Much more interesting poll numbers on healthcare can be found here. It turns out that the public was evenly divided on Medicare before it became law, too. Now, of course, the program is unassailable.
Tag: Mark Foley
SSP Daily Digest: 1/7
• AR-Sen: The news that the guy who held Blanche Lincoln to within about 10 points last time (in 2004) is getting back in the race this year seems like it should be a bigger news story than it is, but there’s an already filled-to-capacity GOP field and the establishment seems to have already picked favorites. At any rate, former state Sen. Jim Holt, closely linked with the state’s religious right, officially launched his bid today.
• AZ-Sen: It’s look more and more like ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth is serious about pursuing a Republican primary challenge to John McCain and not just looking to fundraise his way out of some lingering legal debts. He’s been contacting consultants and pollsters about strategy, and he’s also made some high-profile appearances recently, including headlining a fundraiser for controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In response to the possible challenge, John McCain is launching two different radio ads full of right-wing language pretty transparently aimed at the teabagging crowd, saying Barack Obama is “leading an extreme left-wing crusade” and calling himself “Arizona’s last line of defense.”
• CT-Sen: Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves, but it’s looking likelier that starting in 2013, Richard Blumenthal will be Connecticut’s senior senator. PPP finds that Joe Lieberman’s numbers, not good before his HCR sabotage, have gotten even worse. His approval is a mind-blowing 14/81 among Democrats (probably ending any plans by him to seek the Democratic nomination in 2012). He fares least worst among Republicans, who give him a 39/48 approval; it’s good for a 25/67 approval over all, along with a 19/68 approval of his actions on health care (which pissed off Democrats while still leaving Republicans unhappy when he voted for final passage). While the Hill’s piece on Rep. Chris Murphy seems to be based mostly on a vague sentence by Murphy, it does point to a suddenly congealing CW that Murphy (with Blumenthal already engaged) will be the person to tackle Lieberman in 2012.
• FL-Sen, FL-Gov: You know you’re in trouble when you’re spending valuable time fighting rumors spread on Facebook by thoroughly discredited ex-Rep. Mark Foley. Charlie Crist today said there’s no truth to the rumors that he’s about to drop his faltering Senate primary bid and try for re-election as Governor instead.
• IL-Sen: Patrick Hughes, who’s been seeding his right-wing insurgent bid with some of his own money, is seeking to break out of the single digits in the GOP primary polls against Rep. Mark Kirk by upping his name recognition. He’s out with a TV spot today.
• MA-Sen: Martha Coakley is shifting her sleepy general election campaign into overdrive today with the special election several weeks away, launching her first general election TV ad. She’s also receiving the endorsements today of most of the key figures in the Kennedy clan, including Ted’s widow Vicky and ex-Rep. Joe (along with honorary Kennedy and temporary Senator Paul Kirk).
• ND-Sen: As we parse the comments from various potential Democratic candidates in the newly-open Senate race in North Dakota, it sounds like former AG Heidi Heitkamp is “very interested” and “very much looking into” the race, while talk show host Ed Schultz is “at this point… not even considering.”
• NY-Sen-B: Here’s an interesting possibility surfacing, as the GOP seeks anyone who’s willing to take on Kirsten Gillibrand in the Senate race: ex-Rep. Susan Molinari, who was considered a rising star back when she represented NY-13. She’s started floating her name out there (or more accurately, her dad, Staten Island GOP leader Guy Molinari), but one key point from the article is that Molinari — currently employed at the firm of Bracewell & Giuliani (yes, that Giuliani) — “left Congress in 1997 and currently lives in Virginia.” Meanwhile, as the potential Harold Ford Jr. candidacy is still the “wtf?” heard ’round the blogosphere, The Albany Project takes a deeper look at the mysterious forces pushing the idea front and center.
• IL-Gov: Desperately needing to make up some ground on incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn in the last month before the Democratic primary, Comptroller Dan Hynes is going hard negative against Quinn from the apparent right in a new TV spot, painting him as a soft-on-crime tax-raiser. Meanwhile, Quinn got the endorsement from the Chicago Sun-Times.
• MA-Gov: State Treasurer Tim Cahill’s independent candidacy for Governor hasn’t really seemed to have its desired effect for Cahill, as it mostly has allowed Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick to move ahead in the polls as Cahill splits the anti-Patrick votes. Cahill looks to be trying to lure some more GOP voters into his camp to become the definitive anti-Patrick candidate, though, with his running mate pick, GOP former state Rep. Paul Loscocco. It doesn’t sound like Cahill or Loscocco are very enthuasiastic about taking each other to the prom, though; Cahill already got turned down by four previous people he’d asked to be his running mate (including current Senate candidate Scott Brown), and Loscocco had previously been lobbying to be GOP candidate Charlie Baker’s running mate but missed the cut on that one.
• MD-Gov: Incumbent Gov. Martin O’Malley seems to have a fairly clear path to re-election, but for the time being he has higher-profile opposition in his own primary than from the Republicans. He’s facing a challenge from the right from George Owings, who officially launched today. Owings was a conservative Democratic state Delegate for many years and then picked by GOP Governor Bob Ehrlich as the state’s veteran affairs secretary (who was then sacked by O’Malley once he took office); Owings is attacking O’Malley’s tax raising and opposition to the death penalty.
• NE-Gov: Democrats are back to square one in the Nebraska gubernatorial race against GOP incumbent Dave Heineman, after Douglas Co. Commissioner (and former Omaha mayor) Mike Boyle — who’d sounded likely to run last month — decided against a bid. Democratic state Sen. Steve Lathrop has also ruled the race out.
• CO-03: Martin Beeson, the Republican DA for an agglomeration of small mountain counties, has pulled out of his bid for the GOP nod in the 3rd to challenge Rep. John Salazar. Beeson’s hopes dimmed when state Rep. (and 2006 loser) Scott Tipton got into the GOP field a few months ago.
• IL-10: Moderate Republican state Rep. Beth Coulson got a big (if unsurprising) endorsement, from fellow GOP moderate ex-Rep. John Porter. Porter held the seat for 20 years, until he made way for his former chief of staff (current Rep. Mark Kirk) in 2000.
• MN-01: Apparently John Wade, the president of Rochester’s Chamber of Commerce, had been interested in a run in the 1st against Democratic sophomore Rep. Tim Walz. He just decided against it, although a lone business conservative seems like he might have a shot at winning the crowded GOP primary, split between a number of loudmouthed social conservatives (most notably ex-state Rep. Allen Quist).
• MS-01: Good fundraising has propelled Republican state Sen. Alan Nunnelee up a tier in the NRCC’s framework for challengers. Nunnelee, who’ll likely face off against Rep. Travis Childers and his mighty ‘stache, is now a “Contender.”
• TN-06: Democrats are having trouble recruiting to fill the slot left behind by Rep. Bart Gordon’s retirement. State Rep. Henry Fincher just said no; he follows fellow state Rep. Mike McDonald in declining. It can’t be that appetizing, given the district’s reddening hue, several strong GOPers waiting in the wings, and the likelihood of GOP gerrymandering making the district even less hospitable in 2012.
• UT-03, UT-Sen: I’d be surprised if anyone were on pins and needles about this, but if you missed yesterday’s announcement, yes, Rep. Jason Chaffetz will be returning for another term in the House rather than getting into the primary against impermissibily sane GOP Sen. Bob Bennett.
• EMILY’s List: Stephanie Shriock, chief of staff to Sen. Jon Tester, will take over as head of EMILY’s List from Ellen Malcolm. It marks the first change in leadership at the top for the prolific PAC.
• RNC: After a revolt by what remains of its moderate wing, the RNC has backed down on its purity test (which would require 8 of 10 agreements on right-wing positions, and probably would have cut loose Mike Castle, Mark Kirk, Rob Simmons, and Charlie Crist loose from RNC funding). Now they’re simply requiring that nobody endorse any Democratic candidates in 2010. Meanwhile, Michael Steele continues to overshadow the rest of the RNC’s operations with his gift of saying odd things, with today’s installment a riposte to intraparty critics intent on withholding RNC donations because of Steele’s leadership: “get a life” or “fire me.”
• Gay marriage: It’s been flying under the radar with everything else going on this week, but New Jersey’s state Senate is currently debating gay marriage, with a vote possibly later today. Only 13 Senators have definitely committed to it so far though, short of the 21 needed for passage. (Dems are already short 1 vote with the absence of Dana Redd, who resigned after becoming mayor of Camden.)
• Census: Here’s an interesting conundrum for the Census Bureau — how to deal with the issue of the nation’s legions of sunbirds: retirees who live in the south for winter and the north for summer. It’s especially an issue for Minnesota as it seeks to stave off elimination of one of its Congressional districts, and it’s making special efforts to make sure long-term travelers list themselves according to their Minnesota addresses.
SSP Daily Digest: 1/6
• FL-Sen: Here’s one late-30-something, telegenic conservative helping out another: WI-01’s Rep. Paul Ryan just endorsed Marco Rubio in the Senate primary. Ryan (who’s actually been getting some dark-horse presidential buzz lately) may in fact be the real beneficiary here, since it may direct some of Rubio’s healthy glow among the teabag set in Ryan’s direction, bolstering his future credentials. Speaking of the teabaggers, despite having claimed the scalp of Florida GOP chair and key Charlie Crist ally Jim Greer, they still aren’t happy with the annointment of John Thrasher as the new chair; apparently he too is insufficiently crazy, or at least part of the same backroom process. Finally, take this with a huge hunk o’ salt, but ex-Rep. Mark Foley is highlighting a rumor on his Facebook page (yes, Mark Foley is on Facebook, and I’m not eager to think about what else might be on his page) that Charlie Crist is on the precipice of pulling his FL-Sen bid altogether and running for another term as Governor instead.
• NY-Sen-B: Lots of walking-things-back going on in New York’s Senate race. Republican Rep. Peter King is now saying he’s “leaning against” a Senate bid. Taegan Goddard rightly invokes both Mario Cuomo and Hamlet in ridiculing King’s protracted public vacillations. And ex-Rep. Harold Ford Jr. also may be dialing things down too, in regards to a possible primary challenge to Kirsten Gillibrand. An operative working with Ford is now saying that Ford is “unlikely to take the plunge,” and seemed more interested in “creating buzz” for himself. (Why am I not surprised?)
• AZ-Gov: The GOP primary field in Arizona is getting even more scrambled, with the entry of Some Dude who claims to be bringing $2.1 million to the table with him. Owen Buz Mills’ campaign report was the first anyone has seemingly heard of him. He’s a member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, and owner of a company called Gunsite (which operates a 2,000 acre weapons training site). Current Gov. Jan Brewer said she wouldn’t be deterred by Mills’ presence, as did former state regent John Munger (who probably has more to lose by Mills’ entry, as he’s sort of the de facto non-Brewer for now, at least until or unless state Treasurer Dean Martin gets in the race).
• CO-Gov: While much of the speculation, in the wake of Gov. Bill Ritter’s surprise decision not to seek another term, has focused on Denver mayor John Hickenlooper, or a switch from the Senate primary by former state House speaker Andrew Romanoff, there’s one other high-profile possibility: Interior Secretary, and former Senator, Ken Salazar. Salazar, however, is staying mum, for now. PPP’s Tom Jensen is skeptical of a Salazar candidacy, though, pointing out that Salazar didn’t have strong favorables (39/36 in late 2008) even before he joined the Obama administration, and Colorado has seen one of the biggest drops in Obama approvals of any state, making his time in the Cabinet something of an anchor for him.
• CT-Gov: Three sort-of prominent local officials are all scoping out the already-crowded Governor’s race in the Nutmeg State. On the Dem side, the First Selectwoman of Simsbury, Mary Glassman, said she’ll seek the nomination (she was the 2006 Lt. Governor candidate). On the GOP side, Shelton mayor Mark Lauretti says he’s considering the race; he’s banking on his nearly 20 years of experience running the city, although he is currently the target of a federal corruption probe. (Although what Connecticut mayor isn’t?) Also, the Republican mayor of the much larger city of Danbury, Mark Boughton, says he’s reached a decision on whether or not to enter the race. The weird thing is, he doesn’t plan to let anyone know what that decision is for another month.
• AL-02: Businessman Rick Barber made it official today: he’s launching a teabag-powered primary challenge to the NRCC-crowned establishment favorite, Montgomery city councilor Martha Roby. He owns several “billiards facilities” in the area, as well as organizing tea parties in his spare time. The primary winner will face freshman Democratic Rep. Bobby Bright.
• AR-02: Another GOP establishment fave, former US Attorney Tim Griffin, just got bumped up a notch in the NRCC’s three-tiered fundraising pyramid [scheme]. He was promoted to “Contender,” leaving him just one step away from coveted “Young Gun” status.
• CA-19: With a big three-way brawl already brewing in the GOP open seat primary between ex-Rep. Richard Pombo, state Sen. Jeff Denham, and former Fresno mayor Jim Patterson, ex-SoS and 2004 Senate race loser Bill Jones has decided to give the race a pass.
• NJ-03: One possible alternative to Jon Runyan as the GOP nominee in the 3rd said “no thanks” yesterday. State Sen. Christopher Connors was apparently the first choice of the Ocean County Republican party; Runyan is the Burlington County party’s pick, so it remains to be seen whether Ocean County unites behind Runyan or pushes someone else (like Toms River city councilor Maurice Hill).
• TN-08: The NRCC, based purely on their own fantasies, has been attempting to “gay bait” Dem Roy Herron. And of course, the tradmed has dutifully transcribed whatever bullshit the NRCC has spewed out. Funny, then, that the kid spokesbot responsible for this smear enjoys attending “GOB festivals.” No, Arrested Development fans, this has nothing to do with erstwhile ne’er-do-well George Oscar Bluth. Just click the link and John Aravosis will tell you all you need to know. (D)
• VA-05: The teabagging right keeps coalescing behind businessman Laurence Verga as the Republican primary alternative to state Sen. Robert Hurt (who apparently voted in favor of a tax once)… and now Verga is getting the endorsement of one of their iconic figures: Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher. Could a Chuck Norris endorsement be far behind?
• UT-03, UT-Sen: Freshman Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz is expected to announce today that he’ll run for another term in the House. He’s been occasionally associated with a potential primary challenge to Senator Bob Bennett, but has more recently said he’s likelier to seek re-election to the House.
• WA-St. Sen.: This is getting way down in the weeds, but remember attorney Randy Gordon? He was briefly the leading Democratic candidate in the 2006 race in WA-08, before standing down in the primary in favor of a Camp Wellstone classmate with better fundraising chops: Darcy Burner. Well, it looks like he’s secured the temporary appointment to take over the vacant state Senate seat in the 41st LD, left vacant by Fred Jarrett’s move to become Deputy King Co. Executive; he should have a fairly easy time retaining this Dem-leaning seat based in suburban Bellevue.
• Mayors: Here’s a wild rumor (with Sally Quinn as its source): ex-Rep. and current CoS Rahm Emanuel isn’t planning on a long-term stay in the White House. Emanuel is reportedly eyeing a run for Chicago mayor in 2011. Also on the mayoral front, Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon is leaving office; she offered her resignation and an Alford plea on a count of perjury in order to settle a number of charges against her.
• DCCC: Chris Van Hollen offered some boilerplate reassurances today that few, if any, Democratic retirements in the House are in the offing. He said there would be a “couple more,” if that. (With almost all the troublesome seats accounted for, that’s not a surprise; SC-05’s John Spratt seems to be the biggest question mark outstanding in a difficult seat.) (UPDATE: Ooops, I missed Spratt‘s re-election announcement over the holidays. So now I don’t know who’s vulnerable and unaccounted for.)
• RNC: By now, readers should be familiar with the NRCC’s cash crunch, which severely hampers its ability to capitalize on recruiting successes and the favorable environment. But anyone thinking they might turn to the RNC for a bailout may be surprised to hear that the once-flush RNC is in almost equally dire shape. After a spending spree under Michael Steele’s leadership (to the tune of $90 million last year), the RNC is only sitting on $8.7 million in the bank. That’s down from $22.8 CoH at the start of Steele’s tenure. That’s the party of fiscal discipline at work for you, right there.
House Races: Money, Incumbency, and More (II)
We know money and several other factors have major effects on House races. But after we account for these major factors, how much advantage does incumbency give a candidate? A gerrymandered district? Getting caught in a scandal?
Yesterday I showed some regressions for Republican performance in House races for the years 2002, 2004, and 2006 that take account of incumbent party, fundraising ratio, and district partisan makeup.
Using these, we can tell how well we expect a Republican to do given certain conditions. However, the regressions are not perfect – the data don’t fall along the lines plotted. There’s plenty of room for other factors to be involved. We can use the differences between what we expect and what actually happened – the residuals – to tease out the effects of additional conditions. Below, a pack of factors, from the most important – money, party, district – to the less important ones – incumbency, gerrymandering, longevity – to the more interesting ones – scandal and failure.
Cross posted at Open Left and Daily Kos
How do various factors affect a House candidate’s percentage of vote in the election? All the following numbers relate to average effects. Individual results may vary.
The first four are the variables used to predict the expected performance:
1. High D/R Fundraising Ratio: +15 points (about 5 points for every factor of 3 increase)
On average, challengers running for a seat currently held by the opposite party will gain 15 points if they outraise their opponent by a factor of three compared to if they raise only one tenth of their opponent’s money, if all other factors are equal. Note that the D/R Fundraising Ratio is fairly closely correlated to absolute amount of money raised by the challenger, so we can also say that challengers will greatly improve their performance if they raise a great deal of money, regardless of the incumbent’s fundraising.
2. Running as incumbent party: +10 points
Candidates running for a seat currently held by their own party (incumbents or open seat candidates) will gain, on average, 10 points compared to if they were running for a seat currently held by the opposite party, if all other factors (including D/R Fundraising Ratio) are the same.
3. Running in a more favorable district: +10 points (1 point for every 3 point change in Bush’s vote in the district)
Democrats running in the most liberal Republican-held districts (Bush vote 40-45%) will gain 10 points compared to Democrats running in the most conservative Republican-held districts (Bush vote 65-75%), if all other factors (including D/R Fundraising Ratio) are the same. Democrats running in the moderately liberal Democratic-held districts (Bush vote 30-35%) will gain about 10 points compared to those running in the most conservative Democratic-held districts (Bush vote 60-65%).
4. Political climate: +6 points
On average, Democratic challengers did 6 points better against Republican incumbents in 2006 compared to 2002 (4 points better than 2004) when accounting for D/R Fundraising Ratio and district partisan makeup. Republican challengers did 4 points worse in 2006 compared to 2002. In other words, Republican money was worth less in 2006 than in 2004 or 2002. They had to raise more relative to their Democratic opponent to get the same result.
The following comparisons are made by comparing actual performance to calculated performance, accounting for the four factors above: D/R Fundraising Ratio, district composition, incumbent party, and political climate. The numbers given are average residuals of the regressions.
5. Raising more than $2 million as a challenger: +3 points
Remember, this is after accounting for D/R Fundraising Ratio. If both candidates raise the same amount of money, dollar-for-dollar, then the more money a challenger raises, the better the challenger does. A challenger who raises more than $2 million (and whose opponent also raises more than $2 million) increases performance by about 3 points compared to one who only raises $100,000 (and whose opponent also raises only $100,000). In other words, high-spending races with fundraising parity are generally to the advantage of the challenger. (This leads to the strange corollary that the more an incumbent raises given fundraising parity, the worse the incumbent does!) Let me note again, when we do not control for D/R Fundraising Ratio, a challenger who raises a large amount of money will do far, far better than one who raises little money.
6. Running as an incumbent: + 2 points
The inherent incumbent advantage after accounting for money, party, district, and climate is not large. This doesn’t mean running against an incumbent is just as easy as running for an open seat. However, the incumbency advantage may reside mainly in the ability to scare off opponents and scare off opponents’ donors and supporters. If a challenger can manage to raise as much money as an incumbent, then the challenger has almost as good a shot as if the challenger were running for an open seat. However, 2 points is still an important amount.
7. Running against a first-termer: +1 point
First term incumbents are not much more inherently vulnerable than other incumbents, if at all. Even those who are in a seat that switched parties. This doesn’t mean first-termers are safe, because they are more likely to attract high quality opponents with strong fundraising. When they do, however, they perform only slightly worse than a long-time incumbent under the same circumstances, on average.
8. Running against a self-funded candidate: +1 point
On average, running against a self-funded candidate might give a slight advantage. However, out of the 18 cases I found over the past three cycles, four showed the self-funded candidate underperforming by a massive 8-10 points. There may be a risk of completely blowing it by self-funding.
9. Running against a Republican incumbent in a Republican-gerrymandered district: +0 points
Looking at some states that were recently redistricted by Republicans in a partisan manner – FL, PA, MI, OH, VA, TX – there has been no benefit in performance for the Republicans. There may have been a slight benefit the first cycle after redistricting, followed by a slight underperformance later. The gerrymandering may have scared off opponents and their donors, however, which would certainly have been an overall benefit for the Republicans.
The following comparisons are specific to a just a few races, so we run into the problem of the statistics of small numbers, and can’t really say what the average effect is. Also, in many of these races, the incumbent was tangled in more than one variety of misdeed.
10. Third party candidates: 0 to -15 points
In 2006 there were 16 House races where third party candidates garnered more than 4.5 percent of the vote. In 11 of these races the Republican underperformed by 4 or more points; in 6 races (2 in MN) the Democratic candidate underperformed by 4 or more points.
11. The Abramoff scandals: -1 to -12 points
Republicans in districts with links to the Abramoff scandal all underperformed: TX-22 (-1), FL-24 (-3), CA-4 (-4), AK-AL (-6), CA-11 (-7), and OH-18 (-12).
12. Alleged domestic abuse: -5 to -6 points
PA-10 (-6), NY-20 (-5): Not the good kind of press.
13. Threatenting your opponent: -5 points
WY-AL (-5), where Barbara Cubin told an opponent she’d slap him in the face if he weren’t in a wheelchair. Cubin wasn’t well liked anyway though.
14. The Delay scandal: +5 to -6 points
TX-22 (-1), AZ-1 (-2), NC-8 (-6), PA-6 (+5). Districts related to the Delay scandal don’t seem to have been affected too much, although the Delay scandal certainly affected the national climate.
15. The Foley scandal: +1 to -3 points
IL-14 (-2), IL-19 (+1), FL-16 (0), NY-26 (-3). Again, no obvious severe penalty for those most closely related to the scandal or Foley’s replacement on the ballot, but the scandal contributed to the national political climate.
Overall, these numbers seem to validate the strategy of supporting strong candidates in every district, against every incumbent. While it is certainly much more difficult for Democratic challengers to win against an incumbent in a conservative district, it is not impossible. It appears that with enough money, such races will often be competitive or near competitive in the current political climate. Another way to put it is that the competitive races in conservative districts in 2006 -WY-AL for example- were not simply flukes or outliers, but rather part of a larger pattern that is likely to be repeated in 2008.
WV HR2: Why John Unger Matters for Retaining the Majority
The Democratic field is cleared for State Senator John Unger (campaign site) to challenge Foleygate/Page Board scandal star and incumbent Wall Street Journal Republican Shelley Capito for West Virginia’s Second Congressional District seat.
The Democratic House leadership seems to be lining up behind Unger’s bid to unseat the increasingly vulnerable Capito, hopefully giving Unger vital early support in a district the Democratic leadership dreadfully under-invested in the 2006 cycle. Unger has even been honored as one of Rahm Emanuel’s “Six Pack”, one of only six candidates to whom he has donated so far in this cycle.
It is a very encouraging sign that Monday evening six of the leading House Democrats (including Hoyer, Emanuel, and Van Hollen) will host a big old fundraiser (info) for Unger.
In 2006 Democrats picked most of the low-hanging fruit in regaining the House majority. Seats in which we have a legitimate takeover opportunity are few and far between (and we have several seats we won in 2006 we are going to be hard-pressed to hold and need to offset).
John Unger’s campaign in 60-some percent Democratic registration WV-02 offers us a chance to pick the GOP’s pockets of a seat which traditionally belongs to us. Read on for the who, how and why.
OK, with the formality of condensing my verbose but incredibly persuasive arguments into few enough characters to fit into the Main Text, let me now indulge in my customary Faulknerian self-indulgence.
THE DISTRICT
First off, WV-02 is not a seat any Republican, even the daughter of beloved but convicted former Governor Arch Moore, should ever hold for long.
As noted, Democrats retain over 60 percent of voters by registration. This figure has dropped from the 2-to-1 edge held for generations. Two factors account for the GOP’s small gains over the years.
FACTOR ONE:
The Eastern Panhandle has grown remarkably quickly. And most of the new arrivals have been Republicans. The 2000 and, especially, the 2004 Bush campaigns did a fantastic job getting these newbies registered and out to vote. Capito has benefited enormously from this. In fact, without this influx of Republicans, she never would have won the seat in the first place. The Panhandle, particularly Berkeley County (the most populous and fastest growing of the Panhandle counties), provide Capito’s margin.
WHY UNGER WINS
John Unger’s State Senate District includes Berkeley County. And his electoral success there, despite his Democratic identity and generally progressive politics, is quite impressive.
In 2006, Unger simply pounded his GOP opponent in Republican-friendly Berkeley County, clearing 63 percent. In the rest of the district, Unger did even better: clearing 67 percent.
Unger can compete with Capito in her base region. Unless Capito can rack up big majorities in the Panhandle, the math just does not work for her in the rest of the district… especially as she continues to lose ground each election in the other major population center of WV02 (Kanawha County).
Capito’s vote percentage has fallen in each of the last three general elections (60% in 2002; 59% in 2004; 57 in 2006). Had anyone from outside the district itself invested in Mike Callaghan’s energetic but underfunded challenge in 2006 until the weekend before the election, Capito would have dropped well below the 55 percent figure which redflags vulnerable incumbents.
Unger is uniquely suited to chip away or (Lord willing and the DCCC actually writes some checks before election day) actually reverse Capito’s margin in the county she has to win big. He’s a proven vote-winner in the region key to unseating Capito.
FACTOR TWO
The erosion of Democratic support among values voters has converted a lot of previously reliable Democratic voters into tacit Republicans when it comes to federal elections. We simply have lost a lot of our old pro-labor base on the abortion issue. They can’t in good conscience vote their economic self-interest at the expense of their moral code. In a district in which a plurality of Democratic primary voters self-describe as pro-life (let alone the general electorate), the identification of the national Democratic party’s rigidly pro-choice stance has created for the Republicans the wedge they have used to keep Capito in office.
WHY UNGER WINS
Remember I said GENERALLY progressive politics?
John Unger is pro-life. And I don’t mean the heartless, calculating kind of pro-life that seems to fill the ranks of GOP office-seekers. Unger spent a year working for Mother Teresa (I kid u not.check pix as a college kid.
Just as an aside, is there any better way to annoy Christopher Hitchens than to back a guy who worked for Mother Teresa?
His position on abortion is a matter of deeply held faith rather than political calculation. And, when you check out his websites and see all his charitable and relief work, you will realize this is a man of compassion in action. His concern for future generations does not end at the moment of birth.
Contrast Unger’s position on abortion with Capito’s twists and turns over the years on this vital issue.
Capito spent her early career as a pro-choice Republican. When she decided to run for Congress, she began to morph into a pro-lifer. By the time she filled out her NPAT form for Project Vote Smart for the 2004 cycle she was checking off on opposing abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the woman, voted for the Global Gag Rule, and rated a 30 percent from NARAL.
Attempting to keep her feet in both camps, Capito spoke one way to choice groups and another to lifers… effectively blurring the public perception of her true position and allowing folks to see what they wanted to see.
However, Capito made a rather uncharacteristically overt and unambiguous move in the wake of the GOP losing control of the House: she joined the GOP House Pro-Choice PAC.
I can only spitball as to the logic behind her decision. Perhaps she decided in the wake of the loss of the House, the wind was blowing in the other direction (and in the word of Mayor Quimby, let it not be said that she did not also blow).
In any event, she has made an enormous strategic blunder. Abortion was the only thing holding her up among fundamentalist voters. At the very least this will suppress their turnout. More likely it will seriously erode her margin among values voters. Almost certainly it will hurt her at the polls in a district where pro-choice is not an edge in a Democratic primary… let alone a general election.
Now imagine the following scenario:
THE MANCHIN AND GIULIANI FACTORS
Governor Joe Manchin will be heading the ticket. And running as a pro-life candidate. With his favorability and job approval ratings in the 80s and facing only a sacrificial lamb GOP challenger, the only real question is if 70 percent is a ceiling or a floor for his vote. Manchin is going to have long coattails.
This is going to happen. It will boost Unger across the district. Republicans will be demoralized. Indies will trend heavily Democratic. And wayward Dems will come home even if just to jump on the winner’s bandwagon.
But imagine the scenario if Rudy Giuliani is on the GOP ticket. The voters of WV02 will have a choice between pro-life Democrats and a Republican federal ticket headed by a Planned Parenthood Contributor and seconded by someone who flipped to the other side on the pro-life majority.
The Republican edge on values issues evaporates and possibly reverses. Capito will be bleeding lifers all over the district while facing Unger popular in the region she has to rack up even bigger majorities than ever just to survive.
THE PANHANDLE DEPENDENCY:
The math does not add up to a majority for Capito without the Panhandle margin. Berkeley County alone accounted for 14.74 percent of her total 2004 vote (think that’s the best year to use as it was the last Presidential election year). Her dependence on huge winning margins in Berkeley has grown and continues to grow over the course of her terms in office.
In the 2002 off-year cycle, Berkeley County accounted for 11.05 percent of her vote total. In 2006 the figure swelled to 13.29 percent. Extrapolating from this and the 2000 to 2004 change, just to stay even from her a natural erosion elsewhere, she would need to boost her Berkeley County numbers to 17 percent of her vote total.
Now what that means in performance on the ground is Capito would have to boost her percentage of the Berkeley County vote from 68.5 percent in 2004 (which was rung up with the massive Bush exurban GOTV effort deploying enormous resources there virtually unopposed) to 79 percent in 2008. She would have to raise her vote total from 21772 to 25105 in a county which only saw 31768 votes in a record-turnout year for the GOP.
Does anyone think she can do that against a guy who pulls 63 percent of the vote AGAINST the tide?
CONCLUSION: UNGER BEATS CAPITO
John Unger is uniquely suited to win this race.
Why do you think the DCCC recruited him to run? Why do you think West Virginia’s Congressional delegation took the unprecedented step of endorsing a candidate before the filing deadline?
John Unger is the only dog we got who can win this fight. Capito has left her flank open on social issues. Unger can exploit this. Capito has become too reliant on unsustainable margins from the Panhandle to hold her seat.
MONEYBALL
With the GOP having lost control, Capito can’t raise money like she did when she was in a position to reward her corporate benefactors. Despite moving back to the Finance Committee (usually a gold mine as financial services firms line up to throw money at its members) after the 2006 thumping, Capito’s fundraising is lagging (309K cash on hand in her last quarterly versus 472K at the same point in the last cycle).
And her peril is greater than it appears. With the majority, she could raise vast amounts quickly. With Democrats holding the majority, there is very little incentive for business to up the ante for Capito. She simply can’t raise two millon in the last months before Election Day 2008 now because it is no longer a prudent investment for big business. She is no longer positioned to give them a good return on the money invested.
My guess is she will max out around a million and a half dollars in 2008.
This sounds like a lot, but one has to consider what she had to spend to survive Mike Callaghan’s energetic but underfunded 2006 challenge to Capito.
WHY HER 57 PERCENT IN 2006 WAS AN UNDERPERFORMANCE
As I whined earlier, the Callaghan campaign got almost no institutional support from the national party apparatus and campaign committees. While Callaghan did a fantastic job raising 600K from a less than wealthy district (in comparison, the 2004 nominee raised less than 100K), the total is somewhat inflated as most of the money did not arrive until it was too late to do anything with it.
After a bruising three-way primary against two essentially unelectable opponents, Mike Callaghan’s campaign was essentially broke. With the noticeable lack of outside-the-state financial support, Callaghan had to take valuable time away from the stump in a district which has historically rewarded retail campaigning to focus on personally raising from small donors enough money to keep the offices open and the phones on.
Callaghan had no choice. There simply aren’t enough max or even high amount donors in WV02 to raise enormous sums of money without a lot of time-intensive effort by the candidate.
Meanwhile, Capito was raising money in increments of hundreds of thousands as leading Republicans willingly trekked to the state on her behalf. It is truly shameful that Capito was able to raise $2.44 million to add to the million she had salted away from past campaigns with out breaking a sweat because her party gave her backing while Democrats left our nominee twisting alone in the wind.
And so we arrive at Labor Day 2006. Capito starts her media campaign. Fully aware that Callaghan does not have the funds to go on air, she unleashes a relentlessly upbeat series of ads in a massively heavy rotation. She doesn’t mention Bush. She doesn’t mention she’s a Republican. She’s just this nice lady you shouldn’t fire.
Then the Mark Foley scandal breaks, Capito is a member of the Page Board. She takes the tack that no one told her, conveniently ignoring her job was to provide oversight and her own responsibility to keep herself informed. She panics and goes negative. And I mean, she goes viciously, relentlessly, personally, and dishonestly negative against Mike Callaghan. She drops a million and a half dollars on negative ads (and at West Virginia rates, that is an enormous number of gross rating points). She keeps this up for weeks. Until the week before the election, West Virginia’s radio and TV is wall-to-wall Callaghan-bashing ads.
Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Mike Callaghan doesn’t have enough money to respond… unless he wants to miss a payroll for the campaign staff. It is to his credit that he chose to take the punches rather than short his people. He goes on the road and tries to fight back as best he can.
I said this district rewards retail ( and it does, as the last three flips have gone to the candidate who outworked on the ground the opponent who relied on an air war alone). West Virginians expect to know or at least meet the folks for whom they pull the lever. But no district rewards retail enough to overcome a $3,000,000 to none edge (especially when a radio spot costs twenty bucks a run).
And so it goes. Capito spends all the 2.44 million she raised for the 2006 cycle and the million or so she had stashed away for a future statewide run. Perhaps realizing her unceasing negativity is building to the point of backlash, in the last week and a half, Capito shifts to an (arguably…and weakly so) humorous TV spot where she’s saying she’s busy and scurries around in fast-motion silent movie style.
A late poll shows Callaghan closing. The national party throws in enough money for a small buy the weekend before the election. That is all Mike Callaghan had to fire back at three million bucks of mostly vicious, personal, and fallacious attacks over the course of three months.
Despite this utter lack of support for a promising young challenger, Callaghan actually knocked Capito’s percentage down a couple of points… nearly below the 55 percent vulnerability trigger.
With any backing at all, this would have been a much closer race. With substantial backing in the wake of the Foley scandal and Capito’s ridiculously incoherent rationalizations of her irresponsibility, Callaghan would have beaten Capito.
If this is an unreasonable conclusion, why did Capito spend it all? She’s been saving for a statewide for years. I see no other reason than she saw the possibility of a defeat which would derail her political future. Kudos to Mike Callaghan for making her spend it all (“make him spend it all, Arch” was the unofficial motto and slogan on the most popular bumper sticker of Capito’s father’s run against Jay Rockefeller, my fellow West Virginians of a certain age will recall).
WHY AM I RANTING THEN?
I am terrified we will let let another golden opportunity pass. In John Unger we have another viable candidate with a winnable race against a vulnerable incumbent in a Democratic leaning district in a swing state.
Face it, folks. The way Congressional districts are drawn these days, there are very few seats left where we have a reasonable chance of a Republican-to-Democrat flip. WV-02 is one of the best chances we have.
And we are going to need it.
We caught the Republicans napping in 2006. And Foleygate broke just at the right time to derail their counteroffensive. They were about to start waving the bloody shirt right when the Foley/Page Board scandal shifted the environment (remember we were falling fast in the generic preferences the three weeks before the Foley story broke).
The GOP is doing everything they can to force into retirement any of their folks who carries a whiff of scandal. They are cutting loose from President Bush.
Simply put, we can’t count on them making mistakes again they way they did in 2006.
And now we are playing defense. In politics, like a knife fight, it is always easier and more productive to attack than defend. We have to be smarter and tougher than we were in 2006 just to break even.
We simply can’t afford to pass up opportunities like the one John Unger (campaign site).
It is encouraging to see Members from the leadership showing early support for Unger and his race in WV-02. I truly hope this is one they shortlist for special attention.
And I beg anyone who reads this to contact the DCCC, their unions and professional associations, friends, neighbors, and anyone they bump into on the street to get involved.
Check out Unger’s bio and record. This is a good man with a great shot at winning a crucial seat.
The campaign e mail is info@ungerforcongress.org
Loading ...