Virginia Senate Primary

I don't have a lot to say on this race, but here is an excellent article by W. James Antle III which recently appeared in the American Conservative on the race, in which Jim Webb is facing off against Harris Miller for the Democratic nomination on Tuesday. The winner will face Presidential-aspirant George Allen in November, trying to put a premature end to this most Bush-like of potential Republican Presidential candidates.

I'm not going to take a stand in the race, but my guess is that the increased money and superior local connections held by Miller will give him the victory on Tuesday.

Gore in 2008

Despite the fact that we haven't even made it through the 2006 election yet, the speculation over who is going to run for President in 2008 has been rampant. One of the big names that has many on the left in a frenzy is Al Gore, who continues to deny that he is going to run in 2008 despite the recent attention, and all but swore off a run on national television earlier this week.

People can change their minds, however, and it would not completely surprise me if Gore ran in 2008. This article by David Shribman goes through a litany of supposed advantages that he has over the rest of the Democratic field in 2008, and I tend to agree with many of them. Gore is seen by many on the left as an elder statesman, a position that the Democratic Party usually doesn't allow failed Presidential contenders to occupy (think about what happened to Mondale and Dukakis...generally relegated to the political wilderness after they lost).

Of course, it's different with Gore. He acted in a statesmanlike way after he lost in 2000, disappearing into the wilds and collecting his thoughts. He avoided criticising the President at first, and didn't do so until Bush's actions made it look less like sour grapes. And he's re-emerged as the political voice for the environmentalists in the Democratic Party. Comparisons with Nixon are being made, and of course we all know how well things worked out for Tricky Dick.

I think that Gore will end up running. He can't look too eager, but this is a man who felt that he was destined to someday be President. Now, his Party may well come to him on it's knees, begging him to prevent Hillary Clinton from being nominated. I don't see Gore turning down the offer if his intel suggested that he would win the nomination. Forget about Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, the pitiful John Kerry, Chris Dodd, the comic run of Joe Biden, the overeager John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Russ Feingold, or anybody else who has been mentioned. If Gore runs, this will be all about Al v. Hillary. I think Al would win that fight, and I think he would win the election as well. I will talk much more about this over the next couple of years, I'm sure. For now, that's my projection. Only time will tell if I am correct.

Murtha as Majority Leader?

An interesting story today from Reuters suggests that Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, known for being an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, plans on running for the position of Majority Leader if the Dems take over the House in November.

There are a number of things to think about regarding this story. First, where would Murtha fit in the new leadership structure? If the Dems took over, current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would get bumped up a notch, becoming the first female Speaker of the House. Current Dem Whip Steny Hoyer would be positioned to stay the number two, earning the fancy new title of Majority leader.

Murtha is not involved in the leadership right now, and it's curious that he would choose this moment to announce his intentions, especially so publicly. I have no idea what motivated him to make this announcement, unless it's something as mundane as fame going to his head. It is entirely possible that Murtha, who has become something of a darling among members of the anti-Iraq war contingent of the Democratic Party, has decided all of a sudden that he deserves a more prominent role in the House. Somebody forgot to tell Hoyer that his time was up, however.

I don't think this is going to have a major effect on anything, really, but it may show that some Democratic Congressmen aren't happy with their leadership options, and are ready to mount something of a palace coup (similar to what the Republicans did early this year with Tom DeLay) to get some fresh blood in place. It is more likely, however, that this is just an example of a Congressman getting too big for his britches. I suspect Murtha is in for a rude awakening if he thinks he has a chance to beat Hoyer. If the Dems succeed in taking back the House, a grateful Democratic caucus will gladly elevate Pelosi to Speaker and Hoyer to Majority Leader, and you can't blame them for that. Stick with what got ya there.

Term Limits

I was reading this article in the Washington Monthly about Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake (R) this morning. There are so many interesting things to discuss about the article, but I decided that the one I really wanted to talk a little about this morning appeared near the bottom of the article and is, right now, a little less of a mainstream issue than some of the other things.

When he was first elected in 2000, Flake made a pledge to serve no more than 3 terms in the House. Here we are in 2006, nearing the end of his third term, and Flake is running for re-election. When asked why he isn't honoring his pledge, Flake says that the movement for term limits in Congress has simply run out of steam.

There are a couple of important points here. I'll start with my disdain for term limits in the first place, at any level. On a blog belonging to one of my friends, I was recently accused of being undemocratic. My opposition to term limits, however, stems from my belief in democracy. I don't think there is any reason to prevent people from electing whomsoever they please. Term limits are designed to inject new blood into the system, but what if the people don't want new blood? I hear all sorts of things about the institutional advantages of incumbency and how the only way to combat it is through term limits, but I think that's absurd. Change the way elections are run (and we could have a very long discussion on that, I'm sure) and you will eliminate the artificial incumbency advantage. The point is that, even with the advantages of incumbency, when people truly want change they can get it. Not every incumbent wins, and that's important. I just don't believe that a Congressman who is doing his or her job should be forced to retire because of term limits. The will of the people, not the calendar, should determine who is serving in Congress.

The second point I want to make, however, cuts against Congressman Flake. When he was initially elected, part of the appeal was presumably his promise to term-limit himself. People have the right to change their mind, yes. And the people have the option of electing someone else if they feel that this was a particularly egregious promise to break. I'm fine with that mechanism operating, and don't particularly care whether Flake is re-elected. But Congressman Flake should never have made that promise in the first place. It was made out of political expediency, to try to gain traction with a certain set of voters. Further, unless there is a substantial reason to break that kind of direct promise to the voters, Flake should honor it. He made the deal with the devil, and it's time for the payment to come due.

The moral of the story? If you're running for Congress, don't make promises you can't keep, and never, ever tell anyone that you plan on serving for only 3 terms.

DeLay's Last Day

I'm pretty sick of hearing about Tom DeLay, actually, so I'm going to keep this relatively short. Unlike most people of my political persuasion, I don't hate Tom DeLay (or George Bush, for that matter). I also don't think he did anything all that different from what a great many politicians do, or what many other people put in their position would do. It's another discussion entirely whether that kind of behavior (I'm talking here about excessively partisan actions in the redistricting fight in Texas, threatening fellow Congressmen during vote counting, excessive interconnectedness with lobbying) is OK for elected representatives, but in the current political culture it's not wildly outside the norm.

Instead, I pity Tom DeLay. He came to Congress as a reformer, and like so many before him, he was great at it while he was in the minority and didn't have to govern. When the rubber hit the road, however, he made no serious moves to reduce spending (one of his bug-a-boo's), and became a toady for President Bush once Bush took office in 2001. Maintaining party loyalty through brute force is not leadership, and Tom DeLay was not a good leader. He was an arm-twister. People stuck by him because he could make money, not because they liked him or respected him or wished to retain him as leader (all of these are blatant generalizations, but I think there's truth to the statements). Tom DeLay became what he despised, and in the end was bent on retaining power for himself and his party, until it became clear that he, at least, had no further visible part to play in the saga. The Republican Party will be better off without him when the November election roles ar0und. So long, citizen Tom.

6/13 Primaries

While next Tuesday is not nearly as big as this Tuesday was in terms of impact, there are still some interesting primaries to watch on Tuesday. Here are the races next week:

Maine Senate
Senator Olympia Snowe (R) is up for re-election this year, and faces no primary opponent. She will be facing either Eric Mehnert (D) or Jean Bright (D) in November.

Maine Governor
Governor John Baldacci (D) is running for re-election, but faces a primary opponent in Chris Miller (D). The winner will face whichever of the three Republicans wins on Tuesday: former Congressman David Emery (R), state Senator Peter Mills (R), or state Senator Chandler Woodcock (R)

South Carolina Governor
Governor Mark Sanford, Jr. (R) faces Oscar Lovelace, Jr. (R) in this primary fight. The winner will face Dennis Aughtry (D), Toomy Moore (D), or Frank Willis (D) in November.

South Carolina CD 1
Randy Maatta (D) faces off against Ben Frasier (D) and Ralph Ledford (D) in this primary, with the winner facing Congressman Henry Brown, Jr. (R) in November.

South Carolina CD 2
Michael Ray Ellisor (D) will face David White III (D) in this primary, with the winner going up against Congressman Joe Wilson (R) in November.

South Carolina CD 3
Franklin Ballenger (D) and Philip Cheney (D) square off in this primary, for the right to face Congressman Gresham Barrett (R) in November.

Virginia Senate
Harris Miller (D) and James Webb, Jr. (D) are set to battle it out to determine who will face off against Presidential-aspirant, and current Senator, George Allen (R) in November.

Virginia CD 8
Mark Ellmore (R) and Thomas O'Donoghue (R) will face off to determine who will get to be the sacrificial lamb against Congressman Jim Moran, Jr. (D) in November.

Virginia CD 11
Andrew Hurst (D) and Ken Longmyer (D) face off in this race to determine who will face Congressman Tom Davis III (R) in November.

There ya have it...not nearly as sexy a primary lineup as we saw earlier this week, but it moves us another week closer to the general election and provides a few answers to who will face whom come November.

Senate Gay Marriage Debate

As everyone with any political sense at all knew would happen, the Senate voted today on a cloture motion to end debate on the proposed gay-marriage amendment, requiring 60 votes. The vote was 49-48 to end debate (which is what was desired by amendment proponents, seeking to get to a real vote on the issue, rather than a procedural vote).

There are a couple of issues involved with the Senate taking the time to discuss and vote on this issue today, and I don't want to spend to much time on it. As a result, I'll merely pose some questions to my non-existant readership. First, was this done for mere politics sake? Or, even knowing that it would fail, is bringing this issue in front of the Senate and forcing at least one (albeit procedural) vote on the issue simply the best way to make sure the issue stays in the public consciousness? If it was just "playing politics," is there anything wrong with that? Was there actually something "better" for the Senate to be taking up right now? Maybe I'll come back to this issue and answer some of these questions from my point of view later on, but I don't want to get into this too in depth now.

Finally, it's interesting to note that there were 7 Republicans voting against the motion to end debate, and thus to sustain what was and is a filibuster. The list reads like a who's who of the Republican's moderate-t0-liberal wing, and includes Lincoln Chafee (RI), Susan Collins (ME), Judd Gregg (NH), Olympia Snowe (ME), John Sununu (NH), Arlen Specter (PA), and ...

John McCain (AZ). Yes, the same John McCain who is considered by the conventional wisdom to be the front-runner for the GOP nomination. Yes, the same John McCain who gave the infamous speech at Liberty University, and who is making nice with Jerry Falwell. What gives?

The answer is pretty simple. McCain doesn't like gay marriage. However, he feels that this is fundamentally a state issue, and is a strong believer in federalism (at least in this context). Unlike many other Republicans, McCain doesn't see an imminent threat from the judiciary on this issue, and so is opposed to a Constitutional Amendment on point.

Ah, nuance. From a logical perspective there is nothing inconsistent with this view. In fact, it's admirable, because he's being ideologically consistent on this issue. The problem is that nuanced views are difficult to explain (look no farther than John Kerry's statemetn that he voted for the war before voting against it), and the media doesn't really care about letting someone make their point. The headline looks and feels better to a journalist (or, more to the point, an editor) when it screams "MCCAIN VOTES NO ON CURBING GAY MARRIAGE," instead of "MCCAIN VOTES NO ON CURBING GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE...". The because will usually be in the article, right around the third to last paragraph, in tiny type if possible. It just isn't seen as relevant to the discussion.

This is where McCain will get into trouble. He holds views strongly, and isn't going to change (most of) them to fit in with a Presidential run. That is likely to doom him in the primaries, because the voters who vote in these things tend to be diehards, and in many states a closed primary will prevent moderates and Democrats who could see themselves supporting McCain from voting in the Primary at all.

I am not advocating for McCain to suddenly switch his positions to fall in line with "the base." I despire that (one of the reasons that I refused to vote for Al Gore in 2000, despite being slightly more aligned ideologically with him than the 2000 version of George W. Bush, was that Gore conveniently switched many of his positions to fall into line with the national Democratic party before his Presidential run in 1988), and would never suggest that a candidate do it. That said, how often does a politician hold to principle when there is an "easier way?" I guess I should give kudos to McCain, even though I don't really care that much about this issue. The point is that I think this decision could very easily come back to haunt McCain, which will help out the George Allen's and Mitt Romney's of the world in their quest for the nomination. And as I will explain in a future post, I think THAT may be the only thing that could lead to a second Clinton presidency, and the first First Gentleman in United States history.

California CD 50 Analysis

You know, I was going to post a fairly long and comprehensive analysis of this race, but for the most part what I wanted to say is summed up very nicely in this Slate article by John Dickerson. Read and enjoy.

The one thing I want to elaborate a little bit on is Dickerson's point that Republicans can now legitimately believe that there is hope left, and that they aren't doomed to be annhilated from the electoral map in November. I've said before that I don't think the political climate is quite as bad for the Republicans as the conventional wisdom is saying that it is. This race is a perfect example of that, and I think that Republicans can not only say it with a straight face, but that it is, in fact, the truth.

I expect the Republicans to lose seats in November, but I don't expect to see Speaker Nancy Pelosi anytime soon. As much as one race can, the results here seem to back that up.

Primary Night: Roundup

I'm not going to repeat the information that I previously posted on the results of last night's elections. Primarily, then, this last post is to provide the information on the California races, and on the one Iowa race that hadn't been finalized by the time I went to bed.

Iowa CD 1
Mike Whalen (R) had already won the Republican nomination with 48% of the vote (compared to 38% for his nearest competitor) when I pulled up stakes last night. The Democratic side of the ticket was much closer. In the end, Bruce Braley (D), with 37%, beat out Rick Dicksinson (D), who managed 34%.

California CD 50 Special Election / Concurrent Primary
In the most watched race of the night, Brian Bilbray (R) defeated Francine Busby (D) to become the newest member of the US Congress. The two also had separate primary fights to determine whether they would be on the ballot in the general election in November. On the Republican side, it was a good night for Bilbray, who received 54% of the vote in the primary election, compared to just 15% in the primary for the special election which was held about a month and a half ago (confused yet?). He will again face Busby in November, as she won nearly 90% of the Democratic primary vote. Expect Bilbray/Busby II to be much less exciting than this first version, and much less watched. More on that when I post an analysis of the election results.

California Governor
Nothing changed since last night, but I never formally posted this information. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) easily won his primary, receiving nearly 90% of the vote over underwhelming opponents. On the Democratic side, Phil Angelides (D) maintained his early lead over Steve Westly (D), and won the right to face the Governator in November. Strike one for my previously mentioned hard-closer hypothesis, which I will discuss in more detail in an analysis post.

California Senate
Dianne Feinstein (D) had no trouble fending off her opposition, receiving just under 87% of the vote. She will face Dick Mountjoy (R) in November.

California CD 2
Arjinderpal Sekhon (D) won his primary over Bill Falzett (D) by a maring of 56%-44%. Sekhon will face Wally Herger (R) in November.

California CD 4
John Doolittle (R), the current Congressman in this district, won 67% of the vote on the way to his victory over challenger John Michael Holmes (R). Doolittle will face Charles Brown (D), who won 47% of the vote in beating out two challengers for the Democratic slot on the ballot.

California CD 6
Lynn Woolsey (D), the current Congresswoman in this district, won 66% of the vote against Joseph Nation (D). She will face Todd Hooper (R), who beat out Mike Halliwell (R) 58%-42% in the Republican primary.

California CD 8
Mike DeNunzio (R) beat out Eve Del Castello (R) 76%-24% in the race to face House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) in November.

California CD 11
Congressman Richard Pombo (R) beat out two challengers with 62% of the vote, and will once again have a chance to represent this district. His opponent will be Jerry McNerney (D), who tallied 53% of the vote while fending off two challengers.

California CD 12
Tom Lantos (D) easily won his primary with just under 90% of the vote. His opponent will be Michael Moloney (R), who had a tough challenge over Mike Garza (R). Moloney won with 43% of the vote, compared to Garza's 37%.

California CD 22
Kevin McCarthy (R) won 86% of the vote in beating out two opponents. He will face Sharon Beery (D) in November.

California CD 23
Victor Tognazzini (R) beat out William Levinson (R) 60%-40%. Tognazzini will face Congresswoman Lois Capps (D) in November.

California CD 24
Congressman Elton Gallegly (R) beat primary challenger Michael Tenenbaum (R) 80%-20%. He will face Jill Martinez (D) in November.

California CD 26
Congressman David Dreier (R) beat out two primary challengers and received 65% of the vote. He will face Cynthia Matthews (D), who received 47% of the vote in beating two opponents.

California CD 28
Congressman Howard Berman (D) defeated Charles Coleman, Jr. by a tally of 81%-19%. He will face Stanley Kesselman (R) in November.

California CD 29
Congressman Adam Schiff (D) defeated Bob McCloskey (D) 83%-17%, and will face William Bodell (R) in November.

California CD 31
Congressman Xavier Beccera (D) defeated Sal Genovese (D) 90%-10% last night. With no Republican opponent in November, Beccera was, in effect, re-elected last night.

California CD 33
Congresswoman Diane Watson (D) defated Mervin Evans (D) 91%-9% last night. Like Becerra, Watson faces no Republican opponent in November, and so can pretty much celebrate her return to the next Congress.

California CD 35
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D) defeated Carl McGill (D) 86%-14%. Waters will face no Republican opponent in November, but does have some minor party opposition. Again, she can probably begin her celebration now.

California CD 36
Congresswoman Jane Harman (D) defeated Marcy Winograd (D) 63%-37%, and will face Brian Gipson (R) in November.

California CD 37
Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald (D) defeated Peter Mathews (D) 76%-24%. She faces only minor party opposition in November.

California CD 39
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D) secured 78% of the vote on her way to defeating two primary opponents. She will face James Andion (R) in November.

California CD 40
Florice Hoffman (D) defeated Christina Avalos in a close 52%-48% race. She will face Congressman Ed Royce (R) in November.

California CD 45
David Roth (D) defeated Marty Schwimmer (D) 68%-32%, and will face Congresswoman Mary Bono (R) in November.

California CD 47
Tan Nguyen (R) secured 55% of the vote on his way to beating two primary opponents, and will face Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D) in November.

California CD 51
Congressman Bob Filner (D) defeated 2 opponents to be re-nominated, but had a tough time of it, receiving just 52% of the vote. He will face Blake Miles (R), who beat Jim Galley (R) 62%-38%.

California CD 52
John Rinaldi (D) defeated 4 opponents, with 39% of the vote, on his way to securing the Democratic slot on the ballot. He will face Congressman Duncan Hunter (R) in November.

California CD 53
Woody Woodrum (R) defeated Bryan Barton (R) 60%-40%, and will face Ernest Lippe (D) in November.

Primary Night: Final Update

Alas, my friends, it is time for me to get to bed. So here is the last heaping helping of updates, served up as complete as I can get them.

New Mexico Senate
Jeff Bingaman (D) ran without Democratic opposition this year. His opponent will be Allen McCulloch (R), who beat out 2 challengers with 51% of the vote.

South Dakota Governor
Mike Rounds (R) ran without Republican opposition. His opponent will be Jack Billion, who won with around 61% of the vote.

Iowa Governor
In the battle to replace the retiring Tom Vilsack (D), the Republicans have already put up Congressman Jim Nussle. His opponent will be Chet Culver (D), who beat out three opponents with 39% of the vote in a fairly close race where his nearest opponent received 34%.

Iowa CD 1 & 5
I forgot to include the first district race in my original post on the primaries. The Republicans have nominated Mike Whalen. The Democratic race is now too close to call, but is between Rick Dickinson and Bruce Braley, both with 35% of the vote as it goes down to the end.

In the 5th District, Joyce Schulte (D) appears to have won her primary with around 61% of the vote. She will face Steve King (R) in November.

California Overview
I'm not going to even try to post on individual races at this point. Here are the highlights:

Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has been renominated, and seems to be headed to a showdown with Phil Angelides (D), who in turn looks to be on his way to beating Steve Westly (D) in their primary fight.

Dianne Feinstein (D) was easily renominated for the US Senate seat that she holds.

Brian Bilbray (R) is leading 51% to 43% over Francine Busby (D) in the supposed "bellweather" special election. The two are also easily winning their concurrent primaries, and will face off again in November. If this is a bellweather, it is good news for the Republicans, especially if Bilbray can hold onto his plus 50% numbers.

Elsewhere, there appear to be no stunning upsets.

I'll bring you the whole host of results at some point tomorrow.

Primary Night: Second Update

As if someone were actually reading this blog, I'm going to run an update post. Why, you ask? Because it's my blog and I want to, darned it. So here goes:

The polls have now closed in California, site of the most interesting races of the night in the special election for CD 50 and the Democratic Gubernatorial Primary. It will be some time before there will be meaningful results from these races, and since I have an early wake-up call in the morning I will unfortunately probably have to wait until tomorrow to update on the results, and give my analysis. I'm sure the zero of you who are reading will be sorely upset by this development, but I trust you will get over it with time.

Now, onto the races where there are some results. I will not be posting any additional updates on these races unless they change. The results are the important thing, and those we seem to have in these races.

Alabama Governor
On the Republican side, Governor Bob Riley beat back a challenge from crazy judge Roy Moore. Moore did get a surprisingly strong 35% of the vote, but I think that indicates less irritation with Riley than it does support from uber-conservative religious types who were drawn to Moore. It should not have an effect on the general election.

On the Democratic side, Lucy Baxley beat back former Governor Bob Siegelman and a slew of other also-rans. Siegelman had some ethics issues dogging him, and it seems there just wasn't that much interest in sending him up for another election.

Alabama CD's 2 & 5
There were two Democratic primaries in Alabama tonight. The Republicans did not have any. In CD 2, Chuck James won handily and will face Terry Everett (R) in the general election. In CD 5, there seems to be no one running on the Republican side, so tonight's Democratic primary was, in effect, the general election for that district. Not surprisingly, incumbent Artur Davis won handily, with over 90% of the vote.

Mississippi Senate
The battle for Trent Lott's (R) opponent has been settled, with Erik Fleming (D) emerging from the rubble against 3 primary opponents. Fleming is sitting at 56% of the vote right now, which is important because candidates must reach 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff primary, which would be held on 6/27.

Mississippi CD 1&2
In CD 1, a runoff appears to be forthcoming between Ken Hurt (D), who has 39%, and Ron Shapiro (D), with 22%. They beat out 2 others, one of whom had 19% at this posting. If the names shift, I will post that information.

In CD 2, Bennie Thompson (D) has beaten out 2 opponents with 56% of the vote, and will go on to face Von Brown in November.

New Jersey Senate
As I mentioned before, Robert Menendez (D), the sitting Senator, and Thomas Kean (R), have both easily won their primaries and advance to face each other in November in what should be a very close race.

New Jersey CD's 2, 5 & 13
In CD 2, Viola Thomas-Hughes (D) easily beat Henry David Marcus (D) and will face Frank LoBiondo in November.

In CD 5, both parties had primaries. On the Republican side, Scott Garrett (R) easily beat Michael Cino (R) with about 86% of the vote. For the Democrats, Paul Aronsohn (D) took out Camille Abate (D) 67%-33%.

In CD 13, which supposedly also had a special primary to determine who would represent the district from November to January (which I can find no election numbers for), Albio Sires (D) took out Joe Vas (D) by 74%-26%, and Sires will go on to face John Guarini (R) in November.

South Dakota Governor
Finally, in South Dakota, Jack Billion (D) defeated Dennis Wiese (D) by a tally of 61%-39%, and will go on to face Governor Mike Rounds (R) in November.


Races remain to be called in New Mexico, Iowa, Montana, and California. I will probably make one more post in about an hour and a half to update the races in those states. I'll wrap things up with a results post tomorrow, and either tomorrow or Thursday will also post an analysis of the significant things from these primaries. Also, look for a post on next Tuesday's primaries sometime in the next couple of days.

Primary Night: First Update

I'll be posting several updates to this original post over the course of the evening as the returns come in. At this point, despite the polls having been closed in Alabama, Mississippi, and New Jersey for well over an hour, there isn't all that much of interest to report.

In New Jersey, Thomas Kean (R) and Robert Menendez (D) have, as expected, emerged as the Senate candidates for their respective parties.

In Alabama, Roy Moore (R) is pulling in reasonable support (well over 10%), but appears to have no chance of beating Governor Bob Riley (R). Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, former Governor Bob Siegelman (D) is currently trailing Lucy Baxley (D) by 12 points, so it looks as if he won't get a chance to hold that office again (at least not this year).

That's really all there is so far, folks, except for reporting that Viola Thomas-Hughes (D) is walloping her opponent in New Jersey CD 5, and will be the Democratic challenger for Congressman Frank LoBiondo.

With the polls in New Mexico and South Dakota now having closed, with Montana and Iowa closing in 45 minutes or so, and California still to come in about 1:45, there is still plenty to talk about tonight. I'll post again after the polls have closed in California, or sooner if something big leaps out at me that I want to post individually.

California Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

This is my last chance before the day of the election to comment on any of tomorrow's Primaries. The race that seems most interesting to me at this moment is the battle to become Arnold's challenger in California. For much of the last year, Phil Angelides, the state Treasurer, has been seen as the likely candidate. However, state Controller Steve Westly has been closing the gap, and had even taken a lead in April. A new Field Poll indicates that his lead is now very narrow.

I don't really have a horse in this race, and I don't know enough about the race to say anything too significant about what a vote for one or the other would mean. In fact, about all I know is from the poll numbers, and what I see is a race where neither candidate is benefitting from any particular demographic. There is a good breakdown in the above poll, and it shows the two running about equal amongst racial, political, and age demographics (there are some confusing mixed messages on age, if you check out the numbers, with older and younger voters favoring Westly, while the 50-64 demo is heavily in favor of Angelides...if anyone has a reason for this, please let me know).

Anyway, it's another good race to watch tomorrow. The biggest reason for me to make this post is to put forward a hypothesis that I'll be testing as the political year goes on. It certainly isn't original, so don't come after me for claiming to come up with something new. I'm looking at races where there was a clear front-runner (leading the race by 7% or more over the next closest candidate) from the period about 12 months before the election, who then sees his poll numbers dwindle in relation to his main opponent starting within 3 months of the election. The hypothesis is that the hard-charging finisher will win most of those races. In other words, the candidate fighting to hang on to their lead will be in trouble. Obviously much needs to be quantified about the actual bounds of the hypothesis, but that's where I'm going to start. Based on this data, I am predicting a Westly victory tomorrow.

SCOTUS To Hear High School Race Cases

Since the Supreme Court decided the University of Michigan affirmative action cases in 2003, there has been much speculation about whether school districts could use the reasoning in those opinions to enter into voluntary busing and school assignment plans for non-remedial purposes. Those cases were decided 5-4, with Sandra Day O'Connor the deciding vote. Her replacement by Samuel Alito makes this area of the law highly unstable.

So it was with some degree of surprise that I read today that SCOTUS has agreed to hear to cases, presumbably to be consolidated, from Seattle and Louisville on voluntary, non-remedial student assignment plans that are attempting to engage in "racial balancing" in those districts. Presumably, confusion amongst the circuit courts have prompted SCOTUS to take a case (or cases, rather) that it would rather not take.

Essentially, the argument from opponents of the school district plans in question here believe that race should never figure into school assignment plans for any non-remedial reason. This argument is premised on the Equal Protection clause requirement of strict judicial scrutiny when race is involved as a classification, and the argument goes that racial balancing does not survive that strict level of scrutiny, and is not a compelling governmental interest. Proponents argue the opposite, and it really is that simple.

My not-so-bold prediction is that this case will come out 5-4, with Justice Alito "switching" the vote of Justice O'Connor. High school plans of a non-remedial nature will be disallowed. However, I don't believe the court will go so far as to overrule the 2003 cases, because it won't be necessary for the disposal of these cases; high schools and colleges are different enough to support differing constitutional schemes. Nevertheless, this area of law is in flux, and over the next few years Justice Alito's presence on the bench, and his areas of difference with Justice O'Connor, will probably be felt more clearly here than in most other areas of the law.

For a good discussion of the issue, see this article on the always useful and informative SCOTUSblog.

Native Hawaiian Sovereignty

Senator Daniel Akaka, who is facing a very interesting challenge from Hawaiian Congressman Ed Case in Hawaii's September primary, has long favored the creation of a quasi-sovereign government for Native Hawaiians. The Wall Street Journal has an article by John Fund today that discusses the current plan, which is up for a Senate vote sometime in the next couple of weeks.

The prevailing argument for this kind of legislation hinges on the idea that, unlike most native groups within the United States, native Hawaiians do not have a governance body, and have no distinct sovereignty. While this is true, the counter-argument says that unlike the other native groups within US borders, native Hawaiians voted in 1959 to become part of the United States, willingly giving up sovereignty.

The case is, of course, more complex than that. In "A Call for Hawaiian Sovereignty," written by Michael Kioni Dudley and Keoni Kealoha Agard, a strong case is made that the will of native Hawaiians was long before overrun by non-Natives, and that is was non-Natives who made union with the United States a virtual necessity. The book is clearly biased towards the independence movement, but it puts forward a number of strong points that those opposed to native Hawaiian sovereignty must be able to rebut, and so I recommend it strongly no matter what side of the argument you fall on.

My personal beliefs, as in so many areas, are out of line with what is possible today. I don't think Hawaii or Alaska should ever have been added to the territory of the United States, let alone granted statehood. Of course, due to the military and resource importance of these two states, they will never be severed from the union (and a strong case can be made that severance/independence would not actually solve the problem that was created by their initial addition to the Union in the first place, a topic I will leave for another day). That said, I think a limited sovereignty movement is not out of line with acceptable policy.

This particular bill, however, strikes me as going a bit farther than is desirable. It purports to give the new sovereign entity control not over a geographic region, but over all "native Hawaiians," however defined, including those on the mainland. This is too much, too amorphous, and the precedent it would present would be dangerous at best. I will be watching how the Senate reacts to this proposal with interest, and will be watching the Hawaiian Senate primary with greater interest than I had previously as well.

Article on California CD 50

I posted some brief thoughts on the importance of the Special Election to replace Duke Cunningham in a previous post. I found this article today on the race, and recommend it. This will be one of the most interesting things to happen on Tuesday, which really is a pretty big day for elections, at least as far as Primary elections are concerned, and I look forward to re-hashing the results on Tuesday night and Wednesday.

Incidentally, the most interesting line from the article comes near the bottom. "[National Republican officials] say they do not see the race as a portent for November, and that [Bilbray's] struggles are not unusual given the unpredictable nature of special elections." This, to me, says that national Republican leaders are trying to distance themselves from this race. The polling data (47-45) indicates that this is not a bad idea.

Gay Marriage Returns!

Like the monster in a bad horror movie that just won't go away, gay marriage has returned to the forefront of American politics, for a week at least. My opinion on gay marriage is essentially my opinion on all marriage; the government should not be involved in it, period. Essentially, I think that the government should get out of the business of marriage, leaving it to the churches to decide who they want to marry. This, of course, would mean an end to tax breaks based on marriage.

My solution to some of the other benefits of marriage, such as being able to visit relatives in hospitals and receiving social security benefits and the rest don't concern me all that much. I think everyone should be able to file civil union papers, gay or straight, to allow such things. What about polygamy? An issue for another day I guess. For reasons of simplicity, limiting benefits to one partner makes sense, and should be able to surpass a mere-rationality equal protection test.

That said, as a practical matter I come out on the liberal side of this thing, for a simple reason. I don't believe that discrimination should be written into the Constitution (again). A great deal of work and effort went into removing the vestiges of discrimination from the document. Writing it back in is nonsensical.

I have to say, however, that there is a form of rationality behind the movement for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, due to the method through which gay marriage is coming about. I hate the term "activist judges," but when judges overturn marriage legislation on "equal protection" grounds, I get squemish. This is not because I believe gay marriage is wrong, or that the courts are wrong in allowing it. It is because of how society is going to react. Massachussetts courts allowed gay marriage a few years ago. Washington courts are largely expected to do so in the next few weeks.

And herein lies the problem. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution would require valid marriages in Washington to be recognized elsewhere. This is not the case with Massachussetts marriages, because of a specific Massachussetts provision that says no marriage that would not be valid in another state can transfer to that state. Washington has no such provision, and so Full Faith and Credit will be implicated.

One possible solution is the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton. DOMA purpots to allow states not to acknowledge gay marriages performed in other states. This appears to be directly opposed to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and in my (admittedly unresearched) opinion, DOMA would have to fall if it were challenged.

As a result, the state of Washington is in a position, potentially, to make an important decision for other states. The gay rights movement has decided to shortcut the process of changing hearts and minds by seeking change through the courts. Their legal arguments are usually solid, but I believe that, followed to its logical conclusion, this kind of approach will result in a backlash. THIS constitutional amendment attempt will fail, because there are not enough Senators or Congressmen who are willing to take pre-emptive action. In 5 years, that may be a different story, and the country may take a huge step backward.

Indiana Nominating Convention

It appears that the Democratic convention in Indiana has failed to nominate a candidate to run against Richard Lugar in the Senate. Lugar is a powerhouse Senator with no chance of being defeated come November, but it's always put a distinctly bad taste in my mouth when one of the major parties gives up entirely on a race, especially such an important race as that for Senate. The DSCC, chaired by New York's Charles Schumer, is responsible for recruiting candidates, and it is a shame that they could not find a single Indianan to at least carry the banner for the party.

On a practical level, this means that Lugar's only opposition will come from Libertarian Steve Osborn and Independent Rick Hale.