The Washington Post recently called the Colorado Senate Democratic primary one of the most important in the nation, and a new Denver Post/9News poll's results are stunning: Former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff has now taken the lead over appointed Sen. Michael Bennet. I say this is stunning because Romanoff's progressive-themed campaign has closed a 17-point gap despite being outspent by about 8-to-1. Romanoff will be on my AM760 morning show today (Monday) at 8:30am Colorado time to discuss the state of the race. Tune in here. (Note: We are also inviting Sen. Bennet on as well as we always do - but he has most often refused to come on the show and remains unconfirmed for Monday's show at this time).
A question I keep being asked right now is: How should progressives look at this race? It's a fair question, considering the records of the candidates.
I'd say it does, and here's why: While both candidates are imperfect, there are very clear differences between them on the issues (see here for a good run-down) and, as importantly, their candidacies differ in key ways.
According to a statement and an email released by Andrew Romanoff, the White House Jim Messina kinda, sorta, suggested that Romanoff pursue an administration job rather than challenge Senator Michael Bennet in the Colorado Democratic primary for Senate. Politico:
In his statement, Romanoff said that in September 2009, shortly after the news media first reported his plans to run for the Senate, he received a call from Messina. "Mr. Messina informed me that the White House would support Sen. Bennet. I informed Mr. Messina that I had made my decision to run," the statement said.
"Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one," Romanoff said.
Later that day, Romanoff said he received an email from Mr. Messina containing descriptions of three positions. "I later left him a voicemail informing him that I would not change course," Romanoff said. "I have not spoken with Mr. Messina, nor have I discussed this matter with anyone else in the White House, since then."
I gotta say "ouch" for the White House on this one. It will now look like the White House made a regular business of suggesting administration positions to Democrats who were considering primary challenges to incumbent Democratic members of Congress. It will look like that, because it was like that.
There are some caveats here. For one, Romanoff was actively pursuing administration positions during much of 2009, so it is not like this was an entirely unsolicited suggestion from the White House: Also, Romanoff himself says that he was not actually promised a job by the White House. Further, the White House says that Democrats in Colorado were actively promoting him for administration positions.
Whether this will hurt the Obama administration is based on two factors. First, is this a story that is getting enough play for a meaningful amount of voters to actually notice? Second, do people actually care?
I am not as convinced as many professional commentators that this makes Obama look bad to his supporters. Other than political junkies, almost no one gives a shit about process stories. Further, almost no political junkies are both Obama supporters and naïve enough to feel burned by transactional politics like this. I just don't see what part of the Obama coalition actually feels surprised and upset at Obama over this.
However, I am convinced that this is not helping Obama. As I noted in the post below this, Obama's net approval rating dropped 3.5% in May, even though more jobs were created in May than in any month, like ever. It seems possible, even likely, that stories about the White House trying to clear primary fields, and the BP leak, are wiping away any potential political gain for the improving employment situation.
The lesson for the White House here should be to stay out of primaries. These stories are costing them a lot of news cycles, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars they sunk into Arlen Specter's campaign. Further, these primary challenges are actually helpful to the administration's legislative agenda, as they do a lot more to prevent defections on big votes from Specter and Bennet than any backroom deal ever will. If the White House had just let these campaigns play out, they would be a lot better off right now.
Over at The Fix, Aaron Blake engages in a remarkable bit of self-fulfilling scandal "reporting" on a second supposed job offer the White house made to get Andrew Romanoff out of the Democratic Senate primary in Colorado. According to Blake, the scandal is, quite literally, the failure of the Romanoff campaign to give Blake an on the record comment about the scandal:
Blake maakes it clear that he doesn't think the "scandal," even if true, is a big deal. The problem is botching the response:
So, naturally, like any reporter who doesn't think the story is a big deal, but that not responding to a reporter is a big deal, Blake places call to the Romanoff campaign that he knows will not result in a response.
Romanoff has repeatedly declined to comment -- including to the Fix yesterday.
The is an absolutely self-fulfilling bit of scandal reporting. Blake says that not responding to reporter's queries on a non-scandal puts a politician in a dangerous political position, knows that the Romanoff campaign is not going to respond to repoter's queries on the matter, and yet makes a media inquiry to the Romanoff campaign to respond to this non-scandal anyway.
Thus, according to Blake's own logic, his own act of calling the Romanoff campaign to comment on a non-scandal actually creates a scandal. Talk about self-fulfilling reporting. Additionally, that Blake goes on to describe how this can turn into a scandal due to a disembodied, third-person political discourse belies a remarkable lack of self-awareness.
There are not too many instances when my years o graduate work in postmodern and post structuralist critical theory comes in handy, but it does in this case. The Fix is literally creating the story on which it is reporting, thus breaking down the binary opposition between journalist and subject.
Two new polls this morning show Joe Sestak within striking distance of Arlen Specter in the May 18th Pennsylvania primary. Quinnipiac puts Specter up 8%, down from 21% last month. Also, the Muhlenberg daily tracker of the campaign puts Specter up 4%, down from 9% yesterday.
The 15-day simple mean on the campaign now puts Specter up by 7.0%, while the 30-day pegs it at 8.5%. Specter's lead was in the high teens for most of the campaign, soo Sestak is surging. I always thought this campaign would be decided by 6% one way or the other, and it looks like that will happen.
The trend in Pennsylvania fits in with the main narrative of the 2010 primary season: the unusually large number of incumbent Senators who are in serious danger of being defeated for renomination. No less than five Senators face this threat, with I equivalent to the number of incumbent Senators who were defeated for re-nomination over the past 20 years combined (see here and here). Here are those five campaigns, in chronological order (using 30-day, simple means):
May 8th: Utah (two polls)
Lee: 34.0%
Bennett (i): 19.0%
Bridgewater: 18.5%
(Primary is on June 22nd, but caucus convention this Saturday will determine two Republicans who make ballot. A minimum of 40% is needed to make primary ballot)
May 18th: Arkansas (three polls)
Lincoln (i): 42.0%
Halter: 33.0%
Other: 7.7%
May 18th: Pennsylvania (four polls)
Specter (i): 45.3%
Sestak: 36.8%
August 10th: Colorado (one poll)
Bennet (i): 40.0%
Romanoff: 34.0%
August 24th: Arizona (three polls)
McCain (i):49.0%
Hayworth: 35.0%
McCain is actually the safest of the five incumbents at this point, but his primary is also the furthest away. This will give Hayworth ample time to make up ground.
Also, as multiple commenters on Open Left have noted, Specter has already lost a primary. His party switch last year handed the Republican nomination to Pat Toomey.
Finally, cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth over "extremism." Village pundits galore will complain about how these primary challenges are destroying our glorious moderates, which in turn will keep the Senate from ratifying the deficit commission and handing out more Wall Street bailouts. Cutting Social Security while propping up stock-based retirement portfolios seems, in the end, to really be what bi-partisanship is supposed to accomplish in Washington, D.C. Senators would do it, to, if only they didn't have to answer to those dirty people who actually believed in stuff.
Officials say the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy will be the governor's choice to fill the New York Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Two people close to Gov. David Paterson tell The Associated Press they believe Caroline Kennedy will be his choice, but the governor cautions he's still looking.
This report appears solid, now that State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is now willing to back Kennedy. The deal appears to made, which is disappointing. Not only will she have received the position because of the celebrity provided by her family name and a bullying, Wall Street faction in New York politics, but the general negativity surrounding her poorly run "campaign" for the seat over the last month makes her potentially vulnerable in 2010. She has appeared foolish and unqualified, giving Republicans a shot at winning a seat in one of the bluest states in the nation.
While I am glad that Ken Salazar's Blue Dog younger brother did not receive the appointment, Bennet doesn't seem to be an exciting pick. Also, it is a little disappointing that, with Barack Obama becoming President and Ken Salazar becoming Secretary of Interior, the Senate appears to have gone from six minority members to only four. The Senate really is one of the most retrograde institutions in the entire country.
Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar has accepted an offer to become Barrack Obama's Interior Secretary, CBS station KCNC-TV in Denver's Raj Chohan confirmed on Monday.
The Rocky Mountain News also reported a source within President-elect Barack Obama's transition team says Salazar was offered the Interior Secretary job and that he had accepted.
There are several items of note about this pick:
It is a real disappointment that Raul Grijalva wasn't the choice. Perhaps I spoke too soon about the degree to which Obama was listening to progressives during the transition. We seem to be nixing the occasional choice, but not achieving anyone who we are pushing.
It is worth noting that Raul Grijalva turned down becoming chairman of Ways and Means in order to stay chair of the Natural Resources committee. From this committee, he will have an ability to serve as a check on Ken Salazar. So, once again, we have a more positive development in the U.S. House than we appear to have in either the Senate or the Executive Branch.
Third, this is yet another Democratic Senate seat that will be filled via appointment. This could potentially be a positive, as Salazar was a fairly annoying Democratic Senator. He was a member of the "Gang of 14,", and was below average within the Democratic caucus on Progressive Punch. He wasn't the worst, and Evan Bayh didn't even appear to be targeting him for the new Senate Blue Dog caucus, but he wasn't exactly a particularly useful Senator for progressives, either.
Hopefully, Salazar's replacement in the Senate will not be his brother, who is a Blue Dog. That, plus the various corruption issues surrounding our Senate picks these days, would make him a poor choice.
(Oh, Yeah! The SENATE! - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
So with the Alaska primary and the conventions now over, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So what are the competitive races?
Again, just to be clear, I don't do predictions. Every time I do, horrible things happen. So I won't even make an actual prediction on the Virginia Senate race, because doing so would effectively jinx Mark Warner. So, I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a legitimate chance of switching (but I ain't guaranteeing anything). The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous August diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
So with about three months to go, with Ted Stevens' indictment dominating the Senate news, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So what are the competitive races?
I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching (but I ain't guaranteeing anything). The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous May diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
(Since much of Chris' analysis of late (No Future, Spend Early etc) hinges on winning a senate supermajority, seeing additional senate analyses is useful. - promoted by Daniel De Groot)
So with less than half a year to go, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching. The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
Follow me below the fold for all the races. This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous March diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
You gotta love the modern day Republican party in Colorado - and most other places - for that matter. And yes, I do use modern advisedly. It's current leaderBob Schaffer for Senate scapegoat, Dicky "Macaca" Wadhams, is a prime example of their never forget/never learn/no regrets philosophy.
They really do make you doubt Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Wadhams was asked about the “lessons” from the Virginia race. He was blunt and brief.
“Really didn’t learn anything from it, other than the candidate shouldn’t say stupid things in public,” said Wadhams. “I don’t think there much mystery to it. That’s all I have to say about it.”
Pressed further, he said, “We could take up the entire day talking about the Virginia Senate race. I’d rather talk about the Democratic National Convention, O.K.?”
Defensive much, Dick? (And just to keep the Google happy, here's a link to the infamous "it", which really should be the top hit when you search "macaca", hint hint).
But you have to admire Republicans' blind stubbornness sometimes. It has served Colorado Republicans well in the past. It's looking like they'll keep this up at least through November, when Wadhams and Schaffer will both have to look for a new jobs after being rejected by Colorado's voters.
And the lessons learned then will surely be, once again, none.
Recent polling shows Democrats in an even better position in the Senate at this point in the 2008 cycle than they were at this point in the 2006 cycle. Here are just some examples:
New Hampshire: CNN / WMUR, 7/09/07: Shaheen 54%--38% Sununu (R-inc. Other Democrats are very close to Sununu-with the margin of error.
Virginia: Rasmussen, 9/05/07: Warner (D) 54%--34% Gilmore (R)
For the sake of comparison, here are the first polls I could find from each of the Senate pickups Democrats made in 2006 (from the subscriber section of Polling Report):
Missouri: Research 2000, 1/18/2006: McCaskill (D) 47%--44% Talent (R-inc)
Ohio: Columbus Dispatch, 11/03/05: Brown (D) 35%--31% DeWine (R-inc) (note: the final poll from this organization, four days before the election, showed Brown ahead by 26 points, even though he only won by 12%. This poll is conducted by mail)
Pennsylvania: Several polls showing Casey (D) up by double-digits over Santorum (R-inc)
Rhode Island: Brown University, 9/11/05: Chafee (R-inc) 38%--25% Whitehouse (D)
The only 2005 or early 2006 polls I could find for Tennessee were internal releases from the Harold Ford campaign, showing him narrowly ahead but with a huge amount of undecideds. There were no early polls in Virginia.
So, where were Democrats at this point in 2005? There was one clear pickup in Pennsylvania, and nailbiters in Missouri, Tennessee and Ohio. Now, polls already show Democrats ahead in Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia, while Minnesota is very close. Idaho is even close, depending on who is the Republican nominee. There seem to be more clear pickup opportunities, although two of those do depend on specific candidates who have yet to declare (Warner in Virginia, Sheheen in New Hampshire). However, both runs seem likely, and even if they fail, Democrats are very close in both states anyway.
The main reason for the Democratic improvement is two-fold. First, Republicans have far more seats to defend in 2008 (21) than they had to defend in 2006 (15). Second, four Republican-held seats are now open: Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska and Virginia. All them range from competitive depending on the nominees from both parties, to likely Democratic pickup depending on the nominees from both parties. The open seats have been key, and seem set to make up for the total lack of partisan defectors from the Republican Party following the Democratic takeover. While we may not be getting party switchers, we are getting a lot of retirements, and the prospect of solid Democrats to replace the out-going Republicans.
STATE BLOGS
