Archive for the 'SC-Gov' Category

Governor’s races: Heather Wilson will not run, Andre Bauer makes his move

Published
by
Taniel
on October 30, 2009
in NM-Gov and SC-Gov
. 10 Comments

Believe it or not, there is some electoral news this week that does not concern New Jersey, New York and Virginia: Heather Wilson’s announcement that she will not run for Governor next year is a crucial development, since it increases Democrats’ prospects of holding on to New Mexico’s governorship while shuffling up the Republican primary.

Not only have Democrats long already lined up Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish as their presumptive nominee (in fact, Denish thought she would run as the incumbent since incumbent Governor Bill Richardson was supposed to be appointed to Barack Obama’s Cabinet until ethical questions forced him to step down) but New Mexico has been trending blue: Few states swung as dramatically in 2008, with Obama scoring a double-digit victory and Tom Udall cruising to an easy triumph in a Senate race the GOP was never able to contest.

That’s to say that Republicans were not going to have it easy in next year’s gubernatorial race even if they had fielded their top candidate - and Wilson’s withdrawal takes care of that possibility: Until she lost a Senate primary to Pearce last year, Wilson was as battle-tested a Republican as any, since she had survived multiple Democratic assaults on her swing district (NM-01). Combined with her name recognition, her record of appealing to independents would have made an interesting get for the GOP.

All of this said, Wilson would have come to the race with her own glaring problems. Beyond potentially facing a conservative challenge in the primary, she would have taken the GOP back to an era it’s trying to forget, especially given her connections to the U.S. Attorney’s scandal that agitated New Mexico politics more than that of other states. Testifying to the possibility that Wilson was no longer electable given her involvement in the GOP debacle that was the 2008 Senate race, a springtime DGA poll has her trailing Denish by 22%.

As such, her exit might be an opportunity for Republicans to see whether new faces might have better luck turning the page of the Bush years - and the exit of such a heavyweight should allow other politicians to stay or jump in the race: State Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones and Dona Ana County District Attorney Susana Martinez are already running, an former state party chairman Allan Weh has formed an exploratory committee.

Of these, Martinez is attracting the most attention as a potentially highly competitive general election nominee. For one, she is a Hispanic woman, which might help the GOP address a big reason it’s falling behind in New Mexico: The combination of demographic transformations and of the party’s unpopularity among Latinos. Second, she has been a District Attorney in the state’s second biggest county since 1996, winning three terms. Third, she is relatively moderate, which should help her in the general election of a blue state; in fact, she was a Democrat until the early 1990s.

Of course, Martinez’s moderate profile should also mean trouble in the Republican primary, so we’ll have to watch what happens there. That contest will be held in June.

In other gubernatorial news, Bauer makes his move

No one doubted that South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer would enter the open Governor’s race, but his weird offer to Governor Mark Sanford (’I won’t run in 2010 if you agree to resign’) had raised eyebrows as to what exactly Bauer was up to. There are now no more question marks: Bauer has started to file paperwork in preparation for a gubernatorial campaign.

Bauer’s move means two things. First, the Republican primary will be even more confusing and complicated than it already is: There are now 5 candidates who could have a shot at winning especially given how small a share of the vote is needed in such a crowded field: Besides Bauer are running Rep. Greshman Barrett, Attorney General Henry McMaster, state Rep. Nikki Haley and state Senator Larry Grooms.

Second, Bauer’s entry ensures that much of the primary debate gets framed around Sanford’s legacy since he is viewed as one of the Governor’s leading political rivals.

In fact, the multiplication of candidates who are positioning themselves in opposition to Sanford (Barrett had called for his resignation over the summer, McMaster has also distanced himself) could give Haley an opening: If she can coalesce whatever share of South Carolina Republicans are still supportive of their governor, it could give her a large enough plurality to clinch victory. (Update: A commenter points out that the primary will be decided by a runoff if no candidate receives 50%, so this analysis does not hold. At least coalescing pro-Stanford voters could help Haley to the runoff?)

Of course, the primary’s stakes will be high because the winner will start the general election as the clear favorite: Democrats might nominate a credible candidate of their own (Superintendent of Education Jim Rex is running, as well as two state Senators) but South Carolina has drifted rightward enough that the GOP will have a clear edge.

In Nevada, Brian Sandoval is formidable candidate with some obvious weaknesses

Published
by
Taniel
on September 19, 2009
in NV-Gov and SC-Gov
. 7 Comments

Brian Sandoval is only 46 years old, but he has already served four years in the state legislature, three years in the Nevada Gaming Commission, three years as Attorney General and four years as a federal district judge. Last month, he resigned from his lifetime appointment to the judicial bench and this week announced he would run for Governor in 2010.

Sandoval’s entry is welcome news for Republicans, who are afraid of being stuck with unelectable incumbent Jim Gibbons. Nevada is the GOP’s version of New York: An unpopular governor will head towards an all but certain general election disaster if a popular Attorney General (or former AG) does not snatch the nomination first. Other Republicans are also running against Gibbons - former State Sen. Joe Heck and North Las Vegas Mayor Michael Montandon - but Sandoval’s profile makes him the favorite.

Given the diversity of his experience and the ease with which he won his one and only statewide race - in the 2002 open race for AG that Democrats were defending, he prevailed 58% to 33% - he will also be a formidable contender in the general election. Add to that the fact that his last name’s opponent is likely to be Reid due to an unexpected drop-out in the Democratic field and that Sandoval’s Hispanic background could allow him to appeal to a group that has been trending leftward in recent years, and that might be enough to annoint him the front-runner to win the entire election.

That said, Sandoval comes to the race with some obvious weaknesses. The first is his seeming ability to stay put more than a few years. He left his AG job before completing his first term, or even his third year. Sure, that was to take a plum lifetime appointment to the federal bench, but he was unable to get himself to stay in that position for a full four years - the amount of time he’ll have to stay put just to finish a single gubernatorial term. His opponents are sure to make a big deal of Sandoval’s bizarre history, questioning whether he can be trusted to stick around the Governor’s Mansion and to stay interested in his job. Montandon already launched this attack line in a fundraising letter:

Brian Sandoval quit mid-term in the Nevada Assembly. Brian Sandoval quit in the middle of his term as attorney general, virtually handing the office to a liberal Democrat in the next election. And now, Brian Sandoval says he will quit his job as a federal judge and give (President) Barack Obama the opportunity to appoint another liberal judge to the federal bench. Since when is quitting a qualification for governor?

Second, Sandoval might have some problems appealing to conservatives in the Republican primary. For one, it is none other than Harry Reid who recommended that President Bush appoint him to the federal bench in 2005. Second, Sandoval is taking some moderate positions on issues on which the GOP base does not tend to be forgiving. He just declared he supported the state’s newly instituted domestic partnerships “because it’s the right thing to do;” in the spring, Gibbons had vetoed the bill. This should be a major fault line between the two Republicans.

Third, Democrats should be able to use Sandoval’s connections to unpopular Republicans. A year before Bush appointed him to a lifetime post on the federal bench, Sandoval served as the chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in Nevada. I can see the Democratic ads writing themselves, attacking Sandoval for benefiting from patronage and a politically motivated judicial appointment. Furthermore, the entire brand of the Nevada GOP is damaged by scandals engulfing Gibbons and John Ensign; Sandoval is running against the former, but can he distance himself from Republicans in general, Ensign in particular? The RGJ reports the two discussed Sandoval running for Governor, and some have questioned whether he engaged in political activities from the bench.

One last consequence of Sandoval’s entrance: It makes it far more unlikely that Rep. Dean Heller will take the risk of leaving his House seat to run for Governor. That’s a shame for Democrats, who would have had a chance to contest his district as an open seat - though NV-02 is red enough that the GOP would have been favored to hold on to it. At this point, Democrats should hope they can make the district bluer in the next round of redistricting and then have a shot at an open seat if Heller challenges Ensign in 2012.

Democrats get a strong gubernatorial candidate of their own, in SC

Democrats got a strong candidate of their own in a gubernatorial election this week: State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex announced he would run in South Carolina’s increasingly chaotic open race. SC is conservative enough that the GOP will have the upper-hand no matter who Democrats nominate. Yet, recent events - Mark Sanford’s refusal to take stimulus funds, his affair and other scandals, Joe Wilson’s outburst - are giving Democrats hope they can ride voter discontent. As the state’s only Democratic statewide official, Rex can lay a claim at having the best shot at doing so.

It’s not like Rex has a long history in statewide politics, nor that he is well entrenched: He was first elected in 2006 in what was the tightest statewide race in state history (455 votes). Before that, he served as the dean of education or the president of various universities. That experience might serve him great in most election cycles as voters often want their politicians to have meaningful things to say on education matters, but 2010 is likely to be all about the economy; Rex seems to be aware of that, as he highlighted economic issues in his campaign kick-off and called himself the “Turnaround Governor.”

He’ll have to face a competitive Democratic primary - two state Senators are also running - before he can even think of the general election. This contest’s biggest question mark continues to be what will happen with Sanford. Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer had promised that he would not run in 2010 if Sanford resigned and he became the incumbent, but he is now saying that his offer is only effective until next month. Given that few people took him seriously in the first place, it remains to be seen how this will impact impeachment talks that continue to swirl in Columbia.

Another GOP sex scandal

Published
by
Taniel
on June 24, 2009
in SC-Gov and Sanford
. 17 Comments

It’s been just over a week since John Ensign abruptly admitted to an extramarital affair, and the GOP has another sex scandal on its hands: In a hastily organized press conference that concluded moments ago, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford revealed that he “had been unfaithful to [his] wife” with an Argentinian woman he met over e-mail.

This explains the bizarre episode of the past few days, during which Sanford disappeared from South Carolina for days without telling anyone where he was heading. On Monday, his staff announced that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, but we learned this morning that Sanford had traveled to Argentina.

Sanford spent several minutes listing people he had let down without actually specifying what he was apologizing for. He also launched in a discussion on his faith, the meaning of sin, temptation and morality; “there are moral absolutes,” he assessed. After finally explaining what he was talking about, he added that he was “committed to trying to get my heart right” and announced that he would resign from presiding the Republican Governors Association.

Just like Ensign’s, this story poses problems not because of the sexual component (though that will certainly feed tabloids and contribute to a drop in Sanford’s popularity among the Republican base) but because it opens up the Governor to charges of hypocrisy. His affair produces quite a split between his behavior and the principles he invokes to regulate the lives of others via public policy.

While Sanford is primarily known as a fiscal conservative and as one of the most intransigent opponents of governmental spending, he’s also presented himself as a religious man and a staunch social conservative - as was obvious from his press conference. In 2004, when he was already in contact with the Argentinian woman, Sanford supported efforts to impose a ban on state-paid benefits and privileges being extended not only to same-sex couples but also to straight unmarried couples; the bill prevented the recognition of “nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes.”

There are other issues surrounding Sanford’s conduct. Just as Ensign’s admission raised questions about whether he had increased the woman’s raise because of their relationship or how in the world did a letter that the woman’s husband send to Fox News look to have worked its way over to Ensign’s office (not that we can’t guess the answer to that question), Sanford will have to answer queries that have nothing to do with his private life: How could he possibly think it was fine for him to leave his state without informing Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer that he was doing so?

What if a crisis had erupted? What if an emergency situation demanded someone occupy the position of chief executive? How many hours would have been wasted by the fact that no one would know where Sanford was and that the man who should have been tasked with replacing him would have no idea that he should be in charge? Add to that questions about whether Sanford misused state funds - we know he went to the Atlanta airport in a state vehicle - and the risks of a political fallout and a legislative investigation increase even more.

Given Sanford’s rocky relationship with state lawmakers of both parties I’m sure they’ll be delighted to make his life miserable. It was obvious from the press conference that the balance of power within South Carolina politics were being dramatically altered. Asked how he respond to Republican enemies like Bauer who were criticizing his trip over the week-end, the famously confrontational Governor held back and answered that they were right to be disappointed.

This should also affect next year’s gubernatorial election by putting at a clear disadvantage those GOP contenders who were counting on the Governor’s support. How can state Rep. Nikki Haley (who is already distancing herself from the Governor) counter Bauer and Greshman Barrett now that the Sanford wing of the state GOP has been left virtually leaderless?

Far more than Ensign’s admission, I believe Sanford’s takes care of any ambition he might have had in 2012. For one, the circumstances surrounding this story and the Governor’s 5-day disappearance are simply too bizarre to be quickly forgotten; second, Sanford’s shot at the nomination was to seduce the party’s conservative wing - and these revelations obviously endanger that.

As for how this might affect the GOP at large, it’s hard to see the self-induced issues of an individual politician cause too much trouble for a national party and it’s not like anything of the sort could send evangelicals and socially conservative voters into the arms of the Democrats. Yet, there is also no question that two back-to-back scandals involving prominent Republican figures could damage the GOP’s credibility, especially when you consider that Sanford had emerged as one of the leading figures of the opposition to Barack Obama.

Update

To those defending Sanford from hypocrisy charges, here is a story about his 1998 successful efforts to push then-Speaker Livingston out by establishing a parallel with Bill Clinton’s perjury charges. (”He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife,” he said.)

The plot is also thickening in Nevada, where The Las Vegas Sun reports that Fox News received the Hamptons letter days earlier than it previously reported, which adds to the possibility that someone from that channel tipped off Ensign about the efforts of his mistress’s husband to bring the affair to light. Ensign later said that he was coming clean because Hamptons was trying to extort money, but how can someone who is sending letters to media outlets also be looking to blackmail?

Sanford’s disappearance damages ‘12 ambitions, confirms rifts in state GOP

Published
by
Taniel
on June 23, 2009
in FL-13, GOP 2012, SC-Gov and Sanford
. 6 Comments

If we weren’t talking about a state’s chief executive, Mark Sanford’s five-day disappearance could be amusing. But when we’re talking about the South Carolina Governor left his office vacant without informing his staff or family of where he was going, it becomes downright bizarre. That Sanford’s staff thought it an appropriate response to say that the Governor was hiking somewhere along the Appalachia Mountain without offering any evidence that they had any other idea of where he was located along that 2,175-mile stretch are leaving me even more perplexed.

And the story could still get more complicated: We are now learning that Sanford’s car was tracked down at an Atlanta airport, leading the local media to diagnosis a hole in the Appalachia story. [Update: Well, we just learned that Sanford had flown to Argentina! He is back in South Carolina today.]

Wherever Sanford is, what I find most shocking is that Sanford apparently did not even inform those officials who should have been called to replace him - those officials who would have been tasked with taking major decisions had an unexpected crisis erupted - leading Republican Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer to voice his disapproval yesterday.

In defense of the Governor, state Senator Greg Ryberg argued today that Sanford would be able to quickly come back in case of emergency, just as he did in 2007 when he was on a trade mission to Estonia. “If they can contact him in Eastern Europe, then they can also contact him in a national park a few miles from here,” he said. Well, it was clear where Sanford was in Estonia; but the entire reason this is a story is that no one knows where he is and no one has been able to say whether the state police has been kept informed - so I find it unlikely Ryberg knows that Sanford is in “a national park a few miles from here.”

Don’t forget that we are talking here about a politician with 2012 ambitions - and one who was often mentioned as a potential running-mate for John McCain. Sanford’s refusal to accept part of Barack Obama’s stimulus funds made him one of the more visible leaders of the Republican opposition, and that positioned him well for a presidential run of his own. But I don’t see him surviving this incident, not only because he will be pilloried by late-night comedians but also because this raises questions about his judgment.

I never understood why former Senator Mark Dayton got so ridiculed for being the only lawmaker to close his office because of a terrorist threat a few years ago, but this is no longer about eccentricity - the buzz word that seems be most used to describe Sanford today. What we’re talking about is whether you can be trusted in an executive position, and a Governor’s leaving his post without informing anyone he was doing so is just such formidable material for Sanford’s opponents to use if he seeks national office.

What’s also interesting in this story is the deep rifts it reveals within South Carolina’s Republican Party. Here’s a state where Democrats have been very low, but the GOP has managed to create political competition within itself. It’s well-known that Sanford is detested by many Republican legislators because of his inflexible style and his strict opposition to earmarks (he once sent live pigs to the state legislature to denounce pork-barrel spending) but he has also attracted the enmity of officials in non-legislative positions like Lieutenant Governor Bauer. (That explains why Bauer was so willing to denounce a Governor of his own party yesterday.)

Not only has this made for fireworks in South Carolina government but it also makes the GOP’s gubernatorial primary one of 2010’s potentially most explosive contests. Sanford is term-limited. Democrats are unlikely to put up much of a race, which will surely make the GOP primary that much more ferocious.

Bauer is already running, as is arch-conservative Rep. Greshman Barrett. Iit looks like the Sanford-wing of the party could be represented by Rep. Nikki Haley, one of the Governor’s rare allies within the legislature. If she does enter the race, the primary could be a replay of all the clashes that have divided the state GOP during the past 8 years - and you can now add Sanford’s disappearance to the list of divisive episodes.

Indeed, while many Republicans are willing to attack Sanford quite viciously today, those who are defending him are even more vehement. State Senator Ryberg, for instance, blasted Sanford’s critics as elitists insiders who are looking to let Columbia burn:

What is this bizarre obsession with security? It reeks of elitism — one that pervades South Carolina government at all levels. South Carolina legislators should spend less time worrying about bodyguards and more time worrying about the double-digit unemployment and reckless spending that really matters to the people who pay for the perks and status symbols of the legislators.

Another politician whose political career could be endangered by new scandals and controversies is Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida. First elected in 2006, Buchanan easily won re-election in 2008 despite allegations that he had pressured former employees to donate to his campaign. Now, The Tampa Bay Times is out with a lengthy report documenting new allegations that Buchanan might have to face.

In 2008, a registed Democrat with no political history and who had recently filed for bankruptcy donated $19,000 to Buchanan’s campaign and to the state Republican Party. He is now denying having given that money in good faith and saying that Timothy Mobley (a man whose companies has ties to Buchanan) offered to reimburse him for his contribution. That sort of maneuver is banned by federal law, and we’ll have to see how the story unfolds since it ties in to allegations Buchanan has faced in the past.

Recruitment: Inez Tenenbaum bows out, KY Democrats maneuver for second candidate

Published
by
Taniel
on March 21, 2009
in IA-Sen, KY-Sen and SC-Gov
. 0 Comments

Tenenbaum bows out of South Carolina race

She was one of the Democrats’ best chance to regain South Carolina’s governorship, but Inez Tenenbaum announced this week that she would not jump in the race. “Every race I’ve ever run, I always knew it was my race with my name on it, and I just don’t think this is my race.” she explained. “You’ve got to listen to that. It just didn’t feel like my time.” By which Tenenbaum perhaps meant that she did not feel it was any Democrat’s time.

Democrats were once highly competitive in South Carolina, but the 2002-2004 cycle confirmed that the Southern realignment had plunged the party in the wilderness. In 2004, Democrats nominated Tenenbaum to defend their open Senate seat, and she was able to stay competitive for a long time. But the state’s conservative drift combined with the cycle’s pro-Republican environment allowed Jim DeMint to win an easy victory, 53% to 44%. A similarly easy GOP win could unfold in next year’s open gubernatorial race.

It might seem strange for Democrats to want to nominate the same candidate who failed at winning an open Senate seat in 2004, but the party has a thin bench and Tenenbaum is the only Democrat mentioned who has won a statewide race before: She was elected as Superintendent of Education in 1998 and in 2002, which means that she was in office until two years ago. Furthermore, Tenenbaum would have a far easier time winning a gubernatorial race than a Senate one: the South’s conservative voters elect Republicans in federal races, but they retain some of their old Democratic-voting habits in local ones.

Tenenbaum’s withdrawal leaves state Senator Vincent Sheheen and state Senator Robert Ford as the Democrats to have filed candidacy paperwork. Other state legislators are mulling runs, as former state party chairman Joe Erwin, who could potentially invest some of his own money. They would all start the general election as the underdog, though an upset is certainly not out of the question.

What do Kentucky Democrats have against Dan Mongiardo?

Two weeks ago, I wrote about two of Kentucky’s prominent Democrats - Attorney General Jack Conway and Auditor Crit Luallen - admitting to discussing which of the two would challenge Lieutenant Governor Dan Mongiardo in the Senate race’s Democratic primary. The story cited Conway strongly suggesting that either he or Luallen would jump in the race, but that the two would ensure not running against each other.

The story is now getting even more bizarre, as Conway’s latest comments suggest a 3-way alliance between Conway, Luallen and Rep. Chandler, who expressed his interest last week. Now, Conway is declaring that the three of them “have been talking.” “I think amongst the three of us what we want is a credible candidate,” he said, “and if that happens to be me, great, if that happens to be Crit or Ben, I’d be supportive of that. But we’re talking.”

In short: We should expect one of these three Democrats (not more, not less) to run for Senate. Dan Mongiardo must feel left out.

Conway also provided a timeline for his decision: “I’ve been saying all along I owe Kentucky voters my best effort at attorney general,” he said, “so I’m going to get through the (legislative) session. And I’ll say something in the coming weeks.” A lot of potential candidates across the country (most notably Florida’s Charlie Crist) have given similar indications that they will make announcements at the end of this spring’s legislative sessions, so the next few months could be busy.

Chuck Grassley draws first challenger

Finally, it is worth noting Bob Krause’s entrance in the Iowa Senate race. Since former Governor Vilsack was tapped as Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture, there is no obvious Democrat who could take on Senator Chuck Grassley. With Krause, Democrats at least have one candidate in the race - and it is very possible that this 28-year veteran emerges as the party’s general election nominee. Krause is a member of the Iowa Democratic Part’s State Central Committee and he chairs the Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus. Sure, he is no top-tier challenger, but he has enough presence in the party that he could take advantage of a late scandal.

Rep. Gresham Barrett running for South Carolina Governor

Published
by
Taniel
on March 4, 2009
in SC-03 and SC-Gov
. 3 Comments

South Carolina Rep. Gresham Barrett is set to announce that he is running for Governor. The position is currently held by Republican Mark Sanford, one of the country’s most conservative Governors. Sanford is term-limited out of office in 2010, and Barrett could perpetuate the far-right’s hold on this seat: National Journal’s latest voting ratings find him to be the 4th most conservative members of the House.

Barrett, who was first elected in 2002, is known for his advocacy for a national prohibition on online poker - a position that could attract the enmity of the gaming industry in the gubernatorial primary. In 2006, Barrett became one of 33 representatives to vote against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. Such credentials must be a problem in most states, but South Carolina has colored itself so red that Barrett could make an electable general election contender.

The question, of course, is whether he will even get there. Barrett is the first Republican to officially jump in the race, but other candidates are expected to jump in: Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer and Attorney General Henry McMaster are both positioning themselves for a gubernatorial run. In fact, McCaster will hold a fundraiser headlined by John McCain this week.

These statewide officials will enjoy higher name recognition, the experience of prior statewide races and larger networks. But Barrett’s ultra-conservative reputation will be a boost with his party’s base, as will the fact that he has $725,000 sitting in his House re-election fund that he can transfer to the gubernatorial race.

The primary’s winner will have the upper-hand in the general election, though Democrats will have a shot. Two state Senators - Robert Ford and Vincent Sheheen - are already running for the Democratic nomination; many more are rumored to be looking at the race, most notably House Minority Leader Harry Ott and former party chairman Joe Erwin, who could bring some of his own money in the race. In fact, the list of potential Democratic candidates I have assembled in my recruitment page is more than two times as long as the list of potential Republican candidates.

Barrett’s jump in the gubernatorial race creates the 11th open seat of the 2010 cycle, and the 8th Republicans will have to defend (see full list). Fortunately for the NRCC, they will not have to worry much about SC-03, a historically Democratic district that took a big swing to the right in the 1994 realignment and that has hardly looked back since. George W. Bush crushed Al Gore 64% to 35% and John Kerry 66% to 34%; John McCain kept up a similar margin, defeating Barack Obama 63% to 35%.

In other words, SC-03 is even more conservative than AL-02 and ID-01, which are now considered as the high-mark of how red a district can be for Democrats to have a shot if everything goes right for them. It will be worth keeping an eye on the race, as with all open seats, but the Republican nominee will undoubtedly be very heavily favored, which should guarantee a highly competitive GOP primary. At the very least, Democrats can hope for a slightly less conservative representative than Barrett.