You might recall that after Republicans lost three out of four of their vacant House seats earlier this year, Stuart Rothenberg tried to reassure them and told the everything was going to be ok (“There there, you just had some bad nominees”). So I guess it comes as no surprise that when he comes across a Republican who can actuslly walk and chew gum at the same time, he went absolutely orgasmic, according to the Washngton Post’s Chris Cilizza.
Minnesota’s 3rd (Open seat, R): There’s no tougher grader of candidates for Congress than Stu Rothenberg. So when Stu praises a candidate, we listen. Of Republican Erik Paulsen, Stu wrote: “I wouldn’t say my interview with Erik Paulsen went well. I’d say it was spectacular.” (Stu’s column at Roll Call is subscriber-only.) WOW. Paulsen, a sitting state senator, has drawn similar reviews from Republican strategists who believe he is one of the most able candidates they have fielded this cycle. (The Fix has not yet met him — hint, hint.) Democrats nominated Ashwin Madia, an Iraq vet and first-time candidate.
I’ll leave it up to those of you in Minnesota to tell me how good Paulsen is, but this year it may not matter. From what I have seen about the district, it looks tailer-made for a strong Obama showing and a flip from red to blue. And Rothenberg better realize that just because the guy impressed him at a DC cocktail party, it doesn’t mean he will have much of a chance in November.
was a State Representative, and his record in the legislature is horrendous on healthcare, the economy, taxes, everything. Madia is supposedly a very impressive candidate as well, and this guys an insider with a record he can hit hard, and this is a change election, so that favors Madia, the outsider.
who wrote a gushing review of Aaron Schock (repub running for IL-18)?
is a pathetic right-wing insider.
Madia will crush him.
But Paulsen has what it takes to win over beltway right-wingers like Stu.
And ask them who the hell Stu Rothenberg is, if one person answers you correctly I’ll be concerned with his impression of Paulsen. (I’d be shocked if they could tell you who the congressional candidate was) People usually just vote party line and don’t take the time to care whose the democrat or republican. People are pissed at Bush about the War and the economy so they are going to vote democratic, it’s as simple as that. And people who vote republican either always vote Republican or are scared of a black man being president. This whole election is whether or not people think Obama is ready to be president. I honestly believe no one is voting republican because of McCain, he’s just “Not Obama” on the ticket. All the downballot races rest on Obama’s shoulders,(save the guarantees like VA and NM senate races) the downballot races are more about rallying the base and getting voter turnout in the base and getting independents to vote democratic.
His coattails are the “wave” of this election if he loses the top of ballot we win maybe net gain +5 house seats because of all the open districts and 4 senate seats.
If he loses, which would probably mean loses in Florida Ohio Michigan and Pennsylvania. We would probably lose a lot of house districts in 2010, due to the backlash the conservative faction will have in the party. It will be another 20 years of DLC control. But he’ll win by 300+ electoral votes, I’m not worried.
But make no mistake the democratic party sinks or swims with him. I don’t think your gonna see a huge amount of democratic victories in areas where he gets wiped out in.(Why I’ve been pessimistic about taking out Capito in West Virginia, although the numbers recently have been better for Obama.)
You may see some wins in areas that Obama’s loses closely but the Dem is able to rally his base and steal some of the scared of the black guy votes and win. AK-AL is probably a good example of that scenario, where Obama can lose Alaska by two or three points but push the Senate and House race over the top. If we win KS-Senate it would be another example of this.
Rothenberg should stick to predicting races, which he’s actually pretty good at, no one cares about what he thinks of the candidates, actually in all honestly to be a fair and unbiased in the reporting of races you really should not meet the candidates, a personal relationship with people often taints your coverage, i would prefer if he sticks to the numbers and listens to the speeches and debates the candidates give. As this is what an educated voter would see and make his predictions from that. (very few people, even with the best retail politicians, ever get to meet the candidate and have a personal discussion with them.)
He said nice things about Dems too. He’s certainly a Beltway insider type – but so what? He’s objective and knows as much about congressional elections as anyone. I take his comments seriously and almost always find them well thought out.