ArchivePage 2 of 184

Grayson and Paul hammer each other for insufficient opposition to Obama’s “war on coal”

Published
by
Taniel
on February 23, 2010
in KY-Sen
. 8 Comments

Primary season might be dawning upon us, but few campaigns have gotten heated on the airwaves as of now. For instance, I don’t believe that Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak have started using their huge war chests to go up on TV - and we are just ten weeks from Election Day.

One state in which local TV channels are starting to reap some benefits is Kentucky. While the GOP’s Senate primary was not expected to be particularly contested when the seat opened up, Trey Grayson and Rand Paul are now waging an all-out battle that spilled over to the airwaves this week. And while other candidates who’ve started airing ads have chosen to first go down the route of the positive introductory spot (see Sue Lowden in Nevada), Grayson and Paul are both gone negative at once.

The subject of their on-air dispute: coal. With both candidates having been caught on camera expressing some anti-coal sentiment, footage was bound to pop up on the campaign trail. (Coal is a major enough issue in Appalachia that West Virginia’s Democratic Governor Jon Manchin said this week that he is worried Allan Mollohan and Nick Rahall, longtime congressmen of his own party, could lose in November because “they have not articulated [their support for coal] as forceful as they should.” Talk about a vote of confidence for your party’s ticket.)

Grayson fired the first salvo with an ad that features comments Paul made in 2008 when on the stump supporting his father’s presidential candidacy. Before pledging to fight “Obama’s war on coal,” Grayson shows viewers footage of Paul declaring: “Coal’s very dirty form of energy. You may have coal around you that needs to be monitored. But I mean the thing is it’s probably one of the leat favorable forms of energy.”

That’s some damaging footage for Paul to deal with, so how can he possibly respond? What about an ad that features comments made by Grayson, not only about coal but also about a willingness to work with Barack Obama (gasp!). First, we see Grayson declare that, “As some of these coal power plants are being phased out, we need to bring nuclear on.” Then, the ad jumps to an unrelated video on which Grayson declares,”I look forward to doing my part as a Secretary of State and as a citizen of working with President Obama.” The ad concludes: “A friend of Obama? No friend of coal.”

From the perspective of coal defenders, Grayson’s comments are far less incriminating than Paul’s since he did not express any hostility towards that form of energy. Yet, his comment could very well be perceived as a fatalistic response to mining’s decline - certainly not the type of passionate defense of the coaling industry Kentuckians (and West Virginians like Manchin) are hoping to see.

Similarly, it is somewhat depressing that Grayson’s comments on Obama could be used against him in a campaign ad, as they are in no way remarkable - nor do they in any way seem like a warm embrace of the president or an endorsement of any of his policies (contra, say, Charlie Crist’s physically hugging Obama over the stimulus), but conservative voters have come to expect such frontal opposition that such footage could very well damage Grayson. After all, they fit well in Paul’s efforts to portray himself as the conservative who right-wing voters can trust because he is an outsider and an activist, while Grayson is part of the GOP establishment that Tea Partiers feel is too cozy with the Democratic elites.

Another remarkable aspect of this Grayson-Paul back-and-forth is the speed with which the latter’s campaign unveiled a response; who could have expected when he declared his candidacy that he would have the financial capacity to pull off such a solid campaign? In any case, If Grayson was hoping that Paul’s strength would dissipate as we got further away from the 2008 cycle, during which Ron Paul’s supporters were an organizational sensation, this past week-end must have forced him to realize it would not be the case: At the yearly CPAC conference, Ron Paul for the first time won the presidential straw poll, breaking Mitt Romney’s 3-year winning streak. This obviously does not mean much insofar as a 2012 bid is concerned, nor does it provide direct help for Rand Paul’s Senate campaign, but it simply serves as one more reminder that the libertarian groups that have allowed the family to become such formidable figures within the Republican universe should not be underestimated.

The scope of a high-turnout 50-state presidential primary might have been to large for this organizational muscle to translate well at the polls, but now that we are in a one-state campaign (in a medium-sized state no less) that should be decided by relatively low turnout, Rand Paul’s grassroots support could be more decisive - especially when we consider that the GOP electorate is in a different mood this year than it was in 2008 and that this activist base is being complemented by more institutional support than Ron Paul could have dreamed about: Sarah Palin endorsed Rand’s Senate candidacy last month. It is unclear whether the former Governor will actively campaign for Paul, though groups like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works should help him.

One key question that could go a long way towards deciding primary: Will the Club for Growth intervene? Speculation that the conservative PAC would endorse Paul dates back to November, when both candidates reportedly met with Club officials in Washington, but they have yet to do so despite already making decisions to intervene in Utah and Florida’s Senate primaries, both of which will be held much after Kentucky’s. Its reluctance to endorse Paul is perhaps due to the fact that Grayson himself is a Club member, and that he doesn’t seem as obviously offensive to conservatives than someone like Crist and arguably Bennett’s by Utah standards.

While the Reids are in rough shape, Nevada Dems should keep up hope

Published
by
Taniel
on February 22, 2010
in NV-Gov and NV-Sen
. 3 Comments

State Senator Mark Amodei has dropped out of the Nevada Senate race. Despite or because (depending on your take on the cycle) the fact that he is the only candidate who holds elected office, he failed to get much traction; he was unable to overcome his lack of name recognition due to his meager fundraising.

He was hoping he could have a geographical advantage as the only candidate from Northern Nevada, while David Tarkanian and Sue Lowden both come from the Las Vegas region; but Sharron Angle’s entry in the race blew to that prospect. He also had no obvious ideological niche to exploit: While Lowden is a fragile front-runner due to hostility among some conservatives, Amodei couldn’t expect much support from the party’s most motivated faction given that his name was closely associated with a push to raise or create twelve taxes at once - a tough record to defend in a GOP primary.

His withdrawal leaves a crowded field battling it out for the right to face Reid: former party chair Lowden, real estate developer Tarkanian, former Assemblywoman Angle and banker Joe Chachas, and at least 5 other lower-profile candidates.

Three weeks from the filing deadline, I have to admit that I am surprised the Republican field remains as underwhelming as it was in the fall: Sure, Reid is so unpopular that one of these individuals might very well beat him in November, but the NRSC could make this strong opportunity a near-lock if it convinced a politician like Rep. Dean Heller to jump in the Senate race after all - just as happened in Arkansas when Rep. Boozman announced he’d challenge Blanche Lincoln. Yet, it looks like Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki’s decision not to run a few weeks ago was the last recruitment shoe to drop.

In what looks like it could be at least a 9-way race, it should not take a large share of the vote for a Republican to advance to the general election, which means any of the candidates I mentioned above has a shot at the nomination.That includes New York banker John Chachas, who at the moment has no name recognition whatsoever but he is apparently willing to spend a lot of money: As of the end of 2009, he had donated $1,3 million of his own fortune to his campaign. Of course, many unknown businessmen who try to buy themselves Senate seats fail (the latest: Steve Pagliuca) but Lowden and Tarkanian are weak front-runners. In fact, Chachas drew favorable reviews for his latest debate performance, whereas Lowden has failed to impress.

The confusion that is still reigning in the GOP field (and the ensuing prospect that the party will produce a weaker nominee than it should) is not the only factor that should give Harry Reid hope he could still survive. I already mentioned a few weeks ago that a Tea Party had qualified as an official Nevada party and was planning on fielding a candidate in the Senate race. We now have our first look at the effect this would have on the general election, via a Public Opinion Strategies survey that tests a three-way race between Reid, Tea Party candidate Jon Ashjian (who seems to have no public record I can find) and various Republicans - and while Reid’s standing is certainly nothing he should boast about, these have to be the most favorable match-ups he has seen since the summer.

While Reid has routinely trailed by double-digits in polls conducted since August (and this poll makes it clear why, since Reid’s favorability rating is a dismal 35-58) he trails Lowden by a less catastrophic 5% (42-37), with Ashjian at 9%. Against Tarkanian, Reid is only down 40-39, with Ashjian at 11%. Against Angle, Reid actually grabs a 37% to 32% lead, with Ashjian at 16%. The clearest sign that conservative-minded voters are just as willing to vote for a Tea Party than for a GOP nominee when they know about neither candidate comes in the Chachas match-ups, as Ashjian comes out ahead of the banker (22-21) with Reid at 39%.

Of course, it is very possible that Ashjian’s support recedes to the 5%-7% range once a Republican is chosen as the nominee and increases his or her notoriety; but his presence on the ballot certainly looks like it could have a non-marginal effect on the race. The GOP could be in particular trouble if Lowden is the nominee: While Ashjian receives his lowest share of the vote against her, she would probably give him the biggest opening since she inspire mistrust among the hard-right. With Jim DeMint opening the door to supporting third-party bids against the Republican nominees, it seems more likely that Ashjian could hope for such institutional backing if he faces Lowden than Tarkanian or Angle. (While I am more unsure about Chachas’s ideological profile, his background as a New York banker could allow the Tea Party to play a more populist card.)

Dems can also hope for positive developments in non-federal races

The POS poll I cited above also suggests that all is not lost for Democrats over in the Governor’s race: While no one is denying that Governor Jim Gibbons is the clear underdog in his primary fight against former Attorney General Brian Sandoval, the same survey finds him trailing only 38% to 32%, within the margin of error. Voters who have definitely made up their mind favor Sandoval by just 1%, suggesting the Governor is closer to surviving the primary than we might think.

However unpopular incumbents get, they more often than not keep the support of their own party’s base, which is what makes the position of politicians like David Paterson and pre-switch Arlen Specter so shocking. Gibbons is probably too damaged to have a shot at moving to the general election, but his dismal standing among the electorate-at-large (a 29-58 favorability rating) does not mean he is universally despised among Republican voters. Of course, for Gibbons to pull a June upset would be amazing news for Democrats: While Rory Reid trails Brian Sandoval 50% to 34%, he leads the governor 47% to 36%.

The last reason Nevada Democrats should not let Harry Reid’s unpopularity and Rory Reid’s probable presence at the top of their ticket lead them to despair is that they are in a good position to keep the state legislation, which they fully control for the first time in two decades. While Democrats have a 28-14 edge in the state Assembly, their majority in the state Senate is a far narrower 12-9. While you would expect this to mean the GOP would have a good opportunity to take over the upper chamber, only 5 Democratic seats are in play, which gives Republicans little room to maneuver to pick-up the two districts they’ll need.

While Democratic state Senator Joyce Woodhouse appears to be the cycle’s most endangered incumbent, because the district she represents (Henderson) is divided as closely as it gets between the two parties. If Election Night is rough for Democrats, Woodhouse could very well lose, but the GOP’s second best opportunity is an open seat in a district in which Democrats outnumber Republicans 2:1. That the GOP’s rationale for why they think this race is vulnerable is that Democrats’ (June) primary is pitting two Assemblymen against other suggests Republicans can’t expect to regain any power in the legislature before at least 2012.

Yet two more breaks for House Republicans

Published
by
Taniel
on February 22, 2010
in FL-10 and PA-06
. 12 Comments

The NRCC was spared two big headaches this week-end: Rep. Bill Young has decided to run for re-election and ex-retiree Rep. Jim Gerlach finally succeeded at clearing his primary field. Not that Democrats are particularly optimistic about their chances of playing offense this year, but these two developments significantly diminish the party’s chances of picking-up either of their districts, rare GOP-held seats the DCCC had been eying.

No open seat in Pinellas County

79-year Bill Young has been in the House for 40 years, which makes him the longest-serving Republican in either chamber of Congress. The former chair of the Appropriation Committee, he used to be one of Washington’s most powerful politicians but is now relegated to the ranks of a largely powerless minority; even if the GOP regains control in 2010, he’d be unlikely to have anywhere near as much influence as he did between 1999 and 2005. This combination of factor has made him a fixture of retirement watches for years now, and there were a lot of reasons to believe Democrats (who have never been able to lay so much as a glove on him) would finally get their shot at the open seat this year.

For one, he explicitly stated he was undecided about whether he’d run. Second, he faced his first credible Democratic challenger in decades, as he at the very least needs to seriously campaign against state Senator Charlie Justice; would he have it in him to do so after 19 re-election races that have nearly all been uncompetitive? Third were his fundraising reports, which were so low that he could only be discouraging contributions: How can the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee raise only $750 in the fourth quarter otherwise? The question remains all the more puzzling that he has hasn’t shown animosity to off-year fundraising in the past.

Yet, the open race won’t be for this year. At an event held on Saturday night as a tribute to the congressman, Young announced he would run for a 21st term.

In normal circumstances, an incumbent who represents a district won by the opposing party’s presidential candidate (Obama carried the district by 4%), who has banked only $750 in the latest quarter and who faces a 10-year state Senator would be considered highly vulnerable. But these are hardly normal circumstances and Young is clearly favored to win in November. The electorate is too hostile to Democrats for the party to have a shot at ousting any but the least entrenched Republican incumbents, especially Young whose stature would make it tough for Democrats to defeat him in a favorable environment, let alone in 2010. Furthermore, as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee he should have no trouble quickly filling his campaign coffers. Finally, Democrats have generally been down on Justice since last spring, and whatever confidence they once had Justice could defeat Young has largely evaporated.

While Young’s decision considerably diminishes Democrats’ takeover prospects in a rare district they are targeting, there is a convincing reason (articulated by James L. over at SSP) to think Young’s decision should come as a relief to Democrats: Given that the party has been waiting for his retirement for much of the decade, it could have been a waste to have it come in the one cycle in which open seats are bound to favor Republicans. (In 2006 and 2008, Democrats had no difficulty holding open seats in tough districts like OH-06 and OR-05.) Had Young retired now, the GOP would have been favored to defend the seat whereas in most future cycles an open seat should be no worse than a toss-up for Democrats. Can the DCCC be that unhappy they might have a shot at a Young-less district in 2012 rather than in 2010? (A major caveat: redistricting could alter the district’s boundaries.)

None of this means we should entirely take our eye off of this district this year. Justice remains an experienced politician with a strong foothold in the district while an aging congressman who has not had to seriously campaign for decades is prone to gaffes that can endanger his re-election. Look at IL-08 in 2004, when 36-year incumbent Phil Crane despite the year’s being a tough one for Democrats.

(An other Florida district became the subject of retirement rumors on Friday, when 66-year old Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite announced she’d make a major announcement, which turned out to be that she is getting married. Not that Democrats would have had much of a shot at an open seat here: FL-05 gave Bush and McCain double-digit victories.)

No primary for Gerlach

PA-06 was one of the cycle’s most vulnerable seats until Rep. Jim Gerlach dropped out of the Governor’s race and announced he would seek re-election after all. That was a major blow to Democrats, since they were well-positioned to pick-up an open seat in a district that went for Kerry by 4% and Obama by 17%, but they clung to the hope that Gerlach might not be able to survive the May primary: Gerlach found himself in early January with no campaign structure and next-to-money he could use, whereas two credible Republicans were in the race refusing to drop-out.

State Rep. Curt Schroder lasted less than a week, leaving businessman Steven Welch as Gerlach’s sole GOP opponent. While Welch was clearly an underdog, he had more than $650,000 in the bank at the end of 2009, he was apparently willing to pour in much more from his personal fortune and he was clearly a credible enough candidate that the NRCC was once busy touting his entry as a recruitment coup. At the very least, he would have forced Gerlach to use whatever campaign cash he could come with by May 18th, making him an easier target for Democrats.

But Welch has now ended his campaign, taking with him the millions the DCCC was hoping would indirectly help its cause. (One reason that might have contributed to his decision is that his moderate profile made it impossible for him to hope for the support of the Club for Growth or of Tea Party groups, which might have considered backing a challenge to Gerlach otherwise.) Gerlach is now certain to be the GOP nominee on the November ballot, which considerably increases the party’s chances.

That said, Democrats should not give up on PA-06: With two hotly contested statewide races on the ballot in November, the party will have a full-blown turnout machine working the Philadelphia suburbs, so they might as well work against Gerlach at the same time as they’re working against Toomey and Corbett. Also, Manan Trivedi and Doug Pike had already put together top-tier campaigns before Gerlach’s re-entry and while their chances would have been much higher come 2008, it would be a waste for the party to give up now. After all, the DCCC has to play offense somewhere.

Note that this district was gerrymandered to favor Republicans in 2001. If Democrats have some control over the next redistricting process, they should be able to impose a more favorable redrawing of Philadelphia’s suburbs. Even if Republicans have full control, it’s tough to see how they could make it that much more protected, though depending on the November results they could try to draw PA-07 bluer to get PA-06 redder.

Weekly update: Besides the IN confusion, KS Dems hope they’ve finally found someone to field

Published
by
Taniel
on February 21, 2010
in CA-Sen, IA-Gov, KS-Gov, MN-Gov, NC-Sen and RI-Gov
. 16 Comments

The week started in unexpectedly dramatic fashion when Senator Evan Bayh drove a stake to the DSCC’s hopes of not having to also worry about Indiana; it should also lead to an additional open seat in the House - though we won’t know that for sure until the Democratic party committee taps a replacement for Bayh. Another state with important developments this week was Ohio, which became the 8th state to move past its filing deadline, as I wrote about yesterday.

But forget Evan Bayh: The biggest shocker of the cycle is that Democrats are landing statewide candidates in Kansas! State Senator Tom Holland announced this week that he would take on Senator Sam Brownback in the Governor’s race, giving Democrats hope of at least pulling off a decent showing at the head of the ticket  (that could have repercussions down-ballot). While Holland is the heavy underdog, Democrats are quick to note that he beat two Republican incumbents in 2002 and in 2008 to first be elected to the state House and the state Senate. The party will also milk the one advantage its candidate will have in these difficult circumstances: attack Brownback for practicing “Washington-style politics” while touting Holland’s local roots. “He hasn’t been in Washington for 16 years, he’s been here - building a business, raising his family and serving his community,” said Lieut. Gov. Troy Findley.

Democrats are also hopeful that Holland will inspire state Senator David Haley to jump in the open Senate race, where they currently have no candidate. Since the GOP nominee will be a U.S. House member, this could help the party use the same template in both statewide races, but more on this if Haley actually pulls the trigger.

In California, Senator Diane Feinstein finally put the speculation to rest for good as she closed the door to a gubernatorial run without allowing herself any hedges. This confirms what we have known since the fall: Attorney General Jerry Brown faces no real competition for the Democratic nomination, which few people could have expected as the cycle started given how many ambitious politicians California has. I do think the party could have positioned itself better for the general election; not only can Brown be attacked for being the consummate insider, but how credibly can he propose to fix the state’s terrible fiscal situation given his responsibility in the passage and implementation of Prop 13? In other statewide news, San Fransisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, last seen dropping out of the Governor’s race, prepared himself to run for Lieutenant Governor, a surprising move given that the job doesn’t have any real power as opposed to being mayor of a major city.

In Minnesota, the once very large GOP field has now been reduced to just three candidates as state Senator David Hann became the fifth candidate to drop out. That leaves state Rep. Marty Seifert, state Rep. Tom Emmer and former state Rep. Bill Haas as the only politicians seeking the Republican nod, with Seifert and Emmer looking like the clear front-runners ever since Norm Coleman passed on the race. Hann’s withdrawal could help Emmer, as both men represent Hennepin County while Seifert is from Southwestern Minnesota, though ultimately this could matter little since the nomination should be decided at a convention at which I believe a candidate needs 50% of delegates. (I wrote more about Minnesota last month.)

In North Carolina, there is now a fourth candidate seeking the Democratic nomination: Marcus Williams, an attorney from Lumberton. While he would not appear to be a threat to win the nomination, he could pull a significant share of the vote: In the 2008 Senate primary, he received an impressive 13% of the vote (more than 170,000 votes) and won more counties than Jim Neal despite the fact that the latter’s challenge to Kay Hagan won more attention nationwide. If Williams can once again draw a substantial share of the vote, it could help Elaine Marshall by making it difficult for one of her rivals to differentiate himself and get momentum - but it could also ensure that no candidate tops 50% in the May 4th first round. [Correction: In NC, a candidate needs to get only 40% to clinch the nomination in the first round. That diminishes the possibility Williams's entry to prevent Marshall from avoiding a runoff, while the point about his fracturing the field too much for one candidate to catch-up remains valid.]

In Iowa, one of the four Republican candidates dropped out of the Governor’s race: state Rep. Bob Rants, who served as the state’s Speaker between 2003 and 2006. This leaves former Governor Terry Branstad, Bob Vander Plaats and state Rep. Rod Roberts. Rants’ withdrawal improves Vander Plaats’s odds of pulling an upset against Branstad but potentially helping him coalesce the support of conservatives, over which the two men were competing (Rants for instance said that he would veto every single bill that comes out of the state legislature, including the budget, until both chambers vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage). After all, while Branstad has had problem with his right flank throughout his decades in politics, he is too formidable a candidate to envision him losing in a crowded field with numerous conservative candidates.

In Rhode Island, it long looked like no one wanted the GOP’s gubernatorial nomination but there is now a second candidate in the race: former state Rep. Victor Moffitt while go after John Robitaille, the incumbent Governor’s communications director. Neither can be sure to be a competitive general election nominee, but the more state Republicans get invested in their nominee the harder it could be for the now-independent Lincoln Chaffee to pull out a victory in a 3-way race.

As always, I list all the changes I have logged in during the week to the retirement and race-by-race pages. First, updates to Retirement Watch:

New open seats Senator Evan Bayh (D, Indiana)
Will not retire Rep. Pat Tiberi (R, OH-12)
Rep. Bill Young (R, FL-10)
Added to retirement watch Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D, IN-08)

Next, the recruitment page:

AZ-Sen, GOP Chris Simcox dropped out
IN-Sen, Dem Rep. Joe Donnelly added to list
Rep. Brad Ellsworth wants the Dem nod
Rep. Baron Hill added to list
Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott wants the Dem nod
businesswoman Bren Simon added to list
state Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson ruled out run
Evansville mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel ruled out run
IN-Sen, GOP Don Bates Jr is running
plumbing company owner Richard Behney is running
Governor Mitch Daniels will not run
KS-Sen, Dem state Senator David Haley added to list
NC-Sen, Dem attorney Marcus Williams announced run
OH-Sen, GOP Charlena Renee Bradley is running
Traci Johnson is running
OH-Sen, GOP car dealer Tom Ganley dropped out

Third, updates to gubernatorial races:

CA-Gov, Dem Senator Dianne Feinstein will not run
IA-Gov, GOP state Rep. Chris Rants dropped out
KS-Gov, Dem state Senator Tom Holland is running
MI-Gov, Dem former Treasurer Robert Bowman will not run
county Treasurer Dan Kildee formed exploratory committee
MN-Gov, Dem state Senator David Hann dropped out
NE-Gov, Dem agribusiness executive Mark Lakers added
PA-Gov, Dem Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty dropped out
RI-Gov, GOP former state Rep. Victor Moffitt announced run
SC-Gov, Dem Mullins McLeod dropped out

Filing deadline passes in Ohio, Indiana

Published
by
Taniel
on February 20, 2010
in IN-02, IN-03, IN-04, IN-08, IN-09, OH-02, OH-06, OH-09, OH-13, OH-14, OH-15, OH-16 and OH-18
. 9 Comments

Two new states saw their filing deadlines pass this week: Ohio and Indiana. This means retirement/recruitment season is already done in 8 states. This allows us to take a detailed look at the state of play in all 27 of these state’s House races, as well as their two Senate contests. (Note: Next up is North Carolina, with a February 26th deadline.)

Ohio: No retirement, 7 races to watch

All 18 of Ohio’s congressmen (10 Democrats and 8 Republicans) will seek re-election. Of them, a third look like they will have to fight off a competitive challenge come November, 5 of them Democrats in OH-01, OH-13, OH-15, OH-16 and OH-18. OH-12 is probably the only GOP-held seat to watch, though OH-02 could still be worth monitoring as the district has produced many fireworks in recent cycles. However, a lot depends on what happens in the May primaries, as at least two candidates highly touted by the NRCC face very crowded fields in which their victory is far from certain.

Rep. Steve Driehaus of OH-01 is arguably the most endangered of the state’s incumbents as he is sure to face former Rep. Steve Chabot, whom he defeated two years ago, in the general election: No other Republican filed. Next on the list is probably OH-15, in which state Senator Steve Stivers should have little trouble securing the Republican nomination for a rematch over now-Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy. The trouble for Stivers could come in the general election: former Hilliard Mayor David Ryon has filed to run as the Constitution Party candidate and he could draw a substantial share of the vote because of conservative mistrust towards Stivers. (In 2008, two conservative candidates totaled more than 10% of the vote, helping Kilroy defeat Stivers.)

OH-16 is home to yet another Democratic freshman, and while Rep. John Boccieri looks in a better shape than his colleagues 5 Republicans are going after him. The front-runner is financial consultant Jim Renacci, whom the NRCC is hoping will self-fund; Renacci also used to serve as Mayor of Wadsworth, a small town of about 18,000 people. Yet, Renacci should face a tough primary against a crowed field of 4 other candidates. In particular, two of his opponents (Matt Miller and Paul Schiffer) ran in 2008 and received 42% and 10% of the vote - showings that are all the more impressive given that they came against a state Senator who secured the nomination with just 47%. In short: Renacci is in no way certain of winning the GOP nod. I’d guess the NRCC will turn away from the district f Renacci loses.

In OH-18, Rep. Zach Space long hoped he would not have to face a top-tier GOP opponent, but those hopes faded back in September when state Senator Bob Gibbs agreed to jump in. In a district George W. Bush twice won by double-digits, this could be a tough challenge to overcome. The twist: there are a total of 9 candidates seeking the Republican nomination, including 2008 nominee Fred Dailey (the former head of the Ohio Department of Agriculture), former state Rep. Ron Hood, and candidates who have never ran for office but who should enjoy support among Tea Party activists (The Chillicothe Gazette has a full rundown). When we are talking about this crowded a primary, as little as 15-20% could get you the nomination and all bets are off as to who could emerge as Space’s opponent.

Last is OH-13, which is the week’s big surprise as the GOP is only able to put Rep. Betty Sutton on its list because of a last-minute decision by auto dealer Tom Ganley, who dropped out of the Senate race to announce he’d run for the House. To be sure, this is a blue district that gave John Kerry and Barack Obama double-digits victories, and if Republicans defeat Sutton they are likely already on their way to a House majority. But Ganley should nonetheless be quite a headache for Democrats: He was willing to spend more than $1 million of his own fortune on the Senate race, money he’ll now use against Sutton, potentially forcing the DCCC to play in this district rather than devote those funds to the state’s many other vulnerable Democrats. A key question: Can Ganley survive the primary? A surprise can’t be ruled out i a 6-way field filled with political novices, but Ganley’s money should carry him through.

Democrats are targeting a seat of their own, OH-12. The filing deadline is all the more newsworthy here that Rep. Tiberi has been the subject of some speculation rumors, but we now know for sure he is seeking re-election. In the general election, he is sure to oppose Franklin County Commissioner Paula Brooks, who would have had far better chances in the previous two cycles but who we should nonetheless keep track of. Finally, there is OH-02, a staunchly conservative district the GOP has struggled in because of Rep. Jean Schmidt’s persona. But the Democratic state legislator the DCCC was touting dropped out in November, leaving the party in the hands of a trio of candidates: Surya Yalamanchili, a political novice whose claim to fame comes from a bout on Donald Trump’s The Apprentice, PaulDavid Krikorian, who got double-digits running as an independent in 2008, and Jim Parker.

That leaves us with 11 districts which will almost certainly not host competitive races.

Democrats Marcy Kaptur (OH-9), Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), Marcia Fudge (OH-11) and Tim Ryan (OH-17) should be safe. It should be noted that Kucinich didn’t draw a single Democratic opponent in OH-10 despite the fact that he had to face a few relatively competitive primaries in recent cycles. Furthermore, I have read that the GOP might look to contest Marcy Kaptur’s seat (but it would be a huge upset for former Food Town CEO Rich Iott or former Toledo Police Chief Jack Smith to defeat the longest-serving woman in Congress in a district that gave Obama 62%.

In addition, OH-06 has to be a disappointment for the GOP. This is a district that twice voted for George W. Bush and went for John McCain in 2008, albeit very narrowly; it’s also a district represented by a sophomore Democrat. And yet, the NRCC never made noise about challenging Rep. Charlie Wilson. As a result, the incumbent’s chief challenger is the man he already crushed in 2008 (62% to 33%), former Belmont County Sheriff Ohio Richard Stobbs. While repeat candidates are sometimes successful, it is difficult to go from a 29% defeat to a victory (even Nancy Boyda had not lost by quite that much in 2004), especially considering also made an unsuccessful run for this seat in 2006, this time losing in the GOP primary. This is one potentially tough district that Democrats should be able to hold.

Republican Reps. Michael Turner (OH-3), Jim Jordan (OH-4), Robert Latta (OH-5), Steve Austria (OH-7), John Boehner (OH-8) should be safe. All represent slightly-to-staunchly red districts, though OH-03 is competitive enough that Democrats should have a chance when Turner retires. Another Republican who looks safe despite the fact that John McCain just barely won his district is Rep. Steve LaTourette (OH-14); his main Democratic opponent is former appeals judge William O’Neill, who was already the party’s nominee in 2008. LaTourette lost by more than 20% that year, making it hard to see how he could lose to the same candidate under so much more favorable circumstances.

There were no surprises in Ohio’s statewide contest: Rob Portman and John Kasich are likely to coast to the GOP nominations, Ted Strickland will represent Democrats in the Governor’s race, and there were no major last-minute entrants in the Brunner-Fisher battle for the Democrats’ Senate nomination. That said, the last-minute entrance of two women, one of which has done work for Fisher, has led Brunner’s camp to accuse its rival of foul play.

Indiana: Uncertainty reigns

Indiana’s filling deadline was supposed to be met uneventfully, but Evan Bayh’s last-minute retirement announcement upended the landscape by forcing Democrats to figure out how to replace him. Yesterday’s deadline came and passed with no Democratic qualifying for the Senate ballot, which means a party committee will be able to choose a general election candidate after the May 4th primary results in a vacancy. Meanwhile, there will be 5 Republicans battling for the GOP nomination: former Senator Dan Coats, state Senator Marlin Stutzman, former Rep. John Hostettler, plumbing company owner Richard Behney and Don Bates Jr.

While all 5 of the state’s Democratic congressmen are running for re-election, one district could still open up if Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth or Joe Donnelly are tapped to run for Senate, an additional headache for the DCCC to think about. All three Democrats filed for re-election, despite speculation that Ellsworth might not do so and put pressure on the party committee to give him the nod. The Republican fields, however, are locked in all three districts.

If Ellsworth does not move to the Senate race, he would be heavily favored to defend IN-8 as the GOP field is rather underwhelming. If Ellsworth withdraws before the primary, the Democratic nominee will be state Rep. Trent Van Haaften, the only other Democrat who filed (in coordination with Ellsworth). If Ellsworth withdraws after winning the primary, there will be a vacancy on the House ballot that the state party committee will be called to fill. While an open seat would be tough for the DCCC to defend, the fact that the GOP did not have time to recruit a top candidate will help Democrats; heart surgeon Larry Bucshon would be a credible Republican nominee with a good shot at winning, but other GOPers would have given the party better odds - not to mention Bucshon can’t be sure to win the 8-way primary!

If Hill does not move to the Senate race, he should face a top-tier race in IN-9 against whoever wins the GOP primary: Attorney Todd Young and former Rep. Mike Sodrel would both be strong general election challengers. If Democratic officials want to tap him for the Senate race, they’ll have him stay on the May 4th House ballot and withdraw after the primary to avoid having the nomination go to one of two little-known candidates. In IN-2, Rep. Joe Donnelly is the only Democrat to have filed, so for him to move to the Senate race would make for a fairly straightforward transition at the House level. Republicans are looking to contest this seat, with state Rep. Jackie Walorski and three other candidates seeking the nomination.

The six other districts are unlikely to change hands. Democratic Reps. Visclosky (IN-1) and Carson (IN-7) are safe, as are GOP Reps. Burton (IN-5) and Pence (IN-6). It is worth keeping an eye on IN-3, where Rep. Mark Souder is facing doctor Tom Hayhurst who has been attracting some buzz, but however unimpressive Souder’s hold on the seat has been Democrats aren’t in a position to win a district that voted for Bush by 37% in 2004 in this environment.

Finally, IN-4 is sure to host a highly competitive race - but only in the GOP primary. Just as we expected when Rep. Steve Buyer announced his retirement on January 29th, Democrats are not in a position to compete in a district that gave Bush a 39% victory in 2004 (McCain only won by 13%). On the other hand, a total of 11 candidates are seeking the Republican nod, a crowded field headlined by Secretary of State Todd Rokita, Greenwood Mayor Charles Henderson, state Senator Brandt Hershman and state Senator Mike Young.

Poll watch: GOP dominates IN and IA, has fighting chance in VT and CA

Published
by
Taniel
on February 19, 2010
in CA-Gov, IA-Gov, IA-Sen, IL-Sen, IN-Sen, NC-Sen, NV-Gov, OR-Sen, VT-Gov, WA-Sen and WI-Sen
. 13 Comments

Given how much of this week’s has had us talking about Indiana, it is no surprise that its most noteworthy poll also comes from the Hoosier State: Rasmussen tested the Senate race sans Bayh - and the results are atrocious for Democrats. Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill would be crushed by whichever Republican they are up against: Dan Coats leads them 46-32 and 48-32, John Hostettler is up 49-31 and 46-27 and even Marlin Stutzman has decisive leads, 41-33 and 40-30. If these numbers are confirmed by other pollsters, Indiana would no doubt move towards North Dakota.

Yet, it is in not certain that other pollsters will find similar results, as we already know that Rasmussen’s number are in flagrant contradiction with Research 2000 released last week. While R2000 did not test other Democrats but Bayh, it did find Coats with a 38/33 favorability rating; Rasmussen has it at 54/27. (I’ll pass on the other weird internal of Rasmussen’s poll: How can a first-term state Senator [Stutzman] have the same name recognition as a congressman?) Given that Research 2000 had found Bayh in a far stronger position when matched-up against Hostettler than Rasmussen had found last month, it’s probably safe to say their numbers would have found Ellsworth and Hill in a far more competitive position than this Rasmussen poll does.

Does this mean we should trash Rasmussen and cherry-pick Research 2000’s survey? Of course not! But we shouldn’t do the inverse either. At the moment, only two polling outlets have tested Indiana’s Senate race and both have released surveys with no glaring problem that paint a very different landscape. (Of course, this has happened in other states, most notably in Colorado where Rasmussen and R2000 have a very different take on Michael Bennet’s electability.) We will need more polling evidence to figure out what to make of all of this, and it’s too early in the cycle to decide what’s an outlier and what’s not.

Senate

Wisconsin: To my knowledge, Rasmussen and PPP are the only pollsters to have recently tested Tommy Thompson’s prospects and their results are so at odds that it is a shame no other firm is releasing a Wisconsin poll. After all, the main reason Rasmussen’s finding that Thompson would start as the front-runner has become conventional wisdom is that they are releasing a survey of the state every few weeks, and indeed a new Rasmussen poll conducted this week finds that Senator Russ Feingold trailing Thompson 48% to 43%. Feingold’s favorability rating is a mediocre 50/48 while Thompson’s is an impressive 63/34, which is the main difference with PPP since that pollster found the former Governor rather unpopular. In any case, Thompson is not running as of now and Feingold leads two low-profile Republicans - albeit by underwhelming margins: 47% t o 37% against Westlake, 47% to 39% against Terrence Wall.

North Carolina: No surprise in PPP’s monthly look at Senator Richard Burr (yet another race that is pretty much tested by only one firm). As always, he has a comfortable lead against his rivals; as always, he is very far from the 50% threshold and his approval rating is mediocre (35/35). Against Elaine Marshall, he leads 43% to 33%; against Cal Cunningham, 44% to 32%; against Kenneth Lewis, 44% to 31%. That said, those numbers are clear improvement over the December and January numbers, since Burr only led Marshall by 5% and 7%. Another bad sign for Democrats: For the first time in January, Marshall performed better than a generic Democrat, a potential sign that her campaign was catching on, but she has once again fallen behind. PPP also tested the Democratic primary, finding Elaine Marshall ahead but certainly not by enough to look like a safe bet: She has 29% versus 12% for Cal Cunningham, 5% for Kenneth Lewis and 2% for new candidate Marcus Williams, who I had not heard of before this poll.

Illinois: Internal polls are only good insofar as the other camp chooses not to release a contradictory survey so it looks like the two parties have fought themselves to a draw in Illinois. Two weeks after Mark Kirk publicized an internal poll finding him leading Alexi Giannoulias, it is now the Democrat’s turn to release a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner survey that has him up 49% to 45%. Combine that with PPP and Rasmussen’s contrasting results (the former has Giannoulias up 9%, the latter Kirk up 6%), and thi is one race whose polls are all over the map.

Iowa: Democrats have never thought of Iowa as a strong opportunity, but given the number of their incumbents who are struggling to lead unknown Republicans it must be jarring to see Senator Chuck Grassley with 56% to 35% lead in a new KCCI-TV poll. Combine that with Grassley’s strong approval rating, and it certainly doesn’t look like there is anything to see in this Senate race.

Oregon: Rasmussen has released the first poll I am aware of that tests Senator Ron Wyden, and Democrats can be relieved that there isn’t yet another bad surprise. Wyden’s approval rating stands at 55-36, making it hard to see how the GOP can find an opening to defeat him. However, even he fails to crack the 50% threshold when matched-up against his largely unknown opponent, Jim Huffman, though his 49% to 35% lead is nothing for Democrats to get panicked by. Also today, SUSA found Wyden’s approval rating to be a respectable 50/37, which is a better spread than Jeff Merkley’s and Barack Obama’s.

Washington: While two surveys find Wyden with a strong approval rating, Patty Murray might not be holding on as well - at least according to SUSA. The senator’s approval rating has collapsed to 43% to 50%, by far the lowest SUSA has ever found Murray in 5 years of polling. So is this poll an outlier or does it serve as more evidence that the GOP can put Washington in play if it recruits a strong candidate?

Governor

Vermont: While this open race has looked like one of Democrats’ top opportunities of the cycle, Republican Lieutenant Governor would more than hold his own against a series of Democratic candidates according to Research 2000: He trails Secretary of State Deb Markowitz within the margin of error (43-41), leads state Senator Doug Racine 43% to 38% (also barely within the MoE) and has decisive leads ranging from 10% to 18% against lower-profile Democrats (Peter Shumlin, Matt Dunne and Bartlett). A major caveat: No more than 11% of Republican respondents say they are undecided in any of these match-ups, between 25% and 36% of Democrats say the same. When we account for that, Markowitz does start as the front-runner and the other Democrats have a lot of room to grow.

Iowa: Governor Chet Culver trails his chief Republican challenger Terry Branstad 53% to 33% in the latest Des Moines Register poll and 54% to 38% in a new Research 2000 poll conducted for KCCI-TV. Six months ago, those numbers would have been jaw-dropping; now they’ve come to be expected. The former Governor’s entry in the race has made Culver look like one of the surest gubernatorial losers of the year. The one thing that could save him would be for Branstad to be upset in the GOP primary since Culver is far more competitive against 3 other Republicans (in the DMR poll, he trails Vander Plaats by 3% while leading state Rep. Roberts by 5%; in R2000, he leads Vander Plaats by 3% and crushes Roberts by a surprising 22%). While he reaches 48% in Research 2000’s most favorable match-up, he doesn’t break 41% against any rival in the DMR survey. Combined with his dismal approval rating (36-53), this makes it hard to see how he could survive.

California: For a year now, Rasmussen has found tougher results for California Democrats than PPIC and the Field Poll, and its latest round of gubernatorial numbers are no different since Meg Whitman forces a 43%-43% tie against probable Democratic nominee Jerry Brown. Brown does have a wide 46%-34% lead against Steve Poizner, however. What should be comforting to Democrats is that this comes from Whitman’s remarkable popularity (56-28) rather than because Jerry Brown is unpopular (his favorability rating is a decent 53-41) or because the electorate has soured on Democrats (Obama’s approval rating is a solid 57-42). As long as Democrats don’t fall asleep as they did in Massachusetts, their attacks combined with Poizner’s should at least be able to increase Whitman’s negatives.

Interestingly, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s approval rating is a disastrous 26% to 73% in this Rasmussen poll and 19/80 in a newly-released SUSA poll. Republicans sure are lucky he is term-limited.

Nevada: The latest numbers of this Governor’s race are more encouraging than usual for Democrat Rory Reid, as Brian Sandoval’s lead is not as overwhelming as usual (44% to 35%) but then again it is a survey conducted by a Democratic firm, Grove Insight. The poll also confirms  just how much Democrats stand to benefit if Governor Jim Gibbons somehow manages to survive the GOP primary; weighed down by a catastrophic approval rating (20-75!), Gibbons would be crushed by Reid 49% to 33%. The survey also finds that Rory’s father Harry Reid is in bad shape, however: His approval rating stands at a dismal 34-63.

Open seats: Field takes shape in Kennedy’s RI-01, Charlie Bass seeks to recapture NH-02

Published
by
Taniel
on February 19, 2010
in DE-AL, KS-03, NH-02 and RI-01
. 5 Comments

RI-01: Prominent candidates seek Kennedy’s seat

Patrick Kennedy’s retirement is sure not causing recruitment headaches for Democrats, as two major candidates have already entered the race: Providence Mayor David Cicilline, who was expected to run for Governor but chose not to do so, and state Democratic Party chairman William Lynch. A number of other Democrats could still enter the race, for instance Reps. Edwin Pacheco and Jon Brien (here’s a full rundown), but Cicilline and Lynch will surely not complain that Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts (another politician who unexpectedly passed on the Governor’s race) stuck to her plan of seeking re-election rather than running for Kennedy’s seat.

Cicilline has a progressive reputation; while I am not sure about Lynch’s ideological profile, his brother (Attorney General Patrick Lynch) is running for Governor as the liberal alternative to centrist Treasurer Frank Caprio so it would be somewhat confusing if William campaigned to Cicilline’s right. Note that Cicilline would be a more dominant candidate if all of Providence was contained in the district, but Rhode Island’s largest city is divided between RI-01 and RI-02; if he prevailed, Cicilline would be the third person elected to Congress as an openly gay politician.

Of course, winning the Democratic primary will not be enough as the GOP is hoping state Rep. John Loughlin can be competitive despite the district’s red lean. But the biggest wild card remains Buddy Cianci, the former Mayor of Providence who recently spent four years in federal prison and who as been mentioned as an independent candidate. While I was not sure whether to take the possibility seriously at first, Cianci himself said he is considering the race. While his conviction for racketeering would be too much for any politician to overcome, Cianci probably kept enough residue support from his 25 years as mayor to be a player in a 3-way race. While Cianci would probably draw more votes from Loughlin (he was a Republican in his first decade as Mayor, though he quit the party in 1982) but he could also put victory within his reach by lowering the share of the vote the GOP nominee needs.

NH-02: As expected, Charlie Bass is running

Charlie Bass’s decision to seek his former House seat won’t come as a surprise, but he had left enough bizarre hedges to his previous statements of interest that Democrats might have been still hoping he would end up not running. In 2006, Bass lost in an upset against Democrat Paul Hodes, who is now his party’s probable Senate nominee. While NH-02 is the more Democratic of New Hampshire’s two seats (it gave John Kerry a 5% victory and Barack Obama a 13% triumph), this open seat is very dangerous territory for Democrats since New Hampshire is the type of state in which independents’ partisan swings have big consequences (as we saw in 2006, as few other states were submerged by such a large blue wave).

As a 12-year congressman with a relatively moderate profile (he led a GOP rebellion against Tom DeLay in 2005, he is pro-choice, he chaired the Main Street Partnership), Bass should make the most of the year’s GOP bent; a UNH poll released last week found him handily leading Democratic candidates. Yet, his moderate credentials could also mean trouble in the GOP primary: The party’s 2008 nominee, radio talk show host Jennifer Horn, is also running and she is known as more of a conservative. Bass is certainly worried enough that he is moving to embrace Tea Partiers: “As far as the tea party movement is concerned I love em. God bless every single one of them,” he said last week. “Because you know what their agenda is exactly the same is mine. They want a new environment in Washington.”

The Bass-Horn primary will not be the district’s only ideologically loaded contest, as Democratic voters will have to choose between attorney Ann McLane Kuster and Katrina Swett, a former Lieberman ally who lost to Bass in 2002. Emily’s List has endorsed Kuster, which should guarantee she can be competitive against the well-funded Swett, who has money left over from her short-lived Senate campaign in 2008. I am somewhat surprised that more Democrats have not entered the race, since the party does have a deeper bench of elected officials than Kuster and Swett’s front-running status would indicate.

Democrats have yet to give up on KS-03; GOP might do so in DE-AL

With Kansas Democrats are suddenly enjoying an unexpected streak of good recruitment news in the two statewide races (more on that later), they aren’t quite ready to give up KS-03, a district that might be tough to hold but that did vote for Barack Obama in 2008. While Kansas City Mayor Joe Reardon’s exit was a big blow to the party’s prospect, Democrats are now hoping to recruit either state Senator Kelly Kultala or the retiring incumbent’s wife Stephene Moore. (While the Kansas City Star is reporting she is interested, that would be a surprise since it would mean the current congressman would be back on the campaign trail and still in D.C. rather than retired.) KS-03 remains one of the GOP’s top opportunities, but it is not quite as far gone as LA-03 and TN-06, which Democrats appear to have all but given up.

One district that could soon join the ranks of uncontested open seats is DE-AL, left open by GOP Rep. Mike Castle. Not that this district isn’t already considered likely to switch to Democrats, but it looks like the NRCC will also cross the district off its list now that businessman Anthony Wedo has dropped out. Why was the GOP so high on Wedo and not on businessman Fred Cullis, who is running? The reason seems to be all about money: Wedo would have self-funded his campaign while Cullis doesn’t seem likely to do so.

Scheduled for May 18th, PA-12’s special might have lowered stakes due to looming redistricting

Published
by
Taniel
on February 18, 2010
in PA-12
. 0 Comments

As expected, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell called the special election to fill Jack Murtha’s district on May 18th, a day you should mark on your calendars since it will also bring us the resolution to the hotly disputed Specter-Sestak, Mongiardo-Conway, Grayson-Paul and Kitzhaber-Bradbury races, as well as the first round of the Arkansas primary, which will shrink the number of Blanche Lincoln’s Republican challengers from 8 to 2. (It would also be the day Blanche Lincoln would have to fight off Bill Halter if the Lieutenant Governor ever took the plunge, though you should not hold your breath on that. Rumors were once again swirling last week that Halter was on the verge of jumping in the race, but the buzz has died down with no discernible movement.)

I explained last week the two main consequences of PA-12’s election being held on May 18th. First, it should prove a big help to Democrats since whoever emerges as their nominee will be able to rely on the turnout machines of the many candidates running in the party’s hotly contested senatorial and gubernatorial primaries; voters who come out to vote for Sestak or Onorato will also be likely to vote for the House race. The Republican nominee, meanwhile, will be all on his own since the GOP’s statewide primaries are uncompetitive. Second, it could create a confusing situation in which the candidates designated by party committees might have to fight simultaneous battles: one in the special election against the other party’s nominee for the right to represent the district until the end of 2010, another in the regularly scheduled primary for the right to be their party’s nominee again on the November ballot.

Yet, it looks like this latter scenario might not be as big of a factor as expected because PA-12 could emerge as a repeat of LA-3: Local politicians might be reluctant to give up their current office because they are fearful that the district will be eliminated in the next round of redistricting (Pennsylvania will probably lose a seat), which the Philadelphia Inquirer is today reporting is very much a possibility.

Even if a district resembling this PA-12 still exists come 2011, it is likely to look very different since the current district was apparently drawn specifically with Rep. John Murtha in mind. As such, we at the very least cannot know what the district’s exact boundaries will look like, nor even who will control the redistricting process.

When a district has to be eliminated, redistricting often targets the most junior lawmakers, which explains why whoever wins LA-3 is likely to be in big trouble come 2011-2012. Yet, Pennsylvania is likely to have many freshmen in the next Congress since the GOP is mounting strong challenges in no less than 7 districts (PA-3, PA-4, PA-7, PA-8, PA-10, PA-11, PA-17) while Democrats have a shot at capturing PA-06 and PA-15. This makes for a striking stat: 10 of the state’s 19 districts are hosting highly competitive races this year, which makes it highly likely PA-12’s new representative will not be the only junior congressman lacking the clout to ensure his or her district is protected. On the other hand, the possibility of many turnovers make it easy to imagine the congressional map looking very different from what it is today.

Adding to the uncertainty is that we do not know who will control the redistricting process. While the GOP is certain to have a voice in the process since the state Senate is firmly in their control, the Governor’s Mansion and the state House are up for grabs. While Democrats control both at the moment, Republicans have at least an even shot of holding all three levels of power come 2011 (Tom Corbett looks like the front-runner in the gubernatorial race and Democrats’ 104-98 House majority could easily be toppled if the November electorate favors the GOP). The map will look very differently if Republicans take control of redistricting or if Democrats can have a voice in the process, thus forcing a fairer map than the GOP gerrymander that was drawn in 2001.

Add it all together, and it hardly becomes surprising that candidates haven’t been rushing to hint at their interest for an election that is less than three months away.

In fact, the politician who was considered Murtha’s most likely successor in the first wave of stories following the congressman’s death just announced he would not run: state Senator John Wozniak’s decision is all the more surprising that he could have tried his luck without giving up his seat in case of a loss, since his term isn’t up until 2012. (Of course, he couldn’t go back to the state legislature if redistricting forced him out of Congress.) This is somewhat of a blow for Democrats, as the 14-year senator looked like the candidate with the most local experience.

Yet, another Democrat announced that she wanted the party’s nomination, and she has as credible a profile as you can think of: Barbara Hafer served as a commissioner in Allegheny County before winning numerous statewide elections, first as Auditor General and then as Treasurer. The twist: She won all of these campaigns as a Republican. She switched parties in 2002, after winning her second term as Treasurer and 12 years after being the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee against incumbent Bob Casey! Hafer considered challenging Senator Santorum in 2006, but she did not jump in so my understanding is that she has never ran for anything as a Democrat. Is that someone party officials are going to be comfortable choosing as their nominee?

The answer might very well depend on whether other candidates express interest. With Wozniak’s exit, other local politicians might take the possibility more seriously, for instance state Rep. Bryan Barbin, state Rep. Tad Harhai, state Rep. Rick Geist, former Lieutenant Governor Mark Singel and Westmoreland County Commissioner Tom Ceraso. The wild card: There is a lot of speculation that the deceased congressman’s widow Joyce Murtha might want to run for the seat. Despite how ridiculous such familial hand-overs tend to be, it would take a surprise if the party denied her the nod given the many precedents in which this has happened (Bono Mack in California, for instance).

While I do not know Joyce Murtha’s exact age, she married her husband back in 1955 so she has to be at least 73-75. For Democrats to nominate her would probably signal they are indeed expecting this district to be so disfigured come 2011 that it is not worth thinking about holding it long-term. One reason this is foolish: a Democratic incumbent could have a shot at surviving even if he is thrown into a incumbent-against-incumbent battle against a Republican in a district that would seem to favor the latter. Depending on how it is done, combining PA-12 and PA-9 could for instance result in a GOP-friendly but district that is nonetheless winnable for a Democrat in favorable circumstances, one of which could be the candidacy of someone who already represents the district.

Interestingly, there is far less at the moment about potential Republican candidates, which can either mean that the GOP thinks it does not have enough of a bench to find an upgrade over the current two candidates (Tim Burns and William Russell), that Republicans are waiting to see how the Democratic field shakes up or that the party doesn’t plan a full push to win the seat for the reasons I’ve already outlined.

Primary watch: Simcox drops out in Arizona, Michigan field takes shape, Colorado heats up

Published
by
Taniel
on February 17, 2010
in AZ-Sen, CO-Sen and MI-Gov
. 0 Comments

Arizona: Simcox drops out, endorses Hayworth

Of the many factors that make John McCain the favorite to survive Arizona’s Senate primary, one has been conservatives’ division between former Rep. J. D. Hayworth and Chris Simcox, head of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. While Simcox failed to pick-up much traction, whatever support he received was bound to come from voters who could be receptive to Hayworth, since McCain’s two challengers are both best-known for their staunch opposition to immigration. As such, Hayworth’s path to victory cleared up this week when Simcox dropped out of the race and endorsed him. Not only does this development open up a new group of voters to Hayworth, but it also makes the primary a straightforward opposition between McCain and Hayworth, which could help the latter highlight the battle’s ideological significance and as such gain traction among conservative voters.

It is essential for Hayworth to make the primary’s ideological stakes as high as possible since he cannot count on much support among the conservative movement’s elected establishment: McCain’s stature ensures that many of the hard-right’s leaders not defy him. We’ve long known Sarah Palin wil campaign for McCain, and during the past week two Republicans who have been endorsing conservatives left and right announced they would sit Arizona out: South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint and former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, a major player in NY-23’s special election.

But McCain’s national profile ensures that the Arizona primary gets covered at length by the local and national press, which should ensure Hayworth a lot of free media and should also help him be financially competitive. Also, the GOP establishment will stay by McCain’s side in a way they have not by Crist’s, but conservative media outlets will help Hayworth, as a new Politico story makes clear: commentators like Glenn Beck and Michael Savage want McCain gone. Come early August, I would not be surprised if Arizona’s primary grabs more attention than Florida’s in some quarters.

Michigan: A clearer picture of the Democratic primary

Six weeks after John Cherry’s unexpected withdrawal, the situation in Michigan’s gubernatorial race has gotten more straightforward as two Democrats took themselves out of the running: pizza heiress and UM regent Denise Ilitch, whom the party was courting because of her fortune, and former Treasurer Bob Bowman, who pulled the plug just a few days after hinting that he would run. That leaves Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero and state Rep. Alma Wheeler, who have already announced, and state Speaker Andy Dillon, who has formed an exploratory committee and who is believed by many to be a sure candidate. (Former Genesee County Treasurer Dan Kildee is also mentioned as a possible candidate, though he doesn’t appear to have taken steps towards a possible candidacy.)

This could make for a fiery primary with clear fault lines between the centrist Dillon and the populist Bernero. Dillon has a very rough relationship with unions, which are obviously a powerful force in Michigan primaries. Bernero, who is considered a labor ally, will campaign as an outsider ready to take on anyone associated with the state government or the federal government, which is arguably a message Democratic candidates need to be credible making this year. “The clueless leadership at the State Capitol doesn’t get it,” he said upon launching his campaign last week. “The so-called leaders in the Washington bubble don’t get it either. And the Wall Street wizards who helped put us here definitely don’t get it.” That Bernero did serve in the sate legislature this decade could in this context be turned against him.

Bernero’s main problem should be a lack of name recognition (Lansing is a small city relatively to Michigan’s size, with about 140,000 inhabitants out of the state’s 10 million), which could be tough to overcome given his late entry in the race if party leaders and donors rally behind Dillon; that said, the AFL-CIO and the UAW could do a lot to help him in this regard. Yet, while most of the recent attention has been turned to Bernero, Alma Wheeler could also stake a claim to being the lead alternative to Dillon; a state legislator with a liberal profile, she could win over union support (she was an ally of David Bonior, who’s close to labor) but she could also hope to position herself as an outsider from the state’s Democratic leadership since she has been a longtime critic of Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Colorado: Romanoff rolls out endorsements

Challengers to U.S. Senators rarely win low-profile primaries, as voters are usually than not reluctant to oust incumbents of their own parties. That made Andrew Romanoff’s low-key approach to challenging Michael Bennet somewhat confusing, but the former Speaker is finally generating more press and showing the signs that he’s putting together the type of campaign he’ll need. First, he was endorsed by a long slate of Democratic slate legislators, including House Majority Leader Paul Weissmann and Senate Majority Leader John Morse and two thirds of the state House’s Democratic delegation.

Second, Romanoff received the endorsement of the Teamsters and of the UFCW, two large unions who will help Romanoff in what could be a low-profile opponent. Their move is undoubtedly partly due to Bennet’s refusal to take a stand on EFCA; not only was he one of 11 wavering Democrats, but he also bashed the measure.

Yet, the recent days have reminded us of why incumbents are often favored: they can put themselves in the news far more easily. As such, Barack Obama will visit Denver on Bennet’s behalf tomorrow, and however much Romanoff criticizes as Washington’s involvement in Colorado politics, the president remains very popular among Democrats. Second, Bennet took the lead in writing a letter to Harry Reid yesterday asking him to revive the public option through the use of reconciliation; the letter, which has now been joined by 7 senators, has been largely covered by the local press, is the sort of story that could make the state’s Democratic voters warm to Bennet.

Indiana Democrats’ House record

Published
by
Taniel
on February 17, 2010
in IN-Sen
. 32 Comments

The Indiana Democratic Party is now tasked with placing a Senate candidate on the general election ballot. As we have discussed repeatedly over the past few days, the two men most likely to secure the appointment are Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill. A few other names are mentioned, including Rep. Joe Donnelly, but the odds that the party’s Senate candidate comes from the House only increased since former Governor Joe Kernan and Evansville Mayor Jon Weinsapfel took themselves out of the running.

As such, I put together a simple table looking at the House records of all the Democratic members of Indiana’s delegation so we get to know them better. (While it would be a huge surprise if Indiana’s executive party committee chose Progressive Caucus-member Joe Andre Carson and it is virtually impossible that they go for Rep. Pete Vislosky, since the longtime congressman is embroiled in investigations for corruption, there is no reason not to get as full a picture as possible. Also, I understand that this exercise is inherently flawed since it leaves out those Democrats who are not members of the House, and there are indeed a few names of non-congressmen that have been floated in recent days. But throwing them in this mix would come to comparing apples to oranges.)

While three of these five Democrats have served less than two terms, they have already taken plenty of interesting votes along the way. I analyze their voting records after this table:

Ellsworth
Hill
Donnelly
Carson
Visclosky
Dates in House
07-now
99-05
07-now
07-now
08-now
85-now
Age
51
56
54
35
60
Caucus
Blue Dog
Blue Dog
Blue Dog
CPC
-
Patriot Act (01)
-
Yes
-
-
No
Iraq resolution (02)
-
Yes
-
-
No
FMA (03)
would have supported
No
-
-
No
Unborn Victims of Violence Act (04)
-
Yes
-
-
No
Stem-cell Research (07)
No
Yes
No
-
Yes
Redeployment (07)
No
No
No
-
Yes
Free Trade with Peru (07)
Yes
Yes
No
-
No
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (07)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
FISA Act (08)
Yes
No
Yes
No
-
bailout 1 (08)
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
bailout 2 (08)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
stimulus (09)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
war supplemental (09)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
cash-for-clunkers (09)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
foreclosure bill (09)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
cap-and-trade (09)
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
GOP’s motion to recommit on health-care (09)
Yes
No
No
No
No
health-care reform (09)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stupak amendment (09)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
financial regulation reform (09)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No

With Ellsworth, Hill and Donnelly all prominent members of the Blue Dog Coalition, they have all repeatedly bucked their party over the years. For instance, they all voted in favor for the Stupak amendment, which severely restricted abortion funding, and they all opposed legislation providing for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq. Inversely, all three supported the health-care bill back in October; the conservative trio’s unlikely unanimous support was much commented at the time.

Ellsworth’s two most eye-popping votes occurred on legislation to expand stem-cell research in 2007 and on 2009’s stimulus bill; he joined just 15 and 10 Democrats to oppose these bills. While I was aware of Ellsworth’s stance on these two issues, a third vote surprised me: While he supported the health-care bill, Ellsworth did so only after backing the GOP’s motion to recommit, a measure that would have essentially killed the measure; he was the only Indiana Democrat to do so.

Other votes on which Ellsworth bucked the majority of his party: Supporting free trade with Peru, opposing the Waxman-Markey Act (which established a cap-and-trade system) and the foreclosure bill (which allowed judges to impose mortgage renegotiations). He also said he would have voted for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, though he joined the chamber after the 2004 and 2006 votes took place.

While Hill has taken numerous votes that place him to the chamber’s right, I am unable to identify a roll call that leaves him quite as far to the right as Ellsworth’s stem cell and stimulus votes, two bills Hill supported. He also voted for the Waxman-Markey Act and he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, a noteworthy move considering that three dozen conservative Democrats voted to ban gay marriage that same day. Another issue on which I was surprised by Hill’s vote is the bill amending FISA by allowing warantless wiretaps: While nearly half of the Democratic caucus supported the bill (including Ellsworth and Donnelly), Hill opposed it.

That leaves many votes on which Hill bucked his party, notably his opposition to redeploying troops out of Iraq, his support for Stupak and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. While Hill supported his party’s “Big 3″ in 2009 (stimulus, Waxman-Markey, health-care), he opposed two major Democratic initiatives: The foreclosure bill, which I mention above, and also the financial regulation bill,which both Ellsworth and Donnelly supported.

Donnelly, meanwhile, opposed stem-cell research, Waxman-Markey and redeployment out of Iraq; he also backed the FISA bill. However, he supported both the foreclosure bill and the financial regulation bill on top of the stimulus and health-care reform. The only vote that stands out here is his opposition to stem-cell research given how few Democrats voted that way; also noteworthy is that he was the only one of Indiana’s 3 Blue Dogs to oppose free trade with Peru, indicating he might have a more hostile stance towards free trade.

Conclusion

Democrats want to defend Indiana’s Senate seat, but they should also want to govern, by which I mean pass legislation - any legislation (2009 showed how difficult it is to do that, since even the student loan bill is blocked in the Senate). A look at his House record indicates that Brad Ellsworth could be even harder for the Democratic caucus to win over on important and not-so-important votes than Evan Bayh. Besides his opposition to the stimulus, foreclosure reform and stem-cell research, his vote for the health care-bill’s recommit motion also opens questions about his willingness to use procedural maneuvers rather than a more straightforward opposition to block a bill.

Baron Hill appears generally less willing to put himself in the front lines of conservative opposition and to buck his party if a significant share of his fellow Democrats are not doing so as well; his “no”s on the FMA and FISA and his “yes” on the 2009 Big 3 are particularly noteworthy. Yet, other votes (his opposition to foreclosure reform and the financial regulation bill) raise questions as to whether he tends to buck Democrats on lower-profile votes, which are as important as those that spark headlines on CNN. While Hill is much less likely to emerge as a Ben Nelson, his background as a former lobbyist raises a whole other series of questions about his ideological profile, not to mention his electability.

If it comes down to these two congressmen, do progressives have enough to gain from Hill to not choose based on that latter factor? In any case, Evansville Mayor Jon Weinsapfel’s decision to pull his name out was a blow to those looking for a less conservative alternative, and I don’t know enough about the other options the state party might consider. Based on this Vote Smart profile of state Senator Vi Simpson, she does look to be further to the left than Hill and Ellsworth. The party might also consider someone who hasn’t held elected office, but in that case it will obviously be much harder to know much about their political beliefs until they start voting in the Senate.

—

Corrections and update: I had Joe Donnelly and Andre Carson’s votes on the second version of the financial bailout wrong, as they both supported it whereas I had written that they both oppose it. Also, it is worth pointing out that Ellsworth supported the stimulus bill’s conference report (which only 7 Democrats opposed), though that doesn’t make him any less isolated for opposing the House version (only 11 Democrats voted no).

Finally, I apparently missed a major vote: Ellsworth and Donnelly were among just 17 Democrats to oppose the Matthew Shepard Act, the hate-crimes bill that passed with the support of 18 Republicans.

No Democrat qualified for Indiana’s Senate ballot by today’s deadline

Published
by
Taniel
on February 16, 2010
in IN-Sen
. 5 Comments

If I had told you yesterday morning that Indiana’s deadline for Senate candidates to deposit signatures would pass without a single Democrat qualifying for the ballot, you would surely have thought I was insane. But that is exactly what happened: Senator Evan Bayh chose not to file his candidacy, overnight sensation Tamyra d’Ippolito fell well short of the threshold she needed to meet, and there was no truth to the rumors that Rep. Baron Hill was attempting to put together a last-minute effort to collect 4,500 signatures and become the de facto Democratic nominee.

Of course, we now know the situation is not quite as dramatic for Democrats as the lack of any candidate would initially seem to entail: The vacancy allows the Democratic Party’s executive committee, made up of 32 state officials to place a candidate directly on the general election ballot. While someone cannot be officially designated until after the May 4th primary, since there will technically not be a vacancy on the general election ballot until that date, state Democrats have indicated they will have agreed on a nominee within the next six weeks.

Meanwhile, five Republicans appear to have qualified for the ballot: former Senator Dan Coats, state Senator Marlin Stutzman, former Rep. John Hostettler, plumbing company owner Richard Behney and Don Bates Jr.  This morning, some questions remained as to whether Coats would have the signatures ready, since he only decided to attempt a political comeback two weeks ago; but his camp insisted today he had filed more than the requisite number of signatures. We shall know in the days ahead if they have fallen short after all.

As such, the timing of Bayh’s retirement probably helped his party’s prospects after all, and as such it is understandable that the GOP is now crying foul. While state Democrats will be able to appoint the politician they feel has the best shot at defending the seat, the Republican field is undeniably weaker than it would have been had Bayh indicated he would retire two weeks early. Indeed, it’d be hard to envision the GOP failing to pick-up the seat if Mitch Daniels, Mike Pence and Todd Rokita were in the race, and one of them most probably would be if Bayh had given advance notice. But by the time they heard yesterday, it was too late and none of them even tried to put together the 4,500 signatures they would have needed to qualify by today’s deadline.

Coats, Stutzman and Hostettler are all credible candidates, and whoever wins the GOP primary will have a great shot at becoming a U.S. Senator. But a politician-turned-lobbyist who hasn’t faced voters since 1992, a first-term state Senator and a former congressman with strained ties to his party’s leadership and who lost his re-election race by 22% is probably not the field the GOP would dream of for an open Senate seat in a conservative-leaning state in a favorable environment.

Instead of having their chances in Indiana be akin to those in Delaware, the GOP will probably have to deal with it remaining competitive; of course, that alone is a huge improvement for Republicans over the situation as it stood yesterday morning.

Beyond the question of who will hold the seat, the financial stakes are huge, and this is where Bayh’s retirement could come to bite his party well beyond Indiana: However competitive this race risked becoming, the DSCC was not planning on spending a dime in Indiana since Bayh had a massive $13 million in the bank ready to be used over the next seven months. Now, not only will the Republican nominee for this seat no longer be at a financial disadvantage, thus improving his own prospects, but the DSCC will have to spend heavily on promoting whomoever the party committee decides to appoint, money that could have been used to bolster Paul Hodes and Robin Carnahan or to protect Patty Murray and Russ Feingold.

The Plum Line looks into what will become of Bayh’s $13 million. The short answer: He can make of it pretty much what he wants. He can transfer as much of it as he wants to the DNC, the DSCC or the Indiana Democratic Party, which could then use it to help the new Senate nominee; he can transfer it to his own political PAC; or he can leave it where it is in case he decides to run for president at some point in the future. (I don’t believe he would be able to use the money directly if he were to run for Governor in 2012, though he could wait until next year to transfer it to the state party so they use it to help him in the next cycle.) Given that Bayh stll appears to be nurturing some political ambitions, I find it unlikely the new Democratic Senate candidate will see most of this $13 million, though it is possible the senator will try to cultivate the party establishment’s good will by transferring at least some of it.

The looming question now is: Who will be the Democrat who benefits from the vacancy on the ballot? Since Bayh announced his retirement, the two names that are mentioned most often are Reps. Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth, both conservative Democrats who are prominent members of the Blue Dog Coalition.

There has been some speculation that Hill will not be the candidate because two other Democrats (John Bottorf and Lendall Terry) have also filed to run in red-leaning IN-09, which means the party would have to run one of them in the fall rather than get to appoint a new and more experienced contender.  But I don’t believe this would be an issue: The party committee will not officially designate a Senate nominee until after May 4th, at which point Hill will have won his House primary (even if he has already made it clear he intends to run for Senate, this shouldn’t pose much of a challenge for him). As such, for Hill to move from one race to the other would vacate the Democratic spot in IN-9, thus allowing party officials to choose a replacement, perhaps from the bench of state legislators.

The same situation exists in IN-1, where Democrat Woodrow Wilcox is running against Rep. Peter Vislosky and in IN-7, where Pierre Pullins is running against Rep. Andre Carson. On the other hand, Rep. Joe Donnelly and Rep. Brad Ellsworth are the only Democrats who have filed in IN-02 and IN-08 so their is no ambiguity as to whether a party committee would get to annoint a candidate.

While Hill is the Blue Dogs’ co-chair for policy, he would not be any further to the right than Bayh and might even be more of a reliable vote for the leadership than the incumbent. Brad Ellsworth, meanwhile, could easily become the chamber’s most conservative Democrat: He was one of only 11 Democrats to oppose the stimulus, he voted against funding stem-cell research, supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, was one of only 14 Democrats to oppose adding sexual orientation to federal hate-crime laws. While a truly progressive Democrat would probably have trouble winning statewide, though there is obviously something to be said for populists in Sherrod Brown’s mold, that does not mean the party needs a candidate this far outside of the party’s mainstream to defend this seat, and 2009 showed what they’d be setting themselves up for.

Evansville Mayor Jon Weinsapfel, the third most frequently mentioned potential contender, has the reputation of being less conservative than his predecessor Ellsworth, and as such could be an ideological compromise who can also run as an outsider since he hasn’t served in Congress. Yet, he appears to have taken himself out of consideration yesterday. Party officials are likely to try to appoint him to to the House ballot if they place Ellsworth on the Senate’s, though Weinsapfel is reportedly interested in the Governor’s race (the twist: so are Baron Hill and possibly Evan Bayh). Other names that are mentioned are state Senator Vi Simpson and businessman/architect Jim Schellinger, who lost 2004’s gubernatorial primary.

When Democrats are left hoping Maryland is safe

Published
by
Taniel
on February 16, 2010
in CA-Sen, IN-Sen, MD-Sen and WA-Sen
. 21 Comments

[Updated] The speed with which the rumor that Senator Barbara Mikulski would not seek re-election spread yesterday testifies to Democrats’ incredibly high level of anxiety.

A year ago this week, Judd Gregg had become the 5th Republican senator to announce his retirement, Democrats still thought Kathleen Sebelius would run for the open Senate seat, no one suspected Indiana would be competitive and congressional aides were talking about delaying legislation until the 112th Congress, in which they hoped for a larger majority. Today, it is no longer possible to deny the GOP has a clear shot at capturing the Senate: With DE, ND, AR, NV clearly favoring Republicans and CO, IL, PA and IN now no worse than a 50-50 shot, the NRSC needs to put two more seats in play, which they can do by attacking Barbara Boxer, working towards a recruitment coup in NY, WA, WI and hope for yet another stroke of good lucks from one of the states still deemed safe.

For one, the news that 86-year old Frank Lautenberg was taken to the hospital last night is a reminder that Democrats have a number of aging senators with health problems. Second, more retirements can no longer be ruled out. I have already written about Hawaii’s 85-year old Dan Inouye. While it would be a huge shock if Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden called it quits, but the two remaining senators are both old enough that nothing should be ruled out at this point: Pat Leahy is 70 and Barbara Mikulski is 73. Both represent blue states, but in the current environment the last thing Democrats want is to worry about Vermont and Maryland, though they were reduced to doing just that last night.

In normal circumstances, a conservative blog writing they had heard from “an impeccable source” that Mikulski will retire would not attract much attention. But in the wake of Evan Bayh’s stunning retirement, how can the prospect of an additional open seat not terrify Democrats? Both Mike Memoli and Chris Cillizza soon tweeted the rumor is true, but would their sources tell them if it was? Maryland’s filling deadline is not until July, and given Mikulski has been on my retirement watch since the cycle started, I wouldn’t advice the DSCC to sleep easy on this one.

Of course, Maryland is the least of Democratic worries right now considering how chaotic Indiana’s situation is as we wait for the noon deadline to submit signatures. At the moment, rumors are hard to decipher (in particular, is Rep. Baron Hill actually attempting to collect 4,500 signatures overnight?) while all eyes are on Tamyra d’Ippolito, owner of Bloomington’s Ragazzi Art Cafe, to see whether she will qualify.

That seemed all but impossible yesterday afternoon, as d’Ippolito said she was 1,000 signatures short, but conservatives have been organizing to ensure she is on the ballot, with websites like Red State and The Washington Examiner urging Hoosiers to download the qualification petition from the SoS’s website, sign it and turn it in at their county’s registrar. If enough conservatives do it, d’Ippolito will be Democratic nominee. (Note that d’Ippolito in fact needs to submit far more than 4,500 signatures: Not only does she need 500 per district, but a large share are typically deemed invalid by officials. Candidates often submit double the required amount, which means that even if meet the required amount we won’t know for many days whether she actually qualified.)

When we first met her yesterday, I assumed Democratic Party officials could convince her to withdraw if she did qualify. Yet, after the interviews she granted yesterday (for instance telling Politico that she is campaigning against a party establishment that practices “sexism with a big S” and her pledge to do her best to break the “old boys club in Indiana”) as well as her tweets, in which she calls calls for a “revolt against the political machine” and urges conservatives and independents to help her cross the finish line, I am starting to think that it is unlikely.

I will leave a full assessment of the Indiana situation to a later post: by this afternoon, we should have a better idea of not only d’Ippolito chances of qualifying but also will have been able to get a clearer sense of whether Dan Coats made it and whether there is any truth to the Baron Hill rumors. After all, yesterday also brought signs that Democrats cannot afford to look away from other states that not so long were presumed safe, namely California and Washington.

Where did the latest worrisome news originate from? Rasmussen, of course. The polling firm, always available to kick Democrats when they are down, released surveys from both Senate races yesterday, finding somewhat worrisome results for the incumbents. In California, Barbara Boxer’s has unimpressive leads: 45-41 against Tom Campbell, 46-42 against Carly Fiorina and 47-42 against Chuck DeVore. The senator has repeatedly polled under 50%, not to mention that her lead barely sits at the margin of error. Rasmussen or not (PPIC also found Boxer vulnerable this month, so Rasmussen is no longer isolated), it is becoming increasingly difficult to not consider California vulnerable.

In Washington, Patty Murray crushes three of the four challengers she is matched-up against: 50-38 against state Senator Don Benton, 49-34 against former football player Clint Didier, 48-33 against Chris Widener. While she does fail to top the 50% threshold against Didier and Widener, these numbers alone are little to be concerned about. But the trouble starts when she is matched-up against two-time gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi, who is ahead 48% to 46%. Rossi, who is probably the GOP’s best bet, also lead in a Republican poll released last week and he recently opened the door to running. Is it probable he runs? No, but then again the GOP has been on quite an unlikely streak of good luck in recent months.

Much of it due to Democrats’ stunning cowardice and their unfathomable determination to run for the hills (both policy-wise and electorally) at the faintest hint of trouble. The party has turned its back on its one chance this cycle to pass meaningful legislation it could campaign on; and Bayh is the second senator to retire as soon as he saw he might have to work for another term. Imagine if Susan Collins or Jon Cornyn had called it quits in 2008 because Tom Allen or Rick Noriega looked threatening, if Reps. Mark Kirk, Dave Reichert and Jim Gerlach had retired in 2008 to avoid a repeat of the brutal races they had just gone through. I am unable to explain Democrats’ unique ability to sabotage themselves in spells of panic they blow out of all proportions, but I do know that this painful train wreck will be remembered as one of the defining stories of Obama’s first two years in office.

Update: Tamyra d’Ippolito now says she has enough signatures, but: (1) does she mean she has about 6000, which is at least what she needs since a large share of signatures are typically invalidated and (2) since she can only have reached that number with the uncoordinated help of Red State-conservatives, how would she know? It will surely take a few more hours (probably days) for the situation to get clearer.