Tag: Jack Murtha

I sincerely hope that you are not getting sick over analysis of the special election to replace the late Jack Murtha.  Because I have taken some time to look over the race and what I think it means for 2010 as a whole.

When I first heard the tragic news of Congressman Murtha I felt sorrow for the loss of a veteran Congressman and ex Marine but at the same time I couldn’t help but think in the back of my mind about the possible loss of the seat. I was somewhat perplexed at the time on why we chose his former district director rather than an ex Governor or ex State Treasurer who both appeared at first glance to be far superior candidates than the highly unheard of Mark Critz.

    This race was instantly thought to be a highly competitive and would be a potential look ahead at the upcoming 2010 elections.  The district had the oddity of being the only one that was won by Democrat John Kerry in 2004 but lost by Barack Obama in 2008. While it appears to be Democrat on a local level it is obvious to me that the district is slowly trending away from us. I think Murtha would have likely retired in 2012 if he would not have passed away.

     Now to the fun part actually putting some analysis to this race. Critz ran a GREAT campaign. He was a fairly likeable candidate and was able to create a good message of being a populist with a clear independent streak in terms of social issues which played well with the many social conservatives in the district. He knew the district;  what the district was like and what he would have to do to get elected. He knew residents were upset at national Democrats and HCR and pretty much anything that had to do with Washington DC. He was able to all of this even when  national Republicans poured A LOT of money into this district.

    He was a GOOD candidate. Thank gosh someone was able to see it in him during the selection process. I think the overall lesson we can take from this to put towards the midterms is quality of candidate. I do believe a Democrat who knows what he or she is doing can win an R+5 district and a Republican a D+5. It’s all about the candidate. If a candidate knows what is popular and what is not in the district and knows how to play on these issues then they have a great shot of winning despite party label. For example I don’t think anyone honestly believed the Republicans had any shot whatsoever of winning Massachusetts when Ted Kennedy died. However little did they know the sacrificial lamb they put up turned out to be a great candidate who related to the people and knew his stuff while his opponent took a relaxing vacation  and probably measured the drapes for her Senate office. Brown won, and he won not because of hatred of the President or Democrats in general but rather the voters attraction to him, who they could relate to as being the outsider who drove a truck.

    Critz knew just how hard hit the district was on an economic level so he ran a campaign focused on job creation and  stressing his difference from national politicians which are all popular things in his district. It is all about the candidate and how they introduce themselves to the voter. If Democratic incumbents in tough districts talk about all the positive popular things they have done then I don’t think 2010 will be nearly as bad as everyone seems to think.  Run as someone who voted for tougher sanctions on Wall Street who has fought for job creation and economic development. Assuming they voted in favor of Health Care Reform talk about the positives it has and how it will help the people and paint the opponents of it as being pro insurance companies and against the highly popular aspects of reform like treating pre-existing conditions and letting children stay on the family policy until they are 28. If all candidate can do what Critz did and run a good campaign then we will do great in 2010.

    The point of this diary is a good candidate should not be written off just because it’s a tough district or state in a seemingly Republican year. We should not be scared of 2010 but excited. We have many great pickup opportunities and should not just do defense but a little offense as well. I know not every one can run a campaign similar to that of Brown and Critz but we should not write any race off just yet. Anything can happen after all. It just depends on the campaign someone runs.

• NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo made statements in a speech at Schenectady County Community College on Tuesday to the effect that his “only plan is to run for re-election as attorney general,” and that he believes David Paterson will be re-elected as governor. I wouldn’t be prone to believe him (and it seems like nobody else does either; only The Hill has taken any notice of this comment), given his poll numbers and the fundraising groundwork he’s laid. It just seems weird; he’s well past the point where he needs to be coy about his plans.

• NY-20: About that recent DNC ad touting Obama’s endorsement of Scott Murphy… while the existence of the ad itself has been gobbling up a good deal of headlines, it appears that it won’t actually be seen by a lot of eyeballs in-district. The DNC’s independent expenditure filing with the FEC indicates that they’re only putting up $10,000 for the ad buy. (J)

• CA-10: Departing Rep. Ellen Tauscher has already endorsed state senator Mark DeSaulnier to take her place. Apparently she had intended to wait until he formally announced his candidacy, but the internal poll from yesterday from assemblywoman Joan Buchanan showing her in the lead may have forced Tauscher’s hand.

• UT-Sen: The knives are still out for Bob Bennett, but it’s looking like someone higher up the totem pole than former Juab County DA David Leavitt may jump into the primary: Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is also “considering” it. Ultra-conservatives sense an opening because of Bennett’s pro-bailout vote, and also because of Utah’s unique nominating system. A candidate who consolidates activist support and breaks 60% at the state convention outright wins, and can avoid the primary altogether.

• KS-Sen: Here’s another example of how Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn likes to keep us guessing. Not only is he wading into the GOP senate primary in his neighboring state, but he’s endorsing Rep. Jerry Moran, who passes for a moderate by Kansas standards, over Rep. Todd Tiahrt, from the religious right corner of the party.

• MI-11: Back to the drawing board? Democratic state Sen. Glenn Anderson, who has been the target of a draft effort to encourage him to take on GOP weirdo Thaddeus McCotter, says that he’ll probably run for re-election instead. (J)

• PA-12: Bill Russell, who held Jack Murtha to 58% in 2008, is back for another try in 2010. No word if he’ll use BMW Direct for his fundraising efforts again.

Dane & Associates for Glen Meakem (10/27-28, ‘probable’ voters, 10/13-14 in parens):

Jack Murtha (D-inc): 46

William Russell (R): 44

(MoE: ±3.9%)

Here’s the takeaway: don’t call your constituents ‘racists.’ Jack Murtha is an institution in this D+5 district (he’s the one of only two sitting congress members to have the local airport named after him… the other one, of course, is Ted Stevens). Institution status notwithstanding, though, we’re starting to see a pattern here in his post-gaffe environment… as much as these GOP internal polls individually seem ticky-tacky, they’re accumulating and it’s troubling that Murtha hasn’t responded in kind. With the DCCC and NRCC (as well as right-wing Vets for Freedom) jumping in with last minute ad buys, and with Murtha making a pitch for money to Move On members, we at SSP feel there’s enough cause for concern here to downgrade this race to “Likely Democratic.”

Remember that William Russell is one of the ‘defrauder’ candidates raising funds through shadowy direct mail firm BMW Direct. Josh Marshall returned to this story yesterday, finding that Russell is actually pocketing a fair bit of money ($1.1 million, out of $2.5 million raised) even after paying for BMW’s unusually large fees. That $1.1 million is still much less than the $2 million that Murtha has spent, though.

As for the other bit players in this story, Dane & Associates is a Las Vegas-based automated pollster who, as best as I can tell from a quick Google of the tubes, has never made public any of its polls prior to this race. This poll was made public through grassrootsPA.com, a right-wing state blog that seems to aspire to be a local version of Drudge, based on its firehose-spew of news items and atrocious design sensibilities. The guy who actually paid for it, Glen Meakem, seems to be a Pittsburgh-area internet rich guy with his own Republican political aspirations, at least according to this puff piece from the right-leaning Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.