I will be away from the website for the long Fourth of July weekend. I’ll be back with new content for you on Monday, July 6^th. Have a safe and enjoyable holiday. See you soon. -Dean

I guess yesterday’s post on the ARG poll testing a hypothetical contest between Paul Hodes and John E. Sununu is the last one I will be writing on that pairing, at least for the 2010 election cycle. I am honestly not surprised to learn this evening that Sununu is opting out of a run for Judd Gregg’s vacant U.S. Senate seat.  Although many Republicans thought Sununu would be their best bet against Hodes, I haven’t seen any signs from him in recent months that he was itching to get back into the electoral arena so soon after last November’s loss to Jeanne Shaheen.

 

It is often the case that when elected officials finally get out of the Congressional fishbowl they find that seeing their families on a daily basis and earning some big money in the private sector (Tom Daschle, anyone?) are a fairly enjoyable way to spend their time. Plus, Sununu is only in his mid-forties, so if the electoral environment swings back toward Republicans in the next five to ten years, he could gear up for a rematch against Shaheen, or perhaps even run for governor.

 

Although some Republicans believe there are several winning fiscal and social issues on which Sununu could run right now, the underlying electoral environment in New Hampshire hasn’t changed much since the last election, and on balance still favors Democratic candidates. And, I haven’t seen much evidence that the state Republican Party is revamping itself in any significant way, in order to address this circumstance. If Obama struggles in the coming months, that could help their case, but I’m sure Sununu knows it would be a long, tough, and expensive campaign in any event. So, while I don’t necessarily think we’ve seen John E. Sununu seek public office for the last time, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any local political observer that he is taking a pass on 2010.

 

Where does that leave the Republicans on this seat? I think if Kelly Ayotte commits to the race, there will be intense pressure from some in the party to clear the field, in order to avoid having her get scuffed up in a primary fight. But we’ve heard rumblings from Charlie Bass, Ovid Lamontagne, and others considering jumping into the race that they are ready for some competition. In the meantime, the folks over at Hodes-central, who one would never accuse of lacking in confidence, still must be breathing a small sigh of relief tonight. Hodes can move forward efficiently with a unified party behind him, while Republicans continue to sort out their future in the coming months.

We get a little 2010 electoral juice from a new American Research Group poll on our U.S. Senate race. Yes, it’s an ARG poll, and I know it has become a tradition for political commentators referencing their data to add a disclaimer to that effect, but the truth is we still like looking at their results. Sure, I would love a larger sample (but I’m also well-versed in the associated costs), and perhaps there are a few too many Democrats in this sample. Nonetheless, in this particular poll, the head-to-head match-up between Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes and former Republican Senator John E. Sununu has Hodes up by 6 percent.

 

My initial reaction to the Hodes advantage is that it sounds pretty reasonable to me at this moment in political time. First, Hodes has firmly committed to the race and unified his party behind him, whereas Sununu has not. It is true that recent UNH polling shows Hodes still has more work to do, in terms of statewide name recognition. But it is not surprising that there are a few more undecided voters in the Republican column, especially with the recent introduction of the Kelly Ayotte candidacy subplot. While Sununu is still quite popular among Republicans, the uncertainty over whether he is in the race (even in hypothetical runs) will inevitably hold his numbers down a bit.

 

Second, we should remember that Sununu lost to Jeanne Shaheen last November by a comfortable margin. I know some political observers have suggested that Shaheen’s margin of victory was largely due to a wave of anti-Bush sentiment (and Obama enthusiasm) at the national level, but I have also noted on several occasions that underlying changes in the state’s political demographics would make it more difficult for Sununu or any other Republican to reclaim a Senate seat should they desire to do so. So far, I haven’t seen the state Republican Party do much to address these underlying issues, although some national elected officials are finally raising warning signals.

 

I could say more about the Hodes advantage (check out gender), but I don’t want to read too much into just one poll. In fact, if you look at the same head-to-head match-up in the UNH poll from last month, Sununu enjoys the very same advantages that Hodes exhibits in the ARG results. Perhaps some of the recent intra-party skirmishing among local Republicans has nicked Sununu a little, but with 37 percent of independent voters still undecided in the new poll, the race will obviously be fluid for some time to come.  And, of course, any dramatic shifts in President Obama's electoral fortunes could have reverberations closer to home.

That was a pretty entertaining joint appearance by Gov. Mitt Romney and Senator Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press yesterday. Romney, dialing it down a notch or two into only partial campaign mode, still managed to use the Mark Sanford affair to hit all of the requisite social conservative notes on the importance of the nuclear family and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. I’m sure we will hear lots more along these lines from Romney in the coming months.

 

But what really caught my ear was a brief policy mention by Lindsay Graham.  Pushed by moderator David Gregory to name an issue on which he could provide some bipartisan leadership, Graham suggested immigration reform as one possibility:

 

A guy like me who'll try to find common ground on the issue on immigration. You know, one thing long-term about this party, the demographic changes in this country are real. We lost ground with Hispanic voters because of the way we behaved and the things we said on immigration…

 

It’s a good thing Graham is not likely to run for president anytime soon, because I predict that immigration reform will once again be the third rail of Republican primary politics. You’ll recall the issue almost tanked John McCain’s candidacy in 2007, until he backed away from his own McCain-Kennedy Bill’s idea of a legal path to citizenship (or amnesty, as conservatives labeled it), and instead focused first on increased border security.

 

From an electoral perspective, Graham is smart to bring attention to the perilous state of the Republican Party’s relationship with Hispanic voters. But spend a few minutes listening to conservative talk radio (or watching Fox News) when immigration is the subject under discussion, and you’ll likely be taken aback by the tremendous anger voiced by the conservative base of the party. You certainly won’t hear much discussion of the need to reach out to Hispanic voters.

 

The Obama administration obviously wants to get its energy and health care reform bills out of the way first. But if some form of bipartisan immigration legislation shepherded by Graham and others takes center stage in 2010 or 2011, I don’t expect many Republican presidential hopefuls to line up behind it. And, if the vitriol from the right wing of the party again approaches McCain-Kennedy levels, then Senator Graham will truly have his work cut out for him within his own party.

Well, I don’t believe anyone in our state legislature actually thinks the budget adopted on Wednesday goes down smoothly, but some would agree that it is definitely less filling. If you followed local coverage of budget negotiations, then you already know that no one on either side of the partisan divide is especially thrilled with its patchwork of spending cuts, increased taxes and user fees, all glued together with a generous helping of one-time federal stimulus money.

 

But one aspect of the debate that I find particularly fascinating is the question of whether the budget as adopted actually increases spending, holds it level, or manages to decrease it a bit. Not surprisingly, the political narratives emanating from both parties on this question fit the classic mold of dueling partisan spin.  Republicans claim the Democratically-controlled legislature should have done more to reduce spending, although Republicans were in turn chided for not being specific enough about precisely where to cut. And, Democrats counter that in very difficult times they were able to produce a budget that protects New Hampshire’s essential services, while keeping state government level-funded.

 

So who is correct here? It is often difficult to tell when you are dealing with a complicated set of fiscal instruments and economic assumptions, and the two parties' political narratives seem to exist in parallel universes. In these sorts of situations, I typically assume the reality is somewhere in-between the two nodes of partisan spin. Fortunately, this time New Hampshire Public Radio’s Dan Gorenstein has attempted to get to the bottom of this very question. You can listen to his story (or read the transcript) here. As you might expect, each party comes at the question from a different set of underlying assumptions about how you correctly calculate spending. And, not surprisingly, their assumptions tend to underscore their respective political agendas.

The extent to which Gov. Mark Sanford’s Argentina affair has been analyzed through the prism of 2012 presidential politics has exceeded even my wildest expectations.  This is partly due to the current leadership vacuum in the Republican Party, but also to what I have previously described as the voracious demands of the instantaneous news cycle. Cable news outlets, talk radio programs, websites and the blogs have a bottomless appetite for this sort of voyeurism and speculation, which often leads them to overstate the long-term significance of the hot political story of the moment.

 

Now, I am not opposed to a little political handicapping. I often discuss potential candidates on this blog with an eye toward giving you the most accurate assessment possible of an individual’s electoral prospects. While Sanford was legitimately in the Republican presidential mix, in this case I think the 2012 aspect of the story has been overstated. From some of the coverage I have seen, you would think he was already the presumptive Republican nominee.

 

More broadly, we are only six months into a new presidential administration, and, as Gail Collins recently observed, virtually any opposition politician with a modicum of stature is being identified as a potential presidential contender. Each is duly scrutinized by the media for what his or her current behavior signifies for future presidential prospects. In reality, however, most of these individuals have little or no chance of winning the nomination.

 

For example, some in the media are now suggesting that Haley Barbour’s sudden elevation to the Republican Governors Association’s chairmanship raises his profile as a contender for 2012. For this, I refer you to my previous post on the subject (hint: not a chance).

I have never been especially drawn to gambling. In fact, it has been years since I last visited a casino. I recall coming out about eight dollars ahead playing slots on an initial twenty dollar investment, and then spending the rest of the evening watching others try their luck at a variety of games. So it is no surprise that I have viewed the collision of expanded gambling and budget reconciliation in the state legislature with some ambivalence. The possibility of having thousands of slot machines located nearby in the future holds no special allure for me, but I have also never been particularly swayed by the various arguments deployed by those who oppose gambling.

 

For me, gambling is thus reduced primarily to a revenue issue. The gaming lobby knows that many New Hampshire residents also feel this way, and its representatives have spent a tremendous amount of time, money, and energy trying to make the case that expanded gambling would be a huge financial boon (to the tune of $200 million) to the state’s weakened fiscal bottom line. While gambling proponents haven’t yet thrown in the towel this legislative session, it looks like opposition in the House will bring them up short once again.

 

I mention this because last night I saw for the first time what I thought was a remarkably effective pro-gambling advertisement on television (you can watch it here). It was run by Fix It Now New Hampshire, the organization working with Millennium Gaming to bring slots to Rockingham Park. The ad is quite simple in design; it sets an accumulating list of potential state taxes and user fees to waltzing music, thereby depicting the budgetary tradeoffs with projected gambling revenues in the starkest of terms. As a close observer of political ads, I think this one effectively crystallizes the gaming industry’s best case argument in New Hampshire, but I’m not sure it can make the difference at this point.

If I were to describe former New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith’s quest to win the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Florida as quixotic, I certainly wouldn’t be the first person to do so. But check out the list of heavy hitters who are already lining up to support Smith’s opponent, sitting Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. It’s pretty clear from this National Republican Senatorial Committee invitation that Crist is the presumptive favorite for the party’s nomination.

 

Crist is a popular governor, and one who is usually included on that frequently-cited list of younger Republican governors with future presidential aspirations (Crist, Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin, etc.). What is interesting about this list, however, is that Crist is the only one among this group of up-and-comers to have strongly backed President Obama’s fiscal stimulus package. His general willingness to engage moderates and independents has helped him maintain his popularity in the Sunshine State, but is a bit of a departure from other high-profile Republicans who have deployed much sharper partisan rhetoric in opposition to a variety of Obama policy initiatives. 

 

I am assuming that Smith actually prefers the idea of running as an outsider and movement conservative, but he at least needs to get himself injected into the conversation. If you take a look at the end of the item linked above, you’ll notice that Smith is not even mentioned as an opponent. Only former state House Speaker Marco Rubio gets a nod. I will be curious to see what (if anything) Smith can do in the coming months to get the media to view him as a legitimate part of the political mix. At a minimum, I am sure at some point we’ll be treated to a primary debate or two, which (if Smith is included) could make for some entertaining viewing.

Archives