difficult district for any Democrat in a normal year.

Keller, of course, had a shockingly close 53 percent to 47 percent primary win about 10 weeks before last year’s general election, a sure sign of his problems in the district. And Grayson outspent Keller by almost 2-to-1, $3.21 million to $1.77 million, in the race.

It was his money and the mood for change that made Grayson a winner, not the public’s affection or admiration for him.

So where does Grayson stand politically after his “whore” comment, after saying that Republicans want sick people to “die quickly” and after comparing the nation’s health care system to the Holocaust? In very hot water.

Grayson’s comments resonated with some grass-roots Democrats, but elections in Florida’s 8th district aren’t won by those kinds of voters. Swing voters, and particularly Republican-leaning swing voters, are likely to pick the next Congressman.

Republican strategists don’t have a top-tier challenger to Grayson, but given the Congressman’s public persona, they probably don’t need one to make for a competitive contest. A competent, well-funded challenger with some private-sector experience would give Grayson a headache.

Those who say that Grayson will or won’t win re-election at this point are getting too far ahead of themselves. The race is a long way from developing. But it’s already clear that Grayson loves controversy, thinks he can do no wrong and is widely seen as the loosest of cannons. That’s enough to almost guarantee he’ll be in the political fight of his life.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 3, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Stu Talks 2009 Elections on NewsHour

Stu joined the Hotline's Amy Walter in discussing the 2009 election results on PBS NewsHour. You can read the transcript here or watch the video below.

2010 Gubernatorial Ratings

With victories in New Jersey and Virginia, Republicans now control 24 governorships compared to 26 for the Democrats heading into 2010. Next year, 37 states will elect a governor including the nation's largest states such as California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

Here are our latest gubernatorial ratings.
# - Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans

Lean Takeover (4 R, 4 D)

• CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
• HI Open (Lingle, R)
• RI Open (Carcieri, R)
• VT Open (Douglas, R)
  
• KS Open (Parkinson, D)
• OK Open (Henry, D)
• TN Open (Bredesen, D)
• WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 6 D)

• Brewer (R-AZ)
• Gibbons (R-NV)
• FL Open (Crist, R)
  
• MN Open (Pawlenty, R)
• Culver (D-IA)
  
• Paterson (D-NY)
  
• Ritter (D-CO)
  
• MI Open (Granholm, D)
• PA Open (Rendell, D)
• WI Open (Doyle, D)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (1 R, 2 D)

• GA Open (Perdue, R)
• Patrick (D-MA)
  
• Strickland (D-OH)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 3 D)

• Rell (R-CT)
• AL Open (Riley, R)
• SC Open (Sanford, R)
• Quinn (D-IL)
• ME Open (Baldacci, D)
• NM Open (Richardson, D)
  

Currently Safe (6 R, 4 D)

• Herbert (R-UT)
  
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Otter (R-ID)
• Parnell (R-AK)
• Perry (R-TX)
• SD Open (Rounds, R)
  
• Beebe (D-AR)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• O'Malley (D-MD)
• OR Open (Kulongoski, D)

Some House Recruits Have Yet to Measure Up to Hype

By Nathan L. Gonzales

During the election off-year, the House campaign committees spend much of their time recruiting and then promoting their top candidates — like college football teams touting their class of high school prospects before they hit the field. But a year out from Election Day, Democrats and Republicans have highly touted recruits who have either flamed out or are far from living up to the early hype.

Simply put, both parties have candidates looking to get back on track.

This spring, Springfield, Ore., Mayor Sid Leiken was touted as one of a handful of top recruits by the National Republican Congressional Committee. By challenging Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) in the 4th district, Leiken was supposed to be an example of the GOP’s effort to recruit top-notch challengers in districts that haven’t been competitive in recent cycles.

Leiken filed on May 13, but his campaign derailed less than a month later after it came to light that he paid his mother $2,000 for campaign polling to a company that wasn’t registered with the state. Over a number of days the story grew bigger as facts trickled out.

“It’s the difference between an article and a story,” according to a House GOP strategist.

Leiken choked back tears as he admitted to failing to properly document the transaction, and the secretary of state is looking into it. The matter was not insignificant, but it didn’t have to completely disrupt his campaign.

“You have to get good people around these candidates for them to succeed,” according to one GOP consultant who believes Leiken could have weathered the storm with better advice.

Instead of giving DeFazio a run for his money (the incumbent had $583,000 in the bank on Sept. 30), Leiken is facing fundraising troubles on top of everything else. The mayor raised just $52,000 through the end of the third quarter and had a paltry $21,000 in his campaign account at the end of September.

According to one GOP source, Leiken is making some changes in his campaign, but it may be too late to change the narrative of the race. For now, he may not even be Republicans’ hottest race in Oregon, with strategists becoming more excited about their prospects in the 5th and even 1st districts.

Across the country in Florida, a once-hot Democratic candidate is having trouble living up to early expectations as well.

For years, Democrats have believed that Rep. Bill Young (R) is close to retiring in Florida’s 10th district. Growing impatient because the former Appropriations chairman continues to seek re-election, this cycle Democrats recruited state Sen. Charlie Justice (D) into the race to see if they could smoke Young out. But Justice’s early fundraising has been mediocre, and Democrats are a long way from scaring Young into retirement.

Justice filed on April 24, raised $86,000 his first quarter of fundraising and $77,000 in his second. Those are less than spectacular numbers for a star recruit. He ended September with $101,000 in the bank, but Young had four times that amount.

“He needs to put in the work to build his operation and make sure he has the money to compete,” admitted one House Democratic strategist. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), who is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s vice chairwoman for incumbent retention this cycle, has been assigned to Justice to help jump-start his campaign.

The jury is still out on several other notable early recruits.

Republicans believe Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta will mount a strong challenge against Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) in New Hampshire’s 1st district. Guinta got into the race early and drew fire from Democrats after being at a bar when a brawl broke out and failing to call the police.

Democrats believe the mayor’s candidacy was derailed by the incident and highlight the fact that he only raised $126,000 in the third quarter. But Republicans point out that Guinta’s total was only slightly behind Shea-Porter’s $141,000 raised for the quarter and that he ended September only about $100,000 behind the incumbent in cash on hand.

Along with Leiken, California Assemblyman Van Tran (R) was part of a recruiting class built to expand the GOP playing field by challenging Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.).

And like Guinta, Democrats believe Tran’s candidacy has stalled after he raised $92,000 in the third quarter. But after raising a whopping $254,000 from mid-May to June, Tran was going to have difficulty keeping up. After tapping friends and family for contributions, a candidate’s second quarter of fundraising is thought to be considerably more difficult.

Tran had $283,000 in the bank on Sept. 30 compared with $769,000 for Sanchez.

When trouble begins to surface for candidates, early detection is critical.

“Now it’s an identified problem, and we can sit down and try and solve it,” according to one GOP strategist, who would rather advise a candidate after a poor fundraising quarter in the off-year than later next year after resources are invested. “We’re not trying to be ‘survival of the fittest.’ We’re trying to build something.”

Republicans joke that at least their alleged flameouts are raising more money than the Democrats.

Polk County Supervisor of Elections Lori Edwards was supposed to give Democrats a chance at competing for the 12th district seat that Rep. Adam Putnam (R) is vacating in Florida.

She filed on March 2, put together $101,000 through June but raised just $39,000 from July through September and had only $77,000 on hand on Sept. 30. Her likely GOP opponent, former state Rep. Dennis Ross (R), was sitting on $255,000 at the same point.

Similarly, Democrats believe state Rep. Todd Book (D) is their best possible challenger to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) in Ohio’s 2nd district. But he comes from the least populated portion of the district and raised $64,000 in his first two months in the race, ending September with less than $45,000 in the bank. His opponent in the Democratic primary, David Krikorian, had a head start and showed $115,000 in cash on hand, while Schmidt had $235,000 in the bank.

Schmidt will never be completely safe and Book has time to get on track, but he’s not off to a roaring start. When candidates come up short in fundraising, it’s distressing because that’s all they should be doing at this point, according to one Democratic strategist.

But in the end, even an imperfect challenger could get significant support from their party’s national campaign committee if the race is ultimately deemed as a winnable opportunity.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on October 29, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New 2010 Senate Ratings

It looks like Democrats will get a credible contender against Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R). That doesn't mean he is in imminent danger of losing reelection, but we are moving him from Currently Safe to Clear Advantage.

Here are our latest Senate ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
*- Moved benefiting Republicans

Lean Takeover (0 R, 1 D)

• DE Open (Kaufman, D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 3 D)

• KY Open (Bunning, R)
  
• MO Open (Bond, R)
• NH Open (Gregg, R)
• OH Open (Voinovich, R)
• IL Open (Burris, D)
• Dodd (D-CT)
• Reid (D-NV)
  

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

• Burr (R-NC)
• Vitter (R-LA)
• Bennet (D-CO)
• Lincoln (D-AR)
  
• Specter (D-PA)
  

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)

• Grassley (R-IA) #
• FL Open (LeMieux, R)

Currently Safe (10 R, 12 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)
• KS Open (Brownback, R)
• Bayh (D-IN)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Dorgan (D-ND)
• Feingold (D-WI)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Wyden (D-OR)
• MA Open (Kirk, D)
  

New Print Edition: 2010 Senate Overview

The October 30, 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 updated 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 the introduction to this edition:

Senate Overview – The Lay of the Land

With the landscape changing noticeably over the summer, Democrats can no longer assume that they will have a net gain of seats in next year’s midterm elections. Of the 13 Senate seats now regarded as seriously “in play,” seven of them are currently held by Democrats.

The candidacies of GOPers Mark Kirk (IL) and Mike Castle (DE) put into play races that ordinarily wouldn’t draw any attention. And recent GOP candidates in Nevada, Arkansas and Colorado make those contests worth watching. Democrats still have a half-dozen GOP-held seats to shoot at, but the national shift has also diminished their prospects in those states as well.

Three months ago, we wrote that Democratic Senate gains “in the order of 2-4 seats certainly seem reasonable.” Gains of that magnitude are still possible, of course, but the most likely outcome is somewhere between a Republican gain of two seats and a Democratic gain of two seats.

Subscribers to the print edition get a state-by-state breakdown and most recent polling in every Senate race.

New York 23 Moved to Toss-Up

One of the most complex House races in recent history got more interesting over the weekend when liberal GOP state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) dropped out of the race and endorsed Democratic attorney Bill Owens on the heels of Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, a registered Republican, surging in recent polls.

The national GOP has shifted gears and is now supporting Hoffman, and while we believe he has a slight advantage in tomorrow’s balloting, the dynamics of this race are simply too uncertain (and subsequent polling too unreliable) to make a definitive prediction.

Previously, Scozzafava and Hoffman were dividing the Republican vote in such a way that Owens looked to win with less than 50% of the vote. But now with Scozzafava out, Owens’ path got substantially more difficult. We’re moving the race from Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic to Pure Toss-Up.

Here are our latest House ratings. 2009 races in italics.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans

Pure Toss-Up (3 R, 12 D)

• AL 2 (Bright, D)
  
• FL 8 (Grayson, D)
  
• ID 1 (Minnick, D)
• IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
• MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
• MS 1 (Childers, D)
• NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
• NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
• NM 2 (Teague, D)
• NY 23 (Open; McHugh, R) *
  
• OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
• OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
• PA 6 (Open; Gerlach, R)
  
• PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
• VA 5 (Periello, D)
  

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (1 R, 1 D)

• LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
  

Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 4 D)

• CO 4 (Markey, D)
• FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
• IL 14 (Foster, D)
• MI 7 (Schauer, D)

Lean Republican (2 R, 0 D)

• CA 3 (Lungren, R)
• CA 44 (Calvert, R)
  

Lean Democratic (0 R, 3 D)

• AL 5 (Griffith, D)
  
• NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
  
• NY 29 (Massa, D)
  

Republican Favored (9 R, 0 D)

• AK A-L (Young, R)
• CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
• MI 11 (McCotter, R)
• MN 3 (Paulsen, R)
• MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
• NE 2 (Terry, R)
  
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
  
• PA 15 (Dent, R)
  

Democrat Favored (2 R, 11 D)

• AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
• CA 47 (Sanchez, D)
  
• DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  
• LA 2 (Cao, R)
  
• MO 4 (Skelton, D)
  
• NY 19 (Hall, D)
• NY 20 (Murphy, D)
• NC 8 (Kissell, D)
  
• OH 18 (Space, D)
• PA 10 (Carney, D)
  
• TX 17 (Edwards, D)
• VA 2 (Nye, D)

Total seats in play: 48
Republican seats: 17
Democratic seats: 31

One Down, Two to Go: The Outlook for the 2009 Elections

By Stuart Rothenberg

We are still a few days away from Election Day, but party strategists, operatives and local activists are already blaming their own nominees for their defeats.

The clearest evidence that the Virginia gubernatorial race is over — apart from a blizzard of surveys showing Republican Bob McDonnell well over the 50 percent mark in the ballot test and leading Democrat Creigh Deeds by double digits in many surveys — is that White House insiders have already passed the word that it is Deeds who blew the race.

The assertion by Obama loyalists that Deeds would have done better by embracing President Barack Obama, as they say New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) has, ignores the fact that Corzine comes from a more Democratic state and that because Corzine is in a multicandidate race, he may need only 44 percent of the vote to win. If Deeds gets 44 percent of the vote in Virginia, he will be soundly defeated.

If George W. Bush were still in the White House, Deeds almost certainly would be elected governor of Virginia, so it’s a little difficult to swallow the argument that national politics has nothing to do with the Virginia results. But it’s also important to note that Virginia Republicans united behind their nominee and that McDonnell has kept his focus on jobs, taxes and transportation, rather than stressing social issues.

The ability of McDonnell to roll up big margins outside Northern Virginia, against a Democratic nominee from rural Bath County, can’t be ignored, especially considering all of the growth in Northern Virginia and the hype about the region’s political importance in state races. The red parts of Virginia are acting red again, even against a Democratic nominee who was expected to have considerable appeal in those parts of the state.

In New Jersey, the battle between Corzine and Chris Christie (R) is too close to call. Late polling in the race is all over the place, from Corzine having a mid-single-digits lead to Christie having a slightly smaller advantage.

Recent polls show Independent Chris Daggett getting anywhere from 7 percent to 20 percent, a mind-boggling range. Republican attacks on Daggett in paid media seem to have driven up his negatives, which could help Christie peel off some of the Independent’s supporters.

While Christie should outperform the polls, his own numbers have eroded dramatically. Daggett is proving to be a considerable factor, and he could be Corzine’s salvation. The stronger Daggett’s showing, the more likely that Corzine earns a narrow win. Three months ago, that seemed impossible, which shows how successful the governor’s campaign has been in making Christie the issue.

It’s a widely accepted rule of politics that incumbents “get what you see” on the ballot test, winning little or none of the undecided vote. It’s also generally true, as I wrote recently, that support for Independent and third-party nominees tends to slip in the final days of the campaign, unless of course the Independent or third-party candidate has a chance to win (see New York’s 23rd district, below). Both of those factors work to Christie’s advantage in the campaign’s final days.

In any case and no matter the result, the result in the Garden State will say little or nothing about Obama.

In New York’s 23rd district, another three-way race, Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava now seems like an afterthought.

Baseball statistician-turned-political-statistics guru Nate Silver, who seems to question the integrity and veracity of every Republican or conservative poll that he doesn’t like, has raised questions about the newest Club for Growth survey, which shows Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman holding a slight lead of 32 percent to 28 percent over Democrat Bill Owens.

In fact, more than one poll (public and private) shows that the liberal Republican has slid into third place and that the race is statistically even between Hoffman and Owens. (For the record, Club for Growth pollster Jon Lerner is among the least likely pollsters to fudge numbers or manipulate data.)

The fact that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is attacking Hoffman — and that a new Club for Growth ad being aired in the district’s three major media markets attacks Owens, contrasts him with Hoffman and ignores Scozzafava — is further proof that the special election has become a two-way race between the Democratic nominee and the Conservative Party nominee.

Interestingly, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s independent expenditure campaign in the race has run three TV spots — all of which have attacked Owens but ignored Hoffman.

That strategy either assumes that Hoffman is irrelevant — a conclusion clearly not warranted by any of the recent polling or accepted by GOP operatives — or is intended to help Hoffman in the event that he emerges as the stronger opponent against the Democrat in the final days of the three-way contest. It isn’t hard to figure out what Republican strategists are doing.

Owens deserves to be favored in the race, if only because of the presence of a credible Republican and a credible Conservative Party nominee.

Democrats could win two out of the three races, but only because multicandidate contests might allow Corzine and Owens to sneak through with a minority of the vote. A win is a win, but even if that happens, it’s not great news for Democrats for 2010.

In fact, Democrats might be better off were Hoffman to win the special election in New York. Yes, that outcome would prevent Democrats from expanding their House majority, but a Hoffman win might embolden the Club for Growth and encourage conservatives to take on other Republicans who aren’t entirely pure. And encouraging a bigger GOP civil war is something that could help Democrats win more than a single additional seat in the House.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 29, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.