We had a pretty good night on election night in the Northeast. We cleaned house. We nailed 1 GOP Senator, 6 House of Reps Districts, 1 State Senate and held on to all of the State Senates, State Houses, US House Reps and US Senators we had coming into this cycle.
That the Northeast is rapidly realigning towards team Blue is undeniable!
But the work my friends has merely begun. Forget the bunkum about us being irretrievably on defense in 2010 come below the fold to see who should be in our sights in 2010 as we stay on offense in the Northeast........
Research 2000 for Daily Kos (10/20-22, likely voters, 9/17-19 in parens):
Dennis Shulman (D): 40 (34)
Scott Garrett (R-inc): 47 (49)
Other: 2 (2)
Undecided: 11 (15)
(MoE: ±5%)
This is a tidy improvement over R2K's first poll in this district, reflecting in part the fact that Shulman went up on the air between the two surveys. It also helps explain Scott Garrett's wild freak-out and sick smears against Shulman. (My favorite: Shulman, an ordained rabbi, is "soft on Israel." Uh huh.) You may also recall that earlier this week, the Club for Growth, which usually cares naught for incumbents, endorsed Garrett and may be getting ready to drop some bucks on his behalf.
In this expensive NYC metro district, Shulman will likely need some outside help of his own if he is to unseat Garrett. There's still time for the DCCC to come in with a big moneybomb in this (and many other) districts. (Last cycle, for instance, they nuked Charlie Bass in NH-02 on Halloween.) We'll soon see if Shulman has the momentum to pull off a major upset here.
Bonus finding: McCain leads Obama 51-39 (it was 52-37 in the last poll).
Americans appear ready to sweep a lot of Democrats into office on November 4. Not only does Barack Obama maintain a solid lead in the popular vote and electoral vote estimates, several Senate races that appeared safe Republican holds a few months ago are now considered tossups.
Polling is harder to come by in House races, but here too there is scattered evidence of a coming Democratic tsunami. Having already lost three special Congressional elections in red districts this year, House Republicans are now scrambling to defend many entrenched incumbents.
In this diary, I hope to convince you of three things:
1. Some Republicans who never saw it coming are going to be out of a job in two weeks.
On a related note,
2. Even the smartest experts cannot always predict which seats offer the best pickup opportunities.
For that reason,
3. Activists should put resources behind many under-funded challengers now, instead of going all in for a handful of Democratic candidates.
Last night, I joined a rally of Lobbyists for Republican Scott Garrett, who gathered to thank Garrett for supporting the financial industry that has run our economy into the ground. Scott Garrett, who represents New Jersey's fifth Congressional district, doesn't just accept campaign donations and personal loans from the financial giants that caused our current economic crisis - he hired a former Countrywide lobbyist as his chief of staff. Garrett is among the nation's strongest supporters for deregulation of the financial industry that puts profit before people struggling thanks to today's economic crisis.
Research 2000 for Daily Kos (9/17-18, likely voters, no trendlines):
Dennis Shulman (D): 34
Scott Garrett (R-inc): 49
(MoE: ±5%)
This is the first public poll of the race in New Jersey's fifth congressional district, where Rabbi Dennis Shulman is taking on retrograde wingnut Rep. Scott Garrett. There are a number of things worth pointing out about these results.
On the positive side, Garrett is below the fifty percent mark, which is always troubling for an incumbent. At the same time, his favorables stand at a weak 44-38 - almost as many people dislike him as like him. On the flipside, Rabbi Shulman's favorables stand at 36-26, which means that nearly 40% of likely voters don't yet know who he is. In other words, he has room to grow.
It's exactly that growing room which gives Shulman the chance to make up the fifteen-point gap that R2K says he faces. Shulman's doing pretty well among Dems, winning them at a 72-11 rate, while Garrett is doing ten points better among members of his own party, taking Republicans by 77-6. The real issue, though, is independents. Garrett cleans up here 48-35. The good news for Shulman is that this group is the least familiar with him: fully 45% of indies say they have no opinion of the Democrat - an opportunity, if Shulman can get his name out there.
Those independents are the real X-factor in this poll. They make up a huge 54% of the sample, while Republicans clock in at 27% and Dems at 19%. This is actually pretty close to where registration stood in the district before Super Tuesday. However, Dem registration has shot up since then; I'm told that more recent figures indicate the district's makeup is more like 44I-32R-24D today. But knowing registration numbers is one thing - figuring out who will show up on election day is quite another.
And in that regard, NJ-05 is a bit of an electoral engima. The district voted for Bush in 2004 by what looks like a daunting 57-43 margin. In 2000, however, the margin was half as wide, just 52-45. Why the seven-point shift, when Bush only gained about three nationwide? Most analysts I've discussed this with believe there was something of a "9/11 effect" here, just as there was in many parts of the tri-state area.
If this assessment is accurate, then this right-ward shift may have been temporary. One possible piece of support for this thesis is the presidential head-to-head, which shows McCain leading Obama 52-37. Obama trails past Dem performance quite significantly, but McCain is at Bush 2000 - and not Bush '04 - levels, for the moment. In a red district, though, undecideds are more likely to drift Republican, so McCain's current 52% may not be his ceiling.
One final thought: Neither candidate in the fifth CD (which is covered by the ultra-expensive NYC media market) has gone up on the air yet, so there is plenty of potential for this race to move.
The Northeast (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island & Vermont) has been sharply trending towards the Democratic party for some years now. Increasingly at a State and Federal level Republicans are finding it harder to get elected in the Northeast, be they conservatives or moderates, particularly in statewide races. And this years election seems certain to thin out their ranks even further.
We now have 7/9 Governors, 14/18 Senators and 51/65 House Districts!
Below the line for a look at the 14 GOP held House Races in the Northeast in 2008.
Stuart Rothenberg on Rabbi Dennis Shulman, running for Congress against GOP Rep. Scott Garrett in New Jersey:
Finally, at times, the rabbi seems very un-rabbi-like. He is quoted as using the "s" word very matter-of-factly in Toobin's piece and using the "b.s." word in Time. I expect a lot of folks in the district may wonder about that.
And Shulman's rhetoric seems more like a Democratic insider than a man of the cloth, such as his comment that Garrett is "in the pocket of Big Oil" and that the runup in energy prices "is the direct result of Big Oil and their cronies like Scott Garrett blocking sound energy policy for years."
This is as ugly as it is wrong. In his column, Rothenberg criticizes a New Yorker profile of Shulman by Jeff Toobin, saying that the author's "forte is simply not politics." Yet when did Rothenberg appoint himself an expert on religion?
Indeed, reform Judaism - the sort practiced by Shulman - embraces a diverse body of beliefs, styles and personal choices. It is Shulman's congregants - not Beltway blowhards - who determine what standards their clergymen ought to meet, and whether they meet them. As a practicing Jew myself, the thought of a smug DC pundit who isn't even a member of my synagogue proclaiming my rabbi spiritually unfit offends me to no end - especially when the "sin" in question is a violation of some ossified standard of bipartisan gentility that never actually existed in the first place.
In fact, in pluralistic America, I'd expect all those who respect the rights of others to observe their religion as they see fit to be displeased about remarks like this. They have no place in our politics or our houses of worship. And as I say, this kind of statement isn't just offensive, it doesn't even pass muster as good political analysis. Case in point: While I'm sure some Catholics didn't think Fr. Robert Drinan - who beat a 28-year incumbent on an anti-Vietnam War platform and supported abortion rights throughout his career - "acted like a priest," that didn't stop him from winning five terms as a Congressman in Massachusetts. He only stepped down because the Pope - not his constituents - forced him to.
If Rothenberg wants to critique Shulman on the merits, fine. But leave religion out of it. Period.
In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. But so far, it's been all over the map. I'll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the "good guys" are.
First, let's start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill. They do deserve credit, as it's their jobs on the line.
Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.
Earlier in the cycle, Democrats had hoped to target three House Republican incumbents in New Jersey: NJ-07's Mike Ferguson, NJ-03's Jim Saxton, and NJ-02's Frank LoBiondo. With the retirements of Ferguson and Saxton, Democrats have a solid shot of picking up both seats with the candidacies of Linda Stender and John Adler. For a while, it looked possible that state Senator Jeff Van Drew would round out the trio by challenging the entrenched LoBiondo in his D+4 district. Alas, that wasn't meant to be:
State Sen. Jeff Van Drew won't challenge incumbent Frank LoBiondo for a congressional seat in November, Van Drew said this afternoon.
Van Drew was elected to the Senate in November after serving three terms in the state Assembly. [...]
"We are approaching the most complex and challenging budget in the state's history and for that reason, I'm going to stay where I am for now, although I will clearly say I look forward to the day when I will run for the United States Congress," Van Drew said in a telephone interview this afternoon.
Van Drew said it's possible he could challenge LoBiondo in 2010.
This is the safer move for Van Drew -- fresh from beating an incumbent GOP state Senator last November, another bid against an incumbent so soon after his last race might have rubbed some voters the wrong way. However, it does look promising that Van Drew will be willing to make a real race of this seat in 2010. I look forward to his candidacy.
Meanwhile, the promising campaign of Rabbi Dennis Shulman against NJ-05's ultra-conservative Scott Garrett leaves me hopeful that we could see three pick-up opportunities in the Garden State, after all.
