New York’s state Senate, gay marriage and Mike Bloomberg

This week, New York took one more step towards becoming a one party state. For the first time in four decades, Democrats took control of the state Senate, locking the GOP out of all levels of state government.

As you might remember, this outcome was not a foregone conclusion: After Democrats seized a 32-30 majority on November 4th, three of their state Senators threatened to bolt the caucus for somewhat unclear demands – a mix of identity politics and policy disputes.

This created a chaotic situation in which Democratic leaders begged the Gang of Three to stay in the party, at first offering them a stunning amount of concessions before retreating when the caucus’s rank and file protested.

At the end of the day, Democrats managed to cut a deal with Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sen.-elect Pedro Espada and Sen. Carl Kruger to get them to vote for Democrat Malcolm Smith as Majority Leader. On Wednesday, the deed was consummated and the state Senate was officially taken over by Democrats.

The biggest question mark that now remains is gay marriage. Governor David Paterson, like his predecessor Eliot Spitzer, was interested in legalizing same sex unions – and this was the main reason Ruben Diaz, a staunchly homophobic minister, threatened to back Republicans.

Rumors have been circulating that Democrats told Diaz they would not introduce a gay marriage bill over the next two years if he stuck with the caucus. The party’s leadership has denied having made any such promise, but Diaz has indicated that discussions with party leaders have reassured him about the reform’s prospects.

Democrats are already saying that too many of their members would vote against the bill for gay marriage to pass the state Senate. That might be true (they do, after all, only have a 32-30 majority), but for such information to be leaking this early clearly suggests that the Democratic leadership has no intention of pushing gay marriage very hard in the coming months.

The second question mark is the leadership change’s impact on Mike Bloomberg. The New York City Mayor might not be a partisan Republican, but he has frequently clashed with Albany Democrats, and state Assembly President Sheldon Silver takes great delight in squashing Bloomberg’s plans.

Over the past year, Bloomberg donated a lot of money to Republicans to help them retain control of the state Senate and he campaigned on behalf of GOP incumbents. For Democrats to now seize control of the state Senate will make Bloomberg’s ties to Albany even more raucous.

This could make it tougher for him to convince Albany to pass New York City-related bills for which Bloomberg needs state approval (this is especially the case for taxation-related issues). And don’t forget that Bloomberg could remain in Gracie Mansion until 2013 now that he changed the city’s term limit laws, so this will affect him in the long term.

On the other hand, Bloomberg could gain a huge boost soon if David Paterson appoints Caroline Kennedy to the Senate. The former first daughter’s connections to the Mayor have caused some prominent Democrats to express worry, and Kennedy refused to answer when Politico asked whether she would support Bloomberg’s Democratic challenger in this fall’s election. If she becomes Senator, Kennedy would be unlikely to do much to help the Democratic nominee, further reducing the party’s hopes of regaining City Hall.

Then again, Caroline Kennedy might no longer be favored to win Paterson’s nod. The Village Voice now thinks that the front-runner might be Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand! Could it be that the main alternative to a woman with little to no public record (but who, we are told, leans to the liberal side…) are two conservative Democrats (Reps. Gillibrand and Israel)? It’s hard for progressive Democrats to know where to turn. On the other hand, the list of those who are known to have received Paterson’s Senate questionnaire keeps getting lengthier. The latest known contender is Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown. [Update: Kennedy and Paterson held their first in person meeting to discuss the seat yesterday.]

—

Also: I will introduce yet another look for the website in the days ahead. I will be hosting Campaign Diaries myself, which will lead to a fair amount of changes – and it will also mean that I will be allowed to put in some ads again. (My longtime readers will remember that I had ads until the summer.) I know that will annoying, but that should help me take care of the website’s operating costs.

Rumors: Voinovich and McCaul Mull Exit, Florida and Missouri Search Senate Candidates

Throughout December, politicians across the country promised they would use the holiday period to reflect on their electoral plans and come to some decisions. It is no surprise, then, that the first few days of 2009 are so rich in retirement and recruitment drama. In fact, there should be plenty more in the weeks ahead and the rumor mill is working full time.

Ohio, and Voinovich’s retirement:

Kit Bond’s somewhat unexpected retirement announcement has made Republicans paranoid that other Senators are looking to follow suit, and it did not take long for articles to pop up about Ohio’s George Voinovich, who is in his 70s. Today, The Columbus Dispatch and Political Machine are both reporting that he is very seriously looking at the possibility of retirement; the latter story hints that Voinovich might be coming out with an announcement as early as next week.

Both parties have candidates waiting in the wings (see my Senate page for more background), and an open race would be hotly contested by both parties. But there is no question that a Voinovich exit would be horrendous news for the GOP at a time they already have a lot to deal with.

Florida, and Sink’s candidacy:

Former Governor Jeb Bush’s decision not to run for Florida’s open Senate race has freed up other Republicans who are now considering a bid; but Democrats are still waiting for their towering figure, state CFO Alex Sink. The latest speculation was sparked by an interview Sink gave to St. Petersburg Times. She notes that “open seats like this don’t come around very often” and describes herself as “very strongly considering” running. It would be hard to blame the DSCC if they got excited by such comments, and it does sound like Sink is leaning towards a run.

Missouri, and the GOP nomination:

Barely 24 hours have passed since Kit Bond’s announcement that he will not seek re-election, but there have been plenty of maneuvering among Missouri Republicans. Politico reports that former Senator Jim Talent was likely to jump in the race; and Rep. Roy Blunt also looks like a probable candidate now that his son (outgoing Governor Matt Blunt) touted his father’s prospects. And former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman told The St. Louis Dispatch that she was “thinking about it.”

As I suggested yesterday, it looks like the GOP will not be able to avoid a divisive, crowded (and thus unpredictable) primary. To make matters worse, Republicans are already taking shots at each other, with Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder criticizing Steelman’s words on Bond. That confirms that Steelman’s candidacy could make this a particularly bruising primary, since it could lead to a replay of the alliances of the 2008 gubernatorial contest that left nominee Kenny Hulshof to weak to run an effective campaign.

An open seat in Texas?

Rep. Michael McCaul is considering a run for state Attorney General, a position that is now occupied by a man who is rumored to be eying Texas’s Lieutenant Governorship. McCaul’s move would open TX-10, a staunchly conservative district that gave George Bush 62% of the vote in 2004 but that has been rapidly trending leftward due to a rising Hispanic population. In fact, McCaul’s re-election race became unexpectedly competitive in the final weeks of the 2008 cycle. But the DCCC never invested in the district, and McCaul survived by 11%. In other words, Republicans would be favored to hold on to an open House seat, but Democrats would have a shot at scoring an upset.

Poll watch: A trio of Senate surveys finds competitive ’10 races

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only Republican who can hope to make California Senator Barbara Boxer break a sweat. Of course, the first obstacle to the Governator’s candidacy could be the GOP primaries, as conservatives would be sure to try and derail him, but would Schwarzenegger really stand a chance if he made it to the general election?

Research 2000 is the first polling outfit to test that question, and it found a competitive race: Boxer leads Schwarzenegger 49% to 40%.

For an incumbent to post a single-digit lead and to stay under 50% is always a sign of vulnerability, and there is no question that Boxer is not the most entrenched of Senators: Her approval rating is a mediocre 48% (against 46%), leaving no doubt that she could be beaten. In other words, a Boxer-Schwarzenegger dual would be competitive.

On the other hand, Arnold’s numbers are not that promising. The Governor is not your average challenger; he is very well known, already polarizing and has thus little room to grow. The usual rules that test an incumbent’s vulnerabilities (particularly the 50% threshold) are thus less relevant in a Boxer-Schwarzenegger match-up. Furthermore, Schwarzenegger’s own approval ratings are very low (only 42% of respondents approve of his performance, versus 51%), and that raises obvious questions as to his electability.

In fact, given how much hope some Republicans have put on a Schwarzenegger candidacy and given the presumption that he would be a very tough opponent for Democrats to beat, this poll’s results should be more comforting than worrisome to the Boxer camp.

—

Meanwhile, Rasmussen released a poll of New York’s Senate race. The results contradict Wednesday’s PPP survey that found Caroline Kennedy leading Rep. Peter King by only 2%: Rasmussen shows Kennedy in a far more comfortable position, leading King 51% to 33%.

I see no reason to take this as a sign that Kennedy would start a re-election race in a good position if she were appointed. On Wednesday, I commented on the PPP poll by writing that “Kennedy carries one of the most famous last names in American society, she has high name recognition, and she was supposedly a darling of the Democratic base; King, by contrast, has low name recognition and most respondents can only situate him based on his party affiliation… A poll released in such a context should have found very favorable results for Kennedy.”

The same analysis holds true for Rasmussen’s poll. Testing a Boxer-Schwarzenegger match-up two years before the election can lead to valuable results since both candidates are very well known; all a Kennedy-King poll tests is Kennedy’s vulnerability and her own numbers give her little comfort: She hovers around the 50% mark, less than 50% think she is qualified for the job and only 21% think that she would have been considered if she was not named Kennedy.

—

Finally, ARG offered us the cycle’s first look at New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg’s vulnerability. The Granite State dramatically swung blue over the past three cycles, and Gregg is one of the last state Republicans who is left standing.

Three Democrats are mentioned as possible contenders, and it is a shame that ARG did not test Gregg against Governor John Lynch, the least likely to make a run but probably the strongest challenger if he does so. However, ARG did match up the incumbent against the state’s two Democratic congressmen. Gregg crushes Rep. Carol Shea-Porter 54% to 35%; he beats Rep. Paul Hodes 47% to 40%.

Since Hodes and Shea-Porter each represent half of the state, they have enough of a profile to make these numbers valuable, and Gregg’s modest lead against Hodes should be enough to confirm to Democrats that the Senator is vulnerable.

On the other hand, Gregg is clearly not as endangered as Democrats might like, as his large margin against Shea-Porter attests too. Perhaps most interestingly, Gregg gets 30% (against Shea-Porter) and 22% (against Hodes) of the Democratic vote. That is a number that the Democratic nominee can hope to improve during the campaign, but it is also a measure of Gregg’s entrenchment and moderate reputation. In Maine, Republican Susan Collins held on to such level of support throughout the 2008 campaign.

Alaska and New Jersey: Recruitment season in gubernatorial races

Can Alaska Democrats hope to trip up Sarah Palin in 2010? At the very least, they now have a credible candidate for the gubernatorial race: Bob Poe, a former Alaska State Commissioner of Administration.

There is no question that Poe will face a very uphill race, and it is extremely difficult to even conceive of Palin losing in her re-election bid. Ted Stevens’s quasi-survival and Don Young’s victory this past November only increased Alaska’s profile as a staunchly red state, so how could Democrat even hope of forcing Palin to break a sweat?

On the other hand, the Democratic nominee in this race will undoubtedly become one of the better known challengers of the country because of Palin’s profile and her national ambitions. Democrats might rally to his side in the hope of derailing Palin, and the press is likely to cover this race more than it deserves – just as the 2006 New York Senate race got extensive coverage.

Finally, there is a clear benefit for Democrats to fielding a credible candidate, even if there is little to no chance that the incumbent loses. In 2010, Palin is likely to spend as much time as she can traveling across the country to rally the conservative base and raise money for fellow Republicans. Giving her no reason to spend any time in Alaska would free her up to build an extensive national network, just as Barack Obama did during the 2006 midterms.

On the other hand, for Palin to be forced to think about her re-election bid will take time away from those travels; that would hurt other Republican candidates and it will damage her own 2012 prospects.

—

Over the past decade, New Jersey Republicans have been as hapless as their New England counterparts. Voters detest Democratic politicians and Trenton’s fishy politics, but they hate the GOP even more – and that allows Democrats to survive September scares cycle after cycle. Republicans are hoping that Governor John Corzine’s re-election race in 2009 finally proves to be their breakthrough; and Corzine, after all, has attracted his own share of controversy over the years.

The GOP just managed to recruit a top-tier candidate, Chris Christie. The former U.S. Attorney attracted attention for prosecuting corruption cases in the state, and that is exactly why Republicans is excited by his candidacy. They hope Christie can come to represent the promise of a clean politics against Trenton’s Democratic establishment, allowing the GOP to improve its image and finally snatch away a statewide victory.

Before setting his sights on Corzine, Christie will first have to survive a contested primary. In the past, primary outcomes have hurt the GOP by eliminating the more electable candidate; but Christie should have enough establishment support to make his way to the general election and he could prove a tough opponent for Corzine. Much will depend on the national environment and whether Corzine has to carry on his shoulders the unpopularity of Washington Democrats on top of that of Trenton Democrats.

GOP’s Senate nightmare continues: Sen. Bond announces retirement [Updated]

In a clear sign that 2010 could be just as brutal for Senate Republicans as the past two cycles, Missouri Senator Kit Bond just announced that he would not run for re-election.

This bombshell creates a big opening for Democrats and yet another headache for an already diminished Republican caucus.

Republicans can at least tell themselves that the Senate seat was already vulnerable. Bond was a vulnerable incumbent who had never garnered more than 56% in any of his four previous senatorial victories, so his retirement does not suddenly endanger a safe Republican seat. In fact, Missouri was listed as the fourth most vulnerable seat of the cycle in my latest Senate ranking.

On the other hand, Bond’s retirement further damages Republican prospects of holding on to this seat. It takes a very damaged kind of incumbent for a party to be better off defending an open seat than fielding that incumbent. (In this cycle, only Mel Martinez and Jim Bunning fit that description, and the former has already relieved Republicans by announcing his retirement. The NRSC is surely praying for Bunning to follow Martinez’s example.)

An open seat is inherently unpredictable. It can be highly competitive or it can be a blowout – and this does not necessarily depend on the quality of recruitment because the national environment can have a much greater impact on open races. Democrats would love to reproduce the scenario of Missouri’s 2008 open gubernatorial race, where Democratic nominee Jay Nixon cruised through the general election and crushed then-Rep. Kenny Hulshof by 18%.

The biggest factors in that election was the contrast between the two candidates’ level of preparation. Nixon had been preparing to run for years, and he faced token opposition in the Democratic primary; on the GOP side, however, State Treasurer Sarah Steelman and Hulshof faced off in a bruising contest that hurt Hulshof’s general election prospects. The fact that Missouri’s primary is held relatively late (in August) did not help Hulshof: Nixon already had a foot in the governor’s mansion by the time Hulshof turned his attention to the general election.

(The same thing happened in New Mexico, where Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce’s battle left the latter bruised and financially ruined once he got to face Tom Udall in the general election.)

Unfortunately for Republicans, a similar scenario could unfold in 2010: Democrats have one obvious candidate, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, daughter of former Governor Mel and former Senator Jean. She was already mentioned as a candidate before Bond’s announcement, so today’s development dramatically increases the probability of her jumping in the race. Carnahan could probably clear her party’s primary field.

Republicans, meanwhile, have a deep bench in Missouri, but they lack a towering figure whose entry would be enough to clear the primary field. Steelman and Hulshof could both run for Bond’s seat; other potential candidates are outgoing Governor Matt Blunt, former Senator Jim Talent, Reps. Roy Blunt and Jo Ann Emerson. Most of these Republicans could run a competitive campaign against Carnahan, but could they survive the primary season? Have Talent and Blunt kept enough stature to force potential rivals out of the race?

The problem for Democrats, however, is that they do not have a particularly deep bench in the state, and there is no obvious candidate they can turn to if Robin Carnahan passes on the race. Her brother (Rep. Russ Carnahan) could perhaps make the race competitive.

Beyond Missouri’s Senate race, Bond’s retirement should worry Republicans that more Senators are finding prolonged life in the minority too unattractive to run for re-election; this could become even more of a problem when they realized just how painful it is going to be to only function with a 41-person caucus.

Bond’s retirement was somewhat unexpected. We were of course aware that Bond is a four-term Senator, but there were no obvious hints that he was about to forgo a 2010 run and Bond was nowhere near the top of the list of potential retirees.

That list still features Senators like Iowa’s Chuck Grassley and Ohio’s George Voinovich, who were deemed far more likely to retire than Bond or Martinez. For either Grassley or Voinovich to call it quits would lead to a nightmarish cycle for the NRSC, but Republicans should also start asking themselves how certain Senators like Richard Shelby or Judd Gregg are of running for re-election. I dare not even imagine the dreadful state in which their retirement would plunge the GOP.

Update: Potential Republican candidates are wasting no time positioning themselves for a run, and Politico reports that former Senator Jim Talent (who lost to Claire McCaskill in 2006 after serving only four years in the Senate) and former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt are both leaning towards a run. That would be quite a formidable clash in the Republica primary! It also looks very likely that Carnahan will mount a run for the Democratic nomination.

Chris Matthews bows out of Pennsylvania Senate race

A few months ago, it looked fairly certain that Chris Matthews would challenge Senator Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate race. But that certainty was soon replaced by (initially too cynical-sounding) speculation that Matthews was only trying to make himself more desirable to his MSNBC employers in order to have more bargaining chips during contract negotiations.

The fact that we learned more about the likelihood of a Matthews run from NBC executives than from political journalists suggests those rumors weren’t excessively cynical after all, and all speculation ended yesteday when Matthews finally clarified his intentions: Last night, he told the staff of Hardball that he would not run for Senate and would stay at MSNBC instead.

Many were already celebrating Specter-Matthews as the marquee race of the 2010 cycle (despite the fact that neither men was assured of surviving the primary), so Matthews’s decision certainly costs us entertainment-wise. But it is certainly not a setback for Democrats, who undoubtedly have stronger candidates they could field against the incumbent Senator than a somewhat controversial TV host whose only electoral experience is a failed House primary in 1974.

The trouble for Democrats was that many of their potential candidates might have been scared away by the prospect of running against the Matthews show – just as Al Franken’s entry in the Minnesota Senate race in the past cycle sucked the oxygen out of the room for potentially stronger Democrats. (It does look like Franken ended up winning, but I believe that another Democrat could have prevailed more easily.)

If Matthews had jumped in the Senate race, Democrats would have once again risked wasting one of their top pick-up opportunities by letting the celebrity and entertainment factors trumpet other considerations; and Matthews would have come to the Senate race with his share of baggage, starting with years of complaint about the sexism of some of his comments.

With Matthews’s exit, the attention will turn to other Democrats with a lower profile, starting with Rep. Patrick Murphy and Rep. Allyson Schwartz. Both have already acknowledged their interest in the race, and both would be strong contenders. (Here we could potentially find ourselves in a situation where the DCCC and DSCC clash, just as the NRSC and NRCC are expected to clash on Reps. King and Kirk. Schwarz represents a relatively safe district for Democrats, but an open seat in Murphy’s PA-08 would host a competitive race)

Other potential Democratic candidates include state legislators; Rep. Sestak has already ruled out a run. It is worth pointing out that Pennsylvania Democrats have no “dream candidate” whose mere entry would (justifiably or foolishly) strike Republicans with fear! Ed Rendell could be such a candidate, but the two-term Governor has not been attracting that much Senate buzz and he was busy in December trying to push Matthews in the race.

And don’t forget that we are also waiting for Club for Growth President Pat Toomey to announce whether he will run against Arlen Specter in the Republican primary. His decision will arguably be far more important than what any Democrats will have to say (including Matthews).

As Senate leadership caves on Burris, focus shifts on his electability

Few topics have created controversy on this blog since the general election – perhaps even since Hillary Clinton’s withdrawal – but Roland Burris’s appointment seems to be dividing my readership just as much as it is confusing Democratic politicians. But we might be heading for some resolution. Harry Reid has yet to announce that he will seat Roland Burris, but today’s events suggest it will not take that much longer for the Democratic leadership to blink.

Burris is now accumulating the support of prominent Democrats who are coming out in his favor, including former President Jimmy Carter, Rep. Jim Clyburn and Senator Diane Feinstein. Most importantly, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin had dramatically changed their tune by the end of a forty-five minute meetings with Rod Blagojevich’s pick.

No more warnings that Burris will never be part of the Democratic caucus; no more talk of a “tainted” appointment. Instead, Reid and Durbin outlined a procedure through which Burris could come to be seated. (He needs to get the Secretary of State to certify the appointment and testify in front of the state legislature that he engaged in no pay-to-play for his appointment to be transmitted to the Senate Rules Committee and then to the full Senate). This might still sound like a lengthy procedure, but it is much more of an opening than the Democratic leadership was willing to allow a few days ago.

(In a fascinating twist, The Star Tribune notes that Durbin’s comments on the importance of a certificate signed by both the Governor and the Secretary of State make it very difficult for the Democratic leadership to attempt to seat Al Franken, who does not have such a certificate yet.)

But the most reprehensibly nonsensical flip-flop is that of Illinois’s Secretary of State Jesse White. As soon as Blagojevich announced he would appoint Burris last week, White came out with an attention-grabbing statement that grabbed headline across the country. “Because of the current cloud of controversy surrounding the governor,” White wrote, “I cannot accept the document.”

Even when Burris’s defenders replied that White had no authority to deny the Governor’s decision, his office declared only reluctantly acknowledged that White was not sure he had the power to slow down Blagojevich’s appointment. Yet, in a disingenuous interview he gave this morning, White laughed off suggestions that his refusal to sign Blagojevich’s document has any significance. “They could have seated him without my signature,” he said, rejecting the idea that his role was anything but a “ceremonial” one. “Roland Burris is going to be seated,” White added.

The exact reasons for White’s turnaround are unclear to me (perhaps was it the pressure of his opposing an African-American once race was injected in the conversation?), but his attempts to downplay his initially confrontational stance are a great indicator of just how much the momentum has shifted in Burris’s favor.

—

With the increasing likelihood that Burris will be seated in the weeks ahead, Democrats have to start thinking about his re-election race. For one, we would know that there would be no special election in 2009 and that Burris would not face voters before 2010.

He could face a competitive Democratic primary, and challengers could use his ties to Rod Blagojevich to take him down on ethical grounds. He could be especially vulnerable if Blagojevich is still talked about in 2010, as he would most certainly be he is indicted and tried. That would be a long judicial process that would haunt Burris throughout the next two years. What could potentially save Burris is that it will be hard for an African-American to run against him given how racially charged the debate surrounding his appointment became.

If Burris survives the primary, Democrats undoubtedly could lose this Senate seat. Just how vulnerable Burris would be in the general election depends (just as in the primary) on how much Blagojevich is being talked about; but the circumstances of Burris’s appointment make him an obvious target for the GOP if they can field a credible candidate.

Illinois might have become a reliably Democratic state over the past two decades, but the state GOP is not in as much agony as in New England and New York. Blagojevich’s troubles give Illinois Republicans a chance to portray themselves as the clean, reformist party – much as Democrats hammered the state GOP on ethics at the start of this decade. For Burris to be the Democrats’ standard bearer on the November 2010 ballot would be quite a gift for the GOP’s effort to frame state politics.

The problem for GOP, of course, is that it has a thin bench; Republicans who are the most often mentioned are Reps. Roskam and Kirk, and both could mount a strong challenge to Burris. Yesterday, Kirk left the door open to a Senate run and only ruled out a gubernatorial candidacy.  Had there been a special election this spring, Kirk would have been highly likely to run since he would not have risked his congressional job.

Yet, both Roskam and Kirk would have to give up their House districts for a 2010 run. Unless the coming months suggest that Burris is likely to survive the Democratic primary or unless internal polls show that they have a great shot at the Senate seat, odds are against either of them jumping in the race.

(Just as with Peter King, this is a situation where the NRCC and NRSC could clash: The NRSC’s preferred candidate is undoubteldy Mark Kirk, but his departure from the House would create a huge headache for the NRCC in this blue-trending district.)

Poll watch: The Kennedy disaster, Palin loses to Murkowsky

Just a day after I argued that Caroline Kennedy could make a weak general election candidate because of her struggles on the trail and her lack of engagement with policy matters, Public Policy Polling released a poll testing Kennedy and Andrew Cuomo against the most probable Republican candidate, Rep. Peter King. The result is an unmitigated disaster for the former first daughter.

While Cuomo crushes King 48% to 29%, Kennedy is locked within the margin of error: She has a 46% to 44% edge. Stunningly, a quarter of Democrats say that they would turn their back on the dream of Camelot and cast a ballot for King!

Yes, Kennedy has not even been appointed. Yes, she would not face voters until November 2010, and she would certainly have time to improve her image and position herself as a hard-working incumbent until then. But let’s put these numbers in full context. Kennedy carries one of the most famous last names in American society, she has high name recognition, and she was supposedly a darling of the Democratic base; King, by contrast, is one of New York’s 29 representatives, and his name recognition isn’t particularly high. Most respondents can only situate him based on his party affiliation, and this is the staunchly blue Empire State we are talking about.

A poll released in such a context should have found very favorable results for Kennedy, not a tie. That the survey is being released before she is even appointed and before King declares his candidacy only makes it look worse for Kennedy, not better.

Worse still, Kennedy’s loss of standing since early December makes it difficult for her camp to argue that she would improve her numbers as New Yorkers get to know her as the incumbent. If a Senator Kennedy performs the same way as candidate Kennedy has over the past few weeks, Peter King would have a very good chance to score an upset indeed.

Finally, Kennedy performs 27% worse among white voters than does Cuomo; she trails by 9% while the Attorney General leads by 18%. Over the past few decades, white ethnics have been the vulnerability point for New York Democrats and King has already been pressing his case among that constituency by touting his modest roots and opposing them to a Kennedyesque entitlement.

—

Given that Alaska has become one of the most reliably Republican states in the country, whoever emerges out of the GOP’s Senate primary would be a shoo-in for the general election. That might make a Senate run an attractive option for Governor Sarah Palin if she feels like defeating incumbent Senator lisa Murkowski is not too difficult a task.

Two weeks ago, a Research 2000 survey found that Palin would crush Murkowski in a Republican primary. Today, however, a new poll commissioned by a conservative radio host finds the reverse result, 57% to 33% in Murkowski’s favor. The survey also finds that both women have strong approval ratings.

This poll suggests two things. First, Palin should be very careful about what she chooses to do: It would naturally be a disaster for her presidential ambitions if she were to not run for a gubernatorial re-election in 2010 but lose the Senate primary, leaving her out of a job. Second, we should not trust polls from Alaska; something about the state makes surveys extremely unreliable. Such a big disparity between two surveys taken over a similar period is a clear indication of that, as is the massive polling error every single polling outfit committed when testing Ted Stevens’s and Don Young’s re-election race.

Jeb Bush rules out run

Republican Senator Mel Martinez’s mid-November retirement depressed many Democrats, who were convinced that the GOP would find a stronger candidate to run in an open seat race. Democrats were particularly concerned that former Governor Jeb Bush would jump in the race and prove too formidable a contender.

This afternoon, Jeb dropped out of the biggest early bombshells of the 2010 cycle by announcing that he would not run for Senate. Even though I was never convinced by Republican arguments that he would not be weighed down by his brother’s unpopularity, this decision is undoubtedly a significant setback for the GOP.

First, only Jeb had enough of a stature to clear the GOP field. Now, a number of Republicans are expected to jump in the race, starting with former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, state Attorney General Bill McCollum, Rep. Connie Mack and state Senate president Jeff Atwater. All of these Republicans are strong contenders who could win a general election, but a crowded primary could hurt their chances: Florida’s primary is held late (in September), and that leaves very little time for a nominee to recover from primary bruises.

It is possible that Jeb will use his political muscle to unite the Republican establishment around a single candidate, who would most likely be Rubio, a close Bush ally. (In fact, it is Rubio who first broke the news of Jeb’s withdrawal.) The problem with this scenario is that current Governor Charlie Crist is no close friend of Jeb and it is unlikely that Crist would allow his predecessor to impose his wll on the state he is now the one governing.

Second, only Jeb had enough of a stature to scare prominent Democrats away. Whether or not he was as formidable as Republicans said, his candidacy could have been enough to keep Democratic state CFO Alex Sink out of the race. Sink, who is the DSCC’s top choice, is said to be eying the 2014 gubernatorial race, and she would probably stay away from a Senate contest if it were to look too difficult. Now that Jeb is not running, Sink is much more likely to jump in the race – and she would probably look formidable enough to keep other Democrats from jumping in. That could guarantee that a unified Democratic Party would face a divided GOP, dramatically increasing the chances of a blue take-over.

If Sink were to decline a run, Democrats have other good options like Reps. Allen Boyd and Ron Klein. Just like Sink, those two congressmen are far more likely to jump in the race with Jeb Bush out of it.

In brief, today’s news is the first big setback for Republicans in the 2010 cycle.

Note that Democrats could soon get a prominent withdrawal of their own. Jim Matthews is hinting that his brother Chris is unlikely to run for Arlen Specter’s Senate seat. “I would be stunned beyond words if he does anything besides but look forward tomorrow to going to work,” said Jim. He also confirmed the speculation that his brother had renewed his contract with MSNBC. I have already stated my skepticism at Chris Matthews’s candidacy, so I believe this would be a good development for Democrats.

111th Senate convenes with Burris in limbo and Coleman preparing to sue

Update: And the Minnesota Senate race continues for another round! Norm Coleman held that press conference and announced that he would file an election contest challenging Al Franken’s 225 vote lead. “Until these issues are settled, any attempt to seat a Senator who is not properly certified violates Senate precedent, and usurps the will of the people of Minnesota,” he said. I already explained in detail the three issues (missing ballots, duplicate ballots, absentee ballots) about which Coleman is filing suits yesterday so refer to that post for an explanation of what to expect in the coming weeks and why Coleman now faces very low odds.

Original post: The political world is eagerly awaiting Norm Coleman’s afternoon press conference, scheduled at 4pm ET. Coleman is expected to announce whether he concedes the Senate race or whether he will file an election contest. (You can watch the conference live at The Uptake.)

Given the combative tone of other GOP Senators over the past few days, there is no doubt that the Republican establishment wants Coleman to fight on, but does he really have it in him to prolong an excruciating battle in which his odds are so low?

Until Coleman speaks, there is plenty of drama to follow in Washington. The new Congress is convening today, which means that 34 Senators who were just elected in November will be sworn in – and that includes Joe Biden, who will not resign from his Senate job until he is inaugurated as vice-president in two weeks.

No action is expected on the Minnesota seat. Democrats have not given up on the possibility of seating Al Franken before Republican lawsuits are resolved, but they are not expected to do so today. This means that Norm Coleman’s Senate seat will remain vacant for the time being and Minnesota will start the new legislature with only one Senator, freshman Amy Klobuchar.

But all eyes were turned on Raymond Burris this morning, as Rod Blagojevich’s appointee made his way to the Senate building and to the office of the Secretary of the Senate. Yet, Burris was informed by said Secretary that he did not have the credentials to be seated. As he had promised, Burris did not try to force a confrontation (some had speculated that he might try to force his way onto the Senate floor, forcing the building’s guards to physically evacuate him) and he retreated to speak to the press.

Interestingly, neither Burris nor his lawyer chose to explicitly threaten the Senate with a lawsuit. While the former state Attorney General would have a good chance of winning in court and while many observers argue that Blagojevich has law on his side, that procedure could take months – even years! Concurring Opinion argues that Burris’s term could have expired in the time it would take for courts to force the Senate to seat him!

Remember that the issue Burris’s opponents are raising is not whether Blagojevich is legally entitled to make an appointment (no one disputes that he remains the acting Governor and as such can exercise gubernatorial prerogatives). Rather, Burris’s opponents argue that the process by which Burris has been appointed is tainted and improper; in other words, that the Senate has the authority to not seat Burris just as it has the authority to review the conditions of an election.

The next step in the Burris controversy is for Senate Democrats to refer his appointment to the Rules Committee to determine whether Burris’s designation was tainted. This process is expected to take a long time – deliberately so, as Democrats want to go as slowly as possible to delay any resolution of Burris’s situation until the Illinois legislature impeaches Blagojevich and elevates Pat Quinn as the new Senator. This could lead to a chaotic situation in which Quinn appoints someone else as Senator, leaving that new appointee and Burris to fight it out in court.

Simultaneously, however, the racial rhetoric the Governor, his appointee and allies like Bobby Rush have injected in this conversation forces Democrats to be careful to avoid symbolically disastrous images. Democrats want to look courteous to Burris and emphasize that they are not questioning his qualifications but the propriety of Blagojevich’s appointment.

In other words, Democrats want to emphasize that their problem concerns Blagojevich rather than Burris, and this is perhaps why Illinois’s Senior Senator Dick Durbin invited Burris to watch the swearing-in ceremony from the Senate gallery this afternoon. On the other hand, I am tempted to say that Durbin’s gesture is as humiliating as it is courteous.

As Kennedy’s popularity takes a hit, NRSC hopes to contest New York

Democrats should not expect an easy ride in the election to fill the reminder of Hillary Clinton’s term. New York Republicans have been moribund over the past decade, but they could muster just enough strength to make this race competitive.

This is especially the case if Governor David Paterson appoints a vulnerable Senator, and Caroline Kennedy is certainly high on the GOP’s wish list. The AP reported last week that Paterson had already made up his mind to appoint Kennedy, but her roll out over the past month was so rough that it would have been enough to eliminate anyone but JFK’s daughter.

In a sad echo of Sarah Palin’s struggles in September, Kennedy showed herself unprepared to step under the spotlight, unengaged with policy debates. She struggled to keep an even tone in her public appearances and press interviews, with a testy exchange with The New York Times and some bizarre upstate incidents. The Mayor of Rochester, for instance, expressed his surprise at Kennedy’s silence during her visit to Democratic headquarters; that is certainly not a disqualifying factor, but it certainly puts in question Kennedy’s campaigning skills.

The result is brutal: A new poll taken by Public Policy Polling shows a dramatic drop in Kennedy’s popularity. On December 9th, 75% of New York Democrats had a favorable opinion of the former first daughter, and 11% had an unfavorable view; in this new survey, her favorability rating has dropped to 57% and her unfavorability has risen to 35%.

Worse still, a head-to-head match-up with Andrew Cuomo shows that 54% of Democrats want Cuomo to be appointed Senator, while 34% want Kennedy; a month ago, Kennedy led 44% to 23%. That’s a stunning turn-around of 41% – and things get even worse among New Yorkers at large (not just Democrats): There, 58% prefer Cuomo and 27% choose Kennedy. Similarly, 44% of respondents say their opinion of Kennedy has declined since she announced her interest in the Senate seat; only 23% say it has improved.

Just like with a certain Governor from a Northern state, Kennedy is becoming less popular the more voters hear from her. This might not matter one bit for the purpose of becoming Senator (only David Paterson’s opinion matters, and the Governor isn’t necessarily interested in what polls have to say), but it does matter a great deal for the 2010 Senate race. If Kennedy is selected and has a rough 2009, these numbers suggest that it would leave an opening for a credible Republican to make her sweat. (This would especially be the case if Kennedy commits any blunder in her trips to upstate New York.)

Of course, for the GOP to have a chance first requires them to find a credible candidate who can raise sufficient funds, and they have a particularly thin bench in New York. The first name that is being floated is that of Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor and failed presidential candidate. Giuliani is keeping his name in the news, but he is considered more likely to jump in the gubernatorial race than in a Senate contest. Furthermore, Giuliani’s past two electoral campaigns have been disastrous, and I am not at all convinced he could mount a strong challenge for either office.

The second name is that of Rep. Peter King, one of the last three Republicans in New York’s House delegation. King has said that he would declare his intentions shortly after Paterson announces his decision, and the NRSC is now in full lobbying mode. New NRSC Chair John Cornyn just met with King yesterday, trying to convince him to jump in the Senate race; the topic that is discussed the most at such meeting is financial commitment, and it looks like King would be likely to jump in if he gets some assurance that the NRSC will back his candidacy.

King would start a general election as the clear underdog, but he could make the race competitive by playing the card of the white ethnic Catholic populism that has helped other Republicans win in New York (starting with Rudy Giuliani) and that could especially help him upstate. That card could be especially effective against Kennedy if Republicans manage to portray her appointment as a mixture of nepotism, elitism and incompetence.

(King’s candidacy is a fascinating case in which the NRSC and NRCC are expected to clash, as it would be bad news for House Republicans if King were to leave the lower chamber; the seat is a blue-trending swing district and Democrats would love the chance of an open seat race. You can expect the NRCC to be lobbying King to remain in the House just as furiously as Cornyn is trying to seduce him into a statewide run.)

Partial resolution: Franken is declared the winner

Finally, some resolution in Minnesota’s Senate race!

Just hours after the state Supreme Court rejected Norm Coleman’s final attempt to delay a declaration of the November 4th vote’s results, the canvassing board met today to declare Al Franken the winner by a margin of 225 votes, or 0.0077%.

The canvassing board’s declaration completes the recount process and it takes the election out of the hands of Minnesota’s election officials.

This is is a remarkable development given that Coleman was in the lead from the night of November 4th all the way until December 20th (in fact, many Democrats had lost hope that Franken could emerge victorious). And Franken wasted no time before declaring victory. “After 62 days of careful and painstaking hand inspection of nearly 3 million ballots, after hours and hours of hard work by election officials and volunteers across this state, I am proud to stand before you as the next Senator from Minnesota,” he said in a press conference held on the porch of his house.

But this is not the final word: Minnesota is a rare state in which an election’s certification is not considered final if a contest is filed in court within 7 days – and Coleman is expected to do just that, preventing a “certificate of election” from being issued. The election will thus be thrown to the courts in a process that could last month.

Unfortunately for Coleman, his court prospects seem far bleaker today than they did just a week ago. Over this past week-end, the count of more than 900 improperly rejected absentee ballots increased Franken’s edge from 49 to 225 votes – a far more daunting deficit for Coleman to overcome in an election contest.

Coleman is expected to press three separate issues:

1. Coleman wants the count of 133 Minneapolis ballots that went missing by the time of the manual recount to be tossed out. For Coleman to win this lawsuit would cost Franken 46 votes.
2. Coleman argues that as many as 150 ballots whose original is missing have been counted twice. Franken responds that throwing out those ballots would risk disenfranchise dozens of voters since there is no evidence that any of the ballots have been double-counted. The Coleman camp claims that it would gain about 110 votes if a court were to toss out these ballots.
3. Coleman wants an additional 650 rejected absentee ballots to be counted. These ballots come from Republican areas, and they were not included in the 1,350 absentee ballots that county-level election officials found had been improperly rejected. If Coleman were to win a lawsuit on this issue, it is unknown how the 650 ballots would break, but they would be highly unlikely to give Coleman a gain of 225 votes. Even if Coleman were to lead Franken by 20%, that would result in a gain of 130 votes.

This means two things:

1. Coleman absolutely needs to win on his third claim. Merely getting favorable rulings on duplicate and missing ballots would close the gap by 156 votes at most, well short of Franken’s 225 lead. Unfortunately, Coleman’s absentee ballot claim is by far the weakest, and one the GOP looks to have added on at the last minute to have an excuse to go on. After all, many counties did take a look at some of these 650 ballots last week and found that they had been rejected properly. Coleman’s lawyers will now need to present evidence in court as to why these ballots were improperly rejected – and that’s going to be a difficult endeavor, to say the least.
2. Even a favorable ruling on all of these issues could leave Coleman short of his Democratic rival. For instance, Coleman cannot catch up Franken if he only leads by 10% among the 650 absentee ballots he wants counted (that would equal to a gain of 65 votes, and 65 + 110 + 46 = 221 < 225).

In other words, Coleman’s bid is now a long-shot, and Democrats are closing in on their 59th Senate seat (making Mitch McConnell, Roger Wicker and Saxby Chambliss’s survivals all the more precious for the GOP). But Republicans could still prevent Senate Democrats from seating Al Franken until Coleman’s election contest is settled. That could keep Franken out of the Senate until well into 2009, costing Democrats one vote in their attempts to fight back against Republican filibusters.

Given that Obama’s seat is also likely to stay vacant pending courtroom drama, this could be enough of a reason for tough congressional battles like card-checks to be postponed until late this spring.

Update: Quite a strong statement from Harry Reid this evening: “Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate. He lost the election. He can stall things, but he’ll never serve in the Senate.”

2010: Frist’s exit from Gov race leads to open TN-03; new rumors surround Sebelius

Tennessee’s governorship is one of the GOP’s top pick-up opportunities in 2010, as the Democratic Governor cannot run for re-election due to term limit laws. The Republican nomination was Bill Frist’s for the taking; the former Senator has enough of a stature to clear the primary field, and everyone was waiting for him to announce his intentions.

Yesterday, Frist issued a statement announcing he will not run. “After significant reflection and conversation with loved ones, I have decided to remain a private citizen for the foreseeable future,” he wrote. (In the previous cycle, Frist had also passed on a presidential run many people expected him to launch.)

The GOP certainly has a strong bench in a state that has dramatically swung red over the past decade – so much so that it will be very difficult for Democrats to retain the governorship. That makes the Republican nomination that much more attractive, and Frist’s move leaves it wide open.

Within 24 hours of Frist’s statement, GOP Rep. Zach Wamp came out to announce that he was a candidate. He is expected to face a competitive primary, with Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam as a possible opponent.

Wamp is a powerful player in the House since he has a seat on the coveted Appropriations Committee, so his quick decision leaves little doubt that he is confident he can move in the Governor’s mansion; it also suggests that prolonged life in the minority is not looking attractive to Republican congressmen.

Wamp’s move also means that TN-03 becomes one of the first open seats of the 2010 cycle. Unfortunately for Democrats, it is very difficult to envision them mounting a competitive run. The district is very conservative, and it gave George Bush 61% of the vote in 2004. (The 2008 results aren’t available yet, but we know that McCain crushed Obama in each of the eight counties that make up the district.)

Of course, an open seat always gives the challenging party a glimmer of hope of pulling an AL-02-like upset, so a competitive race cannot be ruled out. But the GOP has little to worry about for now.

—

Kansas’s open Senate seat is currently ranked eleventh in my Senate rankings, but we already know that this race will not end up in that second-tier range. If Governor Kathleen Sebelius jumps in, the race will move near the top of the rankings; if she passes on the race, Democrats will have little to no hope of picking up the seat.

Sebelius’s decision to withdraw her name from Cabinet considerations boosted the DSCC’s hopes of recruiting her, but her name has now popped up in an entirely different arena: The Topeka Capital Journal reports that Sebelius is being considered as a possible chancellor for the University of Kansas.

Current Chancellor Robert Hemenway announced that he would retire at the end for the current academic year on December 8th, just two days after Sebelius said she was no longer looking for a Cabinet appointment. It goes without saying that Sebelius leaving the governorship to work at KU would also bar a Senate run.

The search committee was just formed last week, so Hemenway’s successor will not be announced any time soon. If Sebelius is actually interested in this position, she will likely put off deciding on a Senate run until later this year.

Richardson and Kaine: The contrasting fortunes of two governors

The first week-end of 2009 brought contrasting news for two close allies of Barack Obama. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was forced to withdraw his nomination for Secretary of Commerce while Virginia Governor Tim Kaine will become the new chair of the DNC.

—

Senate hearings have yet to start, but we already know that even Obama’s very extensive vetting process failed to prevent one of his Cabinet appointees from falling to a scandal, something that happens in most presidential transitions but that his team had worked painstakingly hard to avoid.

The former presidential candidate was one of the top contenders for State, but Hillary Clinton’s reconciliation with Obama landed him in Commerce instead – a choice that was celebrated as yet another of the President-elect’s attempts to build a team of rivals. Yet, Richardson was soon hit by the news that a grand jury was investigating pay-to-play allegation involving Richardson and a company that won a New Mexico contract.

Today, Richardson told to NBC News that this investigation prevented him from accepting Barack Obama’s designation. “I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process,” he said. This was an unexpected development considering that very little information has leaked about the grand jury’s proceedings and that the scandal was not considered threatening enough to damage Richardson’s prospects or confirmation prospects.

In fact, most articles written in the past few weeks (even after news of the Richardson investigation surfaced) continued to identify Attorney General-designate Eric Holder as the Cabinet appointee likely to face the most raucous hearings.

Richardson’s appointment was the one Obama appointment that had good consequences for Democrats in down-the-ballot races. Due to term-limits, Richardson is not allowed to run for re-election, but Democratic Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish would have taken over and been able to run as an incumbent in 2010 had Richardson left for Washington.

Richardson might still be forced to leave the governorship early if this scandal still takes larger proportions, but he said today that he would stay in office. This means that Denish’s path to higher office is blocked and that she should prepare to run for an open seat – always a harder endeavor.

This also means that Obama still has a Cabient position to fill. He could potentially choose yet another Democratic Senator and Governor, create an opportunity or complications for down-the-ballot Democrats and force us to revisit my list of the electoral consequences of Obama’s Cabinet picks.

—

Tim Kaine got better news, however: Obama finally tapped him for something.

The Virginia Governor was on the final short list in the Democratic veepstakes and he was mentioned as a possible Cabinet pick.  Despite being one of the earliest officials to endorse Obama in 2007, he was never chosen – perhaps because his selection would have elevated a Republican as Governor.

Now, The Washington Post is reporting that Kaine has been chosen to serve as DNC Chairman over the next four years. (A president traditionally gets to impose his choice to chair the DNC or RNC, so this is essentially Obama’s decision.)

Kaine will not have to give up the governorship and will serve out his term, which ends in 12 months. Kaine is barred from running for re-election anyway, so he will be a full-time DNC Chairman starting in 2010. In other words, Kaine becoming DNC Chairman will have no (direct) consequences on this coming’s November’s gubernatorial race.

Some Democrats might worry that Kaine’s taking on a far more partisan role could lower his approval ratings and thus make it more difficult for the Democratic nominee to win the governorship. On the other hand, that Kaine is ready to take on such a position only serves as further confirmation of Virginia’s swing to the Democratic column. This is a far bluer state than the one that made Governors out of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine in 2001 and 2005, and that should help the Democratic nominee over the next eleven months.

Obama’s choice also temporarily settles the question of Kaine’s political future. Virginia bars governors from serving two consecutive terms, but Tim Kaine had no obvious next step to take. The state’s two Senators are already Democrats, and neither is close to retirement; Kaine had been passed over for the vice-presidentship and Cabinet positions. Without an obvious next outlet, it was likely that he would make his way into the private sector.

But this stint at the DNC will keep him in the public eye for the next four years and perhaps make him a contender for Virginia’s 2013 gubernatorial election, in which Kaine will be eligible: He will finish his term as DNC Chairman just in time to announce his candidacy to get his old job back. And how is this for a sign: Former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe just officially announced that he was running for Virginia Governor today.

Michael Bennet heads to the Senate

I scheduled a no-Internet trip for the first three days of 2009 (my first prolonged break from the web in more than two years!), and I thought it was unlikely that many developments would unfold in what are typically slow news days. Little did I know that in that short time period Colorado would get a new Senator and Minnesota’s recount would evolve dramatically – not to mention the contradictory reporting on Caroline Kennedy’s New York chances and the increasingly tense standoff between Roland Burris and Senate Democrats.

You are probably aware of all of these stories by now, but here is my belated take on soon-to-be Senator Michael Bennet. (An update on Minnesota will follow soon.)

—

There was a long list of Democrats lined up for Ken Salazar’s Senate seat, but Governor Bill Ritter went for a dark-horse candidate few people had thought of including in their list of serious contenders. Colorado’s new Senator will be Michael Bennet, the Denver School Superintendent who was also on the short list to be Obama’s Secretary of Education.

Ritter is known as a conservative Democrat, and it was considered unlikely that he would pick someone who would satisfy progressives. That said, Bennet looks to be among the most centrists of Ritter’s potential choices. As School Superintendent, he is known as a “reformer” and a supporter of merit pay and tough standards for teachers. This suggests a tasty relationships with union leaders – this could be crucial in the upcoming Senate battle over card-checks, expected to be one of the hottest issues facing the 111th Congress. (For more about Bennet’s work with Denver schools, this 2007 New Yorker profile is the place to go.)

Ritter himself emphasized Bennet’s centrist politics, describing him with the “postpartisan” terminology that has become the cloak of the ideological center. “He is practical, pragmatic, not ideological. And he is not dogmatic… He has an impressive record of bringing people together to find common ground.” Bennet described himself similarly and pledged to follow in Ken Salazar’s “bootsteps”  (Salazar is known as one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate).

Commentators are indeed comparing Bennet’s politics to those of Ritter, Salazar and Betsy Markey, all conservative Democrats. Meanwhile, the Colorado Republican Party chairman commented that Bennet had done “admirable” things in Denver; Bennet was also described as “fairly moderate” by Scott McInnis, a potential GOP candidate in 2010; and another School Superintendent called Bennet’s pick “encouraging” “from a Republican perspective.”

Besides frustrating progressives, Ritter’s choice could also worry the DSCC and those Democrats who care about retaining the seat in 2010, and this for three simple reasons:

1. Bennet has had little experience in politics and has never held elected office. It is always dangerous for someone who has never had to seriously campaign to be suddenly thrust in the limelight (see Clark, Wesley; Palin, Sarah; and even Thompson, Fred), and missteps could be costly in what is sure to be one of the top races of the 2010 cycle. This is not to say that Bennet has failed to engage with meaty policy issues like Caroline Kennedy (as the New Yorker profile attests to), simply that the policy and electoral worlds are very different.
2. A number of highly credible Republicans are thinking of jumping in the race, and Bennet lacks the profile to scare them away from the race in a way Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper might have. Furthermore, Bennet lacks the political network to be a terrifying fundraising machine, something else that might have kept challengers from jumping in. In other words, it looks fairly certain that Bennet will attract strong opposition in two years.
3. Republicans are already salivating at Bennet’s Denver-centrist record. This Rocky Mountain News story is certainly worth a read to get a sense of rural Democrats’ annoyance at Ritter’s choice. While this is certainly not a damning problem (Mark Udall was supposedly too Boulder-centric to win statewide), it could prove one if Bennet does not prepare himself sufficiently to address concerns like conservation and water that matter in Colorado. Fortunately for him, he now has 18 months to study these issues before the general election heats up.

At the very least, Bennet should not be that worried about a primary challenge. The Denver/rural Colorado split could be his biggest liability, followed by the fact that he lacks an obvious constituency that could form his electoral base. But it is hard to see who could rise to challenge him: He and Hickenlooper (the highest profile Democrat in the state) are friends, and the other Democratic contenders are either not high-profile enough or would have to give up a safe House seat for a difficult primary race. In other words, the Democratic nomination is Bennet’s to lose.

2008 in review: The biggest blunders and juiciest scandals

Of course it’s 2009, but for the final recap of 2008, I put together two final “top ten” lists: the biggest blunders and the juiciest scandals. You’ll find them both below. Enjoy!

The biggest blunders:

1. Clinton neglects the caucus states

2. “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” again

3. McCain suspends his campaign

4. Obama’s “bitter” Americans

5. Rudy Giuliani’s late-state strategy

6. The Clintons’ race gaffes: Bill compares Obama to Jesse Jackson; Hillary describes Obama’s weak support among “hard-working Americans, white Americans”

7. McCain abandons the until then-effective celebrity attack in late August

8. McCain thinks it can afford to antagonize the media in September

9. Elizabeth Dole airs the Godless Americans ads

10. Michelle Bachmann’s “anti-American” rant & Murtha’s describing Western Pennsylvania as “racist”

Honorable mentions go to McCain’s “100 years” in Iraq, which would have made the cut had it played any kind of role in the general election; to Barack Obama’s presidential seal; to Joe Biden’s bizarre comments in October predicting Obama would be tested, which would have made the cut had Obama’s numbers tanked; to McCain’s obsessive focus on Iowa in the final weeks of the general election, which is far less defensible than his concentrating on Pennsylvania; to Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia story; and to McCain’s “that one” in the second debate, which crystallized the narrative of a mean-spirited candidate.

I considered adding McCain’s “I’ll have to get back to you” when asked how many houses he owned, as well as the entirety of Sarah Palin’s train-wreck of an interview with Katie Couric, but neither of these events were a blunder per say: McCain and Palin did not commit mistakes there as much as be forced to admit they did not know the answer to a question and do their best while coming across as incompetent, respectively.

—

The juiciest scandals:

1. Elliot Spitzer and the Emperors Club VIP

2. Rod Blagojevich and Obama’s Senate seat

3. Ted Stevens’s trial

4. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons

5. John Edwards’s mistress

6. Tim Mahoney’s mistress and blackmail

7. Vito Fossella’s DUI

8. Rudy Giuliani’s Hampton-gate

9. Mike Erickson, the Cuba trip and a forced abortion

10. Sarah Palin’s shopping spree