Days after rumors erupted around Rudy Giuliani’s 2010 intentions, we have yet to receive any confirmation that the former New York City Mayor has indeed pulled the plug on the gubernatorial run and is preparing to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand; for all it’s worth, The Village Voice is now contradicting The Daily News and the AP to report that Giuliani will not run. Yet, that we are even talking about that possibility underscores the fact that the NRSC is still in a position to pull of formidable recruitment coups that would dramatically alter the Senate landscape: This past week also saw former Governor Tommy Thompson open the door to running in Wisconsin, as well as an increase in the buzz that North Dakota Governor John Hoeven might challenge Byron Dorgon.
In Kansas, Democrats finally have a candidate in the gubernatorial race: Tom Wiggans, a retired pharmaceutical executive. That the state party sounds very eager to embrace him speaks to how desperate they have gotten. Indeed, it looks unlikely that Wiggans (a political novice who spent his career in California before moving back to Kansas this January) can be much of a match for Senator Sam Brownback, the presumptive Republican nominee. While the fact that he has donated a lot of money to GOP candidates might not hurt him, what could is that he primarily looked interested in building connections with his donations: In 2008, he donated to the presidential campaigns of Obama, Giuliani, Romney and McCain.
On the other hand, Wiggans has two things going for him. First, he should be able to self-fund his campaign, which is all Democrats are looking for at this point. Second, Democrats are betting that, in the current anti-establishment context, the contrast between his business experience and Brownback’s service in the federal government will appeal to the state’s independent voters.
In Wyoming, Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal has yet to announce whether he will challenge the state’s term-limit law, but the GOP is already getting organized. Two have already announced - former state Rep. Ron Micheli and House Speaker Colin Simpson - and a third just walked into the race: Matt Mead, who served as U.S. Attorney from 2001 to 2007, formed an exploratory committee. By my count, this makes him the fourth Republican U.S. attorney to seek political office this cycle (Chris Christie, Tim Griffin, Pat Meehan are the others), so keep an eye on the people Barack Obama is currently appointing: We might hear about them in the 2014 or 2016 cycles.
Finally, Maine looks to be competing with Minnesota for the title of most crowded gubernatorial race: former Speaker John Richardson announced this week that he would run for the Democratic nomination, joining a long list of credible contenders (former AG Rowe, state Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, businesswoman Rosa Scarcelli and still others all have a credible path to the nomination). On the Republican side, no one new jumped in the race this week but I had missed state Senator Peter Mills’ candidacy announcement from a while ago; Mills, who got 35% in the GOP’s 2006 primary, joins two wealthy businessmen and still other candidates.
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 | No one |
| Will not retire | No one |
Second, updates to the Senate recruitment page:
| KY-Sen, GOP | former Ambassador Cathy Bailey added to list |
| NC-Sen, Dem | former LG Dennis Wicker will not run |
| NH-Sen, GOP | businessman Sean Mahoney will not run |
| WI-Sen, GOP | former Governor Tommy Thompson added to list |
Third, updates to gubernatorial races:
| KS-Gov, Dem | retired businessman Tom Wiggans is running |
| ME-Gov, Dem | former Mayor Donna Dion is running State Conservation Commissioner Patrick McGowan added former Speaker John Richardson announced run Rosa Scarcelli is running |
| ME-Gov, GOP | Waterville Mayor Paul LePage is running state Senator Peter Mills is running |
| MN-Gov, GOP | state Sen. Paul Koering dropped out (in August) |
| NY-Gov, GOP | Rudy Giuliani reportedly will not run |
| OR-Gov, Dem | former Hewlett-Packard VP Steve Shields dropped out |
| PA-Gov, GOP | National Guardsman Robert Mansfield announced run |
| WI-Gov, Dem | Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett announced run |
| WY-Gov, GOP | former US Attorney Matt Mead: exploratory committee former state Rep. Ron Micheli is runnin |
Taniel: Last minute update Dennis Moore (Kan-03) will announce retirement tomorrow (source The Hill). Looks like a tough race for the Dems.
Indeed fritz, I saw Moore’s retirement shortly after publishing this post; it’s obviously major electoral news, that I’ll get to later. In fact, there’ve already been a number of major electoral stories and it’s only 10am on a Monday morning…
Dennis Moore’s retirement is a harbinger of things to come. This creates a 70+% chance at a pickup for the GOP and will tell other D’s in marginal districts that they should be afraid.
I’d look for some more retirements like this.
A few more retirements like this and Democrats can kiss the House goodbye.
Cliff, Obama won KS-03 by 51%, so assuming that the Democrats get a in a strong recruit (unlike the state wide races) the GOP would only have a 50% chance at best to take the seat.
I dont know why Moore would leave, I doubt that it had to do with him being afraid of runnning for reelection considering that the disctrict actually voted for Obama in 08 and he has had no trouble in the past. He is fairly old, so perhaps he is just done with politics.
At this point I don’t see it has a harbringer of other Democrats retiring. Any incubment Democrat who represents a district who voted for Obama, no matter how small, seems very unlikely to me to just go off and retire unless they wanted to run for higher office, and the likelyhood of Democrats getting strong recruits in these swing/barely Obama districts is also high: Democrats aren’t exactly low in moral like Republicans were in 2006 or 2008 yet. Lets not forget that House Democrats have more money than House Republicans at this point, so they can afford to defend some open seat districts.
A much bigger message would be if someone like Ike Skelton of Missouri to retire, whos district, MO-04, voted about 60% or so for McCain and in which the Democrats have no real recruits in place. Retirments by veteran Democrats in heavily Republican districts would be much more damaging. I believe that in 1994, alot of Democrats retired and the majority of them were from those that voted heavily Republican at the federal level. If those districts were merely swing then Democrats would have still lost the house but not by the devasting margin that they got.
In short, a retirment by Democrat in a district that Obama won (albet narrowly) isn’t a cause for alarm: its those who retire in heavy McCain districts that would cause the alarm.
Ron - you made a pretty bold statement. For Dems to lose the house would require a massive wave. Last I checked Dems have fallen in popularity but the GOP is still stuck at around 20% approval (below Obama and Democrats) - so not too much for you to cheer.
“Cliff, Obama won KS-03 by 51%, so assuming that the Democrats get a in a strong recruit (unlike the state wide races) the GOP would only have a 50% chance at best to take the seat.”
Is your political understanding really so poor as to believe this crap? That’s an honest question. It’s almost as dumb as people saying, “Well, Reagan won this district with 51% in ‘80, so any retiring Republican is therefore highly likely to keep this same seat in ‘82.”
Any republican will be strongly favored in ‘10, and nobody who understands politics disagrees, frankly.
Cliff - I see you haven`t stopped abusing people who disagree with you (although in this case I agree with the point you rudely put). Where did you get 70% from? You cannot complain about people pulling numbers out of thin air when you do it too.
There is an anti-incumbent mood - mainly on the Dems but the GOP should bounce back after huge losses in the past 2 cycles. Do you seriously think they will gain the house? A lot happens in a year and I wouldn`t bet against Obama and the Democrats keeping solid majorities in both houses of Congress. Unemployment will most likely have started to go down, the stock market has made up most of the losses sustained last year (people are looking at much better 401K’s now). So we will see.
I never said they’d gain the house, and I’ve never even suggested the possibility of the R’s recapturing the Senate. But if you don’t think R’s are favored to win Moore’s seat, you are either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. I don’t mind arguing with someone who brings real arguments based on facts and reasonable inferences. I object to someone who will shill for their own partisans regardless of such things.
On my part, this isn’t a partisan thing, it’s an understanding politics thing. I don’t deny that D’s are favored to pick up Mark Kirk’s House seat. I don’t deny that D’s are favored to pick up Joseph Cao’s seat. Similarly, I didn’t deny that, in ‘08, D’s were favored to pick up Tom Davis’s seat, even though Davis held the seat and Bush very narrowly carried the district, probably the best counter-example as to why the R’s will pick up Moore’s seat, and do so rather easily.
And this is especially true when Brownback and Moran are going to win the two big statewide races in landslides.
BTW, excuse me if my “Any Republican will be favored in ‘10″ was confusing, what I thought I was clearly saying was that any likely R nominee to Moore’s seat will be favored, not that any R in any district across the country will be favored, which is clearly idiotic.
But Moore’s seat will be a relatively easy pickup for the R’s. I’d say almost as likely as the chance of the D’s picking up Del-All.
I assume it is Cliff writing - I did not suggest that the GOP is likely to win Moore’s seat - if you actually read my post you would have seen that I agreed with your point. Just not with the way you put it.
Also I take issue with you trying to take the high road that only you look at things objectively from a political understanding point and that everyone else who disagrees with you is a shill. I pretty sure my understanding of politics is similar to yours.
The Dems will lose house seats - newsflash most first term Presidents lose seats in the mid terms with Bush in 2002 being the most recent exception (and 9/11 had a lot to do with that).
“Also I take issue with you trying to take the high road that only you look at things objectively from a political understanding point and that everyone else who disagrees with you is a shill.”
I’m not doing that. If someone disagrees with me that, say, Mark Kirk has roughly 40% chance of winning the Illinois Senate Race, that’s fine. You could credibly put him anywhere between a, say, 10% and 55% chance of winning.
But if you tell me that the non-existent candidate in the Kansas Senate race is going to take down Jerry Moran, you’re just a fool.
Saying the GOP has no better then a 50/50 that the GOP will pick up Moore’s seat, while not quite on that level of idiocy, isn’t far off. The D’s certainly don’t have NO shot, but it’s got to be at least a 65-75% chance of a takeover.
Cliff, I sure hope you’re right on Moran, as Tahrt’s a moron.
But are really sure that it would be a auto-pickup if Ds recruited somebody like Joe Reardon (Kansas City does make up over a quarter of the district)?
The major Mayors:
Joe Reardon (D) Kansas City
Carl Gerlach (R) Overland Park
Michael Copeland (R) Olathe
Robert Chestnut (D) Lawrence
Most of the local Senate Republicans are old (well, at least for the average congressional candidate), and Chris Steineger (D) is quite established and only 47. And state Housed members represent pretty small constitutencies, about 20,000.
I’m definitely not saying Democrats are favored, but leave it as a tossup for now.
This now makes my list of realistic GOP pickup potentials at 25, while it’s at 15 for Dems.
Calm down Cliff and read. I agreed with you. I never said it was 50:50 - I have no special knowledge about Kansas and know Dems are very unlikely to win. I merely said that you criticised someone for pulling numbers out of thin air and then you did the exact same thing (more defensible numbers but). Therefore I am not a fool, neither are you so stop banding about such insults - it does your credibility no good.
It still looks like the Dems will retain 60 (including two independents), pretty good to have not made any net losses in three cycles. But time will tell.
“I never said it was 50:50″
I never said you DID say it was 50:50. Jaxx did, however, when he said:
“GOP would only have a 50% chance at best to take the seat.”
I said that was moronic. And it is.
Maurice:
I never said it was an automatic pickup, I said the R’s are the clear favorite. If Joe Reardon is most likely the strongest candidate they could recruit, but it would still be 60-65% chance of an R victory.