Month: November 2007

Local activists in Mississippi are hoping to make Mike Moore's decision whether or not to run for the US Senate a little easier by launching a draft effort. In the interest of disclosure, I helped out with the technical aspect of launching the site, but it's really the work of the local grassroots on the ground in Mississippi.

John Leek, editor of Mississippi political blog Cotton Mouth, is spearheading the effort and had this to say: "Mike Moore has been a tireless advocate for justice, both in his public capacities as District Attorney and Attorney General, and in his private practice where he represents those denied legitimate insurance claims as a result of Hurricane Katrina.  It is this sense of compassion and integrity that our nation so desperately needs today, and Mike Moore will carry those values to the US Senate."

On the web: We Want Mike Moore 

Oh boy, do I love nasty primaries — on the GOP side of the aisle, that is.

For a while, it looked like Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, a much-hyped recruit by the NRCC, might have a clear shot at the Republican nomination to succeed Senate aspirant Heather Wilson for her House seat.  Well, it looks like that dream has ended, as GOP state Senator Joe Carraro announced his intention to challenge White for the nomination today:

“White has state party apparatus behind him, but once people understand that he has no substance – policy experience and knowledge of issues – I believe that business interests from throughout the state will join with my effort to make sure that we have someone running for Congress that knows what they’re doing – no disrespect,” Carraro said. “Oil and gas, economic development and defense interests need to understand future implications for our state and contribute to my campaign. My job is to show them that I can get job done.”

Carraro said he expects “a tough race with lots of dirty campaigning – that was indicated by intimidation brought to all candidates thinking about running against Darren White.”

Yeah, you tell ’em, Joe!  “Just say no” to DC-sponsored coronations!

Thanks to Open Secrets, fundraising data is readily available for all House candidates.  This diary sorts through all the House races from the last three cycles to show the effects of money, incumbency, political climate, and party on the elections.  

While money was clearly the most important factor, the big surprise was that once money was accounted for, running against an incumbent was only a little more difficult that running for an open seat, on average.

The effect of relative fundraising strength (the D/R Fundraising Ratio, Democratic $$ raised divided by Republican $$ raised) for all 2006 races is below:

Click to enlarge.

On the far left, when the Democrat raises very little money compared to the Republican (D/R Fundraising Ratio < 0.1), the Republican always wins.  On the far right (D/R Fundraising Ratio > 10), the opposite case.  Much much more below…  

Cross posted at Daily Kos and Open Left.

Sorting Through the Data

First, notice the scale on the bottom of the graph above (and all of the ones to follow) is not linear (1, 2, 3,….) but rather logarithmic (1, 10, 100…).  This is a way of showing a very large range of values on one plot.  The line on the plot above is a smooth curve through the data.  Notice that the curve flattens out at either end – these are the areas where one opponent basically has diddle squat.  It doesn’t make much difference whether you have diddle squat or diddle squat times ten, you still can’t run a very effective campaign (although intriguingly there appears to be some effect).

But wait – is the shape of this curve influenced by the distribution of the partisan makeup of districts?  There is an imbalance in district distributions – far more are very liberal than are very conservative.  So, let’s look at only districts where 50-55% of voters chose Bush in 2000, a particularly large group.  

Click to enlarge.

It’s still a pretty nice curve.  A little lopsided though – so should it really be just one curve?  Let’s plot the data by party of the incumbent:

Click to enlarge.

Party makes a pretty big difference.  

Finally, that flat part – out where somebody is raising diddle squat – just isn’t very interesting if we want to know about the effect of money in competitive or near-competitive races.  Let’s narrow things down to a range that appears to be relatively linear on these plots:

Click to enlarge.

Now we can put up some regressions, instead of just smooth curves.  And, if we add open seats formerly held by Republicans, we see something interesting:  open seats look pretty similar to seats with incumbents in their behavior.  More on this in a minute.

So we see this:  the more money a challenger raises compared to the incumbent, the better the challenger does.  Not shocking, but we have a chicken-and-egg problem:  Do challengers raise more money against some incumbents simply because the incumbents are more unpopular?  In which case, would it be because the incumbents are more unpopular that they are doing worse, not because the challengers are raising more money?

Are Popular Incumbents Vulnerable to Well-Funded Opponents?

To check this, I tried to find Republican incumbents with decent challenges in 2006, who were nonetheless considered to be popular or relatively safe in their districts, and who did not have a strong challenger in either 2002 or 2004.  I used some advice from a couple House experts, polls, and local news sources to choose the following districts:  DE-AL, IA-2, MN-1, MI-8, OH-1, PA-4, VA-10, MT-AL, CO-6, CA-2, KY-2, IN-3.  I could have chosen poorly on some of them but hopefully not all of them.  Here’s a plot of the Republican performance in all these districts over three cycles, adjusted for the national mood (more on that later):

Click to enlarge.

If all the popular incumbents were truly Teflon-coated, then we would expect all the points for all years to fall on a flat line.  Instead, they Republican performance decreases with increasing D/R Fundraising Ratio, just like all the other seats.  Plotted individually, this is also the case for 10 out of the 12 districts (3, randomly chosen, shown here).  In other words, a popular incumbent can be defeated with enough money, just like anybody else.  It is getting the money and the candidate that is the hard part.  

The 2006 Election

So then, let’s look at the 2006 data for Republicans in the competitive range I defined above, divided into categories based on Bush’s support in the district in 2000:

Click to enlarge.

As you can see, in each case there is a decent trend, but it’s not very tight.  In other words, after accounting for the D/R Fundraising Ratio and the partisan makeup of the district, there’s still plenty of room for other factors, including, quite simply, the quality of the candidates.  

It’s also pretty clear that the open seats (which were not included in the regressions) aren’t too different from the seats with incumbents after accounting for the effect of money.  We also see, of course, that the open seat contests are far more likely to have fundraising parity (D/R Fundraising Ratio = 1) or better, which explains (mostly) why they are far more likely to change parties.  In other words, incumbency matters for getting money and chasing off opponents and opponents’ supporters, but if a well-funded opponent shows up anyway, that opponent has nearly as a good a chance (on average) as if they were running for an open seat.

Another interesting thing is that the plots don’t look too different from each other.  

The Last Three Cycles

Let’s look at all the regressions for Republican incumbents, and add in the Democrats, for 2002, 2004, and 2006:

Click to enlarge.

It’s hard to tell the lines apart in the graphs, but that is my point.  There is surprisingly little difference between the regressions!  Some of the lines are a little funny looking, but they are the ones based on only a small number of points (especially the ones for the most liberal districts).  Republicans in very conservative districts perform better than those in moderate districts, given the same D/R Fundraising Ratio, but not 30 points better.

We can also see a difference between the years.  The regressions generally shifted down in 2006 compared to 2002 or 2004.  This means that the Democrats’ money was more effective in 2006, and the Republicans’ money was less effective.  This is why predicting electoral success based on fundraising alone, extrapolated from 2002 and 2004 results, failed.

And, of course, the party of the current occupant makes a difference.  If both candidates in a race raise the same amount of money, a Republican incumbent, or a Republican contestant in a Republican-held open seat, will (on average) score a good deal higher than a Republican challenger in a district with a similar partisan makeup.

Conclusions

Tomorrow, I will continue looking at the House races by exploring 15 factors and how they affected candidate performance between 2002 and 2006.  In the meantime, we can say the following:



1.  Money matters a great deal.  

2.  Safe incumbents are not really safe if a well-funded challenger runs against them.

3.  Voters have a habit of voting for the party of the current representative, whether the incumbent is running or not.

4.  The partisan make-up of the district matters, but not as much as one might have expected.

5.  The national political mood matters, and right now, it is still surging against Republicans.

each race has a lens through which a political campaign can be viewed.  in the il-03 race, the lens is the emergent scandal surrounding dan lipinski and whether any challenger can coalesce their social and political networks before the bombardment of advertising begins.  in the il-14 race, that lens is the concurrent special election.

denny hastert’s resignation announcement last night sets up a special election, who’s primary most likely will be conducted concurrently with the primary for the november 2008 general election.  in several ways, this sets back campaigns, because they basically have to start all over again.  illinois’ election laws are (from my perspective) quite arcane.  by law, there was no vacancy until hastert’s resignation takes effect.  “Dan White, executive director of the State Board of Elections, said he had yet to receive notice of Hastert’s resignation.”  one assumes that this will come today.  this begins the countdown.  the governor has to call an election within 120 days of the vacancy for both the primary and the “general” (it’s easier to call it a special election, and i will) elections.  the governor has five days to set a date for these two elections; the primary is expected to coincide with the february 5 primary in illiois.  apparently, as bill pascoe writes, “NO election (including a primary election) can take place fewer than 50 days after the creation of the vacancy.”

But Illinois law also sets periods for collecting signatures, for filing candidacies, and for challenging candidacies. It’s my understanding that when you add up these discrete periods, you end up with a time frame of 50-57 days as a minimum requirement before ANY election — including a primary election — could be held.

cq notes, though:

The state board of elections prefers that there be at least 72 days between the day the governor sets the special general election and when the special primary election is held, to allow for enough time to prepare. That 72-day window is not binding in state law, though, and the state elections board could oversee the election under a more compressed timetable if the governor so mandated.

The Illinois election code does require, though, that the candidacy filing period for a special congressional election occur 50 to 57 days before the special primary election.

to me, the really interesting thing about this illinois review article (right-wing blog) was the admission by “one former State Board of Elections counsel [who] said the fact is no one really knows yet how to handle a special election at the same time a primary is being conducted.  They are two completely different elections, and demand two different sets of signature petitions.  But the state code doesn’t make the procedure clear.”  and there’s the rub.  no one really knows how to handle a special election at the same time as a regular (primary) election.

there is the thought that this special election — the first for congress in 2008 — will provide a few hints of voters’ overall direction for the upcoming national campaigns, perhaps a bellweather.

The Democrats, in their 2006 upsurge, captured several House seats in districts that traditionally have favored Republicans. The contest in the 14th District – where Hastert has long dominated House races and where President Bush took 55 percent of the vote in 2004 – may test whether the Democrats continue to have the momentum to put even more Republican seats into play, or whether the GOP position has stabilized to some degree.

perhaps.  but this is unknown territory, and one that requires both the candidates and their campaigns to work harder, raise more money, and push their supporters harder:

The dual nature of the campaigning – for the special election and the regular primary – could become costly for candidates who will be forced to intensify their efforts since it is unlikely that a primary voter would vote for two separate candidates for the same office to cover different time spans.

this isn’t unheard of (there are examples where people are on the ballot for two different things, such as a party office and a government office), but the 14th congressional district doesn’t really have a democratic party organization that one can rely on to get this across to voters.

the race for the open seat in il-14 is one of the most covered campaigns in illinois.  there’s an entire blog dedicated to it (although it came out of the 2006 campaign and has a decided laesch p.o.v.).  hiram wurf continues to cover the race from a few miles away.  aaron krager has put together a fine analysis of the race.  

as i mentioned above, in a real sense, the campaigns must start over.  they must pass petitions again, and mobilize volunteers to circulate petitions rather than persuade voters or identify supporters.  the complexity of one’s campaign organization is increased.  the advantage goes to the candidate and/or campaign that can best handle this increasing complexity — who can, in a phrase, do two or more things at once.  and there’s a clear benefit to those who have done this before.

many believe that this benefits john laesch, who was the 2006 democratic nominee.  laesch does have the support of the netroots — especially the netroots outside of illinois.  he also has the benefit of having spent time in every corner of the district.  if the electorate is not that familiar with john, the district’s political activists are.  he enjoys the support of many of them.  he is apparently the first in the race to get a union or special interest group endorsement.

one thing that the laesch campaign has excelled at is getting earned media (they pretty much have to), and they are doing this again.  they’ve been good about using youtube in the same way, including, for example, putting up video of press conferences that may not have been attended by the press.  (you can also find debate footage at the friends of laesch youtube page.)

the consensus front runner in this race appears to be bill foster.  for a first time candidate, foster entered the race remarkably prepared.  in 2006, foster took off ten months to volunteer for patrick murphy’s successful run for congress, and he hews closely to the positions that propelled murphy to election.  but probably the biggest advantage that foster brings into this race — and perhaps why he’s perceived as the front runner — is that he knows, and is prepared to do, what it takes to win a seat in congress.  open seats for congress are more competitive and more driven by money.  congressional quarterly’s CQ Politics’ Top 10: Money Leaders in Open-Seat House Races names foster as one of the most aggressive candidates raising money for an open seat in congress — along with two of the republicans running for the seat.  david wasserman, an editor at the highly regarded cook political report, predicts that winning this seat will cost at least $2 million.

foster has convinced others that he’s serious about winning this seat.  his endorsement page not only includes early indicators like civic action, but illinois behemoths like dan hynes (state comptroller) and leading illinois progressives like alexi giannoulias (state treasurer and obama ally).  and it’s gotten him into the candidate’s boot camp.

foster would like to make this race “a national referendum on the policies of George Bush,” but some progressives want to make it a referendum on bill foster.  i guess they identify foster as the front runner, too.  much has been made of foster’s willingness to caucus with the blue dog democrats, and his focus on fiscal responsibility.  others simply object to the presence of a self-funder — especially since their favored candidate isn’t raising that much money.  this hand-wringing about a serious candidate in a district with a pvi of +5 R forced chris bowers to admit, “it is important to note that Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs are not the same thing… To put it one way, a Patrick Muphy Blue Dog is the sort of Blue Dog to whom I can provide enthusiastic, activist support for Congress.”

what some may not see is that foster is bringing new people into the democratic process and, presumably, into the democratic fold.  that should be something that progressives support.  “More than 80 percent of Foster’s donors are first-time donors, and nearly three-quarters are scientists like Foster, a former Fermilab physicist.”  he’s expanding the base in an area that is decidedly red, “The Foster campaign reported 680 contributors in the third quarter filing period,” with a large number saying that they were first time contributors.  and he’s doing it based on issues that progressives support: “The first, second and third issue is Iraq,” foster says.

you can see this focus in the second of foster’s youtube videos, Bill Foster: We Must Change Course in Iraq.  foster’s youtube page also sports a biography video.  foster’s campaign also hosts a blog, has a facebook group and a flickr page.  and, as i was writing this, foster’s first television ad went up.

jotham stein was first in the race and has been making the rounds building support.  he was the first candidate to hire staff, and has been dedicated to raising the money he needs to compete.  his website is the only one to have a spanish version, which is interesting since approximately 20% of the district is hispanic.  the numbers are far higher for democrats in the district.

early on in his run, stein used former candidate christine cegelis to guide him through the process of running for office.  his background in the law and policy has given him the basis for the most extensive issues proposals of the democrats running.  stein says,

I know I can do much better. In this campaign, I will offer real solutions to many of the real problems facing our country. From defeating global warming, to having a strong national defense, to more jobs for our district, to guaranteeing food and health care to our kids, I am taking a stand.

along with the usual facebook page, stein adds a myspace and he’s taken advantage of the democratic party’s partybuilder tools.

joe serra entered the race last.  he comes at the race from a different position.  serra says, “I am running because I feel that the elected officials in Congress today are not getting the peoples business done. I am running to rebuild our greatest asset – our military.”  unique among the candidates, serra has applied for endorsement by democracy for america, which requires that you fill out their simple questionnaire.

stein’s field director noted that “hastert just threw a wrench into a lot of field programs out there.”  he observed that most people are still focused on the presidential campaigns, and they are undoubtedly not aware of the fact that they will face three different elections in the next 120 days.  needless to say, few understand that the campaigns again have to collect 873 signatures to get their candidates on the (special election) ballot.  how these four campaigns interact with the electorate over that time will be key to their success.

the foster campaign has been concentrating on their mailings and phone banking.  they prepared to run in the special election all along, they tell me.  the moment hastert stepped down, the campaign emailed its supporters and they got immediate replies, i am told.  their focus now, as expected, would be to prepare for another round of passing petitions.  their campaign office (1035 E State St, Suite J, Geneva) has been a hub of activity and potential volunteers are asked to email meredith@foster08.com to find out more.

the foster campaign is also speeding up the hiring of additional staff in preparation for the special election.  both the foster and the stein campaigns had about two dozen people circulating petitions for them for the regular primary, as well as the candidates and members of their families.  given the compressed nature of this next run (about three weeks to pass petitions), they will probably need double that.

the stein campaign has been doing coffees and door-to-door of late, working out of their campaign headquarters at 115 campbell in geneva.  they understand that a “grassroots movement is needed,” that this period is all about educating the public.  they are re-focusing on “getting jotham on the ballot” for the special election, although no specific plans had been made yet.  stein’s field director admits that “people are going to be confused” by all this and they’ve made plans to make the process a little easier.  that includes taking advantage of an already planned large event and getting people involved at that point.  but they “can’t comment on specific plans for a special election right now.”

the volunteer who answered the phone at the laesch campaign conveyed the location of their campaign offices at 46 w downer place in aurora, but didn’t feel comfortable answering more questions.  she passed the message along, but i didn’t get a call back from them.

efforts to reach joe serra were not effective.

With Mississippi’s Democratic Secretary of State Eric Clark concurring with Haley Barbour’s bizarre reading of the state’s electoral laws, the state Democratic Party is gearing up for a fight with Barbour, who wants to delay a special election until November 4th of next year.

Will Mississippi Dems have any fighters to help them out?  It looks like they have one in the state’s top law enforcement officer, MS Attorney General Jim Hood:

Gov. Haley Barbour (R) has called the contest for Nov. 4, 2008, the date of the next regularly scheduled general election. But Democrats – in particular Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood – contend that state law requires the special election to be held 100 days after Lott resigns, should the Senator stick with his stated plan to relinquish his seat by Dec. 31.

Hood is not ruling out legal action.

“We will decide what to do if and when it becomes necessary,” Hood said in a statement provided to Roll Call on Tuesday, in response to an inquiry about whether he plans to sue Barbour to change the election date. “We fully expect the governor will follow the law.”

Good.  This is one fight I look forward to winning.

Looks like Tennessee Dems have caught a bad break: Their likely Senate candidate, businessman Mike McWherter, the son of former Gov. Ned McWherter, is expected to drop his Senate bid.

Two potential candidates for the seat, former state Democratic Party Chair Bob Tuke and Nashville insurance lawyer Kevin Doherty, both say that they received calls from McWherter to inform them of his decision to cut the cord on the race.

Tuke says that he’ll make a decision soon:

Tuke said earlier this year that he planned to seek the Democratic nomination to run against Alexander, but then stepped aside after McWherter indicated an interest.

“I’m going to go through a very methodical, intentional analysis of it – talking to people and looking at the polling Mike had done. Then we’ll see – hopefully in just a few days. Time’s a wasting,” said Tuke.

Tuke says he’ll also talk with Nashville attorney Kevin Doherty, who had also indicated an interest in making the race until McWherter stepped up.

This seat was always a long shot for Dems to pick up (absent a Lamar! retirement), but McWherter was expected to partially self-fund his race, with the potential to make Alexander sweat a little.  The news isn’t good by any means, but at least we have a couple of potential candidates who are giving the race a look.

The Huffington Post wrote a great editorial about Draft Kleeb:

We’re still waiting to hear if Scott Kleeb will jump into this race. Scott the candidate supported by the grassrootsin Nebraska. He surprised everyone by running an incredibly competitive race in the uber-conservative Third Congressional of Nebraska. Widely considered to be gunning for a rematch in the Third District, Senator Hagel’s retirement has fueled speculation that Kleeb will enter the Senate race instead. This speculation has reached a fever pitch as former Senator Bob Kerry and Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey took passes on the race.

So far, Kleeb has played coy about his plans, but grassroots activists are working to build early support for him. There is a facebook group. There is a website. There are blog posts. And more blog posts.

No matter where you are, if you are interested in standing up to people who are willing to sell out our party for their rich Republican friends, then please take part in pledging to Scott Kleeb. Here, you can pledge money or volunteering time. Every dollar you pledge sends a big message to Ben Nelson that our party is not for sell. Every moment you pledge stands up to the politics of selling out our values.

The current tally sits at:

39 people have pledged…

…999 hours (125+ working days)

…$10,535 ($270.13 per person)

It’s time for the heart of the Democratic Party, the grassroots, to step forward and back a real Democrat in this race.

Have you pledged yet?  It can make all the difference.

Former state Attorney General Mike Moore (D) and former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) both released statements signaling their interest in the open seat of retiring Sen. Trent Lott last night.  In both cases, decisions will be coming “soon”.

Moore:

Former state Attorney General Mike Moore (D) released a statement Monday evening sure to give Democrats hope. “Like most Mississippians I was surprised by Trent Lott’s decision to resign from his Senate seat,” Moore said. “As for me, I appreciate all the calls I have received from friends, colleagues, and supporters today encouraging me to run. I will make my decision soon.”

Musgrove:

Democrat Ronnie Musgrove – who served one term as governor before being defeated by Barbour in 2003 – said Monday he is “seriously considering” running for the Senate seat Lott is leaving.

Musgrove said in an interview that that even though the South has been largely Republican over the past several years, “people in the South are just as frustrated and concerned about Washington not doing anything about the spiraling cost of health care, the increased cost of gas, the shaky economy and the housing problem.”

Musgrove said he’ll make a decision in the next few days. He said running a Senate race would cost millions of dollars.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is formally resigning from Congress today.

Hastert said he did so on the advice of attorneys with the aim that a special primary election to replace him could be held on Feb. 5—the same day as the state’s regular primary election, which will decide nominees for Hastert’s long-term replacement as well.

Hastert said he wanted to avoid the extra costs of a special primary election by county election officials in the 14th Congressional District, which runs from western DuPage County to nearly the Iowa border. Still, those counties are likely to face extra costs for holding a special general election in late spring to fill the remainder of Hastert’s term.

How magnanimous of Denny!  Still thinking of the taxpayers as he skips town and abandons his district midway through his term.  Of course, Denny would want the special primary and not the special general to coincide with the state’s February 5th presidential primary, lest Barack Obama’s presence on the ballot pull in enough Democrats to tilt his district in favor of the Democratic candidate.

But Blago has the final say:

It’s up to Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich to set the date of the special primary and general elections.

Dan White, executive director of the State Board of Elections, said he had yet to receive notice of Hastert’s resignation.

White did, however, outline the process for replacing a congressman who resigns mid-term: the governor calls for an election within 120 days of the vacancy. White said his reading of the law is that a primary and general election would have to take place within the 120-day period.

I don’t think that this district, which supported Bush by an 11-point margin in 2004 is the likeliest of turnovers, given the lack of electoral experience in the race’s Democratic contenders (’06 loser John Laesch, self-funding physicist Bill Foster, or attorney Jotham Stein), but Blagojevich’s timing could make things interesting.

As we’re fond of saying: stay tuned.

As the New Nebraska Network first reported last Monday, Republican Tony Raimondo is considering running for Senate as a Democrat. In today’s Lincoln Journal Star, he openly considered the possibility in an interview with Don Walton.

Columbus industrialist Tony Raimondo said Monday he’s considering entering the 2008 Senate race as a Democrat.

Raimondo, who stepped away from a possible Republican bid after Mike Johanns entered the contest, said he’s been urged by national and state Democratic officials to consider making the race within their party.

“Those discussions are continuing to move on,” Raimondo said.  “Obviously, there’s some interest on both sides.”

Raimondo, you may recall, was Bush’s pick back in 2004 for “manufacturing czar,” but his nomination was withdrawn after questions about his anti-labor practices as chairman of Behlen Manufacturing.

Straight from Raimondo, now, we have confirmation that the rumors we were hearing a week ago were true. Ben Nelson, the NDP, and the DSCC, are recruiting a Republican, who less than two months ago was running for Senate as a Republican, to run under the Democratic banner.

If we’re serious about competing everywhere – in all fifty states – we cannot allow this to stand. The Democratic Party in Nebraska will become worse than a joke. Let’s make sure we have a voice for Democrats in Nebraska. Let’s get Scott Kleeb in this race.

On the web: Draft Kleeb