SENATE: GEORGIA
A local reporter is not happy with Michelle Nunn.
Chuck Williams, of the Ledger-Enquirer, a paper based in Columbus, Ga., writes:
Michelle Nunn has built a mighty war chest as the Democrats nationally eye a chance to wrest a Senate seat away from the Republicans in November. She raised more than $2.4 million in the first quarter of this year.
She appears to be treating her May 20 Democratic primary as a victory lap, largely because she has three underfunded challengers, Across the state they have been holding debates. Todd Robinson, of Columbus; former Georgia state Sen. Steen Miles of Atlanta; and Atlanta psychiatrist Branko Radulovacki have been showing up.
Not Nunn. […]
I know, Nunn is just playing it by the book. When you are leading and have your challengers on the ropes, conventional political wisdom says you don’t give them a chance to take potshots at you.
I get it.
But let’s make the case right now that conventional political wisdom is one of the reasons our country is in political crisis. Playing it by the book is one of the reasons we have a Congress that is polarized and dysfunctional.
If you’re going to run on the trusty, "I’m not a politician so let me be your politician," you have to do it well. If your local reporters feel like you’re posturing that’s not a good sign, and William’s makes a fair point.
The article continues, "Nunn has indicated she will show up for a Georgia Public Television debate," a debate that airs statewide, but when she was in Columbus Nunn did not participate in a "regionally televised debate."
Instead, Williams notes, Nunn spent time in Columbus trying to garner media attention as she attended other events in the area—events that could be controlled by her team.
This isn’t the behavior of someone who wants to change Washington. It’s strategic behavior of someone who wants to win. Everyone may do it, and it may be smart, but it’s hypocritical when Nunn has centered her campaign on the premise that Washington needs to "work for us for a change."
In her last ad Nunn contended, "What's going on in Washington has to stop. Politicians fighting, bickering and too often forgetting about the people they're supposed to represent."
When you choose not to show up to local debates, you’re saying they don’t matter. That’s not working for the people—that’s working for yourself and it’s a blatant political tactic to try to concoct and maintain an unspoiled image.
If she continues to abide by these old political tactics, it undermines the premise of her campaign.
SENATE: NEBRASKA
The seat of retiring Republican Sen. Mike Johanns is considered solidly red, so the GOP’s May 13 primary is the "big race."
The race has drawn out Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Mike Lee (R., Utah) and former-Governor Sarah Palin—all of whom support Ben Sasse.
It’s the race where FreedomWorks originally endorsed Shane Osborn—until late March, when they changed their mind and endorsed Sasse, a candidate they previously attacked for "supporting the basic principle of Obamacare, if not all the details." That comment, though it was removed from FreedomWorks website, wasn’t lost on Osborn and he used it as an attack on Sasse.
From the beginning, Osborn and Sasse were considered the main contenders, now four candidates remain in the primary—but is it still primarily a race between those two?
The National Review Online reported on the latest poll:
Out in Nebraska, Ben Sasse’s campaign for U.S. Senate commissioned another poll. […]
Ben Sasse: 31 percent.
Shane Osborn: 25 percent.
Sid Dinsdale: 22 percent.
Bart McLeay: 5 percent.
Clifton Johnson: 3 percent.
Undecided: 14 percent.
They’re all pretty close together in terms of favorability—57.8 percent for Sasse, 55.9 percent for Osborn, and 54.1 percent for Dinsdale—but there’s a more significant difference in the unfavorable numbers: 18.4 percent for Sasse, 25.8 percent for Osborn, 12 percent for Dinsdale. The Sasse campaign contends the high unfavorable number for Obsborn stems from recent negative television ads. The sample size is 507 respondents; the poll was conducted from Saturday through Monday. The only other poll, from February, also showed a small Sasse lead, but Dinsdale appears to be gaining ground.
What’s interesting here is not that Sasse took the lead or that it seems to be a "three way tie." What’s interesting is that, at 22 percent, Dinsdale is nine points higher than he was in a February poll—the only earlier poll we have.
A different polling company found Dinsdale farther behind. Both polls were reported on this past Thursday, and the latter could arguably cancel out Dinsdale’s progress or act as proof that the nine-point jump was a fluke. It may be just that, but it’s a change that is significant enough to warrant consideration.
While Sasse and Osborn pepper each other with attack ads, Dinsdale might be sneaking up—he did just receive an endorsement from the editorial board at the Omaha World Herald, one of the state’s largest newspapers.
The Nebraska primary is all over the place, and the Sasse commissioned poll (and the World Herald endorsement) make it more confusing.
The Dinsdale campaign should consider the poll a silver lining, and Sasse and Osborn’s campaigns shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the gain—nor should we. Dinsdale might not have much of a chance to win this race, but he could get closer than anyone thought. It’s certainly worth watching in case he does.
HOUSE: NEW YORK
On Monday, Rep. Michael Grimm (R., N.Y.) appeared in federal court and pled not guilty to "20 counts including mail fraud, wire fraud, filing false tax returns, hiring unauthorized aliens and perjury."
The charges are the culmination of a two-year investigation. Federal authorities allege that Grimm failed to report over a million dollars in sales at his restaurant, Healthalicious, between 2007 and 2010.
Grimm maintains that the charges are politically motivated, that he will not resign, and that he plans to seek reelection this fall.
On the last matter he might not have much of a choice.
In the state of New York, election law says, "a designating petition for federal office shall be filed … not later than the eleventh Thursday preceding the federal primary election." That means the deadline for the GOP to add anyone to the ballot was April 10.
New York Republicans are purportedly trying to determine a way to circumvent that and get Grimm off the ballot.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Election-law experts and Republican Party officials said the sole viable option under New York law appears to be to nominate the Staten Island congressman for another office, such as running for an open judge position.
"I'm not saying it's gotta be Michael Grimm but to have a Republican in Congress from New York City is really important," said Ed Cox, chairman of the New York Republican State Committee. […]
Staten Island GOP Chairman John Antoniello, a Grimm supporter, said he planned to meet with Mr. Grimm to talk about his options this weekend. "The charges are real," Mr. Antoniello said. But, he added, "I think he has the support of the people."Mr. Antoniello, who nominates Republicans for judgeships, said it was unclear if there would be openings by September, the earliest Mr. Grimm could be put up.
"Let's say I do agree to that, which I'm not saying I would, there's no judgeships open. There's no judgeships that I know of on the ballot," he said, adding that that could change between now and September.
It’s a risky move, and I’m not sure it’s something that would save the GOP seat. Grimm barely won this seat last time, and Obama won the district in 2012. Even if they succeed in removing Grimm from the ballot the GOP brand is probably tarnished in this cycle’s race—in a city where that brand already struggles.
Cook Political report changed their rating of the race from "leans Republican" to "leans Democrat" and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball also puts the race in the "leans Democrat" category.
Republicans will likely gain seats in the House, but right now, it seems like they will lose this seat and that would mean losing the only congressional seat they have in New York City.