Tag: MT-Sen

• House: Congratulations to Rep. John Garamendi, who was sworn in yesterday, and Rep. Bill Owens, who was sworn in today. Garamendi and Owens are joining the Democratic caucus as quickly as possible so that they can be eligible to vote on healthcare reform this weekend. (D)

• AR-Sen: Remember how yesterday NRSC chair John Cornyn caved to the party’s right flank, and said that he wouldn’t spend money in primaries or endorse in the future? Well, that lasted about a day: turns out that state Sen. Gilbert Baker, the GOP’s best shot in Arkansas, will be having a fundraiser in Washington DC on the 19th… at the NRSC. (The NRSC did announce that it still didn’t amount to endorsement, and that other Arkansas candidates were still welcome to have fundraisers at the NRSC. Uh, call me when there’s actually a fundraiser for head teabagger Tom Cox at the NRSC building.) More generally, CQ has a nice overview of the tightrope Cornyn is walking as he tries to make some inroads in swing states in 2010.

• CA-Sen: Perhaps in an attempt to give some cover to Cornyn (whose hand-picked candidate, Carly Fiorina, is raising the ire of the Chuck DeVore-supporting right wing), eight GOP Senators all endorsed Fiorina yesterday: a couple from leadership (McConnell, Kyl), the moderate women (Snowe, Collins, and Murkowski), some chit-cashing from last year (McCain and Graham), and one from total right field (Coburn). Tom Coburn’s endorsement is especially surprising in view of fellow wackadoodle Jim DeMint’s endorsement of DeVore. DeMint, for his part, is still attacking John Cornyn’s recruitment efforts today, perfectly encapsulating the right-wing mentality while saying “He’s trying to find candidates who can win. I’m trying to find people who can help me change the Senate.”

• FL-Sen: After Charlie Crist’s bizarre denials that he ever supported the Obama stimulus package, the White House left Crist out to dry yesterday, saying that, yes, in fact, he did support the stimulus.

• KS-Sen: This may fall under the “endorsement you don’t want to tout too loudly” category, although with most of the big-name endorsements so far going to Rep. Jerry Moran in the Kansas Senate race, Rep. Todd Tiahrt will probaly take what he can get. Former AG and Senator John Ashcroft endorsed Tiahrt.

• MT-Sen: Here’s what has the potential to be one of 2012’s hottest Senate races, already shaping up. Rep. Denny Rehberg, the state’s lone at-large Congressperson, met with the NRSC concerning a possible run at Jon Tester.

• CA-Gov: With ex-Gov. Jerry Brown suddenly finding himself with the gubernatorial primary field to himself for now, a familiar face has popped up yet again. Dianne Feinstein, who all year has alternately expressed interest and dismissed rumors of her interest, is now back to saying that she still hasn’t ruled out a gubernatorial run. She’ll wait to see what proposals for fixing the badly-broken state the various candidates put out before deciding whether or not to get in herself.

• IL-Gov: Somehow this got lost in all the shuffle surrounding Election Day, but it’s kind of important: after a short period of being the subject of speculation, Jim Ryan made it official that he’s running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Illinois. He probably becomes the frontrunner in the GOP field, by virtue of name rec: he was the state’s Attorney General from 1994-2002, and lost the 2002 governor’s race to Rod Blagojevich. The rest of the GOP field is a hodge-podge of state Senators and county-level officials, with state GOP chair Andy McKenna maybe the best known of the rest. Ryan’s biggest problem may be hoping people don’t confuse him with imprisoned ex-Gov. George Ryan or weird-sex-fan and 2004 Senate candidate Jack Ryan.

• MN-Gov: Another gubernatorial entry that seemed to fly below the radar this week is also a big one: Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak filed to run for governor yesterday. The well-liked Rybak seems like one of the likeliest candidates to prevail in the very crowded Democratic field.

• NJ-Gov: There are going to be a lot of coulda-shoulda-wouldas in the next few weeks in New Jersey, and here’s a big one already. State Senate leader (and former acting Governor) Richard Codey says that the White House contacted him repeatedly over the summer about taking over for Corzine on the ticket, and that Corzine and Codey even discussed it. Codey deferred to Corzine’s decision to stay in — although Corzine nearly decided to pack it in. Reportedly, internal polls over the summer showed Codey beating Chris Christie by double digits.

• NY-Gov: David Paterson is going on the air with two different TV spots (including one where he admits to “lots of mistakes”), apparently trying to bring up his approvals before deciding whether or not to run again in 2010. Paterson is still looking to move forward on the contentious issue of gay marriage, though, planning to put it on the agenda for next week’s special session. It may not have the votes to clear the Senate, but it hasn’t really been put to the test yet. (The worry is that moderate Republicans in the Senate who might have been on board earlier may be leerier now, afraid of getting Scozzafavaed by the right.)

• NY-23: A rare bit of history was made on Tuesday, in that a seat flipping to the president’s party in a House special election (as opposed to a tough retention, as in NY-20) is highly unusual. The most recent case was in VA-04 in 2001, when Republican Randy Forbes picked up a swing district left open by the death of Dem Norman Sisisky. (Subsequent gerrymandering turned the 4th into a safe GOP seat.) The previous instances before that were in 1989, 1988, and 1983.

• TX-32: Pete Sessions Deathwatch, Vol. 3? One more article piles on the “loser” meme regarding Sessions’ series of NY-23 screwups — and it comes from his hometown paper in Dallas. Meanwhile at home, Sessions is now facing a primary challenge from the right, from financial analyst David Smith. Smith is upset about the Scozzafava thing, but mostly focusing on Sessions’ TARP vote. Still, a primary challenge from the right against one of the House’s most conservative members? Seems like that’d be like going after Tammy Baldwin from the left.

• WI-02: Oh, wait. But that’s exactly what some guy is doing. And he’s not just a rube who fell off the biodiesel-fueled organic turnip truck while reaching for his bong: it’s an actual member of the Board of Supervisors of Dane County (where Madison is). David de Felice is upset that Baldwin hasn’t pushed harder for single-payer health care.

• WI-08: Two different new entries in the Green Bay-based 8th. Physician and Air Force vet Marc Trager got into the Republican field to go against Democratic sophomore Rep. Steve Kagen, where businessman Reid Ribble seems to have the inside track based on fundraising and NRCC-touting so far. And yet another random right-winger is imagining his own head superimposed on Doug Hoffman’s body: former Niagara mayor Joe Stern will run as a grassroots conservative independent in 2010.

• NY Comptroller: A piece on New York 1 speculates that NYC Comptroller Bill Thompson, fresh off a much narrower-than-expected loss to Mayor Mike Bloomberg, could challenge New York State Comptroller Bill DiNapoli in the Democratic primary next year. DiNapoli, you may recall, was appointed to the seat after Alan Hevesi resigned. Thompson said he’s not currently looking at the race, but says that nothing is off the table. (D)

• WA-Init: Referendum 71 was finally called by the press (for the side of equality). Although more votes remain to be counted in the currently 52-48 race, it would require a bizarre turnaround in King County (where it’s currently at 70% approval) to change the result. Meanwhile, Seattle‘s mayoral race is still up in the air; Mike McGinn leads by a 515-vote margin (out of 130,000 counted so far).

• Census: As expected, the Vitter amendment requiring the Census to include a question on citizenship was blocked by Democrats. Conservatives don’t want undocumented immigrants to count for apportionment, and there’s an added incentive for David Vitter, as Louisiana might be able to salvage its 7th seat if such legislation were passed.

• Primaries: MoveOn and DFA are allocating millions of dollars to potential primary challenges against any Democrats who join a Republican filibuster on health care. (The only one who’s on the fence about that and actually up in 2010 is Blanche Lincoln, and nobody of consequence has stepped up to primary her from the left yet, although Lt. Gov. Bill Halter has alluded to the idea.)

• Polling: Mark Blumenthal has a good wrapup of how the various pollsters did on Tuesday. As others have pointed out, IVR polls outperformed live pollsters, at least in the two gubernatorial races (even though they still got weird results in the crosstabs, especially on race). Blumenthal also analyzes what went wrong in NY-23 polling. Also on the polling front, it looks like Nate Silver may have succeeded in scaring off Strategic Vision LLC. As he reports today, not only did they never get around to suing him, but they haven’t released any polls since the imbroglio began, despite that this week’s election would be the prime time to do so.

• WATN?: Finally, we have sad news to report: the Mumpower has finally been contained. Republican Carl Mumpower, the out-of-the-box thinker who lost spectacularly to Rep. Heath Shuler in 2008, got bounced out of his position as Asheville City Councilor on Tuesday.

Rasmussen (likely voters, 9/7):

Max Baucus (D-inc): 64

Bob Kelleher (R): 31

(MoE: ±4.5%)

It’s ganja break time for Max Baucus.

Bonus finding: In the same poll, McCain has surged to a 53-42 lead over Obama. That’s up from a 45-44 McCain lead in July.

No, the Senior senator from Montana did not get an invite into the Playboy mansion, or a night on the town with the Pussycat Dolls. Rather, he has the good fortune to be running virtually unopposed along with 4 other Democratic Senators (Biden, Harkin, Pryor, and Reed). Why? Because the Republican Party in the state of Montana has completely lost it, selecting 85 year old Bob Kelleher to be its nominee.

Senate Guru on Tuesday posted a detailed analysis of why Bob Kelleher won the Republican primary on June 3. I just thought I pull a few of my favorite quotes. Obviously, the Republican Party does not find him representative of their views, referring to Kelleher’s proposal to change the U.S style of government into a parliamentary system, plus other issues:

No. Those positions don’t reflect the platform of the Montana Republican Party or the national Republican Party,” he said. “Mr. Kelleher is going to have to go out and make his case to Republicans and all Montana.

But I find this even more amusing. Max Baucus obviously has reasons to be arrogant this cycle, but even this takes the cake. He’s not planning to debate with his opponent at all because:

For one thing, said Barrett Kaiser, a Baucus spokesman, there will be no debates.

“Max plans on talking to Montanans across the state, and they’ll have ample opportunity to ask him questions,” he said. “But we don’t want to subject him to what will become a circus.”

A circus? I think it’s a little late to avoid that scenario, buddy.

One last point, an encouraging quote from Chuck Feney at the comments section:

All this is the legacy of Marc Racicot. Now that we know the damage that he did to this State with the Montana Power – Goldman Sachs swindle, the Republican party in Montana will go the way of the WHIGS.*** Welcome to “Blue Montana” – Denny, you’re next!

So I have two questions to ask before I sign off:

1.) Could this get any worse for the GOP?

2.) Is Montana turning blue?

What the heck happened in Montana?

http://www.billingsgazette.net…

U.S. House, District 1 (At-Large)

Democratic Primary

Driscoll , John Dem 70,205 49%

Hunt , Jim Dem 59,425 42%

Candee , Robert Dem 12,476 9%

U.S. Senate

Republican Primary

Kelleher , Bob GOP 26,765 36%

Lange , Michael GOP 16,959 23%

Bushman , Kirk GOP 15,393 21%

Lovaas , Patty GOP 7,604 10%

Pearson , Anton GOP 4,215 6%

Garnett , Shay GOP 2,774 4%

We already know about Bob Kelleher, but isn’t John Driscoll also a perennial candidate?

John Driscoll AND Bob Kelleher?  What’s going on here?  Some sort of love affair with perennial candidates or something?  Or did Montana voters just not really care?

Mason-Dixon polls Montana’s at-large House seat (5/19-21, registered voters):

Jim Hunt (D): 20

Denny Rehberg (R-inc): 52

Mike Fellows (L): 5

Undecided: 23

(MoE: ±4%)

Hunt, a Helena attorney, starts this race well behind. Despite some early statewide advertising, he only has 39% name recognition. Hunt does have some room for growth — he only garners support from 48% of Democrats and 16% of independents — but Rehberg’s solid favorables (55%) and job approval (56%) will be tough to crack.

Here are the numbers from Senate race:

Max Baucus (D-inc): 65

Mike Lange (R): 26

Max Baucus (D-inc): 61

Kirk Bushman (R): 26

(MoE: ±4%)

Now is clearly not the year to run for Senate if you’re a Bush man.

I address this screed to Congressman Kendrick Meek and Congresswoman Deborah Wasserman Schultz.  I know that both of you have been under much scrutiny here in the blogosphere, based upon your recent recusals from campaigning against your neighboring Republican congresspersons.  I suspect that you probably have your eyes on a senate race at some point in the future. In preparation for that, you probably think that you're positioning yourselves to be perceived as moderates who can work well across the aisle. However, I'm here to show you that if you consider such positioning to be part of a winning strategy, you are terribly mistaken.

One need not look further than the results of 2006 to learn that authenticity works.  During that crucial election season, the Democratic party was faced with the outrageously tall order of winning at least six senate seats.  As is the usual tendency of the deck, it was once again stacked against us.  Our GOP opponents appeared to have financial advantages.  At the outset of the year, we didn't even have six, let alone seven, viable seats, and severe party infighting threatened at least one critical race (Ohio).  From that mess, the DSCC scrounged up seven viable challengers in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, and Montana.  Of these seven, six won.  I will not focus on the Rhode Island race, since it was an unusual scenario in a state whose dynamics do not mirror those of swing states or of the nation at large.  I'll also leave out Pennsylvania, since that was an instance of an incumbent who was so off his rocker, a piece of cardboard could've defeated him.  And the Virginia race has been written about ad nauseum, so I'll skip that one as well.  I will instead focus on Ohio, Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee; three wins and a loss, and why it turned out that way.

When Sherrod Brown prevailed over Paul Hackett in the primary for the Ohio senate, many Democrats became nervous; Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, seemed like a more viable option to run against incumbent Republican Mike DeWine than the unabashedly liberal Cleveland congressman whose record on the hot-button social issues was completely progressive.  In the fabled state that won the election for Bush in 2004, it seemed like a bad idea to run a candidate whose record was to the left of John Kerry's.  Well, as it turned out, Sherrod Brown proved to be an excellent candidate. Instead of fudging his answers and trying to make himself look like something he wasn't, he proudly stood up for his principles, emphasizing his economically progressive ideals, but without attempting to conceal his stances on the social issues.  His unapologetic championing of the disadvantaged called to mind another progressive who never backed down from his core beliefs: the late, great Paul Wellstone.  

Over in Missouri, then-State Auditor Claire McCaskill waged a tough fight against Jim Talent, the incumbent GOP senator.  The stem cell initiative was on the ballot in that state, a potential risk in a state with such a high number of evangelicals.  It was, therefore, a pleasant surprise when McCaskill put Talent on the defensive on that issue, and on the issue of abortion, in nearly every debate.  In a key appearance on Meet The Press, Talent lobbed Republican talking points at McCaskill, and, rather than attempting to fit her responses into those frames, she effectively twisted them around to leave Talent as the weaker candidate, hemming and hawing and making excuses for his every statement.  McCaskill's margin of victory was small, but in a very conservative state like Missouri, it was enough!

Out on the ranges, where libertarianism runs strong, the Montana senate race saw a battle between two very colorful characters: the doddering embarrassment Republican Conrad Burns, who was often looked upon as something of a senile uncle even by his fellow GOPers, and the plain-spoken, buzz-cut-sporting Jon Tester, who won the senate primary over a less progressive state official.  Burns trotted out the old canard of fearmongering, trying to to use Tester's opposition to the PATRIOT Act as a political bludgeon.  Had Tester been a weaker candidate, he would have attempted a nuanced explanantion, trying to convince people that he could be patriot without supporting the PATRIOT Act, accepting the right wing's frames instead of creating his own.  Luckily, Tester unleashed the no-nonsense directness that is a trademark of the Mountain West; in one key debate, in which Burns accused Tester of wanting to “weaken” the PATRIOT Act (clearly a standard GOP frame, portraying the Democrats as weak on terror and weak in general,) Tester famously responded, “I don't want to weaken the PATRIOT Act, I want to repeal it.”  Had John Kerry been anywhere near this bold in 2004, Bush would not have had a second term.

After looking at the victories of Brown, McCaskill, and Tester, I now turn to the only high-profile loser on our side, Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee.  Yes, I am well aware of the racist tactics that the Republicans used against Ford in the infamous “Call Me” ad (a frame-by-frame analysis is available here,) but I remain convinced that a stronger candidate, one with more backbone and more confidence in his own platform, would have been able to fight back and prevail. Ford embodied the ideals of a DINO at best.  He appeared in a clumsy ad in a church, going too far into the territory of unsubtlety in an attempt to prove his religiosity.  (I had serious flashbacks to John Kerry's 2004 proclamation of himself to be the “candidate of conservative values.”  The minute we accept the GOP frames, we're dead in the water). On the campaign trail in '06, Ford frequently trumpeted his opposition to gay marriage.  He spoke in tones that ranged from cautious to mildly complimentary toward Bush's Iraq policies, all the while distancing himself from the Democratic leadership in the senate.  In short, he ran as a Republican.  And why would anyone vote for a Republican who doesn't have the conviction to actually run within the party that actually represents the conservative values he preaches, when they could vote for an actual Republican whose voting patterns are more sure-footed? 

You see where I'm going with this.  2006 was a Democratic tidal wave, yet Harold Ford lost because of his own spinelessness and willingness to act like a Republican.  The moral of the story here is to stick to your guns, champion your own progressive record, and be who you are.  It's obvious that if you have achieved anything in Congress, you have been able to work with the other side.  Playing “footsie” with Republicans does nothing to further your goals; in fact, it undermines them, since progressive voters might doubt your convictions.  I certainly hope that your aides and advisors read this post, as it is crucial that you absorb its message.  (For all the readers of this blog, I suggest writing to these Florida congresspersons and calling their offices to relay a similar message).  Please, be a Sherrod Brown or a Jon Tester.  Don't be a Harold Ford.  Your political futures will be brighter for it, if recent history is any indicator!

Max Baucus is up with an early ad highlighting his efforts to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and criticizing President Bush for his expected veto of the legislation:

The Montana Republican party has issued a laughable response:

The state GOP noted SCHIP has the support of many Republicans in the state, including U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg.

“This is an important issue for Montana,” said state Republican Party Executive Director Chris Wilcox. “I think it’s unfortunate that Baucus decided to politicize the issue.”

Wilcox said Baucus should be working with the Bush administration to advance SCHIP, rather than spending time making television advertisements.

Really?  I think it’s unfortunate that Bush has no interest in supporting this bipartisan legislation to expand badly needed health coverage to children across the country.  Perhaps the Montana GOP would be better served to direct their criticism towards the President, who (along with the crumb-bums in the House who are sustaining his veto threat) is the sole roadblock in the way of advancing social justice for kids.

(H/T: Left in the West)

(From the diaries. – promoted by James L.)

[Cross-posted at my blog Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races.]

A little over two months ago, I took a look at the state of NRSC recruiting in the one open seat (Colorado) and the twelve states with Democratic incumbents, concluding, up to that point in time, that the NRSC was 0-for-13 in recruiting so far.  Keep in mind that we’re approaching the dog days of summer, not a heavy recruitment period.  (Note that during June-August of 2005, only five Senate candidates announced, all five of whom were Republican losers.)  So where does the state of NRSC recruitment stand, and what has changed in the last two months?

(Much more below the fold.)

Colorado: New CO-GOP chief Dick Wadhams muscled the more moderate Scott McInnis out to make room for his good pal conservative “Backwards” Bob Schaffer, who will, barring any unforeseen events, be the Republican nominee for Senate.  Schaffer then proceeded to have a stammering start to his campaign, embarrassing himself right from the start, before hiring a bunch of electoral losers to staff his campaign.  Never mind that Democratic Congressman Mark Udall has a significant advantage in fundraising and a big head start in reaching out to voters.  I suppose we could credit the GOP with an accomplishment for finding a living, breathing human being who has held office before and ostensibly has a base of support to run.  But, with Colorado’s trending blue over the last few years, muscling out the more moderate choice for the more conservative one might not have been the best play.

Arkansas: Since Republican former Governor and current Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, arguably the only Republican to give Senator Mark Pryor a real challenge, ruled out a Senate bid, it also came out that Pryor saw better Q1 fundraising for his Senate re-election than Huckabee saw for his Presidential bid.  So no Arkansas Republicans seem to be stepping up to the plate at present.  Meanwhile, the new Chair of the AR-GOP, who should be out looking for challengers to Pryor, is instead getting himself in trouble with comments like “I think all we need is some attacks on American soil.”  In a nutshell, as it stands now in Arkansas, the Green Party is doing better than the Republican Party when it comes to Senate recruitment.

Delaware: Nothing new then; nothing new now.  Still zip from the DE-GOP.

Illinois: The NRSC met with wealthy businessman Steve Greenberg.  He however turned down their entreaties and is considering a House bid, leaving political unknown Steve Sauerberg as the sole announced Republican candidate.  Having lost one potential self-funder in Greenberg, expect the GOP to seek out another potential self-funder before writing off the seat and settling for token opposition.

Iowa: While Senator Harkin had a strong Q1, GOP Rep. Tom Latham barely raised a solid amount by House standards, much less Senate standards; and GOP Rep. Steve King raised next to nothing, with a scant amount for cash-on-hand.  It’s getting safer to assume that Harkin won’t have a strong opponent.  The Iowa Republican Senate primary could wind up being between businessman Steve Rathje, businessman Troy Cook, and part-time tae kwon do instructor Bob McDowell.  Um, yeah.

Louisiana: Here’s the summary that I penned for Daily Kingfish a little less than a month ago:

Bobby Jindal is running for Governor.  GOP Congressmen Charles Boustany and Jim McCrery have both taken their names out of the running.  GOP Congressman Richard Baker has a whopping $66,000 cash-on-hand.  And Jay Dardenne, who is already polling significantly behind the “vulnerable” [Senator Mary] Landrieu, is embarrassing himself.  In fact, the only Republicans who have demonstrated any interest are Woody Jenkins and Suzanne Haik Terrell, the two Republicans Landrieu has already defeated.

Since this summary, the only development has been Karl Rove trying to get the Democratic state Treasurer to switch Parties to run against Landrieu.  I suppose that even Rove doubts there are any strong Republican challengers.  The LA-GOP and NRSC really don’t have much to show for all of Landrieu’s supposed vulnerability.

Massachusetts: A token opponent has stepped forward:

Jeff Beatty, who took less than 30% of the vote in a 2006 Congressional race and raised less than $50,000.  The Congressional district Beatty ran in was the most favorable to Bush and least favorable to Kerry in 2004 of any of Massachusetts’ ten Congressional districts; so, if Beatty couldn’t crack 30% or manage any significant fundraising in that district, it’s unlikely that he’d be able to accomplish anything further statewide.

It’s not like the MA-GOP doesn’t have access to some known quantities: Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, Kerry Healey, Andrew Card, Curt Schilling.  But they’ll settle, for now, for Jeff Beatty.

Michigan: To plagiarize from the Delaware entry above: “Nothing new then; nothing new now.”

Montana: Only two Republicans have been suggested as having the capability to give popular Senator Max Baucus a challenge: former Governor Mark Racicot, who has been silent; and, GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg, who CQPolitics characterized as “resisting GOP efforts to draft him into the race.”  The CQPolitics article also notes that former Montana House Republican leader Michael Lange was considered a possibility until his obscene tirade against Governor Brian Schweitzer.  For now, it’s all quiet on the Western front.

New Jersey: With known quantities like Christie Todd Whitman, Chris Christie, and members of the Kean family sitting out, it looks like there is an NJ-GOP Senate primary brewing between conservative assemblyman Michael Doherty and less-conservative real estate developer Anne Evans Estabrook.  Estabrook has the support of GOP Rep. Mike Ferguson, Kean family ties, and sizable personal wealth.  Doherty also has the support of several notable New Jersey Republicans, as well as the apparent backing of NJ’s conservative mouthpieces.  While Senator Frank Lautenberg should handily dispatch either, Estabrook’s personal wealth and more moderate positions (at least compared with Doherty) would likely make her the less easily-beatable opponent.

Rhode Island: To plagiarize from the Michigan and Delaware entries above: “Nothing new then; nothing new now.”

South Dakota: With Senator Tim Johnson’s recovery moving along steadily, South Dakota Republicans are beginning to step up to the plate.  Two have indicated interest in a run: state representative Joel Dykstra and businessman Sam Kephart.  With Tim Johnson’s existing popularity coupled with sympathy from his impressive recovery, it is doubtful that either of these challengers would be formidable, while far-right conservative Gov. Mike Rounds remains mum on possible Senate plans.

West Virginia: About a month ago, I summed up the situation in West Virginia:

With Shelley Moore Capito taking a pass on a Senate bid, Republicans are now looking to GOP Secretary of State Betty Ireland and multiple-time-loser John Raese to take on popular Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller.  In 2004, Ireland squeaked to a 52-48 victory; and, in 2006, Raese lost to Senator Robert Byrd by a 64-34 thrashing.  Not exactly rainmakers on the WV-GOP bench.

Nothing has changed since that point.

So, among the thirteen seats discussed here, ten states (Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Rhode Island, and West Virginia) currently offer no Republican opposition or only token opposition.  Two states (New Jersey and South Dakota) see Republican opposition in the more-than-token but less-than-strong range.  And one state (open seat Colorado) sees a Republican contender, though the race still favors the Democrat and is the likeliest of seats up for election in 2008 to switch control (from GOP to Democrat).  With the dog days of summer ahead, the NRSC just doesn’t seem too concerned with candidate recruitment.

Matt Singer over at Left in the West has a good summary of the latest Montana-At-Large House race rumors:

So what’s going on with the Congressional race here in Montana? Recently, I’ve been hearing three names over and over again:

• Bill Kennedy — Bill is the lone Democratic County Commission in Yellowstone County. I’m hearing that he’s definitely throwing his hat into this ring, but there’s been no announcement, so take it with the same grain of salt that you take anything in the political rumor mill. That said, Bill brings some strengths to this race. He represents a swing county that is Dennis Rehberg’s base. He lost the race for Secretary of State in 2004, but I hear he appreciates the reasons for that defeat and has vowed to not repeat the mistakes. If there are “factions” in the Democratic Party, Bill and I are from different ones. I worked for and supported Jon Ellingson for S.O.S. in 2004. Bill was John Morrison’s primary treasurer in 2006, while I supported Jon Tester. All that said, Bill has always struck me as a genuinely nice guy and good human being. With the right kind of campaign, he could be a formidable opponent to a huckster like Rehberg.
• Jim Foley — A former top aide to both Pat Williams and Max Baucus, Jim Foley has flirted with running for office for years. A recent Roll Call article said rumors were spreading that he was eyeing a race for Congress. Both the DCCC, which works on recruiting for these campaigns, and Jim himself refused to comment. That said, the story wouldn’t have mentioned him if someone hadn’t placed it and it wouldn’t have been placed for no reason. He’s probably feeling out the waters. His strength? A huge percentage of members of Congress are former staff people who understand the grueling work it takes to get there. His weakness? He’s been based for years in Missoula, so he’ll have to deal with the (often exaggerated) implications of being tied to the progressive hotbed of Montana, but he’ll do it with few of the benefits. Jim himself is not beloved by the Missoula ‘roots. Final Note: I don’t have this on any authority, so don’t quote me, but I’d guess Jim Foley would not jump into this race until after Rehberg explicitly says he’s running for re-election. Jim knows the tougher race Rehberg expects, the more likely he is to jump into the Senate race. Jim is loyal and he wouldn’t look to set up a tougher race for his former boss. Again, this is just my gut, so take it with a half a grain of salt.
• Dennis McDonald — The current chair of the Democratic Party in Montana, Dennis may find his background as a rancher and relative political outsider comes in more useful as a candidate than as a behind-the-scenes manager. Dennis is a founder of R-CALF, has deep connections across rural Montana, and could undermine part of Dennis’s base. He’d continue the successful formula that has worked for Montana Democrats — run a rancher or farmer who is good on gun issues and can be forceful on trade, keep the base unified, and win. What’s his biggest weakness? He’s never been a candidate, much less a statewide one in a high-profile race. And he doesn’t receive the natural political benefit of that, since as chair of a political party, he’s relatively easy to paint as a typical insider.

Here’s my dream scenario: an aggressive, credible Montana Democrat tosses his hat in the ring, giving Republican Denny Rehberg an extra incentive to vacate his House seat and take on Democratic Senator Max Baucus that same year.  Baucus beats back Rehberg, like he did in 1996, and Democrats have a serious shot to reclaim the House seat that Democrat Pat Williams held until 1996.  Two stones to kill one bird–that sort of thing.

Of course: A) this is extremely wishful thinking, and B) I’m sure that neither Max Baucus nor the DSCC would look upon such a strategy with good humor.  Baucus has what it takes to beat Rehberg, but I’m sure he’d prefer to take on someone a bit lower down the totem pole.

Race Tracker: MT-AL | MT-Sen