Missouri 8 : For Sowers, Raising Money Is the Easy Part

By Stuart Rothenberg

Tommy Sowers, the Missouri Democrat who is challenging Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in a conservative southeastern Missouri district, is getting plenty of attention.

An Iraq War veteran, Sowers got a big article in this newspaper almost a month ago (“Emerson’s Challenger Looks Better Than Most,” June 17), but he received ink earlier in the Daily Caller (March) and in Politico (April). He’s also drawn attention in the New Republic and AOL’s Politics Daily, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he receives more coverage.

Sowers’ bio and positioning — he’s running as an economic populist and a social conservative in the state’s poorest, most blue-collar, most rural district — is just the kind of story that reporters love.

He earned an undergraduate degree from Duke and a Master of Science in Public Policy from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and he is a dissertation short of earning a doctorate in government from LSE.

The former Green Beret’s fundraising has been impressive given the district. He raised more than $680,000 through March 31 and just announced that he had raised more than $1 million through June 30. He had almost as much money on hand as Emerson did at the end of the first quarter.

The Roll Call article about Sowers mentioned a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., hosted by some big names, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Democratic-strategist-turned-talking-head Paul Begala.

But Sowers’ March Federal Election Commission report also showed contributions from “Saturday Night Live” producer Lorne Michaels, Manhattan philanthropist Donald Rubin (who spent $22 million on a Park Avenue penthouse five years ago), Credit Suisse executive Todd Sears, who has been active in gay rights groups, former New Line Cinema Chairman Robert Shaye, former Young & Rubicam CEO Ed Vick, Aspen writer and poet Bruce Berger, members of New York’s affluent Tisch family and dozens of lawyers, investment executives and Duke University alumni.

Remember, Sowers is running in southeastern Missouri where the largest communities are Cape Girardeau (about 37,000 residents), Rolla (about 18,000) and Poplar Bluff (17,000). According to 2000 Census figures, only 12 percent of district residents have a college degree, one of the lowest percentages in the nation.

While the liberal Missouri website Show Me Progress recently described Sowers as a “credible challenger” to Emerson, there is little suspense about the election’s outcome in November.

The Congresswoman, who first won the seat in 1996 following the death of her husband, Rep. Bill Emerson (R), is a prohibitive favorite. She is leading now by overwhelming margins in multiple polls, including an April American Viewpoint survey for the Republican that showed her leading 71 percent to 18 percent. Emerson has hired a strong consulting team and won’t be taken by surprise.

The Congressional district is very conservative and reliably Republican in federal contests. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) clobbered Barack Obama 62 percent to 36 percent there in 2008, a margin not much different from President George W. Bush’s over Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) four years earlier. The district’s Democratic performance index, as calculated by the National Committee for an Effective Congress, is 43.4, making it a difficult target for Democrats even in a favorable political climate.

And yet, there is no denying Sowers’ ability to raise money and to create a buzz. The only question is why. With so many Democratic seats in trouble, why would even a wealthy Manhattan or Beverly Hills liberal contribute to an obscure candidate in southeastern Missouri who has no chance of winning?

Observers note Sowers has a strong network of friends and an appealing personality. And they don’t fail to mention his good looks. “Do you think if he looked like [Rep.] Henry Waxman [D-Calif.] he’d get this response?” asked one Democrat rhetorically.

Sowers’ campaign manager, Jonathan Feifs, explains the fundraising success this way: “I think folks realize that it’s an uphill climb. But they realize that their support will allow him to communicate a message that will materially affect our chances of winning.”

Actually, I’ve seen this movie before, in both 2006 and 2008. At that time, it was named Scott Kleeb.

Kleeb was the handsome, denim-wearing Democrat, Yale Ph.D. in history who ran in Nebraska’s 3rd district in 2006 and for the Senate in 2008. He raised more than $1 million for his first run and more than $1.8 million for his Senate bid.

Kleeb got plenty of national media attention and Democratic buzz — I was at the Aspen Ideas Festival a couple of years ago and heard people excitedly talking about Kleeb coming to Aspen for a fundraiser — but he lost by 10 points in 2006 and by 18 points in 2008 (slightly behind Obama’s statewide performance).

At least Kleeb was running in an open seat in 2006 (though one lost by Kerry by 51 points in 2004), with an unpopular sitting Republican president and in a great year for Democrats — probably the best year since Watergate.

This cycle, Sowers has a strong wind in his face and is running in a district that Obama lost by 26 points and where Democratic Congressional initiatives are not likely to be popular.

With so many Democratic candidates running in close contests, you’d think party contributors might try to be strategic about their giving. Instead, many have opened their wallets to a personally appealing candidate who, by every indication, has no chance of winning. It’s difficult to believe those dollars wouldn’t be of better use in other races.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 15, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Is Jim DeMint Barack Obama’s Ace in the Hole

By Stuart Rothenberg

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who once proclaimed that he’d rather have “30 Republicans in the Senate who believe in principles of freedom than 60 who don’t believe in anything,” continues to endorse Senate candidates and give leaders in his own party migraine headaches.

But one politician must be smiling from ear to ear when he follows DeMint’s antics: President Barack Obama.

That’s because, more than Florida’s Marco Rubio, Kentucky’s Rand Paul or Colorado’s Ken Buck — all endorsed by DeMint in GOP Senate primaries against the wishes of party strategists and insiders — the president stands to benefit the most, long term, from DeMint’s rhetoric and actions leading up to the 2010 midterm elections.

DeMint’s “believers” comment offers one of those false choices that boil everything down to extremes: Either you are a “conservative” or you aren’t. There aren’t any shades of gray.

The South Carolina Republican apparently doesn’t concede that even “conservatives” can have different styles and different opinions about how much compromise is necessary to move the country in the right direction.

So far this cycle, DeMint has endorsed a number of Republicans in competitive primaries, including Rubio, Paul, Buck, Utah’s Mike Lee and California’s Chuck DeVore. In Nevada, he indicated a preference for Danny Tarkanian and Sharron Angle, clearly marking his opposition to former state party Chairwoman Sue Lowden.

Oddly, DeMint has not yet endorsed J.D. Hayworth in Arizona or Joe Miller in Alaska, even though both men are attacking their opponents, Sens. John McCain and Lisa Murkowski, for being insufficiently conservative.

One GOP strategist familiar with DeMint’s thinking explained the Senator’s nonendorsement so far this way: “He’s willing to rock the boat but is being careful not to turn over the ship.” That sounds dangerously close to pragmatism over principle, doesn’t it?

Clearly DeMint walks more cautiously when incumbent colleagues are involved, which explains why he didn’t endorse in the Utah contest until Sen. Bob Bennett was eliminated at the GOP state convention, as well as why he hasn’t endorsed in Alaska. (DeMint did back Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey before Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties.)

Given Hayworth’s record in Congress, DeMint probably isn’t likely to get involved in Arizona. But a pre-primary endorsement against Murkowski is not off the table, though Miller almost certainly needs to develop into a greater threat to Murkowski than he now is.

The endorsements of DeVore and, to a lesser extent, Buck are particularly noteworthy because both men are much weaker general election candidates than their primary opponents.

Matt Hoskins, a spokesman for DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, told me that electability is an issue for DeMint: “He isn’t going to endorse someone who can’t win a general election.”

Well, I can’t find anyone who knows something about California politics who thinks that DeVore could beat Boxer this year or any year.

Polling conducted shortly before the California primary showed DeVore running about as well against Boxer as ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina or former Rep. Tom Campbell. But basing a conclusion about viability on that single factor would demonstrate incredible naiveté about California politics.

Some of DeMint’s choices certainly can and will win in the current political environment, which strongly favors Republicans. Kentucky’s Paul and Nevada’s Angle have better-than-even chances of winding up in the Senate, and it’s difficult to argue that any of Angle’s closest primary competitors would have been stronger against Reid than she will be.

But that’s not true everywhere. Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton would be a much stronger GOP nominee than Buck in Colorado, and many “movement conservatives,” including former Sen. Bill Armstrong, have endorsed her.

So why is DeMint with Buck? Some savvy political observers believe that it has less to do with ideology and more to do with DeMint simply liking to stir the pot, to cause trouble for those in the establishment.

But forget electability for now. It’s not why White House strategists have reason to cheer on DeMint.

The South Carolina Republican apparently believes that American voters are heavily ideological — and strongly conservative — and that if Republicans stand their ground on the right, a majority of Americans will see liberals for what they are and come rushing over to embrace conservatives, not only in the midterms but also into the future.

In fact, anyone who has watched or studied American politics since the Vietnam era knows that American voters — particularly the kind of swing voters who decide elections — are not an ideological bunch. That’s why you have Iowa voters sending both conservative Chuck Grassley (R) and liberal Tom Harkin (D) to the Senate.

By beating the conservative drum the way he does — demonizing conservatives who he says aren’t conservative enough, helping nominate candidates more interested in throwing grenades than in passing legislation and belittling compromise in a country built on political compromises — DeMint makes it easier for Democrats to paint his own party in an unflattering light.

A Senate Republican Conference filled after November with DeMint-like ideologues, troublemakers and self-righteous conservatives is a caucus that is sure to sound rigid and uncompromising, arrogant and doctrinaire. Style doesn’t matter to true believers, but it does to the American people.

And that’s why Obama is smiling.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 13, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Outside Groups Aiding GOP Cause This Cycle

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Several Republican outside groups are promising to spend big money in key House and Senate races this fall, but it remains to be seen whether they’ll have the dollars to have an impact.

When American Crossroads, a newly formed 527 group, raised a meager $200 in May, Republicans had flashbacks to last cycle. In 2008, Freedom’s Watch burst onto the scene promising to spend $200 million to bolster GOP candidates but ended up spending less than a quarter of that amount.

Crossroads, and its new affiliate 501(c)(4) American Crossroads GPS, bounced back to raise almost $8.5 million in June — but that was still a fraction of the $50 million the group plans to spend between now and Election Day.

Freedom’s Watch was largely built around the ability and inclination of one person (wealthy gaming executive Sheldon Adelson) to contribute. When his funds dried up, the group’s ads disappeared from the airwaves or never materialized in the first place.

Republicans are determined not to make the same mistake twice.

“We have a very broad fundraising base that is reaching out to lots of people,” according to Crossroads President Steven Law.

Carl Forti, a veteran of the National Republican Congressional Committee, was executive vice president of issue advocacy for Freedom’s Watch last cycle and is now with Law at Crossroads as the group’s political director. Jonathan Collegio, who also worked at the NRCC as well as the National Association of Broadcasters, just signed on to be the communications director.

But Crossroads is not the only Republican group soliciting donations and looking to get involved this year.

Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie are trying to put infrastructure in place to take advantage of conservative enthusiasm, frustration and anger now that Republicans are in the minority. Their blueprint isn’t dissimilar to what former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta set up in 2004 on the Democratic side with the Center for American Progress.

The GOP group, American Action Network, is a 501(c)(4) led by Rob Collins, who was a top adviser to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Pete Meachum recently left his position as chief of staff to retiring Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) to join the group as well.

The American Action Forum, a 501(c)(3) led by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former economic adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 presidential campaign, will focus on policy and the think tank element of the group.

Resurgent Republic is a collection of prominent Republican pollsters that looks like the GOP counterpart to Democracy Corps, which is run by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and operative James Carville.

All the groups have boards of directors filled with former Senators, Congressmen, governors and Cabinet members who are expected to help raise millions of dollars. There is scuttlebutt that these groups are receptacles for disenchanted donors to the RNC, but since these outside groups are not subject to federal contribution limits, they aren’t necessarily competing for the same dollars.

Republican operatives are increasingly confident that these groups will be well-funded, but in the aftermath of the Freedom’s Watch fiasco, it’s all speculation until the money comes in. Groups such as Crossroads have until July 20 to file their June financial statements with the Internal Revenue Service.

Even if the money materializes, it has yet to be determined whether and how the dozens of competitive races will be divided between the groups.

Crossroads appears to be primarily focused on the Senate (since it has already announced it is targeting key races in 10 states), while the American Action Network will focus on the House. But it appears that both groups want to reserve the right to play in any race they want, depending on the situation and the desires of their donors.

Crossroads just extended its television ad buy against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid into a fourth week and has now spent close to half a million dollars against the Nevada Democrat.

According to Law, Crossroads also plans to develop “full-service” political operations in the largest states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

“Many independent groups tend to be media heavy, and we’ll certainly emphasize advertising,” Law explained, “but we want the capability to have boots on the ground and communicate directly with voters.”

As hot races develop over the next four months, there will be a temptation for multiple groups to swoop in on particular high-profile contests and take credit for an eventual victory, according to another GOP strategist.

“The question is, is anyone there to pick up the scraps and put races into position to win?” according to the source, who referred to MoveOn.org’s important role in the 2006 cycle when the liberal group focused on second- and third-tier Democratic opportunities and helped turn them into top-tier contests.

“I don’t know if there is a plan to do that. I don’t know if there is money to do that,” the Republican added.

For now, there is some communication between American Crossroads and the American Action Network, particularly since the two groups share an office suite on New York Avenue Northwest in Washington, D.C.

There is also considerable overlap in people involved in the groups. Rove has his hand in multiple groups, and Gillespie is involved with the Action Network, Crossroads and Resurgent Republic in addition to being chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which focuses on state legislative races.

Former NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds is on the Action Network board and is vice chairman of the RSLC. (Reynolds was New York Assembly Minority Leader before he came to Congress.) Former RNC Chairman Mike Duncan is chairman of the Crossroads board and is involved with an RSLC redistricting project as well.

“We are sharing information among many of the groups that are involved this election cycle with the goal of minimizing a duplication of effort,” said Law, a former chief legal officer and general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Crossroads can communicate with the chamber, Action Network and other outside groups but is prohibited from coordinating with the party campaign committees.

“There’s not some master plan,” according to one GOP consultant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of potentially getting work for the groups. “The ‘well-organized right’ is never well-organized.”

This story first appeared in Roll Call on July 6, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

NBC's First Read Misses A Key Point

By Stuart Rothenberg

In looking at the reasons why Republicans might win the House in November, as well as why they might not, NBC’s First Read made the following point: “winning 39 seats is a tall order. After all, when Democrats won back the House in 2006 -- during the height of violence in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina -- they picked up 30 House seats. The GOP will need almost 10 more than that.”

The numbers are right, but they lack context and, therefore, are misleading.

Yes, taking over 42 or 43 Democratic-held districts is a challenge (some GOP seats are likely to fall in November, increasing the number of Republican victories needed to take over the House), and those are big numbers historically. But First Read missed a crucial point: A party’s chances of winning House seats depends on a number of things, not the least of which is where it starts in an election cycle.

In other words, winning a net of 30 or 40 seats is difficult when you are starting at 203 seats (which is where House Democrats were right before the 2006 elections), but it isn’t quite as difficult when you start at only 179 seats, which is where Republicans are now.

Democrats gained over 50 seats over the past two cycles, eating into the Republican core. The fact that so many Democratic members of Congress are now representing Republican-leaning districts means that the GOP has an unusually large number of opportunities.

Regaining those “core” districts will be easier than winning inherently competitive or Democratic-leaning districts.