Even in Bad Environment, NRCC Finds Willing Candidates

By Stuart Rothenberg

The national political environment looks pretty crummy for Republicans these days, and I’m not at all sure that it will improve between now and the time voters go to the polls next November. But that hasn’t stopped a handful of potentially strong GOP challengers from launching their bids against Democratic incumbents.

I recently met five GOP House candidates who are running for Congress and attended a National Republican Congressional Committee candidate school, and I was impressed.

Two of the hopefuls, Sandy Treadwell (New York’s 20th) and Tom Rooney (Florida’s 16th), face primary opposition before they can claim to be their party’s general election nominees, while the three others — David Cappiello (Connecticut’s 5th), Quico Canseco (Texas’ 23rd) and Nick Jordan (Kansas’ 3rd) — currently are without major primary opposition.

Treadwell is a former New York secretary of state and state GOP chairman, and he has the look and thoughtful style of a Senator. He is running for the right to take on freshman Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in a very Republican, upstate district that fell because the sitting Republican Congressman, then-Rep. John Sweeney, embarrassed himself one too many times.

Rooney, an attorney, Army veteran and former assistant attorney general in Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s (R) administration, is low-key and extremely earnest. He hopes to be his party’s nominee against freshman Rep. Tim Mahoney, who won by riding the Democratic wave — and the embarrassing resignation of the district’s incumbent Republican Congressman, then-Rep. Mark Foley — to victory.

Cappiello, a state Senator from Danbury, is feisty and a critic of the Iraq War. A moderate on social issues, he has proved to be a hard worker and appears to be extremely comfortable in the role of candidate. He hopes to oust Democratic Rep. Christopher Murphy, a young former state Senator who defeated veteran Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) by a surprisingly comfortable 12 points last year.

Canseco is a wealthy businessman who hopes to win back the district lost by former GOP Rep. Henry Bonilla in a December runoff. An attorney and banker, he has been active in state GOP politics and he oozes optimism — maybe a bit too much optimism at this point in the cycle — about his chances of knocking off Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D), who now is serving his second tour of duty in the House.

State Sen. Nick Jordan may have the toughest road of the five Republican challengers, since he faces five-term Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore, who has benefited from deep divisions between social conservatives and moderates in the local Republican Party. Jordan, a businessman who was appointed to his seat in 1995 but elected the next year, somehow must bridge that chasm.

One reason these Republicans are optimistic is that they are all running in either competitive or Republican-leaning districts.

In 2004, President Bush drew 57 percent of the vote in Texas’ 23rd, 55 percent in both Florida’s 16th and Kansas’ 3rd and 53 percent in New York’s 20th. The only one of the five districts that he lost was Connecticut’s 5th, which Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) carried by just five-tenths of a percentage point.

On paper, of the five hopefuls, the ones with the best shot at winning a seat in Congress initially appear to be Treadwell and Rooney, which probably is why they are the two who have primary opposition right now.

In both cases, GOP incumbents self- destructed in the previous cycle, giving long-shot Democrats the rare opportunity to both ride a partisan wave and contrast themselves with personally damaged Republican officeholders (or, in the case of Foley in Florida, a former officeholder).

Republican strategists point out that an uptick in turnout because of the presidential year will bring out new voters who didn’t participate in the midterm election and therefore never could have voted for the new Democrats in these districts.

But incumbency has proved to be a sizable advantage over the years, and Gillibrand, Murphy and Mahoney have two years to make a connection with voters, as Moore has done in a Republican-leaning district. Indeed, Moore is not alone. Even with the 2006 Democratic wave, eight Republicans continue to represent districts won by Kerry, clear proof that incumbency still has some benefits.

Finally, it’s important to remember that five credible, personable challengers better be only the tip of the iceberg for the NRCC if the committee hopes to have a good 2008. The Republicans need to field dozens of top-tier hopefuls if they are going to make significant House gains next year, and they must hope the candidates will be able to make their races local contests, not referendums on Iraq and the Bush presidency.

Anyway, remember the names Treadwell, Rooney, Cappiello, Canseco and Jordan. They all have potential, and they could well be involved in some of the more competitive races this cycle.


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

Watts Video Shows He Has a Ways to Go in Texas

By Stuart Rothenberg

Having watched thousands of campaigns over the past couple of decades, I have come to understand that the candidate you meet in July of the off-year is not always the same person you see again 15 months later. Candidates, and their campaigns, often improve with experience, and they start to look better if and when their opponents start to fade.

Texas Senate hopeful Mikal Watts is getting plenty of attention these days because he has committed to putting as much as $10 million behind his bid for the Democratic nomination (against state Rep. Rick Noriega, a favorite of some in the party’s net roots) and his challenge to incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R).

A number of weeks ago, I noted my skepticism about whether Cornyn is beatable next year, and I’m not yet ready to change that tune. Yes, the Senator’s job rating in one June survey wasn’t intimidating, but most Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, have seen their numbers slide as a result of the public’s dissatisfaction with the state of the nation. We don’t yet know what the situation will be like next October.

But my doubts about Democratic prospects in the race don’t mean I am ignoring the contest. Being a handicapper requires that I re-evaluate and reassess. And if, at some point, I’m convinced Cornyn is in serious trouble, I’ll be more than happy to note it.

I haven’t yet met Watts, so I have little to judge him by except for his campaign bank account — currently standing at more than $4 million — and his Web site.

His money obviously is impressive. But money rarely is enough. If it were the only thing that mattered, Michael Huffington (R) would have been elected to the Senate from California in 1994, Al Checchi (D) would have been elected governor of that state in 1998 (or at least won the Democratic nomination), Blair Hull (D) would now be a senator from Illinois and Tony Sanchez (D) might have come close in his Texas gubernatorial bid in 2002.

So Watts’ wallet gets my attention, but where do I look after that? His video is one of the few things on his Web site, other than a bunch of photographs of early campaign events, a bio and a donation form. So I watched it.

The first half of the four-minute, 15 second video is straightforward enough. Watts introduces himself and talks about his education, his parents, his own family and his interest in public service. He’s a trial lawyer, so it’s not surprising that he’s poised, articulate and polished.

The second half of the video probably is the silliest, most transparent attempt to deliver a message I have ever seen.

Watts wants us to know that he is a “fighter” and a “leader,” and he apparently thinks that viewers of his video are a little dense. You’d either have to be in a coma or not understand English to miss Watts’ message. The Democratic hopeful uses a form of the word “fight” 11 times in the last two minutes and 15 seconds of the video. And he uses a form of the word “leader” another eight times during that same period.

In one section of the video lasting 37 seconds, Watts uses the word “fighter” six times — an average of once every 6.17 seconds:

“I have been a fighter my entire career, fighting for the rights of average, working families here in Texas. And I have proven that I will stay in that fight and give it my all until we win. Texans are looking for a Senator who is a leader, who will fight for them. Someone who will fight for families here in Texas rather than special interests there in Washington. I am certain that as we travel around the state and see more and more good Texans, that my message of real leadership and real change in Washington is a message that is going to hit home here in Texas. I am confident that Texans will join me in this fight.”

There are plenty of attributes that voters want in their candidates. They certainly want leaders and, at least now, forces for change. I certainly wouldn’t criticize Watts or any candidate for mentioning them. It’s the way he talks about them that is so aggravating. It sounds as if he thinks he’s the first guy to run on those buzzwords.

And there are other things in the video, such as his statement, “I have traveled around all portions of Texas, and I have talked to hundreds of Texans — hundreds and hundreds of them actually.”

The 2006 U.S. Census Bureau estimate of the population of Texas was 23,507,783. Watts says that he has spoken to “hundreds and hundreds” of Texans. He might have waited until he had talked to at least “thousands and thousands” of Texans before deciding that he had an idea what people in the state want.

Then there is his comment that Texans have “come to expect leaders” like Lyndon Johnson, not “partisans like John Cornyn.” Well, Cornyn may very well be a partisan, but Johnson wasn’t one? Is he kidding?

I’m not certain whether Watts’ rhetoric is classic political boilerplate or an effort to neutralize the positioning of Noriega, a state legislator and veteran of the war in Afghanistan. If and when I meet Watts, I may have a completely different view of him and his prospects. But for now, I’d suggest that he re-do his video, making it more professional and more thoughtful.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 30, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Is Al Franken Laughing All the Way to a Senate Seat?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Often, when comedian-turned-candidate Al Franken’s name comes up these days, Republicans just snicker. Then they say that despite all the national attention paid to his candidacy and notwithstanding his strong early fundraising, Franken can’t beat Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.).

Coleman, after all, is a polished political veteran and rising star who beat liberal icon Walter Mondale (D) five years ago. He is a high-energy political animal who understands issues and voters, insist his friends, and he isn’t likely to lose to a far-left celebrity who sometimes tosses around obscenities as if they were socially acceptable.

Well, I don’t necessarily expect Franken to defeat Coleman next year, but I’m not so sure I would dismiss the former “Saturday Night Live” writer/performer that quickly.

To face Coleman, Franken must first win the Democratic nomination. His chief competitor appears to be Mike Ciresi, 61, a wealthy attorney who has flirted with a number of races and who lost the 2000 Senate primary.

Ciresi has been endorsed by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), as well as a handful of state legislators and current and former officeholders (Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, ex-state Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe and ex-St. Paul Mayor George Latimer).

Franken, in contrast, has been endorsed by 26 state legislators, state Auditor Rebecca Otto and two unions. He is the darling of the left and raised more than $1.9 million in the past quarter, ending June with nearly $2 million banked.

Let’s assume for a moment that Franken becomes the nominee. Can he beat Coleman?

Remember, the question is not whether he is the best candidate to take on the GOP incumbent. Few people, including few Democratic strategists and operatives, think Franken is an ideal challenger. The question is whether he can win, or, as some insist, is he so flawed, so far left, so foulmouthed that he can’t possibly win?

I don’t know if Franken will win, but I definitely think he can win — under the right circumstances. I offer five exhibits:

Exhibit No. 1 is Jesse Ventura, the wrestler/ actor-turned-candidate who was elected governor of Minnesota. Yes, Ventura won with only 37 percent of the vote, but that was as the nominee of the Reform Party, which had no organization and few loyal adherents. The fact that 37 percent of Minnesotans would support someone with such a bizarre background and with such limited government experience suggests that Franken’s background is not disqualifying.

Exhibit No. 2 is the late Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone (D), a rather far-left college professor with no state or national reputation who upset a relatively uncontroversial incumbent, Rudy Boschwitz (R), by running a quirky, populist campaign. Minnesota voters have moved right since the state’s days of unfettered liberalism in the 1950s and 1960s, but Wellstone’s re-election in 1996 and Democrat Mark Dayton’s Senate win four years later — to say nothing of narrow wins in the state by Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 — show that liberals certainly can still win statewide.

Exhibit No. 3 is California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. When I first heard his name mentioned in 2003, I assumed it was a joke. The guy was an actor who spoke English with a heavy accent, had made an early career out of being a bodybuilder (which in most circles probably was taken to mean that he wasn’t too bright) and was a Republican in a state that was moving dramatically to the left. Yet this easily caricatured celebrity with no campaign experience and relatively little detailed knowledge of government easily won a multicandidate special election.

Exhibit No. 4 is freshman Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.). Yarmuth was the publisher of an “alternative” newspaper in Louisville, Ky., the kind that was supposed to give opponent Anne Northup (R) all of the ammunition she would need to destroy her opponent and make the election a referendum on his liberalism. That didn’t happen.

Exhibit No. 5 is Jim Talent (R), the former Missouri Senator who seemed to fit his state well and was figured to win re-election in 2006. Talent was conservative but had a moderate style, and the combination of the state’s partisan bent, his St. Louis base and the rural part of the state’s general conservatism should have carried him to victory. Instead, he couldn’t overcome the anti-Bush, anti-Republican, pro-change wave that overwhelmed many GOPers.

We could well witness the same kind of anti-Republican wave nationally next year, and if that happens, the Democratic surge could be particularly strong in Minnesota.

But can Franken show that he’s serious enough to win? Can he restrain his instincts to entertain or shock? Can he clean up his language? Can he follow direction? Can he appear likeable? Can he overcome his celebrity image to appeal to outstate Minnesota?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, and I’m not sure we’ll know the answers until much later in the cycle, when he has had time to learn his role as a candidate and find a comfortable style. Yes, Franken could fail as a candidate. But I, for one, think it’s too early to know how he will be on the stump and in live interviews a year from now.

Democrats once hoped to face Ronald Reagan for the White House in 1980. They got their wish and eventually were sorry about it. Politics, you see, is a funny, unpredictable business, which is why I’m not writing off Al Franken just yet.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 26, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: 2008 Senate Overview

The July 26, 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...

Senate Overview – The Lay of the Land

The death of Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) changes the arithmetic for 2008 by adding another Senate contest this cycle. Appointed Senator John Barrasso (R) must face voters next year for the right to fill the remaining four years of Thomas’s unexpired term, so Republicans now find themselves defending 22 of the 34 seats up next year.

The national political environment has not improved for Republicans. The war in Iraq remains unpopular, as does the President himself. True, national polling suggests that Congress is even less popular, so the overall landscape suggests problems for incumbents in general. But Republican incumbents are at the greatest risk, by far.

Democratic fundraising at all levels has been nothing short of stupendous, while Republicans are finding money a bit harder to come by. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had a $10 million advantage over the National Republican Senatorial Committee at the end of June.

Additional retirements remain a huge question mark, particularly for the GOP. Virginia’s John Warner, and Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel are on everyone’s list, and we assume both retirements in our ratings. Idaho Republican Larry Craig is another possible retiree, but an open seat in Idaho would not fundamentally undermine the GOP’s advantage in the race to retain it.

While it is far too early to make meaningful projections about the eventual net change in the Senate, it currently appears that Democrats are well positioned to gain at least a couple of seats, especially if, as we are assuming, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) enters the New Hampshire race. And Democrats could have a significantly better year than that depending on the national mood, the dynamic created by the race for President, money and other factors.

For a state-by-state rundown on each race, you must subscribe...