Off-Year Shenanigans: What’s a Party Committee to Do?

By Stuart Rothenberg

It’s the off year for the House and Senate campaign committees, which means that most of the time is spent on matters like planning, fundraising and candidate recruitment.

But few campaign operatives are entirely content with doing just that. They’d rather stir the political pot whenever possible, hoping that they are laying the groundwork for the time when real voters are paying attention.

That’s the best way to explain some of the very early maneuvering over the years by the Republican and Democratic campaign committees during this political training camp period.

This cycle, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is already stirring the pot in a couple of places. For months, the DSCC has been churning out press releases blasting former Rep. Rob Simmons (R), who has entered the race against Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).

On March 16, a DSCC press release demonizing Simmons included a five-year-old quote from him saying that he is a “big fan” of President George W. Bush and that he’s proud to be a Republican.

The release also asserted that Simmons held a fundraiser (in 2004) at a restaurant owned by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, accepted contributions from Abramoff and his wife, and accepted contributions from former Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) PAC.

Two weeks later, another DSCC release “congratulated” Simmons for “showing his true colors” by “hobnobbing at Republican headquarters with lobbyists who represent Washington special interests.”

Then, just to make sure that even voters who are illiterate got the message, the DSCC released a Web video on April 2 calling Simmons a “special interest Congressman” and a “special interest candidate,” and chiding him for attending “a meet and greet with lobbyists for Shell, Chevron, and Bank of America.”

On one hand, it’s interesting that Democrats have chosen to attack Simmons on his connection to lobbyists and special interests — Dodd’s greatest weakness and the reason the five-term Senator is performing so horrendously in the polls.

In September, the Hartford Courant wrote that Dodd had collected nearly $6 million over the past two years from PACs and employees of finance-related firms. Since then, the incumbent Democrat has been linked in unflattering ways to disgraced mortgage lender Countrywide Financial and even to American International Group, the embattled insurance and financial services company.

You might think that it’s crazy for Democrats to bring up ethics, lobbyists and Washington insiders where Dodd is concerned. Shouldn’t Democrats want the Connecticut Senate race to be about something where Dodd actually looks good? No, say a number of consultants I spoke with about the tactic.

They note that the DSCC’s strategy is right out of the campaign textbook: Convince voters that there is no difference on ethics and lobbyists between Dodd and Simmons, and voters will make their vote choice on other matters, including party, where Dodd has a significant advantage.

But observers also note something both very obvious but often ignored: Nobody is paying attention now except political insiders. Of course, as one Democratic observer reminded me, the DSCC’s audience isn’t primarily Connecticut voters — it is journalists and the “chattering class.”

When I watched the video on YouTube recently, it had recorded just over 2,100 views — hardly an indication that Connecticut voters are receiving the message.

Nothing drove home the point that most real people aren’t paying attention to press releases and Web videos more than the DSCC’s recent “media buy” in Florida last week.

In an April 29 press release, the DSCC trumpeted that its “first ad buy of the 2010 election cycle” was a “hard-hitting spot” direct against potential Senate candidate and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R).

Along with a transcript of the ad, accompanied by a description of the visuals, the release included four paragraphs lambasting Crist for everything from “a very casual work ethic” to the state’s unemployment rate.

In fact, that ad ran only in Tallahassee (the media market accounts for less than 5 percent of the state voters) and the TV buy was microscopic.

Technically, “Mess,” the name of the anti-Crist spot, was the first TV spot aired. But anyone who follows campaigns knows that this was a phantom buy, a phony buy. Voters don’t care about this now, so why should anyone run a real TV buy? And, in fact, the DSCC didn’t.

The DSCC’s audience for the TV spot was Crist himself and Tallahassee insiders. The committee hoped to get him thinking what a campaign would be like and, as one party operative told me, “chip away in Washington, D.C., at the perception that he is untouchable.”

National Democrats are so worried that their chances in the Florida Senate race will nose-dive if Crist gets in that they are trying to do anything they can to dissuade him from becoming a candidate — even a phantom TV buy inflated by media coverage.

The campaign committees do these sorts of things — in this case it’s the DSCC but other committees have run phony ad campaigns before — to manipulate reporters who are so eager to jump on a story that they don’t even discriminate between real news and phony news.

That’s probably reason enough for journalists to be more discriminating when writing about early ad buys, as well as about early campaign developments in general.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 7, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Anti-Establishment Candidates Come in All Shapes and Sizes

By Stuart Rothenberg

Senate primaries in three states already look like classic battles featuring insurgent candidates preparing to take on the preferred choice of “the establishment.” But each contest has its own particular features, and the three races may not produce identical outcomes.

Two of the contests are in Ohio. In the Democratic race, the party establishment has fallen behind Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, who faces Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and a number of lesser-known candidates in a potentially heated primary. On the GOP side, former Rep. Rob Portman begins with a prohibitive advantage over wealthy businessman Tom Ganley.

In Missouri, Republican Party insiders have picked Rep. Roy Blunt to be their choice to hold retiring Sen. Kit Bond’s (R) seat, but former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman continues to look at a possible primary against Blunt.

Fisher, 57, served in both houses of the state Legislature and as Ohio’s attorney general before being elected lieutenant governor in 2006 on a ticket led by now-Gov. Ted Strickland (D). Strickland quickly endorsed Fisher’s bid for the Senate, and allies of the governor made it clear that Brunner should seek re-election rather than challenge Fisher for the Senate nomination.

But the secretary of state has other ideas.

Brunner, 52, worked in the Ohio secretary of state’s office — under now-Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) — before going into private practice. Later, she served for four years as a Franklin County Common Pleas Court judge, and in 2006, she was elected Ohio’s secretary of state.

Unlike Fisher, she has never lost an election. In 1994 (a horrendous year for Democrats), Fisher lost his bid for re-election as the state’s attorney general, and four years later, he lost an open-seat gubernatorial race to Bob Taft (R).

Surprisingly, given the lieutenant governor’s more frequent races and more extensive government service, Fisher and Brunner start off as virtually even in Quinnipiac University polling, both in the ballot test and in personal ratings. But Fisher held a substantial financial advantage at the end of the first quarter.

Brunner raised just $207,000 in the first quarter and ended March with $193,000 in the bank, while Fisher raised just over $1 million in the first three months of the year, ending March with $1 million on hand.

Still, I wouldn’t count Brunner out yet.

Ohio observers believe that Brunner has some national fundraising potential and will eventually earn the support of EMILY’s List, which is likely to help her raise considerable funds — at least enough to compete with Fisher. And those same observers believe that Brunner will be a more aggressive candidate than Fisher. In fact, most Republicans I spoke with expect her to be the Democratic nominee.

On the GOP side, Portman, 53, is a prohibitive favorite for his party’s nomination, but the prospect of him facing a wealthy businessman who may be willing to spend $8 million in a primary has some Republicans nervous.

A former Congressman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and U.S. trade representative, Portman has the backing of virtually the entire Republican establishment in the state. But part of his strength is a weakness: his extensive political experience and service in the administration of George W. Bush.

Ganley has no political record, but he also has no track record as a candidate. There is no way of knowing what kind of candidate he will be, whether he will actually spend millions and what kind of campaign he will cobble together. In any case, he’s not likely to upend Portman in a primary.

In Missouri, Blunt, 59, is the establishment choice for the GOP Senate nod. A former Missouri secretary of state, he was elected to the House in 1996 and served for a number of years as the party’s Whip. He lost a bid for Majority Leader in early 2006.

Blunt doesn’t yet have a major opponent for the Republican nomination, but Steelman, 50, certainly looks as if she will jump into the contest. She has already earned a reputation as an anti-establishment Republican.

Portraying herself as a “reformer,” Steelman brags about stopping payment on a check that constituted settlement of a sexual harassment complaint against the state agricultural director.

She publicly criticized the handling of the matter by then-Gov. Matt Blunt’s (R) administration, and she ruffled more establishment feathers last year when she ran in a primary against party insiders’ choice for governor, then-Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R). She lost that race by less than 5 points, a surprisingly narrow margin that demonstrates the appeal of her insurgent “reform” message.

Steelman lacks Blunt’s poise, and she isn’t as articulate as he is. But she also doesn’t have the heavy baggage that he does — his years in the GOP House leadership and the same last name as his son, Matt, who had a less-than-successful single term as governor. Whatever her weaknesses, Steelman isn’t burdened by the political liabilities that may make it difficult for Blunt to win a general election against the near-certain Democratic nominee, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.

In a sense, Steelman, Ganley and Brunner are all “challengers,” since they are running against candidates who have the approval of party insiders and power brokers. The question is whether they will have the financial resources, candidate skills, campaign savvy and message to allow them to win primaries and then run formidable general elections. Right now, two of them appear to have the potential to do so.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 4, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: California 10 & Mississippi 1

The May 4, 2009 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers.

The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

Here is a brief preview of this edition:

California 10: Waiting for Tauscher
By Nathan L. Gonzales

A handful of Northern California Democrats are praying that Cong. Ellen Tauscher (D) paid her taxes on time.

President Barack Obama nominated the moderate congresswoman to be undersecretary of arms control and international security at the State Department. And while she has yet to be confirmed, the lack of a vacancy in California’s 10th District hasn’t stopped candidates from running to replace her.

State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D) is in, and has Tauscher’s blessing. But newly-elected state Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan (D) is running as well, and just to make things more interesting, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi (D) is switching from the gubernatorial race to the congressional contest.

In another time (when Republicans’ popularity wasn’t in the tank) and in another place (before redistricting), California 10 was a competitive seat. But in the current environment, Republicans will be hard-pressed to challenge in this special election. For the full story, you must subscribe to the print edition of the Report.


Mississippi 1: Returning to Form?
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Winning has consequences. After winning 53 seats in the House over the last four years, Democrats find themselves defending a number of Republican-leaning seats, including Mississippi’s 1st District.

Democrat Travis Childers was first elected in a 2008 special election, taking over a GOP seat and providing another clue that the electoral bath of 2006 was not over for the Republicans. Luckily for Childers, Democrats have a large enough majority in the House that they can afford to lose his vote and still pass significant legislation.

Republicans will be combing through Childers’ voting record and looking to couple him with a national Democratic Party that is far more liberal than his district. Republicans are also anxious to avoid a divisive primary, such as the one they experienced in last year’s special election, and keep their sights on winning back the seat. For the full story, you must subscribe to the print edition of the Report.

Specter Switch Could Send Ripples Far and Wide for Both Parties

By Stuart Rothenberg

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s party switch is one of those developments that both reflects the depth of the problems facing the GOP and could begin a new chapter for some Democratic officeholders who will face additional political challenges down the road.

Republican strategists are downright gloomy over the gleeful reaction of conservative activists to Specter’s exit.

To those conservatives, Specter was never a reliable Republican anyway, and they see his moderate record — including his support for the stimulus package and the omnibus appropriations bill, for abortion rights and equal pay, and for a comprehensive solution on immigration reform — as diluting the party’s brand and empowering Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Barack Obama.

But to Republican strategists, many of whom are personally conservative and have major policy differences with Specter, the grass roots’ reaction to the Senator’s party switch demonstrates that those activists don’t yet recognize the GOP’s fundamental problems and therefore aren’t ready to recruit candidates with broader appeal, particularly in parts of the country that are more liberal on cultural and environmental matters.

Thirty years ago, it was Democrats who imposed a rigid test on abortion, gun control and military spending, dismissing moderate Democrats as insufficiently pure. But party insiders learned their lesson after losing elections they assumed they would win, and the party started recruiting candidates who fit their districts.

The GOP is and will remain a conservative party. But unless its grass-roots activists come to accept the importance of nominating strong candidates who would be strong legislators, the party will be shut out of too many regions to enable it to be the strong national party that it was during the 1980s and 1990s.

Conservative activists don’t need to like Specter or agree with all of his votes, but cheering his exit from the party demonstrates that they don’t understand the seriousness of their political troubles or how they can rebuild their brand.

But if Specter’s switch is a headache for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) — and it surely is — it is potentially an even bigger headache for Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and dozens of other more moderate House and Senate Democrats who don’t agree with their party’s liberal wing and depend on the votes of moderate and conservative voters for their political survival.

Lincoln, who could well face a stiff challenge next year, surely would prefer that Republicans block some of the more liberal elements of the Obama/Congressional Democrats’ agenda, whether on health care, energy or government spending.

But now, with Specter switching teams and Democrats about to have 60 seats after Minnesota Democrat Al Franken is seated, Lincoln can’t count on the GOP restraining the Democratic majority. She and her more moderate allies in the Democratic Conference — from Nebraska’s Ben Nelson to Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu and even Indiana’s Evan Bayh — will have to be the ones who restrain their colleagues, if they have the political will.

This is also likely to be true for dozens of House Democrats who were elected from Southern and rural districts, and who will now be expected by their constituents to be more active in blocking higher taxes, bigger deficits and government expansion.

While those Democrats are still free to vote against their party — thereby establishing their “independence” and “moderation” — they also must know that their political standing back home rests as much on what their party does on Capitol Hill as how they vote as individual legislators.

For Lincoln, for example, voting against big-ticket, big-government Democratic initiatives may not be enough to inoculate her against Republican attacks blaming her party for the country’s direction.

Indeed, this is exactly what happened to Republicans across the country the past two cycles, in swing districts that were both Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning. Many Republicans, such as then-Sens. Jim Talent (Mo.), Mike DeWine (Ohio) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) and then-Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.), Rob Simmons (Conn.) and Nancy Johnson (Conn.), lost not because voters were particularly angry with them, but because voters were unhappy and angry with Washington and the GOP.

The good news for Republicans now is that Democrats own everything, giving greater salience to the GOP argument that voters (and contributors) need to support Republican candidates and the party’s campaign committees so that Democrats don’t have a “blank check.”

Specter’s switch may also embolden Democrats in the nation’s capital to move further left than what the country is comfortable with, causing a voter backlash and internal party fissures. This could, in turn, bring a new focus by the media on differences within the Democratic Party rather than on differences between the two parties.

Democrats have every reason to be euphoric about Specter’s switch, but at the end of the day, it may not be the game changer that they hope. For grass-roots Republicans, Specter’s switch ought not be an opportunity to celebrate, but rather, a time to consider the party’s stunning demise.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 30, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.