New Print Edition: Arkansas Senate & South Carolina 5

Subscribers already have the April 23, 2010 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report, but here are excerpts from the introduction to the two stories in this issue:


Arkansas Senate: One Big (Not So Happy) Family
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Republicans couldn’t even get a candidate to run for the U.S. Senate against Mark Pryor (D) last cycle, but this year, a half-dozen Republicans are vying for the right to take on Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), who has a primary of her own from the lieutenant governor.

Oh what a difference two years make.

Subscribers get the full story including the Lay of the Land, candidate bios and a breakdown of the primary and general elections.

South Carolina 5: Challenging the Chair
By Nathan L. Gonzales

South Carolina has received plenty of attention after its governor hiked the Appalachian Trail and ended up in Argentina with his girlfriend. But few people may realize that a long-time Democratic congressman could lose reelection.

John Spratt (D) has been in Congress for almost three decades, and he faces an unusually tough test this year. Republicans have rallied behind state Sen. Mick Mulvaney, but he’ll have to run an excellent campaign in order to ride the GOP wave to victory.

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

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

NC Senate: Will Marshall’s Senate Campaign Equal Her Recent P.R. Campaign?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Over the past few weeks, North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D), who is challenging Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), has been on a public relations offensive.

First, there was a Lake Research Partners memo on incumbent Burr’s standing with state voters. Then there was a “Senate Primary Analysis” from Thomas Mills, who runs a North Carolina-based communications firm and works for Marshall, arguing that “in all likelihood, she will be the Democratic nominee.”

That was followed four days later by a memo from Public Policy Polling’s Tom Jensen reporting on the firm’s Nov. 23-24 poll showing that Marshall “is in a very strong position to win the Democratic nomination for the US Senate from North Carolina next year.” (PPP is a Democratic polling firm that isn’t working for Marshall.)

All of the hype about Marshall’s prospects coincided with a series of announcements by other Democrats opting out of next year’s Senate contest.

First, attorney Cal Cunningham, a former state Senator and Iraq War veteran, announced that he wouldn’t run, and then Rep. Bob Etheridge, who has been flirting with the race for months, announced that he, too, would take a pass.

For the moment, that has left attorney Ken Lewis and Marshall in the race for the Democratic nomination. But Democratic insiders predict that at least one other significant candidate will enter the Democratic contest — it now appears that Cunningham will reverse course and jump in — and that could affect Marshall’s prospects considerably.

Candidates, of course, are free to tell their story as they see it. But leaving obvious holes because all of the facts don’t fit the narrative cries out for someone to fill them.

The Mills memo emphasizes that Marshall has been elected secretary of state four times and “is very popular among Democratic activists, particularly women.” It also notes that women “do well” in Democratic primaries, pointing out that “four women running for statewide office in 2008” in North Carolina all won their primaries.

Even if that’s true, it leaves out something pretty important: Marshall already lost a Senate primary in 2002. She finished third, behind Erskine Bowles and state legislator Dan Blue, drawing only 15 percent.

There is nothing wrong with losing a primary, but if you are going to argue that “women do well” in North Carolina Democratic primaries — even citing the percentages of women who make up the Democratic electorate — you are opening yourself up to criticism. Maybe Mills should have said that “women often do well, though Elaine Marshall sometimes hasn’t.”

Jensen’s analysis notes that Marshall “starts out in a considerably better place than Senator Kay Hagan did” two years before her primary win. He then observes that PPP polling shows Marshall winning 42 percent to 7 percent for Lewis and 5 percent for Cunningham.

Of course, Marshall performs better now than Hagan did two years before her eventual election. Hagan was a state Senator then, while Marshall has been elected statewide four times and run statewide five times. And of course Marshall leads Lewis and Cunningham now, given the name-recognition disparities.

It isn’t until far down the memo that Jensen notes Marshall’s higher name ID and statewide experience. Obviously, Marshall’s name recognition isn’t irrelevant. It’s a reality that does give her an initial advantage in a primary. But it also explains all her strong numbers relative to Hagan and to other Democrats tested.

Finally, the Lake Research Partners memo is noteworthy because it comes from Marshall’s polling firm but merely regurgitates existing public polls of the race. It’s also extremely selective in choosing polls and poll data to use.

Both the PPP and Lake Research Partners memos assert that Burr is vulnerable. DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz said the same thing on Tuesday. Maybe Burr is, but he isn’t likely to lose. And while it’s too early to assert that Marshall can’t beat him, she would be a considerable underdog against him.

Democrats have carried the state in only two of the past 10 presidential contests, and in three of the past 10 Senate races. Yes, they won both in 2008, but the outcomes were close (Barack Obama won with 49.7 percent and Hagan with 52.7 percent) in the worst year for Republicans since Watergate.

While demographic changes may help Democrats over the next decade or two, the state still leans Republican for federal office in a neutral political environment. Since 2010 will be at least neutral — and more likely favoring the GOP — any Democrat will have a hard time ousting Burr.

Marshall, in particular, would have some problems.

While Mills’ memo points out that “in 2008, she amassed the second highest vote total in North Carolina history,” that statewide success is likely misleading.

I remember then-South Carolina State Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum (D) telling me during her 2004 Senate race against then-Rep. Jim DeMint (R) that she was the biggest vote-getter in competitive statewide contests two years earlier (winning with 59 percent), which allegedly demonstrated her appeal.

I never bought that for a minute, because running for a federal office, with its highly charged ideological issues and inevitable partisan perspective, is very different from running for a downballot, uncontroversial statewide office. If you have any doubt about that, ask Tenenbaum, who drew just 44 percent against DeMint.


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

South Carolina 2: Forget Health Care and Afghanistan: Let’s All Talk About Joe Wilson

By Stuart Rothenberg

The idea that South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson (R) created a firestorm about anything is amusing. Who, other than his buddies in the House and his constituents in the Palmetto State, has ever heard of the guy?

But the 2nd district Congressman’s ill-advised, improper and inappropriate shout during President Barack Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress got Wilson more bad publicity than he ever could have imagined. Learn to control yourself, Congressman.

Having said that, most of the attention to and outrage about Wilson’s behavior is pretty silly. The guy acted like a jerk. He apologized. Fine, let’s move on. Personally, I think he should have quickly apologized from the House floor, since that’s where he made his blunder. But it’s not that big a deal.

Still, we live in an era when much of politics is about tactics, not ideas, so, confronted by a conundrum about health care, uncertainty about what to do about climate change and energy, and unappealing alternatives regarding Afghanistan, Democrats and many in the media decided that the No. 1 topic of the day was Wilson’s “You lie!” rebuke of Obama.

The Connecticut Democratic Party, for example, quickly issued a press release demanding that Republican Senate candidate Rob Simmons, a former House Member, “return” the $8,000 that Wilson had donated to Simmons years ago (before Wilson acted like a jerk last week). This is a standard tactic — both parties do it — even if it’s nonsense.

Less than 24 hours after Wilson’s screw-up, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was out with a fundraising e-mail about the South Carolina Republican’s behavior. Democratic fundraisers are no fools, and they wasted no time in trying to get angry Democratic contributors to dig deep.

Given how public opinion has changed regarding the president — and Congress — over the past six weeks, it’s hard to blame Congressional Democrats and their allies on MSNBC for trying to change the subject.

But let’s get real: Wilson doesn’t even rise to the importance of a footnote in history.

Wilson is getting credit for reviving a Democratic Party that seemed very much down in the dumps. Contributions to Wilson’s likely 2010 Democratic opponent, Rob Miller, skyrocketed. The DCCC reported on Thursday afternoon that Miller had taken in “more than $200,000 since Wilson’s outburst” from “5,000 new contributors.” By Friday afternoon, the fundraising total was over $800,000.

Influential Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza concluded that Wilson re-energized the Democratic base and helped “remind liberals that when compared to the alternative, the plan being put forward by Obama is far better.”

My friends at the Cook Political Report quickly changed their rating of Wilson’s re-election prospects, from safe Republican to likely Republican, though they didn’t change their fundamental evaluation of the seat.

“This conservative seat remains relatively secure,” they wrote, adding that the controversy looks like little more than “a distraction for the GOP.”

Still, that didn’t stop the DCCC from sending around the ratings change. Nor did it stop some at the liberal Daily Kos blog from encouraging like-minded combatants to support Miller, who lost to Wilson by 8 points in 2008 and is running again.

Is the “Joe Wilson controversy” likely to alter the health care debate, the future of the Obama presidency, the outcome of the midterm elections or the fate of Wilson, himself?

We won’t know the answer to any of these questions for months, but count me as skeptical that it will have much long-term impact at all.

The Wilson brouhaha is reminiscent of the Van Jones brouhaha, which percolated for a few days as conservatives, Fox News Channel and some mainstream reporters drove themselves into a tizzy over the administration official’s vulgar words and strange views about 9/11 (which he disavowed). But in the grand scheme of things, that, too, was a mere bump in the road.

When we all get back to discussing and fighting over health care reform — about the cost, the extent of coverage, the role of the bureaucracy and the inclusion (or not) of a public insurance option — the Wilson stuff will be quickly forgotten.

Two weeks from now, MoveOn.org will still be angry at Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) will still be so worried about her re-election that she opposes a public option, and Republicans will still score points with seniors and conservatives worried about a “government takeover of health care.”

As for Wilson, who has also seen a fundraising windfall from the controversy, he remains, at least at this point, a solid favorite for re-election.

Miller, who drew 46 percent against Wilson last year, will have a bigger war chest next time, but he will also face greater hurdles.

Miller spent a considerable $624,000 in 2008, meaning he ran a real campaign. The combination of that cash, plus Obama’s appeal and the worst political environment for Republicans since at least 1982 (if not 1976), helped Miller add about 9 points to the showing of Wilson’s 2006 Democratic opponent, Michael Ray Ellisor, who did not raise enough money that year to file a federal fundraising report.

Given that Obama drew 45 percent of the vote in Wilson’s district in 2008, Miller’s percentage looks somewhat less than remarkable.

Wilson did energize liberals, but that was bound to happen anyway. The bloggers and cable TV talkers would have made sure of that. Tactics, after all, is what it’s all about these days.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 14 , 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: New Hampshire 1 & South Carolina 1

The April 3, 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 Hampshire 1: Politics Goes On
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Two years ago, Carol Shea-Porter rode the Democratic wave into Congress. And she would have been swept out last cycle had she not learned some critical lessons.

Shea-Porter defeated incumbent Cong. Jeb Bradley (R) without the help of the national party in 2006, so she initially rejected party offers to help her win reelection. But she eventually reversed that decision, and the DCCC helped her turn back another challenge by Bradley in November.

This year, the congresswoman actively considered a run for the open U.S. Senate being vacated by GOP Sen. Judd Gregg, but she recently announced that she would take a pass on that contest. And even though Shea-Porter required some special attention from Democratic strategists last cycle, they are much happier having her run for reelection than defending an open seat. For the whole story, subscribe to the print edition of the Report.

South Carolina 1: We Didn’t Start the Fire
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Early last fall, it looked as if South Carolina Cong. Henry Brown (R) was on the fast track to involuntary involvement. He hadn’t faced a Democratic opponent in years, let alone a serious one, when he was suddenly confronted with a well-funded challenger and a national wave that was sweeping out many of his colleagues.

But Brown righted his campaign with just enough time to survive, and now Democrats are wondering whether they missed their opportunity.

In 2008, Democrat Linda Ketner ran a classic outsider race. She had the personal money to blast Brown with television ads turning his incumbency into a liability with an electorate unhappy with Washington. And she was nearly successful in a very Republican district until Brown finally returned fire.

The congressman’s narrow victory last fall demonstrated some vulnerability, and it could land him credible Democratic and Republican opponents next year. For the whole story, subscribe to the print edition of the Report.

Late-breaking House races shift political playing field

By Stuart Rothenberg

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every election cycle, a handful of races not taken very seriously early on become truly competitive contests, and this year is no exception.

Every candidate, of course, has a scenario. But most of those scenarios -- and most of those candidates -- evaporate well before October.

In the case of the candidates below, their scenarios are now supported by both polling and successful fundraising. Given the national political environment, it isn't surprising that most of the late surprises are in Republican-held seats. Read the rest of the story on CNN.com.

Mississippi Senate: Democrats Look to Defy History

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Former Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) will have to defy history to win this year’s Senate special election in the Magnolia State.

Over the last 60 years, there have been 23 times when both of a state’s Senate seats were up for election. In 20 of those instances (87 percent of the time), one party won both seats.

This year, two states have elections for both Senate seats: Wyoming and Mississippi. While Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi and Mississippi Republican Sen. Thad Cochran have known for six years that their seats would be up, the death of Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) in 2007 and the unexpected midterm retirement of Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have forced special elections in those states.

Republicans are not at risk of losing either of the Wyoming seats, but Democrats are excited about Musgrove’s prospects against appointed Sen. Roger Wicker (R). Cochran is a heavy favorite to win re-election.

But further analysis of the three instances where the two Senate races were won by candidates from different parties show an even tougher road for Musgrove. In two of the three instances, the split results maintained the partisan status quo before the election.

In Idaho in 1962, Democratic Sen. Frank Church won re-election while appointed Sen. Len Jordan’s (R) victory retained the Republican seat. And in South Carolina in 1966, Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond won re-election, just as Democrat Fritz Hollings held the Democratic seat after defeating the incumbent in the primary.

In the final case, in New Hampshire in 1962, Republican Sen. Norris Cotton won re-election, while his party lost the state’s other Senate seat. But the Senator who had been appointed to fill that vacancy and who ran to fill the rest of the unexpired term, Maurice Murphy Jr. (R), lost in the primary, and Thomas McIntyre (D) defeated Rep. Perkins Bass (R) in the general election. (Bass is the father of former Rep. Charlie Bass, who lost reelection last year in New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional district.)

So if Musgrove wins this year, it will be the first time in at least six decades that an appointed Senator has lost election in the same cycle that his party won the state’s other Senate seat.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 16, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

DeMint Embraces Online Fundraising Tool

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has agreed to use the Republican Web site Slatecard exclusively for his fundraising.

DeMint, one of the most tech-savvy Members of the Senate, is the first Senator to utilize the popular Web site. And it’s just an extension of his efforts to reach constituents, voters and donors through the Web.

“Sen. DeMint is excited about new technologies that allow direct and dynamic communication with people in South Carolina and throughout the country,” DeMint Communications Director Wesley Denton said.

DeMint, the chairman of the Republican Steering Committee, has a sleek Senate Web site, where he and his staff blog. The site also has six separate regional blogs maintained by staff and accessed by inputting a county or ZIP code. He used YouTube to respond to President Bush’s most recent State of the Union address. And he has a Twitter account, but it’s just a feed from the blog on his campaign Web site, not a minute-by-minute breakdown of his daily activities.

The former owner of a marketing company, DeMint has engaged the blogging community and embraced the Internet has a strategic and marketing tool.

He committed just a few days ago to Slatecard and has taken in $3,581 from 12 contributors. But his race for a second term isn’t until 2010.

The move could give the Web site a boost. DeMint is a star within conservatives in the caucus. He raised $9 million in 2004 and will raise more next cycle. DeMint is also using the site to raise money for his political action committee, Senate Conservatives Fund.

Slatecard, considered the Republican equivalent of ActBlue on the Democratic side, has taken in about $411,000 since its inception nine months ago. The goal of the site’s founders is to raise $1 million for the cycle.

ActBlue was founded in 2004 and has taken in $56.8 million since. According to the Wall Street Journal, the site took in nearly $792,000 in its first cycle.

The top Republican fundraiser on Slatecard thus far was Kevin O’Neill, who raised $64,744 from 126 contributors by using Slatecard exclusively for all his fundraising for the special election last fall in Virginia’s 1st district. He lost the GOP nominating contest to Rep. Rob Wittman (R).

The site was co-founded by David All, a former communications director to Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), and San Diego software developer Sendhil Panchadsaram. All is also the founder of TechRepublican.com.


This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 11, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

South Carolina: Former Bengals Coach Wins Primary

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) cruised to renomination Tuesday, but the untold story in the Palmetto State’s primaries is how a former NFL coach took down an incumbent.

Former Cincinnati Bengals head coach Sam Wyche defeated incumbent Ben Trotter in the Republican primary for the Pickens County Council. Wyche made his political debut by taking down Trotter, 61 percent to 39 percent, in a race the featured almost 3,700 votes cast. The former coach still has to win the general election.

Pickens County is located in Rep. Gresham Barrett’s (R) 3rd district in the northwest part of the state. Unless Barrett makes a sudden move for the exits, Wyche will have to wait to join Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) in the Congressional NFL caucus.

Graham defeated Buddy Witherspoon, 67 percent to 33 percent, in the Senate GOP primary.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 11, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

A Big McCain Win, But Trouble in the Weeds

By Stuart Rothenberg

Sen. John McCain won a narrow victory in South Carolina on Saturday, but the final results and the exit poll continue to show a very fractured Republican party without a single candidate who has emerged as a consensus choice.

Once again the devil is in the details, and anyone who digs through the exit poll will find that the GOP race is still wide open.

McCain won again, as he did in New Hampshire, on the basis of strong support from self-described moderates and liberals, and by attracting the votes of Independents. He won among primary voters who believe abortion should be legal, who believe that illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship and who had a negative opinion of the Bush Administration.

McCain and Huckabee each won about 30 percent of the GOP, with Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson drawing another 16 percent each. Huckabee easily won conservatives, evangelical Christians, and voters who favored deporting illegal aliens.

Did McCain measurably improve on his 2000 showing in South Carolina? Not if you compare the 2000 and 2008 exit polls.

In 2000, McCain won 29 percent of self-described conservatives. This time, he won just 26 percent. In 2000, he drew 26 percent of Republicans. This time he won 30 percent – an improvement but not a dramatic one. McCain won 48 percent of veterans in 2000 against George W. Bush but only 37 percent this time.

If McCain didn’t increase his percentages, why did he win? McCain won because of the fractured GOP field. Huckabee, Thompson and Romney divided the GOP vote and conservatives, allowing McCain to win with only a third of the total primary vote.

McCain’s formula for victory can work in states that allow Independents to vote, but it’s still unclear whether he can compete successfully in states with closed primaries, which includes a number of Super Tuesday states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Montana, New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia.

McCain’s victory is disappointing news for Rudy Giuliani, who is waiting in Florida. Giuliani’s poll numbers have been slipping, and McCain’s momentum could make him appealing to some Florida Republicans who had been considering the former New York Mayor.

Some observers surely will see McCain’s victory in South Carolina as fundamentally changing the GOP race. But the evidence is not there yet that that is the case. If you look deep, deep into the weeds, the Republicans are still in a very wide-open race.


This item also appeared on Political Wire.

Romney’s Michigan Showing Adds Complexity to Evangelical Vote

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Three states down, three different results among evangelical voters for the Republican presidential candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won a plurality of evangelicals (34%) in Michigan, despite some reservations within the community about his Mormon religion. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee placed second (29%) and Arizona Sen. John McCain third (23%) among evangelicals.

After Huckabee’s convincing win among evangelicals in Iowa (he took 46%) and the three-way tie among evangelicals in New Hampshire, Romney’s showing is evidence that no candidate has a lock on the evangelical vote.

It also suggests that while evangelicals hold to uniting theological themes, there is limited uniformity in how evangelicals apply their faith to politics and choosing a particular candidate.

Evangelicals were a larger part of the electorate in Michigan (39%) than in New Hampshire (24%), but a smaller percentage than in Iowa (60%). South Carolina will be the next test case for the evangelical vote on Saturday.

Eight years ago, the exit poll asked primary voters if they were part of the “religious right.” First of all, what does “religious right” even mean? Second, surely there were evangelicals in 2000 who did not consider themselves part of the “religious right,” but we don’t know how many. Unfortunately, that’s the only vaguely similar question we have in analyzing potential evangelical percentages in upcoming Republican primaries.

In 2000, one-third of the Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they were part of the “religious right,” a slightly smaller percentage than similar voters in Iowa that year (37%). If that trend still exists today, it would poke a hole in the theory that South Carolina is full of uber-conservative evangelicals ready to deliver the state for Huckabee.

GOP Showdowns Ahead in Michigan and South Carolina

By Stuart Rothenberg

If you think Mike Huckabee can’t possibly win the Republican nomination for president, you are deluding yourself. If you think Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has the GOP nomination in the bag, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

The Republican race is still up for grabs. But as I write this, three days after New Hampshire and four days before Michigan, the GOP contest looks like a fair fight between McCain and Huckabee, with Mitt Romney needing a miracle in Michigan to stay alive.

McCain’s win in New Hampshire has given him the look of a winner, but his winning coalition may not be easily replicated in many states.

Voters who opposed the war in Iraq and were dissatisfied or angry with the Bush administration flocked to McCain, as did moderate and liberal Republicans and independents. He tied Huckabee among evangelical voters, but New Hampshire evangelicals are different from Iowa evangelicals.

McCain still must prove that he can win a closed primary and that he has enough support among Republican regulars to win his party’s nomination. He may, in fact, do so. But even if he wins in Michigan (which he also won in 2000), he still has a formidable task ahead of him, especially when the narrative gets back to immigration and some of the other things in his record.

Huckabee may not be a very good general election nominee for the GOP, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a big-time threat for the party’s nomination.

Many conservatives simply won’t warm to McCain, and social conservatives seem likely to be drawn to Huckabee throughout the South and in the Midwest, too. The calendar sets up well for him, with Michigan, South Carolina and Florida all places where he can play seriously, particularly if a conservative or two (that is, Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson) drop out.

The Wolverine State is not generally regarded as a conservative bastion, but Christian conservatives are a significant part of the GOP coalition there.

While McCain won Michigan in 2000, largely on the strength of his showing among Democrats and independents (who together accounted for 52 percent of all GOP primary voters), more than half of 2000 Republican primary voters said abortion should “never” be legal or should be legal in “few cases,” and more than a quarter (27 percent) identified themselves as members of the religious right.

But those figures understate Huckabee’s potential appeal in the state, and his initial Michigan TV spot is a perfect example of why the former Arkansas governor shouldn’t be underestimated in the contest.

Instead of promoting his “Christian values,” Huckabee, who may figure that he already has the inside track with religious conservatives, immediately launched a populist economic ad in a state that has become the nation’s economic basket case.

The opening in Huckabee’s spot — “When you grow up and life’s a struggle, you have a whole different understanding of what most people are going through” –— and the closing — “I believe most Americans want their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off” — show he’s looking to broaden his support among those who are hurting economically.

Huckabee’s economic populist message should resonate well in the state and allow him to grow his support, according to one veteran GOP insider with a long track record in Michigan.

The first Michigan poll after New Hampshire showed McCain moving to the front and Romney holding a narrow advantage over Huckabee. Those numbers will change before Tuesday, but they offer the scary possibility for Romney that he could finish third in a state that he must win. (An effort by liberal blog Daily Kos to get Michigan Democrats to vote for Romney in the GOP primary obviously is a wild card.)

If McCain reassembles his 2000 Michigan coalition and Huckabee adds those hurt by the state’s economy to his socially conservative supporters, Romney will find himself squeezed, limited to the same kind of upscale Republican regulars who supported him in Iowa and New Hampshire. The former Massachusetts governor cannot afford to allow that to happen.

No matter who wins in Michigan, McCain and Huckabee seem destined to meet in South Carolina on Jan. 19, with Thompson and possibly Romney also in the contest.

Huckabee would seem to have the early edge, since 61 percent of South Carolina’s 2000 GOP primary voters identified themselves as conservative, one-third said they were part of the religious right and Huckabee’s Southern roots give him a special appeal.

But again, it’s better to look before you leap. McCain definitely can play in the Palmetto State.

McCain drew 42 percent in the state’s GOP primary against George W. Bush in 2000, not an insignificant showing by the Arizonan (especially in light of the infamous telephone campaign conducted against him). More than one in four Republican primary voters eight years ago was a veteran and 30 percent were self-described independents, a group McCain won with 60 percent in that race.

The Palmetto State is conservative, but it is also the epitome of establishment Republicanism. That’s why former Sen. Bob Dole (Kan.) defeated Pat Buchanan rather handily in the state’s 1996 presidential primary after losing to the populist former speechwriter in New Hampshire. And that race could be a model for McCain, who may become the party establishment’s choice to stop Huckabee.

The contest for the Republican nomination is really a series of very different contests, and each depends at least in part on the makeup of the field as well as on the outcome of the previous contest. For voters, as well as campaign watchers, that could make for a very fluid next four weeks.


This column also appeared in Roll Call on January 14, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Why Kerry’s Endorsement Won’t Help Obama

By Stuart Rothenberg

Shortly after Massachusetts Senator John Kerry announced his endorsement of Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, more than a few voices suggested that it could be a significant plus for Obama’s campaign.

One reporter described Kerry’s announcement as a “major endorsement,” and said that it “could boost Obama's presidential bid by attracting more support from the Democratic establishment, which has largely supported Clinton, the former first lady.”

Another political reporter suggested that the endorsement could “provide some organizational muscle to Obama,” while a third reporter offered the very curious comment that the endorsement would help because Obama “needs to show donors, voters and activists that he can attract more traditional support and win over the decision makers in the party.”

One media political blog reported that University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said that “Kerry can help by making some Democratic loyalists, particularly older women, take a second look at Obama.”

Even my good friend Chris Cillizza of Washingtonpost.com seemed to accept that the Kerry endorsement was a significant plus for Obama. He, like many others, cited Kerry’s “3 million-plus person e-mail list from his run for president,” which he said “should be a financial windfall for Obama’s campaign.”

Cillizza added that “the remnants” of Kerry’s “national operation in every state” will mean “donors, activists and operatives” who can help Obama’s existing backers. Finally, he quoted an anonymous “Kerry advisor” (whom I expect isn’t so anonymous to veteran political reporters) crowing about Kerry’s organization in South Carolina.

The problem with all of these assessments is that they don’t hold up under scrutiny. Virtually all of them are based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that an endorsement in a Presidential race can somehow transfer the past supporters of one politician to another. That almost never happens.

Exactly how and why would Kerry’s endorsement help Obama attract support from the Democratic establishment? Are there a lot of people in the “Democratic establishment” who can’t make up their mind about which Democrat to support (or are supporting another candidate) but will follow the lead of a single U.S. senator, especially when many, many more elected officials have supported Clinton?

And why on earth would “older women” so value Kerry’s endorsement that they would “take a second look at Obama?” Where is the evidence or even the logic to that? If the supposedly incomparable Oprah Winfrey couldn’t deliver women voters to Obama in New Hampshire, why would John Kerry be able to do so in South Carolina or California?

Given that Obama has virtually matched the party’s top fundraiser, Hillary Rodham Clinton, dollar for dollar since he entered the race and has performed stunningly well in the early Democratic Presidential tests, there is no evidence or logic behind the assertion that Obama needs “to show donors, voters and activists that he can attract more traditional support and win over the decision makers in the party.”

Attracting more “donors, voters and activists,” of course, would help Obama, but it borders on ridiculous to say that there are a lot of voters out there who are waiting to see that Obama can attract “more traditional support” before they support him. That’s not how real people think.

Chris’s comment about Kerry’s list, which was echoed by others, at the very least, seems misleading. Some of those 3 million people must have already contributed to either Obama or Clinton. Am I gullible enough to believe that Clinton donors on that list will now write a check to Obama because Kerry has endorsed him?

And while Kerry may be able to raise money for the party’s campaign committee or House and Senate candidates, that’s very different from raising money for a Presidential hopeful in a race where the top three candidates are already well known. Will he raise some for Obama? Yes, of course. But it’s not likely to be so much as to affect the Obama-Clinton contest.

Finally, the idea that Kerry could be a significant help to Obama in South Carolina, a state where Obama is far stronger than Kerry ever was, is difficult to believe.

Too many observers, I’m afraid, seem to think that every campaign development is important and changes the political equation. Even smart people, like Chris, who will tell you that most endorsements by individual members of Congress don’t matter much, get swept along with the campaign hype.

They all should remember the words repeated most recently by Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who, when asked about an endorsement in his own race, said, “I find that with any endorsement, you get half of their friends and all of their enemies.”

Even if some endorsements matter, there is no compelling evidence that I know of that Kerry’s will. Indeed, the endorsement by Kerry, who is more associated with the past than with the future, fundamentally contradicts the Obama message and could turn out to be a liability.