Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Pre-Election Issue!

Pre-Election Issue!

PRE-ELECTION

ISSUE!

The Rhodes Cook Letter

Early November 2000 The Rhodes Cook Letter EARLY NOVEMBER 2000 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 Contents Pre-Election Special How Election Night Unfolds...... 3 What’s at stake when. Chart: How the evening will unfold, hour by hour ...... 5 Presidential Elections Since 1824 ...... 7 We’ve had a few close ones, but most are not so close. Chart: Margins of Victory in the Popular Vote ...... 8

The Fight For ...... 9 Clues from the March vote. The Battle For The House...... 11 It hinges on prime battlegrounds, misfits and fickles. Charts: The prime battlegrounds ...... 14 The misfits and fickles ...... 15 Congress Senate Races ...... 16 Who in the famous Class of 1994 is vulnerable? House Races to Watch: Marginal and Open Seats . . . 18 Ongoing Results What’s Up in 2000 ...... 21 2000 Senate & Gubernatorial Nominations ...... 22 The Other Primaries: A Few Incumbents Under Fire. . . 23 Subscription Page ...... 25

The Rhodes Cook Letter is published periodically by Rhodes Cook. Web: rhodescook.com. E-mail: An individual subscription for six issues is $99; [email protected]. All contents are copy- for an institution, $249. Make checks payable right ©2000 Rhodes Cook. Use of the material to “The Rhodes Cook Letter” and send them, is welcome with attribution, though the author along with your e-mail address, to P.O. Box 574, retains full copyright over the material con- Annandale, VA, 22003. tained herein. Design by Landslide Design, Rockville, MD. Web: landslidedesign.com. 2 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 How Election Night Unfolds What’s at Stake When

By Rhodes Cook

or anyone who likes elections, this one should be a delight. Control of both ends of FPennsylvania Avenue is literally up for grabs Nov. 7, with any number of permutations possible, from one-party Democratic or Republican control to various combinations of divided government. Nothing may be settled before the Pacific Coast states report, but there will be clues to the eventual outcome throughout the evening. One of the best harbingers may come right at the beginning. Polls close in much of at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), as they do across the River in much of Indiana. Kentucky has been a bellwether in recent presidential elections, voting with the winner nine straight times. At the congressional level, the two states feature a quintet of Republican-held House seats that are being hotly contested. If Demo- crats can pick off POLL CLOSING TIMES one or two all times are Eastern Standard Time of these, they could be on their way to a House majority. At 7 p.m., the first of the big battleground states, Florida, begins to report its vote, as does Virginia, site of one of the nation’s hottest Senate races between embattled Democrat- ic incumbent Charles S. Robb and former Republi- can Gov. George Allen. If Democrats lose this one, their chances of retaking the Senate may have evaporated.

3 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 A half hour later, polls close in the first of the big industrial states, Ohio. It not only went with the winner in 23 of 25 presidential elections in the 20th century, but Ohio was often within a percentage point or two of the candidates’ national totals. At 8 p.m. comes the deluge. A flood of votes pour in from 16 more states and the District of Columbia. Polls close at 8 in virtually all the remaining battleground states of the Frost Belt – New Jersey, , Michigan and – as well as the home states of the two presidential candidates, ’s Tennessee and George W. Bush’s , and the only two states that have voted with the winner in every presidential election since 1960, Delaware and . At 8:30 EST, polls close in Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, as they do a half hour later in his wife’s adopted home state of , site of the nation’s most publicized Senate race. The scope of Ralph Nader’s Green Party threat should also come into sharp focus at 9 p.m., as the vote begins to roll in from Minnesota and Wisconsin. Polls will have closed in 40 states by 9 p.m. But among the 10 left to report are the trio of Pacific Coast battlegrounds – California, Oregon and . They have a potentially critical pool of 72 electoral votes and a passel of House and Senate races that could decide the presidency as well as control of both chambers of Congress.

Could Turnout Provide a Clue?

ltimately, who wins depends on who votes. Not long ago, the rule of thumb was that the Ularger the turnout, the better for the Democrats. But that was in an era when Democrats were the majority party. Now, the electorate is almost evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans and independents, and higher turnout is more apt to mean a change in the White House. Take a look at presidential elections since World War II. Harry Truman’s come from behind victory in 1948 was a status quo election, and turnout was only 51% of the voting-age population. Four years later, though, there was a strong mood for change that elected Dwight D. Eisenhower and a Republican Congress. Turnout was up to 62%. Voter participation slumped a bit for Ike’s re-election in 1956, but spiked upward to a postwar record in 1960, as 63% of the voting-age population turned out to give Democrat John F. Kennedy a narrow victory. To be sure, this line of argument is not flawless. Turnout for the watershed election of 1968, which launched the recent Republican presidential era, had the lowest rate of voter participation of any presidential election in the 1960s. And turnout in 1980, when both and a Republican Senate were elected, was just 53%, the lowest since Truman’s election. But in the 1990s, it was again the “change” elections that drew the highest turnouts. In 1992, when Democrat ousted George W. Bush’s father from the White House, participation hit 55%, the highest mark in 20 years. And in 1994, when the Republican tidal wave swept the GOP into control of both sides of Capitol Hill for the first time in four decades, the turnout was the highest for a midterm election in a dozen years. So, if you hear reports during the day Nov. 7 of either a high or a low turnout, make a mental note. It could be an early clue as to which party will do well that evening.

4 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 How Election Night Unfolds: WHAT’S AT STAKE WHEN

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates that polls close at different times around the state, either because the state falls into two time zones or because of local variations. The closing time indicated is when returns can begin to be reported. In Oregon, all balloting is by mail.

Poll Closing President House Seats Time (EST) State Vote ‘96 Winner and Margin D R I Senators Governors 6 P.M.* Indiana 12 Dole by 6% 4 6 Richard G. Lugar (R) Frank O’Bannon (D) 6 P.M.* Kentucky 8 Clinton by 1% 1 5 7 P.M.* Alabama 9 Dole by 7% 2 5 7 P.M.* Florida 25 Clinton by 6% 8 15 Connie Mack (R)† 7 P.M. 13 Dole by 1% 3 8 Zell Miller (D) 7 P.M.* 4 Clinton by 10% 2 Jeanne Shaheen (D) 7 P.M. South Carolina 8 Dole by 6% 2 4 7 P.M. 3 Clinton by 22% 1 James M. Jeffords (R) Howard B. Dean (D) 7 P.M. Virginia 13 Dole by 2% 5 4 1 Charles S. Robb (D) 7:30 P.M. North Carolina 14 Dole by 5% 5 7 James B. Hunt (D)† 7:30 P.M. Ohio 21 Clinton by 6% 8 11 Mike DeWine (R) 7:30 P.M. 5 Clinton by 15% 3 Robert C. Byrd (D) Cecil H. Underwood (R) 8 P.M. Connecticut 8 Clinton by 18% 4 2 Joseph I. Lieberman (D) 8 P.M. Delaware 3 Clinton by 15% 1 William V. Roth (R) Thomas R. Carper (D)† 8 P.M. District of Columbia 3 Clinton by 76% 8 P.M. Illinois 22 Clinton by 18% 10 10 8 P.M.* Kansas 6 Dole by 18% 1 3 8 P.M. 4 Clinton by 21% 2 Olympia J. Snowe (R) 8 P.M. Maryland 10 Clinton by 16% 4 4 Paul S. Sarbanes (D) 8 P.M. 12 Clinton by 33% 10 Edward M. Kennedy (D) 8 P.M.* Michigan 18 Clinton by 13% 10 6 (R) 8 P.M. Mississippi 7 Dole by 5% 3 2 (R) 8 P.M. Missouri 11 Clinton by 6% 5 4 (R) (D)† 8 P.M. New Jersey 15 Clinton by 18% 7 6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D)† 8 P.M.* North Dakota 3 Dole by 7% 1 Kent Conrad (D) Edward T. Schafer (R)†

The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 5 8 P.M. Oklahoma 8 Dole by 8% 6 8 P.M. Pennsylvania 23 Clinton by 9% 11 10 (R) 8 P.M. Tennessee 11 Clinton by 2% 4 5 Bill Frist (R) 8 P.M.* Texas 32 Dole by 5% 17 13 Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) 8:30 P.M. Arkansas 6 Clinton by 17% 2 2 9 P.M. 8 Clinton by 2% 1 5 (R) 9 P.M. 8 Dole by 1% 2 4 9 P.M. Louisiana 9 Clinton by 12% 2 5 9 P.M. Minnesota 10 Clinton by 16% 5 2 Rod Grams (R) 9 P.M. Nebraska 5 Dole by 19% 3 Bob Kerrey (D)† 9 P.M. New 5 Clinton by 7% 1 2 Jeff Bingaman (D) 9 P.M. New York 33 Clinton by 29% 19 12 Daniel P. Moynihan (D)† 9 P.M. 4 Clinton by 33% 2 (R) 9 P.M. South Dakota 3 Dole by 3% 1 9 P.M. Wisconsin 11 Clinton by 10% 5 4 Herbert H. Kohl (D) 9 P.M. 3 Dole by 13% 1 Craig Thomas (R) 10 P.M. Iowa 7 Clinton by 10% 1 4 10 P.M. Montana 3 Dole by 3% 1 Conrad Burns (R) Marc Racicot (R)† 10 P.M. Nevada 4 Clinton by 1% 1 1 Richard H. Bryan (D)† 10 P.M. 5 Dole by 21% 3 Orrin G. Hatch (R) (R) 11 P.M. California 54 Clinton by 13% 27 25 (D) 11 P.M. Hawaii 4 Clinton by 25% 2 Daniel K. Akaka (D) 11 P.M.* 4 Dole by 19% 2 11 P.M.* Oregon 7 Clinton by 8% 4 1 11 P.M. Washington 11 Clinton by 13% 5 4 Slade Gorton (R) Gary Locke (D)

Midnight Alaska 3 Dole by 18% 1

Up in 2000 538 Clinton by 9% 209 222 2 34 Up (19 Reps., 15 Dems.) 11 Up (7 Dems., 4 Reps.) Note: There are two House vacancies – in Minnesota, where Democrat Bruce Vento died in October, and in Virginia, where Republican Herb Bateman died in September. Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan was killed in a plane crash in October. A dagger (†) indicates that the incumbent is not seeking re-election and the seat is open. Source: Federal Election Commission; America Votes 22 and 23 (CQ Press)

The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 6 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS SINCE 1824: A Few Close Ones, But Most Not So Close

ne of the major reasons there has not been an Electoral College “misfire” since 1888 is that Ofew of the presidential elections since then have been very close. Of the 25 presidential elections held in the 20th century, only five were decided by a popular vote margin of less than 5 percentage points. Two of those were open-seat races like this one. The first was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy won by the slim margin of two-tenths of a percentage point; the second, in 1968, when Richard M. Nixon won by seven-tenths of a percentage point. Two of the century’s other close races involved unelected presidents – Harry Truman, who won a full term in 1948 by 4.5 percentage points; and Gerald R. Ford, who lost by barely 2 percentage points in 1976 to . Only one elected president won narrowly in the 20th century – Woodrow Wilson, who captured a second term in 1916 by barely 3 percentage points. Wilson had the biggest scare in the Electoral College of any presidential winner since 1888, defeating Republican Charles Evans Hughes by a tally of 277 to 254, just 11 electoral votes more than the required majority. Altogether, 44 presidential elections have been held since popular voting for the office began in 1824. Nearly half of them (20) resulted in landslide victories of 10 percentage points or more. One quarter (11) produced clear-cut victories of between 5 and 10 percentage points, including the last two won by the Clinton-Gore ticket and the 1988 race won by George W. Bush’s father. Thirty percent of presidential elections since 1824 (13) were decided by a margin of less than 5 percentage points. A half dozen of the close elections came in consecutive contests from 1876 through 1896, and included two of the nation’s three Electoral College “misfires” – in 1876, when Democrat Samuel J. Tilden finished first in the popular vote and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the electoral vote; and in 1888, when Democrat Grover Cleveland led in the popular vote and Republican Benjamin Harrison won the electoral vote. The other “misfire” came in the nation’s first popular vote election in 1824, when Andrew Jackson was the choice of the people but was the choice of the electors. All of the presidential candidates that year were members of the Democratic-Republican Party. In the following chart, a “D” indicates Democrat, an “R” indicates Republican, “D-R” indicates Democratic-Republican, and “W” indicates Whig. Names that are in italics indicate the elections were “misfires,” with the popular and electoral vote winners from different parties (with the exception of 1824). The results are from the Guide to U.S. Elections and America At the Polls, both published by CQ Press. Margins of victory are in percentage points and rounded to the nearest whole point, except for those below 5% and those just shy of 10%. They are given in tenths of a percentage point. Those percentages that ended in .5, such as Bill Clinton’s 8.5-point margin of victory in the 1996 popular vote, are rounded up.

7 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 Margins of Victory in the Popular Vote

Close Elections Clear-cut Victories Landslides Election (Under 5% Points) (5 to 9.9% Points) (10% Points and Up) 1824 Jackson (D-R) by 10% J.Q. Adams (D-R) wins electoral vote 1828 Jackson (D) by 12% 1832 Jackson (D) by 17% 1836 Martin Van Buren (D) by 14% 1840 W.H. Harrison (W) by 6% 1844 Polk (D) by 1.4% 1848 Taylor (W) by 4.8% 1852 Pierce (D) by 7% 1856 Buchanan (D) by 12% 1860 Lincoln (R) by 10% 1864 Lincoln (R) by 10% 1868 Grant (R) by 5% 1872 Grant (R) by 12% 1876 Tilden (D) by 3.0% Hayes (R) wins electoral vote 1880 Garfield (R) by 0.02% 1884 Cleveland (D) by 0.3% 1888 Cleveland (D) by 0.8% B. Harrison (R) wins electoral vote 1892 Cleveland (D) by 3.1% 1896 McKinley (R) by 4.3% 1900 McKinley (R) by 6% 1904 T. Roosevelt (R) by 19% 1908 Taft (R) by 9% 1912 Wilson (D) by 14% 1916 Wilson (D) by 3.1% 1920 Harding (R) by 26% 1924 Coolidge (R) by 25% 1928 Hoover (R) by 17% 1932 F.D. Roosevelt (D) by 18% 1936 F.D. Roosevelt (D) by 24% 1940 F.D. Roosevelt (D) by 9.9% 1944 F.D. Roosevelt (D) by 8% 1948 Truman (D) by 4.5% 1952 Eisenhower (R) by 11% 1956 Eisenhower (R) by 15% 1960 Kennedy (D) by 0.2% 1964 Johnson (D) by 23% 1968 Nixon (R) by 0.7% 1972 Nixon (R) by 23% 1976 Carter (D) by 2.1% 1980 Reagan (R) by 9.7% 1984 Reagan (R) by 18% 1988 Bush (R) by 8% 1992 Clinton (D) by 6% 1996 Clinton (D) by 9%

8 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 The Fight For California Clues From The March Vote

f George W. Bush pulls out California (and its 54 electoral votes) on Election Night, he Ialmost certainly will be on his way to a big victory nationally. For California not only contains The 2000 California Primary in large numbers the suburban voters that hold sway in many other battleground states, but is Counties won by Gore (18) home to a growing minority population that will provide a special test of the appeal of Bush’s Counties won by Bush (37) “compassionate conservatism.” Counties won by McCain (3) When Republican presidential candidates from Ike to Ronald Reagan were regularly carrying Califor- nia, they had a straightforward route to victory. Win by huge enough margins in the sprawling suburbs of Southern California to offset Democratic strength in ethnically diverse Los Angeles County and the liberal Bay area. But Bill Clinton disrupted that formula, invading suburban Republican turf and carrying the Golden State in both 1992 and 1996 by more than 1 million votes. Republicans were hurt in part by the lack of appeal of the party’s presidential nominees (George Bush and Bob Dole, respectively), a generation older than the legendary “soccer moms,” as well as an issue mix favorable to the Democrats that was exacerbated in California by the perception that the GOP was hostile to immigrants, especially Hispanics. But the lingering problem for California Republicans is the state’s transformation from predomi- nantly white to majority “minority.” And the dramatic demographic changes are even evident in the GOP’s historic suburban base in Southern California. Take a look at the five most populous counties in the region outside Los Angeles – Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura. According to recent figures, all five now have a population at least one-quarter Hispanic. And Orange County, the quintessential symbol of conservative Sun Belt Republicanism, is more than 40% minority (28% Hispanic and 13% Asian in 1996). The county’s changing face was evident that year when conservative nine-term GOP Rep.Robert K. Dornan was ousted by Democrat . She easily won a rematch with Dornan in 1998. Presidential politics has been affected as well. When George Bush won California in 1988, he swept the “big five” by a margin of nearly 720,000 votes, rolling up a lead of nearly 320,000 votes in Orange County alone. Statewide, Bush’s plurality was roughly 350,000 votes. By 1996, though, the situation had changed dramatically. Clinton carried San Bernardino and Ventura counties, and the Republicans’ overall plurality in the “big five” was whittled down to less

9 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 than 140,000 votes. In Orange County, the margin for Republican Bob Dole was less than 120,000 votes; he was crushed statewide.

The March 7 Primary: Some Clues for Nov. 7 But the vote in the state’s presidential primary this March shows a California much more politically fluid than it was in the 1990s. In the overall “beauty contest” vote, Democrat Al Gore defeated George W. Bush by 6 percentage points (34% to 28%), with 23% of the vote for John McCain and 8% for Bill Bradley. For Gore, it was a largely successful trial run. He was able to build up a big lead CALIFORNIA PRIMARY: in the Democratic bastions in the Bay OVERALL VOTE area and vote-rich Los Angeles County that propelled him to a clear-cut advan- (March 7, 2000) tage statewide. Counties Statewide Totals Vote % Won But there was also good news for Bush, as he won more votes than Gore in Al Gore (D) 2,609,950 34.2 18 each of Southern California’s other major George W. Bush (R) 2,168,466 28.4 37 counties. That was something neither his John McCain (R) 1,780,570 23.3 3 father or Bob Dole could do in the presi- Bill Bradley (D) 642,654 8.4 0 dential elections of the 1990s. Alan Keyes (R) 170,442 2.2 0 Ralph Nader (Green) 112,345 1.5 0 And the huge size of the vote for McCain, Others 143,294 1.9 0 as well as that for Bradley, has allowed Total Votes 7,627,721 the younger Bush to do some California dreamin’. Based on official returns from the office of the California Secretary of State. he McCain vote was noteworthy Tnot just for its size, but for its breadth. While Gore and Bush drew roughly 80% of their overall vote in the California primary from members of their own party, McCain’s support was much more diverse. Of his nearly 1.8 million votes, roughly 55% came from registered Republicans, 30% from registered Democrats, and 15% from independents and voters registered with other parties. To underscore his broad appeal, McCain actually won more votes from California Democrats than Bradley. McCain finished first in San Diego County, ran second to Bush in Orange County, and second to Gore in much of the San Francisco Bay area. The Bay area was also the prime base of support for Bradley, which poses a potential problem for Gore, since the Bay area is also a hotbed of support for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and many Bradley supporters may defect. Three of Nader’s top 10 counties nationally during his first run for the presidency in 1996 were in the Bay area. He drew 8% of the vote in San Francisco and Santa Cruz counties, and 6% in suburban Marin County, north of the city across the Golden Gate Bridge. Nader did not draw a large vote in the March 7 primary (barely 100,000). But the source of his votes indicated his potential to menace Gore Nov. 7. Nearly half of Nader’s vote came from registered Democrats; less than 10% from registered Republicans.

10 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 The Battle For The House It Hinges On Primes, Misfits And Fickles

as originally published October 29, 2000, in the Outlook section of

By Rhodes Cook

he presidential race could remain skintight. The Senate, while likely to stay in Republican Thands, has a clutch of races that won’t be settled until long after most of us have trundled off to bed on Election Night. But no question will take longer to resolve than which party ends up with control of the House of Representatives. Could the Democrats get the eight seats they need for an ironclad—rather than mathematical—vot- ing majority? Certainly. Could Republicans retain and even expand the size of their House majority? Sure. Paraphrasing that cartoon philosopher, Pogo, the parties “are confronted by insurmountable opportunities.” Whatever happens on Nov. 7, it’s important to stress that only a few dozen contests will determine the outcome. While all 435 congressional districts are at stake, the bulk of them will send the incumbent back to Washington (98 percent of the incumbents who ran in 1998 were re-elected). The parties and the candidates know this, so they will spend millions of dollars fighting over the 35 open seats (where the incumbent isn’t running) and a couple of dozen others where the incumbent is believed to be vulnerable. Conventional wisdom (or love of a good fight) holds that the Democrats need just seven seats to win back a majority and they have a good shot at getting there. (One factor allegedly in the Democrats’ favor: The Republicans hold 26 of the open seats, which gives them more districts to defend.) But the electoral arithmetic is complicated by two vacancies, two incumbent independents and Ohio Democrat James A. Traficant’s promise to vote to keep Illinois Republican Dennis Hastert as House speaker. (Here’s one scenario that no one wants to contemplate: The Democrats win a 218-217 edge, but Traficant sides with the Republicans in electing Hastert. Who’s in charge then?) The politically wise tend to look at poll numbers and talk to party strategists, whose mission in life is to promote the notion that a multitude of seats are “in play.” It’s all great fun, but there’s a risk that we’re seeing what we want to see. A better approach might be to bone up on the last three congressional elections and concentrate on the 60 open and “marginal” House seats that fall into one of three categories. Let’s call them the Prime Battlegrounds, the Misfits and the Fickles. The Prime Battlegrounds (33 seats) are defined by two factors: Bill Clinton carried each district in 1996 by a plurality (less than 50 percent of the vote) and the incumbent either isn’t running

11 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 or won in 1998 with less than 55 percent, the traditional standard for electoral vulnerability in a congressional race. The Prime Battlegrounds have been the leading venue for seat switches during the Clinton presidency. The Misfits (13 seats) are ticket splitters; they clearly prefer one party for president and the other for the House. These are districts that gave a majority to Clinton or to the Republican nominee, Bob Dole, in the 1996 election. While there are many districts with this profile, I’m including only those with open seats or the “marginal” incumbents who won in 1998 with less than 55 percent. The Fickles (14 seats) are deceivers. They seem to offer favorable terrain for one party or the other, but the congressional seat has changed hands at least once in the past three elections. And as with the other categories, they are either open seats or represented by a “marginal” incumbent. These are not the only districts up for grabs. But they are the most likely places for Democratic gains to be concentrated. And not all of the 60 districts are hotly contested; indeed, several are certain to remain in the Republican or Democratic column. More importantly, almost half of them (28) are Democratic, which means the party has a lot to defend as it tries to gain. From this quantitative vantage point, the Democrats’ task looks daunting.

o matter who comes out on top, Election Night 2000 should be seen as the final act of Na three-act play. The first act was the Republican tidal wave of 1994, which swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time in 40 years. The second act was the weaker Democratic counter-surge in 1996 and 1998. The third act is being scripted right now, with help from a supporting cast of characters, including the presidential candidates. The outcome is difficult to predict because, in part, the first two acts were so dramatically different. Act One was intense and yet largely unforeseen. The dimensions of it are still astounding, even six years later. It began early in 1994, when the GOP scored victories in several special elections, and reached its fever pitch with the Republican general election landslide that fall. It continued into 1995, when the party attracted a quintet of switchers and won another special election. All told, the Republicans picked up a net of 60 House seats, and the Democrats saw their total plummet from 258 seats—40 above the necessary 218—to 198. Democrats had begun the Clinton presidency holding more seats than the Republicans in every region of the country. By the end of 1995, however, the Democrats had lost their advantage in every region but the Northeast. The most obvious turnaround was in the South, which went from being one-sidedly Democratic at the congressional level to overwhelmingly Republican. But the scope of the GOP advance in 1994-95 was truly national. Compared with the Gotterdammerung quality of the first act, Act Two has been much calmer and less conclusive. Democrats have taken back 34 seats over the last four years, mainly by ousting GOP incumbents. But the Republicans have gained 21, primarily by dominating open seat races. One Democratic seat went independent, giving the Democrats a net gain of an even dozen and bringing them within hailing distance of the Republicans. In form, Act Three will most closely resemble Act Two, when a comparatively small number of seats changed party hands and only a few dozen seats were seriously contested. There are plenty of reasons for the apparent lack of competition, among them the impressive fundraising success of incumbents; the reappearance of divided government, which makes it difficult to blame or

12 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 credit one party for the goings-on in Washington; and the decline of presidential coattails as a factor in close races. All of which makes the Prime Battlegrounds, the Misfits and the Fickles so important. Republicans are defending more of the Prime Battleground districts than the Democrats—19 to 14. But there are plenty of possibilities for both parties here, from the seats being defended by freshman Democrats Joseph M. Hoeffel of Pennsylvania and Rush Holt of New Jersey, to those of Republicans Steven T. Kuykendall (also a freshman) and James E. Rogan (the most endangered of the House impeachment managers) in Southern California. The Hoeffel seat, in particular, is worth tracking. His affluent district outside has been an accurate barometer of suburban voting trends throughout the 1990s. Although it twice favored the Clinton-Gore ticket, it has switched parties twice at the House level during the Clinton presidency—from Democratic to Republican (in 1994) and back to the Democrats (in 1998). But a baker’s dozen of Prime Battleground seats will be decided out West (eight belonging to the Republicans, five to the Democrats), virtually guaranteeing that control of the House will not be settled until the wee hours of the morning in the Eastern time zone. The Misfits category may offer some of the best opportunities for the Democrats. It includes three seats being vacated by Republican Senate candidates—Tom Campbell in California, Bob Franks in New Jersey and in New York—as well as a seat in California that now belongs to Matthew G. Martinez, who lost in the Democratic primary and then made a lame-duck switch to the Republicans. (All these districts gave the Clinton-Gore ticket a majority of their vote in 1996.) The Martinez seat is already on its way back to the Democrats; the woman who beat him, Hilda L. Solis, has no Republican opposition. But the Misfits also include a trio of Democratic freshmen—Dennis Moore of Kansas, Ken Lucas of Kentucky and Ronnie Shows of Mississippi—in districts that of late have voted Republican for president. To make gains, the Democrats would need to hold those seats. The first clue as to whether the Democrats can make inroads among the Misfits could come in the Louisville district represented by Republican Rep. Anne M. Northup. Kentucky is one of the first states to report its vote on Election Night, and Northup represents a district that not only voted decisively for the Clinton-Gore ticket both times, but had Democratic representation for a quarter-century before she narrowly won the seat in 1996. The Fickles, as always, can be expected to produce some switches. At the top of the list are two districts that could very likely change hands—those held by Democrat Michael P. Forbes of New York and Republican of Utah. Both lost their primaries. But the best harbinger in the Fickles category could be the open district in Indiana being vacated by Republican gubernatorial nominee David McIntosh, who pulled it into GOP hands in 1994. Indiana is loyally Republican in presidential voting, but tends to be a swing state at the congressional level. It’s another state that reports its results early on Election Night. If the Democrats can win back this seat, it might mean that the trend is going in their direction. As the Clinton presidency draws to a close, we await the conclusion of the third act. If the presidential race breaks decisively at the end for Al Gore or George W. Bush, we could see a more dramatic finale in the House—with the flow of seats almost entirely in one direction. But for now, it looks like a repeat of Act Two, with the parties trading a handful of seats. It would be a fitting end to an era memorable for its partisanship—and a challenge for the next president as he tries to govern.

13 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 IN THE EYE OF THE STORM: “PRIME BATTLEGROUND” DISTRICTS

Districts that Bill Clinton carried by only a plurality in 1996, and where the incumbent either isn’t running or won last time with less than 55 percent of the vote.

Incumbent'sClinton's Incumbent'sClinton's House House '96 '96 NORTHEAST % '98 % SOUTH % '98 % Democrats/District Democrats/District Joseph M. Hoeffel, Pa. 13* 52 49.6 None Rush Holt, N.J. 12* 50 48 Republicans/District Ron Klink, Pa. 4 (OPEN) 64 47 Richard H. Baker, La. 6 51 49.6 Jim Maloney, Conn. 5 50 48 Tom Coburn, Okla. 2 (OPEN) 58 47 Bob Wise, W.Va. 2 (OPEN) 73 49 Ernie Fletcher, Ky. 6* 53 46 Republicans/District Donald L. Sherwood, Pa. 10* 49 45 WEST Democrats/District MIDWEST Brian Baird, Wash. 3* 54.7 49 Democrats/District Darlene Hooley, Ore. 5 54.9 47 David E. Bonior, Mich. 10 52 48 Ellen O. Tauscher, Calif. 10 54 48 , Mo. 6 (OPEN) 71 46 Mark Udall, Colo. 2* 50 49 Baron Hill, Ind. 9* 51 44 David Wu, Ore. 1* 50 49.7 Debbie Stabenow, Mich. 8 (OPEN) 57 49 Republicans/District Republicans/District Brian P. Bilbray, Calif. 49 49 49 , Ohio 1 54 49.8 J.D. Hayworth, Ariz. 6 53 47 Thomas W. Ewing, Ill. 15 (OPEN) 61 45 Jim Kolbe, Ariz. 5 52 47 Mark Green, Wis. 8* 54.6 46 Steve Kuykendall, Calif. 36* 49 47 Gil Gutknecht, Minn. 1 54.7 48 Jack Metcalf, Wash. 2 (OPEN) 55 47 John Hostettler, Ind. 8 52 45 , Calif. 3* 52 45 John R. Kasich, Ohio 12 (OPEN) 67 47 James E. Rogan, Calif. 27 51 49 John E. Porter, Ill. 10 (OPEN) 100 49.9 Heather Wilson, N.M. 1 48 48

Note: An asterisk (*) in these charts indicates a freshman, first elected in November 1998.

14 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 THE “MISFITS”: SEATS IN HOSTILE TERRAIN Districts that clearly prefer one party for president and the other for the House, and have open seats or “marginal” incumbents (those who won last time with less than 55 percent of the vote).

Incumbent’s ’96 Presidential ’98 House Pct. Winner Pct. Democrats/Districts , Tenn. 6 54.6 Dole 47 Ken Lucas, Ky. 4* 53 Dole 50 Dennis Moore, Kan. 3* 52 Dole 50 Owen Pickett, Va. 2 (OPEN) 94 Dole 47 Ronnie Shows, Miss. 4* 53 Dole 48 Charles Stenholm, Tex. 17 54 Dole 51

Republicans/Districts Charles Bass, N.H. 2 53 Clinton 50 Tom Campbell, Calif. 15 (OPEN) 61 Clinton 53 Bob Franks, N.J. 7 (OPEN) 53 Clinton 51 , Calif. 38 53 Clinton 53 Rick Lazio, N.Y. 2 (OPEN) 66 Clinton 54 Matthew G. Martinez, Calif. 31 (OPEN) 70 Clinton 65 Anne M. Northup, Ky. 3 52 Clinton 53

THE “FICKLES”: DISTRICTS THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH CHANGE

Districts that seem to offer favorable terrain for one party or the other, but have changed hands at least once in the past three elections and have open seats or “marginal” incumbents.

Incumbent’s ’96 Presidential ’98 House Pct. Winner Pct. Democrats/Districts Tammy Baldwin, Wis. 2* 53 Clinton 55 Shelley Berkley, Nev. 1* 49 Clinton 51 Michael P. Forbes, N.Y. 1 (OPEN) 64 Clinton 51 Jay Inslee, Wash. 1 50 Clinton 51 William P. Luther, Minn. 6 50 Clinton 51 Carolyn McCarthy, N.Y. 4 53 Clinton 56 John F. Tierney, Mass. 6 54.6 Clinton 59 , N.M. 3* 53 Clinton 53

Republican/Districts Helen Chenoweth-Hage, Idaho 1 (OPEN) 55 Dole 51 Merrill Cook, Utah 2 (OPEN) 53 Dole 47 Robin Hayes, N.C. 8* 51 Dole 46 Rick Hill, Mont. At Large (OPEN) 53 Dole 44 David McIntosh, Ind. 2 (OPEN) 61 Dole 45 Matt Salmon, Ariz. 1 (OPEN) 65 Dole 46

15 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 The 2000 Senate Races

here are plenty of opportunities Nov. 7 for the Democrats to overcome their 54-46 deficit in TSenate seats. But they also have plenty of seats to defend. Democratic opportunities start with the large Republican class of 1994, which includes three members – Rod Grams of Minnesota, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Spencer Abraham of Michigan – who were elected six years ago with less than 52% of the vote. But Democrats must defend four open seats to the Republicans’ one, and none is in the bag for either party, including the high profile contest in New York between First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for the seat being vacated by Democrat . In the chart below, the Senate seats up this year are broken down by party – 19 of which are held by the Republicans, 15 by the Democrats. Open seats are listed within each party in the alphabetical order of the states involved. Incumbents seeking re-election are listed in reverse order of their winning percentage in 1994.

DEMOCRATIC SEATS (15) Open Seats (4) 1996 Presidential Incumbent State Terms ’94% Winner % Bob Kerrey Neb. 2 54.8% Dole 54% Richard H. Bryan Nev. 2 50.9% Clinton 44% Frank R. Lautenberg N.J. 3 50.3% Clinton 54% Daniel P. Moynihan N.Y. 4 55.2% Clinton 59% Incumbents Seeking Re-election (11) 1996 Presidential Incumbent State Terms ’94% Winner % Zell Miller Ga. Appointed July 2000 Dole 47% Charles S. Robb Va. 2 45.6% Dole 47% Dianne Feinstein Calif. 1* 46.7% Clinton 51% Jeff Bingaman N.M. 3 54.0% Clinton 49% Kent Conrad N.D. 2* 58.0% Dole 47% Edward M. Kennedy Mass. 6* 58.1% Clinton 61% Herbert H. Kohl Wis. 2 58.3% Clinton 49% Paul S. Sarbanes Md. 4 59.1% Clinton 54% Joseph I. Lieberman Conn. 2 67.0% Clinton 53% Robert C. Byrd W. Va. 7 69.0% Clinton 52% Daniel K. Akaka Hawaii 1* 71.8% Clinton 57%

16 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 The 2000 SENATE RACES, continued

REPUBLICAN SEATS (19)

Open Seats (1) 1996 Presidential Incumbent State Terms ’94% Winner % Connie Mack Fla. 2 70.5% Clinton 48% Incumbents Seeking Re-election (18) 1996 Presidential Incumbent State Terms ’94% Winner % Lincoln Chafee R.I. Appointed Nov. 1999 Clinton 60% Rod Grams Minn. 1 49.1% Clinton 51% Rick Santorum Pa. 1 49.4% Clinton 49% James M. Jeffords Vt. 2 50.3% Clinton 53% Spencer Abraham Mich. 1 51.9% Clinton 52% Mike DeWine Ohio 1 53.4% Clinton 47% Jon Kyl Ariz. 1 53.7% Clinton 47% Slade Gorton Wash. 3 55.7% Clinton 50% William V. Roth Jr. Del. 5 55.8% Clinton 52% Bill Frist Tenn. 1 56.4% Clinton 48% Craig Thomas Wyo. 1 58.9% Dole 50% John Ashcroft Mo. 1 59.7% Clinton 48% Olympia J. Snowe Maine 1 60.2% Clinton 52% Kay Bailey Hutchison Texas 1* 60.8% Dole 49% Conrad Burns Mont. 2 62.4% Dole 44% Richard G. Lugar Ind. 4 67.4% Dole 47% Trent Lott Miss. 2 68.8% Dole 49% Orrin G. Hatch Utah 4 68.8% Dole 54%

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates the senator served part of another six-year term.

17 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 House Races to Watch Marginal and Open Seats

Control of the House of Representatives is apt to be determined this November by the outcome of the comparatively small number of seats that are either open or held by House "marginals." For the purpose of this chart, the latter are incumbents who were elected in 1998 with less than 52% of the total vote. Within each category, some seats are clearly more vulnerable than others. A veteran incumbent that last won with less than 52% of the vote is normally more vulnerable than a freshman, who is just beginning his congressional career. Similarly, an open district that heavily favors one party is going to draw much less attention than one in highly competitive terrain. And the presidential vote in a district is a major tool in determining its terrain. The two districts being vacated by Republican Senate candidates Tom Campbell of California and Rick Lazio of New York, for instance, each gave the Clinton-Gore ticket a majority of their vote in 1996 and have drawn the interest of Democratic strategists. Meanwhile, the Virginia Beach district being vacated by Democrat Owen Pickett went for Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential voting and is an attractive target for Republicans. Districts are open for various reasons – congressional retirements, House members seeking other offices, and in three instances this year, incumbents beaten in primaries. (See “A Few Incumbents Under Fire,” p. 21) For the Republicans, who have nearly three times as many open seats to defend as the Democrats (26 to 9), there are also a handful of self-term-limited members from the large GOP class of 1994, who are honoring pledges to retire after three terms. It is a group that includes Matt Salmon of Arizona, Helen Chenoweth-Hage of Idaho, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Jack Metcalf of Washington. (Open seat list, p. 18) The partisan division of marginal seats is more even, although Republicans are defending seats on more problematic terrain. All 10 marginal Democrats represent districts that were carried by Clinton in 1996, as do eight of the nine marginal Republicans. (Marginal seat list, p. 17) There are a few other hotly contested races this fall that are on neither the marginal or open-seat lists. Yet clearly, it is in these two categories where the bulk of party switches are apt to take place Nov. 7. The 1998 House vote percentages in the chart below are from America Votes 23; the 1996 presidential vote percentages were compiled by Clark Bensen of Polidata. In both cases, percent- ages are based on the total vote.

18 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 House Races to Watch: The Marginals

MARGINAL HOUSE SEATS: DEMOCRATIC (10) 1996 Presidential Incumbent District Terms ’98% Winner % Shelley Berkley Nev. 1 1 49.2% Clinton 51% Jay Inslee Wash. 1 2 49.8% Clinton 51% Mark Udall Colo. 2 1 49.9% Clinton 49% James H. Maloney Conn. 5 2 49.9% Clinton 48% William P. Luther Minn. 6 3 50.0% Clinton 51% Rush Holt N.J. 12 1 50.1% Clinton 48% David Wu Ore. 1 1 50.1% Clinton 50% Baron Hill Ind. 9 1 50.8% Clinton 44% Lane Evans Ill. 17 9 51.6% Clinton 51% Joseph M. Hoeffel Pa. 13 1 51.6% Clinton 50%

MARGINAL HOUSE SEATS: REPUBLICAN (9) 1996 Presidential Incumbent District Terms ’98% Winner % Heather A. Wilson N.M. 1 1* 48.4% Clinton 48% Pa. 10 1 48.7% Clinton 45% Brian P. Bilbray Calif. 49 3 48.8% Clinton 49% Steven Kuykendall Calif. 36 1 48.9% Clinton 47% James E. Rogan Calif. 27 2 50.7% Clinton 49% Richard H. Baker La. 6 7 50.7% Clinton 50% Robin Hayes N.C. 8 1 50.7% Dole 46% Anne M. Northup Ky. 3 2 51.5% Clinton 53% Jim Kolbe Ariz. 5 8 51.6% Clinton 47%

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates that Heather A. Wilson is in her first full term. She was elected in a June 1998 special election.

19 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 House Races to Watch: The Opens

OPEN HOUSE SEATS: DEMOCRATIC (9) 1996 Presidential Incumbent District Terms ’98% Winner % Debbie Stabenow Mich. 8 2 57.4% Clinton 49% Bruce Vento Minn. 4 12 53.7% Clinton 58% William Clay Mo. 1 16 72.6% Clinton 74% Pat Danner Mo. 6 4 70.9% Clinton 46% Michael P. Forbes N.Y. 1 3 64.1% Clinton 51% Ron Klink Pa. 4 4 63.8% Clinton 47% Robert Weygand R.I. 2 2 72.0% Clinton 58% Owen Pickett Va. 2 7 94.3% Dole 47% Bob Wise W.V. 2 9 73.0% Clinton 49%

OPEN HOUSE SEATS: REPUBLICAN (26) 1996 Presidential Incumbent District Terms ’98% Winner % Matt Salmon Ariz. 1 3 64.6% Dole 46% Tom Campbell Calif. 15 4 60.5% Clinton 53% Matthew Martinez# Calif. 31 9 70.0% Clinton 65% Calif. 48 9 76.9% Dole 56% Tillie Fowler Fla. 4 4 Unopposed Dole 56% Bill McCollum Fla. 8 10 65.8% Dole 48% Charles Canady Fla. 12 4 Unopposed Dole 46% Helen Chenoweth-Hage Idaho 1 3 55.3% Dole 51% John Porter Ill. 10 10 100.0% Clinton 50% Tom Ewing Ill. 15 4 61.6% Clinton 45% David McIntosh Ind. 2 3 60.6% Dole 45% Ed Pease Ind. 7 2 68.9% Dole 52% Mo. 2 4 70.0% Dole 49% Rick Hill Mont. AL 2 53.0% Dole 44% Bill Barrett Neb. 3 5 84.3% Dole 59% Bob Franks N.J. 7 4 52.5% Clinton 51% Rick Lazio N.Y. 2 4 66.2% Clinton 54% John Kasich Ohio 12 9 67.2% Clinton 47% Tom Coburn Okla. 2 3 57.7% Clinton 47% Bill Goodling Pa. 19 13 67.6% Dole 52% Mark Sanford S.C. 1 3 91.0% Dole 56% Bill Archer Texas 7 15 93.3% Dole 66% Merrill Cook Utah 2 2 52.8% Dole 47% Herb Bateman Va. 1 9 76.4% Dole 51% Tom Bliley Va. 7 10 78.7% Dole 59% Jack Metcalf Wash. 2 3 55.2% Clinton 47%

Note: A pound sign (#) indicates that Martinez has switched to the Republican Party since losing his bid for renomination in the Democratic primary in March.

20 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 What’s Up in 2000

President House Seats Electoral 1996 D R I Senators Governors Votes Winner Alabama 9 R 2 5 Alaska 3 R 1 Arizona 8 D 1 5 Jon Kyl (R) Arkansas 6 D 2 2 California 54 D 27 25 Dianne Feinstein (D) Colorado 8 R 2 4 Connecticut 8 D 4 2 Joseph I. Lieberman (D) Delaware 3 D 1 William V. Roth Jr. (R) Thomas R. Carper (D)* Florida 25 D 8 15 Connie Mack (R)* Georgia 13 R 3 8 Zell Miller (D) appointed July 24 Hawaii 4 D 2 Daniel K. Akaka (D) Idaho 4 R 2 Illinois 22 D 10 10 Indiana 12 R 4 6 Richard G. Lugar (R) Frank O'Bannon (D) Iowa 7 D 1 4 Kansas 6 R 1 3 Kentucky 8 D 1 5 Louisiana 9 D 2 5 Maine 4 D 2 Olympia J. Snowe (R) Maryland 10 D 4 4 Paul S. Sarbanes (D) Massachusetts 12 D 10 Edward M. Kennedy (D) Michigan 18 D 10 6 Spencer Abraham (R) Minnesota 10 D 5 2 Rod Grams (R) Mississippi 7 R 3 2 Trent Lott (R) Missouri 11 D 5 4 John Ashcroft (R) Mel Carnahan (D)* Montana 3 R 1 Conrad Burns (R) Marc Racicot (R)* Nebraska 5 R 3 Bob Kerrey (D)* Nevada 4 D 1 1 Richard H. Bryan (D)* New Hampshire 4 D 2 Jeanne Shaheen (D) New Jersey 15 D 7 6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D)* 5 D 1 2 Jeff Bingaman (D) New York 33 D 19 12 Daniel P. Moynihan (D)* North Carolina 14 R 5 7 James B. Hunt (D)* North Dakota 3 R 1 Kent Conrad (D) Edward T. Schafer (R)* Ohio 21 D 8 11 Mike DeWine (R) Oklahoma 8 R 6 Oregon 7 D 4 1 Pennsylvania 23 D 11 10 Rick Santorum (R) Rhode Island 4 D 2 Lincoln Chafee (R) South Carolina 8 R 2 4 South Dakota 3 R 1 Tennessee 11 D 4 5 Bill Frist (R) Texas 32 R 17 13 Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) Utah 5 R 3 Orrin G. Hatch (R) Michael O. Leavitt (R) Vermont 3 D 1 James M. Jeffords (R) Howard B. Dean (D) Virginia 13 R 5 4 1 Charles S. Robb (D) Washington 11 D 5 4 Slade Gorton (R) Gary Locke (D) West Virginia 5 D 3 Robert C. Byrd (D) Cecil H. Underwood (R) Wisconsin 11 D 5 4 Herbert H. Kohl (D) Wyoming 3 R 1 Craig Thomas (R) District of Columbia 3 D Up in 2000 538 209 222 2 34 Up (19 R,15 D) 11 Up (7D, 4R) There are two House vacancies, caused by the deaths of Democrat Bruce Vento of Minnesota and Republican Herb Bateman of Virginia. * Indicates incumbent is not seeking reelection. 21 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 2000 Senate & Gubernatorial Nominations

SENATE RACES GUBERNATORIAL RACES Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans Alabama Alaska Arizona No Candidate Jon Kyl Arkansas California Dianne Feinstein Tom Campbell Colorado Connecticut Joseph I. Lieberman Philip A. Giordano Delaware Thomas R. Carper William V. Roth Jr. Ruth Ann Minner John Burris Florida Bill McCollum Georgia Nov. 7 Special Election (Nov. 28 Runoff, if necessary) Hawaii Daniel Akaka John Carroll Idaho Illinois Indiana David L. Johnson Richard G. Lugar Frank O'Bannon David McIntosh Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mark W. Lawrence Olympia J. Snowe Maryland Paul S. Sarbanes Paul H. Rappaport Massachusetts Edward M. Kennedy Jack E. Robinson Michigan Debbie Stabenow Spencer Abraham Minnesota Mark Dayton Rod Grams Mississippi Troy Brown Trent Lott Missouri Mel Carnahan* John Ashcroft Jim Talent Montana Brian Schweitzer Conrad Burns Mark O'Keefe Judy Martz Nebraska Ben Nelson Don Stenberg Nevada Ed Bernstein John Ensign New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen Gordon Humphrey New Jersey Jon S. Corzine Bob Franks New Mexico Jeff Bingaman Bill Redmond New York Hillary Rodham Clinton Rick Lazio North Carolina Mike Easley Richard Vinroot North Dakota Kent Conrad Duane Sand Heidi Heitkamp John Hoeven Ohio Theodore Celeste Mike DeWine Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Ron Klink Rick Santorum Rhode Island Robert Weygand Lincoln Chafee South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Jeff Clark Bill Frist Texas Gene Kelly Kay Bailey Hutchison Utah Scott N. Howell Orrin G. Hatch Michael O. Leavitt Vermont Ed Flanagan James M. Jeffords Ruth Dwyer Virginia Charles S. Robb George Allen Washington Maria Cantwell Slade Gorton Gary Locke John Carlson West Virginia Robert C. Byrd David T. Gallaher Bob Wise Cecil H. Underwood Wisconsin Herbert H. Kohl John Gillespie Wyoming Mel Logan Craig Thomas

Incumbents are indicated in bold. * Carnahan was killed in a plane crash Oct. 16 but his name will remain on the ballot.

22 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 The Other Primaries A Few Incumbents Under Fire

trio of House members were defeated in their party’s primaries this year – a veteran ADemocrat (Matthew Martinez of California), a two-term Republican (Merrill Cook of Utah), and a Republican turned Democrat ( of New York). The three congressional primary losers were the most in a single election year since 1994. Yet while no one is predicting a general election as volatile as the one six years ago, it would be no surprise if the now open Cook and Forbes seats switched party hands Nov. 7. On the following page is a list of incumbent governors, senators and House members who drew less than 80% of their party’s primary vote this year. Token opposition can routinely drain 5%, 10% or even 15% of the primary vote from an incumbent’s total. But once the anti-incumbent vote gets much higher than that it begins to take on significance. That does not mean that many of the incumbents on the following list are in any particular danger next month, since many of them represent a district that strongly favors their party. But a significant anti-incumbent vote does indicate a degree of resistance to the incumbent within party ranks – sometimes caused by ideological fissures in the state or district or lingering ethics problems involving the member. The list below includes several House members who reneged this year on promises to retire – from Democrat Martin Meehan of Massachusetts to Republican George Nethercutt of Washington (the 1994 conqueror of then-House Speaker Thomas S. Foley). It includes a number of “minority district” Democrats, such as Earl Hilliard of Alabama and Bobby Rush of ’s South Side, as well as three Democrats – , , and – who all won their primaries in September with less than 60% of the vote. And the list includes a number of moderate Republicans from the Northeast – such as James Greenwood in the Philadelphia suburbs, Marge Roukema in northern New Jersey, and in upstate New York – as well as Indiana’s more conservative Mark Souder, who in late 1998 voted against three of the four articles to impeach President Clinton, and immediately found himself with a Republican primary challenger for 2000. The chart indicates the number of terms that incumbents have served in their current office. Incumbents who lost their primary this year are indicated in italics. The chart is based on official results from all primaries held through Sept. 5, and nearly complete, but unofficial, results from the primaries held thereafter. Many of the September results are courtesy of the Federal Election Commission.

23 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 A Few Incumbents Under Fire

Incumbent Term Primary Vote % Outcome Governors Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. 2 60.4 Won Michael O. Leavitt, R-Utah 2 61.8 Won Senators James M. Jeffords, R-Vt. 2 79.1 Won Mike DeWine, R-Ohio 1 79.5 Won House Members Matthew G. Martinez, D-Calif. 31 9 31.4 Lost Merrill Cook, R-Utah 2 2 41.1 Lost Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y. 17 6 49.4 Won Michael P. Forbes, D-N.Y. 1 3 49.9 Lost Earl F. Hilliard, D-Ala. 7 4 50.1 Won James A. Traficant, D-Ohio 17 8 50.5 Won Marge Roukema, R-N.J. 5 10 52.3 Won Major R. Owens, D-N.Y. 11 9 53.8 Won Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y. 23 9 56.2 Won Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y. 10 9 57.3 Won Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill. 1 4 61.0 Won Mark E. Souder, R-Ind. 4 3 61.8 Won , R-Calif. 43 4 67.0 Won James C. Greenwood, R-Pa. 8 4 67.3 Won George R. Nethercutt, R-Wash. 5 3 69.4 Won , D-N.Y. 9 1 73.3 Won Martin T. Meehan, D-Mass. 5 4 73.4 Won Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas 15 2 73.5 Won Peter T. King, R-N.Y. 3 4 76.9 Won Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y. 12 4 77.0 Won Robert A. Brady, D-Pa. 1 1 77.4 Won Joe Scarborough, R-Fla. 1 3 77.4 Won Roscoe G. Bartlett, R-Md. 6 4 77.8 Won Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo. 3 77.8 Won Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz. 5 8 78.8 Won Dan Burton, R-Ind. 6 9 79.4 Won

24 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000 Subscribe to The Rhodes Cook Letter! To Subscribe online: Visit http://rhodescook.com/subscribe.html To Subscribe by mail: If viewing this publication electronically, fill out the form and hit the “print” button, then designate page 25. If you are viewing a paper copy of the Letter, please fill this form out by hand. It’s particularly important for your e-mail address to be legible, as that’s how The Rhodes Cook Letter will be delivered to you.

Name: E-mail (required): Street Address: City, State, Zip: Organization (if applicable): Phone number (optional):

Type of Subscription: Individual ($99 for the next six issues) Organization ($249 for the next six issues)

Check Enclosed pay to “The Rhodes Cook Letter” Bill Me By Mail Bill My Credit Card: card number expiration date Please mail this form back to: P.O. Box 574, Annandale, VA, 22003. Thank you.

25 The Rhodes Cook Letter • Early November 2000

Top View