Archive for the 'TX-32' Category

TX-10: McCaul will run for re-election

Published
by
Taniel
on April 17, 2009
in TX-10, TX-22, TX-23 and TX-32
. 0 Comments

In disappointing news to Democrats, Texas Rep. Michael McCaul will not retire from the House. McCaul had expressed interest in running for the position of Attorney General next year, but his latest comments leave no doubt that he is running for re-election.

TX-10 is an elongated and gerrymandered district that stretches from Houston’s Harris County all the way to the outskirts of Austin. It voted for George W. Bush by 24% in 2004 and for John McCain by 11% last fall. It’s conservative territory - but it is undoubtedly trending towards Democrats. Houston’s suburbs have seen a boost in their Hispanic population, and districts like TX-10 could undergo a profound political transformation over the next few years.

That said, it makes little sense to discuss long-term evolution in Texas districts. The state could gain as many as three House seats following the next census, and that would mean yet another big round of redistricting that could leave the electoral map unrecognizable. In the immediate future, then, McCaul’s announcement deprives the DCCC a shot at an interesting open seat. Sure, Republicans would have been favored to keep the district, but the race would have been competitive.

With McCaul running for re-election, the NRCC is spared the headache of having to defend an open seat - but that does not mean that Republicans are out of the wood. In 2008, McCaul was held to 54% by a Democrat who was barely noticed by national observers until the final weeks of the campaign. Now, he has a already drawn a strong Democratic challenger. Wealthy businessman Jack McDonald just made news by massively outraising McCaul in the first quarter of 2009 - $311,000 to $98,000, a discrepancy no other challenger came even close to matching.

On the other hand, McCaul clearly retains the upper-hand. For one, the district’s demographics have yet to change enough for TX-10 to be ready to switch over its party allegiance. Second, McCaul did not under-perform relatively to McCain, which at least suggests that he is not handicapped by a personal vulnerability. Third, the Democrats’ decent performance in 2008 was driven by a boost in minority turnout that is unlikely to hold next year. Fourth, Jack McDonald might have trouble mobilizing the district’s Democratic activists given that he supported George W. Bush’s presidential bids.

McCaul’s decision keeps the list of retiring representatives to twelve - 8 of them Republicans. None of these GOP-held open seats looks promising for Democrats, though I have argued that FL-12, MI-02 and OK-05 could all potentially emerge as competitive races.

Only one other Texas representative is mentioned as a potential retiree: Republican Rep. Ralph Hall, 85, currently the oldest serving member of the House. Hall represents TX-04, a staunchly conservative district that gave McCain 69% of the vote - almost as much as Bush received in 2004 (70%). In other words, Democrats do not have much to hope for even if Hall decides to retire.

In fact, in what is a predictive consequence of excessive gerrymandering, very few Texas districts have the potential to be competitive next year. Only three of Texas’s 32 districts had the presidential candidates within single-digits:

  • TX-23, picked up by Democrat Ciro Rodriguez in 2006, voted for Bush 57% to 43% in 2004; it gave Barack Obama a 3% victory - great news for Rodriguez.
  • TX-27, represented by Democratic Rep. Solomon Ortiz, swung to Obama by an impressive 18%: It gave Bush a 55-44 victory in 2004 and Obama a 53-46 victory.
  • TX-32, held by current NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions, also shifted leftward last fall: Bush won the district by 20% in 2004 but McCain was held to 53% of the vote - enough to put the district on our radar list. African-Americans and Hispanics make up more than 40% of the district, which also has a sizable Jewish community. Will Democrats be able to recruit a good candidate to take advantage of these openings and tie up the NRCC Chairman in his home district?

The most eye-popping transformation occurred in TX-28, represented by Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar: The district swung by a stunning 20% in the space of four years (from an 8% victory for Bush to a 12% victory for Obama). That should make Cuellar feel much better about his future bids. On the other hand, it looks unlikely Democrats will be able to recapture TX-22 now that they cannot benefit from the bizarre circumstances of Tom DeLay’s retirement. Freshman Rep. Pete Olsen, who unseated Democratic Rep. Lampson in 2008, is protected by TX-22’s conservative tilt: McCain won the district 58% to 41%.

Meet the “Undaunted Dozen”

Published
by
Taniel
on February 23, 2009
in CA-03, CA-44, DE-AL, FL-12, GOP-12, IL-10, IL-13, MI-11, MO-09, PA-06, PA-15, TX-32 and WA-08
. 9 Comments

Earlier this month, the DCCC launched radio ads targeting 28 House Republicans who had opposed the stimulus bill. Now, Democrats are ready to mount the next round of their offensive: Having come up with a list of just 12 representatives, they are blanketing their constituents with robocalls.

Here is the version that is airing in Thad McCotter’s MI-11:

Did you know Congressman Thad McCotter voted against President Obama’s economic recovery plan, endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?  McCotter’s empty rhetoric can’t hide that he voted to raise the AMT tax on 22 million middle class Americans and against the largest tax cut in history.

Interestingly, the messages reverse the traditional political attacks and highlight Republicans’ failure to match conservative orthodoxy. How often do Democrats get to blast the GOP for voting against the Chamber of Commerce’s recommendations? And how often do Republicans find themselves criticized for voting “against the largest tax cut in history?”

The DCCC’s goal is to persuade voters that their Republican representatives are so determined to obstruct economy recovery that they are willing to oppose a plan that is supported by their traditional ally and that matches their traditional demands.

The 12 Republicans who are targeted make a very interesting list, as their political circumstances are vastly different. (Five of these names were not on the DCCC’s original list of 28 targets: Judy Biggert, Charlie Dent, Jim Gerlach, Michael Castle, Adam Putnam).

District Status 2008 pres. 2004 pres.
Biggert (IL-13) 54% Obama 55% Bush
Calvert (CA-44) narrow 08 victory 50% Obama 59% Bush
Castle (DE-AL) possibly retiring 62% Obama 53% Kerry
Dent (PA-15) 56% Obama 50-50
Gerlach (PA-06) narrow 08 victory, possibly retiring 58% Obama 52% Kerry
Kirk (IL-10) competitive ‘08 victory 61% Obama 53% Kerry
Luetkemeyer (MO-09) freshman, narrow ‘08 victory N/A 59% Bush
Lungren (CA-03) narrow ‘08 victory 49-49 58% Bush
McCotter (MI-11) 53% Obama 53% Bush
Putnam (FL-12) retiring 50% McCain 58% Bush
Reichert (WA-08) narrow ‘08 victory 57% Obama 51% Kerry
Sessions (TX-32) 53% McCain 60% Bush

The most interesting of the DCCC’s inclusions is undoubtedly FL-12’s Adam Putnam. The Republican lawmaker has already announced that he will not seek re-election to the House in 2010; he will run instead for Agriculture Commissioner, a statewide position. So why is the DCCC going after him?

The first reason is that FL-12 will be an open seat, and the DCCC is hoping to be able to contest it even if the district tilts Republican. Democrats are hoping that going after Putnam’s vote can, by extension, weaken the GOP brand and thus make their nominee’s job easier in 2010.

The second reason is that Putnam is an ambitious lawmaker who is transparently eying the 2014 gubernatorial race - and many think he might try to aim even higher. Democrats would thus love to take Putnam out now, when he is still running for down-the-ballot races. The race for Agriculture Commissioner might be very low-profile, but it is worth keeping an eye on it.

Three other fascinating choices are IL-13’s Judy Biggert, CA-44’s Ken Calvert and CA-03’s Dan Lungren. All three represent districts that George W. Bush won easily in 2004; yet, all three are now finding themselves sitting in swing districts that have shown their willingness to vote Democratic. And the reason that these three Republicans were chosen is that they all received unexpectedly low results last November in races that no one was paying attention to: Biggert got 53%, Calvert 52% and Lungren 50%. To DCCC strategists, that means that these incumbents lack the type of personal appeal that could protect them from their district’s blue drift.

—

Adding to this story’s many layers is Mitt Romney’s decision to donate $1000 to every single one of these Republicans’ re-election campaign (except Putnam’s, since he is not running for the House in ‘10). Calling these incumbents the “Undaunted Dozen,” Romney praised them for standing “for fiscal responsibility” and saying “no to spending abuse.” “We are committed to helping these courageous Republicans defend their position and fend off political attacks,” added Romney’s statement.

Romney’s move is obviously far more relevant to the GOP’s 2012 race than to the 2010 midterms. (Sorry Jaxx, but many Republicans are acting like the presidential race is already on!) I explained last week that Charlie Crist’s decision to support the stimulus could be an issue for him down the road, as an important test in the 2012 primary will which candidate stood up the most to Obama.

Romney no longer holds an elected office, so he cannot make a great show of rejecting some of the stimulus funds like Bobby Jindal or Mark Sanford. This is his way of ensuring that his name stays in the news and that people remember him as an opponent of Obama’s policies. After all, Romney was criticized by many in 2007-2008 for being a phony conservative; he now wants to avoid a similar fate in 2012.

Monday polls: Why can’t every day have more polls from Utah than from Pennsylvania?

Published
by
Taniel
on June 24, 2008
in AK-Pres, NM-Pres, NM-Sen, OR-Pres, PA-Pres, TX-32 and UT-Pres
. 0 Comments

A number of presidential polls were released over the past 24 hours, including (strangely enough) two polls from Utah. While Barack Obama might be putting a lot of red states in play this year, Utah, which gave George Bush 72% of the vote in 2004, is not one of them. In both polls, however, there is a narrow tightening compared to the 2004 margin:

While Utah might not be high up on Obama’s priority list, a traditionally staunchly red state that is looking like a surprising bright spot for Democrats this year is Alaska. There have been a number of presidential polls finding a tight race, including Rasmussen’s latest survey showing McCain leading Obama by 4% last week. Add to it now another poll, commissioned and leaked by the DSCC:

  • McCain and Obama are in a toss-up, with the Republican edging out the Democrat 44% to 42% with 3% for Bob Barr.
  • This poll was actually mentioned in the Washington Post a few days ago but came to my attention only now.

The Alaska Republican Party is in a particularly bad shape, with many of its major figures entangled in a corruption scandal that is threatening to end the careers of Rep. Young and Sen. Stevens in the coming months. That dismal predicament is spilling over to the presidential race, as Alaska voters are clearly not as eager as usual to support a Republican candidate. And the positive effect is mutual: Down-the-ballot Democrats running in a red state in a presidential year have to fight counter-current and escape negative coattails, so for Obama to truly contest Alaska (and he has an ad buy there) will help Democrats in the Senate and House races.

Other major polls released today include:

  • Rasmussen’s latest survey from Pennsylvania, that finds Obama leading 46% to 42%, up from a 2% lead last month but down from an 8% lead in early April.
  • Obama’s favorability rating (58%) is comparable to McCain’s (57%) though Obama has higher very favorable and very unfavorable numbers.
  • In Oregon, the latest SUSA poll finds Obama dropping from a 9% lead to a 3% lead, 48% to 45%. The partisan ID is comparable to 2004’s in this poll, whereas SUSA usually shows a swing towards the Democrats.
  • Finally, Obama gets good news from New Mexico in the latest Rasmussen poll. He leads 47% to 39%, holding on to his May lead.

It’s difficult to know what to think of New Mexico as Rasmussen and SUSA are the only institute to release polls from the state. If Obama can manage to win back New Mexico and Iowa (the only two Gore states won by Bush in 2004), he will only be 5 electoral votes from a tie, making those early leads in both NM and IA particularly important. Much of the outcome of the race in New Mexico will depend on the Hispanic vote, but it’s worth noting that the state was among the closest in the country in both 2004 and 2000.

As for Pennsylvania, I moved the state to the Lean Democratic column in my second presidential ratings last week. That was not meant to imply that the race is no longer competitive — indeed every sign, including this poll, suggest that it will — but that it is possible to say that Obama has a slight edge there based on a narrow but consistent lead in polls, massive gains by his party in registration results and the state’s move towards safer blue in 2006. But there is no question that McCain will play very heavily in the Keystone state, and Republicans are no doubt aware that the margin here was tighter than in Ohio back in 2004. Pennsylvania is as close to a must-win as Democrats have in the list of swing states, as it would be difficult for Democrats to overcome the loss of these 21 electoral votes. And would the loss of PA not seal that of Ohio and perhaps of Michigan?

Finally, we got down-the-ballot polls today:

  • In New Mexico, Rasmussen finds that Tom Udall is still increasing his lead over Republican Steve Pearce, now trouncing him 58% to 30%. Udall’s favorability rating is 66%, compared to 54% for Pearce.
  • In TX-32, an internal poll for the Democratic challenger’s campaign finds Eric Roberson trailing Rep. Pete Sessions 52% to 43%.

Steve Pearce might have hoped for a bounce off his primary victory, but this race appears to be increasingly in the bag for Democrats. Combine it with Virginia and New Hampshire, and that’s a very likely base of 3 gains for Senate Democrats. But I am very skeptical of the TX-32 survey — as we should often remember to be with internal polls. Roberson is an unknown candidate with little money in a district that has been gerrymandered to insure Republican victory and in which Bush got 60% of the vote in 2004. In fact, Democratic Rep. Frost was shoved into this district by Tom DeLay and lost to Sessions in 2004 by 10% despite being as high-profile a Democrat as the party can hope for here. So don’t cross your fingers for TX-32. For now, there is very little to see.