Friday’s political round-up

May 19, 2006

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In Ohio, Rep. [tag]Sherrod Brown[/tag] (D) has trailed incumbent Sen. [tag]Mike DeWine[/tag] (R) in recent polling, but this week’s Rasmussen poll shows the Dem pulling ahead. In the poll released earlier this week, Brown now leads DeWine, 44% to 41%. As the pollster explained, this is “the first time he’s been ahead in any of the six Ohio polls Rasmussen Reports has conducted for Election 2006. The 44% level of support for Brown is his highest of the season. DeWine has lost ground in four straight polls since peaking at 46% in mid-February.”

* Speaking of vulnerable Republicans losing support, a poll in Arizona from the Behavior Research Center shows Sen. [tag]Jon Kyl[/tag] (R), who recently enjoyed a double-digit lead, is quickly losing ground to businessman [tag]Jim Pederson[/tag] (D). While Kyl led by 29 points a few months ago, he now leads Pederson, 40% to 33%.

* In Nevada, Rep. [tag]Jim Gibbons[/tag] (R) continues to lead the state’s gubernatorial race, but not by insurmountable margins. According to a new Reno Gazette-Journal/News 4 poll, Gibbons is ahead of Henderson Mayor [tag]Jim Gibson[/tag] (D), 44% to 39%, and leads State Senator [tag]Dina Titus[/tag] (D), 46% to 36% (via Taegan Goddard).

* In the race to replace retiring Rep. [tag]Sherwood Boehlert[/tag] (R) in upstate New York, Dems got a boost this week when one of the party’s leading candidates dropped out and endorsed the other. As Roll Call reported, former public health official [tag]Les Roberts[/tag] (D) appeared with Oneida County District Attorney [tag]Michael Arcuri[/tag] (D) announced on Wednesday that he was withdrawing in the interest of party unity. “Les Roberts is one of the most honorable and ethical men I have ever met,” Arcuri said in a statement. “Now, we have a chance to show a united Democratic front.”

* And in California’s 50th congressional district, one of the most closely watched House races in the country, GOP candidate [tag]Brian Bilbray[/tag] suddenly has a very serious problem on his hands: residency questions. Apparently, property records indicate Bilbray lives in Alexandria, Virginia, not San Diego. Bilbray is running for the seat using his mother’s California home as his address, but one neighbor explained, “He comes here occasionally to see his mother like boys will do, but he doesn’t live here.” A local news report added, “Another man, who lives right next door, said he wondered when people would catch on that Bilbray does not live here.” Some are beginning to question whether Bilbray is a (ahem) “[tag]carpetbagger[/tag].”

Steve, I don’t care who runs for Boehlert’s seat, but your description of that race made me wonder if you’re agreeing with Roll Call, agreeing with the “conventional wisdom” of Democratic strategists (I don’t mean for that to sound as snarky as it does), and/or consciously endorsing the analysis that a party benefits by dodging a contested primary.

Personally, I’m not sure the “let’s pick a consensus candidate so we don’t have a nasty primary” theory is entirely productive (pro: you don’t do GOP oppo research/attacks for them, you don’t spend money on the primary you could spend on the general, you don’t have divided loyalties within the party, etc.; con: you don’t make someone (either one!) prove they can win a fight, you don’t get voters in the habit of voting for Democrats, you don’t build name recognition by having a *second* election, etc.), but I don’t know if anyone’s done any formal analysis. Thoughts?

  • Speaking of vulnerable Republicans losing support, a poll in Arizona from the Behavior Research Center shows Sen. Jon Kyl (R), who recently enjoyed a double-digit lead, is quickly losing ground to businessman Jim Pederson (D). While Kyl led by 29 points a few months ago, he now leads Pederson, 40% to 33%.

    Now that is great news! Pederson can make up the 7 pts. On a related note, what is the conventional wisdom about incumbants who poll at less than 50%? You’d think it would be bad news for the incumbant, especially if the poll support is quite a bit lower than 50%.

    Chris,

    you don’t get voters in the habit of voting for Democrats,

    Given that you are talking about a primary contest, I think that stating this as a con is untenable. Unless of course its an open primary state. In which case, I retract my comment.

  • Steve, I don’t care who runs for Boehlert’s seat, but your description of that race made me wonder if you’re agreeing with Roll Call…

    Fair enough. There’s a reasonable debate to be had over whether primaries are good or bad for candidates for the exact reasons you mentioned. And for every 10 examples that show a Dem benefited from a high-profile primary fight, I can probably think of 10 that showed the opposite.

    In this particular case? Frankly, I’m not familiar enough with the details of the two candidates (who had more money, who had better name ID in the district, etc.) to know, but I do know that the DCCC is very excited about this seat and thrilled to have Arcuri slated to win the primary. From what I hear, he’s an excellent candidate.

    This probably doesn’t answer your question. Sorry. I suppose my general response is: it depends.

  • Steve: I think “it depends” is a fair answer in the absence of data showing an explicit trend. I’ve been fixating on 2004’s Senate races, where it seemed like the swing seats all had nasty GOP primaries, and clear fields for consensus Dem nominees, but I’ll be the first to admit that’s anecdotal rather than substantive (I can imagine both counter-examples of consensus Dems winning, and clear-field Repubs losing, *and* other factors – coattails, state-specific issues, etc. – affecting voter choices), which is why I’m not certain myself.

    Edo: I meant that I think one virtue of a contested primary is that it gets people into the habit of voting for a Democrat, so on election day, they (granted, “they” here is the tiny number of people who vote in primaries) are more inclined to vote if they’ve voted before. This might be idealistic (or relevant for an unimportant number of people; primaries aren’t noted for their turnout); it’s just something I think could be plausible (and I’ve seen no data/social science studies on it, so I’m just making up the theory). The counter-argument, of course, is that people find voting annoying, so you’re lucky if you get them to do it once, and asking them to get off their asses *twice* – and there’s a fifty-fifty chance it’ll be to vote for the same politician! Wow, that’s not just fun, but redundant! – is asking too much of them. I don’t know which theory is applicable to more people/voters, though; I imagine the tiebreaker would/should be that the theory that encourages more political participation should be favored by parties, on the theory that they should want more people involved (but also realize that not everyone may think like their most loyal members do).

  • Edo: I meant that I think one virtue of a contested primary is that it gets people into the habit of voting for a Democrat, so on election day, they (granted, “they” here is the tiny number of people who vote in primaries) are more inclined to vote if they’ve voted before.

    Okay, if I understand correctly your “con” should really read “you don’t get voters in the habit of voting” right?

    That is, we want more voters and since primaries are generally party specfic that would mean more Dem voters. I see your point. I’m not sure I agree with it, but I do see it.

  • “Some are beginning to question whether Bilbray is a (ahem) “carpetbagger.”

    Outrage! There is only one true Carpetbagger, and he ain’t no sniveling politician out to keep a crime syndicate in power. The very idea……. (snort) 😉

  • Edo: I should probably come up with a cleaner construction than what feels like a triple negative (the way I thought of it first and then described it, which I won’t rehash, except to say that yes, you understand my “con” argument correctly).

    I hadn’t thought about the closed-primary thing; I think the effect *could* be to increase the percentage of Dems who turn out in both the primary and general elections. I’m not saying it’s the only way to boost turnout and get more votes (is that the part you’re reluctant to agree with?), but I would imagine these votes are the proverbial low-hanging fruit that we should be able to collect more easily than other voters, at least in theory. Ah, theory…

    • Comments are closed.