Saturday, February 28, 2009

2010 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings, reflecting President Obama's decision to pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) to become the next secretary of Health and Human Services. The open Kansas Senate seat moves from Clear Advantage for the Incumbent Party to Currently Safe.

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 0 D)
  • Bunning (R-KY)
  • FL Open (Martinez, R)
  • MO Open (Bond, R)
  • NH Open (Gregg, R)
  • OH Open (Voinovich, R)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Specter (R-PA)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Reid (D-NV)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (1 R, 2 D)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • Dorgan (D-ND)
  • Feingold (D-WI)
Currently Safe (10 R, 13 D)
  • Bennett (R-UT)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • DeMint (R-SC)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • KS Open (Brownback, R)
  • Bayh (D-IN)
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  • Burris (D-IL)
  • Dodd (D-CT)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  • Kaufman (D-DE)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Lincoln (D-AR)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Wyden (D-OR)

Friday, February 27, 2009

Obama Taps First Responders

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Apparently if you wanted to be in President Obama's administration, you should have given a Democratic response to one of President Bush's State of the Union speeches.

  • Commerce designee Gary Locke (2003)
  • Former Commerce designee Bill Richardson (2004 -- Spanish response)
  • Former Health and Human Services designee Tom Daschle (2001 & 2004)
  • Rumored Health and Human Services designee Kathleen Sebelius (2008)
  • Appointed DNC Chairman Tim Kaine (2006)
Honorable mention: Obama also wanted Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) to be U.S. Trade Representative (2007 -- Spanish response.)


This item first appeared on Political Wire on February 26, 2009.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Are Republicans Ready to Mount a Comeback in the Northeast?

By Stuart Rothenberg

It’s so widely accepted as a truth that the Republican Party is clinically dead in the Northeast that no warnings to the contrary would even get a second look. But like so many other sweeping generalizations with more than a grain of truth, the death of the GOP in the Mid-Atlantic and New England states has been greatly exaggerated.

True, over the past decade, the GOP has been slaughtered in New England. Republicans don’t control a single state legislative chamber in the six-state region, and Democrats now hold all 21 of New England’s House seats after losing their last holdout, Rep. Christopher Shays, in southwestern Connecticut last year.

Democrats also hold nine of the region’s 12 Senate seats and hope to pick up a 10th in New Hampshire next year.

In the Mid-Atlantic, things aren’t much better for Republicans. New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland each send two Democrats to the Senate, while Pennsylvania has one Democrat and one Republican, Arlen Specter — who is a top Democratic target in 2010. The GOP controls the Pennsylvania state Senate, but Democrats have a majority in each of the region’s other legislative chambers.

In the House, Republicans hold only one of Maryland’s eight districts, five of New Jersey’s 13 districts and just three of New York’s 29 districts. The GOP holds all of Delaware’s (OK, it’s just one), but only seven of Pennsylvania’s 19 House seats.

And in the 12 states in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, the GOP holds just three governorships: Rhode Island, Connecticut and Vermont.

But 2010 could be the start of a comeback for the GOP in the Northeast, in part because the party suffered such complete devastation that a bit of a rebound seems close to inevitable.

First, two of the party’s three governors are eligible to seek re-election, and Jim Douglas in Vermont and Jodi Rell in Connecticut are expected to do so. Rell is wildly popular and a solid favorite for another term, while Douglas is a more narrow favorite.

The GOP is likely to lose the Rhode Island governorship after holding it, somewhat surprisingly, for 16 years in a row. But Pennsylvania’s open governorship offers the GOP an excellent opportunity for a takeover, and Republicans may even be competitive in the race for Maine’s open governorship.

In New York, Republican Jim Tedisco is favored to win appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D) open Congressional seat, adding to the GOP ranks in the state. Businessman Richard Hanna (R) came within an eyelash of upsetting Rep. Michael Arcuri (D) in November, and Republicans are certain to make another run at the two-term Democrat next year.

Assemblyman Greg Ball (R) is entering the race in New York’s 19th district (which stretches from Westchester almost to Poughkeepsie), giving the party a credible nominee against two-term Rep. John Hall (D) in a GOP-leaning district, and if the party can recruit a strong challenger to Rep. Eric Massa in the 29th district, the freshman Democrat could have major problems.

In statewide contests, Gillibrand could face a nasty Senate primary, as could Gov. David Paterson (D), giving Republicans two opportunities. The Democratic nominees would be favored in both races, but a strong GOP bid in either contest would boost party morale, helping further recruitment down the road and down the ballot.

In New Jersey, polling shows the favorite for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, former U.S. attorney Chris Christie, being a formidable opponent for Gov. Jon Corzine (D) later this year, especially given the state’s economic problems.

In Connecticut, Sen. Chris Dodd (D) suddenly looks weaker than ever, primarily because of allegations that he benefited from special treatment given to him by mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. Former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) is considering a run, and while he would be an underdog, he would at the very least be the most formidable GOP Senate candidate in Connecticut since Lowell Weicker in 1988.

If the National Republican Congressional Committee can recruit state Sen. John McKinney, 44, to run against freshman Rep. Jim Himes (D) in Connecticut’s 4th district, the GOP would also have a top-tier contest in the state. McKinney, the youngest child of former Rep. Stewart McKinney (R-Conn.), is in his fifth term in the state Senate, where he is Minority Leader.

Republicans will make major efforts to win back Maryland’s 1st district and Pennsylvania’s 10th — two seats that the party never should have lost because each remains very Republican territory. While the open New Hampshire Senate seat of retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R) gives Democrats another opportunity for a gain in New England, Rep. Paul Hodes’ (D) Senate bid opens up his House seat, giving Republicans an excellent opportunity to win back another seat in the region.

I’m certainly not predicting major Republican gains in the Northeast, but given the avalanche of discussion about the death of the Republican Party from Maryland to Maine, it’s at the very least worth noting that, though fundamentally far weaker than it was 30 or 40 years ago, the GOP can still contest many races in the New England and Mid-Atlantic states.

It’s possible that 2009 and 2010 could be the beginning of a rebound for the party. While Democrats will continue to hold a clear advantage in the region, Republicans have the potential to become relevant once again.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on February 23, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

2010 House Ratings

Here are our first House ratings of the 2010 cycle.

Pure Toss-Up (0R, 1D)
  • NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0R, 1D)
  • NY 20 (Open; Gillibrand, D) *March 31 special
Lean Republican (1R, 0D)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
Republican Favored (8R, 0D)
  • AK A-L (Young, R)
  • CA 3 (Lungren, R)
  • CA 44 (Calvert, R)
  • MN 3 (Paulsen, R)
  • MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
  • NJ 7 (Lance, R)
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  • SC 1 (Brown, R)
Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0R, 4D)
  • AL 2 (Bright, D)
  • ID 1 (Minnick, D)
  • MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
  • MS 1 (Childers, D)
Lean Democratic (1R, 9D)
  • CO 4 (Markey, D)
  • FL 8 (Grayson, D)
  • LA 2 (Cao, R)
  • MI 7 (Schauer, D)
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NC 8 (Kissell, D)
  • OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
  • OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
  • VA 5 (Perriello, D)
Democrat Favored (0R, 8D)
  • AL 5 (Griffith, D)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • NM 2 (Teague, D)
  • NY 19 (Hall, D)
  • NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
  • NY 29 (Massa, D)
  • TX 17 (Edwards, D)
  • VA 2 (Nye, D)

Monday, February 23, 2009

New Print Edition: 2010 House Outlook

The February 20, 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:

House Outlook For 2010

The 2010 election cycle begins at such an unusual time in American history that it’s hard to know where to begin.

The nation is in a deep recession, created by a housing and financial meltdown. Congress just passed a huge spending package, and more spending by the federal government – whether to prop up the banking and automobile industries or simply to stimulate the overall economy – is inevitable.

The Democratic Party’s ID numbers are good, while the GOP’s remain in the tank. And yet, Republicans seem to have found their traditional voice about spending, taxes and big government – themes that may not resonate perfectly right now but are likely to gain traction with bigger deficits, more government control and the inevitable tax increases.

Democrats have a popular President, a better image than the GOP, far more financial resources for the cycle (even though the DCCC’s debt of $16 million dwarfs the NRCC’s $6.5 million debt) and the advantages of incumbency. They also currently hold many Republican-leaning, conservative districts, making those incumbents vulnerable to a likely drop-off in turnout in a midterm year.

While it’s far too early to put a number on net changes this cycle, Republicans simply have more opportunities for pick-ups than do Democrats. Much depends, of course, on whether the political environment that we witnessed over the past two cycles solidifies, or whether it returns to something approximating what it was before President Bush’s popularity took a nosedive.

Subscribers get the entire House Overview in the print edition, which includes nine pages of analysis on the most competitive races in the country.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Direct Mail Not Dead Yet

By Nathan L. Gonzales

In the modern age of texts and Tweets, it’s not sexy to talk about direct mail.

The latest issue of Fast Company magazine named Barack Obama’s presidential campaign the world’s most innovative company, topping Google, Facebook, Amazon and everyone else.

“The team has become the envy of marketers both in and out of politics for proving, among other things, just how effective digital initiatives can be,” according to the article. “Barack Obama’s presidential team relied on technology ... to connect with voters better, faster, and more cheaply than ever before.”

But amid all the talk about YouTube channels, social networking sites and online fundraising, direct mail (otherwise known as snail mail) was still a key component of Obama’s campaign and continues to be a critical tool for downballot races.

In June 2007, the Obama campaign mailed out 20-page storybooks and eight-minute DVDs to hard-core Iowa caucus-goers.

“It was a tremendous foot in the door,” said Peter Giangreco, one of the Obama campaign’s direct-mail consultants. Campaign workers followed up the mailing with phone calls and added information back into the voter file.

Despite the vast amount of attention and success in organizing connected, Web-savvy voters, new media technologies are not as good at discovering the disconnected or persuading undecided voters. Beyond the presidential level, strategists are still wrestling with how to use new media effectively for persuasion.

“We found significant gains from our broadcast television when we had laid a foundation of targeted direct mail,” explained Jon Vogel, who directed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure program in the previous cycle. According to Vogel, the DCCC dramatically increased its direct-mail budget from the 2006 to 2008 cycles.

“People look at the Obama campaign, which was at a minimum a nationwide phenomenon, and think they can replicate that in West Orange, New Jersey,” joked GOP direct-mail consultant Dan Hazelwood of Targeted Creative Communications. “Most of American politics is at the Congressional level or lower.”

Without the presidential excitement, direct mail remains an effective option for nonstatewide campaigns, particularly those in expensive or inefficient media markets. It’s also difficult to target a very small and precise universe of voters online, where connection is more interest-based rather than geographic, in order to win local races.

“No one medium is a silver bullet. Too many people view new media as a short cut,” said Democratic consultant Ed Peavy of the firm Mission Control, which handles dozens of Congressional campaigns every cycle. “There are no shortcuts in American politics.”

The challenge for direct mail is not unique in the modern campaign age, with voters becoming more diverse in their information-gathering habits.

“On the whole, all advertising is less effective,” longtime Democratic mail consultant Hal Malchow said. “The future is understanding how to integrate mediums and to understand which voters are affected by each medium, based on research.”

In the future “new media technologies will be less about being their own little oasis and more about bolstering the efficiency and effectiveness of traditional campaign functions, from identification, to education, to mobilization,” DailyKos.com founder Markos Moulitsas said.

At a minimum, any direct-mail piece worth its postage includes a URL to direct recipients to a Web site for more information. “I don’t see modern media as a panacea,” Republican Internet consultant David All said.

At a fundamental level, new media technologies are limited by the voluntary, self-selecting nature of the supporters that they attract. But with direct mail, campaign strategists can target passive or disconnected potential supporters.

“The saving grace of direct mail is the ability to be targeted,” Giangreco said about the ability to locate a universe of voters based on geography. Without a phone number or an e-mail address, it is extremely difficult to target a voter without mail.

And even though e-mail communication is cheaper than direct mail, it is not without its challenges. According to Norton, the maker of antivirus software, 72 percent of all e-mail is spam. And e-mails can be easily deleted with the slightest glance or get caught in spam filters. Recipients have to at least hold the mail piece in their hand before discarding it. And in general, there is still a level of value connected to direct mail, as evidenced by the tradition of sending out wedding invitations and birth announcements.

Direct mail is also seeing an uptick based on the dramatic increase in and emphasis on early voting and voting by mail. In many states, it is necessary for campaigns to get physical applications into the hands of voters.

As direct-mail firms become more sophisticated in fusing consumer data with political behaviors, the effectiveness of direct mail will only increase. There are still significant challenges in linking e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers to other data, according to multiple consultants, making it more difficult to target those voters without the use of mail.

Younger, more connected voters are believed to be the beginning of the end for direct mail. But when the Obama campaign realized it needed to increase the overall turnout of the Iowa caucuses in order to win, the Senator’s strategists went back to direct mail. The campaign bought a commercial list of high school students (age 18 or those who would be 18 on Election Day) used by prospective colleges.

Those students were sent a full-color, direct-mail piece with an image of Obama placed on an iPhone, which also included various ways the recipient could connect with the campaign — via phone, text or Web site. The campaign used a traditional campaign tactic to discover new supporters that didn’t appear on any voter file.

“There’s always a rush to kill off a technology,” Giangreco said. “One doesn’t replace the other, but proportions are changing.”

Overall, Obama spent about $40 million on direct mail, not including fundraising solicitations.

Fundraising is one area of direct mail that is likely to suffer as a result of the ease, comfort and security of contributing online. There is also the benefit of contributing online through a Web site, such as Act Blue, because a Democratic activist in Texas can easily contribute to a candidate in Michigan, for example. But for state and local campaigns without a national interest, fundraising direct mail is still the most likely short-term option.

“We must understand the complexity of media choices in a world where the way people get their information is changing,” Malchow said. “But just as we start to understand, it changes.”

Malchow added an Internet component to his firm, MSHC Partners, in 2003 after watching a focus group of younger voters in Milwaukee and being alarmed with their low level of interaction with traditional direct mail.

Other firms are choosing to take a different approach, and some may find the transition easier than others.

“We focus 100 percent of our energy on being the best direct-mail firm in the business,” said Jim Crounse of the Mack Crounse Group, which handled direct mail for Obama in Virginia and Florida.

“We’re experimenting like everyone else,” Hazelwood said. “This death [of direct mail] has been predicted for eons.”

This story first appeared in Roll Call on February 17, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Optimism About Obama Is the Only Optimism Out There

By Stuart Rothenberg

Often, when a new president or a new political party takes control of government, an uptick in public sentiment follows.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there is some evidence of a small spike in optimism about President Barack Obama and the future. What’s stunning, however, is the growing economic pessimism, both on Main Street and Wall Street, and it is that pessimism that could eventually add to the woes of most officeholders.

Numerous polls show the president with strong personal and job-approval ratings.

A CBS News poll conducted Feb. 2-4 found 55 percent approving of Obama’s handling of the economy, and a Feb. 4-8 Pew Research Center poll found an almost identical 56 percent approved.

A Feb. 7-8 CNN/Opinion Research survey found Americans see the president as a strong leader who so far has done a good job handling foreign policy, policies on terrorism and the economy. Even though the public is worried about the future, they like Obama and have confidence in him.

Polls also show more people are upbeat about the future. A Feb. 9-12 Research 2000 poll for the liberal Democratic Web site Daily Kos showed 35 percent of respondents saying the country is headed in the right direction — a significant increase from the 26 percent who gave the same answer in early January.

CBS News surveys also found an uptick in sentiment from December (12 percent “right direction”) to early February (23 percent “right direction”).

But optimism about the president and his economic agenda seems to be based solely on his communication skills, his personal appeal and the public’s hope for a turnaround.

When Obama promised an audience in Peoria, Ill., last week that “once Congress passes this [stimulus] plan, and I sign it into law, a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed all across America,” he was merely cheerleading.

In fact, nobody knows if that is true. The stimulus package is something of a crapshoot, and whether it will work or ultimately add to the nation’s woes is a mystery.

Other than among Democrats who are delivering the party’s “message,” pessimism abounds about the economy.

Even Obama, during last week’s press conference, asserted that the country was in a “full-blown crisis,” echoing his previous warnings since he won the presidency in November. Indeed, that assessment is the basis for his insistence on quick passage of a stimulus bill.

The ABC News Consumer Comfort Index hit a 23-year low in early February. Over four weeks ending Feb. 8, 2009, only 4 percent of the 1,000 adults surveyed rated the U.S. economy positively, while 96 percent rated it negatively.

Unemployment continues to rise (with almost 600,000 jobs lost last month), and nobody expects that to change anytime soon. Nobody knows how high it will go, but with additional layoffs announced virtually every day, it looks certain to climb from its current 7.6 percent rate to well over the 8 percent mark soon. Many think unemployment will continue to rise at least into the fourth quarter of this year and probably into early 2010.

The stock market continues to tank. Yes, it has its up moments (the Dow Jones industrial average almost made up a 246-point drop in the final 60 minutes of trading on Thursday), but the Dow continues to flirt with the 7,800 level, and it is difficult to find veteran stock pickers who are recommending many stocks at the moment. Caution remains the word.

At his press conference last week, Obama had assured viewers that “my Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will be announcing some very clear and specific plans for how we are going to start loosening up credit once again,” but most Wall Street observers found Geithner’s presentation neither clear nor specific.

Indeed, on CNBC on Thursday afternoon, veteran watchers of the economy and stock market concluded that Wall Street “has lost confidence in Timothy Geithner” just a few weeks into his tenure and just days after his widely panned financial rescue program was released.

All of this means that the public’s honeymoon with Obama is alive and well and likely to last for an extended period, but that not everyone in the public eye will be so lucky.

The underlying weakness in the economy, and the crucial growing pessimism both in financial circles and the country at large, will certainly take a political toll on some officeholders in the near term. The public will want its scapegoat before the end of the year if no economic turnaround appears.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on February 17, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Monday, February 16, 2009

First Impressions of the ’10 Candidates Making the Rounds

By Stuart Rothenberg

One election cycle blurs into the next one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that last month I interviewed four candidates who are considering running in 2010.

Republican Adam Kinzinger is looking at Illinois’ 11th district, a seat won in November by freshman Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D), while Michigan Attorney General , Mike Cox (R) is widely mentioned as a possible candidate for governor next year, when Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) is prohibited from running for a third term.

Republican Dean Andal, who lost to Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) in November, seems less certain about running again in 2010 but clearly is keeping his options open. Democrat Bill Hedrick came surprisingly close to pinning a stunning loss on Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), and Hedrick says he already is committed to seeking a rematch.

My first meeting of the year (and the cycle) was with Kinzinger, and to be totally honest, I was dreading it. Another Iraq War veteran running for Congress? Oh, brother. Given the track records of veterans who have nothing else on their résumés, I wasn’t optimistic.

Then I saw Kinzinger. I thought he looked old enough to vote, but I wasn’t sure.

But I shouldn’t have been filled with such dread. Kinzinger may not win a seat in Congress in 2010, but he certainly doesn’t deserve to be kicked to the curb, either.

Kinzinger, 30, is a personable Air Force pilot who was elected to the McLean County Board in 1998 and was re-elected four years later. He resigned from the board during that term when he went on active military duty.

Last cycle, after GOP nominee Tim Baldermann dropped out of the Illinois Congressional race, Kinzinger indicated his interest in replacing Baldermann on the ballot. But party leaders instead chose Marty Ozinga, a multimillionaire businessman whom GOP strategists expected to write a big check to fund his bid. He didn’t, and Halvorson crushed him, 58 percent to 35 percent, in November.

Kinzinger is putting together a campaign team, and he says former Rep. Tom Ewing (R-Ill.) — who represented an adjoining district — is supporting him.

Kinzinger is young, likable and has some political savvy. Of course, he’s a long shot, and a more experienced, well-heeled GOP candidate could eclipse him. But for a first interview, he didn’t do badly.

Cox is a different story. I’d met him before, and I already knew that he was a likable sort who held one of his state’s top elective posts. He’s unquestionably a top-tier hopeful.

Cox is finishing his second term as state attorney general, an office that he first won six years ago when its previous occupant, Granholm, was elected governor. A former assistant prosecutor in Wayne County (Detroit), he faces a potentially crowded multicandidate GOP primary that could include Rep. Pete Hoekstra and Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson, among others.

Cox, who more than three years ago admitted he had an extramarital affair, raised money for Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) recent presidential bid. He has already retained Public Opinion Strategies’ Neil Newhouse as his pollster.

The conservative Cox definitely looks like a serious contender for the GOP nomination and for the Michigan governorship, given the state’s economic problems and Granholm’s less-than-sterling performance.

Candidate No. 3 was Andal, who drew 45 percent in losing to McNerney in Northern California.

Andal hasn’t decided whether to run again, though it’s clear that he places the blame for his loss on his party. GOP registration in the district shrunk over the past few years, turning a Republican-leaning district into a tossup. Given President Barack Obama’s strength at the top of the ticket last year, Andal got buried.

Andal’s message is clear: The landscape in the district needs to move back toward where it was just a couple of years ago before any Republican will be able to oust McNerney from the seat.

Finally, I met Hedrick, who came within 6,047 votes (and 2 points) of upsetting Calvert. A former classroom teacher who now is president of the local teachers’ association, he spent less than $200,000 to get 48.8 percent of the vote, relying entirely on volunteers and door-to-door grass-roots efforts.

Hedrick is a serious, committed man who is refreshingly candid and displays a surprisingly good understanding of campaigns. He received little or no help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last time, and even potential allies ignored his race. Nobody believed he could defeat Calvert or even get close. That includes me.

The Democrat’s political views on health care, labor union organizing, possible legal action against Bush administration officials for certain policies and other issues aren’t an ideal fit for his district, which still leans Republican even though Obama won it narrowly.

Hedrick is off and running again, and party insiders are, once again, not entirely enthusiastic about his candidacy. That’s understandable given the GOP registration edge in the district, weak fundraising last time and the perception that he came so close only because of the Obama surge.

But Calvert, who was arrested in 1993 for soliciting a prostitute, is a flawed incumbent — he has been under a cloud because of questions about his votes and his real estate investments — and Hedrick or some other Democrat will have two more years to press that case to district voters.

Hedrick remains a long shot, but one who has already surprised observers by getting closer to pulling off a major upset in 2008 than anyone imagined. For that alone, he deserves some respect.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on February 12, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Former Top DCCC Operative Moves to Polling Firm

By Nathan L. Gonzales

After being a key player in House Democrats’ 50-seat gain over the last two election cycles, Jon Vogel is moving to the consulting world. The former top Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee aide is now a partner with the polling firm Global Strategy Group.

Vogel began last cycle as the DCCC’s political director and then moved to become director of the committee’s $85 million independent expenditure program. In 2006, he was the DCCC’s Northeast and Florida regional political director.

He previously worked on Capitol Hill as Rep. Steve Israel’s (D-N.Y.) deputy chief of staff and with Democratic direct-mail gurus Jim Crounse and Kevin Mack.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on February 12, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

Friday, February 13, 2009

2010 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings, reflecting Judd Gregg's (R) recent decision to take himself out of consideration for Obama's cabinet as well as his decision not to seek reelection. The race remains a Toss-Up.

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 0 D)
  • Bunning (R-KY)
  • FL Open (Martinez, R)
  • MO Open (Bond, R)
  • NH Open (Gregg, R)
  • OH Open (Voinovich, R)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Specter (R-PA)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Reid (D-NV)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • KS Open (Brownback, R)
  • Dorgan (D-ND)
  • Feingold (D-WI)
Currently Safe (9 R, 13 D)
  • Bennett (R-UT)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • DeMint (R-SC)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Bayh (D-IN)
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  • Burris (D-IL)
  • Dodd (D-CT)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  • Kaufman (D-DE)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Lincoln (D-AR)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Wyden (D-OR)

Thursday, February 12, 2009

This Can’t Be What Obama, Pelosi and Reid Expected

By Stuart Rothenberg

Either Congressional Democrats went from undeniably brilliant to unbelievably inept in just a few weeks, or being in the majority in Congress isn’t nearly as easy as being the opposition.

Those seem to be the two obvious alternatives that follow from the problems Democrats have had selling an economic stimulus package that began with considerable public support and the backing of a popular president. I’ll cast my vote for the second alternative.

As Republicans on Capitol Hill are now finding, being in the minority actually can be a lot of fun, even if it is inherently frustrating. They can’t dictate results, but they sure can cause problems for Democratic leaders.

However, Democrats shouldn’t overreact to their current problems, which range from the party’s handling of the economic stimulus bill to the tax problems of some of the president’s Cabinet nominees. Even with all of their party’s recent stumbles, the president and Congressional Democrats will end up looking pretty good if the economy rebounds and Americans start to feel better about things.

It’s the results that matter, even if the process was part stumbling and part bumbling.

But Democrats also shouldn’t delude themselves that they merely were too low-key for too long in pushing their economic plan and that if only they were louder, they wouldn’t have encountered any problems.

In this fight, Democrats aren’t the only ones with a potentially appealing message. They miscalculated if they believed that they could easily pass an $800 billion or $900 billion bill merely by pointing to the current state of the economy and gloomy forecasts of the future. That might well have been enough to get a bill to the president’s desk if Congressional Republicans had simply rolled over, but this time the GOP didn’t.

Instead, Republicans — aided by a handful of Democrats who are worried about some of the spending items — have succeeded in redefining the bill from one that will jump-start the economy by creating jobs and helping people deal with the housing crisis to one that is an ideological Christmas tree that doesn’t put people to work, help them pay their mortgages or resuscitate the economy.

By focusing on computers for the Department of Agriculture, new energy-efficient cars for the government and money for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Washington, D.C., sewer system, Republicans have defined the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan as benefiting bureaucrats and other government employees, not the average American.

On Thursday night, at the House Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, Va., President Barack Obama began his counterattack, arguing that millions of more Americans will lose their jobs if his economic recovery program is not passed quickly.

He may be right, but Republicans have an easy answer: Spending $198 million to compensate Filipino veterans who fought in World War II, or $2 million to train Native Americans to become plumbers and pipefitters, or $150 million for renovations to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, or even $3.26 billion for the Western Area Power Administration won’t strike most voters as the kind of spending that will help rescue the economy from recession.

Yes, the dollar figures for some of these items are trivial, but they provide plenty of fodder for critics of the overall package.

The Democrats’ fundamental problem is that while Americans like the country’s new president and, so far, think that he is doing a good job, they continue to have significant doubts about Congress and are disinclined to believe that Washington always has their best interest at heart.

That means that Republican complaints about Democratic priorities find a receptive audience, at least as long as GOP legislators can point to specific items in the bill that will strike voters as not addressing the nation’s short-term economic problems.

The fight over the economic stimulus bill raises questions about how the president will deal with House and Senate Democrats over the long haul. No matter what happens with the stimulus bill — and some sort of bill is certain to be signed into law sooner or later — the debate over spending has exposed divisions within the Democratic Party.

Democrats would be wise to remember that they have plenty of time until the 2010 elections to achieve many of their goals and that those elections could actually increase the their Senate majority, giving the party’s left even more clout.

And they should not forget that the political dynamic has changed dramatically now that they are in charge and George W. Bush is out of the White House. Congressional Republicans have a rediscovered freedom that will make their arguments far more formidable, both on Capitol Hill and around the country, than they have been for the past couple of years.

This column
first appeared in Roll Call on February 9, 2008. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Monday, February 09, 2009

New Hampshire Senate: Did Republicans Get Rolled in the Granite State?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Initial reports that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) would be appointed Commerce secretary were invariably followed with a caveat that Gov. John Lynch (D) had agreed to appoint another Republican to fill the vacancy, thereby maintaining the current Senate balance of power and denying Senate Democrats a 60-vote majority.

The crucial question, however, is not whether New Hampshire’s soon-to-be- appointed Senator is a Republican or will caucus with Republicans, but whether she will vote with Democrats to limit debate when other Republicans are trying to keep a filibuster going or pass a key amendment.

If Sen.-designee Bonnie Newman becomes the Democrats’ 60th vote to bring the Employee Free Choice Act to the floor (assuming it ever gets that far) or to confirm a judge that other Republicans oppose, it won’t matter what her party affiliation is.

In the early 1980s, then-Texas Rep. Phil Gramm still caucused with Democrats for months after he started voting like a Republican and working strategically with members of the GOP.

Some Republicans believe that Newman will vote pretty much as Gregg would have on fiscal matters, though they express less certainty about her vote on cultural matters and education issues.

But conservatives clearly have more than enough reason to worry because all of the praise being heaped on her by New Hampshire Democrats suggests she won’t be as reliable as the least dependable of the GOP’s current sitting Senators.

Newman, after all, endorsed Lynch when he first sought the governorship in 2002 against the sitting governor, Republican Craig Benson. And she has described herself as a “reasonable Republican” — not exactly the kind of self-identification that suggests she has an altogether favorable impression of her own party.

Lynch’s selection of Newman, who has already indicated she will not seek a full term, is a political masterstroke (as was President Barack Obama’s selection of Gregg), even if the more liberal elements of his own party are unhappy that he picked a Republican.

In fact, the trade of Gregg for Newman is so one-sided in favor of Democrats that it is reminiscent of the 1964 deal in which the Chicago Cubs sent future Hall of Famer Lou Brock and two others to the St. Louis Cardinals for aging pitcher Ernie Broglio and others.

Democrats get rid of Gregg, who, had he sought re-election in 2010, would have been the GOP’s strongest nominee, and get an open seat to shoot at instead. They get a new Republican Senator who has supported Democrats in the past, calls herself a moderate Republican and has the kind of résumé that suggests she’ll fit in just fine with many of her new Democratic colleagues.

Obama gets a new Republican recruit who can push the president’s economic agenda and a new Senator who might look more kindly on some White House initiatives.

And Lynch once again seems to place himself above partisan politics, enhancing his already considerable stature and standing, and avoids having to anger either of the state’s two Democratic House Members by picking the other.

Democrats start out no worse than even money to pick up the Senate seat next year.

Rep. Paul Hodes (D), who had been preparing to challenge Gregg, quickly indicated he would run for the open seat. The state’s other Member, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D), has not indicated her plans, but insiders doubt that she will enter the race against Hodes.

“I think he is going to avoid a major primary,” one savvy political observer said, “but everyone needs to keep an eye on Shea-Porter.”

Veteran Granite State Republicans agree that the first name on most lists is former Sen. John Sununu, who was defeated for reelection last year. But they also agree that Sununu is “lukewarm” about the idea and already seems to have “moved on” after his loss. Only 44 years old, he has plenty of time to re-enter politics at a later date.

Still, the former Senator’s father, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, is now state GOP chairman, putting him in a unique position to recruit his son, if he so chooses.

After the younger Sununu, the name mentioned most often is former Gov. Steve Merrill, who is president of the Bingham Consulting Group. He served two terms as governor, winning by overwhelmingly margins in 1992 and 1994 (the state still has two-year terms), but he did not seek a third term. Merrill ran unsuccessfully for Republican National Committee chairman in 1997.

Former Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) is also mentioned. Bass, who was upset by Hodes in 2006, was a victim of the Democratic wave that year and would be a credible GOP nominee against Hodes for the Senate seat.

After Sununu, Merrill and Bass, the party is left with much lesser figures. Among those mentioned are radio talk-show host Jennifer Horn and former Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen. Horn lost to Hodes last year, while Stephen has lost two GOP primary bids for Congress — hardly the kind of résumés that would generate Republican optimism.

One more interesting name floating around is Sean Mahoney, a forty-something businessman and the state’s Republican National Committeeman, who finished third (behind Bradley and Stephen) in the 2002 1st district GOP primary for the seat left open when Sununu ran for Senate. Bradley won the nomination and the seat that year, but was ousted by Shea-Porter in 2006.

Mahoney owns Millyard Communications Inc., which publishes Business NH Magazine, and reportedly is showing at least some interest in the race. He has personal resources.

While New Hampshire is no longer reliably Republican, its voting behavior over the past few years may well exaggerate Democratic strength in the state. Both the Senate race and Hodes’ Congressional district could well see competitive races if the state GOP can recruit credible nominees.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on February 5, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Friday, February 06, 2009

New Print Edition: New York 20 & Illinois 5

The February 6, 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:

New York 20: Do You Believe in Miracles?
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Over the last four years, Republicans have lost over 50 House seats. But they’ll have the first opportunity to takeover a competitive seat in the 2010 cycle.

New York Gov. David Paterson (D) appointed Kirsten Gillibrand (D) to fill Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate seat, opening up the congresswoman’s Hudson-Valley based 20th Congressional District seat. Gillibrand won the seat in 2006 by defeating a tainted incumbent, but she cruised to reelection last cycle in the traditionally Republican district.

Without her incumbency, Democrats will have a tough time holding the seat. The national political environment hasn’t improved all that much for Republicans, but....

Get the full story in the print edition by subscribing to the newsletter.

Illinois 5: Rare, Wide-Open Affair

When Rahm Emanuel was elected to Congress in 2002, local Democrats probably thought they wouldn’t see another open seat for a few decades. That’s because Emanuel had his sights set on becoming Speaker of the House one day. Then Pres. Barack Obama asked him to become his White House chief of staff.

Now, just six years after a crowd of Democrats ran in Illinois’ 5th District open seat, a multitude of Democrats are running again. Get the rest of the story in the print edition of the newsletter.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

House GOP Finds the Right Economic Stimulus Strategy

By Stuart Rothenberg

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Republicans who voted against the stimulus bill will have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents.

Americans United for Change President Brad Woodhouse, a veteran Democratic operative who spent the past few years opposing President George W. Bush’s approach to Social Security, goes even further, asserting that House Republicans either “committed political suicide” or “proved their irrelevance to the process” in voting unanimously against the package.

In the sweetest of ironies, Woodhouse uses the same partisan Democratic platitudes of the past eight years to accuse Republicans of having “retreated to the partisan games and failed policies of the past eight years.”

Nice talking points, but the reality is quite different.

The argument that Republicans will “pay a price” for opposing the bill is entirely speculative. Given that nobody seems quite sure whether the stimulus package that eventually emerges from Congress will actually improve the economy, it’s impossible to say with certainty who, if anyone, will be punished for his vote on the bill.

And while the president’s popularity now is undeniable, no one can be certain what his standing will be 18 months from now. As Hillary Rodham Clinton can attest, a vote supporting the president’s position can look wise at one moment and unwise two years later.

Not surprisingly, Democrats want to neuter the GOP further by wooing them with the promise of bipartisanship. That’s a smart and entirely reasonable strategy. But the Democratic view on the role of government, as well as its agenda on specific issues such as taxes, trade, health care, the environment and abortion, is very different from that of Republicans, and GOP House Members wisely stood their ground rather than buying into an approach they are not comfortable with.

Quite often, and certainly in this case, “bipartisanship” is the cry of those who seek dramatic change and are looking for political cover by co-opting the opposition. If things go amiss, it’s better to have the opposition in the foxhole with you, taking some of the incoming fire.

But House Republicans did what the opposition almost always does and invariably should do — they opposed the majority’s plan. Democrats have all the votes that they need, so let them do the heavy lifting for a change.

Yes, voters say they want bipartisanship (which is why both parties talk about it), but they really don’t. Americans like the idea of bipartisanship, but what they really want is prosperity and security. Bipartisanship is merely the means to that end.

It’s true, of course, that voters don’t like politicians to sound crassly partisan. Partisan rhetoric strikes them as arrogant and petty, and while most voters want their political leaders to be confident, they don’t like cockiness or smugness.

House Republicans were smart last week to talk about their desire to work on a bipartisan package and to respond positively to the president’s rhetoric yet blast House Democrats for failing to show the same inclusiveness.

Democrats, of course, complain that in opposing the House package, Republicans voted against a “good bill,” to use Gibbs’ words. That’s why it is up to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his team to stress their specific problems with the bill — spending that isn’t stimulative and would explode the deficit, for example — rather than merely opposing legislation to jump-start the economy.

Some Democrats are already saying their party now should eliminate provisions that were added to try to get GOP votes, since Republicans are just playing games and really don’t want to compromise on a bipartisan bill.

That’s probably fine with most Republicans, who suddenly have a slight glimpse of how their party must have looked after 1994, when House GOP leaders adopted an unflattering swagger that turned out to be the first seed of their own eventual destruction.

But adopting a “take it or leave it” strategy would entail risks for Congressional Democrats. After all, the House leadership lost 11 Democrats on the last vote — did they also commit political suicide by their votes? — and moving a bill with more spending and fewer tax cuts probably would place additional Democrats in an awkward position.

That doesn’t mean Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) couldn’t pass a more liberal bill that doesn’t even try to woo some GOP support, but it does mean that in doing so, she could well face more opposition within her own ranks and create more electoral problems for some of her recently elected Democratic colleagues. It could also place her at odds with the White House, which still wants to “change the tone” in the nation’s capital.

Finally, those who say a recovery would sink GOP House incumbents who voted against the package fail to note a crucial point. If the economy strengthens, voter anger would likely subside and the advantages of incumbency would multiply, making it less likely that voters would fire incumbents of either party. Moreover, Republican incumbents could always argue that they had favored an approach that would have accomplished the same result in a more efficient, cost-effective way.

Any strategy entails some risk. But for House Republicans, choosing to oppose the stimulus package certainly seems reasonable, regardless of whether it actually improves their party’s standing.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on February 2, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

2010 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings, changed to reflect Judd Gregg's (R) departure in New Hampshire.

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 0 D)
  • Bunning (R-KY)
  • FL Open (Martinez, R)
  • MO Open (Bond, R)
  • NH Open (Newman, R)
  • OH Open (Voinovich, R)
Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Specter (R-PA)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Reid (D-NV)
Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • KS Open (Brownback, R)
  • Dorgan (D-ND)
  • Feingold (D-WI)
Currently Safe (9 R, 13 D)
  • Bennett (R-UT)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • DeMint (R-SC)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Bayh (D-IN)
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  • Burris (D-IL)
  • Dodd (D-CT)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  • Kaufman (D-DE)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Lincoln (D-AR)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Wyden (D-OR)

Monday, February 02, 2009

New York Senate: On Second Thought, Let’s Make That Sen. Gillibrand

By Stuart Rothenberg

Kirsten Gillibrand, who was recently appointed to the Senate by New York Gov. David Paterson, is often described by reporters as “little known.” That description is accurate, but in most cases, it says more about the reporter or news reader than about the newly sworn-in Senator.

To those of us who follow Congressional races, Gillibrand didn’t suddenly appear the day that Paterson appointed her to fill Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vacant Senate seat.

I first met Gillibrand on March 8, 2006, still early into her challenge to then-Rep. John Sweeney (R). (New York’s September primary often means late-developing contests.)

The young attorney had never before run for office, which was fine, because she seemed to have little chance of upsetting Sweeney in a very Republican district located in northeastern New York.

Yes, early on Gillibrand showed unusual fundraising strength and potential, and yes, she had good political bloodlines and contacts. But the district that she was running in had “more cows than Democrats,” according to a veteran upstate political observer, and Gillibrand wasn’t at that point regarded by Albany insiders as anything more than a long shot against Sweeney, who had served as state labor commissioner and as executive director of the state Republican Party before coming to Congress.

My initial reaction to meeting and listening to Gillibrand was that she was just the kind of young woman who most people would like to have as their daughter, or their daughter’s friend, or their daughter-in-law.

Personable, attractive and well-spoken, she initially struck me as being — how shall I put it? — “nice.” I liked that. Lots of politicians who I meet aren’t nice.

At some point during the interview, I also concluded she was smart and much, much tougher than she initially seemed. Here was an accomplished woman who was thoughtful, down to earth and politically astute.

In late April 2006, after meeting Gillibrand and watching her campaign, I added Sweeney to my list of vulnerable House seats, rating it as “Leans Republican.”

Still, the Republican’s district looked almost impossible for any Democratic challenger, and Gillibrand eventually won only with the help of the Democratic wave and Sweeney, who allowed himself to be photographed at a Union College fraternity party.

Sweeney’s re-election chances also weren’t helped when, shortly before the 2006 election, local media reported that 10 months earlier, his wife had accused him of getting rough with her during an argument. Police filed a domestic incident report after being called to the Sweeney home.

Last year, Gillibrand was re-elected easily, even though the GOP nominee was experienced, personable and very wealthy. District voters — even Republican voters — liked the Congresswoman.

The new Senator has already drawn criticism from some of her Democratic colleagues who believe she is not liberal enough, particularly on gun control. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a strong advocate of gun control, has said she will primary Gillibrand if no one else does.

But Gillibrand has reflected her district’s views on gun-control issues, and there is no way of knowing whether she will alter her stance on that issue when she represents a different set of constituents, many of whom favor more gun control than do the residents of New York’s 20th district.

Modifying one’s views to reflect political realities and one’s constituents isn’t unheard of or immoral, and anyone who thinks Gillibrand is going to vote in the Senate the way conservative Reps. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) or Travis Childers (D-Miss.) have in the House is delusional.

Gillibrand obviously benefited from Caroline Kennedy’s inept foray into American elective politics — a bizarre and thankfully brief flirtation with a political career for which the daughter of President John F. Kennedy seems distinctly unsuited.

Like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), Kennedy simply wasn’t ready for the political stage onto which she was thrust. Gillibrand, I expect, is. The newly appointed Senator has poise and smarts, and while it isn’t clear whether she will have to win (or can win) a competitive primary in two years, she is a proven fundraiser and a proven vote-getter.

I don’t know what pressures Kennedy felt to seek the open Senate seat, but it’s easy to imagine that her uncle, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy (D), and the rest of the Kennedy clan might have pressured her into an unwise decision. And if that’s the case, it’s easy to feel sorry for her and less generous to the family members who came up with the bright idea of pushing her into a line of work that she never seemed to want.

The other casualty of the Kennedy-Gillibrand mess, of course, is Paterson, who looks about as inept as embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) looks crooked.

Whether Paterson wooed Caroline Kennedy for the vacancy or she injected herself into the mix — I’ve heard it both ways — the governor clearly left Kennedy to twist in the wind. In doing so, he looked weak and indecisive, and he annoyed and angered the same people in his own party that he had hoped to impress and satisfy. That can’t have been a good idea.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 29, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.