2008 Senate Ratings

Here are our latest Senate ratings. Note- We have moved to our pre-election categories. The chart represents the vulnerability of the seat, and not necessarily the incumbent.

*UPDATE 9/8/07: Change Nebraska to Open. Keep as Clear GOP Advantage for now.

Toss-Up (3 R, 0 D)

• CO Open (Allard, R)
• VA Open (Warner, R)
  
• Sununu (R-NH)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 1 D)

• Coleman (R-MN)
• Collins (R-ME)
• Landrieu (D-LA)
• Smith (R-OR)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (5 R, 1 D)

• Dole (R-NC)
• NM Open (Domenici, R)
• NE Open (Hagel, R)
  
• Johnson (D-SD)
• McConnell (R-KY)
• Stevens (R-AK)

Currently Safe (11 R, 10 D)

• ID Open (Craig, R)
  
• Alexander (R-TN)
• Barrasso (R-WY)
  
• Chambliss (R-GA)
• Cochran (R-MS)
• Cornyn (R-TX)
• Enzi (R-WY)
• Graham (R-SC)
• Inhofe (R-OK)
• Roberts (R-KS)
• Sessions (R-AL)
• Baucus (D-MT)
• Biden (D-DE)
• Durbin (D-IL)
• Harkin (D-IA)
• Kerry (D-MA)
• Lautenberg (D-NJ)
• Levin (D-MI)
• Pryor (D-AR)
• Reed (D-RI)
• Rockefeller (D-WV)

When a Candidate’s Bio Doesn’t Give the Full Picture

By Stuart Rothenberg

I am not entirely sure when I first met Larry LaRocco. It may well have been on June 26, 1990, when my calendar tells me that I interviewed the one-time aide to former Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) during his first run for Congress.

Later that year, LaRocco won a seat in the House, and two years later he was re-elected. But 1994 wasn’t a kind year to Democrats anywhere, and voters in Idaho’s 1st district swept him out in the Republican tsunami.

I remember generally liking LaRocco, and I spoke with him on and off after he left Congress. I found him to be a personable and knowledgeable person who knows a thing or two about Idaho politics.

I happened by chance recently to check out his Web site for his 2008 Senate campaign, and I came across something that raised a question in my own mind. How much should candidates disclose about themselves?

I went to “About Larry” on LaRocco’s Web site and found a photograph and a bio. The bio talks about his “service to the people of Idaho,” including his service as a captain in the Army, his years as North Idaho field representative for Church and his accomplishments in Congress.

He also included references to his private-sector work while in the state: “Larry has a long history of experience in the banking and financial services industry in Idaho. Prior to his work in Congress, Larry served as an Assistant Vice President and Director of Marketing at the Twin Falls Bank and Trust, located in the 2nd district. He also worked as a Vice President at First Idaho Corporation, and later as a financial services consultant at Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.”

Toward the end of the bio, he is described as a “businessman, military officer, banker, Congressman, grandfather.” Then we learn that he “will represent all of Idaho’s people, not just the powerful interest groups.”

All of this sounds fine, and regardless of whether it is true, I’m not going to take issue with it. But it’s only a half truth. LaRocco’s bio leaves out something important.

The bio seems to stop with LaRocco’s Congressional service, yet he has lived for more than a dozen years since he left the House. Didn’t he do anything? Was he a hermit?

I expect it ends where it does because LaRocco doesn’t think that his life after Congress will help his candidacy — and possibly because he fears it will hurt him with the net roots he is now wooing with posts on Daily Kos and pleas for contributions on ActBlue.

After Congress, LaRocco worked for the American Bankers Association. He headed the ABA’s Securities Association and was managing director of the ABA’s Insurance Association, which focused on “bank-related insurance activities.”

In 2000, LaRocco and his son, Matthew, opened up their own lobbying firm, LaRocco & Associates. Two years later, the two men joined Fleishman-Hillard’s Government Relations practice, which, according to CQ’s PoliticalMoneyLine, had 33 clients and did more than $1.2 million worth of business in 2005.

Larry LaRocco himself had a number of interesting clients, including Abbott Laboratories, Eastman Chemical, MetLife and 3i Group, a London-based venture capital firm with investments in a variety of fields including energy (oil and gas), technology and health care. And, of course, he also lobbied for the ABA.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with any of this. “Lobbying” is the way we do things here in Washington, D.C., and it is the way interest groups and people talk with government officials about policy. There is nothing wrong with people who know something about an issue trying to persuade policymakers about their views as long as all interests have an opportunity to make their cases.

Anyway, the fact that LaRocco’s Web site bio doesn’t mention his lobbying background probably isn’t merely an oversight. Nor is it an oversight that while he mentions that he is a “banker” and worked for “the modernization of banking and financial services in our country,” he never mentions the ABA, for whom he worked for five years.

Can Larry LaRocco possibly think he can run a Senate race without his complete bio coming out? And if it will come out at some point, as it surely will, why not put it out now? Is it because he is trying to raise money from Democratic bloggers who might be upset to know that he was a lobbyist and that he ran a big-time Washington lobbying shop?

Interestingly, on Feb. 7, 2007, someone added an information box to LaRocco’s Wikipedia entry. It included, under “profession,” a one-word description: lobbyist. Three months later, someone else edited that entry, replacing “lobbyist” with the much more innocuous “public affairs consultant.”

If you are looking for irony, all you need to do is look at Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum’s lead in his June 14, 2004, article about lobbying: “Lobbyist Larry LaRocco knows that the public views his profession as unsavory. But he isn’t ashamed. In fact, he’s made it his family business.”

Well, if LaRocco’s bio on his campaign Web site is any indication, he’s now ashamed of his career. But ashamed or not, it’s part of his life, and not including it in his bio strikes me as a silly attempt to mislead.

It will be interesting to see how the net roots, which seems intent on smashing the establishment, react to LaRocco.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 23, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Candidates Often Avoid Party Labels

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With former colleagues being dragged off to jail, an unpopular president, the Iraq War and huge losses in the 2006 elections, it’s no wonder that Republican candidates are shying away from the GOP brand. But why are some Democratic candidates still apprehensive about placing the “D” behind their own name?

A July 6-8 USA Today/Gallup survey showed the Republican Party with 36 percent favorable/56 percent unfavorable ratings and President Bush with an even worse job rating of 29 percent approve/66 percent disapprove.

Even with their recent electoral success, and the demise of the GOP, some Democrats lack faith in the party’s appeal across the aisle. In the Gallup Poll, respondents gave the Democratic Party a 51 percent favorable/41 percent unfavorable rating, but that’s apparently not popular enough for some jittery strategists and candidates.

In Missouri’s 6th district, former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes is one of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s prize recruits. But you wouldn’t know it at first (or second, or third) glance. She didn’t mention the words “Democrat” or “Democratic Party” in her May 14 announcement. And the only way you would know she is a Democrat from her Web site is if you click on the newspaper clips. The candidate does have “Barnes Enjoys Bi- Partisan Support” on her main page along with various mentions of her work with Republicans.

Barnes’ reluctance can’t be just a function of the district, with a Democratic performance of almost 48 percent, according to the National Committee for an Effective Congress, which specializes in Democratic targeting.

In New Mexico’s Democratic-leaning 1st district, the word “Dems” appears as part of a headline on Albuquerque City Councilor Martin Heinrich’s Web site, but he avoids a direct link to his party, aside from the innocuous ActBlue donation button. Rep. Heather Wilson’s (R) 2006 opponent, state Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D), used a similar tactic of not using her party in paid advertising.

According to one Democratic consultant, even in last year’s anti-Republican environment, there were two different paths to victory for Democratic candidates. For some challengers, in urban or suburban areas, they were able to run a partisan message against Republican incumbents. But for Democrats in more rural and Republican areas, candidates were forced to run against Congress and Washington, D.C., in general, avoiding all partisan labels.

“[Party affiliation] is only motivational to hard-core people in the party,” explained one Republican consultant. But in some cases where candidates need to turn out their base, they seem to be avoiding partisan labels unnecessarily.

Three main candidates are competing for the Democratic nomination to replace Rep. Mark Udall (D) in Colorado’s 2nd district, where Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) took 58 percent in 2004. But you wouldn’t know state Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald or Will Shafroth were Democrats from an initial look at their Web sites, while their opponent, former state Board of Education Chairman Jared Polis, is clearly a “Democratic candidate for Congress.”

On the other side, the word “Republican” doesn’t appear anywhere on former Rep. Jim Ryun’s Web site in Kansas’ 2nd district, where Bush received 59 percent in 2004. And his GOP primary opponent, state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins, offers only a couple of small pachyderms on her site, giving away her party affiliation.

In New York’s 20th district, where Bush won by 8 points in 2004, Sandy Treadwell leaves no indication of his party on his neutral green introductory Web site, even though he is the former chairman of the state Republican Party.

“It’s not worth the risk,” according to one Republican consultant.“Too many people are tired of politics.”

“It’s never helpful to run as part of the establishment,” added one Democratic strategist.

Of course, not everyone is running from their party brand, and some candidates are either naive or embracing the risk in a strategic decision.

Ironically, Eric Eidsness, a candidate in Colorado’s 4th district, has his party affiliation listed at least six times on the main page of his Web site, and he only switched to the Democratic Party earlier this year. Unfortunately for him, he’s running in a very Republican district. That hasn’t stopped Larry Grant, who lost a competitive race in the previous cycle in Idaho’s 1st district, where Bush won by 38 points in 2004. Grant has “Democrat” emblazoned on the masthead of his Web site.

Democratic candidates Dan Maffei (New York’s 25th district) and state Sen. John Boccieri (Ohio’s 16th) aren’t shying away from their party affiliation either, even though they are running in competitive districts. And in Washington’s 8th, Darcy Burner has “Democrat for Congress” in her banner, when in the previous cycle she was criticized by some liberal bloggers for neglecting to mention her party in her initial television ads.

In Connecticut’s 4th district, Jim Himes proudly declares himself a Democrat in a district Kerry won with 52 percent, while incumbent Rep. Christopher Shays waits until his bio to admit he is a “moderate Republican.”

Republican challengers Dean Andal (California’s 11th) and Rick Goddard (Georgia’s 8th) are boldly embracing their party label in their bids against Democratic incumbents in traditional GOP strongholds.

For many campaigns, it’s a strategic decision, but not necessarily intentional.

“We don’t even think about it,” said one GOP consultant, explaining that much more time is spent on issue stances and how a candidate can connect with voters. “If one of your five best qualities is party affiliation, you’re in trouble.”

Each cycle, challengers often talk about the election being a “clear choice,” but apparently that doesn’t mean party affiliation. And when one party tries to blur the line, that can drive the other party crazy, such as when Democrats cried foul in the previous cycle when Maryland GOP Senate nominee Michael Steele’s campaign made up blue signs and stickers that read “Steele Democrat.”

Candidates are always looking to put their best foot forward and define themselves in the best light possible. But in the end, it’s somewhat silly to ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Voters will know the candidates’ party from the ballot itself, opponents’ television advertising or both.

Even though there is significant enthusiasm among Democrats, the country apparently hasn’t shifted too far, fundamentally, with Democratic candidates being cautious in certain regions. The winning formula is slightly different in each district, but there aren’t many areas anymore in which a candidate doesn’t need independent voters, and even voters from the opposite party, to win.

While some party faithful, including bloggers, may complain if candidates avoid party labels, it’s hard to believe more than a few votes would be lost. Candidates are more likely to have significant problems in their base if they directly oppose the party on a specific issue (see Sens. Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel).

Right now, party affiliation has negative consequences for both parties.

“Polling says it’s a pox on all your houses,” according to one Republican consultant. “People hate them all.”

This story first appeared in Roll Call on July 19, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Looking for the ‘Other’ 30 Percent of American Voters at a Concert

By Stuart Rothenberg

“Wish I Didn’t Know Now” — Toby Keith song (1994)

While most people spent Saturday evening reading or watching television at home, chilling out at the movies or partying with friends, Athanasios Genos (yes, that’s his real name) was working.

Marine Cpl. Genos wasn’t dodging bullets on combat duty, though it’s true that he has been in Fallujah, Iraq. Instead he spent his most recent Saturday evening in Bristow, Va., about 35 miles southwest of the nation’s capital, manning a Marines recruiting table at a Toby Keith concert.

Keith, one of the brightest of stars in the world of country music, drew more than 20,000 fans to the Nissan Pavilion, and Genos, a public affairs specialist in the Marines, joined a handful of other Marines posted just inside the venue’s gate as thousands of music fans poured in.

The placement of the Marines’ recruiting tent — which included a pull-up bar for those wanting to test their strength and a few tables on which sign-up sheets sat for those seeking information about joining the Marines — surely tells you something about the crowd.

While I didn’t take a survey of attendees, it was pretty clear that I was surrounded by the “Other America,” the 30 percent of Americans who still say they approve of the job that President Bush is doing.

No, I saw not a single T-shirt supporting the president — or any of the Republican presidential candidates, for that matter. In this political environment, even Bush’s supporters tend to keep quiet, more than a bit disappointed by the war and by his administration’s overall performance. The closest thing I saw to a liberal message at the event was a Ben & Jerry’s “Lick Global Warming Campaign” ad on the giant video screens that flanked the stage.

What was more important, I suspect, is that I didn’t see a single T-shirt that was critical of the president, Vice President Cheney or the war. (I know what you are thinking: Maybe folks at these concerts are too busy wearing T-shirts about getting drunk or with pictures of semi-naked women on them to bother with politics.)

I saw plenty of flags — Confederate and American — in the parking lot as tailgaters, most of whom looked like college kids more interested in partying than making a political statement, warmed up for the event. And when, throughout the show, Keith mentioned his multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, saluted a number of uniformed military in the audience or sang his signature songs “American Soldier” and “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American),” the crowd went nuts.

Yes, many in this audience were members of the “Silent Minority,” the 30 percent of America that doesn’t always agree with Bush but isn’t calling for his political lynching.

But do people, even these people, really stop at the Marines’ recruiting tent during county music concerts? Don’t they know that joining the Marines now means heading to Iraq?

“If people are interested in the Marines, they already know that we are the fighting force. We are here to recruit, and if you sign up, you are going to be defending the USA,” Genos told me in a straightforward way. He went on to estimate that at least 100 or 200 people fill out information sheets at these concerts. And indeed, as I watched for a moment or two, a couple of young men stopped to fill out forms.

Keith’s show ended with a symphony of red, white and blue lights, fireworks and American flags waving on the video screens. The crowd was delirious.

I don’t know if most of those in attendance took a political message from the event, other than the raw patriotism that the entertainer is famous for offering. But I do imagine that some people, particularly those who dismiss country music (both for its lyrics, music and assumed politics), might be surprised to know that Keith has been a registered Democrat for years, according to an October 2004 article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

While he voted for Bush and is openly critical of his own party’s liberalism, Keith turned down a request to perform at the 2004 Republican National Convention and, according to a January 2007 article in Newsday, he voted twice for former President Bill Clinton. He also says that he doesn’t support the war and “never did.”

But Keith, who joined with veteran singer Willie Nelson, hardly a conservative icon, in 2002 to record “Beer for My Horses,” has been critical of celebrities who urge their fans to back certain candidates.

One of Keith’s big early hits included the lyrics, “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.” While those words referred to his ex’s behavior, for many Americans, they easily could have referred to Bush’s Iraq policy. But for the vast majority of those attending Keith’s concert, patriotism certainly appears to trump policy.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 19, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.