Illinois 11: Not an Ordinary Campaign Web Site

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Republican businessman Martin Ozinga’s first television ad in Illinois’ 11th district race isn’t particularly exciting news, but his campaign is trying to leverage a unique Web site to attract curious or skeptical voters who may be disillusioned with the political process.

The 30-second bio ad, which is running on cable stations in a majority of the 11th district, directs people to Iamnotapolitician.com, instead of Ozinga’s regular campaign Web site.

At Iamnotapolitician.com, viewers are greeted with a simple and stark red page with “I am not a politician” written across the page in white capital letters. Then, a 90-second introductory video, which is different than the television ad, automatically pops up and introduces Ozinga through testimonials.

After the video concludes, the phrase “I am ... committed” appears, referencing the themes of the video, and visitors can either replay the video, e-mail it to a friend or “Learn More,” which takes them to the official campaign Web site.

The Web site and theme is meant to contrast Ozinga’s biography with that of his opponent, state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson (D). But Ozinga got into the race late after the GOP nominee dropped out and is battling to hold the open seat being vacated by Rep. Jerry Weller (R).

Ozinga’s supporters got the idea for the Web site in early April and bought the domain name for $30. Iamnotapolitician.com made its official debut April 30, when the URL was emblazoned across a giant red banner behind Ozinga during his announcement speech. The campaign subsequently had road signs with the Web address and placed inexpensive banner ads on the Web sites of the daily newspapers in the district to drive people to the site.

Though the tactic is unique, it’s not without some glitches. First, the video takes a long time to load, even on a high-speed connection. And second, the Web site doesn’t offer an initial way to capture valuable information, such as e-mail addresses of visitors, that campaigns covet these days.

Overall, Republican Internet consultant David All panned it. “It’s a clever URL, but how far is that going to get you?”

“It’s a good way to introduce Marty in a simple, but powerful way,” Ozinga campaign manager Andy Sere said. “It’s a practical thing we can use to drive a message.”



This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 10, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Fight for the House: A Note on Ratings and the Elections

By Stuart Rothenberg

As almost everyone knows, Charlie Cook is a longtime friend and the publisher of the highly regarded Cook Political Report. I think it’s fair to say that I pay close attention to Charlie’s House and Senate ratings and he does the same with mine.

This column was prompted by a short piece in the Washington Post about recent ratings changes by Charlie’s newsletter, but my comments are less about the Cook Political Report and more about how the Post played those new ratings.

The Post suggested that the recent shift in the ratings of 27 House races toward Democrats by the Cook Political Report is “evidence that a Democratic wave may be building.” I don’t agree. Though, like Charlie, I expect significant Democratic House gains.

It’s important to note that 21 of the 28 races Cook moved recently went from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican.” From a handicapping point of view, there is relatively little difference between those two categories.

My own newsletter lists only districts where I believe a change of party is possible. My “Republican Favored” and “Democrat Favored” categories are roughly similar (though not identical) to Charlie’s “Likely” categories, and I never expect races in those categories to change party. Any race in those categories that switches is a significant upset in my view, as Iowa’s 2nd district and New Hampshire’s 1st district were in the previous cycle.

Suggesting that moving a race from “Safe” to “Likely,” in Charlie’s terminology, or adding it to my ratings as “Favored” is a dramatic development is simply a misunderstanding of the categories and an over-reaction to the change.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. In releasing its list of ratings changes, the Cook Report noted that while “it’s not likely a majority of the races moved from ‘Solid’ to ‘Likely’ Republican will become competitive by November,” because of the environment “even very difficult districts for Democrats [are] worth keeping tabs on.” So even the Cook Political Report doesn’t believe that the races it moved are currently competitive.

Why move a race into the “Favored” or “Likely” column if the meaning of the change is small? Speaking only for myself and not Charlie, I am trying to give readers a sense of the different tiers of races. Even though races that I classify as “Favored” are not likely to change party control, they seem to me to be of a different quality than certain more competitive contests (“Lean” races in my terminology) or races where the incumbent party is at such limited risk that it doesn’t make my list.

Now, back to Charlie’s recent changes. Some of the races that he has moved are also on my list, as well, including West Virginia’s 2nd district, Kentucky’s 2nd district and Florida’s 8th district. Others could well be added soon, including Florida’s 21st district, and I may move some contests as soon as he does.

But some of the races that the Cook Report moved currently appear to me to be such long shots that I can’t imagine adding them in the near future. Fundamentally and without overwhelming evidence to the contrary (which Charlie may have but I do not), I view them as just too tough for Democrats. This isn’t meant to be a criticism of the Cook Political Report. It just means that we approach ratings in a slightly different way.

Yes, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but his district gave President Bush 67 percent in 2004 and is a reliable Republican bastion. His Democratic opponent, Daniel Johnson, may have a good story to tell, but that’s rarely enough in a very partisan district, especially in a presidential year.

GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s 46th district in California? Debbie Cook, the Democratic mayor of Huntington Beach, may well do better than Rohrabacher’s previous challengers, but can she win?

The district gave Bush 57 percent in 2004 and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) 69 percent of the vote in 2006. In other words, there are a lot of Republican voters there. Debbie Cook might be able to get to 45 percent or even 47 percent, but if I doubt that she can win under any circumstances, she doesn’t get on my list.

I’d put Pennsylvania’s 5th district, the open seat held by retiring Rep. John Peterson (R), into the same category. GOP nominee Glenn Thompson is a good fit for the district, which gave President Bush 61 percent of the vote in 2004. Yes, State College (home to Penn State) is in the district, but that alone doesn’t make the district likely to flip.

Naturally, if I were to become convinced that the Democratic nominee in any of these districts could win, I would add them to my list.

More than four years ago in this space, I explained why I continued to rate South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Inez Tenenbaum as a slight underdog even though many saw the race as at least a tossup. I noted the importance of fundamentals and ideology in races in explaining my reasoning. She lost by just over 9 points.

There is plenty of credible evidence that many voters have soured on the GOP, and that development is likely to allow Democratic Congressional candidates to improve their showings in many districts.

That is not, however, the same thing as saying that Democratic challengers will now win many districts that have been reliably Republican in the past. They won’t. Getting close may be a moral victory for some Democratic candidates, but I’m trying to measure a candidate’s likelihood of winning.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 10, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Challengers’ Challenge

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Some Democratic Senate candidates have serious fundraising work to do to be in a position to win this fall.

As second-quarter Federal Election Commission numbers trickle in, it’s helpful to look at the six successful Democratic challengers from 2006 for context. All six of those Democrats raised more than $5 million in that cycle, and each spent at least half of what the GOP incumbent spent against them.

In Ohio, then-Rep. Sherrod Brown spent almost $10.8 million (approximately 76 percent of incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine’s spending). Claire McCaskill spent $11.7 million (82 percent of then-Sen. Jim Talent’s total) in Missouri, Bob Casey spent $17.6 million

(68 percent of then-Sen. Rick Santorum’s figure) in Pennsylvania, and Jon Tester spent $5.6 million (66 percent of then-Sen. Conrad Burns’ total) in Montana.

Virginia’s Jim Webb had the lowest percentage of spending among the six successful Democratic Senate challengers in that cycle (53 percent of then-Sen. George Allen’s total), and he still spent $8.6 million.

Sheldon Whitehouse actually outspent incumbent Sen. Lincoln Chafee spent in Rhode Island.

So how do this year’s Democratic challengers stack up?

A couple of candidates are in good shape, at least on the fundraising front. Through May 21, Maine Rep. Tom Allen (D) raised $3.9 million, giving him 72 percent of Sen. Susan Collins’ (R) total raised. And in Minnesota, comedian Al Franken (D) actually outraised Sen. Norm Coleman (R), $9.4 million to $8.7 million through March 31.

The rest of the class is further behind.

Oregon Speaker Jeff Merkley (D) raised $1.9 million through April 30, about 38 percent of Sen. Gordon Smith’s (R) fundraising. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) raised $267,000 through March 31, putting him at 13 percent of Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R) total raised in Alaska.

In North Carolina, state Sen. Kay Hagan (D) raised 22 percent ($1.5 million) of Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s (R) take ($6.7 million) through April 16, though she announced on Wednesday that she collected $1.6 million from April 17 to June 30. In Mississippi, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) raised $449,000 through March 31, giving him 14 percent of appointed Sen. Roger Wicker’s (R) total at the end of March. In Kentucky, wealthy health care executive Bruce Lunsford (D) raised $1.5 million through April 30, 17 percent of the total taken in by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R).

Through March 31, Rick Noriega (D), having taken in 16 percent of Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s total in Texas; Andrew Rice (D), who had 30 percent of Republican Sen. James Inhofe’s total in Oklahoma; and Jim Slattery (D), who had 9 percent of Republican Sen. Pat Roberts’ total, also trailed the incumbents’ fundraising by wide margins.

Some of the Democrats chose to get into these races late and could receive plenty of money in the final months of the campaign, but the incumbents will be raising money as well. And some will get help from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which will have far more money to spend than the National Republican Senatorial Committee come fall.

On the Republican side, state Treasurer John Kennedy is the lone GOP challenger with a shot at unseating an incumbent. Through March 31, he raised $1.9 million, about 35 percent of Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D) figure. Kennedy added an additional $1.5 million in the second quarter.

Matching the incumbent’s spending doesn’t guarantee success. Last cycle in Arizona, real estate developer Jim Pederson (D) nearly matched Sen. Jon Kyl (R) in spending — thanks mostly to his ability to self-fund — and still lost, 53 percent to 44 percent.


This story first appeared in Roll Call on July 10, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Illinois 10: Ground Zero for Spending

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and business consultant Dan Seals (D) are gearing up for the most expensive House race in the Chicago area this cycle — and it may turn into the most expensive race in the country that doesn’t involve a self-funder.

Both candidates are already trumpeting their second-quarter fundraising figures, even though they aren’t officially due to be released until July 15.

Early Monday afternoon, the Seals campaign announced it had raised more than $635,000 in the second quarter of the year ($2.1 million overall for the cycle) and will show $1.17 million on hand as of June 30. Those are impressive numbers for a challenger anywhere in the country.

Four hours later, Kirk released his fundraising figures, including $900,000 raised in second quarter ($3.87 million for the cycle) and $2.85 million in the bank.

Both candidates have more money at this point than they did in their 2006 match, when Kirk bested Seals 53 percent to 47 percent. The Congressman spent more than $3.5 million in the previous cycle, compared with almost $1.9 million for Seals. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chipped in a mere $158,000, while the National Republican Congressional Committee sat the race out.

That election was overshadowed by very competitive and extremely expensive races in the neighboring 6th and 8th districts. But this year, the Kirk-Seals matchup will be the main event.

In the 6th district last cycle, state Sen. Peter Roskam (R) battled Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth (D) in an open-seat race that received national attention. Roskam spent $3.3 million and the NRCC almost $3.4 million compared with Duckworth, who spent more than $4.5 million, and the DCCC, an additional $3.2 million, in a race Roskam won 51 percent to 49 percent.

With Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) at the top of the ticket, Roskam can’t take anything for granted, but the race has not developed for the Democrats. Challenger Jill Morgenthaler (D) raised $307,000 through March 31 and had only $163,000 on hand. Roskam raised almost $1.4 million through the first quarter with $967,000 in the bank.

In the 8th district, Rep. Melissa Bean (D) spent almost $4.3 million last cycle in her successful re-election run, and the DCCC came in with about $1.3 million. Her opponent, wealthy businessman David McSweeney (R), spent $5.1 million (including primary spending), but the NRCC tacked on another $2.4 million. Bean won 51 percent to 44 percent.

This year, Republicans have another wealthy businessman running, Steve Greenberg, but it’s unclear how much he’s willing and able to invest in the race. He raised almost $523,000 through March 31 but had only $5,000 on hand. Bean raised more than $2.2 million through the first quarter with almost $1.4 million in the bank, and she is a heavy favorite for re-election.

Open-seat races in Illinois’ 11th and 18th districts will also get national party attention this year, and the 14th district rematch between new Rep. Bill Foster (D) and dairy magnate Jim Oberweis (R) could also be competitive.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 8, 2008 and in Roll Call newspaper on July 9, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.