The Rothenberg Political Report

Pennsylvania 10: Ex-Specter Aide Fundraising for Carney

2008-07-07T00:05:00.001-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

A former chief of staff to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is hosting a fundraiser for vulnerable freshman Rep. Christopher Carney (D-Pa.).

David Urban served as the Republican Senator’s top aide for five years before joining the American Continental Group in 2002. The $1,000-a-head fundraising breakfast for Carney is scheduled for July 16 at the lobbying firm’s offices in downtown Washington, D.C.

“While I’m a Republican, I like to think I support solid candidates,” Urban said in an interview. “[Carney] is a conservative Democrat ... who deserves to be given another shot.”

Urban has contributed to a long list of Republican candidates over the years, including Sens. Gordon Smith (Ore.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Mel Martinez (Fla.), Susan Collins (Maine) and John Cornyn (Texas), as well as ex-Sen. Rich Santorum (Pa.) and, of course, his former boss. He has also contributed to numerous GOP House Members.

Urban has contributed to a few Democrats as well, including a multiple contributions to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) from 2002 to 2005. He also gave $2,000 in 2003 to Pennsylvania 13th district candidate Joe Torsella, a personal friend, who lost the Democratic primary to now-Rep. Allyson Schwartz.

This cycle, Urban contributed to 4th district Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), even though he gave to his opponent, now-former Rep. Melissa Hart (R) in their race against each other last cycle.

Urban has also contributed to Republican Tom Manion, who is running against Rep. Patrick Murphy (D) in Pennsylvania’s 8th district. “I try to help the team when I can,” Urban said.

Carney is one of the most vulnerable Democratic Members of Congress. His northeast Pennsylvania 10th district went for President Bush by 20 points in 2004, and GOP Rep. Don Sherwood’s personal scandal was a major factor in Carney’s victory.

It’s also a district where Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) ran very well in the Pennsylvania presidential primary and where presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) may not be quite the asset that he is elsewhere. The Congressman faces wealthy businessman Chris Hackett (R) this fall.

Roll Call reporter Shira Toeplitz contributed to this report.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 1, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Birthday Complicates Timing for McCain

2008-07-06T00:05:00.001-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With all of the talk about John McCain unveiling his running mate immediately after the Democratic National Convention to alleviate Barack Obama's bounce, there could be a wrinkle in McCain's potential plans: his birthday.

McCain turns 72 years old on August 29, the day after the Democrats' convention. So while the Arizona senator could swipe some media attention from Obama by announcing his vice presidential choice during the time between the conventions, the senator's birthday and age will be a prominent media story. And it will be contrasted even further with the age of his running mate.

This item first appeared on Political Wire on July 3, 2008.

RNC Launching $3 Million Ad Buy in Four States

2008-07-04T16:00:00.004-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The Republican National Committee is launching $3 million in independent expenditure television ads in four states, focusing on the energy issue.

The ad is slated to run on network and cable television in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and will highlight the differences between Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) on energy security.

“Following Barack Obama’s decision to become the only major party presidential candidate in history to not adhere to campaign spending caps, the Republican National Committee has begun an independent expenditure campaign in accordance with FEC regulations,” RNC I.E. consultant Brad Todd said in a statement. Todd’s firm, On Message Inc., produced the ad, which will run this weekend through July 15.

Todd said the energy issue is “emerging as a defining difference in the race for president.”

The ad buy demonstrates some of the RNC’s financial muscle, relative to its counterpart. Through May 31, the RNC had $53.5 million on hand, compared to almost $4 million for the Democratic National Committee.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 2, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2008 House Ratings

2008-07-04T00:05:00.002-04:00

Here are our latest House ratings. Any seats not listed are currently considered to be at limited risk for the incumbent party. For our race-by-race analysis, you must subscribe to the print edition of the Report.

PURE TOSS-UP (8 R, 6 D)

AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
AK A-L (Young, R)
AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
CA 11 (McNerney, D)
FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
KS 2 (Boyda, D)
LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
OH 16 (Open; Regula, R)
PA 10 (Carney, D)

TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (6 R, 1 D)

CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
IL 10 (Kirk, R)
LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
NC 8 (Hayes, R)
TX 22 (Lampson, D)
WA 8 (Reichert, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (2 R, 2 D)

GA 8 (Marshall, D)
NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
NY 13 (Open; Fossella, R)

LEAN REPUBLICAN (8 R, 0 D)

CT 4 (Shays, R)
FL 24 (Feeney, R)
MI 7 (Walberg, R)
MI 9 (Knollenberg, R)
MO 6 (Graves, R)
NV 3 (Porter, R)
OH 1 (Chabot, R)
OH 2 (Schmidt, R)

LEAN DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 12 D)

AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
IN 9 (Hill, D)
KY 3 (Yarmuth, D)
KS 3 (Moore, D)
MN 1 (Walz, D)
MS 1 (Childers, D)
NY 20 (Gillibrand, D)
NY 25 (Open; Walsh, R)
OR 5 (Open; Hooley, D)
PA 4 (Altmire, D)
PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
WI 8 (Kagen, D)

REPUBLICAN FAVORED (13 R, 0 D)

AL 2 (Open; Everett, R)
CA 4 (Open; Doolittle, R)
FL 8 (Keller, R)
FL 13 (Buchanan, R)
IL 6 (Roskam, R)
KY 2 (Open; Lewis, R)
MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
MO 9 (Open; Hulshof, R)
NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
PA 3 (English, R)
PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
VA 2 (Drake, R)
WV 2 (Capito, R)

DEMOCRAT FAVORED (0 R, 3 D)

IL 8 (Bean, D)
IL 14 (Foster, D)
PA 8 (Murphy, D)

Is Carly Fiorina the Answer to McCain’s Prayers for a VP?

2008-07-03T00:05:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina may or may not be on Arizona Sen. John McCain’s short list for vice president, but she already is taking a crucial role in the Republican presidential hopeful’s campaign.

In March, Fiorina was picked by the Republican National Committee to chair a group directed to raise money and get out the vote for this year’s elections. Shortly after that move was announced, Fiorina was interviewed by Business Week about her role.

“My role is to be the primary advocate for John McCain and for the Republican Party,” she said.

“Certainly there are a lot of people who are engaged in fund-raising who are more expert at it than I am. My role primarily is to advocate and communicate with the American people about the candidate and the party. And certainly I have a business background and understand economics, and so I will be engaged in that part as well,” she continued.

She has been doing plenty of media for McCain, including representing his campaign on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

It’s reasonable to believe that Fiorina, 53, is on an extended trial as McCain’s running mate.

Sure, plenty of Republicans have been mentioned as possible running mates for the Arizona Republican, but none of them seem particularly helpful to McCain. Most of the frequently mentioned names are white men who most voters haven’t heard of.

Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Mark Sanford of South Carolina would probably be fine, but let’s face it, neither brings much to McCain. At best, they are “do no harm” nominees.

Most people would yawn at the announcement of either man, and the selection would do little to shake up the existing contours of the presidential contest.

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge gets mentioned, but McCain may flinch at the thought of selecting a pro-choice Republican (even though Ridge might well be his best choice). Some conservatives already see McCain as an unreliable ally, and adding Ridge to the ticket might aggravate the Arizonan’s problems with the GOP base.

Fiorina is obviously smart and articulate, is comfortable in the media spotlight and, frankly, looks like a national political leader. She is comfortable talking about the economy and about business, two things that McCain doesn’t deal with well.

Her gender is an obvious asset. While Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) might add a woman to his ticket, that’s far from certain. Selecting Fiorina as the GOP VP nominee could have appeal to some women voters disgruntled by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s loss.

Even more important, a McCain-Fiorina ticket would be hard to peg as purely “stay the course,” though Democrats surely would do so.

San Jose State University political scientist/television commentator Larry Gerston, speculating in April on Fiorina as a possible VP nominee, asserted that, given her Hewlett Packard ties, “she would possibly have some success in bringing McCain California’s 55 electoral votes.” That’s silly, so let’s not even go there. McCain isn’t winning California, no matter who he picks.

Fiorina’s downside is rather easy to sketch out.

A former corporate executive, she would quickly become a talking point for Democrats who want to run against McCain as just another Republican apologist for big business.

CEO compensation issues (Fiorina’s severance package on leaving HP reportedly was in the area of $42 million) as well as questions about her business acumen and management style, which led to her being forced out of her post at Hewlett-Packard, all would provide fodder for reporters and Democratic spinners.

Everything that happened at Hewlett-Packard during Fiorina’s term of employment at the company, whether involving sales, employees or strategic business decisions, would become fair game. And it’s not only her years at HP that would invite scrutiny. Her years at AT&T and Lucent Technologies would also come under scrutiny, as would the companies on whose boards she serves.

For Democratic opposition researchers, Fiorina sounds like a dream come true.

And because Fiorina has never been a candidate for office, who knows how she would handle the scrutiny?

Yes, Fiorina has been in the limelight for years and understands how to deal with the media. And yes, she’s smart and poised. But being a candidate for office — particularly a very high office — is something very different. Plenty of CEOs who have run for high office, whether Senator or governor, have not succeeded, finding the political arena more difficult than they had imagined.

I’ve written previously that if McCain wants to go with a nontraditional VP pick, Fiorina, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and Ridge all would fill the bill. Of the three, nonpolitician Fiorina would be by far the riskiest of the bunch. Too risky, in fact.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 30, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Alabama 3: Another Democratic Youngster Faces Battle

2008-07-02T14:45:00.000-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Add 29-year-old attorney Josh Segall (D) to the list of young candidates running for office.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently included Segall’s bid in Alabama’s 3rd district on its list of emerging races — notable races not yet worthy of the committee’s “Red to Blue” program. The Democrat raised more than $300,000 through May 14 and plans to show more than $550,000 raised through June.

But if early polling is any indication, Segall will need considerable resources against incumbent Rep. Mike Rogers (R), who started the race in good standing — especially considering the national political environment — and had almost $950,000 in the bank through the middle of May.

A Nov. 16-20, 2007, Anzalone Liszt Research survey conducted for Segall before he entered the race showed Rogers with 58 percent favorable/14 percent unfavorable ratings. Rogers’ re-election number was only 40 percent, but a mere 12 percent said they would vote to replace him. And the Congressman’s job-approval rating was 63 percent excellent or good compared to 20 percent not so good or poor.

The Segall campaign plans to take another poll in mid-July.

Approximately one-third of the 3rd district’s population is African-American, fueling excitement among Democrats that with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) at the top of the ticket, they can make major inroads — even though President Bush won the district with 58 percent in 2004.

Democrats redrew the district following the 2000 census, included a sizable black vote, and planned to take over the seat. But Rogers proved to be a tremendous fundraiser, and won the open seat narrowly in 2002, 50.3 percent to 48.2 percent, over businessman Joe Turnham (D) in one of the hottest races in the country.

Two years later, Rogers took 61 percent against former state House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Fuller (D). And in 2006, Rogers won re-election with 59 percent.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 30, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

What’s in a Name for a Political Party? Maybe Victory in ’08

2008-06-30T00:05:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

The other day, my wife, who keeps up on current affairs but is hardly a political junkie, told me that after following the presidential campaign and hearing daily about the Republican Party’s problems, she had an idea for the GOP: It should change its name.

We’ve all heard over and over that the Republican “brand” is damaged, and that that problem is a weight around the neck of Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) presidential bid, as well as around the necks of downballot candidates for office. It’s hard to argue with that view, since every poll shows the voters have a negative view of the GOP.

That leaves Republican strategists with two choices: Change the party’s image in a hurry, or dump the brand and launch a new one.

Change the party’s reputation between now and November? Surely you jest! That simply isn’t possible. With President Bush still in the White House through the November elections and the party unable to get much traction anywhere, it’s impossible for the party to remake itself.

Talking about re-branding the GOP over the next five months, in the middle of a presidential campaign and during a Congress in which Democrats have most of the weapons, is sheer fantasy.

So the Republicans — let’s keep calling them that for the moment — need to drop their brand and roll out a new one that is more appealing to voters right now. It’s been done before. Esso became Exxon, after all.

Let’s see, what could Republicans call themselves?

Again, my wife, taking a break from Russian literature and always adept at problem-solving, had an idea.

“How about the ‘Good Guys?’” she asked, demonstrating a latent talent for public relations.

Not bad, I thought. A potentially broad appeal. Hard to pigeonhole ideologically. It’s both a party name and a marketing message.

Consider the headlines: “The Good Guys Respond to Obama Attacks.” “George Soros Pours in Millions to Defeat the Good Guys.” “The Good Guys Argue Obama Lacks Experience, National Security Credentials.”

Most voters barely get past the headlines, and swing voters, in particular, aren’t known for digging deeply into issues or arguments. Re-branding the Republicans as the Good Guys may be all that the party needs to do to attract a generation of voters who think that Angelina Jolie is a deep thinker.

But the “Good Guys” would be a strange name for a political party. It sounds more like a fast-food restaurant or a car wash or an auto dealership. No, that wouldn’t do. The Republicans need to find a new name that clearly conveys the fact that they are a political party.

Then my wife, taking a moment from reading “Crime and Punishment” for the 36th time, chimed in, “How about the ‘Party of Change’? Wouldn’t that sound good?”

Bingo!

You can see the headlines, now, can’t you? “Party of Change Nominates McCain.” “Party of Change United Behind McCain.” “Congressional Leaders of Party of Change Push Education, Tax Reform.” “Obama Attacks the Party of Change.” “It’s Democrats Versus Party of Change.”

So far, Democratic presidential standard-bearer Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has fully embraced the “change” message and successfully presented himself as the strongest messenger for change. But with their name change, the Republicans, er, the Party of Change, can roar, “We are the Party of Change, while the Democrats aren’t!”

Talk about altering the political playing field.

Now the key for the Republicans, er, Party of Change, is for Bush to hang onto his Republican label. That way, the newly minted party can “triangulate” by asking voters whether they want to go with the status quo (Bush) or a risky Obama, with the failed Republicans or the dangerous Democrats?

The answer, of course, is neither. Instead, Party of Change leaders such as Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Rep. John Boehner (Ohio) can urge Americans to get behind the Party of Change and its nominee, the battle-tested maverick McCain. That way, the newly minted party can tap both the desire for change and the fear of change.

In this way, Republicans can get the albatross of the Republican Party from around their necks, while at the same time picking up the banner of change. Their candidates can rail against the status quo and argue that while Obama talks about change, he isn’t the nominee for the Party of Change! And every time Obama talks about “change,” he’ll be advertising for the Party of Change.

If you listen to Obama and every Democrat running for Congress, they all talk non-stop about change and the nation’s problems without offering many details of what they’ll do. And that’s because so many voters mindlessly respond to calls for change without thinking about what is involved.

Sure, re-branding the Republicans is risky. Some Republicans won’t figure out what’s happening and will end up voting for the now-defunct (except for Bush, Tom DeLay, Larry Craig and a handful of other Republicans who’ll keep the old name to give the Party of Change deniability) brand.

Republican leaders have been talking about trying to figure out what the party stands for. So far, they don’t have a clue. Changing the party’s name would answer that question. The Party of Change stands for, well, CHANGE.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 26, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Net Roots Reach for 60 Senate Seats

2008-06-29T00:05:00.000-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The Democratic net roots are reaching out and reaching deeper into the list of vulnerable Republican Senate seats.

On Tuesday afternoon, prominent Democratic blog MyDD launched its “Road to 60” campaign on ActBlue, the online Democratic fundraising vehicle. The goal is to “turn long shots into competitive races and competitive races into top tier ones,” MyDD contributor Josh Orton wrote in the introductory post. The group is looking to douse the Republican firewall by directing money to the lower tier of Senate races.

The MyDD effort mixes Democratic challengers in top-tier races, such as Mark Begich (Alaska), with longer-shot candidates, such as Jim Slattery (Kansas), Kay Hagan (North Carolina) and Rick Noriega (Texas). Noriega has already received significant attention from Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the DailyKos Web site.

Former Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove’s inclusion on the list shows more pragmatism from a group of activists generally known for supporting only liberal candidates. Other Democratic efforts are focused on the purification of the party.

“Admittedly, this campaign is a bit more tactical and less ideological than others,” Orton added, “But we will always highlight the progressive work of the candidates profiled and encourage them to stand up for progressive values.”

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 24, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Colorado 4 & Louisiana 4

2008-06-28T00:05:00.000-04:00

The June 27, 2008 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The print edition comes out every two weeks and the content is not available online. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

Here is a brief sample of what's in this edition...

Colorado 4: Fighting a Trend
By Nathan L. Gonzales

There are few certainties in life: death, taxes, and Marilyn Musgrave’s tough reelection races are near the top of the list.

Since her election in 2002, the Colorado congresswoman has seen a continuous downward slide in her reelection percentages. Whether it’s because of her personal style, third party candidates, or heavy outside spending by liberal groups, Musgrave’s foes smell blood in the water and are targeting her once again.

Businesswoman and former Senate aide Betsy Markey is the Democratic nominee and will try to do what two previous state legislators could not – defeat Musgrave.

But Musgrave will be ready and well financed, and her 4th District still leans Republican, by the numbers. Still, with more Democratic groups targeting her defeat and the NRCC on its heels, this might well be the cycle Musgrave won’t pull it out. Subscribers get the rest of the story.

Louisiana 4: Déjà vu, Y’All

Republicans have seen this movie twice already, and it doesn’t have a pretty ending.

After special election wins in Mississippi’s 1st District and Louisiana’s 7th District, Democrats have their sights set on a handful of other Southern seats, including northwest Louisiana’s 4th District.

The seat is open after Republican Cong. Jim McCrery announced his retirement in December. Democrats went out and recruited long-time Caddo District Attorney Paul Carmouche, considered one of the few Democrats in the district who can win the seat.

Meanwhile, Republicans will likely nominate either former Bossier Chamber of Commerce President Jeff Thompson or wealthy businessman Chris Gorman, but still have a four-way GOP primary to sort through.

It’s another classic Southern district that went heavily for President Bush, but has enough of an African-American population that could make things interesting with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. Subscribers get the rest of the story.

Washington 8: August Dress Rehearsal

2008-06-27T13:54:00.004-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democratic and Republican strategists won’t have to wait until November to test the political strength of at least one vulnerable House Republican. Because of the state of Washington’s new “Top 2” primary, Rep. Dave Reichert (R) will face off against 2006 nominee Darcy Burner (D) on Aug. 19.

In the new system, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the November general election. But unlike the old Louisiana system, it doesn’t matter whether a candidate passes the 50 percent threshold in the primary. The top two advance anyway.

In 2004, Evergreen State voters passed Initiative 872, putting the system in place, and the United States Supreme Court upheld it in March. The primary is open, which means voters do not have to choose a party affiliation.

Some Republican candidates are trying to take advantage of another wrinkle in the system that allows candidates to self-identify their party. Candidates can state their party preference, which will appear behind their name on the ballot, regardless of what party they are actually a part of.

For example, 2004 gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi chose “Prefers G.O.P. Party,” in his rematch against Gov. Christine Gregoire, who “Prefers Democratic Party.” First district, no-shot challenger Larry Ishmael also chose “Prefers G.O.P. Party,” despite its redundancy.

Reichert, on the other hand, is going with the standard “Prefers Republican Party,” as is 5th district Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. But Reichert has a much more difficult re-election fight on his hands.

In 2006, the Congressman was re-elected to a second term, 51.5 percent to 48.5 percent. Burner never really stopped running and is outpacing Reichert in available campaign funds in a suburban district that Democrats would love to have in their column. Through March 31, both candidates raised almost $1.4 million, but Burner had $922,000 on hand compared with $698,000 for Reichert.

It’s unclear how much stock the candidates or parties will put in the results of the August primary. But the new system will give strategists and observers real votes to mull over, instead of just polls.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 25, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

North Carolina 8: Result Is No Shocker

2008-06-26T00:05:00.000-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

North Carolina Rep. Robin Hayes (R) is vulnerable.

This is a surprise?

A newly released Democratic poll showed challenger Larry Kissell (D) edging out Hayes in a general election matchup. But the survey just confirmed the obvious and does not signify movement in a race that was already highly competitive.

In November 2006, Hayes and Kissell battled to a virtual draw, with the Congressman prevailing, 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent, or a margin of 329 votes.

Six months later, an Anzalone Liszt Research survey for Kissell’s campaign had the race essentially tied, with Hayes at 45 percent and the schoolteacher at 43 percent.

In November of last year, a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D) survey conducted for the Service Employees International Union and the Center for American Progress Action Fund showed Kissell leading Hayes, 49 percent to 47 percent.

And now in June 2008, an Anzalone Liszt Research survey for Kissell’s campaign showed the schoolteacher leading the incumbent narrowly, 45 percent to 43 percent.

The closeness of the race can be viewed two ways. On one hand, it shows Hayes’ inability to create some breathing room between him and his opponent, who nearly won last cycle and will be better funded this time. On the other hand, Democrats may have lost their opportunity to knock off Hayes in the worst Republican environment in decades two years ago. Either way, Hayes won’t be taken by surprise.

The Republican is a perennial Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee target. First, it was because of some of his trade votes, but now it has more to do with the competitive nature of the district. President Bush won it with 54 percent in 2004, but the recent Anzalone survey showed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) leading in the presidential race, 50 percent to 37 percent, in a district that is more than one-quarter African-American.

After winning an open seat in 1998 with 51 percent, Hayes was re-elected with 55 percent two years later, defeating Democratic lawyer Mike Taylor both times. The 8th district was subsequently redrawn, giving Hayes more Democrats, and drawing the attention of the DCCC.

Hayes would go on to defeat young attorney/former Yale running back Chris Kouri (D) with 54 percent in 2002 and young beauty queen Beth Troutman, who is now a Charlotte TV news anchor,with 56 percent in 2004.

This might be the year Democrats knock off Robin Hayes, but it’s no surprise that the race is close and the Congressman will be ready for the fight.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 20, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Are Senate Races Moving in One Partisan Direction?

2008-06-26T00:04:00.000-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Senate election cycles normally take one of two paths. Either all the close races fall toward one party in a political “wave,” or individual races are decided by race-specific factors, particularly the quality of the candidates, the power of incumbency and local issues.

We’ve had cycles when both parties have suffered a substantial number of defeats with only a minimal net change of Senate seats (1976 and 1978 are prime examples), but that’s not going to happen this cycle. Republicans have only a single reasonable opportunity for a takeover this year.

We’ve had four noteworthy Senate “waves” in the past 28 years, in 2006, 1994, 1986 and 1980, and it’s possible that we’ll see another one this year. But it’s also possible that all the talk about Democratic Senate opportunities is just a bit over-hyped, and that Democrats will have a good year, not a great one.

One way of anticipating whether a wave is likely to develop is to monitor competitive Senate contests periodically to determine whether they are moving in one direction. That’s what I intend to do in this column. Of course, any wave may not show itself until after the two presidential nominating conventions. Still, the way individual Senate races move in the near term may offer some clue about a trend.

I must begin with one caveat: In evaluating races, I do not factor in certain widely circulated polls, including those conducted by Rasmussen Reports, that I regard as less reliable. (In other words, I treat some polls as if they don’t even exist.)

Democrats continue to be well- positioned to take over three GOP-held seats: open seats in Virginia and New Mexico, and Sen. John Sununu’s seat in New Hampshire. There is no evidence of significant movement in any of those contests, though Republicans continue to insist that Sununu’s race will close.

Democrats, of course, don’t need movement in any of the contests. They lead in all three.

The fourth most vulnerable Senate seat, the open Republican seat in Colorado, remains competitive. But given the state’s recent political behavior and the national mood, GOP insiders have little reason to be optimistic about their chances.

The next most vulnerable Senate seat, in Minnesota, has moved toward the Republicans in recent weeks. GOP strategists have successfully put presumptive Democratic-Farmer-Labor nominee Al Franken on the defensive, both over his nonpayment of certain taxes and, more importantly, a variety of statements he has made over the years.

Franken has defended his remarks by insisting that they were part of his shtick and intended as satire, not statements of his beliefs. But his language has been crude and his comedy often biting, and even some Democratic officeholders have expressed concern about his judgment.

Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has benefited in the polls of late, and even though Franken has time to change the dynamic of the race, it now seems likely that the comedian turned politician will have to defend himself repeatedly over the next four months. At the very least, that puts the challenger constantly on the defensive, improving Coleman’s prospects.

There are no signs of movement in Alaska, and that’s good news for Democrats. Polls continue to show challenger Mark Begich (D) leading Sen. Ted Stevens (R) narrowly. The longer that race stays tight, the better for Democrats, who are trying to knock off a state political icon.

The fact that the Maine race has not closed in surveys widely viewed as reliable is disappointing news for Democrats. GOP Sen. Susan Collins continues to be well-regarded and has a comfortable lead over her challenger, Rep. Tom Allen (D). Sitting in a blue state that went for Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Collins would seem to be a perfect target in a “wave” election, but so far, her prospects are undimmed.

Democrats remain upbeat about Jeff Merkley’s chances of ousting Sen. Gordon Smith in Oregon, but I’m not convinced that they are any closer to doing that now than they were four or five months ago.

True, the recent decision by Independent John Frohmayer to drop his Senate candidacy is good news for Merkley. But it is difficult to see it as all that significant, especially since Democrats spent so much time and effort arguing that Frohmayer’s candidacy was inconsequential when he was a candidate. If they were right that he wasn’t going to be a factor in the race, they cannot now claim that his exit is all that important.

Still, this definitely is a race to watch for possible “wave” evidence, and Smith almost certainly will have a fight on his hands all the way to November.

If a wave develops, the three best places to watch may well be North Carolina, Kentucky and Mississippi. Democratic prospects in all three seem to have improved recently (especially after post-primary polling in North Carolina and Kentucky), giving the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee more options in the campaign’s final months.

Even Republicans seem increasingly nervous about Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), who hasn’t released polling numbers since February and has been up on TV since late May. Dole’s opponent, state Sen. Kay Hagan (D), has some liabilities, but I have little doubt about her work ethic.

Finally, the Louisiana Senate race, pitting incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) against her GOP challenger, John Kennedy, hasn’t changed at all. Polls show the Senator ahead, but the fundamentals almost guarantee a close race.

In sum, developments in two states, Minnesota and Maine, should have Republicans optimistic, while Democrats have reasons to be happy about some longer-shot races, as well as their top takeover opportunities.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 23, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Colorado 4: Defenders of Wildlife Set to Take On Musgrave

2008-06-25T12:26:00.002-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

An environmental group is about to launch a substantial ad campaign against Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R) in Colorado’s 4th district.

According to Federal Election Commission 48-hour notices, the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund placed a $200,000 ad buy on June 19. The group also spent $11,794 on ad production to Wild Bunch Consulting.

According to one Democratic insider, this could be a sign that environmental groups are targeting Musgrave’s defeat this cycle, as they did then-Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) in 2006.

The Defenders have already aired an ad against Rep. Steve Pearce (R) in New Mexico’s Senate race.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 23, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Change in Congress Comes in All Ages and Sizes

2008-06-25T00:05:00.002-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

While age is an underlying issue in the presidential contest, Democrats have candidates young and old running as change agents at the Congressional level.

Former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes (D), 70, is a strong challenger to Rep. Sam Graves (R), 44, in Missouri’s 6th district. Caddo Parish District Attorney Paul Carmouche (D) just turned 65, but is in a strong position to win the Republican open seat in Louisiana’s 4th district.

In New Jersey’s 5th, blind rabbi Dennis Shulman (D), 58, is a longer-shot challenger to Rep. Scott Garrett (R). And in Florida’s 21st district, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez (D), 59, is giving Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) his first real race in years.

Arizona Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) was a 67-year-old freshman in the 110th Congress, after defeating Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth last cycle.

On the flip side, Democrats also have a number of candidates born right around the time Jimmy Carter was elected president. Iraq War veteran Ashwin Madia (D), 30, stands a good chance of coming to Congress next year as he tries to take over the very competitive Republican open seat in Minnesota’s 3rd district.

In Colorado’s 2nd district, wealthy businessman Jared Polis, 33, will come to Congress if he can make it out of the crowded Democratic primary on Aug. 12. Iraq War veteran Jon Powers (D), 29, also faces a competitive primary in New York’s 26th district. But if he’s the nominee, Powers will also face a general election fight.

Glenn Nye (D), 33, is hoping to knock off Rep. Thelma Drake (R) in Virginia’s 2nd district, while attorney Nick Leibham (D), 34, is hoping to oust Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) in California’s 50th.

André Carson, 33, was elected to Congress earlier this year in a special election to replace his grandmother, the late Rep. Julia Carson (D), in Indiana’s7th district. He defeated 30-year-old state Rep. Jon Elrod (R), who recently announced he was dropping out of the general election race.

Republicans have their own roster of youthful candidates. Duncan D. Hunter (R), 31, is a virtual lock to replace his father in California’s 52nd district.

Illinois state Rep. Aaron Schock (R), 27, could be the youngest Member of the next Congress. He’s favored in the fall, but he still has to win downstate Illinois’s 18th district seat, which is being vacated by Rep. Ray LaHood (R).

In New York’s 1st district, 28-year-old Iraq War veteran Lee Zeldin (R) is a long shot against incumbent Rep. Tim Bishop (D).

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 19, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Hampshire Senate: No Poll Vault for Sununu

2008-06-24T00:05:00.002-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

“It will close.”

That was the common analysis during the previous cycle’s Senate race in Pennsylvania, when poll after poll showed then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R) trailing his opponent, then-state Treasurer Bob Casey (D). But after millions of dollars of advertising, the race never did close, and Casey won in a romp.

Now, New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu (R) finds himself in a similar predicament.

Through this point last cycle, two-dozen polls showed exactly the same thing; Santorum trailed Casey by an average of 11 points and the incumbent failed to top 43 percent in the ballot test. Indications are that Sununu will suffer the same fate as Santorum.

Sununu has trailed former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) in all but one of 11 polls, dating back to March 2007, by an average of 12 points. And he hasn’t topped 42 percent, except in the mid-December American Research Group poll that was clearly an outlier. [Click here for the comparison poll chart.]

The most recent survey, conducted April 28-May 2 by Dartmouth College, showed Shaheen ahead 46 percent to 36 percent.

But Sununu is undaunted in his effort for a second term.

His supporters repeat the mantra that he was also behind in the polls during his 2002 race against Shaheen, making it a core of their comeback argument. In fact, that’s not the whole truth. From July 2001 to early October 2002, Sununu led Shaheen, most often well outside the margin of error. And he wasn’t even the nominee until September 2002. A June 23-July 1 University of New Hampshire survey showed then-Rep. Sununu leading Gov. Shaheen comfortably, 51 percent to 42 percent, heading into the summer.

Two polls in mid-October gave Shaheen a narrow edge, but Sununu led for the bulk of the race. This year he will have to come from much further behind.

“John Sununu knows how to win campaigns in New Hampshire,” Sununu adviser Julie Teer said. “Our campaign has a strategy in place, and we are following it according to plan.”

While the Senator has been hands-on and Team Sununu has been tight-lipped about his strategy, there is no question that it revolves around reminding voters about Shaheen’s gubernatorial record.

“I think her service as governor demonstrated a real lack of leadership, failure to deal with the most important problem facing the state ... education funding,” Sununu told Roll Call in a May interview.

But since her 2002 loss to Sununu and since she’s been out of office, Shaheen’s standing has improved. A late April UNH survey had her personal rating at 56 percent favorable to 29 percent unfavorable.

Up to this point, Sununu has focused on fundraising. The Senator raised more than $4.1 million through the first three months of the year and finished March with $4.3 million on hand. Shaheen raised more than $2.5 million and topped $1.8 million in the bank. Even with a financial advantage, there is no guarantee that Sununu’s plan to remind voters and redefine Shaheen will work.

“No matter what we did or how often we did it, it didn’t matter,” said Santorum media consultant John Brabender, whose candidate outspent his opponent $25.3 million to $17.5 million in the 2006 race. “It was like banging our head against the wall.”

Santorum began advertising statewide more than a month before Casey, but in the end, it didn’t matter.

“When you have two established brands, you’re not going to throw up advertising and see things move,” Brabender said. “The Santorum polling eight months out looked the same as it did one day out.”

“The issue that hurt me was the nationalization of the election,” Santorum said in a recent interview, explaining the differences between his race and Sununu’s challenge.

“Shaheen will be as much of an issue in this race as Sununu. He has an opponent with a clear record. I did not,” he added, noting Casey’s uncontroversial statewide offices and family legacy in the state.

Six of Sununu’s colleagues were defeated in the previous cycle trying to localize their elections, and late August polling by USA Today/Gallup showed that moving large numbers of voters late in a campaign can be difficult. By the end of August, Santorum was down by 18 points and lost. Then-Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) was down by 6 points and lost, while then-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) was down 3 points and lost, too.

Then-Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and George Allen (R-Va.) were either tied or slightly ahead in their races by the end of the summer and lost re-election. And Missouri Sen. Jim Talent (R) was up by 6 points that summer and went down to defeat. Voter opinion had either solidified or undecided voters broke dramatically against the incumbent.

Republicans may have to reach back almost a quarter of a century to find precedent for an incumbent coming from so far behind to win. In 1984, North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms (R) was running for a third term and found himself down by 20 points to Gov. Jim Hunt (D) with 18 months to go.

“Barring an act of God, Jesse Helms can’t win,” a Washington Post reporter wrote. But Helms had a plan.

According to the book “Tarheel Politics: Myths and Realities” by Paul Luebke, the Senator attacked early, going after Hunt on television in the fall and winter in the year preceding the election. Helms effectively redefined the popular governor and helped himself by polarizing the electorate along racial lines by opposing the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

By May 1984, Helms was already back in the lead, but he would go on to win only narrowly, 52 percent to 48 percent. This year, it’s June, and Sununu still trails his opponent.

Helms benefited greatly from the top of the ticket, where Ronald Reagan won the state with 62 percent and Republicans took back the governorship. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is expected to compete, and potentially win, in New Hampshire, but it won’t be by 24 points. And Democratic Gov. John Lynch (D) will be re-elected easily. He won with more than 73 percent in 2006.

Even though the presidential race will drive turnout, there is no guarantee it will lift Sununu enough.

“The same voters aren’t pulling the trigger for both of them yet,” said UNH Survey Center Director Andrew Smith, whose April poll had McCain winning the state by 6 points and Sununu losing by 12.

Unlike Helms, Sununu has chosen not to advertise early. Part of the strategy is due to cost, since the expensive Boston media market covers the vast majority of the state. The other calculation is that the voters who matter aren’t paying attention, and that New Hampshire’s late-breaking voters make it different than any other state in the union.

Shaheen has already been on television statewide, seeking to define herself. And at least six of Sununu’s GOP colleagues who are up for re-election this year have chosen to air early commercials as well, including Sens. Norm Coleman (Minn.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Roger Wicker (Miss.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

“Different candidate. Different state. Different campaign plan,” said Sununu media consultant Fred Davis, who is part of an upgraded campaign team. In general, the Sununu team is almost dismissive of the Senator’s vulnerability, über-confident in its plan, and claims the race is “neck and neck” in its unreleased polls.

Sununu’s supporters believe that New Hampshire in 2008 will be a decidedly different, and better, environment, and they believe McCain will be extremely strong at the top of the ticket.

That’s good because the Granite State was the scene of a Democratic tsunami in the previous cycle that re-elected a governor, threw out both Republican Members of Congress and flipped both the state Senate and state House to Democratic control. But even if this is a better year than 2006, it will be nowhere near 2002 — when Republicans were popular — for Sununu.

McCain will need to help Sununu, and Republicans in general, regain their appeal to independent voters, who led to the defeat of Sununu’s colleagues last cycle. According to exit polling, Santorum lost independents by 44 points, DeWine by 30 points, Burns by 24 points, Allen by 12 points and Talent by 8 points. Chafee actually won independents by 10 points and still lost. It almost goes without saying, but independents are critical for Sununu.

It appears that Sununu wants both a nationalized race with a popular McCain and a localized election where voters respond to Shaheen’s tenure as governor.

“Sen. Sununu has a strong track record of proving the political prognosticators wrong, and we have every reason to believe that streak will continue,” National Republican Senatorial Committee Communications Director Rebecca Fisher said.

In the end, Sununu’s plan may not matter.

“There are some things that are simply beyond the Senator’s control,” Santorum said.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on June 19, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Good Candidates for House Come in All Shapes and Sizes

2008-06-23T00:05:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Every election cycle, I meet a lot of candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives. Some, in fact many, have more liabilities than assets. But some actually impress me. This column is about four of them, and I’d advise keeping an eye on each at least until November.

Gregg Harper (R), Mississippi’s 3rd district. An attorney and former Rankin County Republican chairman, Harper, 52, did what many candidates promise to do but, in fact, don’t. He put together a successful grass-roots campaign.

With one of his primary opponents flush with money and the other a well-known state Senator who had the governor’s media consultant at his disposal, Harper was the long-shot Republican hopeful with little cash and no district-wide recognition.

But his years toiling in Republican political vineyards — whether working in phone banks for a Mississippi GOP candidate in 1978, serving as a Republican observer of the Florida recount in 2000 or working as a legal volunteer for President Bush’s campaign in Ohio in 2004 — paid off.

Harper is straightforward, astute and earnest. It’s clear that he is an extremely hard worker, and that people who meet him are willing to go to work to help him. That’s a very good sign.

In a rarity these days, Harper refused to use negative information about one of his opponents. But don’t think Gregg Harper is politically naive. He isn’t. And he will win the open seat in November.

Betsy Markey (D), Colorado’s 4th district. If I were Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R), I’d be very, very worried about challenger Markey.

Before moving to Colorado in the 1990s, Markey spent much of her time in and around the nation’s capital, whether working on Capitol Hill for then-Rep. Herb Harris (D-Va.), in graduate school at American University, as a presidential management fellow working in the Treasury and State departments, or as a businesswoman living and working with her husband in the Maryland suburbs.

In Fort Collins, she briefly owned a coffee shop. She became Larimer County Democratic chairman in 2002 and then was hired by Sen. Ken Salazar (D) to be his regional director for northern and eastern Colorado, the part of the state in which she is running for Congress.

Unlike many candidates, Markey, 52, doesn’t sound like some robot regurgitating talking points and refusing to answer questions that might put her in an awkward position. She actually responded to questions only after listening to them and thinking about them. Amazing!

The Colorado Democrat is articulate and personable. I’m convinced she’ll run a solid campaign and prove to be an appealing alternative to Musgrave, who clearly has not bonded with a majority in the GOP-leaning district.

Erik Paulsen (R), Minnesota’s 3rd district. I wouldn’t say my interview with Erik Paulsen went well. I’d say it was spectacular. His response to a question on immigration policy was the single best answer that I have ever received — and I’ve certainly asked the same question to at least 100 other candidates.

Holding a degree in mathematics from St. Olaf College, Paulsen initially used his math background to work as a financial analyst for a cable TV shopping channel. But after a brief internship in the St. Paul office of then-Sen. Rudy Boschwitz (R) and a short stint as a field representative in Boschwitz’s re-election campaign, Paulsen opted for politics over the business world.

He eventually worked in a couple of capacities for Rep. Jim Ramstad (R), including as state director, before winning an open state legislative seat at the age of 29.

Paulsen, 43, is sharp, articulate and politically savvy without seeming overly ambitious or arrogant. He clearly thinks about policy and can talk about it without being boring or long-winded. He is one of the more politically appealing candidates that I have interviewed.

I haven’t met Paulsen’s Democratic opponent yet, so I can’t handicap his chances completely. But Paulsen definitely gives Republicans a strong nominee in their effort to hold a shaky open House seat.

Kathy Dahlkemper (D), Pennsylvania’s 3rd district. I’m not sure if Dahlkemper is quite in the same class with the other three candidates I’ve already mentioned, but, given her lack of political experience, she clearly has what it takes to be a top-tier challenger to Rep. Phil English (R).

A dietician by training, Dahlkemper, 50, joined her husband’s business, Dahlkemper Landscape Architects & Contractors, in 1997. The family business has been in Erie since 1955, and the Dahlkemper name is well-known and highly regarded in the area.

Dahlkemper’s other claim is that she co-founded the Lake Erie Arboretum. But when it comes to campaigns, she is a neophyte. That probably explains why she seemed to rely more on talking points than Paulsen or Markey.

But the Democrat scores well on sincerity, and she acts like your neighbor rather than a career politician. And unlike Markey, who has EMILY’s List support, Dahlkemper is a pro-life Democrat in a district with plenty of conservative Democrats.

A likable, articulate, common-sense citizen-politician, Dahlkemper has the tough job of trying to upset veteran English, who co-authored legislation that recently passed the House to extend unemployment benefits. She certainly is the underdog in the race, but English would be wise not to underestimate her appeal.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 19, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

Barney Frank: A Definite No To Nunn

2008-06-20T12:57:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told the Rothenberg Political Report Friday that he “would have a hard time voting for the [Democratic] ticket” if Sen. Barack Obama picks former United States Sen. Sam Nunn as his vice-presidential running-mate.

Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and the first member of Congress to announce that he is gay, has expressed those views to Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy, who are leading the search for Obama’s running-mate, as well as to others close to the Illinois Democrat.

The Massachusetts Democrat cites a number of examples of what he calls Nunn’s “real record of hostility” toward gays, placing greatest emphasis on Nunn’s September 1996 vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which failed in the Senate by a single vote.

Nunn, who had already announced that he would not run for reelection in 1996, was one of five Democrats who opposed that bill. The others were Howell Heflin (Ala.), Wendell Ford (Ky.), James Exon (Neb.) and Robert Byrd (W.V.).

Frank argues that adding Nunn to the Democratic ticket would cost Obama support in the gay community and would make it impossible for the Massachusetts Congressman to be a strong advocate for the Democratic Presidential nominee.

“I would be virtually useless in trying to convince other gays and lesbians to support the ticket,” said Frank.

2008 House Ratings

2008-06-20T00:05:00.003-04:00

PURE TOSS-UP (9 R, 6 D)

AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
AK A-L (Young, R)
AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
CA 11 (McNerney, D)
FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
KS 2 (Boyda, D)
LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
NY 13 (Open; Fossella, R)
NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
OH 16 (Open; Regula, R)
PA 10 (Carney, D)

TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (6 R, 1 D)

CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
IL 10 (Kirk, R)
LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
NC 8 (Hayes, R)
TX 22 (Lampson, D)
WA 8 (Reichert, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (1 R, 3 D)

GA 8 (Marshall, D)
NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
OR 5 (Open; Hooley, D)

LEAN REPUBLICAN (8 R, 0 D)

CT 4 (Shays, R)
FL 24 (Feeney, R)
MI 7 (Walberg, R)
MI 9 (Knollenberg, R)
MO 6 (Graves, R)
NV 3 (Porter, R)
OH 1 (Chabot, R)
OH 2 (Schmidt, R)

LEAN DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 10 D)

AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
IN 9 (Hill, D)
KY 3 (Yarmuth, D)
KS 3 (Moore, D)
MN 1 (Walz, D)
MS 1 (Childers, D)
NY 20 (Gillibrand, D)
NY 25 (Open; Walsh, R)
PA 4 (Altmire, D)
VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
WI 8 (Kagen, D)

REPUBLICAN FAVORED (14 R, 0 D)

AL 2 (Open; Everett, R)
CA 4 (Open; Doolittle, R)
FL 8 (Keller, R)
FL 13 (Buchanan, R)
IL 6 (Roskam, R)
KY 2 (Open; Lewis, R)
MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
MO 9 (Open; Hulshof, R)
NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
PA 3 (English, R)
PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
PA 18 (Murphy, R)
VA 2 (Drake, R)
WV 2 (Capito, R)

DEMOCRAT FAVORED (0 R, 5 D)

IL 8 (Bean, D)
IL 14 (Foster, D)
OH 18 (Space, D)
PA 8 (Murphy, D)
PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)

Vetoing the Vice Presidential Names: Let the Fight Begin

2008-06-19T00:05:00.001-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

As the names of a seemingly endless number of would-be vice presidential running mates in both parties circulate this summer, the one thing you can be sure of is that there will be an increasing effort by groups to make certain some of those mentioned are not selected.

In a signed opinion piece last week, Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart warned presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) about selecting former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) as his running mate. The reason: Nunn “helped lead the fight against allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military and was the force behind the disastrous ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ compromise.”

“If Obama taps Nunn, he could end up adding gay men and lesbians to the list of disgruntled Democrats. They might not vote for [Arizona Sen. John] McCain, but they might very well stay home,” Capehart writes. The editorial writer makes that assertion even though, in the same piece, he notes that Nunn recently said that “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be revisited.

Frankly, the assertion that gays — liberal and Democratic gays, that is — may sit out the presidential race if Nunn is chosen by Obama is difficult to take seriously.

Given Obama’s record in Illinois and in the Senate, his overall ideology and the effusive endorsement of him earlier this month by the Human Rights Campaign, “the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group,” it’s absurd to suggest that politically interested gays who otherwise agree with Obama and share his values would withhold their vote if he selected Nunn to join his ticket.

But of course, that opinion piece wasn’t meant to be political analysis. Rather, it was an attempt to muscle Obama away from Nunn as a running mate — to create even the impression that selecting the former Georgia Senator might create trouble for Obama. And avoiding trouble is the first rule for picking a running mate.

You’d think that Obama’s position on gays in the military might be a little more important than his running mate’s. And you might even think that a potential running mate would be evaluated on more than a single issue to see whether he or she could serve the president, and the country, in an important and useful way.

You can bet that sometime soon conservatives and some people in the pro-life community will throw down the gauntlet and warn their eventual nominee, McCain, that he better not select former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge as his running mate.

Ridge, it’s certainly true, was more pro-choice than pro-life, and social conservatives surely would prefer a different partner for McCain. Republicans will stay home if Ridge is picked as McCain’s running mate, we will be informed by conservative leaders who probably won’t have compelling data to support their point but will rely on the same kind of scenario that Capehart made in the Post.

Then there are the likely complaints that will come from supporters of Israel at the mention of Obama possibly considering adding outgoing Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) to the Democratic ticket.

Hagel, who served in the Army in Vietnam and received two Purple Hearts, has the kind of credentials (including an extensive business background and a Republican pedigree) that would play right into Obama’s message of bringing people together. But the pro- Israel community doesn’t regard Hagel merely as unhelpful. It sees him as a problem, and you can bet Democratic activists will attempt to steer Obama away from the Nebraskan.

There are, of course, good reasons to eliminate certain names and to continue to consider others. Obama already has problems in the pro-Israel and Jewish communities, so adding Hagel to his ticket would severely aggravate an existing problem.

Geography, age, experience, foreign policy or military expertise, gender, ideology, party and even ethnicity are all factors that both campaigns will consider, even if only in passing. But both Obama and McCain should think more broadly about the message their selections will send.

Both presidential hopefuls are running on a message of change. Obama talks specifically about bringing Americans together, while McCain talks more about changing the way Washington, D.C., works. What better way to kick off the key phase of their campaigns then to pick a running mate who displays their dedication to their message?

For Obama, that certainly doesn’t mean selecting former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) to make working-class Democrats feel more comfortable or even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to “unify” the party. Instead, it means picking a Republican, such as Hagel, or possibly a Democrat who has been politically successful in a Republican state. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana are obvious examples.

No, they probably couldn’t deliver their states to Obama, but that’s not the point. With the first truly big decision that Obama would make, he would be showing his seriousness about his fundamental message by picking someone who epitomizes it.

For McCain, picking a conservative is a no-brainer. It just isn’t necessarily the best choice. It’s too predictable and reeks too much of traditional politics.

Like Obama, McCain has the opportunity to show with his first major decision that he wants to change the way things work. Picking Connecticut Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman certainly would do that, but Ridge or a quirkier pick, such as former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, would also send the same message.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 16, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

NRSC Picks Independent Expenditure Director

2008-06-18T12:15:00.001-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Faced with an extremely tough playing field and environment, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has designated Sam Van Voorhis to direct its independent expenditure effort this year.

Van Voorhis, a direct-mail consultant with NextWave Communications, will handle uncoordinated committee spending on TV ads, direct mail, phone banks and polling. He will oversee work done by polling firms Public Opinion Strategies and the Tarrance Group and by media firms McAuliffe Message Media and Weeks & Co.

As previously reported, Jim Jordan is handling the IE duties for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Jordan has held multiple roles at the DSCC over the years, including executive director, political director and communications director, and he managed Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential campaign early in the race.

On the House side, Clinton Key and Evan Kozlow are directing the National Republican Congressional Committee’s IE effort. Key is the former executive director of the Republican Governors Association and former aide to Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating (R). Kozlow most recently managed Tom Kean Jr.’s (R) Senate bid in New Jersey last cycle and previously managed races for two other New Jersey Republicans: Rep. Scott Garrett and gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler.

Jon Vogel is handling the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee IE. He was the DCCC’s political director this cycle before moving over to the other side of the wall. Vogel is a former finance director for New York Democrats Rep. Steve Israel and former Rep. Mike Forbes, and last cycle was the DCCC’s Northeast regional political director.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 16, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Blogs Gaining Credibility at Senate Committees

2008-06-17T00:05:00.002-04:00

By Nathan L. Gonzales

When Charles Schumer (D) was elected to the New York State Assembly in the mid-1970s, some of his older colleagues were still getting used to the television technology, the Senator joked at a recent meeting with Roll Call reporters and editors. Now, the Empire State’s senior Senator counts blogs as part of his daily information appetite.

Schumer’s aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee include a number of blogs in his daily packet of media clippings, which also include relevant stories from the day’s newspapers and television shows. But the DSCC chairman is also known to read them on his own.

Items from the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, America Blog, Talking Points Memo, Swing State Project and Senate Guru are usually included, as well as state-specific blogs in 2008 Senate battlegrounds.

Blogs are also getting more attention at the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

GOP aides scan national blogs such as Red State, Townhall and Hot Air for information, as well as state-specific blogs, such as the Dead Pelican (Louisiana), Minnesota Democrats Exposed and the Politicker Web sites in states with Senate races.

Just a couple of election cycles ago, including blogs alongside newspaper and television clippings would have been unthinkable, but this is just one example of how the flow of information is changing and affecting political campaigns.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on June 13, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Why a McCain Win May Be Bad for GOP, Good for Democrats

2008-06-16T00:05:00.002-04:00

By Stuart Rothenberg

Republicans and conservatives are rallying behind Sen. John McCain’s White House bid, but not because they are so enamored with him or his agenda. Instead, their loyalty is based on their perception that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as president, particularly with large Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, would be utterly disastrous.

Regardless of whether you agree with them about the results of a Democratic presidential victory later this year, a McCain victory might produce its own series of domino-like events that ultimately might hurt the Grand Old Party.

Illinois political columnist Russ Stewart has argued that the 2008 winner, regardless of party, will face such intractable problems that he will be a one-termer, damaging his party over the next four years and turning the White House over to the opposition in 2012.

I don’t necessarily agree with Stewart that a McCain victory in November would lead to the “eradication” of the GOP, but it’s easy to see how a McCain presidency could end up being a nightmare for Republicans.

In the worst-case scenario, a McCain victory in November could likely lead to a Republican bloodletting that would tear apart the GOP well before 2012, contribute to another good Democratic election in 2010 and hand Democrats such a strong advantage during redistricting that Republicans wouldn’t be able to recover for years.

The scenario is simple: McCain wins and immediately follows his own instincts — meaning he tries to patch together a series of coalitions on ethics, immigration, spending and global warming.

Some of the initiatives require bipartisan efforts, while others rely heavily on Democrats with a smattering of Republicans. A few McCain policies, particularly those involving the war in Iraq and the larger war against terror, depend heavily on Republican support.

The one thing that is sure is that a McCain presidency wouldn’t merely be a “third Bush term.” That’s a smart campaign slogan for Democrats, and it should be effective. But anyone who knows McCain and has followed his efforts over the years — including his 2000 campaign against George W. Bush — knows that, if the Arizonan gets to the White House, he’ll follow his own instincts, not the current president’s road map.

I can’t disagree with one Republican operative from California who argued cogently recently that McCain would likely try to govern as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a nominal Republican, has.

Like Schwarzenegger, McCain would almost certainly find himself saddled with considerable Democratic majorities in the legislative branch. If the new president wanted to do anything, he’d need Democrats’ help, and unlike the current occupant of the White House, President McCain wouldn’t be shy about going after it. He would not approach his job in partisan terms.

Unlike Bush, who came to Washington, D.C., believing that the intensity of Republican support was more important than the breadth of his appeal, it wouldn’t take McCain a long time to reach across the aisle for a legislative strategy to deal with many seemingly intractable issues.

After all, the Arizona Republican has always been willing to work with Democrats, whether on campaign finance, immigration, global warming or ending water-boarding.

In fact, even before his inauguration, President McCain would likely evoke howls from conservatives. He’d probably put together a Cabinet that would reflect a bipartisan approach to issues, and his initial agenda, on everything but the war in Iraq, probably would generate more complaints from Republicans than Democrats.

McCain’s presidency would likely divide Republicans over a number of emotional issues, either because his positions are directly contrary to many in his party (including some with daily microphones) or because he wouldn’t push divisive cultural issues that some in his party would prefer that he advocate.

Nothing undermines a political party’s reputation more than public infighting, so the GOP’s reputation, which almost certainly would benefit in the short term from a McCain victory, would suffer.

The fighting between McCain and conservatives would no doubt spread to the 2010 midterm elections, when two sets of Republican candidates — supporters of the president and conservatives angry at the direction of the party and the country — would likely battle it out in primary after primary.

This wouldn’t help the GOP’s prospects in the midterm election, which could start off bleak and only get bleaker if the war in Iraq had not taken a turn for the good by then and the economy was not roaring along. With, for the second consecutive cycle, more Republican Senate seats up for election than Democratic seats, the GOP could find itself on the wrong end of another “change” argument, handing Democrats an ever growing majority.

The midterm Republican civil war between McCain loyalists and conservatives would also damage Republicans in the U.S. House races and in crucial gubernatorial and even state races. Conservatives who supported McCain over Obama would now see their choices very differently.

Of course, Democrats won’t want to lose the ’08 presidential race and a chance to end the war in Iraq in the hope of solidifying themselves for a decade. And an Obama defeat surely would produce its own round of Democratic recrimination and finger-pointing. But ultimately, an Obama defeat wouldn’t damage Democrats the way it eventually would Republicans.

It’s probably a measure of how bad 2008 looks to be for Republicans that even if they win, they lose.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 12, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.