• AZ-Sen, AZ-Gov: The signature by Gov. Jan Brewer (which may have helped her survive the GOP primary, but may also hurt her in the general) of Arizona's new aggressive anti-immigrant law was the key motivating factor in a new Democratic candidate getting into the Senate race: civil rights activist Randy Parraz. He'll face Rodney Glassman in the Democratic primary. (Why not the, y'know, Arizona Governor's race instead? Apparently Glassman looks like easier primary opposition than AG Terry Goddard in the governor's race... and at any rate, John McCain and J.D. Hayworth have both been beating the war drums on immigration.) And here's an interesting take on the immigration law: ex-Rep. Tom Tancredo just came out in opposition to it, saying, "I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over." If even Tom Tancredo thinks you're doing it wrong... you're probably doing it wrong.
• CT-Sen: Linda McMahon's campaign doesn't seem to be doing anything illegal here, but there's still no good way to spin this: the campaign has been offering students an extra $5 bounty (on top of a flat hourly rate) for every Republican registered during a Univ. of Connecticut voter registration drive. It's a practice that the DOJ has frowned upon.
• IL-Sen: In the wake of the seizure of the Broadway Bank, Alexi Giannoulias wasted no time in getting an explanatory ad on the air, laying it out in easy-to-grasp points: one, he hadn't worked there in years and when he left it was fine, two, the broader economy took the bank down, and three, speaking of that economic downturn, don't vote for unemployment-benefits-denying Mark Kirk.
• MD-Sen: OK, maybe all those Barb Mikulski retirement rumors will finally go away. She just had her campaign's official kickoff event on Friday. She has 24 times the cash of her likeliest Republican opponent, Queen Anne's Co. Commissioner Eric Wargotz.
• NC-Sen: Elon University's out with another poll; they still aren't doing head-to-heads, but have some assorted other numbers that Richard Burr would probably rather not see. His approvals (among flat-out everybody, not even RVs) are 28/37 and 26% say he "deserves re-election" with 44% saying "time for a new person."
• NV-Sen: A poll for the Nevada News Bureau performed by PMI finds Sue Lowden leading the pack in the GOP Senate primary, at 41. Danny Tarkanian is at 24, Sharron Angle is at 17, and "someone else" is at 18. The poll was taken on the 22nd, shortly after Lowden laid out her support for trading chickens in exchange for poultices and tinctures.
• NY-Sen-B: Long-time Rockland Co. Exec Scott Vanderhoef has decided not to pursue a run against Kirsten Gillibrand, after having spent a month in exploratory mode, saying the money's just not there. Vanderhoef probably found he didn't have the name rec outside of Rockland Co. to have an advantage against the odds and ends in the GOP primary, let alone in the general.
• UT-Sen: Another poll of GOP delegates for the convention in Utah isn't as bad for Bob Bennett as the one leaked to Dave Weigel last week, but it still looks pretty bad for him. Mike Lee leads the way among first-choice votes at 31%, followed by Bennett at 22% (and then Tim Bridgewater at 17% and Cherilyn Eagar at 10%). 41% of delegates say they will "absolutely not" vote for Bennett, so even if Bennett picks up the other 59%, he still can't nail down the nomination at the convention (as there's a 60% threshold).
• WA-Sen: Everyone seemed a little taken by surprise by Friday's SurveyUSA poll of the Washington Senate race, which has non-candidate (for now) Dino Rossi leading Patty Murray 52-42 (and leading the various no-name GOPers actively in the race by 2 or 3 points). Even the Rossi camp is downplaying it, saying that their internal polling places Murray in the lead - which is an odd strategy for someone who got gifted an outlying poll, unless either he's trying to rope-a-dope Murray into complacency or privately cursing the results saying "aw crap, now I have to run for Senate." One of the no-namers, motivational speaker Chris Widener, got out of the race on Friday, which may also portend a Rossi run (or just having taken a stark look at his own finances). Murray's camp may have gotten advance warning of the SurveyUSA poll, as on Friday they leaked their own internal from Fairbank Maslin giving Murray a 49-41 lead over Rossi, very consistent with R2K's recent poll.
• IL-Gov: Oh, goody. Scott Lee Cohen, having bailed out/gotten booted off the Democratic ticket as Lt. Governor nominee after his criminal record became news, still has a political issue that needs scratching. He's announcing that he's going to run an independent bid for Governor instead. Considering how thoroughly his dirty laundry has been aired, he seems likely to poll in the low single digits; I have no idea whether his candidacy (which now appeals mostly only to the steroid-addled pawnbroker demographic) is more harmful to Pat Quinn, Bill Brady, or just the world's general sense of decency.
• MI-Gov: When I heard a few weeks ago that Geoffrey Fieger (the trial lawyer best known for defending Jack Kevorkian and second-best-known for his awful turn as 1998 Democratic gubernatorial nominee) was pondering another gubernatorial run, I laughed it off. The new EPIC-MRA poll makes it seem a bit more serious, though... which, in turn, if he won the primary, would pretty much foreclose any Democratic shot at winning the general. They only polled the Democratic primary and find, thanks to name rec within the Detroit metro area, Fieger is actually comfortably in the lead at 28%. Andy Dillon is at 20, Virg Bernero is at 13, Alma Wheeler Smith is at 8, other is at 2, and 29% are undecided. Fieger hasn't moved much to act on his interest, though, and has only three weeks to collect the necessary 15,000 signatures to qualify.
• FL-24: Karen Diebel earned the backing of Tom Tancredo in the GOP primary in the 24th, focusing on (with Tancredo, what else?) in the immigration issue. It seems less of a pro-Diebel endorsement than more of a slap against her GOP opponent Craig Miller, though; in a 2006 Miami Herald op-ed, Miller (who was at that point chairman of the National Restaurant Association) came out pretty solidly on the "cheap labor" side of the Republican split on immigration.
• GA-12: Democrats looking for an upgrade from ex-state Sen. Regina Thomas (who raised $10K last quarter and has $4K CoH) for a primary challenge to recalcitrant Blue Dog John Barrow are going to have to keep looking. State Sen. Lester Jackson decided to take a pass, and will stay neutral in the Barrow/Thomas race. He'll focus instead of supporting the Senate bid of Labor Comm. Michael Thurmond (another rumored, but no-longer, challenger to Barrow).
• LA-03: Bobby Jindal just appointed Scott Angelle, the state's Sec. of Natural Resources, to the vacant position of Lt. Governor. Why is this filed under LA-03? Angelle was rumored to be one of the top contenders to run for the 3rd (although it was unclear whether he was going to do it as a Dem or a GOPer... Angelle was a Dem in the legislature, but appointed by GOP Gov. Jindal to his cabinet). With Angelle saying he'll return to his job at Natural Resources after a permanent replacement is elected, that means that former state House speaker Hunt Downer is pretty well locked-in as the GOP nominee in the 3rd, and the Dems aren't likely to get an upgrade from attorney Ravi Sangisetty, making this open seat a very likely GOP pickup. (H/t GOPVOTER.)
• NY-01: Randy Altschuler got the endorsement from the Suffolk County Conservative Party on Friday, which guarantees him a place on the ballot if he wants it. He'll still need to overcome Chris Cox and George Demos in the competitive three-way moneybags duel in the GOP primary (where the county GOP recently switched its endorsement from Altschuler to Cox). It's unclear whether he'd keep the Conservative line if he lost the GOP primary, as that would create a NY-23 type situation and pretty much assure Rep. Tim Bishop's safety. (Unlike the patchwork of counties in the upstate districts, all of the 1st is within Suffolk.)
• NY-29: The GOP would really, really like to have a special election in the 29th, despite David Paterson's apparent intention to play out the clock until November (and prevent a possible GOP pickup, given the difference in strength between the likely candidates). Several GOP party chairs within the district are preparing a lawsuit that would force a special election; the state GOP plans to assist.
• OH-02: Bad news for Jean Schmidt: although she got the Hamilton Co. GOP's endorsement in the previous two elections, she's going to have to proceed without it this year. They're staying neutral as she faces several primary challengers, most notably Warren Co. Commissioner Mike Kilburn.
• PA-12: In battling independent expenditures in the 12th, the GOP went large, as the NRCC plunked down $235K on media buys. The DCCC also spent $16K on media buys.
• SC-04: The dean at Bob Jones University (the crown jewel in the buckle of the Bible Belt, in Greenville in the 4th), Robert Taylor, has announced he's supporting Trey Gowdy in the GOP primary instead of incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis. The occasionally-moderate Inglis (more stylistically than in actual voting substance, though) faces at least three right-wing competitors in the primary, but could run into trouble if he doesn't clear 50% and gets forced into a runoff with one of them.
• WV-01: There are dueling internal polls in the 1st, in the Democratic primary. State Sen. Mike Oliverio was first to release a poll, saying he led Rep. Alan Mollohan 41-33. (One caveat: Oliverio's pollster is Orion Strategies, owned by Curtis Wilkerson, who also just happens to be Oliverio's campaign manager.) Mollohan struck back with a poll from Frederick Polls giving him a 45-36 lead over Oliverio, with the primary fast approaching on May 11.
• MA-AG: Despite it now being widely known that Martha Coakley has a glass jaw (or what's something more fragile than glass? what do they make those fake bottles out of that they use in bar fights in the movies?), she may actually get re-elected Attorney General without facing any GOP opposition whatsoever this fall. Of course, that may have something to do with the fact that the GOP's entire bench in Massachusetts just got elected to the Senate.
• Pennsylvania: The Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting look at the changes in registration in Pennsylvania over the last decade. The Democratic Party grew substantially in the state's east, gaining 550,000 registrations up to 4.3 million voters. The GOP shrank by 103,000 registrations down to 3.1 million votes. The Dems lost 20,000 voters in the state's southwest, though; in 2002, 27.8% of the state's Dems were in the Pittsburgh area, but that's down to 23.8%. Contrast that with the Philadelphia metro area: in its five counties, the number of Republicans dropped 13.5%, from a million to 873,000.
• Redistricting: Here's the last redistricting resource you'll ever need: a handy map showing congressional and legislative redistricting procedures for all 50 states. There's also an accompanying document (pdf) which goes into remarkable detail about the various processes, and even contains an appendix of some of the ugliest current gerrymanders.
David and the rest of the SSP crew have been kind enough to give me a soapbox here, and I think I'll be starting a series on breaking down large jurisdictions through the lens of some election.
Having gotten my hands on precinct data for the city for both 2008 and the 2010 Special, I thought I'd continue to examine the disparities between Obama's and Coakley's respective performances.
As you can see on the map, the geographic central core of the city, Roxbury and Mattapan, remained strong with little dropoff from Coakley to the Obama. Jamaica Plain, Allston/Brighton, and Back Bay - all strong Obama areas as well - showed slightly greater drop-offs. Even greater drop-offs were noticeable in the already swingy areas of the city, such as West Roxbury, Dorchester, Charlestown, and Southie. McCain won only 3 precincts throughout the entire city's 254; Brown increased that to 33.
Putting this statewide perspective, we get this:
Again looking at the map, South Boston was pretty darn brutal for Coakley, with Brown scoring 60%+ in several precincts. Many people (including one Stephen Lynch) indicated particular hostility for Coakley in the neighborhood. She did get destroyed here, but was it any worse than how badly she got destroyed across the rest of the state?
I think not. Sidenote: I'm defining "South Boston" the same way the Boston City Council does, that is, all nine precincts in Ward 6 and precincts 1-7 in Ward 7.
In 2008, in the 16 precincts constituting "South Boston" (or Southie), Obama beat McCain by a margin of 3,100 votes, or roughly 59-39. In 2010, Coakley lost by a margin of 1,500 votes, or roughly 43-56. Overall, this was a 16.0% swing; this is somewhat worse than that 15.31% swing experienced by Coakley across the state.
But, despite my election-night model assuming so, Coakley didn't experience a uniform dropoff. Instead, dropoffs are quite correlated with how well Obama performed in the area was to begin with. (This makes sense - Democratic strongholds are likely to remain so, while swingy areas in which Obama did well might have been particularly receptive to Republicans in a close election.)
Throwing this up on a graph (with Coakley's dropoff on the vertical axis and Obama's margin on the horizontal), we get:
You'll see a few outliers here: the point at the origin you can throw out - that's Boston Precinct 01-15, which last had a voter in 2004. The correlation on that is 0.83 0.816, suggesting quite a strong relationship.
Taking the geekery to the next level, I busted out the extraordinarily helpful Stata (how academic of you, my SPSS-using friends tell me...):
For those who are less of statistics nerds than I am, the regression tells us two main things:
For every point increase in Obama's margin in a voting unit (precincts within Boston, towns elsewhere), we can expect Coakley's performance relative to Obama's to improve by 0.14%.
For a hypothetical voting unit that was exactly tied between Obama and McCain, we should expect a 17% swing away from Coakley.
Applying this to South Boston, we see that there isn't really a pattern: some precincts had drop-offs more than to be expected, others had less.
There really isn't much a discernible pattern here, again, supporting the conclusion that while Southie didn't like Martha, they didn't indicate their dislike for her through their votes more than the rest of the state did.
This can all be represented visually as well:
The last benefit of getting the Boston data was I could finish results of the Senate Race by CD. As we'd already known, they weren't pretty, but here's the results table just as a freebie:
It's been a bit since the Massachusetts election, in which unknown Republican Scott Brown emerged to upset the favored Democrat Martha Coakley in one of union's deepest-blue states. Since then, Democrats have been recalibrating their strategy.
In a previous post, I outlined the results of how a tied election might look like. Let's take a look at the prediction:
• AZ-Sen: This has to be a bit of disappointment for J.D. Hayworth, as he mounts a right-wing primary challenge to John McCain: South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who's been active in endorsing insurgent candidates in GOP primaries and whose stamp of approval has become the gold standard for aspiring wingnuts, has declined to get involved in the Arizona primary.
• CA-Sen: Bringing to the table the business acumen and keen understanding of the law that made her such a smashing success at Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina put forth a worst-case scenario solution for the cash-strapped state of California: declaring bankruptcy. One slight problem here: while municipalities may, states can't declare bankruptcy.
• IN-Sen: Former Sen. Dan Coats made his official announcement during a radio interview today, saying he's "answering the call" to challenge Evan Bayh. Coats said he's "off and running," and by running, that means his staffers are running madly around the state trying to round up at least 500 signatures in each congressional district before the Feb. 16 filing deadline; so far, he has turned in no signatures at all (and his efforts may be greatly hampered by this week's spell of inclement weather). At a more general level, Politico has a story today titled "The Nuking of Dan Coats," a retrospective of all the damage Coats has sustained last week as the Dems (gunshy about a repeat of their asleep-at-the-wheel Massachusetts election) pounced quickly and rolled out pushback-free hit after hit on Coats's lobbying past and residency.
• CA-Gov: Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown is sitting on more than $12 million, which would be enough to annihilate everyone and everything in sight in most states. But in freakishly-expensive California and facing billionaire Meg Whitman, who can cut herself a $20 million check the way most of us reach into the change jar on the way to the store, he needs a little outside help. He's getting that from "Level the Playing Field 2010," a coalition of unions and wealthy donors who are launching a $20 million independent expenditure effort of their own, to keep Whitman from dominating the airwaves here in the slow season.
• MI-Gov: This is kind of surprising, considering that she'd been getting a disproportionate share of the gubernatorial buzz, some not-so-subtle encouragement from inside the Beltway, and a primary lead in recent polling. Denise Ilitch, UM regent and one-time pro sports magnate & pizza baroness, decided today against a run for the Democratic nod. She pointed to the late date, saying there was too much catching-up to do at this point, although she said she'd be interested in running for something in the future. This means the Democratic field is likely to be centrist state House speaker Andy Dillon and populist Lansing mayor Virg Bernero going mano-a-mano.
• NY-Gov: You can tell it's not shaping up to be a good week when it starts out with having to point out that, no, you're not resigning. David Paterson batted down rumors about forthcoming resignation in the face of an allegedly-emerging sex scandal (which so far has yet to emerge), but something even more ominous is looming on the horizon: federal prosecutors are starting to look into alleged misdeeds related to awarding gambling contracts at the Aqueduct racetrack in Queens. The angle may be that the recipient, Aqueduct Entertainment Group, includes ex-Rep. Floyd Flake, still a prominent black leader in Queens and one who'd been pondering endorsing Andrew Cuomo instead in a primary, and that the contract may have been intended to curry Flake's favor.
• PA-Gov: Scranton mayor Chris Doherty may be looking for an exit, although he maintains he's staying in the Democratic primary field. Rumors have abounded that he's looking to downshift to the Lt. Governor position, and the decision by two locally prominent pols (Wilkes-Barre mayor Tom Leighton and Luzerne Co. Commissioner Maryanne Petrilla) to back rival Dan Onorato instead may hasten his decision. Doherty is also getting urged to drop down to the state Senate, in order to hold the Scranton-area seat being vacated this year by Senate minority leader Robert Mellow (who just announced his retirement) after decades in the Senate. (However, SD-22 is Democratic-leaning and probably doesn't need someone of Doherty's stature to hold it.)
• RI-Gov: I'm not exactly sure where the rumors that Democratic state treasurer Frank Caprio was considering a switch to an independent or even Republican run for governor (presumably in order to avoid an irritating primary with more liberal AG Patrick Lynch, although polls have given Caprio the edge in that primary) were coming from, but Caprio tamped them down, confirming he's staying on board as a Democrat. At any rate, regardless of how things sort out, it looks like Rhode Island will have a governor next year who's in favor of gay marriage: Caprio, Lynch, and independent candidate Lincoln Chafee have all pledged to sign it into law. (Republican candidate John Robitaille won't, although even he's in favor of civil unions; polls have shown him to be an electoral non-factor though.)
• AL-05: Suddenly the floodgates are open in the 5th for Democratic challengers to former Dem Parker Griffith. Taze Shepard and Mitchell Howie both confirmed they'll run yesterday, and now a third person has stepped forward: Steve Raby, a political consultant whose biggest claim to fame is a long stint as the chief of staff to Sen. Howell Heflin. A fourth possible candidate, former Huntsville school board president David Blair, however, said that he won't get involved in the race. The filing deadline isn't until April 2.
• CA-11: The establishment seems to be coming together behind attorney David Harmer as their pick in the GOP primary in the 11th, where there's a wide assortment of Republicans, some of whom can self-fund, but none with an electoral background. Harmer, you'll recall, ran in the special election in the much-bluer 10th last year and overperformed the district's lean against then-Lt. Gov. John Garamendi. Harmer just got the endorsement of Reps. Wally Herger and Buck McKeon, as well as CA-11's 2008 loser, former Assemblyman Dean Andal.
• CT-04: Ex-Rep. Chris Shays is starting to seem like he wants to run for something this year, seeing as how Republican fortunes are improving. He'd previously been linked with a gubernatorial run, but today's rumor has him interested in a rematch against Rep. Jim Himes, who knocked him out in 2008. Shays would be a more imposing foe than the state Senators currently in the GOP field, but would still have an uphill run against the district's D+5 lean.
• MA-AG: If politicians had to have professional licenses in order to practice, Martha Coakley's would have been revoked for gross political malpractice. Instead, though, she's free to run for re-election... and that's just what she's announced that she's doing.
• OH-AG: A Republican internal poll from Newhouse gives ex-Sen. Mike DeWine a sizable edge over incumbent Democratic Richard Cordary in the Ohio AG's race, 50-32. That's actually plausible, as DeWine, who spent two terms as Senator, has much greater name recognition than Cordray, who filled in mid-term in the wake of Marc Dann's resignation.
• NY-St. Sen.: The state Senate actually sacked up and did it: they expelled Hiram Monserrate, several months after his assault conviction. The vote was 53-8. A special election has been called for March 16 (in which Monserrate plans to run anyway); the compressed timetable is largely because Monserrate's absence means the Dems are down to only a 31-30 edge in the Senate, making it impossible for the Dems to move legislation on party lines (as bills need 32 votes to pass).
• NY-St. Ass.: Bad news for suburban New York Democrats, who lost two separate Assembly seats in special elections last night (although one, in Suffolk County, is close enough that it could be salvaged through absentee ballots). The victory of Republican Robert Castelli in AD-89, centered on White Plains in affluent Westchester County, may be particularly alarming for Democrats, especially when coupled with the surprise loss of Westchester Co. Exec Andy Spano in November. It's a bellwether-ish but generally Dem-leaning part of suburbia, and if it's turning right, that could endanger state Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins (complicating Dem plans to expand the Senate majority) and possibly even NY-19 Rep. John Hall (who represents a further north, but more conservative, part of Westchester as part of his district). Assembly control, however, is hardly hanging in the balance: Dems now control the chamber 105-42-3.
• AR-Sen: Talk Business Net has occasionally polled Arkansas for approvals of its local political figures, and they see Blanche Lincoln sinking further into oblivion: she's currently at a 38/56 approval, down from 42/46 in October. One Arkansas Dem who isn't suffering is Governor Mike Beebe, who's at an inhuman 82/9. Beebe obviously plans for re-election and isn't in a position to relieve us of Lincoln in a primary, but Accountability Now is looking a little further down the totem pole and launching drafthalter.com to try and get Lt. Gov. Bill Halter into the race (although he's been sounding more interested in the open seat in AR-02).
• AZ-Sen: This is good news! For John McCain! However, it has to be bad news for the hordes of teabaggers who had about one day of thinking they'd elected one of their own to the Senate before finding out they'd gotten just got another New England RINO. Newly-elected Scott Brown's first act was to record a robocall in favor of the insufficiently zealous McCain, who may or may not field a challenge from the raving right from J.D. Hayworth. Believe it or not, this wasn't even Brown's first endorsement (the guy's doling out the political capital without having even been sworn in yet). The Hill had a piece this morning titled "Brown's First Endorsement May Backfire," which I assumed was about McCain - but it turns out his first endorsement was of William Hudak, a nobody running in MA-06 against John Tierney. Hudak is a loud-and-proud birther, and now Brown's camp is already trying to figure out how to walk that one back (and getting blasted by Hudak for doing so).
• IN-Sen: With rumors flying about Rep. Mike Pence checking out a possible Senate race against Evan Bayh, key Pence ally Tony Perkins (head of the Family Research Council) said that he doubts there'll be a Pence run for the Senate, and he alluded vaguely to the "possibility" of a 2012 presidential run instead. The Club for Growth, seeing a kindred spirit in Pence, though, has been joining in the chorus pushing him to run.
• NC-Sen (pdf): Not much change in the North Carolina Senate race since PPP's last visit, although there's some fluctuation upward in Richard Burr's head-to-head numbers. The faceless Burr's approvals are still very ho-hum, at 36-33 (with 31 still not sure), but he's still holding his own against Generic D (45-36, up quite a bit from a one-digit gap last month, which was probably too optimistic). Encouragingly, though, SoS Elaine Marshall is starting to overperform Generic D; she trails 44-37. Ex-state Sen. Cal Cunningham trails 45-36, and attorney Kenneth Lewis (who was recently endorsed by Rep. G.K. Butterfield) trails 46-34.
• NY-Sen-B: Harold Ford Jr.'s Senate campaign-type-thing seems ill-timed to coincide with the Democrats' belated and tentative moves to try and tap into anti-bankster anger. Sensing some trouble on that front, he's been refusing to say exactly what kind of work he's been doing for Merrill Lynch. Politico previously described his role ("senior policy adviser") as sort of a nothing-and-everything job: "rainmaker and image buffer, there to impress clients, make connections and put a politic foot forward in public settings."
• AL-Gov: More general douchery from Rep. Artur Davis as he tries to run to the right of Ag Comm. Ron Sparks in the Democratic primary, saying of health care reformer supporter Sparks: "Ron Sparks, who supports the flawed health care legislation in Washington, should realize that he is not only out of touch with the state he wants to lead, Ron Sparks would even be out of touch in Massachusetts."
• CO-Gov: Here's one sign that the John Hickenlooper camp was caught flat-footed by Gov. Bill Ritter's retirement announcement: they don't own johnhickenlooper.com. Wanna buy it? It'll only cost you $995, and the Hickenlooper camp doesn't seem to have plans to try to buy it.
• IL-Gov: Dan Hynes, who's been running some hard-hitting (some might say "Willie Horton-esque") ads against incumbent Pat Quinn in the Democratic primary, is now touting an internal poll that has him quickly closing the gap to within 7, down 44-37. (Quinn is also getting hit from the right by anti-tax ads from GOPer Andy McKenna.) Hynes's poll also claims that Quinn's approval is down to 36/60 among primary voters - if that doesn't turn around for Quinn after the primary once he isn't getting squeezed from both sides (if he even survives, as his trendline is pointing down), that would certainly bode ill for the general. One other plus for Hynes: he has a cash advantage of more than $1 million against the incumbent.
• NY-Gov: The NYT reports on mounting impatience among New York Democratic leaders for AG Andrew Cuomo to get over it and declare his gubernatorial bid already. Insiders say he's already made up his mind to run and is waiting possibly as late as April to announce, though - and already holding a $16 million to $3 million funds edge over David Paterson, he doesn't have to hustle. Still, Stuart Applebaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, is publicly endorsing Cuomo today, as a subtle nudge to get him off his butt.
• PA-Gov: Businessman Tom Knox got a lot of early attention in the Democratic governor's primary, but hasn't made much an impression in the polls since then. Rumors have been abounding that Knox was about to drop out of the race and endorse rival Dan Onorato instead, after meeting with Onorato this week. Knox's campaign manager has been tamping those rumors down, today, though.
• TX-Gov: With Dick Cheney already offering his endorsement (of questionable value), another Bush administration veteran is about to endorse Kay Bailey Hutchison too in the Texas gubernatorial primary: George Bush himself. Now before you start sputtering, that's Bush the Elder (aka 41, aka Poppy, aka H.W.).
• AR-01: In a piece on Rep. Marion Berry sounding pessimistic about passing health care reform, there's also an even more unsettling tidbit buried, saying Berry sounds "a little unsure" about whether he'll even bother running for re-election this year, even though he's not facing much in the way of a GOP challenge (yet). The quickly reddening 1st is not somewhere we want to be defending another open seat.
• NY-19: Conservative Republicans who've been looking for an alternative to the country-clubbish Nan Hayworth as a challenger to Democratic Rep. John Hall may have found someone to fit that bill. Thomas DeChiaro, owner of a local winery, says he'll run. As an indication of where he's coming from, he said he's already met with Conservative Party leader Michael Long and "plans to" meet with Republican party leaders soon.
• PA-06: It's official; Scott Welch is staying in the GOP primary in the 6th, despite Rep. Jim Gerlach pulling his gubernatorial ripcord and plummeting back into his old seat. Welch may be motivated by nothing more than sunk costs at this point, but he claims he's bolstered by a decent 40% showing at a recent insider straw poll. Looking for an angle in a moderate-vs.-moderate duel, he's also been reaching out to the local teabaggers, but they may be very suspicious of his past support of Democrats.
• PA-08: Ex-Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick had sounded kind of coy about a rematch with 2006 victor Rep. Pat Murphy, but all signs are now pointing toward a 2010 run. He's scheduled a Saturday press conference in the district to talk about his plans.
• MA-AG: Martha Coakley, now that she has some time on her hands, is planning to run for re-election as Massachusetts Attorney General. It remains to be seen whether she'll draw any primary challengers, now that it's been exposed that she has a glass jaw and turned off a lot of former supporters; some of the county DAs who'd been planning to run to succeed her may be interested in forging ahead anyway.
• Governors: Josh Goodman looks at the link between what happened in gubernatorial races in midterm elections where there was a wave at the congressional level. As you'd expect, the party gaining in Congress gains state houses too, although seemingly mostly through open seats.
• Filing deadlines: Don't forget to check out our handy SSP calendar, which covers filing deadlines and primary election dates. Kentucky and West Virginia have filing deadlines next week - and then Illinois has its freakishly-early primary in just two more weeks.
When it comes to writing about elections after the fact, I'm not a big post-mortem guy -- I feel it can sometimes be a little disingenuous to diagnose a race with absolute certainty a day or two after, in many cases, you were hedging your bets as to the final outcome. That said, though, there are an endless supply of post-mortems out there on Martha Coakley's mind-numbingly bad result last night, and some of them actually have some worthwhile observations to offer. Let's round up a few of these pundit attempts to leave their mark on the CW:
DemFromCT also has a pundit roundup. If data, rather than chatter, is your drug, the WVWV exit poll is now available, as is Rasmussen's not-surprisingly dead-on election night poll.
While we're talking about lessons to learn from the debacle in Massachusetts, two tough questions that need to be asked, discussed, and reflected on a great deal are:
1. How to get better at picking good candidates in primaries, and
2. What are the danger signs to look out for in a primary that might warn us a candidate that looks good in a primary will bomb in the general election?
Last night's victory by Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in the Bay State was certainly one of the biggest political shockers in my lifetime. The fact that in happened on the eve of the first anniversary of the Obama presidency also leaves a sour taste in everyone but Republican's mouths.
My view is the Democrats got complacent with "safe" seats, and Republicans can get that way also as we've seen in the last 4 years when they just kept losing. The Democrats were so used to Ted Kennedy holding onto his seat, they thought it would be a lock for them and they could run just about anybody, no matter how terrible a candidate he or she was. Brown managed to develop what I thought was a great one-liner in response to David Gergen: "It's not the Kennedy seat, it's the People's seat!"
All the telltale signs that this was not a safe Democrat haven since at least 1990 were there. William Weld, Paul Cellucci, and Mitt Romney weren't accidents. If they could win the governorship with that much success, it was only a matter of time before they managed to ascend to higher office. Hell, Brown even made Coakley look like an elistist with his driving around in his GMC Truck. Can you say "Fred Thompson 1994"?
For a party that emphasized reaching out to Indpendents in 2008, how in the world did they not realize that Independents now outnumber either party affliation is staggering. Either people out there honestly did not approve of HRC, or they didn't understand it because Democrats on the ground weren't campaigning hard enough up to this vote to gain ground with Independents. I would argue that the latter point is more accurate. Democrats like Coakley and Obama pretty much failed to actually campaign until the last minute, allowing Brown to capitalize. How else do you explain a 30 point lead for Coakley evaporating virtually overnight?
Where I come from, I know of a party that had been in office for a long time. They thought the other guys could never beat them and they got complacent. Guess what? The Liberal Party of Canada is in opposition today, and the best leader we could come up with was a guy who spent 30 years away from Canada and was recently a professor at, coincidentially, Harvard. While Democrats haven't been in control in the amount of time Liberals had been, the same situation seems to be present. They need to pick up their game and campaign hard, or else they can start to lose safe seats like they did last night.
Q: Where are the other potential Dem collapse areas this Nov? A: Almost precisely the places Hillary carried in the 08 prez primary
He's definitely on to something. Below is a map of the 2008 presidential primary results in Massachusetts between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Red is Clinton, blue is Obama:
The results between tonight's race and the presidential primary correlate at a rate of 0.56, which is quite high.
Polls close in Massachusetts tonight at 8PM Eastern. As usual, we'll be liveblogging the race until the bitter end. By the time we're done, you'll be left with stems and seeds.
Let's use this thread to take care of the pre-game chatter.
Benchmarks: If you haven't yet seen Crisitunity's town-by-town benchmarks for the absolute bare minimum that Martha Coakley needs in order to win, get your fine self over to that thread. It'll definitely be something worth keeping in your pocket as you follow the returns tonight. Blue Mass Group has a list of key benchmarks to watch for, and David Wasserman has an expansive spreadsheet available.
Jeff's take: SSP data guru jeffmd offers his projection model for the race.
Turnout: The Boston Globe has a list of poll-watcher reports by town. Greg Sargent (my former boss at Talking Points Memo), has some hard turnout numbers from Boston indicating that the city appears to be juiced-up about the race.
1994, redux?: A former Ted Kennedy aide sees parallels between the race between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley, and the '94 Senate race between Kennedy and Mitt Romney. The aide's math suggests that Coakley will win.
Fingerpointing: However, you know things are tense when Democrats are already getting a head start on the blame game. Oy.
Polling: Rasmussen will be out with a new poll as soon as the results start to trickle in. And if you're looking for exit polls, there are none to report. However, the cumbersomely-named Women's Voices. Women Vote has commissioned an exit poll by Lake Partners Research and American Viewpoint. Those results won't be available for dissection until tomorrow morning, though.
I'm as freaked out over Massachusetts as anyone - and I might be plenty angry/despondent/confused/hungover tomorrow morning.
But in the meantime, I've been working on a crude projection model using, in part, the "baseline" idea that Crisitunity and DavidNYC have made a part of SSP Election Night Tradition.
The model, as inputs, takes partial results from towns that have reported, and outputs a whole slew of numbers comparing the current situation to the "baseline" numbers.
The county baselines post has become a game day staple at Swing State Project for advanced elections-returns-watchers, and today's no different. The basic idea here: find the bare minimum percentage in each major county that's necessary to get the Democratic candidate over the hump at 50%. (That, of course, is predicated on all the counties moving the same direction as the presidential election the benchmarks are based on, which doesn't actually happen in real life, but it's a rough estimate.) As election returns come in, compare the benchmarks to the actual returns to see if we're on track to win.
There's one small problem here, which most of you are probably already familiar with: Massachusetts, and the other New England states, don't report election results by county, but rather by town. With hundreds and hundreds of little towns, that's a lot of ground to cover, so we'll just look at the biggest, plus some towns in what seem to be the key areas to watch in this race.
In fact, let's take a look at the state's town-by-town map, created by our own DavidNYC (you can click on the map to see a full-size version):
This map is based on the relatively close 1996 Senate election between John Kerry and William Weld (a better choice here, because a map of the 2008 Presidential race would be almost entirely blue, and the 2002 gubernatorial race would be almost entirely red, with Romney winning the vast majority of towns). But it gives the general lay of the land in the state: the Democratic votes are heavily concentrated in Boston and its immediately surrounding cities. (There's also a lot of low-density blue out in the college towns and arty enclaves of the Berkshires and Pioneer Valley in the west.) The red on the map is mostly rural and low-density too, so the real areas that we're focused on today are the purplish and pinkish suburban turf to the north, west, and south of Boston.
Rather than just one model, I'm using two different models: one based on the high-turnout, high-Democratic-intensity 2008 presidential election (won by Barack Obama, 62-36), and the low-turnout, low-intensity 2002 gubernatorial election (won by Republican Mitt Romney, 50-45) -- more generally, a best-case scenario for Dems and a worst-case scenario for Dems. With turnout projections high but not as high as yesterday (SoS William Galvin is predicting 40%), and weather mediocre, we're probably looking at something somewhere in between, so consider these the bookends. Nevertheless, after making the necessary adjustments, both models, in most towns, point to very similar benchmarks.
Let's start with the largest cities in Massachusetts (the ones that provide more than 1% of the state's votes each). These aren't really the places to watch, as they're heavily Democratic (with the sort-of exception of Quincy) and the real question with them is whether turnout is keeping pace proportionately with the rest of the state.
Town
% of state vote in 2008
2008 %
What's needed in 2010
2002 %
What's needed in 2010
STATEWIDE
100.0
62/36
50/48
45/50
48/47
Boston
7.7
79/20
67/32
61/33
64/30
Worcester
2.0
68/30
56/42
52/42
55/39
Springfield
1.7
77/22
65/34
59/37
62/34
Cambridge
1.5
88/10
76/22
69/22
72/19
Newton
1.4
75/23
63/35
54/40
57/37
Quincy
1.3
58/40
46/52
48/47
51/44
New Bedford
1.1
74/25
62/37
70/26
73/23
Brockton
1.1
70/29
58/41
49/47
52/44
Somerville
1.1
82/16
70/28
61/29
64/26
Lowell
1.0
65/33
53/45
47/47
50/44
Fall River
1.0
73/26
61/38
67/29
70/26
Democratic performance in most of the state, as you can see above, stayed fairly consistent with the rise in the tide from 2002 to 2008. Statewide, Democratic performance went from 45% to 62% (a 17% gain), and, for example, Boston followed that closely, going from 61% to 79% (an 18% gain). Many other towns tracked that, too; for instance, the most conservative parts of the state (like Falmouth and Sandwich on Cape Cod, or the suburbs around Lowell) also moved about 16 to 18% in the Dems' direction.
The interesting areas are the ones where the movement was much greater -- these tend to be the wealthier areas in the state, fancy Middlesex Co. suburbs like Wellesley or North Shore towns in Essex Co., consistent with Obama's overperformance nationwide among high-income voters -- and where the movement was much less -- mostly in blue-collar towns of the South Shore, as well as other blue-collar outposts in the state's west. To me, these seem to be the swingy areas, and the ones most worth watching, especially since the trends may (or may not) continue to accelerate today -- upper-middle-class voters may be attracted to Coakley's technocratic image (especially those in Middlesex Co., where she was DA) or they may revert to liking the fiscal conservatism that they saw in Romney, while blue-collar voters seem likely to respond to Brown's regular-guy shtick but may also be motivated by their ancestral Democratic loyalties and union or local machine GOTVing.
Let's start with some well-to-do suburbs west of Boston:
Town
% of state vote in 2008
2008 %
What's needed in 2010
2002 %
What's needed in 2010
Acton
0.4
68/30
56/42
41/52
44/49
Belmont
0.4
69/29
57/41
42/53
45/50
Concord
0.3
71/28
59/40
45/48
48/45
Needham
0.6
66/33
54/45
41/54
44/51
Wellesley
0.5
65/34
53/46
37/58
40/55
Winchester
0.4
60/39
48/51
37/58
40/55
And here are North Shore suburbs. (Lawrence is a little out of place here, as it's working-class with a large Hispanic population, but it had the same large 02 to 08 shift that its wealthier neighbors did.)
Town
% of state vote in 2008
2008 %
What's needed in 2010
2002 %
What's needed in 2010
Andover
0.6
56/43
44/55
32/63
35/60
Danvers
0.5
55/44
43/56
35/61
38/58
Lawrence
0.6
80/19
68/31
57/37
60/34
Marblehead
0.4
61/38
49/50
36/60
39/57
Newburyport
0.4
66/32
54/44
43/52
46/49
Peabody
0.9
57/42
45/56
43/53
46/50
Now turning to the more blue-collar locales where the trend seemed less favorable to Democrats, starting with the South Shore towns. (Looking up to the biggest towns list above, you can see that same trend happened not only in Quincy, but especially in Fall River and New Bedford, which are strongly Democratic but barely moved at all from O'Brien to Obama. In their cases, I'm not sure if that's indifference to Obama, or particularly strong local machines good at keep turnout consistent.)
Town
% of state vote in 2008
2008 %
What's needed in 2010
2002 %
What's needed in 2010
Braintree
0.6
50/48
38/60
42/55
45/52
Bridgewater
0.4
49/49
37/51
37/59
40/56
Middleborough
0.4
46/52
34/64
35/59
38/56
Taunton
0.7
59/39
47/51
51/45
54/42
Weymouth
0.9
54/45
42/57
43/53
46/50
And finally, a mix of western mill towns and blue-collar suburbs around Springfield:
Town
% of state vote in 2008
2008 %
What's needed in 2010
2002 %
What's needed in 2010
Agawam
0.5
53/45
41/57
40/56
43/53
Chicopee
0.7
61/36
49/48
51/45
54/42
Fitchburg
0.5
60/38
48/50
46/49
49/46
Pittsfield
0.7
76/22
64/34
64/32
67/29
Westfield
0.6
53/45
41/57
42/54
45/51
Now for the bad news... Suffolk polled several bellwether towns over the weekend, and found that Coakley is polling well below the level she needs to meet the benchmarks, in fact slightly below even Shannon O'Brien levels from 2002. They found a 41/55 race in Fitchburg (see the western mill towns chart), and a 40/57 race in Peabody (see the North Shore chart). I have no idea about the sample size or any of the other innards, but this suggests that for Coakley to pull this out -- as has been more broadly evident for several days -- the only way is for the pollsters to have been missing large swaths of heretofore unactivated voters who just got transformed into Democratic likely voters in the last few days.
Blue Mass Group has an interesting post that lists some other bellwether towns that you might want to keep an eye on. UPDATE: (And Cook's Dave Wasserman has made available a Google spreadsheet doing more or less the same thing for every single freakin' town in the state, albeit only for the 2008 model. Check it out.)
Martha Coakley (D): 43
Scott Brown (R): 52
Joe Kennedy (I) 2
(MoE: ±4%)
You know, we've picked these polls apart enough already, so how about we all take a page from trowaman and ask: If Scott Brown takes this race tomorrow, who should Democrats run against him in 2012? Not that we're predicting that he'll win, but it's never too early to think through the hypotheticals. Tell us who you think should run in the comments.
Martha Coakley (D): 48 (49)
Scott Brown (R): 48 (41)
Joe Kennedy (L) 3 (5)
Undecided: 1 (6)
(MoE: ±2.8%)
First the bad news: R2K gives us a trendline pointed steeply down... an R2K poll conducted earlier in the week (paid for by Blue Mass Group rather than Daily Kos, but seeing as how that shouldn't change the numbers, we'll accept that as a trend) gave an eight-point lead to Democratic AG Martha Coakley, and this one sees a tie. On the other hand, that's the best result that rolled in over the last few days: not only are there the Suffolk (-4) and PPP (-5) numbers, but also ARG (which sees a 48-45 Scott Brown lead)... and the Merriman River Group, whoever they are, who found a 51-41 lead for Brown in a poll that was apparently taken over the space of four hours and found no undecideds, so take that for what it's worth.
So, should we be pleased or not? Does this mean that Coakley's bungee-jump downward over the last week got arrested right before she hit the bottom of the canyon? There are a few other positive indications; the constantly-leaked Coakley internals, for what they're worth, seem to have stabilized over the weekend (which saw Barack Obama and Bill Clinton appearances, and maybe some backlash over the "curling iron" incident), to the extent that they reportedly show Coakley up 2, according to the Boston Herald. (Nate Silver has a helpful graph of all poll trendlines that includes leaked Coakley internals, which brings a lot more datapoints to bear.)
One other indication is that state officials are suddenly looking at extremely high turnout, at near-presidential levels, with everyone suddenly focused on the election -- with estimates of up to 70% turnout, based on absentee ballot requests. Turnout, as you know, most likely helps the Democrats here -- and the pollsters that have been giving pro-Brown results may be basing their likely voter models on now-obsolete projections based on low-turnout, high-intensity-voters-only projections. One other good Nate Silver observation is that Obama's approval is polling under 50% in most polls, which is lagging his national averages... in Massachusetts, one of the bluest of all states... suggesting their LV models are predicated on conservatives disproportionately showing up. (Of course, he also points out the possibility of what Rasmussen alone seems to be seeing: people approving of Obama, but still voting for Brown.) But if the state's turnout predictions are to be believed, maybe some of those unlikely-voter Dems who were planning to sit this one out or weren't aware of it have finally realized there's a real race here and have gotten converted into LVs over the last few days, and pollsters are still playing catchup.
I recognize that there is an intense level of anger and frustration among we of the Democratic base right now, faced as we are with a scenario most of us could not have conceived in our worst nightmares, however I think the rabid anti-Coakleyism spreading around the internets these days is getting just a wee bit unfair. In this respect I largely agree with Nate Silver - yes, she is a boring candidate, and yes, she did run a dull, almost absentee campaign... but when you're in Massachusetts, and you're a high-profile statewide elected official, and you're running as a Democrat against a fairly obscure state senator to succeed Ted Kennedy, none of those things should be unforgivable offenses. Let's face it: there is a LOT of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. To be sure, there were plenty of people (myself included) who had reservations about her in the primary, but clearly none of those concerns translated into anything near the blind, existential panic we are now facing as we creep up upon January 19th. If anyone can point to a post he/she left, here or anywhere else, indicating his/her grave uneasiness about the threat posed by Scott Brown in a general election, I'd love to see it - I'm genuinely curious.
This is obviously not to say Coakley's camp is blameless. Going dark for a month was malpractice of the highest order, and her campaign manager should never be allowed to work in American politics ever again. But the over-the-top vitriol being directed at the candidate herself is starting to become unseemly, and frankly sort of classless. I doubt any of us can imagine what its like to be in her shoes at this very moment, being pegged by pundits and partisan activists nationwide as the pariah who single-handedly flushed the Democratic supermajority - and by extension, Ted Kennedy's dream of universal healthcare - down the drain. By all accounts, Martha Coakley is a capable public servant, a fairly committed progressive, and by almost any measure a more qualified candidate for the United States Senate than Scott Brown. Yes, her probable defeat on Tuesday will almost certainly mark the end of her political career, and that can be argued as being perfectly appropriate, but I hardly think it cause for open celebration.
Just as determinate as any particular fault of the Coakley campaign is, I think, the basic issue highlighted by PPP in the poll that touched off this horrific week: a profound disparity in enthusiasm between D's and R's, the very same one reflected in the outcomes of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. The electorate turning out for special/off-year downballot elections is simply a different universe of individuals than those who came to the polls in 2008. Beyond the predictable backlash from the right, who knows how many people voted for Obama having never voted in their lives, and may never vote again? I think we can anticipate the relative drop-off from here out to be comparable to what we have seen thus far, and that alone augurs poorly for our near-term electoral prospects - whether or not we have Coakleys or Capuanos on the ballot.
• MA-Sen: With last night's Suffolk poll, there really can't be any doubt any more that the Massachusetts Senate race qualifies as a "Toss Up," so we're changing our rating to reflect that. There's still room for skepticism on whether Scott Brown can in fact pull it out, given not only the difficulty of pinning down a likely voter universe in a rapidly-fluctuating special election, but also the Democrats' structural advantages on the ground in the Bay State. (The Democrats have the advantage of labor and local machines long-skilled at rousting out voters and getting them to the polls, while it's questionable whether the Republicans have, given their long neglect of the state, any ground troops to deploy here, or even up-to-date, refined voter databases.) Nevertheless, given what can actually be quantified, right now the polls balance out to more or less a tie, and that's how we have to treat the race.
The breaking news du jour is that Barack Obama has finally agreed to head up to Massachusetts and stump for Martha Coakley on Sunday. Also, the Coakley campaign is rolling out a second ad for the weekend, to go with their ad showcasing the Vicki Kennedy endorsement; they're also running a populist-themed ad on Wall Street regulation (specifically, the rather narrow issue of the proposed bonus tax on banks). The ad deluge is being bolstered a League of Conservation Voters ad buy for $350K; on the third-party front, that's being countered by a pro-Brown ad buy for $500K from Americans for Job Security.
• CA-Sen: Yesterday I was musing about whether ex-Rep. Tom Campbell's entry into the GOP Senate primary hurt Carly Fiorina or Chuck DeVore more, and we already seem to have an answer. The Campbell camp is touting an internal poll showing them with a sizable lead over both Fiorina and DeVore in the primary: Campbell is at 31, with Fiorina at 15 and DeVore at 12. The few polls of the primary so far have shown Fiorina and DeVore deadlocked in the 20s, so maybe it's safe to say that Campbell hurts them each equally.
• FL-Sen: Which of these is not like the other? There's a new multi-candidate GOP fundraising PAC called the U.S. Senate Victory Committee, which benefits seven different Republicans: Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt, Jane Norton, Rob Portman, Rob Simmons, Pat Toomey... and Marco Rubio? Six establishment candidates, and one insurgent. Or is Rubio the new establishment?
• PPP (pdf): PPP looks all the way to 2012 as part of their wide-ranging Nevada survey, and finds that John Ensign may weather his whole giving-a-patronage-job-to-the-cuckolded-husband-of-his-mistress thing, if he runs again. Ensign trails Las Vegas mayor (but probable 2010 gubernatorial candidate) only Oscar Goodman 43-41, but leads Rep. Shelly Berkley 49-40 and SoS Ross Miller 47-36. Of course, Berkley and Miller aren't that well-known yet and would presumably gain ground in an active 2012 race, but again, more food for thought on the idea that Republicans really don't get the vapors over sex scandals after all, so long as they're perpetrated by Republicans.
• MN-Gov: The St. Paul Pioneer Press is out with a poll of Minnesota voters (by a pollster I've never heard of, Decision Resources Ltd.). The poll seemed most focused on the question of whether there should be public funding of the new Vikings stadium, but it did throw in (almost as an afterthought) something we haven't seen before: general election head-to-heads in the Governor's race. The numbers are pretty encouraging for the Democrats: ex-Sen. Mark Dayton leads ex-Sen. Norm Coleman 41-31, and state Rep. Marty Seifert (who, assuming Coleman doesn't get in, is the likeliest GOP nominee) 41-25. State House speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher beats Coleman 33-31, and Pat Anderson (who dropped out of the race this week) 33-23. There weren't any numbers for Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, another strong contender for the Dem nod. And yes, if you're wondering, this does take into account the potential spoiler role of Minnesota's Independence Party; IP candidates account for 11 to 13 percent of the vote in each of these trial heats. (H/t alphaaqua.)
• NH-Gov: One other gubernatorial poll has good news for Democrats, and it even comes from Rasmussen. They find incumbent Gov. John Lynch in safe position with 58/38 approvals and, against his no-name opponents, leading social conservative activist Karen Testerman 53-30 and businessman Jack Kimball 51-32.
• OH-Gov: Who knew that John Kasich had the power to transcend the boundaries of space and time? In an effort to court the GOP's restive base, Kasich said "I think I was in the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party."
• WY-Gov: One more big-name Republican (by Wyoming's small standards) is getting into the gubernatorial race, banking on the assumption that incumbent Dem Dave Freudenthal won't jump through the legal hoops necessary to run for a third term. Auditor Rita Meyer is getting into the race, where potential GOP primary rivals include former US Attorney Matt Mead and state House speaker Colin Simpson.
• AL-05: Rep. Parker Griffith is showing his true colors. The party-switcher has been turning away requests for refunds of contributions that don't meet the requirements buried in the fine print: he says he can't refund donations for the 2008 cycle, only the 2010 cycle, because the 2008 contributions were spent long ago.
• AR-02: Rep. Vic Snyder is in pretty dire shape, if a new poll from SurveyUSA is to be believed: he trails Republican candidate and former US Attorney Tim Griffin by a 56-39 margin. You may want to take this poll with a grain of salt, as it was paid for by Firedoglake, who seem to have an axe to grind in the health care reform debate, and the Snyder numbers seem to be less the main point than engaging in strangely-right-wing-sounding message-testing. The good news is that, even after a variety of anti-HCR arguments have been offered (and Nate Silver does a fine job of picking apart the survey), Snyder doesn't fare much worse (at 58-35); the bad news, though, is that the 56-39 topline question was asked before any of the litany of anti-HCR talking points, suggesting that, HCR or no, we have a major problem in Arkansas.
• AZ-03: Despite Jon Hulburd's surprising cash haul, he may have bigger company in the Democratic primary to replace recently-retired Republican Rep. John Shadegg. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon is the subject of speculation; he had briefly considered a 2008 run against Shadegg before ruling it out, saying his post-mayoral future would be in the private sector, but all eyes are on what he does now. (Gordon lives slightly outside the district's boundaries.) On the GOP side, there's no clear frontrunner at all. State Rep. Sam Crump has already said he's running. Possible other candidates include state Treasurer Dean Martin (who would have to drop down from the gubernatorial bid he just launched this week), state Sens. Pamela Gorman and Jim Waring, Phoenix city councilor Peggy Neely, former ASU football star Andrew Walter, and, in a shocker, the co-founder of Taser International Inc., Tom Smith. Former state House speaker Jim Weiers has taken himself out of the running.
• NC-11: Businessman Jeff Miller has reversed course and will run against Democratic Blue Dog Rep. Heath Shuler in the 11th. Miller had been recruited to run, but decided against it; he'll have to face a primary against Hendersonville mayor Greg Newman, who got in after Miller initially declined.
• OH-15: The Ohio GOP is still searching for an Auditor candidate after Mary Taylor decided to run for Lt. Governor instead of re-election. Former state Sen. Steve Stivers has been asked to run for Auditor, but made clear he'll be staying in the race in the 15th (where he might actually have better odds, considering how close he came to Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy last time).
Research 2000 for Blue Mass Group (1/12-13, likely voters, no trendlines):
Martha Coakley (D): 49
Scott Brown (R): 41
Joe Kennedy (L): 5
Undecided: 5
(MoE: ±4%)
Research 2000 checks in with its first poll of the Massachusetts Senate race (although the poll was commissioned by local blog Blue Mass Group, rather than the big orange mothership, not that that should affect the numbers). This is also the first poll taken after Monday's televised debate. They find an eight-point lead for Coakley, obviously much better than the most recent Rasmussen and PPP polls, though still hardly a slam dunk (rather concerning, for instance, is that the Libertarian candidate, Joe Kennedy [no relation to the dynasty], is polling at 5% -- as we saw in New Jersey, third party candidates like that tend to fall off a bit in the final equation, and Libertarian votes seem likelier to gravitate toward Brown).
In the crosstabs, Brown leads 49-36 among independents, which is a much smaller edge than PPP saw. Coakley is leading only 46-45 among whites and is trailing Brown 50-41 in the state's southeast; her lead seems based primarily on non-whites (including an 86-4 lead among blacks) and the Boston area (where she leads 53-37). (Discussion also underway in conspiracy's diary.)
Brown is trying to walk a tightrope here, as he's trying to attract enough support from nationwide tea-party types to attract their dollars, while still keeping them at arms' length enough to keep the votes of local moderates. For instance, he's been avoiding asking the potentially polarizing endorsement of Sarah Palin (and she's been smart enough to not offer it without having been asked). However, he's been saying he's not familiar with the Tea Party movement... a petard on which he's currently being hoisted, as video and photos of him addressing local Tea Party gathering have surfaced (including from his own Flickr account).
Meanwhile, Coakley received the Boston Globe's endorsement (although that shouldn't be any more of a surprise than Brown getting the Herald's endorsement). One other story getting play today is the possibility that it may take weeks to certify the winner of the election, especially if it's close (but even if it's not, as town clerks need to wait at least 10 days for absentee ballots to arrive before certifying their town-level results). Naturally, the right is assuming this is a ploy to give the Democrats enough time to wrap up health care reform before Brown arrives on his white horse to kill it.
UPDATE: I know I've seen lots of talk in the comments that the deal-sealer should be Vicki Kennedy cutting a TV ad on Martha Coakley's behalf, and having that be the campaign's closing argument over the weekend. Via Chuck Todd, it sounds like that's exactly what they're doing. Leaving nothing to chance, the DNC is also reportedly sinking another $150K, but more importantly, a lot more manpower on the ground, into the race.
And breathe. Hopefully this means the ads are sinking in and making Democrats get off their behinds for next Tuesday. President Clinton is up there tomorrow and First Read reports a Vicki Kennedy ad is in the can and ready to go up before the weekend.
Rasmussen (1/11, likely voters, 1/4 in parentheses):
Martha Coakley (D): 49 (50)
Scott Brown (R): 47 (41)
Joe Kennedy (L): 3 (NA)
Not sure: 2 (7)
(MoE: ±3%)
Rasmussen finds a tightening Senate race, with a two-point lead for Democratic AG Martha Coakley over Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, as undecideds seem to have broken in his favor over the last week (where Coakley had a nine-point lead). Barack Obama still has a 57% approval in this poll, so Coakley's continuing to have trouble sealing the deal with Democrats and D-leaning indies.
Taegan Goddard is also teasing news of the latest DSCC internal poll; the one from last week had a 14-point edge, but allegedly the most recent one taken this week has a 5-point lead for Coakley instead. So, the increased DSCC and DNC involvement that we discussed earlier in the digest isn't being done out of an abundance of caution, but out of real concern over a narrowing gap.
