Let’s Poke Holes in the ‘Anti-Incumbent’ Hype

By Stuart Rothenberg

My heart sank when I saw my friend Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post write about this cycle’s elections and whether they really deserved the “anti-incumbent” moniker that they have received. Damn it, I thought, there goes another half-written column that I have to toss into the trash.

But Chris encouraged me to offer my take, even though he did a good job dissecting the issue.

The narrative that this is an anti-incumbent political year is already well-established, and only a fool would fight it. So here goes. While there is some truth to the storyline, the narrative being pounded into your head daily on television and in print is clearly misleading.

There are plenty of data showing that voters distrust politicians, are unhappy with the direction of the country, have a low opinion of Washington institutions and officeholders, and are sympathetic to “outsider” candidates preaching change.

Whether you look at recent polling by ABC News/Washington Post (June 3-6), the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (March 18-21), CBS News (May 20-24) or NBC News/Wall Street Journal (May 6-10), you will see voter anger and dissatisfaction, with voters often less supportive of incumbents. And this same message is showing up in state-level and district-level data, as well.

But this mood has not resulted in voters engaging in a scorched-earth policy against incumbents or in most “establishment” candidates falling in primaries. It simply hasn’t happened.

Incumbents have lost, and so have some “establishment” candidates. But the results have many explanations, most of which have nothing to do with incumbency. Alvin Greene’s victory in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary ought to be proof of that. (Surprisingly, I haven’t yet heard anyone say he won because he was the ultimate “outsider.”)

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) was denied access to the primary ballot by conservatives angry over one of his votes in particular. He may well have won renomination (and subsequently re-election) if he had made the ballot, but an odd nominating system that exaggerates the power of a relative few activists (conservative activists in this case) caused his defeat.

Like Bennett, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who is expected to lose a runoff, has aroused opposition on his political right for selected votes. Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.Va.) lost his primary because of ethics problems.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Rep. Parker Griffith (R-Ala.) lost their respective primaries not because they are incumbents, but because they are party-switchers. Party-switchers often have problems winning primaries in their new parties because they were once viewed as political enemies and voters in their new party have trouble embracing them. Their losses had nothing to do with their incumbency. Nothing.

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) lost renomination because of scandals and incompetence, not the general mood of voters.

Among the handful of “establishment” candidates who lost are Republican former U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan in Pennsylvania, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, former Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden and Idaho Congressional hopeful Vaughn Ward — none of whom was an incumbent in any sense of the word.

Buchanan’s campaign was inept, Lowden and Ward said absurd things during their campaigns that discredited themselves, and Grayson was uninspiring. They could have lost during any cycle.

Cillizza describes the “anti-incumbent storyline” as “overblown,” and he is exactly right.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) was renominated in May with more than 79 percent of the vote while Ward, the favorite for the GOP nomination in Idaho’s 1st district, was losing his primary.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was re-nominated with almost 90 percent of the vote in his May primary. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) was re-elected with 83 percent, while Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) drew 84 percent in his primary. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) drew 80 percent to win renomination in California.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) and South Dakota Sen. John Thune (R) were unopposed for renomination.

If this is such an “anti-incumbent” or “anti-establishment” year, then why do some — most — incumbents and establishment-backed candidates win easily? So far this year, 98 percent of Congressional incumbents seeking re-election have been renominated.

I don’t doubt that the public’s mood has fueled some outsider candidates, and that some lesser candidates have done better in this environment and this cycle than they would have done had they run in 2000, 2002 or 2004.

And as I have already noted, incumbency, support from Washington, D.C., or being a Member of Congress aren’t the assets this cycle that they have been in previous cycles. That is clear. But fitting every result into an exaggerated narrative doesn’t help anyone understand what is happening.

Conservatives certainly are angrier and more mobilized than I’ve seen them in years, and in many races they are lining up behind conservative candidates who criticize incumbent Republicans for not being conservative or confrontational enough.

And in a few Democratic primaries, more liberal voters and activists have taken on incumbents not identified with the party’s left (Specter and Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, for example).

But come November, we will have a rather traditional midterm election. Angry voters will turn out to vote against the party in charge. And that’s why, ultimately, 2010 will be remembered as a Republican wave election, not an anti-incumbent year.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 17, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

There Are Democrats Who May Survive a Wave

By Stuart Rothenberg

Check my House race ratings, and you’ll find about two dozen Democratic seats at great risk. But the truth of the matter is that early ratings are based more heavily than I’d like on district fundamentals than on actual developments in races.

Midterms usually cost the president’s party House seats, so Democrats in the most Republican and conservative districts are particularly vulnerable this cycle. But challenger quality and incumbent records differ from district to district, and those factors certainly affect vulnerability.

Later in the cycle, voters will start paying serious attention to campaigns, and polls will measure voter sentiment about the candidates and about how and why voters plan to cast their votes.

But even now, campaign developments can matter, and some Democratic House incumbents who deserved to be listed among the most vulnerable Democrats of the cycle are looking a little less vulnerable now than they were even a few months ago.

For months now, my colleague Nathan Gonzales has been repeating the same mantra: One or two of the most vulnerable House Democrats are likely to survive anything but the biggest of waves — we just don’t know who they are.

Perhaps it’s time to take a first stab at figuring out who they might be.

While many Democrats running in conservative districts in 2006 and 2008 ran as “independent” candidates, only to later support their party on controversial issues (Reps. Betsy Markey of Colorado and Suzanne Kosmas of Florida are obvious examples), Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick actually has gone out of his way to reject Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (Calif.) agenda on the stimulus, health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation.

Still, it isn’t clear that even his voting record — or his endorsement by the Tea Party Express — will entirely mollify conservative (and reliably Republican) voters in his district, which gave Barack Obama 36 percent of the vote in 2008 and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) only 30 percent four years earlier.

Minnick won the district in 2008 only because the sitting Republican incumbent, Bill Sali, was so personally unpopular that voters apparently were willing to vote for any alternative — even a Democrat.

But Minnick’s re-election prospects have brightened with the nomination of state Rep. Raul Labrador, who defeated Iraq vet Vaughn Ward in the recent GOP primary.

Labrador showed $174,000 raised in his pre-primary report, so while he defeated a much better-funded candidate in the primary and can likely count on support in the general election from the National Republican Congressional Committee in a cheap media market, his weak fundraising numbers raise questions about the quality of his candidacy.

The last Democrat to represent Idaho’s 1st in Congress was Larry LaRocco, who won in an upset in 1990. While it is true that LaRocco was defeated when he ran for a third term in 1994, it’s also true that he won re-election to a second term in 1992. That should give Democrats reason to hope that Minnick can hold on in November.

Alabama Rep. Bobby Bright is another Democrat who would seem to have a decent chance of surviving a good national year for Republicans.

Bright, who spent a decade as mayor of the state capital of Montgomery, won an open seat in a squeaker in 2008, in part because the losing candidate in a tight GOP primary endorsed him.

Like Minnick’s Idaho district, Bright’s 2nd district went heavily for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the last presidential race. Obama received 37 percent in the district in 2008, slightly better than Kerry’s 33 percent in 2004.

In Congress, Bright has established his political independence by voting against the stimulus bill, the health care reform bill and cap-and-trade legislation, though critics note that he held his vote back on the climate change bill until it was clear that the Democratic leadership had the votes that it needed without Bright’s.

Democrats argue that Bright is defined in voters’ minds more as the nonpartisan mayor that he was than as a Member of Congress.

Bright’s Republican opponent likely will be Montgomery City Councilwoman Martha Roby. But Roby was barely forced into a July 13 runoff against self-described tea party activist/businessman Rick Barber, so she’ll have to spend another month fighting for her party’s nomination.

Roby’s May 12 pre-primary FEC report showed she raised just under $440,000, a little less than half of what Bright did.

Even though an early Bright poll showed him well-liked and running far ahead of Roby, Democratic insiders will acknowledge privately that the outcome will be close. The district and national mood remain problems for Bright.

But it’s also true that Bright has steered the right course to have a chance at re-election, and that’s really all that his admirers can expect.


This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on June 10, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

PA 12 Special: Only One Piece in Bigger Picture

By Stuart Rothenberg

Less than a day after the polls closed in the May 18 Pennsylvania special election, I left the country.

But e-mails followed me everywhere, and I read with some surprise the post-election assessments of the meaning of Democrat Mark Critz’s substantial victory over Republican Tim Burns in the race to succeed the late Rep. John Murtha (D).

I understand that we live in an era when exaggeration is the norm, but characterizing the GOP loss in that special election as evidence that Republicans can’t win the House is about as misguided as the pre-election assessments that the special was a “must win” for Republicans.

Critz’s victory was very welcome news for Democrats and a good reminder that candidates, campaigns and district fundamentals matter. Conservative Democrats, at this point in the cycle, can still win in conservative Democratic districts, even if President Barack Obama isn’t popular.

But while the result certainly ought to be a dose of humility for Republicans who have talked nonsensically about gaining 50, 60 or even 70 seats in November, the result in Pennsylvania wasn’t a game-changer.

From the time Republicans won the House in 1994 to their loss in the 2006 elections, the GOP never held Murtha’s district. Since that district wasn’t a “must win” for them then, it can’t possibly be regarded as one now.

The argument about whether Pennsylvania’s 12th is a swing district or a Democratic district obviously is important. Not surprisingly, the answer is somewhere in between the two alternatives.

Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) carried the district very narrowly in 2008, and state Attorney General Tom Corbett (R) exceeded 50 percent of the vote there in his re-election that same year. Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) only squeezed by George W. Bush in the district in 2004, while then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter carried the district (without winning a majority) in 2004. In other words, Republicans can run very competitively in the district, even winning it.

But at other times, the district’s Democratic heritage shows. Democrat Al Gore defeated Bush in the district in 2000 by a solid 11 points (54 percent to 43 percent), and Bill Clinton carried it comfortably twice.

More recently, 2009 state Supreme Court nominee Joan Orie Melvin (R), a western Pennsylvania native who won her race by an unexpectedly comfortable 8 points statewide and carried Chester, Delaware and Bucks counties in the southeastern corner of the state, drew only 48.5 percent of the vote in the 12th.

This is a picture of a narrowly Democratic district that moves toward the GOP when Republicans can establish a clear ideological contrast. When they can’t — and they didn’t last week — they don’t win.

Of course, the much ballyhooed “mood for change” should have boosted GOP prospects in the special election and given voters an opportunity to send a message of dissatisfaction to the president. They didn’t do that.

Did Critz win because the state’s competitive Senate primary pulled Democratic voters to the polls, or did the Congressional contest drive turnout? Partisans on both sides are certain of the answer, but I’m not. I remain agnostic about the question.

Critz’s victory boosts the prospects of moderate Democrats running in swing districts, whether in Western Pennsylvania, Michigan’s Upper Peninsula or nonurban Ohio.

But it doesn’t necessarily offer equally good news for Democratic Reps. Tom Perriello (Va.), Betsy Markey (Colo.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.) or others who have cast votes that are unpopular back home.

And Critz’s victory doesn’t say anything about Democrats running in Republican-leaning districts or about districts with large numbers of independent voters, who are more likely to vote on mood than anything else.

As regular readers of this column know, election cycles develop over time, not overnight. In both 2006 and 2008, to say nothing of 1994, a number of races broke late, as voters turned their attention to the elections. I expect the same thing to happen this year, and that could change the arithmetic of the midterms.

There are dozens of reasons why the political environment might improve, or deteriorate, for Democrats between now and November — ranging from an improving employment picture or Republican stupidity to growing financial troubles in the European Union, political fallout for the administration from the BP oil disaster or a double-dip economic slowdown.

Some of these developments would help boost Obama’s standing and give Democratic candidates a better chance to localize their contests, while others would undermine the administration’s standing and create an even bigger wave for political change that would overwhelm many Democrats who run strong re-election campaigns.

Much has been made by some of Republican special election victories in Oklahoma and Kentucky prior to the 1994 midterms and of the Democrats’ win in Pennsylvania last week. But, unlike the one in Pennsylvania’s 12th, both of those 1994 specials occurred in districts that George H.W. Bush won comfortably in 1992 and overwhelmingly (by 60 percent) in 1988. The comparisons, in short, don’t hold.

It’s understandable that we all look for deep meaning from a single event. But with Election Day more than five months away, the die for November is not yet cast, no matter the results in Pennsylvania’s 12th district.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 27, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Pennsylvania 15 & Nevada 3

Subscribers already have the May 25, 2010 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report, but here are excerpts from the introduction to the two stories in this issue:

Pennsylvania 15: Difference of Opinion
By Nathan L. Gonzales

There may not be a race this cycle with such a dramatic difference of opinion between the two parties.

Cong. Charlie Dent is a rare Republican who represents a district that both Barack Obama and John Kerry carried in their presidential races. But even with the wind blowing in their faces this cycle, Democrats believe Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan (D) is the perfect candidate to take over Pennsylvania’s 15th District.

On the other hand, Dent knows he’s a target and will be ready for the race. And even though Republican strategists are taking the race seriously, they don’t believe it will be particularly close in the end.

Subscribers get the full story including the Lay of the Land, candidate bios, their consulting teams and a breakdown of the general election.


Nevada 3: Welcome to Paradise
By Nathan L. Gonzales

If you’re a Democratic incumbent who was elected in a competitive district last cycle with less than 50% of the vote, you’re almost guaranteed to be a target this year. Nevada Cong. Dina Titus (D) fits the bill perfectly.

Subscribers get the full story including the Lay of the Land, candidate bios, their consulting teams and a breakdown of the general election.

The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as updated 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.

Idaho 1 moved to Lean Democratic, Hawaii 1 moved to Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic

In Idaho’s 1st District, Republicans nominated state Rep. Raul Labrador in an upset over Iraq War veteran Vaughn Ward, who was part of the NRCC’s Young Guns program. Freshman Democratic Cong. Walt Minnick (D) was already a difficult target because of his record of voting against every significant piece of legislation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sends to the floor, but this result appears to make the Republican chances of defeating him that much longer.

Minnick shouldn’t be considered Safe because John McCain carried his district with 62% of the vote in 2008, but we are moving the race from Toss-Up/Tilt Republican to Lean Democratic.

In Hawaii’s 1st District, Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou (R) won the special election after two Democratic candidates divided up the Democratic vote, allowing him to win the seat without a majority. There is still plenty of uncertainty on the Democratic side. Democratic strategists believe that former Cong. Ed Case (D), who finished third in the winner-take-all special election, has the most general election appeal. But Colleen Hanabusa (D), who finished second in the special, is probably the frontrunner in the September 18 Democratic primary.

Democrats clearly have some issues to work out before this fall, but Djou was elected with only 40% of the vote in his victory, so our initial rating for the general election is Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic.

Our bottom line in the House remains the same. Substantial Republican gains are inevitable, with net Democratic losses now looking to be at least two dozen. At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible.

Here are our latest House ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans
Special Elections in italics

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 12 D)

• AR 1 (Open; Berry, D)
• FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
• IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
• IL 14 (Foster, D)
  
• MI 1 (Open; Stupak, D)
  
• MI 7 (Schauer, D)
• NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
• NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
• NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
• NV 3 (Titus, D)
  
• PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
• TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
• WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 8 D)

• AL 2 (Bright, D)
• AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D)
  
• FL 8 (Grayson, D)
• IN 8 (Open; Ellsworth, D)
  
• KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
• MS 1 (Childers, D)
• VA 2 (Nye, D)
  
• VA 5 (Perriello, D)

Lean Republican (3 R, 9 D)

• CA 3 (Lungren, R)
• CO 4 (Markey, D)
  
• FL 25 (Open; M. Diaz-Balart, R)
  
• LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
• MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
• NM 2 (Teague, D)
• NY 29 (Open; Massa, D)
  
• OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
• OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
  
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
  

Republican Favored (5 R, 1 D)

• CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
• NE 2 (Terry, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  
• PA 15 (Dent, R)
• TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)
  

Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (1 R, 3 D)

• HI 1 (Djou, R) #
  
• ND A-L (Pomeroy, D)
• SC 5 (Spratt, D)
• WV 1 (Mollohan, D)
  

Lean Democratic (1 R, 18 D)

• AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  
• AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
• DE -AL (Open; Castle, R)
  
• ID 1 (Minnick, D)#
• IN 9 (Hill, D)
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
  
• MA 10 (Open; Delahunt, D)
  
• MO 4 (Skelton, D)
• NJ 3 (Adler, D)
  
• NM 1 (Heinrich, D)
• NY 1 (Bishop, D)
• NY 19 (Hall, D)
• OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
• OH 18 (Space, D)
• PA 4 (Altmire, D)
• PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
• PA 12 (Critz, D)
  
• VA 9 (Boucher, D)
• WI 7 (Open; Obey, D)
  

Democrat Favored (1 R, 18 D)

• CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  
• CO 3 (Salazar, D)
• CT 5 (Murphy, D)
  
• FL 22 (Klein, D)
• IL 11 (Halvorson, D)
• IN 2 (Donnelly, D)
  
• LA 2 (Cao, R)
• NY 13 (McMahon, D)
• NY 20 (Murphy, D)
• NY 23 (Owens, D)
  
• NC 8 (Kissell, D)
• OH 13 (Sutton, D)
• PA 3 (Dahlkemper, D)
• PA 8 (Murphy, D)
• PA 10 (Carney, D)
• PA 17 (Holden, D)
• SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
• TX 17 (Edwards, D)
• WI 8 (Kagen, D)

Total seats in play: 79
Republican seats: 11
Democratic seats: 68

Sean Duffy, Welcome to Your New Real World

By Stuart Rothenberg

Wisconsin Republican Congressional hopeful Sean Duffy probably now feels like he’s a victim of a classic bait-and-switch. But in this case, it’s Duffy who is a victim of his own success as a candidate.

After running for months against veteran Democratic Rep. David Obey in Wisconsin’s sprawling 7th district, which includes much of the northwestern quarter of the state, Duffy now finds himself running in November against Julie Lassa, a 39-year-old Democratic state Senator who will force Duffy to alter his message.

I interviewed Duffy at length in mid-March, and I was more impressed with him than I expected to be. Like everyone else, I had heard about his time as a cast member on MTV’s “Real World” in 1997 and his subsequent appearance on the network’s “Road Rules,” and that certainly lowered my expectations.

But instead of finding merely a self-promoting pseudo-celebrity looking for the latest way to get media exposure, I found an outgoing, energetic and engaging county district attorney who had won five elections and was incredibly focused on ousting longtime incumbent Obey in November.

The Republican already had about $300,000 on hand in the middle of March, and he was confident that he could raise $1.2 million for the race. (His March 31 numbers were $506,000 raised and $340,000 on hand.)

Duffy, 38, seemed like the perfect Republican to challenge Obey, 71, this year, with voters angry at the political establishment and Democrats almost certain to face the public’s wrath about unemployment and deficit spending.

Obey, the House Appropriations chairman, could easily be painted as responsible for the nation’s spending spree, its deficit and its debt.

And since he was first elected to the House in an April 1969 special election (or as Duffy has been noting, before the United States put a man on the moon), Obey served for more than 40 years by the time his 2010 re-election rolled around. That remarkable achievement might not look so positive given the public’s dissatisfaction with Congress and desire for change.

During my meeting with him, Duffy presented 2010 as a perfect storm for Obey: an angry electorate, Obey’s role in the stimulus and the deficit, and Duffy as the GOP’s strongest challenger in years.

After my meeting with Duffy, I added the district to my list of competitive races, since I thought the challenger’s energy and enthusiasm, combined with the vulnerability of some senior Democrats, gave Duffy a real shot at upsetting Obey. Duffy still had an uphill trek, but his scenario was entirely reasonable.

Obey’s decision not to seek re-election changes the Congressional race dramatically and forces Duffy to toss almost all of his strategy into the nearest trash can.

Instead of running against an older man, Duffy faces a woman his own age. Instead of facing someone who has been in Washington for decades, he’s paired against a state legislator. And instead of facing the sometimes crotchety Obey, he faces a woman whose “soft-spoken demeanor is the polar opposite of the blunt, abrasive tone that marked Dave Obey’s political career,” according to a Wisconsin Public Radio report shortly after Lassa became a candidate for the open seat.

Lassa was elected to the state Assembly in 1998 and re-elected in 2000 and 2002. In 2003, she won a special election for an open state Senate district. She was re-elected twice to the district, in 2004 and 2008, and she isn’t up again until 2012.

While Duffy lives in a county in the lightly populated extreme northern end of the district, Lassa comes from the more populous southern end of the district. That could give Lassa a considerable edge.

As a whole, the district tilts Democratic. Barack Obama won it by a solid 13 points over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008, but Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Al Gore each carried the district by only a single point, in 2004 and 2000. Bill Clinton carried the district, which was shaped only slightly differently, in 1992 and 1996.

I haven’t met Lassa yet, so I can’t vouch for her appeal. And I don’t know what kind of campaign she will put together.

Republicans note, quite correctly, that whatever his vulnerabilities, Dave Obey had plenty of support in the district, had $1.4 million in the bank when he exited the race and had earned a reputation as a feisty, tough opponent. His retirement creates an open seat, which can’t be good for Democrats in the kind of midterm that is developing.

But in some ways, Lassa might end up being a more difficult foe for Duffy than Obey would have been. In any case, Sean Duffy will now have to run a very different kind of campaign than he planned less than two months ago.

Welcome to the real world of American politics, Mr. Duffy.


This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 25, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

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 12 Moved to Lean Democratic

Former congressional aide Mark Critz (D) defeated businessman Tim Burns (R) in the extremely competitive special election race in Pennsylvania's 12th District. Even though Democrats simply held the late-Cong. John Murtha's seat, the victory is a piece of good news for Democrats in an increasingly difficult midterm election.

But the road doesn't necessarily get easier for Democrats. Critz was pro-life, pro-gun, and opposed the health care reform bill that many vulnerable Democratic incumbents supported. Critz and Burns will face off again in November, but we're moving the race to Lean Democratic.

Our bottom line in the House remains the same. Substantial Republican gains are inevitable, with net Democratic losses now looking to be at least two dozen. At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible.

Here are our latest House ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans
Special Elections in italics

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 12 D)

• AR 1 (Open; Berry, D)
• FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
• IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
• IL 14 (Foster, D)
  
• MI 1 (Open; Stupak, D)
  
• MI 7 (Schauer, D)
• NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
• NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
• NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
• NV 3 (Titus, D)
  
• PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
• TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
• WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)

Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 9 D)

• AL 2 (Bright, D)
• AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D)
  
• FL 8 (Grayson, D)
• ID 1 (Minnick, D)
• IN 8 (Open; Ellsworth, D)
  
• KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
• MS 1 (Childers, D)
• VA 2 (Nye, D)
  
• VA 5 (Perriello, D)

Lean Republican (3 R, 8 D)

• CA 3 (Lungren, R)
• CO 4 (Markey, D)
  
• FL 25 (Open; M. Diaz-Balart, R)
  
• HI 1 (Open; Abercrombie, D)
• LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
• MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
• NM 2 (Teague, D)
• NY 29 (Open; Massa, D)
  
• OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
• OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
  
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
  

Republican Favored (5 R, 1 D)

• CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
• NE 2 (Terry, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  
• PA 15 (Dent, R)
• TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)
  

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

• ND A-L (Pomeroy, D)
• SC 5 (Spratt, D)
• WV 1 (Mollohan, D)
  

Lean Democratic (1 R, 17 D)

• AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  
• AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
• DE -AL (Open; Castle, R)
  
• IN 9 (Hill, D)
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
  
• MA 10 (Open; Delahunt, D)
  
• MO 4 (Skelton, D)
• NJ 3 (Adler, D)
  
• NM 1 (Heinrich, D)
• NY 1 (Bishop, D)
• NY 19 (Hall, D)
• OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
• OH 18 (Space, D)
• PA 4 (Altmire, D)
• PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
• PA 12 (Critz, D) #
  
• VA 9 (Boucher, D)
• WI 7 (Open; Obey, D)
  

Democrat Favored (1 R, 18 D)

• CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  
• CO 3 (Salazar, D)
• CT 5 (Murphy, D)
  
• FL 22 (Klein, D)
• IL 11 (Halvorson, D)
• IN 2 (Donnelly, D)
  
• LA 2 (Cao, R)
• NY 13 (McMahon, D)
• NY 20 (Murphy, D)
• NY 23 (Owens, D)
  
• NC 8 (Kissell, D)
• OH 13 (Sutton, D)
• PA 3 (Dahlkemper, D)
• PA 8 (Murphy, D)
• PA 10 (Carney, D)
• PA 17 (Holden, D)
• SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
• TX 17 (Edwards, D)
• WI 8 (Kagen, D)

Total seats in play: 79
Republican seats: 11
Democratic seats: 68

House Overview: Money Can’t Fix What’s Broken for Democrats

By Nathan L. Gonzales

After two consecutive change elections in which Democrats won more than 50 seats and took control of the House, we’re headed for another one. But this time, the change voters seek will be away from Democrats, not toward them. A majority of voters believe the country is headed off on the wrong track and are prepared to take their anger out on the party in power.

Everyone sees this coming, and Democrats say they’re prepared to withstand the worst of it. They are resigned to the fact that they will suffer significant losses in the House in this fall’s midterm elections, but they can’t envision specific Members not coming back for the 112th Congress.

It is perhaps a sign of their overarching strategy to keep the races individualized, but even as Democratic strategists, pollsters and consultants agree that their party is likely to lose at least two dozen seats, they have trouble identifying the losers. It’s difficult for Democrats to visualize a well-aware, hardworking, fundraising Member of Congress not being rewarded with another term.

“Everybody thinks the flood is coming, but they think they’re smart enough that it won’t get them,” one Democratic consultant cautioned.

Democrats are going to use their considerable financial advantage to frame this election as a choice between two candidates in each race, not a clash of party philosophies. From there, the goal is to attack GOP candidates across the country and make them unacceptable alternatives.

“I have my toughest time against a generic Republican who isn’t well-known,” Texas Rep. Chet Edwards said. “I have my toughest time against a generic Republican. ... By the end of this race, Bill Flores will not be a generic Republican.”

Democrats want to fight a series of local races. They want voters to think about Bobby Bright as the nonpartisan mayor of Montgomery, not the Congressman from Alabama’s 2nd district. They want voters to examine Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick’s record of voting against the stimulus, against cap-and-trade and against health care reform, even though he’s from the same Democratic Party that passed all three bills.

Democrats Have the Money

Not only are most Democratic incumbents well-stocked with campaign cash, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee held a cash advantage of $26 million to $10 million over the National Republican Congressional Committee through March.

That number will change after spending in the Hawaii and Pennsylvania special elections is taken into account, but the fundamental Democratic advantage will remain. In 2008, the DCCC outspent the NRCC $75 million to $21 million in independent expenditures and picked up another 20 seats.

But Democrats can’t let their cash advantage and optimism about one-on-one matchups cloud the view of reality. “There is a fundamental arrogance permeating the consulting community and the party,” according to one Democratic consultant who has been on both sides of a wave election.

Democrats are doing very well in all of the factors they can control, but they may still be overwhelmed by the political climate. In short, they may have a problem that money can’t fix.

It’s unclear how the Democratic spending advantage plays out when the trends are working against them. Over the past four years, voters tuned out Republican attacks while giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt. But Democrats run the risk of having their attacks fall flat this year because voters see them as flawed messengers. Unemployment still hovers near 10 percent, and while President Barack Obama remains popular, party strategists aren’t sure how much of his personal appeal will translate to other Democratic candidates when his name isn’t on the ballot.

Even more troubling for Democrats is the emerging problem of independents. From the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections late last year to the Senate special election in Massachusetts in January, independents are acting and voting like Republicans after ignoring the GOP over the past two election cycles.

1994 Replay? More Like 2006

Arguments abound over whether 2010 is going to be another 1994, when an electoral tsunami swept Republicans into the majority. There are plenty of differences between the two cycles, but the truth is, Republicans don’t need this year to be that big. Republicans gained 52 House seats in 1994, but they will need to net only 39 seats this fall, assuming the polls are right and they take over Hawaii’s 1st district in the special election later this week.

The best comparison is to the election four years ago. This year is looking like 2006 in reverse. Democratic incumbents are losing to — or being held to considerably less than 50 percent against — virtually unknown GOP challengers in ballot tests. And like 2006, the battle for the House is being played out almost entirely on one side of the field. According to the Rothenberg Political Report, 68 Democratic House seats are in play compared with only 11 seats held by Republicans.

In the final ratings before the 2006 elections, 57 Republican-held seats were in play compared with only five Democratic seats. No Democratic incumbent lost that cycle, and the Democratic Party picked up 30 seats.

This year, Democrats recruited good challengers in states such as Washington, Ohio and Pennsylvania, but the climate that has developed this cycle is against them.

Despite the rhetoric about this becoming an anti-incumbent election that threatens both parties, Democratic incumbents are going to bear significantly more losses. Louisiana Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao is likely to lose re-election, but only a handful of his GOP colleagues are at risk of joining him in forced retirement.

In comparison, dozens of Democratic incumbents are vulnerable. Even though they won’t be caught off-guard, that doesn’t guarantee re-election.

Voting Records and Open Seats

Candidates who were fresh-faced Democratic challengers two and four years ago are now incumbents with voting records. Republicans are examining those records for votes in favor of the stimulus bill, cap-and-trade and health care, as well as their percentage of support for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) pet issues. Even if Democratic Members vote against one, some or all of the bills, Republicans will try to paint them with the broader brush.

The even bigger challenge for Democrats might be open seats.

In rare instances such as Rep. David Obey’s retirement in Wisconsin’s 7th and Rep. Alan Mollohan’s primary loss in West Virginia’s 1st, an open seat may increase Democratic chances of holding the seat. But in many other cases, the lack of an incumbent makes the road more difficult.

The number of retirements for each party isn’t as important as the competitiveness of the seat being vacated. Republicans have three open seats in play in Delaware, Illinois and Florida, while Democrats have at least 17.

Republicans want this election to be a national referendum on the direction of the country and the party that controls it. They don’t have to do anything to create that dynamic, but they have to position their candidates to take advantage of it.

It’s up to Democrats to localize their races and hope visible improvements in the economy and unemployment rates give them more credibility with voters.

One of the key emerging discrepancies is not how people will vote in November but who is going to show up at all. There appears to be very different views on how many 2008 Obama surge voters, including young people and African-Americans, are going to come out in 2010. Democratic success will be tied to their ability to get out the vote once again. Republicans expect the midterm electorate to be older and whiter.

If they want to get back to the majority, Republicans can’t settle for picking off a seat or two here and there. They need to win multiple seats in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, where they’ve been decimated over the past four years.

At this point, Republicans appear poised to gain two or three dozen seats but fall short of the majority. But with a volatile electorate and economic uncertainty, any predictions within a few seats of what they need should make the House in play.

This story first appeared in Roll Call's Election Preview on May 17, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

House Members Soft-Pedal Their Résumés in Gubernatorial Campaigns

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Even though having Washington, D.C., on your résumé is supposed to be like having a scarlet letter on your lapel this election cycle, more than a dozen current and former Members of Congress are running for governor — and trying to overcome voters’ ill feelings toward the nation’s capital.

Not everyone can be as lucky as Rep. Mary Fallin, the heavy favorite to win the July 27 Oklahoma GOP primary and the general election in November. Instead, Members are trying to figure out how to maximize their federal experience without taking on too much water in their campaign.

“It’s a handicap in more ways than a help. Even more so this time,” said one GOP consultant who has worked with multiple Members who ran for governor. Not only do they have to balance their calendar between official duties and the trail, Members are also casting potentially controversial votes in the middle of a campaign.

In Alabama, Rep. Artur Davis is favored to win the June 1 Democratic gubernatorial primary, but victory is not guaranteed. Davis has been running a general election campaign from the outset and voted against the health care reform bill. So even though Davis’ Democratic primary opponent, state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, is running a mediocre campaign, he appears to be drawing votes from disenchanted Democrats who are upset with Davis for voting against health care reform.

In Georgia, GOP Rep. Nathan Deal postponed his resignation from the House in order to vote against the health care bill, hoping that doing so would give him a boost in the gubernatorial primary. But his departure from office was met with headlines about a possible ethics committee investigation into whether he used his Congressional office to help a family-owned business.

It’s exactly what Deal didn’t need in the middle of his battle with Secretary of State Karen Handel for the second slot in the Aug. 10 Republican runoff in the Peach State. State Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine is expected to finish first in the July 20 primary.

According to one GOP strategist, Members shouldn’t quit to run for governor. The line won’t be erased from their résumé, and they shouldn’t throw away an opportunity to make news.

In South Carolina, Rep. Gresham Barrett is using his office as a platform to demonstrate his opposition to President Barack Obama and the Democratic agenda. One of Barrett’s television ads points out that the lawmaker is “more opposed to Obama than any Congressman in America, but one.”

Barrett is in the middle of a competitive four-candidate Republican primary set for June 8. He’s competing with state Rep. Nikki Haley and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer for a spot in the June 22 runoff against state Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is likely to finish first in the initial primary.

Rep. Zach Wamp, the eight-term Republican from Tennessee, talks about the Beltway from a distance, offering to meet people at the state line who want to take away guns.

Wamp doesn’t have the benefit of a runoff. He’ll have to knock off Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, the frontrunner in the GOP race, and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey in the Aug. 5 primary.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra appears to be the frontrunner in his race to become governor of Michigan, but there is a long way to go before the Aug. 3 GOP primary. An April 22 Rasmussen Reports survey showed him leading the primary with 28 percent. Wealthy venture capitalist Rick Snyder was second with 14 percent, state Attorney General Mike Cox had 13 percent and Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard had 9 percent. The automated survey had a 4.5-point margin of error.

Hoekstra voted in favor of both the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the Troubled Asset Relief Program last year — decisions that could haunt him in the campaign.

In all four states (Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Michigan), the primary is critical because the GOP nominee will likely start the general election with a distinct advantage. But while Hoekstra is in a strong position in his primary, Deal, Barrett and Wamp are underdogs.

The Sept. 18 primary is critical in Hawaii, where the Democratic nominee will have the edge in November. Neil Abercrombie decided to resign his House seat earlier this year in order to focus on his gubernatorial bid. He should be able to spend more time on the campaign trail battling Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann instead of traveling the 5,000 miles one way from his district to D.C.

A number of former Members of Congress who have been out of the House for a lot longer than Abercrombie and Deal are also running for governor — with varying likelihoods of winning.

Former Rep. Scott McInnis is running in Colorado and doesn’t have much GOP primary opposition, but he faces a tough general election battle with Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D).

In Ohio, former Rep. John Kasich secured the GOP nomination in last week’s primary, but he faces an extremely competitive race against incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who also served in the House. While Democrats will try to use Kasich’s House service against him, they appear to be more excited about the Republican’s subsequent work for Lehman Brothers.

In Wisconsin, former Rep. Mark Neumann (R), who served with Kasich and Strickland in the House, is presenting himself primarily as a small-business man, but he isn’t shying away from his time in Congress.

“People look back at 12 years ago and remember a much different time,” Neumann said in a recent interview. “They remember we balanced the budget and passed tax cuts.”

Neumann’s GOP primary opponent agrees.

“I liked what he did in Congress. I was for it,” Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker said about Neumann’s record in the House. “I’m not going to attack him on it.”

Neumann looks like a slight underdog to Walker in the Sept. 14 primary, with the winner facing Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a former Democratic Congressman, in the general election.

Other former Members are much longer shots in either the primary or general elections.

Former Rep. Rick Lazio is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in New York but would face an extremely tough race against state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) in the general election.

In Pennsylvania, former Rep. Joe Hoeffel isn’t even polling in the double digits with the Democratic primary less than a week away.

Four other former Members are running for governor, but their House service is no longer their defining characteristic.

Former Rep. Bill McCollum has spent the past four years as Florida’s attorney general and has a slight advantage over state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) in this fall’s election. McCollum can’t overlook wealthy health care executive Rick Scott in the GOP primary either.

Former GOP Rep. Bob Ehrlich is running for governor in Maryland, but he was already governor for four years before being defeated for re-election in 2006.

Former Rep. Butch Otter (R) is running for re-election as governor of Idaho, and ex-Rep. Jim Gibbons (R) is running for re-election in Nevada. Otter should be re-elected easily, while Gibbons, who has been battered by personal scandal, will likely lose in either the Republican primary or general election.

This story first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 13, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.