State Sen. Deb Fischer took 41 percent of the vote on Tuesday to win the Republican nomination and will face former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) in the general election race to succeed retiring Sen. Ben Nelson (D). Attorney General Jon Bruning took 36 percent of the vote, while state Treasurer Don Stenberg drew only 19 percent.

For much of the race, Fischer was plagued by poor fundraising and never seemed to gain much traction until the race’s final days, when automated polling and her own internal surveys showed her within striking distance.

While Bruning was seen as the frontrunner for virtually the entire race, some big-name conservative groups, such as the Club for Growth and Sen. Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, were opposed to the three-term attorney general and looked to be helping Stenberg, who had lost three previous Senate races. The negative ads against Bruning and the lack of traction toward Stenberg in their negative contest allowed Fischer to slip through. Additionally, allies for Fischer (including Sarah Palin and Nebraska Rep. Jeff Fortenberry) came in late and somewhat under the radar.

According to Nebraska observers, Stenberg’s appeal was always limited and Bruning’s support was sizable but soft, so once Fischer gained visibility, she became a credible alternative for voters. Chicago Cubs co-owner Joe Ricketts, father of state party chairman Pete Ricketts, spent $200,000 on last-minute ads for Fischer and likely pushed wavering Bruning voters into the state senator’s column in the final days.

Also, Bruning’s campaign appeared to focus on the more densely populated areas such as Omaha. But those areas also have lower voter turnout, and Fischer was more than able to compensate for Bruning’s margins there by focusing on the more rural counties that turn out in higher numbers.

Democrats successfully wooed Kerrey into the race (and back into the state), hoping the former lawmaker would have the crossover appeal he once had. But after living in New York City and voicing support for President Obama’s health care reform bill, Kerrey looks nothing more than a long-shot in a state that has trended more and more toward the GOP since he left office more than a decade ago.

Fischer is a relative unknown quantity who will have to adjust to the larger stage of a Senate race, but she’s an experienced politician (she’s held local and state office for 30 years) and doesn’t have nearly the same baggage that Bruning would have carried to the general election. Former governor Kay Orr and former congressman John Y. McCollister co-chaired Fischer’s campaign.

During an interview with the Rothenberg Political Report in early December, Fischer called herself “very conservative” (and 100% pro-life), but she emphasized, “I am a policy person. I like to work on policy.” Her style is not confrontational.

A Democratic poll, conducted in late March by Public Policy Polling (IVR), showed Fischer leading Kerrey 48 percent to 38 percent in a general election ballot test. Because of Kerrey’s candidacy, Republicans can’t ignore the race. But Fischer is the prohibitive favorite, and we reiterate our rating of Republican Favored and remain deeply skeptical that the general election will be a truly competitive race.

In congressional primaries Tuesday night, incumbents Nebraska, Idaho and Oregon were easily renominated. Through 12 states, 93 of 95 House incumbents have been renominated in non-member versus member races. None of the states are expected to feature competitive races this fall either.

Just one week after conservative groups claimed victory in the Indiana primary, toppling longtime Sen. Dick Lugar, they came up short in Nebraska. Typically, such groups have been able to employ a relatively successful strategy -- burying establishment conservatives with an organized onslaught -- that has worked better both this year and in recent elections when it’s a one-on-one race. The three way nature of the Nebraska primary allowed Fischer to remain above the fray, making her the unintended beneficiary.

The Club for Growth was quick to argue that it accomplished its goal of defeating Bruning. In a statement that never mentioned Stenberg, the influential anti-tax group signaled it was “encouraged by the strong pro-growth stands [Fischer] took in this campaign.”

A similar dynamic could play out in other upcoming GOP primaries in which the Club and DeMint are playing. The next test is in two weeks in Texas, where both are backing former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz over frontrunner Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. With the race likely headed toward a runoff with Dewhurst atop the field, it’s former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert who observers believe has the momentum in the closing days, after Dewhurst and his allies have pummelled the underfunded Cruz on air.

In the wake of Nebraska, the Club upped its investment in the Lone Star State to $2 million (which doesn’t stretch as far in Texas) as it continues to attack Dewhurst as a “moderate.”

Wisconsin’s August primary is still months away, but it could follow the same path as Nebraska (and possibly Texas). Conservative groups have made former Gov. Tommy Thompson, the state’s best known Republican, their public enemy number one, choosing to rally behind former Rep. Mark Neumann. Wealthy investor Eric Hovde has thrown a wrench into the race, spending millions already on TV ads to boost his name ID, but underfunded state House Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald received the most support at last week’s convention. While confrontational conservative groups may be successful in knocking down Thompson, Neumann ultimately may not turn out to be the beneficiary of those attacks.  

There are plenty of reasons to leave the commonwealth of Pennsylvania off any list of the most competitive states that will decide the next president.

While the 2000 national election split the country almost down the middle — then-Vice President Al Gore (D) beat George W. Bush (R) in the popular vote by one-half of 1 percent — Pennsylvania went for the Democrat by more than 4 points.

Four years later, with Bush winning reelection over Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) nationally by almost 2.5 points, Kerry was carrying Pennsylvania by virtually the same margin. And in 2008, Pennsylvania performed about as it had in the two previous elections. While Barack Obama (D) won nationally by just more than 7 points, he carried the Keystone State by a little more than 10 points.

In other words, over the past three elections, the state has been 3 or 4 points more Democratic than the nation as a whole. That doesn’t make Pennsylvania another Maryland, Massachusetts or Hawaii, but it also doesn’t make it Ohio, Iowa or Colorado, three true swing states.

The state often looks tantalizingly competitive to GOP strategists, who usually start off hoping to compete in Pennsylvania. But at the end of the day, they usually find it a mirage.

Still, there are reasons for GOP strategists to look long and hard at the state this time, thinking 2012 could be different.

The GOP controls both chambers of the state Legislature, the governorship, one of the state’s Senate seats and a large majority of the House delegation (in part because of creative mapmaking). George H. W. Bush carried the state in 1988, and in spite of the defeats in 2000 and 2004, those presidential contests in the state were close.

Potentially more important than historical considerations is the makeup of the state. Pennsylvania is an old state. Only Florida, West Virginia and Maine have a higher percentage of residents 65 years old or older, according to 2010 census data. And the Keystone State is white. Among the nation’s dozen largest states, it ranks behind only Ohio for the lowest percentage of minority residents. Just more than one-fifth of Pennsylvania’s population is minority, slightly above Ohio’s 18.9 percent.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won both whites and voters 65 and older in 2008, according to the national exit poll, and the president is likely to be weaker in those two demographic groups again.

Pennsylvania is also well-known as a state with a large number of working-class whites, particularly in northeastern (Scranton, Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton, for example) and western Pennsylvania (Erie, Johnstown and Pittsburgh) — the kind of people one GOP strategist says “have their names on their shirts when they are at work.”

Candidate Obama had problems with those kinds of voters in 2008 — county-level data shows he did worse than Kerry in 2004 in a swath of counties running from southwestern Pennsylvania and West Virginia through extreme southwestern Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, and into Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. If anything, he seems weaker in those areas this year.

These voters don’t have an automatic cultural connection to Obama (or to presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney), and the president’s recent announcement supporting same-sex marriage isn’t likely to be a plus with them. Jobs, of course, remain a big issue with these voters, and whatever hope they had that Obama would turn the economy around has almost certainly evaporated.

Potentially, Romney could outperform most national Republicans in the southeastern corner of the state, as he is a better “cultural fit” there, particularly in Philadelphia’s upscale suburbs (Montgomery, Bucks and Delaware counties).

There isn’t much polling in the state. The only recent survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University, shows the president siting at 47 percent of the vote and leading Romney by 8 points.

Given these considerations, is there enough reason to include Pennsylvania in a short list of swing states? Not yet, for me. But there certainly is enough reason to treat Pennsylvania as a potential battleground and to continue to monitor the presidential numbers in the state.

After all, strange things can happen in elections. Indiana isn’t a swing state, but Obama won it in 2008. Sometimes, states that aren’t the most competitive do swing from one party to the other, and there is a plausible case that Pennsylvania could be that kind of state in 2012.

Of course, Pennsylvania is not the only state where demographics come into play. Older working-class, white voters are also key to winning Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin. West Virginia isn’t in play, but the other two are.

These kinds of voters are likely to be conflicted in November. They often identify more with the Democratic Party’s working-class positioning and rhetoric, and Romney’s background and style isn’t appealing to them. But they have little in common with the president, have some differences with Democrats’ positions on cultural issues and are disappointed with the performance of the economy.

These voters were once loyal members of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Coalition. But will they back Obama? Will they support Democratic Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, or even Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts?

The answers are unclear, which is exactly why Obama’s campaign is running a TV spot in Pennsylvania about Romney’s jobs record at private equity firm Bain Capital. Pennsylvania remains an intriguing state. 

“Dear Stuart,” emailed one man from Beulaville, N.C., “Your article about North Carolina’s political situation shows that you are missing a lot of what is going on in North Carolina. ... You completely failed to mention the obvious: A huge block [sic] of North Carolina voters are hate-filled racists who would never vote for a half-black candidate.”

Those of us who write or talk about politics for a living get more than our share of hate mail and criticism, and I guess that’s fine. If you are at all in the public eye, you better be willing to let folks who read you let off steam now and then.

I can easily ignore most attacks because they come from people I don’t know or don’t respect. But not all critics are equal, and not all criticisms should simply be ignored.

I was recently attacked on a Charlotte network affiliate by Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. The item was picked up by Politico, which subsequently attached a misleading “update” to the item.

“With all due respect, I don’t think Stu Rothenberg has any idea what he’s talking about,” said Woodhouse, who went on to say that voters in November won’t remember the scandal that has embroiled the state Democratic Party or the Republican Speaker of the House.

I thought that his comment about the long-term effect of the scandal was reasonable, and I generally agree. But my column was more about the rationale for picking Charlotte, N.C., for the Democratic convention than about anything else, and the chaos involving the state Democratic Party, I’m quite sure, isn’t quite what Democratic strategists were hoping for.

Of course, Woodhouse didn’t say anything about the state’s unemployment rate or the unpopularity of the sitting Democratic governor.

He also commented that I ignored the actual polls, which show President Barack Obama leading in the state. In fact, I alluded to them when I said that I thought the president was more likely than not to lose the state, “no matter what current polling shows.” It’s easy to say someone will win when they are ahead, but it’s harder to pick a candidate who is trailing.

I’ve dealt with Woodhouse on and off over the years — certainly I’m familiar with his work — and I know him to be a partisan attack dog who thinks everything Democrats do is right and everything Republicans do is wrong. Not every press person is that way, thankfully, but that’s apparently how Woodhouse sees his role.

But what got me angry was Politico’s so-called update, added to the piece after I declined to comment. “UPDATE: A colleague, siding with Woodhouse, forwards the following Rothenberg prediction for the 2010 elections: ‘But there are no signs of a dramatic rebound for the party, and the chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero. Not ‘close to zero.’ Not ‘slight’ or ‘small.’ Zero.’”

As I have written before, that assessment was made not in 2010 but in April 2009, 18 months before the November midterm elections, and it was accurate at the time. When it started to become clear that the nature of the election cycle was changing, my assessment changed.

By mid-July 2010, my assessment was for “substantial” GOP House gains in the order of 28 to 33 seats. And by late October, I was projecting a Republican blowout.

Right before Election Day, the Rothenberg Political Report projected Republican gains of 55 to 65 seats, among the most accurate of projections.

Politico reporters and editors know that or should know that. Printing that “update” from an unnamed “colleague” — it’s unclear whether it was a colleague of Woodhouse or of the Politico reporter — was atrocious journalism.

Politico likes to stir the pot, trying to create controversy, and when I declined to fire back at Woodhouse, it apparently decided to pour gasoline on what was the smallest of fires. It’s the way the paper operates, unfortunately.

Interestingly, Woodhouse distributed a memo dated July 15, 2010 — less than four months before the midterms — suggesting that 2010 would be very different from 1994 or 2006, when strong political waves shifted the control of Congress.

After citing a variety of poll numbers, Woodhouse argued that Democrats were positioned “to win close races across the country and to maintain strong majorities in both the House and the Senate.” Politico did not note that memo nor that “prediction.”

Woodhouse wasn’t the only high-profile person to attack me over the North Carolina column. A similar attack came from Rush Limbaugh.

That’s right, one column generated attacks from the communications director of the DNC and from the conservative talk-show host/bomb-thrower.

Limbaugh has attacked me before, including using my April 2009 column to argue that I am “biased, ignorant, [and] blew 2010 calls.” He also didn’t note that my assessments changed throughout the cycle as polling showed the electorate’s mood evolving.

This time, Limbaugh, who recently said that he’d want Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke to post a video of herself having sex “so we can all watch,” attacked me for allegedly being disappointed that North Carolina is a mess for Democrats.

Of course, I never said that, because I never take partisan sides. But to Limbaugh, and to people like Woodhouse, there is no neutral ground, no dispassionate analysis. Everything is driven by ideology or partisanship. Everything is about confrontation. For me, that’s one of the least appealing things about politics — and about political coverage — these days.

“Lugar is a highly-respected moderate conservative with a reputation of being willing to work across the partisan aisle to get things done. But in the current political environment, experience is overrated to conservative activists who are more interested in sending a message to the GOP establishment rather than dwell on the good ole days,” we wrote in the introduction of our February 2011 write-up of the race.

“There isn’t any doubt that Lugar starts as a popular figure, but it’s far from clear whether that support will hold up under an intense campaign,” our analysis continued, 15 months before the election. “If last cycle’s primaries are any indication, Lugar might even be an underdog in a one-on-one primary matchup.”

Yesterday, Lugar lost renomination to state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, 61 percent to 39 percent.

Now, as Stu wrote in March, there will be a period of “turbulence,” there will be plenty of analysis about whether or not the seat is now “in play” as Mourdock goes against Rep. Joe Donnelly (D). We moved the race from Republican Favored to Lean Republican in Friday’s edition of RPR in expectation of Mourdock’s victory, but purposefully didn’t move the seat to Toss-Up, even though initial, post-primary polling could very well show a close race.

But over time, Republicans will likely coalesce behind their nominee and Donnelly, who represents part of northern Indiana, won’t start with the benefit of the doubt in the rest of the state that doesn’t know him.

Since 1974, the only Democrats to win an Indiana Senate race have been named Bayh (Evan in 1998 and 2004, and Birch in 1974)

Lugar’s loss wasn’t the only race of consequence in the Hoosier State.

In the 5th District, former U.S. attorney Susan Brooks won the GOP primary with 30 percent and is the heavy favorite to hold retiring Rep. Dan Burton’s (R) seat in the fall. RPR readers were first introduced to Brooks, a former deputy mayor of Indianapolis, in the February 10 edition of the Report.

Former Rep. David McIntosh finished a close second with 29 percent, former congressional candidate John McGoff took 23 percent and Marion Mayor Wayne Seybold was fourth with 11 percent. Brooks’ victory also means defeat for the Campaign for Primary Accountability, which both supported McIntosh. Brooks faces state Rep. Scott Reske (D) in the general election in a district that John McCain won by six points in 2008.

In the 6th District, former state Rep. Luke Messer won the GOP primary with 40 percent and will be a congressman next year. Messer, who came close to defeating Burton in the Republican primary in 2010, did most of the hard work in this race last year by clearing the field of serious candidates.

Observers were actively watching Rep. Larry Bucshon (R) in the 8th District, since he won his initial primary in 2010 with just 33 percent of the vote. He faced tea party candidate Kristi Risk once again, but didn’t have much difficulty, winning 58 percent to 42 percent. Through nine states, 83 of 85 House incumbents (98 percent) have been renominated in non-Member vs. Member races.

Bucshon faces former state Rep. Dave Crooks (D) in a potentially competitive general election, but the congressman starts with the advantage.

And in the 2nd District, left open by Donnelly’s Senate run, business consultant Brendan Mullen won the Democratic nomination with 54 percent and will face former state Rep. Jackie Walorski (R) in November. Walorski lost to Donnelly in 2010 but starts the general election with the advantage.

Obama won the district by less than a point in 2008 but is not likely to do as well in northern Indiana this November and Mullen will have a difficult time replicating Donnelly’s independent image in just a few months time. 

The GOP primaries in the 8th District to take on Rep. Larry Kissell (D) and in the 11th District to succeed retiring Rep. Heath Shuler (D) are headed to runoffs, while national Republicans in the 7th District appear to have narrowly gotten their choice to face-off against Rep. Mike McIntyre (D).

In the 7th District, state Sen. David Rouzer narrowly edged out 2010 nominee Ilario Pantano, 48 percent to 45 percent, in the closest race of the night in North Carolina. Rouzer, a former tobacco lobbyist, was buoyed by a strong showing from his suburban Raleigh-base that allowed him to compensate for Pantano’s name identification advantage and Wilmington base.

Rouzer was viewed as the underdog heading into Tuesday’s vote but was seen as the stronger general election nominee over Pantano, who didn’t impress with his eight-point loss to McIntyre in 2010 and whose fundraising this cycle had been incredibly anemic. McIntyre still has an imposing cash advantage with a war chest of over $780,000, but Rouzer now has time to start building his challenge in the district that gave John McCain 57 percent in 2008 and President Bush over 61 percent four years earlier. We currently rate this race Lean Republican.

In the 8th District, former Capitol Hill aide Richard Hudson will now go head to head with dentist Scott Keadle in the July runoff for the chance to take on Kissell in a district that gave McCain over 57 percent.

Hudson, the longtime district director for now-state party chairman Robin Hayes and chief of staff to several other GOP members, topped the five-candidate field with 32 percent of the vote to Keadle’s 22 percent. Both were helped by outside groups in the closing days of the campaign, with Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s Young Guns PAC putting in over $70,000 for Hudson, while the Club for Growth spent over $300,000 on Keadle’s behalf. Hudson has long been considered the favorite in the race, but Keadle benefited from the Club’s late spending and could continue to narrow the gap over the next two months. We rate this race as Republican Favored.

Wealthy businessman Mark Meadows narrowly missed avoiding a runoff in the 11th District, taking 38 percent of the vote, followed by businessman Vance Patterson’s 22 percent in the eight candidate field. Meadows will be the favorite come July, but either Republican is expected to defeat Shuler’s former chief of staff Hayden Rogers, who won his own Democratic primary on Tuesday. Rogers may have been the strongest nominee Democrats could have landed, but it’s unlikely to be enough in this western North Carolina district that gave McCain over 58 percent. We rate this race as Republican Favored.

Democrats essentially ceded the 13th District to Republicans, after Democratic Rep. Brad Miller chose to retire. With his primary win, former U.S. Attorney George Holding is headed for Congress, beating Wake County Commissioner Paul Coble, 44 percent to 34 percent. Holding was buoyed by a super PAC run by his family and friends that poured over half a million in TV ads blistering Coble, who was initially seen by many as the frontrunner but whose fundraising and support never materialized.

In the open 9th District race to succeed retiring Rep. Sue Myrick, the July runoff, as expected, will come down to wealthy former state Sen. Robert Pittenger and former Mecklenberg County Sheriff Jim Pendergraph. In the crowded 11-candidate field, Pittenger took 33 percent of the vote to Pendergraph’s 25 percent. Whoever wins the July runoff will be a congressman next year. 

Last night, Democrats in the Badger State chose Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to be their nominee against Gov. Scott Walker (R) in the June 5 recall election. The mayor won the primary with 58 percent over Kathleen Falk (35 percent) and three other candidates.

Walker defeated Barrett, 52 percent to 46 percent in 2010, but the governor’s subsequent moves to curb collective bargaining turned him into a polarizing figure nationwide.

Brace yourself. With the Republican presidential primary decided and the November elections still six months away, the race between Walker and Barrett, will likely become the focal point of political news coverage for the next month.

Analysts and cable news commentators will over-analyze the race and extrapolate the results onto the presidential contest. But it’s best to take a deep breath.

The results will likely show that Wisconsin is extremely polarized and is likely to continue to be a presidential battleground and host a competitive, open seat race for the U.S. Senate. But each of those races will have unique candidates and dynamics.

We have the gubernatorial race rated as a Pure Toss-Up as both parties will spend millions of dollars reaching out to the 3 percent of the electorate that hasn’t made up their mind yet. It looks like this race is going to be very close.

Voters in West Virginia will also choose between two familiar candidates. Then-Acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) defeated GOP businessman Bill Maloney, 50 percent to 47 percent, in a 2011 special election. Both men easily won their primaries last night and will face off again in November in the race for a full term.

President Obama is likely to get demolished in West Virginia in November, particularly since an incarcerated felon received 40 percent of the vote against him in last night’s Democratic presidential primary. The inmate is scheduled to be released next June.

Maloney and Republicans were able to close a considerable gap against Tomblin the first time around by tying him to Obama. We currently have the race rated as Leaning toward Tomblin, but it’s worth keeping an eye on to see if the President becomes an anvil around the governor’s neck.

In North Carolina, Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton won the Democratic primary for governor outright, taking over 45 percent to former Rep. Bob Etheridge’s 38 percent in the six-way field.

Even though Democrats could do slightly better this fall without unpopular Gov. Bev Perdue, who declined earlier this year to run for a second term, atop the ticket, Dalton will still have an uphill battle against former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, who easily won the GOP primary and is heavily favored to win the general. Dalton was seen by national Democrats as the stronger nominee over the former congressman, who lost his 2010 reelection bid after a confrontation with a GOP tracker. However, Republicans are eager to tie Dalton to Perdue and her embattled administration. We currently rate the race as Lean Republican.

In Indiana, Rep. Mike Pence (R) and former state House Speaker John Gregg (D) ran unopposed in their primaries and will face off in November in the race to replace Gov. Mitch Daniels (R). Democrats are eager to tie Pence to Washington and try to saddle him with some of the same residency issues that plagued Lugar, but even though Indiana went for Obama in 2008, it’s a state primed to snap back to the GOP column in November. 

The question is whether another group that has struggled of late, Republicans in the Northeast, has some reason for hope this cycle, even with President Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.

Just two years ago, the 11 states of the old Confederacy sent 35 white Democrats to the U.S. House, and Democratic strategists were bragging that reports of the party’s demise in the South were premature.

But after the disastrous 2010 elections, the number of white Democrats has already shrunk by more than half, to just 16, and it could shrink even further, possibly to as few as 10 or 11 in a worst-case November scenario.

In fact, all five states of the Deep South — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana ­— as well as Arkansas could be without a single white Democratic Congressman if Georgia Rep. John Barrow loses his bid for re-election and the party can’t hold retiring Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross’ open seat, which looks likely.

The 10 white Southern Democratic incumbents who seem certain to be back next year include Reps. Kathy Castor, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Ted Deutch of Florida; David Price of North Carolina; Jim Cooper and Steve Cohen of Tennessee; Gene Green and Lloyd Doggett of Texas; and Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran of Virginia.

Both Green’s and Doggett’s districts are actually majority Hispanic, while Cohen’s is overwhelmingly black. Castor’s district is majority-minority. The districts of Wasserman Schultz and Deutch have substantial numbers of Jewish voters, and aside from the considerable Hispanic populations, have more in common with districts in the Northeast than in the South.

The districts of Doggett and Price have substantial university populations and influence, making them much more liberal than the typical Southern district. And while Virginia left the Union, the districts of both Moran and Connolly are in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, and not particularly “Southern.”

Democratic strategists are hoping to offset expected losses in the region with gains in Florida, where they have opportunities in two new seats and against allegedly vulnerable GOP incumbents such as Reps. David Rivera, Steve Southerland and Daniel Webster. But aside from the Sunshine State and new Hispanic districts in Texas, additional Democratic opportunities in the region are all but nonexistent.

Republican House prospects in the Northeast are limited as well, but the party has some interesting opportunities in unusual places.

Before the 2010 elections, Republicans held seven House seats in the six states of New England plus New York and New Jersey. Now, the GOP holds 16 seats — eight in New York, six in New Jersey and two in New Hampshire.

Democrats hope to reduce the GOP totals in the Empire State dramatically, and Republican Reps. Ann Marie Buerkle, Michael Grimm and Chris Gibson find themselves as top Democratic targets.

In addition, Democrats expect to take back at least one of New Hampshire’s seats (from Rep. Charles Bass). New York GOP Rep. Bob Turner’s district is being eliminated because the state lost two seats as a result of reapportionment.

But Republicans are hoping to add at least a couple of new seats in the region, including an uphill opportunity in Connecticut’s open 5th district.

Three Democratic Northeast seats — one in New York (currently held by Rep. Bill Owens), one in Massachusetts (held by Rep. John Tierney) and the third in Rhode Island (held by freshman Rep. David Cicilline) — look like very reasonable takeover opportunities, assuming presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney doesn’t get buried in the fall.

In Massachusetts, former state Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei, who was the GOP nominee for lieutenant governor in 2010, acknowledges that he has differences with his party, particularly on cultural issues.

Openly gay and pro-abortion-rights, Tisei stresses his fiscal conservatism and argues that the combination of his moderate views and Tierney’s ethics issues give him an opportunity in this competitive district, which was last won by a Republican Congressional nominee in 1994.

Tierney’s wife pleaded guilty in 2010 to charges that she was involved with her brother’s illegal offshore gambling operations. The Democrat was re-elected that year, though his victory margin was down.

Another GOP opportunity in New England, against Cicilline, stems from the incumbent’s perceived vulnerability.

A former mayor of Providence, Cicilline has been damaged by the city’s tenuous financial condition but even more by the charge that he painted a rosy picture of the city’s finances when it really was in trouble. He has received an abundance of negative media coverage, and his poll ratings have suffered consequently.

Any Republican revival in the Northeast is likely to be limited, just as the brief Democratic revival in the South in the 2006 and 2008 elections was. That said, both parties will take seats where they can, even if those gains are short-lived.

Candidates on both sides of the aisle are wrestling with how to spend their resources in advance of the June 5 primary, looking for that fine line between making sure they finish in the top two in the primary and husbanding their…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

Polling and the conventional wisdom still suggest that former solicitor…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

Redistricting -- after several iterations of maps after court challenges -- created four new seats in the Lone Star State. None of these new districts is expected to be competitive in the fall, with the quartet split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. But with as many as a dozen candidates in each new or open district, it’s unlikely that one candidate will be able to top the 50 percent threshold in the May 29 primaries.
…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

Ultimately, a few members could find themselves with lower vote totals than usual in the May 29 primary, or even be forced into a July runoff. But in the end, few, if any, local observers believe that primary challengers this cycle will claim an incumbent’s scalp.
This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

But if David Axelrod and the president’s other political advisers picked the Tar Heel State to make some broader political point, then they goofed.

Simply put: North Carolina looks like a mess for Democrats.

The state’s Democratic governor, Beverly Perdue, is so unpopular — her job approval has been fluctuating from 30 percent to 40 percent for months — that she wisely decided not to seek re-election this year. A recent survey by Public Policy Polling, a Raleigh-based Democratic polling firm, showed only 60 percent of Democrats approve of the job the governor is doing.

A handful of Democrats are vying for their party’s nomination, including former Rep. Bob Etheridge and the state’s sitting lieutenant governor, Walter Dalton, but virtually everyone expects former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R), who lost to Perdue narrowly four years ago, to win the state’s top office in November.

The last Republican to win the governorship was Jim Martin, in 1988, and only two Republicans, Martin and Jim Holshouser, have been elected governor since Reconstruction.

Democrats will lose three or four Congressional seats in November, victims of Republican redistricting made possible by the national GOP wave of 2010, which gave both chambers of the state Legislature to Republicans. (In an ironic twist, the governor of North Carolina had no role in the redistricting process.)

But it gets worse.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, North Carolina’s preliminary unemployment rate for March stood at 9.7 percent, lower than only three states (California, Rhode Island and Nevada) and the District of Columbia. Apparently, the Obama administration’s jobs recovery has not shifted into high gear in the Tar Heel State.

Of course, if the state’s economy is a mess, it’s still in better shape than the North Carolina Democratic Party.

Two weeks ago, the state party’s executive director, Jay Parmley, resigned amid accusations of sexual harassment. North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman David Parker, who accepted Parmley’s resignation but seemed to defend him, has also come under fire. Some Democratic activists are now demanding his resignation.

Finally, the president will accept his party’s nomination — and presumably beat up on corporate America and the wealthy — at Bank of America Stadium (after a couple of days at Time Warner Cable Arena). Expect the press to point out the irony, which could put President Barack Obama’s campaign on the defensive more than a few times.

Of course, all of these problems will seem insignificant if the president carries North Carolina in the fall.

For months, I’ve been including the Tar Heel State in my list of swing territory. I think I’ve been wrong to do so, no matter what current polling shows.

Unless the president wins re-election nationally by 7 or 8 points (or about what he did in 2008), his chances of carrying the state are not very good. And if he wins nationally by a large margin, he won’t need North Carolina.

Obama won North Carolina by three-tenths of a point four years ago — almost 7 points worse than his national margin of 7.2 points.

In each of the two previous presidential elections, 2004 and 2000, Republican George W. Bush carried the state by more than 12 points. In 2004, Bush’s showing in the Tar Heel State was 10 points ahead of his national margin, and in 2000, his showing in the state was more than 13 points better than his national showing.

Obama won the state by about 14,000 votes out of 4.3 million cast, while Bush’s margins were about 370,000 in 2000 and 435,000 in 2004.

Yes, North Carolina isn’t your typical Deep South state. Republicans performed better in the state than in other Southern states before the state realigned in the 1960s and early 1970s. It almost went for Dwight Eisenhower (R) in 1956, for example. But while much of the South went for Barry Goldwater (R) in 1964, North Carolina stuck with Lyndon Johnson (D).

Since the South’s realignment, Democrats have repeatedly held up North Carolina as an example of a state Democrats can win, citing the growth of the Research Triangle, the in-state migration of Northerners and the state’s more moderate style.

But no Democratic presidential nominee has won a majority of the total vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976, and the Democratic base in the state, at least for federal elections, appears to be about 44 percent, a few points less than the GOP base.

The state’s African-Americans and upscale, white liberals vote Democratic, as do many of the students at the state’s colleges and universities. Turnout among 18- to 29-year-olds was very strong in the state in 2008, and those voters went overwhelmingly for Obama.

But while there are more white Democratic voters in North Carolina (and Virginia) than in Mississippi or Alabama, there just aren’t enough to allow a Democratic presidential nominee to carry the state unless he or she is running comfortably ahead nationally.

Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) lost North Carolina in 2008 because voters wanted a change from George W. Bush, and Obama was a blank slate and offered voters an alternative to the Republican status quo. According to exit poll data on CNN’s website, McCain ran almost 10 points behind Bush’s 2004 showing among whites, a significant drop-off.

The president isn’t likely to run as well as he did four years ago nationally or in North Carolina, and any drop-off (in younger voter turnout or in support from whites) is likely to cost him the state’s 15 electoral votes given the closeness of the 2008 outcome. That’s undoubtedly why Obama held a “noncampaign” rally at the University of North Carolina last week.

Right now, North Carolina doesn’t look particularly hospitable to Obama’s re-election or to Democrats in general.

Given that equation, the prospect of an additional six or eight columns about other contenders — Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, to name just a few — filled me with joy.

VP columns, which invariably run down the pluses and minuses of each name mentioned, are easy to write and people seem to like them. With each candidate’s stock going up or down depending on what the current buzz is, there is more than enough material to keep a columnist happy.

But I’m not merely a columnist. I’m a political analyst who writes a column. And the political analyst in me tells me that all of the chatter about Romney’s running mate is a lot of wasted, useless, meaningless hot air.

In all likelihood, Romney’s selection of a running mate will have little or no effect on the November general election.

When former Vice President Dick Cheney recently commented that “it’s pretty rare” that an election turns on the vice presidential pick, he was reflecting the views of most serious students of American politics.

There are, of course, exceptions, including the 1960 presidential race when the selection of Lyndon Johnson probably allowed the Democratic ticket to carry Texas. But the homogenizing of American culture (via television and the Internet) and the increased polarization of the country and ideological purity of the two parties have made it less likely that a running mate can “deliver” his or her state.

Of course, I can’t rule out the possibility that the selection of a Hispanic running mate could change the Electoral College math in 2012 or sometime in the future, or that some demographic group could be swayed by a selection for vice president in such a way that it could affect which ticket wins and which loses.

But Republican nominee Sen. John McCain put a woman on his ticket in 2008, only to have female voters give Democrat Barack Obama 56 percent of their vote.

True, a serious female candidate might have helped the Republican ticket perform better among women (and even among men), but the reality of presidential elections is that as the calendar moves away from the national nominating conventions and toward Election Day, voters see the contest as a choice between the two parties’ presidential nominees, not the two tickets.

The 2008 election was about McCain and Obama, not Sarah Palin. Geraldine Ferraro’s place on the ’84 Democratic ticket had no effect on the outcome. And Dan Quayle, for all of the controversy about his selection, didn’t determine who won and who lost the 1988 election.

It’s not that the nominee for vice president is irrelevant. He or she will participate in a debate and have a role in promoting Romney and the Republican Party, as well as in tearing down the president and his party during the campaign. And, of course, the vice president will be next in line should something terrible happen to the president.

Voters apparently understand that while vice presidents have more or less influence on various decisions depending on who is in the Oval Office, it is presidents who make the big decisions.

Given all of this, I do not expect to be writing columns about potential Romney running mates. I’m not ruling it out completely because if some particularly stupid name surfaces, I don’t want to tie my own hands. But you will need to look elsewhere to find rundowns about “potential running mates.”

And you’ll have no difficulty finding chatter about them because everyone and his brother will be writing about it, tweeting it or talking about it on TV.

But so much of the talk about the selection of a Romney running mate will be meaningless drivel about pseudo-candidates who won’t be selected that you might as well just wait until the selection to react to it.

And, while the selection may well “say something” about Romney and his approach to the campaign and the presidency, it isn’t likely to determine who wins in November.

So why will everyone spend so much time on the vice presidential choice?

The cable networks have 8,784 hours to fill this leap year — 4,416 hours to fill from May 1 to the end of October — and they’ll need to fill some of those hours with chatter from people who want to hear themselves talk about running mate selections.

Viewers and readers seem to like the speculation — it’s sort of like a game show — so speculating on running mates has appeal to producers, editors and, yes, columnists.

So go ahead and have fun if you enjoy listening to the speculation. Play the VP selection game at cocktail parties or around the kitchen table. Write your comments about the best pick for Romney, or the worst, at the end of articles on the Web. Just remember that the 2012 election is between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

On Thursday morning, the National Republican Congressional Committee purchased $150,000 of broadcast television in Tucson, beginning tomorrow through May 10, according to a GOP source familiar with the buy. According to a Democratic source Thursday, the Democratic Congressional Committee's independent expenditure arm is also placing a $150,000 buy to begin within the next 48 hours. 

Republicans just chose 2010 nominee Jesse Kelly to be their standard bearer in the general election. He faces Giffords’ former district director Ron Barber in the June 12 special election. Barber was shot in the face and leg in the January 2011 shooting that killed six people and injured more than a dozen, including the former congresswoman.

The four-way April 17 primary severely depleted Kelly’s bank account, leaving him with less than $50,000 cash on hand for the special election.

The GOP contest allowed Barber to conserve his cash, leaving him with over $460,000 in the bank at the end of March. The Democrat went on television (a $112,000 mix of cable and broadcast) the day after the Republican primary with a positive ad that touted his work for Giffords and with the mentally disabled.

The new NRCC ad has not been released, but Republicans haven’t hesitated in going after Barber, painting him as a rubber stamp for Democrats, even given the sensitive circumstances surrounding the vacancy.

The summer special election will be a key battleground for both parties, and both congressional committees are expected to invest heavily. The current district gave Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent in the 2008 presidential race, while Pres. George W. Bush (R) took 53 percent in 2004 re-election bid. The November general election will take place in a redrawn and renumbered 2nd District that is slightly more Democratic.

The Rothenberg Political Report currently rates this race a pure toss-up.  

This post was updated at 5:45 p.m. 

In western Pennsylvania’s 12th District, Rep. Mark Critz pulled off an upset in his member vs. member race against Rep. Jason Altmire, who had previously represented over 60 percent of the new 12th District after Republicans drew them into the same seat. Critz narrowly edged Altmire by two points, 51 percent to 49 percent.

In eastern Pennsylvania’s 17th District, Rep. Tim Holden succummed to a primary challenge from wealthy attorney Matt Cartwright, losing by 14 points. But Holden currently represents only about 20 percent of the new district, and Cartwright was well-known in the new Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area of the district after appearing in TV commercials for his law firm.

Both Altmire and Critz are members of the shrinking Blue Dog Coalition, which saw its membership decimated in the 2010 cycle and have already seen a handful opt for retirement this year rather than face competitive reelections. Several others, including Larry Kissell (N.C.) and Jim Matheson (Utah), still face competitive general elections.

Despite having a distinct territorial advantage, Critz’s get out the vote effort, particularly in his home base of Johnstown, was impressive. Buoyed by organized labor, Critz topped over 90 percent in Cambria County, and Altmire couldn’t match those totals in his base of Allegheny County, where he received 69 percent.

But there won’t be any rest for Critz. This fall, the congressman will face Republican Keith Rothfus in a district that John McCain and George W. Bush won with 54 percent in the last two presidential contests. Rothfus lost to Altmire by less than two points in 2010.

Unfortunately, Holden’s loss could be used as supporting evidence for the “anti-incumbent” narrative. But the ten-term moderate Democrat could barely be considered an incumbent in the northeastern Pennsylvania district because he represented just a fifth of it. Holden faced an ideological fight after representing a Republican-leaning district for a decade and then having to prove his liberal bonafides in a Democratic primary. And he had a financial challenge. Cartwright was very well funded for a challenger with personal cash (nearly $400,000) and outside support from League of Conservative Voters, Campaign for Primary Accountability, and MoveOn.org.

A couple months ago, Rep. Tim Murphy (R) was believed to be vulnerable in the 18th District. But he easily turned back a tea party challenge from former Senate staffer Evan Feinberg, 63 percent to 37 percent.

Through seven states, 67 of 69 incumbents (97 percent) have been renominated in primaries that didn’t have two Members facing off against each other.

In the open 4th District, state Rep. Scott Perry will succeed retiring Rep. Todd Platts after winning a seven-way GOP primary with over 53 percent of the vote. Perry is likely headed for an easy election this fall in the safe Republican seat.

Republicans also chose their nominee to face Sen. Bob Casey (D) as former coal executive Tom Smith (43 percent) defeated former state Rep. Sam Rohrer (21 percent) and businessman Steve Welch (19 percent).

Casey starts the general election with $5.3 million in the bank (as of April 4) and a significant advantage over Smith, but the Republican’s personal money (he spent $5 million in the primary) could quickly close that gap and can’t be ignored. Smith still would have to overcome Casey’s moderate image and family heritage in the state.

Republicans don’t need to win Pennsylvania to take back the majority in the Senate, but Casey shouldn’t put it in cruise control just yet.  

After seeing his colleague get ousted at the GOP convention two years ago, Hatch and his team were laser focused and determined not to fall victim to the same fate. On Saturday, Hatch received 59 percent of the GOP delegates, but just short of the 60 percent he needed to win renomination without a primary.

Hatch now faces former state Sen. Dan Liljenquist in the June 26 primary. Liljenquist is a very credible candidate, but it’s far from clear that he’ll get the support of outside conservative groups (such as the Club for Growth) that he will need in order to oust the incumbent. Hatch had $3.2 million in the bank on April 1 compared to just $242,000 for Liljenquist.

Right now, conservative groups are focused on defeating Sen. Richard Lugar in next month’s GOP primary in Indiana.

A Lugar loss could cut in one of two directions. Conservative allies could pivot to Utah and use the momentum against Hatch. Or, in what could be the more likely scenario, conservative groups may choose not to risk tarnishing a victory in Indiana with a loss in Utah. If Lugar wins his primary, it seems unlikely that conservative groups would shift to Hatch since Lugar is viewed as considerably more vulnerable.

Hatch holds the advantage, but the primary is still two months away and this race could still develop.

In the 2nd District, author/consultant/Air Force veteran Chris Stewart secured the GOP nomination on Saturday and will be a Member of Congress next year in the newly-created seat.

Meanwhile, the 4th District is shaping up to host one of the most competitive and exciting races in the entire country.

Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love won the GOP nomination at Saturday’s convention by earning 70 percent of the delegates. Love was certainly in the top tier of contenders but it’s a surprise that she won without a primary against two credible opponents, including one who had the support of Sen. Mike Lee (R) and the Club for Growth.

Love has an impressive profile and a story that will garner her national attention. Some Democratic strategists are skeptical that Utah will elect a black woman to office, but Love is likely to be an elusive target for Rep. Jim Matheson (D). She’s also young and conservative and is the kind of candidate that should attract Republican donors from across the country.

Matheson represents just about one-third of the newly-drawn district. And while he appears to be popular, the congressman will have to swim against an extremely strong tide at the top of the ballot. John McCain won the district 56 percent to 41 percent in 2008, but Mitt Romney is likely to do even better in November. And recent polling showed Gov. Gary Herbert’s (R) job approval ratings near 60 percent as he seeks reelection.

It’s true that Matheson survived the 2010 wave, but Republicans never invested heavily in defeating him, and Utah is one place where 2012 may not be much better for Democrats.  

It’s not that poll results shouldn’t affect our understanding of politics or inform us about what people are thinking. It’s that too often people behave as if the most recent poll they encounter has enormous predictive value. At this point in the cycle, it probably doesn’t.

The best example of this myopia is the way that folks on “Morning Joe,” the MSNBC morning show that still sometimes tries to be analytical, have been discussing polls.

For months, most of the regulars on the show beat up on Republican Mitt Romney, buying into the developing narrative that he and his party have dug themselves into such a deep hole that he may not be able to get out.

Then — presto! — a CBS News/New York Times poll comes out showing the presidential race as a dead heat, and the next day the folks at Morning Joe are shaking their heads about how President Barack Obama is in as equally bad shape as Romney and that the election is up for grabs. The regulars on that program aren’t alone in doing this, of course.

In fact, the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, conducted April 13-17, isn’t very different from the previous one, conducted March 7-11, which showed Obama holding a narrow 3-point lead, 46 percent to 43 percent, over Romney. Statistically and analytically, those two results are the same.

Of course, the April CBS News/New York Times survey shows a dramatically different race from CNN’s poll, which has Obama leading Romney, 52 percent to 43 percent. Both use registered voters. It isn’t up to me to decide which one is “right.”

To be honest, I’m not thrilled with the last couple of CBS News/New York Times surveys, which I usually consider one of the more credible polls.

The April CBS News/New York Times poll found Obama’s job ratings as 48 percent approve/43 percent disapprove. A month earlier, Obama’s ratings were a much worse 41 percent approve/47 percent disapprove.

Think about it. Obama’s job approval increased by 7 points during the month, but the general election ballot test got closer. Does that seem likely? Obama’s 41 percent approval in March in the CBS News/New York Time poll was much lower than most other reliable surveys, so that number also seemed odd.

Anyway, not everybody falls into the trap of overgeneralizing from a single survey or of comparing surveys conducted by different polling firms. Mark Blumenthal, a former partisan pollster turned polling analyst for the Huffington Post, never fails to be smart, measured and modest in his analysis.

And most professional pollsters, Democrat and Republican, are much more cautious than the average casual political observer of reading too much into one poll number or in projecting forward on the basis of a single survey.

It’s no wonder that there is some confusion about the race for the White House, given the wide range of polling results from different outlets.

Gallup once again shows Romney ahead, most recently by 3 points (but a couple of days earlier by 5 points), while Fox has him up by 2 points. The CBS News/New York Times poll has the race even, but Quinnipiac University and Pew have Obama up by 4 points, NBC News/Wall Street Journal has the president’s margin at 6 points — the same margin as its late February/early March survey — and CNN has Obama ahead by 9 points (down from 11 points less than a month ago).

According to Pollster.com, all surveyed registered voters. While most are within the “margin of error,” the results lead to very different conclusions. Some have Romney ahead narrowly, while others have Obama with a substantial lead.

Given the range of results, not all of these polls can be conveying the state of the race accurately. Two recent Fox News polls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida might be able to help — if, of course, you believe they present an accurate snapshot of the contests in their states. Conversely, if the national numbers are right, then the state numbers can’t possibly be accurate.

The April 15-17 Anderson Robbins Research (D)/Shaw & Company Research (R) poll for Fox News shows Obama leading Mitt Romney by 6 points (45 percent to 39 percent) in the Buckeye State.

If those numbers are correct, then the Gallup and national Fox numbers must be wrong. In addition, if the state survey accurately reflects the state of the presidential contest, then the CBS News/New York Times numbers can’t be right either.

Ohio is a swing state, and it is unlikely that Romney will win nationally but lose the Buckeye State by 6 points. In fact, he’s likely to do better in Ohio than he is nationally. After all, Obama won Ohio in 2008 by about 4.5 points while he was winning nationally by just more than 7 points.

The Fox News state survey in Florida, conducted by the same two companies at the same time as they were polling in Ohio, shows Obama leading Romney by 2 points in Florida, 45 percent to 43 percent. Again, the national Gallup and Fox News numbers and the Fox Florida numbers can’t both be right.

Obama carried Florida four years ago by less than 3 percentage points while he was winning nationally by more than 7 points. He will surely underperform in Florida again later this year, so if he wins Florida, he certainly will win nationally (by a larger margin).

My guess (and it’s purely a guess and therefore not worth much) is that Obama holds a narrow lead over Romney, probably in the low-to-middle single digits. That lead could well shrink during the next couple of months, but even if it doesn’t, the general election is likely to be close if jobs and gas prices continue to be problems for the White House.

In any case, my advice is clear: Don’t treat any survey as if it has a monopoly on the truth.