The Rothenberg Political Report

We've Moved!

2010-08-09T11:24:00.002-04:00

The Rothenberg Political Report entered the 21st century last night by re-launching our web site. Skip the blogspot and go directly to RothenbergPoliticalReport.com and check out our new home.

Also, please update any links you might have to our new address. Thanks and enjoy!

Jersey Native Looks to Shore up GOP Senate Majority

2010-08-06T12:47:00.001-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Third in a series of profiles of committee independent expenditure directors.

“If it wasn’t for Mike DuHaime, I wouldn’t be a Senator today,” New Jersey state Sen. Anthony Bucco (R) recalled recently about a campaign that took place almost 13 years ago.

After this year’s elections, more than a dozen GOP Senate candidates might be saying the same thing.

Earlier this year, the National Republican Senatorial Committee announced DuHaime would direct the committee’s independent expenditure effort, which will fund the committee’s television ad blitzes and direct mail this fall.

“Mike DuHaime is a seasoned and well-respected strategist whose political skills and experience will greatly benefit Senate Republican candidates in the months ahead,” NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) said. Because of campaign finance law, tens of millions of dollars will be spent through the IE unit without coordination with NRSC staff.

“We wanted someone with a broad array of experience — someone who’s worked on several campaigns and inside the committees, and Mike more than met that criteria,” NRSC Executive Director Rob Jesmer said.

When DuHaime was political director for the Republican National Committee during the 2006 election cycle, he hired Jesmer and Randy Bumps as two of his regional political directors. Bumps was the NRSC’s political director this cycle until earlier this year, when he moved to the IE side to advise DuHaime.

Politics Is a Family Sport

Republican strategists believe DuHaime’s diverse résumé will serve the party well in November. He has run campaigns when the political wind was at his back but also when it was in his face, and he has national experience from the RNC and running a presidential campaign.

But some of his most valuable experience comes from his native New Jersey, where politics was a daily sport for the DuHaime family.

DuHaime’s mother was mayor of Bloomingdale, a small town in the northern tip of the state where he grew up. His father was a Passaic County Freeholder who ran for Senate in 1996.

“I was sitting around the table listening to the so-called experts and the only person making any sense was Michael,” said GOP consultant Mark Campbell, who was working on the race. “I told him to give me a call after he graduated [from college] and I’d give him a job.”

His father lost the GOP primary to then-Rep. Dick Zimmer, but DuHaime finished his political science and journalism degrees at Rutgers University and landed a job with Campbell’s consulting firm.

In 1997, Bucco, then a New Jersey assemblyman, tapped DuHaime to manage his state Senate race.

“I was 23 years old and didn’t have $20 in my bank account but had $750,000 in the campaign account,” recalled DuHaime, now 37. “I basically lived in the headquarters. I had to learn everything.”

According to Bucco, DuHaime was relentless. After Bucco finished a long day of campaigning, he came back to headquarters to find DuHaime glued to his computer screen. Bucco left for the evening, but when he arrived early the next morning, he found DuHaime in the same position “and the couch in the back office wasn’t even rumpled.”

Bucco won a competitive primary and knocked off Democratic state Sen. Gordon MacInnes in the general election even though he was outspent in both races.

Going National

MacInnes wouldn’t be the last incumbent DuHaime would take down.

DuHaime went back to work as a consultant at Campbell & Pusateri, where he helped Pennsylvania businessman Don Sherwood hold a GOP open seat in 1998.

In 2000, DuHaime became deputy campaign manager for the Senate campaign of then-Rep. Bob Franks (R-N.J.), where he promptly “ran into Jon Corzine’s money.” Franks was severely outspent and narrowly lost by 3 points.

“It was a tough loss, but we had to be so creative and aggressive and disciplined,” DuHaime said.

After a stint as executive director for the New Jersey Republican State Committee, national Republicans started to take notice, and in 2004, DuHaime was hired to be the Northeast regional political director for the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign.

“Mike understood campaigns in a very tough region,” said former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, who hired DuHaime at the RNC after Bush won re-election. “He always had a strategic vision and was a good manager.”

After a tough 2006 election cycle, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) hired DuHaime to be his presidential campaign manager. The campaign chose to focus on Florida, instead of playing in the earlier primary and caucus states, and it planned to use Gov. Charlie Crist’s endorsement as a launching pad.

“We tried a different route because we felt like we had to,” DuHaime said. Based on the dynamics of the crowded field, ideology and primary calendar, Giuliani couldn’t just cruise into Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and hope to win.

But when Crist turned his back on Giuliani at the last second and switched his support to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the strategy crumbled.

The experience wasn’t a total loss.

“It’s like starting a multimillion-dollar business from nothing. You’ve got to get phones, office space, everything,” DuHaime said about running a presidential campaign.

Revenge Is Sweet

This year DuHaime is tasked with assembling teams of pollsters and media consultants in at least a dozen races — and he’s doing it all from his office at Mercury Public Affairs in New York, making him the only IE director not based in Washington, D.C.

Crist’s decision to help torpedo Giuliani’s campaign may come back to bite the former GOP governor, who is now running for Senate as an Independent. If Crist becomes the de facto Democratic nominee, DuHaime and the NRSC may choose to spend millions of dollars against him.

It wouldn’t be the first time DuHaime has had the opportunity to avenge an earlier loss.

Last year, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (R) hired DuHaime to be his chief strategist in his race against Corzine, who was elected governor of New Jersey in 2005. “He knew what had gone wrong in past races and how we were going to be different,” Christie said recently.

Just like in 2000, DuHaime’s candidate faced Corzine’s checkbook.

“Mike had to resist the temptation to spend too much too early,” said Christie, who credited DuHaime with sticking to the campaign plan as Corzine flexed his financial muscle. “Mike was very disciplined and knew where and when to spend.”

Christie prevailed 49 percent to 45 percent, giving Republicans a boost in optimism heading into 2010.

Senate Republicans won’t be facing quite the same financial challenge as Christie, but Democratic incumbents in California, Wisconsin and Washington start the general election with a significant cash edge.

But to DuHaime, the fundamentals are the same and each election is about setting up a “clear choice between the incumbent and the challenger.”

“You just need enough money to get your message out,” DuHaime said. “You don’t necessarily need to match.”

The overall landscape won’t be easy. Republicans have to win virtually every competitive race in order to win back the majority. But Republicans believe DuHaime, former captain of the Rutgers ice hockey team, has the toughness for the job.

After a daylong trip to Washington last week, DuHaime hoped to make it back to Manhattan for an evening hockey game in a city league. His team recently defeated the team of New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (D). For DuHaime, battling Democrats is a 24-hour job.

Kentucky Senate: Paul Campaign clear about bio in Report interview

2010-08-05T12:30:00.000-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

If reporters wanted to know whether Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul graduated from Baylor University, they probably should have asked his campaign. That’s what I did, and I got the answer, ten months ago.

Wednesday’s story in the Lexington Herald-Leader “Contrary to some media reports, Rand Paul has no bachelor’s degree” has created quite a stir. Paul’s opponent, Attorney General Jack Conway (D), and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are happily sending around the clip in an effort to implicate Paul as the latest politician to exaggerate his resume.

But there is a difference between Paul and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) or Illinois Cong. Mark Kirk (R) who have admitted to rhetorical indiscretions about their resumes. There doesn’t appear to be any hard evidence that Paul misled the media on his Baylor experience. Some members of the media just got it wrong.

“Rand Paul, the Republican U.S. Senate nominee in Kentucky, holds a medical degree from Duke University but never received a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, contrary to several media reports in recent months,” according to the lede of the Herald Leader story.

Here’s what I wrote in the October 2, 2009 edition of the Rothenberg Political Report (subscription only):

“Rand Paul, 46, grew up in Texas, where his father, Ron Paul, has been a member of Congress since the late 70s. Rand Paul attended Baylor University but left before graduating to attend Duke University Medical School. He finished medical school in 1988.”

I received the information from a conversation with Paul’s then-campaign manager David Adams, and as I recall, there was no effort to mislead me.

Obviously, I can’t rule out the possibility that some Paul staffer told some reporter that Rand Paul received a degree from Baylor. But given what a Paul staffer told me ten months ago, the burden of proof would seem to be on those who wrote the wrong information – or took incorrectly reported information and included it in their reporting or materials.

The other question, of course, is whether it will matter to voters at all. Will voters really care that someone who has a medical degree from Duke Medical School doesn’t also have an undergraduate degree from Baylor? At this point, that seems unlikely.

Even Veteran Members Will Struggle to Win

2010-08-04T08:58:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Reps. Chet Edwards (D-Texas), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) and John Spratt (D-S.C.) need to keep in mind the fate of former Reps. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and Sue Kelly (R-N.Y.).

Kelly, first elected in 1994, had only one tough race (in 1996) before she was upset in 2006. In the two elections before her defeat, she drew 67 percent and 70 percent. Leach had a tight race in 2002 but coasted to victory in 2004. Two years later, he was upset by Democrat Dave Loebsack, who was widely dismissed by national Democrats.

This cycle, Edwards, Herseth Sandlin and Spratt face the same problems that their one-time Republican colleagues did in 2006. Can they swim against the current and win re-election? The prospects of all three Members are less than bright right now.

Edwards, 58, has been a Republican target for years, and the National Republican Congressional Committee almost got his scalp in 2002, when he was forced to run in a dramatically redrawn district. But as Mark Twain might say, reports of Edwards’ political demise were greatly exaggerated, and he has continued to defeat all kinds of challengers.

A member of the Budget and Appropriations committees, the Texas A&M graduate knows his district. His record has been conservative enough, and his support for the military (and military spending) has been robust enough, to allow him to win re-election even in difficult cycles.

Over the years, I have found the Congressman to be unusually approachable and down-to-earth. He readily acknowledges his challenges this year but notes that he has always found a way to win re-election, even in the most difficult of circumstances.

But 2010 isn’t shaping up to be “about” Edwards, and that’s bad news for the Congressman, who has a policy of not releasing his poll numbers.

Multiple polls (only one of which was conducted by a Republican firm for Edwards’ opponent) show the same thing: Voters in Edwards’ district continue to like him but are now intending to vote for GOP challenger Bill Flores. Edwards represents a very Republican district, and he trails Flores by double digits.

Edwards is running a very aggressive race against Flores, and his hopes of pulling out another win rest on his ability to localize the contest. The Congressman has the resources to do so. He ended June with $2.1 million in the bank and has been hammering Flores, a former Houston oil executive, for everything from misstating his voting history and failing to take steps to save the Big 12 Conference to taking a position that would kill the expansion of a nuclear power plant in the district.

I wouldn’t count out Edwards just yet, but he has an uphill fight.

Far north of Edwards’ district, in South Dakota, Herseth Sandlin suddenly finds herself with unexpected problems. In a contest that some politically incorrect observers are already calling the “hottest” race of the year, Herseth Sandlin, 39, faces state Rep. Kristi Noem (R), 38.

Both women are personable and attractive, but this time Noem is the outsider who should benefit from a strong Republican environment in the state and nationally, as well as from some obvious contrasts.

The Congresswoman, who is married to former Texas Rep. Max Sandlin (D), now a lobbyist, graduated from Georgetown University and Georgetown Law School. Noem attended Northern State University in Aberdeen and South Dakota State University, but she returned to the family farm after her father was killed in a farm accident.

While Herseth Sandlin’s first foray into elective office was a run for Congress (she lost a bid in 2002 but won a 2004 special election), Noem opted to run for the state Legislature. She was elected in 2006 and re-elected two years later.

The Congresswoman opposed cap-and-trade and health care reform, but she voted for the stimulus, is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as “card check”) and can be linked easily with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Noem is an unapologetic conservative who believes the government has grown too large and spends too much money. The executive director of the state Democratic Party has already called her an “extremist.”

A year ago, Herseth Sandlin seemed likely to coast to re-election, even in a bad year for her party nationally. That’s no longer the case. Noem is the real deal. If she wins, she, like fellow South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, could become a political star.

In South Carolina, Spratt, the chairman of the Budget Committee and the only white Democrat serving in federal elective office in the state, hasn’t had a truly tough race for more than a decade.

This cycle, however, state Sen. Mick Mulvaney, who served one term in the state House and is in his first term in the state Senate, is a serious threat to the 67-year-old Congressman.

Spratt, who was first elected to Congress in 1982, has overcome weakness at the top of the ticket before. He won 63 percent of the vote in 2004, when Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was drawing just 42 percent in the district, and he ran about 16 points ahead of President Barack Obama in the district in 2008.

Unlike Edwards or Herseth Sandlin, Spratt has a large African-American population in his district, giving him a solid base vote. But his seniority, his record of support for the administration and midterm dynamics this year mean a giant headache for him.

As the Budget chairman, Spratt is easily defined by what his party has accomplished and stood for since January 2009. His support for the stimulus, health care reform and cap-and-trade make him a juicy target in this Republican district.

Spratt’s longevity is testament to his political skill and personal appeal. But this year, his longtime service, Democratic label and recent votes on controversial issues may well give even those who have supported him in the past enough reason to look for a replacement.

So the question is simple for Edwards, Herseth Sandlin and Spratt: Can any of them localize their races enough to squeeze out another win? I’m certainly not expecting all three of them back in the next Congress.

DCCC Turns to Mook’s Ground Game for Fall

2010-08-02T14:54:00.001-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Second in a series of profiles of committee independent expenditure directors.

Democratic operative Robby Mook’s entry into politics was a little dirty.

“I remember standing in front of the dump for hours,” Mook recalled. “Everyone takes their trash to the dump in Vermont, so that’s where you campaign.”

From a dump in Vermont to high-stakes presidential primaries to a top-tier Senate race, Mook has built his career by being in the middle of some of the biggest political battles in the country.

This cycle he’s in a critical position to help Democrats as they try to keep control of the House of Representatives.

Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reserved $28 million in TV ad time to defend 40 districts. Because of campaign finance law, that money will be spent in independent expenditures, an effort Mook will direct.

You wouldn’t expect a party to put a 30-year-old in charge of tens of millions of dollars — the DCCC spent $75 million in IE money last cycle, according to the Campaign Finance Institute — but Democratic strategists believe Mook has the experience and the temperament for the job.

The son of a physics professor and a hospital administrator, Mook grew up in Sharon, Vt. Technically, he was born in New Hampshire (because that’s where the nearest hospital was located), and ties to both states have come in handy.

It seems like politics has always been a part of Mook’s life, whether attending a rally for Bill Clinton in Burlington as a middle-school student or organizing a phone bank for the president four years later.

In ninth grade, Mook auditioned for the school play, and the head of the theater department also happened to be a state legislator running for re-election.

“It was one of the funniest auditions I had ever seen,” former state Rep. Matt Dunne said in a recent phone interview from Vermont, where he is running for governor as a Democrat.

Mook secured a role in “The Imaginary Invalid,” a French comedy by Moliére, and volunteered for Dunne in his spare time.

“Robby was clearly more interested in my campaign than in the play,” Dunne said. “We had a little sense there was a political gene in him.”

After high school, Mook went off to Columbia University, where he studied the classics because he always wanted to read Greek. He didn’t take a single political science course in college, but he continued learning politics during the summers.

As Dunne climbed the political ladder, he hired Mook as the first paid staffer for Vermont House Democrats before Mook had even finished his undergraduate degree. But it wasn’t an easy time as Democrats lost their majority.

After college, Mook worked as field director for Vermont Democrats’ coordinated campaign in 2002, another tough year in which Republicans took over the governorship after five terms of Howard Dean (D). But Mook followed the former governor onto the national political scene when Dean launched his presidential bid.

Mook started as Dean’s deputy field director in New Hampshire, where he finished second to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and then shifted to Wisconsin, where the former governor finished third.

After staying with the Dean campaign “until the bitter end,” as Mook put it, he signed on with the Democratic National Committee and was get-out-the-vote director for the Wisconsin coordinated campaign. Kerry narrowly won the state but lost the election.

Mook’s résumé is dotted with wins and losses, but he’s unfazed by it. “I think you learn more when you lose,” Mook said. “I’m glad I’ve had both.”

In 2005, Mook managed Democrat Dave Marsden’s win for state delegate in Virginia, taking over a Republican open seat, and in 2006 he ran the Democrats’ coordinated campaign in Maryland when Martin O’Malley (D) knocked off Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) and Benjamin Cardin (D) defeated Michael Steele (R) for the open Senate seat.

In 2007, Mook returned to presidential politics, this time for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He started as Clinton’s state director in Nevada, which rose in prominence after the Senator’s loss in Iowa and re-emergence in New Hampshire. Clinton won Nevada’s popular vote, though Barack Obama won more delegates.

Mook shifted to Ohio for Clinton, then to Indiana. After the pressure cooker of the Clinton campaign, Mook landed in New Hampshire, in the middle of one of the most competitive Senate races in the country.

Mook first volunteered for Jeanne Shaheen in 1996 when she first ran for governor and he was still in high school, but in 2008 he managed her race and led her to victory over incumbent Sen. John Sununu (R).

“I know from the outstanding job he did running my campaign that his energy and positive attitude are limitless. He is undaunted by challenges, and his political skills are unparalleled,” Shaheen said.

She isn’t the only one impressed by Mook.

“I’ve seen Robby in action in a lot of races. Clearly he’s the right man for the job,” DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said. “He shares my view that we have to draw a sharp contrast on the issues that matter to voters.”

The Maryland Congressman hired Mook last year to be the DCCC’s political director, but after he “proved himself superbly in the specials,” Van Hollen entrusted him with the IE for the rest of the cycle. Mook directed the independent expenditures for special election victories in Pennsylvania’s 12th and New York’s 23rd, where a strong third-party candidate, Doug Hoffman, emerged to complicate the race.

Mook’s “ability to quickly change and go after Hoffman, to quickly retool, showed strong political instincts,” said Jon Vogel, the DCCC’s executive director who also ran the committee’s IE in 2008.

Vogel compared Mook’s job to running a factory, moving lots of product very quickly through a system. In this case, the product is polls, television ads and direct-mail pieces. “It’s a nerve-racking job,” Vogel said from experience. “Every strategic decision has a risk.”

“I try to stay out of the Beltway process bubble because what actually matters is the direction of the country, and that’s determined by who is in the majority,” Mook explained.

After working side-by-side with Vogel at the DCCC for more than a year, Mook is sequestered across South Capitol Street to the Fairchild Building and prohibited from strategizing with committee staff on dozens of campaigns.

But he won’t be alone. Van Hollen teamed him up with John Lapp, the former DCCC executive director who ran the IE in 2006 and advised as a consultant last cycle.

“It’s a tough climate and tough races, but he’s just the guy to do it,” Lapp said of Mook, whom he described as a “happy warrior” for his keen sense of humor and energy.

He’ll need both in an election cycle that seems to favor Republicans, in part because Democrats no longer have the common enemy of President George W. Bush.

“We’re running against a lot of very different candidates,” Mook said.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on July 27, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Huge GOP Gains Weren’t Always Inevitable This Year

2010-07-30T10:45:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Sometimes, you can almost hear the conventional wisdom and expectations shift, even when they are based on faulty premises.

I’ve heard dozens of times over the past few months that large Democratic losses in the House were inevitable this year because of sweeping Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008.

Indeed, on Monday’s edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” host Joe Scarborough, a former GOP Congressman from Florida, echoed that point, asserting that a “realignment” in the House was inevitable this year, even if unemployment were at 4 percent.

The reality is quite different. When I first started talking to Republican and Democratic insiders in December 2008, none of them believed that anything was “inevitable” in November 2010.

Throughout the winter of 2008-2009 and the spring of 2009, strategists for both parties acknowledged that midterms were usually challenging for the party holding the White House.

Democrats noted that the combination of Republican retirements, Democratic incumbency and financial advantages, and new Democratic opportunities — resulting from demographic changes during the decade and stronger recruiting in GOP seats previously neglected — would keep their net losses low, probably in the single digits.

After losing 51 House seats over two disastrous election cycles, Republicans knew they had plenty of opportunities and held on to the hope that long-term trends would create a favorable climate for their resurgence. But they expressed concerns about the damage to their party’s brand and were deflated when, in late March, an upstate New York special election was won by a Democrat.

In May 2009, my newsletter, the Rothenberg Political Report, noted that “small Republican gains would seem the most likely outcome” of the midterms, adding that the House “is not at risk in next year’s elections.”

No wonder GOP prospects were so limited. President Barack Obama’s job approval in an April 2009 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey stood at 61 percent approve/30 percent disapprove, and equal percentages of respondents (43 percent) said the country was headed in the right direction versus on the wrong track — a dramatic improvement from the previous November.

But while Democrats initially talked about keeping their losses to fewer than 10 seats, somewhere during the summer that number grew to a dozen and then to 15 seats.

In mid-September, I wrote in the Rothenberg Political Report that prospective GOP gains ranged from “only a handful of seats to a couple of dozen or more, depending on how things develop over the next year.” This much wider range reflected deteriorating national conditions for Democrats — Obama’s sliding approval numbers, declining right direction/wrong track results and a worsening in the Democratic Party’s image.

My point in resurrecting all these numbers and projections is that it was not always inevitable that Republicans would make large House gains, no matter what you may read and hear now.

Yes, House midterm election losses by the president’s party have often been substantial, as in 2006, 1994, 1982, 1974, 1966 and 1958. But at other times, the president’s party hasn’t done nearly so poorly, with either small gains or losses of fewer than 15 seats in 2002, 1998, 1990, 1978 and 1934.

Indeed, as many of us have repeatedly noted, the president’s party has gained seats in two of the past three midterm elections.

Let’s be clear about where we all would be if unemployment were actually at 4 percent right now.

Most of the hand-wringing about jobs and the economy would be gone, stronger employment numbers would mean a more vibrant economy (which almost certainly would mean higher federal and state revenues and lower deficits) and polling undoubtedly would show the president with better numbers, Congress with a higher approval rating and the Democratic Party more popular than it is now. Because of that, the huge enthusiasm gap that now exists and is likely to fuel GOP gains in November would be much smaller or nonexistent.

All of that would likely mean far smaller Democratic losses in the fall. Nobody, but nobody, would be talking about the inevitability of huge Republican House gains (or the possible loss of the House) if that were the case.

Actions, indeed, do have consequences. In this case, the combination of an aggressive Democratic agenda, a weak jobs recovery and a large deficit has created a political environment very different from the one 18 months ago, when Democrats won a special election in New York’s open 20th district by demonizing Republicans for waffling on, then opposing, Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

It’s very difficult to imagine Republican gains in the House of fewer than two dozen seats, and my own newsletter, after going race by race, recently placed likely GOP gains in the range of 28 to 33 seats, if not higher.

The House surely is at great risk, and anyone who asserts that Democrats are certain to maintain their majority after November is simply not worth listening to on the subject. The trajectory of this election cycle is clear. But don’t delude yourself. It didn’t have to be this way.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 29, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Florida Governor: Just Where Exactly Did Rick Scott Come From?

2010-07-28T13:27:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

The story of Florida gubernatorial hopeful Rick Scott (R) surely is one of the weirder stories in what is already an unusual political year.

Scott began his bid for the state’s top office as a political unknown who had run a company, Columbia/HCA, which was accused of defrauding Medicare and settled the case by paying fines and restitution amounting to $1.7 billion. That’s billion, with a “b.”

Now, Scott is the odds-on favorite to win the Aug. 24 GOP primary over state Attorney General Bill McCollum, making him his party’s gubernatorial nominee in the fall.

Scott would go into the general election no worse than even money against the likely Democratic nominee, state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, and Independent Bud Chiles, son of former Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles.

An attorney who came from a Kansas City, Mo., family of modest means, Scott started the Columbia Hospital Corp. in 1987. The company grew by buying hospitals until 1994, when Scott purchased HCA Inc., combining the two companies into one, Columbia/HCA.

That company continued to grow, but Scott left it in 1997, ousted by the company’s board of directors during the unfolding fraud investigation. According to Scott’s campaign website, by that time Columbia/HCA had “become the world’s largest health care company.”

After leaving Columbia/HCA, Scott bought or founded other health-care-related businesses. But perhaps his next dramatic move was the founding of Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, a national advocacy group “dedicated to the free market principles of choice, competition, accountability and personal responsibility in health care.”

CPR, started with $5 million of Scott’s money, was a vocal opponent of the public option that was espoused by many Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Scott appeared in many of the group’s TV spots.

When Scott, who has never run for office before, announced his bid for the GOP nomination on April 9, the Republican race looked like a foregone conclusion, with McCollum not seriously challenged for his party’s nomination.

An April 8-13 Quinnipiac University poll found McCollum leading state Sen. Paula Dockery (who dropped out of the primary in late May) 56 percent to 7 percent in the GOP race and Sink by 4 points in the general election. Scott’s own initial poll in the race showed him trailing McCollum 54 percent to 2 percent in the primary.

Scott’s late entry and massive media buy took everyone by surprise.

The first public survey with Scott in the race, conducted May 3-5 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, showed McCollum leading Scott 38 percent to 24 percent, with Scott’s name ID at 28 percent favorable/1 percent unfavorable. Ten days later, an Ipsos Public Affairs survey showed McCollum’s primary lead at 46 percent to 22 percent.

By early June, a Quinnipiac poll had Scott leading McCollum in the primary, 44 percent to 31 percent, while a McLaughlin & Associates poll for the attorney general found the GOP race even at 40 percent each.

An automated July 16-18 Public Policy Polling (D) survey showed Scott leading the primary 43 percent to 29 percent for McCollum.

Remember, the guy leading the Republican primary was forced out of his job because his company had to settle a massive fraud case that amounted to $1.7 billion. Again, that’s billion, with a “b.”

How did Scott get to this point, where he is likely to be the GOP nominee?

First and most obviously, Scott’s money made the difference. He has put at least $20 million into his race and outspent McCollum by about 2-to-1, according to a Scott campaign insider. His money has underwritten a blizzard of ads, and he was so fast out of the gate that his candidacy took people in the state, including McCollum, by surprise.

Second, Scott, bald and with a long neck, doesn’t look or sound like your usual politician. His TV ads, produced both by OnMessage Inc. and Nelson Warfield, have effectively presented him as a force for change and McCollum as a career politician. Those are perfect messages this cycle.

Even a McCollum TV endorsement spot featuring popular former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) has not moved the needle for the attorney general, and Scott campaign strategists believe that multiple McCollum endorsements, including those of former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), have only reinforced the change/politics-as-usual contrast that has benefited Scott so heavily.

Third, Scott appears to have benefited from an early McCollum mistake that presented the insurgent with an opening.

Shortly after the Arizona Legislature passed the state’s controversial immigration enforcement law, McCollum commented, “I don’t think Florida should enact laws like this — quite that far out.” A week later, after the Arizona Legislature amended that law, McCollum expressed his support for it. Two days later, when asked again about the Arizona law, McCollum responded, “We don’t need that law in Florida.”

Finally, although McCollum and his allies have hammered Scott in paid media over Columbia/HCA’s $1.7 billion settlement, voters seem to be ignoring Scott’s warts, whether because they are more concerned with how government is affecting their lives or they have become so cynical about politicians that none of them look like bargains.

If this isn’t an isolated case, it raises questions about the efficacy of personal attacks against candidates who otherwise can reasonably present themselves as vehicles for change.

It’s hard to believe that Scott would be doing as well if he were running in any other cycle or, possibly, against a different kind of opponent. But this may just be the perfect cycle for him, both in the primary and in the general election. Democrats ought to be careful about treating him as a weak general election opponent.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 27, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Nixon Grandson Finds the Going Rocky in Bid for Congress

2010-07-28T10:07:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Republican insiders are quietly skeptical that the grandson of the late President Richard M. Nixon, attorney/businessman Chris Cox, will make it out of the Republican primary in New York’s 1st Congressional District.

Cox, 31, made a splash when he entered the race. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger held a fund raiser for him, and Cox bragged that his consulting team included former strategists from the John McCain Presidential campaign, including Mark Weaver and Mark Salter. The candidate’s father is chairman of the New York State Republican party.

But Cox’s campaign hasn’t been smooth. Former McCain advisers have left the campaign, and, in an interview, the candidate, who lived and worked in Manhattan before moving to a relative’s house in Suffolk County, wasn’t able to explain how he would create jobs.

Cox now appears to be trying to make himself the Tea Party candidate, a strange development given his political bloodlines, Princeton education and the $1 million he has already loaned his campaign.

Cox, 31, is engaged to Andrea Catsimatidis, 19, whose father is a billionaire businessman and owns, among other things, the Gristedes supermarket chain.

Businessman Randy Altschuler appears to be the favorite in the GOP race in a district that takes in the eastern half of Long island. Attorney George Demos is also in the Republican race, and he has hired veteran consultant/guru Arthur Finkelstein. The Republican nominee will take on Democratic Cong. Tim Bishop in the fall in a contest that bears watching.

Sharron Angle's Pink Slip to Harry Reid

2010-07-27T17:12:00.002-04:00

Republican Sharron Angle is trying to raise money by asking people to send a Pink Slip to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. It's not going to win any awards for creativity, but with amount of money she's raising, it's tough to criticize.

Sharron Angle's Pink Slip to Harry Reid

NRCC’s Independent Expenditure Is Armed With Shields

2010-07-26T09:00:00.000-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

First in a series of profiles of committee independent expenditure directors.

Republican strategist Mike Shields survived back-to-back Democratic waves in 2006 and 2008 and lived to tell about it. This year, he’s on the front lines of the Republican effort to take back the House majority.

The National Republican Congressional Committee will spend tens of millions of dollars on dozens of races this fall, but because of campaign finance law, the bulk of that money will be spent in independent expenditures and without coordination with the NRCC staff.

As director of the independent expenditure effort, Shields will have the final say in deciding where to spend those critical, independent dollars.

“It’s nice when you have someone that has your back,” Shields said. “In this job, you make a decision and you live or die on your own.”

This is a new role for Shields after four years as chief of staff to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), but he comes in with a depth of confidence and trust within the GOP caucus for having guided the Congressman through two extremely tough re-election bids.

“He knows the skills needed to survive,” NRCC Executive Director Guy Harrison said about Shields. “He knows about being outspent and running in a challenging environment.”

Reichert is consistently a top target of Democrats because he represents a district that favored presidential candidates Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

After defeating Microsoft manager Darcy Burner by 3 points in 2006, Reichert increased his margin of victory to 6 points in a 2008 rematch in a district that Obama won with 56 percent. With Shields at the helm of his campaign, Reichert localized his race by focusing on Burner’s résumé and as a result survived a national trend that swept away many of his colleagues.

Shields, 40, has seen both sides of a political wave.

His first full-time job in politics was at the Republican National Committee on the first day of the 104th Congress after Republicans won the majority in the 1994 elections.

Shields put his studies at George Mason University on hold to take the $17,000-a-year job clipping newspapers (by hand back then). He arrived at the RNC at 4 a.m. each day to compile the packets before the second employee, Chairman Haley Barbour, got to the office.

“It was probably the best thing that could have happened to me,” Shields said.

The job wasn’t glamorous, but it let him out early in the afternoon, and instead of going home Shields hung around the press office and learned how to write releases.

Shields’ interest in politics actually started much earlier in his life and 3,000 miles away.

He was born on Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and grew up in England, which sounds like the recipe for an intriguing accent, but Shields sounds like he could come from just about anywhere in America.

After Shields’ father retired from the U.S. Air Force after 20 years, his contract work for the National Security Agency took the whole family to England. The move was a homecoming for Shields’ English mother.

As part of a military family, the concept of being “on mission” was a way of life for Shields. “I learned about being a part of something bigger than myself,” Shields said.

As a self-described “political nerd,” Shields considers Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan to be his surrogate political parents. In school while his classmates were protesting NATO’s nuclear missiles based in the U.K., Shields wore a “Peace Through Strength” button on his uniform.

Shields returned to the U.S. for college and was scheduled to graduate in 1992, but little by little his part-time political work became full time, and he still hasn’t finished his degree at GMU. George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove has a similar line on his résumé.

In July 1996, Shields moved to Georgia to become communications director for Friends of Newt Gingrich, the then-Speaker’s campaign operation. Six months later, Shields returned to D.C. to become his national political spokesman and ended up working with Gingrich for five years.

After a very brief foray in the federal work force following the election of Bush, Shields returned to elections work. (“I figured out I’m a campaign person, a political person,” Shields said.)

He moved to Alabama and managed the gubernatorial campaign for Tim James, son of the former governor. James was thumped by Rep. Bob Riley in the June 2002 primary, finishing third with 9 percent.

Then Shields moved north to Pennsylvania to handle press for Rep. George Gekas (R), who was locked in a battle with Democratic Rep. Tim Holden after redistricting threw the two incumbents into the same newly drawn district.

Gekas lost by 2 points but recently called Shields “the best-versed operative that I had run into, that was D.C.-based.”

Eight years later, Holden is on the extended list of GOP targets that Shields might choose to invest in this fall.

Shields spent two years at the NRCC as research director before applying to be chief of staff for Reichert.

“We had all the same values: wanting to serve the country and having the heart of a servant,” Reichert said. “I offered him the job right there.”

Just three months into Reichert’s first term, GOP leadership in the House moved to intervene in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die controversy. “It was one of [my] first and most important decisions,” Reichert said.

According to the Congressman, Shields fostered a healthy debate among the staff and, ultimately, Reichert voted against intervening, putting him at odds with the majority of his party members, who sought to prevent removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube.

In early 2009, Shields was hired again by the NRCC to be director of special projects. At the time, Democrats were riding high and it looked like Republicans might be headed for a third straight difficult election cycle. Shields’ résumé made him an excellent candidate for the NRCC. Now, the environment has shifted but the Republicans’ confidence in Shields remains strong.

“He’s a House Republican guy. This is what he knows and this is what he’s done,” said NRCC Deputy Executive Director Johnny DeStefano, who is also political director for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

“Mike has seen the operation on all sides. He has a good cross-section of experience to come back and lead this thing,” said Carl Forti, the former NRCC veteran who led the committee’s IE effort in 2006. “He knows the product is only as good as your research.”

Reichert is vulnerable once again (this time he faces wealthy former Microsoft executive Suzan DelBene) and could benefit from Shields’ assistance, but any help will be from afar.

Now that he’s on the IE side, Shields sits in his Alexandria office and the Potomac River serves as a moat that prevents him from coordinating with the NRCC, incumbents and candidates.

To handle the load, Shields is working closely with media consultant Brad Todd and his firm, OnMessage Inc. Todd is a top adviser to NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas).

There is a level of freedom in the IE world because Shields can’t get calls from worried incumbents, needy challengers or overbearing spouses. But with that freedom there is an increased level of responsibility.

“There is no hiding. You have to do a good job,” Shields said. “In the end, it’s all about winning.”

CA, WA, WI Senate Races Move Toward GOP

2010-07-23T09:34:00.002-04:00

Right now, Democrats look poised to lose five to eight seats, and any net loss short of that would have to be regarded with relief by Democratic strategists. But as recent developments in Nevada and Illinois have demonstrated, things can change quickly in the fight for control of the Senate. Click here to read Stu's latest column on the Senate.

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

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 2 )
Bennet (D-CO)
OH Open (Voinovich, R)
PA Open (Specter, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (3 R, 3 D)
Reid (D-NV)
FL Open (Martinez, R)
IL Open (Burris, D)
IN Open (Bayh, D)
KY Open (Bunning, R)
MO Open (Bond, R)

Toss-Up/Tilt Democrat ( 0 R, 3 D)
Boxer (D-CA) *
Feingold (D-WI) *
Murray (D-WA) *

Lean Republican (2 R, 2 D)
Burr (R-NC)
Lincoln (D-AR)
DE Open (Kaufman, D)
NH Open (Gregg, R)

Lean Democrat (0 R, 0 D)
--none--

Republican Favored (1 R, 0 D)
Vitter (R-LA)

Democrat Favored (0 R, 1 D)
CT Open (Dodd, D)

Safe Republican (11 R, 1 D)
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)
ND Open (Dorgan, D)
UT Open (Bennett, R)

Safe Democrat (0 R, 6 D)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Inouye (D-HI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Senate Is in Play, but GOP Has Reasons to Worry

2010-07-23T09:31:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Until about 10 days ago, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that control of the House of Representatives was up for grabs this fall but that Republicans had yet to put the Senate into play. I no longer believe that.

The chances that the next Senate will have a Republican majority are not great, but even three months ago there were not enough Senate seats in play to imagine a Republican gain of 10 seats. Now there are, with 11 Democratic seats definitely competitive.

But at the same time that Republican prospects have brightened overall, they suddenly look less bright than previously in at least a couple of states: Nevada and Illinois.

Just a few months ago, Democratic nominees Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada and Illinois state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias looked like sure losers in their races, but their candidacies have been resuscitated by their GOP opponents.

Even Republican political operatives acknowledge privately that former Nevada state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle has been an even worse candidate than they had thought. And while recent polling in the Silver State may overstate Reid’s prospects in the fall, it seems clear that the contest has evolved from being purely a referendum on Reid and President Barack Obama to being a choice between Reid and Angle.

That’s a far less advantageous position for the challenger and a far better one for Reid. Angle’s prospects have now slipped from being a clear favorite to only 50-50.

Reid remains a political basket case, but he certainly has a fighting chance in a contest of two unappealing nominees. And Angle has the benefit of a Republican wind at her back that could still turn into a gale-force wind. Republicans might want to ship Angle out of the country for a few months to improve her prospects.

In Illinois, polls suggest the race remains tight, but Republican Rep. Mark Kirk’s reputation has been hurt, creating another contest between two damaged candidates. This race, as one political wag noted, is now “the crook versus the liar.”

That’s an improvement for Giannoulias, whose own reputation with voters has been poor for months and who has the added problem of a damaged Democratic brand in Illinois.

If Kirk has indeed stopped the bleeding, as some Republicans insist, he may be able to take advantage of a favorable political environment. But this race could be competitive all the way to Election Day, a disappointing fact for Republican strategists who once expected Kirk to put the race away sooner rather than later.

Giannoulias’ weak fundraising is a disappointment, of course, since it reflects a lack of Democratic enthusiasm for him. And while Obama is helping him raise the money he needs to run a competitive race, that won’t say much about the Senate nominee’s fundamental appeal.

So where does the fight for the Senate now stand beyond Nevada and Illinois, which have become more competitive? Democrats are now very likely to lose Senate seats in North Dakota, Arkansas, Delaware and Indiana.

Pennsylvania and Colorado remain tossups, though Keystone State Republican Pat Toomey appears well-positioned, financially and strategically, against Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak. Colorado’s primary is still more than two weeks away.

Three more Democratic seats, which I didn’t regard as particularly competitive six months ago, now could possibly change hands: Wisconsin, Washington and California.

In Wisconsin, incumbent Sen. Russ Feingold and challenger Ron Johnson are running even in two automated polls that have their critics: Rasmussen Reports and Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm.

If you had any doubt that the race is in play, all you need do is watch Feingold’s first TV spot, in which the Senator accuses Johnson of wanting to “hand over the Great Lakes to the oil company” for drilling. The ad isn’t merely intended to firm up Feingold’s image or remind voters about his accomplishments. It’s an attack spot.

Johnson, a businessman and first-time candidate, is running against spending, the deficit and Washington. He’s a classic “change” candidate in an anti-Washington, anti-politician environment. Though he is likely to make a mistake or two as a candidate, Johnson is a threat to Feingold.

In Washington state, challenger Dino Rossi (R) is running slightly ahead of Sen. Patty Murray (D) in a Rasmussen survey but narrowly behind in three others. In all recent surveys, Murray is under 50 percent on the ballot and in a competitive contest.

Rossi has already run two statewide races, losing one very narrowly, so he understands how to be a candidate. If the national economy hiccups between now and November, the challenger will have the opportunity to ride a Republican wave. Murray has a slight edge in the race, but it’s a serious contest.

The 11th Democratic seat at risk is the one held by California Sen. Barbara Boxer, and I will readily admit that I’ve been skeptical about former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina’s prospects.

As a longtime HP stockholder, I knew of the criticism of Fiorina, and I have a very hard time believing that California will send a pro-life, conservative Republican to the Senate. But if Massachusetts voters can hand the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat to Republican Scott Brown, it’s probably unwise simply to dismiss Fiorina’s chances entirely.

Polls continue to show Boxer in trouble, with mediocre job ratings and unimpressive showings in general election ballot tests. Just as important, Fiorina is a quality candidate — poised, smart and with the kind of personal resources that allow her to run a full-scale campaign.

In 1994, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) survived an aggressive challenge from wealthy businessman Michael Huffington (and his Greek-born wife, Arianna), probably because the challenger’s hiring of an illegal immigrant became a major issue at the end of the contest. Sixteen years later, California is less receptive to Republican candidates. But Boxer is not and never has been as highly regarded by California voters as Feinstein.

Can Fiorina win? Six months ago, I would have said “no.” Today, my answer is “maybe.”

Of course, Democratic prospects in the Senate, as in the House, depend on the size of the GOP wave. At least four Republican seats — Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri and Florida — are at risk, and any Democratic gains in those states would further lengthen the GOP’s long-shot opportunity to get to 51 seats. (I don’t regard any other Republican-held Senate seat as at-risk.)

Right now, Democrats look poised to lose five to eight seats, and any net loss short of that would have to be regarded with relief by Democratic strategists. But as recent developments in Nevada and Illinois have demonstrated, things can change quickly in the fight for control of the Senate.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 22, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Oregon Senate: The Memo Said “Wyden Is Vulnerable in 2010”

2010-07-22T15:13:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Last week, the folks at Moore Information, a long-time GOP survey research firm based in Portland, Oregon, distributed a poll memo asserting that Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, who has been in the Senate since winning a special election in 1996, is vulnerable this year.

Was I skeptical? Sure. But I read on because in a year such as this, any Democrat might be in trouble, even those who haven’t had tough re-elections in the past.

The memo, conducted for GOP Senate hopeful Jim Huffman, included data about the generic Senate ballot (voters preferred a Republican to a Democrat by 11 percentage points), a Wyden re-elect (44% re-elect/45% new person) and an so-called informed ballot test conducted after information was presented about the candidates’ backgrounds.

The memo also included an Obama job approval and a right direction/wrong track question, in addition to a couple of questions about issues.

No, there was no initial Wyden-Huffman ballot, no Wyden ID (with favorable and unfavorable) and no Huffman ID.

When I asked pollster Bob Moore for that data, he declined to produce it, noting that the campaign had not authorized its release.

Obviously, those crucial poll results weren’t released because they contradict the conclusion that Wyden is vulnerable. They almost certainly showed Wyden far ahead on the ballot test and with strong favorable ratings.

In fact, most recent Oregon Senate polls have found Wyden at or above 50% when matched against Huffman and leading the Republican by from 10 to 20 points.

A quick check of the two candidates’ pre-primary April 24 FEC reports showed Wyden with $3.7 million in the bank to Huffman’s $224,000.

Given how favorable the national political environment is for Republicans, Wyden may well find himself in a tougher race this time than he had in 1998, when he won with 61%, or in 2004, when he won with over 63%.

But simply asserting that an incumbent is in trouble doesn’t make it so, and nothing in the Moore Information memo suggests that it’s true. In fact, leaving crucial information out suggests that the Huffman campaign has something to hide.

Pennsylvania 15: Callahan Running Against Rudy Giuliani?

2010-07-22T13:37:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

When I met Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan (D), I was impressed. Democratic insiders had told me he would be a good candidate, and they were right.

He’s articulate, personable, and able to talk about his accomplishments in a persuasive way. He’s also a proven vote getter and a strong fundraiser. His June 30 FEC report showed just under $1 million in the bank, only $55,000 less than what incumbent Cong. Charlie Dent (R) showed in his report. Callahan has raised $1.4 million this cycle to Dent’s $1.7 million.

Maybe that’s why I was so surprised to receive a press release from the Callahan campaign recently attacking former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani – or as the press release described him, “High powered Wall Street Attorney Rudy Giuliani.”

“We may never know just how much money Rudy Giuliani’s high powered Wall Street law firm made from Congressman Dent’s bailout vote, but it’s clear that Giuliani is here to return the favor,” Callahan was quoted as saying in his campaign’s release.

The so-called bank bailout vote may well be a good issue for Callahan, and his effort to connect Dent to “Wall Street special interests,” another phrase in the release, is understandable and standard political fare.

But does Callahan really want to run against Giuliani, who probably has a pretty good image in the district from his years as New York City Mayor after the 9/11 attack?

Callahan, who is running in Pennsylvania’s politically competitive 15th Congressional District, is one of the few Democratic challengers who has a chance of knocking off a GOP incumbent in this very Republican political environment. But running against “America’s Mayor” may not be the best way of defeating Dent, a moderate Republican who is every bit as good of a candidate as Callahan is.

NEW 2010 House Ratings

2010-07-22T08:00:00.002-04:00

We reiterate our view that substantial Republican gains are inevitable and are increasing our target for most likely GOP gains from 25-30 seats to 28-33 seats. However, it is important to note that considerably larger Republican gains in excess of 39 seats are quite possible.

Here are our latest House ratings:
#= moved benefiting Democrats
* = moved benefiting Republicans

88 Total Seats in Play
12 Republican seats
76 Democratic seats

Pure Toss-Up (2R, 14D)
AL 2 (Bright, D) #
AZ 8 (Giffords, D) *
AR 1 (Open; Berry, D)
FL 2 (Boyd, D) *
HI 1 (Djou, R) *
IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
IN 9 (Hill, D) *
MI 7 (Schauer, D)
OH 16 (Boccieri, D) *
PA 3 (Dahlkemper, D) *
PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
SC 5 (Spratt, D) *
TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
TX 17 (Edwards, D) *
WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)
WV 1 (Open; Mollohan, D) *

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 12 D)
FL 8 (Grayson, D)
IN 8 (Open; Ellsworth, D)
MI 1 (Open; Stupak, D) *
MS 1 (Childers, D)
NV 3 (Titus, D) *
NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D) *
NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D) *
NY 24 (Arcuri, D) *
ND A-L (Pomeroy, D) *
PA 11 (Kanjorski, D) *
VA 2 (Nye, D)
VA 5 (Perriello, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Democrat (0 R, 5 D)
IL 11 (Halvorson, D) *
IL 14 (Foster, D) #
NY 19 (Hall, D) *
SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
WI 7 (Open; Obey, D) *

Lean Republican (3 R, 6 D)
CA 3 (Lungren, R)
FL 24 (Kosmas, D) *
FL 25 (Open; M. Diaz-Balart, R)
KS 3 (Open; Moore, D) *
MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
NM 2 (Teague, D)
OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
WA 8 (Reichert, R)

Lean Democrat (1 R, 16 D)
AZ 1 (Kirkpatrick, D) *
AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
CA 11 (McNerney, D) *
DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
GA 8 (Marshall, D) *
ID 1 (Minnick, D)
IN 2 (Donnelly, D) *
IA 3 (Boswell, D)
KY 6 (Chandler, D) *
MO 4 (Skelton, D)
NJ 3 (Adler, D)
NM 1 (Heinrich, D)
NY 1 (Bishop, D)
NC 8 (Kissell, D) *
OH 13 (Sutton, D) *
OH 18 (Space, D)
VA 9 (Boucher, D)

Republican Favored (5 R, 5 D)
AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D) *
CA 45 (Bono Mach, R)
CO 4 (Markey, D) *
LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D) *
NE 2 (Terry, R)
NY 29 (Vacant; Massa, D) *
OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
PA 15 (Dent, R)
TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)

Democrat Favored (1 R, 18 D)
CO 3 (Salazar, D)
CT 5 (Murphy, D)
FL 22 (Klein, D)
LA 2 (Cao, R)
MA 10 (Open; Delahunt, D) #
NY 13 (McMahon, D)
NY 20 (Murphy, D)
NY 23 (Owens, D)
OR 5 (Schrader, D) *
PA 4 (Altmire, D) #
PA 8 (Murphy, D)
PA 10 (Carney, D)
PA 12 (Critz, D) #
PA 17 (Holden, D)
TN 4 (Davis, D) *
TX 23 (Rodriguez, D) *
VA 11 (Connolly, D) *
WA 2 (Larsen, D) *
WI 8 (Kagen, D)

Tancredo Seriously Exploring Gov Run as Independent

2010-07-21T16:20:00.000-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Former GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and is known nationally for leading the charge against illegal immigration, is seriously exploring a run for governor of Colorado as an Independent and will announce his intentions soon.

“We cannot win the governorship in the current environment,” Tancredo said in an interview with the Report on Wednesday, “The two Republican primary candidates are not electable.”

Former Rep. Scott McInnis was the front runner for the GOP nomination until serious allegations of plagiarism surfaced, charges that some Republicans believe have mortally wounded his campaign. Businessman Dan Maes is also running for the Republican nomination, but questions about his tax returns have him on the defensive as well.

Since the filing deadline passed on May 27 and the primary is less than three weeks away (August 10), Tancredo cannot join the GOP race.

“There is no way left to do it as a Republican,” Tancredo said, explaining, “I have to get so many things in order, but believe me there’s an option.” The former congressman said he’d have an announcement within the next couple of days. According to other sources, he’s interviewing potential running mates for an Independent bid.

But even an Independent bid would take some maneuvering.

The filing deadline for third-party candidates passed on June 15, but according to one Colorado political source, Tancredo is exploring the possibility that he may be able to get on the ballot if a currently filed third party candidate drops out. In that case, Tancredo may be able to get his name on the ballot as a replacement.

Some Republican strategists are concerned that if Tancredo is able to get on the ballot, he would split votes with the Republican nominee, essentially handing the governorship to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, the likely Democratic nominee. Gov. Bill Ritter (D) decided not to seek re-election.

As for Tancredo, he says that scenario wouldn’t be his fault.

“I’m not doing it to the party, the party is doing it to itself,” Tancredo said.

Louisiana Senate Hype: Don’t Believe It

2010-07-21T13:49:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

When former state Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor entered the Louisiana Republican Senate race, more than a few political journalists took notice, hyping the GOP primary challenge to Sen. David Vitter. Not surprisingly, Politico was particularly robust in talking about the new danger for Vitter, who has had some public embarrassments.

A week after Traylor entered the race, Politico reporter Shira Toeplitz wrote that a controversy over Vitter’s response to a question about the President’s citizenship “immediately led to speculation that Vitter was making a play to the right in the wake of a new primary challenger.”

The Politico article quoted one Tea Party leader and activist as suggesting that Vitter was protecting his right flank. It didn’t even allude to some of buzz about Traylor’s political and personal weaknesses, and it conveniently ignored those who doubted Vitter’s comments had anything to do with the new ‘threat” from Traylor.

Now The News-Star (Monroe, Louisiana) reports that Traylor has “his own ethical questions,” and even experienced Louisiana political strategists openly contemptuous of Vitter doubt that Traylor can raise enough money and mount a full-blown challenge quickly enough to seriously threaten Vitter in the state’s August 28 primary.

Vitter has plenty of critics and almost as many enemies in the state, but he has always figured out where he needs to be politically to retain his seat, and there is no evidence yet that Traylor will become a serious threat to the senator in the GOP primary.

Reporters like to write about Vitter because it gives them the opportunity each time to detail his juicy past problems, but until there is evidence that Traylor is making headway in his uphill bid, the Republican primary isn’t much of a story.

Schumer Hordes Cash, Bests DSCC in Available Funds

2010-07-21T12:10:00.001-04:00

By Nathan Gonzales

New York Sen. Charles Schumer (D) is stockpiling money for a reelection race that hardly exists and has more cash on hand than the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee through June.

Schumer, a former DSCC Chairman, showed $23.8 million on hand through June and is up by at least 20 points in public polling. Meanwhile, the DSCC had $21 million in the bank and a growing list of vulnerable seats.

The cash disparity is notable considering Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) is in jeopardy of losing reelection this year and Schumer is jockeying with Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin (D) to become his replacement.

But how much leverage can Schumer have in a potential leadership race if his party and some of his colleagues go down in flames this fall while he sits on millions of dollars?

Unlike the House side, the DSCC has a very narrow cash edge over the National Republican Senatorial Committee, so Democrats could use any help they can get. We’ll see if that help comes in the form of a check from Schumer.

We Don’t Need a DNC Lecture on Midterms

2010-07-21T09:44:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

The folks at the Democratic National Committee’s communications shop apparently believe that those of us — political analysts and handicappers, campaign professionals, journalists and political junkies — who have spent years following Congressional elections and dissecting polls are idiots.

And because we aren’t real sharp, we need the DNC to explain things to us. I guess we are supposed to forget that the committee is an advocacy group and that its primary goal is electing Democrats, not dispassionately reporting on campaigns and projecting election outcomes.

The DNC’s memo, “Putting Voter Sentiment and Recent Polls in their Proper Perspective,” came only days after House Democrats erupted in anger following White House Communications Director Robert Gibbs’ acknowledgement that Democrats could lose control of the House in the fall. As such, it needs to be seen as part of Democrats’ efforts to push back against Gibbs’ very accurate but impolitic assertion.

The memo includes selected poll numbers from various sources to make two major points: The 2010 midterms won’t be anything close to the political waves of 1994 and 2006, and the party faithful “have every reason to be hopeful that we can weather a treacherous political climate and maintain strong majorities in the House and Senate.”

Of course, for every national poll number that seems to lend credence to the DNC’s argument, there is one that it happens to omit that undercuts the memo’s fundamental point.

For example, while the DNC memo uses the president’s job performance numbers from two recent polls that showed him with a net positive rating (50 percent approve/47 percent disapprove in the ABC/Washington Post poll and 52 percent approve/44 percent disapprove in Bloomberg’s survey), the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (45 percent approve/48 percent disapprove) and Gallup’s July 5-11 survey (46 percent approve/47 percent disapprove) showed a net negative approval for President Barack Obama.

Gallup’s most recent Obama weekly approval rating of 46 percent (July 12-18) is identical to President Bill Clinton’s 1994 pre-election Gallup approval rating (Nov. 2-6), just days before the Democratic Party got slaughtered in Clinton’s first midterm.

The DNC memo addresses generic ballot results only in passing, noting that “generic support for Republicans this year is nowhere near that of Democrats in 2006.” In October 2006, the Washington Post survey showed Democrats with a 13-point advantage, but the most recent ABC/Post survey had Republicans only up by a single point.

Apparently someone at the DNC hasn’t figured out that that’s a 14-point swing in the generic, and a swing that large is likely to produce a considerable swing in House seats.

Interestingly, Gallup’s generic ballot, which the firm asserts has proved to be a “highly accurate predictor of the national vote for the House of Representatives in midterm election years,” has shown the two parties roughly even among registered voters throughout the year.

If you take that as good news for Democrats, think again. This far out from Election Day, Democrats usually have an advantage. But midterm elections are all about turnout, and Republicans normally have a turnout advantage.

That’s why the folks at Gallup note that “the closer the registered voter results get to an even split, the better Republicans can expect to do, given usual turnout patterns.”

This year, of course, Republican enthusiasm is high — the highest since Gallup started asking its relative enthusiasm question in 1994 (“Compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic about voting than usual, or less enthusiastic?”). Moreover, Gallup’s net enthusiasm score is “the largest relative party advantage Gallup has measured in a single midterm election-year poll.”

I should note that some of the DNC’s observations are on the money. Yes, the Republican Party’s image is still in the tank. And yes, Obama is more popular now than President George W. Bush was at the time of the 2006 midterms. But those statistical realities are not news to those of us who follow elections, and they may have only a small effect on the size of the Republican wave in November.

Finally, it’s interesting that the DNC memo relies solely on national survey data. Trying to understand the fight for the House and Senate by looking only at national numbers is like driving a car with one eye closed.

District-level and statewide poll data show Democratic candidates in anywhere from dangerous to terrible shape.

The Democratic generic ballot has dropped precipitously in most competitive Congressional districts, and many Democratic incumbents, both in the House and Senate, are performing horribly in ballot tests.

How bad are the Democratic numbers? About as bad as they were in 1994, and about as bad as Republican numbers were in 2006.

We have no way of knowing for certain how badly Democrats will be punished by voters in November. But unless things turn around completely, the damage will be severe. Both the House and now the Senate are at risk.

Gibbs may have been undiplomatic to admit the obvious. But Democrats don’t look in touch with reality when they waste their hard-earned credibility distributing memos that guarantee that their party will “maintain strong majorities” in both chambers of Congress.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 20, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

White House Lays Foundation for Post-Election Damage Control

2010-07-20T11:34:00.001-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs created a firestorm by admitting that the House majority is in play, but House Democrats should be more worried about his subsequent analysis rather than his political prognostications.

“But I think there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There's no doubt about that,” Gibbs said on Meet the Press on July 11. “This will depend on strong campaigns by Democrats.”

Did you catch that?

This fall’s elections will depend how individual Democrats campaign, not the performance of the President. And it sounds an awful lot like the spin coming out of the Democratic losses in Virginia and Massachusetts not long ago.

Gibbs’ remarks probably weren’t accidental or merely off the cuff analysis. That’s not how White House operatives normally operate. Given that, Gibbs’ comments have to be seen as part of the messaging coming out of the White House.

Nine days before Gibbs sat down with David Gregory, veteran Washington Post reporter Dan Balz wrote a piece about Democratic prospects in November, and senior Obama advisers David Axelrod and David Plouffe sounded similar themes.

“Plouffe and other Democratic strategists say Obama will play an important role in making the case that the Republican Party is one of obstruction and indifference,” Balz wrote, “But they think the outcome in November will depend as much on the skill of candidates in mobilizing potential supporters who are now disinclined to vote”

Again, the emphasis is on the candidates – not the national political context.

“The Democratic National Committee has begun a program designed to increase turnout in November among the first-time and irregular voters who backed Obama in 2008,” Balz wrote later in the piece, “But advisers say many of these voters won't show up in November unless candidates make personal connections with them.”

Again, it’s incumbent upon Democratic candidates to make the personal connection with voters. If they don’t, it’s their own fault.

House Democrats have good reason to be paranoid, because the White House has already started laying down the argument that if the party gets clobbered in November, it’s because it ran too many Creigh Deedses and Martha Coakleys and not because voters are upset at the President and the direction of the country.

New Print Edition: 2010 House Overview

2010-07-19T23:31:00.002-04:00

The July 19, 2010 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers, but here is the introduction to the House overview:

House Outlook For 2010

The national political environment shows no sign of changing between now and November, a bad sign for Democrats.

National polls generally continue to show President Barack Obama’s job approval ranging from the mid-40s to the low 50s, and voters are strongly inclined to deliver another message of change.

With few exceptions, polling shows the GOP with a slight edge on the generic ballot question, marking a dramatic reversal from ‘06 and ‘08. Too many Democratic candidates are well under 50% in ballot tests, and party strategists are worried about their ability to turn out Obama voters in the midterm elections. Maybe more important, Independent and swing voters are turning to GOP candidates.

The Democratic strategy is clear: redefine the 2010 election from a referendum on the President, the Congress and the economy into a choice between Democrats and Republicans. Then, blame the GOP for the current state of affairs, define them as opposed to positive change and destroy Republican candidates race by race. That’s a good strategy, but it isn’t likely to work well enough to deny the GOP a big gain.

We now have 23 Democratic seats at least tilting toward the GOP, with just two Republican seats going in the Democrats’ direction. The large number of Democratic toss-ups and leans show why Democratic control of the House after November is very much in doubt.

We reiterate our view that substantial Republican gains are inevitable and are increasing our target for most likely GOP gains from 25-30 seats to 28-33 seats. However, it is important to note that considerably larger Republican gains in excess of 39 seats are quite possible.

Subscribers get the full 10-page issue including race-by-race analysis of the most competitive districts in the country.

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.

Missouri 8 : For Sowers, Raising Money Is the Easy Part

2010-07-16T13:07:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Tommy Sowers, the Missouri Democrat who is challenging Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in a conservative southeastern Missouri district, is getting plenty of attention.

An Iraq War veteran, Sowers got a big article in this newspaper almost a month ago (“Emerson’s Challenger Looks Better Than Most,” June 17), but he received ink earlier in the Daily Caller (March) and in Politico (April). He’s also drawn attention in the New Republic and AOL’s Politics Daily, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he receives more coverage.

Sowers’ bio and positioning — he’s running as an economic populist and a social conservative in the state’s poorest, most blue-collar, most rural district — is just the kind of story that reporters love.

He earned an undergraduate degree from Duke and a Master of Science in Public Policy from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and he is a dissertation short of earning a doctorate in government from LSE.

The former Green Beret’s fundraising has been impressive given the district. He raised more than $680,000 through March 31 and just announced that he had raised more than $1 million through June 30. He had almost as much money on hand as Emerson did at the end of the first quarter.

The Roll Call article about Sowers mentioned a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., hosted by some big names, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Democratic-strategist-turned-talking-head Paul Begala.

But Sowers’ March Federal Election Commission report also showed contributions from “Saturday Night Live” producer Lorne Michaels, Manhattan philanthropist Donald Rubin (who spent $22 million on a Park Avenue penthouse five years ago), Credit Suisse executive Todd Sears, who has been active in gay rights groups, former New Line Cinema Chairman Robert Shaye, former Young & Rubicam CEO Ed Vick, Aspen writer and poet Bruce Berger, members of New York’s affluent Tisch family and dozens of lawyers, investment executives and Duke University alumni.

Remember, Sowers is running in southeastern Missouri where the largest communities are Cape Girardeau (about 37,000 residents), Rolla (about 18,000) and Poplar Bluff (17,000). According to 2000 Census figures, only 12 percent of district residents have a college degree, one of the lowest percentages in the nation.

While the liberal Missouri website Show Me Progress recently described Sowers as a “credible challenger” to Emerson, there is little suspense about the election’s outcome in November.

The Congresswoman, who first won the seat in 1996 following the death of her husband, Rep. Bill Emerson (R), is a prohibitive favorite. She is leading now by overwhelming margins in multiple polls, including an April American Viewpoint survey for the Republican that showed her leading 71 percent to 18 percent. Emerson has hired a strong consulting team and won’t be taken by surprise.

The Congressional district is very conservative and reliably Republican in federal contests. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) clobbered Barack Obama 62 percent to 36 percent there in 2008, a margin not much different from President George W. Bush’s over Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) four years earlier. The district’s Democratic performance index, as calculated by the National Committee for an Effective Congress, is 43.4, making it a difficult target for Democrats even in a favorable political climate.

And yet, there is no denying Sowers’ ability to raise money and to create a buzz. The only question is why. With so many Democratic seats in trouble, why would even a wealthy Manhattan or Beverly Hills liberal contribute to an obscure candidate in southeastern Missouri who has no chance of winning?

Observers note Sowers has a strong network of friends and an appealing personality. And they don’t fail to mention his good looks. “Do you think if he looked like [Rep.] Henry Waxman [D-Calif.] he’d get this response?” asked one Democrat rhetorically.

Sowers’ campaign manager, Jonathan Feifs, explains the fundraising success this way: “I think folks realize that it’s an uphill climb. But they realize that their support will allow him to communicate a message that will materially affect our chances of winning.”

Actually, I’ve seen this movie before, in both 2006 and 2008. At that time, it was named Scott Kleeb.

Kleeb was the handsome, denim-wearing Democrat, Yale Ph.D. in history who ran in Nebraska’s 3rd district in 2006 and for the Senate in 2008. He raised more than $1 million for his first run and more than $1.8 million for his Senate bid.

Kleeb got plenty of national media attention and Democratic buzz — I was at the Aspen Ideas Festival a couple of years ago and heard people excitedly talking about Kleeb coming to Aspen for a fundraiser — but he lost by 10 points in 2006 and by 18 points in 2008 (slightly behind Obama’s statewide performance).

At least Kleeb was running in an open seat in 2006 (though one lost by Kerry by 51 points in 2004), with an unpopular sitting Republican president and in a great year for Democrats — probably the best year since Watergate.

This cycle, Sowers has a strong wind in his face and is running in a district that Obama lost by 26 points and where Democratic Congressional initiatives are not likely to be popular.

With so many Democratic candidates running in close contests, you’d think party contributors might try to be strategic about their giving. Instead, many have opened their wallets to a personally appealing candidate who, by every indication, has no chance of winning. It’s difficult to believe those dollars wouldn’t be of better use in other races.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 15, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Is Jim DeMint Barack Obama’s Ace in the Hole

2010-07-14T12:54:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who once proclaimed that he’d rather have “30 Republicans in the Senate who believe in principles of freedom than 60 who don’t believe in anything,” continues to endorse Senate candidates and give leaders in his own party migraine headaches.

But one politician must be smiling from ear to ear when he follows DeMint’s antics: President Barack Obama.

That’s because, more than Florida’s Marco Rubio, Kentucky’s Rand Paul or Colorado’s Ken Buck — all endorsed by DeMint in GOP Senate primaries against the wishes of party strategists and insiders — the president stands to benefit the most, long term, from DeMint’s rhetoric and actions leading up to the 2010 midterm elections.

DeMint’s “believers” comment offers one of those false choices that boil everything down to extremes: Either you are a “conservative” or you aren’t. There aren’t any shades of gray.

The South Carolina Republican apparently doesn’t concede that even “conservatives” can have different styles and different opinions about how much compromise is necessary to move the country in the right direction.

So far this cycle, DeMint has endorsed a number of Republicans in competitive primaries, including Rubio, Paul, Buck, Utah’s Mike Lee and California’s Chuck DeVore. In Nevada, he indicated a preference for Danny Tarkanian and Sharron Angle, clearly marking his opposition to former state party Chairwoman Sue Lowden.

Oddly, DeMint has not yet endorsed J.D. Hayworth in Arizona or Joe Miller in Alaska, even though both men are attacking their opponents, Sens. John McCain and Lisa Murkowski, for being insufficiently conservative.

One GOP strategist familiar with DeMint’s thinking explained the Senator’s nonendorsement so far this way: “He’s willing to rock the boat but is being careful not to turn over the ship.” That sounds dangerously close to pragmatism over principle, doesn’t it?

Clearly DeMint walks more cautiously when incumbent colleagues are involved, which explains why he didn’t endorse in the Utah contest until Sen. Bob Bennett was eliminated at the GOP state convention, as well as why he hasn’t endorsed in Alaska. (DeMint did back Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey before Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties.)

Given Hayworth’s record in Congress, DeMint probably isn’t likely to get involved in Arizona. But a pre-primary endorsement against Murkowski is not off the table, though Miller almost certainly needs to develop into a greater threat to Murkowski than he now is.

The endorsements of DeVore and, to a lesser extent, Buck are particularly noteworthy because both men are much weaker general election candidates than their primary opponents.

Matt Hoskins, a spokesman for DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, told me that electability is an issue for DeMint: “He isn’t going to endorse someone who can’t win a general election.”

Well, I can’t find anyone who knows something about California politics who thinks that DeVore could beat Boxer this year or any year.

Polling conducted shortly before the California primary showed DeVore running about as well against Boxer as ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina or former Rep. Tom Campbell. But basing a conclusion about viability on that single factor would demonstrate incredible naiveté about California politics.

Some of DeMint’s choices certainly can and will win in the current political environment, which strongly favors Republicans. Kentucky’s Paul and Nevada’s Angle have better-than-even chances of winding up in the Senate, and it’s difficult to argue that any of Angle’s closest primary competitors would have been stronger against Reid than she will be.

But that’s not true everywhere. Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton would be a much stronger GOP nominee than Buck in Colorado, and many “movement conservatives,” including former Sen. Bill Armstrong, have endorsed her.

So why is DeMint with Buck? Some savvy political observers believe that it has less to do with ideology and more to do with DeMint simply liking to stir the pot, to cause trouble for those in the establishment.

But forget electability for now. It’s not why White House strategists have reason to cheer on DeMint.

The South Carolina Republican apparently believes that American voters are heavily ideological — and strongly conservative — and that if Republicans stand their ground on the right, a majority of Americans will see liberals for what they are and come rushing over to embrace conservatives, not only in the midterms but also into the future.

In fact, anyone who has watched or studied American politics since the Vietnam era knows that American voters — particularly the kind of swing voters who decide elections — are not an ideological bunch. That’s why you have Iowa voters sending both conservative Chuck Grassley (R) and liberal Tom Harkin (D) to the Senate.

By beating the conservative drum the way he does — demonizing conservatives who he says aren’t conservative enough, helping nominate candidates more interested in throwing grenades than in passing legislation and belittling compromise in a country built on political compromises — DeMint makes it easier for Democrats to paint his own party in an unflattering light.

A Senate Republican Conference filled after November with DeMint-like ideologues, troublemakers and self-righteous conservatives is a caucus that is sure to sound rigid and uncompromising, arrogant and doctrinaire. Style doesn’t matter to true believers, but it does to the American people.

And that’s why Obama is smiling.

Outside Groups Aiding GOP Cause This Cycle

2010-07-13T07:00:00.000-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Several Republican outside groups are promising to spend big money in key House and Senate races this fall, but it remains to be seen whether they’ll have the dollars to have an impact.

When American Crossroads, a newly formed 527 group, raised a meager $200 in May, Republicans had flashbacks to last cycle. In 2008, Freedom’s Watch burst onto the scene promising to spend $200 million to bolster GOP candidates but ended up spending less than a quarter of that amount.

Crossroads, and its new affiliate 501(c)(4) American Crossroads GPS, bounced back to raise almost $8.5 million in June — but that was still a fraction of the $50 million the group plans to spend between now and Election Day.

Freedom’s Watch was largely built around the ability and inclination of one person (wealthy gaming executive Sheldon Adelson) to contribute. When his funds dried up, the group’s ads disappeared from the airwaves or never materialized in the first place.

Republicans are determined not to make the same mistake twice.

“We have a very broad fundraising base that is reaching out to lots of people,” according to Crossroads President Steven Law.

Carl Forti, a veteran of the National Republican Congressional Committee, was executive vice president of issue advocacy for Freedom’s Watch last cycle and is now with Law at Crossroads as the group’s political director. Jonathan Collegio, who also worked at the NRCC as well as the National Association of Broadcasters, just signed on to be the communications director.

But Crossroads is not the only Republican group soliciting donations and looking to get involved this year.

Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie are trying to put infrastructure in place to take advantage of conservative enthusiasm, frustration and anger now that Republicans are in the minority. Their blueprint isn’t dissimilar to what former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta set up in 2004 on the Democratic side with the Center for American Progress.

The GOP group, American Action Network, is a 501(c)(4) led by Rob Collins, who was a top adviser to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Pete Meachum recently left his position as chief of staff to retiring Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) to join the group as well.

The American Action Forum, a 501(c)(3) led by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former economic adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 presidential campaign, will focus on policy and the think tank element of the group.

Resurgent Republic is a collection of prominent Republican pollsters that looks like the GOP counterpart to Democracy Corps, which is run by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and operative James Carville.

All the groups have boards of directors filled with former Senators, Congressmen, governors and Cabinet members who are expected to help raise millions of dollars. There is scuttlebutt that these groups are receptacles for disenchanted donors to the RNC, but since these outside groups are not subject to federal contribution limits, they aren’t necessarily competing for the same dollars.

Republican operatives are increasingly confident that these groups will be well-funded, but in the aftermath of the Freedom’s Watch fiasco, it’s all speculation until the money comes in. Groups such as Crossroads have until July 20 to file their June financial statements with the Internal Revenue Service.

Even if the money materializes, it has yet to be determined whether and how the dozens of competitive races will be divided between the groups.

Crossroads appears to be primarily focused on the Senate (since it has already announced it is targeting key races in 10 states), while the American Action Network will focus on the House. But it appears that both groups want to reserve the right to play in any race they want, depending on the situation and the desires of their donors.

Crossroads just extended its television ad buy against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid into a fourth week and has now spent close to half a million dollars against the Nevada Democrat.

According to Law, Crossroads also plans to develop “full-service” political operations in the largest states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

“Many independent groups tend to be media heavy, and we’ll certainly emphasize advertising,” Law explained, “but we want the capability to have boots on the ground and communicate directly with voters.”

As hot races develop over the next four months, there will be a temptation for multiple groups to swoop in on particular high-profile contests and take credit for an eventual victory, according to another GOP strategist.

“The question is, is anyone there to pick up the scraps and put races into position to win?” according to the source, who referred to MoveOn.org’s important role in the 2006 cycle when the liberal group focused on second- and third-tier Democratic opportunities and helped turn them into top-tier contests.

“I don’t know if there is a plan to do that. I don’t know if there is money to do that,” the Republican added.

For now, there is some communication between American Crossroads and the American Action Network, particularly since the two groups share an office suite on New York Avenue Northwest in Washington, D.C.

There is also considerable overlap in people involved in the groups. Rove has his hand in multiple groups, and Gillespie is involved with the Action Network, Crossroads and Resurgent Republic in addition to being chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which focuses on state legislative races.

Former NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds is on the Action Network board and is vice chairman of the RSLC. (Reynolds was New York Assembly Minority Leader before he came to Congress.) Former RNC Chairman Mike Duncan is chairman of the Crossroads board and is involved with an RSLC redistricting project as well.

“We are sharing information among many of the groups that are involved this election cycle with the goal of minimizing a duplication of effort,” said Law, a former chief legal officer and general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Crossroads can communicate with the chamber, Action Network and other outside groups but is prohibited from coordinating with the party campaign committees.

“There’s not some master plan,” according to one GOP consultant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of potentially getting work for the groups. “The ‘well-organized right’ is never well-organized.”

This story first appeared in Roll Call on July 6, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

NBC's First Read Misses A Key Point

2010-07-12T13:24:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

In looking at the reasons why Republicans might win the House in November, as well as why they might not, NBC’s First Read made the following point: “winning 39 seats is a tall order. After all, when Democrats won back the House in 2006 -- during the height of violence in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina -- they picked up 30 House seats. The GOP will need almost 10 more than that.”

The numbers are right, but they lack context and, therefore, are misleading.

Yes, taking over 42 or 43 Democratic-held districts is a challenge (some GOP seats are likely to fall in November, increasing the number of Republican victories needed to take over the House), and those are big numbers historically. But First Read missed a crucial point: A party’s chances of winning House seats depends on a number of things, not the least of which is where it starts in an election cycle.

In other words, winning a net of 30 or 40 seats is difficult when you are starting at 203 seats (which is where House Democrats were right before the 2006 elections), but it isn’t quite as difficult when you start at only 179 seats, which is where Republicans are now.

Democrats gained over 50 seats over the past two cycles, eating into the Republican core. The fact that so many Democratic members of Congress are now representing Republican-leaning districts means that the GOP has an unusually large number of opportunities.

Regaining those “core” districts will be easier than winning inherently competitive or Democratic-leaning districts.

Nebraska Governor’s Race News Just a Yawner

2010-07-12T13:23:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

The Omaha World Herald has reported that Gov. Dave Heinemann (R) may run unopposed in November following the exit from the race earlier this month of Democrat Mark Lakers. While that would be an interesting development given the rarity of incumbent governors running unopposed, it wouldn’t change Democrats’ chances of winning the office in November.

Even with a name on the ballot, Democratic prospects were at zero.

Heineman has been a popular governor, and no top tier Democrat decided to challenge him in what would have been a quixotic effort.

2010 Gubernatorial Ratings

2010-07-11T00:25:00.000-04:00

Republicans are set up to gain a large number of governorships nationwide. At a minimum, the GOP could gain eight, giving the party 32, but larger gains are very possible.

Note that we've revised our ratings categories to give readers a better idea where races stand.

Takeovers in italics.

Pure Toss-Up
CO Open (Ritter, D)
CT Open (Rell, R)
FL Open (Crist, R)
ME Open (Baldacci, D)
MN Open (Pawlenty, R)
NM Open (Richardson, D)
OR Open (Kulongoski, D)
Strickland (D-OH)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican
VT Open (Douglas, R)
WI Open (Doyle, D)
Quinn (D-IL)

Toss-Up/Tilt Democrat
O'Malley (D-MD)
Patrick (D-MA)
CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)

Lean Republican
GA Open (Perdue, R)
MI Open (Granholm, D)
PA Open (Rendell, D)
Brewer (R-AZ)
Perry (R-TX)

Lean Democrat
HI Open (Lingle, R)

Lean Independent
RI Open (Carcieri, R)

Republican Favored
Culver (D-IA)
AL Open (Riley, R)
NV Open (Gibbons, R)
SC Open (Sanford, R)
TN Open (Bredesen, D)

Democrat Favored
Lynch (D-NH)

Safe Republican
KS Open (Parkinson, D)
OK Open (Henry, D)
SD Open (Rounds, R)
WY Open (Freudenthal, D)
Heineman (R-NE)
Herbert (R-UT)
Otter (R-ID)
Parnell (R-AK)

Safe Democrat
Beebe (D-AR)
NY Open (Paterson, D)

New York 1: Outsourcing Documentary Provides Little Fodder

2010-07-09T09:00:00.000-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Randy Altschuler isn’t the first candidate to be accused of shipping jobs overseas, but he may be the only one to have an entire documentary filmed about his company’s operation in India.

The New York Republican is running in the 1st district against Rep. Tim Bishop (D) but first must win the GOP nomination before setting his sights on the incumbent.

It’s no secret that Altschuler is vulnerable on the outsourcing issue. He started OfficeTiger, a provider of business services, in 1999 and built it into a very successful company, with a large operation in Chennai, India. He and his business partner, Joe Sigelman, sold OfficeTiger a few years ago to R.R. Donnelley & Sons for $250 million.

But Altschuler’s critics, on both sides of the aisle, are going to be sorely disappointed if they believe the 4-year-old film is going to provide much ammunition to fire at Altschuler during the campaign.

The 2006 documentary, “Office Tigers,” “examines an American-owned company that trains young Indian professionals the rules of Western business in this fascinating look into outsourcing and the contemporary blending of cultures,” according to the official description of the film.

But the movie focuses exclusively on the company’s activity in India where Sigelman is running the operation. “Randy set up the operation in New York, and I found myself on a plane to India,” Sigelman explained at the beginning of the documentary.

We don’t see Altschuler until the very end of the hour and a half documentary, when he has about three minutes of face time, traveling to India to prepare the company for a visit by a prospective buyer.

“I think we should all be so proud of what we’ve accomplished. We have a lot of respect in the marketplace,” Altschuler said in the movie to a group of workers who gathered for the office party for Sigelman’s 35th birthday. “People I know love, love OfficeTiger and are envious of people who work here, and I think you should take a lot of pride because you created what we have today.”

“But the story is not about India. The story is about, about, it’s really about the globalization,” Altschuler explained, sitting in an empty office at the end of the film. “India will pass like everywhere else. ... The company is really about Sri Lanka, Philippines, Salt Lake City, wherever we can find the best talent.”

The documentary isn’t a smoking gun, but the outsourcing issue isn’t going away for Altschuler.

In an issue landscape dominated by jobs and the economy, Democrats are anxious to run against Altschuler, but he has to win the nomination first.

Young attorney Chris Cox, one of Altschuler’s GOP opponents, describes himself as being the best messenger to carry the jobs message, a thinly veiled shot at Altschuler’s business background. Cox, the grandson of former President Richard Nixon, has also been a business consultant.

Altschuler has already used some of his business success in the campaign, contributing $1 million of his money through March. Second-quarter Federal Election Commission reports, detailing finance information through June, are due July 15.

This story first appeared in RollCall.com on July 7, 2010, 8:34 a.m. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

Ohio 12: Digging Deeper into Brooks’ poll

2010-07-08T16:22:00.002-04:00

There is entirely too much being made of incumbents polling under 50%, and newly-released survey in Ohio’s 12th District is a great example.

According to a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll conducted a month ago (June 2-6) for Franklin County Commissioner Paula Brooks (D), Cong. Pat Tiberi (R) held a 48%-36% lead in the initial general election ballot test. Libertarian candidate Travis Irvine garnered 10%.

Democrats trumpeted the results as a partial victory because the incumbent was below 50%, with the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner release on the race adding that Brooks was in a “strong position to defeat Pat Tiberi” in the contest.

But the Democratic excitement is puzzling because the poll reveals a difficult path for Brooks. Even if she were to get all of the undecided vote (6%) in the survey, she would still lose the race by 6 points.

The release includes a second ballot test “once voters hear positive information about both candidates,”’ but it doesn’t include that information. Just as important, it doesn’t include a ballot test after voters hear negative information about both candidates, which would more closely resemble the actual environment of a campaign.

Democrats believe Irvine is eating into Tiberi’s vote because he’s a Libertarian, but that’s not a certainty, and it’s unlikely he gets 10% on Election Day.

Through April 14, Irvine hadn’t filed with the FEC, meaning he hadn’t raised or spent $5,000 for his campaign. In 2008, Libertarian Steven Linnabary received 3% of the vote.

Irvine is a 26-year old filmmaker who grew up in the 12th District, but has spent most of his adult life working elsewhere, including for Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for a few months in Washington, D.C. In 2007, Irvine finished sixth (with 4.6%) in the race for mayor of Bexley, Ohio (population 13,000).

Ideologically, Irvine is running as a fiscally conservative and socially liberal candidate who is in favor of decriminalization and legalization of marijuana and lowering the drinking age to 18. He also opposes government bans on gay marriage. In addition, he believes “the Federal Government should not be in charge of national public services such as Medicare and Social Security.”

Brooks is a serious and appealing candidate, and Tiberi can’t take anything for granted. But this poll seems to exaggerate Brooks’ current threat to Tiberi, and it does little to encourage us to change our current Republican Favored rating of this contest.

5:01pm Update: Earlier today (and before the Brooks release), the Tiberi campaign released their own survey. The June 27-29 Public Opinion Strategies poll showed the congressman leading Brooks 53%-28% and Irvine at 5%. Tiberi’s personal rating was also good in the poll (54% favorable/24% unfavorable). In comparison, Brooks was at 14% favorable/4% unfavorable.

New Print Edition: 2010 Gubernatorial Outlook

2010-07-08T13:01:00.002-04:00

Subscribers already have the July 2, 2010 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report, but here is the first paragraph:

2010 Guberatorial Outlook

Similar to the fights for the House and the Senate, the gubernatorial landscape has shifted dramatically toward the Republicans. At the beginning of the cycle, Republicans and Democrats looked like they had an even number of opportunities, particularly in open seats. But over the last nine months, the Republican opportunities have remained while the Democrats’ opportunities have evaporated.

Subscribers get the full 12-page issue including state-by-state analysis of the 37 races and the most recent polls. We'll post just the ratings online early next week.

Stu Talks Races on Daily Rundown

2010-07-08T10:45:00.001-04:00

Stu talked Senate and House races on MSNBC's Daily Rundown this morning. You can watch the video below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Will Democrats’ Third-Party Scenario Pay Off?

2010-07-07T14:01:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

An unusual number of Democratic candidates running this cycle are basing their victory scenarios on the existence of Independent or third-party candidates in their races. Are their hopes reasonable or are they merely grasping at straws?

Certainly there are examples of third-party candidates who had no chance of winning siphoning off enough votes from one major-party nominee to alter the outcome of an election.

Last cycle, in Ohio’s 15th district, anti-abortion conservative Don Eckhart drew almost 13,000 votes, the majority of which might well have gone to GOP nominee Steve Stivers. That almost certainly cost the Republican the election, as Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy won by less than 1 point.

But more often than not, Independents and third-party candidates see their support evaporate as Election Day approaches, as voters realize that a vote for an also-ran is a wasted vote.

At least 10 Democratic hopefuls now seem to be counting on Independent candidates attracting enough votes to allow the Democrats to win with less than 50 percent of the total vote. The list includes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, Colorado Rep. Betsy Markey, Michigan Rep. Mark Schauer, Nevada Rep. Dina Titus, Ohio Rep. Zack Space, Virginia Reps. Tom Perriello and Glenn Nye, Ohio’s Kilroy, and Pennsylvania 15th district challenger John Callahan.

In Nevada, even Democrats acknowledge that it will be difficult for Reid to reach 50 percent in November. But they note that the state’s “none of the above” option for voters, combined with a number of Independent candidates, enhance Reid’s chances by dividing the anti-Reid vote.

Most of the attention has gone to Tea Party nominee Scott Ashjian, but Independent American Party nominee Tim Fasano is also on the ballot. Both candidates (and both parties) espouse extremely conservative views, including support for lower taxes and smaller government. Any votes they get presumably would come from Republican Sharron Angle.

But Angle is so conservative and plugged in to the tea party movement that it is difficult to believe that she will lose much support to the two ultra-conservatives, and most of the voters who end up supporting Ashjian and Fasano probably wouldn’t support a major-party nominee anyway. Neither Ashjian nor Fasano filed a first-quarter Federal Election Commission report.

Nevada’s Independent American Party has also nominated a candidate in the state’s 3rd district, Scott Narter. Narter drew 4.6 percent of the vote in a 2004 Clark County Commission race. He hasn’t filed an FEC report, and he doesn’t have a campaign website. But if he’s on the ballot, he’ll get some votes.

In Ohio, Stivers is back for another shot at Kilroy, who won her seat with only 46 percent because third-party nominees drew almost a combined 9 percent.

The Libertarians are again running a candidate (who doesn’t yet have a website or even a photograph on the Ohio Libertarian Party’s website), while the Constitution Party nomination went to David Ryon (who beat a primary opponent 171 votes to 157 votes).

If Ryon gets the same vote that Eckhart did last time, he could once again throw the election to Kilroy. But that looks unlikely.

Not only is the political environment very different, but Kilroy has voted with her party consistently on controversial issues, making her a much easier target this time. Moreover, unlike 2008, Stivers has been declared a “preferred” candidate by the Ohio Right to Life political action committee.

While not a full “endorsement,” “preferred” status indicates, according to the Ohio Right to Life PAC’s website, that the group “believes that the election of that candidate’s opponent would be clearly more detrimental to Ohio Right to Life’s mission and the pro-life movement.”

The designation should help Stivers stem some defections to Ryon, limiting the damage from his right.

Elsewhere, Pennsylvania challenger Callahan is counting on Libertarian Jake Towne getting on the ballot to siphon votes away from Rep. Charlie Dent, who is widely regarded as one of the more moderate Republicans left in the House.

In Michigan, Democrats believe that tea party activist Scott Aughney, running as a U.S. Taxpayer’s Party (known as the Constitution Party outside Michigan) candidate, can draw votes that otherwise might go to Schauer’s eventual GOP opponent.

In Virginia’s 2nd district, retired Adm. Kenny Golden, a former Virginia Beach GOP chairman, is running as an Independent, possibly helping Nye. But Golden’s prospects are uncertain, since his campaign was $6,500 in the red as of May 19.

Democrats in the state’s 5th district hope that a well-funded conservative Independent joins conservative Jeffrey Clark on the ballot to draw votes away from the GOP nominee, state Sen. Robert Hurt.

Democratic insiders also hope that American Constitution Party nominee Doug Aden and Unity Party candidate Mike Nelson draw votes in Colordao’s 4th district that might otherwise go to Markey’s Republican challenger, state Rep. Corey Gardner. Gardner, however, remains the favorite in that race.

And in Ohio, Space recently mailed a letter to both his Republican and Constitution Party opponents inviting them to debate, an obvious attempt to turn his race into a three-way contest featuring two conservatives rather than a one-on-one matchup against a Republican.

Finally, in one of the stranger races this cycle, Florida’s Grayson seems to be hoping that Tea Party candidate Peg Dunmire can help divide his opposition and allow him to win another term.

Dunmire first entered the 8th district race as a Republican, but she amended her statement of organization on April 15 to file as a Tea Party candidate.

While her March 31 FEC report shows $44,000 raised, about $25,000 was from the candidate while $7,500 came from the Florida Tea Party. On June 1, the FEC sent a letter to the Dunmire campaign raising questions about whether the Tea Party contribution was permissible and citing numerous problems with the campaign’s fundraising report.

In short, it’s not clear whether Dunmire will be relevant when November rolls around. Republicans, obviously, would like to make certain that she isn’t, while Democrats — and Grayson — have an interest in keeping her campaign afloat.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on July 6, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

GOP Group Extends Anti-Reid Ad Buy

2010-07-06T10:10:00.002-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

American Crossroads, a Republican 527 group, is extending its television ad buy targeting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid into a fourth week, according to an official from the group.

The extension brings the group's spending against the Nevada Democrat to nearly half a million dollars.

The American Crossroads ad starts with shots of Reid's own ad along with the Democrat's tagline, "No one can do more than he can," before showing a clip of Reid on the Senate floor saying, "Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today -- which is really good."

Reid faces a tough fight this fall against state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee. Outside groups aligned with each party are expected to pour millions, mostly in the form of TV advertising, into the battle.

American Crossroads plans to raise and spend $50 million this year and advertise in at least 10 Senate races. The group is just one of several GOP organizations looking to get involved in the midterm elections this year.

This story first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on July 1, 2010.

Latest EMILY’s List Picks Face Big Challenges

2010-07-02T11:49:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

On Friday, EMILY’s List, which seeks to recruit pro-choice Democratic female candidates and support their campaigns, announced two more Senate endorsements: Roxanne Conlin in Iowa and Elaine Marshall in North Carolina.

Democrats are on the defensive nationally and looking for opportunities to put GOP-held House and Senate seats into play, and that also applies to EMILY’s List, which finds itself defending many of its allies rather than growing the number of pro-choice Democratic women. So, when seen in that light, the Conlin and Marshall endorsements make some sense.

Still, both Conlin and Marshall look like bad bets to me in a year when Democrats — and EMILY’s List — ought to circle the wagons and devote all of their resources to minimizing the damage rather than diverting resources to long shots.

Yes, voters want “change,” but this election cycle — nationally and in both states — that mood will strongly favor Republicans, since voters are almost certain to see the midterm elections as an opportunity to send a message to President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Conlin’s prospects look pretty bleak against Sen. Chuck Grassley, 76, the five-term Iowa Republican who came to the Senate by ousting Democratic Sen. John Culver in 1980.

Conlin, who turned 66 on Wednesday, served as an Iowa assistant attorney general and as head of the Civil Rights Section of the Iowa Department of Justice before she was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Iowa in 1977.

The Des Moines attorney was the first female president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now known as the American Association for Justice), founded the Iowa Women’s Political Caucus and was president of the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund. She was also the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 1982.

Conlin entered the Senate race late but polished off two lesser opponents in the June 8 primary.

Electability has always been a factor in EMILY’s List decisions of whom to endorse, and that has earned the group considerable credibility among nonpartisan handicappers and journalists. But given the long-shot nature of her Senate candidacy, I can only assume that Conlin’s lengthy record in women’s issues and liberal activism influenced the organization’s decision to endorse the Iowa challenger.

Public polling in the Hawkeye State suggests that Grassley is at or above 50 percent in ballot tests against Conlin, leading the race by 8 to 15 points. Democrats, however, argue that the race is closer than the public polls show.

Grassley’s “favorability” ratings are good, and his favorable-to-unfavorable ratios are better than Conlin’s.

Conlin raised just less than $1.5 million through May 19 (and added another $250,000 of her own), ending the period with just $870,000 in the bank. Grassley, on the other hand, had almost $5.6 million.

With GOP gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad, who beat Conlin in that 1982 gubernatorial contest, favored in November over unpopular Gov. Chet Culver (D), Iowa Democrats face a difficult political environment in the state.

While Iowa’s other Senator, Tom Harkin (D), apparently is enthusiastic about Conlin, there is little reason to believe she can win given the strong Republican wind now blowing.

EMILY’s List’s support of Elaine Marshall, 64, is more understandable given recent polling, though not much more likely to pay off.

Marshall was elected to the North Carolina Senate in 1992 and as North Carolina secretary of state in 1996. She has been re-elected three times. In 2002, Marshall ran for the Democratic Senate nomination, losing to Erskine Bowles in the primary.

National Democratic observers have never believed that Marshall would be a strong general election opponent for Sen. Richard Burr (R), which is why the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee initially wooed former state legislator Cal Cunningham into the race. But his campaign quickly proved to be a disappointment.

Marshall finished first in the primary but failed to win a majority. Endorsed by the third-place finisher in the race, she went on to beat Cunningham soundly, by 20 points, in the runoff.

Democrats note that Burr’s poll numbers are uninspiring. His lead in hypothetical ballot tests over lesser-known Democrats has been unimpressive (and generally within the margin of error), and his favorable ratings have been equally mediocre.

But Marshall probably is in for a rude awakening now that she faces Burr.

Marshall raised less than $850,000 through June 2, and she had only $186,000 in the bank on that day. Burr, in contrast, had raised $6 million by April 14, and he had just less than $5 million in the bank.

Moreover, Marshall is so liberal that she presents an easy target for Burr. The Democratic primary was a relatively mild fight, but Burr won’t hesitate to pound the challenger and tie her to the president, government spending and debt, and bigger government.

If Conlin and Marshall were running their races in the 2006 or 2008 political environments, they would be formidable contenders. But the environment has flipped, and Democrats face a very strong headwind this cycle.

The cycle also hurts Conlin and Marshall where they can least afford it — financially.

Last cycle, the DSCC had a huge war chest while the National Republican Senatorial Committee was pinching pennies. The DSCC opened its checkbook for two of its successful female challengers — spending $11.6 million to help Kay Hagan in North Carolina and $10.5 million for Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire — far outspending the NRSC in each race.

But this cycle, the DSCC will be forced to make tough choices about where to spend its more limited resources, and expensive states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Washington and Wisconsin are likely to drain the committee’s resources before the DSCC ever gets down the list to North Carolina or Iowa.

EMILY’s List is also more focused on incumbents this cycle; 11 of the 19 House candidates now listed on its website are incumbents, as are four of the seven Senate hopefuls (including California Sen. Barbara Boxer and Washington Sen. Patty Murray) it identifies as “Our Candidates.” That may leave only scraps for Conlin and Marshall.

All of this creates a terrible situation for the two Democratic challengers, and it suggests that EMILY’s List, in these two cases, is following its heart, not its head.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on July 1, 2010. This 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

President Obama, Welcome to Bush’s World

2010-06-30T09:21:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

In the middle of February, veteran Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg gave some free advice to his party’s Congressional leaders via the New Republic, urging them to take a series of steps to minimize Democratic vulnerabilities (and losses) in the fall elections.

It has been four months since Greenberg’s article, “Disaster Relief: How to Avoid a Repeat of 1994,” appeared, but there is no sign of a Democratic turnaround on the horizon — only more depressing news and pessimistic public opinion data for Democrats.

The news on joblessness and the U.S. economy, combined with growing concerns over the federal deficit, Europe’s financial health (particularly growing debt), the lack of progress of the war in Afghanistan and the damage resulting from the BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, are burying the president and his party in an avalanche of public dissatisfaction.

As former President George W. Bush found out only a few years ago, a never-ending supply of bad news saps a presidency, and a political party, of its strength.

Voters who once felt hopeful and gave the new president the benefit of the doubt instead distrust the White House’s explanations and assume the worst. No number of high-profile speeches will reverse the decline. Only good news will, and it isn’t anywhere to be found.

Greenberg’s first suggestion for Democrats in February was to “quickly pass a version of the Senate health care bill.” That was wise advice because the alternative — getting no bill at all — would have been disastrous for the party.

But the highly regarded strategist’s prediction that passing a bill “will raise presidential and Congressional approval ratings” was overly optimistic.

In mid-February, when Greenberg’s article appeared, Obama’s job ratings stood at 49 percent approve/50 percent disapprove in a CNN poll. A month later, days before Obama signed the health care bill, the president’s poll numbers stood at 46 percent approve/51 percent disapprove, and more recently, a mid-June CNN survey found Obama’s job ratings at 50 percent approve/48 percent disapprove — largely unchanged from February.

Gallup had Obama’s job rating at 51 percent approve/42 percent disapprove in mid-February, 50 percent approve/43 percent disapprove in mid-March and 49 percent approve/44 percent disapprove in mid-June — again, largely unchanged during the period.

And the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, conducted June 17-21, offers a similar picture, with the president’s job rating down to an approval of 45 percent, with more respondents disapproving of his performance for the first time in his presidency.

Congress’ job rating (22 percent approve/73 percent disapprove) is up a bit from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal March survey (17 percent approve/77 percent disapprove), but the institution is still held in very low esteem.

It’s true that support for the health care reform measure has inched up since March (from 36 percent to a still underwhelming 40 percent in the June NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey), but the gain is both misleading and irrelevant if it doesn’t improve the standing of Democratic officeholders.

Gallup’s Lydia Saad, writing on her firm’s June 11-13 poll with USA Today, notes that support for the reform bill fell from 47 percent in March to 45 percent in April but rose to 49 percent in June. She calls the recent uptick “not statistically significant.”

She also notes the increase in support for the measure came primarily from Republicans (up from 10 percent to 17 percent), while support of independents was flat (41 percent approve in April compared with 43 percent support in March) and support among Democrats actually slipped 5 points. Those Republicans, of course, aren’t likely to vote Democratic in the fall.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey’s other poll numbers confirm the growing importance of the federal deficit in voters’ minds, the low opinion that voters hold of both parties and the increased inclination of registered voters to support Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm elections.

The poll also found the overall mood of the public continues to erode, with 29 percent of respondents saying the nation is “generally headed in the right direction” and 62 percent saying “things are off on the wrong track” — about where it was in December 2008, shortly after the presidential election.

Democratic strategists are deluding themselves if they believe that passing a financial reform bill or a small-business measure will change the public’s mood. It won’t. Voters won’t care by the time November rolls around unless their mood brightens.

If bad news continues in our nation’s newspapers and on the evening news, whether about jobs and the economy, foreign policy or the environment, the public will quickly discount Democratic achievements on Capitol Hill as ineffectual and insufficient.

That’s why Republicans were punished in 2006 and 2008, and it’s why Democrats are headed for the same fate. The president needs some good news. Unfortunately for him and his party, time is running out, and tomorrow’s news is largely beyond their control.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 29, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Bush Bashing Cuts Both Ways in Ohio Race

2010-06-25T11:28:00.001-04:00

Talk with Democratic candidates for Congress across the country, as I do, and you will hear the same two lines of argument about how they are going to win their contests in November.

Both narratives seek to morph November’s elections away from being a referendum on President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

First, these candidates promise that they will contrast their records and experiences with the views and experiences of their Republican opponents, who, they argue, defend Wall Street and big corporations instead of the average person, opposed health care reform and efforts to stop global warming, and opposed efforts to revive the economy.

The approach relies heavily on “defining” the opponent — whether it’s portraying the Republican as a corrupt Congressional insider, as Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan does to Rep. Roy Blunt (R), or as a tea-party-backed extremist, as supporters of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) do when they talk about his race against Republican challenger Sharron Angle.

Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan (D) did the same thing when, during a recent interview, he characterized his race against Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania essentially as a messenger of change (Callahan) against a Member of Congress responsible for the nation’s problems (Dent).

This boils down to an effort to “localize” the 2010 midterm elections by making November a choice between candidates rather than a statement on the direction of the country.

Second, Democratic candidates invariably promise to remind voters exactly who got the nation into its economic mess — former President George W. Bush and years of free-spending, regulation-cutting Republican Congresses.

Two Democrats in high-profile Senate races I interviewed earlier this year, New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes and Carnahan, repeated this line often and predicted that they will win because voters will remember who is responsible for the nation’s economic problems.

If there is one Republican candidate who would seem to be vulnerable to this one-two combination of punches, it is Ohio Republican Senate hopeful Rob Portman, who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bush, as Bush’s trade representative and, before that, in Congress.

In bashing Bush, Buckeye State Democrats are scoring points against Portman.

Not everyone, however, is sure whether the Bush strategy will prove effective nationally or even in Ohio.

The Hotline’s Reid Wilson recently looked at a bipartisan NPR survey and concluded that, as a general rule, “Blaming Bush doesn’t work.”

But you need not rely on the NPR survey to conclude that. There is other evidence.

Last fall, New Jersey Democrats tried to shift the focus of the state’s gubernatorial race away from Obama and back to Bush in a state that Sen. John McCain lost by 15 points and Bush lost by 7 points in 2004. But it didn’t work.

A few months later, Democrats in Massachusetts were unsuccessful trying to blame Bush and Republicans for existing problems, and Republican Scott Brown won a Senate election in one of the most Democratic states in the nation.

History shows how difficult it is for the president’s party to pass on blame to an earlier administration. In 1982, Republicans lost more than two dozen House seats because of a recession that eventually pulled the country out of a stagflation that occurred during the presidency of Jimmy Carter.

Blaming Carter for the nation’s problems two years after voters threw him out of office didn’t work for Republicans in 1982, and it isn’t likely to work any better for Democrats this year.

Still, Ohio could be a unique case because of Portman’s credentials.

The problem both parties have in the Buckeye State is that each of the major-party candidates in the Senate race carries serious baggage.

Portman carries the Bush baggage, while Democrat Lee Fisher, the state’s sitting lieutenant governor, was selected by Gov. Ted Strickland (D) to be the state’s director of development — essentially the state’s job czar.

If “jobs” and “the economy” are problems for Portman, they would seem to be even bigger problems for Fisher, who is now in office.

Ohio’s unemployment rate in January 2007, when Strickland and Fisher took over the state’s top two jobs, was 5.4 percent. In January 2009, when Obama was sworn in as president, the state’s unemployment rate had risen to 8.6 percent. And in the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report, Ohio’s unemployment rate for May 2010 stood at 10.7 percent.

Recent polling in the Ohio Senate race is very close, generally within the margin of error. That makes the contest much closer than it was in the first quarter of this year, when Fisher held a substantial lead over Portman in hypothetical ballot tests.

Clearly, Fisher has been hurt by the economy, much as Obama has been hurt politically. The question is whether he can shift the blame away from himself and to Portman and Bush. It will be a much tougher task than Ohio Democrats are now willing to admit.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 24, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New 2010 Senate Ratings

2010-06-24T12:00:00.002-04:00

In North Carolina, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall secured the Democratic nomination in a runoff this week but she will have a considerably more difficult task against Sen. Richard Burr (R), given her limited fund raising success and the dynamics of the election cycle.

Realistically, Republicans are still short of the 10-seat gain they would need to flip the Senate in November. For now, we see no reason to revise our earlier outlook. The GOP is most likely to net 5 to7 Senate seats, with an 8-seat gain certainly possible. Additional Democratic losses would depend on whether Washington, Wisconsin and California become more competitive. This means Democrats would retain control of the Senate, but at a dramatically reduced level.

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

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 2 )
Bennet (D-CO)
OH Open (Voinovich, R)
PA Open (Specter, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (3 R, 3 D)
Reid (D-NV)
FL Open (Martinez, R)
IL Open (Burris, D)
IN Open (Bayh, D)
KY Open (Bunning, R)
MO Open (Bond, R)

Toss-Up/Tilt Democrat
--- none ---

Lean Republican (1 R, 2 D)
Lincoln (D-AR)
DE Open (Kaufman, D)
NH Open (Gregg, R)

Lean Democrat (0 R, 2 D)
Boxer (D-CA)
Murray (D-WA)

Republican Favored (2 R, 0 D)
Burr (R-NC) *
Vitter (R-LA)

Democrat Favored (0 R, 2 D)
Feingold (D-WI)
CT Open (Dodd, D)

Safe Republican (11 R, 1 D)
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)
ND Open (Dorgan, D)
UT Open (Bennett, R)

Safe Democrat (0 R, 6 D)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Inouye (D-HI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Same Party but Two Very Different Candidates

2010-06-24T09:00:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

As we crawl toward November, I’m fortunate to interview more and more candidates. Each candidate is unique, but I don’t know that I’ve seen two so very different candidates in a matter of one hour as I did recently, when I interviewed Arizona Democratic Senate hopeful Rodney Glassman and then Ohio Democratic Congressional hopeful Paula Brooks.

Brooks, 55, is a two-term Franklin County (Columbus) commissioner who is challenging five-term Republican Rep. Patrick Tiberi in the 12th district. She was elected to the commission in 2004 after serving two terms on the Upper Arlington City Council. She was re-elected in 2008.

I’m not sure whether Brooks can knock off Tiberi in the current environment, but I am sure that she is a terrific candidate. I liked her a great deal.

Personable and well-spoken, Brooks struck me as someone who thinks seriously about issues and about how to make a difference. She seems approachable, not because she is some smiling back-slapper, but because she seems interested in people and in solving problems.

Brooks peppers her answers to questions with references to votes she cast and issues she took on. Unlike some candidates who rely on prepared talking points and automatic responses, she actually thought before answering questions.

But Brooks is running in what is going to be a difficult year for Democrats. Her bent seems predictably liberal, and she falls back on the usual lines of attack against Tiberi — including blaming the nation’s and state’s current problems on President George W. Bush, a line of attack that is not likely to be particularly effective in the fall.

While Tiberi serves on the Ways and Means Committee and is close to Minority Leader John Boehner (a fellow Ohio Republican), he hasn’t been a robot for his party. CQ’s Politics in America 2010 noted that Tiberi voted to boost fuel efficiency standards, supported the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and was one of only 35 Republicans to back a measure outlawing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In addition, he initially opposed the Troubled Asset Relief Program but eventually voted for the final bill after heavy lobbying from the White House and Boehner.

Tiberi’s district went for President Barack Obama 54 percent to 44 percent, but it went for Bush narrowly in 2004, 51 percent to 49 percent. We’ll see whether Brooks, who trailed Tiberi 2 to 1 in fundraising and 3 to 1 in cash on hand as of April 14, can actually win given the national Republican advantage, but I’m pretty sure that Democrats couldn’t have come up with a better candidate.

Glassman, a 32-year-old Arizonan, is a whole different kind of candidate.

Glassman grew up in Fresno, Calif., but finished high school in Chicago so that he could play ice hockey. He attended Cornell University for a year before moving to Arizona to join his family.

Unlike Brooks, who put herself through Youngstown State by working as a hairdresser and then went to Capital University Law School at night, Glassman holds a B.A. (1999), an MBA (2001), an MPA (2002), a Ph.D. (2005) and a law degree (2007) — all from the University of Arizona.

Did I mention he worked for Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) in 2002, was a consultant to KB Home Tucson (2004-2007), served for three years on the board of the Arizona Farm Bureau, was elected to the Tucson City Council in 2007, was commissioned in the Air Force JAG program in 2008 and got married in 2009?

Just a busy, successful young man? Maybe, but this looks more like somebody trying to put together the perfect résumé to run for Congress. I’d be shocked if Glassman didn’t already have his 2020 presidential campaign sketched out somewhere.

Glassman, whose only full-time job has been working for a Congressman for less than a year, has loaned his campaign $250,000. He earned that money, he told me, during his time consulting with KB Home and when he managed his family’s ice skating rink in Tucson. He started earning $24,000 a year at the ice rink and eventually earned six figures a year. (This fact should spur job applications to ice skating rinks around the country and particularly in the Southwest.)

Although he launched an exploratory committee last year, Glassman didn’t file as a candidate until April 8 of this year, and he has not yet filed a fundraising report with the Federal Election Commission. His June 30 FEC report will show about, or possibly in excess of, $750,000 raised.

Glassman is tall (6 feet 6 inches), confident and smooth talking. During my interview with him, he had a broad smile that never disappeared. He had a quick retort to every question, and he wasn’t averse to trying to turn the table and ask his own question of the questioner.

While Glassman talks about his broad range of support from business and labor, his views are consistently liberal. He supports the Democratic health care reform measure, the stimulus and the Employee Free Choice Act (“card check,” to Republicans), and he opposes S.B. 1070, the illegal immigrant bill recently passed by the Arizona Legislature.

Some of those positions may fly in Brooks’ district, but they will be viewed differently in Arizona.

Glassman’s criticisms of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) don’t even deserve serious mention, but the Democrat may have a road to victory if former Rep. J.D. Hayworth happens to upset McCain in the Republican primary in late August.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Glassman eventually has a long career in politics even if McCain beats him like a drum in November. It’s pretty obvious that the young political wannabe will do whatever he needs to do to make his mark.

New 2010 House Ratings

2010-06-23T15:15:00.000-04:00

In our latest (June 18) issue of the Rothenberg Political Report, we moved two races: the Democratic open seat in Arkansas 2 from Toss-Up/Tilt Republican to Lean Republican and South Dakota Cong. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) from Democrat Favored to Toss-Up/Tilt Democrat.

We're also moving Cong. Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) from Democrat Favored to Toss-Up/Tilt Democrat. Voters know and like Edwards, but they are not, at least at this point, prepared to vote for him again.

Our next full House overview in the middle of next month, so stay tuned for even more changes.

Overall, substantial Republican gains are inevitable, with net Democratic losses now looking to be at least two dozen. At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible.

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

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 12 D)

AR 1 (Open; Berry, D)
FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
IL 14 (Foster, D)
MI 1 (Open; Stupak, D)
MI 7 (Schauer, D)
NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
NV 3 (Titus, D)
PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 7 D)

AL 2 (Bright, D)
FL 8 (Grayson, D)
IN 8 (Open; Ellsworth, D)
KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
MS 1 (Childers, D)
VA 2 (Nye, D)
VA 5 (Perriello, D)

Lean Republican (3 R, 10 D)

AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D) *
CA 3 (Lungren, R)
CO 4 (Markey, D)
FL 25 (Open; M. Diaz-Balart, R)
LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
NM 2 (Teague, D)
NY 29 (Open; Massa, D)
OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
WA 8 (Reichert, R)

Republican Favored (5 R, 1 D)

CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
NE 2 (Terry, R)
OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
PA 15 (Dent, R)
TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Democrat (1 R, 5 D)

HI 1 (Djou, R)
ND A-L (Pomeroy, D)
SC 5 (Spratt, D)
SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)*
TX 17 (Edwards, D) *
WV 1 (Open; Mollohan, D)

Lean Democrat (1 R, 18 D)

AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
DE -AL (Open; Castle, R)
ID 1 (Minnick, D)
IN 9 (Hill, D)
IA 3 (Boswell, D)
MA 10 (Open; Delahunt, D)
MO 4 (Skelton, D)
NJ 3 (Adler, D)
NM 1 (Heinrich, D)
NY 1 (Bishop, D)
NY 19 (Hall, D)
OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
OH 18 (Space, D)
PA 4 (Altmire, D)
PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
PA 12 (Critz, D)
VA 9 (Boucher, D)
WI 7 (Open; Obey, D)

Democrat Favored (1 R, 16 D)

CA 11 (McNerney, D)
CO 3 (Salazar, D)
CT 5 (Murphy, D)
FL 22 (Klein, D)
IL 11 (Halvorson, D)
IN 2 (Donnelly, D)
LA 2 (Cao, R)
NY 13 (McMahon, D)
NY 20 (Murphy, D)
NY 23 (Owens, D)
NC 8 (Kissell, D)
OH 13 (Sutton, D)
PA 3 (Dahlkemper, D)
PA 8 (Murphy, D)
PA 10 (Carney, D)
PA 17 (Holden, D)
WI 8 (Kagen, D)

Total seats in play: 79
Republican seats: 12
Democratic seats: 67

Link Between Grayson, Tea Party Questioned

2010-06-23T09:00:00.001-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

One of Rep. Alan Grayson’s pollsters is running for the state House in Florida as a Tea Party candidate, fueling Republican suspicions that the Democratic Congressman is using a newly formed third party to boost his own re-election bid.

On Friday, Victoria Torres, 44, of Orlando qualified to run as a Tea Party candidate in state House district 51 in the last hours of the qualifying period.

A call to Torres was returned by Nick Egoroff, communications director for the Florida Tea Party, who described Torres as a “quasi-paralegal assistant who works in a law office.” But apparently, Torres is also a pollster.

According to records from the Florida Department of State office, Torres incorporated Public Opinion Strategies Inc. in December 2008. In the first quarter of this year, Grayson’s campaign made two payments to her firm, totaling $11,000, for polling and survey expenses.

“She’s got various businesses on the side,” explained Egoroff, who confirmed Torres’ work for Grayson. “It’s just a business relationship. Nothing more. Nothing less.”

Egoroff described Torres as a conservative. When asked why she would work for a liberal lawmaker, he said, “It’s quite common.”

The name of Torres’ company is curious, considering Alexandria, Va.-based Public Opinion Strategies is one of the largest and best-known Republican polling firms in the country. Egoroff declined to say if Torres has worked for any other clients, and her company doesn’t appear to have a website.

“We definitely do not poll for Democrats, nor do we have an office in Orlando,” said Glen Bolger of the Virginia-based POS. “However, we do wish Congressman Grayson the worst of luck in November.”

Dave Beattie, a prominent Florida-based Democratic pollster, also said he had never heard of Torres or her polling firm.

A spokesman for Grayson confirmed that Public Opinion Strategies Inc. is one of three pollsters the Congressman has employed. Dr. Jim Kitchens is Grayson’s principal pollster, but his campaign also uses Middleton Market Research. The use of multiple pollsters simultaneously in the same cycle is highly uncommon for a Congressional candidate.

This latest connection between the Florida Tea Party, Torres and Grayson is only likely to fan the flames of an ongoing battle about the tea party in Florida.

“I will not stand for the way Alan Grayson is using this political party to further his own political career,” businessman Bruce O’Donoghue said at a Thursday press conference with other local tea party movement activists.

O’Donoghue, one of the Republicans vying to take on Grayson this fall, is among Grayson’s detractors who believe the Congressman is connected to the Florida Tea Party. Business consultant Peg Dunmire is running as the Tea Party candidate in Grayson’s 8th district and there is concern among Republicans that she’ll take votes from the GOP nominee and help Grayson get re-elected.

The Florida Tea Party has also recruited Congressional candidates to run in two Republican-held open seats that Democrats have some hope of putting into play, including Rep. Adam Putnam’s 12th district and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart’s 25th district.

“There is no proof of any money from the Congressman going to the Florida Tea Party,” Grayson spokesman Todd Jurkowski said. “It’s all conspiracy theory.” According to Jurkowski, no decisions have been made about whether to use the polling services of Public Opinion Strategies Inc. in the future.

According to local Republicans, the whole situation is riddled with coincidences.

The Florida Tea Party was founded in August by attorney Fred O’Neal. Egoroff later signed on as communications director, and the party (including Dunmire’s Congressional candidacy) is promoted by Orlando political consultant Doug Guetzloe. Guetzloe and Egoroff were suspended by the Florida Republican Party late last year, but there are differences of opinion about why that happened.

An extensive June 14 Orlando Sentinel article detailed multiple connections between Grayson and Guetzloe. The Congressman appointed Guetzloe to a small-business advisory panel, and Guetzloe’s son interned in Grayson’s Congressional office. In addition, Republicans note that the two men have a financial connection since Grayson is running campaign ads on Guetzloe’s conservative radio show.

With political accusations being lobbed backed and forth, legal charges are in the mix too.

A group of local tea party activists filed suit against the Florida Tea Party, O’Neal and Guetzloe because they say the party doesn’t represent the movement. Guetzloe claims he is the victim of “character assassination,” according to the Sentinel, and has filed his own defamation countersuit.

Now with a couple dozen candidates in races across the state, the Florida Tea Party is planning to file a “criminal complaint” against the Republican Party of Florida for trying to “intimidate” Tea Party candidates and get them to drop their candidacies.

Darin Dunmire, whom Egoroff described as a relative of Peg Dunmire, is running in state House district 40. Nina Virone, a partner at Dunmire Consulting, is running as a Tea Party candidate against state Speaker-designate Dean Cannon (R). Another Tea Party candidate worked at the same radio station as Guetzloe.

Both Darin Dunmire and Virone contributed to Peg Dunmire’s Congressional campaign earlier this year. Peg and Darin Dunmire and Virone all list Peg Dunmire as their campaign’s treasurer and use the same address on their filings.

The tone and tenor of the Florida Tea Party’s actions are remarkably similar to Grayson’s controversial and colorful comments.

“People who know me know that one of my ‘rules of life’ is to try not to get drawn into fist fights with midgets. But, in your case, I’m going to make an exception,” wrote O’Neal, chairman of the Florida Tea Party, in a colorful four-page letter to O’Donoghue after the Republican started criticizing the group.

“Specifically, if by some fluke you become the Republican nominee for the 8th Congressional district, and if by some fluke Peg Dunmire were to want to withdraw from the race, I, personally, am going to beat her with a stick until she agrees to stay in the race to the end,” O’Neal wrote.

“Mr. O’Donoghue seems to admire Congressman Grayson’s shoot from the hip style because he’s doing a darn good imitation of it,” O’Neal said in a separate June 18 release.

Grayson said the Republicans’ health care plan was for seniors to “die quickly,” called a Federal Reserve adviser a “K Street whore” and compared former Vice President Dick Cheney to a vampire.

Along with the rhetorical similarities, the threats of litigation are reminiscent of Grayson as well.

When someone started the website mycongressmanisnuts.com to satirize Grayson’s congressmanwithguts.com, the Democrat wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to investigate and prosecute the woman.

New Print Edition: Virginia 2 & Louisiana Senate

2010-06-23T07:00:00.000-04:00

Subscribers already have the June 18, 2010 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report, but here are excerpts from the introduction to the two stories in this issue:

Virginia 2: Shifting Tides

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Republicans don’t believe Democrats won Virginia’s 2nd District in 2008. They believe they lost it, and they plan to take it back in November.

GOP Cong. Thelma Drake narrowly survived the Democratic wave in 2006 but was swept out two years later. Now freshman Cong. Glenn Nye (D) is a top GOP target in a district that Barack Obama carried very narrowly.

Republicans nominated wealthy car dealer Scott Rigell, but he looks like a much stronger candidate than those adjectives make him out to be.

Subscribers get the full story including the Lay of the Land, candidate bios, their consulting teams and a breakdown of the general election.

Louisiana Senate: Saved by the Cycle

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) was supposed to have two tough fights this cycle – one for renomination and one for reelection. But those scenarios haven’t materialized yet, and Election Day is less than five months away.

Vitter was thought to be vulnerable on the right after his connection with a prostitution ring was revealed and vulnerable in the general election against Democrats’ top recruit, Cong. Charlie Melancon. But no Republican ever stepped up to challenge him, and Vitter starts the summer with a solid lead against Melancon.

The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has created some potential volatility in the race. But thus far, it hasn’t changed the fundamental dynamics.

Subscribers get the full story including the Lay of the Land, candidate bios, their consulting teams and a breakdown of the general election.

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.

Let’s Poke Holes in the ‘Anti-Incumbent’ Hype

2010-06-18T15:01:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

My heart sank when I saw my friend Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post write about this cycle’s elections and whether they really deserved the “anti-incumbent” moniker that they have received. Damn it, I thought, there goes another half-written column that I have to toss into the trash.

But Chris encouraged me to offer my take, even though he did a good job dissecting the issue.

The narrative that this is an anti-incumbent political year is already well-established, and only a fool would fight it. So here goes. While there is some truth to the storyline, the narrative being pounded into your head daily on television and in print is clearly misleading.

There are plenty of data showing that voters distrust politicians, are unhappy with the direction of the country, have a low opinion of Washington institutions and officeholders, and are sympathetic to “outsider” candidates preaching change.

Whether you look at recent polling by ABC News/Washington Post (June 3-6), the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (March 18-21), CBS News (May 20-24) or NBC News/Wall Street Journal (May 6-10), you will see voter anger and dissatisfaction, with voters often less supportive of incumbents. And this same message is showing up in state-level and district-level data, as well.

But this mood has not resulted in voters engaging in a scorched-earth policy against incumbents or in most “establishment” candidates falling in primaries. It simply hasn’t happened.

Incumbents have lost, and so have some “establishment” candidates. But the results have many explanations, most of which have nothing to do with incumbency. Alvin Greene’s victory in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary ought to be proof of that. (Surprisingly, I haven’t yet heard anyone say he won because he was the ultimate “outsider.”)

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) was denied access to the primary ballot by conservatives angry over one of his votes in particular. He may well have won renomination (and subsequently re-election) if he had made the ballot, but an odd nominating system that exaggerates the power of a relative few activists (conservative activists in this case) caused his defeat.

Like Bennett, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who is expected to lose a runoff, has aroused opposition on his political right for selected votes. Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.Va.) lost his primary because of ethics problems.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Rep. Parker Griffith (R-Ala.) lost their respective primaries not because they are incumbents, but because they are party-switchers. Party-switchers often have problems winning primaries in their new parties because they were once viewed as political enemies and voters in their new party have trouble embracing them. Their losses had nothing to do with their incumbency. Nothing.

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) lost renomination because of scandals and incompetence, not the general mood of voters.

Among the handful of “establishment” candidates who lost are Republican former U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan in Pennsylvania, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, former Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden and Idaho Congressional hopeful Vaughn Ward — none of whom was an incumbent in any sense of the word.

Buchanan’s campaign was inept, Lowden and Ward said absurd things during their campaigns that discredited themselves, and Grayson was uninspiring. They could have lost during any cycle.

Cillizza describes the “anti-incumbent storyline” as “overblown,” and he is exactly right.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) was renominated in May with more than 79 percent of the vote while Ward, the favorite for the GOP nomination in Idaho’s 1st district, was losing his primary.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was re-nominated with almost 90 percent of the vote in his May primary. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) was re-elected with 83 percent, while Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) drew 84 percent in his primary. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) drew 80 percent to win renomination in California.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) and South Dakota Sen. John Thune (R) were unopposed for renomination.

If this is such an “anti-incumbent” or “anti-establishment” year, then why do some — most — incumbents and establishment-backed candidates win easily? So far this year, 98 percent of Congressional incumbents seeking re-election have been renominated.

I don’t doubt that the public’s mood has fueled some outsider candidates, and that some lesser candidates have done better in this environment and this cycle than they would have done had they run in 2000, 2002 or 2004.

And as I have already noted, incumbency, support from Washington, D.C., or being a Member of Congress aren’t the assets this cycle that they have been in previous cycles. That is clear. But fitting every result into an exaggerated narrative doesn’t help anyone understand what is happening.

Conservatives certainly are angrier and more mobilized than I’ve seen them in years, and in many races they are lining up behind conservative candidates who criticize incumbent Republicans for not being conservative or confrontational enough.

And in a few Democratic primaries, more liberal voters and activists have taken on incumbents not identified with the party’s left (Specter and Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, for example).

But come November, we will have a rather traditional midterm election. Angry voters will turn out to vote against the party in charge. And that’s why, ultimately, 2010 will be remembered as a Republican wave election, not an anti-incumbent year.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 17, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Melancon Takes On a Second Opponent: BP

2010-06-17T13:44:00.001-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Rep. Charlie Melancon hasn’t made much headway in his contest against Sen. David Vitter (R) over the past seven months, but now the Democrat has a new enemy in the Louisiana Senate race: BP.

With oil from the Deepwater Horizon leak threatening the shores and marshes of his 3rd Congressional district, Melancon has dramatically increased his profile. He’s been making the rounds on the cable news talk shows and received plenty of national attention for his post-spill efforts.

But Melancon must be careful not to look too political in a time of crisis, and it’s unclear whether he has fundamentally changed the dynamics of the Senate race. Early indications are that he still has a lot of work to do.

A new Public Policy Polling (D) survey released exclusively to Roll Call showed Melancon trailing Vitter by 9 points, 46 percent to 37 percent. Vitter led by a dozen points in July 2009, the last time PPP surveyed the contest.

Democrats will cheer the results showing the incumbent under 50 percent and with a 45 percent job approval rating (compared with 43 percent disapproval). But Melancon’s numbers weren’t much better. The Democrat’s personal rating was 29 percent favorable and 34 percent unfavorable.

The automated survey of 492 Louisiana voters was conducted June 12-13. It had a 4.5-point margin of error.

“The oil spill has presented an opportunity that never would have come up,” according to one Democratic operative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

Before the leak, Melancon’s campaign was a collection of attacks on Vitter (largely harping on the Senator’s connection to the “D.C. Madam” prostitution ring, including alleged incidents that happened almost a decade ago but surfaced about three years ago), while touting Melancon’s record on local issues (including cracking down on Chinese drywall) and highlighting tours around the state by his wife, Peachy.

Now Melancon is on a crusade against BP.

The Congressman has created online petitions calling for the firing of BP CEO Tony Hayward and railing against any effort to cap the financial liability of the company. He’s also asked people to submit their own cleanup ideas through his campaign website.

Online petitions have little practical effect but are used to generate media attention and, more importantly, capture people’s e-mail addresses and zip codes so that the campaign can solicit them later for a contribution or present them with a volunteer opportunity.

“The only reason Charlie got into public service was to help people,” said Bradley Beychok, Melancon’s campaign manager. “That’s why he ran for Congress, and that’s why he will be elected to the U.S. Senate. Politics is the last thing on his mind.”

But Melancon’s campaign has been relentless. One of the Congressman’s challenges is to distinguish what he is doing to help the recovery effort from what Vitter is doing in order to fundamentally alter the trajectory of the race. Democrats believe Vitter’s initial idea to cap BP’s liability gave them an opportunity to make that distinction. Melancon believes BP should be fully responsible and is calling the Senator’s idea a “taxpayer bailout” for the oil company.

On Friday, the Democrat’s campaign released a “Melancon Memeaux” titled “Putting People Before Politics.” This is after a conference call with reporters that attacked Vitter for politicizing the oil leak crisis.

“He’s not necessarily setting himself apart, just more theatrics,” according to one GOP strategist, taking a jab at Melancon, who got choked up during a Congressional subcommittee hearing — a moment that got some national attention. “He’ll need to do all that and more to make up lost ground.”

Before the crisis, Melancon consistently trailed Vitter by at least 10 points in hypothetical general election matchups.

An April 19-23 Southern Media & Opinion Research survey for businessman Lane Grigsby showed Vitter with a lead of 49 percent to 31 percent over Melancon. The survey had a 4-point error margin. Rasmussen Reports had the incumbent winning by 16 points in early April, with a 4.5-point error margin, and is polling the race again this month.

Melancon’s own poll (conducted in late February by Anzalone Liszt Research with a 3.5-point error margin) showed him down by 10 points, but Democrats were encouraged that Vitter was under 50 percent even though the incumbent led 48 percent to 38 percent.

There is no doubt that people are upset about the spill — a “deep-seated disgust” according to one GOP consultant — but there isn’t any evidence that voters disproportionately blame Vitter.

Aside from BP, Republicans believe President Barack Obama is on the hook for significant blame. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) has been a vocal critic of the federal response and is given high marks for his performance since the leak began.

Melancon has tried to distance himself from the president, and Vitter’s attacks, by opposing Obama’s six-month moratorium on offshore drilling. Louisiana politicians are in agreement that the oil industry is too critical to the local economy to stop drilling.

While everyone is responding in their own way, Melancon is painting himself as the most effective — a campaign theme that the Democrat will use throughout the race. For now, he’s riding the wave of earned media because the paid advertising phase of the campaign is still weeks, if not months, away.

No one is certain where the oil leak will rank in the minds of Louisiana voters by the time Labor Day rolls around, or whether the issue is the game-changer that Melancon needed. The Democrat has been looking for ways to cut through clutter of other Senate races across the country. Earlier this year, veteran Democratic strategist and pundit James Carville, a proud Cajun, was making media calls talking about Melancon’s prospects.

Republican strategists are not oblivious to Vitter’s weaknesses and understand that Melancon, a former sugar industry lobbyist, is probably Democrats’ best possible candidate. But they also believe that the developing anti-Democratic wave will be Vitter’s saving grace.

This story first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 15, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Is Reid Better Off Than He Was a Week Ago?

2010-06-16T10:16:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

The post-Nevada primary chorus was loud and clear last week after former state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle won the GOP Senate primary and the right to face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in November.

Everyone seems to think that Reid is measurably better off now than he was before the primary and that he now has a 50-50 chance of winning another term. Everyone but me.

Unfortunately for me, it looks as if my opinion of Reid has changed because my newsletter now has the race rated as Tossup/Tilt Republican instead of Lean Takeover, which it was previously.

But until this week, we used a Tossup/Tilt category only in rating House races, not Senate contests. In choosing to make the Rothenberg Political Report House and Senate rating categories identical, we adopted the House categories for Senate races as well, which means introducing Tossups that tilt to each party as well.

Had we had a Tossup/Tilt Republican category available to us six months ago, we probably would have had Reid in that category rather than putting him in Lean Takeover. But we didn’t have that option, and we didn’t think he had anything close to an even chance of being re-elected, so we had to move him to Lean Takeover. So that’s where he landed.

In putting Reid into the new Tossup/Tilt Republican category, we are reiterating our view that the Senate Majority Leader is in a very competitive contest and that he is more likely than not to lose his bid for a fifth term.

But Reid obviously has the resources — and now a potentially vulnerable target in Angle — to change the likely outcome of the race, so it bears watching.

Still, I don’t believe that last week’s primary fundamentally changes the Nevada Senate race. I don’t believe that the race is a pure Tossup.

It was clear even before the Senate primary rolled around that Silver State Republicans wouldn’t be nominating a tested, charismatic, politically safe candidate against Reid.

None of the three “top” Republicans — Angle, former state Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden and two-time unsuccessful candidate Danny Tarkanian — had the kind of profile, experience and obvious savvy to compete against Reid in a neutral environment.

Lowden, who was once thought to be the GOP’s “best” candidate, turned out to be less than compelling. And, as national Republican strategists point out quite fairly, if she couldn’t beat Angle for the nomination, how was she going to beat Reid?

If Angle wins, she wouldn’t be the first flawed hopeful to make it to the Senate, even from Nevada. In 1982, Chic Hecht (R) defeated Sen. Howard Cannon (D), even though the Almanac of American Politics described Hecht as “short, speaks with a squeaky voice and a lisp, and is anything but a brilliant phrasemaker.”

Given all of these considerations, Angle’s primary victory doesn’t dramatically alter Reid’s prospects for the fall.

Reid continues to run poorly in polling, and as long as the general election is about him, President Barack Obama and jobs, the Senate Majority Leader will be in deep trouble.

Polling for the past year has generally shown Angle and Lowden running about equally well against Reid. In a June 1-3 Mason-Dixon poll for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Angle (and Tarkanian) actually led Reid while Lowden trailed.

Two surveys conducted right before the Nevada primary showed Reid ahead of Angle: a May 31-June 2 Research 2000 poll for the liberal website Daily Kos and a May 24-26 Mason-Dixon poll for the Review-Journal. Assuming that those surveys are accurate, they may well have reflected the attacks of each of the candidates against the others — and the short-term fallout that occurred from them.

But as readers of this column know, it’s Reid’s numbers that matter most, not Angle’s. And Reid’s numbers still look terrible to any dispassionate observer.

Reid has been drawing 38 percent to 43 percent on the ballot test against Angle for months, and he has been in that range in ballot tests against almost any of his possible GOP opponents.

In the June Review-Journal Senate poll, Reid’s name identification was 35 percent favorable/52 percent unfavorable — about where it has been for months, and roughly where then-New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) was six months before he was defeated for re-election.

The chances of Reid improving his own standing are small. He’s simply been around too long to do that, especially given his recent position as Senate Majority Leader and his role in advancing the president’s agenda in a midterm election year.

That means Reid’s only alternative is to drive up Angle’s negatives, ultimately making her unacceptable and sneaking to victory as the lesser of two evils (or three, given the presence of a tea party candidate on the ballot).

That’s definitely possible (North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms did that in his comeback victory over Democratic challenger Jim Hunt in 1984, though Helms started making his move on TV and in the polls in 1983 and had pulled ahead by the fall of 1984). But there are far more examples of that strategy failing.

It will be difficult for Reid to make the election about Angle, whose demeanor doesn’t seem scary to voters, than about Obama, the unpopular Congress, the economy and the Democratic agenda. And that’s why Harry Reid is still more likely than not to lose.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on June 15, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

New 2010 Senate Ratings

2010-06-15T14:00:00.002-04:00

Realistically, Republicans are still short of the 10-seat gain they would need to flip the Senate in November. For now, we see no reason to revise our earlier outlook. The GOP is most likely to net 5 to7 Senate seats, with an 8-seat gain certainly possible. Additional Democratic losses would depend on whether Washington, Wisconsin and California become more competitive. This means Democrats would retain control of the Senate, but at a dramatically reduced level.

NOTE: We have revised our categories to give readers a better idea where races stand.

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

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 2 )
Bennet (D-CO)
OH Open (Voinovich, R)
PA Open (Specter, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (3 R, 3 D)
Reid (D-NV)
FL Open (Martinez, R)
IL Open (Burris, D)
IN Open (Bayh, D)
KY Open (Bunning, R)
MO Open (Bond, R)

Toss-Up/Tilt Democrat
--- none ---

Lean Republican (2 R, 2 D)
Burr (R-NC)
Lincoln (D-AR)
DE Open (Kaufman, D)
NH Open (Gregg, R)

Lean Democrat (0 R, 2 D)
Boxer (D-CA)
Murray (D-WA)

Republican Favored (1 R, 0 D)
Vitter (R-LA)

Democrat Favored (0 R, 2 D)
Feingold (D-WI)
CT Open (Dodd, D)

Safe Republican (11 R, 1 D)
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)
ND Open (Dorgan, D)
UT Open (Bennett, R)

Safe Democrat (0 R, 6 D)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Inouye (D-HI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

New Print Edition: Senate Overview

2010-06-15T11:35:00.002-04:00

Subscribers already have the April 11, 2010 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report, but here is the introduction to this issue:

Senate Overview – The Lay of the Land

Democrats and Republicans are each defending 18 seats going into the fall elections, but the national landscape has tilted the battlefield dramatically to the Republicans’ advantage. If the focus in November is on unemployment and the failure of the Obama Administration to handle big issues (e.g., the economy, the Gulf oil leak and foreign policy problems), Democrats will find their Senate seats falling like dominoes. If they can turn these races into local contests and choices between the lesser of two evils, they can minimize their losses.

Republican prospects in two or three states seem to be improving enough so that party strategists can argue that at least ten Democratic seats are in play. Realistically, however, Republicans are still short of the 10-seat gain they would need to flip the Senate in November. For now, we see no reason to revise our earlier outlook. The GOP is most likely to net 5 to7 Senate seats, with an 8-seat gain certainly possible. Additional Democratic losses would depend on whether Washington, Wisconsin and California become more competitive. This means Democrats would retain control of the Senate, but at a dramatically reduced level.

Subscribers get state-by-state analysis and recent polling for each race.

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.

There Are Democrats Who May Survive a Wave

2010-06-11T11:34:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Check my House race ratings, and you’ll find about two dozen Democratic seats at great risk. But the truth of the matter is that early ratings are based more heavily than I’d like on district fundamentals than on actual developments in races.

Midterms usually cost the president’s party House seats, so Democrats in the most Republican and conservative districts are particularly vulnerable this cycle. But challenger quality and incumbent records differ from district to district, and those factors certainly affect vulnerability.

Later in the cycle, voters will start paying serious attention to campaigns, and polls will measure voter sentiment about the candidates and about how and why voters plan to cast their votes.

But even now, campaign developments can matter, and some Democratic House incumbents who deserved to be listed among the most vulnerable Democrats of the cycle are looking a little less vulnerable now than they were even a few months ago.

For months now, my colleague Nathan Gonzales has been repeating the same mantra: One or two of the most vulnerable House Democrats are likely to survive anything but the biggest of waves — we just don’t know who they are.

Perhaps it’s time to take a first stab at figuring out who they might be.

While many Democrats running in conservative districts in 2006 and 2008 ran as “independent” candidates, only to later support their party on controversial issues (Reps. Betsy Markey of Colorado and Suzanne Kosmas of Florida are obvious examples), Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick actually has gone out of his way to reject Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (Calif.) agenda on the stimulus, health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation.

Still, it isn’t clear that even his voting record — or his endorsement by the Tea Party Express — will entirely mollify conservative (and reliably Republican) voters in his district, which gave Barack Obama 36 percent of the vote in 2008 and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) only 30 percent four years earlier.

Minnick won the district in 2008 only because the sitting Republican incumbent, Bill Sali, was so personally unpopular that voters apparently were willing to vote for any alternative — even a Democrat.

But Minnick’s re-election prospects have brightened with the nomination of state Rep. Raul Labrador, who defeated Iraq vet Vaughn Ward in the recent GOP primary.

Labrador showed $174,000 raised in his pre-primary report, so while he defeated a much better-funded candidate in the primary and can likely count on support in the general election from the National Republican Congressional Committee in a cheap media market, his weak fundraising numbers raise questions about the quality of his candidacy.

The last Democrat to represent Idaho’s 1st in Congress was Larry LaRocco, who won in an upset in 1990. While it is true that LaRocco was defeated when he ran for a third term in 1994, it’s also true that he won re-election to a second term in 1992. That should give Democrats reason to hope that Minnick can hold on in November.

Alabama Rep. Bobby Bright is another Democrat who would seem to have a decent chance of surviving a good national year for Republicans.

Bright, who spent a decade as mayor of the state capital of Montgomery, won an open seat in a squeaker in 2008, in part because the losing candidate in a tight GOP primary endorsed him.

Like Minnick’s Idaho district, Bright’s 2nd district went heavily for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the last presidential race. Obama received 37 percent in the district in 2008, slightly better than Kerry’s 33 percent in 2004.

In Congress, Bright has established his political independence by voting against the stimulus bill, the health care reform bill and cap-and-trade legislation, though critics note that he held his vote back on the climate change bill until it was clear that the Democratic leadership had the votes that it needed without Bright’s.

Democrats argue that Bright is defined in voters’ minds more as the nonpartisan mayor that he was than as a Member of Congress.

Bright’s Republican opponent likely will be Montgomery City Councilwoman Martha Roby. But Roby was barely forced into a July 13 runoff against self-described tea party activist/businessman Rick Barber, so she’ll have to spend another month fighting for her party’s nomination.

Roby’s May 12 pre-primary FEC report showed she raised just under $440,000, a little less than half of what Bright did.

Even though an early Bright poll showed him well-liked and running far ahead of Roby, Democratic insiders will acknowledge privately that the outcome will be close. The district and national mood remain problems for Bright.

But it’s also true that Bright has steered the right course to have a chance at re-election, and that’s really all that his admirers can expect.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 10, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

In the Delta, Everyone’s Buzzing About Barbour

2010-06-10T09:00:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

GREENVILLE, Miss. — Politically interested folks in the Mississippi Delta spent the last few days of May wondering about whether Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln will survive today’s Democratic runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and whether Democratic Rep. Travis Childers of Mississippi’s 1st district can win in a Republican wave in November.

With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, Lincoln and Childers are regarded by many in this region (even Republicans) as crucial advocates for Southern agriculture.

But more than anything else, political junkies throughout the Magnolia State seemed intrigued by the future of their own governor, Republican Haley Barbour.

“What’s Haley going to do?” they ask at the drop of a political hat, clearly ready to chip in with their own comments about the governor’s political future.

Barbour, first elected in 2003 and re-elected in 2007, is finishing his second term. Since he is precluded from running again, political junkies in the state have already started to handicap next year’s election to replace him.

Not that anyone thinks that the next occupant of the state’s top office can actually replace Barbour, who has a larger-than-life reputation in Mississippi and among some people in the nation’s capital.

At a time when many governors have seen their poll numbers and reputations tumble, the 62-year-old chief executive is still viewed by Mississippi political observers as hugely successful.

So it isn’t surprising that movers and shakers in the Mississippi Delta, where politics has replaced cotton as king, are wondering what is in store for their governor when his term ends next year.

Barbour, who currently chairs the Republican Governors Association, chaired the Republican National Committee from 1993 to 1997, putting him at his party’s helm during the 1994 midterm elections, when the GOP swept control of the House and Senate.

After the RNC, Barbour opened up an influential lobbying firm in the nation’s capital, and Barbour continues to have a legion of political allies in Washington, D.C., and nationally ready to do battle for him.

Barbour considered a presidential run in 2008 but wasn’t all that serious about it. This time, insiders say, he is taking a long look at 2012. Admirers of the governor — and there are many — note that he has a long list of assets in a presidential race.

Barbour has been active in his party for so long that every Republican activist seems to know him and like him. He is well-liked by state and local GOP party leaders, and his popularity is unmatched, according to one veteran Republican insider, as a fundraiser, particularly among high-dollar GOP contributors. His current role at the RGA only increases his contacts.

As a debater, Barbour certainly can hold his own against any Republican now mentioned for 2012, and some think his combination of substance and style would allow him to stand out from the rest of the field. Anyone who knows the governor is aware that he seems equally at home talking with folks at the local diner and with corporate CEOs in a boardroom or at a gala.

And of course, Barbour earned good marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, adding to his reputation for competence and his ability to get things done.

Barbour’s fundraising ability, reputation of political savvy, conservative views and national Republican contacts all make him a credible contender for the Republican nomination. But as a nominee, he would begin with some serious liabilities.

Barbour’s lobbying wasn’t a big enough liability in Mississippi to destroy him, and it may actually have helped him, given the state’s need for federal dollars and Barbour’s understanding of which buttons to push on Capitol Hill.

But nationally — and in the current environment — Barbour’s business dealings would be a far, far bigger issue. The governor is often portrayed as a Washington insider and power broker, and unless the public mood changes dramatically over the next two years, that’s not an ideal résumé for a presidential candidate.

Mississippi is home to many fine people, but the state’s rankings in a number of categories paint a less-than-flattering picture for any state politician hoping to jump from Jackson to the White House.

Mississippi ranked 50th in per capita personal income in 2007, 48th in average annual pay (2007), first in infant mortality rate in 2006, first in people below the poverty level (2008), fifth in traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles (2007), fourth in the 2008 unemployment rate, and 48th in people 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree (2008).

If Michael Dukakis’ Massachusetts Miracle turned into a political liability, imagine what Barbour’s critics could do to him given the stereotype of Mississippi and a few figures from the 2010 Statistical Abstract.

Interestingly, few Mississippi insiders I talked with recently in the Delta see Haley in the Oval Office. But they also don’t see him taking his fishing pole and entering a peaceful, largely invisible retirement, either.

Some talk about Barbour running for Senate in 2014, when the current term of 72-year-old Thad Cochran (R), Mississippi’s senior Senator, ends. Barbour ran for the Senate many years ago, in 1982, against veteran Democratic Sen. John Stennis.

But others, noting that the Senate would be less appealing to Barbour after serving as his state’s chief executive, offer a far different scenario. They see him as a sort of super vice president, who could offer counsel to a Republican commander in chief about everything from policy to politics, or as a powerful White House chief of staff.

I’m guessing that Barbour hasn’t made a decision about his future because he doesn’t need to make one yet. As savvy as he is, he’ll look at all the angles before deciding on his next step.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 8, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

We Come to Bury Sodrel, Not to Praise Him

2010-06-03T09:00:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Mike Sodrel has been in my life forever. Or maybe it just seems that way.

Every two years for almost a decade, the Republican businessman has been on the ballot in Indiana’s 9th district, either trying to oust Rep. Baron Hill (D) from Congress or, once, seeking re-election to the House.

But with his bizarre primary defeat earlier this month, Sodrel, a 64-year-old trucking company owner, probably ends a political run that featured more downs than ups.

Sodrel first took on Hill in 2002, four years after the Democrat won an open-seat contest to succeed highly regarded Democrat Lee Hamilton in a Congressional district that includes much of southeastern Indiana.

Hill won that contest narrowly, 51 percent to 46 percent, and Sodrel presumably figured that he’d do better in a rematch. He did, nipping Hill by half a point (49.5 percent to 49 percent) to win the House seat in the presidential year of 2004.

Hill, figuring that he’d do better in a midterm year, came back for a rematch of his own, and he won back his seat, 50 percent to 45 percent.

Sodrel, not content to move on with his life, ran again in 2008. But this time Hill, riding a big Democratic wave, went on to draw 58 percent of the vote and win by about 20 points, a true landslide in a district where Hill previously had won by just a few points.

You might have thought that Sodrel would see the writing on the wall, and for months it seemed as if he had run his last race in the 9th district. But with the Republican field in the district very thin this cycle (attorney Todd Young and real estate investor/outspoken Christian Travis Hankins), Sodrel once again jumped into the race.

He came in for an interview in late March, his eyes focused squarely on Hill and the general election, not on the primary.

He was armed with a Wilson Research Strategies poll of 400 likely general election voters (with an oversample that included 300 likely GOP primary voters), conducted Feb. 28 to March 4.

During the interview, Sodrel and his consultants dismissed his primary opponents, preferring to talk about how and why the former Congressman was going to defeat Hill. In fact, the WRS polling memo included four “Key Observations” — the first three about how well-positioned Sodrel was to defeat Hill.

Only the fourth point — “With the Primary Election in 41 days, it is very unlikely that Young or Hankins can catch-up” — dealt with the primary outlook.

According to the WRS poll, Sodrel’s 46 percent showing in the Republican primary put him far ahead of Hankins’ 19 percent and Young’s 13 percent. Both primary opponents had been running for more than a year, the WRS memo pointed out dismissively, promising that the former Congressman should “sweep” his primary opponents away in the early May contest.

Part of Sodrel’s optimism about the primary is that, as he told us, he is “98 percent known” by the Republican base. Because he said that it takes years to build up name ID in a district that includes multiple media markets, he didn’t plan to spend much money or run paid media during the primary campaign.

Of course, as Sodrel found out, there is a difference between being known and being liked.

Apparently, 9th district Republican voters knew Sodrel but were ready for a change.

Sodrel ended up finishing third, with 30 percent of the primary vote, behind Young (34 percent) and Hankins (32 percent). Hankins had raised a total of $184,000 through April 14, yet he finished ahead of a former Congressman who was allegedly leading the contest handily six weeks earlier.

National Republican strategists weren’t all that upset when Sodrel lost the primary. They figured that voters had already tired of him and that he didn’t have all that appealing a profile given the dynamics of the 2010 cycle.

If Sodrel’s defeat proves anything, it is that candidates can’t take anything for granted and that any candidate who thinks he doesn’t need to win over the voters is a candidate who probably won’t win over the voters. It also raises questions about some early polling.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 1, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

A Primary Loss Does Not Equate a Lost Cause

2010-06-02T11:17:00.002-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrats are reveling in the primary losses of candidates preferred by the National Republican Congressional Committee in the last couple of weeks. But they only have to look back four years within their own caucus to see that upset primary winners can get elected to Congress.

In Idaho’s 1st district, Iraq war veteran Vaughn Ward had reached the top level of the NRCC’s “Young Guns” program and had a significant lead heading into the May 25 primary. But he made a series of serious missteps in the final days and lost to state Rep. Raul Labrador, 48 percent to 39 percent.

Ward’s “loss calls into question the competence of the NRCC’s political skills,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee charged in a press release, which noted other Republican establishment candidates who have lost in primaries this year. But that doesn’t mean Republicans can’t win in the Idaho district or elsewhere.

Back in 2006, there were several instances where House Democrats’ top recruits lost in the primary, yet the party still picked up the seat in that fall’s Democratic wave election.

In California’s 11th district, Navy veteran and former airline pilot Steve Filson was one of 22 initial challengers on the DCCC’s “Red to Blue” program, the Democratic prototype for the GOP’s Young Guns program.

Six weeks after being added to the list in 2006, Filson lost the Democratic primary in a dramatic fashion to wind turbine company executive Jerry McNerney, who took 53 percent to Filson’s 29 percent.

The DCCC went on to spend a meager $217,000 in the general election, but McNerney defeated GOP Rep. Richard Pombo, 53 percent to 47 percent. The challenger had considerable help from the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.

McNerney wasn’t the only Democrat that cycle to defeat the establishment candidate in a primary and win the general election with little or no help from the national party.

In New Hampshire’s 1st district, social worker and community college instructor Carol Shea-Porter trounced state House Democratic leader Jim Craig, the national party’s preferred candidate, by a whopping 20 points in the September primary.

The DCCC didn’t spend a dime on independent expenditures in the general election as Shea-Porter defeated then-Rep. Jeb Bradley (R) 51 percent to 49 percent in November.

In New York’s 19th district, attorney Judy Aydelott was the early frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2006, but she lost the primary, 50 percent to 27 percent, to former 1970s band Orleans frontman John Hall. The DCCC didn’t spend any money in the general election, and Hall defeated Rep. Sue Kelly (R) by 2 points.

These Democratic examples from 2006 do not necessarily mean that Labrador will defeat Rep. Walt Minnick (D) in Idaho or that Keith Rothfus, another upset GOP primary winner, will unseat Rep. Jason Altmire (D) in Pennsylvania’s 4th district. But with the national political climate trending in their favor, it is unwise to dismiss these GOP nominees out of hand, according to one veteran Democratic consultant.

“We are in denial,” according to the Democratic source, who is concerned about a prevailing “arrogance” among party operatives. The political winds working against the party in power can be enough to help flawed nominees win.

In Kentucky’s 3rd district in 2006, newspaper columnist John Yarmuth (D) wasn’t an upset primary winner, but Republicans believed they drew the Democratic candidate with the most baggage.

Iraq war veteran Andrew Horne (D) generated significant attention for being one of many veterans running for Congress that cycle, but Yarmuth won the primary, 54 percent to 32 percent.

“We were concerned with Horne because of his military background and lack of a voting record,” said Terry Carmack, then-Rep. Anne Northup’s (R) chief of staff at the time. “As it turns out, it didn’t matter because the campaign became a referendum on George Bush.”

Yarmuth defeated Northup by 3 points in the general election.

Sometimes strategists at the campaign committees may have picked the wrong horse in the beginning or the establishment candidate simply was not the best general election nominee.

In the case of Ohio’s 18th district, Chillicothe Mayor Joe Sulzer was supposed to be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2006 even though Republicans were eager to run against him because of his personal baggage. Attorney Zack Space ended up winning the nomination with 39 percent, while Sulzer finished third with 24 percent.

Space was the less experienced politician but had a sufficient clean slate compared to embattled then-Rep. Bob Ney (R), his initial opponent, and then-state Sen. Joy Padgett (R) after Ney dropped out and then finally resigned.

Overall, instant, post-primary analysis can be dangerous when looking too far ahead to the general election. There are plenty of examples to show that candidates can win primaries and general elections without the support of the national party, particularly with the wind at their backs.

This story first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 1, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

PA 12 Special: Only One Piece in Bigger Picture

2010-06-01T09:00:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Less than a day after the polls closed in the May 18 Pennsylvania special election, I left the country.

But e-mails followed me everywhere, and I read with some surprise the post-election assessments of the meaning of Democrat Mark Critz’s substantial victory over Republican Tim Burns in the race to succeed the late Rep. John Murtha (D).

I understand that we live in an era when exaggeration is the norm, but characterizing the GOP loss in that special election as evidence that Republicans can’t win the House is about as misguided as the pre-election assessments that the special was a “must win” for Republicans.

Critz’s victory was very welcome news for Democrats and a good reminder that candidates, campaigns and district fundamentals matter. Conservative Democrats, at this point in the cycle, can still win in conservative Democratic districts, even if President Barack Obama isn’t popular.

But while the result certainly ought to be a dose of humility for Republicans who have talked nonsensically about gaining 50, 60 or even 70 seats in November, the result in Pennsylvania wasn’t a game-changer.

From the time Republicans won the House in 1994 to their loss in the 2006 elections, the GOP never held Murtha’s district. Since that district wasn’t a “must win” for them then, it can’t possibly be regarded as one now.

The argument about whether Pennsylvania’s 12th is a swing district or a Democratic district obviously is important. Not surprisingly, the answer is somewhere in between the two alternatives.

Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) carried the district very narrowly in 2008, and state Attorney General Tom Corbett (R) exceeded 50 percent of the vote there in his re-election that same year. Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) only squeezed by George W. Bush in the district in 2004, while then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter carried the district (without winning a majority) in 2004. In other words, Republicans can run very competitively in the district, even winning it.

But at other times, the district’s Democratic heritage shows. Democrat Al Gore defeated Bush in the district in 2000 by a solid 11 points (54 percent to 43 percent), and Bill Clinton carried it comfortably twice.

More recently, 2009 state Supreme Court nominee Joan Orie Melvin (R), a western Pennsylvania native who won her race by an unexpectedly comfortable 8 points statewide and carried Chester, Delaware and Bucks counties in the southeastern corner of the state, drew only 48.5 percent of the vote in the 12th.

This is a picture of a narrowly Democratic district that moves toward the GOP when Republicans can establish a clear ideological contrast. When they can’t — and they didn’t last week — they don’t win.

Of course, the much ballyhooed “mood for change” should have boosted GOP prospects in the special election and given voters an opportunity to send a message of dissatisfaction to the president. They didn’t do that.

Did Critz win because the state’s competitive Senate primary pulled Democratic voters to the polls, or did the Congressional contest drive turnout? Partisans on both sides are certain of the answer, but I’m not. I remain agnostic about the question.

Critz’s victory boosts the prospects of moderate Democrats running in swing districts, whether in Western Pennsylvania, Michigan’s Upper Peninsula or nonurban Ohio.

But it doesn’t necessarily offer equally good news for Democratic Reps. Tom Perriello (Va.), Betsy Markey (Colo.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.) or others who have cast votes that are unpopular back home.

And Critz’s victory doesn’t say anything about Democrats running in Republican-leaning districts or about districts with large numbers of independent voters, who are more likely to vote on mood than anything else.

As regular readers of this column know, election cycles develop over time, not overnight. In both 2006 and 2008, to say nothing of 1994, a number of races broke late, as voters turned their attention to the elections. I expect the same thing to happen this year, and that could change the arithmetic of the midterms.

There are dozens of reasons why the political environment might improve, or deteriorate, for Democrats between now and November — ranging from an improving employment picture or Republican stupidity to growing financial troubles in the European Union, political fallout for the administration from the BP oil disaster or a double-dip economic slowdown.

Some of these developments would help boost Obama’s standing and give Democratic candidates a better chance to localize their contests, while others would undermine the administration’s standing and create an even bigger wave for political change that would overwhelm many Democrats who run strong re-election campaigns.

Much has been made by some of Republican special election victories in Oklahoma and Kentucky prior to the 1994 midterms and of the Democrats’ win in Pennsylvania last week. But, unlike the one in Pennsylvania’s 12th, both of those 1994 specials occurred in districts that George H.W. Bush won comfortably in 1992 and overwhelmingly (by 60 percent) in 1988. The comparisons, in short, don’t hold.

It’s understandable that we all look for deep meaning from a single event. But with Election Day more than five months away, the die for November is not yet cast, no matter the results in Pennsylvania’s 12th district.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 27, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Pennsylvania 15 & Nevada 3

2010-05-28T09:00:00.002-04:00

Subscribers already have the May 25, 2010 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report, but here are excerpts from the introduction to the two stories in this issue:

Pennsylvania 15: Difference of Opinion
By Nathan L. Gonzales

There may not be a race this cycle with such a dramatic difference of opinion between the two parties.

Cong. Charlie Dent is a rare Republican who represents a district that both Barack Obama and John Kerry carried in their presidential races. But even with the wind blowing in their faces this cycle, Democrats believe Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan (D) is the perfect candidate to take over Pennsylvania’s 15th District.

On the other hand, Dent knows he’s a target and will be ready for the race. And even though Republican strategists are taking the race seriously, they don’t believe it will be particularly close in the end.

Subscribers get the full story including the Lay of the Land, candidate bios, their consulting teams and a breakdown of the general election.

Nevada 3: Welcome to Paradise
By Nathan L. Gonzales

If you’re a Democratic incumbent who was elected in a competitive district last cycle with less than 50% of the vote, you’re almost guaranteed to be a target this year. Nevada Cong. Dina Titus (D) fits the bill perfectly.

Subscribers get the full story including the Lay of the Land, candidate bios, their consulting teams and a breakdown of the general election.

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.

WA Senate Moved to Narrow Advantage for Murray

2010-05-27T15:24:00.002-04:00

Former state Sen. Dino Rossi's (R) entry into the race against Sen. Patty Murray (D) brings Washington's Senate seat into play. Murray appears to have a narrow lead in the polls and Rossi brings some high unfavorable ratings to the table after two losses in very competitive gubernatorial races. But this is now a real race. For now, we're rating the race as Narrow Advantage for Murray and the Democrats.

While events between now and November will affect the outlook for November, the GOP seems most likely to net 5-7 Senate seats, with a 8-seat gain certainly possible (but still short of the 10-seat gain the GOP would need for control). That means Democrats are likely to retain control of the Senate, but at a dramatically reduced level.

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 (3 R, 4 D)

KY Open (Bunning, R)
MO Open (Bond, R)
OH Open (Voinovich, R)
IL Open (Burris, D)
IN Open (Bayh, D)
PA Open (Specter, D)
Bennet (D-CO)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 1 D)

Burr (R-NC)
FL Open (LeMieux, R)
NH Open (Gregg, R)
Murray (D-WA) *

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

Vitter (R-LA)
Boxer (D-CA)
CT Open (Dodd, D)

Currently Safe (11 R, 7 D)

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)
UT Open (Bennett, R)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Inouye (D-HI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Idaho 1 moved to Lean Democratic, Hawaii 1 moved to Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic

2010-05-26T14:12:00.002-04:00

In Idaho’s 1st District, Republicans nominated state Rep. Raul Labrador in an upset over Iraq War veteran Vaughn Ward, who was part of the NRCC’s Young Guns program. Freshman Democratic Cong. Walt Minnick (D) was already a difficult target because of his record of voting against every significant piece of legislation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sends to the floor, but this result appears to make the Republican chances of defeating him that much longer.

Minnick shouldn’t be considered Safe because John McCain carried his district with 62% of the vote in 2008, but we are moving the race from Toss-Up/Tilt Republican to Lean Democratic.

In Hawaii’s 1st District, Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou (R) won the special election after two Democratic candidates divided up the Democratic vote, allowing him to win the seat without a majority. There is still plenty of uncertainty on the Democratic side. Democratic strategists believe that former Cong. Ed Case (D), who finished third in the winner-take-all special election, has the most general election appeal. But Colleen Hanabusa (D), who finished second in the special, is probably the frontrunner in the September 18 Democratic primary.

Democrats clearly have some issues to work out before this fall, but Djou was elected with only 40% of the vote in his victory, so our initial rating for the general election is Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic.

Our bottom line in the House remains the same. Substantial Republican gains are inevitable, with net Democratic losses now looking to be at least two dozen. At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible.

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

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 12 D)

AR 1 (Open; Berry, D)
FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
IL 14 (Foster, D)
MI 1 (Open; Stupak, D)
MI 7 (Schauer, D)
NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
NV 3 (Titus, D)
PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 8 D)

AL 2 (Bright, D)
AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D)
FL 8 (Grayson, D)
IN 8 (Open; Ellsworth, D)
KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
MS 1 (Childers, D)
VA 2 (Nye, D)
VA 5 (Perriello, D)

Lean Republican (3 R, 9 D)

CA 3 (Lungren, R)
CO 4 (Markey, D)
FL 25 (Open; M. Diaz-Balart, R)
LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
NM 2 (Teague, D)
NY 29 (Open; Massa, D)
OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
WA 8 (Reichert, R)

Republican Favored (5 R, 1 D)

CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
NE 2 (Terry, R)
OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
PA 15 (Dent, R)
TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (1 R, 3 D)

HI 1 (Djou, R) #
ND A-L (Pomeroy, D)
SC 5 (Spratt, D)
WV 1 (Mollohan, D)

Lean Democratic (1 R, 18 D)

AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
DE -AL (Open; Castle, R)
ID 1 (Minnick, D)#
IN 9 (Hill, D)
IA 3 (Boswell, D)
MA 10 (Open; Delahunt, D)
MO 4 (Skelton, D)
NJ 3 (Adler, D)
NM 1 (Heinrich, D)
NY 1 (Bishop, D)
NY 19 (Hall, D)
OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
OH 18 (Space, D)
PA 4 (Altmire, D)
PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
PA 12 (Critz, D)
VA 9 (Boucher, D)
WI 7 (Open; Obey, D)

Democrat Favored (1 R, 18 D)

CA 11 (McNerney, D)
CO 3 (Salazar, D)
CT 5 (Murphy, D)
FL 22 (Klein, D)
IL 11 (Halvorson, D)
IN 2 (Donnelly, D)
LA 2 (Cao, R)
NY 13 (McMahon, D)
NY 20 (Murphy, D)
NY 23 (Owens, D)
NC 8 (Kissell, D)
OH 13 (Sutton, D)
PA 3 (Dahlkemper, D)
PA 8 (Murphy, D)
PA 10 (Carney, D)
PA 17 (Holden, D)
SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
TX 17 (Edwards, D)
WI 8 (Kagen, D)

Total seats in play: 79
Republican seats: 11
Democratic seats: 68

Sean Duffy, Welcome to Your New Real World

2010-05-26T12:33:00.003-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Wisconsin Republican Congressional hopeful Sean Duffy probably now feels like he’s a victim of a classic bait-and-switch. But in this case, it’s Duffy who is a victim of his own success as a candidate.

After running for months against veteran Democratic Rep. David Obey in Wisconsin’s sprawling 7th district, which includes much of the northwestern quarter of the state, Duffy now finds himself running in November against Julie Lassa, a 39-year-old Democratic state Senator who will force Duffy to alter his message.

I interviewed Duffy at length in mid-March, and I was more impressed with him than I expected to be. Like everyone else, I had heard about his time as a cast member on MTV’s “Real World” in 1997 and his subsequent appearance on the network’s “Road Rules,” and that certainly lowered my expectations.

But instead of finding merely a self-promoting pseudo-celebrity looking for the latest way to get media exposure, I found an outgoing, energetic and engaging county district attorney who had won five elections and was incredibly focused on ousting longtime incumbent Obey in November.

The Republican already had about $300,000 on hand in the middle of March, and he was confident that he could raise $1.2 million for the race. (His March 31 numbers were $506,000 raised and $340,000 on hand.)

Duffy, 38, seemed like the perfect Republican to challenge Obey, 71, this year, with voters angry at the political establishment and Democrats almost certain to face the public’s wrath about unemployment and deficit spending.

Obey, the House Appropriations chairman, could easily be painted as responsible for the nation’s spending spree, its deficit and its debt.

And since he was first elected to the House in an April 1969 special election (or as Duffy has been noting, before the United States put a man on the moon), Obey served for more than 40 years by the time his 2010 re-election rolled around. That remarkable achievement might not look so positive given the public’s dissatisfaction with Congress and desire for change.

During my meeting with him, Duffy presented 2010 as a perfect storm for Obey: an angry electorate, Obey’s role in the stimulus and the deficit, and Duffy as the GOP’s strongest challenger in years.

After my meeting with Duffy, I added the district to my list of competitive races, since I thought the challenger’s energy and enthusiasm, combined with the vulnerability of some senior Democrats, gave Duffy a real shot at upsetting Obey. Duffy still had an uphill trek, but his scenario was entirely reasonable.

Obey’s decision not to seek re-election changes the Congressional race dramatically and forces Duffy to toss almost all of his strategy into the nearest trash can.

Instead of running against an older man, Duffy faces a woman his own age. Instead of facing someone who has been in Washington for decades, he’s paired against a state legislator. And instead of facing the sometimes crotchety Obey, he faces a woman whose “soft-spoken demeanor is the polar opposite of the blunt, abrasive tone that marked Dave Obey’s political career,” according to a Wisconsin Public Radio report shortly after Lassa became a candidate for the open seat.

Lassa was elected to the state Assembly in 1998 and re-elected in 2000 and 2002. In 2003, she won a special election for an open state Senate district. She was re-elected twice to the district, in 2004 and 2008, and she isn’t up again until 2012.

While Duffy lives in a county in the lightly populated extreme northern end of the district, Lassa comes from the more populous southern end of the district. That could give Lassa a considerable edge.

As a whole, the district tilts Democratic. Barack Obama won it by a solid 13 points over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008, but Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Al Gore each carried the district by only a single point, in 2004 and 2000. Bill Clinton carried the district, which was shaped only slightly differently, in 1992 and 1996.

I haven’t met Lassa yet, so I can’t vouch for her appeal. And I don’t know what kind of campaign she will put together.

Republicans note, quite correctly, that whatever his vulnerabilities, Dave Obey had plenty of support in the district, had $1.4 million in the bank when he exited the race and had earned a reputation as a feisty, tough opponent. His retirement creates an open seat, which can’t be good for Democrats in the kind of midterm that is developing.

But in some ways, Lassa might end up being a more difficult foe for Duffy than Obey would have been. In any case, Sean Duffy will now have to run a very different kind of campaign than he planned less than two months ago.

Welcome to the real world of American politics, Mr. Duffy.

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

DGA-Led Group Targets Kasich with New TV Ad

2010-05-24T21:24:00.008-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

There’s still five months to go before Election Day but you wouldn’t know it by the air war taking place in Ohio’s race for governor.

Building a Stronger Ohio, an outside Democratic group led by the Democratic Governors Association, is set to air a television ad this week attacking former Cong. John Kasich, the Republican challenging incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D).

The DGA contributed $1.5 million to Building a Stronger Ohio while the American Federation of Teachers added another $200,000, according to reports on the Ohio secretary of state’s website. The initial buy was for $300,000, but that is likely to be only the beginning of a larger effort.

The ad has not been released yet but it is likely to trumpet similar themes to Gov. Strickland’s ad that began airing earlier this month. [Update- You can view the new ad here.]

Strickland’s ad, “Good Work,” attacked Kasich for supporting NAFTA and then working for Lehman Brothers after he left Congress. “Does Ohio really need a congressman from Wall Street for governor?” according to the tagline of the ad.

The Republican Governors Association responded with a television ad, “Worried,” that tries to paint the governor’s ads as desperate while faulting him for job losses in the state during his first term. “Strickland had to attack because he sure didn’t get the jobs done,” according to the ad.

Tuesday Showed It’s Wise to Expect Unexpected

2010-05-21T11:33:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

What a really weird week.

Rep. Mark Souder, a socially conservative Republican from Indiana, admits he had an affair with a staffer and steps down from his seat. Squeaky-clean Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) admits he “misspoke” about his military record but says he won’t allow anyone to “impugn my record of service to our country.” And primary voters in Pennsylvania and Kentucky appear to prefer the more ideological candidates in primaries.

Souder’s resignation means local Republican leaders will pick a new nominee — something that didn’t work well twice in New York special elections last year. It’s a recipe for hurt feelings and attacks against the party’s “handpicked” candidate at a time when party insiders aren’t at their most popular.

This doesn’t mean that Democrats have a strong chance of winning the open seat, given the district’s bent and the tendency of special elections to help the party not holding the White House when the president is unpopular. But it does mean that the Republican nominee ought not take a victory for granted.

In the Nutmeg State, Blumenthal’s out-of-the-blue scandal is unwelcome news for national and state Democrats.

Blumenthal’s past statements will now be dissected by state reporters looking for other examples of embellishment and exaggeration, and if they find more examples, it will raise questions about his record, in addition to his character.

Does this mean that Connecticut is a tossup? Has the race changed so dramatically that neither party has an advantage?

When in the middle of a storm — meteorological or political — the best advice usually is to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass until it is safe to assess the damage. We don’t know how the Blumenthal controversy will develop, so I’m inclined to see what the voters think about the controversy before changing a rating.

Obviously, the dust-up over the state attorney general’s misstatements creates an opening for Republicans, raising new doubts about Blumenthal’s appeal. Still, this is Connecticut, and the eventual GOP nominee will have to overcome plenty of hurdles of his or her own.

Rand Paul’s thumping of Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson for the GOP Senate nomination in the Bluegrass State can’t be ignored.

Grayson raised some eyebrows by closing with two TV spots that emphasized his endorsements by high-profile state and national Republican leaders. Observers thought the decision odd given the electorate’s mood.

But Grayson’s media consultant Larry McCarthy, whom I have praised over the years and still believe is a master ad-maker, told me that the final ads weren’t picked out of the air.

“We tested negatives, the value of the [Sen. Mitch] McConnell and [Rep. Hal] Rogers endorsements and other things, and it wasn’t a close call. The data suggested strongly that [what we chose] was the right message to do,” McCarthy told me.

Paul’s early money made him a credible alternative to Grayson, who was preferred by national GOP strategists and most big-name Kentucky Republicans but was widely regarded as less than a compelling personality.

Can Paul win in the fall? Republicans who were initially skeptical about his electability now think that he could win. But they remain extremely worried about his prospects.

Veteran Republican campaign operatives fear that Democrats will successfully highlight some of his controversial past statements, and they worry that he has an additional six months to make a major mistake or two that could cost him the race. They also note that he has run a strong race so far.

Kentucky Democratic nominee Jack Conway’s narrow primary win also means problems for Democrats, because they too will have to find a way to unite after a bitter primary. Supporters of Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo (D), more rural and culturally conservative, won’t necessarily gravitate to Conway in the general election.

The instant analysis of “outsider” victories Tuesday isn’t wrong — it just presents only part of the picture.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D) lost in Pennsylvania not because he was an insider as much as because he was a party switcher without a pre-existing base in his new party — and an opportunist at that. But Paul certainly qualifies as an “outsider,” and some “establishment-backed” candidates for Congress (for example, Republican Mary Beth Buchanan in Pennsylvania’s 4th district and incumbent Democratic Rep. Tim Holden in Pennsylvania’s 17th district) performed much worse than expected.

On the other hand, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) turned back a primary challenge, and former U.S. Attorney Tom Marino (R) won his primary in Pennsylvania’s 10th district. Kentucky’s Conway was also backed by his state party’s establishment, and not a single House incumbent on Tuesday seeking renomination was defeated. So far this cycle, 98 percent of all incumbents seeking re-election have been renominated.

The defeat of Republican Tim Burns in the Pennsylvania 12th district special election obviously is the biggest blow to the GOP, which hoped to show the existence of an early wave building against Democrats and President Barack Obama. That didn’t happen, in part because of strong Democratic turnout in the race and statewide.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 20, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Is It Time for Democrats to Shove Giannoulias Out?

2010-05-20T09:00:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

The clock is starting to run out on Democrats who would like Illinois state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias out of his state’s Senate race in favor of a more electable candidate.

Given the sensitivity of such a scenario, it’s no wonder that Democrats don’t want to be anywhere near a discussion of a switch.

But these kinds of pragmatic and heavily orchestrated decisions aren’t unknown — just think back to Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli’s very late exit from the 2002 New Jersey Senate race, and the subsequent nomination and election of his archrival, Democrat Frank Lautenberg.

Indeed, Illinois Democrats succeeded earlier this year in forcing the party’s nominee for lieutenant governor, pawnbroker Scott Lee Cohen, off the ballot. (He is now back on the ballot, running for governor as an Independent.)

Of course, last-minute exits to avoid defeat are still the exception. Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and John Sununu (R-N.H.) fought hard down to the wire even though they looked to be in sad shape for many months, and however weak Sens. Harry Reid (Nev.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) are, it isn’t clear that other Democrats in their states would have an easier time hanging on to their seats in November.

While Giannoulias still runs competitively against Republican Rep. Mark Kirk in hypothetical general election ballot tests — he’s even in his own recent poll but trailing by 3 to 8 points in other polls conducted over the past six weeks — the Democrat’s personal ratings are terrible, and even Democrats will acknowledge privately that their nominee carries enough baggage to sink a battleship.

A May 3-5 survey of likely voters by Research 2000 for the liberal website Daily Kos found the treasurer’s name ID at 38 percent favorable/45 percent unfavorable, while Rasmussen Reports showed his ID at 42 percent favorable/48 percent unfavorable.

The recent coverage of the collapse of the Giannoulias family’s Broadway Bank earned the Senate hopeful a rash of negative publicity, and he can count on the bank’s practices (including loans to a number of people you wouldn’t want to associate with) being raised daily by his opponent or the media until November.

The 34-year-old state treasurer has an explanation for everything, of course, but even Democrats complain about the stink emanating from the bank.

Democrats who worry about Giannoulias’ viability in the fall have a problem, though. Since the nominee isn’t running far behind Kirk in trial heats, it won’t be easy to persuade him to leave quietly. And if there is something Democratic insiders don’t need, it’s a messy food fight with a nominee they are trying to dump (especially after Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania went public that White House insiders had offered him a job to get him to pass up a primary challenge to party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter).

Political observers note that the White House didn’t get heavily involved in the primary even though Giannoulias was known to be burdened with plenty of political baggage, so there certainly is some reason to wonder whether the Illinois-heavy White House will continue to keep its distance from the general election, even if Giannoulias’ defeat starts to look inevitable.

Still, with the White House crawling with Illinois political folks, it’s hard to believe that party leaders and strategists at the highest level are going to sit back quietly and allow the president’s former Senate seat to fall in Kirk’s lap.

For years, political operatives at the National Republican Congressional Committee used to say that then-Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) “handled” all New York races, just as folks at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last cycle joked that Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were in charge of Maryland races.

By that logic, Illinois is very much in the White House’s lap, though Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also has some responsibility.

Unlike some states, the Democratic bench in Illinois is so deep that it shouldn’t be hard to find a more formidable replacement for Giannoulias. Senate primary runner-up David Hoffman, a former prosecutor and Chicago inspector general, would be an obvious choice, but other Illinois famous names come to mind as well.

Politically astute Democrats now think that the chances that Giannoulias will “step aside” have increased with the federal takeover of Broadway Bank. And if Democratic control of the Senate starts to look at all at risk, behind-the-scenes efforts to come up with a stronger Senate nominee in Illinois might increase.

Even in a bad year for Democrats nationally, it seems odd that Republican prospects in the Illinois Senate race look so good.

Yes, the GOP got the candidate it wanted in Kirk, and the president’s numbers in the state have slipped from where they were. But Democrats would be in better shape if they didn’t have a nominee who was such damaged goods.

Illinois folks in and around the White House surely know that, and that’s why pressure is building for them to do something soon. If they don’t and Democrats lose the seat, it will be hard not to place a chunk of the blame at the front door of the White House.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 18, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.