Democrats should like their odds of retaking the Senate

By Richard Barry

Doug Sosnik at Politico seems to be saying three related but distinct things in an article about who will hold a majority in the U.S. Senate after the 2016 election. The first is that whichever party wins the presidency is likely to take the Senate; the second is that since the odds seem to favour Hillary Clinton winning it all, the Democrats will likely regain control;  and the third is that even without a Hillary win the Democrats hold certain advantages based on demographics and where Republican incumbents are.

After picking up nine seats in the 2014 elections, Republicans maintain a decisive 54-seat majority in the Senate. In 2016, they will face a much more difficult map that coincides with a presidential election year. Nineteen months before the 2016 elections, the contours of the race for the presidency are only now starting to take shape. But one thing that is clear at this point is that the outcome of the presidential race will likely determine control of the Senate

His analysis is based on five point:

• 2016 presidential and Senate target states are almost perfectly aligned;
• A state’s vote for a Senate candidate increasingly mirrors the vote for president;
• Changing demographics and increased turnout during a presidential election year will benefit all Democrats on the ballot;
• The Senate math favors Democrats (more senators are up for re-election in blue states);
• The party that wins the White House will control a 50/50 Senate.

Maybe the overall point is that 2016 will be kinder to Senate Democrats than 2014, whatever else happens. That seems like a safe bet.

We're about to learn a lot more about Marco Rubio's career plans

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Yesterday, Daily Intelligencer reported that an announcement from the Republicans' Great Cuban Hope is coming soon:

A year after declaring he'd run for the Senate or the presidency in 2016, but not both, Marco Rubio has made up his mind. Following reports that the Florida senator has reserved the Freedom Tower in Miami, on Monday he confirmed on Fox News's The Five that he'll "announce on April 13 what I’m going to do next in terms of running for president or the U.S. Senate," according to Politico. "So you will announce that you’re running for president?" said co-host Dana Perino. "I'll announce something on April 13," Rubio replied. The senator's being coy, but feel free to start getting excited about his Senate reelection campaign!

Well, maybe. Let's consider that possibility:

He won't run for president, because he doesn't want to lose (and he would), but he'll run for Senate, because he wants to win (and he will). It's probably just that simple.

Now, would he really lose were he to run for president? He'd almost certainly lose to Hillary, who is, of course, the certain Democratic nominee, but it's highly likely he wouldn't even come close to the Republican nomination.

I hesitate to make too much of the silly Iowa Republican straw poll, and I won't, but Rubio finished a distant seventh at the end of February with just 4%, well behind even fellow Floridian Jeb Bush, who ended up with a disappointing (for him) 8%. Now, that's a straw poll of the extremists who make up the base, but mainstream polls put him well back as well.

Now, it could be premature to back out. After all, there are loads of ups and downs in any nomination race -- just think back to 2012, when every challenger to Romney as the general frontrunner seemed to have his moment at the top of the pack. And Rubio could very well emerge as the bridge between the extremist base (represented by Ted Cruz, as well as by more defined social conservatives like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee) and the somewhat less extremist establishment (represented by Bush and Chris Christie), with Rand Paul representing the iconoclastic quasi-libertarian elements of the party. Currently, the bridge figure appears to be Scott Walker, but he's untested on the national stage and might not have the staying power to remain a serious contender throughout the long and winding race. So why not Rubio?

Well, maybe because Rubio just doesn't seem to have it. And by "it" I mean that nebulous quality that seems to propel a select group of politicians, even a dud like Romney, into presidential politics. He just seems too raw, too immature, too unprincipled, too shamelessly opportunistic.

And it's that last point that matters now. He knows where the opportunity is, and that's not in a run for the White House that is sure to end in defeat but in a re-election campaign for the Senate.

And hey, if he does end up announcing that on April 13, at least we can say he did the realistic thing, which is not something that can be said about many Republicans these days.

But...

What if that isn't his decision? What if he does decide to run for president? I mean, he's booked the Freedom Tower. Generally, you'd make an exciting announcement at such a venue, not one that is sure to disappoint the enthusiastic supporters who would turn out for such an event.

So it would seem that he's going for it, that he really thinks he can win -- and I suppose he has a shot, though of course politicians in their bubbles of sycophantic cheerleaders always think they can win.

But if that's the case, the above still applies. He could emerge as the bridge candidate, if more of an establishment type than a base type, but the odds are against him, and his biggest weakness may very well be himself.

Republican #47Traitors changing their tune on Iran letter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

First there was defiance (based in cynicism, ideological righteousness, and warmongering gusto):

Angry Democrats on Tuesday excoriated the open letter sent to Iran's leadership warning about a nuclear agreement with President Obama, but the 47 Republicans who signed it remained defiant and unapologetic, saying the president should have seen their opposition coming.

(Yes, that is a problem. Basically, you -- especially if you're the president -- should always assume that Republicans will try to block everything you do, that what is basically the opposition party will really be the party of obstructionism and disloyalty. It's been like that since the beginning. President Obama knows that. At the same time, I'm not sure you can anticipate that Republican opposition will actually be, or at least border on, treason. Then again, maybe you can, and should.)

Then, facing widespread criticism (you know, because treason), there was lots and lots of backpedaling:

Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran's leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated...

[E]ven among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.

And then there were the excuses, specifically this one:

Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a light-hearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a "cheeky" reminder of the Congressional branch's prerogatives.

"The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations," said a top GOP Senate aide.

Ha, so cheeky! Undermining the president of the United States in one of the most important foreign policy matters of our time. Basically trying to sabotage negotiations that could finally resolve the long-standing Iranian nuclear issue. (And I'm not letting anti-deal Democrats off the hook either. Their Republican-lite opposition is similarly counter-productive.)

So... fucking... hilarious.

Actually, these are going on simultaneously. The public message is defiance, but the pathetic excuses are coming out as well, like trial balloons, to try to defuse what has become a disastrous episode for Republicans.

Because, you know, treason. Fucking treason.

Which isn't funny. Not funny at all.

Unlimited money in politics sucks (was that too subtle?)

By Richard K. Barry

If you stack up all my million dollar bills, 
it's way higher than this. 

CNN has been reporting that conservative patron Sheldon Adelson might donate as much as $100 million to help Republicans take back the Senate.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has officially declared money to be the same thing as free speech or, put another way, that billionaires can freely put elections in their trophy cases along with those rhino tusks bagged last summer, democracy is truly fucked.

More significant than any other use of the green stuff, needless to say, is that money buys media. 

Ever since the earliest days of advertising, whether for soap or cigarettes or cars, consumers have hated to think they can be influenced to do things they may not otherwise do. Sure, they reason, it's all bullshit but we can see past it and make up our own minds. It doesn't matter how many images, catchy slogans, beautiful women and men, or lies are put in the mix, they think, we are independed-minded American citizens and we'll decide for ourselves, Goddamit!

The problem is that they can't and don't; none of us do. Advertisers have long claimed they aren't responsible for creating demand, they simply respond to it. Political spinmeisters similarly claim, just a bit disingenuously, that they don't create opinion, they simply put the truth out there and let voters decide for themselves. Fox News, the formal advertising wing of the Republican Party describes it like this: "We Report. You Decide."

This guy.

Advertising, whether political or product, is about manipulation because, ever since Edward Bernays, they know how to do it, and we're very close to being helpless once they get us in their sites. 

But, because voters in particular don't like to believe they are capable of being led, they aren't as upset as they should be that billions more in paid media increases the likelihood that others will be telling them what to think and for whom to vote. 

I'd like to believe that Democrats won't engage in the same kind of manipulation as the other side with the gazillions they raise, but of course they will.  So, this is not really a partisan rant. 

The sooner we realize that independent thought in the face of incessant media conditioning is harder and harder to achieve,  the sooner we will get at least a little frightened at the idea that unlimited money in politics leads no where good. 

(Cross-posted at Culturolio.)

Behind the Ad: A very good ad from a GOP Senate candidate in Oregon

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Monica Wehby campaign for U.S. Senate

Where: Oregon

What's going on: Dr. Wehby is a paediatric neurosurgeon who will face three other candidates in the GOP primary on May 20th. The winner will run again Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley (D).  Polling has Merkley with a decent lead over all comers at this point though Republicans are saying that Merkley could be vulnerable over local frustrations with Obamacare and the state exchange in Oregon.

Whatever the politics, the ad is quite stunning.

As The Hill describes it:

[T]titled "Trust," [it] runs a minute long and highlights the story of Lexi Liebelt from Gresham, Ore., whose daughter needed reconstructive surgery on her spinal cord shortly after she was born. In the ad, Liebelt tells the story of how Wehby helped her daughter that day.

Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post calls it one of the best political ads of 2014. It's worth noting in detail his reasons, which are that it:

a) Shows rather than tells how Wehby's background -- she's the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Randall Children's Hospital in Portland -- is decidedly different than most people running for office.

b) Conveys a story -- of a newborn with spinal problems -- that sticks with you.

c) Looks different. The image of Lexi Liebelt, the mom, crying as she recounts the story of how Wehby reassured her that her daughter would be ok is powerful. The shots of the now 12-year old Gabby Liebelt are equally moving.

Grade: For the moment,  I won't get into the curiosity of doctors taking issue with expanded health care coverage. As for the ad, a solid A. 

Behind the Ad: Don't confuse Michigan Republicans with logic

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Terri Lynn Land campaign for U.S. Senate

Where: Michigan

What's going on: I saw this one on CNN's ever-moronic morning show yesterday. I could tell it was CNN because the hosts were going on about how clever the ad is, which, given how stupid the ad is, is what you would expect from CNN. 

I'll let Daily Kos take it from here:

As gentle piano music plays, Land starts off by saying "Congressman Gary Peters and his buddies want you to believe I'm waging a war on women." Incredulous, Land asks, "Really?", then insists: "Think about that for a moment." The music shifts to a peppier, almost annoying trope that signifies "waiting around" as Land takes a sip of her coffee, looks at her watch, shakes her head ... and says nothing at all for 12 seconds.

Then, thinking she's the cleverest lady ever, Land finally breaks her silence and declares, "As a woman, I might know a little bit more about women than Gary Peters."

Are we really supposed to believe that the mere fact there are female politicians and candidates in the GOP means we therefore cannot have a substantive policy debate about how Republican policies adversely impact woman? Is that the point? If so, and I'm afraid it is, it's a stupid point.

Again, Kos nails it when they write that "[a]nyone swayed by this kind of 'argument' is almost certainly already very hostile to Democrats—the sort of conservative who declares, "There's no 'War on Women' because Monica Lewinsky!"

For the record, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin's decision not to run again has made this race competitive. Land, a former Michigan Secretary of State, will be running for the Republicans and U.S. Rep. Gary Peters for the Democrats. Polling done as recently as March and April has it close, which is likely how it will remain. 

Grade: As you can see, I don't think much of this cringe-making ad, which obviously wouldn't move any vote and might even alienate some who actually think for themselves. D-

Behind the Ad: Sen. Mitch McConnell takes no chances

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Sen. Mitch McConnell Campaign (R-Ky)

Where: Kentucky

What's going on: Mitch McConnell should have no difficulty dispatching Tea Party Challenger Matt Bevin (R) for the GOP Senate nomination in Kentucy, but he wants to make sure. As with other Republican incumbents who are being primaried from their right, McConnell has been forced to scream from the rooftops that he is in fact a conservative.

"Mitch McConnell: He's not a show horse, Mitch is a genuine Kentucky workhorse," the ad's narrator says. "Last year, he saved 99 percent of Kentuckians from an income tax increase. Mitch stopped bureaucrats from shutting down fishing below Barkley Dam, saving Kentucky jobs. Mitch fights for Kentucky miners against Obama's war on coal and he's leading the fight against ObamaCare. Mitch McConnell fights for our values, our future and our jobs."

The primary, which McConnell will win, is on May 20th. Then the real work begins as he goes head to head with Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) in the general election.

Grade: To explain the grading scale: Anything less than a C, in my estimation, starts to do the candidate damage. I consider a C anything that does what it has to do but probably doesn't move much vote.  A B may move vote in a positive way. And an A is a game changer, a "Morning in America" moment, if you will. With that in mind: C 

Behind the Ad: Who's zoomin' who in the North Carolina GOP Senate race?

By Richard K. Barry

Tom Tillis

Who: Senate Majority PAC (Democratic super PAC)

Where: North Carolina

What's going on: Well, this one really climbs into the gutter. In this ad, the Democrats attack Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis by drawing attention to the fact that "two former staffers were engaged in inappropriate relationships with lobbyists," as The Washington Post reports. One of the staffers was Tillis' chief of staff, with whom Tillis shared on apartment.

Tillis has said he wasn't aware of his chief staff's affair, despite the two of them living together. The affairs were revealed in 2012, and Tillis was criticized for giving the staffers severance pay when they were forced to resign.

If you haven't been following the U.S. Senate race in North Carolina closely, it is shaping up to be a tough one for Democratic incumbent Sen. Kay Hagen, at this point a likely toss-up. Tom Tillis is considered the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, which is also being contested by physician Greg Brannon, Mark Harris, a Baptist minister, and nurse Heather Grant. The Tea Party is split between Brannon and Harris.

As for the details of the dirty dancing, this was reported by local North Carolina media:

The incident referenced in the commercial came to light just before the May 2012 legislative short session. Charles Thomas, who was Tillis' chief of staff and roommate, resigned after admitting to a romantic relationship with a lobbyist for the Home Builders Association. The affair was problematic both because Thomas was married and because of the perception that Thomas could have used his role to do favors for the lobbyist.

Days later, Tillis' policy adviser, Amy Hobbs, resigned after volunteering to Tillis that she, too, had had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist. The story surfaced again two weeks later when it was reported Tillis paid roughly $19,000 in severance to the two staffers in question.

That Democrats are attacking Tillis in this way suggests they take him seriously. 

Grade: I know that progressives are supposed to be okay going after Republicans on questions of morality because conservatives are usually so damned sanctimonious. I'm still a little uncomfortable with it, though it is true that these were not simply extramarital affairs, but involved lobbyist, so that's not good. Does the work? Yeah, probably, maybe, I don't know. C

Behind the Ad: Damage control in Iowa

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Senate Majority PAC (Democratic PAC)

Where: Iowa

What's going on: A short while ago Rep. Bruce Braley (D), who is seen as a front-runner in the race to succeed Sen. Tom Harken (D), who is retiring, made a dismissive comment about Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), calling him a "farmer from Iowa." The context of the comment was that Grassley would, as a farmer, be unqualified to be on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I had fun at the time asking when it become smart politics to make fun of farmers in Iowa.

Who knows if such foolish comments will have an impact, but Democrats are worried enough to do some damage control.

In the ad, two men who appear to be farmers tout Braley's family farming roots and defend his character, implicitly refuting concern that his gaffe shows he's out of touch with Iowa farmers.

"We don't pay attention to what people say, we look at what they do," one says. "Bruce led the fight to pass a new farm bill and he's been a leader on renewable fuels. So people can say what they like, but we know Bruce and we know he's got our back."

I love the comment that "we don't pay attention to what people say." As for myself, I tend to pay attention, but that's me.

Grade: If you shoot yourself in the foot, I guess you're obliged to make ads with people saying you're not as stupid as you appear to be. C

Behind the Ad: The benefits of ObamaCare

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Put Alaska First PAC (a pro-Democatic super-PAC)

Where: Alaska (state-wide)

What's going on: This is an Alaskan super-PAC backing Democratic Sen. Mark Begich's reelection bid. The ad does what, I suspect, many Democrats are going to have to get comfortable doing, and that is touting the benefits of ObamaCare. As we hear, Lisa Keller is a cancer survivor born and raised in Alaska who was unable to get health coverage until Obamacare became law.

“I was lucky, I beat cancer but the insurance companies still denied me health insurance just because of a pre-existing condition," Keller says in the ad. "I now have health insurance again because of Mark Begich. Because he fought the insurance companies, so that we no longer have to."

So far, many Democrats in closer races have stayed away from talking about ObamaCare or have pointed to their efforts to improve it.  Others have argued that its time to talk about what health care reform has and will do for Americans.

Interestingly, this ad mentions neither ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act by name, so baby steps first, I suppose, but good that it's happening.

To say the very least, Sen. Begich is very vulnerable in his bid for reelection. Alaska is a red state, and Begich only got 48 percent of the vote in 2008 when President Obama was busy carrying so many Democrats to victory. And 2014 is a midterm, when so many Dems have tanked in the past. Having said that, Begich has mostly run away from Obama over the years and is clearly hoping that Alaskans have noticed.  Polling done in March has the race between Begich and any credible GOP candidates as close enough so we don't really know what is going to happen here. 

Grade: As an ad, it's simple and to the point. We can argue that the approach may not work for Begich, but it presents the message the campaign is going with right now. In political communication, there are two things to considers: The first is, will it work for the candidate? The second is, does it do effectively what it sets out to do? It's difficult to separate the two considerations, but it's an important analytical distinction. Based on the second of the two considerations, it's a pretty good piece. B

 

Behind the Ad: Babies, so many babies

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The David Perdue campaign for the U.S. Senate

Where: Georgia

What's going on: I've written a lot recently about the U.S. Senate election campaign in Georgia here, here, and here, so I won't cover familiar territory. I will just say that a bunch of GOP candidates are vying for the seat that will become vacant when Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) retires. Michelle Nunn is the presumptive Democratic nominee. Those in the know are saying this will be a close fight, at least in the general.

Businessman David Perdue is one of those running for the GOP nomination. He is a cousin of former Gov. Sonny Perdue. Purdue is mostly using his own money to talk about his business experience, while berating his fellow Republicans for having "too much" political experience, which seems to be something we are seeing a lot of from certain Republicans.

In that vein, Perdue has some very unusual ads, in which he points to the "childish behaviour" of politicians, specifically his GOP primary opponents, who, he says,  would already have solved our problems if they understood anything about the free enterprise system - a system Perdue almost claims to have invented.

The most recent ad begins with a bunch of computer generated babies in the foreground of the Capitol building. Perdue then comes on to give us his pitch without ever mentioning the babies.

Presumably, we are all supposed to know that the babies were introduced in earlier ads citing the aforementioned childish behaviour. 

It's all very confusing. 

Grade: Aside from baby fiasco, I find David Perdue very smarmy, though I suspect he finds himself extremely charming. I know, however, that with certain conservatives the lack of political experience is exactly what they want in their politicians. And it is the one thing Perdue has that his rivals lack. On the thought that one must turn weaknesses into strengths, I'll say this is not an awful ad, but it's not great. And that whole thing about running businesses being good training for running government didn't work all that well for Mitt. C

(I will do Mr. Perdue the favour he has not done us, by posting the ads back-to-back so it all makes sense, sort of. For the record, there is a second ad that is almost exactly the same as the first ad. Got it? Keep in mind that a lot of people would have seen the most recent ad with the babies in front of the Capitol with nary a mention by Perdue as to why they are in the ad at all. That must have been a moment.)

Behind the Ad: Former Mass. Sen. Scott Brown comes to New Hampshire (and not for a vacay)

By Richard K. Barry

Who: End Spending Action Fund

Where: New Hampshire (on WMUR TV and cable sports networks).

What's going on: The End Spending Action Fund is a group backed by billionaire Joe Ricketts, which, as the name suggests, is a Republican advocacy group. This ad is in support of former Massachusetts GOP Sen. Scott Brown, who has been toying with the idea of running for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire. Now comes word via the Boston Globe that he will in fact take the plunge, and make his intentions clear this Thursday.

The incumbent is Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, who was first elected in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, defeating then-GOP Sen. John Sununu. As you will recall, 2008 was a particularly good year for Democrats, which is likely why Brown is thinking he can poach the seat in this year's midterm, when Republicans have done well more recently.

Scott Brown won, I'm sure you'll remember, an upset special election in 2010 in Massachusetts to fill the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term, but was than unseated in 2012 by Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

As for polling in New Hampshire, HuffPollster's trend line has Shaheen ahead of Brown by a margin of 49.8 percent to 40.3 percent, though this was done before it was clear he was running. The most recent poll (March 13-16) has Shaheen up 50 percent to 38 percent. Still, if Democrats
want reason to worry, they can direct themselves to President Obama's job approval rating in the state. Just 31 percent say they like the job he is doing, while 56 percent disapprove.

As we've seen in the past, all bets seem to be off in the midterms.

The ad in question features a clip of Brown criticizing Obamacare in his victory speech after the 2010 special election in Massachusetts. “It will raise taxes; it will hurt Medicare; it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper into debt,” he states. And then the announcer intones: “Scott Brown was right on ObamaCare then. He’s right for New Hampshire now.”

Grade: While Republicans running hard against ObamaCare makes sense now, it is hard to tell how the issue will play in November. Maybe it will still work. Maybe not. In a state where Obama's favourability is seriously underwater, health care reform has to be a part of that. The funny thing about Brown is that he campaigned in Massachusetts as a moderate, as you would expect, but became a Tea Party favourite as they dreamed of swiping Ted Kennedy's seat. It will be interesting to see how he plays his candidacy in New Hampshire, especially as outside money designs a message that may not be very moderate at all. The ad is effective for now, to the extent that ObamaCare is a negative proxy for President Obama, but that may change. In fact, the more popular ObamaCare becomes, the more likely Republicans are to start calling it the Affordable Care Act. B

Behind the Ad: Cleveland vs. Cleveland? Really?

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Mississippi Conservatives PAC (a pro-Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss) group)

Where: Mississippi

What's going on: As I said last week, Cochran is seen by many as the most vulnerable Republican
incumbent facing a primary challenge. State Sen. Chris McDaniel has received the support of every national conservative group expressing an opinion on the matter. He is running to the right of Cochran with the argument that Cochran is a Washington insider who deserves to be defeated.

Cochrane has been trumpeting his conservative bona fides in response. It's already silly season in Mississippi.

Now a pro-Cochran PAC has launched an ad charging that McDaniel has "taken both sides" on some key issues.  The ad charges that he has "both been in favor of and against tort reform, for and against Common Core educational standards and “on both sides” on earmarks."

We'll be following closely some of these GOP primaries in which the issue of what it means to be a real conservative are front and centre. Not a hell of a lot of light between both sides as far as I can see. 

Noel Fritsch, a McDaniel's team spokesman, pushed back against the ad saying this:

Sen. Cochran and his lobbyist friends will say anything to try to distract voters from Sen. Cochran’s record of voting for bailouts, debt ceiling increases, tax increases and taxpayer-funded abortion...The truth is, Sen. Cochran has been one of the biggest proponents of wasteful government spending while state Sen. Chris McDaniel has been a conservative leader in Mississippi. No wonder Sen. Cochran’s campaign is so afraid."

I'm not in a postion to unpack all of Fritsch's claims about Cochran's record, but it's a pretty nasty hit list if you're a Republican.

Grade: The ad attacking McDaniel is pretty standard fare. If McDaniel is going to claim purity, Cochran is going to push back. Okay. I like the point that McDaniel didn't want to support funding for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio, but voted to give ten times more to the Grammy museum in Cleveland, Mississippi. Well, that's confusing. Anyway, the ad is nothing special, but makes a point. C

Behind the Ad: Kingston, get a new campaign team!

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Jack Kingston U.S. Senate campaign

Where: Georgia

What's going on: Kingston is an 11-term member of the U.S. House. He is running to replace retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). In this absolutely terrible ad, Kingston has hired an Obama impersonator to give him a fake phone call.

“Kingston, this is the president. You’ve got to back off Obamacare,” the fake Obama says as images of the president on the telephone flash on the screen. “Kingston, let me be clear: I do not want you in the Senate. Call me back, Kingston, please.”

After the fake Obama foolishness, Kingston comes on screen to say he would “never answer” a call to stop opposing Obamacare.

It could be a tight race for the GOP nomination in Georgia with businessman David Perdue currently leading Kingston, Reps. Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey and former Georgia secretary of State Karen Handel.

And with the daughter of former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn Michelle Nunn as the presumptive Democratic nominee, no matter who the GOP picks, this one is likely to be in play.

Grade: This is ad is so stupid. It reminds me of a bunch of frat boys making prank phone calls late at night. You know, "do you have Prince Albert in a can?" Even Kingston's appearance at the end looks like he is oh-so-satisfied at this totally clever joke. And that line from the fake Obama saying "I do not want you in the Senate," is to make me weep. OMG. I'd give it a flat out F but for the fact that at least some Obama haters must have thought it was hilarious. D-

Can't anybody here play this game?

By Richard K. Barry

Last week I wrote about a clip of Rep. Bruce Braley, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Iowa, making disparaging comments about farmers. Just for fun I dug up a statistic provided by Iowa State University finding that "more than 20,000 people make their living each year as full-time employees on Iowa farms." Another fun fact is that farms make up 92 of Iowa's land.

You get the point.

Enter Georgia Republican Senate candidate David Perdue who thought it might be helpful to belittle the education level of his Democratic opponent.

"There's a high school graduate in this race, OK?" he said at one of his campaign headquarters. "I'm sorry, but these issues are so much broader, so complex."

The problem, as Matt Vasilogambos points out, is that he might have checked the state's education profile before he did that.

According to census statistics, only 27.8 percent of Georgians over age 25 hold a bachelor's degree or higher, while 84.4 percent have a high school diploma. For the 72.2 percent of Georgians without that college degree, Perdue's boast may tell them they're not smart enough for higher office.

The comment is certainly dickish, as was Braley's, but it's politically moronic.  Like I said (and Jimmy Breslin said first), can't anybody here play this game.

Here's a clip of Perdue's comment, if you haven't yet had a chance to cringe today.

Behind the Ad: The Koch brothers care about the health care of ordinary Americans (stop laughing)

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Americans for Prosperity (political advocacy group back by the Koch brothers)

Where: Arkansas

What's going on: Sen. Mark Pryor (D) is the incumbent up for reelection. He is in a very tough battle with Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). In the ad, a trucker by the name of Jerry says that Obamacare led to his health insurance policy being canceled.

He continues:

It's like living in a haze — you don't know whether you're going to have insurance or whether you're going to afford your insurance,

Mark Pryor voted for this law. He hasn't been that responsive to the issue now, you think he'll be responsive four years from now, or two years from now?

In an increasingly red state in which President Obama is particularly unpopular, going after Obamacare is a no-brainer. According to polling done in December, Obama's favourable/unfavourable rating was 31/61 percent. Romney got 60.6 percent of the vote in 2012 to Obama's 36.9.  And money is already pouring into the state and more will follow.

Pryor is in a difficult spot, and could easily go down. 

Grade: In my totally unscientific assessment of political ads, I'm most interested in how effective the ad is likely to be,  not whether I think it's fair or true or whatever, or whether I'm sickened by the presumption that the Koch brothers give a damn that anyone has health insurance. But that's not the point. As Dave Weigel writes about his particular ad:

Jerry's problem is not that his plan has been canceled, per se. It's that the fate of the plan is lost in confusion. "It was taken away from us, or it was given back to us, or it was taken," he says, exasperated. These AFP ads are designed to have long tails, as liberals criticize them and smear the humans who appear in them. A guy who's confused about Obamacare? That could be me!

In a state becoming increasingly red, where they don't like Obama anyway, this could work. Whatever else may be true, Jerry is a powerful spokesman. B

Behind the Ad: Michelle Nunn is the devil, apparently

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The End-Spending-Action-Fund (a GOP-affiliated Super PAC).

Where: Georgia

What's going on: Georgia is a very red state: the governorship; both chambers of the state legislature; both U.S. Senate seats; and 8 of 13 congressional districts are held by Republicans. It seems,  though, that they are not feeling as confident as you might think about holding the U.S. Senate seat Saxby Chambliss (R) will be vacating when he retires this year.

Exhibit A is the first attack ad aimed at the presumptive Democratic nominee Michelle Nunn, which, no great surprise, accuses her of supporting ObamaCare and higher taxes. Ho-hum.

As The Hill writes:

Nunn has been posting huge fundraising totals so far and has been neck-and-neck with her potential GOP rivals in the polls. Republicans are worried a crowded primary field could produce a flawed candidate, giving her a better chance to win in the GOP-leaning state.

Because it's a crowded field for the GOP nomination, the thinking is that a tough primary could damage the ultimate Republican nominee, or that a nominee could emerge for the general election way too conservative for the state.

With that in mind, Charlie Cook is calling it a toss-up and a potential good-news story for Democrats.

Grade: This ad is so boring and the claim that the big bad IRS is going to get you if they don't like what you choose to do with your health care is confusing at best. Maybe the point is just to put the IRS, higher taxes, and Obamacare in the same sentence.  I suppose it's a marker of sorts for later on, but I doubt it will have much of an impact. C-

Behind the Ad: Sen. Thad Cochran is a very conservative fellow. In case you didn't know

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Sen. Thad Cochran (R) reelection campaign

Where: Mississippi

What's going on: Well, Sen. Cochran seems to have himself in a knock down drag out fight for the GOP Senate nomination in Mississippi. Despite a very conservative recored, he is, as The Hill describes him, "seen as the most vulnerable incumbent facing a primary challenge."

State Sen. Chris McDaniel (R) swept the endorsements of national conservative groups early on in his race. They’re hopeful that Cochran’s long tenure and rustiness on the campaign trail, coupled with a career built on bringing federal money back to the state, will cause him to fall in the June primary.

The narrator in the ad says, however, that "there’s 'only one candidate for U.S. Senate' who’s been endorsed by the NRA, and voted 'against ObamaCare 100 times,' been endorsed by Gov. Phil Bryant (R) and has a 100 percent pro-life voting record, according to the National Right to Life Committee."

That candidate is Sen. Thad Cochran, though, apparently that may not make him conservative enough in Mississippi.

McDaniel, running with the support of the Tea Party establishment, is using the Washington insider tag against Cochran, much as Mitch Bevin is doing against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. 

While McConnell is unlikely to lose the nomination, Cochran may, which could make things interesting for the Democrats, who have tapped former U.S. Rep. Travis Childers.

That doesn't mean it would be a walk in the park for Democrats to go up against McDaniel, only that they might have a shot if not running against an incumbent first elected in 1978. 

Where have we seen Tea Party candidates knock off Republican incumbents only to trip over the own tongues in the general election? Let me think. 

Grade: Not much to see here. It's a strangely necessary ad considering that the incumbent is being painted as not conservative enough. A necessary nothing burger, if you will. Gets a job done, I suppose. C+

Senate Democrats shamefully abandon President Obama over outstanding surgeon general nominee

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's one thing for right-wing ideologues and NRA stooges like Rand Paul to oppose President Obama's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy. Dr. Murthy, after all, has said that gun violence represents a serious public health threat, which of course it does, and reality-denying pro-gun absolutists live in a fetishistic fantasy world where guns save lives.

It's another thing, though, for Democrats, even Republican-leaning conservative Democrats, to oppose a Democratic president's nominee and for their opposition be enough, with Republican opposition, to derail that nominee's confirmation to a post for what he is supremely qualified: 

Facing a possible defeat in the Senate, the White House is considering delaying a vote on President Obama's choice for surgeon general or withdrawing the nomination altogether, an acknowledgment of its fraying relationship with Senate Democrats.

The nominee, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, an internist and political ally of the president's, has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, and opposition from the gun-rights group has grown so intense that it has placed Democrats from conservative states, several of whom are up for re-election this year, in a difficult spot.

Senate aides said Friday that as many as 10 Democrats are believed to be considering a vote against Dr. Murthy, who has voiced support for various gun control measures like an assault weapons ban, mandatory safety training and ammunition sales limits.

I get that some of these Democrats are generally pro-gun and that some of them are facing tough re-election challenges this year. But it takes extreme ignorance and/or willful stupidity not to see America's plague of gun violence as a public health threat, and, what's more, it's not like Murthy's confirmation would suddenly mean the end of gun "rights."

But beyond that, these are Democrats undermining a fellow Democrat who could certainly use the support right now. I get that politicians are about self-preservation and that supporting the president isn't exactly a major vote-winner at the moment (though of course Congress's approval rating is way lower than Obama's). But these Democrats should a) do what's right for the country, b) support the president's, any president's, nominees unless something truly egregious is uncovered, and c) back up their president even if doing so might subject them to some (but probably not much) criticism back home.

But these Democrats aren't just looking at re-election, they're basically just siding with the NRA and the rest of the gun nuts against sensible gun policy, as well as sensible public health policy. They're NRA stooges just like Rand Paul is, and in opposing President Obama's extremely qualified nominee they're displaying not so much sensible political sensitivity but abject moral cowardice. And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves, just as all Democrats should be ashamed that their party can't even remain united in support of their president for what is, for all intents and purposes, an easy call.

When Democrats and Republicans alike prefer protecting the Pentagon to dealing with the plague of sexual assault in the military

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Yes, once again, the Senate has acted shamefully:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand came up short Thursday in her yearlong campaign to overhaul military sexual-assault policies, falling five votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

The New York Democrat's bill, which would have removed the chain of command from prosecuting sexual assaults and other major military crimes, was derailed in the Senate on a 55-45 vote, closing out one chapter in a debate that divided the Senate but not along typical partisan lines.

Ten Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 2016 presidential hopefuls Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, backed Gillibrand's controversial chain-of-command bill. But that wasn't enough to overcome 10 Democratic votes against her, including prominent defense hawks like Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also opposed the bill.

Things to note here:

1) This was a procedural vote, not an actual vote on the bill. But Gillibrand still got a majority of senators to support her effort, which is admirable. If the Senate were actually a functioning legislative body instead of a stage for partisan and ideological grandstanding, where all it takes is one member to shut things down with a filibuster, that is, if democracy actually mattered, the outcome would have been different.

2) Yes, this is one area where President Obama does need to show a good deal more leadership. His active involvement, as opposed to merely supporting Gillibrand in principle and hoping for the best, could have been the difference.

3) There is indeed an argument to be made for the military to be able to mange its own affairs, but it's a stupid argument that essentially holds that the military is off-limits to civilian oversight beyond the bare minimum and that the whole culture of the military is special and different and so not subject to the normal rules of society in any regard. This was basically the Republican position.

Read more »