Midterm Roundup
Republicans may have given up on yet another House seat, Democrats battle to keep notices out of FL-16’s polling places, and some further thoughts on Lamont-Lieberman. We’re just 1 day away from being 3 weeks away!
Midterm Madness: The White House’s Take
Ehhh, really not so mad, actually.
Following up on DK’s note about the White House not being prepared for a loss in November, WaPo reports, “there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.” Party operatives say Rove is expecting a loss of at most 8-10 seats. “The question is,” WaPo writes, “whether this is a case of justified confidence -- based on Bush's and Rove's electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command -- or of self-delusion.”
Most TPM readers would probably assume the latter. But some TPM readers, including this one, might also be a tad sympathetic to The Nation’s William Greider, who writes that it’s damn near impossible – polls and news and predictions be damned – to shake that creeping fear of somehow losing yet another election to the GOP machine.
Greider recounts a conversation with a smart and observant conservative colleague: “Democrats, he told me, won't get more than eight to ten seats in the House, forget the Senate. What? Why? Money and method, he said. Between blanketing TV with killer ads and turning out the righteous right-wing base, the Republicans are in the process of buying it one more time. … Forget facts. I just want it be over. Soon. Actually, right now.”
Greider will probably take his share of flak for sounding like a defeatist namby-pamby. Personally, the Roundup is making a concerted effort these days to keep telling itself with a faltering, cracking voice, like Lloyd Christmas in Dumb and Dumber when he says goodbye to Mary at the airport, “Be… strong.” But like a dog that’s shy from being beaten all its life, it’s tough to really blame Greider for his paranoia.
Republican Seats: Fuhgeddaboudit Update
On Sunday night Josh noted the NY Times’ latest rundown of which seats the Republicans remain committed to defending and which they’ve effectively conceded. Senator Mike DeWine’s Ohio seat is the latest where the GOP appears to have tossed in the towel. Robert Novak reckons that Tom Reynolds’ seat – the most immediate and obvious casualty of the Mark Foley scandal – may have found its way onto the GOP give-up list as well. Writes Novak: “A Republican campaign operative with a reputation for accuracy has put Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, on the list of incumbent Republicans who are ‘gone’ -- that is, sure to lose their seats on Nov. 7.” (Tip ‘o the hat to Political Wire)
The GOP Money Numbers
DK noted the big numbers on Friday. Here CQ provides a full rundown (pdf) of the NRCC’s latest purchases, including buys for phone bank callings and mailings along with the TV buys – a whopping $9.3 million one-day spending spree, directed toward 38 different districts, 34 of which are currently held by Republicans. Of the 76 total purchases made, 71 were for opposition tactics. $270,911.30 was spent on negative ads in Florida’s 16th district.
One district noticeably absent from the list? New York’s 26th district, home to a one Tom Reynolds. Which raises the question, who exactly decides where the NRCC’s money goes? Is it Reynolds’ final decision? Is it voted on by the full executive committee? Is Tom Reynolds sitting at the head of a big oak table at the end of the meeting and saying to the rest of the board, “Hey guys, great meeting today. Just a couple more bucks and I think we’ve got a real shot in Florida 16. But um, not to be a pain in the neck, but I… you know… I couldn’t help but notice that we decided not to buy any ads in New York 26. What do you guys think? You think we could maybe get a little airtime up there? Huh? Maybe skim a few bucks off that Vermont race? Okay, okay, fine. No TV. How bout some mailings? Okay, phone bank? Just a little phone bank? Anything? Please?” while the rest of the board members pretend they don’t hear him as they shuffle out of the room? Does it work like that?
Speaking of that Florida 16 race…
FL-16: Polling Place Notice Legal Case Update
Palm Beach Post reports, “The Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit Friday in hopes of keeping notices out of polling places that would inform voters that ballots cast for former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley will count for fellow Republican Joe Negron.”
The 16th district’s 8 county elections supervisors agreed last week to a notice that would be posted at registration tables and handed to voters on Election Day. Along with saying that votes for Mark Foley would be counted for his unnamed fill-in Joe Negron (R), the notice would also tell voters that votes cast for Democrat Tim Mahoney will count for Mahoney and votes cast for Emmie Ross, who has no party affiliation, will count for Ross. But Democrats still say the notices violate an election statute about precinct officers not favoring political parties.
The St. Petersburg Times says, “The injunction hearing has been assigned to Leon County Circuit Judge Janet Ferris who will consider it Thursday.” But Democrats are racing against the clock, as the suit seeks an emergency order banning the notices before the start of early voting October 23.
And for the latest on “Whither Foleygate?” – TNR’s Jonathan Chait writes, Foley's got nothing on real GOP failures (sub. req.). Chait’s TNR colleague Isaac Chotiner has some thoughts of his own and notes a response from Ross Douthat that argues something similar to the emerging (and by the Roundup’s estimation most reasonable) opinion that if nothing else Foleygate will serve as a kind of final straw for many disenchanted conservatives: “while the Foley scandal is only the latest in the long line of incidents that suggest the GOP leadership's commitment to social conservatives doesn't run terribly deep, it happens to be an extremely visible and shocking incident as well, and the kind that makes even people who don't play close attention to politics sit up and take notice.”
Speaking of the disenchantment of conservatives, there’s this: evangelical Christian and former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives David Kuo has a new book out all about how the White House’s dedication to the religious right is a shallow and solely political one and that White House officials privately deride evangelicals as “nuts,” “ridiculous,” and “goofy.” Who knows how many people will read this book or what kind of an effect it will have on religious voters. The White House has denied the book’s allegations; and many conservative leaders have condemned Kuo, saying he betrayed the White House and questioning the timing of the book’s release. But a spot on 60 Minutes certainly can’t be bad for sales. Steve Benen takes a look at what kind of White House backlash Kuo should be expecting.
MN-SEN: Klobuchar Kennedy Meet the Press Debate Recap!
Here’s the transcript of Sunday’s Meet the Press, which featured open seat Senate contestants Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar (D) and Representative Mark Kennedy (R) as part of its ongoing Senate Debate series. And reaction…
Sharp exchanges in national spotlight (Star Tribune)
A familiar fight, but on national TV (Pioneer Press)
Minnesota Senate Hopefuls Clash on Iraq (AP)
War at Forefront in Minn. Debate (WaPo)
DebateScoop has the liveblog.
The consensus appears to be that the debate likely did nothing to substantially help Kennedy erase the significant disparity in the polls.
LA-02: Jefferson Can’t Win Own Party’s Endorsement
AP reports, “U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, an eight-term incumbent mired in a federal bribery investigation, failed on Saturday to win endorsement from the state Democratic Party, which is supporting a challenger instead for Jefferson's seat. The State Central Committee's 69-53 vote was the first time in recent memory that an incumbent had failed to win the state party's endorsement, said Elsie Burkhalter of Slidell, a member since the 1980s.”
The effect may be more symbolic than anything. Jefferson will still appear on the ballot as a Democrat and will not lose campaign funds because of the vote. Despite his inability to secure the endorsement, Jefferson is widely expected to continue to strut defiantly down Capital Hill hallways.
While this race is rated safe dem by basically every credible handicapper, the Dem who wins it might not necessarily be Jefferson. Thanks largely to his legal woes, Jefferson has drawn no fewer than 8 Democratic challengers, all of whom are on the November 7 ballot because of Louisiana’s unique open primary system. If no candidate succeeds in winning at least 50%, a runoff election between the top 2 finishers will happen on December 9.
NY-29: Awesome Candidate Alert!
Reader Rhea tipped the Midterm Roundup off to the attention-worthy antics of delightful scamp Representative Randy Kuhl (R) of New York’s 29th district. Kuhl is in a tough reelection race against former Navy officer and former Republican Eric Massa (D). CQ recently shifted its race-rating from Republican Favored to Leans Republican.
While you may be familiar with Kuhl’s colorful history – including a 1997 drunk driving conviction (Kuhl was a state senator at the time) and an ugly 2000 divorce, the records of which include mentions of excessive drinking, hustling other women, and an incident at a 1994 dinner party in which Kuhl “took out two shotguns and threatened to shoot plaintiff [his former wife]” – you may not be familiar with just how dazzlingly talented a rhetorician Kuhl is. And if you’re not familiar, you really should be.
During an October 5 debate at the Canandaigua Rotary Club Kuhl made a curious comment about Hurricane Katrina: “You can see that when, in fact, this government needs to react, like it did in Katrina with immediate appropriations to help out people who were dying…” Then the crowd laughs at him. Here’s a video of it.
The Roundup can’t find video to corroborate this one, but reader Rhea tells it that at a debate last week Kuhl whined that he was not comfortable with so much of the audience supporting his opponent, saying he expected the audience “to be more non-partisan.”
And challenger Eric Massa himself, blogging on Daily Kos, recounts another moment from the candidates’ final debate last Wednesday night:
Kuhl (shouting): “These [terrorists] are people who want to kill all of you! Want to kill all of you!”
Kuhl (quietly): “I don't want them to kill you.”
Man in the Audience: “Thanks!”
The alleged “thanks” from the man in the audience isn’t captured, but here’s a video of Kuhl’s “kill all of you” performance. Boffo.
Clearly, this guy is one to keep an eye on.
And as one final item of business…
CT-SEN: Show Me the Passion
Heh, woops… the Midterm Roundup is sorry if it seemed like it was being mean to Ned Lamont on Friday. It didn’t mean to be. And it certainly didn’t mean to make it onto Joe Lieberman’s blog (the Roundup is too ashamed to link to it, please, look away). For the record the Roundup is no fan of Joe Lieberman. Honest. The Roundup voluntarily and wholeheartedly agrees with DK’s estimation of Lieberman as a weasel. This kind of thing makes the Roundup want to punch a hole through its laptop screen. And yes, Lieberman appears to be blatantly lying in his latest ad, as detailed by David Sirota.
Lamont may have made a serious misstep last week with the Henry Parker incident, but at least he is not a whiney, desperate, out-of-touch puddle of a man who has repeatedly shown a, not just willingness, but eagerness to place his personal ambitions above the good of his party; who was a completely inexplicable Democratic holdout on social security last year; who thinks that rape victims can take a “short ride” to another hospital if they want emergency contraception; and who, since losing his primary, has industriously sucked up and vomited back out Republican talking points like, just for example, Ned Lamont’s policies would be a tremendous victory for the terrorists. At least Ned Lamont isn’t that. Put that on your Lieberman blog.
Anyway, the Roundup’s point last week was just that unless Lamont wants to go down in the history of Joe Lieberman’s lengthy Senate career as a little blip during the summer of 2006, then he has to get his act together and start making the kind of noise he was making back in August. Arianna Huffington thinks so too:
“It is bitterly ironic that instead of building on that momentum by continuing to make his case against Lieberman, Lamont has let himself become enmeshed in the same consultant-driven culture of caution and blandness that has produced a steady stream of modern candidates more worried about stepping on the land mines laid out by their opponents' campaign teams than stepping forward to lead.”
Now Huffington also believes that Lamont still has a very good chance if he can just whip it together and rediscover that passion. The Roundup doesn’t pretend to know how he might go about this. But step 1 might be a strong performance in the very first post-primary debate that’s going down, conveniently enough, today at 1 p.m. And there’s plenty more where that came from – the candidates will meet for a second debate Wednesday and a third on October 23.
IYI (If You’re Interested)
MD-SEN: 2004 GOP Tour Prepped Steele for Senate Run (WaPo)
MO-SEN: Parties Watch the Show-Me State (CQ)
MT-SEN: Mont. Senator in Fight of Political Life (AP)
PA-SEN: Low-Key Democrat Leads High-Stakes Senate Race (WaPo)
NATIONWIDE: GOP strategies for blue-state victories (Christian Science Monitor)
NATIONWIDE: Midterm Meanness: Negative Ads Rule the 2006 Elections (CQ)
NATIONWIDE VANITY: Okay Republicans, so WaPo thinks you’re a bunch of mutts. So what. Don’t listen to them. You step in front of that mirror in your campaign bus dressing room and you look at yourself and you tell yourself, “I'm a star, I'm a star, I'm a star. I am a big bright shining star.” Especially you, Rick Santorum. After all Kathryn Jean Lopez thinks you’re a stud: “I know Rick Santorum. He's one good-looking senator.” Meanwhile Democratic Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr., whom WaPo describes as “a lean and stylish 36-year-old,” is by his own admission, no playboy. “I have never been to the Playboy mansion,” Ford told George Stephanopoulos on This Week Sunday morning. You call that hot? The Midterm Roundup calls that pathetic.
But ok, for some editorial balance the Roundup will refer to this wedding photo of Democrat Ned Lamont from 1986. Now THAT is a playboy.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Giants Win! And as a celebration of Big Blue’s steamroll victory Sunday against the favored Atlanta Falcons in Atlanta to go to 3-2 and right back amidst the scrum of the NFC power struggle, the Midterm Roundup presents to you perhaps the most highly recommended video it has ever linked to in this space: Lawrence Taylor, A Hitter’s Game.
My concern is that the polls are correct, but that the confidence in the WH is due to some dirty political stuff, i.e., Diebold. I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists, but the Ohio loss in 2004 still seems weird to me, there is no transparency is the way the Diebold machines are programmed, there is no back up counting system in most places (paper ballots), and it's apparently easy to hack into many of the voting machines (not just Diebold). This would not have to be a nationwide thing -- just pick some of the closest house races and shift the votes on a few machines and, boom, the Republicans win by a hair, and the House remains in their hands.
October 16, 2006 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tamar, your apprehensions are exactly as my own. Exactly. Don't need a lot of cheating, just a little in the right spots and voila! we've got another "close one".
The chimp and Rove aren't 'inexplicably upbeat' - they know the score!
October 16, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The one aspect of polls that looks good for Republicans is that Bush's support among Republicans has risen since May. But couldn't that mean that people who dislike Bush but still called themselves Republicans in May no longer identify themselves that way?
October 16, 2006 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, it's the White House's JOB to be upbeat and optimistic. No matter what Rove's inside numbers are telling him he and Bush certainly can't run around telling Republicans that the sky is falling! That would cause panic in Republican ranks and make their losses much worse. And people are surprised they're not drinking heavily and mumbling to the portraits of the Presidents on the White House walls yet?
Rove's simply an operative who fights to win, and doesn't worry about defeat. Democrats could learn something from this and avoid the pusillanimous public "hand-wringing" that David Greider is indulging in.
What really is there to fear?
1. The Republicans hold onto power for a couple more years and continue to screw everything up? (Downside) Then organizing against Bushco will simply be easier and their defeat in 2008 will be worse. It might actually be an advantage to them to let the Democrats share power now and have to take responsibility for much of Their mess.
2. Democrats take power and immediately roll over and start to accommodate Bush in a real show of "bi-partisanship" (that gives Bush about 80% of what he wanted and makes them look weak and stupid into the bargain).
This isn't NARNIA we're living in people! And it's not all going to suddenly be sweetness and light if only the Evil Republicans are driven from the land.
We have DEEP institutional problems. And they won't be solved without a powerful people's movement that fights 365 days a year.
It only BEGINS with throwing the Republicans from power. But that's a good beginning.
There's absolutely no point in worrying about possible defeat. You don't notice any Republican blogs engaging in this sort of flabby "hand-wringing" that makes me want to give Greider and his ilk a good pummeling!
Strap a set on and fight you wimps! If you lose, fight again, just like the wing-nuts do! And stop worrying about what happens if we lose.
People in Latin America face down death squads to organize and fight back against their corrupt entrenched elites. What's our excuse?
October 16, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the update:
Apparently, the NRSC has given up on Tennessee's Bob Corker for the Senate Race, as well as the DeWine Ohio Senate Race.
This weekend, a major endorsement:
The Tennessean Endorsed Ford. Polls show Ford with a 51-44 lead; Bush is at 35% approval in Tennessee.
Corker Camp In Disarray; NRSC To Stop Running Ads For Corker
It looks as though the NRSC has lost all confidence in Bob Corker as they will stop running ads on his behalf this week:
After weeks of trying to resuscitate the sagging Corker campaign, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) will stop running TV ads for Bob Corker on October 19. Contrary to a Corker campaign release from earlier today, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) will be up with ads on behalf of Harold Ford Jr. through Election Day, and has more advertising time reserved in Tennessee than the national GOP does.
"The Corker campaign is doing a great job to ensure that Bob Corker's credibility problems remain at the forefront of the Tennessee Senate race," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said. "Instead of putting out misleading press releases, the Corker campaign should focus on making sure that their candidate does a better job of addressing his character problems."
http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20061014_corker/
The latest news on the NRSC pulling its ads for Corker is bad news--for Bob Corker. The Tennessean has now endorsed Ford; Popular Democratic Governor Bredesen's ads endorsing Ford are on the air; and last night, during 60 Minutes, there were 4 Ford ads, and zero Corker ads in the Chattanooga market.
The Ford endorsement in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, complete with great photo of Ford, from the left side of the editorial page was positively glowing; the right side of the editorial page endorsed Corker in a conspicuously short, ambivalent endorsement with no photo. It seemed clear to me that the strength of the Ford endorsement sent a message.
The Chattanooga-Times Free Press ran a story on Sunday about Bob Corker's home--the 2nd most expensive home in the entire Chattanooga area--completing the picture of Millionaire "Elitist" Bob.
Ford Leads Corker 51-44
http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20061010_fordpoll/
Sunday, 10/15/06
Endorsement: Ford for U.S. Senate
The Tennessean today strongly endorses U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Bill Frist.
Read the full endorsement:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section? Category=OPINION
October 16, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real story in NY-29 is the new FEC money reports. Despite a Cheney fundraiser which supposedly raised between $125-200K, Kuhl's latest report shows an anemic $80K in individual contributions. His opponent Eric Massa out-raised him by $80K in the last 5 weeks and has been running a strong campaign.
I have a blog dedicated to the 29th which discusses this and other campaign issues in detail: http://fighting29th.com
October 16, 2006 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of Connecticut and ned Lamont where I am the Polls are meaningless.
If you base all your information on where the polls are your missing the boat.
Ned will win in November and to understanding this I suggest you come to Connecticut and get and inside look at what we the voters think.
Lieberman's people took your comments and posted it on there site to use against Ned Lamont.
Hope they had your permission.
Anyway in the 3 debates Ned will do well and the grassroots effort of volunteers are working hard.
Ned Lamonts Campaign is a Progressive Democrat verse's Lieberman who is a closet Republican who I beleive will join the Republican Party when its over.
October 16, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did this Greider article/conversation take place before or after the David Kuo piece hit the MSM? Like Greider and his un-named conservative friend, I'm a Democratic Eeyore when it comes to polls. I always figure Republicans have a built-in five to ten per cent advantage, depending on the race/district/region that doesn't figure in polls, due to money, cheating, turn-out, sleeper voters (ie racists for Corker or Allen). But between Foley and Kuo, I think a lot of that advantage may be peeling off.
And if Saddam's verdict is really their October surprise, Dems need to undercut this in advance by pointing out at every opportunity that more than two thouasand US soldiers have been killed since Saddam's arrest, and that big tall guy who murdered three thousand people in New York and Washington is still at large.
October 16, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you covered all the possible scenarios, Dworkin.
1B. The Republicans hold onto power for a couple of more years... AND that gives them just enough time to pass a couple more laws like the Military Commissions Act, making it easier for them to stifle dissent, AND that gives them enough time to put the fix in for 2008 in another dozen states (since the only way they could hold onto power this time would be to cheat, near as I can tell, based on the polls), AND after two more years of them in power, we actually BECOME another country like those in Latin America, meaning we will actually have to face down death squads in order to fight against the corrupt entrenched elites.
That's not where I want to be in two years. And I agree with dasher and Tamar (below) that when I hear about a smug confidence in the White House, I automatically assume that the fix is in. And when I hear they aren't spending any more money on DeWine in Ohio, I think that's because they *know* that in Ohio, the fix is in already (they did it in 2004 AND in 2005 -- look at the results from the 2005 ballot initiatives on election reform: the polls showed one measure would pass 2-to-1, but the official vote count said it failed 2-to-1, which is virtually a statistical impossibility!).
And why would they cheat? The stakes are incredibly high.
You also missed another scenario:
2A. Democrats take power... AND immediately investigate the s**t out of the current regime, resulting in nearly simultaneous impeachments of Bush and Cheney, and the first woman president in our country's history: Nancy Pelosi. Not likely? Perhaps not. But scary enough to motivate these crooks to do almost anything to stay in power.
So, yes, we need to fight. And if the election is "lost" this November, I believe we will need to fight even harder, beginning the very next day. But that will be an ugly fight, of a different character. Because it will be nothing less than a fight to return democracy to our country. It will be a test of patriotism not seen here by anyone now alive. I dread it.
-- ARG
October 16, 2006 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, smack yourself in the head: Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! It is the nature of blogs to copy what has been copied what has been copied what has been copied, what has been copied.
I suppose you saw the debate. I watched it with Hubs, thheee liberal in the house, and at the end summation, he thought Lamont looked like he was going to burst into tears, I thought that if Lamont gripped his podium any tighter it would shatter in his hands, so I suppose we were both looking at two different things. Ned did not do himself any favors today with a wishy-washy performance, Schlessinger needs some serious valium and Joe just stood in the middle and came off senatorial.
October 16, 2006 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink