2010 senate elections

In the wake of NY 23  all eyes pointed to the Club for Growth to ascertain where they would jump in next to promote fiscally conservative candidates. And in light of this article, one wonders if they have CT in mind as one of their next venues  

Beyond Florida, other establishment Republicans may be looking over their shoulders. Chocola, a former House Republican from Indiana, noted that he served with Rep. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and former Rep. Rob Simmons (R., Conn.), both running for the Senate.

“They’re both good guys, but they don’t fit the bill as Club for Growth candidates,” he said.

Before his organization decides to jump in, however, he said the group has to see how those races develop, and whether a clear “Club” alternative surfaces.

“The best Kirk and Simmons can expect is that we leave them alone,” Chocola said.

So, Simmons, who has had to revise prior positions on cap and trade; as well as card check, and recently made a rather conciliatory statement on the public option, might find himself not just  overlooked by the fiscal conservative masterminds, but even challenged by a serious committment of time and resources by the Club.  The Club may not always succeed, but their targets are always aware the Club tried.

So, who would the Club for Growth think would be a viable opponent for Chris Dodd?  Who is fiscally conservative enough to warrant their support, a candidate capable of actually winning against Dodd in the general election, and a candidate who actually could use their support?.

There are four other Republicans in the U.S. Senate race besides Simmons. I believe we can write off two names.  Linda McMahon is , of course, "the Wild RINO". Besides, why should the Club send some of its limited money to CT to subsidize a self-funding billionaire? 

Peter Schiff, the former Ron Paul advisor, is certainlly in favor of limited government, but his agenda is so doctrinaire as to make him a very poor investment of Club resources. Perhaps Idaho is ready for 180 proof libertarianism; CT, not so much. Besides, his campaign to date has just done moneybombs and has no traction on the ground.

That leaves Tom Foley and Sam Caligiuri. Foley has been running cute ads with babies, but he's never run a political campaign and whether he can win an election is an open question.

There's one candidate running in CT right now who a) has a proven record of fiscal conservatism and b) has a proven record of winning elections. That's Sam Caligiuri.

2010 might be exactly the year to run a state senator who stood up against a Governor in his own party to vote "no" on an ultimately disasterous state budget. And that made Sam Caligiuri the only CT State Senator to oppose a budget that left the state in a huge deficit. 

It might also be a good year to run a candidate who won a formerly Democratic legislative seat in the Democratic tsunami of 2006.      

And given the issue environment, it might make sense to run a candidate praised for his ability on the stump and described as a "proud Reagan Republican"

I have no idea what the decision making processes at the Club are. Certaintly Rob Simmons is a far cry from the elasticity of Charlie Crist--Simmons is a good guy and generally helpful to other Republicans.  But the Club is looking for alternative to the "Certified Pre-Owned Candidates".

Sam Caligiuri is the sort of guy they would be looking at in Connecticut. And, they did sound like they wanted to play, now didn't they?

On June 27, 2009 I posted the following opining on the detrimental effect Mark Kirk's vote on Cap & Trade would have outside his yuppie district on Chicago's North Shore as he campaigned for the Senate.

this bill is going to appeal to the vocal but few Saab Socialists who put the environment ahead of the economy. It is going to be painfully unpopular with blue collar America. Maybe Dave Reichert's uber green district will like it; but if Mark Kirk or Mike Castle think this isn't going to backfire on them big time in Rockford and New Castle they are going to find the Democrats whacking them with their own bill next November.

I remember saying that Mark Kirk would have to do this sorta thing to win a statewide race

Specifically -- a video of Mr. Kirk's speech is posted on YouTube -- a congressman known for his pro-environmental stances said he voted the way he did on this issue because, "It was in the narrow interests of my congressional district."But," he quickly added as some in the Republican crowd booed, "as your (senator), representing the entire state of Illinois, I would vote 'no' against the bill coming up, and that's because we are manufacturing, agriculture and coal state

And now we find that this bill is not going to be considered by the Senate until 2010, perhaps because it's liable to cost every family $1761/per year

Panasonic. Again

One of the first important tests of the Republican party in 2010 will involve a suburban Irish "Generation Jones" attorney from the Northeast.

No, it's not me. Although I have a lot of similarities to the Republican candidate to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate, State Senator Scott Brown (one difference is I do not have a child with any entertainment talent)

No, Brown is more of the sort of candidate we need to be running--a self-starter who rose up the ranks from the vast suburban middle class.

The Massachusetts Republicans almost made the same mistake many Republicans are making for 2010---running a certified pre-owned candidate.   However, former Bush 43 Chief  of Staff Andrew Card declined to run for the open seat.

So, let's answer two quick questions. Is Brown a guy worth backing and does he have a plausible hope of winning?

I think yes.

Before Senator Kennedy's untimely demise the Boston Globe was touting Brown as a rising star in the Republican ranks.  The Globe pointed out that Brown won re-election against a well-funded Democratic opponent by 18 points in a district where Barack Obama won by 20 points. Why? Perhaps because Brown was perceived as a problem-solver and a straight shooter.

Brown is focusing his campaign as being a fiscal conservative and a Washington outsider.  Ironically, this sort of persona worked well for candidates for Massachusetts Governor for over a decade, starting with the admittedly more liberal William Weld.  But until Deval Patrick won in 2006, Massachusetts Republicans had a long streak of winning non-presidential elections.  (Patrick is now painfully unpopular)

This makes one question whether Massachusetts reputation as a one -party bastion is somewhat inflated by increased presidential year election turnout.

In 2006 Deval Patrick received about 1.2 million votes. But the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in the contested 1990, 1998 and 2002 elections received between 900,000 to 1,100,000 votes; the Republican candidates ranged from a low of 985,000 to Weld's 1,175,000 and received a remarkably constant % of the total vote cast---from 50.8% to 49.8%

On the other hand, Republican presidential candidates in 2004 and 2008 got...hmmm...about 1.1 million votes in Massachusetts.

So it seems the Republican vote might be a bit "stickier"  in MA then the Democratic vote,  which baloons in high turnout contests, and this makes a difference when the special election is scheduled for January 19, 2010, when weather conditions in New England are likely to be adverse.

If we are going to sneak over the finish line in the Bay State, this might be the best chance to do it.

One thing which will be critical is whether the Democratic primary on December 8 turns out to be a bloodbath. The present contenders are Attorney General Martha Coakley, Congressman Mike Capuano and Congressman Stephen Lynch

All three contenders are from Boston or its urbanized close-in suburbs. Coakley leads in early polls, but lacks the seven figure warchest of the incumbent congressmen. No woman has won a major office in Massachusetts history, Coakley would be the first.  Of the House members, Capuano has a reputation as a a wonkish but doctrinaire liberal; Lynch is a blue-collar pro-union pro-life candidate who may appeal to swing voters but could struggle in a feminist dominated statewide primary.

So, the chance for blood on the floor is there. But the geography is also important.  Brown is from the area Republicans have traditionally amassed statewide margins--the I-495 belt on the fringe of the Boston media market.

In the 2002 election almost 80% of the the total vote in the Commonwealth was cast in the Boston media market and Romney won by more than his statewide plurality here; Democrat Shannon O' Brien actually carried the areas in the Providence, Springfield and Albany TV markets.  And the critical area was not the close-in urbanized area. O'Brien won the city and the close-in's by a 209,000 to 134,000 margin. But in the rest of Middlesex and Norfolk counties, and in Essex and Plymouth counties...Romney amassed a 576, 000 to 414,000 margin.  In the reaches beyond I-495 (metro Worcester and Cape Cod) Romney won  by 202,000 to 144,000.

Now, obviously neither Bush or McCain attained these sorts of margins in the fringe of the Boston media market.  They also weren't perceived as attentive to the local zeitgeist.  A Scott Brown might well succed as being seen as a "local guy" not one of those nasty Red State Republicans.    

So , while Boston is not a "cheap" TV market, Massachusetts may not be that a expensive state to "play" in, since more than 85% of the voters are covered by just two in-state markets; (Springfield is a rather cheap market; costs about 1/7 of Boston per point) .    A MA campaign today is cheaper than a VA or NC campaign in this day and age; where one needs to buy either multiple markets or "waste" a lot of coverage. 

And we are taking about a short campaign; especially post-primary.

I don;t need to mention that the impact of a Brown victory in the perceived heartland of liberal Democrats would have a rather disheartening effort on national Democrats.

We'd do well to keep our eyes on this race. I'd rather seen us spend money here than propping up someone in a 60% GOP district with poor manners.

There's a concept people in the suburban Northeast of mild prosperity are very familiar with

"Certified Pre-Owned"  

If one is a fan of pro or college sports around here , one is inundated with ads on YES and ESPN, as well as the network sports recap shows, beseeching one to buy a slightly driven and sterling condition Benz, Beemer or Lexus coming off lease.

I knew a guy who did this and got a Benz convertible quite cheap. Helped him get PI clients for his practice and was fun to drive on moonlit summer nights from Stone Harbor to Wildwood back in the day. He used the dough he saved to buy a house.

You get a value buying certified pre-owned--getting a luxury car for Nissan prices; but you realise that there's only so many miles left in the creampuff. Still, a good deal for the appearance concious. 

But I'm not sure this is a great political strategy. Nonetheless, the NRSC is looking almost exclusively at elder statesmen in their candidate recruitment.

This week Charlie Crist announced for the Florida senate seat he ran and lost for in 1998. Sure he's won a few times since for AG and Governor and he is quite popular, but Marco Rubio is the fresh face in this race.

Likewise, the NRSC first backed the 79 year old Arlen Specter and when he became Harry Reid;' headache, thought the answer was the 64 year old Tom Ridge; first elected to federal office in 1982.

We are running Roy Blunt in Missouri. He was first elected Secretary of State there in 1984. At that point his son Matt was 14. Matt's already been elected Governor and stepped down after a difficult term. Back to the Future?

The NRSC is likewise trying to get a near 70 something to run in DE (Mike Castle) and a 60 something is their favored candidate in CT ( Rob Simmons). OK, the blue state benches are somewhat thin, but there is a 42 year old candidate running in CT as well. (Sam Caligiuri)

It's not just the Senate, I recall seeing that the ageless Tommy Thompson may seek the Governorship again in Wisconsin, having first won it in 1986.

I'm not going to disparage any of these individual candidates. Each may well be the strongest possible candidate available in their state this year. The problem is that at a point when the party needs to introduce "new models"   the Beltway brain trust is trying to give our old reliables a tune-up, a detailing, and then send them off down the road.

We may win a few seats this year doing this, but we will find many of these folks retiring after a single term and have to hope we build a bench in the meantime. And when we are gasping for breath with younger voters, we are wasting a cycle by not promoting candidate who represent Generation X and Generation Y.

Lots of people buy Certified Pre-Owned. The problem is: almost all of them really wanted to buy a new model. What if the competition offers one at a reasonable price? 

State Senator Sam Caligiuri appeared on CT Public Television's "On the Record" over the weekend.

I think that viewers got a good sense of who Sam is, and why he is attracting grassroots support in his bid for the 2010 U.S. Senate nomination.

Don;t get me wrong. I'm very happy Rob Simmons is running and think he did an excellent job for the 2nd District in Congress. But Republicans ought not to assume that automatically means he would be the strongest general election opponent against Dodd.

Caligiuri wants to make the case as an "outsider". I think he makes it pretty well.

It seems the choice for him turned out to be frying pan v. fire

It appears his understanding about retaining seniority apres switch was not shared by his new fellow caucus.

and after reviewing recent polls  (although I'm not that familiar with this one)  Michael Barone isn;t quite so sure than Specter is the general election lock he may have appeared to be on first blush. Looking at the general election, Barone concluded.

 it’s possible that a competent opponent who starts out little known but raises sufficient money to change that could sweep up the lion’s share of the undecided vote and make this a close race. Conceivably even a winning race, if the balance of partisan opinion changes over the next 18 months. 

There's some reason to believe this. Specter is obviously buoyed post shift by Obamamania, which is still regnant in PA---Q showed him @66% favorable. If this sinks, ebbing tides lower all boats,

Specter also is presently the "Philly candidate".  This poses two problems. He's probably close to his ceiling there already, but metro Philly only casts about 30% of the state's votes.  There's still enough votes elsewhere in the Commonwealth  for a Republican to fashion a victory.

Second, Specter's 2004 results against a Democrat from the Philly suburbs (Joe Hoeffle) lead me to wonder if a similarly situated Democrat (Sestak) could mess things up huge for Arlen in a Democrat primary. 

Specter lost the city of Philadelphia by 270,000 votes and won the suburbs by 145,000....barely winning Montgomery and Delaware. Specter's big wins that year were in smaller urban areas like Erie, Reading and Scranton who are not so predisposed to him of late. Specter may be feeling the effect of another demographic change---the city of Philadelphia is about 500,000 smaller than when Arlen started his  political career and the loss has been disproportionaly of blue collar whites enamored of moderate candidates as opposed to hard line partisan Democrats.

Will the Philly machine turn out black voters for Specter in a primary? It may depend on how fervent the President is in his support.

One thing from looking at the results from 2006 is it is hard to fathom even the relatively unknown Toomey starting off worse than Santorum ended up. It looks like we may have defined 41% as the hard GOP base in PA.

And I credit Specter's pollster , Glen Bolger, for confirming what I wrote. Specter dug his own hole with Republicans with the stimulus vote., crushing his job approval with Republicans by 30 points. 

"The most important number was the approval rating - it dropped from the 60s to 31" percent just in the last few months, Specter said.

But the stimulus vote was a "watershed," Specter said. "It all turned on that. The pollsters had never seen that kind of precipitous drop. It was stark"

 Pat Toomey just showed up after the hole was dug.

I suppose my question now is we might finally have a Republican party serious about fiscal conservatism. What are we going to do with it?  

===POSTSCRIPT===

I would be remiss in not linking to Dan McLaughlin's excellent RedState post that points out that while the GOP can certainly abide the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" candidate, especially in Blue States. it's is sort of a condition precedent to be fiscally conservative in order to claim this status. The PA GOP could nominate Specter until his stimulus vote took the legs out of the equation, and by my math, even if the 200,000 "lost moderates" returned to the fold it would not have saved Specter from a primary defeat.

The hits keep on coming on Chris Dodd's flaky first quarter finance report.

We learned he raised $44,000 from usurious payday lenders. So, could he find some donors even more anti-consumer than that bunch?

Glug, Glug. Glug........

HAMDEN - A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Connecticut U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd now trailing former Republican Congressman Rob Simmons and two other possible GOP challengers for the 2010 election.The survey of nearly 2,000 registered voters also shows that Dodd is experiencing his lowest job approval numbers, with only 33 percent approving of the job that he's doing and 58 percent disapproving.Pollster Douglas Schwartz says a 33 percent job approval rating is unheard of for a 30-year incumbent.The poll shows Simmons defeating Dodd by a 50 percent to 34 percent margin. Dodd trails state Sen. Sam Caligiuri (kahl-uh-JER'-ee) 41 percent to 37 percent, and former ambassador Tom Foley 43 percent to 35 percent. 

Poll crosstabs are available here

Dodd is now running at plus 60% unafavorable among independents and in his old congressional district

67% of CT voters do not approve of the job Dodd is doing as chairman of the Banking Committee

He is losing the re-elect question 35% to 59%; with 40% saying they "definitely" will not vote for Dodd. The "definite will not vote" number is now higher than Dodd's re-elect percentage.

Perhaps the most devastating number in the Q poll is this one.

54% of CT voters do not think Dodd is "honest and trustworthy". Only 32% think he is.

 As CT political maven Dean Pagani said in his blog you don;t readily recover from that problem. 

This may end up not helping the overall cause, as these sorts of poll numbers may cause a "Barry Goldwater" moment in the Democrat caucus directing Dodd to stand down for a less damaged candidate.

Then again, maybe some itchy young Democrats primaries Dodd. We've had THAT in CT, now haven't we.

I think this sign was a very low MoE

It's been a remarkable spring thus far in the Nutmeg State.   

Democratic insiders are sweating bullets over the prospect of Chris Dodd seeking re-election.

Retired businesswoman Patricia Morianos, one of the 74 Democrats on the powerful Democratic State Central Committee, isn’t so sure she’s ready to support Dodd again. She wants to hear more from him. “I am not making any judgments about anything right now. I want to give him a fair hearing, but I also want answers,” Morianos said. “I want somebody with integrity and sensibility. My vote is not something I take lightly.”  

There are also rumors that Dodd has gone to the well with his Wall Street patrons one time too often and will not have the sort of financial advantage he's accustomed to having.

Finally, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Susan Bysiewicz couldn't have been more tepid in her support of Dodd seeking yet another term.

Meanwhile, the picture is a little different on our side of the aisle. 

For the first time in a long time two worthy Republican candidates will campaign for the nomination to run against a previously unbeatable incumbent.

Former Congressman Rob Simmons announced his candidacy a couple of weeks ago and is considered a "formidable foe".

Yesterday, State Senator Sam Caligiuri announced he too is running against Dodd. Here he is in front of his one house.   

Here's the Hartford Courant's take on the announcement. . This was NYC's Newsradio 88' take.

The shorthand here is that Simmons is the older, more moderate candidate, while Caligiuri is the younger, more conservative candidate. That obviously simplifies things for the press, but is not entirely fair to either candidate. Both have a record in public service and a record as political candidates which has appealed to a broad spectrum of Connecticut voters.  

And today, both candidates have their websites up and running.

Here's Rob Simmons's website/

This is Sam Caligiuri's website

The leading CT political blog  was impressed.saying "Caligiuri enters the race prepared" And no one doubts Rob Simmons's ability to campaign.

The CT Republicans are revved up and rarin' to go. Sorry Senator Countrywide. It may be April 1, but your problems are no joke.  

from the Ridgefield, CT tea party H/t Instapundit