Can Tom Cole and Howard Dean Both Be Wrong?

By Stuart Rothenberg

I’ll bet that Rep. Tom Cole, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma and the new chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean of Vermont agree on very little. But they are singing from the same songbook when they argue that there are dozens of House seats ripe for the picking if only the parties would recruit strong candidates and spend enough money to elect them.

This year, Dean spent DNC funds to put political operatives on the ground in reliably Republican states to build grass-roots Democratic political operations and to improve his party’s electoral opportunities.

Now, with Democrats winning the House and the Senate and picking up loads of gubernatorial and state legislative seats, the party chairman is claiming success. And the Association of State Democratic Chairs apparently agrees: That group adopted a resolution recently praising Dean for "never retreating from what was right for every Democrat in every state." (Of course, state parties received DNC resources, giving Democratic chairs a reason to be grateful for Dean’s 50-state strategy, regardless of whether it actually produced results.)

Cole, much as Dean and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did last cycle, now talks about working "aggressively to expand the playing field."

"The idea that there are only three dozen competitive congressional districts in America is a myth," Cole wrote in a Nov. 9 memo that asked GOP members to support his bid for NRCC chairman. "If we accept it, we doom ourselves to playing on a constricted battlefield that will benefit the incumbent majority party. ... 2008 will be a year to hunt with a shotgun, not a rifle."

If politics makes strange bedfellows, then Dean and Cole are a perfect team. There is only one problem: They are both wrong about the size of the playing field. It is still small, and there is very little the parties can do to change that.

Whatever Dean accomplished in his role as DNC chairman, he isn’t responsible for electing many new Democratic officeholders, whether to Congress or to state legislatures. Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) didn’t lose because the state Democratic Party had a communications director. If anyone is responsible for the GOP losses, it’s President Bush.

If you want to give Dean credit for boosting Democratic enthusiasm, and possibly Democratic turnout, in a number of Republican areas, fine. The DNC’s 50-state strategy may have energized some previously unenthusiastic Democrats in very red states.

But in the end, all that talk about Democratic Congressional victories in reliably Republican territory - in Colorado’s 4th, Idaho’s 1st, Colorado’s 5th, Nebraska’s 3rd and Washington’s 5th - turned out to be nothing but talk, and anyone who credits the DNC for Jon Tester’s Senate win in Montana couldn’t have followed that race.

Yes, Democratic candidates in some long-shot districts got close, but that’s like Republicans saying that they were close to winning the Virginia Senate race, and therefore close to retaining the Senate. Sorry: Close doesn’t count.

But weren’t there more House seats in play this year than anyone expected? Of course, but that’s not because of the DNC’s 50-state strategy. The president’s unpopularity, combined with the Iraq War, created an abnormal political environment, one in which independents behaved like Democrats. That put races into play that in a "normal" year wouldn’t be the least bit competitive. The DNC doesn’t deserve credit for that — nor does the DCCC or the Democratic blogs.

Indeed, given the horrendous environment for Republicans, the fact that just 60 or so Republican-held seats were in play on Election Day proves the "narrow playing field" assessment that Dean and Cole seem to dispute. In 1994, close to 100 Democratic seats were in play.

But isn’t it wise to recruit strong candidates and build a party infrastructure to take advantage of a political wave, as both Cole and Dean have argued?

Sure. Who can argue with Cole’s assertion that Republicans must "recruit as many qualified candidates as possible"? It’s always better for a party to have more good candidates. But for the DCCC or the NRCC, there is a huge difference between trying to run the best challengers possible, thereby giving voters a true choice, and investing in every race, thereby wasting some of those valuable resources.

And it’s also true that spending resources on things that possibly might take advantage of a wave that never comes inevitably diverts resources away from other projects or personnel that might be more important in a "normal" year. How much time will Cole’s NRCC spend recruiting challengers to Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.)? None, I expect.

We can’t know what the political environment will be like in ’08, but it’s almost always wise to assume, at least initially, that we will have a relatively "normal" election cycle. And normalcy, given the current House lineup, our divided government and the current district lines, argues once again - strongly - for relatively few seats being in play.

Dean obviously has his own reasons for claiming credit for the Democratic victories on Nov. 7, and Cole made his argument in an effort to boost his prospects for winning the NRCC chairmanship. But a dispassionate assessment of the political playing field, as well as the election results this year, strongly suggests that if the ’08 election cycle at all resembles a normal one, the two parties will be fighting it out on a very narrow playing field.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 27, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Texas 23 & Louisiana 2

The November 29, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. To read the complete analysis of the two runoff races, you must subscribe.

Texas 23: The Lone Ranger
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Republicans are still reeling from their losses and coming to grips with life in the minority. But one of their own, Cong. Henry Bonilla (R), is still fighting for reelection in the sprawling South Texas 23rd District.

Bonilla failed to reach 50% in the November 7 balloting in what was actually an open primary race necessitated by new district lines. Now, the incumbent faces former Cong. Ciro Rodriguez (D) in a December 12 runoff.

For the whole story, just fill out the form and send it along with your check.

Louisiana 2: "He Ain't No Saint"

Few people disagree that Democratic Cong. Bill Jefferson will be removed from Congress at some point. The only question is whether he's voted out of office in Louisiana's 2nd District or taken out by federal investigators.

Jefferson became a household name and a late-night punch line after FBI agents raided his Washington, D.C. home and found $90,000 wrapped in foil in his freezer. The congressman hasn't been charged with a crime and the investigations are ongoing. But there are plenty of Democrats who are privately hoping that Jefferson will lose reelection on Saturday, December 9 so that new Democratic majority's message of reform and integrity won't be tarnished by Jefferson's presence next year.

For the whole story, just fill out the form and send it along with your check.

Let the Awards Begin: The Worst Self-Inflicted Wound of 2006

By Stuart Rothenberg

After every election, I offer a list of the best and worst, the most and the least. I started doing that the other day, but I ended up filling an entire column with a single category: The Worst Self-Inflicted Wound of 2006.

I will get back to a more exhaustive list of the best and worst campaigns and candidates before the end of the year, but since there were so many self-inflicted wounds this election cycle, I figure I might as well devote an entire column to the nominees, as well as to my logic in picking a winner.

So, without further DeLay, uh, I mean delay, here are the nominees this year:

Don Sherwood (R-Pa.)

Bob Ney (R-Ohio)

George Allen (R-Va.)

John Kerry (D-Mass.)

John Sweeney (R-N.Y.)

Mark Foley (R-Fla.)

I know, I know. This is an impossible choice. How can anyone choose from among these all-time, self-inflicted screw-ups? All of the nominees would be worthwhile winners, and in any other year any of them could have taken home the award. But, alas, life isn’t fair, and I have to choose a single winner for ’06.

I’m eliminating Foley right away, since his self-inflicted wound actually occurred well before his abortive re-election bid and over an extensive period of time, though it came to light only during his campaign. His problem was a series of wounds, not a single one, and frankly, I don’t even want to spend time thinking of the things that Foley wanted to do.

Ney’s problems also occurred over an extended period, though they obviously impacted his race for re-election. I guess we could call that golf trip to Scotland a decisive event, but it occurred in 2002. So, like Foley, he gets a pass.

That leaves four. The problem with Sherwood is that I’m not sure whether he had a self-inflicted wound or he inflicted a wound on his girlfriend. I am not sure whether we are talking about a single act or two, whether having a girlfriend (along with a wife) and allegedly (note my legal disclaimer) trying to choke her are two self-inflicted wounds or two parts of a single wound. Since Sherwood admits to one but not the other, he seems to come down on the side of the two separate incidents. Who am I to argue? He’s off the hook.

Sweeney is in a bit of the same situation as Sherwood. Obviously, the suggestion that the New York Republican got into a physical scuffle with his wife damaged Sweeney’s re-election prospects. But was that photograph of him drinking with college students necessary for the second alleged personal scandal to lead to his defeat? If so, then it was the two scandals together that cost Sweeney his seat, not a single self-inflicted wound. I’m afraid I have to drop him from contention.

That leaves us with Allen and Kerry, two Senators who did their best to destroy their reputations with stupid, ill-timed comments that meet the single "wound" criterion.

Somehow, it seems only right that two Senators are battling it out for the award.

On one level, the Kerry comment about getting good grades or you’ll end up in Iraq was worse than Allen’s "macac" comment, since Kerry wasn’t even on the ballot and, as my wife pointed out, he compounded his goof by insisting that he was trying to tell a joke when he almost certainly wasn’t.

Moreover, Kerry’s comment could have not only hurt his party’s prospects in 2006, he could also have seriously derailed his own presidential hopes for ’08. Impacting two election cycles, not just one, with a single comment is a stunning achievement, even for Kerry.

Having said that, even the Massachusetts Democrat couldn’t keep his party from winning the House and the Senate. While some conservative talk radio windbags apparently got angry when I expressed doubt that Kerry’s comment would have much of an effect on the midterm elections, most voters apparently shrugged off the Massachusetts Democrat’s inept remark.

And if Kerry’s comment undermined his potential presidential bid for 2008, I doubt it hurt him very much, since his chances weren’t very good to begin with.

Allen’s :macaca" comment, on the other hand, had a profound impact. It turned a laugher of a race into a close contest. And since Democrat Jim Webb eventually won the race - thereby giving Democrats control of the Senate and unified control of Congress - the Virginia Republican not only brought about his own defeat and destroyed his once considerable chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 but he also realigned the nation’s entire governing balance for the next two years.

Because of that jaw-dropping achievement, the award for worst self-inflicted wound must go to Allen. But it was a very close contest.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 20, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Ballot Measure Wrap-Up

By Louis Jacobson

This year was a busy one for ballot measures. But in many cases, voters weren't buying what was on offer.

Jennie Drage Bowser, who tracks ballot measures for the NCSL, identified 17 measures that sought to limit government, and of these, she was surprised to discover that only one passed. "The whole reason the initiative process was created in this country was to limit government," she said. "And these limiting-government sorts of measures are historically very successful on the ballot."

The results buoyed liberals who have increasingly used initiatives as a political tool. Most notably, voters easily approved all six statewide measures to increase the minimum wage. But liberals also chalked up other successes - and not always in states that experienced a pro-Democratic wave in Congressional or statewide races.

In South Dakota, a hard-line anti-abortion measure went down to defeat, as did a far-reaching initiative called Jail for Judges that would have stripped judges of their protections from being sued. Voters in Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon also turned down measures to curb judges.

Liberals also scored wins on Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, measures that limit government spending. After six TABORs were stripped from the ballot prior to the election, voters in Maine, Nebraska, and Oregon rejected the rest. In the meantime, Washington state voters solidly rejected a measure to repeal the state's estate tax and South Dakota voted down a property tax limit.

While voters in seven states approved measures to ban same-sex marriage, Arizonans narrowly rejected the same-sex marriage ban on their ballot - the first time that any such ban has been voted down.

A second generally conservative state, South Dakota, saw its same-sex marriage ban approved by the surprisingly small margin of four points. In the meantime, a legislature-written measure in Colorado to create gay domestic partnerships short of marriage failed narrowly.

In another loss for social conservatives, Missouri voters narrowly backed a high-profile measure to promote embryonic stem-cell research to cure. The Missouri stem-cell measure "was driven by biotech Republicans, and they're lucky they won it," Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center.

"They outspent the opponents by probably one of the biggest margins of the year - $31 million to $929,000- and still they only eked by."

Measures in California and Oregon to require parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking an abortion both failed, though fairly narrowly.

Elsewhere, strict anti-smoking measures passed in Arizona, Nevada and Ohio - even though each state's ballot had a similar-sounding, but less-stringent, measure backed by hospitality or tobacco interests. In the past, voters have often thrown up their hands at such pairings and rejected both measures - but not this year. The results "indicate some notable sophistication on the part of voters," Bowser said.

Animal welfare groups, which have had a strong though not perfect record of success with initiatives in recent years, chalked up victories in Arizona, where voters easily passed a measure to set minimum care standards for breeding pigs, and in Michigan, where voters by a wide margin rejected a measure that would have legalized the hunting of mourning doves. But Georgia hunters won overwhelming passage of a measure that requires the state to preserve the "tradition of fishing and hunting."

Voters approved eight ballot measures designed to sidestep the Supreme Court decision allowing governments to use eminent domain to benefit private developers, while voters in California, Idaho, and Washington rejected property rights initiatives that critics say could have gutted local zoning regulations. Arizona voters, however, approved a similar property rights measure by a 2-to-1 margin.

"It was a good start to the property rights movement," said conservative activist Grover Norquist. "We'll see more of these."

Voters in the Golden State approved about $43 billion in bonds for infrastructure expansion and maintenance. Analysts credited their success to the bipartisan nature with which the measures were drawn up.

However, voters in California were not persuaded by a ballot measure designed to use revenues from taxing in-state energy producers to fund $4 billion in alternative energy research over 10 years. The proposition, generously funded and backed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and a bevy of Hollywood figures, failed by a 10-point margin, thanks to a withering advertising attack by the oil industry that cost perhaps $100 million. The industry argued that that the tax increase would be passed on to consumers.

Voters in Washington state were friendlier to renewable energy. Voters there narrowly approved an initiative that sets benchmarks for electricity generation using alternative sources.

The only health care measure on the ballot this year - to allow Oregon residents without prescription drug coverage to participate in a state program - passed by a 3-to-1 margin. But Oregon voters rejected a measure that would have prohibited the use of credit scores when calculating insurance premiums - a win for the insurance industry, which mounted a several-million-dollar ad campaign against it.

Conservatives also chalked up some big wins on Election day. Michigan voters easily passed a measure to curb affirmative action, while Wisconsin voters gave solid support for a non-binding measure on whether to bring back the death penalty.

On immigration, Arizona voters backed a package of four propositions designed to crack down on illegal immigration. All passed with at least 70 percent of the vote. More narrowly, Colorado passed a referendum that bars businesses from deducting wages paid to illegal aliens, and one that directs the attorney general to sue the federal government to enforce immigration laws.

On law enforcement, Arizonans acted to limit probation for methamphetamine convicts, Californians increased penalties for sex crimes and Hawaii allowed legislators to set the standard for conviction in cases of sex crimes committed against minors.

North Dakota voters rejected a proposal to require joint custody of children after divorce.

Oregon voters declined to restore a term limit rule for legislators that had been struck down by the courts.

One thing is certain: A lot of money was spent on ballot measures this year. According to BISC, preliminary numbers suggest that proponents and opponents of 12 of the most expensive initiatives together spent $329 million. Given this small sample of races, it's hard to guess whether this year's outlay approaches a record. California's renewable energy measure set a spending record for a single initiative, with more than $153 million forked out by both sides.

What You Heard About ‘Conservative Democrats’ Winning Was Wrong

By Stuart Rothenberg

It quickly has become conventional wisdom that last week’s Democratic House victory swept in a crop of moderate and conservative Democrats who’ll both keep party liberals in check and help remake the image of the party of former Vice President Al Gore, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Well, I met dozens of Democrats running in 2006 - no, not everyone, but most of them - and I can’t find much more than a couple who merit the label "conservative." That’s not meant to be either criticism or praise. It’s merely a statement of fact.

North Carolina Rep.-elect Heath Shuler surely qualifies as a culturally conservative Democrat, but the pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who is a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes is the exception, not the rule. Virtually all of the Democrats I interviewed were pro-choice, favored rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts and sounded traditional Democratic themes on education, the environment and foreign policy.

In Connecticut, Reps.-elect Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney are pretty typical Northern liberals. In New York, Rep.-elect John Hall, who I didn’t meet, appears to be quite left of center. Two upstate Democrats, Reps.-elect Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Arcuri, have more moderate personas, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call them conservatives, or even moderates.

Arcuri often referred to himself as a "Boehlert Democrat," a label that won’t make conservatives who cringed at the voting record of retiring Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) the least bit comfortable. Gillibrand, who is impossible not to like, didn’t sound like a liberal firebrand, but I’d be surprised if her record was much different from that of most Northeast Democrats.

In Pennsylvania, there is no reason to believe that Reps.-elect Patrick Murphy and Joe Sestak will be anything but typical suburban Philadelphia Democrats: If you are a liberal, you’ll like them, and if you aren’t, you probably won’t.

In Florida, Rep.-elect Ron Klein’s state legislative voting record seems consistent with a liberal Democrat, and while some observers have pointed out that Rep.-elect Tim Mahoney talked a moderate line during his campaign and is a former Republican, my notes from my interview with him show that he has not supported a Republican presidential nominee for more than 20 years and seems likely to vote along traditional Democratic lines.

Texas Rep.-elect Nick Lampson may have to vote like a moderate or conservative if he has any hope of winning re-election in Texas’ 22nd district in two years, but his record when he was in Congress was not what one normally would identify as conservative, or even moderate.

My interview with California Rep.-elect Jerry McNerney suggests he’s quite liberal. The same goes for Rep.-elect Steve Kagen in Wisconsin. I didn’t interview Iowa’s newly elected Member, Dave Loebsack, but his profile — he’s a political science professor at Cornell College and ran against middle-of-the-road GOP Rep. Jim Leach from the left — suggests he’s no moderate.

In Ohio, Rep.-elect Charlie Wilson is conservative on cultural issues, so that makes him a relatively moderate Democrat. But fellow Buckeye State Rep.-elect Betty Sutton certainly isn’t a moderate, and although I didn’t meet Rep.-elect Zack Space, I am told by people who did that his views seem fairly liberal.

I wrote after the previous cycle that I liked Indiana Democrat Joe Donnelly and hoped he’d run again, but I’d never call him a conservative Democrat. On the other hand, Rep.-elect Brad Ellsworth told me that he is pro-life, supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage and supports capital punishment, so he does appear to be a moderate Democrat.

Then there is Rep.-elect Baron Hill, who, if you ask him, probably will call himself a moderate Democrat. The only problem is that voters in Indiana’s 9th district fired him two years ago because they thought he was a cultural liberal who tried to have issues both ways.

I’ve never met Rep.-elect John Yarmuth, who knocked off Rep. Anne Northup (R-Ky.) and has a reputation for being both very personable and very liberal. Kansas Rep.-elect Nancy Boyda is pro-choice, and as far as I can tell, there is no reason to see her as a moderate.

Kentucky Democrat Ken Lucas would have been a conservative Democrat, but he lost. Florida’s Christine Jennings, a bank president, might have been moderate on business issues, but she apparently lost narrowly.

Colorado Rep.-elect Ed Perlmutter? Liberal. Iowa Rep.-elect Bruce Braley? Very liberal. Arizona Rep.-elect Gabrielle Giffords? Liberal, I think.

Now let me be very clear about my point. I’m not saying that it’s good or bad that most of these Democrats are likely to be pretty typical members of their party. I’m only saying that’s where they fit. A bunch of conservative Democrats didn’t win election last week.

So how and why did the buzz get going that the Democrats elected last Tuesday foreshadow a different Democratic Party? I’m not sure.

Part of it may have been all the hype about Democrats "broadening the playing field" and possibly taking very Republican seats in Idaho, Nebraska, Colorado, Washington, Wyoming and Indiana. That didn’t happen, though in some cases the Democrats running for those seats performed well above what would be expected for their party.

Though there were obvious exceptions, most of the House takeovers occurred in swing and Democratic-leaning districts, and those districts elected pretty conventional Democrats.

The election of Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) to the Senate may have added to the impression that Democrats were sending moderates and conservatives to Washington, D.C. But again, Casey - who opposes legal abortion - is the exception, not the rule.

House Democrats way well attempt to steer a more moderate path between now and 2008, especially since their opportunities are limited with Bush in the White House. But if that happens, it would be the result of a pragmatic decision by party leaders, not the result of an infusion of moderates and conservatives into their party last week.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 16, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Pelosi Stumbles Out of the Blocks

By Stuart Rothenberg

Yes, I know. Leadership fights on Capitol Hill are the ultimate political insider contests. Voters don’t care about them, and once they are over, they are quickly forgotten.

Having said that, Nancy Pelosi’s decision to pick a public fight with her second in command, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, is so incomprehensible, so politically stupid that it has raised eyebrows among political journalists and insiders of all type.

For weeks, I have been suggesting that Pelosi will be a lot smarter and more subtle that her conservative critics warned, and that she won’t drive the Democratic bus off the cliff. But now I’m not so sure.

Pelosi’s political antennae appear much less sensitive than I assumed, and if you are a Republican looking for a quick reason to think that you may be able to take back the House in 2008, the incoming Speaker’s intervention in the majority leader race – a race that her candidate lost rather decisively – has to give you some reason for optimism.

Instead of generating front page stories about the Democrats’ agenda, Pelosi has made herself and divisions within her party the story du jour.

In publicly backing Rep. John Murtha – and apparently strong-arming Democrats to support him over Hoyer – Pelosi threw her support to someone who has plenty of ethics baggage and contempt for the reformist agenda that many Democrats, and many Americans, seem to want.

Pelosi doesn’t have to like Hoyer to work with him. Her effort to crush him suggests considerable personal flaws that could come back to haunt her. Just as bad, she has taken a non-story for most people and turned it into a lose-lose proposition for herself.

Now, reporters will have the Pelosi versus Hoyer story to kick around for the next couple of years, and Pelosi will forever have started off her historic speakership with a stinging, and very unnecessary, defeat.


This item first appeared on Political Wire on November 16, 2006.

GOP Moderates and Conservatives Ready to Do Battle

By Stuart Rothenberg

In the past, it’s been the AFL-CIO against the Democratic Leadership Council. But not this year. This time, the conservative and moderate wings of the Republican Party have the pleasure of blaming and pointing fingers at each other for the party’s loss.

The blame game remains a staple in Washington, D.C., but it has been elevated to an art form in the national media, which is constitutionally unable to pass up the opportunity to get grown men and women to sneer at each other and launch unsupported accusations and recriminations.

Already, the Republican Majority for Choice and the Republican Main Street Partnership, both moderate groups, have criticized conservatives for the party’s defeat last week. Not surprisingly, conservative talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh has blamed the party’s “non-partisan identity” for its defeat.

I’ve watched (or been on) enough panels with Al From or Will Marshall on one side and Robert Borosage or someone from organized labor on the other to know that they tend to confuse rather than clarify. But that doesn’t mean these confrontations don’t draw an audience.

The early signs suggest that Republicans are no better than Democrats at finding the real reason for their party’s defeat or looking for ways to move forward productively.

The AFL-CIO, the DLC and a wide range of Democratic groups were all on the same side this year, but not because of anything they did. This year’s elections were about President Bush, and criticism of his performance in office united all Democrats.

The White House’s reliance in the past few years on a mobilize-the-base approach rather than a broaden-the-base strategy ought not obscure an obvious political reality: When it comes to elections, more votes are better than fewer votes, and a party with broad appeal is likely to be more successful at the ballot box than one with narrow appeal.

So get ready for the inevitable discussion: What do Republicans do now? Do they need to emphasize contrast with the Democrats and move rightward, or do they need to shift toward the middle to regain those independent voters they lost?

It’s a silly mistake for Republicans to want to choose between moderates and conservatives. The party needs both elements to maximize its chances every two years at the polls. That formula boosted Bush to two terms in the White House.

A party that moves too far to the right and makes conservatives completely happy runs the risk of alienating moderates and political independents. And a party that moves too far to the center to attract moderates will lose the energy of its base and risks losing its reason for being.

To dredge up the old formulation for former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis (D), what cost the Republicans Congress this year wasn’t ideology, it was competence.

The Iraq War has been a disaster, and the president and his administration looked out of touch and ineffective in dealing with a number of important issues that surfaced in the past two years.

Bush critics rightly will point out that some of his mistakes followed from ideological assumptions, and in that sense his values and belief system weren’t totally irrelevant. But my point is a bit different: Republicans didn’t lose because they were too conservative. They didn’t lose because of their position on abortion or even because they may have favored personal accounts under Social Security, though in that case their ideology did lead them down a legislative blind alley.

Rather, the Republican Party lost last week because it — and particularly the president — didn’t do the job.

Politics is about arithmetic, and the GOP needs moderates and conservatives to get back to 218 seats in the House and 51 seats in the Senate sometime soon. Arguments about who “caused” the party’s defeat last week are just as irrelevant and mind-numbing as were the Democrats’ arguments after 1994 and 2004.

For the GOP, the fact that the party holds just one of 22 House seats in New England ought to be more than disquieting. It should be seen as disastrous. The same is true about growing Republican weakness in northern suburbs in the orbit of New York, Philadelphia and Chicago, which have shown a willingness to vote even for relatively weak Democratic presidential nominees.

Conservatives ought to wake up, smell the coffee and consider themselves and their party lucky to have had on their team retiring Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (N.Y.), now-defeated moderates like Reps. Sue Kelly (N.Y.) and Nancy Johnson (Conn.) and — yes — even Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.). Conservatives often may have been frustrated by some of their votes, but those moderates were able to win in territory ranging from marginal to hostile.

As in 1982, GOP moderates took a disproportionate hit last Tuesday, since they represented districts in which their continuance in office depended on getting Democratic votes. Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.) and Jim Walsh (N.Y.) were the exceptions, since they narrowly survived. Republicans aren’t likely to regain most of these districts in 2008, and they may have to wait for a midterm election with a Democrat in the White House to do so again.

The bottom line is simple: Conservative and moderate Republicans need each other to gain power.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 13, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

As Predicted, a Wave Washes Republicans Out to Sea

By Stuart Rothenberg

Well, don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Tuesday’s balloting was about what we expected. A relatively large political wave swept almost 30 House Republicans out of office and appears to have delivered the Senate to Democrats. Of course, we won’t know the status of control of the Senate for a while, but whatever happens in Virginia and Montana, Democrats had a big night in that chamber, as well.

Actually, Republicans got lucky on Election Day. Many of the close House contests went to the GOP. Had squeakers in districts such as New Mexico’s 1st, Virginia’s 2nd, New York’s 25th and 29th, North Carolina’s 8th, Nevada’s 3rd, Ohio’s 1st, New Jersey’s 7th, Connecticut’s 4th and Wyoming’s at-large seat gone Democratic, we could be talking about a 38- to 40-seat swing.

There were a lot of noteworthy things about Tuesday’s voting, so let me touch on a few of them.

First, what the South was to Democrats in 1994, the Northeast was to Republicans this year. Two seats in Connecticut appear to have fallen, along with another pair in New Hampshire, three in New York and four in Pennsylvania.

The New England and Mid-Atlantic landscape is littered with moderate Republicans, from Charles Bass and Jeb Bradley to Sue Kelly to Nancy Johnson and, possibly, Rob Simmons, and Republicans may find that it was easier to lose those seats than it will be to get them back. Add liberal Republican Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa) to the mix, and you have a national weeding out of moderates that impacted the northeast corner of the nation greatly.

True, moderates such as Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.) survived, but even their wins were ugly, and they stand out as exceptions to the rule.

Second, partisan voting devastated Republicans in Democratic-leaning districts. When Leach loses to an underfunded, fourth-tier Democratic challenger, you know that districts carried by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 saw plenty of straight-ticket voting by Democrats.

But these elections weren’t about partisans after all. Exit polls showed that few partisans defected on Tuesday, and the real story was independents. While independents constituted only about 26 percent of the electorate, those voters went Democratic 57 percent to 39 percent. That 18-point margin is gigantic when it comes to normal independent voting patterns.

Third, all of the talk about a Republican surge during the final days of the campaign was bunk, as I believed (and wrote in this space) at the time.

You aren’t likely to have large moves in public opinion after a lengthy campaign without events that force people to change their assessments and intentions. And given the likelihood that late deciders would move toward Democrats (which is exactly what happened), it was hard to see a Republican surge.

Once again, people overreacted to a couple of polls, particularly the generic ballot in the first Washington Post/ABC News survey and then, even more importantly, the late Pew Research poll, ignoring contradictory polling that suggested Democrats still held a significant advantage in the generic ballot going into Election Day.

It was stunning how quickly people jumped on the "Chafee Resurgent in Rhode Island Senate" bandwagon after seeing just one poll.

That’s not to say there wasn’t any closing toward the end. Montana tightened up in the final week, and there was data showing some increased GOP interest in the elections and likelihood to vote as Nov. 7 neared.

Fourth, we seem to have discovered the base Republican vote in many districts, and we found out where and how the Republicans’ structural advantages from redistricting sheltered some Republican candidates from the wave.

Allegedly vulnerable Republicans in what appeared to be bulletproof GOP districts, such as Reps. John Doolittle (Calif.), Cathy McMorris (Wash.) and Mark Souder (Ind.) and incoming Reps. Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Bill Sali (Idaho), Adrian Smith (Neb.) and Tim Walberg (Mich.) held on despite the wave. Their margins were down, of course, but they survived, some even comfortably.

Republicans now must figure out what they are going to do. They can expect a number of retirements of senior Members now that the party is in the minority, and many GOP House Members will have to deal with being in the minority for the first time in their Congressional tenures.

President Bush, of course, is the biggest loser in a number of ways. He loses at least one chamber, and he is the reason Republicans took a bath on Tuesday. He may console himself by believing that he has the right policy in Iraq and history will judge him kindly. But his performance in office has destroyed a number of noteworthy political careers, and he would be wise to never forget that.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 9, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Turn Back the Clock: Rothenberg Report on CNN Nov. 2

You know you've arrived when you're on both the Situation Room and YouTube. It's all downhill from here. Anyway, here's a clip of our election predictions from November 2.

Down to the Wire: Expect a Big Night for Democrats

By Stuart Rothenberg

This column is available free at RollCall.com for a limited time.

With only a few hours remaining until the votes start being counted, there is little uncertainty about the fight for the House, except for questions about exactly which Republican incumbents will be lucky enough to survive.

Polls over the past few weeks have seen many Republicans who once held clear, if not overwhelming, leads scrambling to try to stay ahead. GOP strategists say that voters increasingly have been focusing on Iraq, and that the added attention has worked to the disadvantage of Republican candidates.

Republican chances for retaining the House have moved from small to smaller, and public and private polling now suggests a solid Democratic win. The majority’s losses this year will be lower than during the wave elections of 1958, 1974 and 1994, but only because of structural factors: The way districts have been drawn and the relatively small number of Republicans holding Democratic districts effectively minimize potential Democratic gains.

Having said that, this fight still is taking place almost entirely on Republican turf. With Republican House seats such as Idaho’s 1st district, Kansas’ 2nd, California’s 11th and even Wyoming’s at-large in play, it’s clear which party is on the offensive.

National polls continue to show the Democrats with an advantage on the generic ballot, though there is no agreement on its size. Is it 4 points, as the Pew Research survey found; 6 points, as The Washington Post/ABC News poll has it; or 20 points, as CNN’s poll says? Obviously, those numbers could produce dramatically different national outcomes.

Still, even the most optimistic Republican insiders I can find seem to think a loss of 18 or 19 seats is inevitable, while others counter that a loss of more than 30 is more likely. Most GOP insiders would be ecstatic if the party held its losses to two dozen or less.

Democratic gains of anywhere from 25 to as many as 40 seats are possible. Last week, I went on record saying I expected a Democratic gain of 34 to 40 seats as the most likely range. That now strikes me as a bit high, but only at the low end. So, I am adjusting my House estimate/projection slightly, to a Democratic gain of 30 to 36 seats.

Of course, even more GOP seats could fall if all of the endangered Republicans lose and we see more than a couple of surprises.

The House results are likely to wipe out many moderate Republicans, who are taking the brunt of the wave because they represent Democratic-leaning or competitive districts.

Over in the Senate, things remain far less clear. While I have been widely credited with predicting a six-seat Democrat gain (and therefore control of the Senate), what I’ve written is that Democrats will net five to seven seats. I’d now like to widen that range to four to seven seats.

According to some polls, races in Maryland, Montana and Rhode Island have tightened, making the net outcome less certain. But I’m still expecting Democrats to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana and Rhode Island, and, less confidently, Virginia.

Two seats, Tennessee and Missouri, have looked tight for months, and they could go either way.
Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) has run a good race, but he isn’t facing a longtime incumbent, and he may not win the undecided voters the way other Democratic challengers will. All things being equal, that probably is enough reason to push the race to Republican Bob Corker.

But a big enough national Democratic wave across the country — or maybe more accurately, an anti-Bush, anti-Republican wave — could sweep Ford to victory. I’d consider it a mild surprise, though.

In Missouri, Sen. Jim Talent (R) is locked in a tight race against Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, and most polling shows little daylight between the two candidates. I’ve seen polls with McCaskill ahead, and I’ve seen polls with Talent leading.

The prudent thing to do, of course, is to leave the race as a tossup, since either candidate could win. But, of course, I didn’t do that in my most recent newsletter. I pushed the race toward McCaskill, since in “wave” elections, virtually all of the close races go to the party benefiting from the wave, and this year that is the Democrats.

In reality, I won’t be surprised no matter who wins in Missouri.
GOP prospects seem to have faded significantly in New Jersey, and the better chance for a Republican upset now seems to be Maryland.

The outcome in the Senate remains cloudy, no matter how much I would like to be able to predict party control. I expect Democrats to gain at least four seats, and I’m more than a bit skeptical about the Republican “surge.”

Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2006 House Ratings

Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gain of 30-36 seats.

PURE TOSS-UP (19 R, 0 D)

• CA 11 (Pombo, R)
• CT 2 (Simmons, R)
• CT 4 (Shays, R)
• FL 16 (Open; Foley, R)
• FL 22 (Shaw, R)
• IL 6 (Open; Hyde, R)
• KS 2 (Ryun, R)
• MN 1 (Gutknecht, R)
• MN 6 (Open; Kennedy, R)
• NM 1 (Wilson, R)
• NY 26 (Reynolds, R)
• OH 1 (Chabot, R)
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• PA 4 (Hart, R)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
• PA 8 (Fitzpatrick, R)
• TX 22 (Open; DeLay, R)
• VA 2 (Drake, R)
• WI 8 (Open; Green, R)
  

TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (10 R, 0 D)

• AZ 1 (Renzi, R)
• CA 4 (Doolittle, R)
• CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
• ID 1 (Open; Otter, R)
• KY 3 (Northup, R)
• KY 4 (Davis, R)
• NV 3 (Porter, R)
• NY 25 (Walsh, R)
• NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
  

TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (8 R, 3 D)

• AZ 5 (Hayworth, R)
• CT 5 (Johnson, R)
• FL 13 (Open; Harris, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
• GA 12 (Barrow, D)
• IL 8 (Bean, D)
• IN 9 (Sodrel, R)
• NH 2 (Bass, R)
• NY 20 (Sweeney, R)
• NY 24 (Open; Boehlert, R)
• NC 11 (Taylor, R)
  

LEAN REPUBLICAN (3 R, 0 D)

• NJ 7 (Ferguson, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
• TX 23 (Bonilla, R)
  

LEAN DEMOCRATIC (6 R, 1 D)

• IA 1 (Open; Nussle, R)
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
• IN 2 (Chocola, R)
• OH 15 (Pryce, R)
• OH 18 (Open; Ney, R)
• PA 7 (Weldon, R)
• PA 10 (Sherwood, R)
  

REPUBLICAN FAVORED (8 R, 0 D)

• CA 50 (Bilbray, R)
• CO 5 (Open; Hefley, R)
• KY 2 (Lewis, R)
• NE 3 (Open; Osborne, R)
• NV 2 (Open; Gibbons, R)
• NY 3 (King, R)
• NY 19 (Kelly, R)
• WY AL (Cubin, R)
  

DEMOCRAT FAVORED (3 R, 1 D)

• AZ 8 (Open; Kolbe, R)
• CO 7 (Open; Beauprez, R)
• IN 8 (Hostettler, R)
• VT A-L (Open; Sanders, D)

2006 Senate Ratings

Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 4-7 seats and state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control

LIKELY TAKEOVER (2 R, 0 D)

• DeWine (R-OH)
• Santorum (R-PA)
  

LEAN TAKEOVER (4 R, 0 D)

• Allen (R-VA)
• Burns, (R-MT)
• Chafee, (R-RI)
• Talent (R-MO)

TOSS-UP (1 R, 0 D)

• TN Open (Frist, R)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 1 D)

• Kyl (R-AZ)
• Menendez (D-NJ)
• MD Open (D-Sarbanes)
  

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (0 R, 3 D)

• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• Nelson (D-NE)
  

CURRENTLY SAFE (7 R, 13 D)

• Ensign (R-NV)
• Hatch (R-UT)
• Hutchison (R-TX)
• Lott (R-MS)
• Lugar (R-IN)
• Snowe (R-ME)
• Thomas (R-WY)
• Akaka (D-HI)
• Bingaman (D-NM)
• Byrd (D-WV)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Clinton (D-NY)
• Conrad (D-ND)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Kennedy (D-MA)
• Kohl (D-WI)
• Lieberman (D-CT)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• MN Open (D-Dayton)
• VT Open (I-Jeffords)

2006 Election Night Viewer Guide

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Even for the diehard political junkie, following ninety races for the House, Senate, and governor on Election Night would be quite a feat. So, here is a simple game plan for tackling November 7, to give you a good idea as to what's happening nationwide.

7pm (EST) - The House

Kentucky 4 – Rep. Geoff Davis (R) is running for a second term in a heavily Republican district that voted 63% for President Bush. Combined GOP spending has overwhelmed former Rep. Ken Lucas (D) and the Democrats in the final weeks. If Davis loses, even with the nature of the district and an overwhelming financial edge, the GOP majority is in serious jeopardy.

Kentucky 3 - Rep. Anne Northup (R) is facing yet another challenge in her Louisville-based district. Northup's district is certainly more Democratic than the 4th District (John Kerry took 51%), but it looks like she'll go into Election Night with a narrow lead, but under 50%. If she loses, that means undecided voters are breaking heavily and convincingly for the Democrats and other battle-tested incumbents like Clay Shaw (Florida 22) and Heather Wilson (New Mexico 1) are in a lot of trouble.

Kentucky 2 – If state Rep. Mike Weaver (D) defeats Rep. Ron Lewis (R), Democrats are in for a huge night. The 2nd District voted overwhelmingly (65%) for President Bush in 2004 and it would bring a whole series of heavily Republican districts into play. A loss would be particularly troubling since Lewis doesn't have the burden of personal or ethical baggage, just the weight of President Bush.

Republicans are likely to come out of the hour, including Ohio and North Carolina at 7:30pm, down by at least seven or eight seats (half-way to a Democratic majority). If a Democratic tsunami is hitting, Republicans could realistically lose the majority before the polls close in the 8pm states (IN 2, IN 8, IN 9, OH 1, OH 2, OH 12, OH 15, OH 18, NC 8, NC 11, KY 2, KY 3, KY 4, VA 2, VA 10). But if Republicans can escape these early states down by only three or four seats, it should be a considered a moral victory.

8pm (EST) – The Senate

Missouri Senate– Sen. Jim Talent (R) is in a neck-and-neck contest with state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D). Missouri is a competitive, but GOP-leaning state, featuring a Republican incumbent who has run a great campaign. If Talent loses, the GOP majority is in serious jeopardy, and its gone completely if Sen. George Allen (R) loses earlier at 7pm in Virginia.

New Jersey Senate– This is the single best Republican opportunity in the Senate, as state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R) attempts to unseat appointed-Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Kean has run effectively on "change" in the face of a Democratic wave in a Democratic state. A GOP victory in the Garden State would likely signal a very narrow Republican Senate majority next year.

Control of the Senate will likely be decided by the time the votes are tallied in the 8pm states. Mike DeWine (R) will already be gone (7:30pm poll closing in Ohio), followed by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania). Assuming Democrats prevail later in the night in Rhode Island (9pm) and Montana (10pm), as expected, Democrats would need to hold New Jersey and Maryland and win both Missouri and Tennessee to take the majority. But if Sen. George Allen (R-Virginia) loses at 7pm in Virginia, Democrats would only need to win one of the Missouri-Tennessee contests.

9pm (EST) – Governors

Minnesota Governor– Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) appears to be falling victim to the national environment. He remains fairly popular, yet he's locked in a tight battle with state Attorney General Mike Hatch (DFL). The third party candidate's campaign has stalled, and that is making it difficult for Pawlenty to win. The governor won his first term with only 44%.

Rhode Island Governor– Gov. Don Carcieri (R) is also popular and goes into Election Night with a significant lead. But the state is hostile toward Republicans and is likely to throw out their Republican U.S. Senator.

Democrats are almost certain to gain at least five governorships (Arkansas, Ohio, Massachusetts, Colorado, and New York) by the time the 9pm states are finished counting. If Pawlenty loses in Minnesota, Gov. Jim Doyle (D) has probably held on in Wisconsin, and Democrats are closer to a seven-seat gain in governorships. And if Carcieri falls, Democrats could net up to ten governorships by the time the night is over. (Remember that Democrats lost ten governorships in 1994.)

*Senate Wave Watch – If Democrats successfully knock off Jon Kyl (R) in Arizona, they have likely won control, even if all the votes haven't been tallied in the earlier states.

11pm (EST) – Hip-Waders or Life Rafts?

Idaho Governor – All eyes should be on Idaho for the size of the Republican wave. Rep. Butch Otter (R) is facing an unexpectedly close and competitive race against 2002 nominee Jerry Brady (D). Otter has some Washington baggage because he is a member of Congress, but he doesn't produce the hate from within his own party that 1st District nominee Bill Sali (R) gets. A Sali loss could be passed off, in part, as a local problem, but an Otter loss would represent something much, much bigger.

This guide first appeared on Political Wire on November 3, 2006.

Just Hours Until Democratic Gains

By Stuart Rothenberg

This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 2, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

With less than a week to go before Election Day, we now know the GOP’s October surprise: Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). And you wondered why White House political guru Karl Rove sounded so upbeat and certain that Republicans would hold both chambers of Congress?

Kerry, who already destroyed one election for his party, apparently is trying to make it two in a row. It will be a tough job for the Massachusetts Democrat, but he’s doing his best, first by saying something silly and inappropriate, then compounding it by going on the attack instead of apologizing immediately.

Alas, the die is cast, and at this point, even Kerry can’t cost his party control of the House. But the louder he complains about the president, and the more names he calls White House aides, the more he could energize Republicans, which would help the GOP hold another seat or two.

In most respects, the national political environment has changed little since the beginning of the year. Yes, there have been bumps along the way — President Bush’s job approval has gone down, then up, then down again — but the fundamental elements of the election cycle remain unchanged.

The news from Iraq has not improved — in fact, it has gotten worse — and Americans have become increasingly pessimistic about the president’s policies. A majority of Americans believe the United States made a mistake in invading Iraq, and only about one in three Americans believe that we are winning the war against terror. That shouldn’t be surprising, given that Bush often has repeated that Iraq is the front line in the war against terror.

Congress’ already bad reputation was made worse by the page scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and by the way GOP leaders handled it. All of that has played into the Democrats’ message of “change,” making the 2006 elections a classic referendum on the party in power and the president.

Democrats didn’t “nationalize” these midterms — events and circumstances did. When the news is bad, voters naturally look for someone to blame. And when one party controls all of the levers of government, that party gets 100 percent of the blame.

Still, even if the Democrats didn’t create that wave, they have done a good job riding it.
GOP prospects in the midterm elections have been further damaged by inept Republican behavior, from the disastrous campaign of self-inflicted wounds by Sen. George Allen (Va.) to a messy Republican Tennessee Senate primary that enhanced the chances of Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in what had seemed like an almost impossible race.

And over in the House, the behavior (or alleged behavior) of a number of current and former Republican Members— former Reps. Tom DeLay (Texas) and Foley and Reps. Bob Ney (Ohio), Don Sherwood (Pa.) and Curt Weldon (Pa.) — have put otherwise safe seats into play.
The greatly expanded playing field makes it quite obvious that these midterm elections are a Republican nightmare. Few Democratic seats are at any risk, while normally safe Republican districts are endangered.

At least a couple of dozen Republican incumbents trail in polling or hold narrow leads and are well under 50 percent of the vote — a dangerous position this late in an election cycle. In many ways, this situation mirrors 1994, the most recent major partisan wave in a midterm election. A dozen years ago, Democratic incumbents were well under 50 percent of the vote in trial heats against their GOP opponents. Most of them lost.

In district after district, undecided voters disapprove of the president’s performance, think the country is on the wrong track and generally fit a demographic profile that suggests they are more likely to vote for Democratic challengers than for GOP incumbents, if they vote at all.

Quality Republican incumbents who began the cycle well-liked and viewed as thoughtful and effective, as well as strong campaigners — including three relatively moderate House Republicans in Connecticut, plus Reps. Anne Northup (Ky.), Clay Shaw (Fla.), Jim Walsh (N.Y.) and Heather Wilson (N.M.) — could find themselves drowning in a Democratic wave.

But I remain skeptical that large numbers of GOP candidates in solidly Republican districts are likely to lose. In 2004, Nebraska’s 3rd district gave Bush 75 percent of the vote, while Indiana’s 3rd went 68 percent for Bush. The president won Idaho’s 1st with 69 percent, Wyoming with 69 percent and Colorado’s 5th with 66 percent. Democratic Congressional candidates will come close in some of those districts, but any Democratic victories still would constitute major upsets.

Few Republican voters will vote for Democratic candidates, and the GOP’s “micro-targeting” get-out-the-vote operation could well result in an electorate that is more Republican than some GOP strategists fear.

Luckily for Democrats, their nominees don’t have to knock off Republicans in such solidly Republican districts to net 25 or even 30 seats.

Over in the Senate, recent polling in the Virginia Senate race has brought more bad news to Republicans. New public and private polling suggests that Democrat Jim Webb has pulled ahead of Allen. Again, given Allen’s incumbency and his inability to find wedge issues to portray his Democratic challenger as an unapologetic liberal, the Republican Senator will have real problems making Webb unacceptable to undecided voters.

The outlook for Republicans is a little brighter in Missouri, where some private poll numbers last week had showed state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D) opening up a significant lead over Sen. Jim Talent. Newer numbers suggest that the race remains competitive. But even so, Talent continues to face a very difficult bid for re-election.

Excerpts from Latest Print Edition

Here are some excerpts from the new November 2 print edition of The Rothenberg Political Report. (To subscribe, click here.)

The Senate:

"While Senate control is in doubt, with Democrats most likely to win from 5 to 7 seats, we do not think the two sides have an equal chance of winning a majority in the Senate. Instead, we believe that state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control of the United States Senate."

The House:

"Going into the final days before the 2006 midterm elections, we believe the most likely outcome in the House of Representatives is a Democratic gain of 34 to 40 seats, with slightly larger gains not impossible. This would put Democrats at between 237 and 243 seats, if not a handful more, giving them a majority in the next House that is slightly larger than the one the Republicans currently hold. If these numbers are generally correct, we would expect a period of GOP finger-pointing and self-flagellation after the elections, followed by a considerable number of Republican House retirements over the next two years."

Governors:

"With Republican seats like Idaho, Alaska, and Nevada in play for state-specific reasons, and Minnesota vulnerable to a Democratic wave, the ceiling for possible Democratic gains is high. We have narrowed our earlier projection from Democratic gains of 6-10 to 7-9."

These excerpts first appeared on Political Wire on November 2, 2006.

State Legislature Ratings

By Louis Jacobson

The Rothenberg Political Report is changing its call on three legislative chambers: the New Hampshire Senate and the Michigan House and Senate. All three are held by the Republicans, and while all three will continue to lean to the GOP, there is now a real possibility that some or all of them could be taken over by the Democrats.

In New Hampshire, Republicans hold a 16-8 edge, but observers say that it's not out of reach for the Democrats to pick up four seats, forcing a 12-12 tie. The big factors here have been the general national trend towards the Democrats, particularly in the Northeast, combined with the astronomical approval ratings of Gov. John Lynch (D), which could provide some coattails for downballot candidates. Shift this chamber from Likely Republican to Lean Republican. (The partisan gap in New Hampshire's enormous state House is too large to flip in one year.)

In Michigan, both chambers are now in play. While the improving fortunes of once-vulnerable Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) have helped her party, the bigger issue may be that a Kalamazoo-based millionaire, Jon Stryker, is spending several million dollars on independent expenditure TV ads that slam GOP incumbents in key districts.

Of the two chambers, the likelier to switch is the Senate, where a net gain of three seats would secure the Democrats a tie (which would be broken by the Democratic lieutenant governor) and a net gain of four would flip the chamber outright. Insiders say that there are enough Senate seats within reach for the Democrats that a shift looks plausible. The state House is a slightly longer shot, but it's mathematically possible. Shift both chambers from Likely Republican to Lean Republican.

[November 4, 20o6 Upate]

The Rothenberg Political Report is making some small changes to its state legislative rankings. No new chambers are moving from non-competitive to competitive status, however.

All the changes benefit the Democrats, based on statewide as well as national trends. We are shifting the GOP-held Pennsylvania House from Lean Republican to Toss-Up, moving the Democratic-held Colorado Senate from Toss-Up to Lean Democratic, shifting the GOP-controlled Oregon House from Lean Republican to Toss-Up, and moving the Democratic-held North Carolina House from Toss-Up to Lean Democratic.

In addition, we are moving the South Dakota Senate from Safe Republican to Likely Republican. This means that the chamber is not fully competitive, but that the minority party could well pick up seats. The turmoil in South Dakota over the passage of a strict anti-abortion law - which critics forced onto the ballot for public approval - gives Democrats a chance to gain some seats, though in our view it will not be enough to flip the 25-10 GOP-held chamber.

This leaves the list of 24 competitive chambers as follows:

Democratic-held Toss-Ups (4)

• Colorado House
• Maine House
• Maine Senate
• Oklahoma Senate

Republican-held Toss-Ups (5)

• Indiana House
• Iowa House
• Minnesota House
• Oregon House
• Pennsylvania House

Tied Toss-Ups (2)

• Iowa Senate
• Montana House

Democratic-held Lean D (6)

• Colorado Senate
• Montana Senate
• North Carolina House
• Tennessee House
• Washington House
• Washington Senate

Republican-held Lean R (7)

• Michigan House
• Michigan Senate
• Nevada Senate
• New Hampshire Senate
• Ohio House
• Tennessee Senate
• Wisconsin Senate

New Print Edition: National Outlook & Ratings

The new November 2, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The new ratings are available online, but for the full explanation and analysis, you must subscribe to the print edition. This is our final print edition before the election. Stay tuned to the website for late breaking analysis and rating changes.

House Ratings
Senate Ratings
Gubernatorial Ratings

2006 House Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here.

Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gain of 34-40 seats.

PURE TOSS-UP (20 R, 0 D)

• CA 11 (Pombo, R)
• CT 2 (Simmons, R)
• CT 4 (Shays, R)
• FL 16 (Open; Foley, R)
• FL 22 (Shaw, R)
• IL 6 (Open; Hyde, R)
• KS 2 (Ryun, R)
• MN 1 (Gutknecht, R)
• MN 6 (Open; Kennedy, R)
• NM 1 (Wilson, R)
• NY 20 (Sweeney, R)
• NY 26 (Reynolds, R)
• OH 1 (Chabot, R)
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• PA 4 (Hart, R)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
• PA 8 (Fitzpatrick, R)
• TX 22 (Open; DeLay, R)
• VA 2 (Drake, R)
• WI 8 (Open; Green, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (10 R, 0 D)

• AZ 1 (Renzi, R)
• CA 4 (Doolittle, R)
• CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
• ID 1 (Open; Otter, R)
• KY 3 (Northup, R)
• KY 4 (Davis, R)
• NV 3 (Porter, R)
• NY 25 (Walsh, R)
• NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (7 R, 3 D)

• AZ 5 (Hayworth, R)
• CT 5 (Johnson, R)
• FL 13 (Open; Harris, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
• GA 12 (Barrow, D)
• IL 8 (Bean, D)
• IN 9 (Sodrel, R)
• NH 2 (Bass, R)
• NY 24 (Open; Boehlert, R)
• NC 11 (Taylor, R)

LEAN REPUBLICAN (3 R, 0 D)

• NJ 7 (Ferguson, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
• TX 23 (Bonilla, R)

LEAN DEMOCRATIC (6 R, 1 D)

• IA 1 (Open; Nussle, R)
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
• IN 2 (Chocola, R)
• OH 15 (Pryce, R)
• OH 18 (Open; Ney, R)
• PA 7 (Weldon, R)
• PA 10 (Sherwood, R)

REPUBLICAN FAVORED (8 R, 0 D)

• CA 50 (Bilbray, R)
• CO 5 (Open; Hefley, R)
• KY 2 (Lewis, R)
• NE 3 (Open; Osborne, R)
• NV 2 (Open; Gibbons, R)
• NY 3 (King, R)
• NY 19 (Kelly, R)
• WY AL (Cubin, R)

DEMOCRAT FAVORED (3 R, 1 D)

• AZ 8 (Open; Kolbe, R)
• CO 7 (Open; Beauprez, R)
• IN 8 (Hostettler, R)
• VT A-L (Open; Sanders, D)

2006 Senate Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here.

Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 5-7 seats, and state and national dynamics favor Democrats netting six seats and winning control.

LIKELY TAKEOVER (2 R, 0 D)

• DeWine (R-OH)
• Santorum (R-PA)

LEAN TAKEOVER (4 R, 0 D)

• Allen (R-VA)
• Burns, (R-MT)
• Chafee, (R-RI)
• Talent (R-MO)

TOSS-UP (1 R, 1 D)

• TN Open (Frist, R)
• Menendez (D-NJ)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 1 D)

• Kyl (R-AZ)
• MD Open (D-Sarbanes)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (0 R, 3 D)

• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• Nelson (D-NE)

CURRENTLY SAFE (7 R, 13 D)

• Ensign (R-NV)
• Hatch (R-UT)
• Hutchison (R-TX)
• Lott (R-MS)
• Lugar (R-IN)
• Snowe (R-ME)
• Thomas (R-WY)
• Akaka (D-HI)
• Bingaman (D-NM)
• Byrd (D-WV)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Clinton (D-NY)
• Conrad (D-ND)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Kennedy (D-MA)
• Kohl (D-WI)
• Lieberman (D-CT)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• MN Open (D-Dayton)
• VT Open (I-Jeffords)

2006 Gubernatorial Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here. Republicans currently hold a 28-22 advantage in governorships nationwide.

Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 7-9 governorships.

LIKELY TAKEOVER (5 R, 0 D)

• AR Open (R-Huckabee)
• CO Open (R-Owens)
• MA Open (R-Romney)
• NY Open (R-Pataki)
• OH Open (R-Taft)

LEAN TAKEOVER (1 R, 0 D)

• Ehrlich (R-MD)

TOSS-UP (2 R, 1 D)

• Doyle (D-WI)
• Pawlenty (R-MN)
• NV Open (R-Guinn)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (3 R, 2 D)

• Carcieri (R-RI)
• Kulongoski (D-OR)
• AK Open (R-Murkowski)
• ID Open (R-Risch)
• IA Open (D-Vilsack)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (3 R, 3 D)

• Baldacci (D-ME)
• Blagojevich (D-IL)
• Granholm (D-MI)
• Perry (R-TX)
• FL Open (R-Bush)

CURRENTLY SAFE (9 R, 8 D)

• Douglas (R-VT)
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Lingle (R-HI)
• Perdue (R-GA)
• Rell (R-CT)
• Riley (R-AL)
• Rounds (R-SD)
• Sanford (R-SC)
• Schwarzenegger (R-CA)
• Bredesen (D-TN)
• Freudenthal (D-WY)
• Henry (D-OK)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• Napolitano (D-AZ)
• Rendell (D-PA)
• Richardson (D-NM)
• Sebelius (D-KS)

Word to the Wise: Don’t Ignore Independents This Year

By Stuart Rothenberg

While all of us following this year’s midterms are spending most of our time talking about the GOP’s "base" problems and speculating about whether conservatives and evangelicals will stay home next month, we are missing a story that could turn out to be as big, or even bigger: independents.

Of course, fewer Americans vote in midterm elections than in presidential years, and much of the drop-off can be attributed to independents and weak partisans. Partisan voters historically make up the bulk of the midterm electorate, which is why we all pay so much attention to each party’s base voters, whether they are African Americans, conservative evangelicals, liberals or opponents of legalizing abortion.

Obviously, if conservatives and Republicans stay home on Nov. 7, it will be a long, long night for the GOP. Republican candidates in all kinds of districts would be in trouble - even if those districts gave President Bush 65 percent of the vote two years ago.

But even if Republicans turn out, GOP candidates could find themselves in hot water in dozens of districts that they ordinarily should hold. That’s because independent voters are not acting the way they normally do.

Independents may not turn out at the same rate as strong partisans in midterm elections, but for dozens of Republicans trying to hold their seats in a potentially strong Democratic wave - particularly those running in marginal districts - independents will be plentiful enough at the polls to separate winners from losers. In Connecticut, for example, independents (unaffiliated voters) constitute a plurality of all state voters.

Normally, independents break roughly evenly between the two parties. In the 2000 presidential election, independents went for then-Texas Gov. Bush over Al Gore, 47 percent to 45 percent. Four years later, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) bested Bush 49 percent to 48 percent among independents.

This year, that’s not close to being the case. "There just aren’t any independents this year," joked one Republican strategist I talked with recently. "There are Republicans, Democrats and soft Democrats."

In poll after poll, independents are behaving like Democrats, whether it is in their distaste for Bush and the GOP-run Congress or in their vote choice in dozens of races around the country.

Nationally, a recent Cook Political Report/RT Strategies survey found a mere 33 percent of independents approving of the job Bush is doing. Those same independents favored Democrats, 49 percent to 30 percent, on the generic ballot. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found Democrats with a 9-point generic advantage among independents.

In a recent Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. survey of Ohio’s gubernatorial race, independent voters broke for Democrat Ted Strickland over Republican Ken Blackwell by an astonishing 22 points - 51 percent to 29 percent.

A recent series of Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg surveys in Senate races found the same thing. In the Virginia Senate race, Jim Webb (D) held a 9-point advantage among independents over incumbent Sen. George Allen (R). In Ohio, Rep. Sherrod Brown (D), the challenger, held a 12-point lead over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R). And in Tennessee, Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D) held a 10-point lead over Republican Bob Corker among independents.

A rare exception was in New Jersey, where Republican state Sen. Tom Kean Jr.’s anti-corruption, pro-change message was allowing him to split independents with Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez.

Taking Stock of This Year’s Midterms

It’s almost over. So it’s time to see where we are, and finally to put to rest two of the questions that continue to be asked most often even though they were answered months ago, and a newer question.

Question 1. Have these midterms been nationalized, or are they about local issues?

It has been obvious for months that most voters see the upcoming elections as a referendum on Bush and on the Iraq War, which is why Democratic House candidates across the country are running as well as they are.

Does anyone really think that Democrats Nancy Boyda (Kansas’ 2nd district), Paul Hodes (New Hampshire’s 2nd) and Jerry McNerney (California’s 11th), each of whom lost badly two years ago, suddenly are doing well because of local issues? Would they have any chance of winning were it not for the national mood this time?

Republicans still are trying to localize their races so that voters see those contests less as a referendum on the president and more as a choice between GOP incumbents and the Democratic challengers. But so far that hasn’t happened to the extent that Republicans hope and need.

Question 2. Are this year’s midterm elections a referendum on President Bush?

If you have to ask, you haven’t been paying attention and probably don’t even care. Of course they are about the president and his Iraq policy.

Question 3. Did the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) expand the field?

Yes, but not by a lot. Republican seats held by Foley and Reps. Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio) certainly were affected by the scandal, and the scandal undoubtedly aided the Democratic message about corruption and change. But the page scandal isn’t the reason Republicans are likely to lose the House. It just added to the GOP’s pre-existing woes.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 31, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.