Month: December 2006

It’s official!  Gordon Smith (R-OR) planning to run for reelection as a panderer and opportunist.

Editor & Publisher

In a major speech in Congress on Thursday night, Sen. Gordon Smith called the current U.S. war effort “absurd,” perhaps even “criminal” and called for rapid pullouts.  He added that he would have never voted for the conflict if he had reason to believe the intelligence the president gave the American people was inaccurate.

Citing the hundreds of billions of dollars spent and 2900 Americans deaths — and saying he needed to “speak from the heart” — Smith said, “I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. So either we clear and hold and build or let’s go home.”

Gordon Smith is only now at the end of his rope?  Has he not been paying attention for the last three years?  How is it possible that anyone with so much as a subscription to the Des Moines Register can only just now realize that U.S. intelligence was accurate?  Is there something particularly magical about the number 2,899 – the number of casualties Smith cites as provoking his change of heart – that 1,000 or 2,000 doesn’t really move the soul?  $100 Billion, $200 Billion: all acceptable appropriations for a failed policy, but now that we’ve hit $290 Billion, Smith has to speak out. 

How absolutely convenient that Smith has a change of heart just when it’s time to run again, exactly when the Iraq Study Group and Bob Gates announcement that we’re not winning has given him cover to do so.  How convenient that he can now point to another example of principled moderation to appeal to the independent voters of Oregon.

Read Smith’s whole speech in the Congressional Record.  It’s like discovering a whole new senator we never knew we had.

Who do you want to see run for Senate in 2008? That’s what we’re talking about in this post.

This is the second Senate recruitment open thread here on Swing State Project (the first one was here, and we saw all kinds of great suggestions). We’re going in alphabetical order, five GOP-held seats at a time. Links are to the Race Tracker wiki, and incumbents are in parens:

6) Kansas (Pat Roberts)

7) Kentucky (Mitch McConnell)

8) Maine (Susan Collins)

9) Minnesota (Norm Coleman)

10) Mississippi (Thad Cochran)

As I said the first time:

Don’t limit yourself to politicians. Businesspeople, community leaders, activists – even athletes or celebrities (think Heath Shuler or Al Franken) – are all fair game. Even seemingly outlandish suggestions are welcome. Would you have ever predicted that the guitarist from Orleans would now be a Congressman-elect?

However, please do limit yourself to the five races listed in this post. I know everyone is eager to talk about the whole slate of races we’ve got lined up, but I promise that we’ll get to each batch separately. I think we can have a more productive discussion, though, if we stay focused and only deal with a chunk of races at time.

So, what’ve you got?

I’ve been keeping a close eye on the latest independent expenditure reports over the past week or so to track the action in unresolved races like LA-02 and TX-23.  In the Texas run-off race, independent expenditures are especially critical if Democrat Ciro Rodriguez is to have any kind of a shot at knocking off Henry Bonilla: as of November 22, Bonilla enjoyed a 10-to-1 cash-on-hand advantage over Ciro.  Here’s a chronological rundown of the DCCC’s intervention in the 23rd District runoff election:

11/29: $163k (media buy and ad production)
12/01: $43k (direct mail), $9k (media buy and ad production)
12/02: $16k (phonebanking)
12/04: $42k (direct mail), $9k (ad production)
12/06: $497k (media buy), $785 (phonebanking), $91k (direct mail)

This amounts to an $871,000 investment in the district over the past week by the DCCC.  That’s a very decent show of support for Ciro, but unlike most party committee IEs, the DCCC is doing the heavy lifting for a cash-strapped candidate here.  Supposedly, Democratic sources have been leaking the news that Ciro is within three points of Bonilla in the latest internal polling.  Can the DCCC help close the gap here?  I wouldn’t care to wager, especially given Bonilla’s superior organization and financial base, but I think we can interpret tonight’s expenditures as a signal that victory is not undoable here.

This is the fourth in a series of diaries epicting the Democratic victory in this year’s midterm elections. Other diaries in this series can be seen here.

Already covered have been New England, NY, NJ, MD, and DE.

Today’s diary will focus on the Keystone state, the site of great hopes, and as today’s diary will demonstrate a great truth.  Pennsylvania really is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between.  First up are the seat control charts.

2004

2006

Of  3,938,341  votes cast in 2006 US House races in Pennsylvania,   2,190,947 (55.6%) were cast for Democrats, while  1,698,641
(43.1%) were cast for Republicans.

Democrats defeated Republican incumbents in the PA-04,PA-07, PA-08, and PA-10.  

The race I enjoyed the most was the PA-10 (NE Pennsylvania), where poltical newcomer (and politcal scientist) Christopher Carney defeated incumbent Republican Don Sherwood by margin of 12,538 votes (6.1%).  The reason I am so excited by this race is because the Democratic party didn’t even run a candidate against Republicans anywhere can be taken down, we just need someone there to push.

In the PA-07 (SW Philadelphia suburbs), Democrat Joes Sestak defeated ethically challenged Republican incumbent Curt Weldon by a margin of 33,291 votes (12.7%) after revelations of suspicious dealings with Russian “businessmen”. Coming in at 56.4%, this was a 16 point improvement of the 2004 Democratic performance at 40.3%.

In the PA-08 (Bucks County, NE of Philadelphia), Democrat Patrick Murphy defeated Republican incumbent Michael Fitzgerald by a narrow margin of 1521 votes (0.6%).  Coming in at 50.3% this was a 7 point improvement over the 2004 performace at 43.3%.

In PA-04 (NW of Pittsburgh), Democrat Jason Altmire defated Republican incument Melissa Hart by a margin of 9,280 votes (3.9%).  Coming in at 51.9% this was a 16 point improvement over the 2004 performace at 35.9%.

The following map shows Democratic gains over their 2004 Democratic performance in the district (in % terms), improvements of less than 5% will be displayed in light blue, under 10% in the darker blue, and over 10% in the darkest blue.  Republican gains will be shown in the same manner, with the light red signifying a gain of less than 5% and so on. Races that were contested in eith of the years will be displayed in gray.

Looking more closely at the margin of victory in 2006 races,      Democratic defends and pickup opportunities emerge, the following map displays the margin of victory in 2006 races.  The deepest blue represents and Democratic margin of victory over 10%, the medium color represent more than 5%, while the lightest blue indicates that the Democratic candidate won by less than 5%.  Corresponding measures of Republican victory margins display progressively darker shades of red at the same intervals.

Wow.  Pennsylvania really is Philadephia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between.  A really interesting take on this is would be to be to compare the margins from the US House races to the Senate race where Casey crushed Santorum. Nonetheless for House Democrats the situation in the interior of the state looks hopeless, though as the race in the PA-10 shows anything is possible.  I’m still puzzled by that one, I hope one of you Philly folks can explain what the hell happened there to me.

What emerges is a map to guide our 2008 strategy. In this series I have created a race tier system that is I will explain in the next few sentences.Tier 0 races are those where the Democratic candidate won by a margin of less than 5%, the presumption being that incumbency grants an advantage of 5-10% that with the fundraising advantage that comes with holding office should be sufficient for these candidates to defend their seats without funding from the party.  The assumption that incumbency gives a 5-10% advantage drives the classification of the pickup categories.  Tier 1 races are those where the incumbent won by less than 5% in 2006, while tier 2 races are those where Republicans won by less than 10%.  It’s really quite simple.

Tier 0

Race      D%      R%     Margin    2006 D Cand.

PA-04     51.9    48.1   3.9       Jason Altmire        
PA-08     50.3    49.7   0.6       Patrick Murphy

Tier 1

Race      D%      R%     Margin    2006 D Cand.

PA-06     49.4    50.6   1.3       Jim Gerlach

Tier 2

Race      D%      R%     Margin    2006 D Cand.

PA-15     44.1    52.8   8.7        Charles Dertinger

I’ve created chart below to keep a running total of races that I’ve classifed in each tier for 2008.

Tier 0

CT-02, NY-19, NH-1

Tier 1

CT-04, NJ-07, NY-25, NY-26, NY-29, PA-06,

Tier 2

No races meet the criteria for this tier.

States Covered

CT, MA, MD,ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT

Thanks to X-Stryker in the diaries, we get word of this SUSA poll (likely voters, no trendlines):

Rodriguez (D): 46
Bonilla (R-inc.): 53
Undecided: 1
(MoE: ±4.6%)

Perhaps the most salient thing to note is that 59% of likely voters in this sample were white, and just 36% Hispanic. (Hispanics favored Democrats heavily this year, so a high Hispanic turnout is key for Rodriguez.) Meanwhile, census figures show that district is 55% Hispanic and 41% white. The sample isn’t implausible, though. Latino voting-age population (VAP) tends to be lower than the white VAP, and the registered voting-age population (RVAP) lower still.

Moreover, according to the census, Latinos comprised almost 35% of the state’s population in 2004. However, exit polls this year in the Texas gubernatorial and senate races say that Latinos made up only 15% of those who went to the voting booth on election day.

If the exit polls are accurate, then only some 43% of Hispanics statewide turned out to vote. If the SUSA sample is right, then Hispanics are showing up at a 65% clip. That’s quite an improvement – but it looks like it may not be enough. Don’t forget that despite the big changes redistricting wrought here, the new 23rd CD went for Bush by a hefty 57-43 margin in 2004 (it had been 64-35 – though I should note that Al Gore only lost by about 7 points).

So I really don’t know if Ciro can do much better among Latinos than he’s already doing. However, he could still pull it off if he can increase his margin among independents (who favor him by just three points).

And if you’re outside of the district and want to help, the best thing you can do is sign up for online phonebanking.

Update (James L.): As noted in the comments by blank, the 55% figure for Hispanic population in this district does not reflect the district’s make-up after the 2006 redistricting process.  The current Hispanic population of TX-23, therefore, is 65%, meaning that the Latino turnout rate on November 7th in this district was around 55%.  We’ll have to see if that can hold for the special election.

SurveyUSA has poll numbers out for the runoff election in TX-23. GOP rep. Henry Bonilla leads former Democratic rep. Ciro Rodriguez by a 7 point margin, 53-46.

The district as it was sampled is 59% white, and 36% hispanic. Bonilla takes 70% of the white vote and Ciro gets 72% of the Hispanic vote. You can look at the rest of the crosstabs in the link above, but I think that one says it. The majority is composed of white rural Texans who vote mostly for the GOP, and a Hispanic GOP incumbent captures a significant portion of the Hispanic minority. As for what would change this result, the crosstab to look at is party ID. The GOP has a small advantage here (43-39), but the incumbent captures 10% of Democrats and the challenger only 5% of Republicans and wins indepents (18%) by only 3%. A competent incumbent untainted by a major scandal is likely to produce similar numbers among partisan voters, so Ciro most likely will need to close the gap by appealing to independents. In the current electoral climate, a good Democratic candidate should be able to win the independent vote by more than 3%.

This is the third in a series of diaries graphically depicting the Democratic victory in this year’s midterm elections.

Today we will be looking at how the election went in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.  No seats changed hands in these states, below are maps of the the current state of party control.

Of 1,822,786 votes cast in the 2006 New Jersey House races 983,747 votes (54%) were cast for Democrats while 815,871 votes (45%) were cast for Republican candidates.

In Maryland, 1,581,195 votes were cast with 1,017,276 (64.3%)for Democrats, while 544,508 votes (34.4%) were cast for Republicans.

In Delaware, the Republican candidate won with 57.2% of the vote.

Looking at vote margins, the only close race in these states was in the NJ-07 where the Republican candidate won by a margin of 3,259 votes (1.9%), with the Democratic candidate garnering 47.8% to the Republican’s 49.5%.   The Democratic 2006 performance is a 6.2% improvement over the 2004 Democratic vote share.  This should be a target for 2008.

Tier 0

Race      D%      R%     Margin    2006 D Cand.

No races meet the criteria for this tier.

Tier 1

Race      D%      R%     Margin    2006 D Cand.

NJ-07     47.8    49.5   1.7       Linda Stender

Tier 2

Race      D%      R%     Margin    2006 D Cand.

No races meet the criteria for this tier.

( – promoted by DavidNYC)

Despite handing back to the keys to Swing State Project a year ago, I felt it appropriate to defend myself against Danny Glover’s NYT hitpiece on the only blog I’ve ever called home.  I can’t speak for all the bloggers on his “list,” but I can correct MANY of the innacuracies about me personally and the Lamont campaign in the piece.

For starters, here is Glover’s admitted thesis:

I do think it’s interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment — at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article.

I’m curious as to what part of Ned Lamont’s campaign was “establishment” when he was down 60 points in the polls to a former VP nominee; when every single organ of party infrastructure was fighting tooth and nail against us; when I decided to leave the DNC (now that’s establishment!) to join Ned and people literally said it would be “difficult to hire” me in the future if I made that move. Yet three of the thirteen candidates on his chart were hired “bloggers” by the Lamont campaign — that’s of “four bloggers on his campaign team.”  Of that group, one was paid to actually blog … me.  The other three were a tech guy, research staff, and graphic designer who wrote favorably about Ned before ever joining the team.

Here’s something else Glover apparently doesn’t get.  Blogging was probably one of the smallest pieces of my employment.  It’s a conversation I’ve tried to have with others at the National Journal, but no one quite seems to get.  When you take on the role of an “Internet Director” on a campaign, it’s more than just blogging and talking to bloggers.  Scott Shields of the Menendez campaign has more on this.

Further, I personally am not blogger turned campaign staff.  I worked on a campaign long before ever consistently blogging on any independent site.  Glover’s chart cites me blogging for the “now defunct” Grow Ohio.  But Grow Ohio was the site I was paid to write for by Congressman Sherrod Brown. It had his picture all over the site and a nice disclaimer at the bottom that said “Paid for by Friends of Sherrod Brown.”  The only independent blog I have ever been a regular front page poster to is Swing State Project, and he doesn’t even list that on my line … he also conveniently omitted the fact I was the DNC blogger for some time as well.

And finally, his chart implies that a paycheck is driving bloggers to write nice things about our employeers.  Maybe that’s not the intent, but it’s the implication.  But the quotes he pulls from Sirota and I (Lamont staffers) were both written AFTER the campaign was over.  Could it be that some of us he noted in the piece have the ability to work for candidates we believe in before receiving a paycheck and continue to believe in long after our final one was cashed?

Tim

P.S. They even got the amount of $$$ I made with Ned wrong.  Go figure.  I even let Glover know that via email after his first piece showed up on MSNBC’s website.

Via the Hotline (sub. only):

At least 3 state legislators are “looking at running” for outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert’s seat “if and when he retires.” Pro-Hastert forces are “lining up” behind state Rep. Tim Schmitz (R), while “conservative” state Sen. Chris Lauzen (R) “has long eyed the seat and is expected to throw his hat into the ring.” On the Dem side, locals are “very hopeful” that state Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia (D) will run (Capitol Fax newsletter, 11/30).

My understanding is that the GOP side of things is a bit more colorful than this simple description would indicate. Apparently, the “moderates” back Schmitz because they feel Lauzen is a right-wing nutcase. This story played out many times in 2006 – a radical wingnut beating a more reasonable candidate in the Republican primary – often to our advantage.

You had lunatic Bill “Brain Fade” Sali in ID-01; Doug Lamborn in CO-05,  whom outgoing GOP Rep. Joel Hefley refused to endorse; and crazy winger Randy Graf in AZ-08 who was all but abandoned by the national party. Yeah, we lost the first two, but we made them sweat bigtime – and Giffords utterly steamrolled in the last one.

There are other examples, of course, including reverse examples. For instance, we might have done better in NV-02 if the Club for Growth nutter had won the primary, and I think everyone on our side was rooting for Steven Laffey to beat Linc Chaffee (though we kicked ass in RI anyway). So here’s hoping that Chris Lauzen wins any special primary on the GOP side.

As for our team, I haven’t previously heard of Linda LaVia. Anyone know anything about her?

P.S. Who’s gonna call shotgun on editing the wiki page?

An article in the Times-Picayune has the details on the most recent fundraising numbers down in LA-02:

Carter, a Democratic state representative from New Orleans, raised $320,741 in a month, compared with $72,485 for Jefferson, the eight-term incumbent whose political fortunes — and fund-raising ability — have been dampened by a federal bribery investigation.

Clearly Jefferson’s support is drying up, though he does still have a $117K to $58K cash-on-hand advantage. Actually, I should say that he did have an advantage. For one thing, these reports only go through 11/19. And for another, as Tim points out, Carter has already filed several supplemental reports (you have to file frequent notice of new donations over a certain size when you get close to election day) since the full report was released.

In those four supplemental reports (called “48 hour reports”), Carter has raised almost $130K – and they only start on 11/27, so they leave out the week between the 19th and the 27th. Jefferson’s campaign has filed exactly zero 48 hour reports.

The article also offers a nice mention of the online community’s efforts via ActBlue. While Blue Majority has spearheaded this drive, I’m really pleased to see that Carter has now been added to eleven different ActBlue pages.

As always, keep checking in with Tim over at MyDD for on-the-ground coverage. He has an important new piece up today about the centrality of Katrina to this entire race. For those of us outside New Orleans, this perspective is invaluable.