DSCC's Chair, NJ's Menendez, Next to Retire? photo NJ.com
Chris Dodd, the 5 term Democrat Senator from the Nutmeg State has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2010. Dodd, who has watch his political stock decline following several scandals dealing with the nation’s mortgage and subsequent financial scandal, has been polling behind Republican challenger Rob Simmons by up to 14 points. According to the Hartford Courant National Democrats did everything possible to improve Dodd’s numbers, but began to get “antsy” when the numbers failed to improve. The Democrats are most likely going to run Richard Blumenthal, the State’s Attorney General – the premise: Blumenthal is one of the most popular politician’s in the state. Democrats remain confident that Connecticut will remain firmly in Democrat control that said they were also confident that Dodd would recover and continue his “work” in the Senate.
Over in North Dakota, Bryon Dorgan, claimed he would prefer to pursue other interests than the Senate. Again, Democrats were confident Dorgan would recover from low polling against a hypothetical challenge from Republican John Hoeven.
The one factor in all media reports regarding Democrats who are retiring, switching parties, and or facing a special election (see Martha Coakley D. versus Scott Brown Republican in the Mass. Special Election to fill the vacant Senate Seat in the Commonwealth), is that “Obama carried the state”. Apparently, that data is no longer valid in terms of saving one’s own political hide in any given state. That was 2008, this is 2010, and polling on the President’s job performance and programs match that of the embattled senators, congressional members and governors who are getting out, rather than face costly campaigns the results of which are far from certain.
The Chair of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee apparently has his hands full between retirements and specifically the contest in Massachusetts. Recently, CQ Politics blog declared the State of Massachusetts “Safe Democrat”, that was prior to a poll released by Rasmussen showing that Democrat Martha Coakley, who had appeared to take the seat for granted, might have to cut short her vacation and campaign. It may be a little too late, and in the normal finger-pointing that appears so frequently in party politics, the victim, according to the same CQ blog, will be the Senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez. According to CQ, (who incidentally gave Coakley an extra point based on the Rasmussen Poll) should the State of Massachusetts fall to Scott Brown, then Menendez would take the blame. Apparently, the Title says it all: “A Mess in Massachusetts for Menendez”. The writer lists everything possible that Menendez can do to get Coakley elected (short of voter fraud) and the result is the same, good news for Republican Scott Brown.
Of special interest, this is the first time an article on this race or any other “blue state “race, has not finished with “Safe Democrat”. Once again, all articles regarding the race in Massachusetts focus on the popularity of Obama, rather than the unfavorable of the Democrat who is actually running for office.
With Dodd, it was clearly a question of why throw good money after bad, and a sense that there was no way he could retain his seat. Dorn was most likely doing the same math, and factoring in a battle that, given both men’s age, could possibly upset retirement plans post government jobs.
Reid, over in Nevada is the next one to watch. Although Democrats are sticking to their guns, confident that Reid will win out over a 7 to 10 point disadvantage regardless of which Republican is polled against him, are clearly smoking something. There is a groundswell of conservative activism coming out of Nevada, and spreading across the states, these activists are looking at races in places as far flung as Massachusetts, including the U.S. Senate Race between Coakley and Brown, and the Massachusetts 4th District Race, where incumbent Barney Frank is facing Republican Earl Sholley.
One factor to consider in the Massachusetts races, they are being largely ignored by the national parties – given the fact that Obama carried the state handily, Massachusetts by 62% (Connecticut by 61%, and Nevada by 53%). in 2008 That, and the fact that Massachusetts and Connecticut have both been held by Democrats (for the most part) since the 1970’s. What they are not factoring is the substantial increase in “unenrolleds” or “unaffiliated” voters in both states. In the case of Massachusetts the “unenrolled” are the majority party, eclipsing the Democrats by 20 points – that cannot be ignored. Additionally, when viewing Obama’s poll numbers – from Rasmussen to Marist to Quinnipiac the news is not good - a November poll suggested that Obama had lost the independent vote “who went from 3 points negative to 14”.
It is now January and those numbers have not improved. Add more woes to Menendez and the DNC in general: a new study by Rasmussen suggests that the number of American’s identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to the lowest point in seven years.
What’s in a poll? Polling, for the most part, is a scientific estimate, pollsters can skew polls and results by asking questions in a certain manner or, for example, eliminating factors from a poll to improve results. See Rasmussen Poll on Massachusetts – they did not include Joe Kennedy, the Libertarian Candidate by name – although it is doubtful that Kennedy would acquire more than 6% of the vote in any case (based on historical patterns – Democrats who are not inclined to vote for Coakley may choose Kennedy – giving Brown a better position. Of course, all pundits keep pointing to the Obama popularity factor in all states and treat it as a given that regardless of the candidate and or the office, it should follow that the Democrats will ultimately win. One is getting the impression however, that those retiring, or switching parties, are doing so because they are mindful of 2006 – and the George Bush brand gone bad through the constant pulse of the media. Today it is not the media that is pushing the brand of the Democrats; rather it is their constituents, who apparently object to the policies of the current administration and the overall job performance of the Congress and the President.
The next question, how many more “retirements” will take place in the coming months (prior to filing deadlines) and which of the remaining high-profile Democrats will decide not to seek re-election 2010 and 2012?
No comments:
Post a Comment