Sarah Palin? Frankly, My Dear, I Don’t Give a Damn

By Stuart Rothenberg

If you are planning on reading a column about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s presidential prospects, you will be deeply disappointed.

I don’t know whether Palin will run for president in 2012, and right now I don’t really care. Most in the media do care, of course, which is why they can’t seem to stop buzzing about her book, her book tour and her political intentions. You’d think the Iowa caucuses were right around the corner.

Even “real” news programs, such as CNN’s “State of the Union,” hosted by John King, spent too much time for my taste on Palin last weekend, both during the program’s political roundtable, during an interview with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and then during an unnecessarily long piece about her book.

Most — maybe all — of the current media coverage of the race for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 will be irrelevant for anyone who wants to know whom the GOP will nominate to take on President Barack Obama three years from now. There will be so many other developments over the next two years that will color that race that Palin’s book will be barely an asterisk.

Of course, if you are simply looking for entertainment rather than trying to understand how the next GOP presidential field will develop, then it’s certainly reasonable to pay attention to anything Palin, as well as to every speech by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

There are many in the media who will wax poetic about Palin and the 2012 race, so you won’t have trouble finding people who want to talk about the contest, even though there is no race now and there won’t be one for many, many months.

Ultimately, you have a simple choice: Do you get more enjoyment out of watching “The Biggest Loser,” “CSI” or “The Office,” or would you rather watch politics? If your answer is politics, then following all of the speculation about Palin and other potential candidates is the right thing for you to do.

And if you hate politics, you can watch Palin the way you watch any other pseudo-celebrity — on “Oprah” or “Entertainment Tonight.”

But don’t think for even a moment that any chatter now about the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president has any bearing on the 2012 GOP contest.

True, who will be in the race and who is raising big money for “next time” matters, but you don’t need to follow the Palin book tour or opinions about Pawlenty’s last speech to do that.

Even with their victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, the Republicans are pretty much irrelevant now. That’s not terrible for them, and it’s not unusual for the “out” party to be irrelevant.

All of the nation’s focus right now is on Obama, and almost every day there is some news item that seems to put the White House or the Democratic Party in an unflattering light.

Whether it’s unemployment, the deficit, health care, Afghanistan, the president bowing to the emperor of Japan or the ill-advised comments from a single Florida House Democrat, Democrats seem to have more problems than they need.

Democratic activist Al Sharpton commented over the weekend how happy he was that Palin is getting so much attention. The more attention, she gets, said the Rev. Sharpton, a man who is no stranger to media attention or to self-induced controversy, the better for the Democrats.

That may be true today, but not 10 months from now, when the midterm elections are likely to be about Obama no matter what wacky things Palin does now.

Yes, both the national media and Democrats are likely to keep Palin in the spotlight as long as possible.

For the media, the former governor of Alaska is a celebrity with an “interesting” family, while for Democrats, she is an easy target — a political lightweight of uncertain substance, who drives “tea party” conservatives into a euphoric frenzy but divides the GOP into two very different camps.

Palin may or may not be particularly relevant in early 2012, as the first states begin to select delegates to the next Republican National Convention. Right now, I’d guess she won’t. But that’s still two years away, so I’m not going to spend much more than a few seconds thinking about it.

Instead, I’m going to watch the last episode of “The Office,” which I missed.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 19, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Stu on CNN: The Never-Ending Campaign

Change That at Least Some People Can Believe In

By Stuart Rothenberg

Although he hasn’t yet taken the oath of office, President-elect Barack Obama has already made appointments, offered comments about the Middle East and sketched out the elements of an economic stimulus package that he hopes to be able to sign.

Predictably, some observers are already talking about the “several hits” that Obama has taken, a reference to the withdrawal of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s (D) nomination for the top job at Commerce and the mishandling of the appointment of Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

But these problems are minor, and the reaction to most of the incoming administration’s appointments has been positive. But that doesn’t mean everyone is thrilled with everything Obama has done.

Republicans are unhappy with the size of the stimulus package, while liberals are worried that his foreign policy advisers are too conservative. Gays are angry that he’s picked a conservative evangelical minister to offer the benediction at his inauguration.

The Club for Growth is skeptical about another big jobs program and wants across-the-board tax cuts instead. Self-styled Democratic outsiders wonder how Paul Volcker, Lawrence Summers, Panetta, Tom Daschle, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Gates constitute change.

CODEPINK is upset that Obama hasn’t taken a strong stand against the violence in the Middle East and against Israel’s military actions in Gaza. And, of course, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is very unhappy that Obama didn’t discuss his selection for CIA chief with her before it was leaked to the media.

All in all, that adds up to a pretty good start for the incoming commander in chief. Any politician who has ruffled so many feathers from such diverse constituencies must be doing something right.

Every new president causes some grumbling within his own base and even more from the political opposition, but incoming President Obama is particularly vulnerable to complaints from the peanut gallery.

That’s because when he ran for president promising change, the Illinois Democrat was purposely vague. There are many forms of change, and Obama’s campaign message allowed each person to define what he or she thought that change would be.

For some, change merely meant different people and a different agenda in the White House. For others it meant a different political party calling the shots.

For some, change meant a quick exit from Iraq, while others simply thought change meant a new approach in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For some, change meant a sharply more liberal approach to government, including greater income redistribution, a much stronger commitment to “green” alternatives and programs and policies that would be praised by organized labor, the gay community and the minority community.

For others, change merely meant competence — an administration that would not see every decision in ideological terms but would emphasize management and problem solving.

Now, we are starting to see how the incoming president defines change in the days leading up to his swearing-in.

Anybody who has followed campaigns and presidential administrations over the past three or four decades understands that campaigning and governing are two different worlds.

Presidential campaigns tend toward the thematic, with broad brushes about change or security or energy independence or “getting the economy going.” But governing is about choices and trade-offs, and often about building coalitions, even if one party holds 59 seats in the Senate.

For the moment, the new president seems more interested in de-emphasizing ideology and partisanship, and even in reaching out to Republicans. He apparently is trying to “change the tone in Washington” and in the nation at large. That’s the kind of change that many Americans will approve of, even if isn’t going to please some of Obama’s most committed supporters immediately.

But four years is a long time, and the “change” Barack Obama seems to be pursuing at the moment may be very different from the “change” he pursues two or three years from now, particularly if the economy has rebounded by then and the nation’s financial problems are in the rearview mirror.

People who are satisfied now may be less satisfied in two years, while those disappointed in the incoming administration’s initial steps may be more than happy.

One thing that seems certain is that all of the harping on the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) problems, the delay in seating Minnesota’s Al Franken (D) in the Senate, the controversy over whether Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the New York Senate seat, and Richardson’s withdrawal as the nominee to be secretary of Commerce are momentary distractions that will not undermine Obama’s reputation or power.

A few months from now, all of these embarrassments will be largely forgotten, overshadowed by important White House and Congressional decisions, as well as the news of the day.

If Obama falters, it won’t be because of Bill Richardson or Rod Blagojevich. And if he succeeds, it will be because he continues down the path he has already begun.

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

Nevada Senate: Unpopular Reid Jabs Unpopular Bush — Again

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took another opportunity Sunday to attack the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, despite his own mediocre polling numbers.

“I really do believe that President Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had,” Reid said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The Majority Leader is consistent, as he said the very same thing almost three years ago.

“I really do believe this man will go down as the worst president this country has ever had,” Reid told the New York Times in March 2006.

But Reid isn’t exactly the best critic of job performance, because he’s establishing his own track record of unpopularity.

For the past two years, Reid has presided over one half of an extremely unpopular Congress. According to national exit polling in the November elections, just 24 percent of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing, compared with 73 percent who disapproved. Bush was at 27 percent approve/71 percent disapprove among Nov. 4 voters.

The news for Reid isn’t any better back home in the Silver State.

A Mason-Dixon survey taken in May 2007 for the Las Vegas Review-Journal showed Reid with a personal rating of 32 percent favorable and 51 percent unfavorable. In comparison, Nevada’s other Senator, Republican John Ensign, enjoyed 51 percent favorable and 19 percent unfavorable ratings in the same poll.

According to a December 2007 Review-Journal poll, 58 percent of Nevadans gave Reid a fair or poor job rating, while 41 percent said he was doing an excellent or good job. In comparison, Ensign received 57 percent excellent or good job ratings and 40 percent fair or poor, even though he was also in leadership as the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Reid isn’t even particularly well-liked among some folks within his own party, particularly those on its left. Just 10 percent of Daily Kos readers who participated in an unscientific, online survey approved of Reid’s job as Majority Leader, while 81 percent did not approve. The survey was conducted in October 2007 on the prominent liberal Web site.

A more recent (and scientific) Nov. 23-25 Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos showed Reid leading then-Rep. Jon Porter (R) 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical 2010 general election matchup.

Even then, Reid was upside down in both his personal rating (38 percent favorable/54 percent unfavorable) and job rating (39 percent approve/57 percent disapprove. Porter, who lost re-election in the 3rd district in November, had 40 percent favorable and 39 percent unfavorable ratings.

Only history will show whether Reid’s critique of the Bush administration is correct. But his self-appointed role of presidential historian isn’t making him many friends.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 5, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Rothenberg Archives: 2002 Letter from Obama

This is our final bit of nostalgia for now, a letter from October 2002 from Obama to us following our initial September 13, 2002 meeting. Again, this meeting was for his 2004 race. Thanks for walking down memory lane with us. If we didn't think it was an auto-pen, we might hawk it on eBay for millions of dollars.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Campaigns and Electi Politics obama 2004

Rothenberg Archives: 2004 Obama Senate Campaign Prospectus

Here is a campaign prospectus from Barack Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate run. This was from our September 26, 2003 meeting with Obama, but we first met with him on September 13, 2002. That was almost two months before the 2002 election and he was already focused on 2004.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Campaigns and Electi Politics president obama

White House 2012 Polls: Not So Fast

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Barack Obama hasn’t even been sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, and the media can’t wait to name a leading candidate to take him on in four years.

Incessant speculation and polling are staples of today’s media, and any talk about the 2012 presidential race should be labeled as fantasy, not treated as news or analysis.

Not only are Americans — and many reporters — eager for a break after a seemingly eternal presidential race, but it is simply too early to predict which candidates will actually run for the White House four years from now and, more importantly, which issues will be center stage.

Four years ago, Obama had not yet been sworn into the U.S. Senate, after an easy general election win over Alan Keyes (R). Now, he is the president-elect.

Obama gave a memorable speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, but no one predicted he would be standing on the steps of the Capitol taking the oath of office in January 2009.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken Nov. 16-17 in 2004 showed New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) defeating Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), John Edwards (N.C.) and John Kerry (Mass.) in hypothetical 2008 general election matchups.

A month later, another Fox poll showed Clinton defeating Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) and New York Gov. George Pataki (R) in potential 2008 matchups. It also showed Kerry defeating Bush, 45 percent to 37 percent.

In addition, a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates (R) survey taken Nov. 14-16 in 2004 showed Clinton defeating Edwards, 46 percent to 28 percent, for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. On the Republican side, Giuliani led Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), 42 percent to 24 percent.

A look at polls of presidential races going even further back proves early speculation is extremely premature, and most often wrong.

Eight years ago, speculation about the 2004 race was initially muted as the Florida recount and subsequent Supreme Court decision delayed the results of the 2000 race. But a Zogby International poll taken Dec. 15-17 in 2000 showed Vice President Al Gore leading the 2004 Democratic primary field. That’s not all that surprising because part of the electorate believed — and still believes — he won the 2000 race.

Clinton, who hadn’t yet been sworn in as the junior Senator from New York, was second in the survey at 18 percent. Former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) was third with 7 percent, and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), the Rev. Jesse Jackson (D) and former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) all received 5 percent or less.

Eventual 2004 nominee Kerry received 3 percent in the poll, just a couple points ahead of then-California Gov. Gray Davis (D).

Early presidential polls are more about name identification and past support, rather than revealing much about candidates’ future appeal and success, or the likelihood that they will run at all.

That’s why people should be very skeptical about all of this 2012 talk.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey taken Dec. 1-2, 34 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents said they were likely to support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) if he were the party’s nominee. A similar 32 percent said they would support Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R).

The survey was not a horse race poll, pitting candidates against each other, but instead an attempted measure of party support. But of course, ranking becomes inevitable.

The survey is somewhat futile because the vast majority of Republicans are going to support the GOP presidential nominee, no matter who it is. McCain received 90 percent of the Republican vote on Nov. 4. And President George W. Bush received 93 percent and 91 percent in his two elections, but that’s beside the point.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) finished third with 28 percent, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) received 27 percent, Giuliani had 23 percent, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) had 19 percent, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) had 7 percent.

It’s a cliché, but four years is about two lifetimes in politics. Four years ago, Palin was the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the former head of the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and barely even known in Alaska. Now she is regarded as one of the national leaders of her party.

It’s impossible to recognize all of the potential candidates that could affect the dynamic of the 2012 field. And it’s too early to start tracking trips to Dubuque, Iowa.

A Selzer & Co. Inc. poll taken Jan. 15-21, 2001, for the Des Moines Register showed Gore leading the field in the Hawkeye State with 39 percent. Clinton was second with 12 percent, and Gephardt was third with 9 percent, followed by Kerrey (6 percent), Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (5 percent), South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle (4 percent) and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (4 percent).

Of those seven candidates, only Gephardt participated in the 2004 Iowa caucus, and he finished fourth with 11 percent. Kerry, who tied for ninth place and received 2 percent in the 2001 poll, ended up winning Iowa with 39 percent. Edwards (32 percent) and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (18 percent) finished second and third but were not part of the early speculation.

Before the handicapping can begin, it helps to know who is actually running.

An early January 1997 poll by Opinion Research showed Colin Powell leading the 2000 GOP presidential race with 32 percent. Former Rep. Jack Kemp (N.Y.) was second with 15 percent, and Bush was third with 10 percent. Of course, Bush won the nomination and the presidency, while Powell and Kemp didn’t even run.

On the Democratic side, polls in early 1997 showing Gore with the advantage in the 2000 race proved to be correct. But he was the heir apparent for the Democratic nomination as the sitting vice president under a term-limited Bill Clinton.

Back in December 1992, Kemp was the first choice of Republicans for the 1996 race with 17 percent, according to a poll for Gannett News Service. White House Chief of Staff James Baker was at 16 percent, while Kansas Sen. Bob Dole received 15 percent and outgoing Vice President Dan Quayle had 13 percent. Even Defense Secretary Dick Cheney received 9 percent. Of the five candidates, only Dole ran.

It is still unclear how many of the current field of conventional wisdom candidates will actually run in 2012. But there are other unanswered questions.

How do the former officeholders stay relevant? By the time 2012 rolls around, Gingrich and Giuliani will have been out of office for more than a decade, while it will be six years each for Romney and Huckabee.

Besides the volatile list of potential candidates, it is even more impossible to predict how voters will prioritize issues in four years.

Just a year ago, the war in Iraq dominated the news and boosted Obama to the Democratic nomination. When the general election rolled around, the economy was far and away the top issue on voters’ minds and helped the Illinois Senator defeat McCain.

Because the economy is in such tough shape, it is not unreasonable to predict that it will be the top issue again in 2012. But who knows for sure? One terrorist attack or major international event could shift the issue landscape back to foreign affairs.

And if foreign policy is the top issue, how does that affect a potential GOP field of candidates largely void of significant overseas credentials?

Obama’s presidential candidacy and election demonstrates that most of politics is timing and factors outside of a candidate’s control. Without knowing the issue landscape, it is impossible to handicap the potential field of candidates.


This story first appeared in Roll Call on December 11, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Republicans Should Quit Celebrating and Face Reality

By Nathan L. Gonzales

It’s understandable that Republicans are looking for any glimmer of good news after getting drubbed in consecutive election cycles. But their celebration over recent victories in Georgia and Louisiana is over the top and leaves the party ignoring electoral reality.

“Our success in Georgia with U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss and in the two Louisiana Congressional races makes for three wins in a row for a GOP that was supposed to be destroyed, demoralized, and humiliated on Election Day,” Ron Kaufman, the Republican National Committee Budget Committee chairman, wrote in a memo this week to RNC members.

Republicans look like the football team dancing in the end zone in the fourth quarter of a game when they’re down by 40 points.

“It would seem that the media reports of our demise and of how long it would take for Republicans to catch up were greatly exaggerated,” Kaufman chided in the memo, which also included the potential creation of a Center for Republican Renewal, an RNC Speakers Bureau, and Partnership 2010, which would include a paid RNC staffer for every state.

Kaufman’s memo comes on the heels of House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) memo, “The Future is Cao,” after attorney Ahn Cao (R) defeated indicted Rep. William Jefferson (D) in Louisiana’s 2nd district.

“As House Republicans look ahead to the next two years, the Cao victory is a symbol of what can be achieved when we think big, present a positive alternative, and work aggressively to earn the trust of the American people,” Boehner wrote.

Republicans clearly have their theme, and they’re sticking to it, even if the latest three victories don’t pave any path back to electoral significance.

While it’s nice to claim victory in the first three contests of the Obama era, Republicans should not forget that they held a GOP seat in Georgia, held a GOP seat in Louisiana’s 4th district and defeated an indicted Democrat who hid $90,000 cash in his freezer in Louisiana’s 2nd district.

The Georgia race should not have even made it to a runoff, so to boast about a Chambliss victory is a bit disingenuous. The GOP Senator outspent his Democratic challenger by more than 4 to 1 through Oct. 15, in a state that President George W. Bush carried by 17 points in 2004 and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried by 5 points on Nov. 4.

It’s like congratulating the New York Giants on defeating the Detroit Lions on a last-second field goal in overtime.

Democrats have enjoyed recent success in districts similar to Louisiana’s 4th, and Republicans had a very competitive primary there, but GOP leaders should not get too excited about holding a district Bush carried with 59 percent four years ago.

Looking to the future, Republicans cannot regain the majorities in the House and the Senate just by holding their own seats and defeating incumbents with frozen cash on hand.

Instead, Republicans should face the reality of the current electoral landscape. Over the last two cycles, they have lost more than 50 seats in the House and at least 13 seats in the Senate. Republicans have dug a tremendous hole for themselves, and it will take more than talking points to dig out.

Republicans need to come to terms with the fact that over the last four years, Democrats have gained control of every level of government.

In the House, Republicans had a 232-202 majority after the 2004 election. Next year, Democrats will have a 257-178 edge. In the Senate, Republicans had a 55-45 majority after the 2004 election. Next year, Democrats will have 58 or 59 Senate seats.

After the 2004 election, Republicans held 28 governorships compared with 22 for the Democrats. After Nov. 4, Democrats held 29 governorships compared with 21 for the Republicans, although the GOP will gain one back if Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) leaves, as expected, to join Obama’s Cabinet.

After the 2004 election, Republicans controlled the state legislature in 20 states compared with 19 Democratic-controlled states. Now, Democrats control the state legislature in 27 states, with the Republicans holding only 14.

And there are over 800 more Democratic state legislators than Republicans in the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures Web site. Four years ago, Democrats had a mere 10-seat edge out of more than 7,000 nationwide.

Given this new GOP optimism, if Democrats keep their cash in banks rather than in appliances, they could be in the majority for a very long time.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on December 10, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Can Anyone Bring America Together in an Era of Division?

By Stuart Rothenberg

President-elect Barack Obama says he wants to bring America together. While that rallying cry sounds good to many people, it would require a Herculean task that may well be impossible.

We are currently in a media environment dominated by loud, often-nasty ideologues who care more about belittling and demonizing the opposition than promoting ideas and civility.

While some of our politicians and political leaders certainly deserve blame for contributing to the animosity, the problem goes beyond them and to the larger culture.

Just go to the Web or turn on a cable TV news network, and you’ll see and hear the kind of coarse, downright mean characterizations of politicians that have made civility and rationality all but impossible when discussing politics or political issues.

On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have chosen to be every bit as unfair and misleading as Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly at Fox. MSNBC brings on writers from the very-left-of-center Nation magazine, much as Fox brings on the agenda- driven Dick Morris — offering partisan, ideological drivel that masquerades as serious political analysis.

Many of these talk-show hosts have no interest in being even-handed, preferring instead to play to the partisan preferences of their viewers. So they mischaracterize their opponents; ask loaded, self-serving questions intended to damage the opposition; and pass falsehoods and half-truths off as accurate characterizations of their adversaries.

What’s lacking, of course, is any sense of humility. The Olbermanns and O’Reillys of the world hardly ever express any doubts about their own views or display a sense of modesty. They are right and their opponents are wrong. Always.

Unfortunately, these efforts at pandering to true believers have borne fruit. Conservatives now watch Fox, while liberals tune into MSNBC. The public deserves some of the blame, of course, because these networks are only giving people what they want.

CNN, the alternative on the cable side, hasn’t sunk to the depths of the other two cable news networks, but it too has chosen to elevate personality over the news. Indeed, the celebrity aspect of alleged news coverage continues to grow, often adding to political polarization. The media’s post- election obsession with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is a good example.

Beyond the media’s contribution to divisiveness is the reality that November’s exit poll continues to show deep divisions in the country — divisions that will not be healed easily, no matter the president-elect’s intentions.

The country’s deepest and most-explosive division revolves around culture.

Four in 10 voters attend religious services at least weekly, and they went for John McCain, 55 percent to 43 percent. Almost an equal number of voters, 42 percent, said they attend religious services only occasionally, and they went for Obama, 57 percent to 42 percent. And among those voters who never attend religious services, Obama won by 37 points, 67 percent to 30 percent.

On guns, another longtime indicator of cultural values, divisions remain deep. A substantial 42 percent of Americans own guns, and they voted for McCain, 62 percent to 37 percent. Those voters who don’t own a gun, 58 percent of all respondents in the exit poll, went for Obama by 32 points, 65 percent to 33 percent.

It’s true, of course, that if Americans no longer care about cultural issues, as some suggest, these differences are unimportant. But with gay marriage clearly remaining a major issue on the national radar and with Supreme Court vacancies and appointments nearly certain in the next few years, it’s unlikely that cultural issues will evaporate.

Further, the size of Obama’s victory and the nature of the problems that he will confront don’t suggest the end of division.

Obama’s 53 percent victory was a solid win, far more decisive than the last two presidential elections. But it was hardly a blowout.

His apparent margin of 6.8 points (based on near-final numbers from CNN) was well below the true landslide margins in Richard Nixon’s and Ronald Reagan’s re-elections (23.2 points and 18.2 points, respectively), but it also was below Bill Clinton’s re-election (8.5 points). Maybe more importantly, it was significantly below Reagan’s margin over Jimmy Carter (9.6 points) and slightly below George H.W. Bush’s 7.8-point margin in the 1988 open-seat race.

In other words, America did not “come together” to elect Obama. The country was divided, and while most Americans now hope that he can solve the nation’s problems, the new president’s choices will invariably require him to make trade-offs — trade-offs that are likely to anger some, maybe many, Americans.

While many Americans say they would like the country to come together, what they often really mean is that they would like others to change their views.

Obama has the oratorical skills to capture the public’s attention, and the nation’s pessimism about the future actually gives the president-elect a unique opportunity to rally support.

But unless our new president is smart enough and lucky enough to preside over the transformation of the American economy, and unless he places a higher priority on uniting the country, rather than pursing an ideological agenda, we are likely headed for more nastiness and division sooner or later.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 1, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Another Cycle, Another Bunch of My Misjudgments

By Stuart Rothenberg

Like everyone who makes a living in the reporting and handicapping business, I made my share of mistakes this election cycle.

While I didn’t jump on the “McCain is toast” bandwagon during the summer of 2007, I didn’t really expect him to come back to win the Republican presidential nomination. And while I never dismissed Barack Obama’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination, I certainly didn’t expect it until well into the Democratic nominating process.

Who thought that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) would lose Iowa but win New Hampshire? And who in their right mind really thought that McCain would pick Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) as his running mate? Don’t look at me.

Anyway, I thought I’d point out some of my dumber assessments and evaluations for those of you who don’t already think that I’m totally clueless about politics. (This, obviously, excludes many bloggers, who already think that I can’t find my own navel.)

I think my biggest blunder was believing (and writing) that McCain should pick someone such as Connecticut Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman or former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R) for his running mate.

After watching what the Palin selection did to the GOP convention and to the entire Republican Party, I think a divisive pick, whether a pro-abortion-rights Republican or a Democrat with a liberal record on cultural issues and the environment, would have been a giant mistake.

Yes, selecting Lieberman or Ridge would have made a statement about his maverick or bipartisan approach (and that would have been a plus), but it would have created a chaotic Republican convention during which conservatives would have been in full revolt.

The GOP would have been in disarray for weeks, and McCain’s numbers, I now believe, would have tanked during that period. Lieberman or Ridge might have been more of an asset during the nation’s financial meltdown in late September and early October, but conservative Republicans would have been so turned off by a Lieberman or Ridge VP selection that I’m not sure they ever would have warmed to McCain — or voted for him, which they did.

Next, while I always thought that Obama could win Colorado and Virginia, I didn’t treat North Carolina and Indiana as in play until much too late. It’s easy to get locked into an assessment, and I did in this case.

Turning to the Congressional elections, I made two very different errors at different points in the cycle.

Initially, I assumed that voter sentiment would shift after the 2006 cycle, producing a more “normal” electorate and allowing Republicans to get out from under the “time for a change” sentiment that smothered them during the midterms. It never happened.

The public’s mood soured even worse after 2006, and the book never really closed on the 2006 election cycle until this month’s elections were over.

Then, as the 2008 balloting approached, I obviously underestimated some of the Republicans’ ability to swim against the tide. I expected Democratic House gains to be in the 27-33 range, at least a few seats higher than they are likely to net.

In individual contests throughout the cycle, I was too late in seeing the wins by Tom Perriello (D-Va.) and Walt Minnick (D- Idaho), as well as Democrat Travis Childers’ victory in the special election in Mississippi’s 1st district.

I hadn’t met either of the candidates in the Mississippi special, so I mistakenly assumed that the district’s Republican bent would be enough to elect Greg Davis. My job is to be ahead of the curve, not behind it.

I also totally messed up when I repeatedly warned readers that I expected a handful of GOP seats to fall that I had not even rated as vulnerable. This happened in 2006, when I failed to note that then-Reps. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) could go down to defeat. This time, since the Democratic wave was smaller than I expected, not a single true long-shot won. I remain surprised by that.

My single biggest rating mistake was rating Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska’s at-large House seat as “Democrat Favored.” I expected Young, who received his share of bad press over the past couple of years and is under federal investigation, to be defeated by challenger Ethan Berkowitz (D). I was wrong. Young won, and he did so by more than a razor-thin margin.

Finally, I wrote that the Louisiana Senate race would be a tossup all the way until Election Day, even asserting it was “likely to be decided by a point or two.” It wasn’t. In fact, my own newsletter moved the race from “Toss-Up” to “Narrow Advantage” for Mary Landrieu on Sept. 26. Landrieu ended up winning 52.1 percent to 45.7 percent, a 6-point win. Landrieu’s 52 percent showing was in line with her earlier wins (50 percent in 1996 and 52 percent in 2002), but the margin was not all that close.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 20, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Polls Show GOP Losing Edge on Taxes

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Republicans aren’t just losing ground in the House and the Senate. They’ve ceded their traditional advantage on some key issues, including taxes.

An Oct. 17-19 Opinion Research Corp. poll for CNN showed that Americans believed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would do a better job handling the tax issue than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), 50 percent to 44 percent.

Despite Republican efforts to brand Obama as just another tax-and-spend liberal, the Democratic nominee was very disciplined on the campaign trail, explaining that under his plan, 95 percent of Americans would not see a tax increase and that under McCain’s plan, health care benefits would be taxed.

On Election Day, most voters were skeptical — of both parties.

According to national exit polling, 71 percent of voters believed that their taxes would go up if Obama were elected president. But 61 percent believed their taxes would increase in a McCain administration.

An earlier Oct. 30-Nov. 1 Opinion Research poll showed that 48 percent of likely voters thought it to be very likely or somewhat likely that their taxes would be lower four years from now under President Obama. Only 40 percent believed that to be the case under President McCain.

A pre-election survey conducted in four battleground states by the Republican firm OnMessage Inc. for the American Issues Project, a conservative group that favors small government, a strong national defense and low taxes, confirms that the line has been blurred between the supposed tax cutting and tax hiking parties.

Fifty-one percent believed their taxes would go up under Obama, compared to 41 percent who believed they would see a tax increase under President McCain. But almost one-quarter of respondents believed their taxes would go down under Obama, compared to only 9 percent who believed they would pay fewer taxes under McCain.

The OnMessage poll surveyed 1,200 likely and early voters in Virginia, Ohio, Florida and Colorado Nov. 2-3.

There are numerous factors for the shift, but the electorate’s changing priorities are not helping the GOP.

Back in 2000, 14 percent of general election voters said that taxes were their most important issue, and 26 percent said a tax cut should be the most important issue for the new president. George W. Bush won the former group with 80 percent and the latter with 71 percent.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on November 11, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Is 2008 a Realigning Election? Numbers Offer Some Clues

By Stuart Rothenberg

The big question that everyone is asking is whether this month’s general election marked the beginning of a political realignment that will create a new dominant party. Have Americans shifted their loyalties and fundamental assumptions about the parties and about the government, or did we just witness a short-term reaction to years of bad news?

Let’s be clear: The election results in 2006 and 2008 constitute the kind of one-two punch that is rare in modern American political history. It would be silly to portray this year’s election as a minor hiccup. The nation elected a liberal African-American Democrat from the North as president, and it gave him a majority of all votes cast.

Moreover, in the past two elections, Democrats gained at least a dozen Senate seats and at least 50 House seats, taking total control of Congress. At the state level, they now have 4,090 state legislators to the GOP’s 3,221.

Polls show that the Republican advantages on foreign policy and pocketbook issues have either shrunk or disappeared. While there remains a stark contrast on cultural matters between the parties, Democrats have sought to mute that difference on both guns and values, and those issues clearly were not what the 2008 elections were about.

If demographics are indeed destiny, then the 2008 national exit poll at the very least raises questions about where the GOP goes from here.

For the first time ever, whites constituted less than 75 percent of the electorate, a considerable problem for the Republican Party given its historical problems attracting minorities. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) drew just 55 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, but Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) drew 67 percent of it four years later — a remarkable showing considering that many of those voters preferred Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in the Democratic contest and supposedly were resistant to voting for a black candidate.

While the highly anticipated surge in younger voters never materialized, those voters younger than 30 who did participate went overwhelmingly for Obama, 66 percent to 32 percent. That 34-point margin was almost four times the 9-point margin that Kerry had with voters younger than 30.

As many analysts have pointed out, if these younger voters carry that Democratic preference with them through their lives, they could constitute a strongly Democratic cohort for the next 40 or 50 years.

Just as bad for Republicans is the fact that over the past dozen years, there has been a noticeable shift in voters’ attitudes toward government, according to an exit poll question that has also been asked for years in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey.

In December 1995, only a third of respondents said that “government should do more to solve our country’s problems,” while 62 percent said that government “is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.” But in this year’s exit poll, a slim majority, 51 percent, said government should do more, while only 43 percent said it was doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.

That’s a potentially significant change in attitudes that suggests voters may be more willing to accept a more activist government that regulates business and seeks to affect outcomes, rather than merely ensures a neutral playing field.

Democrats and liberals would prefer the story to end here, but it doesn’t. Other data paint a different picture.

First, in an election with a highly unpopular Republican president and a severely damaged Republican brand, the Democratic share of the presidential vote increased from 48 percent of the vote in 2000 and 2004 to 53 percent of the vote in 2008, hardly a landslide figure or evidence of a new dominant political coalition.

Obama’s victory was built largely on a number of factors: higher black turnout, a bigger Hispanic vote, big numbers among younger voters and first-time voters, and more support from independents. It’s far from clear that any of those numbers will be replicated in 2010 or 2012, because these groups could well have been motivated by Obama’s personal appeal, not ideological or partisan dogma.

Second, one of Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) biggest problems among core groups was a 5-point drop among white men. President Bush carried 62 percent of white men in 2004, while McCain won only 57 percent of them.

The drop easily could have been caused by growing concerns about the economy, as well as the lesser salience of national security concerns between 2004 and 2008, rather than a fundamental shift in partisan loyalties.

Third, the lack of any statistically significant shift in self-described ideology of voters also argues against a fundamental realignment. In 2004, 21 percent of voters called themselves liberals, while 34 percent said they were conservatives. This year, 22 percent said they were liberals and the same 34 percent identified as conservative.

Finally, the 2008 exit poll found far more Democrats turned out than Republicans. In the exit poll four years ago, self-identified Democrats and Republicans each constituted 37 percent of the sample, but this year 39 percent of voters were Democrats compared with 32 percent of Republicans. Fewer Republican voters meant fewer votes for Republican candidates.

While this change could reflect a fundamental shift in self-identified partisanship, it could merely be a dip in GOP turnout caused by any number of factors (possibly dissatisfaction with McCain’s candidacy, the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate or the issue agenda of 2008) or a one-time shift in partisanship. Party ID, after all, reflects the popularity of the party at any moment, and the damage to the Republican brand certainly could have caused a short-term dip in GOP identification.

At this point, it is far too premature to claim that 2008 was anything more than a dramatic reaction to an unpopular president and to a party hurt by its own ineptness. Obama will have a chance to change the nation’s political landscape. But his election, by itself, isn’t necessarily a sign of a new partisan alignment.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 10, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

From coast to coast, Democrats rule the day

By Nathan L. Gonzales and Stuart Rothenberg

(CNN) -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's historic and convincing victory in the race for the White House wasn't the only good news for Democrats on Tuesday.

In 2006, Democrats swept into the majority in both the House and Senate, riding on a wave of change. Two years later, Democrats continued the trend, electing Obama as the first African-American president and growing their majorities by significant margins in both chambers of Congress. Read the rest of the story on CNN.com.

Stu Talks about the Election Results

Watch Stu Tonight on the NewsHour

You can catch Stu's Election Night analysis on the NewsHour on PBS.

The Fat Lady Sings and Democrats Are Preparing to Rejoice

By Stuart Rothenberg

Although many in the media have acted as if the presidential contest were competitive, it’s been apparent for weeks that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been headed for a clear win.

Call it a wave or a blood bath, as I did in this space almost a month ago, on Oct. 7 (“For Republicans, Another Blood Bath Looms on Horizon”), the combination of a strong anti-Republican mood, news events that fueled the public’s strong desire for change, and the Democrats’ huge financial and organizational advantage this cycle also guaranteed big Democratic House and Senate gains.

The presidential race has been a foregone conclusion since shortly after the nation’s financial crisis exploded in the news a little more than a month ago. The virtual elimination of national security as a top issue, combined with Obama’s coolness in the face of the public’s near hysteria, helped him close a deal that he previously had not closed.

Polling for the past few weeks has shown voters increasingly comfortable with the Illinois Democrat, giving him better and better reviews on a number of issues and characteristics. His favorability rating (56 percent positive/35 percent negative) in the Nov. 1-2 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll is better than Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.), and the two men are even on the question of who “has a background and a set of values that you can identify with” — down from a 10-point McCain advantage in August and a 6-point McCain advantage in the Sept. 19-22 poll.

Even more important, now a majority of whites, 51 percent, say Obama has the background and values with which they can identify. Reputable national polls have shown Obama lengthening his lead, and the polls’ internals show why that is happening.

While it certainly is true that this isn’t a national presidential election as much as it is 50 state elections, it’s unwise to ignore the national numbers and focus on much less reliable state polls, some of which allegedly show the race closing. Obama already appears to be over the 270 electoral vote mark, and if that’s the case, it doesn’t really matter if he wins Ohio or North Carolina.

The fights for the House and Senate were over well before the presidential contest was decided. We’ve known for months that this would be a good Democratic year. All that remained to be decided was exactly how good a Democrat year it would be.

Democratic gains of seven or eight Senate seats, with a decent shot at nine, have appeared likely for weeks, and that’s still where Democrats are. Senate races in Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and New Hampshire have been over for months. Democratic challengers appear to have a distinct advantage in Alaska, North Carolina and Oregon.

A mini-comeback by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has all but erased the small but consistent advantage that Al Franken (D) has had for a few weeks, now making that state’s Senate race a pure tossup.

Obviously, to reach the psychologically important 60-seat mark Democrats will need to win two out of four competitive races: Minnesota, Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia, a tall order given the Southern states’ political dynamics. But it isn’t impossible, especially in a wave election.

It’s certainly possible that we will all wake up Wednesday morning with Democrats gaining eight seats and Georgia headed for an early December runoff, with the outcome there determining whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) will have 60 seats or 59 seats (or 58, depending what Senate Democrats do about Connecticut Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman).

In the fight for the House, anything from a Democratic gain in the mid-20s to a much bigger Democratic net gain of around 40 seems possible, with gains in the 27-33 seat range most likely.

Anyone wanting to chart the night might pay special attention to three groups of races.

First, there are the purest of tossups. If one party wins most of them, that will say something important about the overall results of the elections. Those districts include half a dozen Republican seats: open seats in Kentucky’s 2nd district, Maryland’s 1st, and New Jersey’s 7th, and re-election contests involving Rep. Steve Chabot (Ohio’s 1st), Thelma Drake (Virginia’s 2nd) and Dave Reichert (Washington’s 8th).

Second are a number of Republican seats that are tossups but that seem to favor Democrats ever so slightly, particularly in a wave election. If Republicans hold on to many of these districts, the night may not be as good for Democrats as many assume. These include three open seats — Minnesota’s 3rd district, New Jersey’s 3rd and Ohio’s 15th, along with the re-election bids of Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minnesota’s 6th), Christopher Shays (Connecticut’s 4th) and Jon Porter (Nevada’s 3rd).

Finally, there are GOP seats where the Republican has anything from a slight edge to a much more considerable advantage. If many of these seats fall to Democrats, Republicans could well lose 40 seats. These districts include Ohio’s 2nd (Rep. Jean Schmidt), South Carolina’s 1st (Rep. Henry Brown), Virginia’s 5th (Rep. Virgil Goode), Indiana’s 3rd (Rep. Mark Souder), California’s 3rd (Rep. Dan Lungren), and the open seat being vacated by Rep. Barbara Cubin (Wyo.).

Wave elections normally sweep in a number of candidates who, under normal circumstances, would not win in their own right. That’s likely to happen this year, especially given the Democrats’ financial advantage. A remarkable turnout for Obama could also benefit Democrats downballot.

If you are looking for upsets that few others are paying any attention to, be sure to keep an eye on the Louisiana Senate race, a couple of Texas House races (7th and 10th districts), Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s race, and the open seat in California’s 4th.

Finally, turnout (on both sides) remains a huge factor. Most observers and many pollsters have been expecting a spike in younger voters, African-Americans and first-time voters nationally. Whether that happens, and how big a spike that might be, will affect the bottom line today.


This column also appeared in Roll Call on November 4, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Election Night Viewer Guide

By Nathan L. Gonzales

So many races, so little time. With the presidential race and more than 75 competitive races for the House and Senate, it can be a little overwhelming trying to follow them all. But the polls close early in the evening in a few key states, providing a window into what the rest of election night should look like. After the initial bellwether races, you can catch a nap before the Alaska results come in early Wednesday morning.

7 p.m. Poll Closing Time

Georgia Senate. It’s ironic that one of the first races of the night could be the last race to be decided. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) is locked in a neck-and-neck battle with former state Rep. Jim Martin (D). If neither man gets more than 50 percent, then the race moves to a Dec. 2 runoff, when turnout is an uncertainty. Democratic strategists feel like they need to win this race today, and if they do, they could very well reach 60 seats in the Senate.

Kentucky Senate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) is fighting for his political life. And like Georgia, his seat is critical if Democrats want to get to 60 seats. Both McConnell and his opponent, wealthy businessman Bruce Lunsford (D), have high negatives, but McConnell comes into election night with a slight advantage. This is one state Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) should carry easily.

Kentucky’s 2nd. Republicans are trying to hold onto 20 competitive open seats, including this district. In comparison, Democrats only have one vulnerable open seat (Alabama’s 5th). State Sen. Brett Guthrie (R) is battling state Sen. David Boswell (D) in a district that President Bush carried with 65 percent in 2004. This race could be an indication of whether conservative Democrats are voting Republican like they have recently. A wide discrepancy in polling makes predicting the outcome difficult, but this early contest is a must-win for Republicans.

Virginia Presidential Outcome. Based on the other battleground states, the commonwealth is a must-win for McCain. He simply can’t afford to lose Virginia’s 13 electoral votes because he isn’t challenging Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a comparable Democratic state. Republican strategists are concerned that the networks will call Virginia early, dampening GOP enthusiasm in western states and hurting their candidates downballot.

7:30 p.m. Poll Closing Time


North Carolina Governor. Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R) is trying to buck both the national and state trend by taking over a governorship that Republicans haven’t held since the early ’90s. Coming into Election Day, McCrory is locked in a dead heat with Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue (D). McCrory could be a rare bright spot for the GOP. The presidential contest is worth watching, but if Obama wins the state’s 15 electoral votes, he probably already won Virginia and is picking out furniture for the Oval Office.


North Carolina’s 8th. Rep. Robin Hayes (R) squeaked by teacher Larry Kissell (D) in 2006, but probably comes into Election Day as an underdog. Kissell complained about the lack of help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee two years ago, but he has received $2.4 million in help this year. Meanwhile, Hayes has been on his own, without help from the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee. Like fellow Reps. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Hayes is also running against a strong Obama trend in his district.

Ohio’s 1st. Like Hayes, Rep. Steve Chabot (R) is no stranger to competitive races. But Democrats believe Obama will help their candidate, state Rep. Steve Driehaus, particularly because the district is 27 percent African-American. Chabot has run a good campaign and comes into Election Day even or slightly ahead of Driehaus, but with less than 50 percent of the vote in polls. If Chabot loses, Democrats are likely topping a 30-seat pickup. If Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) loses in the neighboring, and very Republican, 2nd district, Democrats are probably reaching 40 seats.

Ohio’s 15th. Republicans will lose the open 16th district, but state Sen. Steve Stivers (R) remains competitive in Rep. Deborah Pryce’s (R) open seat. Republicans drove up Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy’s (D) negatives, and Stivers comes into Election Day within striking distance. This race is a test of how undecided voters break in open-seat races and to see if third-party candidates are getting as much of the vote as they have been polling.

8 p.m. Poll Closing Time

Florida Presidential Outcome. If McCain holds onto Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio, the presidential race could come down to Florida. If Obama wins the Sunshine State’s 27 electoral votes, it’s almost mathematically impossible for McCain to win the presidency. The Illinois Senator comes into Tuesday with a slight lead in polls, but with less than 50 percent, so undecided voters will be critical.


Florida’s 21st and 25th. Both Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) and his brother, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R), are extremely vulnerable. Bush carried both districts by at least a dozen points in 2004, but Democrats have been surging in voter registration and are benefitting from an increase in the non-Cuban Hispanic population. If both brothers win, Republicans are doing better than expected. A split decision looks most likely. But if both lose, it’s going to be a long night for the GOP.

Illinois’ 10th. Rep. Mark Kirk (R) is running for re-election in Obama’s backyard. The Congressman has run a great campaign and Democrats haven’t found the silver bullet to take him out. But Kirk will still have to run well ahead of McCain, who’ll probably lose the district by 20 points. Amazingly, Democrats could net 30 seats in the House and still not defeat Kirk.

Mississippi Senate. This is another critical seat on the Democrats’ road to 60. Republicans had been nervous that the lack of party identification would hurt their candidate this special election between appointed Sen. Roger Wicker (R) and former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D), but Wicker comes into Election Day with a narrow advantage in the polls. This race is a good indication of whether African-American turnout is dramatically and disproportionately larger than usual.


Pennsylvania’s 11th. Republicans are left with only a handful of good opportunities to defeat Democratic incumbents, and this is one of them. Longtime Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) trails Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta (R) in public and Republican polls, but the Democratic nature of the district could save him. A GOP win here won’t be enough to soothe the pain of a nationwide blood bath.

9 p.m. Poll Closing Time

Minnesota Senate. One of the cycle’s most intriguing races is coming right down to the wire with comedian Al Franken (D) and Sen. Norm Coleman (R) locked in a dead heat. Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley has drawn 12 percent to 20 percent of the vote in recent polls, meaning Coleman or Franken could win with not much more than 40 percent. Coleman’s late resurgence means Democrats need to win two out of four races to hit 60 seats: Minnesota, Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi.

Minnesota’s 3rd. This is a great race with two great candidates in an extremely competitive district. State Rep. Erik Paulsen (R) is trying to hold yet another GOP open seat against young Iraq War veteran Ashwin Madia (D). The DCCC has been exercising its fundraising muscle here, spending $2.3 million to $776,000 for the National Republican Congressional Committee. The two candidates come into Election Day essentially tied, but in this political environment, you would rather be Madia.

Michigan’s 7th. Rep. Tim Walberg (R) is one of a large number of GOP incumbents who come into Election Day running even with their opponents, and stuck in the low to mid-40s in polls. The key is whether undecided voters break disproportionately for Walberg’s opponent, state Sen. Mark Schauer (D). The race is a tossup, but the national environment, Walberg’s showing in the polls, and the fact that McCain surrendered Michigan, gives Schauer a narrow edge.


Louisiana Senate. With so much focus on the Democratic push for 60 seats, Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D) re-election has gone largely unnoticed. Polling is dramatically different, depending on which side of the aisle you’re sitting on. Republicans believe they are within striking distance in a state McCain should win easily. Don’t forget to peek in on this race.

Wyoming’s At-Large. Gary Trauner (D) is a good candidate who came close to winning the seat two years ago against Rep. Barbara Cubin (R). Even though it defies conventional wisdom, Trauner is actually having a more difficult time with the open seat now that the weak incumbent is retiring. Trauner has been consistently competitive in the polls, but the undecided voters are likely Republicans. If Trauner wins, Democratic gains are probably well into the 30s.

10 p.m. Poll Closing Time

Nevada’s 3rd. Rep. Jon Porter (R) resurrected his political career by attacking state Sen. Dina Titus (D). After Porter’s original Democratic opponent dropped out, Titus got into the race, and was instantly formidable because of her high profile from the 2006 gubernatorial race. But Republicans proceeded to remind voters about why they didn’t vote for her two years ago, and Porter is back in a dead heat. But he’s still in the low- to mid-40s, so again, the question is whether enough undecided voters will back the incumbent.

11 p.m. Poll Closing Time


Washington Governor. Christine Gregoire (D) and Dino Rossi (R) have been running against each other for five years, and the race has hardly budged. Gregoire prevailed in 2004 after three recounts, but could never put any distance between herself and Rossi during her first term. Obama will win the state handily, but Rossi still has an opportunity to win.


California’s 4th. Republicans shouldn’t lose this district. Democrat Charlie Brown came close to defeating Rep. John Doolittle (R) two years ago, but Doolittle was plagued by ethics questions. Now that he’s retiring, conservative state Sen. Tom McClintock (R) is trying to hold the open seat, but has run an underwhelming campaign. Brown is running again and put together the kind of campaign necessary to take advantage of the opportunity.


California’s 50th. Republicans shouldn’t lose here, either. Democrats have cried wolf in this district before, and never won it. But a recent Democratic poll showed Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) holding a narrow, 44 percent to 42 percent, lead over attorney Nick Leibham (D). The survey also showed Obama winning the district by 11 points. Bush won it by 11 points in 2004, so if the district has turned around that much, all bets are off, and Democrats could get over 40 seats.

1 a.m. Poll Closing Time.

Alaska Senate. Much of the suspense of the race was eliminated when Sen. Ted Stevens (R) was convicted on all seven counts. But his race against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) is still fascinating to see how much support Stevens still has. Former state House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz (D) continues to be the heavy favorite over incumbent Rep. Don Young (R) in the House race. McCain will win Alaska, but it may be months or years before we know whether this vote was the beginning or end of Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R) national profile.


This story also appeared in Roll Call on November 4, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2008 Presidential Outlook

The race for the White House is all but over – and in our eyes only a dramatic last-minute could possibly change the expected outcome. Senator Barack Obama has more than the 270 electoral votes he needs to be elected President. Click here to get our presidential ratings.

2008 Presidential Battleground Ratings

Total Electoral Votes
(270 needed to win)

Obama - 273 (safe/likely) + 80 (lean) = 353
McCain - 131 (safe/likely) + 28 (lean) = 159
Toss-ups = 26

Toss-Ups

• Indiana (11)
• Missouri (11)
• Nebraska (1)*
• North Dakota (3)
  

Lean McCain

• Arizona (10)
• Georgia (15)
  
• Montana (3)

Lean Obama

• Florida (27)
• Nevada (5)
• North Carolina (15)
  
• Ohio (20)
• Virginia (13)
  

Safe/Likely McCain

• Alabama (9)
• Alaska (3)
• Arkansas (6)
• Idaho (4)
• Kansas (6)
• Kentucky (8)
• Louisiana (9)
• Mississippi (6)
• Nebraska (4)*
• Oklahoma (7)
• South Carolina (8)
• South Dakota (3)
• Tennessee (11)
• Texas (34)
• Utah (5)
• West Virginia (5)
• Wyoming (3)

Safe/Likely Obama

• California (55)
• Colorado (9)
• Connecticut (7)
• Delaware (3)
• Hawaii (4)
• Illinois (21)
• Iowa (7)
• Maine (4)
• Maryland (10)
• Massachusetts (12)
• Michigan (17)
• Minnesota (10)
• New Jersey (15)
• New Hampshire (4)
  
• New Mexico (5)
• New York (31)
• Oregon (7)
• Pennsylvania (21)
• Rhode Island (4)
• Vermont (3)
• Washington (11)
• Wisconsin (10)
• D.C. (3)

Stu Talks Bill Clinton, Blank Checks, and the RNC's new radio ads on CNN.com