Paterson’s Timing Has Been Perfect for Democrats in N.Y. Specials

By Nathan L. Gonzales

While New York Gov. David Paterson’s (D) performance in office has been widely panned, his timing in three House special elections this cycle has been impeccable.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) resigned his 29th district seat more than a month ago, but Paterson still has not acknowledged the vacancy nor issued a date for a special election. State law gives the governor latitude to announce a vacancy, but when he does, a special election must be called.

According to sources in Washington, D.C., and the Empire State, Paterson has good relations with the New York delegation as well as the offices of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and he leveraged those key relationships to get good advice on the timing of the special elections.

In the case of the 29th district vacancy, if Paterson were to call a special election today, Democrats would likely lose the seat. Their candidate, an unknown former CIA employee who had been living in Washington, is just beginning to get a campaign operation together and the political climate continues to be difficult for Democrats.

Paterson initially told reporters that he would call a special election to fill Massa’s seat “as soon as possible” but has since backed off. In a March 31 statement, his office raised concerns about “the financial impact that a special election could have on the county level.” A spokeswoman said no final decision had been made yet and reiterated that point to Roll Call again this week.

Democrats in the district say they would prefer to avoid a special election, also citing the costs involved. And one local Democratic source told Roll Call, “I wouldn’t hold my breath,” waiting for the governor to call a special, adding that there is a strong likelihood that the November general election will be the only contest to decide who the next Member from the 29th district is.

That has Republicans squawking about Democrats’ stalling tactics. Former Corning Mayor Tom Reed, the Republicans’ consensus candidate for Massa’s seat, has been publicly calling on the governor to call the election “forthwith,” but to no avail.

It’s hardly a coincidence that Democrats will benefit if Paterson chooses not to call a special election.

Paterson has “done a good job of reading the tea leaves with the delegation,” according to one New York Democratic consultant, who noted that the exception was the governor’s handling of then-Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand’s appointment to the Senate early last year.

But Paterson handled Gillibrand’s open seat extremely well. She resigned her House seat on Jan. 26, but the governor didn’t declare the vacancy until Feb. 23.

That extra month allowed Democrats to find their candidate, businessman Scott Murphy, and get him up to speed and ready to go against state Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco (R), who started the race with significantly higher name recognition. Murphy won the March 31 special election with 50 percent of the vote.

Last fall, Republican Rep. John McHugh vacated his 23rd district seat to become President Barack Obama’s secretary of the Army. The GOP Congressman resigned on Sept. 21, Paterson only took eight days to announce the vacancy that time and set the election to coincide with the regularly scheduled Nov. 3 elections.

After a popular state legislator passed on the race, Democrats quickly sorted through a list of others to find attorney Bill Owens, who won the November special election with 48 percent over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. The GOP nominee, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, received almost 6 percent even though she dropped out late in the race and endorsed Owens.

Emily Cadei contributed to this report.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com and CQPolitics.com on April 18, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Can Polling Memos Change the Narrative About 2010 Races?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Here’s a bulletin for you: Anytime a campaign releases a polling memo, it is making an argument, not merely offering survey data for your information. Polling memos aren’t written to make you smarter.

This shouldn’t need to be said, of course, but when I see reporters swallowing spin as if it were information — as one Louisiana Gannett reporter did recently in writing about the state’s Senate race — I get very uncomfortable.

A number of Democratic polling memos from reputable polling firms have been circulating over the past couple of weeks — two from Anzalone Liszt Research about the Louisiana Senate race and about Rep. Bobby Bright’s (D-Ala.) re-election prospects, and one from Harstad Strategic Research about the Colorado Senate race — and readers should understand what’s going on with them.

I am not, I must emphasize, challenging the data. These are credible polling firms, and almost every pollster I know has released these kinds of memos in the past. I am only using Anzalone Liszt and Harstad as examples.

The purpose of the Louisiana poll memo is to alter the developing narrative that the state’s Senate race is essentially over and that Sen. David Vitter (R) won’t be seriously threatened by Rep. Charlie Melancon (D). The Alabama memo seeks to create a sense of inevitability about Bright’s re-election prospects and undercut GOP challenger Martha Roby’s credibility (and fundraising and buzz).

The Colorado memo seeks to rebut polling that shows appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) trailing in his race and to help him build momentum for his primary and the fall election.

I recently asked a pollster, not for attribution of course, about these kinds of memos and received a gloriously forthright answer: “Anyone who does a survey for strategic reasons isn’t going to release strategic information.”

Pollsters say that their surveys present only a “snapshot” of a race at a particular moment. That’s true. But often the snapshot presented in a memo is misleading, and the pollster knows it. Memos include numbers intended to build an argument that seems empirically based but isn’t. They don’t present the whole picture, because the whole picture isn’t in their client’s interest.

Even highly regarded, methodologically legit pollsters tell me to call them up privately if I want to get their real assessment about a race — don’t go by the memo they release. I get this from both Republican and Democratic pollsters, and I have received the same advice for years.

Actually, most pollsters hate to write these kinds of memos, but their clients want them to create a more favorable narrative, so they write them, usually using their words very carefully.

The Bright memo begins “Congressman Bobby Bright is well positioned to win re-election in Alabama’s 2nd Congressional district. Bright’s personal popularity and positive job rating are extremely high.” The memo looks at the Congressman’s excellent favorable/unfavorable ratings, respondents’ answers to questions about Bright’s qualities and his leads of 24 to 32 points over possible November opponents.

The memo ends with the following paragraph: “Bright leads Roby among virtually all gender, race, and geographic subgroups. Bright earns double-digit margins with white voters, African American voters, Independent voters, and in both the Montgomery and Dothan media markets.”

Bright, a conservative Democrat, won election to Congress because of the Democratic wave in 2008. He beat a politically damaged GOP nominee who had emerged from a bruising primary by six-tenths of a point (50.2 percent to 49.6 percent), winning by 1,790 votes out of more than 286,000 cast.

However highly regarded Bright is, this is a Republican district. President Barack Obama drew only 37 percent of the vote in it in 2008, losing it to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by more than 25 points.

Bright does start off well-positioned for his re-election bid, but he is almost guaranteed to have a razor-close race against Roby, a Montgomery city councilwoman and the likely GOP nominee. Maybe he’ll win; maybe he won’t. Whatever the outcome, he won’t win by 20 points or carry white voters by double digits.

If Bright holds on to win re-election, he’ll win by a point or two. Given that, the Anzalone Liszt poll tells us little about November. Voters apparently don’t know anything about the Republican candidates, and it’s so far from Election Day that most voters haven’t given much thought to what their vote might mean or who they really will vote for in the fall.

The Bright memo reminds me of a June 15, 2009, Anzalone Liszt polling memo that listed all of Democrat Creigh Deeds’ advantages in the 2009 Virginia gubernatorial race.

That memo asserted: “Deeds has a high favorable rating, and a lower unfavorable rating, even though McDonnell spent more on television [during the primary]. Deeds also holds critical issue advantages that will make it difficult for McDonnell to make up ground.”

The memo said that Deeds held a 4-point lead in the race and was able to win votes across the state “including traditional Republican strongholds.” “At the same time, McDonnell will have a difficult time making inroads in increasingly Democratic Northern Virginia,” it asserted.

Of course, McDonnell won 59 percent to 41 percent, turning a 4-point deficit in the poll into an 18-point victory. Deeds didn’t do well in “Republican strongholds,” and McDonnell carried Fairfax County, the state’s largest county and the epitome of what is meant by “Northern Virginia.”

Polling memos sometimes contain useful nuggets of data, but they often leave out other important data and stress the narrative the campaign wants to create. Don’t take them at face value.


This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on March 18, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Democrats Catch a Big Break in Connecticut Senate Race

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Year, Another Set of Nominations for the Best and the Worst ...

By Stuart Rothenberg

It’s another year down the drain, so I’m sure all Roll Call readers are clamoring for another one of those best/worst, winners/losers columns. Well, clamoring may be a little too strong.

Anyway, though 2009 wasn’t a major election year, there were a few races and plenty of politics, so here goes ...

Best Campaign

The nominees:

• Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.)
• Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.)
• Virginia Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell (R)
• Accenture’s Tiger Woods ad campaign

Both New York Democratic campaigns deserve plenty of credit, given the competitive nature of their districts, but McDonnell’s effort was remarkable, especially given recent GOP struggles in Virginia. McDonnell stayed focused on jobs and transportation, never allowing himself to get drawn into a lengthy battle over cultural issues. Looks like a clear win in this category for the Virginian.

Most Exciting Sports-Related Candidate Entering 2010

The nominees:

• Former NFL player Jay Riemersma (R)in Michigan
• Columbus Destroyers (Arena Football League) co-owner Jim Renacci (R) in Ohio
• Former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons (R) in Iowa
• World Wrestling Entertainment co-owner Linda McMahon (R) in Connecticut
• Wichita Wild (Indoor Football League) owner Wink Hartman (R) in Kansas
• San Diego Chargers offensive tackle Jon Runyan (R) in New Jersey
• Tiger Woods

Actually, Tiger Woods isn’t running for anything but cover. Indoor football is a made-up game and therefore doesn’t qualify as a sport, while pro wrestling is scripted entertainment, not sports. That leaves a college wrestler/coach and two professional football players worthy of consideration.

College wrestling is a big deal in Iowa, and Gibbons was head wrestling coach at Iowa State University for seven years. His team won the NCAA championship in 1987. During his undergraduate days, Gibbons was a three-time All-American. He won the NCAA championship in his weight class in 1981.

Riemersma played football at Michigan and was drafted by the Buffalo Bills in the 7th round of the 1996 NFL draft. A tight end, he played six years for the Bills and two for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Runyan, also a product of the University of Michigan, was drafted by the Houston Oilers in the fourth round of the 1996 NFL draft. He played with the Oilers (who later became the Tennessee Titans) until he was signed as an unrestricted free agent by the Philadelphia Eagles in 2000. He was selected to the Pro Bowl in 2002.

Riemersma and Runyan played on the same college team and were in the same NFL draft, with the tight end going as the 244th pick and the offensive tackle being taken with the 109th pick. It isn’t close between the two pro football veterans; Runyan gets the nod between the two of them.

So is Runyan the most exciting sports-related candidate of 2010, or is it Gibbons? It’s a close call, but my winner is Runyan, mostly because the 6-foot-7, 330-pound lineman is still active, and I’ve watched Runyan on TV over the years.

Most Embarrassing Political Story

The nominees:

• South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), straying
• Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), straying
• Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), the ongoing saga
• Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), finances
• Tiger Woods, straying

I’m going to have to go with Sanford on this one, since it was so, so bizarre. Hiking on the Appalachian Trail? Argentina?

Most Over-Covered Story

The nominees:

• Sarah Palin, the book tour
• Nadya Suleman and her octuplets
• Oprah’s “retirement” two years from now
• Tiger Woods, straying
• Michael Jackson, R.I.P.
• “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” the saga continues

Any of these would be good choices as the most over-covered story of the year. I’m going for Michael Jackson, I think, because of the sheer magnitude of the coverage and the late performer’s rather odd life choices.

The Worst Campaign

The nominees:

• Virginia gubernatorial loser Creigh Deeds (D)
• Congressional loser Dede Scozzafava (R — sort of) in New York
• Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi (D) in New York
• Congressional loser Jim Tedisco (R) in New York
• Accenture’s Tiger Woods ad campaign

Tedisco and Deeds were unimpressive, but nothing compared to Scozzafava, who couldn’t raise any money and ultimately dropped out of the race. But as bad a fit as Scozzafava was for 23rd district Republicans, she was easily outpaced in my mind by Suozzi, a one-time rising star in New York Democratic politics, who lost re-election by 386 votes yet ended the race with a little more than $2 million in the bank. It’s hard to believe that spending even some of that leftover cash couldn’t have gotten Suozzi enough votes to win.

The Worst Decision

The nominees:

• New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) runs for re-election
• Phillies manager Charlie Manuel doesn’t start Cliff Lee in Game 4 of the World Series
• Republican County chairmen nominate Dede Scozzafava in the special election in New York’s 23rd district
• Kanye West disses Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards
• Roll Call continues to publish Rothenberg columns throughout the year

Thank goodness Scozzafava is nominated or else I might have to vote against myself.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 17, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Stu on the GOP's Tactics on Healthcare

The GOP's stalling tactics on the health care bill are Politics 101. You can watch the video below or by clicking this link to the CBS web site.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

2009 Election Results Show How the Context Has Changed

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats Face Pros and Cons in Nationalizing 2010 Races

By Nathan L. Gonzales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning the Right Lessons From 2009 Results

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After Hoffman, Rubio Is Likely Conservatives’ Next Challenge

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stu Talks 2009 Elections on NewsHour

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

New York 23 Moved to Toss-Up

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

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

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

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

Pure Toss-Up (3 R, 12 D)

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

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

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

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

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

Lean Republican (2 R, 0 D)

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

Lean Democratic (0 R, 3 D)

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

Republican Favored (9 R, 0 D)

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

Democrat Favored (2 R, 11 D)

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

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

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

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Road Well-Traveled in Drive to Hold Power: Destroy the Opposition

By Stuart Rothenberg

I had to chuckle when I read reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is preparing to run a decidedly negative campaign this year, with an unnamed adviser saying Reid would “vaporize” his opponent.

That’s not exactly a new standard for the Nevada Democrat, who understands full well how to run a campaign and what he’ll need to do to win a fifth term.

But the report in Politico, followed by reverberations in other media outlets, reminded me that there is no secret to how Democrats will try to hang onto their large majorities in the House and Senate next year if the national political environment is unfavorable: Destroy the opposition.

That strategy is standard operating procedure for incumbents, regardless of party, and it has been used for years. If your own negatives are high, drive up your opponent’s. Make him or her as unpopular as you are, and voters will be faced with a different kind of choice.

It won’t be a matter of which candidate voters like; it will be a question of which of the two unappealing candidates has the experience or has delivered for constituents. Voters will take the devil they know, not the devil they don’t know, vulnerable incumbents will hope.

You can expect Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) to use the same tactic against his eventual Republican challenger if he can’t move his own numbers dramatically before Republicans pick a nominee against him.

GOP strategists particularly on the House side used this approach repeatedly from the mid-1990s through the 2006 election, when they found themselves overwhelmed by a partisan wave that they couldn’t hold back.

Their strategy for a decade was clear: Hit the Democratic challenger again and again and yet again just for good measure to be sure that the opponent’s name identification is upside down (a higher unfavorable than favorable rating).

Indeed, that’s exactly what then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R) did to then-Gov. Jim Hunt (D) 25 years ago in North Carolina’s 1984 Senate race, when Helms came from behind to beat the once-popular challenger by almost 4 points.

Reid’s strategists apparently have been watching New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) re-election bid, noting his success in driving up Republican Chris Christie’s negatives, even if they believe that Corzine waited too long to unload on his opponent. Still, there’s a problem here.

While Corzine has boosted Christie’s negatives, it hasn’t helped the governor in the ballot test. His standing — in name identification, job performance and the ballot test — haven’t budged.

Second, while the scorched-earth strategy often works for vulnerable incumbents, it doesn’t always work. If it did, Republicans would not have lost the House and Senate in 2006. They certainly tried to do what had proved to be successful — and what Reid’s strategist has promised to do.

When a party, or a candidate, is unpopular, it (or he) isn’t an ideal messenger. Republicans used the same tactics in 2006 and 2008 that had proved effective since they took control of Congress in 1994, but the political environment had shifted and their attacks didn’t stick on Democratic challengers the way they once had. Republicans weren’t deemed credible messengers, so their attacks fell flat.

For Harry Reid, that’s potentially a serious problem.

Multiple polls all show the same thing: Silver State voters have soured on the Senate Majority Leader. In many respects, his numbers look like Corzine’s. But unfortunately for Reid, he isn’t likely to have the benefit of a third-party candidate siphoning votes away from his Republican opponent.

In the eight head-to-head ballot tests conducted by three different polling firms over the past two months pitting Reid against either state Republican Chairwoman Sue Lowden or businessman/unsuccessful candidate Danny Tarkanian (R), Reid has drawn 39 percent to 43 percent of the vote.

Going back to May, there have been six different surveys testing Reid’s name identification. His “unfavorable” ratings in the six have been as follows: 54 percent, 50 percent, 46 percent, 50 percent, 52 percent and 50 percent.

In January, just days after President Barack Obama’s inauguration, a Republican poll found Reid’s unfavorable rating to be 47 percent, and shortly after the 2008 election, a Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos (D) showed the Senator’s unfavorable rating to be 54 percent.

The Senator showed $8.7 million in the bank at the end of September, and he has aired TV ads. But as long as his negatives remain high, and as long as his eventual GOP challenger has the resources to compete, Reid will be in for a fight. And he can’t allow his race to be merely a referendum on his performance.

Anonymous threats to “vaporize” the opposition may make a cute quote in a newspaper story, but they sound less intimidating from the campaign of a candidate with unfavorable ratings in the low 50s. Still, it’s probably the only strategy available to the Senate Majority Leader.

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

Is the New Jersey Gubernatorial Race a Tossup?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Anyone in his right mind would now have to rate next month’s gubernatorial election in New Jersey as a tossup. After all, virtually every poll shows the race within the margin of error, and some recent surveys show Gov. Jon Corzine (D) leading GOP challenger Chris Christie.

Moreover, climbing out on a limb to give one of the candidates an advantage in a virtual dead heat isn’t the best way to guarantee that your percentage of “correct calls” remains high so that you can send out a press release after the elections to brag about how astute you are.

But this column is about analysis, scenarios and best guesses, and since I still believe that Christie has the single best chance of winning the Garden State governorship, I see no reason to crawl completely off the limb I’m on. But, I must admit, I’m not oozing with confidence.

As I noted a couple of weeks ago in a column, Corzine’s numbers are going nowhere fast — in other words, he is not “gaining” on Christie. He remains stuck pretty much where he has been for many months — in the 39 percent to 42 percent range, even in a just-released Quinnipiac University survey.

The public’s view of the governor remains heavily negative in three recent polls that show a dead heat. A Public Policy Polling (D) survey found Corzine’s name ID at 55 percent unfavorable, while Fairleigh Dickinson University had his unfavorable rating at 54 percent and Quinnipiac showed it at 53 percent.

Christie’s unfavorable numbers weren’t good — 44 percent in PPP’s survey, 42 percent in the FDU poll and 40 percent in Quinnipiac’s — but they weren’t nearly as bad as Corzine’s.

In the FDU survey, a stunning 69 percent said Corzine’s performance as governor was only fair or poor. In Quinnipiac’s, 56 percent of likely voters disapproved of how he has handled his job. These numbers suggest that Corzine won’t get many voters who are still undecided.

One Republican strategist I talked with recently equated Corzine’s political positioning to that of a “beached whale,” adding, “We can’t move his numbers, and he can’t move his numbers.”

But if Corzine’s numbers haven’t moved, Christie’s have — down. The erosion in Christie’s standing has made the race tight.

While the GOP challenger was around 50 percent on the ballot test in July and August, he has slid into the low to mid-40s in most recent surveys, all but erasing his lead over Corzine. His personal negatives have risen correspondingly.

Independent Chris Daggett seems to be drawing enough votes away from Christie to make it possible for the governor to sneak into a second term with less than 45 percent.

While about half of those polled say they don’t yet have an opinion of Daggett (the number is a stunning 73 percent in Quinnipiac’s poll), Daggett has qualified for public financing, participated in a televised debate and been endorsed by both the Sierra Club and the Newark Star-Ledger.

But nobody is entirely certain how Daggett will do on Election Day.

The recent PPP survey showed Daggett drawing 13 percent, while an early October SurveyUSA poll put him at 14 percent, the same as the new Quinnipiac poll. Surveys that don’t include a three-way ballot test (requiring respondents to volunteer their preference for him) put Daggett in the mid-to-upper single digits. FDU showed him at 17 percent in a three-way ballot test but only 4 percent when respondents had to volunteer his name.

Unlike Corzine and Christie, who are guaranteed one of the top two positions on the ballot in each county, Daggett’s ballot position in each county was decided by random drawing.

Daggett lucked out in two counties, Gloucester and Bergen, the state’s most populous county, drawing the third spot behind the two major-party nominees. But elsewhere, he is buried among the nine other Independent and third-party hopefuls.

“If Daggett is going to get 17 percent of the vote, it will be because people are actively searching for him on the ballot, not because voters simply are dissatisfied with Corzine and Christie and looking for someone else to vote for,” says Matt Friedman of PolitickerNJ.com, an astute observer of New Jersey politics and of the gubernatorial contest.

But ballot placement is only one of Daggett’s problems.

Independent candidates often lose support toward the final weeks of a campaign, either because they come under attack or, more often, because their supporters start to worry about “throwing away” votes on a candidate who can’t win. (Veteran Democratic and Republican operatives argue that, for a number of reasons, Daggett has no chance to win the election.)

In the 2006 Texas gubernatorial race, for example, two Independent candidates, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn (who was elected as a Republican) and entertainer Kinky Friedman, drew a combined 38 percent in a mid-September SurveyUSA poll. A month later, the two candidates combined for 35 percent in another SurveyUSA poll, and a week before Election Day they drew 38 percent. When the votes were counted, however, Keeton Strayhorn and Friedman combined to draw 30 percent, significantly below what surveys had shown.

Christie has started to criticize Daggett’s tax plan, and he is almost certain to argue in the coming weeks that since the Independent candidate can’t win, a vote for Daggett is, in fact, a vote for four more years of Corzine. Whether Christie is successful with that message will determine who wins, Corzine or Christie.

Daggett is the single best thing to happen to Corzine politically. In a two-man contest against Christie, the governor would have little chance to win. But a three-way race presents a very different dynamic.

If Daggett’s number on the ballot test slides to the low double digits (10 percent to 12 percent) or below, Corzine almost certainly will lose. On the other hand, if Daggett gets at least 17 percent, the governor should win. If Daggett’s showing falls into the 13 percent to 16 percent range, either major-party candidate could emerge victorious.

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

New York 23: Another Train Wreck for House Republicans?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While Republican prospects for the 2010 Congressional elections are improving and the GOP is likely to win at least one, and quite possibly both, of this year’s gubernatorial elections, the special election to fill an open seat in New York’s 23rd district is trending the other way.

A lack of campaign resources and a classic political squeeze from the left and the right have severely damaged the prospects of Republican Dede Scozzafava, a six-term state Assemblywoman from Watertown.

While initial polling showed Scozzafava leading Democratic attorney Bill Owens and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, Owens has caught Scozzafava in recent private polling, and Hoffman continues to gain strength, making him a considerable factor in the contest and a growing problem for Scozzafava down the stretch.

GOP insiders have grown extremely nervous about the race. They worry about Scozzafava’s poor fundraising, lack of a compelling message to Republican base voters and weak showing in polling in the crucial Syracuse media market, which makes up about 30 percent of the sprawling district.

“She needs a solid win in the Syracuse area, and she isn’t getting anything close to that,” one veteran dispassionate analyst from the area said. “And she is having problems raising money from Republicans, who point to her support for ‘card check’ and President [Barack] Obama’s stimulus package and say that she isn’t a real Republican.” Not a single House Republican voted for the stimulus bill.

Heavy TV advertising by the Club for Growth, which is backing Hoffman, in all three major media markets has peeled conservative voters away from the Republican, and GOP insiders worry that the bleeding will continue. Hoffman is also on TV, portraying Scozzafava as a “fake” Republican and a liberal Albany politician.

So far, conservative critics of Scozzafava have complained primarily about her record on taxes and spending, but some expect that her liberal positions on social issues, including abortion and gay marriage (which is mentioned in Hoffman’s spot), will soon become more of an issue. Both Scozzafava and Owens favor abortion rights, while Hoffman does not.

However, the Republican just received the endorsement from the National Rifle Association, and it could be important in fashioning her appeal to right-leaning voters in the district.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has slammed the Assemblywoman as a “typical Albany politician” in TV ads that charge that she supported tax breaks that her company benefited from “while raising taxes on you.”

While the National Republican Congressional Committee is advertising heavily for Scozzafava and doing everything it can to help her, the combined advertising of the DCCC, the Owens campaign and the Club for Growth has been overwhelming the Republican nominee. Scozzafava is now finally on the air in the Syracuse market, but she is simply not carrying her weight on TV.

“If Dede doesn’t raise money and get on TV, there is only one direction for her to go, and it’s down,” a thoughtful Republican said.

Democratic insiders, however, remain cautious about Owens’ chances in the race, noting that although Obama won the district narrowly, the party has no political infrastructure there. The Democratic performance in the district is 47.5 percent, according to the National Committee for an Effective Congress, a Democratic group.

Some Republicans worry that while the national environment has shifted significantly to their advantage from where it was when Democrats won a special election in northeastern New York earlier this year, Scozzafava is unable to take advantage of the shift, in part because of her record on taxes, support for a Democratic state budget and support of the stimulus package.

“Intensity is a huge problem. She doesn’t have a message to appeal to Republican voters who care about bigger government and higher taxes,” one Republican said.

GOP insiders also note that, as was the case in the 20th district special election, Democrats have once again picked a nominee who does not have a legislative record.

“Democrats got their blank-slate candidate, so we have nothing to hit him on,” groaned one Republican strategist who is familiar with the race.

Strategically, there are two big things to watch in the race. Do Democrats who like Scozzafava’s record in the Assembly and her position on key issues “come home” to Owens as Election Day nears, draining Scozzafava of one of her sources of support? And does Hoffman continue to peel more Republicans away from the Assemblywoman?

Owens, who is not insisting on a public option in the health care reform bill and does not support gay marriage, is a registered Independent. Yet he just received the endorsement of the Working Families Party even though Scozzafava’s husband, Ron McDougall, is a United Auto Workers member and president of one of the state’s central labor councils.

Capitol Hill Republicans are doing what they can to show that Scozzafava would be a part of their team.

NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) has publicly embraced her, and on Friday Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas) released a statement endorsing her as “the only Republican who can win” and invoking the name of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to try to mobilize Republican voters behind Scozzafava. Hensarling and Sessions, of course, are largely unknown back in the New York district.

With three weeks to go, this contest is very much up for grabs. The three-way race makes for a number of possible scenarios, including ones that have Scozzafava finishing first, second or even third. She is in real trouble.

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

Virginia Governor Moved to Lean Takeover

According to the latest Washington Post survey, former Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) leads state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) 53%-44% with a little more than three weeks before Election Day. The poll confirms that Deeds has squeezed everything he can out of the controversy surrounding McDonnell's graduate school thesis, but is still trailing the Republican. We're moving the race from Toss-Up to Lean Takeover.

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

Lean Takeover (4 R, 6 D)

• CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
• HI Open (Lingle, R)
• RI Open (Carcieri, R)
• VT Open (Douglas, R)
  
• KS Open (Parkinson, D)
• Corzine (D-NJ)
• OK Open (Henry, D)
• TN Open (Bredesen, D)
• VA Open (Kaine, D) *
  
• WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 6 D)

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

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

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

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

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

Currently Safe (6 R, 4 D)

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

New Jersey Governor: Don’t Believe the Corzine Surge Just Yet

By Stuart Rothenberg

The gubernatorial race in New Jersey has not changed fundamentally recently, no matter what you may read in poorly produced Associated Press stories distributed by the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic National Committee or Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) campaign.

I’ve become accustomed to crazy rumors and assertions at the end of campaigns, and most of them are baseless.

A couple of days before Election Day 2006, CBS executives planning the network’s coverage were in a frenzy about a possible Republican surge that challenged all of their assumptions about the election and disrupted their plans for election night. After checking around with reliable pollsters, I told them the sky wasn’t falling on Democrats.

In other years, when Republicans were headed for gains, I’ve heard late rumors about Democratic surges that were equally untrue.

A Wednesday AP story reporting that Corzine “is closing the gap in the New Jersey governor’s race” and has “pulled to within 4 percentage points of Republican Chris Christie” is technically true but gives such a distorted view of the contest that it can only mislead readers.

The same impression was left by reports on newjerseynewsroom.com, an independent news site, on Bloomberg.com and in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Describing Corzine as closing the gap or pulling closer conveys the impression that Corzine is gathering support and increasing his standing in the contest. He is not. He hasn’t moved in the Quinnipiac University poll (or in other polls, for that matter) since the beginning of the year.

Corzine’s chances of winning re-election now are no better than they were a month ago. The governor continues to be stuck between 38 percent and 42 percent in the ballot test, where he has been for many months, and the fundamentals of the race continue to favor the Republican challenger.

Corzine was at 39 percent among likely voters in the newest Quinnipiac survey, not much different from his 37 percent showing at the end of August, his 40 percent showing in early August or his 38 percent showing in mid-July.

The most recent Quinnipiac poll showed Christie leading Corzine by 4 points because the Republican’s vote has slipped from 46 percent or 47 percent in other Quinnipiac surveys to 43 percent. In turn, Independent candidate Chris Daggett’s number in the ballot test has risen to 12 percent in the most recent Quinnipiac poll, up from the 7 percent to 9 percent he had been drawing in other recent Quinnipiac surveys.

There is no statistically significant movement from late August to late September among likely independent voters.

Corzine’s attacks on Christie have driven the challenger’s negatives up, as the DGA points out, so that Christie’s personal ratings are only 38 percent favorable/38 percent unfavorable. Of course, what the DGA forgot to mention is that Corzine’s ratings are 34 percent favorable/56 percent unfavorable — much worse than Christie’s.

No, Corzine’s unfavorable ratings haven’t moved, but that’s because his name identification is high and voters already viewed him unfavorably before the race began. The governor’s job approval mirrors his name ID ratings at 36 percent approve/58 percent disapprove. (A month ago, Corzine’s job rating was little different at 34 percent approve/60 percent disapprove.)

Quinnipiac’s latest poll found that the top campaign issue by far for likely voters is taxes (41 percent, compared with the second most important issue, the economy/unemployment/jobs, which drew 17 percent). And which candidate has the advantage on that issue? Christie “is the big winner” on that issue, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Director Maurice Carroll says.

Quinnipiac found that 61 percent of likely voters (and 71 percent of likely independent voters) said that property taxes — the single most salient issue in polling — would likely go up if Corzine is re-elected, while only 34 percent of likely voters (and 38 percent of likely independent voters) thought property taxes would go up if Christie wins next month.

What evidence should you look for if the fundamental dynamics of the race are changing?

Corzine’s numbers in the ballot test need to show some life. Ballot tests a year out don’t mean a great deal, especially if the candidates haven’t spent money or engaged, but this race has been active for months and state voters have seemed more focused on politics earlier than in the past.

Alternatively, a full-scale shift of Christie voters to Independent Daggett would suggest that Democrats had made Christie an unacceptable alternative to the governor, giving Corzine a chance to squeeze out a win with just 40 percent of the vote in a three-way race.

But that has not happened yet, and the bigger concern for Corzine is that Daggett voters will move away from him and toward Christie as the election nears and Daggett voters decide that they want to be with a winner, or that voting for an Independent is a “wasted” vote.

Corzine still has a month to change the contest’s dynamics, and nobody can predict what surprises or mistakes are yet to come. But the new Quinnipiac poll doesn’t show that much has changed, no matter what hype you read in a lot of the news coverage.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 1, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2009-2010 Gubernatorial Ratings

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

Lean Takeover (5 R, 5 D)

• CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
• FL Open (Crist, R)
• HI Open (Lingle, R)
• RI Open (Carcieri, R)
• VT Open (Douglas, R) #
  
• KS Open (Parkinson, D)
• Corzine (D-NJ)
• OK Open (Henry, D)
• TN Open (Bredesen, D)
• WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (3 R, 6 D)

• Brewer (R-AZ)
• Gibbons (R-NV)
• MN Open (Pawlenty, R)
• Paterson (D-NY) *
  
• Ritter (D-CO) *
  
• MI Open (Granholm, D)
• PA Open (Rendell, D)
• VA Open (Kaine, D)
• WI Open (Doyle, D) *
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (1 R, 3 D)

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

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 3 D)

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

Currently Safe (5 R, 4 D)

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

In Virginia, Culture War Looks Very Much Alive on One Side

By Stuart Rothenberg

Somebody needs to tell Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds that the “culture wars” are over. Apparently, he didn’t get the memo.

Deeds is banking on completing his comeback in this year’s Virginia gubernatorial race by portraying Republican nominee Bob McDonnell, the commonwealth’s former attorney general, as a Neanderthal who opposes abortion, birth control and women in the workplace.

If that isn’t a “cultural” argument, I don’t know what is.

And yet, it was just two months ago that Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the left- leaning Center for American Progress, assured us in an article, “The Coming End of the Culture Wars,” that “culture wars, far from coming back, are likely coming to an end as a defining aspect of our politics.”

And it was less than six months before that Peter Beinart, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, assured us in his Daily Beast post, “The End of the Culture Wars,” that President Barack Obama “wants to remove culture from the public debate.”

The president, wrote Beinart, thinks many conservative white Protestants and Catholics “will look beyond culture when they enter the voting booth as long as he and other Democrats don’t ram cultural liberalism down their throats.”

And 18 months ago, in March 2008, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote that the questions that “will most engage us will be about survival and prosperity, not religion and culture.”

Teixeira, Beinart and Dionne aren’t completely wrong, of course. The economy has pushed cultural issues to the back burner, and while Obama holds predictably liberal views on abortion and gay marriage (as evidenced by the president’s recent statement that the Defense of Marriage Act is “discriminatory” and “should be repealed”), he has not lectured the country about them.

Deeds, on the other hand, is using cultural issues as his ultimate wedge in Northern Virginia, and as we have seen recently, the White House (not to mention Democratic National Committee Chairman and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine) is very much supportive of Deeds’ candidacy.

As reporters Anita Kumar and Jon Cohen wrote in the Washington Post on Sunday, “Deeds has made McDonnell’s 20-year-old thesis and his views on women centerpieces of his campaign, particularly in the more liberal, vote-rich northern part of the state.”

Deeds is now airing two different TV spots on cultural issues, citing McDonnell’s alleged positions against abortion, birth control “even for married couples” and working women.

This emphasis is interesting, considering that the top concern of voters is not cultural issues but the economy, at least according to the Post’s own poll, which showed that issue (the economy/jobs/unemployment) far ahead of other issues in the minds of voters.

After that, voters were most concerned about a quartet of issues: education, health care, taxes and transportation.

The same poll showed voters trusting McDonnell more than Deeds on the economy and jobs (48 percent to 43 percent), taxes (50 percent to 39 percent) and transportation (46 percent to 38 percent), while they trusted Deeds on health care (47 percent to 43 percent).

Yet Deeds continues to pound away, at least in Northern Virginia, on culture, and he is doing so for one reason and only one reason: He figures that it is good politics.

Deeds has been underperforming in crucial Northern Virginia, and his campaign wisely decided that hitting McDonnell on abortion and other cultural issues will peel off suburban moderate voters not enamored of Deeds’ rural roots from the Republican and motivate them to turn out in November for the Democratic ticket.

So far, few commentators have remarked about Deeds’ strategy given the top issues of the day. You can be sure that if it were McDonnell, not Deeds, who was bringing up abortion and other cultural issues, he’d be criticized for being divisive and for focusing on allegedly tangential matters at a time of economic distress.

Indeed, that was the message in a Nov. 10, 2005, E.J. Dionne Jr. column written shortly after Kaine’s election as governor. Dionne wrote that a “jovial” then-Gov. Mark Warner (D) talked about the “failure” of the GOP’s gubernatorial campaign, and its focus on hot-button social issues, and Warner stressed that voters preferred candidates who dealt with questions that governors “actually spend 98 percent of their time working on,” such as the budget, health care, education, transportation and job growth.

Instead, the Washington Post cheered Deeds on in a mid-August editorial for talking about abortion and called the McDonnell campaign “disingenuous and wrong” for complaining that Deeds’ attacks were divisive.

And oddly, no one has mentioned that Deeds, who ran as a moderate in the primary, is now relying on a pro-abortion-rights message usually employed by liberal Democrats in general elections.

“I think somebody like me, from my part of the state, can bring people together, can create consensus,” Deeds says in a new TV spot that is running at the same time that he is attacking his opponent in the two abortion/birth control ads.

It’s too soon to say whether Deeds’ strategy will work. Democratic conventional wisdom over the past few years says it won’t, and if Mark Warner was correct back in 2005, Deeds is toast. But, in any case, reports of the death of cultural issues have been greatly exaggerated.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 24, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.