This week, I am posting a “ratings update”, as many of my race assesments grew stale over the past month - most notably in Indiana and upstate New York. The races that are written in red are those in which the rating is changing towards Republicans; those that are written in blue are those in which the rating is changing towards Democrats.

Senate

Indiana, lean Democratic to toss-up: All hell broke loose in the Hoosier State when Evan Bayh announced his retirement just 24 hours from the filing deadline, but Democrats have managed to stabilize the situation by convincing Rep. Brad Ellsworth to give up his relatively safe House seat for a tough statewide campaign. (To be clear: Ellsworth has not yet been officially tapped by the party committee, but there is little doubt he will be the nominee.) If Ellsworth manages to defend this conservative-leaning state in an environment that is this toxic for his party, it will largely be because Bayh’s timing prevented Republicans from securing as formidable a nominee as they would have otherwise: It would have been harder to imagine Ellsworth prevailing against Mitch Daniels, Todd Rokita or Mike Pence than against former Senator Dan Coats, a former lobbyist who moved away from the state and hasn’t faced voters since 1992, or against former Rep. John Hostettler, who has always ran poor campaigns and has a very rough relationship with national Republicans. The GOP nonetheless starts with a slight edge, but Indiana is sure to host a highly competitive campaign.

Governor

Illinois-Gov, likely Democratic to lean Democratic: Not only is Pat Quinn running as the incumbent Governor of a Midwestern state - a sure way to face electoral trouble this year - but he cannot even count on one of the biggest assets of incumbency - voter familiarity: He came to become Governor upon Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment rather than through a victory of his own. Add to this the possibility that Blagojevich’s summer trial reflects badly on state Democrats, and the GOP has reason to hope it can oust Quinn. Yet, state Senator Bill Brady’s apparent victory should prevent Republicans from making full use of Governor Pat Quinn’s vulnerabilities as the relatively conservative state Senator could have trouble making himself acceptable to this blue state’s electorate. The fact that he is from downstate could boost GOP turnout across the state, but it might cause moderate voters in the Chicago suburbs not to support him. Furthermore, Brady has been denied the bounce primary winners typically get because it took a month for his victory over state Senator Kirk Dillard to be confirmed, while Quinn displayed strong survival skills in the Democratic primary.

Pennsylvania, toss-up to lean Republican: This is one of the most bizarre races of the cycle because of Democrats’ inability to recruit a strong candidate in what should have been one of the party’s priority. Former Rep. Joe Hoeffel, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Auditor General Jack Wagner might make decent candidates, but none of them appears to have much name recognition nor a preexisting popularity that would help them beat back the electorate’s current hostility towards Democrats. Attorney General Tom Corbett, on the other hand, has been a dominant force in the GOP primary and polls show he is well-known and relatively well-liked.

Ohio, lean Democratic to toss-up: Governor Ted Strickland entered the cycle in a very comfortable position. He had triumphed in the 2006 open seat race, he enjoyed strong approval ratings and it did not look like Ohio Republicans could recover from years of dismal showings in time to mount a credible challenge. Yet, the recession has hit Midwestern states with particular ferocity, and it is no shock that Strickland’s poll numbers have fallen along with Ohioans’ economic condition. Republicans are high on former Rep. John Kasich, and Ohio’s status as one of the premier swing states should ensure national parties prioritize this race. While polls differ as to where it stands (Quinnipiac has Strickland leading outside of the margin of error, Rasmussen shows Kasich leading by large margins), there is no doubt it’s one of the country’s most competitive contests.

Texas, likely Republican to lean Republican: Rick Perry displayed amazing political resilience throughout 2009, dispatching popular Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison with an ease no one could have foreseen a year ago. Yet, he did so by using a strategy that should be ill-fitted to beat former Houston Mayor Bill White in the general election: The electorate Perry needs to court should be less amused by his talk of secession and his refusal to take federal funds and White will not suffer from anti-Washington sentiment the way Hutchison did. Add to that Perry’s clear vulnerabilities - not only is it not good to be an incumbent governor this year, but his approval rating is decidedly mediocre and he won re-election with only 39% of the vote in 2006 - and White has a clear shot at winning Democrats’ first major victory in Texas since 1990.

Utah, safe Republican to likely Republican: Are Republicans trembling with fear at the thought of facing Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon in the general election? No: Utah is too conservative a state for a Democrat to ever have that credible a shot at winning a statewide victory. Yet, Coroon does represent one third of the state’s population in a capacity that ensures he is visible and recent polls show he could score an upset if Gary Herbert (an unelected incumbent) stumbles.

House

FL-21, safe Republican to likely Republican: While candidates who try to succeed family members are more often than not successful, Mario Diaz-Balart’s announcement that he would run to replace his retiring brother Lincoln was so bizarre that it is worth keeping an eye on whether Democrats can recruit a strong candidate, attack Mario’s credibility and make the most of Southern Florida’s growing openness to voting for Democrats (Gore lost the district by 16%, Obama by 2%).

FL-25, likely Republican to lean Republican: Mario Diaz-Balart decided to switch districts because he felt FL-21 was a safer bet for a Republican than his FL-25, which covers western Miami-Dade County. While that means concentrating on FL-21 might not be advisable for Democrats, it also signals that an open seat in FL-25 is a real opportunity - even in a tough environment. Yet, much will depend on Democratic recruitment. While Republicans have already lined up top candidates (state Rep. David Rivera is running and state Senate Majority Leader Alex Diaz will probably join him), Democrats are waiting for 2008 nominee Joe Garcia to make up his mind; Garcia, who now works in the Obama administration, came close to defeating Diaz-Balart two years ago.

IN-08, safe Democratic to toss-up: Evan Bayh’s retirement caused open seat headaches not only for Senate Democrats but also for their House counterparts, as Brad Ellsworth withdrew his name from the IN-08 ballot hours before the filing deadlne in the expectation that he’d be chosen to replace Bayh. Thankfully for the DCCC, the timing of Ellsworth’s exit might very well save the party: the GOP did not have time to recruit a top candidate. Heart surgeon Larry Bucshon would be a credible nominee, but you can be sure Republicans would have been able to find a far stronger candidate had IN-8 become an open seats weeks before - not to mention Bucshon can’t be sure to win the 8-way primary! Ellsworth, meanwhile, was able to orchestrate a transition with state Rep. Trent Van Haaften, who thus has a stronger shot at defending the district. All of this said, IN-8 remains red-leaning, the DCCC’s first choice (Evansville Mayor Jon Weinsapfel) passed on the race and the environment is tough enough that this open seat is no better than a toss-up for Democrats.

KS-03, toss-up to lean Republican: While Democrats can never expect to have it easy in Kansas, this is one open seat they should not have let get this compromised: KS-03 voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and the party had a reasonable bench from which to pick a candidate. Yet, one by one Democrats have ruled out running - the biggest blow being Kansas City Mayor Joe Reardon - while the GOP field leaves nothing to be desired. The DCCC is now reduced to hoping that Rep. Dennis Moore’s wife Stephene Moore runs, as reports suggest she might; while she might be able to keep the party competitive, it’s hard to see how an inexperienced political spouse can get elected in a swing district in the absence of any sympathy factor.

MA-10, safe Democratic to lean Democratic: Rumors that Rep. Delahunt was preparing to retire started swirling in early 2010, but you can bet the DCCC was hoping they would not come to be true. MA-10 might be the state’s less Democratic seat, but this is likely the only cycle in which the GOP would have a real chance of winning an open race in a district that gave Gore, Kerry and Obama double-digit victories. Yet, MA-10 also decisively voted for Scott Brown, proving that voters are open to backing a Republican - and the NRCC is confident that former state Treasurer Joe Malone will make the most of this opportunity. Democrats in the running at the moment are state Sen. Robert O’Leary and Norfolk Co. DA William Keating.

MS-04, safe Democratic to likely Democratic: Gene Taylor has easily held a district that gave John McCain 68% of the vote since 1989, convincing tens of thousands of conservative voters to support him: he received more than 75% in six of his last last seven races. His electoral track record make him a solid bet for re-election, but if there is any year the GOP could unseat him, it’s in 2010. State Rep. Steven Palazzo has announced he will challenge Taylor, which is as serious a challenge as any the staunchly conservative Democrat has received recently.

NY-29, lean retention to toss-up: What is going on in the Empire State? Rep. Eric Massa became the latest New York politician to self-implode in a bizarre scandal involving harassment claims, unwanted tickling sessions and allegations that he was pushed out due to his opposition to the health-care bill. Even after the first headlines appeared, Massa’s abrupt decision to resign came as a surprise, though it simultaneously helps Nancy Pelosi find the votes to pass the health-care bill and gives the DCCC the headache of worrying about yet another problematic special election on top of May’s PA-12 and HI-01. In fact, the NY-29 special will be New York’s third in a single cycle - a number that matches the record set by far larger California a few cycles back! While Democrats pulled unlikely triumphs in NY-20 and NY-23 in 2009, NY-29 is more conservative since it is one of only three state districts to have voted for McCain. Furthermore, the Democratic nominee will have to run under the clout of the Paterson and Massascandals at a time the new York electorate has shown signs of being exasperated with the party. Finally, the GOP will not be weighed down by the two factors that doomed its NY-20 and NY-23 candidates (too much of a connection to Albany and intraparty fighting), as Corning Mayor Tom Reed is emerging as a consensus choice. That said, Reed, who was already running before Massa’s resignation, had never come to look as that formidable a candidate and the GOP might have been better off with a stronger contender. It remains to be seen who Democrats pick.

OH-02, likely Republican to safe Republican: While Democrats threw a lot at Rep. Jean Schmidt in 2005, 2006 and 2008, they never fielded the type of prominent candidate whose local ties could have overcome the district’s staunchly conservative lean. They thought they would finally be able to do so in 2010, but the state legislator whose candidacy the DCCC spent months touting dropped out in November. The Democratic nominee will be Surya Yalamanchili, a political novice whose claim to fame comes from a bout on Donald Trump’s The Apprentice, or David Krikorian, who got double-digits running as an independent in 2008. While they might have been promising candidates in other years, voters seem too reluctant to oust a GOP incumbent this year for a Republican holding a 59%-McCain district to have much to worry about - however controversial her profile.

OH-13, safe Democratic to likely Democratic: For car dealer Tom Ganley to defeat Rep. Betty Sutton would be one of the biggest upsets of Election Night, and yet it is no longer possible to rule out such results. While OH-13 gave John Kerry and Barack Obama double-digits victories, Ganley is reportedly willing to spend as much as $1 million of his money funding his race and Sutton is too junior a lawmaker for Democrats to be confident she can resist voters’ hostility towards her party. At the very least, OH-13 could emerge as a late headache for the DCCC, forcing the party committee to spend precious resources defending Sutton rather than more obviously vulnerable Democrats.

RI-01, safe Democratic to likely Democratic: Democrats were sure not expecting to spend as much as a minute worrying about a district that gave Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama more than 62% of the vote, but Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s retirement has given the GOP hope that state Rep. John Loughlin can make the race competitive. The Democratic field is made up of two prominent contenders with a relatively progressive reputation - Providence Mayor David Cicilline and state Democratic Party chairman William Lynch; an ugly race could open the door to Loughlin, since the primary will not be held until September 14th. A wild card is the possible candidacy of former Providence MayorBuddy Cianci, who recently spent four years in federal prison but has now said he is considering an independent run.

I launched Campaign Diaries more in the summer of 2007, and since then I don’t believe I took more than half-a-dozen full days of break (at least if we leave out a brief period this past summer where I was attending to personal obligations). What a roller-coaster it has been: I started in the days Hillary Clinton looked like the invincible presidential front-runner, worked through the endless Democratic primaries, innumerable debates and convention speeches, covered Barack Obama’s triumphant victory and chronicled the rising signs of a red wave in the 2010 midterms. All of it has added up to more than 2100 (often very) lengthy posts.

Unfortunately all good things must come to an end, and I regret to say that the time has come for me to halt regular blogging.

While I have enjoyed every minute I have spent writing, I am sure I don’t need to tell you how all-consuming an endeavor all of this is. I have been trying moving on to new activities that need my attention and it has become increasingly difficult to balance them with the sustained focus blogging requires. I no longer have it in me to pull the sleepless nights necessary to get it all done. While I am obviously tempted to continue through November, the volume of stories that will demand urgent attention will only grow by the day from now on. I also doubt scaling back the amount of writing is an option, since it would not take care of my desire to spend hours covering the latest events, especially as we get closer to Election Day.

I certainly do no intend to shut the site down for good. Since this is a great plateform for any writing I want to do, I’ll hopefully periodically put up analyses like yesterday’s breakdown of the House’s health-care vote, last month’s breakdown of Harold Ford’s voting record and any issue that I think is undercovered and requires my intervention.

That does not amount to regular blogging and news coverage of the type I’ve been doing here, of course. I realize I am leaving you Campaign Diaries-less at a key political moment, but I’ll at least try to maintain Twitter activity (my handle: @taniel). Another thing I am considering is starting a weekly post of Senate/House/Gov rating changes (once I am done with a two week break); this would at least give me the opportunity to cover some ground while also giving my take on how the landscape is changing, but I am not sure whether this would be satisfying to me or to you readers.

I have left the most important for the end: Thank you to all those who read this blog, to all those who generously think I have interesting things to say and to all those who have in any way contributed to making me keep it on far longer than I envisioned when I created it.

Thank you especially to all my faithful commenters, especially Jaxx Raxxor, Guy, MSW, Nathan, Cliff, Cicero, Maurice, Panos,, Ogre Mage, fritz, Gerard, Patrician, Scott, Joe from NC, kewgardens, Ron, Daniel, Earnest Dodge, Mr Rational, drg3750, Chicago Joe, TJ and all the other prolific writers who made this website a community with many familiar faces I enjoyed interacting with, and a forum with in-depth and long-running discussions. I hope we will have the opportunity to interact in the future, perhaps when I figure out that I cannot live without daily blogging and come begging for all of you to take me back!

Thank you all for letting me take you on this ride,

-Daniel Nichanian, aka Taniel

For a politician to make an unabashed defense of Wall Street his most recognizable campaign issue does not appear to be the best idea after all - if you even believe Ford was serious about running, which I remain doubtful about. Given that he has gotten The New York Times to cover his exit as a sacrifice for the good of the party, it would not surprise me if there is more at play here.

This is the third time over the past twelve months that a Democrat seemingly on the brink of running in New York’s Senate primary pulled back at the last minute. First was Rep. Steve Israel; next was Rep. Carolyn Maloney; and now Ford, who has chosen to make his decision known to the breathless world in an op-ed to be published in The New York Times. Of course, the stakes changed quite a bit: While the left was encouraging Maloney and Israel to get in, Gillibrand became progressives’ champion when she was compared to the conservative Ford.

It now seems safe to say that the senator’s only primary opponent will be labor activist Jonathan Tasini, who drew 17% in his challenge to Hillary Clinton in 2006. While Tasini might very well receive more in September, Gillibrand is overwhelmingly favored to prevail. Now, she would also have been the front-runner had Ford jumped in, but that match-up would have set off a media frenzy that would have kept Democrats busy right up to the September primary, potentially opening the door for Republicans to contest the seat. Indeed, Marc Ambinder reported last month that former Governor George Pataki was signaling potential interest in the race, but only if he saw Ford was in a position to substantially harm the incumbent before the general election.

Let us not forget that Ford had refused to rule out an independent bid, a possibility that is now apparently also out the door. That is one less nightmarish scenario for the DSCC to worry about.

As such, Ford’s exit is a rare blow to Republican efforts to expand the Senate map, as it makes it all the harder to see what could go wrong with Gillibrand’s image for her to lose to the GOP’s sole candidate Bruce Blakeman or for the NRSC to convince Pataki to run. This leaves Wisconsin and Washington as the two Dem-held Senate seats that are currently not competitive but might be depending on recruitment.

—

If Gillibrand dodged yet another primary bullet today, Blanche Lincoln landed an opponent: Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, whom I first wrote about eleven months ago, announced today he will challenge her in May’s Democratic primary.

My one-sentence take on this development: Given how low Lincoln’s re-election prospects have sank, Democrats have nothing to lose but trying out their luck with another candidate.

When a very well-known incumbent trails even low-profile challengers by double-digits, an open seat might very well be all that is left for a party to save itself - a consideration that’s all the more true given the electorate hostility towards incumbents and towards the federal government. At the very least, for Halter to win the nomination could free the DSCC from its commitment to spending millions in Arkansas: Even if Labor Day polls were to show Boozman with an overwhelming lead, national Democrats might still not be able to deny Lincoln money that could go to other states, whereas they presumably would be less

Naturally, the obstacles to Halter’s bid are stark. If he were to win the general election, he would start as the clear underdog given Boozman’s strength, Arkansas’s red hue and the cycle’s anti-Democratic winds; all these reasons are also dooming Lincoln, but at least she has money to try to surmount them, the name recognition to get voters to pay attention to her and more electoral experience.

Before he can even think of the general election, Halter has to get out of the primary - and here again he faces a very steep climb. Lincoln might have grown into Democrats’ main nemesis for much of 2009 - she not only was one of the public option’s biggest opponents but was also the first (and I believe to this day only) Democrat to announce opposition to EFCA and pushed a huge tax break on the estate tax - but state Democrats are to the right of the national party’s and Arkansas’s incumbent Senators fairly rarely lose primary fights, especially when they have already won before rather than been elected. A key to the Halter-Lincoln match-up will be African-Americans: To have a chance at defeating the incumbent, Halter will need to capitalize on black voters’ potential frustrations with Lincoln and he will need enough organizational muscle to get supporters out of the polls.

One question I have: Given that he was publicly mulling a challenge to Lincoln as early as last spring, why did he wait until 10 weeks before Election Day to make his launch his campaign? He might already be a statewide official, but he is not high-profile enough to have the luxury to wait like Andrew Cuomo, especially considering Lincoln is a very well-funded incumbent who has millions at her disposal to pour in attacks against Halter. The Lieutenant Governor might get a lot of help from the netroots - he had raised $500,000 within hours of his candidacy - but will that compensate Lincoln’s cash-on-hand and her deep ties to the Democratic establishment? (The White House wasted no time before confirming it would support Lincoln.)

[Update: Well, here's one answer as to how Halter can put together a full campaign in such a short period of time: Turns out killing EFCA doesn't endear one to labor groups. The AFL-CIO is already endorsing Halter and a coalition of unions has already committed to spending $3 million to ousting Lincoln.]

There has been a lot of talk today about the effects Halter’s bid might have on Lincoln’s positioning in the Senate, but I doubt this is a meaningful story at this point. Had he announce a year ago, Lincoln might have acted differently at various points of 2009, but the next ten weeks should hardly be the occasion for Halter to pressure the incumbent to move leftward. Yes, the Senate might be called to vote on the health-care vote, but Harry Reid is unlikely to need Lincoln’s vote to pass a reconciliation sidecar: In the quest for 50 votes rather than 60, the names of the senators under the spotlight are Russ Feingold, Kent Conrad and Jim Webb rather than Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln.

The approach Democrats are now openly pursuing (get the House to pass the Senate bill, get both chambers to pass legislation containing fixes using the reconciliation the process) does not require them to ever put together more than 50 Senate votes. While even that could grow complicated, it’s tough to see Harry Reid losing 10 of his senators given that even centrists like Mary Landrieu sound open to voting for reconciliation. Besides Landrieu, all eyes are on Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, Mark Pryor, Michael Begich, Kent Conrad, Russ Feingold - how likely is it all of these join the GOP in killing a small fix bill?

Meanwhile, the House has gotten far trickier. For one, many Democrats dislike the Senate bill and have insisted they would not vote for it without the upper-chamber passing the fix bill first. Second is the abortion issue: The Senate bill does not contain language as tough as the Stupak amendment and the sidecar is not expected to add it. This should not only lead Stupak to bolt but could also give conservatives Democrats who supported the original bill cover to change their vote. After all, the Senate bill is to the right of the House bill on most other issues, making abortion a rare issue centrists can point to in order to justify a switch.

Third, Democrats have gotten more scared about their electoral prospects than they were in the fall. Why this should push them to kill the bill is hard to discern. Adopting it would generate weeks of positive coverage about the party’s epic achievement, whereas letting it die would generate more stories about Democrats’ failure to govern. As importantly, anyone who voted for health-care reform in the fall will be attacked however they vote this second time. What will their response be: “I voted for it before I voted against it”? Yet, there’s no question that electoral terror has gripped Democrats.

Once you add up all of these factors, the math becomes tough. The House voted to pass the original health-care bill 220 to 215 this fall. Since then:

• 4 representatives have left the House - 3 Democrats who had voted “yes” and 1 Republican who had voted “no”. (Jack Murtha passed away; Robert Wexler, Neil Abercrombie and Nathan Deal resigned.) This alone shrinks the margin to 217-214.
• Rep. Anh Cao, the one Republican who voted for the original bill, has made it clear he will oppose any new legislation. That makes it 216-215.
• Rep. Bart Stupak has left little doubt he’d vote against the bill if his anti-abortion language is not included. Given that the Senate bill already contains tough anti-abortion provisions, it appears Stupak is not open to compromise and his threat sounds all the more credible given Politico’s revelation that the Michigan Democrat was working with Senator Mitch McConnell to derail the Senate bill back in December. With Stupak gone, that leaves the math at 216-215 against the bill.

In short: Pelosi has to convince at least one of the 39 Democrats who voted “no” to the original bill to switch to a “yes” - a tough proposition that should be all the more tougher considering that it’s more likely than not that other Democrats follow Cao and Stupak’s lead and switch from “yes” to “no.”

Before going through the list of the 39 Democrats who opposed the bill to see who Pelosi might hope to convince,  let’s first consider who might go the other way. One factor to consider: Many Democrats voted “yes” knowing perfectly well they would face very tough races in 2010 (think Baron Hill and Tom Perriello), so why would they now suddenly change their mind? Relatedly, as long as centrists who voted “yes” to the House bill are not motivated by abortion, how would they justify voting against the more conservative Senate bill? Accounting for those questions, I think 5 Democrats are especially likely to switch their vote because their circumstances have changed:

But the list of Democrats the leadership should worry about goes much further than these 5. Here is a much longer list of representatives who have been mentioned as possible switchers:

This is not to say that most of these Democrats will switch - as I said, how will they justify doing so given their fall votes - but the party leadership will have to key an eye on all of them. So where might Pelosi pick-up votes? Of the 39 Democrats who voted “no” in the fall, one is now a Republican (Parker Griffith).  Of the remaining 38, 15 seem to be lost causes:

Dan Boren, Bobby Bright, Travis Childers, Artur Davis, Lincoln Davis, Chet Edwards, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Dennis Kucinich, Jim Marshall, Charlie Melancon, Walt Minnick, Mike Ross, Heath Shuler, Gene Taylor, Harry Teague

Never say never, but these congresspeople look as certain as can be to vote “no.” They are either at the far-right of the caucus (Boren, Bright, Childers, Marshall, Ross, Taylor), in over their head in tough re-election battles (Minnick), seeking higher office in red states (Davis, Melancon) or committed to voting for nothing but single-payer (Kucinich). I thought Herseth Sandlin might be open to supporting a more centrist bill, but recent comments make it unlikely. That leaves 23 Democrats, 5 of which seem more open than others to switching:

That leaves us with 18 Democrats whose support for a final bill is plausible, albeit still tough to envision. It will at the least require some very heavy pushing for Pelosi to convince any of these:

I’ve surely forgotten some Democrats whose votes might also be up in the air and I’ve surely missed comments by many that would suggest they’re clearly committed to one camp or the other. But keep in mind that as long as it’s not even clear whether they’ll even ever be a vote, Democrats on this list have no reason to make their intentions.

—

Update: The AP just published a story identifying 10 Democrats open to switching from a “no” to a “yes:” Baird, Gordon, Tanner, Boucher, Kosmas, Kratovil, McMahon, Minnick, Murphy and Nye. The only one that is a surprise to me is Minnick, and I’ve update my charts accordingly. The others are certainly not shockers, though I am surprised Boccieri was not included in the story since he has publicly been open to changing.

Update 2: The AP updated its story ruling out Minnick as a switch option, just as I had expected when I placed him in the “lost causes” column. Also, this Slate article contains a few details I had not thought about and which I am adding to my charts. In particular, Rep. Bart Gordon voted for the bill in committee before opposing it on the floor. While he is already in my top-tier of potential switchers, this certainly makes it seem even more possible.

In fact, all fourteen of the state’s congresspeople are seeking another term: Senator Richard Burr and 13 House members (8 Democrats, 5 Republicans). While the GOP’s 5 House districts should be safe, Burr is arguably the country’s only vulnerable Republican senator. Meanwhile, Democrats don’t look like they’ll have to seriously worry about more than one district, freshman Larry Kissell’s NC-08. While some Republicans might hope to target NC-11, NC-07 and NC-07, the party appear to have missed opportunities to put itself in a strong position in these Bush districts, especially in the latter two. While Democrats dominate the state’s congressional delegation, it’s unlikely North Carolina will contribute to the fall’s GOP gains to a significant extent - unlike, say, states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The 8 Democratic seats

The most vulnerable Democratic incumbent is NC-08’s Rep. Larry Kissell, and it’s no coincidence that he is the state delegation’s only freshman. Compared to the NRCC’s hopes of recruiting Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory or former Rep. Robin Hayes, the final GOP field is certainly weaker than it could have been, but Kissell nonetheless remains vulnerable;. 5 Republicans have filed to run: former sportscaster Harold Johnson, businessman Hal Jordan, veteran Lou Huddleston, businessman Timothy D’Annunzio and Darrell Day. The front-runner appears to be D’Annunzio, for no other reason than the half-a-million of his own money he has poured into his campaign. Yet, the NRCC-favorite appears to be Huddleston, an African-American who has been added to the committee’s “Young Gun program” and has secured a number of important party endorsements.

Next is Rep. Heath Shuler in Western North Carolina’s NC-11. While his district voted for McCain, he cruised to his first re-election last year. He now has to face 6 Republicans, none of which appear particularly threatening: businessman Kenneth West, former Hendersonville mayor Greg Newman, businessman Jeffrey Miller, attorney Ed Krause, James Howard and eye doctor Dan Eichenbaum. Against one of the best-funded Democratic incumbents in the country, none of these candidates could get far without the NRCC’s help - and they’re going to have to prove themselves before national Republicans target Schuler. None of these candidates are at the moment on the NRCC’s long list of Young Gun candidates, which includes challengers from 54 Dem-held districts.

In NC-02, three Republicans filed for the right to run against Rep. Bob Etheridge in a district that twice voted for George W. Bush before choosing Obama by 5%: Frank Deatrich, car dealer Todd Gailas (who was recently featured in a CNN story for his troubles during the recession) and Renee Ellmers. None seems in a position to topple the 6-term incumbent; after all, North Carolina’s historically Democratic voters have remained more loyal to the party than in most other Southern states, which means the GOP can’t hope defeating such entrenched incumbents without a top-tier effort - not to mention that Etheridge has more than $1 million of cash-on-hand in the bank.

In NC-07, a more conservative district that gave McCain a 5% victory, three Republicans want to face Rep. Mike McIntyre, one of the more conservative members of the Democratic caucus. While the first two are low-profile (William Breazeale, the 2008 nominee who lost 69% to 31% to McIntyre and now has $2000 in the bank, and Randolph Crow), the third attracted national attention a few years ago. While serving in Iraq, Ilario Pantano was accused of premedited murder in Fallujah but a military tribunal cleared him of the charges; he later wrote an autobiography that got a fair amount of publicity and also served as Deputy Sheriff in Wilmington. But Pantano will have to answer Breazeale’s criticism that he only became a Republican on November 25th, not to mention that he has very little time left to mount a political operation against an entrenched and well-funded incumbent who has never shown a sign of vulnerability. Had the NRCC been committed to putting this district in play, they would have wanted to find another candidate; given that so many other Democrats in similar districts are facing top-tier opposition, it looks McIntyre has dodged a bullet.

Rep. Butterfield (NC-01), Rep. Price (NC-04) and Rep. Watt (NC-12), Rep. Miller (NC-13) represent heavily Democratic districts and they should safe. However, it is remarkable to see that each one has drawn 3 or 4 Republican challengers; that says a lot not only about the GOP’s confidence but also about the Republican base’s determination to take on Democrats and go all-out politically. If the red wave gets truly gigantic, could any of these seats grow competitive? I’d keep an eye on the Wake County-based NC-13, which might have given Obama a 59% victory but also voted for Bush back in 2000 - but Republicans did not recruit a candidate in a position to take advantage of the environment. Bernie Reeves is a magazine publisher, Dan Huffman is a conservative businessman, Bill Randall is a veteran who has set up a website and I can’t find any information about Frank Hurley.

The 5 GOP seats

Given that Democrats already control 8 of 13 districts, it is no surprise that the 5 remaining Republicans represent heavily conservative district and should be safe. They are: Rep. Jones (NC-03), Rep. Foxx (NC-05), Rep. Coble (NC-06), Rep. Myrick (NC-09) and Rep. McHenry (NC-10).

It’s worth saying a few words about NC-03. Walter Jones has faced a lot of Republican opposition in recent years, as he became one of the GOP’s few staunchly anti-war voices and survived a strong primary challenge in 2008 with just 58%. He doesn’t have much to worry about in 2010, however. Two Republicans have filed against him. One is Craig Weber, who was his Democratic opponent in 2006 and 2008 - not someone who will excite conservatives; the other is Robert Cavanaugh about whom I am unable to find any. In the general election, ones is sure to face Johnny Rouse, the party chairman in Pitt County, a relatively populous county of nearly 170,000 inhabitants. That doesn’t mean he can beat Jones in a district that voted for John McCain by 18%, but he should have enough experience and connections to at least help bring out his party’s base to the polls - thus helping in other races.

In fact, Democrats have filed at least one candidate against all of these Republicans, which is always a good sign for a party’s overall competitiveness and something they had fallen well short on in Texas. In the NC-05 and NC-06, the only Democratic candidates are William Kennedy and Gregory Scott Turner; I have not found information about either of them. In NC-10, Jeff Gregory and 2004 nominee Anne Fischer will square off for the right to represent Democrats in a district that gave Obama 36%.

The only Democratic challenger in the state to have set up a website is Jeff Doctor, a businessman who is running in NC-9 against Sue Myrick. (The former Mayor of Charlotte, Myrick has attracted most attention in recent years for her extremely anti-Muslim views, most notably when she called on the US to revoke Jimmy Carter’s passport over his ties with Palestinians and when she linked terrorist threats with the high number of Muslims running convenience stores.) Interestingly, NC-09 is the state’s GOP-held district that gave McCain the smallest margin of victory: 55% to 45%. As of the end of 2009, Doctor had raised $53,000, which is already more than any Democrat raised against Myrick this past cycle except for her 2008 opponent Harry Taylor, who lost 62% to 38%, significantly underperforming relatively to Obama. I suspect Doctor might have at some point drawn Democrats’ attention in 2008-like circumstances, but it’s a very different situation this year.

House

New Mexico: It’s rare enough to have one House survey a week that PPP’s decision to test all three of New Mexico’s House races was a one of the week’s treats. The results are encouraging for both parties, though the most poll’s most surprising finding will delight the NRCC: Rep. Ben Lujan, who represents a district Obama won by 23% and who I had never heard described as competitive, leads his two Republican challengers by decidedly underwhelming margins: 42% to 36% against Tom Mullins, 40% to 32% against Adam Kokesh. That’s not to say he will lose, nor that the race will be competitive come the fall, but it does speak to the probability that a number of Democratic districts that are now on no one’s radar screen should find themselves vulnerable in the campaign’s final stretch (see what happened to the GOP in 2006). Interestingly, Rep. Martin Heinrich, a more obvious target since he is a freshman, leads Jon Barela by a somewhat more solid 45% to 36%.

But the more interesting race is happening NM-02, which is not only the state’s most conservative seat (it went for Bush by 17%) but former Rep. Steve Pearce is running for his old seat after running for Governor in 2008. This has led many to think Rep. Teague is one of the fall’s surest losers, which makes Pearce’s 43% to 41% lead seem like it should be a relief for Democrats as it certainly shows Teague is far from a sure loser. (In particular, consider that the traditional rules about how a challenger topping an incumbent in an early poll is clearly favored does not apply here since Pearce is probably better-known than the incumbent.) On the other hand, the poll should not be spun as bad news for the GOP: The bottom-line is that NM-02 is one of the party’s top pick-up opportunities indeed. In fact, Pearce released an internal poll last week showing himself leading 48% to 44%.

SD-AL: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin remains on top of her Republican opponents in a new Rasmussen poll, but Secretary of State Chris Nelson is within striking distance since he holds the incumbent Democrat under 50% and within single-digit: She leads 45% to 38%. Herseth-Sandlin is far stronger against Kristi Noem (49% to 34%) and against state Rep Blake Curd (51% to 33%), which certainly suggests she is in a far stronger position than many of her fellow Democrats. As the poll’s gubernatorial numbers also speak to (see below), South Dakotans don’t look committed to ushering in GOP rule.

Senate

Ohio: Democrats might be losing ground in Senate races left and right, but they remain in striking distance of picking-up Ohio’s open seat according to Quinnipiac’s new poll. Republican Rob Portman is up within the margin of error (40-37) against Democrat Lee Fisher and he leads 40-35 against Jennifer Brunner. These margins are similar to those Quinnipiac found back in November, though it should be said that both Democratic candidates spent much of 2009 crushing Portman by double-digits - an advantage that was erased as the electorate soured on the the party in the latter half of the year. Despite their prominent stature, all three candidates have low name recognition so the next few months could be crucial - starting with the run-up to the Democratic primary.

Florida: Rasmussen found more evidence of Charlie Crist’s collapse this week by showing Marco Rubio crushing him 54% to 36% - an unthinkable result just a few months ago that is now already coming to be expected; the pollster also confirms that Crist’s decline is due to his rising unpopularity among the electorate-at-large and not just among Republicans, since his once impressive approval rating is now down to 52-45. In the general election, both men lead Kendrick Meek by large margins: Crist is up 48-32, Rubio is up 51-31. But is it time to start testing 3-way match-ups with Crist as an independent?

Delaware: For once, Rasmussen and Research 2000 have similar results! The former shows Republican Rep. Mike Castle in control 53% to 32% (though the margin has shrunk by 7% since January) while the latter has him leading 53% to 35%. That does little to change the race’s “likely Republican” rating (especially when we consider Castle’s formidable 65/30 and 65/32 favorability ratings) but given the two candidates’ chances of stature the trendline also confirms it is too early for Democrats to give up.

North Carolina: Rasmussen released the most favorable poll Richard Burr is gotten in quite a while - far more favorable, in fact, than the survey PPP released last week. Not only does the Republican senator have large leads, but he also reaches 50%: He’s up 50-34 against Elaine Marshall and 51-29 against Cal Cunningham. Of course, Democrats long ago realized defeating Burr is a top proposition in this environment, but these numbers are nonetheless ugly for the party. On the other hand, an Elon University poll finds that only 24% of North Carolinians think Burr deserves re-election, versus 51% who think he should be replaced.

Pennsylvania: Franklin & Marshall sends some very ugly numbers Democrats’ way, though the bizarrely high number of undecided makes it hard to do much else than point to the wide disparity between the match-ups among registered voters and among likely voters. In the former group, Arlen Specter leads Pat Toomey 33% to 29% while Joe Sestak is only 3% behind (25-22); in the latter group, Toomey crushes both Democrats - 44-34 against Specter, 38-20 against Sestak. Could there be clearer signs of the turnout gap that’s threatening to submerge Democrats this fall?

Governor

Illinois/Ohio: I mentioned Quinnipiac and Research 2000’s polls finding Democratic Governor Pat Quinn and Ted Strickland in the lead in an earlier post, but the results are counter-intuitive enough that they bear repeating. In Ohio, Quinnipiac shows Strickand leading John Kasich 44% to 39%, which is obviously an underwhelming margin but is nonetheless an improvement over the 40-40 tie Quinnipiac found in November and is a far more encouraging result for Democrat than the large deficits Rasmussen has found in recent months; Strickland had almost started to look like a lost cause, but these numbers from a respected pollster suggest Ohio is definitely still winnable for Democrats.

In Illinois, Research 2000 has Governor Pat Quinn leading state Senator Kirk Dillard and state Senator Bill Brady 46-35 and 47-32. He might remain under 50%, but remember that in early February Quinn looked so damaged that he seemed to be marching towards a primary defeat. Yet, this is now the second post-primary poll to find him in command of the general election (the first was released last week), especially if his opponent is the more conservative Bill Brady - as still looks likely since Dillard has failed to overtake Brady after weeks of provisional ballot.

South Dakota: Would you have expected the week’s polling surprise to be that Democrats have a strong shot at picking up the governorship of this conservative state? Yea, me neither - especially considering that this finding comes out of a Rasmussen poll. Matched-up against three Republicans, state Senate Minority Leader Scott Heidepreim holds his own: While he trails Lieutenant Governor Dennis Daugaard 41% to 32%, he is ahead against two other Republicans: 37% to 29% against state Senator Gordon Howie and 34% to 31% against state Senator Dave Knudson. That is of course nothing huge, but it certainly suggest that South Dakota voters aren’t desperate to jump in the GOP’s bandwagon.

New Mexico: It helps to have a famous name! While Pete Domenici Jr. has never been in the public spotlight before, he shares the first and last name of his father, former Senator Pete Domenici, which explains how his name recognition is so much higher in a new PPP poll than that of his fellow Republican candidates. The general election match-ups show that the contest is winnable by the GOP but that Democratic Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish is the front-runner: She leads Domenici Jr. 45-40, state Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones 47-33 and DA Susana Martinez 46-42. One important factor in this campaign is whether Denish can free herself from Bill Richardson’s shadow: The outgoing governor has a catastrophic approval rating (28% to 63%).

Nevada: Earlier this week, I highlighted a POS poll that showed Governor Jim Gibbons improving his position in the GOP primary, which he was long expected not to have a chance at winning. Now, a Mason-Dixon poll confirms that Gibbons is increasingly competitive against Brian Sandoval: He trails 37% to 30%, whereas he was behind by 17% in Mason-Dixon’s prior poll. Given Gibbons’s worst-in-the-country approval rating of 17%, whether he can find a way to survive the primary will obviously go a long way towards determining the general election: While Sandoval crushes Rory Reid 51% to 29%, the Democrat tops Gibbons 42% to 38%. (The fact that Gibbons is within 4% of Reid says a lot about the latter’s weakness.)

Massachussetts: Despite a weak approval rating (35-54), Deval Patrick manages to stay on top of Suffolk’s general election match-ups because many voters who are discontent with him are choosing to support Democrat-turned-independent Tom Cahill, who enjoys a 31/16 favorability rating. Patrick tops Republican Charlie Baker 33% to 25%, with Cahill receiving 23% and 3% going to Green Party candidate Stein; if the Republican nominee is Christy Mihos, which at the moment seems unlikely given baker’s 47-17 primary lead, Patrick leads Cahill 34% to 26%, with 19% for Mihos. The main reason Democrats can hope that Cahill will actually maintain his level of support and help Patrick survive (whereas Daggett collapsed in New Jersey) is that Cahill is the state Treasurer and is better-known than either Republican candidates.

Wisconsin: Rasmussen’s latest numbers are similar to its previous ones: Republican Scott Walker would dominate Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett 49% to 40%, whereas the Democrat would be more competitive if he were to face former Rep. Mark Neumann (44% to 42%). While that’s nothing for Barrett to be ashamed of, the poll also suggests that Barrett is not starting out as the formidable contender Democrats were hoping for. On the other hand, Wisconsin is a state in which we have seen very few non-Rasmussen polls (only a November PPP survey that had Barrett stronger comes to mind), so it would be nice to have more polling firms test this race as well as Feingold’s vulnerability.

Georgia: Former Governor Barnes manages to stay competitive in Rasmussen’s latest poll, but the match-ups are not as favorable than the pollster found last month: Barnes now trails the three most prominent Republican candidates (45-37 against State Insurance Commissioner Oxendine, 43-37 against Rep. Deal, 45-36 against SoS Handel) while tying state Sen. Johnson at 37%. Barnes would have been better-served by a more favorable environment, but he remains in a competitive position.

Rhode Island: Brown University’s poll finds a wide-open race with an early edge for Republican-turned-independent Linc Chaffee. If the Democratic nominee is Frank Caprio, The former Senator leads 34% with 38%, with 12% to the Republican Robitaille; if the Democratic nominee is Patrick Lynch, Chaffee leads by a wider 33% to 18%, with 14% for the Republican.

This question is not meant to denigrate Rasmussen. I am not dismissing his results by pointing out that his polls represent a set of assumptions that are on the GOP-friendly end of the spectrum of possible turnout patterns and partisan breakdown, whereas Research 2000 appears to be using assumptions that result in more favorable results for Democrats and whereas the model used by a group like Quinnipiac makes its results fall somewhere in the middle. Case in point: Quinnipiac’s new Ohio poll finds Governor Ted Strickland leading 44% to 39% while Rasmussen has him trailing by the sort of decisive margins an incumbent rarely recovers from.

Another case-in-point is Illinois. A new Research 2000 poll finds very positive numbers for Democrats, with Alexi Giannoulias leading Mark Kirk 43% to 36% and Governor Pat Quinn up by double-digits against the two Republicans who are fighting over who won the February 5th primary (46-35 against Kirk Dillard, 47-32 against Bill Brady). These numbers are almost hard to believe, but it’s unclear why that would be: Three independent polls of the Kirk-Giannoulias match-up have been released over the past month. One had Kirk leading 46-40 (Rasmussen) while the two others had Giannoulias up outside of the margin of error (Research 2000 and PPP). In short: The conventional wisdom that has emerged of a front-running Kirk and a struggling Giannoulias is certainly not backed by a polling consensus.

The problem arises not from different pollsters’ differing assumptions but from Rasmussen amazingly prolific rhythm: The pollster typically tests half-a-dozen states a week, whereas no more than two for PPP and at most one for Research 2000, Quinnipiac, Mason-Dixon or Suffolk. This has led to a situation in which the Rasmussen model of what the fall electorate will look like is dominating our understanding of the political landscape.

This is especially true in states that few if any other polling firms test. Indeed, in states that are often polled by a variety of pollsters (say New York, Connecticut, Nevada, Florida and North Carolina), we can confront Rasmussen’s findings to those of other surveys and thus avoid relying on a single poll. For instance, a new Rasmussen poll released today has Senator Richard Burr in a very solid position. Without dismissing his take on the race, we are well-served by being able to compare his numbers to those PPP released earlier this week, which had Burr looking more vulnerable.

The situation is very different in a state like Wisconsin: As far as I can see, the only non-Rasmussen poll that has been released over the past 6 months testing the Governor’s race and Russ Feingold’s vulnerability is a PPP survey dating back from November which showed Democrats in a strong position. That makes our view of Wisconsin’s political situation far more dependent on Rasmussen than is healthy. The same is true of Colorado, which only Rasmussen and Research 2000 have tested since September; the two have found very contradictory results as to Michael Bennett’s vulnerability, but since R2000 visited the state only once whereas Rasmussen has released four polls, we have grown more used to seeing Bennet in a catastrophic situation. This phenomenon is perhaps most consequential in Missouri, which no pollster but Rasmussen has tested since mid-November.

Once again, none of this is meant to suggest Rasmussen is distorting its numbers or that his polls are unreliable; after all, in many of these states (starting in Missouri) not only Rasmussen’s raw numbers but also his trendline have shown bad news for Democrats. The point is that no individual poll provides a reliable snap-shot of the electorate, Rasmussen no more than others, and that we should keep this in mind when commenting on the landscape in places like Wisconsin and Missouri.

The usual full polling round-up will come tomorrow morning.

The main question going forward is whether the increasingly isolated Paterson will also be forced to resign. Two days after the scandal broke, Rep. Nita Lowey is the only prominent Democrat I am aware of who suggested the governor might consider doing so. With Paterson no longer a threat to anyone’s agenda, it is possible he’ll be able to weather the storm all the way to the end of 2010; if anything, Republicans might be better off if he remains in the Governor’s Mansion than if Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch gets to start over with a clean slate. (At 76, Ravitch would be extremely unlikely to seek a full term in November.)

Paterson’s retirement means that there will be 22 open Governor’s races on the 2010 ballot - a stunningly large number.

Yet, what is most striking about today’s apparent development is how little it changes to New York’s political landscape. You would think that for the governor of the country’s third most populous state to announce he was dropping his re-election bid would have colossal repercussions, but I am hard-pressed to think of what substantial change Paterson’s decision might have on New York politics other than remove the faint possibility Andrew Cuomo might have still grown scared of running for Governor and the possibility that a racially charged confrontation weigh down the entire Democratic ticket in the fall.

Paterson’s withdrawal clears the way for Cuomo to not only run but to secure the Democratic nod in undramatic fashion: It’s hard to see who would even want to challenge the state’s uber-popular Attorney General, let alone threaten him. (There are after all seven months left until Election Day, and New York is a difficult state in which to mount a statewide campaign; while Cuomo had yet to declare a bid, he was transparently putting together the infrastructure he would need to do so. The latest reports suggest Cuomo will now accelerate his timetable, but only by advancing his announcement date from April to mid-March.)

It also removes some of the GOP’s only hopes that they might have a shot at recapturing the Governor’s Mansion: Not only will Paterson not be the Democratic nominee (the latest poll found him trailing Rick Lazio), but Cuomo will move to the general election unscathed. Republicans would already have faced an uphill climb had Cuomo beat Paterson after months of suffering brutal attacks from the governor’s allies; how can they beat him now that he will likely have no trouble unifying the state’s Democratic Party? As I noted yesterday, they can hardly hope for Cuomo to turn into the second coming of Martha Coakley, despite the fact the two hold the same position in their respective states; Cuomo is a very well-known politician, and whatever the red wave it’ll be harder for a low-profile opponent to mount a financially competitive campaign in a large state like New York.

It is not just the GOP’s gubernatorial dreams that could be damaged by Paterson’s withdrawal and Cuomo’s emergence as the clear front-runner: For the Attorney General to become the state’s most prominent Democrat over the next nine months and for him to win a landslide victory in November should impact down-ballot races. Republicans have won a string of electoral victories in the Empire State in recent months, making them confident that the electorate’s discontent towards Democrats is particularly strong in New York. Since all polls show Cuomo is the one Democrat who has been left unscathed by Albany’s mess, he should protect his party from some of the brewing backlash by arguing that his coming-to-power is in itself the type of change voters are looking for.

Whether this saves Democrats’ majority in the state Senate remains to be seen, but the party should have an easier time defending its positions in the state legislature and also in the U.S. House (the NRCC has had high hopes for New York, since it is targeting Reps. Hall, Murphy, Arcuri, Owens, Maffei and Massa. The special elections in NY-20 and NY-23 showed that state Democrats remain solid). Similarly, it is harder to envision Bruce Blakeman gaining traction in the Senate race if Kirsten Gillibrand shares the top of the ticket with Andrew Cuomo, though all bets are off if George Pataki jumps in.

(Note: I will be heading out for much of the day, so if Paterson proves all of the New York press wrong at his 3pm press conference, I will not be be able to update this post. And I would not rule this out as a possibility: How many times did the press get it wrong about New York in the past year? Where are Senator Caroline Kennedy and Senate candidate Rudy Giuliani? Update: He didn’t. Paterson is retiring.)

While I wrote about PA-12’s special election last night, the race took an entirely new direction in the past 24 hours alone: Where we expected a long-line of state legislators looking to replace Rep. Jack Murtha led by state Senator John Wozniack, today’s event make it look increasingly likely the Democratic nod will go to Murtha’s district director Mark Critz and that there won’t even be a single currently elected official from either party looking to challenge him.

While Critz came to look as a serious contender over the week-end, when a wealthy Republican businessman touted by the NRCC announced he would support him instead, his first big break occurred this morning, when Joyce Murtha endorsed her husband’s former aide. With that development already sure to weigh on Democratic leaders’ minds given the Murthas’ prominence in party circles, Critz caught as big a break when former Lieutenant Governor Mark Singel, who as of yesterday had come to be viewed as the closest thing the field had to a front-runner, announced he was withdrawing his bid and also throwing his support behind Critz! Add to this Westmoreland County Commissioner Tom Ceraso’s decision to also end his candidacy, and that leaves just two candidates actively seeking the Democratic nomination: Critz and the state’s former Republican Treasurer Barbara Hafer.

Given the deep bench the party has in this cycle, I confess this is not the final line-up I expected; this situation certainly confirms that most political insiders are expecting this district to be dismantled after the next round of redistricting. It also suggests that Democrats will have less difficulty uniting behind a single candidate than might have been expected. More specifically, I find it unlikely that whichever of these two was not chosen would mount a primary campaign against the other. (Remember that May 18th is both the special election and the primary for November’s regularly scheduled election, and for a candidate to have to simultaneously fight on both frights could be fatal.) Critz’s only asset is his institutional ties, so it’s unclear how he could run if the establishment chooses Hafer; and given the way in which local Democrats are coalescing around Critz, it would have to be seen who would vouch for Hafer’s party credentials if she attempted a primary run.

The situation is opposite on the GOP side as tensions are rising between Tim Burns and William Russell. National Republicans are transparently signaling they would prefer for their nominee to be the former, mainly because he could self-fund part of his campaign, but Russell is making it clear he would not step aside. In other words, even if party leaders choose Burns to represent them in the special election, Russell is threatening to still seek the GOP nomination for the November ballot and thus create an untenable situation for the NRCC: Of the Russell loyalists who would go to the polls on May 18th to vote for their champion in the primary, how many would skip voting in the special election question rather than cast a ballot for Burns? Republicans are down on Russell’s candidacy because he has $216,000 of cash-on-hand; that might be too low an amount to beat a Democrat if the NRCC is not willing to help, but it is more than enough to seriously complicate Burns’s life.

I would say that this is making Democratic prospects of defending PA-12 look even better than when the seat first became vacant, but I would first like to see what type of candiate Critz will turn out to be and at the very least wait until we learn more about a man who does not as of yet have the clearest public profile.

AZ-03: Gordon will not run

An open seat in a district that gave John McCain a 17% victory is not at the top of the Democrats’ priority list, but Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon would have at least made the party competitive - as any mayor of a city of more than 1,5 million is sure to be when he seeks another office with far fewer constituents. (Note that AZ-03 extends into Phoenix’s northern suburbs, so a fair amount of the district would have been new territory for Gordon.) Yet, after a few weeks in which he openly mulled the possibility of running, Gordon announced today that he would not seek the seat of retiring Republican John Shadegg.

Gordon’s decision is unlikely to lead many Democrats other than DCCC officials to lament since there’s a limit to how conservative a candidate the party is willing to tolerate - and with Parker Griffith’s party switch and Joe Lieberman’s antics fresh in everyone’s minds, recruiting a politician who enthusiastically endorsed John McCain’s presidential bid is not high on the DCCC’s to-do list. Besides his support for McCain, Gordon is mistrusted because he endorsed Republican Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio bids to be Maricopa County’s county attorney and county sheriff, respectively. (Thomas and Arpaio are high-profile figures who have led an anti-immigration crusade in Arizona.) That said, Gordon’s ties with Arpaio considerably deteriorated over the past two years, including over the mayor’s criticism over the sheriff’s sweeps into Hispanic neighborhoods.

One major reason that might explain Gordon’s decision is Arizona’s resign-to-run law, which would have forced him to give up his mayoral post as soo as he would have announced a House run - just as Republican state Senator state Sen. Jonathan Paton had to do this week as he moved to challenge Rep. Giffords. Given that the district is a tough one for a Democratic candidate, that would undoubtedly have been a big political risk. (Note that I am not sure the resign-to-run law applies to mayors in the same way as for statewide officials or state legislators, though I can’t see why it wouldn’t.)

The filing deadline is still three months away, so there could still be plenty of movement, but the Democratic front-runner is now more than ever attorney Jon Hulburd, whose main draw seems to be finances: He not only raised more than $300,000 in the fourth quarter, but he appears to have enough money to self-fund his campaign, allowing the DCCC not to have to do anything but potentially forcing the NRCC to invest some of its precious resources in playing defense and saving that money from being used to attack an additional Democratic incumbent. Can Democrats hope for much else in such a district in such political conditions?

Of course, the revelations concerning Spitzer toppled a man who was until then well-liked and who many saw as a potential presidential contender. By contrast, Paterson’s political fortunes already collapsed more than a year ago, as a variety of factors made him one of the most unpopular governors of the country with no discernible chance of extending his tenure past the coming fall. As such, they do not alter the landscape of New York politics anywhere as dramatically as Spitzer’s resignation did in 2008.

In fact, while Spitzer’s scandal came out of nowhere, rumors had been swirling for weeks that The New York Times was preparing a damning expose that would all but end Paterson’s hopes of hanging on to his job. Two weeks ago, the paper published a story on Paterson aide David Johnson that I believe reflected worse on The Times than on Johnson. Then, the Times followed that up with an article on Paterson’s work habits, which contained some damaging tidbits but certainly no revelation serious enough to single-handedly destroy whatever is left of his political standing.

And last night, just when we thought Paterson had weathered the storm, came the biggest bombshell: An article that alleges Paterson pressured a woman to drop domestic violence charges against his aide David Johnson not only by having the State Police harass her but also by personally calling her the day before she was scheduled to appear in court.

These allegations are all the more damaging to Paterson that they contradict numerous statements he made in recent months. He has taken up the issue of domestic violence since early in his tenure, and in recent months he was one of the staunchest advocates for Hiram Monserrate’s ouster from the state Senate. While Johnson and Monserrate’s cases differ since the former has not been convicted of assault, the woman who was pressing charges against him did obtain two restraining orders. When Monserrate’s former girlfriend obtained the same but was nonetheless contacted but Monserrate’s staff, Paterson criticized the state Senator for endangering the victim’s independence and wondered whether he could face witness intimidation charges. “Because that’s the whole essence of what domestic violence is. It’s control,” he explained.

And yet those admirable words allegedly did not stop him from contacting the woman who was seeking a restraining order against his aide; might Paterson now face witness admiration charges?

While I will leave the story’s judicial implications to others, its political implications are obviously dire for Paterson. To merely be competitive in the fall, he needed nothing more to go wrong over the next seven months but he now needs to field calls for his resignation. Needless to say, the stories that have accumulated in recent weeks make it difficult to envision how the already embattled Governor could remain a candidate - and make it all but impossible for him to beat Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary.

Paterson is all the more politically vulnerable that he has few friends in Albany. Just like Spitzer’s rocky relationship with the state legislature meant that few Democrats were willing to defend him in the days following his New York Times story, Paterson has spent much of 2009 battling with prominent Democrats and with the state Senate. It’s therefore unsurprising that Rep. Steve Israel, whom Paterson passed over when he chose Hillary Clinton’s replacement, or state Senator Bill Perkins called for the Governor to drop his re-election bid within hours of the New York Times’s allegations.

(While few people have called for Paterson to resign, the scandal has already led another state official to call it quits: Paterson’s public safety czar Denise O’Donnell, a holdover from the Spitzer Administration. O’Donnell explained having heard of an incident involving the woman pressing charges against David Johnson but having been assured by the Superintendent of Police that the State Police was not involved - an assurance that The New York Times story reveals to be false.)

Paterson’s office immediately released a statement calling for the Attorney General to investigate into the State Police’s actions, but he did not address the most serious charge that he intervened so directly as to pick up the phone himself. Complicating matters, of course, is that said Attorney General is no other than Paterson’s biggest political rival, which creates a somewhat tricky situation for Cuomo to navigate as well since he has nothing to gain from putting himself in the middle of this story.

After all, Cuomo’s entire strategy for the past year has been to lay low. While Cuomo he long ago started putting together the type of campaign infrastructure he would need for a gubernatorial run, he has done his best to stay out of the spotlight. He has yet to publicly announce his plans, and the latest reports suggest he has no intention of doing so before April at the earliest. Polls show he would crush both David Paterson and Rick Lazio by gigantic margins; announcing he is seeking the Governor’s Mansion would only draw the media’s attention - and given what happened to the last two New Yorkers who were the subject of serious press investigations, Cuomo might as well wait a bit longer.

Of course, the Massachusetts special election showed that no state is safe for Democrat and that any candidate who takes an election for granted risks losing. Yet, the general election is still seven months away so it is certainly not shocking for Cuomo not to be campaigning, especially when one considers that he has a huge bank account he’ll start using as soon as he announces, that he bears one of the best-known last names in New York politics and that he is far more popular than Coakley ever was. (I find the Coakley analogy a much more useful one to use in the case of California’s Jerry Brown, but I’ll leave that discussion to a future post.)