Tag: Steve Pearce

Crossposted at New Mexico FBIHOP.

Another SurveyUSA poll was released, and this time, they included primaries in their polling.  Not only that, they polled an amazing 1700+ people, resulting in some ridiculously-low MOEs (below three percent).  So these are some pretty accurate polls.  enough jibber-jabber, let’s get straight to the numbers.

In the Republican primary, Heather Wilson is surprisingly strong and is trouncing Steve Pearce, 56-37.  Yes, you read that correctly, Wilson is already twenty points ahead of her Southern NM counterpart, with only four percent undecided.

In the Democratic primary, Tom Udall is similarly ahead of Albuquerque mayor Martin Chavez, by a 62-32 margin.  This is even larger than the internal poll released by Udall, which showed Udall ahead of Chavez by a 50-30. Since then, Santa Fe small businessman and green-developer Don Wiviott has dropped out of the Senate race to pursue Udalls now-open House seat.

In the general, Udall is still looking strong, though the gap has begun to close a bit between Udall and his Republican opponents. Chavez, however, continues to bounce around the polls.

Trendlines from polls taken [10/27-10/30] and (10/05-10/08).

Pearce (R) 40% [–] (37)
Udall (D) 54%  [–] (55)
Undecided 5% [–]

Pearce (R) 52% [43] (54) 
Chavez (D) 42% [48] (35)
Undecided 7% [9]  (9)

Wilson (R) 41% [–] (38)
Udall (D) 56%  [–] (56)
Undecided 3% [–]

Wilson (R) 47% [44] (48) 
Chavez (D) 46% [48] (44)
Undecided 7% [8] (8)

Where Udall really distinguishes himself is among the self-described moderates and liberals.

Against Pearce, Chavez garners the support of just 4 percent of moderates and 68 percent of liberals.  Compare this to Udall, who has the support of 63 percent of moderates and 85 percent of liberals.  This is a shocking disparity for Chavez, showing that liberal Democrats really, really do not like Chavez.

The same can be seen against Heather Wilson.  Chavez has the support of just 51 percent of moderates and a better 73 percent of liberals. But Udall eclipses both of those numbers, with 66 percent of moderates and 86 percent of liberals. 

Similar numbers can be seen among party identification, with Udall doing better among both Democrats and Independents than Chavez.  And, it goes without saying, Udall does better than either Wilson or Pearce in these categories as well.  Among Independents, the only match-up where the Republican does better is Pearce vs Chavez.

The polls were taken 11/16/07 through 11/18/07 by SurveyUSA.

There is much talk about the New Mexico Senate race, about how this is one of the top pick-up opportunities for us in 2008, but considering this, there has been a surprising lack of analysis of the primary fields (this is especially true of the Republican field). It is very important to take a good look at both fields and look at what is each one's strengths, weaknesses, and get a good insight into what the general election might look like depending on who is running.

The Democrats 

Most of us are already pretty much aware of how the Democrats stack up with each other, and pretty much understand where their primary will go, but for the hell of it, let's look at it again: 

Tom Udall – Udall is generally seen at the frontrunner for both the Democratic primary and the General election. In the primary Udall's strengths include strong support from both the national and state party, strong enthusiasm from the grassroots, electability, a solid base of support from the Democratic stronghold in the third district and state-wide recognition from being attorney general. His possible weaknesses include his lack of running for a competitive race leaves him feeling complaciant.

 Martin Chavez: Chavez is the underdog, decidedly in the primary and less obviously, in the general election. His main strengths in the primary include his ability to claim that he is an “outsider” candidate, that he has run in a competitive city and managed to win, thus giving him some experience in competitive elections. His weaknesses are that his support among the Democratic base is both shallow and narrow, local Democrats don't like him; he already lost a statewide election to a relatively unpopular governor, his fundraising base is limited (more so with Richardson's state organization likely to work against Chavez); and the only possible avenue to grant him victory is to smear Udall which will further harm his campaign. Chavez is the “Republican-lite” candidate.

 Tom Udall is the odds-on favorite to win the primary, because he has a much wider and deeper base of support among Democrats than Chavez and has a much better fundraising advantage, and polls and money tend to move each other.

 

 The Republicans

This is the race which is not quite as clear-cut as the Democrats. There have been many people who seem to think Steve Pearce is favored to win the nomination, but just how accurate is that? Let's look into it:

 Steve Pearce: Well, like I mentioned above, Pearce seems to be considered the favorite to win the Republican primary. Pearce's major strengths in the primary include a stronger support base than Wilson with state Republicans (representing what we refer to as “Little Texas”). His weaknesses are that he has not really fought a competitive election, and while his base is good, he doesn't show the ability to make gains nor does he seem to have a very strong fundraising base. In addition to this, he doesn't appear to be electable (state Democrats agree that they would have no problem beating Pearce in November), this can very easily be used against him.

Heather Wilson: Wilson is seen as being the underdog for the nomination, yet seen as a stronger candidate in the general election (at least compared to Pearce). Her strengths in the primary include a better campaign organization and experience in winning despite being the underdog (or simply put, she's a better candidate than Pearce). Her weaknesses include a much weaker level of base support among Republican grassroots (she doesn't inspire all that much enthusiasm among the Conservative base). Wilson is essentially “Democrat-lite”

I understand why people think that Pearce is the front-runner for the nomination, but honestly, Wilson's in a much better position to win it than people . She's got a lot of experience in fighting uphill battles, and Pearce, while having a stronger support base among Republicans, is going to have a hard time expanding on it. With Udall likely to seize the Democratic nomination, Republicans are probably more open to elect their “warrior”, so to speak. I don't think I can call anyone the true “favorite” here, but my gut tells me that Wilson is going to win the nomination.

 

 General Match-ups

 Tom Udall vs. Steve Pearce: This is basically the clash of the bases, and Udall is heavily favored to win this fight. Plainly put, they both faced the same type of challengers in 2004 and 2006, throwaways, yet Udall took 69% and 75% respectively while Pearce only took 60% in both elections. Udall's support base is stronger, he is going to be better financed, and he starts off with a solid lead. Pearce doesn't have the campaigning skills nor the financial organization to match Udall, period.

 Martin Chavez vs. Steve Pearce: This is Republican-lite vs. Republican, with Pearce slightly favored to win. Yeah, I know that it's a strongly Democratic year and there are more Democrats than Republicans, but the general consensus among the liberal base is that Chavez would be the “lesser-of-two-evils” guy, thus weakening his base of support. Chavez's financial number would likely improve if he won the Democratic nomination, but he still would likely have less money than Pearce (of course the DSCC would be more than able to make up the difference and then some). If you can't count on your base to vote for you, it makes it difficult to win. Chavez might be able to make up the difference with moderates and independents, but his loss in 1998 against then-Gov. Johnson, makes this argument seem less plausible.

 Tom Udall vs. Heather Wilson: This is the Democrat vs. Democrat-lite race, with Udall favored (though not nearly as heavily as the Udall vs. Pearce one). Basically Wilson suffers from base-skepticism (much like Chavez does). The difference between Wilson's predicament and Chavez's predicament is that she is a much better candidate than Chavez in that she can probably rally her base to vote against Tom Udall than Chavez would be able to to vote against Steve Pearce. Having said that, Udall, in addition to having a more solid support base than Wilson, will also enjoy a financial advantage, especially with the DSCC able to dump money into the race. The real danger that Udall will face is becoming too comfortable with the lead, Heather Wilson is dangerous in that she knows how to come back from behind and she knows how to run a solid campaign. Like I said before, Udall is favored to win this race, but Wilson is definitely a threat which Udall would have to take very seriously.

 Martin Chavez vs. Heather Wilson: The battle of the lites, with Wilson the favorite to win. Here's where neither base likes either candidate, but in this case, the Democratic base dislikes Chavez more than the Republican base dislikes Wilson. Wilson, whatever her flaws, at least had the brains to not declare support for Bingaman's re-election. Wilson will have a solid fundraising advantage over Chavez, a better campaign organization, and is an adept campaigner compared to Chavez. On top of that, the only way Chavez wins the nomination to fight Wilson will be to smear Tom Udall, which will leave a lot of bitterness towards Chavez among Democrats, thus making it even harder to secure the base. Simply put, Wilson will beat Chavez if it comes down to it.

(From the diaries. Crossposted at New Mexico FBIHOP. – promoted by James L.)

Albuquerque mayor Martin Chavez has been touting his roots to New Mexico.  Just take a look at his bio on his campaign site:

A native son of New Mexico, Martin Chávez was born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico. His family’s roots in New Mexico have been traced to the 1500s.

Many New Mexicans who have had family in the state for generations are proud of their “native roots”.  These are the people who can name their family back to the Spanish settlers.  But the Albuquerque Tribune asked an interesting question: What role will being the only “native son” play in the Senate election?

After doing a bit of research, probably not much.

“When given a choice, New Mexicans usually prefer a native son.”
-Mark Fleisher, Martin Chavez Campaign Manager

It sounds great.  Sounds completely plausible; after all, even Stephen Colbert planned on running for President (but only in South Carolina) as a “favorite son.”

But in New Mexico, where you were born or grew up does not seem to make much of a difference in whether or not New Mexicans will vote for you.  After all, as the Tribune article wrote:

[A]ll three of the other leading contenders for the Senate – Reps. Tom Udall, a Santa Fe Democrat, Heather Wilson, an Albuquerque Republican, and Steve Pearce, a Hobbs Republican – were born outside New Mexico.

They are all Representatives with multiple elections under their belt — and have defeated “native sons” along the way.

Most recently, Heather Wilson defeated Patricia Madrid in the 2006 election by less than a thousand votes.  While Madrid was born in Las Cruces, NM, Wilson only moved to Albuquerque in 1991. 

In the Second District, Steve Pearce defeated native son Gary King (Stanley, NM) in 2004.  And King even has the pedigree of a father (three-time governor Bruce King) who was also born in New Mexico.  Pearce did, however, move to Hobbs at the age of two.

Udall has easily defeated all comers in the Third Congressional District in recent years, but his closest call came against then-incumbent Bill Redmond; a Chicago native.  Before Redmond, the seat was held by now Gov. Bill Richardson.

Richardson was born in Pasadena, CA, and did not move to Santa Fe, NM until 1978.  He ran for Congress against longtime incumbent Manuel Lujan in 1980 and lost.  He succeeded in 1982.  Richardson defeated John Sanchez (55-39) in 2002; Sanchez was a native of Albuquerque.  He then easily defeated Santa Fe-born John Dendahl in 2006, with a record margin.

The last time Chavez ran for statewide office, for governor in 1998, he lost to Gary Johnson.  Johnson was born in South Dakota.  I could not find, however, when exactly Johnson moved to New Mexico.

While Chavez will continue to tout his nativeness to the state, in the grand scheme of things… it probably doesn’t make a whole lot of a difference.

Stuart Rothenberg approvingly quotes this anonymous bit of advice from a Republican consultant to the GOP on S-CHIP (sub. req.):

So what advice would this Republican give his party’s Members of Congress? “If I were in a swing district, I’d vote to override. There’s no way I’d take a bullet on this. But if I were in a good Republican district, I’d vote to sustain the veto.”

Leaving aside the obvious questions of the morality of this stance, does this even make for good advice?  Amy Walter intimates that the answer is no (sub. req.):

But the political environment is actually worse than it was at this point two years ago, making it very dangerous to assume that a GOP-leaning district will perform exactly as it had four years ago. A depressed GOP base, a very motivated Democratic base and independents still sour on Republicans all works against a return to normal. (Emphasis added.)

And today, a New York Times article on how badly the GOP is hemorrhaging over its opposition to health care for children includes this aside:

Worried about increasing departures, the House leadership has been encouraging Representative Steve Pearce of New Mexico to forgo a run for the Senate and avoid opening a second Republican-held House seat in a state where Democrats are gaining strength. A fellow Republican, Representative Heather A. Wilson, is already running for the seat being vacated by Senator Pete V. Domenici.

Pearce’s district, NM-02, is R+5.7. It went for Bush by a wide 58-41 margin in 2004. Pearce won with 60% of the vote in 2004, and, despite the huge Dem year, with the same total in 2006. In other words, this is not ordinarily a district you’d consider competitive.

But the fact that the NRCC is begging Pearce to stay put says otherwise. It gives a lot of credence to Walter’s observation, and makes you wonder about the kind of advice Republicans on the Hill are getting – and listening to. The NRCC seems to understand what time it is, but it sure looks like a lot of GOPers are happy to let themselves get surprised by another potential blue wave.

[Crossposted at New Mexico FBIHOP and MyDD.

Heath Haussamen has the goods on a letter Rep. Steve Pearce sent to supporters asking for cash.  Cash to stave off Bill McCamley, Al Kissling and the DCCC.

It is no surprise the ultimate far-right GOP representative would resort to scare tactics even in fundraising for his own campaign.  But the tone of his fear of the DCCC is palpable.  He almost dismissed McCamley and Kissling out of hand, but read what he had to say of the DCCC below the fold.

Another liberal — or two, or three — could jump into the race. Or worse, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) could get involved in our race.

That’s the last thing we need. They have the funds and power to make a real impact in any race they choose and we need to keep them out of the Second District.  They are guaranteed to target us unless we make the hurdle too tall to climb.

Of course, a DCCC entrance into the race would only result if there was a strong candidate.  I believe McCamley could be the strong candidate; the “spin” (as Haussamen calls it) against McCamley shows Pearce is wary of McCamley as well. 

Pearce attacks McCamley in the letter without using his name, as if McCamley is Beetlejuice.  Pearce writes:

We have one opponent who has a left-wing record including a history of voting for tax increases and fighting against prayer at county commission meetings…

Of course, this is an outright exaggeration.  Not exactly a lie, but it is pretty darn close.  Haussamen, unlike Pearce’s people, actually looked into McCamley’s votes.

McCamley did vote for one tax increase, to raise salaries for sheriff?s deputies and create paid firefighter positions, but so did all commissioners, including two Republicans, and the action had widespread bipartisan support in the community, including the endorsement of Republican District Attorney and Pearce supporter Susana Martinez. McCamley also voted to allow voters to decide whether to raise taxes to help fund Spaceport America, but that?s not the same as voting for a tax increase.

Pearce also tries to play to his base with the prayer shot.  Haussamen looks into the truth on that as well, saying McCamley proposed “a policy modeled after that in the U.S. House of Representatives, which requires non-sectarian prayer.” McCamley challenged Pearce to put his money where his mouth is and take up the issue with the House chaplain.

Kissling was given similar treatment. 

And another opponent who favors the death tax and has said he’s “more scared of our own American National Guard than Islamic terrorists!” Unreal!

What is unreal is Pearce taking quotes out of context and using GOP frames on every issue.  Every issue.

First, the “death tax” knock.  The estate tax, as it is known, only applies to estates of $2,000,000 or more.  It jumps up to $3.5 million in 2009.  And only the money over $2 million is taxed.  In other words, unless you are in a top-tax bracket, this will never affect you.

Some even call it the Paris Hilton tax cut.

As for the quote,

Kissling was speaking specifically about his belief that National Guard soldiers should not have been policing American airports after 9/11.

Republicans like Pearce thrived in the climate of fear after 9/11.  They continue to fall back on those times to try to pump up the base.

So what can you do to help out the non-crazy candidates running for Congress in the second district?  Contribute!  Go to my ActBlue page and donate your money to the New Mexico Democrats willing to take on Pearce.