2004: Biographies of New Senators (December 3, 2004)
Kentucky Senate Race Tightens
October 21, 2004
Fueled by polling that shows a tightening race between GOP incumbent Sen. Jim Bunning and Democratic state Sen. and physician Dan Mongiardo, Kentucky has quickly become the most talked about Senate contest in the country among political insiders.
Could it be that a race that wasn't on anyone's radar screen three weeks ago is suddenly on par with Alaska or South Dakota? Or, is this simply an effort to expand the field of competitive races? Or, are the media and Senate race watchers just bored with the same eight races that have dominated the landscape for months? In truth, it's probably equal doses of all three.
Bunning won the seat in 1998, defeating Scotty Baesler, his then-Democratic colleague in the House, 50 percent to 49 percent, in what was one of the closest races of that cycle. While this earned Bunning a spot on Democrats' target list this cycle, Kentucky Democrats were in a funk after former Gov. Paul Patton's end-of-term scandal and the subsequent loss of the 2003 gubernatorial contest. As a result, Democrats weren't exactly forming a line to challenge Bunning.
Along came Mongiardo, an ear, nose and throat specialist from Hazard, who eventually became the chief of staff at the Appalachia Regional Hospital System. Mongiardo waded into politics in 2000, challenging a Democratic incumbent state Senator in a primary, winning that race with 53 percent and going on to win the general election with over 70 percent. During redistricting, Republicans placed Mongiardo in a district three hours from his home. His original Senate district was not up, but instead of moving or forfeiting the seat, Mongiardo ran in the new district and won. He announced that he intended to hold both Senate seats in protest and did for a couple of days. Mongiardo became a hero to Democrats, and the party leadership named him vice chairman of the party.
emocrats hoped that Mongiardo's moderate profile--he is pro-life and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment--would be helpful in a socially conservative state. His health care expertise and credibility as a physician were an added bonus. However, the Democrat has struggled as a candidate. His fundraising has been weak and the campaign was on its third manager and finance team by spring.
Across the aisle, Bunning, who knew he would be a target, had been preparing for this race since early 2002. He started to build a war chest that has now broken records in the state and began campaigning early, focusing on the economy, jobs, health care and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the war on terror. Bunning also campaigned with President Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney.
In short, this appeared to be a race that would not live up to its potential.
Over the course of the last few months, Democrats tried to float the notion that Bunning is in poor health and even went as far as to suggest that he had Alzheimer's disease. Their efforts got little attention until recently when Democrats began to question some of Bunning's actions. He started to request local security details for campaign stops, does not publish his schedule and even accused Mongiardo's staff of pushing his wife at the Fancy Farm picnic in August.
Democrats bolstered their argument with a poll they released October 12 that showed Bunning under 50 percent and ahead of Mongiardo by just single digits. The survey, a Garin-Hart-Yang poll for the Mongiardo campaign (October 6-7 of 506 likely voters) gave Bunning an eight-point advantage, 47 percent to 39 percent. Bunning's name identification score was 83 percent compared to 55 percent for Mongiardo. This was a significant improvement for Mongiardo over a Louisville Courier-Journal poll (September 10-15 of 657 likely voters) that had Bunning ahead of Mongiardo, 51 percent to 34 percent.
The day the poll was released, Bunning and Mongiardo met for a debate, only Bunning was not able to travel to Kentucky because the Senate was still in session. Instead, he used a studio at the Republican National Committee while Mongiardo was at a local television station. As it turns out, Bunning used a teleprompter to give his opening and closing statements, which was not technically against the rules of the debate, but drew howls of protest from Democrats and some in the media. It was like throwing gas on a fire as Democrats became more energized about the race. And the situation became more intense when the Mongiardo campaign released a more recent Garin-Hart-Yang poll (October 15-17 of 503 likely voters) that had the race tied at 43 percent.
Suddenly national reporters who could not have named the Democratic challenger last week were asking questions and booking flights to Louisville.
So, what exactly is going on here?
We believe that the race has closed over the last few weeks, but are not convinced that it is tied. We also believe that using the teleprompter in the debate was not a smart thing to do, especially if you are a 73-year old incumbent who has to participate in the debate from a studio in Washington. And as for security details, it would seem that Minnesota Democratic Sen. Mark Dayton probably raised the bar on paranoia when he recently shuttered his Senate office in fear of a terrorist attack on the Capitol. More recently Bunning said that he didn't read newspapers, preferring to watch Fox News. While the media was appalled by the statement, it is not clear whether voters will care.
With those stipulations, Democrats have offered no concrete evidence that Bunning is in poor health--either physically or mentally. In fact, Bunning's staff released two letters from physicians attesting to his good health, leading Democrats to point out that neither letter addressed his mental health. But, anyone who has spent more than a day in the Senate is aware that Bunning can be, well, ornery and short tempered. These are hardly endearing qualities in anyone, much less a U.S. Senator. It is also a pretty well documented fact that Bunning has absolutely no use for the press, something that goes back to Hall of Famer Bunning's days playing professional baseball. It probably suits him just fine if reporters don't shadow him on the campaign trail. And, it is equally accepted that some of the Kentucky press corps have absolutely no use for Bunning.
Even in a tighter race, Mongiardo has some hurdles to jump. The first is that he is not well known, particularly in the population centers of Louisville and Lexington. According to the first poll his campaign released, Mongiardo's name ID was just 55 percent. Voters are not simply going to toss out an incumbent (at least one who isn't facing a major scandal) if they don't know anything about the challenger.
Second, Mongiardo is not well funded. According to his September 30 FEC report, he finished the third quarter with $345,498 on hand, compared to $3.27 million for Bunning. Although the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has put $466,000 into the race in recent days and is rumored to be ready to spend more, and Mongiardo's own fundraising has improved in the last week, he won't reach parity with Bunning. And, it will be harder for him to buy the television time he needs to become better known.
Third, even if Mongiardo is the beneficiary of a sudden infusion of cash, there is a question of how much TV time is available in the final days of the campaign. To appeal to voters in the 4 th Congressional District, for example, candidates must buy time in the Cincinnati, OH media market. Since Ohio is a battleground state in the presidential contest, such time is scarce and expensive. The Bunning campaign had already bought time in all media markets that cover the state at significant levels of gross rating points. GOP strategists say that the incumbent will spend at least $1.5 million on television in the final two weeks and that does not count any assistance that might be forthcoming from the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Fourth, Mongiardo won't be able to count on help from the top of the ticket as President Bush will win the state easily. The presence of a same-sex marriage question on the ballot is also likely to draw out more socially conservative voters for whom Bunning is a known quantity.
Finally, Mongiardo does not get to run the final leg of this race in a vacuum. The Bunning campaign has not been shy about attacking Mongiardo in its television advertising. It is possible that Republicans will define Mongiardo before he can define himself. The campaign has run ads against the Democrat on taxes, terrorism and his personal investments. And, because they have already bought so much time, Bunning has the luxury of being able to run positive ads that shore up his position as well.
In an effort to counter the Democratic polls, the Bunning campaign released one of its own. The Public Opinion Strategies survey (October 12-14 of 600 likely voters) gave Bunning a 50-percent to 39-percent advantage over Mongiardo.
The bottom line is that there has always been potential for this contest to become close given Bunning's narrow win in 1998. However, this race is heating up so late that Mongiardo may does not have the financial resources or the time to go the distance. And, Democrats did not catch Bunning or his campaign asleep at the wheel. Mongiardo's fortunes could change if Bunning makes a mistake or the Democrat gets an infusion of cash. That is not to say that the outcome won't be close; Bunning is likely to win with very little room to spare. We have moved the race from the Likely Republican column to Lean Republican.
SOUTH CAROLINA
SC SENATE PRIMARY
Beasley and DeMint Advance to June 22 Run-Off
June 9, 2004
Former Gov. David Beasley and Rep. Jim DeMint emerged from a six-way GOP primary on June 8 to advance to the run-off on June 22.
Beasley took 37 percent of the vote, far short of the 50 percent he would have needed to avoid the run-off. DeMint came in second with 26 percent. Developer Thomas Ravenel, a newcomer to politics who spent nearly $3 million in personal funds in his quest for the nomination and was closing in on DeMint in the final two weeks, placed a close third. He took 25 percent, and was just 4,478 votes behind DeMint. Former Attorney General Charlie Condon finished a distant fourth with 10 percent, followed by Myrtle Beach Mayor Mark McBride with 2 percent and businesswoman Orly Benny Davis with 1 percent.
During the primary, Beasley campaigned on his experience, his record of creating jobs and his conservative credentials. He also talked about the need for fair trade, noting his support for free trade as Governor. His opponents accused him of flip-flopping on the issue. DeMint also highlighted his conservative credentials and his independence, pointing out in his advertising that he voted against the Medicare prescription drug benefit. DeMint came under fire for his steadfast position on free trade, which some believe is out of step this year in a state that has lost so many jobs to other countries. While some observers suggested that the trade issue would sink DeMint, the primary results suggest that perhaps trade is not the pivotal issue some had predicted--at least among Republican primary voters.
The run-off contest is two weeks long and will be interrupted for a day or so by funeral services for former President Ronald Reagan. Still, it promises to be an intense contest.
Although DeMint starts off as something of an underdog, his supporters make a strong case for a victory. First, they note that Beasley is the only candidate in the primary with total name recognition, yet 63 percent of voters cast their ballot for another candidate. They also argue that Beasley made it through the primary without one negative ad being run against him, while Condon went after DeMint for his votes on trade. This is likely to change in the run-off, as DeMint hits Beasley on his record as Governor, among other things.
Finally, DeMint strategists point to geography as a critical factor. Beasley has not done well among Low Country Republicans in past elections. In this race, Ravenel took 40 percent of the Low Country vote and has endorsed DeMint in the run-off. Given Beasley's past performances in the region, Ravenel's ability to convert votes for DeMint could be a big plus. Ravenel may also prove to be helpful to DeMint in the Congressman's 4 th congressional district. Although DeMint won the three-county district with 42 percent, he tied Beasley in Spartanburg County and lost Union County. Union County made up just a small percentage of the overall turnout. Ravenel took 20 percent district-wide and 23 percent in Spartanburg County, providing yet more votes he may be able to convert for DeMint.
There is certainly a case to be made for a Beasley run-off victory. Beasley's name recognition could turn out to be an asset. Since he is well known and did not pick up any negatives in the primary, he can afford to direct his resources at DeMint, who will not only have to attack Beasley but continue to shore up his own support as well. Further, his record as Governor, particularly on job creation, will be a plus. Finally, Beasley supporters see a flaw in DeMint's argument about geography. If DeMint is the nominee, then there is the possibility that the state could wind up with two Senators from the Upcountry since Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is also from that region, something Low Country voters see as a negative. Beasley is from the Pee Dee region and is likely to remind voters often that DeMint is from Greenville.
Of course, run-off races tend to be about turnout and which candidate's voters are more likely to go to the polls for the second time in two weeks. Beasley has a solid following among Christian conservatives, who do tend to turn out, while DeMint's support is among more business-oriented Republicans. This puts the greater burden on DeMint to get his voters to the polls. DeMint should get some help from the Club for Growth, which endorsed him before the primary and is looking for a Senate race victory this year after its candidate lost the April primary in Pennsylvania.
In the primary, most strategists expected Beasley to finish in the 40s. Some thought that he would finish in the high 40s, meaning that he only need to pick up a couple of points to win the nomination in a run-off. Others believed that the former Governor would finish in the low 40s, which would be an indication that the run-off would be competitive. Almost no one expected him to finish with 37 percent, a number that means this will be an extremely competitive run-off.
We have heard about GOP run-off ballot tests that have Beasley anywhere from the mid-50-percent range to the mid-40s against DeMint. DeMint's vote was between the mid-20s and the high 30-percent range. There is no doubt that Beasley begins the run-off ahead of DeMint, but his campaign should not be comfortable about where they are today.
The winner will face Democratic state Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum, who faced only minor primary opposition, in November. PENNSYLVANIA
PA SENATE PRIMARY
Specter Squeaks Out a Win
April 28, 2004
If there is any truth to the old saying that there is nothing more exhilarating than being shot at and missed, then four-term GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania must feel particularly energized today.
With 99 percent of the vote tallied, Specter held off an aggressive primary challenge to his right from Rep. Pat Toomey, taking 51 percent to Toomey's 49 percent. Turnout was reported to be light throughout the state, meaning that Specter also defied the political axiom that moderates and/or incumbents don't win primaries when turnout is low because their voters are not as motivated.
While Democrats and some observers point to Specter's slim 16,641-vote margin of victory as a sign that he will be very vulnerable in the fall when he faces Democratic Rep. Joe Hoeffel, their enthusiasm may be a bit premature. First, the charge that hurt Specter in the primary--that he is a liberal--is not likely to hurt him in a general election. In fact, Specter's moderation is one of his strongest assets as it appeals not only to moderate Republicans, but also to independents and moderate Democrats.
Second, it will be difficult for Democrats to substantiate their claim that Specter moved too far to the right in the primary to be viable in November. Toomey set a pretty high bar in terms of ideology and Specter never came close to clearing it. While the incumbent talked of supporting President Bush's economic policy and got the National Rifle Association's endorsement, he also was the only Republican to address the state AFL-CIO convention in March and he maintained his support for abortion rights. And, Specter's positions on many social issues are a lot closer to Hoeffel's than to Toomey's. Both Specter and Hoeffel oppose same-sex marriage and they are both pro-choice. It is also worth noting that Specter is still able to campaign on one of his greatest assets--his long history of bringing federal funds back to the state.
Still, if Specter did not morph into a conservative for the primary, he can thank some conservatives for their assistance. As Pennsylvania political analyst John Delano has pointed out, Sen. Rick Santorum, a leading conservative voice in the Senate, gets his share of the credit for helping to push Specter over the finish line by embracing him during the primary. Santorum's endorsement was not merely a courtesy paid to a colleague. He appeared in ads for Specter and campaigned for him. While Bush endorsed and campaigned for Specter, it was Santorum who became Specter's conservative seal of approval.
Finally, Specter has proven himself to be a prolific fundraiser and while he spent heavily on the primary, he does not enter the general election with an empty war chest, but with $2.2 million to Hoeffel's $801,000. Furthermore, he has traditionally been able to raise money from some Democratic constituencies like organized labor, trial lawyers and the Jewish community and there is no reason to expect that will change. Specter's ability to at least partially co-opt Democratic donors makes it extremely difficult for Hoeffel to raise the $7 million to $8 million he will need to be competitive.
All of these factors combine to create a tough road for Democrats and Hoeffel. The race remains in the Likely Republican column.
PA SENATE UPDATE
It's All About the Turnout
April 15, 2004
The most closely watched Senate primary of the cycle takes place April 27 as Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter works to fend off a challenge to his right from Rep. Pat Toomey.
This has been a classic center-versus-right contest in which Toomey has devoted nearly all of his efforts to painting Specter as a liberal who is out of touch with Republicans in the state. Toomey's television advertising, which began last fall and has been up consistently statewide for two months, is almost exclusively dedicated to attacking Specter. The spots have accused Specter of voting for tax increases, supporting pork barrel spending for projects like a study of fruit flies in France and an arts festival in Alaska, and for voting against medical malpractice reform. He has gotten a great deal of support from the Club for Growth, which has assisted in fundraising and aired spots on his behalf. One ad featured a Specter Jack-in-the-Box, and called Specter "surprisingly liberal." In addition to the Club for Growth, Toomey's endorsement list reads like a who's who of the conservative right, including former Presidential candidate Steve Forbes, Robert Bork, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
Specter has been walking the fine line that comes with being a moderate, particularly in the Senate. On one hand, he has touted his record on fighting crime, his opposition to gay marriage and boasts an endorsement from the National Rifle Association. On the other hand, Specter stresses his efforts to bring as much federal largesse back to the state as possible. As he campaigns, Specter has not only told voters how much he's been able to direct to a given community, but how much funding for that community Toomey has voted against.
After a period of positive ads, Specter is now up with spots that portray Toomey as out of touch and unresponsive to his constituents. One spot featured a father who said that Toomey did not respond to his requests for assistance when a Medicaid HMO refused to pay for nursing care for his severely disabled daughter. Other Specter ads have questioned Toomey's conservative credentials, accusing him of flip-flopping on a number of issues. Many of Specter's ads end with the tag line, " Pat Toomey, he's not far right. He's far out."
Perhaps Specter's biggest asset going into the primary is the unwavering support that he has received from President Bush, Sen. Rick Santorum, who is arguably closer to Toomey ideologically yet cut an endorsement spot for Specter, nine of 11 members of the Congressional delegation and large majorities of Republicans in the state legislature. Nearly all of Specter's spots have featured an image of Bush, who will stump for him April 19 in Pittsburgh. Specter is also getting assistance from the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition and the Republican Main Street Partnership.
Toomey strategists argue that they have Specter on the run and contend that he is desperate, pointing to the incumbent's increasingly sharp attacks and Bush's visit. They also say that this race is a referendum on Specter and conservatives are energized in their effort to give him an early retirement.
Not surprisingly, the Specter campaign has a very different take on the race. They say that Toomey remains undefined in the minds of voters since he has spent his resources to attack Specter. This has provided Specter, who has significantly outraised his opponent, with an opportunity to define Toomey as "far out," thus putting him on the defensive. They note that they are outspending Toomey on television, particularly in Philadelphia. Finally, Specter strategists contend that the Senator's efforts to bring funds back to the state resonate with voters.
This primary is a frustrating exercise for political observers because for all the television spots, charges and countercharges, the outcome will depend on which campaign gets their voters to the polls. As a result, the public polling might not be all that instructive since each poll is based on different assumptions about turnout. For the sake of argument, there were three surveys released in March showing Specter's lead between 11 points and 22 points. Specter's high mark was 52 percent in a late March Quinnipiac University poll while his low point was 43 percent in a Club for Growth-sponsored survey. Toomey's vote ranged from 37 percent in the Quinnipiac poll to 32 percent in the Club for Growth survey. Neither campaign has released its internal polling, but both sides say they feel comfortable with where their candidate is today.
The outlook for the general election will largely depend on who emerges from the primary to challenge Democratic Rep. Joe Hoeffel. If Specter wins the nomination, he would be the favorite against Hoeffel given his ability to attract Democratic votes and raise money from traditionally Democratic sources like organized labor, which would impair Hoeffel's ability to amass what he needs to mount an effective campaign. A Toomey-Hoeffel race, though, would be a toss up at best given Toomey's very conservative voting record and the likelihood that he would start the general election at a significant financial disadvantage.
Most observers tend to give Specter a small advantage going into the primary, but turnout is a very unpredictable factor, making this contest a nail-biter. Experience would lead us to believe that the higher the turnout, the better for Specter, but it is not a given because other factors such as other races on the ballot and where those races are located in the state will be important considerations.
COLORADO
CAMPBELL WON'T SEEK RE-ELECTION
Colorado is moved to Toss Up
March 4, 2004
Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell announced Wednesday that he would not seek re-election to a third term, citing concerns about his health. Campbell underwent treatment for prostate cancer last year and went to the hospital twice in the last week because of chest pains.
Campbell 's decision also comes on the heels of the resignation of Ginnie Kontnik, his long-time chief of staff. A former employee in Campbell 's office has accused Kontnik of giving him an inflated bonus so that he could give her a kickback.
Last week also produced a credible Democratic challenger to Campbell when wealthy entrepreneur and think tank founder Rutt Bridges announced his candidacy. Although Bridges has never run for office, he said that he will spend whatever it takes from his personal fortune to win the race.
Now that the seat is open, a number of candidates of both parties are looking at the race. On the Republican side, Gov. Bill Owens said he is considering running and has the right of first refusal, meaning that other Republican hopefuls will not make a move until the Governor makes his decision. If Owens does not run, Reps. Bob Beauprez, Scott McInnis, Tom Tancredo and Marilyn Musgrave, as well as Lt. Gov. Jane Norton have been mentioned. Beauprez and McInnis are considered the most likely of this group, although Tancredo is quite unpredictable and could run regardless of what anyone else does.
On the Democratic side, Bridges released a statement saying that he planned to stay in the race. Rep. Mark Udall, who took a pass on the race last year, is thought to be taking another look, while Rep. Diana DeGette released a statement saying that she is considering getting in the primary fight. One Democratic insider suggests that DeGettte could mount a winning primary effort in an all-male field, but thinks that DeGette will ultimately decide to stay in the House.
Although Udall would be a very strong statewide candidate, some Democratic strategists feel that the party ought to stick with Bridges who was willing to challenge Campbell when Udall was not. And given the party's limited resources this year, Bridges' willingness to spend his own money is a big asset.
It will take several days for both parties to sort this out, but Campbell 's decision puts another seat in play. Campbell was favored to win re-election, but this race is now a toss up. |
