Tag: Senate

Third quarter fundraising numbers came out over a week ago.  Fundraising is a huge indicator to a lot of things when it comes to predicting races and keeping an eye out for possible retirements. 

So lets get down to it.  I’m going to take people who fundraised under 100,000$ and go over their age, and length of their political career. 

Senate:
Mike Enzi raised a total of $7,525.  Enzi is 63 years old, and has spent 27 of the last 32 years in elected office.  He is older, and is looking foward to a long time in the minority. 

Thad Cochran raised a total of $14,124.  Cochran is 70 years old, and has spent the last 34 years in congress.  (4 years in the house, then the last 30 in the senate). 

House:
John Doolittle (R-CA-04) raised $50,000.  Doolittle is 57 years old, and has spent the last 27 years in elected office (CA Senate ’80-90, US House ’90-present)

Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41) raised $67,000.  Lewis is 73 years old and has spent the last 39 years in elected office (CA Senate ’68-78, US House ’78-Present)

Gary Miller (R-CA-42) raised $39,000.  Miller is 59 years old and has spent 16 of the last 18 years in elected office. 

Bill Young (R-FL-10) raised $29,000.  Young is 77 years old, and has spent the last 47 years in elected office (FL Senate ’60-70, US House ’70-present)

Dave Weldon (R-FL-15) raised $29,000.  Weldon is 54 years old, and has spent the last 13 years in the US House (always in the majority). 

Mark Souder (R-IN-03) raised $83,000.  Souder is 57 years old, and has spent the last 13 years in the US House (always in the majority). 

Steve Buyer (R-IN-04) raised $74,000.  Buyer is 49 years old, and has spent the last 15 years in the US House. 

Julia Carson (D-IN-07) raised $9,000.  Carson is
69 years old, and has spent the last 35 years in political office.  She also has health issues. 

Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD-06) raised $1,000.  Bartlett is 81 years old, and has spent the last 15 years in the US House. 

Dennis Kucinech (D-OH-10) raised $40.  Kucinech is 61 years old, and has spent 21 of the last 38 years in elected office. 

Virgil Goode (R-VA-05) raised $53,000.  Goode is 61 years old, and has spent the last 34 years in elective office (VA Senate ’73-96, US House ’96-present)

Frank Wolf (R-VA-10) raised $79,000.  Wolf is 68 years old, and has spent the last 27 years in the US House. 

Barbera Cubin (R-WY-AL) raised $11,000.  Cubin is 61 years old, and has spent the last 20 years in elected office.  Cubin is also being pushed towards retirement by state Republicans for her weak electability. 

In case you are wondering, I did omit a number of people who were very close to $100,000, if they had a contested primary, or if they were in a competitive district (Obviously making it harder to raise large sums of money.  If I didn’t, this would have taken me all day). 

People Ommitted:
Bilbray-R-CA-50
Latham-R-IA-04
King-R-IA-05
Sali-R-ID-01
Lipinski-D-IL-03
Gilchrest-R-MD-01
Saxton=R-NJ-03
Udall-D-NM-03
Fossella-R-NY-13
McHugh-R-NY-19
McCaul-R-TX-10

Future Democratic retirements? 
House: 1-2
Senate: 0

Future Republican retirements? 
House: 5-11
Senate: 1-2

(Of course these are off of fundraising only – Obviously I’m not looking into people who are off the radar completely)

Here’s what I guessed.

Democrats-US House: Carson for Sure, Kucinech is a maybe.

Republicans-US Senate: Cochran for sure, Enzi is a maybe. 

Republicans-US House: Lewis, Young, Bartlett, Cubin for sure – Everyone else maybe. 

The field is beginning to take shape in New Mexico: yesterday, it was reported that NM-02 Rep. Steve Pearce would join Rep. Heather Wilson in what is shaping up to be a contentious Republican primary, and that Democrat Patricia Madrid will not run for the seat.

While a sizable chunk of the New Mexico GOP’s small bench have thrown their hats in the race, their only statewide-elected official, State Land Commissioner Pat Lyons, has decided against running.

We’re still awaiting a decision from Lt. Governor Diane Denish (D), and rumors are circulating that Rep. Tom Udall, who crushed the GOP competition in a hypothetical poll by SUSA, may be reconsidering his decision not to run.  Stay tuned.

On a final note, in her interview with NM blogger Heath Haussamen, Madrid says that she hasn’t ruled out another run for the vacant House seat of Heather Wilson.  Advice to Patsy: let common sense prevail and enjoy your private sector career.

Sounds like Tom Davis has the blues.  Or at least, he’s seeing nothing but blue after his party gave former Gov. Jim Gilmore the upper hand in securing the GOP nomination and Democrat Mark Warner posted a massive $1.1 million fundraising haul in under three weeks:

But Davis said at a breakfast at the National Press Club on Tuesday that both recent developments factor into his decision and suggested that he might instead run for freshman Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-Va.) seat in 2012, or not run for Senate at all.

Davis is also a strong candidate on K Street and could  be drawn to a lobbying job.

“There are other races; this isn’t the only shot,” Davis said. “You’ve got a very vulnerable guy sitting there in the other Senate seat right now who may or may not run in four years. And you know what? If you don’t go to the Senate, so what? I’ve been a committee chairman in the House. I’ve got my portrait hanging on a wall. I’ve been pretty productive legislatively.”

There have been rumblings of late that Davis is having second thoughts about running, but he insists his mind was never made up. […]

“Our calculation has been that, if you can get everything in line, it’s a doable race,” Davis said. “But if I have to spend eight months slogging through a party convention, talking to 15,000 Republicans around the state where they’re going to ask you how conservative you are, that does not set you up very well for a general election.”

Sounds like Tommy D has lost the fire in his belly.  Who could blame him?  Perhaps he’ll wave goodbye to the House, too.

 

With the retirement of long-time incumbent Pete Domenici, we are looking at an opportunity we may not see again for a long time. As many who are reading this are likely aware, on the Republican side, Reps. Heather Wilson, the pseudo-moderate representing the first district (which, unfortunately, includes my hometown of Albuquerque) and Steve Pearce, the right-winger who represents the second district (including Las Cruces) will be running against each other in order to gain the Republican nomination for the Senate. Naturally, we need a candidate who can defeat Wilson and Pearce in a general election, but we also want to elect a solid progressive who will stand up for New Mexican citizens, not the corporations.

 

You have all probably already read about the various sites which are already working on drafting Congressman Tom Udall to run for the senate, and many of you are probably asking an important question: why is it so important, not only to support Rep. Udall in a run for senate, but to actively work on drafting him for it?

Tom Udall is a strong progressive who will fight for the people of New Mexico, not the business interests. According to the non-partisan group Project Vote Smart, in 2006, he was given a 100% by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Citizens for Tax Justice, the National Education Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (2005), the National Parent Teacher Association (2004), the League of Conservation Voters, the American Wilderness Coalition, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the AFL-CIO, the SEIU, United Auto Workers, the Children’s Defense Fund, the Arc, the American Public Health Association, Disabled American Veterans, and the American Association of University Women; as well as a 95% from the Public Interest Research Group, the National Organization of Women, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (96%).

In addition to being a solid progressive, Tom Udall is also the strongest Democratic candidate we can muster (except, perhaps for Gov. Richardson, and I think we can all agree we’d like to see Bill as Secretary of State or Vice-President). According to CNN’s Election 2006 and Election 2004 Rep. Udall has won his district by 75% of the vote in 2006 and 70%, compared to Rep. Pearce who only won with 60% of the vote in both 2004 and 2006, and Rep. Wilson only barely broke 50% in 2006 and 55% in 2004. According to a recent Survey USA poll; Udall had an 18 point advantage against both Pearce (55-37) and Wilson (56-38). To put this in perspective, Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez, who is the only major Democrat to declare his candidacy, loses to Pearce by 21 points (35-56) and to Wilson by 4 (44-48). In addition, Tom Udall starts off with state-wide recognition after being New Mexico’s Attorney General during the 1990s. 

In Tom Udall, we have both a solid progressive and a strong candidate to run against either Heather Wilson or Steve Pearce. As such, it is critical we draft Tom Udall for the Senate, not only to strengthen the Democratic majority in congress, but to put a solid progressive and advocate for all New Mexicans. After considering all of this, it should no longer be a question of why we critically need Rep. Udall in the Senate, and anyone who is looking for a strong candidate and a strong progressive voice in the Senate; you should support our movement to draft Tom Udall for Senate.

Former Gov. Jim Gilmore must be smiling at the news:

Republican leaders gave former Gov. Jim Gilmore a boost today by choosing to hold a convention to nominate the party’s candidate to run for the U.S. Senate next year.

The party’s state central committee voted 47 to 37 to hold a convention rather than a primary.

Gilmore, the more conservative choice, is seen as having an edge among the party’s inner circle over the more moderate Rep. Tom Davis.  However, his personal appeal in the state is severely weakened by his embarrassing record as Governor.  Did the Republicans just hand Mark Warner a Senate seat on a silver platter?

What’s more, the prospect of a convention could cause Davis to walk away from the Senate contest altogether:

There was speculation that Davis, now, would not seek the nomination, leaving the field to Gilmore. A Davis spokesman said he would announce his intentions after the Nov. 6 General Assembly elections.

A non-candidacy by Davis would make picking up his House seat, which is trending in favor of Democrats in federal races, a much more difficult task.

Republican reaction can be found here.

In a new poll released by the Washington Post, former Gov. Mark Warner continues to crush his potential GOP foes:

Mark Warner (D): 63%
Tom Davis (R): 28%

Mark Warner (D): 61%
Jim Gilmore (R): 31%

(MoE: ±3%)

My favorite nugget of the poll?  This one:

In Davis’ own base of Fairfax County, Warner beats Davis 57%-33%. And among self-described conservatives, whom Gilmore has been courting, four in ten say they would vote for Warner.

So let’s get this straight: in Tom Davis’ backyard, where name recognition is no problem for him, Mark Warner’s numbers are barely dented.  Perhaps it’s not surprising, given that Warner enjoys a 67%/17% favorable/unfavorable rating throughout the state.  Fairfax voters may think well of Tom Davis, but they like Mark Warner a whole heck of a lot more.  So much for the idea of a tight race in NoVa with Tom Davis at the helm.

Speaking of Davis, are we being too presumptive in thinking that he’ll get the nomination?  The poll also shows Davis trailing former Gov. Jim Gilmore by a 48-29 margin in a primary match-up… and that’s assuming a primary even happens (it could be decided by a nominating convention, in which Gilmore is seen as having the inside edge on the more moderate Davis).

I’ve been giving alot of thought in recent months regarding next year’s Minnesota Senate race.  It’s very difficult to predict how it will unfold as there are a variety of converging forces in play.  Have the second-ring suburbs that helped elect Norm Coleman to the Senate in 2002 tired of him enough to vote him out?  Will anybody outstate be willing to take Al Franken seriously?  Would Mike Ciresi put more of the state in play than Franken would?  It’s a crap shoot across the board.  Minnesota has clearly taken a leftward turn since 2004 and I expect that to continue next year.  On the other hand, I’m not confident in the positive coattail capacity of Hillary Clinton if she’s at the top of the ticket, which the odds seem to favor at this point.  For the first time in years, I really don’t know what direction this could go, but I’ll give it a shot nonetheless with thoughts on the candidate’s personal and demographical strengths and weaknesses.

I closely track Minnesota political demographics and go into every election cycle confident that I can guess how each region of the state will vote.  Some years my predictions are dead-on, such as 2004, while other years I’m not nearly as clairvoyant.  The 2006 midterm elections fit the latter.  At this point in 2005, I had predicted close races would ensue in both the Senate and gubernatorial elections.  The Senate race, in my estimation a year in advance, would be a classic Old Minnesota vs. New Minnesota slugfest in which Klobuchar would dominate Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, along with northeastern Minnesota, while Kennedy would be competitive by scoring stratospheric numbers in outer suburbia and western Minnesota farm country, both of which he had represented in Congress and which I expected to bristle at “big-city lawyer” Klobuchar.  Needless to say, I botched that prediction badly, as did most of the pundits who also expected a close Senate race in Minnesota, failing to foresee that alleged wunderkind Mark Kennedy would run the worst Minnesota Senate campaign in recent memory.  Meanwhile, in the gubernatorial race where I expected Democrat Mike Hatch to do well outstate and for Tim Pawlenty to score the same boffo numbers in the nonurban metro area that he did in 2002, the Old MN vs. New MN contest I expected to see in the Senate race actually did play out.  Needless to say, it was a humbling experience for a guy who thought he had it all figured out. 

Hopefully, I fare a little better this year, but the campaign dynamic doesn’t strike me as being as clearcut this year.  With that in mind, I’ll start with the incumbent and cite scenarios where each of the three candidates could win or lose next year….

Norm Coleman–The 2002 Senate election was very much an Old MN vs. New MN election, with Coleman compensating for his deficiencies among elderly outstate  voters by sweeping through suburbia with absolutely astounding numbers.  Conventional wisdom is that Coleman will need to hang onto the same Democrat-trending second-ring suburbs (Bloomington, Minnetonka, Shoreview, Eagan) if he’s to be re-elected in 2008.  That might be correct, but not necessarily so, as Coleman’s outstate numbers in 2002 were below-average for a Republican, based partly on Mondale nostalgia among the area’s older voters, but also the perception that Coleman was a city slicker disconnected with rural values.  It’s not clear whether that perception will hold outstate next year, particularly if Al Franken is the Democratic nominee. 

Given that 2008 is a Presidential election year, it’s likely that turnout will be disproportionately higher compared to 2002 in the urban DFL strongholds of Minneapolis and St. Paul, which produces an immediate math challenge for him.  Assuming that prediction is correct, Coleman will have to pick up votes elsewhere to compensate for the deficit.  Potentially key to Coleman’s chances is the increasingly unpredictable white-collar city of Rochester in southeastern Minnesota, formerly a Republican stronghold but growing significantly less so in recent election cycles.  Nonetheless, certain kinds of Republicans (like Governor Tim Pawlenty) still do very well in Rochester, and if Coleman can adeptly portray himself as a centrist with growing doubts about the war in Iraq, Rochester voters might be inclined to hang with him.

Al Franken–The ultimate wild card of a candidate.  On the basis of fundraising alone, he’s a force to be reckoned with, and will have every opportunity to revamp his image.  But at least so far, there is little evidence voters are ready to take him seriously.  His funnyman history poses a unique challenge in that he can’t simply come across as the class clown slumming in politics, but will also be expected to produce moments of levity during the campaign so he doesn’t disappoint people as “just another boring politician”.  From my observations, he has a hard time with that balance and can be less than riveting when speaking on meat-and-potatoes issues in front of crowds.  But if his ground game and political skills prove as effective as his fundraising skills, he has a helluva good chance against an incumbent with a 45% approval rating, but that’s a big “if”.

Franken needs to run at least 50-50 in the aforementioned second-ring suburbs to have a chance, because he’ll be smashed in the fast-growing exurban doughnut and will most likely face a struggle outstate, particularly if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.  Outstate Minnesota has never had much of a fondness for Coleman in the past, so it’s not a lost cause for Franken, but he’ll have to earn his chops by touring some dairy farms and iron mines yet still avoid a “Dukakis in the tank” moment in the process.  That’s gonna be a tough needle to thread with Republicans chomping at the bit for an opportunity to portray him as “out of touch with Minnesota”.  I can’t say I’m optimistic, but am certainly not to the point where I can’t be persuaded to take Franken’s campaign seriously.

Mike Ciresi–In the interest of playing it safe, I would prefer to see Ciresi get the nomination over Franken, but I’m increasingly doubtful that will happen unless Franken makes a gaffe.  Ciresi is the “safe” candidate on every front, particulalry his self-financing ability, but there’s a fear he will be too safe, failing to excite the base enough to take down Coleman.  He was the presumptive favorite in the crowded field of candidates in 2000, but failed to seal the deal……against the uber-dreary Mark Dayton!  If Ciresi lacked the fortitude to hold back Dayton seven years ago, it’s worth asking whether he has what it takes to topple Coleman, who’s a much better politician in his sleep than Dayton.  Nonetheless, Ciresi hits the right buttons on the issues and could have a Klobuchar-esque ability to court GOP-leaning independents.  That’s just speculation, but back in 2000, Rod Grams was most worried about facing Ciresi compared to the handful of other contenders.

Demographically, Ciresi seems like an easier sell to second-ring suburbanites than Franken…..and these voters will almost certainly decide the outcome.  Ciresi’s “big-city lawyer” background is not a natural fit for outstate voters, but that didn’t hurt Klobuchar nearly as much as I expected last year…..and Coleman is much less loved outstate than what former country boy Mark Kennedy was expected to be, so I won’t take anything for granted.  Again, however, it’s almost a certainty that Minnesota’s outer-suburban growth zones will produce huge margins for Coleman, so Ciresi (and every Dem for that matter) will have to continue to improve their numbers in the rest of the state to compensate for the tens of thousands of new Republican voters coming out of the doughnut every four years.  In a hotly contested Presidential election, turning out the urban base and shaking out those “compensatory” votes doesn’t seem like it should be a problem.

That’s my early handicap of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race.  Expect to see this analysis expand and evolve as the campaign unfolds, and feel free to provide me any information I may have missed that falsely colored my thoughts at this stage.
 

So many stories, so little time.  Let’s do some quick hits.

• FL-24: Muck-encrusted Rep. Tom Feeney is going to face a major Democratic challenger next year: former state Rep. Suzanne Kosmas.  Kosmas was recruited by the DCCC to run after internal polling showed her in a competitive race against Abramoff associate Feeney.  Glad to have this race filled.  I’m looking forward to taking this crumb-bum on, who recently derided the proposed S-CHIP expansion as a “budget-busting, Cuban-style health care plan”.  Your modern Republican Party in action, folks!
  
• NM-Sen: Chuck Schumer and EMILY’s list are trying to recruit New Mexico Lt. Gov. Diane Denish to consider the Senate race.  Let’s hope Chuck can pull off another miracle here.
  
• IL-11: So get this: two of the Republicans running to succeed scandal-plagued Jerry Weller don’t exactly look formidable out of the starting gate.  New Lenox Mayor Tim Balderman gets the kiss of death by being endorsed by Weller, while Marguerite Murer, a former Bush Administration staffer who ran the Correspondence office for the president, has fun inflating her bio:

  With the civilian rank equivalent to a two-star general, Marguerite charged forward leading Correspondence with solid business principles. From the war on terror and securing our homeland, to Medicare, Supreme Court nominations and the devastating Hurricane Katrina, Marguerite has communicated with millions of Americans. (Emphasis added)

  What a laugh.
  

• WA-08: Darcy Burner posts a big fundraising haul this quarter–$305K raised and $370K CoH, thanks in part to the netroots community during the Burn Bush effort this summer.
  
• NM-01: The Democratic primary is getting a lot more crowded in this open seat race, with state Health Secretary Michelle Lujan Grisham formally entering the race today.  The retirement of Wilson has been a blessing and a curse for Martin Heinrich, who was previously seen as the front runner for the nomination.

SurveyUSA has released its first poll showing who New Mexicans would like to see replace Republican Pete Domenici in the US Senate:

Tom Udall (D): 55
Steve Pearce (R): 37

Tom Udall (D): 56
Heather Wilson (R): 38

Bill Richardson (D): 60
Steve Pearce (R): 36

Bill Richardson (D): 62
Heather Wilson (R): 35

Marty Chavez (D): 35
Steve Pearce (R): 56

Marty Chavez (D): 44
Heather Wilson (R): 48

Patricia Madrid (D): 38
Steve Pearce (R): 54

Patricia Madrid (D): 45
Heather Wilson (R): 46

Don Wiviott (D): 23
Steve Pearce (R): 58

Don Wiviott (D): 34
Heather Wilson (R): 51

MoE: ± 4.4%, n=514

While this round of polling is likely a reflection of name-recognition, it does provide us with a valuable baseline.

Of course, it's disappointing to see that a candidate with numbers like Tom Udall has already turned down a run for the seat. And, as of now, Bill Richardson is still running for President.

When Jeff Merkley, the Speaker of the Oregon House, decided to enter the Democratic primary to take on Republican Sen. Gordon Smith at the end of July, the only announced candidate, Steve Novick, didn’t raise a fuss.  In fact, his cordial response set what appeared to be a friendly tone for the primary campaign in the months ahead:

I commend Jeff’s decision to follow me in taking on Gordon Smith. […]

I look forward to an inspired primary where each of us makes our case for why we must replace Gordon Smith and presents our respective visions for Oregon and America. And I propose a series of joint appearances across the state with Jeff and any other candidates that enter the primary to let voters make up their minds.

[…] Over the next ten months, I plan to travel the state – listening to voters’ concerns and sharing my vision. It would be my great pleasure to have Jeff join me in that journey.

However, despite Novick’s proposal for a primary campaign with the heat directed entirely at Gordon Smith, it sure appears that Novick is spending a great deal of time launching unprovoked barbs at Merkley.  One of the first signs came in late August, when Novick found himself reading similar talking points as the state GOP to portray Merkley as a candidate who has flip-flopped on the Iraq War–something that isn’t true–because of a non-binding resolution passed by the Oregon House in 2003 that Merkley voted for in order to express solidarity with the troops.  Remarks that Merkley made on the House floor clearly corroborate Merkley’s claim that he was opposed to the war since the beginning.

Next up, Novick slammed Merkley as the “insider’s candidate” in a message sent to his online supporters after a recent fundraising push:

And yes, if you’re wondering, we outdid our opponent in the Democratic primary in online fundraising this week. The insiders’ candidate sent out the same kind of last-week appeal that we did – to an email list that seems to include everybody in the state – and you smoked ’em. Oh, we’re sure he got lots of big checks this quarter; that’s what insider candidates do. But in online last-week enthusiasm, you rocked him hard.

Huh.  And here I thought his campaign was about “rocking Smith hard”.  My mistake.

But wait, it gets better!  Both candidates recently announced their third quarter fundraising totals.  Merkley outraised Novick by a $294K to $125K margin.  While not extremely strong numbers for Merkley, he did begin his campaign at the start of August, and therefore only had two months to raise funds for the quarter compared to Novick’s three.  Nevertheless, Novick’s campaign wasted no time in releasing the following statement to the press:

From Merkley’s campaign spokesman Russ Kelley: “People are really responding to Jeff’s message of opportunity and his solid record of accomplishment.”

Or are they? says Novick’s campaign manager Jake Weigler. Democratic Senate candidates in other states who, like Merkley, were recruited by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, have posted much higher fund-raising totals.

“Merkley’s ‘surge’ did not succeed,” Weigler said. “These numbers show it’s going to be a highly competitive primary.”

Excuse me?  Merkley’s “surge”?  Certainly an interesting choice of words.

So what kind of primary campaign is Steve Novick running?

You tell me.