21! There will be 21 open Governor’s race in the 2010 cycle, 4 of which will be due to voluntary retirements rather than to term-limits. The latest chief executive to join the ranks of retirees is the most stunning yet: Colorado’s first-term Governor Bill Ritter is set to announce today that he will not seek re-election this fall.
Last night, some pointed out that I lost sight of the big picture when commenting on Chris Dodd’s retirement, and I think that might be right. I don’t mean that I should have addressed the possibility that so many high-profile Democrats calling it quits in a single day will create a damaging narrative for the party (at this point, it’s become conventional wisdom that Democrats are facing the prospect of tough losses), but that I should place these decisions in the context of the entire cycle: We have gotten so used to the fact that Dodd and Ritter suffered from dismal approval ratings that we forget that at the start of 2009, no one could have foreseen that Dodd, Ritter or Byron Dorgan would have trouble securing additional terms in 2010.
All three looked like very popular incumbents, two of them veteran lawmakers and the third having enjoyed a landslide victory in 2006. By this week, we knew that both Ritter and Dodd were a weight on Democrats so their retirements are good developments for their party because they allow the nomination of more electable candidates; but from the perspective of where we stood in early 2009, their decisions confirm just how much the electoral landscape has shifted over the past 12 months. Anyone who reads this blog is obviously aware of that, but it’s still important to keep in mind.
This said, the bottom line is that most incumbent governors have become liabilities for their party: states are bearing the grunt of the recession, and governors have to deal with their states’ fiscal crises. That makes them unexpectedly vulnerable heading into 2010, which is obvious not only in Democratic-controlled states (Iowa, Ohio and also Colorado) but also in Republican-controlled states (polls suggest that Charlie Crist’s collapse is not just due to criticism from the right, but also from the decline of his approval rating that mirrors that of other governors). As such, PPP found Ritter leading Scott McInnis by a 49% to 36% margin; in August and again in November, PPP had him trailing by 5%. In the meantime, McInnis didn’t mount a campaign and he didn’t increase his name recognition; that dramatic 18% shift is entirely due to a change in Ritter’s fortunes.
As such, it’s unclear whether Ritter would have been able to ever be truly competitive against McInnis: All polls taken over the past 6 months find him stuck around the 40% mark, which raises obvious questions as to an incumbent’s electability. (Jon Corzine, anyone? And that was in New Jersey.) His exit gives Democrats a chance to start anew.
To be sure, the situation in no way compares to that of Connecticut. For one, Colorado is a swing state in which independents who swung to the left in 2008 have no long history of voting Democratic, so a tough environment would have disastrous consequences for the party in this state. Second, Democrats have no Blumenthal-like savior. But while they have no savior, Democrats have a solid bench nonetheless: Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper probably tops Democrats’ wish list, but former Speaker Andrew Romanoff is also considering the race; other possibilities include members of the congressional delegation (Democrats control 5 out of 7 House seats). Many of these politicians could mount strong campaigns.
This open race starts as a toss-up, and unless a really strong red wave submerges the country it will probably remain a toss-up.
(You hopefully recognized Romanoff’s name: He is currently challenging appointed Senator Michael Bennet in the Senate race’s Democratic primary. His exit would thus guarantee Bennett can move to the general election, which I am not sure is good news for Democrats since there are big questions for now as to whether he will be able to defend the seat. On the other hand, Democrats’ prospects of holding the Senate seat could be improved by the possibility that they’ll have stronger candidate heading the ballot: A Ritter-Bennet ticket would have been very unlikely to inspire many Democrats.)
On the Republican side, McInnis is a solid candidate for Republicans: He is certainly not the youngest and most fresh of candidates, but he is well-connected and experienced enough to take full advantage of any GOP advantage in the environment. That said, it will be interesting to see whether others join McInnis in the primary. You might remember that the GOP took great care of showing off its unity in late 2009 as Tom Tancredo and Josh Penry dropped their bids to rally by the former representative, so it’s tough to see them reconsidering; but might Attorney General John Suthers be interesting in running for the open seat? Another possibility is former Rep. Bob Beauprez, who was once vocal about his interest in running for something but has been very discreet for the past few months.
—
There’s a lot more to be said about Colorado. And about Michigan. And about New York. And about Connecticut and North Dakota. (How did everything happen within 12 hours?) But I am now heading out for a day-long trip… so it will all have to wait. If I get Internet while waiting for my connecting flight, I’ll try to get to the latest in CT and ND (or to any other bombshells that might have occur in the next few hours).
I agree that Colorado Dems are better off without John Ritter. Hickenlooper would be the best candidate, but he didn’t jump in the 2006 election and I have a feeling he may not run again in a worse political environment.
I meant Bill Ritter. I guess I was thinking about Three’s Company or something!
Although if I remember correctly John Ritter played a senator in some show during the nineties.
Hickenlooper would be the best candidate, but he didn’t jump in the 2006 election and I have a feeling he may not run again in a worse political environment.
That was my exact thought. If he wasn’t going to run when he was a shoe in, why when he’s, at best, a 50/50 shot at winning?
I’m personally hoping John Salazar runs. He’s probably the best nominee the D’s could come up with other then Hickenlooper, especially since he represents McInnis’s old district, and I think it would be a 50/50 race. But the R’s would pick up his house seat for sure.
Just to get some laughs: Mark Foley (yes, THE Mark Foley) announced on his Facebook wall that the buzz in Florida is that Charlie Crist is going to withdraw from the Senate race and run for another term as governor.
I threw that idea out a few weeks ago, more as a joke, of course. He could certainly stage a comeback as governor, dealing more with the realities of the economic mess, now that he wouldn’t be bogged down in the Senate race. It would also allow Rubio to shift to the middle just a little bit, which would be helpful at the time of the general election. He and Rubio would run on one ticket together. Of course, McCollum would be shocked. As Panos said though, consider the source of this rumor!
If this actually happens, the “teabaggers” will be emboldened beyond belief!
I don’t believe that this is the “change” that Obama and his followers were talking about. The Democrats better start passing some of their legislation fast because once the Republicans start plucking some senate seats, the ole filibuster is back into play.
Trying to be as objective as I can be, the Dems have a decent chance of winning Missouri (Blount is the wrong candidate) and in Ohio (Portman is not someone that I trust fiscally). The Democrats have good candidates in both state (Carnahan in MO, and either Fisher/Brunner in Ohio). The Dems will have some solid appeal to the Indies in this state. NH is probably a tossup. Hodes is not a solid campaigner, and Ayotte has never been elected. If Paul wins the GOP nomination, the Democrats win, and if Grayson wins the GOP nomination, the GOP wins. Vitter in LA is a dirtbag, but Louisiana is toxic to the Dems, so the GOP will hold. Rubio will win in FL, probably in single digits, and same with Burr in NC.
On the Republicans side, they will pick up North Dakota. Right now they are favored in Delaware, and probably have the upper hand in Arkansas and Colorado. Nevada is a tossup because Reid is about as mean of a campaigner as it comes. The Dems should hold Illinois, and I believe that CT is for the Dems to keep. PA will not elect Toomey unless a major scandal breaks. Gillibrand is safe, and so is Bayh.
Obama had better show some of the supposed “bipartisanship” soon or some of these leaners may turn on his party.
Cicero,
One thing I’d like to see analysis of is what will happen in PA if Speckter survives the primary. I believe the Dems are favored with Sestak, but Speckter may have too much going against him on both sides of the aisle.
Also does anyone know whether Toomey is actually disliked in PA? I know he’s much more conservative than the average voter, but I don’t know if voters have real antipathy toward him.
Cicero, Obama is showing more bipartisanship than the other side. Plus why show much when you have large majorities in both houses (majorities the GOP would have killed for in 2001-2006).
The GOP passed legislation with small majorities so the Democrats being back down to say 55 senators is hardly a disaster.
Regarding legislation, maybe you missed the stimulus/tax cutting bill and the soon to pass healthcare bill. Certainly beats a failed immigration reform and failed social security privatization Bush pushed in 2004-2006.
“Cicero, Obama is showing more bipartisanship than the other side.”
You see, Alison, Obama may sputter more bipartisanship out of his mouth, but his actions have been of the contrary.
Obama needs to be honest with the GOP. Don’t spout out bipartisanship and then not follow your words.
I voted for Obama because Bush was horrible for the poor. I think Obama has the ability to be a good President, but unfortunately he and the Dems are captured in the same arrogance that Bush and the GOP did in the 2000’s.