Senate 2008 Update: Nebraska (Senator Chuck Hagel)

CQ Politics, in January 2007, labeled this seat as Safe Republican. Let's see how it looks now.

Two weeks ago, Senator Hagel announced that he would retire from the Senate after the expiration of his term, ending speculation that he would run for re-election and/or run for president in 2008. Hagel’s announcement adds another area of concern for the Republicans senatorial chances.

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning has been campaigning since last spring when he announced that he would challenge Hagel in the primary. Hagel’s opposition to the war in Iraq and his maverick approach to politics have angered many in GOP circles. With Hagel’s announcement, Bruning is the only Republican actively campaigning; however, he is still not the favorite. Former Nebraska governor and current U.S. Agriculture Secretary, Mike Johanns intends to run for the open Senate seat. The Bruning campaign released a poll that showed a competitive primary is ahead. In the poll, 39% of those surveyed voiced support for Johanns while 30% supported Bruning.

The Democratic hopes of turning this seat blue lie in the hands of Bob Kerrey. Kerrey was governor of Nebraska for four years in the 80s and served as Nebraska’s Senator for two terms from 1988-2000. He was also an unsuccessful presidential candidate in 1992. He has extremely high name recognition and is viewed as a maverick-type much akin to his friend, Chuck Hagel; however, one problem exists: Kerrey has not yet declared that he will run. Speculation runs ramped as Kerrey has often alluded to an interest and even told board members at The New School in NYC, where he is president that he is considering a return to public life. If Kerrey enters the race then the Democrats hold the advantage. Kerrey is a former chairman of the DSCC and understands the importance of this race.

Hagel’s retirement has to move this race to Leans Republican, because it will be a highly targeted race. However, if Kerrey announces then the seat may move quickly to No Clear Favorite. Republicans hold the advantage in Nebraska at large, but they will be dealing with a seasoned, popular figure in Kerrey, if, and only if, he runs.

- Wyatt Earp

Senate 2008 Update: Oregon (Senator Gordon Smith)

CQ Politics, in January 2007, designated this race as leaning Republican, which, for incumbents, is tantamount to saying “targeted seat.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, led by New York Senator, Chuck Schumer, believes that with the right recruitment they can defeat incumbent Senator, Gordon Smith.

Oregon has been progressively becoming a strong Democratic seat and made more gains in the 2006 cycle. In 2006, the Democrats gained control of the state House by wrestling four seats from the Republicans. The Democratic Senate, in 2006, also increased its majority from 18-12 to 18-11 with one seat now being held by an independent. And after November 2006, the Democrats maintained control of the governorship and four of the five congressional seats.

The state may not be favorable to Republicans, but it has been to Gordon Smith who has won re-election easily in 2002 with 56% of the vote over his Democratic challenger’s 40%. Senator Smith has also gone out of his way to appear moderate by opposing President Bush’s Iraq policies and becoming only one of a handful of Republicans to vote in favor of a timetable for withdrawal. However, despite this moderate appeal, Smith has seen his approval ratings drop substantially: in December 2006, Smith had a 56-33 approve-disapprove rating but has seen that fall to a 46-44 approve-disapprove rating by August 2007. Statistically, just as many Oregonians approve of Smith’s job performance as do disapprove, which is a major concern for the two-term incumbent.

As 2006 showed, recruitment is the best hope for Democrats to defeat incumbents. The DSCC went out and asked some notable Oregon names to run against Smith, such as Rep. Peter DeFazio, former governor John Kitzhaber, and Rep. Earl Blumanauer. Senator Schumer was finally successful when Speaker of the Oregon House Jeff Merkley announced his candidacy. This led Republicans to call Merkley the “best of the B-list of candidates.”

Also entering the race is independent John Frohnmayer, former chairman of the National Endowment of the Arts and member of the well-known Frohnmayer. Being a Frohnmayer and brother of David Frohnmayer, former President of University of Oregon and former Attorney General, gives John unusually high name-recognition for an independent candidate. The ten-dollar question in Oregon now is who will Frohnmayer take votes from? Traditionally, independent candidates do not win elections but merely “spoil” the election for another one of the parties.

Frohnmayer’s appeal to “fiscal conservatives” or, what he calls, “traditional Republican values” will hurt Smith with moderate-right voters. Smith supported the Iraq War until recently, some say until he realized his seat was vulnerable. Frohnmayer, who opposed the Iraq War since the beginning, may persuade moderate Republicans by making Smith look like his positions are dictated by electoral prospects. This will hurt Smith, but the Democrats are not immune to Frohnmayer’s candidacy. Frohnmayer, a former Democrat, is running on the same “culture of corruption” platform that most Democrats ran on in 2006; however, he is blaming Democrats as well for Washington’s ethics problems. “Clean-it up” progressive may be persuaded by Frohnmayer and hurt the Democrat’s chances.

In an August 20^th Riley Research poll, 38% of voters said they would vote for Smith, 19% for Merkley, the early Democratic favorite, and 7% for Frohnmayer. However, 35% said that they were undecided.

This seat is well classified at Leans Republican, because Smith still holds the advantage as an incumbent but he is now looking at being hit from two sides with Frohnmayer entering the race. This will be a competitive race.

- Wyatt Earp

Don't help your enemy when they're falling apart

The 2006 election was considered by most Republicans, and many Democrats, to be the high-water mark of Democratic success. Republicans sight their fatal shoot-yourself-in-the-foot disease as the cause of the Democratic take-over rather than a substantive Democratic agenda. Democrats, however, furthered their cause by perpetuating the phrase, created by Rahm Emanuel, "the culture of corruption" that summed up the nation's feelings of the Republican controlled Congress. The Republican rebuttal of "the Democrats have no issues and have their own corruption issues, just look at Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana," did not break through and the Democrats ran the table. The basic Democrat strategy was to violate an axiom developed by Democrat Tip O'Neill: all politics is local. By nationalizing the election the focus would be put on the aggregate Republican instead of the individual Republican. (Americans tend to view Congress, as a whole, negatively while still liking their individual representative)

However, Republicans saw it as manna from heaven when they starting seeing poll numbers that rated the Democrat-controlled Congress with roughly 20% approval. (a recent Pew Research Poll put it at 23%, but some numbers have been considerably lower). Republicans are now quick to label it a "do-nothing Congress", a homage to what Harry Truman called the Republican-controlled Congress in route to his 1948 electoral upset. Maybe, just maybe, 2008 is the year for Republicans to get back on the horse! If only they can avoid making the news for things that would be considered part of "the culture of corruption."

The last thing that the Republicans have done since 2006 is avoid the perception that they're still plagued by a "culture of corruption." Over the summer, it was reported that Republican Senator David Vitter had had relations with the infamous "D.C. Madam" and pleaded guilty to soliciting sex. And just today, Republican Senator Larry Craig has announced that he will resign from the Senate at the end of September after pleading guilty to misdemeanor where he solicited sex from a male undercover police officer while in the Minneapolis airport. As a side note, Republican Senator John Warner from Virginia has said that he will not seek re-election in 2008. This has led to a lot of speculation that popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner will seek the seat. That is a great opportunity for the Democrats to pick up another Senate seat.

At least Republicans can count on the White House to remain stalwart, as it always has. Despite its lagging, that's one word for it, poll numbers, the Bush administration can still use its remaining political clout to help challenge the Democrats in Congress. However, the Bush administration is becoming severely hampered in its ability to challenge just about anything. Earlier in the summer, close Bush advisor, former communications director and White House counselor Dan Barlett announced his intentions to leave. A Bush loyalist, Barlett had been with Bush since his days in Texas and was one of few staffers who had unlimited access to the president. Then the bomb dropped with Karl Rove announcing his resignation from the White House. Rove had previously said that he planned on being in the White House until Jan 20, 2009, but the ousting of Scooter Libby in the Plame case, the disastrous 2006 elections and Rove's alleged connection to the attorney firings all expedited his leaving office. Then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, after a cloud of deception and smoke, resigned from office. That was a large political victory for the Democrats who had been urging for his resignation for a while, and slowly gaining Republican support. And then in a final blow, Bush announced that his press secretary Tony Snow will step down. Snow had been on the few faces that helped right the ship for the second term. However, no one smirks at his departure because Snow had continued his duties even while battling cancer. I, personally, really enjoyed watching Snow bring a certain amount of humor to his office.

In the end, the White House is weakened in its ability to combat the Democratic Congress and the Republicans are only perpetuating their "culture of corruption." In short, 2006 may not be the high-water mark, after all. And, what is the Democratic response to all of this? You'd be hard pressed to find one. The Democrats are following an old political axiom: If your enemy is self-destructing, don't help them. The Democrats stand to have more gains in 2008, and build upon an unpopular majority by defeating an even more unpopular minority.

-Wyatt Earp

Clinton's Electability

The most common reason I hear for support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is her electability in the general election. In a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted from July 26-31st, 500 Iowans were asked who, of the Democratic candidates, had the best chance at being elected in the general election the results went as follows: Clinton (35%), Obama (23%) and Edwards (22%). However, in the same poll, out of the top-three candidates, Clinton least "understands the problems of people like you", is the least "honest and trustworthy", least "closest to you on issues", and least "likeable." (Complete poll results are here) On the plus side for Clinton she is rated the "most experienced to be president" and "strongest leader." When asked whom these Iowa Democrats favor for the nomination 27% said Obama, 26% said both Clinton and Edwards. A statistical dead heat.

What this seems to say to me is that Democrats don't particularly like Clinton, out of the top three candidates, or trust her as a person; however, they trust her to win in November and that is all that matters after eight years of Bush. Competency before likability. However, Democrats, sadly, are not the only people who elect presidents in November. Republicans and independents count for something too. Therefore, it would be prudent to see what the polls tell us in presumed head-to-head match-ups for the general election. (It should be noted that these are national polls and reflect the supposed popular vote not the Electoral College, which is still the means of electing our presidents.)

Real Clear Politics is a good source for head-to-head results. They take the results of five to seven other polls and average them together to get an aggregate result. For simplicity's sake, I am going to just compare Clinton and Obama's results with the Republican field.

Clinton v. Giuliani (45.7% - 44.7% +1 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Thompson (46.8% - 43% +3.8 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. McCain (46% - 43.8% +2.2 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Romney (48% - 38.3% +9.7 Clinton spread)

Obama v. Giuliani (46.2% - 43% +3.2 Obama spread)
Obama v. Thompson (49.8% - 36.8% +13 Obama spread)
Obama v. McCain (46.5% - 40.8% +5.7 Obama spread)
Obama v. Romney (49% -36% +13 Obama spread)

In an election versus Giuliani, Obama does 2.2% better than Clinton
Versus Thompson, Obama does 9.2% better than Clinton
Versus McCain, Obama does 3.5% better than Clinton
Versus Romney, Obama does 3.3% better than Clinton

What is the cause of this? The cause is two-fold: 1) Clinton has a virtual 100% name recognition and most Americans have already made their mind-up about her, positive or negative, 2) Obama is still getting his name out there, so most Americans identify his party label, Democrat, as the overriding factor in their decision instead of their opinion about him. Clinton does worse than the "generic Democrat", while Obama does comparable to or better than the "generic Democrat." Every single candidate's unfavorables rise as the election goes on, so Obama's numbers may go down; however, every has their opinion on Clinton, so hers can't get much lower. (Clinton has a 47-49 favorable/unfavorable rating).

A couple of conclusions can be reached by looking at this data and it all depends on your bias. The Clinton bias would say that these are hard numbers, not likely to move because she has spent the last 15 years deflecting the Republican machine. Her favorables can only go up. Obama's numbers are soft because he has yet to be introduced to everyone in the nation, we have no idea what will happen to his numbers if that happens. Like her or not, she is the most capable Democrat to be elected president.

The Obama bias would say that there is very little wiggle room if we nominate Clinton. Obama's numbers, even if they fall, have a longer way to go than Clinton's until they are in the negative. Plus, Iowans who have met the candidates like Obama more than Clinton; we should, hypothetically, expect the same of the nation as a whole. Clinton is a national polarizing figure and America has had enough of polarizing figures. She will invigorate the right and likely increase Republican turn-out in a nominally Democratic year.

However, even Clinton supporters worry about the effect of a Clinton nomination. A recent article from the Associated Press tells of anonymous Democrats (everyone is afraid of the Clinton wrath) who worry that nominating Clinton will hurt down-ballot Democrats in close races. (read the article here) Clinton's polarizing persona will likely incur a groundswell of Republican opposition who turnout on election day just to oppose Clinton. These Republicans may not be able to defeat Clinton, but they could have a large effect on congressional and senatorial candidates.

EDITORIAL ALERT:
It is in my humble opinion, as a member of the Obama bias, that Clinton would surely win in November. I do believe she is electable, but she does not have much of a margin of error. Republicans at this juncture hate their choices for their nomination. They pleaded for Fred Thompson to enter the race, but he has already started to drop in the polls, had a major campaign shake-up, a poor financial showing the in the last quarter, and all this before officially declaring his candidacy. Thompson is a flame-out and it is still doubtful that Gingrich will enter the race. Republicans hate their choices, so why should we give them a reason to turnout on election day? Karl Rove had a successful strategy in 2004: turnout the base by putting hot-button issues on the ballot (abortion and gay-marriage). To conservatives Hillary Clinton IS a hot-button issue. Rove is hoping for the Democrats to put her on the ballot because it effectively fires up their base as much as gay marriage does (mostly because the far right sees her as a lesbian, anyway. A stupid claim). I worry about the effects on the Senate race in Colorado, the Senate race in Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, etc. if Clinton is on the ballot. Obama still has room to grow, whereas Clinton only has the margin of error. I don't want to give any more reason for conservatives to turnout on November 4th, 2008.

-Wyatt Earp

The race for Cabinet

While voters throughout the next year will be electing the Democratic nominee, who they elect will correlate to who is in the cabinet. The behind-the-scenes race for such hot-bed positions as Secretary of State is on. While there are no polls for this sort of thing, who is winning?

According to the whispering class if the election were held today the high-level cabinet would look like such: President Hillary Clinton, Vice-President Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Joe Biden.

Bill Richardson has not laid a hand on any of the other presidential candidates and it has been suggested that the nominee will be more forgiving of the squeaky-clean Richardson, so forgiving so as to appoint him Vice-President. Even in the AFL-CIO debate from this week where it seemed like everyone was taking hits, Richardson's name did not appear in coverage of the event because he avoided all attacks. He merely defines himself by his record as governor of New Mexico, a strong record at that. He is strong pick of VP. The Mountain-west is the linchpin of the Dems' '08 strategy and the governor of NM would have a lot of appeal. He is Hispanic, a large voting bloc that will help shape the race in many swing states (CO, FL, AR, NM). He has a record of experience if that is called in to question for the nominee (Obama, Edwards, even Clinton).

Joe Biden's chief campaign message is that "He is the only one with a plan for Iraq." The debates have been Biden's strongest suit because his blunt, in-your-face style has appealed to voters tired of pontificating and posturing. And at the debates if a question is asked about Iraq, I'm just kidding, when a question is asked about Iraq Biden stands in the face of public opinion and says that we need a plan to stabilize Iraq not just withdrawal. Visit his website www.planforiraq.com for more information about his intended policy. He has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for three decades and his relationship with Richard Lugar (R-IN) defines the moderate internationalism opinion of the Senate. He is a perfect fit for Secretary of State; however, he said in a recent Newsweek article, "I promise you, I don’t want to be secretary of State. I’m going to be taking sharper and sharper exceptions with my colleagues. And it won’t be easy to then turn around and ask to be secretary of State." However, that does not answer the question of: If you were offered Secretary of State, would you accept? Plus, it's simply impolite for presidential candidates to discuss desires for cabinet positions.

It should be noted that Bill Richardson is probably in second place for Secretary of State. However, this post is relatively inane, because the cabinet depends solely on the president-elect and cannot be gaged on the campaigns presently being waged. However, this is the opinion of those currently making noise.

VICE-PRESIDENT

In the past week both former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani were quoted saying that the Democratic ticket will likely be Clinton- Obama. I am quite sure that this will not happen. I don't take exception with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, but I disagree that she would ever, in a million years, select Obama as her running mate. There are a few reasons why.

Sheer Bitterness - Clintons are a grudge-holding people and as time goes on Obama will take more specific shots at Clinton. She will certainly not want to reward this behavior by making Obama the presumptuous 2016 Democratic nominee.

Took much voltage at the bottom of the ticket - Clinton's negative persona is perceived as cold, calculating and political. Obama is perceived as young, fresh, electrifying and inspiring. It could be said that they're the perfect foil for the presidential ticket, but that is why Clinton won't take the deal. Obama will be holding a rally for Clinton, yet a crowd of 20,000 could leave being inspired and wondering why the names weren't flipped. Just like her husband, Hillary would be cautious to hold a joint-rally with Obama because his introduction might outshine her speech. Don't let the coin outshine you.

No geographical significance - Obama is the Senator from Illinois. Clinton is going to carry Illinois without a shadow of a doubt. However, Vice Presidents are rarely ever seen to actual sway their own state. Yet geographical disparity is a quality sought after in VP candidates (notably, the 1960 Boston-Austin ticket).

Those are just three reasons why Clinton will not ask Obama to be her Vice-President. So, who should Clinton ask to be her Vice-President, if nominated? In my opinion she should ask Senator Evan Bayh.

Evan Bayh is a first-rate centrist with a long history of public service. He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic centrist organization founded by Bill Clinton. He has served as Indiana's Secretary of State, two terms as their governor and now is in his second term as their junior Senator. He received over 60% of the vote twice for Senate in a Republican state. While he will not put Indiana into play, especially with Clinton heading the ticket, he can help swing Ohio or Missouri in the Democrat's favor. He is a strong pick and will likely be on every nominee's short list. I see it as likely that she would pick Bayh over Richardson. However, the two will surely be competing for the position. And the race is on.

Opinion makers have to make news if none exist and so the race for cabinet positions is a good way to do so. I thought I would add my opinions on a non-existent race.

-Wyatt Earp

If they're shooting at you, you must be doing something right

In the past couple of weeks all the presidential candidates, it seems, are shooting criticism at Barack Obama. Obama, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, gave what has been called a "major foreign policy speech" this past week where he outlined his intended terrorism policy, if elected president. The highlights are as follows:

Obama proposed that we are fighting on the wrong front in our war on terrorism. Instead we need to be focusing our attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terrorism runs deepest. To Pakistan, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Iraq is the wrong war to be fighting if we are to succeed in the war on terrorism, Obama claims. However, in a later question and answer session, Obama claimed that nuclear weapons were "off the table" in dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Both of these claims: fighting Pakistan and the no-nuclear option have provoked reactions from all sides of the presidential race. Pakistan, naturally, had the strongest reaction. Protests where the American flag was burned raged in the Pakistani capitol, while President Musharraf called Obama's remarks "irresponsible." Hillary Clinton said that, if the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, a president should never take the nuclear option off the table. Edwards agreed with Clinton's assessment.

It has been suggested numerous times that Obama only came out with this speech to rebuke Clinton's suggesting that he was "naive" in foreign affairs. The casual reporter nearly only look at the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to find out that Obama has been calling for this same foreign policy strategy for some time. Barack Obama, himself, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, viewable here, where he said that America must "refoucus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan- the central front in our war against al Qaeda- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." While he did not go in to as great detail as in his recent speech, the strategy remains the same: Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror and to see the war to success we must bring justice to all terrorists, even if they lie in ally territory.

What does all of this squabbling and definition ultimately mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean very little. However, on the Democratic side, Obama's policies have become the leading headline, positive or negative. There is an old adage: say what you want about me, just spell my name right. As far as I can tell, everyone is spelling Obama's name right. Clinton, Edwards and even Mitt Romney in the most recent debate have used Obama's policies as the barometer for their candidacy. If Clinton's day is spent deciding how she feels about Obama's foreign policy credentials, then that is a victory for Obama. However, distortions of Obama's main points could go far to hurt his campaign. For instance, Republicans like McCain are saying that it is a bad idea to "announce to the world we're attacking another country." Even though that is a distortion of Obama's central point.

The fact remains that Obama has given two major foreign policy speeches, Edwards has given one and Clinton has given none. Edwards has called the war on terrorism a bumper-sticker war with no true guiding policy while Obama has called for greater focus in the war on terrorism to root out terrorism where it runs deepest. Clinton, in typical incumbent fashion, has let her perception as the "steamroll candidate" continue and is running a reactive campaign. As far as I can tell, Clinton believes that the war on terrorism is not a bumper-sticker; however, disagrees with Obama's plans for conduct of it.

This episode could go a long way to develop Obama's rapid-response team. He will need it, because it will only get worse.

-Wyatt Earp

PA-03 is a targeted 2008 race

Good news for all progressive minded northwestern Pennsylvanians (there are so many of you): The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has listed the Pennsylvania's 3rd District as one of its targeted 2008 races to unseat a Republican incumbent. The 3rd District includes Erie County and parts of Armstrong, Butler, Crawford, Mercer, Venango and Warren counties. Including Allegheny College (my alma mater). Hooray.

Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), the head of the DCCC, released a memo, available here, where he expressed confidence in the recruitment of candidates in Republican districts. One of which is the seat currently held by Phil English, PA's 3rd District. English was elected in the Republican wave of 1994 and has not had a serious challenger since 1996. He defeated perennial office-seeker Steve Porter by a margin of 53%-42% in 2006. And it looks like English might have a fight ahead of him in 2008.

At least three Democrats have stepped forward to challenge English. Kyle Foust is the DCCC's hand-picked candidate, it seems. Van Hollen says of Foust, "Foust is an Erie County Councilman with a reputation as a leader who reaches across party lines to get things done for his constituents." Phil English was an Erie Councilman before running for Congress, so this would make for an interesting match-up if Foust were to get the Democratic nod. Both men were born in Erie and will be battling for it's heart and soul. Check out Foust's campaign website here.

Another credible challenger is Erie lawyer, Tom Myers (no known website found). Lastly of the known challengers is Mike Waltner, a religious leader from Erie. You can check out his campaign website here.

It is also assumed that Steve Porter will try again to vacate Mr. English from his seat. I wish he wouldn't, but he will anyway.

The Democratic Party primary will be an exciting one in Pennsylvania's 3rd District. The heightened competition will bring national attention, and money, to the general election race. English will have his hands full and it should prove to be an interesting race to watch. Western PA saw an exciting race in 2006 in the 4th District with Democrat challenger Jason Altmire defeating incumbent Melissa Hart. Altmire ran solely on a campaign of change and that same theme will likely be used to oust English. Phil English was actually Melissa Hart's chief of staff when she was in the State Senate. Let's see if 2008 brings the same treatment to English as 2006 did to his boss.

-Wyatt Earp