Monday, April 26, 2010

Could Lieberman Hold the Senate’s Balance of Power After November?

By Stuart Rothenberg

As the midterms approach and substantial GOP Senate gains seem inevitable, more attention will fall on Connecticut’s soon-to-be-senior Senator, Joe Lieberman (ID). That’s because Lieberman, one of two Independents in the Senate, could become a major target of Republicans if they net nine seats in the midterms.

If that were to happen — and it’s still a long shot — Lieberman would become either the Democrats’ 50th vote or the Republicans’ 51st for organizing the Senate. Either way, he could decide which party would control the Senate for the last two years of President Barack Obama’s term.

Getting to “plus nine” for Republicans doesn’t look as impossible as it once did.

Assuming that the GOP holds all of its own seats, the party would need to win four Democratic open seats (Delaware, North Dakota, Illinois and Indiana) and knock off four Democratic incumbents (in Arkansas, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Colorado). The crucial ninth seat would then come from one of four states: California, Connecticut, Washington or Wisconsin, where Democrats either have potentially vulnerable nominees or Republicans have surprisingly interesting candidates of their own.

Lieberman certainly would relish the attention of being the “decider,” and his decision surely would take into consideration whether he plans to seek re-election in 2012, when he will be 70 years old.

Shortly after he was first elected in 1988, the Almanac of American Politics wrote that “Lieberman is likely to be more of a team player in his party than [Republican Lowell] Weicker was in his.”

I suppose that may be true only because the Connecticut Senator was such a thorn in the GOP’s side, but in any case, it failed to imagine the kind of political figure that Lieberman would become in his own right.

Like Weicker, whom he defeated by less than a point for the Senate seat, Lieberman last won statewide office in the Nutmeg State as an Independent. But while Weicker won a term as governor running on A Connecticut Party line (a party he founded), Lieberman still operates in a very partisan body and has found himself in the middle of partisan maneuverings.

Though conservatives found Weicker’s style and voting record impossible to swallow, he never faced a primary challenge for renomination, since each time he sought re-election a GOP convention selected him to carry the party’s banner.

Lieberman, of course, lost the 2006 Democratic primary to businessman Ned Lamont, only to win re-election that November as an Independent with the help of a strong showing from Republican and independent voters.

Even though Democrats rejected Lieberman in 2006, he chose to caucus with his old party after those elections, receiving the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (of which he was the ranking member before the 2006 elections).

There are many reasons why Lieberman would vote with Democrats to organize the Senate after the 2010 elections.

He’s been a Democrat his entire life, and changing parties doesn’t come easy to elected officials who have spent 40 years in politics. He served in the Connecticut state Senate and as the state’s attorney general as a Democrat, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 and ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

On many of the key issues of the day, from the environment and abortion to the minimum wage, cap-and-trade and the auto industry bailout, Lieberman is simply closer to Democrats than to Republicans — particularly a GOP of tea party activists, pro-lifers and Southerners.

But Lieberman seems to like being able to stick it to Democrats now and then, as he did when he said he could not support a public option in the health care bill.

“The public option I think was raised in the last year by people who really want to have a government-controlled health insurance system. That’s their right. I think they’re wrong,” Lieberman said in November on “Face the Nation,” using language that must have sounded comfortable to even the most conservative Republican.

And, of course, Lieberman spoke at the 2008 Republican National Convention and campaigned for his friend, Arizona Sen. John McCain (R), in the presidential race.

Actually, Lieberman’s record is filled with instances where he distanced himself from his party or his party’s allies, in Hollywood, for example.

If Republicans have a shot at getting Lieberman’s vote to organize the Senate, it will be because of foreign policy. With the Obama administration increasingly critical of Israel and Iran continuing to take steps to be able to build a nuclear weapon, Lieberman may just believe that Republicans better understand what he considers to be the top issue of the day — national security.

But would Lieberman really switch, the way Arlen Specter (Pa.), Jim Jeffords (Vt.) and Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.) did? Not everyone agrees.

“I don’t see him joining the Republicans,” says Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. “He’s had chances to do that already, and he didn’t take them. It’s unlikely that he would in the future.”

“I think he might,” counters Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. “Joe Lieberman puts principle above politics, and if he thought he could make a difference on important issues, he certainly would consider it.”

Lieberman could still call himself an Independent but decide to caucus with the GOP. That would drive many of his former friends (and all of his liberal enemies) crazy. But he just might like the idea of doing that.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and CQPolitics.com on April 22, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Is the GOP Headed to a Revival in the Land of Enchantment?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Talk about being down and out. After last year’s elections, the New Mexico GOP looked about as energetic as a three-week-old corpse.

Democrats controlled both of the state’s Senate seats, all three of its House seats and six of the state’s seven statewide offices. The Republicans’ only beachhead was the office of the state commissioner of public lands. The Legislature was equally overwhelmingly Democratic.

And in the presidential contest, the state that had two squeakers in 2000 (Al Gore by 366 votes) and 2004 (George W. Bush by 5,988 votes) turned into a 15-point blowout for Democrat Barack Obama.

But Republicans seem almost certain to win back at least one of the state’s Congressional districts, the 2nd district, and now appear to have a least a fighting chance to take back the 1st district.

Freshman Rep. Harry Teague seemed just the kind of Democrat who could hold the 2nd district, which is a huge land area that encompasses the southern half of the state. A moderate who defeated a supposedly credible GOP nominee by a dozen points in 2008, Teague understood his district and seemed to embody its conservatism.

But Republican strategists now burst into broad smiles at the mention of the New Mexico Democrat, believing that they have the right candidate — former Rep. Steve Pearce — and the right issue — cap-and-trade — to oust Teague in his oil- and gas-producing district.

Pearce ended March with $709,000 in the bank, not much less than Teague’s $927,000.

Democrats don’t put up much resistance when Teague’s name appears on “most vulnerable” lists, a clear indication that party strategists understand he has a very difficult path to re-election.

But while Republican strategists are confident of defeating Teague, they are guardedly optimistic of ousting freshman Rep. Martin Heinrich in the state’s Albuquerque-based 1st district.

A year ago, I wouldn’t have given you a nickel for GOP chances against Heinrich, the 30-something former Albuquerque city councilman who made women’s heads turn whenever he happened to be at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee headquarters last cycle.

Two years ago, GOP operatives talked about the potential of the party’s Congressional nominee, Sheriff Darren White, holding retiring Rep. Heather Wilson’s open seat. But Heinrich buried White by more than 11 points in a district where a 2- or 3-point victory has been the rule.

Heinrich still has to be regarded as the favorite in his bid for re-election, but the change in the national mood and an unusually appealing GOP challenger make this definitely a race to watch.

Jon Barela is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law. He worked on Capitol Hill for the late Rep. Joe Skeen (R-N.M.), including three years on the staff of the House Appropriations Committee, and later served as New Mexico assistant attorney general and director of the Civil Division.

Barela has also been in private practice, worked for Intel and started a small business. From 1999 to 2001, he served as chairman of the board of New Mexico First, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that addresses state issues, and in 2007-08 he served as vice chairman of the state Republican Party. He is also a former president of the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce.

Through the first quarter of 2010, Barela had raised over $520,000, ending March with $392,000 in the bank. Given that White spent almost $1.8 million last cycle to Heinrich’s almost $2.5 million, Barela has work to do. Heinrich’s first-quarter Federal Election Commission report showed him with just over $1 million in the bank.

But Barela’s appeal is real. In a recent interview in the nation’s capital, he came across as thoughtful, mature and likeably low-key. His issue positions and party label aside, he’s the kind of candidate almost any voter would think would be an asset on Capitol Hill.

State and national Republicans have already coalesced around the attorney and businessman. He has considerable appeal to district Hispanics, in part because of his heritage, but also because, unlike most Republicans, he doesn’t favor the dismantling of affirmative action programs and backs a comprehensive solution of the nation’s illegal immigrant problem.

But Barela has plenty of ammunition to use against Heinrich, including the freshman’s votes for the stimulus, cap-and-trade and health care reform.

Two years ago, when I interviewed Heinrich during one of his trips to Washington, D.C., I knew that he was the real deal. I got the same feeling after meeting Barela. These are two very good candidates in what has proved to be a very competitive Congressional district.

About a week ago, the Rothenberg Political Report added this district to our list of almost five dozen House seats in play. We rated it as “Democrat favored.” But after meeting Barela and looking more closely at the race, I’ll have to reclassify it as “Lean Democrat” (a more competitive category), and as long as Barela raises enough money to be competitive and the current national mood is unchanged, I’d expect the race in New Mexico’s 1st district to go down to the wire.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on April 19, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Mexico 1 Moved to Lean Democratic

Cong. Martin Heinrich (D) is still the favorite in the race, but as long as Republican Jon Barela raises enough money to be competitive and the current national mood is unchanged, we expect the race in New Mexico’s 1st district to go down to the wire. We're moving the race from Democrat Favored to Lean Democratic. You can learn more about the landscape in the Land of Enchantment by reading Stu's recent Roll Call column.

Our bottom line in the House remains the same. Substantial Republican gains are inevitable, with net Democratic losses now looking to be at least two dozen. At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible.

Here are our latest House ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans
Special Elections in italics

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 13 D)
  • AR 1 (Open; Berry, D)
  • FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
  • IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • MI 1 (Open; Stupak, D)
  • MI 7 (Schauer, D)
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
  • NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
  • NV 3 (Titus, D)
  • PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
  • PA 12 (Open; Murtha, D)
  • TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
  • WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)
Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 9 D)
  • AL 2 (Bright, D)
  • AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D)
  • FL 8 (Grayson, D)
  • ID 1 (Minnick, D)
  • IN 8 (Open; Ellsworth, D)
  • KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
  • MS 1 (Childers, D)
  • VA 2 (Nye, D)
  • VA 5 (Perriello, D)
Lean Republican (3 R, 7 D)
  • CA 3 (Lungren, R)
  • CO 4 (Markey, D)
  • FL 25 (Open; M. Diaz-Balart, R)
  • LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
  • MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
  • NM 2 (Teague, D)
  • NY 29 (Open; Massa, D)
  • OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
  • OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
Republican Favored (5 R, 1 D)
  • CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
  • NE 2 (Terry, R)
  • OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  • PA 15 (Dent, R)
  • TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)
Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 4 D)
  • HI 1 (Open; Abercrombie, D)
  • ND A-L (Pomeroy, D)
  • SC 5 (Spratt, D)
  • WV 1 (Mollohan, D)
Lean Democratic (1 R, 16 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
  • DE -AL (Open; Castle, R)
  • IN 9 (Hill, D)
  • IA 3 (Boswell, D)
  • MA 10 (Open; Delahunt, D)
  • MO 4 (Skelton, D)
  • NJ 3 (Adler, D)
  • NM 1 (Heinrich, D)*
  • NY 1 (Bishop, D)
  • NY 19 (Hall, D)
  • OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
  • OH 18 (Space, D)
  • PA 4 (Altmire, D)
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
  • VA 9 (Boucher, D)
  • WI 7 (Obey, D)
Democrat Favored (1 R, 18 D)
  • CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  • CO 3 (Salazar, D)
  • CT 5 (Murphy, D)
  • FL 22 (Klein, D)
  • IL 11 (Halvorson, D)
  • IN 2 (Donnelly, D)
  • LA 2 (Cao, R)
  • NY 13 (McMahon, D)
  • NY 20 (Murphy, D)
  • NY 23 (Owens, D)
  • NC 8 (Kissell, D)
  • OH 13 (Sutton, D)
  • PA 3 (Dahlkemper, D)
  • PA 8 (Murphy, D)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
  • PA 17 (Holden, D)
  • SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
  • TX 17 (Edwards, D)
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D)
Total seats in play: 79
Republican seats: 11
Democratic seats: 68

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Paterson’s Timing Has Been Perfect for Democrats in N.Y. Specials

By Nathan L. Gonzales

While New York Gov. David Paterson’s (D) performance in office has been widely panned, his timing in three House special elections this cycle has been impeccable.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) resigned his 29th district seat more than a month ago, but Paterson still has not acknowledged the vacancy nor issued a date for a special election. State law gives the governor latitude to announce a vacancy, but when he does, a special election must be called.

According to sources in Washington, D.C., and the Empire State, Paterson has good relations with the New York delegation as well as the offices of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and he leveraged those key relationships to get good advice on the timing of the special elections.

In the case of the 29th district vacancy, if Paterson were to call a special election today, Democrats would likely lose the seat. Their candidate, an unknown former CIA employee who had been living in Washington, is just beginning to get a campaign operation together and the political climate continues to be difficult for Democrats.

Paterson initially told reporters that he would call a special election to fill Massa’s seat “as soon as possible” but has since backed off. In a March 31 statement, his office raised concerns about “the financial impact that a special election could have on the county level.” A spokeswoman said no final decision had been made yet and reiterated that point to Roll Call again this week.

Democrats in the district say they would prefer to avoid a special election, also citing the costs involved. And one local Democratic source told Roll Call, “I wouldn’t hold my breath,” waiting for the governor to call a special, adding that there is a strong likelihood that the November general election will be the only contest to decide who the next Member from the 29th district is.

That has Republicans squawking about Democrats’ stalling tactics. Former Corning Mayor Tom Reed, the Republicans’ consensus candidate for Massa’s seat, has been publicly calling on the governor to call the election “forthwith,” but to no avail.

It’s hardly a coincidence that Democrats will benefit if Paterson chooses not to call a special election.

Paterson has “done a good job of reading the tea leaves with the delegation,” according to one New York Democratic consultant, who noted that the exception was the governor’s handling of then-Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand’s appointment to the Senate early last year.

But Paterson handled Gillibrand’s open seat extremely well. She resigned her House seat on Jan. 26, but the governor didn’t declare the vacancy until Feb. 23.

That extra month allowed Democrats to find their candidate, businessman Scott Murphy, and get him up to speed and ready to go against state Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco (R), who started the race with significantly higher name recognition. Murphy won the March 31 special election with 50 percent of the vote.

Last fall, Republican Rep. John McHugh vacated his 23rd district seat to become President Barack Obama’s secretary of the Army. The GOP Congressman resigned on Sept. 21, Paterson only took eight days to announce the vacancy that time and set the election to coincide with the regularly scheduled Nov. 3 elections.

After a popular state legislator passed on the race, Democrats quickly sorted through a list of others to find attorney Bill Owens, who won the November special election with 48 percent over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. The GOP nominee, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, received almost 6 percent even though she dropped out late in the race and endorsed Owens.

Emily Cadei contributed to this report.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com and CQPolitics.com on April 18, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.