Swing State Project

Rasmussen Reports (2/22, likely voters, 1/26 in parentheses):

Roxanne Conlin (D): 36 (31)

Chuck Grassley (R-inc): 53 (59)

Some other: 5 (4)

Not sure: 6 (5)

Bob Krause (D): 33 (26)

Chuck Grassley (R-inc): 55 (59)

Some other: 5 (7)

Not sure: 8 (8)

Tom Fiegen (D): 28 (25)

Chuck Grassley (R-inc): 56 (61)

Some other: 6 (4)

Not sure: 11 (10)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Rasmussen Reports (2/18, likely voters, 9/22 in parentheses):

Chet Culver (D-inc): 37 (34)

Terry Branstad (R): 53 (54)

Some other: 6 (8)

Not sure: 4 (4)

Chet Culver (D-inc): 40 (39)

Bob van der Plaats (R): 46 (43)

Some other: 7 (9)

Not sure: 7 (9)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Research 2000 for KCCI-TV (2/15-17, likely voters, 10/12-14 in parentheses):

Roxanne Conlin (D): 35 (39)

Chuck Grassley (R-inc): 56 (51)

Undecided: 9 (10)

(MoE: ±4%)

Research 2000 for KCCI-TV (2/15-17, likely voters, 10/12-14 in parentheses):

Chet Culver (D-inc): 38 (43)

Terry Branstad (R): 54 (48)

Undecided: 8 (9)

Chet Culver (D-inc): 41 (55)

Bob van der Plaats (R): 38 (33)

Undecided: 21 (12)

Chet Culver (D-inc): 44 (58)

Chris Rants (R): 33 (28)

Undecided: 23 (14)

Chet Culver (D-inc): 48 (NA)

Rod Roberts (R): 26 (NA)

Undecided: 26 (NA)

(MoE: ±4%)

Selzer for Des Moines Register (1/31-2/3, adults, 11/8-11 in parentheses):

Chet Culver (D-inc): 33 (33)

Terry Branstad (R): 53 (57)

Not sure: 9 (8)

Chet Culver (D-inc): 40 (37)

Bob van der Plaats (R): 43 (45)

Not sure: 12 (15)

Chet Culver (D-inc): 41 (42)

Chris Rants (R): 37 (35)

Not sure: 14 (18)

Chet Culver (D-inc): 41 (NA)

Rod Roberts (R): 36 (NA)

Not sure: 15 (NA)

(MoE: ±4%)

A whole lot of Iowa data has found its way across our desk over the last week, none of it terribly good for incumbent Governor Chet Culver or Senate challenger Roxanne Conlin. Or you can look at the bright side: the news is less bad if you look at the Rasmussen and Selzer trendlines. (Research 2000, not so much, but that trendline goes all the way back to October… and the earlier poll was commissioned for Daily Kos rather than KCCI, although that shouldn’t affect the toplines.)

In case you were hoping that somehow Chet Culver might wind up facing former Republican state legislative leader Chris Rants, though, don’t get your hopes up… Rants dropped out of the race last Friday, probably seeing no path out of the primary that’s dominated by Branstad and van der Plaats. As always, desmoinesdem is on the scene, with discussion already underway in two different diaries.

RaceTracker Wiki: IA-Sen | IA-Gov

DC political prognosticator Charlie Cook is getting a lot of attention for his doom and gloom about Democrats’ chances this November. He has controversially asserted that health care reform is Barack Obama’s Iraq War and that the Democrats will likely lose the House.

It’s worth pointing out that other major political pundits don’t (yet) agree with Cook’s forecast; Larry Sabato and Stuart Rothenberg, for example, still see Republican gains in the House in the mid-to-upper 20s. Cook’s analysis can’t be totally dismissed, however. Congressional approval ratings, though always low, are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Democratic enthusiasm is hugely down, economic forecasts indicate slow job growth through the end of the year, and Obama’s approval rating is the second-lowest of any president at this point.

Moreover, young and minority voters are unlikely to turn out in large numbers; many, even if supportive of Obama and liberal-ish in their views, aren’t especially political and may treat the midterms with apathy. As Obama’s approval ratings are low with older voters and white voters, a turnout favoring them could well  deliver the GOP big gains.

Nonetheless, Cook’s analysis seems flawed to me. It’s not that Democrats couldn’t lose the House. And it’s not just the standard “a week is a lifetime in politics,” caveat. Rather, Cook seems to me to miss many mitigating factors, and I’m curious if others agree.  

First, I don’t think Cook accounts for the weakness of the GOP brand, which remains very low. It’s true that in an anti-incumbent year, Democrats will be the main losers as the party in power. But while large GOP gains aren’t out of the question, the voters’ low enthusiasm for the GOP seems to me to be a major hurdle. Hatred of the GOP could prove extremely potent in getting a higher proportion of Democratic-leaning voters to the polls. In 1994, pre-Newt’s speakership, surveys showed Democrats had relatively low disapproval of the Republican Party.

Second, I think Cook understates the potential for Democratic mobilization. Especially if Democrats can pass health care reform, they will likely at least stabilize their position with Democratic-leaners and have a concrete – and real – achievement to champion before the voters. Frankly, even without that, mobilization alone would shift turnout somewhat in their favor. And by all accounts, it appears that Obama will take a major personal stake in the midterms. This will be an all-out, nationalized campaign, and while there will be districts where that will be hindrance, revving up Democratic voters and convincing them to turn out and vote could well save several marginal seats.

Third, I think Cook underestimates Obama’s continuing popularity. There’s no doubt that Obama’s numbers have fallen, but the public still likes Obama personally by a heavy margin. And for all the talk of Democratic disillusionment, approval and enthusiasm for the president among Democratic-leaners remains extremely high. Comparisons with Bill Clinton are difficult, as Clinton’s approval ratings in early 1994 were actually quite high. But by the late spring of ’94, Clinton’s job and personal ratings were significantly down due to several big political defeats and the controversies over Whitewater. While Obama’s job approval ratings and personal favorability ratings could fall to the low 40s, I have a hard time seeing them doing so. And if Obama’s ratings are around 50% in November 2010 and if he maintains high personal approval ratings, it would add up to a less hostile climate for Democrats than they faced in 1994.

All of these factors suggest to me that Republican gains will likely top out at the mid-to-upper 20s or low 30s, in the House. And the potential is there, actually, for actual losses to prove smaller. Unless there is a double-digit recession, it is difficult (though, again, not impossible) for me to see Republicans picking up 40+ seats. If, as forecasted, we have at least some modest job growth, approval ratings for Obama around 50%, passage of health care reform and at least a few other popular items, and Democratic mobilization heavier-than-today, that points towards more modest losses than what Cook is forecasting.

In fairness to Cook, we’re in somewhat uncharted waters here. Neither 1994 or 2006 looked like wave elections this far out, although moderate gains for the opposition in both years seemed likely. In both years, voter anger grew and grew and didn’t peak prior to election day.

This year, the level of angst is present so early that it’s hard to predict what will over the coming months. It is entirely plausible that the seeming wave will crest. Democrats are aware of voter anger far earlier and for the GOP to look like they’re returning to power this early on may give time for wavering voters to have second thoughts. Alternately, the wave could build, which would indicate catastrophic losses for Democrats. Or it could remain roughly the same as it is today.

So do people agree? Disagree? Or is Cook right regardless of the factors I name?  

Fellow Democrats,

My name is Scott Withers and I am a Democratic Primary Candidate for the U.S. Congress in Michigan’s 5th District. I am challenging incumbent Dale Kildee, someone whose public service I respect, but I believe is out of touch with the dire needs of the residents of Mid-Michigan.

I grew up in the small Tuscola County city of Vassar. My grandfathers, father, stepfather, sister and many uncles, aunts and cousins do or did work in the UAW plants throughout mid-Michigan. I received my dual-bachelors degree in International Relations and Broadcast Journalism at Syracuse University. While in school, I interned for CNN at the United Nations and in the London bureau. After graduation, I worked as a producer/writer and on-air youth correspondent for CNN in Atlanta. Following my time at CNN, I worked in local tv news in Tennessee and eventually moved into Public Relations where I worked on communications plans for large aviation, tourism and chemical companies. When the economy crashed last summer, I like millions of Americans was laid off. The last six months has been trying. I have lived through the fear of home foreclosure. I understand living pay check to pay check (often not making it). I can relate to the millions of good people who barely pay their bills with unemployment. I am not rich and don’t have the desire to be. I live with my partner of 10 years, Lane, and our 3 dogs. I am running for Michigan’s 5th Congressional District seat to help instill hope, create new jobs and solve the home foreclosure problem.

I am challenging Dale Kildee for 3 main reasons…

1) We need a leader who will fight to create jobs here in Michigan. We need someone who will do whatever it takes, who will make some noise and jump up and down to protect every job in Michigan, bring new ones in and make sure not a single job goes overseas. I will organize, I will rally, I will go door to door, I will lobby, I will do whatever it takes! I will spend every day soliciting large domestic and foreign corporations to expand/relocate job opportunities into the district, create new jobs or invest in existing companies so they can expand their staffs. My focus will not just be on automotive jobs, but on any and all opportunities including Green Energy, Film/Television, Tourism, Chemical, etc. I will LOBBY every federal government agency to open new or relocate existing offices/facilities in mid-Michigan, expand their current job opportunities in the area or pick our area for future projects. I will seek federal funding for our State to offset the cost of keeping prisoners in Michigan prisons instead of closing them down, releasing them early and laying off employees. We cannot afford to have a Congressman who just goes with the flow.

2) We need a Congressman who will champion progressive values. Congressman Dale Kildee is out of touch with the majority of Democrats in the 5th District. He is pro-life, opposes marriage equality, supports funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and does not support a single-payer healthcare system. We need an aggressive Congressman representing the 5th District and I believe I am that individual. Protecting a woman’s right to choose is one of the most important human rights issues facing women today. Dale Kildee has consistently gone out of his way to oppose protecting that right.

3) The 5th District Congressional seat belongs to the people of the 5th District. Dale Kildee has been a life member of Congress – holding the seat for 34 years, since the 1970’s. This seat belongs to the people of the district and no member should be in office for 34 years. He has been in political office for the past 46 years! I support term-limits for every member of Congress. I will self-limit myself to four consecutive terms in the U.S. House. We need to stop the system of creating career politicians and have a system that allows citizens to serve in public office and then return back to private life.

These are the facts:

– Even though Mid-Michigan’s unemployment rates are among the highest in the nation, Dale Kildee voted to give himself and his colleagues a pay raise (June 2009)

– Dale Kildee introduced just 13 bills last year, none of which dealt with job creation

– Dale Kildee received a 0% rating by NARAL. (December 2003)

– Dale Kildee voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

– Dale Kildee received a 53% rating by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights record (December 2002)

– Dale Kildee voted NO on withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, the WTO, (June 2000), which has sent thousands of jobs overseas.

– Dale Kildee voted NO on tax cuts to small businesses (March 2000)

– Dale Kildee opposes marriage equality (January 2008)

– In the last cycle, Dale Kildee received over $338,545 in PAC and special interest money, a strong majority of this total funds raised.

I believe it is time for a change and I believe I will be that progressive voice who fights to bring new jobs to the 5th District.

I will run an aggressive campaign on the issues and provide a clear contrast between myself and Mr. Kildee. Every pro-jobs, pro-choice, pro-equality Democrat will have a real choice in this election.

I hope to earn your trust and your support during this campaign.

Sincerely,

Scott Withers

Democratic Candidate for U.S. Congress

p.s. please sign up to follow our campaign at http://www.withers2010.com

Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen released a new poll of the Iowa governor and U.S. Senate races today. Rasmussen surveyed 500 “likely Iowa voters” on February 18.

Given Rasmussen’s usual “house effect” favoring Republican candidates, I expected the numbers to be worse for Democrats than other recent Iowa polling. Instead, they were comparable to last week’s Research 2000 Iowa poll for KCCI-TV and the Selzer and Co. poll for the Des Moines Register, which was conducted three weeks ago.

Like the other pollsters, Rasmussen found Governor Chet Culver well behind Republican front-runner Terry Branstad. Like Research 2000, Rasmussen found Senator Chuck Grassley above 50 percent against Democratic challengers, but well below Grassley’s usual re-election numbers and even below the numbers Rasmussen found for Grassley in late January.

More details are after the jump.

Here are Rasmussen’s topline numbers for the governor’s race. Culver was at 41 percent strongly or somewhat approve and 57 percent strongly or somewhat disapprove. As we’ve seen in several polls, Culver’s approval numbers are a bit below President Barack Obama’s in Iowa. Among Rasmussen’s Iowa respondents, Obama was at 45 percent strongly or somewhat approve and 54 percent strongly or somewhat disapprove.

In Rasmussen’s head to head match-ups, Branstad led Culver 53 percent to 37 percent, very close to the 54-38 margin Research 2000 found and a bit better than the 53-33 lead Branstad had in the latest Selzer poll.

I’m confused about Rasmussen’s numbers for Culver against Bob Vander Plaats. The chart shows Vander Plaats leading 46-40, but Rasmussen’s summary of the results says “Culver trails by just four points” against Vander Plaats. I will update this post when I get some clarification about the correct numbers. Research 2000 had Culver leading Vander Plaats 41-38, while Selzer had Vander Plaats ahead 43-40.

Moving to the Senate race, Rasmussen’s latest poll found Grassley above 50 percent against each of his three Democratic challengers. He leads Roxanne Conlin 53 percent to 36 percent, Bob Krause 55 percent to 33 percent and Tom Fiegen 56 percent to 28 percent.

Rasmusssen’s new numbers are in line with last week’s Research 2000 poll showing Grassley ahead of Conlin by 56 percent to 35 percent. (Research 2000 did not ask about the other Democratic contenders.) Selzer’s latest survey for the Des Moines Register did not poll Grassley against the Democrats but found Grassley’s approval rating at 54 percent, an all-time low for him in that poll.

It’s worth noting that Rasmussen found larger leads for Grassley in the one-day Iowa poll conducted on January 26, 2010. In that survey, Grassley led Conlin 59-31, Krause 59-26 and Fiegen 61-25. Perhaps Grassley has slipped a bit since then, or maybe the Republican’s numbers in late January were a bit inflated because of the media coverage surrounding Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election. Or, maybe this is just statistical noise.

Either way, there’s a good chance that the Democratic nominee will make it much closer than any of Grassley’s previous re-election contests. Grassley has never been re-elected with less than 66 percent of the vote.

Share any thoughts about the gubernatorial or U.S. Senate races in this thread. Also, feel free to predict when we’ll see some public poll of the Republican primary for governor. Branstad has been in the race quite a while now, and I’d like to see how he lines up against his Republican rivals.

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

A few maps of Ohio’s presidential elections are posted below, for your enjoyment. Each map comes with some brief analysis.



(Note: Because the Times stopped updating before all absentee/provisional ballots were counted, this map does not fully reflect the actual results. I have corrected the discrepancy.)

Senator Barack Obama wins Ohio by 4.6%, a solid but unimpressive victory. Mr. Obama performs poorly in traditional Democratic areas – the northeast and even Cleveland – but offsets this with unique strength in Columbus and Cincinnati. Senator McCain runs strongly in the Republican base.

More below.

President George W. Bush wins Ohio by a close but decisive margin. Senator John Kerry does extremely well – winning Columbus and Cleveland by what his campaign wants – but Mr. Bush’s exurban strength famously overwhelms this strength. Nevertheless, Ohio votes more Democratic than the nation, the first time since 1972.

______________________________________________________



Vice President Al Gore gives up Ohio before election-day; Governor George W. Bush wins the state by 3.5%. Perhaps, campaign strategists later muse, they should not have abandoned the state.

______________________________________________________



Incumbent Bill Clinton cruises to a comfortable victory – the best Democratic performance since LBJ (and before that, FDR). The former Arkansas governor runs strong in the industrial northeast and the Appalachian southwest, while severely undercutting Senator Bob Dole’s margins in Republican territory. It’s a classic Democratic victory.

______________________________________________________



It’s an exact replica of the 1996 map – except this time the Democratic strongholds are a bit less blue, the Republican strongholds a bit more red, and Ross Perot is running strong. Governor Clinton wins by a mere 1.8%.

• AZ-Sen: Fox News, of course, has become legendary for its little Chyron errors that always seem to work out to the Republicans’ advantage (slapping a “D” next to Republican Congressmen involved in sex scandals, for instance). What then, to make of their latest one? J.D. Hayworth was recently identified on-screen as “former Arizona congresswoman.”

• CO-Sen: Democracy for America (Howard Dean’s group) is getting involved in the Colorado primary, lending its support to appointed Sen. Michael Bennet. Probably his full-throated support for the public option is helping raise his profile in the netroots. It’s hard to pin down where the ideological fault lines in this primary are, though; his opponent Andrew Romanoff has gotten the big labor endorsements (although both Bennet and Romanoff sound leery about EFCA), and they spent their first debate last week mostly agreeing with and offering kind words about each other.

• FL-Sen:  Sorry, Charlie… Rasmussen takes another look at the GOP Senate primary and finds Marco Rubio putting more distance between himself and Charlie Crist. Rubio is leading Crist 54-36, which is an even bigger gap that last months’ 49-37 edge.

• IN-Sen: Ooops, this could get awkward. Rep. Baron Hill, who was out of the country all last week, got back and decided that he’s at least somewhat interested in (or at least “open to the idea of”) the Senate seat left behind by Evan Bayh too. Rep. Brad Ellsworth already is being treated as heir apparent (to the extent that a replacement for his seat in the 8th is lined up, too), but the state party committee will get the final word on who fills Bayh’s slot.

• NC-Sen: As a bonus addition to their NC-Sen poll from last week, PPP took a look at both sides’ primaries too. On the Democratic side, undecideds rule the day; SoS Elaine Marshall does have the lead, beating former state Sen. Cal Cunningham 29-12 (with 5 for Kenneth Lewis and 2 for Marcus Williams). The only subgroup where Cunningham has the edge so far is voters under 30. On the Republican side, further signs of voters’ general indifference about Richard Burr: he’s polling at only 55% against two unknowns, Brad Jones at 10 and Eddie Burks at 3.  

• NV-Sen (pdf): The first poll of the Nevada Senate race following the news that the Tea Party has sprung into existence and will be running Some Dude is an internal from a GOP pollster, POS. He finds that the top Republicans still beat Harry Reid, but by a much narrower margin than the last few rounds of polling have seen: Sue Lowden leads Reid 42-37 (with 9 for Jon Ashjian), while Danny Tarkanian leads 40-39 (with 11 for Ashjian). Reid beats Sharron Angle 37-32 (with 16 for Ashjian) and Mark Amodei 40-25 (with 19 for Ashjian). Lowden has the edge in the GOP primary, at 35, to 28 for Tarkanian, 8 for Angle, 5 for someone named Chad Christensen, 1 for Amodei, and 0 for the oft-hyped rich guy John Chachas. (Amodei, a termed-out state Senator from Reno, seems to have gotten the message from all this, and dropped out of the race today.

• NY-Sen-B: The NY Daily News observes what I had sensed was happening: the likely challenge from Harold Ford Jr. has seemed to mostly benefit Kirsten Gillibrand, as it raised her profile, and finally kicked her into higher gear, as she’s sought out the spotlight a little more on issues like the public option and DADT. The newest Siena poll (pdf) finds Gillibrand in fine shape so long as George Pataki doesn’t surprise everyone by getting into the race. She trails Pataki 47-41, while beating Port Commissioner Bruce Blakeman 51-24 and wealthy publisher Mort Zuckerman 49-29. She also leads Ford and Jonathan Tasini in the Democratic primary, 42-16-4. If Ford somehow survives the primary, he trails Pataki 48-34, while also beating Blakeman (41-23) and Zuckerman (40-26).

• CA-Gov: A nameless GOP pollster, on behalf of a nameless corporate client, shared an internal poll of the GOP gubernatorial primary with Taegan Goddard. While the lack of transparency is sketchy, the numbers are quite credible: Meg Whitman leads Steve Poizner 55-16.

• MO-Gov: This may be a little premature, but Republican Lt. Governor Peter Kinder is already publicly saying that he’s running for Governor in 2012, presumably against incumbent Dem Jay Nixon. An early start can only help, though; in 2008, Nixon benefited from having his nomination locked down way in advance, while the Republicans fought it out in a nasty primary.

• NM-Gov: NMSU is out with the first poll of the wide-open Republican gubernatorial primary field (although apparently not the general election). Thanks to the benefits of name rec, attorney Pete Domenici Jr. leads the field at 29, ahead of Dona Ana County DA Susana Martinez at 12, former state party chair Allen Weh at 7, Doug Turner at 7, and state Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones at 3. The New Mexico Independent breathlessly reports that this was before the bombshell revelations came out that Domenici used (gasp!) marijuana and cocaine while in college in the (swoon!) 1980s… as if that’s going to change a single vote.

• NV-Gov (pdf): That GOP internal from Glen Bolger also has gubernatorial numbers. Most interestingly, it sees Jim Gibbons (the damaged GOP incumbent) gaining some ground on ex-AG Brian Sandoval; Gibbons trails only 38-32, with North Las Vegas mayor Michael Montandon coming in at 9 (Sandoval’s decline may come at the benefit of Montandon as his profile increases, splitting the non-Gibbons vote). Reid the Younger (Rory, that is) beats Gibbons in the general, 47-36, while tying Montandon 40-40 but losing badly to Sandoval, 50-34. (Also worth noting: the poll also asks some state-level policy questions, and found voters preferring raising taxes to cutting services, 47-38. Certainly more grist for the mill, especially after the passages of Measures 66 and 67 in Oregon.)

• NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo is still taking his time on announcing anything regarding his expected gubernatorial run. While rumormongers seem to think at this point that the announcement is coming in mid to late April (after the fighting over the state budget is completed), the NYT points to a finite deadline: May 25, when the party convention begins (unless for some reason he wants to get on the ballot by collecting signatures and petitioning instead). The same Siena poll (pdf) that we talked about earlier also, as always, covers the gubernatorial race, and there aren’t any surprises there (except perhaps that David Paterson is slipping a bit against GOP candidate Rick Lazio, in the unlikely event he survives his primary). In the primary, Cuomo moves up to 64-22 lead over Paterson (they stopped asking about Suffolk Co. Exec Steve Levy, whose support seemed to come only out of Cuomo’s column and had pushed Cuomo down to 57 last month). Cuomo beats Lazio 63-26, while Lazio beats Paterson 46-39. (Lazio and Paterson were tied at 42 last month.)

• OR-Gov: Rasmussen issued its first poll of the Oregon governor’s race, and find Democrats leading in every permutation. As always, it wouldn’t be Rasmussen without something weird in there, and what’s weird here is that the closest race is between Democratic ex-Gov. John Kitzhaber and long-ago ex-state Sen. John Lim, where Kitzhaber leads only 40-38. (Lim has a 31/28 approval, which I suppose is low name rec by Rasmussen’s strange standards, but freakishly high when considering that the 74-year-old Lim’s last big moment on the stage was losing the 1998 Senate race to Ron Wyden by 61-34, and that he’s probably best known for misspelling his own name on his bumper stickers from his 1990 gubernatorial run, where he lost the primary). Kitzhaber leads Chris Dudley 42-36, Allen Alley 42-34, and Bill Sizemore 48-35, while Bill Bradbury leads Lim 38-35, Dudley 39-36, Alley 41-35, and Sizemore 48-23.

• VT-Gov: That Research 2000 poll (on behalf of local TV affiliate WCAX) that came out late last week had some additional matchups that we didn’t report on, focusing on the ever-present threat of a left-wing spoiler campaign from Anthony Pollina (although last I’d heard, Pollina was sounding more interested in trying for the Democratic nod rather than running 3rd party). Republican Lt. Governor Brian Dubie wins each permutation, including against SoS Deb Markowitz (who led Dubie in a 2-way race), where he’s up 37-35 with 11 for Pollina. Dubie beats Doug Racine 38-32-12, Peter Shumlin 39-31-12, Matt Dunne 38-31-12, and Susan Barlett 44-26-13.

• WI-Gov: The first candidate to hit the TV airwaves in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race is ex-Rep. Mark Neumann, who’s being treated as the underdog in the GOP primary against Milwaukee Co. Exec Scott Walker. Neumann has deep pockets, but this may be an indication that he’s committed to fighting out the gubernatorial battle to the end instead of moving over to the Senate race, where Russ Feingold currently only has minor opposition.

• MI-14, MI-15: Two octogenarian liberal stalwarts, and the two longest-serving members of the House, both confirmed that they’ll be running for another term: John Dingell (looking for term number 28) and John Conyers (term 23).

• PA-06: Looks like that internal poll released by Rep. Jim Gerlach that had him leading by an ungodly amount had the desired effect. Pharmaceutical exec Steven Welch packed his bags and got out of the race, leaving Gerlach with only token opposition. With a fierce primary underway on the Dem side, it’s now quite the reversal of fortune in this district from where we were mid-last year, when the Dems were united behind Doug Pike and a GOP food fight was underway.

• PA-12: Chris Cillizza is reporting that Joyce Murtha, widow of Rep. Jack Murtha, is going to announce that she won’t run in the May 18 special election to replace her husband. This is big news, as the frontrunners, ex-LG Mark Singel and ex-Treasurer Barbara Hafer, said they’d defer to Murtha. (One more Dem is getting into the field today, Mark Critz, who was Murtha’s district director. Singel and Hafer are the universally-regarded heavyweights, though.) Cillizza also hints that Republicans  “downplay their chances” in this special election, despite the district’s R+1 lean (the real problem for them is their lack of a bench in this traditionally very Democratic area).

• VA-09: Republican state House majority leader Morgan Griffith seems to be moving ahead with a challenge to long-time Rep. Rick Boucher in the 9th, an Appalachian district that’s sliding away from the Democrats. While the district’s trend has to hearten Griffith, he has two problems: Boucher’s huge cash stash, and the fact that Griffith doesn’t live in the district, although very near the border – but while he’s known in the Roanoke market portion of the district, he’ll need to start from square one in coal country in the deep southwest.

• WA-03: Here’s a surprising departure from the Democratic field in the 3rd: state Rep. Deb Wallace, who jumped promptly into the field after Rep. Brian Baird’s retirement and attracted good notices for the few days she had the Dem field to herself. She isn’t endorsing anybody, but said that the district needed a “true moderate Democrat” (which would seem to point toward ex-state Rep. Denny Heck rather than the more liberal state Sen. Craig Pridemore). Heck’s personal wealth probably drove Wallace out of the race, especially since she’d be splitting the “true moderate” votes with Heck while Pridemore ran unimpeded on the liberal side (well, except for flaky activist Cheryl Crist).

• FL-St. House: In the face of a growing ethics investigation that could potentially start moving in a criminal direction, Republican former state House speaker Ray Sansom resigned from his House seat today. There’s one interesting name among the many persons who’d been subpoenaed to testify before the House Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: another former state House speaker (and now Senate candidate) Marco Rubio. (Rubio isn’t accused of wrongdoing, and now it sounds like the hearings have been rendered moot anyway.)

• Filings: Campaign Diaries gives a rundown of what happened with the Ohio and Indiana filings, which closed last week. Dems are looking at five competitive retentions in Ohio (including OH-13, where wealthy auto dealer Tom Ganley completed his switch for the Senate race, and OH-18, where state Sen. Bob Gibbs deciced to pull the trigger. Potential problems lurk for the GOP in OH-15, where David Ryon filed as the Constitution Party candidate (meaning Steve Stivers might get screwed from the right a second time), and in OH-16, where NRCC fave Jim Renacci faces a competitive primary against more conservative (and presumably less electable) Matt Miller, who almost won the open seat GOP primary in 2008. The GOP’s big disappointment is probably OH-06, where their best bet seems to be former Belmont Co. Sheriff Richard Stobbs (who lost by a wide margin in 2008). There’s less drama in Indiana (except for the unresolved IN-Sen and IN-08 situations), although the open seat in dark-red IN-04 attracted a host of Republicans (most notably SoS Todd Rokita, but also two state Senators).

The number of Dems running for Congress here in Arkansas is getting rather crowded, so to keep confusion down I thought I’d list the names of all the declared candidates so far:

AR-01: Former state senator Tim Wooldridge, former Marion Berry chief of staff Chad Causey, state senator Steve Bryles, state representative David Cook, and some new guy named Ben Ponder.

AR-02: State senator Joyce Elliott, state house speaker Robbie Wills, former Vic Snyder chief of staff David Boling, deputy AG John Adams, and Patrick Kennedy (not the R.I. Congressman obviously).

AR-03: The only declared candidate (a couple of others are mulling) is former Fayetteville attorney David Whitaker.

In my original post on Blue Arkansas, you can follow links to the candidates’ websites (some good, others quite pathetic): http://bluearkansasblog.com/?p…

There’s one silver lining for party committees when it comes to retirements: Departing incumbents typically have a bundle of scrilla saved up that they can, if they’re so inclined, donate in bulk to their party’s House and Senate campaign arms. (They can also make normal, FEC-limited donations to other campaigns, or give the money to charity.) With all the retirements on both sides, there’s a lot of money floating out there, so let’s take a look at who’s got the bucks.

First up, the House. We’ve compiled cash-on-hand figures for all members who are not running for re-election or have resigned this cycle, with one exception (more on that below):

We haven’t listed members running for Senate because they can (and generally do) transfer all of their House money over to their Senate campaigns. However, depending on state law, members running for other office (such as governor) may or may not be able to port over their House warchests. Two Dems fall into that category. As you can surmise from the CoH totals, Alabama law permitted Artur Davis to switch his federal money over to his state account.

Neil Abercrombie wasn’t so lucky. He had hoped to do the same, but a state committee barred him from doing so back in August. Abercrombie has managed to whittle his account down by half since then (he has refunded many of his donors’ contributions), but if he’s looking to do his colleagues in the House a solid, he can give the balance to the DCCC.

A special comment must be made here about ex-Rep. Robert Wexler, who announced back in October that he was stepping down from Congress in order to pursue other opportunities. At the end of September, Wexler had nearly a million dollars in the bank. Since then, he went on a $310,000 spending spree, rewarding consultants, pollsters, fundraisers, and other campaign associates with some very generous payments. Wexler did give a handful of donations to some of his former colleagues, but he failed to give a dime to the DCCC. Robert Wexler is shamefully letting his party down by not putting his ample campaign account to productive use at his party’s greatest hour of need. If he doesn’t want this to become a permanent black mark on his record, this attitude needs to change.

That said, let’s not let Rahm Emanuel off the hook, either – he’s hoarding over a million bucks in his dormant House account, no doubt waiting to use that nest egg for an eventual return to elected office. But if Rahm is serious about serving his President’s agenda, he might want to consider cutting a generous check to DCCC. In a year like this, we can’t afford to have guys like Rahm holding back. Does Rahm Emanuel even care about retaining control of the House of Representatives?

House Republicans:

Republicans have slimmer pickings, but that still adds up to nearly $3 million that the NRCC would love to poach out of these idle accounts. Let’s hope these members take after Rahm!

Senate Dems:

Yep – $25.6 million (including Clinton’s presidential account), with the biggest chunk of that coming from Evan Bayh. You’d think that Bayh, after putting his party in a bind with his surprise retirement decision, might feel compelled to share some of his resources to the DSCC, but the man is a notorious miser. Perhaps this time, though, he can be shamed into making a meaningful contribution to the Democratic cause.

Senate Republicans:

While the Republicans have less to work with there, $3.7 million isn’t exactly chump change. The bottom line, though, is that Democrats are facing an incredibly tough election environment, and departing House & Senate Dems are sitting on an enormous $33 million stockpile. They need to help their party now.

It looks like predictions that Young would bail won’t pan out this cycle. From the St. Petersburg Times:

But before he stood up to speak, U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, let the news slip: “I will say to you, this is not Bill Young’s swan song tonight.”

That brought a round of applause. And shortly after that, Young shed a little more light on his decision to run for a 21st term in Congress by referring to his outspoken wife Beverly, an activist for supporting U.S. troops.

“Beverly told me that if I didn’t run, she was going to,” Young said. So he thought, “maybe I better stay on the job.”

Young told the crowd of about 500 that he wasn’t trying to be coy about his decision whether to run for re-election. He simply doesn’t believe in long campaigns or even in raising campaign money during non-election years.

But now that it’s 2010, he said, he’s excited about running again.

Democrats had badly hoped that Young would decide to hang up his spurs in order to give state Sen. Charlie Justice a clean shot at the seat, but they’re probably better off with Young deferring his decision to retire to another cycle. Justice is no great shakes, having proven a major fundraising bust. Barring a major injection of hustle, Justice would have a tough time winning this tossup district with the current Republican headwind in place. Moreover, who knows what this district will look like post-redistricting. Democrats will probably be better off dealing with Young’s retirement in a more neutral year.

RaceTracker Wiki: FL-10