LA and NC 2014 Congressional Races

[Mr.Phips]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

[Mr.Phips]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

[Mr.Phips]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

Well, it was.  Just go back and look at press comments by Dem campaign people in early 1998.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

Well, it was.  Just go back and look at press comments by Dem campaign people in early 1998.

Which would be optimistic for obvious reasons, no?

[Miles]

Hagan has hired Preston Elliott as her campaign manager.

This is good news for Democrats as last year, Elliott helped with Tester's top-tier campaign. In 2010, he also helped to oversee Reid's win.

[Mr.Phips]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

Well, it was.  Just go back and look at press comments by Dem campaign people in early 1998.

Which would be optimistic for obvious reasons, no?

Then why did they publicly start freaking out in summer of 1998 when the scandal actually grew legs?  Even Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, who are hardly Democrat friendly, both said that Democrats had a real chance to gain back the House before the Lewinsky scandal broke. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

Well, it was.  Just go back and look at press comments by Dem campaign people in early 1998.

Which would be optimistic for obvious reasons, no?

Then why did they publicly start freaking out in summer of 1998 when the scandal actually grew legs?  Even Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, who are hardly Democrat friendly, both said that Democrats had a real chance to gain back the House before the Lewinsky scandal broke. 

Because without the benefit of hindsight the scandal could have seriously done damage and destroyed the Democrats but it backfired on the Republicans and they ended up paying for it. I don't doubt it disrupted the paradigm and thus the trajectory, of the race. Clinton had a high approvals and thus the Democrats may have made gains off that plus the economy, though I don't think they would have regained the House. It was a rare situation to be sure and hardly a good case study on there not being two bad midterms for a President.

As to your earlier point, I do recall the GOP losing house seats in 1986, not just Senate seats. It also takes more then a few bad incumbents in terms of Senators to drive such a massive shift in Senate races in that year. A bad map, plus a dem lean at least to the cycle is required.

[Miles]

Oh look, isn't this nifty...

An ad featuring Tillis is running in the Charlotte and Triad media markets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Miles]

Hmmm...Pittenger may not end up being the knee-jerk partisan that I expected.

[RogueBeaver]

LA-Sen: Dardenne out, not that he was ever in. As Miles has often said, he's probably running for governor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/15/dardenne-wont-challenge-landrieu-in-louisiana/

[Miles]

[free my dawg]

LA-Sen: Dardenne out, not that he was ever in. As Miles has often said, he's probably running for governor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/15/dardenne-wont-challenge-landrieu-in-louisiana/

So it looks like Dardenne vs. Vitter in the primary? With this, what do Mitch's chances look like?

[Miles]

So it looks like Dardenne vs. Vitter in the primary? With this, what do Mitch's chances look like?

He's pretty popular.

He's about to be reelected in a landslide.

[free my dawg]

So it looks like Dardenne vs. Vitter in the primary? With this, what do Mitch's chances look like?

He's pretty popular.

He's about to be reelected in a landslide.

I know that much. I'm talking about the races for governor or Vitter's open seat (if he wins).

EDIT: Just did some research, if Mitch won the Senate race then him and Mary would be the first brother-sister delegation in Congress's history.

[Miles]

A birthday shout-out to Congressman Howard Coble; the Dean of the NC delegation turned 81 today. I really don't like too many in the NCGOP, but Coble has served his state well.

[Miles]

Well, how 'bout them apples, Fleming is nippin' at Cassidy's heels.

Fleming is out with some interesting numbers, from Public Opinion Strategies; these are perhaps aimed at nudging Cassidy out of the race.

The full primary poll:

Landrieu (D)- 47%
Fleming (R)- 15%
Cassidy (R)- 14%
Roemer (R)- 6%

The Roemer is Chas Roemer, the son of the former Governor. I probably would have substituted Landry for Roemer in that poll.

After "opposition research" points are read against all the candidate, the race changes to:

Landrieu- 38%
Fleming- 32%
Cassidy- 30%

Obviously, Fleming would advance to the runoff in both scenarios. 

There seems to be a sentiment among Republicans that a runoff would be bad news for them.

[RogueBeaver]

What's Fleming like? I haven't heard much about him. As for the runoff, better with a single Pub. Else Landrieu will throw all the mud back at the Pub nominee or throw a monkey wrench  that requires more time to counter, like in '02.

[Miles]

What's Fleming like? I haven't heard much about him. As for the runoff, better with a single Pub. Else Landrieu will throw all the mud back at the Pub nominee or throw a monkey wrench  that requires more time to counter, like in '02.

Most people outside of Shreveport haven't, either. He'd really have to work to raise his name rec, and he's only sitting on about $500K.

Of the five Republican districts his is the least-red, but Fleming is still considered the most conservative Republican in the delegation.

Fleming is best known for taking an Onion story about an abortionplex seriously and posting it to his Facebook page.

[Miles]

Mel Watt is being considered by the Obama Administration to lead FHFA, which oversees Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The 67-year old Rep. Watt is one of the most senior Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee.

If he is chosen and confirmed by the Senate, he would obviously relinquish his House seat. Watt is the only Representative that CD12 has had since it was re-established after the 1990 census.

[free my dawg]

Mel Watt is being considered by the Obama Administration to lead FHFA, which oversees Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The 67-year old Rep. Watt is one of the most senior Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee.

If he is chosen and confirmed by the Senate, he would obviously relinquish his House seat. Watt is the only Representative that CD12 has had since it was re-established after the 1990 census.

Good, keep him as far away from our Internet freedoms as possible.

[Mr.Phips]

Well, how 'bout them apples, Fleming is nippin' at Cassidy's heels.

Fleming is out with some interesting numbers, from Public Opinion Strategies; these are perhaps aimed at nudging Cassidy out of the race.

The full primary poll:

Landrieu (D)- 47%
Fleming (R)- 15%
Cassidy (R)- 14%
Roemer (R)- 6%

The Roemer is Chas Roemer, the son of the former Governor. I probably would have substituted Landry for Roemer in that poll.

After "opposition research" points are read against all the candidate, the race changes to:

Landrieu- 38%
Fleming- 32%
Cassidy- 30%

Obviously, Fleming would advance to the runoff in both scenarios. 

There seems to be a sentiment among Republicans that a runoff would be bad news for them.

Whoever had the idiotic idea to move the jungle primary from early October as it had been since the beginning of time to the the general election day in early November?  Having any normal elections after November is simply idiotic.  Elections should end on the first Tuesday of November. 

[Miles]

Here's a good bit of history: 40 years ago today, Lindy Boggs became the first woman from Louisiana elected to House. She served from 1973 to 1991 and succeeded her husband, the legendary Hale Boggs. My uncle, who currently serves in the State House, interned for her.

Senator Landrieu wrote a nice piece in the Times-Picayune calling Boggs a great mentor and praising her for her service.

[Miles]

Hmm, I don't know how I missed this article from a few weeks ago, but The Hill suggests that the longer Cassidy waits to pull the trigger, the messier things will get for Republicans.

The article also suggets that this isn't atypical of Cassidy. If he runs, it looks like he wants to have all his ducks in a row. There actually is some precedent here; when he first ran for Congress, in 2008, Cassidy waited until almost July to announce, leaving him just over 4 months to campaign.