Depending on how you look at the partisan situation in the US House, the National Republican Campaign Committee is either in dire straights or facing nothing but upside as the 2010 cycle approaches. On the one hand, House Republicans are a shrunken caucus with little power to push back against Speaker Nancy Pelosi's solid Democratic majority; on the other, that majority may well be maxed out and the Republicans have a chance to chip away at it during President Obama's first midterm cycle. Fivethirtyeight interviewed NRCC executive director Guy Harrison to find out what the strategy, mood and situation is at the NRCC right now.
Fivethirtyeight.com: Please tell us a little bit about your professional background prior to becoming executive/political director of the NRCC.
Guy Harrison: I started out on Congressman [Pete] Sessions’ campaign right after college. He was running against a six-term incumbent, John Bryant, who had never been held to less than 60 percent of the vote. While we lost by approximately 2,400 votes, Bryant decided to run for Senate rather than facing Sessions again in 1998. Sessions sought the seat again and beat John Pouland. After that, I came up to Washington with the Chairman and was his Chief of Staff from 2000 until I moved to the NRCC in January.
How would you describe Congressman Sessions’ management style and philosophy so far as NRCC Chair?
Congressman Sessions uses the tools he learned in the private sector--he defines the mission, recruits good managers and places value in quality experienced staff. His NRCC reflects this philosophy with strong Congressional leadership in his Vice Chairs and Regional Chairs. He knows that regaining the majority will be because of member involvement, quality staff, and great candidates.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has traditionally struggled to get all its members to pay their dues. What is the dues structure for the NRCC and how compliant are members of Congress in paying them?
The NRCC is fortunate enough that we continue to have a tremendous amount of support by the members in our caucus. Last cycle, we had more than 75 percent of members pay their dues to the NRCC which provided us with critical funds needed to defend our incumbents and target numerous Democratic candidates all over the country. This year, we have already have increased member participation, with 99 percent of members helping with our March Dinner.
It’s harder for Hill committees to raise money when their party is in the minority, of course. That structural liability aside, what are the challenges or opportunities of fundraising for the NRCC right now?
There a definitely a lot of opportunities right now for the NRCC. Right now it’s all about the House. This isn’t a year of a presidential election so we can really focus on raising money for House races and ending Nancy Pelosi’s reign as Speaker. This provides us with more opportunities to raise the necessary amount of funds to hold Democrats accountable all across the country.
Were you surprised by President Obama’s appointment of New York Republican Rep. John McHugh, and what would you say are the prospects of keeping that seat Republican?
I think everyone was initially surprised at the choice but given Congressman McHugh’s long involvement in military issues, it was understandable as to why the White House selected him. However, it was also a calculated political move by the impromptu DCCC Chairman who is the White House Chief of Staff to attempt to add another Pelosi puppet into the House of Representatives. We are optimistic that the New York Republican State Committee will nominate a strong and credible candidate, someone who shares the interests and values of such a diverse district and we will make a solid effort to gain the seat. As we have said before the Republicans are committed to assemble an aggressive and winning campaign especially in this area.
There’s been a lot of talk of Republican troubles in the Northeast, particularly New England. In those six states plus New York you’re down to three seats, perhaps two depending on what happens in McHugh’s district. How does the GOP turn things around in what once was a generally competitive region for Republicans?
What were are really going to focus on in New England and really all over the country is going after candidates who fit each district and candidates who can really win each district. Some of those prospects include Tom Reid, the Mayor of Corning, NY to run in NY-29 and John McKinney, the Connecticut State Senate Minority Leader in CT-04 and of course Frank Guinta, the Mayor of Manchester, NH, who is running against Carol Shea-Porter in NH-01. We are going to focus on strong candidate recruitment so that we can make a comeback with great recruits who can win for the GOP.
I’m presuming that Democratic freshman, particularly those who either won narrowly and/or won on the strength Obama coattails, are among the NRCC’s top targets for 2010, correct?
Yes, definitely. The target list definitely includes those who won narrowly or on the coattails of the Obama campaign. Tom Perriello for instance, won by little over 700 votes and the margin can definitely be attributed to President Obama’s winning of Virginia on Election Day. The same thing can be said for Glenn Nye in VA-02. They can expect difficult re-election campaigns over the next year and a half.
If you are at liberty to discuss specific races the NRCC has at or near the top of the target list, can you identify some of these?
Well clearly most freshmen Democrats will be on the target list like Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Walt Minnick (ID-01), Alan Grayson (FL-08), Bobby Bright (AL-02), Parker Griffith (AL-05), Eric Massa (NY-29), Jim Himes (CT-04), and many others but there will also targets who got elected either in 2006 or prior like Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Steve Kagen (WI-08), and others.
Though things may change by autumn 2010, right now President Obama is much more popular than Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose approval is at a record low. Are we safe to presume that Republican candidates will be advised to position themselves in opposition to the Speaker rather than the President?
When we look at key swing districts, we’re continuing to find her numbers are not only bad, but there’s a sense that she’s the embodiment of the San Francisco liberal agenda. We have already gone on the offensive against what we call Pelosi’s Puppets, those are House Democrats who have no problem voting with Speaker Pelosi and her liberal causes more than 90 percent of the time. Then you have the Blue Dogs who are acting more and more like Pelosi’s lapdogs and with this latest CIA flap, the speaker will definitely be an important target for the NRCC and for the 2010 election.
6.23.2009
NRCC Bullish About Taking Down Rookie and Sophomore Dems
by Tom Schaller @ 8:43 AM...see also 2010, house democrats, house republicans, pelosi
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

32 comments
From his lips to God's ears.
just say no to the party of no.
this guy needs to watch his language
he is really coming off flippant
most political types know to shape their speaking for particular audiences.
i guess this guy doesn't know squat about 538.
sounds like he is speaking to rush rather than us!
Wow, excellent interview, from both sides. Why can't we get this from mainstream media?
@mob
1. Everyone here is not a leftwing hack
2. I would hope people actually like seeing intelligent discussion from multiple points of view
"Congressman Sessions uses the tools he learned in the private sector..."
The GOP admits in more and more direct fashion that they are nothing more than puppets of big business. After all, that's where most of them come from!
And what is big business doing for this country lately? Nothing but driving us toward the deadpool.
I am thrilled 538 (Well, Tom) is interviewing people from both sides. Republicans are becoming increasingly characterized by Rush and Sean. His points were valid, if against my views. Great interview.
He said what you'd expect a GOP apparatchick to say. Which is not to say it's worthless exactly, but I read nothing terribly enlightening or revelatory in there.
Tom had to feed him the Nancy Pelosi thing and I just can't imagine a Republican challenger, even in a reddish district, being able to get that much mileage out of the Pelosi-CIA flap.
Most importantly there appears to be no real acknowledgment that the Republicans need to run a different kind of candidate in some of these races. This is something it took Democrats a while to work out, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised there's a learning curve here.
And at least there's something here to deconstruct instead of "nyah, nyah, socialism, nyah, nyah."
I am beginning to understand the problems with 538 commenters. Many of you don't bother to read anything before you post
"What were are really going to focus on in New England and really all over the country is going after candidates who fit each district and candidates who can really win each district. Some of those prospects include Tom Reid, the Mayor of Corning, NY to run in NY-29 and John McKinney, the Connecticut State Senate Minority Leader in CT-04 and of course Frank Guinta, the Mayor of Manchester, NH, who is running against Carol Shea-Porter in NH-01. We are going to focus on strong candidate recruitment so that we can make a comeback with great recruits who can win for the GOP."
The expression is "dire straits", not "dire straights". It (and the band name) comes from the analogy of having to traverse a dangerously narrow passage (strait).
You'd get the exact same words out of the parallel guy at the DCCC were the shoes reversed (2002 comes to mind). One of these days, I want to interview these guys off the record to find out why they say the things they say. Is it to fundraise, to hopefully get some more quality candidates to run, to keep media spin at least neutral, or what?
I'm not saying the Reps won't pick up seats in 2010 (I think they will), nor that it won't be freshmen and vulnerable Dems that lose. But I'm always curious to see what these guys really think as opposed to what they say (on both sides of the aisle). Take 1998, for example, where the GOP leadership kept predicting a win so much that their rank-and-file came to believe it. It played a part in the Gingrich coup.
Slight correction - the Mayor of Corning is Tom Reed, not Reid. But a very good interview all in all.
I think the interesting thing is this;
'candidates who fit each district and candidates who can really win each district.'
This, if he really means it (and if the other high-ups and primary voters concur) will mean an acceptance that attempts to impose 'true conservatives' on all parts of the country have failed. That's not to say that conservatism per se will not be returning to New England - it'll just take into account the mores of that region. In other words, a more socially liberal party in such areas, while keeping a mildly conservative economic message.
Man, this guy loves the histrionics, "Pelosi Puppets". Can I smell permanent minority status?
Forgone Conclusion, I hope you're right. I myself am pretty liberal, but I wouldn't mind a moderate Republican (especially one who is more Republican for the economics than for the social policy, liberal hippie that I am*). I grew up in Nebraska, where most of the candidates of either party were not only too conservative for my vote, but too conservative for me to even really like them as my representative. I might be more likely to vote for the Democrat in any given race, but I'd like a Congressional race where I can live with both candidates for two years.
* And, while we're wishing, a Republican with a good sense of skepticism and not a blind adherence to the free market -- asking 'what's the best way to do this?' is always a good idea. And one who likes science. And also a pony.
2002 US House elections had to do with redistricting. Going state by state. Democrats who were redistricted out of their seats.
1)Jim Maloney- CT-5- lost to Nancy Johnson. (IvI)
2)Karen Thurman- FL-5- lost to Virginia Brown Waite.
3)David Phelps- IL-19- lost to John Schimkus. (IvI)
4)Jim Barcia- MI-5- ran for the State Senate rather than face a primary defeat against Dale Kildee or general election defeat against Candace Miller.
5)David Bonior- MI-10- ran for Governor rather than face a primary against Sander Levin or general election defeat against Candace Miller.
6)Lynn Rivers- MI-13 lost in a Democratic primary against John Dingell- (IvI)
7)Bill Luther- MN-2- lost to John Kline.
8)Ronnie Shows- MS-4 lost to Chip Pickering (IvI) matchup.
9)John LaFalce- NY-29 retired rather than face fellow Democrat Louise Slaughter in the primary.
10)Tony Hall's OH-3 Dayton based seat became Republican. Hall resigned from Congress to become UN ambassador.
11)Tom Sawyer OH-14 Akron based district was split up. Sawyer ran in OH-17- held by Jim Traficant but lost in the Primary to Tim Ryan.
12)Robert Borski- PA-3 retired rather than face a primary against Joe Hoefell.
13)Bill Coyne- PA-14 retired rather than face a primary oppostion to Mike Doyle.
14)Frank Mascara- PA-20 lost in a primary to Jack Murtha in a IvI matchup.
15)Tom Barrett- WI-5 ran for Governor rather than face fellow Democrat Jerry Klezka in a primary.
Looking at the newly created Districts.
Arizona- Rick Renzi-(R) won the Swing District. Raul Grijalva won the Democratic Hispanic Majority District.
California- In order to make Gary Condit's Seat safe Democrat- the extra seat was created in Central Valley CA for Devin Nunes-R. A Hispanic Majority District was created from Steve Horn's old district- Linda Sanchez.
Colorado- Bob Beaupreaz-R won the Swing District.
Florida- Tom Feeney-R won the Orlando based FL-24. Mario Diaz Balart won FL-25 Cuban Majority Miami district.
Georgia- Bob Barr and Saxby Chamblis were redistricted out of their seats. Barr unsucessfully challenged Linder in a primary. Saxby decided to run for the US Senate. David Scott-won a newly created CBC district. Jim Marshall-D won the newly created swing district. Phil Gingrey won the other Swing District and Republican Max Burns won the newly created Democratic District to a scandal plagued Democratic opponent.
Indiana- Republicans picked up Tim Roemer's old House Seat. balanced by Brian Kern's seat being eliminated.
Maryland- Connie Morella and Robert Ehrlich's seat were redistricted to become more Democratic.
Michigan- Candice Miller-R and Thad Mccotter won the newly created Republican seats.
Nevada- Jon Porter won the newly created swing district.
New York- Felix Grucci lost and Ben Gilman retired rather than face a primary opposition to Sue Kelly in IvI matchup.
North Carolina- Brad Miller won the newly created swing district.
Oklahoma- Wes Watkins seat was eliminated.
Pennsylvania- Gekas lost in IvI matchup against Tim Holden. Jim Gerlach won the newly created Swing District in the Philadelphia Burbs. Tim Murphy won the newly created swing District in the Pittsburgh Suburbs.
Tennessee- Lincoln Davis won Van Hilleary's old seat.
Texas- Republicans won the two Newly Created House seats. (John carter TX-31 and Jeb Hensarling TX-5)
Going after Pelosi is not going to get the hapless GOP much mileage. Especially, when Gingrich accused the CIA of lying over its Iran report a few years ago.
The GOP as a whole is rudderless and has no ideas. The only way a GOP candidate is going to win in any district, except the most red, is to distance themselves from the party and show they are thoughtful, reasonable, and intelligent.
Those three qualities get you branded as a RINO these days.
The GOP still believes they got their asses handed to them in 2006 and 2008 because they were not conservative enough.
This is an excellent interview guys. I would hope that other media outlets would be able to learn from this.
Looking at the US House Seats Democrats won in 1998.
CA-1- was a Democratic leaning Congressional District became open when Republican Riggs retired rather the face defeat against Mike Thompson.
Republicans picked up open Democratic seats in CA-3(Vic Fazio). and CA-36(Jane Harman)-Harman won back that seat in 2000.
Dennis Moore defeated Conservative Republican incumbent Vince Snowbarger in KS-3 which was held by Moderate Republican Jan Meyers.
In Kentucky when Jim Bunning-R and Scott Baesler ran for the US Senate. Dems won Bunning seat and Reps won Baesler seat.
Ronnie Shows won the OPEN GOP seat in MS-4.
Shelly Berkley won Democratic leaning NV-1 which was OPEN due to John Ensign's decision to run for the US Senate against Harry Reid.
Rush Holt unseated Mike Pappas in NJ-12 due to the Twinkle Twinkle Kenneth Starr Gap.
NC-8 Robin Hayes- Republican picked up a Open Democratic seat then held by Democrat Bill Hefner.
In Pennsylvania- Joe Hoefell unseated GOP Jon Fox in the PA-13. Pat Toomey won PA-15 which was open by Conservative Dem Paul McHale.
In Washington- Democrats picked up WA-1- Jay Inslee- defeated Rick White. WA-3- Brian Baird won an open seat vacated by Linda Lingle who ran for the US Senate.
Wisconsin was split. Democrats won the open seat in WI-2 held by Steve Klug. Republicans unseated Jay Johnson- WI-8.
I think the GOP about hit rock bottom in 2008 and will now start its climb out of the depths.
The present Congress under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid has become a laughingstock. Worse, the people are finally paying attention to the nation's business and they do not like what they see in terms of Obama's policies and will no doubt want to take the President off steroids and elect a few more Republicans, if only to put a break on all this "change” which they don't understand and which cannot be financed.
Obama himself at his presser today admitted that unemployment will go over 10%. How high no one knows. But what seems assured is that Obama sole focus on government as solution and his refusal to work with the private sector (except to take it over) is a recipe for much slower growth.
Thus unemployment will lag well into 2010, assuring that many will come to the polls looking for more "change".
Throw the rascals out.
The first act of the Obama Presidency seems to be a failure -- massive expenditures for little effect. Add to that international provocation of the likes we have not seen since the days when the Soviet Union could throw its weight around at will.
One can only wonder what he plans for an encore.
Tax hikes, high interest rates and rampant inflation? A mushroom cloud over the Pacific?
petekent01 (on twitter)
Clinton did not get a lot done at the beginning of his first term, then he lost Congress in '94. I don't see Obama making that mistake - he's coming out of the gate running.
It seems to me that the GOP is in line to get somewhere between a 5-10 seat pickup in the next congressional election.
According to Cook Political Report, Dems have 25 seats in "lean" or "tossup" status compared to 7 for the GOP. Gravity is going to take hold in GOP-leaning districts that elected Democrats in stronger-than-normal liberal years.
GOP targets:
AL-5 Parker Griffith R+12
CO-4 Betsy Markey R+6
FL-8 Alan Grayson R+2
GA-8 Jim Marshall R+10
IL-14 Bill Foster R+1
MI-7 Mark Schauer R+2
MI-9 Gary Peters D+2
MS-1 Travis Childers R+14
NV-3 Dina Titus D+2
NH-1 Carol Shea-Porter R+0
NH-2 OPEN (Hodes) D+3
NM-2 Harry Teague R+6
NY-20 Scott Murphy R+2
NY-24 Michael Arcuri R+2
NY-29 Eric Massa R+5
NC-8 Larry Kissell R+2
OH-1 Steve Driehaus D+1
OH-15 Mary Jo Kilroy D+1
TX-17 Chet Edwards R+20
VA-2 Glenn Nye R+5
VA-5 Tom Perriello R+5
AL-2 Bobby Bright R+16
ID-1 Walter Minnick R+18
MD-1 Frank Kratovil R+13
DEM Targets:
CA-3 Dan Lungren R+6
CA-44 Ken Calvert R+6
IL-10 Mark Kirk D+6
MI-11 Thad McCotter R+0
PA-6 Jim Gerlach D+4
WA-8 Dave Reichert D+3
LA-2 Joseph Cao D+25
It's pretty clear that Cao is a one-term wonder. But that's not his fault. Jesus Christ couldn't get reelected in that district if he had an (R) next to his name.
Otherwise, GOP seems to have a clear advantage in terms of netting some real estate.
Seemed fair and uninflammatory except for the Puppets comment.
I don't see anything so terribly wrong with gerrymandering. Rick Santorum got together with Republican leaders in Pennsylvania in 2002 and tried to create a map with a 13-6 GOP majority in the state. On Election Night it wound up being 12-7 in favor of the GOP.
Four short years later the GOP congressional delegation was down to 8 members and the Democrats gained ground in the Philly burbs as the area lurched rapidly to the left.
So what? Both parties do it. Eventually popular sentiment will swing against the party in power and the opposition will gain ground. It's always been that way. One party will get greedy and try to redistrict out as much of the opposition as possible. In doing so they put their own members at risk as soon as t he pendulum shifts. Seems just fine with me.
I'm wondering about the "puppet" comments myself... would Harrison's D equivalent say that sort of thing? Is it ok because it's an interview to be published on a blog, where the atmosphere is casual and he's just being blunt about things we all know he thinks anyway? Is is ok because it's really not that offensive? Or is it not actually ok, but he just thinks it is?
Sorry. That was last comment wassupposed to on the other thread.
I think it's useful to get a preview of the Republicans' propaganda playbook for 2010. We should all be glad 538 got this interview. And let's remember that both parties engage in propaganda.
I don't know how seriously to take the Republican target list. A lot of those are not going back. NH-1, NH-2, FL-8, NV-3, MI-9, and NY-20 probably don't belong on it at all.
But if you're the NRCC you have to have long-looking list so that you can pretend that you're really going to win the majority.
You also have to be in it to win it. Some wins may be surprises, but you have a better chance if you invest time and money.
Hah! It's so funny when parrots say puppet. Hah! It's still funny.
A few comments on what I have read here so far.
@Rebecca - I agree with you. AS a registered and left-leaning Independent, I would prefer moderate Republicans such as former Reps. Connie Morella, Chris Shays, and former Senator Lincoln Chafee, than a far-left representative. I was sad to see Shays lose, as he was hardly a flame-throwing partisan who was very capable of reaching across party lines to find agreement.
@Adam - I think gerrymandering is a poison which can create "safe" seats for incumbents, making them act without fear of voter reprisal. They fear primaries more so they become more extreme and partisan, and that is bad for debate. Gerrymandering can also combine into one district people who live far from each other and whose interests may not be aligned. Similarly, gerrymandering can split up areas which should be included into one district.
Then you have the worst of redistricting which is what happened in Texas in 2003 - RE-RE-districting, which is when one party (GOP) did not want to wait until the end of the decade's next census to redraw the lines. On to of everything else, this is disruptive to the voters to have their representative changed again just a few years after the last time the lines were redrawn.
The independent commission is the best way to go. One reason Iowa has the most competitive elections is that it has people other than state legislators drawing the lines and it has specific criteria to prevent gerrymandering.
@nkpolitics1279 - your two lists of 1998 and 2002 elections results were very thorough but had a few [very few :)] errors.
In WA-2, it was Rep. Linda Smith, not Linda Lingle, who ran for U.S. Senate. Lingle was the mayor of Maui, Hawaii, who was elected governor of Hawaii in 2002 and remains there.
In NY-1, Felix Grucci was not eliminated from his House seat due to redistricting. That race (I am from Long Island) entered the radar screen after Grucci failed to repudiate false claims he made about rape statistics at Southampton College where his Democratic challenger Tim Bishop had been the provost at. Grucci's ads backfired on him and he lost by less than 3,000 votes.
Is it fair to say that redistricting is a major cause of someone's defeat when there is split control of redistricting and the state does not lose any House seats? MN-2 (Luther) would seem to fit this description.
A side note - What happened in PA in 2002 was second only to Texas as far as partisan redistricting goes, a plan which was unfortunately upheld by the conservative SCOTUS. [I wonder how they would have ruled had it been a Democratic plan to rub out 3 GOP Congressmen?] Three pairs of Dem Congressmen were put together while a I-vs-I race (Holden vs. Gekas) was supposed to get rid of a 4th one, while at the same time adding two new GOP House members. I found it strange that a state could LOSE 2 House seats but GAIN in overall representation (11-10 becomes 12-7).
Ugly and lame as I found parts of this--"San Francisco liberal" literally goes back 25 years, to a time when the country was far more homophobic than it is today--I echo the appreciation for 538 posting this.
Parenthetically, it's a bit rich for anyone whose experience dates back to the Republican House of DeLay, when that cretin pretty much dictated his Members' votes issue by issue, to refer to the other side as "puppets." Which isn't to say that there's no truth to it; the easiest way for new Members advance in the hierarchy is by keeping leadership happy. That's the system.
Dave- Thanks for correcting me about Linda Smith- WA. I forget to mention that Grucci lost re-election in 2002 because of the negative ad
Regarding the PA 2002 redistricting. PA decided that they wanted to create a District for Jim Gerlach- Which contained most of Tim Holden's old territory and parts of Joe Hoefell's Old Territory. They had to put Holden in Gekas (Harrisburg based 17th CD) which Gekas lost. Hoefell's Mont County and Borski's NE Philadelphia seat was combined. On the western side. They wanted to create a seat for Tim Murphy- They split Mascara's district between Murtha's 12th and the New PA 18th. Mike Doyle and Bill Coyne's Pittsburgh based districts were combined.
In Michigan- The GOP State legislature needed to create a district for Thad McCotter so they put Lynn Rivers in the same district as John Dingell. They also created a District for Candace Miller but putting Bonior in Levin's District and Barcia in Kildee's District.
To 538 readers:
in this new series of interviews (ken strasma first, now harrison), i aim to ask fair but straightforward and tough questions and let people speak for themselves. anyone who knows me from blogging elsewhere or my columns in the sun or my book knows what ideological leanings are (left, just in case you don't know) and so it's important to just ask the questions and pub the replies.
as for nancy pelosi, her new-low approval ratings are just a fact, and one they RNCC is surely going to play off...so i thought that was a quesiton worth asking about since harrison was likely to mention her anyway. if the situation were reversed, the DCCC would do the same thing to a speaker boehner (or certainly a speaker delay!)
cheers all,
tom
Post a Comment