New Print Edition: Georgia 8 & Ohio 1

The July 3, 2007 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks and the content is not available online. 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 sample of what's in this edition...

Georgia 8: Marshall’s Plan
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Plenty of Democrats had close races in 2006. But the bulk of them were challenging Republican incumbents and not trying to hang onto their own seats, as Cong. Jim Marshall (D) in Georgia’s 8th District was doing.

Bucking the nationwide trend, Republicans actually did fairly well in the Peach State last cycle and came within a few thousand votes of knocking off Marshall and his colleague John Barrow (D) in the 12th District. Now, Democrats call Marshall “battle-tested,” while Republicans label him as an opportunity. Marshall’s 2006 opponent, former Cong. Mac Collins, hasn’t completely ruled out a bid, but Republicans are excited about their newest recruit: retired Air Force Major Rick Goddard.

With Goddard, Republicans have a candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Marshall on military service in a district dominated by Warner Robins Air Logistics Center. But with two more years to establish himself as the incumbent in the newly drawn 8th District, Marshall will be a formidable incumbent. For the rest of the story, you must subscribe...

Ohio 1: Leave No District Behind

The 2006 results in Ohio were bittersweet for Democrats. Nationwide, they took over the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In the Buckeye State, Democrats took over the governorship, knocked off a sitting Republican senator and made gains in the state Legislature. Yet Democrats picked up a measly one seat in the House, the seat formerly held by Cong. Bob Ney (R), out of five targeted opportunities.

But in 2008, Democrats are setting their sights on Ohio again, including Cong. Steve Chabot (R) and his Cincinnati-based 1st District. He won narrowly last cycle over Cincinnati City Councilman John Cranley (D) and will likely face state House Minority Whip Steve Driehaus (D) this time around. There won’t be as many races at the top of the ticket, but the presidential nominees are likely to spend plenty of time in the district throughout the year. For the rest of the story, you must subscribe...

This issue also includes the 2008 Primary Calendar for House and Senate races.

Cranky Grass-Roots Democrats Send a Message to Capitol Hill

By Stuart Rothenberg

Democratic insiders agree that their party rank and file’s reaction to the passage of the supplemental appropriations bill, which was signed by President Bush a few weeks ago and included money to fund the Iraq War for three more months, was one of anger and frustration.

Possibly more importantly, they also now privately acknowledge that some small-dollar contributors turned away from party fundraising appeals after the bill passed and was signed by the president.

“We saw some hit to online donations,” one knowledgeable Democrat told me recently, adding quickly that contributions already have started to bounce back.

But while party leaders are never happy to hear that Congress’ reputation is slipping — and the drop in Congressional approval a couple of weeks ago almost certainly was because of Democrats expressing dissatisfaction — or that angry base voters have closed up their checkbooks, even temporarily, Democratic House and Senate leaders don’t yet have much reason to fear a grass-roots revolt.

Congressional Democrats apparently were surprised by the base’s reaction to the bill’s passage. They shouldn’t have been. Have they been living under a rock?

We’ve seen grass-roots Democratic anger for the past few years directed at the White House, and the animosity and invective aimed at Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) during his bid for renomination and re-election should have warned House and Senate Democrats that even they are not immune to attacks from left-of-center bloggers who see any cooperation with the White House on Iraq as perfidy.

Increasingly, the Democratic left is acting much the way the Republican right has acted for decades, measuring Capitol Hill behavior against a standard of ideological purity that treats pragmatists as traitors and those who compromise as worse than the enemy.

These voices have always been around, mind you. It is just that they now have a megaphone with the Internet, much as angry conservatives did when talk radio burst on the scene more than a decade ago.

“It makes no sense for our friends in the grass-roots community to hold us responsible when it’s the president’s party that makes change [in Iraq policy] impossible,” one frustrated Democratic Member of Congress said to me recently.

“Our goal,” said the Member, “is still to turn the corner on Iraq. We haven’t changed our position” just because the appropriations bill passed.

Maybe Democratic leaders could have done a better job preparing angry party activists for the passage of the spending bill, possibly sparing Hill Democrats the nasty e-mails and angry comments on liberal blogs, but I doubt it. Democrats have spent so many months cranking up the volume on Iraq — making it a major issue in the 2006 elections and since then increasing their attacks on the president and his policies — that it would have been very difficult to persuade grass-roots anti-war activists to accept a deal with the White House that funded the war for even another week.

Given the bigger picture, it really doesn’t matter that many grass-roots Democrats were very frustrated and angry by Hill Democrats’ behavior (which probably only angers them more).

As we have already learned, Congressional Democrats are planning to take more bites out of the Iraq War apple over the next few months, either in stand-alone bills or as amendments to appropriations bills. A de-authorization vote, for example, seems likely.

Even though it is inevitable that those Democratic initiatives will be blocked by Republicans in the Senate, or vetoed by the president (if any get to his desk), Hill Democrats will be able to crow about their efforts to end the war and blame Bush for the daily doses of bad news from Iraq. That should mollify Democratic confrontationalists, redirecting attention back toward the Republicans and calming the mood of the now-angry crowd on stage left toward Democrats.

The next question for Congressional Democrats is what to do in September, when the president will need Congress to commit additional spending for the war. But their choices depend on the various reports about the so-called surge that are due then and on Republican decisions on the war. If the recent public statements of Sens. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) are any indication, Democrats will have plenty of company when they try to tighten the noose on the president’s Iraq policy near the end of the summer.

Increasingly, the Democratic left resembles the Republican right. That’s likely to be a long-term problem for Democrats, but it isn’t a terribly significant one between now and November 2008.

But as Democrats grow confident about next year, and especially if they win the White House and increase their majorities in both chambers of Congress in 2008, you can expect the party’s liberal wing to become more confrontational against party moderates and pragmatists. Democrats will go after Democrats who stray from the party and ideological line, much as social and anti-tax conservatives have tried to cleanse the GOP of incumbents who fail to meet their litmus tests.

The writing is already on the wall.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 2, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

8 for '08: Battleground States to Watch

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Only six months into the election cycle, the universe of 2008 battleground states is already beginning to take shape. But an accurate list of the battlegrounds includes more than just the presidential race and takes into account states where hot House, Senate and even gubernatorial races also will be taking place.

For parties, political action committees, 527s, or even political junkies looking to maximize their time and effort, these eight states should host a significant percentage of the political action this cycle, listed in descending order from most active. Some states such as Iowa, Nevada and Wisconsin could host fierce presidential campaigning, but the action downballot is much more limited.

Ohio: Twenty electoral votes, at least five competitive House races
Many Democrats still think “what if” when they hear the word “Ohio,” after President Bush carried it narrowly 51 percent to 49 percent on his way to defeating Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Four years earlier, Bush only carried the state 50 percent to 46 percent and the Buckeye State is a lock to be a presidential battleground once again.

The 2006 election results provided a mixed bag for Democrats. While taking over the governorship and knocking off Sen. Mike DeWine (R), they netted only one House seat. Currently, up to five House seats could be in play. Democrats are excited about two recruits: state Rep. Steve Driehaus, against Rep. Steve Chabot in the 1st district, and state Sen. John Boccieri against Rep. Ralph Regula in the 16th district.

In the 15th district, Franklin County Commissioners Paula Brooks and 2006 nominee Mary Jo Kilroy will battle for the Democratic nomination to face Rep. Deborah Pryce (R). And Democrats will target Rep. Jean Schmidt in the 2nd district, but she may not even make it out of the primary.

Ohio’s 18th district, the seat of former Rep. Bob Ney (R) and now held by Rep. Zack Space (D), is a priority target for Republicans.

Pennsylvania: Twenty-one electoral votes, four House races
Although it received more attention in 2000, the Keystone State is likely to play another critical role in the presidential race. Kerry carried Pennsylvania narrowly 51 percent to 48 percent in 2004 while Al Gore carried it 51 percent to 46 percent in 2000.

Four House seats also could be in play. Republicans are particularly interested in the 10th district, formerly held by ex-Rep. Don Sherwood (R), who got into a public debate about how he treated his mistress. Republicans have a host of candidates there looking to take on freshman Rep. Chris Carney (D).

Rep. Jason Altmire (D) also is a target in the 4th district with both former Rep. Melissa Hart (R) and former Pittsburgh Steelers star and 2006 gubernatorial nominee Lynn Swann (R) taking a look at running. And Rep. Joe Sestak (D) is not likely to get a pass either in the 7th district. Democrats will go after Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) again in the 6th district after he was the last man standing amid a heap of Republican rubble.

Colorado: Nine electoral votes, Senate race, one House race
Democrats haven’t carried the state at the presidential level since Bill Clinton in 1992, but the state has been trending Democratic. Bush won the state by 9 points in 2000 but by only 5 points four years later. Democrats took over one of the state’s Senate seats in 2004 and have their sights set on the second seat, being vacated by GOP Sen. Wayne Allard, in 2008. Rep. Mark Udall is the likely Democratic nominee, while Republicans have former Rep. Bob Schaffer.

In 2006, Democrats also took over the governorship and the 7th district House seat, now held by Rep. Ed Perlmutter. They also control both the state House and Senate. By the numbers, the 7th district should be a swing district, but Republicans aren’t likely to make a real push in the current environment. Democrats will take another swing at Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R) in the 4th district, even without star recruit Brandon Schaffer, who took a pass on the race.

Minnesota: Ten electoral votes, Senate race, two House races
Richard Nixon was the last Republican to carry the state for president in 1972, but the White House races are consistently close. Kerry carried the state 51 percent to 48 percent in 2004 and in 2000, Gore won it by a narrower 48 percent to 46 percent.

Norm Coleman (R) is one of the most vulnerable Senators in the country, and has already drawn a crowd of challengers including comedian Al Franken and attorney Mike Ciresi. Democrats may not be through recruiting yet.

Republicans are targeting freshman Rep. Tim Walz (D) in the 1st district after he knocked off then-Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R) and two GOP state legislators already are running. Freshman Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) begins the first, of likely many, re-election races in the 6th district, in which she is targeted for her unabashed conservative views.

Virginia: Thirteen electoral votes, potential Senate race, two House races
This is a state that wouldn’t have been anywhere near this list four years ago, on the eve of Bush’s 9-point victory over Kerry. Democrats haven’t carried Virginia at the presidential level since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and make up only three of the state’s 11-Member Congressional delegation.

But Tim Kaine (D) won the governorship in 2005, and Jim Webb (D) defeated Sen. George Allen (R) last year in one of the closest Senate races in the country. Now, politicos on both sides of the aisle are watching to see whether Sen. John Warner (R) retires (as many insiders expect), setting up an extremely competitive open-seat race. Former Gov. Mark Warner (D) would be heavily recruited and difficult to defeat.

Rep. Tom Davis (R) would run for an open Senate seat as well, but his 10th district House seat in Northern Virginia would be difficult for Republicans to defend. Democrats also will challenge Rep. Thelma Drake (R) in the 2nd district, after her 2-point victory in 2006.

New Hampshire: Four electoral votes, Senate race, House race
Kerry carried the state by 2 points in 2004, and Bush carried it by 1 point in 2000. Sen. John Sununu (R) already has three challengers, but it’s his 2002 foe, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D), who would give him the toughest test — if she runs. Last year’s GOP massacre in which Republicans lost both the state House and state Senate and both seats in Congress, makes Sununu extremely vulnerable. Former Rep. Jeb Bradley (R) is challenging freshman Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) for his old 1st district seat.

Florida: Twenty-seven electoral votes, two House races
Even though Bush won the Sunshine State by 5 points in 2004, Florida must still be considered a battleground state with its 27 electoral votes. Rep. Tim Mahoney (D) is a top Republican target in the 16th district after his 49 percent to 48 percent victory with ex-Rep. Mark Foley’s name still on the ballot. Democrats are making an effort in the 8th district against Rep. Ric Keller (R).

Oregon: Seven electoral votes, Senate race
Ronald Reagan was the last Republican presidential contender to carry Oregon, but the state has been surprisingly closer the past two cycles. In 2000, Gore won it narrowly while Kerry won it by 4 points in 2004.

Democrats are still looking for a top-tier candidate against Sen. Gordon Smith (R), after a series of rejections from the Congressional delegation and a former governor, but the Republican incumbent is far from a safe bet for re-election. If Democrats nominate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for president, Rep. Darlene Hooley (D) could be vulnerable, but she has proved to be a very tough campaigner.


This story first appeared in Roll Call on June 28, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Will Voters Respond to a Message of Unity or of Division?

By Stuart Rothenberg

For months, many commentators have argued that voters are sick and tired of partisanship and division. The years of Clinton-bashing by conservatives and Bush-bashing by liberals have taken a toll on the less polarized American public, and Americans are looking for a true uniter. At least that’s what many observers are saying.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has gotten plenty of mileage from the message of bringing people together and crossing the deep ideological divide, which he first offered at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s a United States of America,” he asserted.

OK, for argument’s sake, let’s just say that we all buy that analysis for the moment. If that’s right, how can anyone possibly explain what former Democratic Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) is doing?

“The Washington establishment is trying to write us out of the campaign ... they don’t want people to hear what John Edwards is saying, because it will mean the end of big money’s stranglehold over our government,” wrote Edwards consultant Joe Trippi in a June 23 fundraising e-mail.

Two days later, Edwards’ deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince wrote in an e-mail “The whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away, because they know that John Edwards means the end to business as usual.” The e-mail goes on to assert that everyone from “Washington lobbyists and PACs” to “political mercenaries and the chattering class” oppose Edwards’ presidential bid because he “doesn’t play by their rules.”

The e-mail says that “they don’t want the American people to hear the message,” adding, “They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people ... [and] has the nerve to remember where he came from.”

Edwards is and has been running a classic “us versus them” campaign, built on class differences and economic populism. Candidates of both parties often run against Washington, D.C., but Edwards’ message is bigger than that. It’s far more class-based.

As such, the former Senator is running on an inherently more divisive message, which appears to strongly contradict the notion that America needs someone who can unify it. And that message isn’t new to Edwards, the man who spent almost an entire election cycle talking about “two Americas.”

Sure, I know what you are thinking. It’s direct mail, Stu, you aren’t supposed to take it seriously. Every candidate’s direct mail is over the top. Those messages are intended to get people to reach into their wallets and open their checkbooks, not to discuss things in a measured, thoughtful or even rational way.

Sorry, but Edwards’ campaign is using this “us versus them” approach more than in fundraising e-mails, and language like this, even in e-mails, contributes to the overall tone of our politics.

More than that, in this particular case, it’s intellectually dishonest.

Take another look at the quote from above. Here is the full quotation: “They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people during some of their toughest times, and — heaven forbid! — he has the nerve to remember where he came from and still care passionately about guaranteeing every family the opportunities he had to get ahead.”

That’s not why “they” call Edwards a hypocrite. It’s not because he cares about guaranteeing every family the opportunities to get ahead. No, “they” (whoever they are) call him a hypocrite because he talks about helping people out of poverty but spends $400 of his own money on a haircut and built a 10,400-square-foot main house on 102 acres, with a total value at more than $5 million.

They also may call him a hypocrite because his new TV spot airing in New Hampshire is one of those feel-good “we’re all in it together” ads that offers a very different message from his direct mail. The future of America “depends on all of us,” says Edwards in the ad, titled “The Strength of America.” “It’s the American people,” he says, avoiding any us versus them rhetoric.

Maybe you think it’s unfair to compare the Senator’s e-mails and TV ads.

Sorry, but I don’t. Campaigns ought to be responsible for things they say, especially when we are talking about the written word or ads. While a candidate on the stump can make a slip or fail to consider the full implications of what he or she has said, consultants and responsible staffers have the opportunity to consider what they have written.

While Edwards talks about change, he, more than any other top-tier candidate in either party, uses the same divisive rhetoric and us versus them appeals that we’ve seen over the past decade (and actually, since William Jennings Bryan).

From a strategic point of view (and if he happens to have the resources to continue to deliver his message), Edwards may figure that this kind of message can motivate base Democratic voters. We’ll see if he is right. At the very least, given the apparent conventional wisdom of voter fatigue with partisanship and confrontation, his gamble is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it isn’t helping the tone of this campaign any.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 28, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.