Project Runway Meets the Campaign Trail: The Brown Jacket

By Nathan L. Gonzales

In a toxic climate, candidates are shedding the politician label and donning a critical wardrobe item to weather the electoral storm: the brown barn jacket. Candidates are running to demonstrate their political independence by following this year’s hottest campaign trend in an effort to relate to the common folk.

Over the last few years, the barn jacket has struggled at the ballot box. In 2004, Sen. John Kerry’s wardrobe choice was widely panned as he donned the jacket for a hunting photo opportunity.


In 2008, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin wore the female version, but it wasn’t enough to make independent voters warm up to the GOP ticket.



But after this year’s Senate special election in Massachusetts, the barn jacket is back and candidates are merging the runway with the campaign trail in their television ads.



Republican Scott Brown’s stunning victory breathed new life into the fashion statement. His spokesman even suggested that the jacket hang in the Smithsonian.

Now, we’re seeing the jacket pop up all across the country. Republican Buz Mills is running for governor in Arizona and putting his trust in the jacket.


The fashion trend knows no partisan boundaries. Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D), who is looking at competitive primary and general elections this year, just went on television with his first ad, and of course he’s wearing the jacket.



For multi-million dollar campaigns, an $85 investment in a Men’s Sandstone Chore Coat by Carhartt may be the best investment a candidate will ever make.

But as the weather warms up, campaigns may be missing their opportunity to relate to regular people. We’re either going to see some incredibly hot and sweaty candidates or they're going to have to find a new fashion statement.

Can These Democrats Swim Against the Political Current in 2010?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Democrats rode national political waves during the past two cycles. There will likely be another wave this year, but this time the beneficiaries will be Republicans.

The 2010 election cycle’s dynamics make difficult races even harder for two appealing House Democratic candidates I interviewed recently, Suzan DelBene and Jon Hulburd.

DelBene, 48, is an impressive Democratic recruit in Washington’s 8th district. She worked for Microsoft for almost a decade before becoming vice president at an Internet startup firm (drugstore.com) and then CEO of a software/data integration company (Nimble Technology).

She later returned to Microsoft as a corporate vice president. Her husband is a senior VP at the company, a very high-level position. Money shouldn’t be a problem for her bid.

DelBene has already put $500,000 into her race, ending 2009 with $773,000 in the bank. She expects the race to cost $3.5 million, certainly not out of line considering that Democrat Darcy Burner spent almost $4.5 million in her 2008 rematch against Rep. Dave Reichert (R), not counting the more than $1.6 million the DCCC spent in the district.

DelBene is poised, well-spoken and likable. She has a strong résumé of accomplishments and considerable business experience, and since she has never run for political office before, she can run as a political outsider and an agent of change. All those are pluses in this environment.

On the other hand, the Reed College graduate is a down-the-line liberal — pro-stimulus, pro-cap-and-trade, pro-House-health-care-bill, anti-Stupak-amendment (a measure that is offensive to abortion-rights advocates) — in a district where the liberal Burner came up just short twice, during great Democratic years.

The 8th district is evenly divided among Republicans and Democrats, but Reichert’s appeal is demonstrated by his ability to survive two Democratic waves. Had DelBene run last time, she probably would have won. But 2010 is looking like a much different year.

Democrat Hulburd faces a similar challenge in his bid to turn Arizona’s 3rd district blue. Rep. John Shadegg’s (R) retirement creates an open-seat opportunity for Democrats, especially given the huge Republican field and uncertain outcome of the party’s primary.

Hulburd, 51, is a commercial litigator making his first run for office. Like DelBene, he is well-spoken, poised and has substantial personal resources, a solid Democratic recruit who has been active in his community. He raised $315,000 in the fourth quarter and ended the year with $259,000 on hand.

Stressing his independence and the fact that he isn’t “a politician,” Hulburd hopes to tap the public’s dissatisfaction with Washington, D.C., and with the state Legislature.

The open seat presumably enhances Democrats’ chances, but past election numbers aren’t encouraging. Barack Obama drew 42 percent in the district, 1 point better than John Kerry did in 2004 and about the same as Al Gore did in 2000.

The 2008 Democratic nominee, Bob Lord, spent $1.8 million on the race (but inexplicably went dark on TV at a crucial time) and benefited from just more than $2 million in independent expenditure spending by the DCCC, all of which got him just 42 percent of the vote.

Hulburd might have done better as the Democratic nominee last time. But given Lord and Obama’s showings last time and the different mood of this cycle, Hulburd will need a deeply wounded Republican nominee to have much of a chance.

Another Democrat who faces the same problem is Rep. Brad Ellsworth, who is running for Senate in Indiana.

The 8th district Congressman is running for retiring Sen. Evan Bayh’s seat, and if the calendar said 2006 or 2008, I’d be putting my money on Ellsworth. But it doesn’t.

I haven’t interviewed Ellsworth since he ran for the House in 2006, but he is just the kind of Democrat who could win statewide in the Hoosier State in a favorable or even neutral political climate.

Socially conservative and a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, he opposes legal abortion and gun control, and he voted against both cap-and-trade legislation and the stimulus bill that passed the House. He did, however, support the final version of the stimulus that eventually was signed into law, as well as the House Democrats’ health care bill.

A former police officer and county sheriff, Ellsworth drew 61 percent in defeating a Republican incumbent in 2006. Two years later, he increased his showing to more than 64 percent at the same time that Obama was drawing only 47 percent in the district.

The Democrat obviously fits his district well, but as CQ’s Politics in America noted, his “telegenic good looks hasn’t hurt him, either.”

But this year, Ellsworth will be on the defensive because of his party, and his voting record will give Republicans ammunition. His likely GOP opponent, former Sen. Dan Coats, has plenty of vulnerabilities (including telling an audience that he plans to move to North Carolina when he retires), but being a Republican won’t be one of them.

Of DelBene, Hulburd and Ellsworth, I suspect that Ellsworth has the best chance of swimming against the tide. Senate races get more visibility than House contests, and the GOP field isn’t intimidating in the Indiana Senate race.

Timing is everything in politics, and good candidates sometimes find themselves running in bad places or in bad years. For DelBene and Hulburd, a difficult race may have morphed into a nearly impossible one right now.


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

What Do Voters Want? Legislators or Ideological Voting Machines?

By Stuart Rothenberg

What do voters want — Members of Congress who approach every issue as if it were an ideological litmus test that reflects the ultimate battle of good versus evil, or Members with the experiences and character to bring less rigid perspectives and problem-solving skills to almost any issue?

Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth’s primary challenge to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is an obvious test case, much as Ned Lamont’s challenge to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID) was in 2006.

Hayworth is running an issue-oriented, purely ideological challenge to McCain, arguing that the four-term Republican Senator’s voting record is wrong on taxes, bailouts, amnesty for illegal aliens, the federal marriage amendment, cap-and-trade, campaign finance and terrorism.

On his Web site, Hayworth, who is described as “the consistent conservative,” says that he would have voted differently than McCain on all these high-profile issues, as well as on the confirmation of Eric Holder as attorney general.

McCain, of course, calls himself a conservative and has a case to make.

McCain’s CQ Party Unity score for 2009 was 96 percent, the same score as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas). Even Hayworth isn’t likely to dismiss Cornyn and Sessions as moderates.

Admittedly, many votes are relatively noncontroversial, party-line votes, so a high party unity score doesn’t mean that a Member might not have defected from the party’s orthodoxy on a number of high-profile issues. And McCain’s party unity scores have been much lower: 93 percent in 2008, 76 percent in 2006, 86 percent in 2003 and 67 percent in 2001, for example.

But the Arizona Republican has the support of conservative darling Sarah Palin, and newly elected Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who has come to symbolize to many both the energy of the “tea party” movement and opposition to President Barack Obama, is traveling to Arizona on McCain’s behalf.

Even more important, McCain has spent years establishing a reputation for fiscal responsibility, particularly in his opposition to pork-barrel spending and the deficit. McCain voted in 2003 against final passage of the now-unpopular bill creating a new prescription drug benefit, calling it fiscally irresponsible. Hayworth supported passage of that legislation.

McCain’s record on spending is sure to resonate with Republican voters in Arizona. And this year, fiscal restraint will be a huge issue with GOP primary voters.

Of course, it’s also true that McCain is not as conservative as Hayworth.

McCain’s association with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) on campaign finance and with the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) on immigration reform sends some conservatives into a frenzy, as has his vocal opposition to “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

Hayworth’s 2004 scores (to pick a year when both Republicans were in Congress) from the AFL-CIO and the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, for example, were much lower than McCain’s, and Hayworth’s ratings that year from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Conservative Union were much higher than McCain’s.

Issues are, of course, extremely important to voters. And most people would say that it’s far better that people judge candidates on their positions on issues rather than their looks or their TV ads.

But don’t many voters want Members of Congress to bring something more to their job than merely a list of issue positions? In fact, to many voters, the person matters.

Hayworth’s Web site describes him as “a radio and television personality, business management consultant, and public policy advocate” who served in Congress. It notes that he attended North Carolina State University on a football scholarship.

McCain, on the other hand, graduated from the U. S. Naval Academy and became a Navy aviator. He was taken prisoner by the North Vietnamese in 1967 and was tortured while being held in the notorious “Hanoi Hilton.”

McCain was elected to Congress in 1982. Four years later, he was elected to the Senate, eventually chairing the Senate Commerce Committee.

Hayworth is a “personality.” McCain is a war hero and one-time Republican nominee for president.

Hayworth’s Web site notes that he is an Eagle Scout. McCain’s notes that he has been awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

The comparison is pretty clear.

The question for Arizona Republicans, then, is whether McCain is conservative enough for them.

If they want an utterly predictable conservative, they’ll vote for Hayworth. If they want someone who is generally conservative but can be quirkily independent and thoughtful, who has had a full life and a broad range of international and domestic interests, and who understands that the legislative process takes some give and take, they will stick with McCain.

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

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

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over in the Senate, Democratic numbers are equally terrible.

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

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

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

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

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

AZ 3: Shadegg (R) to Retire

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

Arizona Senate: History Points to Another Term for McCain, if He Wants It

By Nathan L. Gonzales

If history is a guide, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is well-positioned for another six years in the Senate, should he choose to run for re-election in 2010.

Democrats would love for outgoing Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) to run for McCain’s seat, but it’s unclear whether President-elect Obama will tap her to be a part of his administration. McCain won Arizona 54 percent to 45 percent against Obama last week.

Frankly, there isn’t a ton of historical precedence, but since the direct election of Senators began, both sitting Senators who lost their presidential bids went on to win another term.

After losing the 2004 presidential race, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D) returned to the Senate and won re-election last week, 66 percent to 31 percent.

South Dakota Sen. George McGovern (D) lost the 1972 presidential race and won re-election two years later with 53 percent. McGovern was subsequently swept out in 1980, defeated by then-Rep. James Abdnor (R), while Republicans netted 12 Senate seats nationwide.

Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater (R) was up for re-election in 1964, but he ran for president instead and lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson.

And in 1996, Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) resigned his seat in June in order to focus on his ultimately unsuccessful presidential race.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on November 12, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Late-breaking House races shift political playing field

By Stuart Rothenberg

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every election cycle, a handful of races not taken very seriously early on become truly competitive contests, and this year is no exception.

Every candidate, of course, has a scenario. But most of those scenarios -- and most of those candidates -- evaporate well before October.

In the case of the candidates below, their scenarios are now supported by both polling and successful fundraising. Given the national political environment, it isn't surprising that most of the late surprises are in Republican-held seats. Read the rest of the story on CNN.com.

Where, Oh Where Are the Top House GOP Opportunities?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Not a single Democratic House seat switched to the GOP in 2006 while Republicans were losing 30 Congressional seats.

Could Democrats pitch another shut-out this year? It’s possible, though unlikely, even given the poor Republican poll numbers, the desire for change and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s financial advantage over the National Republican Congressional Committee.

After all, Democrats won a handful of reliably Republican districts in 2006 that they will struggle to retain, and no party has been shut out of taking over seats from the opposition in consecutive elections, at least since World War II.

So where are the best GOP chances?

Tier 1 Opportunities

Texas’ 22nd District, Nick Lampson (D). If only one Democratic seat switches to the Republicans, it’s likely to be Lampson’s. Lampson, of course, was defeated for re-election in 2004 (in a different district) only to come back and win Republican Tom DeLay’s open seat in 2006.

Although DeLay dropped his bid for re-election, the Republican nominee was unable to get her name on the ballot and was forced to run as a write-in candidate. Even then, Shelley Sekula Gibbs drew 42 percent of the vote.

Sekula Gibbs almost won her party’s nomination again this time, but she was defeated handily in the runoff by Pete Olson, a former aide to Sen. John Cornyn (R), who was generally regarded as the stronger general election candidate.

Lampson’s district gave President Bush 64 percent in 2004, a reflection of its Republican bent. While Lampson has built a much less liberal record than he did during his first service in the House, he is still a Democrat in a very Republican district. And that makes him the most vulnerable House Democrat in 2008.

Louisiana’s 6th District, Don Cazayoux (D). Cazayoux, a relatively conservative Democrat, is a reasonably good fit for his northeast Louisiana district. Despite that assessment, the reality is that he owes his seat in Congress to Woody Jenkins, the unelectable GOP nominee in the special election held earlier this year.

Cazayoux has a reasonable chance to win a full term in November, but if the Republicans nominate state Sen. Bill Cassidy, who has announced his candidacy, the freshman Democrat will have his hands full. The district definitely leans Republican, and a strong GOP nominee automatically becomes formidable. Republicans caught a rare break when Jenkins decided not to run again.

Tier 2 Opportunities

Kansas’ 2nd District, Nancy Boyda (D). Boyda upset then-Rep. Jim Ryun (R) last time, and the Republican nature of the district (Bush won it by 20 points in 2004) guarantees a serious contest. Ryun faces state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins for the Republican nomination.

Alabama’s 5th District, open seat. Rep. Bud Cramer’s (D) retirement opens up a conservative Southern district that will see stiff competition and should be a GOP target. But the likely Democratic nominee, state Sen. Parker Griffith, looks strong, while the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Wayne Parker, lost to Cramer twice.

California’s 11th District, Jerry McNerney (D). Freshman McNerney rode the Democratic wave and help from the environmental community to beat Republican Rep. Richard Pombo two years ago, but he isn’t an ideal fit for his Republican- leaning district. The GOP nominee, former state Assemblyman Dean Andal, looks to be a serious threat.

Pennsylvania’s 10th District, Christopher Carney (D). Carney beat a scandal-plagued Republican in a solidly Republican district, and the question is how long he can hold onto the seat. His GOP challenger, businessman Chris Hackett, hasn’t united Republicans following a nasty primary. Still, Carney is in the kind of district that he can never take for granted.

Florida’s 16th District, Tim Mahoney (D). Much like others on the list, Mahoney would not have won last time except for a GOP scandal, but he has been a strong fundraiser and won’t be an easy target for Republicans, who won’t pick a nominee until late August. Still, the GOP is likely to have a credible nominee in this Republican-leaning district.

Other Districts to Watch

Pennsylvania’s 11th district, Paul Kanjorski (D). Democrats are nervous about veteran Kanjorski, who has received his share of negative publicity. The early campaign of Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta (R) has been underwhelming, but that may not matter by the time November arrives. Polling suggests that this may well be a top-tier GOP takeover opportunity by November.

New York’s 20th district, Kirsten Gillibrand (D). Freshman Gillibrand is a fundraising phenom, and she will be very hard to beat in 2008. But former state GOP Chairman Sandy Treadwell has plenty of personal resources and is running in a reliably Republican district that a flawed Republican lost two years ago. The district’s fundamentals alone make this a Republican opportunity.

Wisconsin’s 8th district, Steve Kagen (D). Republican John Gard narrowly lost this Republican open seat last time, but the presidential year should bring out more voters and freshman Kagen hasn’t had the smoothest term.

A handful of other Democratic seats could also produce GOP upsets, including two in Arizona (Rep. Harry Mitchell’s and Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s), Rep. Carol Shea-Porter’s in New Hampshire and Rep. Jim Marshall’s in Georgia.

No matter what happens, Democratic losses will be few and the party can expect a substantial net gain in November.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 14, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Change in Congress Comes in All Ages and Sizes

By Nathan L. Gonzales

While age is an underlying issue in the presidential contest, Democrats have candidates young and old running as change agents at the Congressional level.

Former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes (D), 70, is a strong challenger to Rep. Sam Graves (R), 44, in Missouri’s 6th district. Caddo Parish District Attorney Paul Carmouche (D) just turned 65, but is in a strong position to win the Republican open seat in Louisiana’s 4th district.

In New Jersey’s 5th, blind rabbi Dennis Shulman (D), 58, is a longer-shot challenger to Rep. Scott Garrett (R). And in Florida’s 21st district, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez (D), 59, is giving Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) his first real race in years.

Arizona Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) was a 67-year-old freshman in the 110th Congress, after defeating Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth last cycle.

On the flip side, Democrats also have a number of candidates born right around the time Jimmy Carter was elected president. Iraq War veteran Ashwin Madia (D), 30, stands a good chance of coming to Congress next year as he tries to take over the very competitive Republican open seat in Minnesota’s 3rd district.

In Colorado’s 2nd district, wealthy businessman Jared Polis, 33, will come to Congress if he can make it out of the crowded Democratic primary on Aug. 12. Iraq War veteran Jon Powers (D), 29, also faces a competitive primary in New York’s 26th district. But if he’s the nominee, Powers will also face a general election fight.

Glenn Nye (D), 33, is hoping to knock off Rep. Thelma Drake (R) in Virginia’s 2nd district, while attorney Nick Leibham (D), 34, is hoping to oust Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) in California’s 50th.

André Carson, 33, was elected to Congress earlier this year in a special election to replace his grandmother, the late Rep. Julia Carson (D), in Indiana’s7th district. He defeated 30-year-old state Rep. Jon Elrod (R), who recently announced he was dropping out of the general election race.

Republicans have their own roster of youthful candidates. Duncan D. Hunter (R), 31, is a virtual lock to replace his father in California’s 52nd district.

Illinois state Rep. Aaron Schock (R), 27, could be the youngest Member of the next Congress. He’s favored in the fall, but he still has to win downstate Illinois’s 18th district seat, which is being vacated by Rep. Ray LaHood (R).

In New York’s 1st district, 28-year-old Iraq War veteran Lee Zeldin (R) is a long shot against incumbent Rep. Tim Bishop (D).

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 19, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Arizona 3: New Poll Reveals Little

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Polling memos are only as valuable as the numbers in them. A May 27 Bennett, Petts & Normington memo in Arizona’s 3rd district claims that Rep. John Shadegg (R) is “extremely vulnerable” but provides few and flimsy numbers from the actual survey to support the claim.

The May 18-20 survey, conducted for Shadegg’s Democratic challenger, attorney Bob Lord, showed the Congressman with a 31 percent re-elect number and 75 percent name identification.

But those numbers are only useful with context. The memo doesn’t give the other half of the re-elect question (the percentage of people who say they will vote for a “new person”). And 75 percent name ID is not terrible for a Member of Congress in a major metropolitan area, according to a second Democratic pollster not involved in the race.

It’s the numbers missing from the polling memo that tell the real story. The initial head-to-head ballot between Shadegg and Lord is nowhere to be found. Want Shadegg’s job approval number? Won’t find it here. The favorable/unfavorable numbers for the candidates (including Lord’s name ID) are not included either.

What does the memo include? Favorable and unfavorable ratings for Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D), who isn’t on the ballot this year, and President Bush, who isn’t running either, but at least its standard to include his numbers when Democrats are making their case. And it refers to results of state legislative races that aren’t in the district.

The survey (and memo) also showed a presidential matchup, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) leading Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) 48 percent to 43 percent in a district President Bush won with 58 percent in 2004. If McCain is underperforming Bush by 10 points in Arizona, Republicans should brace themselves for an electoral massacre that will make 2006 look like a birthday party.

Shadegg did have some issues with decisiveness after retiring and then un-retiring earlier this election cycle. But the missing numbers in the Democratic poll must have been pretty good for the Congressman, or else they would have been included in the polling memo.


This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 5, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Alaska At-Large & Arizona 8

The March 7, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks and the content is not available online. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

Here is a brief sample of what's in this edition...

Alaska At-Large: Young Blood
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Not too long ago, no one could have imagined that both of Alaska’s legislative legends could possibly go down to defeat. But with Republicans in the state being dragged off to jail one-by-one and the general public souring on Republicans in general, both Cong. Don Young (R) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R) find themselves at risk of losing reelection in 2008.

While Stevens is described as the statesman and even godfather of the state, Young’s image is far less awe-inspiring, and he’s faced with a growing mountain of questions surrounding his performance in office and the ongoing investigation into his dealings.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would have loved to get Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) to challenge Young, but instead the mayor is running against Stevens. Democrats do have former state House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz against Young, and although he doesn’t have the profile or name that Begich brings, he is a credible challenger who can take advantage of a weak incumbent.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the state is staunchly Republican by the numbers, particularly in a presidential year. And Alaskans haven’t voted for a Democrat for the House of Representatives in over three decades. But as we’ve seen in districts across the country, scandal and ethics is the recipe that can neutralize any existing partisan advantage. Read the whole story in the print edition.

Arizona 8: Bee Ready

Usually the first race to Congress is the most difficult for a member. But in the case of Democratic Cong. Gabrielle Giffords, this year is likely to be a tougher election fight than was her open seat contest in 2006, when she first won the right to represent Arizona’s 8th Congressional District by defeating a former GOP state legislator who was so polarizing that he lost some of the party’s faithful.
In 2008, Giffords will face state Senate President Tim Bee (R), whose candidacy represents a slice of sunshine in an otherwise gloomy election cycle for national Republicans.

But even though he’s the best candidate Republicans could have asked for in this southeastern Arizona district, he will also face the toughest general election fight of his political career.

And while many of her Democratic colleagues are excited about the potential influence of the Democratic presidential nominee on down ballot races, Giffords is running in the shadow of Arizona Sen. John McCain’s (R) presidential bid, creating an uncertain dynamic in the 8th District. Read the whole story in the print edition.

Arizona 1: Renzi's Out, But Who Benefits?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Normally, when an incumbent member of Congress decides against seeking reelection, it damages the chances of his or her party to hold the House seat. That isn't the case with Republican Rick Renzi's announcement that he will retire rather than seek another term in Arizona's 1st District.

Renzi's announcement, first reported by Roll Call, isn’t exactly a shocker. An FBI raid of his family business raised questions about the Republican's viability in next year’s elections, and GOP operatives expressed doubts weeks ago that the Congressman would run for a fourth term.

Renzi won reelection by just seven points last year over Democrat Ellen Simon, who was not regarded as a top tier challenger.

This time, Democrats have rallied around the candidacy of state Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a former city attorney for Sedona. It’s unclear, however, if the open seat will encourage other Democrats to look at the race.

Arizona's 1st C.D. was drawn to be a competitive district, and Republicans are likely to come up with a very credible general election nominee. Renzi was severely damaged goods, and as long as an ethics cloud hung over his head, his reelection prospects were not good. His retirement confirms that Democrats have an excellent opportunity to win the district, while at the same time gives Republicans a chance to find a stronger candidate who can retain it.

This race is now a toss-up.


This item first appeared on Political Wire on August 23, 2007.

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.