Stuart Rothenberg is editor and publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, a nonpartisan, nonideological political newsletter covering U.S. House, Senate and gubernatorial campaigns. He is also a twice-a-week columnist for Roll Call. His column covers campaigns, elections, presidential politics and current political developments.
He holds a B.A. from Colby College (Waterville, Maine) and a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Connecticut. He has taught at Bucknell University (Lewisburg, Pennsylvania) and at the Catholic University of America (Washington, D.C.).
A frequent soundbite, Stu has appeared on Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation, the NewsHour, Nightline and many other television programs. He is often quoted in the nation's major media, and his op-eds have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers.
Stu served during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles as an analyst for the NewsHour on PBS. During the 2006 cycle, he was a political analyst for CBS News. Prior to that, he was a political analyst for CNN for over a decade, including election nights from 1992 through 2004. He has also done on-air analysis for the Voice of America.
He is married, has two children and lives in Potomac, Md.
North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard M. Burr apparently is easy to underestimate.
“Perpetually in motion, Kasich is a whirlwind of restless energy and is sometimes criticized for being cocky,” reads the 1996 Politics in America profile of the then-Ohio congressman.
For all her recent efforts to prove her progressive credentials to Democratic primary voters and caucus participants, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has not made those on her party’s left entirely comfortable with her. And she never will.
Reporters love to write about money in politics, so I shouldn’t have been at all surprised by an April 20 Washington Post article suggesting campaign finance is becoming an issue in the presidential contest.
A handful of Republicans are currently being mentioned as possible Senate candidates for the Florida seat being vacated by Marco Rubio, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination.
The first time I met Ted Cruz, he argued with me. The second time I met Ted Cruz, he argued with me. It wasn’t personal, of course. Ted Cruz simply loves to argue.
If Jeb Bush doesn’t win any of the first four GOP contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — does that eliminate him from the Republican race? Or does he have the staying power to survive those losses?
Once upon a time, presidential candidates were expected to have more than passing experience in government, as well as the maturity and wisdom that sometimes come with age. But that has changed, apparently.
As Roll Call was preparing to post my column yesterday on the Montana Senate race and recent Democratic polls showing the contest “closing,” a report surfaced in the New York Times about appointed Senator John Walsh’s plagiarism in his master’s thesis.
Having written about House and Senate races for the past 30 years, I’ve seen plenty of press releases, polling memos and campaign strategy emails. But rarely have I received anything as silly as a July 9 press release from New Hampshire Republican Senate hopeful Scott P. Brown’s campaign, which presented the challenger’s alleged “Path To Victory.”
The bottom line looks about the same in the fight for control of the Senate in November — but some of the pieces of the puzzle have moved around dramatically over the past few months.
We are moving the Minnesota Senate race from Safe Democrat to Democrat Favored, but readers should not make too much of the changed rating.
Last week’s news that the U.S. economy gained 288,000 jobs in June seems to confirm the upbeat economic assessments coming from many of the nation’s economists and Wall Street analysts.
I’ve been deeply distressed by the lack of coverage of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s new book and of her potential 2016 presidential bid.
The defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia is sure to lead to another round of speculation that the 2014 midterms might not produce a partisan-wave election, but rather one where large numbers of incumbents from both parties are sent packing by voters.
When everyone else on the planet — or at least in the nation’s capital — becomes consumed with something like a Virginia primary upset or a Clinton book launch, I often turn to focus on an obscure campaign or candidate instead. I figure there is already enough chatter about the popular stuff, and I can keep my sanity by focusing on minutiae.
More than a year ago, I called Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., this cycle’s most vulnerable senator. That hasn’t changed.
CLEVELAND, Miss. — The rain pounded the Mississippi Delta for the better part of three days late last week, but the nasty weather and a hard-fought primary contest didn’t stop Sen. Thad Cochran from attending the Delta Council’s annual event on May 30 on the Delta State University campus. The council is an economic development organization, started in 1935, that includes eighteen Delta and part-Delta counties in the state.
Longtime readers of my column know I have often been skeptical about endorsements in highly visible contests, whether for the White House or the Senate. But what about an endorsement in a U.S. House race or a House primary? And could an endorsement actually hurt the candidate endorsed?
Most readers know that Nathan Gonzales and I, along with our friends from Roll Call, interview at least 150 candidates for Congress every election cycle. I have been doing it for many years.
I am not at all certain who or what Ben Sasse is. I interviewed him in February, and heard him speak to a large, sympathetic group not long after that. And, of course, I’ve seen him interviewed by others. But I still don’t have a handle on what kind of senator he will be.
My new statistical model of the open Wisconsin Senate seat suggests that Democrats now have only a 54.496 percent chance of holding the seat. That’s a dramatic change from just three weeks ago, when my model showed them with a 55.501 percent chance.
Who is winning the primary campaign war within the GOP between pragmatic conservatives and the anti-establishment wing of the party?
I’ve noticed with some alarm how many people fail to make reasonable distinctions among races that admittedly have some factors in common.