Dem Progress

Election results

2006-11-07T23:18:00.001-08:00

The Democrats have retaken the House, likely with gains of 28-32 seats.

I am also predicting at this late hour (2:15 am) that the Dems will retake the Senate by winning the two outstanding races in MT and VA. In both states, the Democratic candidate has a slight lead and, more importantly, most of the outstanding votes in both states are from largely Dem areas (Bozeman and Billings in MT, and Fairfax County in VA).

This will give the Dems a 51-49 edge in the Senate, counting the votes of Lieberman and Sanders.

Night, all.

Predictions Part 1: House and Senate

2006-10-28T12:50:00.000-07:00

First, I want to give my best and worst-case scenarios for Democrats on November 7.

SENATE
Best-Case Scenario: Dems net 8 Senate seats (PA, OH, MT, RI, MO, TN, VA, and AZ; lose none).
Worst-Case Scenario: Dems net 2 Senate seats (PA, OH, and MT; lose NJ)

HOUSE
Best-Case Scenario: Dems net 40-45 seats
Worst-Case Scenario: Dems net 6-10 seats (lose the two seats in GA)

GOVERNOR
Best-Case Scenario: Dems net 12 Governor's mansions (NY, OH, MA, AR, MD, CO, MN, NV, FL, AK, SC, GA)
Worst-Case Scenario: Dems net 4 Governor's mansions (NY, OH, MA, AR, MD; lose OR)

As always, the truth will almost certainly be somewhere in between. The Dems still have a strong tailwind. The NJ Supreme Court decision was surprisingly a one-day story, which probably helps Dems because it means that social conservatives are not likely to be as riled up as most people thought they would be.

I won't make specific predictions for the House, except to say that the following seats appear to gimmes for the Dems:
AR-08, TX-22, PA-08, PA-07, IN-08, OH-18, FL-16, CO-07

And the only two Dem districts the GOP has legit chances of winning are the 8th and 12th districts in GA. Of the two, Jim Marshall (D) in the 8th District is the stronger incumbent, but is facing a tough opponent in Ex-Rep. Mac Collins in a district made tougher by redistricting. Freshman Rep. John Barrow (D) is not an overwhelming candidate in the 12th District, but he won the district in 2004 with 52% of the vote, and is now facing the same opponent as an incumbent and in a district which may have been made slightly more Democratic by the redistricting (which increased the district's black population from 42 to 45%). The wild card in all this is the GA governor's race, where incumbent Sonny Perdue (R) looks like he's going to win in a rout; but I think it will be closer than most people think.

In any case, there are no other endangered Dem house seats in the country. If the GOP can't pick up the two GA seats, it's probably going to be the first time in a recent memory that a party has failed to pick up a single House seat during a national election.

The Senate and Governor's seats are another story. Whereas House seats are extremely susceptible to the winds of the national climate, Senate and Governor's seats can turn more on the personalities, positions, and political prowess of the individual candidates.

That said, here are my assessments of the most competitive Senate seats this cycle, listed here in order of their likelihood (in my humble opinion) to flip from one party to another. As you will see, I'm predicting that the Dems will pick up 5 seats, which would make for a 50-50 Senate (with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote):

1) Pennsylvania - Rick Santorum (R) is running for reelection
Santorum has consistently trailed Bob Casey, Jr. (D) by 8+ points throughout this cycle. Everyone predicted that the race would tighten down the stretch, but it hasn't. Santorum threw everything he had at Casey, and none of it made a dent. Voters' opinions on Santorum were simply too firmly entrenched. Add in the fact that Rendell romping to victory in the Governor's race, and the best Santorum can hope for is making this one a little closer than expected.
PREDICTION: Casey by 12

2) Ohio - Mike DeWine (R) is running for re-election
DeWine is the victim and Sherrod Brown (D) the beneficiary of a perfect storm. Gov. Bob Taft (R) is the least popular governor in the nation's recent history, and has been a drag on all GOP candidates in the state. Democrats have been riled up ever since the close '04 election, and the subsequent allegations of voter fraud. Conservatives were angered by the relatively moderate DeWine's participation in the Gang of 14, and liberals were angered by his continued support for the Iraq War. DeWine was torn apart by political currents beyond his control; like Casey, Brown could have won without lifting much of a finger.
PREDICTION: Brown by 9

3) Montana - Conrad Burns (R) is running for re-election
Perhaps the most intriguing thing about this race is the fact that Jon Tester (D) has consistently led Burns in polls, but has never hit the magical 50% in any polls except those run by Rasmussen (which had perhaps the least accurate polling results in the '04 cycle). That said, Burns hasn't polled in the lead in this race for 6 months, and the race doesn't seem to be tightening.
PREDICTION: Tester by 5

4) Rhode Island - Lincoln Chafee (R) is running for re-election
A tough GOP primary with conservative Steve Laffey drained Chafee's energy and resources, which allowed Shelden Whitehouse (D) to leap out to a solid lead after the primary. Chafee finally seemed to catch his stride a couple weeks ago, but it might have been too little and too late. Though he is by far the most liberal member of the GOP caucus, Chafee had the bad luck of running in what is probably the bluest state in the country. This is the first race that I wouldn't be surprised with a result either way, but the advantage is definitely with Whitehouse.
PREDICTION: Whitehouse by 4

5) Tennessee - Bill Frist (R) is retiring
Three reasons I think this is more likely to flip than Missouri: 1) Harold Ford has won the media war over Bob Corker's (R) ads during the past few weeks, which has lead to 2) Polls showing Ford with the momentum during the past week; and also 3) Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) is going to win re-election in a rout. Democrats have two reasons to turn out on 11/7; Corker doesn't have anyone else to help him motivate voters.
PREDICTION: Ford in a nail-biter

6) Missouri - Jim Talent (R) is running for re-election
McCaskill seems unable to pull away from Talent, who always seemed like a remarkably weak candidate to me. Polls show that Talent has had the momentum over the past few weeks. I'll be very curious to see if the coverage of the Michael J. Fox ad moves this race at all. If it doesn't, and if there isn't a nationwide Democratic tidal wave, I think Talent hangs on.
PREDICTION: Talent in a nail-biter

7) New Jersey - Bob Menendez (D) is running for a full term
Polls seem to show the race tied or with Menendez slightly ahead. The continuous corruption charges levied against Mendendez seem to have worn thin, and the Menendez campaign team has dealt with them well. Tom Kean (R) just can't seem to break it open, and this is one state where the Dems have a significant advantage in getting out the vote on Election Day.
PREDICTION: Menendez by 3

8) Virginia - George Allen (R) is running for re-election
Is it just me, or did Allen's book-quoting attack on Jim Webb (D) seem a bit of a strange move for a candidate who was a few points ahead in polls? Maybe he just wants to close the deal, but it could also be that his own polls show this race is a dead heat, and that Allen is getting nervous. This is the toughest race for me to handicap, but I have a tough time believing that Allen won't pull it out, since he somehow managed to weather the Macaca fiasco with his lead intact.
PREDICTION: Allen by 4

9) Maryland - Paul Sarbanes (D) is retiring
Michael Steele (R) has run a good campaign, but polls show that he hasn't been able to attract any more support from blacks than most GOPers do. He needed to make a significant dent in the Dem base to have a chance, and that doesn't seem to have happened. Ben Cardin (D) is perhaps the dullest campaigner of the cycle, but that hasn't hurt him in the polls. The GOP is making a big last push here, but I don't think it makes up the difference.
PREDICTION: Cardin by 5

That's all for my specific predictions, since I don't think any other races will determine who wakes up with control of the Senate on 11/8. A major wave could result in the Dems taking GOP-held seats in AZ and NV, but that won't happen unless all the seats listed above go to the Democrats as well (in which case the Dems would have at least a 2-seat Senate majority anyway).

And of course...
Connecticut - Joe Lieberman (I) is running for re-election
I probably shouldn't say anything here, but frankly, this race was over the moment Ned Lamont decided to run the "Turncoat" ad campaign rather than pounding Lieberman on Iraq. They released a good ad featuring Wes Clark recently, but it was 6 weeks too late. Lamont waited too long to go back on the offensive, and consequently failed to expand his base much beyond the people who supported him in the Dem primary. The GOP realized that Schlesinger had zero chance of winning, and quietly decided to back Lieberman over Lamont as by far the lesser of two evils from their point of view. The debates doubled Schlesinger's support, but not really at the expense of Lieberman (unsurprisingly, most of the new Schlesinger voters were previously undecided). It seems that voters' opinions on Lieberman were already set by the time Lamont decided to re-engage Lieberman.
PREDICTION: Lieberman by 6

And no, I don't think there's any risk at all of Lieberman jumping to the GOP caucus. Reid is not an idiot, and will offer him his seniority and Chairmanship (or ranking member status) of the Homeland Security Committee. That's all Lieberman really cares about. Even if that weren't the case, he promised too many times during the campaign that he would caucus as a Democrat if elected; his political career would be over if he broke that pledge. GOPers gave him money this cycle because there was no way they were going to elect a member of their own party, since Schlesinger refused to step aside. But no amount of GOP funding could overcome the hit he would allow him to overcome the hit he would take if he broke his pledge; they wouldn't be too likely to contribute to a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-FMA candidate again anyway. Lieberman is not so stupid as to make a mistake that would ensure this would be his last term in the Senate.

I never thought I'd say this...

2006-09-23T21:38:00.000-07:00

but watch Fox News Sunday tomorrow. Fox bamboozled Clinton into thinking they would do an interview with him about the $7 billion he has raised for his charitable foundation. Instead, they ambushed him with a "Path to 9/11"-style question asking him why he didn't do more to get Bin Laden. Fortunately, Clinton was sharp enough to turn the question back around - not only on Fox, but also on his hypocritical GOP critics.

This looks like one of those interviews that people from all over the political spectrum will be talking about for weeks, so catch it on YouTube if you can't catch it on Fox.

Here's a link to a transcript of the interview from ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/

And a brief preview clip of the interview. Ignore the tabloid-esque title of the YouTube page (if I were Clinton, I'd have freaked out too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ&eurl=

Have a good weekend, folks.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

2006-09-23T20:12:00.000-07:00

In tort law, the concept of res ipsa loquitur plays a prominently role in the theory of negligence. It's a Latin phrase which literally translates to "the thing speaks for itself." It embodies the idea that under some circumstances, the mere fact of an accident occuring strongly infers that the defendant was negligent.

For instance, if someone is just walking down the street and is suddenly struck in the head by a bag of flour, and there is a flour-bagging factory on the second floor of the building he was walking past at the time, one can easily infer that the bag of flour came from that factory. And since the bag could not have fallen on him without some negligence on the part of the factory workers, one can assume that the victim's injuries were due to the factory's ignorance. Res ipsa loquitur.

By the same "it's so obvious that you have to be blind not to see it" reasoning, Republicans are obviously responsible for the problems the nation is facing today. There is no doubt that they should be held liable at the ballot box for their handling of key issues.

Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They control 28 of the nation's 50 governorships. On the Supreme Court, 7 of the 9 current justices were appointed by GOP presidents (although it must be granted that 3 of those appointees have proved to be far more progressive than the individuals who nominated them).

This helps explain the GOP's main strategy during this election cycle: Don't acknowledge the problems the nation is facing. I've gotten the impression that this seemingly blind optimism is not actually much the result of stupidity or stubbornness, as many progressives have suggested. Rather, I think it's because GOP leaders have realized that the nation is facing problems, and that there is no way they can honestly argue that they aren't responsible.

You're worried about health care? Look at the great Medicare bill we passed. Iraq? Things are going great. Education? Just look at all the smiling children at White House photo ops.

It also explains their occassional strategy of bringing up futile and divisive measures (read: Flag burning and gay marriage) every once in awhile. Whenever they realize that the public is becoming too focused on the real problems facing this country, they bring up measures that only a small number of people really care to focus on.

The end result of all this is that they never actually confront the problems that America is facing today. Their only hope of victory is to forestall the debate on real issues long enough that the American people won't truly notice them until after the election is over. After that, they'd have two years to think of new ways to avoid taking responsibility for the nation's problems (as in 2004) or blame Democrats for them (as in 2002). In essense, they hope to run out the clock one more time.

Fortunately for this country, I don't think it will ultimately work. Polls show that more than 60% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. And for all the attention that gay marriage and flag burning got this summer, the debate over those issues seems a distant memory to the vast majority of Americans today.

As long as Democrats succeed in pointing out who has all the power - and refuse to let the GOP change the subject - common sense should carry the Democrats over the electoral finish line in November.

Iraq and the War on Terror: What the Dems' Message Should Be

2006-09-14T19:37:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Ned Lamont suggested what was, without his realizing it, the most practical and politically astute solution that has yet been proposed for the Dems' continuing inability to overtake the GOP in earning Americans' trust on national security.

An NBC poll released today showed some seemingly head-scratching numbers. 57% of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq, compared to just 38% saying they approved. But when asked which party they think would do a better job dealing with Iraq, the GOP still led Democrats, 34%-29%. The GOP had an even wider lead in dealing with the global war on terror (GWOT), leading Dems in that category 38%-28%.

Perhaps the most striking statistic is the high proportion of voters who are undecided or think that neither party would be good at dealing with these vital issues. 37% of respondents to today's NBC poll were in the undecided/neither category on Iraq, and 34% were in the same category on GWOT. The GOP's continuing lead is not because the public has faith in the GOP's policies; it's because they have even less faith in Democrats.

Another fascinating part of this poll was the inclusion of two generic ballot tests, with each test given to half the poll's respondents. The wording of the generic GOP candidate's position was identical in both tests. The Democratic position was divided thusly:

Position A
The Democratic candidate says the United States should reduce the current troop level now that Iraq has adopted a Constitution. The Democratic candidate believes that our military has done all that it can and now is the time to set out a timetable for phased troop withdrawal over the next year or two. The Democratic candidate says that the Republicans favor a stand-still policy.

Position B
The Democratic candidate says that the United States should have an immediate and orderly withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Democratic candidate believes that our military has done all that it can. Our continued presence is causing the never-ending insurgent attacks and we have created a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists. The Democratic candidate says that the Republicans favor a stand-still policy.

Using Position A, the generic Democrat led his GOP opponent 53-40. Using Position B, the GOP candidate led 48-41. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, it's not enough to slam Bush and call for an end to the war in Iraq. We have to propose a solution that is not simply bringing all the troops home.

Polls clearly show that the public has lost faith in the War in Iraq - a recent Gallup poll showed that 54% of Americans thought the US military actions in the Middle East is creating more terrorists than it was eliminating. But they still feel GWOT must be fought somewhere, and simply don't trust Democrats on that yet - even a Democratic polling firm found that the GOP maintains double digit leads over Democrats on dealing with both terrorism (47-33) and national security (47-34).

And that's where Ned Lamont's statement comes in.

Lamont proposed that troops in Iraq be shifted to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists there. This could be the silver bullet for Democrats if other candidates pick up on it. It's the perfect middle ground between the "cut and run" and "stay and pray" mantras that both sides are hurling at each other, and are all too unwilling to disavow as equally unworkable.

From a practical standpoint, it would get our troops in Iraq out of the continuing quagmire that is unfolding there, where there is little hope of eradicating the major terrorist networks, but much risk of creating more terrorists. From an electoral standpoint, it would severely undercut the GOP's "cut and run" message, since the suggestion could not be viewed as a retreat, but only as a refocusing of our troops to where they should be - hunting down Bin Laden and eradicating the people who harbored him.

That's the message the Democrats can win on, and finally end Americans' GOP-created fears that the Democratic party is either unwilling or unable to keep the country's safe. Now, the Democratic candidates need to find the brains and the guts to make Lamont's suggestion a party-wide platform for the home stretch of these elections.

Florida races

2006-09-06T14:04:00.000-07:00

Next Tuesday is primary day for two of the most fascinating Senate races in the country, with Sen. Linc Chafee trying to stave off Steve Laffey in Rhode Island's GOP primary, and Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume (along with a few others) facing off against each other in Maryland's Dem primary. I'll hopefully be posting my thoughts on those races, particularly the Maryland race, this weekend.

But there was another important primary day this week, with Florida's primaries for both Senate and Governor taking place on Tuesday. None of the contests yielded any surprises. Congressman Jim Davis (no, not the same guy who does Garfield) defeating big sugar-backed State Sen. Rod Smith in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. Davis will face off against FL Attorney General Charlie Crist, who routed State CFO Tom Gallagher in the GOP primary.

Crist is one of the few GOPers from the South (inasmuch as Florida can be called "the South") who progressives can at least respect. My personal favorite blogger, progressive Ron Gunzberger of Politics1, has expressed some admiration for Crist, who supports civil unions, favors a path to citizenship for undocumented workers, and opposes overturning Roe v. Wade. Jim Davis also seems a good person and a good candidate, and the race between the two of them seems likely to be a healthy exchange of ideas from both sides.

Over on the Senate side, the situation could hardly be more different. Katherine Harris is no Charlie Crist. Not even close. She's probably the least palatable Republican in the entire country who has run for statewide office in the past decade. Mitchell Wade, the same defense contractor who bribed Duke Cunningham (R-Federal Prison), also wooed Harris with a $2800 dinner and then funneled more than $30,000 in illegal contributions to Harris's campaign (Harris says all the money has since been given to charity). She also has made many statements expressing her opposition to separation of church and state, which she calls "a lie," and advocates open theocracy as fervently as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. And oh yeah - she did everything in her power to disenfranchise Democratic and independent voters in 2000.

Harris's candidacy has devolved into a bad, almost sick joke. The chances of an enlightened exchange of ideas between Harris and incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson are less than zero. Both the state and national divisions of the GOP have long distanced themselves from Harris's candidacy, and her victory in the GOP primary does not appear to have made any impression on them. Nelson could beat Harris by 25 points without running a single ad. He could probably win by 50 if he really tried.

The presence of Harris's name at the top of the ballot is also sure to have some drag on downballot GOPers, including Crist, although I highly doubt that many people will condemn the moderate Crist merely because of he shares his party label with the reactionary Harris. The biggest casualty of Harris's candidacy will be the opportunity for Floridians to hear a reasoned exchange of ideas on issues of national importance. And while I am happy that the Dems don't have to worry about defending this seat, that's never a good thing for democracy.

Dr. Frist? Not so fast!

2006-08-30T18:10:00.000-07:00

Bill Frist may have just lost his medical license.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist acknowledged Tuesday that he may not have met all the requirements needed to keep his medical license active - even though he gave paperwork to Tennessee officials indicating that he had.

He was widely criticized last year for injecting himself into the debate over Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose feeding tube was removed. Frist viewed a videotape of the woman, then publicly questioned the diagnosis of her doctors. An autopsy later confirmed their judgment, not his.

(Insert joke about video diagnostic techniques here)

It's too bad, really. I understand that he was a far better at being surgeon than he is at being a Senator...but that's not saying much.

Hopefully, Harold Ford will win Frist's Senate seat, and then we can all watch gleefully as Frist fails miserably in his run for President.

News Roundup

2006-08-24T16:44:00.000-07:00

George Allen called Sidarth to apologize for his macaca comment. Too bad it took so long. Sorry, but if it takes you nearly two weeks to apologize, then you're not really sorry. I think the "Welcome to America" comment was the most overtly racist, but that's just me. I agree with Howard Dean:

I don't think he belongs in public service, to be honest with you. There are Republicans who are capable and smart, thoughtful people, and he's not one of them.

Let's please help Jim Webb end Allen's political career. (Although I must say that I think he would be awfully easy to beat if he were to win the GOP nomination for Prez in 2008...he seriously is Bush, but with no sense of when to shut up)

In Wyoming, GOP Rep. Barbara Cubin got just 60% of the vote in the GOP primary against a no-name opponent who spent virtually no money. This is an upset in the making, as long as Dem nominee Gary Trauner can keep up his impressive fundraising. Cubin should be ranked as a highly vulnerable incumbent from now onwards.

In Michigan, incumbent Dem Sen. Debbie Stabenow led GOP nominee Mike Bouchard 51-38 points in the latest EPIC/MRA poll. While she still has both elements of a comfortable lead (up by double digits and over 50%). Stabenow led 54-42 two weeks ago in the last EPIC poll. Stabenow might want to start addressing the increasing number of undecided voters in the race; such a trend usually does not bode well for an incumbent.

In Alaska, GOP Gov. Frank Murkowski got trounced in the Republican primary by ex-Wasilia Mayor Sarah Palin, who won with 51% against John Binkley (who took 29%) and Murkowski (who got a pitiful 19%). Ex-Governor Tony Knowles is the Dem nominee in the race. Polls show this one a dead heat, and I expect it to remain that way throughout. A little money can go a long way in Alaska, so this is a good place for Dems to spend their money (hint, hint).

Speaking of such places, let's head to Montana, where GOP Sen. Conrad Burns is still reeling from his latest gaffe, where he called his Hispanic house painter "a nice little Guatemalan man" and suggested Reyes might be in the country illegally. Burns made a fool of himself earlier this summer when he told MT firefighters that they were doing a "poor job." Burns should have looked in the mirror when he made that statement. Fortunately, Jon Tester looks likely to knock Burns out of his seat. Let's hope Burns uses the subsequent free time to get some sensitivity training.

Lastly, McCain is looking like he might be mighty tough in WH'08. Politics1 has a good write-up on McCain, and it sounds like even the strongly progressive Gunzberger was impressed with McCain's description of what his hypothetical presidency might look like. Dems and independent need to keep in mind that McCain is strongly opposed to abortion rights, and has consistently been one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq War in the Senate. He might be honest and even fairminded, but he's still most definitely a conservative.

Kos/Hamsher/MyDD tell a big fat lie

2006-08-24T13:56:00.000-07:00

I'm breaking my "avoid CT rule" for a moment because this just ticked me off.

Kos is following Jane Hamsher and Chris Bowers into telling a blatant lie about Lieberman's campaign. They all claim that Lieberman is out campaigning today with GOP Congressman Rob Simmons, who is in a tough race for re-election. Problem is that it's not true. From Hamsher's keyboard:

Because nobody could have predicted it — Joe Lieberman will be campaigning with GOP candidates Jodi Rell and Rob Simmons today at the Groton sub base (the one that Holy Joe claims to have singlehandedly saved). Simmons, you’ll remember, is the GOP candidate running against Democrat Joe Courtney for one of those hotly contested Connecticut House seats.

Hamsher cited no source. She provided absolutely nothing to corroborate her claim. The reason why is simple - Lieberman wasn't campaigning with them.

Here is a link to the story that this is all based on, near as I can tell. Lieberman, Simmons, Rell, and other important CT pols were attending a strategy session and discussion panel on "how to improve the military value of the base and keep it from being on future planned closure lists."

The event will have no fundraising for any candidate. There were no endorsements. It doesn't even look as if they are supposed to mention each other's respective candidacies. In fact, I can't seem to find any campaign-related purpose to this event whatsoever.

To call this any kind of campaign event is absurd, unless you refer to any group of 2 or more politicians meeting together in one place a "campaign event." If this is to be the standard, Lieberman better check under the doors for feet the next time he goes to the bathroom in the Capitol building. If there's a Republican in one of those stalls, he'll be accused of campaigning with them.

It really is just a pathetic attempt at spin. Lieberman was meeting with other CT pols about how to keep a local base open. Because he had the audacity to join a discussion panel on that issue on the same stage as two GOPers, he was hit for "campaigning" with Republicans.

So Hamsher told a lie. No surprise. But in the world of the blogosphere, the sad reality is that the big-name bloggers often treat lies told by other elite bloggers as if they were truth, as long as the blogger cited agrees with them. In that spirit, MyDD and DailyKos duly picked up on the lie and accelerated it through their spin chamber. Their spin is just as egregious and dishonest as the ones that are peddled by the DC consultants they claim to despise. The only difference is that their spin originates from a press room rather than a laptop.

I still think Lamont should win this. But the ends don't justify the means, unless you want to subscribe to the Karl Rove line of political thought.

Check back in a few hours for my roundup of the races Dems actually should be focused on.

A Dem tsunami?

2006-08-16T18:46:00.000-07:00

The National Journal's Chuck Todd released a new edition of his House race rankings, which he updates each month (he does the House, Senate, Gov, and WH '08 races in alternating weeks). As with my gubernatorial race rankings from last week, these rankings are based on the likelihood that control of a given House seat will switch parties - in other words, in order of how "vulnerable" a seat is. This week, there were a few things I noticed that were interesting:

All of the GOP-held seats in CT were moved up 3-5 spots. Shays was moved up from 7 to 4, Simmons from 10 to 7, and Johnson from 34 to 29. The reasoning? That the Dem candidates in all three races will be able to tout endorsements from both Lamont and Lieberman. That certainly does help all three. I do wonder, however, if the moderate voters who determine these races will be more interested in whether a candidate supports Lamont/Lieberman, rather than whether or not Lamont/Lieberman supports that candidate.

Todd also asked an interesting question:
Why isn't Nancy Johnson running for the U.S. Senate? She'd win the three-way
Don't give her any ideas, Chuck...

None of the GOP-held seats in NY are in the top 10 (the open NY-24 being vacated by Sherwood Boehlert is 11th, and John Sweeney is 24th), and only two are in the top 30. Personally, I think that these seats are set to fall like dominoes in November. The GOP is going to get its clock cleaned in both the Senate and Governor's races, with Clinton and Spitzer both bringing out Democratic voters. If either candidate chooses to engage the race by running ads in the upstate TV markets, it's probably curtains for Sue Kelly, John Sweeney, James Walsh, and maybe even Tom Reynolds (man, that would be so sweet) in addition to Boehlert's open seat.

It's really tough to find truly vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Leonard Boswell's (IA-3) seat is ranked as the Dems' most vulnerable, at #13. John Barrow (GA-12) is next at #22, followed by the VT open seat at #27 and freshman Rep. Melissa Bean (IL-8) at #28. I think Todd actually has the VT seat too low, but Boswell and Barrow seem much safer to me than Todd seems to think. Boswell has survived challenges from tougher opponents in years when the nat'l environment was much less favorable for Dems, and Barrow is running in a district that was redistricted to give it a higher African-American population than the one he won two years ago. Methinks Barrow's biggest threat would have been a primary challenge from Denise Majette.

The bottom line of all this is that the GOP is going to be playing defense in nearly every contested race that there is this House cycle. The most vulnerable "Dem" seat is one that's actually being held by someone who has never been a member of the Democratic party (Bernie Sanders). The poor outlook for the GOP looks a whole lot like the environment that the Dems faced in 1994, the last time a political tsunami swept a new party into control of the House.

People are talking about the possibility of Dems winning back the House, but they are generally thinking that any Democratic takeover will be a narrow one, with Dems winning just 15-18 new seats - enough to give them a bare majority. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened, and I can also easily foresee circumstances under which the Dems don't re-take the House at all. But I think it is also very possible that the Dems will net 25, 30, maybe even up to 40 seats in the House. People may scoff at the idea of such a massive Democratic victory, but one can easily look at the lay of the land and see that there are at least 30 very vulnerable GOP seats.

Political tsunamis have a tendency to sweep away everything along the waterfront, and also sometimes take out a few places further inland that don't appear vulnerable at first glance. If that historical tendency holds true to form, the GOP may be in for an even longer night on November 7th than pundits expect.

Hurricane Insurance

2006-08-15T16:12:00.000-07:00

No political stories really piqued my interest today, except George Allen continuing his idiotic attempts to explain away the racial slur he made against a young Webb campaign worker. So I want to talk about a big non-political news story.

Today, a federal District Court judge ruled in a case where two victims of Hurricane Katrina (Paul and Julie Leonard) had sued Nationwide Insurance to cover the damage caused by the winds and flooding of Katrina. The judge ruled that they could be compensated for damage directly caused by the wind, awarding them a bit over $1200 to that end. The total damage to the Leondards' home was claimed to be over $130,000, meaning that the Leonards will get a bit less than 1% of the money they'd need to cover the damage to their home.

Now here's the most bizarre part of this to me:

The lawsuit argued that a Nationwide insurance policy bought by the Leonards in 2004 purported to provide full coverage for any damage typically caused by hurricanes.

I obviously haven't read their insurance policy. However, I'm running under the assumption that their policy did cover "hurricane damage," or else I can't imagine this case even being heard by a federal judge.

Assuming that's the case, what kind of hurricane insurance policy excludes damage caused by wind and flooding?? Last time I checked, those were the two biggest threats from a hurricane. If not wind and water, then what exactly does the policy cover? Do the clouds of a hurricane have to literally touch someone's house in order for an insurance company to agree that their policy covers the damage? I'd bet that if a Katrina victim had only flood insurance without a hurricane policy, the insurance company would argue that the flood policy doesn't cover hurricane damage. It the ultimate catch-22.

Flooding is the primary cause of damage in hurricanes. Having a hurricane-related insurance policy is absolutely pointless without hurricane-related flood damage being included. It would be like having a health insurance policy which doesn't cover infectious diseases.

The Leonards' attorney is claiming a moral victory since the court did award them money for wind damage, but I hope that doesn't mean he isn't going to appeal this decision.

Around the blogosphere

2006-08-14T21:25:00.000-07:00

Not much time today for a big post, so here's a few drops from around the 'sphere.

DonkeyDigest hits David Sirota for his latest display of unmitigated arrogance. I guess I have to be thankful that Sirota has such a great sense of self-importance; if he didn't feel the need to slam back at Dan Gerstein over his initial revelation that he'd applied for a job with Lieberman, my first blog would have never been noticed. Sirota's vanity (I'm running out of synonyms for "arrogant") simply does not allow for others to criticize him, regardless of whether the criticism is reasonable or not, because no one should dare criticize the Great Sirota. I have no desire to replay that whole episode, but I simply can't understand how Sirota got to be so full of himself. In the eternal words of Hawkeye Pierce: Hey Dave, could I stop by sometime for a cup of ego?

Matt Stoller at MyDD has video of George Allen apparently making a racial slur at a guy holding a camera from the Webb campaign. Stoller said:

George Allen, I'm glad you're finally out of the closet as a racist. It must have been really hard to restrain yourself for all these years.

Well, if wearing a Confederate flag lapel in college and having a noose in your office (see TNR) is restraining yourself...

Politics1, my personal favorite blog, caught OH GOP Gov. nominee Ken Blackwell making a ridiculous comparison of his Dem opponent, Ted Strickland, with ailing Cuban dictator Fidel Castro on his campaign's official blog. Blackwell pulled a Hamsher by removing the offending photo a few hours after it was put up, so I hope someone got a screenshot.

And here's something to consider - the HI Senate race, where Rep. Ed Case has pulled into a statistical tie with incumbent Sen. Daniel Akaka in the latest poll on the Democratic primary (Akaka 47%, Case 45%). I'll blog more on this at some point, but this is a highly unusual primary - Case is essentially running to Akaka's right, on a platform that does not really attack Akaka's record so much as argue that it's simply time for a change. In the CT or RI primaries, the same message is being used to great success, but both challengers in those races are running by appealing to the party base, which obviously tend to be the driving force in primaries. If the "time for a change" message works in a Dem primary against an incumbent who is actually more liberal than his opponent, this could be the strongest signal yet that voters are in an anti-incumbent mood.

UPDATE: Forgot to include my favorite part of Ed Kilgore's analysis of Sirota's Queeg-esque mentality:

The Sirota style is perhaps best illustrated by his choice of words to describe yours truly: "formerly a Zell Miller staffer," underlined with a link to a news report about Miller's despicable 2004 Republican National Convention speech. The reader is presumably to understand that my secret fidelity to the GOP cause--which of course, I am lying about--is exposed by this association. Here's the thing: I worked for Zell from the fall of 1992 until the end of 1994, in a period when absolutely no one thought of him as anything other than a very loyal and partisan Democrat--indeed, as a bit of a "populist." And I have written far more sad and angry words (here, here, here, and here) about Miller's slide into apostasy and his eagerness to serve his old enemies in the GOP than anybody else you will meet.

So my work for Zell Miller in the early 90s is clearly no more relevant today than David Sirota's interest in working for me and Al From in 1997. If I did a post casually referring to Sirota as a "disappointed job-seeker at the DLC," he'd be rightly offended. But he shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

Well spoke, Ed. People often forget that Zell Miller was the arch-enemy of the Christian Right in Georgia until he got to the Senate and flipped his lid. Exposing Sirota's hypocrisy on this point is a thing of beauty.

Biden and "Plagiarism"

2006-08-11T10:59:00.000-07:00

In 1988, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) was considered a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination during the year leading up to the Iowa caucuses. On the campaign trail, Biden often paraphrased a speech by eloquent British Labour politician Neil Kinnock:

KINNOCK: Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because our predecessors were thick? Does anybody really think that they didn't get what we had because they didn't have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.
BIDEN: Why is it that Joe Biden is the ﬁrst in his family ever to go to a university? My ancestors, who worked in the coal mines in northeast Pennsylvania and who would come up after twelve hours and play football for four hours? It's not because they weren't as smart. It's not because they didn’t work as hard. It was because there was no platform on which they could stand.

Whenever Biden used the speech, he cited Kinnock, and the emotional power of the words were magnified by the fact that the words could apply to an American Senator and a British MP along with many people in the audience. But one time, Biden forgot to cite Kinnock when he read the speech, and Michael Dukakis's campaign slammed him for it. Shortly thereafter, someone dug up an old record showing that Biden had been accused of plagiarism in law school, though conveniently ignoring the fact that Biden had been cleared of any wrongdoing. By the time Biden refuted both charges, the damage had been done, and Biden had been forced to quit the race.

Now Biden is running for President again, and people are bringing up the charges again. As in 1988, what is often getting lost in the cacophony is the fact that neither of the plagiarism charges had any real merit.

Citing or using key phrases coined by others is incredibly common in politics. It's actually pretty tough to come across a political speech where the candidate doesn't quote or paraphrase someone else - and often it is done without citing the original author of the phrase. Howard Dean didn't cite Voltaire when he told Ralph Nader that we can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Bill Clinton often paraphrased Truman and JFK in his speeches without mentioning the source. People generally forget that the portions of the Kinnock speech which Biden used were, in fact, true of Biden's own life. He simply forgot to say "As Neil Kinnock said..." once, and was smeared into the ground for it.

Bringing up the charges of plagiarism that had been leveled against Biden while he was in law school was no less silly, since Biden was cleared of wrongdoing by both the Syracuse Law School and the Delaware Bar Association. Treating a man who was found innocent of a charge as if he was guilty is patently absurd. The irony is that the two plagiarism-related charges which were leveled against Biden were both trumped up, but most people acted if two illegitimate charges are just as good as one legitimate charge.

I admit to having a pro-Biden bias. I don't deny that he is very cozy with the credit card companies from his home state, and I have more than enough personal debt to sympathize with people who are angered by this connection. But among all the politicians that I have met personally, Joe Biden was the only one who came off as genuine. He asked me questions and was seriously interested in my life. After I had joked about the amount of debt that I had, he mentioned some recent changes that had been made in federal financial aid programs, which kicked my mind into gear about consolidating my student loans (which has saved me thousands of dollars in debt). All Senators this side of megamillionaires like Herb Kohl and Jay Rockefeller have some friends in the business world who are politically unattractive, but at least Biden's advocacy is on behalf of an industry that is important to his home state's economy (MBNA is based in Wilmington). And more importantly, I've never met another politican who actually seemed to be interested in solving the problems of a lowly citizen like me.

I'll admit that he talks too much. But who in the world of politics doesn't? The important thing isn't how much you talk, but whether you know what you're talking about. In that regard, Biden is a walking encyclopedia of both domestic and foreign policy, and is one of the few people in D.C. who seems to have their head on straight about what is going on in Iraq and how to deal with the situation there. If people have grievances with Biden on one issue or another, that is obviously legitimate. But we should not disqualify one of the most candid and thoughtful people in American politics over a 20-year old charge of plagiarism that's already been debunked.

Note: Comments should be working again...sorry, I don't know how they ever got turned off.

Gubernatorials

2006-08-10T07:25:00.000-07:00

The big question staring down the political world right now is whether the Democrats will recapture control of the House and Senate in November. The focus of most of this year's political reporting has been on the big Senate races; coverage of the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Montana, and (obviously) Connecticut has far outstripped coverage of any Governor's race.

The focus on the federal races is understandable. The biggest political media outlets are the national news sources, which drive the coverage of other political news services, and gubernatorial races rarely have the same national impact as Senate and even House races, since the scope of any governor's influence largely ends at the state border. The national environment is usually far more interesting than that of any state, and it's much easier to nationalize Senate and House races.

But the same factors which make the gubernatorial races less interesting to the national media also makes them more intriguing to me. Local issues tend to dominate gubernatorial races, which gives gubernatorial candidates some insulation against the effects of the national environment.

Michigan is the perfect example of this dynamic. Incumbent Gov. Jennifer Granholm is easily the most vulnerable Democratic governor in the country this year. Polls have showed even or slightly behind her GOP challenger, Dick DeVos, who is far from a perfect recruit (he is the heir of his father's fortune from Amway, which is not exactly a greatly loved corporation).

But in the Senate race, incumbent Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow has led her GOP opponent by blowout margins in most polls, despite repeated GOP efforts to talk up the race's potential. GOP nominee Mike Bouchard is one of the GOP's top recruits, but he still trailed by 17 points in the latest poll by Strategic Vision - a GOP polling firm. The same poll had DeVos leading Granholm by 4 points.

Michigan is probably the best example of this, but there are plenty of other races with similar situations. In the Minnesota Senate race, polls show first-tier Republican recruit (Congressman Mark Kennedy) trailing Democrat Amy Klobuchar by double digits, despite the fact that Klobuchar has never held statewide or federal office. But in the gubernatorial race, GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty holds an equally solid lead over each of his potential Democratic opponents - including incumbent Attorney General (Mike Hatch), who was considered the prime recruit for the race when he first entered. In Tennessee, Gov. Phil Bredesen is a safe bet for reelection while Congressman Harold Ford, perhaps the Democrats' most eloquent and charismatic Senate candidate of this cycle, is struggling to stay competitive.

There are perhaps a dozen potentially competitive Senate seats this cycle, but there are nearly twenty gubernatorial races which could ultimately swing either way - even in states as blue as Massachusetts and as red as Georgia. Democrats are currently 6 seats short of a majority in the Senate, 15 seats short in the House, and 4 short in the nation's gubernatorial race. It's not difficult to envision a scenario where Dems fail to gain a majority in either house of Congress while taking control of the governor's mansions of 8 more states (if they can pull off upsets in states like MN, GA, or NV).

It's even possible to envision a scenario where Democrats do gain majorities in both houses of Congress, but come up short in the gubernatorial races (if potentially vulnerable Dem governors fall in MI, WI, and OR).

With that in mind, I'm going to emulate Chuck Todd, Kos, and others by ranking the 20 gubernatorial races where control of the Governor's mansion is most likely to switch parties. Feel free to comment on where you disagree:

1. New York - George Pataki (R) is retiring
This is the one race that's already in the bag. Unless they find a few hundred thousand dollars in Spitzer's freezer, he'll win by 30 points.

2. Ohio - Bob Taft (R) is retiring
This is a case where national politics may actually help the GOP candidate, while the state environment overwhelmingly favors the Dem. Blackwell hasn't caught fire the way the GOP hoped, and Strickland seems to have run a seamless campaign so far. Taft is acting like a 4-ton anchor on every Ohio GOPer.

3. Maryland - Bob Ehrlich (R) is running for re-election
Martin O'Malley is so well-known in MD that this is almost like a race with two incumbents, and O'Malley's negatives are amazingly low for someone with his name ID. Ehrlich actually doesn't have any glaring vulnerabilities (besides his party), but it's tough to see how he closes the gap at this point.

4. Massachusetts - Mitt Romney (R) is retiring
There actually hasn't been a Democratic governor in this bluest of states since Michael Dukakis retired more than 15 years ago. It looks like that streak is about to end, but Kerry Healey can't be counted out yet. Deval Patrick looks like the likely Dem nominee, but I'd actually peg Chris Gabrieli as the strongest of the Dem candidates.

5. Arkansas - Mike Huckabee (R) is retiring
Huckabee is a very popular outgoing Gov. in this red state, so it would normally be a tough pick-up for the Dems, but Attorney General Mike Beebe has led in every poll I've seen. Asa Hutchison is closing the gap and will have plenty of money, but this is still very much leaning Dem.

6. Iowa - Tom Vilsack (D) is retiring
I have been underwhelmed by Chet Culver thus far, and Jim Nussle is the GOP's best horse in Iowa. Vilsack isn't sporting great numbers, but Nussle is a Washington Republican - not exactly a great thing to have on your resume this year. This is the first race without a definite tilt to one side, but I would put my money on Nussle (if I had enough to gamble with).

7. Colorado - Bill Owens (R) is retiring
Remember when Bill Owens was floated as a strong presidential candidate for '08? Well, the poor year for CO Republicans in 2004 and the crash in his approval rating last year seemed to end that speculation, and Bob Beauprez has suffered collateral damage in his bid to replace Owens. Democrat Bill Ritter is still the frontrunner at this point, but Owens's approval rating have been climbing, and this race looks like it will be close to the finish.

8. Michigan - Jennifer Granholm is running for re-election
See above. Once Granholm starts engaging this race, this will probably go into a dead heat. This is a true toss-up.

9. Oregon - Ted Kulongowski (D) is running for re-election
Kulongoski has had approval ratings south of 40 for months, and this would be ranked much higher if the GOP had a better-known candidate in the race. But they don't, and attorney Ron Saxton will have to rely on Kulongoski's unpopularity to carry him over the finish line. I think he'll come up a bit short.

10. Alaska - Frank Murkowski (R) is running for re-election
If Murkowski loses the primary, then I'd move this race down (probably to 12). If he wins it, I'd move it up (probably to 6). This ranking is a weighted average of the two, since the polls show Murkowski trailing in the primary. Tony Knowles is the really the only chance the Dems have in Alaska, but remember that Knowles couldn't beat a flawed GOP candidate named Murkowski in 2004...

11. Nevada - Kenny Guinn (R) is retiring
The state GOP here is horribly divided over this 3-way race, particularly since Guinn and GOP frontrunner Jim Gibbons are hardly bosom buddies. Jim Gibson has the potential to turn some heads assuming he wins the Dem nomination, and I could easily see this race becoming a toss-up.

12. Wisconsin - James Doyle (D) is running for re-election
Jim Doyle's approval ratings have been richocheting between 40% and 50% for over a year, and Rep. Mark Green is a first-tier recruit. But the lack of a strong GOP challenger in the Senate race and the fact that Green is a House GOPer in a year where that label is anathema makes me think this race will slip away from the Republicans once election day gets closer.

(Note: There's a big drop in actual competitiveness after Wisconsin)

13. Georgia - Sonny Perdue (R) is running for re-election
I grew up in Georgia, so I admit I might be reading too much into this race, but I don't think that Perdue is as safe a bet as people seem to assume, and I'm intentionally pushing this race higher than it deserves to make that point. Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor really hit his stride in the closing months of the Dem primary, has very strong support from the African-American community in GA, has the most folksy-yet-genuine political slogan of this cycle, and will not be short on money as election day approaches. I also think Perdue might not get the turnout he needs in rural GA. If that happens and Taylor can get a big turnout in Fulton, DeKalb, and Clayton counties, this could easily become competitive, and a Dem tidal wave could sweep Taylor into the Governor's mansion. But I admit that those are a whole lot of ifs...

14. Rhode Island - Don Carcieri (R) is running for re-election
This race will rise in the rankings if Chafee loses the GOP primary, which is a close call at this point. Carcieri's approval ratings are just above 50%, but need to be closer to 60% to make him safe in this very blue state. Charlie Fogarty will make a decent nominee, but he needs Laffey on the ticket for the GOP in order to have a real chance.

15. California - Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is running for re-election
I rate this higher than IL simply because Schwarzenegger has the wrong party ID for the state, and I rate it lower than GA because the challenging nominee seems weak. Any Dem will get 45% in CA, but Chuck Todd said it best - something about Dem nominee Phil Angelides just screams "47%." Angelides needs to get everyone to see this website. Seriously.

16. Illinois - Rod Blagojevich (D) is running for re-election
Blago is being treated as much more vulnerable than he actually is, I think. His approval ratings are not great, but they aren't terrible either. And Judy Baar Topinka is a good recruit for the GOP, but she's not great. Add in the fact that this is a blue state, and Topinka would need a near-perfect storm to win.

17. Florida - Jeb Bush (R) is retiring
Charlie Crist is as good a candidate as the GOP has in a governor's race this year, and he is basically going to get a free pass from here on out in the GOP primary. I just don't see how either Jim Davis or Rod Smith raise enough money to close the gap before November. The biggest strike against Crist is that Katherine Harris will be on the same ballot, and that will probably draw lots of Dem voters. If Harris loses the primary, this race drops below ME and MN in my book.

18. Maine - John Baldacci (D) is running for re-election
Baldacci trailed his opponent in a recent poll, has lower approval ratings than Blagojevich does in IL, and is going to have to deal with the fact that Olympia Snowe will be easily winning re-election in the Senate race. But this is still a blue(ish) state and Baldacci will have a big money edge. Also - and I know this sounds silly, but it's true - are Maine voters really going to want their chief executive to be named Governor Woodcock?

19. Minnesota - Tim Pawlenty (R) is running for re-election
See above discussion. This is only barely a blue state, and Pawlenty has approval ratings which have never dropped below 50%. Hatch still looks like a safe bet for the Dem nomination, but he just doesn't seem to have "it" for whatever reason, and I can't see him winning in November unless that changes.

20. South Carolina - Mark Sanford (R) is running for re-election
This race was closer than expected in a recent poll, which is a head-scratcher since all the tangibles are in Sanford's favor: This is a deep red state, Sanford's approval ratings are pretty good, and Dem nominee Tommy Moore hasn't even really made a move. For whatever reason, Sanford seems vaguely vulnerable, but it's tough to imagine him ultimately losing.

21. Pennsylvania - Ed Rendell (D) is running for re-election
22. Alabama - Bob Riley (R) is running for re-election
In both of these races, the incumbent holds a solid lead over the challenger.Riley's GOP label helps him more in AL than Rendell's Dem label helps him in PA, but Lucy Baxley is a stronger challenger than Lynn Swann. It will take a major change of some kind to make either of these races close.

The rest of the races aren't really worth mentioning. So comment away!

2006-08-09T20:08:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Dem Progress, the temporary cyberspace home of Cacambo and Sundog.