CA-11: McNerney Snags a Big GOP Endorsement

Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney makes a big score:

Stockton’s Republican mayor, Ed Chavez, is crossing party lines to endorse the re-election bid of U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton).

McNerney’s campaign announced Chavez’s endorsement Thursday, with Chavez saying the congressman has been a consistent presence across the district since he was elected two years ago.

“I have been impressed with what Congressman McNerney has done in his short tenure in office.  He’s back in California every weekend – in fact, it’s nearly impossible to spend a Saturday in Stockton without running into him,” Chavez said in a press release from McNerney’s campaign.

Stockton is the hometown of GOP candidate Dean Andal, a former state Assemblyman. While many Beltway progs were hyping McNerney as a “one-term wonder” after his 2006 win, his chances of re-election are looking brighter by the day.

SSP currently rates this race as Lean Democratic.

Who is McCain’s Running Mate?

Well, for starters it isn’t Lieberman (sure he would have taken Jewish voters from Democrats, yet he couldn’t even win Connecticut).  It’s also not Huckabee, while he certainly had appeal with Southern conservatives, Huckabee never showed a strong detail to the important issues.

Let’s break it down by who is least likely to most likely from the remaining three competitors:

3. Gov. Pawlenty – Sure he was Governor when a major bridge collapsed.  Remember it’s tax cuts for the wealthy over repairing infrastructure.  He also would be a weak debater against Biden.  Young and youthful indeed, yet his credentials are not that strong.

2. Millionaire Mitt – He never wanted to be second (he wanted to be first).  Mitty brings a lot of challenges.  First, he would overshadow McCain at times.  Second, he owns an equal number of properties as McCain, and finally, if McCain is using Clinton’s words against Obama, then by selecting Romney he sets up an even exchange for Democrats.  Sorry Mitt, not this time.  Probably not NEVER.

1. Tom Ridge – The fact that McCain is holding his announcement in Dayton and suburban Pittsburgh makes it highly likely that Ridge is the candidate.  Ridge was a former congressman, governor, and Homeland Security Secretary.  He would be a much stronger debater against Biden, unlike the previous two.  Whether or not Ridge helps McCain in Pennsylvania remains to be seen.  Pennsylvania can be broken down by the following:

Pittsburgh (city) – Obama

Pittsburgh (suburbs) – McCain

Erie – McCain (with Ridge)

Warren – McCain

Altoona – McCain

Johnstown – McCain

State College – Obama

Harrisburg (city) – Obama

Harrisburg (suburbs) – McCain

Lebanon – McCain

Lancaster (city) – Obama

Lancaster (suburbs) – McCain

York (city) – 50/50 Split

York (suburbs) – McCain

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre – McCain

Allentown/Bethlehem – Obama

Williamsport – McCain

Reading – Obama

Philadelphia (city) – Obama

Philadelphia (suburbs) – Obama

**Most votes would come from Obama strongholds versus McCain strongholds, thereby Obama still leads.  Ridge only brings one area realistically into McCain’s column – Erie, Ridge’s hometown.

Honorable mentions, but no reward this year:

Guiliani – Too much baggage.  Starting with his divorce from his wife and including moving in with a gay couple following the divorce (enough to anger religious fanatics).

Portman – Serving in the Bush administration is a liability in itself, regardless of the capacity.  Unlike Ridge, who left early and was not in the budget office, Portman was in office when Bush’s popularity plumetted and he helped draft the Bush budgets.

ID-Sen: Risch Leads by 12

Greg Smith and Associates (8/18-22, likely voters):

Larry LaRocco (D): 29

Jim Risch (R): 41

Rex Rammell (I): 3

(MoE: ±4.0%)

This pretty much confirms Research 2000‘s poll of this race for the Great Orange Satan, which pegged the race at 42-32, with Republican-turned-Independent Rammell picking up five points. At this point, the disgruntled rancher doesn’t appear to be much of a factor.

It seems telling that Risch can’t soar much above 40% in a state that Bush won twice with 67% and 69%, respectively. However, it’s not going to be incredibly difficult for him to push what are undoubtedly conservative-leaning undecideds onto his side of the fence come election day.

Still, Risch’s continued mediocrity makes this race worth keeping an eye on.

FL-21: Martinez Leads Diaz-Balart by 2

SurveyUSA for Roll Call (8/24-26, likely voters):

Raul Martinez (D): 48

Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-inc): 46

(MoE: ±4.0%)

Martinez, the former mayor of Hialeah, is a larger than life but at times somewhat controversial figure in the Miami area. He was always expected to give Diaz-Balart the stiffest challenge of his political life in this R+6.2 district, but seeing him ahead in a poll this early is fairly jolting. Another poll from Bendixen earlier this summer showed Diaz-Balart leading, but only by four points.

There’s no doubt that South Florida is changing for the better. Since 2006, Democrats have cut a 28,000 voter registration deficit in the 21st CD to a lead of only 15,000 for the GOP. And the numbers are getting bluer by the month. Similar trends are evident in FL-18 and FL-25, where progressive fighters Annette Taddeo and Joe Garcia are waging strong campaigns against Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, respectively.

Need more evidence that the Miami area is trending Dem? Just check out the Presidential numbers — despite this being a district that Bush carried by 14 points in 2004 and one that is part of the backbone of the GOP’s statewide foundation, Barack Obama and John McCain are tied at 48% each in the district. That is some seriously alarming news for the GOP, both for this election and for the long-term.

AK-AL: Young Doesn’t Rule Out Independent Run

In the diaries, Andy Dufresne makes a nice catch — if GOP Rep. Don Young loses his primary bid to Sean Parnell, he won’t rule out an Independent run in November:

Asked if he would consider running as an Independent if he lost the primary, Young said he hadn’t considered it.

“It’s a good idea; I might,” he said. “But I don’t expect him to win the primary.”

Now, the next logical question is: Is it possible for Young to get on the ballot as an Indie?

A quick legal analysis of Alaska electoral statutes by the Law Offices of Crumb & Bum, LLC, tells us that the only path for Young would be to wage a write-in campaign. The deadline for filing petitions to get on the ballot was primary day, so the write-in option is really Young’s only choice:

If a candidate does not appear on the primary election ballot or is not successful in advancing to the general election and wishes to be a candidate in the general election, the candidate may file as a write-in candidate.

However, all of this may be moot, as Young still holds a 152-vote lead with one precinct — but several thousand absentee and questioned ballots — outstanding.

Andy cranks it up a notch by looking at the district-by-district returns in Alaska, and finds that Young has actually performed slightly better among the absentee ballots counted so far than he has in the overall vote. That seems to be a good sign that the outstanding absentee ballots will help The Donald pad his preciously narrow margin.

We still likely won’t have a final answer for another couple of weeks, which is fantastic news for Ethan Berkowitz. According to Roll Call, the state will take another 10 to 15 days to count absentee and provisional ballots, and a winner will be certified on Sept. 17th or 18th. But that’s not all:

If the final difference between the two candidates is less than a half percentage point, a defeated candidate or 10 voters can petition a recount with the state footing the bill. If the difference between Parnell and Young is more than a half percentage point, a recount could be implemented at their own expense to the tune of about $15,000.

The recount would take an additional three to five days, pushing the GOP tension and uncertainty all the way into late September.

NJ-05: Rothenberg’s Wrongheaded Remarks

Stuart Rothenberg on Rabbi Dennis Shulman, running for Congress against GOP Rep. Scott Garrett in New Jersey:

Finally, at times, the rabbi seems very un-rabbi-like. He is quoted as using the “s” word very matter-of-factly in Toobin’s piece and using the “b.s.” word in Time. I expect a lot of folks in the district may wonder about that.

And Shulman’s rhetoric seems more like a Democratic insider than a man of the cloth, such as his comment that Garrett is “in the pocket of Big Oil” and that the runup in energy prices “is the direct result of Big Oil and their cronies like Scott Garrett blocking sound energy policy for years.”

This is as ugly as it is wrong. In his column, Rothenberg criticizes a New Yorker profile of Shulman by Jeff Toobin, saying that the author’s “forte is simply not politics.” Yet when did Rothenberg appoint himself an expert on religion?

Indeed, reform Judaism – the sort practiced by Shulman – embraces a diverse body of beliefs, styles and personal choices. It is Shulman’s congregants – not Beltway blowhards – who determine what standards their clergymen ought to meet, and whether they meet them. As a practicing Jew myself, the thought of a smug DC pundit who isn’t even a member of my synagogue proclaiming my rabbi spiritually unfit offends me to no end – especially when the “sin” in question is a violation of some ossified standard of bipartisan gentility that never actually existed in the first place.

In fact, in pluralistic America, I’d expect all those who respect the rights of others to observe their religion as they see fit to be displeased about remarks like this. They have no place in our politics or our houses of worship. And as I say, this kind of statement isn’t just offensive, it doesn’t even pass muster as good political analysis. Case in point: While I’m sure some Catholics didn’t think Fr. Robert Drinan – who beat a 28-year incumbent on an anti-Vietnam War platform and supported abortion rights throughout his career – “acted like a priest,” that didn’t stop him from winning five terms as a Congressman in Massachusetts. He only stepped down because the Pope – not his constituents – forced him to.

If Rothenberg wants to critique Shulman on the merits, fine. But leave religion out of it. Period.

Breakdown of AK-AL GOP primary: Why Young looks good w/absentees

The Alaska division of elections was good enough to post the primary results in each of the 40 state house districts, so I have gone through the numbers for the GOP primary to see if we can figure any thing out.  The numbers are very encouraging, at least with regards to absentee ballots.  

Below, I’ve listed the total votes and breakdown between Young and Parnell in each district, plus the breakdown by absentee ballots so far counted.  I am not listing LeDoux’s numbers, but her votes are obviously part of the totals.  

HD1 — 1761 total votes: Young 66%-Parnell 25%; (98 absentee votes: Young 64%-Parnell 29%)

HD2 — 1742 total votes: Young 54-Parnell 34; (156 absentee votes: Young 47-Parnell 42)

HD3 — 1678 total votes: Young 43-Parnell 46; (103 absentee votes: Young 44-Parnell 49)

HD 4 — 2449 total votes: Young 41-Parnell 46; (70 absentee votes: Young 40-Parnell 47)

HD 5 — 1468 total votes: Young 52-Parnell 37; (93 absentee votes: Young 43-Parnell 38)

HD 6 — 1807 total votes: Young 44-Parnell 49; (146 absentee votes: Young 43-Parnell 51)

HD 7 — 3659 total votes: Young 32-Parnell 60; (109 absentee votes: Young 34-Parnell 62)

HD 8 — 2840 total votes: Young 35-Parnell 57; (86 absentee votes: Young 27-Parnell 67)

HD 9 — 1927 total votes: Young 36-Parnell 58; (68 absentee votes: Young 31-Parnell 56)

HD 10 — 1363 total votes: Young 38%-Parnell 55%; (81 absentee votes: Young 46%-Parnell 44%)

HD 11 — 3410 total votes: Young 33-Parnell 61; (111 absentee votes: Young 48-Parnell 45)

HD 12 — 2083 total votes: Young 43-Parnell 47; (223 absentee votes: Young 55-Parnell 37)

HD 13 — 3941 total votes: Young 45-Parnell 47; (240 absentee votes: Young 53-Parnell 40)

HD 14 — 3504 total votes: Young 44-Parnell 49; (140 absentee votes: Young 51-Parnell 51)

HD 15 — 3677 total votes: Young 46-Parnell 45; (186 absentee votes: Young 44-Parnell 49)

HD 16 — 4075 total votes: Young 47-Parnell 44; (205 absentee votes: Young 48-Parnell 45)

HD 17 — 3236 total votes: Young 47-Parnell 45; (203 absentee votes: Young 48-Parnell 47)

HD 18 — 1109 total votes: Young 39-Parnell 50; (133 absentee votes: Young 43-Parnell 49)

HD 19 — 1922 total votes: Young 50-Parnell 42; (109 absentee votes: Young 43-Parnell 45)

HD 20 — 945 total votes: Young 51%-Parnell 39%; (46 absentee votes: Young 44%-Parnell 50%)

HD 21 — 2671 total votes: Young 50-Parnell 43; (155 absentee votes: Young 52-Parnell 41)

HD 22 — 1414 total votes: Young 48-Parnell 41; (67 absentee votes: Young 40-Parnell 45)

HD 23 — 1523 total votes: Young 51-Parnell 41; (104 absentee votes: Young 44-Parnell 49)

HD 24 — 1982 total votes: Young 51-Parnell 41; (85 absentee votes: Young 46-Parnell 46)

HD 25 — 1472 total votes: Young 54-Parnell 37; (75 absentee votes: Young 44-Parnell 48)

HD 26 — 2513 total votes: Young 53-Parnell 39; (147 absentee votes: Young 44-Parnell 50)

HD 27 — 2910 total votes: Young 50-Parnell 42; (126 absentee votes: Young 57-Parnell 37)

HD 28 — 3572 total votes: Young 51-Parnell 42; (156 absentee votes: Young 46-Parnell 44)

HD 29 — 1916 total votes: Young 50-Parnell 41; (108 absentee votes: Young 44-Parnell 47)

HD 30 — 3009 total votes: Young 48%-Parnell 44%; (129 absentee votes: Young 46%-Parnell 47%)

HD 31 — 4063 total votes: Young 48-Parnell 45; (165 absentee votes: Young 42-Parnell 50)

HD 32 — 4359 total votes: Young 46-Parnell 45; (245 absentee votes: Young 47-Parnell 44)

HD 33 — 2863 total votes: Young 41-Parnell 50; (139 absentee votes: Young 42-Parnell 43)

HD 34 — 3396 total votes: Young 40-Parnell 50; (195 absentee votes: Young 44-Parnell 46)

HD 35 — 2537 total votes: Young 44-Parnell 44; (213 absentee votes: Young: 45-Parnell 42)

HD 36 — 1579 total votes: Young 30-Parnell 30; (114 absentee votes: Young 47-Parnell 22)

HD 37 — 966 total votes: Young 57-Parnell 34; (41 absentee votes: Young 44-Parnell 37)

HD 38 — 523 total votes: Young 57-Parnell 35; (12 absentee votes: Young 92-Parnell 8)

HD 39 — 867 total votes: Young 58-Young 33; (11 absentee votes: Young 64-Parnell 18)

HD 40 — 813 total votes: Young 55-Parnell 33; (8 absentee votes: Young 38-Parnell 50)

For what it’s worth, Young ended up winning 24 house districts, to 16 for Parnell.  

It’s important to note that at least two communities — Petersburg and Wrangell — ran out of GOP ballots, so several primary voters used sample ballots which have not been counted: 204 in Petersburg and 53 in Wrangell.  

Young bested Parnell in both towns: by 44%-37% in Petersburg, and 58%-27% in Wrangell.  It is therefore reasonable to believe Young will probably gain around 30 votes from these sample ballots once they are counted.

Onto the totals:

Total Vote (93544)

Don Young:    45.47% (42539)

Sean Parnell:  45.31 % (42387)

Absentees (so far) (4901):

Don Young:   45.79% (2244)

Sean Parnell: 44.79% (2195)

So, while Young is running 0.16 percent ahead of Parnell overall (including those 4901 absentee votes already counted), he leads Parnell by exactly 1.0 percent overall among absentee votes.  

Right now, both Young and Parnell’s campaign have estimated there are around 4,000 absentee ballots left.  Assuming the breakdown we saw with the nearly 5000 counted absentee votes carries over, Young should exceed Parnell by approximately 40 votes among the remaining 4000 absentee votes, and his lead should thus hold.  

Assuming this comes to fruition, a lot will depend the 5,000-10,000 questioned (provisional) ballots which the division of elections says may end up coming in.  We have no info on this load of potentially game-changing ballots.

But clearly, Young is running better than Parnell among absentee ballots than among the overall vote — 0.16 percent to 1.0 percent.  This is a good sign for Democrats.  Still, it is unclear that Young would be able to gain a margin of greater than 0.5 percent.  Then again, three weeks of counting, followed by a recount might not be all bad for Democrats!

Plus, Young is quoted in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner as saying he might run as an independent if he were to lose.  

Asked if he would consider running as an Independent if he lost the primary, Young said he hadn’t considered it.

“It’s a good idea; I might,” he said. “But I don’t expect him to win the primary.”

Good times!  

NY-13: Straniere Gets Ugly – Real Ugly

Life gets worse and worse every week for Staten Island Republicans, whose once-firm grip on New York’s 13th congressional district is now all but limp. Things are going less than swimmingly in the GOP primary to replace disgraced retiring Rep. Vito Fossella, as the two leading pretenders can’t stay away from each other’s throats.

Jamshad Wyne, the Staten GOP finance chair, claims that Straniere asked him to engage in illegal campaign financing for his failed 2001 campaign for borough president:

Wyne — who uses the name Dr. Jamshad Wyne professionally — said Straniere asked him to take $5,000 of his personal cash and disburse it to relatives who would, in turn, write checks in the amounts of $250 or $200 to Straniere for Borough President, thereby maximizing the amount of matching funds Straniere could receive from the city Campaign Finance Board.

Straniere adamantly denied the claim, calling it “outrageous.”

Wyne said he never followed through on what he maintains was Straniere’s request.

Such a practice is illegal; in recent years two politicians, one running for Queens borough president and the other for public advocate, were jailed for promoting such a scheme.

For his part, Straniere has decided to go all out racist:

Meanwhile, during an interview yesterday, Straniere said Wyne has been using the name “Jim” on the campaign trail because “he is trying to remake himself into something other than who is. He obviously doesn’t want people to know he is Pakistani and a Muslim.”

Stay classy, Republicans.

NRCC Reveals Defensive Crouch in Paid Media Plans

The NRCC has reserved over $8.8 million in ad time for 14 House races across the country, 11 of which are defensive moves. The Politico has the scoop while TPM EC picks up the details:



























































































District Incumbent NRCC DCCC
AL-02 Open $338K $598K
CO-04 Musgrave $1.2M $667K
FL-16 Mahoney $955K $1.5M
ID-01 Sali $509K $349K
KS-02 Boyda $580K $0
LA-04 Open $323K $714K
LA-06 Cazayoux $474K $723K
MN-03 Open $675K $1.4M
MO-06 Graves $430K $798K
NC-08 Hayes $720K $1.6M
NM-01 Open $730K $1.3M
NV-03 Porter $590K $916K
OH-01 Chabot $575K $928K
PA-03 English $828K $0

Really interesting that Idaho’s 1st is among the committee’s first wave here, and the sums that the cash-strapped committee is prepared to spend on defense in CO-04 and PA-03 is eye-popping. The Politico notes that the NRCC has reserved about two weeks worth of time (and more in some instances) for most of these races. The bad news for Team Red is that the DCCC has already blocked off $53 million for 55 districts.

In fact, the DCCC plans to outspend the NRCC in most of these 14 races, including: AL-02 ($598), FL-16 ($1.5M), LA-04 ($714K), LA-06 ($723K), MN-03 ($1.4M), MO-06 ($798K), NC-08 ($1.6M), NM-01 ($1.3M), NV-03 ($916K), and OH-01 ($928K). (UPDATE: I’ve updated the chart above to give you a district-by-district comp.)

Of course, these plans are completely adjustable, but with not much more cash in the bank than the size of this early reservation, the NRCC doesn’t have much room to pivot.