Archive for the 'FL-02' Category

North Carolina’s Senate primary takes shape

Published
by
Taniel
on December 11, 2009
in FL-02, GA-08 and NC-Sen
. 6 Comments

Elaine Marshall, Cal Cunningham and Kenneth Lewis have not occupied jobs from which they would take high-profile stances on controversial issues, so their ideological profiles aren’t clear at all at this point of North Carolina’s Senate campaign. Yet, despite my early sense that there would be few substantive faultlines in this Democratic primary, it looks like the candidates are looking to position themselves differently after all.

In an interview with RealClearPolitics, Cunningham sounds the notes of what looks like a cautious, centrist campaign. He in particular praises the escalation in Afghanistan and he seems to be emphasizing the fact that if he were in the Senate now he wouldn’t commit to more than voting to “start” debate on the health-care bill. [Update: Both these issues contrast him with Marshall. Not only has she long come out in favor of a public option, but she has released a statement opposing the president's Afghan surge.]

What is striking to me in Cunningham’s position is not that he is crafting himself a moderate image, but that he is doing so while facing a uphill Democratic primary in which he needs to get a lot of traction; the one poll released so far has him coming in third, trailing Marshall by 37%. (As a side note: It is fairly silly for The Hill to compare this primary to last year’s Novick-Merkey as an example of DSCC officials taking a candidate who was trailing and carrying him to victory. In that case, Merkey was the elected official while Novick was an activist, so the former faced far easier a climb while the latter’s early lead had come at a surprise.)

How would he position himself in the general election if he is sounding such notes at the beginning of the Democratic primary? It goes without saying that NC is no staunch blue state, but let’s not forget Creigh Deeds’s failings: Facing a disaffected base, Deeds mounted too centrist a campaign to build a winning electoral coalition and he distanced himself from Barack Obama to such an absurd extent as to give up his best resources to turn out NoVa. As a statewide official, Marshall has been able to find a balance between appealing beyond the base while motivating her party; we’ll have to watch to see whether Cunningham can avoid repeating Deeds’s mistakes.

As importantly, how does Cunningham expect to overcome his early deficit if not by running the type of insurgent campaign candidates typically mount to overcome better-known front-runners? The answer here seems evident: He is expecting heavy support from the Democratic establishment. We have long known that the DSCC distrusts Marshall and that it played a leading role in recruiting Cunningham to the race months after Marshall’s entry. It looked probable national Democrats had promised him financial help to beat the Secretary of State, and we are now getting more confirmation of that in the form of a local TV news segment that reports the DSCC might be preparing to spend “millions” to help Cunningham beat Marshall.

I’ll let you decide whether that would be a good use of DSCC money considering how much work the committee has to undertake to save Democratic seats in Colorado, Nevada, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania - not to mention to have a shot at promising open seats in Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Ohio. After all, we haven’t even heard the DSCC spend much time touting Kendrick Meek, which might be a good idea considering the fact that the GOP primary is increasingly certain to be a blood bath.

Faced with the threat of the DSCC taking action against her, Marshall is looking to play the card played by so many Republicans around the country: Bemoaning the national party’s involvement against local activists’ wishes. As an establishment figure herself, Marshall is obviously far less credible voicing that argument than are the likes of Pat Hughes, of Ken Buck and of The Union-Leader; in particular, it remains to be seen whether she can indeed attract the clear support of local activists and whether she’ll be able to raise enough money to mount a solid campaign if the DSCC moves to cut her fundraising network.

Yet, for now Marshall is at least managing to get some good publicity out of the situation, as the TV news segments I linked above attest to, and she is also drawing positive attention from progressive blogs. Marshall is very far from becoming a blogosphere darling - Cunningham’s allies are still gunning to get him to occupy that position - but if she succeeds in that direction it could help her ensure she has some resources and help prevent her rivals’ from gaining momentum too quickly.

Two Dems who voted against the health-care bill face primaries

I confess I am spending a disproportionate amount of time covering this race, so let’s move on to other interesting Democratic primaries - starting with that pitting Rep. Allen Boyd and state Senator Al Lawson: I wrote last week that the latter had opened the door to dropping out of the race to run for statewide office, but Lawson quickly backtracked, ruled out running for CFO and confirmed he would take on the conservative incumbent. Given that Lawson was already facing difficulties fundraising, this won’t help him make the case that he is committed to this primary but he can at least point out that it’s not like he has anything to fall back on since he is term-limited out of the legislature next year.

Boyd’s response is as bizarre as it gets. He is now airing a TV ad touting his efforts to reform health care - from ending a cap on lifetime benefits to putting a ban on preexisting conditions. The catch: He voted against the health-care bill last month! Yet, his ad is a reminder of the sort of financial advantage incumbents enjoy since Lawson certainly can’t match Boyd’s ability to air ads 9 months from the primary.

In GA-08, meanwhile, Rep. John Barrow is facing a rematch of his 2008 primary against state Sen. Regina Thomas, who just announced she’d try again in 2010. In this swing district whose population is 44% African-American, Thomas attracted a fair amount of attention last year and she worried Barrow enough that the incumbent got Barack Obama to cut an aid helping him; yet, Barrow ended up triumphing 74% to 26%. That makes it hard to see how Thomas could pull off a victory this year, let alone a competitive race, but she could try getting traction over Barrow’s vote against the health-care bill last month.

Dems get reassuring polls in two districts, calming primaries in two others

Published
by
Taniel
on December 7, 2009
in DE-AL, FL-02, IL-14, NY-01 and TN-08
. 22 Comments

Polls find Democrats can be reassured in at least two districts

Democrats have a lot to worry about in countless House districts, but they can at least count on offsetting their losses by picking-up DE-AL. A new PPP poll confirms that the seat vacated by Republican Mike Castle is one of the cycle’s most certain - if not the most certain - takeovers: Presumptive Democratic nominee John Carney leads 47% to 24% against the one Republican who has announced so far, businessman Fred Cullis.

His advantage against former state Senator Charlie Copeland is more modest (44% to 32%), but it’s not like Carney’s lead is hinging on his name recognition advantage: A full 54% of respondents do not have an opinion of their former Lieutenant Governor, which suggests that he still has a lot of room to grow and take advantage of Delaware’s Democratic lean. Another favorable sign for Carney’s prospects is that he leads among independents - the very same respondents that give Castle a 29% lead in the poll’s senatorial half.

Another House poll from which Democrats should generally be satisfied recently came out of NY-01 - and it is an internal survey released by the campaign of Republican candidate Randy Altschuler. It shows Democratic Rep. Tom Bishop leading Altschuler 46% to 26%. While it’s a sign of vulnerability for an incumbent to be under 50%, that rule is less prevalent for surveys that have done such a minimal effort of pushing undecided voters. It will be worth keeping an eye on the district as we head into 2010 (after all, the district went for Bush in 2004 and only narrowly swung to Obama last year), but don’t forget that many incumbent Democrats are seeing voters rush to support their Republican challengers, no matter how little-known and low-profile those are. Add to that the fact that this is a GOP internal with a 6% MoE, and Bishop’s 20% lead is a good start.

One Blue Dog could get rid of primary challenge, another replaced by a less moderate Dem

One of the Blue Dog Coalition’s most conservative members is Rep. Allen Boyd, who represents a red-leaning district (FL-02) that encompasses Tallahassee; he acquired a high-profile when he was the only Democrat in Congress to support George W. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. As such, state Senator Al Lawson looked like he was in a position to gain traction when he announced early in 2009 that he would challenge Boyd in the Democratic primary. In a district with a significant African-American population, Lawson had a clear path to running to Boyd’s left and he recently. released an internal poll a few weeks ago finding him ahead by 4%.

Yet, he has failed to gain enough traction fundraising-wise - a huge handicap given that Boyd is a particularly well-financed incumbent; and national Democratic worries over keeping the seat if Boyd loses the primary have heightened since it’s become clear how tough 2010 will be for the party. Now, Lawson is signaling he might pull the plug on the House race to run for Chief Financial Officer instead, which would not only be a huge relief for Boyd but would also cut short one of the few ideologically charged House primaries on the Democratic side. Sure, Lawson has yet to finalize his decision, but candidates don’t tend to muse about dropping out of a race unless they are very seriously considering it.

Meanwhile, state Senator Roy Herron increasingly looks like the front-runner to win the Democratic nomination to replace retiring John Tanner. State Senator Lowe Finney recently announced he would not run, and while there are still other names floating the bottom-line is that the national party looks very satisfied with the way in which the past week unfolded. (We’ve got to wonder whether the DCCC or Tanner had not given Herron heads-up that this announcement was coming.)

Politico notes that Herron’s hold on the nomination is a good development for liberals, as he would be a step to the left relatively to Tanner, who is a leading Blue Dog. (Well, Politico spins this as bad news for Democrats, suggesting it might cause Herron difficulty winning but he has held a tough legislative seat for decades - and it doesn’t look like the DCCC has much to complain about here.) A former minister, Harron looks to be interested in channeling religion towards progressive economic policies and a larger governmental role in helping the lower-class - or so it sounds from the description of Herron’s 2008 book.

Might the GOP establishment coalesce against Ethan Hastert?

In 2008, Democrat Bill Foster benefited from facing a weak Republican nominee and he is hoping for the same luck in 2010. If the GOP nominates Ethan Hastert, Foster could benefit from his inexperience, his obvious connections to the House’s unpopular Republican leadership and to his work as an assistant for Scooter Libby - all problems for his electability that now look like they are being accepted by Republicans. Last week, businessman James Purcell announced he was dropping out of the race to ensure Hastert does not get hte GOP nomination - a move that could help the primary prospect of state Senator Randall Hultgren (and thus arguably hurt Foster).

“Ethan is a very nice young man, but the reality is that his family is a liability in the general election,” said Purcell. “Dennis Hastert is the very kind of Republican that voters resoundingly rejected in 2006. I don’t believe Ethan will be able to get past that, regardless of how far right he runs in the primary.” Sure, Purcell’s argument (that the Hasterts are too moderate) isn’t what I had in mind when I questioned Hastert’s electability, but ultimately it goes to show that Hastert epitomizes the establishment for many people. He could have trouble exciting the conservative base while also turning off independents who want to turn the page of the Bush years.

NRCC hoping to go where it hasn’t gone lately

Published
by
Taniel
on April 13, 2009
in AR-01, AR-02, FL-02, FL-18, IL-11, LA-03, MI-01, NH-01, NV-03, NY-01, NY-24, OH-15, OH-18, OR-04, PA-03 and TX-17
. 2 Comments

Early in a cycle, national parties launch large waves of attack that target dozens of U.S. representatives, many of whom will not end up facing a competitive race. Yet, the list of chosen districts tells us a lot about the party’s offensive strategy - and the NRCC is letting us know that it intends to mount a real offensive for seats that are not commonly thought of as top-tier opportunities.

The NRCC’s first mass offensive, which occurred in early February, targeted 30 House Democrats with radio ads devoted to the stimulus bill. Now, the committee is targeting 43 Democrats for supporting Barack Obama’s budget - or rather, for supporting Nancy Pelosi’s budget, since the GOP is doing its best to separate congressional Democrats (who are generally unpopular) from the President (who enjoys high approval ratings).

33 of these incumbents are only being stung by robocalls; radio ads are running in 9 districts; and only 1 Democrat - Ohio’s Zach Space -  is finding himself targeted by a TV ad.

“Just how fast is Congressman Zack Space spending your money?” asks the announcer. “Newspapers say Space and Nancy Pelosi authorized 1.2 trillion dollars in spending in less than two months. Now they’re spending even faster. Nancy Pelosi pushed a budget with a trillion dollar deficit. And Space voted to let Nancy Pelosi get her way.”

Space picked-up an open seat in 2006, boosted by the scandals that engulfed Rep. Ney; in 2008, he easily won re-election, 60% to 40%. He is certainly vulnerable in 2010 because he represents a conservative district that voted for McCain 52% to 45%; yet, he looks to be a good fit for the district and he is less obviously endangered than many Democrats who won their first election last fall.

That the NRCC is choosing to make this the one district in which they are airing a TV ad is a recognition on the GOP’s party that OH-18 is the type of district they will need to contest if they want any hope of meaningfully cutting the Democrats’ majority next year: Just as winning back TX-22 and KS-02 was not enough in 2008, winning back heavily conservative seats like AL-02 and ID-01 will not do much for the GOP in 2010. What they need is to reconquer conservative districts with relatively entrenched incumbents.

Just like OH-18, many of the 43 districts that are now being targeted by the NRCC meet that description. First, the 9 districts that are being targeted by radio ads:

Allan Grayson (FL-18), Debbie Halvorson (IL-11), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Dina Titus (NV-03), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) and Chet Edwards (TX-17)

5 of these Democrats were first elected in 2008, and 2 others are sophomore lawmakers. While there are no surprises on this list, it is noteworthy that a number of these districts are not what we would consider the early top-tier of 2010 contests. While Dahlkemper, Shea-Porter and Grayson are sure to be on the GOP’s target list, others should be harder to defeat.

Dina Titus and Mary Jo Kilroy represent blue-trending districts, and the GOP’s confidence is certainly noteworthy - especially in NV-03, which dramatically swung to Democrats last year. While IL-11 remains a swing district, Debbie Halvorson did easily win her open seat and Obama prevailed by a decisive margin. Michael Arcuri was supposed to be ultra-safe last year but he received a shockingly low 52% - a clear indication that he has a weak base of support in NY-24 - but he will not let himself be dulled by a false sense of security in 2010. As for Charlie Melancon, he represents a conservative district but looks to be well entrenched - at least until the next round of redistricting disrupts the state’s congressional lines.

In other words, districts like NV-03, OH-15 and IL-11 are places Democrats are favored to keep but in which the GOP needs to do well if it wants to regain its status as a party that should be taken seriously and could conceivably regain a majority. The same principle applies to the 33 Democrats who are only the target of robocalls:

John Adler (NJ-03); Jason Altmire (PA-04); Tim Bishop (NY-01); John Boccieri (OH-16); Leonard Boswell (IA-03); Allen Boyd (FL-02); Chris Carney (PA-10); Gerry Connolly (VA-11); Peter DeFazio (OR-04); Steve Driehaus (OH-01); Brad Ellsworth (IN-08); Gabby Giffords (AZ-08); John Hall (NY-19); Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL); Baron Hill (IN-09); Jim Himes (CT-04); Steve Kagen (WI-08); Paul Kanjorski (PA-11); Larry Kissell (NC-08); Ron Klein (FL-22); Dan Maffei (NY-25); Eric Massa (NY-29); Jerry McNerney (CA-11); Dennis Moore (KS-03); Gary Peters (MI-09); Loretta Sanchez (CA-47); Mark Schauer (MI-07); Kurt Schrader (OR-05); Joe Sestak (PA-07); Heath Shuler (NC-11); Vic Snyder (AR-02); John Spratt (SC-05); Bart Stupak (MI-01).

The inclusion of some of these districts is expected: Adler, Altmire, Carney, Driehaus, Kagen, Kanjorski, Kissell, Klein, Massa, McNerney, Moore, Peters and Schauer have all picked-up their seat over the past two cycle, and the GOP has to test their vulnerability as soon as possible to prevent them from having the time to entrench themselves. Other districts could conceivably be vulnerable, but it’s difficult to consider Ellsworth, Herseth Sandlin, Hill or Maffei as even being part of the second-tier of competitive races - especially as the GOP has no credible candidate in sight in some of these states.

Finally, there are some truly surprising inclusions on this list, at least considering the playing field we have gotten used to over the past two cycles: Tim Bishop (NY-01), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Peter DeFazio (OR-04),  Vic Snyder (AR-02) and Bart Stupak (MI-01) are certainly not names we have gotten to used to hearing in the context of competitive races as they regularly coast to comfortable re-elections. Yet, all of these Democrats represent swing districts that are very competitive at the presidential level - all but OR-04 were won by George W. Bush in 2004, and Bush prevailed in that district four years earlier (making OR-04 one of only two district to switch from Bush to Kerry).

Bishop, Boyd, DeFazio, Snyder and Stupak remain undoubtedly favored to win another term, and for the GOP to even make one of them worry about re-election would already be a significant achievement. So the fact that these Democrats are being targeted should once again be taken as a sign that the GOP needs that it needs to seriously think about expanding the field to places it did not seriously contest over the past few cycles - places (like OR-04) it has not seriously contested for decades!

And it looks like the GOP is already having some success in its simple goal of being competitive in districts that should be competitive on paper. In AR-01 Rep. Marion Berry has had little reason to be concerned about keeping his job since he first won his seat in 1996; yet, the district has taken a dramatic swing rightward over the past decade. While AR-01 voted for Al Gore by 1% in 2000, it chose George W. Bush by 5% in 2004 and John McCain by 16% in 2008 - a dramatic collapse of Democratic performance that could open the door to a credible Republican congressional challenge.

For the NRCC to successfully put AR-01 on the radar screen will require a top-notch candidate, and the GOP is already touting buisnessman Rick Crawford, known in the district for his agricultural broadcasting. Crawford, who just formed an exploratory committee, could be all the GOP needs to test how loyal Arkansas remains to its Democratic history.

More major announcements: Boyd and McCollum out of FL’s Senate race

Published
by
Taniel
on January 28, 2009
in FL-02 and FL-Sen
. 0 Comments

When a Senator announces his retirement, we typically expect a myriad of contenders from both parties to jostle for the open seat. In Florida, however, a surprising number of top politicians have announced they will not run for Mel Martinez’s seat - starting with Martinez himself. Then, both parties’ dream candidates (Republican Jeb Bush and Democrat Alex Sink) bowed out.

Their decisions were expected to open the door for the second-tier of candidates to jump in the race, but the withdrawal trend continued today as Rep. Allen Boyd (a Democrat) and Attorney General Bill McCollum (a Republican) announced they would stay out of the Senate battle!

This would have been McCollum’s third Senate candidacy. After serving in the House for twenty years, he narrowly lost the general election to now-Senator Nelson in 2000; four years later, he fell in the Republican primary against now-Senator Martinez. Now that he has found a way back to elected office, it is understandable that he does not want to risk it all again for yet another difficult primary race.

(Note that McCollum allowed for a slight possibility that he might change his mind. “Unless circumstances change it is my intention, at the appropriate time, to announce that I will be seeking re-election as Florida’s Attorney General,” he wrote in a statement.)

On the Democratic side, Allen Boyd justified his exit by the seniority he was building in the House and his desire to keep serving Floridians. “With 12 years of service under my belt, I am in the unique position in the House to build on past legislative accomplishments, and I will have an even stronger voice in policy decisions that will affect our economy and fiscal outlook,” Boyd wrote in a press release. Translation: Boyd did not want to risk his political career without even being sure he would make it in the Senate race’s general election.

Boyd is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress (in fact, he is one of only eleven to have voted against the stimulus bill today), so his decision is a relief for progressives who would want any of the other top Democrats to represent them in the general election - and then in the Senate.

Furthermore, Boyd’s move has a major impact on the 2010 House battle: If he had jumped in the Senate race, his House seat (FL-02) would have been left open. FL-02 is a red-leaning district that voted for George W. Bush by 8% in 2004; in other words, Republicans would have had a clear shot are picking-up this Tallahassee-based seat. But they remain unlikely to mount a credible challenge against Boyd.

—

So where Boyd and McCollum’s exits leave Florida’s Senate race?

For one, it looks like the contest will be less muddy than it appeared a few weeks ago, when Bush and Sink’s withdrawal suggested that both parties could face chaotic and unpredictable primaries. The very fact that the process would be so unpredictable is leading ambitious politicians like Sink and Boyd not to want to gamble their political career on seeking a promotion - and that means that we are left with less potential candidates.

On the Republican side, McCollum’s exit leaves two candidates as the ones who are attracting the most buzz: Rep. Connie Mack IV, whose father served in the Senate from 1989 to 2001, and state Rep. Marco Rubio, considered to be an ally of Jeb Bush. Both men have been laying the groundwork of a statewide run, so they are both expected to be candidates. (Given everything else that has happened in this race, don’t be surprised if they are not.)

On the Democratic side, Rep. Kendrick Meek is already in the race, along with state senator Dan Gelber. A number of other officials (starting with Rep. Ron Klein and Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio) are said to be looking to a run. It would be a huge surprise if no candidate other than Meek and Gelber jumped in the race, but the possibility that Democrats do not face that competitive a primary looks far more plausible today than the day Meek surprised us by entering the race.