nathan.

nathan. http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales Virb 2.0 (@nathanlgonzales) en NathanFrontPorch http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/photos/1223174

]]> Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:55:28 -0700 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/photos/1223174 2010 Senate Ratings http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1086768

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 0 D)

Bunning (R-KY)
FL Open (Martinez, R)
MO Open (Bond, R)
NH Open (Gregg, R)
OH Open (Voinovich, R)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

Burr (R-NC)
Specter (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Bennet (D-CO)
Reid (D-NV)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)

Grassley (R-IA)
KS Open (Brownback, R)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)

Currently Safe (9 R, 13 D)

Bennett (R-UT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Isakson (R-GA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Bayh (D-IN)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burris (D-IL)
Dodd (D-CT)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

]]> Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:12:41 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1086768 This Can't Be What Obama, Pelosi and Reid Expected http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1084457
Either Congressional Democrats went from undeniably brilliant to unbelievably inept in just a few weeks, or being in the majority in Congress isn't nearly as easy as being the opposition.

Those seem to be the two obvious alternatives that follow from the problems Democrats have had selling an economic stimulus package that began with considerable public support and the backing of a popular president. I'll cast my vote for the second alternative.

As Republicans on Capitol Hill are now finding, being in the minority actually can be a lot of fun, even if it is inherently frustrating. They can't dictate results, but they sure can cause problems for Democratic leaders.

However, Democrats shouldn't overreact to their current problems, which range from the party's handling of the economic stimulus bill to the tax problems of some of the president's Cabinet nominees. Even with all of their party's recent stumbles, the president and Congressional Democrats will end up looking pretty good if the economy rebounds and Americans start to feel better about things.

It's the results that matter, even if the process was part stumbling and part bumbling.

But Democrats also shouldn't delude themselves that they merely were too low-key for too long in pushing their economic plan and that if only they were louder, they wouldn't have encountered any problems.

In this fight, Democrats aren't the only ones with a potentially appealing message. They miscalculated if they believed that they could easily pass an $800 billion or $900 billion bill merely by pointing to the current state of the economy and gloomy forecasts of the future. That might well have been enough to get a bill to the president's desk if Congressional Republicans had simply rolled over, but this time the GOP didn't.

Instead, Republicans -- aided by a handful of Democrats who are worried about some of the spending items -- have succeeded in redefining the bill from one that will jump-start the economy by creating jobs and helping people deal with the housing crisis to one that is an ideological Christmas tree that doesn't put people to work, help them pay their mortgages or resuscitate the economy.

By focusing on computers for the Department of Agriculture, new energy-efficient cars for the government and money for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Washington, D.C., sewer system, Republicans have defined the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan as benefiting bureaucrats and other government employees, not the average American.

On Thursday night, at the House Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, Va., President Barack Obama began his counterattack, arguing that millions of more Americans will lose their jobs if his economic recovery program is not passed quickly.

He may be right, but Republicans have an easy answer: Spending $198 million to compensate Filipino veterans who fought in World War II, or $2 million to train Native Americans to become plumbers and pipefitters, or $150 million for renovations to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, or even $3.26 billion for the Western Area Power Administration won't strike most voters as the kind of spending that will help rescue the economy from recession.

Yes, the dollar figures for some of these items are trivial, but they provide plenty of fodder for critics of the overall package.

The Democrats' fundamental problem is that while Americans like the country's new president and, so far, think that he is doing a good job, they continue to have significant doubts about Congress and are disinclined to believe that Washington always has their best interest at heart.

That means that Republican complaints about Democratic priorities find a receptive audience, at least as long as GOP legislators can point to specific items in the bill that will strike voters as not addressing the nation's short-term economic problems.

The fight over the economic stimulus bill raises questions about how the president will deal with House and Senate Democrats over the long haul. No matter what happens with the stimulus bill -- and some sort of bill is certain to be signed into law sooner or later -- the debate over spending has exposed divisions within the Democratic Party.

Democrats would be wise to remember that they have plenty of time until the 2010 elections to achieve many of their goals and that those elections could actually increase the their Senate majority, giving the party's left even more clout.

And they should not forget that the political dynamic has changed dramatically now that they are in charge and George W. Bush is out of the White House. Congressional Republicans have a rediscovered freedom that will make their arguments far more formidable, both on Capitol Hill and around the country, than they have been for the past couple of years.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on February 9, 2008. 2009 ]]> Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:02:53 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1084457 New Hampshire Senate: Did Republicans Get Rolled in the Granite State? http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1080331
Initial reports that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) would be appointed Commerce secretary were invariably followed with a caveat that Gov. John Lynch (D) had agreed to appoint another Republican to fill the vacancy, thereby maintaining the current Senate balance of power and denying Senate Democrats a 60-vote majority.

The crucial question, however, is not whether New Hampshire's soon-to-be- appointed Senator is a Republican or will caucus with Republicans, but whether she will vote with Democrats to limit debate when other Republicans are trying to keep a filibuster going or pass a key amendment.

If Sen.-designee Bonnie Newman becomes the Democrats' 60th vote to bring the Employee Free Choice Act to the floor (assuming it ever gets that far) or to confirm a judge that other Republicans oppose, it won't matter what her party affiliation is.

In the early 1980s, then-Texas Rep. Phil Gramm still caucused with Democrats for months after he started voting like a Republican and working strategically with members of the GOP.

Some Republicans believe that Newman will vote pretty much as Gregg would have on fiscal matters, though they express less certainty about her vote on cultural matters and education issues.

But conservatives clearly have more than enough reason to worry because all of the praise being heaped on her by New Hampshire Democrats suggests she won't be as reliable as the least dependable of the GOP's current sitting Senators.

Newman, after all, endorsed Lynch when he first sought the governorship in 2002 against the sitting governor, Republican Craig Benson. And she has described herself as a "reasonable Republican" -- not exactly the kind of self-identification that suggests she has an altogether favorable impression of her own party.

Lynch's selection of Newman, who has already indicated she will not seek a full term, is a political masterstroke (as was President Barack Obama's selection of Gregg), even if the more liberal elements of his own party are unhappy that he picked a Republican.

In fact, the trade of Gregg for Newman is so one-sided in favor of Democrats that it is reminiscent of the 1964 deal in which the Chicago Cubs sent future Hall of Famer Lou Brock and two others to the St. Louis Cardinals for aging pitcher Ernie Broglio and others.

Democrats get rid of Gregg, who, had he sought re-election in 2010, would have been the GOP's strongest nominee, and get an open seat to shoot at instead. They get a new Republican Senator who has supported Democrats in the past, calls herself a moderate Republican and has the kind of r]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:14:47 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1080331 New Print Edition: New York 20 & Illinois 5 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1074452 The February 6, 2009 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers.

The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

Here is a brief preview of this edition:

New York 20: Do You Believe in Miracles?
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Over the last four years, Republicans have lost over 50 House seats. But they'll have the first opportunity to takeover a competitive seat in the 2010 cycle.

New York Gov. David Paterson (D) appointed Kirsten Gillibrand (D) to fill Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat, opening up the congresswoman's Hudson-Valley based 20th Congressional District seat. Gillibrand won the seat in 2006 by defeating a tainted incumbent, but she cruised to reelection last cycle in the traditionally Republican district.

Without her incumbency, Democrats will have a tough time holding the seat. The national political environment hasn't improved all that much for Republicans, but....

Get the full story in the print edition by subscribing to the newsletter.

Illinois 5: Rare, Wide-Open Affair

When Rahm Emanuel was elected to Congress in 2002, local Democrats probably thought they wouldn't see another open seat for a few decades. That's because Emanuel had his sights set on becoming Speaker of the House one day. Then Pres. Barack Obama asked him to become his White House chief of staff.

Now, just six years after a crowd of Democrats ran in Illinois' 5th District open seat, a multitude of Democrats are running again. Get the rest of the story in the print edition of the newsletter.]]> Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:33:38 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1074452 House GOP Finds the Right Economic Stimulus Strategy http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1071864
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Republicans who voted against the stimulus bill will have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents.

Americans United for Change President Brad Woodhouse, a veteran Democratic operative who spent the past few years opposing President George W. Bush's approach to Social Security, goes even further, asserting that House Republicans either "committed political suicide" or "proved their irrelevance to the process" in voting unanimously against the package.

In the sweetest of ironies, Woodhouse uses the same partisan Democratic platitudes of the past eight years to accuse Republicans of having "retreated to the partisan games and failed policies of the past eight years."

Nice talking points, but the reality is quite different.

The argument that Republicans will "pay a price" for opposing the bill is entirely speculative. Given that nobody seems quite sure whether the stimulus package that eventually emerges from Congress will actually improve the economy, it's impossible to say with certainty who, if anyone, will be punished for his vote on the bill.

And while the president's popularity now is undeniable, no one can be certain what his standing will be 18 months from now. As Hillary Rodham Clinton can attest, a vote supporting the president's position can look wise at one moment and unwise two years later.

Not surprisingly, Democrats want to neuter the GOP further by wooing them with the promise of bipartisanship. That's a smart and entirely reasonable strategy. But the Democratic view on the role of government, as well as its agenda on specific issues such as taxes, trade, health care, the environment and abortion, is very different from that of Republicans, and GOP House Members wisely stood their ground rather than buying into an approach they are not comfortable with.

Quite often, and certainly in this case, "bipartisanship" is the cry of those who seek dramatic change and are looking for political cover by co-opting the opposition. If things go amiss, it's better to have the opposition in the foxhole with you, taking some of the incoming fire.

But House Republicans did what the opposition almost always does and invariably should do -- they opposed the majority's plan. Democrats have all the votes that they need, so let them do the heavy lifting for a change.

Yes, voters say they want bipartisanship (which is why both parties talk about it), but they really don't. Americans like the idea of bipartisanship, but what they really want is prosperity and security. Bipartisanship is merely the means to that end.

It's true, of course, that voters don't like politicians to sound crassly partisan. Partisan rhetoric strikes them as arrogant and petty, and while most voters want their political leaders to be confident, they don't like cockiness or smugness.

House Republicans were smart last week to talk about their desire to work on a bipartisan package and to respond positively to the president's rhetoric yet blast House Democrats for failing to show the same inclusiveness.

Democrats, of course, complain that in opposing the House package, Republicans voted against a "good bill," to use Gibbs' words. That's why it is up to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his team to stress their specific problems with the bill -- spending that isn't stimulative and would explode the deficit, for example -- rather than merely opposing legislation to jump-start the economy.

Some Democrats are already saying their party now should eliminate provisions that were added to try to get GOP votes, since Republicans are just playing games and really don't want to compromise on a bipartisan bill.

That's probably fine with most Republicans, who suddenly have a slight glimpse of how their party must have looked after 1994, when House GOP leaders adopted an unflattering swagger that turned out to be the first seed of their own eventual destruction.

But adopting a "take it or leave it" strategy would entail risks for Congressional Democrats. After all, the House leadership lost 11 Democrats on the last vote -- did they also commit political suicide by their votes? -- and moving a bill with more spending and fewer tax cuts probably would place additional Democrats in an awkward position.

That doesn't mean Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) couldn't pass a more liberal bill that doesn't even try to woo some GOP support, but it does mean that in doing so, she could well face more opposition within her own ranks and create more electoral problems for some of her recently elected Democratic colleagues. It could also place her at odds with the White House, which still wants to "change the tone" in the nation's capital.

Finally, those who say a recovery would sink GOP House incumbents who voted against the package fail to note a crucial point. If the economy strengthens, voter anger would likely subside and the advantages of incumbency would multiply, making it less likely that voters would fire incumbents of either party. Moreover, Republican incumbents could always argue that they had favored an approach that would have accomplished the same result in a more efficient, cost-effective way.

Any strategy entails some risk. But for House Republicans, choosing to oppose the stimulus package certainly seems reasonable, regardless of whether it actually improves their party's standing.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on February 2, 2009. 2009 ]]> Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:39:20 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1071864 2010 Senate Ratings http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1070580

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (5 R, 0 D)

Bunning (R-KY)
FL Open (Martinez, R)
MO Open (Bond, R)
NH Open (Newman, R)
OH Open (Voinovich, R)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

Burr (R-NC)
Specter (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Bennet (D-CO)
Reid (D-NV)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)

Grassley (R-IA)
KS Open (Brownback, R)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)

Currently Safe (9 R, 13 D)

Bennett (R-UT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Isakson (R-GA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Bayh (D-IN)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burris (D-IL)
Dodd (D-CT)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

]]> Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:22:06 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1070580 New York Senate: On Second Thought, Let's Make That Sen. Gillibrand http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1065865
Kirsten Gillibrand, who was recently appointed to the Senate by New York Gov. David Paterson, is often described by reporters as "little known." That description is accurate, but in most cases, it says more about the reporter or news reader than about the newly sworn-in Senator.

To those of us who follow Congressional races, Gillibrand didn't suddenly appear the day that Paterson appointed her to fill Hillary Rodham Clinton's vacant Senate seat.

I first met Gillibrand on March 8, 2006, still early into her challenge to then-Rep. John Sweeney (R). (New York's September primary often means late-developing contests.)

The young attorney had never before run for office, which was fine, because she seemed to have little chance of upsetting Sweeney in a very Republican district located in northeastern New York.

Yes, early on Gillibrand showed unusual fundraising strength and potential, and yes, she had good political bloodlines and contacts. But the district that she was running in had "more cows than Democrats," according to a veteran upstate political observer, and Gillibrand wasn't at that point regarded by Albany insiders as anything more than a long shot against Sweeney, who had served as state labor commissioner and as executive director of the state Republican Party before coming to Congress.

My initial reaction to meeting and listening to Gillibrand was that she was just the kind of young woman who most people would like to have as their daughter, or their daughter's friend, or their daughter-in-law.

Personable, attractive and well-spoken, she initially struck me as being -- how shall I put it? -- "nice." I liked that. Lots of politicians who I meet aren't nice.

At some point during the interview, I also concluded she was smart and much, much tougher than she initially seemed. Here was an accomplished woman who was thoughtful, down to earth and politically astute.

In late April 2006, after meeting Gillibrand and watching her campaign, I added Sweeney to my list of vulnerable House seats, rating it as "Leans Republican."

Still, the Republican's district looked almost impossible for any Democratic challenger, and Gillibrand eventually won only with the help of the Democratic wave and Sweeney, who allowed himself to be photographed at a Union College fraternity party.

Sweeney's re-election chances also weren't helped when, shortly before the 2006 election, local media reported that 10 months earlier, his wife had accused him of getting rough with her during an argument. Police filed a domestic incident report after being called to the Sweeney home.

Last year, Gillibrand was re-elected easily, even though the GOP nominee was experienced, personable and very wealthy. District voters -- even Republican voters -- liked the Congresswoman.

The new Senator has already drawn criticism from some of her Democratic colleagues who believe she is not liberal enough, particularly on gun control. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a strong advocate of gun control, has said she will primary Gillibrand if no one else does.

But Gillibrand has reflected her district's views on gun-control issues, and there is no way of knowing whether she will alter her stance on that issue when she represents a different set of constituents, many of whom favor more gun control than do the residents of New York's 20th district.

Modifying one's views to reflect political realities and one's constituents isn't unheard of or immoral, and anyone who thinks Gillibrand is going to vote in the Senate the way conservative Reps. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) or Travis Childers (D-Miss.) have in the House is delusional.

Gillibrand obviously benefited from Caroline Kennedy's inept foray into American elective politics -- a bizarre and thankfully brief flirtation with a political career for which the daughter of President John F. Kennedy seems distinctly unsuited.

Like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), Kennedy simply wasn't ready for the political stage onto which she was thrust. Gillibrand, I expect, is. The newly appointed Senator has poise and smarts, and while it isn't clear whether she will have to win (or can win) a competitive primary in two years, she is a proven fundraiser and a proven vote-getter.

I don't know what pressures Kennedy felt to seek the open Senate seat, but it's easy to imagine that her uncle, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy (D), and the rest of the Kennedy clan might have pressured her into an unwise decision. And if that's the case, it's easy to feel sorry for her and less generous to the family members who came up with the bright idea of pushing her into a line of work that she never seemed to want.

The other casualty of the Kennedy-Gillibrand mess, of course, is Paterson, who looks about as inept as embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) looks crooked.

Whether Paterson wooed Caroline Kennedy for the vacancy or she injected herself into the mix -- I've heard it both ways -- the governor clearly left Kennedy to twist in the wind. In doing so, he looked weak and indecisive, and he annoyed and angered the same people in his own party that he had hoped to impress and satisfy. That can't have been a good idea.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 29, 2009. 2009 ]]> Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:48:46 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1065865 Statewide Officials Not Always the Senate Recruits They're Cracked Up to Be http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1063162
Democrats cheered when Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (R) announced he would not challenge newly appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) in 2010. And Republicans breathed a sigh of relief when New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) decided not to take on Sen. Judd Gregg (R) next year. Both were considered strong potential challengers because they are popular statewide officeholders. But looking back over the past four cycles, holding statewide office by no means equals a guaranteed ticket to the U.S. Senate.

There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction by partisan activists to immediately elevate current or former statewide officeholders into the top tier of potential candidates, even though candidates with that profile have had mixed success in recent elections.

Indeed, there are plenty of factors that go into a candidate's ultimate success -- including the partisan leanings of the state, the nature of the cycle (which also impacts a candidate's willingness to run) and the strength of the incumbent or opponent, among other factors. But recent history shows that there is no correlation between Senate success and holding statewide office.

Only seven of the 39 Senators who have been elected over the past four cycles were sitting statewide officials. Meanwhile, over the same time period, seven sitting statewide officials lost bids for Senate.

Former statewide officials make up only eight of the 39 new Senators since 2002, while three former statewide officeholders lost general election bids over the same time period.

This means that of the Senators elected over the past four cycles, less than half were either sitting or former statewide officeholders.

This is encouraging news for the parties when they are recruiting, but it also means their seats aren't safe just because a statewide candidate on the other side of the aisle decides not to run.

Of the 10 freshman Senators elected in 2008, Idaho Lt. Gov. James Risch (R) was the only sitting statewide officeholder to make it to the Senate. State Treasurer John Kennedy (R) lost his race in Louisiana.

Five candidates were former statewide officeholders: now-Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), as well as former Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) who lost his bid.

In 2006, at-large Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) were elected to the Senate, the only statewide officials in their class. Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) lost his bid in Maryland.

That same year Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was a former statewide official who ran while out of office. The rest of his class included two sitting House Members, a mayor, a county attorney, a state Senator and a war hero who had never held elected office.

In 2004, only one of the nine new Senators was elected while holding statewide office: Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar (D). On the flip side, Missouri state Treasurer Nancy Farmer (D) and South Carolina Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum (D) were unsuccessful in their Senate bids.

That class of Senators included four sitting Members of Congress (and one former Member), former Cabinet secretary Mel Martinez (Fla.), who had never held statewide office and Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama (D). Former Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles (D) came up short, but former Rep. John Thune (R), who previously represented an at-large seat, won in South Dakota.

And back in 2002, Arkansas Attorney General Mark Pryor (D) and Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (R) were the only statewide elected official out of the 10 new Senators. Meanwhile, three statewide officials lost, including Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury (D), Louisiana Elections Commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell (R) and Thune, who won two years later.

[This story was updated on 2/3/09 to reflect the fact that Claire McCaskill was the sitting state auditor when she was elected to the Senate.]

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 28, 2009. 2009 ]]> Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:00:38 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1063162 2009-2010 Gubernatorial Ratings http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1060744 2009 races in italics.

*Changes made to reflect the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich (D). Illinois moved to Currently Safe.

Lean Takeover (3 R, 3 D)

CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
HI Open (Lingle, R)
RI Open (Carcieri, R)
KS Open (Sebelius, D)
OK Open (Henry, D)
WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (2 R, 4 D)

Gibbons (R-NV)
SD Open (Rounds, R)
MI Open (Granholm, D)
PA Open (Rendell, D)
TN Open (Bredesen, D)
VA Open (Kaine, D)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

Brewer (R-AZ)
Douglas (R-VT)
Pawlenty (R-MN)
Corzine (D-NJ)
NM Open (Richardson, D)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 5 D)

Rell (R-CT)
AL Open (Riley, R)
GA Open (Perdue, R)
SC Open (Sanford, R)
Doyle (D-WI)
Paterson (D-NY)
Strickland (D-OH)
ME Open (Baldacci, D)
OR Open (Kulongoski, D)

Currently Safe (5 R, 7 D)

Crist (R-FL)
Heineman (R-NE)
Otter (R-ID)
Palin (R-AK)
Perry (R-TX)
Beebe (D-AR)
Culver (D-IA)
Lynch (D-NH)
O'Malley (D-MD)
Quinn (D-IL)
Patrick (D-MA)
Ritter (D-CO)

]]> Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:57:34 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1060744 2010 Senate Races: Another Tough Cycle For the Republicans http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1059371
It's been less than three months since voters went to the polls, but the 2010 Senate cycle is off to one of the fastest starts in memory.

After being pummeled two cycles in a row -- losing six seats in 2006 and what looks like eight seats in 2008 -- Senate Republicans face another challenging cycle. Even though they hold just 41 Senate seats, they are defending 19 of the 36 Senate seats that will be on the ballot next year.

The 2010 class includes 19 GOP-held seats, while the 2012 class has just nine and 2014 has only 13.

Democrats begin with at least half a dozen good opportunities, depending on candidate recruitment and how President Barack Obama performs over the next two years.

While the GOP remains battered, Democrats are likely to have a substantial financial advantage, and four incumbent Republican Senators have already announced they won't seek re-election. Still, the end of the Bush administration and complete Democratic control of the nation's capital could well make things a bit tougher for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this cycle than they have been over the past four years.

Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R), a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame and the first pitcher to win 100 games and record 1,000 strikeouts in both leagues, faces a very difficult race. Three high-profile Democratic statewide officials are looking at a possible challenge, and even GOP insiders are worried about Bunning's strength after his surprisingly narrow 2004 victory against a lightly regarded challenger who is now the state's lieutenant governor.

Bunning, who pitched no-hitters in both leagues (including a perfect game for the Philadelphia Phillies against the New York Mets on Father's Day in 1964), says he is going to run for a third term. But he has plenty of time to reconsider that decision, and the 78-year-old conservative could ultimately conclude that retirement is an appealing option. That decision would not upset party strategists whose first priority is holding the seat.

All four of the GOP's open seats could be battlegrounds, with the safest one on paper, Kansas, actually becoming the most difficult one for Republicans if outgoing Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) opts to make the race. Rep. Jerry Moran (R) is already running and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R) is looking at entering the race -- either one would be a credible contender.

The retirements of Sens. Kit Bond (Mo.), Mel Martinez (Fla.) and George Voinovich (Ohio) surely enhance the DSCC's chances of adding to its 59 seats (provided Democrat Al Franken is eventually seated as the Senator from Minnesota), but the GOP will not give up those seats readily.

Former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who most recently served as director of the Office of Management and Budget and was also the U.S. trade representative, is running in Ohio and gives the National Republican Senatorial Committee a solid candidate. While the DSCC is already portraying him as the "architect" of the Bush administration's economic policies, Portman's mainstream conservatism should fit the state well.

A number of Democrats are looking at the race, including Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Rep. Tim Ryan, and it's virtually certain that the DSCC will have a strong nominee to support financially.

In Missouri, GOP Rep. Roy Blunt is said to be eyeing a possible Senate race, but other Republicans are mentioned as well, including former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman and former Sen. Jim Talent. Party insiders seem inclined to line up behind Blunt, a former secretary of state, if he announces his candidacy.

On the Democratic side, all eyes are on Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, daughter of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan (D) and former Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.). State Attorney General Chris Koster (D) receives mention as well.

In Florida, both parties could see crowded primaries now that former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) and state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) have announced they will take a pass on the Senate contest.

On the GOP side, former state Speaker Marco Rubio, Attorney General Bill McCollum and a handful of Republican House Members, including Rep. Connie Mack IV, are mentioned. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) has already jumped in the race, and least two other Congressional Democrats and the state Senate Minority Leader are said to be mulling bids. Just don't pay too much attention to the early polling in that state.

After those contests, the focus turns to candidate recruitment against incumbents, with Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and David Vitter (R-La.) topping the list of possible Democratic targets and with Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) topping the NRSC's list.

There are a few other seats that are worth mentioning. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is serving his fifth term, so Democrats will try to recruit a strong challenger, if only to try to encourage him to consider retirement.

Some observers regard the Illinois Senate seat to which Ronald Burris (D) was just appointed as a tossup. I don't. I see it as clearly favoring Democrats.

While there are a number of scenarios that would put that seat into play, each would require a series of developments that would enhance GOP prospects -- from the candidacy of Rep. Mark Kirk (R) to Burris running for re-election and state voters seeing the Senate race as a referendum on embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and state Democratic corruption.

While all of that is possible, it strikes me as far too premature to assume that all of the dominos will fall the GOP's way in a state that has become reliably Democratic.

Democrats are well-positioned to add to their numbers in the Senate in next year's elections. But how the public's mood evolves during the next 20 months will tell us the extent of that opportunity, or whether it even exists.

Correction: In the Jan. 22 edition of my column, I misidentified Henry Barbour. He, of course, is the nephew of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 26, 2009. 2009 ]]> Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:23:16 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1059371 Kentucky Senate: Bunning - Mongiardo Trading Cards http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1057027
2004 Mongiardo-Bunning Trading Cards

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Politics & Governmen Presentations & Slid elections baseball

]]> Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:27:27 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1057027 Obama Begins Presidency With High Marks Across the Board http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1057026
Barack Obama begins his presidency with stratospheric marks among Democrats and the support of a fair amount of Republicans who voted against him.

According to a Research 2000 poll done for the liberal blog Daily Kos and released Friday afternoon, Obama enjoys 77 percent favorable/20 percent unfavorable ratings among all adults. Unsurprisingly, Democrats gave him a 93 percent favorable/4 percent unfavorable rating, but Obama's numbers among Republicans weren't terrible either (43 percent favorable/54 percent unfavorable). The survey of 2,400 adults was conducted Jan. 19-22.

While Obama cruised to a 365-173 Electoral College win, his popular vote victory of 53 percent to 46 percent was much narrower. More than 69 million people voted for the former Illinois Senator, but 60 million people voted against him.

Now, Obama voters and many McCain voters approve of the transition, are happy about the inauguration and feel as patriotic as ever.

According to a Jan. 12-15 Opinion Research Corp. poll for CNN, 84 percent of adult Americans approved of Obama's handling of the transition, while only 14 percent disapproved. In 2001, 61 percent approved of former President George W. Bush's transition from the Clinton administration after the contentious election, while 25 percent disapproved.

Sixty-eight percent of adults said they were thrilled or happy about the inauguration before it happened, while only 16 percent were unhappy or depressed. By comparison, 50 percent said they were thrilled or happy about Bush's second inauguration in 2005, and 22 percent were unhappy or depressed.

And once again, Americans are feeling patriotic in this inaugural season. According to the CNN poll, 83 percent said they were extremely or very proud to be an American, the same percentage as in January 2005. In 2001, 87 percent said they were extremely or very proud to be an American.

Finally, Obama enjoyed a 78 percent favorable/17 percent unfavorable rating in the mid-January CNN poll. Bush had a 62 percent favorable/36 percent unfavorable rating when he entered the White House and left with a 35 percent favorable/60 percent unfavorable rating.

Although Obama starts his presidency with high approval numbers, these polls were conducted before he had to make concrete policy decisions that could alienate some voters. Only time will tell how long Obama can sustain this level of popularity.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on January 24, 2009. 2009 ]]> Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:27:26 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1057026 2009-2010 Gubernatorial Ratings http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1055621 2009 races in italics.

Lean Takeover (3 R, 3 D)

CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
HI Open (Lingle, R)
RI Open (Carcieri, R)
KS Open (Sebelius, D)
OK Open (Henry, D)
WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Toss-Up (2 R, 4 D)

Gibbons (R-NV)
SD Open (Rounds, R)
MI Open (Granholm, D)
PA Open (Rendell, D)
TN Open (Bredesen, D)
VA Open (Kaine, D)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

Brewer (R-AZ)
Douglas (R-VT)
Pawlenty (R-MN)
Corzine (D-NJ)
NM Open (Richardson, D)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 6 D)

Rell (R-CT)
AL Open (Riley, R)
GA Open (Perdue, R)
SC Open (Sanford, R)
Blagojevich (D-IL)
Doyle (D-WI)
Paterson (D-NY)
Strickland (D-OH)
ME Open (Baldacci, D)
OR Open (Kulongoski, D)

Currently Safe (5 R, 6 D)

Crist (R-FL)
Heineman (R-NE)
Otter (R-ID)
Palin (R-AK)
Perry (R-TX)
Beebe (D-AR)
Culver (D-IA)
Lynch (D-NH)
O'Malley (D-MD)
Patrick (D-MA)
Ritter (D-CO)

]]> Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:27:35 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1055621 RNC Race Too Close to Call as Election Approaches http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1053310
Races for national party chairman invariably are covered as if they are presidential campaigns. That's understandable, since elections are involved. But it's also misleading.

When Republican National Committee members gather in the nation's capital at the end of this month to select a new party chairman, the contest will much more resemble a fraternity chapter meeting rather than an election for the U.S. House.

Veterans of contests for party chairman say that these races are more about the national committee members -- whom they have built relationships with and are comfortable with -- than about where the contenders stand on issues, what states they come from or, sometimes, even what specific assets they would bring to the post.

National committee members are an insular group, greatly valuing their experiences on the national committee and doubting the ability of anyone who has not been part of their fraternity to make decisions that will guide their party to victory. Anytime there is a fight for national party chairman, that attitude plays a significant role in advantaging some contenders and all but disqualifying others.

Since few national party chairman hopefuls bring the perfect combination of media skill, ideological fit, fundraising ability, organizational skill and experience, and unimpeachable neutrality (for internal party maneuverings) that would make them ideal for the job, chairmanship decisions often turn on personal factors.

This year's RNC race increasingly appears to be a three- or possibly four-person contest, with the current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, holding a tenuous but not insignificant advantage over former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, with Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis and South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson fighting it out for third.

Former Tennessee GOP Chairman Chip Saltsman hurt himself seriously by circulating a controversial song, while former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has never been on the RNC and therefore lacks a crucial credential in this election.

Blackwell has the support of many high-profile conservative activists, including some whose influence has waned over the past 20 years, but while supporters are fervent, his ceiling in this contest is relatively low.

Dawson's membership in an all-white country club and his Southern base are problems, especially after Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former national chairman who remains extremely popular and influential within the RNC, suggested that the party would not benefit from picking a Southerner to head the national party. Still, two recent endorsements, by Mississippi national committeeman Henry Barbour (Haley's brother) and New Jersey's David Norcross, have boosted Dawson's standing in the race.

Duncan leads at the moment because he is a known quantity and is perceived as a safe choice by committee members. He has interacted with his colleagues on the national committee for years, building the kind of personal relationships that often pay off in these kinds of votes.

Well-placed sources also say that the current RNC chairman is the choice of one-time master White House strategist Karl Rove, who apparently believes that he can continue to exert significant influence on the direction of the party as long as Duncan is in charge.

But Duncan's election would send a bizarre message of continuity and status quo to a party that has suffered two consecutive election cycles of stinging defeats. Even RNC members who feel personally comfortable with the sitting RNC chairman might not be willing to do that. And even though Duncan surely isn't responsible for his party's problems, even party insiders understand that they need to send a message of change.

Steele, who chaired the Maryland GOP (or what's left of the state party after decades of atrophy), obviously has plenty of assets, including a strong TV presence and the fact that he, like Blackwell, is black. Some complain that he isn't conservative enough, and even some of his friends say that he can be a loose cannon. But he surely would send a message of change to the country.

Anuzis is a savvy political insider who has spent the past couple of years increasing his visibility (including his use of new media). He's outgoing and personable, with a style that's more blue-collar than country club. But he's also widely seen more as a political operative than a leader, and the Michigan GOP's recent electoral failures are hampering his bid.

The Michigan Republican's strategy is both interesting and astute. He is, as one insider described it, "just trying to hang around," hoping to become something of a consensus alternative if RNC members ultimately decide that they cannot afford to send a status quo message by re-electing Duncan or risk the uncertainty of turning the national party over to the unpredictable Steele.

Right now, the RNC race is clearly up for grabs, with no candidate within shouting distance of a majority. That may well be the case when national committee members gather in Washington next week to select a party chairman.

The election of the next RNC chairman won't make or break the Republican Party. The party's image cannot be resurrected overnight, and President Barack Obama's performance is much more important as a factor in a GOP revival than is the selection of the next chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Still, the selection will send a message and, possibly, elevate a new party spokesman. And while this is just the first of many tests for the GOP, often the first test can set the stage for others.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 22, 2009. 2009 ]]> Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:03:18 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1053310 New Print Edition: 2009-2010 Gubernatorial Outlook http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1052363 The January 23, 2009 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers.

The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as quarterly House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

Here is a brief preview of this edition:

2009-2010 Gubernatorial Outlook
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Last year was considered a "light" year for governors, with only eleven states electing a chief executive. But over the next two years, 38 states will vote for governor, including at least 17 open seats, and nine of the ten most populous states in the country.

Democrats gained a governorship in 2008, bringing their nationwide advantage to 29-21. But Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano's (D) appointment to the Obama cabinet, and the subsequent succession by Secretary of State Jan Brewer (R) to the state's top office, brought the governors back to pre-2008 levels: 28 Democrats and 22 Republicans.

It's way too early to handicap overall prospects, but Republicans could make significant gains in governorships in 2010. Democrats must now defend in a number of GOP-leaning states (such as Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Tennessee) that they've held for six years but are coming open because of term limits. On the other hand, Republicans will have difficulty holding California and smaller Democratic states such as Hawaii and Rhode Island.

Subscribers to the print edition get a state-by-state rundown and analysis of all 38 races. ]]> Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:16:18 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1052363 2010 Senate Ratings http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1051500

Lean Takeover (0 R, 0 D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 0 D)

Bunning (R-KY)
FL Open (Martinez, R)
MO Open (Bond, R)
OH Open (Voinovich, R)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 2 D)

Burr (R-NC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Specter (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Bennet (D-CO)
Reid (D-NV)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 2 D)

Grassley (R-IA)
KS Open (Brownback, R)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)

Currently Safe (9 R, 13 D)

Bennett (R-UT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Isakson (R-GA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Bayh (D-IN)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burris (D-IL)
Dodd (D-CT)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

]]> Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:50:29 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1051500 New York 20: Treadwell Not Running http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1051499
With Republican and Democratic candidates scrambling for position in the special election in New York's 20th District, 2008 GOP nominee Sandy Treadwell is not jumping into the race, according to GOP sources.

Treadwell, who spent almost $6 million of his own money last cycle in his 61%-38% loss to Cong. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), expressed interest early on, and even released public statements saying as much, but will not ultimately throw his name into consideration. According to GOP insiders, he is currently out of the Empire State and is not making immediate moves toward another run.

Meanwhile state Sen. Betty Little (R) who has already announced her candidacy. And according to the Albany Times-Union, the Saratoga County GOP has decided to back Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco and the Greene County GOP is with 2006 gubernatorial nominee John Faso.

There will not be a primary for the special election, instead the party nominees will be chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees. Saratoga carries the most weight in the 10-county district.

Not only would Treadwell not have Saratoga County, but he likely wouldn't have his home county of Essex, where he is the former county party chairman.

"[Little] is our state senator, and before that she was our assemblywoman," Essex County GOP Chairman Ronald Jackson said Saturday night. "It's unlikely we'd support anyone else as long as she's in the race."

"I'd say she's the best candidate. She has the experience. And it would be a woman replacing a woman," Jackson added. The current Essex chairman also said that he spoke with Treadwell about a week ago about his interest in the race, but hasn't heard from him since.

Gov. David Paterson (D) recently appointed Cong. Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate to fill the vacany left by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, prompting a special election in the 20th Congressional District.]]> Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:50:28 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1051499 California 44: Hedrick Readies Rematch http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1049598
Democrat Bill Hedrick came close to becoming one of the surprise winners of the 2008 Election, when the president of the Rialto Education Association lost to Republican Cong. Ken Calvert 51%-49% in California's 44th District.

He was severely outspent by the incumbent, approximately $1.1 million to $180,000, received no help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and his candidacy was nowhere near the national discussion of potential Democratic takeovers across the country.

Hedrick told the Report in an interview on Thursday that he has no interest in becoming a perennial candidate, but is committed to running again in 2010. And he's making his case to potential donors and supporters who ignored him last cycle.BillHedrickforCongress2010Packet

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Politics & Governmen Presentations & Slid california republican

]]> Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:49:44 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1049598 Recruiting Battles Set To Kick Off http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1046893
Each election cycle, the competing interests of the various campaign committees collide when it comes to candidate recruitment efforts, as a victory for one arm sometimes leaves an open-seat headache for another.

There are already a handful of House Members being mentioned as possible candidates for Senate and governor in 2010 whose departures would leave big holes for their respective parties to fill.

In Illinois, Republicans want Rep. Mark Kirk to run for the seat now held by appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D). He might be Republicans' best chance for capturing the seat, but holding his House seat is another story.

Even though Kirk scored an impressive re-election win last fall, the National Republican Congressional Committee would have great difficulty retaining the 10th district seat without the incumbent. Barack Obama won 61 percent in the district, according to analysis compiled by the community at Swing State Project, a Democratic blog.

Senate Republicans would also like Rep. Mike Castle (Del.) to run for Joseph Biden's former seat and for Rep. Peter King (N.Y.) to run for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D) seat if she is confirmed as secretary of State. That would put two more traditionally Democratic Senate seats in play for the GOP but would result in more NRCC migraines.

But as a Senate GOP strategist explained, parochial interests often trump partisan ones when it comes to recruiting, especially with Democrats almost at the 60-seat filibuster-proof threshold.

"One to two seats make a difference in the Senate," the strategist said. "The House has a ways to go to regain the majority."

At this point, more House Republicans appear to be looking at gubernatorial races, and by and large the seats they leave behind won't be as difficult to hold.

Rep. Zach Wamp (R) has already announced his bid for governor in Tennessee, but he leaves behind a heavily Republican district. Similarly, the NRCC shouldn't have to worry about the seats held by GOP Reps. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Jo Bonner (Ala.), Mary Fallin (Okla.) and Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) if they all run for governor. Hoekstra has already announced he will not seek re-election.

The one problem spot could be in Pennsylvania, where Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) has said he is thinking about running for governor in 2010. His suburban Philadelphia seat would be a prime Democratic pickup opportunity.

GOP Reps. Mike Rogers (Mich.) and Greg Walden (Ore.) have also both been mentioned as possible gubernatorial candidates, and Democrats would certainly make a play for their seats if they were to vacate them. But both men were just given new leadership roles at the NRCC, so their departures seem unlikely.

One House GOP operative said that the desire of Members to advance politically is par for the course and that committees learn to expect, and deal with, the open seats.

"Both Democrats and Republicans will face their share of House Members seeking higher office," the strategist said.

Ultimately, a party's ability to hold on to a difficult seat depends on several factors, including the overall political climate and the bench of aspiring candidates waiting to run.

In Texas, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) appears to be running for governor in 2010 and party strategists want her to remain in the Senate while she runs -- her seat is not up for re-election until 2012 -- instead of resigning early and forcing a special election. Houston Mayor Bill White (D) has said he will run if there is a special election in 2010, and GOP strategists worry that he might have a shot at winning, depending on when the special election is scheduled.

Over the past three cycles, Democrats have held 15 of 16 House seats vacated by Members running for higher office, and one of two Senate seats. Republicans have had more trouble recently, holding 14 of 21 open House seats where a Member left to run for something else.

Last cycle, House Democrats were able to limit the number of retirements, in part because only 11 states elected governors and only three of those races were open seats. In 2010, 36 states will elect a governor, including at least 15 open seats, allowing for a lot more upward movement.

Among Democrats, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) is widely believed to be interested in her state's open governorship next year. She's probably the only Democrat who could win the top executive job, but she's also probably the only Democrat who could hold her at-large seat in the House.

"Committees know and respect that candidate recruitment is paramount for all of us," Democratic Governors Association Executive Director Nathan Daschle said. "Sometimes this puts the committees at odds with one another, but everyone understands that we are all working toward the same goal -- supporting Democratic leadership at all levels of government."

South Dakota is one example of a seat the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would have difficulty defending. President George W. Bush won there by 22 points in 2004 and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won by 8 points in November.

The DCCC would also have a tough time holding Tennessee's 4th district if Rep. Lincoln Davis (D) runs for governor. Bush won the district by 17 points in 2004 and McCain carried it by 10. (Correction- McCain won it by 30 points!)

"If a Member thinks this is their moment, it would be difficult to dissuade them," one House Democratic strategist said.

Alabama Rep. Artur Davis (D) is also exploring a gubernatorial bid, but he would leave behind a very Democratic district. Democratic candidates would also start with the advantage if Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) run for governor.

Other potential House vacancies would be more problematic for the DCCC.

New York Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) has met with Gov. David Paterson (D) about being named to Clinton's Senate seat. She beat a scandal-tainted GOP incumbent in 2006, but her easy 2008 re-election belies the Republican lean of the district.

Similarly, Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) is mentioned as a potential candidate for Senate and an open 18th district seat would be a GOP opportunity.

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler (D) is creating a buzz as a potential Senate candidate as well, particularly since former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to be in Raleigh next week for a fundraiser on Shuler's behalf. He could probably have his 11th district seat as long as he wants it, but if he leaves, Republicans would target the seat McCain carried by 5 points and Bush by 14 points in 2004.

In Florida, Democratic Reps. Allen Boyd and Ron Klein are eyeing running for Senate, although Boyd's district would be harder to hold than Klein's would be.

And some Democrats want Rep. Ben Chandler (D) to challenge Sen. Jim Bunning (R) in Kentucky. Chandler was first elected to Congress in a February 2004 special election, succeeding Rep. Ernie Fletcher (R), who had been elected governor.

The Kentucky seat was the only one House Republicans lost in the 2004 cycle because of a Member leaving to run for higher office. The GOP held all seven seats vacated by Members running for Senate and even picked up one Democratic-held open seat vacated because of a Senate run.

Two years later, in 2006, Republicans lost swing districts in Colorado, Wisconsin and Iowa when Members ran for governor, but they held on to six other open seats that were more Republican in nature.

Democrats held onto all of their open seats that year, on their way to winning the House and Senate majorities.

Last cycle, Republicans lost a seat in Mississippi and two in New Mexico when Members left to run for the Senate. They only managed to keep now-Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) seat in Louisiana. Democrats had to defend and hold only very Democratic districts in Maine, Colorado and New Mexico.

"Fortunately, we are living in an era when the Democratic message is resonating all across the country," Daschle said. "With so many qualified candidates out there, I am certain that we'll all meet our recruiting goals."

This story first appeared in Roll Call on January 20, 2009. 2009 ]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:14:01 -0800 http://virb.com/nathanlgonzales/posts/text/1046893