Month: June 2010

• AR-Sen: The Bill Halter campaign is looking for last minute phonebanking help to seal the deal. And you can do it from the comfort of your own home.

• CA-Sen, CA-Gov (pdf): The Senate GOP primary portion of the Field Poll came out over the weekend, and it’s right in line with the various other pollsters finding a last-minute Carly Fiorina surge into a double-digit lead. She leads Tom Campbell and Chuck DeVore 37-22-19. (Campbell led 28-22-9 in the previous Field poll in March.) Also, it looks like Campbell’s last-minute ad pitch, centered around his electability, may fall on deaf ears: 42% of primary voters think that Fiorina has the best chance of beating Barbara Boxer, while 22% think that Campbell does (and 12% think that Chuck DeVore does — which is also about the same percentage of Californians who believe there is a 1,000 foot high pyramid in Greenland). There are also primary polls out from Republican pollster Magellan (who don’t have a horse in this race), who find things even worse for Campbell: they have Fiorina leading Campbell and DeVore 54-19-16. They also give a big edge to fellow rich person Meg Whitman in the gubernatorial race; she leads Steve Poizner 64-22. The unfortunate moral of the story here: have a lot of money.

• DE-Sen: New Castle Co. Exec Chris Coons is pre-emptively getting ahead of Republican charges that he raised taxes, by, instead of hiding under the bed like conventional wisdom dictates, saying ‘guilty as charged’ and explaining how it helped. The county wound up with a AAA bond rating and a eight-digit surplus. Coons also previewed one of his lines of attack against Mike Castle: Castle’s role in deregulating the banking sector.

• FL-Sen: As Charlie Crist rebuilds his team from scratch, he’s rolling out a new media team that’s heavy on the Democratic ties. Most prominently, Chuck Schumer’s former chief of staff, Josh Isay, will be Crist’s lead media person. Isay’s firm SKD Knickerbocker may be best-known for helping out other moderate independents, like Joe Lieberman and Michael Bloomberg. One of the fires that Isay will have to put out as soon as he gets in the building, though, is what to do about the Jim Greer situation. Greer’s lawyer is saying that Crist gave the initial OK on Greer’s fundraising workaround which avoided usual party channels (which Greer allegedly turned into a scheme for filling his own pockets).

• IL-Sen: Rep. Mark Kirk’s very, very bad week last week just seems to be spilling over into this week. There are allegations popping up that he fibbed on getting shot at in Afghanistan too, and also evidence that he made a lot of stuff up while talking off the cuff about the Somalia situation last year. Taking a page from Richard Blumenthal, late last week he finally dropped the playing offense against the charges and instead went to the Chicago Tribune’s e-board to say “I’m sorry” — but that apology comes after letting the story fester all week.

• NH-Sen: After a year and a half of having the Democratic primary to himself, there are hints that Rep. Paul Hodes might get some late-in-the-game company. Mark Connolly, the former head of the state’s Securities Division who resigned to become a whistleblower in the wake of the Financial Resources Mortgage coverup (the same one that’ll have Kelly Ayotte testifying before the state legislature soon), expressed some interest and said “he’s angry enough to do it.” (Looks like a common theme this year.) Speaking of Ayotte, it sounds like she doesn’t know how to read a poll: she says she won’t take drilling for oil off New Hampshire’s tiny coastline “off the table.”

• WA-Sen: You might remember from last week that the Univ. of Washington engaged in some methodologically weird stuff by adding an extra week’s worth of samples on the end of their already-released poll and re-releasing the numbers (which were nevertheless unchanged, at Patty Murray 44, Dino Rossi 40). Well, now they’re re-releasing the poll yet again with even more samples, with changed toplines and with specific numbers for that tiny extra sample for the days May 24-28 (following Rossi’s official announcement). The number that’s getting all the press is that Rossi led Murray 42-39 in that batch, although that’s only based on 221 likely voters with a margin of error of 6.6%, so its usefulness is, well, questionable. Their full numbers are now 42-40 for Murray for the entire RV sample and 46-40 for Murray for the entire LV sample (i.e. those who voted in 2006), and she leads Generic R 44-39 among RVs (and 46-41 in the May 24-28 sample), but this poll has gotten so methodologically convoluted I’m not really sure it’s worth much of anything at this point.

Murray got some good news today in the form of an endorsement, and it’s not from a human but a corporation: Boeing. While she’s received plenty of Boeing money in the past, I’m not aware of Boeing ever having explicitly endorsed her or anyone else before (although anyone with a pulse knows that Murray has taken over for Scoop Jackson as the “Senator from Boeing”). Frankly, in the state of Washington, this is a bigger endorsement than any human politician’s endorsement would be, considering the way Boeing’s tendrils reach so much of the state. Finally, the field of miscellaneous Republicans kept shrinking today, as chiropractor Sean Salazar (probably the first guy to try to grab the teabagger mantle here, although he got shoved over by Clint Didier) bailed out of the race and backed Rossi.

• WI-Sen: Here’s a strange vulnerability for Ron Johnson in the Wisconsin Senate race: his fixation on opposing bipartisan Wisconsin state legislation making it easier for victims of childhood sexual abuse to sue their abusers. That’ll require some explanation, and I assume it’ll be something other than his current explanation, that such legislation would only lead to more victims of sexual abuse by making organizations likelier to sweep it under the carpet.

• IA-Gov: After endorsing a variety of misspelled odds-and-ends last week (“Cecil Bledsoe,” “Angela McGowen,” and Joe Miller), Sarah Palin went with a big gun this weekend, and it was one who doesn’t match her carefully cultivated teabagging/religious right image at all: establishment retread Terry Branstad in Iowa. Is she counting on getting repaid by Branstad in the 2012 caucuses, if she decides to give up the grifting lifestyle and take the huge pay cut associated with running for President? (Branstad also has the backing of Mitt Romney, who seems more of a kindred spirit for him.)

• MI-Gov: The Schwarz is not with us after all. Joe Schwarz, the moderate ex-Rep. who got bounced from MI-07 in 2006 in the GOP primary by Tim Walberg, has decided against pursuing the independent bid in the Governor’s race that he’d been threatening. On the surface, the loss of a center-right indie looks like bad news for the Dems, but depending on which two candidates match up in November, Schwarz could just have easily pulled more left-of-center votes… and in all likelihood, he wasn’t going to rack up more than a few percent anyway.

• NY-Gov: In their standoff with Democratic nominee Andrew Cuomo, the Working Families Party seems to have blinked first. They went ahead and nominated placeholders in the Governor, Lt. Gov, and AG slots, presumably to allow coordination with the Dem choices later. Cuomo had been leaning hard on the WFP to do so. The person most affected by this is state Sen. Eric Schneiderman, a Cuomo foe who had been considered the most likely WFP candidate for AG; instead, the WFP may wind up going with Nassau Co. DA Kathleen Rice, who’s Cuomo’s preferred AG for his informal “ticket.”

• TX-Gov: The Greens are actually going to be on the ballot in Texas this year, for the gubernatorial race? I’m as surprised as you are, but it’s less surprising when you find out who’s behind it: Arizona Republican consultant Tim Mooney, who set up the petition drive to get them on the ballot (and who’s also a veteran of the 2004 efforts to get Ralph Nader on as many states’ ballots as possible). GOP incumbent Rick Perry faces a tough race from Dem former Houston mayor Bill White, and he can have a little breathing room if the Greens siphon off a few lefties.

• AR-01: Chad Causey has an interesting argument for Democratic runoff voters in the 1st not to vote for ex-state Sen. Tim Wooldridge: he’s likely to bolt for the Republican Party at his earliest convenience. Causey’s evidence for the flight risk posed by Wooldridge includes his very conservative voting record in the state legislature, starting with his pro-public hanging legislation. Wooldridge, for his part, said he’d never switch. The Wooldridge camp is also offering up an internal poll (no word on the pollster) claiming a 48-24 lead over Causey in the runoff.

• CA-19: SurveyUSA has one last poll of the race in the 19th’s GOP primary, which they’ve polled exhaustively (and found almost exactly the same thing each time). However, this time it’s a little more interesting: there seems to be some late movement to former Fresno mayor Jim Patterson, who now leads state Sen. Jeff Denham 34-30. Ex-Rep. Richard Pombo is back at 17, with Larry Westerlund at 8. On the Dem side, it’s a 26-26 tie between Loraine Goodwin and Les Marsden.

• MN-06: What started out as a thorny three-way primary (when Elwyn Tinklenberg was in the race) has turned into a walk for Democratic state Sen. Tarryl Clark. Maureen Reed, a physician and former Independence Party Lt. Gov. candidate, ended her bid and endorsed Clark against Rep. Michele Bachmann. Reed had done surprisingly well at fundraising, but didn’t have the institutional advantages that Clark did, especially once Clark got the DFL endorsement. Clark still has an uphill fight against Bachmann, who’s insulated against likely future foot-in-mouth incidents by the district’s reddish lean as well as a huge war chest.

• TN-08: A Hill piece on the possibility of another NRCC-touted candidate (in the form of Stephen Fincher) going down in flames actually has some nice dirt on all three Republicans contesting the primary in the 8th. Fincher, of course, is widely noted for his hypocrisy on attacking the federal government while receiving millions in farm subsidies, but it’s also been revealed that he has voted in three Democratic primaries in the last eight years, “used virtually the same TV ad as a candidate for Alabama Agriculture Commisioner” (I have to assume it was an ad from one of the “thugs,” since if he’d riiiiiiipped off Dale Peterson’s ad, the whole blogosphere would already know about it by now), and perhaps most pathetically, misspelled “Tennessee” in a mailer. His challengers, Ron Kirkland and George Flinn, have their own troubles; Kirkland contributed to outgoing Democratic Rep. John Tanner in 2000 and 2004, while Flinn tried to cover up a lawsuit by a contractor who wasn’t paid for remodeling work.

Mason-Dixon for the Las Vegas Review-Journal (6/1-3, likely voters, 5/24-26 in parens):

Sharron Angle (R): 32 (29)

Danny Tarkanian (R): 24 (23)

Sue Lowden (R): 23 (30)

Other: 6 (7)

None: 2 (3)

Undecided: 13 (8)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Harry Reid (D-inc): 41 (42)

Sharron Angle (R): 44 (39)

Other: 3 (5)

None: 4 (4)

Undecided: 8 (10)

Harry Reid (D-inc): 42 (39)

Sue Lowden (R): 41 (42)

Other: 2 (3)

None: 6 (6)

Undecided: 9 (10)

Harry Reid (D-inc): 39 (41)

Danny Tarkanian (R): 46 (42)

Other: 2 (4)

None: 3 (3)

Undecided: 10 (10)

(MoE: ±4%)

In case there was any doubt that Sharron Angle’s surge in the GOP Senate primary in Nevada was complete, Mason-Dixon (for the LVRJ) weighs in with numbers very similar to Suffolk and R2K’s results from late last week. Mason-Dixon’s poll from the previous week had given a one-point lead to Sue Lowden, but she’s losing ground as fast as Angle is gaining it. Lowden has also lost ground vis-a-vis Harry Reid, now losing to Reid, while Angle is now a few points ahead of Reid instead of trailing. I’m not sure whether to attribute this movement in the primary more to Angle finally being rescued from obscurity by attracting the attention of the Club for Growth and Tea Party Express, or Lowden’s series of self-induced implosions; it’s all a rich tapestry.

Mason-Dixon for the Las Vegas Review-Journal (6/1-3, likely voters, 5/10-11 for primary trendlines, 4/5-7 for general trendlines):

Brian Sandoval (R): 47 (45)

Jim Gibbons (R-inc): 33 (27)

Mike Montandon (R): 6 (6)

Other: 1 (1)

None: 1 (NA)

Undecided: 12 (21)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Rory Reid (D): 37 [35]

Brian Sandoval (R): 51 [50]

Other: 1 [NA]

None: 1 [NA]

Undecided: 10 [15]

Rory Reid (D): 44 [42]

Jim Gibbons (R-inc): 38 [40]

Other: 2 [NA]

None: 5 [NA]

Undecided: 11 [18]

(MoE: ±4%)

Mason-Dixon has been a little inconsistent with when they poll what, so the trendlines for the primary don’t match the general election trendlines. At any rate, there’s not much change here, other than some last-minute progress for Jim Gibbons out of the “undecided” column that looks like too little, too late for the deeply unpopular governor. Brian Sandoval looks poised to win the GOP primary, which is bad news for Reid the Younger, who beats Gibbons almost as easily as he loses to Sandoval.

Public Policy Polling (6/5-6, likely voters, 5/22-23 in parens):

Nikki Haley (R): 43 (39)

Henry McMaster (R): 16 (18)

Gresham Barrett (R): 23 (16)

Andre Bauer (R): 12 (13)

Undecided: 7 (14)

(MoE: ±3.1%)

Runoffs:

Nikki Haley (R): 51

Gresham Barrett (R): 35

Undecided: 14

Nikki Haley (R): 62

Andre Bauer (R): 26

Undecided: 12

Nikki Haley (R): 54

Henry McMaster (R): 35

Undecided: 12

(MoE: ±3.1%)

It looks like Haley’s standing has not been impaired by the allegations of extramarital infidelity that have dominated the headlines this week. Her favorable rating among Republican primary voters sits at 58-23, an improvement over the 42-13 rating she had in late May. Moreover, by a 54-13 margin, Republicans don’t believe the allegations are true, and are split almost evenly on whether she should drop out of the race if the allegations are proven true.

We should also give thanks to PPP for taking a look at the 4th CD primary, where conservative GOP incumbent Bob Inglis is being teabagged to death:

Bob Inglis (R-inc): 33

Trey Gowdy (R): 37

Jim Lee (R): 9

David Thomas (R): 9

Christina Jeffrey (R): 5

Undecided: 7

(MoE: ±5.7%)

Despite a thoroughly conservative voting record, Inglis has committed a long list of verbal apostasies against the Glenn Beck wing of the Republican Party, and it seems that his occasionally moderate-sounding style is costing him big time among his party’s base. I think it’s worth revisiting one of the most astute pieces of analysis I’ve ever read on SSP, from a post by DavidNYC predicting Parker Griffith’s demise back in December:

It’s important to remember that to remain a member in good standing of the conservative movement, it isn’t enough just to vote a certain way. You have to evidence a very particular tribal belonging – you need to hate the right people, be ignorant of the right facts, be fearful of the right bogeymen, and be arrogant about the whole enterprise. If you somehow fail this tribal litmus test, it doesn’t matter how right-wing you are – that’s how, for example, a wildly conservative guy like former Rep. Chris Cannon could lose a primary to another wildly conservative maniac.

Cross-posted at Politics and Other Random Topics

(Notes: My senate rankings can be found here and I recently updated my own rankings for the Senate on my website, so that's what I'm talking about with the changes to the senate rankings)

It's funny, in some ways this has been a bad few weeks for Democrats politically (Dino Rossi's entrance in Washington State against Patty Murray and the thing with Blumenthal in Connecticut) but at the same time, the Senate picture actually looks better for the Democrats.

My most recent changes are to move Connecticut back to Likely Democratic from Leans Democratic and to move Nevada from Leans Republican to Toss-up.

The Connecticut thing should be pretty obvious, the New York Times screwed up pretty bad on their several stories regarding Blumenthal (plus Linda McMahon's idiotic bragging about giving the Times the story basically killed any chance of it seriously damaging Blumenthal).

Nevada's an interesting one, because Harry Reid hasn't magically become more popular than he was, but his polling against all three challengers has definitely improved. While I had been classifying the race as Leans Republican for my purposes, I'd always believed that Harry Reid was the incumbent who was most likely to come back from the grave and win simply because his opposition is so weak and his war-chest is really nothing to sneeze at ($9 million Cash on Hand, compared to his opposition who have a combined Cash on Hand amount of about $400,000, with that coming largely from Lowden with $200,000).

Now then, with the official caveat that the election is still several months away and there are any number of things that could happen in the meantime, let me give you my first preliminary prediction for the Senate races:

Democrats take the following seats from the Republicans: Ohio, Missouri, and Florida (I think Charlie Crist wins and that he caucuses with the Democrats, thus I consider it a Democratic gain).

Republicans take the following seats from the Democrats: North Dakota, Delaware, and Arkansas.

Honestly, I think for all the hoopla about Democrats getting routed in the fall, there's a very good chance that the Democrats break even for Senate races (to get this out of the way, I believe that Democrats will hold Indiana, Colorado, and Illinois despite polling to the contrary).

The best-case scenario for the Democrats right now is probably keeping their seat losses limited to North Dakota and Delaware (some Democrats are holding out hope that New Castle County Executive Chris Coons can pull off an upset, but I doubt it) and somehow hold Arkansas (frankly, Arkansas is bordering on being a lost cause as well), and then taking Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky, North Carolina (this one's definitely a sleeper for the Democrats), and maybe catch Chuck Grassley off-guard in Iowa (to be fair, this is a bit of a stretch, as Grassley, despite showing some slight weakness, is still a pretty damn popular incumbent who isn't likely to lose). This scenario gives Democrats somewhere between 61 and 63 seats with the Republicans at between 39 and 37 seats.

Conversely, the best-case scenario for the Republicans is to hold onto to their competitive open seats (Ohio, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Missouri), protect North Carolina (which is probably going to be pretty easy if the Republicans hold all of their open seats), take all of the Democratic open seats (save for Connecticut), knock off Reid, Lincoln (or the open seat, depending on what happens in the run-off), and Bennet, and then beat Barbara Boxer in California (frankly, despite their candidate recruitment coup, I don't think the Republicans really have a prayer of defeating Patty Murray). This scenario gives the Republicans 50 seats (which basically means that Democrats will maintain control of the Senate unless Lieberman decides to screw the Democrats and switch, which I wouldn't put past him).

My current prediction might seem a bit optimistic for some, but it's still worth mentioning that even now, it's still reasonably possible that the Democrats can break even or even gain a seat or two in these senate elections.

(To reiterate, this is a preliminary prediction of the status of a series of elections that won't take place for another five months, so these predictions are very much subject to change).

CT-Gov (6/1, likely voters, 5/4 in parens):

Ned Lamont (D): 36 (42)

Thomas Foley (R): 38 (45)

Ned Lamont (D): 43 (48)

Michael Fedele (R): 34 (28)

Dan Malloy (D): 44 (38)

Thomas Foley (R): 35 (35)

Dan Malloy (D): 42 (44)

Michael Fedele (R): 28 (27)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

CT-Sen (6/1, likely voters, 5/18 in parens):

Richard Blumenthal (D): 56 (48)

Linda McMahon (R): 33 (45)

Richard Blumenthal (D): 55 (53)

Peter Schiff (R): 32 (37)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

IN-Sen (6/2-3, likely voters, 5/5-6 in parens):

Brad Ellsworth (D): 33 (36)

Dan Coats (R): 47 (51)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

MO-Sen (6/2, likely voters, 5/3 in parens):

Robin Carnahan (D): 44 (42)

Roy Blunt (R): 45 (50)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

NH-Gov (5/26, likely voters, 4/7 in parens):

John Lynch (D-inc): 47 (47)

John Stephen (R): 35 (37)

John Lynch (D-inc): 50 (55)

Jack Kimball (R): 31 (34)

John Lynch (D-inc): 51 (50)

Karen Testerman (R): 32 (33)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

NM-Gov (6/3, likely voters, 5/25 in parens):

Diane Denish (D): 42 (43)

Susana Martinez (R): 44 (42)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

PA-Gov (6/2, likely voters, 5/19 in parens):

Dan Onorato (D): 33 (36)

Tom Corbett (R): 49 (49)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

PA-Sen (6/2, likely voters, 5/19 in parens):

Joe Sestak (D): 38 (46)

Pat Toomey (R): 45 (42)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

RI-Gov (5/27, likely voters, 4/21 in parens):

Frank Caprio (D): 32 (33)

John Robitaille (R): 25 (21)

Lincoln Chafee (I): 35 (33)

Patrick Lynch (D): 19 (24)

John Robitaille (R): 29 (26)

Lincoln Chafee (I): 37 (35)

Patrick Lynch (D): 24

Victor Moffitt (R): 28

Lincoln Chafee (I): 35

Frank Caprio (D): 35

Victor Moffitt (R): 22

Lincoln Chafee (I): 33

(MoE: ±4.5%)

SD-AL (5/27, likely voters, 4/21 in parens):

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-inc): 47 (45)

Chris Nelson (R): 43 (41)

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-inc): 46 (50)

Kristi Noem (R): 43 (35)

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-inc): 48 (48)

Blake Curd (R): 41 (36)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Last Thursday, just one day after New York Republicans selected Rick Lazio as their official nominee for Governor, the state’s GOP convention produced some mixed results in the U.S. Senate race to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand. Unable to settle upon one candidate, both Bruce Blakeman and David Malpass will compete in a September primary for the GOP nomination. Joe DioGuardi, the third candidate, failed to garner the support necessary to make that primary ballot.

There’s only one problem. DioGuardi, no matter what happens on the GOP side, already has a guaranteed slot on the November ballot. Huh?

New York’s Conservative Party, the right-wing gang originally designed to create hell for liberal Republican Nelson Rockefellar way back when, has already given DioGuardi its ballot line for the Senate race, provoking all sorts of vote-splitting horrors for Republicans statewide.

After all, just rewind back to that fascinating race up in NY-23, where liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava, once considered the overwhelming front-runner, was bombarded by the Conservative nominee, uber-right-winger Doug Hoffman. Hoffman, a political arsonist at its worst, damaged Scozzafava so horribly among the district’s Republicans that she dropped out of the race at the 11-o-clock hour. For Hoffman, however, it was an exercise to nowhere, as Democrat Bill Owens used the obnoxious Hoffman/Scozzafava showdown to his benefit, claiming victory as the one normal, likable candidate in the race.

For New York Republicans, such a scenario on a statewide level would be the nightmare from hell.

My suspicion is, however, DioGuardi, the fmr. Westchester Congressman, doesn’t have the money or excitement to make a real dent in this race. He’s so dull and washed-up, he makes Rick Lazio look fun, and I think most conservatives will make a valiant effort to rally around either Blakeman, the fmr. Port Authority Commissioner, or Malpass, the fmr. Reagan advisor. Both men are moderate Republicans, but not quite as liberal or RINO-y as Scozzafava, plus many state GOP-ers are salivating at the notion that Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand might be a bit vulnerable when it comes to the general.

I do think this race is in the Likely Dem column, perhaps even Safe Dem, with Gillibrand consolidating the vast majority of Democrats and probably performing quite well among Independents too. Even if she doesn’t succeed among the latter, the overwhelming Dem registration should keep her in safe territory. I imagine we’re looking at a voter model which mirrors something like…

Democrat – 46%

Republican – 27%

Independent – 27%

Gillibrand – 93%/7%/55% = 60%

Blakeman/Malpass – 7%/83%/40% = 36%

DioGuardi – 0%/10%/5% = 4%

For Republicans, I suspect a best-case-scenario “dream model” would look something like…

Democrat – 45%

Republican – 30%

Independent – 25%

Gillibrand – 85%/3%/43% = 50%

Blakeman/Malpass – 15%/93%/55% = 48%

DioGuardi – 0%/4%/2% = 2%

In this (highly-unlikely) scenario, Gillibrand bleeds conservative Dems and many moderate Independents to the GOP ticket, while DioGuardi implodes, failing to gain any real traction among the far-right who might be weary about Blakeman or Malpass. Even so, Gillibrand still eeks out a win.

http://polibeast.blogspot.com/…

If Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012, she will regret endorsing Terry Branstad Thursday in the Republican primary for governor.

First thoughts on how this will play out are after the jump.

Before the scenario-spinning begins, here’s a question for SSPers: could an endorsement be any less substantial than what Palin wrote on her Facebook page?

   Iowa, your great state’s motto is “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” That motto will be well served by voting for Terry Branstad for governor next Tuesday!

   Please join me in supporting Governor Branstad’s campaign. Visit his website here, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

That’s not an excerpt, that’s the entire Facebook post. I doubt Palin is prepared to answer specific questions about why Republicans wanting to safeguard their liberties and rights should vote for Branstad instead of Bob Vander Plaats or Rod Roberts. Does she even know the policy differences between the candidates, or the reasons many Iowa conservatives are uncomfortable with Branstad?

Endorsements are rarely “game-changers” under any circumstances, but at least James Dobson explained why he’s backing Vander Plaats, and his reasons reinforce the Vander Plaats campaign narrative. Chuck Norris will draw crowds and free media coverage for Vander Plaats this weekend in Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Council Bluffs, northwest Iowa and West Des Moines. If Palin had planned ahead, she could have done something similar for Branstad, but instead she threw up an empty Facebook post.

It seems likely that Palin expects Branstad to be the next governor and wants to be on his good side when she campaigns here in 2011 and 2012. At least, that’s how many politically engaged Iowans interpreted the move.

Vander Plaats campaign manager Eric Woolson told the Des Moines Register,

“I think that she’s seriously damaged her 2012 presidential prospects,” […] “This says to me she’s either not running for president or she doesn’t understand Iowa very well because she has just alienated herself from her natural base. If you look at her Facebook page, all of the comments are saying ‘Terry Branstad? Really?'”

Woolson has an interest in downplaying the endorsement, of course, but in this case I agree with him. Palin has discredited herself with her natural allies in Iowa. Conservative Shane Vander Hart, whose site Caffeinated Thoughts is part of the “Blogs 4 Palin” network, had this to say last night:

I get the emails from SarahPAC so I usually hear about this in a rather timely fashion. I was traveling today and just read the endorsement in my inbox.

I emailed SarahPAC for an explanation since the endorsement announcement was rather thin. I have to admit I’m surprised and rather disappointed since Branstad doesn’t meet up with her standards of being a “commonsense conservative.” I can understand a general election endorsement, but didn’t think she’d endorse during the primary since she hadn’t yet.

I’m thinking this isn’t an enthusiastic endorsement since it was brief, doesn’t give any explanation, and is rather last minute.

Vander Hart is backing Rod Roberts for governor, by the way.

Let’s look at how various outcomes in the governor’s race would affect Palin.

If Branstad wins the primary easily, Palin will not get credit, because she didn’t do much for him.

If Branstad wins the primary narrowly, many social conservatives will be angry that she helped him even in a small way.

If Vander Plaats surprises us all and wins the primary, everyone will know that Palin’s endorsement carries no weight with social conservatives. Even Branstad supporter Craig Robinson admits, “if Vander Plaats pulls off an upset next Tuesday, a potential caucus campaign would become exponentially more difficult [for Palin].”

No matter what happens in the primary, Republicans who voted for Vander Plaats or Roberts will remember that Palin did the politically expedient thing instead of standing up for the principles she outlined in her own book.

If Branstad wins the primary and loses to Governor Chet Culver, GOP activists will see the outcome as proof that Republicans should have nominated a “real conservative.”

If Branstad defeats Culver, I don’t see Palin getting a lot of credit from Branstad’s inner circle or the business wing of the Iowa GOP. Most of those people supported Mitt Romney in 2008 and would lean toward him again if he makes a play for Iowa in 2012. Romney endorsed Branstad weeks ago and kicked in $10,000 from his PAC.

More important, if Branstad is elected in November he will probably govern with a Democratic-controlled legislature. He is unlikely to deliver on many of his campaign promises and he probably won’t strike as confrontational a tone with Democrats as the GOP base would like. By late 2011 and early 2012, when Republican activists are deciding whom to caucus for, I doubt they will view Branstad as a conservative hero.

Remember also that caucus turnout in 2012 will almost certainly be lower than the turnout for next Tuesday’s primary. In 2002, about 199,000 Iowans voted in the three-way GOP primary for governor. Only about 116,000 Iowans took part in the 2008 Republican caucuses.

It’s possible that even if Branstad wins the gubernatorial primary with 50 to 60 percent of the vote, supporters of Vander Plaats or Roberts could comprise a majority in the universe of 2012 Republican caucus-goers. Vander Plaats has been winning straw polls across Iowa this spring, which reflects his strong support among dedicated party activists. Palin would have been in a better position to appeal to them if she had stayed out of our governor’s race.

The Cedar Rapids Gazette’s Todd Dorman read the Bleeding Heartland version of this post and responded:

I get all the arguments, that Palin’s pick looks bad if Vander Plaats wins and that Branstad’s camp, which is full of Romneyites, won’t give her much credit if TB wins etc. Seems logical.

But I don’t think picking a winner can be bad, especially when her candidate-picking track record lately has been spotty. And even if Vander Plaats wins, I don’t buy the notion that it will hurt her all that much if she runs for prez.

I’ve talked to people who love Palin and want her to run in 2012. They don’t care that she resigned halfway through her term, or that she doesn’t appear to grasp important issues or that her life is a soap opera filmed on a crazy train.

So I don’t think they’ll care if she picked the wrong horse in the primary.

If Palin had crafted an image as someone who picks winners, I would agree with Dorman. But she has spent the last year crafting an image as someone who stands on principle and is not afraid to go “rogue” against the power-brokers and conventional wisdom. She just undermined her own brand.

Maybe Palin isn’t planning to run for president and merely wanted to pick the likely winner in Iowa’s primary. Rand Paul, whom she endorsed, won the Kentucky U.S. Senate primary last month, but Palin’s preferred candidate just lost the primary in Idaho’s first Congressional district, and her pick in the Washington U.S. Senate race is probably going to lose too. Palin’s choice in the South Carolina governor’s race, Nikki Haley, is in a tough fight. If she loses next Tuesday but Branstad prevails here, Palin will at least be associated with one winner.

Speculate away in the comments.

Everyone knows about the GOP primary for governor where Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are destroying each other. But the Democratic primary for the attorney general’s office which Jerry Brown is vacating in order to run for governor has gotten pretty hot in the last week as the two main contenders, Kamala Harris and Chris Kelly slug it out in the final few days.

If you don’t know, Kamala Harris is the DA for San Francisco and Chris Kelly led the section of Facebook that dealt with privacy issues. Kamala Harris has the advantage that most of the heavy weights in the CA Democratic Party (Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi) have lined up behind Harris while Kelly has the ability to self fund by cashing in his stock options from Facebook. Hmm…sounds like another CEO who ironically lives in Palo Alto who’s running for public office this year.

To be fair and impartial, both Kelly and Harris have been hit by some very bad press this year. Kelly has been on the receiving end of public anger over the controversies that have rocked Facebook over privacy issues. While Harris has had to deal with the scandal that rocked the San Francisco crime lab where it was found a lab technician was caught using cocaine that was evidence, feral cats, and a whole bunch of other crazy stuff you have to read in order to believe.

A problem for Chris Kelly is that the privacy issues for Facebook are known throughout the country and unless you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you wouldn’t of ever heard about the crime lab scandal. Unless you’ve seen a Chris Kelly attack ad.

When it came to the negative ads, Kelly struck first with this ad attacking Harris over the crime lab scandal and calling her an incompetent DA. Kelly was called out by the media when his ad falsely claimed that San Francisco had the highest homicide and robbery rates in the state.

Kamala Harris struck back with an ad featuring positive quotes from newspapers that endorsed her and quoting the Chief of the SFPD who called Kelly’s ad false. Her ad then calls Chris Kelly “not qualified” and “a rookie.” She then says the only “experience” Chris Kelly had was designing the privacy policy at Facebook that has come under fire recently.

Harris recently released an ad talking about her plan to make surfing the internet safer for children. Towards the end of the ad she takes a subtle dig at Chris Kelly by saying Facebook isn’t doing enough to keep children safe.

Just tonight, Chris Kelly is going up with an ad featuring retired San Francisco cops badmouthing Kamala Harris. They accuse her of turning the city’s legal system into a revolving door for career criminals and illegal immigrants. It would be a powerful ad, if Chris Kelly didn’t pay the officers to badmouth Harris on TV. Kind of makes you wonder if Chris Kelly offered the cops a little extra if they fudged the truth a little bit.

The Harris camp quickly responded with this:

Harris spokesman Brian Brokaw called the ad a “desperate atack from a panicking candidate who has spent $12 million and has nothing to show for it 4 days before election day.” He noted that Harris has recieved endorssements from SF Police Chief George Gascon, Sheriff Mike Hennessey and “law enforcement leaders around the state.”