PoliticsPage

Is Primary Front-loading Really Madness?

2007-02-09T08:35:00.000-08:00

An editorial from the Washington Post today suggests that the front-loading of the primary calendar that is likely to occur in 2008 is "madness" which is bad for the "health . . . of the Democratic Process."

I'm not going to post any answers to that, but somehow I doubt it. Let me suggest one thing: in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, where people who want information on candidates can get it, and in an era when the Presidential campaign effectively starts almost immediately after the previous Presidential election, and for all intents and purposes officially kicks off following the midterms 2 years later, is front-loading, or even a "national primary," really a bad thing?

The underlying premise behind such lamentations is that a long, drawn-out primary calendar helps lesser-known candidates come up and sting the establishment folks, and sometimes steal the nomination away. But even if this was true 15 years ago when Bill Clinton emerged from a less-than-stellar field to win the Democratic nomination, I simply don't think it's true now.

I'll probably look into this in more detail later, but suffice it to say that I think the structural reasons that may have made a drawn-out primary calendar a positive thing in the past are now more likely to make a drawn-out calendar a liability.

Toward a National Primary?

2007-01-22T13:47:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Great minds think alike? Well, I won't call my mind great, but Peter Brown and I both came to the same conclusion from the news that several large states are considering moving their primaries to February. His article is titled "A de facto National Primary," and I thought I should mention it to avoid plaigiarism charges. My original post is below.

For years, Iowa and New Hampshire have served as the kickoff events of the Presidential election cycle. Both states have done everything in their power to keep it that way, however absurd the notion may seem to those of us who think that Iowa and New Hampshire aren't particularly representative of the rest of the country, and therefore get significantly more importance in the process than they deserve. Meanwhile, many big money states such as California and Florida have sat on the sidelines (California, with it's June primary, moreso than Florida). That may be changing.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature are in agreement that the state should play a bigger role in selecting Presidential candidates, and so are targeting a February primary date. In a move sure to give campaign manager's headaches, several other states, including Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Missouri are contemplating similar moves.

All of this leads me to wonder one thing: Are we destined for a national primary day, or something close to it, not so much because the parties decide that it's a good idea, but because the selfish (and I'm not using that word pejoratively) interests of each State will cause them to move up their primaries? The parties can try to preven this, but I suspect that the days of May and June primaries, at the least, will soon be over. I leave it as an open question who these moves would help - although the CW is that it would be Clinton and McCain, the two best financed and most established candidates in the race. It will be interesting to watch this develop over the next few months as the candidates spin their wheels trying to find traction nearly two years before the election.

Long Time Away

2007-01-21T13:39:00.000-08:00

First it was finals, then it was a visit home, and then the start of the new semester. With all of that, and my primary devotion to my Twins blog, this poor little blog has been neglected of late. Really, that's a shame - there has been a lot of political news, what with the start of the new congress and all of that.

For the few who actually check this blog on occassion, let me say this - I intend to continue posting on occassion, but it will probably be very infrequent. Things will build up over the next year as we approach the primary season, and my desire to write about politics will increase the closer we get. Until then, entries will probably be pretty sporadic.

For now, let me just put up my early thoughts on the 2008 Presidential race:

Democrats
As much excitement as there has been over Barack Obama in some circles, this is Hillary's race to lose. She has the experience and the gravitas - Obama has the charm. While I would love to see a few other names (Edwards, Richardson, even Gore) emerge as legitimate possibilities, I think this will come down to Hillary v. Obama by the end of February, 2008. Expect Hillary's superior organization and money to be the difference maker.

Republicans
The conventional wisdom is that McCain is the guy - but I'm all about questioning the CW. That's why I think the nominee is going to be Rudy Giuliani, who is polling well in the completely meaningless polls that have been conducted thus far. This pick gives me a two-for in opposing the CW - it lets me pick against McCain, and it lets me pick a guy who the CW says can't no-way, no-how win Republican primaries. McCain is ultimately going to be hurt by his fierce hawkishness, and while I think he'll be a force to be reckoned with all the way to the end of the race, I don't think he'll be able to seal the deal with enough voters to secure the nomination. A dark horse like Huckabee could end up emerging, I suppose, but I think the support is going to go to Giuliani (in a version of the "pick the nationally electable figure" dance).

Thoughts on the First Two Days

2007-01-05T15:41:00.000-08:00

I've been house-sitting for the last few days, and so haven't had much to do other than watch C-Span and read. That means I've seen a whole lot of the proceedings on the floor of the House through the first two days, and thought I'd make a few comments on who impressed me, and who did not, early on. I admit to being somewhat surprised by the results.

First, a recap on what Congress has done so far since convening. The answer - not a whole heck of a lot. In the Senate, members have been sworn in, officers have been selected (including the ever-exciting Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate), and a whole lot of simple resolutions have been passed notifying the President and the House that the Senate is in session, and who the leaders and officers are. They also passed their half of a joint resolution renaming a park in Vermont for the late Senator Stafford.

In the House, things have been a bit more exciting. After the tedious election of Speaker Pelosi, the House proceeded to a consideration of a Rules package (after doing the busywork of Officer appointments and announcing resolutions like the Senate). Of the five titles in the rules package, three of them (adoption of the bulk of the 109th Congress' rules, ethics reform, and "civility") pretty much passed without opposition (I think two were unanimous, and a lone Republican voted nay on the other), while two others (pay-go and a miscellaneous section) faced lock-step Republican opposition. Of course, when you're the Majority, you can ram things through anyway (rightly or wrongly), and the Dems did just that, adopting the Rules as they wanted them, without allowing amendments.

Here's who stood out to me in the pieces that I saw and paid attention to:

1.) Ron Paul (R-TX) - Paul stood up at the end of the legislative day today to speak for five minutes. He spoke forcefully against the proposed surge of troops in Iraq, and even more forcefully against any proposed draft. In fact, rather than wanting to impose a draft, Paul wants to pass legislation eliminating the draft; he views it as a form of "indentured servitude," and therefore unconstitutional. I don't know enough about Paul to say whether this a new position for him to take or not, but I can't imagine that it's easy being a Texas Republican with these views.

2.) David Dreier (R-CA) - the ranking member on the House Rules committee, Dreier controlled the Republican side of most of the debate on the new Rules package. He was convincing and forceful in his responses to Democrats, without seeming petty.

3.) Alcee Hastings (D-FL) - the man is smug; he battled back and forth with Dreier a number of times in the early stages of the Rules debate, and I'd say Dreier got the better of him.

4.) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) - I don't know if our new Speaker is trying to look natural and not pulling it off very well, or if she just naturally looks like she's trying to stage manage things. Seeing her grandchildren scampering all over her was fine, but she seemed to be actively trying to make sure that they'd be in the camera shot with her. I don't know - her speech was good, she was gracious to the Republicans, but it didn't always look smooth.

5.) Steve King (R-IA) - King made a lot of sense today in a 60 minute address to the empty chamber that finished off Friday's House action. I didn't catch the whole thing, but what I caught was pretty dynamite. He made a strong case for line-item removal of earmarks in the middle of the year, talked about the impact (the positive impact, nonetheless) of blogs on the political world, and discussed his desire to get all campaign contributions online in a searchable database that is easily accessed. He made his points quite effectively, without seeming like a nutcase.

6.) Ted Poe (R-TX) - I don't know why he does it, but Poe ends every floor speech with "and that's the way it is." I don't know if it's an homage to someone else, but it's obnoxious, distracting, and more than a little strange.

I Return!

2007-01-04T08:05:00.000-08:00

I don't imagine that I was missed much, seeing as this blog gets about 2 hits a day on a busy day. Nevertheless, I plan on blogging semi-regularly again at this blog, and this post is to announce my (triumphant?) return.

Obviously, there has been a lot of political news over the last month while I've been out, but I'm not going to address any of that. Instead, I'm going to point out an improvement to the House website which debuted today. The old site was far inferior to the Senate site, but now I'm pleased to say that the House site has been updated to provide a lot of good information regarding scheduling and the like. For political junkies, it's a welcome improvement.

I look forward to blogging about the goings on of the 110th Congress, probably starting later today.

FL-13

2006-12-06T09:04:00.000-08:00

Election 2006 isn't over yet - not only do we have runoff elections in Texas and Louisiana to keep us entertained, there are still some races that are going through the varying certification/contest procedures. Most of these "too close to call" races have been settled in the last few weeks, as the trailing party realized it just wasn't going to happen for them. But in Florida's 13th District, currently held by the soon-to-be-banished-to-the-wilderness Katherine Harris, the fight over who won is ongoing.

A little background. On election night, Republican Vern Buchanan came up with a narrow lead over Democrat Christine Jennings. Over the past few weeks, that lead has narrowed somewhat as the official certification and recount procedures have been conducted. The interesting thing about the race, however, is the fact that in Sarasota County, ballots recorded a huge undervote in this race, at about 13%. For a baseline, absentee ballots in that race recorded an undervote of 2.53% (because voters legitmately did not want to vote for either candidate or for that race). I've seen typical-undervote numbers of between 2-5%, so the 13% undervote is exceptionally large.

Now, it appears that the undervote is the result of flawed ballot design (many reports on this: here's one). If you assume that the undervoters would break out the same way as those who actually voted in the race, then it's virtually certain that Vern Buchanan's slim lead (down to about 400 votes) would disappear, and Christine Jennings would win.

All of this has led Rick Hasen, the man behind Election Law Blog, to conclude that the House of Representatives should declare the seat vacant rather than allow Vern Buchanan to take it, because the results of the electorate are in doubt. In case you were unaware, this is perfectly Constitutional - the House (and the Senate, for that matter) are officially the judges of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members. Such matters are considered inherently political, and the Courts tend to prefer to stay out of them - and so the Legislative Branch essentially can deal with these situations however it sees fit.

First, the good side of this. I think if you actually spoke to the voters who cast an undervote, the majority would have said "I meant to vote for Jennings" or "I would have voted for Jennings." I think that about 3% (of the total voters, not of the undervoters) would have chosen not to vote at all. That means that roughly 10% of the people who went to the polls didn't have their intentions recorded. As a result, holding a new election is probably the only way to register the intent of these voters - and Jennings would almost certainly emerge victorious.

HOWEVER - I have to remain consistent here. I have always said that, in the case of bad ballot design, both the person who designed the ballot AND the voter are at fault. Voters need to take the process of voting seriously. Yes, the design was flawed (it placed the race at the top of the page, with a very large STATE heading right below it) - but, voters who were paying attention would have noticed the race at the top of the page (after all, at least 87% of voters succeeded in casting a vote).

Additionally, new elections are generally unfair. Voters know that their vote is important (because it's a close election), so they show up when they wouldn't have before. They know the makeup of the new Congress, so Republicans may be dispirited and Democrats may be complacent. There are all sorts of factors that aren't present on Election Day. There is, in other words, no guarantee that the results of a new election would be consistent with the supposed "true results" from election day.

IF the undervote in this election were mechanical (i.e. the machines failed somehow), THEN I would support the push for a new election. As it is, the undervote was most likely the result of voter and ballot design failure - and I can't justify pushing for a new vote on those grounds.

Bolton Gone

2006-12-04T09:38:00.000-08:00

Yet another of the high-profile members of the President's coterie is going to be gone soon. Rumsfeld, now Bolton - how long before Secretary Rice disappears? I think Bolton clearly made this decision himself, because the White House showed no signs of wanting to give him up at his post. I thank him, because he may have saved the President from making an embarrassing misstep (such as trying to give Bolton the job in all-but-name, and thus skirting the requirements of the Constitution).

I'm reviving my theory that Dick Cheney will resign, just because it would be a last, poetic example of this Administration's flagging powers - and would fit in line with the disappearing leaders we've already seen.

2008: Year of the Third Party?

2006-11-27T12:01:00.000-08:00

Joe Lockhart and Mark McKinnon both mention 2008 as a possible breakthrough year for Third Party candidates in an MSNBC article. Frankly, I agree - and I hope it's true. Here are some thoughts regarding the possible rise of a third legitimate option on the ballot in 2008.

First, let me just point out that there are numerous opportunities for a third party challenge this year. Forget about the usual also-ran suspects like Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, and whoever the libertarians decide to throw out there this year - they are significantly too much of a niche product to be successful in a general election. Instead, there are possibilities for a third party run in a number of other areas:

1.) Unity 08 - This group wants to use a net-based nomination process to create a bipartisan ticket to run for President in 2008. This is not really a third party effort - the folks in charge of this thing are trying to send a message to the establishment in both parties, not create a whole new party. However, the ticket that they plan on putting forward will be running essentially as a third party. With the kind of long-range planning that has gone into the Unity 08 process, they should be able to get on the ballot on the vast majority of states. If the people who come through the online nomination process are compelling enough, the ticket this group puts forward could be a formidable opponent.

2.) Mayor Michael Bloomberg - The Mayor of New York City running for President (or Vice-President) in 2008 might not be the one you think. While early signs indicate that "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani is at least considering running for the Republican nomination, there's a good chance that he'll decide he has no chance and back off. Bloomberg, however, is at least seriously considering being involved in a third party run.

3.) John McCain or Rudy Giuliani (or both!) - Both of these men might make runs for the Republican nomination, but there is a very good chance that neither will emerge victorious. Both are considered too moderate (and Giuliani, really, is quite liberal on most social issues). That may make them unpalatable to the class of persons who actually vote in primaries. Either of these guys could decide that they could garner support from the middle, leaving the base to the presumably more conservative Republican nominee. Call it the "reverse Lieberman" strategy.

Those are just three possibilities right off the bat, and I think any, or all, of them could in fact happen. The internet has revolutionized how elections are conducted - and that process is still carrying forward. I think that one of the ramifications of the increased communication of the "modern era" of politics is that it will be harder and harder to satisfy constituencies with just two parties. That, of course, is in conflict with the structure of the American political system, which makes two parties optimal. Which force wins out is a question for the future, but I think the interim result is going to be a proliferation of serious third party candidates making runs.

Now, the interesting thing to consider is what this means for the 2008 election. All it would take to throw the system seriously off track would be a close election with a third party candidate winning one swing state. If Ohio or Florida had gone for a third party candidate rather than for George W. Bush, the election would have gone to the House rather than be decided on election night. Since elections seem likely to be close for the forseeable future, this is an interesting thing to watch for.

I'm not going to go too much further in depth for now. Suffice it to say that I think there is a substantial opportunity for third party movement in 2008, and that I hope we see a strong challenge - one that actually leads to electoral votes going to a third candidate. That would shake things up!

A Statement of Profound Stupidity

2006-11-26T07:23:00.000-08:00

I try to avoid calling public figures stupid, so I'm going to take a pass on the question of whether Sam Brownback, Republican Senator from Kansas and a man who has been named as a longshot Presidential Candidate in 2008, is actually stupid and confine myself to saying that it is merely the statement which he made this morning on "This Week" with George Stephanapolous is profoundly stupid.

The situation involves Judge Janet Neff of the Michigan Court of Appeals, who has been nominated by President Bush to a District Court seat in Michigan. It turns out that back in 2002, Judge Neff attended the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple in Massachusetts. Senator Brownback this morning stated that her attendance may indicate how she views the law in this developing area. It is this statement that I have so much trouble with.

Judge Neff's attendance at a civil commitment ceremony, a ceremony which had no binding legal force and simply served to demonstrate the couple's commitment to each other, was done in a personal capacity. In no way does it even remotely implicate her ability to serve as a judge, and it is offensive and idiotic to suggest otherwise. Look at it from the other direction - if she had turned down an invitation to the ceremony would it have demonstrated that she was a suitable candidate for Brownback? Does a judge who accepts an invitation to speak at an event indicate that he or she is sympathetic to the cause represented by that group? Can a judge with cable TV be trusted to rule on cases involving the entertainment industry?

I don't have much else to say on this. I think it to be so patently absurd that it doesn't justify too much attention. If Brownback were a more viable Presidential candidate, I'd be horrified. As it is, I'm not that worried.

Deep Sorrow

2006-11-25T19:28:00.000-08:00

Tony Blair is planning on expressing "deep sorrow" for the British role in the slave trade at commemorations in March of the abolition of British slavery, which came 200 years ago. He has been adivsed not to issue a full-fledged "apology," as that might fuel demands for reparations.

I understand the political reasoning behind marking this historic occasion, and I certainly agree with the sentiment involved of expressing sorrow over the slave trade. However, it seems to me to be a semantic bit of silliness to refuse to offer an apology for fear of bolstering the case for reparations. Reparations are either a good idea or they are not, and offering an official apology from the Government will not change the analysis. I happen to think that reparations are ill-conceived and impractical - but that view wouldn't change one way or another by an official apology from the British, or American, Government.

Incidentally, there's the additional question of whether or not an official apology would mean anything anyway. On a practical level, of course, the answer is no. No one's life will be made better by a Government apology. However, the acknowledgement that wrongs have been committed in the past by the Government can be an important symbolic gesture that conveys true meaning. So long as it is sincere, I endorse such efforts. I just don't support ham-fisted half-measures such as this half-apology. Either go all the way, or mark the occasion solemly but without official comment of sorrow.

Keith Ellison

2006-11-25T19:21:00.000-08:00

I don't know enough about newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) to say whether he'll be a good or a bad member of Congress. I do know that he'll be one of the busiest Members of Congress - as this article in the Star Tribune demonstrates. By being the first and only Muslim MC in American history, he has become the point man for the concerns of Islamic citizens - and he seems to be more than willing to take up the cause.

America is about diversity, and it's especially fitting that at this particular time in our history, a Muslim has finally been elected to our Congress. I wish Representative Ellison the best. Hopefully he doesn't forget to represent his constituents in Minnesota as well as serving as the de facto Representative for all Muslims in this country - as he no doubt will be viewed by many (quite possibly even himself).

Giuliani's In (Sort Of)

2006-11-13T16:12:00.000-08:00

Rudy Giuliani has filed the paperwork to form a Presidential Exploratory Committee. In other words, he's running for President. It's possible that Giuliani could scoot around the country for a few months, give a few speeches, raise some money, and then decide not to actually make a run. I don't think that's going to happen, however, and his presence in the race should make things interesting. I think that the only chance anyone not named John McCain has of winning the Republican nomination is if Giuliani stays in the race and takes early support away from McCain amongst moderate voters. If Giuliani doesn't run, I think McCain is by far the most likely candidate to emerge from the field. I'll talk more about why later, but suffice it to say that every candidate who has been mentioned on the Republican side has something "wrong" with them - either they are too moderate to pick up the base, or too conservative to get anybody but the base, or *gasp* they're Mormon (that would be Mitt Romney, who may find out whether or not conservative voters require their presidential candidates to be Protestants). Giuliani is, I think, unlikely to win the nomination barring some sort of groundswell in support, but he's still the most important piece of the puzzle because of what his presence on the ballot means. Should be interesting to watch unfold.

Just Fabulous

2006-11-12T19:38:00.000-08:00

Know what happens if you try searching for "Arabian Gulf," which happens to be the body of water most of us would call the Persian Gulf? Click Here to see the page that comes out on top in a google search, thanks to some clever Google Bombing.

Pelosi Back Murtha

2006-11-12T19:29:00.000-08:00

In a move that surprises me a great deal, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has publically declared her support for John Murtha (PA) over Steny Hoyer (MD) for the Majority Leader position in the House. The move is surprising not because of Pelosi's actual support for Murtha - that was expected considering that Hoyer has been a bit of a gadfly for Pelosi - but for the public nature of the announcement. Pelosi's move is a bit risky, because there is a significant amount of support for Hoyer. If Murtha doesn't win the race, Pelosi will have demonstrated that she doesn't have nearly as much control over her caucus as Dennis Hastert (IL) has had since becoming Speaker, and that won't bode well for the ability of the Democrats to present a unified front against President Bush over the next two years. It will be interesting to see how this race comes out on Thursday.

Feingold Bows Out

2006-11-12T07:13:00.000-08:00

Fresh off the news that Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is running for president, another oft-named possible candidate has decided not to. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (D), known as a severe critic of the Bush Administration, made his decision this weekend after seriously considering running. Many anti-war and far left elements were interested in a Feingold candidacy, but they will now need to look elsewhere for a candidate that shares their views.

The biggest winner from this announcement is probably Hillary Clinton. She has increasingly become the inter-party focus of anti-war elements in the Democratic Party, and it's very likely that with a candidate like Feingold on the primary ballot, she would have lost some key votes, possibly enough to tip the scales in favor of a Barack Obama or John Edwards.

The biggest losers are those who want a strong anti-war option on the primary ballot, even if that person is unlikely to win. Someone in the primary will almost certainly run against the war, but Feingold was probably the best positioned person to do that seriously, being a Senator with a strong record of opposition to the war. Until someone else steps up, those inclined to base their vote on the war will have to cast their net widely searching for a new standard-bearer.

I suspect that all eyes will be on Al Gore - if he runs, he would be well-positioned to take the anti-war vote (along with the environmental vote), and it would be interesting to see how he would stack up to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards in a four-way race.

Campaign Leadership

2006-11-10T07:54:00.000-08:00

The news today is that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlmen is on his way out, and that Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland, recently defeated in his bid for the Senate, has been or will soon be offered the job. First, let me say that I was impressed enough by Steele to think that he could beat Representative Ben Cardin in the Maryland Senate race. I was wrong, but I think Steele captured the attention of Republican Party leaders, and this move makes some level of sense.

This news got me thinking about the leadership troika in each party - the heads of the National Committees, the Senate Campaign Committees, and the Congressional Campaign Committees. It's quite clear which of them performed the best in this election cycle, and who left a little something to be desired. Here's the rundown, from worst to first.

Elizabeth Dole - RSCC Chair - F
It's hard to do worse than Elizabeth Dole did in this role. Dole was unable to find engaging candidates to run in several states that should have been competitive (most notably in Florida). More problematic, her fundraising abilities are seemingly subpar, as she raised just $77 million in the 2005-2006 election cycle - dwarfed by the nearly $104 million raised by her counterpart in the DSCC. Dole also is a very poor mouthpiece for Senate Republicans in the media - anyone who saw her on Meet The Press had to be embarrassed by her performance. Dole will absolutely NOT be the RSCC chair for long - 2008 is too important for Republicans as they defend nearly twice as many seats in the Senate. Norm Coleman would be an ideal choice if he wasn't up for re-election in 2008, but he'll need to devote his attention to winning re-election in a very tough climate for Minnesota Republicans. Whoever is the next RSCC chair will need to begin the process of recruiting candidates early, and make sure that the fundraising doesn't get left behind.

Tom Reynolds - RCCC Chair - C
Reynolds did a better job than Dole, $152 million this cycle. He also helped recruit some reasonable candidates - but only for open seats in districts that Republicans already held. There was very little pressure on any Democratic incumbents (and not a single Democratic incumbent lost - which was a bit of history). I suspect that Reynolds will be out of a job soon as well, but he at least deserves a second look due to his fund-raising abilities.

Howard Dean - DNC Chair - C
Dean is lucky that the Democrats won, because if they hadn't he would have been lampooned nationally a second time. His major contribution, and the reason he receives a C rather than a D, is the focus on the so-called 50-state strategy, moving the Democratic Party into competitiveness through a broad swath of the country. As head of the DNC, he had considerable ability to direct money - and he did so on a wide basis in support of the 50SS. Unfortunately, there wasn't a lot of money to direct - the DNC raised just $118 million, compared to the nearly $208 million raised by the RNC. Had a better fundraiser been in control of the DNC, the Democratic victory on Tuesday may have been a tsunami rather than a mere wave. Dean also looks foolish for sparring with Rahm Emanuel, head of the DCCC and one of the Democratic heroes of this election.

Ken Mehlman - RNC Chair - B-
As just mentioned, the man raised a ton-0'-cash. Unfortunately for him, he didn't have the political climate or the candidates to spend it on. Money isn't everything in politics, but it is important. The blame for this loss lies first with the President, second with the scandal-ridden members of the House, third with Karl Rove and his failed run-to-the-base strategy, fourth on the heads of the RCCC and RSCC, and then whatever blame is left could fall to Mehlman.

Charles Schumer - DSCC Chair - A
How do you argue with a strategy that helped the Democrats capture the Senate in a year when they had to win races in Montana, Virginia, and Missouri to do so? Schumer directed his money well, and while increased support may have helped Harold Ford win in Tennessee, that's not certain. Schumer helped recruit candidates and directed money effectively, and he raised about $26 million more than his opposite member in the RSCC. He deserves a great deal of credit for this victory.

Rahm Emanuel - DCCC Chair - A
Had he raised a little more money (he got beat by the RCCC by $45 million dollars) he would have picked up an A+. But Emanuel helped recruit great candidates throughout the country, as victories in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, Minnesota, California, Arizona and elsewhere show. In fact, Emanuel nearly won 6-10 more seats that came close but not close enough (that's where the extra money would have come in handy). He should be a fixture in the House for many years, and as long as he's as active and engaged as he was in this cycle (even challenging Howard Dean when necessary), he should continue to find success as the head of the DCCC.

The Meaning of 11/07/06

2006-11-09T17:43:00.000-08:00

I already posted on my immediate, visceral reaction to the results of Tuesday's election. Now, I'm going to talk a little bit about what comes next, and what reaction should be had to the results.

First, I'm not going to overanalyze what happened on Tuesday. It was a solid butt-kicking by the Democratic party over the Republicans, and it was driven by disgust and anger, which were triggered by repeated scandals, incompetent management and leadership, and the continuing bad news out of Iraq. It didn't help matters, I suspect, that Iran and North Korea don't seem to be that concerned about the United States - and at least outwardly are both moving full-steam-ahead towards full-fledged nuclear power status.

Now, I'm curious about exactly what Republican power-brokers really thought heading into this election. Karl Rove had been telling everyone that Republicans were going to keep control of both houses, that he knew what the numbers really meant, blah blah blah. If Rove really believed this, then he's a hack pure and simple. This analysis is not my own, but I fully endorse it: Rove is and always has been over-rated. He essentially got lucky, winning an election for President Bush by 537 votes in 2000 (and losing the popular vote in the process) and pulling off narrow wins in 2002 and 2004 (although the presidential vote was fairly decisive). The problem with crediting Rove for these wins is that we don't know what would have happened absent Rove - in other words, a different "architect" might have been able to get Bush more votes (and an outright win) in 2000 by moving to the middle rather than to the base. We just don't know. Enough about Rove - he's been proven to be either delusional or ineffective, and there isn't a lot more to say about him. I'm guessing Republican presidential candidates won't be lining up to hire him for 2008.

Strategy
So, about that "run to the base" strategy - it doesn't work. Or, at least, it won't work for long. The Republicans have painted themselves into a very uncomfortable corner - a corner that will continue to shrink year after year as Republicans are pushed into the South. If you look at the Senate breakdown right now, it doesn't look that bad - Republicans have a big majority in the Southeast, and have good margins in the Mountain West and the Plains states. However, running to the base has lost them support in the Mountain West (look at Montana, which now has 2 Democratic Senators), and has eroded support for "new Republican" ideas elsewhere. My sense is that the "moderate middle" is growing - at least outside of the South, and maybe there - and so Republicans will find that the base is disappearing. Every year will bring fewer voters, and barring a change in strategy this is awfully problematic. Not to mention that the "base" isn't exactly pleased with the Republicans right now anyway, what with the runaway spending and what appears to be a willingness to talk about so-called "moral" issues without doing anything about them. This Rove-ian strategy is a loser, and the Republicans need to ditch it, fast.

The Next Two Years
The conventional wisdom is that the president and Congress will fight continuously over the next 2 years. I don't think that has to happen. Democrats should take advantage of a weakened president and push hard to get some legislation passed - if I were them, I would move to get a minimum wage increase and a guest worker program, along with some other reforms they favor. Tied together with the right concessions, the president will go along with these reforms, and it will make the Democrats look like they can govern. They will also avoid the temptation to get too aggressive in terms of oversight - it would make them look like the Republicans did circa 1998-2000, when the party overreached in fighting Bill Clinton. They don't want that to happen. That said, contention is the most likely result over the next few years - but it doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be that way.

Leadership in Congress
Who's going to end up as leaders in the House and Senate? It seems that the Democrats won by a big enough margin to put to rest any worry about Nancy Pelosi not becoming Speaker of the House - I don't see any way that she doesn't win the post. But who becomes Majority leader? I think the race between Steny Hoyer and John Murtha will be telling about how effectively Pelosi will be able to control her caucus - Murtha is an unabashed supporter, while Hoyer has been a thorn in her side as Minority Whip. If the caucus supports Murtha, I think it will indicate that they are fully behind Pelosi; if they go for Hoyer, it means they want a bit of control over her. We'll find out on November 16, when the Dems will hold their leadership election.

The next day, we'll find out whether the Republicans really want change. Speaker Dennis Hastert is returning to the back-benches, so current Majority Leader John Boehner is positioned to take over as Minority Leader. However, Boehner was tainted by the Foley scandal just like Hastert, and he's going to be challenged by Mike Pence and Joe Barton, both of whom seem to want to bring the party back to its roots. Boehner may be a goner, having lasted as leader for just a year. Roy Blunt, the Majority Whip, may retain his leadership position by becoming Minority Whip - but he too may be challenged.

In the Senate, there is no surprise on the Democratic side - Harry Reid will be the Majority Leader, and Dick Durbin the Majority Whip. As for the Republicans? Mitch McConnell is almost certain to become Minority Leader, but the post of Minority Whip is open and up for grabs. All indications are that Trent Lott wants that job and has been campaigning for it - but will he be hurt by the pseudo-scandal that knocked him out of his leadership position a few years back? He seems to think that he's cleansed himself, and he may be right - the Whip position is not as high profile as Leader.

2008

In 2008, Republicans will have 21 seats up for re-election while the Democrats have just 12. Of those, seats in Oregon, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Hampshire have to be considered very vulnerable. Kansas is moving noticeably towards the Dems, and may be in play. Freshmen will be running for re-election in Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Georgia, and Minnesota. In other words, it's not a particularly good situation for the Republicans. But all is going to depend on how the Democrats do in their trial run over the next 2 years.

As for the Presidential race that has already kicked off, I'm not going to go too in-depth yet. I'll be talking about this in detail later. Suffice it to say, I think John McCain is the likely Republican candidate, and I think Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama is the likely Democratic candidate. It will be a very, very interesting primary season.

So there it is - I have more to say, but I've rambled on for long enough in this post. More will be coming over the next few days and weeks, and remember to watch late next week when the parties pick their leaders in the House.

Random Musings on Last Night

2006-11-08T16:39:00.000-08:00

The majority of the races have been decided, and it's time to dissect what happened last night. Here are my general thoughts on what transpired and what is to come. Let me say that nothing clarifies your political views more than who you find yourself rooting for on election night. I don't consider myself a member of either party, because I don't think either party is a comfortable fit for my views. Nonetheless, for many years I have considered myself more closely affiliated with the Republican Party over the Democratic Party, largely because I grew up in a very conservative household, believing that Democrats were pretty much evil.

Even as my social views have drifted to the left, I have still hesitated to support the Democratic Party. Back in 2002, I thought I had changed - outwardly I was supporting Democrats. Then, election night rolled around and I found myself pleased that the projected Republican losses never materialized. Clearly, I wasn't yet ready to break from my past. In 2004, I voted for John Kerry. I believed very strongly that I wanted the Democrats to win. Yet, when I went to bed in the wee hours that night, I found myself relieved that GWB looked to be on his way to re-election - turns out my head had been sold on Kerry but my heart hadn't.

Turn to last night. In every race, throughout every state, I found myself unequivocally rooting for the Democrats; I guess the transformation is complete. To my Republican friends who might read this blog, I say only this; your party has lost its way. Last night was essential if the Republicans are to regain their principles and find a real sense of purpose again. Scandals, incompetence, stubborn refusal to deal with reality, utter disregard for thoughts and ideas not generated by the party elite - these are the sins for which Republicans were punished last night. Do your part to purge your party of these things and maybe, just maybe, you won't suffer a horrific loss in 2008.

A Deeper Analysis of Maryland

2006-11-05T06:42:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I posted my (sort-of) final predictions for the election. The most left-field pick I made was in the Maryland Senate race between Congressman Ben Cardin (D), and Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele (R), who are running to replace the retiring Paul Sarbanes (D). Bucking the conventional wisdom, I am predicting that Steele will win, preserving Republican control of the Senate (if only barely).

Why buck the conventional wisdom in this race? First, the CW is largely built on polling data, the pseudo-incumbency advantage held by the same-party candidate for a seat long held by one person, and the general anti-Republican atmosphere that is pervasive this election. But look more closely at the polling data (thanks to Real Clear Politics, the best source of polling data on the web). Since October 30, 4 major polls have been released:

10/30 - Baltimore Sun - Cardin +6
10/31 - Rasmussen - Cardin +5
11/02 - Survey USA - Tie
11/03 - Mason-Dixon - Cardin +3

The tie is the statistical anomaly, and with multiple respected polling outfits suggesting Cardin has a slim (and closing) lead, I have to concede that Cardin is probably "ahead," whatever that means divorced from the actual counting of ballots.

However, Cardin has stumbled when it comes to courting black voters in Maryland, a critical constituency. For instance, for whatever reason (and there are some legitimate excuses circulating) Cardin did not appear at an NAACP event/debate on October 26, which angered those present and let Michael Steele, get significantly more attention and praise than could be expected for a Republican candidate.

The Washington Post offers a simple, and inadequate, explanation for why Cardin might be in trouble, buried in a story about trouble for the GOP: "unpredictable votes by African Americans could undo predictions in Maryland . . . where GOP nominee Michael S. Steele, who is black, is running against Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D), who is white." To be fair to the Post, the statement was attributed to Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee - but it's clearly in line with the reasoning of the Post, which does not comment elsewhere.

But this is simplistic and frankly a little insulting. It suggests that African-American support for Steele is built on the simplest and least useful premise of "he's black, we're black, we're voting for him." Now, undoubtedly this is true in some cases. However, black voters are not a monolithic, simplistic cabal anymore than are white voters, or aged voters, or any other group of voters. I believe that Steele will peel off votes from Cardin amongst African-Americans because Cardin has neglected this fairly vital portion of his base. Ask any politician - it's a reality that keeping contact with the base, keeping people feeling like you are attentive to their needs and concerns, is essential. The majority of African-Americans who vote for Steele, or don't vote at all, won't be doing so simply because Steele is black - they'll be doing so because they don't feel Cardin is going to be an effective advocate for them.

So, I am essentially making an educated guess that the pollsters aren't adequately covering this aspect of the Maryland race, and that it won't really surface until the returns are counted on Tuesday night. I'm picking Steele because I think enough black voters will either vote for him, or not vote in the race at all, to erode Cardin's numbers to the point that Steele can get the win. Republicans, who have little chance to gain seats elsewhere, had best hope that I'm right.

Early Predictions

2006-11-03T23:31:00.000-08:00

After spending most of the night reviewing the latest polls, articles, anecdotes, and miscellania associated with Tuesday, I am ready to reveal my first predictions for the races. I'll be continually reviewing the close races until Monday night, and will be posting my final predictions then.

The executive summary is this:

The Republicans will maintain control of the Senate, but barely - 50-50.
The Democrats will hold more Governorships, 27-23.
The Democrats will control the House, 226-209.

Here are some of the individual races, including a few surprises.

Senate
I have the Dems taking control in VA, OH, PA, MO, RI, MT. Those of you who are good at counting will realize that this is 6 seats, which should be enough to win control of the Senate. However, I am predicting that the biggest surprise of the night will be in Maryland, where Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele (R) is going to beat Ben Cardin (D). Cardin has been a terrible candidate, and has been especially unpopular amongst African-Americans. My belief is that many of them will either stay home, or vote for Steele. It's going to be a squeaker, but I think Steele will win. If he doesn't, the Dems will take control of the Senate.

The other race that struggled with in making these predictions was Montana. Tester (D) has been running ahead of Burns (R-inc) there for most of the fall, but the race has closed considerably. I think that if you held this same race 10 times, each would win 5 - in otherwords, it's essentially unpredictable. I went with Tester because there may be some late movement as indicated by the Nov. 1 Rasmussen poll showing Tester up by 6, but one poll is not particularly significant. It was enough for me to give the edge to Tester at this late stage, however, because again I think this is essentially a toss-up race.

Governors
I'm predicting a Democratic takeover in Minnesota and a succsful hold for the Republican in Maryland. Both could go either way. I may very well change my mind on both of these races before Monday night.

House
I have the Democrats taking 25 seats from Republicans, and looking through the races I think that's a conservative estimate. It is very possible the the Democrats could take 35-40 races this cycle, if things break their way. On the short end, I'd be stunned if they took fewer than 20 seats. Going race-by-race, there just isn't a lot of margin for error for the Republicans.

Gil Gutknecht's Comments

2006-10-31T17:43:00.000-08:00

MSNBC has a fairly long article about the MN-1 race, featuring Gil Gutknecht (R-inc) and Tim Walz (D). The article is interesting, but the reason I'm posting on this is that I take exception to some of the comments made by Gutknecht. First, some background. Gutknecht was elected 12 years ago, and the Minnesota 1st is a pretty conservative place. Despite this, Gutknecht is in a very tough race with Walz, and while I expect Gil to pull out the win, it should be very close.

Gutknecht was asked whether he was surprised that the race was so close. His response: "Yeah . . . Gee whiz, I've done a good job, I've done what people asked me to do. People like me, and why am I in a tough race this year?"

Now, this is not egregious. Politicians stay unbelievably stupid things all the time, and this isn't in that category. But, it does strike me as a bit conceited - and I would remind Gil that he is not entitled to the seat. Obviously, people aren't happy about something, and his comments just strike me as appearing to display a little bit of entitlement.

Then, Gutknecht had this to say: "A lot of people are a little disappointed. They expected better results from a Republican Congress and a Republican administration. But in the end, they have to ask themselves, 'would we be better off to turn the keys over to people like Nancy Pelosi?' " I hate that kind of statement. It's pretty much a "we're bad, they're worse" argument, and I think there's no place for it. Tell people why they should want to vote for you, not why they should be afraid to vote for your opponent.

Again, these aren't huge things - pretty innocuous, really, compared to a lot of what's out there (just look at the chaos in Virginia for an example). But Gutknecht's comments rub me the wrong way. Maybe I'm just getting cranky as we approach election day.

Unusual Races

2006-10-27T10:16:00.000-07:00

The races that follow may or may not be important. They may or may not be competitive. Nevertheless, there is something about them that sets them apart. Here are my "unusual races" for this election cycle.

Like Father, Like Son
Delaware Attorney General
Senator Joe Biden's son, also named Joe, makes a run at the top legal job in Delaware.

Florida CD 9
Congressman Mike Bilirakis is retiring, and his son Gus is running to replace him.

Maryland CD 3
Retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes' son, John Peter, makes a run for Congress. Making things more interesting is the fact that he's trying to replace Ben Cardin, who is himself seeking to replace Senator Sarbanes. And the wheel goes 'round and 'round...

Nevada Senate
Former President Jimmy Carter's son, Jack, tries to unseat Senator John Ensign.

New Jersey Senate
Thomas Kean, Jr., son of former Jersey Governor Tom Kean, tries to unseat Senator Robert Menendez.

New York Attorney General
Andrew Cuomo, son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, tries to replace Eliot Spitzer as AG.

Executive Shuffle
California
Term Limits don't have to mean the end of executive service. Just ask Democrats in California, here an intricate shuffle is being executed. Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante can't remain as LG, and so is running for Insurance Commissioner. The sitting Insurance Commissioner, John Garamendi, is running for LG. Everybody's happy. There's more - Treasurer Phil Angelides is running against the Governator, and Attorney General Bill Lockyer is trying to win the Treasurer job. Seeking to replace Lockyer? Former Governor Jerry Brown. Why bring in new faces when you can just share all the jobs?

Wyoming
This one isn't as egregious as in California. Secretary of State Joe Meyer is term limited, and so is running for Treasurer. Meanwhile, term-limited Auditor Max Maxfield tries to move up to Secretary of State.

Dissension at the Office
These races feature an incumbent Governor facing their own Lieutenant Governor. Of course, outside of primaries, this can only happen in states that elect these two offices separately.

Alabama
Governor Bob Riley (R) faces Lieutenant Governor Lucy Baxley (D).

Georgia
Governor Sonny Perdue (R) faces Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor (D).

Rhode Island
Governor Donald Carcieri (R) faces Lieutenant Governor Charles Fogarty (D).

NFL Politics
Two races feature former NFL players - Lynn Swann (R) is running for Governor in Pennsylvania, and Heath Shuler (D) is running for Congress in North Carolina.

Who Am I Voting For?
Last names serve as a great way to differentiate yourself from an opponent. Unfortunately, that doesn't work if the names are close - or identical. Somewhat surprisingly, there aren't that many races falling in this category.

Arkansas CD 4
Congressman Mike Ross (D-inc) faces Joe Ross (R).

New Jersey CD 3
Congressman Jim Saxton (R-inc) faces Rich Sexton (D).

And My Favorite
This is from Idaho. Back on May 26, Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne was named Secretary of the Interior by President Bush. As a result, his Lieutenant Governor, Jim Risch, became Governor. Now, Risch is stepping aside - Congressman C.L. Otter is running for Governor, but Risch isn't ready to leave politics just yet. Instead, he's running for his old office of Lieutenant Governor. That's right - the sitting Governor of Idaho is running for Lieutenant Governor. That strikes me as incredibly funny, and also incredibly odd.

New Jersey "win" really a "loss?"

2006-10-25T12:45:00.000-07:00

Moments ago, the Supreme Court of New Jersey declared that gay couples are entitled to the same protections that heterosexual couples receive through marriage. They've given lawmakers 180 days to decide whether to fully extend marriage to gay couples, or whether to create a civil union system that offers identical protections.

This ruling comes after 2 years of nearly non-stop losses for proponents of gay marriage, both in the Courts and at the hands of the voters, and there's no question that it's a big "win" for the movement in the near term. However, the results could turn out to be anything but positive for supporters of gay marriage.

For the last few years, people like John McCain have been arguing that, while they are opposed to gay marriage in principle, they weren't comfortable amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage because it wasn't necessary to do so. The reasoning was that the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, was Constitutional and would prevent gay marriages from spreading across the country by virtue of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution if one state (such as New Jersey, now) were to authorize it.

Of course, there are many (such as myself) who think that a court challenge to DOMA would result in its being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If this were to happen, it would outrage opponents of gay marriage, and would make McCain's argument completely moot. This is, in my mind, the only sequence of events that could lead to the passage of an Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment.

Rather than fighting this issue in the Courts, I think the movement needs to work hard to change people's opinions on the issue. Convince the public (and the legislators) that gay marriage (or, preferably, civil unions - which are less offensive to opponents and which can be structured to provide the same protections) is not going to bring down the republic, and all of a sudden you can start to get laws passed allowing civil unions. Failure to secure the support of the majority beforehand, however, will backfire. The courts are an unpredictable and unstable means of fighting political battles - and the consequences of winning in the courts are not always forseeable.

Cheney on 2008

2006-10-24T16:58:00.000-07:00

Cheney says Hillary could win, while Obama is too inexperienced. Here's what I think - the Republicans aren't worried about Hillary because her negatives are so high, but they see Obama as a dangerous opponent and are trying to discourage him. Frankly, I too think 2008 is too soon for Obama. However, I think he's going to run for President to position himself as the VP choice of the eventual winner. Thing is, if Obama runs, he just might win the nomination.

Silly Speculation

2006-10-20T09:53:00.000-07:00

MSNBC has an article up about the possibility of Bill Clinton to serving as Vice-President in a future administration, and his ability to become President under the succession laws in the event that the President he serves were to become incapacitated.

My first response was that such speculation was utterly absurd, for the simple reason that Clinton wouldn't be eligible to serve, since he can't be President again. Things are apparently not so simple, however. The text of the 22nd Amendment bars an individual from being elected to a third term as President. The Constitution itself, of course, is silent on the issue - but it does say that a Vice-President must be eligible to serve as President. Of course, the rules require that an individual have reached the age of 35 and be a natural born citizen - Clinton obviously is eligible Constitutionally, since he's served as President before. The question, then, turns on whether the 22nd Amendment makes him ineligible to serve as President, or only ineligible to be ELECTED President.

A literal reading of the Amendment's text suggests that nothing makes Clinton Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President. As a result, he could likely stand as Vice-President, and succeed to the Presidency if necessary. Unfortunately, this would seem to be absolutely against the intent of the individuals who drafted and passed the 22nd Amendment, who by almost all accounts intended to prevent anyone from serving as President beyond two full terms.

Of course, language matters. If the intent was to prevent a former President who had served two full terms from serving as President in the future, they should have said so. If the statutory language is clear, it should be enforced - legislative intent is a convenient fiction, after all, for how can a body consisting of 535 members (the House and Senate) and the legislatures of at least 3/4 of the states, be said to have any "single" intent? The answer of course is that they didn't - different people voted yes for different reasons. Additionally, no record of legislative intent can possibly be complete, because not everything is recorded. It seems to me that you have to take the language at face value.

This doesn't mean, however, that Clinton should take the plunge and run for VP. Common sense should tell anyone that the purpose of passing the 22nd Amendment was to limit the amount of service at the pinnacle of the executive branch. That should be respected (although I disagree with it), and Clinton should put from his mind any thought of running for anything else. He has entered the "former President" stage of his career, and it should stay that way.

Finally, for anyone suggesting that Hillary should pick Bill as her running mate, that's not going to happen. For one thing, Hillary couldn't handle not being the center of attention in her own administration - no President could. But there's one more significant problem; the President and Vice-President can't have the same state of residency under the 12th Amendment. The two Clinton's may not have the best marriage (that's a cheap shot from me), but they do share a residence in New York. One of them would have to move out - and if that happens, I don't think that Hillary would be picking Bill as her VP.

Connecticut Senate

2006-10-20T09:17:00.000-07:00

Quinnipiac has released a new poll on the Connecticut Senate race, and it has a surprise for those who thought Arthur Schlesinger won the debate and stirred up the race.

According to Quinnipiac, Lieberman has a 52%-35% lead over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, with Republican Arthur Schlesinger polling at 6%. This result means that Lieberman has actually gained ground since the debate, which was, according to most of the Connecticut media and left-ish blogs, supposed to have the opposite result. Schlesinger was viewed as feisty and capable - and all those crazy Republicans who have been supporting Lieberman were supposed to suddenly realize the error of their ways and flock back to Schlesinger. Of course, this would have been great news for Ned Lamont, because every vote for Schlesinger is a vote Lieberman didn't get.

One poll doesn't necessarily mean anything, but Q-pac is usually a pretty reliable poll, especially for Connecticut. So why is Lieberman gaining ground? I think part of it is pragmatism, and part of it is resentment against Lamont and the Democratic establishment. I'll start with the resentment first. Lieberman is a popular Senator; he's been working for Connecticut for quite awhile, and they're happy with him. Along comes Ned Lamont, challenging Lieberman for reasons that the average voter just doesn't understand - and he gets support from the far left bloggers and some of the party establishment (mostly in the form of low enthusiasm on their part for Lieberman). I believe that a number of voters in Connecticut are supporting Lieberman just because they think that what Lamont did was unfair - and supported largely by those from outside of Connecticut.

As for pragmatism, this has been discussed by many. The Republicans know that Schlesinger isn't going to win the election. They look at Lamont and Lieberman, and they see a difference. Part of the reason why they see a difference may very well be the unabashed support for Lamont amongst the far left; if Daily Kos is supporting Lamont, there has to be a reason. As a result, even though Lieberman has, in truth, been largely in line with the Democratic Party on the majority of issues, he's been branded by the Left as the enemy. In effect, I think the far left shot itself in the foot on this one by branding Lieberman in such a way that would make him attractive to Republicans.

All of this indicates an easy victory for Lieberman in November, and grave disappointment amongst the far left, will result.

Pelosi Not a Shoo-In?

2006-10-20T08:56:00.000-07:00

A very interesting article in the Washington Times today about Nancy Pelosi's possible problems in winning the position of Speaker of the House if the Democrats win a Majority in 18 days. Pelosi is an unabashed liberal, and there still exist quite moderate - and even conservative - Democrats within her caucus. Some of them may not support her in a bid for the Speakership.

The nightmare scenario for Pelosi is that the Democrats win the House by just 2 or 3 (or even 1) seat. There are very likely enough members of the caucus who won't vote for Pelosi that the Dems could find themselves letting Dennis Hastert be re-elected to the Speakership, at least for a time. This is because the candidate for Speaker who receives the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, wins the Speakership. The Republicans are typically disciplined in their support of a Speaker candidate, so a split Democratic caucus would likely mean a win for Hastert.

That wouldn't be the end of the matter - the Democrats could regroup and hold another Speakership election whenever they were ready. The problem for Pelosi is that she likely wouldn't be able to get enough support from those who already were opposed to her ascension to the Speakership to win later. The same would likely be true from whoever opposed her on the Democratic side in the first place, probably Steny Hoyer (the current #2 Democrat in the House). The result? I would expect a compromise candidate to emerge from the caucus (possibly John Murtha, but he has his own issues).

One last thought: Hastert may have been damaged enough by the Foley scandal to have fractured the party unity that Republicans are so famous for. If enough Republicans refused to support Hastert, and if Hastert nevertheless insisted on standing for Speaker again, then he could be challenged. I suspect Hastert would still retain the majority of the Republican votes, but the challenger could peel off enough support to hand the Speakership election outright to Pelosi.

So, things are a wee bit complicated, and are likely to remain so until at least mid-January.

Scalia at His Best

2006-10-15T21:46:00.000-07:00

I love watching Justice Scalia speak; I think that he is by far the most articulate of the Justices on the Supreme Court, and even when I disagree with him, I at least know exactly how he is arriving at the decisions that he makes.

Tonight, in a debate with Nadine Strossen, the President of the American Civil Liberties Union, Scalia was at his best. He clearly and concisely laid out the reasons for his decisions, and while this wasn't a "debate" by any stretch of the imagination, Scalia would have won if it had been.

I can't do justice (no pun intended) to Scalia's points, and I encourage everyone to head to C-SPAN and watch this thing as soon as possible. But the most devestating and accurate point that Scalia threw down was this:

When challenged about whether Brown v. Board of Education (the opinion that brought an end to legalized segregation in schools) was correctly decided, Scalia stood his ground and said no. But he went further, and herein lies the genius of his argument; Scalia stated quite clearly that the social benefits of Brown were extremely positive, but that that didn't prove anything. Even a Court that was applying a wishy-washy version of the law could produce some truly positive and beneficial things. That didn't make their actions or reasoning correct, and it didn't mean that their actions were contemplated by the Constitution. That's exceedingly hard to rebut.

Scalia also rejected the label of strict constructionist, because he is willing to interpret the Constitution when it is the prudent thing to do. In other words, Scalia will look to the legislative intent to define what the meaning of Constitutional (or statutory) text means, not to the dictionary. He doesn't necessarily require the same meaning for the same words in different clauses; context, and history, matter. He would define himself as an originalist rather than a strict constructionist.

Scalia makes sense, and right now my head hurts because I'm having a hard time resisting the pull of Nino. Now, if only he'd be a little more polite when on the bench (or when writing opinions).

Races that Weren't

2006-10-15T08:50:00.000-07:00

Every year, there are races which are supposed to be competitive, but which don't turn out that way. Here are my top 5 such races in this election cycle:

1.) Minnesota Senate - Amy Klobuchar (D) v. Mark Kennedy (R)
Mark Kennedy has been the presumptive Republican nominee in this race since before he won re-election to the House in 2004. At that time, it looked like he would be facing Senator Mark Dayton this November, but Dayton wisely realized that winning re-election would have been virtually impossible and chose not to run. That move opened the door for Klobuchar, who built a 10-15 point lead in virtually every poll. Kennedy has not caught fire the way that he was expected to, and is on his way to an ignominious defeat. This should have been a highly competitive race, the best chance for Republicans to pick up a Democrat-held Senate seat in 2006. Instead, it's an easy hold for the Donkey's.

2.) California Governor - Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) v. Phil Angelides (D)
There's a race for Governor in California? You wouldn't know it by looking at the polls. Schwarzenegger has maintained his popularity, and has been helped by the uninspiring Angelides, who has been unable to connect with voters. The biggest splash Angelides has made has been screeching at Jay Leno for equal time, since Arnie is being invited (yet again) to appear on The Tonight Show.

3.) Pennsylvania Governor - Ed Rendel (D) v. Lynn Swann (R)
Pennsylvania is a swing state, and Swann is a very popular former Pittsburgh Steeler, so this thing's going to be a barn-burner, right? Uhhhh, no. Rendel is popular enough that Swann has been unable to gain traction, and Rendel is leading by about 20 points. This thing isn't going to close, and Rendel will get a second term.

4.) Florida Senate - Bill Nelson (D) v. Katherine Harris (R)
This is a bit of a fudge; Harris was never going to be competitive against Nelson. The race for this seat, however, should have been very close. Nelson is a moderate, relatively weak Democrat. The Republican Party could not find a suitable candidate to challenge the woefully inept Harris, and the result is a complete non-race. Harris is going to be wiped out in November, and Republicans have to be left wondering what might have been.

5.) Connecticut Senate - Joe Lieberman (I) v. Ned Lamont (D)
How can I put this race on the "non-race" list? After all, Lamont just defeated Lieberman in the Democratic Primary back in August. Nevertheless, Lieberman has opened up a 10-12 point lead over Lamont, and this race has never developed into a truly competitive contest. Moderates and Republicans both support Lieberman, and that's going to be enough to secure victory. The folks over at Daily Kos were thrilled that Lamont won the primary, but this goes down as a "peaking early" situation that is much more likely to bite the Democrats in the rear thanks to frayed relationships with Lieberman than it is to result in a Senator Lamont.

An Intriguing Possibility

2006-10-14T23:15:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: I'm not the only one discussing this scenario and considering it at least plausible. See a brief discussion of the issue at Talking Points Memo.

Imagine that this scenario comes to pass on election night:

Democrats, needing to gain 6 seats in the Senate to wrest control from the Republicans, win exactly those 6 sits by winning in Montana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island (and holding off a strong challenge in New Jersey). There is rejoicing throughout the Blue States, as everyone contemplates the narrow 51-49 majority that will be enjoyed starting in January.

And then the other shoe drops. Joe Lieberman, who easily beat Ned Lamont, announces that he cannot justify caucusing with the Democratic Party after they treated him like a leper following his decision to run after losing in the August primary. Instead, he decides to caucus with the Republicans, who have promised him a Committee chairmanship and pride of place as a Republican hero for pulling a reverse Jim Jeffords.

Far fetched? I don't think so. Democrats are leading in each of the six states that they need to take over; Menendez is winning again in New Jersey and seems to have the momentum; Joe Lieberman is clobbering Ned Lamont. I think it is probably that this exact scenario plays out on election night.

The only real question is what Lieberman will chose to do when January rolls around. Harry Reid should read the handwriting on the wall and start making nice with old Joe, or things could start to unravel quickly after election night.

A Week Late...

2006-10-14T15:03:00.000-07:00

I finally got a chance to watch last week's Meet the Press, which featured a debate between Missouri Senator Jim Talent (R) and his challenger, Claire McCaskill (D). I love the Meet the Press debate series, because it gives you a chance to see Tim Russert try to make both candidates uncomfortable with his often ludicrous questions (I'm a fan of Russert, but he tries way to hard to find "gotcha" moments when he's interviewing in these things).

As for the debate itself, the candidates took the positions that you would expect members of their party from Missouri to take, so there was nothing particularly remarkable there. Here were my thoughts on the less substantive aspects of the debate.

1.) Both are more interesting, engaging, charismatic people than either candidate in the race in Virginia, Senator George Allen (R) and Jim Webb (D). At least there are articulate people running in Missouri.

2.) McCaskill has a "John Kerry" problem in that she is waaaayyyy too obvious about discussing her background as a prosecutor. I call this a "John Kerry" problem in that, when running for President in 2004, he took every opportunity to remind people that he had won three purple hearts. Well, McCaskill never missed a beat when the opportunity to talk about her prosecutorial past came up.

3.) Talent is a Bush toadie - but why is that wrong? Talent is from a "values" state, Bush is a Republican . . . is Talent supposed to somehow be opposed to all of his positions just because Bush's approval numbers are in the tank? I agree with Russert, though, that it's fair to equate a vote for Talent as a vote for Bush because of Talent's high "votes with Bush" numbers (mentioned in MTP as 94%).

Bottom line: I think Talent will hang on in this race. Unless the "Democratic wave" gains steam over the next 24 days, I don't see McCaskill picking up enough votes to win. It will be very close, probably no more than 52% going to Talent, but that'll be enough.

Warner Out for '08

2006-10-12T16:55:00.000-07:00

Frankly, this surprises me. It should delight Republicans, because had Warner won the Democratic Primary (which was doubtful; more on that later), he would have made a formidable opponent. By all accounts he's a moderate, thoughtful, articulate former Governor of a Red State (that'd be Virginia). Instead, he wants a "real" life, and presumably will go make a lot of money somewhere.

There are several possible reasons for this move. One is that Warner is telling the truth; he decided that the rigours of living life in the public eye just aren't worth the benefits of power and a place in history. If that's the case, then I applaud him for deciding to stay home with his family. I think there are two more likely scenarios, however. The first, and I think best, explanation is that Warner's "people" told him it just wasn't going to happen. Contrary to some of the early CW, Warner didn't catch on and was finishing towards the bottom of most of the star polls. The reality is that we're 15 months from the first primary - if things are looking bad now, there's still time to fix them, but it wouldn't be easy. I think someone looked at the numbers, looked at the crowded field, and made a judgment call to advise Warner to strongly think about getting out. Of course, the other possibility is that there is something in Warner's past (real or perceived) that would prevent him from winning an election, or at least would be extremely embarrassing. It's impossible to say whether that's the case, but if it is I think Warner made the right decision to get out now rather than have his name sullied.

Bottom line; this is good news for candidates on both sides of the aisle who are considering running for President in 2008.

The Big Three

2006-10-09T18:01:00.000-07:00

According to this story, Republicans are focusing on three Senate races with hopes of preventing the Democrats from gaining too much ground and taking over the upper chamber in November. All three of these races (Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee) are exceedingly close; the extra money they will get by being the highlighted races could very well make the difference in all three. My early read on things is that the Republicans will win in Missouri, but lose in Ohio and Tennessee; however, I think any of these races could shift quickly.

The important thing, though, is the fact that this leaves several prominent Republicans out in the cold: Conrad Burns in Montana is seemingly left for dead, and Lincoln Chaffee, who received significant help against his very conservative primary opponent, doesn't seem to be getting any love under this new strategy. Rick Santorum also isn't mentioned here. The likely reason in each case is that the Republican's have written off these races. Probably a good idea, as only Chaffee seems to be within legitimate striking distance.

It's going to be a very interesting last month in the runup to the General Election. Watching where the resources go will speak volumes about which races the parties think are winnable.

Of Course He's Running

2006-10-09T07:47:00.000-07:00

Here's another article posing the question that's on NONE of our minds: Will John Kerry run for President again? Look, of course he's going to run. His ego is too big for him not to. And he's going to lose. With a host of other mediocre candidates who haven't lost a general election, why would you nominate a mediocre candidate who has?

Incidentally, this logic doesn't apply to Al Gore because he has the "out" of saying, quite correctly, that he picked up more votes than the other guy. That will provide him with a little bit of a "get out of jail free" card on the "general election loser" side of things. His wooden personality? That's still a problem.

Future of SCOTUS

2006-10-08T09:24:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has an article on what Washington would look like in the next 2 years if the Democrats were to win one, or both, houses of Congress in a month. There is a mention about halfway through the article discussing how such a situation would affect judicial appointments, with bravado being offered from Patrick Leahy, suggesting that no ideological partisans would make it to the Supreme Court.

I think things would be more drastic than that. Conservatives have a phobia about "moderate" judges. After all, they may turn out like David Souter, who most now believe is a complete lost cause, or Anthony Kennedy, who is close. Instead, tea leaves must be read to ensure that future Justices are "really" conservative.

There's a big problem, however. Justices, like anyone else, often revise their opinions after they've been banging around the echo chamber that is Washington for awhile. Harry Blackmun rather famously became one of the Court's staunchest liberals. Souter and Kennedy both started off as relatively "Conservative" (and really, that term doesn't perfectly work in the weird world of judges, but it's close enough) only to start drifting, Souter quickly and Kennedy in fits and starts.

Hence we get picks like John Roberts (who seems to be a phenomenol Justice, but whose jurisprudence is not particularly well-known due to his seeming high regard for stare decisis, the doctrine of leaving previous decisions in place rather than over-turning them unless obviously wrong, and maybe not even then) and Samuel Alito, clearly Conservative in a general sense but not an avowed partisan.

Even picks like Roberts and Alito would, I suspect, fail to pass muster in a Democratic-controlled Senate over the next two years, however. The reason? Democrats will hold out for a candidate acceptable to them (and they will not compromise). They will do so with the knowledge that they have a good chance of taking over the Presidency in 2008 and getting one of their own on the bench.

The result? I suspect that if a vacancy is created in the next 2 years, either because of a death or retirement (highly unlikely unless a serious illness was involved), President Bush's only chance to fill it would be through a recess appointment. The atmosphere won't allow for anything else. And then things will get really interesting following the 2008 Presidential election.

Goodbye Mr. Foley

2006-09-29T13:37:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Lest it seem like I was being dismissive by categorizing this as a "minor scandal," let me make it clear that anytime someone flouts the law its serious business. I'm comparing this to situations where Congressmen steal massive sums of money, or engage in other improprieties as such. There is no indication that Foley actually physically abused anyone, only that he made extremely innappropriate remarks and suggestions to at least one, and probably several, underage pages. It's a scandal, yes. He will and should be prosecuted, yes. Much, much worse could have been done. So there ya go; that's why I consider this "minor." Of course, the GOP leadership will probably disagree, as this hot potato appears to be about to go nuclear, and could potentially cost Hastert and Boehner dearly. And now for the original post:

There was a time, I suspect, when Congressmen could get away with "minor scandals" like flirting with age innappropriate pages. But, when you live in the media age, and when you're a Republican who has vehemently denied rumors about being gay, and when the page in question happens to be male . . . well, you ain't going to last long. That's why it's really not a surprise that Foley is no longer a Member of Congress.

What is surprising to me is the speed with which this happened. ABC News just put this information out yesterday (to my knowledge), and it took less than 24 hours for the water to get to hot for Foley. It sounds like there are some rather more serious sexually explicit instant messages that have been sent to current and former pages. Foley's decision to resign so quickly suggests that these aren't made up. Foley has a problem, and it finally caught up to him.

Moving forward, the question is what this will do this November in the election. Foley was cruising to re-election, but now the Republicans will have to come up with a viable candidate on short notice. This seems to be a pretty conservative district, but following a scandal like this the reputation of the party in the area has to be affected. I won't go so far as to predict a Democratic takeover here, but for the first time it seems like a possibility.

Weird story, but sadly one that I doubt is unique; Foley just isn't as good at covering things up, or controlling himself, as the others who inevitably engage in the same sorts of behavior.

Saturday's Primary Results

2006-09-27T16:30:00.000-07:00

Hawaii Senate
Senator Daniel Akaka (D) defeated challenger Congressman Ed Case (D) in this primary battle, 55%-45%. I thought it would be closer than this, but the power of a long-term incumbent over a relative newcomer to Congress was evident, and Case's relative conservatism didn't help him as much as he had hoped.

On the Republican side, Jerry Coffee picked up 41% of the vote despite having withdrawn from the race for health reasons. The Republican Party then selected State Representative Cynthia Thielen to replace Coffee, despite Thielen not having been on the ballot. They were free to select a nominee of their choice based on state law, but it made the voting process rather superfluous. Perhaps that explains why only around 25,000 people voted in the Republican primary for the Senate.

Hawaii Governor
Governor Linda Lingle (R) was re-nominated with 97% of the vote. The popular Republican will face Randy Iwase (D) in November, after Iwase picked up 66% of the vote in the Democratic primary. This is going to be an interesting race, because Lingle is a relatively popular Governor, but this is a heavily Democratic state.

Hawaii CD 1
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D) was re-nominated with 79% of the vote. He will face Richard Hough (R) in November, after Hough beat challenger Mark Terry 57%-43%.

Hawaii CD 2
The race to replace Congressman Ed Case (D), who unsucessfully challenged Senator Daniel Akaka, was extremely close on both sides. For the Dems, Mazie Hirono picked up 21.83% of the vote (24,471 votes) beat out Colleen Hanabusa (21.09% / 23,635 votes). For the Republicans, Bob Hogue beat Quentin Kawananakoa by less than 200 votes (8,409 to 8,220). Either of these races could be subject to recount mania.

Saturday's Primary

2006-09-22T21:29:00.000-07:00

Hawaii Senate
This is a very interesting race, one which ranks right up there with Connecticut and Rhode Island for intriguing inter-party squabbles. Senator Daniel Akaka (D) faces a challenge from the more pro-war Congressman Ed Case (D), and the polling data indicates an extremely close race. Frankly, I'd be very, very surprised if Case pulled this one off, but who knows. The Republicans in the race are an afterthought, but their names are Mark Beatty, Gerald Coffey (whose campaign was suspended due to serious illness), Charles Collins, Jay Friedheim, Edward Pirkowski, and Steve Tataii.

Hawaii Governor
Governor Linda Lingle (R) pulled off a surprising win in 2002, in a state typically dominated by Democrats. She faces challenges from George Berish, Paul Manner, and George Peabody, and should win easily. On the Democratic side, William Aila, Jr., Randy Iwase, and Van Tanabe are running. I don't know who the favorite is, so I'll pick Randy Iwase.

Hawaii CD 1
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D) faces a primary challenge from Alexandra Kaan which he will easily survive. Republicans Noah Hough, II and Mark Terry are competing to determine who will lose to Abercrombie in November.

Hawaii CD 2
With Congressman Ed Case (D) running for the Senate, there is an open seat to be had. That's brought out no less than 10 Democrats for this race. In order of money raised, they are: Mazie Hirono, Colleen Wakako Hanabusa, Brian Emanuel Schatz, Clayton Hee, Gary Hooser, Ron Menor, Matt Matsunaga, Nestor Garcia, Joe Zuiker, and Hanalei Aipoalani. Hirono will probably win. On the Republican side, Quentin Kawananakoa faces State Senator Bob Hogue. Kawananakoa has raised significantly more cash, and should win the primary. I expect that to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Tuesday's Primary Results

2006-09-20T16:46:00.000-07:00

Massachusetts Governor
Being Attorney General wasn't enough for Tom Reilly, who finished dead last in this 3-way primary to determine the Democratic candidate for Governor. Instead, it was Deval Patrick who picked up 50% of the vote, and who will go on to face Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey (R) in November.

Massachusetts Senate
In a nailbiter, Ken Chase (R) beat Kevin Scott (R) 51%-49% to win the Republican nomination for Senate. Somewhere, Ted Kennedy yawns.

Massachusetts CD 9
Steve Lynch (D) picked up 77% of the vote in easily winning the nomination for this seat. He will face Jack Robinson, III (R) in November.

Washington Senate
Senator Maria Cantwell (D) picked up 95% of the vote, and Mike McGavick (R) picked up 85% of the vote. Why were people running against them, exactly? Oh well . . . now the race can "officially" begin.

Washington CD 2
Doug Roulstone (R) picked up 76% of the vote, and advances to face Congressman Rick Larsen (D) in November.

Washington CD 3
Michael Messmore (R) won 66% of the vote on the way to winning his primary. His opponent in November will be Congressman Brian Baird (D).

Washington CD 4
Richard Wright (D) easily won his primary, picking up 85% of the vote. He'll face Congressman Doc Hastings (R), who picked up a safe but not exceptional 76% in being re-nominated.

Washington CD 7
Congressman Jim McDermott (D) was unfazed by his two primary opponents, as he obliterated them by picking up 92% of the vote. He will face Steve Beren (R) in November.

Today's Primaries

2006-09-19T08:04:00.000-07:00

Massachusetts Senate
Believe it or not, Republicans are trying to contest Senator Ted Kennedy's (D) seat. They hold a primary today to determine which of the candidates will earn the honor of being one of the biggest losers this November. The competitors are Kan Chase (who was endorsed by the party) and Kevin Scott. But really, do you even need to know their names?

Massachusetts Governor
With popular Governor Mitt Romney (R) retiring to pursue the Presidency, the Democrats have an excellent chance to retake one of the most out-of-place Republican-held seats in the country. A three way battle has emerged between the Dems, with Chris Gabrieli, Deval Patrick, and Attorney General Tom Reilly running. Reilly should be the favorite, due to his proven ability to win statewide office and likely name recognition. The winner will face Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey (R), who probably will only be able to win if she can get the public to associate her with Romney's fairly succesful administration.

Massachusetts CD 9
Congressman Stephen Lynch (D) faces a primary challenge from Phil Dunkelbarger, who barely registers on the fundraising lists. The result should be a very, very easy win for Lynch, followed by a trouncing of Jack Robinson, III (R), one of the few Republicans running for a Congressional seat in Massachussetts.

Washington Senate
There are numerous challengers on both sides of these primaries, but everyone already knows that the real candidates will be Senator Maria Cantwell (D) and Mike McGavick (R). Before they make that official, they have to take out the following competitors: Dems - Michael Nelson, Mohammad Said, Mike "The Mover," Hong Thi Tran; Reps - William Chovil, Warren Hanson, Brad Klippert, B. Barry Massoudi, and Gordon Pross.

Washington CD 2
Doug Roulstone (R) is the likely winner against underfunded Teri Moats. The winner will face Congressman Rick Larsen (D) in November.

Washington CD 3
Michael Messmore (R) and Daniel Miller (R) face off in a race where neither has a significant advantage. Messmore has slightly more money, so I'll pick him as the likely winner. The winner will face Congressman Brian Baird (D) in November.

Washington CD 4
Congressman Doc Hastings (R) faces a primary challenge from Claude Oliver (R) which shouldn't be a problem. On the Democratic side, likely winner Richard Wright will face off against Lewis Picton.

Washington CD 7
Congressman Jim McDermott (D) faces weak primary challenges from erstwhile Republican Donovan Rivers (who filed originally as a Republican and then became a Dem on 7/24), and Joshua Smith. After McDermott wins, he'll face Republican Steve Beren in November.

Ohio Special Primary, Part Deux

2006-09-16T08:17:00.000-07:00

Democrats in Ohio CD 3 voted by a margin of 76%-24% to nominate Richard Chema as a replacement for Stephanie Breslin Studebaker, who won the original primary in May. Chema's next task is to face Congressman Mike Turner (R) in November.

Ohio Special Primary

2006-09-14T20:44:00.000-07:00

State Senator Joy Padgett (R) has cruised to victory in today's Special Primary to fill Congressman Bob Ney's place on the November ballot for Ohio's 18th Congressional District. There are still about 1/3 of the precincts left to be counted, but Padgett is running in the 60% range, so she'll be fine.

Tomorrow, Ohio voters in the 3rd Congressional District will select a replacement for the previously nominated Democratic challenger to Congressman Mike Turner, who was Stephanie Breslin Studebaker. Studebaker withdrew from the race after winning the primary in May. The two competitors in this race are John Chema and Charles Sanders, and Chema has an edge in money, so I'll predict victory for him.

New Jersey Senate Race

2006-09-14T20:32:00.000-07:00

Something rotten is brewing in Jersey . . . at least if you're a Democrat. This is supposed to be the year that the Dems ride a national wave to take control of the House and the Senate, the year that marks the beginning of the end of the Bush presidency. But just looking at the landscape of the Senate battle, it was clear that things would be far more difficult on that end than they would be on the House end. The Democrats need to gain a total of 6 seats from the Republicans. Obviously, any loss of a seat that they currently control would be devestating for their plans.

That's why the New Jersey race is so worrisome for the Dems, where Republican Thomas Kean, Jr. has opened up a 4-5 point lead over incumbent Robert Menendez. That lead is consistent across numerous polls. Things are starting to get so bad that the New York Observer wrote an article suggesting that Menendez would be dropped before the election could take place. Of course, this isn't unprecendented in New Jersey; just 4 years ago, Robert Torricelli was similarly deep-sixed by Democrats worried that he would lose in November, in favor of once and future Senator Frank Lautenberg. The strategy worked last time, but New Jersey doesn't have a former Senator ready and waiting on ice (so far as I know), so I'm not sure it would work this time.

Kean is winning this race for two reasons: 1.) He's effectively making this a race about local issues, such as corruption in the Jersey government, and 2.) He's got the right last name, being the son of former Governor Thomas Kean. Unless Menendez and Co. can find a way to link Kean arm-in-arm with Bush in the next 9 weeks, the Republicans are going to pick up a seat in a tres unlikely place, and the Democrats will be forced to give up on their dreams of winning the Senate. I'm guessing we won't be seeing a personal appearance of Bush, Cheney, or anyone else from the Administrative branch in this race anytime soon.

Special Primary Tomorrow

2006-09-13T16:21:00.000-07:00

Republicans in Ohio have a couple of special primaries coming up in the next few days to replace candidates orginally nominated in May who have subsequently withdrawn. The first is tomorrow, when the replacement for Congressman Bob Ney (R), who is retiring from Congress amidst scandal. The challengers in this race are State Senator Joy Padgett, County Commissioner Ray Feikert, Ralph Applegate, Jerry Firman, and James Harris. Padgett is the front-runner, having received the Republican endorsement.

Mega Primary Results

2006-09-13T15:05:00.000-07:00

Arizona Governor
The Goldwater name apparently isn't everything when it comes to Arizona politics. Len Munsil beat out Don Goldwater (nephew of Barry) to win the Republican primary, 49.4% to 40.7%. Munsil will face Janet Napolitano (D) in November.

Arizona CD 1
Ellen Simon (D) justified her status as the favorite by picking up 52.7% of the vote in beating out her 4 opponents. Her next task is to face Congressman Rick Renzi (R) in November.

Arizona CD 2
John Thrasher (D) picked up 46.7%, enough to win the three way race for the Democratic nomination in this district. His opponent will be Congressman Trent Franks (R).

Arizona CD 3
In an unbelievably close race that will certainly be heading to a recount (and which still has 1 polling place left to report), Don Chilton has a 50.1%-49.9% lead. That translates to a whopping 24 votes. In other words, 1 polling place here very well could make the difference. I predicted that Paine would win, and he still might; if the result flips, I'll mention it.

Arizona CD 7
Ron Drake (R) took 59.7% of the vote in beating challenger Joseph Sweeney for the right to face Congressman Raul Grijalva (D) in November.

Arizona CD 8
Randy Graf (R) picked up the nomination in the fight to replace retiring Congressman Jim Kolbe. He is a candidate of the far-right, largely concerned with immigration issues. Democrats are thrilled that he won this race, because it gives them a significantly greater chance of winning this seat than they would have had if Kolbe's preferred successor, Steve Huffman. Graf won the race 43.2% to 37.2%. For the Democrats, Gabrielle Giffords picked up 54.1% of the vote to secure the nomination.

Delaware Senate
Jan Ting (R) won a close race over Michael Protack, 42.5% to 40.1%, for the right to lose to Senator Tom Carper (D) in November. Congratulations, I guess.

Delaware CD 1 (At-Large)
Dennis Spivack (D) easily won the Democratic nomination with 60.3%, and will face Congressman Michael Castle (R) in November.

Maryland Senate
There are still a few precincts left to officially report, but as I mentioned last night, Congressman Ben Cardin (D) beat out Kweisi Mfume 45%-40% to (almost certainly) win the race to replace retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes (D). He will face Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele (R), who racked up 87% of the vote on the Republican side.

Maryland CD 1
My random selection of Jim Corwin (D) as the favorite in this primary proved prescient, as he picked up 44% of the vote and roled to victory. He will face Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R) in November.

Maryland CD 2
Not sure what happened here, but there was no primary on the Republican side in this race. This probably means that the 3 weak challengers in this race bowed out, because none of them was going to beat Congressman Duth Ruppersberger (D) in November anyway.

Maryland CD 3
It took just 33% of the vote to secure the Democratic nomination in the race to replace Congressman Ben Cardin (D), newly minted Senate candidate. The winner is the son of retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes, John Sarbanes. Peter Beilenson came within 5,000 votes, and picked up 25%, but that was the closest anyone got to Sarbanes. On the Republican side, John White edged out Gary Applebaum by about 1100 votes, or 38%-33%. White has a tough road ahead of him, as this is a heavily Democratic district.

Maryland CD 4
In a race that has narrowed considerably since last night when I first reported on it, Congressman Albert Wynn (D) appears to have held on against challenger Donna Edwards. Last night, he was winning by 16%, but as of now (with 9 precincts left to report), the lead is only 4%, 50%-46%. That translates to less than 3,000 votes, but with only 6% of precincts left to report, that's probably enough to give Wynn the win (no pun intended). Wynn will now go on to face Michael Starkman (R) in November.

Maryland CD 6
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R) won his primary against Joseph Krysztoforski 79%-21%. That's probably closer than an incumbent would prefer in a primary, but it's still a solid win. He'll go on to face Andrew Duck (D) in November, after Duck won his primary with 59% of the vote.

Maryland CD 8
So much for being the favorite: Daniel Zubairi (R) was my prediction to win the nomination, but Jeff Stein picked up 46% of the vote and got the win. On the Democratic side, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Jr. won his primary with 91% of the vote.

Minnesota Governor
Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) didn't even blink in beating challenger Sue Jeffers 89%-11%. Democrat Mike Hatch, however, had a fairly stiff challenge from Becky Lourey, as he received just 73% of the vote to Lourey's 24%. Still, a win's a win, and Hatch now gets his shot at Pawlenty in November.

Minnesota Senate
Two pretty anticlimactic races, as expected winners Mark Kennedy (R) and Amy Klobuchar (D) both breached 90% in winning their respected primaries.

Minnesota CD 1
Congressman Gil Gutknecht (R) picked up 87% of the vote in winning his primary, and will now face Tim Walz (D) in November.

Minnesota CD 3
Wendy Wilde (D) picked up 77% of the vote in rolling to victory, and will now face Congressman Jim Ramstad (R) in November.

Minnesota CD 4
It would have made a great news story, but fugitive Jack Shepard (R) lost his primary battle to party-endorsee Obi Sium, with Sium picking up 64% of the vote. Sium will now face Congressman Betty McCollum (D) in November.

Minnesota CD 5
With 41% of the vote, Keith Ellison (D) beat out a host of challengers to win the Democratic nomination and the chance to replace retiring Congressman Martin Olav Sabo (D). Ellison is now positioned to be the first Muslim Congressman in United States history, and the first African-American Congressman in Minnesota history. Quite a story. To do so, he'll have to beat Republican Alan Fine in November.

Minnesota CD 7
Congressman Collin Peterson (D) easily was renominated by his party, picking up 86% of the vote in beating Erik Thompson. Peterson will face Michael J. Barrett (R) in November.

New Hampshire CD 1
Congressman Jeb Bradley, III (R) won 86% of the vote and was easily renominated. He will face Carol Shea-Porter (D), who rather surprisingly picked up 54% of the vote and easily won out against the much better funded Jim Craig.

New Hampshire CD 2
As expected, Congressman Charles Bass (R) won his 3 way primary challenge with 75% of the vote, and will now face Paul Hodes (D) in November.

New York Governor
File this under "gee, really?": Attorney General Eliott Spitzer picked up 80% of the vote in rolling to the Democratic nomination for Governor. He will face John Faso (R) in November, and is expected to utterly dominate him.

New York Senate
And you can file this one under "uhhhh...duh": Hillary Clinton (D) beat anti-war challenger Jonathan Tasini by the astounding total of 83%-16%. Umm . . . I'd say the Lamont "anti-war voters" phenomenon is . . . how to say this . . . "nonexistant" would be the word I'm looking for. In other words, the Lieberman situation is very much so focused in Connecticut, and is not going to extend to too many other places. On the Republican side, John Spencer picked up 60% of the vote and picked up the nomination. I give him about a 0% chance of upsetting Clinton in November.

New York CD 3
Congressman Peter King (R) picked up 83% of the vote on his way to being renominated, and now will face Dave Mejias (D) in November.

New York CD 10
Congressman Ed Towns (D) faced a surprisingly strong challenge from Charles Barron, and while he won, he only received 46% of the vote. That's a dangerously low number for an incumbent in a primary, but he should still beat Jonathan Anderson (R) in November.

New York CD 11
Forget about money or name recognition: This race resulted in Yvette Clarke winning the 4-way race over money-man David Yassky and the son of retiring Congressman Major Owens, Chris Owens. Clarke picked up just 31% of the vote, but that was 5% more than David Yassky and was more than enough to win the nomination. Clarke will now face Steve Finger (R) in November.

New York CD 17
Congressman Eliot Engel (D) cruised to victory with 82% of the vote, and will now face Jim Faulkner (R) in November.

New York CD 18
Richard Hoffman (R) picked up 52% of the vote and won the nomination, and now goes on to face Congressman Nita Lowey (D) in November.

New York CD 19
John Hall (D) picked up 48% of the vote and won the 4-way race to face Congressman Sue Kelly (R) in November.

New York CD 21
No primary was held, so I presume Congressman Michael McNulty's (D) opponent realized that it was a losing cause and backed out. McNulty will face Warren Redlich (R) in November.

Rhode Island Senate
As I mentioned last night, Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) survived a tough primary challenge from Stephen Laffey, 54%-46%. Chafee now must face Sheldon Whitehouse (D), who won the Democratic primary with 82% of the vote.

Rhode Island CD 1
Jonathan Scott (R) didn't need money to win this primary, as he reported just $1,500 raised. Nevertheless, he picked up 69% of the vote and rolled to victory, and now will face Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D) in November.

Rhode Island CD 2
Congressman James Langevin (D) struggled in his primary against Jennifer Lawless, picking up a disappointing 62% of the vote. Nevertheless, that's enough for the victory, and I doubt that problems in the primary will translate to problems in the general election, where Langevin will face Republicn Rod Driver.

Vermont Senate
So much for worrying about the party . . . longtime Independent Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary with 95% of the vote. His Republican opponent will be Rich Tarrant, who won 64% of the vote.

Vermont CD 1 (At-Large)
The Republicans have nominated Marth Rainville with 72% of the vote, and her task will be to face Democrat Peter Welch, the State Senate Pro Tem, in November.

Wisconsin Senate
Senator Herb Kohl (D) rolled to victory with 86% of the vote, and will now face Robert Lorge (R) in November, in a race that he should win easily.

Wisconsin CD 1
Jeffrey Thomas picked up just 25% of the vote, but that was enough to win the Democratic nomination in the race for this seat. His opponent in November will be Congressman Paul Ryan (R).

Wisconsin CD 3
Congressman Ron Kind (D) was renominated with 84% of the vote. His opponent will be Republican Paul Nelson (R).

Wisconsin CD 7
Nick Reid (R) picked up the nomination with 59% of the vote. He will face Congressman David Obey (D) in November.

Wisconsin CD 8
John Gard (R) won 68% of the vote and will try to hold onto this seat for the Republicans, as Congressman Mark Green (R) is running for Governor. His opponent will be Steve Kagen (D), who picked up 47% of the vote in beating his 2 opponents.

Early Primary Update

2006-09-12T20:01:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to be up late enough to write a full "results" post, but there are some big results that are pretty much in and that I want to highlight.

First, in Rhode Island, Senator Lincoln Chafee appears to have survived his primary challenge against very conservative Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey. With 471 of 515 precincts reporting, Chafee has a little over a 4,000 vote lead, which translates to a 53.7% - 46.3% lead. I think that the difference in this race was Independent voters who approve of Chafee, and who were able to register for the primary and unaffiliate all in one day. Also, I suspect that a number of Republicans suffered "voter's remorse" on Laffey's candidacy, and elected to stick with Chafee as the far more electable candidate. This sets up a very interesting battle between Chafee and Democratic nominee Sheldon Whitehouse. The polling indicates that race is too close to call.

In Maryland, it's still too early to say anything definitive, but with nearly 25% of precincts reporting, Ben Cardin leads Kweisi Mfume 44%-37% in the Democratic Senate primary. Cardin was favored to win, but the effectiveness of the pollsters in measuring African-American voters was questioned coming into the race, and so no one was sure what would be happening tonight. Carding will face Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele in November.

Also in Maryland, embattled Congressman Albert Wynne (D) appears to be poised to hold onto his seat, as he leads opponent Donna Edwards 56%-40% with 21% of precincts reporting.

In a race that has received national attention, but which I have not and will not normally be covering because it is a state legislative race, Minnesota State Senator Paul Koering (R), who came out as a homosexual last year, appears to be on his way to being renominated. With just about 1/3 of precincts reporting, Koering leads challenger Kevin Goedker by a 57%-43% margin. That's not insurmountable, but there's usually not as much variation in an area as small as a State Senate district as there is statewide, so the question of "which precincts are left to report" probably isn't going to swing things.

Elsewhere in Minnesota, the expected Senate and Gubernatorial candidates all survived, although Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch is running only in the mid-70's against Becky Lourey. That probably doesn't bode well for his match-up with Governor Tim Pawlenty in November.

That should whet your appetite for the final master-list of results that I'll (hopefully) put up sometime tomorrow, or Thursday at the latest.

Shoutout to Green Papers

2006-09-11T16:15:00.000-07:00

I take the vast majority of my information about the primary and general election matchups from The Green Papers, which is a great resource for this kind of information. I've mentioned them many times before, but what to make it clear that I'm not scrounging for this information on multiple sites. The comments are mine, and I make sure to quote if there is something particularly relevent, but I didn't want to represent this as my own hard work; other people do a much better job with that than I ever could. I strongly recommend The Green Papers for political junkies who want more raw information.

Tuesday's Mega Primary Day

2006-09-10T09:24:00.000-07:00

Arizona Governor
Highly popular Governor Janet Napolitano (D) is (wisely) unopposed in this primary. Four Republicans are running for the chance to unseat her: Don Goldwater, businessman Mike Harris, attorney Len Munsil, and Gary Tupper. I haven't seen any polling in this primary, but presume that Goldwater will win because of the name (he's the nephew of Barry Goldwater). I doubt it will matter, however, as Napolitano is popular enough that she should cruise to re-election.

Arizona CD 1
Congressman Rick Renzi (R) is unopposed, but there is a 5 way battle amongst the Democrats to determine his challenger. By far the favorite is Ellen Simon, who has raised over $800,000. None of her opponents has raised even $40,000. For the record, their names are Mike Caccioppoli, Jr., Bob Donahue, Susan Friedman, and Vic McKerlie.

Arizona CD 2
Congressman Trent Franks (R) is unopposed, and three Democrats are fighting for the nomination on the other side. Chat Chatterjee, Gene Scharer, and John Thrasher. I'll split the middle and pick Scharer, but from what I can see there is no favorite.

Arizona CD 3
Congressman John Shadegg (R) is unopposed. Herb Paine and Don Chilton are fighting for the Democratic nomination, and Paine is the marginal favorite.

Arizona CD 7
Congressman Raul Grijalva (D) is unopposed. For the Republicans, Ron Drake and Joseph Sweeney are battling for the nomination, with Drake the likely winner.

Arizona CD 8
Congressman Jim Kolbe (R) is retiring, and that has led to a crazy 11 person field (6 Dems, 5 Reps) bidding to replace him. On the Democratic side, Gabrielle Giffords has over $1 million in the bank and is the putative favorite. Patty Weiss has raised over $400,000 and has a shot. After that, the money falls off precipitously. Bill Johnson ($188,000), Jeff Latas ($87,000), Alex Rodriguez ($42,000), and Francine Shacter ($3,000) are also running for the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side, Steve Huffman has been endorsed by Kolbe, and has raised $671,000, so he is the favorite. The money is widely spread out, however, and Randy Graf ($484,000) and Mike Hellon ($306,000) are both poised to make a solid showing on Tuesday. Frank Antenori and Mike Jenkins have both failed to reach $10,000, so they don't figure to play much of a role in this race.

Delaware Senate
Senator Tom Carper (D) is unopposed, and faces paltry challenges from three Republicans: Christine O'Donnell, Mike Protack, and Jan Ting. Ting has raised the most money, so that's my pick.

Delaware CD 1 (at-large)
Congressman Michael Castle (R) is unopposed. He'll face either Dennis Spivack or Karen Hartley-Nagle in November. Spivack is the favorite, having raised nearly $300,000.

Maryland Senate
This race is ridiculous. Eighteen Democrats and Ten Republicans are battling, but most of those have no chance at all of winning. First, the people who actually have a chance of replacing retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes (D): On the Democratic side, Congressman Ben Cardin has raised $5.5 million, dwarfing the $1.1 million raised by former head of the NAACP Kweisi Mfume. Josh Rales has raised the most money in this race ($5.8 million), but hasn't raised much buzz; I suspect he's largely self funded. Mfume has been polling well, but Cardin has led for most of this race, and with that money edge, Cardin should win on Tuesday. For the Republicans, Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele is the only serious candidate, having raised nearly $5.2 million. Steele is a strong candidate, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that Steele could beat Cardin (or Mfume) in November. Now, to give the rest of the candidates their due, here are the folks who don't have a chance. Democrats: David Dickerson, George English, James Hutchinson, Anthony Jaworski, A. Robert Kaufman, Allan Lichtman, Thomas McCaskill, Dennis Rasmussen, Bob Robinson, Theresa Scaldaferri, Mike Schaefer, Charles Smith, Blaine Taylor, Joseph Werner, Jr., and Lih Young. Republicans: Ray Bly, Earl Gordon, Thomas Hampton, John Kimble, Edward Madej, Daniel Muffoletto, Richard Shawver, Corrogan Vaughn, and Daniel Vovak.

Maryland CD 1
Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R) is unopposed. Three lightweight challengers are fighting for the right to challenge him: Kostas Alexakis, Jim Corwin, and Christopher Robinson. I'll give Corwin the nod as the favorite.

Maryland CD 2
Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger (D) faces a weak primary challenge from Christopher Boardman that should be no problem. The Republicans have three challengers for the nomination, with Dee Hodges, Jimmy Mathis, and J.D. Urbach running. None is the favorite, but I like Urbach's name so I'll give him the nod as my predicted winner.

Maryland CD 3
With Congressman Ben Cardin (D) running for Senate, there are a tremendous number of challengers for this open seat. On the Democratic side, John Sarbanes (the son of retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes) has raised the most money, with nearly $1 million, and is the favorite to win the nomination. He faces well-funded challengers in Peter Beilenson, Oz Bengur, Paula Hollinger, and Kevin O'Keeffe. Mishonda Baldwin, Andy Barth, and John Rea are also running. For the Republicans, Gary Applebaum has raised just $268,000 but has more money than any of his challengers, and so is the favorite. He has to survive a gauntlet consisting of Bruce Altschuler, Rick Hoover, Eugenia Ordynsky, Scott Smith, Paul Spause, David Trudil, and well-funded John White ($205,000) before he becomes the nominee.

Maryland CD 4
Congressman Albert Wynn (D) faces a challenge from Donna Edwards that has picked up some steam from prominent endorsements and prominent mention on websites like Daily Kos. George McDermott is also running. Wynn will probably win re-election, but this one is not guaranteed, and Edwards may pull off the upset. The Republicans have already selected Michael Starkman as their candidate.

Maryland CD 6
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, Jr. (R) faces a primary challenge from Joseph Krysztoforski, which Bartlett should win easily. The Democrats will chose between Andrew Duck and Barry Kissin, with Duck the favorite.

Maryland CD 8
Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (D) faces a weak challenge from Deborah Vollmer that won't be a problem for him. The Republicans have to chose between Daniel Zubairi (the favorite), Gus Alzona, and Jeff Stein.

Minnesota Governor
Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) faces a primary challenge from the more reliably conservative Sue Jeffers, but Pawlenty shouldn't worry; there is no indication that Jeffers candidacy has resonated with nearly enough people to defeat Pawlenty. Governor Tim does have to worry about the man likely to receive the Democratic nomination, however; Attorney General Mike Hatch (D) received his party's endorsement and should cruise to the nomination over Becky Lourey and Ole Savior. Pawlenty is likely to win re-election, but Hatch could present some troubles, and in a state like Minnesota which traditionally favors Dems, a Hatch victory is quite possible in November.

Minnesota Senate
Senator Mark Dayton (D) is retiring, and that's a great thing for his party. Dayton was incredibly unpopular, and probably would have lost a re-election fight. Instead, the Democrats endorsed Amy Klobuchar, who will easily win her primary over Darryl Stanton. Klobuchar has been polling well, putting up solid leads consistently over the Republican Mark Kennedy, who is a virtual lock for his party's nomination. Kennedy has to beat Harold Shudlick and John Uldrich to make it official, but that isn't going to be a problem. Now, he just has to figure out why his campaign hasn't caught on with Minnesota voters.

Minnesota CD 1
Congressman Gil Gutknecth (R) faces a challenge from Gregory Mikkelson that will be no problem for him. He'll face Tim Walz (D) in November.

Minnesota CD 3
Congressman Jim Ramstad (R) is unopposed. Fighting for the right to face him are Wendy Pareene, Kevin Ray Smith, and Gavin Sullivan. None of them is really a "favorite" in this race, but I'll give the edge to Pareene because she filed with the FEC as "Wendy Wilde," and that's just cool.

Minnesota CD 4
Congressman Betty McCollum (D) is unopposed. Her Republican opponent will be either Obi Sium or Jack Shepard. Since Shepard is a fugitive who has been living in Italy since 1982 (yes, you read that correctly), I'm going to assume that the common-sensical people of Minnesota will nominate Obi Sium.

Minnesota CD 5
Congressman Martin Olav Sabo (D) is retiring, and that has resulted in a flood of candidates who have been bottled up since Sabo was first elected in 1978 filing for the election. The party endorsed candidate is Keith Maurice Ellison, who has raised $317,000. Ember Reichgott Junge ($417,927), Mike Erlandson ($308,000), and Paul Ostrow ($184,000) are well positioned to take Ellison on despite the endorsement, and Andrew Favorite, Gregg Iverson, and Patrick Wiles are also contending for the nomination. I'm going to give the edge to Ellison despite Junge's monetary edge. The Republicans have already nominated Alan Fine.

Minnesota CD 7
Congressman Collin Peterson (D) faces a none-too-stiff primary challenge from Erik Thompson, which he'll handle easily. His opponent in November will be Mike Barrett (R).

New Hampshire CD 1
Congressman Jeb Bradley, III (R) faces a weak primary challenge from Michael Callis. The Democrats, meanwhile, have a 5-way fight, with Jim Craig clearly leading the pack and Gary Dodds a sort-of close 2nd. Dave Jarvis, Carol Shea-Porter, and Peter Michael Sullivan are also running, although Sullivan has unofficially withdrawn from the race (he failed to file the proper withdrawal paperwork, so he will still appear on the ballot). Craig should win.

New Hampshire CD 2
Congressman Charles Bass (R) faces 2 challengers that he'll easily dispense with, in Bob Danderson and Mary Maxwell. His Democratic opponent will be Paul Hodes, who with $854,000 has raised more than Congressman Bass by over $150,000.

New York Governor
Governor George Pataki (R) is not running for re-election. The Republicans have selected John Faso to run in his place. On the Democratic side, the party endorsee is Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is heavily favored to win the election in November. His primary opponent is Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, who had to petition to participate in this primary after failing to receive the party endorsement.

New York Senate
Senator Hillary Clinton (D) faces anti-war primary challenger Jonathan Tasini in this race, and if there was ever a David-Goliath fight, this is it. Clinton has an amazing $35,000,000 raised to this point (gee, think she's running for President in 2008?), while Tasini has $213,000. Umm...yeah, I'm picking Clinton to win here. On the Republican side, John Spencer is the favorite, having received the Republican, Conservative, and Right to Life party endorsements (New York allows cross-endorsements) and having a war chest of $3.9 million. His opponent is Kathleen Troia McFarland, who has a not inconsiderable $1.16 million raised.

New York CD 3
Congressman Peter King (R) faces a weak challenge from Robert Previdi that he'll dispense with easily. Dave Mejias (D) will face him in November.

New York CD 10
Congressman Ed Towns (D) faces challenges from Charles Barron and Roger Leon Green that shouldn't cause him too much trouble. He'll face Jonathan Anderson in November.

New York CD 11
Congressman Major Owens (D) is retiring, and 4 well-funded challengers are vying for the Democratic nomination in his stead. David Yassky ($1.4 million) is in the drivers seat, but Emmanuel Andrews ($533,000), Yvette Clarke ($404,000), and Major Owen's son Chris Owens ($352,000) also have plenty of money. Yassky's large war chest matched against the Owens name is the most interesting battle here, but I think the money will win in this fight. The winner will go on to face Steve Finger (R) in November.

New York CD 17
Congressman Eliot Engel (D) faces a very weak primary challenge from Jessica Flagg that he'll survive easily. His opponent in November will be Jim Faulkner (R).

New York CD 18
Congressman Nita Lowey (D) is unopposed. Lowey's opponent will be either Richard Hoffman (R) or Jim Russell (R), and my money is on Hoffman as the man who picked up the Conservative party endorsement.

New York CD 19
Congressman Sue Kelly (R) is unopposed. Her opponent will be either Judy Aydelott, John Hall, Darren Rigger, or Ben Shuldiner. Aydelott and Hall both have over $600,000 raised, so both are viable candidates; my money is on Hall to win the nomination.

New York CD 21
Congressman Michael McNulty (D) faces a primary challenge from the under-funded Thomas Raleigh. McNulty will win easily, and will face Warren Redlich (R) in November.

Rhode Island Senate
In the biggest race of the day, Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) faces a primary challenge from Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. Laffey and Chafee are neck-and-neck, and in the magnified lens of a primary, either could win. Chafee could easily become the second Senate moderate voice to lose to a more ideological primary challenger this year, following the defeat (sort-of) of Joe Lieberman a month ago. This one is tough to predict, but I'll go on record as saying that Chafee will survive this challenge, since a Laffey win is also a win for the Democrats in November. On the Democratic side, former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, II is the presumptive nominee, with Carl Sheeler and Chris Young challenging him for the seat.

Rhode Island CD 1
Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D) is unopposed. Two candidates with anemic money-raised numbers are running for the right to oppose him in November, as Edmund Leather ($16K) and Jon Scott ($1,550) face off. I guess I'll pick Leather because of the money, but can you really call that a "cash advantage?"

Rhode Island CD 2
Congressman James Langevin (D) faces a well-funded challenger in Jennifer Lawless, who has raised about half as much money as Langevin has. The winner will face Rod Driver (R) in November.

Vermont Senate
Senator Jim Jeffords (I) is retiring at the end of his term. He will almost certainly be replaced in the Senate by long-time Congressman Bernie Sanders (I), who is running for the seat. He's also running for the Democratic nomination, although I presume that even if he wins it he will stay on the ballot as an Independent. His competitors for the Democratic nomination are Larry Drown, Craig Hill, Peter Moss, and Louis Thabault, none of whom have any appreciable chance of winning. On the Republican side, Rich Tarrant has raised over $5 million and should win the primary easily. His main opponent is Greg Parke, with $1.3 million raised. Also running is Cris Ericson, who plans to run as, according to The Green Pages, "an Independent under the ballot line of 'Marijuana'." I'll go out on a limb here and say that Ericson won't be in Congress any time soon.

Vermont CD 1 (At-Large)
With Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders running for Senate, the door is open for a Dem or Rep to win this seat for the first time since 1990, when Sanders was first elected. The Democrats have already nominated State Senate Pro Tem Peter Welch, while the Republicans will have to chose between Martha Rainville and Mark Shepard. Rainville has a substantial lead in cash raised, and should win easily.

Wisconsin Senate
Senator Herb Kohl (D) faces a very weak primary challenge from Ben Masel that he'll win easily. His opponent in November will be Republican Robert Lorge.

Wisconsin CD 1
Congressman Paul Ryan (R) is unopposed. His opponent will be one of the 5 underfunded Democrats running for this race: Don Hall, Mike Hebert, Steven Herr, Ruth Lee Santa Cruz-Bradley, or Jeff Thomas. My money is on Thomas because he's raised the most cash, but with only $20K raised, that really isn't saying much.

Wisconsin CD 3
Congressman Ron Kind (R) faces a weak primary challenge from Charles "Chip" DeNure that he'll win without difficulty. His opponent in November will be Republican Paul Nelson.

Wisconsin CD 7
Congressman David Obey (D) is unopposed. His opponent will likely be Nick Reid (R), who with $134,000 raised is well positioned to beat Jeff Tyberg ($1,751) in the primary.

Wisconsin CD 8
Congressman Mark Green (R) is running for Governor, so this seat is open. John Gard (R) has $1.8 million raised to the $141,000 raised by his opponent, Terri McCormick, and so should win easily. On the Democratic side, Steve Kagen ($1.6 million) and Nancy Nusbaum ($1 million) have both raised substantial sums, and also have to content with Jamie Wall, Jr. ($664,000). Kagen should advance to face Gard in November.

Key Senate Races Update

2006-09-08T19:36:00.000-07:00

Democrats need to gain 6 seats in November if they are to take control of the Senate. It's a nearly impossible task, but there are possibilities. Here are the 10 races that I view as the most vital to Democratic chances in November, starting with the most essential to the effort.

#1 - Pennsylvania: Rick Santorum (R-inc) v. Bob Casey, Jr. (D)
There's a more complete analysis of the state of this race in a previous post from today. I rate this as the most important race for the Democrats because it is the "easiest pickings." Casey has led in every poll that has come out this summer, and Santorum hasn't yet started to come back significantly in the race (in fact, the most recent poll, conducted by USA Today, has Casey leading by a whopping 18 points). Put simply, if Santorum wins this race, it's going to be a long night for the Dems.

#2 - Ohio: Mike DeWine (R-inc) v. Sherrod Brown (D)
Very similar to Pennsylvania in terms of import for the Dems. DeWine is an embattled Republican in a state that isn't exactly in love with Republicans at the moment. That probably explains why the quite liberal Brown has consistently led this race, leading by an average of 5.7 points in the Real Clear Politics average, and having not trailed in the race since June poll by Rasmussen.

#3 - Rhode Island: Lincoln Chafee (R-inc) v. Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Or at least, it will be Chafee if he miraculously survives a very tough primary challenge against Stephen Laffey, which is looking unlikely. Chafee is a certified RINO (Republican in Name Only), while Laffey is a conservative dream. If Laffey wins the primary, he'll be crushed by Whitehouse in the General, because Rhode Island is . . . how to put it . . . a tad liberal. Chafee might be able to beat Whitehouse if he survives this Tuesday (the polls are much too close to call), but this is a must-win for any reasonable strategy the Dems have to take the Senate.

#4 - Montana: Conrad Burns (R-inc) v. Jon Tester (D)
I didn't believe that Burns was really vulnerable until it became clear that Republicans throughout the West are struggling, and in surprising places. Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Colorado . . . all are flirting with Democrats in places where that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. What's amazing is that the polling indicates that Tester is in the lead, albeit narrowly. Even when polls are within the margin of error, if several of them in a row indicate that one candidate is ahead of the other, then that's probably legitimate. Burns appears old and out-of-touch, and this race is a great pickup opportunity for the Dems.

#5 - Missouri: Jim Talent (R-inc) v. Claire McCaskill (D)
Talent has been unable to put much distance between himself and McCaskill this summer. The RCP average has him leading the race slightly, and I think he's going to win in November, but McCaskill is a sturdy challenger. For Dems to pull off the upset and take the Senate, this race probably needs to go to McCaskill, but of the Republican incumbents whom I have already mentioned, Talent is by far the most likely to find a way to win another term. I'm guessing he wins by 4-6%.

#6 - Tennessee: Bob Corker (R) v. Harold Ford, Jr. (D)
This is Bill Frist's (R) seat, and he's retiring. Corker was the clear leader in this race from January to early August, but a series of corruption charges (not to mention charges of inefficiency as a Mayor) have brought him back to the pack. Ford is a highly charismatic political figure (he was Barack Obama before there was a Barack Obama), and he has a chance to pick up this seat for the Dems.

#7 - Virginia: George Allen, Jr. (R-inc) v. James Webb (D)
Talk about sticking your foot in your mouth. Allen was ready to sail to re-election when he made the infamous "macaca" remarks regarding a Webb aide. That, along with increasing scrutiny of his potential connections with leaders of the modern-day White Supremacy movement, have led many young voters to desert him. The result? His lead has gone from well into the double digits to between 3-5, and Zogby Interactive even has Webb leading by a point. In other words, this is now a race. Just like the Pennsylvania race will be a litmus test determing whether the Democrats are going to have a long night, this race will be a great test of Democratic potency. If Webb wins, an avalanche could be about to fall all over the Republicans.

#8 - New Jersey: Robert Menendez (D-inc) v. Thomas Kean, Jr. (R)
I've thought since early this year that Kean was the Republican best poised to pull off an upset and steal a Democratic seat. Well, alright, I gave Mark Kennedy in Minnesota a great shot to do the same, until the polling data came in and demonstrated that he's a bit of a non-starter for my home state. But Kean is in great shape against Menendez, with polls indicating that he leads by 4-5 points (oddly enough, the only recent poll showing Menendez with the lead is a Republican funded poll). Obviously, for the Democrats to actually pull off taking over the Senate, they can't afford to put themselves in a hole by losing seats they already control. This would be an embarrasing and stinging loss for the Party, and like Pennsylvania and Virginia could be a solid indicator of how the night will go. One cautionary tale: this race seems to be very much being run on local issues, so it might not be as much of an indicator as it at first appears. I could easily see Kean winning, but Democrats doing very well nationally anyway.

#9 - Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar (D) v. Mark Kennedy (R)
At one time, this Democratic seat would have been high on the list of those that were significant. However, Klobuchar has led from the start by between 5-10 points, with no signs of coming back to Kennedy. Democrats can't get complacent, however; they need to secure this seat, because it has the potential of becoming competitive again thanks to Minnesota's fickle electorate.

#10 - Connecticut: Joe Lieberman (I-Inc) v. Ned Lamont (D)
With no Republican involved in this race, how can it rate my top 10? The answer lies in the damage that Democrats could do to themselves here. First off, by nominating Ned Lamont and setting up Lieberman's independent run, the Dems assured that significant amounts of money would be spent here, where nothing good can happen (in terms of net seats controlled), rather than in the competitive races listed above. Second, Democrats could really shoot themselves in the foot. If they alienate Lieberman too much, he may refuse to caucus with them, thus costing them a vital seat. It would be tremendously ironic if the Dems were to gain six seats, only to have Lieberman chose to spite them and caucus with the Republicans, thus handing the GOP the majority much as Jim Jeffords did for Democrats a few years ago.

Terror Warnings as Politics?

2006-09-08T19:18:00.000-07:00

Eric Boehlert, writing in The Nation, could be right when he says that Republicans are playing politics with the terror threat level, and that the media is uncritically repeating whatever the government says on this topic. Or, there could be terrorists out there who would love nothing more than to kill Americans. Considering everything that's happened over the last five years, I'd lead towards the latter.

This is not to excuse the Bush Administration completely. They almost certainly are playing politics with this information to a degree. I have a few thoughts on that, though. First, if they are fabricating information, or providing intelligence and then explaining it in public in a manner that is completely disconnected from how they view it themselves, then they are violating the public trust. No one will ever effectively call them on this (certainly not Eric Boehlert), although a Democratic Congress (which may be a reality in early January) might take a stab at it. This would be shameful behavior if it's going on, but not having access to the "real" intelligence meetings, there's not much I can say about this subject beyond the hypothetical.

Next, if they are providing information that is accurate, or mostly accurate, and are withholding only information that is deemed to sensitive to release publically, then I don't care about their political purpose. They are, after all, politicians. They're in the business of winning elections. Democrats shouldn't be afraid of this; Americans will vote for whomever they feel will most protect them, assuming that they are voting on security issues. And this is the ultimate crux of my argument. Why are Democrats so convinced that Republicans can make political hay by releasing information about terrorist plots? If the Democratic Party had a legitimate foreign policy/terror containment plan, would they be so concerned about this? Of course not. In the view of most Americans, the Bush Administration has been ineffective. People want change. But they aren't going to just hand the keys to the country over to a Democratic Congress if there is no substance behind the Democratic Party.

Bottom Line: If you're a Democrat and you're afraid of Republicans pulling political shenanigans with terrorist alerts and intelligence, then stop whining about it and defuse the issue by coming up with a plan that will make Americans want you in office protecting them instead of re-electing Republicans.

Pennsylvania Senate Race

2006-09-08T16:07:00.000-07:00

This intriguing battle between Senator Rick Santorum (R) and Bob Casey, Jr. (D) presents one of the best pick-up chances for the Dems this year. Santorum has been trailing in the polls almost from the start, but that doesn't mean this thing is over. I've mentioned before that Casey is a pro-life, pro-war, pro-gun Democrat. In other words, he's far, far apart from the majority of his party. As a result, there is an understandable reticence amongst many Pennsylvania Democrats regarding his candidacy. Add to that the fact that Santorum is historically a strong closer, and you understand why this race is far from done.

I'm bringing this up now because I finally got around to watching last Sunday's Meet the Press, which featured a debate between Santorum and Casey. Keep in mind: having lived in Pennsylvania and having been represented by Santorum, I have some knowledge of the man. I quite honestly can't stand him. I think he's a horrible Senator, and I think he's far outside the Pennsylvania political norm. That said, Casey was so horrifically BAD on Meet the Press, and has run such a lackluster campaign, that I probably would sit this one out instead of voting for him.

I'm not going to give a play-by-play of the discussion, but I will give general impressions. Casey is not particularly articulate. He misses the point a lot. As an example, he spent a significant amount of time haranguing Santorum for disagreeing with Dick Cheney on whether to sanction Iran, and suggesting that Santorum would never tell Cheney to his face that the two were in disagreement. Santorum sliced him up by pointing out that he had stood up and discussed the topic at length on the floor of the Senate, so his feelings weren't exactly hidden. Throughout the whole exchange, I found myself saying "what the heck is the point, here?" This was not an uncommon position for me to be in. Quite frankly, these are both horrible candidates. The people of Pennsylvania deserve better. Unfortunately, the DSCC failed to find a stronger, better candidate, and instead the people of Pennsylvania will be stuck either with the incumbent nutcase or the dry, boring as Al Gore on dramamine challenger.

This is the first prediction on a close race that I'm going to throw out there, and I'm coming down on the side of Casey. Santorum will make this interesting, but Casey will hang on for a narrow victory in this race that the Democrats need if they have any hope of taking control of the Senate.

Florida Primary Results

2006-09-06T16:44:00.000-07:00

Florida Governor
Attorney General Charlie Crist (R) was the easy victor in the Republican primary, garnering 64% of the votes. His opponent will be Congressman Jim Davis, III (D), who failed to reach the magical 50% mark in securing the nomination. He ended up with 47.4%, compared to 41.1% for Rod Smith, his nearest competitor. This should be an interesting race in November.

Florida Senate
The marquee race of the night was the Republican Senate primary, and Congressman Katherine Harris won, as expected. She received 49.4% of the vote, with Will McBride picking up just 30% as her nearest competitor. Florida Republicans should be embarrassed for voting for this train-wreck of a candidate (and candidacy), and this result virtually guarantees that Senator Bill Nelson (D), who was unopposed in the primary, will sail to re-election in November.

Florida CD 5
John T. Russell (D) picked up the nomination by securing 48.8% of the vote, with Rick Penberthy (who I had declared the favorite based on scant evidence) picking up 39%. Russell will face Congressman Virginia Brown-Waite (R) in November.

Florida CD 8
Congressman Ric Keller (R) faced a surprisingly vigorous primary challenge from the supremely under-funded Elizabeth Doran (he had a staggering 25-1 edge in money raised, although he probably didn't spend much of it on the primary), winning the battle 72.5%-27.5%. His opponent will be Charlie Stuart, who picked up 47.7% to beat out 2 challengers.

Florida CD 9
Gus Bilirakis (R) picked up 82% of the vote in securing the nomination to try to replace his father, who is retiring, in this district. His opponenent will be Phyllis Busansky (D), who is well-funded and should put up a solid fight.

Florida CD 11
Kathy Castor (D) picked up 53.9% of the vote on her way to securing the nomination, not bad since she was facing 4 opponents. Castor is trying to replace newly minted Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis, III in this district. Her opponent in November will be Eddie Adams, Jr. (R), who appears to be highly underfunded and very likely to lose.

Florida CD 13
The race to replace Republican Senate candidate Katherine Harris (R) in this district was highly unsettled, and Vern Buchanan won a wild 5-way race with just 32.3% of the vote. Proving that money doesn't guarantee results, George Hudson raised well over $1 million (far less than Buchanan's $3.8 million, by the way), but couldn't even finish second; that honor went to Nancy Detert with 24.4%. Hudson picked up 24%, if you were curious. With the Republicans in such disarray, the Democrats were relatively united in picking Christine Jennings, giving her 61.8% of the vote.

Florida CD 15
In a close race, Bob Bowman (D) beat out John M. Kennedy 54.5%-45.5%, and will face Congressman Dave Weldon (R) in November.

Florida CD 17
Congressman Kendrick Meek (D) easily won his primary, picking up 89% of the vote. Since the Republicans have no one running in November, Meek just won himself another term.

Florida CD 24
In another race that proves money doesn't mean everything, Democrats nominated Clint Curtis over Andy Michaud by a total of 61.2%-38.8%, despite Michaud's big edge in money ($175K to $25K). Curtis now has a much bigger challenge, however, as he has to face Congressman Tom Feeney (R) in November. Feeney will win easily, unless Curtis really is some kind of dragon-slayer; that seems rather unlikely.

Tuesday's Primary

2006-09-03T10:12:00.000-07:00

The lone primary on the day after labor day is in Florida. This is a warm-up for next week, when most of the states that haven't yet held primaries will finish up (one notable exception being Hawaii, where there is an intense Senate primary battle developing). Here are the Florida races.

Florida Governor
With Governor Jeb Bush (R) retiring, there is an interesting battle developing on both sides of the political divide to try to replace him. On the Republican side, Attorney General Charlie Crist is the presumed favorite, with Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher in contention. Vernon Palmer and Michael St. Jean are also running, but Crist or Gallagher will be the nominee. For the Democrats, Congressman Jim Davis, III is the most prominent name, with State Senator Rod Smith also running. Non-politicians in the race include Glenn Burkett, Carol Castagnero, and John Crotty. I'll give Davis the edge.

Florida Senate
Senator Bill Nelson (D) is unopposed in the primary. The Republicans are in disarray, with infamous Congressman Katherine Harris leading the polling in this race. Her numbers against Nelson are horrendous, however, and Harris has emerged as a complete whack job, so there is a possibility that support will drift to one of her opponents: Will McBride, Peter Monroe, or LeRoy Collins, Jr. I can't imagine why anyone would vote for Harris, but it sure looks like she's going to win, in spite of everything. Nelson has become one of the safest Senators facing re-election this year thanks to Harris, and that probably isn't going to change even if Harris now loses on Tuesday.

Florida CD 5
Congressman Virginia Brown-Waite (R) is unopposed, but three Democrats are lining up to challenge her. Their names are Richard Penberthy, John T. Russell, and David Werder. None has a significant lead in money (although Werder seems to trail significantly), so I'll give the edge to Penberthy.

Florida CD 8
Congressman Ric Keller (R) has raised $1 million, so I don't think he's that afraid of Elizabeth Doran and her $40,000 war chest; he should cruise to the nomination. On the Democratic side, there are actually some big-money players, as both Charlie Stuart and Alan Grayson have raised over $500,000, and Homer Hartage has raise nearly $150,000. My guess is Stuart will win on Tuesday.

Florida CD 9
Congressman Mike Bilirakis (R) is retiring in November, and there is a two-way race in the Republican camp to replace him. The almost certain nominee is his son, Gus Bilirakis, who has raised $1.8 million. He faces Dave Langheier, who has a repectable but comparatively paltry $150,000 in the bank. The winner will face Democrat Phyllis Busansky and her $817,000 in November.

Florida CD 11
Congressman Jim Davis, III (D) is running for Governor, and five Dems are fighting to replace him in this district. The front runner, with nearly $1 million in the bank, is Kathy Castor. She faces serious challenges from Al Fox, Jr., Les Miller, Jr., and Scott Thomas Farrell (presumably NOT a junior). Mike Steinberg is also running. The Republicans have already settled on candidate Eddie Adams, Jr., but with just $20,000 raised, he doesn't pose much of a threat. The identity of the next Congressman in the Florida 11th will be decided Tuesday.

Florida CD 13
Congressman Katherine Harris (R) is running for the Senate, leading to a crazy scramble amongst Republicans to replace her. With $3.8 million raised, Vern Buchanan is far and away the favorite. George Hudson has taken in $1.18 million himself, and can't be discounted, however. Nancy Detert, Mark Flanagan, and Donna Clarke are also running for the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side, Christine Jennings has over a 4-1 lead in money over Jan Schneider, and should win the nomination.

Florida CD 15
Congressman Dave Weldon (R) is unopposed. His opponent will be either Bob Bowman or John M. Kennedy, neither of whom has raised significant money.

Florida CD 17
Republicans aren't even bothering to contest this district, where Congressman Kendrick Meek (D) faces poorly funded challenger Dufirstson Neree (D). Meek will be renominated easily.

Florida CD 24
Congressman Tom Feeney (R) is unopposed. The Democrats have two choices, Andy Michaud (with $175 K) or Clint Curtis (with $25 K). Michaud will win on Tuesday and lose big in November.

No Way

2006-09-02T19:22:00.000-07:00

Hillary might not run for President, you say? Poppycock, says I. Hillary's looking at the field of potential challengers in 2008 and salivating. The article suggests that Hillary might serve as Dem Leader in the Senate for a few years and gear up for a run in 2012. Two problems: first, it's entirely possible that a Dem will win in 2008, and that would foreclose her options until 2016; second, by 2012, if the Democrats don't win in 2008, Barack Obama will be emerging, and Hillary would have someone who matches her in "star power" to contend with for the nomination. I just don't see this as having any validity. Hillary will run in 2008, and she will probably win the nomination. Whether she can take out whoever wins the Republican nomination is a much less settled question.

Good ole' Mexico

2006-09-01T19:47:00.000-07:00

I'm really glad that things like this generally don't happen here. Although, really, this is just a bit of great political theater, and Great Britain's unruly House of Commons (watch "Prime Minister's Questions" on C-Span sometime to see how...ahem...respectful the opposition MP's are to Tony) proves that civility isn't a pre-requisite for an effective government. It isn't really the protest that I'm disturbed by. Instead, it's Lopez Obrador's insistence on refusing to honor the results of an upcoming decision by Mexico's electoral court on whether the July election was valid, unless of course the court rules in his favor.

I am much too far removed to know who "actually" won the Mexican election. Corruption in elections is rampant anyplace where large-scale elections are held, and so there was undoubtedly some foul play going on in Mexico. But Lopez Obrador is just a candidate, and his followers are just average folks. To analogize, how would a pig farmer from Iowa, or a stock brocker from New York, or an actor from Hollywood have any idea whether an election was "free and fair?" Simple answer; they wouldn't. I haven't seen a single piece of hard evidence indicating fraud in Mexico's election. Instead, it is enough for Lopez Obrador that he didn't get enough votes. That, in and of itself, provides the necessary proof.

Lopez Obrador has gone so far as to say that if he loses in court, he will "create a parallel government and rule from the streets." Imagine if we did that here? I can just imagine "shadow" Secretary of State Joe Biden delivering addresses on Iraq at the behest of "shadow" President John Kerry. Lopez Obrador may or may not be the better choice to lead Mexico, but that really isn't the point. He lost the election, and he and his party need to end the fight before they do irreparable harm to the spark of democracy that exists there.

Just shut up...

2006-08-29T08:53:00.000-07:00

and go away.

Wal-Mart Politics

2006-08-28T20:11:00.000-07:00

I find the end premise of this Real Clear Politics blog post a little bit dubious. Ryan suggests that "The people who shop at Wal-Mart and like the bargains, on the other hand, are up for grabs. And this will only push them toward the Republicans."

Somehow, I don't think so. Even in this most consumer-oriented of cultures, I don't know a single person who would base their decision on who to vote for in an election on whether the candidate was pro- or anti-Wal-Mart. And I have to say, I'd be very, very frightened to find out that this is what elections are being decided on.

Of course, if you can be a single-issue voter on an issue like abortion, gun control, or gay marriage, then I guess anything is possible. Single issue voting based on a candidate's Wal-Mart stance makes just about as much sense.

What Was That, Joe?

2006-08-28T15:59:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden says a lot of silly things. This, however, ranks up there. When talking about his ability to beat out 2008 Presidential challengers like Mark Warner (VA) and John Edwards (NC), he said "My State was a slave State too." Uh...what? Now, Biden isn't stupid, exactly. But he has an odd way of getting to his point. I assume that this statement meant he could connect with black voters in the same way that politicians from the South can (if you have a better suggestion of what he was going for, let me know). But, seriously, shouldn't a career politician have a bit more ability to discern what is, and what is not, going to sound completely foolish in public? I've long thought that if Gore had won in 2000, or Kerry in 2004, that Biden might be asked to serve in the Cabinet. But, really, would you want someone with such a tremendous propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth in YOUR cabinet if you were the President?

Oh My

2006-08-28T15:54:00.000-07:00

More evidence that Katherine Harris is a loon. Even if she believes this stuff (and I have no doubt that she does), you don't SAY IT OUT LOUD! This race is an embarrasment for the Republican Party. How could there not be a single candidate in Florida willing to take on an only moderately popular, unspectacular candidate like Bill Nelson? Ouch.

Primary Results

2006-08-23T09:48:00.000-07:00

Alaska Governor
Wow, that wasn't pretty. Governor Frank Murkowski (R) finished third in his primary, as the polls suggested he would. Murkowski managed to pick up just under 19%, a woeful percentage for an incumbent Governor. The new Republican nominee will be Sarah Palin, who took in 51% of the vote. This is bad news for the Democrats, who nominated Tony Knowles with nearly 69% of the vote. Knowles would have easily beaten Murkowski, but he runs behind Palin in the polls and has some work to do if he wants to earn a third term (remember, he served from 1994-2002).

Alaska CD 1 (At-Large)
Congressman Don Young (R) will face off against Diane Benson (D), who picked up 40% of the vote, narrowly beating Ray Metcalfe, who was about 4% behind. Young should win re-election easily.

Oklahoma CD 5 Runoff
As expected, Lieutenant Governor Mary Fallin (R) won her runoff race against Mick Cornett, 63%-47%. Fallin now goes on to face David Hunter (D) in November.

Wyoming Governor
Governor Dave Freudenthal (D) easily won re-nomination over Al Hamburg, taking about 88% of the votes. On the Republican side, Roy Hunkins (R) also won an easy battle over John Self, taking about 2.5 times the number of votes. What's interesting is the disparity in votes between the Democrats and Republicans. About 32,000 voted on the Democratic side, with close to 71,000 voting for Republicans. Freudenthal is incredibly popular, with a 67% approval rating, but with so many more Republicans going to the polls in the primary, it certainly makes you wonder if Wyomingans are interested in going back to a Republican Governor despite Freudenthal's popularity. It's also quite possible, however, that Democratic turnout was depressed because Freudenthal was easily going to win and there was no chance to pick a candidate in the House or Senate race who was going to win.

Wyoming CD 1 (At-Large)
Congressman Barbara Cubin (R) faced a surprisingly strong challenge from Bill Winney, but still won, with 51,000 votes to Winney's 34,000. She will face Gary Trauner (D) in November.

Gutknecht Survives Ballot Challenge

2006-08-22T22:31:00.000-07:00

I don't have anything against Gil Gutknecht, and the attempt to get him scrubbed from the ballot is the kind of silly legal challenge that gives the law a bad name (see post from 8/14 for more on this issue). However, and this is a BIG however, I have a major problem with what the Minnesota Supreme Court did today. After hearing arguments on the question this morning, the Court denied the challenge and allowed Gutknecht to stay on the ballot. So far, so good. However, the Court failed to justify its reasoning, refusing to issue an explanation of the order denying the challenge.

The Courts have a tremendous amount of power. When a State Supreme Court hears an argument in something like a ballot challenge, which is focused at the very mechanism by which those in power justify having that power, it is vital that every decision be explained. I have no doubt that this decision was the correct one; I'm not a conspiracy nut who believes that the powerful courts are protecting incumbents. However, it certainly seemed that the lawsuit that was filed, while petty, was based on legitimate legal reasoning. How long would it have taken to write a 2-3 page simplified analysis explaining why the Court did what it did? The answer . . . not too much, and doing so would have avoided a further deterioration of faith in the Courts held by some. This was a poor decision by the Minnesota Supremes.

Tuesday's Primaries

2006-08-21T11:15:00.000-07:00

Alaska Governor
Governor Frank Murkowski (R), the former Senator who named his daughter to his Senate seat after becoming Governor, is not a popular man. His approval rating is sitting at 20%, according to Survey USA's June polling, and he's trailing in Rasmussen Reports polls even in his own primary, where he comes in third with just 17% of the vote. His opposition? Former mayor Sarah Palin, who leads the RR poll with 43%, businessman John Binkley (who has 30%), and also-rans Jerry Heikes and Merica Hlatcu. Murkowski, who I admit to rooting against because of the unabashed nepotism involved in the incident mentioned above with his Senate seat, is going to go down tomorrow, and hard.

On the Democratic side, the biggest name and likely nominee is former Governor Tony Knowles, who seems to run for every office in the state. He faced Murkowski's daughter Lisa in 2004 when she was running for a full term in the Senate. Now, he's back to running for Governor. He served two terms, and was term-limited in 2002. However, the term limits in Alaska only state that a person can't serve more than 2 consecutive 4-year terms; in other words, serving eight years, taking 4 off, and serving eight more would be perfectly kosher. Knowles opponents are Eric Croft and Bruce Lemke, but Knowles is going to win.

Alaska CD 1 (At-Large)
Congressman Don Young (R) is unopposed, and he can sit back and watch 4 Democrats fight for the chance to lose to him in November. Diane Benson, with $20,000 in the bank, is sadly the best financed of the challengers. After that, things get downright scary, with Frank Vondersaar and his $1,092 war chest second in the money rankings. Ben Frank Hyde and Ray Metcalfe are the other 2 running for the nomination. No idea whoh will win, but I'll give the nod to Benson.

Oklahoma CD 5 runoff
Lieutenant Governor Mary Fallin (R) and Mick Cornett (R) face off in a runoff to determine who will be the Republican nominee for this seat. Fallin is the front-runner, having received 35% of the initial vote to Cornett's 24%. The winner will face David Hunter (D) in November.

Wyoming Governor
Governor Dave Freudenthal (D) faces a primary challenge from Al Hamburg, but with an approval rating of 67% (see Survey USA link above), he's not exactly in danger. He's also unlikely to worry about Republicans, although he is in Wyoming. Raymond Hunkins and John Self are fighting to be the Republican that gets a shot at taking him down.

Wyoming CD 1 (At-Large)
Congressman Barbara Cubin (R) faces a primary challenge from the under-funded Justin Winney, Jr. Cubin will win, and will face Gary Trauner (D) in November.

Dem's Shake Things Up

2006-08-19T11:50:00.000-07:00

The Democrats officially threw Nevada into their early Presidential nominating calendar last night, adding the Nevada caucuses five days after Iowa, and also allowing South Carolina to hold its primary a week after New Hampshire. I've mentioned before that I don't like the way we nominate people for the Presidency in this country, but I don't have a lot else to say about this. Adding two more small states to the absurdly early front-end of the process could have a number of effects, but I doubt any of them are going to be any worse than how the process was run before.
I do think this could have the opposite effect that many are predicting: the CW is that this will declare a presumptive nominee by the end of January. I think however, that with less time to soak up the idea of someone winning in Iowa or New Hampshire, multiple victors could emerge from the 4 first primaries, setting up an actual fight for the nomination through February and March.

Errata

2006-08-19T09:53:00.000-07:00

There are two ways to look at the fact that I keep calling the Republican Senate candidate from Connecticut Arthur Schlesinger rather than Alan Schlesinger. The first is that I'm a lazy blogger who can't be bothered to fact-check (true). The second, however, is that Schlesinger has such little chance of winning that I, someone who spends a tremendous amount of time reading about politics and usually have a very good memory, can't get his name right (also true). Just something to think about. My apologies to Schlesinger.

Nevada Primary Results

2006-08-16T16:55:00.000-07:00

Nevada Senate
No surprises here: Senator John Ensign (R) easily took out "Fast Eddie" Hamilton, with 90% of the vote. Meanwhile, Jack Carter took out Ruby Tun with 76% of the vote to claim the Democratic nomination. The Ensign-Carter battle lacks the sexiness of Senate fights in Connecticut, Montana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Tennessee, but Ensign's approval rating is sitting at 52%, so he isn't exactly unbeatable. Still, the Dems would have to work awfully hard to get Carter elected over Ensign.

Nevada Governor
Congressman Jim Gibbons (R) took out Lieutenant Governor Lorraine Hunt (who actually finished 3rd, behind Gibbons and Bob Beers) by claiming nearly 48% of the vote in the primary, and will now try to succeed Governor Kenny Guinn (R), who was term-limited. His opponent will be Dina Titus (D), who wrangled 53% of the vote in beating out her challengers.

Nevada CD 1
Congressman Shelley Berkley (D) easily fended off the challenge from "Silver" Lawlor, with 87% of the vote. She will face Kenneth Wagner, who picked up 43% of the vote in beating two challengers on the Republican side.

Nevada CD 2
The five challenger slug-fest to replace new gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibbons (R) in this congressional seat was won, barely, by Secretary of State Dean Heller. Heller picked up 428 more votes than did Sharron Angle, giving him a 35.14% - 34.53% victory. Gibbons' wife, Dawn Gibbons, managed to pick up nearly 25% of the vote, but that clearly wasn't enough. Heller now goes on to face Jill Debry (D) in the general.

Nevada CD 3
Congressman Jon Porter, Sr. (R) sat back and watched Tessa Hafen (D) pick up the Democratic nomination with 51% of the vote over her 4 opponents. Porter shouldn't have a problem being re-elected.

More Lieberman

2006-08-16T10:45:00.000-07:00

Several interesting threads running through this article on the Lieberman situation.

1.) It's becoming clear that the idea of stripping Lieberman of his committee assignments is viable, although in a morphed form. There's been no discussion, to my knowledge, of making such a dramatic move in the run-up to the general election in November. Instead, the discussion is what happens after the general if Lieberman wins. And this is where things get very interesting.

There are a number of prominent Democrats who don't want Lieberman in charge of the Government Affairs Committee, because if they take over the Senate they want to go after the administration with all sorts of investigative probes, many or most of which would be under the auspices of the GAC. Lieberman is far too cozy with the White House on the issues that would be under investigation, and so those within the party who want to go after the Republicans are fretting that any investigations could be short circuited by Lieberman. This begs the question: if Lieberman had won the primary, would there be talk of stripping him of seniority anyway because of his views? I think there would be...although in that event the Dems would not have had the crutch of Lieberman's Independent run to fall back on as a justification.

2.) Not all Democrats have abandoned Lieberman, but the number is small. Thomas Carper (DE), Ken Salazar (CO), Mark Pryor (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), and Daniel Inouye (HI). Of those, only Carper and Nelson are up for re-election this year, but Nebraska has already held its primary, and Carper is unopposed in Delaware. As a result, there is no way for the "netroots" left, like Daily Kos, to target them for their heresy of supporting Lieberman. In fact, if they tried to target Nelson in Nebraska, it would probably just hand him more support. He's insulated, in other words, for this year. The bigger question is how long the Kossites will remember this, and whether these candidates will face primary challengers in the future because of their refusal to get on the Lamont bandwagon.

3.) Strangely enough, the tactics of both Lieberman and his opponents are essentially the same: portray Lieberman as Republican-lite. For Lieberman, his best chance for getting votes is to take them from Republican Arthur Schlesinger, who is dead in the water, as well as moderates who view national security as a major issue. The recent polling suggests that that is a viable strategy, as he leads Lamont 46%-41%. So, I'm curious as to why Democrats feel it's smart to simply reinforce the message that Lieberman is a Republican? They're doing his dirty work for them. The make it more likely that Republicans in Connecticut abandon Schlesinger, and also boost his cred amongst the national security moderates. Maybe they feel that this election can be won by boosting turnout amongst the left, and that the way to do that is to portray Lieberman as a Republican. If so, I think that strategy is going to fail.

4.) If the masses had a common brain, I would be very suspicious of the early polling. Schlesinger is a horrid candidate that his own party would like to dump. Nevertheless, he was sitting at 15% before the latest poll came out, and then he dropped to 6%. I'm pretty sure that all 9 points went directly to Lieberman. Why is this suspicious? Because I guarantee you that it falls right into the hands of the RNC, who wants to convince the DNC that Lieberman is going to win so that money pours into Connecticut and stays out of Montana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. So if Ken Mehlmen were able to direct his troops, I think this is exactly what he would want to have happen. That said, the masses don't have a common brain, and so this shift looks legitimate. That's bad news for the Democratic Party.

Santorum Closes the Gap

2006-08-15T10:32:00.000-07:00

The Dems hope of regaining the Senate require them to pull off a near sweep of the close races, so it's bad news for them when any of the "must-defeat" Republicans starts to pull closer to his Democratic opponent. In Pennsylvania, this is particularly the case with Senator Rick Santorum (R), who has long been one of the top targets for defeat amongst national Democrats. Santorum has trailed by over 10 points almost since Bob Casey, Jr. was announced as his likely opponent, despite (or, this being Pennsylvania, possibly because of) Casey's pro-life abortion stance.

The race was looking like a laugher, much to the delight of the DNC, which was probably liking its figurative chops at the possibility of being able to spend much less on this race than closer polls would warrant. But Santorum, who has long had a reputation for being a strong closer, has already started to narrow the gap, according to the most recent Quinnipiac poll on the race. Check out this write-up about the race on Real Clear Politics for more information.

I still think Casey will win, but it's bad, bad news for Dems that they are going to have to once again treat this as a very close race, spending money here that they could be spending in places like Montana and Missouri. More bad news may be on the way, with potential third-party challenges from the Green Party and possibly an Independant run by a strong pro-choice candidate, which could make life very difficult for Casey.

Incidentally, a friend of mine in Pennsylvania who is connected with the Democratic party is suggesting that the "ground game" being run by Casey is horribly behind where it should be. If that's the case, with a gubernatorial race that doesn't seem all that competitive, getting voters to the polls may be difficult.

Gil's Troubles

2006-08-14T20:01:00.000-07:00

A weird story today in the Star Tribune about a potentially problematic ballot situation for Congressman Gil Gutknecht (R) of Minnesota's 1st District.

Now, I haven't done any legal research on the issue, so I'm judging this solely on what the Trib reported, but it certainly sounds to me like Gutknecht has a problem. Or, perhaps I should say, he should have a problem. Essentially, this whole thing boils down to when signatures can be collected to petition your way onto the ballot in Minnesota. It makes sense to me that there is a specific window to collect the 1,000 needed sigs, and Gutknecht didn't even come close. There may be somewhat ambiguous language, but seriously, petitioning would make no sense without a specific window. That said, this is the law...and the law rarely follows common sense.

The other aspect of this story is that sometimes, political gimmicks can cost a politician. Gutknecht could have just spent $300 to get onto the ballot. Instead, to highlight his "fiscal responsibility," Gutknecht has always utilized the petition method. Puh-leaze. How you get on the ballot doesn't highlight anything, it just makes you look silly when inevitably somebody holds you to the standards for collecting the necessary signatures. I guess we'll find out soon whether Gil's gimmick is going to cost him more than a little embarrassment in the form of his Congressional seat.

Tuesday's Primary

2006-08-11T18:02:00.000-07:00

Just one state has a primary this week, and that's Nevada. Here are the races:

Nevada Senate
Only in Nevada. Senator John Ensign (R) faces a primary challenge against Edward "Fast Eddie" Hamilton. Yes, his nickname is "Fast Eddie." Good lord, what a state. On the Democratic side of things, Jack Carter, the son of former President Jimmie Carter, is the presumptive favorite. His opponent is Ruby Tun.

Nevada Governor
Incumbent Governor Kenny Guinn (R) is term-limited, and so cannot run for re-election. The battle to replace him in his own party features his Lieutenant Governor, Lorriane Hunt, facing off against Congressman Jim Gibbons. Also running are Bob Beers, Melody Damayo, and Stanleigh Lusak. My money is on Gibbons, but the race between him and Hunt should be close.

For the Democrats, there are three people seeking the nomination: Jim Gibson, Leola McConnell, and Dina Titus. There is no front-runner, so I'll go all alphabetical on ya and predict a Gibson victory.

Nevada CD 1
Congressman Shelley Berkley (D) faces an insignificant challenge from Asimo "Silver" Lawlor in this race. Berkley will win easily. On the Republican side, Kenneth Wagner, Russ Mickelson, and Michael Ace Monroe are running to decide who will lose to Berkley in November.

Nevada CD 2
Five Republicans are running to replace Congressman Jim Gibbons (R), who is running for Governor. Several of them have raised significant amounts of money, including the favorite, current Secretary of State Dean Heller, as well as Sharron Angle and Dawn Gibbons, who is Jim Gibbons' wife. Richard Gilster, II and Glenn Thomas are also battling for the spot on the ballot. The Democrats have no need for a primary, having already settled on Jill Derby, who has raised $748,000, enough to position herself as an equal money-wise against her Republican opponent.

Nevada CD 3
Congressman Jon Porter, Sr. (R) is unopposed, and will watch five Democrats battle to face him. The clear favorite is Tessa Hafen, with over $800,000 in the bank. Her four opponents have less than $25,000 between them. Their names are Mark Budetich, Jr., Barry Michaels, Anna Nevenich, and Freddie Warman.

Tuesday's Primary Results

2006-08-09T16:24:00.000-07:00

Colorado CD 5
Doug Lamborn won the race to replace outgoing Congressman Joel Hefley (R) in this district, but only narrowly. He beat out Jeff Crank 27%-25%, and the story is that Lamborn picked up the win only after a wave of absentee ballots came in at about 11:00 pm, when Lamborn was trailing Crank by 1500 votes. Read about it here. Lamborn will now go on to face Democrat Jay Fawcett, but it sounds like a Fawcett win is a serious longshot, since this district has never elected a Democrat.

Colorado CD 7
Money spoke in this race as well, with Ed Perlmutter (D) outpacing Peggy Lamm 53%-37% and winning the nomination. He will go on to face Rick O'Donnell (R) in November, in this race to replace gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez (R).

Connecticut Senate
As if you didn't know...alright, fine. Lamont over Lieberman 52%-48%. And if you somehow didn't know that, I have no idea how you ended up at my blog.

Connecticut Governor
Connecticut Democrats just don't like the establishment this year. After sending Joe Lieberman a message by nominating Ned Lamont, they ignored the endorsement of the Democratic Party in Connecticut by nominating John DeStefano over Dan Malloy by the whisker-thin margin of 51%-49%. DeStefano now has an extremely uphill battle facing off against the very popular Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell.

Connecticut CD 1
Wow, a party-endorsed candidate actually won a race! Scott MacLean (R) beat out Miriam Masullo 63%-37% to pick up the nomination, and now will go on to lose to...er, I mean, face...Congressman John Larson (D) in November.

Georgia CD 4 (Runoff)
The other race you shouldn't need a reminder of. Crazy Congressman Cynthia McKinney (D) was dethroned last night by Hank Johnson, Jr. by the not-so-close total of 59%-41%. Good bye, Cynthia. Don't let the policemen frisk ya on the way out of your office...

Michigan Senate
Well, money didn't matter as much here. Michael Bouchard (R) had about $1 million less in the bank than did opponent Keith Butler, but won nonetheless. Bouchard now has the task of facing Senator Debbie Stabenow (D) in November, and while Stabenow should win, this might be a fairly close race.

Michigan CD 3
Jim Rinck (D) edged out opponent Pete Hickey, and will be cannon-fodder for Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R) in November.

Michigan CD 7
In the third stunner of the night, Congressman Joe Schwarz (R) lost his primary fight against Tim Walberg, 53%-47%. It will be interesting to see whether Sharon Reiner (D), who picked up 52% of the vote against 3 opponents in the Dem primary, will be able to take out Walberg, who is much more conservative than Schwarz.

Michigan CD 8
Congressman Mike Rogers (R) easily won his primary with 84% of the vote, and now faces Jim Marcinowski (D) in November.

Michigan CD 9
Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R) also won his primary, but received just 69% of the vote against Patricia Godchaux. That's a borderline serious primary challenge. Knollenberg now will have to prove that the 30% of his party who voted against him in this race will come back to him when he faces Nancy Skinner (D) in November.

Michigan CD 10
With 33% of the vote, Robert Denison edged out Rob Casey (who had 31%) to win the Democratic nomination. Denison now has to face Congressman Candice Miller (R) in November.

Missouri Senate
Both Jim Talent (R) and Claire McCaskill (D) easily won their respective primaries. I was a little surprised that McCaskill's opponent, Bill Clinton Young, picked up nearly 20% of the vote, as McCaskill was the clear choice. Despite the surprise, it's still a strong win for McCaskill, and I don't think there is any really bad sign here. Talent, for the record, picked up just under 89%. This is going to be a great race to watch in November, and is a must-win for the Dems if they want to take control of the Senate.

Missouri CD 1
Mark Byrne (R) defied the money and picked up the win, and by a longshot. He picked up 72% of the vote, but that's going to be the highlight of the election season for him, as he now has to face well-funded and popular Congressman William Clay, Jr. (D) in November.

Missouri CD 2
Congressman Todd Akin (R) easily survived his primary by picking up 88% of the vote. His opponent will be George Weber (D), who narrowly beat out his other opponents by receiving about 30% of the vote. John Hogan, who I had suggested was the favorite, finished last. Shows what I know.

Missouri CD 3
Congressman Russ Carnahan (D) received a surprisingly low 76% of the vote in winning his primary, but it's very doubtful that this means anything. He should still easily beat David Bertelsen (R) in November.

Missouri CD 4
Once again, the money deceived me. I said Glenn Conner (R) was the frontrunner, but he lost. At least he finished 2nd, with 27% of the vote. The winner was Jim Noland, who picked up nearly 50% of the vote. His prize is the chance to lose to Congressman Ike Skelton (D) in November.

Missouri CD 7
Congressman Roy Blunt (R), Majority Whip in the House, received 80% of the vote against 3 opponents. He will face Jack Truman (D) in November, after Truman received 46% of the vote against 2 mediocre challengers.

Missouri CD 8
Veronica Hambacker (D) stood up for the "money is victory" crowd by beating her opponents, receiving 40% of the vote. She will now face Congressman Jo Ann Emerson (R) in November.

A Bad Night for Incumbents

2006-08-08T20:48:00.000-07:00

I already discussed Joe Lieberman below, but he is not by any means the only sitting politician to be booted out in a primary tonight. Of course, he has other options; the other two big losers tonight do not.

First, in a great result, the people of Georgia's CD 4 have chosen by a margin of 59%-41% to give Cynthia McKinney (D) the boot. She finished at the top of the initial primary fight, but couldn't crack the magical 50% barrier, and is now toast. Congratulations to Hank Johnson, Jr. for finishing strongly and picking up the nomination.

Second, Joe Schwartz (R) in the Michigan CD 7 is also likely to lose tonight, to challenger Tim Walberg. I mentioned yesterday that Walberg seemed particularly well funded, but I hadn't caught the news that Walberg was a really serious challenger. Looks like I missed that one, because Walberg is well on his way to ousting Schwarz.

I'll have a complete right up on the night tomorrow, but tonight was so interesting and unusual that I felt it was necessary to put out the last two posts.

A Few Thoughts on CT

2006-08-08T20:31:00.000-07:00

So the race is over, and what I thought to be the most likely result transpired, with Lieberman losing by about 4 points. As expected, Lieberman has already announced that he intends to continue the campaign to hold onto his seat by running as a "petitioning Democrat," or Independent, if you prefer. Daily Kos has declared war, pushing its supporters to contact Democrats (especially Harry Reid) to have them essentially disown Lieberman and fully back Lamont. Things are about to get nasty.

So, my prediction still stands. Lieberman will win in November without too much difficulty. There will be some who voted for him tonight who decide that Lamont is the rightful Democratic nominee, and so switch sides. No one will go from voting for Lamont to Lieberman. The result? Lamont will gain in support amongst Democrats from the primary to the general. However, any Republican with any brains at all will be supporting Lieberman all the way in November, especially considering how incredibly uninspiring the Republican nominee is. Lieberman should be able to put up a solid winning total with those numbers.

This is a huge victory for Republicans, because it is exactly the scenario that they needed to keep Democratic time and money locked up. The big four embattled Republicans are breathing a little bit easier tonight (although they have a ton of work to do regardless). The next three months will be as nasty for Joe Lieberman as any race that I've seen.

A few more predictions: 1.) most of the major Democrats will get solidly behind Lamont, and do their best to help him win in November; 2.) Harry Reid will NOT strip Lieberman of his committee assignments, because Reid is pragmatic enough to realize that that is the one thing that could drive Lieberman to the Republican party (or at least the caucus), and Lieberman is the likely November victor; 3.) Daily Kos and other far-left bloggers will waste so much time on this race that Max Baucus and Jim Talent will wriggle off the hook and win in November. Santorum and DeWine won't be so lucky.

Best Scenario for Republicans in CT

2006-08-08T15:11:00.000-07:00

Without question, the far left has made Ned Lamont. The netroots have actively supported him, and he's become a cause celebre. So...they aren't going to just let "evil" Joe Lieberman run in the general election without giving him quite a fight. If Lieberman wins, the netroots go lick their wounds, and focus their efforts elsewhere. If Lamont wins in a blowout, Lieberman will drop his quixotic campaign, and again, efforts will be focused elsewhere. So what's the best scenario for Republicans?

Clearly it would have Lieberman losing, but not by much. A 3-5% victory would be perfect, because Lieberman would (understandably) stay in the race. As a result, a tremendous amount of time and money would be put into defeating Lieberman in Connecticut, despite that the fact that whether Lieberman or Lamont wins has no bearing on the composition of the Senate. This is a perfect scenario for Republicans; they can focus on strengthening the hands of their most in danger Senators, while Democrats are cannibalizing themselves.

If I were Max Baucus (MT), Rick Santorum (PA), Jim Talent (MO), or Mike DeWine (OH), I would be pulling HARD for a narrow Lamont victory tonight. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that tonight's result, and Lieberman's response to whatever happens, will have an impact in November.

Tuesday's Primaries

2006-08-07T15:30:00.000-07:00

It's a pretty big day for primaries tomorrow, with the big one being in Connecticut. That's where all of the media attention will be tomorrow, but there is a lot of other action going on. Here's the rundown.

Colorado CD 5
With Congressman Joel Hefley (R) stepping down, 6 Republicans are vying for the chance to win the seat. Doug Lamborn has raised the most money, with $411,323 in the bank. He received 40% of the vote at the GOP convention, which was not the most; Jeff Crank received 46% and has raised nearly $250,000 and so has to be considered a serious challenger. Duncan Bremer, Bentley Rayburn, Lionel Rivera, and John Anderson are also running.

The Demoocrats have already put up Jay Fawcett, who will be waiting patiently to find out his opponent.

Colorado CD 7
Congressman Bob Beauprez (R) is running for Governor, and so his seat is open. Rick O'Donnell is the sole Republican in the race. He will face one of three Democrats: Ed Perlmutter, Peggy Lamm, or Herb Rubenstein. Perlmutter has raised over $1 million, while Lamm has raised $700,000 and Rubenstein is at $200,000, so Perlmutter has to be considered the favorite.

Connecticut Senate
Otherwise known as The Big One. The Republicans have nominated Alan Schlesinger already, although there is an issue about whether he'll remain in the race, as the GOP has asked him to step down in favor of Jack Orchulli. However, it is the Democrats who will be in action tomorrow, with embattled Senator Joe Lieberman facing Ned Lamont. Lieberman has over $3.5 million more in the bank than Lamont, but this race is going to be extremely close. Lieberman had been trailing in recent polls, but reports indicate he has pulled back into a statistical tie with Lamont, so tomorrow is going to be very, very interesting.

Connecticut Governor
Governor M. Jodi Rell (R) does not have a challenger in the primary, and so can sit back and watch Dan Malloy and John DeStefano, Jr. face off for the Democratic nomination. Malloy has the party endorsement, and should win the race.

Connecticut CD 1
Congressman John Larson (D) is unopposed, while the Republicans will have to choose between Scott MacLean (the party endorsee) and Miriam Masullo. Neither has a chance against Larson in November.

Georgia CD 4 (Runoff)
In another of the major races taking place tomorrow, we will find out whether Congressman Cynthia McKinney (D) can hold onto her seat against challenger Hank Johnson, Jr. For the record, I think McKinney is toast, and the polling suggests the same. The winner will face Catherine Davis (R) in November.

Michigan Senate
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D) is unopposed, but the battle to determine her challenger will be interesting, with Keith Butler (who has raised nearly $3 million this year) facing off against Mike Bouchard (with around $2 million in the bank). Butler should win, and might make it close against Stabenow in November. This is a seat that is critical for the Democrats; they can't afford to lose seemingly safe seats if they have any hope of taking over the Senate this year.

Michigan CD 3
Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R) is unopposed, and 2 Democrats are fighting to challenge him in November. Pete Hickey and Jim Rinck are running for that chance, but neither has raised much money; Rinck has only $6,000 in the bank, and Hickey seems to have even less. A pretty meaningless primary all-in-all.

Michigan CD 7
Congressman Joe Schwarz (R) will have to fend off the fairly well-funded Tim Walberg to get back on the ballot this year. Walberg has over $600,000 in his campaign fund, but Schwarz has over $1.3 million. Schwarz should win pretty easily.

On the Democratic side, four challengers face off, none of whom is a real favorite. Sharon Renier, Fred Strack, Jr., Daryl Campbell, and Chuck Ream will fight it out.

Michigan CD 8
Congressman Mike Rogers (R) has to swat aside Patrick Flynn before he gets a chance to take on Jim Marcinkowski (D) in November. That shouldn't be a real challenge for him, as Flynn has raised just $3,000 to Rogers $1 million.

Michigan CD 9
Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R) faces Patricia Godchaux in this year's primary, with the winner facing Nancy Skinner (D) in November. Knollenberg has nearly $2 million to play with, while Godchaux has about $450,000. That's not bad for a primary challenger, but Knollenberg shouldn't have anything to worry about in the primary or in the general.

Michigan CD 10
Congressman Candice Miller (R) is unopposed, while the Democrats have 4 people running for a spot on the ballot, none of whom is very inspiring. Anthony America, Bob Casey, Robert Denison, and Paul Kuligowski will battle it out; my money is on Casey, but I have no real justification for that pick.

Missouri Senate
Senator Jim Talent (R) has raised nearly $10 million, but has to beat out 4 wannabe Senators to get back on the ballot in November. The cannon-fodder will be Scott Babbitt, Roxie Fausnaught, Isaiah Hair, Jr. , and Joyce Lea.

For the Democrats, State Auditor Claire McCaskill is the nominee in all reality, with $4.5 million raised. Before it's official, however, she has to beat out Bill Clinton Young in the primary. Is there any question about whether this schlub added the "Clinton" to his name as a ballot gimmick? My apologies if that isn't the case, but seriously, what are the odds? Can't wait for this race in November.

Missouri CD 1
Congressman William Clay, Jr. (D) is unopposed this year, and will be watching 3 Republicans fight for the right to take him on: Leslie La Vantres Farr, II, Mark Joseph Byrne, and Lou Mansfield. Farr is the favorite, with about $100,000 in the bank.

Missouri CD 2
Congressman William Todd Akin (R) should knock around challenger Sherman Parker in the primary, and will go on to face one of four Democrats in November: John Hogan, Charles Karam, Rich Lesh, and George Weber. The favorite is probably Hogan.

Missouri CD 3
Congressman Russ Carnahan (D) will easily beat challenger Jim Frisella tomorrow, on the way to demolishing David Bertelsen (R) in November.

Missouri CD 4
Congressman Ike Skelton (D) is unopposed, while 4 Republicans face off to challenger him. Glenn Conner is the clear frontrunner with $344,000 in the bank compared to little or nothing to the other three candidates. For the record, their names are Jim Noland, Jr. , Jeff Parnell, and Lloyd Sanders, Sr.

Missouri CD 7
Congressman Roy Blunt (R), the Majority Whip in the House, has 3 minor challengers to face off against in Bernard Kennetz, Jr., Clendon Kinder, and Midge Potts. When he's done wiping the floor with them, he'll face off against one of three uninspiring Democrats in Charles Christrup, Ron Lapham, and Jack Truman.

Missouri CD 8
Congressman Jo Ann Emerson (R) is unopposed, and will face one of three Democrats in November: Veronica Hambacker (the favorite, with around $20,000 in the bank), Gene Curtis, or Earl Durnell.

Abramoff Claims Another Victim

2006-08-07T12:11:00.000-07:00

This time it's Bob Ney of Ohio.

So far, this thing hasn't broken as big as some had expected, or as Democrats had hoped. There's still time for that to happen, however. For the record, that's 3 corrupt Republicans out of Congress this year, and 1 corrupt Democrat probably on the way out.

Daily Connecticut...er...Kos

2006-08-06T15:08:00.000-07:00

I've mentioned Daily Kos before on this blog, and I expect that most anyone who wanders by here has at least checked it out at some point. After all, if you believe Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos founder, the site is pretty much the heartbeat of the real Democratic Party.

The problem is, the site has worked itself into a frenzy on the Joe Lieberman situation. I was just over there, at 4:00 PM MDT, and the first 5 articles are either directly or indirectly involved with the Lieberman/Lamont battle which takes place on Tuesday. Now, I agree that this is a monumental primary in term of providing some sort of measure for whether the netroots can actually affect real elections. However, Kos is supposed to be a clearinghouse for races across the country and policy issues affecting virtually everything. Instead, we're treated to rehashes of arguments that center around one of two themes: 1.) Lieberman (and anyone who supports him) is an idiot, and the evidence is "X", or 2.) Lamont is the most brilliant politician ever, and clearly has the support of the people in Connecticut.

I'll believe it when I see it. I am grudgingly forced to believe that Lieberman will probably lose tomorrow. As I've said before, however, I don't think it's going to be a landslide, and I think he's going to win in November. Kos is making itself look silly by devoting all of it's time to this one race. Even more ironic is the fact that this race which has so galvanized this bastion of left-wing lunacy involves a Democratic incumbent. And you wonder why I don't think the Democratic Party can win back control of either house of Congress? They're simply too busy gnawing at their own limbs.

Tennessee Primary Results

2006-08-04T08:50:00.000-07:00

Governor
Phil Bredesen (D) was easily renominated, with 89% of the vote. His nearest opponent received just 7% (that was the inestimable John Jay Hooker, who was running for both Governor and Senator...quite the guy).

On the Republican side, Jim Bryson won an easy victory over his six opponents, with 50% of the vote. His nearest opponent was David Farmer, with 16%.

Senate
As expected, Harold Ford, Jr. had no trouble winning the Democratic primary in this race, receiving 79% of the race. Gary Davis was his closest competition, with just 10%. And John Hooker? The man may have dreamt big, but he received just 6% of the vote.

On the Republican side, I was waaayyyyy off. I projected a close three way race between Bob Corker, Ed Bryant, and Van Hilleary, with Hilleary eventually pulling out the win. Well...Hilleary actually finished 3rd, with just 17% of the vote. Things were a little closer between Corker and Bryant, but not much: Corker took 48% to Bryant's 34%, and is the nominee. This is going to be one of the most interesting races in the country this fall.

CD 1
It's much too close to call on the Republican side of things in this race, with 521 votes separating leader David Davis and trailer Richard Venable. Things would get really interesting if there were a runoff, because both received just 22% of the vote, so 56% of the electorate would be up for grabs. Instead, there will probably be a recount and all that jazz, but Davis will almost certainly come out on top.

For the Democrats, 40% voted for Rick Trent, good enough to hand him the nomination. The biggest problem for the Dems is that there were about 17,500 votes cast on the Democratic side, and about 73,000 cast on the Republican side, a HUGE disparity that indicates the Dems goose is cooked come General Election time.

CD 2
Congressman John Duncan (R) easily won against Ralph McGill, 87%-13%. The Democratic race was much closer, with John Greene prevailing over Robert Scott 54%-46%. Once again, the numbers are telling...almost 63,000 Republican votes against just 17,500 Democratic votes. Duncan is safe.

CD 3
Congressman Zach Wamp (R) swatted away those gnats who were challenging him in the primary, taking 87% of the vote. His nearest opponents had just 5%. For the Democrats, a very close race resulted in a victory for Brent Benedict over Terry Stulce, 51%-49%.

CD 4
Congressman Lincoln Davis (D) made like his Republican buddies in other Tennessee districts and easily surived his primary, taking 86% of the vote. On the other side, Ken Martin (R) took 41%, with Alan Pedigo taking 31% and Don Strong clocking in with 27%. Martin will get the chance to lose to Davis in November, as this is a mirror image of the Republican districts; perfectly safe for the incumbent.

CD 5
Congressman Jim Cooper (D) took 92% of the vote on the way to being renominated for his office. His opponent in November will be Thomas Kovach (R), who was unopposed.

CD 6
Congressman Bart Gordeon (D) also took 92% of the vote. He will face Republican David R. Davis (not the same as the Davis who is the presumptive Republican nominee in CD 2) in November.

CD 7
Bill Morrison (D) took 60% of the vote on his way to winning the nomination over Randy Morris. Morrison will face Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R) in November.

CD 8
John Farmer (R) easily won his primary against Rory Bricco, 71%-29%, and will face Congressman John Tanner (D) in November.

CD 9
With 31% of the vote in a crowded, 15-person primary field, Steve Cohen won the Democratic battle to replace Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who is running for Senate. His opponent will be Mark White (R), who took 63% of the Republican vote.

Double-Digit Lamont Lead

2006-08-03T07:04:00.000-07:00

The story can be found here.

The only reason I'm posting on this is because of a quote in the article, howere. Here goes:

Lieberman recently called on President Clinton to visit the state on his behalf, and Clinton's endorsement has been used in the campaign's televised ads. But that apparently had little effect on voters; of those who supported Lieberman, 78 percent said Clinton was not a reason for their support.

Now, I just want to throw something out there...if 22% of your support is even partly because you made a particular move (such as bringing in Bill Clinton), then that was a pretty good move, no? You made a significant jump in your support by doing so. I'm not sure why 22% is considered to be "little effect," but then, hey, I'm not a member of the MSM either.

Lieberman

2006-08-02T21:21:00.000-07:00

We're now 6 days away from the most fascinating primary of the season: the race to become the Democratic Senate nominee in Connecticut. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you need to pay better attention.

From Daily Kos today comes the suggestion that if Lieberman loses on Tuesday, which is a distinct possibility, and then chooses to run as an independent (or "petitioning Democrat," as I believe is the technical term), that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid would "have to" strip Lieberman of his committee seats. Uhhh...really?

This seems to me like a no-win scenario for Reid. Lieberman is the favorite in a three way race in November, so is it really a good idea for Reid to strip Lieberman of the committee spots when he in all likelihood will still be a Senator come January? Isn't that just begging Lieberman to stay an Independent and caucus with the Republicans, just making things that much harder for the Dems?

Ned Lamont may win on Tuesday, but I have yet to be convinced that Lieberman is vulnerable come November, and there is very little evidence that Lieberman is going to just lay down and give up his seat to an upstart like Lamont, who is a creation of the so-called netroots. Perhaps if Lieberman has his clock cleaned, he'll give up the race. But this strikes me as a 51-49 type thing, and if that happens there would be no reason for Lieberman to drop out.

Finally, for those of you who think Lieberman should "listen to the voice of his party," I say screw that. If Lieberman would win a statewide election without the party, and the party turns it's back on him, he has every right to run as an independent. Losing a primary does not and should not prevent someone from getting on the ballot in November, especially when, like Lieberman, you have essentially been ambushed by a disaffected, but very vocal, segment of the party. Perhaps I feel this way because I am not strongly attached to either party, but I see the primary as good for one thing and one thing only, and that is getting the little (D) or (R) next to your name on the ballot (my apologies to the (L), (G), and (Rf)'s of the world). The two parties do not have the sole right to having access to the ballot.

For the record, I'm supporting Lieberman over Lamont in this race. There is such vitriol towards Lieberman, and while I don't think he's a particularly strong Senator, I also don't think he's any worse than most of the other yahoo's who are in office. Lamont hasn't convinced me that he's anything more than a novelty candidate. Of course, my support comes in the form of election-night rooting and nothing else; I would never, ever give money for a race like this even if I had it to give. Also, part of me really likes it when the fella's over at Daily Kos suffer a loss in a race that they so badly want to win. Does that make me a bad person?

Cynthia McKinney

2006-08-02T10:30:00.000-07:00

I admit, I find this race absolutely fascinating. McKinney, best known as the Congresswoman from Georgia who slapped a police officer who had the temerity not to recognize her when she tried to bypass the security station at an entrance to a Congressional office building, is in a fight for her political life against Hank Johnson. The papers are abuzz with this race, and here's an example.

McKinney seems to me to be the kind of nutjob that isn't particularly dangerous in Congress (who's going to actually listen to her, really?), but who doesn't by any means belong there. I'm rooting against her not because I know anything about her opponent, but because defeating her will eliminate an ineffective, screeching looney from the halls of Congress. If Hank Johnson does his job and pulls this out next Tuesday, he will be in all reality the Congressman-elect (I gather Republicans don't do too well in this part of Georgia). That's good news for everybody, even if he turns out to be a liberal idealogue. I'd rather have a sane partisan than a crazy nutjob in Congress any day.

Kansas Primary Results

2006-08-02T08:05:00.000-07:00

Governor
State Senator Jim Barnett, the front-runner only simply because he was the only one of the 7 candidates seeking the nomination, did in fact win the primary last night with 36% of the vote. His closest opponent was Ken Canfield with 26%. That means Barnett will face the very popular Kathleen Sebelius in November, and will almost certainly lose.

CD 3
The competition dropped out of the race and no primary was actually needed for this district. Republican Chuck Ahner will face Congressman Dennis Moore (D) in November.

CD 4
The battle to find a challenger for Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R) is too close to call, and was an amazingly close 4-way race. Garth McGinn received 38 more votes than Ronald Voth (28%-27%), which is obviously much too close to call. Recounts and all the other shenanigans will undoubtedly ensue. Marty Mork received 24% and Patrick Quaney 21% in this race, so clearly no one candidate was really able to establish themselves. That's probably very good news for Tiahrt, who undoubtedly will win this race regardless of which Democrat finds himself the candidate.

This Week's Primaries

2006-07-30T11:06:00.000-07:00

I can't say "Tuesday's Primaries" this week, because Tennessee has its primary on Thursday. Since I wanted to cover both in one post, I'm just referring to them this way.

Kansas Governor
Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) is unopposed in the primaries, and will be watching to see who will face off against her. The Republicans have an incredibly crowded field facing off on Tuesday to determine who her opponent will be. With no runoff in Kansas, the winner need only receive the most votes, rather than having to worry about reaching 50%. The only current office-holder in the race is State Senator Jim Barnett. Also running are Ken Canfield, Rex Crowell, Dennis Hawver, Robin Jennison, Tim Pickel, and Richard Rodewald. I'm going to predict that Barnett wins, but I really have absolutely no basis for that prediction, as I don't have money numbers for these candidates.

Kansas CD 3
Congressman Dennis Moore (D) is unopposed, but there are 4 Republicans fighting for the right to face him. With $309,000 in the bank, Chuck Ahner has to be considered the front runner. He will be facing off against Thomas Scherer, Scott Schwab, and Paul Showen.

Kansas CD 4
Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R) is unopposed, and is watching 4 Democrats beat each other up to face him. For two of them, there is no financial data available, while the other two have made negligible amounts of cash, so again I have no idea who should be considered the front runner. The candidates are Garth McGinn, Marty Mork, Patrick Quaney, and Ronald Voth.

Tennessee Governor
Governor Phil Bredesen (D) faces three primary opponents in John Jay Hooker, Tim Sevier, and Walt Ward. Since Bredesen has a 62% approval rating, I doubt that he has anything at all to worry about in this race.

On the Republican side, State Senator Jim Bryson is the only office-holder running. He faces off against a massive field of opponents, including Mark Albertini, Wayne Bailey, David Farmer, Joe Kirkpatrick, Tim Thomas, and Wayne Young. With no financial data available, I'm again going to predict success for the current office-holder, and project that Bryson will win. As in Kansas, there is no runoff in Tennessee, so the candidates must receive the most votes on Thursday.

Tennessee Senate
With Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist retiring from office (presumably to run for President), there is an interesting race to replace him. On the Republican side, a ton of money has been spent on this race. Bob Corker has over $5 million in his campaign fund, but much of that is presumably his own money. Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary both have over $2 million. Also in the running is Tate Harrison, for whom no financial report is available. It doesn't really matter, since he doesn't have a chance. I think it's a very close three way race, but I'm going to project Hilleary as the winner.

On the Democratic side, Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is the presumed nominee. He has made over $6 million for this race, and whichever Republican emerges from the thicket will have a significant challenge in November. Ford still has some business to take care of, however, as there are 4 other Democrats vying for a chance to get into the Senate. Gary Davis, John Jay Hooker (the same one running for Governor), Charles Smith, and Alvin Strauss are the other challengers for the race.

Tennessee CD 1
Congressman William Jenkins (R) is retiring, and there are a large number of candidates to replace him. On the Republican side, a ridiculous 13 candidates are running, and the money is widely spread out amongst them. Richard Roberts, with $890,000 in the bank, has to be considered the favorite. With between $200,000 and $406,000 are Richard Venable, Vance Cheek, Jr., David Davis, David Roe, and James Waters. Finally, in the "nothing or very little available" category are Peggy Barnett, Colquitt Brackett, Bill Breeding, Jr., Claude Cox, Jon Grose, Douglas Heinsohn, and Danny Smith. How this many candidates end up running, I have no idea. I assume that if the state party was a bit more disciplined this wouldn't happen.

On the Democratic side, there are 4 challengers. Joel Goodman, an actor, is facing Richard Howell, Rick Trent, and Dennis Whaley. I'll give the edge to the actor, but I really have no idea. The highest amount of cash reported in this race is $6,000 for Howell, so whoever wins is going to lose big to the Republican in November.

Tennessee CD 2
Congressman John Duncan, Jr. (R) faces a pretty paltry challenge from Ralph McGill, who has raised just 1/100th of the cash. Duncan will win easily. On the Democratic side, John Greene faces Bob Scott, with no favorite.

Tennessee CD 3
Congressman Zach Wamp (R) has raised nearly a million dollars, but has to swat away three gnats who are challenging him in this primary: June Griffin, Charles Howard, and Doug Vadagriff. Wamp need not worry. On the other side, Terry Stulce faces Brent Benedict. Stulce has raised $57,000, while Benedict has no financial data available, so I'll give the edge to Stulce.

Tennessee CD 4
Congressman Lincoln Davis (D) faces two minor challengers in this primary: Norma Cartwright and Harvey Howard. Davis will win easily. On the Republican side, Alan Pedigo, Ken Martin, and Don Strong face off. Pedigo has $52,000 in the bank and the other have no available financial data, so I give Pedigo the edge.

Tennessee CD 5
Congressman Jim Cooper (D) faces a minor challenge from Jason Pullias that won't be a problem for him. He will face Republican Thomas Kovach in November.

Tennessee CD 6
Congressman Bart Gordon (D) faces a minor challenge from J. Patrick Lyons that he'll win easily. He will face David Davis (R) in November.

Tennessee CD 7
Congressman Marsha Blackburn does not have an opponent in the primary, and will sit back and watch Randy Morris and Bill Morrison fight for the Democratic nomination.

Tennessee CD 8
Congressman John Tanner (D) has no opponent in the primary, and so will get to relax on Thursday as Republicans Rory Bricco and John Farmer battle for the nomination.

Tennessee CD 9
With Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. (D) giving up this seat to run for Senate, there are a ton of Democrats fighting to replace him. Here are the 15 challengers, in alphabetical order: Jesse Blumenfeld, Julian Bolton, State Senator Steve Cohen, Joe Ford, Jr., Ruben Fort, Lee Harris, Joseph Kyles, Marvell Mitchell, Tyson Pratcher, Ron Redwing, Ed Stanton III, Nikki Tinker, Joe Towns, Jr., Ralph White, and Bill Whitman. Nikki Tinker has made by far the most money, so I'm going to give her the edge.

On the Republican side there are 5 challengers: Derrick Bennett, Rudolph Daniels, Tom Guleff, Cecil Hale, and Hoyt White. White has made the most money, so I'll give him the edge.

Oklahoma Primary Results

2006-07-30T10:41:00.000-07:00

As I promised, results that any of you could have picked up from multiple sources while I was gone (but hey, it's fun to pretend I have a readership that has been desperately craving this information)...

Governor
On the Democratic side, Governor Brad Henry easily was renominated, beating his opponent, Andrew Marr, Jr., 86%-14%.

Republicans nominated Congressman Ernest Istook, as expected. Istook received 58% of the vote, with Bob Sullivan the closest challenger at 31%. Neither of the other two stooges...er, candidates...received more than 10% of the vote.

Oklahoma CD 1
As expected, John Sullivan (R) easily cruised to the nomination, receiving 83% of the vote. He will face Alan Gentges (D) in November.

Oklahoma CD 2
Patrick Miller (R) won 72% of the vote, and will face Congressman Dan Boren (D) in November.

Oklahoma CD 3
Sue Barton (D) took out her two opponents, receiving 53% of the vote, and will face Congressman Frank Lucas (R) in November.

Oklahoma CD 5
With Congressman Ernest Istook (R) running for Governor, this seat was wide open, and as a result 6 Republicans were vying for the right to get on the ballot in November. Not surprisingly, none of them received the necessary 50% required for the nomination, and so there will be a runoff on August 22 between the top two vote-getters. One of the names is surprising, the other is not. First, Lieutenant Governor Mary Fallin, who had raised the second most amount of money and obviously has name recognition as a statewide office-holder, received nearly 35% of the vote, easily beating her challengers. However, the top money-raiser in this race was Corporation Commissioner Denise Bode, with over $1 million in the bank. It didn't help her, as she came in third with 19% of the vote. Instead, Fallin will face Mick Cornett in August, after Cornett received 24% of the vote in the primary.

The Democratic side was more decisive, with David Hunter receiving 63% of the vote. He will face either Fallin or Cornett in November.

Vacation

2006-07-20T19:46:00.000-07:00

I'm off on vacation for the next week-plus, so anyone who wanders across this site once in awhile should stop back again after July 30, when there will be more posts. Until then, check out Marty Andrade's blog if you want to read something about politics or policy.

Tuesday's Oklahoma Primary

2006-07-20T19:31:00.000-07:00

The only primary taking place while I'm on vacation next week is in Oklahoma, and there are a number of interesting races to deal with. Incidentally, I'll report the results when I'm back, although you can find all the information you could possibly want on the Green Papers.

Governor
Governor Brad Henry (D) faces Andrew Marr, Jr. in the Dem primary. Henry has a 67% approval rating as of mid-June, according to Survey USA. That's in a heavily Republican state. Oklahoma Dems would be completely insane to part ways with him now.

On the Republican side, there's a four way race. Congressman Ernest Istook is the leading candidate, and is joined by Jim Evanoff, Bob Sullivan Jr., and Jim Williamson. Expect Istook to win the primary, and then expect an interesting race between the popular Democratic incumbent and the more logical Republican.

Oklahoma CD 1
Congressman John Sullivan (R) has two primary opponents, Fran Moghaddam and Evelyn Rogers. However, Sullivan has raised well over half a million bucks, while the other two combined have raised about $8,000. Sullivan will cruise to victory, and will be facing Alan Gentges (D) in November.

Oklahoma CD 2
Congressman Dan Boren (D) is not opposed this year, but there is a battle on the Republican side to determine who will face him. Patrick Miller and Raymond Wickson are fighting to be his opponent in November.

Oklahoma CD 3
Congressman Frank Lucas (R) is unopposed, but there is a three way race to determine who his Democratic opponent will be. Sue Barton, John Harris III, and Gregory Wilson are all competing for the seat, and none seems to have raised much more than $10,000. Impossible to tell who will win the race.

Oklahoma CD 5
The race to determine who will succeed Congressman Ernest Istook (R) in this seat is all over the place, and looks a little like the California Gubernatorial runoff from a couple of years ago. Istook, in case you have a short memory, is running for Governor. On the Republican side, there are 6 (!) challengers, several of whom have raised some serious cash. Corporation Commissioner Denise Bode has raised well over a million bucks and has to be considered the front-runner. Lieutenant Governor Mary Fallin has also raised plenty of dough, at over $800,000. Also in the race are Kevin Calvey, Fred Morgan, Mick Cornett, and Johnny B. Roy.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Paul Hunter, Jim Priest, and Bert Smith are competing. Hunter will probably win, as he's raised the most money by quite a bit. Unfortunately for Dems, he only has $200,000 raised. This is going to be a smack-down in November.

There ya have it...more info on this primary on July 30.

Georgia Primary Results

2006-07-18T23:16:00.000-07:00

The results are in, and there is a little bit of intrigue. Without further ado...

Governor
Sonny Perdue win the Republican nomination going away, with over 88% of the vote. Guess being listed as Ray "States Rights" McBerry wasn't enough to get 'er done. Who would have figured?

On the other side of things, Mark Taylor picked up the Democratic nomination, barely avoiding a run-off by receiving 51.5% of the vote. But hey, just as a bloop single looks like a line-drive in the morning paper, Taylor will be the only guy on the ballot with a (D) by his name in the November gubernatorial election, so good for him. And good for the Georgia Dems for nominating a man with such a classy last name.

Georgia CD 4
Ah, yes. The Cynthia McKinney race. My, my, my, what have the Georgia Dems done? Mad Dog McKinney isn't done with this fight yet, as she received just under 47% of the vote tonight, and will have to face Hank Johnson, Jr. in an August 8 runoff. By the way, Johnson picked up 44.5% of the vote. This cannot be good news for McKinney . . . when the people of your district realize you're a bit of a loon, the campaign is in trouble. That said, there isn't a lot of time for Johnson to campaign, but my guess is that a lot of the people that voted for the third candidate in this race will go towards Johnson; they obviously didn't like something about McKinney in the first place. She could be in trouble.

Georgia CD 6
Congressman Tom Price (R) wins easily, with 82% of the vote, over challenger John Konop. He will face Democrat Steve Sinton in November.

Georgia CD 8
As expected, former Congressman Mac Collins (R) won his race over James Neal Harris by 82% to 18%. Collins will face Congressman Jim Marshall in November in what should be an interesting race.

Georgia CD 9
John Bradbury (D) won the right to face Congressman Nathan Deal (R) in November by beating Bob Longwith 69%-31%.

Georgia CD 13
Congressman David Scott (D) faced a surprisingly rigorous challenge from Donzella James, but still won his primary 65%-35%. He will face Deborah Honeycutt (R) in November.

Stem Cell Vote

2006-07-18T16:08:00.000-07:00

So, it's official: by a vote of 63-37, the Senate has sent the stem-cell bill discussed below to the President, and it surely looks like it will be vetoed post-haste. I'm not going to talk about the implications of this vote, because I already did that once. In fact, I'm not going to say much at that's directly on point.

Instead, I'd like to talk about a the stated justification for the looming veto. In response to why Bush plans on vetoing this bill, Press Secretary Tony Snow said the following: "The President is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

Alright, there are a couple of responses to this. First, and this is the least consequential point because it is merely semantics, I'd like to point out that testing on animals has been done for years by the government and private actors. Sometimes, they die. Completely aside from the question of whether this is morally right or not, this "slippery slope" was crossed long ago, and it hasn't led to testing on people who are mortally ill (at least, involuntary testing), nor in testing on prisoners, etc. Snow's point was obviously meant to be that the President isn't going to go down the slippery slope of taking a HUMAN that is alive and making it dead.

This leads to the second point of discussion, and that is whether a fertilized embryo that is a few days old can be considered human or not. There is no dispute by anyone, at least anyone sane, that a few-days-old embryo is alive, but does it deserve the protections that belong to humans? Or is it some kind of lesser being, a proto- or pre-human? Obviously, this is pretty much the same question that comes up in the abortion debate, and nothing I can say is going to somehow change people's minds on the issue. Nevertheless, this is clearly a point that needs to be discussed; it can't just be glossed over.

My problem with the position that opposes this is that it seems a bit logically inconsistent, and here's why. The embryos that would be used in this process are those that would be discarded in the invitro-fertilization process. When someone chooses to undergo IVF, several embryos are created, and only one is implanted. The rest are summarily destroyed. My understanding is that the creation of excess embryos is a necessary part of the IVF process. Yet, you don't see very many politicians coming out in favor of stopping the evils of IVF. Why is this? Isn't the creation and subsequent destruction of embryos just as insidious as abortion? Isn't this the kind of thing that the pro-life lobby is supposed to oppose?

Of course the answer is that while abortion is a crowd pleaser for a substantial portion of the electorate, opposing IVF would not be. Many people need IVF to have children, and too oppose that would be one of the most politically unpopular things that any politician could do. And yet, this results in a huge inconsistency in the position taken by these politicians.

Further, knowing that these embryos are going to be created and destroyed, isn't it worse to callously allow them to be destroyed (and thus serve no purpose) rather than be used in a way that could benefit society? Now, this is a very close ethical issue. I agree that if we were creating embryos solely for the purpose of experimenting on them, that would be wrong (unless you are a pure utilitarian, in which case you probably have no problem with this). But that isn't what is happening. These embryos are going to be created and destroyed. As it is now, they serve no purpose. Anti-stem cell groups, then, are arguing that it is better to create and destroy embryos for IVF than to create and utilize embryos created by the IVF process. That, to me, is terribly naive and illogical.

If folks on the anti-stem cell research side were anti-IVF, I could understand the position more clearly. I cannot understand accepting IVF and still being opposed to the constructive use of embryos that are to be destroyed. For me, the choice between destruction or utilization is clear.

Surprising Minnesota Senate Poll

2006-07-16T23:23:00.000-07:00

Ok, it's a poll conducted by the Star Tribune, so you have to knock off about 10 points from the Dem candidate to make it remotely accurate. Nevertheless, the poll shows Democrat Amy Klobuchar with a 50%-31% lead over Republican Mark Kennedy. Even factoring in the Trib's Dem-leaning methodology, these are sobering numbers for Representative Kennedy.

I've been saying for nearly two years that Kennedy was going to win this seat come November. First, I thought he'd be knocking out Mark Dayton, who would have been easy pickings. Then I suggested that no matter who the Dems put up to replace Dayton on the ticket, Kennedy would still win. I now have to reconsider.

If the Democrats easily retain this seat, then it's likely they will do very well elsewhere. The numbers aren't favorable, but this early poll may be the start of a national trend in favor of Democratic candidates that could lead to promising results for the Donkey on elections night. That is, if they don't shoot themselves in the foot first.

The courts giveth, the courts taketh away...

2006-07-14T18:52:00.000-07:00

Aside from the fact that the courts have no legitimate role to play in deciding policy, there is a practical reason that pro-gay marriage groups should avoid trying to win their fight through the courts. The title above says it all, and the gay marriage movement has now suffered four defeats in about a week.

You need to change hearts and minds, folks. Absent that, no legitimate change is possible. The courts cannot solve this issue, or any issue, definitively.

Tuesday's Primary

2006-07-14T16:57:00.000-07:00

After a three week break, this Tuesday will see a primary. The State of Georgia will be deciding who will face off in the following races:

Governor
Incumbent Sonny Perdue (R) will face Ray McBerry (R), who seems to have found a way to have his name listed as Ray "States Rights" McBerry. I have a feeling this isn't going to be a very challenging primary for Perdue.

On the Democratic side, Secretary of State Cathy Cox will be facing off against Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor, as well as Bill Bolton and Mac McCarley. I strongly suspect that whoever wins will be cannon fodder for Perdue, but the fact that two of these challengers have won statewide office in Georgia makes it at least possible that they could take Perdue out with a strong enough campaign.

Georgia CD 4
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D), who has become rather infamous for trying to beat up a Capital Hill policeman earlier this year, faces two challengers: John Coyne III and Hank Johnson, Jr. Coyne has made barely any money, but Johnson has made about 50% of McKinney's total. She should cruise to victory despite the police scuffle. The winner will face Catherine Davis (R) in November.

Georgia CD 6
Congressman Tom Price (R) faces John Konop on Tuesday. Price is wiping the floor with Konop in the fundraising battle ($1.85 million to $80,000), so this doesn't appear to be a very serious challenge. The winner will face Steve Sinton (D) in November.

Georgia CD 8
Former Congressman Mac Collins (R), who served in Congress for 12 years before honoring a self-imposed 6 term limit and retiring, is trying for office again, facing James Neal Harris in the primary. Collins has made well over $1 million for this race, while Harris' financial statement is not available (leading me to believe he doesn't have much at all). The winner will face Congressman Jim Marshall (D) in November.

Georgia CD 9
John Bradbury (D) faces off against Bob Longwith (D) to determine who will face Congressman Nathan Deal (R) in November.

Georgia CD 13
Congressman David Scott (D) faces Donzella James (D) on Tuesday night, but James doesn't seem to have much of a chance of unseating Scott. The winner will face Deborah Honeycutt (R) in November.

Hurrah for Bridge Trolls

2006-07-12T22:53:00.000-07:00

This has absolutely nothing to do with Politics, but I really don't care. I had to post it somewhere.

2008 Dem Primary Mess

2006-07-12T16:10:00.000-07:00

It sounds like things are going to get a little bit messy as states fight for priority within the Democratic Primary system. Anyone with even rudimentary civics knowledge knows that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are the first two "official" events of the presidential election year. Now, it sounds as if that is likely to change.

The Democrats want to insert a southwestern state (rumored to be Arizona or Nevada, but possibly Colorado) into the process between Iowa and New Hampshire, and follow those shortly thereafter with a stand-alone southern state (either South Carolina or Alabama) before opening the process up to other states. New Hampshire politicos are in a fit contesting the changes, South Carolina is upset that it may be losing its importance, and southwestern states are fighting over who gets the coveted post-Iowa spot. In other words, it's a mess.

I have a couple of thoughts regarding this. First, it really is bizarre that Iowa and New Hampshire kick of this process at all, isn't it? Can you get two states less representative of the nation as a whole? I understand the "retail-politics" argument to taking two small-ish states, but it still seems bizarre. Injecting the southwest into the process makes sense, because it is a rapidly growing area. But, honestly, isn't that just adding in more controversy? Where is California in this process? New York? Florida? Generally speaking, by the time the states with the bulk of the population weigh in, an aura of inevitability has set in. Survive Iowa, win in New Hampshire, rack up a couple of victories in the first-round, and it's over. Why not start off with a bang in California?

Second, is it time to consider a national primary day? I'm not sure I favor this idea, but I thought I'd throw it out there. We have one day to decide who the President is, so why not one day, nationally, to decide who the nominee is? There are multiple arguments against this, including the idea that weeks of primary campaigning serve as the kick-start process to the national Presidential campaign. However, if the national primary were held in May, the candidates would have plenty of time to run a national primary campaign and get themselves known. It would require different tactics, but it would be manageable. Of course, it would also mean that they would probably set up shop in California and New York, letting states such as New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina rot...

I don't have a solution, and I don't even necessarily think the process is completely broken now. I believe it starts too early, but that's a minor quibble; better it start early, allowing time for people to familiarize themselves with the candidates, than not start until quite late, allowing for unwelcome surprises. There's no question that it will interesting to see what both parties do in the maneuvering that will take place up to the start of the primaries in (yipes!) only 18 months.

Bush Veto Forthcoming?

2006-07-10T19:24:00.000-07:00

Somehow, President Bush has managed to make it through nearly 6 years as the President without having vetoes a single bill. That in itself is remarkable. The President is now threatening to veto a bill providing for increased funding of stem cell research, and I have two basic questions:

1.) Is the President's veto threat credible, considering he has never vetoed a bill?

2.) Why choose to make a stand on this issue, now?

The legislation must be supported by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, or it wouldn't have ever been brought up for a vote. Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader, is purportedly a supporter of the bill. This seems a good way to bring negative attention to an issue that I suspect fractures Republicans much more deeply than it fractures Republicans. If I were the Democratic party, I would be thrilled right now that this legislation is set to pass the Senate comfortably, and that the President was going to take such a firm stand on it. If the veto happens, many Republicans will have to make a tough decision on an override vote, if one is forthcoming. I suspect that standing on principle could lose them some support amongst moderate voters. On the other hand, supporting the research could cost them points with the base. Tough call.

The Return of Tom DeLay

2006-07-09T14:58:00.000-07:00

Read about it here.

This strikes me as very bad for a Republican party that wants to distance itself from any hint of corruption. The man can make money hand-over-fist, but I think he's a drag to the Republican party and I'm guessing there aren't a lot of people in the leadership of the party who want to see him return to elected office. He works better as a martyr, raising money and giving speeches behind the scenes.

Incidentally, I think he's in for a surprise if he actually runs for his old seat. My prediction is that he'll lose the race to Nick Lampson if he goes for it.

Giuliani for President?

2006-07-08T18:43:00.000-07:00

Robert Novak is reporting that "inside sources" are indicating that Rudy Giuliani is planning on running for President in 2008. While the conventional wisdom has been leaning against a Giuliani run for some time, I've always thought that there was a very good chance he was going to go for it.

Most politicos scoff at the notion of Giuliani succeeding in the Republican Primaries, because he is at best a moderate Republican and at worst a RINO. Since the primaries tend to be dominated by the "true believers," the logic goes that someone like Giuliani can't attract the necessary level of support.

I don't necessarily believe this, however. Giuliani is likely to have very strong appeal amongst moderates of both parties and center-leaning Republicans. He has tremendous name recognition, and is viewed as the kind of hero who's image is hard to tarnish. There is a distinct possibility that many people who normally wouldn't vote for someone with his ideology would do so for him.

More interesting, however, is the potential situation that the candidates will be facing when they enter the primary battle. There is no Republican front-runner right now on the arch-Conservative side of things, and the result is a great many will probably be running when the first primaries roll around. If no frontrunner emerges, they are likely to splinter the vote, opening the door for McCain and/or Giuliani to galvanize support amongst the more center-leaning groups. I firmly believe that this dynamic is going to make the 2008 Republican primaries as interesting as any primary fight that I've seen in my lifetime.

My early money is on Giuliani losing out in his fight for the nomination, but I refuse to discount the possibility that he emerges from a crowded fight. And really, wouldn't it be fun to see Rudy vs. Hillary in 2008?

War-Related Hunger Strike

2006-07-04T16:56:00.000-07:00

This story about Cindy Sheehan and her crew of apparantly jobless war-protesters got me thinking:

What exactly is the point of a hunger strike? And when you suggest that your hunger strike is going to last until the troops return from Iraq, don't you realize you look like a moron?

Is there any more idiotic way to protest something? Any way more likely to fail? And at what point does Cindy Sheehan just look like an opportunistic crazy? Oh...wait...

Christian Film Rating kerfuffle

2006-07-03T18:16:00.000-07:00

I don't have a problem with religion. I thought Jesse Ventura's statement that religion was a crutch for the weak-minded was out of line and generally inaccurate. But I find it highly absurd when individuals of any religious stripe get up in arms over what they perceive to be affronts to their religion.

In the most recent example of how religion can (not "does," but "can") make fools out of people, I submit the following article from CNN. I guess there is a film out there that is Christian themed, and said flick received a PG rating rather than the G that the film-makers and its supporters wanted. Ostensibly, the PG rating was given because of the religious theme of the film, although the MPAA disputes that.

First, I think film ratings are stupid in general, because trying to pigeonhole every film into one of five categories just doesn't work effectively (what one parent thinks is dangerous for his or her children would be viewed as just fine by others), and I think the PARENTS should ultimately take charge of these things by, first, previewing TV and movie offerings that their children are interested in seeing until the children are of a certain age (and what that age is would be another parental decision), and second, trusting their children not to be idiots once the magic age is reached.

That said, I think exposure to religious views, especially if the film is proselytizing, is worthy of a slightly higher rating. PG simply means that parents should be paying attention, and I know a LOT of Christian families who would object to a movie that presented an overtly Muslim viewpoint receiving a G rating. As a result, this "signal" to parents that the content is not, say, about an animated deer traipsing through the forest with his forest friends is perfectly appropriate.

Now, onto the good part. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt said this in connection with the rating debacle:

This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous to children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence.

Ummm...no. This statement by Blunt raises the disquieting possibility that the third-ranking Republican in the House is a raving lunatic. Gratuitous sex and violence are virtually guaranteed nowadays to result in a rating of PG-13 or R. Back in the day, films that contained quite a lot of questionable content snuck through with a PG, but that's not the case anymore. The only things that get "G" ratings are utterly harmless trifles, containing not a whiff of sex and usually not much violence. Hence, "Christian themes" aren't even being considered to be "as dangerous" to children as are sex and violence; quite clearly a PG rating is lower on the "danger scale."

The point? Blunt is a fool who either doesn't understand what he's talking about, or who doesn't care. Either way, I'm pretty glad right now that John Boehner won the race for House Majority Leader over Blunt . . . at least Boehner hasn't proven himself to be a reactionary nutcase.

United Nations Turnover

2006-07-01T20:28:00.000-07:00

The United Nations is such a strange organization. Created with the best of intentions, it has served most often as a platform for demagoguery and a means for corrupt individuals to make money (see the Oil-for-Food scandal). I'm not really sure how to feel about the UN; as a left-leaning moderate I guess I'm supposed to view it as the last, best hope for humankind. I just can't reconcile that vision with the reality of the organization, however. I don't know if there will ever be a sci-fi friendly "One-World Government," but I would place million-to-one odds on the possibility of any such organization growing out the United Nations.

Nevertheless, I'm curious to see how the race to replace Kofi Annan plays out. Annan's second term as UN Secretary-General (such an interesting title, that) ends on December 31, 2006. Sometime this fall, then, the UN will need to select a new leader, and not surprisingly for such a Byzantine organization, the process of selecting the Secretary-General is shrouded in mystery and intrigue.

Newsweek International just put out an article on some of the individuals, declared and undeclared, who are seeking the job. I've never heard of any of these people, but I suspect that I will be finding out more as the process goes on. With luck, whoever is chosen will be the kind of reformer that can facilitate a top-down change in how the UN runs. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to happen. Regardless, this should be a fascinating process.

Utah Primary Update

2006-06-28T18:11:00.000-07:00

I just found out yesterday that this was a race that was being closely watched, because the challenger to Republican Congressman Chris Cannon (R), a man by the name of John Jacob (D), was running essentially a single-issue campaign on the immigration issue, arguing that Cannon was pro-amnesty. The Utah 3rd is a pretty conservative area, covering Provo. Nevertheless, anti-immigrant forces weren't able to get their way on this one. Cannon won the primary with nearly 56% of the vote; closer than most incumbents have to worry about, but not exactly a nail-biter.

I don't generally think you can take the results in one district and extrapolate them across the country. The one thing I would take from this is that, no matter how strong a primary challenger is, there just isn't much chance for ousting an incumbent. We'll see if that holds up in August with Joe Lieberman (D-CT). My suspicion is it will, and no matter how close it is now, Lieberman will win that primary. Maybe Ned Lamont will prove me wrong, but I don't think so.

Primary Update

2006-06-27T20:25:00.000-07:00

The Utah returns are trickling in very slowly, but it doesn't look like anything definitive will be known in the Utah CD 3 primary until tomorrow. I did find out today that this race is more interesting than I thought, with the challenger, John Jacob (R) being a staunch anti-immigrant type. The primary is essentially a referendum on whether the Utah 3rd considers that to be the number one issue affecting the party right now. More on this tomorrow once a winner has been determined. The other three races I was following have been decided:

South Carolina CD 1
Randy Maatta (D), who I called an underdog because his opponent nearly won the contest outright in the regular primary. Maatta did something right in the intervening couple of weeks because he picked up 56% of the vote and won the runoff. He will face Congressman Henry Brown, Jr. (R) in November.

Mississippi Senate
The two Mississippi races behaved themselves, with the favorites coming out on top. In the Senate race, Erik Fleming (D) won 63% of the vote over Bill Bowling (D), and will face Trent Lott (R) in November.

Mississippi CD 1
Ken Hurt (D) picked up 68% of the vote in beating Bill Bambach (D), and will face Congressman Roger Wicker (R) in November.