Corrogan Vaughn – Page 2

A meaningless poll?

As you may have noticed the last few days, my sidebar had a poll which asked: if the election were held today, who would you support for Maryland’s GOP Senate nomination?

Well, I pulled the poll earlier today since it had run its course, and here are the results (drum roll please…):

Eric Wargotz, 2,116 votes (44.87%)
Daniel Bongino, 1,711 votes (36.28%)
William Capps, 831 votes (17.62%)
Corrogan Vaughn, 38 votes (0.81%)
Robert Broadus, 10 votes (0.21%)
Rick Hoover, 9 votes (0.19%)

One person wrote in “Bolton”, who I take to mean John Bolton. I didn’t know he was a Maryland resident.

As I’ve said all along, this was far from a scientific poll because I allowed repeat voting – in fact, I encouraged it. To that end, I did a spreadsheet (printed in .pdf form) which shows how the poll evolved over time as I broke out the numbers by timespan. There you can see where repeat votes were racked up for the various candidates, so it’s easy to tell that someone came in and stacked the poll to help out a particular candidate over a span of time. (It made for some incredible page view numbers, too – thanks!)

Yet I think the numbers aren’t all that far off from reality. Let’s look at a few facts here.

In a ten-person primary race last year, Eric Wargotz received less than 40 percent of the vote. His main competition was a political newcomer who quickly became a TEA Party favorite in Jim Rutledge – together they pulled about 70 percent of the vote, with no one else attaining a double-digit percentage.

This is a six-person race at the moment, and Wargotz has just under 45% in this poll. Realistically, that’s close to his base of Republican support from last year and it’s probably good enough to win. Running in second place? Well, he’s a political newcomer who should be able to count on a lot of support from the TEA Party since he has the backing of another popular fiscal conservative in 2010 gubernatorial hopeful Brian Murphy. Daniel Bongino has 36 percent, which roughly parallels Eric’s nine-point win in 2010.

Too, the chief remaining votegetter is William Capps, who probably wouldn’t poll 18 percent in reality but would likely draw a high single-digit number based on a little name recognition. Since there will likely be more candidates in the mix, his overstated number here would probably erode a bit to a more realistic number among the latecomers who may split about 10 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the bottom three are probably pretty close to their actual base of support since they are perennial candidates who haven’t shown well before.

My theory in doing this poll as I did is that people who are passionate enough to attempt to rig an internet poll to their chosen candidate’s advantage exist in the same relative number as support in real life. In other words, the person (or persons) who voted continually hundreds of times for Eric Wargotz exist in direct proportion poll-wise to those who would do the same for Bongino, Capps, et. al. so the poll may have some relative validity. (And quite honestly, if it drives a few extra people to my website that’s good for me.)

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the support for these people at this early stage isn’t all that far off the mark. I would say Bongino and Capps may be outperforming reality by five to ten points here, but remember there is no “undecided” in my polling to cloud the picture. Toss that group in and almost everyone would lose a dozen points or so.

Suffice to say that the race can’t be conceded to the guy who has the most name recognition (Eric Wargotz) quite yet. It may turn out to be yet another plurality race won by attrition. The early primary will be to Eric’s advantage, of course, but by no means is he a lock for the nomination.

A wild polling ride

As you may have noticed, I’ve placed one of my infamous political polls in the sidebar.

My recollection from when I did this last year was that my polls may not necessarily be the best indicator of public sentiment, but they are pretty good at seeing how passionate backing for a candidate is. For example, I’ve been tracking interim totals over the time the poll’s been up to see the ebb and flow of trends.

I put the poll up late Wednesday evening. When I went to bed early Thursday morning there weren’t a lot of votes yet, but I did find out someone in the Capps campaign reads the site. The totals at that point: Capps 7, Bongino 3, Wargotz 1.

So I woke up Thursday morning and went about my day. Checking in at 4:00 that afternoon, the updated figures were: Bongino 20, Capps 16, Wargotz 1. Someone woke up the Bongino camp, I guess.

But then Thursday evening there was a concerted Eric Wargotz push, so much so that when I went to bed around midnight the revised totals were: Wargotz 63, Capps 25, Bongino 20, Vaughn 3, Broadus 1, and Hoover 1. Someone got the others on the board about 24 hours into the poll (although Broadus was added to the poll on Thursday afternoon.)

The roller-coaster ride continued this morning as the Capps forces went back to work: Capps 160, Bongino 105, Wargotz 94, Vaughn 35, Hoover 5, Broadus 4.

But then the Capps surge stopped and Bongino is trending – as of this moment it’s Bongino 166, Capps 160, Wargotz 94, Vaughn 35, Broadus 5, Hoover 5. In other words, over the last 7 hours all but one vote went to Bongino.

Obviously I don’t do a scientific poll. But as I noted above one thing this does measure to some extent is the passion and organization behind a candidate. I figure that people who are out to stack a poll such as mine exist in proportion to the actual support they have in the population, give or take a few. (I can also tell you it’s making my page load number huge today – normally I get about 1.3 to 1.5 page loads per reader; today it’s about 3.5 per.) So if there’s only 1 person in 100 who would stack a poll for Rick Hoover vs. 40 who would for Eric Wargotz, that’s probably how the poll should work too, more or less. And my readership likely trends a little more conservative than the average GOP voter.

It’s a lot of fun for me to watch, though, and it makes for an interesting post. That’s what counts.

Murphy’s man

After teasing the Maryland public over the last week, 2010 gubernatorial candidate Brian Murphy made it official: he’s not running for the U.S. Senate. Instead, he’s backing a first-time candidate who’s spent most of his professional career in law enforcement and who believes, “we did nothing wrong, government failed us.” If you look at this hopeful’s issue page it reads as a fairly conservative platform both economically and in foreign policy.

Daniel Bongino is a 36-year-old Severna Park resident who has no political resume, but instead has worked for both the Secret Service and the New York City police department over the last sixteen years. It would seem a curious choice for Murphy to be backing this neophyte, but Brian hasn’t played by the conventional wisdom yet and probably won’t be doing so anytime soon.

Of course, the obvious question is whether Bongino will be able to take advantage of Murphy’s backing to vault past the other contenders for the GOP’s U.S. Senate challenger slot. Most figure incumbent Democratic Senator Ben Cardin a virtual lock for re-election for a second term but Daniel joins a fairly diverse field of five Republican contenders; a field which includes 2010 GOP nominee Eric Wargotz. Other Republican aspirants are former District 31 State Senate candidate William Capps, political neophyte Rick Hoover, and perennial candidate Corrogan Vaughn.

Wargotz would have to be considered as the odds-on favorite, but it’s worth noting that Eric only garnered 38% of the vote in a 10-man race last year so a better, well-funded candidate could defeat Wargotz in the primary. (In that primary Jim Rutledge, who had a much smaller campaign war chest but considerable TEA Party backing, finished second with just over 30 percent of the vote.) In theory, the blessing from Murphy, also a TEA Party favorite, could allow Bongino a 25-point base in the primary based on Brian’s support.

If events run true to form, the Republican primary for U.S. Senate next year will attract between seven and ten candidates for the nomination. Some of these will be on the ballot for the umpteenth time and others won’t even file with the FEC because they don’t (or won’t) raise enough money to wage a serious campaign. Given that background and the high-profile support of Murphy, a candidate like Daniel Bongino – even as a first-time officeseeker in a statewide race – will be one to contend with as next April draws closer.

A gamble fails to pay off

For the better part of a decade, the name Corrogan Vaughn has been on a primary ballot seeking the nomination for U.S. Senator from the Republican Party.

After failed efforts in 2006 (1.2% of the vote and a sixth place finish out of ten candidates), 2004 (3.7% of the vote but ninth of nine), and 2000 as a write-in, Vaughn was attracting a little bit of notice in a fairly open Republican field with no clear early favorite this year.

(continued on my Examiner.com page…)

Better to switch than fight?

Shades of Arlen Specter or “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords.

With the number of candidates for the U.S. Senate nomination on the GOP side climbing over a dozen, perennial candidate Corrogan Vaughn made a surprise move to bypass a primary by dropping out of the crowded U.S. Senate field and perhaps securing the Green Party nod – for Governor.

(continued on my Examiner.com page…)

Wargotz wins beauty contest

Much as a straw poll is somewhat helpful in determining grassroots support – but isn’t necessarily an indication of how an election will turn out – U.S. Senate Dr. Eric Wargotz may have proven he has the best supporters for stacking a straw poll.

My U.S. Senate poll came to a close early this morning (by prearrangement) and the final results out of over 5,000 votes are as follows:

Eric Wargotz 2,864 (56%)
Corrogan Vaughn 1,436 (28%)
Jim Rutledge 519 (10%)
John Kimble 144 (3%)
Carmen Amedori 138 (3%)
John Curran 5 (<1%)
Daniel McAndrew 5 (<1%)

Conclusions:

Eric’s campaign never stopped responding to the poll once it got underway. He led pretty much the entire way and kept increasing his percentage as other candidates and their supporters lost interest. The last time I did this (with just four candidates – Amedori hadn’t entered the race yet and I didn’t know Curran and Kimble had entered) Jim Rutledge picked up support toward the end but not this time.
I think Corrogan Vaughn’s camp exhibited the same phenomenon, as he and his supporters were probably the best at plugging the poll. But I’m hesitant to consider him as a real force in the race yet based on prior results. Even if you forget that the 2006 campaign had an all-but-annointed candidate in Michael Steele, Vaughn only drew 3.7% of the vote in 2004. Why is the support coming out now when the message didn’t sell before? Something doesn’t add up here.
Jim Rutledge has good supporters based on comments, but they didn’t stay for the whole poll. It makes me wonder if his backing is all that strong as I’ve found his campaign stays on message well but has spotty execution at times. Hopefully those videos are helping Jim with campaign financing too.
As for John Kimble, see Corrogan Vaughn. Most of his support came in the last day or two because prior to that he was a cypher. So my guess is that he or one of his backers caught wind of the poll and tried to make it sound like he had a little bit of backing. On the bright side, he did beat Vaughn in 2006 with 2.9% of the vote, finishing a very distant second in the primary.
I see Carmen Amedori as the “establishment” candidate based on her prior service in state government, and it sounds to me like she ignored the poll. I got a note from her that she was doing door-to-door instead, which makes sense. She’ll get far more than 3% in September, I’m certain of that.
On the other hand, McAndrew and Curran performed as expected.

At some point I’m going to do this again, perhaps later on this spring. But the next time I’m going to shorten the poll’s duration and see if I can dampen the repeat voting aspect to some extent. I had it set to one hour on my site but then again I don’t know if Polldaddy works that restriction through its site-based voting. (Now I know why I had 5,111 votes but not 5,111 readers! But readership did have a nice increase, thank you!)

I promised to put up some of the best comments for each candidate. There is no doubt that this poll was by far my best as participation goes, and I think I finally harnessed the power I envisioned when I started doing polling a few months back. These will be in order of finish, but most of the comments spoke about my top finishers and were cleaned up as needed for spelling errors and such.

“Sam” said about Dr. Eric Wargotz:

I don’t know. All are good people but very few really qualified to take a 6 year legislative hitch IMHO. I was quite taken with Dr. Eric Wargotz at the debate. Warm, comfortable, approachable style. Not stuffy and boring. Seemed to be right on with his responses. Came across very sincere and caring along with very knowledgeable. I have trouble supporting candidates for a 6 year legislative hitch if they have no elected legislative or constituent experience. I am also not a fan of politicians who are elected and then quit to take an appointed position. I feel that is a derilection of duty to the constituents who elected them. Just my view.

Jim Duncan pointed out the Facebook aspect – analytical like me:

Before you go too far in questioning the fairness of this poll, as the creator (of the poll) points out, it does appear to be consistent with each candidate’s level of support. At least with respect to the current order of finish, when you look at each campaign’s number of fans/friends on Facebook, where the candidates have pushed this poll. As best as I could tell, Eric Wargotz has by far the most support on Facebook with exactly 5000 friends. He has additional sites ranging from 126 to 1853 friends, but I will assume that most are duplicates. A distant second appears to be Corrogan Vaughn with 562, Vaughn has two other sites with 197 and 373 friends, Jim Rutledge with 514 and Carmen Amedori with 292, neither appeared to have other sites. I’ll bet there are some cross overs here as well…

Corrogan Vaughn had a number of passionate defenders for his cause. “JPS” liked his stand on the issues:

I agree with some of the above posters that we need someone who can take Baltimore city, and to add to that Vaughn can not only win Baltimore city, but he can win on solid principles. He has called for (abolishing) the IRS in place of sensible fair and simple taxation, abolishing the Department of Education because the education of our children comes from the states, and he’s serious about reining in spending. I know many have called Corrogan Vaughn the most Conservative candidate because he is deeply committed first and foremost to fiscal responsibility while maintaining social conservative values that will win over black conservative Democrats, a large voting bloc in Maryland fyi.

“Maryland Patriot” also chimed in for Vaughn:

I have worked in Maryland politics for several years on both sides of the aisle and have yet to meet an individual more honest and sincere than Corrogan Vaughn. The others are nice people, but seem to share the same disregard for the needs of everyday Marylanders as our present senator. Mr. Vaughn offers genuine solutions and ideas to the problems faced by our state and nation. He seems to be in this race out of sincere concern for Marylanders and Americans. Go Vaughn!

“Jasmine” was quite succinct:

I’m not familiar with politics here in Maryland but I will say that as a lifelong Democrat I’m switching to Republican this election to vote for Vaughn!!! Go Corrogan!

As Rush Limbaugh would say, “welcome home.” Meanwhile, Jim Rutledge supporters were in force early on. Here’s some of what they had to say, beginning with “libertypatriot”:

If you want a conservative candidate then the best candidate is Jim Rutledge. The other candidates do not possess the Constitutional knowledge and understanding that Jim possesses. While I don’t have anything personal against anyone in the race, conservatives know that Ehrlich is considered a moderate and what I’m hearing from people is Carmen is a reflection of that. Again, not making any judgment, just passing that on. Lastly, Tea Party people are tired of people already in government. We want an outsider, not an insider.

I think we all agree though… whomever ends up winning the Republican primary… needs to take down Mikulski. That’s the real end game.

In looking at her record, Amedori isn’t particularly moderate compared to some of her peers, regardless Wayne Ehrensberger said:

I have talked with Jim Rutledge at length on a wide range of topics. I can assure everyone that he is a staunch constitutional conservative, of solid moral character, knows the issues and fully articulates well thought out responsive plans and ideas. These same traits cannot be applied to Dr. Wargotz. Jim is a successful, experienced businessman. He is well versed in the politics although admittedly not a “veteran” politician. And that is certainly a good thing. What we obviously don’t need are more long term politicians. We need to put in place those that are in tune with the private sector that most of us work in and who understand, appreciate and will honestly adhere to the Constitution.

I am closely associated with several of Jim’s support staff. We knew each other before any of us were even aware of Jim Rutledge. These individuals would never align themselves with someone who isn’t a pure Constitutionalist. That of course also goes for me. I don’t possess any great incite into the remaining candidates, but I don’t really need to. The simple fact is that they are not Jim Rutledge. He is the individual that must win the seat currently held by Mikulski. Then we will finally have someone that truly represents We the People.

If anyone is interested in learning more about the Constitutional Conservative/Tea Party movement, I offer you two “Groups” based here in Maryland that you should check out and consider joining – allianceofamericanpatriots.org and restoreamericasmission.org. You will find yourself in company with many Maryland Patriots as well as the same from across the Nation.

Even the few Amedori supporters got their points across, with the best being “NRAD”:

I was at the debate in MoCo and by no fault of the YR’s the venue was pretty lousy for all the candidates. There was no PA system and there were barriers in the middle of the room. So by all standards ALL the candidates did a pretty decent job considering they had to shout at the top of thier voices so the people in the back and behind the walls could hear. By no means, should that be a gauge of anything. I will note that in all my days in politics it is always the front runner who takes the worst beating. May I suggest, however, that we not beat up on the GOP candidates. I bet Ronald Reagan would be turning in his grave by such antics.

Now, my candidate is Amedori for many reasons. And her experience is in the private and public sector – such a fabric upon which sound and wise decisions can be made. It is going to take that fortitude to take on the corruption in D.C. She has never shied away from a good fight. I remember her when she confronted then Lt. Gov Townsend and the way she always took on Joe Curran in Judiciary Committee. This woman is relentless. And, in my opinion, it is going to take a strong woman to take the fight to Babs. Amedori will surely do that. She has a conservative voting record to reflect her positions. Seems to me that anyone can say what they will do but we really need to look at what has been done. She is 100% pro life, 100% small business having been a recipient of The Shaw Award with MD Business for Responsive Government. And she is a fiscal conservative. All of that is reflected in her voting record. That is why Amedori has my vote.

The poll and comments are available here. While I’m changing my poll today, I must say this version was a memorable one!

Poll update – day 3

It looks like two candidates’ supporters are taking this seriously.

As of about 3:00 this afternoon, it’s become a two-way race:

Eric Wargotz 1,785 (49%)
Corrogan Vaughn 1,156 (32%)
Jim Rutledge 499 (14%)
Carmen Amedori 128 (4%)
John Kimble 43 (1%)
Daniel McAndrew 5 (<1%)
John Curran 4 (<1%)

Let’s look at what happened in the last 24 hours or so:

Eric Wargotz 948 (54%)
Corrogan Vaughn 783 (46%)
Jim Rutledge 23 (1%)
Carmen Amedori 2 (<1%)

No one else got a vote, so it’s obvious that this poll may have run its course as a useful exercise.

The percentage changes are as follows:

Corrogan Vaughn +12 (20 to 32)
Eric Wargotz +4 (45 to 49)
Daniel McAndrew 0 (stays at <1)
John Curran 0 (stays at <1)
John Kimble -1 (2 to 1)
Carmen Amedori -3 (7 to 4)
Jim Rutledge -12 (26 to 14)

The poll will end on Tuesday, and I’ll have the final totals and the conclusions I draw from them that night.

By the way, the “Eric” you see on the Polldaddy.com comments is not the candidate Eric Wargotz. I figured you’d know that but he took the time today to point out it wasn’t the case. I can moderate these comments to some extent, but only after the fact.

I think when I wrap this exercise up I may post some of the better comments and cases for some of the candidates.

Poll tracking – day 2

Well, things haven’t slowed down with my U.S. Senate poll, as the total response closes in on the 2,000 mark.

Again, I stress this isn’t a strictly scientific poll as there is the opportunity for multiple responses from the same person – but there is a time-out period built in. Yes, the system can be gamed but my theory is that the gamesmanship will occur roughly in proportion with actual support.

Here are the results I had shortly before 4:00 this afternoon:

Eric Wargotz 837 (45%)
Jim Rutledge 476 (26%)
Corrogan Vaughn 373 (20%)
Carmen Amedori 126 (7%)
John Kimble 43 (2%)
Daniel McAndrew 5 (<1%)
John Curran 4 (<1%)

The other key number is tracking the daily totals as opposed to the overall totals. It was just about 24 hours since my first update, and the change since then has been most meaningful for Wargotz and Amedori. The percentage is the share of the votes cast in the last day or so.

Eric Wargotz 582 (54%)
Jim Rutledge 247 (23%)
Corrogan Vaughn 220 (20%)
Carmen Amedori 31 (3%)
John Kimble 3 (<1%)
Daniel McAndrew 2 (<1%)
John Curran 0 (0%)

I did some checking on my Facebook page among the universe of friends I have and those associated with the Corrogan Vaughn campaign (including the candidate) plugged the poll twice, while a Wargotz ally did it once. Now here is the precentage difference from yesterday to today – you can see who benefitted at whose expense.

Eric Wargotz +12 (33 to 45)
Corrogan Vaughn 0 (still at 20)
Daniel McAndrew 0 (still at <1)
John Curran -1 (1 to <1)
Jim Rutledge -3 (29 to 26)
John Kimble -3 (5 to 2)
Carmen Amedori -5 (12 to 7)

This is what I mean by depth of support – Wargotz’s supporters continue to flood the poll and perhaps distort it somewhat. But the last time I did this Wargotz held a large early lead only to see Jim Rutledge supporters close the gap at the end, so perhaps this may play out again.

Tomorrow I’ll do another update – I expect the pace to slow down some during the weekend but a big share from someone could have a significant impact on the results. The poll continues for a few more days (I have an end date set for it but I won’t say when it is) so we’ll see whether the supporters can keep going – it determines depth of support and also helps me determine whether my theory is validated or not.

Poll tracking – day 1

With the huge interest in my poll regarding who should face Barbara Mikulski for the U.S. Senate seat she currently occupies, I thought it would be a good idea to keep a daily track of it for the duration.

Most of the major candidates have posted about it on their Facebook pages multiple times, so the sampling size is extraordinarily high. As of 3 p.m. this afternoon there were 779 total votes cast, and the interim results follow:

Eric Wargotz 255 (33%)
Jim Rutlegdge 229 (29%)
Corrogan Vaughn 153 (20%)
Carmen Amedori 95 (12%)
John Kimble 40 (5%)
John Curran 4 (1%)
Daniel McAndrew 3 (<1%)

Obviously this is a very tight race and I encourage people to stay involved! I’ll try to keep this tracking going for the duration of the poll, which will continue for the next few days.

Republicans united?

As the Church Lady would say, isn’t this conveeeeeeenient? I talk about Republicans divided in an op-ed then talk about uniting hours later. But Daniel Vovak makes a good point at a time when unity would be necessary.

The Republican Primary on September 14, 2010 has produced a spirited contest for the office of U.S. Senator, facing the probable Democratic primary winner, Barbara Mikulski. According to official reports and announcements, on the Republican ballot will be seven candidates, including: Carmen Amedori, John F. Curran, John B. Kimble, Daniel W. McAndrew, Jim Rutledge, Corrogan R. Vaughn, and Eric Wargotz.

Daniel “The Whig Man” Vovak has proposed a “Statement of Unity” for the Republican candidates to sign, and has pledged $250 to the primary winner, should that person sign his form. Vovak says, “Although I will not be a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010, I was a candidate in 2006 and I remember perfectly well how Michael Steele treated the primary as a mere formality, never reaching out to any of his nine primary opponents, which hurt our Party in November 2006. In 2010, it’s a different situation because the Republican primary is a wide-open contest. It’s not that Maryland Democrats have been successful, it’s Maryland Republicans who lose statewide seats through internal division. Once these candidates unify behind the primary winner, any Democrat can be defeated.”

Vovak says that following last week’s U.S. Senate candidates’ debate in Montgomery County, every Republican candidate sought his support.

(snip)

In spite of losing statewide (among Central Committee members who selected a new party chairman in the wake of Jim Pelura’s resignation last year), Vovak sincerely congratulated (current MDGOP Chair Audrey) Scott following her decisive win and offered his help. Vovak says this “Statement of Unity” is something he practices and believes. He says, “If I had won the chairman vote, I would have proposed this same Statement to position Republicans for winning, long before Election Day. I have no doubt Audrey Scott shares the same goal.”

Currently, three of the seven candidates have indicated they will sign the Statement. Because Vovak has not been able to speak directly with all of them, he said he will wait until all have been given ample time to respond before releasing their names, though those candidates can speak freely at any time with their supporters and the media, should they desire to do so.

Within the Maryland Republican Party Constitution, under Article 11, Section 2, d(2), Maryland’s Republican Chairman must show no “partiality or prejudice” towards any Republican candidate before a primary. Article 2, Section 2 states that the Party “works towards the election of Republican nominees.”

It’s an admirable goal, and perhaps we will see all of the contenders sign this agreement before all is said and done September 14.

But this election is somewhat different than Steele’s 2006 campaign as there is no de facto favorite. A couple have run previous bids for the Senate that drew little support (Kimble and Vaughn, both also-rans in the ’06 race with Vovak) and a couple others are perhaps dark horses due to lack of name recognition or fundraising prowess – I’d put Curran and McAndrew in that category. The other three (Amedori, Rutledge, and Wargotz) to me are the leading contenders, with Amedori perhaps being the “establishment” candidate based on her tenure in the House of Delegates.

I happen to agree that the Maryland GOP shouldn’t take a stand to support any candidate pre-primary. I know some disagree with me because they fear the voters may select some David Duke-esque radical as the party’s representative but I place a lot more faith in the party electorate than apparently these officials do. I already lived in one state which tried to bribe and cajole good Republican candidates like Ken Blackwell out of the race to avoid primary fights and I don’t want a repeat in Maryland.

Since the reports of Barbara Mikulski retiring were apparently premature, it looks like whoever survives the primary has the uphill fight of knocking out the entrenched, reliably liberal incumbent who may be keeping the seat warm for Martin O’Malley once he’s through being governor.

I believe there is a scenario possible where, if Mikulski wins and O’Malley loses in November, Barbara could retire in early January and Martin O’Malley could name himself successor (or a placeholder to keep the seat warm) just before his term were to expire – leaving the possibility of two new Senators from the state in 2013 as Ben Cardin also runs for re-election in 2012 and the seat held by Mikulski is opened up for a special election by current state law. I think Martin O’Malley has aspirations beyond being Governor and this would be an opportunity for him to go national.

All that has yet to be seen but in any case it’s good for Republicans to put up a united front as they campaign to upend the Democrats’ apple cart this November.

In the department of “I’ll believe it when I see it” – Mikulski out?

Update 3 8:45 a.m. – Sean O’Donnell of the Baltimore Examiner cites Cillizza and two other sources to quash the rumor – for now. Certainly this is a case study on the power of the internet – now the question becomes who the original source was.

It’s also worthy of noting that The Vail Spot, which had just over 200 readers in the previous week, has had over 20,000 readers since 2 p.m. yesterday when the rumor was picked up. (He has an open Site Meter – for now.)

Update 2 7:30 p.m. – Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post tweeted earlier this afternoon: “Rumors that Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) is retiring are NOT TRUE, according to informed D source.”

We’ll see. This means it’s the word of an “impeccable” source vs. an “informed” source. More below.

Update 1 5:45 p.m. – I spoke briefly via phone with fellow candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz who agreed with me – he’ll believe it when he sees it too.

Senate candidate Daniel McAndrew notes that this rumor isn’t really new, but “if true, then the next question will be who, in the Democrat party, will have the better chance trying to keep the seat from flipping. This is likely to be very interesting given the rash of others retiring.”

Another source who preferred to be unnamed cautioned me that Mikulski looked healthy and was getting around fine at the recent MACO conference, so the foot injury has apparently healed.

I’ve also been told that there’s a high possibility Rep. Chris Van Hollen may jump in if Mikulski quits – he’s been “gearing up” for a Senate run. Obviously if the Democrats lose dozens of seats in the House Van Hollen could be a fall guy as DCCC head.

Main story:

A blogger heretofore unknown to me by the name of Rich Vail may have dropped a bombshell on Maryland politics and created a gamechanger movement by citing an “impeccable source” who says Senator Mikulski will not seek another term.

His post on The Vail Spot, if true, sets a lot of machinery into motion.

Obviously having another open Senate seat (a second in four years) could convince a number of prominent Maryland Democrats to leave the safety of their offices for a run – one name mentioned in the comments was Attorney General Doug Gansler, with another being Governor O’Malley. This could also convince any of Maryland’s seven Congressional Democrats to move up as well.

If you go back and look at the 2006 race for the seat eventually won by Ben Cardin (to replace the retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes), Cardin’s main competition came from onetime NAACP head Kweisi Mfume – no other Democrat secured double-digit support. But Mfume has laid low politically since his 2006 defeat, making it questionable whether he would try again.

Most of the Democrats’ Senate seat bench, then, comes from the ranks of already-elected Congressman and state officials, with only Gansler, O’Malley, Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, and Comptroller Peter Franchot haviing run statewide. Of that group, Brown might be most likely to make an attempt, perhaps couching it as a bid to place a black person back into the ranks of the Senate (Roland Burris of Illinois, who was appointed to succeed President Obama, did not stand for election this year.)

While the Democrats’ bench isn’t the largest one around, the side with an even more shallow bench is the GOP. Their group of elected officials who have run statewide is exceedingly small: former Governor Bob Ehrlich and the man who ran against Mikulski last time, State Senator E.J. Pipkin. Pipkin could well decide to go again if Mikulski retires and not worry about the First Congressional District race which he’s been rumored to consider entering.

The more intriguing possibility is Ehrlich, who’s not officially entered the GOP race for governor but has had the field essentially cleared for him by the withdrawal of three people previously interested, most recently onetime Congressional candidate Larry Hogan. Since the latest polls have Ehrlich trailing a governor in Martin O’Malley who’s only marginally popular statewide and Ehrlich doesn’t want to be placed in a position where he’s likely to lose, the open Senate seat could pique his interest.

Obviously that prospect would dim the hopes of the five people who have already entered the Senate race and would get a boost from not having to run against an entrenched incumbent. I’m going to ask them for comment and update the post if I get any.

However, before we get too far along and despite the fact Vail has laid out a good case for Mikulski’s retirement, it remains to be seen whether this is rumor or scoop. Yet given the other political news of Senate retirements (with the most recent shoe to drop being Mikulski’s fellow Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana) it’s not out of the question that Mikulski may feel it’s her time to go. On the other hand, though, Bayh faced a much tougher potential re-election fight than conventional wisdom pegged for Mikulski – so the health issues she’s faced lately may indeed be taking their toll.

Obviously this is a developing story I’ll stay on top of.

The Senate survey says…

Over the last couple weeks I’ve ran a survey of who readers prefer to face Barbara Mikulski this fall. Here are the results of my very non-scientific poll.

Out of over 100 responses, Dr. Eric Wargotz had 49% of the vote (with 58 votes), with Jim Rutledge being his closest competitor. Jim garnered 37% of the vote with 44 supporting him. Corrogan Vaughn trailed with 15 votes (13%) while Daniel McAndrew had 1 vote for him.

It was interesting how the count transpired as Wargotz, Rutledge, and Vaughn started out fairly even through the first 40 to 50 tallies. But once each competitor had about 12 to 15 votes apiece (aside from McAndrew), the Wargotz total started surging to a point where he had a significant lead (over 60% of the total) before Rutledge came on at the end to even things out somewhat.

In truth, though, this survey may have been a little premature as word has leaked out of a fifth competitor, former Delegate Carmen Amedori of Carroll County. Since Wargotz seems to be the frontrunner, it would appear that he has the most to lose from her candidacy, but he noted that it’s “not for me to judge ones qualifications. Others will do that. May the ‘best’ candidate prevail.”

I’m thinking this will be a three-way race if Amedori gets in, but it’s anyone’s race among the three with Wargotz as the frontrunner. Since I’m not aware of any scientific poll on the race yet, mine could be the closest idea of just how the candidates are faring with campaign organization and name recognition.