Project Runway Meets the Campaign Trail: The Brown Jacket

By Nathan L. Gonzales

In a toxic climate, candidates are shedding the politician label and donning a critical wardrobe item to weather the electoral storm: the brown barn jacket. Candidates are running to demonstrate their political independence by following this year’s hottest campaign trend in an effort to relate to the common folk.

Over the last few years, the barn jacket has struggled at the ballot box. In 2004, Sen. John Kerry’s wardrobe choice was widely panned as he donned the jacket for a hunting photo opportunity.


In 2008, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin wore the female version, but it wasn’t enough to make independent voters warm up to the GOP ticket.



But after this year’s Senate special election in Massachusetts, the barn jacket is back and candidates are merging the runway with the campaign trail in their television ads.



Republican Scott Brown’s stunning victory breathed new life into the fashion statement. His spokesman even suggested that the jacket hang in the Smithsonian.

Now, we’re seeing the jacket pop up all across the country. Republican Buz Mills is running for governor in Arizona and putting his trust in the jacket.


The fashion trend knows no partisan boundaries. Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D), who is looking at competitive primary and general elections this year, just went on television with his first ad, and of course he’s wearing the jacket.



For multi-million dollar campaigns, an $85 investment in a Men’s Sandstone Chore Coat by Carhartt may be the best investment a candidate will ever make.

But as the weather warms up, campaigns may be missing their opportunity to relate to regular people. We’re either going to see some incredibly hot and sweaty candidates or they're going to have to find a new fashion statement.

Sarah Palin? Frankly, My Dear, I Don’t Give a Damn

By Stuart Rothenberg

If you are planning on reading a column about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s presidential prospects, you will be deeply disappointed.

I don’t know whether Palin will run for president in 2012, and right now I don’t really care. Most in the media do care, of course, which is why they can’t seem to stop buzzing about her book, her book tour and her political intentions. You’d think the Iowa caucuses were right around the corner.

Even “real” news programs, such as CNN’s “State of the Union,” hosted by John King, spent too much time for my taste on Palin last weekend, both during the program’s political roundtable, during an interview with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and then during an unnecessarily long piece about her book.

Most — maybe all — of the current media coverage of the race for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 will be irrelevant for anyone who wants to know whom the GOP will nominate to take on President Barack Obama three years from now. There will be so many other developments over the next two years that will color that race that Palin’s book will be barely an asterisk.

Of course, if you are simply looking for entertainment rather than trying to understand how the next GOP presidential field will develop, then it’s certainly reasonable to pay attention to anything Palin, as well as to every speech by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

There are many in the media who will wax poetic about Palin and the 2012 race, so you won’t have trouble finding people who want to talk about the contest, even though there is no race now and there won’t be one for many, many months.

Ultimately, you have a simple choice: Do you get more enjoyment out of watching “The Biggest Loser,” “CSI” or “The Office,” or would you rather watch politics? If your answer is politics, then following all of the speculation about Palin and other potential candidates is the right thing for you to do.

And if you hate politics, you can watch Palin the way you watch any other pseudo-celebrity — on “Oprah” or “Entertainment Tonight.”

But don’t think for even a moment that any chatter now about the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president has any bearing on the 2012 GOP contest.

True, who will be in the race and who is raising big money for “next time” matters, but you don’t need to follow the Palin book tour or opinions about Pawlenty’s last speech to do that.

Even with their victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, the Republicans are pretty much irrelevant now. That’s not terrible for them, and it’s not unusual for the “out” party to be irrelevant.

All of the nation’s focus right now is on Obama, and almost every day there is some news item that seems to put the White House or the Democratic Party in an unflattering light.

Whether it’s unemployment, the deficit, health care, Afghanistan, the president bowing to the emperor of Japan or the ill-advised comments from a single Florida House Democrat, Democrats seem to have more problems than they need.

Democratic activist Al Sharpton commented over the weekend how happy he was that Palin is getting so much attention. The more attention, she gets, said the Rev. Sharpton, a man who is no stranger to media attention or to self-induced controversy, the better for the Democrats.

That may be true today, but not 10 months from now, when the midterm elections are likely to be about Obama no matter what wacky things Palin does now.

Yes, both the national media and Democrats are likely to keep Palin in the spotlight as long as possible.

For the media, the former governor of Alaska is a celebrity with an “interesting” family, while for Democrats, she is an easy target — a political lightweight of uncertain substance, who drives “tea party” conservatives into a euphoric frenzy but divides the GOP into two very different camps.

Palin may or may not be particularly relevant in early 2012, as the first states begin to select delegates to the next Republican National Convention. Right now, I’d guess she won’t. But that’s still two years away, so I’m not going to spend much more than a few seconds thinking about it.

Instead, I’m going to watch the last episode of “The Office,” which I missed.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on November 19, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Alaska Senate: Polar Opposite Polling

By Nathan L. Gonzales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Michigan 9: State Democrats Try to Use Palin as Wedge

By Nathan L. Gonzales

For the last three years, the predominant Democratic strategy has been to tie every breathing Republican to unpopular President Bush. Now, Michigan Democrats believe coupling the GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, with Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R) will help them win his seat.

“Knollenberg and Palin — Two Peas in a Pod of Delusion,” read the release from the Michigan Democratic Party on Thursday. The Congressman is locked in a very competitive re-election race against former state Lottery Commissioner Gary Peters (D) in the 9th district.

“Whether it’s supporting unfair trade policies that ship Michigan jobs overseas or thinking Alaska’s proximity to Russia qualifies as foreign policy experience, Knollenberg is out of touch with what will bring the change Michigan needs,” state Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said. The release also highlights Palin and Knollenberg’s agreement on abortion rights and global warming, claiming that they are “too extreme” for Oakland County.

This appears to be the first time that Democrats have attempted to use Palin as a negative in a Congressional race. Democrats will surely continue to use Bush as an anvil around Republicans’ necks, but thus far, they have not tried to use GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as an issue.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on October 9, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Pentecostal Democrats Lead Party’s Faith Outreach

By Nathan L. Gonzales

After diving headlong into GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s past, the media is questioning the governor’s Pentecostal background and treating it as if it were a liability to her candidacy.

Yet for months, the media has been obsessed with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and the Democratic Party’s outreach to evangelicals and other faith voters in the presidential race. And two Democrats with Pentecostal roots have been put in charge of those efforts. So far, that has gone unmentioned.

“Pentecostalism obscured in Palin Biography,” the Sept. 5 Associated Press story headline read, clearly with an undertone that, if unearthed, Pentecostalism could torpedo her candidacy.

“Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian,” the piece began, “Yet [Arizona Sen.] John McCain’s running mate has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world. It’s often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike.”

CNN sent a team of reporters to Alaska to find out more about Palin and became fascinated by her former church. “Pastor: GOP Downplaying Palin’s Pentecostal Past,” read the headline of a piece that ran on Monday night’s Anderson Cooper 360 program. “For decades, Sarah Palin went to church with people who spoke in tongues and believed in faith healing and the ‘end times.’”

Of course, all Christians do not believe in Pentecostal theology. But aside from the fact that Palin left Wasilla Assembly of God six years ago, Pentecostalism is not a fringe set of beliefs.

Palin’s former church belongs to the Assemblies of God, a denomination of 12,000 churches nationwide, including a constituency of more than 2.8 million people. It is the second largest evangelical denomination in the country, behind the Southern Baptists, and the world’s largest Pentecostal denomination.

Aside from the lack of context, the vast majority of the media coverage of Palin’s Pentecostal background has also failed to mention the roots of two key Democratic staffers involved in the presidential race.

Both Obama’s national director for religious affairs Joshua DuBois and Democratic National Convention Committee CEO Leah Daughtry boast Pentecostal résumés.

DuBois is a lay minister with a Cambridge, Mass., congregation affiliated with the United Pentecostal Council of the Assemblies of God, a small, largely African-American denomination with about 35 congregations in the United States and the Caribbean, not affiliated with the Assemblies of God (USA). DuBois originally worked for Obama’s Senate office before moving to the campaign.

Daughtry is chief of staff at the Democratic National Committee and heads up the party’s Faith in Action program. She pastors a small Pentecostal church in Washington, D.C., that is affiliated with the House of the Lord Pentecostal Church, the small denomination her grandfather started.

Democrats have been promoting the Pentecostal résumé item as a connection point with voters of faith who may normally vote Republican.

The second volume of the Obama campaign’s “American Values Report” featured a testimonial from “Jason H.,” a self-described “born again Pentecostal believer in the Assembly of God tradition.” Clearly the campaign would not have included his testimonial if they didn’t believe it was a credible view and an asset to Obama’s candidacy.

Religion News Service’s Adelle Banks wrote a piece Aug. 27 titled “Pentecostals leading Democrats’ Faith Outreach,” just two days before McCain’s pick of Palin was announced. But her story didn’t draw any particular curiosity, and it didn’t spark teams of investigative reporters visiting the Democrats’ churches.

In fact, countless other stories about Daughtry and DuBois have included their Pentecostalism, but if the media thought twice about it, it was in a positive sense.

Because Palin is running for office, one could make the case that her background should be more heavily vetted than a staffer. But if Pentecostalism is a fringe belief that should be shunned, then the media should question Obama and the DNC about leaving their faith outreach to a couple Pentecostal aides.


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

For GOP Delegates, Sarah Palin on the Ticket Is a No-Brainer

By Stuart Rothenberg

We won’t know for at least a few days, maybe even a few weeks, whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was a smart addition to the Republican ticket, but it already is clear that delegates at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., are close to unanimous in their enthusiasm for the self-proclaimed “hockey mom.”

Yes, Palin’s selection pleased social conservatives and gun owners, who see her as an unapologetic supporter of their causes. As one former Member of Congress from a swing state told me on the floor on the opening night of the Republican convention, “The party was with McCain intellectually, but not emotionally. Now, with the selection of Palin, that’s changed.”

Another Republican, a moderate from New England who doesn’t necessarily agree with all of Palin’s positions on the issues, was no less enthusiastic.

“She connects with people. She’s the mom next door,” said the Republican, who argued that Palin’s greatest strength is getting presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) back to his maverick image and message.

Another Republican, who hails from a state that Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) surely will carry in November but who could help rebuild his party’s reputation in his home state, also raved about the pick, saying that all the feedback he received about Palin, including from family members, was positive.

McCain’s selection of Palin as his running mate clearly injected a dose of enthusiasm and energy into Republican regulars, who had already committed to support their party’s ticket but found the prospect less then exciting. But the selection of Alaska’s governor changed all that.

Surprises are energizing, even if they are inherently risky. But for McCain, the selection of Palin has energized Republicans in a way that could help the party eat into the Democrats’ advantage on fundraising and turnout.

But any neutral observer must be careful not to get caught up in momentary enthusiasm for Palin on the convention floor. Conventions tend to be misleading. Well- orchestrated events, whether with fireworks at football stadiums or with well-produced videos inside hockey arenas, lead one to draw premature conclusions.

The revelation that Palin’s daughter is five months pregnant didn’t seem to depress GOP delegates’ enthusiasm about her selection, but only a naive partisan Republican would fail to acknowledge the possible dangers of Palin’s nomination.

The Alaska governor remains an unknown, and it isn’t clear how she will perform on the campaign trail and during her sole debate with Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden (D), Obama’s running mate.

But at least Palin’s fortune is in her own hands. She will have the opportunity to prove to voters that she’s ready for the job, and she should benefit from relatively low expectations, particularly about her ability to debate Biden.

While Palin’s performance initially after being selected was good, she has never before been under the political microscope, and she’ll face a national media that will test her repeatedly, both on her knowledge of issues and on world leaders and events, as well as on her areas of agreement and disagreement with McCain.

One GOP consultant was even more explicit about the risks, arguing that reporters are likely to compete with each other to try to trip up Palin and embarrass her.

Some Republican insiders continue to worry about Palin’s selection, suggesting that her relative lack of experience undermines McCain’s great advantage against Obama, and fearing that Palin simply will fail to pass the smell test as a possible presidential successor.

Yes, Palin’s selection probably dilutes the effectiveness of the “experience” and “readiness” argument for McCain, but it does not obliterate it. Palin, after all, is running for her party’s No. 2 spot, while Obama is his party’s nominee for president.

And those GOP operatives who fear that Palin could be “another Dan Quayle” might remember that Quayle did not stop then-Vice President George H.W. Bush from being elected president of the United States in 1988.

That election, following Quayle’s embarrassing introduction to the American media and public, should remind us that vice presidential selections aren’t nearly as important six weeks after they are made as they are when they are announced. In any case, in her first few days as McCain’s VP pick, Palin has performed far better than Quayle did.

We’ll all have to see how Palin performs on the stump, in interviews and during her debate with Biden. But so far, the sheer shock of her selection has acted like a shot of adrenaline for a political party that seemed in a coma. That, in itself, is an accomplishment.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 3, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.