Swing State Project

I've been puzzled lately as I watch netroots activists support old school, DLC type Democrats. 

I thought the point of the netroots movement was to elect progressives.  To “crash the gate” with new candidates.  To bring fresh ideas into the Democratic Party.   

I can't count the races I've seen already where there is some state senator or state rep who is now going to run for Congress with the urging and blessing of the DCCC and DNC and state Party's.  And it seems our netroots activists are flocking to them.  Even though these candidates are much closer to DLC Dems than they are to being Progressive Dems. 

Look how disappointed we have all been over FISA, Iraq, etc.  We want to know why the Dems never stand up.  Well it is because we keep putting the same people — or people just like them — back into office. 

I'm not advocating we start a bunch of challenges against Dem incumbents ala Lamont/Lieberman. 

But in those seats where there are incumbent Republicans, why aren't there more netroots, grassroots, progressive candidates?  Why aren't we out recruiting them?  Supporting them?

And when there are those candidates, why are netroots, progressive activists supporting the old school Democrats?

If we really want change, then we have to change who is in office.  

I liked the votevet initiative last time.  Those guys weren't old school Democrats who had worked their way up the party structure and were just running for Congress because it is the next step on their resume.

It was an effective initiative.  It matched candidates with their districts.  

The electorate is ready for change. If we keep running the same old school Democrats who sound exactly like Republicans (except for maybe stem cells and abortion) then what is the point? 

 Loading ...

(First off, I'd like to thank DavidNYC for asking me to join the Swing State Project team. While the South and its unique brand of politics is my area of greatest familiarity, I'll try not to focus too much on races from below the Mason-Dixon. In any case, I'm looking forward to writing here at SSP and contributing to the electoral analysis and discussion that the site's known for.)

Over the past few months, conventional wisdom has been that Republican “Bobby” Jindal is an inevitability in his campaign for governor of Louisiana. While that opinion's been reinforced by a few polls, there's also plenty of evidence and polling with which to argue the contrary. 

Being the front-runner certainly carries its benefits for Jindal, but it also means that he'll be the guy with a big bullseye on his back throughout the campaign. Over the next two months, Jindal's opponents will unload their campaign warchests in a concentrated effort to dampen his support and lower his numbers.

Independently wealthy Democratic State Senator Walter Boasso has been airing ads for over a month with some success. In his ads, Boasso slams Jindal's paper-thin record and highlights Jindal's close ties with the Bush administration. But Jindal is also facing trouble from his right, as wealthy GOP businessman John Georges has $7 million COH with which he plans to argue he is the “true conservative” in the race.  In addition, Democratic Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell has over $1 million in his account. To top it all off, the Louisiana Democratic Party has commenced a major ad buy tarring Jindal.

And of course, the scandal involving Sen. David Vitter's patronage of prostitutes has tarnished the image of the state GOP. To make matters worse for Jindal, he's taking flak from both sides on this issue. Many are upset with Jindal for not calling for Vitter's resignation, while conservatives like Georges are accusing Jindal of “abandoning” Vitter.

Considering that this race is just now heating up although Jindal's been considered an heir-apparent by the media for months, Democrats should take heart from a recent poll commissioned by Georges. In the poll conducted in late July, only 38% of Louisianans said they're planning to vote for Jindal. And the way I see it, he's got nowhere to go but down from there.

This race is far from over. For local updates, keep an eye on the Daily Kingfish.

In the 2006 election cycle, the DCCC employed a two-pronged approach against long time Republican incumbents in an effort to hasten their retirements: a relentless barrage of press releases and paid advertising early in the cycle highlighting their Bush-supporting votes in the House, combined with the recruitment of strong challengers.  Against Nancy Johnson in Connecticut, the DCCC recruited rising star state Senator Chris Murphy.  Against veteran Clay Shaw of Florida, the Democrats turned to popular state Senator Ron Klein.  Both targets, feeling secure in their long-standing incumbency, fundraising prowess, and Majority status, ultimately chose to stick it out, and both ultimately found themselves losing to superior campaigns.

Under the stewardship of chairman Chris Van Hollen, the strategy has not changed.  This week, the committee announced a series of radio ads hitting four incumbents for their recent (and characteristically despicable) votes against children’s health insurance and expanded health benefits for seniors: Tom Feeney (FL-24), Vern Buchanan (FL-13), Bill Young (FL-10) and Jim Saxton (NJ-03).

As CQ notes, the strategy behind targeting Young and Saxton is to free up their bluish districts to revert to the Democratic fold with the help of top-tier challengers.  Saxton’s district, in particular, would be a compelling pick-up opportunity.  While the south Jersey district supported Bush in 2004 by a 51%-49% margin, it delivered its votes for Al Gore by a whopping 11 point (54%-43%) margin four years earlier.  Kerry’s poor performance here (and in several other Democratic-leaning New Jersey districts), I believe, can be attributed to the 9/11 security advantage that Bush still enjoyed in 2004, and resonated fairly strongly in a state strongly in the orbit of New York City.  But today, that advantage has evaporated for obvious reasons.

So who could emerge to be the Ron Klein-like hero to stir some fear into Saxton, a 12-term incumbent?  A few weeks ago, PoliticsNJ reported that state Senator John Adler had recently met with DCCC officials about the possibility of taking on Saxton next year, for the second time in his career:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Adler met with staff at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington last month to discuss a possible run for Congress next year against incumbent James Saxton, according to Democrats close to the five-term State Senator.

Despite his ambition and talent, Adler is a politician with limited political options — something that his friends say he finds exceptionally frustrating.  There was a time when he was viewed as a rising star — he was elected to the Cherry Hill Township Council at age 29, ran for Congress at age 31 (he lost to Saxon by a 58%-39% margin), and at age 32, he won an upset victory for State Senator against a veteran Republican incumbent in a GOP-leaning district in 1991 — the year Democrats lost ten Senate seats and 21 Assembly seats.

After sixteen years in the Senate, Adler seems to have no place to go.  He has nearly $200,000 is a federal campaign account he opened in 2003, when he said he would consider an `08 bid for U.S. Senate if Frank Lautenberg did not seek re-election.  But now, Adler knows that won’t happen — if Lautenberg doesn’t run, another Camden County Democrat, Congressman Rob Andrews, will.

Expect Saxton and the NRCC to gloat about that 58%-39% result if Adler enters the race, but they know perfectly well that Adler has built a fine political career for himself since his first ambitious run at Saxton as a 31 year-old in 1990.  Additionally, you’ve got to bet that Adler would like to put that $200K in his Senate campaign account to good use, and if he were to enter the race, he could easily transfer those funds to a House campaign account.  (And he would need every penny, as Saxton is currently sitting on a very fat $1.33 million cash-on-hand.)

While the DCCC’s saber-rattling didn’t produce many retirements in 2006, perhaps with life in the minority and surprise announcements like Deborah Pryce’s, we can expect such campaigns to yield better results.

According to the Buckeye State Blog (which has really been on fire with its House coverage this week), former Republican Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro has agreed to run to succeed retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce in the 15th Congressional District.  Petro, as you may recall, was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2006, where he lost to then-Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell by a 56-44% margin.

Quick on their feet, the Ohio Democratic Party released the following press release slamming a Petro candidacy:

News accounts report that Congresswoman Deborah Pryce will announce that she will not run for Congress in Ohio’s 15th Congressional District. So, which Jim Petro will run for Congress?

Is it the Jim Petro who was under FBI Investigation?

Is it the Jim Petro who ignored the Securities and Exchange Commission’s warnings that Ohio Worker’s Compensation investors were being ripped off and let the Noe CoinGate scandal occur right under his nose?

Is it the Jim Petro that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission found violated his staff’s civil rights by not promoting and hiring them based on race?

Is it the Jim Petro who was the Cuyahoga County Commissioner? Note: It is more than a 2 hour drive from Cuyahoga County to central Ohio where the 15th is located.

Is it the Jim Petro who lurched to the right to combat Ken Blackwell in the Republican Primary for Governor?

Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy will have plenty of juicy targets to choose from in a campaign against Petro.  However, the nickel’s worth of free advice that the Swing State Project gave to Kilroy last month still rings true: a strong message of change in Iraq should not be left off the table.

Shocking news from the Columbus Dispatch:

Rep. Deborah Pryce of Upper Arlington has told some of her fellow Republicans she is strongly considering not seeking re-election next year, The Dispatch has learned.

Pryce, 56, who has been a fixture in the U.S. House since her election in 1992, could make an announcement soon about her plans. Republican sources say if she does not run, former Ohio Attorney General James Petro might seek the seat.

Other GOP sources also mention state Sen. Steve Stivers, R-Upper Arlington, an Iraq veteran, as a strong possibility if Pryce drops out.

A senior Republican who spoke only on condition of not being identified said Pryce has concluded it is far too difficult to raise her adopted daughter Mia in Columbus while simultaneously maintaining a five-day schedule in Washington.

“I don’t think anybody can talk her out of it,” the top Republican said.

Pryce could not immediately be reached for comment.

But according to the Buckeye State Blog, Franklin County Republicans are having a difficult time finding a top-tier replacement for Pryce:

The story gets better too. Doug Priese, Chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party, got word of the retirement yesterday from the Congresswoman’s office. In a span of 24 hours the GOP has already had it’s top two potential challengers declare they wouldn’t touch OH-15 with a stick.

The GOP’s dream challenger to replace Pryce is State Senator Jim Stivers. Unfortunately for the Republicans, Stivers turned the Franklin County Republican Party down on the spot yesterday when approached with an offer to run. Since Stivers is up for re-election in the Senate, and approaching an opportunity to serve as Senate President, he views a run for Congress to risky in a district clearly trending Democrat.

Additionally, I’ve heard the GOP approached former Gubernatorial candidate and Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro to jump into the race. However, like Stivers, Petro officially turned the party down for fear of the district and fundraising concerns in a hostile climate.

If true, this is absolutely huge news.  With 2006 candidate and Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy in the race, Democrats would be well-poised to snag this Democratic-trending seat.  At a PVI of R+1.1, this district split its vote 50-50 for Bush and Kerry in 2004, after Bush carried this district by a comfortable eight points in 2000.

If Pryce bails, perhaps the dam will break and similar incumbents facing pressure to keep their seats by the NRCC will take the retirement plunge.

UPDATE: The Hill cites GOP sources claiming that Pryce’s retirement is a done deal:

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) will announce Thursday that she will not run for reelection in 2008, according to sources close to the congresswoman’s office.

Pryce’s office announced it will hold a press conference in her Columbus office on Thursday at 11 a.m. concerning her plans for 2008.

The timing of Pryce’s impending retirement comes largely as a surprise. A former leader of the GOP’s ousted majority, she is in her eighth term but is only 56 years old – much younger than many of the prospective Republican retirees.

Oh, I can’t wait for more surprises.  Some call this the dog days of summer.  I call it Christmas time for House retirement watchers.

UPDATE 2: The Dispatch confirms.  Debby Pryce is out.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Blog, Paul Hackett, an Iraq Vet and former Democratic candidate in the 2005 special election for Ohio’s 2nd district, is set to re-enter the political fray today with a characteristically bold splash: flipping the (metaphorical) bird to Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich by endorsing his primary challenger, Rosemary Palmer:

Iraq war veteran and short-time U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett tomorrow will announce his support for Rosemary Palmer, who’s trying to move Dennis Kucinich out of Congress.

Palmer, running for the 10th Congressional District nomination, has a tough challenge, but if Hackett were to truly get involved, he might draw some attention for Palmer.

Palmer’s 23-year-old son, Lance Cpl. Edward “Augie” Schroeder II, was killed in Iraq two years ago. A former teacher, Palmer says that Kucinich seems too preoccupied with his quest to become president to represent the district well. […]

Hackett’s involvement in Palmer’s race “adds instant credibility,” says Anthony Fossaceca, Palmer’s campaign manager. It tells voters that she’s serious and that, like Hackett, she’s willing to go against the grain, he says.

“And it means a lot more now coming from Paul,” Fossaceca says, “who doesn’t do many of these.”

Say what you will about Hackett, but he’s never too coy to rock the boat.  Kucinich has not had any problems dispatching primary challengers as of late, but this edition is set to make a bit more noise than what Special K has been used to dealing with.

The list of House Republicans who may retire in 2008 is an expansive one, indeed.  One name that I've heard a substantial amount of buzz surrounding is Rep. Dave Hobson of Ohio's 7th.  Unverified rumors claim that he will likely retire, but one local blogger is already calling it a done deal:

Ohio 7th District Congressman Dave Hobson will not seek re-election to a 10th term in the U.S. Congress.

The much expected retirement of Cong. Hobson has not been formally announced even though State Senator Steve Austria (Hobson’s hand picked successor) is already preparing for a Congressional campaign and at least two Repuiblicans are lining up for Austria’s Ohio State Senate seat.

With a PVI of R+6, Ohio’s 7th has a pronounced Republican lean.  It twice supported Bush by a 14-point margin (56-42 and 57-43, respectively), but much has changed since 2004 in national and state politics since 2004.  I expect a good number of lean-Republican seats to come open in 2008 (Hastert in IL-14, LaHood in IL-18, and Regula in OH-16 for instance).  If Van Hollen can deliver some solid recruits, I suspect that we may be able to pick up a couple.

(H/T: Buckeye State Blog)

Jon Ensign is making Elizabeth Dole look like a political genius. Because while Dole wasn't successful in winning any seats, they had a number of races that they targeted and felt they could be compeitive like Washington, Michigan, New Jersey, Maryland and Minnesota. But I think you are looking at the possiblity that the GOP could be playing total defense.

The way I see it, barring retirements, and I think being very conservative with these estimates that their are 5 potentially competitive Senate races: Montana, Arkansas, New Jersey, South Dakota and Louisiana.

Montana: Some may disagree with this, but like I said I'm being conservative with these predictions. Baucus is doing everything right and is very well positioned to win another term. But I'm not ready to declare him safe yet. Its still Montana in a presidential year and while Mike Lange certainly has a temper the GOP could've done worse.

Arkansas: This race became a lot more safe with Huckabee's performance at the Straw poll. Had he finished fourth or worse he would've dropped out. I think he's the only credible possible opponent for Pryor. Having said that there's still the possibility this doesn't jumpstart his presidential campaign and he does still drop out. Even then I think Pryor could win, but it would be a helluva race.

New Jersey: Being conservative with the estimates is the main reason to put this here. There's no signs this will be a competitive race, but Lautenberg is old and has shoddy approval ratings. But he doesn't look to face any real competition at this point.

South Dakota: This race is just totally up in the air. All I'll say is that unless Johnson retires I don't see this becoming competitive.  Rounds doesn't seem to be showing much interest in the race right now, and none of these second-tier cndidates stand a chance.

Louisiana: This was the race everyone expected to be competitive, and smart money says it probably still will be. But, no Republican wants to do it. Baker ruled it out, and Kennedy may still jump in but it'll be bizarre to see Kennedy give his victory speech one night, and that next morning switch parties and announce he will challenge Landrieu, which is basically what he would have to do.

According to CQ Politics, former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert will announce his retirement plans on Friday.

After less than a year as a rank-and-file House member, former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is expected to call an end to a political career that made him the longest serving Republican Speaker in the history of the House of Representatives.

Several Illinois newspapers, including the Aurora Beacon News and the Chicago Tribune, reported Tuesday that the Illinois Republican has scheduled a Friday announcement on the steps of the Kendall County Courthouse in Yorkville, Ill. While Hastert aides are refusing to discuss what he plans to say, he is expected to announce that he will not run for a 12th term in 2008, according to Republican sources.

The only question that remains is: will Hastert resign this year, or will he serve out the balance of his final term?

Greg Giroux, writing for CQ, takes a look at the district’s numbers and, erm, finds that Republicans are favored to retain this Republican-leaning seat (boldly stated, CQ): 

The expected retirement of former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert from Illinois’ 14th District will serve as a test of Republican strength in predominantly suburban and exurban districts that have long been GOP bailiwicks.

On paper at least, Republicans will be favored to retain the 14th, which includes exurbs west of Chicago and rural communities farther west. President Bush took 55 percent of the vote in the district in 2004, and Hastert won re-election to an 11th term last fall with 59.8 percent of the vote. Still, that was his lowest vote share since he first captured the seat in 1986 with 52 percent of the vote.

The other nugget out of all this from Illinois’ other retiring Representative, Ray Lahood:

LaHood, who recently announced his own plan to retire, said he believed there would be additional retirement announcements from within the House GOP. “I retired because it was the right time to leave. Others will also be leaving, for their own reasons,” he said.

Let the games begin.

(Hat-tip to TheUnknown285.)