Swing State Project

Tim Bee is desperate for money. That’s why he sucked it up and asked his political hero, George W. Bush, to fly out to his district and raise a reported $600,000 for his campaign against freshman Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

But Tim Bee isn’t the only one hurting for funds. In a recent editorial by the Tucson Citizen, the paper is raking Bee over the coals for the costs of Bush’s swanky private fundraiser at a posh home in the Catalina foothills: $99,000 for the services of 161 police officers and 165 sheriff’s deputies over the course of two days in July. From the editorial:

Bee is a third-generation Tucsonan with a fine record of public service, but his campaign now is tapping our community’s public safety resources and not giving back. That’s wrong. And we expect better from Bee.

His staff needs to pull some money out of that $600,000 windfall and put it back where it belongs: in the budgets of our local law enforcement agencies.

In tight economic times like these, that’s the only appropriate response. Public safety officers cannot be used for purely private security.

The Arizona Daily Star agrees, and has also called for Bee’s campaign to reimburse taxpayers. The only problem? Bee will have none of such talk, as his campaign says that they have “no plans” on reimbursing the city of Tucson or Pima County for the security costs.

And it’s no small wonder why Bee is holding firm: According to his pre-primary report filed with the FEC last night, Bee only raised $278,000 from July 1st through August 13th, including just $184,000 from the “Tim Bee Arizona Trust”, the committee set up specially for Bush’s fundraiser — that’s less than a third of what the event raised, as the remainder went to other costs associated with the event and to the state party and the NRCC.

As we reported last night, Bee has less than $590,000 in the bank compared to Giffords’ $2.15 million. Was the hassle of sacrificing his “moderate” image, and the follow-up of the local media roasting him for squandering taxpayers’ dollars worth the $184,000 that his event brought in?

SSP currently rates this race as Lean Democratic.

(Proudly cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

I’m so excited to kick off our new “C4O Spotlight” series today. As you all know by now, a Democratic victory isn’t complete without electing more & better Democrats to Congress. So in that spirit, I’d like to introduce you all to someone very special. Please meet our first C4O All-Star.

As I talked about last weekend, I still have fond memories of my trip to Las Vegas last January. My friends & I helped make a difference in getting Democrats out to caucus. I was able to see Hillary & Bill Clinton in person for the very first time. And yes, I was also able to witness Dina Titus in action.

Dina Titus has been dedicated to serving the people of Suburban Las Vegas in the twenty years she’s served in the Nevada State Senate, fifteen of those also working as the Senate Democratic Leader. She’s worked to preserve Southern Nevada natural treasures like Red Rock Canyon, expand health care access to working families in Nevada, and improve the schools that serve Nevada’s kids. Oh, and when she’s not in the Senate, she’s busy teaching American & Nevada government at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas.

But while Dina Titus has been working hard for Nevada’s working people, Republican incumbent Jon Porter has been busy serving only himself. He’s been a rubber stamp for Bush & Cheney ever since he first took office. He’s used his taxpayer funded Congressional office to raise money for his campaign. He’s consistently voted against the interests of Southern Nevada’s working families if they get in the way of what his fat cat corporate donors want. Basically, Jon Porter is yet another dirty Republican who needs a different kind of job.

Fortunately for us & for Las Vegans, Dina Titus has a great shot at beating Porter. Titus beat Porter by 4 points in the first public poll released. DC political watchers now officially consider this race a toss-up. Democrats have come from behind to take the lead in voter registration. Oh yes, and Barack Obama’s agressive Nevada campaign is sure to fire up turnout that can not only turn Nevada blue for Obama, but help Congressional candidates like Dina Titus win as well.

Oh, and let’s not forget all the high-profile help Dina Titus is receiving from some great progressive allies! The Sierra Club has endorsed her because she’s someone we can trust to fight for what’s best for our people and our planet. EMILY’s List has endorsed her becuase she’ll work her hardest for all the hard working women in Southern Nevada. Dina Titus has even been added to the DCCC’s Red to Blue program, which means that national Democrats are confident enough to invest in a victory here!

But you know what? Nonw of that matters if we don’t take action! I wouldn’t be here today if i didn’t think that Dina Titus deserves our

support. So please, please join us to take action and help Dina Titus & all our other great All-Star Democrats win. With real progressive fighters like Dina Titus in Congress, we can make a difference foe the better. So if you’re as committed to a better & stronger America as I am, please join me in helping great candidates like Dina Titus win. 🙂

Capital Survey Research Center (likely voters, date unknown 8/18):

Joshua Segall (D): 33

Mike Rogers (R-inc): 54

(n=468)

No word yet on when this poll was taken, but I’m assuming it was around or during the same time frame of the CSRC’s AL-02 poll (8/6-7,11), which showed Democrat Bobby Bright leading Jay Love by 10 points.

This district was drawn by the Alabama legislature to elect a Democrat, but after a close loss in 2002, no Dems have been able to wage a viable campaign against Rogers, and this R+4.3 district has quickly fallen way down on the target list. However, attorney Joshua Segall is making a go of it this year, and he’s raised a respectable amount so far.

It will be a very tough climb for him to pull even with Rogers this year, but Segall has put together enough resources to merit watching. Over at Doc’s Political Parlor, Danny contends that Segall will have an especially tough time, because the district is split between three media markets and is therefore considerably expensive for a candidate to raise his name ID. While there is some truth to that, SSP’s Bang-for-the-Buck Index shows that AL-03 is roughly in the middle of the pack of targeted races when it comes to the expense of TV buys. And while it’s certainly not as dirt cheap as AL-02 is, the 3rd CD is a far cry from more expensive targets in Flordia, Texas, and Illinois.

On another note, many GOP partisans questioned the veracity of the CSRC’s AL-02 poll (given that they poll for the Alabama Education Association, a staunch Dem ally), but I’m sure that these same hacks have no complaints with their work in the 3rd CD. It’s all or nothing, fellas.

Somedays the Campaign Team at John Boccieri for U.S. Congress make this job a true pleasure. Check out “our” new video!

Visit John Boccieri for U.S. Congress or call 330-754-0534 to volunteer for Team Boccieri!

In a terse statement stained with his own personal disgust, NRSC Chair John Ensign lambasted his GOP Senate colleagues today for failing to financially support his committee:

“I recently challenged my colleagues to step up to the plate and help me provide the resources our candidates need to compete in races across the country – to match the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] expenditures in targeted races,” Ensign said in a statement. “It has become clear that my call has gone largely unanswered. I have no control over the timing or content of IE ads, but I have had no choice but to decrease the total budget of our IE Unit. It is still my hope that my Republican colleagues will engage in this election and help match what the Democrats are doing. If they do, I will adjust our budget accordingly.”

CQ Politics notes that Republican Senators have only contributed $1.1 million to the committee through June, while Democrats have forked over a much more generous $5 million.

Ensign’s failures as NRSC chair are already having immediate consequences. From the Politico:

The NRSC reserved about $6 million in ad buys in North Carolina, according to sources from both parties, which was meant to show that the GOP was ready to play hard in what has become a dead heat race between Dole and Democratic challenger Kay Hagan.

But on Wednesday the NRSC yanked the money because, it turns out, the dough was never available in the first place. One GOP Senate source said it was a “head fake” that pulled the rug out from under Dole. But Dole told Politico in a phone interview Thursday that she realizes in this tough national climate for Republicans that she’s on her own in the race and will have to raise all her own money without relying on the NRSC.

As the polls show, Dole could really use a boost right about now. Too bad for her, the NRSC is hamstrung due to the stinginess of her GOP colleagues. This is what I like to call schadenfreude at its most delicious.

Enjoy the pain, Republicans. You bastards deserve it.

Research 2000 (8/18-20, likely voters):

Jill Derby (D): 42

Dean Heller (R-inc): 47

(MoE: ±5.0%)

That’s a very nice starting position for Jilly Derby, but she’ll have her work cut out for her in order to swing that extra 8% in this R+8.2 district. On the bright side, Democrats have seen a voter registration surge in the district, and she recently received fundraising support from the DCCC and EMILY’s List.

It’ll be tough, but this race certainly merits watching.

The University of Minnesota/Humphrey Institute for Minnesota Public Radio (8/7-17, likely voters, 1/20-27 in parens):

Al Franken (D): 41 (43)

Norm Coleman (R-inc): 40 (40)

Dean Barkley (I): 8 (-)

(MoE: ±3.6%)

The “trend line” presented here is stretched over such a long period, that it’s almost not worth including. Lest you think that the Humphrey Institute’s methodology is giving Franken a boost, keep in mind that Franken was running very close in other surveys from SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, and even the GOP firm McLaughlin & Associates in the early part of the year.

Is Franken pulling this one out of the fire?

SSP currently rates this race as Lean Republican.

The conventional wisdom is that Franken is struggling in the MN Senate race – as evidenced by a series of polls showing Norm Coleman opening up a lead

So what to make of the poll released yesterday by the Minnesota Public Radio/ University of Minnesota showing Franken ahead of Coleman by 1%?

http://minnesota.publicradio.o…

The full poll results are here:

http://minnesota.publicradio.o…

The poll says that among “likely voters” Franken holds a 41-40 lead over the incumbent Republican, with Dean Barkley (Independence Party) polling 8 % and 11% undecided. (Margin of error is cited as 3.6%)

An incumbent Senator polling just 40% (even in a 2 1/2 way race) at this point seems remarkable. His approval/disapproval is a very close 46/42 (although elsewhere on the MPR website it says 42/40… but the 46/42 number comes directly from the poll internals, so I’ll assume it is accurate).

The poll also reports a 51-40-10 DFL – Republican – Independent party split overall, with Coleman holding 81% of Republicans, Franken 71% of DFL. Independents are listed as breaking 36% Coleman, 30% Franken, 11% Barkley, 23% undecided.

Among the 11% of likely voters the survey considered to be “swing voters” (with no definition of how they arrived at that definition), shows an even more undefined race, with Coleman leading at 35%, Franken at 26%, Barkley at 12%, and fully 27% undecided.

Assuming this is a very close race the 27% undecided among swing voters are obviously crucial if they break one way or another. Similarly, the nearly 30% of DFLers not currently supporting Franken (8% for Coleman, 8% for Barkley, and 13% undecided) are crucial…. if Franken can bring the bulk of these voters home, the current party breakdown in MN gives him a built in advantage.

One potentially big obstacle for Franken is that Coleman appears to be perceived as closer to the political centre than Franken. Fully 46% of those polled said Franken was “too liberal”, with 33% rating him “about right” and 4% “too conservative.” (Presumably the remaining 17% had no opinion.)  By contrast, Coleman was considered “too conservative” by 36%, “about right” by 42%, and “too liberal” by 10%, and 12% unaccounted for. (Would be a great opening for a right wing independent/3rd party candidate to siphon off some votes from disaffected conservatives, wouldn’t it?)

—

I’m not sure what the UMN record on polling is, but while the results are tremendously encouraging, a number of key questions jump out.

The first is that the poll was conducted over an extremely long period of 11 days (Aug 7-17). This period of time is far longer than usually seen in more reliable polls. (Although the sample size of 763 is pretty good for a statewide poll.) An 11 day poll conduced in the middle of summer vacation season (when many of Minnesotans are off at the cabin…) has some inherent weaknesses.

The methodology of defining “likely voters” is briefly described in the poll report, and it makes reference to weighting by demographics and region – but little detail is provided to be able to assess how the “likely voter” screen may have impacted the results. (They don’t provide totals for all respondents to let us know if there is a “likely voter” bias toward one candidate or the other – although in a relatively high turnout state like Minnesota, that may be less important than in some other states.)

Similarly, no demographic information is provided about poll respondents — assumptions about turnout by urban, suburban and rural residence, and by age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, education etc could have a huge impact in interpreting this race — without information about these details, it is harder to make sense of this poll.

Finally, the Barkley support at 8% seems to be a critical. Will it hold up as high as 8% (or even grow) or will it collapse?

While Barkley briefly served in the Senate (he was appointed by Jesse Ventura to fill the remaining months of Paul Wellstone’s term), his record of running for office is not impressive – winning 7% for Senate in 1996, and 5% in 1994, and more impressive 16% in 1992 running for the newly redistricted 6th district seat.

Third party candidates have demonstrated greater appeal in Minnesota than in many other states, and Barkley appears to be tapping into some of the same types of voters who in the past have voted for Ventura, Perot, Tim Penney, Jim Gibson, and Peter Hutchinson – while only Venture won, the others showed a willingness to vote for independent candidates by a chunk of the Minnesota electorate.

At the moment, Barkley appears to be serving as a parking place for voters highly dissatisfied with Bush and Coleman but not ready to vote for Franken. Can Franken ultimately win over enough of these voters with an anti-Republican, anti-incumbent message?

As the analysis of the poll makes clear, Barkley is hurting Franken at the moment:

“The environment could be hurting Coleman more if Barkley were not in the contest. He is competing with Franken for the angry voter who disapproves of Bush and sees the country as off on the wrong track. Franken is only winning 51% of Minnesotans who are concerned that the country is off-track and Barkley is a major reason that the Democrat is not getting even more disaffected Minnesotans — he is drawing 9% of these voters. A similar story is evident with regard to Minnesotans who disapprove of Coleman and Bush: Barkley is diverting 9% of these critics — voters that might otherwise support Franken.”

Lots of variables remain in the race — will Obama run away with Minnesota or will it be as close as in last couple of elections? If Pawlenty ends up on the Republican ticket would it help Coleman? What will the impact of the RNC in St. Paul be on Minnesota public opinion — positive attention to the state, or an unwelcome collection of right wing nuts messing up traffic and hanging out in the airport men’s room?

Some folks have been saying this race is lost — if this poll is on target, it is clear that attitude is premature. This shows all signs of being a close one.

Civitas (8/14-17, likely voters, 7/14-17 in parens):

Kay Hagan (D): 41 (38)

Elizabeth Dole (R-inc): 44 (47)

Chris Cole (L): 4 (2)

(MoE: ±4.2%)

First we had SUSA, and then Insider Advantage, and now Civitas all showing a rapidly tightening race, probably in no small part due to the pummeling that the DSCC and Dem allies are giving Dole on the airwaves over the issues of her effectiveness and her ties to “big oil”. This is all fantastic news.

The folks over at Public Policy Polling have their own poll in the field, and their early results show Hagan beating Dole. It’s enough for PPP’s Tom Jensen to ask: Is “Dole falling apart“?

I would think one of the cardinal rules of politics is not to remind people of your flaws. That’s why I’m amazed to see that Elizabeth Dole’s new ad responding to the DSCC’s ads about her #93 effectiveness ranking devotes its first four seconds to repeating that unfortunate little fact about herself! Don’t spend your own money to remind people about an ad that’s doing you a lot of damage. […]

I’ll admit up until a couple weeks ago I didn’t really think Kay Hagan had any chance at this. But the DSCC’s campaign on her behalf has been brilliant, and I’m frankly amazed at the numbers we’ve seen the first two days of our tracking poll- we’ll probably release the North Carolina Senate numbers Tuesday.

SSP currently rates this race as Lean Republican, but we’re loving this trend.

With congressional primaries on September 2nd in Arizona, the deadline for candidates to file their pre-primary reports with the FEC was tonight. SSP rounds up the numbers once again, so you don’t have to:

Note: All figures are in thousands, and cover the period from July 1st through August 13th. Sandra Livingstone has yet to file her report, but if and when she does, you’ll be able to find it here. (Update: Her report has now been filed.)

Some impressive numbers from Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords, in particular. Despite the hype surrounding Tim Bee, I really like Giffords’ re-election chances.