Monthly Archive for July, 2009Page 2 of 5

Weekly 2010 update, 26th edition: Gerlach’s move is the highlight

Published
by
Taniel
on July 18, 2009
in recruitment and retirement
. 0 Comments

When I started putting together these weekly updates, I did not expect gubernatorial contests to generate so much more news than Senate races. Yet, that’s what has been happening and I should have seen it coming since there are many more contested Governor’s races: My latest ratings put 22 in the “toss-up” or “lean” categories, versus only 9 on the Senate side. In short, if you’re into gubernatorial elections - and they do have obvious federal repercussions, from setting-up presidential contenders to impacting redistricting - this cycle is made for you.

This week’s most prominent candidate decision came from Pennsylvania: A few days after Auditor Jack Wagner became the first Democrat to jump in the race, Rep. Jim Gerlach jumped in as well rather than seek re-election to the House. This creates a golden opportunity for the DCCC without dramatically altering the dynamics of the Governor’s race. (It also became clear that Mark Kirk would run for Senate in Illinois, but much of the move’s impact was already felt the week before.)

Albeit lower-profile, Josh Penry’s decision to challenge Colorado Governor Ritter could be just as consequential if the 33-year old proves effective on the trail. Also in Colorado, Ryan Frazier’s low fundraising haul looks to have prompted Republicans to look for others Senate candidates; attorney Luke Korkowski former state Sen. Tom Wiens are now “exploring” the race.

In Ohio, former Senator Mike DeWine reportedly ruled out a gubernatorial or senatorial run, choosing instead to attempt a political comeback through the Attorney General race; combined with state Senator Kevin Coughlin’s decision to drop out of the gubernatorial race, that leaves former Reps. Rob Portman and John Kasich as the heavy favorites to head the GOP’s 2010 ticket.

Elsewhere, two New Mexico Republicans - state Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones and Dona Ana County DA Susana Martinez - moved towards doing the same, but the race is in a holding pattern until Heather Wilson makes up her mind. And the list of Minnesota Republicans running for Governor grew by two (there are now a total of 7) though their most electable politician, former Rep. Jim Ramstad, announced he would not run. And on the House level, MN-06, MI-07 and KS-04 saw major recruitment developments, which I wrote about yesterday.

All in all though, legislative activity on Capitol Hill dominated the week’s political coverage, from the Sotomayor hearings to the progress on the health care front. As always, 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.

First, updates to Retirement Watch:

Will retire Rep. Jim Gerlach (R, PA-06)
Will not retire No one

Second, updates to the Senate recruitment page:

CO-Sen, GOP attorney Luke Korkowski added to list
former state Sen. Tom Wiens added to list
businessman Mark Van Wyk added to list
IL-Sen, GOP Rep. Mark Kirk is running
OH-Sen, GOP former Senator Mike DeWine will not run
PA-Sen, GOP state Senator Jane Orie will not run

Third, updates to gubernatorial recruitment: 

AZ-Gov, GOP Secretary of State Ken Bennett added to list
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas added to list
CO-Gov, GOP state Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry announced run
IL-Gov, Green attorney Rich Whitney announced run
MN-Gov, GOP former state Auditor Pat Anderson announced run
state Senator David Hann announced run
former Rep. Jim Ramstad will not run
NM-Gov, GOP state Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones formed exploratory committee
Dona Ana County DA Susana Martinez added to list
Greg Zanetti dropped out
OH-Gov, GOP state Senator Kevin Coughlin dropped out
former Senator Mike DeWine will not run
PA-Gov, Dem Auditor General Jack Wagner announced run
PA-Gov, GOP Rep. Jim Gerlach announced run

In House races, both parties land prominent challengers

Published
by
Taniel
on July 17, 2009
in KS-04, MI-07 and MN-06
. 2 Comments

Both parties landed a high-profile House candidate this week, though Democrats have more reason to be satisfied with their recruit than Republicans do.

MN-06: Bachmann gets 3rd Democratic opponent

Democrats already had two credible candidates hoping to face Rep. Michelle Bachmann: 2008 nominee Elwyn Tinklenberg and Maureen Reed. This week, they got a newest entrant who could be Bachmann’s most formidable challenger yet: Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark. Her decision is a sign of confidence: Clark is up for re-election in 2010, so she is giving up her position to run against Bachmann and she will have nothing to fall back on if she loses.

Based on this crowd of candidates, you might think we’re talking about a staunchly blue seat rather than this conservative-leaning district that twice voted for George W. Bush by double-digits and gave John McCain an 8% victory. Bachmann has revealed herself to be such a caricatural representative of the political spectrum’s far-right that she’s sure to be a highly vulnerable target come 2010, but the district is conservative enough that Democrats need a top-tier candidate who can mount a flawless political operation. Clark could be such a candidate.

In the state Senate since 2004, Clark represents portions of three districts that all decisively voted for McCain in 2008 - just like the district as a whole. Her prominent profile makes her the favorite to win the party’s nomination: The winner at a springtime party convention generally goes on to face an uncontested primary and Clark should benefit from establishment support. It also guarantees that a match-up between Bachmann and Clark will be a high-profile affair that wil be covered as such, thus magnifying the effect of any new Bachmann bombshell.

On the other hand, Reed and Tinklenberg definitely remain in the running. The former proved that she should be taken seriously with her surprisingly high fundraiser haul in the second quarter, and the second is vowing to press ahead to get a second chance against the woman he almost defeated last fall.

MI-07: Walberg guarantees high-profile race, is not GOP’s best shot

Republicans insist that Mark Schauer’s 2008 victory was a fluke, that he was helped by Obama’s coattails and by the divisions within the Republican base resulting from Mike Walberg defeating moderate Rep. Joe Schwarz in the 2006 Republican primary. That year, Walberg went on to win the general election as Democrats had not thought of fielding a top candidate but he lost to Schauer by 3% two years later; the 2008 campaign was marked by Schwarz’s decision to cross party lines and endorsed Schauer’s bid, blasting Walberg as a conservative firebrand.

Sure, Schauer might not have won the election had the GOP not split and had the party nominated a less conservative candidate. (This is, after all, a swing district.) But the best way to test that theory is not to renominate the man whose ideological profile was an important reason for the Democrats’ pick-up: This week, Tim Walberg announced that he would seek his old job back via a rematch with Schauer.

Now, Walberg is definitely a strong contender for the seat: He has already served a term, he has higher name recognition than a typical challenger and he can tap into the politico-financial network he acquired in the 2006 and 2008 cycles (especially Club for Growth donors). Furthermore, Michigan is an economically distraught state whose voters could seek to punish Democrats come 2010 (both at the federal and state level). If nothing else, Walberg’s bid guarantees that MI-07 will feature a competitive race well worth watching.

Yet, former lawmakers often do not make the best challengers - especially if their defeat came after a hard-fought race and had nothing to do with the element of surprise. (The NRCC alone spent more than $1 million in the district in 2008.) Also, it’s not like Republicans faced a dearth of candidates: state Senator Cameron Brown and Jackson County Prosecutor Hank Zavislak could have made strong Republican candidates.

KS-04: DCCC lands recruit but district remains tough

The district left open by Rep. Todd Tiahrt is staunchly Republican - Bush received 64%, McCain 58% - and not the best place we would expect Democrats to contest. And yet, the DCCC scored a big enough recruitment coup that KS-04 should at least remain on our radar screen: state Rep. Raj Goyl announced his candidacy last week. Since defeating a Republican incumbent in 2006, Goyl has represented a red-leaning district - giving him as much of a shot for Tiahrt’s House seat as the DCCC can hope for.

While this is undoubtedly good news for Democrats, too much should not be made of it: KS-04, which is far more conservative than Goyl’s state district, did not suddenly become a top-tier race just as HI-01 and CA-47 are not top-tier races because Republicans recruited Charles Djou and Van Tran. It is true that Democrats picked-up open seats that were in even more conservative territory in 2006 and in 2008, but the dynamics of the 2010 cycle will be far different and far less favorable to such upsets. As such, Republicans remain highly favored to win the general election. At the very least, Democrats will need to hope that the GOP primary gets nasty and divisive.

Plagued by Dem skepticism and Kennedy’s absence, card-check is thrown out of EFCA

Published
by
Taniel
on July 17, 2009
in EFCA and Kennedy
. 4 Comments

Recent legislative activity surrounding cap-and-trade and health care reform made the Employee Free Choice Act fade away in the background, but negotiations were continuing in the background. Today, we learned that Democrats have thrown out of the legislation its highest-profile (and most controversial) provision: card-check.

This was a long time coming. Earlier this year, Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln, who had both voted in favor of cloture in 2007, clearly stated that they opposed card-checks; that made it extremely tough to envision how EFCA as it is currently written could gather 60 votes. As the White House looked unwilling to make too strong a push for labor reform in the midst of its other legislative priorities, moderate Democrats faced little pressure to fall in line and some sort of compromise looked unavoidable.

The good news for labor is that Democrats have not given up on passing binding arbitration, and that previously hostile Specter and Mark Pryor now look to support that provision. The bad news for labor is that odds for passage remain low as long as Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd avoid resigning.

The continued consequences of Kennedy and Byrd’s absences

I put together my most recent EFCA head count in April, showing that 12 Democratic Senators were uncommitted. That was a daunting enough number, but it also became obvious that, even if all 12 voted in favor of cloture, EFCA would still fall short because four Democrats looked like sure “no” votes: Lincoln, Specter, Kennedy and Byrd.

While the Democratic leadership could maybe have hoped to convince Specter to back card-checks because of Sestak’s primary threat and maybe compensated Lincoln’s defection by finding one Republican willing to cross-over, there is no way it could also have accounted for Kennedy and Byrd’s absences. (On cloture votes, an absent Senator is equivalent to a ‘no’-voting Senator.)

That’s right, Kennedy and Byrd’s refusal to resign despite the fact that they have not been in the Senate in months ended up being a bigger obstacle to EFCA than Ben Nelson’s conservatism or Michael Bennet’s efforts to dodge the issue. And this is not the first issue on which this is the case. It’s hard to imagine Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation held up in the Senate if Kennedy and Byrd had been around, and we’ll see what health care concessions Democrats are forced to grant to compensate for their absences.

The bottom-line: Every Senate vote counts when we’re talking about getting to 60 on polarizing legislation like health care reform. Kennedy has only cast one vote in more than a year, forcing Democrats to make more concessions to obtain an additional centrist or Republican vote. If he cares about progressive legislation, Kennedy should stop clinging to power and resign.

Binding arbitration remains, but can it pass?

The disappearance of card-check is a huge victory for the band of moderate Democrats who were holding up their support for the legislation. In addition to Lincoln and Specter, they were: Bayh, Baucus, Bennet, Bingaman, Conrad, Feinstein, Kohl, Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Tester and Webb. But a big question remains: What’s the compromise version of EFCA that will now be considered, and will these Democrats support it?

Many labor advocates consider EFCA’s binding arbitration provision to be as important (if not more) as the better-known card-card part. So why had opposition crystallized around the latter? It’s all about framing: Business groups figured out that ad campaigns hitting Democrats for doing away with secret ballot elections would be effective and they fired up the base on that issue. That does not mean that these groups are not as opposed to binding arbitration than to card-check. In fact, most of EFCA’s critics, including Lincoln and Specter, have expressed just as strong opposition to the former provision.

There is little doubt that labor reform stripped of card-check and arbitration could pass the Senate, albeit that would be a fairly extraordinary victory for Republicans given that they only have 40 Senators. For now, reports indicate that the compromise proposed by the Senate does include binding arbitration, so today’s development is no crushing blow for unions. The question, then: Can a version of EFCA that contains arbitration provisions pass the Senate?

Since, EFCA’s opponents have mostly framed their cause as a battle to save the right to a secret ballot, it could prove tricky for them to pressure Senators now labor has agreed to drop card-check from its demands. Moderate Democrats can say that they helped defeat EFCA’s most controversial provision and have more cover to vote for this version. It will not be easy for the party’s leadership to bring all their other uncommitted Senators on board, but labor’s threats to withhold support could be enough to push most of them towards a more supportive stance.

We can already move two Senators in the support column: Arlen Specter and Mark Pryor presumably support the new version given that they were among the 6 Senators who had a hand in crafting the compromise (the others were Harkin, Carper, Brown and the ubiquitous Schumer). Lincoln is now the only clear Democratic hold-out. But while she has explicitly opposed binding arbitration, she later declared herself opened to compromise so this could be her cue to at least signal she will support cloture.

But the short answer is this: It’s hard to see how even this version of EFCA can pass if its proponents don’t get “yes” votes out of West Virginia and Massachusetts. Even if Specter, Lincoln and all other Democratic Senators are brought on board, it would still require 2 Republicans be brought on board to support a reform that is staunchly opposed by business groups. Lisa Murkowski has opened the door to supporting a compromise and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are also thought as potential cloture supporters, but they’ve also spoken against the binding arbitration provision.

Updated head count

As long as there is no sign Kennedy and Byrd can come to the Senate, this gets us to the following head count on the new version of EFCA (more details as to how I got to these numbers here and here):

  • 46 cloture supporters: including 40 co-sponsors, 4 who have said they support the bill, 2 who have signaled they’ll vote for cloture (M. Udall and Warner) and 2 who helped craft the latest compromise (Pryor and Specter)
  • 11 undecided/uncommitted: Bayh, Baucus, Bennet, Bingaman, Conrad, Feinstein, Kohl, Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Tester, Webb
  • 5 opponents who could potentially be brought over: Lincoln, Murkowski, Collins, Snowe, Voinovich
  • 38 effective cloture opponents, including 36 Republicans, Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd

Obama leads Palin big in North Carolina, but priority to downballot polls

Published
by
Taniel
on July 16, 2009
in NC-Sen, NH-Sen, NY-Sen, TX-Gov and VA-Gov
. 3 Comments

Senate: Tight NH race, Burr (and Obama!) uptick in NC

New Hampshire and North Carolina are hosting 2 of the 6 most competitive Senate races of the cycle, and two new polls give us a clearer picture:

  • In New Hampshire, Research 2000 finds Republican Attorney General Kelly Ayotte ahead 39% to 38% against Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes. Against former Rep. Charlie Bass, Hodes leads 43% to 38%. Ayotte’s favorability rating (36-13) is higher than Bass’s (31-23) or Hodes’s (34-21).
  • In North Carolina, PPP has Richard Burr’s approval rating improve from a net negative to 36-29. Against former state Senator Cal Cunningham, he is ahead 40% to 31%; against attorney Kenneth Lewis, 42% to 31%.

NH: Given that the NRSC was afraid it could fail to recruit any credible candidate, it is remarkable that they found a contender that has led the first two surveys she was included in. (Research 2000’s results are very similar to those of UNH, which found Ayotte leading Hodes 39% to 35%). However - and this is very important - Ayotte has yet to prove that she can appeal beyond the GOP’s shrinking base: In 2008, John McCain and John Sununu failed to extricate themselves out of the low 40s, and I’ll reserve judgment on Ayotte’s strength until she can finally break that barrier.

NC: We have known that the DSCC missed its clearest shot at the seat ever since Roy Cooper announced he would not run. The question now is whether other Democrats can beat Burr, and the bottom line is that the incumbent is well under 50% and that he leads by double-digits when matched-up with a former state legislator with low name recognition - a sign of vulnerability. On the other hand, it will not be easy for Democrats to oust Burr, whose approval rating is positive: Not every second-tier candidate can turn out to be as successful as Kay Hagan.

At least, Democrats don’t have to worry that the state’s 2008 results were just an anomaly: PPP also tested a potential 2012 match-up between Obama and Palin and found the president ahead 49% to 42%. In 2008, only once did Obama lead McCain by as large a margin. Take that as much as a sign of North Carolina’s leftward trend as of Palin’s glaring 2012 weakness.

Primaries: They might be favored by CW, but Hutchison and Gillibrand trail again

Rasmussen released polls of two of the country’s most contested primaries:

  • In New York, Rep. Carolyn Maloney leads Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 33% to 27% in the senatorial primary. (The poll also tested the state’s gubernatorial primary, which confirmed Andrew Cuomo’s huge lead over David Paterson, 61% to 27%).
  • In Texas, Governor Rick Perry leads Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 46% to 36% in the gubernatorial primary.

This marks the 4th straight survey that has Maloney ahead, this 6% lead being the largest yet. Given that conventional wisdom generally holds Gillibrand favored, this is an important trend. Particularly welcome news for Maloney is that her lead is not due to name recognition: Voters know Gillibrand better than they know her, suggesting that the Senator will not gain simply by introducing herself (something we also noticed in the recent Marist survey).

The poll also contains good news for Gillibrand: Her favorability rating, which stands at 49-25, is solid and stronger than Maloney’s (42-24) so it’s not that Democrats dislike their newest Senator. Both Maloney and Gillibrand’s ratings pale in comparison to Andrew Cuomo’s, which stands at a massive 78-15. How can Paterson (and his 49-50 rating) beat that?

Hutchison’s allies were quick to dismiss last week’s University of Texas poll showing the Senator trailing Rick Perry in the GOP’s gubernatorial primary, 38% to 26%; yet, Rasmussen now finds a similar margin. Since we once thought Hutchison would easily win this race, her inability to break out of such low levels must be distressing to her campaign - and it leads to an obvious question: It was long certain that she would resign from her Senate seat before Election Day, but will she really do so now that her primary prospects look no better than even?

2009 races: GOP retains advantage

Two new polls of Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial elections show Republicans ahead in both states:

  • In Virginia, Bill McDonnell is ahead 44% to 41% in a Rasmussen survey; in the poll taken immediately following Creigh Deeds’s primary victory, the Democrat was ahead 47% to 41%.
  • In New Jersey, Jon Corzine trails 45% t0 37% in a Monmouth University poll, with independent Chris Daggett drawing 4%; Monmouth’s previous poll was taken in April, so the trendline isn’t that relevant (Corzine trailed 39% to 35%).

Any poll that has Christie under 50% comes as a relief to Corzine’s campaign, especially after Quinnipiac’s newest delivery; yet, it’s now been months that Corzine has shown no upward momentum. In Virginia, Rasmussen joins other pollsters in finding that Deeds’s post-primary bonce has faded (Rasmussen’s June poll marked Deeds’s first general election lead ever). This is not surprising. What’s truly important is that he remains competitive rather than fall back to the big deficits he was facing until his primary victory - and he appears to be succeeding in that.

Q2 fundraising reports, part 2: Some retirement hints and daunting hauls

Published
by
Taniel
on July 16, 2009
in CT-Gov, FL-Sen, KY-Sen, NV-Sen, OH-Sen and TX-Gov
. 0 Comments

This morning, I looked at the fundraising of U.S. representatives and House candidates this morning; now let’s take a look at statewide races. Once again, I think too much is read into most candidates’ financial situation and not every half-a-million difference will matter come 2010. As such, let’s concentrate on: 1. What fundraising hauls reveal about the 2010 plans of politicians whose final decision we are still awaiting. 2. The races in which a daunting money gap could put pressure on candidates to drop out or scare challengers away.

Retirement watch: Rell could opt out, Bunning’s figures could be lower

Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning will be the subject of insistent retirement rumors as long as the filing deadline has not passed; he himself has said that his decision will depend on his ability to raise funds, and Mitch McConnell has been trying to ensure that does not go well. The Q2 numbers are now in: Bunning raised $302,466 in the second quarter - a slight increase over the first.

Sure, that total is far from impressive since he was significantly outraised by Democrat Jack Conway (>$1 million) and Republican Trey Grayson (>$600,000). Yet, the appropriate question when it comes to Bunning is whether his fundraising haul is weak enough to convince him that seeking re-election is too difficult an endeavor, and I believe he is raising sufficient funds to pursue the race. In fact, what’s strange about Kentucky’s Senate race is not not so much Bunning’s weakness as the sustained pace with which Grayson has been raising money for a race he has yet to jump into.

Despite Grayson’s insistence that he has no intention of challenging Bunning in the GOP primary, it looks like either he is certain that the Senator will retire or he is considering running no matter what. Even if his promise not to run against Bunning are genuine, will Grayson be able to resist if he has millions of dollars piled up by the end of 2009 - especially if his bank account is far bigger than his potential opponent’s? The threat of such a well-funded primary challenger is sure to weigh on Bunning’s mind as he contemplates his next move.

Another incumbent to keep an eye on: Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, who has not yet said whether she will seek re-election in 2010. She banked only $20,000 and is outpaced by her Democratic rivals. Is she looking to retire? That would obviously be a big blow to the GOP’s hopes of keeping the governorship.

Eye-popping Reid and Crist hauls make it tough for challengers

Harry Reid should have an easy time fundraising since many wealthy donors want favors from the Senate Majority Leader. And he delivered: He reported raising $3 million over the second quarter, pushing his CoH to over $7 million. Now, why this matters is that none of the Republican who are supposedly thinking about a run are showing signs of being interested.

Rep. Dean Heller raised $166,000 in the quarter and has a bit over $260,000 in CoH; he would have made sure to report more had he been seriously thinking about a Senate run. More importantly, former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle raised $35,000 throughout the second quarter; she had said that she would probably not run if she failed to gather $100,000 in contributions so it is possible that Republicans lose their most advanced candidate in this crucial race.

In Florida, meanwhile, Charlie Crist raised an absurd $4.3 million over the past 3 months. Not only is that enough to buy more primary ads than he could dream of but it’s also nearly 13 times more the $340,000 Marco Rubio amassed. Given that he was hoping to attract heavy conservative support, this is a big blow to the former state Speaker’s prospect. Crist are using this discrepancy to pressure Rubio into exiting the race and reports now indicate that the conservative is now indeed considering dropping out - a prime example of how fundraising strength can have more dramatic consequences than unequal spending.

In hard-to-read primaries, money could make bigger difference

There is little with which to easily distinguish Jack Conway and Dan Mongiardo. Both are centrist Kentucky Democrats, both are statewide officials and both have the support of prominent establishment figures. In such hard-to-read primaries in which neither candidate can credibly portray himself as an insurgent and in which voters are unlikely to have that strong an opinion, money differentials can be important: Beyond the importance of reaching out to voters, they could push the establishment towards a certain candidate.

As such, Conway is certainly very happy since he finally found one area on which to create some distance with Mongiardo. Not only is the latter’s fundraising haul at the same level as Bunning’s (gasp!), but Conway has outraised him 4:1 to top the entire field with $1,3 million. That amount is roughly equal to Bunning, Mongiardo and Grayson’s funds combined.

An even greater unbalance is emerging in Ohio. Every two months, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has had to release a statement insisting that she intends to stay in the Senate race, where her Democratic opponent Lee Fisher has been accumulating more establishment support. The second quarter figures are likely to increase pressure on Brunner to call it quits, since she has banked $207,000 compared to $900,000 for Fisher and $1,7 million for their Republican opponent, Rob Portman.

The trouble is not necessarily that Brunner’s haul is weak as much as the fact that it will be tough for her to wage an insurgent campaign. It’s very much possible to envision a lower-funded candidate win Ohio’s Democratic primary, but that probably requires substantial support from labor groups; yet, many unions are endorsing Fisher. On the other hand, I’m not sure why party leaders are so concerned about pushing Brunner out: Sure, Portman’s cash looks daunting but the primary is held relatively early and the Democratic nominee will have plenty of time to recoup before the general election.

Money is flowing in Texas

Both of the Lone Star State’s Republican gubernatorial candidates raised humongous amounts of money, guaranteeing they have what they need to wage all-out war. Kay Bailey Hutchison brought in $6.7 million; Rick Perry $4.2 million. That some wealthy donors are choosing to donate to both candidate naturally increases the amount of money in circulation; also, consider that donations for state races are not held to the same $2,300 limit as for a federal race. For instance, Perry’s biggest contributor donated $225,000!

Also strange is the fact that Houston Mayor Bill White managed to raise $2 million (almost half-of which are a contribution to himself) for a Senate race that does not exist yet. (White will run for Hutchison’s Senate seat when she resigns.)

Q2 fundraising reports, part 1: Reps signal higher ambition, hint at retirement

Published
by
Taniel
on July 16, 2009
in CA-03, CA-45, CA-47, DE-AL, FL-10, NY-19 and PA-12
. 3 Comments

Money has a lot of influence on campaign results, not to mention on politicians’ behavior once they are elected, as the health care debate is only confirming: that the member of the Senate’s HELP committee who has received the least amount of money from the health sector is the loudest advocate for a single-payer system is no coincidence. From this blog’s electoral focus, however, too much is read into most candidates’ financial situation. Not every half-a-million difference will matter come 2010; pretending it does only makes contributions more consequential by extending their significance beyond spending inequality.

As such, let’s concentrate on: 1. what these reports reveal about the 2010 plans of those incumbents who have not yet made their plans clear? will they seek higher office, run for re-election or retire. 2. the districts in which the challenger is uncommonly strong and has managed to out raise an incumbent (or has come close to outraising him), such a rare sign of financial strength that it necessarily puts these districts on our midterm map. Here are thus the newsworthy tidbits out of the fundraising reports of House members (more on statewide races later).

You can peruse through Swing State Project’s very useful fundraising chart and through the candidates’ full disclosure statements - with donor lists, names and amounts donated.

Sign of ambition: Melancon and Sestak hint at Senate run

Of all House members running for re-election, only one raised more than $600,000 - and he raised much more: Joe Sestak’s fundraising haul for the second-quarter alone is a staggering $1 million, which brings his total cash on hand (CoH) to $4 million - far above his fellow representatives. This should remove all doubts we might still have that Sestak has bigger things in mind than a re-election race. This type of money can only mean that the sophomore is committed to challenging Senator Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.

Another representatives who is reporting unusually high sums is Charlie Melancon, whose name you’ll recognize as another prospective Senate candidate. While the $400,000 he raised this quarter alone are impressive, the $1,2 million he has stocked up in the bank suggest he might be thinking about a statewide run more seriously than conventional wisdom suggests. The same is true for Carolyn Maloney, whose $574K second quarter funds and $1,6 million on hand are among the highest of any House member.

Note that we shouldn’t generalize this too much. Reps. Ron Klein, Heath Shuler, Allen Boyd, Gabrielle Giffords and Jon Jim Matheson all have more than $1 million in CoH but none is supposed to harbor statewide ambitions this cycle. Boyd and Shuler ruled out Senate bid, Klein endorsed Meek’s candidacy and Matheson is sitting in such conservative territory that he could find himself vulnerable with a moment’s notice. (If anything, this suggests that Klein was very seriously considering the Senate race until Charlie Crist got in.) That leaves Giffords, who is sometimes mentioned as a senatorial candidate; no one thinks it likely, but could she jump in?

Inversely, Rep. Mike McIntyre and Rep. Bob Etheridge, North Carolina Democrats who are mentioned as potential Senate candidates, have second quarter hauls under $200,000. That’s not surprising since neither is expected to face a competitive re-election race, but it does suggest neither is covertly planning a Senate run.

Outraised incumbents: 3 in Q1, 7 in Q2

While I am weary of dismissing a challenger because he had a lousy fundraising quarter, a challenger outraising an incumbent is undoubtedly a sign of electoral strength - one that is so rare that it will get the attention of the national party and attract funds from the NRCC and DCCC. This occurred in 7 districts:

  • 4 where GOP-held districts: CA-03 (Ami Bera over Rep. Dan Lungren), CA-45 (Stephen Pougnet over Rep. Mary Bono Mack), DE-AL (Joe Carney outraised Rep. Mike Castle 2:1) and FL-10 (Charlie Justice over Bill Young).
  • 3 where Dem-held districts: CA-47 (Van Tran over Rep. Loretta Sanchez), NY-19 (Greg Ball over Rep. Hall) and PA-12 (Bill Russell over Rep. Jack Murtha)

Particularly noteworthy are Stephen Pougnet and Van Tran’s hauls. As far as I can tell, neither is benefiting from obvious corporate ties and neither is on the list because their opponent didn’t spend much time fundraising. Neither CA-45 nor CA-47 is generally considered a top-tier race, and this suggests the NRCC and DCCC will take closer attention to their candidacies than they might have had Pougnet and Tran come up shorter.

Let’s also note four challengers who almost outraised their opponents. In TX-10, Jack McDonald outraised GOP Rep. Mike McCaul 3:1 in the first quarter; while the two are now at parity, McDonald raised more than $300,000, making him one of the best funded challengers in the country. Also: Frank Guinta, Cory Gardner and Maureen Reed stayed in contact with Reps. Carol Shea-Porter, Betsy Markey and Michelle Bachmann, respectively.

Retirement watch: Castle and Young don’t seem committed to running

For many cycles, we have been looking at Mike Castle and Bill Young’s fundraising hauls to see whether they are finally leaning towards retiring; and while both politicians typically bring in small hauls, prompting speculation that they’re heading out, they have yet to do so. But this cycle is different since both men are facing top-tier opposition. As such, it’s much harder to dismiss Young’s $50,155 and Castle’s $125,000 - only 11% of which was raised through individual contributions.

Castle’s haul is particularly noteworthy since the Delaware congressman is also considering a Senate race. If he was really leaning towards seeking Joe Biden’s former seat, would his team not be spending a bit more time fundraising? Delaware might be a small state, but Castle does face the prospect of a clash with Attorney General Beau Biden. Or is Castle certain that the vice-president’s son will pass on the race, as is sometimes speculated?

With GOP poised to nominate conservatives, Dem prospects rise in MN and PA

Published
by
Taniel
on July 15, 2009
in MN-Gov and PA-Sen
. 1 Comment

Despite the recent series of Republican recruitment coups, not every race can go the GOP’s way and recent developments put a serious dent in the party’s prospects of contesting two high-profile elections.

Minnesota: Jim Ramstad heads out

Minnesota might not have elected a Democratic Governor since 1986 (!), but no one thinks the GOP will have an easy time holding on to the position. The party’s best bet was to nominate former Rep. Jim Ramstad, whose moderate credentials and popularity in the pivotal 3rd District made him an appealing statewide candidate. From the early days following Tim Pawlenty’s retirement announcement, it was clear that Democrats were most worried about Ramstad.

Yet, Ramstad ruled out a run yesterday. One explanation for this is that the state’s primary process is dominated by a springtime party convention dominated by conservatives. Ramstad might have assessed it would be tough for him to survive that process, especially in a political environment that is likely to make party activists more concerned about ideological purity than usual.

Ramstad’s exit makes it more likely that the nomination will go to a conservative, which will damage the GOP’s prospects of winning in this blue-leaning state. Except for Norm Coleman, who would bring liabilities of his own if he were to join the race, most of the Republicans who are considering the race are well to the right. Former state Auditor Pat Anderson, who just jumped in the race, helped organized “tea parties” this past spring; and state legislators like Marty Seifert, Tom Emmer are Phil Kohls are all part of the GOP’s conservative wing.

As you will notice, that’s a lot of names I just listed. And there are more! By my count, the race already includes a staggering 11 declared candidates - 5 Democrats and 6 Republicans - with at least 2 other Democrats seemingly certain to jump in (Speaker Margaret Anderson and former Senator Mark Dayton)! By the end of the year, the fields should have thinned as the contenders figure out how much support they can expect at the state convention.

In short: It will take a long time before we get a clearer picture of the state of this race but Democrats hold a slight advantage.

Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey all but guaranteed GOP nomination

When Arlen Specter announced he would switch his party affiliation, the GOP had a window of opportunity to try to block Pat Toomey’s march towards the nomination. That window has now closed. A slate of Republican candidates who could have given Toomey a tough time - from former Gov. Tom Ridge to Rep. Jim Gerlach and state Senator Jane Orie - declined a run and the NRSC has seemingly given up on searching for alternatives.

Yesterday, the Republican committee released a statement endorsing Toomey, implicitly contrasting him to Specter. “Congressman Toomey is a vigorous and determined advocate for the people of Pennsylvania, and he is clearly guided by principles instead of political opportunism,” the statement said.

I have long warned against underestimating Toomey’s general election prospects, especially if Specter is the Democrats’ standard bearer; that could depress turnout among left-leaning voters and the Republican a shot at victory. As importantly, Toomey will be able to better position himself now that he does not have to worry about a contested primary. He’s already trying to moderate his image: “You can’t win in Pennsylvania unless you have broad appeal. Let’s face it, in Pennsylvania, there are more Democrats than Republicans,” he recently said. He would not have said such a thing if he was still facing Specter in the primary.

In short, Toomey could be a more attractive candidate than he would have been had he moved on to the general election after spending months beating up the incumbent from the right. Don’t forget that Toomey’s statewide name recognition is low, so voters do not think of him as the conservative firebrand we political junkies have come to know.

(Side note: Specter, Sestak and Toomey all raised more than $1 million in the second quarter, guaranteeing that Pennsylvania voters will see a lot of fireworks over the next 17 months. The incumbent is already trying to be aggressive.)

Yet, there is no question that the NRSC would have much rather fielded another candidate. It’s no coincidence that the committee reconciled itself with the prospect of Toomey’s candidacy only after Gerlach and Ridge killed speculation they might run and after it became clear that other possible candidates (Attorney General Tom Corbett, former Governor Mark Schweiker) had no interest in running. And however Toomey now positions himself, Democrats will have a lot to work for considering his staunchly conservative past.

On the other hand, it looks like the NRSC could get some good news in Florida soon.

Christie remains the clear favorite: Corzine’s gamble, the RGA’s ad, Quinnipiac’s poll

Published
by
Taniel
on July 15, 2009
in NJ-Gov
. 0 Comments

Two consecutive polls finding John Corzine closing the gap might have given hope to New Jersey Democrats but the latest developments suggest that Chris Christie is just as favored to win the state’s governorship as ever.

1. Quinnipiac’s latest poll: Christie at new high

Christie, who led 50-40 mid-June, is now ahead 53-41. That’s the highest level of support the Republican has achieved in any polls. Not only Corzine now needs to sweep the remaining undecided, something incumbents rarely do, but he has to convince many voters who have already settled on Christie to change their mind. Given how unpopular Corzine is, he is in no position to convince anybody: Just 33% of respondents approve of his performance (versus 60%), and his favorability rating stands at a dismal 34-58.

I still hear some minimize the danger Corzine is in by noting Democrats typically close well in NJ. Sure, Christie has not sealed the deal but Corzine’s current predicament has little to do with the unexpected trouble Kerry and Menendez faced in 2004 and 2006; neither men was that unpopular, neither was trailing by double-digits and neither of their opponents were regularly breaking 50%.

The poll does contain one piece of good news for Democrats: In a three way match-up involving independent candidate Chris Daggett, a former EPA Administrator who served under Reagan and Kean, Christie leads 47% to 38%. Daggett, who gets 8%, thus draws more voters from Christie than he does from Corzine. This is especially the case among independents: In a two-way race, Christie leads by 36% (64-28) but his lead is down to ‘only’ 30% in a three-way (54-24-14). Could Daggett split the anti-Corzine vote and give the Governor a lifeline?

2. The RGA launches attack ad

With Corzine’s campaign launching its first attack ad last week, we were waiting to see whether his numbers would inch upward. (Quinnipiac’s poll does not really answer that because it was in the field from July 8th to 12th.) Unfortunately for Democrats, they did not have the airwaves to themselves for very long since the RGA is already up with a negative ad of its own. The new spot charges that Corzine raised taxes by the billions and that unemployment increased by 73% under his watch:

Over the next four months, the GOP has one mission and one mission only: While Corzine will try to deflect attention and make the election into a choice, Republicans need to draw on economic issues to keep the spotlight on Corzine and make the election a referendum on his leadership. This ad is neither original nor particularly hard-hitting, but it gets the job done.

The RGA’s determination not to let Corzine’s ad go unanswered speaks to the difficulty the Democrat will face in defining his opponent since he himself is so unpopular. Given how much voters distrust their Governor, there’s just no question that they’ll pay more attention to an ad hitting Corzine’s economic leadership than to an ad attacking Christie’s ethics or conservative politics. While voters currently just care about the former, Corzine urgently needs to get them to take into account the latter concerns.

3. Randal Pinkett could be tapped as running-mate

Trailing by a substantial margin at the end of August 2008, John McCain decided he had to gamble and he chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate. News that Corzine might be two days away from selecting Randal Pinkett, who won Season 4 of NBC’s The Apprentice, strikes me as a similarly desperate gamble.

Sure, the comparison to Palin is a harsh one. Pinkett was a Rhodes Scholar - the first African American from Rutgers to win that scholarship - and he has an impressive list of diplomas: M.Sc. in Computer Science from Oxford, an MBA and a Ph.D. from MIT. He then founded BCT Partners, a management and consulting firm based in Newark of which he is now chairman. Yet, I find it hard to believe that Pinkett would be considered for the Lieutenant Governorship had he not been hired by Donald Trump.

Corzine is now seen as inefficient in his dealings with the economy and as too much of a Trenton insider. The Governor’s solution: Bring in someone whose management skills have Donald Trump’s stamp of approval and who would bring in some new blood - a team of mavericks is marching towards Trenton. This could very well work (especially if Pinkett fires up the media) but the selection of a former reality TV star also very easily be viewed as a gimmick. That Corzine thinks that the potential upsides are worth the risk is revealing of how big a hole he realizes he’s in.

House Dems press ahead on health care reform, but some Blue Dog go both ways

Published
by
Taniel
on July 14, 2009
in health care
. 11 Comments

Democratic leaders have long stated their clear preference for pushing health care reform through both chambers of Congress before the August recess. This is no arbitrary deadline: Once congressmen leave the capital, they will be hammered by millions of dollars worth of TV spots, newspaper advertisement and special interest lobbying - all of this while being so far away from Capitol Hill that the party’s leadership cannot effectively keep them in toe.

Last week, The WaPo reported that the insurance industry is spending a staggering $1.4 million a day and employing an army of lobbyists, many of whom used to staff for prominent Senators like health care power-brokers Max Baucus and Chris Dodd. (Here’s a must-see chart summarizing the Senate Finance Committee members’ unbelievably extensive lobbyist connections.) As such, it’s stunning enough that we’re talking about the prospect of any health care reform that the White House doesn’t want to test Democrats’ integrity throughout August.

Yet, this deadline will be very hard to meet: The House recess starts on July 31st, the Senate’s on August 7th. That leaves the two chambers respectively 2 and 3 weeks to release a bill, debate it, sustain the pressure of conservative Democrats and pass it. Impossible, you say? Not necessarily: House Democrats just released their version of health care reform in the form of a bill that clocks in at 1,018 pages.

The good news for reformers: The 3 committees with jurisdiction over health care (Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor) have come together to write a single bill, avoiding the turf wars that plagued the 1994 debate and could weigh down the Senate since the Finance Committee and HELP Committee are writing separate bills that still have to be reconciled.

The bill is further to the left than what will come out of the Senate: A relatively strong public plan, subsidies for people making up to 400% above the poverty line (a higher threshold than is expected from the Senate), an individual mandate, an expansion of Medicaid. As I previewed on Saturday, a cap on the employer tax exclusion has been shelved, replaced by a surtax on higher incomes.

Obviously, then, the Senate will be the main obstacle for liberals. Even the HELP committee’s bill is weaker than the House’s - to say nothing of the Finance Committee’s version: Chairman Max Baucus is negotiating with the “Gang of Seven,” a group of Senators made up of 3 Democrats and 4 Republicans: Baucus, Conrad and Bingaman; Enzi, Hatch, Grassley and Snowe.

That’s right, Democrats control 60 Senate seats out of 100 but they are allowing health care reform to be crafted by a group that contains a majority of Republicans! That’s utterly nonsensical, grossly distorts the important of the ‘centrist caucus’ and makes a mockery of the idea that elections should have consequences.

2 Blue Dogs signed both the anti- and pro-public option letters

There are also obstacles to getting today’s bill through the House: Blue Dog Democrats are now organizing to water down the legislation, just as they did on Waxman-Markey. Last week, 40 Blue Dogs signed a letter warning the chamber’s leadership that they might defect if they don’t get what they want; in particular, they opposed a robust “Medicare-like public option.”

While I had been reading about this letter for days, I had not seen a full list of those who signed it. Looking at the letter, I understand why: The signatures are very hard to decipher! Here’s my attempt at figuring it out:

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Baron Hill
Heath Shuler, Charlie Melancon
Mike Ross, Jim Cooper
John Barrow, Sanford Bishop
Parker Griffith, ? (perhaps Michael Arcuri)
Lincoln Davis, Jason Altmire
Marion Berry, Jim Costa
(Collin Peterson?), ?? (perhaps Joe Donnelly)
Travis Childers, Leonard Boswell
Jim Marshall, Bart Gordon
Dan Boren, Chris Carney
Jim Matheson, (John Tanner?)
Allen Boyd, John Salazar
Ben Chandler, Kathy Dahlkemper
??, Earl Pomeroy
Patrick Murphy, David Scott
Mike Michaud, Tim Holden
Glenn Nye, Walt Minnick
Bobby Bright, Gabrielle Giffords
(Zach Space?), Mike McIntyre

If anyone thinks they can decipher the 5 remaining signatures, here’s the letter and here are the remaining Blue Dogs: Adam Schiff, Joe Baca, Melissa Bean, Dennis Cardoza, Henry Cuellar, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Jane Harman, Frank Kratovil, Gene Taylor, Mike Thompson, Charlie Wilson. I also tentatively added Zach Space, Michael Arcuri, Joe Donnelly and John Tanner but I remain unsure.

Public option supporters are also getting organized. Efforts to get progressives to pledge opposition to any bill lacking a public plan have been fairly successful, making it doubtful that such weakened reform could pass the House. Furthermore, 22 moderate Democrats wrote a letter in which they called for a “robust public option” that can rely preexisting networks. 5 Blue Dogs signed that letter: Jane Herman, Leonard Boswell, Joe Baca, Mike Michaud, Adam Schiff. (In addition, Loretta Sanchez came out strongly in favor of the public option.)

Here’s the catch: Leonard Boswell and Mike Michaud signed both letters.

To recap: The first letter proclaims that a “Medicare-like public option would negatively impact hospitals, doctors and patients.” The second letter clamors for a “robust public option” and insists that “without some connection to an established provider network, like Medicare, a public option will never be able to offer a real choice.” What gives?

Could there be more double-signers among the undecipherable signatures? It’s going to be an eventful few weeks indeed.

Gerlach opens up competitive House seat for uncertain statewide run

Published
by
Taniel
on July 14, 2009
in PA-06 and PA-Gov
. 0 Comments

For the second time in one week, a Republican congressman is leaving his vulnerable House seat to seek statewide office. Rep. Jim Gerlach announced that he would run for Pennsylvania’s open gubernatorial race, a blow to the NRCC’s hopes of securing a net pick-up of seats in the 2010 cycle. Along with Anh Cao’s LA-02 and Mark Kirk’s now open IL-10, PA-06 becomes the third GOP-held seat Democrats are favored to pick-up in 2010. (No Dem-held seat is as vulnerable.)

Just like Kirk, Gerlach represents tough territory - IL-10 and PA-06 are two of only six districts that voted for John Kerry in 2004 but that are still represented by Republicans. Both men somehow survived the blue waves of the past two cycles but their situation was simply not tenable and it is not surprising seeing either of them flee their district.

In Gerlach’s case, the 2008 cycle was all the more of a warning sign because of the narrowness of his loss was not unexpected. After two very narrow re-election victories, he thought he was safe since Democrats did not field a top-tier contender; yet, he only ended up surviving by 4%. He must have realized that it was only be a matter of time until a stronger challenger channeled the district’s liberal tilt and ended his political career, so why not jump in a statewide race that looks more winnable than his House district?

Democrats have edge in open seat race

So Kirk and Gerlach’s decisions might make sense, but that’s not going to make the NRCC feel any better. House Republicans now have to defend two districts that voted for Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama - and both did the latter by decisive margins: Obama received 58% in PA-06 and 62% in IL-10. Whatever the national environment, the GOP faces tough odds holding on to either seat.

And yet, we shouldn’t dismiss the GOP’s chances. The party already has a candidate lined up: State Rep. Curt Schroder formed an exploratory committee in expectation of Gerlach’s jump in the gubernatorial race. A member of the state House since 1995, Schroder represents the district Gerlach held in the early 1990s and he is as credible a candidate as Republicans could hope for in such a Dem-trending district.

On the Democratic side, former newspaper columnist Doug Pike looks like the front-runner to win the nomination. He did not seem like he’d have an easy ride when he entered the race but he has proved a strong fundraiser, he’s said he might spend as much as $1 million of his own money and the establishment has rallied around him (I offered a detailed analysis of his candidacy here).

More candidates could get in, but for now we are heading towards a Schroder-Pike general election. Schroder should be competitive, but the district’s fundamentals make Pike the early favorite.

Gerlach is not even guaranteed the Republican nomination

When they learned that Kirk will run for Senate, Republicans could at least celebrate the fact that they suddenly had a shot at Illinois’s Senate race and Kirk made sure that the Republican field was open so he wouldn’t waste his House seat and potentially lose in a primary. But neither of these are consolations applicable to Pennsylvania.

Republicans already have two politicians who are expected to run for Governor: Attorney General Tom Corbett and former U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan. Sure, Gerlach’s moderate credentials and his longtime political experience would help him appeal to independent voters and even right-leaning Democrats, but they will also hurt him in the GOP primary - not to mention that Corbett and Meehan both look like electable general election contenders.

So not only does Gerlach’s entry not dramatically improve the GOP’s prospect in the gubernatorial race, but Gerlach isn’t even sure of winning the Republican nomination!

Needless to say, Republicans would be very frustrated if Gerlach left them with such a vulnerable open seat and could not even make it to the gubernatorial general election. (That’s what happened to New Mexico’s Heather Wilson in 2008.)

Speaking of the gubernatorial race, there was some movement late last week that I did not notice until this morning: Auditor General Jack Wagner became the first Democrat to announce that he will run for Governor. Wagner, who is described as a social and fiscal conservative by The Patriot News, is the only statewide official considering a run for the Democratic nomination; he’s likely to face competition from the likes of Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and businessman Tom Knox. In short, it doesn’t look like the Democratic field is the most inspiring the party could dream up; compared to the certainty that he’ll face a tough House race, that probably makes a gubernatorial run more appealing for Gerlach.

Few electoral subplots in Sotomayor hearings

Published
by
Taniel
on July 14, 2009
in Sotomayor
. 0 Comments

Since no one is under the illusion that Sonya Sotomayor is meant to be the stars of her confirmation hearings, plenty has already been written about the Senators to watch over the course of the week: How will Franken deal with his first high-profile outing? How will Specter deal with his first Supreme Court hearings as a Democrat - not to mention as a junior lawmaker? How vicious will Sessions get, and will his attitude reflect the wounds of the 1986 confirmation process he unsuccessfully went through?

Yet, the hearings contain few electoral subplots worth watching. Supreme Court nominations don’t tend to be memorable affairs. I’d be hard-pressed to point to any consequence the Roberts and Alito fights had on the 2006 and 2008 cycles, and the same is likely to be true with the Sotomayor hearings.

Most storylines to follow will be minor. For instance, it’s possible that Gillibrand receives some boost since her excessively effusive praise might very well be the first introduction many New Yorkers get to her; that could reap benefits, especially among Hispanic voters. But a Democratic Senator supporting a Democratic president’s nominee is too expected and the confirmation vote will be too unsuspenseful for her to gain much coverage.

(The story of Gillibrand being cut off by Leahy because she spoke for too long is being covered as an embarrassing incident, but I just don’t see it. Sure, it might give some voters a bad impression but the bottom line is that this is the only reason she scored stories in any press outlet; you can be sure that she’d rather have NYC’s Puerto Rican community reading about how she tried to praise Sotomayor for too long than not reading about it at all.)

This is primarily because Senators make sure not to endanger their electoral prospects. Specter and Gillibrand would ruin their primary chances if they opposed Sotomayor, but they won’t gain anything by voting ‘yes’. The inverse is true for Brownback, who has already announced he’ll vote ‘no’ and who would face an all-out conservative rebellion in his gubernatorial race if he did anything else. Similarly, it’s hard to imagine Kay Bailey Hutchison supporting Sotomayor a year before she is to face Rick Perry in Texas’s gubernatorial primary.

As such, Senators whose vote could go either way are those who have no serious presidential ambition and are at no risk of losing a primary; and the Senators whose votes could potentially make for interesting 2010/2012 subplots are going to vote in a way that will make this a non-issue.

Perhaps the sole Senator who is facing a political dilemma is John Cornyn. On the one hand, Texas’s substantial Hispanic population would make him a good candidate to cast a ‘yes’ vote - especially since he is unlikely to ever again face a competitive Republican primary. Yet, his role at the head of the NRSC makes it tough to imagine him vote anything but “no:” Conservatives would get so angry at Cornyn if he supported Sotomayor that it could endanger the NRSC’s fundraising abilities, the committe’s ability to reach out to the grassroots and by extension the GOP’s prospects in the entire 2010 cycle.

I called this a dilemma, but the two concerns Cornyn must weigh are not that balanced. His support for Charlie Crist is one thing, his vote for Sotomayor would be quite another and it’s hard to imagine the Chairman of the NRSC endanger his relationship with conservative groups like that.

This is also a reflection of my skepticism that the GOP’s relationship with Hispanics is as important a subplot as it’s made out to be. Sure, Republican Senators won’t make Hispanics like them any more than they by taking strong stances against Sotomayor. But given the hysterical and ethnically charged tone of much of the conservative reactions to the nominee - a tone no Senator is expected to even approach this week - the damage has already been done. And the 2008 cycle revealed that the immigration debate that occurred during Bush’s second term has so strained the GOP’s ties to Hispanics that it will require Republicans operate a huge change before they are in any position to compete for the Latino vote - no matter how they act at the Sotomayor hearings.

GOP resolves Illinois feud, gets crowded Colorado primary

Published
by
Taniel
on July 13, 2009
in CO-Gov and IL-Sen
. 2 Comments

Kirk re-enters Illinois Senate race

Andy McKenna was unable to sustain a week-end of heavy pressure from national Republicans. After he signaled late last week that he would not step aside for Rep. Mark Kirk, the chairman of the Illinois Republican Party released a statement today touting the need for party unity. “Mark Kirk and I met last evening as part of an ongoing discussion about the U. S. Senate race,” he said. “I reassured Mark that if he chooses to be a candidate, I will not oppose him.”

“I will run if Andy does not,” Kirk told The Hotline on Friday, so it now seems safe to say that the GOP will get their top candidate to run after all - a big relief for NRSC officials who were shell-shocked by Friday’s turn of events.

Thus, Illinois’s Senate seat will be a crucial battleground. Democrats start with an edge, but Kirk is well-positioned to win over independent voters and any complication in the national environment could push him across the finish-line. Also, the confirmation that Kirk will run for Senate will allow the jockeying to start for the House seat he’s leaving behind - and that is good news for Democrats.

There is also some news on the Democratic side, as The Fix alludes to speculation that Chris Kennedy might not jump in the race after all; perhaps the race now looks too competitive or perhaps he is disappointed that he can’t just expect to waltz into the Senate because of his last name. In any case, his exit would be a boost to Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias who would then be expected to pile establishment support rather than splitting it with Kennedy (Reps. Foster and Hare endorsed Giannoulias this morning) and it would complicate the election for Cheryle Jackson, who would have a better shot in a three-way race than a two-way contest.

In Colorado, Penry challenges McInnis

In Colorado, State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry announced he would run for Governor - a quick turnaround for a 33-year old Republican who was first elected to the chamber in 2006. What’s particularly surprising in Penry’s decision is that it is not simply a way to increase his profile for future races: Penry is up for re-election in 2010, so he will have no position to fall back to if he loses the gubernatorial race.

Republicans have long been touting Penry as a rising star but the campaign won’t be easy: He’ll first have to face former Rep. Scott McInnis, who served six terms in the House before retiring in 2004; if he wins the GOP nomination, he’ll be up against Governor Bill Ritter, whose support has been declining in polls but who proved to be an unexpectedy strong candidate in 2006.

Yet, Penry has enough political experience to make for a credible candidate. A PPP poll released in April found Ritter trailing McInnis 48% to 41% and leading Penry 42% to 40%. Given his lower name recognition, Penry holding the Governor within the margin of error is nothing for him to be ashamed of. But one potential problem for Republicans is that their primary will be held relatively late - August - and that could make it difficult for their nominee to mend wounds if the primary is nasty.

There certainly are ingredients that could make Penry-McInnis a divisive battle. First, the generational divide will allow Penry to blast McInnis as the same-old, same-old: “I think there’s been a recognition that if we continue to run the same old campaign with the same old type of message, that’s there’s going to be the same old results, which are resounding election night defeats,” he already said over the week-end. Furthermore, McInnis is Penry’s former boss - making for an awkward dynamic - and he supported his brother-in-law in the 2006 state Senate race Penry eventually won, which increases the bad blood between the two.

A side note about Colorado’s Senate race: former Rep. Bob Beauprez, the highest-profile Republican who is considering challenging Senator Michael Bennet, is also thinking about running against Ritter. That the Governor’s race now looks like it will involve a slugfest between top Colorado Republicans should be enough to push Beauprez towards the Senate contest. Whether that would be good news for Republicans is an entirely different question, however: Beauprez might not be the GOP’s best shot at winning the race.