Monthly Archive for March, 2009

NY-20 results: Murphy leads by 65 votes, with thousands of absentee ballots left to count

Published
by
Taniel
on March 31, 2009
in NY-20
. 5 Comments

11pm: The biggest shocker in tonight’s election is undoubtedly turnout: more than 145,000 thousand voters went to the polls - and we should top 150,000 once absentee ballots are counted. That is a high number for a special election. (In the IL-14 and LA-06 special elections last spring, the number was under 100,000; in the MS-01 special election, about 106,000 voters went to the polls.) So voters were far more mobilized than usual - though the results show that neither party benefited from this, suggesting that both candidates’ bases came out in record numbers.

Also: As of yesterday, more than 5,900 absentee ballots had been received. These have yet to be counted - and any ballot postmarked March 30th that arrives for the next week (for domestic ballots) or two weeks (for overseas ballots) will be counted. We still have a long way to go.

10:50pm: All precincts are now reporting, and Murphy is ahead by 65 votes: 77,344 to 77,279. It is symbolically important for a candidate to be ahead, but the Democrat is far from being the victor. Absentee ballots will change the margin considerably.

We can take a closer look at how things broke down county-by-county and compare tonight’s results with those of the 2006 Gillibrand-Sweeney race. Remember, Gillibrand won by 6% so Murphy could afford losing some ground:

  • Tedisco dramatically over-performed in Saratoga, which happens to be the district’s biggest county by far: Gillibrand won by 6% but Tedisco won by 8% (4,000 votes). It is remarkable that Murphy managed to stay afloat despite that 14% swing.
  • In at least three counties, Tedisco gained 6% compared to Sweeney’s performance - which is just what he needed to make the election… a tie. This is what happened in Dutchess (+10 Gillibrand to +4 Murphy), Columbia (+18 Gillibrand to +12 Murphy) and Greene (+4 Sweeney to +10 Tedisco).
  • So how did Murphy manage to compensate his collapse in Saratoga? He performed well in four counties: Essex (+10% instead of +4%) Warren (+12% instead of +8%), Washington (+12% instead of +6%), and Delaware County, (tie instead of 8% Sweeney lead).

10:35pm: We could wait a while for the final precinct to report, and what it will say will only matter for P.R. purposes - who will emerge ahead of tonight’s count, prior to the count of thousands of absentee ballots to be counted? One amusing note: Josh Kraushaar reports that Murphy has an immense extended family leaving in the district (and at least 50 people in his “immediate family”), most of whom are registered Republicans and are bucking their electoral habits to vote for Murphy. It is no exaggeration to say that the size of Murphy’s family might have made the difference tonight.

10:25pm: Incredible! 2 more precincts have reported, cutting Murphy’s lead to… 81 votes. Only one precinct remains, which means that Murphy will probably keep an even smaller lead (if any at all) when the count is completed. Needless to say, it will be impossible to say who won the district after tonight whatever the last precinct reveals. This will be decided by absentee ballots - and potentially by a recount.

10:20pm: Murphy grabs 200-vote lead as Columbia County’s 8 last precincts report! Murphy won that county by 1,900 votes, performing almost as well as Gillibrand in 2006 (58-42). 8 precincts from Saratoga also reported… which means that all is left is 3 precincts from Saratoga… and potentially thousands of outstanding absentee ballots.

10:17pm: 30 votes! That’s all that is left between Tedisco (still in the lead) and Murphy! This means that the latest batch of Saratoga precincts helped the Democrat - and there is now a very clear path for the Democrat to win! There are 8 precincts left in Columbia (Murphy leads 56-44) and 11 left in Saratoga (Tedisco leads 54-46).

10:15pm: All three remaining counties have reported more… and Murphy is now 100 votes behind Tedisco with 22 precincts left! What a finish!

A big batch of Columbia ballots allowed Murphy to surge, and the county still has 8 precincts out of 58 (Murphy is leading by 1,600). The good news for the Democrat: Delaware is done, and Murphy managed to tie Tedisco in a county that voted for Sweeney by 8% - quite a dramatic change. That Murphy is still trailing is entirely due to Saratoga, where there are only 14 precincts left. Tedisco is leading 54-46.

10:10pm: It is looking increasingly plausible that the race might not be decided tonight. There might be several thousand absentee ballots that will have to be counted in the upcoming days, not to mention the fact that overseas ballots can arrive for two more weeks (as long as they have been postmarked by Election Day). If Tedisco manages to keep a 1,000 vote lead, he will been seen as the presumptive victor - but anything can happen in overtime.

10:05pm: Only three counties are left: Saratoga, where Tedisco is winning big; Columbia, where Murphy is winning big; and Delaware, where Tedisco has a lead. In other words, Murphy has to perform significantly better in the portion of Saratoga that is left to win - which is logical considering that it was always inconceivable that he could win while losing the district’s biggest county by double-digits.

Greene County finished reporting, and Tedisco won by 10% - 6% better than Sweeney did. (Sweeney lost the district by 6%, which explains why we now have a tie.) Also, Tedisco won Rennselaer 51% to 49% (Gillibrand had won by 8%).

10:00pm: Bad news for the Democrat: Dutchess County has just finished reporting, and Murphy did not do what he needed to do. He won the county 52% to 48%, a significantly smaller pace than Gillibrand or Obama. Also, a new batch of precincts have reported from Saratoga, allowing Tedisco to keep his overall lead at 1,000 votes. The good news for Murphy is that he has over-performed in Washington County (just as in Warren County): He received 56% compared to Gillibrand’s 53%. But Most Democratic counties have finished reporting, so how will Murphy close the gap?

9:55pm: Very little movement with 436 precincts reporting: Tedisco is ahead by 950 votes. Interestingly, another county finished reporting (Otsego County), and Murphy performed slightly better than Obama: 49% to 48%. Unfortunately for Democrats, Otsego represents a tiny share of the district vote.

9:50pm: Make that a 1,000 vote lead for Tedisco - and it’s all because Saratoga County, where the Republican continues to build his lead. He is now ahead by 4,000 votes in that county, with 1/3 of ballots still to be counted. (Reminder: Gillibrand beat Sweeney 53% to 47% in that county, which happens to be her winning margin district-wide.) As I noted before, the best news Murphy has gotten so far is his result in Warren County, which has now finished counting: The presidential results were tied, but Murphy won by 12% (or 1,800 votes).

9:45pm: One thing is for sure: There will be no landslide tonight. With 386 precincts now reporting, Tedisco is only ahead by 300 votes. Murphy is narrowly underperforming compared to Obama and Gillibrand. Dutchess County has counted 62 of 72 precincts, and Murphy is only ahead 51% to 49%; Obama had won it by 7% and Gillibrand by 10%. Murphy will also need to significantly improve his performance in Saratoga, where he trails by 3,500 votes - and half of the county remains to be counted. Even in Columbia County, Murphy is winning by 12% compared to Obama’s 13% - that is good enough to win a tight race, but certainly not enough to pull ahead.

9:37pm: Murphy has taken a 200 vote lead, with 280 precincts reporting! (In nearly two years of covering Election Nights, I wonder if I have ever seen.)

What changed: Lots of precincts reported from Warren County (Murphy still leads 57% to 43%) and Washington County, which has almost finished reporting and where Murphy is leading by a solid 57% to 43%. Those latter results are very good for the Democrat: Obama only won the district by 1% in 2008, and Gillibrand by 4% in 2006.

9:35pm: Results are coming in faster than usual, with 206 precincts already reporting. Tedisco has increased his lead to 2,400 votes, 52% to 48%.

There is perhaps early signs of trouble for Murphy from Dutchess County, where he is only leading by 2%. Gillibrand had beat Sweeney by 10% in 2006. Murphy is also underperforming in Greene County, where he trails 56% to 44%.

9:25pm: 125 precincts out of 610 are already reporting, and Republican nominee Jim Tedisco has an early lead, 51% to 49% (about 800 votes).

One county - Warren - has almost finished reporting, so we can compare results to past elections: Murphy is leading 56% to 44%. In 2006, Gillibrand beat Rep. Sweeney 54% to 46% in Warren and Obama beat McCain 51% to 48% in 2008, so this is an improvement for the Democrat. Yet, Murphy is being crushed in early returns from Saratoga County - a county Gillibrand narrowly won in 2004.

Original post: Welcome to the first Election Night thread since Louisiana’s congressional elections on December 6th. It is 9pm on the East Coast, which means that the polls have closed in NY-20!

Simply put, anything could happen tonight - either candidate could score a landslide or the contest could be decided by a handful of votes. Democratic nominee Scott Murphy has had undeniable momentum heading into the final stretch, but he started with such a deficit that his surge does not guarantee him victory.

For one, there have been very few polls released of this race; in fact, Siena is the only institute that has released public polls! Furthermore, special elections are notoriously unpredictable as we simply do not know who will turn out. (In Georgia’s Senate runoff, who could have predicted that the Democratic base would get so demobilized that Saxby Chambliss would win re-election by 17%?)

Perhaps because of the election’s unpredictability, the stakes are high tonight. Republicans have lost a lot over the past three years - including a spring of special election defeats last spring - and they now believe that they can get back on the winning path. Another defeat would be a devastating blow and it would put incoming RNC Chairman Michael Steele on the defensive; meanwhile, a pick-up would allow them to boast that Obama’s agenda is already being rejected by voters.

Democrats have arguably less to lose in tonight’s election. Few people expected them to have a shot at keeping the district when the special election campaign was launched, and the name recognition differential between the two candidates gives the DCCC a ready-excuse to explain away a defeat. Yet, the fact that the stimulus bill and Barack Obama have been the election’s defining issues has nationalized the stakes: A defeat could tarnish the President, while a Murphy triumphs would allow Democrats to claim voters in swing districts are applauding Obama’s agenda.

For those who are planning to watch tonight’s election in close detail, the key county to watch is Saratoga. A third of the district’s population resides in that county. Gillibrand won those regions by 6% in her 2006 race against then-Rep. Sweeney. Counties that lean Democrats are Columbia County (Obama won by 13%) and Dutchess County (Obama won by 7%). Counties won by McCain are Rennselaer, Delaware and Essex.

Minnesota court (finally) rules, seemingly in Al Franken’s favor

Published
by
Taniel
on March 31, 2009
in MN-Sen
. 1 Comment

All eyes are turned towards upstate New York today for NY-20’s special election, and I should have a liveblog later tonight to follow the results. But we now have major news breaking out of Minnesota: Nearly three weeks after the lawyers rested their case in Norm Coleman’s election contest, the three-judge panel finally released a ruling. (You can read the full decision here.)

The ruling favors Al Franken, and it all but closes the door to Coleman’s hopes for a comeback via rejected absentee ballots.

Ever since Coleman found himself trailing by 225 votes, he has been trying to convince judges to include a large enough pool of currently invalid ballots to have a chance at overtaking Franken. The Republican’s lawyers started by clamoring for 11,000 absentee ballots to be counted, but a series of court rulings forced them to narrow that number to 4,800 than 3,000 and then 1,700. Today, the court tossed out most of the ballots whose inclusion Republicans were asking and left the door open to only 400.

These 400 ballots will now be assembled for final review, and only those that are found to conform to statutes requirement will be included in the final tally. “Not every absentee ballot identified in this order will be ultimately be opened and counted,” the judges wrote. In short: The number of rejected absentee ballots that might find their way in the count is at most 400 - and probably much lower.

This developments is a blow to Coleman’s chances for two reasons:

  1. How many ballots: Even if all 400 ballots are found to be valid, it remains far too small a number for Coleman to close his 225-vote deficit - especially when you take into account the fact that some of these ballots are sure to have gone to third-party candidate Barkley (who got about 16% statewide) or have been cast as deliberate undervotes. In short: Coleman would need to win an immense majority of the remaining ballots to cut into Franken’s lead - let alone to overtake him.
    a
  2. Which ballots: That Coleman could muster an immense majority is made very unlikely by the fact that these 400 ballots were not all votes that the Republican wanted to see added to the count; a fair number are ballots Franken’s lawyers were arguing should be tallied. In particular, half of the ballots come from heavily Democratic Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis counties. (On the other hand, all three of these counties contain Republican-leaning suburbs.)

Worse still, the judges rejected the substance of Coleman’s argument and dismissed his contention that they should be lenient when determining an absentee ballot’s eligibility. For instance, the court ruled that voters needed to sign absentee ballot applications and they needed to sign the return envelopes that contain their ballots. The Coleman camp had argued that the court should overlook these requirements, but the judges disagreed. “[Coleman] argued that a voter could not obtain an absentee ballot without first completing an absentee ballot application and that the court could presume the existence of the application,” they wrote. “The court was unwilling to make this presumption.”

This trial focused on issues other than rejected absentee ballots. As far as I can tell, however, the court did not rule on other topics - whether Coleman’s complaint that more than 100 Franken votes were double-counted or the questions surrounding the Minneapolis ballots that were counted in Franken’s tally even though they were not found during the recount. Yet, there is no doubt that rejected absentee ballots were Coleman’s main path to salvation. His failure to get a favorable ruling on this issue could make the court’s later decisions on the other subjects largely irrelevant.

We shall know more on April 7th: Judges ordered these 400 ballots to be counted on that day. The candidate left trailing at the end of this process is expected to appeal, and the case would presumably be short-cutted to the state Supreme Court. That could take a while (Senator Cornyn just suggested it would take “years” to resolve this mess, which would obviously be convenient for Republicans), but we are finally seeing the end of the tunnel in Minnesota’s Senate race!

GOP recruitment: Tom Cole will stay in the House, Sam Caligiuri challenges Dodd

Published
by
Taniel
on March 31, 2009
in CT-Sen, OK-04 and OK-Gov
. 2 Comments

A second opponent for Dodd

Chris Dodd has drawn a second Republican opponent: state Senator Sam Caligiuri announced he would challenge the longtime Senator. He will first have to get past former Rep. Rob Simmons, who jumped in the race a few weeks ago.

A few months ago, no one would have predicted Dodd might face a competitive race; now, the embattled Chairman of the Banking Committee looks like one of the most endangered incumbents of the cycle. Can the GOP make the most of Dodd’s vulnerabilities if they nominate Caligiuri?

On the one hand, Caligiuri does not seem to have enough stature to challenge such an entrenched Senator; a recent poll showed him trailing Dodd 51% to 30% while Simmons only trailed 45% to 40%. Furthermore, he has a conservative profile, in particular on issues of crime (he has loudly championed a Connecticut version of the Three Strikes law); that would not be a good fit with Connecticut’s liberal-leaning voters and it might prevent him from capitalizing on Dodd’s fallout among independents.

On the other hand, for Caligiuri to become the Republican nominee would mean that he would have succeeded in beating Simmons - a well-known, well-liked and well-connected politician. That should be enough for him to showcase his campaign skills, confirm that he is a threat to Dodd and receive enough press coverage to boost his name recognition and improve his poll numbers.

Furthermore, Caligiuri’s age (early 30s) and outsider status would make for a better contrast to Dodd. After all, the Republicans’ campaign argument in this race will not be based on ideology and policy but on attacks on Dodd’s honesty, his coziness with bank executives, his ineffectiveness. Simmons could have more trouble making those arguments given that he has already served in Congress and that Democrats would exploit his support for George W. Bush’s agenda.

Before we even get to general election considerations, there is a potentially entertaining Republican primary to take care of - and we don’t even know whether Caligiuri will be able to mount a strong enough campaign to take on Simmons (read: whether he will be able to raise enough money). Their primary could come down to an ideological contrast between the relatively moderate Simmons and the relatively conservative Caligiuri - though is Connecticut’s Republican electorate conservative enough to find much that is objectionable in Simmons’s profile?

Cole bows out of Oklahoma’s gubernatorial race

We can strike one more name off the retirement list. After weeks of speculation, GOP Rep. Tom Cole ruled out running in Oklahoma’s open gubernatorial seat and made it clear that he would seek another term in the House. “I believe the most significant challenges facing Oklahoma, indeed the entire country, are federal in nature,” he explained, citing the economy, immigration and entitlement reform. “I believe I am in the strongest position to effectively look after Oklahoma’s interests by remaining in the House.”

Cole’s decision leaves Rep. Mary Fallin as the clear Republican front-runner. Fallin, who declared her candidacy last month, is seen as the establishment candidate; he served 12 years as Lieutenant Governor, and many feel that her time has come to give it a try. Yet, Cole had enough stature to threaten Fallin. His years as Chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party provided him a strong network within the state; his term as NRCC Chairman introduced him to conservative donors around the country; and he also has won a statewide race before (he served as Secretary of State from 1995 to 1999).

Yet, Fallin still has a long way to go: There are two other prominent Republicans who have yet to rule out bids: former Rep. J.C. Watts and Rep. Frank Lucas. And the general election will not be easy for Republicans, despite Oklahoma’s conservatism: Lieutenant Governor Jari Askins and Attorney General Drew Edmonson are both running for the Democratic nomination.

Cole’s decision also means that OK-04 will not be an open seat - but Democrats have little to be depressed about. The district is Republican enough that a take-over would have been very unlikely. McCain crushed Obama 66% to 34%; by contrast, Obama received 41% in Mary Fallin’s OK-05.

Of the power of conservative Senate Democrats

Published
by
Taniel
on March 30, 2009
in Administration, Bayh, Senate and centrism
. 3 Comments

For a group that is barely one month old, Evan Bayh’s centrist caucus has sure caused a lot of noise. For much of March, the Indiana Senator conducted a flurry of interviews to explain why it was important for conservative Democrats to reach out to Republican lawmakers to beat back liberal members of their own party. Yet, he stayed predictably true to center-right politicians’ deceptive habit of hiding their ideological goals behind seemingly innocent words like “pragmatic” and “efficient.” In answer to critics, Bayh shot back, “We literally have no agenda. How can they be threatened by a group that has taken no policy positions?”

Not only does that response make little sense (how would the caucus’s members have found each other?), it is also misleading. From the group’s very first days, its most prominent members have given voice to the same ideological outlook. They are fiscal conservatives who want to reduce deficits by cutting spending rather than by increasing taxes; they are skeptical of new governmental programs and of increased infrastructure spending; they have a pro-business and pro-free trade outlook.

Quite concretely, this ideological positioning has led Senators like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad to take aim at White House priorities like cap-and-trade, health care reform, increased education spending, EFCA and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. (You would think that supporting the latter would be a minimal commitment required of Democratic lawmakers.) Other Senators like Claire McCaskill demonstrated their resistance to government spending during the stimulus debate. And at least 10 Democrats have voiced their opposition to passing health care and cap-and-trade through the reconciliation process, a maneuver many see as Obama’s only chance to pass the ambitious programs he has promised to implement.

More surprising was Harry Reid’s rush to defend a group that was at first interpreted as a blow to his authority. The Majority Leader contributed a quote to the group’s introductory press release. “New ventures like this group offer us a new opportunity to get things done and I support every effort that puts real solutions above political posturing,” he said. Later still, Reid chose to attack liberal groups who were criticizing the creation of the centrist caucus and Bayh’s attacks on progressive priorities. “I think it’s very unwise and not helpful. These groups should leave them alone,” he said. “It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus.”

Before becoming Majority Leader, Harry Reid was known as a moderate Senator, and it is possible that he would have been part of Bayh’s caucus had he not been part of the Democratic leadership. (The last time I wrote about Bayh’s group, I was only able to identify 12 other Senators: Landrieu, McCaskill, Lieberman, Lincoln, Pryor, Warner, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Casey and Begich. A recent NYT piece adds 5 names to the list: Tom Carper, Mark Udall, Michael Bennet, Kay Hagan and Herb Kohl. This is one of the first times Hagan has signaled she could cause trouble for progressive causes; Kohl’s presence helps explain why he is one of the Democratic hold-outs on EFCA.)

Not all of these 18 Senators will oppose liberal priorities at the same rate, of course. Yet, their early strength and their public criticism of cap-and-trade, of EFCA and of the reconciliation procedure serve as a reminder that the biggest obstacle to Obama’s agenda is to be found in the President’s own caucus. The White House has much more to fear from Democratic obstructionism than from the GOP’s opposition.

In a new article well worth reading, The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait warns that Democrats have an uncanny ability to “self-immolate.” He draws parallels between Obama’s first weeks and those of his two Democratic predecessors: the Senate’s conservative Democrats ruined Bill Clinton’s agenda in 1993-1994 and Jimmy Carter’s in 1976-1977. In both cases, a Democratic President was made to look ultra-leftist, inefficient and out-of-touch by members of his own party; this helped lead to the conservative resurgences of 1980 and 1994. He goes on:

Obama has come into office having won the popular vote by seven percentage points, along with a 79-seat edge in the House, a 17-seat edge in the Senate, and massive public demand for change. But it’s already clear he is receiving less, not more, deference from his own party [than Bush did]. Democrats have treated Obama with studied diffidence, both in their support for the substance of his agenda and (more importantly) their willingness to support it procedurally…

Even at this early date, the contrast between Democrats under Obama and Republicans under Bush is stark. Republicans did not denounce Bush for squandering a budget surplus to benefit the rich, the way Democrats now assail Obama for big spending and deficits. And Republicans did not refuse to use the budget procedures available to them to break through the Senate’s inherent lethargy. Republicans, in other words, acted like a parliamentary party…

The more Democrats defect, the more the president is defined as an extreme liberal, and the more ineffectual he seems as his agenda crashes upon the shoals… The hard truth for Democrats is that Obama’s popularity is bound to fall… The one factor within the Democrats’ control is whether their constituents see Obama as a strong leader taking action, like Roosevelt or Kennedy, or a floundering weakling, like Carter or first-term Clinton.

It is too early to theorize as to the consequences of Obama’s relationship with Senate Democrats. Yet, there is a clear risk that the window for progressive reform closes without any major changes having been implemented. If the White House fails to win approval for an overhaul of the health care system this year, when will that reform come about? If a significantly watered down version of EFCA is passed next fall, will Democrats bring back card-checks and binding arbitration in 2011, even if they gain a filibuster-proof majority?

As Chait points out, what is particularly frustrating for liberals is the Democrats’ failure to stand united when Bush was able to pass so many radically right-wing reforms with far smaller congressional majorities. In response to Chait’s frustration, Ezra Klein argues that the the contrast is not that clear: Republicans opposed the priorities of Bush’s first terms just as Democrats are opposing Obama’s; he points out that a number of Bush’s reforms were compromises with Democratic lawmakers rather than triumph of conservative ideology.

But there are two responses to this. For one, Democrats controlled Congress for much of Bush’s first two years in office - and they only fell to 49 seats after the 2002 midterms. Bush was forced to negotiate because he was in the minority - and he still managed to push the country to the right by a startling margin. Second, Klein’s argument only serves to show that Democrats were willing to support Bush’s proposals to an extent GOP Senators never considered helping Clinton - and we are talking about very controversial legislation like Bush’s tax cuts, bankruptcy reform, Medicare reform, the Iraq resolution.

Given that Democrats controlled 51 or 49 seats for all of Bush’s first term, it is remarkable that any of these reforms passed Congress without being watered down to a much greater degree. In other words, Bush’s first-term might suggest that the GOP also has difficulty passing its priorities without having them watered down, but I would argue that it first and foremost demonstrates that moderate Democrats are just as likely to boost a Republican President’s agenda as they are to obstruct a Democratic President’s priorities.

Chait proposes a number of fascinating theories to explain the Democrats’ lack of unity, particularly his contention that Democrats have “come of age under the old Democratic chieftains” while congressional Republicans have had to deal with being out of power for decades before 1994. He also offers a more traditional argument:

Taken as a whole, then, the influence of business and the rich unites Republicans and splits Democrats. A few Republicans no doubt felt some qualms about supporting Bush’s regressive, extreme pro-business agenda, but their most influential donors and constituents pushed them in the direction of partisan unity. Those same forces encourage Democrats to defect. That’s why Ben Nelson is fighting student-loan reform, coal-and oil-state Democrats are insisting that cap-and-trade legislation be subject to a filibuster, and Democrats everywhere are fretting about reducing tax deductions for the highest-earning 1 percent of the population.

The underlying point is that we should not confuse those who genuinely believe in third way policy solutions and those whose centrism derives from their ties to business interests, the donations they have received and the pressure from corporate lobbies. Someone is not necessarily well-intentioned just because his rhetoric sounds moderate; someone is not necessarily an expert on a subject just because he has bridged the gap between two extremes; and someone who pledges to protect buisiness interests is not automatically fiscally disciplined. (Chait’s detailed attack on Ben Nelson’s resistance to reforming the college loan system because “one of the lenders that benefits from federal overpayments is based in Lincoln, Nebraska” is particularly damning.)

Bruising GOP primaries to come: Hoekstra running for Governor, Toomey “likely” to challenge Specter

Published
by
Taniel
on March 30, 2009
in MI-Gov and PA-Sen
. 2 Comments

Hoekstra adds his name to crowded Michigan field

We already knew that Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra would not run for re-election in 2010. What was unclear was whether Hoekstra would jump in another race. Today, Hoekstra held a press conference to announce that he would run for Michigan’s open gubernatorial seat. (Governor Jennifer Granholm cannot seek a third-term due to term-limit laws.)

Hoekstra’s entry further crowds one of the most confusing races of the 2010 cycle. Lieutenant Governor John Cherry starts as the front-runner on the Democratic side, but many fear that his ties to the state’s incumbent Administration make him too weak a candidate. The Republican side is even more muddied: State Attorney General Mike Cox has formed an exploratory committee; Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, Rep. Candice Miller, state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson and Domino’s Pizza CEO David Brandon are all mulling a run!

A recent poll of a hypothetical primary found Hoekstra second at 17%, behind Brooks Patterson (22%) and ahead of Mike Cox (15%). In short: a wide open race.

Hoekstra has enough stature to rise to the top of the Republican field, however much he has to fight for attention. First elected to the House in 1992, Hoekstra gained a position of great prominence as the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He lost his chairmanship when Democrats regained a majority in 2007 - a drop in responsibility that helps explain why he is now risking his safe House seat to seek a promotion. Furthermore, Hoekstra’s district is conservative enough that he has been able to develop a conservative profile that should serve him well in the GOP primary.

On the other hand, Hoekstra could be hurt by his prominent role in Washington; many conservatives have come to blame congressional Republicans for betraying the party’s principles. Whatever Hoekstra’s ideological profile, he risks being hurt when his Michigan-based rivals blast him as an insider, an ironic turnaround considering that Hoekstra won his seat in 1992 by running an insurgent campaign and defeating an incumbent in the Republican primary. (Roy Blunt faces a similar problem against Sarah Steelman in Missouri.)

And Hoekstra’s opponents will have ammunition to argue he was “tarnished” by Washington: When he first ran for Congress in 1992, Hoekstra pledged to only serve six terms; when the time came to honor his word, Hoekstra cited his seat on the Intelligence Committee to break his pledge.

Toomey says he is “likely” to run

However bruising Missouri’s Senate or Michigan’s gubernatorial primaries, I am skeptical that any GOP showdown has as much potential for nastiness as Pennsylvania’s Senate contest.

Those who are eagerly waiting for the Specter-Toomey showdown might be getting worried at Toomey’s refusal to publicly commit to the race despite reports that he had made up his mind. At least, the former representative declared this week-end that it is “very, very likely that very soon I will be a candidate for the United States Senate.” In other words, there is still nothing to suggest that Toomey is not going to jump in.

(I am aware that some have suggested that he will drag his flirtations as long as possible before bowing out to prevent Specter from voting with Democrats, but this maneuver could not last long enough for it to be worth it.)

That Toomey is not yet in the race is not stopping him from taking stinging shots at Specter - nor is it preventing the Senator from responding. Earlier in March, Toomey blasted the “shocking betrayal of a tremendous opportunity” represented by Specter’s vote in favor of the stimulus bill. He repeated his accusation this week-end, charging that the recent “serial bailouts… would not have been possible without the complicity of one man: Arlen Specter.”

Last week, Specter had taken a shot of his own by going after Toomey’s support for deregulation. “He’s like the AIG employees: he creates the problem, now he wants the bonus,” he explained. “He wants to be promoted to the Senate. He’s going to have more votes to explain than I do. Stay tuned.” Specter should not forget that he is facing Toomey is a closed Republican primary made up of conservative activists; will they welcome the suggestion that GOP support for deregulation is responsible for the financial crisis?

One more day in NY-20: It’s tight, heated and expensive

Published
by
Taniel
on March 30, 2009
in NY-20
. 4 Comments

The week-end brought a second survey showing Scott Murphy leading Jim Tedisco in NY-20’s special election, 43% to 41%. Sure, it is an internal Democratic poll leaked by the DCCC, but Democrats released internal polls with Murphy trailing earlier in the campaign; not only does that increase the credibility of their latest survey, but it also confirms that trendlines are favoring Murphy.

The DCCC’s most recent poll had Tedisco leading 44% to 37%, which suggests that Murphy’s rise is primarily due to his gains among undecided voters rather than to Tedisco’s losses. Friday’s Siena poll had also shown undecideds breaking heavily towards the Democratic nominee. Whether this is due to a natural tightening, to the rise in Murphy’s name recognition or to Tedisco’s errors can be debated at length in 48 hours. For now, the burden is on Tedisco to recapture enough momentum to convince the remaining share of undecided voters.

Murphy’s challenge is to keep up enough buzz over the next 24 hours to continue asphyxiating Tedisco. Kirsten Gillibrand’s return to her former district today to campaign alongside Murphy should help him grab last-minute headlines, and Gillibrand’s recording a robocall could help Democrats mobilize their base. (Don’t forget, a special election is all about turnout.)

Hi, this is your Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, calling today to ask you to vote for Scott Murphy this Tuesday, March 31st. In these very tough economic times, we need someone who knows how to create jobs. Scott Murphy will work with me and President Obama to get our economy moving again.

It is no surprise that Gillibrand is invoking Barack Obama’s name. The President’s popularity is Murphy’s main asset in tomorrow’s vote, not only among undecided voters but also among loyal Democrats who might not bother going to the polls: If Murphy links his candidacy to a show of support for Obama, will Democratic voters not be more likely to go vote? That’s certainly what Murphy’s campaign is thinking, as demonstrated by their new mailer, which is all about Obama.

The Albany Times-Union’s endorsement can also be construed as good news for Murphy, but it is certainly unsurprising: the paper endorsed Obama in the fall. Three other local newspapers are also backing Murphy. On the other hand, Tedisco gained the support of two conservative paper, The Glenns Falls Chronicles and The New York Post. The latter’s editorial is a typical assault on Murphy’s as an out-of-touch liberal:

Murphy opposes the death penalty, even for the 9/11 terrorists, sounding like he’d prefer to fight the War on Terror with lawyers. That mindset is most definitely not needed in Washington.

This attack line was born after Scott Murphy declared his opposition to capital punishment in a radio interview earlier this month; the GOP is doing its best to drum up controversy over Murphy’s comments. The NRCC has released a 1-minute web ad attacking Murphy for opposing the death penalty for those responsible for 9-11. (You can view it here, as I have no plans to start uploading web videos meant to attract free media.)

Many analysts are portraying Murphy’s comments as a major gaffe. (See for instance Stuart Rothenberg, who writes that his “view is simply out of touch with the district” and has given Republicans “an opening.”) I think this is lazy reporting. Sure, the GOP has been able to use death penalty opposition against Democrats in the past; but there are few recent examples of this issue playing any sort of role in federal races, and New York (even upstate) is probably not the place where capital punishment could play an important role: The Empire State has not applied the death penalty since 1963.

Add to that the fact that we are in the midst of a financial crisis, that NY-20 is badly hit and that the economy has been the campaign’s dominant issue, and it is hard to see how Murphy’s comments play any sort of role in tomorrow’s results. And believe me: If the NRCC thought they could gain more traction on this issue, they would have done more than a low-quality web ad.

The GOP has much more to gain by accusing Murphy of supporting the AIG bonuses because of his praise of the stimulus bill. As I explained last week, that argument makes little sense, but it could pay off politically given Murphy’s profile as a businessman and his ties to Wall Street. The National Republican Trust PAC, which has spent nearly $800,000 on the special election (a significant sum for upstate New York) is out with a new TV ad attacking Murphy on the AIG mess:

If anything, the ad does not go far enough to be effective: It only accuses Murphy of “praising” a bill that “protected” the AIG bonuses. Last week, Republicans were much more direct (and misleading) in tying Murphy to AIG. “Murphy supports the law giving bonuses to AIG executives,” said a NRCC ad; the stimulus bill “provides bonuses” to AIG executives, added Tedisco.

But the National Republican Trust PAC’s heavy investment raises an important question: Could Tedisco be saved by the GOP’s superior spending? The Albany Times-Union summarizes the expenditures of independent groups on both sides and finds that Tedisco has benefited from more support:

  • National Republican Trust PAC  $779,306.10
  • NRCC $817,681.10
  • Our Country Deserves Better PAC  $56,020.81 [Update: An official of this PAC e-mailed to alert me that this figure does not include anti-Murphy ad. Their total spending is $156,407.]
  • SEIU PAC $75,000.00
  • DCCC $591,591.32
  • American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) $106,419.67
  • 1199 SEIU $244,914.00

That comes to a $1.6 $1.7 million to $1 million advantage for the Republican camp. Coincidentally, this is almost the reverse of the two candidates’ fundraising: As of Friday, Murphy had raised slightly more than $1.56 million while Tedisco had raised about $1.08 million. In other words, financial discrepancy should not be a major factor in tomorrow’s results.

Weekly update, 10th edition: Of the difference between reports and announcements

Published
by
Taniel
on March 29, 2009
in recruitment and retirement
. 0 Comments

Here’s the 10th installment of my weekly 2010 update, in which I list all the changes I have logged in during the week to the “retirement watch” and recruitment pages. Written in red are those politicians who announced their definite plans rather than simply expressed interest or stroke speculation.

The past seven days were undoubtedly the slowest of the year in terms of electoral news. We did not get a single new candidate to declare a statewide run, and no House member announced or ruled out a retirement. The only potential contenders to announce their final decisions were Larry Kudlow, who bowed out of Connecticut’s Senate race, and Ed Case, who decided to run for the House rather than for Hawaii Governor.

On the other hand, we got an unusually large number of reports of decisions. In Colorado, former Rep. McInnis has reportedly decided to run for Governor; in Kentucky, Attorney General Conway has reportedly decided to run for Senate; in Rhode Island, former Senator Chaffee has reportedly decided to run for Governor; and in California, Schwarzenegger seemed to close the door to a Senate run. Any of these developments would be major 2010 news; but we should be weary of single-sourced reports until we get more confirmation. We will hopefully know more about these races in the weeks ahead.

The week’s last major electoral story comes to us from Kentucky, where Senator Jim Bunning launched a new chapter in the remarkable saga of his 2010 plans. Asphyxiated by the NRSC’s pressure, Bunning opened the door to retiring for the first time this year; he had spent weeks insisting retirement was out of the question. That is enough to put him back on the list of potential retirees (not that we had ever stopped monitoring him).

First, updates to Retirement Watch:

Will retire No one.
Will not retire No one.
Brought back to potential retirees Senator Jim Bunning

Second, updates to the Senate recruitment page:

CA, Sen Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he is not running
(I do not count this as his final word)
CT, GOP CNBC host Larry Kudlow rules out run
KY, Dems Attorney General Jack Conway reportedly running
LA, Dem state Senator Erik LaFleur added to list (expressed interest)

Third, updates to gubernatorial recruitment:

CO, GOP former Rep. Scott McInnis reportedly decides to run
HI, Dems former Rep. Ed Case will not run (running for House instead)
MN, GOP (if open) Rep. Michelle Bachmann added to list
former Senator Norm Coleman added to list
Rep. John Kline added to list
Lieutenant Governor Carol Molnau added to list
former Rep. Jim Ramstad added to list
RI, indie former Senator Lincoln Chaffee reportedly running
OK, GOP state Sen. Randy Brogdon added to list (exploratory committee)

House: Connecticut GOP recruits more successfully than Michigan Dems

Published
by
Taniel
on March 28, 2009
in CT-02, CT-04, CT-05 and MI-11
. 2 Comments

Connecticut: Republicans find challengers left and right

The Connecticut GOP has managed to drag the Senate race into the list of competitive seats and they are favored to keep the Governor’s seat. They are now hoping that the Democrats’ weakness at the top of the ballot proves an opportunity for the GOP at over levels  - starting with House races in three Connecticut districts represented by Democrats first elected in 2006 or 2008. Over the past few days, the GOP’s recruitment efforts advanced in all three - though it remains to be seen whether Republican challengers will have at these blue-trending seats.

In CT-04, two prominent Republicans are expressing their interest in challenging Rep. Jim Himes: State Senate Minority Leader John McKinney and state Senate Deputy Minority Leader Rob Kane. Either could make CT-04 a race to watch. For one, Himes is a freshman, and one’s first re-election race can be the trickiest. Second, CT-04 has a history of voting for Republicans: Himes’s 2008 victory made him the district’s first Democratic representative since 1969! Until 1987, the district was represented by Stewart McKinney, father of the John McKinney mentioned above; that could make the latter a more credible candidate in the eyes of Republicans.

On the other hand, CT-04 is heavily blue (Obama prevailed 60% to 40%, but Kerry had only won by 6%). Democrats targeted former Rep. Chris Shays for many cycles, and his 2008 loss looked to be final step of the Northeast’s realignment: Shays, who was arguably the most liberal Republican congressmen, was the last GOP representative from New England.Deprived of Shays’s entrenchment (he served for more than 21 years), how are Republicans supposed to stay competitive in such a Democratic district?

In CT-05, Justin Bernier confirmed what had already become conventional wisdom. Earlier this month, Bernier resigned from his position as director of the state’s Office of Military Affairs, a move that looked to be the prelude to a congressional run. This week, he confirmed his candidacy, and signaled that to run against Obama’s economic policies and Congress’s “reckless spending and reckless behavior.” It is somewhat puzzling that Bernier is taking such a path given that this district voted for Obama 56% to 42%. (On the other hand, John Kerry and George W. Bush tied at 49%.)

Insofar as the GOP was hoping to recruit a top-tier candidate, Bernier’s announcement is a good get for the NRCC: He has enough stature to be taken as a serious candidate and attract the attention of Republican donors. But Murphy has proved to be a formidable who scored very impressive victories over the past two cycles over then-incumbent Rep. Nancy Johnson and state Senator David Cappiello. Will he prove vulnerable at all in 2010?

Finally, in CT-02, former Hebron Board of Finance member Matthew M. Daly announced he would run against Rep. Joe Courtney. But it will take Republicans a much better recruitment coup to hope to score an upset in 2010. CT-02 is solidly Democratic (Obama won the district by 19%) and Courtney is already a sophomore lawmaker; Daly does not have enough stature to pose a serious threat to Courtney.

MI-11: While denying interest, Anderson keeps door open

Sitting in a blue-trending district that has been hit hard by the economic crisis, Rep. Thad McCotter is one of the Democrats’ top targets in 2010. Yet, after two cycles in which no prominent challenger emerged to benefit from the pro-Democratic environment, the DCCC is still having difficulty finding a credible challenger to jump in the race.

Last month, state House Speaker Andy Dillon announced that he would not run. That development prompted local Democrats to launch a movement to draft state Senator Glenn Anderson in the race. Anderson represents Livonia in the state Senate, and that could have allowed him to cut into McCotter’s base, as the representative also resides in that town.

Yet, Anderson just declared in an interview with the Livonia Observer that he would “likely campaign next year for a second four-term state Senate term in a district.” Indeed, the timing is not ideal for Anderson: Not only is he not term-limited, but he would have to give up his Senate seat since he is up for re-election this cycle. It would make sense for him to wait until the 2012 cycle to challenge McCotter.

On the other hand, Anderson did not close the door to a run. “I wouldn’t rule it out,” he said, “but I’m not encouraging [the draft movement].” most of the article is devoted to Anderson insisting that he is focused on doing his job in the state Senate. In short, Anderson answered what any politician says when trying to avoid clarifying his plans: He denied interest without ruling out anything, and subtly encouraged speculation to build while looking committed to his constituents. It is definitely worth keeping an eye on the state Senator.

Bachmann’s crusade against “One World Currency”

Published
by
Taniel
on March 27, 2009
in MN-06
. 16 Comments

Ever since she became the center of a firestorm over her comments about “anti-American” activities in Congress, Rep. Michelle Bachmann has unleashed a constant stream of jaw-dropping statements - most of them rather incomprehensible.

First came her mid-February interview about the stimulus plan: Her factually inaccurate statements and her bold declaration that “We’re running out of rich people in this country” once again attracted national headlines. Since then, Bachmann has called for a “revolution,” has reproached Obama for going “down the lane of economic Marxism,” engaged in a bizarre exchange with Timothy Geithner over the constitutionality of his actions, called herself a “foreign correspondent reporting to you from enemy lines” and asked Americans to be “armed and dangerous” over energy policy.

Now comes the most head-scratching episode: Her new-found crusade against an alleged threat to the U.S. dollar.

Some background

Earlier this week, China proposed replacing the dollar as the international reserve currency. Currently, the dollar is the dominant currency that is held by governments, institutions and central banks around the world in order to serve as a liability and stabilize the domestic currency. Worried that the weakness of the American economy will create trouble across the globe, the Chinese government proposed reducing the global financial system’s reliance on the dollar by making the International Monetary Fund’s already-existing Special Drawing Rights into the new currency reserve system.

While it is virtually impossible to imagine such a change being coordinated without Washington’s participation, this has ultimately very little to do with American policy and with America’s use of the dollar. China’s proposal concerns the policies of other countries; it is calling on them to stop piling up dollars in their reserves and turn to another currency to stabilize their economy.

Put it another way: This absolutely nothing to do with getting the United States to convert to another currency; and it has nothing to do to with any push to abolish the U.S. dollar! We are not talking about a currency that would be shared by all countries of the world (a sort of global euro) but about a reserve currency  that would fulfill its international role and serve as a stabilizing back-up precisely because it is not shared by all the financial systems.

Bachmann’s crusade

Yet, Michelle Bachmann is so (inexplicably) convinced that the Chinese are proposing that America get rid of its currency that she has made this into her defining issue of the week, going as far as to propose a constitutional amendment “that would bar the dollar from being replaced by any foreign currency” and would “denounce efforts to move towards a global currency.”

One might think that Bachmann is only trying to say that the United States should not condone other countries getting away from the dollar; whatever the merits of such legislation, it would at least make sense. But that is certainly not Bachmann’s intention; the worry she is trying to address is unquestionably that the dollar might no longer be the currency used within the United States. Here is the text of the bill:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the President from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.

Now, take a look at her remarkable radio interview with Glenn Beck:

Let me tell you, there’s something that’s happening this week in Congress that could be the eventual unravelling for our freedom.. As you know, Russia, China, Brazil, India, South Africa, many national have lined up now and called for an international currency, a One World currency. And they want to get off the dollar as the reserve currency…

What that means is that all of the countries of the world would have a single currency. We would give up the dollar as our currency and we would just go with a One World currency. And now for the first time, we’re seeing major countries like China, India, Russia, countries like that, calling for a one world currency and they want this discussion to occur at the G20… Once you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom. And then we are no more, as an exceptional nation, as we always have been. So this is imperative.

Finally, here are Bachmann’s comments on Hannity’s show:

If Tim Geithner is successful under President Obama, and they move us to an international currency, then we have no hope of standing on our own as a sovereign nation with our own economic system. It’s over. We can’t do that.

Needless to say, such statements can only be the sign of a paranoid mind; Bachmann does not just believes that her political enemies are guided by false ideas or that they cling to failed policies, she also believes that the Administration is out to deliberately sell out the United States, consciously weakening it to destroy its independence and its power. This obviously ties back to Bachmann’s mid-October warnings about the “anti-American” activities of members of Congress.

Let’s briefly recap the substantial problems with Bachmann’s arguments:

  1. Bachmann does not seem to understand that the reserve currency is not the same thing as the currency you and I use when we go out to buy bread. That is somewhat tragic considering that those two things are very different (if a country’s reserve currency was the same as the currency people use to buy bread, how would it be a reserve at all? how could it stabilize markets and serve as a back-up?).
  2. Even if Bachmann understood the difference, even if she understood that we are talking about a reserve currency, her bill would make little sense: It is other countries and their central banks who would strip the dollar of its international role by taking on other currencies in their reserves; if anything, the U.S. already holds other currencies like euros and yen.
  3. Bachmann is not grasping the difference, and she is essentially talking about the currency used within a country. That makes things even worse: Her fear is that the dollar might be abolished altogether and that American citizens might be forced to buy their bread in “One World Currency.” (Her press release frames her bill as protecting “Title 31, Sec. 5103 USC,” which “prohibits foreign currency from being recognized in the U.S.”) Yet, as I explained above, no one is talking about a “One World Currency” that would come to replace the dollar as the United State’s currency; that has nothing to do with the current discussions.

What is truly remarkable is that Bachmann never takes a step back: The more commentators point out that her understanding is factually flawed, the more she insists that there is a conspiracy to strip the United States of its currency - just as she insisted last spring that there was an anti-American conspiracy in the halls of the United States Congress.

Bachmann might have survived the 2008 elections, but she undoubtedly remains vulnerable in upcoming cycles: MN-06 is Republican enough to accommodate an outspoken conservative, but Bachmann has made herself into more of a provocateur than a conservative - and we saw what happened to Idaho’s Bill Sali. Bachmann became such a controversial figure last fall that any comment she now makes is bound to be closely scrutinized. She survived by 3% last fall, but her opponent’s fundraising surge came too late in the cycle - not to mention that an independent candidate took 10% of the vote.

29 co-sponsors

Interestingly, Bachmann’s proposed legislation has already attracted 29 co-sponsors: Reps. Hensarling, Price, Shadegg, Kirk, Foxx, Pitts, Bartlett, McClintock, Gingrey (of Georgia), Wamp, Fallin, Fleming, Blackburn, Broun, Akin, Issa, King (of Iowa), Burton (of Indiana), Gohmert, Thompson (of Pennsylvania), Lamborn, Paul, Culberson, Biggert, Brown (of South Carolina), Jones, Posey, Roe (of Tennessee) and Conaway.

Most - though not all - of these Republicans have very conservative reputations. A few observations: Kirk represents a heavily Democratic district and is reportedly considering running for Senate in 2010; Posey just attracted headlines for introducing a bill on presidential candidates’ birth certificates…

4 days to go: Murphy scores first poll lead, DNC and SEIU launch ads

Published
by
Taniel
on March 27, 2009
in NY-20
. 2 Comments

NY-20’s exhausted campaign operatives shouldn’t worry: They will not have to work beyond March 31st! Concerns that overseas voters would not have enough time to return their absentee ballot opened the door to talk of a delay to the special election, but the state board of elections resolved the situation by extending the deadline for overseas ballots by 6 days. (If the election is extremely close, this could mean a wait of a few extra days to get the results; but we are talking about such a small a number of ballots that this extension is unlikely to matter much and no state can be as inefficient in counting absentee ballots as Alaska.)

With this last-minute obstacle out of the way, we can be sure that we are entering in the election’s last stretch - and what a finish it is turning out to be! Just 4 days before Election Day, a new independent poll conducted by Siena finds Democratic nominee Scott Murphy with his first lead of the campaign (he had not even led in any Democratic-sponsored polls!).

  • Murphy is ahead 47% to 43%, with 2% to Libertarian candidate Sundwall who was kicked off the ballot yesterday. Murphy’s lead is just outside of the poll’s 3.2% margin of error. Two weeks ago, Republican nominee Jim Tedisco led 45% to 41%; last month, he was up by 12%, 46% to 34%.

What this means: Murphy has risen from 34% to 41% to 47% while Tedisco has stayed at a similar level, 46% to 45% to 43%. These trendlines suggest that Murphy has been winning over undecided voters. The poll’s internal numbers confirm this trend:

  • First, among registered Democrats: Last month, Murphy was ahead 70% to 16%; today, he is ahead 84% to 11%. In short: Murphy has gained 14% among Democrats, 5% of which have turned away from Tedisco and 9% of which were undecided.
  • Among registered Republicans, Tedisco has stayed at the same level in all three polls (63% to 65% to 64%) while Murphy has improved his support, from 18% to 23% to 27%. (Registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats, but the district voted for Obama, suggesting that many historically Republican voters have been trending Democratic but have yet to update their party registration.)

In short: Undecideds have been breaking towards the Democratic nominee. This is partly due to the fact that the campaign has been rough on Tedisco, and it is partly a natural tightening to the fact that the name recognition differential has melted away. While this is an open seat, Assemblyman Tedisco is playing the role of the well-known incumbent: If voters were not already backing him in mid-February, they are unlikely to do so now. On the other hand, no one knew Murphy before he was selected as the Democrats’ nominee: As he has improved his name recognition, voters unwilling to elect a Republican but unsure about Murphy have been able to rally around him.

None of this is to say that Scott Murphy is suddenly favored to win the special election. Tuesday’s contest is likely to be decided by such low turnout that the results are largely unpredictable. In fact, I have argued that recent examples suggest that Republicans could show up in larger numbers. It would be useful to compare different pollsters’ turnout models, but Siena is the only public polling institute to have completed a survey of the race, making it hard to draw definitive conclusions!

On the other hand, Tedisco faces a daunting challenge: To cross 50%, he has to convince a significant share of the remaining undecided voters. Yet, it is Murphy who is attracting the most buzz in the campaign’s final days: The White House is providing Murphy truly minimal support - an e-mail sent to upstate activists - but that is enough to provide the Democrat a boost.

For one, the local press is covering Obama’s endorsement as a newsworthy event, providing Murphy a golden opportunity to showcase his support for the popular President. Second, Murphy’s allies are making sure to amplify Obama’s e-mail message. This morning, SEIU launched its first TV ad touting Obama’s endorsement; the ad will air over the week-end for a cost of $150,000 - a significant sum in upstate New York:

Also today, the DNC came out with an ad highlighting the President’s endorsement:

It is somewhat puzzling that Barack Obama did not lend his voice to the ad. Unlike Georgia’s Senate runoff, a Democratic defeat in NY-20 would be read as a setback for the President’s agenda no matter how much the White House gets involved. For Obama to record an ad urging voters to elect Murphy could have provided the Democrat with a much-needed boost. Sure, the President cannot get that involved in every congressional race, but this is an isolated special election. At least, Obama’s e-mail will asphyxiate Tedisco over the final days of the campaign, complicating his efforts to reach out to undecided voters.

Update: In the comments, Panos points out that Sundwall has decided to endorse Murphy and is blasting Tedisco for being responsible for kicking him off the ballot! Sundwall is polling too low in the polls to have enough dedicated supporters to shift around, though the story could end up playing a significant role as it will further adds to Murphy’s positive press and will make it more difficult for Tedisco to reverse his opponent’s momentum.

Trouble for incumbents: Burr, Dodd, Lieberman and Patrick tanking in polls

Published
by
Taniel
on March 27, 2009
in CT-Sen, MA-Gov and NC-Sen
. 1 Comment

Connecticut

Given the events of the past few weeks and his previously dismal numbers, who would have thought that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd would be the only one of four incumbents tested in new polls to be above the 40% mark? A new Research 2000 poll confirms that Dodd is vulnerable, but at the very least he is leading:

  • Dodd leads former Rep. Rob Simmons 45% to 40%. He stays afloat thanks to Connecticut Democrats, who back him 73% to 13%, but independents (a significant force in Connecticut) support Simmons 48% to 36%.
  • When matched-up against state Senator Sam Caliguri, Dodd is ahead by a more respectable 51% to 30%. Against CNBC host Larry Kudlow (who just declared he would not make a run, which I argued was good news for the GOP), Dodd leads 53% to 31%.
  • Similarly, Dodd’s favorability rating is not good (47% to 40%) but he remains in the positives. On the other hand, voters know and like Simmons: 41% have a favorable impression, versus only 18%. Caliguri on the other hand, is largely unknown: 82% of respondents have no opinion.

This poll suggests that Dodd’s vulnerability is worsened by the combination of his unpopularity and Simmons’s strength - confirming that the former representative is one of the NRSC’s best offensive gets in the past two cycles. At the very least, Dodd is able to pass the 51% threshold against Caliguri and Kudlow; that means that enough voters remain willing to support the Senator that Dodd has not gone over the cliff of unelectability.

An incumbent who seems to have gone over that cliff, however, is Dodd’s fellow Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman:

  • 54% have an unfavorable impression of Lieberman, while only 41% have a favorable impression. Among Democrats, the verdict is clear: 35-65.
  • In three-watch match-ups, featuring Republican Governor Jodi Rell, Lieberman is third: Rell leads 42% to 30% for Ned Lamont and 25% for Lieberman or 43% with 28% for Blumenthal and 25% for Lieberman. The Senator gets more among Republican than among Democrats or among independents!

This election is not until 2012, but it is hard to see how Lieberman can pull together enough of an electoral coalition to pull out the election. If Republicans nominate a top-tier candidate like Rell, Lieberman will not win enough GOP support to pull out a plurality win; even if Republicans nominate a low-profile contender like in 2006, Lieberman is too unpopular among independents to benefit from their support as he did three years ago.

North Carolina

A few months after PPP found North Carolina Senator Richard Burr trailing Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper 39% to 34%, a new survey - released by Civitas - finds a similar result:

  • Cooper leads Burr 41% to 38% - a dismal level of support for any incumbent.
  • Those who have an opinion of Burr and of Cooper have a favorable impression: 44-12 for Burr, 32-4 for Cooper. Yet, both remain somewhat unknown.

In mid-January, Research 2000 also tested a Burr-Cooper match-up, finding the incumbent narrowly ahead 45% to 43%. In other words, all three surveys that have been released find Burr well under 50% and struggling to stay afloat. Burr is undoubtedly one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the 2010 cycle, and his main hope is that he can improve his numbers as the political environment ceases to be as toxic for Republican candidates. On the other hand, Democrats can take comfort in the fact that most voters have no opinion of Cooper, which gives the Attorney General plenty of room to grow.

Massachusetts

On Monday, I argued that the economic crisis and budgetary woes will make all Governors prime targets in 2010. If you still have any doubt, take a look at Suffolk’s bombshell of a poll taken in Massachusetts:

  • Matched-up against state Treasurer Tim Cahill (who says he is not running) in a hypothetical Democratic primary, Governor Deval Patrick trails 35% to 30%!
  • Patrick suffers from a negative approval rating, with 49% disapproving of his performance and 40% approving. 47% say he does not deserve to win re-election, against only 34%.
  • On the other hand, only 34% say they would consider voting for a Republican in the general election, while 52% say they would not.

Patrick has attracted a fair amount of criticism for his alleged ineffectiveness over the past few years, but that alone cannot explain how an incumbent Governor can be as low as 30% in his own party’s primary. If Patrick is receiving such dismal marks, how are Paterson, Corzine or Gibbons supposed to survive?

This Suffolk poll confirms that both parties should make sure to field credible candidates against every single Governor who has to run for re-election, however safe they might look today. Simply put, there is no such thing as a completely safe incumbent Governor in this cycle.

Nearing decisions: Chaffee and Conway are almost running, Schwarzenneger takes one step out

Published
by
Taniel
on March 26, 2009
in CA-Sen, KY-Sen and RI-Gov
. 1 Comment

Three major stories about three major politicians are developing today: Reports suggest that Lincoln Chaffee has decided to attempt a political comeback in Rhode Island, that Jack Conway will jump in Kentucky’s Senate race and that Arnold Schwarzenegger will not challenge Barbara Boxer.

None of these developments would be surprising, in that conventional wisdom has long made us expect that Conway and Chaffee would run and Schwarzenegger would not. Yet, reports are still too vague to consider these news certain and confirmed.

Kentucky

In what is arguably the least high-profile story, Roll Call is reporting that Kentucky’s Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway has decided to challenge Senator Jim Bunning. Democrats already have a candidate in the race, as Lieutenant Governor Dan Mongiardo announced a run earlier this year, and Conway’s entry would set up a high-stakes primary battle between two statewide officials.

But I am not devoting more space to this information for now: For one, that Conway’s name is circulating is not in and of itself a story since the Attorney General had given strong indications that he would enter the race; second, I will wait for there to be some confirmation before analyzing what the news might mean. (Roll Call bases its article on one anonymous source.)

Rhode Island

With potential Republican candidate Steve Laffey’s exit from the gubernatorial race earlier this month, it looked like Democrats were sure to take back the Governor’s mansion. Lincoln Chaffee’s entry would seriously complicate the picture since he would run as an independent, causing an unpredictable three-way race. We already knew that Chaffee was mulling a run (he said he was considering it “very, very seriously” last week), but a new report on WNRI takes it one step further by suggesting that the former Senator has already decided to run:

A source tells WRNI that he has decided to run for governor in 2010, and will soon begin to assemble a campaign organization.

Yet, the story continues to note that Chaffee’s entourage is refusing to confirm that the former Senator has made up his mind - only that “he is close to reaching” a decision. In other words, the situation is not very different from Chaffee’s comments from last week: We know that he is strongly leaning towards the race, but he has yet to publicly commit. We will analyze the race’s dynamics in more detail when he does. (For now, you can read my write-up in my latest gubernatorial rankings.)

California

One of the cycle’s most awaited decisions concerned Arnold Schwarzenegger: Would he run for Senate in 2010? The significant slide of his poll numbers - along with those of the country’s other Governors - made that question far less consequential, but there is no question that his candidacy would make California’s senatorial race one of the most entertaining of the cycle.

A few days ago, the Governor seemed to open the door to a Senate run, and I tried my best to read the tea leaves. Yet, he abruptly changed course today when he declared that he would described how he was free to make sound but politically dangerous policy decisions without having to think of their electoral implications:

The point was that I am not running for anything, so no one could threaten me, because I’m not running for Senate, I’m not running for Congress, I’m not running for another term as governor.

Schwarzenegger sure sounds like he is closing the door to a Senate run. But here again, I would warn against reading his comments as an attempt to convey a finalized decision. By speaking in the present tense, Schwarzenegger is trying to indicate that he is focused on his job, on the duties of governance, of the need to address California’s budgetary crisis. This is no different than what Schwarzenegger said last week: “I’m concentrating on [all the stuff I'm doing now] and not what I’m going to do next.”

Schwarzenegger wants to reassure voters that his actions will be dictated solely by what is in the best interest of the state - not by what is best for his future. And this does not come to say that he will not run next year: Once I have spent some think trying to improve the California’s situation without considering my own popularity, the Governor might be saying, the time will come to assess my political standing and decide whether I am running for Senate.