House Members Soft-Pedal Their Résumés in Gubernatorial Campaigns

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Even though having Washington, D.C., on your résumé is supposed to be like having a scarlet letter on your lapel this election cycle, more than a dozen current and former Members of Congress are running for governor — and trying to overcome voters’ ill feelings toward the nation’s capital.

Not everyone can be as lucky as Rep. Mary Fallin, the heavy favorite to win the July 27 Oklahoma GOP primary and the general election in November. Instead, Members are trying to figure out how to maximize their federal experience without taking on too much water in their campaign.

“It’s a handicap in more ways than a help. Even more so this time,” said one GOP consultant who has worked with multiple Members who ran for governor. Not only do they have to balance their calendar between official duties and the trail, Members are also casting potentially controversial votes in the middle of a campaign.

In Alabama, Rep. Artur Davis is favored to win the June 1 Democratic gubernatorial primary, but victory is not guaranteed. Davis has been running a general election campaign from the outset and voted against the health care reform bill. So even though Davis’ Democratic primary opponent, state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, is running a mediocre campaign, he appears to be drawing votes from disenchanted Democrats who are upset with Davis for voting against health care reform.

In Georgia, GOP Rep. Nathan Deal postponed his resignation from the House in order to vote against the health care bill, hoping that doing so would give him a boost in the gubernatorial primary. But his departure from office was met with headlines about a possible ethics committee investigation into whether he used his Congressional office to help a family-owned business.

It’s exactly what Deal didn’t need in the middle of his battle with Secretary of State Karen Handel for the second slot in the Aug. 10 Republican runoff in the Peach State. State Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine is expected to finish first in the July 20 primary.

According to one GOP strategist, Members shouldn’t quit to run for governor. The line won’t be erased from their résumé, and they shouldn’t throw away an opportunity to make news.

In South Carolina, Rep. Gresham Barrett is using his office as a platform to demonstrate his opposition to President Barack Obama and the Democratic agenda. One of Barrett’s television ads points out that the lawmaker is “more opposed to Obama than any Congressman in America, but one.”

Barrett is in the middle of a competitive four-candidate Republican primary set for June 8. He’s competing with state Rep. Nikki Haley and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer for a spot in the June 22 runoff against state Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is likely to finish first in the initial primary.

Rep. Zach Wamp, the eight-term Republican from Tennessee, talks about the Beltway from a distance, offering to meet people at the state line who want to take away guns.

Wamp doesn’t have the benefit of a runoff. He’ll have to knock off Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, the frontrunner in the GOP race, and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey in the Aug. 5 primary.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra appears to be the frontrunner in his race to become governor of Michigan, but there is a long way to go before the Aug. 3 GOP primary. An April 22 Rasmussen Reports survey showed him leading the primary with 28 percent. Wealthy venture capitalist Rick Snyder was second with 14 percent, state Attorney General Mike Cox had 13 percent and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard had 9 percent. The automated survey had a 4.5-point margin of error.

Hoekstra voted in favor of both the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the Troubled Asset Relief Program last year — decisions that could haunt him in the campaign.

In all four states (Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Michigan), the primary is critical because the GOP nominee will likely start the general election with a distinct advantage. But while Hoekstra is in a strong position in his primary, Deal, Barrett and Wamp are underdogs.

The Sept. 18 primary is critical in Hawaii, where the Democratic nominee will have the edge in November. Neil Abercrombie decided to resign his House seat earlier this year in order to focus on his gubernatorial bid. He should be able to spend more time on the campaign trail battling Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann instead of traveling the 5,000 miles one way from his district to D.C.

A number of former Members of Congress who have been out of the House for a lot longer than Abercrombie and Deal are also running for governor — with varying likelihoods of winning.

Former Rep. Scott McInnis is running in Colorado and doesn’t have much GOP primary opposition, but he faces a tough general election battle with Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D).

In Ohio, former Rep. John Kasich secured the GOP nomination in last week’s primary, but he faces an extremely competitive race against incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who also served in the House. While Democrats will try to use Kasich’s House service against him, they appear to be more excited about the Republican’s subsequent work for Lehman Brothers.

In Wisconsin, former Rep. Mark Neumann (R), who served with Kasich and Strickland in the House, is presenting himself primarily as a small-business man, but he isn’t shying away from his time in Congress.

“People look back at 12 years ago and remember a much different time,” Neumann said in a recent interview. “They remember we balanced the budget and passed tax cuts.”

Neumann’s GOP primary opponent agrees.

“I liked what he did in Congress. I was for it,” Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker said about Neumann’s record in the House. “I’m not going to attack him on it.”

Neumann looks like a slight underdog to Walker in the Sept. 14 primary, with the winner facing Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a former Democratic Congressman, in the general election.

Other former Members are much longer shots in either the primary or general elections.

Former Rep. Rick Lazio is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in New York but would face an extremely tough race against state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) in the general election.

In Pennsylvania, former Rep. Joe Hoeffel isn’t even polling in the double digits with the Democratic primary less than a week away.

Four other former Members are running for governor, but their House service is no longer their defining characteristic.

Former Rep. Bill McCollum has spent the past four years as Florida’s attorney general and has a slight advantage over state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) in this fall’s election. McCollum can’t overlook wealthy health care executive Rick Scott in the GOP primary either.

Former GOP Rep. Bob Ehrlich is running for governor in Maryland, but he was already governor for four years before being defeated for re-election in 2006.

Former Rep. Butch Otter (R) is running for re-election as governor of Idaho, and ex-Rep. Jim Gibbons (R) is running for re-election in Nevada. Otter should be re-elected easily, while Gibbons, who has been battered by personal scandal, will likely lose in either the Republican primary or general election.

This story first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 13, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Some Race Results Matter More Than Others

By Stuart Rothenberg

This year, it’s harder than ever to distinguish what really matters from what doesn’t. Special situations are adding to the confusion, as is a fickle public, which is showing a willingness to change its positions in the blink of an eye.

In Hawaii’s special Congressional election to fill the opening created by the resignation of Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie, Republican Charles Djou certainly looks headed for an upset victory over two Democrats, former Rep. Ed Case, who has already represented the other half of the state in Congress, and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who has been described by the local media as “the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment.”

With Djou leading in polls and local Democrats unable to agree to support a single candidate in the election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has announced that it won’t spend any more resources on the race, which it now thinks is unwinnable.

That’s a stunning decision given the Democratic nature of the district, but it reflects the DCCC’s frustration with the race — and particularly with the state’s two Senators, who remain bitter about Case’s 2006 Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Daniel Akaka and have refused to encourage Hanabusa to exit the race.

Since the two Democrats are effectively dividing the Democratic vote and allowing Djou to win with far less than a majority of the vote, the outcome doesn’t say much of anything about November. The outcome isn’t irrelevant, but it certainly isn’t an indicator of things to come.

The special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th district is a far more important event, since it’s a head-to-head contest in a Democratic part of the state. But while Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry won the district narrowly in 2004 and Al Gore carried it more comfortably in 2000, Barack Obama lost it narrowly in 2008.

This is the kind of district where voters could use the special election as an opportunity to send a message of dissatisfaction about the Obama presidency and the Democratic Congressional agenda.

Republican Tim Burns is about as strong a candidate as Republicans could have hoped for. I interviewed him months ago as well as in late April, and I found him to be a more poised and polished candidate than I did during his first visit.

Given the large Democratic registration advantage in the district and the district’s strong support for the late Rep. John Murtha (D), Democrat Mark Critz, who was an aide to Murtha, should have an advantage in the race. A Burns victory would be a bad sign for Democrats for the fall.

Recent events in Utah certainly were noteworthy but not as instructive as the media coverage would suggest.

Nominating conventions are usually dominated by activists and ideologues, and purists at both the state GOP convention and the Democrats’ 3rd district convention showed their muscle, if not their brains.

Republican delegates denied Sen. Bob Bennett even the right to go to a primary to win renomination, and Democrats in the 2nd district forced Rep. Jim Matheson into a primary with a more liberal opponent who criticized the Congressman’s vote against health care reform.

Conventions produce different outcomes than primaries, so the results in Utah say more about the process than the voters. But the results are a reminder that the ideologues are particularly intolerant and vociferous this cycle.

Finally, the dramatic changes in the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania, the Republican Senate primary in Florida and the GOP gubernatorial primary in California are worth remembering throughout the cycle.

Rep. Joe Sestak’s campaign seemed very much stalled until a single brilliant TV ad jump-started it and changed the Democratic Senate race in Pennsylvania fundamentally. Using video of party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter (D) together with former President George W. Bush, Sestak redefined the choice Democratic primary voters face. Now it is Specter who will need to come from behind.

In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist went from popular frontrunner in the GOP race to controversial also-ran in the Republican primary to Independent candidate in a matter of months. A year ago, nobody thought that could happen.

Similarly, in California, Republican Meg Whitman built up a large lead in the gubernatorial primary, only to see it largely evaporate when her opponent, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, hit her in a TV ad for her association with Goldman Sachs.

Whitman’s 50-point lead in a March Public Policy Institute of California poll has fallen to 2 points in a recent SurveyUSA poll.

These kinds of reverses ought to make favorites and frontrunners feel uncomfortable, whether Democratic Senators such as Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Michael Bennet in Colorado or Republican Senate hopefuls Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Sue Lowden in Nevada.

On the other hand, I’m not yet a believer in some races where recent polls show tightening in general election ballot tests, including Senate races in Iowa and North Carolina. That’s because I expect the 2010 midterms ultimately will be a referendum on Democratic control of the White House and Congress, making for a very difficult political environment for Democratic challengers in both states in the fall.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 13, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Obama State Directors on Front Lines of 2010

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The men and women who served as state directors for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign were on the front lines of one of the best-run political operations in recent history.

After Obama’s victory, more than a dozen of them took jobs in the administration. But another group couldn’t stay away from the campaign trail, and they are now at the center of the party’s efforts to retain its Congressional majorities.

“It is important that they stay engaged,” Organizing for America Deputy National Director Jeremy Bird said about the state directors.

“Folks were amazing, some of the best people I’ve ever worked with,” added Bird, who was the Maryland state director for the Obama campaign during the Democratic primary.

A comprehensive look at where the 50 general election state directors are today shows that former Obama operatives have key positions in Democratic efforts to hold control of the Senate in the November midterms. Click here for the chart of all 50 state directors.

In Connecticut, former Obama New Hampshire state director Mindy Myers was recently hired to manage state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s (D) campaign for retiring Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D) seat. Obama’s Connecticut state director, Justin Kronholm, is also working with the Blumenthal campaign as director of political operations.

In California, former Obama state director Mike Dorsey is deputy campaign manager for Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D) re-election campaign. In 2008, Dorsey landed in Montana for the general election, where Obama lost by only 3 points.

In Washington state, Carol Albert managed Sen. Patty Murray’s (D) re-election in 2004, was Obama’s state director in 2008 and is at the helm of Murray’s campaign once again.

And in Colorado, Craig Hughes was a senior adviser to the Obama campaign in the Centennial State and is now managing appointed Sen. Michael Bennet’s (D) tough election bid this year.

Republicans will likely need to win three of those four states to get to a 51-seat majority in the next Congress.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, complete with more Obama campaign veterans, will be there to back up the campaigns in those states, if needed. DSCC field director Rob Hill was Obama’s Oregon state director before moving to Nevada as a senior adviser. (He’s also married to Jarel LaPan, who moved into the Oregon role for the Obama campaign and now works for the administration.) Jackie Bray worked in Ohio during the 2008 general election and is now at the DSCC as well.

After being deeply involved in the Obama campaign and experiencing the organization and enthusiasm firsthand, former state directors are trying to apply 2008’s successful tactics to their 2010 campaigns.

“It’s a reminder of the importance of building a true grass-roots operation,” explained Aaron Pickrell, Obama’s Ohio state director who is managing Gov. Ted Strickland’s (D) re-election bid this year.

Multiple former state directors would speak only on the condition of anonymity for fear of disrupting the rhythm and message of their tough races, but they all agreed that the Obama campaign did a fantastic job fusing the old and the new when it comes to voter contact.

“It’s important to utilize the Internet and new media, not just for communications, but as a field tool and voter contact tool,” said Pickrell, who worked with Bird and Bray in the Buckeye State. But “the most effective campaign is still knocking on doors and neighbor-to-neighbor contact.”

Multiple former state directors also agreed on the necessity of replicating the “buy-in” of the Obama campaign. “If people feel like they have ownership in the campaign, they are more likely to be involved,” Pickrell explained. Democratic campaigns nationwide are hoping to take advantage of the infrastructure from the 2008 campaign and tap in to the larger pool of potential voters and volunteers.

As the state director in Ohio, Pickrell was part of a somewhat exclusive club. Ohio was one of the 18 states targeted by the Obama campaign, and those state directors had a different set of marching orders than the rest. The other targeted states were Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Former Obama campaign operatives are also in key roles on the House side.

New Mexico state director Adrian Saenz is now chief of staff for Rep. Harry Teague, one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country. Moving north, former Florida Campaign for Change field director Angela Botticella is running Rep. Betsy Markey’s (D) campaign in Colorado’s 4th district, also one of the most competitive races this cycle.

While some former state directors, such as Saenz and Pickrell, are using the local expertise to help individual Democrats in 2010, others are using their influence at a broader level.

Former state directors Steve Schale (Florida), Craig Schirmer (Pennsylvania) and others are involved in 2010 races as consultants instead of on official campaign staffs. Former Missouri state director Buffy Wicks (who was one of four regional state directors early in the campaign) moved from the White House Office of Public Engagement to AKPD Message and Media, senior White House adviser David Axelrod’s consulting firm.

Former Virginia state director Mitch Stewart is the head of OFA, which is essentially the Obama campaign embedded within the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC just announced that it plans to invest $50 million into races this year. A chunk of that money includes staffing, field support, data and targeting, and volunteer programs provided by OFA.

While the DNC is focused on 2010, the OFA’s purpose is to keep the president’s supporters engaged to help this year and looking ahead to his re-election.

“Whether it’s 2012 or 20 years from now, the investment we’re putting in now is helpful for the long term,” Bird said.

Tricia Miller, Daniel Newhauser, Jeremy B. White, Kristin Coyner and Zack Hale contributed to this report. This story first appeared in Roll Call on April 27, 2010 and on CQPolitics.com on April 28, 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.

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.

Don’t Believe the Hype ... or Everything That You Read

By Stuart Rothenberg

Periodically (it seems more often these days, actually), I come across some really silly political stuff that screams out for attention. Here are four examples. Caveat emptor!

Exhibit No. 1: A Feb. 17 survey of 500 likely Wisconsin voters by Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen is an automated poll that does not include live interviewers, and, as anyone who follows polling knows, it’s highly controversial, in part because of the large number of surveys conducted by the firm and the widespread belief that the firm favors Republicans.

The numbers in the Wisconsin survey that stuck out like a sore thumb were the favorable and unfavorable ratings of Republican Senate hopeful Dave Westlake. According to the survey, 33 percent of those polled had a favorable view of Westlake, while 31 percent had an unfavorable opinion of him.

What’s so weird about that? Well, Westlake isn’t exactly a public figure.

The self-described “entrepreneur and small businessman” went to West Point and earned an MBA from the University of Chicago, but as far as I can tell, he has no political experience and hasn’t spent any money to get known. His year-end Federal Election Commission report showed that at the end of 2009 he had raised $33,000, spent $31,000 and had less than $3,000 in the bank.

Dave Westlake probably is a nice guy, and I wish him well. But there is no way that two out of three likely Wisconsin voters know enough about him to have an opinion of him (unless Rasmussen provided other information, such as party). And that’s what the favorable/unfavorable question is intended to produce — information about the person’s name identification and image.

In November, Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling company, surveyed the Wisconsin Senate race and found Westlake’s ID at 2 percent favorable/9 percent unfavorable. Could Westlake’s name ID have skyrocketed from 11 percent to 64 percent from November to February? No, not without a statewide media blitz.

Exhibit No. 2: A Feb. 8 e-mail from Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff’s campaign touting his standing in recent Rasmussen polls.

Romanoff, a former Colorado Speaker, is challenging appointed Sen. Michael Bennet in this year’s Democratic primary, and given the political environment, anything is possible.

But there are two things about the e-mail that are ridiculous. First, Democratic strategists spend a good deal of time discrediting Rasmussen as a Republican pollster whose results rarely reflect reality. Yet, here is the Romanoff campaign basing its entire argument about Romanoff’s alleged electability on two Rasmussen surveys. Incredible.

And second, the argument that Romanoff is the stronger general election candidate because of the Rasmussen polls comes from Romanoff consultant Celinda Lake. Since Lake is herself a pollster, you’d think that she might refer to one of her own surveys, rather than the survey of another pollster. She doesn’t.

Exhibit No. 3: Rep. Joe Sestak (D) claims the White House offered him a job to get him out of the Pennsylvania Senate race.

Sestak’s assertion that he was offered a job by the administration isn’t shocking at all. It’s the media reaction to it that is.

What’s the big deal? This kind of thing happens all of the time. There is nothing immoral or unethical about it. It’s politics. The White House embraced Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) when he switched parties, and now they are trying to clear the primary field for him.

As news goes, it’s interesting but hardly shocking or outrageous. But it was treated as a big deal, not only by the Philadelphia newspapers but by the Associated Press and other newspapers and blogs.

Exhibit No. 4: All the hype about the Nevada Tea Party getting on the ballot and the likely candidacy of businessman Jon Ashjian.

News of the Tea Party’s ballot status in Nevada spread like wildfire. PoliticalWire reported on a Public Opinion Strategies poll by asserting that Ashjian “changes” the Nevada race, with Ashjian “helping” Sen. Harry Reid (D).

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quoted highly regarded Nevada political analyst Jon Ralston as tweeting that Ashjian “could have huge impact” on the contest, and National Journal reported that Ashjian “could split conservative votes.”

CQ-Roll Call got caught up in the hype too, I must add.

First, as everyone who watched the New Jersey gubernatorial race last year should remember, Independent Chris Daggett received 5.8 percent of the vote, underperforming every survey from mid-September to Election Day.

Early polls always exaggerate the strength of third-party candidates, and there is every reason to believe that this is the case with the POS poll. (This is not a criticism of POS, which I continue to regard as one of the absolutely best survey research firms in the business.)

Second, only somebody with little background in polling would spend a lot of time at this point looking at general election ballot tests of candidates with dramatically unequal name identification.

A huge 94 percent of Nevada voters know enough about Harry Reid to have an opinion of him, while the comparable figure for the leading Republicans in the race is much lower. Sue Lowden is at 56 percent, Danny Tarkanian is at 52 percent and Sharron Angle is at 26 percent.

No matter what Ashjian draws in the hypothetical ballot tests, Reid is stuck between 37 percent and 39 percent of the vote in most polls, in the POS survey and in others. Until that changes, Ashjian will be a nonfactor in the race, and spending time on his potential is little more than wishful thinking by Democrats and media hype by reporters.


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

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

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

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

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

Lean Takeover (6 R, 7 D)

• Brewer (R-AZ)
  
• CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
• CT Open (Rell, R)
  
• HI Open (Lingle, R)
• RI Open (Carcieri, R)
• VT Open (Douglas, R)
  
• Culver (D-IA)
  
• KS Open (Parkinson, D)
• MI Open (Granholm, D)
  
• OK Open (Henry, D)
• PA Open (Rendell, D) *
  
• TN Open (Bredesen, D)
• WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (2 R, 3 D)

• FL Open (Crist, R)
  
• MN Open (Pawlenty, R)
• CO Open (Ritter, D)
• Strickland (D-OH)
  
• WI Open (Doyle, D)
  

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

• Gibbons (R-NV)
  
• GA Open (Perdue, R)
• Patrick (D-MA)
• ME Open (Baldacci, D)
  

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

• Perry (R-TX)
  
• AL Open (Riley, R)
• SC Open (Sanford, R)
• Paterson (D-NY)
  
• Quinn (D-IL)
• NM Open (Richardson, D)
  

Currently Safe (5 R, 4 D)

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