Swing State Project

« OH-Sen: Reading Past the Headlines | Main | RI-Sen: Club for Growth Endorses Laffey »

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?

Posted by DavidNYC

Might as well get this one cranked up. What's going on in your favorite (or least-favorite) races?

P.S. Anything been brewing in Missouri lately regarding that stem cell ballot initiative?

Posted at 11:59 PM in Open Threads | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2026

Comments

Missouri Stem Cell news

Christopher Reeve Foundation endorses the measure.

Some guys sued the state about the measure because they say it'll legalize cloning. They want it off of the ballot.

Joplin's paper endorses a vote on this measure.

Missouri priests are against it

John Danforth calls stem-cell research 'pro-life'

Gov. Matt Blunt also supports the measure, and Missouri Right to Life pulled his "pro-life card". The MRL/Blunt feud is pretty amusing as Blunt basically doublecrossed MRL.

Posted by: RBH at December 10, 2005 06:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Not the CA-48....thank god.....

Posted by: Stuart O'Neill at December 10, 2005 09:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This week, I'm interested in the various races in Florida. The state has been a mess of contradictions starting with the 2000 Presidential election. The diverse influx of retirees from the northeast and Midwest was said to be making the state more Republican but less conservative back then, but the continued post-Terri Schiavo popularity of Jeb Bush and unexpectedly wide margin for brother George last year tell me that the Dems' good fortune in 2000 was probably a fluke in a state continuing to trend to the GOP. 2006 should be telling if the Dems have any chance of keeping Florida a two-party state.

The Senate race looks right now to be a bullet dodged for Bill Nelson and the Democrats, but I'm not certain that Katherine Harris will remain the GOP nominee. If the less-than-popular Nelson (why are his approvals so low anyway?) faces virtually any other Republican opponent in this race (as he easily could), it could become a real contest.

I'm not too familiar with the Governor's race aspirants, but have been told that Congressman Jim Davis and Attorney General Charlie Crist are the frontrunners for their respective parties. I've also heard that Crist is probably to the right of the current Florida Governor...the kind of guy who should be beatable in a state like Florida.

And Clay Shaw in FL-22 seems like the kind of Republican incumbent who will almost have to be taken down if the Dems are gonna take over the House next year. Even in a non-Presidential year, Florida is likely to be the bellwether for the Dems' national performance. If we're losing here in the aforementioned races, I'm not sure we're gonna be winning elsewhere.

Posted by: Mark at December 10, 2005 10:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark - I agree. I wasn't horribly troubled by Bush's improved margin there - he improved his margin in most states (eg, NJ). But I was pretty depressed about our senate loss there.

Posted by: DavidNYC at December 10, 2005 10:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Florida and Kentucky were definitely the two most depressing Senate losses. Kentucky wasn't a LOSS, per se, because it was a GOP incumbent, but dammit, that man deserved to lose, and it looked like we were winning that race right up until the end. It was like an extra punch in the kidneys courtesy the GO-muthafuckin'-P.

I'm interested in potential Senate challenges to Allen in VA--especially Webb.

I'm interested in Ford's campaign in TN.

I'm interested in Jack Carter's campaign in NV.

Aw hell, I'm interested in everything.

Posted by: HellofaSandwich at December 11, 2005 12:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark and others in Minnesota -- I'd be interested to get your take on the Minnesota governors race. Is the DFL going to go with Mike Hatch, or is that still up in the air? I know we've talked about Becky Lourey before, and I just love her, but also want to be realistic. The only lingering question I have about Hatch is that he might be a bit of "Yesterday's News" that he's been around for so long. I remember him well when I lived in Minneapolis, and that was a LONG time ago. Is there any fear that in the general election he'll resemble the disasterous Moe Campaign of 2002?

And sticking with a Minnesota theme, I don't think anyone here yet has mentioned the passing of Senator McCarthy. Especially as the war in Iraq continues on and on and on, we'd do well to remember we're standing on the shoulders of a giant figure in the history of progressive politics in this country.

Posted by: IndianaProgressive at December 11, 2005 02:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm hoping we don't miss out on all the opportunities that I think we have for US House gains in Pennsylvania - so I'm hoping that the races in districts 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 get a lot of attention.

Posted by: ArmandK at December 11, 2005 11:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

IndianaProgressive, the Minnesota Governor's race is completely up-for-grabs by my estimation. We have four candidates who at least at this stage look to be strong.

Perceived frontrunner Mike Hatch doesn't look nearly as strong as he did when he got in the race a couple of months ago. Hatch was the puppetmaster for an attempt to bust former GOP Party Chairman Ron Eibensteiner for illegal campaign contributions. The trial lasted only two weeks and Eibensteiner was acquitted, at which point he traveled the local TV circuit blasting Mike Hatch for his role in the "witch hunt." Furthermore, with the competition for the race piling on, Hatch has probably seen the fewest headlines of any of the gubernatorial contenders in the past five or six weeks. I would no longer qualify Hatch as the "800-pound gorilla" as was suggested when he first got into the race, but he's still at least a 400-pound gorilla if my conversations with party activists are correct...not to mention my poll at the DailyKos which showed Hatch getting 53% of the 102 respondents.

I really like Becky Lourey as well, but can't see her beating Pawlenty for a variety of reasons. She gets alot of kudos for straight talk, as opposed to Hatch who is in perpetual politician-speak mode. But for all the straight talk, she doesn't deliver it with any noticeable charisma. Up against the polished and slick-talking Pawlenty in a debate, I can't imagine too many swing voters would find Lourey engaging them. Furthermore, I suspect her proposal to disallow the Minnesota National Guard from serving in Iraq will be a lightning for controversy that will alienate Independents and conservative Democrats. Being from rural Pine County strikes me as another disadvantage for Lourey to win over voters in upper-income suburbs like Minnetonka which a Democratic candidate now needs to win a statewide election in the New Minnesota. I wouldn't completely rule out Lourey's candidacy and I think she has at least a marginal chance of scoring the party endorsement at next spring's nominating convention....a great boon for her campaign but still far from sealing the deal for the September primary. I'm still saddened by Lourey's announcement this week that she's not gonna run for another term in the state Senate. It'll be virtually impossible to replace someone of her caliber in Senate District 8. The district is still Democratic, but 2002 redistricting shifting her territory south and picks up a small number of conservative metro area exurbs. With uber-Democratic Carlton County still providing a population plurality for District 8, it'll probably stay in Democratic hands, but it's not as assured as it would have been pre-2002....and it's almost certain that a liberal champion like Lourey will have very hard shoes to fill in a district of conservative Democrats.

Steve Kelley probably looks the weakest of the four Democrats right now because of marginal name recognition, but I don't underestimate his pull with the education lobby, which is extremely well represented among party insiders who will endorse candidates in the spring. If Kelley gets the endorsement, he'll probably stay in the race and fight on into the primary. If he doesn't, I HOPE he walks away from the gubernatorial race and hangs onto his Senate seat. Kelley would probably be electable against Pawlenty, because he's well-spoken, intelligent and a Senator from the Hennepin County suburbs, where he and likely U.S. Senate candidate Amy Klobuchar would probably help raise each other's margins in Hennepin County, the state's most populous county where a Democrat is virtually assured of statewide victory if he/she pulls off a 60% win. Unfortunately for Kelley, the crowded field of Democratic heavyweights is marginalizing his campaign.

And last but certainly not least is the smart business Democrat Kelly Doran who's packaging himself as a centrist at the same time as he's serving a fair amount of red meat to the Democratic faithful. Like Mark Dayton in the 2000 Senate race, it's possible that Doran could "buy the nomination" with a slough of effective ads, but from what I've seen so far from him, he's more than just a walking cash register. He has a very inspirational background and clearly hasn't forgotten where he came from. Plus he has familial ties to the Iron Range and last month, pulled off an enormous victory by securing the endorsements of a half dozen Iron Range legislators....which probably set off some alarms in both Mike Hatch and Becky Lourey's campaigns. With an effective big-money ad campaign before the primary, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Doran be the spoiler here.

With all this in mind, I was feeling much more confident of victory in this race two weeks ago than I am now. Pawlenty is the kind of guy who most people are gonna like personally, so our only significant angle against him was hapless mismanagement of the state, which he is profoundly guilty of. However, after four years of deficits, budget cuts and Enron-like accounting gimmicks, Minnesota just reported a $1 billion budget surplus going into 2006. Good for Minnesota...bad for Democratic candidates trying to convince voters to dump Pawlenty. However, the budget reserves will swallow up more than $300 million of this surplus and nearly all of the rest will go to schools, who took repeated IOU's during the years of deficits. There will be little left of the surplus for Pawlenty and the Legislature to lavish on voters, at least if the billion-dollar surplus doesn't grow between now and February, which it may.

One more caveat is that Pawlenty patched up last year's budget deficit with a 75-cent "health impact fee" on cigarettes. For transparent political reasons, he refused to call the "fee" a tax, which resulted in a lawsuit from the tobacco companies who say that such a "fee" violates the guidelines of the tobacco settlement with the states. From what I can tell, they have a strong case. If the court rules in their favor, it's back to the drawing board to clean up the mess Pawlenty made by trying to be clever with language and not call a tax a tax. That will make him look pretty weak and buffoonish.

All told, it should be a fantastic race and I'd still say we have a 40% chance of victory here. Hatch probably remains the frontrunner on the Dem side, but he's vulnerable. Keep a close eye on this race because it could be one of the more dramatic in the nation given the magnitude of top-tier competitors.

Posted by: Mark at December 11, 2005 12:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Indiana, as for Eugene McCarthy, I am too young to remember him but have heard tremendous things from my dad. I actually thought he had already died. Always sad to see another liberal Minnesota icon pass away.

Posted by: Mark at December 11, 2005 12:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The loss of McCarthy is terrible indeed. I recall he wrote at least one op-ed as recently as last year, when the media was incessantly comparing Dean to him. Wonder if I can find it.

Posted by: DavidNYC at December 11, 2005 01:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Depending on your intrepretation of law, Ohio will either outlaw all recounts and crush Democracy soon or make recounts much harder to obtain in federal elections.

Posted by: RBH at December 11, 2005 01:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think we need to defeat shaw, I live in Fl-22 and have met him a couple of times and all I have to say is that he is a SCHMUCK... For the governors race, Davis has wide appeal and if we stand a chance of winning the congress, FL-22 is a MUST win. Regarding the senate, I think it is time for Nelson to retire (his poll numbers arent that good) and I believe that we need to get a highly esteemed politican like Robert Wexler to run in his stead.

Posted by: danny at December 11, 2005 02:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Nelson's been swamping Catherine Harris in every poll, so I'm not sure why you say his poll numbers aren't good. I agree that if a better candidate than Harris comes along, Nelson will have a real fight on his hands, but I don't get the sense that he's a weak candidate.

Posted by: DavidNYC at December 11, 2005 02:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'd like to know what the latest is on the AG recount in Virginia. Has it started? How's it going? I hope somebody will be blogging it like the Washington recount & the Ohio recount. What does this ruling mean (WaPo article)?

Also curious to hear when the special election will be held in CA-50. Has a date been picked? I hope that the CA-48 experience will have taught everyone some things - even though I'm not entirely sure what we should have learned from it.

Posted by: lpackard at December 11, 2005 03:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Nelson's approval ratings are below 50% and his re-elect numbers usually below 50% against everybody but Harris. I don't know enough about Wexler to opine on if he'd be a better candidate but I agree that Nelson doesn't seem as strong as I expected considering he won his open seat pretty handily in 2000.

Posted by: Mark at December 11, 2005 03:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I disagree on having Nelson retire that would not be smart. He is the only statewide Dem. in FL right now we need him maybe in 2012.

Posted by: D in FL. at December 11, 2005 05:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Nelson's approval ratings seem to be low mainly because of Democrats.

From October-
R: 51-33 approve
D: 46-42 approve
I: 44-42 approve

Mike DeWine's approval ratings in October
R: 61-31 approve
D: 54-36 disapprove
I: 44-39 disapprove

Lincoln Chafee's approval ratings
R: 52-43 approve (Ouch! Laffey better get out his base)
D: 64-31 approve
I: 54-40 approve

Santorum:
R: 62-29 approve
D: 61-34 diapprove
I: 53-38 disapprove

I can't imagine a scenario where Liberal Democrats choose Katherine Harris over Bill Nelson.

Posted by: RBH at December 11, 2005 06:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Thanks for your take on things, Mark. God is Minnesota different from when I left there in 1992 (and when I go back I spend all my time with friends and family in south Minneapolis -- that can really give you a skewed view of the state!). Back then, who would have thought about the need for Democrats to win Minnetonka and Edina and west Bloomington (and increasingly Rochester) to win the state.

Posted by: IndianaProgressive at December 11, 2005 08:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

So, anybody got any news on new announcements or new rumors about candidates?

Posted by: RBH at December 11, 2005 09:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I bet we'll hear about some after the New Year. The holidays - sorry, Christmases - strikes me as a bad time for announcing a new campaign.

Posted by: DavidNYC at December 11, 2005 10:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Indiana, there were a couple of special elections held in Minnesota the Tuesday before last for open state Senate seats (Districts 19 and 43). The outcomes of those races really brought to light the change Minnesota has underwent demographically and politically in the last 10-20 years. Back in 1992, when you left, the "swing" race would have been District 19 in Wright County (Buffalo, Monticello), while District 43 in Minnetonka and Plymouth would have been the slam-dunk for the GOP. Now the opposite is true. Moderate Republicans in District 43 are increasingly identifying with Democrats while exurban Buffalo and Monticello are seeing hundreds of new Republicans building homes within their city limits each year. The result in November 2005: A largely unknown Democrat beats a popular moderate Republican in District 43, while the Republicans wins 52% in a three-way race in District 19, besting the Democrat by 19 points.

My personal vantage point of Minnesota is also skewed as I have lived in rural areas with unchanged politics in the last few years. I grew up in (and presently live, however briefly) a decaying, blue-collar town near the Iowa border with an old-line union presence and an aging, stagnant population. It remains as Democratic today as it was in 1992 and I can tell by talking to neighbors that they have no idea how much the state around them has changed politically.

Posted by: Mark at December 11, 2005 10:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

At least it's still Minnesota, Mark -- come down and visit me in Indiana if you really want a taste of red-state America! Actually I love living here, and Indianapolis has become a "pale blue" city, as opposed to a quite red one not that long ago -- and I do live in a very Democrat neighborhood.

Posted by: IndianaProgressive at December 11, 2005 10:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yeah.. in the scheme of things, it's probably not the best time of the year to announce. Unless you bring your forms as a 'wrapped present'. Then you're just a bit too wacky for America.

Somebody should find another breakdown of when retirements usually get announced. I'm pretty sure that we'll get another retirement. From someone like Bill Young (FL)

I'll keep an eye on this because it's filing season in Texas.

And we'll have to see if Duckworth will be running, as the Illinois filing deadline is on the 19th.

Posted by: RBH at December 11, 2005 11:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

RBH: Did you already see Jonathan Singer's piece on the subject of retirements?

Posted by: DavidNYC at December 11, 2005 11:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yep, saw it and posted in the thread.

The sad thing is looking at the Polidata things which has Congressional results and Presidential results by CD going back to 1992, and seeing how many of the districts which went for GHWB and a Democrat elected a Republican within 2 to 4 years.

It's almost like a lot of the Southern representatives retired and nobody even bothered to hold their seat. Although for AL-4 (once held by Bevill and now Aderholt), it was close. In places like MS-1 (Whitten to Wicker) and MS-3 (Montgomery to Pickering), it wasn't even close.

In a way, I guess there's some barrier stopping people from wanting to run in a red area.

Maybe they're just not creative enough to get enough the "Pelosipelosipelosi" attack.

An example of that attack from the 2006 Almanac..

"2004 Democratic nominee Carl Cole, a recent University of Alabama Law School graduate, said Aderholt "sides with big business over the real people" and drove 20,000 miles across the district in his campaign. But Aderholt pointed out that Cole would cast his first vote in the House "for San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi, who's for gay marriage, opposes the rights of gun owners and is for partial birth abortions." Aderholt won, 75%-25%."

Posted by: RBH at December 12, 2005 12:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm tempted to do a "Whatever happened to" made up of people who had run for Congress as Democrats and lost, while still getting over 40% or so.

Granted, it might be one of those "exhuming a candidate" situations.

Or this can be the thread for "What the heck is Jim Turner doing anyways?"

whoknows

Posted by: RBH at December 12, 2005 01:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Illinois-06

Christine CEGELIS may face a primary challenge from a certain "Tammy" DUCKWORTH, who was recruited by Rahm Emanuel of the DCCC. Because she has not yet been discharged by the Army, her petition campaign in the district, which is managed by Rahm and a volunteer staffer from Dick Durbin's office, may be in violation of Federal Electoins Commissions regulations, which can only hurt Democrats in this district. The Democratic base in Du Page county Christine built as well as many local voters are very upset about Emanuel's attempt to invade the district and undermine local attempts to build a grassroots Democratic organization. Duckworth is pro-life and pro-war, while Cegelis is anti-war and pro-choice. Visit her website and support her campaign. With enough money she can deter Emanuel and Duckworth and provide Illinois 06 residents with real representation. Cegelis is a true progressive voice, and she was a member of the Dean Dozen last year. Christine CEGELIS is a winning candidate, and all of us should support her.

Christine CEGELIS for Illinois 06

Posted by: Illinois06 at December 12, 2005 02:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark - don't know what you mean by pretty handily, he only won in 2000 with 51% of the vote.

That said I think he's the only Dem for the seat in 2006. He's numbers are not that great, but I think he has a good moderate record needed to win (especially if a better Repub steps up to the plate).

Posted by: John at December 12, 2005 01:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Indiana, I've been impressed with Marion County's trendline in the last 10-15 years. It's one of the few counties in the nation that went for John Kerry in 2004 yet never went for Clinton. If only about 85 of Indiana's other counties weren't going the other direction.....

Posted by: Mark at December 12, 2005 01:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark, what's happened here is that the demographics of the county have changed a bit, as some white conservative voters have moved further out. You've also got some of the same dynamics as you see in other suburban areas (Chicago, Philadelphia) where upper-middle-class moderate Republicans are increasingly becoming moderate Democrats. Finally, the Marion County Democratic Party has gotten a lot better organized -- much of the credit here goes to Bart Peterson, our first Democrat mayor in a generation, and probably our strongest potential challenger to Governor Mitch Daniels in '08.

Posted by: IndianaProgressive at December 12, 2005 01:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

RBH: You should assemble that list. This is the year for people to think about making comebacks.

Posted by: DavidNYC at December 12, 2005 03:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

John, Bill Nelson's 51% margin is a little misleading since he beat McCollum by five percentage points and approximately 275,000 votes. Not a landslide, but not bad for a Democrat in an open seat in Florida. If Harris ends up bowing out of the race and is replaced by Bense or Foley, I'm guessing Nelson won't win by five points this time.

Posted by: Mark at December 12, 2005 07:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Democrats who topped 40% in a House election and lost, 1996 to 2002 (not including current Representatives or people who ran in districts currently held by Democrats or people who ran in districts which have a viable-looking opponent and no Illinois candidates due to the impending deadline)

I don't know if this list is a list of "The Warmed-over DLC All-Stars", but it's probably a reasonable list

And due to redistricting, I would have prefered just putting down the hometown of the people listed.

The candidates (* means "open seat contest")-
Ted Little (AL-3, 1996)*
Joe Turnham (AL-3, 1998/2002*) [I think he's the party chair in AL now]
Bob Wilson (AL-4, 1996)*
Don Bevill (AL-4, 1998)
David Mendoza (AZ-1, 2000)*
George Cordova (AZ-1, 2000)
Steve Owens (AZ-6, 1996/1998)
Ann Henry (AR-3, 1996)*
Sandie Dunn (CA-3, 1998)*
Bob Kent (CA-3, 2000)
Wayne Hogan (FL-7, 2002)
Linda Chapin (FL-8, 2000)*
Mike Stedem (FL-12, 2000)*
Michael Coles (GA-6, 1996)
Charlie Watts (GA-7, 1996)
Jim Williams (GA-7, 1998)
Jim Wiggins (GA-8, 1996)
David Bell (GA-10, 1996)
Dan Williams (ID-1, 1996/1998)
Connie McBurney (IA-4, 1996)
Randy Rathbun (KS-4, 1996)
Carlos Nolla (KS-4, 1998/2002)
Dennis Null (KY-1, 1996)
Mike Ward (KY-3, 1996)
Francis Thompson (LA-5, 1996)
Marjorie McKeithen (LA-6, 1998)
Hunter Lundy (LA-7, 1996) [actually a rumored candidate]*
Stephen Crawford (MD-6, 1996) [yes, I don't get it either]
Kim Tunnicliff (MI-7, 1996)
Dianne Byrum (MI-8, 2000)*
Ted House (MO-2, 2000)*
Steve Danner (MO-6, 2000)*
Susan Levin (NJ-3, 2000)
Michael Montoya (NM-2, 2000)
Dal LaMagna (NY-3, 1996/2000)
Paul Feiner (NY-20 against Gilman, 2000)
Maryellen O’Shaughnessy (OH-12, 2000)*
Darryl Roberts (OK-4, 2002)*
Roy Afflerbach (PA-15, 1998)*
Ed O'Brien (PA-15, 2000/2002)
Ronald DiNicola (PA-21, 1996) [now PA-3, I think]
Jane Frederick (SC-2, 1998/2000)
Glenn Reese (SC-4, 1998)
Hugh Parmer (TX-12, 1996)*
Rick Locke (WA-4, 1996)
Judy Olson (WA-5, 1996)
Lydia Spottswood (WI-1, 1996/1998)

results from 1996 to 2004 are here

Former Congressmen born after 1941 include Sam Coppersmith (1993-1995), Richard Lehman (1983-1995), Jim Bacchus (1991-1995), Larry LaRocco (1991-1995), Mike Ward (1995-1997), Dick Swett (1991-1995), Ed Feighan (1983-1993), Jim Chapman (1985-1997), John Bryant (1983-1997), and Peter Barca (1993-1995).

Although a lot of former Representatives go to "Lobbyist Heaven" (IOW, D.C.-based 'consulting' firms, or flat-out lobbying)

Any thoughts? (I know a lot of the people who left in 1995 may not be the best candidates, but at the very least, some of them may be in the right district if they ever want to run again)

Posted by: RBH at December 12, 2005 10:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

DavidNYC reminds us of a peculiarly painful loss in the last cycle - the Kentucky Senate race - but we remember it differently. From what I recall, the national party seemed to write Mongiardo off as cannon fodder against an unbeatable GOP incumbent, at first, and he was kept short of cash, talent, and support until his numbers crept close in the polls. It was then far too late to pump money into the race. Same in Oklahoma, resulting in a really vile GOP candidate winning by the skin of his teeth over an under-funded, under-supported Democrat.

I agree with David that Ford's senate candidacy in TN is one of the races to watch, this time. I've posted a few others that especially interest me, and some thoughts on national strategy, at http://www.actblue.com/list/2006fund - come have a look, and see what you think.

Posted by: Christopher Walker at December 13, 2005 01:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

When it comes to Carson/Coburn, I think that Coburn basically rode the coattails of Bush. Losing by 12 points was a surprise, although when Bush wins by a 66-34 margin, it's hard for someone like Coburn to lose.

The one thing in Oklahoma that sticks out is that there's a discontent with both parties. Bilyeu, who is basically a protest vote, got 6%. Two other third party candidates faired well in 2002 (Inhofe/Walters and Largent/Henry)

I should look into how much vote splitting occured between the Presidential and Senate races in Oklahoma.

as for Dr. Dan/Bunning. That was another unfortunate loss. Bunning might be able to credit his win to Bush too.

The NRCC and NRSC have a reputation of outmoving the DCCC and DSCC. But I don't know if we can see that for the NRSC this year.

Posted by: RBH at December 13, 2005 04:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The really scary part about the Kentucky Senate race was that Mongiardo cleaned up in the population centers, scoring 59% of the vote in Jefferson County (Louisville) and 58% in Fayette County (Lexington), yet still lost. It's hard to imagine a Democrat doing better in those metro counties than Mongiardo did, indicating a statewide Democratic win in Kentucky may be next to impossible under nearly any circumstances.

I could tell Oklahoma and North Carolina were gonna go to the bad guys a month before the election, despite encouraging poll numbers for the Dems throughout the summer. The Clinton connection sunk Erskine Bowles in NC, although I suspect he would have been defeated anyway in the end. Tom Coburn is perhaps the biggest nut in the Senate, but he speaks Oklahoman....and since he and Carson shared the same eastern Oklahoma Congressional district (the only solidly Democratic region of OK), Coburn was picking up votes in Carson's backyard while holding a steady grip on the rest of the rock-solid Republican state. I wonder sometimes if Carson could have beaten his other possible challenger, Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys, who Coburn beat in the primary.

Posted by: Mark at December 13, 2005 06:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Here's something going on at my local level that won't get any national attention, but that a lot of progressive people here have worked very hard on:

Next Monday or Tuesday the Marion County (Indianapolis) City/County Council will vote on whether to ban discrimination based on sexual orientaton in employment and housing. Democrats narrowly control the council 15-14, but the measure was voted down 18-11 a couple of months ago, with 5 Democrats joining all but one Republican opposing it. Our side didn't give up, though, and we may have flipped the four votes we need to pass it. We have two more votes for sure (including a Republican who is now a co-sponsor, and Council President Steve Talley -- a black conservative Democrat who sort-of needed his hand held through this, but is now on our side). Another Democrat says he's leaning towards voting yes. The deciding vote is going to be Republican Lynn McWhiter, who represents a fairly moderate NW side suburban district. She has said she wants to hear from/talk to constituents, so if by any chance you're reading this and live in Indianapolis, contact her. Opponents of the measure, as they usually do with things like this, have come out in droves. We need to show them, and the rest of the country, that Indianapolis is not the hick redneck town it used to be.

Posted by: IndianaProgressive at December 14, 2005 10:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Back to Minnesota's gubernatorial race - Mark, I wouldn't discount Steve Kelley just yet, or call his chances the weakest of the four. Kelly Doran has virtually zero chance at the endorsement at this point, and Senator Kelley has been making big inroads with caucus attendees and delegates across the state. It's a slow process because he was the early announcer, but it means that he's had the opportunity to do a LOT of work that Mike Hatch and Becky Lourey haven't.

You're right that Lourey's natural base will be the left-wing anti-war crowd, but again, don't discount Kelley's chances here. He's a straight talker, is opposed to the war, but can demostrate to the Left that he can talk to the Middle. This will be important if/when he pulls off the endorsement.

Posted by: JelloAbode at December 14, 2005 10:08 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

JelloAbode, you're correct. Steve Kelley is certainly still in the hunt here. But of the four, I suspect he's the one who needs the party endorsement to press forward. Hatch and Doran are certain to keep their campaigns alive until the primary, and Lourey has already chosen to abandon her Senate seat, which indicates to me that she's in it for the long haul too. But without the endorsement, I have a hard time seeing how Kelley's campaign will be able to continue generating funds during the summer. Plus, I think his supporters would hate to lose him in the state Senate, so if it comes to a choice of a longshot primary bid or another term in the Senate, he might be pressured to go for the Senate. Again, all speculation on my part. If Kelley gets the endorsement as he may, he's definitely still in the game.

Posted by: Mark at December 14, 2005 10:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Absolutely right - Senator Kelley won't press on without the endorsement, but not just because he didn't get it. He's been officially committed to the endorsement from the beginning as his campaign plan - first unite DFL delegates, then the voting base in the primary (if necessary...Hatch), and then reach out to moderate independents and disaffected Republicans, of which I suspect there will be more than a few eleven months from now.

As a disclaimer, I was a paid staffer on his campaign for a while, but I'm still working in the blogosphere and internet as a whole doing outreach for his campaign, because I really believe he brings the best the DFL has to offer together, and he really can beat Pawlenty.

Posted by: JelloAbode at December 14, 2005 11:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

RBH -- check Chafee's ratings in the new SUSA poll. Republicans have him down, 38-54, the exact opposite of their findings overall. Which suggests that if Laffey really does get out his base, he could swamp Chafee.

Posted by: Bruorton at December 14, 2005 04:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yeah, Chafee is going to be in trouble no matter what he does. If he goes to the right, he loses independents. If he stays in his current spot, he loses Republicans.

Posted by: RBH at December 14, 2005 05:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment