Month: January 2010

• CA-Sen: Rasmussen popped up late Friday with a California Senate poll, taken to reflect the recent entry of ex-Rep. Tom Campbell to the race. Although a Campbell internal showed him dominating the primary field, he isn’t particularly polling better or worse than the rest of the field against three-term Dem incumbent Barbara Boxer. Campbell trails her 46-42, while Carly Fiorina trails 46-43 and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore trails 46-40. Note that this is probably the closest that Rasmussen has had this race, which other pollsters (especially the Field Poll) have always had in double digits for Boxer.

• IL-Sen: In the Democratic Senate primary, Alexi Giannoulias got an endorsement from one of the state’s few well-liked politicians, long-time SoS Jesse White. His long-shot rival David Hoffman got an endorsement that comes with a lot of voters and organizational firepower behind it, though: the Illinois Education Association, the state’s major teacher’s union.

• NY-Sen-B, NY-Gov(pdf): Siena, following Marist from late last week, has gotten in the act, of polling a Kirsten Gillibrand/Harold Ford Jr. Democratic primary. Siena’s numbers pretty closely match Marist: they find Gillibrand with a 41-17 lead over Ford (with 5 for Jonathan Tasini), where Marist gave her a 43-24 lead. Where Siena breaks with Marist is in seeing how a hypothetical Gillibrand matchup with ex-Gov. George Pataki goes; they see Pataki leading 51-38 (and Ford doing even worse, 54-32). Also a bit ominous: Gillibrand’s negatives are creeping up, as she’s currently with a 30/32 favorable. Pataki, however, still is showing no signs of interest, and it’s getting late if he’s going to make a move.

No real surprises in the Governor’s race, according to Siena: Paterson’s popularity, while still awful, is ticking up a little, with a 38/52 approval. Paterson ties Republican ex-Rep. Rick Lazio 42-42 and Erie Co. Exec Chris Collins 40-40, but he’s very unlikely to survive the primary: he loses to Andrew Cuomo 59-21, with potential new entrant Suffolk Co. Exec Steve Levy pulling in 6. Cuomo stomps Lazio 66-24 and Collins 65-23, while Levy leads the Republicans too, beating Lazio 40-33 and Collins 42-26.

• CT-Gov, CT-AG: I’m labeling this as potentially “CT-Gov” even though SoS Susan Bysiewicz announced last week that she wasn’t going to run for Governor (despite having command of the polls), in order to run for AG and, based on her coy responses to the question of whether she’d serve a full term, then run against Joe Lieberman in 2012. There’s been some discussion of whether she even qualifies to run for AG, as one requirement is ten years of legal practice in Connecticut. She practiced for six years before becoming SoS, so the central question here is whether serving as SoS counts as the practice of law or not. This may need to be resolved by the courts – and given the timetable on running a campaign and that she may not be able to wait for a decision, she may have to swallow her disappointment and settle for having to be Governor instead.

• MI-Gov, MI-01: The DCCC may be sighing with relief at this: Rep. Bart Stupak (who holds down an R+3 district) is now sounding unlikely to run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Michigan, despite some interest last week. He tells Politico that it’s “hard for [him] to envision” a campaign, as he’s still bogged down with health care reform in the House and would be starting behind the 8-ball on fundraising and organization.

• NM-Gov: That was a strangely fast exploratory period: never-before-elected attorney Pete Domenici Jr. is officially launching his candidacy, after his name bubbled up from nowhere just last week. He has a lot of name recognition thanks to his ex-Senator dad, but it’s still a question whether he has the chops to make it out of the GOP primary, let alone how he’d fare in November against the seeming juggernaut that is Lt. Gov. Diane Denish.

• PA-Gov: I didn’t even know there were any “celebrity pathologists,” but not only is there one, but he’s planning to run a long-shot campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nod in Pennsylvania. The “colorful” Cyril Wecht, Allegheny County Coroner for 20 years and a county commissioner for four more, is interested in the race. Wecht has drawn a lot of attention over the years for his skepticism over the Kennedy assassination, but his entry here is newsworthy because of his potential to split the Pittsburgh-area votes (already split between Allegheny Co. Exec Dan Onorato and state Auditor Jack Wagner). In fact, there’s speculation he’s running mostly because of his grudge against Allegheny Co. DA Stephen Zappala, and, by extension, Onorato.

• AZ-08: Here’s another recruiting step-up for the Republicans in a potentially competitive race. They finally found a state Senator, Jonathan Paton, willing to take on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her sizable war chest. The GOP’s best bet here previously had been 28-year-old veteran Jesse Kelly, who’d at least gotten some traction on the fundraising front.

• GA-09: If there’s one open seat race I have trouble summoning up any interest in, it’s the GOP primary in the 9th, where there are half a dozen indistinguishable wingnuts trying to out-wingnut each other to replace wingnut Nathan Deal in one of the nation’s darkest-red districts. The field shrunk a bit today, with the dropout of the state’s former Transportation Director, Mike Evans, despite his prior status in the field’s top tier.

• NJ-12: A rich guy apparently with $250K burning a hole in his wallet has Rep. Rush Holt in his sights: Prinecton-area investment banker Scott Sipprelle has decided to take on Holt, and started his campaign with a jolt of self-funding.

• OK-01: I don’t think Republican Rep. John Sullivan has actually voted the wrong way on anything, so I’m wondering if he did something behind the scenes to tick off the local establishment, or if it’s just random teabaggery. Either way, there’s a movement underway in Tulsa’s right-wing circles to draft Dave Rader, who was the University of Tulsa’s football coach in the 1990s, for a primary run against Sullivan.

• PA-06: Rep. Jim Gerlach seems to be retaining most of his establishment support as he reconnects with his district after pulling the plug on his gubernatorial campaign. For instance, he got the support of the Montgomery County GOP chair, Bob Kerns. Gerlach also won a straw poll among GOP leaders in Chester County, although Steven Welch made enough of a dent there (pulling in 40%) that he might be tempted to stick around.

• UT-02: Former state Rep. and current Salt Lake County GOP vice-chair Morgan Philpot has resigned his role in the party, giving rise to speculation that he’s going to challenge Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson in this Republican-leaning seat. (Interesting trivia: the youngish Philpot is a graduate of Ave Maria Law School, the Domino’s Pizza empire’s attempt to branch out into legal education.)

• VA-05: With a substantial percentage of the losers of 2006 and 2008 now considering rematches, here’s one more name who had earlier ruled out a bit but just won’t stop sniffing around his old seat: Rep. Virgil Goode. He may be sensing an opening in the primary by being able to unify the squabbling factions in the GOP primary field in the 5th, torn between establishment fave state Sen. Robert Hurt and various teabagging insurgents.

• Census: One more state is getting into the act, of spending state dollars to make sure that state residents participate in the fast-approaching Census. Florida is starting a marketing blitz to make sure that hard-to-count groups (Hispanics especially, but also college students and farmworkers) respond. With the stakes including not only millions of dollars in federal grant money but also one or two more House seats, Florida certainly has incentive here.

Looks like we won’t have Norm Coleman to kick around any more (at least not this year):

“This is not the right time for me and my family to conduct a campaign for Governor,” he said in a Facebook post. “The timing on this race is both a bit too soon and a bit too late.”

It was too late for him to organize his troops for what is expected to be a heavily contested GOP endorsement battle. That battle will start on Feb. 2 with precinct caucuses.

Considering that Coleman hadn’t made any moves and had seemed focused on his think-tanking work in DC, this can’t be considered that surprising. The article also suggests that he’d been the subject of a lot of pressure not to run from insiders, worried that Coleman would pursue a strategy based on running in the primary, rather than grabbing the party’s endorsement at convention, which would shatter whatever party unity exists right now.

With Coleman having by far the greatest name rec of any state Republican, and with Rasmussen polls of the primary showing him polling over 50% in the primary, that’s probably how things would have played out. (Also worth noting — a poll last week for the St. Paul newspaper showed Coleman losing the general to both ex-Sen. Mark Dayton and state House speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, so that may have helped along his decision.) At this point, the Republican nomination is thoroughly up for grabs, although former state House minority leader Marty Seifert seems to have a bit of an edge, visible more in terms of party straw polls and behind-the-scenes backing than actual public polling.

RaceTracker Wiki: MN-Gov

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (1/15-17, likely voters, 1/12-13 in parens):

Martha Coakley (D): 48 (49)

Scott Brown (R): 48 (41)

Joe Kennedy (L) 3 (5)

Undecided: 1 (6)

(MoE: ±2.8%)

First the bad news: R2K gives us a trendline pointed steeply down… an R2K poll conducted earlier in the week (paid for by Blue Mass Group rather than Daily Kos, but seeing as how that shouldn’t change the numbers, we’ll accept that as a trend) gave an eight-point lead to Democratic AG Martha Coakley, and this one sees a tie. On the other hand, that’s the best result that rolled in over the last few days: not only are there the Suffolk (-4) and PPP (-5) numbers, but also ARG (which sees a 48-45 Scott Brown lead)… and the Merriman River Group, whoever they are, who found a 51-41 lead for Brown in a poll that was apparently taken over the space of four hours and found no undecideds, so take that for what it’s worth.

So, should we be pleased or not? Does this mean that Coakley’s bungee-jump downward over the last week got arrested right before she hit the bottom of the canyon? There are a few other positive indications; the constantly-leaked Coakley internals, for what they’re worth, seem to have stabilized over the weekend (which saw Barack Obama and Bill Clinton appearances, and maybe some backlash over the “curling iron” incident), to the extent that they reportedly show Coakley up 2, according to the Boston Herald. (Nate Silver has a helpful graph of all poll trendlines that includes leaked Coakley internals, which brings a lot more datapoints to bear.)

One other indication is that state officials are suddenly looking at extremely high turnout, at near-presidential levels, with everyone suddenly focused on the election — with estimates of up to 70% turnout, based on absentee ballot requests. Turnout, as you know, most likely helps the Democrats here — and the pollsters that have been giving pro-Brown results may be basing their likely voter models on now-obsolete projections based on low-turnout, high-intensity-voters-only projections. One other good Nate Silver observation is that Obama’s approval is polling under 50% in most polls, which is lagging his national averages… in Massachusetts, one of the bluest of all states… suggesting their LV models are predicated on conservatives disproportionately showing up. (Of course, he also points out the possibility of what Rasmussen alone seems to be seeing: people approving of Obama, but still voting for Brown.) But if the state’s turnout predictions are to be believed, maybe some of those unlikely-voter Dems who were planning to sit this one out or weren’t aware of it have finally realized there’s a real race here and have gotten converted into LVs over the last few days, and pollsters are still playing catchup.

RaceTracker Wiki: MA-Sen

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (1/16-17, likely voters, 1/7-9 in parens):

Martha Coakley (D): 46 (47)

Scott Brown (R): 51 (48)

Undecided: 4 (6)

(MoE: ±2.8%)

Some observations from Tom Jensen:

-Brown is up 64-32 with independents and is winning 20% of the vote from people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 while Coakley is getting just 4% of the McCain vote.

-Brown’s voters continue to be much more enthusiastic than Coakley’s. 80% of his say they’re ‘very excited’ about voting Tuesday while only 60% of hers express that sentiment. But the likely electorate now reports having voted for Barack Obama by 19 points, up from 16 a week ago, and a much smaller drop from his 26 point victory in the state than was seen in Virginia.

-Those planning to turn out continue to be skeptical of the Democratic health care plan, saying they oppose it by a 48/40 margin.

-Coakley’s favorability dropped from 50% to 44% after a week filled with perceived missteps. Brown’s negatives went up a lot but his positives only actually went from 57% to 56%, an indication that attacks against him may have been most effective with voters already planning to support Coakley but ambivalent toward Brown.

Rasmussen (1/13, likely voters, 12/8 in parens):

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 37 (34)

Jane Norton (R): 49 (45)

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 38 (41)

Tom Wiens (R): 44 (42)

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 38

Ken Buck (R): 43

Andrew Romanoff (D): 35 (37)

Jane Norton (R): 47 (46)

Andrew Romanoff (D): 39 (40)

Tom Wiens (R): 44 (41)

Andrew Romanoff (D): 39 (39)

Ken Buck (R): 40 (41)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

In order to push back at the idea that Bennet is being swamped by Norton, his campaign released a recent internal poll of its own that shows Bennet… well, still down, but not as badly.

Harstad Strategic Research for Michael Bennet (January, likely voters):

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 40

Jane Norton (R): 43

Undecided: 17

(MoE: ±4%)

Harstad’s poll isn’t a pie in the sky look at the race; its partisan sample gives a 5-point edge to Republicans (despite Dems actually having a slight registration advantage in the state). Bennet’s problem remains the same: few know him (his favorable rating his 29-27, compared to Norton’s 23-17). The swapping of incumbent Gov. Bill Ritter for Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper will surely help Bennet with base turnout, but that alone probably won’t be enough to get him past the finish line — he’ll need to lay out a convincing case that he deserves to keep his job.

RaceTracker Wiki: CO-Sen

Dan Jones & Associates for Deseret News/KSL-TV (1/12-13, adults, 11/19-23 in parens):

Peter Corroon (D): 35 (32)

Gary Herbert (R-inc): 48 (56)

(MoE: ±5%)

In a state with a pretty limited Democratic bench, the recent entry of Peter Corroon in the gubernatorial race is a huge boon for Utah Democrats. Corroon isn’t just another sacrificial lamb that Utah Dems have become accustomed to running against entrenched incumbents — he’s the mayor of Salt Lake County, which is home to more than a third of the state’s population. While it goes without saying that this will be a challenging race, Corroon at least gives Democrats a fighting chance here, especially if some of the same budgetary problems facing many of the other beleaguered governors begin to take a toll on the freshly-minted Gov. Gary Hebert. SSP is changing its rating of this race from the sub-competitive Races to Watch to the more competitive category of Likely Republican.

RaceTracker Wiki: UT-Gov

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Results are soon pending in the special election to replace Senator Ted Kennedy. Once a guaranteed Democratic victory, the race has become surprisingly competitive due to a bad national environment and a lackluster campaign run by Democrat Martha Coakley. In fact, several polls have put Republican Scott Brown in the lead, striking panic amongst the Democratic establishment.

Interpreting incomplete results can be difficult if one is not familiar with how different areas in a state vote. Senator John McCain, for instance, led the vote in Virginia during much of election night; this was because deep-red rural Virginia reported first. After Democratic strongholds in Northern Virginia began posting, Barack Obama quickly pulled away (he ultimately won by 6.30%). Because Massachusetts is rarely competitive outside of gubernatorial elections, geographic unfamiliarity probably extends to even most politically active folk.

I have therefore created a map indicating what a tied election would probably look like:

More below.

Interpreting incomplete results can be difficult if one is not familiar with how different areas in a state vote. Senator John McCain, for instance, led the vote in Virginia during much of election night; this was because deep-red rural Virginia reported first. After Democratic strongholds in Northern Virginia began posting, Barack Obama quickly pulled away (he ultimately won by 6.30%). Because Massachusetts is rarely competitive outside of gubernatorial elections, geographic unfamiliarity probably extends to even most politically active folk.

This map takes data from all statewide elections since 2004, derives the electoral lean of each county, and then averages these results to produce the picture. Here is the data by county:

Ironically, Republicans do better in the most populous counties – the opposite case for the nation in general. Republicans are strongest in the state’s suburbs; Scott Brown will need to win all of them to take the state (on the other hand, these wins need not be exceptionally large). On the other hand, Democrats do best in the city Boston and the more rural western reaches of the state.

Thus on election day when the results start coming in, take a look at the above table and compare it to the actual performances each candidate is posting. Whichever candidate is generally outperforming the table will likely win the election. Finally, look at who is winning Hampden and Bristol counties – the two places that vote closest to the state as a whole. If Martha Coakley is winning them, expect a Democratic victory. If Scott Brown is, then a Republican shocker is in the works. If the two are split, it will a nail-biter that goes deep into the night. There have been not many of those lately.

Whatever the case, tomorrow Tuesday ought be an exciting day for politics buffs. There are not many races where the result has been so uncertain – where practically anything can happen and it would not be surprising for the polls to be completely off. It will be quite interesting to watch.

In the battle of the Steves, two may enter, but only one may leave.

SurveyUSA for Firedoglake (1/12-14, likely voters):

Steve Driehaus (D-inc): 39

Steve Chabot (R): 56

Undecided: 5

(MoE: ±4.1%)

I don’t think you need me to tell you that this is “rough”. Ohio’s 1st District has been a tough nut to crack for Democrats, usually leaning ever so slightly to the GOP. Al Gore lost the district by 46-51 in 2000, and John Kerry came up two points short four years later. Obama finally busted the dam open, winning the CD by a remarkable 55-44 spread. Now, if this poll is to be believed (and I can believe it), Obama has a 42-55 approval rating among likely voters in the district.

Rough.

RaceTracker Wiki: OH-01

I recognize that there is an intense level of anger and frustration among we of the Democratic base right now, faced as we are with a scenario most of us could not have conceived in our worst nightmares, however I think the rabid anti-Coakleyism spreading around the internets these days is getting just a wee bit unfair. In this respect I largely agree with Nate Silver – yes, she is a boring candidate, and yes, she did run a dull, almost absentee campaign… but when you’re in Massachusetts, and you’re a high-profile statewide elected official, and you’re running as a Democrat against a fairly obscure state senator to succeed Ted Kennedy, none of those things should be unforgivable offenses. Let’s face it: there is a LOT of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. To be sure, there were plenty of people (myself included) who had reservations about her in the primary, but clearly none of those concerns translated into anything near the blind, existential panic we are now facing as we creep up upon January 19th. If anyone can point to a post he/she left, here or anywhere else, indicating his/her grave uneasiness about the threat posed by Scott Brown in a general election, I’d love to see it – I’m genuinely curious.

This is obviously not to say Coakley’s camp is blameless. Going dark for a month was malpractice of the highest order, and her campaign manager should never be allowed to work in American politics ever again. But the over-the-top vitriol being directed at the candidate herself is starting to become unseemly, and frankly sort of classless. I doubt any of us can imagine what its like to be in her shoes at this very moment, being pegged by pundits and partisan activists nationwide as the pariah who single-handedly flushed the Democratic supermajority – and by extension, Ted Kennedy’s dream of universal healthcare – down the drain. By all accounts, Martha Coakley is a capable public servant, a fairly committed progressive, and by almost any measure a more qualified candidate for the United States Senate than Scott Brown. Yes, her probable defeat on Tuesday will almost certainly mark the end of her political career, and that can be argued as being perfectly appropriate, but I hardly think it cause for open celebration.

Just as determinate as any particular fault of the Coakley campaign is, I think, the basic issue highlighted by PPP in the poll that touched off this horrific week: a profound disparity in enthusiasm between D’s and R’s, the very same one reflected in the outcomes of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. The electorate turning out for special/off-year downballot elections is simply a different universe of individuals than those who came to the polls in 2008. Beyond the predictable backlash from the right, who knows how many people voted for Obama having never voted in their lives, and may never vote again? I think we can anticipate the relative drop-off from here out to be comparable to what we have seen thus far, and that alone augurs poorly for our near-term electoral prospects – whether or not we have Coakleys or Capuanos on the ballot.