Nevada: Angle campaign calls local TV reporter an "idiot"
Sharron Angle wants you to know she does not talk to the press, she does not enjoy answering their questions and does not intend to treat journalists with respect. In case some failed to get the message from the fact that she has avoided all media outlets but Fox News since winning the Republican nomination ten days ago, she engaged in quite an aggressive conversation with a reporter from local station KLAS-TV yesterday.
Asked a number of question about her views, Angle systematically retorted by accusing the reporter, Nathan Baca, of bias ("You believe the Harry Reid lie", "Now, you're putting words into my mouth from Harry Reid", "Where are you getting these questions?") or she simply refused to answer the question; she for instance laughed off the possibility that voters might be interested in her proposal of eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency and walking away when questioned on why she wants the US to leave the UN. And KLAS-TV's article ends with quite an extraordinary paragraph:
The reaction from the Angle campaign was swift. A campaign spokesperson called Nathan Baca "an idiot" and another term that can't be repeated. The campaign spokesman did say he would detail Angle's positions, but he refused to answer on camera.
KY-Sen: Rand Paul flips on discrimination in private hiring: A spokesperson for Rand Paul has confirmed to Greg Sargent that Paul thinks the federal government should ban private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race in their hiring practices. This is the exact opposite of what Paul has stated in the past, not what he has said in the past, and just last night he said that the federal government did not have the right to prevent private businesses from refusing to serve people on the basis of race. So much for Rand Paul at least being principled.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen shows Rand Paul ahead by 25%. Their polling in Kentucky has been particularly henke, to the tune of a 14% house effect so far this year. Non-Rasmussen polling in Kentucky current shows Paul ahead by only 1%
NV-Sen: Angle takes the lead among Republicans: A new poll shows wingnut fave Sharron Angle ahead in the Republican primary for Nevada Senate. Tomorrow, a Rasmussen poll will show her beating Harry Reid by 22 points in the general election.
PA-Sen: Sestak takes the lead: The first post-primary poll in Pennsylvania shows Joe Sestak ahead of Pat Toomey, 46%-42%. And its from Rasmussen. Don't get too excited though, because next week Rasmussen will show Toomey ahead by 18%.
Also, according to Rasmussen polling, you trail your Republican neighbor by 37%, even though you have higher name ID in the neighborhood. Other polls show it to be a toss-up. Discuss.
New polling shows that the June 8thh primaries could shake up the 2010 elections as much as Tuesday's primaries already did.
California Senate, Republican primary and general election Two new primary polls in California show former Representative Tom Campbell's lead over Carly Fiorina shrinking in the Republican Senate primary. M4 shows Campbell up 33%--28% (with 15% for Chuck DeVore), while PPIC shows Fiorina ahead 25%--23% (with DeVore at 16%). This puts the 15-day average at 30.3% for Campbell, 25.7% for Fiorina, and 15.3% for DeVore.
A Fionia win--or, for that matter, a shock DeVore win--would certainly be good news for incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer. In the general election, Boxer now leads Campbell by 3.5% (87% current win %), Fiorina by 8% (98% current win %), and Devore by 8.5% (again, 98% current win %). Given Boxer's 72% current win % in yesterday's Senate forecast update, this improve the overall Democratic seante position by 0.13 seats (adjusting for slight error I made in Connecticut-should have been 98% win % for Blumenthal, not 100%). Democrats are now forecast at 52.20 seats, their best total since Evan Bayh's retirement announcement.
California 36th Congressional district, Democratic primary Another interesting poll on a June 8th primary comes from the Marcy Winograd campaign. The poll, which was not released in full (not a good sign), shows incumbent Blue Dog Jane Harman at only 43% support. This conflicts significantly with an internal Harman poll released earlier in the week, showing her at 58%.
My takeways from these polls are that Harman is strongly favored in the campaign, but Winograd can score over 40%, improving on her 2010 performance. To win, she is going to need a huge improvement in name ID and favorables over the final three weeks, combined with very low Democratic turnout on June 8th. Given the relative lack of major statewide Democratic primaries in California compared to Republicans, this isn't impossible. But it is a huge longshot.
Nevada Senate, Republican primary Another big primary to watch on June 8th int eh Republican Senate primary in Nevada. In the wake of her Chickens for Checkups fiasco, one-time Republican frontrunner Sue Lowden has crashed in the polls. The 18% lead she enjoyed from late February through early April has been cut to only 5% by wingnut fave Sharron Angle. Harry Reid is competitive with Sharron Angle in the general election, trailing by only 5.5%. If Angle were to win the Republican primary, Reid might be able to hang onto his seat.
Arkansas Senate, Democratic primary runoff Finally, to toot our own horn for a bit, the first poll on the runoff for the Democratic nomination in Arkansas Senate was first released here on Open Left yesterday by Democracy for America. It showed Bill Halter leading incumbent Blanche Lincoln 48%--46%. With Lincoln receiving less than 45% of the vote in the primary on Tuesday, there its a good bet that a a wave of anti-incumbent incumbent sentiment will lead to her defeat on June 8th.
****
Overall, while perhaps not quite as exciting as the May 18th primaries, June 8th seems ready to keep the anti-incumbent, anti-establishment buzz going strong.
Nevada's top political journalist, Jon Ralston, reports:
In the federal penal code, it is known as "structuring."
And it is a word Sen. John Ensign should remember because it is very likely to be on any indictment with his name on it.
That's what I am told by a reliable source familiar with the deliberations occurring inside the Justice Department as federal authorities in Washington try to do with Ensign what they could not do with former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens: Get their man. Or, because they had Stevens and then lost him because of misconduct, Justice wants to make sure if it goes to the next step with Ensign, the charges stick.
Indictment? Don't mind if I do. (Remember, it was the abysmal Bush DOJ that fumbled the Stevens prosecution.) So what is "structuring?"
Structuring is a broad term that refers to the crime of creating financial transactions to evade reporting requirements - for example, a $96,000 payment to your mistress laundered through a trust controlled by your parents and calling it a "gift" instead of what it obviously was: a severance payment that had to be reported.
Based on the facts already in public domain, it seems there may be enough for an indictment.
Two former federal prosecutors in the past two weeks have said there is enough evidence to indict Ensign. "Just based on what the senator has said himself and what Mr. (Doug) Hampton has said ... under the federal standard of probable cause, there's enough to indict the senator now," ex-prosecutor Stan Hunterton, a well-respected local attorney, said March 19 on "Face to Face." Then, Thursday on the program, Melanie Sloan, the former federal prosecutor who now heads a D.C. watchdog group that has filed several complaints against Ensign, said, "I completely think" Hunterton is right. ...
The department is being very deliberate in assembling a case against Ensign. But Justice has a mountain of documents and e-mails that, combined with the senator's own admissions or statements in e-mails, would seem to amount to a formidable case. And last week's New York Times story, showing how Ensign's contacts with a local company (similar to several other interactions), show how far the senator was willing to go to get Hampton work, mostly while he was employed by ex-Ensign aides who had formed a lobbying/consulting firm. The structure, so to speak, is becoming more transparent all the time.
Beyond Ensign's dire and deserved legal fate, what are the political implications?
If Ensign gets indicted, he will become a national and state nightmare for the GOP. National Democrats will brandish him as a symbol of corruption (they may anyhow) and local Democrats will wrap the junior senator around the GOP Senate nominee's neck, especially because Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian foolishly have said they would welcome his support. I wouldn't even be surprised to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid directly go after his pal to boost his sagging fortunes. I can hear it now: "Sorry, John. But now you know how Doug Hampton feels - how it feels to be screwed over by your best friend."
Why are the national and state Republicans mute? Cowardice, perhaps? Or is it, as NBC political guru Chuck Todd tweeted Friday, repeating something he previously said on "Face to Face" a couple of weeks ago: "NV/DC GOPers desperate to wait for Gov. Gibbons to be out of office before pushing Ensign out but can they really (http://nyti.ms/91kElt)?"
The Web link in Todd's tweet is to last week's Times story, emphasizing the point that if the Republicans wait too long, their silence could be very costly. And if Ensign gets indicted and no prominent Republican has called for him to resign, there's no way to structure that deal to the GOP's benefit.
Ensign and Washington Republicans can continue to do what they've been doing all along - ignore, ignore, ignore. But they might not be able to run out the clock on Election Day 2010 - still seven months away - before indictments come down. And, as Ralston points out, if the Washington Republican establishment stays mum on all of this, the issue becomes a matter of the entire Party coddling its corrupt members. Hmmmm, Republican Culture of Corruption, where have I heard that before? And that's on top of the already-competitive gubernatorial and Senate races in Nevada, which is also a key 2012 swing state, don't forget. (Lowden's and Tarkanian's poorly thought out statements welcoming Ensign's support will no doubt bite them in the backside if either is the Republican nominee against Majority Leader Harry Reid. The political ad writes itself.)
Particularly as it relates to the 2010 Senate races, the Senate Republican caucus is the Ensign-Vitter caucus. Every Republican incumbent Senator and candidate for U.S. Senate should be asked by their local media if they think hypocritical lawbreakers like John Ensign and David Vitter should resign their seats. They should be forced to call for the ouster of these hypocritical, lawbreaking Republicans or be forced to serve as apologists for them and let the voters decide. Though the media around the country largely may be dropping the ball on their responsibility, it appears federal investigators aren't. The national media that gave a relentless week of news coverage to the Eric Massa absurdity still hasn't fully given the Ensign matter (or the Vitter matter) its due. However, the handing down of indictments, should that come to pass, will be national news and should force the issue for every Republican seeking federal office in 2010.
Massachusetts--Coakley up by 8%: A new poll on the Massachusetts Senate campaign shows Martha Coakley up by 8% over Scott Brown, 49%--41%. This is precisely in line with the overall polling average, which now gives Coakley a lead of 8.2%, down / up from 8.2% yesterday. Coakley's win % remains at 91%.
Just in case there was any doubt, a Coakley loss means that health care reform is over. Expect some Blue Dogs to balk at any bill if Scott Brown wins, and expect some Progressives to balk at voting for the Baucus version of the bill if Brown wins.
Connecticut--Blumenthal dominant, Lieberman despised: Quinnipiac is the latest polling firm to find Richard Blumnthal way, way ahead for Senate in Connecticut. He leads the Demcoratic primary 85%-4%, and the general election by 35% over Rob Simmons and 41% over Linda McMahon. This campaign ended the day that Dodd retired, and Blumenthal entered. I only follow general elections within 18.50%, so unless something changes dramatically, this will not appear on my Senate forecast updates.
Also of note--Quinnipiac provides further evidence that Joe Lieberman suffered real damage from his actions on the health care bill:
Connecticut voters disapprove 54 - 39 percent of the job Sen. Joseph Lieberman is doing, one point off his worst grade ever and a steep drop from a 49 - 44 percent approval November 12. Republicans approve 61 - 35 percent while Democrats disapprove 67 - 27 percent and independent voters disapprove 57 - 36 percent.
It is small comfort, but Joe Lieberman's health care backstab made him very unpopular in Connecticut. This is probably his last term in the Sneate.
Nevada--polling alternatives to Reid: A new PPP poll looks at alternatives to Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race. The results are not good for Democrats:
PPP tested Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, and Secretary of State Ross Miller as possible alternatives to Reid.
Goodman comes out the best, leading Lowden 42-40 and tied with Tarkanian at 41. 43% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of him to 21% unfavorable, and he's viewed positively by Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Berkley and Miller both post numbers pretty similar to Reid. Berkley trails Lowden and Tarkanian by identical eight point margins and Miller has a 10 point deficit against Tarkanian and an 11 point one against Lowden.
The problem for Democrats is that Oscar Goodman is already mulling a run for Governor--and as an independent, not as a Democrat. As such, it is highly unlikely that Democrats would ever clear the field for him. and he is, um, colorful. He really is more Governor material than Senate material.
Ignoring the numerous horserace machups in the PPP poll for a moment, here are the favorable ratings of the candidates they polled:
Oscar Goodman (I): Favorable 43%--21% Unfavorable
Danny Tarkanian (R): Favorable 33%--24% Unfavorable
Sue Lowden (R): Favorable 29%--22% Unfavorable
Ross Miller (D): Favorable 18%--16% Unfavorable
Shelley Berkley (D): Favorable 27%--27% Unfavorable
Harry Reid's favorables were not tested, but he does have an approval rating of 36%--58%. This likely makes Shelley Berkley a better bet. Even if she doesn't poll better right now, she has more potential.
Ohio--Brunner closes gap on Fisher: Rasmussen has new numbers on the Ohio Senate race. Like their December numbers, they show Republican frontrunner Rob Portman ahead of both major Democrats. In a reverse of their December numbers, Jennifer Brunner (down 3%) does better than Lee Fisher (down 7%). In December, Brunner trailed by 7%, and Fisher trailed by 2%.
Here are updated victory odds for the Ohio Senate race, looking only at Brunner vs. Portman and Fisher vs. Portman:
The DSCC has threatened to back Fisher over Brunner's lack of funding and her standing in the polls, but this poll might cause them to step back a bit.
In Ohio, the filing deadline for the Democratic primary is February 18th, and the primary is on May 4th. In Nevada, the filing deadline is on March 12th, and the primary is on June 8th. See all filing deadlines and primary dates here.
It's Harry Reid-o-rama in political news today. On the surface, it would seem that having the Democratic senate Majority Leader under fire would be bad for Democrats in general. However, I am not really seeing how it changes anything:
Was Harry Reid going to win re-election before the scandal? No, he wasn't. Nevada is in shambles, and someone is going to take the fall for it. That personn was going to be Harry Reid no matter what campaign he ran, or how he acted as Majority Leader.
Are African-Americans going to start voting for Republicans now? Um, no. There won't even be 1% movement.
Was Harry Reid a strong public voice for the Democratic Party? Um, no. Not a very popular media or campaign surrogate.
Was Harry Reid a popular leadership figure among progressives? Nope. If Harry Reid steps down, the next Majority Leader will be more progressive, not less.
Is the scandal drawing attention away from other, more problematic national issues for Democrats right now, like the final health care negotiations? Yes, yes it is.
While scandals like this usually hurt the party or individual politician in question, the only outcomes here actually help Democrats or progressives. If Reid doesn't run for re-election, Democratic odds of winning in Nevada increase. If he steps down as Majority Leader, Democrats get a more progressive Majority Leader. The more mediaa attention on Reid, the less media attention on the still unpopular and still dicey health care bill.
So, I am surprised to write this, since scandals like these are usually damaging, but in this case I fail to see how the current focus on Harry Reid is actually bad for Democrats or progressives.
In the post just below this one, I argue that having a public option in the health care bill the Budget committee sends to the floor of the Senate is the only realistic path to having a public option pass in health care reform. In fact, even beyond the public option, don't expect any significant improvements on the final bill President Obama signs into law from the one released by the Senate Budget committee.
The bill the Senate Budget committee sends to the floor will be a merged version of the Senate HELP and Senate Finance committee bills. The merging will take place largely under the direction of Senate majority leader Harry Reid. As such, commenter danthrax notes an important point of leverage the progressive grassroots has in this process:
if reid is the only way forward...
we may have a hope. Reid is up for a tough re-election fight
That is exactly right. If Harry Reid is the key choke point in this fight, then we have to use Reid's uphill re-election prospects as our point of leverage:
Polling against one announced Republican candidate, Danny Tarkanian, and one Republican candidate who has formed an exploratory committee, Sue Lowden, shows Senator Reid to be in a lot of trouble. In three polls, Reid trails by an average of 7.7% to Tarkanian, and by 5.8% across four polls to Lowden.
Further, should Reid lose, Senators Richard Durbin (#2 in the leadership, key Obama ally) and Charles Schumer (#3 in the leadership, chair of DSCC during 2006-2008 landslides) are by far the most likely candidates to succeed Reid as Majority Leader. Either would be an improvement on Reid.
Why should we activists bother to give Reid the support he needs to pull victory from the jaws of defeat if he is likely to be replaced by a more progressive, more aggressive, and electorally safe Democrat like Durbin or Schumer? Reid needs to give us a good reason to try and save his Senate position. If he decides to take the public option out of the health care bill before it reaches the Senate floor, what possible reason could be left to try and help him?
I, for one, am fine with a caucus that has 2-3 fewer Democrats, but a much better majority leader. I am also fine with working hard to elect Democrats who may not be progressive champions, but who do a good job of enacting progressive change in legislation. If enough progressive activists feel the same way and can make their positions clear, then we have a real stick and a real carrot in this fight.
Any suggestions on how to use this leverage effectively?
STATE BLOGS
