Archive for the 'VA-11' Category

The electoral consequences of changes in districts’ racial composition

Published
by
Taniel
on October 13, 2009
in CA-03, CA-10, CA-11, CA-25, FL-12, FL-15, NJ-07, NV-03, TX-10, TX-24 and VA-11
. 8 Comments

One often used measure of a district’s vulnerability to takeover is its presidential vote, but the 2008 cycle has made matters confusing. What should we do with districts whose 2008 movement far exceeds the national movement?

For instance: Should national parties trying to decide how much attention to devote to IN-9 look to 2004 (an 18% Bush victory) or 2008 (a 1% Obama district) as most reflective of the district’s partisan leanings?  That question can be translated in another way: Should we hold Obama’s over-average gain in that particular district as a fleeting consequence of ephemeral circumstances (for instance an unbalance in campaign spending) or as the reflection of a more fundamental demographic and partisan transformation?

This morning, Swing State Project published a fascinating analysis of congressional districts’ racial composition changes between 2000 and 2008 that helps answer that question. The post has lot of important demographic tidbits. First, clear evidence of the gentrification of urban districts, especially in New York: four of the ten districts with the biggest white gain (in terms of percentage) are in NYC. Second, confirmation that African-Americans are increasingly moving into the suburbs, especially in Georgia: the two districts that have seen the largest African-American growth are in the Atlanta suburbs.

There are a lot of ways in which to read this data, but the point of my post is to point out the electoral consequences: Some of these districts with big demographic changes are also on the list of those that swung to Obama by big margins. That means that their political movement is a long-term transformation - one that is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, very seriously endangering Republicans and solidifying Democrats who occupy these seats.

All of these questions are particularly important for the DCCC to ponder in California, where 9 districts (8 of them represented by a Republican) swung from Bush to Obama - all in large movements ranging from 15% to 20%. And 3 of these 9 are on the list of 25 districts in which the share of the white population decreased the most!

  • One is represented by a Democrat: Jerry McNerny’s CA-11. It was 64% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 8%; it is now 51% white, and voted for Obama by 10%.
  • Two are represented by Republicans: McKeon’s CA-25 and Lungren’s CA-03. The former was 57% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 14%; it’s now 44% white, and it voted for Obama by 1%. The latter was 74% white in 2000, when it voted for Bush by 14%; it’s now 63% white, and it narrowly went for Obama.

When deciding which California seats are worth targeting, the DCCC should look very closely at CA-25 and CA-03, as they can now point to a concrete demographic reason that these districts so dramatically swung to Obama in 2008. By contrast, the NRCC might reconsider the high priority it’s put on CA-11: The district’s quite dramatic demographic evolution over the past 8 years makes the GOP pointing to Bush’s victories inadequate. McNerny looks less vulnerable.

Similar conclusions can be drawn in other districts, starting with Dem-held districts where incumbents can breath easier:

  • NV-03 (Titus): 69% white to 59% white; 1% Gore to 12% Obama
  • VA-11 (Connolly): 69% white to 57% white; 7% Bush to 15% Obama
  • CA-10 (vacant): 65% white to 55% white; 12% Gore to 32% Obama

Note that VA-11 is a very interesting case, as no one would point to the 2000 or 2004 results to argue that Connolly should be considered vulnerable. Northern Virginia’s blue drift has been accepted by most as a long-term phenomenon, and Obama’s 15% victory is recognized as a better indicator of Connolly’s (lack of) vulnerability. Also: I am only including CA-10 because a special election is coming up, and this gives us a useful indicator as to whether the GOP has a chance of defeating Lieutenant Governor Garamendi.

Then, we have GOP-held seats about which Republicans have reason to start worrying:

  • FL-12 (Putnam): 72% white to 63% white; 10% Bush to 1% McCain
  • TX-24 (Marchand): 64% white to 52% white; 36% Bush to 11% McCain
  • TX-10 (McCaul): 66% white to 55% white; 33% Bush to 11% McCain
  • FL-15 (Posey): 78% white to 69% white; 8% Bush to 3% McCain
  • NJ-07 (Lance): 79% to 70% white; 1% Bush to 3% Obama

Pay particular attention to FL-12, which will host an open seat race in 2010 since Putnam is running for statewide office. Based on the district’s giving Bush two large victories - not only 10% in 2000, but 16% in 2004 - the district is described as hostile to Democrats despite the 2008 election’s near tie. However, the fact that the partisan evolution coincidences with quite a stark demographic change suggests that we should pay more attention to last year’s results when deciding whether Democrats have a chance at picking-up the seat.

TX-24 and TX-10 still remain too conservative to be top-tier opportunities for the DCCC, though Democrats are mounting a spirited challenge to McCaul. Yet, it is clear that the demographic evolution is so rapidly threatening GOP dominance over these regions that it is probably only a matter of time before Democrats grow truly competitive.

That gets us to one final observation: The demographic problem the GOP faces in these districts is only the preview of a broader challenge they’ll face nationally as the share of the white population decreases in the United States as a whole. This will be a problem for Republicans at the presidential level and at the House level; it’s not like other districts will get whiter in a way to benefit Republicans because the GOP is losing its grip on the district I listed above. Republicans have to urgently find a way to update their electoral coalition; that they’ve alienated Hispanic voters in recent years certainly won’t help.

The ups and downs of NRCC recruitment

Published
by
Taniel
on July 30, 2009
in CT-04, MS-01, UT-02, VA-05 and VA-11
. 2 Comments

Yesterday, I highlighted some of the Democrats’ good House news - particularly their ability to avoid giving the GOP unnecessary openings. Within a few hours, yet another Democratic representative announced that he will not vacate his seat in 2010: Rep. Jim Matheson ruled out mounting a gubernatorial run, even though he is one of the only Democrats who could have taken advantage of the shuffle created by Governor Huntsman’s resignation. Matheson’s UT-02 is a red-leaning district that would have been very tough for Democrats to defend, so that sound you hear is yet another sigh of relief from the DCCC.

Yet, House Republicans are still as determined to go on the offensive next year: NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions just said that he was hoping to seriously contest 80 Dem-held districts come 2010! That’s an obviously unrealistic number, at this juncture ridiculously so, but at least Sessions is trying to change momentum after two disastrous cycles in which the GOP was stuck on the defensive. And Sessions went on to unveil its Young Guns program, the GOP’s equivalent of the DCCC’s Red to Blue. The initial list includes 13 challengers Republicans think are top-tier recruits:

Martha Roby (AL-02); Van Tran (CA-47); Cory Gardner (CO-04); Dennis Ross (FL-12); Charles Djou (HI-01); Vaughn Ward (ID-01); Adam Kinzinger (IL-11); Andy Harris (MD-01); Frank Guinta (NH-01); Jon Barela (NM-01); Steve Pearce (NM-02); Steve Chabot (OH-01); Steve Stivers (OH-15)

FL-12 is a GOP-held open seat, so that’s not an offensive opportunity. Of the 12 challengers on the list, some definitely should be on this list (AL-02, CO-04, ID-01, NH-01, NM-02, OH-01, OH-15); one seems to me to be weaker than other candidates the GOP could field (Andy Harris in MD-01); and a number continue to seem like wishful thinking (CA-47, HI-01 and NM-01 seem like too heavily Democratic to be worth the NRCC’s efforts). I am struck by OR-04’s absence: The NRCC spent so much time recruiting Sid Leiken that I’d expect him to now get more attention.

Meanwhile, the NRCC’s recruitment districts in other districts is having mixed results - as you can see from the round-up below.

NRCC misses its best shot at CT-04

CT-04 is not the most obvious of Republican targets - Obama prevailed by 20% last fall, helping dislodge Chris Shays - but the NRCC had been talking up Rep. Jim Himes’s vulnerability. That was perhaps because Himes is a freshman, perhaps because the district’s blue drift is bound to decrease and perhaps because the GOP was counting on recruiting a top challenger: State Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, who has a moderate reputation and whose father represented the distrist from 1971 to 1987.

After weeks during which he flirted with a run - even traveling to Washington to meet with NRCC officials - McKinney has just announced he will not challenge Himes in 2010. That’s a huge blow to the GOP’s prospects in this already tough district. Other credible Republicans might run - state Senators Rob Kane, Dan Debicella and Rob Russo are mentioned - but none have the advantage of McKinney’s last name.

Childrers draws top-tier challenger

After winning a springtime special election with surprising ease last year, Travis Childers did not have to worry much about his first re-election race in November. But 2010 should be very different: State Senator Alan Nunnelee, who has served in the legislature since 1994, just filed a candidacy statement. His entry makes this race a top priority for the NRCC.

Nunnelee has has better name recognition than your average challenger; his role as Appropriations Committee Chairman should make it very easy for him to raise money; and his prominence gives him the best shot at avoiding the GOP a divisive primary (in 2008, Republican divisions helped Childers scored an upset). In a district that gave McCain 62% of the vote, can Childers survive a well-funded challenger who is able to unite the GOP? Remember: MS-01 is one of those Southern districts that swung to the GOP in 1994.

GOP can now search for strongest challenger in VA-05

No one doubts that Tom Perriello is a very vulnerable incumbent: The only true surprise winner of the 2008 cycle, Perriello benefited from a favorable environment and he will now have to run without the benefit of Obama’s coattails. But a crucial question surrounded the race: Would the GOP make the most of its opportunity by fielding its strongest possible candidate? Former Rep. Virgil Goode, whom Perriello defeated in 2008, was very interested in seeking a rematch and he was acting like a candidate.

Yet, he just announced that he would pass on the race, which is undoubtedly good news for the NRCC:  A longtime congressman, Goode is a well-known entity in the district so it would not have been easy for him to overcome voters’ decision to kick him out. Furthermore, his very conservative politics and his history of controversial statements are an increasingly bad fit for this blue-trending district. With Goode out of the picture, the NRCC can turn to fresher faces who can fashion themselves a more appropriate profile: State Sen. Robert Hurt and state Del. Rob Bell are potential contenders.

VA-11: Fimian is back

In 2008, Gerald Connolly’s victory in the VA-11 open race was slightly underwhelming: He came to the race with a far higher profile, had a much longer time to prepare his campaign and he benefited from Obama’s Northern Virginia coattails. The major explanation for why the race remained somewhat competitive was Republican Keith Fimian’s deep pockets. Through self-funding, this wealthy businessman was able to spend far more money than he would have had his fate rested in the NRCC’s hands.

That’s why Fimian’s announcement that he will seek a rematch meets the GOP’s only hope of contesting this district in 2010: While the district is now too Democratic for the NRCC to accept spending much money and for Republican donors to be convinced to invest, a self-funder can test Connolly’s vulnerability without needing much national attention.

Spending, spending, spending (and some cutbacks)

Published
by
Taniel
on October 22, 2008
in CA-04, CA-11, CO-04, CO-Sen, FL-21, FL-24, FL-25, IL-11, IN-03, IN-09, KS-02, KY-02, MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MN-06, MO-09, NE-02, NH-01, NJ-03, NM-01, NM-02, NV-03, NY-26, NY-29, OH-01, OH-02, OH-15, OH-16, SC-01, TX-23, VA-02, VA-05, VA-11, WV-02 and WY-AL
. 0 Comments

It might be very little compared to a $700 billion bailout, but it’s a lot of money but most other standards: Every presidential, congressional and gubernatorial campaign saved its ammunition for these final two weeks, and money is now flying left and right.

In this game of piling expenditures, woe to whoever is left behind! Or should some cutbacks perhaps be taken as good news by candidates? The Denver Post reveals tonight that the DSCC will pull-out of the Colorado Senate race because it feels that Mark Udall is now in a “commanding position” - a remarkable decision by a party committee that has a lot of cash, and a clear sign that Chuck Schumer wants to spend as much of it as possible in Georgia and Kentucky.

(While true that Schaffer has not in a single poll all year and that Udall has been ahead by double-digits in some of the latest surveys, Udall hasn’t exactly been able to put the race away either and a number of independent groups are in the state pummeling Udall, so the DSCC better be sure of what it’s doing. On the other hand, the NRSC appears to have pulled out of Colorado as well, and Udall had far more cash on hand than Schaffer at the end of the third quarter, guaranteeing that Udall has a substantial advantage in the final stretch.)

Two Republican congressmen for whom a cutback could be disastrous news, however, are Reps. Musgrave and Bachmann of CO-04 and MN-06. In the former, the NRCC bought $375,000 of air time for this week yesterday, but it will not be spending anything in the final week of the campaign. (Could they not have decided that yesterday and saved themselves the $376,000?) In MN-06, the NRCC had not yet invested any money but had reserved ad time for the final two weeks; no longer.

(It is more difficult to know what to make of this Minnesota cutback: It is certainly not a sign of confidence on the part of the NRCC given that the race just became highly competitive 5 days ago, so could it be a concession? While Bachmann is viewed as more vulnerable today than she was before her rant on anti-Americanism, she doesn’t seem to be vulnerable enough at all for Republicans to despair of holding her seat. Perhaps the GOP saw how much money Democrats were preparing to pour in the district and realized there was no way it could even attempt to match that?)

While the NRCC is busy deciding which of its incumbents to abandon, the DCCC is deciding which safe-looking red districts it should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in. The result of their deliberation resulted in a stunning new spending spree in 51 districts (SSP has the full list) - six of which are first time investments: KS-02, CA-04, MN-06, SC-01, WV-02 and WY-AL!

The most fascinating of these buys is no doubt KS-02, as Rep. Nancy Boyda had insisted that the DCCC pull out of the district because she wanted to run the campaign herself; the DCCC had canceled its reservations. But now that GOP challenger finished the third quarter in a strong position financially, national Democrats apparently decided they couldn’t afford to stay true to their word. But consider a minute the three latter districts I just listed: We knew that CA-04 and WY-AL were highly competitive, but it is still remarkable to see Democrats spend more than $200,000 in such conservative areas - and let’s not even talk of SC-01, which was on no one’s radar screen as of one week ago.

The rest of the DCCC’s investment covers districts they have already been spending in, but some of their expenditures remain nonetheless breathtaking in their attempt to expand the map onto red territory. And consider that this money comes on top of the $4 million the DCCC spent on Monday and Tuesday in other districts. (I reviewed those expenditures here.) That brings the DCCC’s total expenditures over the past three days to about $16 million; the NRCC, meanwhile, spent around $5 million.

In a number of districts, the DCCC is going all-out. They just spent more than $400,000 in 8 districts (to which we should add NC-08 and IL-10, in which they spent more than that amount yesterday). More than $643,000 is being spent on NV-03 for this week alone! The DCCC is spending nearly $600,000 in IL-11, more than $500,000 in NH-01, NJ-03 and OH-01, more than $400,000 in IN-09, MN-06 and VA-11.

The committee has now spent more than $1 million in all of these districts except MN-06, even though it is somewhat puzzling that they are choosing to pour so much money in IN-09 and VA-11, two districts in which the Democratic candidates are now heavily favored (particularly in VA-11). Might that money not have been better spent elsewhere? The same was true of the $300,000 the DCCC spent yesterday in AZ-01, bringing its total there to nearly $2 million.

That said, the rest of this money will go a long way towards boosting Democrats who are facing tough races (Shea-Porter, for instance) or who are on the brink of putting the race away (NV-03 and IL-11). An investment that could prove particularly important is NJ-03: GOP candidate Myers has been unexpectedly competitive in this open seat, but state Senator Adler has a huge financial advantage in what is an expensive district to advertise in. With this much money spent by the DCCC, Adler will swamp Myers, whose main hope now is that New Jersey voters are fed up with Democrats.

The DCCC also spent significant amounts (more than $300,000) against the Diaz-Balart brothers in FL-21 and FL-25, in the pair of contested Michigan districts (MI-07 and MI-09), in MO-09, NM-02, NY-26, NY-29, OH-16 and VA-02. More than $200,000 were poured into CA-04, CA-11, FL-24, MN-03, NM-01, OH-02, OH-15, TX-23, VA-05, WV-02, WY-AL and 8 more districts saw (including IN-03, KY-02 and NE-02) buys of more than $100,000. What is once again remarkable is the depth of the Democrats’ investment: they are leaving almost no stone unturned - extending their buys to places few Democrats were even dreaming of a week ago and pouring huge amounts of money in some of the second-tier races they are hoping to take-over.

It is hard to think of GOP-held districts that could potentially be vulnerable and that the DCCC has not invested in. Perhaps the California districts we have been hearing about over the past week? Meanwhile, the NRCC is struggling to keep up. Apart opening its wallets in 20 districts yesterday, it spent in a few more today, but only crossed the six figure mark in IN-03, KY-02 and NE-02, NV-03 - all GOP-held districts, two of which were not deemed vulnerable as of 14 days ago (IN-03 and NE-02). For the GOP, the bottom is falling out. How much can they now salvage?

RNCC works on firewall, DCCC invests in new districts and passes $1 million mark in many

Published
by
Taniel
on October 14, 2008
in AL-02, AL-05, AZ-01, AZ-03, AZ-05, AZ-08, CA-11, CO-04, CT-04, FL-16, FL-21, FL-26, IL-10, IL-11, IN-03, KY-02, LA-06, MD-01, MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MO-06, MO-09, MS-01, NC-08, NE-02, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NM-02, NV-03, NY-26, NY-29, OH-01, OH-15, OH-16, PA-03, PA-10, TX-23, VA-02, VA-11, WA-08 and WI-08
. 0 Comments

As the time comes for the party committees to buy time for the upcoming week, the DCCC’s ability to flex its financial muscle and will seats to become competitive once again makes itself felt. The DCCC spent more than $8 million on more than 40 districts, moved in four new races it had not yet spent any money on while seemingly withdrawing from two, and passed the $1 million mark in a number of these contests. The GOP, by contrast, appear to have largely given up on playing offense and are building a firewall around a few incumbents; the NRCC’s meager resources hardly allow it to dream of a better defense.

As always, the DCCC and NRCC decision to invest will not make a candidate, though a decision to pull out can certainly break an underfunded challenger or a swamped incumbent. But beyond illustrating the two parties’ financial disparities, a detailed look at where the two parties are spending money lays out the electoral map and tells us which seats people who are paid to track House races full-time (and who have inside information and polling we do not have access to) think will be competitive, or not.

With that said, let’s use our now familiar classification to break down the latest House expenditures:

  • Republican investments

The GOP is in such a difficult financial situation that its mere decision to spend money on a race says a lot about how they view (and how their private polling tells them to view) a race. If the GOP is spending money on a race that is supposed to be competitive, it means they think that this particular seat is more likely to be saved than others; if they spend money on a race that was not yet viewed as that competitive, it means we probably don’t have enough information and that district is indeed highly vulnerable.

In the latter category is FL-21, where the NRCC just spent more than $500,000. This district is in Miami’s media market, so advertising there is difficult. The DCCC has not spent any money on the district for now, however, so the GOP might be successful in building a firewall here. (More on the GOP’s FL-21 efforts below.) Also in the latter category is MO-06, where incumbent Sam Graves is not currently considered to be in as much trouble as other Republicans - but the NRCC is evidently worried about his prospects and intent on keeping him, as they spent more than $100,000 in one their only six-figure investments to date.

In the former category is NM-01, the open seat that I am currently rating lean take-over. The NRCC is not spending money here, but Freedom’s Watch and the Republican Campaign Committee of New Mexico are each spending more than $200,000. (Democrats are spending heavily in both NM-01 and MO-06.) The NRCC also threw in modest amounts in LA-06, PA-03 and WI-08. (Update: It looks like the RNCC is looking to spend a lot of money in NH-01 - as much as $400,000, confirming its strategy of putting a lot of money in a handful of races.)

  • New DCCC investments

Democrats are now spending for the first time in four districts, two of which are obvious choices (CO-04 and NY-29) and two of which are true shockers (IN-03 and NE-02). While it might be surprising that the DCCC has not opened its wallet to hit Musgrave yet, the congresswoman has been hit by more than half-a-million worth of advertisement by the Defenders of Wildlife PAC, and that might have convinced the DCCC that its involvement was not (yet) needed. But now that the DCCC is moving in, it is clearly determined to make a splash: its first buy is an impressive $345,000.

As for IN-03 and NE-02, they demonstrate the Democrats’ determination to expand the map: neither of these seats was supposed to be even close to competitive, and I confess IN-03 isn’t even on my House ratings for now. That will be corrected soon, as the DCCC’s decision to invest a serious amount of money (it has already bought more than $150,000 and has committed about half-a-million) means that the district is indeed competitive. Democrats aren’t bluffing in NE-02 either, as they have brought more than $130,000 worth of ads.

  • Districts where the DCCC has now spent more than $1 million

This is not a guarantee that the Democratic candidate will, but it certainly means that the DCCC has put a high priority in winning these races: AK-AL, AZ-01, AZ-03 (!), AZ-05, MN-03, NC-08, NH-01, NJ-07, OH-15, OH-16. In other districts, the total passes $1 million when the DCCC’s investment is added to that of NARPAC (National Association of Realtors). In PA-11, for instance, that total reaches $1.8 million; if Rep. Kanjorski loses reelection, it will just how incredibly vulnerable he had become.

  • Districts the DCCC is playing defense

The DCCC continued to invest in AL-05 (now almost half-a-million total), CA-11, AZ-05 (nearly $250,000 this week, bringing the total to $1.2 million), LA-06, MS-01, NH-01 (the total now reaches $1.2 million), PA-10, TX-23 and WI-08. More surprising is the DCCC’s decision to dump huge resources in IN-09 (almost $300,000 this week), a district that looks increasingly safe for Baron Hill. However, the DCCC looks to have stopped advertising in FL-16 (Mahoney’s district…) and AZ-08, where Rep. Giffords looks relatively secure. Both districts could be moved accordingly in my upcoming rating changes.

  • Districts that were not so long ago considered long shots

I already mentioned IN-03 and NE-02, but those are just the tip of the iceberg as the DCCC continues to pour in money in races that were not considered that competitive as of this summer! New spending in AL-02 raises the total to more than half-a-million, an impressive sum for this relatively cheap media market. The DCCC’s spending totals in AZ-03 are truly staggering, as this is a district no one thought of as that competitive until ten days ago - and the DCCC just dumped in about $369,000. In MD-01, a large new buy brings the Democratic total to almost $900,000. (The Club for Growth is helping the Republican here with more than $200,000). Other noteworthy buys in this category are KY-02, MO-09, NM-02, PA-03, VA-02. In all these districts, the DCCC is not bluffing and is putting serious money behind its hopes of riding a blue tsunami.

  • Districts Democrats were expecting to pick-up more easily

Most of the DCCC’s biggest overall expenditures belong in this category, in what is at the same time good news for Democrats (it allows them to solidify their prospects) but also disappointing ones (since they would have liked to spend some of money elsewhere). Perhaps the most surprising development is the DCCC’s decision to invest nearly $350,000 in AZ-01 (bringing the total to $1.3 million), a race Democrats are expected to win relatively easily. The DCCC also just spent more than $200,000 in NM-01, OH-15 and OH-16 (bringing the total in each to more than $1 million), three open seats that Democrats are one point were hoping to have an easier time with. Other districts in this category are IL-11, NJ-03, NJ-07 and VA-11.

  • Districts that are and were expected to be competitive

This category contains the least surprising ad buys since the races were expected to be competitive since the beginning. Particularly noteworthy buys include the DCCC’s buy of about $300,000 in NC-08 (total of more than $1.3 million), more than $200,000 in MI-07, NV-03, NY-26, OH-01 and WA-08. Combined with AFSCME’s spending, the Democratic buys in MI-07 have an impressive size. The DCCC also spent in CT-04, FL-26, IL-10, MI-09, MN-03 and MO-06.

—

While it would be too long to take a detailed look at the committees’ new ads, it is worth taking a quick look at the themes these new spots are emphasizing. On the Democratic side, the day’s biggest news undoubtedly comes from the DCCC’s decision to heavily invest in IN-03 and attack longtime Representative Souder for having been changed by Washington:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eijpzkDXfIM"]

On the Republican size, the biggest news by far is the RNCC’s massive investment in FL-21. The GOP might have chosen this district because of the scandals that have long surrounded Democratic candidate Raul Martinez, a controversial figure who has enough baggage for the GOP to seize easily. The ad’s closer says it all - “We know Martinez is corrupt enough for Washington, but that doesn’t mean we should send him there:”

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JroM8wR1sCQ"]

Ad wars: DCCC keeps up aggressive spending, invests in deep red KY-02 and MD-01

Published
by
Taniel
on September 24, 2008
in AK-Sen, AL-02, AZ-01, AZ-05, AZ-08, CT-04, IL-11, KY-02, MD-01, MI-07, MI-09, MN-03, MS-Sen and VA-11
. 1 Comment

The NRCC still hasn’t spend a dime of its meager war chest on advertisement for its House candidates, but the DCCC continues to pour money in races across the country. A rundown of the committee’s spending just over the past two days reveals how wide-reaching they are casting their net (via SSP’s always useful expenditure tracker):

  • First, the DCCC is putting some more money in defense, somewhat puzzlingly in AZ-08, more understandably in AL-05, AZ-05 (nearly $170,000) and in FL-16. This is the DCCC’s first investment in FL-16, which is expected to be one of the toughest seats for Democrats to defend.
  • Some of the offensive money is going to open seats that are already considered to be leaning Democratic. Did the DCCC really have to just buy more than $80,000 worth of air time in VA-11? and what about the $183,000 it just spent in AZ-01 yesterday?
  • Then, there is the money that is going to open seats that Democrats were hoping to have already secured by now. Seats like NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, OH-15 and OH-16 fall in this category, but this time the only new expenditure is a spending spree in IL-11, bringing the DCCC’s total to more than $700,000, even as Halvorson continues to weaken in recent polls.
  • The DCCC is starting to gear up spending in a third group of states in which it only recently airing ads - seats that are (and were expected to be) toss-ups. The DCCC is up with new spending in MN-03 (nearly $200,000 of ad buys were bought over the past two days), MI-09 and MI-07. In CT-04, the DCCC seems intent to once again go all out against Rep. Shays, with a new media buy bringing the committee’s total to more than $300,000.
  • Finally, and this is by far the most interesting group, the DCCC is pouring some big money in heavily conservative districts, which is a major show of confidence that these seats are actually ripe for pick-up. The DCCC is putting in nearly $100,000 in AL-02, nearly doubling its previous total (that is some significant money in the relatively inexpensive AL market). And the committee is buying air time for the first time in KY-02 (nearly $90,000) and MD-01 (nearly $150,000!).

Those final two races are particularly fascinating, as KY-02 and MD-01 are both open seats that few people would have believed a few months ago could be competitive. But polls have shown both Kentucky’s Boswell (polling history) and Maryland’s Kratovil (via a recent DCCC poll) in a strong position, but the DCCC’s decision to move in is nonetheless remarkable - and certainly reminescent of their decision to contest IL-14, MS-01 and LA-06 this spring. At the time, the GOP could afford to spend back, but that is not an option this time. Whatever money the NRCC has will have to be used on more obviously vulnerable districts.

KY-02 is a district Bush won with 65% of the vote in 2004, so the DCCC’s half-negative/half-positive ad takes the road Democrats take in a state like Kentucky: with a populist message, the ad hits Brett Guthrie for supporting NAFTA and accuse his company of having shipped jobs to Mexico:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnQCMR_q2JY"]

Another ad that is noteworthy because of how it closely it echoes one we have seen on the presidential race is the DCCC’s spot in CT-04. The spot uses footage of Shays’ saying that the “economy is fundamentally strong” and juxtaposes it to Bush and McCain saying the same thing. The message, of course, is not only that Shays is out of touch but also that he is and will remain a Republican (Shays is the last GOP House member from New England):

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpIVzbJd5R0"]

Meanwhile, the Senate committees are airing ads of their own - and there the NRSC is doing more of an effort to stay on par. As I noted last night, the NRSC has just started airing its first ad in Louisiana; and it has accompanied that with new spots in Colorado, Oregon and Mississippi. While all of these touch on issues that the NRSC has already attacked these Democrats for, the attack against Musgrove is perhaps most noteworthy since it signals the GOP’s determination to use attack Musgrove’s ethics and to scale up its attacks:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWrifDuOVYI"]

On the Democratic side, the DSCC has a new ad against Coleman; it also released two new spots against Wicker (watch one here) that attack the Mississippi Republican for having voted in favor of his own pay raise 9 times. By itself, that charge doesn’t seem enough to me to get voters to throw out an incumbent, though the DSCC might be able to connect it to a broader narrative. But the most noteworthy ad is the DSCC’s spot against Ted Stevens, as it directly brings up the Senator’s indictment:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ysM63lmaWY"]

Given that Stevens’s trial is now set to remain in the news almost daily in Alaska for the next four to five weeks, it is not essential for Democrats to attack Stevens on his indictement, but it is essential to tell voters that Stevens would no longer be effective in helping Alaska. Stevens’ main campaign argument is that he has the seniority to bring funds to his state, and this spot argues that Stevens has lost his clout by being stripped of his committee assigments, for instance.

House: More confusion in NY-13 and the DCCC’s aggressive expenditures

Published
by
Taniel
on September 15, 2008
in AK-AL, AL-02, AL-05, AZ-01, CA-11, House, ID-01, IL-11, NJ-07, NM-01, NY-13, OH-15, OH-16, PA-03, PA-11, TX-22 and VA-11
. 0 Comments

Given how NY-13 seemed to be at the center of the political universe for much of the early summer, it’s hard to believe that I have not had to write about this race since July 11th. But rumors that Rep. Vito Fossella is plotting a political comeback is sure to launch another round of confusion in Staten Island’s House seat.

Here’s where things stand: After weeks of a chaotic saga in which all of the GOP’s possible contenders (down to the fourth-tier) declined to run, the Republican nomination went to former Assemblyman Robert Staniere, a figure so loathed by many in the local GOP establishment that only one Republican official is backing his party’s nominee. Democratic candidate McMahon’s task is made easier by the fat that the Conservative Party (a force in New York politics) has fielded its own candidate, attorney Paul Atanasio.

In brief, NY-13 is the most vulnerable of the GOP’s House seats, and is rated likely takeover in my latest ratings. After these cataclysmic few months, it can’t possibly get worse for Staten Island’s GOP, and some might be wondering whether the party might have been in better shape sticking with its adulterous DUI-ing incumbent. That has apparently given Fossella some ideas, and a poll is now reportedly running in Staten Island testing Fossella’s name.

Since the primary has passed, Fossella would have to convince one of the candidates currently on the ballot to step down - and they can only do that by dying, moving out of the state or being nominated to run for judgeship. If the local GOP is determined enough to get Fossella in, it could perhaps pull some strings and get Atanasio a shot at a judgeship (would they do the same for Staniere), though that remains rather unlikely - not to mention that it would be difficult for Fossella to run and win on a third-party line.

While this might end up having only a minimal impact on the battle for the House - it’s difficult to see how even a Fossella comeback could save NY-13 for the GOP - it certainly increases the race’s entertainment value.

Meanwhile, the DCCC is stepping up its independent expenditures at an aggressive rhythm, and in a stark contrast to the NRCC which remains in a very difficult position financially. Swing State Project tracks the committee’s expenditures, and its latest weekly summary shows how the spending so far (and it’s already mid-September) has been disproportionately Democratic. On the one hand, the NRCC has only invested a few thousand dollars in five districts - three of which (ID-01, PA-03 and AL-02) are seats that the GOP should never have to defend in the first place. All of the NRCC’s latest expenditures are polling related.

The DCCC, meanwhile, is up on air in a large number of districts - and a lot of these expenditures are fairly significant. That is particularly the case in some of the Democratic-held vulnerable seats where the GOP cannot really afford to play for now (most of the available money is likely to go on defense) but where the DCCC is rushing to the rescue of its endangered incumbent. $575,032 have already been spent in PA-11, and nearly $400,000 in TX-22. Other vulnerable Democratic seats the DCCC is paying attention to include AL-05 and CA-11 (where the National Association of Realtors PAC has just spent half-a-million dollar on a media buy on behalf of Rep. McNerney).

As for offense, for now the DCCC is spending a lot of money in the districts in which it is best positioned, GOP-held districts in which most analysts are already giving the Democrats’ a slight advantage. The DCCC has already spent $169,758 in AZ-01, more than $100,000 in AK-AL and VA-11. In NJ-07, an expensive district which is looking more competitive than Democrats were hoping it would be, the DCCC has already spent more than $273,000, a lot of it on advertisement! The same is true in OH-15 and OH-16, two open seats that were once considered to be leaning Democratic but where the GOP remains competitive; the DCCC has now spent more than $250,000 in both districts. In NM-01, the DCCC is reaching the $150,000 mark. One very interesting district is NC-08, a district the DCCC neglected in 2006 (the Democrat lost by a bit more than 300 votes) but where they just dumped more than $119,000 and are airing this ad. The DCCC is also firing its first salvoes in MN-03, in the form of a direct mailer.

But it is in IL-11 that the DCCC appears to be going all-out, as it has now almost spent $500,000 to help paint the district blue. Like some of the districts listed above, this is somewhat of a disappointment, as IL-11 was once rated likely takeover in my ratings before slipping back to a more competitive lean takeover as the GOP found a decent candidate, self-funder Marty Ozinga. He has proved surprisingly competitive in the months since, and the DCCC looks determined to lock this seat. Their latest ad is worth a look since it combines a charge Democrats are making against Republicans across the country (proximity to Bush) with an accusation that is being used by Republicans against Al Franken up in Minnesota (failure to pay taxes). And keep in mind, the DCCC is spending a lot of money attacking Ozinga:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puglAngblN0"]

The NRCC has yet to spend anything on any of these districts - whether NM-01, AZ-01, IL-11, PA-11 or the other districts I mentioned. That is fine in some places (Ozinga can use his own money in IL-11), but not in others (it will be difficult for NJ-07’s Leonard Lance to respond by himself in the expensive New York City market). At the House level, where voters pay less attention and the press has less coverage, such financial discrepancies can make a big difference.

House ratings: Will the DCCC succeed in putting the third-tier in play?

Published
by
Taniel
on August 17, 2008
in AL-02, AL-03, FL-18, FL-25, House, IL-06, IL-08, IN-07, LA-06, LA-07, MN-06, NV-02, NV-03, NY-29, OR-05, PA-03, PA-07, PA-11, VA-05, VA-10, VA-11 and WV-02
. 3 Comments

The GOP has long faced tough odds in the battle of the House. In an election year that promises to be just as Democratic-leaning than 2006, many vulnerable Republican incumbents chose to retire rather than wage a tough battle. Few high-profile Republicans agreed to jump in the races thus left open or to challenge the Democratic freshmen incumbents that were supposedly so vulnerable. And the fundraising disparity between the DCCC and NRCC was obvious from the first days of financial reports of the 2008 cycle.

The road has not been getting any easier for Republicans. While no new incumbent retired and while GOP chances are improving in high-profile districts (NH-01, LA-06 and PA-11), Democrats are continuing to expand the map. 13 GOP-held seats have been moved to a more vulnerable column since the June ratings - compared to only 2 Dem-held districts. There is now a total of 56 GOP-held seats on this list versus 34 Dem-held seats.

It is unlikely that future cycles would be this skewed towards Democrats, and the DCCC is eager to strike at the core of the GOP base, for it might not have another shot at them for a very long time. In this context, the importance of the financial disparity between the DCCC and the NRCC cannot be overstated: Money counts for more in House races than in Senate and presidential contests, and the DCCC’s ability to flex its financial muscle is already evident. Over the past month, the Democratic committee reserved a total of $53 million of air time in 51 districts, 34 of which are currently held by the GOP. That’s a very large playing field to invest in.

This money is not an actual buy - only a reservation - and the committee can pull the plug on any of this spending. In fact, it is likely that the millions the DCCC has reserved in seats like NY-13 , IL-14 and NY-25 will not even be spent - as these already look like probable Democratic victories - and that money could be relocated to other races. And consider that the $53 million the DCCC has reserved in the fall is within the $58 million of cash on hand it had at the end of June. If the DCCC keeps up its fundraising of $10 million/month, it could very well follow through on all the money it has already reserved (which would by itself be a huge money bomb) and still have as much as $40 million to spend!

Republicans, on the other hand, will face painful choices. In many conservative districts which lean Republican but in which the Democrats are injecting millions, the GOP candidates will be on their own, fighting the blue wave swamped under Democratic spending. Indeed, if the NRCC spends some of its small war chest on districts like FL-18, LA-07 and NM-02, what money will they have left to help their candidates in more obviously competitive districts - NM-01, KS-02, NY-26 or MO-06?

If the situation becomes bad enough that the GOP has to build a firewall in its third-tier of races (places like FL-18 and ID-01), the first and second-tier might find itself entirely submerged and Democrats might post huge gains. If the country’s mood balances itself a little and if John McCain manages to limit the electorate’s anti-Republican behavior, the third-tier could find itself much safer than it is now - and the GOP might be able to spend its resources on the first and second-tier, significantly limiting its losses.

So will we have a repeat of 2006, with Republicans powerless to stop the blue tsunami though they will probably score some gains of their own this time? Or a district-by-district battle that will still be fought with a clear Democratic edge? That is the key question of the upcoming months, and the answer will have much to do with the dynamics of the presidential race.

The full race-by-race ratings are available here. Here is the quick run-down of the changes:

  • Less vulnerable Democratic seats: IL-08, IN-07, PA-07, OR-05
  • Less vulnerable Republican seats: CA-52, IL-06, MN-06
  • More vulnerable Democratic seats: LA-06, PA-11
  • More vulnerable Republican seats: AL-02, AL-03, FL-18, FL-25, LA-07, NV-02, NV-03, NY-29, PA-03, VA-05, VA-10, VA-11, WV-02

The full ratings are available here.

Outlook: Democrats pick-up 13-22 seats, for a Democratic majority ranging from 249-186 to 258-177.

History of House ratings:

  • June: The field continues to shift towards Democrats, particularly in New York
  • February: As many more races get competitive, Democrats keep clear edge
  • November: How many more Republican retirements?
  • October: Democrats feel better as GOP faces worrisome retirements
  • September: Democrats poised to keep majority

Thursday polls: Tight presidential races in NV and NC, and a trio of House internal polls

Published
by
Taniel
on July 17, 2008
in AR-Pres, NC-Pres, NJ-07, NJ-Pres, NV-Pres, OH-01, VA-11, WA-Gov and WA-Pres
. 1 Comment

A number of polls were released today along the Rasmussen North Carolina Senate poll I mentioned earlier today. No big surprises in the day’s 5 state presidential polls, but that’s only because we are now getting used to what just three months ago would have seemed improbable, namely that North Carolina is a battleground state:

  • Just two days after SUSA found the two presidential candidates within 5% in North Carolina, it is Rasmussen’s turn to confirm the tightness of the race, with McCain leading 45% to 42% (48% to 45% with leaners). Obama has room to grow among registered Democrats, as he only gets 69% of their vote.

This is the fourth straight Rasmussen poll finding a similar result. In April, the two candidates were tied; McCain led by 3% in May and 2% in June. It is therefore time to stop expressing amazement at such competitive results (which I still do) and talk about North Carolina as we would of any battleground state. While Obama certainly does not need the state’s 15 electoral votes to reach an electoral college majority (is there an argument to be made that Obama could lose VA but win NC?), he is certainly campaigning here actively and has been running ads in the state — something the McCain campaign has not been doing. And remember that Obama ads were also saturating the airwaves in late April and early May, in the run-up to the primary.

But despite having the state’s airwaves to himself, Obama’s numbers have not moved much since Rasmussen’s April poll. Nor had they in yesterday’s SUSA poll. This leads to an essential question: What is Obama’s ceiling in the deep red states he is putting in play and in the Southern states in particular? 52% of respondents in this poll have a favorable view of him, but the fact that Obama is only getting 69% of registered Democrats in Rasmussen’s survey and that he was getting 31% of the white vote in yesterday’s SUSA poll makes it clear that he will have to do better among the South’s white registered Democrats (Hillary Clinton’s primary constituency) to pull an upset in states like North Carolina.

The day’s other presidential polls are:

  • In Nevada, Obama is ahead within the margin of error in Rasmussen’s latest poll, 42% to 40%. Last month, McCain led by 3%. Obama was last ahead in March.
  • In Arkansas, Rasmussen finds McCain leading 47% to 37% (up one from last month), 52% to 39% with leaners. Obama’s favorability rating is a weak 45%, versus 53% unfavorable.
  • A Strategic Vision poll of New Jersey shows Obama leading 47% to 38%.
  • Finally, in Washington, SUSA finds Obama crushing McCain 55% to 39%.

Of these states, Nevada is naturally the most interesting since it is the only state here I consider a toss-up. Polls here have been zigzagging back and forth between Obama and McCain, and it looks like this state will remain tight, just as did four years ago. Of the three Southwestern battleground states, it is the most likely to remain in Republican hands, but that does not mean that it is not highly competitive and the news I mentioned earlier this week that Democrats now had a 6% registration edge in the state (whereas they trailed by 1% in 04) will be a huge boost to Obama.

Finally, a wave of down-the-ballot races — including three House internals, all currently held by Republicans:

  • SUSA finds a tight gubernatorial race in Washington, as expected. Christine Gregoire narrowly leads Dino Rossi 49% to 46%.
  • In VA-11, an internal poll released by the Connolly campaign finds the Democrat crushing his opponent Keith Fimian… 52% to 21%!
  • In OH-01, an internal poll for the Chabot campaign finds the Republican incumbent ahead of his challenger, state Rep. Driehaud, 50% to 37%.
  • In NJ-07, finally, an internal poll for the campaign of Leonard Lance finds the Republican leading his Democratic opponent Linda Stender 42% to 35%.

Naturally, the internal polls should all be taken with great caution and any finding has to be confirmed by independent surveys. A few words about these surveys, however: VA-11 is one of the two or three most vulnerable GOP-held seats. It is an open seat in blue-trending territory and the GOP candidate is not top-tier. There is no doubt that Connolly is the heavy favorite. That said, the numbers will surely be tighter: Connolly is well-known whereas Fimian is largely unknown — though he can self-fund his race and will be sure to increase his numbers once he starts running ads.

The same is true in OH-01: The margin will tighten once the campaign heats up and voters get to know Driehaud, who only represents one part of the district. Chabot is one of the survivors of the 2006 cycle, and he is preparing himself for as close a race as he fought two years ago; that he is only at 50% should also be cause for worry. The real surprise comes from NJ-07: This is a blue-leaning open seat with a strong Democratic candidate who barely lost two years ago. Republicans are more satisfied with their candidate here, however, than in the state’s other open seat (NJ-03). Is this a sign that they are right and Democrats should not underestimate Lance’s strength? The poll is certainly counter-intuitive, but it is up to the Stender campaign to release a poll to disprove it. The problem with House races is that there are too few independent polls to be able to judge the credibility of internal polls.

House: No family feud in NY-13, VA-11 gets settled

Published
by
Taniel
on June 11, 2008
in ME-01, NY-13 and VA-11
. 0 Comments

In a disappointing finish to a farcical storyline, the race in New York’s 13th congressional district just got a bit less traumatizing for Republicans. They have caught no break in this contest ever since Vito Fossella was arrested on DWI charges, as they have suffered through the incumbent retiring in disgrace, Democrats fielding one of their best opponents, the strongest Republican contenders declining to run, the Staten Island GOP being forced to settle for a second-tier candidate and that candidate’s son announcing that he would run as the Libertarian candidate, making sure that no one would be able to take his father’s candidacy seriously.

But yesterday, the Libertarian Party’s Manhattan chapter (which also controls Staten Island) voted to give is nod to Susan Overeem. The chapter’s spokesman explained that “has the better grasp of what it meant to be a Libertarian.” This removes the threat of the ballot being shared by a Francis M. Powers and a Francis H. Powers and will allow the Republican candidate to campaign without having to continually answer the charges voiced by his son (who seemed quite determined to see his father lose). This in itself is a relief for the GOP who will fight hard to avoid extinction in New York State.

Democrats remain favored to this seat. Not only was the recruitment success of the two candidates clearly unbalanced but it will be hard for Republicans to survive in any open seat that is remotely competitive at the presidential level.

Another such district is VA-11, vacated by Rep. Tom Davis and at the top of every Democrat’s target list. Northern Virginia has been rapidly trending Democratic and it is responsible for Tim Kaine’s election in 2005 an Jim Webb’s in 2006. Yet, the strength of the dispute between former Rep. Leslie Byrne and Gerry Connolly, the chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, threatened the Democrats’ confidence. Byrne, who occupied this seat from 1992 to 1994 and who lost a close race for Lieutenant Governor in 2005, ran a liberal campaign to remain relevant versus the machine of Connolly, who portrayed himself as a moderate Democrat.

Last night, Virginia voters went to the polls (turnout was only 5%) and gave a resounding victory to Connolly, who thus becomes the Democratic nominee for the general election and the favorite to succeed Tom Davis. He will face Republican businessman Keith Fimian, whose principal strength is that he could self-fund his candidacy in an expensive media market and thus keep the race somewhat competitive. But it would be a big upset surprise if Connolly were to lose. Northern Virginia has been the Democrats’ beacon of hope for years and they have been impatiently waiting for Davis to step down to seize this seat.

Democrats dejected that Virginia Democrats lost an opportunity to elect a more progressive politician might be comforted by the primary results in Maine’s 1st district, where Chellie Pingree survived a late push by Adam Cote, who ran a more moderate campaign. This seat, left vacant by Tom Allen’s senatorial run, is the more Democratic of Maine’s two districts which positions Pingree well to defeat Republican Charles Summers and become the first woman to be elected in this district. Note that this primary was essentially a general election and — to further heighten the stakes — a probable stepping stone for a Senate candidacy once Sen. Snowe, Sen. Collins or Sen. Allen retire (well if Allen wins in November he is unlikely to retire for a while, but you get my point).

House GOP loses three more members, and Kentucky filing deadline marked by last-minute chaos

Published
by
Taniel
on January 30, 2008
in KY-02, KY-03, KY-Sen, MO-09, MO-Gov and VA-11
. 2 Comments

It seems blasphemous to cover anything but the presidential races right now given the high drama of both the Democratic and Republican races right now (though the GOP contest will be much less exciting from now on), but it’s hard to ignore that still more Republican-held House seats have opend up since Monday.

VA-11: I first reported on rumors of Tom Davis’s imminent retirement on Monday, and it is now being confirmed. VA-11 shoots up to the very top of Democratic opportunities, and Leslie Byrne, the Democratic candidate, carried the district handily in her statewide campaign for Lieutenant governship in 2005. Check the analysis of VA-11 I wrote on Monday.

MO-Gov and MO-09: Governor Blunt’s unexpected retirement last week prompted Republican confusion, and there has been a lot of jockeying around among the state GOP. With statewide officials already in the race, all eyes were on the state’s representatives. Would any of them seek to win the Governor’s mansion and leave their seat open? On Monday, Kenny Hulshof from MO-09 announced she was jumping in the gubernatorial race. That gives Republicans a strong candidate to take on Democratic Attorney General Nixon for governor, but it means one more House seat to defend. Fortunately for the GOP, MO-09 leans Republican, so it does not represent a gigantic headache for Republicans; but it is definitely the type of district Democrats had some success in at the last midterms.

Chaos in KY-02: As if Rep. Ron Lewis’s retirement was not shocking enough, but the manner in which he did it is just stunning. The filling deadline in Kentucky was expiring yesterday at 4pm, and Ron Lewis had let out no sign that he was planning on retiring. Minutes before the deadline, the wife of his chief of staff Daniel London went to the SOS office to withdraw Lewis’s name and file papers for London instead! Lewis’s ploy to get his chief of staff nominated failed as state Sen. Brett Guthrie had somehow heard of the possibility of this happening and was also waiting at the SOS’s office. Guthrie immediately filed his own candidacy papers, setting up a Guthrie v. London primary. (Read the detailed wrap-up of this ridiculous ploy over at CQPolitics).

In any case, KY-02 is now an open seat. And Democrats have a strong candidate in the race, state Senator David Boswell, who had filed thinking he would compete against Lewis. (Democrats must be very relieved they made sure to file a candidate here). KY-02 is a strongly Republican district. Bush prevailed here with about 65% of the vote, though Lewis only got 55% in 2006 in an under-the-radar race that the underfunded Democrat kept surprisingly close. Republicans are favored, but it is unclear at this point how strong Brett Guthrie might be in the general election, so we will have to keep a close watch on this race.

KY-03: Republicans got some good news in another Kentucky race, as former Rep. Northup jumped in the 3rd district race against John Yarmuth, who defeated her in 2006. This had also been rumored for the past week or two, but Northup’s intentions had not been fully confirmed. KY-03 is a good district for Democrats, and Yarmuth will likely keep it for a few cycles if he manages to beat the well-known Northup next year. It is worth noting that Northup lost the GOP’s gubernatorial primary last year against incumbent Fletcher, though the moderate credential that did her in in that primary are likely to play well in the KY-03 general election.

KY-Sen: Kentucky’s Senate contest was the hottest race this November, where the DSCC was pushing hard to get Treasurer Luallen or AG Stumbo to jump in the race. Both announced they would not run since then, and now that the filing deadline passed the field is set. The Democrats filed attorney Andrew Horne, businessman Greg Fisher and a last-minute addendum is Bruce Lunsford who lost the gubernatorial primary in 2007 to now-Governor Beshear. Lunsford is a centrist Democrat who is distrusted by his party’s activists, so it is unclear what the dynamics of this primary will be. There is no question that the field is much weaker than it could have been, and that the DSCC did not do well at recruiting here.

House diary: Has Tom Davis finally reached a decision?

Published
by
Taniel
on January 28, 2008
in VA-11 and WY-AL
. 0 Comments

Tom Davis has been taking a lot of time to decide whether he wants another term in the House. Davis, who had prepared himself for years to run for Senate, had to withdraw from the Senate race earlier in the fall when the state GOP chose to hold a convention rather than a primary to settle on its nominee. That gave too much of an edge to former Governor Gilmore and Davis announced he would not run for higher office.

But that did not answer the question of whether he would run for re-election in VA-11, and the speculation only intensified after his wife was crushed in her re-election campaign to the Virginia House of Delegates — underscoring just how blue that area of Northern Virginia is trending.

Now, reports are coming in (via NLS, especially) that Tom Davis has decided to retire; he will reportedly make this announcement at the end of the week. This open seat could be one of the biggest headaches for House Republicans yet, as VA-11 looks to be trending too Democratic at this point for the NRCC to attempt a credible defense of the seat. Not to mention that the Democratic candidate, former Rep. Leslie Byrne, is a strong and credible contender who the party is excited about.

If it is confirmed in the coming days, Davis’s retirement would be one of the biggest blows yet to the GOP’s prospects in the House. More soon.

Democrats got more good news this week-end as the first public independent poll of the Wyoming At-Large seat — one of the most Republican districts in the country — gives a small edge to the Democrat. The poll is a Mason-Dixon survey and is thus very reliable. It has Democrat Gary Trauer edging out Republican Cynthia Lummis 41% to 40%. Trauer lost a nail-biter to Rep. Cubin in 2006. But because Cubin has always been an unpopular figure, her retirement earlier in the fall was seen as good news for the GOP.

Yet, it looks like Republicans will have trouble defending this open-seat. Trauer and Lummis have equivalent name recognition, so that is not helping either of them right now. The big problem for Trauer, of course, is how he can go from 41% to 50%. In a very red state in a presidential year, it will not be easy to get those extra points to a majority.

Congressional news: Speculating about Tom Davis, and polls of Senate races

Published
by
Taniel
on December 13, 2007
in CO-Sen, ID-Sen and VA-11
. 1 Comment

Now that OH-05 has been resolved and that the GOP is celebrating, the political world can turn its attention back to other congressional races.

Starting with Virginia’s 11th district. The last we heard from Tom Davis, his wife was crushed in her re-election campaign to the Virginia House of Delegates, losing by a large margin in a blue-trending area. But is Davis himself running for re-election?

He had been preparing for years to run for Senate, and his time appeared to have come when John Warner retired. But Davis ended up withdrawing from the race when former Governor Jim Gilmore made clear he would challenge Davis and the state committee decided to choose its nominee via a convention not a primary. Since then, there has been a ton of speculation as to whether Davis will be running for re-election in the House after all — but nothing definte.

And now comes news that Tom Davis held a major political fundraiser tonight, which would indicate that he is running again. He already has $1 million in the bank as of the end of the third quarter — and why would he be raising more money if he did not intend to run next year? That would actually be quite surprising at this point, as most rumors have had Davis leaning towards retirement, especially after his wife’s loss.

On the other hand, Davis is still refusing to say whether he will run again, and mid-December is not a time representatives still hesitate if they are sure they are running. VA-11 is blue-trending territory in Northern Virginia, and it will be pretty much impossible for Republicans to keep if Davis bows out. Even if he runs again, it will probably be a tight race. You can be sure the NRCC is trying to convince Davis to stay in.

We also got two Senate polls this evening, though I’m not sure how much stock to put in either:

  • A poll from Colorado was reported tonight on Colorado Confidential, and it says Mark Udall is up 2% on Bob Shaffer. The poll was conducted by Research for Change, Inc.

What is strange to me about the poll is not the result — it is very much what we have seen in every Colorado poll, and the race is definitely a toss-up, contrary to most people’s expectations — but the way the group that conducted it is spinning the results, as the internals reported insist on Udall’s strength among his base and his appeal to moderates and Republicans, as well as on Shaffer’s weakness among his base. Reading the description, one could believe that Udall was found to lead by 10%! In any case, the bottom line is that Colorado is tight.

The second poll comes to us from Idaho, and was conducted in mid-November for state Rep. Nicole LeFavour, a Democrat who was considering entering the race and decided not to shortly after. Some of the results were just leaked, and they are slightly encouraging for Democrats:

  • In a generic ballot test, a “Democratic candidate” beats a “Republican candidate” 42% to 36%.
  • In the name ballot, Lt. Gov. Jim Risch defeats Democrat LaRocco 48% to 34%.

No one expects Idaho at the top of Democratic opportunities, and at this point I think Republicans are pretty safe — the seat is ranked pretty far down in my latest Senate Rankings. But with numbers like this LaRocco can certainly hope to keep things competitive: Risch, who is much better known, is under 50% — and the very red state is clearly not very happy with the GOP right now. Remember that Governor Otter barely won the open governshorship last year, showing that Republicans can’t take things for granted.

While Risch is heavily favored, Democrats can at least hope to force the RSCC to defend the state and spend valuable resources here. Expanding the map has always been the name of the game for the DSCC.