Author: DavidNYC

What is it with Bill Sali?

Here at the Swing State Project, we’ve followed his career closely ever since he first ran for Congress last cycle. Sali caught our attention with his extraordinary primary victory in 2006, chalking up a victory with an astounding 26% of the vote – this despite a major infusion of support from the Club for Growth. We thought we might have a real live one on our hands, a real nutter nobody liked. But just how disliked was he?

As it turns out, a whole hell of a lot. The Republican Speaker of the Idaho House said of Sali:

“That idiot is just an absolute idiot. He doesn’t have one ounce of empathy in his whole fricking body. And you can put that in the paper.”

The second-place finisher in the primary:

Today, in the Idaho Press-Tribune in Nampa, second-place finisher Robert Vasquez, a Canyon County commissioner, said he’d never vote for GOP primary victor Bill Sali because, “I would not and do not and cannot endorse a liar for Congress.”

Idaho’s other representative, Mike Simpson:

Simpson then told Sali: “If you want to debate this, I’ll put the House at ease and we can go back into my office and I’ll throw you out the window.”

Simpson & Sali’s fellow legislators:

Simpson said he was irritated but had no intention of assaulting Sali. He added, however, that as House colleagues heard the story, many told him, “The third floor wasn’t high enough. You should have taken him up to the fourth floor.”

The man Sali sought to replace, now-Gov. Butch Otter:

“Bruce has been a great speaker of the House,” Otter said. “And as he told me, he learned everything that he knows from Mike Simpson. And that is why every time he has a bad day, he goes and beats the hell out of Bill Sali.”

And Bill Sali himself:

And that’s just his own party. The maniacs at the Club for Growth had to bail Sali out yet again in the general, and even Dick Cheney spent some time hustling for dollars and votes in this district, which gave fully 70% of its vote to George Bush. In the end, Sali won just 50-45 over a Democrat he out-spent by 50%.

The amazing thing is that the fun never stopped with Bill Sali. Sometimes, serious screwups who manage to fail upward to the United States House of Representatives just learn to shut up and keep a low profile. Not Sali – he’s way too colossal for that.

Six months into his term, Sali’s approval rating stood at an impressive 29-46. Things clearly hadn’t changed much a year later, when he squeaked through a primary against a guy who raised just $70K with only 57% of the vote. (I guess compared to his first primary, that looked downright awesome.)

He managed to continue his winning ways by supporting an insurgent challenge to Gov. Otter’s preferred state party chair. Meanwhile, he stopped paying his consultant’s bills, carrying a debt of $76,000 – no small sum in Idaho, and a dangerous fuck-you to other campaign vendors in such a tightly-knit political community.

It gets better. John Boehner, doubtless gritting his teeth, helped defile the English language like a good Inner Party member by adding Sali to the “Regain Our Majority Program.” Yes, I know, you can’t regain the majority by buttressing incumbents, but maybe Boehner just didn’t feel like printing up different stationery.

Sali repaid the gesture with classic brain fade accuity. When the time came to file second-quarter fundraising reports, his finance staff declared that the dog ate their laptop. James Hell made this fine .TXT catch:

I am unable to file the 2nd quarter 2008 FEC report, as FEC technical support is still attempting to fix the Sali for Congress data file.  I first attempted to upload a file to the FEC site on June 6. I again tried on June 9, using the new FEC software update, without success. I then sent FEC technical support a copy of the Sali for Congress FEC file. FEC technical support is still attempting to fix the file so that it may be uploaded. I am in regular contact with FEC technical support and the FEC analyst, in an effort to resolve this matter.

It took these clowns twenty-six days to figure out how to file their report (the law gives you 15), and even then it was still a shambles – just like the rest of Sali’s campaign. He opened an office in – I kid you not – the wrong congressional district (Idaho’s only got two). But the best was announced just recently: as a cornerstone of his fundraising plan, Bill Sali plans to hold yard sales to fill his campaign coffers. No word yet if Plan B is to rummage through the county dump for some discarded treasures – but I think we can assume that’s probably on the list.

Meanwhile, Sali has drawn some very high-quality opposition in the form of businessman Walt Minnick. Minnick has consolidated support throughout Idaho and has also outraised Sali by a considerable margin – over $350K.

He’s impressed the DCCC, too – not only have they added him to the Red to Blue program, they’ve reserved $350K in ad time in the district, which will go along way in this cheap media market. Panicked, the NRCC responded with a $500K reservation, but will they really be able to afford to spend the full amount? And you just know Tom Cole is grimacing at the thought of having to shell out cash to save this jerkwad’s sorry ass.

SSP has long felt that, in the rubric we use, an upset could not be ruled out in this seat, just thanks to Sali’s poor political skills. But he’s managed to make things a whole lot worse in his brief time in office. He really is the perfect fuckup. Combined with a top-notch Democratic candidate who has run a flawless campaign, polling showing a competitive contest, and an environment which (even post-Palin) is still hostile for Republican incumbents, we feel compelled to upgrade this race to “Lean Republican”. For an R+19 seat, it’s not a decision we undertake lightly, but it’s a decision we feel is supported by all the available evidence, and one we’re comfortable making.

You can find the Swing State Project’s complete list of ratings for competitive House races here.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (9/17-18, likely voters, no trendlines):

Dennis Shulman (D): 34

Scott Garrett (R-inc): 49

(MoE: ±5%)

This is the first public poll of the race in New Jersey’s fifth congressional district, where Rabbi Dennis Shulman is taking on retrograde wingnut Rep. Scott Garrett. There are a number of things worth pointing out about these results.

On the positive side, Garrett is below the fifty percent mark, which is always troubling for an incumbent. At the same time, his favorables stand at a weak 44-38 – almost as many people dislike him as like him. On the flipside, Rabbi Shulman’s favorables stand at 36-26, which means that nearly 40% of likely voters don’t yet know who he is. In other words, he has room to grow.

It’s exactly that growing room which gives Shulman the chance to make up the fifteen-point gap that R2K says he faces. Shulman’s doing pretty well among Dems, winning them at a 72-11 rate, while Garrett is doing ten points better among members of his own party, taking Republicans by 77-6. The real issue, though, is independents. Garrett cleans up here 48-35. The good news for Shulman is that this group is the least familiar with him: fully 45% of indies say they have no opinion of the Democrat – an opportunity, if Shulman can get his name out there.

Those independents are the real X-factor in this poll. They make up a huge 54% of the sample, while Republicans clock in at 27% and Dems at 19%. This is actually pretty close to where registration stood in the district before Super Tuesday. However, Dem registration has shot up since then; I’m told that more recent figures indicate the district’s makeup is more like 44I-32R-24D today. But knowing registration numbers is one thing – figuring out who will show up on election day is quite another.

And in that regard, NJ-05 is a bit of an electoral engima. The district voted for Bush in 2004 by what looks like a daunting 57-43 margin. In 2000, however, the margin was half as wide, just 52-45. Why the seven-point shift, when Bush only gained about three nationwide? Most analysts I’ve discussed this with believe there was something of a “9/11 effect” here, just as there was in many parts of the tri-state area.

If this assessment is accurate, then this right-ward shift may have been temporary. One possible piece of support for this thesis is the presidential head-to-head, which shows McCain leading Obama 52-37. Obama trails past Dem performance quite significantly, but McCain is at Bush 2000 – and not Bush ’04 – levels, for the moment. In a red district, though, undecideds are more likely to drift Republican, so McCain’s current 52% may not be his ceiling.

One final thought: Neither candidate in the fifth CD (which is covered by the ultra-expensive NYC media market) has gone up on the air yet, so there is plenty of potential for this race to move.

I tell you, I’m just dumbfounded:

A senior federal official, fearful of incurring a congressman’s wrath, sent subordinates on a mad dash earlier this year to retrieve a certified letter demanding payment of $5,773 for starting a fire that burned 20 acres of a national forest.

Mark Rey, undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources, said he didn’t want U.S. Rep. Henry Brown to receive the March 12 letter before he testified before a U.S. House committee on which the South Carolina Republican sits.

“I’d just as soon have him not take a chunk of hide out of me,” Rey said Wednesday.

Wow. Just wow. What kind of fucking banana republic bullshit is this? This is the sort of thing that must warm Dick Cheney’s corpse of a heart: A federal official responsible for enforcing the law lets a powerful congressman off the hook to avoid getting grilled in a congressional hearing. In his own words:

Rey defended his decision to intercept the letter as “a reasonable precaution” to prevent Brown from “stewing on it while he’s sitting up there on the dais” of the U.S. House Natural Resources subcommittee, which oversees management of national parks and forests.

What. The. Fuck. It’s now reasonable to ignore the law to save your own hide? I guess that’s been the Cheney Doctrine for the past eight years, so it should be little surprise that an incompetent, amoral bureaucrat would follow that path. What’s more, Brown didn’t just get his penalty reduced, he got the law changed:

As a result of Brown’s case, the Forest Service in June rewrote a criminal code to make it more difficult to prosecute people who negligently set fires on federal land – about 80 fires a year in the South alone.

“It will be much harder for us to go after people who allow fires to escape from their property onto the national forests,” said Jack Gregory, who was the Forest Service’s top law enforcement agent in the 13 Southern states at the time of Brown’s 2004 fire.

Not a surprise for a guy who clearly believes he’s above the law:

“I was so taken aback that I’d be treated so impersonal – like I was some kind of crook,” Brown said Wednesday. “Those were criminal charges that were filed against me. I felt like I was the victim.” …

Brown then went on a personal crusade in which he complained about his penalty in numerous e-mails, letters and phone exchanges with U.S. Forest Service employees in Washington, South Carolina, New Mexico and elsewhere.

Unsurprisingly, a whistleblower complaint charging Brown with obstruction of justice was dropped. We can only hope that Brown’s opponent this year, Linda Ketner, can make an issue of his special privileges and law-breaking ways, because in Dick Cheney’s world, there’s just no accountability.

(Thanks to vicupstate for the great find.)

Charlie Cook assesses dueling theories:

But what does that mean for races down the ballot? In part the answer depends on whether you believed that Republicans had a turnout problem before Palin was chosen. There are two schools of thought. The first is that although many Republicans were not excited about McCain, a longtime maverick and, yes, irritant to the GOP establishment, the party’s voters would have supported him anyway. They might not have run to the polls, but they would have voted. This theory posits that these voters simply feel better now about a vote they would have cast anyway.

The second theory is that if McCain had not added Palin or someone else capable of revving up the GOP base, quite a few Republicans wouldn’t have voted. A moderate case of sniffles, an unusually busy first-Tuesday-after-the-first-Monday-in-November, or any number of other excuses might well have been seized upon. And these Republicans would simply not have felt strongly enough about their support for McCain to persevere and vote. Under this theory, Palin really helps unless her standing is damaged.

Where Palin may not be able to help is among what some Bush campaign strategists in 2004 called “unreliable Republicans,” those who would vote Republican but have a history of not showing up on Election Day. These are people who have to be identified and hounded with phone calls and visits to their homes to remind them that, yes, this is Election Day and they are expected to vote. McCain has neither the money nor the organizational ability to match the get-out-the-vote efforts of President Bush’s 2004 campaign or Obama’s current effort.

So perhaps Palin is an asset but not quite a savior. For down-ballot GOP candidates who need all of the turnout assistance they can get, she will help some — but probably not enough unless they were already within shouting distance of victory. Republicans won’t have the masterful vote-generating machine they’ve grown accustomed to, but they are better off with Palin near the top of their ticket.

In other words, Cook says, to believe there will be a sizable Palin effect downballot, you’d have to think that at least some portion of the hardcore fundie base now going ga-ga over the GOP VP nominee would have otherwise stayed home had Palin not been named to the ticket. Otherwise, Palin is just revving up people who would have voted anyway, albeit unenthusiastically.

Personally, I think at least some Republicans who weren’t going to bother with this election are now going to show up, which is more or less what Cook concludes, since he thinks Palin “will help some.” But the reigning pessimist in me thinks the effect may be bigger than Cook imagines. What do you think?

Last cycle, the Secretary of State Project did tremendous work in raising money and awareness for several contested SoS races across the country. These unheralded but crucial state-level office-holders are crucial for protecting the voting franchise. Corrupt Republicans like Ken Blackwell in Ohioa and Katherine Harris in Florida have used their powers for evil; keeping these offices in Democratic hands is a vital mission.

So I’m very pleased to see that the SoS Project is once again in effect, raising money for four races this year:

There are two states we are targeting with open races for Secretary of State in 2008: Oregon and West Virginia. In Oregon, Democrat Kate Brown is running against GOP nominee Rick Dancer. In West Virginia, Natalie Tennant won the Democratic primary on May 13, despite being outspent 6 to 1 by her competitor. She is now fighting for the seat currently occupied by Betty Ireland, a partisan Republican who is currently working hard to oppose Election Day Registration.

In Montana, Democrat Linda McCulloch is trying to unseat ultra-conservative Brad Johnson. Johnson has been involved in an attempt by conservatives to rollback the state’s Election Day Registration laws.

We are also working to protect the seat of a progressive Secretary of State in the key battleground state of Missouri. Democrat Robin Carnahan is a strong reformer who should win reelection. But given the importance of a fair election in Missouri, we need to be vigilant in this state.

They’re also looking further downballot, as well:

Not all the action is happening at the state level. This year, the Secretary of State Project will also help elect reform-minded Democrats to key county-level posts in battleground states. A number of stark examples from 2004 and 2000, like Cuyahoga Co. in Ohio and Broward Co. in Florida, prove that manipulative county-level elections officials can exert a tremendous amount of influence over their results. Removing Republican operatives in three or four key counties could have a profound effect on the election. County-level targeting will be announced soon.

If you’d like to help out the Secretary of State Project, you can find their ActBlue page here.

I’m as surprised as anyone about Alice Kryzan‘s upset win in NY-26, but while this is an uphill fight, we definitely still have a chance here. The only way we can do this, though, is if Democrats at all levels come together to support our nominee. The DCCC immediately jumped on board, and the Working Families Party has already pledged to back Kryzan despite the ballot situation, saying that they “play to win.” But Jon Powers for some reason has not:

As we are still on the ballot as the nominee for the Working Families Party, my family and team are currently deciding how best to proceed.

If Crazy Jack Davis had won the primary, Powers might have had a shadow of chance running on the WFP line. But with Kryzan on the ticket, Powers can only play spoiler. For a likeable, young guy with a bright future in politics, anything less than a full-throated endorsement would be an error.

According to the New York Times, there are only three ways a candidate can remove himself from the ballot: die, move out of state, or get nominated for a judgeship. Theoretically, that last avenue is still possible, but Powers isn’t an attorney, and I wouldn’t ask him to submit to something so ridiculous. (Though the corrupt schmucks who run New York’s judicial “elections” would probably go along with such a scheme – after all, Supreme Jerkward Antonin Scalia ruled just this year that the “smoke-filled rooms” which rule this process “have long been an accepted manner of selecting party candidates.”)

Anyhow, this obstacle is why it’s crucial for Powers to come out strongly for Kryzan right away – votes on the WFP line can only hurt us now. Even the WFP itself acknowledges that. I supported Jon Powers in the primary, and I know he’s already done a lot for the Democratic Party. This is the last thing I’d ask him to do this cycle. We can win this, but we’ve all got to do it together.

UPDATE: This Roll Call piece suggests that EMILY’s List may soon get involved.

VoteVets, which produced last cycle’s amazing body armor ads, released this ad hitting Susan Collins for her obeisance to George Bush on Iraq:

Predictably, Collins’s campaign flipped out, denouncing the ad as somehow unfair:

Spokesman Kevin Kelley said the ad is false, noting legislation Collins sponsored that shifts the costs of reconstruction projects to the Iraqis.

“The ad that is currently airing on Maine television stations ignores Senator Collins’ efforts to change the mission in Iraq and to force the Iraqis to pay more of the costs of securing and rebuilding their own country,” a press release from the Collins campaign stated.

Sorry, even if we graded this an “E” for effort, meekly trying (and failing) to apply a few band-aids to the mess she’s created does not get Collins off the hook. Collins had a little more success, though, in browbeating Democrat Tom Allen to denounce this ad, too:

“Tom Allen is the only candidate to denounce false, negative tv and radio ads by third parties. He knows there is too much at stake for outsiders to disrupt the conversation he is having with Mainers on the important issues of energy, health care, the economy and Iraq,” Andrews wrote in a release.

Jesus Christ. This ad is eminently reasonable – for Allen to attack it is just ridiculous. But taking orders from Susan Collins is far worse. When you let Republicans boss you around, you wind up looking pathetically weak. And if Tom Allen really thinks that going after a left-wing organization will inspire the right-wing groups currently blasting him over his support of the Employee Free Choice Act to back down, then he’s sadly mistaken.

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.

Man, Debbie Wasserman Schultz never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. A busy bee at Monday morning’s breakfast for the Florida delegation to the Democratic National Convention, she nonetheless made a glaring omission:

“I’ve given 2,500 dollars to Joe Garcia, 5,000 dollars to Raul Martinez. I will be involved in their campaigns and supportive of them,” said Wasserman Schultz. “I haven’t been asked to be an attack dog. I am supporting Raul Martinez and Joe Garcia, and I’m looking forward to their successful election on Nov. 4.”

You all know exactly what I’m talking about: Deb forgot to mention progressive fighter Annette Taddeo, running for Congress in Florida’s 18th congressional district. Now, I’m thrilled that DWS has changed her tune and is openly backing Garcia and Martinez. (Remember, she previously tried to recuse herself from these races, despite being co-chair of the DCCC’s Red to Blue program.)

But there’s no reason at all for her to leave out Taddeo, who is also running in the greater Miami area. And doing so in front of Florida’s convention contingent, which includes important political figures, activists and super-delegates, is really beneath contempt. It sends all the wrong messages.

Fortunately, another Florida congressman who had previous been reluctant to get involved, Rep. Kendrick Meek, has changed his tune – he gave $2000 to Taddeo and has pledged to raise more. That sends all the right messages. And it’s not too late for Debbie to follow suit. But I think she’ll need some more nudging.

So here’s how you can help. Call Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s campaign office at (202) 741-7154 and ask her to do as Rep. Meek has done: make a sizable donation to the Taddeo campaign and solicit her network for more contributions. We need more progressive champions like Annette Taddeo in Congress, and we need well-connected leaders like Wasserman Schultz to help them get there.

You can also e-mail her at AskDebbie@DWSforCongress.com, and her Finance Director, Jason O’Malley, at FinanceDirector@DWSforcongress.com. Whether you call or write, as always please be polite and brief. Our message is simple and our cause is just. Also, please do not call Debbie’s congressional office, as this is purely a political issue which staffers on the federal payroll cannot get involved with.

If you do call or write, please let us know about it in comments!

Polls are now closed in Kansas and Michigan. We’re following the results in the KS-02 Republican primary and the MI-13 Democratic contest.

RESULTS: KS-02 | MI-13

2:18 AM (Crisitunity): Finally those last few clots of votes came in, in both races! In KS-02, 100% are reporting. Jenkins has 51% (32,240) and Ryun has 49% (31,233).

In MI-13, 99% are reporting. Cheeks Kilpatrick has 39% (20,603), Waters has 36% (19,009). Looks like the incumbent survived.

1:06AM (James): A few more precincts are reporting in Kansas: with 96% in, Jenkins’ lead has grown to 865 votes.

12:45AM: The needles seem stuck in both Kansas and Michigan, and I think I’ll call it a night soon. I’m betting on wins for Jenkins and Kilpatrick.

12:21AM: Kilpatrick is now up by 900 votes. I’d be surprised if she lost.

12:12AM: Cheeks has now take a 111 vote lead. Note that only 71% of precincts are reporting – that’s 1% more votes counted in the last half hour. This could take forever. Then again, Cheeks has done nothing but gain for a long while now. I’d be surprised if that trend reversed itself.

12:02AM: Jenkins’s lead has slipped to just 750 votes (51-49). Still, by my estimates, there may be only around 5,300 or so votes remaining to be counted, and Ryun would need to win those 57-43 to take the lead.

11:46PM: In another nice bit of news out of Kansas, former state AG, current Johnson County DA and all-around fuckwad Phil Kline was defeated in the GOP primary tonight. (Johnson Co. is an affluent KC suburb.)

11:42PM: MI-13 is now as tight as can be. It’s 38-38, with Waters just 60 votes ahead, and a full 30% remaining to be counted.

11:40PM: Could she do it? Jenkins just pushed back out to a 52-48 lead. My back of the envelope says that Ryun needs 57% of the outstanding vote in order to win. In other words, he needs to run a whopping 19 points better than he has all night to eke out the narrowest of wins. It’s certainly possible (who knows just which precincts remain?), but looking harder by the minute.

11:29PM: Waters now has just a 300-vote lead over Kilpatrick. Yipes.

11:26PM: Man, you can practically smell the flop-sweat pouring out of both Jenkins’s and Ryun’s campaign HQs tonight. It’s now back to 51-49 Jenkins with 56% of the vote in. If we’re lucky, we’ll go to a recount.

11:15PM: Meanwhile, over in MI-07, top-tier recruit Mark Schauer is winning his primary over repeat candidate Sharon Renier by just 65-35. Renier has raised only $10K all told this cycle. Not an inspiring showing.

11:10PM: Crikey – it’s 38-37 in MI-13 now, 65% of the vote counted. In all likelihood, the suburbs reported first and now we’re getting a slow trickle from the city of Detroit itself. That’s Cheeks Kilpatrick’s base, which would explain why the gap is closing if true.

10:59PM: Things are getting tighter in MI-13. With 62% of the vote in, Waters leads Kilpatrick by just 39-36, with Scott far behind at 25. You’d have to believe that this would have been a rout with only one challenger.

10:50PM: Now 43% is in and the race in KS-02 remains remarkably stable – Jenkins still on top with 52-48.

10:35PM: A full third of the vote has been tallied in KS-02, and Lynn Jenkins has widened her lead just a touch, to 52-48. If somehow she holds on through the night, this could be a fairly big upset.

10:27PM (James): With 49% in, it’s now 40-34-26 (Waters-Cheeks Kilpatrick-Scott). In KS-02, with 33% of the vote in, it’s 52-48 Jenkins — a stunning turnaround given her consistently weak performance in all of the polling we’ve seen of this race.

10:12PM: With 21% of the vote in, it’s still 51-49 Jenkins.

9:55PM (James): With 27% counted, it’s now 42-30-28 in MI-13. Over in KS-02, Jenkins is maintaining her 51-49 lead with 10% in.

9:40PM: It’s now 43-34-23 in MI-13 (Waters-Scott-Cheeks Kilpatrick), with 9% of the vote recorded.

9:39PM: With 7% in, Jenkins is holding her 51-49 lead over Ryun.

9:21PM (James): With only 1% of precincts reporting, Lynn Jenkins has a 51-49 edge over Jim Ryun in the KS-02 primary. I’d be stunned if she held onto that lead, though. Kilpatrick continues to lag in third place in MI-13 with 6% in.

9:17PM (James): With just 3% of precincts reporting, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is lagging in third place behind Mary Waters and Martha Scott (respectively) at 46-38-18.