A Primary Loss Does Not Equate a Lost Cause

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.

Ohio River Valley Lacks Competition

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Three years ago, the Ohio River Valley was the epicenter of the battle for control of Congress. But in just two election cycles, the long swath of Republican territory has moved from red to blue to virtually uncompetitive on the Congressional level.

Inspired by a spring 2006 column by Roll Call contributing writer Stuart Rothenberg, Roll Call alumni Chris Cillizza and Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post embarked on the “Ohio River Ramble” that fall, posting dispatches from nine contiguous and competitive districts that run from Evansville, Ind., to Wheeling, W.Va.

At the time, Republicans held seven of the nine districts, and George W. Bush carried all but one (Kentucky’s 3rd) in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. But the competitive nature of the races and the fact that the GOP was playing defense foreshadowed the Democratic tidal wave that was about to hit.

Now, Republicans control only two of the nine seats. And with few recruits and more limited resources, only one of the districts even looks competitive in 2010 at this point.

There has been plenty of attention paid to the extinction of House Republicans in the Northeast. But if the GOP is going to win back the majority anytime soon — as House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was the latest to predict — it’s difficult to see the party gaining 41 seats without making significant inroads in Middle America territory such as the Ohio River Valley.

Republicans are actively recruiting in Ohio’s 18th district, but the party has struggled to find a top-notch candidate ever since then-Rep. Bob Ney (R) pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and left Congress under a cloud of scandal in November 2006. Rep. Zack Space (D), won the open-seat race to succeed Ney and then easily disposed of his little-known GOP opponent in 2008.

“Republicans aren’t going to take back the majority without this district,” one GOP operative said about Ohio’s 18th. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won there with 52 percent in 2008, and Bush won 57 percent in 2004 and 55 percent in 2000.

The Ohio River territory demonstrates that developing a list of targets is much more sophisticated than matching a district’s presidential preference against the current Member’s party identification. If it were that simple, Republicans would clearly have more opportunities to go on offense in the region, since McCain carried all but two of the nine districts — Ohio’s 1st and Kentucky’s 3rd.

Whether it’s the current political environment, the strength of the incumbent or the threat of losing the seat in two years because of reapportionment and redistricting, Republicans have simply come up empty in terms of recruiting in many of these districts. Currently, GOP strategists are most excited about the opportunity to reclaim Ohio’s 1st district, where President Barack Obama won by 11 points but former Rep. Steve Chabot (R) is running to reclaim the seat that he lost in 2008.

Chabot was one of the Republicans’ few success stories in the area in 2006, as he narrowly held on to win re-election.

In 2006, Democrats won four of the seven GOP-held seats in the region as part of their 30-seat pickup nationwide.

Meanwhile, Republicans were unable to capitalize on the flurry of ethical questions surrounding Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) at the time, and the veteran lawmaker won re-election.

The GOP also missed an opportunity when then-state Sen. Charlie Wilson (D) failed to gather 50 valid signatures to qualify for the primary ballot in Ohio's 6th district open-seat race. But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee stepped in to help Wilson win the primary as a write-in candidate and then win the general, and he was re-elected with 62 percent.

Republican Mike Sodrel and Democrat Baron Hill faced off four consecutive times in Indiana’s 9th district. But after Hill defeated Sodrel by 5 points in 2006 and 20 points in 2008, Democrats are optimistic that he will have an easier road to re-election in 2010. And in the neighboring 8th district, now-Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) demolished then-Rep. John Hostettler (R) by 22 points in 2006 and then cruised to a 30-point win in 2008.

All four districts went for Bush twice and then McCain, yet now there is only a faint pulse of competitiveness.

“John McCain carried 49 districts that are currently represented by a Democrat,” National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Ken Spain said. “Our goal is to put a number of those seats in play and create new opportunities in places where we feel we have strong candidates looking at running.”

But a big part of the Republicans’ problem is the strength of the Democratic incumbents.

“The No. 1 factor is candidate quality,” said Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group. “And we have really good Democratic candidates in those districts.” Yang works for Ellsworth and Hill, and also worked on state Sen. David Boswell’s (D) unsuccessful run in Kentucky’s 2nd district last year.

Republican recruitment prospects against Wilson, Ellsworth, Hill and Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) are dim, if not dormant. Republicans may find a candidate to run against Mollohan, who was unopposed in 2008.

“We may have a better opportunity in a more marginal district where the incumbent is soft,” admitted one GOP strategist, who also explained that the longer these incumbents go without serious challenges, the more difficult they will be to defeat in the future.

With multiple, inefficient media markets, advertising in the Ohio River Valley districts can be an expensive affair for the DCCC and the NRCC.

In 2006, the two campaign committees combined to spend more than $25 million in independent expenditures in the nine races. Two years later, the two parties spent less than $6 million in the same nine districts, as Republicans had less money and the races became less competitive. Even less money is likely to be spent in the region in 2010.

As the pendulum decidedly swung toward Democrats in the past two cycles, there have been a couple of bright spots for Republicans. Democrats have targeted Kentucky’s 2nd district twice, but then-Rep. Ron Lewis (R) turned back state Rep. Mike Weaver (D) in 2006, and now-Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) held the seat when Lewis retired in 2008.

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) has solidified his position over the last three years in the 4th district. After losing his initial race to then-Rep. Ken Lucas (D) in 2002, Davis won the open-seat race two years later when Lucas retired. In 2006, Davis faced off against Lucas, but the Republican prevailed easily. Last cycle, Davis won with more than 60 percent of the vote, and he’s not at risk in 2010.

Republicans have also held Ohio’s 2nd district and West Virginia’s 2nd district despite Democratic attempts to target GOP Reps. Jean Schmidt and Shelley Moore Capito, respectively.

House Republicans have not made any one region their top priority in 2010, instead focusing on fielding a diverse crop of challengers and trying to regain strength across the country. It’s psychologically necessary for the morale of the party, according to one House GOP operative.

Still, many Republicans acknowledge they face a significant challenge overall.

“We have a problem everywhere,” one GOP strategist said.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on June 18, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

Polling in Perilous Territory

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Are Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) or Richard Burr (R-N.C.) this cycle’s Rick Santorum?

The former Pennsylvania Senator began his 2006 re-election race down in the polls and never recovered. And while Bunning, Dodd and Burr have something in common with Santorum’s early standing, each hopes for a different outcome.

Whether it’s trailing in polls from the get-go, as was the case for Santorum and then-Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) in 2008, or leading but at the mid-40 percent mark in ballot tests like then-Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), all three recent cases demonstrated the difficulty for vulnerable Senators to significantly improve their standing over the course of a campaign.

Santorum trailed now-Sen. Bob Casey (D) 44 percent to 43 percent in a March 2005 Keystone poll and by a wider 49 percent to 35 percent margin in an April 2005 Quinnipiac University survey. Overall,

Santorum never led over the course of two years and lost on Election Day, 59 percent to 41 percent.

In New Hampshire last cycle, Sununu trailed former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) 44 percent to 34 percent in a March 2007 American Research Group survey and trailed in all but one of 35 public polls over the course of the campaign, never topping 45 percent. He lost 52 percent to 45 percent on Election Day.

Of course, each Senate race has some unique characteristics, but Bunning, Dodd and Burr start their re-elections from a position of fundamental weakness.

Bunning’s vulnerability has been known since his narrow victory in 2004. An early Research 2000 survey in February 2009 for the liberal Daily Kos Web site showed Bunning defeating four potential Democratic opponents but still in the mid-40s on the ballot tests. Two months later, the former Hall of Fame pitcher trailed all four opponents and polled in the low to mid-30s, according to a survey by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

Dodd’s vulnerability started with headlines and then was realized when a Quinnipiac poll in February showed that 51 percent of Connecticut voters would probably not or definitely not vote to re-elect the Democrat and that more people disapproved (48 percent) than approved (41 percent) of the job that he is doing.

A month later, Quinnipiac showed Dodd in a dead heat with former Rep. Rob Simmons (R), 43 percent to 42 percent. Later in March, a Research 2000 poll had slightly better news, with Dodd besting Simmons 45 percent to 40 percent.

“Their numbers are so bad that it goes well beyond the environment,” said one GOP strategist speaking on the condition of anonymity so that he could speak freely about Dodd and Bunning.

“It doesn’t matter if Obama finds a cure for cancer, Dodd is not coming back to the U.S. Senate,” he added, while predicting that Bunning would lose, too.

In North Carolina, Burr has consistently polled between 37 percent and 46 percent in ballot tests conducted this year by the PPP, which is based in the state. The Republican has led some potential Democratic opponents and trailed state Attorney General Roy Cooper, the party’s top prospect who has yet to announce his intentions. But Burr’s standing is more important than the margin.

Last cycle, Democrats hypothesized that Smith had an electoral ceiling in the mid-40s, and that’s why they weren’t discouraged even when their February 2007 survey showed him ahead of Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) 42 percent to 38 percent. Smith consistently polled in the low 40s throughout the race and received 46 percent on Election Day.

Supporters of Dodd and Burr maintain that the incumbents’ initial numbers are soft because they are still undefined in the voters’ minds.

Considering the significant recent population growth of North Carolina, it’s an easier argument for Burr to make after one term in office. But that doesn’t make him any less vulnerable. He had an extremely low 37 percent favorable/13 percent unfavorable rating in a mid-March poll for the Civitas Institute (R). Plus, he’s running in a tossup state that President Barack Obama carried very narrowly.

For Dodd, it’s much tougher to redefine himself after representing the state for almost three decades. He had 91 percent name identification in Quinnipiac’s March poll (46 percent favorable/45 percent unfavorable) and 87 percent name identification in the March survey by Research 2000 (47 percent favorable/40 percent unfavorable).

In the spring of the year before their losses, Santorum’s name identification was 60 percent while Sununu was closer to 70 percent.

Vulnerable incumbents tend to overestimate their ability to define their race as a choice between two candidates. This cycle, Democrats will attempt to tie Simmons to former President George W. Bush, former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, while Republicans will try to use Cooper’s record against him and declare whomever winds up the Democratic nominee in Kentucky too liberal for the state.

But it doesn’t always work. In the previous cycle, Sununu was confident that the race would shift once he refocused voters on Shaheen’s record as governor — the message that helped him defeat her six years earlier. Santorum, Sununu and Smith spent a combined $45 million trying to reframe their races to no avail.

Bunning and Dodd will likely watch the other party compete in a competitive primary, when Santorum and Sununu’s challengers had clear paths to the nomination. But that doesn’t guarantee success either, since the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee helped drag now-Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) through the primary last cycle before he knocked off Smith.

But while Santorum, Sununu and Smith ran in states trending against them, Bunning and Dodd are running for re-election in more favorable territory. Obama carried Connecticut with 61 percent and Oregon with 57 percent, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried Kentucky with 58 percent.

Democrats believe this is most significant for Dodd, who simply needs to remind Democratic voters about the good things that the Senator has done for them. “I would much rather have to win back Democrats than have to win over Republicans,” Dodd campaign manager Jay Howser said.

And while Santorum and Sununu ran into a political headwind, next year’s political environment is uncertain. “Political die is not cast yet on next year’s election,” said one GOP strategist familiar with Burr’s race.

Still, using recent history as a guide, the longer an incumbent is mired at less than 50 percent, the more difficult it becomes to break out on Election Day.

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

Have House GOP Retirement Woes Run Their Course?

By Stuart Rothenberg

House retirements are running a bit ahead of schedule this cycle, at least compared with where they stood in 2005 and 2007. And if they even approach the same numbers as in the past two election cycles, retirements could play a significant part in the eventual 2010 House battleground.

Roll Call’s Casualty List now shows a dozen House Members leaving their House seats to run for another office next year. In June 2007, the Casualty List identified four House Members who were not seeking re-election — one of whom, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), eventually changed his mind and ran for re-election. Two years earlier, in April 2005, Roll Call’s list stood at only six House Members not running again.

House Democrats have benefited greatly from retirements of late. In each of the past five cycles, more Republican incumbents than Democratic incumbents have decided against running for re-election.

There were 26 GOP retirements in 2008 compared with only six Democratic ones. Two years earlier, 10 Democrats and 18 Republicans opted not to seek re-election to their House seats, and in 2004, 12 Democrats and 17 Republicans called it quits, either retiring or running for a different office.

Republican retirements in the House numbered 22 in 2002 and 23 in 2000, while only 13 Democrats retired in 2002 and a mere eight Democrats walked away from their seats in 2000.

The last time more Democrats than Republicans retired was in 1998, when 17 Democrats and 16 Republicans did not seek re-election.

None of these calculations includes Members who were defeated in the primary, who resigned their seats in midterm or who died while in office. And retirements certainly are not synonymous with open seats, some of which were created by reapportionment and redistricting after the 2000 Census.

Still, the retirement numbers make it clear that Republicans have lost far more veteran officeholders during the past decade and have had to defend those open seats. Over the past five elections, 106 Republican House Members have not sought re- election, while only 49 Democrats have walked away from their seats — a significant difference.

Sometimes, of course, it’s easier for a party to defend an open seat than to have a damaged incumbent in the race. Not all retirements are unwelcome by the incumbent’s party. And yet, retirements generally create problems for the incumbent party, often leading to expensive and potentially divisive primaries or exposing a district that has changed its partisan bent but continued to reelect its incumbent.

Given the past three cycles’ totals — 61 GOP retirements compared with only 28 Democratic retirements — it would be extraordinary if Democrats were to have another huge advantage in open seats next year. But the appeal of nonfederal statewide races this cycle, combined with the ambitiousness of the Obama agenda and the inability of the House GOP to do anything to stop it, could lead still more Republicans to run for the exits, giving Democrats more interesting open-seat opportunities.

Obviously, open seats both reflect the nature of the political environment and contribute to that environment.

Republican incumbents saw the writing on the wall last cycle, and many of them preferred to call it quits rather than struggle to hold their seats, knowing that the party would remain in the minority, which, in the House, often means irrelevancy.

The retirements added to the sense of gloom and doom on the Republican side, which, in turn, encouraged others to retire. The large number of GOP open seats then gave Democrats plenty of good opportunities for takeovers, and take over they did.

Indeed, Democratic insiders aren’t shy in acknowledging that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a “retirement strategy” last cycle, and one that the party is certain to follow again this cycle.

The strategy was and remains simple: Target Republican incumbents whom the DCCC wants to retire and “encourage” them to retire. That means firing a shot across the bow. We try to tell them, “If you run again, it’s going to be a tough race,” is the way one Democratic operative put it.

Democrats argue that at least two veteran GOP Congressmen who called it quits last time, Reps. Jim Saxton (N.J.) and Ralph Regula (Ohio), got the message.

This cycle, Democratic operatives are hoping that the same tactics will work on Republican veterans such as Reps. Mike Castle (Del.), 69, Bill Young (Fla.), 78, Henry Brown (S.C.), 73, Don Manzullo (Ill.), 65, and Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), 82.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Democrats have talked about Castle and Young retiring, and since Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried Bartlett’s district by 18 points, a Democrat wouldn’t be likely to win the seat even if it becomes open.

So far, only one young House Republican has announced that he is giving up his seat to seek other office, 34-year-old Rep. Adam Putnam (Fla.). But a number of Republicans in their 40s and 50s, who might have stayed in the House if the GOP were still in control — including Reps. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), 48, Zach Wamp (Tenn.), 51, Jim Gerlach (Pa.), 54, and Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), 55 — have either announced for statewide office or opened an exploratory committee.

Democratic insiders insist that Putnam’s district, which went very narrowly for McCain in the presidential contest, could be in play.

“The district has better Democratic performance than people assume. The right candidate could make the race very competitive,” one Democratic strategist argued.

Democratic strategists will be eyeing a handful of other GOP Members to see whether their seats will open up. The list includes Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Judy Biggert (Ill.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), John Shadegg (Ariz.) and Elton Gallegly (Calif.).

“Democrats have been very clear about their intentions to try to force incumbent Republicans into retirement. In some cases they have been successful, but now we are looking to replicate that success,” one Republican operative told me recently.

Three Democrats have already taken steps to run for higher office — Reps. Paul Hodes (N.H.), Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii) and Tim Ryan (Ohio) — and others are mentioned as possibly interested.

Republicans are keeping their eyes on Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Charlie Melancon (La.) and a handful of Democratic Representatives from the Philadelphia suburbs, who might look at the Senate race with renewed interest now that Sen. Arlen Specter (R) has drawn a serious primary challenger.

Republican operatives are making every effort to recruit strong challengers to these Democratic incumbents, hoping to push some of them toward other contests.

GOP insiders cite their efforts to encourage California Assemblyman Van Tran to challenge Sanchez and Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken into a race against DeFazio as evidence that they are trying to broaden the playing field and that they have adopted a new strategy. Both Republicans are still considering their options.

National GOP strategists are also pleased that Honolulu City Councilmember Charles Djou has jumped into the Hawaii race to succeed Abercrombie, who holds a seat they haven’t seriously contested since 1996.

“Last cycle, many Republicans thought that we could simply conquer old territory to win back the majority. Now, most people realize that we need to create new opportunities,” said one Republican observer, echoing what Democratic strategists said in 2006 and 2008.

Both parties will make every effort to get their incumbents to run again, thereby minimizing the number of open seats each must defend. But given recent trends, with retirements averaging in the low 30s over the past six cycles, another 20 retirements wouldn’t be unusual.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 13, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

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

By Nathan L. Gonzales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summer Polling Often a Poor Predictor

By Nathan L. Gonzales

House candidates and campaign committees are ramping up efforts to collect polling data from districts across the country, as they look to develop messages and lock in targets for the November elections. But using last cycle as a guide, what looks and smells like a vulnerable incumbent in summer polling leads to mixed results on Election Day.

This cycle, Democratic polls have shown Rep. Jon Porter (R) ahead by 4 points, but well under 50 percent in Nevada’s 3rd district, Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) behind his Democratic opponent (41 percent to 40 percent), and Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) unable to put the race away at 47 percent to 38 percent.

But how will they fare in November?

Two years ago at this time, Indiana Rep. Chris Chocola (R) was well on his way to losing re-election. He trailed 48 percent to 38 percent in a mid-July Cooper & Secrest Associates survey done for Democrats and lost by 8 points in the general election.

Fellow Indiana Reps. John Hostettler (R) and Mike Sodrel (R) trailed by 4 and 6 points, respectively, in nonpartisan polling taken in early September. Two months later, Hostettler lost by 22 points and Sodrel by 5.

In 2006, some incumbents in tight races in the summer went on to win narrowly.

At the end of August in Pennsylvania’s 6th district, a Benenson Strategy Group Democratic poll had Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) trailing Democrat Lois Murphy 44 percent to 42 percent. Gerlach won 51 percent to 49 percent. Embattled Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) led narrowly 41 percent to 39 percent, also in a late August Benenson survey, but he went on to win 49 percent to 46 percent. And Rep. Heather Wilson (R) led 45 percent to 42 percent at the end of August, according to nonpartisan polling, in New Mexico’s 1st district and won re-election with 50 percent.

Other incumbents such as Rep. Rob Simmons were in tight races through the summer and lost. The Connecticut Republican trailed 41 percent to 40 percent in a late August survey for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and he lost narrowly in November.

Florida Rep. Clay Shaw (R) had a narrow lead, 42 percent to 38 percent, in late August DCCC polling but went on to lose Florida’s 22nd by 4 points. And in New Hampshire, Rep. Charlie Bass (R) led 43 percent to 42 percent in mid-August, according to Democratic polling, and lost by 7 points in November.

Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) led 49 percent 44 percent in a mid-August Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Democratic poll, but was trounced in November by 10 points.

While not an incumbent, former Rep. Ken Lucas (D) led Rep. Geoff Davis (R) 50 percent to 36 percent, at the end of July in a Cooper & Secrest survey, in Lucas’ former Kentucky district. Davis went on to win the general election handily by 9 points.

Some incumbents had huge summer leads and squeaked by in November. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) led by 26 points in an early July DCCC survey (and even by 14 points in a mid-October poll) and won 51 percent to 49 percent.

In Washington’s 8th district, Rep. Dave Reichert (R) led Democrat Darcy Burner 54 percent to 41 percent in a SurveyUSA poll at the end of August and only won with 51 percent on Election Day.

And finally, much is made over incumbents and the 50-percent threshold. Despite the fact that with the margin of error of most polls, 49 percent could really be 54 percent, or 44 percent for that matter, the threshold isn’t necessarily predictive.

A mid-June 2006 Public Opinion Strategies GOP poll showed Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) ahead 49 percent to 34 percent, and he lost re-election 50 percent to 46 percent.

But a poll done at the end of July 2006 for Democrat Tom Hayhurst in Indiana’s 3rd district had incumbent Rep. Mark Souder (R) hovering at 50 percent. The Congressman went on to win by 8 points, 54 percent to 46 percent. Similarly, an early July Cooper & Secrest poll had Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) at 50 percent and he won by a dozen points.

And a mid-September Cooper & Secrest Democratic survey in Florida’s 8th district had GOP Rep. Ric Keller ahead, 46 percent to 39 percent. He went on to win by the same 7-point margin, but with 53 percent.

So what do all these numbers mean?

Take summer polling with a grain of salt, because while it can identify vulnerable incumbents, these Members could still win re-election.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on August 20, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Illinois 10: Ground Zero for Spending

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and business consultant Dan Seals (D) are gearing up for the most expensive House race in the Chicago area this cycle — and it may turn into the most expensive race in the country that doesn’t involve a self-funder.

Both candidates are already trumpeting their second-quarter fundraising figures, even though they aren’t officially due to be released until July 15.

Early Monday afternoon, the Seals campaign announced it had raised more than $635,000 in the second quarter of the year ($2.1 million overall for the cycle) and will show $1.17 million on hand as of June 30. Those are impressive numbers for a challenger anywhere in the country.

Four hours later, Kirk released his fundraising figures, including $900,000 raised in second quarter ($3.87 million for the cycle) and $2.85 million in the bank.

Both candidates have more money at this point than they did in their 2006 match, when Kirk bested Seals 53 percent to 47 percent. The Congressman spent more than $3.5 million in the previous cycle, compared with almost $1.9 million for Seals. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chipped in a mere $158,000, while the National Republican Congressional Committee sat the race out.

That election was overshadowed by very competitive and extremely expensive races in the neighboring 6th and 8th districts. But this year, the Kirk-Seals matchup will be the main event.

In the 6th district last cycle, state Sen. Peter Roskam (R) battled Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth (D) in an open-seat race that received national attention. Roskam spent $3.3 million and the NRCC almost $3.4 million compared with Duckworth, who spent more than $4.5 million, and the DCCC, an additional $3.2 million, in a race Roskam won 51 percent to 49 percent.

With Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) at the top of the ticket, Roskam can’t take anything for granted, but the race has not developed for the Democrats. Challenger Jill Morgenthaler (D) raised $307,000 through March 31 and had only $163,000 on hand. Roskam raised almost $1.4 million through the first quarter with $967,000 in the bank.

In the 8th district, Rep. Melissa Bean (D) spent almost $4.3 million last cycle in her successful re-election run, and the DCCC came in with about $1.3 million. Her opponent, wealthy businessman David McSweeney (R), spent $5.1 million (including primary spending), but the NRCC tacked on another $2.4 million. Bean won 51 percent to 44 percent.

This year, Republicans have another wealthy businessman running, Steve Greenberg, but it’s unclear how much he’s willing and able to invest in the race. He raised almost $523,000 through March 31 but had only $5,000 on hand. Bean raised more than $2.2 million through the first quarter with almost $1.4 million in the bank, and she is a heavy favorite for re-election.

Open-seat races in Illinois’ 11th and 18th districts will also get national party attention this year, and the 14th district rematch between new Rep. Bill Foster (D) and dairy magnate Jim Oberweis (R) could also be competitive.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 8, 2008 and in Roll Call newspaper on July 9, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Hampshire Senate: No Poll Vault for Sununu

By Nathan L. Gonzales

“It will close.”

That was the common analysis during the previous cycle’s Senate race in Pennsylvania, when poll after poll showed then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R) trailing his opponent, then-state Treasurer Bob Casey (D). But after millions of dollars of advertising, the race never did close, and Casey won in a romp.

Now, New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu (R) finds himself in a similar predicament.

Through this point last cycle, two-dozen polls showed exactly the same thing; Santorum trailed Casey by an average of 11 points and the incumbent failed to top 43 percent in the ballot test. Indications are that Sununu will suffer the same fate as Santorum.

Sununu has trailed former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) in all but one of 11 polls, dating back to March 2007, by an average of 12 points. And he hasn’t topped 42 percent, except in the mid-December American Research Group poll that was clearly an outlier. [Click here for the comparison poll chart.]

The most recent survey, conducted April 28-May 2 by Dartmouth College, showed Shaheen ahead 46 percent to 36 percent.

But Sununu is undaunted in his effort for a second term.

His supporters repeat the mantra that he was also behind in the polls during his 2002 race against Shaheen, making it a core of their comeback argument. In fact, that’s not the whole truth. From July 2001 to early October 2002, Sununu led Shaheen, most often well outside the margin of error. And he wasn’t even the nominee until September 2002. A June 23-July 1 University of New Hampshire survey showed then-Rep. Sununu leading Gov. Shaheen comfortably, 51 percent to 42 percent, heading into the summer.

Two polls in mid-October gave Shaheen a narrow edge, but Sununu led for the bulk of the race. This year he will have to come from much further behind.

“John Sununu knows how to win campaigns in New Hampshire,” Sununu adviser Julie Teer said. “Our campaign has a strategy in place, and we are following it according to plan.”

While the Senator has been hands-on and Team Sununu has been tight-lipped about his strategy, there is no question that it revolves around reminding voters about Shaheen’s gubernatorial record.

“I think her service as governor demonstrated a real lack of leadership, failure to deal with the most important problem facing the state ... education funding,” Sununu told Roll Call in a May interview.

But since her 2002 loss to Sununu and since she’s been out of office, Shaheen’s standing has improved. A late April UNH survey had her personal rating at 56 percent favorable to 29 percent unfavorable.

Up to this point, Sununu has focused on fundraising. The Senator raised more than $4.1 million through the first three months of the year and finished March with $4.3 million on hand. Shaheen raised more than $2.5 million and topped $1.8 million in the bank. Even with a financial advantage, there is no guarantee that Sununu’s plan to remind voters and redefine Shaheen will work.

“No matter what we did or how often we did it, it didn’t matter,” said Santorum media consultant John Brabender, whose candidate outspent his opponent $25.3 million to $17.5 million in the 2006 race. “It was like banging our head against the wall.”

Santorum began advertising statewide more than a month before Casey, but in the end, it didn’t matter.

“When you have two established brands, you’re not going to throw up advertising and see things move,” Brabender said. “The Santorum polling eight months out looked the same as it did one day out.”

“The issue that hurt me was the nationalization of the election,” Santorum said in a recent interview, explaining the differences between his race and Sununu’s challenge.

“Shaheen will be as much of an issue in this race as Sununu. He has an opponent with a clear record. I did not,” he added, noting Casey’s uncontroversial statewide offices and family legacy in the state.

Six of Sununu’s colleagues were defeated in the previous cycle trying to localize their elections, and late August polling by USA Today/Gallup showed that moving large numbers of voters late in a campaign can be difficult. By the end of August, Santorum was down by 18 points and lost. Then-Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) was down by 6 points and lost, while then-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) was down 3 points and lost, too.

Then-Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and George Allen (R-Va.) were either tied or slightly ahead in their races by the end of the summer and lost re-election. And Missouri Sen. Jim Talent (R) was up by 6 points that summer and went down to defeat. Voter opinion had either solidified or undecided voters broke dramatically against the incumbent.

Republicans may have to reach back almost a quarter of a century to find precedent for an incumbent coming from so far behind to win. In 1984, North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms (R) was running for a third term and found himself down by 20 points to Gov. Jim Hunt (D) with 18 months to go.

“Barring an act of God, Jesse Helms can’t win,” a Washington Post reporter wrote. But Helms had a plan.

According to the book “Tarheel Politics: Myths and Realities” by Paul Luebke, the Senator attacked early, going after Hunt on television in the fall and winter in the year preceding the election. Helms effectively redefined the popular governor and helped himself by polarizing the electorate along racial lines by opposing the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

By May 1984, Helms was already back in the lead, but he would go on to win only narrowly, 52 percent to 48 percent. This year, it’s June, and Sununu still trails his opponent.

Helms benefited greatly from the top of the ticket, where Ronald Reagan won the state with 62 percent and Republicans took back the governorship. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is expected to compete, and potentially win, in New Hampshire, but it won’t be by 24 points. And Democratic Gov. John Lynch (D) will be re-elected easily. He won with more than 73 percent in 2006.

Even though the presidential race will drive turnout, there is no guarantee it will lift Sununu enough.

“The same voters aren’t pulling the trigger for both of them yet,” said UNH Survey Center Director Andrew Smith, whose April poll had McCain winning the state by 6 points and Sununu losing by 12.

Unlike Helms, Sununu has chosen not to advertise early. Part of the strategy is due to cost, since the expensive Boston media market covers the vast majority of the state. The other calculation is that the voters who matter aren’t paying attention, and that New Hampshire’s late-breaking voters make it different than any other state in the union.

Shaheen has already been on television statewide, seeking to define herself. And at least six of Sununu’s GOP colleagues who are up for re-election this year have chosen to air early commercials as well, including Sens. Norm Coleman (Minn.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Roger Wicker (Miss.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

“Different candidate. Different state. Different campaign plan,” said Sununu media consultant Fred Davis, who is part of an upgraded campaign team. In general, the Sununu team is almost dismissive of the Senator’s vulnerability, über-confident in its plan, and claims the race is “neck and neck” in its unreleased polls.

Sununu’s supporters believe that New Hampshire in 2008 will be a decidedly different, and better, environment, and they believe McCain will be extremely strong at the top of the ticket.

That’s good because the Granite State was the scene of a Democratic tsunami in the previous cycle that re-elected a governor, threw out both Republican Members of Congress and flipped both the state Senate and state House to Democratic control. But even if this is a better year than 2006, it will be nowhere near 2002 — when Republicans were popular — for Sununu.

McCain will need to help Sununu, and Republicans in general, regain their appeal to independent voters, who led to the defeat of Sununu’s colleagues last cycle. According to exit polling, Santorum lost independents by 44 points, DeWine by 30 points, Burns by 24 points, Allen by 12 points and Talent by 8 points. Chafee actually won independents by 10 points and still lost. It almost goes without saying, but independents are critical for Sununu.

It appears that Sununu wants both a nationalized race with a popular McCain and a localized election where voters respond to Shaheen’s tenure as governor.

“Sen. Sununu has a strong track record of proving the political prognosticators wrong, and we have every reason to believe that streak will continue,” National Republican Senatorial Committee Communications Director Rebecca Fisher said.

In the end, Sununu’s plan may not matter.

“There are some things that are simply beyond the Senator’s control,” Santorum said.


This story first appeared in Roll Call on June 19, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Are Democrats Surging Out West? Numbers Say No

By Stuart Rothenberg

More than a few journalists and political pontificators have noted recent Democratic gains in the Mountain West, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Some see those gains in 2004 and 2006 as shattering a reliable Republican region, while others argue recent wins are only the beginning of a Democratic rally that will continue in 2008 and beyond.

After one of the best newspapers on the planet screamed “West Is Going Democrats’ Direction” and “Political Shift in Mountain States” in headlines, I figured I’d look at the numbers myself to see how much of an opportunity Democrats have to turn the Mountain West blue, or at least purple.

After dissecting the historical data over the past 25 years and comparing it to election results from the past few cycles, it’s very clear that not much is going on. I’m certainly not ruling out changes in 2008 or 2010, and I’m not saying that there have been no changes. But so far, the hype about a shift has overwhelmed the reality.

First, a bit of history. Democratic candidates have done pretty well in the Mountain West in the past couple of election cycles, but that’s nothing new. Democrats have had significant successes in the region for many years, so portraying recent results as some sort of breakthrough is flat-out wrong.

Election returns since 1980 show that the Mountain West is really two or even three regions, not one. Utah, Wyoming and Idaho are reliably Republican in most cases, while New Mexico and Nevada are politically competitive. Arizona and Colorado definitely lean Republican in presidential politics but are much more competitive in other respects.

Former President Bill Clinton carried four Mountain States — Colorado, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico — in his 1992 election victory over then-President George H.W. Bush, and he won three states four years later: Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. It’s true that in the two elections since Clinton, Democratic presidential candidates have carried only a single state, New Mexico (very narrowly, in 2000), but that’s more a statement about the party and its nominees than about the region’s inherent competitiveness.

New Mexico and Nevada definitely are competitive in presidential contests, but only Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are beyond the Democrats’ reach in those elections.

Much of the hype about Democrats in the Mountain West stems from the party’s victories in gubernatorial races. Democrats retained three governorships last year and added a new one (in Colorado). Democratic governors now sit in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Wyoming — five of the region’s eight states.

But that’s nothing new in the region. I went back to 1980 and found that Democrats won five of the past seven gubernatorial elections in Colorado and Wyoming (yes, that’s right, Wyoming), four of the past seven in both New Mexico and Nevada and three of the past seven in Montana and Arizona.

In attempting to drive home the point of a realignment, one journalist noted, “In 2000, all eight mountain states had Republican governors; now five governors are Democrats.” But why use 2000 as the baseline? In 1984, seven of the eight states had Democratic governors. Using 1984 as the baseline, you could even say the region is moving toward the GOP!

Anyway, if gubernatorial results reflected fundamental partisan strength and the potential of carrying the state in 2008, then Wyoming would seem to be a reliably Democratic state in 2008. Obviously, it isn’t.

How about Senate races? Democrats won a Senate race in Montana, as well as holding onto a seat in New Mexico. But again, winning Senate races in the region is nothing new for Democrats.

In three of the eight Mountain West states, Democrats have won a majority of all Senate elections since 1980. That’s right, a majority. They’ve won six of nine in Montana, six of 10 in Nevada and five of nine in New Mexico. In Colorado, they have won a considerable four of the past nine. Even Arizona has elected Democrats to the Senate in two of the past nine elections.

Forget about that history. If you think Democrats’ ability to knock off a politically damaged Republican in the worst Republican environment in 30 years tells you something about a state’s or region’s political trend, you are free to. Of course, you would be terribly wrong.

But what about Congress? Didn’t Democrats make gains in the House in the Mountain West? Sure, but what kind of gains?

Democrats netted three House seats in November, one in Colorado and two in Arizona. The Colorado district was drawn to be politically competitive, but it was also referred to as the “Perlmutter district,” after the Democratic legislator who was expected to run — and win — in 2002. Ed Perlmutter passed then, but he won the open seat last year.

One of the Arizona districts already was competitive, but became hard for the GOP when an anti-immigration bomb-thrower won the party’s primary. In other words, if you focus only on the numbers, you will miss the story.

How about state legislatures in the region? Democrats made small gains in the Idaho, Colorado and Arizona state Houses. No chambers in the region switched control, however, except the Montana House, which went from a 50-50 tie to a one-seat GOP majority. Again, if there was a Democratic surge in 2006, you’ll have to look under the rug to find it.

There were, of course, some Democratic gains in 2006. Much of the hype, I suspect, came from stronger than usual (though unsuccessful) Democratic efforts in House races in Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming, as well as a lot of buzz about the Idaho gubernatorial race. But those showings occurred in a landslide year for Democrats, making the results more likely to be an aberration rather than a trend.

The Mountain West is not the South. It’s less reliable than Dixie for Republicans, and it’s less conservative on social/religious issues. Moreover, Democrats have had considerable success in the region over the past three decades, and the party’s nominee could carry a few Mountain West states in the ’08 presidential race, particularly if there is a nationwide trend toward their party. But the evidence strongly demonstrates that there has been no Democratic surge in the region, even if the hyperbole makes for a better news story.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 29, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.