New Print Edition: House Ratings & Updates and the Foley Scandal

The new October 6, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. You can click here for our latest House rankings, but you must subscribe to the print edition to get the full analysis and explanations.

Foley Fallout: Not So Fast
By Stuart Rothenberg

I know that we sound like a broken record, but now is not the time to open a bottle of champagne (if you are a Democrat) or pull your hair out (if you're a Republican). A good deal of the instant analysis is based on seat-of-the-pants hysteria, not empirical evidence.

The Mark Foley scandal has evolved into a House Republican crisis, since GOP leaders in the House are now the focus of the dreaded "what did you know, and when did you know it" questions. Speaker Dennis Hastert certainly hasn't helped himself or his party in dealing with the Foley matter, and the issue certainly poses considerable problems for Republicans.

But we are in the middle of a storm, and neither party now knows how seriously the Foley scandal affects Republican chances in November. Remember, Democrats have been poised for months to make significant gains in both the House and the Senate, and more than a month ago we projected Democratic House gains in excess of what the party needs to win back control for the first time since the 1994 elections.

I certainly do not want to minimize the possible damage to the GOP from the Foley flap. For the next couple of weeks, Democrats will be able to ride the Foley issue as they push their message of change, while Republicans will be back on their heels. If the Foley scandal does anything, it surely drowns out the Republican message and makes it difficult, at the national level, for Republicans to make Democrats the issue.

But we would be strongly inclined to discount a hysterical account on FoxNews.com that cited an allegedly "authoritative" anonymous GOP consultant who said that if Speaker Hastert remains in that office until Election Day, Republicans could lose 50 seats instead of 20.

What baloney.

First, I'm not ready to accept Fox News's description that the pollster is "authoritative," "and you shouldn't either. I can guess who they are referring to, and I wouldn't use that description.

Second, as one reputable GOP consultant reminded me yesterday, there is no way to project seat losses from a national survey, so the "internal poll" on FoxNews.com should be viewed skeptically.....

For the rest of the story and the issue, you must be a subscriber to the print edition. For our latest House rankings, click here.

Poor New Hampshire? Don’t Bet Against the Granite State

By Stuart Rothenberg,

Seeking to add states with large minority populations into the Democratic presidential primary mix, the Democratic National Committee has added Nevada and South Carolina to the party’s early calendar.

Does this mean the demise of the New Hampshire primary and the dilution of the state’s influence in the nomination process — especially if the state defies the DNC and moves its primary to an earlier date?

Don’t bet on it.

Democratic presidential candidates, as well as political operatives and journalists I’ve talked with, leave little doubt that New Hampshire once again will be a battleground for the party’s nomination, whenever the primary is held.

The DNC has added Nevada between Iowa and the Granite State and scheduled South Carolina for the Tuesday after New Hampshire. Both of the new contests are caucuses, so New Hampshire’s status as the first primary state isn’t compromised. Still, the Granite State’s secretary of state may take action to ensure that the state isn’t leapfrogged by Nevada.

If New Hampshire moves up its date, the DNC has promised to punish it by refusing to recognize the state’s delegates. In theory, that should encourage Democratic presidential hopefuls to bypass the state rather than expend time and resources in a state with no delegates at the national convention. It won’t. All the early potential candidates have indicated they will campaign in New Hampshire, whenever the primary is held.

"There will be an election. People will vote. Reporters will cover it. And the results will influence results in subsequent states. There’s nothing meaningful the DNC can do about it," said one veteran Democratic strategist with presidential campaign experience.

New Hampshire really isn’t about delegates, although campaigns obviously hope to win some in the primary. Rather, the primary is all about momentum. That means candidates and journalists will show up even if delegates are not at stake.

"It’s preposterous to think that we wouldn’t cover New Hampshire in the same way we always have," a network political director said to me recently.

Journalists have spent more than 30 years learning how to cover the New Hampshire primary, and that’s a strong incentive for them to continue to cover the primary as if it is a premier political event. Reporters have sources in the state and loads of history in the back of their minds, enabling them to compare what’s happening in 2007 and 2008 with what happened in 1976 and 1992.

But what if New Hampshire keeps the same date? Won’t Nevada eclipse it? Again, don’t bet on it.

While the South Carolina primary is likely to get plenty of attention from candidates and the national media in 2008, it’s unlikely that Nevada caucuses will get anything close to Iowa and New Hampshire in terms of attention.

First, like the well-established Iowa event, Nevada is another caucus, not a primary. Journalists are likely to flock to one event where campaign organization and base voters are important, but are they really going to do it a second time, after all of the hullabaloo around Iowa? Probably not.

And for the campaigns of presidential hopefuls, Iowa’s caucuses are a known commodity. Political operatives know who is going to participate and how the caucuses will work. They don’t have a clue about how Nevada’s caucuses will work, and that means they’ll invest far less time and effort in that state, even if it is early in the process.

True, Nevada is a state with a considerable Hispanic population, and that guarantees candidates and some media will be there. But New Hampshire, not Nevada, is likely to be seen as the second big test of the presidential nominating process.

Cost certainly will be an issue for the TV networks. They will devote considerable resources to the first caucuses and the first primary, but they are less likely to treat Nevada like a major league happening, especially since it is likely to be a Democrats-only event.

"Nevada will be semi-big," insisted a veteran Democratic operative who has played in the Democratic presidential sandbox. "It won’t be as big as New Hampshire, even if New Hampshire comes after it. It may not even be as important as South Carolina."

South Carolina is likely to get more coverage than Nevada because it is on the East Coast, because both parties will have primaries the same day and, once again, because reporters and candidates already have come to regard the Palmetto State as an early test. Moreover, the state’s considerable African-American population makes it both an interesting story for journalists and a test of candidates’ appeal.

I don’t know if New Hampshire will challenge the DNC by moving its primary earlier than the DNC allows, but it might. A number of smart people I talked to firmly believe it will. Some even think the Granite State will have no choice but to move up to December or even November.

And if that happens, the irony is that the DNC will have succeeded in forcing Democrats to choose a nominee earlier, rather than changing the states that have the most impact in selecting the party’s standard-bearer.

Stuart Rothenberg is editor of the Rothenberg Political Report.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 3, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.

State Legislative Races Outlook

By Louis Jacobson

Little has changed in the outlook for the state legislatures since the Rothenberg Political Report published its last rankings on July 7. The only ratings change is in the Alaska Senate, where allegations of corruption involving a number of politicians - including Senate President Ben Stevens, the son of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) - are calling into question the GOP's grip on the chamber. Previously classified as Safe Republican, this seat now moves to Likely Republican. That still falls short of the competitive category (which is reserved for Toss-Up and Lean seats), but depending on how the investigation plays out, it would be a mistake to rule out a party switch, even in as staunchly a Republican state as Alaska. The chamber's current partisan breakdown is twelve Republicans, eight Democrats.

Democrats feel somewhat stronger than they did in early July about their prospects in Colorado, where gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter is surging; the Indiana House, where poor approval ratings for Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) are dragging down GOP legislators; Michigan; Montana and the Ohio House. But none of these shifts is sufficient to merit a change in classification yet. Republicans, for their part, feel stronger about their chances in the Alabama Senate, among other states. But no other states merit a change in call yet.

[UPDATE- October 12, 2006- WEST VIRGINIA]

The Rothenberg Political Report is shifting its call for one statelegislative chamber. The West Virginia state House, currently with 68 Democrats and 32 Republicans, will now shift from Solid Democratic to Likely Democratic. That's still outside the range of "competitive," but the change suggests that the Republican minority could gain seats this fall.

The shift is being driven by a significant investment of money and organizational resources by Don Blankenship, the CEO of Massey Energy, a major coal and energy company in the state. Blankenship is targeting the state House. WestVirginia is a historically Democratic state, especially where the state legislature is concerned, and the Democratic edge in the state House appears too wide to make a one-year takeover likely. However, Blankenship--astaunchly pro-business conservative and a bete noire of state Democrats, trial lawyers and labor unions--has deep pockets and has been a player in past political wars, sinking significant money into state Supreme Court races.

The state has been trending Republican on the national level, suggesting that the GOP, despite its institutional weaknesses locally, is gaining ground in the state. The Democrats' best asset right now is Gov. JoeManchin, who is extremely popular. But it's not clear how much he'll be willing to spend from his warchest to bolster the legislature this year. (Manchin is not up for reelection again until 2008.) So, don't expect the chamber to flip control, but a GOP gain of seats, even in what's turning into a generally Democratic year elsewhere, looks possible.

[UPDATE- October 20, 2006- OHIO]

The Rothenberg Political Report is shifting its call for the Ohio state House from Likely Republican to Lean Republican and its call for the Ohio state Senate from Solid Republican to Likely Republican. While the long-dominant GOP is still favored to keep control of both chambers, albeit by narrower margins, the simmering scandal environment for the Ohio GOP has metastasized in recent weeks, and it's no longer guaranteed that the party's 20-plus-seat margin in the House will be enough to keep control past Election Day. Close observers of the Ohio political scene are split on whether GOP control is truly endangered -- some insist that the Democrats won't be able to take over the House this cycle -- but enough Republicans tell us that the anti-Republican sentiment is so strong that anything is possible, so we've decided to shift the call.

By reclassifying the Ohio House as Lean Republican, the chamber becomes the
21st to be deemed competitive by the Report. Here is the full list:

Democratic-held Toss-Ups (6)
Colorado House
Colorado Senate
Maine House
Maine Senate
North Carolina House
Oklahoma Senate

Republican-held Toss-Ups (3)
Indiana House
Iowa House
Minnesota House

Tied Toss-Ups (2)
Iowa Senate
Montana House

Democratic-held Lean D (4)
Montana Senate
Tennessee House
Washington House
Washington Senate

Republican-held Lean R (6)
Nevada Senate
Ohio House
Oregon House
Pennsylvania House
Tennessee Senate
Wisconsin Senate

Warning: Races May Not Be As Close As They Appear

By Stuart Rothenberg,

Democratic pollsters are pushing lots of polls that show second- and third-tier candidates performing surprisingly well. If most of these challengers win, the Democrats will gain 30 or 40 House seats.

Obviously, that’s unlikely. Extremely unlikely.

So what are we all supposed to make of Democratic polling memos asserting that Paul Hodes (New Hampshire’s 2nd), John Hall (New York’s 19th), Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania’s 4th), Victoria Wulsin (Ohio’s 2nd), Charlie Brown (California’s 4th), Nancy Skinner (Michigan’s 9th) and Dan Maffei (New York’s 25th) are breathing down the necks of incumbent Republicans?

Some of these numbers stem from the fact that the Democratic base has solidified early on and Democratic candidates are getting the vote that normally comes to them only in October. The folks over at Public Opinion Strategies, I believe, coined the term “premature partisan polarization” to refer to the current tendency of voters to pick their party’s Congressional candidates earlier and earlier, even if they know nothing about them.

Consider Maffei, a Democrat challenging Rep. Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.) in a district that includes Syracuse and the eastern end of Rochester.

A recent Maffei poll shows him trailing Walsh by only 4 points, 44 percent to 40 percent. Yet Maffei’s favorable rating was just 24 percent. That means a large percentage of respondents who said they would vote for Maffei don’t have a favorable impression of him. But they are for him, whomever he may be.

Presumably, most of these respondents are Democrats who want to send a message to President Bush and figure that voting for Maffei is a good way of doing so. After all, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) won the district in 2004, defeating Bush 50 percent to 48 percent.

Maffei looks pretty irrelevant in all this, and the poll suggests that at this point, a slice of white bread with a (D) after its name would have a good chance of holding Walsh under 50 percent.

Maffei is not the only Democratic candidate running far ahead of his or her name identification. In New Hampshire’s 2nd district, a Democratic poll pegs Hodes’ total name identification as 27 percent, yet has him drawing 42 percent in the ballot test against Rep. Charles Bass (R).

In New York’s 20th district, a Global Strategy Group poll for Kirsten Gillibrand shows her favorable name ID at 34 percent even as she draws 39 percent of the vote against Rep. John Sweeney (R).

In Pennsylvania’s 4th district, Altmire’s total name identification is 21 percent, yet he is drawing 44 percent of the vote in a ballot test against incumbent GOP Rep. Melissa Hart.

In each of these districts, there are enough Democratic voters to provide a solid Democratic Congressional vote, and Maffei, Hodes, Gillibrand and Altmire apparently are getting their share early — even prematurely. But are these races as close as they would seem?

Count me as skeptical, and not only because most of these poll memos contain the dreaded -and when voters were read short descriptions about the candidates- second ballot that allegedly measures a challenger’s fundamental strength. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

The Maffei poll memo includes at least a couple of things that caught my eye and deserve mention. First, despite Maffei’s move in the ballot test, Walsh still has a name ID of 51 percent favorable/36 percent unfavorable. In other words, in a district won by Kerry and where Walsh’s “re-elect” has plummeted from 42 percent to 34 percent, the Congressman still is viewed favorably by a majority of respondents.

Granted, Walsh’s negatives have risen since a previously unreleased March Democratic survey, but that’s not surprising given the national and state environments, which strongly favor Democrats. Walsh’s favorable ratings have slipped only slightly, from 56 percent in March to 51 percent now.

Equally noteworthy is that district voters, who have a very unfavorable view of Bush (25 percent favorable/62 percent unfavorable), seem willing to make a clear distinction between Bush and Walsh.

That willingness to make a distinction is crucial, since it demonstrates that Walsh has, to a considerable extent, personalized the district. In an environment like this, and in a district such as New York’s 25th, Walsh’s success in building his own image is crucial.

The memo goes on to make a generalized assertion: "Voters in the 25th District are clearly looking for change."

Well, I’ve seen that message, in one way or another, in almost every Democratic polling memo that comes across my desk. They almost always cite Bush’s standing. They almost all argue that voters want change or are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. And they are right, but only so far.

The problem for Democrats is that in most cases, that won’t be enough by itself to get voters to fire GOP incumbents. That’s particularly true if Republicans pound away at their challengers, making them the issue in their races and decreasing their appeal as vehicles for change. Of course, not all Republican incumbents are doing that yet. And that’s a mistake that some Republicans could well come to regret.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 28, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.