Month: October 2008

I wrote a variation of this on Daily Kos a few days ago but thought this crowd might like it as well.

As a lifelong student of Minnesota politics, I’ll do my best to rise to the challenge of handicapping the wildly unpredictable three-way contest between Al Franken, Norm Coleman, and independent challenger (and former Senator) Dean Barkley.  I currently live out of state but visit the parents every three weeks or so, where I keep apprised of the goings-on in the campaign, and get vague updates from my dad who is active in the county DFL.  And of course, I keep up with the ads via the Internet and the crazy all-over-the-map polls coming out of the race.  Anyone who says they know where this race is going is either nuts or alot smarter than I am, but I do have some insights on specifics from past races that could give some sense of what the future holds.

First of all, the Barkley factor.  I didn’t see tonight’s debate, but it was essentially the starting point for Dean Barkley.  Not many third-party challengers come out of the starting gates with 18-19%.  Most Independence Party candidates in recent years are left-of-center and very well-spoken eggheads either on an ego trip or a journey of personal discovery through their candidacies.  My impression of Barkley is that he’s best friends with Jesse Ventura for a reason.  Both are pretentiously “centrist” would-be intellectual egomaniacs with a few keen insights, but a hard-time avoiding self-aggrandizing bluster that over time turns voters off.

In other words, a little of Barkley tends to go a long ways, but in the limited exposure Minnesotans will get of him in the October debates, his shtick may not quite reach the level of diminishing returns before election day the way it will by next spring if he ends up getting elected and being Minnesota’s junior Senator.  Combine his ability to leave a positive initial impression on swing voters and the hunger for a protest vote against two major-party candidates with high unfavorables and Barkley could prove to be a problem.  I give him a 20% chance of winning this whole thing, and above-average odds of getting at least 25%.

But the debates will be critical.  Jesse Ventura rose from 12% to a 37% victory in a month by impressing enough voters in the televised debates, with the help of a few clever TV ads, and weak, bickering opponents (one of whom was Norm Coleman).  On the other hand, the 2002 Independence Party gubernatorial nominee Tim Penny had the lead three weeks before that election, but uninspiring debate performances and a charisma gap with eventual winner Tim Pawlenty caused the bottom to completely fall out of Penny’s candidacy, falling by more than 20 points to an unimpressive 16% showing on election day 2002.  If Barkley doesn’t stand out in the debates, he could just as easily plunge to Penny’s level of insignificance, or substantially much lower since Penny still had a regional stronghold in his southeastern Minnesota stomping grounds that likely boosted his statewide numbers by 5%.

But the question is, where do we want Barkley’s numbers?  Clearly, we don’t want them to get too high.  Despite the Star Tribune’s recent overly optimistic poll, I suspect Norm Coleman has a basement of about 40% in the state, and if Barkley is pulling in numbers higher than 25%, those votes are most likely coming at Franken’s expense.  For the same reason, I don’t want to see Barkley fall too low either.  My suspicion is that Franken has more people who would never consider voting for him than does Coleman, meaning a Barkley collapse likely benefits Norm.  Essentially, I think Franken is best positioned for victory if Barkley stays where he’s at in the high-teens.  If Barkley is polling 15-19%, Franken probably wins.

The regional internals of this race are just as difficult to handicap, but to quote Joe Biden, “past is prologue”, meaning there is some basis to predict where the three candidates’ strengths are likely to emerge from.  When looking at the county map from the 1998 gubernatorial race, you can see that Jesse Ventura’s victories came in the Twin Cities metro area as well as the rural counties of central Minnesota, west-central Minnesota, and south-central Minnesota.  The common denominator of these counties is that they all lie in the Twin Cities media market.  Just as Jesse’s exposure was broadest in the Twin Cities market, so will be Dean Barkley’s.  That means it’s more likely to be a two-candidate race throughout northern Minnesota serviced by the Duluth, Grand Forks, and Fargo-Moorhead media markets, as well as southwestern Minnesota serviced by the Sioux Falls, SD, media market, and southeastern Minnesota, serviced by the Rochester, Austin, Mason City, IA, and La Crosse, WI, media markets.  Franken has little control over how well Barkley plays in the metro area market, meaning his performance in the outlying areas is critical.

With that in mind, Franken needs to work overtime in Duluth and the Iron Range, where he has the best chance of running up the score on both Coleman and Barkley.  Outside of that, I’m not sensing too much favorable turf for Franken.  The Rochester area has been trending Democrat, but Republicans that meet their defintion of “moderate” still seem to do well.  Tim Pawlenty, for instance, won Olmsted County by 17 points in 2006.  Now that’s not to say Rochester area residents will view Coleman through the same lens as they did Pawlenty, but my hunch is that they’ll feel more comfortable with Coleman than Franken in a region that can still be best described as center-right.

That leaves northwestern and southwestern Minnesota farm country.  Coleman did very poorly, particularly in northwestern Minnesota, against Walter Mondale in 2002….and probably would have done just as badly against Paul Wellstone had he lived.  The myth of western Minnesota is that it’s full of right-wingers and is hopefully Republican, but that’s not the case, particularly in the farm areas which have a long-standing populist tradition and tend to vote Democratic more than Republican.  The region was skeptical about Wellstone’s liberalism for years, but anecdotal evidence heading in the 2002 race was that Wellstone’s long-standing fighting on behalf of family farmers was winning them over against New York City transplant and agriculture agnostic Norm Coleman.  Six years later, the tables are likely to have turned.  Coleman is now fairly well versed in farm policy and the former Saturday Night Live comedian is not a comfortable fit with the populist but socially conservative region.  It’s always hard to predict how these voters will go, particularly in northwestern Minnesota’s Red River Valley, but if Franken is serious about winning them over, he’d best draw the battle lines on the trade issue where Coleman didn’t stand with the sugar growers during the 2005 CAFTA debate.

My parents live in southeastern Minnesota and I know those media markets are running an abundance of Franken and Coleman ads.  I would guess the same is true in Duluth.  But I’m less certain about Fargo-Moorhead and Grand Forks.  Franken would be well advised to ramp up his campaign operation there, both in terms of campaign visits and TV advertising since he’s most likely to win over votes there based on the aforementioned policy reasons and the reduced effect of Barkley interference.  And I’d be very surprised if either candidate was advertising in Sioux Falls or La Crosse (Minnesota candidates rarely do), but if Coleman isn’t, it might be worthwile for Franken to do so in the final two weeks as a handful of counties in those corners of Minnesota are effectively isolated from Minnesota politics, and could yield some modest advantage for one candidate who does reach out that direction.

Franken’s challenge and opportunity is that the regions of the state where he is probably running the furthest behind right now are the very regions where he is best positioned to improve his standing with some savvy campaign moves.  But these areas account for only about 20% of Minnesota’s population.  Take the Duluth market out of the equation since it’s a safe bet Franken is already doing well there, and that number shrinks to about 10%.   But that could be decisive in a race this close.

Lastly, what to do if Barkley really starts catching on in the weeks ahead?  Does Franken go negative on him?  I’m hoping Franken is prepared for this possibility because Ventura went unchallenged in 1998 and ended up winning because of it.  Right now, Barkley appears to be more of a gadfly against Coleman, so it doesn’t make sense to go after him right now.  But the Barkley factor could change with just a few more percentage points of support, at which point Franken would be well-advised to poke some holes in Barkley’s story.

I was 13 years old in 1990 when I experienced two very exciting and unpredictable Minnesota elections (Wellstone v. Boschwitz in the Senate and Grunseth/Carlson v. Perpich in the Governor’s race).  Those races set the stage for several more wild roller coaster rides.  The 2008 Minnesota Senate race seems likely to carry on that fine tradition, and frustrating as it is to try to handicap these races based on what I thought I’ve learned from previous races, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Norm Coleman has availed himself with great gusto of the various side benefits of being a senator, without too much concern for technicalities like the “Senate Gift Ban.” For instance, you may recall from several months ago the story of the Capitol Hill apartment that he rented for a laughable $600 per month from a friend… er… business associate… uh… let’s just make that “lobbyist.” (He also occasionally outright neglected to pay the rent until the National Journal started asking, and once paid the rent with used furniture, with no problem.)

Turns out Coleman has other means of enjoying the largesse of his closest friends, if by close friends you mean “donors”: Harper’s just detailed Coleman’s relationship with Minnesota businessman and big GOP donor Nasser Kazeminy. This included several junkets, to the Bahamas and Paris, on Kazeminy’s plane.

It also included Kazeminy covering the cost for Coleman’s clothing shopping sprees, and by that, I don’t mean a trip to Target to buy a sweatshirt:

I’ve been told by two sources that Kazeminy has in the past covered the bills for Coleman’s lavish clothing purchases at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis. The sources were not certain of the dates of the purchases; if they were made before Coleman joined the Senate in 2003, he obviously would not be required to report it under senate rules. But having a private businessman pay for your clothing is never a good idea if you’re a public official (Coleman was mayor of St. Paul from 1994 to 2002).

Remember a charming gentleman by the name of Robert Toricelli (aka “The Torch”), who was an up-and-coming Democratic power broker in the Senate until he got swamped by a self-inflicted tidal wave of sleaze in 2002? Apparently, the Torch had a taste for bespoke suits on someone else’s dime as well:

In a three-page judgment, the panel chastised Torricelli for allowing businessman David Chang–a friend who later was convicted of illegally siphoning money into the senator’s campaign–to provide him with personal gifts that some have called bribes. According to Chang, these “gifts” included cash, Italian-made suits, a 52-inch television and an $8,000 Rolex watch.

Sensing a potential problem here (in the face of a fast-rising Al Franken), Coleman’s campaign manager gave a press conference earlier today to deny any wrongdoing on this or any other ethical front. Much hilarious stonewalling ensued (see video link here). With his race suddenly descending into a tie in the last few days, this is one distraction that Coleman can’t afford.

You know things are bad for Republicans when insiders are already starting to murmur about what might happen if their Minority Leader, the odious Bush cheerleader Mitch McConnell, were to be defeated this year. And murmuring they are, according to Roll Call:

Asked whether Republicans have internally entertained the possibility, a top Republican strategist said: “They are just starting to, just a little bit. You need to prepare a contingency plan for ‘just in case’ scenarios like this one.”

A McConnell loss would devastate the GOP Senate caucus, and they know it:

A McConnell defeat, Republicans say, would be salt in the wound for a party staged to suffer significant losses in the House and Senate, and perhaps the White House.

“That would be the worst thing for any of us,” one GOP Senate aide said. “If McConnell loses, it would be bad for the caucus, it would be bad for the leadership team. Regardless if you love him or hate him, he has kept the caucus unified and has done it without beating people up.”

A Republican leadership aide agreed, saying that while he has often differed with the conservative wing of his party, McConnell has been effective in keeping an often disparate Conference together. “There would be a tremendous void in the ability to corral the Conference. There’s no one else out there, like a [former Sen.] Don Nickles who has that ability,” the aide said.

The leadership aide also argued that a McConnell loss would almost certainly be part of a much larger turnover in the Senate, arguing that in addition to losing their leader, Republicans would also be largely powerless to stop legislation in the Senate. “You’re well north of 60 [votes] if McConnell loses,” this source said.

“If McConnell loses, the Republicans would need to create stability immediately,” one GOP Senate strategist said. “They will need to coronate a new leader quickly in order to show strength because it’s going to be a party in disarray.”

As far as Senate contests go, a Mitch McConnell defeat would be the biggest political earthquake of election night. That said, it’s not going to happen without a lot of hard work and resources devoted to tearing McConnell down. I’d still have to give the GOP at least a slight edge in this contest due to Democrat Bruce Lunsford’s lingering baggage from his hard-fought 2003 gubernatorial campaign, but the idea of “Dasche-ling” McConnell feels less and less like a pipe dream as of late, especially with quotes like this one from DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer:

Schumer said Wednesday that Kentucky and Georgia – where GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss is in an unexpectedly tough race – are now on his radar as potential pickups given recent polling.

“They’re both tied. Our private polling mirrors the public polling that these are even-steven races. We believe we can win in both of those states. We’re devoting resources to them. In fact, you can go on our Web site. Our first Kentucky ad starts today,” Schumer said.

The race in FL-08 between Rep. Ric Keller and Democrat Alan Grayson is getting really nasty.  Today’s Orlando Sentinel has an article about a mailer Grayson is sending out highlighting a Harper’s expose from last yeat which detailed Keller’s affair with a staff assistant who later became his second wife.  Keep in mind that Keller came to office in 2001 on a “family values” platform.

In a glossy new campaign mailer, the Democratic congressional candidate accuses his opponent — U.S. Rep. Ric Keller, R-Orlando — of infidelity and betraying a platform of “all-American family values.” The mailer reprints an article that appeared in the online edition of Harper’s Magazine in November 2007.

…

The Harper’s piece alleges that Keller cheated on his first wife with a staff member, Danielle “Dee Dee” Michel, whom he hired when she was 23 after he was elected in 2000 and married in 2005. It also notes that Keller placed her in plum positions in his office and on his campaign.

The author, Ken Silverstein, wrote, “I spoke with four people, each of whom would only speak with me on condition of anonymity, and each of whom told me that Keller’s relationship with the staffer began while he was still married.”

Reached Tuesday night, Silverstein defended the article. “I have no doubt the story is true,” he said.

While Keller predictably called the mailer “gutter politics” and assailed Grayson, nasty personal attacks are nothing new for the congressman:

Indeed, Keller used the mailer route to his advantage in this year’s Republican primary against attorney Todd Long. A Keller mailer, designed to resemble a police file, showed police reports documenting Long’s drunken brushes with the law.

Note that this was Keller’s primary opponent this year who the incumbent only beat 53-47, despite Long spending almost no money, and having been arrested for drunk driving, public drunkedness, and having been found sleeping on a bench outside of a high school

While this race has mostly fallen under the radar with FL-21/24/25 getting all of the attention, this is a top-tier pick-up opportunity for us, and our candidate Grayson has deep pockets from which to spend.  Ric Keller is in big trouble next month.  

http://www.orlandosentinel.com…

Remember earlier this year when the San Francisco Chronicle took carpetbagging blockhead Tom McClintock to task for opening up campaign accounts for various statewide races in 2010? Well, despite promising to shut them down and donate the funds to charity, the accounts are very much open, and the money has not all gone to charity:

This summer, GOP congressional candidate Tom McClintock’s campaign said he was closing down an open account to run for statewide office in 2010 and donating the funds to charity.

But four weeks before the Nov. 4 election, McClintock’s account remains open and active, as the Thousand Oaks lawmaker has doled out thousands of dollars to fellow Republicans in the last week.

McClintock made $3,600 donations, the maximum allowed under state law, to a trio of Republican candidates for the Legislature: Senate candidates Tony Strickland and Greg Aghazarian and Assembly hopeful Jack Sieglock.

And here’s McClintock’s lame-assed excuse:

Asked why the accounts remain open nearly three months later, McClintock spokesman Bill George said, “We are doing exactly what they said in that paper.”

“It didn’t say all of the money is going to charity,” George said, “(Feliz) said he’s shutting the accounts. There’s no timeline here. We’ve given $51,000 to charity.”

You got that? “There’s no timeline here.” For all we know, McClintock will shut these puppies down in 2011 after he makes yet another failed statewide bid.

One thing that has been consistent in the race for Kentucky’s First Congressional District is that Ed Whitfield and his supporters can’t stand to talk about issues, or anything of substance. Instead of talking about what Heather Ryan wants to bring to the next Congress, or how the candidates feel about Healthcare, Iraq, and the crashing Economy, they seem particularly angry at Heather and want to call her things like crazy, and fat.  

Well, in her press conference today she fired back at them with a biological excuse:

Congrats to Carl and Heather!!!!

No matter what anyone wants to call Heather the plain and simple fact of the matter is that she is the one that is not afraid to show up and debate the issues that effect this district and these voters. Is he actually scared of the “pregnant woman”??

I say he is afraid of the “courageous woman”, who is not afraid to stand up to him and debate him over his sorry record of representing our district, and will contrast their visions of representing these voters through the challenges of the next two years. The “intelligent woman”, knows the facts.

This is an insult to the voters of the First Congressional District, just as Heather stated, and shows the disdain of Ed Whitfield for anyone that would question his vision of deregulation, debt, recession, lost jobs, stagnant wages, and higher energy prices.

Whitfield is scared of debating his record of failure. From the failed “Contract with America” that devolve into a “Culture of Corruption”, Ed Whitfield has consistenty rubber stamped the failed policies of men like Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, Mitch McConnell, and President Bush. He is as complicit in the failures at the national, state, and local levels as any of them.

So this Press conference reaveled we will have a new Democrat voter in the First District in eighteen and a half years, and that like Mitch McConnell, Ed Whitfield is too cowardly to face his opponent and the voters. If I were them I wouldn’t show up to debate a Reeses Monkey!!

Heather Ryan has a new T.V. ad coming out, please help her run it so these voters get a chance to see the failed record of Ed Whitfield:

SurveyUSA (10/6-7, likely voters, 8/26-28 in parens):

Ashwin Madia (D): 46 (41)

Erik Paulsen (R): 43 (44)

David Dillon (IP): 8

(MoE: ±4%)

These numbers aren’t far off from a recent DCCC internal poll showing Madia leading by 44-39. SUSA still seems to have a questionably GOP-tilted sample of young voters (they break for Paulsen by a 51-40 margin in this poll), but that might be offset by a possibly-skewed 53-38 Madia lead among 50-to-64 year-olds.

Interestingly, Tom Scheck over at Minnesota Public Radio writes that the NRCC has scaled back their mid-October ad rotation in support of Paulsen, though the committee still has $216,450 in reserved time available. Are they shifting that scrilla to any number of their many incumbents in tight races?

Bonus finding: Obama leads McCain by 49-47 in this district. Bush beat Kerry here by 51-48 in 2004. Crosstabs are available here (PDF).

You can’t make this stuff up:

Ninth District Republican Party Chairman Larry Shickles on Wednesday proposed the political polygraphs for Democratic Rep. Baron Hill, GOP challenger Mike Sodrel and Libertarian candidate Eric Schansberg. The three are scheduled to debate Oct. 21, but an official with a debate co-sponsor said lie detectors won’t be included. […]

Shickles, in a letter sent Tuesday to 9th District Democratic Chairman Mike Jones, suggested that the candidates be hooked up to lie detecting machines at the Oct. 21 event or a separate debate.

“While this format may be unusual, I feel strongly that voters need to be able to make a clear decision without all the usual spin,” Shickles wrote.

Sodrel’s campaign said he would agree to the proposal, and Schansberg said he also would agree to wear a lie detector. Hill declined to comment.

Thomas over at Blue Indiana has more:

With recent polls showing him down by double-digits, I knew the guy was desperate, but that noise we all just heard was the fine line between “desperate” and “insane” flying right by our heads.

Words fail.

http://www.centerforpolitics.o…

Larry Sabato is one of he best political analysts around.  He was dead-on predicting the races in 2006.  Even giving all the tossups to McCain would still mean an Obama victory.

His new column up today has the following EV breakdown:

Obama – 278

McCain – 174

Tossups – 86

2004 red states for Obama – NV,CO,NM

2004 blue states for McCain – None

Tossup States – FL,MO,OH,VA,NC