Friday, Aug. 5, 2005 | 5:38 a.m.
Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the Ralston Report. He can be reached at (702) 870-7997 or at [email protected].
WEEKEND EDITION
August 6-7, 2005
Jon Porter is a juggernaut.
That has been the conventional wisdom since the Republican congressman first dispatched rising-star-turned-supernova Dario Herrera by 19 points and then pummeled ex-gaming executive Tom Gallagher by 14 points in one of the closest districts (by partisan registration) in the country. The Democrats might as well raise a white flag, the argument went, as Porter could only get more entrenched as time goes on.
So I wondered why I kept hearing this summer that the Democrats here and in D.C. actually were wasting resources trying to recruit someone to run against Porter. I figured they might just want someone vaguely credible to drive up turnout with all those constitutional offices up next year. But they didn't actually believe Porter was vulnerable, did they?
Turns out the answer is yes and now I know why -- and it has nothing to do with the insane Andre Agassi boomlet that went national and was manufactured by one Sun City fan. Turns out the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted a poll in the district as summer began and the Capitol Hill and Nevada strategists were surprised at the results.
"While Congressman Porter's job and personal ratings are mediocre at best and below the important 50 percent threshold for a secure incumbent, his re-elect vote indicates an even greater opportunity for a strong Democratic opponent," national polling firm Garin-Hart-Yang wrote in a memo to the DCCC. "Just 30% say that they would vote to re-elect Porter, with the other 70% either considering voting for someone else (32%), voting to replace him (17%) or simply not sure (21%)."
That is, Porter is weak, his district is still evenly divided among Democrats and Republicans and the right Democrat could give him a battle. Now where have I heard this before? Oh, yes, the last two cycles.
It is this poll, conducted in early June of 401 likely voters in the district and with a 5 percent margin of error, that has had the party folks and Meddler-in-Chief Harry Reid dialing for potential candidates. They have cycled through the usual folks with built-in name recognition such as TV personalities (not me, congressman, I'm waiting for governor in 2014) and those with formidable profiles such as former federal prosecutor Stan Hunterton.
Garin-Hart-Yang's message is that Porter can be defeated because despite his "easy re-election victory last November, the political environment has turned sharply against Republicans. These factors make Porter vulnerable to a credible Democratic challenger." Now where have I heard those sentences before? Oh, yes, a few months after Porter crushed Herrera in 2002.
"The most unfavorable finding against Porter and the president in the poll is that just 29 percent are more likely to support a Republican who will support Bush while 42 percent prefer a Democrat who will provide balance," the memo says. "For a member of Congress who voted for President Bush's agenda 98 percent of the time, this presents a serious disconnect with the electorate."
It is true that the Democrats' best hope in that district is that the president's standing continues to sink. But during the last cycle, as the memo points out, there was a disconnect between Porter's rubber-stamping of Bush and the congressman's standing with voters, as "President Bush barely won the 3rd district by one point, underperforming Congressman Porter by 15 points." The pollster is citing this as a reason for optimism. And it may be. But isn't Porter's ability to run independently of the president, despite his fealty to the president, ominous news for the Democrats?
These arguments -- Porter's weak re-elect numbers, the split district, sliding Bush numbers -- induced Gallagher to enter the race last cycle. And although he kept pace with Porter in fundraising -- each candidate raised about $2.5 million -- the Porter campaign machine sliced and diced the ex-gamer so that by the fall, the outcome was never in doubt.
Is there any reason to believe 2006 will be different, especially because no one has yet said yes to the entreaties from Reid & Co.? I can see Hunterton, who is one of the most respected lawyers in Nevada and who clearly understands issues, being a formidable candidate, especially if Bush's numbers continue to fall and Porter does little to distance himself from the administration. But whether it is Hunterton or anyone else, the challenge, despite the optimism expressed in the polling memo, is daunting. A few reasons why:
It's a non-presidential year and the GOP turnout advantage in that district goes up in off years -- from 1 percent to 8 percent.
And talk about disconnects: Porter's mild-mannered, amiable sheen masks a campaign team at November Inc. that showed with Herrera and Gallagher it is the antithesis of the mild-mannered congressman -- you get in and they will flay you, whether you are being portrayed as the most unethical politician in history or the most incompetent casino boss ever to grace the Strip.
And when it comes to money, Porter will have banked seven figures by year's end and will lock up almost all the in-state contributions. Add in Porter's ability to use a subcommittee he chairs to portray himself as the Sam Ervin of Yuccagate and to tap into leadership folks who like him and will come here for him, and the Democrats' task, memo or no memo, seems more quixotic.
Porter's numbers may be soft and the president may be an albatross a year from now. But without a rock star -- or maybe a tennis player -- the Democrats will need a miracle to avoid another double-digit debacle. Now where have I heard that before?
archive
