Month: July 2008

Myers Research & Strategic Services for Mark Schauer (5/8-15, likely voters):

Mark Schauer (D): 37

Tim Walberg (R-inc.): 40

(MoE: ±4.0%)

After Tim Walberg released an internal poll yesterday showing that he was up 47-31, the Schauer campaign pulled a rabbit out of the hat, releasing their own dueling internal showing a small Schauer lead. (Although it seems like the rabbit has been sitting in the hat for a long time, waiting for a Walberg poll to rebut; check out the polling date.)

Walberg is a one-term incumbent who won a Club for Growth-funded primary challenge in 2006 against moderate incumbent Joe Schwarz, and then defeated Sharon Renier by less than four points after outspending her $1,200,000 to $46,000. He has a Progressive Punch score of 5.38 in a district that’s R+2.

Swing State Project currently rates this race as Lean Republican.

Hays Research polls Don Young’s strength in the GOP primary for Alaska’s at-large House seat (7/24-25, adults, 5/7 in parens):

Don Young (R-inc): 42 (45)

Sean Parnell (R): 46 (42)

(MoE: ±7.4%)

That’s an awfully high margin of error, and the poll doesn’t even include Gabrielle LeDoux. Still, I think that the indictment of Stevens is a serious blow to Young’s chances, as anti-incumbent and anti-corruption sentiments will be running high in Alaska next month.

But even if Parnell knocks off Young, the poll finds that there is still hope for Democrats:

Ethan Berkowitz (D): 33

Sean Parnell (R): 30

(MoE: ±4.9%)

Don Young’s favorables are still in the gutter at 41-56, while Sarah Palin’s are at a sky-high 80-16 (which is actually a slight drop from her 86-9 rating in May).

From the MSNBC ticker:

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens indicted on criminal charges, U.S. officials say

Whoa. More as we get it.

Update: Reuters says that Stevens is being hit with seven counts; CNN reports that the seven counts are all related to false statements made to investigators. The New York Times clears it up:

Mr. Stevens, 84, was indicted on seven counts of falsely reporting income. The charges are related to renovations on his home and to gifts he has received. They arise from an investigation that has been under way for more than a year, in connection with the senator’s relationship with a businessman who oversaw the home-remodeling project.

Update II: Some have asked if Ted Stevens is in danger of losing his primary. He has five opponents in that race (the filing deadline was on June 2nd), none of them formidable. It’s important to note that Vic Vickers, who plans to spend $750K of his own cash against Stevens, is a total carpetbagger who just moved to Alaska from Florida in January. If he pulls off a miracle and beats Stevens in the primary, I like Begich’s chances against him. In fact, I like Begich’s chances against anyone the GOP nominates here, unless perhaps Sarah Palin (who has her own problems) pulls a switcheroo — and even then, I doubt that Stevens would let her. He’s a stubborn sumbitch with a big ego; would he really want to step down?

The most immediate takeaway I have from this is that Don Young is now absolutely doomed in his primary against Sean Parnell; the anti-incumbent sentiment will be running high next month, and I doubt that even vote-splitting with Gabrielle LeDoux could save Young’s hide. I still think Berkowitz would have a solid shot at the seat. These scandals are tainting not only Young and Stevens, but the GOP brand itself in Alaska. Sean Parnell is a blank page with no real accomplishments of his own, and he’s weakened in recent weeks due to Palin’s abuse of power kerfuffle and his desire to hide from cover rather than face voters.

In his latest column for Roll Call, Stuart Rothenberg takes a look at a broad swath of lower-tier Democratic candidates that “some consultants and bloggers are pushing”: Michael Skelly (TX-07), Nick Leibham (CA-50), Tom Perriello (VA-05), Mike Montagano (IN-03), Steve Sarvi (MN-02), Dennis Shulman (NJ-05), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Larry Joe Doherty (TX-10), and Sharen Neuhardt (OH-07).

Rothenberg’s conclusion? When it comes to talk of another “30-plus seat Democratic year”, don’t believe the hype.

I’m not even sure where to begin when it comes to a piece like this. Rothenberg is a sharp guy, and he makes some fair points in his column. However, his arguments would be far more effective if he didn’t display a willful ignorance of key facts time and time again.

Let’s go through his column piece by piece, starting with his musings on Texas’ 7th CD:

What about Michael Skelly? He is smart and would be an engaging dinner companion. If Skelly were running in a competitive district, I’d think he’d have a good shot. But he isn’t. Texas’ 7th gave George W. Bush 64 percent in 2004 and regularly delivers big numbers for Republicans, making it a nightmare for any Democrat.

If you really think Skelly has much of a chance, ask yourself this: Do you really think that Republicans could beat Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.) or Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) even in a bad political year for Democrats? Of course not. Yet their districts went for Kerry in 2004 by roughly as much as Culberson’s Texas district went for Bush four years ago.

What’s missing in this pocket analysis? A number of things, including the district’s Democratic trend: Gore won a mere 31% of this district’s vote in 2000, while Kerry improved that number to 36% four years later. I won’t get into the fact that home state candidate Bush won’t be on the ticket this year.

The more egregious offense here is Rothenberg’s comparison of Dem chances in TX-07, an R+15.6 district, to the GOP’s chances in MA-04, CA-38, or NY-05 — a trio of districts that hover just under or on the D+20 mark. Yes, Rothenberg qualifies the comparison by tagging on the “bad political year for Democrats” line at the end, but we all know that Democrats are far, far more successful in winning elections on red turf than the GOP is on blue turf when it comes to House races.

The numbers really don’t lie: Democrats hold 51 districts that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004, while Republicans only hold eight districts that John Kerry won in 2004. The most Democratic seat that Republicans hold, Mike Castle’s at-large seat in Delaware, is a far cry at D+6.5 from the polarization of seats like TX-17 or UT-02, where Chet Edwards and Jim Matheson have managed to survive (and thrive) in R+18 and R+17 districts, respectively. The point is this: Democrats are far better at winning races in tough terrain than Republicans are. You know this. I know this. Stuart Rothenberg is no fool, so I’m sure that he knows this, too, but felt compelled to disregard that general truth in order to score some cheap pundit points.

At other points in his column, Rothenberg singles out the low cash-on-hand numbers for several challengers — specifically, Doherty’s $260K, Neuhardt’s $108K, Shulman’s $258K and Sarvi’s $98K — as reasons to write off the chances of their candidacies barring a late cash surge. Using CoH in order to gauge the strength of campaigns is a totally fair measure (which is why we developed the SSP Cash Power Index), but it might be helpful to pull up the CoH numbers of a few select candidates after the second quarter of 2006:

Jerry McNerney: $152K on-hand

Nancy Boyda: $164K on-hand

Jason Altmire: $136K on-hand

John Hall: $223K on-hand

Chris Carney: $293K on-hand

Dave Loebsack: $60K on-hand

Tim Walz: $251K on-hand

Carol Shea-Porter: $19K on-hand

I’m sure that Stu was scoffing at these numbers back in the summer of 2006. Now, I’m not trying to argue that all of 2008’s long shot campaigns will crank into gear between now and election day and knock off an incumbent, but there’s a lot of time left on the clock for candidates to prove themselves.

Rothenberg has his own opinions, of course. Check out his totally gratuitous swipe against Mike Montagano:

[…] Montagano, 27, who has raised an impressive amount (probably with some family help), seems more like an overly enthusiastic undergraduate running for class president than a Member of Congress.

It’s sort of surprising that a guy like Rothenberg would hold Montagano’s youthfulness against him when you consider that only a few months ago, Stu was gushing profusely about Aaron Schock, the 27 year-old Republican nominee to succeed retiring Rep. Ray LaHood in Illinois’ 18th CD. After interviewing Schock, Rothenberg wrote that the young Republican “sounded well-versed on most matters”, directly ignoring the biggest policy-based gaffe of any major House candidate this cycle: Schock’s aborted plan to sell Pershing nuclear missiles to Taiwan in order to influence China’s policy on Iran. That’s the sort of thing you’d expect from the president of your local college GOP chapter, but you won’t hear Rothenberg mentioning that one as a sign that Schock isn’t ready for prime time. But, I digress.

So what’s the bottom line? Rothenberg cites unnamed “consultants and bloggers” who are “pushing” lower-tier races as competitive contests, and advises readers to be wary of such talk. Here’s the rub: I’d like to know exactly which bloggers and consultants he’s talking about, because I don’t know anybody who talks about any of the long shot races that he mentions as races that are likely to flip. In fact, I’d say that most bloggers on this side of the ‘sphere are treating these races for exactly what they are: long shots that could develop into sleeper races come fall, with some races (VA-02 and MD-01 in particular), being more competitive than others.

The Swing State Project is one of the only blogs (and maybe the only progressive blog) that has weighed in on all of the long shot races that Rothenberg is chirping about, so I think it’s fair to look at our ratings of these races. And guess what? We’ve slotted all of them in the appropriate category of “Likely Republican”, with the exception of VA-02 (a race that Stu singles out as a better shot) at “Leans Republican”, and MN-02, which we have on our watch list. (And, according to DemConWatch’s House Forecast, our ratings are about as conservative as anyone else’s – except for Rothenberg’s.) It almost seems to me that Stu has forgotten what a “Likely Republican” rating means, which is especially surprising, considering that just two weeks ago, he wrote a column explaining the concept in detail as a way to downplay the recent buzz that came with Charlie Cook moving many races into that column.

Considering that a lot of the macro factors in this election favor Democrats (something that Rothenberg does not deny), it makes a lot of sense to keep a close eye on emerging races like TX-10, IN-03, or NJ-05 in case this year is a big one. Rothenberg seems to feel obligated to represent the opposite view: The chance of a big wave is slim, so it’s not even worth discussing the long shots alongside the top tier affairs. Because really, that’s all we’re doing here — talking about intriguing races that could catch fire under the right conditions, not trying to build the false hype of a 60-seat mega-wave.

So why is Rothenberg talking smack against bloggers (such as, presumably, us) for writing about long-odds races? Sure, we’d like to increase the chances of Democrats running for those seats; there’s no question about that. But could Rothenberg actually have a vested interest in keeping the playing field as narrow as possible?

If you compare Rothenberg’s ratings to Charlie Cook’s and ours, one thing is striking: the discrepancy between the sizes of the Likely R column. Cook has 35 races in that column, while we have 29. Rothenberg has a paltry 11. He will have to eat a bunch of crow if it does turn out that a wave is building, which would mean adding a lot of races to his list. In fact, he only has 64 total races on his list, while we have 93 (plus 21 Races to Watch) and Cook has 101. Is Stu praying that such a day won’t come? Even if a wave doesn’t materialize, it’s no skin off our backs, because, after all, Likely R races are, by and large, supposed to remain Republican – they are just an acknowledgment that something might be brewing.

Ultimately, I’m reminded of this column that Rothenberg wrote in early 2005, taking a swipe at bloggers who advocated that the DCCC should move aggressively to expand the playing field. This passage, in particular, is worth highlighting:

Blogging is getting more attention in the mainstream media and from the political parties. As vehicles for fundraising, blogs can’t be ignored. And some bloggers have interesting things to say. But when it comes to campaign savvy or understanding how the campaign committees operate, two of the most high-profile liberal bloggers have an exaggerated sense of their own importance and insights.

It’s funny, because it seems to me that when it comes to analyzing long shot House races, the person with the most “exaggerated sense of their own importance and insights” is Stuart Rothenberg.

Public Policy Polling (7/23-27, likely voters, 6/26-29 in parens):

Kay Hagan (D): 40 (37)

Elizabeth Dole (R-inc): 49 (51)

(MoE: ±3.4%)

This is the second poll in a row to show Dole with a nine-point lead, and with neither candidate on the airwaves right now, I think we can assume that this race is moving into a holding pattern around this mark for now. The good news is that Hagan’s well within striking distance, and I expect this race to tighten up considerably in the fall.

Bonus finding: McCain only leads Obama in the state by 47-44.

I have thought with interest who would be strong nominees for an Obama cabinet.  Here’s a few that I feel would be best:

Attorney General – Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

Secretary of State – New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

Secretary of Interior – Soon to be Former Utah Congressman Chris Cannon, Arizona Congressman Trent Franks (another open seat in Dem hands), or Sen. Gordon Smith (if he is defeated)

Secretary of Agriculture – Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsak

Secretary of Transportation – Port Authority of NY/NJ Vice-Chairman Henry Silverman.

Secretary of Health and Human Services – Minnesota Dept. of Health Commissioner Dr. Sanne Magnan

Secretary of Education – Montgomery County (MD) Supt. of Schools Jerry Weast or Prince George’s County (MD) Supt. of Schools Dr. John Deasy (both are large school districts and consistently have the highest graduation rates for African-American and Latino students in the nation).

Secretary of Defense – Senator Chuck Hagel

Secretary of the Treasury – New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine

Secretary of Commerce – Congresswoman Jane Harman or Former US Senator John Breaux

Secretary of Labor – Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Svcs. Director Helen Jones-Kelley or Wisconsin Dept. of Workforce Secretary Roberta Gassman.

Secretary of HUD – Boston mayor Thomas Menino

Secretary of Energy – California Energy Vice-Chair Commissioner James Boyd or Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld.

Secretary of Homeland Security – Former NYPD & Boston Police Commissioner/Current LAPD Chief of Police William Bratton or Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Congressman John Murtha or Illinois Dept. of VA Director/Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth.

**Note that all of these individuals come from the Northeast, Midwest, or West.  Unfortunately, the South continues to be last in Education and Health (therefore it would be ridiculous to choose someone from there as has been done in the past two administrations).

Also, for Housing it should be a nominee from an area where housing costs are fairly high.  Transportation should be based on where there is infrastructure of all aspects (ports, bridges, airports, etc).  Interior has traditionally come from the West and Energy also makes more sense for the West.  

In the end however, I believe that qualifications, not diversity should be the determining factor in creating a sensible cabinet.

Which individuals would you nominate for these positions or which one’s do you not agree with?

Recently Congressional Quarterly changed its race rating for the 4th Congressional District based on the following reasoning:

Higher voter registration in Bridgeport and its sizeable African-American population.  

As a resident of the district I had to wonder why CQ though Bridgeport would be the decisive factor in this race.  Historically, Bridgeport has had low voter turnout.  True it may have a higher number of registered voters than any other town in the district, yet when it comes to participation, Stamford, not Bridgeport, produces more voters.  Let’s look at just some of the numbers:

This year 33% of all registered Democrats in Bridgeport voted in the Democratic Presidential primary.  How did the other towns do?

Fairfield – 56%, Greenwich – 63%, Norwalk – 49%, and Stamford – 58%.

Sure voter registration is up in Bridgeport, yet it is up everywhere statewide, an increase which actually began when the Lamont-Lieberman battle was ensuing.  However, voter registration since 2000 has increased 100% or more in Fairfield, Greenwich, and Norwalk.  Bridgeport increased 70% and Stamford 57%.  An additional factor which hinders turnout in Connecticut is the process.  

There is no early voting, nor can just anyone vote absentee (you must have sufficient reasoning).  Quite frankly I believe that it’s time for Connecticut to go to an all mail in ballot process (we’re one of two states with no county government, therefore numbers on election night are slow since they are reported by individual towns).  For any candidate to be successful here you need to rely on turnout.  Which cities have been consistent with turnout?  Fairfield, Greenwich, and Stamford.  In fact, more people in Stamford have voted in past elections, than in Bridgeport (Stamford and Bridgeport are almost equal in population).

So while Congressional Quarterly believes their own argument that voter registration in Bridgeport is sufficient reasoning in changing their race rating from Leans R to Toss Up, I believe that turnout, not registration, will be the ultimate factor.  Sure Bridgeport has a sizeable African-American population, yet Stamford (which also has an African-American population, yet not as large) had more voters in the Democratic Presidential Primary this year.  While CQ waits for Bridgeport’s numbers on election night, I’d be more interested in Fairfield, Greenwich, and Stamford.  

As for any Obama factor here I would say it is fairly low, Obama won Stamford by 12 votes.  In addition, the population here (outside of Bridgeport) is very educated, 60% or more with college degrees.  To somehow think that voters are going to vote based on race alone here is ridiculous.  In fact, Obama’s best performance was in super rich white towns, such as Darien and New Canaan.  

Shays has never relied on Bridgeport for two reasons: he understood that turnout there was low and he knew that any deficit he had in Bridgeport could be made up in the super rich towns of Darien, New Canaan, Ridgefield, and Wilton.  However, Shays should be concerned with Fairfield this year (Fairfield University).  Greenwich, while Republican on the local and state level, has begun to tread Democratic on the federal level (however Shays will still carry the town).  Finally, Stamford (which has the highest numerical voter turnout statewide) has been drifting away from Shays in the past two elections (Shays carried Stamford in 2002, yet Farrell took 53% of the vote in 2004 and 2006).  Any of these three towns will ultimately decide whether Shays survives or Himes become a likely one-termer, however, Bridgeport will not be the decisive factor.

Please note: I strongly believe that Himes is too liberal for the district.  However, I have changed my rating on this race for a reason other than Bridgeport or Himes overall appeal.  This had more to do with the growing Hispanic population in Norwalk and Stamford (which Shays has managed to alienate with his radical anti-amnesty agenda), Himes ability to fundraise, and him finally introducing himself to voters within the district (thereby breaking the unknown factor).  However, if Himes is elected he will certainly face strong opposition come 2010 from any of the following “strong” competitors:

– State Senator McKinney of Fairfield (son of Shays predecessor)

– Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele of Stamford

– Former First Selectman of Greenwich Jim Lash

– New Canaan Selectwoman Judy Neville

– State Senator William Nickerson of Greenwich  

– State Senator Judith Freeman of Westport

– State Representative Toni Boucher of Wilton

– State Representative Livvy Floren of Greenwich

– State Representative Lile Gibbons of Greenwich

Then, of course, if Republicans simply wanted to allow Himes to remain until 2012 redistricting (which I doubt they would) then they could nominate any of these following:

– Soon to be State Senator Scott Frantz of Greenwich (a Mitt Romney supporter who is conveniently buying his way into office)

– Norwalk mayor Richard Moccia (unable to control crime in his city, yet elected because unions were upset that the former Democratic mayor wouldn’t give into their whimpering)

– Stamford Board of Finance member Joseph Tarzia (correct on his assessment of overtaxation and overspending, yet a little extreme in all other areas)

– State Representative Claudia Powers of Greenwich (way too extreme)

– House Republican Leader Larry Cafero of Norwalk (way too extreme – pushing a repeal of the gas tax at a time when a budget deficit is expected.  Of course, cut taxes and create deficits.  That’s what a real Republican does after all.)

– State Budget Director Robert Genuario of Norwalk

Well, I knew that times were lean at the NRCC, but this is a whole ‘nother level of stinginess:

Visiting Huntsville and Montgomery on Monday, U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. gave a $5,000 check from the NRCC to each one: 5th District GOP hopeful Wayne Parker, a Huntsville insurance executive, and 2nd District candidate state Rep. Jay Love of Montgomery.

Cole said the NRCC expects to put about $80,000 into each of the races before the Nov. 4 general election. That’s as much as the committee plans to put into any campaign. He said the races are among the top 10 priorities for the NRCC, and he expects candidates will have to spend at least $1 million to win in each district.

It’s difficult to imagine the NRCC spending a mere $80K on any race among their “top 10 priorities”, especially in the 2nd District, where the DCCC has reserved nearly $600K worth of ads for the open seat race. Just take a look at the kind of money that Tom Reynolds threw around last time (see here, here, and here).

Now, I realize that the NRCC is cash-strapped, but they do have nearly $8.5M on-hand, and surely they’ll have much more than that in the bank to spend come fall. Cole’s statement is altogether baffling. Is he just trying to light a fire under local donors, or is he saving the bulk of the NRCC’s booty for their other eight “priorities”?

(Hat-tip: Left in Alabama)