Washington, DC
Vol. 41, No. 19a
To: Our Readers
- Armitage was the source in the Plame Affair, but his recollection of the conversation appears faulty
- A closer look at three key Connecticut races, with the GOP playing defense
- Rep. Geoff Davis campaign out of intensive care, but still facing trouble this fall
- Yesterday’s primary results finalize party candidates for all competitive House races
- Senate campaign status next week
Outlook
- A stock rally coupled with a massive plunge in crude oil, gasoline and heating oil prices is creating new hope for Republicans that voter anger will be assuaged by November.
- The good economic news coincided with President George W. Bush‘s blitz on national security for a marked September lift of Republican spirits after the summer malaise. Bush’s modest breakthrough in the polls has led to sudden optimism that Republicans can hold both the House and Senate.
- There is no question that Democrats are exceedingly nervous about Republicans’ playing the national-security card. That is shown by Democratic overreaction to the ABC docudrama "The Road to 9/11" and President Bush’s citation of the Iraq war in his 9/11 speech to the nation.
- However, the Republican-controlled Congress is not going to satisfy the party’s base on the two issues that most concern it: immigration and government spending. On immigration, there is no chance of legislation is reaching the President’s desk because of GOP disagreement on guest-worker programs. On spending, a battle royal in the House is looming on controlling earmarks.
- Democrats remain certain, however, that they will win control of the House. They are, figuratively, picking out the draperies—that is, already filling committee staff positions.
- The Republican establishment in Tuesday’s primaries went one-for-two in imposing its will on the party’s rank and file. The party leaders felt they had to defeat popular conservative candidates for the Rhode Island Senate seat and the Arizona 8th congressional district in order to have a real chance to hold the seats. They succeeded in Rhode Island, failed in Arizona.
Democrat-Held House Seats In Play |
|||
Likely Democratic Retention |
Tossup |
Likely Republican Takeover |
|
Leans Dem |
Leans GOP |
||
IL-17 (Open) |
GA-8 (Marshall) |
IL-8 (Bean) |
|
LA-3 (Melancon) |
GA-12 (Barrow) |
||
OH-13 (Open) |
IA-3 (Open) |
||
|
OH-6 (Open) |
||
|
PA-12 (Murtha) |
||
|
SC-5 (Spratt) |
||
|
TX-17 (Edwards) |
||
|
VT-AL (Open) |
||
|
WV-1 (Mollohan) |
Democrats have recruited three top-notch candidates to face the state’s Republican incumbents. The three share in common the fact that they have run for and held office before. All have polished personal and campaign skills, and two have run competitive races for Congress before, meaning that they probably do not have any personal skeletons that haven’t already been unearthed. All have conformed largely to the DCCC playbook in framing their issues and running their campaigns.
Democrats here also hope to make inroads by criticizing the Medicare Part D prescription-drug benefit They hope to make this a top-three campaign issue, but this is probably too clever by half. The so-called "donut hole" issue, which all three candidates are discussing, is already complicated and confusing for anyone outside of Washington (or inside it, for that matter). But the biggest problem with the drug issue is the way in which Part D’s creation neutered it.
One must look back to the late 1990s to see how powerful the prescription drug issue once was to understand this point. As long as Democrats were able to complain that Republicans would do nothing to help the elderly afford drugs, the issue was a slam-dunk. President Bush’s team was so frightened of the issue that they campaigned on a large drug plan (for indigent retirees), and then created an even larger one in his first term (for every retiree). Conservatives always complained that the benefit would never create votes for the GOP, but this was not quite the point. The existence of Part D means that now any talk about the issue becomes a question of tinkering with what’s already there. That makes this a much weaker, more marginal issue now. It quells previously existing discontent.
The Democratic candidates strongly disagree with this view, but 74 percent or more of the retirees in each of the three districts have already signed up for the plan (roughly 86 percent of Connecticut retirees have some kind of government drug plan). So the plan could not have been that confusing for people.
The big hope of Republicans is to keep their races local — but not all of them are doing what they need to.
Could the strange Senate dynamics hurt Democrats? We do not believe so. Although this race has created a potential national problem for their party — afraid of public image on national security — it has not created a nasty split among Democrats in Connecticut. Supporters of both Lamont and Lieberman can be found working side by side on the Democratic House campaigns. The equation on the Democratic side has hardly changed, although now two Democratic constituencies — anti-war and pro-Israel — both have greater reason to show up and vote.
Ultimately, the Senate race is probably a wash in terms of what it will do for the three competitive House races.
A politician who delivers like that, who returns to his district almost every week and who expects a tough race every cycle, is very hard to beat. Simmons is just the kind of candidate who could survive the large Democratic wave many expect this year. But this district, which has a history of close results, poses a great challenge to him every time.
Democrats argue that layoffs in local industry cancel out the advantage Simmons has after saving the sub base. They point out that former State Rep. Joe Courtney (D) is running a much better campaign than he did in 2002, having entered the race much earlier this time and having no primary to worry about. He is better funded and has a national Democratic wind at his back. He leads by six points in one recent independent poll, but the sample for that poll is much more Democratic and less independent than the district. This race is probably close to a tie at the moment. The two candidates will debate on Monday. Leaning Republican Retention.
Despite a recent poll showing Shays ahead by seven points — a poll from the same company we believe is mis-polling the Simmons race — we think that Shays has much bigger problems this time around than he did in 2004. He will lean on his liberal reputation and his willingness to buck the more conservative House leadership. But he keeps going back and forth over Iraq when the issue can only hurt him. His cause is not hopeless — he knows how to win a tough fight because he has done it many times before — but we believe he is trailing. Leaning Democratic Takeover.
Johnson, a moderate, has racked up large enough margins in most years that Democrats have been afraid to challenge her. But State Sen. Chris Murphy (D), a left-wing legislator who is young, intelligent and very articulate, decided to take a shot this year. We were first alerted to this possibility in January 2005 through the progressive-left network with which Murphy keeps ideological company.
Murphy comes off as very sincere in conversation. He has shown real smarts so far in how he has handled Johnson’s early attack ads, and he’s also proven that he can raise some money. His record may be a bit left of the district — Kerry won here with only 49 percent — but he is good enough on his feet to defend his principles.
Plus, if a campaign about the intricacies of the Medicare drug plan were to work anywhere, they are most likely to work against the entrenched incumbent who designed and managed the bill on the House floor. But Johnson feels confident enough that she is advertising based on the drug plan. Murphy has the ability to keep it within 10 points, but he remains a long-shot. Johnson has never been one to take it easy, which is how she has kept such a blue district in her column for so long. Johnson is already running her seventh ad of the race, a clear sign that her campaign recognizes the seriousness of the challenge.
Johnson also has money to burn. She already enjoyed a large cash advantage at the end of the second quarter, and that advantage will probably widen with next month’s filing, despite all the advertising. Leaning Republican Retention.
Democrats are happy just to have this race on the table at all, and the late, baffling decision by Lucas (who retired in 2004) to attempt a comeback was a huge boon for them. But the race could quickly turn into a money pit if they aren’t careful. The DCCC has reserved airtime here but is not currently running ads, according to "The Hotline."
Davis is in a tough spot for an incumbent — he’s below 50 percent, and many voters will still think Lucas is the incumbent. Davis nearly beat Lucas in 2002, but this year is obviously different in terms of the national mood.
We’re pulling this race back into the tossup category, leaving just three "likely," as opposed to "leaning," Democratic takeovers. Leaning Democratic Takeover.
Reichert holds a suburban Seattle district that has always been tough for Republicans, but which Republicans have held for several years. Democrats would love to knock off Reichert with their candidate, businesswoman Darcy Burner (D), who is both wealthy and adept at fundraising. Burner has spent early, while Reichert has bided his time until now. She still has more than enough on hand for a competitive race. Leaning Republican Retention.
Republican-Held House Seats In Play
|
|||
Likely Republican Retention |
Tossup
|
Likely Democratic Takeover |
|
Leans GOP
|
Leans Dem
|
||
AZ-1 (Renzi) |
AZ-5 (Hayworth) |
CO-7 (Open) |
AZ-8 (Open) |
CA-11 (Pombo) |
CT-2 (Simmons) |
CT-4 (Shays) |
IN-9 (Sodrel) |
CO-4 (Musgrave) |
CT-5 (Johnson) |
IA-1 (Open) |
TX-22 (Open) |
FL-8 (Keller) |
FL-22 (Shaw) |
IL-6 (Open) |
|
FL-13 (Open) |
MN-6 (Open) |
IN-2 (Chocola) |
|
IL-11 (Weller) |
NM-1 (Wilson) |
IN-8 (Hostettler) |
|
KY-3 (Northup) |
NY-24 (Open) |
KY-4 (Davis) |
|
NH-2 (Bass) |
OH-15 (Pryce) |
NC-11 (Taylor) |
|
NV-3 (Porter) |
OH-18 (Open) |
OH-1 (Chabot) |
|
NY-20 (Sweeney) |
PA-7 (Weldon) |
PA-6 (Gerlach) |
|
TX-23 (Bonilla) |
PA-8 (Fitzpatrick) |
VA-2 (Drake) |
|
WY-AL (Cubin) |
PA-10 (Sherwood) |
WI-8 (Open) |
|
|
WA-8 (Reichert) |
|
|
Democrats need to net 15 seats to take control of the House. Democrats +14, Republicans -14.
This probably ensures that Democrats will not make the race against Rep. Jeb Bradley (R) competitive this time. His strongest potential foe, former Manchester Mayor Robert Baines, was defeated for re-election last year. Strong Republican Retention.
The National Republican Campaign Committee, confident of a Kagen victory, had already begun running ads against him before the primary in order to prevent him from running away with the race. Republicans hope to publicize the number of patients Kagen has sued, and other problems with the political novice, until November.
The question is whether Kagen’s massive personal wealth can buy him any more good will within the district than it already has. If Kagen is already at the point of diminishing returns, then Gard is likely to come back and win in what is natural Republican territory — even if it looks shaky at the moment. Leaning Democratic Takeover.
Chafee has a much better chance of keeping the seat in Republican hands than Laffey would have had, even if many Republicans would just as soon see him go. Leaning Republican Retention.
Sincerely, | |
![]() |
|
Robert D. Novak |
