Turnout in Virginia, N.J. Could Be a Big Problem for Democrats

By Stuart Rothenberg

We’ve all been reminded repeatedly that Democrats face problems this year because of both the normal drop in midterm turnout and the mix of voters in nonpresidential years (See my “Democrats Face Challenges in Key Districts in 2010,” June 4, 2009). But those national problems will be magnified in a couple of states without high-profile races at the top of the ballot.

Democratic problems in both Virginia and New Jersey, where Republicans won governorships in November, could well be repeated in Congressional contests this year, in part because neither state has a statewide race on the ballot in November.

Republican strategists are bubbling with optimism about their chances of knocking off freshman Rep. John Adler (D) in New Jersey’s 3rd district, a south-central district that stretches from just north of Camden east to the Atlantic Ocean.

Adler won an open Republican seat 52 percent to 48 percent over Chris Myers (R), an unimpressive showing given the Democratic political wave and the fact that Adler spent $2.8 million on the race to Myers’ $1.2 million (and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee outspent the National Republican Congressional Committee by better than 2-to-1).

The district is fundamentally competitive. George W. Bush carried it 51 percent to 48 percent in 2004, while Barack Obama carried it 52 percent to 47 percent in 2008. In last year’s gubernatorial race, Republican sources say, Chris Christie (R) beat Gov. Jon Corzine (D) by 17 points, 56 percent to 39 percent).

Turnout in New Jersey is highest in presidential years, followed by off years when the gubernatorial election is held and then midterm election cycles. Sometimes, the midterm turnout is only slightly below the gubernatorial years — as in 2002, when 2.1 million Garden State voters cast ballots for Senator, compared with 2001, when 2.2 million cast their votes for governor. But sometimes the difference is stark — as in 1993, when 2.5 million voted for governor, and 1994, when just 2 million voted for Senator.

The last midterm election when there was no Senate race on the ballot in New Jersey was 1998. That year, turnout in individual House races was generally down 10,000 to 20,000 votes over the previous midterm election (when a Senate race was also on the ballot).

There were only two exceptions to this trend — in Democratic Rep. Donald Payne’s district, where turnout was already so low that it didn’t have far to fall, and in former Republican Rep. Mike Pappas’ district, where turnout in 1994 and 1998 was flat.

But Pappas was a controversial Republican incumbent in a year when Congressional Republicans overplayed their impeachment hand, and Democratic voters had reason to turn out, both to dump him and to express their outrage at Republican attacks on President Bill Clinton.

The lack of a statewide contest to generate interest and drive turnout could help the prospects of former NFL star Jon Runyan, the likely Republican nominee against Adler.

Often, as they did last cycle, Republican leaders in Burlington and Ocean counties quarrel over which county should produce the party’s nominee for Congress. But this time, both counties have lined up behind Runyan. Angry voters are likely to be more motivated, and that probably means more Republicans going to the polls.

In Virginia, the lack of a statewide contest could hurt as many as four Virginia Democratic House Members: Reps. Glenn Nye, Tom Perriello, Rick Boucher and Gerry Connolly.

Freshmen Nye and Perriello were swept into office during the ’08 Democratic wave, while Boucher, who is sitting in a district that gave Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) his best showing in the state (59 percent) during the White House election, has not faced a stiff challenger in years.

The state’s GOP nominee for governor last year, Bob McDonnell, won Nye, Perriello and Boucher’s districts with more than 60 percent of the vote, and he carried Connolly’s district by more than 10 points.

It’s difficult to compare turnout in Virginia in the 1998 election — the last time Members of Congress stood for election without a presidential or Senate contest above them on the ballot — to election years with statewide contests because seven of the state’s 11 House Members in the 1998 election ran without major party opposition in November.

None of the four who had opposition that cycle faced a serious threat, so the fact that they, like their unopposed colleagues, saw total turnout plummet doesn’t necessarily say something about turnout in 2010.

Still, Democratic strategists have to be worried about what effect the lack of a statewide contest will have on turnout. They certainly are aware of the problem, and they will be forced to pour additional resources into those districts to ensure that turnout in competitive Congressional districts doesn’t plunge.

None of this means that the endangered Democrats will lose. The two parties have very different views on the extent to which Adler is vulnerable, and the DCCC has the resources it will need to boost Democratic turnout in states where other races on the ballot could lull Democratic voters to sleep.

Still, with turnout a key factor, Democratic Party strategists will have to pay some additional attention to certain states, and New Jersey and Virginia will likely be on the list.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on April 12, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

GOP Bets on Super Bowl Vets in 2010

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Jon Runyan expected to be in Miami right now, getting ready to play in another Super Bowl, but instead he’s in New Jersey preparing to challenge an incumbent Member of Congress.

After a dozen years in the National Football League and off-season knee surgery last year, Runyan looked like he was trading in his shoulder pads for politics. But in November, the offensive lineman put his Congressional ambitions on hold to take one more run at a championship ring. He signed mid-season with the San Diego Chargers, a popular pick to make this year’s Super Bowl.

“That was more than half the decision. You’re not just going to play out six weeks [of the regular season],” Runyan explained in a recent phone interview. “It just didn’t work out that way,” Runyan added, talking about the Chargers’ stunning 17-14 loss to the underdog New York Jets in the divisional round of the playoffs.

If the Chargers had made it, this year would have been Runyan’s third Super Bowl appearance.

In 2000, Runyan’s teammate Kevin Dyson came up a yard short of the goal line on the last play of Super Bowl XXXIV as the Tennessee Titans lost to the St. Louis Rams. “I’ll always remember that last play,” said Runyan. “That snapshot will always be in my head.” Five years later, Runyan played in Super Bowl XXXIX with the Philadelphia Eagles, but they lost 24-21 to the New England Patriots.

Now the 6-foot-7-inch, 330-pound Pro Bowler is stepping onto a new playing field.

Runyan (R), 36, is gearing up to take on freshman Rep. John Adler (D) in New Jersey’s 3rd District and should officially announce his candidacy in the next couple of weeks. But even before he jumped into the race, Democrats wasted little time flinging mud at Runyan.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attacked Runyan for keeping four donkeys on some of his property in order to decrease his tax liability by claiming an agricultural use. But don’t expect a guy who started 190 consecutive games in the trenches of the NFL to rattle easily.

“You’re living your life under a microscope,” explained Runyan, comparing life as an NFL player to becoming a Congressional candidate. “You’ve got to put in the long hours and hard work to be prepared.”

During his decision-making process, Runyan relied on former New York Giants wide receiver Phil McConkey for advice. McConkey ran for Congress in 1990 in New Jersey’s 12th district, but he lost in the GOP primary to Dick Zimmer, who won the open seat in the general election.

Four years earlier, McConkey caught a touchdown pass off the fingertips of teammate Mark Bavaro to help lead the Giants to a 39-20 victory over the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXI. Even though McConkey lost his race, he might be able to advise Runyan on how to convince New York Giants fans in New Jersey’s 3rd that it’s OK to vote for a former Eagles player.

Runyan isn’t the only Super Bowl veteran hitting the campaign trail this year.

Former tight end Clint Didier spent some great years in Washington, D.C., winning a pair of Super Bowls with the Redskins in the 1980s, but now he’s running for the U.S. Senate to tackle bigger government. “Our government is way too big and outreached its responsibilities,” Didier said in an interview this week.

Didier played on the Redskins’ championship team that defeated the Miami Dolphins, 27-17, in Super Bowl XVII in 1983. A year later, he was the Redskins’ leading receiver when they lost Super Bowl XVIII to the Los Angeles Raiders, 38-9. Didier got one more Super Bowl shot, and he made the most of it.

The night before Super Bowl XXII in 1988, Didier had a dream that the Redskins would come from behind and that he would catch a touchdown pass. The next day, the team did just that.

Didier’s touchdown catch capped a Super Bowl record 35-point second quarter for the Redskins, on their way to a 42-10 win over the Denver Broncos. “I think the good Lord just wanted to calm me down so I didn’t drop that pass,” laughed Didier about the dream.

After he retired in 1990, Didier moved back to the state of Washington, bought a farm north of Pasco and raised his family. Now he feels “called to serve this country.” Unlike Runyan, Didier’s bid is much more of a long shot. The 50-year-old Republican is not even guaranteed the GOP nomination to take on Sen. Patty Murray (D) in November.

Former Minnesota Vikings running back Jim Lindsey (R) is a potential candidate for the U.S. Senate in Arkansas. Lindsey, 65, played in Super Bowl IV when his Vikings and their Purple People Eaters defense lost to the Kansas City Chiefs, 23-7. But he might get the most political traction from playing on the 1964 national championship football team at the University of Arkansas.

Lindsey, who now owns a large real estate company, is still deciding whether to join an increasingly crowded GOP field of candidates who want the right to take on Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), who has become one of the most vulnerable Senators in the country.

Republicans almost added yet another Super Bowl veteran to their list of candidates, but Mike Minter declined to challenge Rep. Larry Kissell (D) in North Carolina’s 8th district. The former defensive back for the Carolina Panthers equaled a career high in tackles and played part of Super Bowl XXXVIII on a broken foot, but his team lost to the Patriots, 32-29.

Former tight end Jay Riemersma, who played football with Runyan and the University of Michigan, is running in Michigan’s 2nd district. He’s just one of four Republicans vying to replace Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R), who is running for governor. But Riemersma joined the Buffalo Bills after the team’s string of four consecutive Super Bowl appearances.

Former Bills quarterback Jack Kemp served in Congress for almost two decades, representing upstate New York as a Republican. He fell one game short of playing in Super Bowl I when his team lost to the Chiefs in the AFL Championship game in 1966.

Former Oklahoma Rep. Steve Largent (R), the Hall of Fame wide receiver and arguably Congress’ most famous former NFL player along with Kemp, never played in a Super Bowl in his time with the Seattle Seahawks.

There is a clear link between former football players running for office and the Republican Party, from former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts to 2006 gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann (Pa.). North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler (D) looks like the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, the GOP is pleased with this, even if it hasn’t always proved to be a winning combination.

“They understand the importance of executing the blocking and tackling of political campaigns,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Ken Spain, “Hard work and discipline are hallmark Republican values that also happen to make for good professional football players.”

This story first appeared on RollCall.com and CQPolitics.com on February 6, 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

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.

Learning the Right Lessons From 2009 Results

By Stuart Rothenberg

Everyone and his brother has opinions about what happened on Tuesday, but not all assessments are equally correct, just as not all of the descriptions of the contests, while they were in progress, were equally on the mark.

What were some of the mistakes and mischaracterizations during the campaigns and after the voting?

One of the worst, I thought, was the widespread characterization of Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in New York’s 23rd district, as a moderate. I realize that those of us in the media use that term to distinguish certain Republicans and Democrats from their more ideologically consistent colleagues, but in this case, the label was inappropriate.

Scozzafava doesn’t only support abortion rights — often a marker for Republican “moderates” — she supports gay marriage. But she doesn’t only support gay marriage; she supported President Barack Obama’s stimulus proposal that not a single House Republican favored. But she didn’t just support the stimulus package; she supports the Employee Free Choice Act (what opponents call “card check”), which is opposed by virtually the entire business community. And in the end, of course, she endorsed the Democrat in the race.

Scozzafava is a liberal Republican by any standard, and she should have been labeled as such. She is more liberal than every Republican in the House of Representatives and many Democrats.

The Republican county chairmen who picked Scozzafava should have appreciated how much opposition her selection would have generated, and they should have been aware of the likelihood that the Conservative Party would have picked its own nominee, thereby dividing the GOP.

Of course, Scozzafava would have in all likelihood held the seat for the GOP if Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman had not been in the race. And Hoffman might not have held it as the Republican nominee.

I also thought it amusing that by the end of the elections in Virginia and New Jersey so many observers were talking about how terrible Democrat Creigh Deeds and Republican Chris Christie were as candidates.

Sorry, but a year ago everyone I talked with, including New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), told me that Christie was by far the GOP’s strongest candidate in the Garden State. It’s not as if the state’s Republican Party has produced a large stable of potential statewide candidates to choose from.

It’s certainly fair to criticize the governor-elect’s campaign and his performance during the race, but let’s not rewrite history. Christie was good enough to win. And he did.

Deeds soundly beat two Northern Virginia primary opponents, winning more than 45 percent in Fairfax and Arlington counties. Moreover, after his primary victory, he was widely hailed as the kind of Democrat who could keep the governorship in Democratic hands. Most mid-June polls showed the gubernatorial race close.

Again, he and his campaign had plenty of weaknesses and mistakes, but portraying him as some kind of inept buffoon who never really had a chance is rewriting history. And former Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) ran an extraordinarily good campaign.

The “Pollster of the Cycle Award,” in my opinion, goes to SurveyUSA, which once again proved its worth, at least in pre-election polls. The firm’s final Virginia numbers were eerily close — the firm showed McDonnell winning 58 percent to 40 percent in its Oct. 30 to Nov. 1 poll, just shy of the actual final margin: McDonnell 59 percent, Deeds 41 percent.

In New Jersey, where Christie won by 4 points, the last SurveyUSA poll showed Christie up by 3.

Public Policy Polling was the runner-up in Virginia (it had McDonnell up by 14 points), while in New Jersey PPP (Christie by 6 points) and Quinnipiac University (Christie by 2 points) were narrowly behind SurveyUSA in accuracy.

SurveyUSA, PPP and Quinnipiac, however, dramatically overstated the support of Independent Chris Daggett in New Jersey.

Where there are winners, there are usually also losers. None of the major public pollsters was dramatically wrong in Virginia, but Research 2000, which polled for DailyKos, showed McDonnell with only a 10-point lead in late October, primarily because it overstated Deeds’ support.

In New Jersey, the Monmouth University/Gannett poll erred when it showed Corzine up by 2 points in its last survey. But by far the worst-performing survey in either state was Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Democracy Corps in New Jersey.

Democracy Corps polling showed Corzine pulling ahead in his race in early October and stretching his lead to 4 points (41 percent to 36 percent for Christie) among likely voters and 5 points in a higher-turnout electorate in its Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 survey. The survey showed Daggett drawing in the midteens. He actually drew just less than 6 percent.

Finally, after the results were in, I received e-mails — one from a group favoring public financing of campaigns and another from a candidate running against wealthy opponents — claiming that Corzine’s defeat and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s (I) narrow victory constituted a statement about voters’ views of wealthy self-funders.

“Millionaire self-funders beware” is how the Senate campaign of former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) put it. “Voters ... are tired of self-financed, Wall Street-connected candidates,” Public Campaign wrote in a press release.

The idea that Corzine lost because he spent so much money or self-funded is laughable. His defeat was a referendum on the past four years and particularly the state’s economy and tax issues. As for Bloomberg, his spending did cause a backlash, but so did his perceived arrogance, especially his efforts to change the law that would have prevented him from seeking a third term.

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

Stu Talks 2009 Elections on NewsHour

Stu joined the Hotline's Amy Walter in discussing the 2009 election results on PBS NewsHour. You can read the transcript here or watch the video below.

One Down, Two to Go: The Outlook for the 2009 Elections

By Stuart Rothenberg

We are still a few days away from Election Day, but party strategists, operatives and local activists are already blaming their own nominees for their defeats.

The clearest evidence that the Virginia gubernatorial race is over — apart from a blizzard of surveys showing Republican Bob McDonnell well over the 50 percent mark in the ballot test and leading Democrat Creigh Deeds by double digits in many surveys — is that White House insiders have already passed the word that it is Deeds who blew the race.

The assertion by Obama loyalists that Deeds would have done better by embracing President Barack Obama, as they say New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) has, ignores the fact that Corzine comes from a more Democratic state and that because Corzine is in a multicandidate race, he may need only 44 percent of the vote to win. If Deeds gets 44 percent of the vote in Virginia, he will be soundly defeated.

If George W. Bush were still in the White House, Deeds almost certainly would be elected governor of Virginia, so it’s a little difficult to swallow the argument that national politics has nothing to do with the Virginia results. But it’s also important to note that Virginia Republicans united behind their nominee and that McDonnell has kept his focus on jobs, taxes and transportation, rather than stressing social issues.

The ability of McDonnell to roll up big margins outside Northern Virginia, against a Democratic nominee from rural Bath County, can’t be ignored, especially considering all of the growth in Northern Virginia and the hype about the region’s political importance in state races. The red parts of Virginia are acting red again, even against a Democratic nominee who was expected to have considerable appeal in those parts of the state.

In New Jersey, the battle between Corzine and Chris Christie (R) is too close to call. Late polling in the race is all over the place, from Corzine having a mid-single-digits lead to Christie having a slightly smaller advantage.

Recent polls show Independent Chris Daggett getting anywhere from 7 percent to 20 percent, a mind-boggling range. Republican attacks on Daggett in paid media seem to have driven up his negatives, which could help Christie peel off some of the Independent’s supporters.

While Christie should outperform the polls, his own numbers have eroded dramatically. Daggett is proving to be a considerable factor, and he could be Corzine’s salvation. The stronger Daggett’s showing, the more likely that Corzine earns a narrow win. Three months ago, that seemed impossible, which shows how successful the governor’s campaign has been in making Christie the issue.

It’s a widely accepted rule of politics that incumbents “get what you see” on the ballot test, winning little or none of the undecided vote. It’s also generally true, as I wrote recently, that support for Independent and third-party nominees tends to slip in the final days of the campaign, unless of course the Independent or third-party candidate has a chance to win (see New York’s 23rd district, below). Both of those factors work to Christie’s advantage in the campaign’s final days.

In any case and no matter the result, the result in the Garden State will say little or nothing about Obama.

In New York’s 23rd district, another three-way race, Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava now seems like an afterthought.

Baseball statistician-turned-political-statistics guru Nate Silver, who seems to question the integrity and veracity of every Republican or conservative poll that he doesn’t like, has raised questions about the newest Club for Growth survey, which shows Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman holding a slight lead of 32 percent to 28 percent over Democrat Bill Owens.

In fact, more than one poll (public and private) shows that the liberal Republican has slid into third place and that the race is statistically even between Hoffman and Owens. (For the record, Club for Growth pollster Jon Lerner is among the least likely pollsters to fudge numbers or manipulate data.)

The fact that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is attacking Hoffman — and that a new Club for Growth ad being aired in the district’s three major media markets attacks Owens, contrasts him with Hoffman and ignores Scozzafava — is further proof that the special election has become a two-way race between the Democratic nominee and the Conservative Party nominee.

Interestingly, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s independent expenditure campaign in the race has run three TV spots — all of which have attacked Owens but ignored Hoffman.

That strategy either assumes that Hoffman is irrelevant — a conclusion clearly not warranted by any of the recent polling or accepted by GOP operatives — or is intended to help Hoffman in the event that he emerges as the stronger opponent against the Democrat in the final days of the three-way contest. It isn’t hard to figure out what Republican strategists are doing.

Owens deserves to be favored in the race, if only because of the presence of a credible Republican and a credible Conservative Party nominee.

Democrats could win two out of the three races, but only because multicandidate contests might allow Corzine and Owens to sneak through with a minority of the vote. A win is a win, but even if that happens, it’s not great news for Democrats for 2010.

In fact, Democrats might be better off were Hoffman to win the special election in New York. Yes, that outcome would prevent Democrats from expanding their House majority, but a Hoffman win might embolden the Club for Growth and encourage conservatives to take on other Republicans who aren’t entirely pure. And encouraging a bigger GOP civil war is something that could help Democrats win more than a single additional seat in the House.

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

A Road Well-Traveled in Drive to Hold Power: Destroy the Opposition

By Stuart Rothenberg

I had to chuckle when I read reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is preparing to run a decidedly negative campaign this year, with an unnamed adviser saying Reid would “vaporize” his opponent.

That’s not exactly a new standard for the Nevada Democrat, who understands full well how to run a campaign and what he’ll need to do to win a fifth term.

But the report in Politico, followed by reverberations in other media outlets, reminded me that there is no secret to how Democrats will try to hang onto their large majorities in the House and Senate next year if the national political environment is unfavorable: Destroy the opposition.

That strategy is standard operating procedure for incumbents, regardless of party, and it has been used for years. If your own negatives are high, drive up your opponent’s. Make him or her as unpopular as you are, and voters will be faced with a different kind of choice.

It won’t be a matter of which candidate voters like; it will be a question of which of the two unappealing candidates has the experience or has delivered for constituents. Voters will take the devil they know, not the devil they don’t know, vulnerable incumbents will hope.

You can expect Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) to use the same tactic against his eventual Republican challenger if he can’t move his own numbers dramatically before Republicans pick a nominee against him.

GOP strategists particularly on the House side used this approach repeatedly from the mid-1990s through the 2006 election, when they found themselves overwhelmed by a partisan wave that they couldn’t hold back.

Their strategy for a decade was clear: Hit the Democratic challenger again and again and yet again just for good measure to be sure that the opponent’s name identification is upside down (a higher unfavorable than favorable rating).

Indeed, that’s exactly what then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R) did to then-Gov. Jim Hunt (D) 25 years ago in North Carolina’s 1984 Senate race, when Helms came from behind to beat the once-popular challenger by almost 4 points.

Reid’s strategists apparently have been watching New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) re-election bid, noting his success in driving up Republican Chris Christie’s negatives, even if they believe that Corzine waited too long to unload on his opponent. Still, there’s a problem here.

While Corzine has boosted Christie’s negatives, it hasn’t helped the governor in the ballot test. His standing — in name identification, job performance and the ballot test — haven’t budged.

Second, while the scorched-earth strategy often works for vulnerable incumbents, it doesn’t always work. If it did, Republicans would not have lost the House and Senate in 2006. They certainly tried to do what had proved to be successful — and what Reid’s strategist has promised to do.

When a party, or a candidate, is unpopular, it (or he) isn’t an ideal messenger. Republicans used the same tactics in 2006 and 2008 that had proved effective since they took control of Congress in 1994, but the political environment had shifted and their attacks didn’t stick on Democratic challengers the way they once had. Republicans weren’t deemed credible messengers, so their attacks fell flat.

For Harry Reid, that’s potentially a serious problem.

Multiple polls all show the same thing: Silver State voters have soured on the Senate Majority Leader. In many respects, his numbers look like Corzine’s. But unfortunately for Reid, he isn’t likely to have the benefit of a third-party candidate siphoning votes away from his Republican opponent.

In the eight head-to-head ballot tests conducted by three different polling firms over the past two months pitting Reid against either state Republican Chairwoman Sue Lowden or businessman/unsuccessful candidate Danny Tarkanian (R), Reid has drawn 39 percent to 43 percent of the vote.

Going back to May, there have been six different surveys testing Reid’s name identification. His “unfavorable” ratings in the six have been as follows: 54 percent, 50 percent, 46 percent, 50 percent, 52 percent and 50 percent.

In January, just days after President Barack Obama’s inauguration, a Republican poll found Reid’s unfavorable rating to be 47 percent, and shortly after the 2008 election, a Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos (D) showed the Senator’s unfavorable rating to be 54 percent.

The Senator showed $8.7 million in the bank at the end of September, and he has aired TV ads. But as long as his negatives remain high, and as long as his eventual GOP challenger has the resources to compete, Reid will be in for a fight. And he can’t allow his race to be merely a referendum on his performance.

Anonymous threats to “vaporize” the opposition may make a cute quote in a newspaper story, but they sound less intimidating from the campaign of a candidate with unfavorable ratings in the low 50s. Still, it’s probably the only strategy available to the Senate Majority Leader.

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

Is the New Jersey Gubernatorial Race a Tossup?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Anyone in his right mind would now have to rate next month’s gubernatorial election in New Jersey as a tossup. After all, virtually every poll shows the race within the margin of error, and some recent surveys show Gov. Jon Corzine (D) leading GOP challenger Chris Christie.

Moreover, climbing out on a limb to give one of the candidates an advantage in a virtual dead heat isn’t the best way to guarantee that your percentage of “correct calls” remains high so that you can send out a press release after the elections to brag about how astute you are.

But this column is about analysis, scenarios and best guesses, and since I still believe that Christie has the single best chance of winning the Garden State governorship, I see no reason to crawl completely off the limb I’m on. But, I must admit, I’m not oozing with confidence.

As I noted a couple of weeks ago in a column, Corzine’s numbers are going nowhere fast — in other words, he is not “gaining” on Christie. He remains stuck pretty much where he has been for many months — in the 39 percent to 42 percent range, even in a just-released Quinnipiac University survey.

The public’s view of the governor remains heavily negative in three recent polls that show a dead heat. A Public Policy Polling (D) survey found Corzine’s name ID at 55 percent unfavorable, while Fairleigh Dickinson University had his unfavorable rating at 54 percent and Quinnipiac showed it at 53 percent.

Christie’s unfavorable numbers weren’t good — 44 percent in PPP’s survey, 42 percent in the FDU poll and 40 percent in Quinnipiac’s — but they weren’t nearly as bad as Corzine’s.

In the FDU survey, a stunning 69 percent said Corzine’s performance as governor was only fair or poor. In Quinnipiac’s, 56 percent of likely voters disapproved of how he has handled his job. These numbers suggest that Corzine won’t get many voters who are still undecided.

One Republican strategist I talked with recently equated Corzine’s political positioning to that of a “beached whale,” adding, “We can’t move his numbers, and he can’t move his numbers.”

But if Corzine’s numbers haven’t moved, Christie’s have — down. The erosion in Christie’s standing has made the race tight.

While the GOP challenger was around 50 percent on the ballot test in July and August, he has slid into the low to mid-40s in most recent surveys, all but erasing his lead over Corzine. His personal negatives have risen correspondingly.

Independent Chris Daggett seems to be drawing enough votes away from Christie to make it possible for the governor to sneak into a second term with less than 45 percent.

While about half of those polled say they don’t yet have an opinion of Daggett (the number is a stunning 73 percent in Quinnipiac’s poll), Daggett has qualified for public financing, participated in a televised debate and been endorsed by both the Sierra Club and the Newark Star-Ledger.

But nobody is entirely certain how Daggett will do on Election Day.

The recent PPP survey showed Daggett drawing 13 percent, while an early October SurveyUSA poll put him at 14 percent, the same as the new Quinnipiac poll. Surveys that don’t include a three-way ballot test (requiring respondents to volunteer their preference for him) put Daggett in the mid-to-upper single digits. FDU showed him at 17 percent in a three-way ballot test but only 4 percent when respondents had to volunteer his name.

Unlike Corzine and Christie, who are guaranteed one of the top two positions on the ballot in each county, Daggett’s ballot position in each county was decided by random drawing.

Daggett lucked out in two counties, Gloucester and Bergen, the state’s most populous county, drawing the third spot behind the two major-party nominees. But elsewhere, he is buried among the nine other Independent and third-party hopefuls.

“If Daggett is going to get 17 percent of the vote, it will be because people are actively searching for him on the ballot, not because voters simply are dissatisfied with Corzine and Christie and looking for someone else to vote for,” says Matt Friedman of PolitickerNJ.com, an astute observer of New Jersey politics and of the gubernatorial contest.

But ballot placement is only one of Daggett’s problems.

Independent candidates often lose support toward the final weeks of a campaign, either because they come under attack or, more often, because their supporters start to worry about “throwing away” votes on a candidate who can’t win. (Veteran Democratic and Republican operatives argue that, for a number of reasons, Daggett has no chance to win the election.)

In the 2006 Texas gubernatorial race, for example, two Independent candidates, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn (who was elected as a Republican) and entertainer Kinky Friedman, drew a combined 38 percent in a mid-September SurveyUSA poll. A month later, the two candidates combined for 35 percent in another SurveyUSA poll, and a week before Election Day they drew 38 percent. When the votes were counted, however, Keeton Strayhorn and Friedman combined to draw 30 percent, significantly below what surveys had shown.

Christie has started to criticize Daggett’s tax plan, and he is almost certain to argue in the coming weeks that since the Independent candidate can’t win, a vote for Daggett is, in fact, a vote for four more years of Corzine. Whether Christie is successful with that message will determine who wins, Corzine or Christie.

Daggett is the single best thing to happen to Corzine politically. In a two-man contest against Christie, the governor would have little chance to win. But a three-way race presents a very different dynamic.

If Daggett’s number on the ballot test slides to the low double digits (10 percent to 12 percent) or below, Corzine almost certainly will lose. On the other hand, if Daggett gets at least 17 percent, the governor should win. If Daggett’s showing falls into the 13 percent to 16 percent range, either major-party candidate could emerge victorious.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 15, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Jersey Governor: Don’t Believe the Corzine Surge Just Yet

By Stuart Rothenberg

The gubernatorial race in New Jersey has not changed fundamentally recently, no matter what you may read in poorly produced Associated Press stories distributed by the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic National Committee or Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) campaign.

I’ve become accustomed to crazy rumors and assertions at the end of campaigns, and most of them are baseless.

A couple of days before Election Day 2006, CBS executives planning the network’s coverage were in a frenzy about a possible Republican surge that challenged all of their assumptions about the election and disrupted their plans for election night. After checking around with reliable pollsters, I told them the sky wasn’t falling on Democrats.

In other years, when Republicans were headed for gains, I’ve heard late rumors about Democratic surges that were equally untrue.

A Wednesday AP story reporting that Corzine “is closing the gap in the New Jersey governor’s race” and has “pulled to within 4 percentage points of Republican Chris Christie” is technically true but gives such a distorted view of the contest that it can only mislead readers.

The same impression was left by reports on newjerseynewsroom.com, an independent news site, on Bloomberg.com and in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Describing Corzine as closing the gap or pulling closer conveys the impression that Corzine is gathering support and increasing his standing in the contest. He is not. He hasn’t moved in the Quinnipiac University poll (or in other polls, for that matter) since the beginning of the year.

Corzine’s chances of winning re-election now are no better than they were a month ago. The governor continues to be stuck between 38 percent and 42 percent in the ballot test, where he has been for many months, and the fundamentals of the race continue to favor the Republican challenger.

Corzine was at 39 percent among likely voters in the newest Quinnipiac survey, not much different from his 37 percent showing at the end of August, his 40 percent showing in early August or his 38 percent showing in mid-July.

The most recent Quinnipiac poll showed Christie leading Corzine by 4 points because the Republican’s vote has slipped from 46 percent or 47 percent in other Quinnipiac surveys to 43 percent. In turn, Independent candidate Chris Daggett’s number in the ballot test has risen to 12 percent in the most recent Quinnipiac poll, up from the 7 percent to 9 percent he had been drawing in other recent Quinnipiac surveys.

There is no statistically significant movement from late August to late September among likely independent voters.

Corzine’s attacks on Christie have driven the challenger’s negatives up, as the DGA points out, so that Christie’s personal ratings are only 38 percent favorable/38 percent unfavorable. Of course, what the DGA forgot to mention is that Corzine’s ratings are 34 percent favorable/56 percent unfavorable — much worse than Christie’s.

No, Corzine’s unfavorable ratings haven’t moved, but that’s because his name identification is high and voters already viewed him unfavorably before the race began. The governor’s job approval mirrors his name ID ratings at 36 percent approve/58 percent disapprove. (A month ago, Corzine’s job rating was little different at 34 percent approve/60 percent disapprove.)

Quinnipiac’s latest poll found that the top campaign issue by far for likely voters is taxes (41 percent, compared with the second most important issue, the economy/unemployment/jobs, which drew 17 percent). And which candidate has the advantage on that issue? Christie “is the big winner” on that issue, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Director Maurice Carroll says.

Quinnipiac found that 61 percent of likely voters (and 71 percent of likely independent voters) said that property taxes — the single most salient issue in polling — would likely go up if Corzine is re-elected, while only 34 percent of likely voters (and 38 percent of likely independent voters) thought property taxes would go up if Christie wins next month.

What evidence should you look for if the fundamental dynamics of the race are changing?

Corzine’s numbers in the ballot test need to show some life. Ballot tests a year out don’t mean a great deal, especially if the candidates haven’t spent money or engaged, but this race has been active for months and state voters have seemed more focused on politics earlier than in the past.

Alternatively, a full-scale shift of Christie voters to Independent Daggett would suggest that Democrats had made Christie an unacceptable alternative to the governor, giving Corzine a chance to squeeze out a win with just 40 percent of the vote in a three-way race.

But that has not happened yet, and the bigger concern for Corzine is that Daggett voters will move away from him and toward Christie as the election nears and Daggett voters decide that they want to be with a winner, or that voting for an Independent is a “wasted” vote.

Corzine still has a month to change the contest’s dynamics, and nobody can predict what surprises or mistakes are yet to come. But the new Quinnipiac poll doesn’t show that much has changed, no matter what hype you read in a lot of the news coverage.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 1, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Parties Watching 2009 Races for Clues

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With the midterm elections more than a year away, all eyes are on this fall’s gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. But instead of simply tallying wins and losses, party operatives are digging below the surface for clues as to what the political environment will be like next year.

In Virginia, Republicans are watching how former state Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) performs in three Congressional districts that span three very distinct regions of the commonwealth: Southside (Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello’s 5th district), the Valley (Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s 6th district) and Southwest (Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher’s 9th district).

Republicans believe both Perriello and Boucher are vulnerable, but they’re looking for broader implications for other GOP-leaning districts that are currently represented by Democrats.

“If we get ... to the Bush 2000 number in those regions then we will have ‘bounced back’ in our base areas,” according to one House GOP strategist, referring to George W. Bush’s vote totals in the 2000 presidential race. “That’s the first step toward getting healthy.”

George W. Bush received 55 percent in the 5th and 9th districts and 60 percent in the 6th in 2000, when he faced then-Vice-President Al Gore. But Democrat Mark Warner outperformed Gore’s percentage by at least 10 points in the trio of districts in his successful 2001 gubernatorial run. And Gov. Tim Kaine (D) did about 8 points better than Gore in the 5th and 6th when he was elected to the governor’s mansion in 2005.

Kaine equaled Gore’s 2000 percentage in the 9th only because it was GOP nominee Jerry Kilgore’s home district. In similar fashion, McDonnell may have a hard time racking up big margins in the Shenandoah Valley and southwestern Virginia because his opponent, state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D), is from the 6th district. But Republicans believe their nominee will do well.

Both parties are also looking at how specific demographic groups perform statewide, including suburban voters, seniors, African-Americans and college students. All of them were keys to President Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, both in Virginia and elsewhere, and they will go a long way in determining which party is successful in 2010.

If McDonnell does well in Loudoun, Prince William and Stafford counties in the Northern Virginia suburbs, as well as Henrico County (a Richmond suburb) and the city of Chesapeake, Republicans believe it could foreshadow their ability to win over suburban voters in other states for the first time in four years.

Seniors have traditionally been an important voting group in midterm elections because of their propensity to vote. And Republicans believe Democrats gave them a window of opportunity by mentioning Medicare as part of the broader health care reform debate.

Meanwhile, both parties are interested in how dramatic the drop in turnout among African-Americans and college students will be when Obama is not on the ballot this fall.

Plus, overall turnout in both states is likely to be even lower next year because of the absence of any statewide or legislative elections.

In 2001, the Republican National Committee used the off-year gubernatorial elections to test-drive its 72 Hour Task Force. The RNC targeted areas with different get-out-the-vote tactics in an effort to hone its ground game for the 2002 midterm elections and ultimately Bush’s 2004 re-election. But this year, Republicans are taking a different approach.

“We’re done with experimenting,” one Republican strategist said. “We need to win.”

In the end, the RNC will spend at least $7 million in Virginia to help McDonnell take over the governorship after eight years of Democratic control. At least $5 million of that total will be spent on the ground in what one strategist called a massive, “Obama-style” get-out-the-vote effort.

“It’s an acknowledgement that the Obama campaign was in every way superior than the McCain campaign at getting people to the polls,” said the GOP strategist, referencing Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) failed bid for the presidency.

The Democratic National Committee, led by Kaine has also committed $5 million to the race.

But with Democratic nominees in both New Jersey and Virginia down in the polls, and facing the real possibility of losing both states, Democrats are quicker to downplay the 2009 results and much slower to draw any conclusions for 2010.

“The race will be decided by Virginia voters,” said one DNC official trying to set expectations low. “We’re not using it as any sort of litmus test.”

Strategists on both sides of the aisle do seem to agree that the New Jersey race is more an anomaly than a road map to the midterm elections.

“New Jersey is tougher,” according to one House GOP operative. “It appears to be more of a referendum on [incumbent Democratic Gov. Jon] Corzine than anything else.”

If former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (R) defeats Corzine, it will be Republicans’ first statewide victory in more than a dozen years. Christie will need Democrats to cross over in order to win, but that doesn’t mean GOP candidates nationwide should expect Democratic support in next year’s midterms.

House Democratic strategists aren’t dismissing the New Jersey results entirely. They’re interested in the 3rd district, where Rep. John Adler (D) took over a Republican-held open seat in 2008 and could potentially be vulnerable next year.

There is a danger in projecting 2010 results simply based on 2009 outcomes. When Republicans won New Jersey and Virginia in 1993, it was the beginning of a tidal wave that reached its peak a year later. But when Republicans lost New Jersey and Virginia in 2001, they still made limited gains in 2002.

Even if they lose both governorships this fall and the expected special election in New York’s 23rd district, Democrats don’t consider the whole year a loss. They held New York’s 20th district in a competitive special election this spring, held a state House seat in Iowa, held a state Senate seat in Louisiana and took over a state Senate seat in Kentucky.

Rest assured that the party that wins big this fall will say it’s just a taste of what’s to come next year. The party that loses will be channeling former Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.) and dusting off the “all politics is local” mantra.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on September 15, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Poll Results Daunting for Democrats in ’09 Gubernatorial Races

By Stuart Rothenberg

Given that I’ve spent the past 30 years reporting on and analyzing candidates, campaigns and elections, it should come as no surprise that I believe that campaigns matter. I’ve seen more than enough candidates who appeared headed to victory stumble their way to defeat during the post-Labor Day stretch.

But cycle fundamentals are crucial, too, and poll numbers in the middle of September often are good predictors about the final result.

Yes, voters are increasingly likely to pay attention to candidates and campaigns as the calendar rolls through September and into October, so voter sentiment can change as events occur. But that is at least somewhat offset by the tendency of many voters to dismiss TV ads and charges late in the campaign as nothing more than election year politics.

Purely from a technical point of view, recent poll numbers in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races remain horrendous for Democrats. And what has to be really scary to party strategists is the similarity in their candidates’ positioning in the two contests.

Public opinion analyst Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com astutely observed a week ago that the best way to understand what is going on in the Garden State gubernatorial race is to focus on Gov. Jon Corzine’s (D) numbers in ballot tests, not on the margin of Republican challenger Chris Christie’s lead. The governor, after all, is a known commodity to Garden State voters, so his strength in ballot tests reflects the public’s view of his candidacy.

Corzine’s showing in ballot tests over the past 33 polls, dating back to a mid-January Monmouth University/Gannett survey, has ranged from a low of 35 percent to a high of 42 percent, a weak showing for a sitting governor. And Corzine hit 45 percent in that Monmouth/Gannett poll only when matched against conservative Steve Lonegan, who lost to Christie in the June GOP primary.

Corzine’s consistency suggests that he has hit something of a ceiling in the state. While incumbents — even Democratic incumbents — often underperform in New Jersey, in part because of the importance of the New York City and Philadelphia media markets, they rarely are in as bad a shape as Corzine is this late in an election year.

Four years ago, in polling conducted in mid-September and early October, Corzine was drawing 44 percent to 48 percent of the vote against his GOP opponent, Doug Forrester, in five nonpartisan polls (Fairleigh Dickinson University, Quinnipiac University, Monmouth/Gannett, Star-Ledger/Eagleton Institute of Politics and WNBC/Marist Institute for Public Opinion). But Corzine was then a sitting U.S. Senator, and he also held a lead of 2 to 8 points over Forrester in those same polls’ ballot tests.

Blumenthal’s point about Corzine’s numbers is also relevant in Virginia, where Democrat Creigh Deeds’ ballot test numbers are eerily similar to Corzine’s.

True, there is no incumbent seeking re-election in Virginia, but Democrats have held the governor’s office for eight years, and that makes the Democratic nominee this year the de-facto incumbent in the minds of many voters.

Deeds has drawn 37 percent to 43 percent of the vote in 10 polls conducted since July. In each of those surveys, he trailed Republican nominee Bob McDonnell by anywhere from the low single digits to the midteens. (Deeds looked much stronger in two mid-June polls, but those results undoubtedly were skewed by his June 9 primary victory, making them largely irrelevant.)

In six of the last eight surveys of likely voters, McConnell was over the 50 percent mark in the ballot test against Deeds, and in the other two, the Republican was at 49 percent.

Four years ago, the Virginia governor’s race looked tight. A mid-September Mason-Dixon Polling & Research survey of likely voters had Jerry Kilgore (R) leading Tim Kaine 41 percent to 40 percent. A month later, the same survey showed Kilgore ahead 44 percent to 42 percent. A mid-October Diageo/Hotline poll showed Kaine leading Kilgore 41 percent to 40 percent among likely voters.

Kaine eventually went on to win the race by almost 6 points, and he certainly was helped by then-President George W. Bush’s sinking poll numbers, as well as outgoing Gov. Mark Warner’s (D) popularity. Kaine also painted Kilgore as too conservative for the state, particularly for crucial Northern Virginia.

While Deeds and Corzine will now have almost eight weeks to change voters’ minds, they start from deep holes.

This time, neither Deeds nor Corzine get much advantage by blaming Bush for the economy or the public’s discontent (though they have already tried to do so), and the GOP has nominated candidates in both states who seem intent on ensconcing themselves in the political middle, exactly where most swing voters are. Because of that, many voters dissatisfied with the direction of the country, or of their state, will be more inclined to cast their votes for the Republican nominees than they were four years ago.

Corzine and Deeds will likely have to launch increasingly tough attacks on their GOP opponents, seeking to make the elections referendums on the Republican nominees. But that strategy will also give Christie and McDonnell the opportunity to paint their opponents as desperate and negative. A quick surge in multiple polls by either Democrat could change the dynamic, of course.

As Yogi Berra might put it, the two contests aren’t over until they are over, but the fundamentals, as reflected in state ballot tests, simply don’t look good for Corzine or Deeds.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 10, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Jersey Governor: You Have 4 Months To Learn to Say ‘Gov. Chris Christie’

By Stuart Rothenberg

The raid last week in New Jersey that resulted in the arrest of 44 people, including a number of officeholders, probably is the straw that breaks Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine’s back in November. When I asked one longtime Democratic insider about the race, it took him all of two words to assess Corzine’s prospects: “It’s over.” Another Garden State Democrat was more cautious, saying only, “It’s almost over.”

All eyes will now be on the governor, to see whether he follows the lead of former Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), who dropped his Senate candidacy late in 2002 when he and party insiders came to believe that he could very well lose his seat to the Republican challenger. Party leaders then picked former Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) to replace him on the ballot, and Lautenberg went on to win in the fall.

Corzine’s ethics are not the issue, of course. His major problem is the state’s economy, which includes the budget.

But after the raid, Garden State voters are now more likely to kill two birds with one vote — expressing their disappointment with the governor’s economic performance while also finally making a statement about ethics, corruption and good government. That’s exactly what happened in Louisiana in 2007, when Bobby Jindal (R) was elected governor.

During the July FBI raid, authorities arrested a number of former and current officeholders, including Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano III, Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell, Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini and Jersey City Council President Mariano Vega, all Hudson County Democrats. Ocean County Assemblyman Daniel Van Pelt was the lone Republican arrested in the sting.

For months, polls have shown Christie holding anywhere from a 6-point to a 12-point lead over Corzine, who served five years in the Senate before winning the governorship in 2005. Polls have shown the governor draws 38 percent to 41 percent in ballot tests, a sign of his weak position, and he is losing too much support among blue-collar Democrats and independent voters.

“Independents,” one veteran New Jersey Democrat told me, “have stopped listening to the governor. He is well-known to them, and they are ready to move on.”

Christie is perfectly positioned to benefit from growing voter embarrassment with the state’s reputation as an ethical cesspool. He recently added Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guadagno, a 50-year-old former federal prosecutor, to his ticket as lieutenant governor.

Guadagno is a former assistant U.S. attorney (where she was deputy chief of the Corruption Unit) and deputy director of the state Division of Criminal Justice. She favors abortion rights.

Over the weekend, Corzine made his picket for his running mate, selecting state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, 74, of Bergen County.

Weinberg, who has served for more than a decade in the Assembly, is known as a hard campaigner and a reformer (as well as an adversary of a former powerful Bergen County Democratic leader who is awaiting trial on corruption charges). The state Senator, who lost much of her savings in the Bernie Madoff investment scam, is also regarded as very liberal.

Weinberg’s reputation as a reformer ordinarily would be an asset. But with state Democrats buried under an avalanche of bad news, her nomination isn’t likely to change the foul odor coming from state party circles. And Weinberg is widely disliked by Democratic county chairmen, who traditionally are responsible for running the all-important county organizations in the state and for getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day.

“County [party] leaders don’t like Loretta. They find her anti-party-structure. They feel that she’s unable to do anything but complain,” one Democrat told me recently.

It didn’t take long for the New York Times to report that Rep. Frank Pallone and Newark Mayor Cory Booker were expressing interest in replacing Corzine as the Democratic nominee if the governor were to announce that he had decided against running for re-election.

But Corzine, who didn’t come up through the state Democratic machine and now has a running mate, insists that he is in the race until November. Unlike Torricelli, who, one Garden State Democrat observed, needed to find work after the election and knew that he couldn’t afford to just blow up the party, Corzine is financially secure and can afford to ignore the consequences of remaining in the contest.

The comeback by then-Gov. Brendan Byrne (D), who trailed his GOP opponent by an even bigger margin in 1977 than Corzine now trails Christie, is certain to give Corzine at least a faint hope of victory. That hope and the governor’s stubbornness argue against a quick exit. Most insiders see only about a 1-in-5 chance that the governor will end his re-election bid.

Democratic strategists aren’t yet certain what kind of a year their party will have in November, though they think a 5-point loss by Corzine and modest losses downballot is the most likely scenario. But they acknowledge that a much bigger Corzine defeat (in the order of 10 or 12 points) is possible, along with correspondingly larger losses in the Assembly and in local races.

Whatever the outcome, 2009 will be at the very least a decent year for Garden State Republicans, and possibly something much better. The result, one Democrat told me recently, is that the message of November will be that New Jersey once again is a two-party state. And Republicans are likely to trumpet that comeback nationally.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 30, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

National Mood Isn't Always Visible on the Ground

By Stuart Rothenberg

Polls show that the nation’s political winds are not changing. President Barack Obama is up, while Republicans are down — and spending more time on trivial matters such as Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele than on rebuilding their brand.

The past couple of months have also seen some significant campaign developments that are affecting the two parties’ outlooks for 2009 and 2010 — not always as expected.

The special election in New York’s 20th district has become a barnburner, with Republican Jim Tedisco holding only the slightest (and statistically insignificant) advantage over Democrat Scott Murphy in the fast-approaching March 31 special election. For Republicans, the special election to replace appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) looks to be repeating a troubling pattern.

Even though the district leans Republican, soft GOP voters who like Obama are not embracing Tedisco. Some have gravitated to Murphy, who is young, has money to put into the race and has no legislative record, while others are undecided.

Tedisco has served in the state Assembly for years, and that makes him easily branded as a “typical politician,” which is exactly what a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee TV ad calls him.

One GOP insider whom I spoke with recently said the race “doesn’t look good,” in part because Murphy has been “rolling up the score” among independents. But strategists from both parties expect a close finish, and turnout, as is often the case in special elections, will determine the winner. A loss for Republicans would be demoralizing, but it could happen.

At the same time that Democratic prospects in the New York special election are brightening, the party’s prospects in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections later this year are dimming.

Gov. Jon Corzine (D) is now running behind former U.S. attorney Chris Christie, the GOP’s likely nominee, in the Garden State, and tough economic conditions, which are not likely to improve in the short run, are forcing Corzine to make unappealing choices.

In Virginia, the crowded race for the Democratic nomination is allowing former state Attorney General Bob McDonnell to run free and clear, and to define himself.

Six months down the road, these two state races could look very different, but right now it appears unlikely that Democrats can retain both governorships. That would give Republicans something to crow about in November, and a sweep would certainly boost the GOP mood across the country heading into 2010.

Republicans caught a break in Kansas when Obama selected Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) for his Cabinet. Her confirmation will virtually guarantee that Republicans will hold the open Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) in order to run for governor.

In Connecticut, local media continue to raise questions about Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd’s past financial arrangements, and former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) is now widely expected to enter the Senate race against him.

Any Senate contest in the Nutmeg State is difficult for the GOP, and Dodd is a formidable foe, even with his depressed poll numbers. Still, this Senate contest wasn’t expected to be worth watching, so Dodd’s electoral problems are a welcome windfall for Republicans.

In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist (R) is more likely than not to jump into the Senate race.

Normally, the governor’s office in almost any state is seen as a refuge from the partisanship of Capitol Hill. But the Sunshine State faces the same fiscal problems that other states do, and the next governor will have to make unpopular decisions. That might make the Senate look relatively appealing to Crist.

In any case, Democratic recruiting for the state’s Senate race has, at least so far, not been all that intimidating, leaving Republicans feeling better about their prospects of retaining retiring Sen. Mel Martinez’s open seat.

Ohio looks to be another dogfight, but the race took an unfortunate turn for Democrats when both Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner decided to seek the Democratic nomination. The primary could enhance the chances of former Rep. Rob Portman, the likely GOP Senate nominee.

While recent developments have caused Democrats a few problems, the party has reason to feel increasingly confident about its chances of taking open Senate seats in Missouri and New Hampshire.

The prospect of a bitter GOP primary in Missouri between Rep. Roy Blunt and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman — with the winner facing Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) — is making GOP strategists nervous. Blunt has the backing of most insiders, but given his years in the House leadership and the problems that his son, Matt, had as governor, the conservative Steelman’s “outsider” message of reform might resonate.

Democratic prospects in Kentucky also are bright now, as GOP efforts to ease Sen. Jim Bunning (R) out of the race have backfired. With Democrats likely to nominate either Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo or state Attorney General Jack Conway for the Senate contest, GOP prospects of retaining the Bunning seat are not good.

In North Carolina, state Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) seems genuinely interested in challenging Sen. Richard Burr (R). Burr should run a far better race than then-Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) ran last cycle, and the midterm electorate should not be as favorable for Cooper as it was for now-Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.). Still, a Burr-Cooper contest would be a titanic struggle, giving Senate Democrats another serious opportunity.

Finally, the Pennsylvania Senate race looks messier each day. Conservative Pat Toomey now seems likely to repeat his 2004 primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (R), and Specter’s chances of surviving this time are worse than they were six years ago, when he won renomination with 50.8 percent.

Specter’s chances for winning a primary would be improved, of course, in a multicandidate race, and conservative, anti-abortion activist Peg Luksik said last week that she’s getting into the GOP contest. Any votes she gets almost certainly would be anti-Specter voters peeled away from Toomey.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 16, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: New Jersey Governor & Virginia Governor

The March 6, 2009 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers.

The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

Here is a brief preview of this edition:


New Jersey Governor: Don’t Blame Me
By Nathan L. Gonzales

With the current economic crisis, it’s a tough time to be a governor. But New Jersey’s Jon Corzine (D) is the only incumbent facing voters this year.

In 2005, Corzine made the jump from the U.S. Senate to the governor’s mansion on the heels of scandal surrounding Democratic Gov. Jim McGreevey. Now, four years later, the national and state economic situation has worsened dramatically, and the governor’s polling numbers range from mediocre to extremely vulnerable.

Most Garden State Republicans are rallying behind the candidacy of former U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie and are excited about the opportunity to knock off the governor. They’ll be looking to pin responsibility for the state’s economy onto Corzine, while Democrats will look to associate Christie with former President George W. Bush.

But considering that Corzine hasn’t even started his reelection campaign and will spend millions of dollars of his own money when he finally does, and that Republicans haven’t won statewide in New Jersey in a dozen years, Republicans might want to keep that champagne on ice before they start putting this contest into the “win” column. For the whole story, you must subscribe to the print edition of the Report.

Virginia Governor: Bucking the Trend
By Nathan L. Gonzales

If you place a great deal of emphasis on long-term historical trends, you have to figure that Republicans will be victorious later this year in their effort to take back the Virginia governorship. But recent elections prove that Democrats are on the march in the Commonwealth and could retain the governorship for a third consecutive term.

Still reeling from more losses in the 2008 elections, local Republicans have coalesced behind former Attorney General Bob McDonnell as their nominee. Meanwhile, Democrats won’t know their nominee until June 9, when the competitive Democratic primary is over. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) is prohibited from seeking a second consecutive term.

Former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former state delegate Brian Moran, and state Sen. Creigh Deeds, all have viable paths to the Democratic nomination, but there is no clear frontrunner in the race.

Given the state’s proximity to the nation’s capital, this race could take on more significance as Republicans try to regain relevancy. For the whole story, you must subscribe to the print edition of the Report.


For our latest ratings on all of the 2009-2010 gubernatorial ratings, click here.

Gubernatorial Race Will Show if Jersey GOP Has a Pulse

By Stuart Rothenberg

This year’s gubernatorial race in New Jersey would seem to be a prime opportunity for a Republican pickup. But sometimes, things aren’t as they seem.

On the plus side for the GOP, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine hasn’t had the easiest first term, the state’s budget problems are likely to grow as the recession shrinks state revenue and Republicans finally seem to have the candidate they’ve been waiting for: former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie.

But this is New Jersey, a state where Republican prospects have gone from bad to worse recently, and where Republicans often seem more interested in attacking each other than in defeating Democrats.

In 2006, state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. ran a spirited but underfunded Senate campaign, losing by 9 points to Democrat Bob Menendez. And Kean’s 44.3 percent statewide was a pretty good showing compared to other recent elections. Only President George W. Bush’s 46.6 percent showing in 2004 was better.

Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) drew just 41.7 percent against President-elect Barack Obama, while GOP Senate candidate Dick Zimmer drew just 42 percent against Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D). Four years ago, Republican Doug Forrester drew 43 percent against Corzine in an open-seat contest, and four years before that, in 2001, conservative Republican Bret Schundler drew 41.7 percent against Democrat Jim McGreevey.

Over the past 30 years, only two Republicans running for president, governor or the Senate in New Jersey drew a majority of the total votes cast — Ronald Reagan twice and George H.W. Bush in 1988. Even Christine Todd Whitman, who won two terms as governor in the 1990s, failed to crack the 50 percent mark in either of her races.

But partisanship generally means less in gubernatorial races than in Senate contests, and the Bush era has finally passed (or has it?), so the GOP’s national problems are likely to be less relevant in this year’s gubernatorial race in the Garden State.

The race for the Republican nomination currently includes four candidates: Christie, Morris County state Assemblyman/former deputy state Attorney General Rick Merkt, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan (Bergen County) and Franklin Mayor Brian Levine (Somerset County).

Christie, 46, served briefly on the Morris County board of freeholders but lost a bid for re-election. He then made a huge name for himself as a corruption-fighting prosecutor.

He was appointed a U.S. attorney by George W. Bush on Dec. 7, 2001, and stayed on in that office until late November 2008, when he resigned. Christie was mentioned as a possible candidate for governor in 2005 but passed on that race.

As U.S. attorney, Christie prosecuted well over 100 public officials, getting convictions against then-Essex County Executive Jim Treffinger (R), then-Newark Mayor Sharpe James (D), former state Senate President John Lynch (D) and Camden County state Sen. Wayne Bryant (D), among others.

Many GOP insiders have already started to rally behind Christie, including Kean, the state Senate Minority Leader, and Rep. Frank LoBiondo.

The most notable of Christie’s competitors at this point is Lonegan, a legally blind former three-term mayor of a small town in North Jersey and an anti-tax, anti-illegal-immigration conservative. Lonegan ran unsuccessfully for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 2005 and for Congress, against Rep. Steven Rothman (D), in 1998.

Lonegan’s top consultant, Richard Shaftan, has been active in Garden State politics for years and invariably sees every campaign in ideological terms. It’s no wonder, then, that Lonegan has already said that the race for the Republican nomination will be “a battle for the soul of the Republican Party.” (Someone might want to tell Lonegan that the battle actually is a contest for governor of New Jersey.)

Conservatives can pull surprises in primaries, and we don’t yet know how this race will develop. Christie’s position on issues, particularly on controversial ones, is the subject of some discussion among those on the right. But it’s pretty clear that Lonegan would have zero chance of defeating Corzine in November, and consultant Shaftan didn’t exactly make himself look like the Oracle of Trenton when he was quoted in December by PolitickerNJ.com as saying that Christie is “absolutely not running.”

Polls show Christie within range of Corzine. But incumbents always seem to underperform in the state, and even Democrats who won with some ease recently started off looking as if they were in tough races.

A Nov. 12-17 Quinnipiac University poll showed Corzine holding a 42 percent to 36 percent lead over Christie in a trial heat, but 70 percent of those polled said that they didn’t know enough about the Republican to have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him. Corzine’s name ID in the survey stood at 42 percent favorable/43 percent unfavorable. A Sept. 9-11 Research 2000 poll for the Record in Bergen showed Corzine leading Christie 43 percent to 41 percent.

Corzine has been telling insiders for months that he expects a Christie challenge and that the former U.S. attorney would be a formidable opponent. But the governor’s personal financial resources, his incumbency and his Democratic label are all assets in his bid for re-election, and he has become a confident, politically astute officeholder since he first ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000.

Moreover, the GOP race could well get nasty, and Christie’s performance is uncertain.

Republicans have an opportunity in the Garden State, but they will need to overcome recent political trends as well as their own penchant for self-destruction. Given that, it’s probably unwise at this point to bet too heavily against Corzine winning another term.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 15, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Corzine Sympathizes With Menendez’s DSCC Duties

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Three years ago, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) appointed then-Rep. Bob Menendez (D) to his Senate seat after Corzine was elected governor of the Garden State. Now, Menendez is slated to further follow in Corzine’s footsteps, taking the helm at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Corzine once led during a time when the political landscape was quite different.

“He should have talked to me before he took it,” said a smiling Corzine during an interview Tuesday on a train en route to the Democratic Governors Association annual meeting in Washington, D.C. “It’s the most exhausting thing I ever did,” he added. “It’s like having two jobs at once.”

Corzine led the DSCC during the 2004 cycle, when President George W. Bush won re-election and Republicans picked up four seats in the Senate.

“We held our own,” said Corzine, who said he was most proud of the Senate victories of Barack Obama in Illinois and Ken Salazar in Colorado that year.

With Menendez at the helm, it means that three of the past five DSCC chairmen have been from New Jersey. Before Menendez and Corzine, Sen. Robert Torricelli led the committee during the 2000 cycle.

After his time at the DSCC, Corzine ran successfully for governor in 2005. He is up for re-election next year, and while he has not made an official announcement, Corzine, sounding confident, said, “I fully intend to run.”

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on December 3, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Even in a Wave, Some Get Just What They Deserve

By Stuart Rothenberg

It isn’t easy being a candidate for Congress. It takes an unnatural amount of time and effort to put together a winning campaign, and even then, circumstances can conspire against a candidate who does everything right.

But being a confident candidate, even one with a credible campaign, doesn’t justify absurd claims and press releases. Some campaigns simply are in denial when it comes to what is important or what is possible, and it is those campaigns that drive me crazy.

Wealthy Democrat Jim Harlan was convinced he could beat Republican Rep. Steve Scalise in Louisiana’s 1st district, even though the district is the state’s most educated, most affluent and most Republican. George W. Bush drew a stunning 71 percent in the district in 2004, an even stronger showing than he had in Wyoming.

Harlan put more than $1.2 million from his own pocket into the race, and his campaign directed some of the most ridiculous attacks of the cycle against his opponent. For example, the Harlan campaign criticized Scalise for misleading voters by claiming he had a 100 percent voting record, even though he did have a perfect attendance record. “Scalise actually missed 1,453 votes in the 110th Congress before taking the seat in May,” charged a bizarre Harlan press release.

In the end, while Harlan’s campaign bragged about being added to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program and touted a late September Kitchens Group poll showing Scalise with an 11-point lead, the Democratic challenger drew an embarrassing 34 percent of the vote, losing by 32 points. He never had a chance, but his campaign acted as if a win was likely.

Then there was Steve Greenberg, a Chicago- area Republican who promised that he would beat moderate Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean in Illinois’ 8th district. Greenberg got plenty of ink for being a one-time professional hockey player, and his family’s wealth was supposed to assure that he’d batter Bean with enough TV spots to win in the Republican-leaning suburban district. He was one of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s early hot recruits.

But if Greenberg ran a quality campaign, it must have been in a parallel universe where everything is opposite from this one. While Bean raised $3 million for her re-election effort, Greenberg didn’t even reach $1 million, and he put only $156,000 of his own money into a race that quickly turned from potentially competitive to a yawner.

Unlike Greenberg, New Jersey Democrat Dennis Shulman didn’t give up. Shulman, a blind rabbi and psychologist, acted as if articles about him and his candidacy in Time magazine and the New Yorker, as well as an endorsement from the mayor of New York City, made him a celebrity and a serious threat to incumbent Republican Rep. Scott Garrett. They didn’t. Most people in his district don’t read those magazines or care what Michael Bloomberg thinks.

Garrett’s district strongly leans Republican, and Bush won it with 57 percent in 2004, running more than 11 points ahead of his statewide total. Credible Republican statewide candidates always carry the district even if they are getting pounded statewide.

Despite all the self-generated hype and over-the-top campaign rhetoric, Shulman drew 42 percent against Garrett — almost 2 points worse than Paul Aronsohn (D) did two years earlier and only 1,300 votes more than 2004 Democratic nominee Anne Wolfe did.

Then there is Republican John Stone, a conservative activist and former Congressional staffer, who got slightly more than one-third of the vote in Georgia’s 12th district and blamed his loss to incumbent Rep. John Barrow (D) on the NRCC.

Stone’s own fundraising stunk, and he had no chance in the current environment to win in a 45 percent African-American district that was carried by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) four years ago. But that didn’t stop him from trying to avoid responsibility for his own failure.

The case of Indiana hopeful Mike Montagano (D) is in a class all by itself. Like a few other allegedly serious hopefuls I’ve met over the years, he was short on credentials and maturity. Even worse, he either couldn’t or wouldn’t take positions on issues.

Montagano, who received considerable financial help from his father, clearly was in over his head in this race, and his ability to win 40 percent of the vote says something about incumbent Rep. Mark Souder’s limited appeal and district voters’ willingness to vote for any Democrat on the ballot.

Finally, we have the case of Nick Leibham (D), a young, appealing challenger to incumbent Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) in a district that seems to have a ceiling for Democrats in competitive federal races that is below 50 percent, no matter the circumstances.

Leibham assured us that he was the guy to knock off Bilbray, even though Kerry drew 44 percent in the district and Francine Busby drew 45 percent and 43 percent in the ’06 special and ’06 general election, respectively.

The special election should have been a particularly good opportunity for Democrats in the district, since the seat was left open following Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham’s resignation, plea bargain and incarceration. But after a spirited campaign against a Republican who had been a lobbyist and in an environment when Republicans around the country were in terror, Bilbray beat Busby by 7,200 votes (4.6 points).

This year, Leibham drew 45 percent against Bilbray, just what Busby did in that special.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 17, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

NRCC’s Spending Points to Potential Hot Spots

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Strapped for cash, the National Republican Congressional Committee will have to be more efficient than its counterpart when it comes to spending on House races. Recent independent expenditure spending on polling shows that the NRCC is searching for the best use of the money and proves that the playing field is still stacked against them.

From Sept. 3-9, the GOP committee spent a total of $73,046 on polling in a handful of Congressional districts. President Bush carried all five districts four years ago, and all are currently held by Republicans.

The two most Democratic districts of the lot are likely to be the toughest holds. In Nevada’s 3rd district, 2006 gubernatorial nominee Dina Titus (D) was a late entry into the race but is a serious threat to Rep. Jon Porter (R). The rapid population growth and Democratic trend of the district makes Porter’s task extremely difficult. And in New Jersey’s 3rd district, former Lockheed Martin vice president Chris Myers (R) is trying to hold the seat of retiring GOP Rep. Jim Saxton against state Sen. John Adler (D).

The NRCC also polled in Alabama’s 2nd district. Even though President Bush carried it handily in 2004 with 66 percent, Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright (D) looks like a strong candidate and Democrats believe they will win this open seat just like they won special elections in Mississippi and Louisiana earlier this spring. State Rep. Jay Love is trying to hold the seat for Republicans.

The last two seats are heavily Republican and shouldn’t be competitive, except they feature weak incumbents. President Bush carried Idaho’s 1st district with 68 percent and Ohio’s 2nd district with 64 percent, but the NRCC’s IE is rightly testing the vulnerability of GOP Reps. Bill Sali and Jean Schmidt. In the end, the presidential year and the recently energized GOP base could save both incumbents since the Democratic challengers —1996 Idaho Senate nominee Walt Minnick and Victoria Wulsin, the 2006 nominee against Schmidt — would need a sizable crossover vote from the presidential race.

The polls are being conducted by multiple firms including Tarrance Group (Nev.), Public Opinion Strategies (Ala.), National Research (N.J. and Idaho) and McLaughlin and Associates (Ohio).

The poll results are not likely to see the light of day, but observers shouldn’t assume the worst since neither party committee’s IE arm makes a habit of releasing the valuable data. But the spending does indicate where the committee is currently focused.


This item first appeared on RollCall.com on September 12, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Jersey 5: National Celebrity Doesn’t Equal Victory in House Elections

By Stuart Rothenberg

It isn’t difficult to find Democratic Congressional candidates who have a chance of knocking off a GOP incumbent or winning a Republican open seat. Democrats should net at least 10 Congressional seats this November, possibly many more. It is going to be a very good Democratic year at the Congressional level.

Perhaps that’s why I get bothered by claims from candidates who have little chance of winning but sound as if they too are on an undeniable path to victory.

In New Jersey, for example, two Democrats, John Adler and Linda Stender, have an excellent chance to win in November, while 5th district hopeful Dennis Shulman does not. But you wouldn’t always know that from the national media coverage, which includes a New Yorker piece by Jeffrey Toobin and an article in Time, that the clinical psychologist and blind rabbi has received.

Shulman is a likable guy with a great story and a sense of humor. He’s overcome incredible odds to achieve the level of success that he has. But he isn’t the first candidate for Congress with a compelling personal story and rash of national media stories hyping his candidacy who is likely headed for defeat.

Two years ago, many journalists and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee thought that Iraq veteran Tammy Duckworth, who suffered serious injuries in combat, would defeat Republican Peter Roskam in an Illinois open-seat contest. Duckworth received more national media attention than I’ve ever seen for a House candidate. Money flowed into her campaign. She was a good candidate, but the district tilts Republican, and Roskam was a quality candidate, too.

Two years before Duckworth, another New Jersey House hopeful was treated like a celebrity by some media organizations. Steve Brozak, a one-time Marine with an MBA from Columbia, got the star treatment from the Wall Street Journal and found himself being interviewed on CNN. Brozak didn’t have much of a chance — he drew 41.7 percent of the vote against Rep. Mike Ferguson (R) — but reporters still liked his “story.”

This time the beneficiary of overhype is Shulman, who is running against Rep. Scott Garrett, a conservative Republican who represents a very Republican district in northern New Jersey. Garrett won the seat when moderate Republican Rep. Marge Roukema retired in 2002. Though Democrats said he was too conservative for the district, Garrett won the general election against a well-financed Democrat by more than 20 points.

Two years later, Garrett won again, but this time by “only” 16 points, 57.6 percent to 41.1 percent. In 2006, in a horrible political environment for Republicans, Garrett’s winning percentage dropped again, this time to “only” 55 percent, as he won by “only” 11 points.

So in three races against Garrett, no Democrat has hit the 44 percent mark, a good reflection of the fundamental partisan nature of this district.Toobin’s characterization of Garrett’s district in a July issue of the New Yorker is particularly off the mark. He says the district “has been leaning Democratic in recent years” even though Tom Kean Jr. (R) easily carried it in the 2006 Senate race against Sen. Bob Menendez (D) and George W. Bush won it twice rather easily.

Toobin, who is a wonderful legal analyst but whose forte is simply not politics, says the district “includes such suburbs as Ridgewood and Tenafly, in Bergen County, and some rural communities along the Pennsylvania border.” That description is technically true, but misleading. Tenafly was Garrett’s worst-performing town in 2006, while Ridgewood was his fifth-worst-performing out of 86 towns. But Garrett carried Bergen County last time, and he rolled up a 2-1 victory — and a large 17,000-vote margin — in the two “rural” counties, Sussex and Warren.

The Shulman campaign has made much about the DCCC listing it as one of its “emerging races,” as well as the DCCC’s decision “to buy advertising time in the district.”

In fact, the “emerging races” label means the Shulman campaign hasn’t yet made the committee’s “Red to Blue” list and that he is still seen by Democratic strategists as a long shot who may or may not ever be regarded as a potential winner. More importantly, the only “advertising time” the DCCC has bought so far is some radio on gas prices designed to generate press. The DCCC has reserved more than $50 million in TV time for the fall but has identified only two New Jersey races as targets for the ads, the state’s open 3rd and 7th districts involving Adler and Stender, respectively, not the 5th.

Finally, at times, the rabbi seems very un-rabbi-like. He is quoted as using the “s” word very matter-of-factly in Toobin’s piece and using the “b.s.” word in Time. I expect a lot of folks in the district may wonder about that.

And Shulman’s rhetoric seems more like a Democratic insider than a man of the cloth, such as his comment that Garrett is “in the pocket of Big Oil” and that the runup in energy prices “is the direct result of Big Oil and their cronies like Scott Garrett blocking sound energy policy for years.”

That’s boilerplate Democratic campaign rhetoric and not likely to help any Democrat carry this Republican district.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on August 27, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.