Swing State Project

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

"D"s Are a Few of My Favorite Things

Posted by DavidNYC

I want to point you toward a fantastic new website called ActBlue, which aims to be a "clearinghouse for Democratic action." More specifically, it has information about all the competitive House and Senate races in the nation. In fact, it's very similar to my sideline project "Competitive House Races," except for the fact that it's way, way better. Go take a look - it's easier to show than tell.

I've been in touch with the folks who run ActBlue, and they have some great plans in the works. Right now, the site mostly offers links for campaign donations, meetups, etc. But in the future, you'll be able to sort the races in sophisticated ways, like punching in your ZIP code to find out which races are nearest to you. It'll be a great resource for people who want to get involved, but aren't sure how or where.

So, in the face of superior competition, I'm going to retire "Competitive House Races." I'll keep you updated about any big changes ActBlue rolls out. In the meantime, please check it out & let your friends know about it, too. And if you want to do ActBlue (and the Democratic Party) a big favor, you might even want to consider mentioning the site on your blog, if you have one.

Posted at 02:20 PM in Activism | Comments (6) | Technorati

Implication of the FMA in Pennsylvania

Posted by Fester

I have to agree with Kos that Bush did not want to come out for openly enshrining discrimination into the basic values and laws of our American experiment. Instead he would have prefered to covertly discriminate and marginalize a segment of our population by executive order, rule design and innuendo. Coming out is an expensive procedure for Bush and it may cost the GOP a Senate seat that is somewhat safe.

Arlen Specter (R-PA) has stated that it is "premature" for him to consider the need for a constitutional amendment and that this is the proper question for the states to decide amongst and for themselves. This is a statement that is pretty damm close to the Kerry's and Edwards' positions, so it is one that I can live with.

However he is facing a strong challenge from the extreme, theological right in the form of Rep. Pat Toomey. Toomey is one of the co-sponsors of the amendment. His entire campaign strategy is based on riling up the conservative base against the Republican in Name Only Specter. This is an issue that he will use successfully to do so in my opinion. However, I believe that Rep. Joe Hoeffel (D-PA) the main Democratic challenger should be able to beat Toomey in the general election while Specter should be able to beat Hoeffel in most circumstances.

So this is a costly exercise of Bush screwing his party in order to further his own political hide... not that I am complaining.

Posted at 08:00 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (4) | Technorati

Sunday, February 22, 2004

Time to Adopt the NYT's Elisabeth Rosenthal

Posted by DavidNYC

There's a favorable story in the NYT today about people who voted for Bush in 2000 but are having second thoughts now. It's more about swing voters than about swing states, per se. But Elisabeth Rosenthal, the author, is reporting from Ohio, and includes plenty of quotes from Ohioans, so I figure it falls within this site's purview.

Anyhow, I wouldn't get too excited about her piece. Typical for a story like this, it relies overwhelmingly on anecdotal evidence. Maybe reporters feel this sort of junk is more interesting than serious number-crunching - or maybe they're just too innumerate to care.

Though Rosenthal does cite a couple of polls, she doesn't compare them to past data, so we have no good way of knowing how to interpret them. Apparently, 11% of people who voted Bush in 2000 said they'll support a Democrat this time around, while 5% of Gore voters said they'll back Bush this year. On the face of it, of course, this looks bad for Dubya - if the exact same people vote in 2004 as voted in 2000. But obviously many factors affect turnout. I'd like to see similar numbers for Clinton, Reagan and Bush p��re before drawing any firm conclusions.

She also notes that the same poll showed that 56% of independents disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy. When I cite polls like this, I do my best to show previous numbers - and, like a good blogger, I always provide a link to the poll. Rosenthal can't do that latter (well, she could, but it's just not Standard Timesian Procedure), but she could at least do the former. I want to know the delta - or, to be more blunt about it, I want to know how bad Bush has been bleeding.

Lastly, she lets Bush flack Matt Dowd off the hook a bit too easily. According to Rosenthal, Dowd claims that polls say that Bush has the support of 90% of Republicans. That's nice - but is it enough? Does Bush need 95% of Republican to win? Maybe he can do it with 80%. But who knows, because Rosenthal certainly hasn't told us. She could at least look up what Bush's GOP support was back in 2000. Without the appropriate context, it's just a number floating in the ether.

Anyhow, if you aren't familiar with the budding "adopt-a-journalist" movement, I suggest checking out a few of the "watcher" blogs. For the most part, each of these blogs is devoted to tracking and deconstructing the work of a single reporter. My favorite is The Wilgoren Watch, but a whole bunch have sprung up. Given that Rosenthal is reporting on the national presidential campaign, I think she's a prime subject.

Posted at 05:25 PM in General | Technorati

Thursday, February 19, 2004

Bush Sinking in New Hampshire

Posted by DavidNYC

BriVT at Kos points to a new poll which shows truly wretched numbers for Bush in New Hampshire:

Approval: 47%
Disapproval: 48%

Plus some very heartening head-to-heads:

Kerry: 53%
Bush: 38%

Edwards: 52%
Bush: 37%

Both top Democratic contenders are a whopping 15 points ahead of Bush. I'm sure all the attention being paid to the Democratic primary contest is a factor here, but in a state that went for Bush by just a hair's breadth in 2000, this sure is nice to see.

My examination of New Hampshire leads me to believe that it's one of our best pickup shots, if not our very best. FWIW, Podesta said yesterday he agreed - in particular, he thinks Kerry has a very strong chance there. Obviously, NH ain't the mother lode, but I have a feeling this is going to be another close election, and we'll be glad for every EV we get.

Posted at 08:39 PM in New Hampshire | Comments (3) | Technorati

Pennsylvania Competitive

Posted by Fester

Via DemFromCt's DKos diary I came across this poll which shows John Kerry is beating George W. Bush by 5 points in Pennsylvania if the election was to be held today.

This is a critical state for both sides. If Bush wins Pennsylvania, the election is most likely over by 9:00pm EST on election night. If the Democrats can hold Pennsylvania and do well in the Southwestern part of the state, then that portends strength going into Ohio and West Virginia which we need to take in order to win the election. Bush is being troubled by an appearance of weakness on the economy, the steel tariff flip-flop and a looming sense that he is not "with it." However he is still seen as a strong and trustworthy character.

Posted at 09:04 AM in Pennsylvania | Technorati

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

Podesta: Bush will Replace Cheney with Ridge

Posted by DavidNYC

I went to a Q&A with former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta this afternoon. He talked about a wide range of things, but nothing which veered very far outside the conventional wisdom - or at least, far from opinions which you've probably already seen expressed elsewhere. Of course, Podesta brings a level of nuance and insider knowledge few others have, which makes him eminently worth hearing.

Podesta did, however, make one bold statement. I asked about swing states (what else?) - specifically, which ones he thought were most vulnerable, for our team and theirs. He gave the sort of answers you'd expect: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and so on. He also mentioned he was worried about Pennsylvania, which he said had been trending Republican over the years. But then Podesta dropped his mini-bombshell. He said he thought that Bush would replace Cheney with former PA Gov. and current Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.

This would seem to be a smart move for Bush and a potentially devastating one for Democrats. Cheney gets Bush very little - if anything, he may be a net negative. (I'm talking politically - Bush still needs some behind-the-scenes puppet-master, and there's no reason to believe Cheney couldn't continue in that role even if he were not Vice President.) But Ridge, assuming he is still popular among Pennsylvanians, could turn the tide in that state and give Bush a big fat bundle of EVs.

Of course, I don't know whether Ridge is still popular at home. Outside of Karl Rove's bunker, I doubt there have been many polls conducted on this topic. But as I understand things, Ridge was pretty popular when he stepped down to take his current post. And while Bush has taken a lot of hits over his foreign policy, he still gets good ratings when it comes to fighting terrorism. So Ridge's present job as homeland security czar might give him a further aura of goodwill.

Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see how Podesta's prediction bears out. Unfortunately, I didn't get to ask a follow-up about when he sees this happening, but presumably it can't happen too late in the game. In any case, I sure hope it doesn't happen - I want to keep PA, and I want to see Johnny "Sunshine" Edwards wipe the floor with Darth Cheney in the VP debates.

UPDATE: A number of people have asserted that Ridge's apparently pro-choice views make him a non-viable because of the influence of the Christian right in the GOP. I'm not so sure about this. Joe Lieberman was forced to utterly disavow his support for vouchers (admittedly a somewhat less controversial topic) when Gore selected him as Veep, and I didn't hear any Democrats threaten to defect on account of this.

I think Ridge could easily have a similar "change of heart" and toe the administration line on the abortion issue. This sets him apart from, say, Rudy Giuliani, who is out-of-step with the GOP leadership on too many issues and could never be made to shut up.

Posted at 06:57 PM in Pennsylvania | Comments (12) | Technorati

Bush Approval at New Low in Ohio

Posted by DavidNYC

The University of Cincinnati's new Ohio Poll (PDF) shows Bush's approval rating in the Buckeye State sinking to 49% - below my beloved Mendoza Line. An equal percentage disapproves of his performance. When we last checked in, Dubya was at 54% in Ohio, so the plunge continues.

A few observations: The poll points out that Reagan and Clinton hit similar lows before going on to capture Ohio in their re-election campaigns. However, nadirs for both Presidents 40 and 42 came around the mid-term. We're a lot closer to election day now.

Also, while Bush continues to run strong with Republicans, only 51% of independents give him the thumbs-up. Furthermore, while Bush has been in the tank on his economic approval numbers for some time (and currently has just 40% approval on that score), his "foreign affairs" standing has also dropped below 50% for the first time, to 47%. Far from being a source of strength, Bush's foreign policy might turn into a major albatross for him, as these numbers hint.

(Thanks to noah.)

Posted at 02:01 PM in Ohio | Comments (2) | Technorati

Monday, February 16, 2004

Outsiders Running NM GOP Efforts (Into the Ground, Hopefully)

Posted by DavidNYC

Reader Jeremy M. sends in the following on-the-ground observations about politicking in all-important New Mexico this season:

Apparently the Bush campaign has basically shut the state GOP out of the 2004 election. The Bush-Cheney coordinator is from out-of-state, and so is the Victory 2004 (RNC) coordinator. They are even "offering" to help with the statewide races, which is usually the state chairman's job - though none of the money raised by Bush and Cheney in the state will go to the state party. Basically, the whole Republican effort will be run and coordinated from out-of-state.

Now this leaves egg on the face of Ramsay Gorham, the new party chair. In December, she played up a compromise that would allow some role for the state party, but in the end, there really isn't one. The chair she ousted, John Dendahl, played the game a little better: this may endanger her position farther down the road. And compared to Richardson, who parlayed New Mexico's swing status (and probably his party connections and ethnic background) into a convention chairmanship, she looks a bit like the redheaded stepchild.

So from a party standpoint, the New Mexico Republicans are in sorry shape. The question is whether having so many "foreigners" running the show will hurt the GOP candidates there. Given Richardson's role in the presidential race, I could easily see that card being played in that arena. But I'm not sure whether or not that will, for example, do much farther down the ballot, such as in Heather Wilson's race to hold the 1st District. Maybe, maybe not.

Lots of people have speculated that one reason for the Dean campaign's collapse in Iowa was the mass importation of the infamous orange-hatted out-of-state volunteers. Of course, it's a little hard to test this thesis, and the GOP may smart enough to employ outsiders only at the top of its NM campaign, rather than on the ground.

But no matter what, if Jeremy's observations are right, Karl Rove is choosing to starve the state party in the hopes of squeaking out a narrow victory in the presidential race. This means that Rove views NM as a fairly desperate situation, and I agree: Like many other political prognositcators, I think NM is firmly trending our way. Rove's evisceration of the state Republican party can only help accelerate that process.

Also, down-ticket candidates may well suffer, if the lion's share of the money raised goes to the candidates at the top of the ballot (ie, Bush and Cheney/Player to be Named Later). Stephen Yellin lists NM's Second District as one of the top 30 Congressional races in the nation, and a prime chance for a D pickup. (The seat is currently held by a Republican.) Brian Watkins also thinks that NM-1 (held by the aforementioned Heather Wilson) could be competitive.

Posted at 11:45 AM in New Mexico | Comments (3) | Technorati

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Exporting Jobs... is Good?

Posted by Seamus

Bush was in Pennsylvania today trying to put some spin control on statements made by the Chairman of White House Economic Advisors. The chairman said earlier this week that "Outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it's something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run."

Bush's spin (with Santorum and Specter at his side): "The numbers are good," Mr. Bush told an audience at Central Dauphin High School, near Harrisburg. "The numbers are good, but I don't worry about numbers, I worry about people. There are still some people looking for work because of the recession. There are people looking for work because jobs have gone overseas. And we need to act in this country. We need to act to make sure there are more jobs at home, and people are more likely to retain a job."

But he didn't exactly disagree with his advisor's statements either. This take from the NY Times is interesting: "In Pennsylvania today, the president spoke about the need for educating people for "the jobs that are being generated in the 21st century." Although he did not say so, Pennsylvanians know those kinds of jobs are not, generally speaking, in the coal and steel industries, which were twin pillars of the Keystone State's economy for many decades."

Posted at 04:40 PM in Economy | Comments (4) | Technorati

Thursday, February 05, 2004

ACT Hiring

Posted by DavidNYC

America Coming Together, as you may know, is a new 527 focused on defeating George Bush in the swing states. Their major financier is George Soros. And the good news is, they're hiring. I don't know much about ACT beyond what I've read in the papers, but it certainly strikes me as a worthwhile organization that "gets it". So if you're interested in getting involved - and, it seems, even getting paid - check `em out.

(Thanks to jbou.)

Posted at 02:50 AM in Activism | Comments (2) | Technorati

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

Turnout Explodes in South Carolina

Posted by DavidNYC

Yeah, so South Carolina isn't a swing state. But it's the handiest state we can use to make comparisons with prior years: It's the only state which had a similarly timed primary in 1992. Back then, 114,000 voters turned out. (Bill Clinton won with 63% of the vote, in case you're curious.) This time around, more people than that voted for John Edwards alone. In fact, turnout was more than double, with over 280,000 ballots cast.

Two-hundred and eighty thousand.

That's pretty damn awesome if you ask me. I also thought it was great to see that the SC Democratic Party, which had to pay for this primary on its own, was able to do a an excellent job fundraising, with more than half the contributions coming in small-dollar sums. All in all, this is nothing but good news.

We probably won't have too many other primary states we can directly compare to old elections. Invariably, states switch from primary to caucus systems (or vice versa), or they change dates, or interest in a race simply wanes once there is a presumptive nominee, driving down turnout. If you have any ideas for any good comparisons, though, let me know.

Also, in case you missed it, no fewer than three major polling outfits have shown Bush with approval ratings under the Mendoza line this past week. Speaking of which, did you know that Dubya played baseball on Yale's freshman team? I didn't, but I'd sure love to know what his batting average was - and if it was higher than his GPA.

Posted at 02:39 AM in Safe States | Comments (4) | Technorati

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Bush Budget in Louisiana

Posted by Ricky

I know the anticipation has been killing the fine readers of this site for the first letter from Louisiana, but I've been having trouble finding a way to make my killer debut. I've finally decided to just go ahead and post some straight dope on the way Bush's budget is being covered by local writers. It's not exactly blogging gold, but at least you'll know what the President looks like here in the great state of Louisiana. The front page story in the state's most read newspaper gives the typical account of the budget with the way it relates specifically to Louisiana.

Some interesting bits from this story is the concern about Homeland Security funding (Bush's stated highest priority in the budget) not being enough. The director of the Port of New Orleans had this to say:

But Gary LaGrange, director of the Port of New Orleans, said the president's $490 million proposal for port security is far too little given that America's seaports have been identified as potential terrorism targets.

"I'm deeply concerned," LaGrange said. "It's not even half of what we need."

Also included on the front page is a story about the massive deficit being run by the White House and Congress that barely even pays lips service to Bush's budget dircetor's reassurance that they'll curb spending.

Kos readers will notice a post he has up today noting how Bush's budget is going to get bashed in local papers around the country. He's certainly hit the nail on the head with regards to Louisiana. A third story about the budget discusses the failure to provide adequate spending to deal with a coastal depletion problem that is rapidly becoming a major concern for many Louisianians.

In our October elections, Louisiana voters overwhelmingly supported three amendments which called for greater spending and agreed to match a certain percentage of federal funding allocated to coastal restoration. Now the federal government is reneging on a gentleman's agreement with our Congressional delegation. It's not surprising, but it's good for those of us who'd like to see Bush out of office next January to see it in print.

You can read more of my thoughts on Louisiana issues over at Timshel.

Posted at 11:27 AM in Louisiana | Technorati

Pittsburgh Employment Situation

Posted by Fester

The state of Pennsylvania is reporting that the greater Pittsburgh MSA has lost almost 12,000 additional jobs in 2003. This is in addition to the 12,000 jobs that were lost in 2002. This is primarily due to continued losses in steel, airlines and retail trades. There have been few start-ups or expansions in ther egion that can absorb the idled or underemployed laborforce.

The jobless rate is artificially low due to increased out-migration and an increased number of people who are leaving the workforce because they can not find a job and do not believe that they will find a job despite their best efforts. This is the economy that Bush has to deal with in a critical swing region in November and it ain't good.

Posted at 10:08 AM in Pennsylvania | Technorati