Should the NRSC Spend Any Time on Lautenberg?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Twice within the past week I’ve seen or heard comments that Republicans may decide to take a shot at Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) next year, since his poll numbers suggest vulnerability.

While it’s unquestionably true that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has few offensive opportunities in 2008 and is looking for states where it might put Democratic seats into play, the existing evidence simply isn’t compelling that the committee should spend even a penny of its very limited resources in the Garden State.

If history is any guide, and it should be, New Jersey has become bluer over the past 20 years. The last Republican Senate victory in the state was in 1972, when moderate Clifford Case won a fourth term. The last GOP presidential victory was in 1988.

This cycle, the alleged evidence of Lautenberg’s weakness comes from an Eagleton Institute poll conducted in early August. That survey showed Lautenberg with ID ratings of 38 percent favorable/24 percent unfavorable, and with job performance ratings that were worse, at 37 percent approve/32 percent disapprove.

By traditional standards, the Senator’s “re-elect” (“Thinking about the job that Lautenberg has done as U.S. Senator, do you think he deserves to be re-elected, or do you think it’s time for a change?”) was horrendous: 24 percent said he deserves to be re-elected, and 61 percent responded that it’s time for a change.

The first problem with using these poll numbers to conclude that Lautenberg is at significant risk is that New Jersey poll numbers almost always are deceiving. Incumbents invariably start their re-election campaigns with mediocre survey numbers because many state voters get much of their media from New York City or Philadelphia and aren’t especially attuned to the activities of their own Senators.

In May of last year, only 20 percent of respondents in a Quinnipiac University poll said they had a favorable view of New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D), who had been appointed to the Senate seat and was carrying plenty of baggage during his first Senate race. Only 34 percent said they approved of Menendez’s job performance.

When matched against his Republican challenger, Tom Kean Jr., Menendez was leading by only 6 points and was at just 40 percent of the vote, a dangerous place to be for any incumbent. Other polls during the first six months of the year showed Menendez actually trailing Kean.

In November, Menendez won by 9 points, 53 percent to 44 percent. And that was the best Republican showing in a New Jersey Senate election since 1994, the Republican tsunami year when challenger Chuck Haytaian drew 47 percent of the vote against Lautenberg.

Lautenberg’s “re-elect” question is particularly misleading. Since voters hold Congress in such low regard and think the country is headed off on the wrong track, it isn’t surprising that they say it’s “time for a change” rather than that Lautenberg deserves to be re-elected. Since 36 percent of registered voters said they either had not heard of Lautenberg or had no opinion of him, it is easy for them to opt for change over continuity.

It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether Lautenberg’s age could be a problem for him, and the Eagleton survey asked split-sample questions about it. But again, the results are not exactly what they seem.

Half the sample was told that Lautenberg, the third-oldest member of the Senate, would be 84 years old at the start of his next term, while the other half was told that he would be 90 years old at the end of his term. Not surprisingly (and quite logically), more than six in 10 respondents said that he would not “be able to represent New Jersey effectively.”

The only problem for Republicans is that the Eagleton survey question is, in all likelihood, not predictive and, like too many poll questions, misleading.

The age questions isolate a single factor, but that’s not the way campaigns or elections work, or the way voters make their decisions. There are multiple messages going back and forth throughout a campaign, and in 2008, partisanship and the parties’ images, Iraq, George W. Bush, health care and “change” are likely going to be more important than Frank Lautenberg’s age.

Moreover, there is more than enough evidence that voters will re-elect older candidates, as long as they don’t seem out of touch or act in such a way as to raise fundamental questions about their abilities. West Virginia voters just re-elected increasingly frail Sen. Robert Byrd (D) when he was just shy of his 89th birthday, while Hawaii voters re-elected Sen. Daniel Akaka (D) at age 82. South Carolina voters re-elected Sen. Strom Thurmond (R) when he was over 90 years old and clearly unable to perform his duties independently.

Lautenberg’s age could become an issue, but it certainly is not guaranteed to become one or to threaten his re-election prospects, the Eagleton survey notwithstanding.

Finally, the national GOP’s brand is badly damaged and the Garden State Republican Party’s own vital signs are not good. Republicans have a very thin bench in the state, and it’s far from clear that they can find a top-tier Senate nominee next year.

We won’t know exactly where this race stands for months — until Republicans have a nominee and we see how the Iraq War stands. But whatever Lautenberg’s present or future vulnerabilities, he’s a Democrat running in a state and national political environment that favors Democrats. That gives Republicans no reason for even a shred of optimism.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 24, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Where the Presidential Nomination Races Are ... and Where to Look

By Stuart Rothenberg

More than three months before the crucial Iowa caucuses, there are good reasons for treating national surveys with great skepticism and for placing greater weight on the candidates’ standing and strength in Iowa and New Hampshire.

First, the candidates actually have been campaigning for months in those two states — meeting voters and airing ads. Voters, therefore, are basing their decisions on more than name recognition. They have looked at and listened to the hopefuls and made informed judgments about each of the candidates as a potential nominee and a potential president.

Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire voters have changed their opinions quickly in the past as the caucuses and primary have approached, and they may do so again this cycle (see my April 5 column, “Already, Too Much of the ’08 Coverage Is Quite Misleading”). But you are likely to take note of that change sooner if you are looking at state polls rather than at national survey numbers.

Second, the Iowa and New Hampshire results will create a dynamic that will affect the media’s coverage of the race, as well as the public’s perception of the candidates and the nature of their choices. After Iowa and New Hampshire, there will be winners and losers, candidates who failed to meet expectations, and, probably, those who exceeded expectations.

Simply put, developments in the early tests will affect the attitudes of voters in late January and February primary and caucus states. Could a candidate jump-start a candidacy in early February? Possibly, but certainly only if the January contests break just right.

If polls are snapshots, why are the national ones badly out of focus?

National polling currently includes too many respondents from states where no TV advertising has been aired and where the candidates have barely set foot. Respondents in those states aren’t paying close attention to the races and are basing their responses primarily on name recognition or general impressions. That is why celebrity candidates run best in national surveys.

If former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) wins the Iowa caucuses, as many expect, he’ll become a hot political property for the media, which should boost his national standing and prospects, even though he now runs a distant fourth in national polling.

In fact, given Romney’s strong showings currently in Iowa and New Hampshire, his prospects for the Republican nomination currently are as good as or better than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s or former Sen. Fred Thompson’s (Tenn.).

One veteran Iowa Democrat who is deeply involved in his party’s caucuses thinks that the GOP die already is cast. “Romney will be the Republican nominee,” the insider said. “He has the best organization by far in Iowa. Nobody else comes close. The second-best Republican organization in the state probably is [Mike] Huckabee’s. Rudy’s got nothing in the state. Neither does Fred Thompson.”

Winning Iowa certainly wouldn’t guarantee Romney his party’s nomination. Ronald Reagan was nosed out by George H.W. Bush in the caucuses in 1980 yet won New Hampshire and the GOP nomination. Eight years later, George H.W. Bush replicated Reagan’s path.

Still, Romney’s early strength in New Hampshire, combined with a probable win in Iowa and the likelihood that independents in the Granite State will both vote in significant numbers in the Democratic race and not unite behind a single GOP hopeful (as they did in 2000, when they backed Arizona Sen. John McCain), make the former Massachusetts governor the frontrunner in the nation’s first primary, at least at this point.

Romney’s opponents have yet to launch their inevitable flip-flopper attacks on him, and we don’t yet know how those attacks will affect his candidacy. But if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney surely will be the frontrunner in the Republican race. Given that, he should be included in the list of GOP frontrunners, even now.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (N.Y.) lead in the national polls could crumble quickly if she places second or third in Iowa. Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) are currently bunched together in the Hawkeye State, and anything could happen in the Democrats’ caucuses.

Clinton’s resources, experience, national political organization and, yes, gender give her an advantage in the race for the Democratic nomination. Those factors, as well as the fact that she is widely known, make it reasonable to call her a narrow favorite for her party’s nomination. But the national poll numbers greatly exaggerate her current standing in the Democratic race.

I’m not suggesting that national poll numbers are irrelevant. They do reflect national name recognition and the initial standing of the candidates. But so many important developments will occur before voters in Florida, California or Illinois get to cast their primary votes — developments that will color the public’s perception of the two presidential races — that the national numbers, as well as poll numbers in later states, have little predictive value now.

National numbers simply don’t deserve anything close to the attention that they are receiving in the national media, and particularly on TV. If you really want to know how Romney and Clinton are doing, keep your eye on Iowa and New Hampshire.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 20, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Illinois 8 & Connecticut 4

The September 21, 2007 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks and the content is not available online. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check. Here is a brief sample of what's in this edition...

Illinois 8: Her Multi-Front War

She couldn’t have realized how difficult it would be to juggle the spoils of victory. After losing her initial congressional run in 2002, Democrat Melissa Bean never looked back and went on to defeat long-time incumbent Cong. Phil Crane (R) in 2004.

In 2006, Bean became a Republican target, in part by representing a Republican-leaning district. At the same time, she faced a liberal, anti-war, third party candidate. Her 51% take last year in Illinois’ 8th District makes her an alluring target once again. And she’s likely to face at least nominal primary and third party challenges from the ideological left.

Subscribers get the whole story....

Connecticut 4: Democratic Takedown?

Even before the Democratic wave of 2006, Republican Cong. Christopher Shays nearly lost reelection in Connecticut’s 4th District. But last year, as colleagues to the east and west were falling, the Republican congressman won another term.

Now, Shays is no longer a Democratic target; he is the Democratic target, as the sole Republican congressman left in all of New England.

Susbcribers get the rest of the story...

Ignored in 2006, Kissell Has Plenty of IOUs to Collect

By Stuart Rothenberg

Larry Kissell is both an example of Democrats’ opportunities and a foreshadowing of their problems. But since their opportunities are much closer, most Democratic insiders certainly can live with problems that are years away.

Kissell, 56, is making his second bid to knock off incumbent Rep. Robin Hayes (R) in North Carolina’s 8th district. The Democrat worked in the textile industry for more than two decades before transitioning to become a high school social studies teacher.

Hayes barely hung on in November, winning by just 329 votes. Still, that was an accomplishment for the five-term Congressman given the number of veteran Republicans who went down to defeat. Hayes seems less than frightened at the prospect of a rematch, arguing that he didn’t run an aggressive race last time.

While it is true few thought back in January 2006 that the North Carolina 8th district race would be a photo finish or even that Hayes would be in serious trouble, the Congressman’s campaign spent $2.4 million during the election cycle, suggesting he didn’t merely coast to re-election. In October, Hayes ran a TV spot attacking Kissell on the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, a sign that the Republican’s campaign knew it was in a real contest.

Kissell spent only $800,000 last time, and neither now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) nor then-Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) sent him a check. The DCCC also ignored the race, believing that it had better opportunities elsewhere.

That’s already changed. Pelosi and Emanuel already have contributed, and DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) has made it clear that the committee sees Kissell as its candidate, even though the names of other potential candidates, including state Rep. Rick Glazier, still circulate. Kissell showed $101,000 in the bank on June 30.

The DCCC seems to get excited about the party’s prospects in Hayes’ district every two years (without great success), so it’s best to be skeptical about all the Democratic optimism and euphoria. Moreover, there’s no need to put a bet down on the winner at this point.

But Kissell seems to be the kind of Democrat who could carry this district if things break right for him.

He is a moderate Democrat who calls himself a “supporter of the Second Amendment,” says he would have voted for the supplemental appropriations bill that funded the Iraq War for three more months, and would have opposed the Cornyn/Kyl Senate bill’s approach on immigration because it established a procedure for citizenship for people in this country illegally.

No, Kissell is no closet Republican. He supports abortion rights and is opposed to further free-trade deals until he sees jobs returning to his district. But in style and on a number of issues, some on the Democratic left will likely have trouble with him.

One of the reasons Democrats now represent 233 seats in the House is that their Members sit in a number of conservative, Republican-leaning districts. To the extent that they add to those numbers, they create an inherent tension within their Caucus as well as within their party. It’s an entirely natural process, one that the Republicans faced when they held 232 seats.

This isn’t a problem for Democrats right now, and it’s one of those headaches that party campaign strategists don’t mind having, since it develops from success. But it’s also a fact: The bigger the majority in the House, the more likely internal divisions are to surface in the majority party.

You need not be a seer to figure out what will happen if Democrats gain six or eight House seats in addition to adding four or five Senate seats and winning the White House. All you need to do is look back at history.

It’s as simple as this: Republicans will go through a period of self-flagellation and self-examination, while Democrats will bask in the sunlight, eventually pushing a more liberal agenda that puts their less liberal Members — who represent Republican-leaning or conservative areas, such as North Carolina’s 8th — in an impossible position.

Depending on the specific circumstances, this will give way to growing Democratic in-fighting, including efforts by liberal Democratic groups to purge the party of “Democrats In Name Only” (DINOs, if the GOP experience is any indication of abbreviations and nicknames). Republicans will then look for candidates, regardless of their ideological bent, who can take advantage of Democrats’ weaknesses. And if Kissell is in Congress, he’ll be a GOP target.

It’s far from clear that Kissell will make it to Congress. He is counting on the presidential year turnout, voters’ perception that he can win and additional resources to help him overcome Hayes. But while he is earnest and likable, Kissell is low-key and has the charisma of a high school social studies teacher. And Hayes undoubtedly will be loaded for bear this time.

Hayes starts off with an edge in this race, but Kissell’s challenge definitely is worth watching. And if the Democrat wins, he’ll still be worth watching to see how he deals with party and local pressures to perform in office.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 17, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.