Monthly Archive for December, 2009

2009 in review: The parties’ 10 worst surprises

Published
by
Taniel
on December 31, 2009
in Review
. 11 Comments

2009 began with George W. Bush still in the White House; it ends with Barack Obama. It began with Democrats looking confident they would expand their majorities in both chambers; it ends with some Republicans harboring hopes they can take back at least one chamber of Congress. It began with a left delighted to get rid of George W. Bush and a right stunned by the magnitude of the knock-out punches it had received in 2006 and in 2008; it ends with a left that is growing increasingly vocal about its disagreements with the Democratic leadership, and a hard-right that has rebuild itself, partly on the GOP’s back.

While coming up with top 10 lists might have been a better fit fit for an Election Year like 2008 (The biggest shockers, The states that mattered, The hottest races)  than for a more disjointed year like 2009, what better way to reminisce about the year? Here is my first attempt to remember some of the wilder trends of the year: The 10 worst surprises the parties received this year.

1. For the GOP: The Charlie Crist-syndrome

Republican leaders were hoping for a revitalized right to take on the Obama administration; what they did not expect was that a resurgence would come at the expense of the GOP establishment. Yet, one of the dominant storylines of the year has been Republicans’ brewing civil war: In their efforts to push the country rightward, Tea Partiers have taken aim at GOP politicians as much as they have targeted Democrats, and that is seriously complicating parties’ calculations heading into 2010. Doug Hoffman’s success at overtaking Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 would have been unthinkable in another political environment, but it’s given the hard-right confidence heading into the new year.

While the issue is partly an ideological one, the battle first and foremost pits an activist movement versus a compromised establishment: At the beginning of the year, it looked like one of tensions’ main victim would be Roy Blunt (hardly a centrist). While Blunt escaped the prospect of a bruising primary, establishment Republicans across the country are facing major opposition. Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Jane Norton in Colorado, Trey Greyson in Kentucky, many House challengers and, most significantly, Charlie Crist. The Florida governor’s collapsing fortune is undoubtedly one of the year’s worst surprises for the national GOP leadership. It has transformed their biggest recruitment coup into a nightmare, as it threatens to make what looked like a safe hold into ground zero of Republican divisions.

2. For Democrats: Corzine’s loss

By early November, it had become so obvious that Jon Corzine was in huge trouble that his defeat was not considered a surprise. But it’s worth remembering just how long it took for Democrats to recognize that they really could lose the Garden State. Even as the year started, they pointed to the many New Jersey Democrats who had pulled ahead in the final weeks of the campaign (John Kerry in 2004, Corzine himself in 2005, Bob Menendez in 2006). But Corzine was stuck at lower levels than Democrats had been in any of these other races; he was a longtime incumbent voters were refusing to keep in office; and the environment was a tough one for his party. The result: Chris Christie will be sworn in come January, an outcome few Democrats would have deemed possible 12 months ago.

3. For the GOP: A wave of retiring Senators

As 2009 began, Senate Republicans were hoping to put behind them two dismal cycles but their prospects were immediately endangered by a rapid wave of GOP senators announcing they would not seek re-election in 2010: Mel Martinez’s decision was hardly the worst news Republicans could have received, but Judd Gregg, George Voinovich and Kit Bond’s announcements were game-changers. Given how the year progressed, it’s doubtful any of these three would have been in much trouble but NH, MO and OH are now the NRSC’s biggest headaches - and Democrats’ best opportunities. (Over the summer, Jim Bunning announced he would also retire, but that does not count since it delighted Republicans.)

4. For Democrats: Chris Dodd and Harry Reid’s unpopularity

In the midterm elections of a Democrat president, the DSCC cannot be surprised it’s facing difficulty defending open seats (Illinois and Delaware, for instance), freshmen (Colorado) or red states (Arkansas). Yet, Connecticut was on no one’s radar screen last year: Just how shockingly unpopular Chris Dodd has become was a surprise to most observers last spring, and it has made a seat that Democrats weren’t expecting to even think about one of the GOP’s biggest opportunities of the cycle. Similarly, Harry Reid looks far more personally vulnerable than was believed as the year started: That he would be one of the most endangered Democratic senators if the GOP found a strong candidate was a given, but Reid’s standing is so weak that he is trailing by double-digits against third-tier challengers. Defeating these two powerful senators would obviously be a huge coup for the GOP.

Relatedly, I don’t think anyone has truly understood how David Paterson could have grown that unpopular in such a short time span. This should ultimately not hurt Democrats, as Andrew Cuomo still looks likely to jump in the race, but the New York Governor’s collapse into depths of unpopularity is astonishing: his favorability rating was long stuck under 20%, which is as low as can a scandal-tarred politician will fall, let alone someone who wasn’t hit by a major controversy.

5. For Democrats: Veteran House members are suddenly endangered

After the huge gains they scored in 2006 and in 2008, House Democrats were expecting to spend 2010 defending their newly acquired seats. What they surely did not expect is to see so many of their entrenched lawmakers at the very top of the GOP’s target list - and with apparently reason to worry. Reps. Snyder, Spratt, Skelton, Mollohan, Pomeroy, Herseth-Sandlin, Berry, Bishop and many others find themselves in the NRCC’s cross hairs: While unseating some of these districts might be wishful thinking on Republicans’ part, polls (in AR-02, for instance) have confirmed that at least some of these incumbents are in far worst districts than they have been for much of their political career. When added to the many freshmen and sophomore Democrats who are vulnerable, the GOP’s efforts to expand the map could pay dividends next November.

6. For the GOP: The loss of NY-20 and NY-23

For all its talk of an improving environment, the GOP suffered two shocking special election losses this year. Everything was lined up for Republicans to pick-up Gillibrand’s NY-20 and hold on to McHugh’s NY-23: They had well-known candidates whereas Democrats had such a little bench they were forced to tap complete unknowns, the districts’ had a history of voting Republican, liberal turnout was supposed to be low, the GOP nominees led big in early polling. Yet, Scott Murphy and Bob Owens, who just 365 days ago had absolutely no political experience (and in the latter’s case wasn’t even a Democrat), are now sitting in the House.

7. For the GOP: Arlen Specter’s party switch

For all their losses in the 2008 cycle, Republicans were at least relieved they were able to prevent Democrats from reaching 60 seats. Yet, even that collapsed in April 2009, when Arlen Specter shocked the political world by announcing he would become a Democrat. And it got even worse for the right, as Joe Sestak’s decision to mount a primary challenge forced the senator to immediately tack to the left, giving Democrats a reliable vote for their biggest priority of the year, health-care reform. Sure, Joe Lieberman watered the bill to such an extent that Olympia Snowe couldn’t really have asked for much more, but having to win over a Republican would have obviously complicated Harry Reid’s calculations even further.

8. For Democrats: Appointment headaches

It’s one thing for a party to suffer because the incumbents who are up for re-election have grown unpopular, it’s quite another for it to invent huge headaches for itself. Yet, that’s exactly what Democrats did early in 2009. Barack Obama’s decision to tap Joe Biden, Ken Salazar and Hillary Clinton meant that four Senate seats found themselves vacated; as if that was not enough, the appointment processes by which they were going to be replaced became absurdly messy - and it’s now a major reason Democrats are facing the prospect of big Senate losses. In Delaware, Governor Minner’s disgraceful decision to appoint a caretaker to keep the seat for its previous occupier’s son has backfired on Democrats, as it allowed Mike Castle to run for an open seat. In New York, the bizarre weeks that preceded Kirsten Gillibrand’s appointment are partly responsible for David Paterson’s reputation of ineffectiveness and they created a lot of rancor among state Democrats.

In Colorado was the only uncontroversial process, no one has really understood why Bill Ritter chose to appoint Michael Bennet, a little-known Democrat with no electoral experience and no proven ability to hold on to the seat; Bennet now decisively trails in 2010 match-ups, and it’s hard to think other Democrats wouldn’t have been in a better position. But the worst situation is obviously that of Illinois, where the governor was arrested for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat; the scandal is forcing Roland Burris not to run for re-election and it could also endanger the party’s control on the Governor’s Mansion. Who could have thought a party could self-destroy to this extent?

9. For Democrats: The Virginia collapse

“No state’s swing towards the Democratic Party was as important as Virginia’s,” I wrote at the end of 2008. Indeed, Democrats were on a roll in the Old Dominion: Since 2001, they had won two successive Governor’s races, picked-up both Senate seats and many House seats and Barack Obama had even won the presidential race by a decisive 5%. Their optimism about the state’s blue trends makes their collapse all the more painful: It’s not so much that Bob McDonnell won the Governor’s race (Republicans were considered slight favorites to win seat all year) but the sheer magnitude of his victory that has gotten state Republicans back on track. Not only did McDonnell destroy Creigh Deeds, but he did so by recapturing areas of the state that were starting to look unwinnable for his party - starting with Fairfax County! Added to Democrats’ other losses of the year in Northern Virginia, that suggests that their progress was far more fragile than they were hoping for at the end of 2008.

10. For Democrats: Lieberman’s willingness to transparently shed all principle to gain revenge

Joe Lieberman had fully backed George W. Bush’s national security policies, he had defied his party’s rules by running as an independent in 2006 and he endorsed John McCain in the presidential race. Yet, many Democrats clung to the belief that he would be a reliable vote for the party’s top domestic policies: After all, Lieberman had never looked like a staunch centrist on economic or fiscal matters, and he has been a strong ally of Connecticut labor groups. But 2009 revealed that Lieberman’s quest for revenge has made him willing to sacrifice all he once might have believed as long as it can make miserable for liberals.

The fact is that he did more to weaken the Senate health-care bill than all other conservative Democrats’ combined: Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln looked reluctant to mount a full blown assault on the public option before Lieberman announced he could never vote for it, and all of them were willing to sign-on to the Medicare buy-in compromise. Worst still than Lieberman’s positions is the matter he stated them: His sociopathic behavior in the final weeks of the negotiations - his refusal to attend the Gang of Ten meetings, the sudden reversal of his willingness to back the deal, his describing as a monstrosity what he had brought up himself in September - suggests he is relishing torturing the left to an extent few could have foreseen in early 2009.

And happy new year!

Dems struggling to find candidate in Alabama, Texas

Published
by
Taniel
on December 29, 2009
in AL-05, TX-10 and WA-03
. 9 Comments

For a few days, Democrats found themselves hoping they could still recapture AL-05 - which would not only be helpful on a political level, but also on a viscerally personal one: What better way to get back at a turncoat than to end his political career? Yet, their most obvious shot at contesting the district evaporated today: Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks ended days of speculation that he might challenge Parker Griffith by announcing he would stick to the Governor’s race instead.

The emergence of Sparks’s name as a potential House candidate was not just fruitful thinking on Democrats’ part. Not only had he himself declared he was considering the move, but it would have made perfect sense. Sparks is currently a double underdog in the Governor’s race: He faces an uphill climb to beating Rep. Artur Davis in the Democratic primary, and even if he does beat Davis Alabama is too red a state for Republicans not to be favored in the general election. If he had ran in AL-05, however, Sparks would have coasted to the Democratic nomination and arguably had a stronger shot in the general election: Not that the district is bluer than the state at large, but it has a long history of voting Democratic in non-presidential races. In fact, it has never voted for a Republican in a House race.

Spark’s exit from the House race does not mean Democrats are out of option. For one, Public Service Commissioner Susan Parker would make for a strong candidate; but the problem with this former state Auditor isn’t so much her electability but the fact that it would be very risky for her to run: She is up for re-election in 2010, so challenging Griffith would mean giving up a safe position for a tough race. Other names are also floating, but AL-05 is conservative enough that Democrats are unlikely to be competitive unless they nominate a top-tier contender who has already developed a long relationship with voters.

Of course, even if Democrats fail to contest the seat it won’t mean Griffith can expect an easy cycle, as his two Republican opponents are proving themselves determined to take him down. (Remember: Alabama has a runoff system so Griffith cannot benefit from his opponents’ divisions.) If we heard more about Mo Brooks over the past week, Lee Phillip ensured he would not be forgotten by sending a mailer to the district’s Republican households attacking Griffith’s ties to national Democratic leaders:

To make matters worse for Griffith, we are for the first time hearing that the NRCC did not commit to helping win the primary - at least that’s what GOP sources are telling Politico. It is somewhat incomprehensible that the congressman accepted to switch parties in such conditions: He must have known that it would not be easy for him to be accepted by local Republicans, so how could he not insist that his switch be accompanied by a financial commitment? Sure, he is no Arlen Specter but it still seems to be something the NRCC would have ended up accepting.

Another district in which Democrats are having recruiting difficulties is TX-10: I already wrote about the district last week, when Jack McDonald’s surprisingly dropped-out of the race. But the catch is that the filing deadline is this coming Monday, and Democrats now have absolutely no one seeking their party’s nomination. Sure, targeting Rep. Michael McCaul isn’t the DCCC’s priority but failing him to field any candidate would be a big setback: The incumbent looked surprisingly weak in 2008, so Democrats shouldn’t allow him to calmly build up his profile while running unopposed. It looks like 2008 nominee Larry Joe Doherty is taking a look at the race in the wake of McDonald’s withdrawal, but his supporters only have 5 days to convince him.

In fact, Democrats are facing a broader Texas problem: A SSP diarist shows that, while are all 12 Democratic incumbents have drawn opponents, only 9 of 20 Republicans are facing challengers! Running unopposed at the moment are: Ultra-conservative Rep. Gohmert (TX-10), Rep. Poe (TX-02), Rep. Johnson (TX-03), Rep. Hall (TX-04), Rep. Culberson (TX-07), Rep. Brady (TX-08), Rep. McCaul, Rep. Granger (TX-12) and Rep. Thornberry (TX-13). Like McCaul, Culberson had shown some signs of weakness in 2008.

Of course, Democrats have no chance of ever winning most of these 11 districts, but that does not mean that this discrepancy won’t have deleterious effects on the party’s performance up and down the ballot: The lack of Democratic challengers could negatively affect turnout since Bill White will be the only Democrat at the top of the ballot in more than a third of the state!

One district in which neither party is having any difficulty recruiting, meanwhile, is WA-03. Hotline On Call walks us through the latest developments in the race to replace retiring Rep. Brian Baird. As I wrote earlier this month, Democrats were already facing an ideologically clear choice between centrist state Rep. Deb Wallace and more mainstream state Senator Craig Pridemore. Another high-profile candidate has emerged: ex-state Rep. Denny Heck has not run for office since the 1980s, but he remained involved in political circles and could use his personal funds to finance his campaign. It’s unclear how he would position himself vis-a-vis Wallace and Pridemore. On the GOP side, I am surprised no elected official has emerged to challenge 31-year old state Rep. Jaime Herrerra (other state legislators’ names were being floated), but she is sure to face competition; conservative activists are perhaps looking for a candidate to rally around.

Radanovich becomes the first retiring Republican

Published
by
Taniel
on December 29, 2009
in CA-19
. 4 Comments

It doesn’t dramatically alter the 2010 landscape, but it is significant nonetheless: This morning, Rep. George Radanovich (CA-19) became the first Republican to announce an outright retirement.

CA-19 thus becomes the 13th open seat Republicans will have to defend next year (the 12 other districts are being vacated because the incumbent is running for higher-office, and not because they are leaving politics); of these, 4 should be competitive. Democrats are defending 10 open seats, of which 7 should be competitive.

After the wave of Democrats announcing they wouldn’t run for office next year, Radanovich’s decision will help the DCCC insist there is no bizarre retirement virus solely going around Democratic ranks.

Yet, there is no question that this open seat is nowhere near as big of a headache for Republicans than TN-06, TN-08, WA-03 and KS-03 are for Democrats; in fact, the DCCC would gladly agree to defend four CA-19s in exchange of just one TN-06. The district gave George W. Bush a 61% to 38% victory; four years later, Barack Obama significantly closed the gap, but John McCain still prevailed 52% to 46%. In short, and however substantial the continuing blue-ing of California politics, this isn’t the most hospitable of districts for Democrats.

Radanovich prepared his succession before leaving office: He announced state Senator Jeff Denham would run to replace him in the same statement in which he revealed his retirement: “I am pleased to say that I reached out to State Senator Jeff Denham and asked him to consider running for my seat… After consulting with his family, he agreed to be our Republican candidate for the 19th congressional district.” (Interestingly, Denham went through a recall campaign in 2008: Democrats targeted him after he refused to help them pass the state budget, and managed to collect the 50,000 signatures they needed to put a recall on the ballot. But Denham prevailed with 73% of the vote in the ensuing vote.)

Why would Radanovich take such great pain to ensure Denham wastes no time before jumping in the race and gets his name in every story written today about CA-19? Jim Patterson, who served as the Mayor of Fresno from 1993 to 2001, was preparing to challenge Radanovich in the GOP primary; Patterson will almost certainly want to run for the open seat, so that should set up a competitive primary. A Denham-Patterson showdown would have the potential to be very divisive because Patterson used to be a Club for Growth-protege. In 2002, he ran for another House district (CA-21) with the Club’s help; though he lost that year, the Club could certainly guarantee he has enough funds to mount a top-notch campaign this year.

The GOP primary could get still more confusing if another politician whose name is now being floated decides to jump in: former Rep. Richard Pombo, who represented CA-11 until he lost in 2006, partly because he was surrounded by a cloud of controversies involving allegations of corruption and his status as environmental groups’ top target.

Depending on just how divisive the June primary gets - and depending who Republicans end up nominating - Democrats could have a chance at making the general election competitive, though that will require that they field a competitive nominee of their own. It is telling that most speculation at this point is surrounding GOP candidates. The local party could choose to concentrate on picking-up Denham’s state Senate seat, which leans blue: Democrats are hoping to expand their majority in the state legislature to finally be able to break the 2/3rd requirement to pass budgets, and this open seat is one of their most promising opportunities. (Denham was term-limited anyway, so this opening doesn’t come from his running for the House.)

For Democrats, the promise of Radanovich’s retirement might be longer-term than the 2010 cycle: Since CA-19 will be represented by a freshman come 2011, it could give state Democrats more leeway to draw a friendlier district - perhaps by putting in parts of neighboring CA-03, CA-18 and CA-20, which both went for Obama by more than 20%. Sure, they could do so whoever is the congressman, but California Democrats haven’t been willing to push aggressive redistricting in the past.

Congressional reapportionment heightens stakes of 2010 midterms

Published
by
Taniel
on December 28, 2009
in redistricting
. 15 Comments

In 2004, George W. Bush won the electoral college by a 286-251 margin; four years later, Barack Obama’s prevailed by a more decisive 365-173. Yet, if the elections had been fought within the electorate college as it will look after the next census is completed, the GOP candidates would have received substantially more electoral votes. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest state population estimates, Bush’s margin would have grown to 291-246 while Obama’s would have been reduced to 359-179.

Polidata uses the Census Bureau’s numbers to project 2010 population estimates, and reaches a slightly different reapportionment which would push things further in the GOP’s direction: A 292-245 margin for Bush (+12 compared to 2004) and a 358-180 margin for Obama (-14 compared to 2008).

So what states will see changes to the size of their congressional delegation? Texas is certain to the biggest winner of the next reapportionment. Based on the Census Bureau’s 2009 estimates, it would gain 3 seats. The current estimates also grant one additional seat to: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. But 8 states lose one seat (Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachussetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania) while Ohio loses two.

As I mentioned above, firms use Census numbers to project 2010 estimates. They found is that the fate of most of these states seems decided. Yet, there could be slight differences by the end of the decade: In particular, Texas seems more than likely to gain a 4th seat, which should come at the expense of either Missouri or Minnesota. (Interestingly, changes in migration patterns due to the recession altered the projections that had been made earlier this decade. Indeed, it long looked like AZ would gain two seats rather than one and that NC and OR would increase the size of their congressional delegation. It also looked at one point that New York would lose two seats rather than one. None of these changes now seem likely.)

Just a cursory look at these lists leaves no doubt that Republican states stand to gain while Democratic states stand to lose. 5 of the 8 states that will be gaining seats are strongly Republican, two are swing states and only one is strongly Democratic. 4 of the 9 states that will be losing seats are strongly Democratic, an additional 2 are competitive but decisively lean Democratic and 2 are swing states; only 1 is strongly Republican.

The paradox, of course, is that many of the red states that are gaining electoral votes are increasing their population because of voters are moving who are decidedly non-Republican. The fact that Texas is set to gain 3 to 4 congressional seats, for instance, speaks to immigration patterns that are making the state more diverse, and consequently more Democratic.

That is of little comfort to Democrats at the presidential level, at least not in the short term: While at some point in the future Texas and Arizona will be highly competitive swing states while Nevada should grow more reliably Democratic, 2012 (and perhaps even 2016) is probably too early. But it makes a big difference at the congressional level, and leads us to this paradox: Reapportionment should be good for Republicans in the winner-take-all electoral college system, but it might be hard for them to draw good news out of it at the House level.

The 2010 stakes

In particular, some of the Texas’s new districts will have to be drawn in the increasingly Hispanic and increasingly Democratic metropolitan areas. Since the state’s current congressional map is already a GOP gerrymander aimed at maximizing Republican performance, especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, it will not be easy to squeeze additional seats. In other words, 4 new seats for Texas certainly does not mean 4 new Republican districts. Similarly, that Georgia’s additional seat will have to be drawn somewhere in the Atlanta area means we should not take it for granted that it will go to Republicans; and whatever happens to Nevada’s new seat, redistricting should allow Democrats to solidify their hold on the two districts they already have.

In LA and NY, meanwhile, Republicans are more likely to be the ones bearing the brunt of the lost seats. The current delegation is 5-1, and come 2012 Democrats are virtually certain to still hold one (albeit a different one: The New Orleans-based district should go back to Democrats, while the district vacated by Charlie Melancon will likely be eliminated). In NY, Democrats will probably control the redistricting process, which will allow them to target Chris Lee’s upstate district or Peter King’s downstate district.

Needless to say, however, who controls the next round of redistricting will be very important in most states on this list. That’s nowhere so more the case than in Texas: The GOP cannot win it all, but it can still win more than it should - not to mention make life even more difficult for Rep. Chet Edwards. Republicans currently control the entire system, but Democrats are hoping they have a shot at seizing the state House: They need to pick-up 3 seats because they are currently down 77-73. (The party also has an uphill shot at reclaiming the Governor’s Mansion.)

Of the other states in which redistricting will require drawing in or deleting a district:

  • 4 have an independent commission in charge of the process: Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey and Washington.
  • 2 will have a bipartisan map: Louisiana (GOP will control governorship, Democrats the legislature) and Michigan (the state legislature is sure to be divided)
  • 1 is sure to be a Republican-only map: Utah
  • 2 states will probably be under full GOP control, but Dems have a shot at forcing bipartisan map: Georgia, South Carolina
  • 2 are currently under full Dem control, but GOP has a shot at forcing bipartisan map: Illinois, Massachussetts, New York
  • 5 are up-for-grabs depending on who wins toss-up Governor’s races and closely divided state Houses: Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio

Let’s take a closer look at these 10 states (other than Texas) in which the 2010 midterms will determine which party controls the redistricting process:

  1. Florida: The GOP will control the legislature, so the open Governor’s race will determine whether redistricting is once again a GOP gerrymander or if Democrats can get a better deal.
  2. Illinois: Democrats will control the legislature, but Republicans have a small chance at picking-up the governorship.
  3. Georgia: The GOP will control the legislature, but Democrats have a somewhat uphill shot at picking-up the governorship.
  4. Massachussetts: Democrats will control the legislature, but Republicans have a somewhat uphill shot at picking-up the governorship.
  5. Minnesota: Democrats will control the legislature, and they have an opportunity to draw themselves a favorable map if they can pick-up the Governor’s mansion.
  6. Nevada: Democrats are likely to control the state legislature, but Republicans are favored to retain the governorship. That should force a bipartisan map, but Democrats could still seize all control.
  7. New York: Democrats will control the state Assembly and most probably the legislature, but Republicans are hoping to have a voice in the process by recapturing the state Senate. Democrats currently have a 32-30 edge.
  8. Pennsylvania: Republicans are likely to keep the state Senate, so the stakes are whether the map will be bipartisan or whether the GOP will be able to seize full control by winning the Governor’s Mansion and by closing its 104-99 deficit in the state House.
  9. Ohio: Republicans are likely to keep the state Senate, so the stakes are whether the map will be bipartisan or whether the GOP will be able to seize full control by winning the Governor’s Mansion and by closing its 53-36 deficit in the state House.
  10. South Carolina: The GOP will control the legislature, but Democrats have a small chance at picking-up the governorship.

That’s quite a lot for the upcoming midterms to decide - and there’s more, since redistricting does not just occur in states that are gaining or losing a district. All 50 states will redraw their congressional maps, which heighten the gubernatorial and legislative stakes of most elections across the country. In particular, if Democrats win California’s gubernatorial election they could significantly damage Republicans: While they controlled the process at the start of the previous decade, they adopted a map that largely protected incumbents from both parties. Will they do the same in 2011, or can they be convinced to maximize Democratic performance? Since this is a post about reapportionment in particular rather than redistricting in general, I will leave that discussion for another day.

Weekly 2010 update: From open seats to party switchers

Published
by
Taniel
on December 27, 2009
in recruitment and retirement
. 5 Comments

If Democrats spent the past 5 weeks worrying about new open seats, they suddenly found themselves answering questions about possible party-switchers after Rep. Parker Griffith announced he would join the Republican caucus. But DCCC officials managed to quickly leak commitments out of some of their most conservative members - Bobby Bright, Walt Minnick - that they would not bolt, just as they’ve succeeded at getting many legislators who were rumored as potential retirees to announce they are seeking re-election: This week, it was Rep. John Spratt’s turn to signal he won’t give Democrats open seat headaches.

So have Democrats stabilized the situation? We shall know much more in the weeks ahead: Many states have filing deadlines from January to March, so there isn’t that much time left for some of these politicians to make up their mind.

One state that has a late filing deadline is New York, which explains why there are still many question marks surrounding the state’s top races. Rudy Giuliani finally made his intentions clear this week but his exit only forces the GOP to confront their lack of prominent contenders: Will Rick Lazio have the gubernatorial field for himself, and who can the party nominate against Kirsten Gillibrand? In the aftermath of Giuliani’s statement, Rep. Peter King unexpectedly walked back his ruling out a Senate run; while he made it clear he was unlikely to jump in, his name is back in the mix. As for Democrats, David Paterson’s numbers are slightly improving, which does create some minimal suspense as to what Andrew Cuomo will do; and Bill Thompson is still floating his name as a potential Senate candidate.

More unexpected speculation concerning a Republican congressman mulling a Senate run arose in Indiana: In the heels of John Hostettler’s surprising decision to challenge Evan Bayh, the name of Rep. Mike Pence - a conservative darling who’s high up in the House GOP leadership - is now being floated by the likes of Bill Kristol. There’s no evidence that Pence himself is open to the possibility, but might Kristol’s column lead to a Draft Pence movement?

Finally, two weeks after getting themselves an unexpectedly competitive candidate in the Idaho Governor’s race, Democrats might pull of the same in Nebraska: Douglas County Commissioner Mike Boyle, who served 6 years as Omaha Mayor in the 1980s, said he is looking at challenging Governor Heineman. Boyle would obviously face an uphill climb, not only because Nebraska is a conservative state but also because his tenure as mayor ended up in his recall. (Interestingly, Boyle lost the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 1990 to Ben Nelson.) Yet, Boyle has manged to rebound and his entry would at least put the contest on the map; that would in itself be newsworthy because Nebraska is one of only 5 Governor’s race (out of 38) that are currently rated “safe” for the incumbent party.

Also, an important correction to the post I wrote earlier this week on health care reform: It is increasingly looking like the C-SPAN caller who claimed to have taken Coburn’s prayer call seriously was pulling a prank. (I had already updated my original post to reflect that there was controversy about his sincerity, but the evidence is even stronger now.)

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:

Switched parties Rep. Parker Griffith (D, AL-05)
Announced they would not switch parties Rep. Bobby Bright (D, AL-02)
Rep. Walt Minnick (D, ID-01)
Rep. Chris Carney (D, PA-10)
Opened the door to retiring Rep. Peter King (R, NY-03)
Will not retire Rep. Baron Hill (D, IN-09)
Rep. John Spratt (D, SC-05)

Second, updates to the Senate recruitment page:

IN-Sen, GOP Rep. Mike Pence added to list (but highly unlikely)
NY-Sen, GOP Rudy Giuliani will not run
Rep. Peter King walked back ruling our run

Third, updates to gubernatorial races:

IA-Gov, GOP state Senator Jerry Behn will not run
NE-Gov, Dem Douglas County Commissioner Mike Boyle added to list
NY-Gov, GOP Rudy Giuliani confirmed he would not run

Switching parties isn’t a joyful ride after all

Published
by
Taniel
on December 26, 2009
in AL-02, AL-05, ID-01 and PA-10
. 40 Comments

As French Immigration Minister Eric Besson and now-Republican Rep. Parker Griffith can attest to, it’s never fun playing the role of the traitor. Your former friends detest you, your new allies disdain what they see as crass opportunism and resent your jumping over them without putting in the time to display any commitment to their movement, and no one can trust someone who has displayed a complete lack of loyalty. That Griffith reportedly downloaded voter information from the state Democratic Party’s files on the eve of his secret switch only heightens the perfidious nature of his move.

Back in the spring, Arlen Specter discovered it would not be easy to pull off his own transition but he was protected by the White House, which reigned in much of the Democratic attacks that would otherwise have reigned in on the senator; Specter could not avoid a credible primary challenge from Joe Sestak, but in recent months he has been working overtime to portray himself as a zealous liberal, so we shall see what comes out of this race in the first four months of 2010.

Griffith, on the other hand, can hardly expect effective protection: The GOP has no national leader who can convince local Republicans to accept him in their midst. As such, Griffith has faced a deluge of attacks from all quarters ever since he announced he would join the Republican caucus - not just by Democrats and conservative activists, but also by mainstream GOP officials! - so much so that it’s doubtful he improved his re-election chances.

It all started with an all-out Democratic declaration of war, which Griffith must have been expecting. Yet, his finances will find themselves deflated once Griffith returns the DCCC and fellow Democratic lawmakers’ contributions, as he has already agreed to do; he will also have to find himself an entirely new campaign and legislative team, since his consultants and staff are quitting en masse; and his former allies will spare him nothing, whether unearthing old quotes in which he professes his allegiance to Democrats to pointing out that Griffith donated substantial amounts to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004.

Conservative attacks were also to be expected. “We will not fix the GOP’s problems if we keep allowing people who are not one of us to suddenly switch the letter next to their name and magically become one of us,” wrote Red State. Yet, Griffith is certainly not in Specter’s position - i.e. someone whose lifetime voting record is often diametrically antithetical to his new party. In fact, the speed with which the right signaled it was not willing to accept the Alabaman was surprising given how uniformly conservative his 2009 voting record has been. The Club for Growth, for instance, was reduced to pointing to the amendments to the budget bill as Griffith’s main offense; the only high-profile vote they highlighted was Griffith’s support for the cash-for-clunker bill, which 59 Republicans supported.

Griffith was surely hoping to at least receive a more positive reception from the Republican establishment and from independent outlets, but even that hasn’t been the case: state Treasurer Kay Ivey, who is certainly not known as a movement conservative, wasted no time before blasting Griffith’s move and The Huntsville Times published a brutal editorial denouncing Griffith’s move as sure to harm the district. (Speaking of establishment support: I wonder if Griffith managed to extract a commitment that the NRCC will help him survive the primary. While it would be logical for him to have done so, officials are probably not looking to antagonize conservative activists who are already angry at the national committees’ often heavy-handed involvement in local matters.)

Given these near-unanimously critical reactions, should we be surprised that Griffith’s re-election prospects look just as endangered as they were last week? For one, there is now no doubt that he will face a very tough GOP primary: Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks, who had been preparing for months to run a top-tier campaign, has made it clear he will stick to the race. The party’s 2008 nominee Wayne Parker is also considering jumping in. (Note that Griffith cannot hope to clinch a plurality victory as his rivals divide the anti-incumbent vote because Alabama has a two-round primary system, which will force him to get 50% to move on to the general election.)

Second, Democrats might still have a shot at contesting the general election. District voters have never voted for a Republican congressman, so the Democratic nominee can certainly hope to appeal to the electorate’s loyalty to overcome the fact that McCain received 61% of the vote in 2008 (after all, Griffith managed to win an open seat that year, and he certainly was not helped by the top-of-the-ticket coattails considering Obama only got 38%). The most intriguing possibility is that Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, who is currently running for Governor, downgrade his ambitions to the House race; he pointedly refused to rule out the possibility. Another possibility is Public Service Commissioner Susan Parker, who also held the statewide office of Auditor, but local blog Political Parlor deems her entry unlikely because she would have to give up her current office.

Note that from the perspective of the GOP leadership it could not matter less whether Griffith survives the primary: Whoever moves on to the general election, the Republican nominee will not have to face a Democratic incumbent. While Sparks or Parker could make the general election competitive, there is no doubt that the GOP is now clearly favored to hold AL-05 in the 112th Congress.

But from Griffith’s perspective, it obviously matters a great deal. As such, his fate over the past few days will not help Republicans convince other Democrats to cross over. Within a day of the Alabaman’s announcement, the two freshmen representatives who represent the most hostile districts announced they were sticking with Democrats: Rep. Bobby Bright (AL-02) reportedly said as much to DCCC officials, while Rep. Walt Minnick (ID-01) released a statement. Of course, they might very well change their minds in the months ahead, but I would not hold my breath - especially for Minnick: Releasing a statement (as opposed to than privately informing party officials, as Bright did) is the type of incriminating commitment he would not want out there if he was secretly mulling a switch.

Yet, an unexpected Democrat emerged as the most open to becoming a Republican: Rep. Chris Carney, a sophomore who represents a district (PA-10) Bush won by 20% and McCain by 9%. When Politico reported that prominent Republicans were reaching out to Carney and that he had received a phone call from no other than John McCain, the congressman’s office responded: “No further comment at this time.” The next day, however, Carney put a statement announcing that, “I appreciate the Republican Party’s outreach, but I have no plans to change parties.”

There has been a fair amount of skepticism that Carney might ever have seriously considering switching parties. While he is a Blue Dog, he has never tried to position himself as one of the more conservative House Democrats: He voted for the health-care bill, for the stimulus, for the financial regulation bill. In a district with a substantial conservative electorate, how could he possibly have survived a Republican primary with such a record?

Rather, Carney might have been signaling he was considering switching parties to draw attention to the fact that Republicans were courting him - something he is sure to bring up in his general election campaign next fall. In fact, Carney wasted no time touting his independence in light of these latest developments: “I am flattered by the overtures of Sen. McCain and other Republican Party officials and consider their outreach a sure sign that I have worked in a truly bipartisan manner,” he said in the same statement that announced he would stay a Democrat. “I always put my district above political party and have maintained an independent voice.” Given Carney’s voting record, how did the GOP leadership not see this was coming?

Health-care bill passes Senate

Published
by
Taniel
on December 24, 2009
in health care
. 13 Comments

On a 60 to 39 vote, the Senate passed the health-care reform bill this morning, advancing the legislation towards a now all but ineluctable adoption in early 2010.

That the past few days were unsuspenseful is enough to make us forget that back in August it was no foregone conclusion that Democrats would present a unified front; even as it became clear in November that something would pass, the outlines of a bill that might get the support of 60 senators wasn’t easy to discern. Yet, by last week-end the only question marks concerned the timing of the vote and Robert Byrd’s health, which Tom Coburn had essentially urged conservatives to pray would deteriorate (which led to this depressing, albeit perhaps fake, video of someone who took him seriously). Over and over this week, 60 Democrats stood united in pushing the bill forward.

That said, I am surprised by the final roll call: Final passage only requires 50 votes, and I had always assumed that at least some conservative Democrats would choose to vote against it since their vote is no longer needed. What convinced Ben Nelson, Roland Burris and most significantly Blanche Lincoln to vote ‘yes’ this morning? This seems to me to be a somewhat worrisome development: Not only did a routine develop over the past half-decade that absolutely every legislation, amendment and nomination needs to secure a 60-vote supermajority, but senators are increasingly internalizing the idea that voting for cloture and for final passage is the same thing.

When filibustering and oppose a bill are considered different, a senator can ask for different concessions depending on if he is being asked to support the former or the latter (which often led to some supporting cloture and then voting ‘no’); this fall, however, Lieberman took the lead in making it clear he’d filibuster if he had any issue with the bill - and that essentially came to mean securing 60 votes for cloture is equivalent to securing 60 votes for passage. That makes for a far higher hurdle for future bills - and perhaps also for future judicial nominations - to clear.

Of course, another novelty in the process was Republicans’ determination to present a unified front whatever Democrats propose. This might be the usual way Parliament works in European countries, but party-line votes on high-profile bills are certainly not the norm in Congress: Olympia Snowe’s ‘no’ vote is telling, considering this legislation is substantially similar to the one she supported in committee. Sure, individual mandates were added, but the Finance Committee prevailed over the HELP Committee on issues like the level of Medicaid expansion or the public option. Snowe was left justifying her vote by claiming the process was too hurried, even though she was part of Max Baucus’s Gang of Six that spent endless months negotiating.

Harry Reid can finally take a few hours of rest now that he managed to sell the legislation to every member of the Democratic caucus - something that at many points this year looked like an impossible proposition. Whatever else happens over the next six weeks, the bottom line is that a version of health-care reform that resembles the Senate’s should land on the president’s desk over the next 6 weeks, granting Democrats as major a legislative victory as they have gotten in the past three decades. Millions who do not currently have insurance will be covered (many of them thanks to government subsidies) and Medicaid will be expanded to millions who currently do not qualify.

But considering where we were in early October (the Finance Committee produced legislation that is similar to what the Senate adopted today, and it did look like liberals would manage to push the bill leftward because of the need to merge it with the HELP committee’s bill) and considering that the private sector got many of its wishes (the Pharma Deal held while insurers will not have to worry about competition from a public option), the past few months have understandably been painful for progressives.

The process often came down to granting Lieberman everything he wanted without extracting concessions; the leadership’s decision to essentially take reconciliation off the table weeks before the final vote emboldened conservative Democrats to take the legislation hostage; the White House consistently sided with centrists in urging the bill drafters - Pelosi first, Reid second - to water down the legislation; Obama’s recent comments that he did not campaign on the public option, which echoed Lieberman’s transparent early December lies, confirmed his disinterest in even pretending that he fought alongside liberals; and the debate’s final two weeks devolved into open warfare within the left, between those led by Howard Dean, MoveOn and Jane Hamsher who advocated killing the bill as a giveaway to the private sector and those who pushed back on that contention.

In the end, the former group did not convince its few Senate allies - Sanders, Brown - to sink the Senate deal and force the leadership to go down the reconciliation route. Conservative senators were appeased, liberals senators touted the provisions they championed that had been left intact, and the 60-vote coalition held.

Now comes conference. (Despite some speculation that the White House might try to convince House leaders to adopt the Senate bill as is, or by introducing only a few minor additions, it looks like Democrats have abandoned the possibility of ping-ponging their way to a final bill.) On paper, this should be a difficult procedure: For months, dozens of House Democrats have pledged they would vote against any bill that lacked a public option, so common sense (not to mention the fact that the House hasn’t been designed to roll over for the Senate) would dictate that they receive some concessions in exchange for supporting the legislation.

Yet, the Progressive Caucus leaders who took the lead in taking that pledge (starting with Rep. Grijalva) have signaled they’re willing to accept the Senate bill; yesterday, Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter suggested that passing the Senate bill would be worst than passing none, but she quickly signaled that even such a strong statement should not be taken as a sign she was preparing to vote ‘no’. Given Grijalva’s comments, given that Nelson and Lieberman have made it clear that they would have no hesitation voting against the conference report and given that the leadership can no longer credibly threaten to go to reconciliation, it’s hard to see how the conference report substantially differ from what passed today.

Yet, there are still a few issues on which liberals are hoping to prevail - and if Nancy Pelosi plays her card rights, these are winnable battle. The highest-profile at this point is how the insurance exchanges will be designed: at the state level, as the Senate would have it, or as a single national marketplace, as the House bill proposes? Leaving the implementation of the exchanges, the price bargaining and the regulatory power to the federal government rather than to the states would greatly expand the system’s strength.

Other issues which House negotiators will try to push include increasing the level of subsidies, improving the treatment reversed to immigrants (Reid has reportedly already promised Bob Menendez to remove legal immigrants’ waiting period) and advancing the date at which most of the reform will come to be implemented from 2014 to 2013. And then there is abortion, the main issue on which the House bill is to the Senate’s right: How will Pelosi deal with Rep. Stupak’s threats to sink the legislation if his amendment is not included in the conference report?

How these questions are answered could be very important from an electoral perspective. Paradoxically, both parties believe the bill’s passage can help them on the campaign trail. Democrats hope that it will be proof they can govern and deliver on their promises and that it will help them turn out the base, while Republicans are confident it will lead to a backlash. I don’t think the two propositions are contradictory. As any ruling party, Democrats stand to lose short-term by passing controversial legislation, but failing to adopt a health-care bill after spending 7 months talking about wouldn’t appease conservatives while it would infuriate liberals and turn off independents.

The question, then, now is whether the bill is too watered down for Democrats to gain much in terms of motivating their base; in particular, the public option had become a recognizable issue across the country, even among voters who do not follow political news daily. Can the House force the inclusion of some of its provisions to make the base more excited come February than it is today and to give progressives the credibility they’ll need to have a voice in the policy debates that are coming up in 2010?

Poll watch: David Paterson enjoys uptick, Rand Paul grabs a decisive lead

Published
by
Taniel
on December 23, 2009
in CT-Sen, KY-Sen, MI-Gov, ND-Sen and NY-Gov
. 2 Comments

For the third time this month, a poll suggests David Paterson’s fortunes have taken a turn for the better. First were Quinnipiac and Siena’s surveys, now is SUSA’s monthly look at the governor’s approval rating, which has risen to its highest level since January. Sure, it still stands at a dismal 32%, but that’s certainly an improvement over June’s 18%, October’s 22% and November’s 24%.

While this improvement is certainly not enough for him to be competitive against Andrew Cuomo, Paterson’s hope is that the Democratic establishment eases the pressure he faces to retire: He can now point to Giuliani’s decision not to run and to the uptick in his poll numbers to argue that he is electable after all. Paterson’s strategy is also to give Cuomo second thoughts by ensuring the primary doesn’t just like a formality. As such, the fact that his approval rating among African-Americans has risen from 25% to 43% in two months is excellent news for the governor: In 2002, Cuomo ran in a racially charged primary that proved a significant setback to his career, and he’d be likely to hesitate before getting in if there are any signs 2010 might prove a replay.

Dodd trails in internal poll

Another state, another Democratic incumbent who is trying to fight charges that he’s unelectable: Chris Dodd released an internal poll (conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner) this week that is supposed to reassure his party - but I’m unsure how it’s meant to do that. While he ties Linda McMahon at 46%, Dodd trails Rob Simmons 51% to 46%. The margin is smaller than what other polls’ have shown, but an incumbent will never get positive coverage for releasing an internal poll showing him behind. The desperation underlying such an act is so transparent that it can only raise eyebrows: This is the best showing the campaign has to release?

Is this poll a sign that Dodd is planning to dig, contrary to speculation that he’s open to retiring? Or is it a last-ditch effort to see if he can rally support from party officials? While we’ll only know the answer to this question in the next few months, the fact is that there’s still little evidence that national Democrats are trying to push the senator out. Joe Biden just hosted a fundraiser for his re-election race. Compare that with the treatment Jim Bunning received earlier this year.

Rand Paul seizes commanding leads in Kentucky Senate race

Democratic candidates in other open Senate seats have been able to resist the worsening environment, but Kentucky is too conservative for the shifting political winds not to have had a major impact: While in April PPP found the general election to be a toss-up, the two Republican candidates have substantially improved their performances to grab decisive leads. SoS Tray Grayson leads 40% to 33% against AG Jack Conway (he trailed by 4% in April) and 44% to 35% against LG Dan Mongiardo; Rand Paul leads both Democrats 42% to 36%, a stronger showing than what earlier polls have found.

Picking-up this seat hasn’t looked easy for Democrats ever since Jim Bunning announced he’d retire, and it does look like the party’s nominee will have to swim against the national and state tide. (In the Democratic primary, Conway leads 37% to 33%, which makes this the first public poll to have the Attorney General ahead.)

But PPP’s most stunning finding is that Rand Paul has grabbed a big lead against establishment favorite Grayson in the GOP primary: 44% to 25%. Other surveys have found Paul to be unexpectedly strong, but never to this extent. It’s hard not to see this as good news for Democrats: While Paul has outside of the MoE leads, he’s a far riskier proposition for Republicans than Grayson. An untested candidate (it showed this week), Paul could give Democrats the openings they need to make the race about him whereas Grayson could run the type of quite campaign that allows him to win on the sole basis of the national environment. (Another arguable reason for Democrats to root for Paul: Even if he wins the general election, he’d give the GOP leadership far more headaches than the presumably reliable Grayson would.)

Dorgan at the mercy of Hoeven’s entry

Senator Byron Dorgan has reason to be nervous: Not only is there continuing buzz that Governor John Hoeven might challenge him come January, but polls showing Hoeven would start as the clear frontrunner are piling on. We’d had Zogby (+19% for Hoeven) and Public Opinion Strategies (+17% for Hoeven), we now get Rasmussen’s first foray in North Dakota, which is the best yet for the Republican: He leads by a stunning 22%, 58% to 36%. Dorgan’s vulnerability entirely stems from Hoeven’s strength: While it pales in comparison to Hoeven’s 82% favorability rating, Dorgan’s 62% rating is very strong. Also, he leads the GOP’s 2008 House nominee (Duane Sand) 52% to 37%. In short, Hoeven’s decision is up there with Beau Biden’s as the biggest shoe left drop in the 2010 cycle.

Michigan’s governorship still looks out of Cherry’s reach

Many polls this year have shown that Lieutenant Governor John Cherry is in no position to win Michigan’s governorship, and Rasmussen confirms how large a deficit he starts with: Posting a mediocre favorability rating (39-35) whereas all his Republican rivals enjoy far stronger numbers, Cherry trails Attorney General Mike Cox 39% to 34%, Rep. Pete Hoekstra 46% to 32% and Sheriff Mike Bouchard 42% to 32%. In particular weighed down by Jennifer Granholm’s dismal approval rating (32-66), Cherry can’t even point to a name recognition differential to explain his large deficits.

Dems get bad news in two red districts they’d made 2010 priorities

Published
by
Taniel
on December 23, 2009
in MN-06 and TX-10
. 4 Comments

Within hours of Parker Griffith’s defection, the DCCC got two other signs that the political winds have shifted over the past year, transforming strong Democratic opportunities into long-shots. Indeed, at the start of the cycle Democrats had not given up the hope of scoring substantial gains: With California looking like it has untapped resources and a number of GOP incumbents coming out of the 2008 cycle with an aura of vulnerability , 2010 was the opportunity to pick-up additional seats.

One such incumbent is Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Defeating her has been a liberal priority ever since she became one of the far right’s leading spokespeople, and the party has recruited strong challengers against her: state Senator Tarryl Clark and Maureen Reed, a doctor who has been insisting she will now bow out for Clark and who’s been able to maintain herself due to surprisingly strong fundraising. With Bachmann regularly in the news for some statement or another, Democrats have been hoping these candidates can appeal to independents and perhaps even moderate Republicans.

Yet, a new PPP shows Bachmann is a strong position to win a third term. Not only does she have a solid approval rating (53% to 41%), including 51% approval among independents, but she has large leads against both Democrats: 55% to 37% against Clark, 53% to 37% against Reed. While her challengers are less-known that the incumbent, the poll doesn’t suggest respondents are reluctant to vote for Bachmann since she easily crosses the 50% threshold in both match-ups. There is no substantial pool of voters who are turned off by the incumbent and are looking for an alternative.

Given that MN-06 was one of the DCCC’s top eight offensive priorities according to comments made over the summer by the committee’s executive officer, these numbers sure are rough.

PPP compares Bachmann’s standing to that of Herseth Sandlin, the South Dakota Democrat who led her top competitor 46% to 39% in a poll released last week. Both incumbents have a similar approval rating spread (+12% and +11%, respectively), yet the latter has a far smaller lead and fails to cross 50%. That’s striking considering the fact that Herseth Sandlin has coasted to triumphant re-elections in 2006 and 2008 whereas Bachmann has struggled to win on both occasions. This suggests that many voters typically open to voting for a Democrat are very reluctant to do so this year, whereas there is no such qualms among those who typically lean right.

This situation might not limit Democratic opportunities in districts like LA-02, DE-AL, PA-06 and IL-10, and it doesn’t prevent the party from winning swing seats like MN-03 and the California districts that swung to Obama. But it does make it tough to envision a Democratic challenger pick-up a red district like MN-06, which did give McCain a 8% victory: Wave or no wave, the sort of cross-over voting this would be required is unlikely to occur in the midterm election of a Democratic president.

That situation is surely weighing hard on the mind of candidates who are challenging Republican incumbents in challenging districts: They got in at a time Democrats seemed like they could do anything, and they’re now stuck in races that look rather unwinnable - or at least far more difficult to pull off. One such candidate was businessman Jack McDonald, who was challenging Rep. Michael McCaul.

TX-10 is one of those districts which are bound to be very competitive some time in the future due to demographic changes, and while we aren’t there yet the past three presidential results are telling: Bush won by 33% in 2000, he won by 24% in 2004 and McCain won by 11% last year. That same day, McCaul was held to 54% by a Democrat who was barely noticed by national observers until the final weeks of the campaign. His 2010 opponent, however, was noticed within the first few months of 2009: He massively outraised the incumbent in the first quarter ($311,000 to $98,000), a rare discrepancy that he managed to repeat in the second and third quarter. Reporting nearly $1 million in contributions in an off-year is certainly enough to get national Democrats’ attention: The DCCC’s executive officer also included TX-10 among the party’s top eight priorities.

Fast forward to December: While the DCCC is no longer as focused on playing offense, it is nonetheless excited when McDonald finally formally announces a run (he had only formed an exploratory committee for most of 2009). But in a bizarrely speedy twist, McDonald announced last night that he was dropping out. There are only 10 more days before the filing deadline and $1 million in contribution that just evaporated: Gone are Democrats’ chances of contest the district. McCaul will most probably coast to an easy re-election.

For one of the party’s eight priorities to suddenly go completely off the map is quite a blow, not only because of what it does to TX-10 but also because of what it says about Democrats’ mood elsewhere. Consider that the party’s top recruit also recently dropped out in another of the DCCC’s top priorities: OH-02! I was never convinced that race merited an inclusion on that list when there were so many more promising districts in California, but at the very least this speaks to Democratic fortunes in those races the DCCC was looking to focus on.

If these developments are troubling for the DCCC, they’re all the more worrisome for Blue Dogs. We already knew that the coalition will lose many members (senior members are retiring, a number of junior recruits will probably lose their re-election races, and one of their members just became a Republican yesterday!), but we are now learning that they’re unlikely to gain any new members. The districts Democrats pick-up next year will be in districts like DE-AL and IL-10, which are unlikely to elect a conservative; Democrats who were looking to join Blue Dogs (McDonald and Maureen Reed have both been using that label to describe themselves) are running in districts that are looking like increasingly tough propositions for the party. Democrats might lose seats next year, but it won’t necessarily make it that harder for Nancy Pelosi to pass her priorities.

Rep. Parker Griffith becomes a Republican

Published
by
Taniel
on December 22, 2009
in AL-05
. 11 Comments

Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith is set to announce that he is joining the GOP, giving House Republicans a rare boost that leaves them 40 seats shy of the majority. Beyond reducing the GOP’s daunting seat deficit, this development is sure to feed the narrative of Democrats’ collapsing fortunes at a time Republicans are feeling increasingly upbeat about their chances of scoring big gains next year.

Not since 2004 had a U.S. representative switched parties, and Griffith’s decision comes just six months after Senator Arlen Specter moved in the opposite direction. With polls showing many independents preparing to vote for the GOP next year, the last thing Democrats need is for politicians to leave the party by blaming its leftward drift. (See Dennis Moore’s retirement announcement.) And the NRCC can now point to a powerful symbol to justify its hopes of a realignment: It will be the first time since Reconstruction this district will be represented by a Republican.

While a principled explanation is far more credible coming from Griffith than Specter (he is a far better fit with the GOP than Specter was with Democrats), he is sure to have taken electoral considerations into account: He represents a staunchly conservative Southern district that’s growing increasingly comfortable voting for Republicans (Bush received 60% in 2004 and McCain received 64%). Added to the fact that he is a freshman, that made Griffith one of 2010′ most vulnerable incumbents. His decision to run as a Republican speaks volumes about the nervousness of Democrats who represent marginal districts.

Yet, major caveats are immediately necessary. First, his decision was a long time coming: In August, he had attacked the Democratic Party with such venom that it had looked obvious he might join Republicans; I for one had mentioned that possibility. Second, Griffith is no longtime congressman whose switch might signal something about the South’s long-term trends (Updated: I previously said this was Griffith’s first foray in politics, which is completely wrong since he served as a state Senator for 2 years. But the point remains: Many of his Southern Democratic colleagues have been in the House for decades whereas Griffith signaled discomfort with the party as soon as he jumped in federal politics.)

Third, Griffith had long emerged as the most conservative House Democrat - or at least as the party’s least loyal congressman. It’s not just that he has voted with Republicans in nearly all of the year’s important votes: Against the stimulus, against the budget, against Waxman-Markey, against the mortgage bill, against health-care reform, against the financial regulation bill and even the Lilly Ledbetter Act - a record that makes him not only the most conservative Democrat according to ProgressivePunch, but also places him to the right of some Republicans.

More significant is that he had signaled he would not support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker at the start of the next Congress, an extreme statement that already all but placed him outside of the Democratic Party. (On the same day, he also said of Pelosi: “I’ve got a gift certificate to the mental health center.”) The leadership vote is the one instance the DCCC can point to in order to justify spending resources electing arch-conservative Democrats, and it is extremely rare for a Blue Dog to buck his party on that occasion. The only recent instance I can think of is Gene Taylor in 2004, but he was back in the fold by 2006.

In short:

  1. The GOP might gain a new member but it hardly gains a new vote (at the very least not on any controversial bill that might ever face a suspenseful roll call, and perhaps not even on the leadership vote) so this won’t change anything in the House balance of power in the next year.
  2. His decision cannot be interpreted as a sign that other Blue Dogs might looking to join him in jumping ship; even someone like Bobby Bright has not taken as much pain to distance himself from his party.

Perhaps more than a setback to Democrats, Griffith’s decision is a blow to Blue Dog Democrats. Already fragile because of the retirement announcements of some of their most powerful members (Bart Gordon and John Tanner) and because of the electoral vulnerability of many of their members, the coalition loses yet another member. Furthermore, this group usually takes great pain to insist they are not Republicans in Democratic disguise - this is necessary for them to yield influence on the House and to not attract so much hostility from the liberal base as to have their re-election races endangered - so Griffith’s move puts them in an uncomfortable position.

None of this should be enough to console the DCCC, however: The committee spent about $1 million last year helping Griffith win a competitive open seat. He was carried across the finish-line by a favorable environment so the party could have gotten someone else elected if it had not known just how conservative Griffith is - or at least channeled the money elsewhere. And here lies the silver lining for Democrats: Given its commitment to protecting all incumbents, the DCCC would have been sure to dump a fair amount of money on AL-05 next year despite Griffith’s August comments. That money could now go to other incumbents - and all of them are more reliable than Griffith.

Update: Griffith will face tough cycle nonetheless

Other Southern Democrats who’ve become Republicans have managed to easily secure GOP nominations (Senator Richard Shelby, Reps. Virgil Goode Rodney Alexander, Nathan Deal) but, unsurprisingly in the current environment, that will not be the case for Griffith: Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks is sticking to the race. He has already raised $116,000, and conservative groups and websites have signaled they’ll work to oust Griffith.

Also, Democrats have nothing to gain by having Griffith win the GOP primary: Party switchers tend to be overzealous in proving their sincerity, so it’s certainly not like Griffith would be a Cao or Caste-like moderate. How often do Democrats get help from Shelby?

Rudy Giuliani heads out of the 2010 cycle

Published
by
Taniel
on December 22, 2009
in NY-Sen
. 6 Comments

Kirsten Gillibrand must be wondering how she got so lucky.

While her politics would have made it impossible for her to win a Democratic primary for an open Senate seat, she was appointed to the upper chamber after just two years in the House. While her conservative voting record and hardline stance on immigration drew nearly unanimous fire from liberals and from Hispanics groups, her critics gave up one by one - either endorsing the senator in the process or blaming the White House-Chuck Schumer axis for making it impossible to mount a credible statewide run. And while her poll numbers remain very weak, no Republican has emerged willing to take her on.

Last night, we learned that the GOP’s dream candidate Rudy Giuliani will not run for Senate - nor for any other political office - a rare good news for Democrats on the recruitment front that almost removes New York from the list of competitive Senate races. Given the number of seats the party has to defend, not having to worry about spending millions to defend the Empire State has to be a huge relief for the DSCC - not to mention for Gillibrand.

Giuliani had spent much of the year flirting with the possibility and he led Gillibrand by daunting margins. In mid-November, The Daily News prematurely reported that Giuliani was set on running; other press outlets quickly nuanced the story, but the consensus was that the former mayor was leaning towards jumping in. As this happened roughly at the same time that Siena and Marist released surveys showing Giuliani up by double-digits, Democrats were not amused.

All of this said, Giuliani’s exit is not enough to end the GOP’s hopes of picking-up Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. Former Governor George Pataki has yet to rule out making a run, and not having to worry about a primary with Giuliani could encourage him; yet, most signs point towards he’s not running and he looks more interested in running for president in 2012. Republicans could also turn to Larchmont Mayor Liz Feld, Port Authority Commissioner Bruce Blakeman and former state Senator Mike Balboni. Yet, while all three could make Gillibrand sweat, New York remains a blue enough state and Gillibrand a well-financed enough incumbent that the GOP would face an uphill climb without Giuliani and without Pataki. A Siena poll released last week had Gillibrand leading Blakeman 52% to 22% - above the 50% threshold.

Giuliani’s decision not to run for anything in 2010 has as important consequences on the Governor’s race, but we already covered those last month since that part of his decision was already clear then. The most important thing to watch for is how this influences Democrats’ eagerness to dump David Paterson from the ballot; since the incumbent manages to poll competitively against Rick Lazio, the disappearance of the Giuliani threat should ease the pressure he faces to retire and it could mean that part of the state establishment becomes more resistant to Andrew Cuomo running than they would have been otherwise.

Finally, this development perhaps signals that Giuliani no longer intends to seek any elected office. After his short-lived 2000 Senate campaign and the disaster that was his 2008 presidential campaign, the former mayor had a golden opportunity to get back in the game - a favorable environment, a weak incumbent who had never faced most of her constituents, good poll numbers. His decision not to take advantage of it will solidify the conventional wisdom that he never intended to run and was only teasing to keep himself in the game, which shouldn’t endear him to state Republicans.

On the other hand, I am not convinced - as most are reporting - that this is the end of Giuliani’s political career. After all, if the former mayor is committed to running for president in 2012, challenging Gillibrand would have been a major obstacle. Not only would he have to move to Iowa and New Hampshire just after being sworn in to the Senate, but he would have to immediately transition from appealing to New York’s left-leaning electorate to courting the country’s conservative Republican base - an impossible proposition that would have made Mitt Romney’s flip-flops seem like a paradigm of principled behavior. And it’s not like Giuliani could easily wait until 2016, since he would already be 72 by that time.

In short: If the White House is Giuliani’s only end goal (given his brutal style, can we imagine him really wanting to serve in the Senate?), he had little choice but to pass on 2010.

Dems apparently avoid the open seat they were most worried about

Published
by
Taniel
on December 21, 2009
in IN-09 and SC-05
. 0 Comments

Due to holiday-period traveling, I’ll be keeping posting today light.

Once again, the week starts with conversations about House retirements - but for once, the news is good for Democrats. The congressman whose potential retirement has long been worrying the DCCC - Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, a 28-year incumbent who represents a tough districts - has for the first time signaled he’ll seek re-election: He just filed paperwork with the F.E.C. and Spratt later gave a direct statement to the press. “I’m still a committee chairman. I have a possibility of being chair of another committee,” he said. “There’s lots of reasons for me to keep on serving.”

(While South Carolina’s filing deadline is in March, which leaves Spratt a little time to change his mind, we are getting close enough to the deadline that he probably would not issue such definite statements if he was not committed to the race.)

Last week, when the DCCC managed to get numerous incumbents to confirm they would be seeking another term in 2010, Spratt’s office was conspicuously silent and numerous press outlets reported that he had told Democratic officials he might call it quits. As such, Spratt’s announcement today is a huge relief for the party: His predominantly rural district would have been tough to defend in any cycle, let alone in one that could be rough on Democrats. (SC-05 voted for John McCain by 7% and for George W. Bush by 14%.)

An open seat race would have been all the more fascinating to follow because SC-05 is the sort of Southern district that never completed its realignment because it was represented by an entrenched Democrats by the time 1994 came around. (Spratt only survived by 5%.) It has never elected a Republican since Reconstruction, and Democrats control many of the area’s local offices.

That Spratt is running for re-election doesn’t mean the strength of the district’s ancestral allegiance to the Democratic Party won’t be tested: state Senator Mike Mulavey has been running against Spratt, and he could provide the veteran lawmaker the toughest test of his career. In an anti-incumbent mood, Spratt’s position as the head of the Budget Committee could help the NRCC mobilize fiscally conservative voters’ against him; also, his electability largely depends on turnout among African-Americans, who make up 33% of the district’s electorate, and we’ll have to see how mobilized the Democratic base is next year.

One factor that should reassure Democrats, however: Unlike many of his longtime colleagues who represent tough districts, Spratt was recently tested - and he came off confirming that he has strong standing in the district: : In 2006, then-state Rep. Ralph Norman ran against him, spent $1 million but still lost by double-digits. Sure, 2006 was a dismal environment for the GOP but Spratt’s triumph is more than Democrats like Snyder can point to.

Finally, a Spratt retirement could truly have opened the gates to retirements from marginal Democrats since it would have signaled even the most powerful House members are not looking forward to serving in the upcoming Congress. Instead, the DCCC has been getting many members to commit to running at this point.

Another Democratic incumbent confirmed that he’ll be seeking re-election: Rep. Baron Hill. This is not a surprise, since I was unable to envision Hill retiring now that he finally gets to run without having to face Mike Sodrel (he did four cycles in a row), but for some reason his name kept popping up in retirement discussions. His decision allows Democrats not to worry about IN-9, a red-leaning district that took a dramatic leftward turn in 2008.