Tuesday Showed It’s Wise to Expect Unexpected

By Stuart Rothenberg

What a really weird week.

Rep. Mark Souder, a socially conservative Republican from Indiana, admits he had an affair with a staffer and steps down from his seat. Squeaky-clean Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) admits he “misspoke” about his military record but says he won’t allow anyone to “impugn my record of service to our country.” And primary voters in Pennsylvania and Kentucky appear to prefer the more ideological candidates in primaries.

Souder’s resignation means local Republican leaders will pick a new nominee — something that didn’t work well twice in New York special elections last year. It’s a recipe for hurt feelings and attacks against the party’s “handpicked” candidate at a time when party insiders aren’t at their most popular.

This doesn’t mean that Democrats have a strong chance of winning the open seat, given the district’s bent and the tendency of special elections to help the party not holding the White House when the president is unpopular. But it does mean that the Republican nominee ought not take a victory for granted.

In the Nutmeg State, Blumenthal’s out-of-the-blue scandal is unwelcome news for national and state Democrats.

Blumenthal’s past statements will now be dissected by state reporters looking for other examples of embellishment and exaggeration, and if they find more examples, it will raise questions about his record, in addition to his character.

Does this mean that Connecticut is a tossup? Has the race changed so dramatically that neither party has an advantage?

When in the middle of a storm — meteorological or political — the best advice usually is to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass until it is safe to assess the damage. We don’t know how the Blumenthal controversy will develop, so I’m inclined to see what the voters think about the controversy before changing a rating.

Obviously, the dust-up over the state attorney general’s misstatements creates an opening for Republicans, raising new doubts about Blumenthal’s appeal. Still, this is Connecticut, and the eventual GOP nominee will have to overcome plenty of hurdles of his or her own.

Rand Paul’s thumping of Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson for the GOP Senate nomination in the Bluegrass State can’t be ignored.

Grayson raised some eyebrows by closing with two TV spots that emphasized his endorsements by high-profile state and national Republican leaders. Observers thought the decision odd given the electorate’s mood.

But Grayson’s media consultant Larry McCarthy, whom I have praised over the years and still believe is a master ad-maker, told me that the final ads weren’t picked out of the air.

“We tested negatives, the value of the [Sen. Mitch] McConnell and [Rep. Hal] Rogers endorsements and other things, and it wasn’t a close call. The data suggested strongly that [what we chose] was the right message to do,” McCarthy told me.

Paul’s early money made him a credible alternative to Grayson, who was preferred by national GOP strategists and most big-name Kentucky Republicans but was widely regarded as less than a compelling personality.

Can Paul win in the fall? Republicans who were initially skeptical about his electability now think that he could win. But they remain extremely worried about his prospects.

Veteran Republican campaign operatives fear that Democrats will successfully highlight some of his controversial past statements, and they worry that he has an additional six months to make a major mistake or two that could cost him the race. They also note that he has run a strong race so far.

Kentucky Democratic nominee Jack Conway’s narrow primary win also means problems for Democrats, because they too will have to find a way to unite after a bitter primary. Supporters of Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo (D), more rural and culturally conservative, won’t necessarily gravitate to Conway in the general election.

The instant analysis of “outsider” victories Tuesday isn’t wrong — it just presents only part of the picture.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D) lost in Pennsylvania not because he was an insider as much as because he was a party switcher without a pre-existing base in his new party — and an opportunist at that. But Paul certainly qualifies as an “outsider,” and some “establishment-backed” candidates for Congress (for example, Republican Mary Beth Buchanan in Pennsylvania’s 4th district and incumbent Democratic Rep. Tim Holden in Pennsylvania’s 17th district) performed much worse than expected.

On the other hand, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) turned back a primary challenge, and former U.S. Attorney Tom Marino (R) won his primary in Pennsylvania’s 10th district. Kentucky’s Conway was also backed by his state party’s establishment, and not a single House incumbent on Tuesday seeking renomination was defeated. So far this cycle, 98 percent of all incumbents seeking re-election have been renominated.

The defeat of Republican Tim Burns in the Pennsylvania 12th district special election obviously is the biggest blow to the GOP, which hoped to show the existence of an early wave building against Democrats and President Barack Obama. That didn’t happen, in part because of strong Democratic turnout in the race and statewide.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 20, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

PA Senate Still a Toss-Up

Party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter lost Tuesday's Democratic primary to Cong. Joe Sestak. Specter's Pennsylvania seats is now open for the fall but it remains a Toss-Up in our ratings.

We're also keeping our rating of the Connecticut Senate race as Clear Advantage for the Incumbent Party for now until the dust settles on Attorney General's Richard Blumenthal's (D) past statements about his Vietnam-era service.

While events between now and November will affect the outlook for November, the GOP seems most likely to net 5-7 Senate seats, with a 8-seat gain certainly possible (but still short of the 10-seat gain the GOP would need for control). That means Democrats are likely to retain control of the Senate, but at a dramatically reduced level.

Here are our latest Senate ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
*- Moved benefiting Republicans

Lean Takeover (0 R, 4 D)

• Lincoln (D-AR)
  
• Reid (D-NV)
  
• ND Open (Dorgan, D)
• DE Open (Kaufman, D)

Toss-Up (3 R, 4 D)

• KY Open (Bunning, R)
  
• MO Open (Bond, R)
• OH Open (Voinovich, R)
• IL Open (Burris, D)
• IN Open (Bayh, D)
• PA Open (Specter, D)
  
• Bennet (D-CO)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 0 D)

• Burr (R-NC)
• FL Open (LeMieux, R)
• NH Open (Gregg, R)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (1 R,2 D)

• Vitter (R-LA)
  
• Boxer (D-CA)
  
• CT Open (Dodd, D)
  

Currently Safe (11 R, 8 D)

• Coburn (R-OK)
• Crapo (R-ID)
• DeMint (R-SC)
• Grassley (R-IA)
  
• Isakson (R-GA)
• McCain (R-AZ)
• Murkowski (R-AK)
• Shelby (R-AL)
• Thune (R-SD)
• KS Open (Brownback, R)
• UT Open (Bennett, R)
• Feingold (D-WI)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Wyden (D-OR)

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.

Could Lieberman Hold the Senate’s Balance of Power After November?

By Stuart Rothenberg

As the midterms approach and substantial GOP Senate gains seem inevitable, more attention will fall on Connecticut’s soon-to-be-senior Senator, Joe Lieberman (ID). That’s because Lieberman, one of two Independents in the Senate, could become a major target of Republicans if they net nine seats in the midterms.

If that were to happen — and it’s still a long shot — Lieberman would become either the Democrats’ 50th vote or the Republicans’ 51st for organizing the Senate. Either way, he could decide which party would control the Senate for the last two years of President Barack Obama’s term.

Getting to “plus nine” for Republicans doesn’t look as impossible as it once did.

Assuming that the GOP holds all of its own seats, the party would need to win four Democratic open seats (Delaware, North Dakota, Illinois and Indiana) and knock off four Democratic incumbents (in Arkansas, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Colorado). The crucial ninth seat would then come from one of four states: California, Connecticut, Washington or Wisconsin, where Democrats either have potentially vulnerable nominees or Republicans have surprisingly interesting candidates of their own.

Lieberman certainly would relish the attention of being the “decider,” and his decision surely would take into consideration whether he plans to seek re-election in 2012, when he will be 70 years old.

Shortly after he was first elected in 1988, the Almanac of American Politics wrote that “Lieberman is likely to be more of a team player in his party than [Republican Lowell] Weicker was in his.”

I suppose that may be true only because the Connecticut Senator was such a thorn in the GOP’s side, but in any case, it failed to imagine the kind of political figure that Lieberman would become in his own right.

Like Weicker, whom he defeated by less than a point for the Senate seat, Lieberman last won statewide office in the Nutmeg State as an Independent. But while Weicker won a term as governor running on A Connecticut Party line (a party he founded), Lieberman still operates in a very partisan body and has found himself in the middle of partisan maneuverings.

Though conservatives found Weicker’s style and voting record impossible to swallow, he never faced a primary challenge for renomination, since each time he sought re-election a GOP convention selected him to carry the party’s banner.

Lieberman, of course, lost the 2006 Democratic primary to businessman Ned Lamont, only to win re-election that November as an Independent with the help of a strong showing from Republican and independent voters.

Even though Democrats rejected Lieberman in 2006, he chose to caucus with his old party after those elections, receiving the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (of which he was the ranking member before the 2006 elections).

There are many reasons why Lieberman would vote with Democrats to organize the Senate after the 2010 elections.

He’s been a Democrat his entire life, and changing parties doesn’t come easy to elected officials who have spent 40 years in politics. He served in the Connecticut state Senate and as the state’s attorney general as a Democrat, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 and ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

On many of the key issues of the day, from the environment and abortion to the minimum wage, cap-and-trade and the auto industry bailout, Lieberman is simply closer to Democrats than to Republicans — particularly a GOP of tea party activists, pro-lifers and Southerners.

But Lieberman seems to like being able to stick it to Democrats now and then, as he did when he said he could not support a public option in the health care bill.

“The public option I think was raised in the last year by people who really want to have a government-controlled health insurance system. That’s their right. I think they’re wrong,” Lieberman said in November on “Face the Nation,” using language that must have sounded comfortable to even the most conservative Republican.

And, of course, Lieberman spoke at the 2008 Republican National Convention and campaigned for his friend, Arizona Sen. John McCain (R), in the presidential race.

Actually, Lieberman’s record is filled with instances where he distanced himself from his party or his party’s allies, in Hollywood, for example.

If Republicans have a shot at getting Lieberman’s vote to organize the Senate, it will be because of foreign policy. With the Obama administration increasingly critical of Israel and Iran continuing to take steps to be able to build a nuclear weapon, Lieberman may just believe that Republicans better understand what he considers to be the top issue of the day — national security.

But would Lieberman really switch, the way Arlen Specter (Pa.), Jim Jeffords (Vt.) and Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.) did? Not everyone agrees.

“I don’t see him joining the Republicans,” says Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. “He’s had chances to do that already, and he didn’t take them. It’s unlikely that he would in the future.”

“I think he might,” counters Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. “Joe Lieberman puts principle above politics, and if he thought he could make a difference on important issues, he certainly would consider it.”

Lieberman could still call himself an Independent but decide to caucus with the GOP. That would drive many of his former friends (and all of his liberal enemies) crazy. But he just might like the idea of doing that.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on April 22, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Plus 10 in the Senate? Republicans Certainly Not There Yet

By Stuart Rothenberg

Having seen victories by Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, the 1994 Republican and 2006 Democratic Congressional sweeps, and Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) recent Massachusetts victory, I’m not inclined to rule out unexpected outcomes — especially nine months before an event.

But the recent explosion of talk of Republicans gaining 10 seats in the Senate is simply premature. Right now, the GOP has an opportunity to net as many as eight Senate seats. That’s a huge number, especially considering that Democrats have 18 seats up this fall, but it is well short of control.

The new political landscape has resulted in an improved environment for the GOP, including the very real possibility that the party can retain all four of its most vulnerable open seats, in Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky and New Hampshire.

For the moment, let’s assume the GOP avoids losing any of its own seats.

Republicans have the advantage in four Democratic-held Senate seats — North Dakota, Delaware, Arkansas and Nevada. In addition, they are no worse than even money in four others — Indiana, Illinois, Colorado and Pennsylvania.

So, any chance of gaining 10 seats would require Republican candidates to win at least two of the following four states: Connecticut, California, Wisconsin and Washington.

Early polling in Connecticut shows state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal ahead of both former Rep. Rob Simmons and businesswoman Linda McMahon, the two Republicans most likely to be the eventual nominee.

Simmons is a quirky ex-legislator who built a moderate record while representing eastern Connecticut in the House. McMahon is a wealthy, self-funding first-time candidate whose claim to fame and wealth, professional wrestling, is widely seen as crude and violent.

Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D) exit from the race hurt Simmons, whose main argument has been substance and electability. He is now an underdog for the GOP nomination. McMahon’s wealth (she has promised to spend tens of millions of dollars), outsider persona, poise and relatively conservative positioning makes her stronger than Simmons in a primary and potentially more of a threat to Blumenthal.

Still, both Republicans start far behind Blumenthal, in the polls and in handicapping. A four-term statewide officeholder, Blumenthal is a smart Democrat in a Democratic state. He’ll raise plenty of cash and begins with a clear advantage in the race.

In California, voters aren’t particularly enthusiastic about Sen. Barbara Boxer (D). She’s a polarizing political figure and running at or below 50 percent in ballot tests against either Assemblyman Chuck DeVore or businesswoman Carly Fiorina, two of the leading Republicans in the race.

Still, DeVore doesn’t have the breadth of appeal or money to defeat Boxer, while Fiorina has plenty of baggage.

Boxer’s prospects would take a hit, of course, if California Republicans were to nominate former Rep. Tom Campbell, a moderate who would have considerable statewide appeal — if he could accumulate the resources for an expensive statewide race. But Campbell’s past fundraising isn’t encouraging.

For now, Boxer’s weakness does not yet translate into a serious Republican opportunity.

In Wisconsin, some polling has shown Sen. Russ Feingold (D) having trouble in a race against former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R). The only problem is that Thompson isn’t now running for the Senate, though he is considering it. And Feingold, who voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, is a savvy politician who has developed a reputation for independence.

The main Republican contender currently is Terrence Wall, a prosperous real estate developer who put $300,000 into his campaign but hasn’t paid state taxes in nine of the past 10 years. Democrats apparently have other tax ammunition to use against Wall.

When I interviewed Wall recently, he refused to give his date of birth. He only offered the year of his birth (and his age), apparently because he is concerned about identity theft. Wall, in other words, has a long way to go before he is a serious threat to Feingold, even in a bad year for Democrats.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is another smart politician, and while Republican insiders hope to recruit someone who can test the Senator, they don’t have a formidable challenger yet. Until they do, there isn’t any reason to see Washington as a GOP takeover opportunity.

Obviously, Sen. Evan Bayh’s (D-Ind.) sudden announcement Monday that he will not seek re-election improves GOP prospects in that state and therefore nationally.

While some polling showed the Democrat at risk, a recent Research 2000 poll for the liberal Web site the Daily Kos showed him leading former Sen. Dan Coats by 20 points. Bayh’s political savvy, strong connection to Hoosier voters and $13 million bank account would have made him a formidable foe for any Republican challenger, so his exit automatically improves GOP prospects, especially given the overall landscape of the election cycle.

Bayh’s retirement puts an eighth Democratic seat at considerable risk, forcing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to be even more on the defensive than it was. But in another sense, it doesn’t change things fundamentally. For even after Bayh’s retirement, a Republican gain of 10 seats is more hype than reality.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on February 16, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

PA 12 moved into competitive category

The passing of Cong. John Murtha (D) and subsequent open seat creates a Republican takeover opportunity in Pennsylvania's 12th District. Sen. John McCain carried the competitive district narrowly in 2008 while Sen. John Kerry won it with 51% in 2004.

We've also moved Connecticut's 5th District onto our chart into the Democrat Favored category. After meeting with state Sen. Sam Caligiuri (R) and former state director of military affairs Justin Bernier (R), it's clear that Cong. Chris Murphy (D) can't take his reelection for granted.

Here are our latest House ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 9 D)

• AR 1 (Open; Berry, D)
  
• AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D)
• CO 4 (Markey, D)
• IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
• MI 7 (Schauer, D)
• NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
• NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
• PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
• TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
• WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 10 D)

• AL 2 (Bright, D)
• FL 8 (Grayson, D)
• ID 1 (Minnick, D)
• KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
• MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
• MS 1 (Childers, D)
• NM 2 (Teague, D)
• OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
• OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
• VA 5 (Perriello, D)

Lean Republican (3 R, 2 D)

• CA 3 (Lungren, R)
• LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  
• TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
  

Republican Favored (8 R, 0 D)

• CA 44 (Calvert, R)
• CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
• MN 3 (Paulsen, R)
• MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
• NE 2 (Terry, R)
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
• PA 15 (Dent, R)

Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 3 D)

• FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
• IL 14 (Foster, D)
• VA 2 (Nye, D)

Lean Democratic (0 R, 11 D)

• HI 1 (Open; Abercrombie, D) Special Election
• IN 9 (Hill, D)
• MO 4 (Skelton, D)
• NV 3 (Titus, D)
• NY 1 (Bishop, D)
• NY 19 (Hall, D)
• NY 23 (Owens, D)
• NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
• NY 29 (Massa, D)
• SC 5 (Spratt, D)
• WV 1 (Mollohan, D)

Democrat Favored (2 R, 23 D)

• AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
• AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
• CO 3 (Salazar, D)
• CA 11 (McNerney, D)
• CA 47 (Sanchez, D)
• CT 5 (Murphy, D) *
  
• DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
• LA 2 (Cao, R)
• NY 13 (McMahon, D)
• NY 20 (Murphy, D)
• NC 8 (Kissell, D)
• ND A-L (Pomeroy, D)
• NJ 3 (Adler, D)
• OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
• OH 18 (Space, D)
• PA 4 (Altmire, D)
• PA 8 (Murphy, D)
• PA 10 (Carney, D)
• PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
• PA 12 (Open; Murtha, D) *
  
• PA 17 (Holden, D)
• SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
• TX 17 (Edwards, D)
• VA 9 (Boucher, D)
• WI 8 (Kagen, D)

Total seats in play: 74
Republican seats: 14
Democratic seats: 60

Democrats Catch a Big Break in Connecticut Senate Race

By Stuart Rothenberg

If you are wondering why reporters ask politicians the same question again and again, it’s because you never know when a political figure is going to change his mind.

That’s exactly what Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) did last week when he reversed himself and announced that he would not seek re-election in the Nutmeg State.

“I’m running for re-election,” Dodd told the media on July 31, the same day that he announced he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Dodd had already begun airing TV spots even before that late July announcement. In early June, he spent more than $100,000 on a weeklong TV buy to boost his image. The ad included part of an Obama speech praising Dodd’s work on credit card legislation. About two weeks later, Dodd went up with another credit card ad, as well as a television spot featuring Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has since passed away.

Dodd’s decision not to seek re-election probably was both personal and political.

The five-term Senator’s chances of winning another term have been “iffy” for a long time. The latest polling memo released in the Connecticut Senate race was intended to bolster his prospects. But any Democratic memo that asserts that the incumbent “is holding his ground” against his opponents and “can win next November” is an acknowledgment of weakness, not an assertion of strength.

The Dec. 21 memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research about its Dec. 15-17 poll reported that Dodd trailed former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) by 5 points (51 percent to 46 percent) and was in a dead heat against Republican businesswoman Linda McMahon (46 percent apiece) in general election ballot tests.

And Dodd has plenty of reasons to be worried whether he was as close as the Greenberg numbers suggested. Earlier polling conducted by Quinnipiac University showed Dodd drawing 35 percent to 41 percent of the vote, significantly below where the Democratic incumbent was in the GQRR survey.

It is possible, of course, that Dodd had improved his standing over the previous three months and that he had increased his share of the general election vote. But it is also possible that GQRR’s polling overstated Dodd’s strength, just as the firm’s polls for Democracy Corps exaggerated Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) standing in last year’s New Jersey gubernatorial contest.

In the last New Jersey pre-election poll, Democracy Corps found Corzine up by 5 points over challenger Chris Christie (R), while Quinnipiac had Christie up by 2 points and SurveyUSA had Christie ahead by 3 points. In early October, Democracy Corps had Corzine up by 3 points, while Quinnipiac had Christie up by 1 and SurveyUSA had Christie ahead by 3.

In fact, the same trend held in August, early September and late September Democracy Corps and Quinnipiac polling, with Corzine running 3 to 7 points better in GQRR polls than in Quinnipiac surveys. Corzine lost by 4 points on Election Day.

Dodd’s inability to move the ballot test much against Simmons even after push poll questions had to be stunningly disappointing for Dodd and his strategists.

Interestingly, the Greenberg memo made a great deal out of the Democratic Party’s advantages over the GOP in Connecticut and stressed President Barack Obama’s favorable rating. But the memo did not include the president’s job rating in the state or Dodd’s favorable/unfavorable or job approval numbers. If those numbers were good, I expect they would have been in the memo.

If Dodd was faring poorly in ballot tests even with the Obama and partisan numbers as good as they were, any weakening in the president’s standing or closing of the partisan gap between Christmas 2009 and Election Day 2010 would further undermine Dodd’s re-election prospects.

Dodd’s exit dramatically improves Democrats’ chances of holding the Connecticut seat and offsets the bad news for Democrats that North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) won’t seek re-election this year.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) immediately entered the Senate race and becomes a solid favorite to hold the seat for his party. After all, Dodd’s re-election problems stemmed from voters’ evaluations of him, not a sudden Republican turn in the state. Not surprisingly, a Public Policy Polling survey showed Blumenthal holding large leads over each of his potential GOP opponents.

Republican strategists, who were prepared to invest in this race to help the Republican nominee knock off Dodd, are already backing away from the Connecticut race, noting that while Blumenthal has to prove his mettle, the Dodd announcement simply has changed GOP calculations.

McMahon, the former World Wresting Entertainment CEO, has already put more than $2 million into her bid. Simmons, who has held a comfortable lead over Dodd in most polls, now faces a double fundraising problem, first in the primary and then in the general election, should he get that far.

For national and Connecticut Democrats, however, the GOP Senate race is no longer so compelling. They can start anew in a state with a favorable partisan terrain.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 11, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New CT and ND Senate Ratings

Two Democratic retirements essentially cancel each other in terms of the outlook for the Senate.

Democratic prospects got significantly worse in North Dakota with Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D) departure. Gov. John Hoeven (R) was leading Dorgan in hypothetical match-ups and he would be a heavy favorite in an open seat if he chooses to run. The Democratic bench consists of only one person- At-Large Cong. Earl Pomeroy- but he looks to be initially unlikely to run.

Democratic prospects brightened in Connecticut now that Sen. Chris Dodd (D) is not running for reelection. Dodd appeared to be stuck at or below 40% in public polls and was in dire shape for another term. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) is going run in Dodd's place and is the favorite to keep the seat in Democratic hands.

We've also moved the Arkansas and Colorado races to Toss-Up, not because of breaking news, such as Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) retirement announcement, but because the national mood has changed and public polls consistently show the Democrats in those two states in a very vulnerable position.

Here are our latest Senate ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
*- Moved benefiting Republicans

Lean Takeover (0 R, 2 D)

• ND Open (Dorgan, D) *
• DE Open (Kaufman, D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 5 D)

• KY Open (Bunning, R)
  
• MO Open (Bond, R)
• NH Open (Gregg, R)
• OH Open (Voinovich, R)
• IL Open (Burris, D)
• Bennet (D-CO) *
• Lincoln (D-AR) *
  
• Reid (D-NV)
• Specter (D-PA)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)

• Burr (R-NC)
• Vitter (R-LA)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 1 D)

• Grassley (R-IA)
• FL Open (LeMieux, R)
• CT Open (Dodd, D) #
  

Currently Safe (10 R, 11 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)
• Feingold (D-WI)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Wyden (D-OR)
• MA Open (Kirk, D)

What a Difference a Year Makes: the 2010 Senate Outlook

By Stuart Rothenberg

As “Saturday Night Live” character Emily Litella (played by the late Gilda Radner) would say, “Never mind.”

Eleven months ago, still in the shadow of Barack Obama’s presidential victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Democrats looked likely to gain anywhere from two to as many as five additional Senate seats.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) was in trouble, while GOP open seats in Florida and Missouri were clearly at risk. Doubts about the prospects of at least four other Republican incumbents — North Carolina’s Richard Burr, New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg, Louisiana’s David Vitter and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter (who has since switched parties) — ranged from uncertain to unsettling for party strategists. And that was before Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) announced he would not run again.

But since then, GOP recruiting successes and a change in the national political environment have shifted the outlook for next year’s Senate contests. Suddenly, Democratic seats started to look more and more vulnerable.

As 2009 draws to a close, Democrats now could lose seats, a dramatic change from January that could end the party’s 60-seat majority in less than two years. And GOP gains could be large enough to sink any major Democratic initiatives not passed before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections.

The national Republican brand shows no signs of improving dramatically, but polling conducted in a number of the states with Senate contests next year shows GOP candidates doing better in hypothetical matchups recently than they were a few months earlier.

In Arkansas, for example, a Nov. 30-Dec. 2 Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos (D) showed Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) with a single point advantage over state Sen. Gilbert Baker, the apparent favorite for the GOP nomination. In early September, Lincoln had a much more substantial 44 percent to 37 percent advantage over Baker in another Daily Kos survey.

In Connecticut, a Nov. 3-8 Quinnipiac University poll showed former Rep. Rob Simmons, one of two serious contenders for the Republican Senate nomination, leading Sen. Chris Dodd (D) by 11 points, a larger lead than Simmons had in September (5 points), in July (9 points) or in May (6 points).

In New Hampshire, a Sept. 25-Oct. 2 University of New Hampshire survey found former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, probably the favorite for the GOP Senate nomination, leading Rep. Paul Hodes (D) by 7 points (40 percent to 33 percent), while a June 24-July 1 UNH poll had Ayotte up by 4 points, 39 percent to 35 percent.

In Ohio, a Nov. 5-9 Quinnipiac poll found former Rep. Rob Portman (R) leading Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) 39 percent to 36 percent in a very competitive Senate trial heat pitting the two primary frontrunners against each other. In a Jan. 29-Feb. 2 Quinnipiac survey, Fisher held a commanding 42 percent to 27 percent advantage over Portman.

You can certainly quibble with any of these surveys or note that in some cases the movement is small, but the trend appears to be clear.

Other races, where there hasn’t been such movement, remain tight, with the race a statistical dead heat (in Missouri, for example), or with the Republican nominee holding a narrow advantage in most polling (including Kentucky, North Carolina, Illinois and Louisiana).

And in some contests, where there hasn’t been enough independent polling (or the same ballot tests repeated over time), Republicans look to be in much better shape than they ever could have hoped. Colorado is a good example, as is Pennsylvania.

Delaware remains an excellent GOP opportunity, and until Attorney General Beau Biden (D) actually announces that he will take on Rep. Mike Castle (R) in the open-seat Senate race, Democrats have to be at least a wee bit nervous.

Finally, I am struck how much Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) ballot test numbers resemble those of former Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and John Sununu (R-N.H.), as well as soon-to-be-former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D). All three, of course, lost re-election bids.

Since a late July GOP poll, Reid has not exceeded 43 percent in a ballot test against a potential opponent, and he has generally drawn around 41 percent of the vote against his two most likely Republican challengers. His last lead was in a late November 2008 Daily Kos poll in which he had a 46 percent to 40 percent advantage over former Rep. Jon Porter (R), who has since taken himself out of consideration.

The overall shift in the psychology of the cycle may keep Democrats on the defensive and help Republican fundraising. And GOP nominees could well benefit from the fact that late tossups often break to one party, not evenly between the two parties.

A little more than four months ago, I wrote in this space (“Sizing Up the 2010 Senate Contests in the Summer of 2009,” Aug. 3) that for the first time this year I could “imagine a scenario where Democrats do not gain seats in 2010.” That has changed again, so that Republican Senate gains are now looking likely.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 14, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

McMahon, WWE Seek Mainstream Credibility

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The day before Linda McMahon (R) officially announced her candidacy for Senate, political reporters at major media outlets received a glossy black folder from World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. that included full-color brochures, press clippings, a DVD and a personalized cover letter from the WWE’s chief operating officer, which mentioned her potential run against Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).

Since McMahon’s announcement, political coverage has been reduced to poor puns, and because of the stigma surrounding professional wrestling, her candidacy has largely been dismissed.

But stranger things have happened in politics.

The McMahon family has proved to be very successful in the entertainment world, and the combination of a crowded Republican primary, Linda McMahon’s commitment to spending considerable personal money, and Dodd’s soft poll numbers creates a scenario where she could win.

And even if she doesn’t win the nomination, the WWE stands to gain more of the mainstream credibility that it craves.

The WWE clearly realized that every story that mentions McMahon will also mention the company.

“It was strictly done to educate people about WWE,” Robert Zimmerman, WWE’s vice president of public relations and corporate communications, said of the slick media packets. “There’s been a lot of evolution in the company that the media has not been paying attention to.”

The WWE has recently been touting itself as a PG company after a few years of racier content. That will be used by McMahon’s opponents.

Zimmerman spent six years as vice president of public relations for Fox News beginning in 1998, so he’s familiar with the political players and publications in Washington.

The promotional DVD that reporters received in the packet was less than a week old because it included a clip of former “The Price Is Right” host Bob Barker hosting WWE’s “Monday Night Raw” program on Sept. 7. It also included a couple of quick clips of McMahon without identifying her. According to Zimmerman, the DVD was the regular corporate “sizzle reel” that is updated every six months or so.

Simultaneously, McMahon launched her Senate campaign in an unorthodox manner.

On Sept. 16, she handed over her reins as CEO to her husband, Vince (who is already WWE chairman and is the face of the company), and commenced a weeklong television buy in the expensive New York City market almost a year before the Aug. 9, 2010, primary. Approximately 25 percent of general election voters in Connecticut watch NYC television.

The campaign rollout included television ads during the Notre Dame football game and on the season premiere of “Saturday Night Live,” as well as full-page ads in the New York Times and Hartford Courant. It’s just the beginning of what McMahon says will be a $30 million campaign. Most of that will come from her own pocket because she’s not accepting contributions from political action committees and she’s capping individual contributions at $100.

Veteran Republican media consultant Mike Murphy was openly critical of her strategy.

“Wresting [sic] Queen McMahon to run/lose for Senate in CT. Idiotic, but it will cost Simmons $$. Shame on her payday seeking R consultants,” Murphy wrote on his Twitter account, going after McMahon’s consultants, which include media consultant Scott Howell, pollster Hans Kaiser and former National Republican Senatorial Committee Political Director Mike Slanker.

Murphy’s not the only GOP consultant grumbling. But the premise of the criticism, that McMahon absolutely can’t win, may be wrong.

“She’s more serious than people realize,” according to a Senate GOP strategist who is not taking sides in the race. “She’s hired smart people and taking their advice. Most businesspeople don’t [when they run for office].”

Murphy’s criticism implies that McMahon’s consultants are taking advantage of her naiveté.

In reality, the 61-year-old Greenwich resident helped grow the WWE from 17 employees to 500 employees and a company that made more than $525 million in revenue last year. The Stamford headquarters, complete with WWE flag, is visible off Interstate 95.

“None of the McMahons are stupid people,” said Dave Meltzer, editor of Wrestling Observer Newsletter. “They’ve far and away built the most successful wrestling business in history.”

McMahon’s political interest is not a surprise. She’s personally contributed to both parties in recent years (slightly more to Republicans) and was recently appointed by Gov. Jodi Rell (R) to a position on the state board of education.

As a company, the WWE has been involved in registering young voters through the Smackdown Your Vote program, and both President Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered video messages to WWE events. Behind the scenes, Lowell Weicker, a former governor and Senator, has served on the WWE board since 1999.

“This is a race to create an image of her,” one GOP consultant said of McMahon’s initial tactics. “My guess is that she wanted to prove she’s a serious candidate and shape the talk about her,” another GOP strategist explained.

McMahon has to walk a fine line between touting her credentials as a successful businesswoman and not being defined by wrestling or her husband. She doesn’t mention the WWE by name in her ads.

Aside from the large shadow of the business, it remains to be seen how McMahon transitions to the role of candidate. “She’s not a dynamic public speaker,” according to Meltzer, who has been covering the wrestling industry for 38 years. “But she’s very smart.”

Former Rep. Rob Simmons currently leads in polls testing the GOP primary, but that’s largely a function of higher name identification. State Sen. Sam Caligiuri is also in the GOP race along with former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley and libertarian economist Peter Schiff. Foley has personal money and should be able to raise it, and Schiff is raising money from libertarians across the country.

With no runoff, someone could win with significantly less than 50 percent of the vote. And based on Dodd’s current poll numbers, the GOP nominee, whoever it is, will have a fighting chance in the general election. It’s unclear whether the May convention will winnow the field.

It took extraordinary circumstances and a crowded field to get former wrestler Jesse “The Body” Ventura elected governor of Minnesota. He won the 1998 race as the Reform Party candidate with 37 percent, while then-St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman (R) received 34 percent and state Attorney General Skip Humphrey garnered 28 percent. Ventura was a more charismatic figure.

“They’re not immune to making bad decisions,” Meltzer said of the McMahons, citing the infamous single season of the XFL, Vince McMahon’s failed football experiment, and an unsuccessful restaurant in Times Square as evidence. “Sometimes they taxed themselves and tried to do too much.”

In this case, Linda McMahon really doesn’t have a lot to lose, except for a few million dollars.

If she runs a serious campaign, there is virtually no risk of damaging the family business she helped build that will likely be passed down to her son, daughter and son-in-law, wrestler Triple H.

“If Vince flopped, that’s a different story,” Meltzer said. When the XFL failed, “it took an aura away from Vince” and the business suffered. In this case, there is only an upside for the candidate and the company. “In the fans’ eyes, she’s just Vince’s wife.”

This story first appeared in Roll Call on October 6, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Sizing Up the 2010 Senate Contests in the Summer of 2009

By Stuart Rothenberg

Six months ago, the 2010 Senate battlefield looked relatively bare, with a few obvious skirmishes mostly in states with GOP incumbents. Three months later, the outlook had brightened dramatically for Democrats, largely the result of a number of GOP retirements and solid Democratic recruiting on those open seats.

But now, as the dog days of summer begin, the landscape has shifted again, this time improving significantly for Republicans.

Democrats no longer have the momentum they once possessed. Even more important, signs of some Democratic vulnerability have appeared, giving the National Republican Senatorial Committee opportunities to shoot at, rather than forcing it to play an entirely defensive game, as it has the past two cycles.

Fifteen months before the midterms, Democrats have major problems in two states — Illinois and Connecticut — while a third, Nevada, remains a potential headache. Republicans, on the other hand, have serious vulnerabilities in four states — Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio — and potential problems in two others. But of late, even those Republican vulnerabilities look less daunting than they once did.

The announcement by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) that she will seek re-election rather than run for the Senate (or governor) immediately boosted Republican prospects in what remains a very difficult state for the GOP. But Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) should be a formidable candidate, while Democrats have a field that is less than intimidating.

And in Connecticut, veteran Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has aired multiple TV ads in an attempt to remind Constitution State voters what he has accomplished and what he stands for — an open acknowledgment that he has work to do to repair his image. Republicans now worry that Dodd, who just announced he will have surgery for prostate cancer, will retire rather than seek re-election, thereby damaging their prospects of winning the seat.

Democrats have two formidable candidates in Kentucky, while Republicans recently received a gift from Sen. Jim Bunning (R) when the endangered two-term incumbent announced that he would not seek a third term. That means Secretary of State Trey Grayson will likely be the GOP nominee, dramatically increasing the chances that Republicans can retain the seat.

Former New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) is moving toward a Senate bid in the Granite State’s open-seat contest, and while she is not yet a proven campaigner, insiders who know her speak effusively about her abilities and appeal. Democrats once viewed their likely nominee, Rep. Paul Hodes, as a solid favorite to win the seat, but the race now looks like a tossup, at best, for Democrats.

Meanwhile President Barack Obama’s sliding popularity is at least a troubling sign for Democrats in both Missouri and Ohio, where Republican Senate candidates may benefit from the public’s growing concerns about federal spending, possible tax hikes and bigger government.

Republicans still lack a top-tier challenger to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and Sen. John Ensign’s (R-Nev.) recent personal troubles certainly don’t boost Republican prospects next year. Still, as the president’s point man in the Senate, Reid simply makes himself a juicy target in the midterm elections.

Democrats have potential opportunities in North Carolina and Louisiana, but they still have work to do in both. The party has not yet recruited a serious threat to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and while Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) is widely rumored to be leaning toward a challenge to Sen. David Vitter (R), the state’s fundamentals and the midterm environment raise questions about the viability of the challenge.

Republicans have three longer-shot opportunities that shouldn’t yet be completely discounted — Arkansas, Colorado and Pennsylvania — though in each case the Democratic incumbent has a considerable advantage. Pennsylvania, in particular, is intriguing, since a truly nasty Democratic primary seems likely and the GOP nominee, former Rep. Pat Toomey, is not without appeal.

Eleven Republican and 12 Democratic Senate seats up next year now look safe. But if Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) decides to run for the Senate, as some GOP insiders now believe he will, another of those safe Democratic seats suddenly becomes a tossup.

Republicans would be wise not to celebrate just yet. Their diminished vulnerability is, in part, the result of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s leaving the GOP, which cost them a seat that they probably were going to lose next year. And with Democrats controlling 60 of the Senate’s 100 seats going into next year’s elections, any additional Republican losses would add to the party’s existing woes.

The widely expected resignation of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) in the fall, which will lead to a special election in the first half of 2010, also creates some uncertainty. While Republicans will have a strong nominee and the NRSC will spend what it takes to hold the seat, the special election is at least a major distraction for the national GOP.

If politics is about momentum and message, then the outlook for ’10 has changed considerably over the past couple of months. Democrats still have a wealth of opportunities and some advantages, but Republicans now have momentum and an improving issue mix. For the first time this cycle, I can imagine a scenario where Democrats do not gain Senate seats in 2010.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on August 3, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Connecticut Senate: For Dodd, the News Is Decidedly Mixed

By Stuart Rothenberg

Since my April 6 column (“The Most Vulnerable Senator Up for Re-Election in 2010?”), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has had his ups and his downs. His supporters happily point to a number of “ups.”

After playing a highly visible role in the bank bailout, Dodd led the charge on a credit card bill that should find favor with consumers. The Senator received positive ink about the bill and about his role in its passage, and he will use it to make the case for his effectiveness to state voters.

And now, the Connecticut Democrat also finds himself pinch-hitting for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) as the Senate takes steps to write a health care reform bill.

So Dodd is square in the middle of the biggest legislative battle that President Barack Obama is likely to face in his four-year term, and if Congress can get a bill to the president’s desk, Dodd can also take credit for being a major player in that dramatic piece of legislation.

Some observers have commented that Dodd has “rebounded” from an April Quinnipiac University poll that showed him trailing former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) by a stunning 16-point margin. They point to a May 20-25 Quinnipiac survey of 1,575 registered voters that showed Simmons with “only” a 6-point lead over Dodd, who is in his 29th year in the Senate.

But Democratic insiders say they never believed the large deficit, and they remain convinced that while the Senator is weaker than they would like, he has weathered the worst of the political storm.

And Democratic political operatives point out that Dodd eventually will face a Republican who will have spent resources and positioned himself to get through a GOP primary, and that the Republican nominee will have warts that can be exploited.

“Gravity will take hold in a very blue state. If [Dodd] were running in North Carolina, this would be a very, very difficult race,” one Dodd ally said.

All of that is true. But for every step forward that the Connecticut Democrat takes toward re-election, he seems to take one backward.

Months ago, Dodd’s problems involved a sweetheart loan he received (possibly unknowingly) from the CEO of Countrywide Financial as a “friend of Angelo” and questions about his role in a bill that didn’t limit bonuses to executives from mismanaged financial institutions. (His move to Iowa during his quixotic 2008 presidential run remains a sore spot with some voters, too.)

Now, the Senator is taking some hits in local media for allegedly failing to list on Senate financial disclosure forms the accurate value of a cottage he owns in Ireland.

“A new appraisal of the Irish cottage owned by Sen. Christopher Dodd concludes that it is worth about three times as much as Dodd has been reporting on his financial disclosure forms,” two Hartford Courant reporters began their June 13 front-page story.

The same article raised the issue of Jackie Clegg Dodd’s income. Dodd’s wife is on the boards of a number of health care companies, and the Senator’s Democratic primary opponent, Merrick Alpert, a businessman who served on Vice President Al Gore’s advance team, didn’t hesitate in lobbing criticism.

“The fact that Mrs. Dodd receives half a million dollars a year to sit on the boards of companies that are regulated by Sen. Dodd’s committee is further evidence of the need to clean up the corrupt system in Washington,” Alpert said, according to the Courant.

While some observers continue to speculate that Dodd eventually will decide to take a graceful exit and not seek re-election, all of the evidence is to the contrary.

Knowledgeable Democrats say the Senator is increasingly committed to the race, and they point out that a number of his closest advisers — including pollster Stan Greenberg and his wife, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), strategist Jim Jordan, media consultant Saul Shorr, campaign manager Jay Howser and Chief of Staff Miles Lackey — are unlikely to shy away from a fight.

“The Senator seems fully committed to running,” one savvy observer says. “There is no sense that he will re-evaluate his options in the future. In fact, he and his people think they are in a little better place now. They feel like they’ve dealt with a lot of [stuff] and things can’t get much worse. Plus they look at the Republican primary” and feel good.

My own view is that it’s unwise to over-interpret the Quinnipiac University poll numbers from month to month. Dodd’s showing in the April survey looks unreasonably poor given the March and May results, so portraying the May numbers as a “rebound” is unwise.

That said, there is a general pattern in the Senator’s poll numbers. Dodd has now been stuck in the upper 30s or low 40s in the general election ballot test for three straight months, and his job approval (38 percent) and favorable name ID (40 percent) in the most recent Quinnipiac survey are equally horrendous for a veteran incumbent. He has been seriously damaged personally.

Dodd’s problems seem unlikely to simply go away, and the kinds of controversies that have dogged him could continue to “drip, drip, drip” for many months. He must now “educate” voters on his accomplishments — which is why he already has run two ads on Hartford TV — and make his re-election a referendum on Barack Obama, George W. Bush and his eventual GOP opponent.

That’s an embarrassing position for a five-term incumbent to be in, and it suggests that he will be in a tenuous position for re-election for months, no matter what happens with health care reform.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 18, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

A Candidate Meeting That I’ll Never Forget — Even if I’d Like to

By Stuart Rothenberg

When I interview candidates, the meetings normally last 45 minutes to an hour. That’s the only thing they have in common. Each meeting is different because each candidate is unique.

But rarely do I have a meeting like the one that I had recently with Peter Schiff, the well-known investment guru who takes credit for predicting the bankruptcies of the auto companies, the problems of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing bubble and the recession (which he says actually is a depression — and will get worse). If you are looking for modesty or humility, you’ll need to look elsewhere.

Schiff, whose father, Irwin, is a noted tax protester who currently resides in the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Ind., says he is considering a run for the Republican Senate nomination in Connecticut, though he seemed blasé about a race and may merely be looking for attention. If he is seriously pondering the race, he ought to stop doing so immediately.

Schiff is the first candidate I’ve ever interviewed who proudly says he can’t recall the last time he voted. “I’ve never seen a real reason to vote,” he says without hesitation, adding that he registered to vote only recently in Connecticut. Apparently, he’s never heard of the concept of civic duty or considered the meaning of 200 years of American history.

Not surprisingly, he is also the first candidate I’ve ever interviewed who brags that he can raise most of his money out of state and can win by bringing supporters from around the country into Connecticut to campaign for him. (That certainly worked for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, didn’t it?)

Finally, Schiff is the only major party hopeful I’ve ever interviewed who said there is no difference — absolutely no difference — between Republicans and Democrats, between President Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Schiff obviously isn’t a politician, but he isn’t a complete political neophyte either. He served as an economic adviser to presidential hopeful Ron Paul (R) during the Texas Congressman’s 2008 campaign, and he endorsed Libertarian-turned-Republican Murray Sabrin’s bid for the New Jersey GOP Senate nomination in 2008.

Sabrin, I should add, came in to see me during that race and made much the same case as Schiff. He drew 14 percent of the vote in a three-way primary.

Schiff is a darling of libertarians, and they have taken to the Web to raise money for him and to tell him how much they want him to run for the Senate. Maybe they can do for him what they did for Paul.

Schiff thinks that he might be able to win in Connecticut because, unlike Paul, he has to win in “only” one state, while Paul had to win in the entire country. Maybe someone should tell him that Paul didn’t come close to winning either the Iowa straw poll or the Iowa caucuses, two low-turnout events that were made to order for the Texan given the enthusiasm of his supporters.

A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse,” Schiff is president and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital, a Darien, Conn.-based investment firm that its Web site says specializes in international securities.

He’s well-dressed and articulate. He’s also adept at talking about the nation’s economic programs, and he has logged a good deal of time on cable’s business programming. But being an entertaining guest on CNBC doesn’t automatically translate to being a serious candidate for the U.S. Senate.

If and when Schiff focuses on what he’d do to get the American economy out of the ditch, he’ll scare the living daylights out of state voters, who are more concerned with their jobs and government services than with Austrian economics. Simply put, a majority of Connecticut Republicans are not ready for the second coming of Ron Paul.

Schiff seems to think that voters are heavily ideological. During my interview with him, he said he’ll attract support from across the country because, if elected, he would represent them and their views.

I don’t know whether Schiff, who lives in Fairfield County, has ever been to Willimantic, Torrington, Coventry or Naugatuck, but someone needs to mention to him that telling Nutmeg State voters that he would “represent” people in other states isn’t necessarily the best way to get elected in Connecticut. Nor is it wise to tell Republican primary voters, even in Connecticut, that there is no difference between the two parties.

Schiff may or may not be right about what ails America. That’s not the issue. But I saw no evidence that he understands how to talk to voters who have the kinds of problems that average Americans in Connecticut face each and every day, no evidence that he’d be effective in the Senate and no evidence that he has even the vaguest idea how to put together a campaign.

For a man who supposedly makes decisions on the basis of data and analysis, Schiff seemed to lack any empirical evidence that he could win a Senate race, let alone a primary. Maybe that’s because he’d really rather appear on the Daily Show or spout off in national publications than do what is necessary to win a Senate seat.



This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 15, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

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

By Stuart Rothenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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.

The Most Vulnerable Senator Up for Re-Election in 2010?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Move over, Jim Bunning. You have company.

Veteran Sen. Chris Dodd (D) should not be vulnerable in his home state of Connecticut. As a longtime officeholder in a reliably Democratic state and the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, Dodd should have the stature, political base and access to resources to dissuade even the most ambitious of Republicans from challenging him for re-election.

But the darkening cloud that is growing over the Senator’s head has changed Dodd’s prospects quickly, and the signs already are clear that he’ll have the fight of his life next year when he seeks his sixth consecutive term in the Senate.

Coverage of Dodd’s special treatment from lender Countrywide Financial — and his designation as a “friend of Angelo” — has blanketed local media, severely damaging Dodd’s standing in a state where Democrats hold better than 2-1 majorities in both chambers of the state Legislature, hold all of the Congressional seats and haven’t lost a U.S. Senate race since 1986.

Only one Republican, Lowell Weicker, has won a Senate race in the Constitution State since Prescott Bush did so in 1956. (Bush defeated Democrat Thomas Dodd, the current Senator’s father.)

Chris Dodd has had no serious tests since he coasted to victory in an open-seat House race in the very Democratic year of 1974. Dodd’s closest race since then was his first bid for Senate, in 1980, which he won by “only” 13 points over former New York Sen. Jim Buckley (R). Buckley had lost re-election in the Empire State in 1976 and figured that he might as well run for the Senate in neighboring Connecticut.

But this cycle is shaping up very differently. A March 26-28 Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters showed Dodd with a 30 percent favorable/58 percent unfavorable rating and his job approval at 33 percent approve/58 percent disapprove. Four in 10 Democrats disapproved of his job performance.

More troubling, he was 16 points behind Republican opponent Rob Simmons, a well-regarded former Member from eastern Connecticut who was overwhelmed in the Democratic wave of 2006. Dodd was losing independents by more than 2-1, and Simmons was winning more than 1 in 4 Democrats.

The poll also showed Dodd trailing Waterbury state Sen. Sam Caligiuri, who recently entered the race, and former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, who is considering his options. Caligiuri held a 4-point lead over Dodd even though 88 percent of those responding hadn’t heard enough about the state lawmaker to have an opinion of him.

Dodd’s position now is an excellent example of how quickly things can change. Until the Countrywide Financial story broke last summer, Dodd’s chairmanship looked like a political asset. But now it is a double-edged sword, causing more light to be shined on him and his dealings with the financial community and exposing him to criticism that creates electoral problems for him back home.

Dodd, it should be noted, insists he has done nothing wrong and never knew he was receiving special treatment from Countywide (an assertion that some have disputed).

But in addition to his Countrywide problems, the Senator has also been forced to return contributions from R. Allen Stanford, a financier accused of defrauding investors, and admitted that he had been involved in the process that ultimately stripped from the stimulus bill a provision that would have limited bonuses American International Group executives eventually received.

The Senator said that his admission about his role in modifying the bill (at the request of Treasury Department officials) did not amount to a reversal of his initial explanation, but local and national media certainly played it as a switch.

To make things worse, Dodd’s wife was also on the board of directors of IPC Holdings, a Bermuda-based insurance company controlled by AIG.

Finally, and not insignificantly, Dodd riled some Connecticut voters when he moved his family to Iowa during the 2008 presidential contest, even going so far as to enroll his eldest daughter in a Des Moines kindergarten.

All of that adds up to political baggage that would fill one of Dodd’s mortgaged homes.

But Republicans ought to be realistic about their chances of ousting the Senator. Dodd is an incumbent who can raise more money than most candidates would ever need, and his Democratic label is a significant asset in the state.

Moreover, while the Senator has already hired an experienced campaign manager, at some point later this year thoughts of retirement will cross his mind — if his prospects look as bad as they now do. If he were to decide against seeking re-election, Democrats would likely find a strong candidate to replace him, reducing the GOP’s chances in the race.

Further, Republicans are headed to a two-way or three-way primary, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has already started attacking Simmons. A Senate bid would be a big step up for Caligiuri.

The primary, which could be expensive, both complicates GOP prospects and reflects Dodd’s vulnerability. You can be sure that Simmons and Caligiuri wouldn’t be in the race if Dodd had not been damaged by recent news stories and events.

It seems as if every election cycle one supposedly safe Senator up for re-election somehow finds himself in an unexpectedly difficult race. In 2004, it was Bunning. In 2006, it was Sen. George Allen (R-Va.). Last year, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) was forced into a runoff. It already looks as if Chris Dodd will join that select club next year.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on April 6, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

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.