Obama State Directors on Front Lines of 2010

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The men and women who served as state directors for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign were on the front lines of one of the best-run political operations in recent history.

After Obama’s victory, more than a dozen of them took jobs in the administration. But another group couldn’t stay away from the campaign trail, and they are now at the center of the party’s efforts to retain its Congressional majorities.

“It is important that they stay engaged,” Organizing for America Deputy National Director Jeremy Bird said about the state directors.

“Folks were amazing, some of the best people I’ve ever worked with,” added Bird, who was the Maryland state director for the Obama campaign during the Democratic primary.

A comprehensive look at where the 50 general election state directors are today shows that former Obama operatives have key positions in Democratic efforts to hold control of the Senate in the November midterms. Click here for the chart of all 50 state directors.

In Connecticut, former Obama New Hampshire state director Mindy Myers was recently hired to manage state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s (D) campaign for retiring Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D) seat. Obama’s Connecticut state director, Justin Kronholm, is also working with the Blumenthal campaign as director of political operations.

In California, former Obama state director Mike Dorsey is deputy campaign manager for Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D) re-election campaign. In 2008, Dorsey landed in Montana for the general election, where Obama lost by only 3 points.

In Washington state, Carol Albert managed Sen. Patty Murray’s (D) re-election in 2004, was Obama’s state director in 2008 and is at the helm of Murray’s campaign once again.

And in Colorado, Craig Hughes was a senior adviser to the Obama campaign in the Centennial State and is now managing appointed Sen. Michael Bennet’s (D) tough election bid this year.

Republicans will likely need to win three of those four states to get to a 51-seat majority in the next Congress.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, complete with more Obama campaign veterans, will be there to back up the campaigns in those states, if needed. DSCC field director Rob Hill was Obama’s Oregon state director before moving to Nevada as a senior adviser. (He’s also married to Jarel LaPan, who moved into the Oregon role for the Obama campaign and now works for the administration.) Jackie Bray worked in Ohio during the 2008 general election and is now at the DSCC as well.

After being deeply involved in the Obama campaign and experiencing the organization and enthusiasm firsthand, former state directors are trying to apply 2008’s successful tactics to their 2010 campaigns.

“It’s a reminder of the importance of building a true grass-roots operation,” explained Aaron Pickrell, Obama’s Ohio state director who is managing Gov. Ted Strickland’s (D) re-election bid this year.

Multiple former state directors would speak only on the condition of anonymity for fear of disrupting the rhythm and message of their tough races, but they all agreed that the Obama campaign did a fantastic job fusing the old and the new when it comes to voter contact.

“It’s important to utilize the Internet and new media, not just for communications, but as a field tool and voter contact tool,” said Pickrell, who worked with Bird and Bray in the Buckeye State. But “the most effective campaign is still knocking on doors and neighbor-to-neighbor contact.”

Multiple former state directors also agreed on the necessity of replicating the “buy-in” of the Obama campaign. “If people feel like they have ownership in the campaign, they are more likely to be involved,” Pickrell explained. Democratic campaigns nationwide are hoping to take advantage of the infrastructure from the 2008 campaign and tap in to the larger pool of potential voters and volunteers.

As the state director in Ohio, Pickrell was part of a somewhat exclusive club. Ohio was one of the 18 states targeted by the Obama campaign, and those state directors had a different set of marching orders than the rest. The other targeted states were Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Former Obama campaign operatives are also in key roles on the House side.

New Mexico state director Adrian Saenz is now chief of staff for Rep. Harry Teague, one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country. Moving north, former Florida Campaign for Change field director Angela Botticella is running Rep. Betsy Markey’s (D) campaign in Colorado’s 4th district, also one of the most competitive races this cycle.

While some former state directors, such as Saenz and Pickrell, are using the local expertise to help individual Democrats in 2010, others are using their influence at a broader level.

Former state directors Steve Schale (Florida), Craig Schirmer (Pennsylvania) and others are involved in 2010 races as consultants instead of on official campaign staffs. Former Missouri state director Buffy Wicks (who was one of four regional state directors early in the campaign) moved from the White House Office of Public Engagement to AKPD Message and Media, senior White House adviser David Axelrod’s consulting firm.

Former Virginia state director Mitch Stewart is the head of OFA, which is essentially the Obama campaign embedded within the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC just announced that it plans to invest $50 million into races this year. A chunk of that money includes staffing, field support, data and targeting, and volunteer programs provided by OFA.

While the DNC is focused on 2010, the OFA’s purpose is to keep the president’s supporters engaged to help this year and looking ahead to his re-election.

“Whether it’s 2012 or 20 years from now, the investment we’re putting in now is helpful for the long term,” Bird said.

Tricia Miller, Daniel Newhauser, Jeremy B. White, Kristin Coyner and Zack Hale contributed to this report. This story first appeared in Roll Call on April 27, 2010 and on CQPolitics.com on April 28, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Ohio 15: For Some Incumbents, Vulnerability Is Already a Fact of Life

By Stuart Rothenberg

It’s just after Labor Day of the off year, but at least a dozen House incumbents who narrowly won last year already have formidable opponents for 2010. One of the most vulnerable surely is Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio), a freshman who represents Union and Madison counties, as well as a part of Franklin County. (She represents all but the east side of Columbus.)

Kilroy served two terms on the Columbus Board of Education before winning election on the Franklin County Commission in 2000. Four years later, she won a second term. In 2006, she ran for Congress against then-Rep. Deborah Pryce (R). While late polling in that race showed Kilroy ahead of Pryce, who was then in the GOP leadership, the Congresswoman won re-election, by just 1,062 votes. Most observers (including me) were surprised.

Pryce took the close call as an opportunity to leave Congress as a winner, opening up a swing district that had been inching toward Democrats and seemed almost certain to go Democratic in 2008. Republicans had recruiting problems in the district until Steve Stivers, who had been appointed to fill a vacant state Senate seat, reversed an earlier decision and decided to make an uphill run for Congress.

Given her previous race, the lack of an incumbent, the public’s desire for change and the Republicans’ disastrous image both in the state and nationally, Kilroy looked like an obvious favorite to win the contest.

On election night, almost complete results showed her trailing very narrowly. But a few days later, when all of the results were in, Kilroy won by 2,312 votes — a margin of less than 1 point.

Kilroy spent $2.6 million in the race compared with Stivers’ $2.4 million, with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spending almost double what the National Republican Congressional Committee did in the district — $2.1 million to $930,000.

This time Stivers is back, and the landscape is almost certain to be dramatically better for the Republican.

Last year, Gov. Ted Strickland (D) was popular, while outgoing President George W. Bush was a weight around the neck of his party and his party’s Congressional candidates. At the same time, presidential nominee Barack Obama was a strong motivator for turnout among African-Americans, young people (Ohio State University is located in the district), Democrats and many independents. Obama won the district 54 percent to 45 percent.

This cycle, Strickland’s numbers are down and the Ohio GOP has begun its rebound. Democrats won all but one of the statewide offices in 2006 (Mary Taylor squeezed out a win in the state auditor’s race at the same time as the GOP gubernatorial nominee was losing by 24 points and the party’s sitting U.S. Senator was losing by more than 12 points), but virtually every single one of the statewide races should be competitive in 2010. No matter how those races fall next November, the state landscape will be different, and vastly improved for Republicans, than it was in 2008.

Maybe more important, 2010 will be about Obama and Kilroy, not Bush and Stivers. Kilroy now has a record on controversial federal issues, including votes on a climate change bill, with its cap-and-trade provision, and stimulus bill (both of which she supported), to say nothing of health care reform.

While the Congresswoman’s record certainly will please some, Republicans will be able to paint her votes in an unfavorable light, particularly if unemployment remains high, the economy’s rebound is sluggish, and the deficit balloons.

Moreover, midterm elections tend to bring out voters who are dissatisfied and want to express their displeasure. As of now, that should help Republicans because conservatives are angry and recent polling suggests that independent voters, who behaved liked Democrats for the past two election cycles, are starting to look more like Republicans in their displeasure with Obama.

Finally, last year, two lesser candidates on the ballot drew almost 27,000 votes. One of them was a Libertarian, and that party may well field another candidate next year. But the other name on the ballot, Don Eckhart, was an Independent who opposed abortion and stem cell research and was endorsed by Ohio Right to Life.

Eckhart drew 12,915 votes last time — almost certainly taking more votes away from Stivers than Kilroy. While it’s unclear whether another pro-lifer will be on the ballot next year, the Columbus Dispatch reported in July that Eckhart said he does not plan to run again.

Democrats are already dusting off some of the same attacks that they used last year against Stivers, calling him a lobbyist for the banking industry. Given the industry’s reputation, the charge undoubtedly will resonate with some. But it’s not new.

Kilroy will need to alter the fundamentals of next year’s race by making it a referendum on the challenger, Stivers. That’s not impossible, but it is difficult, especially because Stivers has already been under the microscope.

Last time, Stivers and the NRCC tried to make the race about Kilroy, but they failed because the electorate’s mood was so strongly inclined against the GOP.

Kilroy is sure to be well-funded, and the district is so narrowly divided that a close race appears to be inevitable. But the arithmetic is very difficult for the Congresswoman, and that makes her one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the country.

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

Late Primaries Can Equal Big Headaches in Targeted Races

By Nathan L. Gonzales

As House Republicans are drawing up their list of top Democratic targets in 2010, a familiar enemy awaits: the primary election calendar.

A handful of the GOP’s best takeover opportunities are in states such as Arizona, Maryland, Florida and New Hampshire, where late and crowded primaries have the potential to put the party’s nominee at a distinct disadvantage heading into the general election.

In addition to often leaving the party’s base fractured, late primaries can produce battered nominees with depleted bank accounts and only a few weeks to recover.

Last cycle, in what one GOP operative described as a “train wreck,” Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert won the Republican nomination with 29 percent in a six-way primary in early September in Arizona’s 5th district.

While Schweikert began to reload for the general election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unloaded television ads attacking him the same week. Schweikert was never really able to regain strong footing, and Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) — who was then a top target after knocking off a Republican incumbent in 2006 — easily won re-election, 53 percent to 44 percent.

Schweikert “never got out of the box,” one Democratic strategist said.

Mitchell is once again a top target in 2010, but Republicans face yet another late primary. Schweikert is running again, and this time he faces a primary against former LucasArts President Jim Ward.

Along with the financial ramifications of a late primary, the increasing emphasis on early voting is a challenge because it narrows the window between when the primary ends and the general election begins. In Arizona, next year’s primary will be Aug. 24 while early voting begins Oct. 7.

Republicans also have their sights set on freshman Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.), who won in the heavily Republican 1st district last year with 49 percent of the vote. Kratovil benefited greatly from a bloody GOP primary fight between moderate Rep. Wayne Gilchrest and state Sen. Andy Harris. Harris won, but the fight left the party heavily fractured, both ideologically and geographically, with Harris burning many bridges in the Eastern Shore-based district. Gilchrest went on to endorse Kratovil, and Harris couldn’t match the Democrats’ spending on Baltimore television.

Harris is running again, but he may face state Sen. E.J. Pipkin (who came in third in the 2008 primary) or former state Del. Al Redmer in the primary. More importantly, last year’s primary was held Feb. 12 in conjunction with the presidential primary, but next year it will be Sept. 14.

Last cycle, the National Republican Congressional Committee in particular took heat for not getting more involved in primaries in order to get the strongest general election candidate. But in an age when candidates are eager to run against the establishment, there isn’t a lot the national parties can do to clear primary fields.

“The NRCC’s policy on primaries is that there is no policy,” one committee official said. At times in the past, the committee’s intervention has created exactly the opposite effect of what was intended.

One thing the campaign committees can do is grease the fundraising gears. Earlier this decade, the NRCC created special funds to raise money for its eventual nominees in competitive races with contested primaries. The accounts were a repository for money from other Members and for money that the White House helped raise to be transferred to the Congressional nominee after the primary.

For example, in 2004, then-Washington state Rep. Cathy McMorris inherited $200,000 after she won the GOP nomination on Sept. 14 in a three-way primary. The infusion of money helped her gain the 5th district seat over a self-funding Democratic opponent.

“Late primaries have to be managed,”one GOP operative said. Aside from setting up special accounts, Republicans try to prepare by making sure potential nominees have their general election media and mail plans in places, including research on potential opponents.

The DCCC prepares research on all potential GOP opponents, but instead of setting up generic fundraising accounts in certain races, the committee immediately puts its nominees on the “Red to Blue” program list in order to jump-start their fundraising and boost the candidates’ ability to collect Member contributions.

In addition to the Arizona race, the DCCC went on the air in New Hampshire’s 1st district almost immediately after former Rep. Jeb Bradley secured the GOP nomination in early September of last year. The committee’s spending helped boost Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) to a 52 percent to 46 percent victory in November.

Two years before, Shea-Porter surprised both parties when she knocked off state Senate Minority Leader Jim Craig, the DCCC’s preferred candidate, and went on to defeat Bradley without support from the national party.

This cycle, Republicans look to be headed for another September primary to determine who will take on Shea-Porter. But Democrats will also likely have a crowded primary in the state’s 2nd district, where they are trying to hold the seat being vacated by Rep. Paul Hodes (D) to run for Senate.

The DCCC chose not to immediately flex its fundraising muscle last year in New York’s 26th district after Alice Kryzan (D) was the surprise winner of the Sept. 9 primary over the DCCC’s favored candidate.

Recent Republican successes in races that featured late primaries have often been circumstantial.

Last year in Kansas’ 2nd district, state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins beat former Rep. Jim Ryun in a competitive Aug. 5 primary. But Jenkins’ general election victory over then-Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) had more to do with the Republican nature of the district and the relatively inexpensive media markets there. Another big factor was that Boyda shunned all outside help, so the DCCC didn’t come in with its usual TV blitz.

Back in 2000 when Republicans enjoyed more fundraising parity (and were able to use soft money), the NRCC helped elect Ric Keller (R) in Florida’s 8th district by going on television and attacking Orange County Chairman Linda Chapin (D) three weeks before the primary. Keller finished second in the Sept. 5 primary and first in the Oct. 3 runoff.

But a late primary also helped foreshadow Keller’s loss in 2008. The Congressman’s 53 percent to 47 percent primary victory over an unknown candidate on Aug. 26 demonstrated that he had significant cracks in his base of support. He lost in November 52 percent to 48 percent to now-Rep. Alan Grayson (D).

Multiple candidates are interested in taking on Grayson in 2010, setting up what could be a competitive Aug. 24 GOP primary in the 8th district. Republicans could also see a crowded primary in the 24th district represented by freshman Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.).

Democrats are not immune to the negative fallout from late primaries, but with a significant majority in the House, they are less of a concern.

Democrats will likely see a competitive September primary in Hawaii’s 1st district, where Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) is running for governor. Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou (R) is hoping for a repeat of 1986, when Republican Pat Saiki was elected to Congress in the wake of a bloody late Democratic primary.

Multiple Democratic candidates are lining up to take on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), including 2008 nominee Elwyn Tinklenberg, physician Maureen Reed and state Sen. Tarryl Clark. Democrats hope the party’s nominating convention winnows the field before the September primary.

Similarly in Colorado’s 4th district, Republicans hope that state Rep. Cory Gardner’s early fundraising and the district’s convention sorts out the GOP race before the Aug. 12 primary.

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

Can Democrats Get Re-Elected by Voting Against Obama?

By Stuart Rothenberg

The extent of Democratic losses in next year’s midterm elections will rest, in part, on the ability of Democrats elected in conservative or Republican districts over the past two cycles to survive aggressive GOP attempts to defeat them.

More than four dozen districts sent a Democrat to Congress last year while casting a plurality of their votes for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president. Of the 49 Congressional districts where this occurred, 11 gave McCain more than 60 percent of the vote (see chart).

But not all of those 11 look equally vulnerable. Six of those successful Democrats won handily in 2008 (with at least 59 percent of the vote) — Reps. Charlie Melancon (La.), Ike Skelton (Mo.), Gene Taylor (Miss.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) and Bart Gordon (Tenn.) — and their electoral histories suggest that nothing short of a tsunami could seriously threaten them. Indeed, three of them (Skelton, Taylor and Gordon) proved their mettle more than a decade ago by surviving in 1994.

Obviously, retirements in any of the six districts would be disastrous for Democrats, which is why a possible Melancon Senate run is so disturbing to the party’s House strategists.

Purely from a statistical point of view, the most vulnerable House Democrats are the four who won election last cycle with less than 55 percent of the vote in districts where McCain scored comfortable wins. That includes Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Walt Minnick (Idaho) and Travis Childers (Miss.), plus Rep. Frank Kratovil in Maryland’s 1st district. Kratovil won with just 49 percent of the vote while McCain was carrying the district with 58 percent.

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) falls somewhere in between the vulnerable and less vulnerable lists, since he won with only 53 percent in a very Republican district but has survived repeated attempts to defeat him.

A handful of other freshman and sophomore Democrats in McCain districts also deserve mention.

Freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (Va.), who won a squeaker with 50 percent in a district that McCain won with 51 percent, should find himself in trouble because of possible lower Democratic turnout in nonpresidential years. Two other Democratic freshmen, Reps. Betsy Markey (Colo.) and Eric Massa (N.Y.), ousted controversial GOP incumbents in districts that were tight in the presidential contest (McCain carried both narrowly), though Markey’s 56 percent showing was considerably stronger than Massa’s 51 percent victory.

Elsewhere, freshman Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.) knocked off a damaged GOP incumbent, winning with 57 percent in a district that McCain carried with 51 percent, while sophomore Rep. Christopher Carney (Pa.) was re-elected with 56 percent in a district that gave McCain 54 percent.

Of course, “vulnerability” is more than merely a district’s generic voter preference or even its recent electoral history. Candidate quality, fundraising and national mood are among the other relevant factors.

Democrats in conservative or heavily Republican districts are particularly vulnerable next year because crucial voters in those districts veered away from their traditional behavior in 2008.

Can these Democrats win re-election by voting against Obama initiatives — and with most House Republicans — on health care, climate change, spending and the stimulus package? Will that establish their “independence” and inoculate them from defeat?

The answer is, it depends. Have they bucked their party on all high-profile votes? Do they have other vulnerabilities? What kind of general election opposition have they drawn? How will President Barack Obama be regarded next November?

Some Democrats will survive by building records that seem in sync with district voters on hot-button issues and by emphasizing their differences with their own party and the president. Claims of “I’m an independent Democrat” and “I voted against my party” will work in some districts next year.

But at least a few of the House Democrats in Republican or conservative districts are likely to be defeated in 2010 as turnout trends and at least a touch of buyer’s remorse helps GOP challengers.

Those who survive next year will face additional difficulties in 2012 and 2014 as the “I’m an independent Democrat” argument sounds less appealing in the face of years of Democratic legislative activity.

Unless House Democrats who hail from such districts are rescued by redistricting, most of them will have an extremely difficult time surviving a second midterm election.

By 2014, voters are likely to be less enthusiastic about the Obama presidency than they are now, creating a political environment in which voters are willing to sacrifice Members of Congress whom they like in order to send a message of change.

By that point, it won’t be enough for moderate Democrats to point to their voting records. Their partisan connection will be enough to do them in, especially since six years of Democratic control of the White House and Congress is likely to entice stronger Republican candidates (who waited for the best year to run) into these contests.

Sound familiar? It should. For years, moderate Republicans survived in Democratic districts, but when voters decided that a fundamental change was needed, those Members found themselves out of a job.

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

Ohio River Valley Lacks Competition

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Three years ago, the Ohio River Valley was the epicenter of the battle for control of Congress. But in just two election cycles, the long swath of Republican territory has moved from red to blue to virtually uncompetitive on the Congressional level.

Inspired by a spring 2006 column by Roll Call contributing writer Stuart Rothenberg, Roll Call alumni Chris Cillizza and Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post embarked on the “Ohio River Ramble” that fall, posting dispatches from nine contiguous and competitive districts that run from Evansville, Ind., to Wheeling, W.Va.

At the time, Republicans held seven of the nine districts, and George W. Bush carried all but one (Kentucky’s 3rd) in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. But the competitive nature of the races and the fact that the GOP was playing defense foreshadowed the Democratic tidal wave that was about to hit.

Now, Republicans control only two of the nine seats. And with few recruits and more limited resources, only one of the districts even looks competitive in 2010 at this point.

There has been plenty of attention paid to the extinction of House Republicans in the Northeast. But if the GOP is going to win back the majority anytime soon — as House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was the latest to predict — it’s difficult to see the party gaining 41 seats without making significant inroads in Middle America territory such as the Ohio River Valley.

Republicans are actively recruiting in Ohio’s 18th district, but the party has struggled to find a top-notch candidate ever since then-Rep. Bob Ney (R) pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and left Congress under a cloud of scandal in November 2006. Rep. Zack Space (D), won the open-seat race to succeed Ney and then easily disposed of his little-known GOP opponent in 2008.

“Republicans aren’t going to take back the majority without this district,” one GOP operative said about Ohio’s 18th. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won there with 52 percent in 2008, and Bush won 57 percent in 2004 and 55 percent in 2000.

The Ohio River territory demonstrates that developing a list of targets is much more sophisticated than matching a district’s presidential preference against the current Member’s party identification. If it were that simple, Republicans would clearly have more opportunities to go on offense in the region, since McCain carried all but two of the nine districts — Ohio’s 1st and Kentucky’s 3rd.

Whether it’s the current political environment, the strength of the incumbent or the threat of losing the seat in two years because of reapportionment and redistricting, Republicans have simply come up empty in terms of recruiting in many of these districts. Currently, GOP strategists are most excited about the opportunity to reclaim Ohio’s 1st district, where President Barack Obama won by 11 points but former Rep. Steve Chabot (R) is running to reclaim the seat that he lost in 2008.

Chabot was one of the Republicans’ few success stories in the area in 2006, as he narrowly held on to win re-election.

In 2006, Democrats won four of the seven GOP-held seats in the region as part of their 30-seat pickup nationwide.

Meanwhile, Republicans were unable to capitalize on the flurry of ethical questions surrounding Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) at the time, and the veteran lawmaker won re-election.

The GOP also missed an opportunity when then-state Sen. Charlie Wilson (D) failed to gather 50 valid signatures to qualify for the primary ballot in Ohio's 6th district open-seat race. But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee stepped in to help Wilson win the primary as a write-in candidate and then win the general, and he was re-elected with 62 percent.

Republican Mike Sodrel and Democrat Baron Hill faced off four consecutive times in Indiana’s 9th district. But after Hill defeated Sodrel by 5 points in 2006 and 20 points in 2008, Democrats are optimistic that he will have an easier road to re-election in 2010. And in the neighboring 8th district, now-Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) demolished then-Rep. John Hostettler (R) by 22 points in 2006 and then cruised to a 30-point win in 2008.

All four districts went for Bush twice and then McCain, yet now there is only a faint pulse of competitiveness.

“John McCain carried 49 districts that are currently represented by a Democrat,” National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Ken Spain said. “Our goal is to put a number of those seats in play and create new opportunities in places where we feel we have strong candidates looking at running.”

But a big part of the Republicans’ problem is the strength of the Democratic incumbents.

“The No. 1 factor is candidate quality,” said Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group. “And we have really good Democratic candidates in those districts.” Yang works for Ellsworth and Hill, and also worked on state Sen. David Boswell’s (D) unsuccessful run in Kentucky’s 2nd district last year.

Republican recruitment prospects against Wilson, Ellsworth, Hill and Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) are dim, if not dormant. Republicans may find a candidate to run against Mollohan, who was unopposed in 2008.

“We may have a better opportunity in a more marginal district where the incumbent is soft,” admitted one GOP strategist, who also explained that the longer these incumbents go without serious challenges, the more difficult they will be to defeat in the future.

With multiple, inefficient media markets, advertising in the Ohio River Valley districts can be an expensive affair for the DCCC and the NRCC.

In 2006, the two campaign committees combined to spend more than $25 million in independent expenditures in the nine races. Two years later, the two parties spent less than $6 million in the same nine districts, as Republicans had less money and the races became less competitive. Even less money is likely to be spent in the region in 2010.

As the pendulum decidedly swung toward Democrats in the past two cycles, there have been a couple of bright spots for Republicans. Democrats have targeted Kentucky’s 2nd district twice, but then-Rep. Ron Lewis (R) turned back state Rep. Mike Weaver (D) in 2006, and now-Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) held the seat when Lewis retired in 2008.

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) has solidified his position over the last three years in the 4th district. After losing his initial race to then-Rep. Ken Lucas (D) in 2002, Davis won the open-seat race two years later when Lucas retired. In 2006, Davis faced off against Lucas, but the Republican prevailed easily. Last cycle, Davis won with more than 60 percent of the vote, and he’s not at risk in 2010.

Republicans have also held Ohio’s 2nd district and West Virginia’s 2nd district despite Democratic attempts to target GOP Reps. Jean Schmidt and Shelley Moore Capito, respectively.

House Republicans have not made any one region their top priority in 2010, instead focusing on fielding a diverse crop of challengers and trying to regain strength across the country. It’s psychologically necessary for the morale of the party, according to one House GOP operative.

Still, many Republicans acknowledge they face a significant challenge overall.

“We have a problem everywhere,” one GOP strategist said.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on June 18, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

Polling in Perilous Territory

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Are Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) or Richard Burr (R-N.C.) this cycle’s Rick Santorum?

The former Pennsylvania Senator began his 2006 re-election race down in the polls and never recovered. And while Bunning, Dodd and Burr have something in common with Santorum’s early standing, each hopes for a different outcome.

Whether it’s trailing in polls from the get-go, as was the case for Santorum and then-Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) in 2008, or leading but at the mid-40 percent mark in ballot tests like then-Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), all three recent cases demonstrated the difficulty for vulnerable Senators to significantly improve their standing over the course of a campaign.

Santorum trailed now-Sen. Bob Casey (D) 44 percent to 43 percent in a March 2005 Keystone poll and by a wider 49 percent to 35 percent margin in an April 2005 Quinnipiac University survey. Overall,

Santorum never led over the course of two years and lost on Election Day, 59 percent to 41 percent.

In New Hampshire last cycle, Sununu trailed former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) 44 percent to 34 percent in a March 2007 American Research Group survey and trailed in all but one of 35 public polls over the course of the campaign, never topping 45 percent. He lost 52 percent to 45 percent on Election Day.

Of course, each Senate race has some unique characteristics, but Bunning, Dodd and Burr start their re-elections from a position of fundamental weakness.

Bunning’s vulnerability has been known since his narrow victory in 2004. An early Research 2000 survey in February 2009 for the liberal Daily Kos Web site showed Bunning defeating four potential Democratic opponents but still in the mid-40s on the ballot tests. Two months later, the former Hall of Fame pitcher trailed all four opponents and polled in the low to mid-30s, according to a survey by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

Dodd’s vulnerability started with headlines and then was realized when a Quinnipiac poll in February showed that 51 percent of Connecticut voters would probably not or definitely not vote to re-elect the Democrat and that more people disapproved (48 percent) than approved (41 percent) of the job that he is doing.

A month later, Quinnipiac showed Dodd in a dead heat with former Rep. Rob Simmons (R), 43 percent to 42 percent. Later in March, a Research 2000 poll had slightly better news, with Dodd besting Simmons 45 percent to 40 percent.

“Their numbers are so bad that it goes well beyond the environment,” said one GOP strategist speaking on the condition of anonymity so that he could speak freely about Dodd and Bunning.

“It doesn’t matter if Obama finds a cure for cancer, Dodd is not coming back to the U.S. Senate,” he added, while predicting that Bunning would lose, too.

In North Carolina, Burr has consistently polled between 37 percent and 46 percent in ballot tests conducted this year by the PPP, which is based in the state. The Republican has led some potential Democratic opponents and trailed state Attorney General Roy Cooper, the party’s top prospect who has yet to announce his intentions. But Burr’s standing is more important than the margin.

Last cycle, Democrats hypothesized that Smith had an electoral ceiling in the mid-40s, and that’s why they weren’t discouraged even when their February 2007 survey showed him ahead of Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) 42 percent to 38 percent. Smith consistently polled in the low 40s throughout the race and received 46 percent on Election Day.

Supporters of Dodd and Burr maintain that the incumbents’ initial numbers are soft because they are still undefined in the voters’ minds.

Considering the significant recent population growth of North Carolina, it’s an easier argument for Burr to make after one term in office. But that doesn’t make him any less vulnerable. He had an extremely low 37 percent favorable/13 percent unfavorable rating in a mid-March poll for the Civitas Institute (R). Plus, he’s running in a tossup state that President Barack Obama carried very narrowly.

For Dodd, it’s much tougher to redefine himself after representing the state for almost three decades. He had 91 percent name identification in Quinnipiac’s March poll (46 percent favorable/45 percent unfavorable) and 87 percent name identification in the March survey by Research 2000 (47 percent favorable/40 percent unfavorable).

In the spring of the year before their losses, Santorum’s name identification was 60 percent while Sununu was closer to 70 percent.

Vulnerable incumbents tend to overestimate their ability to define their race as a choice between two candidates. This cycle, Democrats will attempt to tie Simmons to former President George W. Bush, former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, while Republicans will try to use Cooper’s record against him and declare whomever winds up the Democratic nominee in Kentucky too liberal for the state.

But it doesn’t always work. In the previous cycle, Sununu was confident that the race would shift once he refocused voters on Shaheen’s record as governor — the message that helped him defeat her six years earlier. Santorum, Sununu and Smith spent a combined $45 million trying to reframe their races to no avail.

Bunning and Dodd will likely watch the other party compete in a competitive primary, when Santorum and Sununu’s challengers had clear paths to the nomination. But that doesn’t guarantee success either, since the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee helped drag now-Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) through the primary last cycle before he knocked off Smith.

But while Santorum, Sununu and Smith ran in states trending against them, Bunning and Dodd are running for re-election in more favorable territory. Obama carried Connecticut with 61 percent and Oregon with 57 percent, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried Kentucky with 58 percent.

Democrats believe this is most significant for Dodd, who simply needs to remind Democratic voters about the good things that the Senator has done for them. “I would much rather have to win back Democrats than have to win over Republicans,” Dodd campaign manager Jay Howser said.

And while Santorum and Sununu ran into a political headwind, next year’s political environment is uncertain. “Political die is not cast yet on next year’s election,” said one GOP strategist familiar with Burr’s race.

Still, using recent history as a guide, the longer an incumbent is mired at less than 50 percent, the more difficult it becomes to break out on Election Day.

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

Have House GOP Retirement Woes Run Their Course?

By Stuart Rothenberg

House retirements are running a bit ahead of schedule this cycle, at least compared with where they stood in 2005 and 2007. And if they even approach the same numbers as in the past two election cycles, retirements could play a significant part in the eventual 2010 House battleground.

Roll Call’s Casualty List now shows a dozen House Members leaving their House seats to run for another office next year. In June 2007, the Casualty List identified four House Members who were not seeking re-election — one of whom, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), eventually changed his mind and ran for re-election. Two years earlier, in April 2005, Roll Call’s list stood at only six House Members not running again.

House Democrats have benefited greatly from retirements of late. In each of the past five cycles, more Republican incumbents than Democratic incumbents have decided against running for re-election.

There were 26 GOP retirements in 2008 compared with only six Democratic ones. Two years earlier, 10 Democrats and 18 Republicans opted not to seek re-election to their House seats, and in 2004, 12 Democrats and 17 Republicans called it quits, either retiring or running for a different office.

Republican retirements in the House numbered 22 in 2002 and 23 in 2000, while only 13 Democrats retired in 2002 and a mere eight Democrats walked away from their seats in 2000.

The last time more Democrats than Republicans retired was in 1998, when 17 Democrats and 16 Republicans did not seek re-election.

None of these calculations includes Members who were defeated in the primary, who resigned their seats in midterm or who died while in office. And retirements certainly are not synonymous with open seats, some of which were created by reapportionment and redistricting after the 2000 Census.

Still, the retirement numbers make it clear that Republicans have lost far more veteran officeholders during the past decade and have had to defend those open seats. Over the past five elections, 106 Republican House Members have not sought re- election, while only 49 Democrats have walked away from their seats — a significant difference.

Sometimes, of course, it’s easier for a party to defend an open seat than to have a damaged incumbent in the race. Not all retirements are unwelcome by the incumbent’s party. And yet, retirements generally create problems for the incumbent party, often leading to expensive and potentially divisive primaries or exposing a district that has changed its partisan bent but continued to reelect its incumbent.

Given the past three cycles’ totals — 61 GOP retirements compared with only 28 Democratic retirements — it would be extraordinary if Democrats were to have another huge advantage in open seats next year. But the appeal of nonfederal statewide races this cycle, combined with the ambitiousness of the Obama agenda and the inability of the House GOP to do anything to stop it, could lead still more Republicans to run for the exits, giving Democrats more interesting open-seat opportunities.

Obviously, open seats both reflect the nature of the political environment and contribute to that environment.

Republican incumbents saw the writing on the wall last cycle, and many of them preferred to call it quits rather than struggle to hold their seats, knowing that the party would remain in the minority, which, in the House, often means irrelevancy.

The retirements added to the sense of gloom and doom on the Republican side, which, in turn, encouraged others to retire. The large number of GOP open seats then gave Democrats plenty of good opportunities for takeovers, and take over they did.

Indeed, Democratic insiders aren’t shy in acknowledging that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a “retirement strategy” last cycle, and one that the party is certain to follow again this cycle.

The strategy was and remains simple: Target Republican incumbents whom the DCCC wants to retire and “encourage” them to retire. That means firing a shot across the bow. We try to tell them, “If you run again, it’s going to be a tough race,” is the way one Democratic operative put it.

Democrats argue that at least two veteran GOP Congressmen who called it quits last time, Reps. Jim Saxton (N.J.) and Ralph Regula (Ohio), got the message.

This cycle, Democratic operatives are hoping that the same tactics will work on Republican veterans such as Reps. Mike Castle (Del.), 69, Bill Young (Fla.), 78, Henry Brown (S.C.), 73, Don Manzullo (Ill.), 65, and Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), 82.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Democrats have talked about Castle and Young retiring, and since Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried Bartlett’s district by 18 points, a Democrat wouldn’t be likely to win the seat even if it becomes open.

So far, only one young House Republican has announced that he is giving up his seat to seek other office, 34-year-old Rep. Adam Putnam (Fla.). But a number of Republicans in their 40s and 50s, who might have stayed in the House if the GOP were still in control — including Reps. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), 48, Zach Wamp (Tenn.), 51, Jim Gerlach (Pa.), 54, and Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), 55 — have either announced for statewide office or opened an exploratory committee.

Democratic insiders insist that Putnam’s district, which went very narrowly for McCain in the presidential contest, could be in play.

“The district has better Democratic performance than people assume. The right candidate could make the race very competitive,” one Democratic strategist argued.

Democratic strategists will be eyeing a handful of other GOP Members to see whether their seats will open up. The list includes Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Judy Biggert (Ill.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), John Shadegg (Ariz.) and Elton Gallegly (Calif.).

“Democrats have been very clear about their intentions to try to force incumbent Republicans into retirement. In some cases they have been successful, but now we are looking to replicate that success,” one Republican operative told me recently.

Three Democrats have already taken steps to run for higher office — Reps. Paul Hodes (N.H.), Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii) and Tim Ryan (Ohio) — and others are mentioned as possibly interested.

Republicans are keeping their eyes on Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Charlie Melancon (La.) and a handful of Democratic Representatives from the Philadelphia suburbs, who might look at the Senate race with renewed interest now that Sen. Arlen Specter (R) has drawn a serious primary challenger.

Republican operatives are making every effort to recruit strong challengers to these Democratic incumbents, hoping to push some of them toward other contests.

GOP insiders cite their efforts to encourage California Assemblyman Van Tran to challenge Sanchez and Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken into a race against DeFazio as evidence that they are trying to broaden the playing field and that they have adopted a new strategy. Both Republicans are still considering their options.

National GOP strategists are also pleased that Honolulu City Councilmember Charles Djou has jumped into the Hawaii race to succeed Abercrombie, who holds a seat they haven’t seriously contested since 1996.

“Last cycle, many Republicans thought that we could simply conquer old territory to win back the majority. Now, most people realize that we need to create new opportunities,” said one Republican observer, echoing what Democratic strategists said in 2006 and 2008.

Both parties will make every effort to get their incumbents to run again, thereby minimizing the number of open seats each must defend. But given recent trends, with retirements averaging in the low 30s over the past six cycles, another 20 retirements wouldn’t be unusual.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 13, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Statewide Officials Not Always the Senate Recruits They’re Cracked Up to Be

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrats cheered when Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (R) announced he would not challenge newly appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) in 2010. And Republicans breathed a sigh of relief when New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) decided not to take on Sen. Judd Gregg (R) next year. Both were considered strong potential challengers because they are popular statewide officeholders. But looking back over the past four cycles, holding statewide office by no means equals a guaranteed ticket to the U.S. Senate.

There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction by partisan activists to immediately elevate current or former statewide officeholders into the top tier of potential candidates, even though candidates with that profile have had mixed success in recent elections.

Indeed, there are plenty of factors that go into a candidate’s ultimate success — including the partisan leanings of the state, the nature of the cycle (which also impacts a candidate’s willingness to run) and the strength of the incumbent or opponent, among other factors. But recent history shows that there is no correlation between Senate success and holding statewide office.

Only seven of the 39 Senators who have been elected over the past four cycles were sitting statewide officials. Meanwhile, over the same time period, seven sitting statewide officials lost bids for Senate.

Former statewide officials make up only eight of the 39 new Senators since 2002, while three former statewide officeholders lost general election bids over the same time period.

This means that of the Senators elected over the past four cycles, less than half were either sitting or former statewide officeholders.

This is encouraging news for the parties when they are recruiting, but it also means their seats aren’t safe just because a statewide candidate on the other side of the aisle decides not to run.

Of the 10 freshman Senators elected in 2008, Idaho Lt. Gov. James Risch (R) was the only sitting statewide officeholder to make it to the Senate. State Treasurer John Kennedy (R) lost his race in Louisiana.

Five candidates were former statewide officeholders: now-Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), as well as former Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) who lost his bid.

In 2006, at-large Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) were elected to the Senate, the only statewide officials in their class. Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) lost his bid in Maryland.

That same year Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was a former statewide official who ran while out of office. The rest of his class included two sitting House Members, a mayor, a county attorney, a state Senator and a war hero who had never held elected office.

In 2004, only one of the nine new Senators was elected while holding statewide office: Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar (D). On the flip side, Missouri state Treasurer Nancy Farmer (D) and South Carolina Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum (D) were unsuccessful in their Senate bids.

That class of Senators included four sitting Members of Congress (and one former Member), former Cabinet secretary Mel Martinez (Fla.), who had never held statewide office and Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama (D). Former Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles (D) came up short, but former Rep. John Thune (R), who previously represented an at-large seat, won in South Dakota.

And back in 2002, Arkansas Attorney General Mark Pryor (D) and Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (R) were the only statewide elected official out of the 10 new Senators. Meanwhile, three statewide officials lost, including Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury (D), Louisiana Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell (R) and Thune, who won two years later.

[This story was updated on 2/3/09 to reflect the fact that Claire McCaskill was the sitting state auditor when she was elected to the Senate.]

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 28, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2010 Senate Races: Another Tough Cycle For the Republicans

By Stuart Rothenberg

It’s been less than three months since voters went to the polls, but the 2010 Senate cycle is off to one of the fastest starts in memory.

After being pummeled two cycles in a row — losing six seats in 2006 and what looks like eight seats in 2008 — Senate Republicans face another challenging cycle. Even though they hold just 41 Senate seats, they are defending 19 of the 36 Senate seats that will be on the ballot next year.

The 2010 class includes 19 GOP-held seats, while the 2012 class has just nine and 2014 has only 13.

Democrats begin with at least half a dozen good opportunities, depending on candidate recruitment and how President Barack Obama performs over the next two years.

While the GOP remains battered, Democrats are likely to have a substantial financial advantage, and four incumbent Republican Senators have already announced they won’t seek re-election. Still, the end of the Bush administration and complete Democratic control of the nation’s capital could well make things a bit tougher for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this cycle than they have been over the past four years.

Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R), a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame and the first pitcher to win 100 games and record 1,000 strikeouts in both leagues, faces a very difficult race. Three high-profile Democratic statewide officials are looking at a possible challenge, and even GOP insiders are worried about Bunning’s strength after his surprisingly narrow 2004 victory against a lightly regarded challenger who is now the state’s lieutenant governor.

Bunning, who pitched no-hitters in both leagues (including a perfect game for the Philadelphia Phillies against the New York Mets on Father’s Day in 1964), says he is going to run for a third term. But he has plenty of time to reconsider that decision, and the 78-year-old conservative could ultimately conclude that retirement is an appealing option. That decision would not upset party strategists whose first priority is holding the seat.

All four of the GOP’s open seats could be battlegrounds, with the safest one on paper, Kansas, actually becoming the most difficult one for Republicans if outgoing Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) opts to make the race. Rep. Jerry Moran (R) is already running and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R) is looking at entering the race — either one would be a credible contender.

The retirements of Sens. Kit Bond (Mo.), Mel Martinez (Fla.) and George Voinovich (Ohio) surely enhance the DSCC’s chances of adding to its 59 seats (provided Democrat Al Franken is eventually seated as the Senator from Minnesota), but the GOP will not give up those seats readily.

Former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who most recently served as director of the Office of Management and Budget and was also the U.S. trade representative, is running in Ohio and gives the National Republican Senatorial Committee a solid candidate. While the DSCC is already portraying him as the “architect” of the Bush administration’s economic policies, Portman’s mainstream conservatism should fit the state well.

A number of Democrats are looking at the race, including Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Rep. Tim Ryan, and it’s virtually certain that the DSCC will have a strong nominee to support financially.

In Missouri, GOP Rep. Roy Blunt is said to be eyeing a possible Senate race, but other Republicans are mentioned as well, including former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman and former Sen. Jim Talent. Party insiders seem inclined to line up behind Blunt, a former secretary of state, if he announces his candidacy.

On the Democratic side, all eyes are on Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, daughter of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan (D) and former Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.). State Attorney General Chris Koster (D) receives mention as well.

In Florida, both parties could see crowded primaries now that former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) and state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) have announced they will take a pass on the Senate contest.

On the GOP side, former state Speaker Marco Rubio, Attorney General Bill McCollum and a handful of Republican House Members, including Rep. Connie Mack IV, are mentioned. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) has already jumped in the race, and least two other Congressional Democrats and the state Senate Minority Leader are said to be mulling bids. Just don’t pay too much attention to the early polling in that state.

After those contests, the focus turns to candidate recruitment against incumbents, with Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and David Vitter (R-La.) topping the list of possible Democratic targets and with Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) topping the NRSC’s list.

There are a few other seats that are worth mentioning. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is serving his fifth term, so Democrats will try to recruit a strong challenger, if only to try to encourage him to consider retirement.

Some observers regard the Illinois Senate seat to which Ronald Burris (D) was just appointed as a tossup. I don’t. I see it as clearly favoring Democrats.

While there are a number of scenarios that would put that seat into play, each would require a series of developments that would enhance GOP prospects — from the candidacy of Rep. Mark Kirk (R) to Burris running for re-election and state voters seeing the Senate race as a referendum on embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and state Democratic corruption.

While all of that is possible, it strikes me as far too premature to assume that all of the dominos will fall the GOP’s way in a state that has become reliably Democratic.

Democrats are well-positioned to add to their numbers in the Senate in next year’s elections. But how the public’s mood evolves during the next 20 months will tell us the extent of that opportunity, or whether it even exists.

Correction: In the Jan. 22 edition of my column, I misidentified Henry Barbour. He, of course, is the nephew of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 26, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

California 44: Hedrick Readies Rematch

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrat Bill Hedrick came close to becoming one of the surprise winners of the 2008 Election, when the president of the Rialto Education Association lost to Republican Cong. Ken Calvert 51%-49% in California’s 44th District.

He was severely outspent by the incumbent, approximately $1.1 million to $180,000, received no help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and his candidacy was nowhere near the national discussion of potential Democratic takeovers across the country.

Hedrick told the Report in an interview on Thursday that he has no interest in becoming a perennial candidate, but is committed to running again in 2010. And he’s making his case to potential donors and supporters who ignored him last cycle.BillHedrickforCongress2010Packet

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Politics & Governmen Presentations & Slid california republican

Bad News Comes Early for Senate Republicans

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The 2010 election cycle is just a couple months old, and Senate Republicans have almost equaled their number of retirements from last cycle, when their party lost eight seats. But this time around, Senators with one foot out the door appear to be making their decisions earlier, instead of keeping party strategists guessing.

Just in the last two weeks, Ohio Sen. George Voinovich (R) and Missouri Sen. Kit Bond (R) announced their decisions not seek re-election. They join Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (R) and Florida Sen. Mel Martinez (R), who announced last year their plans to exit the chamber.

“These Senators did the right thing for the party by making their decisions early, and in each state, Republicans now have a solid bench of potential candidates who are already hard at work,” said Brian Walsh, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Last cycle, then-Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) officially announced he wouldn’t seek re-election in January 2007, more than 20 months before Election Day. But the next four Republican announcements didn’t come until much later.

Former Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) didn’t announce their retirements until September 2007. And former New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) waited even a month later. Former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) never officially said he wasn’t seeking re-election, but now-Sen. Jim Risch (R) launched his campaign to succeed Craig in October 2007.

Republicans lost three of the five open seats last November, only retaining control of the seats in the two most Republican states (Idaho and Nebraska).

“At a time when statewide candidates need to raise millions of dollars to run a competitive campaign, there is no getting around the fact that an extra six months to raise money, develop an organization and travel around the state provides a tremendous advantage,” Walsh said.

There is no guarantee that Republicans would have won Virginia or New Mexico last cycle if Warner and Domenici had announced earlier. An early Allard decision didn’t help the GOP effort in Colorado.

Republicans would have preferred their incumbents run for re-election. But the early retirement decisions are better than waiting in limbo, and while an early start can’t change the political environment, it does give candidates more time for critical fundraising.


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 16, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Alaska Senate: Polar Opposite Polling

By Nathan L. Gonzales

A newly released Dittman Research (R) poll showed Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) leading Gov. Sarah Palin (R) by a wide margin in a hypothetical 2010 GOP Senate primary matchup. The results were also the complete opposite of another public poll taken during the same time period.

Murkowski led 57 percent to 33 percent in the Dittman survey, taken Dec. 5-20, and paid for by the Alaska Standard, a Republican Web site. A Dec. 15-17 survey by the nonpartisan Research 2000 for the liberal, Democratic Web site DailyKos.com showed Palin leading a primary 55 percent to 31 percent.

Even though Palin defeated Lisa Murkowski’s father, the incumbent governor, in the 2006 gubernatorial primary, there is no indication that a 2010 matchup will materialize.

“In my opinion, Alaska is hard to poll accurately,” Dittman said, “Many outside research firms have problems here — Rasmussen is the exception, they have a very good record — but Kos is one of the worst. In the recent general election here, the final Kos survey was probably the most inaccurate poll in the nation.”

“One thing we learned in 2008, it’s that Alaska is clearly a difficult place to poll,” said Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos.com about the Senate and House races. “The state wasn’t kind to any pollster last year.” But Moulitsas did point out the accuracy of Research 2000 at the presidential level in Alaska.

Maryland-based Research 2000 showed Sen. John McCain (R) with a 58 percent to 39 percent lead in an Oct. 28-30 survey. Anchorage-based Dittman Research showed McCain with a 56 percent to 37 percent advantage in an Oct. 24-29 poll. And Rasmussen had McCain up 16 points on Oct. 28. The GOP nominee won the state 59 percent to 38 percent.

Pollsters inside and outside the Last Frontier took their lumps last year in Alaska’s downballot races.

In the House race, no public polls, dating back as far as fall 2007, showed Rep. Don Young (R) ahead of Democratic challenger Ethan Berkowitz, and most had him trailing by at least 5 points. Young, who is under investigation, was re-elected 50 percent to 45 percent.

In the Senate race, most of the polls gave Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) a slight to narrow advantage over then-Sen. Ted Stevens (R) throughout the race, but there were only a couple of public polls after the Senator’s conviction on seven counts of corruption.

An Oct. 28-30 Research 2000/DailyKos.com (D) poll gave Begich a 22-point lead, Rasmussen gave Begich an 8-point advantage in an Oct. 28 survey, and Alaska-based Hays Research showed the mayor with a 7-point edge. Begich won the race 48 percent to 47 percent.

According to Dittman, his firm has correctly predicted every primary and general election winner for Senate and governor of Alaska for 34 years, even though its margin in last year’s Senate race was also wider than the final result. A Dittman poll on the House race was not listed on Pollster.com.

The strange thing about the 2010 Senate polls is that the difference is not really one of margin. The results are totally opposite, and the explanation is not clear.

Dittman expressed concern about the Research 2000 methodology in local media stories, but declined to give specifics.

His poll surveyed 505 adults, with an over-sample of 430 Republicans for a sample for the primary question, from Dec. 5-20 (much longer than the traditional research period). The survey was paid for by the Alaska Standard, a conservative, Republican Web site that lists Dittman and Lisa Murkowski as contributors. The site’s publisher, conservative talk show host Dan Fagan, is a well-known Palin critic.

Research 2000 surveyed 600 likely voters, including 400 likely GOP primary voters for the Senate question, from Dec. 15-17. The poll was paid for by Kos Media LLC, but Moulitsas does not have a hand in the way the survey is conducted and posts all crosstabs and results on his Web site. Research 2000 President Del Ali noted in an interview that screening and predicting likely primary voters almost two years before an election is difficult and a potentially fruitless exercise.

Even though the ballot question results were different, the surveys agreed that Palin and Murkowski are popular.

In the Research 2000 poll, Murkowski had a 51 percent favorable/43 percent unfavorable among all voters (including 72 percent favorable/22 percent unfavorable among Republicans), compared to 60 percent favorable/38 percent unfavorable for Palin among all voters and an overwhelming 88 percent favorable/10 percent unfavorable among Republicans.

Dittman Research tested job approval instead of person favorability. Seventy-six percent of all respondents gave Murkowski a “very good” or “quite good” job rating compared to 17 percent “not too good” or “pretty bad.” Palin held a lower 65 percent “very good” or “quite good” job rating and 34 percent “not too good” or “pretty bad.” Job numbers among just Republicans were not available.

For now, there are two very different polls for a race that will likely never exist. And in general, Dittman appears unwilling to specifically criticize the methodology because that would then give away the secret recipe to polling the state. So who is right? We’ll probably never know.

“I have no interest in a pissing match,” Moulitsas remarked. “Aggregating multiple polls gave us great predictive power in 2008 in pretty much every race except Alaska Senate and Alaska at-large. I want more polling. I see no point in trashing anyone doing reputable work.”


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 9, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Change That at Least Some People Can Believe In

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida 22: West Seeks 2010 Rematch With Klein

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Retired Lt. Col. Allen West (R) lost his recent challenge to Rep. Ron Klein (D) in Florida’s 22nd district, but his campaign continues. West announced his 2010 candidacy this week.

Despite being heavily outspent and neglected by the national and state Republican parties, West lost to Klein by 10 points, 55 percent to 45 percent, in a terrible environment for Republican candidates and in a district that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) won in 2004.

There is definitely resentment between some grass-roots conservatives and the state GOP for its lack of support in the race. But even though Klein is a freshman, he is viewed as a political heavyweight for his fundraising prowess and for knocking off longtime Rep. Clay Shaw (R), 51 percent to 47 percent, two years ago.

Klein spent $2.3 million against West, who managed to raise only $550,000, bringing the Democrat’s two-cycle total spending to $6.5 million.

Even though West announced his intentions early, he may not have the GOP field to himself. For now, everyone is waiting on former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) to decide whether he will run for the seat being vacated by Sen. Mel Martinez (R).

Klein is viewed as a potential Senate candidate, particularly if Bush declines to run. And if Klein leaves the 22nd sistrict open, state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner (R) is seen as a likely candidate. Incoming state Senate President Jeff Atwater (R) is viewed as a rising star in the party and will be term-limited in 2010, but is unlikely to run for the 22nd district.

If Klein seeks re-election to his Congressional seat, it’s difficult to see national and state Republicans making a significant financial investment in the race unless the national mood changes significantly.

West served in Iraq as a battalion commander of the 4th Infantry Division, and later worked for a private company training officers in Afghanistan’s army.

In 2003, West was accused of using improper methods when interrogating an Iraqi policeman whom West believed had information about a potential attack on him and the troops under his command.

He was facing a court martial and up to 11 years in prison, but after a military hearing, West was fined $5,000 and allowed to retire with full pension after 20 years of service. Rep.-elect Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a former teacher at the U.S Military Academy at West Point, described West as a living textbook when it comes to the rules of engagement.


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on December 17, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Illinois 10 & Ohio 1

The December 19, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. This is our final edition of the year. Our first issue next year will be the 2010 Senate Outlook. Happy Holidays!

Normally, the print edition 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:


Illinois 10: The Strong Survive
By Nathan L. Gonzales

With Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) sweeping to victory at the top of the ticket and Democrats picking up another 21 House seats nationwide, you might have thought that Cong. Mark Kirk (R) was headed for defeat too.

After all, two years earlier, Democrat Dan Seals ran a strong campaign, and came fairly close to defeating Kirk, despite a lack of attention from the national party until late in the race. This time, Seals started earlier, emerged from the shadows of neighboring congressional races, and believed the increased turnout from the presidential race would help his cause in a suburban district that is trending Democratic. Subscribers get the whole story in the print edition.


Ohio 1: I Like You, But…

Ohio was a huge Democratic disappointment in 2006. Democrats picked up 30 seats nationwide, but only won a single seat in Buckeye State (the one vacated by scandal-tainted Bob Ney) after targeting a handful of opportunities.

But this last year, Democrats fared better. The picked up Cong. Deborah Pryce’s 15th District, after being unable to defeat her in 2006, the open 16th District, and defeated Cong. Steve Chabot in the 1st District. And it’s Chabot’s defeat that makes many Democrats most proud. Subscribers get the whole story in the print edition.

Rothenberg’s End of the Year Awards for 2008 Campaigns

By Stuart Rothenberg

After each election, I offer my selections for the “best” and the “worst” of the cycle. As in past years, I’ll offer up a few worthwhile nominees for each category before I make my selections.

If you don’t agree with these choices, feel free to send your ideas to my editors or to your favorite blogger (but not to me).

Master of Self-Destruction

Nominees:

Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.)
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.)
Jon Powers (D-N.Y.)
Bill Sali (R-Idaho)

This list is scary. All of them strongly undermined their own appeal. But Bachmann won her race, so I’ll remove her from consideration. Stevens, who would have been a shoo-in for re-election without his ethics problems (Democrat Mark Begich almost certainly would not have run), is over 80 years old and I’m headed in that direction myself, so I’ll remove him from consideration.

It’s a hard call. Powers misrepresented himself to voters by puffing up his résumé, while Feeney was caught in the Jack Abramoff flap. Both were bad but not unusual. That leaves me with having to choose between Sali, who would have been re-elected indefinitely if he had made any effort to get along with people, and Mahoney, the hypocrite’s hypocrite. Tough call. I can’t make it. How about calling it a tie?

Strongest Republican swimmer against the tide

Nominees:

Dave Reichert (R-Wash.)
Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.)
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Mark Kirk (R-Ill.)
Chris Lee (R-N.Y.)

Reichert has turned back two strong challenges in terrible environments in a swing district that has gone Democratic at the presidential level, and Paulsen beat a tough opponent in a Minnesota open seat. Mark Kirk’s nearly 10-point win in a suburban Illinois district was stunningly strong, and Chris Lee was one of the few Empire State Republicans to win. But my winner for this category is Collins, who annihilated a serious opponent who represents half the state in Congress. Collins is one of the few targeted Republican Senators who actually never was in trouble, a remarkable achievement given the national mood.

Time to stop running

Nominees:

Mike Sodrel (R-Ind.)
Larry LaRocco (D-Idaho)
Duane Sand (R-N.D.)
Elwyn Tinklenberg (D-Minn.)
Linda Stender (D-N.J.)
Jim Oberweis (R-Ill.)
Victoria Wulsin (D-Ohio)

This is a long list, and it’s hard to pick a “winner” in this category. Sodrel has now run in four consecutive elections. It’s time for him to find something else to do. LaRocco’s last two showings suggest that maybe running statewide in Idaho isn’t his best option. (And please don’t make me write again about another Wulsin versus Rep. Jean Schmidt race. Please.) But if Oberweis and Sand haven’t yet figured out that they ought to try something quite different, I’m not sure they ever will. So they split my vote.

Most Overhyped House Candidate

Nominees:

Dean Andal (R-Calif.)
Kay Barnes (D-Mo.)
Steve Greenberg (R-Ill.)
Dennis Shulman (D-N.J. )

All of these candidates are strong competitors for the most overhyped Congressional hopeful. But my vote goes to Barnes, a former mayor of Kansas City who once was paraded through Washington, D.C., as evidence of the Democrats’ strong early recruiting but who lost by 22 points to Republican Rep. Sam Graves (Mo.).

Biggest Long-Shot Winner

Nominees:

Tom Perriello (D-Va.)
Don Young (R-Alaska)
Leonard Lance (R-N.J.)
Walt Minnick (D-Idaho)
Anh Cao (R-La.)

Anh Cao? Anh Cao? Holy Cow!

Best Name in the New Congress

Nominees:

Phil Hare (D-Ill.)
Joe Pitts (R-Pa.)
Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio)
Anh Cao (R-La.)
Todd Platts (R-Pa.)
Zack Space (D-Ohio)

We are all lucky to have so many Members with “interesting” names. I expected Marcia Fudge to win this category in a walk. But coming up to nip her at the wire: Anh Cao! This makes him a rare double winner this year and should get him an appearance on David Letterman.

Most Religious-Sounding Name

Nominees:

Rob Bishop (R-Utah)
Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.)
Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.)

Three bishops, an Israel and a hazan — I mean a cantor. (Go ask somebody Jewish if you are confused by this reference). Two Republicans and three Democrats. Two Jews, a Baptist, a Mormon and a Roman Catholic ... sounds like the opening line to an offensive joke. Obviously I’m too politically correct to choose just one. I’ll pass.

Most Overhyped, Self-Important, Delusional Presidential Candidate

Nominees:

Cynthia McKinney
Ron Paul
Ralph Nader
Bob Barr
Alan Keyes

Another impossible choice given the long list of grossly inflated egos. You probably didn’t realize that Alan Keyes was on the ballot in three states and that he has founded a new political party, America’s Independent Party. Don’t look so surprised.

Three of these people never, ever smile: Barr, Paul and Nader. So I’ll focus on them, since their apparent humorlessness makes them all the more offensive.

Nader is a sad case, since he had some influence in this country and has now run so many times and echoed the same message so often that he has become pitiful — too pitiful for me to award him this category.

That leaves Paul and Barr, both of whom ought to know better.

Paul was treated as a serious contender by too many in the media, and, judging from the e-mails I received, by too many of his supporters. He raised a good deal of cash but never was a serious contender for the GOP nomination. Never.

A onetime U.S. attorney and former Member of Congress, Barr came within an eyelash of being the Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia in 1992, losing a runoff to Paul Coverdell, who went on to win the seat in November. Some argued that Barr had such potential appeal (possibly in the 3-6 percent range) that he might throw the presidential race in Georgia — or even the White House — to Barack Obama. (Don’t look at me. I thought the idea was nuts and said so repeatedly.)

Anyway, according to the Georgia secretary of State’s office, Barr ended up drawing 28,812 votes, or 0.7 percent of the vote as the state’s Libertarian Party nominee for president. Nationally, Barr drew 524,237 votes — about 400,000 fewer votes than the 1980 Libertarian nominee, Ed Clark, drew.

Overhyped? Over-covered by the national media? The answer is BOTH Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

Finally, let me end 2008 with a correction. A few weeks ago I wrote that one of my errors for this cycle was that I assumed there would be one or two wild upsets that I had not expected. That was true on Nov. 4, but the recent upset win of Republican Anh Cao in Louisiana changes that. So, I was NOT in error in expecting that there would be an off-the-wall upset that I hadn’t expected in the 2008 elections. But I was in error in expecting Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) to defeat Cao.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 15, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Republicans Should Quit Celebrating and Face Reality

By Nathan L. Gonzales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louisiana 2: Former Landrieu Chief of Staff Aided Jefferson Challenger

By Nathan L. Gonzales

There are plenty of Democrats who aren’t particularly sad that indicted Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (D) will not be returning to Congress after his upset defeat on Saturday. Those Democrats may be surprised that Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D) former chief of staff, Ron Faucheux, helped Republican Joseph Cao defeat the embattled Congressman.

Faucheux is president of Clarus Research Group, a Washington, D.C.-based polling firm, which conducted surveys for Cao in the 2nd district race. According to an e-mail sent by Faucheux on Sunday afternoon, Clarus helped the GOP attorney score “one of the biggest Congressional upsets of the year.”

Cao defeated Jefferson, 50 percent to 47 percent, in a low-turnout general election that was postponed because of Hurricane Gustav.

Faucheux was elected to the Louisiana House at age 25 and served there with Landrieu. He later moved to Washington, was editor of Campaigns & Elections magazine for a decade and served as chief of staff to Landrieu for a year, beginning in 2006.

“I’ve worked for many years trying to bring reform and good leadership to my home state of Louisiana,” Faucheux said. “I’ve helped candidates I believe will do that, without regard to partisanship.”

In August 2005, the FBI raided Jefferson’s home and allegedly found $90,000 in cash in his freezer. The Congressman won re-election — 57 percent to 43 percent — in 2006 against Democrat Karen Carter in a runoff. In June 2007, Jefferson was indicted on 16 charges of corruption. He is awaiting trial.

Faucheux formed Clarus in June 2008, combining his consulting business, Faucheux Strategies, with the research division of Qorvis Communications. He was an adviser to Landrieu’s successful re-election bid last month, but Faucheux never talked with the Senator about his work on the Cao race.

“Clarus is a nonpartisan research firm focused on corporate, association and nonprofit clients, not political campaigns,” Faucheux explained. “Candidate work is an exception.”

The Faucheux-Cao connection is just one example of the small world that is Louisiana politics.

Faucheux ran unsuccessfully for mayor of New Orleans in 1982, losing 53 percent to 47 percent to incumbent Ernest Morial, the city’s first African-American mayor. Faucheux finished second in the initial all-party primary with 45 percent, less than two points behind Morial. Jefferson , then a state Senator, finished third with a distant 7 percent of the vote.


This story first appeared on RollCall.com on December 8, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.