Since my last post there has been quite a few updates/primaries and I wanted to update everyone on how the Senate race is shaping up:
Illinois: Early last week Rep. Jan Schakowksy announced that she would not run for the seat. Early polls showed Schakowsky had a very real chance of winning the nomination and the general election. The three democrats that appear interested in the race is Senator Roland Burris, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and Chris Kennedy, a Chicago businessman and son of Robert Kennedy. On the Republican side, the only credible candidate is Rep. Mark Kirk. Kirk hasn't said what he's going to do but did announce earlier this week he is getting a divorce from his wife. It is not known on this event will impact his decision.
Oklahoma: Senator Tom Coburn announced that he is going to seek another term, basically guaranteeing the seat stays in Republican hands
Connecticut: The latest poll shows Senator Chris Dodd trailing Rep. Rob Simmons in a hypothetical general election and he is still unpopular with most of the state. The good news for the Dodd campaign is that he is only losing by 6 percent and his numbers have been improving since my last update.
Pennsylvania: No official word on whether Rep. Sestak will actually run. I believe the general election will be very interesting one way or the other.
Colorado: The candidates for this race seem more like excellent candidates for a mayoral race rather than a Senatorial race. The current incumbent is Michael Bennet who was actually appointed to the seat and is a former school superintendent. The two Republican challengers are a county sheriff and a city councilman. Rumors have former Congressman Bob Beauprez looking at the race. If he entered he would be the only real prominent name. I think the Republicans need to look at this race because there is real opportunity to take back the seat.
Pete Coors, the Coloradoan businessman ran for the seat in 2004. If he wanted to really be in the Senate this year could be his year.
Florida: Governor Charlie Crist anounced he will run for the seat and he quickly snatched up key endorsements. Crist has some star-power and national fame. I think he wins the nomination and the general election.
Missouri: No big changes in terms of candidates, this race right now is a toss-up.
Delaware: Vice President Biden's seat could go into Republican hands if Rep. Mike Castle enters the race, sources say that he is leaning at running.
The most exciting thing in my opinion are the possibilities available to Republicans in 2010. This past November pundits and critics were telling Republicans that they were out of the mainstream. What a difference six months can make considering Republicans have good prospects in winning Senate seats in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, Colorodo, and Illinois, which are hardly states considered red or purple.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
It's action time for Obama on the torture photos
Congress this week has had a big discussion on what to do with abuse photos from Abu Ghraib prison. If you haven't been following the news, Congress is working on funding legislation for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In the Senate version of the spending bill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attached a provision to bar the Abu Ghraib photos from being released for five years
A handful of very liberal members of the House of Representatives, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said they would not vote for the spending legislation if that provision was in the spending bill. Due to this opposition, the conference committee, the group tasked with smoothing out the differences between the House and Senate version were forced to drop the provision after the urging of the Obama Administration.
President Obama himself has said that he does not want the photos released and supported the McConnell amendment. Obama stated he opposed the measure because of the anger it will cause among Muslims and the harm that could come to our troops. I agree with President Obama on this idea.
The problem though is that the Obama adminstraton was not able to use its influence to get the necessary support for the spending measure and asked the conference committeee to remove the amendment from the spending bill.
I have two issues at this point, one issue is why some members of Congress want the photos released ( I feel this is more political and a topic for another blog) . The main issue I have is that the photo issue has not been resolved and the Obama administration needs to act now.
Congress has shown they are not capable of making the photos classified and the responsibility now lays with the president. I urge President Obama to classify these photosl for national security purposes and end the debate in Congress. These photo's should have never been taken and their existence is a black mark on the United States but no one benefits from their release. The photos should not be released now, in five years or ever, their release serves no function but political enjoyment for some of the exteme liberal members of Congress.
A handful of very liberal members of the House of Representatives, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said they would not vote for the spending legislation if that provision was in the spending bill. Due to this opposition, the conference committee, the group tasked with smoothing out the differences between the House and Senate version were forced to drop the provision after the urging of the Obama Administration.
President Obama himself has said that he does not want the photos released and supported the McConnell amendment. Obama stated he opposed the measure because of the anger it will cause among Muslims and the harm that could come to our troops. I agree with President Obama on this idea.
The problem though is that the Obama adminstraton was not able to use its influence to get the necessary support for the spending measure and asked the conference committeee to remove the amendment from the spending bill.
I have two issues at this point, one issue is why some members of Congress want the photos released ( I feel this is more political and a topic for another blog) . The main issue I have is that the photo issue has not been resolved and the Obama administration needs to act now.
Congress has shown they are not capable of making the photos classified and the responsibility now lays with the president. I urge President Obama to classify these photosl for national security purposes and end the debate in Congress. These photo's should have never been taken and their existence is a black mark on the United States but no one benefits from their release. The photos should not be released now, in five years or ever, their release serves no function but political enjoyment for some of the exteme liberal members of Congress.
Run! What's KBH waiting for?
I have written a lot about the Texas Governor's race and a recent event has really made me think. Yesterday current US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison sent out a letter to her supporters basically asking for money. Of Course what made her letter interesting is that she included the phrase
" I am running for Governor because Texas must prepare for the future. I am running because I believe it is conservative to demand results and hold government accountable - with integrity and responsibility."
Now this is not the first time that KBH has said she is running but there has not been an official announcement of her campaign. At this point I am wondering what the hold up is in making an official announcement.
I am actually questioning the strategy of the campaign. When Senator Hutchison does finally announce she is running, the news won't be so shocking to Texans. Normally a candidate, any candidate gets a bounce in the polls when they actually say they are running. At this point its not news that she is running.
The only thing that would really be news is if Sen. Hutchison did not run. My thinking right now is that KBH would really like to run and be governor of Texas but wants a safety net and the ability to quickly back out of the race. Hutchison is looking to challenge incumbent Governor Rick Perry, who is not popular in the state by any means. The one issue the senator might have is that Perry is still very popular with conservatives. The senator has at times been at odds with some in the conservative wing of the party. We know from previous elections that devoted ideologues are usually the ones that turn out and influence a primary result. If Perry can get a enough of his base to turnout and Hutchison has issues connecting with voters it's possible Perry can win the nomination.
I do believe even though Texas is a very Republican state, I don't think Governor Perry has a good chance a general election if he is the nominee.
Right now, all Sen. Hutchison has really done is form an exploratory committee. She has also announced she is about to tour the state to discuss the future of Texas. After Senator Hutchison's listening tour it would not be too late for her to back out of the race if the polls don't look good. In fact she could easily back out of the race by saying "After touring our state and talking with Texans I have found that the best thing for Texas is for me to continue my work in the United States Senate."
Hutchison has backed out of the governor's race in years past and it still could happen this time around. If Hutchison does decide to run all the way I have to question the public relations strategy, I feel they the campaign might lose some of its momentum with multiple pseudo-announcements.
" I am running for Governor because Texas must prepare for the future. I am running because I believe it is conservative to demand results and hold government accountable - with integrity and responsibility."
Now this is not the first time that KBH has said she is running but there has not been an official announcement of her campaign. At this point I am wondering what the hold up is in making an official announcement.
I am actually questioning the strategy of the campaign. When Senator Hutchison does finally announce she is running, the news won't be so shocking to Texans. Normally a candidate, any candidate gets a bounce in the polls when they actually say they are running. At this point its not news that she is running.
The only thing that would really be news is if Sen. Hutchison did not run. My thinking right now is that KBH would really like to run and be governor of Texas but wants a safety net and the ability to quickly back out of the race. Hutchison is looking to challenge incumbent Governor Rick Perry, who is not popular in the state by any means. The one issue the senator might have is that Perry is still very popular with conservatives. The senator has at times been at odds with some in the conservative wing of the party. We know from previous elections that devoted ideologues are usually the ones that turn out and influence a primary result. If Perry can get a enough of his base to turnout and Hutchison has issues connecting with voters it's possible Perry can win the nomination.
I do believe even though Texas is a very Republican state, I don't think Governor Perry has a good chance a general election if he is the nominee.
Right now, all Sen. Hutchison has really done is form an exploratory committee. She has also announced she is about to tour the state to discuss the future of Texas. After Senator Hutchison's listening tour it would not be too late for her to back out of the race if the polls don't look good. In fact she could easily back out of the race by saying "After touring our state and talking with Texans I have found that the best thing for Texas is for me to continue my work in the United States Senate."
Hutchison has backed out of the governor's race in years past and it still could happen this time around. If Hutchison does decide to run all the way I have to question the public relations strategy, I feel they the campaign might lose some of its momentum with multiple pseudo-announcements.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Specter Switch
In case you missed one of the biggest stories of last week's news cycle, Senator Specter announced that he was switching parties and deciding to run for re-election as a Democrat. This decision of course does not only impact the 2010 election but also the current balance of the Senate. Officially there are now 59 Democratic Senators and 40 Republicans. The one remaining seat is still being debated in Minnesota but it looks very likely the Democrats will be successful and have the 60 votes any party would want.
Specter's announcement is not particularly shocking to the political world because at best Specter was a moderate Republican. There are numerous events where Specter has been in the middle opposing a conservative initiative.
Specter faced a very difficult Republican primary against former Rep. Pete Toomey and his chances in the general election as a Republican were not great either. If Specter was able to beat Toomey for the Republican nomination I think his campaign would have been out of money in a general election fight.
In terms of how this announcement changes the prospects in 2010 is hard to tell right now. Former Pennsylvania Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge is now "seriously considering" a run for the Senate seat. I believe Republicans would have a better chance of winning the seat if Tom Ridge was the nominee over former Rep. Pete Toomey.
Furthermore, Specter may not have a wideopen Democratic field for him. Rep. Joe Sestak is at least open to challenging Specter. Sestak certainly has a chance and a good bit of money on his side. Keep in mind Specter might have switched parties but he is not a liberal, he is a moderate. Pennsylvania Democrats might look to Sestak as someone who could win a general election and someone who agrees with them on all issues.
Republicans certainly can be positive about their chances in Pennsylvania. The Senate race is not over because Specter is not running as a Republican, in fact they could be better off due to Democrats potential hesitation towards him.
My prediction is if Tom Ridge wins the nomination, the general election is too close to call against Specter. If Rep. Sestak wins the Democratic nomination and faces Ridge this seat could go back into Republican hands.
Specter's announcement is not particularly shocking to the political world because at best Specter was a moderate Republican. There are numerous events where Specter has been in the middle opposing a conservative initiative.
Specter faced a very difficult Republican primary against former Rep. Pete Toomey and his chances in the general election as a Republican were not great either. If Specter was able to beat Toomey for the Republican nomination I think his campaign would have been out of money in a general election fight.
In terms of how this announcement changes the prospects in 2010 is hard to tell right now. Former Pennsylvania Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge is now "seriously considering" a run for the Senate seat. I believe Republicans would have a better chance of winning the seat if Tom Ridge was the nominee over former Rep. Pete Toomey.
Furthermore, Specter may not have a wideopen Democratic field for him. Rep. Joe Sestak is at least open to challenging Specter. Sestak certainly has a chance and a good bit of money on his side. Keep in mind Specter might have switched parties but he is not a liberal, he is a moderate. Pennsylvania Democrats might look to Sestak as someone who could win a general election and someone who agrees with them on all issues.
Republicans certainly can be positive about their chances in Pennsylvania. The Senate race is not over because Specter is not running as a Republican, in fact they could be better off due to Democrats potential hesitation towards him.
My prediction is if Tom Ridge wins the nomination, the general election is too close to call against Specter. If Rep. Sestak wins the Democratic nomination and faces Ridge this seat could go back into Republican hands.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Update: 2010 Senate Races
Last week the RNC and DNC released their first quarter fundraising results The good news is that Republicans are in good shape financially raising $25.3 million. Democrats raised a total of $13.8 million. The bad news is that Republicans are going to need all the financial help they can get. There are total of 19 seats that Republicans are defending versus 17 for the Democrats.
The way I see this election there are about 6 Republican seats that are up for grabs (Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio). These seats are up for grabs because either the seat is open due to retirement or an unpopular incumbent. One important thing to keep in mind is the number one, all it takes is one of these seats to go Democratic and there are 60 Democratic votes in the Senate. The races break down like this:
Missouri
A real mess for Republicans. The seat is from retiring Senator Kit Bond (R). The other senator is a Democrat. The state basically went 50-50 in 2008. The dems seem to already have their nominee Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who comes from a very famous political family in the state. On the Republican side there is one announced candidate Rep Roy Blunt but he is doing all the well in terms of polls and money.
Kentucky
In 2004 Senator Bunning barely won and it looks like if he does actually go forward and run he might actually lose. Bunning has not been getting any help from Senate Republicans. What's worse is that there aren't many possibilities the Republicans can put up against Bunning.
New Hampshire
The seat is open after the retirement of Judd Gregg. The democratic nominee looks like it could be between current democratic Rep. Paul Hodes and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. Former Senator John Sununu seems to be the only likely Republican that would get into the race.
Florida
Another open seat after the retirement of Republican Mel Martinez. This race is a toss-up at least until the nominees are decided. The state went for Obama in 2008 but right now in a head to head matchup a generic republican leads by 1%.
Pennsylvania
Senator Arlen Specter is running for re-election but will face a primary fight against former Rep. Pete Tooomey and a tough general election. Pennsylvania is a blue state and the 2004 race was very close. I see Specter surviving the primary challenge, but I can see him running out of energy and money to put up a good fight.
Ohio
Open seat due to retirement of Republican Senator George Voinivich. I think this seat will stay in Republican hands. Former Rep. Rob Portman seems to have a good hold on the race. At the end of the day the state is Ohio and has been a toss-up in recent national elections.
The Democrats will have to work hard in about 4 states (Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut,Nevada). What you should note about that statement is that I said "work hard" in 4 states. Each one of these states are unique on their own.
Illinois
Illinois could be a possibility (I know I am optimistic) depending on who the Republican nominee is. The only real chance this could be a race is if Rep. Mark Kirk decides to run for the Senate. Even with Kirk in the race it will be tough, Illinois is a very blue state. Illinoisans are mad at the corruption of their former governor and the scandals around their Senator Roland Burris, but I don't think they are mad enough to vote for the other party just another Democratic candidate.
Connecticut
I blogged entirely about this race last week. For more details see that post but the bottom line is Dodd is not popular in the state and losing in the polls right now. If the banking scandals surronding him continue he very well may be out of a job. What you should keep in mind though is Connecticut is as blue as the Atlantic Ocean.
Nevada
Could be a race depending what happens in the Senate between now and election time. It is not an impossibility that a Senate Majority Leader loses a re-election bid.
Colorado
Colorado is just a purple state and you can't quite tell what can happen with it. The state went for Obama and the current Senator is Michael Bennet, who was appointed to the seat and has never been on a statewide ballot.
As with every election time will obviously tell, it does not look good for Republicans right now. I can see a very real possibility that Dems pick up 3 or 4 seats.
The way I see this election there are about 6 Republican seats that are up for grabs (Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio). These seats are up for grabs because either the seat is open due to retirement or an unpopular incumbent. One important thing to keep in mind is the number one, all it takes is one of these seats to go Democratic and there are 60 Democratic votes in the Senate. The races break down like this:
Missouri
A real mess for Republicans. The seat is from retiring Senator Kit Bond (R). The other senator is a Democrat. The state basically went 50-50 in 2008. The dems seem to already have their nominee Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who comes from a very famous political family in the state. On the Republican side there is one announced candidate Rep Roy Blunt but he is doing all the well in terms of polls and money.
Kentucky
In 2004 Senator Bunning barely won and it looks like if he does actually go forward and run he might actually lose. Bunning has not been getting any help from Senate Republicans. What's worse is that there aren't many possibilities the Republicans can put up against Bunning.
New Hampshire
The seat is open after the retirement of Judd Gregg. The democratic nominee looks like it could be between current democratic Rep. Paul Hodes and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. Former Senator John Sununu seems to be the only likely Republican that would get into the race.
Florida
Another open seat after the retirement of Republican Mel Martinez. This race is a toss-up at least until the nominees are decided. The state went for Obama in 2008 but right now in a head to head matchup a generic republican leads by 1%.
Pennsylvania
Senator Arlen Specter is running for re-election but will face a primary fight against former Rep. Pete Tooomey and a tough general election. Pennsylvania is a blue state and the 2004 race was very close. I see Specter surviving the primary challenge, but I can see him running out of energy and money to put up a good fight.
Ohio
Open seat due to retirement of Republican Senator George Voinivich. I think this seat will stay in Republican hands. Former Rep. Rob Portman seems to have a good hold on the race. At the end of the day the state is Ohio and has been a toss-up in recent national elections.
The Democrats will have to work hard in about 4 states (Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut,Nevada). What you should note about that statement is that I said "work hard" in 4 states. Each one of these states are unique on their own.
Illinois
Illinois could be a possibility (I know I am optimistic) depending on who the Republican nominee is. The only real chance this could be a race is if Rep. Mark Kirk decides to run for the Senate. Even with Kirk in the race it will be tough, Illinois is a very blue state. Illinoisans are mad at the corruption of their former governor and the scandals around their Senator Roland Burris, but I don't think they are mad enough to vote for the other party just another Democratic candidate.
Connecticut
I blogged entirely about this race last week. For more details see that post but the bottom line is Dodd is not popular in the state and losing in the polls right now. If the banking scandals surronding him continue he very well may be out of a job. What you should keep in mind though is Connecticut is as blue as the Atlantic Ocean.
Nevada
Could be a race depending what happens in the Senate between now and election time. It is not an impossibility that a Senate Majority Leader loses a re-election bid.
Colorado
Colorado is just a purple state and you can't quite tell what can happen with it. The state went for Obama and the current Senator is Michael Bennet, who was appointed to the seat and has never been on a statewide ballot.
As with every election time will obviously tell, it does not look good for Republicans right now. I can see a very real possibility that Dems pick up 3 or 4 seats.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
You spent my money on what?
If you can't guess political campaigns interest me if not consume most of my attention. But a recent story released by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram stating Texas Congressmen Joe Barton has lost a significant amount of money ($700K) in the stock market.
"What's new?" you might ask. Well he invested his campaign fund into the stock market. To be fair to Rep. Barton what he has done is completely legal. Also, this story probably wouldn't have made news if the market had not dropped about 50% from its October 2007 highs. But I think the underlying principle of what Congressman Barton and other public officials are doing or trying to do with their campaign cash that really irks me.
Correct me if I am wrong but when I or you give money to a political candidate I expect that money to be used, you know, for their campaign, or at least their future campaigns. The reason why I give money is because I hope that the person I gave the money to wins public office and votes the way I think they should vote.
This incident raises the question of what exactly should politicians do with their spare campaign cash when they don't have to spend it for their campaigns?
Barton is acting liking a capitalist and I think capitalism is a great thing, but could there be a conflict of interest with a Congressman's investments and what might be before him on the floor of the House? People have talked about conflicts of interest politicians have based on a politicians private investments. A politicians private investments, like what they invest in their retirement account should be for the most part private. But, I think the issue changes when the funds come from the voting public and to be used specifically for running for a public office.
But the campaign cash being invested is not the only issue. Rep. Barton probably has some fees associated with his investment account like commission etc. Who here would be willing to give money to a politician to pass along to a broker?
I know the family who scrimped and saved money to contribute to a politician because they believed in the politician wouldn't be happy to know their contribution went to pay a broker.
But, what Rep. Barton and others have done pales in comparison to what former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is trying to do with his campaign fund. The former governor has asked that his campaign be allowed to use his campaign fund for his legal defense. If you don't know the ex-governor is on trial for racketeering and fraud.
The decision for the Blagojevich matter is in the hands of US District Judge James Zagel and a decision is not expected to be made until May 1st. I hope the good judge comes to his senses and doesn't allow the ex-governor access to campaign funds.
I think it would be refreshing if politicians couldn't use their campaign contributions to get them out of jail for crimes they committed while they were in public office. I also think it would be refreshing if politicians invested their cash maybe in US Treasury bonds rather than the stock of the day. What do you think?
"What's new?" you might ask. Well he invested his campaign fund into the stock market. To be fair to Rep. Barton what he has done is completely legal. Also, this story probably wouldn't have made news if the market had not dropped about 50% from its October 2007 highs. But I think the underlying principle of what Congressman Barton and other public officials are doing or trying to do with their campaign cash that really irks me.
Correct me if I am wrong but when I or you give money to a political candidate I expect that money to be used, you know, for their campaign, or at least their future campaigns. The reason why I give money is because I hope that the person I gave the money to wins public office and votes the way I think they should vote.
This incident raises the question of what exactly should politicians do with their spare campaign cash when they don't have to spend it for their campaigns?
Barton is acting liking a capitalist and I think capitalism is a great thing, but could there be a conflict of interest with a Congressman's investments and what might be before him on the floor of the House? People have talked about conflicts of interest politicians have based on a politicians private investments. A politicians private investments, like what they invest in their retirement account should be for the most part private. But, I think the issue changes when the funds come from the voting public and to be used specifically for running for a public office.
But the campaign cash being invested is not the only issue. Rep. Barton probably has some fees associated with his investment account like commission etc. Who here would be willing to give money to a politician to pass along to a broker?
I know the family who scrimped and saved money to contribute to a politician because they believed in the politician wouldn't be happy to know their contribution went to pay a broker.
But, what Rep. Barton and others have done pales in comparison to what former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is trying to do with his campaign fund. The former governor has asked that his campaign be allowed to use his campaign fund for his legal defense. If you don't know the ex-governor is on trial for racketeering and fraud.
The decision for the Blagojevich matter is in the hands of US District Judge James Zagel and a decision is not expected to be made until May 1st. I hope the good judge comes to his senses and doesn't allow the ex-governor access to campaign funds.
I think it would be refreshing if politicians couldn't use their campaign contributions to get them out of jail for crimes they committed while they were in public office. I also think it would be refreshing if politicians invested their cash maybe in US Treasury bonds rather than the stock of the day. What do you think?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
A Connecticut Lesson: Dodd has something to learn from Lieberman
The 2010 Senate race is getting interesting already. Republicans have a challenge ahead of them trying to prevent the Democrats getting 60 seats. But could they gain a seat in Connecticut? That's right I didn't mistype the state, Connecticut. Senator Chris Dodd is in for a tough re-election fight.
To give a little background on Connecticut right now their entire congressional delegation is Democratic and in fact the entire New England Delegation is Democratic. Connecticut hasn't voted for a Republican in a presidential election since 1988. Right now there are three potential Republican challengers and each one is beating Senator Dodd in a head to head match up. A recent Quinnipiac University poll has the race as follows:
Match-up #1
Candidate Vote%
Former Rep. Rob Simmons 50%
Senator Dodd 34%
Match-up #2
Candidate Vote%
State St. Sam Caliguri 41%
Senator Dodd 37%
Match-up #3
Candidate Vote%
Ambassador Tom Foley 43%
Senator Dodd 35%
Not only are the poll numbers frightening for Dodd and his allies, his fundraising abilities (or lack thereof) within Connecticut shows he might be in trouble. Dodd recent filing with the FEC shows he has $1 million raised the first quarter but only $4250 came from within the state. Those numbers highlight his unpopularity within the state but also a larger issue with campaign finance
Keep in mind $1 million is still a $1 million and Dodd still is an incumbent. There also is no doubt Dodd will get help from his Senate colleagues and former Senate colleagues like President Obama and Vice President Biden. The White House is already talking about Senator Dodd and their eagerness to help come 2010 (which means they are already scared).
But I believe there is a lesson Senator Dodd should learn from the other Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman when he ran for re-election lost the Democratic nomination in 2006 but won as an Independent. The lesson Liberman learned was if Connecticut likes you, you will win. The same logic can be applied for Dodd, if Connecticut doesn't like you, you can lose. In 2006, a lot of national Democrats did not like Liberman but Connecticuters did. In 2010, a lot of national democrats like Dodd, but so far Connecticuters don't. In the end, Connecticut picks their Senator.
It's still very early in this Senate race and a lot of anger towards Dodd is directed at him from what he has done (or not done) as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. If the economic situation improves people may be more forgiving of him but he does have some other ethical accusations against him. I certainly can't call this race yet but I believe in 6 months we can have an idea of where this race is heading.
To give a little background on Connecticut right now their entire congressional delegation is Democratic and in fact the entire New England Delegation is Democratic. Connecticut hasn't voted for a Republican in a presidential election since 1988. Right now there are three potential Republican challengers and each one is beating Senator Dodd in a head to head match up. A recent Quinnipiac University poll has the race as follows:
Match-up #1
Candidate Vote%
Former Rep. Rob Simmons 50%
Senator Dodd 34%
Match-up #2
Candidate Vote%
State St. Sam Caliguri 41%
Senator Dodd 37%
Match-up #3
Candidate Vote%
Ambassador Tom Foley 43%
Senator Dodd 35%
Not only are the poll numbers frightening for Dodd and his allies, his fundraising abilities (or lack thereof) within Connecticut shows he might be in trouble. Dodd recent filing with the FEC shows he has $1 million raised the first quarter but only $4250 came from within the state. Those numbers highlight his unpopularity within the state but also a larger issue with campaign finance
Keep in mind $1 million is still a $1 million and Dodd still is an incumbent. There also is no doubt Dodd will get help from his Senate colleagues and former Senate colleagues like President Obama and Vice President Biden. The White House is already talking about Senator Dodd and their eagerness to help come 2010 (which means they are already scared).
But I believe there is a lesson Senator Dodd should learn from the other Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman when he ran for re-election lost the Democratic nomination in 2006 but won as an Independent. The lesson Liberman learned was if Connecticut likes you, you will win. The same logic can be applied for Dodd, if Connecticut doesn't like you, you can lose. In 2006, a lot of national Democrats did not like Liberman but Connecticuters did. In 2010, a lot of national democrats like Dodd, but so far Connecticuters don't. In the end, Connecticut picks their Senator.
It's still very early in this Senate race and a lot of anger towards Dodd is directed at him from what he has done (or not done) as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. If the economic situation improves people may be more forgiving of him but he does have some other ethical accusations against him. I certainly can't call this race yet but I believe in 6 months we can have an idea of where this race is heading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
