With the election one month away, I want to step back and try to figure out where this race stands and make some predictions.
Polls and Pundits: The 29th race remains on the fringe of "hot races" tracked by major political writers. Charlie Cook and the National Journal both re-classified a long list of races last week. The 29th didn't budge, partly because there hasn't been any independent polling of the race. The 29th may see one or two independent polls before the election, but the accuracy of those polls will be in doubt.
Professional pollsters' ability to predict congressional races isn't great, especially in midterms where identifying likely voters is crucial. One recent example next door to the 29th is Tom Reynolds' race in the 26th. Zogby called it 48/33 for Davis three days after SurveyUSA said 50/45 Davis. Reynolds probably didn't lose 12 points of support in three days - it's a "house effect" of the polling company's sampling method.
Sites like pollster.com have taken to tracking the trend in races using a number of polls to judge momentum. Without polling history, we won't be able to do this in the 29th, and we won't know if the poll we see is an outlier or a fair judge of the race.
Nevertheless, the national and state press are looking for blood. If an independent third party releases a poll with Kuhl under 50% (the traditional "safe spot" for an incumbent), expect pundits to notice and rankings to move, no matter how big the Massa-Kuhl spread.
Ads and Money: Randy Kuhl went negative without provocation this week. Since his campaign has taken two polls that haven't been released, I can only assume that they made Kuhl want to drive up Massa's negatives. Incumbents in safe seats run the sunny kinds of ads that we've seen from Hillary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer. Worried incumbents run ads like Kuhl's that portray their opponents in grainy black-and-white.
Kuhl has enough money to continue running negative ads, and he will. Kuhl faces a challenge because a political newcomer like Massa provides sparse raw material for issue-based attacks. Massa's clean Navy background is another hurdle, since there probably aren't any skeletons in his closet. However, I'm sure the Kuhl campaign is up to the task ("Liberal Eric Massa says he supports the troops, but...").
The mid-month FEC filings will probably show that Massa has out-raised Kuhl, but the kind of scratch Massa needs to mount an effective ad campaign in the 29th's fragmented media market will no doubt still be out of reach. I'll bet that Massa stays positive unless a direct personal attack is launched by the Kuhl campaign, because he doesn't have the resources to do quick-response TV work. Also, with voters becoming more receptive to his positions, he doesn't need to make his points with a sledgehammer.
Local Issues: Short answer: there aren't any. Long answer: if there were any, they've been lost in the noise of Iraq and the Foley scandal. A recent example is the announcement that the VA hospital in Canandaigua has been "saved" -- it didn't even make the Rochester paper.
National and International Issues: There will be fresh revelations in the Foley matter, most likely from ex-House Clerk Jeff Trandal as reported by Newsweek. And new messages will continue to dribble out. These new facts will give the press and the Massa campaign opportunities to ask Randy Kuhl to re-evaluate his support of Hastert. The honest answer is that Hastert won't be Speaker next year even if the Republicans win, but someone has to be the first to say it. Kuhl might want to be first in the chow line at the House dining room, but he'll won't want to be first to dump Hastert. He will end up supporting the leadership, and it will hurt him.
Massa will continue the subtle critique he voiced at Thursday's debate, one that wraps the Foley matter into general lack of responsibility in DC. If he drills into Foley too deeply (no pun intended), he'll risk a backlash. This is one scandal where there's no need to educate the voters on the details - they've all heard them and made up their minds.
Sadly, no good news will come from Iraq. Kuhl's "I went to Iraq" position will be challenged hard by Massa in a debate. He'll also have a tough time with "stay the course", since even party stalwarts like John Warner are saying that a change is necessary in Iraq. Rather than changing his position, Kuhl will probably continue to attack Massa's partition strategy, perhaps by using James Baker's critique, which raises a number of good questions.
Massa will struggle defending his plan, because there's no good plan for fixing the mess in Iraq. Nevertheless, voters want a positive strategy for change. Massa will be successful if he can keep focusing on a future where we leave Iraq reasonably stable in a couple of years. He'll be less successful if he over-emphasizes how wrong we are to be there in the first place. That's a common failing of Democrats who, unlike Massa, don't have a plan.
Bottom Line: The fallout from the Foley scandal looks bad for Kuhl, but he has a month to recover and a big bank account to spend. The Massa campaign still faces an uphill battle, but the situation looks as good as it can be for a Democratic challenger in the 29th.
Comments
Rottenchester,
I have been wondering about skeletons in the closet since I read the horrific story about Randy on wikipedia and the video on YouTube (This Guy Represents Me???). Eric seems to look great on paper (24 years Navy, cancer survivor, family man), but when I first searched the web, I found the Massa Forum which is now no longer up (you can see the link on google's cache). I saw a bunch of posts by someone named Kent who challenges Eric's story about leaving the HASC. While I have heard Eric explain his reasons (based on his position in Iraq) why he resigned, Kent challenged the supporters to ask Eric if he had truly resigned or had been dismissed being circumspect in terms of his duties at HASC. I thought this could be a Kuhl supporter trying to undermine Eric, so I sent Kent an email trying to learn more, but he never replied.
24 years in the Navy is an impressive feat, but I have to wonder if this is not fraught with skeletons as well.
Massa has made his service record public. I don't know if it's on the Internet anywhere, but if he's done that I assume he's got nothing to hide.
As for the HASC, if Massa's views and the views of the majority of the committee were in conflict, that's an honorable reason to resign or be dismissed. And being fired vs. resigning is always unclear in DC.
"I thought this could be a Kuhl supporter trying to undermine Eric,"
Do you think?
http://massaforcongress.com/MilitaryRecords.asp
This link is still on Massa's website. Go to the homw page, click on the Veterans heading at the top, and then on the link to Massa's record on the veteran page. Anyone who is raising the possibility of a possibility of a pssoibility that there just must be a skeleton in there somewhere is no friend of Massa's. Quite frankly I don't care why he left the Armed Services committee - I just care about his positions now and changing the course for this country.
Baker's misgivings about the separation idea Massa puts forward are valid, and certainly he is one of the few Republicans whose input on this issue is genuinely welcome. However, even Baker has no particular experience with exactly this type of situation, and the closest it comes to experience is Massa and his NATO experience. I confess to having my own questions about this concept - questions which I was not really in a position to ask in my interview of him - but ultimately, he's the only one brave enough to have both put a viable option on the table and also to break out of the "cut and run/stay and bleed" rhetorical quagmire the debate has been mired in.
As for his position in the race, generally I suspect that in many places outside the immediate Rochester area, his name is pretty unknown. I say that because I see lots of Massa signage in Rochester and Pittsford, but not so much further south. As that recognition goes up, even through the negative Kuhl ads, his position likely approves. Also, as you point out, polls aren't very reliable in the small scale. I think that's particularly because many people who would seem "likely voters" won't go out to the polls on election day. Fortunately for Massa, that is especially true of Republicans: statistics generally show that Republicans do better where turnout is highest, usually because a group of pissed-off Conservatives decide to finally venture out of the house in November and go vote.
If I were in the Massa campaign, I would keep right on chuggin' with what they've got going. Things couldn't be going better under the circumstances, and while I'm not in favour of jinxing elections, I don't think that I'm alone in wanting to see the guy whose been big enough not to run negative win.
Regarding Massa's departure from the HASC, I found the following two links. I do remember hearing about this over a year ago:
I was then appointed as a Republican staff member to the House Armed Services Committee. I was involved in the discussions about our plans to invade Iraq. I asked tough questions about why we were invading Iraq, what had changed, and how were we going to do it. I was against this war from the very beginning and I quickly realized there were no answers to the questions I was asking. I did not make any friends within the Republican party's leadership.
When they gave me the ultimatum to either renounce my friendship for General Clark, or lose my job, the decision was easy.
I went to work for the Wesley Clark for President campaign, and as I watched the elections conclude in 2004, I realized I could no longer sit idly by.
and
While recovering his assignment was to visit recovering vets and he began to think over his social views. After a medical discharge, he became a staffer on the Republican House Armed Service Committee but ran into trouble when he began writing memos critical of the looming war in Iraq. The final straw came when he walked over to a meeting Wes Clark was having while running for president. Wes came out and shook his hand and they chatted. Republican operatives saw it and he was threatened with his job if he didn't recant his friendship with Clark. He refused and became a high level campaign worker for Clark.
I hope this gives a clearer picture regarding the issue.
Is any $ being invested in the Corning/Elmira market (TV, out of Elmira). Voters there, although Mr. Kuhl is the local, have a history of sophistication when it comes to ticket-splitting. But, sigh, it takes money to get the message out.
Kathy and Patriot - Thanks for your thorough research. I think you put that rumor to rest.
DragonFly: Baker is an adroit politician and diplomat, and perhaps the most important part of his diplomacy is working with Bush 43. This Times of London article suggests that the final solution that will come out of his study group is some form of partition with a weak central government. Since Democrats like Biden (and Massa) support partition, the spin on the study group report will be that it's completely different from the "Democrat Plan" or Bush and his cabinet won't accept it.
Olean Gal: I think you're right that the $$ is what's lacking in the Massa campaign. I haven't seen news of a Corning/Elmira buy. I assume Massa is saving his pennies for a push closer to election day.
Rottenchester, I respect the work found by Patriot and Kathy, but this does not pass the smell test when I have continued to search.
Patriot's quotes come from the Massa Campaign on a Democracy for America site (where either he or his staff wrote the content) and the post on PoliticalWire is from Noel Schultz who seems to be a strong supporter of Mr. Massa (as shown by his many posts on DailyKos here, here, and here) as well as being the founder of the Fighting-Dems website, which was started by Mr. Massa.
Kathy's comments are correct that Mr. Massa has put his military records on the web. My question is not about what is provided, but what is not. This is not an attack against Mr. Massa, this is a question to the rumor, one that still has not been answered.
All the earlier posts prove is that the Massa campaign has done a good job of seeding information on the web for people to reference.
Rottenchester, while doing a simple search on Mr. Massa's past in the blogosphere is easy, the truth lies somewhere other than there at the moment. Has anyone asked the HASC about this? Has anyone truly investigated this rumor?
And the tone of the earlier posts suggests that this is a rumor campaign, I am trying to understand the entire issue. I know very little about Mr. Massa that has not been published from his campaign or on behalf of the campaign by supporters.
I would rather not be taken in by a devil I do not know than one I do. Mr. Massa looks terrific on paper and has an incredible grasp on the issues abroad. But who is this man? Can he be condensed into three soundbites?
"24 year Navy veteran" "cancer-survivor" "family-man"
The blogosphere is where ideas are discussed and investigated. The Trent Lott story and resignation came from the blogosphere. Tom Delay's resignaton came from a thorough airing out of issues in the blogosphere. Rathergate and the falsehoods of the documents came from the blogosphere.
I am concerned that this will seem like an attack, but I am asking a question. One that I have been investigating as much as I can. I can understand if someone does not want to agree, but I am still asking.
Mary,
Your initial question was based on a post in a forum. The accusation was that Massa did not resign, he was dismissed. The Massa story was that he was given an ultimatum and quit. That story is certainly open to interpretation by those who hear it. Some might consider it a dismissal. Others might consider it a resignation on principle. Either way, his campaign isn't hiding the fact that he quit the HASC, that he wasn't happy about the direction of the HASC when he quit, and the HASC wasn't happy with him. That story could be consistent with the story of the ephemeral "Kent" who posted on the messaging forum.
Another way of saying this is that it's only news if Massa is giving out a story that's substantially different from Kent's. In my opinion, he isn't. There's no reason for bloggers to investigate this story because it isn't interesting. Massa quit or Massa was fired. Either way, both sides agree on the reason: his vocal opposition of the war in Iraq.
The Delay and Lott stories you mention involved indictable offenses (in Delay's case) or racist remarks (in Lott's). Both of those are real issues worthy of further investigation. There's no such offense imagined by anyone here.
Rottenchester, I completely agree with the statement that this is an accusation, and normally not worthy of investigation. But what had made it interesting to me was that Kent spoke from personal experience within the HASC, allegations that were unsubstantiated, and supporters on the forum were arguing against his statements specific statements like:
"I got a better idea. You have Eric sign on here and say that he wasn't fired and resigned from the HASC. When I see that I'll be motivated to PROVE it to you."
and
"I assure you I speak the truth. Just get Eric to say publicly that he resigned from the HASC over the war."
The tone and tenor of his posts were one of someone not playing games, but of being a lone, dissenting voice in the Massa forum. If he was a person that was playing a game, he might have given up. But Kent seems to have been more focused on getting out what he thought was the truth. (Supposedly he was working with Navy staff and was close to the HASC staffers).
What was suprising to me was the forum, which I used to visit, disappeared. So, the only place to "investigate" the allegations was here (or other blogs).
You have been an excellent moderator and I only wish Kent would speak what he said with in some of his statements with some more proff, if only to confirm what I am discussing.
After living here, I have never been one to give up, and I believe that sometimes, a hunch is worthy of following up.
Rottenchester, I agree about the idea of following up indictable offenses, but I wonder about the measure of a man. If labels were all that was needed, then CEOs and celebrities would be in higher office more often (oh, wait, is that Governor Schwarzenegger I see? Or Governor Ventura?) A sterling resume is one thing, but a mark of a smart politician is about keeping the bad stuff out, and the good stuff in.
And let me say this; I am no fan of Randy Kuhl. I think his pork-barrell politics, while making interesting soundbites, has hurt this area more than helped it. His lock-step voting record with President Bush is such that I am completely distrustful of anything he says, for fear of upseting his friend.
Will I vote for Randy? No.
But I am still trying to learn about Mr. Massa. I still have reservations based on what I do not see. He has a terrific speaking style and he is compelling in his grasp of national and international issues. But is it the devil I know, or the devil I don't?
Again, two questions have been asked and answered:
1. Was Massa fired? Answer: hard to tell. The fired/resigned distinction in DC is pretty hard to make. What seems clear is this: after a confrontation over a matter of principle, Massa chose to resign, or he was fired.
2. Is being fired from a job in DC a big deal? Answer: Not if you're fired for the right reason. Nobody, not even Kent, is alleging that Massa was fired for anything but a disagreement over a principle. Kent might think "being fired" is a terrible thing, but in this context it isn't.
So, a non-controversy over a non-issue, no matter what Kent says. Bring some facts to the table and I'll listen.
I can't help but wonder why Mary would focus so intently on rumors, rather than facts. Fact - Massa spent 24 years defending this country, and Kuhl didn't spend any. Fact - Republicans often engage in whisper campaigns based on lies in order to win unfairly what they can't win fairly. And fact - there are no facts to support any rumors about Massa's being fired. Democrats, on the other hand, are too polite to even whisper about the facts, like Kuhl's history of DWI and how he ducked a conviction based on his connections (which many southern tier folks have told me irks them no end), and all the ugly details about his pulling a gun on his wife. Mary - which do you think is more a reflection of a person's character? And Mary, if you opt for the rumors about the HASC, is it because you're one of those Republicans engaging in one of those hideous whisper campaigns? In fact, Mary, why is it you have so many details at your fingertips from a website that no longer exists and which none of us who are following this race have ever heard of?