Friday, January 29, 2010

White House Taking More Flak From Its Political Allies

By Stuart Rothenberg

It isn’t surprising that Republican Members of Congress and their talking heads on television slam the Obama administration every day. Given the partisan divide, that’s probably inevitable.

But what is surprising is the growing criticism coming from Democratic circles and from party political insiders of President Barack Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and the White House’s political operation. Not surprisingly, the criticism is coming only on a not-for-attribution basis.

Some Democrats blame what they call the White House’s political tin ear on the nature of the office.

“It’s hard when you live in this area to understand how bad it is out there,” one veteran Washington, D.C., Democrat told me recently. “People want jobs. They know that it will take time, but they want to be certain that we are working on it.”

The same Democrat noted that this administration, like others, can’t always count on people telling the president how bad things are outside the Beltway. “When the White House calls, most people figure that to get another call, they better give good news. Tell them how bad things are, and they’ll never call you again.”

Another Democrat was more pointed about placing blame.

“The political operation [in the White House] is a true disaster. Until Dave Plouffe, nobody’s job was to watch the politics. Rahm missed Massachusetts,” this person said.

Rahm Emanuel, whose successes at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are now part of Democratic Party lore and who was the ultimate Capitol Hill insider, missed Massachusetts? But isn’t he always obsessed with the politics of any issue? Isn’t that part of the reason why Rahm is such an asset at the White House?

“It’s the Myth of Rahm,” observed one critical Democrat about the White House chief of staff, who has a bigger-than-life reputation in Washington, D.C.

But blaming Emanuel doesn’t answer the question entirely. The national media, after all, likes to build people up more than they deserve and tear them down more than warranted. It’s what most in the media do. Karl Rove was once considered to be a political genius until things went south for the Bush administration.

“The folks at the White House have been up to their eyes in policy, and that has meant less attention to politics,” said a thoughtful Democrat.

One problem, according to some observers, is that David Axelrod, a savvy political strategist who understands message and campaigns, has become an Obama “believer” and has lost some of the perspective he once had. Maybe the lesson is that the White House isn’t the best place to work to keep one’s critical eye.

Most Democrats seem to think that Plouffe’s new role as a political coordinator and facilitator could turn out to be a good move for the White House and for Democrats. But they wonder whether he really understands the difficult spot in which Democratic elected officials find themselves.

In his Jan. 24 Washington Post opinion piece, Plouffe urged his fellow Democrats to avoid “bed-wetting.” “Instead of fearing what may happen,” he wrote, “let’s prove that we have more than just the brains to govern — that we have the guts to govern.”

Plouffe’s comment was followed a few days later by a similar observation from the president, who told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that “there is a tendency in Washington to believe that our job description, as elected officials, is to get re-elected. That’s not our job description. Our job description is to solve problems and help people.”

The implication, of course, is that Members of Congress shouldn’t care what their constituents think and that they should support the president’s agenda even if it hurts them at the polls.

But most Democrats around Capitol Hill who have been fighting in the political trenches around the country have a very different view of what has been going on.

“These [Democratic Members] have been taking a lot of tough votes. I haven’t seen a lot of bed-wetting going on,” responded one Democrat on the front lines.

“They want to get the heavy lifting done,” added another Democrat about the White House’s priorities. “They don’t care if it costs them the House, the Senate and governors.”

Of course, not everyone blames the president and his White House staff. Some think much of the blame should be placed on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“She is utterly tone-deaf. She is supposed to look out for her Members, not just make history. It’s reckless what she has done,” a Democratic campaign consultant told me.

Still, as Reggie Jackson used to say, we all know who the straw that stirs the drink is — it’s the president. It’s up to the White House to set the national agenda, and he ought to know when he’s an asset to his party and when he’s becoming a problem for them.

Yes, any president’s priority is enacting his agenda, not re-electing some Democratic Congressman from Alabama. But the White House won’t help its legislative agenda by its arrogance — by telling Members that the president can do no wrong and that it’s their duty to follow the Obama agenda.

That’s especially true if following his agenda means they will have to jump off a cliff this year while the president will have two more years, after November, to save himself politically.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on January 28, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Stu Talks IL, DE Senate on Newshour

Stu talked about the Illinois and Delaware Senate races last night on the Newshour. You can watch the video below or click on this link.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Don’t Hold Your Breath for an Anti-Incumbent Election

By Stuart Rothenberg

Voters are angry, especially at Washington, D.C., and with politicians. They are unhappy with both parties. All that is generally true.

But voters’ dissatisfaction with those in charge doesn’t mean that November is likely to be an “anti-incumbent election.” In fact, it almost certainly won’t. We never, or almost never, have true anti-incumbent elections, as I have noted before.

If Republican incumbents have problems, it will be in their primaries.

In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry looked to have enough momentum to pull away from his GOP primary opponent, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. But that hasn’t happened. The Senator hasn’t been a scintillating candidate, but she is still very much in the game against the governor, according to knowledgeable insiders.

Perry won re-election four years ago with only 39 percent of the vote in a four-way race. While conservatives have rallied behind him, there are many in the Republican Party who don’t like his smugness and his shoot-from-the-hip style.

Arizona’s GOP governor, Jan Brewer, who became the state’s top officeholder when her predecessor joined the Obama administration, faces a roomful of primary challengers in her bid for a full term, and her prospects are uncertain. She inherited a terrible budget situation and was forced to select from a number of unappealing choices.

Indiana Rep. Dan Burton, South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis and Utah Sen. Bob Bennett also face challenges that have developed to a stage that make them worth watching.

Nonincumbent Republicans who have the mantle of the establishment are also vulnerable given the current environment.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running for the state’s GOP Senate nomination, is the most obvious example. He faces a very difficult fight against former state Speaker Marco Rubio (R), who is running as the insurgent despite his previous position.

The same dynamic is taking place in New Hampshire, where conservative Ovide Lamontagne and two businessmen could give former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte a migraine in the Republican Senate primary.

And in Kentucky, Rand Paul, son of Texas GOP Rep. Ron Paul (a former presidential candidate), is running as an outsider for the Republican Senate nomination against Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the favorite of virtually the entire state and the national Republican Party. GOP insiders think Grayson can win the primary, but they are far from certain about the outcome.

But if those incumbents (and establishment-backed nonincumbents) get past their primaries, they will then benefit from the public mood, which currently looks likely to punish Democrats at the ballot box.

A rash of recent polling, much of it paid for by liberal Web sites Daily Kos and Firedoglake, show Democratic incumbents in horrible shape — about where Republicans were in 2006 and 2008.

Surveys over the past couple of weeks have shown former Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) ahead of Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) by 8 points, Andy Harris (R) leading Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) by 13 points, former Rep. Tim Walberg (R) leading Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Mich.) by 10 points and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R) leading Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) by a whopping 17 points.

In addition, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) leads unknown challenger Randy Altschuler (R) by only 2 points, while controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is drawing 55 percent in an early ballot test against state Sen. Tarryl Clark (D).

Even if only most of these results are close to being accurate, they suggest that other Democratic House incumbents are seeing significant erosion in their numbers from what those same numbers were even a year ago.

Over in the Senate, Democratic numbers are equally terrible.

Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Nevada Sen. Harry Reid are sitting with unfavorable ratings larger than their favorable ratings. Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who would be crushed if this year’s political environment resembled that of the 2006 or 2008 cycle, is running even or ahead of his potential Democratic opponents, and Democratic prospects over the past year have deteriorated in Ohio and Missouri.

Polling in North Carolina is particularly instructive. Recent surveys continue to show roughly equal numbers of respondents approving and disapproving of the job Sen. Richard Burr (R) is doing. But even with those mediocre numbers, Burr is holding clear (if unintimidating) leads over his potential general election opponents.

The bottom line on all of this seems pretty clear: Voters are not enamored of incumbents of either party, and GOP incumbents or “establishment” candidates facing strong “outsider” primary opponents could be in for more rough sledding than they would normally need to expect.

But when the general election rolls around, unless there is a significant change in the national mood, voter dissatisfaction will be aimed overwhelmingly at the candidates of one party. And that is why Democratic insiders are privately raising their own estimates of party losses.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on January 25, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Can Candidates Accept Text Contributions?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Americans are donating to the Haiti relief effort at unprecedented levels through text messaging, but can congressional candidates use them same technology to solicit contributions? For now, the answer appears to be “no.”

To help in the earthquake’s aftermath, people can contribute $10 by texting “Haiti” to 90999. The donation is added as a charge to their cell phone bill and then the carrier writes a check to the Red Cross.

It may be the “new stream of philanthropy,” a Verizon Wireless spokesman told the Associated Press, but there are some significant roadblocks before federal candidates can do the same thing.

First of all, candidates and campaign committees need to collect basic information about all donors including their name, address, and occupation. This is not necessarily prohibitive but candidates would need to establish a “best effort” to obtain the information after the contribution, according to a Federal Election Commission spokesman. This is more of a practical roadblock than a legal one.

But more importantly, collecting political contributions via text messaging may run afoul of the law because corporations are prohibited from being conduits for contributions. In order for the transaction to work, cell carriers such as Verizon, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, or AT&T would have to collect the contribution on the bill and then write a check to the particular campaign.

Keep in mind, the FEC has not issued a formal advisory opinion on the matter of accepting contributions via text (mainly because no candidate has requested one). Until that time comes, we won’t have a definitive answer on the legality of the issue.

“If it’s legal, someone will find a way to get it done,” according to one GOP fundraiser.

From the Archives: Obama, Biden Seats in Danger?

With Democratic Attorney General Beau Biden (D) officially out of the race, the Democratic hold on Vice President Joe Biden's Senate seat is slipping away very quickly. Here is a piece I wrote in July on the scenario that Democrats could lose both the President's and Vice President's former seat.

Friday, July 31, 2009
Obama, Biden Seats in Danger?
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Lost in the focus on President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden’s history-making move down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House in January was the fact that Republicans have a historic opportunity to pick up the pair’s former Senate seats.

Over the past century, half of the dozen seats vacated by a new president or vice president have switched partisan control in the next election.

In 2010, Republicans have open-seat opportunities in Illinois and Delaware and could win both seats vacated by a president and vice president in the same cycle for the first time in U.S. history. Click here for the rest of the story.

28 House Seats move toward GOP

After a stunning GOP Senate win in Massachusetts and a slew of new polls showing many Democratic incumbents in trouble, it’s hard to argue with the obvious: the Republicans unquestionably have momentum as 2010 begins.

We are adding a dozen new seats to our list of districts “in play” – all of them currently held by Democrats. In addition, we have moved 16 districts within our list – two held by the GOP and the rest currently represented by a Democrat. All of the moves benefit the GOP, either because Republican districts now look safer or Democratic districts appear more vulnerable.

Given that we expect more Democratic retirements in the next few months and anticipate that more Democratic-held districts will increase in vulnerability between now and the fall, we are raising our target for GOP gains to 24 to 28 seats, with higher Republican gains possible. Of course, changes in the national mood between now and November could also benefit Democrats.

In addition, we can no longer dismiss the possibility of a Republican wave so large that Democrats could lose their House majority. We stress, however, that we currently expect Republicans to fall short of the 40 seats they would need. Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts doesn’t mean that every Republican candidate will win in November.

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

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 9 D)
  • AR 1 (Open; Berry, D) *
  • AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D) *
  • CO 4 (Markey, D)
  • IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
  • MI 7 (Schauer, D) *
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
  • PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
  • TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
  • WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)
Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 10 D)
  • AL 2 (Bright, D) *
  • FL 8 (Grayson, D) *
  • ID 1 (Minnick, D) *
  • KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
  • MD 1 (Kratovil, D) *
  • MS 1 (Childers, D) *
  • NM 2 (Teague, D)
  • OH 1 (Driehaus, D) *
  • OH 15 (Kilroy, D) *
  • VA 5 (Perriello, D)
Lean Republican (3 R, 2 D)
  • CA 3 (Lungren, R)
  • LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D) *
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R) *
  • TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R) *
Republican Favored (8 R, 0 D)
  • CA 44 (Calvert, R)
  • CA 45 (Bono Mack, 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)
Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 3 D)
  • FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • VA 2 (Nye, D) *
Lean Democratic (0 R, 11 D)
  • HI 1 (Open; Abercrombie, D) Special Election
  • IN 9 (Hill, D) *
  • MO 4 (Skelton, D)
  • NV 3 (Titus, D)
  • NY 1 (Bishop, D) *
  • NY 19 (Hall, D)
  • NY 23 (Owens, D)
  • NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
  • NY 29 (Massa, D)
  • SC 5 (Spratt, D) *
  • WV 1 (Mollohan, D) *
Democrat Favored (2 R, 23 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AZ 8 (Giffords, D) *
  • CO 3 (Salazar, D) *
  • CA 11 (McNerney, D) *
  • CA 47 (Sanchez, D)
  • DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • IA 3 (Boswell, D)
  • LA 2 (Cao, R)
  • NY 13 (McMahon, D) *
  • NY 20 (Murphy, D)
  • NC 8 (Kissell, D)
  • ND A-L (Pomeroy, D) *
  • NJ 3 (Adler, D) *
  • OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
  • OH 18 (Space, D)
  • PA 4 (Altmire, D) *
  • PA 8 (Murphy, D) *
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
  • PA 17 (Holden, D) *
  • SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
  • TX 17 (Edwards, D)
  • VA 9 (Boucher, D) *
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D)
Total seats in play: 72
Republican seats: 14
Democratic seats: 58

Friday, January 22, 2010

Tuesday’s Result Raises New Questions for Both Parties

By Stuart Rothenberg

Now what?

Republican Scott Brown’s clear victory over Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) to fill the remainder of the term of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) is shocking, given the state’s Democratic bent, recent showings by Republican federal candidates in Massachusetts and the GOP’s demise in New England over the past 15 years.

In 2008, President Barack Obama carried Massachusetts with 62 percent of the vote, while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) won re-election with 66 percent. On Tuesday, just 14 months after Obama and Kerry steamrolled their opponents in the Bay State, Coakley drew just 47 percent of the vote to Brown’s 52 percent.

The last Republican to win a Senate election in Massachusetts was Ed Brooke in 1972, and although Ronald Reagan narrowly carried Massachusetts twice in his presidential races, no Republican White House nominee has drawn 52 percent of the vote in Massachusetts since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.

Want a better idea how pathetic the Bay State GOP has been until this week’s special election? The Massachusetts state Senate has 34 Democrats and only 4 Republicans (with one vacancy), while the state House of Representatives has 144 Democrats and 16 Republicans. That’s right — 16 Republicans out of a total of 160 state Representatives.

So Brown’s victory certainly changes things in Massachusetts, and more importantly in Washington, D.C., but it won’t be entirely clear for a while exactly what those changes are or what they mean.

Democratic leaders from Obama to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) surely still want a health care reform bill, and they’ll have to decide how to proceed.

Talk before the special election that they’d have to scrap everything if Brown won is true on one level but hyperbole on another.

Yes, Democrats now need at least one Republican vote in the Senate to pass a bill, so Brown’s election fundamentally changes the arithmetic on Capitol Hill. But Democrats still have more than an 80-seat majority in the House of Representatives and a 59-41 majority in the Senate, meaning that they haven’t exactly been emasculated by the Brown victory.

Instead, the Democratic majority will now have to do what every other Congress over the past 30 years has had to do — pass legislation with at least some support from the minority party.

Obviously, the White House and Congressional Democratic leaders need to sit down and figure out how to proceed under the new reality.

Some have suggested that Democrats try to jam the Senate bill through the House so that the president can sign it immediately, but that would require a dramatic change in the attitude of liberal Democrats who find the Senate bill distasteful.

Moreover, any strategy adopted by Capitol Hill Democrats that smacks of frustrating the will of Massachusetts voters and dismissing the general public’s growing doubts about health care reform would only give Republicans more ammunition.

An OnMessage Inc. poll conducted for the Republican National Committee just before the special election asked 500 likely voters whether they would be more or less likely to vote for Brown if they knew that he “would be the deciding vote against the health care reform plan currently being discussed in Congress.”

The results — 43 percent said they would be more likely, 33 percent said they would be less likely and 21 percent responded that it would make no difference — have to be more than a little unsettling to Democratic officeholders from conservative, Republican or swing districts. Some of them may well decide that the only way for them to survive politically later this year is to vote against their party’s leadership on key public policy initiatives.

But could a Brown victory give Democrats an opportunity to regain their footing and even redefine the 2010 midterms? Possibly.

Since Brown’s election kills a Democrat-only health care bill, it could also force Democrats to be more sensitive to the voters — not just base Democratic constituencies. In other words, the shock of a Republican win in Massachusetts might just bring national Democrats, including the president, back to reality.

Democratic prospects in November’s midterms rest directly on the economy, and Coakley’s loss may convince Democratic leaders that the party needs to spend more time on jobs and less on health care or climate change.

Finally, Democrats could ultimately benefit from the fallout of the special election if Republicans exaggerate their own popularity and start to assume the inevitability of a landslide in November.

Voters don’t like arrogance — or being taken for granted (as Tuesday’s results show) — and Republicans can’t afford to look too partisan, especially if Democrats reach out to the GOP in a serious and substantive way to tackle the nation’s very real problems.

I wrote just two days ago in this space that a Brown victory would be the biggest political upset of my adult life. Now that it has happened — and even though I changed my rating of the race Monday to Lean Takeover — I still have a hard time believing that Democrats have lost Kennedy’s seat.


This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on January 21, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

House Democrats Try to Prevent Exodus

By Nathan L. Gonzales

In the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts, House Democratic strategists are trying to reassure their Members that the party is prepared for a tough election.

“House Democrats have been preparing since day one last year for what we knew historically would be a very challenging election cycle,” said a memo, obtained by Roll Call, that went out to Democratic Members on Tuesday night, immediately after Brown’s victory.

Democratic strategists expected a few more House retirements before votes were cast in the Bay State and now are doing their best to get out in front of any of their Members who are sitting on the retirement fence and could be discouraged by Tuesday’s results.

The three-page memo detailed House Democrats’ plans for 2010, including working with vulnerable “Frontline” program Members and staying on the offense in GOP seats. The memo also pointed out the party’s success in recent House special elections, highlighting the takeover in New York’s 23rd district last November as a road map to persuading independent voters.

“We used early opposition research to develop a clear and contrasting message between Bill Owens and his two Republican opponents,” according to the memo. “We ensured that our candidate had the early resources to be the first on TV in order to define the race on our terms: jobs and the economy and standing up for the middle class.”

Democrats are determined to use the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s financial advantage and their individual incumbents’ financial edge to create district-specific “political environments” that set up a choice between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

“Elections are about choices,” according to DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.), who echoed the memo’s main points in his post-election statement. “And this year’s Midterms will be a choice between continuing the economic progress and independent leadership that House Democrats are delivering for their districts versus Republicans who are eager to turn back the clock to the same failed Bush-Cheney policies that brought our economy to the brink of collapse.”

Democratic strategists want to avoid a replay of Massachusetts where Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) allowed Brown to define himself and the race before it was too late to change the dynamic. Later this year, Democrats will try to use their financial muscle to pound GOP nominees as they emerge from competitive primaries with few resources to defend themselves.

By highlighting the special election in New York, Democrats are putting a lot of stock in a race that they won with 48 percent after Republicans devoured each other resulting in the GOP nominee (who still received 6 percent) dropping out and endorsing the Democrat at the last minute, while Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman received 46 percent.

Indeed, Democrats believe the GOP “civil war” and the damaged Republican brand preclude the GOP from regaining the majority. But while Republicans certainly have competitive primaries, the dynamic in New York is tough to replicate. And what Democrats would call the audacity of Brown to shun the GOP label is now a road map for other Republican candidates.

Overall, Democrats won’t be taken by surprise and now have a better idea about the challenges they face in an election that is more likely to be a referendum on the party in power. While it’s unclear whether their strategy will work to save a handful of vulnerable seats or to block an entire wave, at least Democrats appear to have the right strategy.

“Now is the time to be even more aggressive in reminding voters of their choice next November: continue to work toward getting the economy back on track or a choice to turn backwards to the policies that got us into this mess to begin with,” said the memo.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com and CQPolitics.com on January 20, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Will Citizens United v. FEC Change the 2010 Elections?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Moments after the Supreme Court recognized corporations’ free speech rights in its 5-4 decision, individuals and groups from the left to the right churned out an avalanche of statements and press releases.

Democrats, liberals and “good government groups” called the decision a “disaster,” predicting that corporations would drown future elections and cash and buy elections. Conservatives and Republicans praised the decision as expanding free speech.

At times like this, it’s best to wait for people’s blood pressure to return to normal and for the hyperbole to give way to reasoned analysis.

Most, though not all, observers seem to believe that the decision will bring more money into campaigns, certainly from business but also from ideological groups and non-profit corporations.

Most, but not all, also believe that political parties and candidates are the big losers, since outside groups will now be able to spend unlimited amounts while candidates and the party campaign committees will have relatively fewer resources.

That means that outside groups will, at least in theory, be able to dictate what the candidates are talking about. And unlike the past, when advocacy ads were prohibited from airing right before a primary or the general election, corporations will be able to air express advocacy ads at anytime during the election cycle.

“Unless the laws change, the political party bas we know it is threatened with extinction,” writes veteran Republican attorneys Ben Ginsburg and William McGinley, along with others, is a memo circulated hours after the Supreme Court decision.

Writing on his political law blog expressadvocacy.com, McGinley said, “The hard money limits have the potential to force candidates and political party committees to a lesser role in the election process.”

Michael Malbin, the executive director of The Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan institute affiliated with The George Washington University, is more cautious about the practical effects of the decision, noting that other decisions in recent years have had a bigger impact on campaign finance.

He wonders whether business corporations, which often avoid controversies for fear of alienating consumers, will want to become major players in a U.S. House or Senate race. And he doubts that the decision will dramatically undermine political parties.

As for non-profit corporations, even they aren’t certain whether the decision means that they will spend dramatically more money in this year’s mid-term elections. “As with all non-profits, it all depends on fundraising. The court decision provides us with more options -- using ‘soft’ versus only ‘hard’ money for independent expenditures -- but not more money,” said one political non-profit decision maker.

Still, the psychological fall-out from the decision seems to add to the narrative that Republicans are more energized and the GOP is in a position to gain a significant number of House and Senate seats later this year.

“Given the possible range of outcomes from the best case scenario to the worst case scenario, this is the worst case scenario,” one Democratic operative told me after the Supreme Court’s decision. Whether that still seems true next October, it’s something else that Democrats didn’t need to worry about this year.

AR Sen moved to Lean Takeover

Multiple independent polls now show Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) losing or running even in ballot tests against any number of lower-tier GOP challengers. Just as important, those same surveys show more voters having an unfavorable opinion of her than a favorable one.

Given the bent of Independent voters (in the recent Massachusetts special election but also in national surveys), we are increasingly doubtful that the Arkansas Democratic Senator can win another term. Of course, much depends on the eventual GOP challenger and how the economy behaves over the next nine months. Still, the burden of proof has shifted in our minds, from requiring Republicans to prove that they can defeat Lincoln to requiring Lincoln to show she can win reelection. Move to Lean Takeover.

In Louisiana, Secretary of State Jay Dardenne (R) finally has passed on a primary challenge to Sen. David Vitter (R), leaving the Republican in good shape for reelection. He starts the year with a significant lead in most polls over Cong. Charlie Melancon (D) in a state where Barack Obama received only 40% of the vote. Melancon is the best candidate Democrats could have hoped to recruit for the Senate race, and he will run a spirited campaign. But this does not look like the kind of political year Melancon needs to defeat Vitter. Move to Clear Advantage for the Incumbent Party.

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

Lean Takeover (0 R, 4 D)
  • Lincoln (D-AR) *
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • ND Open (Dorgan, 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)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Specter (D-PA)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (1 R, 0 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R,1 D)
  • Vitter (R-LA) *
  • FL Open (LeMieux, R)
  • CT Open (Dodd, D)
Currently Safe (11 R, 10 D)
  • Bennett (R-UT)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • DeMint (R-SC)
  • Grassley (R-IA) *
  • 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)
  • 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 Senate: Thinking the Unthinkable

By Stuart Rothenberg

[This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on January 19, 2010- the morning of the election. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.]

It’s difficult for any handicapper, professional or amateur, to think the unthinkable. And Republican Scott Brown defeating Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate special election to fill the remainder of the term of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) certainly would have been unthinkable even a month ago.

But it is unthinkable no more. The Coakley-Brown race was a tossup going into the weekend before the special election. That conclusion was based on the parties’ behavior and, more importantly, both public and private survey data.

While Democratic efforts to nationalize the Senate contest, by interjecting President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton into the race, and to make the contest into a tribute to the late Senator, by using his widow, Vicki, in an ad, may help Coakley pull out a win, the race has turned out to be a disaster for the national party.

Coakley has received plenty of criticism from Democrats who are familiar with her campaign, and she will get much of the blame from Democrats if she loses.

But this is Massachusetts — and the Kennedy seat — and the ability of a largely unknown, initially underfunded Republican to run as strongly as Brown has in a race against the state’s Democratic attorney general — with health care on the line — is stunning.

Coakley’s campaign is only one part of the equation. National forces clearly are at play here, helping Brown run on change and against Democratic control of Washington, D.C.

If Brown wins, and he may, it will be the biggest political upset of my adult life. Some have compared a possible Republican win to Democrat Harris Wofford’s 1991 Pennsylvania special election Senate victory over Republican Dick Thornburgh, who was U.S. attorney general. But to me, a Brown win would be much bigger.

Savvy veteran Republican political observers are as stunned as I am about what has happened — and what may happen — in the Bay State.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee played this one very close to the vest.

While some journalists and political strategists across the partisan and ideological spectrum (including those at the Club for Growth who reportedly were initially upset at the NRSC and RNC) criticized the GOP’s campaign arm last week for not putting money into the race, the reality is quite different.

In fact, the NRSC had, a full week earlier, transferred $500,000 to the Massachusetts Republican Party to support Brown’s candidacy. For obvious reasons, the committee opted to keep that move quiet.

And the NRSC also got the Republican National Committee to agree to send funds to the Massachusetts GOP.

A Brown victory — or even a narrow Coakley win in the mid-single digits — could have significant ramifications. First, it could well produce a flurry of Democratic retirements. If Democrats couldn’t hold Kennedy’s seat rather easily with the state attorney general, some Democratic Members will worry, how the heck can they win in November in competitive districts.

GOP strategists are already compiling a list of possible retirees if Brown wins, including Reps. John Spratt (S.C.), Allen Boyd (Fla.) and Jim Matheson (Utah) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.).

A victory by the Republican in the special election could dissuade some Democratic incumbents from investing 10 months in a re-election bid that suddenly would seem dramatically less likely of success.

A strong Brown showing could also lead to another round of GOP recruiting successes, as candidates who have been on the fence, or initially rejected appeals to run, decide that a Republican wave is building for November and they better get on it.

And third, Brown’s showing, if it is as good as current evidence suggests, could foreshadow a surge in national GOP fundraising.

Brown’s own fundraising during the last week has been nothing short of amazing. He raised $4.5 million on the Internet over three days early in the week, giving him plenty of resources in the final week of the campaign.

If Brown can raise money like that, other Republicans should be able to do so if they can make their case to the party faithful. That’s a potentially dramatic development for House and Senate Republican campaign committees, who trail their Democratic counterparts and would love to see their nominees raise more campaign cash.

Finally, a strong Brown showing, and especially a Republican victory, will add to the increasingly dominant narrative about the cycle, which holds that Democrats are headed for defeat during the midterms. This could put Democrats further on the defensive and spell the end to much of the president’s ambitious agenda for the rest of 2010.

If you are looking for an analogy for a Republican victory in Massachusetts, the best one for Democrats may well be the stock market crash of 1929. Come Tuesday night, you could have Democrats jumping out windows and off roofs ...

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

New Print Edition: Illinois Primaries & Ohio 15

The January 15, 2010 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 excerpt from this edition:

Illinois Primary: First in the Nation
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Off-year gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia and the Senate special election in Massachusetts have kept things exciting, but the 2010 elections officially begin early next month in the Land of Lincoln. With competitive races for governor and U.S. Senate and multiple House races, it’s a great place to start.

Subscribers to the print edition get a rundown of the senate and gubernatorial primaries as well as races in the 10th and 14th congressional districts.

Ohio 15: It’s Not 2008 Anymore
By Nathan L. Gonzales

The terrain is the same but the environment is very different in Ohio’s 15th District, where freshman Cong. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) and former state Senator Steve Stivers (R) will face off for the second consecutive election cycle.
Less than a percentage point separated the two candidates in 2008, and Kilroy got to Congress with the lowest winning percentage of any Democrat last cycle.

With Republicans positioned for significant gains in the House nationwide, Kilroy’s seat is in the first tier of seats to fall in a good Republican year. But Democrats are confident they have enough ammunition to take down Stivers once again. The question will be if voters are willing to listen.

Subscribers get the lay of the land, candidate bios, money information, and how it plays out.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Can the GOP Afford a Wave?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

After big gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey last year and the possibility of picking up the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) seat in today's special election, there’s no question that Republican spirits are high at the moment.

But the bank accounts at the GOP campaign committees are disproportionately low, and there is some nervousness among party operatives that they won’t have enough money to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity at the ballot box this fall.

Still, while Democrats may be banking on having their large cash advantage help insulate them from heavy House seat losses, there are some political climates that you can’t spend your way out of — a lesson that Republicans learned in 2006.

That cycle, when Republicans were in the majority, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent more than $83.5 million on independent expenditures compared with $64.1 million in spending by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The spending discrepancy didn’t stop Democrats from winning 30 seats and taking control of the House in what became a national wave election. In 11 of the seats that flipped, the Republican incumbent outspent the Democratic challenger and the NRCC outspent the DCCC, but the Republicans still lost. And in two more GOP open seats, both the Republican nominee and the NRCC had the spending edge, but the Democrats still won.

But even when Republicans had the financial edge, they weren’t outspending Democrats by 2-to-1 or even 3-to-1, a prospect that the GOP could face this year.

This cycle, the NRCC had $4.3 million in the bank (and $2 million in debt) on Nov. 30, compared with the DCCC’s $15.3 million (and $2.7 million in debt). Year-end reports are due later this month.

Republicans are having a difficult time turning grass-roots conservative anger into campaign dollars. Multiple House GOP strategists expressed concern that the Republican National Committee — headed by headline-grabbing Chairman Michael Steele — won’t have the money that it normally invests in Congressional races in midterm elections.

“It is not lost on anyone that accomplishing our goal of retiring Nancy Pelosi as Speaker will require more assistance from House Republicans, as well as all of our donors and friends,” NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said. “With that support, we’re confident that we will close the gap in the coming months in order to keep Democrats accountable for their reckless agenda.”

At a briefing with reporters last month, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) pointed out that Republicans hardly have enough money to fully fund one top-tier House race, let alone their full slate of targets.

If the NRCC can’t raise enough money to fund targeted races, the RNC has traditionally been the place to look for a financial bailout in a midterm election. In 2006, the RNC spent about $25 million on Congressional races.

Only a portion of that money was transferred directly to the campaign committees and turned into television ads. More importantly, according to multiple GOP strategists, the RNC usually shoulders the burden for the “ground game” in competitive states, including funding absentee voter programs.

Even during the past three years that the GOP has spent in the Congressional minority, the RNC has maintained a cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee. But after spending more than $90 million last year, including heavy investments in the Virginia ($9 million) and New Jersey ($4 million) wins, the RNC showed a cash balance of just $8.7 million at the end of November. The DNC spent $71.6 million and had $13 million in the bank.

Even with an expected uptick in GOP fundraising, there is little doubt Democrats will have the financial edge this year.

But the question remains: How much will it matter?

In 2008, the DCCC spent a total of $75 million on IEs in 64 districts. The NRCC spent more than $21 million in 35 districts. Taking a closer look, the DCCC spent $1 million unanswered (the NRCC spent nothing) in 19 districts. Democrats won 15 of those races.

But that spending advantage was coupled with a favorable political climate. It’s unclear how much money it will take when Democratic candidates are running into a headwind, if not a wave.

“If I had to choose money or climate, it’s not even close,” according to one veteran Democratic strategist, who would choose a positive climate hands down.

Past election results show that challengers don’t have to equal incumbent spending, but multiple GOP House strategists don’t believe many of their candidates can withstand a 2-1 or 3-1 disadvantage. Money allows a candidate and party to define their opponent and the narrative of the race. But it doesn’t always work when a national story line overshadows the contest.

“If the climate stays the way it is now, the money will come in late,” the Democratic source added. “[Republicans] won’t need as much as what people think.”

Even with a financial advantage, the DCCC will likely face some tough spending decisions. Democrats may have to learn to cut their losses in some seats early on because, in the end, it’s not necessarily about how much money you have, it’s about how you spend it.

In 2006, the NRCC kept pumping money into Ohio’s open 18th district ($3.2 million), the open seat in Texas’ 22nd district ($1.8 million) and the re-election race of then-Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) ($1.5 million), even though it became clear well before Election Day that each race was unwinnable.

But conversely, heavy NRCC spending in some races was a big factor in the GOP holding as many as a dozen seats.

With an expanding playing field that increasingly puts Democrats on the defensive, Democratic offensive opportunities appear to be shrinking. And with more vulnerable incumbents looking to the committee for help, Member races have to take priority over open-seat and challenger contests when it comes to funding priorities.


This story first appeared in Roll Call on January 14, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Monday, January 18, 2010

MA Sen Moved to Lean Takeover

While special elections often come down to turnout – and they therefore are more difficult to predict than normal elections – the combination of public and private survey research and anecdotal information now strongly suggests that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in tomorrow’s race to fill the remainder of the late-Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat.

Brown is running extremely well with Independents in the Bay State, and unless Democratic turnout exceeds everyone’s expectations, Brown is headed for a comfortable win. Move from Toss-Up to Lean Takeover.

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

Lean Takeover (0 R, 4 D)
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • MA Open (Kirk, D) *
  • ND Open (Dorgan, 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)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Lincoln (D-AR)
  • Specter (D-PA)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R,1 D)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • FL Open (LeMieux, R)
  • CT Open (Dodd, D)
Currently Safe (10 R, 10 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)
  • Feingold (D-WI)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Wyden (D-OR)

The Politics of Personal Destruction, Capitol Hill-Style, Part II

By Stuart Rothenberg

Is it hypocrisy, payback or a simple case of media “gotcha?” It’s probably all three.

But no matter what you call it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) words as quoted in a new book by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin have had the nation’s capital and the national media abuzz since the weekend.

The authors wrote that the Nevada Democrat was “wowed” during the presidential campaign by Barack Obama’s “oratorical gifts” and believed that the country “was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate.” They then quoted Reid as citing Obama’s assets as being a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

In politics these days, it’s out of fashion to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. Attack, attack and attack again is the way things are done. If your adversary says something that can be used to brand him or her as a racist — or some other intolerant, discriminating boor — so much the better.

So it isn’t surprising that Republicans and their talk show allies are on the attack, even demanding Reid’s resignation.

As far as I can tell, Reid made two mistakes. First, he used the word “Negro,” which was how African-Americans were described years ago, when both Reid and I were much younger. That word has fallen out of favor and is now regarded by many as a racist term. The Senate Majority Leader should have known that.

And second, Reid offered a perfectly reasonable analysis of part of the reason why Obama was a credible candidate for president.

Of course, it’s a huge mistake these days to tell the truth if you are a politician. Stick to the script of repeating mindless platitudes and talking points. Journalists will complain privately about that approach, but they’ll jump on you the minute you actually say something “off message.”

During the campaign, many of us who regularly talk and write about politics commented about Obama’s appeal, noting that most white Americans, who still constitute about three-quarters of the electorate, felt comfortable with him — with his speaking style, thoughtfulness, apparent coolness under pressure and emphasis on bringing people together.

Obama and Tiger Woods, both of whom have mixed race ancestry, transcended race in the white community, even though the election returns demonstrated that African-Americans viewed the Illinois Senator as a black political figure.

Reid’s reference to “Negro dialect” drew some chuckles on Monday morning’s “Morning Joe,” an MSNBC program that doesn’t exhibit the strong ideological bias that the network’s prime time schedule has.

Host Joe Scarborough seemed to mock Reid when he laughingly asked Georgetown University Professor Michael Eric Dyson, an African-American, “What is a Negro dialect?”

“You tell me, brother, I don’t know,” said Dyson, never at a loss for words. “Is it like this ... What’s up, you know what I’m sayin’...”

The exchange was odd, to say the least, considering that Dyson was described by Georgetown 16 months ago as “a renowned scholar and cultural critic on issues of race, religion, popular culture, and contemporary issues in the African American Community.” He was hired as a “university professor,” according to the Washington Post, which “gives him free reign across academic departments.”

Black English (or black dialect) has been a topic of discussion for the past few decades, at least in some academic circles. It wasn’t that long ago that “Ebonics” generated considerable discussion in the mainstream media.

New York University’s Linguistics Department currently offers a course, African American English II, which the department describes this way: “African American English is a dialect of American English that has influenced U.S. and world cultures.”

Linguistics 605 in the Department of Linguistics at Ohio State University is titled “An Introduction to African-American English.” According to the course description, it is an “Introduction to the structure and history of the varieties of English used by African-Americans and the relationship between language use and socio-cultural context.”

Professor John R. Rickford, the Martin Luther King Jr. centennial professor of Stanford University’s Department of Linguistics, whose books include “African American Vernacular English and Spoken Soul: The Story of Black English,” has made a career of writing about black speech.

And last year, the Center for the Study of African American Language at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst hosted a Summer Dialect Research Project that addressed a number of questions, including: “What rules and principles govern the sentence structure, sound system, and meaning and pragmatics of AAE [African American English]? To what extent is it really different from other dialects of English spoken in the Southern United States?”

Anyway, it’s pretty clear to anyone without a partisan ax to grind that Reid was noting that unlike Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who often speak with a black preacher’s cadence and emotion, Obama rarely does.

Yes, on rare occasions during the campaign, I heard Obama fall into more of a preacher’s style when he was in front of an African-American audience. But more often than not, he sounded like your neighbor if you are a middle-upper-class white who lives in the suburbs. I assume that’s exactly what Reid meant.

I can’t imagine Reid being forced from office or from his post, and he shouldn’t be. That won’t stop Republicans from using Reid as a punching bag, the way Democrats wailed on then-Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in 2002 after he uttered some meaningless words of flattery on the occasion of an aged Senator’s birthday. What goes around, comes around, I guess.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 14, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Friday, January 15, 2010

AR 2: Snyder (D) to Retire

Democratic Cong. Vic Snyder is retiring, leaving another open seat headache for the Democrats.

"I have concluded that these election-year forces are no match for the persuasive and powerful attraction of our three one-year old boys under the leadership of their three-year old brother, and I have decided not to run for re-election," Snyder said in a statement.

Snyder leaves behind his Arkansas's 2nd District that John McCain won 54%-44% in the 2008 presidential race. Republicans were already excited about their chances against Snyder with former U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin (R) in the race. A poll released today had Griffin defeating the congressman by 17 points.

If Scott Brown (R) comes close or wins Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, more Democrats may reconsider their options for 2010.

UPDATE 11:19PM- Potential Democratic candidates include Lt. Gov. Bill Halter (who is also mentioned as a potential primary challenger to Sen. Blanche Lincoln), state Sen. Shane Broadway, Speaker of the House Robbie Wills, Public Service Commissioner Paul Susky, Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola, former state Sen. Jim Argue and President of the Senate Bob Johnson.

MA Senate: Still Too Close to Call

By Stuart Rothenberg

With a long holiday weekend fast approaching, smart political insiders from both sides of the aisle agree on one thing: the Massachusetts Senate special election could go either way.

Democratic attacks on Republican nominee Scott Brown have worked to some extent, driving up the GOP state Senator’s negatives. But while their efforts may have stopped the hemorrhaging, the race is simply too tight for either side to feel comfortable. In fact, Republicans who are watching the race closely continue to be extremely optimistic – but nervous – about Brown’s chances.

Democratic strategists are banking on President Obama driving Democratic turnout when voters go to the polls early next week, hoping that his appearance in the Bay State on Sunday will increase the percentage of Democrats who turn out on Tuesday but also increasing the share of the Democratic vote that Coakley draws.

“While everyone is predicting a miserable turnout on Tuesday, our job is to make it less miserable,” one Democrat told me recently.

GOP insiders, on the other hand, are banking on a strong showing for Brown among Independent voters, who seem ready to register their dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and one-party control of Washington, D.C.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

OH15: Stivers Staying Put

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Former state Senator Steve Stivers (R) is continuing his challenge to freshman Cong. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) in Ohio’s 15th District after declining to switch to the race for state Auditor.

Ohio’s current state Auditor, Mary Taylor (R), recently decided to drop her bid for reelection in order to join gubernatorial candidate John Kasich’s (R) ticket as his lieutenant governor. Subsequently, state party officials asked Stivers to run for auditor, but he declined and will continue his run for Congress instead.

In 2008, Kilroy defeated Stivers by less than a percentage point, 45.94%-45.18%.

AZ 3: Shadegg (R) to Retire

Republican Cong. John Shadegg (R) is retiring. First elected in 1994, he represents Arizona's 3rd District. John McCain carried the district with 56% in 2008.

MA Senate moved to Toss-Up

Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election. Because of this, we are moving our rating of the race from Narrow Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Toss-Up.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Brown has “won” the “free media” over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election.

Late Democratic efforts to demonize Republican Scott Brown, to make the race into a partisan battle and to use the Kennedy name to drive Democratic voters to the polls could still work. But the advertising clutter in the race works against them, and voters often tune out late messages, which can seem desperate.

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

Lean Takeover (0 R, 3 D)
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • ND Open (Dorgan, D)
  • DE Open (Kaufman, D)
Toss-Up (4 R, 5 D)
  • KY Open (Bunning, R)
  • MO Open (Bond, R)
  • NH Open (Gregg, R)
  • OH Open (Voinovich, R)
  • IL Open (Burris, D)
  • MA Open (Kirk, D) *
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Lincoln (D-AR)
  • Specter (D-PA)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R,1 D)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • FL Open (LeMieux, R)
  • CT Open (Dodd, D)
Currently Safe (10 R, 10 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)
  • Feingold (D-WI)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Wyden (D-OR)

Democrats Catch a Big Break in Connecticut Senate Race

By Stuart Rothenberg

If you are wondering why reporters ask politicians the same question again and again, it’s because you never know when a political figure is going to change his mind.

That’s exactly what Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) did last week when he reversed himself and announced that he would not seek re-election in the Nutmeg State.

“I’m running for re-election,” Dodd told the media on July 31, the same day that he announced he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Dodd had already begun airing TV spots even before that late July announcement. In early June, he spent more than $100,000 on a weeklong TV buy to boost his image. The ad included part of an Obama speech praising Dodd’s work on credit card legislation. About two weeks later, Dodd went up with another credit card ad, as well as a television spot featuring Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has since passed away.

Dodd’s decision not to seek re-election probably was both personal and political.

The five-term Senator’s chances of winning another term have been “iffy” for a long time. The latest polling memo released in the Connecticut Senate race was intended to bolster his prospects. But any Democratic memo that asserts that the incumbent “is holding his ground” against his opponents and “can win next November” is an acknowledgment of weakness, not an assertion of strength.

The Dec. 21 memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research about its Dec. 15-17 poll reported that Dodd trailed former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) by 5 points (51 percent to 46 percent) and was in a dead heat against Republican businesswoman Linda McMahon (46 percent apiece) in general election ballot tests.

And Dodd has plenty of reasons to be worried whether he was as close as the Greenberg numbers suggested. Earlier polling conducted by Quinnipiac University showed Dodd drawing 35 percent to 41 percent of the vote, significantly below where the Democratic incumbent was in the GQRR survey.

It is possible, of course, that Dodd had improved his standing over the previous three months and that he had increased his share of the general election vote. But it is also possible that GQRR’s polling overstated Dodd’s strength, just as the firm’s polls for Democracy Corps exaggerated Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) standing in last year’s New Jersey gubernatorial contest.

In the last New Jersey pre-election poll, Democracy Corps found Corzine up by 5 points over challenger Chris Christie (R), while Quinnipiac had Christie up by 2 points and SurveyUSA had Christie ahead by 3 points. In early October, Democracy Corps had Corzine up by 3 points, while Quinnipiac had Christie up by 1 and SurveyUSA had Christie ahead by 3.

In fact, the same trend held in August, early September and late September Democracy Corps and Quinnipiac polling, with Corzine running 3 to 7 points better in GQRR polls than in Quinnipiac surveys. Corzine lost by 4 points on Election Day.

Dodd’s inability to move the ballot test much against Simmons even after push poll questions had to be stunningly disappointing for Dodd and his strategists.

Interestingly, the Greenberg memo made a great deal out of the Democratic Party’s advantages over the GOP in Connecticut and stressed President Barack Obama’s favorable rating. But the memo did not include the president’s job rating in the state or Dodd’s favorable/unfavorable or job approval numbers. If those numbers were good, I expect they would have been in the memo.

If Dodd was faring poorly in ballot tests even with the Obama and partisan numbers as good as they were, any weakening in the president’s standing or closing of the partisan gap between Christmas 2009 and Election Day 2010 would further undermine Dodd’s re-election prospects.

Dodd’s exit dramatically improves Democrats’ chances of holding the Connecticut seat and offsets the bad news for Democrats that North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) won’t seek re-election this year.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) immediately entered the Senate race and becomes a solid favorite to hold the seat for his party. After all, Dodd’s re-election problems stemmed from voters’ evaluations of him, not a sudden Republican turn in the state. Not surprisingly, a Public Policy Polling survey showed Blumenthal holding large leads over each of his potential GOP opponents.

Republican strategists, who were prepared to invest in this race to help the Republican nominee knock off Dodd, are already backing away from the Connecticut race, noting that while Blumenthal has to prove his mettle, the Dodd announcement simply has changed GOP calculations.

McMahon, the former World Wresting Entertainment CEO, has already put more than $2 million into her bid. Simmons, who has held a comfortable lead over Dodd in most polls, now faces a double fundraising problem, first in the primary and then in the general election, should he get that far.

For national and Connecticut Democrats, however, the GOP Senate race is no longer so compelling. They can start anew in a state with a favorable partisan terrain.

This column
first appeared in Roll Call on January 11, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

MA Sen Moved to Narrow Advantage for Dems

The Senate race in Massachusetts is ending in a flurry of money and activity. With just days before the Tuesday election, public and private polls show Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) with anywhere from a solid lead to a statistically insignificant one over state Sen. Scott Brown (R). Brown's movement in the race as stirred the Democratic nest and now Coakley, the state Democratic Party, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are leveling attack ads against Brown.

The next few days will show whether the ads will work to stop the bleeding. Even though it would be easy to put the race into Toss-Up, we still believe that the Democratic nature of the state and the latest Democratic attacks make Coakley a narrow favorite to hold the open seat. We're moving the race from Clear Advantage to Narrow Advantage for the Democrats but we'll continue to monitor developments.

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

Lean Takeover (0 R, 3 D)
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • ND Open (Dorgan, 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)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Lincoln (D-AR)
  • Specter (D-PA)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 1 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
  • MA Open (Kirk, D) *
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R,1 D)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • FL Open (LeMieux, R)
  • CT Open (Dodd, D)
Currently Safe (10 R, 10 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)
  • Feingold (D-WI)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Wyden (D-OR)

NV Sen Moved to Lean Takeover, Dems Still have Edge in MA Sen

New polling confirms that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) is mired near 40% in general election ballot tests against all potential opponents, even those voters know nothing about. It will be extremely difficult for him to pull out a win, as Sens. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and John Sununu (R-NH), and more recently New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), found out.

Reid's most recent controversial comments don't help because they keep the story focused on him, rather than on his opponents. Given Reid’s current standing with voters, he should be viewed as a slight underdog for reelection, which is why we are moving this race from Toss-up to Lean Takeover for the GOP.

In Massachusetts, it appears that Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) holds a statistically significant lead over state Sen. Scott Brown (R) with just days to go before the January 19 election. The one poll showing Brown up by one point appears to be an outlier. We're moving the race from Safe to Clear Advantage for the Incumbent Party because of the small chance that Brown could pull up a huge upset in a low turnout election. But we continue to believe that Coakley will win, though her margin could be so narrow as to cause more jitters on the Democratic side.

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

Lean Takeover (0 R, 3 D)
  • Reid (D-NV) *
  • ND Open (Dorgan, 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)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Lincoln (D-AR)
  • Specter (D-PA)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • FL Open (LeMieux, R)
  • CT Open (Dodd, D)
  • MA Open (Kirk, D) *
Currently Safe (10 R, 10 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)
  • Feingold (D-WI)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Wyden (D-OR)

Friday, January 08, 2010

CO Gov remains Toss-Up, PA Gov moved to Lean Takeover

In the face of a tough reelection race, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) announced he wouldn't seek a second term. His decision probably improves Democratic chances of holding the seat, because they will be able to run a non-incumbent, but not enough to move the race in the Democrats' direction at this point.

In Pennsylvania, Attorney General Tom Corbett's path to the GOP nomination keeps getting clearer and he consistently leads all of his potential Democratic opponents in hypothetical general election match-ups. It looks like Keystone State voters will keep their decades-long streak alive of switching parties in the governorship every eight years. Move to Lean Takeover.

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


Lean Takeover (6 R, 7 D)
  • Brewer (R-AZ)
  • CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
  • CT Open (Rell, R)
  • HI Open (Lingle, R)
  • RI Open (Carcieri, R)
  • VT Open (Douglas, R)
  • Culver (D-IA)
  • KS Open (Parkinson, D)
  • MI Open (Granholm, D)
  • OK Open (Henry, D)
  • PA Open (Rendell, D) *
  • TN Open (Bredesen, D)
  • WY Open (Freudenthal, D)
Toss-Up (2 R, 3 D)
  • FL Open (Crist, R)
  • MN Open (Pawlenty, R)
  • CO Open (Ritter, D)
  • Strickland (D-OH)
  • WI Open (Doyle, D)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)
  • Gibbons (R-NV)
  • GA Open (Perdue, R)
  • Patrick (D-MA)
  • ME Open (Baldacci, D)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 3 D)
  • Perry (R-TX)
  • AL Open (Riley, R)
  • SC Open (Sanford, R)
  • Paterson (D-NY)
  • Quinn (D-IL)
  • NM Open (Richardson, D)
Currently Safe (5 R, 4 D)
  • Herbert (R-UT)
  • Heineman (R-NE)
  • Otter (R-ID)
  • Parnell (R-AK)
  • SD Open (Rounds, R)
  • Beebe (D-AR)
  • Lynch (D-NH)
  • O'Malley (D-MD)
  • OR Open (Kulongoski, D)

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

New CT and ND Senate Ratings

Two Democratic retirements essentially cancel each other in terms of the outlook for the Senate.

Democratic prospects got significantly worse in North Dakota with Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D) departure. Gov. John Hoeven (R) was leading Dorgan in hypothetical match-ups and he would be a heavy favorite in an open seat if he chooses to run. The Democratic bench consists of only one person- At-Large Cong. Earl Pomeroy- but he looks to be initially unlikely to run.

Democratic prospects brightened in Connecticut now that Sen. Chris Dodd (D) is not running for reelection. Dodd appeared to be stuck at or below 40% in public polls and was in dire shape for another term. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) is going run in Dodd's place and is the favorite to keep the seat in Democratic hands.

We've also moved the Arkansas and Colorado races to Toss-Up, not because of breaking news, such as Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) retirement announcement, but because the national mood has changed and public polls consistently show the Democrats in those two states in a very vulnerable position.

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

Lean Takeover (0 R, 2 D)
  • ND Open (Dorgan, D) *
  • DE Open (Kaufman, D)
Toss-Up (4 R, 5 D)
  • KY Open (Bunning, R)
  • MO Open (Bond, R)
  • NH Open (Gregg, R)
  • OH Open (Voinovich, R)
  • IL Open (Burris, D)
  • Bennet (D-CO) *
  • Lincoln (D-AR) *
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • Specter (D-PA)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 1 D)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • FL Open (LeMieux, R)
  • CT Open (Dodd, D) #
Currently Safe (10 R, 11 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)
  • 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)

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

21 House Seats Move Toward GOP

During our quarterly overview of all of the House races across the country, we moved 21 House seats toward the Republicans. On top of that, Republicans gained Alabama's 5th District when Cong. Parker Griffith switched to the GOP before Christmas. His seat moved from Lean Democratic to Currently Safe for the GOP.

We moved only one seat toward the Democrats (New York's 23rd). Despite recent GOP retirements in California's 19th District (George Radanovich) and South Carolina's 1st District (Henry Brown), the two seats don't make our list at this point.

And as we said in our latest overview, substantial Republican gains now look almost inevitable, with net Democratic losses likely to exceed a dozen. While Democratic control of the House is not yet at risk, losses of 15-20 seats are likely, and that target range could well grow with additional Democratic retirements and voter anger. Griffith's switch means Republicans net 40 seats for the majority.

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

Pure Toss-Up (2 R, 13 D)
  • AL 2 (Bright, D)
  • CO 4 (Markey, 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)
  • OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
  • OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
  • PA 6 (Open; Gerlach, R)
  • PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
  • TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
  • WA 3 (Open; Baird, D) *
Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (1 R, 4 D)
  • KS 3 (Open; Moore, D) *
  • LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
  • NM 2 (Teague, D)*
  • VA 5 (Perriello, D)*
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 3 D)
  • FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • MI 7 (Schauer, D)
Lean Republican (1 R, 1 D)
  • CA 3 (Lungren, R)
  • TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D) *
Lean Democratic (0 R, 9 D)
  • AR 2 (Snyder, D) *
  • HI 1 (Open; Abercrombie, D) * Special Election
  • MO 4 (Skelton, D) *
  • NV 3 (Titus, D) *
  • NY 19 (Hall, D) *
  • NY 23 (Owens, D) #
  • NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
  • NY 29 (Massa, D)
  • VA 2 (Nye, D) *
Republican Favored (8 R, 0 D)
  • CA 44 (Calvert, R) *
  • CA 45 (Bono Mack, 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, 16 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AR 1 (Berry, D) *
  • CA 47 (Sanchez, D)
  • DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • IN 9 (Hill, D) *
  • IA 3 (Boswell, D) *
  • LA 2 (Cao, R)
  • NY 20 (Murphy, D)
  • NC 8 (Kissell, D)
  • OH 16 (Boccieri, D) *
  • OH 18 (Space, D)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D) *
  • SC 5 (Spratt, D) *
  • SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D) *
  • TX 17 (Edwards, D)
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D) *
Total seats in play: 60
Republican seats: 14
Democratic seats: 46