Month: May 2009

Yesterday Taniel at the Campaign Diaries blog posted about 68 Democratic-held U.S. House seats that could potentially be competitive in 2010. Iowa’s third Congressional district is not on that list.

IA-03 did not make Stuart Rothenberg’s list of competitive House seats for 2010 either.

The National Republican Congressional Committee released a list of 51 targeted Democratic-held House districts in January. Lo and behold, IA-03 is not on that list either.  

I realize that Boswell only won the district with 56.3 percent of the vote in 2008, but I don’t hear any chatter from Iowa Republicans about recruiting a candidate to run against him. The focus is on the governor’s race and the Iowa House.

I bring this up because the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has kept Boswell on its list of “Frontline Democrats” for 2010. John Deeth recently noticed that Boswell is “by far the senior member” of the 41 Frontline candidates. Almost all of them were first elected to Congress in 2006 or 2008. The others with more terms under their belt represent districts significantly more conservative than IA-03 with its partisan voter index of D+1.

For Deeth, this is yet another sign that IA-03 deserves better than Boswell. I view it as a sign that the DCCC is wrong. Boswell definitely needed to be in the Frontline program the first five times he ran for re-election, but he was a safe six-term incumbent in 2008, and there’s no reason to believe he won’t be a safe seven-term incumbent in 2010.

According to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, Iowa’s third district had about 433,000 registered voters as of May 1, 2009. Of those, about 399,000 were “active voters.” More than 156,000 of the active voters in IA-03 are registered Democrats. Only about 118,000 are registered Republicans, and about 124,000 are registered no-party voters.

Why should you care if the DCCC erroneously classifies Boswell as vulnerable? Frontline Democrats are exempt from paying DCCC dues, which are used to support Democrats in competitive races across the country.

Look, I would still prefer to elect a new Democrat to IA-03 in order to avoid a potential matchup of Boswell and Tom Latham in 2012. But since Boswell has no plans to retire, let him pay his DCCC dues just like every other House incumbent whose seat is not threatened next year.  

On a related note, Deeth recently cited Progressive Punch lifetime ratings as an argument for replacing Boswell. It’s worth noting that Boswell’s voting record in the current Congress is much better than his lifetime Progressive Punch score suggests. (For instance, he was not among the Blue Dogs who voted against President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint.) Yes, IA-03 should be represented by a more progressive Democrat than Boswell, but I’m cutting him slack as long as he’s not casting egregious votes in the current Congress.  

I see no reason to keep him in the Frontline program, though. We will genuinely be playing defense in dozens of House districts next year. Until there is some sign that Republicans are making a serious play for IA-03, Boswell should pay his DCCC dues.

Despite stating earlier that Arlen Specter would have his support in a contested Democratic primary, Democratic Sen. Bob Casey is not exactly discouraging anyone from taking a crack at Specter in such a contest. From CNN:

Casey seemed to part ways with his party’s leadership when asked by CNN’s John King whether Democratic Party leaders – including President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell – should be making public pledges of support to Specter in an apparent effort to dissuade any would-be primary challengers to the former Republican.

“I don’t think anyone in our party should ever dictate to a candidate,” Casey said on State of the Union. “That’s really up to that candidate, to run or not run,” Casey, a longtime Obama backer added.

For his part, Joe Sestak recently told a local FOX affiliate that he’s “very much leaning towards” running, but has yet to reach a final decision. Perhaps wising up to the danger he faces, Specter is now saying that he’s open to discussing a publicly-provided health insurance plan after earlier stating his opposition to any kind of public plan. Coupled with his potential support for an EFCA compromise, Specter may be hoping to deprive Sestak of oxygen on his left flank.

As for Specter’s right flank, it’s looking pretty barren these days aside from economic wingnut Pat Toomey. Former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton told a local political blog on Friday that he won’t challenge Toomey for the Senate nomination. Scranton probably wouldn’t have been much of a force in a general election, anyway — after narrowly losing the 1986 gubernatorial election to Bob Casey, Sr., he remained politically dormant until a disastrous (and ultimately aborted) bid for his party’s gubernatorial nomination in 2006. The Pennsylvania GOP will have to look elsewhere (perhaps to Philly-area Rep. Jim Gerlach) for a Toomey alternative.

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

As many of you know, over the last five days, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, in partnership with a number of progressive organizations and blogs including Senate Guru, asked those in the netroots, “Should a Draft Sestak movement be created to take on Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary?”

The results are in and they are overwhelming.  85% of Pennsylvanian respondents and 86% of respondents nationally want Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Democratic Senate primary.  The poll has even gotten the attention of Congressman Sestak, as the PCCC points out: “I am honored that so many of you took the time to vote in the recent grassroots Straw Poll. Let me tell you, I and many others were paying attention. If I decide to run it will be in large measure because of the grassroots energy of so many people like you. Until I and my family make that decision, please accept my thanks and my best wishes as you continue be active participants in our people-powered democracy. Thank you so very much!” Due to such an overwhelming response, a Draft Sestak Fund has been created on ActBlue.  To contribute and further encourage Congressman Sestak to enter the race, click on the image below:

If you need any additional motivation to contribute to this effort to draft a real Democrat to oppose Specter in the primary, consider Specter’s actions since announcing his Party switch:

1) Specter opposed the Obama budget.

2) Specter opposed the “cramdown” mortgage/bankruptcy reform, siding with banks over families.

3) Specter reiterated his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.

4) Specter reiterated his opposition to President Obama’s nomination of Dawn Johnsen to the Office of Legal Counsel.

5) Specter announced his support for Republican Norm Coleman over Democratic Senator-elect Al Franken in Minnesota’s Senate race.

6) Specter promoted a website that appeared to raise money for cancer research but, in actuality, simply raised money for his campaign.

7) Specter denied reports that he told President Obama that he would be a “loyal Democrat” despite multiple reporters sticking to their story.

The netroots have displayed overwhelming support for Congressman Sestak to take on recently-Republican Arlen Specter.  Help the effort by contributing to the Draft Sestak Fund.

When former Commerce Secretary William Daley pulled the plug on his never-really-began Senate campaign in Illinois, it was starting to look like everyone was coalescing around state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (with Roland Burris providing an amusing footnote to Giannoulias’s victory lap). All of a sudden, though, the race is back in the spotlight (maybe people are no longer worried that Burris and his $845 could sneak through the primary as a spoiler).

Rep. Jan Schakowsky has seemed reluctant to give up her safe House seat and junior leadership role for a run at the Senate, but the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that’s she revving up her fundraising machine. She says she’ll announce by June 8 whether or not she’s running for Senate (although one of her erstwhile potential opponents, Mark Kirk, has had no compunctions about disregarding his own timeline). In the meantime, she has a star-studded fundraiser on tap:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), mulling a Senate run, throws her annual “women’s power lunch” fundraiser Monday at the Hyatt Regency with marquee speakers White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Director of Public Liaison Tina Tchen and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

Jarrett’s an interesting get, as she’s perhaps the pre-eminent Friend of Barack (as seen by her almost-selection as Commerce Secretary). One of Giannoulias’s electoral strengths is his close connections to Obama’s inner circle… but then, Schakowsky was also one of Obama’s biggest congressional backers during the 2008 primaries, so she may be entitled to some payback too.

But an even heavier heavyweight than Schakowsky may be looming in the distance in the Senate primary: Illinois AG Lisa Madigan. While she had previously explicitly ruled out a Senate run and had done little to hide her gubernatorial ambitions, Cillizza is now reporting that she’s at least reconsidering. While a recent PPP poll showed Madigan beating incumbent governor Pat Quinn by a healthy margin in a Dem primary, he still has high approval ratings, and an open Senate race might be more of a sure thing for her (PPP also showed her dominating that field as well). So, the rethink makes sense, although which ever route she takes, she’s poised to dominate.

On top of all that, Chris Kennedy (never before elected, but a big wheel in Chicago’s commercial real estate world and, as son of RFK, possessor of that magical last name) has been privately making a splash as he “explores” the race, to the extent that Obama henchman Rahm Emanuel has been reportedly talking him up as potentially the strongest candidate. What tangled webs we weave…

• TN-03: Paula Flowers, the former Tennessee Insurance Commissioner, formally announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination on Thursday. This is a tough district at R+13, but between it being an open seat (as Zach Wamp is running for governor) and Flowers’ statewide profile, we have a shot here.

• IL-13: Last year, businessman Scott Harper held Rep. Judy Biggert to a much closer than expected margin (54-44) without DCCC help, in this once solidly Republican district (which just plunged from R+5 to R+1). Harper filed an exploratory committee on Friday for a rematch. He can probably count on a higher-profile race this time, especially as strong fundraising might encourage the 71-year-old Biggert to think about retirement.

• MI-07: The GOP is still trying to settle on a challenger to freshman Rep. Mark Schauer in this rural Michigan district. Former Rep. Tim Walberg (who lost after one term to Schauer) seems to have dibs on the race, and state GOP chair Saul Anuzis is thinking he’ll do it again, but Walberg says he’s in no hurry to decide. Brad Smith, a lawyer who’s the son of the district’s former Rep. Nick Smith, seems to be taking shape as their fallback option.

• NJ-03: John Culbertson, a wealthy investor who was courted by the New Jersey GOP to run against frosh Democratic Rep. John Adler based on his capacity to self-fund, says he’s not interested in pursuing the race. (J)

• KS-Sen: I’m not exactly sure what Dennis Hastert has at stake in the Kansas Senate primary, but he waded into it today, endorsing Rep. Todd Tiahrt. (Tiahrt is up against another former Hastert colleague, Rep. Jerry Moran, in a moderate/conservative duel; maybe Hastert sees this as a proxy battle over the GOP’s heart-and-soul.)

• Mayors: In Austin’s mayoral election over the weekend, no candidate finished over 50%, but it looks like there may be no contested runoff after all; 2nd-place finisher Brewster McCracken, who trailed fellow city councilor Lee Leffingwell by 20 points on Saturday, said that he’s bowing out of the runoff and conceding. In San Antonio, former city councilor and rising star Julian Castro easily won against eight other challengers.

A couple of slightly differing reports. The NY Post says:

Long Island Congressman Steve Israel will announce plans to challenge US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in next year’s Democratic primary as early as tomorrow, several sources said yesterday.

The Suffolk County Democrat, who was first elected to Congress in 2000 and is a member of the Appropriations Committee, told several members of the state’s congressional delegation of his plans to challenge Gillibrand late Friday, congressional sources revealed.

Glenn Thrush at the Politico says Israel will form an exploratory committee rather than launch a formal challenge. These days, that seems to be a distinction without a difference – I haven’t crunched any numbers, but it sure feels like many if not most prominent exploratory committees turn into the real thing. An Israel spokesman, though, is denying that there is any sort of announcement planned for this week.

Supposedly, Carolyn Maloney will soon create an exploratory committee, too. I imagine if one or both of these folks get in, Carolyn McCarthy will bow out, citing her desire to see someone younger challenge Gillibrand (she’s older than both Maloney and Israel). But if either Israel or Maloney are to have any chance, I can’t imagine Gillibrand would be beatable in a three-way race. Someone’s gonna have to give.

Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer, who was busy declaring the other day there would be no primary, is now supposedly backing off. David Paterson is also apparently staying out of things, though if I were Kirsten Gillibrand, I’m not sure I’d want him within a hundred yards of the campaign van. If anything, suggests a canny Maloney confidant, Gillibrand might be forced to support Paterson, since he is her recent patron, after all.

Anyhow, open seat fans & worry-warts: Obama pounded McCain 56-43 in Israel’s suburban Long Island district (NY-02), but its PVI nonetheless fell to D+4 from D+8. Given how Long Island has turned over the last fifteen years, the Dems would have an advantage in any open seat race here. McCarthy’s NY-04, at D+6, would be fairly similar. Maloney’s NY-14, however, would be a mortal lock for the Dems (D+26).

Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio, who was previously mulling a Senate bid earlier in the year, now says that she won’t run for the job — or for any statewide post in 2010, for that matter:

Over the past several months, I have given much thought to this and have concluded that 2010 is not the right time to pursue a statewide or national office.  My four-year term as mayor does not end until March 2011 and I believe that running both the city of Tampa and a statewide campaign at the same time over the next eighteen months would shortchange the citizens of Tampa.

With Charlie Crist all but in this race, it seems that the Democratic nomination will be left to either Dan Gelber or Kendrick Meek.

UPDATE: CNN also says that Crist is going to jump in.

Buckle up:

Gov. Charlie Crist will announce his political plans on Tuesday and it very likely means he’s running for U.S. Senate, Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer said tonight.

“Charlie Crist is going to be the next U.S. senator from Florida,” Greer told the Buzz a few minutes ago. Crist has said he would make a decision after the legislative session but the precise day was first reported this evening by The Associated Press. […]

Greer strongly indicated Crist will run for the seat being vacated by U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez. “It’s my opinion he has come to the conclusion that he needs to fight for Floridians on the issues coming out of Washington, D.C., and he needs to be there first-hand,” Greer said.

If Crist does indeed go for the Senate seat, as it seems likely, the ripple effect in Florida politics will be massive — and one that could give Democrats a decent shot at picking up a pair of open statewide seats (Governor and AG). Also worth watching will be the response of former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, who has already declared his candidacy for the Senate seat as the true conservative option in the GOP primary. Will Rubio follow through with the scorched-earth campaign necessary to have a shot at poisoning the well for Crist? Or will he bail in order to run for one of the aforementioned open statewide offices, instead?

UPDATE: A “source close to the governor” tells the Politico that Crist has decided to run for Senate.

Mitch McConnell must keep tearing his hair out:

Bunning touted his conservative credentials and congressional voting record and asked his fellow Republicans for support in the coming year. He reiterated his re-election plans.

“I am nobody’s puppet. I am my own man,” Bunning said during his remarks. “I hope and pray I can count on your support in the coming months. The battle is going to be long, but I am prepared to fight for my values. I hope you are with me.”

McConnell declined to address Bunning’s 2010 race or any fissure between him and Kentucky’s junior senator. After the speech, McConnell said he liked Bunning “a lot” but did not answer other questions about the race.

Of note: Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a potential Bunning replacement (or dethroner), was emcee at the event, but didn’t discuss his Senate plans.

Meant to cross-post this from Bleeding Heartland a few days ago, but better late than never.

I’ve argued this year that Iowa Governor Chet Culver is in decent shape going into the 2010 re-election campaign for various reasons. Iowans love to re-elect incumbents, and Culver’s poll numbers, while not spectacular, have mostly been above the danger zone for sitting governors.

Survey USA recently released new polling numbers for Iowa, and it wasn’t good news for Culver. Senator Chuck Grassley’s approval was at a multi-year low in the same poll.

Links, numbers and some analysis are after the jump.

SUSA found Culver’s approval rating at 42 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. In February and March, SUSA found that 46 percent of Iowans approved of Culver’s performance as governor.

Culver’s approval number isn’t too bad compared to that of some other governors, but if you look at the graph of SUSA’s numbers for Culver since he took office, you’ll see that 42 percent is the lowest approval number SUSA has ever recorded for him.

Since Culver took office in January 2007, his approval has been in the 50s most of the time. He dipped into “net negative territory” (with disapproval exceeding approval) from February through April 2008, then bounced back above 50 percent for the rest of last year. When I first saw the graph, I thought maybe Culver got a bump during last summer’s floods, but his approval rating was already noticeably higher in May 2008.

The trendlines for Culver got me wondering whether the governor’s difficult working relationship with the Democrats who run the Iowa House and Senate is at the heart of his poor numbers in February through April of 2008 and 2009. The Iowa legislature usually meets only from early January through some time in April. The most recent SUSA poll was in the field on April 24 through 26, which coincided with the final marathon days of the 2009 legislative session.

If a “legislature effect” is dragging Culver’s numbers down, add that to the list of reasons the governor and statehouse leaders need to figure out a way to cooperate more effectively during the 2010 session.

Of course, we’re also in the middle of an economic recession, which has been the focus of massive media coverage since the start of the year. In the coming months, Culver’s I-JOBS program will lead to lots of new spending on infrastructure projects. It will be interesting to see whether his approval goes up.

It’s also possible that Culver’s approval slipped a little in April because of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v. Brien. The Republican Party of Iowa trumpeted this poll as a sign the public disagrees with Culver on labor unions, taxes, spending and gay marriage.

It’s worth noting that SUSA’s numbers on Culver run a bit low compared to other pollsters. For instance, in late March SUSA had Culver at 46 percent approval while Selzer and Associates put that figure at 55 percent, and the Republican firm Hill Research measured his approval at 52 percent. Nevertheless, the SUSA numbers and trendlines bear watching. If other polls also put Culver’s approval in the low 40s, I would tend to agree with Bleeding Heartland user American007 that he looks vulnerable,with the caveat that the GOP would have to nominate someone other than Congressman Steve “10 Worst” King or Bob Vander Plaats, a religious conservative businessman who was Mike Huckabee’s Iowa chairman during the presidential campaign.

Grassley’s latest approval number, according to SUSA, is 59 percent, with 32 percent disapproving. That’s well out of the danger zone for an incumbent, but low for Grassley, who was at 71, 71 and 68 in SUSA’s polls for January through March. In fact, SUSA has only found Grassley’s approval below 60 once in the past four years of polling.

My hunch is that Grassley’s support among Republicans has dropped because he hasn’t been pounding the table about overturning the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. It’s also possible that his approval rating fell for some other reason, or that this poll is an outlier.

Whatever the reason, it’s interesting that both Grassley and Culver hit multi-year lows in the same SUSA poll. Senator Tom Harkin’s approval in the poll was 51 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. That’s only slightly down from SUSA’s March poll that put Harkin’s approval rating at 53 percent.

Incidentally, SUSA’s April survey found that 59 percent of Iowans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing, down about ten points since the beginning of the year. There was no statistically significant gender gap; Obama’s approval was 59 percent among men and 60 percent among women. The numbers for Culver showed a clear gender gap, with 47 percent approval among women and only 37 percent approval among men.

Offer your own theories about any of these poll numbers in this thread.