Month: August 2007

From SUSA (likely voters; 08/04 – 08/06; 7/14-7/16 in parens

Steve Beshear (D): 58 (59)
Ernie Fletcher (R-inc.): 37 (36)
MoE: ± 4%

Still a solid lead for Beshear, who currently is mopping the floor with Fletcher in all areas of the state:

In Western KY, Fletcher trails today by 8. In Eastern KY, Fletcher trails by 13. In North Central KY, Fletcher trails by 22. In greater Louisville, Fletcher trails by 34.

But wait, there’s a wrinkle in the poll: it oversamples Republicans, as Mark Hebert and Mark Nikolas (of the newly-resurrected Bluegrass Report) point out:

In the previous 30 Survey USA polls on Fletcher’s job approval, the average percentage of Republicans sampled was just 34.8% — and the previous general election match-up on Survey USA showed 37% Republican respondents. This means that Fletcher was barely able to tread water in this poll despite a 7 to 9 point advantage from oversampling Republicans. Very, very bad news.

I’d be quite surprised if this one didn’t tighten up in the months ahead, given what Mark describes as a utterly stenographic local media willing to carry Fletcher’s message, but that’s not a new challenge for any Democrat to face.

[Crossposted at Blue Hampshire, Daily Kos, MyDD, Open Left]

I just wanted to share my thanks to everyone involved with Yearly Kos in Chicago this past weekend.  It was a great event and an excellent opportunity to meet some of the folks here at Swing State Project (including DavidNYC) for the first time.  We'll be sharing more videos of our campaign events and my thoughts on the issues over the coming months.

 

 

Crossposted from www.eyesontrade.org.

Once, many of the issues we talk about on this blog were discussed mostly among Rust Belt labor unions or in street demonstrations. But tough questions are increasingly being asked in a variety of places, from the ivory tower to the campaign stump… and in both instances, the focus is on a change in the rules of globalization, rather than perpetuating the stale debate about whether “yes” or whether “no” on globalization. Witness Harvard's Dani Rodrik's new paper, articulating what he says is now the “new orthodoxy” on trade:

We can talk of a new conventional wisdom that has begun to emerge within multilateral institutions and among Northern academics. This new orthodoxy emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries and improved governance in the poor countries.

Rodrik goes on to push this new orthodoxy further, articulating what he calls his “policy space” approach, allowing countries to negotiate around opting-in and opting-out more easily of international rules and schemes as their development and domestic needs merit. Citing the controversy around NAFTA's investor-state mechanism and the WTO's challenge of Europe's precautionary approach in consumer affairs, Rodrik poses the following challenge to the orthodoxy:

Globalization is a hot button issue in the advanced countries not just because it hits some people in their pocket book; it is controversial because it raises difficult questions about whether its outcomes are “right” or “fair.” That is why addressing the globalization backlash purely through compensation and income transfers is likely to fall short. Globalization also needs new rules that are more consistent with prevailing conceptions of procedural fairness.

And this focus on a change of rules hit the political arena today, with a major policy speech by former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). See here. Among the important points, that thus far are only being articulated by Edwards among the top candidates:

* For years now, Washington has been passing trade deal after trade deal that works great for multinational corporations, but not for working Americans. For example, NAFTA and the WTO provide unique rights for foreign companies whose profits are allegedly hurt by environmental and health regulations. These foreign companies have used them to demand compensation for laws against toxins, mad cow disease, and gambling – they have even sued the Canadian postal service for being a monopoly. Domestic companies would get laughed out of court if they tried this, but foreign investors can assert these special rights in secretive panels that operate outside our system of laws.

*The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let's be clear about something – this isn't just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.

*NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests – not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

*Today, our trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors. The multinationals get their say, but when one goes to Congress it gets an up or down vote – no amendments are allowed. No wonder that corporations get unique protections, while workers don't benefit. That's wrong.

So, our movement has made real progress when things like Chapter 11, Fast Track and the precautionary principle are even being discussed by politicians and academics in the context of trade policy debates. And hopefully Edwards' raising of these issues will put pressure on the other candidates to follow suit. In the meantime, you can help turn the nice words into action by clicking here.

“A public servant with a record of fiscal discipline, Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Township) today announced he will run for Congress in 2008, pledging to fight outsourcing, help strengthen the economy and resolve the war in Iraq.” It’s official! Days after Joe Knollenberg made the announcement for him, Peters enters the race. It’s no wonder Knollenberg felt the need to attack. Gary has an extensive track record of fighting for progressive issues as a State Senator.

Peters will officially resign from his current position as Michigan’s lottery commissioner on Friday, August 10th. Under Peters, the lottery has come in $13 million under budget while generating record profits. When he was a State Senator, he returned an entire years worth of office expenses back to the state treasury! Gary will bring fiscal responsibility to Congress.

“Knollenberg has allowed the failed Bush agenda to go on while our brave men and women are getting shipped to Iraq and good-paying Michigan jobs are getting outsourced to other countries. -Gary Peters”

Gary gets it. Knollenberg has a terrible record on veteran’s issues, highlighted by the DCCC campaign last July. Peters will fight to protect our soldiers and our jobs. Knollenberg has been a rubber stamp for a failing administration. The choice is clear for 9th district voters.

9th District elected Democrats came out strong in support of Peters. Look at this list of endorsements. Our local leaders are excited to get behind an experienced legislator, who is ready to fight Knollenberg on the campaign trail and represent Oakland County in the People’s House.

The district is ripe for change, and Gary is the candidate to deliver. The Democratic base vote in the 9th district was above 50%. This is a winnable district. Joe Knollenberg is out of touch with 9th district voters on issues such as stem cell research, protecting the middle class, the importance of Social Security, and helping to make college education affordable. Gary Peters will continue his fight for progressive interests?Joe Knollenberg protects Washington special interests.  Let’s send a Lieutenant Commander to Congress to fight for us.

www.PetersForCongress.com

Learn more about Gary at his website, signup to receive email updates, and contribute at ActBlue!

$226,409.87

That’s how much the National Republican Congressional Committee spent in the fall of 2006 to protect Republican incumbent Mark Souder in a district that delivered only 31% of its vote to John Kerry in the last Presidential election.  (The DCCC saved its money for other races.)

In that race, Souder faced off with a Fort Wayne city councilman, Tom Hayhurst, who only had to raise $690K to outspend the incumbent’s war chest of $642K.  Souder eventually went on to win that election, but by a much smaller margin than any Republican has any business winning in the 33rd most Republican congressional district in the nation: 54%-46%.

Souder, who seems set in his sluggish fundraising ways, has found himself with yet another quick-moving Democratic challenger: Michael Montagano.  Montagano, a young (26!) lawyer, outraised Souder by a $106K to $84K margin in the second quarter.  That showing has already inspired comparisons between Souder and another lethargic Republican Indiana of yore: John Hostettler (formerly of the 8th District).  According to Roll Call (subscription required), DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen met with Montagano recently and came away impressed:

Souder’s 3rd district is heavily Republican – it gave President Bush 68 percent of its 2004 presidential vote – but even Republicans privately concede that Souder, who came to Congress in the Republican wave of 1994, had too close of a call last year.

[…]

Democrats think Souder could be 2008’s Hostettler.

“Chairman Van Hollen came away impressed from his meeting with Michael Montagano yesterday and believes this seat could be a potential sleeper race in 2008,” DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer said Friday.

With a PVI of R+16.3, Montagano would be serving the fourth-most Republican district in the nation with Democratic representation if elected.  The top three Democrats in that class?  Chet Edwards of Texas, Jim Matheson of Utah, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.  In other words, if Montagano is to have a shot in a Presidential year, even against a luckluster incumbent, he’s gonna need some mad political skills.  But if Montagano, like Hayhurst before him, could force the NRCC to drop some precious cash to shore up an incumbent in crimson red territory, that will be a victory in and of itself.

I had a whirlwind trip through Chicago for Yearly Kos this past weekend, and it was great to be with people who care about changing our nation's direction — and are willing to work hard to make that happen. I met some truly impressive people from all parts of the country — local and national bloggers, activists, former Clinton administration advisors, motivated citizens — and all of them are rolling their sleeves up for positive change.

One of the sessions I attended was of particular interest to me and other residents of the Texas 10th. It examined the prospects for Democrats in winning Republican-controlled House seats. Stan Greenberg, who ran polling for Bill Clinton, pointed out that Democrats have a solid lead over their Republican opponents, even in traditional GOP-held seats. Furthermore, this trend is likely to become more pronounced over the next year. This confirmed what I've discovered when talking to people in my district, Republicans and Democrats alike: the Bush White House has lost the public trust, and the lockstep support of its agenda by Congressional Republicans is getting us nowhere. People want change, not more of the same.

One of the highlights was the gathering of all the candidates at the Netroots Candidates Celebration on Friday evening. There were at least 20 of us, most of whom are running for US Congress. And seeing their enthusiasm, sincerity, and talents made me proud to be in their company:

http://www.dailykos….

A shot of the candidates that attended the event:

http://illinoisdemne…

It also turns out that bloggers I met at Yearly Kos have remarked on the race for the Texas 10th. Matthew Yglesias of the Atlantic Monthly wrote about it:

http://matthewyglesi…

I am already looking forward to next year's gathering. I'll bet there will be 50 candidates there in the summer of 2008, all of whom will have their Republican opponents quaking. America wants a fresh start, and the people I met in Chicago are just like the ones I meet here in Texas: they're ready to make it happen.

http://www.dangrantf…

Well 7 more districts now have candidates:
CA-52,
GA-09,
MI-09,
OK-05,
TX-26,
VA-11,
WI-05,

But 3 are now back to uncontested:
CA-46, (Brandt is running for the CA Assembly).
FL-21 (Our candidate has quit the party to run as an independent!)
TX-14 (our candidate has switched parties and is running for the GOP!)

Once again go and take a look at the 
2008 Race Tracker Wiki.
Below the fold for all the news.
(cross posted at MyDD, Daily Kos and Open Left)

321 races filled! This of course includes 233 districts held by Democratic Congresscritters.

But we also have 83 GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic opponents.

So here is where we are at (GOP Districts):
Districts with confirmed candidates – 87
Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 3
Districts with rumoured candidates – 29
Districts without any candidates – 83

1) The GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic challengers are as follows:
AL-01,
AL-03,
AL-04,
AK-AL,
AZ-01,
AZ-02,
AZ-03,
AR-03,
CA-04,
CA-24,
CA-26,
CA-40,
CA-41,
CA-42,
CA-44,
CA-48,
CA-50,
CA-52,
CO-04,
CT-04,
FL-01,
FL-08,
FL-09,
FL-10,
FL-13,
FL-15,
FL-24,
GA-09,
ID-01,
IL-10,
IL-14,
IN-03,
IN-04,
IN-06,
IA-04,
IA-05,
LA-01,
MD-01,
MD-06,
MI-07,
MI-09,
MN-06,
MO-06,
MO-09,
MT-AL,
NE-02,
NV-03,
NJ-05,
NJ-07,
NJ-11,
NM-01,
NM-02,
NY-23,
NY-25,
NY-26,
NY-29,
NC-03,
NC-08,
NC-09,
OH-01,
OH-02,
OH-07,
OH-14,
OH-15,
OH-16,
OK-05,
PA-03,
PA-15,
PA-16,
PA-18,
TX-04,
TX-08,
TX-10,
TX-11,
TX-13,
TX-26,
VA-05,
VA-06,
VA-10,
VA-11,
WA-04,
WA-08,
WV-02,
WI-01,
WI-05,
WI-06,
WY-AL,

2) The following 3 GOP held districts have candidates that are expected to run but are yet to confirm:
IL-16,
IL-19,
SC-04,

3) The following 29 GOP held districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!
AL-02,
AZ-06,
CA-03,
CA-45,
DE-AL,
FL-06,
FL-12,
GA-01,
GA-03,
GA-06,
GA-07,
GA-11,
KY-05,
MN-02,
NE-03,
NV-02,
NJ-02,
NJ-03,
NJ-04,
NY-03,
NY-13,
NC-05,
OK-03,
OK-04,
PA-06,
TN-07,
TX-02,
UT-03,
VA-01,

4) And last but not least the following 83 districts have not a single rumoured candidate:
AL-06,
CA-02,
CA-19,
CA-21,
CA-22,
CA-25,
CA-46,
CA-49,
CO-05,
CO-06,
FL-04,
FL-05,
FL-07,
FL-14,
FL-18,
FL-21,
FL-25,
GA-10,
ID-02,
IL-06,
IL-11,
IL-13,
IL-15,
IL-18,
IN-05,
KS-01,
KS-04,
KY-01,
KY-02,
KY-04,
LA-04,
LA-05,
LA-06,
LA-07,
MI-02,
MI-03,
MI-04,
MI-06,
MI-08,
MI-10,
MI-11,
MN-03,
MS-01,
MS-03,
MO-02,
MO-07,
MO-08,
NE-01,
NC-06,
NC-10,
OH-03,
OH-04,
OH-05,
OH-08,
OH-12,
OK-01,
OR-02,
PA-05,
PA-19,
SC-01,
SC-02,
SC-03,
TN-01,
TN-02,
TN-03,
TX-01,
TX-03,
TX-05,
TX-06,
TX-07,
TX-12,
TX-14,
TX-19,
TX-21,
TX-24,
TX-31,
TX-32,
UT-01,
VA-02,
VA-04,
VA-07,
WA-05,

Praise to those states where we already have a full slate of house candidates – Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It is also interesting to note that we have only one race left to fill in Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Thats 18 states with a full slate, and 6 states with one race to fill! That is almost half the states full or nearly full 17 months before election day, an impressive feat indeed!

Please note that in some races others at the racetracker site have confirmed candidates that I haven’t. This is because to satisfy me a confirmed candidate has either filed with the FEC, The Sec of State or has an active campaign website, or even if they come and blog and say yep I am running. Others are not so rigorous.

It is also great to see candidates in CA-42, TX-11, VA-06, and WI-06; 4 of 10 districts we did not contest in 2006!

We are well on track to beat the 425 races we contested in 2006.

*** Tips, rumours and what not in the comments please.***

20 key House recruiting priorities.

On the whole Democrats are doing exceptionally well when it comes to House Challenger recruitment. By my count there are already 45 districts in which well-established challengers could potentially win.   Additionally Democrats have another five districts in which challengers are pretty close to declaring and if such challengers declared would also make these very competitive. This amounts to already 50 potential wins.  While this is very good news, I believe there are at  twenty more districts in which a Democrat could win if a proper challenger would emerge. With any luck we should be looking at 70 Republicans or more than 1/3 of the Republican House Caucus on the Run.  The twenty districts in need of a challenger are on the flip with brief explanations of each. It is also extremely important to remember challenger does not have to mean extremely well funded, well connected party insider or self-funder.  In 2006 we won with many first time , regular people who worked very hard. We need just as many Tim Walz’s, as Nick Lampson's

1.    PA 6
        This is the most surprising of  the districts to currently be without a challenger  in Jim Gerlach entire career in Congress he has never gotten above 52% of the vote. His district is only 1 of 8 remaining districts that voted for Kerry and in sending a Republican to Congress. I have heard in and out many names floated but as of yet have not heard of a declared challenger. I imagine that should not last long but still until it is rectified it is clearly the biggest problem district out there.

2.    IL 6
This district was  waiting on Tammy Duckworth decision of whether to run against Peter Roskam or not, now that the decision has been made. Democrats are in need of a new candidate.  Peter Roskam only got 51% in a district that only gave George Bush  53%. This could well be Obama territory and not having a House Challenger would be shame.
    
3.    DE AL
This district has been held extremely well held by Republican Michael Castle for a relatively long time and will be an extremely difficult get and yet it is the most Democratic district of any held by  a Republican. So far no credible challenger has emerged but if one does Mike Castle can be beat.

4.    IL 18
This newly minted open seat should be of considerable value, while it is a generally tough district giving Bush 58 percent of the vote.  Its Republican Members of Congress have been more moderate than most. We need  a strong candidate in  this race as we should in all under 60 Bush open seats.

5. MN 3
 Jim Ramstad is defiantly a slippery customer who has a tendency to vote correctly on a number of occasions, and yet his district in Minnesota, like  the one now held by Congressman Tim Walz, barely gave the Republican any margin with which to work. Another earnest Minnesotan can and should make this race a real fight.  At the very least a challenge will make Jim Ramstad do the right thing more often.

6.    MI 11
This district seems to be one of utmost importance, it was one of the five
seriously under targeted in 2006.  The criteria are those races in which an incumbent is held to less than 55% while spending less than $ 500,000. The other four all seem to have challengers in place.  This district simply can not be left to go unchallenged.  It also gave George Bush only 53% of the vote. Simply put. We can beat Thaddeus McCotter.
7.    FL 10
 Bill Young  is the type of incumbent who needs pushing into retirement, his district only voted for the President 2004 by an exceptionally small margin and yet he has been re-elected by very large margins over and over. He is however quite old and a strong and declared challenger could make him think twice about running for re-election. Plus given his age, he could lose even if he does run for re-election
8.    NJ 3
    Jim Saxton sometimes talks like a moderate but is many ways a conservative, he was held to under 60% against a very under-funded  challenger in 2006 and represents another just Bush  win with roughly 51%, in 04 but which Gore won by near double-digits.  I heard rumors of state-senator John Adler getting into the race but until I hear more than rumors, we need a candidate.
9.    NY 3
There are only  six New York State Republican House members left and already four have challengers, and three have very serious challengers. There are still sadly two who lack the kind of challenger they need. Peter King’s race is one of them. A very similar district to NJ 3 in that it went slightly for Bush in 04, but near double digits for Gore in 2000. All the other Long-Island district have fallen. A well place challenger should make this one fall as well.
10.    OH 12
The pattern should begin to be emerging, this is a district in which George Bush won by the slightest of margins with an incumbent who receive less than 60% in 2006. It was one of the better funded challenges though our candidate faced other obstancles. Given the still somewhat toxic environment for Republicans in Ohio, along with a Presidential year, Pat Tieberi is clearly vulnerable to the right kind of challenger.
11.    NY 13
    One of only Six Republican from New York, and one of only two without a challenger, this district showed a bigger Bush swing than NY 3, but also went for Gore by a similar amount. Vito Fossella represents Staten Island and Brooklyn. Steve Harrison on an extremely small budget held Vito to only 57% and therefore the right challenger should be able to win. New York could at the end of 2008 have no Republican left in the delegation and hopefully  with CT we can have a Republican free North East from New York to Maine.
12.    VA 2
    It is not the nature of the district but Thelma Drake’s mediocre performance that have landed her on the hot heat, after winning the seat initially in 2004 with only 55% of 3  points behind Bush’s take her 2006 performance of only 51% makes her in serious jeporardy  were a serious challenger to emerge. We need one, if only to help our 2008 VA Senate candidate.
13.    NJ 2
This is another barely won for Bush 2004, Gore much bigger Winner 2000, moderately Republican held districts, the reason it falls lower on the scale than NJ 2 is the Republican Frank LoBiondo holds up better than does Jim Saxton, and is also more politically strewed. Still a strong challenge here and it is a winnable race.
14.    Il 11
It is actually amazing to be that Jerry Weller is not considered more vulnerable given the fun he has with ethics and yet, his 55% win over very capable John Pavich indicated taking him out in a district that gave George Bush 53% will be difficult, but Illinois could be Obama country and the right challenger could have Weller’s number.
15.  OH 3
Mike Turner sits on the type of district that swung well in  2006. It gave George Bush 54% of the vote in Dayton Ohio. It is not an easy sell and yet Mike Turner is not a long time member having only been recently elected in 2002.  He also was held to under 60% against a very late declaring challenger after a debacle with our first candidate. It is the type of district that could swing and therefore should be challeneged.
16.   IL 13
Judy Biggert sits on a moderately Republican districts in generally suburban Illinois The district gave George Bush about 53% of the vote, she has not often been challenged though she did  dip below 60 in the most recent election despite nominally funded opposition.  Seats in Illinois that fit this profile must have viable challengers as a Democratic winning 60% of the vote there in the Presidential is a real possibility[if you doubt, the Dem and Green got 60% against the last Republican to hold statewide office, so 60% is clearly possible]
17.  MI 8
Mike Rogers faced down with 55% a pretty good challenger in 2006 election, and yet the 54% that Bush got in the District in 2004 means it could flip.  It  was these Suburban leaner districts that made for the last 10 of the Democrats House wins, this district and PA 4 seems to have a possible similarities, the point is that there is simply no reason to give up here.
18.  MI 6
Fred Upton usually wins big  but the district is relatively moderate, giving George Bush 53%, it isn’t a high priority but a challenger could win here.  If I had to guess I would say Both Stabenow and Granholm one this district. We need to compete here.
19. FL 18
One of the very few district in which the George Bush percentage dropped versus 2000, FL 18 is the most Democratic of the three Miami area Cuban district,  This district only gave George Bush 54% of the vote and while its Incumbent is well entrenched the right kind of challenger could move this district on the path to becoming Democratic.
20. MI 4
This district is mostly listed for the round number as Bush’s 55 here, along with 61% by Dave Camp in 2006, does not give me much grounds for getting too excited and yet, 55% is not so larger as to give up hope. Dave Camp could be defeated if  a very high quality challenger were to emerge.

In the Senatorial elections of 1984, Senator Walter “Dee” Huddleston of Kentucky was the only incumbent Democrat to lose a Senate seat that year, despite the thrashing that Ronald Reagan delivered to Walter Mondale across the nation.  The upstart politician who upset Huddleston, Jefferson County Judge/Executive Mitch McConnell, employed a series of wildly successful TV ads featuring a group of bloodhounds trying to find the supposedly non-attendant incumbent Senator in Washington.

Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo, himself waging an exploratory campaign against Senate Minority Leader McConnell this year, had the good sense to show up with a pair of bloodhounds at the annual Fancy Farm Picnic in the state this weekend.  “Hunting For A Real U.S. Senator”, indeed.  McConnell himself was at the can't-miss event, of course, supporting embattled and corrupt Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher in his 2007 re-election campaign.  Just another reminder of the hopelessly out-of-touch Senatorial representation that Kentuckians continue to suffer with.

What goes around comes around?

UPDATE: DitchMitchKY’s Matt Gunterman gives his report from the event:

Third, and this was Shawn’s observation at Fancy Farm and I’m highlighting because I think it was a good one: anti-war Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had an impressive organization at Fancy Farm. In fact, the campaign to “Support Our Troops / End the War” was extremely popular at the event. I was amazed to see 60 year old men and women asking 25 year old activists for every pro-end-of-war sticker and sign they could provide. It truly was an amazing sight. I’ve been at Fancy Farms since 1992, and I’ve never witnessed such a motivated and activist crowd. That’s one of the biggest stories to come out of Fancy Farm this year, quite frankly: even in rural Kentucky, the movement to end Bush’s endless and futile war is gaining in momentum. Senator Mitch McConnell was visibly shaken in his speech by the response.

(H/T: kilowat for the photo)

According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, David Nachbar, one of the contenders for the Democratic nomination to take on “Shotgun” Randy Kuhl next year, has withdrawn his candidacy this week.  Nachbar cites workplace demands as the reason for folding his bid, but perhaps he also found that he underestimated the depth and breadth of support for rematch candidate Eric Massa within the 29th district.  For instance, it seems like not a day goes by where Massa's campaign doesn't put out another press release announcing the endorsement of a county or township Democratic committee (see the latest one here).

While Massa got off to a solid start, outraising Kuhl significantly in the second quarter ($158K to $68K) and reporting a higher cash-on-hand total, Nachbar had some deep pockets of his own that he was willing to tap into.  Coupled with New York's September primary, a contested nomination would have been a serious resource drain for the eventual nominee.  New York's 29th will not be one of the easier targets for Democrats in 2008, but Nachbar's termination could help ensure that Massa will make a decent second shot at it.

(H/T: DailyKos diarist ipsos)