ArchivePage 3 of 184

Evan Bayh retires

Published
by
Taniel
on February 15, 2010
in IN-Sen
. 38 Comments

In a shocking development, Senator Evan Bayh just announced he would not seek re-election this fall.

His decision, which comes as yet another boost to the GOP’s no longer implausible quest for a Senate majority, upends the midterm landscape since no one was even discussing Indiana’s Senate race as a potentially competitive contest until early January. Yet, Indiana now becomes one of the cycle’s most competitive states, raising the total number of highly vulnerable Democratic seats to eight - just two sort of what Republicans need to pick-up to regain control of the chamber.

Bayh’s retirement also sets up a very confusing situation because it comes just 24 hours from the registration deadline for statewide candidates! While Indiana’s filing deadline is on Friday, Senate candidates need to deposit 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts by noon tomorrow to qualify for the fall ballot.

The twist: If no Democrat whatsoever has qualified, party officials can able appoint a replacement for that vacancy. This should be the party’s saving grace since it is virtually impossible for anyone to collect 4,500 signatures within the next 24 hours. The first question, then, is whether any Democrat who was already running can qualify for the ballot by tomorrow. It looks like only one person was planning a challenge to Bayh: Tamyra d’Ippolito, who entered the race as a progressive critic of the senator. Just three days ago, d’Ippolito said she was 1,000 signatures short. If she finds them by tomorrow, Democrats need to either stick with her or convince her to withdraw; if she fails, a party committee made of up 32 Democratic officials (ethnic caucus leaders, county leaders) will get to choose a replacement who could bypass a primary.

They would have until June 30th to do so, though they are obviously likely to designate a candidate as soon as possible. (Update: No official designation can occur before the May 4th primary!) Who might they turn to? Most probably to a member of the state delegation, with Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill reportedly already topping the list. (Indiana has three more Democratic congressmen: Joe Donnelly, Joe Carson and Pete Visclosky. All statewide officials but Bayh are Republicans, however.) Another options are former Rep. Tim Roehmer, who is now serving as Ambassador to India, former Rep. Jill Long Thompson and Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel.

In short, Democrats can probably find a credible candidates with a decent shot of winning the seat. But none of them has won a prior statewide election - let alone five; neither served two terms as Governor; none can claim a 61/33 statewide favorability rating. Arguably most importantly, none has $13 million in the bank: Bayh’s huge cash-on-hand haul, explained by the fact that he was planning a presidential run but decided in 2007 not to pull the trigger, was the biggest reason he looked positioned to survive 2010 - but as far as the DSCC is concerned that money has now evaporated. While recruiting either man should allow Democrats to mount a good defense, the race can’t be described as anything but a toss-up whereas Bayh remained clearly favored to win re-election.

Also, for either Ellsworth or Hill to switch to the Senate race would mean that Democrats would have to defend yet another vulnerable open seat in the House. (Note that the DCCC would be better off if IN-08 were to open up: While Republicans have recruited top candidates in IN-9, they had not prioritized challenging Ellsworth. Unless they can recruit a strong challenger within the next four days, this means they would be left with an underwhelming field if Ellsworth vacates the seat whereas Democratic officials would get to appoint a presumably strong/experienced opponent, which would give them more of an edge than you would expect from a district that gave Bush a 24% victory.)

There are two reasons for Democrats not to despair, however. First, the timing of Bayh’s retirement should prevent stronger Republicans than those already in the race. Governor Mitch Daniels, Rep. Mike Pence and Secretary of State Rokita: It’s very tough to see how they could decide to run for Senate and collect 4,500 signatures within less than 24 hours, nor is there any chance that there will be a GOP vacancy, which would allow party leaders to directly place one of them on the fall ballot. In that sense, Bayh’s odd timing somewhat helps Democrats: Had he announced his retirement a month ago, it’s fairly certain one of these three men would have ran.

Whether you think this matters depends on how strong a candidate you believe Dan Coats to be. While some will argue that Bayh’s retirement means that the former Senator is a formidable challenger, it’s not like Bayh has been a profile of political courage and I still think it is tough to argue Coats is the GOP’s best bet for the many reasons we have discussed over the past 10 days, most notably the mountain of hard-to-defend lobbying clients he has accumulated. In fact, this week-end we received clear evidence that this baggage has done more than generate talk among those who follow electoral news closely: Can we conceive of a rougher reintroduction to the public than the one The Indianapolis Star reserved for Coats? Remember that Coats has been out of office for 11 years and has not faced an election since 1992. I would be surprised if most Hoosiers have kept a clearly defined image of their former Senator and this sort of headline is perhaps the first time they will have heard of Coats in over a decade. Such treatment rarely befalls challengers, who are either already well-defined or else too obscure to warrant such front-page treatment, which afford them a chance to have their first introduction to voters be a positive one. But this Indy Star cover is just brutal for Coats.

As such, Indiana is not a second coming of North Dakota: Democrats should be able to nominate a credible candidate and the GOP has no John Hoeven to field. The Republican nominee will be one of the candidates already running (Coats, Marlin Stutzman, John Hostettler) and while any one of these politicians would have a very strong shot at winning the general election, none seems to me to be strong enough to start as the clear favorite. For instance, an Ellsworth-Hostettler match-up would be a rematch of their 2006 race in IN-08, which the Democrat won 61% to 39%; sure, that was in a very different environment, but IN-8 is more conservative than Indiana at large.

Second, Bayh is arguably the Senator Democrats should be the least unhappy about losing after Joe Lieberman. The Hoosier, who proclaimed himself the leader of the party’s centrist faction in 2009, has been one of the most hostile Democrats towards progressives, I would argue more aggressively so than fellow centrists like Mary Landrieu and less justifiably than someone like Ben Nelson. In his decade in the Senate, he also proved to have little ambition other than protect the status-quo. In early 2009, he made it clear he was more interested in forming a bipartisan coalition to crush liberal ambitions than in joining with fellow party members, most notably when he called on “like-minded Republicans” to join him. (In today’s statement, Bayh also stated that partisan gridlock made me realize “there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state and our nation than continued service in Congress.” Given that the most likely next step for Bayh is that he become a lobbyist or join corporate boards, I have trouble seeing what he means by “better ways to serve our nation;” I’d be happy to retract this comment if he proves me wrong, however.)

As such, losing Indiana is less of a blow to Democratic rule than losing North Dakota. If the DSCC manages to defend the seat, the new senator will also be a centrists but that doesn’t mean he will prioritize battling liberals over battling conservatives; note the difference between Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, for instance. For now, Ellsworth seems to me more likely than Hill to position himself at the caucus’s far-right, but we shall know more about where the race is heading in the coming days.

NY Dems plagued by scandals, candidates with baggage and special election losses

Published
by
Taniel
on February 14, 2010
in NY-Leg and NY-Sen
. 0 Comments

In few states did Republicans see their fortunes collapse as much as in New York in 2006 and in 2008. They lost the Governor’s Mansion, 6 House seats and the state Senate. But since 2009 started, Democrats have looked determined to give up their gains, never more so than during the summer’s ridiculous month-long saga that saw two Democrats throw the chamber into turmoil by shamelessly selling themselves to the highest bidder. The story got all the more depressing when we learned that the party had not only agreed to buy Pedro Espada’s vote by making him Majority Leader but also by putting his son on the state payroll for a job he never showed up for.

The past few months has continued to bring an avalanche of stories that raise serious questions as to why New York politics is so messed up. Part of the answer is that the state press has more resources to devote to local politics but that does not account for state Democrats’ remarkable ability to shoot themselves on the foot.

The state Senate’s dysfunctions

That said, Albany did manage to rid itself of one particularly egregious offender this week: state Senator Hirram Monserrate. One of the two Democrats who crossed over to Republicans in June, and the one who then most transparently put himself in the middle waiting for both parties to beg him back, Monserrate was convicted in October for assaulting his girlfriend, an assault that was partly captured on camera. Since he was only convicted on misdemeanor charges, Monserrate was not stripped of his position but after five long months of reports and deliberations, the state Senate’s Democratic majority decided to press forward with expelling Monserrate from the chamber.

On Tuesday, the full Senate voted to expel Monserrate on a 53-8 vote. This means that the chamber now has 31 Democrats and 30 Republicans, which means the former cannot pass legislation on a party-line vote (32 votes is needed) until Monserrate’s seat is filled in a March 16th special election.

Among those voting no were the three so-called amigos who (along with Monserrate) threatened to jolt to the GOP in late 2008 (Espada, Ruben Diaz and Carl Kruger). Diaz reacted with characteristically over-the-top fashion, though the prize for the week’s most disgraceful behavior goes to state Senator Kevin Parker, who reportedly charged at fellow Democrat Diane Sevino during an internal caucus meeting. And get this: Parker is also facing felony charges for assaulting a New York Post photographer back in May 2009! If convicted, he would automatically be expelled from the Senate, which might explain why he felt so strongly about how the Senate should treat Monserrate.

The New York state Senate’s dysfunctions are the underplayed story of the year. Besides all those I just mentioned, 2009 ended with the chamber’s longtime leader convicted on corruption charges: Republican Joe Bruno, who retired in 2008, was found guilty of having taken payments adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for political favors and could spend the rest of his life in jail if his appeal is unsuccessful.

Is trouble brewing for Democrats?

While Bruno’s behavior is by far the most important of the recent events, it’s hard to deny that it is Democrats who have been the object of most of the state scandals: Eliot Spitzer, of course, but also Alan Hevesi, Espada and Monserrate. Add to that David Paterson’s jaw-droppingly low approval rating (not to mention the unsubstantiated but nonetheless picked-up-by-the-press rumors that The New York Times is about to reveal a scandal about the governor), and New York has become a landmine for Democrats.

This became apparent in November, when Republicans followed up four years of dismal results by pulling off two entirely unexpected upsets in the NYC suburbs. In Westchester, county executive Andrew Spano was defeated by Rob Astorino; in Nassau County, the GOP captured the county legislature and ousted county executive Thomas Suozzi, who was just 9 months before mentioned as a potential successor to Hillary Clinton. And if that was not enough of a warning sign to Democrats that state voters have turning against them, at least insofar as local government is concerned, we got two more proof this past Tuesday when Republicans picked-up two Assembly seats in special elections.

Once again, both Democratic losses came in the NYC suburbs, suggesting that these Republican-turned-Democratic areas might be drifting back to the conservative column. The first district is in Long Island, the second in Westchester, which means Democrats have now suffered two big defeats in four months in that key county. (More at Ballot Box.) This could give the GOP a strong shot at recapturing a majority in the state Senate come November. In particular, Westchester’s Andrea Stewart-Cousins could be in danger if voters in November want to send the same message as they did in November and then again this week, but Democrats hold a number of vulnerable seats they only recently picked-up in the suburbs.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is a rare Democrat who seems unaffected by the series of scandals that have put the state party in such a tough spot. If he is at the top of the ticket, the fall could have a very different configuration for his party, which could not only affect their majority in the state Senate and races even further down the ballot but also help the state’s 4-6 vulnerable Democratic congressmen.

Harold Ford’s baggage, continued

But nothing exemplifies Democrats’ ability to shoot themselves in the foot in New York as much as the mess Harold Ford’s campaign has been since the day he launch his media blitz with that NYT interview. After we marveled at the fact that the former Tennessee congressman had registered to vote in New York just two months prior and at his determination to present himself as the candidate of Manhattan’s financial elite, we started wondering how far Ford expected to get among voters who vote in New York’s Democratic primary by bashing the health-care bill and criticizing Barack Obama.

The past few days brought new questions still. First, why does Ford think this is the moment to travel to Bermuda to give a speech at a luxury hotel, a move that makes John Kerry’s campaign from the summer of 2004 look good by comparison? More importantly, Ford appears to never have filed a state tax return in New York, despite serving as vice chairman of Merrill Lynch since 2007. While Ford said that he worked out of Merrill Lynch’s Nashville offices, since launching his campaign he repeatedly justified his interest in challenging Gillibrand by claiming he has essentially moved to New York for years, and he did acquire a residence in the city; but the draw of Tennessee’s lack of an income tax might explain why his employment at Merrill Lynch was presented as a long-distance arrangement. That won’t be an easy case to make on the campaign trail, as Gawker’s John Cook summarized well:

If Ford did enough business in New York to keep an office there, it’s reasonable to presume that he earned a good deal of money in New York. Now, we’re sure that there are all sorts of accountants’ arguments and narrow dodges at Ford’s disposal to claim that he didn’t owe New York income tax until he moved here last year: He could have been paid out of Merrill Lynch’s Nashville office, for instance, and he could have received the majority of his income in a bonus that he could claim he earned in Tennessee, not New York. But while those sorts of arguments may be useful to someone trying to get as close as possible to living in New York without suffering the tax consequences of doing so, they’re not as effective when you’re loudly thinking about running for Senate in New York by claiming you’ve lived there for three years and pay taxes there.

Another issue Ford will sooner or later have to confront: did he receive a bonus from Merrill Lynch. In a context in which banking bonuses have become the most recognizable and unpopular symbol of the industry’s deranged behavior, Kirsten Gillibrand has seized on this question, which is now starting to feature prominently in press interviews. This morning on Meet the Press, for instance, Ford was asked “you won’t say how big your bonus was with Merrill?” and he decided to launch into a defense of the banking industry in response. “The system ought to be reformed, but putting a tax on banks at a time in which the recovery is as timid and as fragile as it is,” he explained.

Note that there is now a large faction of New York’s Democratic Party that has chosen to vocally defend the banking industry from any sort of criticism. But it is one thing for Rep. Mike McMahon to forget that some of the final nails in Chris Dodd’s coffin were accusations that he opened the door to the AIG bonuses, it is quite another for someone who might have personally benefited from such a similar bonus to expect that answer to carry him all the through the fall.

Weekly update: NM’s filing deadline passes, state Senator takes on Murray, Krolicki won’t run

Published
by
Taniel
on February 13, 2010
in CT-Gov, NM-Gov, NV-Sen and WA-Sen
. 2 Comments

The past week was dominated by an avalanche of open seats, most of which concern congressmen who were not expected to retire. Diane Watson, Patrick Kennedy, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Vern Ehlers announced they would not seek re-election and Marco Diaz-Balart made a move for his brother’s district that opened up his own seat. Meanwhile, Jack Murtha’s death will lead to a special election that will probably be held in early May.

A fifth state saw its filing deadline pass this week: New Mexico. The main attraction is the open Governor’s race, in which there were no last minute surprises. On the Democratic side, actor Val Kilmer and state Senate Majority Michael Sanchez let the filing deadline pass without making a move, leaving Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish in control. On the Republican side, no one joined state Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones, Dona Ana County DA Susana Martinez and Pete Domenici Jr. Over on House races, all three Democratic representatives are seeking re-election, with Rep. Harry Teague (NM-02) the most endangered since Steve Pearce is seeking his old seat back. In NM-01, Rep. Martin Heinrich’s probable opponent is Jon Barela, a former vice chairman of the state GOP who will need the environment to be truly dismal for Democrats to pull off an upset.

In Washington, Republicans have yet to convince Rob McKenna, Rob Reichert or Dino Rossi to challenge Senator Patty Murray but they did get a credible candidate in the race this week: Don Benton, who has served in the state Senate since 1996. While Benton is only 52, he seems to have had a higher profile ten years ago: In 1998, he mounted a challenge to Rep. Brian Baird (who is retiring this year) and in 2000 he became chairman of the state Republican Party, though a rocky tenure led to his ouster within 8 months; also, he seems determined to emphasize conservative themes and embrace the Tea Party label, which should prove risky in a state that has trended increasingly Democratic over the entire decade (i.e. not just in 2008).

Yet, Benton’s entry is significant as it once again demonstrates the GOP’s rising confidence. In normal circumstances, Murray would likely crush Benton but if the electorate grows even more hostile to Democrats than it has for now, even a relatively low-profile state legislator can upset a seemingly solid incumbent. (While it seems hard to compare Elizabeth Dole and Patty Murray, Dole would have far tougher for Hagan to beat in most other cycles.) There is for now little reason for the DSCC to be alarmed, but the NRSC does have an eye on this state and Benton could still make life difficult for the incumbent.

In Nevada, we are getting a clearer picture of what the GOP’s Senate primary will look like. After seeing his prospects crushed by an indictment, Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki found himself back in contention when the charges were dropped; but he announced this week he would not jump in. On the one hand, the months of bad publicity due to his indictement surely damaged his standing (Rasmussen recently found him running weakest); on the other, he was a rare Republican with an imposing profile. The GOP field now contains at least 5 candidates with a credible shot at the nomination (Lowden, Tarkanian, Amodei, Angle, Chachas), which makes the primary wildly unpredictable; that’s always a dangerous place for a party to be, as we saw recently in Illinois’s gubernatorial primary.

A twist: A “Tea Party” group has qualified as a official party in Nevada, which will allow them to field a candidate on the November ballot; that candidate will likely be a man named Jon Ashjian. While Democrats will hope this takes some conservative votes away from the GOP, there is no evidence this will have any importance on the general election, but it still merits mentioning.

In Connecticut, week after week the gubernatorial field looks to be in as much flux. On the Republican side, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton had joined the race last week and this week, it was Newington Mayor Jeffrey Wright’s turn. I see that I had missed Chester First Selectman Tom Marsh’s entry in the race, so we now have at least five Republicans in the race. On the Democratic side, former Speaker James Amann’s decision to drop out appeared to open the way to a clearer opposition between Dan Malloy and Ned Lamont, but then we learned that Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura is preparing to jump in. The state’s fifth biggest city, Waterbury has about 110,000 inhabitants; Jarjura could certainly be a major player in the primary.

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 Debra Watson (D, CA-33)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25): will run for FL-21, leave FL-25 open
Vern Ehlers (R, MI-02)
Patrick Kennedy (D, RI-01)
Jack Murtha (D, PA-12)
Will not retire No one
Added to retirement watch No one

Next, the recruitment page:

NV-Sen, GOP Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki will not run
retired Navy commander Kirk Lippold will run
NY-Sen, GOP/indie Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman added
OR-Sen, GOP Kareem Hamdy is running
SC-Sen, Dem attorney Chad McGowan dropped out
WA-Sen, GOP state Sen. Don Benton announced run
Chris Widener is running
chiropractor Sean Salazar is running
enery trader Craig Williams is running
physician Arthur Coday Jr. is running
Rod Rieger is running

Third, updates to gubernatorial races:

CT-Gov, Dem former Speaker Jim Amann dropped out
Waterbury Mayor Michael J. Jarjura announced run
CT-Gov, GOP Chester First Selectman Tom Marsh is running
Newington Mayor Jeffrey Wright announced run
MI-Gov, Dem Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero is running
former Treasurer Bob Bowman is running
UM regent Denise Ilitch will not run
NM-Gov, Dem state Senator Michael S. Sanchez will not run
PA-Gov, Dem state Senator Anthony Williams added

Poll watch: Bayh crushes Coats, Pomeroy & Shea-Porter struggle, GOP solid in PA

Published
by
Taniel
on February 12, 2010
in CO-Gov, IL-Gov, IN-Sen, LA-Sen, MI-Gov, MO-Sen, ND-AL, ND-Sen, NH-01, NH-02, NH-Sen, OH-Gov, PA-Gov, PA-Sen, TX-Gov and VA-05
. 17 Comments

Less than three weeks from Texas’s primaries

Earlier this week, PPP shook up our expectations as Kay Bailey Hutchison suddenly looked in danger of being knocked out of the runoff by libertarian Debra Medina. Since then, three new Texas surveys have been released, all with a differing take on what is likely to happen on March 2nd. Research 2000 finds a likely runoff between Rick Perry and Hutchison, who come in at 42% and 30% with Medina at a still-impressive 17%. The University of Texas has Rick Perry closer to a first round victory (he is at 45%, with 16% still undecided) and a stunningly close race for second, with Hutchison at 21% and Medina at 19%. Finally, a poll conducted by two partisan firms shows Hutchison in front of Medina (27% to 19%) but Perry so close to 50% that it might not matter.

But all of these surveys were conducted before Medina attracted fire not only from the mainstream press but also conservatives like Glenn Beck for expressing openness to the possibility that the government was involved in bringing down of the World Trace Center. “I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard,” she said. “There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that. I’m certainly not into mind control or thought policing people.” This has gained a lot of coverage and should negatively affect her numbers. The question is: Does it help Perry cross 50% on March 2nd?

Two of these surveys also tested the general election, both finding Houston Mayor Bill White well within striking distance. In R2000, he trails Perry only 46% to 42%; he’s down 47-41 against Hutchison and 44-43 against Medina. The margins are larger according to the University of Texas, but both Perry and Hutchison are well under 50% (they lead 44-35 and 43-34, respectively); Medina and White are tied at 36%.

Bayh might not be that vulnerable after all

The week’s other very interesting poll comes from Indiana, where Research 2000 is the first pollster to test former Senator Dan Coats since he announced he was planning a political comeback two weeks ago. And the result is far less favorable than what the GOP was hoping to see: Coats’s favorability rating is only 38-34, weaker than former Rep. John Hosettler’s, which stands at 40-33. Evan Bayh, whose favorability rating stands at a solid 61-33, demolishes Coats 55% to 35%; against Hostettler, he is up by a narrower yet solid 53% to 37%.

A major reason Bayh has been painted as vulnerable in recent week is a Rasmussen survey showing him struggling against Mike Pence and against Hostettler; R2000 paints a very different situation, so it will certainly be interesting to see where other polls pit the race. Yet, Coats sure doesn’t look like a game-changer - and perhaps we should not be surprised at that: remember that he has not had his name on a ballot since 1992. The past 10 days have marked the first time most Indiana residents have heard about him in over a decade, and the coverage has been remarkably negative, which explains the rough welcome Coats has gotten as he has started to hit the trail.

House

VA-05: Given the number of House surveys that have found Democratic incumbents sinking (SUSA in AR-02, IN-09 and OH-01, most notably), we could have expected Rep. Tom Perriello to be in far worse shape than PPP finds him in. One of the NRCC’s top targets, Perriello is tied against state Senator Robert Hurt, 44% to 44%; the Democrat manages leads ranging from 4% to 10% against other GOP candidates. (While they might have a lower-profile, don’t forget how often we have seen unknown Republicans grab leads against incumbent Democrats lately.) Making matters more complicated is the prospect that former Rep. Virgil Goode, whom Perriello defeated in 2008, run as an independent: Boosted by a 57-28 favorability rating, Goode ties Perriello at 41%, with Hurt at 12%.

ND-AL: Tom Pomeroy might be keeping his head above water, but Earl Pomeroy is more vulnerable than is commonly believed, at least according to Rasmussen’s new poll. Like many of his colleagues, the 17-year incumbent finds himself trailing against Republicans he probably would have crushed in most cycles: against state Rep. Rick Berg, he is down 46% to 40%. While he maintains a 45-44 edge over Kevin Cramer, he has defeated him twice before, making this result underwhelming. Pomeroy does have a 47-38 edge over low-profile Paul Schaffner, but even then he remains under the 50% threshold. Put ND-AL in the column of truly endangered districts few expected would be vulnerable as 2009 started.

NH-01 and NH-02: In addition to releasing a Senate race (see below), UNH conducted a poll of both of New Hampshire’s districts, finding a very tough landscape for Democrats. (An important caveat: the margin of error is a large 6.2%.) In NH-01, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter is in a truly terrible position, failing to garner more than 33% whoever she faces and leading 43% to 33% against former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta. In NH-02, left open by Democrat Paul Hodes, former GOP Rep. Charlie Bass would be favored to regain his old seat if he runs: He leads Ann McLane Kuster 39% to 28% and Katrina Swett 37% to 30%. Sure, Bass’s name recognition is higher but New Hampshire does seem fertile ground for Republicans this year.

Senate

New Hampshire: Two different polls found remarkably similar results and confirmed what surveys have found over and over again since last fall, namely that Attorney General Kelly Ayotte has built a comfortable but stable lead over Rep. Paul Hodes. UNH has her ahead 41% to 33% while Rasmussen pits it at 46% to 39%. However, other Republicans are weaker: Hodes leads decisively against Ovide Lamontagne (38-29 in UNH, 44-38 in Rasmussen), while it is closer against William Binnie (he’s up 34-30 in UNH, trails 42-41 in Rasmussen). A recent Research 2000 poll showed that Ayotte is far from certain of winning the primary, but the fact that Hodes is trailing against a relatively unknown businessman is a bad sign for voters’ willingness to vote Democratic.

Missouri: Rasmussen might be the only pollster to find Robin Carnahan trailing outside of the margin of error, but today marked the second poll they have released with such a finding: Weighed down by Barack Obama’s 40-59 approval rating, Carnahan trails Rep. Roy Blunt 49% to 42%. Though Carnahan would likely have an edge in normal circumstances, Missouri is conservative enough that it should not surprise us to see Blunt carried by the GOP currents.

North Dakota: No miracle for Democrats in North Dakota, where Governor John Hoeven looks even more formidable than conventional wisdom dictates according to Rasmussen’s latest poll. Not only does he enjoy an eye-popping 85% approval rating, but he crushes state Senator Potter and former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp 71-17 and 65-29, respectively. This has got to be all the more frustrating for Democrats that Heitkamp’s has a respectable favorability rating (54-36).

Louisiana: Here’s one race Democrats will not be contesting come November. It’s been obvious for weeks that Rep. Charlie Melancon’s hopes of pulling off an upset have been fading, but the Rasmussen survey with Senator David Vitter leading 57% to 33% is brutal for Democrats. With a 67% to 26% favorability rating, Vitter’s standing bears no trace of the D.C. Madam scandal.

Pennsylvania: With Senate Democrats in bad shape in Delaware, Arkansas or Nevada, they cannot afford to lose but Rasmussen finds Pat Toomey leading Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak by decisive margins: 47-38 and 43-35, respectively. I’ve said it before, and I’ve said it again. I am not sure how a five-term senator can survive trailing by 9% and struggling to break 40%, while Pennsylvanians should be more open to voting for the lesser-known Sestak; that also explains why Toomey is further from 50% in the latter match-up. Yet, Specter manages to keep a comfortable lead in the primary: 51% to 36%. That might have been an encouraging back in the fall, but three months from Election Day, the time has come for Sestak to gain traction.

Governor

Colorado: Rasmussen confirms that replacing Governor Bill Ritter with Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has improved Democratic prospects. While Ritter was weighed by a negative approval rating, Hickenlooper is popular (his favorability rating is 56-36); while Ritter trailed Scott McInnis in most late 2009 surveys, Hickenlooper leads 49% to 45%. That might not be anything for Democrats to celebrate, but it does leave them in a better position not just to defend the Governor’s Mansion but perhaps also the Senate seat.

Ohio: The good news for Ted Strickland is that his numbers are no longer in free fall. The bad news is that he stopped the bleeding too late not to look highly endangered. Weighed down by a negative approval rating (46-53) and facing a challenger that appears popular (John Kasich’s favorability rating is 47-30), Strickland trails 47% to 41% according to Rasmussen; that’s slightly less than in January, but it leaves him in a rough spot. Might Ohio Democrats have something to learn something from Colorado?

Illinois: The first poll taken since the Illinois primary found Governor Pat Quinn in a stronger position than he looked to be a few weeks ago, perhaps due to a bounce resulting from the coverage of his victory. Against state Senator Bill Brady, Quinn leads 42% to 31%, with 4% going to Green Party nominee Rich Whitney; against state Senator Kirk Dillard, who trails the GOP primary by 400 votes and has not conceded, Quinn is up 41% to 35%. An important caveat: The poll was conducted by Victory Research, a group I had never heard before.

Pennsylvania: Now that he has gotten rid of Jim Gerlach’s primary threat, Attorney General Tom Corbett looks unstoppable in Rasmussen’s latest poll: He crushes Jack Wagner 49-29, Joe Hoeffel 51-29 and Dan Onorato 52-26. While this is nothing we haven’t seen before, and even if we account for Rasmussen representing the GOP-friendly end of the polling spectrum, the margins by which Corbett is demolishing his opponents bode ill for other Pennsylvania Democrats.

Michigan: Rasmussen’s poll of this wide open race confirms the GOP can be optimistic since Republican candidates lead 11 of 12 trial heats. Only Speaker Andy Dillon  manages a 36-35 edge over Attorney General Mike Cox, though he trails 40-32 against Sheriff Mike Bouchard and 41-34 against Rep. Pete Hoekstra. The other important match-ups concern Lansing Mayor Van Bernero, who trails by 6%, 9% and 13%, respectively. This poll is somewhat surprising, since EPIC-MRA has repeatedly shown Cox to be the strongest Republican in the general election; it is also striking that Democrats looked to be in worse shape when Lieutenant Governor John Cherry was in the race. Cherry never looked to be within striking distance, whereas Bernero and Dillon do.

Bizarre Diaz-Balart switcheroo and Kennedy surprise opens three more House seats

Published
by
Taniel
on February 12, 2010
in FL-21, FL-25 and RI-01
. 9 Comments

Past January 31st 2008, only 5 House districts opened up the rest of the year. In 2010, that number was reached within the first twelve days of February. After MI-03 and CA-33 earlier this week, three new open seats popped up yesterday alone - all of which were big surprises: FL-21, FL-25 and RI-01.

The first two are held by Republicans and the third by Democrats, which increases the number of open seats the parties have to defend to 19 and 15, respectively. That discrepancy is usually nuanced by the important caveat that most of the GOP’s open seats will not be competitive while most of Democrats’ are vulnerable, but yesterday’s news is a rare piece of sunshine for the DCCC: Both FL-21 and FL-25 could fall in Democratic hands, while RI-01 is unlikely to host a competitive race.

The twist: There are three open seats, but only two retirements! What gives?

The answer lies in a head-scratching and perhaps unprecedented move by the Diaz-Balart brothers, who represent two districts in Southern Florida. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a 55-year old who has represented Northern Miami (FL-21) since 1993, announced he would retire from politics. Within hours, his 48-year old brother Mario stated that he would give up his own district, which covers western Miami-Dade County (FL-25) and which he has represented since 2003, to run for his brother’s!

The result of this bizarre switcheroo: Neither FL-21 nor FL-25 will have incumbents on the ballot in November, though FL-21’s voters will have a Republican nominee who already serves in Congress and who shares the incumbent’s last name.

Mario’s rationale appears to be that his brother’s district is more strongly Republican, thus presumably helping him have a longer career in the House. In 2008, Democrats tried to oust both of them but they fell well short in FL-21 (Lincoln prevailed by double-digits) while coming closer in FL-25 (Mario won 53% to 47%).

But I am struggling to fully make sense of this motivation. For one, FL-21 is only marginally more Republican. In 2004, it voted for Bush by 12% rather than 10%; in 2008, it voted for McCain by 2% rather than 1%. Is that worth pulling such a shady move over? Second, and this to me makes the Diaz Balarts’ move even more puzzling, Florida’s congressional map could be significantly altered in two years: Given how heavily gerrymandered the state is, Democrats are likely to force dramatic changes if they can control the Governor’s Mansion. Even if the GOP holds all levels of powers, they are likely to impose substantial redrawing since the state’s political dynamics have changed quite a bit since 2001.

Before parties get to 2011-2012, however, they have 2010 to take care of, and the Diaz-Balarts handed Democrats two unexpected opportunities. Yes, both districts lean to the right, as is testified by Bush’s double-digits victories in 2000 and 2004 and John McCain’s victories. That makes the GOP favored to keep them given how hostile the electorate is towards Democrats this cycle. But there are numerous reasons for the NRCC to be unhappy.

The first: Both districts not only gave Barack Obama 49% of the vote (all the more respectable a showing that Florida was more immune to 2008’s blue wave than most of the country), but they are both trending blue. While Florida switched by 5% between 2000 and 2004, John Kerry closed the gap by 2% in FL-21 and lost only 2% in FL-25. More significant is a comparison between 2000 and 2008. While Barack Obama improved Al Gore’s statewide performance by just 2%, he did so by 14% in FL-21 and 9% in FL-25. In short: Obama’s 49% is not just due to an atypically favorable environment.

Second, red wave or not FL-25 is sure to be competitive. Democrats have a bench of contenders to choose from: The two names that are already mentioned are 2008 nominee Joe Garcia, who now works in the Obama administration, and Miami-Dade Commission Katy Sorenson. The GOP has a number of state legislators to choose from, with state Senate Majority Leader Alex Diaz and state Rep. David Rivera already positioning themselves for the run.

Third, while FL-21 is gaining less buzz because one Diaz-Balart will be running instead of another, there is an obvious question as to how voters will feel about the brothers’ seat switching. The two districts might be geographically close, but that doesn’t mean they should be treated as interchangeable; it doesn’t mean that voters have the same interests or problems! They could have a shot at picking-up the district if Democrats manage to recruit a strong candidate and to blast Mario for his entitlement.

Take a look at the statement Mario put out in announcing his move from FL-25 to FL-21:

This is a natural move for me; in my years of public service at both the federal and state levels, I have had the privilege of representing most of the communities that make up Congressional District 21, including Hialeah, Westchester, Doral, Kendall, Miami Lakes, Hialeah Gardens, Medley and Palmetto Bay. I have done so with devotion and dedication, effectively and with proven results…

My decision will open a path for a number of young leaders with proven track records and distinguished service within District 25 to move up and continue serving our community.

Besides the hypocrisy of the second paragraph (is he seriously trying to justify his move by explaining it would open the door to a new generation of leaders in FL-25 when he is effectively blocking the path to anyone not named Diaz-Balart over in FL-21?), the first paragraph is downright bizarre: Mario is arguing that he should be elected to a new district because he’s already represented it. Sure, he is referring to posts he held prior to joining the House, but such phrases should help Democrats raise doubts in voters’ minds as to whether Mario can be trusted to think of himself as their representative.

All of this said, candidates who try to succeed family members are more often than not successful, no matter how much they are criticized. Think of Duncan Hunter’s easy CA-50 victory after… Duncan Hunter’s retirement; or of the many widows who are elected in special elections, often with no obvious qualifications; or of the many dynasties, starting with the Kennedys. While Caroline Kennedy or Chris Kennedy’s bids to join the Senate proved unsuccessful, I remain stunned that they were both treated so seriously.

It is thus probable that the GOP has the clear upper-hand in defending FL-21 and that Democrats are likely to devote most of their attention to FL-25.

One key question: Democrats have been saying for more than a decade that Southern Florida’s Cuban-American electorate will finally start deserting Republicans, but so far they have largely stuck to the GOP, which helped all three incumbents Democrats were targeting to survive more easily than expected (the two Diaz-Balarts and Ros-Lehtinen). Yet, Barack Obama’s over-performance relatively to his statewide showing suggests that Democrats might be able to score a breakthrough. Might open seats help? The NRCC’s hope will surely be that Marco Rubio’s potential presence at the top of the ticket might increase turnout among Cuban-American Republicans and keep some district voters from switching to the Democratic Party.

A Kennedy-less Congress?

For the first time since John F. Kennedy joined the House in 1946, Congress will not have a Kennedy in its midst come 2011. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, son of Teddy, just announced he would not seek re-election this fall. This comes as a big surprise, since he is only 42, though it has to be said that he has been in the House since 1994. He has also struggled with personal problems, which made him repeatedly enter in a rehabilitation facility for addiction and depression problems, most recently this summer. His father’s death might also have pushed him towards this decision.

His decision opens up Rhode Island’s first district, the more Democratic of the state’s two districts, which is saying a lot considering Rhode Island is one of the bluest states in the country. RI-01 gave more than 60% to Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama, and as such it will be tough for Republicans to contest it. As you would expect, Democrats have a strong bench, topped by two politicians who were expected to run for Governor but unexpectedly chose not to do so: Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts and Providence Mayor David Cicilline.

That said, the GOP will argue that RI-01 is no more Democratic than Massachusetts and as such could be vulnerable if the environment remains as favorable for the party as it was last month. In fact, Republicans already have a credible candidate in the race: state Rep. John Loughlin has been touted by the NRCC for many months already and his presence in the race should force Democrats to pay attention. That said, it is one thing for the GOP to pour resources in Massachusetts when there are no other contests to take care of, it is another to prioritize RI-01 over the dozens of more obviously vulnerable seats that will be in play this fall.

One potential wild card is that Buddy Cianci, who served as Mayor of Providence for twenty years before being convicted of racketeering conspiracy and serving four years in federal prison, might run as a Republican.

Senate rankings: Democrats’ declining fortunes has the NRSC dreaming

Published
by
Taniel
on February 11, 2010
in Rankings
. 14 Comments

senatejune09

The Senate landscape bears no resemblance with what it was in June. Retirement surprises, some stunning recruitment coups on the NRSC’s part, the shift in independent voters’ attitude and a growing motivation gap between the two parties’ bases have caused Democratic fortunes to suffer an epic collapse: Does anyone even remember that in the early summer of 2009, Democrats were still confident they would grow their Senate majority, so confident in fact that they talked about leaving legislation like EFCA to the next Congress, when they would assuredly be well above the 60-seat majority?

Eight months have passed, Republicans pulled off a jaw-dropping upset in Massachusetts and we are now discussing the possibility that the GOP might have a shot at picking-up the Senate, which is to say pick-up a net ten seats.

That scenario remains highly improbable: it would require Republicans to put more seats in play and pull off a sweep of the likes we did not witness in 1994, 2006 and 2008. But it goes without saying that the mere fact that this possibility is not laughed off as silly speaks to how likely it has become the GOP scores big gains come November. Republicans were already optimistic before winning Massachusetts, and they have gotten all the more confident since Scott Brown gave them a 41st seat out of one of the country’s bluest states.

In June, only one Democratic seat was rated worse than “lean retention.” Today, that number has reached seven seats, four of which have moved all the way to the GOP column (”likely takeover” or “lean takeover”): North Dakota, Delaware, Arkansas and Nevada. In each of these states but North Dakota, where Byron Dorgan’s retirement is the worst single blow the party got this cycle, Democrats still have a path to victory - Coons could prove a vigorous campaigner who outworks Castle, Democrats might be replace Blanche Lincoln with a more electable candidate, Harry Reid’s opponents might destroy each other in the GOP primary - but Republicans are now undeniably favored to pick-up each of these four states.

In addition, Colorado, Illinois and Pennsylvania have moved to the toss-up column. While it should be said that Democrats have been trailing in the latest polls of all these states, a variety of factors (the possibility Democrats get rid of vulnerable incumbents in primaries in PA and CO, Illinois’s staunchly blue status) mean the contests should remain tight to the end, though the DSCC has had to give up its hope it held last spring that it would easily hold these 3 seats.

Instead, Democrats are now trying to stop the Republican tide from extending further, as the NRSC is now working to put even more Democratic seats in play. Its best success to date has come in Indiana, where former Senator Dan Coats came out of nowhere to announce he would take on Evan Bayh; while Coats comes with a lot of baggage, he does move the state to the “lean retention” column. All eyes are now on the other politicians the GOP is hoping to recruit: Will George Pataki run in New York, Tommy Thompson or Mark Neumann in Wisconsin, Dino Rossi, Dave Reichert or Rob McKenna in Washington? Also, California is tinkering on the brink: Barbara Boxer’s underwhelming numbers should worry Democrats, though we’ll have to wait to see how the GOP primary shakes up before knowing more.

The one state that has moved in the right direction for Democrats is Connecticut, where embattled Senator Chris Dodd’s retirement has moved the race from “toss-up” to “likely retention.” That said, Attorney General Richard Blumental should not take his election for granted.

Democrats’ saving grace might come from a number of GOP-held seats that are still highly vulnerable. The retirement of Republican incumbents in Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire early in 2009 gave the GOP headaches it’s unlikely to ever get rid of: Democrats have strong candidates in all three states, and given the electorate’s hostility towards Congress I’d certainly argue Lee Fisher, Jennifer Brunner, Robin Carnahan or Paul Hodes’s prospects are better than those of Senators Specter, Bennet, Lincoln or Reid.

While Democratic hopes of upsetting Chuck Grassley and David Vitter have faded, Democrats have kept a very credible shot at three GOP seats: In North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr has been unable to get himself out of trouble and the DSCC is likely to target the state to ensure the NRSC has to play some defense; in Kentucky, Democrats would have rather faced incumbent Jim Bunning but they have strong candidates who are sure to remain competitive in the general election; in Florida, the many millions Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio will spend demolishing each other through the summer could open the door to Kendrick Meek.

As you will see, the size of my write-ups varies quite a bit, which is due to a number of factors. First, the situation in some states is fairly straightforward (think Missouri and North Dakota) while the one in races like Colorado or Florida is fairly confusing. Second, some states’ races have the same basic configuration they did last spring (think Missouri, Ohio) or we have already talked about so much I did not see the need to go in great detail (think Arkansas, Nevada, New York), while others are low-profile or have popped on our radar fairly recently (think Indiana, Colorado, even Arizona).

Also: For those who want to talk about the bizarre news about the Diaz-Balart switcheroo, some conversation has started in the comment section of my previous post, devoted to House races. I learned about the news as I was about to publish this, and I didn’t have the energy to blog on this weird development after working to finish the Senate rankings this morning, not to mention that Jazz has been asking for these rankings for months! A full Diaz-Balart post will come later.

Safe GOP Likely GOP Lean GOP Toss-up Lean Dem Likely Dem Safe Dem
Dem-held DE (open)
ND (open)		 AR
NV		 CO
IL (open)
PA		 IN
 CA
CT (open)
NY-B
WA
WI
 HI
MD
NY-A
OR
VT
GOP-held AL
AK
AZ
GA
IA
KS (open)
ID
OK
SC
SD
UT		 LA
 FL (open)
KY (open)
NC		 MO (open)
NH (open)
OH (open)

This gets us to the following breakdown:

  • Safe Democratic: 46
  • Safe/Likely Democratic: 51
  • Safe/Likely/Lean Democratic: 52
  • Toss-ups: 6
  • Safe/Likely/Lean Republican: 42
  • Safe/Likely Republican: 37
  • Safe Republican: 34

Likely takeover (2 R, 0 D)

1. North Dakota (open) Last ranking: 18, 22

In arguably the worst news Democrats got this cycle, Senator Byron Dorgan announced he would not seek re-election in 2010. An open seat in a red state in a GOP-friendly cycle is as close to game over as we’ll get, especially since uber-popular Governor John Hoeven wasted no time before jumping in the race. With the best Democrats can hope for is to force him to actually campaign, state Senator Tracy Potter has entered the race and former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp could join him; it is important for a Democrat to put up a decent campaign operation, as a Hoeven landslide could endanger Rep. Earl Pomeroy’s standing.

2. Delaware (Open) Last rankings: 14, 9

Attorney General Beau Biden’s decision not to seek the Senate seat that had been kept warm for him - a nepotistic move that backfired - is the biggest blow Democrats received this cycle since it makes longtime Rep. Mike Castle the overwhelming favorite to pick-up the seat. Democrats landed a solid back-up option in Chris Coons, but Coons will have his work cut out for him against the state’s former Governor who has been winning double-digit statewide victories since the 1980s and is more likely than not to do so again in 2010; he led Coons 56% to 27% in the most recent poll. Coons, who represents two-thirds of state voters, hopes his freshness will contrast favorably with the veteran Castle; it also has to be seen whether the aging congressman has what it takes to campaign full time for months or whether he will let himself be outworked.

Lean Takeover (2 R, 0 D)

3. Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln) Last rankings: 22, 11

While Arkansas Democrats have only lost a single Senate race since Reconstruction, numerous polls have shown Blanche Lincoln trailing low-profile Republicans, the type of showing from which an incumbent rarely recovers. This dire assessment was already true before Rep. John Boozman unexpectedly decided to abandon his safe House seat to run for Senate, a move that all but seals Lincoln’s fate. At this point, Democrats have two paths to salvation, neither of which seems likely. The first is that Lincoln chooses to retire, which might give the party a better chance to hold the seat with a less tarnished candidate (Wesley Clark and Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter did not perform substantially better in a recent poll, but they might have more room to grow); the second is that the Republican primary grows divisive and produces a weak nominee, though the odds of such a scenario considerably diminished with Boozman’s candidacy.

4. Nevada (Harry Reid) Last rankings: 8, 13

When a longtime senator trails a real estate developer and a low-profile party dignitary by double-digits, the time has come to cue in the political obituaries. Harry Reid’s poll numbers are disastrous and he can’t hope to benefit from another Democrat’s coattails since his party’s probable gubernatorial nominee is his own son. A Dodd-like switcheroo is unlikely to function since Democrats have no obvious savior: Numerous pollsters tested potential replacements to find they would do no better. Reid’s main hope for survival is the huge bank account he has amassed. Whoever wins the GOP’s underwhelming primary will probably find himself bruised and penniless, giving Reid an opportunity to attack him/her early.

Toss-ups (3 R, 3 D)

5. Colorado (Michael Bennet) Last ranking: 5, 7

While Democrats were hoping newly-appointed Michael Bennet would have the time to introduce himself, his poll numbers remain weak, raising obvious questions as to what might have been had Governor Ritter appointed a more experienced and popular Democrat, e.g. John Hickenlooper or Diane DeGette. Bennet hoped he would benefit from underwhelming GOP recruitment, but the NRSC convinced former Lieut. Gov. Jane Norton to run; while she is in no way a dream candidate (she was only elected by sharing her ticket with Bill Owens and her position as the head of Department of Public Health and Environment cannot have given her that much name recognition), she is a credible challenger voters unhappy with Democrats should have no problem pulling the lever for. Only two pollsters have tested the race since the summer, with Rasmussen repeatedly finding Norton crushing Bennet by double-digits while Research 2000 found the Democrat up within the MoE in early january.

One reason not to consider Bennet’s inability to break out of the 40% range fatal to his chances is that he should have more room to grow than the typical incumbent. Also, Norton and Bennet are both facing competitive primaries. Norton is battling DA Ken Buck and former state Sen. Tom Wiens, though I doubt Bennet could survive against either unless he improves his own standing. Bennet is facing former Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who has not gained much traction for now but still has seven months. While the Democratic establishment claims Romanoff’s bid endangers the party, I would argue Democrats might be better off nominating him as he wouldn’t be weighed down by voters’ hostility towards incumbents (the latest poll has him trailing by 7% instead of Bennet’s 14%, a situation comparable to Hickenlooper’s polling far stronger than Ritter was in the Governor’s race); at the very least, the confrontation with Romanoff could help Bennet get used to campaigning and increase his notoriety.

6. Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter) Last rankings: 2, 10

Within days of Arlen Specter’s party switch, it had become clear Democratic leaders had endangered their prospects of holding Pennsylvania’s Senate seat come 2011. In an environment in which the electorate has been hostile to incumbents, Democrats took on the duty of defending an aging senator whose standing is eroding. In a cycle in which Democrats have been worried about low turnout among their base, they are willing to entrust the head of their ticket to a man who was a powerful Republican Senator for decades. And they opened the door to staunchly conservative Pat Toomey spending months positioning himself as a moderate instead of heading into the general election having spent a year campaigning to Specter’s right. Add all of these factors together, and Democrats have little reason to expect Specter can easily overcome the deficit he is facing against Toomey in polls taken in recent months.

While Rep. Joe Sestak typically trails Toomey by as much, he should have more room to grow and he could have an easier time getting Democratic voters to turn out, which makes the May primary between the two men all the more important. For now, Sestak has been unable to gain as much traction as he would have liked, partly because the Democratic establishment is solidly aligned behind the incumbent, but he is within striking distance; much could depend on whether unions follow Democratic leaders and choose to actively help Specter. Even if Sestak defeats Specter, Democrats should obviously expect a tough race. Remember that political junkies like us might know Toomey as the president of Club for Growth, but his name recognition is too low for most voters to have formed a clearly defined image. We are also getting many indications at the gubernatorial and House levels that Pennsylvania is a minefield for Democrats.

7. Missouri (Open) Last rankings: 4, 2

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is as formidable a candidate as Democrats could dream of while Rep. Roy Blunt comes with one of the worst resume lines: member of the House Republican leadership, which polls show is still the government’s most unpopular group. Yet, Missouri is a red state; in such a tough environment, that more than blunts the advantage Carnahan should enjoy on paper. Democrats already start with a disadvantage so they need to be very competitive among independent voters, which could be tough for Carnahan to pull off. A parallel might be drawn to New Jersey’s 2006 Senate race: Republicans fielded a member of the state’s preeminent political dynasty against a congressman with plenty of baggage but the cycle was too toxic for the former to overcome.

8. New Hampshire (Open) Last rankings: 6, 1

With the NRSC now talking about contesting states like Wisconsin, it’s hard to believe there was a point at which we were wondering whether a credible candidate would emerge to defend NH’s seat. Kelly Ayotte’s decision to run took care of that question and crushed Paul Hodes’s hopes of an easy pick-up. While the deteriorating landscape is sure to have a big impact on all open races, Ayotte is one of the likeliest beneficiaries of a red wave because of the importance of non-affiliated voters in New Hampshire and because Hodes can hardly position himself as an outsider. One potential wild card is the Republican primary: Ovide Lamontagne has been receiving some help from some conservative figures while Bill Binnie has loaned himself more than $1 million. If either prevails or if they gain enough traction to bruise Ayotte, Hodes should head into the general on stronger footing.

9. Ohio (Open) Last rankings: 10, 3

An open race in the country’s most emblematic swing state: This might be the recipe for an explosively divided contest in normal circumstances, but when the electorate has decisively swung towards one party how can the other party buck the national trend? Democrats have no natural edge in Ohio they can hope will resist to the red wave and neither Democratic candidate is formidable enough to overperform her party’s generic performance. Yet, unlike in countless Senate races Republicans will not be able to make this a clear a referendum on Democratic rule since there is no incumbent, which could help Lee Fisher or Jennifer Brunner convince the party’s base to turn out and persuade independents not to desert the party. While both have fallen behind Rob Portman in the polls after leading for most of 2009, surveys show the margin remains very close, which is far more than we can say of some Democratic incumbents’ numbers. It is especially revealing that Fisher and Brunner are performing stronger than Governor Ted Strickland, who was once expected to boost them but is now shaping out to be a weight on the party’s ticket.

10. Illinois (Open) Last rankings: 12, 14

Illinois might be a staunchly blue state at the presidential level, but Republicans are confident a perfect storm of circumstances will allow them to pick-up Barack Obama’s former Senate seat. First, state Democrats are weighed down by the Rod Blagojevich scandal, which involved the former Governor’s attempts to sell this very Senate seat; that Blagojevich’s trial could take place this fall will make it tough for the party to turn the page. Second, Democratic nominee Alexi Giannoulias faces ethical questions of his own, with his ties to his embattled family bank sure to come up in the general election. Third, Republicans have as solid a candidate as they could have hoped for: Rep. Mark Kirk’s moderate reputation allowed him to survive in his blue-leaning district in the Chicago suburbs, and the GOP hopes his history of winning over left-leaning voters will translate statewide.

Combine these factors with the national environment, with an enthusiastic liberal base and GOP-trending independents, and Democrats have a major Illinois problem. Yet, this is one state in which national Democrats will pull out all the stops to ensure a win; unlike what happened in Massachusetts, neither Giannoulias nor the DSCC will not be taken by surprise, and Illinois remains structurally Democratic enough that the party might still have a slight advantage - unless yet another scandal breaks, of course.

The rest of the rankings - with descriptions of races from Kentucky to Idaho - are available here.

Open seats: Rep. Watson retires, Dems struggle in Kansas and recruit in Arkansas

Published
by
Taniel
on February 10, 2010
in AR-01, AR-02 and KS-03
. 9 Comments

In the previous cycle, just 4 congressmen announced their retirement after January 2008; one of them, Rep. Vito Fossella, did so following a late-breaking cycle This cycle might be different: two representatives have already announced they won’t seek re-election since February started. This morning, Republican Rep. Vern Ehlers confirmed last night’s reports that he would not seek re-election, and this afternoon came news that 77-year old Rep. Diane Watson would retire as well.

While this raises the number of open seats Democrats have to defend in November to twelve, this is one district the GOP have absolutely no chance of picking-up. Located entirely in Los Angeles County and covering much of central LA, CA-33 is one of the country’s most Democratic districts: It voted for Barack Obama 87% to 12%, for John Kerry 83% to 16% and for Al Gore 83% to 14%. Watson’s successor will be decided in the June 8th primary.

That does not mean that the stakes are not high, since districts like this play a major role in determining the Democratic caucus’s ideological make-up. Watson was one of the chamber’s most left-wing members. A member of the Progressive Caucus, she voted against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the bill reforming FISA, June 2009’s war supplemental and the free trade agreement with Peru - all passed with substantial help among Democrats; she has also repeatedly supported the progressive budgets, introduced as amendments by the CPC. On the other hand, Watson was not that high-profile a House member, which might be due to the fact that she was already 68 when she first she joined Congress!

As such, her retirement offers the left a chance to get a more active champion out of this staunchly blue a district while also putting them at risk, since it would be quite a blow if Watson’s successor was not a committed progressive. (While it is likely that such a staunchly Democratic district produce a liberal lawmaker, there are plenty of examples of moderate-to-conservative congressmen being elected to such seats; think Harold Ford or Artur Davis, just to name a few.)

All of this said, at the moment it does not appear that the Democratic primary will be any more competitive than the general election: state Speaker Karen Bass is by all accounts preparing to enter the race, in which she would start as the undisputed favorite and should also receive Watson’s endorsement. Bass has a very progressive profile, she is “only” 57 and she would move to the House from a position of power, which potentially positions her to gain some influence on the Hill.

Will she have the primary for herself? Given that state officials are term-limited and that House districts open up so rarely, it might be tough for some Democrats to pass up this opportunity.

More open seats: Dems are in trouble in KS-03, land Arkansas candidates

In a development that was discussed in the comments section of my new House ratings, Democrats are losing their chances of defending a key open seat: KS-03. While I had left the district in the “toss-up column” because of the prospect that Kansas City Mayor Joe Reardon might run, he had in fact announced on Friday that he would do no such thing, which leaves Democrats in a very precarious position as it is now unclear where they will even manage to contest a district they have held since 1999.

State party chairman Larry Gates, who now has a dismal track record of convincing anyone to run for anything, argued in an interview Democrats had good choices left, but when a party is reduced to touting the possibility that congressional staffers could jump in a race, it doesn’t suggest it is preparing to make a full-throated effort to defend the district. The winner of the GOP primary, which opposes among other candidates state Rep. Rep. Kevin Yoder and former state Senator Nick Jordan, will move to the general election favored.

The reason this is rough news for Democrats: Of all the open House races the party is very worried about, KS-03 is a rare district that voted for Obama in 2008. The two Dem-held seats that I rated “lean takeover” (TN-06 and LA-03) both gave McCain over 60% of the vote; many of the other open seats gave the Republican decisive victories. As such, on paper KS-03 should not have been the toughest of these open seats.

On the other hand, many districts in which Obama was far weaker have been historically far more friendly to Democrats, who thus have a deeper bench; as such, the party’s Kansas failure is not necessarily a harbinger of what might happen in AR-01, AR-02 or TN-08.

Case in point, AR-01, where Democrats just landed two elected officials: state Senator Steve Bryles (who has served since 2000) and state Rep. David Cook; they’ll face Marion Berry’s chief of staff Chad Causey. Just a few days ago I was writing about the lack of activity in this district, so this is great news for the DCCC. The party will have more than a fighting chance with an experienced candidate who will run free of any association with Washington Democrats (unless Causey wins the nomination) and will thus be able to appeal to voters’ allegiance to Democrats in non-presidential races.

Democrats are also having no trouble finding candidates in AR-02. After state Speaker Robbie Wills, state Senator Joyce Elliott and Snyder’s former chief of staff David Boling, a fourth candidate announced his candidacy this week: Assistant Attorney General John Adams.

While many Democrats have been hoping that Lieutenant Governor Brian Halter jump in the race, there is now growing buzz that he is just days away from announcing a primary challenge to Senator Blanche Lincoln; this is at least what is being suggested by an unsure-sounding piece at The Arkansas Times and by Markos Moulitsas, who sounds quite confident that he will get what he wants within the next week. I’ll obviously have more on this when it comes to pass.

Rep. Vern Ehlers is reportedly retiring

Published
by
Taniel
on February 9, 2010
in MI-03
. 7 Comments

Yet another congressman has decided to retire just after learning that he would face his first tough re-election race in decades. But this time, it’s a Republican.

76-year old Rep. Vern Ehlers has represented Western Michigan since he was first elected in 1992. He had a relatively moderate reputation, most notably due to his membership in the Republican Main Street Partnership or his opposition to the death penalty. From what I can see from scanning a number of revealing roll calls of the past decade, he did cross over to the Democratic camp on legislation that attracted the support of a substantial share of the GOP caucus. In 2006, he was one of 82 Republicans to vote in favor of an increase to the minimum wage in 2006; in 2009, he supported the credit-card bill and the cash-for-clunker program. He also supported the 2008 bailout plan, which has come to haunt a number of GOP congresspeople, most notably Senators Hutchison and Bennett.

Deciding that this gave him an opening to defeat Ehlers in the GOP primary (after all, if there is one year in which conservative activists have a chance to oust incumbents they are unhappy with, it should be 2010), state Rep. Justin Amash announced today he would challenge the incumbent. Within hours of landing his first real opponent in years, Ehlers’s office announced he would have an announcement to make tomorrow, and the Hotline is reporting the congressman will announce his retirement.

(This puts us in a situation we have encountered many times already this cycle, most notably when Rep. Vic Snyder called it quits just hours after SUSA found him trailing by a shocking 17%: How much dos the prospect of facing a tough re-election battle weigh in a veteran incumbent’s decision to retire? While it is impossible to know for sure and while there is no doubt that both Snyder and Ehlers had already been seriously seriously considering not running for re-election, it’s hard not to conclude that news like such a dismal poll or a credible primary challenge has not provided the decisive shove.)

If Ehlers indeed announces his retirement tomorrow, he will become the 17th Republican not to seek re-election and the 4th to do so without seeking higher office. (For Democrats, those numbers are 11 and 6, plus HI-01 and PA-12 which will hold special elections).

Here is what makes Ehlers’s retirement particularly interesting: Of the 17 GOP-held districts that are now open, his MI-03 is the third least Republican per the 2008 presidential election results. John McCain won the district by just 0,6%. The only other open seats in which Obama was competitive are IL-10 and DE-AL, which he won handily, and FL-12, which he lost very narrowly.

Unfortunately for Democrats, this probably does not give them a much better chance than they have in districts like AZ-03 or CA-19, as there are a number of factors that put the GOP in a far stronger position to hold MI-03 than one might think based on the 2008 results. (This makes MI-03 the mirror image of PA-12, in which it is Democrats who are in a stronger position than the district’s presidential results would indicate.)

For one, Michigan’s electorate might be even more hostile to Democrats than those in other states: The state is disproportionately impacted by the economic crisis and voters are also looking to punish the state’s Democratic leadership, which explains why Republicans are looking in such good shape in the open Governor’s race.

Second, MI-03 is a historically staunchly Republican district. The district is based around Grand Rapids, which forty years ago was represented by none other than Gerald Ford; Democrats briefly won the seat in Watergate’s immediate aftermath, only to lose it shortly thereafter. (Interestingly, Western Michigan’s two strongly conservative districts, arguably the heart of the state’s GOP politics, will be open this year, since Rep. Pete Hoekstra is running for Governor.) In 2000, MI-03 voted for Bush 60% to 38%; in 2004, 59% to 40%. While Obama’s showing suggests district voters are open to voting Democratic in some circumstances, 2008 was probably a high-point for the party, boosted by McCain’s withdrawal.

As you would expect in a district that has a long Republican history, the GOP has a stronger bench in the Grand Rapids region. While Amash will be a force to reckoned with due to the staunchly conservative profile he has managed to acquire in a very short time, he is only 29 and is still serving in his first term, which means other Republicans are unlikely to be scared away. The Hotline names state Senator Bill Hardiman, which would be an interesting choice as he could become the House Republicans’ only African-American member; also mentioned is Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who unexpectedly chose not to run for Governor last year.

My efforts to figure out which members of the state legislature represent the district yielded few Democrats and many Republicans, including I believe two more in the state Senate and perhaps five more in the state House (state Rep. Brian Calley, Tom Pearce, David Agerna, Kevin Green, David Hildenbrand). MI-03 covers most but not all of Kent County, so I am not sure whether state Rep. Robert Dean and Roy Schmidt live in the district; both are up for re-election this fall, so they might not want to live their seat for a tough House race anyway. The same goes for state Rep. Mike Huckleberry; about a third of his district falls in MI-03, but he ran in neighboring MI-04 back in 2006, which suggests he would not be available to run in this new open seat.

Can Debra Medina top Kay Bailey Hutchison?

Published
by
Taniel
on February 9, 2010
in IN-Sen, NY-23 and TX-Gov
. 9 Comments

The showdown between Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was supposed to be one of the cycle’s defining primaries. Yet, not only has the race been tame by the standards of what is to be expected when two towering politicians who personally dislike each other go head-to-head, but Hutchison now finds herself in danger of being knocked out of the runoff by Debra Medina, a conservative close to the Tea Party movement.

PPP’s new survey of the race shows Perry at 39%, Hutchison at 28% and Medina at 24%; among self-described conservative voters, who represent more than 70% of the cycle, Hutchison comes in third. While no other pollster has found a similar result, Rasmussen’s latest survey (released 10 days ago) did find Medina enjoying with the most momentum: the 14% she received in that poll was her highest result to date.

(A reminder: The primary will take place on March 2nd, which is in just 3 weeks. The two top vote-getters will move on to an April 13th runoff.)

Who is this woman who is now going toe-to-toe with a sitting Senator? Medina served as the Republican Party’s county chairman Wharton County, a small county in Southeastern Texas. A major participant in the Tea Party protests, she is also a libertarian activist who helped organize Texas’s Campaign for Liberty, an organization of Ron Paul supporters launched back in 2008.  We all know Paul supporters tend to be very engaged, which allowed the congressman to get surprisingly strong results in a number of presidential contests two years ago; Rand Paul’s success in Kentucky’s GOP primary also testifies to Paulites’ success at promoting their members of their camp - and they seem to have done the same to Medina over the past few weeks.

In 2008, ultra-conservative (and secessionist) Larry Kilgore challenged John Cornyn’s hold on the GOP’s Senate nomination; he received 19%. Medina is running a higher profile campaign, which suggests she could build on that base of support for an anti-establishment contender and thus grow enough to make it to the runoff.

But here is the twist: Logic would dictate that Medina would grow at Perry’s expense. The governor has been trying to channel conservative voters’ anger towards the anti-federal government, most notably last year when he suggested Texas might secede. While Hutchison has been touting her own conservatism, she represents a comparatively mainstream Republicanism that makes for an uneasy fit with Medina and Perry’s rhetoric.

What does it say about the GOP electorate’s ideological profile that Hutchison (who can hardly be called a centrist) has been so marginalized that the primary has room for two more conservative options? What to make of the fact the hard right’s split is threatening to relegate Hutchison to third place rather than giving her an opening? Does this reflect voters’ disdain about Hutchison’s relative moderation or does it speak to conservative anger towards all federal officials, however conservative their voting record might be?

I should nuance that point: Perry is himself an incumbent who has attracted plenty of criticism from all sides, and his best effort to portray himself as an outspoken conservative don’t make him any less of an establishment figure. In fact, he is the longest serving governor in the country, which leads to the obvious question as to whether we should have expected him to easily win over Tea Partiers’ support in the first place. In the context of a two-way race with Hutchison, conservative activists are obviously likely to side with the governor, but perhaps we should not be surprised that the same people who are blasting Hutchison’s support for the 2008 bailout plan are also looking for an opportunity to bail on a fellow insider who has led the state for a decade.

Who Republicans nominate will obviously impact how much of a chance Houston Mayor Bill White has of scoring an upset in the general election. Polls show Hutchison scoring larger margins against White, while Perry is under 50%. The latest Rasmussen poll had Medina with a slight lead over the Houston Mayor. Given her low name recognition, that speaks to how uphill a climb White will face against any Republican, but it does look like his prospects depend on Hutchison losing the primary.

The sudden focus on Medina comes as two other GOP primaries are getting tougher along similar insider/outsider lines.

In Indiana, former Senator Dan Coats got a taste of the difficulties he might face in the Republican primary, as John Hostettler and Marlin Stutzman welcomed him to the race by blasting his connections to Washington. “If there’s one group people are more disenfranchised from than Washington politicians, it’s lobbyists,” Stutzman said. “Sen. Coats has probably been back to Indiana fewer times than Sen. Bayh has and has those questionable relationships. If you’re trying to contrast with Sen. Bayh, why would you go with Sen. Coats?” While Coats will be favored to win the GOP primary, such attacks could undermine his credibility along the very same lines Democrats plan to use in the general election, thus introducing a narrative Evan Bayh would later have an easier time working with.

In NY-23, Doug Hoffman might strike again: The man who drove Dede Scozzafava out of November’s special election declared he could mount a third-party bid once again if he loses the Republican nomination Assemblyman William Barclay. Indeed, Hoffman is simultaneously running to represent the Republican Party and Conservative Party lines on the November ballot; with Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long sounding certain Hoffman will represent them, the businessman is leaving the door open to taking advantage of that if he does not get the GOP’s.

That would be different from last year’s events in one major way: A major rationale of Hoffman’s candidacy was that Scozzafava had not been selected by the district’s Republican voters but rather by a committee of party leaders - an argument he will not be able to make if he loses to Barclay. From Democrats’ perspective, however, there is no difference: A Owens-Barclay-Hoffman general election would be a repeat of the scenario that played out last fall, a major boost to Rep. Bill Owens’s hopes of securing a full term.

Rep. John Murtha dies

Published
by
Taniel
on February 8, 2010
in PA-12
. 12 Comments

Rep. John Murtha died this afternoon due to complications following gallbladder surgery. The 77-year old had represented Western Pennsylvania in the House since winning a special election in 1974, which made him the chamber’s 8th most senior member in the current Congress.

A longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, he directed billions of dollars towards his district and his hometown of Johnstown, a hard-hit region that came to rely on Murtha’s unapologetically aggressive earmarking. Murtha was also a close ally of Nancy Pelosi, and he played a key role in helping the California congresswoman rise in the Democratic leadership. In 2006, Pelosi backed his bid to become Majority Leader in the aftermath of the 2006 midterms.  Murtha lost to Rep. SteveSteny Hoyer but he moved on to chair the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, which made him all the more powerful.

Murtha’s final years in Congress will perhaps be best known for his decision to call for a withdrawal of U.S. troops out of Iraq in early 2005; his statement came at a time the Democratic establishment was still largely hostile to withdrawal, and the generally hawkish Murtha, with his strong ties to the defense industries, was the last congressman who would have been expected to lead his party towards an anti-war stance. This led to an ugly incident on the House floor when GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt called Murtha a coward, leading to ten minutes of chaos that ended with Schmidt withdrawing her comments. Yet, in his final years Murtha also attracted criticism over his stance on ethics reform and over corruption allegations against groups in his entourage. While Murtha himself was never investigated, questions arose over his ties to the PMA Group, a lobbying shop raised by the FBI in 2008 that had been able to secure hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks from Murtha, as well as to other organizations.

I will let you dig more information about Murtha in news outlets like The Washington Post and will move on to this blog’s main beat: What happens next in PA-12? With Murtha’s district now vacant, a special election will be organized, yet another major headache for Democrats at a time they cannot ill afford any more electoral setbacks.

Located in southwestern Pennsylvania, this district is the type of area in which Democrats once dominated but are now struggling as Appalachia’s formerly coal-mining, working-class electorate moved away from the party and towards the GOP. In fact, PA-12 is the only district in the country to have switched from John Kerry in 2004 to John McCain in 2008; in 2000, Al Gore had prevailed by 11%, which means the district took significant rightward drift over the past decade.

In short: The DCCC has to defend a McCain district with voters who were predisposed to punishing Democrats even before they were disproportionately affected by the economic crisis; this makes for a strong pick-up opportunity for Republicans.

However, numerous factors should favor Democrats, the first of which is the election’s timing.

State law gives Governor Ed Rendell 10 days to call a special election, which has to be scheduled at least 60 days after his proclamation. It is highly likely Rendell will choose to hold the general election on May 18th, which is the day of Pennsylvania’s regularly scheduled primaries. Why might that help the Democratic nominee? Democrats are hosting two highly competitive primaries for the Senate and Governor’s races while the Republican primaries are largely uncontested at this point. That means turnout should be higher among Democratic voters, who will have many other reasons to go out to the polls than to vote for Murtha’s successor.

Consider that May 18th will mark the culmination of the rough Specter-Sestak battle, which is now starting to heat up and on which millions will be spent by Election Day; that should sure boost Democratic turnout. Consider also that one of the front-runners in the party’s gubernatorial primary is Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, who will put together a heavy turnout machine in Western Pennsylvania, which is his geographic base (in fact, parts of Allegheny County are in PA-12). Some unions are sure to be heavily involved in both Democratic primaries, and as such they will be major players in turning out voters in PA-12, which is heavily unionized.

Whether they are going to the polls to vote for Specter or Sestak, Onorato or Jack Wagner, most of these Democratic voters will be likely to also punch the ballot for whoever Democrats nominate in the PA-12 special election. The Republican nominee should receive less help, as there will be less players ensuring GOP voters head to the polls (Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey don’t face much competition in the statewide primaries).

Second, PA-12 is mostly Democratic at the local level, which means that the party has a strong bench to choose from.

That should not only also guarantee Democrats not suffer the same fate as in KS-3 or LA-3, open seats in which they are struggling to field a candidate, but that they will have a solid contender. Names that are mentioned include Mark Singel, who served as Lieutenant Governor from 1987 to 1995; state Senator John Wozniak, who has represented Johnstown since 1996; state Senator Richard Kasunic, who has been serving since 1994; state Rep. Bryan Barbin; state Rep. Tad Harhai; and still many other state legislators. (State Rep. Bill DeWeese, who once served as state Speaker, probably cannot run given the criminal charges he is now facing.) The Republican bench is far weaker. The GOP has two candidates currently in the race, Tim Burns and William Russell, its 2008 nominee whom conservatives rallied behind late in the cycle; the NRCC spent more than $1 million on his behalf in the campaign’s final weeks.

The twist: Pennsylvania special elections have no primaries. Just as happens in New York (as we learned in 2009 with vacancies in NY-20 and NY-23), a committee of county party chairs meets to determine a candidate.

This should create quite a confusing situation: Whoever the county chairs place on the general election ballot will not have first established their legitimacy through a primary vote, which means these anointed candidates could face challenges from other members of the party for the right to be the nominee on November’s regularly scheduled ballot. And here is where things get really complicated: If Rendell calls the special election on May 18th, the special election’s general election and the regular election’s primary races will be held on the same day!

This could mean that whoever is nominated in the special election has to fight the opposing party’s candidate while at the same time battling opponents from his own party. If such scenarios occur, all bets are off as to how much support the candidates can expect from their party’s base and how united the respective camps will be. (It’s difficult to predict which party is most at risk here: Democrats have a deeper bench, and thus more potential for politicians seeking to move up, but as we saw in NY-23 the GOP electorate’s mood makes Republicans more receptive to ideological disagreements.)

In short, the PA-12 special has the potential to be just as wild as that in NY-23. While I have tried to argue Democrats have a stronger chance than we would think based on the fact that McCain won the district, there is no question that the DCCC is at serious risk of seeing its streak of 9 consecutive special election victories interrupted.

New House ratings show brutally unbalanced map

Published
by
Taniel
on February 8, 2010
in 2010-general and Ratings
. 22 Comments

House Projected Composition February 2010

When I first put together this cycle’s House ratings last spring, I found the landscape to be remarkably balanced: 62 GOP-held seats and 68 Dem-held seats were on the map, with both parties defending a relatively comparable number of seats in the most competitive categories - 18 for Republicans, 28 for Democrats. The eight months that have passed since then have been rough for the DCCC, and it will surprise nobody that my new House ratings look radically different.

The number of Republicans seats that are worth keeping an eye on has plummeted to 34, while many more Democratic seats are on the map today than there were in the spring: 89.

This disparity is as stark when we only consider the most vulnerable categories (lean retention and above): At the moment, the GOP has to worry about just 13 of its seats compared to 43 for Democrats - just above the magic number of 41 seats Republicans need to pick-up to regain a majority, though the DCCC has somewhat of a lifeline with the three GOP-held seats it has a great shot at picking-up (DE-AL, IL-10 and LA-02).

Some of Democrats’ troubles have come from the retirements that have befell the party since November: Had they not been open, AR-01, KS-03, NH-02, TN-06 or WA-03 would either not have been on the map at all or they would have hovered in the potentially competitive column. Instead, they have become some of the DCCC’s biggest headaches. That said, it does appear that Democrats did manage to keep the floodgates closed. But while the GOP does not have as many retirements to exploit as it would like, they have pulled many remarkable recruitment coups in districts that had been uncontested for years, sometimes for decades. As the cycle started, who could have expected that AR-02, MO-04, ND-AL, PA-08, PA-17, SC-05 or WV-01 would find themselves on our radar screen?

Republicans should not expect to sweep all vulnerable seats. For one, a red wave wil not make itself felt equally in all the states, e.g. NY Democrats could be in better form since they’ll probably be helped by Cuomo’s coattails. Second, a number of incumbents who have prepared themselves for a tough run since the cycle started should survive - just as Reps. Gerlach, Kirk, Reichert or Shays managed to win one or both of their 06/08 contests. This is why I have for now maintained all Democratic incumbents in the toss-up category; I fully expect the party to lose many, perhaps most, of its vulnerable districts (AL-02, CO-04, FL-24, ID-01, MD-01, NM-02, NV-03, OH-01, VA-02, VA-05), but for now we have little evidence but the national environment, which makes it all but impossible to differentiate between them.

Conversely, a number of Democrats who at the moment appear to be keeping their head above the water could easily find themselves submerged if the environment is as toxic as the GOP is hoping; this includes incumbents like Reps. Altmire (PA-04), Dahlkemper (PA-03), Pomeroy (ND-AL), Salazar (CO-03), Matheson (UT-02), Boucher (VA-09), Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Davis (TN-04) and others. While many of these districts are likely to rise to the more competitive categories by the time all is said and done, it goes without saying that efforts to expand the map often fail (see Democrats’ utter failures in IN-03 and ME-Sen in the past cycle), and it is simply too early to differentiate between the Democrats’ marginally vulnerable seats.

Besides the prospect of getting at least get something to campaign if they manage to pass some major legislation or the hope that the economic recovery will make itself felt by the fall, Democrats are banking on two additional wild cards. The first is the possibility that Republican primaries complicate the party’s chances in some districts. Doug Hoffman is for instance threatening to mount yet another third-party bid in NY-23 if he loses the GOP nomination; other primaries could produce a weaker candidate because of crowded fields in which anything is possible, which is arguably what happened to the GOP in last week’s IL-Gov and IL-10 primaries. (Look no further than what happened in 2008 to Democrats in LA-06 and NY-26 or what happened to Republicans in MD-01 to see how perfect opportunities can be ruined by brutal primaries.)

The second major wild card is the GOP’s financial limitation: The NRCC does not have a lot of money, especially when compared to the millions the DCCC relied on to bankroll the blue waves in 2006 and in 2008. That means a number of promising challengers could find themselves swamped come the fall, when well-financed incumbents and the DCCC go all-out to attack them while national Republicans has to prioritize some districts over others in a way that was less problematic for Democrats in the past two cycles. Might they still be rescued by independent groups, which will no longer have to abide by spending restrictions?

Without further delay, here are my rating charts. There is unfortunately no district-by-district explanation (while I have done that in the past, I would have no more time to do any other blogging work if I attempted to pull it off again), but you will find a handy graphic showing the projected balance of power.

House Ratings February 2010

House Detailed Projected Composition February 2010

Illinois confusion

Published
by
Taniel
on February 7, 2010
in IL-Gov
. 10 Comments

[Updated with Cohen's withdrawal.] If Illinois’s federal primaries were resolved with little drama on Tuesday, the results of the state-level contests has left the political situation confused for both parties.

Quinn survives, for now

What we know: Incumbent Pat Quinn will be the Democrats’ gubernatorial nominee. I for one did not think he would survive the primary given the evidence that Treasurer Dan Hynes’s brutal attacks had taken a big toll on Quinn, but at the end of the day the governor held off his aggressive challenger by just 3,087 votes out of 912,695 cast - a difference of 0.33%. (Illinois has no automatic recount and Hynes chose to concede the race.) The more progressive of the two candidates, Quinn will thus have a chance to win a full term this fall, nearly two years after he was elevated to the Governor’s Mansion upon Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment.

Quinn’s victory arguably gives Republicans a better shot at winning this race, and this for a very simple reason: Nearly all incumbents have been growing unpopular since states sank in fiscal crises and voters seem determined to reject many governors as they can. In a blue state like Illinois, this should make it easier for the GOP to convince voters who typically vote Democratic to cross-over. (A recent PPP poll shows Hynes performing 7% to 12% better than Quinn.) Just as Democrats would have been better off had Corzine been replaced, just as I no longer think Charlie Crist is the GOP’s best general election bet, just as Ted Strickland, Chet Culver and Bill Ritter’s fortunes collapsed during 2009, so does Pat Quinn enter the general election weighed down by a mediocre approval rating and by the need to defend not only his economic record but also his ties to Blagojevich.

(Quinn has never been close to Blagojevich, who did not tap him to be Lieutenant Governor, but he will still have to work hard to distance himself from the man with whom he shared the ticket. Democrats should be all the more worried about the former governor weighing them down that his trial is scheduled to start in the fall of 2010, two months before Election Day.)

Yet, Quinn is by no means out of the race. Like the other incumbents who were elevated to their state without running for it, he is less defined than other governors and he thus has more room to grow. Second, Illinois remains a Democratic state, one in which Barack Obama’s involvement could pay more dividends than it might elsewhere. And third, the GOP might have nominated a weaker nominee than it was expected to.

Brady holds on to a 420 vote-lead

While most expected a victor to emerge among state Senator Kirk Dillard, former Attorney General Jim Ryan and former state party chair Andy McKenna, a fourth candidate came out ahead of the initial count: state Senator Bill Brady leads his closest competitor Kirk Dillard by just 420 votes - which is to say 20,3% to 20,2%! As many as 11,000 absentee and provisional ballots might still have to be added to the tally, so Dillard could still grab the lead. It should take another 10 days for a final count to be available.

While Brady’s lead is being portrayed as an upset, it shouldn’t be surprising. Not only did polls show that this was really anyone’s contest to win, but he was the only Republican candidate not from Chicagoland! That geographic advantage allowed him to dominate downstate and become a contender statewide. When a primary features 6 candidates who have a credible shot at the nomination, it is obvious that anything can happen since a very small share of the vote is needed to secure victory. On Tuesday, just 12% separated the first vote-getter from the sixth vote-getter!

If Brady holds on to his lead, the GOP will have nominated the second-most conservative candidate among those who were running (the first being Tea Party-favorite Adam Andrzejewski, who got 14%), which could give Democrats ammunition to convince Illinois’s left-leaning electorate to stick with the party they usually vote for. In particular, Brady opposes abortion including in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger, he supports allowing the teaching of creationism, and he is conservative profile on fiscal matters; the 10% across-the-board cut he advocates, which would cut billions from education or Medicaid program, should be hard to defend in a blue state.

Dillard (who appeared in one of Barack Obama’s ads during the 2008 presidential campaign) and Ryan (who has already won a statewide victory) could have made it tougher for Quinn to turn the spotlight on his opponent and thus prevent the race from becoming a referendum on his own tenure. This did not work for the Democratic candidates in Virginia and in New Jersey, but Christie and McDonnell were high-profile Republicans the national party was determined to push through the finish line. We will have to see how much traction Brady’s campaign can gain compared to the one Ryan and McKenna were expected to mount.

On the other hand, if Brady survives the primary it could boost Rep. Mark Kirk’s chances over in the Senate race. If the GOP ticket is headlined by two relatively moderate Republicans from the Chicago suburbs (Kirk and Dillard), it could make it harder for the party to ensure heavy turnout downstate. With Brady on the ballot, however, Republicans could have a more balanced candidate, with one candidate who could ensure downstate conservatives go to the polls and once there also punch the ballot for their party’s Senate nominee.

The Scott Cohen saga

While all eyes were on the senatorial and gubernatorial primaries, however, Democrats got a huge surprise in a race that apparently no one was paying attention to: the primary for Lieutenant Governor. Scott Cohen, a pawnbroker who had never before ran for office, spent heavily from his personal fortune but was not taken seriously enough for either the local press nor nor his rival candidates to spend time vetting him. In a 6-way race in which all candidates got double-digits (!), he prevailed with just 26% of the vote over state Rep. Turner, who received 22%.

Since then, Democrats have been scrambling to address the avalanche of damaging stories that is now surrounding the man who will now be running near the top of their ticket; most discussed are a 2005 domestic battery charge, which was later dropped, and Cohen’s divorce file, which contains allegations of violent acts made by his former wife, who reportedly successfully sought a restraining order against Cohen because she felt threatened by fits of rage caused by steroid use. Also damning are allegations that he missed $54,000 of child-support payment.

I am somewhat uncomfortable condemning someone based on charges he was never tried on - let alone convicted - as that would obviously open the door to huge breaches of the presumption of innocence and of due process. (This of course speaks to a broader problem since people often finding themselves weighed down by charges in their daily activities like searching for a job or housing, even when these charges end up being dropped or even when they are cleared.) Yet, there is no question that all of these stories open up very problematic questions for Cohen to address, particularly the restraining order his former wife obtained and the missed child-support payments.

This has put Democrats in a huge bind: While the nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor are selected separately, they run on a ticket so Quinn’s prospects are now tied to Cohen’s!

Since it is difficult to envision Cohen not costing Quinn a lot of votes, Democrats are now trying to find a solution, the easiest of which would be convincing their new nominee to drop out: Quinn, Senator Dick Durbin and Attorney General Lisa Madigan all called on him to do so this week, but can Cohen be persuaded to give up on a race on which he has already spent $2 million?

While The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Cohen is leaning towards stepping down, the alternative Democrats are considering would be jaw-droppingly radical, as The Daily Herald reports:

If [Cohen] does not [resign], Durbin and others say Quinn can consider the possibility of running without him by leaving the Democratic Party. It’s happened before. In 1986, Democrat Adlai Stevenson III created the Illinois Solidarity Party to avoid running with a lieutenant governor candidate who was a follower of frequent presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Stevenson lost to Republican Gov. Jim Thompson.

Interestingly, the GOP primary also yielded a surprise, as few expected low-profile 27-year old Jason Plummer to pull it off over state Senator Matt Murphy, but Republicans have received no further surprises.

Update: As is already being discussed in the comments, Cohen announced last night that he was withdrawing, an obvious relief for Democrats that allows them to no longer dream of extreme solutions like having the governor run on an independent ticket. The state party committee will now choose a replacement for Cohen. By the fall, we will have forgotten all about the Cohen saga, so this should really not impact the Quinn’s prospects - nor do I think Democrats have much to fear from the fact that one of their nominees will not have gone through a primary: Unless candidates for Lieutenant Governor become hugely controversial, they will not play an important role in deciding the general election.