I’ve heard rumors about this for several days now, but Politicker’s James Pindell says that Carol Shea-Porter is getting increasingly serious about running for Senate:
For the last few weeks Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter has been exploring a run for the U.S. Senate and indications are that she is growing increasingly serious about it. In fact, there is the belief among some that she could even announce an exploratory committee in the next few weeks, several Democratic sources say, though those closer to her dismiss the it off hand.
Nevertheless, her agressiveness is something of a shock to many Democrats and particularly to associates of fellow Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes. Hodes had made it known last year that he was at least interested at a run in 2010 against Republican incumbent Judd Gregg though he was unsure whether or not he will run.
But while Hodes evaluates the pros and cons of a run, Shea-Porter has been more pro-active. She has a new consultant and she has hardly been quiet about soliciting advice on topic.
While it is striking some as a bold move — possibly even brazen — Shea-Porter has been making the argument that she is better Senate candidate than Hodes because she has been in tighter contests and won them. She also uses the fact that she has won despite long odds before. And then there is Manchester, the state’s largest city, where she won all 12 wards a month ago.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Please don’t run Carol. You would make a terrific Senator but it was a pain in the ass for you to win and even defend your seat from Jeb Bradley and I don’t think you would be strong enough to take on Gregg. Plus if you do run and vacate NH-01 then that brings back Bradley into the fold and I really don’t want that man coming back to DC to represent part of New Hampshire.
that she could win. I’d like to see a poll. . .
Both he and Shea-Porter roughly matched Obama’s performance in their districts, though Hodes had (what was perceived to be) a much weaker opponent.
but I want her seat to remain Democratic.
if it comes down to a close race, we need someone who can hold down Gregg’s margins there while we do better in NH-02. Shea-Porter may be better suited to do that. Then again, Hodes strikes me as a more polished politician, that may be what it takes to beat Gregg, or it might actually be a benefit to Shea-Porter being an outsider (as it was when she beat Bradley in a shocker in 2006).
I don’t know if I want two tough NH races in 2010. We’ll have enough on our hands trying to beat Gregg. Must we also defend an open House seat in a marginal district?
Shea-Porter may be bullish on her chances but honestly, the DCCC spent over 2.4 million in her district to defend her. She herself raised 1.5 million. We need someone that is a better fundraiser.
1. Progressive Punch Lifetime scores:
Paul Hodes: 95.67
Shea-Porter: 95.36
Judd Gregg: 9.37
Safe to say either congressperson would be a great improvement over the current senator.
2. PVI:
Paul Hodes (NH-02): D+3
Shea-Porter (NH-01): R+0
New Hampshire: D+2
Shea-Porter has won among those who we need to win in order to take the state as a whole, while Hodes has run up larger margins look more entrenched in his seat.
3. Fundraising:
*Paul Hodes 2006 Campaign: 1.5 million to outfundraise and beat an incumbent.
*Paul Hodes 2008 Campaign: 2 million to beat token opposition.
*Shea-Porter 2006 Campaign: 360K to edge an incumbent,
outspent by a solid amount.
*Shea-Porter 2008 Campaign: 1.5 million to outfundraise and beat the former incumbent.
*Judd Gregg 2004: 3.3 Million dollars to win handily against token opposition.
If I had to bet, Hodes looks like the better bet to fundraise more. The political views don’t differ much between the two Democrats. We can either run up the margin in the Democratic part of the state or edge Gregg statewide. It really doesn’t seem like there is much dividing these two. As long as one (and only one) runs, I’d be content.
What kind of U.S. representative has Shea-Porter been?
Is she better or worse than Hodes?
Maybe that should be the criteria on which one is more deserving of being promoted/elected to the Senate. She shouldn’t be held back for political reasons if she is doing a great job.
Shalom,
ZWrite
But she’d lose, probably big. Honestly, I don’t think she’d do any better than a 54-46 type loss with more like a Tom Allen type 58-42 loss not out of the question. I really hope she doesn’t do this.
Voting records aside, I think Hodes is perceived as an establishment-comfortable Democrat, while CSP is perceived as an outsider, DFH Democrat (DFH = Dirty Fucking Hippie). While voters may well be preferring outsider DFHs by 2010, I think it’s a safe bet that the establishment still won’t.
I think a Hodes 2010 campaign would draw a whole lot of big money big interest support, and would be a tied campaign with Gregg — not necessarily in the polls, though I think that too, but in fundraising, DC juice, etc. It would be a replay of Shaheen/Sununu 02 and 08, which in both elections was a contest of giants. I don’t know who would win it, but it would be a hardfought, evenly matched battle of campaigns all the way through.
CSP 2010 runs the risk of being marginalized and defeated by November 2009. If 2010 is a fairly Democratic year, if the Obama admin and the Democratic congress does damn well through 2009, and especially if Gregg can be pegged as a key vote against any popular legislation — health care, climate change, you name it — then CSP would run a strong, well-funded campaign, be the beneficiary of some Obama campaign stops maybe, and win, and be a damn fine DFH Senator, like Jeff Merkley or Parry Murray.
If, though, 2010 is a neutral or worse environment for Dems, CSP would be EASY to marginalize on the fundraising and big interest support side. Gregg is a great senator as far as the top 1% is concerned, and while Hodes would put up a strong well-funded fight in any circumstances, CSP would be easily shoved into the basement on power support. She could still conceivably win that race, but she’d have to hope for an issue argument that really stuck, because she’d have neither the money nor the environment to help her win.
CSP is a high-risk proposition. She has a lot of credibility to make her case in a strongly democratic environment, but not enough big support to fight a campaign in a weak environment for Dems. Hodes meanwhile will be a reasonably strong, quite well-funded, capable-generic-Democrat in almost any environment.
Unless you’re a real optimist about the next two years, or a really strong advocate of rewarding Principled Progressives over Polished Politicians, I don’t see a strong case for CSP over Hodes. Hodes has been really successful as a more mainstream Democrat, and reasonably progressive in his voting, so it’s not obvious why you should leave him on the shelf.
To summarize: Hodes = Klobuchar, CSP = something between Patty Murray and Russ Feingold. You have to think she’s a potential Feingold, I’d say, to make the extra risk worthwhile.
I admire such decisiveness. I’m not going to question the campaigning ability of the woman who gave us the biggest upset of 2006.
Gregg is much more popular in the state than Sununu. I think only Lynch would oust him. CSP really needs to buy a clue. I think she would almost certainly lose to Gregg.
has been spent actively campaigning.
I don’t really care. I think both could win and we could hold both seats.
but without really good reason, please don’t run for the Senate yet.
Could Gary Hirshberg run this time if some of these other folks were to take a pass.? He may have said no again, but I would like to know for sure.