Month: September 2007

Politico has it right here

So, now that we're likely to knock out Sununu, is it time to concentrate on the last Republican member of congress in the state (Gregg)?

Happy Rosh Hashanah, all.  Sorry for the slowdown here at SSP this week.  I’ve taken an internship gig in NYC (more details later), and I’ve just landed in town.  We’ll be back up to our usual pace shortly.

Looking into the 2008 senate elections, we've been given a good look at what everyone here thinks on the details and the general picture of the 2008 elections. Now it's time to look at a bunch of 2008 senate rankings from various groups.

CQ Politics ranks two Democratics seats as “leans Democratic” (Landrieu and Johnson) and four as being “Democrat favored” (Baucus, Harkin, Lautenberg, and Pryor) everyone else is considered “safe Democratic”.

The Republicans, on the other hand, start off with one seat being listed as “leans Democratic” (Open Virginia), two as “no clear favorite” (Open Colorado and Coleman), four as “leans Republican” (Open Nebraska, Collins, Smith, Sununu), and ten as being “Republican favored” (Stevens, Chambliss, Sessions, McConnell, Dole, Domenici, Inhofe, Graham, Alexander, and Cornyn). The rest are considered safe.

Cook ranks one Democrat as being a “leans Democratic” (Landrieu) and one as being “likely Democratic” (Johnson – Poss. Ret.) while everyone else is considered “safe”.

For the Republicans, he lists two seats as being “Toss-up” (Colorado and Virginia open seats), four as being “leans Republican” (Collins, open Nebraska, Coleman, and Sununu), and five as being “likely Republican” (Stevens – poss. ret., Domenici – poss. ret., Craig, Smith, and Dole), the rest are considered “safe” with Inhofe and Cochran considered as possible retirements.

Rothenberg considers three Republicans (Sununu and open seats for Virginia and Colorado) to be “toss-ups”; three Republicans (Coleman, Collins, and Smith) and one Democrat (Landrieu) to be “narrow advantage incumbent party”; five Republicans (Dole, Domenici, Open Nebraska, McConnell, and Stevens) and one Democrat (Johnson) to be “clear advantage incumbent party”; and everyone else is considered to be safe. *note, Rothenberg has only officially updated 'til Hagel's announced retirement

Also, Larry Sabato has his own senate predictions in addition to House and Governor's races with some analysis of the states if you care to read them.

I want to say that I personally don't agree with Cook's assessment that Sununu can be considered a “leans Republican”. Even if Shaheen doesn't jump in, this race is, at best, a toss-up and a lean-Democratic if she does jump in. That's just me though, what do you guys think?

(Cross-posted from My Left Nutmeg.)

Don’t know what else you can say about this:

In a sign that moderate Republicans are failing to rethink their positions on a serious scale, centrist Republican Rep. Christopher Shays (CT), speaking on the C-SPAN call-in show Washington Journal on Wednesday, argued ironically that as bad as it is going, the war in Iraq must go on because leaving would hand the country over to foreign intervention. One result, Shays opined, is that “Iraq … has about 20% of the world’s oil. It’s a huge amount to allow an unfriendly country to control.”

Of all the contradictory justifications for the war that Chris Shays has pulled out of his inner anatomy – first for going in, and then for staying in – this one is either the most honest or the most reprehensible. Or, most likely, both. More at Crooks and Liars.

Jim Himes for Congress:
Contribute | Volunteer

The DSCC just hit the mother lode.

Join him.

Survey USA’s poll showing Nikki Tsiongas only leading Jim Ogonowski 51-41%, has given me (and should give Democrats) some pause.

And frankly, the Democrats have underperformed in
special elections this year.  In GA-10, the runoff was between two Republicans.  We lost a seat in the NY state assembly.  Additionally, the
Dallas mayor’s race was a terrible result.

If this seat goes Republican, especially to a candidate who says we should be in Iraq indefinitely, this may be a bad omen for holding on to the House next year.

Given that the GOP has their strongest possible
candidate with 9/11 connections (his brother piloted one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center), is this a race to worry about?  Comments appreciated, especially those with some local knowledge.

So, Politico is saying that Mark Warner is indeed going to be running.

In an ABQJournal opinion piece by Michael Coleman, Sen. Pete Domenici is compared to someone he would rather have no connection to — Sen. Larry Craig from Idaho.

Craig, as you may know, is the Idaho Republican arrested on June 11 by an airport police officer and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Craig, according to police, used “a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct” while in a men’s airport bathroom according to the police report. You can read the full police report here. Craig has since said he would like to rescind his guilty plea.

Crossposted at New Mexico FBIHOP

So what does Craig have to do with Domenici?  Coleman lists how they are politically similar; both conservative Republicans.  Both supported the “dangerous and irresponsible” Yucca Mountain bill.  And both are supporters of President Bush.  Oh yeah, and “they’ve each hired a defense attorney to help absolve them of separate problems with the Senate Ethics Committee.”

This is a comparison Domenici — and any politician — will do anything to avoid.  He did himself no favors among the Republican base when he urged restraint in late August and asked Republican lawmakers to not rush to kick Craig out of the Senate.

“We cannot rush to judgment here,” Domenici said in a statement provided to the Journal. “The action being taken by the Senate Republican leadership is a good first step toward getting the facts. It’s important that we allow the legal process to run its course and the Senate Ethics Committee to conduct a thorough and fair investigation.”

Of course, the legal process did run its course; Craig pleaded guilty to the offense.  It is no surprise Domenici wants to drawn-out Senate Ethics Committee process to run its course as well — Domenici is under preliminary investigation by that same committee for his improper (though improper in a much different way than Craig’s actions) phone calls to David Iglesias.

This was bad timing for Domenici.

A day later, CNN and other news outlets released a tape of Craig’s interrogation by police after his arrest. In an effort to distance himself from Craig, his guilty plea and that squirmingly uncomfortable interrogation tape, Domenici- who is up for re-election- quickly announced that he would shed $2,500 in campaign cash given to him by Craig’s political action committee.

Oops.

Even more troublesome for Domenici, when the various Republican scandals are listed (you can see a selection of them here), Domenici’s name is in the same list as Craig and Ted Stevens.  Not exactly a distinguished list.

(From the diaries – promoted by Trent Thompson)

It is with great pleasure that I am able to announce the next Blue Majority endorsed candidate: Dan Maffei, from New York’s 25th Congressional District.

I am particularly excited about this endorsement for several reasons. First, I am from the district, and ever since Jim Walsh originally won the seat by a few hundred votes back when I was a freshman in high school, I have been itching for someone to defeat him. Second, Dan Maffei epitomizes one of my longest-running arguments about the need to run in every district. In 2004, no Democrat ran against Walsh, but in 2006 Dan came within 1% of defeating him. Third, having met Dan Maffei, I can honestly say that there is no member of Congress, or candidate for Congress, with whom I was more personally impressed and within whom I felt more personally comfortable (there are two or three who I feel roughly the same about). When we talked for over two hours over coffee and pizza, it felt like every idea we exchanged about strategy, policy, and life really clicked (like me, he went to local public schools, and hasn’t exactly made a fortune working in progressive politics). Dan is a serious, brilliant progressive, who absolutely means more and better Democrats. Please, contribute to Dan today.


Here is a video Dan put together to introduce himself and the district to the readers of Dailykos, MyDD, Open Left and Swing State Project a few days ago:

Now, some of you might ask something to the effect of “wait-he is running against Jim Walsh, the Republican who just said he was now opposed to the Iraq War? Isn’t that the sort of Republican behavior we should be encouraging, rather than immediately punishing with a major counter-endorsement?” If you are asking this question, I am glad you did, because even though the Maffei endorsement was decided upon several days before Walsh’s announcement, since that time it has revealed the true danger Democrats face in offering up weak, meaningless, “compromise” bills on Iraq. The NY-25 is the first case study of how Democratic weakness in the House on Iraq can allow Republican to potentially blur the difference between the two parties on Iraq, and thus wipe out virtually our entire advantage heading into the 2008 elections.


Here is the situation. Over the past nine months, Jim Walsh has said he was in favor of withdrawal, and then voted a timeline that would actually mandate withdrawal. Even in discussions with local media yesterday, and in calls I made to his staff, he refused to come out in favor of a timetable. Walsh has said that he is in favor of oversight on Iraq, and then voted against oversight. He said he was opposed to the escalation, and then refused to vote against the escalation. In May, he said he was opposed to a blank check for Bush on Iraq, and then voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq in the capitulation bill. Everything Walsh is saying now, he ha already said before. The key difference is not hat Walsh has changed his opinion, but that Democats in Congress are changing the legislation they are trying to pass through Congress.

Back in the spring, House Democrats forced votes on stiffer legislation that required real oversight and mandated withdrawal. It only received two votes form Republicans, because the many so-called moderate Republicans who are supposedly against Bush’s policy in Iraq are not willing to pass binding legislation opposing Bush’s policy in Iraq. They are, however, willing to pass meaningless legislation that suggests Bush should change course, but does not actually require him to do so. For example, Walsh is a co-sponsor of the Kirk-Lipinski bill that does not mandate any troop withdrawal whatsoever, but sets it as a “goal.” Compromise bills of this sort are in abundance nowadays, and I imagine Walsh will vote for all of them. However, if a bill comes up that actually mandates troops withdrawal, there is still no indication that he would vote for such a bill. Given everything he has said on the matter, I bet he won’t vote for mandated troop withdrawal.

This is the crux of the problem progressives face in the 2008 elections. Bad, Bush Dog Democrats are coming up with cover your ass legislation that won’t do anything to drawdown our military involvement in Iraq. Instead, the actual impact of these bills will be to allow Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike to appear as though they oppose Bush’s policies, and thus strengthen all of their hands for re-election. In short, weak Iraq legislation in Congress will help empower Bush Dogs, and help prevent progressives like Maffei from taking over Republican seats. This is the exact opposite of the more and better Democrats refrain that has been traveling around the blogosphere. Weak Iraq legislation will allow Republicans like Walsh to blur their differences on Iraq all over the country, and the result will be fewer, and worse Democrats.


In the first major case study of this kind for the 2008 elections, we can’t let this stand. Supporting Dan Maffei means opposing weak, toothless Iraq legislation in Congress. It means taking a stand against a self-defeating Democratic strategy that will not only do nothing to drawdown the Iraq war, but will also go a long way toward wiping out any chance of a second Democratic wave election. It means supporting more and better Democrats, instead of reverting to the pro-war, minority status Democratic Party of 2002-2003.


Contribute to Dan Maffei on Blue Majority. Fight Bush dogs and Republican blurring alike. This lean-Kerry district is going to be a very big race down the road, and a place where a true progressive like Maffei can hold a seat for a long time to come.

Whoa. The latest poll from SurveyUSA on the GOP presidential primary race in California shows Giulani’s lead having shrunk from 20% last month to just 2% a mere 5 days after Fred Thompson’s announcement on Jay Leno. If Thompson can pick off California, we could be moving a lot closer to a deadlocked GOP convention.

Obviously, this is just one poll, and it could be an outlier. All of us regular SSP readers know better than to jump to conclusions just yet. But to go from a 20% lead to a 2% lead with a 4.4% MOE strongly suggests something big could be going on here.

Crosstab analysis below the flip.

Thompson leads by 4% with men, but trails 12% with women. The partisan breakdown by gender is huge here: 63% of the likely GOP primary voters were men. Thompson remained completely flat with women since last month, while Romney gained 8% among women.

Among conservatives (58%), Thompson beats Giuliani 31% to 22% (with McCain and Romney trailing at 17% and 16% respectively). Moderates (33%) strongly go for Giuliani (40%). Thompson gains 8% with conservatives.

Blacks (3%) preferred Thompson to Giuliani 35% to 23%. Thompson gains 20% here, more than double his previous numbers.

Thompson leads by 1% among a crucial GOP voter segment, complete idiots people who think Global Warming is made-up, whereas more sensible GOP voters (relatively speaking here) prefer Giuliani by 5%.

76% of likely GOP voters oppose gay marriage, and they prefer Thompson by 1%

Gun owners prefer Thompson by 2%, the gunless go for Rudy by 7%.

Young voters prefer Rudy, and increasing agge correlates with increasing preference for Thompson.

Here’s a really odd one. Giuliani leads among Bush voters (85%) by 2%. Thompson leads among Kerry voters (7%) by 3%. However, those who think Bush is one of the Greatest American Presidents (26%) prefer Thompson by 2%, and those who think he is one of the worst (18%) prefer Giuliani by 6%.

So, why do we care? If Thompson wins CA and the South, and Romney wins the Mountain West, eastern New England, and gives a strong showing in the Midwest (winning IA, MI, and perhaps some of the Great Plains states), and Giuliani does his thing in the Mid-Atlantic, Illinois, and Swing States like FL, MO, OH, and CO, then we could be headed for a deadlocked contest that goes to the convention for a resolution. This would force the GOP candidates to spend money on the primaries rather than saving for the General election. It would also increase the chances of the GOP’s weakest candidate, Mitt Romney, getting nominated and then crushed by the Democratic nominee in the general.