Posts Tagged ‘
Meg Whitman ’
Thursday, October 7th, 2010
Mark Reutter
PPI Fellow Mark Reutter is the former editor of
Railroad History and author of
Making Steel: Sparrows Point and the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might (2005, rev. ed.).
by Mark Reutter
America’s transportation infrastructure is enfeebled, Washington’s transportation policy is broken, and we need to start building fast trains.
While that might be old news to readers of Progressive Fix, what is news is who’s saying it this week: Samuel Skinner, Secretary of Transportation under George H.W. Bush, and Norman Mineta, DOT Secretary under George W. Bush, were co-chairs of a conference at the University of Virginia behind a new report making this case. Mary E. Peters, Mineta’s successor under Bush, and a smattering of ex-DOT undersecretaries filled out the roster of 80 transportation experts.
Describing government spending on transportation as woefully underfunded, the report estimated that between $134 billion and $267 billion more is needed each year from now to 2035 to make U.S. roads, rail, and air transportation competitive with other countries.
The report lamented the “pork and political opportunism” in the current transportation reauthorization act, SAFETEA-LU, and advocated the setting up of core national priorities for transportation such as high-speed rail networks.
“High-speed rail has the potential to provide a fast, efficient and integrated alternative to driving and flying,” the report said. The best approach for genuine high-speed rail would be rights of way separate from existing freight lines – a policy strongly advocated by PPI (see here and here).
A major increase in the federal gas tax, which has remained unchanged at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, would help pay the bill for getting America’s transportation systems back to state-of-the-art standards.
Derailing High-Speed Rail
The group’s “call for action” comes at a time when Republican leaders have steered the GOP in a completely different direction. Extending the Bush tax cut has become their top national priority. The White House’s plan last month for $50 billion in infrastructure spending on highways and rail was met with open contempt by House Republican Leader John Boehner.
Several state races are shaping up as tests of whether President Obama’s higher-speed rail initiative can survive Republican hostility. In Wisconsin and Ohio, Republican candidates for governor have called federal stimulus money awarded for train improvements a major waste of taxpayer funds.
Scott Walker, the Republican candidate for governor in Wisconsin, has launched a website called notrain.com. He’s ahead in the polls, as is John Kasich, the former House Republican who vows to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by rail if elected the next governor of Ohio.
The anti-rail contagion has spread to New Jersey, where Republican Gov. Chris Christie is threatening to scuttle a train tunnel to Manhattan – and forfeit $6 billion in pledged funds from the federal government and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – citing concerns of large cost overruns.
Christie yesterday postponed his announcement of whether he will back out of the agreement to build the tunnel – which would create 6,000 long-term construction jobs – in part so that he could campaign for other Republicans in the Midwest.
In California and Florida, where full-scale high-speed train networks have been awarded federal stimulus grants, GOP candidates are suggesting that they would delay or disrupt the projects.
Meg Whitman, running as the Republican candidate in California, says the state cannot afford “at this time” the costs associated with new high-speed rail. Rick Scott, Republican candidate for governor in Florida, has jumped on the same bandwagon, questioning whether the state can afford a rail line between Orlando and Tampa that has been awarded $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money.
Ironically, the current governors of California and Florida, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist, gained office as Republicans and have been big rail supporters. “To say ‘now is not the time’ shows a very narrow vision,” Schwarzenegger’s communications chief told the New York Times in response to Whitman’s tepid support for California’s rail investment.
The Eisenhower Model
“We’re going to have bridges collapse. We’re going to have earthquakes. We need somebody to grab the issue and run with it,” Mineta told reporters on Monday.
His earnest tone, delivered at the Rayburn House Office Building, was at odds with the anti-tax, anti-government vitriol coming from those of the same political stripe occupying nearby offices.
Advocates of infrastructure spending must offer specific data and concrete examples of the damage that continued underfunding of transportation projects could inflict on America’s standard of living and economic security. A starting point would be America’s dangerous overdependence on gasoline coming from unstable or hostile foreign countries. Add to this the lost productivity for U.S. drivers stuck in traffic jams, which the Mineta-Skinner report estimated at $87 billion in 2007, or $750 for every driver.
And consider that our population is expected to grow by 90 million in the next 40 years. These citizens will need to move, and high-speed rail is cheaper to build and causes much less environmental damage than new highways and airports.
A role model for such educational outreach is Dwight Eisenhower. The Republican president launched the Interstate Highway System by articulating a vision of top-quality roads benefiting all citizens and secured bipartisan support in Congress. It was part of his crusade to win the Cold War.
There’s a new battle out there – in the form of competition from emerging economic powerhouses like China, which plans to spend over $1 trillion in the next 10 years on a comprehensive 220-mph train system. While China builds its future, many of our politicians welcome gridlock as a way to wrest short-term partisan gains.
Photo credit: aussiegal
Tags: 220-mph train system, air transportation, America’s standard of living, anti-government, anti-rail, anti-tax, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bush tax cut, California, call for action, Charlie Crist, China, Chris Christie, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Cold War, Columbus, DOT Secretary, earthquakes, economic security, Eisenhower Model, environmental damage, fast trains, federal gas tax, federal stimulus, Florida, freight lines, gasoline, George H.W. Bush, GOP, government spending, high-speed rail, high-speed rail networks, highways, House Republican, HSR, Infrastructure, infrastructure spending, Interstate Highway System, John Boehner, John Kasich, Mary E. Peters, Meg Whitman, Midwest, Mineta-Skinner, national priority, New Jersey, New York, New York Times, Norman Mineta, notrain.com, Ohio, Orlando, political opportunism, Port Authority, PPI, Progressive Fix, rail, Rayburn House Office Building, Republican leaders, Rick Scott, SAFETEA-LU, Samuel Skinner, Scott Walker, Secretary of Transportation, short-term, state races, Tampa, traffic jams, train tunnel to Manhattan, Transportation, U.S. drivers, U.S. roads, underfunded, University of Virginia, Washington’s transportation policy, White House, Wisconsin
Posted in
Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix |
1 Comment »
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
As spin wars continue over polling assessments of the two parties´ prospects nationally and in individual contests, the overall situation remains relatively stable, with a lot of the fireworks in the national news coming from California, where a controversy regarding Meg Whitman´s employment of an illegal immigrant is not exactly helping her gubernatorial campaign.
The most ominous news for Democrats came yesterday, when Gallup’s weekly tracking poll offered a likely voter sample for the first time this year. It showed Republicans with a 13 percent margin among likely voters, much larger than the three percent margin among registered voters.
At 538.com, Nate Silver offers a useful analysis Likely Voter/Registered Voter numbers from all pollsters, showing the Gallup “gap” to be unusually high. But it bears close watching, since likely voter estimates tend to become more accurate the closer you get to election day.
Our regional roundups continue today with the Northeast, the most pro-Democratic region in 2008, and a source of considerable residual Democratic strength today. According to Gallup´s tracking polls, the northeast region gives President Obama his only majority job approval numbers, currently at 51 percent.
There are eight Senate seats currently at stake in the Northeast, seven currently held by Democrats. Two of them—held by Vermont´s Pat Leahy and New York´s Chuck Schumer—are completely safe. Among the other five Democratic seats, Democrats have a robust if not invulnerable lead in three (Gillibrand of New York, Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Coons of Delaware); Republicans have held a steady lead in one (Toomey over Sestak in Pennsylvania); and one is dead even (Manchin versus Raese in West Virginia). Republicans have a strong but not insurmountable lead to hold on to the one (open) Republican seat, in New Hampshire, where Kelly Ayotte leads Paul Hodes.
The best-case scenario for Republicans, which would include Linda McMahon`s dollars making Connecticut truly competitive, is a gain of three seats. Democrats would be happy with a net loss of one.
In the gubernatorial races, Democrats currently hold six governorships that are up this year (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland) and Republicans three (Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut). According to the Cook Political Report, all but two of these nine gubernatorial races are currently tossups, with Democrats heavily favored to hold onto New York and Pennsylvania being rated “lean Republican.” Polling shows Republicans leading in Maine as well as Pennsylvania, and Democrats leading in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland; Vermont appears to be very close. The range of possible outcomes is very broad, but in gubernatorial races, the northeast appears to rival the West as the most promising Democratic region, in no small part because Dems are likely to pick up some Republican seats.
In House races, New York and Pennsylvania seats make the northeast a potential source of major Republican gains. Two New York and four Pennsylvania Democrats are in races considered toss-ups by Cook; four more New York districts and another in Pennsylvania are rated “lean Democratic,” vulnerable to a last-minute pro-GOP wave. Both New Hampshire seats, now held by Democrats, are also tossups, along with an open seat in West Virginia and Frank Kratovil`s seat in Maryland. The region does include a rare probable Democratic House pickup, in Delaware. In general, the Northeast is the region where the size and scope of Republican House gains will most be determined.
Photo credit: Peter Miller
Tags: 538.com, Blumenthal, California, Campaigns and elections, chuck schumer, Connecticut, Cook Political Report, Coons, Delaware, Frank Kratovil, Gallup, Gillibrand, governorships, illegal immigrant, Kelly Ayotte, lean Democratic, lean Republican, linda McMahon, Maine, Manchin, Maryland, Massachusetts, Meg Whitman, Nate Silver, New Hampshire, New York, Northeast, Pat Leahy, Paul Hodes, Pennsylvania, Politics and politicians, pro-Democratic, Raese, Rhode Island, Toomey, tossups, Vermont, West Virginia
Posted in
Daily Fix, Political Memo |
No Comments »
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
With five weeks to go until Election Day, the national political environment seems to have stabilized enough to conduct some regional analysis of what’s likely to happen on November 2. Let’s start today with the West, where highly competitive gubernatorial and Senate contests are occurring in at least seven states.
Much of the Pacific Coast seems relatively impervious to the Tea Party movement. In California, hard-core conservative activist Chuck DeVore finished a relatively poor third in the Republican Senate primary, and gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner, who tried to run to the right of Meg Whitman, was beaten badly. Conservatives could not even mount a strong challenge to the much-derided RINO, Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado. In Washington state, another TP favorite, former pro football player Clint Didier, barely broke double figure percentages in a Senate Republican primary challenge to Dino Rossi. And in the same state, one of the more moderate new House candidates in the country, Jaime Herrera, won her primary easily. Alaska, of course, is the exception on the coast, since its long-powerful conservative movement knocked off Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who is now running as a write-in candidate in the general election.
In any event, Republicans have at best mixed prospects for major gains on the Pacific coast. In CA, recent polls have given Barbara Boxer a significant lead over Carly Fiorina for the Senate seat, and despite Meg Whitman’s unprecedented spending, Jerry Brown is at worst tied with her as he begins his own media campaign in the governor’s race. Republicans have a realistic shot at just one Democratic House seat in California, and Democrats are sure to hang onto control of both chambers in the state legislature.
In Washington state, Patty Murray appears to be opening up a modest but consistent lead over Rossi, who led her in some early polls. While Herrera has a good shot at picking up an open Democratic House seat, only one incumbent Democrat, Rick Hansen, seems to be in jeopardy. In Oregon, former Gov. John Kitzhaber is in a close race with Republican Chris Dudley for the governorship.
In Hawaii, Democrats have a better than even chance of flipping control of the governorship, with former congressman Neil Abercrombie a solid favorite over Lt. Gov. Duke Aoina, and of retaking Abercrombie’s House seat, which was lost in a special election earlier this year thanks to multiple Democratic candidates.
In Alaska, Democratic Senate candidate Scott McAdams remains underfunded and little-known; his fate almost certainly depends on the viability of Murkowski’s write-in campaign down the stretch.
Moving eastward from the Pacific, Colorado is another hotly disputed state. Tea Party favorite Ken Buck has been leading Sen. Michael Bennet in early general election polls, but this race is likely to tighten up. John Hickenlooper is almost certain to hold the governorship for Democrats thanks to the conservative split between Republican nominee Don Maes and former congressman Tom Tancredo, who is running on the Constitution Party ballot. Republicans think they have a shot at taking two Democratic House seats, though their best chance is against freshman congresswoman Betsy Markey. Turning south to New Mexico, Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez has recently taken a steady lead in the polls against Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, who once looked invincible, and two Democratic House members, Harry Teague and Martin Heinrich, in some peril. In Arizona, Sen. John McCain and Gov. Jan Brewer look safe to hold onto their seats for the GOP, and though Republicans have visions of picking up as many as three House seats, all three Democrats—Gabby Giffords, Anne Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell, are in reasonably strong condition.
Finally, in Nevada, one of the top national races looks almost certain to go right down to the wire, with Sen. Harry Reid and Tea Party champion Sharron Angle running neck and neck in virtually every post-primary poll. Reid would probably be doomed against any other Republican opponent, but Angle’s long history of eccentric issue positions has given him a new lease on life.
All in all, the West could prove to be a national bellwether. A true Republican tsunami in the region could produce a net gain of four Senate seats (Washington, California, Colorado and Nevada), two governorships (Oregon and New Mexico), and nine House seats. On the other hand, a stronger-than-expected Democratic performance could keep Republicans from gaining any net Senate seats, and could actually give Democrats a net gain of one gubernatorial seat (Wyoming looks to be a certain Republican gubernatorial pickup, but that could be offset by a Jerry Brown win in California and an Abercrombie win in Hawaii). None of the Western House races in which Republicans now look strong is a slam-dunk.
One regional factor that use to bedevil strategists is now of declining importance: the hope or fear that early returns from the eastern and central times zones could influence final turnout in very close races. That’s because voting by mail is increasingly important in the West, with all ballots in OR and WA; most in Colorado; and over half in California, now being cast by mail. The dominance of voting by mail will also significantly limit the impact of very late campaign activity in many states. If Meg Whitman’s going to hit her target of spending $150 million in personal funds in the CA gubernatorial race, she’ll probably hit it well before November 2.
Photo credit: Michael R. Swigart
Arizona
Tags: Abel Maldonado, Alaska, Anne Kirkpatrick, Arizona, Barbara Boxer, Betsy Markey, California, Campaigns and elections, Carly Fiorina, Chris Dudley, Chuck DeVore, Clint Didier, Colorado, conservatives, Constitution Party, Diane Denish, Dino Rossi, Don Maes, Duke Aoina, Election Day, Gabby Giffords, GOP, Harry Mitchell, Harry Reid, Harry Teague, Hawaii, Jaime Herrera, Jan Brewer, Jerry Brown, John Hickenlooper, John Kitzhaber, John McCain, Ken Buck, Lisa Murkowski, Martin Heinrich, Meg Whitman, Michael Bennet, Mid-Term Elections, moderate, Neil Abercrombie, Nevada, New Mexico, November 2, Oregon, Pacific Coast, Patty Murray, Republican Party, Republican Senate primary, Republican tsunami, Rick Hansen, RINO, Scott McAdams, Sharron Angle, Steve Poizner, Susana Martinez, Tea Party, Tom Tancredo, Washington state, Wyoming
Posted in
Daily Fix, Political Memo |
1 Comment »
Friday, September 24th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
As the battle for November continued to unfold this week, House Republicans unveiled their long-awaited, long-debated version of the 1994 classic Contract With America. This one was called the Pledge to America.
In figuring out where to fall between cautious national GOP figures who basically would like to overturn the 2006 and 2008 elections and bring back the splendors of the Bush administration, and the elements of the conservative base, radicalized into the Tea Party Movement, who would like to turn back the clock quite a few decades further, the authors of the Pledge struck an interesting balance. The Preamble and Forward of the document are full of fiery Tea Party rhetoric suggesting the illegitimacy of the Obama administration and the need for a radical restructuring of the federal government and the immediate abolition of deficits and debt.
But when the Pledge gets into is specifics, it immediately retreats into limited demands for total repeal of the Obama administration’s initiatives, along with a return to Bush tax and economic policies, and notably abandons the fiscal radicalism that so many Republican candidates this year are campaigning on. There’s no balanced budget promise; no endorsement, even, of a constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment (now, as once before, boilerplate for GOP candidates); and certainly no mention of plans to take on major structural reforms, much less phase-outs, of Social Security and Medicare.
Indeed, the Pledge gives the impression that if the clock could be turned back to August of 2008, before the enactment of TARP, everything would be fine. It will be most interesting to see how that approach squares with candidates and activists who think a return to 1933 is the only possible solution.
The Pledge does create a sort of whack-a-mole problem for Democrats seeking to exploit it. Do they focus on the radical rhetoric that suggests a willingness to go after the basic New Deal/Great Society safety net? Or do they focus on the details that suggest a more modest but equally vulnerable determination to bring back the policies that voters repudiated in 2006 and 2008?
In any event, the very existence of the Pledge offers some hope for Democrats struggling to make the midterm elections something other than a straight-up referendum on the status quo. Under Republican governance, they will be able to argue, things could get worse, unless you really do pine for the salad days of 2006 or 1933.
The other big political development this week, which is still unfolding, is the decision by Senate Democrats against taking the lead on extending middle-class tax cuts and forcing Republicans to champion the extension of upper-class tax cuts, at least until after November. There is still a chance the House will move first, but it’s unlikely given vocal Blue Dog opposition, and the decision is being widely derided as evidence of Democratic over-cautiousness, if not surrender, going into the midterms. It’s an issue that will likely come up, however, in a lame duck congressional session after the elections, though with Republicans, who want to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, holding a stronger hand.
There’s been some craziness in the polls this week, most notably a Quinnipiac survey showing the very off-the-wall Republican nominee for governor of New York, Carl Paladino, suddenly closing to double-digits against prohibitive Democratic front-runner Andrew Cuomo. The Q-poll did not exactly reinforce its credibility by then releasing a survey showing another lowly-regarded Republican, Joe DioGuardi, trailing Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, by just six percent (Siena, meanwhile, had Cuomo up by 33percent and Gillibrand up by 26percent).
Most survey results this week were more conventional. Mason-Dixon showed Democrat Alex Sink with a 47-40 lead over Republican Rick Scott among likely voters in Florida. The respected Field Poll, also moving to a likely voter model, showed a dead heat between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman in the California gubernatorial race. And a new national Pew poll showed an unusually large 10-point swing in the GOP’s favor between registered voters and likely voters—though interpretations of such results as reflecting an “enthusiasm gap” often ignore the structural reasons for a Republican advantage in midterm elections.
Finally, Google has come up with a very useful series of maps comparing some of the most credible handicappers’ projections of Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections.
Tags: Alex Sink, Andrew Cuomo, Balanced Budget Amendment, Campaigns and elections, Carl Paladino, Contract with America, enthusiasm gap, Jerry Brown, Joe DioGuardi, Kirsten Gillibrand, Meg Whitman, Pledge to America, Republican Party, TARP, Tea Party
Posted in
Daily Fix, Political Memo |
1 Comment »
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
Yesterday, I observed that we are getting to the point where all the speculation about individual 2010 contests will begin to yield to hard data, and the actual battlegrounds will emerge.
A good example of how that might be happening is provided by new polls from PPP of two Senate races that have been ostensibly very similar, in WI and CA. In both of these blue states well-regarded but always-vulnerable progressive Democratic U.S. senators are under attack from amply-financed Republican “newcomers.”
But according to PPP, Russ Feingold is suddenly in deep trouble against Ron Johnson, while Barbara Boxer is expanding her lead against Carly Fiorina. Both these polls represent a shift by PPP from registered voter to likely voter samples, making the trends interesting measurements of the so-called “enthusiasm gap” afflicting Democrats.
According to an account by its partner DailyKos, PPP finds the “enthusiasm gap” in WI to be “one of the most severe” in the country, with Johnson’s 1-point lead among 2008 voters ballooning to 11 points among likely 2010 voters.
But in California, Boxer’s 49-40 lead among RVs in July is a virtually unchanged 50-41 lead among likely voters today. More specifically, Boxer’s support among Democrats remains very strong, and as PPP’s Tom Jensen notes:
[T]he simple reality is that Fiorina has not proven to be a particularly appealing candidate to California voters. 42% of them see her unfavorably with only 34% rating her positively. Republicans like her, Democrats dislike her almost as much, and independents are slightly negative toward her. Again, not the formula that’s going to get a Republican elected to the Senate from California.
One other factor that should be noted here is that Boxer is just about the only vulnerable Democrat seeking reelection in a state where the majority of voters still approve of Barack Obama’s performance. His approval is 53/42, and by and large the folks that like Obama are supporting Boxer- California’s one of the last frontiers left where he’s not a drag.
Interestingly, PPP also shows Jerry Brown leading Meg Whitman among likely voters by a 47-42 margin in the CA governor’s race, even though Brown is just now getting around to running television ads.
Now it may be that PPP’s current polling in either WI or CA could prove to be an outlier; it happens to all pollsters on occasion. It’s also true that Russ Feingold has a habit of getting into trouble in his re-election campaigns, only to eventually recover and win.
But whether or not these two races in particular are examples, we should soon begin to see disparities in the host of “close races” we’ve all been watching, and separate the sheep from the goats.
This article is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist
Photo credit: Kat Clay
Tags: Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, blue states, CA, Carly Fiorina, DailyKos, Democratic Strategist, enthusiasm gap, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, PPP, progressive Democratic, Republican newcomers, Ron Johnson, Russ Feingold, Senate, Tom Jensen, WI
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics |
No Comments »
Thursday, August 5th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
So let’s say you’re a Republican politician who’s been working the far right side of the political highway for years, getting little national attention other than the occasional shout-out in Human Events. Or let’s say you’re a sketchy business buccaneer with a few million smackers burning a hole in your pocket, and you’ve decided that you’d like to live in the governor’s mansion for a while, but you can’t get the local GOP to see you as anything more than a walking checkbook who funds other people’s dreams.
What do you do? That’s easy: Get yourself in front of the loudest parade in town by becoming a Tea Party Activist!
There has been incessant discussion over the last year about the size, character, and intentions of the Tea Party rank-and-file. But, by and large, the political discussion has passed over another defining phenomenon: The beatific capacity of Tea Party membership, which enables virtually anyone with ambition to whitewash his hackishness—and transform from a has-been or huckster into an idealist on a crusade.
After all, to become a “Tea Party favorite” or a “Tea Party loyalist,” all a politician has to do is say that he or she is one—and maybe grab an endorsement from one of many hundreds of local groups around the country. It’s even possible to become indentified as the “Tea Party” candidate simply by entering a primary against a Republican who voted for TARP, the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, or No Child Left Behind. It’s not like there’s much upside to distancing oneself from the movement. Most Republican pols are as friendly as can be to the Tea Party; and it’s a rare, self-destructive elephant who would emulate Lindsey Graham’s dismissal of it all as a passing fad (in public at least).
Here, we’ll take a look at two specific types of politicians who have been especially eager to embrace the Tea Party movement: the fringier of conservative ideologues, for one, and also the self-funded ego freaks who can easily pose as “outsiders,” because no “insiders” would take them seriously. Let’s call these, respectively, the windbags and the moneybags.
By “fringier” conservative ideologues, I mean those who have argued, year in and year out, sometimes for decades, that even the conservative Republican Party simply is not conservative enough. Many of these politicians would be considered washed-up and isolated, or at least eccentric, in an era when “Party Wrecking” was still treated as a cardinal GOP sin. But now it’s as if they’ve been granted a license to kill. One classic example of this type is South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, who was considered such a crank in the Senate that he was often stuck eating lunch alone as recently as 2008. His views, for example that Social Security and public schools are symbols of the seduction of Americans by socialism, were not long ago considered far outside the GOP mainstream. Now, in no small part because of his identification with the Tea Party Movement, DeMint has become an avenging angel roaming across the country to smite RINOs in Republican primaries, his imprimatur sought by candidates far from the Palmetto State.
Then there’s the new House Tea Party Caucus, chaired by Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, best known for suggesting that House Democrats be investigated for treason. Its members include a rich assortment of long-time conservative cranks, including Steve (“Racial profiling is an important part of law enforcement”) King, Joe (“You lie!”) Wilson, Paul (“We’ve elected a Marxist to be President of the United States”) Broun, Dan (Vince Foster Was Murdered!) Burton, and Phil (National Journal’s Most Conservative House Member in 2007) Gingrey. The key here is that these are not freshly minted “outsiders”: Burton has been in Congress for 28 years, Wilson for ten, King and Gingrey for eight. The oldest member of the House, Ralph Hall of Texas, who has been around for 30 years, is also a member of the caucus.
Even some of the younger Tea Party firebrands didn’t exactly emerge from their living rooms on April 15, 2009, to battle the stimulus legislation and Obamacare. Marco Rubio of Florida, after all, was first elected to the state legislature ten years ago and served as House Speaker under the protective wing of his political godfather, Jeb Bush. Sharron Angle first ran for office 20 years ago, and was elected to the Nevada legislature twelve years back. And of course the Pauls, father and son, are hardly political neophytes—they have just begun to look relevant again because the Tea Party movement has shifted the GOP in their direction.
And, in addition to the hard-right pols who’ve emerged into the sunshine of GOP respectability, the “outsider” meme surrounding the Tea Party movement has also created running room for well-funded opportunists—the “moneybags.”
These are epitomized by Rick Scott of Florida, who probably would not have passed the most rudimentary smell test in a “normal” election year. While there are always self-funding egomaniacs running for office—California’s Meg Whitman comes to mind along with Connecticut’s Linda McMahon—the former hospital executive presents a unique test case for the whitewashing power of Tea Party identification. He has managed to overcome a deeply embarrassing embroilment in the largest Medicare fraud case in history by taking his golden parachute from Columbia-HCA and becoming a right-wing crusader against health care reform, helping to make that a central cause for the Tea Party movement. (Scott was forced out of his position as head of the for-profit hospital chain, which he tried to build into the “McDonald’s of health care,” and the organization was fined $1.7 billion for overcharging the federal government.)
Pushed out of his job after the fraud decision, Scott decided to found the Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR) group that exploded onto the national scene early in 2009 with a series of inflammatory TV ads attacking health reform, employing the same firm that crafted the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth spots against John Kerry in 2004. CPR also played a major role in organizing the town hall meeting protests in the summer of 2009, which marked the Tea Party movement’s transition from a focus on TARP and the economic stimulus bill to a broader conservative agenda.
So when Scott (a Missouri native who moved to Florida in 2003) suddenly jumped into the Florda governor’s race early in 2010, the cleansing power of tea had already transformed his image among conservatives, making his improbable campaign possible.
On the wrong side of this dynamic was Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a former congressman and sturdy, if conventional, conservative who had paid his dues by twice running unsuccessfully for the Senate. McCollum had apparently all but locked up the nomination when Scott, in mid-April, leapt into the ring with ads calling himself a “conservative outsider” who would “run our state like a business,” while tarring McCollum as the candidate of “Tallahassee insiders” responsible for “the failed policies of the past.” Then came a torrent of advertising from Scott ($22 million by mid-July, more than anyone’s ever spent in Florida in an entire primary/general-election cycle) blasting McCollum for alleged corruption, for insufficient hostility toward illegal immigration, for being soft on abortion providers. The assault voided a lifetime of McCollum’s toil in the party vineyards, vaulting the previously unknown Scott into the lead in polls by early June. Worse yet, from a Republican point of view, Scott drove up McCollum’s negatives, and increasingly his own, to toxic levels, handing Democrat Alex Sink the lead in a July general election poll. And now McCollum, fighting for his life, is striking back, drawing as much publicity as he can to Scott’s questionable past, especially the Medicare fraud case against Columbia-HCA.
So the question is: Would Rick Scott have been in a position to carry out what is beginning to look like a murder-suicide pact on the GOP’s gubernatorial prospects if he hadn’t been able to identify himself as an “outsider conservative” with close ties to the Tea Party? That’s not likely, but it’s no less likely than the remarkable epiphanies that have made career pols of marginal relevance such as Jim DeMint and Sharron Angle into apostles of an exciting new citizens’ movement. So the next time you hear a candidate posturing on behalf of the Tea Party, squint and try to imagine what they were like in their former lives. Many of them have only found respectability through the healing power of tea.
This item is cross-posted at The New Republic.
Photo Credit: Hatters!’s Photostream
Tags: Alex Sink, Bill McCollum, Campaigns and elections, conservatives, Dan Burton, House Tea Party Caucus, Jeb Bush, Jim DeMint, Joe Wilson, John Kerry, linda McMahon, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, Meg Whitman, Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, Politics and politicians, Ralph Hall, Rand Paul, Republican Party, Rick Scott, Ron Paul, self-financing, self-funding, Sharron Angle, Steve King, Tea Party
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics |
1 Comment »
Friday, July 30th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
I know it probably seems like this year’s primary season has been unbearably long. But as July comes to a close, there are 23 state primaries (plus runoffs in, so far, Georgia and Oklahoma, and a special election in West Virginia) still ahead. Next week’s schedule includes primaries on August 3 in Kansas, Michigan and Missouri, and on August 5 in Tennessee. Most of the action is on the Republican side, except in Michigan. Kansas has a close Republican Senate primary and two competitive GOP House contests; Missouri has two big Republican House primaries; and Tennessee has a close three-way Republican gubernatorial contest. In Michigan, both parties have very complex and competitive gubernatorial primaries (including that rarest of phenomena, a Republican candidate campaigning as a moderate), and there’s another strong challenge to Democratic Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick.
In the chattering classes, there’s been considerable discussion the last few days about Democratic efforts to improve morale, particularly a DCCC memo that denies Republicans have much of a chance of taking over the House. FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver mocked the memo as making slopping assumptions about the number of seats “in play” and also taking for granted four takeovers of Republican-held seats that are far from certain. RealClearPolitics’ Sean Trende takes a somewhat different tack, and concludes that Republicans’ prospects in November could be better than in 1994, because their goal is simply to take back two-thirds of the House seats they controlled prior to 2006. (On a different front, Stu Rothenberg of Roll Call accused Democrats of trying to rationalize likely House losses as attributable to factors beyond their control, which provoked me to respond).
There’s lots of fresh polling data. In California, PPP and PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) have new statewide surveys out, and both show Democrats Jerry Brown and Sen. Barbara Boxer maintaining steady if relatively narrow leads. PPP has Brown leading Meg Whitman 46-40, while PPIC shows him up 37-34 with a big (23 percent) undecided vote. In the Senate race, PPP shows Boxer increasing her lead over Carly Fiorina by 6 points since the June 8 primary. She’s now up 49-40, and just as importantly, has a significantly better approval disapproval rating than Fiorina (Boxer’s is 44/46; Fiorina’s is 28/40). PPIC places Boxer’s lead at 39-34, with, again, a high-undecided rate of 22 percent.
A new Mason-Dixon poll of NV shows Harry Reid and Sharron Angle in a dead heat; Reid leads 43-42, with the favorable-unfavorable ratios of both candidates also being very similar (Reid: 38-51; Angle: 38-47).
Two new surveys in the under-reported Senate race in New Hampshire show Republican front-runner Kelly Ayotte with a significant but shrinking lead over Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes. PPP now has Ayotte up 45-42; a University of New Hampshire poll shows her leading Hodes 45-37.
Last week PPP created a buzz with a poll showing Democrat Alex Sink taking the lead in Florida governor’s race thanks to a toxic Republican primary between Attorney General Bill McCollum and former hospital chain magnate Rick Scott. Now Quinnipiac has a new survey showing both McCollum and Scott basically tied with Sink, with independent Bud Chiles in double-digits and a very large undecided vote.
And Michigan-based EPIC-MRA has a survey out of both parties’ gubernatorial primaries in Michigan. On the Democratic side, the poll shows labor-backed Lansing mayor Virg Bernero holding a 40-32 lead over state legislative leader Andy Dillon. Among Republicans, EPIC-MRA shows a very close three-way race, with former Gateway exec Rick Snyder, who has been openly appealing for Democratic and independent crossover votes, at 26 percent, while Attorney General Mike Cox is at 24 percent and congressman Peter Hoekstra at 23 percent; the latter two candidates have been battling for the Tea Party/”true conservative” vote.
Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.
Photo Credit: hlkljgk‘s Photostream
Tags: Barbara Boxer, California, Carly Fiorina, DCCC, Democratic Party, FiveThirtyEight, Georgia, GOP, Jerry Brown, Kansas, Kelly Ayotte, Meg Whitman, Michigan, Missouri, Nate Silver, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, primary election, RealClearPolitics, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, Rep. Paul Hodes, Republican gubernatorial, Roll Call, Tennessee, West Virginia
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Political Memo |
No Comments »
Thursday, July 1st, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
One of the more interesting developments on the June 8 “Super Tuesday Primary” day was the approval of a ballot initiative (Prop 14) by California voters creating a “top two” voting system. Similar to the process already used in Washington State, it essentially abolishes party primaries and provides that the top two finishers in a nonpartisan primary will proceed to the general election.
Over at Sabato’s Crystal Ball, TDS contributor and advisory board member Alan Abramowitz of Emory University has examined the claims of Prop 14 backers like Arnold Schwarzenegger that the new system will reduce ideological and partisan polarization in California, and concludes it’s pretty much a nothing-burger. He takes on two particular illusions associated with Prop 14: the idea that party primaries and gerrymandering are responsible for political polarization in California, and the idea that abolishing party primaries will prevent ideologues from winning elections.
On the first topic, his reseach shows:
The most important source of polarization in California politics is the ideological divide between supporters of the two major parties….In both California and the nation, ideological polarization increased considerably over this time period, but it has always been greater in California. That’s because while California Republicans are as conservative as Republicans in the rest of the country, California Democrats are considerably more liberal than Democrats in the rest of the country.
And on the second topic:
In Washington, which began using the new system in 2008, the electoral consequences were minimal. In all 9 of the state’s congressional districts the open primary produced a general election runoff between the Democratic or Republican incumbent and a challenger from the opposing party and in all 9 general election contests the incumbent was victorious. And based on the winners’ voting records in the 111th Congress, the new primary system has had no effect on partisan polarization–the gap between the state’s Democratic and Republican representatives was just as large in the current Congress as it was in the previous one. Expect the same results in California.
So can we just forget about Prop 14? That’s not quite clear just yet. The new system could produce some strange and unintended consequences.
For one thing, making the primary non-partisan could be a major boon to self-funders, who may simply need high name ID to win a general election spot, particularly in California statewide races where the cost of television advertising will be prohibitive for many candidates. For another, the system could theoretically increase partisan polarization. The “top two” system does not provide any particular incentive for winning an actual majority of votes in a primary; the top finisher still must face the runner-up in the general election, where turnout is very likely to be much higher. So the safe thing to do is to nail down a general election spot by appealing to partisans (Prop 14 does not repeal party registration, which means that candidates will know exactly whom to contact with partisan messages), while beginning the general election campaign by going after the other party’s preferred candidate.
Consider this year’s governor’s race. If Meg Whitman were running with her vast fortune in a “top two” system, perhaps she would not have spent quite so much time attacking Steve Poizner for alleged ideological heresy. But on the other hand, she would have had every incentive to go after Democrat Jerry Brown (whom she largely ignored) hammer and tongs to drive up his negatives in preparation for November.
In effect, Prop 14 makes the general election cycle a lot longer. That does not seem to be a particularly smart way to reduce partisan polarization.
This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.
Photo credit: Nancyf’s Photostream
Tags: Alan Abramowitz, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, Campaigns and elections, Democratic Party, Emory University, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, Prop 14, Republican Party, Super Tuesday, Washington
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics |
No Comments »
Friday, June 11th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
In my last political memo on June 8, I made some predictions for that day’s primaries. Let’s see how I did.
Arkansas Senate Runoff: Too Close to Call. I questioned the CW favoring Halter over Lincoln, and in the end, Lincoln’s GOTV effort (with a little help from Big Dog Bill Clinton) was just enough.
South Carolina Republican Gubernatorial Primary: Nikki Haley Wins. Actually, I went right over the brink and predicted that Haley would win without a runoff, and she came about as close as possible — with 49 percent of the vote — as she could. In fact, distant second-place finisher Rep. Gresham Barrett immediately came under pressure to drop out and give Haley the nomination without further ado, but it looks like he’ll roll the dice for the short two-week runoff contest, which everyone thinks Haley will easily win (unless those accusing her of sexual misbehavior finally come up with some real evidence).
South Carolina Democratic Gubernatorial Primary: Sheheen/Rex Runoff. I was right in saying that third-place finisher Rep. Robert Ford would do well enough to force a runoff, but didn’t account for one-time front-runner Jim Rex running so poorly that state Rep. Vincent Sheheen was able to romp to victory anyway.
Iowa Republican Gubernatorial Primary: Terry Branstad wins. Check, though his nine-point margin of victory over outgunned conservative Bob Vander Plaats was a lot smaller than the polls suggested, and indicates the residual strength of social conservatives in the Iowa GOP — which will be much more powerful in the context of a presidential caucus.
Nevada Republican Senate Primary: Sharron Angle wins. Check. Angle won very easily, even carrying Clark County (Las Vegas). The real surprise here is that Danny Tarkanian, whom some experts thought might pull an upset in this race, finished a poor third. So Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) got the match-up he wanted.
Nevada Republican Gubernatorial Primary: Attorney General Brian Sandoval wins. Check; the Gibbons Era is over, and Rory Reid begins the general election as an underdog.
California Republican Gubernatorial Primary: Meg Whitman wins. Yep, and she only spent about $80 per vote.
California Republican Senate Primary: Carly Fiorina wins. She even took Marin County, which should have been Tom Campbell Country if any place was.
South Dakota Republican gubernatorial primary: Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard wins. He won more votes than all his opponents combined.
I refused to make any prediction in Maine, where “undecided” was the dominant presence in pre-election polls for both parties’ gubernatorial primaries. In the end, state senate president Libby Mitchell won the Democratic nod, and Tea Party favorite Paul LePage won the Republican nomination. But independent Eliot Cutler will be competitive in the general election.
In other significant developments, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) of South Carolina got knocked into a runoff by tea party avatar Trey Gowdy. California voters approved Prop 14, abolishing party primaries in favor of a “jungle primary” system (like Washington State’s) where the top two finishers among candidates from all or no parties advance to the general election.
The next election day is June 22, when Utah holds its primary, while North and South Carolina, Mississippi and South Dakota hold runoffs.
In Alabama, the third-place finisher in the June 1 Republican gubernatorial primary, Tim James, is pursuing a recount to see if he can overcome Robert Bentley’s 167-vote lead for a second runoff spot against Bradley Byrne. The runoff is on July 13.
In the most interesting poll to be released in the last few days, Quinnipiac finds two self-funding candidates making a big splash in Florida. Former health care exec Rick Scott has ridden a batch of ads (mostly expressing his fondness for Arizona’s new immigration law) to a stunning lead over Attorney General Bill McCollum in the Republican gubernatorial primary; McCollum had been presumed to be the certain nominee until now. And in the Democratic Senate primary, billionaire Jeff Greene has pulled nearly even with congressman Kendrick Meek.
In more general polling news, DailyKos has terminated its relationship with the Research 2000 polling firm, which had been doing a lot of state ads for DKos. And in a very related development, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver released an updated version of his comprehensive rating of pollsters for accuracy.
Photo credit: Tom Prete’s Photostream
Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday
Tags: Alabama, Arkansas, Bill Clinton, Bill Halter, Bill McCollum, Blanche Lincoln, Bob Inglis, Bob Vander Plaats, Bradley Byrne, Brian Sandoval, California, Campaigns and elections, Carly Fiorina, Danny Tarkanian, Democratic Party, Dennis Daugaard, Eliot Cutler, Gresham Barrett, Harry Reid, Iowa, Jeff Greene, Jim Rex, Kendrick Meek, Libby Mitchell, Meg Whitman, Nevada, Nikki Haley, Paul LePage, Politics and politicians, Republican Party, Rick Scott, Robert Bentley, Robert Ford, Rory Reid, Sharron Angle, South Carolina, Tea Party, Terry Branstad, Tim James, Trey Gowdy, Utah, Vincent Sheheen
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Political Memo |
No Comments »
Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
It’s hard to tease a coherent story line from yesterday’s primaries in 12 states, so some random observations will have to do:
- Labor unions sure know how to waste their members’ money. A group of unions poured $10 million into the Arkansas U.S. Senate primary to defeat the Democratic incumbent, Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln, aided by native son Bill Clinton, staved off a challenge from Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. The bruising primary battle, however, has left her running far behind her GOP opponent, Rep. John Boozman. What was labor thinking?
- It was a big night for Republican women, including one who wasn’t on any ballot. Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley and Sharron Angle not only won, but generally ran to the right of their opponents. Fiorina and Haley got timely assists from the endorsement of “Mama Grizzly” Sarah Palin.
- Any child can grow up and be elected governor of California -– as long as they amass a fortune on the way. Whitman, one of eBay’s founders, spent a staggering $71 million of her own money in rolling over another Silicon Valley millionaire, Steve Poizner, who could only scrape together $24 million. Whitman will now face Jerry Brown, whose decision to devote his life to public service rather than making money has left him a relative pauper.
- Maybe South Carolina isn’t as backward as everyone thinks. After a GOP state legislator called President Obama and Nikki Haley “ragheads,” Jon Stewart joked that South Carolinians can’t even get their racial slurs right. But in picking Haley to be their nominee for governor, Palmetto State Republicans opted not only for a woman but also the child of Sikh immigrants. First Bobby Jindal, now Haley: Are South Asians becoming the GOP’s preferred ethnic minority and answer to complaints that they lack diversity?
- The dice came up for Sen. Harry Reid. He got his wish when Tea Party acolyte Sharron Angle beat two more moderate contenders for the Republican Senate nomination. The Reid camp figures Nevada voters, however tired they may be of him, aren’t ready for an alternative that makes Barry Goldwater look like a mushy moderate. Angle wants to shut down the federal departments of energy and education, and open Yucca Mountain to nuclear waste. And Reid’s son Rory won the Democratic nomination for governor.
- Blogs may not be a stepping stone to higher office. L.A. gadfly Mickey Kaus won a paltry 5.3 percent of the vote in his primary challenge to Sen. Barbara Boxer. However, since Kaus only spent $40,000, his dollar-per-vote efficiency may be higher than Whitman’s. And he wins a consolation prize for running the most entertaining campaign of the season.
Photo credit: PittCaleb’s Photostream
Tags: Barack Obama, Barry Goldwater, Bill Clinton, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, Campaigns and elections, Carly Fiorina, Harry Reid, Jerry Brown, John Boozman, Jon Stewart, Meg Whitman, Nikki Haley, Politics and politicians, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Silicon Valley, South Carolina, Steve Poizner, Tea Party
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics |
No Comments »
Tuesday, June 8th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
The busiest primary day of the year has arrived, with 10 primaries, one Senate runoff and one House special election runoff on tap.
Since I’ve earlier analyzed most of these races here (and here, and here), today’s memo will focus on the bottom line: Who is likely to win in the big statewide contests?
Arkansas Senate Democratic runoff: too close to call. The CW suggests that Bill Halter will knock off Blanche Lincoln, thanks to a relatively poor showing by the incumbent in the primary, and a stalwart effort by unions on Halter’s behalf. But in a very low turnout runoff, it’s all about getting the vote out, and we’ll have to see if Halter can get voters back out in areas like southern Arkansas, where he crushed Lincoln in the primary.
South Carolina Republican Gubernatorial Primary: Nikki Haley wins. This race has been All About Nikki in recent weeks, and since primary day has arrived without any real evidence to support the two allegations of marital infidelity against Haley, the whole saga seems to have actually helped her. She’s at 43 percent in the latest PPP poll, with Rep. Gresham Barrett running 20 points behind. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the backlash against her tormenters will lift Haley to a win without a runoff.
South Carolina Democratic Gubernatorial Primary: Sheheen/Rex runoff. State Rep. Vincent Sheheen has outspent and outcampaigned early front-runner Jim Rex, but a third candidate, state Sen. Robert Ford, is strong enough to force a runoff.
Iowa Republican Gubernatorial Primary: Terry Branstad wins. Bob Vander Plaats got heavily outspent and outmaneuvered in this potentially close primary with important 2012 implications. If it were a caucus, the arch-conservative might have a chance. But it’s a primary. Sarah Palin’s surprise endorsement of Branstad simply served as the coup de grace. Yesterday a bitter Vander Plaats said: “From where I live in Sioux City, I can’t see Russia, but I can see South Dakota.”
Nevada Republican Senate Primary: Sharron Angle wins. The implosion of early front-runner Sue “Chickens for Checkups” Lowden has been the big story in this race, and she’ll probably finish third behind Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle and basketball scion Danny Tarkanian. Tark the Younger could pull an upset based on GOP voter fears that Angle is the weakest challenger to Harry Reid.
Nevada Republican Gubernatorial Primary: Brian Sandoval wins. One of America’s more colorful gubernatorial tenures will come to a close tonight, when scandalicious incumbent Jim Gibbons loses to Attorney General Brian Sandoval, a prized Latino candidate for the GOP.
California Republican Gubernatorial Primary: Meg Whitman wins. It took her $80 million, and a strategic veer to the right that will haunt her general election campaign against Jerry Brown, but eMeg finally put away Steve Poizner in the late stages of this contest. After a gazillion Whitman ads calling him a dangerous liberal, Poizner might have a future in Democratic politics.
California Republican Senate Primary: Carly Fiorina wins. It only took her about $7 million, but Fiorina closed well against cash-strapped “demon sheep” Tom Campbell and crusty conservative Chuck DeVore. But she has recently lost ground against Barbara Boxer, and her pro-life and hard-core anti-immigrant positions will not help her in the general election.
South Dakota Republican gubernatorial primary: Dennis Daugaard wins. Lt. Gov. Daugaard has been the front-runner all along, and should edge past state senator Dave Knudson for the right to face Democrat Scott Heidepriem. I have to say, the whole contest reads like the credits in an Ingmar Bergman movie.
I won’t even begin to make any prediction in today’s Mystery Election, the Maine gubernatorial contest. According to the one public poll, taken just this last week, 62 percent of Democrats and 47 percent of Republicans are undecided. The “leading” candidate in the Democratic race came in at 13% percent, and the leading Republican at 17 percent. Turnout is expected to be in the teens. Perhaps in the end Meg Whitman should have moved to Maine and saved herself a whole lot of money.
There are a number of interesting House primaries today. One to watch is in South Carolina, where TARP-afflicted Republican Rep. Bob Inglis is in deep trouble against Tea Party activist Trey Gowdy, though a runoff is likely. In a special election (two Republicans made the runoff) to replace Georgia gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal in the House, another Tea Party favorite, Tom Graves, appeared to be cruising towards victory until a financial scandal erupted, and now he’s in a close race against Lee Hawkins. In California, antiwar activist Marcy Winograd is making another run against Democratic incumbent Jane Harman, though Harman is heavily favored.
In a non-candidate election matter, generally disgruntled Californians are likely to approve Proposition 14, which would create a Louisiana-style “jungle primary” system, essentially abolishing party primaries.
Photo credit: Hjl’s Photostream
Tags: Arkansas, Barbara Boxer, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, Bob Inglis, Bob Vander Plaats, Brian Sandoval, Carly Fiorina, Chuck DeVore, Danny Tarkanian, Dave Knudson, Dennis Daugaard, Gresham Barrett, Harry Reid, Ingmar Bergman, Jane Harman, Jerry Brown, Jim Gibbons, Jim Rex, Lee Hawkins, Marcy Winograd, Meg Whitman, Nathan Deal, Nikki Haley, Robert Ford, Sarah Palin, Scott Heidepriem, Sharron Angle, Steve Poizner, Sue Lowden, Terry Branstad, Tom Campbell, Tom Graves, Trey Gowdy, Vincent Sheheen
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Political Memo |
No Comments »
Friday, June 4th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
Next Tuesday 10 states (including California, Iowa and Nevada) will hold primaries, and Arkansas and Georgia will hold runoffs for the U.S. Senate and a congressional special election respectively.
There’s something interesting going on in every one of these states, but national attention has mainly focused on California, Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina and Arkansas.
The marquee California races, the GOP nomination battles for governor and U.S. senator, have become a bit anticlimactic, with Meg Whitman appearing to run away with the former and Carly Fiorina with the latter, according to a whole battery of recent polls (see the trendlines here and here). Total spending in the GOP governor’s race has now gone over $100 million, but Steve Poizner’s stretch-drive efforts to make the primary revolve entirely around Meg Whitman’s refusal to endorse Arizona’s new immigration law don’t seem to be striking much gold. Whitman, at some peril to her general election standing, has continued round-the-clock aerial pounding of Poizner for alleged liberalism on abortion and spending.
Fiorina has been the only Senate candidate recently on the air, though at vastly smaller levels than the gubernatorial candidates, but may also be benefitting from a consolidation of the conservative vote against pro-gay-rights, pro-choice early front-runner Tom Campbell, at the expense of the other conservative candidate, Tea Party favorite Chuck DeVore.
While political junkies might hope for late drama in these races, it’s worth noting that roughly half the vote in California will be cast early by mail.
In both contests, the Democrats (Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer) awaiting the ultimate victor in November have enjoyed the intra-Republican slugfest as an opportunity to raise money, and both have been moving up to solid leads in general election polls.
As always, the California primary ballot has a number of initiatives, but the only one of national significance this time around would create a Louisiana-style “jungle primary” system that abolishes party primaries altogether and sends the top two performers (if no one wins a majority) into a runoff. In the current California atmosphere of deep hostility to the status quo, the initiative has a good chance of passage despite strong opposition from both major parties.
Iowa’s Republican primary is interesting mainly as a barometer of that very influential state’s conservative movement, currently obsessed with overturning last year’s state court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, and its potential impact on the 2012 presidential campaign. In the gubernatorial primary, former four-term governor Terry Branstad (who has been endorsed by Mitt Romney) is the far-and-away front-runner, but the one recent public poll shows hard-core cultural conservative Bob Vander Plaats (Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign chairman in the state) within theoretical striking distance. An upset would be very bad news for Romney, and very good news for embattled Democratic incumbent Chet Culver. But Branstad got a late break yesterday when Sarah Palin surprisingly (given the less-than-warm feelings of her close right-to-life allies toward the former governor) endorsed his candidacy. There are also a couple of very competitive Republican House primaries, particularly the contest to choose an opponent for Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell, in which former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons in the favorite.
In Nevada, the big development has been the steady decline in support for the longtime front-runner in the Republican Senate race, Sue Lowden, and a surge in support for Tea Party stalwart Sharron Angle, who has also benefitted from Club for Growth backing. Two polls this week have shown Angle running significantly ahead of both Lowden and Las Vegas businessman Danny Tarkanian. But Angle presently appears to be the weakest candidate against incumbent Harry Reid, who has been slowly rising in general election polls. Reid will have a big financial advantage over the winner of the GOP primary. Meanwhile, in the governor’s race, scandal-plagued incumbent Republican Jim Gibbons looks almost certain to lose to former Attorney General Brian Sandoval, who will face Harry Reid’s son Rory (who is Clark County Commission Chairman).
The South Carolina Republican gubernatorial primary has turned into a circus of late with all attention focused on allegations of marital infidelity against state Rep. Nikki Haley, the hard-core conservative “reformer” (and Mark Sanford protégé) who took a lead over three rivals right before the allegations broke. If no further proof of the allegations emerges before next Tuesday, Haley will make it into a runoff, though it’s unclear whether Attorney General Henry McMaster (the early favorite), U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett (who’s been struggling to defend his vote for TARP), or Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer (who has high unfavorable ratings and has been accused by Haley of feeding the allegations against her) will survive with her. In the overshadowed Democratic primary, state Rep. Vincent Sheheen is a slight favorite over state school superintendent Jim Rex, with a runoff possible.
And in Arkansas’ Democratic Senate runoff, there hasn’t been any credible public polling of the Bill Halter/Blanche Lincoln battle, but the shape of the race as a war of labor and business surrogates hasn’t changed since the primary, with unions spending well over $2 million in the runoff for Halter, and business groups running ads attacking Halter on Lincoln’s behalf. Lincoln is mostly relying, however, on personal campaigning with Bill Clinton. And for all the TV ads in this race, it will largely come down to turnout, with Lincoln focusing on African-American voters and Halter trying to get southern Arkansas voters to return to the polls. As the challenger in an anti-incumbent year who exceeded expectations in the primary, Halter is the assumed favorite, but anything could happen if turnout’s low.
Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.
Photo credit: Aprilzosia’s Photostream
Tags: Andre Bauer, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, Bob Vander Plaats, Brian Sandoval, Campaigns and elections, Carly Fiorina, Chet Culver, Chuck DeVore, Danny Tarkanian, Gresham Barrett, Harry Reid, Henry McMaster, Jerry Brown, Jim Gibbons, Jim Rex, Leonard Boswell, Mark Sanford, Meg Whitman, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Nikki Haley, Politics and politicians, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Steve Poizner, Sue Lowden, Terry Branstad, Tom Campbell, Vincent Sheheen
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Political Memo |
1 Comment »