It looks like the Stevens' conviction will hammer the final nail into the coffins representing the long (and colorful) careers of Alaska politicians Senator Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young. R2K's final poll of the races paints a bleek picture for the incumbents with 75 years of combined congressional service between them. As with Mississippi, let's chop up the salient numbers (compared with the previous polling from about two weeks ago).
Senate
Ted Stevens 36 (46)
Mark Begich 58 (48)
Stevens went from down just two points in the middle of his trial, to down 22 points days after his guilty verdicts were handed down. He has gone from 40-year legend to pariah literally overnight. And the losses are across the board: Stevens went from winning men by seven to losing them by nine, he lost immense support among Republicans, and he is even down 39 points among independents (after losing them by "only" 16 percent two weeks ago).
Ted Stevens favorables
Overall: 34 percent favorable/65 percent unfavorable (44/51). From -7 to -31
Among independents: 28/71 (41/53). -12 to -43
I could go through each group to show his drop, but what's point? He's lost support among everyone, with even a third of Republicans now viewing him unfavorably (that other two-thirds were the same ones at that welcome-home rally, and they will be with Uncle Ted until the end). In terms of Mark Begich, I am not going to bother going through his favorables -- they're 57/34 (53/37) -- because they changed little, and because this election is about Ted and Ted alone.
Let's take a quick look at the House race and whether Ted's troubles impacted Don Young's standing in his own race.
House
Don Young 44 (44)
Ethan Berkowitz 53 (50)
Not really much movement here. Don Young's level of support stayed the same while Ethan Berkowitz's rose three points. Interestingly, Democratic support has solidified a bit more for Berkowitz (90-7 (85-8)), while GOP support for Young is stable (80-17 (79-14)). Even indies have not moved much, sitting at 59-38 for the Democrat after being 58-38 in his favor two weeks ago.
How about the favorable ratings?
Don Young favorables
Overall: 39/60 (43/56). From -13 to -21
Among men: 46/53 (50/49). +1 to -7
Among women: 32/67 (36/63). -27 to -35
Among Republicans: 65/34 (71/28). +43 to +31
Among Democrats: 8/91 (11/87). -76 to -83
Among Independents: 37/62 (40/59). -19 to -25
Like Stevens', Young's personal splits plunged across the board, even among his base. The difference is that Young did not bleed actual support in the most important poll. Perhaps, then, he can be thankful he stayed merely stagnant. For his part, Berkowitz went from 54/40 to 57/40 -- just like Begich, a slight uptick, but really further evidence that while he and Begich are very credible challengers, these races are about the incumbents.
I still think that Stevens will finsh in the mid-40s in his race, but this poll seems to suggest that as the verdict has sunk in, people have not rallied to Stevens so much as run away from him. Except of course, those individuals at that ridiculous rally I posted on yesterday.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wicker v. Musgrove: Whites Going Red
This has not been a great week for Democrat Ronnie Musgrove. Earlier this week, two polls came out showing him losing significant ground in his challenge to Senator Roger Wicker. The first one showed him down 45-32, but I dismissed it as it had too many undecided voters, Musgrove's low percentage was not believable, and it was from a pollster I had never heard of. Soon thereafter Rasmussen showed Wicker up 54-43. I have a lot of respect for Rasmussen, so this result definitely caught my attention, however, I did not believe its finding that Wicker was winning 12 percent of the black vote.
Consequently, I held my fire until we heard from R2K one more time. I knew Kos would release a final poll of this contest in his slew of races, so I wanted to see R2K weigh in on whether Roger Wicker has indeed surged. Well, the R2K poll is out, and for the most part, it confirms the Republican's upward trend, giving Wicker a 51-44 advantage. Because the cross-tabs are generously provided (as always by Kos), let's dissect the important ones and compare them to the R2K poll from two weeks ago which showed the race at 47-46 Wicker.
Overall
Roger Wicker 51 (47)
Ronnie Musgrove 44 (46)
Already voted
Roger Wicker 47
Ronnie Musgrove 53
We are seeing Musgrove losing a couple points while Wicker went up a significant four percent. How did this happen? It's not hard to figure out when we peruse the data.
Candidate favorables
Roger Wicker
Overall: 54 favorable/43 unfavorable (54/42). Change: from +12 to +11
Among Men: 57/40 (57/40). No change--stayed at +17
Among Women: 51/46 (51/44). From +7 to +5
Among Republicans: 79/17 (79/18). From +61 to +62
Among Democrats: 28/69 (28/67). From -39 to -41
Among Independents: 51/46 (50/45). From +6 to +5
Roger really did not experience any changes in his personal splits in the last week. Let's see if Ronnie was so lucky.
Ronnie Musgrove
Overall: 48 favorable/48 unfavorable (52/43). Change: from +9 to 0
Among men: 45/52 (49/48). From +1 to -6
Among women: 51/44 (55/38). From +17 to +7
Among Republicans: 25/72 (31/67). From -36 to -47
Among Democrats: 74/22 (76/19). From +57 to +52
Among Independents: 47/46 (52/35). From +17 to +1
That is rough. In the last two weeks, Musgrove lost nine points overall, falling with every key group, in some cases drastically. Ten points among women, 11 points among Republicans, and worst of all, 16 points among independent voters. There is no way to mince words: a Democrat cannot win statewide in Mississippi with a 48/48 personal split.
I am not sure what has happened, but whatever attacks Wicker and the NRSC have been lodging, they are likely finally having an impact as the numbers Musgrove worked all year to pump back up following his re-election loss in 2003 are gone.
Head-to-head numbers
Among men
Wicker 55 (51)
Musgrove 42 (42)
Among women
Wicker 47 (53)
Musgrove 46 (50)
Independents
Wicker 49 (45)
Musgrove 47 (49)
The drop among women and independents is killing Musgrove. In a Republican-heavy state, he cannot overcome close shaves with either group given his inherent weakness among the state's men.
Whites
Wicker 78 (74)
Musgrove 20 (24)
Blacks
Wicker 5 (5)
Musgrove 85 (83)
This is your story right here. While Musgrove has maintained his advantage among blacks, he lost a chunk of his white support, and it went right into Wicker's pocket.
Remember what we said were the three things Ronnie Musgrove needed to accomplish in order to win this contest? Let's review:
(1) Get approximately one-quarter of white voters;
(2) Win the black vote overwhelmingly, with at least 91 percent of that group; and
(3) Hope that black turnout hits at least 37 percent, with 39 percent optimal.
If this poll is accurate, Musgrove should score close to or perhaps over 94 percent of the black vote. This is an incredible statistic. However, he is several points away from a quarter of the white vote. As a result, he is in awful shape in the state that has the most polarized voting patterns as they relate to race.
This is Musgrove's worst showing among whites since R2K started polling this contest. Going through previous polls, I surmised that Musgrove had a bedrock of white support somewhere around 23 to 26 percent of the white electorate, as Wicker had failed to move Musgrove away from that range all year. Until now. I am not sure if this is becuase the attacks are finally working, or conservative whites are just finally rallying to the GOP side. We cannot be sure. But they are moving, and it will cost Musgrove his shot unless something dramatic happens before Tuesday.
Assuming these numbers are right, and turnout ends at around 63 percent white and 37 percent black, the final vote will look something like
Roger Wicker 52.6
Ronnie Musgrove 47.4
Again, this presumes that black turnout will be approximately 37 percent. If black turnout were to hit 40 percent, with Musgrove winning 94 percent of blacks and 20 percent of whites, we would have something like this
Roger Wicker 50.4
Ronnie Musgrove 49.6
Roger Wicker would still win. This is Musgrove's dilemma. To win, he has to find a way to get some of conservative white supporters back, and there is little time.
My personal confidence in Musgrove's chances on this race has always been predicated on the belief that with his very conservative beliefs, he would be able to hold onto the white support he needed to win. Looking at this poll well demonstrates just how difficult Musgrove's mission is: it is tremedously hard balancing act, and it shows how rough Democrats have it running statewide in Mississippi today. The state's whites are just incredibly partisan and incredibly conservative.
I am not going to say this one is over, but I do not think I fully appreciated the precise partisan climate there, as well as Musgrove's political vulnerabilities.
Consequently, I held my fire until we heard from R2K one more time. I knew Kos would release a final poll of this contest in his slew of races, so I wanted to see R2K weigh in on whether Roger Wicker has indeed surged. Well, the R2K poll is out, and for the most part, it confirms the Republican's upward trend, giving Wicker a 51-44 advantage. Because the cross-tabs are generously provided (as always by Kos), let's dissect the important ones and compare them to the R2K poll from two weeks ago which showed the race at 47-46 Wicker.
Overall
Roger Wicker 51 (47)
Ronnie Musgrove 44 (46)
Already voted
Roger Wicker 47
Ronnie Musgrove 53
We are seeing Musgrove losing a couple points while Wicker went up a significant four percent. How did this happen? It's not hard to figure out when we peruse the data.
Candidate favorables
Roger Wicker
Overall: 54 favorable/43 unfavorable (54/42). Change: from +12 to +11
Among Men: 57/40 (57/40). No change--stayed at +17
Among Women: 51/46 (51/44). From +7 to +5
Among Republicans: 79/17 (79/18). From +61 to +62
Among Democrats: 28/69 (28/67). From -39 to -41
Among Independents: 51/46 (50/45). From +6 to +5
Roger really did not experience any changes in his personal splits in the last week. Let's see if Ronnie was so lucky.
Ronnie Musgrove
Overall: 48 favorable/48 unfavorable (52/43). Change: from +9 to 0
Among men: 45/52 (49/48). From +1 to -6
Among women: 51/44 (55/38). From +17 to +7
Among Republicans: 25/72 (31/67). From -36 to -47
Among Democrats: 74/22 (76/19). From +57 to +52
Among Independents: 47/46 (52/35). From +17 to +1
That is rough. In the last two weeks, Musgrove lost nine points overall, falling with every key group, in some cases drastically. Ten points among women, 11 points among Republicans, and worst of all, 16 points among independent voters. There is no way to mince words: a Democrat cannot win statewide in Mississippi with a 48/48 personal split.
I am not sure what has happened, but whatever attacks Wicker and the NRSC have been lodging, they are likely finally having an impact as the numbers Musgrove worked all year to pump back up following his re-election loss in 2003 are gone.
Head-to-head numbers
Among men
Wicker 55 (51)
Musgrove 42 (42)
Among women
Wicker 47 (53)
Musgrove 46 (50)
Independents
Wicker 49 (45)
Musgrove 47 (49)
The drop among women and independents is killing Musgrove. In a Republican-heavy state, he cannot overcome close shaves with either group given his inherent weakness among the state's men.
Whites
Wicker 78 (74)
Musgrove 20 (24)
Blacks
Wicker 5 (5)
Musgrove 85 (83)
This is your story right here. While Musgrove has maintained his advantage among blacks, he lost a chunk of his white support, and it went right into Wicker's pocket.
Remember what we said were the three things Ronnie Musgrove needed to accomplish in order to win this contest? Let's review:
(1) Get approximately one-quarter of white voters;
(2) Win the black vote overwhelmingly, with at least 91 percent of that group; and
(3) Hope that black turnout hits at least 37 percent, with 39 percent optimal.
If this poll is accurate, Musgrove should score close to or perhaps over 94 percent of the black vote. This is an incredible statistic. However, he is several points away from a quarter of the white vote. As a result, he is in awful shape in the state that has the most polarized voting patterns as they relate to race.
This is Musgrove's worst showing among whites since R2K started polling this contest. Going through previous polls, I surmised that Musgrove had a bedrock of white support somewhere around 23 to 26 percent of the white electorate, as Wicker had failed to move Musgrove away from that range all year. Until now. I am not sure if this is becuase the attacks are finally working, or conservative whites are just finally rallying to the GOP side. We cannot be sure. But they are moving, and it will cost Musgrove his shot unless something dramatic happens before Tuesday.
Assuming these numbers are right, and turnout ends at around 63 percent white and 37 percent black, the final vote will look something like
Roger Wicker 52.6
Ronnie Musgrove 47.4
Again, this presumes that black turnout will be approximately 37 percent. If black turnout were to hit 40 percent, with Musgrove winning 94 percent of blacks and 20 percent of whites, we would have something like this
Roger Wicker 50.4
Ronnie Musgrove 49.6
Roger Wicker would still win. This is Musgrove's dilemma. To win, he has to find a way to get some of conservative white supporters back, and there is little time.
My personal confidence in Musgrove's chances on this race has always been predicated on the belief that with his very conservative beliefs, he would be able to hold onto the white support he needed to win. Looking at this poll well demonstrates just how difficult Musgrove's mission is: it is tremedously hard balancing act, and it shows how rough Democrats have it running statewide in Mississippi today. The state's whites are just incredibly partisan and incredibly conservative.
I am not going to say this one is over, but I do not think I fully appreciated the precise partisan climate there, as well as Musgrove's political vulnerabilities.
This Time, It's Personal
In a bit of a surprise move today, the NRCC dumped $465,000 into Pennsylvania's Twelfth Distirct, a blue collar slice of southwestern PA which has been represented by John Murtha since the year "The Godfather II" came out. The NRCC's buy is in response to a smattering of GOP polls showing Murtha in a tight race after he made national news for calling rural western Pennsylvania "racist" and "redneck." The DCCC immediately responded today by dedicating $450,000 into the race.
This is a safe Democratic district with a PVI of D+5. More than that, Murtha is an icon in the region and he hasn't gotten below 60 percent of the vote since 1974. Having met him, he is quite the character. The GOP would not have made this kind of cash commitment so late and with resources so low unless the party felt this race could be won.
That being said, this move goes beyond simple considerations. This is a deeply political and personal move by the NRCC. For those who do not remember, Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, came out early and strongly against the Iraq War, becoming a national name in the process. His biting criticisms of the war, given his personal background and from his perch as the top Democrat on the powerful Defense Appropriations subcommittee had a lot of credibility, and they infuriated Republicans. A challenger to Murtha in 2006 was crushed at the polls, but Republican enmity for Murtha has remained.
With this in mind, beating Murtha, in what is likely going to be a brutal night for the party, would be one delicious saving grace for the folks over at RNC/NRCC headquarters. That is the main motivation behind this buy. I don't see Murtha losing, especially given his enormous power on the Appropriations Committee, but stranger things have happened, and Paul Kanjorski is also facing a hard fight in the Eleventh District.
This is a safe Democratic district with a PVI of D+5. More than that, Murtha is an icon in the region and he hasn't gotten below 60 percent of the vote since 1974. Having met him, he is quite the character. The GOP would not have made this kind of cash commitment so late and with resources so low unless the party felt this race could be won.
That being said, this move goes beyond simple considerations. This is a deeply political and personal move by the NRCC. For those who do not remember, Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, came out early and strongly against the Iraq War, becoming a national name in the process. His biting criticisms of the war, given his personal background and from his perch as the top Democrat on the powerful Defense Appropriations subcommittee had a lot of credibility, and they infuriated Republicans. A challenger to Murtha in 2006 was crushed at the polls, but Republican enmity for Murtha has remained.
With this in mind, beating Murtha, in what is likely going to be a brutal night for the party, would be one delicious saving grace for the folks over at RNC/NRCC headquarters. That is the main motivation behind this buy. I don't see Murtha losing, especially given his enormous power on the Appropriations Committee, but stranger things have happened, and Paul Kanjorski is also facing a hard fight in the Eleventh District.
Minnesota Madness
Yesterday, we commented on two new polls from respected pollsters Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon in near-perfect harmony showing Al Franken losing his lead against Senator Norm Coleman, and seemingly falling behind with the election days away. For a quick reminder, here are those polls:
Rasmussen (10/28; 10/22 findings in parenthesis)
Norm Coleman 43 (37)
Al Franken 39 (41)
Dean Barkley 14 (17)
Mason-Dixon (10/27-10/28)
Norm Coleman 42
Al Franken 36
Dean Barkley 12
Well, things just got a whole lot messier today, with two more polls showing the exact opposite, and also together in strong agreement that Franken is holding or slightly expanding on a tenuous lead:
Public Policy Polling (10/28-10/30)
Norm Coleman 40
Al Franken 45
Dean Barkley 14
Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute (10/24-10/28)
Norm Coleman 37 (38)
Al Franken 41 (36)
Dean Barkley 17 (14)
So, whereas the first two show an average of Coleman 42.5, Franken 37.5, Barkley 13, the latter two find it as Franken 43, Coleman 39, Barkley 15.5.
The only thing the four seem to agree on is that Barkley is in the low-teens. What they do not agree on is the strength of the two major-party candidates, and perhaps which one Dean Barkley is hurting more. MPR/HI suggests in its report that he is taking an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, but that this is hurting Coleman more simply because there are less self-identified Republicans in Minnesota this year. It also shows Franken surging up while Coleman and Barkley remain stagnant over the last few weeks.
For its part, MPR/HI finds Franken losing about a quarter of Democrats, while lagging way behind Barack Obama, who the poll finds is winning the state by 56-41. As we and others have surmissed, this is not a big shock, and the key reason why Franken continues to struggle: a lot of people don't like him. What keeps him competitive with many voters is that Coleman's unfavorable number is now very high as well.
Looking at this mish-mash of data, Nate Silver today observes the following on 538:
In Minnesota, polling from PPP and the Humphrey Institute is showing movement toward Al Franken, but polling from Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon showing just the opposite and breaking in Norm Coleman's direction. Such highly volatile polling is sometimes characteristic of races involving third party candidates, and Dean Barkley continues to hold onto about 15 percent of the vote in this race. As I suggested on Tuesday, it is likely that some of that Barkley vote will collapse, and there are some hints that is more likely to break toward Franken, but characterizing this race as anything other than a toss-up would be generous.
My response to all of this? How about a shrug of the shoulders? Polling for this race has been all over the place for a while. My view, for what little it is worth, continues to be that if Obama carries Minnesota by 10+ points, a Coleman win would be very hard to envision. Given Obama's continued strength here, I will stick to it, even though I get the sense that a whole lot of Minnesota Democrats, women, and indies are not in love with the prospect of Senator Al Franken.
Come election night, this might be the Senate race to watch not just because it plays a key role in Democratic plans to get to 60, but also to see which pollster earned his or her fee the best.
Rasmussen (10/28; 10/22 findings in parenthesis)
Norm Coleman 43 (37)
Al Franken 39 (41)
Dean Barkley 14 (17)
Mason-Dixon (10/27-10/28)
Norm Coleman 42
Al Franken 36
Dean Barkley 12
Well, things just got a whole lot messier today, with two more polls showing the exact opposite, and also together in strong agreement that Franken is holding or slightly expanding on a tenuous lead:
Public Policy Polling (10/28-10/30)
Norm Coleman 40
Al Franken 45
Dean Barkley 14
Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute (10/24-10/28)
Norm Coleman 37 (38)
Al Franken 41 (36)
Dean Barkley 17 (14)
So, whereas the first two show an average of Coleman 42.5, Franken 37.5, Barkley 13, the latter two find it as Franken 43, Coleman 39, Barkley 15.5.
The only thing the four seem to agree on is that Barkley is in the low-teens. What they do not agree on is the strength of the two major-party candidates, and perhaps which one Dean Barkley is hurting more. MPR/HI suggests in its report that he is taking an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, but that this is hurting Coleman more simply because there are less self-identified Republicans in Minnesota this year. It also shows Franken surging up while Coleman and Barkley remain stagnant over the last few weeks.
For its part, MPR/HI finds Franken losing about a quarter of Democrats, while lagging way behind Barack Obama, who the poll finds is winning the state by 56-41. As we and others have surmissed, this is not a big shock, and the key reason why Franken continues to struggle: a lot of people don't like him. What keeps him competitive with many voters is that Coleman's unfavorable number is now very high as well.
Looking at this mish-mash of data, Nate Silver today observes the following on 538:
In Minnesota, polling from PPP and the Humphrey Institute is showing movement toward Al Franken, but polling from Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon showing just the opposite and breaking in Norm Coleman's direction. Such highly volatile polling is sometimes characteristic of races involving third party candidates, and Dean Barkley continues to hold onto about 15 percent of the vote in this race. As I suggested on Tuesday, it is likely that some of that Barkley vote will collapse, and there are some hints that is more likely to break toward Franken, but characterizing this race as anything other than a toss-up would be generous.
My response to all of this? How about a shrug of the shoulders? Polling for this race has been all over the place for a while. My view, for what little it is worth, continues to be that if Obama carries Minnesota by 10+ points, a Coleman win would be very hard to envision. Given Obama's continued strength here, I will stick to it, even though I get the sense that a whole lot of Minnesota Democrats, women, and indies are not in love with the prospect of Senator Al Franken.
Come election night, this might be the Senate race to watch not just because it plays a key role in Democratic plans to get to 60, but also to see which pollster earned his or her fee the best.
"I have not been convicted of anything"
I may have to go back on my word not to harshly criticize Ted Stevens in the wake of his conviction. His continued actions and words compel me to do so. Here is what Ted Stevens said yesterday in his "debate" with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich:
"I have not been convicted of anything."
That is not taken out of context. Check the link to see for yourself.
What a disgrace. Ted Stevens is simply an embarrassment. I realize now that the best thing that can happen Tuesday for both Alaska and the country is for Stevens to be trounced at the polls. While I am not confident that this will happen, anything less would basically be condoning Stevens' reprehensible and utterly selfish behavior. Let Stevens be a lesson for anyone on the danger of hanging on to power too long and arrogantly believing they are above the law.
One more thing. I realize the debate moderators were in a difficult position with Stevens incredibly showing up at the debate and continuing to campaign. As a result, they were compelled, more or less, to ask him questions like any other candidate seeking office. Still, I consider this "debate" nothing more than a farce. That these moderators sat there and asked Stevens various questions not associated with his conviction was pathetic. I know that they have a job to appear objective, but at the same time, you can be excused from complete objectivity when of the two candidates on the stage is a just-convicted felon. (And I also know that this is a partial transcript of the debate, but from what I am reading, I am not impressed with the moderators' work here.)
Stevens was just convicted of seven felonies in federal court. You want that number again? Seven. I encourage you to click on the story link and read the (partial) transcript of the event. It is surreal. As Begich himself noted in an answer, Stevens' own colleagues, including the GOP leader, Mitch McConnell, have guaranteed that he will be expelled if he comes back. If Alaskans think that Stevens' conviction was embarrassing, his expulsion from the Senate would be a black-mark on the state and its people.
I believe that Stevens is doing this solely for himself. While I think that Republicans want him to win in order to put Sarah Palin in the seat, Stevens is truly, honestly running to get re-elected because he thinks he is entitled to it. If there was ever a living, breathing case for term limits, this is it.
"I have not been convicted of anything."
That is not taken out of context. Check the link to see for yourself.
What a disgrace. Ted Stevens is simply an embarrassment. I realize now that the best thing that can happen Tuesday for both Alaska and the country is for Stevens to be trounced at the polls. While I am not confident that this will happen, anything less would basically be condoning Stevens' reprehensible and utterly selfish behavior. Let Stevens be a lesson for anyone on the danger of hanging on to power too long and arrogantly believing they are above the law.
One more thing. I realize the debate moderators were in a difficult position with Stevens incredibly showing up at the debate and continuing to campaign. As a result, they were compelled, more or less, to ask him questions like any other candidate seeking office. Still, I consider this "debate" nothing more than a farce. That these moderators sat there and asked Stevens various questions not associated with his conviction was pathetic. I know that they have a job to appear objective, but at the same time, you can be excused from complete objectivity when of the two candidates on the stage is a just-convicted felon. (And I also know that this is a partial transcript of the debate, but from what I am reading, I am not impressed with the moderators' work here.)
Stevens was just convicted of seven felonies in federal court. You want that number again? Seven. I encourage you to click on the story link and read the (partial) transcript of the event. It is surreal. As Begich himself noted in an answer, Stevens' own colleagues, including the GOP leader, Mitch McConnell, have guaranteed that he will be expelled if he comes back. If Alaskans think that Stevens' conviction was embarrassing, his expulsion from the Senate would be a black-mark on the state and its people.
I believe that Stevens is doing this solely for himself. While I think that Republicans want him to win in order to put Sarah Palin in the seat, Stevens is truly, honestly running to get re-elected because he thinks he is entitled to it. If there was ever a living, breathing case for term limits, this is it.
Arizona and McCain (Gulp!)
Speaking of Arizona, Daily Kos is up with a new R2K poll of the state, and the results are pretty stunning:
John McCain 48
Barack Obama 47
Whoa. Among early voters:
John McCain 42
Barack Obama 54
Double whoa. McCain's favorable split is a good, but not-great 58/41 (+17). However, the data's most interesting slice of data may be with regards to independents. Indies have a 48/51 (-3) favorable split for their homestate Senator.
If these numbers are accurate, McCain, the self-styled maverick politician has a negative personal rating with independent voters in his own state. In the general election match-up, McCain is losing indies to Obama by a whooping 51-38. What is keeping McCain above water seems to be that he is winning 14 percent of Arizona Democrats.
In what may be the most damning finding in this poll, Kos polled a prospective 2010 Senate match-up between McCain and two-term Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano (with the question worded to people "[i]f the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today"). This one is ugly, and really just pouring salt in poor McCain's wounds:
John McCain 45
Janet Napolitano 53
This comes on the eve of John McCain appearing on the presidential election ballot. October 31, just five days out! Incidentally, Napolitano sports a 69/21 favorable split.
Granted, in one sense, this poll does not mean a huge amount with that prospective race two years out. But it really does. First, Napolitano is term-limited, and there has been no doubt that she would be the strongest Democratic nominee for Senate in 2010, so this is telling data. Second, that McCain would lose his own seat if his re-election were held today is a pathetic showing. For what it is worth, I think that if he loses Tuesday, McCain will retire in 2010, but you can't sugar-coat this result and whats for both November 4, 2008, and for 2010. I am sure Kos enjoyed putting this one out.
And for those who may question a Kos poll, many of his polls with R2K recently have not been great for Democrats, and besides, we have already gone over why these polls are as good as any (R2K is not going to damage their prized credibility by ginning up pre-ordained results for money).
Totally on-target or not, John McCain is in deep dung.
John McCain 48
Barack Obama 47
Whoa. Among early voters:
John McCain 42
Barack Obama 54
Double whoa. McCain's favorable split is a good, but not-great 58/41 (+17). However, the data's most interesting slice of data may be with regards to independents. Indies have a 48/51 (-3) favorable split for their homestate Senator.
If these numbers are accurate, McCain, the self-styled maverick politician has a negative personal rating with independent voters in his own state. In the general election match-up, McCain is losing indies to Obama by a whooping 51-38. What is keeping McCain above water seems to be that he is winning 14 percent of Arizona Democrats.
In what may be the most damning finding in this poll, Kos polled a prospective 2010 Senate match-up between McCain and two-term Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano (with the question worded to people "[i]f the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today"). This one is ugly, and really just pouring salt in poor McCain's wounds:
John McCain 45
Janet Napolitano 53
This comes on the eve of John McCain appearing on the presidential election ballot. October 31, just five days out! Incidentally, Napolitano sports a 69/21 favorable split.
Granted, in one sense, this poll does not mean a huge amount with that prospective race two years out. But it really does. First, Napolitano is term-limited, and there has been no doubt that she would be the strongest Democratic nominee for Senate in 2010, so this is telling data. Second, that McCain would lose his own seat if his re-election were held today is a pathetic showing. For what it is worth, I think that if he loses Tuesday, McCain will retire in 2010, but you can't sugar-coat this result and whats for both November 4, 2008, and for 2010. I am sure Kos enjoyed putting this one out.
And for those who may question a Kos poll, many of his polls with R2K recently have not been great for Democrats, and besides, we have already gone over why these polls are as good as any (R2K is not going to damage their prized credibility by ginning up pre-ordained results for money).
Totally on-target or not, John McCain is in deep dung.
The Wisdom of Obama's 50-State Strategy, Revisted
One of the top issues on our post-election list is another appraisal of Obama's 50-state campaign strategy. For those who have been reading T2L for a while might remember, this was a subject we spent a good of time on earlier in the summer, to the tune of four posts here, here, here, and here. At the time, I was a strong supporter of the strategy, and concluded with this view:
Given the national environment and his own financial advantages, Obama probably has a special, once-in-a-generation-if-not-more opportunity to win and also carry into office with him many Democratic candidates from dark red states.
At this late stage in the campaign, can anyone question the wisdom of Obama's ambitious strategy? If so, please consider the following polling data (from polls conducted over the last two weeks) in Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina.
Georgia
51-45 McCain (Strategic Vision, 10/20-10-22)
51-46 McCain (Rasmussen, 10/22)
48-47 Obama (Insider Advantage, 10/23)
49-43 McCain (NBC/Mason-Dixon, 10/22-10/23)
48-47 McCain (Insider Advantage, 10/27)
52-47 McCain (CNN/Time, 10/23-10/28)
Average: McCain 49.7, Obama 46
Indiana
48-46 Obama (PPP, 10/18-10/19)
51-41 Obama (Big Ten Battleground, 10/19-10/22)
49-45 Obama (SUSA, 10/21-10/22)
47-45 McCain (Howry-Gauge, 10/23-10/24)
48-47 Obama (R2K, 10/23-10/25)
50-44 McCain (Reuters/Zogby, 10/23-10/26)
47-47 Tied (R2K, 10/24-10/28)
46-45 Obama (Indy Star/Selzer, 10/26-10/28)
49-46 McCain (Rasmussen, 10/28-10/29)
47-47 Tied (SUSA, 10/27-10/30)
Average: Obama 47.1, McCain 46.4
North Carolina
51-47 Obama (CNN/Time, 10/19-10/21)
48-46 Obama (WSOC-TV, 10/20-10/21)
50-48 McCain (Rasmussen, 10/23)
47-47 Tied (NBC/Mason-Dixon, 10/22-10/24)
48-46 Obama (AP/GfK, 10/22-10/26)
50-46 Obama (Reuters/Zogby, 10/23-10/26)
49-48 Obama (PPP, 10/25-10/26)
49-48 McCain (Fox News/Rasmussen, 10/26)
47-43 Obama (National Journal/FD, 10/23-10/27)
52-46 Obama (CNN/Time, 10/23-10/28)
47-46 Obama (Civitas, 10/27-10/29)
50-48 Obama (Rasmussen, 10/29)
48-48 Tied (Politico/Insider Advantage, 10/29)
Average: Obama 48.7, McCain 46.9
So, over the last two weeks and a heckuva lot of polling we find Obama behind a few points in Georgia, and clinging to small leads in Indiana and North Carolina. To give you some context for what this collective closeness means, here are three more sets of numbers.
Georgia
George Bush 58
John Kerry 41
Indiana
George Bush 60
John Kerry 39
North Carolina
George Bush 56
John Kerry 44
Democratic losses of 17, 21, and 12 points just four years. Blow-outs, all.
I deliberately picked these three states because they are states which no one really considered "swing states" this year, but ones where the Obama campaign has invested a lot of resources and man-power. It has paid off handsomely. Obama might not win any of these states, but by focusing on them, he has expanded the map drastically, which helps him because of both the national environment favoring Democrats, and because of the financial and resource advantages he enjoys his opponent. And given these numbers, I think that there is a good chance he will win at least one of these states.
Entering this cycle, it looked as the election would be fought on the same narrow battlefield of Ohio, Florida, Ohio and Florida. I sure thought that way early on. The Obama campaign saw it differently, and because of their keen eye, this election could turn out ot be a n Electoral College rout for the Democratic ticket, and also carry into office some other down-ticket Democrats.
We will return to this issue with a broader analysis once all the smoke clears after Tuesday.
Given the national environment and his own financial advantages, Obama probably has a special, once-in-a-generation-if-not-more opportunity to win and also carry into office with him many Democratic candidates from dark red states.
At this late stage in the campaign, can anyone question the wisdom of Obama's ambitious strategy? If so, please consider the following polling data (from polls conducted over the last two weeks) in Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina.
Georgia
51-45 McCain (Strategic Vision, 10/20-10-22)
51-46 McCain (Rasmussen, 10/22)
48-47 Obama (Insider Advantage, 10/23)
49-43 McCain (NBC/Mason-Dixon, 10/22-10/23)
48-47 McCain (Insider Advantage, 10/27)
52-47 McCain (CNN/Time, 10/23-10/28)
Average: McCain 49.7, Obama 46
Indiana
48-46 Obama (PPP, 10/18-10/19)
51-41 Obama (Big Ten Battleground, 10/19-10/22)
49-45 Obama (SUSA, 10/21-10/22)
47-45 McCain (Howry-Gauge, 10/23-10/24)
48-47 Obama (R2K, 10/23-10/25)
50-44 McCain (Reuters/Zogby, 10/23-10/26)
47-47 Tied (R2K, 10/24-10/28)
46-45 Obama (Indy Star/Selzer, 10/26-10/28)
49-46 McCain (Rasmussen, 10/28-10/29)
47-47 Tied (SUSA, 10/27-10/30)
Average: Obama 47.1, McCain 46.4
North Carolina
51-47 Obama (CNN/Time, 10/19-10/21)
48-46 Obama (WSOC-TV, 10/20-10/21)
50-48 McCain (Rasmussen, 10/23)
47-47 Tied (NBC/Mason-Dixon, 10/22-10/24)
48-46 Obama (AP/GfK, 10/22-10/26)
50-46 Obama (Reuters/Zogby, 10/23-10/26)
49-48 Obama (PPP, 10/25-10/26)
49-48 McCain (Fox News/Rasmussen, 10/26)
47-43 Obama (National Journal/FD, 10/23-10/27)
52-46 Obama (CNN/Time, 10/23-10/28)
47-46 Obama (Civitas, 10/27-10/29)
50-48 Obama (Rasmussen, 10/29)
48-48 Tied (Politico/Insider Advantage, 10/29)
Average: Obama 48.7, McCain 46.9
So, over the last two weeks and a heckuva lot of polling we find Obama behind a few points in Georgia, and clinging to small leads in Indiana and North Carolina. To give you some context for what this collective closeness means, here are three more sets of numbers.
Georgia
George Bush 58
John Kerry 41
Indiana
George Bush 60
John Kerry 39
North Carolina
George Bush 56
John Kerry 44
Democratic losses of 17, 21, and 12 points just four years. Blow-outs, all.
I deliberately picked these three states because they are states which no one really considered "swing states" this year, but ones where the Obama campaign has invested a lot of resources and man-power. It has paid off handsomely. Obama might not win any of these states, but by focusing on them, he has expanded the map drastically, which helps him because of both the national environment favoring Democrats, and because of the financial and resource advantages he enjoys his opponent. And given these numbers, I think that there is a good chance he will win at least one of these states.
Entering this cycle, it looked as the election would be fought on the same narrow battlefield of Ohio, Florida, Ohio and Florida. I sure thought that way early on. The Obama campaign saw it differently, and because of their keen eye, this election could turn out ot be a n Electoral College rout for the Democratic ticket, and also carry into office some other down-ticket Democrats.
We will return to this issue with a broader analysis once all the smoke clears after Tuesday.
Sign of the Times: McCain to Hit Arizona
In what is a sad barometer of the state of John McCain's campaign, the Arizona Senator will be spending Monday campaigning in his homestate. This is in response to a smattering of polls in the last week showing the race in his state surprisingly tight. I realize that McCain, like Obama will end in his homestate on election day, but that he is campaigning there Monday is very telling. Conversely, it appears that Obama will be spending Monday in Florida, North Carolina, and Virgina.
In you are interested, here is what the recent Arizona polls have found:
46-44 McCain (Arizona State, 10/23-10/26)
*49-41 McCain (North. Arizona Univ., 10/18-10/27)
51-46 McCain (Rasmussen, 10/26)
53-46 McCain (CNN/Time, 10/23-10/28)
48-44 McCain (NBC/Mason-Dixon, 10/27-10/28)
Barack Obama is not going to win Arizona. But the fact that he is polling in the mid-40s and the senior Senator from Arizona is polling no than the low 50s is not a good sign.
In you are interested, here is what the recent Arizona polls have found:
46-44 McCain (Arizona State, 10/23-10/26)
*49-41 McCain (North. Arizona Univ., 10/18-10/27)
51-46 McCain (Rasmussen, 10/26)
53-46 McCain (CNN/Time, 10/23-10/28)
48-44 McCain (NBC/Mason-Dixon, 10/27-10/28)
Barack Obama is not going to win Arizona. But the fact that he is polling in the mid-40s and the senior Senator from Arizona is polling no than the low 50s is not a good sign.
Jim Martin Must Be Happy
In a conference call this morning, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe announced that the campaign would be returning to the air in Georgia and North Dakota, as well as going up in Arizona. Plouffe:
"When we looked at Georgia, we think we see a pathway there," he said, pointing to black turnout and turnout among younger voters." He said the campaign believes that the majority of independent voters will support Obama.
"When we looked at Georgia, we think we see a pathway there," he said, pointing to black turnout and turnout among younger voters." He said the campaign believes that the majority of independent voters will support Obama.
The Tanking Continues
One more tidbit from the NY Times/CBS national poll released yesterday, courtesy of the Times:
All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favor Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.
And in a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain’s image, voters said they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people for his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.
59 percent. That is not a bare majority of Americans who think Sarah Palin is unqualified. What worsens the matter for Republicans, however, is that approximately one-third of voters say that the two veep choices will impact their vote. As the Times notes, not shockingly, most of those voters look like they are going with Barack Obama.
Sarah Palin has been an utter disaster, the likes of which no one anticipated -- especially me, the idiot who thought she was what John McCain needed earlier this summer. Palin as veep has violated what many believe should be the number tenet in picking a presidential running mate: "Do no harm." The Alaska governor is actively hurting the GOP ticket, while Joe Biden, I think it can fairly said, has done no harm. And yet, this is the woman Rush Limbaugh and Morton Blackwell want to basically lead the Republican Party entering 2009. Brilliant.
Once the election is all over I intend to write a good deal on the why and how Sarah Palin ended up hurting John McCain. It's the least I should do given my dead-wrong political read of Palin in June.
All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favor Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.
And in a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain’s image, voters said they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people for his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.
59 percent. That is not a bare majority of Americans who think Sarah Palin is unqualified. What worsens the matter for Republicans, however, is that approximately one-third of voters say that the two veep choices will impact their vote. As the Times notes, not shockingly, most of those voters look like they are going with Barack Obama.
Sarah Palin has been an utter disaster, the likes of which no one anticipated -- especially me, the idiot who thought she was what John McCain needed earlier this summer. Palin as veep has violated what many believe should be the number tenet in picking a presidential running mate: "Do no harm." The Alaska governor is actively hurting the GOP ticket, while Joe Biden, I think it can fairly said, has done no harm. And yet, this is the woman Rush Limbaugh and Morton Blackwell want to basically lead the Republican Party entering 2009. Brilliant.
Once the election is all over I intend to write a good deal on the why and how Sarah Palin ended up hurting John McCain. It's the least I should do given my dead-wrong political read of Palin in June.
Obama and the Jewish Vote
The New Republic has an interesting piece on the web regarding Obama's standing with the Jewish vote. Early Democratic fears circulated that Jews, one of the party's most loyal voting blocs, would abandon Obama in the general election for John McCain. However, as the article notes, the Obama campaign has done a tremendous job of bringing many once-apprehensive Jewish voters back into the Democratic fold:
Obama managed to hold onto the Jewish vote in part because of choices he made early on in the election, namely his struggle to prove himself tough on Jewish issues and to combat the viral smear campaigns with information campaigns of his own. When his Middle East policy adviser Robert Malley admitted to having met regularly with Hamas, Obama fired him from the campaign. He also distanced himself from President Carter under similar circumstances. For outreach coordination, Obama hired Dan Shapiro, a well-regarded former Bill Nelson staffer who put together a relentlessly on-message operation that distributed endless talking points to allies and potential allies. Last January, for example, the campaign circulated a letter signed by the heads of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center denouncing the smear campaign.
"[Obama's people] weren't doing more than Hillary," says long-time Jewish Democratic operative Steve Rabinowitz, who supported Clinton in the primaries. "But Obama needed it more. And they were as aggressive as possible."
While the Jewish vote is very small as a whole, Jewish voter turnout is high and can potentially impact the balance in several close states. Additionally, financial support from Jewish voters and groups is always key in a presidential contest.
I make this post not so much to show how Obama is now as strong with the Jewish vote as John Kerry was in 2004, but just to give another example of what a smooth, smart operation Obama has run all year. Basically, he and his advisers identify a problem, and they deal with it with cold precision and often to great effect. In this case, recognizing the breadth of the problem, Team Obama aggressively pursued measures to correct it.
This contrasts with the McCain campaign on several levels:
At the same time, the response of Jewish Republicans and McCain supporters to Obama's late surge with Jewish voters has been disorganized and inept. In late October, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), the major independent Jewish group on McCain's side, released a flurry of direct mail and TV advertisements reminding voters of Obama's ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and former terrorist William Ayers. Targeted to swing states with large Jewish populations, the RJC's campaign cost upwards of $1 million. But voters yawned--the campaign was on the air just as Obama's numbers among Jewish voters were going up. Part of the problem is that McCain's initial appeal to the Jewish community was largely predicated on his position as a moderate Republican. As he's shed his moderate image--or as Obama's campaign has undermined it--his appeal to Jewish voters has declined. And attacks that seem too partisan further alienate Jewish voters, who tend to be center-left to liberal--perhaps a reason why McCain's recent attempts to associate Obama with Palestinian-American professor Rashid Khalidi haven't stuck.
Finally, the contrast between the two vice-presidential nominees provided a major lift for Obama and may have been the central factor in turning the Jewish vote around[...]
[I]t would be hard to overestimate the role that Sarah Palin has played in bringing the Jewish vote solidly behind Obama. During the national honeymoon that followed her selection and convention speech, Jewish voters simply did not share the rest of the country's enthusiasm--and that was the very moment when Jewish polling numbers began to tip back in Obama's favor. According to an American Jewish Committee poll, 54 percent of Jews disapproved of her selection. As Koch told me, perhaps summarizing the Jewish community's collective response: "She scares the hell out of me."
After choosing Palin, McCain was no longer running the campaign of a moderate Republican. He could no longer hammer away at Obama on Israel, for he had selected a nominee with literally zero record on the issue...
John McCain was likely never going to win the Jewish vote, but any gains he could have made this year were undue by campaign's overly-harsh and even silly and tired attacks on Obama. As the author notes, the pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate was the final straw for many voters who had been either leaning towards McCain or were still nervous about Obama.
We can add Jewish voters to the growing category of "political collateral damange" from the Palin pick, which, in pushing McCain away from moderates and towards conservatives, has ended up undermining McCain with the very groups he needed to pick up in order to win in this national environment.
Obama managed to hold onto the Jewish vote in part because of choices he made early on in the election, namely his struggle to prove himself tough on Jewish issues and to combat the viral smear campaigns with information campaigns of his own. When his Middle East policy adviser Robert Malley admitted to having met regularly with Hamas, Obama fired him from the campaign. He also distanced himself from President Carter under similar circumstances. For outreach coordination, Obama hired Dan Shapiro, a well-regarded former Bill Nelson staffer who put together a relentlessly on-message operation that distributed endless talking points to allies and potential allies. Last January, for example, the campaign circulated a letter signed by the heads of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center denouncing the smear campaign.
"[Obama's people] weren't doing more than Hillary," says long-time Jewish Democratic operative Steve Rabinowitz, who supported Clinton in the primaries. "But Obama needed it more. And they were as aggressive as possible."
While the Jewish vote is very small as a whole, Jewish voter turnout is high and can potentially impact the balance in several close states. Additionally, financial support from Jewish voters and groups is always key in a presidential contest.
I make this post not so much to show how Obama is now as strong with the Jewish vote as John Kerry was in 2004, but just to give another example of what a smooth, smart operation Obama has run all year. Basically, he and his advisers identify a problem, and they deal with it with cold precision and often to great effect. In this case, recognizing the breadth of the problem, Team Obama aggressively pursued measures to correct it.
This contrasts with the McCain campaign on several levels:
At the same time, the response of Jewish Republicans and McCain supporters to Obama's late surge with Jewish voters has been disorganized and inept. In late October, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), the major independent Jewish group on McCain's side, released a flurry of direct mail and TV advertisements reminding voters of Obama's ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and former terrorist William Ayers. Targeted to swing states with large Jewish populations, the RJC's campaign cost upwards of $1 million. But voters yawned--the campaign was on the air just as Obama's numbers among Jewish voters were going up. Part of the problem is that McCain's initial appeal to the Jewish community was largely predicated on his position as a moderate Republican. As he's shed his moderate image--or as Obama's campaign has undermined it--his appeal to Jewish voters has declined. And attacks that seem too partisan further alienate Jewish voters, who tend to be center-left to liberal--perhaps a reason why McCain's recent attempts to associate Obama with Palestinian-American professor Rashid Khalidi haven't stuck.
Finally, the contrast between the two vice-presidential nominees provided a major lift for Obama and may have been the central factor in turning the Jewish vote around[...]
[I]t would be hard to overestimate the role that Sarah Palin has played in bringing the Jewish vote solidly behind Obama. During the national honeymoon that followed her selection and convention speech, Jewish voters simply did not share the rest of the country's enthusiasm--and that was the very moment when Jewish polling numbers began to tip back in Obama's favor. According to an American Jewish Committee poll, 54 percent of Jews disapproved of her selection. As Koch told me, perhaps summarizing the Jewish community's collective response: "She scares the hell out of me."
After choosing Palin, McCain was no longer running the campaign of a moderate Republican. He could no longer hammer away at Obama on Israel, for he had selected a nominee with literally zero record on the issue...
John McCain was likely never going to win the Jewish vote, but any gains he could have made this year were undue by campaign's overly-harsh and even silly and tired attacks on Obama. As the author notes, the pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate was the final straw for many voters who had been either leaning towards McCain or were still nervous about Obama.
We can add Jewish voters to the growing category of "political collateral damange" from the Palin pick, which, in pushing McCain away from moderates and towards conservatives, has ended up undermining McCain with the very groups he needed to pick up in order to win in this national environment.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
An Upset Deep in the Heart of Nowhere?
Poor Jill Derby. She is running hard in a competitive race which has gotten little national notice, and in turn even less support from her party (not to mention not a single mention in T2L's vaunting rankings either). Derby, who is running for Congress in a very conservative district after falling short in 2006, has managed to keep it fairly close this year, but she has waited and waited for the national Democratic Party to pitch in while it has helped just about every other Democrat in a tight contest except her. Yet, all of that may be changing today on the heels of a poll and some other information very favorable to her chances.
Derby is running the enormous Second District in Nevada. The district takes up just about every inch of the state, excluding Las Vegas, its suburbs, and most of Clark County in the southern tip. Therefore, its population center is in Washoe County and Reno, and well as in Carson City, with a smattering of people in eastern Elko County and in western Douglas County. Unlike the southern part of the state, the district is very conservative, and libertarian-leaning. Its PVI is R+8, and President Bush won here 57-41 in 2006. Derby ran two years ago with little support, falling to now-freshman Rep. Dean Heller by 50-45.
Derby announced for a rematch, and while she has fundraised okay, she has been far short of Heller on the financial front. Because the polling has not been great, the DCCC has not really waded into the rural district. Really, there has been very little polling here, with most of it coming from R2K.
47-42 Heller (R2K, 8/18-8/20)
48-41 Heller (R2K, 10/3-10/5)
That second poll was a dagger. It came out just as the DCCC was beginning to harden many of its spending plans, and I suspect that it impacted its decision of whether or not to dedicate resources here. (Mason-Dixon came out with a poll 10/10 showing Heller up 51-38; and while it seemed suspect and its sample too small, I have to believe it influenced the DCCC too). This was all a killer, and since then, NV-02 has been completely off the national radar.
However, today R2K came out with a new result that may breath new life into the distirct which falls in the heart of Desert and Nowhere, U.S.A.
Dean Heller 47
Jill Derby 44
If true, this shows a good deal of tightening in the race less than one week out. With Heller unable to close the deal and get to 50 percent, the DCCC today apparently committed to spending some resources in the race.
(I must acknowledge, however, that the poll has apparently under-sampled voters in the rural counties in the district, while slightly over-sampling the Clark County portion of the district and heavily over-sampling the Washoe part. Because the rural counties are very conservative, this under-sampling would like undercut Heller's support.)
It gets better for the Democrat, courtesy of some early voting numbers. First, as we have discussed, early voting has exploded in Washoe County, Nevada's second biggest county, seemingly to the benefit of Democrats like Barack Obama and Jill Derby. As of Wednesday, 68,258 people voted early, with the following party break-down:
Democrat: 48.9 percent
Republican: 34.3 percent
Unaffiliated/Other: 16.8 percent
In a county that regularly votes Republican, this a big turnaround. And, incidentally, polling of these voters shows Obama leading 50-40, in a county Republicans routinely carry en route to victory statewide.
Going further, an article Thursday in the Las Vegas Sun notes the following statistic as of Wednesday night:
The 2nd Congressional District has a race between incumbent Republican Dean Heller and Democrat Jill Derby. So far, 6,446 Democrats, 4,410 Republican and 2,493 voters with no party have cast ballots. The mailed votes came from 1,223 Republicans, 576 Democrats and 370 non-affiliated voters.
Another piece in Wednesday's Las Vegas Review-Journal backs up the notion that this voting disparity favors Derby:
Exit polling of early voters in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District finds Democrat Jill Derby building a sizable lead over the incumbent Republican congressman she hopes to unseat, Rep. Dean Heller.
Of those who had voted through Sunday in the rural and Northern Nevada district, 55 percent favored Derby versus 44 percent for Heller, according to the automated survey of 1,132 respondents conducted by Las Vegas-based DNA Communications Consulting Group [...]
Statistics kept by the secretary of state's office show that early voting turnout in Washoe County has been high and heavily Democratic. Partisan statistics for the 15 rural counties aren't available, but they tend to be heavily Republican.
While this is only an exit poll, together the two articles provide strong pieces of evidence that Derby is much-bettered positioned that she was in 2006 and many observers felt she would be this year in her Republican district. While this data does not include those heavy-GOP rural counties we mentioned, if Derby can run up clear wins in Washoe County, she would be in her best position possible to oust Heller. She really can't win without taking this voter-rich part of the Second District.
Finally, let's look at one last series of numbers, namely registration statistics for the Second District. Specifically, I want to note how this district has been changing in the last years.
November 2006: GOP held a 47,718 vote edge over Dems.
August 2008: GOP +29,405
October 2008: GOP +22,038
What does this spell? Simply that while the district is still clearly Republican, it is moving slowly but surely to the center. In the span of two years, the GOP's registration advantage was cut in half, courtesy of several factors including robust efforts by the Obama campaign, not to mention movement into northern Nevada by people out of southern California. Not to mention that John Kerry bettered Al Gore's number here (from 37 to 41 percent), while President Bush remained at 57 percent in both election. Very small, but nonetheless steady movement in the direction of Democrats.
These are numbers that will one day catch up to Dean Heller, whether this year or sometime in the future. It does not help the GOP incumbent that Obama is posting very strong numbers statewide, potential victory margins that may be wide enough to span the entire state, even the most conservatives parts which fall within the Second District. Jill Derby still faces an uphill climb, and honestly, I do not think she will win in the end. But for some reason I find this sprawling district really interesting, and I figure the NV-02 race deserves more attention for its potential to be close. We'll know soon enough.
Derby is running the enormous Second District in Nevada. The district takes up just about every inch of the state, excluding Las Vegas, its suburbs, and most of Clark County in the southern tip. Therefore, its population center is in Washoe County and Reno, and well as in Carson City, with a smattering of people in eastern Elko County and in western Douglas County. Unlike the southern part of the state, the district is very conservative, and libertarian-leaning. Its PVI is R+8, and President Bush won here 57-41 in 2006. Derby ran two years ago with little support, falling to now-freshman Rep. Dean Heller by 50-45.
Derby announced for a rematch, and while she has fundraised okay, she has been far short of Heller on the financial front. Because the polling has not been great, the DCCC has not really waded into the rural district. Really, there has been very little polling here, with most of it coming from R2K.
47-42 Heller (R2K, 8/18-8/20)
48-41 Heller (R2K, 10/3-10/5)
That second poll was a dagger. It came out just as the DCCC was beginning to harden many of its spending plans, and I suspect that it impacted its decision of whether or not to dedicate resources here. (Mason-Dixon came out with a poll 10/10 showing Heller up 51-38; and while it seemed suspect and its sample too small, I have to believe it influenced the DCCC too). This was all a killer, and since then, NV-02 has been completely off the national radar.
However, today R2K came out with a new result that may breath new life into the distirct which falls in the heart of Desert and Nowhere, U.S.A.
Dean Heller 47
Jill Derby 44
If true, this shows a good deal of tightening in the race less than one week out. With Heller unable to close the deal and get to 50 percent, the DCCC today apparently committed to spending some resources in the race.
(I must acknowledge, however, that the poll has apparently under-sampled voters in the rural counties in the district, while slightly over-sampling the Clark County portion of the district and heavily over-sampling the Washoe part. Because the rural counties are very conservative, this under-sampling would like undercut Heller's support.)
It gets better for the Democrat, courtesy of some early voting numbers. First, as we have discussed, early voting has exploded in Washoe County, Nevada's second biggest county, seemingly to the benefit of Democrats like Barack Obama and Jill Derby. As of Wednesday, 68,258 people voted early, with the following party break-down:
Democrat: 48.9 percent
Republican: 34.3 percent
Unaffiliated/Other: 16.8 percent
In a county that regularly votes Republican, this a big turnaround. And, incidentally, polling of these voters shows Obama leading 50-40, in a county Republicans routinely carry en route to victory statewide.
Going further, an article Thursday in the Las Vegas Sun notes the following statistic as of Wednesday night:
The 2nd Congressional District has a race between incumbent Republican Dean Heller and Democrat Jill Derby. So far, 6,446 Democrats, 4,410 Republican and 2,493 voters with no party have cast ballots. The mailed votes came from 1,223 Republicans, 576 Democrats and 370 non-affiliated voters.
Another piece in Wednesday's Las Vegas Review-Journal backs up the notion that this voting disparity favors Derby:
Exit polling of early voters in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District finds Democrat Jill Derby building a sizable lead over the incumbent Republican congressman she hopes to unseat, Rep. Dean Heller.
Of those who had voted through Sunday in the rural and Northern Nevada district, 55 percent favored Derby versus 44 percent for Heller, according to the automated survey of 1,132 respondents conducted by Las Vegas-based DNA Communications Consulting Group [...]
Statistics kept by the secretary of state's office show that early voting turnout in Washoe County has been high and heavily Democratic. Partisan statistics for the 15 rural counties aren't available, but they tend to be heavily Republican.
While this is only an exit poll, together the two articles provide strong pieces of evidence that Derby is much-bettered positioned that she was in 2006 and many observers felt she would be this year in her Republican district. While this data does not include those heavy-GOP rural counties we mentioned, if Derby can run up clear wins in Washoe County, she would be in her best position possible to oust Heller. She really can't win without taking this voter-rich part of the Second District.
Finally, let's look at one last series of numbers, namely registration statistics for the Second District. Specifically, I want to note how this district has been changing in the last years.
November 2006: GOP held a 47,718 vote edge over Dems.
August 2008: GOP +29,405
October 2008: GOP +22,038
What does this spell? Simply that while the district is still clearly Republican, it is moving slowly but surely to the center. In the span of two years, the GOP's registration advantage was cut in half, courtesy of several factors including robust efforts by the Obama campaign, not to mention movement into northern Nevada by people out of southern California. Not to mention that John Kerry bettered Al Gore's number here (from 37 to 41 percent), while President Bush remained at 57 percent in both election. Very small, but nonetheless steady movement in the direction of Democrats.
These are numbers that will one day catch up to Dean Heller, whether this year or sometime in the future. It does not help the GOP incumbent that Obama is posting very strong numbers statewide, potential victory margins that may be wide enough to span the entire state, even the most conservatives parts which fall within the Second District. Jill Derby still faces an uphill climb, and honestly, I do not think she will win in the end. But for some reason I find this sprawling district really interesting, and I figure the NV-02 race deserves more attention for its potential to be close. We'll know soon enough.
RNC Spending, Guns, and Democrats
Stu Rothenberg is up with a good report today on CNN. Rothernberg points out the RNC's increased spending in mainly rural areas and smaller markets in Colorado, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, postulating that the national GOP is trying to flip wavering conservative Democrats in these areas away from supporting Barack Obama and other down-ticket Democrats. Here is the good part of the article:
The ad, which is part of the RNC's Independent Expenditure campaign that has been run by OnMessage Inc., a Republican media, polling and strategy firm, raises an issue that some strategists believe has mistakenly been underplayed by the McCain campaign.
"If Barack Obama becomes president, your Second Amendment right to defend yourself could be in danger. In fact, in Illinois, Obama voted to prosecute law-abiding citizens who used a gun to defend themselves or their families," says a narrator in the RNC spot.
"Obama supports local governments to ban guns," the radio ad continues. "Obama wants to license and register gun owners. Obama opposes judges who protect our Second Amendment right."
The spot's message surely will resonate with conservative Republicans and could help with turnout among those partisans. But the major target audience appears to be conservative Democrats, many of whom have leaned toward Obama recently because of economic fears and uncertainty but surely are closer to the GOP's positions on cultural issues.
Interestingly, the ad also could help GOP candidates for the House and Senate, since they too are losing those same conservative Democratic voters. You can bet that it's no coincidence the ad is airing in North Carolina, which has both a Senate and a gubernatorial race as well as a hot House contest, and Missouri, with a race for governor and two key House contests.
This is an interesting view of a storyline that I had not really taken notice of. It makes total sense that the RNC would try one last-ditch surge of ads to peel off conservative Democrats in key areas that might be ready to pull the lever for Obama. Furthermore, in terms of preserving threatened House and Senate seats in red areas, the campaign move comes as a bonus. Indeed, let's check out close down-ballot races in the states listed above:
CO-Senate
CO-04
MO-Governor
MO-06/09
MT-Governor
NC-Senate
NC-08
OH-01/02/15/16
PA-03/10/11
VA-02/11
WV-02
Spending to influence some of these races makes a lot of sense. The Colorado Senate race is done, but the Fourth District contest is both in a rural area, and there is a slight chance for a GOP comeback (barely). Similarly, Missouri's governor's race is over, but the contest in the Ninth District in the northeastern slice of the state is now close. I still do not get Montana's spending, since if McCain loses it, he will get blown out nationally anyway, and the governor's race there has never been tight. Both races in the Tarheel State are still winnable for the GOP, OH-02 is a non-urban district (mostly, as it falls just east of Cincinnati), PA-03/10/11 are in areas with many conservative Democrats, VA-02 is in a military district, and finally, much of West Virginia is rural.
Spending in a lot of these areas makes sense in order to preserve some threatened GOP seats. I agree with Stu that the Obama-will-take-away guns angle is one the GOP really has not brandished much this cycle, and it is a touchy issue which has motivated conservatives voters against Democrats before.
The RNC is therefore trying to have its cake and it eat it to by using a message that might both undermine Obama's inroads in areas that are generally shut-out to national Democratic nominees, and also could keep some promising Democratic prospects down-ballot at bay. With many of the above such races tight, this strategy might bear fruit.
The ad, which is part of the RNC's Independent Expenditure campaign that has been run by OnMessage Inc., a Republican media, polling and strategy firm, raises an issue that some strategists believe has mistakenly been underplayed by the McCain campaign.
"If Barack Obama becomes president, your Second Amendment right to defend yourself could be in danger. In fact, in Illinois, Obama voted to prosecute law-abiding citizens who used a gun to defend themselves or their families," says a narrator in the RNC spot.
"Obama supports local governments to ban guns," the radio ad continues. "Obama wants to license and register gun owners. Obama opposes judges who protect our Second Amendment right."
The spot's message surely will resonate with conservative Republicans and could help with turnout among those partisans. But the major target audience appears to be conservative Democrats, many of whom have leaned toward Obama recently because of economic fears and uncertainty but surely are closer to the GOP's positions on cultural issues.
Interestingly, the ad also could help GOP candidates for the House and Senate, since they too are losing those same conservative Democratic voters. You can bet that it's no coincidence the ad is airing in North Carolina, which has both a Senate and a gubernatorial race as well as a hot House contest, and Missouri, with a race for governor and two key House contests.
This is an interesting view of a storyline that I had not really taken notice of. It makes total sense that the RNC would try one last-ditch surge of ads to peel off conservative Democrats in key areas that might be ready to pull the lever for Obama. Furthermore, in terms of preserving threatened House and Senate seats in red areas, the campaign move comes as a bonus. Indeed, let's check out close down-ballot races in the states listed above:
CO-Senate
CO-04
MO-Governor
MO-06/09
MT-Governor
NC-Senate
NC-08
OH-01/02/15/16
PA-03/10/11
VA-02/11
WV-02
Spending to influence some of these races makes a lot of sense. The Colorado Senate race is done, but the Fourth District contest is both in a rural area, and there is a slight chance for a GOP comeback (barely). Similarly, Missouri's governor's race is over, but the contest in the Ninth District in the northeastern slice of the state is now close. I still do not get Montana's spending, since if McCain loses it, he will get blown out nationally anyway, and the governor's race there has never been tight. Both races in the Tarheel State are still winnable for the GOP, OH-02 is a non-urban district (mostly, as it falls just east of Cincinnati), PA-03/10/11 are in areas with many conservative Democrats, VA-02 is in a military district, and finally, much of West Virginia is rural.
Spending in a lot of these areas makes sense in order to preserve some threatened GOP seats. I agree with Stu that the Obama-will-take-away guns angle is one the GOP really has not brandished much this cycle, and it is a touchy issue which has motivated conservatives voters against Democrats before.
The RNC is therefore trying to have its cake and it eat it to by using a message that might both undermine Obama's inroads in areas that are generally shut-out to national Democratic nominees, and also could keep some promising Democratic prospects down-ballot at bay. With many of the above such races tight, this strategy might bear fruit.
Rahm to the White House Would Surprise Me
Mark Halperin is posting rumors tonight put up by the AP that Rahm Emanuel has been approached by Team Obama about potentially leaving Congress and becoming Barack Obama's White House Chief of Staff (assuming Obama wins on Tuesday). This is an interesting storyline, and while I would not dismiss it out of hand, it would surprise me not so much if Emanuel took the job if dangled to him, but more that Obama would ultimately offer it to him.
The first response to this rumor by many people will likely be that Emanuel would not take this job because he is rising fast in the House leadership, and at number four in the hierarchy and only 49 years old, he would rather bide his time to become Speaker of the House one day. This view makes a great deal of sense, but personally I do not think it would be a deal-breaker by any means.
There is no question that Emanuel is a huge player in the House today, coming in large part off of his hugely successful stint as head of the DCCC during the 2006 cycle where the Democrats took back the House. Additionally, as his stewardship of the DCCC demonstrated, Rahm is a shrewd and brilliant political tactician, possessing talents that his colleagues greatly admire.
Yet, there are good reasons why Rahm would not want to wait specifically for the Speakership. Yes, Rahm is number four on the depth chart, but his rise to the Speaker's chair is not a given. Nancy Pelosi looks like she is settling in for at least a few more years. After her, Steny Hoyer, the majority leader, is next in line and I think he is waiting until his turn comes. I concede that the number three, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn will not get it before Rahm given his older age and frankly, his lack of tremendous political acumen.
So, Rahm has to wait for Nancy to leave and then wait for Hoyer to get his shot and then retire. While he is only 49 years old and Democrats look like they will be in the House majority for a while now, who the heck knows what the future holds? The Democrats could lose the majority in 10 years, right as he is about to become Speaker, and Emanuel could be shut out if the GOP were to get back the majority and hold it for a while. The whole point being that waiting for Speaker in his position -- or any plum tht hinges on some many undetermined eventualities -- is not a given, and I really don't know if it is something Rahm wait for if he could have the ultra powerful position of Chief of Staff.
White House Chief of Staff is a position that would fit Emanuel very well. He is a consummate political insider with an enormous network of friends and contacts across and outside the government. He knows how to play the political game better than anyone, having been in the Clinton White House and also having remade the national party during his time at the head of the DCCC in 2005-06. It is a position he could fill, and probably fill well.
Perhaps more importantly, it is extremely powerful. The Chief of Staff is the President's top guy, and one of his closest confidants. He has more power than most cabinet secretaries, the Senate Majority Leader, and maybe even the Speaker herself. That would be attractive to a guy with Rahm's ego.
The problem as I see it is that as good a fit as Rahm would be in the position itself, he would likely not be the type of person that would fit as Obama's Chief of Staff. If this long campaign has proven anything, Obama is a man who operates on an even-keel just about all the time, and he likes to project coolness and discipline. These are qualities that are not perfectly attributed to Rahm Emanuel. Look at Obama's top advisers right now: David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and others who we never hear about. Obama puts a premium on quiet, balanced leadership behind the scenes. While Rahm is a behind-the-scenes guy himself, he does not possess the same kind of personal style as men like Axelrod and Plouffe. (And no, while a campaign is not a White House organization, the environment that envelopes the two lifestyles is so similar that they are basically the same in this key respect).
If you would like to get an idea of Rahm the man and his leadership style, I recommend you get your hands on the neat little book "The Thumpin'" by Naftali Bendavid. The book is about Rahm's work as head of the DCCC in great detail. Mine is one of the featured reviews on Amazon, and as you can see, I have enormous respect for Emanuel and his talents which remade the Democratic Party when it needed a kick in the butt most.
Anyway, as the book illustrates, Rahm is a ball of political energy and fire: a profane, excitable, ego-maniacal, take-no-prisoners, yeller-and-screamer, win-at-all-costs guy. It is through this personality that Rahm helped rebuild the moribund Democratic Party and got it back into the majority. In many ways, Rahm played a greater role than just about anyone -- Obama included -- in putting the Democrats back in power and constructing a blueprint for how the party could win elections and respectability (not to mention dignity) once again after years of beatings at the hands of the wily Republicans. Rahm is a guy who will do anything to win, and he often expresses himself in colorful (and not to mention unprintable) language and actions to get his point across.
While this type of skill set gets things done, however, I do not think it is what Obama will look for in his top White House aide. I don't see it, despite Obama and Rahm's Chicago connection and the latter's immense political gifts and insights. And this view takes into account the fact that since he has entered the House leadership, Rahm has mellowed, at least publicly (which is what matters for perceptions), and he has become a sharp communicator for the leadership.
The name being bandied about the most, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, makes a lot more sense for Obama, even if it does not happen. Daschle's quiet, workmanlike persona fits with Obama better. Plus, he was a very early backer of Obama, and his longtime Chief of Staff, the respected Pete Rouse, became Obama's top guy in the Senate upon Obama's election in 2004 (as Dascle was ousted the same year). Daschle may not be as skilled as Rahm, but he is also not as profane, which is a plus here.
My conclusion? As my Amazon review shows, I think Rahm is one of the two smartest elected figures in the Democratic Party today (along with Chuck Schumer), and I have molto respect for him. I think he would actually be a great White House Chief of Staff, and a loyal solider to Obama. I even believe that he would not ultimately pass up the job if it were offered to him. But despite all of this, I do not think it will be offered to him by President-elect Obama.
The first response to this rumor by many people will likely be that Emanuel would not take this job because he is rising fast in the House leadership, and at number four in the hierarchy and only 49 years old, he would rather bide his time to become Speaker of the House one day. This view makes a great deal of sense, but personally I do not think it would be a deal-breaker by any means.
There is no question that Emanuel is a huge player in the House today, coming in large part off of his hugely successful stint as head of the DCCC during the 2006 cycle where the Democrats took back the House. Additionally, as his stewardship of the DCCC demonstrated, Rahm is a shrewd and brilliant political tactician, possessing talents that his colleagues greatly admire.
Yet, there are good reasons why Rahm would not want to wait specifically for the Speakership. Yes, Rahm is number four on the depth chart, but his rise to the Speaker's chair is not a given. Nancy Pelosi looks like she is settling in for at least a few more years. After her, Steny Hoyer, the majority leader, is next in line and I think he is waiting until his turn comes. I concede that the number three, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn will not get it before Rahm given his older age and frankly, his lack of tremendous political acumen.
So, Rahm has to wait for Nancy to leave and then wait for Hoyer to get his shot and then retire. While he is only 49 years old and Democrats look like they will be in the House majority for a while now, who the heck knows what the future holds? The Democrats could lose the majority in 10 years, right as he is about to become Speaker, and Emanuel could be shut out if the GOP were to get back the majority and hold it for a while. The whole point being that waiting for Speaker in his position -- or any plum tht hinges on some many undetermined eventualities -- is not a given, and I really don't know if it is something Rahm wait for if he could have the ultra powerful position of Chief of Staff.
White House Chief of Staff is a position that would fit Emanuel very well. He is a consummate political insider with an enormous network of friends and contacts across and outside the government. He knows how to play the political game better than anyone, having been in the Clinton White House and also having remade the national party during his time at the head of the DCCC in 2005-06. It is a position he could fill, and probably fill well.
Perhaps more importantly, it is extremely powerful. The Chief of Staff is the President's top guy, and one of his closest confidants. He has more power than most cabinet secretaries, the Senate Majority Leader, and maybe even the Speaker herself. That would be attractive to a guy with Rahm's ego.
The problem as I see it is that as good a fit as Rahm would be in the position itself, he would likely not be the type of person that would fit as Obama's Chief of Staff. If this long campaign has proven anything, Obama is a man who operates on an even-keel just about all the time, and he likes to project coolness and discipline. These are qualities that are not perfectly attributed to Rahm Emanuel. Look at Obama's top advisers right now: David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and others who we never hear about. Obama puts a premium on quiet, balanced leadership behind the scenes. While Rahm is a behind-the-scenes guy himself, he does not possess the same kind of personal style as men like Axelrod and Plouffe. (And no, while a campaign is not a White House organization, the environment that envelopes the two lifestyles is so similar that they are basically the same in this key respect).
If you would like to get an idea of Rahm the man and his leadership style, I recommend you get your hands on the neat little book "The Thumpin'" by Naftali Bendavid. The book is about Rahm's work as head of the DCCC in great detail. Mine is one of the featured reviews on Amazon, and as you can see, I have enormous respect for Emanuel and his talents which remade the Democratic Party when it needed a kick in the butt most.
Anyway, as the book illustrates, Rahm is a ball of political energy and fire: a profane, excitable, ego-maniacal, take-no-prisoners, yeller-and-screamer, win-at-all-costs guy. It is through this personality that Rahm helped rebuild the moribund Democratic Party and got it back into the majority. In many ways, Rahm played a greater role than just about anyone -- Obama included -- in putting the Democrats back in power and constructing a blueprint for how the party could win elections and respectability (not to mention dignity) once again after years of beatings at the hands of the wily Republicans. Rahm is a guy who will do anything to win, and he often expresses himself in colorful (and not to mention unprintable) language and actions to get his point across.
While this type of skill set gets things done, however, I do not think it is what Obama will look for in his top White House aide. I don't see it, despite Obama and Rahm's Chicago connection and the latter's immense political gifts and insights. And this view takes into account the fact that since he has entered the House leadership, Rahm has mellowed, at least publicly (which is what matters for perceptions), and he has become a sharp communicator for the leadership.
The name being bandied about the most, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, makes a lot more sense for Obama, even if it does not happen. Daschle's quiet, workmanlike persona fits with Obama better. Plus, he was a very early backer of Obama, and his longtime Chief of Staff, the respected Pete Rouse, became Obama's top guy in the Senate upon Obama's election in 2004 (as Dascle was ousted the same year). Daschle may not be as skilled as Rahm, but he is also not as profane, which is a plus here.
My conclusion? As my Amazon review shows, I think Rahm is one of the two smartest elected figures in the Democratic Party today (along with Chuck Schumer), and I have molto respect for him. I think he would actually be a great White House Chief of Staff, and a loyal solider to Obama. I even believe that he would not ultimately pass up the job if it were offered to him. But despite all of this, I do not think it will be offered to him by President-elect Obama.
Dole Channels Jesse
Tom Jensen over at the blog for Public Policy Polling makes an interesting observation on Elizabeth Dole's new commerical in North Carolina where she assails her opponent, Kay Hagan, for taking money from an atheist group the ad labels "godless Americans." The ad closes with a woman doing an impression of Hagan saying "there is no God." Jensen says the following about the ad:
Their new Godless Americans ad simply smacks of desperation. It's the 2008 version of Jesse Helms' hands ad. The problem is that North Carolina has changed a heck of a lot since then, and I'm not sure that kind of campaign tactic is still going to be effective here. Hagan is doing well because she's so popular with suburbanites, the folks who have moved here from outside the state. Is this kind of bogeyman really going to work with them? I doubt it, but I guess we'll see.
Based in the Tarheel State, PPP has been polling and following the close North Carolina Senate race very closely, so I take their views and opinions on North Carolina contests very seriously.
Anyway, Jensen's thoughts here got me to thinking about the changing South and Jesse Helms. I agree that Dole's ad smacks of the desperation of a campaign that is losing, but more it does reflect on Dole's inability to detect both the changing political dynamics of her state and that this ad may fall flat in 2008.
For those who don't know, former Senator Jesse Helms' "white hands" ad is both famous and infamous in the history of political campaigns as a textbook example of using white fears against affirmative action specifically and black candidates in general. In 1990, finding himself down fairly late in his re-election campaign to Harvey Gantt, the black mayor of Charlotte, Helms aired the hands ad to stoke white apprensions with Gantt and racial quota laws. The commercial is widely credited with playing a key role in helping Helms make a comeback and ultimately win by 52-48. If you have never seen it, click the link and check it out. It is a pretty powerful piece of media, and you can easily see why it was effective in 1990.
First, it is obvious that Dole is desperate. As the polls taken over the last two weeks show, she is staring at a deficit right now, with little time left on the clock:
49-42 Hagan (PPP, 10/18-10/19)
44-41 Hagan (Civitas, 10/18-10/20)
46-45 Hagan (SUSA, 10/18-10/20)
44-43 Hagan (WSOC-TV, 10/20-10/21)
47-43 Hagan (AP/GfK, 10/22-10/26)
48-45 Hagan (PPP, 10/25-10/26)
45-43 Hagan (Civitas, 10/27-10/29)
45-43 Hagan (National Journal/FD, 10/23-10/27)
52-46 Hagan (Rasmussen, 10/29)
Dole is down in a contest she was once expected to win easily. It is a tough position to be in, so her reliance on attacks at this late stage is to be expected.
But really, I think the bigger story with this ad is how Dole and her campaign fail to appreciate how the state has changed. This is not the same North Carolina that elected and re-elected Jesee Helms those five times. The very fact that Barack Obama is even close here demonstrates that. Ironically, even CNN analyst Alex Castellanos, the very man who put together the hands ad (and a North Carolina man himself), criticized Dole's commercial.
Maybe Elizabeth Dole can come back and win. North Carolina isn't exactly New York just yet. But she's losing now, and I think that her willingness to put up this type of ad shows a lack of appreciation for both today's North Carolina and the national climate she is running in. Really, Dole is not the savviest of politicians, and that she failed to prepare for a tough race this year kind of shows that too.
Indeed, old habits die hard in politics, and this may be a year where the typical attack ads employed by conservative GOPers fall flat. We are seeing this trend in many states. We will see Tuesday night.
Their new Godless Americans ad simply smacks of desperation. It's the 2008 version of Jesse Helms' hands ad. The problem is that North Carolina has changed a heck of a lot since then, and I'm not sure that kind of campaign tactic is still going to be effective here. Hagan is doing well because she's so popular with suburbanites, the folks who have moved here from outside the state. Is this kind of bogeyman really going to work with them? I doubt it, but I guess we'll see.
Based in the Tarheel State, PPP has been polling and following the close North Carolina Senate race very closely, so I take their views and opinions on North Carolina contests very seriously.
Anyway, Jensen's thoughts here got me to thinking about the changing South and Jesse Helms. I agree that Dole's ad smacks of the desperation of a campaign that is losing, but more it does reflect on Dole's inability to detect both the changing political dynamics of her state and that this ad may fall flat in 2008.
For those who don't know, former Senator Jesse Helms' "white hands" ad is both famous and infamous in the history of political campaigns as a textbook example of using white fears against affirmative action specifically and black candidates in general. In 1990, finding himself down fairly late in his re-election campaign to Harvey Gantt, the black mayor of Charlotte, Helms aired the hands ad to stoke white apprensions with Gantt and racial quota laws. The commercial is widely credited with playing a key role in helping Helms make a comeback and ultimately win by 52-48. If you have never seen it, click the link and check it out. It is a pretty powerful piece of media, and you can easily see why it was effective in 1990.
First, it is obvious that Dole is desperate. As the polls taken over the last two weeks show, she is staring at a deficit right now, with little time left on the clock:
49-42 Hagan (PPP, 10/18-10/19)
44-41 Hagan (Civitas, 10/18-10/20)
46-45 Hagan (SUSA, 10/18-10/20)
44-43 Hagan (WSOC-TV, 10/20-10/21)
47-43 Hagan (AP/GfK, 10/22-10/26)
48-45 Hagan (PPP, 10/25-10/26)
45-43 Hagan (Civitas, 10/27-10/29)
45-43 Hagan (National Journal/FD, 10/23-10/27)
52-46 Hagan (Rasmussen, 10/29)
Dole is down in a contest she was once expected to win easily. It is a tough position to be in, so her reliance on attacks at this late stage is to be expected.
But really, I think the bigger story with this ad is how Dole and her campaign fail to appreciate how the state has changed. This is not the same North Carolina that elected and re-elected Jesee Helms those five times. The very fact that Barack Obama is even close here demonstrates that. Ironically, even CNN analyst Alex Castellanos, the very man who put together the hands ad (and a North Carolina man himself), criticized Dole's commercial.
Maybe Elizabeth Dole can come back and win. North Carolina isn't exactly New York just yet. But she's losing now, and I think that her willingness to put up this type of ad shows a lack of appreciation for both today's North Carolina and the national climate she is running in. Really, Dole is not the savviest of politicians, and that she failed to prepare for a tough race this year kind of shows that too.
Indeed, old habits die hard in politics, and this may be a year where the typical attack ads employed by conservative GOPers fall flat. We are seeing this trend in many states. We will see Tuesday night.
The Astonishing Political Resurrection of the Clintons
Flashback to the late 1990s and the early 2000s. With Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment of President Clinton still fresh in the air, Democratic politicians running for office would not be caught dead near Bill Clinton. Despite Clinton's immense political talents, he was non-existent on the campaign trail for many, many Democratic candidates and elected officials running in moderate and conservative districts. Additionally, for any nominees with even the slightest connection to the Clinton White House, such an association was his or her worst enemy, as the link was often the primary attack tool for assorted Republicans across the country to brandish like a sword against Democrats. Simply put, Clinton was a negative presence for Democrats in redder areas, and many Democrats avoided touching like the plague.
With this is mind, I have been following an amazing political rehabilitation this year. I have watched with quiet amazement as Democrats in some very red states have welcomed Bill Clinton with open arms to campaign for them and raise money for them. I have seen Bill in Georgia for Jim Martin, Virginia for Mark Warner, and we are even now seeing Hillary in ads for Kentucky Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford. This afternoon I was struck again when I got a fundraising appeal from Hillary to give money to Mississippi Senate candidate Ronnie Musgrove. Really, when you consider just how unpopular and politically toxic the Clintons were at the end of Bill's time in office and for several years afterward, this transformation is nothing short of incredible. As late as 2004 or maybe even later, men running in these states wouldn't be caught in the same city as Bill or Hillary!
Granted, a big part of the Clinton's re-emergence has to do with money, as Bill and Hillary are two of the very best fundraiser in the Democratic Party, probably second only to Barack Obama. They are therefore value friends (and commodities) for a candidate in a tough contest in a pinch for cash. That being said, their very presence in these states, and the fact that these Democrats have reached out to them speaks volumes.
I guess that in politics, as in life, time heals all wounds. What a turnaround.
With this is mind, I have been following an amazing political rehabilitation this year. I have watched with quiet amazement as Democrats in some very red states have welcomed Bill Clinton with open arms to campaign for them and raise money for them. I have seen Bill in Georgia for Jim Martin, Virginia for Mark Warner, and we are even now seeing Hillary in ads for Kentucky Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford. This afternoon I was struck again when I got a fundraising appeal from Hillary to give money to Mississippi Senate candidate Ronnie Musgrove. Really, when you consider just how unpopular and politically toxic the Clintons were at the end of Bill's time in office and for several years afterward, this transformation is nothing short of incredible. As late as 2004 or maybe even later, men running in these states wouldn't be caught in the same city as Bill or Hillary!
Granted, a big part of the Clinton's re-emergence has to do with money, as Bill and Hillary are two of the very best fundraiser in the Democratic Party, probably second only to Barack Obama. They are therefore value friends (and commodities) for a candidate in a tough contest in a pinch for cash. That being said, their very presence in these states, and the fact that these Democrats have reached out to them speaks volumes.
I guess that in politics, as in life, time heals all wounds. What a turnaround.
Barack's Party and Bill
We have written too many times on the frosty relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Admittedly, I have gone back and forth on what I think are the primary reasons for the gap between the two men, and I have alternatively pointed the finger at both politicians for the rift.
However, today that relationships come into a new focus, courtesy of a short, but mostly-worthwhile piece from John Heilemann on the website of New York Magazine. Heilemann makes the case that despite their big public appearance together last night in Florida, the two men are not close now, and likely will never be close. While I think that the author places too much into Obama's body language at a rally and seeming lack of excitement for Clinton's speech -- having traveled and campaigned day and night for the last year, Obama would understandably be tired at a nighttime rally -- his piece has one good nugget at the end:
But the truth is that no real relationship exists between 42 and the would-be 44. A lunch in Harlem, sure. A few perfunctory phone calls, yeah. But that's about the extent of it. People close to Clinton say that this baffles him, and pains him even more. And it's not hard to understand why. In Obama, he sees someone creating a new incarnation of the Democratic Party, one that has precious little to do with the version that Clinton fashioned. (Surveying the crowd last night, Clinton offered, "You've even got a few gray-headed white guys like me — you haven't shut out my demographic yet.") He sees himself being eclipsed. If Obama demonstrated that he needs Clinton's counsel, everything between them would be different. But Obama manifestly doesn't believe he does, and he refuses to pretend otherwise. One late-night campaign appearance, however professionally executed, doesn't change that. Maybe occupying the Oval Office will.
On the one hand, as a Democrat and a person who likes and respects Bill Clinton, I find this likely-permanent rift regrettable and kind of sad. It is too bad that the two men have been unable to patch up any sort of warm relationship in the aftermath of the primary. Whoever is more at fault for it all really does not matter anymore.
But in the end, I don't think this is at all surprising. The fact is that Obama is about to be elected on his own merits, so he does not need Clinton for anything, or owe him much either. More importantly, however, as President, the Democratic Party is now Obama's, not Bill's. He is the face and the head of the party going forward. It therefore stands to reason that he wants to build the party's policies and machinery in his own image and towards his own goals.
Consequently, it is necessary for him to push Clinton aside, remove Clinton's former advisers and friends from the equation and the highest levels of power, and go his own way with his own people. As sad (and even cold) as this may be, it makes perfect sense from Obama's perspective. And while I think there may still be some sharp bitterness between the two under the surface from the primary campaign, I think Barack's calculated distance from the former President has less to do with that than with his desire to carve out his own way independent of Clinton's influence.
Bill Clinton is going to go in his own direction now, and he will assuredly maintain a high national and international profile. His life will still be pretty good. However, his time at the very top of the party is now at an end. It's Barack Obama's party now, and I think that is exactly how he wants it. I can't say I completely blame him, either.
However, today that relationships come into a new focus, courtesy of a short, but mostly-worthwhile piece from John Heilemann on the website of New York Magazine. Heilemann makes the case that despite their big public appearance together last night in Florida, the two men are not close now, and likely will never be close. While I think that the author places too much into Obama's body language at a rally and seeming lack of excitement for Clinton's speech -- having traveled and campaigned day and night for the last year, Obama would understandably be tired at a nighttime rally -- his piece has one good nugget at the end:
But the truth is that no real relationship exists between 42 and the would-be 44. A lunch in Harlem, sure. A few perfunctory phone calls, yeah. But that's about the extent of it. People close to Clinton say that this baffles him, and pains him even more. And it's not hard to understand why. In Obama, he sees someone creating a new incarnation of the Democratic Party, one that has precious little to do with the version that Clinton fashioned. (Surveying the crowd last night, Clinton offered, "You've even got a few gray-headed white guys like me — you haven't shut out my demographic yet.") He sees himself being eclipsed. If Obama demonstrated that he needs Clinton's counsel, everything between them would be different. But Obama manifestly doesn't believe he does, and he refuses to pretend otherwise. One late-night campaign appearance, however professionally executed, doesn't change that. Maybe occupying the Oval Office will.
On the one hand, as a Democrat and a person who likes and respects Bill Clinton, I find this likely-permanent rift regrettable and kind of sad. It is too bad that the two men have been unable to patch up any sort of warm relationship in the aftermath of the primary. Whoever is more at fault for it all really does not matter anymore.
But in the end, I don't think this is at all surprising. The fact is that Obama is about to be elected on his own merits, so he does not need Clinton for anything, or owe him much either. More importantly, however, as President, the Democratic Party is now Obama's, not Bill's. He is the face and the head of the party going forward. It therefore stands to reason that he wants to build the party's policies and machinery in his own image and towards his own goals.
Consequently, it is necessary for him to push Clinton aside, remove Clinton's former advisers and friends from the equation and the highest levels of power, and go his own way with his own people. As sad (and even cold) as this may be, it makes perfect sense from Obama's perspective. And while I think there may still be some sharp bitterness between the two under the surface from the primary campaign, I think Barack's calculated distance from the former President has less to do with that than with his desire to carve out his own way independent of Clinton's influence.
Bill Clinton is going to go in his own direction now, and he will assuredly maintain a high national and international profile. His life will still be pretty good. However, his time at the very top of the party is now at an end. It's Barack Obama's party now, and I think that is exactly how he wants it. I can't say I completely blame him, either.
Washington Post/ABC News Poll
I can't leave out the new Washington Post/ABC News national poll.
Overall number
Barack Obama: 52
John McCain 44
94 percent of Obama voters are locked in, versus 90 percent for McCain supporters.
A lot of the rest of the data is issue-based, and worth a look, though I won't dissect it here.
Overall number
Barack Obama: 52
John McCain 44
94 percent of Obama voters are locked in, versus 90 percent for McCain supporters.
A lot of the rest of the data is issue-based, and worth a look, though I won't dissect it here.
Breaking Down the New NY Times/CBS Poll
The New York Times and CBS are out with their weekly national presidential poll this evening, and it is sporting a solid 11-point lead for Obama, up one point from last week. However, looking more closely at the numbers shows a very slight surge for John McCain personally, as will be seen.
Overall numbers
Barack Obama: 51 (50)
John McCain: 40 (40)
With leaners
Barack Obama: 52 (51)
John McCain: 41 (41)
With Barr and Nader included
Barack Obama: 52 (51)
John McCain: 39 (38)
An 11-point edge with a week to go is not a good place for McCain to be, 13 points if you use the poll with the minor candidates as well. Several of the tracking polls have been showing a tightening contest in recent days, but this poll finds a larger cushion for the Democrats. The favorables show an interesting picture.
Favorables
Barack Obama: 51 favorable/34 unfavorable (52/31 last week)
John McCain: 41/43 (39/46)
Joe Biden: 43/25 (43/20)
Sarah Palin: 36/41 (31/40)
Obama went from a +21 last week to +17 today, courtesy not of losing supporters, but his negative number jumping. Ditto Biden who went from +23 to +18.
On the other side, both McCain and Palin saw modest bumps in their favorables. It looks like the sides are hardening, and some undecideds or straggling conservatives are ending up on the GOP side. Nevertheless, McCain is at -2 overall, and Palin at -5 -- pretty terrible for major party candidates.
Of Obama supporters, 92 percent have made their mind up, with 89 percent of McCain supporters locked in. Among Obama supporters, 67 percent feel enthusiastic about their choice, while 26 percent have reservations. The split for McCain is 45/40. This seems to indicate what we have already known for a while: Obama supporters are much more enthusiastic about their choice. This has been borne out with the early voting patterns we have been seeing. The poll shows this as well
Early voters
Barack Obama: 55
John McCain: 35
A 20-point gap. Not good for McCain.
Generic congressional poll
Democrat: 48 (36)
Republican: 36 (36)
We are a long way from about six weeks ago when this poll had the split at 51-31. Still, a 12-point gap with a week to go -- and oen that is holding -- portends for those big GOP House losses we have been bracing for. The tidal wave is still coming, and it has not yet crested.
Overall numbers
Barack Obama: 51 (50)
John McCain: 40 (40)
With leaners
Barack Obama: 52 (51)
John McCain: 41 (41)
With Barr and Nader included
Barack Obama: 52 (51)
John McCain: 39 (38)
An 11-point edge with a week to go is not a good place for McCain to be, 13 points if you use the poll with the minor candidates as well. Several of the tracking polls have been showing a tightening contest in recent days, but this poll finds a larger cushion for the Democrats. The favorables show an interesting picture.
Favorables
Barack Obama: 51 favorable/34 unfavorable (52/31 last week)
John McCain: 41/43 (39/46)
Joe Biden: 43/25 (43/20)
Sarah Palin: 36/41 (31/40)
Obama went from a +21 last week to +17 today, courtesy not of losing supporters, but his negative number jumping. Ditto Biden who went from +23 to +18.
On the other side, both McCain and Palin saw modest bumps in their favorables. It looks like the sides are hardening, and some undecideds or straggling conservatives are ending up on the GOP side. Nevertheless, McCain is at -2 overall, and Palin at -5 -- pretty terrible for major party candidates.
Of Obama supporters, 92 percent have made their mind up, with 89 percent of McCain supporters locked in. Among Obama supporters, 67 percent feel enthusiastic about their choice, while 26 percent have reservations. The split for McCain is 45/40. This seems to indicate what we have already known for a while: Obama supporters are much more enthusiastic about their choice. This has been borne out with the early voting patterns we have been seeing. The poll shows this as well
Early voters
Barack Obama: 55
John McCain: 35
A 20-point gap. Not good for McCain.
Generic congressional poll
Democrat: 48 (36)
Republican: 36 (36)
We are a long way from about six weeks ago when this poll had the split at 51-31. Still, a 12-point gap with a week to go -- and oen that is holding -- portends for those big GOP House losses we have been bracing for. The tidal wave is still coming, and it has not yet crested.
Franken Falling?
In the last 24 hours, two highly-respected firms have released polls showing that Democrats' goal of obtaining 60 Senate seats may be falling from the party's grasp. Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon have very similar numbers showing Democrat Al Franken falling behind in his race against Minnesota incumbent Senator Norm Coleman.
Rasmussen (10/28; 10/22 findings in parenthesis)
Norm Coleman 43 (37)
Al Franken 39 (41)
Dean Barkley 14 (17)
Mason-Dixon (10/27-10/28)
Norm Coleman 42
Al Franken 36
Dean Barkley 12
While I think that both of these pollsters have leaned slightly towards GOP Senate candidates this year, it it is hard to discount these findings, especially because they are so similar. Ras has Franken dropping a couple since last month, with Coleman gaining six points. I think M-D lowballs Franken's support here, but that's just my opinion.
A few days ago, we posted on this race, and commented that Barkley was likely taking more support away from Franken than Coleman. The rationale for my belief is that while there are plenty of anti-incumbent voters ready to toss Coleman out, many of these people probably don't love Franken either for his past writings or sometimes off-the-wall behavior. As a result, some are giving Barkley a second look, which helps explain why he is polling where he is. Mason-Dixon seems to echo this, at least in part:
If Coleman puts daylight between Franken’s numbers and his own on Election Day, he may have Barkley to thank. While he has shored up 89% of voters who identify as Republicans, with only 4% defecting to Barkley’s camp, only about three out of four Democrats say that they support their party nominee, with 17% of Democratic voters favoring the Independence Party candidate over Franken.
I have always believed that Franken would win on Obama's shoulders. But for that to happen, Obama needs to win the state big -- we are talking double digits. While that still may happen, it is not a lock (indeed, this M-D poll has Obama +8, but the last six polls in the state give Obama leads of +12, +19, +15, +19, +5, and +10). I have to believe that if Obama pulls of the double-digit win, Franken will be in the Senate, and if this does not happen, then it speaks to Franken's huge liabilities as a candidate.
If there were one race where Obama cutting a commercial for a candidate would do a lot of good, this is it. However, I am guessing that it has not happened yet because Team Obama does not want to get the candidate to tied up with a controversial figure in Franken. If Democrats want to win this, an Obama-for-Franken ad would be very helpful at this late stage.
Rasmussen (10/28; 10/22 findings in parenthesis)
Norm Coleman 43 (37)
Al Franken 39 (41)
Dean Barkley 14 (17)
Mason-Dixon (10/27-10/28)
Norm Coleman 42
Al Franken 36
Dean Barkley 12
While I think that both of these pollsters have leaned slightly towards GOP Senate candidates this year, it it is hard to discount these findings, especially because they are so similar. Ras has Franken dropping a couple since last month, with Coleman gaining six points. I think M-D lowballs Franken's support here, but that's just my opinion.
A few days ago, we posted on this race, and commented that Barkley was likely taking more support away from Franken than Coleman. The rationale for my belief is that while there are plenty of anti-incumbent voters ready to toss Coleman out, many of these people probably don't love Franken either for his past writings or sometimes off-the-wall behavior. As a result, some are giving Barkley a second look, which helps explain why he is polling where he is. Mason-Dixon seems to echo this, at least in part:
If Coleman puts daylight between Franken’s numbers and his own on Election Day, he may have Barkley to thank. While he has shored up 89% of voters who identify as Republicans, with only 4% defecting to Barkley’s camp, only about three out of four Democrats say that they support their party nominee, with 17% of Democratic voters favoring the Independence Party candidate over Franken.
I have always believed that Franken would win on Obama's shoulders. But for that to happen, Obama needs to win the state big -- we are talking double digits. While that still may happen, it is not a lock (indeed, this M-D poll has Obama +8, but the last six polls in the state give Obama leads of +12, +19, +15, +19, +5, and +10). I have to believe that if Obama pulls of the double-digit win, Franken will be in the Senate, and if this does not happen, then it speaks to Franken's huge liabilities as a candidate.
If there were one race where Obama cutting a commercial for a candidate would do a lot of good, this is it. However, I am guessing that it has not happened yet because Team Obama does not want to get the candidate to tied up with a controversial figure in Franken. If Democrats want to win this, an Obama-for-Franken ad would be very helpful at this late stage.
Beacon Hill Cesspool
I realize that with about a billion hot national political stories floating around right now, a post on Boston city and Massachusetts state government may not be the most exciting, but I had to make a quick comment on the recent arrest of Massachusetts Democratic state Senator Dianne Wilkerson. In the culmination a long-running federal investigation, the U.S. Attorneys office this week handed up an indictment of Wilkerson alleging that she had accepted over $23,000 in cash bribes from undercover agents. The feds apparently have Wilkerson on tape, and have even released stills of her stuffing cash into her bra which are available at this link.
I think I've mentioned this before, but I've spent a good deal of time in Massachusetts, having served as a field director during the gunbernatorial race in 2006. During my time there, I had the opportunity to meet and become acquainted with many Massachusetts politicians and political figures. While the latter were generally good, fun people, I was extremely unimpressed with the men and women of Beacon Hill (the neighborhood of Boston where the statehouse is). I remember not long after starting on the campaign, I commented to a friend on the state reps and senators I had met or seen in action, saying exactly:
"I have never in my life met such unimpressive people."
I have worked, studied, and read about politics and its players for a while, so I have seen a lot of them, and by far, the politicians I met from Beacon Hill were, collectively, the most unimpressive assortment I have ever seen. Really, to be frank, it is embarrassing how unqualified and personally corrupt many members of the statehouse are. And being from New Jersey, I think I am somewhat qualified in assessing state political misdeeds. The only difference between the two is that I think New Jersey's legislators are at least mostly qualified (if still corrupt) where conversely I wonder if one-third of the Massachusetts General Court is borderline illiterate.
It is for this reason that I was not surprised one iota that Dianne Wilkerson, a notorious state senator, was ensnared in a corruption probe. My first thought was: what took so long?! That she was caught on tax was only icing on the cake. I saw a good deal of Wilkerson back in 2006, as she has been a powerful legislator from Roxbury, a poor, prodominently black neighborhood of Boston, and she endorsed our opponent. Let's just say that this arrest and indictment should surprise exactly no one who follows Beacon Hill, despite the loud proclamations of shock from her colleagues.
The Massachusetts legislature is rotting from the inside with many members equally unqualified and perhaps as equally corrupt as Wilkerson. And lest anyone wonder, the legislature is completely dominated by Democrats: 141-19 in the House, and 35-5 in the Senate. The state GOP is at the point where it basically doesn't exist anymore. Corruption can go both ways in this country.
Already, there is talk that Wilkerson will flip on perhaps bigger fish both inside and outside of Beacon Hill. Word is that even longtime Boston mayor Tom Menino is sweating as he is facing re-election next year. And make no mistake: Wilkerson is the exact type of person who will selfishly turn on any person she knows without reservation in order to save her own skin.
So, that's a quick tale on Masschusetts politics, and let me say that the state really does not get the attention it deserves as one of the most corrupt, poorly run legislatures in the nation. This is why I still read conservative Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr. While Howie has said a lot of nasty, mean-spirited, and at-times-reprehensible stuff over the last few decades, especially about Ted Kennedy, he is right in his continued disgust and (often-times hilarious) criticism of the way business is done on Beacon Hill.
I think I've mentioned this before, but I've spent a good deal of time in Massachusetts, having served as a field director during the gunbernatorial race in 2006. During my time there, I had the opportunity to meet and become acquainted with many Massachusetts politicians and political figures. While the latter were generally good, fun people, I was extremely unimpressed with the men and women of Beacon Hill (the neighborhood of Boston where the statehouse is). I remember not long after starting on the campaign, I commented to a friend on the state reps and senators I had met or seen in action, saying exactly:
"I have never in my life met such unimpressive people."
I have worked, studied, and read about politics and its players for a while, so I have seen a lot of them, and by far, the politicians I met from Beacon Hill were, collectively, the most unimpressive assortment I have ever seen. Really, to be frank, it is embarrassing how unqualified and personally corrupt many members of the statehouse are. And being from New Jersey, I think I am somewhat qualified in assessing state political misdeeds. The only difference between the two is that I think New Jersey's legislators are at least mostly qualified (if still corrupt) where conversely I wonder if one-third of the Massachusetts General Court is borderline illiterate.
It is for this reason that I was not surprised one iota that Dianne Wilkerson, a notorious state senator, was ensnared in a corruption probe. My first thought was: what took so long?! That she was caught on tax was only icing on the cake. I saw a good deal of Wilkerson back in 2006, as she has been a powerful legislator from Roxbury, a poor, prodominently black neighborhood of Boston, and she endorsed our opponent. Let's just say that this arrest and indictment should surprise exactly no one who follows Beacon Hill, despite the loud proclamations of shock from her colleagues.
The Massachusetts legislature is rotting from the inside with many members equally unqualified and perhaps as equally corrupt as Wilkerson. And lest anyone wonder, the legislature is completely dominated by Democrats: 141-19 in the House, and 35-5 in the Senate. The state GOP is at the point where it basically doesn't exist anymore. Corruption can go both ways in this country.
Already, there is talk that Wilkerson will flip on perhaps bigger fish both inside and outside of Beacon Hill. Word is that even longtime Boston mayor Tom Menino is sweating as he is facing re-election next year. And make no mistake: Wilkerson is the exact type of person who will selfishly turn on any person she knows without reservation in order to save her own skin.
So, that's a quick tale on Masschusetts politics, and let me say that the state really does not get the attention it deserves as one of the most corrupt, poorly run legislatures in the nation. This is why I still read conservative Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr. While Howie has said a lot of nasty, mean-spirited, and at-times-reprehensible stuff over the last few decades, especially about Ted Kennedy, he is right in his continued disgust and (often-times hilarious) criticism of the way business is done on Beacon Hill.
A Pathetic Display By Alaska's Political "Leaders"
A story this morning in the Anchorage Daily News on a welcome-home/political rally for embattle Senator Ted Stevens caught my eye. The event was packed with pro-Stevens loyalists, all of whom seem to still back Stevens for re-election next week. Spurred on by Stevens' speech where he assailed what he believes was the Justice Department's misconduct in prosecuting him, the Alaskans there disregarded his convictions, with many apparently calling the DC jury's findings irrelevant and even illegitimate. Here's what I am talking about:
"Anyone who thinks you can get a fair trial in the heart of liberalism, Washington, D.C., is smoking dope. He was railroaded," said Mark Kelliher, a retired engineer.
Talk radio host Rick Rydell told the crowd he knows Stevens, a D.C. jury doesn't.
"I don't particularly like it when outsiders tell me what to do," Rydell said, before Stevens took the stage. "You can kiss my Alaska moose-hunting behind."
I realize that Mr. Rydell is trying to gin up political support here, but his comment is particularly stupid. I would wager a steak dinner that just about every single juror who found Senator Stevens guilty has no idea that Stevens is facing Mark Begich in a contest next week, and those that might could care less. They couldn't pick out Democrat Mark Begich from Mark Twain. Therefore, I am not sure that the jurors perceived their verdict as somehow trying to impact Alaskans' voting patterns. But to each his own, I guess.
However, I wanted to make this post because another section of the article really rankled me. Here is it:
The crowd cheered and shouted, "We trust you," over and over again as he spoke. Former governor Bill Sheffield, former Anchorage mayor George Wuerch, and mayoral candidate Dan Sullivan were there. So was Alaska's junior U.S. senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski, who told the Stevens supporters they need to get their neighbors and co-workers out to support Stevens.
Note that excluding Sarah Palin and Sean Parnell, these individuals are some of Alaska's top political leaders, both past and present (and while Don Young was not there physically, we have already posted that he has basically endorsed Stevens' re-election and called his verdict illegitimate), standing on stage and in full support of a man who was just convicted in Federal Court of seven felonies. Seven. This is a pathetic and embarrassing display from people who are supposed to lead.
I am all for loyalty in life and politics. I think there is not enough loyalty in politics with politicians running away from lifelong friends and allies the instant the relationship begins to hurt them. I applauded Senator Mike Crapo when they stood with Larry Craig after his embarrassing incident came to light. I felt that the media was playing the story way too much, and the way that Craig's colleagues instantly abandoned him -- while, incidentally, standing with Stevens after he was indicted on corruption charges -- was digusting. So, I respected Crapo for that, I respect loyalty in politics immensely.
Here, this is no longer about loyalty. Stevens had the benefit of being presumed innocent after his indictment. He was just convicted. He is a felon and he commited serious crimes. He should resign and disappear, and other leaders, while they should not necessarily pile on him, should not under any circumstances actively support him for another term in office.
Also, let me get one more thing straight. So, because Stevens was not tried in Alaska -- for crimes he technically committed in Washington, mind you -- his trial was baloney, and only a trial in front of an Alaska jury would have been fair? Oh, okay, now I understand. What a dumb "argument." Does Alaska have its own separate system of justice? Last time I checked, Alaska was one of the 50 states, and thus subject to federal law. (Then again, I know there are many people, including Sarah Palin's husband, who would prefer to have Alaska secede from the Union.)
And no, I am not being negative about Stevens. I am merely saying that elected leaders should show some true leadership and not campaign for a felon and seek to undermine the findings of a federal jury for political purposes. All of these "leaders" at the rally, but especially the gutless and useless Lisa Murkowski -- who is only in power today because her daddy appointed her to the Senate -- should be embarrassed.
"Anyone who thinks you can get a fair trial in the heart of liberalism, Washington, D.C., is smoking dope. He was railroaded," said Mark Kelliher, a retired engineer.
Talk radio host Rick Rydell told the crowd he knows Stevens, a D.C. jury doesn't.
"I don't particularly like it when outsiders tell me what to do," Rydell said, before Stevens took the stage. "You can kiss my Alaska moose-hunting behind."
I realize that Mr. Rydell is trying to gin up political support here, but his comment is particularly stupid. I would wager a steak dinner that just about every single juror who found Senator Stevens guilty has no idea that Stevens is facing Mark Begich in a contest next week, and those that might could care less. They couldn't pick out Democrat Mark Begich from Mark Twain. Therefore, I am not sure that the jurors perceived their verdict as somehow trying to impact Alaskans' voting patterns. But to each his own, I guess.
However, I wanted to make this post because another section of the article really rankled me. Here is it:
The crowd cheered and shouted, "We trust you," over and over again as he spoke. Former governor Bill Sheffield, former Anchorage mayor George Wuerch, and mayoral candidate Dan Sullivan were there. So was Alaska's junior U.S. senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski, who told the Stevens supporters they need to get their neighbors and co-workers out to support Stevens.
Note that excluding Sarah Palin and Sean Parnell, these individuals are some of Alaska's top political leaders, both past and present (and while Don Young was not there physically, we have already posted that he has basically endorsed Stevens' re-election and called his verdict illegitimate), standing on stage and in full support of a man who was just convicted in Federal Court of seven felonies. Seven. This is a pathetic and embarrassing display from people who are supposed to lead.
I am all for loyalty in life and politics. I think there is not enough loyalty in politics with politicians running away from lifelong friends and allies the instant the relationship begins to hurt them. I applauded Senator Mike Crapo when they stood with Larry Craig after his embarrassing incident came to light. I felt that the media was playing the story way too much, and the way that Craig's colleagues instantly abandoned him -- while, incidentally, standing with Stevens after he was indicted on corruption charges -- was digusting. So, I respected Crapo for that, I respect loyalty in politics immensely.
Here, this is no longer about loyalty. Stevens had the benefit of being presumed innocent after his indictment. He was just convicted. He is a felon and he commited serious crimes. He should resign and disappear, and other leaders, while they should not necessarily pile on him, should not under any circumstances actively support him for another term in office.
Also, let me get one more thing straight. So, because Stevens was not tried in Alaska -- for crimes he technically committed in Washington, mind you -- his trial was baloney, and only a trial in front of an Alaska jury would have been fair? Oh, okay, now I understand. What a dumb "argument." Does Alaska have its own separate system of justice? Last time I checked, Alaska was one of the 50 states, and thus subject to federal law. (Then again, I know there are many people, including Sarah Palin's husband, who would prefer to have Alaska secede from the Union.)
And no, I am not being negative about Stevens. I am merely saying that elected leaders should show some true leadership and not campaign for a felon and seek to undermine the findings of a federal jury for political purposes. All of these "leaders" at the rally, but especially the gutless and useless Lisa Murkowski -- who is only in power today because her daddy appointed her to the Senate -- should be embarrassed.
A Runoff in Georgia?
One storyline that is beginning to get more and more publicity is the possibility that the election many not end on November 4. Rather, there is now the very realistic chance that there will be a runoff for the United States Senate seat in Georgia, a seat which could very well determine whether the Democrats get to that magical 60-seat threshold needed to turn off Republican filibusters.
As late as just over a month ago, this was a race that received basically zero attention outside of Georgia. First-term Senator Saxby Chambliss, awash with case and facing an unknown and second-tier challenger in Jim Martin was heavily favored to win a second term. As we all know by now, in the aftermath of the Wall Street crisis, the race tightened dramatically, with Chambliss now barely clinging to a lead, and several points below 50 percent.
This is important because Georgia state law requires that the winner of a U.S. Senate contest receive 50 percent of the vote in order to be elected. With the last 11 polls showing an average of Saxby Chambliss 46, Jim Martin 44, both major party nominees are several points from that necessary 50 percent.
Further complicating the matter is the presence on the ballot of David Herbert, a Libertarian Party candidate who is garnering anywhere from one to five percent in polling. Given the tightness of the race, that there are anti-incumbent voters out there -- many of whom lean right in red Georgia and thus may have reservations voting for a Democrat -- the failure of Chambliss and Martin to get to 50 percent on Tuesday has risen, dramatically increasing the once-remote chance that there will be a runoff.
Which party would be favored if there is a runoff? That's the $64,000 question, and it could have potentially enormous implications if Democrats win eight Senate seats on Tuesday night. In that case, the outcome of a runoff would determine whether or not Democrats obtain a 60-seat majority. Even if this matter is settled November 4, a runoff would still carry huge importance, with a Senate deep in the heart of the South at stake. It would be a big deal either way.
The answer to which side would be favored by a runoff is difficult to figure out, and it would be impacted by numerous factors yet to be fleshed out. First, obviously, is whether the runoff would determine if Senate Democrats would obtain a filibuster-proof majority. Second, is what turnout would be; specifically, could huge black and first-time voter turnout that existed on November 4, be duplicated with these voters being coaxed to come out and vote again one month later, this time for Jim Martin in a race many of them probably have not followed as closely as the presidential? Third is the issue of the resources that would be at play in this contest and whether both sides could raise enough for one last, big election of the year. Finally comes the biggest wild card: what role, if any, would likely new President Barack Obama take in a runoff?
Considering these and other factors, I would like to try to make sense of a Peach State runoff to figure out how it might turn out and who would be favored.
Louisiana 2002. The potential runoff situation we talk about today is hardly unprecedented; in fact, an eerily similar situation played out just six years ago in the fall of 2002. At that time, Democrats held a bare one-seat majority in the Senate courtesy of then-Senator Jim Jeffords' party switch in the summer of 2001. Holding a slim majority, Democrats were able to block several of President Bush's initiatives and judicial nominations, infuriating the White House (at the time, the GOP still held the House). Riding strong favorables at that time, Bush decided to go all-in and campaign heavily in the midterm elections in order to elect a GOP majority in the Senate. Riding a series of successes in close and open seats, Bush and the Republican Party won out.
However, at the time, there was an interesting subplot going on. First-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu was running for re-election in the Bayou State's infamous "jungle primary" where candidates of both parties ran on the same ballot. Under this system, if no candidate got 50 percent, a December run-off was required. This was important at the time because the Senate was just about 50-50, and it was unclear leading up to the election if the Louisiana race would determine the balance of the Senate should a runoff be the deciding race. Indeed, with the presence of multiple candidates on the ballot, a runoff was very likely.
In the end, the outcome in Louisiana was not nearly as monumental as anticipated, as the GOP, riding President Bush's coattails, won a majority. (Incidentally, Landrieu won her runoff 52-48 in a month-long campaign that received far less attention than it may have under different circumstances; had the race been the decider in which party held the Senate, it is very likely Landrieu would have fallen). So, the potential for a runoff deciding the balance in the U.S. Senate is not at all unprecedented.
Senate in the balance. The biggest factor that would be at play in a runoff, in my opinion, is whether Georgia would potentially be the 60th seat for Democrats should Jim Martin win. Frankly, if Democrats win eight seats November 4 and the Georgia contest heads to a runoff, it would be one of the worst things possible for Jim Martin, and would make it much harder for him to win in December.
We need to keep in mind that as impressive as it would be for Martin to take Chambliss to a runoff, this is still Georgia we are talking about, a very Republican state. If the runoff heads to a showdown with Democrats holding a 59-to-40 advantage in the Senate, state and national Republicans would make the contest a referendum on giving national Democrats total control of the federal government. I feel confident in saying that it would be their number one issue from the morning of November 5 until the runoff. In a state as conservative as Georgia, such an argument would undoubtedly resonate with many voters.
Remember that in 2002, Mary Landrieu was, counter-intuitively, very lucky that her party was pushed out of the Senate majority on election night. Had her runoff been able to give the Democrats a majority again, she would have had big problems. Had that happened, the then-popular President Bush would have made Louisiana his second home for the next month, campaigning heavily and raising big money for Landrieu's opponent. He and others would have made the case that the GOP needed a majority to pass its agenda, and given Bush's high ratings at the time, such efforts well could have worked in a Deep South state like Louisiana. Landrieu was saved in great part because she did not have to contend with the nationalizing of her runoff, because once the GOP got back its majority on election night, the party (and the national media, for that matter), paid far less attention to the runoff.
If we are at 59-40 in the Senate, that would not be the case in Georgia for a runoff. The race would be nationalized, and voters would be well aware of the stakes of giving Democrats greater control via a Martin win. It would be a very difficult thing for Jim Martin to deal with.
Resources. To me, this would be the smallest issue for both Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. In the aftermath of November 4, there is little question that the national parties and their staffs will be dog tired, and none of them will want to have to wage a month-long Senate battle. However, many of them will likely dust themselves off after a night of partying or crying, and jump into the runoff.
Of course, both the NRSC and DSCC will be very low on funds, but I am guessing that they will have a little left lying around on both sides. Besides, even if they don't, Chuck Schumer, John Ensign, and others would start hitting the pavement and they would likely be able to raise quick cash for one last race in the cycle. It goes without saying that if this is the potential 60th seat, both sides will be able to raise even more: Schumer using a positive pitch, and Ensign using gloom and doom. One wild card is the next President. Assuming Obama wins, he would probably be able to raise more than enough to fund the runoff with one fundraiser or a single e-mail over his titanic listserve.
Duplicating Nov 4 turnout. This is another big hurdle that would face Jim Martin in a runoff. Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that Georgia is not the 60th seat for Democrats. Martin then must find a way to get all of the black and first-time voters who went out for Obama to come out one more time a month later to vote for him. This will not be a given. If the race does not have huge implications for the balance of the Senate, the contest may not have the juice to attract the attention of many casual voters, most of whom, it can be assumed, are Democratic-leaning.
Jim Martin cannot win without high black turnout. Georgia might not be Mississippi in its polarized racial voting patterns, but it still a state where Democrats have a hard time getting widespread white support. As a result, garnering big support in the black communities is crucial. The largest question, then, is if and how Martin can get not just high black support, but also wide turnout.
Engaging Obama. Barack Obama could have a big say in this matter. In fact, it is not complete hyperbole to say that a President Obama could be one of the key deciding factors in a runoff contest. As the new President, Obama could take a big lead in helping raise money, support, awareness, and enthusiasm for Jim Martin. If Obama were to do some campaigning and a couple of appearances for Martin, he could help close that enthusiasm gap and spur to the polls many of the casual voters who came out for him on November 4. It would be a very big deal. Conversely, Saxby Chambliss really would be out there on his own. He would not have a President with him, and Lord knows that he would not want to be anywhere near President Bush. Plus, as a loser, John McCain would be worthless to Chambliss. It would be a big advantage Chambliss would not be able to match.
The largest issue here is Obama himself, and whether he and his handlers would want to get very involved in the race. Naturally, if Obama were to jump into the contest in some way and help get Martin elected, he would get another vote for his caucus in the Senate, no small matter. However, there are clear perils as well. If Obama were to get involved and Martin went on to lose, and it would be a little black mark on Obama, and it would hurt his credibility and electoral cache some even before he takes office. His advisers might want to avoid that scenario.
Furthermore, as President, Obama would have to place himself above politics. I know that coming off a presidential contest where he has been campaigning nonstop for over a year this suggestion seems silly, but a President is more a statesman and a leader than a politician, and this is a framework that he would have to consider. This would thus limit Obama's level of participation in the runoff. In other words, you would not see Obama down in Georgia 10 times (and also because he will be busy transitioning into the federal government, no tiny matter).
Still, I think that with a Senate seat in Georgia at stake, and a seat which means a great deal to many grassroots Democrats given how Chambliss got elected in 2002, Obama would be involved here, especially if this is the 60th seat, in which case his hard work is a given. This will be a huge factor in Jim Martin's favor.
Other factors. With no libertarian on the ballot, it is very likely that most voters who cast a ballot for David Herbert on November 4 would go to Chambliss in the runoff. How much thiswould matter depends entirely on how many votes Herbert gets. The fewer, the better for Martin in the runoff.
And if Obama and the Democrats end up scoring big national wins across the country on November 4, you might see a "changed out" factor come into play in December, with many of the voters who were upset about GOP rule and voted to send a message on November 4, deciding to vote for Chambliss to balance things out. This could come into play whether or not the runoff would potentially decide the 60th seat.
Outlook
I guess that the biggest thing right now is whether or not there is actually going to be a runoff -- if not, I just wasted a lot of time writing this!
Consider not just at the closeness of all of the Senate polls but also at how neither candidate is at 50 percent. Complicating this is the libertarian candidate, and how much support he gets will play a big part in this equation. Of course, the undecideds could break enough for one candidate to get him to 50 percent.
For his part, the incomparable Nate Silver this morning discusses his view that many of the pollsters in this race are showing a huge slice of still-undecided black voters, a group which should break heavily for the Democrat. This is an issue we have raised with regards to the Mississippi Senate race, and it is no less important in a contest this close. Therefore, Martin getting to 50 percent might be a bit less likely than the polling averages are today showing.
If a runoff does come to fruition, we know the key factors that will be at play. My view is that Chambliss would be favored, especially if the Senate is 59-40 on November 5, but also if it is not. In a regular race with fewer monumental implications and national coverage, Chambliss would still be running in Georgia. Still, Martin could have advantages with an enthusiastic base that is still happy over a good November 4. Not to mention that Barack Obama could play a big part in getting Martin over the top if he so decides.
We'll see if any of this happens. I am not sure a lot of people could handle another month of politics, but if we are at 59-to-40, we may get another 30+ days of delicious political subplots and bare-knuckle campaigning.
As late as just over a month ago, this was a race that received basically zero attention outside of Georgia. First-term Senator Saxby Chambliss, awash with case and facing an unknown and second-tier challenger in Jim Martin was heavily favored to win a second term. As we all know by now, in the aftermath of the Wall Street crisis, the race tightened dramatically, with Chambliss now barely clinging to a lead, and several points below 50 percent.
This is important because Georgia state law requires that the winner of a U.S. Senate contest receive 50 percent of the vote in order to be elected. With the last 11 polls showing an average of Saxby Chambliss 46, Jim Martin 44, both major party nominees are several points from that necessary 50 percent.
Further complicating the matter is the presence on the ballot of David Herbert, a Libertarian Party candidate who is garnering anywhere from one to five percent in polling. Given the tightness of the race, that there are anti-incumbent voters out there -- many of whom lean right in red Georgia and thus may have reservations voting for a Democrat -- the failure of Chambliss and Martin to get to 50 percent on Tuesday has risen, dramatically increasing the once-remote chance that there will be a runoff.
Which party would be favored if there is a runoff? That's the $64,000 question, and it could have potentially enormous implications if Democrats win eight Senate seats on Tuesday night. In that case, the outcome of a runoff would determine whether or not Democrats obtain a 60-seat majority. Even if this matter is settled November 4, a runoff would still carry huge importance, with a Senate deep in the heart of the South at stake. It would be a big deal either way.
The answer to which side would be favored by a runoff is difficult to figure out, and it would be impacted by numerous factors yet to be fleshed out. First, obviously, is whether the runoff would determine if Senate Democrats would obtain a filibuster-proof majority. Second, is what turnout would be; specifically, could huge black and first-time voter turnout that existed on November 4, be duplicated with these voters being coaxed to come out and vote again one month later, this time for Jim Martin in a race many of them probably have not followed as closely as the presidential? Third is the issue of the resources that would be at play in this contest and whether both sides could raise enough for one last, big election of the year. Finally comes the biggest wild card: what role, if any, would likely new President Barack Obama take in a runoff?
Considering these and other factors, I would like to try to make sense of a Peach State runoff to figure out how it might turn out and who would be favored.
Louisiana 2002. The potential runoff situation we talk about today is hardly unprecedented; in fact, an eerily similar situation played out just six years ago in the fall of 2002. At that time, Democrats held a bare one-seat majority in the Senate courtesy of then-Senator Jim Jeffords' party switch in the summer of 2001. Holding a slim majority, Democrats were able to block several of President Bush's initiatives and judicial nominations, infuriating the White House (at the time, the GOP still held the House). Riding strong favorables at that time, Bush decided to go all-in and campaign heavily in the midterm elections in order to elect a GOP majority in the Senate. Riding a series of successes in close and open seats, Bush and the Republican Party won out.
However, at the time, there was an interesting subplot going on. First-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu was running for re-election in the Bayou State's infamous "jungle primary" where candidates of both parties ran on the same ballot. Under this system, if no candidate got 50 percent, a December run-off was required. This was important at the time because the Senate was just about 50-50, and it was unclear leading up to the election if the Louisiana race would determine the balance of the Senate should a runoff be the deciding race. Indeed, with the presence of multiple candidates on the ballot, a runoff was very likely.
In the end, the outcome in Louisiana was not nearly as monumental as anticipated, as the GOP, riding President Bush's coattails, won a majority. (Incidentally, Landrieu won her runoff 52-48 in a month-long campaign that received far less attention than it may have under different circumstances; had the race been the decider in which party held the Senate, it is very likely Landrieu would have fallen). So, the potential for a runoff deciding the balance in the U.S. Senate is not at all unprecedented.
Senate in the balance. The biggest factor that would be at play in a runoff, in my opinion, is whether Georgia would potentially be the 60th seat for Democrats should Jim Martin win. Frankly, if Democrats win eight seats November 4 and the Georgia contest heads to a runoff, it would be one of the worst things possible for Jim Martin, and would make it much harder for him to win in December.
We need to keep in mind that as impressive as it would be for Martin to take Chambliss to a runoff, this is still Georgia we are talking about, a very Republican state. If the runoff heads to a showdown with Democrats holding a 59-to-40 advantage in the Senate, state and national Republicans would make the contest a referendum on giving national Democrats total control of the federal government. I feel confident in saying that it would be their number one issue from the morning of November 5 until the runoff. In a state as conservative as Georgia, such an argument would undoubtedly resonate with many voters.
Remember that in 2002, Mary Landrieu was, counter-intuitively, very lucky that her party was pushed out of the Senate majority on election night. Had her runoff been able to give the Democrats a majority again, she would have had big problems. Had that happened, the then-popular President Bush would have made Louisiana his second home for the next month, campaigning heavily and raising big money for Landrieu's opponent. He and others would have made the case that the GOP needed a majority to pass its agenda, and given Bush's high ratings at the time, such efforts well could have worked in a Deep South state like Louisiana. Landrieu was saved in great part because she did not have to contend with the nationalizing of her runoff, because once the GOP got back its majority on election night, the party (and the national media, for that matter), paid far less attention to the runoff.
If we are at 59-40 in the Senate, that would not be the case in Georgia for a runoff. The race would be nationalized, and voters would be well aware of the stakes of giving Democrats greater control via a Martin win. It would be a very difficult thing for Jim Martin to deal with.
Resources. To me, this would be the smallest issue for both Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. In the aftermath of November 4, there is little question that the national parties and their staffs will be dog tired, and none of them will want to have to wage a month-long Senate battle. However, many of them will likely dust themselves off after a night of partying or crying, and jump into the runoff.
Of course, both the NRSC and DSCC will be very low on funds, but I am guessing that they will have a little left lying around on both sides. Besides, even if they don't, Chuck Schumer, John Ensign, and others would start hitting the pavement and they would likely be able to raise quick cash for one last race in the cycle. It goes without saying that if this is the potential 60th seat, both sides will be able to raise even more: Schumer using a positive pitch, and Ensign using gloom and doom. One wild card is the next President. Assuming Obama wins, he would probably be able to raise more than enough to fund the runoff with one fundraiser or a single e-mail over his titanic listserve.
Duplicating Nov 4 turnout. This is another big hurdle that would face Jim Martin in a runoff. Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that Georgia is not the 60th seat for Democrats. Martin then must find a way to get all of the black and first-time voters who went out for Obama to come out one more time a month later to vote for him. This will not be a given. If the race does not have huge implications for the balance of the Senate, the contest may not have the juice to attract the attention of many casual voters, most of whom, it can be assumed, are Democratic-leaning.
Jim Martin cannot win without high black turnout. Georgia might not be Mississippi in its polarized racial voting patterns, but it still a state where Democrats have a hard time getting widespread white support. As a result, garnering big support in the black communities is crucial. The largest question, then, is if and how Martin can get not just high black support, but also wide turnout.
Engaging Obama. Barack Obama could have a big say in this matter. In fact, it is not complete hyperbole to say that a President Obama could be one of the key deciding factors in a runoff contest. As the new President, Obama could take a big lead in helping raise money, support, awareness, and enthusiasm for Jim Martin. If Obama were to do some campaigning and a couple of appearances for Martin, he could help close that enthusiasm gap and spur to the polls many of the casual voters who came out for him on November 4. It would be a very big deal. Conversely, Saxby Chambliss really would be out there on his own. He would not have a President with him, and Lord knows that he would not want to be anywhere near President Bush. Plus, as a loser, John McCain would be worthless to Chambliss. It would be a big advantage Chambliss would not be able to match.
The largest issue here is Obama himself, and whether he and his handlers would want to get very involved in the race. Naturally, if Obama were to jump into the contest in some way and help get Martin elected, he would get another vote for his caucus in the Senate, no small matter. However, there are clear perils as well. If Obama were to get involved and Martin went on to lose, and it would be a little black mark on Obama, and it would hurt his credibility and electoral cache some even before he takes office. His advisers might want to avoid that scenario.
Furthermore, as President, Obama would have to place himself above politics. I know that coming off a presidential contest where he has been campaigning nonstop for over a year this suggestion seems silly, but a President is more a statesman and a leader than a politician, and this is a framework that he would have to consider. This would thus limit Obama's level of participation in the runoff. In other words, you would not see Obama down in Georgia 10 times (and also because he will be busy transitioning into the federal government, no tiny matter).
Still, I think that with a Senate seat in Georgia at stake, and a seat which means a great deal to many grassroots Democrats given how Chambliss got elected in 2002, Obama would be involved here, especially if this is the 60th seat, in which case his hard work is a given. This will be a huge factor in Jim Martin's favor.
Other factors. With no libertarian on the ballot, it is very likely that most voters who cast a ballot for David Herbert on November 4 would go to Chambliss in the runoff. How much thiswould matter depends entirely on how many votes Herbert gets. The fewer, the better for Martin in the runoff.
And if Obama and the Democrats end up scoring big national wins across the country on November 4, you might see a "changed out" factor come into play in December, with many of the voters who were upset about GOP rule and voted to send a message on November 4, deciding to vote for Chambliss to balance things out. This could come into play whether or not the runoff would potentially decide the 60th seat.
Outlook
I guess that the biggest thing right now is whether or not there is actually going to be a runoff -- if not, I just wasted a lot of time writing this!
Consider not just at the closeness of all of the Senate polls but also at how neither candidate is at 50 percent. Complicating this is the libertarian candidate, and how much support he gets will play a big part in this equation. Of course, the undecideds could break enough for one candidate to get him to 50 percent.
For his part, the incomparable Nate Silver this morning discusses his view that many of the pollsters in this race are showing a huge slice of still-undecided black voters, a group which should break heavily for the Democrat. This is an issue we have raised with regards to the Mississippi Senate race, and it is no less important in a contest this close. Therefore, Martin getting to 50 percent might be a bit less likely than the polling averages are today showing.
If a runoff does come to fruition, we know the key factors that will be at play. My view is that Chambliss would be favored, especially if the Senate is 59-40 on November 5, but also if it is not. In a regular race with fewer monumental implications and national coverage, Chambliss would still be running in Georgia. Still, Martin could have advantages with an enthusiastic base that is still happy over a good November 4. Not to mention that Barack Obama could play a big part in getting Martin over the top if he so decides.
We'll see if any of this happens. I am not sure a lot of people could handle another month of politics, but if we are at 59-to-40, we may get another 30+ days of delicious political subplots and bare-knuckle campaigning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
