Swing State Project

Public Opinion Strategies (R) for RNC Committeeman Bob Asher (5/3-4, likely voters, no trendlines). Primary results:

Tom Ridge (R): 59

Pat Toomey (R): 21

Peg Luksik (R): 2

Undecided: 17

Tom Ridge (R): 60

Pat Toomey (R): 23

Undecided: 16

(MoE: ±4.6%)

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 57

Joe Sestak (D): 20

Undecided: 22

(MoE: ±5.2%)

And general election matchups:

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 41

Tom Ridge (R): 48

Undecided: 10

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 49

Pat Toomey (R): 40

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±3.7%)

Amusingly, POS was Specter’s pollster (they parted ways (PDF) after his switcheroo)… and now they’re showing him trailing Tom Ridge in a general election matchup. A little post-breakup revenge polling? Ridge, who’s supposedly “50-50” on a race, also seems to have something of a Santorum problem: On various official documents, he’s listed his residence in Maryland, not Pennsylvania. This guy was governor and he doesn’t even want to live in the Keystone State any longer? Jeez.

Anyhow, POS also has the first primary tests we’ve seen, with Ridge pounding Toomey. Doubtless Toomey’s weak ID among Republicans is holding him back – 50% either have no opinion or have never heard of him. With movement conservatives already taking aim at Ridge, these numbers would be sure to change by the end of what would be a bruising, year-long primary.

Among all voters, meanwhile, Specter clocks in with a 50-40 favorability score, while Sestak has just a 15-3 rating. If Sestak mounted a serious campaign (presumably with labor backing), this too would change. Sestak has been talking pretty tough, though I’m a bit concerned that SEIU’s Andy Stern might be using him to put pressure on Specter over EFCA. At the same time, Joe Torsella is apparently trying to gather anti-Specter Dems into his fold. But would Torsella, an acolyte of Ed Rendell, really stick it out against Specter, given that Fast Eddie pledged a clear primary to Arlen?

Specter, though, is making it harder and harder for Dems to stomach him. In fact, it seems that everything he’s said since his switch has been designed to alienate rather than embrace his new party. He reiterated his newfound opposition to Employee Free Choice; said he’d still oppose Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel; declared he would not be a “loyal Democrat”; voted against Obama’s budget; denied he was committed to the President’s healthcare plan (contradicting Obama himself); said the one vote in his entire career that he publicly regrets was his vote against Jeff Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship; and then this gem:

There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

He’s since tried to walk that back, hilariously claiming he “conclusively misspoke”. I think Markos got it right – Specter seemes to be rejecting his (D) transplant. He’s starting to piss me off more as a “Democrat” than he ever did as a Republican.

JMM Research for John Garamendi (dates unknown, likely voters):

John Garamendi (D): 24

Warren Rupf (R): 17

Mark DeSaulnier (D): 13

Joan Buchanan (D): 10

(MoE: ±5%)

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi has been shopping around for the just-right elected office for a long time now, and with Rep. Ellen Tauscher leaving behind an open seat in the U.S. House to head to the State Dept., he might just be ready to settle down. Garamendi got into the race late (after finally pulling the plug on his faltering 2010 gubernatorial campaign), with state Senator Mark DeSaulnier already having gobbled up many key endorsements. Still, Garamendi is in a strong position in his own internal poll, beating his two Democratic opponents combined, DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan. (The only other poll of this race was a Buchanan internal from late March which, not surprisingly, gave her the lead.)

Garamendi’s position is largely thanks to his high name recognition: 80% know him, with 35/12 favorables. DeSaulnier is known by 39%, with 16/13 favorables, and Buchanan is known by 45%, with 17/12 favorables. The Republican polled, Contra Costa County Sheriff Warren Rupf, is known by 20%, with 9/9 favorables.

Rupf has not announced for the race, and doesn’t really seem likely to run; he is, however, probably the strongest GOPer in the district. (San Ramon mayor Abram Wilson and former Assemblyman Guy Houston are other Republicans who’ve been linked to this race.) They were polled en masse because in the primary special election, all candidates are listed together in one pool, and if no one candidate receives more than 50% (unlikely with three top-tier Dems in the race), then the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general.

UPDATE: More discussion in californianintexas’s diary.

• FL-Sen: Word on the street is that Charlie Crist will announce his plans regarding the Senate race on Monday. It sounds like he’s eager to jump in as soon as possible after the end of the legislative session, to keep Marco Rubio from gaining any traction. If Crist’s exalted-sounding riposte to Rubio’s smacktalk yesterday is any indcation, he’s already staking out the post-partisan high ground.

• NH-Sen: Over in what Dean Barker calls “Cloud Hampshire,” Andy Smith of UNH still thinks there are more Republicans than Democrats in the Granite State. That could be why the notoriously unreliable pollster finds John Sununu, Jr. “leading” Paul Hodes 46-41. Take it for what it’s worth – i.e., not very much at all. (D)

• MN-Gov: Ellison Endorses Entenza! Rep. Keith Ellison from Minneapolis lent his support to Matt Entenza, the former state House minority leader (and a friend of Ellison’s from law school).

• OR-04: Republicans have recruited Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken to run against longtime incumbent Peter DeFazio. Don’t be misled into thinking this D+2 district represents a good opportunity for the GOP – DeFazio is very popular (he won with 83% last year). More likely, the GOP is hoping DeFazio will run for the governor’s mansion, leaving this seat open. (D)

• TX-17: GOP candidates once again are lining up for the opportunity to take on Rep. Chet Edwards. But Edwards keeps on finding a way to win in this wildly red district (at R+20, it’s the 19th most-conservative seat in the entire country), and he isn’t even on Frontline this year. Meanwhile, the Republican field is very much unsettled. (D)

• FL-24: State Republican chairman Jim Greer just announced that he won’t take on freshman Dem Suzanne Kosmas this cycle. Yet another recruiting failure for Pete Sessions & the NRCC. (D)

• Mayors: There are two mayoral elections in big cities today: Detroit and Anchorage. Detroit is a Dem-on-Dem duel where there’s not much ideological difference and it’s more of an insider/outsider clash; Kenneth Cockrel, who took over as mayor after Kwame Kilpatrick resigned, is up against businessman (and Detroit Pistons great and NBA Hall of Famer) Dave Bing. Anchorage residents are choosing between Democrat Eric Croft and Republican Dan Sullivan to replace now-Sen. Mark Begich. Anchorage Mayor was an important stepping stone for all two of Alaska’s prominent Dems: ex-Gov. Tony Knowles as well as Begich.

Could 2010 be the year we finally Dump Bachmann?

Political Muse of Liberal in the Land of Conservative is reporting (and I have been able to independently confirm) that 2006 Independence Party Lt. Governor Nominee Dr. Maureen Reed spoke to a meeting of the 6th District DFL last night and announced that she will be running against Rep. Michelle Bachmann as a DFL candidate in 2010.

This is a very interesting development. Reed would be a very strong candidate. First. Who is she?

Dr. Maureen Reed currently serves as a diplomate in internal medicine with the American Board of Internal Medicine and a fellow of the American College of Physicians. She formerly served as medical director for HealthParners and as a member and chair of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents. In 2006 she ran for Lt. Governor on the Independence Party ticket with Peter Hutchinson. If she does indeed run she would be the first candidate to announce a run against Bachmann so far this cycle. 2006 and 2008 DFL candidate El Tinklenberg is also rumored to be mulling a run.

However I don’t believe a Democrat is likely to beat Bachmann unless one of three things happens: Minnesota passes fusion voting in time for the 2010 election, Minnesota passes Instant Runoff Voting in time for the 2010 election or only two major parties run candidates on the ballot in 2010.  

First of all. Why does one of those things need to happen for a Democrat to have a strong chance of winning? In Minnesota three political parties have qualified for major party status. The Republican Party (which will nominate Michelle Bachmann should she run for re-election), the DFL Party and the Independence Party.

In 2006 El Tinklenberg was endorsed by both the DFL Party and the Independence Party. However Minnesota law does not allow candidates to appear on the ballot for multiple parties so Tinklenberg filed to appear on the ballot as a DFLer. You might expect no one to file for the Independence Party seeing as they’d already endorsed Tinklenberg, however someone named Bob Anderson plunked down the 300 bucks to file thus ensuring his appearance on the general election ballot as the Independence Party candidate.

In November Bachmann got only 46.4 percent of the vote. However she still won the election beacuse Anderson pulled 10 percent of the vote which split the anti-Bachmann vote and let her sneak into office again with a plurality. If this happens again and the Independence, DFL and Republican Parties all run candidates I do not think that Democrats have a good chance of winning the seat. However if a former Independence Party member like Reed runs and one of these three things happens I believe we can Dump Bachmann.

1. Pass into law and and implement Instant Runoff Voting before for 2010 elections

This is my preferred solution and probably the least likely to happen. It would allow both the DFL and IP to run candidates and allow voters to choose whoever they thought was the best candidate. As long as a majority picked the DFLer or IP candidate before Bachmann she would be defeated. However it seems very unlikely that this could happen before 2010 as Tim Pawlenty would surely veto it if it came to his desk.



2. Pass into law and implement fusion voting before the 2010 elections.

Fusion voting allows a candidate to be endorsed by multiple parties. It is currently in use in New York. Reed could then run for both the DFL and Independence Party endorsements and appear on the ballot and the candidate for both parties. Had this been the law in 2008 Tinklenberg would have appeared on the ballot for the DFL and IP and I believe he’d be the congressman currently.  

Unlike Instant Runoff Voting fusion would not require replacing the current machines and so it might have a better chance of passing but I still doubt it will be made a priority and get Pawlenty’s signature before 2010.



3.  Have only two major party candidates on teh ballot in 2010

Of the three I believe this one is the most achievable beacuse it does not require a change in law that could be blocked by Pawlenty.

First Reed or another candidate would need to secure the backing of both the DFL and Independence Party as Tinklenberg did. They would then need to make sure that unlike in 2008 no other Independence Party candidate filed and thus put three major party candidates on the ballot.

It may not be necessary to do anything to make sure that happens. Anderson was the only person to file as a Independence Party candidate after Tinklenberg had won the official IP endorsement and perhaps no one would do the same this time making sure the IP had no candidate on the ballot. However it’s always possible that someone WOULD file thus potentially making a split outcome that sends Michelle Bachmann back to Congress.

So how to prevent that possibility? I see only one legal way. Run a front candidate. Now I know that doesn’t sound very nice but if Reed or another candidate wins both the DFL and IP endorsements and wants to win in November I think it needs to happen. Essentially assuming that does happen someone needs to file for the IP primary on a platform of dropping out to make sure the officially endorsed IP candidate doesn’t lose in the general. If it turns out no one else files they can end their campaign up to two days after the filing deadline, if someone else does file they have to win the primary and then they can drop out leaving the November ballot with just two major party candidates and giving the DFL and Independence Parties and chance to unseat the worst member of Minnesota’s delegation to Washington.

Personally I think the final option is the most realistic. If we want to Dump Bachmann Democrats, IP members, independents and sane Republicans are going to need to join together. Dr. Reed is well positioned to do just that. It will be interesting to see how her campaign plays out.

Originally posted at MN Progressive Project

Susquehanna Polling and Research (R) (4/27-30, registered voters):

Beau Biden (D): 34

Mike Castle (R): 55

Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±4.3%)

Numbers like these are the sort of thing that may nudge Castle into actually making a race of it, but bear in mind that Susquehanna is the same Republican firm that put out a somewhat dodgy-looking PA-Sen poll yesterday, so perhaps a grain of salt is merited here. A poll conducted in March by the much more reputable Public Policy Polling also had Castle leading Biden, Jr., but only by 44-36.

UPDATE: It also just occurs to me that Susquehanna is the same firm that released a poll last fall showing Democratic Rep. John Murtha leading his no-name Republican challenger by only five points. Murtha went on to win by 16 points in November.

Marist Poll (4/28-29, registered voters, late Feb. in parens). First, the NY-Gov primary matchups:

Andrew Cuomo (D): 70 (62)

David Paterson (D-inc): 21 (26)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 75

Rick Lazio (R): 14

(MoE: ±6%)

And the general election matchups:

David Paterson (D-inc): 32 (38)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 56 (53)

David Paterson (D-inc): 37

Rick Lazio (R): 40

Andrew Cuomo (D): 55 (56)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 38 (39)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 67

Rick Lazio (R): 22

(MoE: ±3%)

Paterson losing to Rick Lazio? That Rick Lazio? Oh man. Please, just make it stop. Believe it or not, though, it actually gets worse. In response to the question “Who would you rather have as governor right now?”, voters prefer Eliot Spitzer over David Paterson by a 51-38 margin. Yeesh.

Sigh. Okay. The Senate side primary head-to-heads:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 36

Carolyn Maloney: 31

(MoE: ±4.5%)

George Pataki (R): 48 (56)

Peter King (R): 36 (32)

(MoE: ±6%)

And the general:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 38 (45)

George Pataki (R): 46 (41)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 42 (49)

Peter King (R): 31 (28)

(MoE: ±3%)

Marist unfortunately doesn’t offer any explanation as to why Gillibrand’s numbers have dropped. Her approvals have worsened, from 18-32 to 19-38. But on that question, Marist is a strange outlier from all other outfits – no one else has Gillibrand under water like that.

As for a potential primary challenge, Marist showed Gillibrand with almost identical numbers a few months back against the other Rep. Carolyn (McCarthy of Long Island). But I’m convinced that Steve Israel is by far the most likely to actually show up, and is the only person I think would have any kind of chance.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (5/1-3, likely voters, late March in parens):

Terry McAuliffe (D): 30 (18)

Brian Moran (D): 20 (22)

Creigh Deeds (D): 14 (15)

Undecided: 36 (45)

(MoE: ± 4.1%)

This is a big jump for T-Mac from the last PPP poll, which actually had him trailing Moran. But this is now the second survey in a row (SUSA’s was the first) to show McAuliffe with a sizable lead. Still, there are a ton of undecideds and just a month left to go in the race – a lot can happen.

Susquehanna Polling & Research (R) for PEG PAC (“end of last week”, registered voters, no trendlines):

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 38

Tom Ridge (R): 39

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 42

Pat Toomey (R): 36

(MoE: ±2.8%)

PEG PAC describes itself as “Pennsylvania’s oldest pro-business political action committee and the affiliated PAC of the Pennsylvania Business Council (PBC)”. I personally don’t know much about them, but I think the remarks of PBC’s president tell us everything we need to know about where their political biases lie: “We don’t know how [Specter’s] positions and voting might change now that he has joined the Democrat Party.” Democrat Party, huh? And Susquehanna is a Republican firm, FWIW.

Anyhow, the Ridge numbers are pretty similar to the Quinnipiac poll we saw yesterday, but this poll makes Toomey out to be a lot more competitive. Color me skeptical – though Dave Weigel does report that Toomey claims to have already raised half a million bucks since his April 15th entrance. In any event, Research 2000 will have a new poll out soon, so I’m waiting for that. And unlike the two surveys we’ve seen so far, it will test both the D and R primaries.

Speaking of Dem primaries, the anti-Specter sentiment appears to be heating up from labor quarters. SEIU’s Andy Stern said yesterday, “It is hard to imagine any union supporting a candidate in the Democratic Party for the US Senate who doesn’t have strong positions on both healthcare and Employee Free Choice.” An AFL-CIO official said something similar. Personally, I like Stern’s framing – yet another flip-flop on EFCA from Specter (were one to happen) would hardly be soothing and would not constitute a “strong position.” So this leaves the door open for a primary challenge even if Specter does change his mind for the umpteenth time. And I increasingly think I’d like to see that challenge.

The question of whether or not Republican crustbucket Sen. Jim Bunning is planning on retiring at the end of his current term was on everyone’s mind last week after word leaked out that Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson was setting up an exploratory committee for Bunning’s Senate seat — with his apparent approval. During his weekly conference call today, Bunning says that he’s still planning on running again, but he’s adding a major caveat. Roll Call has the scoop:

Bunning told Kentucky reporters on his weekly conference call that the only way he would abandon his re-election effort would be if he did not meet his fundraising goals later this year. […]

As for Grayson’s exploratory committee, Bunning said he recommended it so Grayson could raise money for a future political race.

“He’s a dear friend, and I thought this would be a way for him not to have to travel around the state and still gather up some money for any federal office he chooses to run for,” Bunning said on the call, according to WFPL news radio.

Um, right. So Bunning claims he’ll run again, as long as he can meet his fundraising goals… which, during his last update on the topic, stood at $7 million. Considering that Bunning could only rustle up $260K in the first three months of the year, he’ll have an extremely difficult time meeting that target — especially considering how blatantly obvious it is that Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders badly want Bunning to hang up his spurs. I’m sure that this admission will give McConnell and John Cornyn extra incentive to choke off Bunning’s major fundraising sources completely and redirect them to Grayson.

In other words, we might as well start considering this to be an open seat race in 2010.

UPDATE: At least the Bunster is still good for a nice, nasty quote:

“Do you know Arlen Specter will be 80, has had four bouts with cancer and he still wants to run for the U.S. Senate?” Bunning continued. “And I’m being criticized at 77 and healthy for wanting to run for the U.S. Senate by certain leadership people in my party. Give me a break.”

Asked if the leadership he was referring to was McConnell, Bunning answered: “Obviously. Do you want me to spell it out for you?”

He said: “Do you realize that under our dynamic leadership of our leader, we have gone from 55 and probably to 40 (Senate seats) in two election cycles, and if the tea leaves that I read are correct, we will wind up with about 36 after this election cycle. So if leadership means anything, it means you don’t lose… approximately 19 seats in three election cycles with good leadership.”