Month: October 2007

Time to add another incumbent to the big board of House retirements.  This edition: immigration crusader Tom Tancredo:

Rep. Tom Tancredo plans to leave the U.S. House of Representatives at the end of 2008, whether his longshot presidential bid is successful or not, the Rocky Mountain News reported.

“It’s the fact that I really believe I have done all I can do in the House, especially about the issue about which I care greatly (immigration),” Tancredo, 61, told the newspaper Sunday night.

This is an especially tough district for Democrats: with a PVI of R+10, it voted for Bush over Kerry by a 60-39 margin in 2004.  Still, stranger things have happened.  In 2006, the race for Colorado’s 5th district, a highly conservative area with a PVI of R+15.7 (66/33 Bush/Kerry) became a contentious race when the Club For Growth dragged unpopular state Rep. Doug Lamborn across the finish line to win a nasty Republican primary.  While that race ultimately wasn’t that close (Lamborn won with 59%), Democrat Jay Fawcett performed eight points higher than Kerry’s level.

In short: in order to have an outside chance here, Democrats should be hoping that the GOP nominates an especially ugly fundy wingnut here after a brutal primary.  On second thought, I don’t see how you can get much more wingnutty than Tancredo, so maybe all this is moot…

Race Tracker: CO-06

I try not to put “breaking” in subject titles, because it looks so silly a few hours after you post one…

Diana Irey, the corrupt harpy who tried it last time, is busy keeping her snout in the smaller trough of her local office, so she’s not going to run against Congressman John Murtha again in 2008.

John Russell, 45, a hawk on the war, is moving into the district to run on the Republican ticket. Of course that’s legal, but local voters seldom like it.

http://www.centredai…

Doesn’t appear to be a very dangerous threat, at first blush. And it appears to me that the only constituency that he would appeal to (rabid fans of the war) are already going to vote against the incumbent, so he adds nothing, absolutely nothing, to GOP chances in a district that has returned John Murtha to Congress fifteen times. If Giuliani is the Republican candidate, he might lend teeny-tiny coattails to this guy, but not enough to imperil the seat.

It’s perfectly legal to run for US House in a district where you don’t have deep roots or local connections, but the voters seldom like it.

Also posted on my blog, Calitics, Democracy for California, and DU.

Many in the California Democratic Party circles may not know this, but in 2008 there is a real possibility of gaining 2/3 majorities in the State Senate and State Assembly. The fact that a two-thirds vote in both houses is required to pass the annual budget and to override gubernatorial vetoes could serve as a compelling reason to vote against the term-limits initiative.

Using my extraordinary math, statistics, and HTML skills, below I included with each list of incumbents are the margins that each district voted in the 2002 Governor’s race (2002G: Davis vs. Simon), 2004 Presidential race (2004P: Kerry vs. Bush), 2004 Senate race (2004S: Boxer vs. Jones), and 2006 Senate race (2006S: Feinstein vs. Mountjoy) and the average of these and the registration margins, which I will call the Partisan Factor (PF).

Check out the discussion here.

Numbers are below the flip:

ASSEMBLY

23 Assemblymembers are term-limited in 2008, 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Here are the districts which will be open, the term-limited incumbent (for reference) and the registration statistics.

Republican-Held Seats (12)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin
2	Doug La Malfa	31.76%	47.44%	R+15.68
3	Rick Keene	33.41%	41.75%	R+8.34
10	Alan Nakanishi	37.80%	41.83%	R+3.97
15	Guy Houston	38.26%	39.51%	R+1.25
26	Greg Aghazarian	40.84%	41.99%	R+1.15
34	Bill Maze	32.89%	46.88%	R+13.99
36	Sharon Runner	36.16%	42.77%	R+6.61
64	John Benoit	33.49%	45.45%	R+7.94
71	Todd Spitzer	26.55%	52.07%	R+25.52
75	George Plescia	28.73%	43.15%	R+14.42
78	Shirley Horton	40.92%	33.99%	D+6.93
80	Bonnie Garcia	45.59%	36.97%	D+8.62

District	2002G	2004P	2004S	2006S	PF
2	R+30.0	R+34.1	R+23.7	R+16.7	R+24.0
3	R+31.5	R+14.7	R+7.3	R+0.2	R+12.4
10	R+16.6	R+14.0	R+0.7	D+6.2	R+5.8
15	R+4.5	D+0.1	D+7.8	D+22.3	D+4.9
26	R+5.7	R+15.6	D+1.0	D+6.3	R+3.0
34	R+26.1	R+33.6	R+20.9	R+12.6	R+21.4
36	R+26.0	R+21.9	R+5.7	D+5.4	R+11.0
64	R+15.3	R+16.6	R+1.6	D+0.7	R+8.1
71	R+33.6	R+30.2	R+19.4	R+14.4	R+24.6
75	R+19.8	R+12.7	R+0.2	D+5.6	R+8.3
78	D+2.4	D+3.2	D+20.4	D+24.2	D+11.4
80	D+8.6	D+5.2	D+19.3	D+22.4	D+12.8

Democratic-Held Seats (11)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin
1	Patty Berg	44.52%	28.05%	D+16.27
8	Lois Wolk	45.52%	29.51%	D+16.01
13	Mark Leno	56.22%	9.31%	D+46.91
14	Loni Hancock	58.70%	15.04%	D+43.66
19	Gene Mullin	50.05%	22.57%	D+27.48
22	Sally Lieber	43.40%	24.25%	D+19.15
27	John Laird	48.12%	26.40%	D+21.68
30	Nicole Parra	46.45%	38.70%	D+7.75
40	Lloyd Levine	47.78%	28.12%	D+19.66
46	Fabian Núñez	63.37%	12.78%	D+50.59
52	Mervyn Dymally	67.90%	13.00%	D+54.90

District	2002G	2004P	2004S	2006S	PF
1	D+10.3	D+22.4	D+26.5	D+32.5	D+21.6
8	D+8.8	D+12.5	D+22.8	D+28.8	D+17.8
13	D+53.3	D+72.2	D+73.5	D+72.9	D+63.8
14	D+43.9	D+62.8	D+61.7	D+65.6	D+55.5
19	D+28.4	D+39.8	D+44.8	D+54.4	D+39.0
22	D+26.4	D+36.1	D+40.7	D+48.5	D+34.2
27	D+20.4	D+35.0	D+36.0	D+43.8	D+31.4
30	R+2.6	R+14.7	D+3.8	D+12.9	D+1.4
40	D+11.6	D+21.9	D+35.3	D+33.7	D+24.3
46	D+60.8	D+62.7	D+72.3	D+72.3	D+63.7
52	D+70.0	D+73.5	D+79.4	D+79.9	D+71.5

SENATE

10 Senators are term-limited in 2008, 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

*Maldonado is not term-limited but may be vulnerable in his increasingly Democratic district.

Republican-Held Seats (5)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin
15	Abel Maldonado*	39.69%	37.14%	D+2.55
19	Tom McClintock	36.23%	40.36%	R+4.13
29	Bob Margett	32.14%	44.68%	R+12.54
33	Dick Ackerman	26.94%	50.75%	R+23.81
37	Jim Battin	34.57%	45.26%	R+10.69

District	2002G	2004P	2004S	2006S	PF
15	R+2.4	D+6.4	D+11.3	D+20.6	D+7.7
19	R+7.0	R+2.0	D+7.6	D+10.6	D+1.0
29	R+19.9	R+15.2	R+1.7	R+2.2	R+10.3
33	R+31.4	R+27.2	R+14.9	R+11.6	R+21.8
37	R+13.4	R+16.6	R+0.9	D+2.2	R+7.9

Democratic-Held Seats (6)

District	Incumbent	DEM	GOP	Margin
5	Michael Machado	45.98%	32.41%	D+13.57
7	Tom Torlakson	46.81%	30.66%	D+16.15
9	Don Perata	58.98%	13.53%	D+45.45
21	Jack Scott	45.65%	28.56%	D+17.09
23	Sheila Kuehl	50.07%	25.26%	D+24.81
25	Edward Vincent	58.87%	20.97%	D+37.90

District	2002G	2004P	2004S	2006S	PF
5	D+7.7	D+8.4	D+22.2	D+27.6	D+15.9
7	D+14.5	D+22.8	D+27.2	D+39.6	D+24.1
9	D+48.2	D+63.6	D+64.5	D+66.6	D+57.7
21	D+15.0	D+27.8	D+35.9	D+37.0	D+26.6
23	D+22.6	D+31.1	D+40.8	D+45.9	D+33.0
25	D+38.7	D+45.7	D+52.9	D+53.6	D+45.8

Now here is a list of the districts with the most competitive PF’s, ranked from highest to lowest priority.

Assembly

District	PF
80	D+12.8
78	D+11.4
15	D+4.9
30	D+1.4
26	R+3.0
10	R+5.8
64	R+8.1
75	R+8.3

Senate

District	PF
15	D+7.7
19	D+1.0

Overall, we should target Assembly Districts 10, 15, 26, 64, 75, 78, and 80 while defending District 30, and target Senate Districts 15 and 19. If we manage to win both Senate seats, we will have 27 Senate seats, enough for a 2/3 majority. If we win the most competitive Assembly districts (10, 15, 26, 78, 80) we will have 53, just one short of 2/3. We would have to win at least one of the lesser competitive districts (64, 75) to reach 2/3 there. We will also have to defend AD-30, which may not be hard if we find a candidate less divisive than Parra.

With 2/3 in both houses, we can finally pass decent budgets without significant bickering and with sufficient funding for things like mental health facilities and public transit including high-speed rail.

Well 4 more districts now have candidates:
FL-12 – R+5,
MI-02 – R+9,
MI-11 – R+1.2,
TX-32 – R+11,
Once again go and take a look at the 
2008 Race Tracker Wiki.
***I have included Cook PVI numbers where possible after blogger requests to do so!***

Below the fold for all the news……

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

But we also have 118 GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic opponents.

So here is where we are at (GOP Districts):
Districts with confirmed candidates – 118
Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 1
Districts with rumoured candidates – 24
Districts without any candidates – 59

1) The GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic challengers are as follows:
AL-01 – R+12,
AL-03 – R+4,
AL-04 – R+16,
AK-AL – R+14,
AZ-01 – R+2,
AZ-02 – R+9,
AZ-03 – R+6,
AZ-06 – R+12,
AR-03 – R+11,
CA-03 – R+7,
CA-04 – R+11,
CA-21 – R+13,
CA-24 – R+5,
CA-26 – R+4,
CA-40 – R+8,
CA-41 – R+9,
CA-42 – R+10,
CA-44 – R+6,
CA-45 – R+3,
CA-48 – R+8,
CA-50 – R+5,
CA-52 – R+9,
CO-04 – R+9,
CT-04 – D+5,
DE-AL – D+7,
FL-01 – R+19,
FL-05 – R+5,
FL-08 – R+3,
FL-09 – R+4,
FL-10 – D+1,
FL-12 – R+5,
FL-13 – R+4,
FL-14 – R+10,
FL-15 – R+4,
FL-24 – R+3,
GA-01 – R+?,
GA-09 – R+?,
GA-10 – R+?,
ID-01 – R+19,
IL-06 – R+2.9,
IL-10 – D+4,
IL-11 – R+1.1,
IL-13 – R+5,
IL-14 – R+5,
IL-16 – R+4,
IL-18 – R+5.5,
IL-19 – R+8,
IN-03 – R+16,
IN-04 – R+17,
IN-06 – R+11,
IA-04 – D+0,
IA-05 – R+8,
KS-04 – R+12,
KY-04 – R+11.7,
LA-01 – R+18,
MD-01 – R+10,
MD-06 – R+13,
MI-02 – R+9,
MI-07 – R+2,
MI-09 – R+0,
MI-11 – R+1.2,
MN-02 – R+2.7,
MN-03 – R+0.5,
MN-06 – R+5,
MO-06 – R+5,
MO-09 – R+7,
MT-AL – R+11,
NV-03 – D+1,
NJ-03 – D+3.3,
NJ-04 – R+0.9,
NJ-05 – R+4,
NJ-07 – R+1,
NJ-11 – R+6,
NM-01 – D+2,
NM-02 – R+6,
NY-13 – D+1,
NY-23 – R+0.2,
NY-25 – D+3,
NY-26 – R+3,
NY-29 – R+5,
NC-03 – R+15,
NC-05 – R+15,
NC-06 – R+17,
NC-08 – R+3,
NC-09 – R+12,
NC-10 – R+15,
OH-01 – R+1,
OH-02 – R+13,
OH-05 – R+10,
OH-07 – R+6,
OH-14 – R+2,
OH-15 – R+1,
OH-16 – R+4,
OK-05 – R+12,
PA-03 – R+2,
PA-09 – R+15,
PA-15 – D+2,
PA-16 – R+11,
PA-18 – R+2,
TX-04 – R+17,
TX-08 – R+20,
TX-10 – R+13,
TX-13 – R+18,
TX-26 – R+12,
TX-31 – R+15,
TX-32 – R+11,
VA-01 – R+9,
VA-05 – R+6,
VA-06 – R+11,
VA-10 – R+5,
VA-11 – R+1,
WA-04 – R+13,
WA-08 – D+2,
WV-02 – R+5,
WI-01 – R+2,
WI-05 – R+12,
WI-06 – R+5,
WY-AL – R+19,

2) The following GOP held district has a candidate that is expected to run but is yet to confirm:
SC-04 – R+15,

3) The following GOP held districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!
AL-02 – R+13,
FL-06 – R+8,
FL-21 – R+6,
GA-03 – R+?,
GA-06 – R+?,
GA-07 – R+?,
GA-11 – R+?,
ID-02 – R+19,
KY-05 – R+8,
MS-03 – R+14,
NE-02 – R+9,
NE-03 – R+23.6,
NV-02 – R+8.2,
NJ-02 – D+4.0,
NY-03 – D+2.1,
OH-12 – R+0.7,
OK-03 – R+18,
OK-04 – R+13,
PA-06 – D+2.2,
TN-07 – R+12,
TX-02 – R+12,
TX-11 – R+25,
TX-24 – R+15,
UT-03 – R+22,

4) And last but not least the following districts have not a single rumoured candidate:
AL-06 – R+25,
CA-02 – R+13,
CA-19 – R+10,
CA-22 – R+16,
CA-25 – R+7,
CA-46 – R+6,
CA-49 – R+10,
CO-05 – R+15.7,
CO-06 – R+10,
FL-04 – R+16,
FL-07 – R+3,
FL-18 – R+4,
FL-25 – R+4,
IL-15 – R+6,
IN-05 – R+20,
KS-01 – R+20,
KY-01 – R+10,
KY-02 – R+12.9,
LA-04 – R+7,
LA-05 – R+10,
LA-06 – R+7,
LA-07 – R+7,
MI-03 – R+9,
MI-04 – R+3,
MI-06 – R+2.3,
MI-08 – R+1.9,
MI-10 – R+4,
MS-01 – R+10,
MO-02 – R+9,
MO-07 – R+14,
MO-08 – R+11,
NE-01 – R+11,
OH-03 – R+3,
OH-04 – R+14,
OH-08 – R+12,
OK-01 – R+13,
OR-02 – R+11,
PA-05 – R+10,
PA-19 – R+12,
SC-01 – R+10,
SC-02 – R+9,
SC-03 – R+14,
TN-01 – R+14,
TN-02 – R+11,
TN-03 – R+8,
TX-01 – R+17,
TX-03 – R+17,
TX-05 – R+16,
TX-06 – R+15,
TX-07 – R+16,
TX-12 – R+14,
TX-14 – R+14,
TX-19 – R+25,
TX-21 – R+13,
UT-01 – R+26,
VA-02 – R+5.9,
VA-04 – R+5,
VA-07 – R+11,
WA-05 – R+7.1,

Praise to those states where we already have a full slate of house candidates – Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, 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 Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington. Thats 22 states with a full slate, and 9 states with one race to fill! That is more than half the states with a full or nearly full slate of candidates 13 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 AZ-06, CA-42, FL-12, VA-06, and WI-06; 5 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.***

Reasearch 2000 for the Lexington Herald Leader (PDF), taken Oct. 22-24 (likely voters, no trendlines):

Chandler (D): 41
McConnell (R-inc.): 46
Undecided: 13

Stumbo (D): 37
McConnell (R-inc.): 46
Undecided: 17

Luallen (D): 40
McConnell (R-inc.): 45
Undecided: 15

Horne (D): 34
McConnell (R-inc.): 45
Undecided: 21
(MoE: ±4%)

They say you can’t tell the players without a program. So:

• Ben Chandler currently represents Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District. He lost a gubernatorial race to Gov. Ernie Fletcher in 2003, but held statewide office for many years prior.
• Crit Luallen is Kentucky’s State Auditor. She is seeking re-election to that post this year. The same poll discussed in this post also shows Luallen with a commanding 55-33 lead in the auditor’s race.
• Greg Stumbo is the outgoing state Attorney General. He is probably best known for bringing charges against Fletcher over the latter’s corrupt state hiring practices. Stumbo ran for the Dem Lt. Gov. nod earlier this year on a ticket with Bruce Lunsford, but the pair lost to Steve Beshear and Daniel Mongiardo.
• Andrew Horne is a Marine who lost a primary last year to John Yarmuth in KY-03. (Yarmuth of course went on to defeat GOP Rep. Anne Northup in one of the bigger upsets of 2006.)

The most interesting thing here is not just that McConnell is held under 50% by all comers, but by the fact that he gets the same score no matter who he goes up against. Horne only has 45% name rec (which actually strikes me as high), and yet he still keeps McConnell at 45%.

This undoubtedly has a lot to do with McConnell’s weak favorability rating – just 47-46, with 25% saying their opinion is “very” unfavorable. This is in line with SUSA’s numbers (49-46). I’ll note that McConnell’s internal polling (apparently provided to the newspaper in this accompanying article) has him at 55-32, but when set against the Herald-Leader and SUSA numbers, this survey is an outlier.

The favorability numbers for McConnell’s potential challengers:

Chandler: 57-31
Luallen: 56-21
Stumbo: 49-38
Horne: 36-9

Chandler has said he won’t run, but he hasn’t issued any Shermanesque statements. Luallen is obviously waiting until after the upcoming elections. Stumbo and Horne are both in exploratory modes. No matter who our nominee ultimately is, Mitch McConnell is looking awfully weak for a Republican party leader sitting in a red state. This could definitely be a pick-up opportunity if we see another wave election.

Let’s do a little exercise in “compare and contrast” between reality and the nonsense that Bob Latta and Steve Buehrer are peddling here in their primary race to replace Paul Gillmor in Ohio District 5. Both have filed claim and counter claim that the THEY are really the most reactionary wingnut running. (Boy, now THERE is a dubious distinction!)

There was a brilliant episode of the “West Wing” where an inside the Beltway political consultant convinces the Bartlett staff that they should support a flag burning amendment because some poll showed that a large majority of voters are “in favor” of it.

But Marilee Matlin played another consultant who pointed out that although a majority of voters might say “yes” to such an amendment, they attach VERY little importance to it. (Which happens to be true.)

Basically, the “Bob and Steve Show” is engaging in blatant hucksterism and demagoguery by ONLY focusing on “issues” that gain the support of their most rabid base while absolutely NOT addressing the issues that actually matter to Americans.

The evil, mean-spirited, mudslinging going on between these two, is just pathetic. While they babble on about school prayer, the “defense of marriage,” and flag burning, they have nothing so say about the REAL issues facing our nation.

Let’s take a look at the most recent  Rassmussen Report on what issues are most important to voters and, more importantly who they trust the most on those issues.

Flag burning Bob? School prayer Steve? Sorry. Complete nonstarters. Here are the top issues to American voters ranked by how important they are to the voter.

And, who do Americans trust the most on those issues? More bad news for Bob and Steve.

The garbage that these charlatans are peddling will enable them to eek out a narrow victory for one or the other in a GOP primary, but they are just painting themselves into a corner for the general election.

Ever since Cheney and Rove were able to wrest control of our Nation via first the Supreme Court in 2000 and then 218,000 “values voters” in Ohio in 2004, the reactionary right has come to rely more and more on these provocative but ultimately meaningless “wedge” issues.

And now, they are increasingly on the losing side of both the wedge issues and the real issues. But when it comes to the most important issue facing our country, all of a sudden Latta and Buehrer run out of anything to say. According to an article in today’s Toledo Blade:

“Both GOP candidates prefaced their football analogies by admitting they lack a full understanding of the situation, saying that congressmen ought to rely on recommendations from a military hierarchy that ultimately reports to the Oval Office.”

And then Latta resorts to that most favorite neo-con subterfuge– blame it on the media.

“Mr. Latta said adhering to the wisdom of generals is better than setting military policy based on public opinion polls. A CBS News poll two weeks ago found that 67 percent of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war.

Mr. Latta blames the media for the war’s unpopularity. “

Gee guys, you don’t think that it could it be the thousands of American soldiers killed? Could it be that the American people have come to grasp that there was never any WMDs? Could it be the TRILLIONS of their tax dollars going to waste at a time when we face huge natural disasters at home?

So while Latta and Buehrer play their stupid game of trying to see who can scare away the greatest number of GOP primary voters, the rest of us have to deal with the horrors of the real world.

(crossposted at BlueGrassRoots)

A poll out today from the Herald-Leader makes it clear:

Kentuckians don’t like Mitch McConnell, and he is VULNERABLE in 2008.

Just as the last two Survey USA polls have shown, Kentuckians are starting to sour on their Senior Senator. Mitch McConnell’s approval rating has fallen to 45%, while his disapproval rating has risen to 46%, the first time that any poll has shown his disapprovals eclipsing approvals.

Additionally, McConnell continues to lose support from moderates in big numbers, as only 33% approve and 61% disapprove.  His numbers among Independents aren’t much better, at 37/53%.

The LHL poll also shows potential Democrats well within firing range of McConnell in next year’s Senate race. Chandler, Stumbo, Horne and Luallen are all within 5 to 11% in a potential matchup against the incumbent McConnell in 2008.

The most impressive numbers among these potential challengers is that of Lt. Col. Andrew Horne. Despite the fact that Horne has low name recognition at the moment, with 55% having no opinion of him, he is still within distance of McConnell, down 45% to 34%. In comparison, the % of those having no opinion of Chandler, Stumbo and Luallen, are only 12, 13 and 23%, respectively. If Horne runs and wins the nomination, his name recognition would skyrocket, closing the gap with McConnell considerably (especially considering that Horne’s approval/disapproval among those who know him is at 36/9%). From Del Ali, the president of the company who conducted the poll:

“Here’s a guy that half the electorate really doesn’t know but yet when you put him against an incumbent whom nearly everyone knows, he’s in the race,” said Ali, the pollster. “It tells me the voters of Kentucky at least are open to someone to represent them differently in the U.S. Senate.”

Additionally, Horne is a harder target for McConnell to smear in a potential matchup than other Democrats. From the LHL:

And McConnell already has a reputation as a fierce campaigner who seizes on opponents’ political weaknesses.

For that reason, a candidate such as Horne could give McConnell the most fits, said (Democratic consultant, Danny) Briscoe.

“Chandler, Stumbo and Luallen all have public records that McConnell will look at as raw meat,” he said.

Horne is also more immune to attacks from McConnell on matters of national security than other potential candidates. Horne is a 27 year Marine vet who served in both Iraq wars. His experience on the ground in the current war, along with his vocal opposition to this unpopular policy in KY, would make him a difficult target of the expected “Defeatocrat, cut-and-runner” line of attack that will be sure to come from McConnell.

…………………..

This election will be a brutal fight. McConnell is well known for being one of the most cutthroat campaigners that you’re ever going find. He is relentless in his attacks, and will stoop to anything to gain an edge.

This is why we need a new face in Kentucky politics to take him on. We need a candidate without baggage in their background that can be exploited.  We need a candidate with character and spine, who will stand toe-to-toe with McConnell and not back down from a fight. We need an outsider, not a career politician who runs for office every year. We need a unifying candidate for all Kentuckians across this state.

We need Lt. Col. Andrew Horne.

(crossposted at BlueGrassRoots)

What’s on your mind?

UPDATE (David): Umm:

The first reporting deadline for the special election to replace deceased Rep. Paul Gilmor (R) was yesterday, and the big story is that ideological extremist State Sen. Steve Buehrer (R-Delta) has a large Club for Growth-generated cash advantage over the conservative but more pragmatic State Rep. Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green), whose father preceded Gillmor and who is leading in the GOP primary according to the limited polling data available. On the Democratic side, third-time candidate Robin Weirauch (D-Napoleon) is far back in fund-raising but has received a recent boost from unions, and she faces no serious primary opposition to deplete her war chest. The primary is set for regular general election day, November 6th.

Details after the flip. And visit Ohio Daily Blog for continuing coverage!

Buehrer reported total fund-raising after refunds of $256,017.00, less than the “more than $260,000” he had told the Toledo Blade to expect. Of that amount, $13,000 is from PACs and 60% of the rest is from individuals whose contributions are earmarked as relating to the Club for Growth, and almost all of them non-residents. Buehrer’s cash-on-hand is $188,217.97. His campaign has been buttressed by large independent TV buys by Club for Growth, attacking Latta as “tax happy” despite a generally anti-tax voting record.

Latta reported  $238,582 in total contributions, 90% of them Ohio residents, with $23,050 from PACs. Latta has spent more than Buehrer, leaving only $86,485.36 as cash-on-hand on his report. However, today’s Toledo Blade reports that Latta’s current cash on hand is actually $150,185, attributable in large part to loaning himself $50,000. Of course, Latta sees a positive message in the out-of-state/in-state contrast (quotes from the Blade story):

“Not only do [local Ohioans] contribute, but they’ve got relatives and friends within the district,” Mr. Latta said. “It’s a big advantage for the folks at home to support you.” …

“What connection do these [Club for Growth] people have to northwest Ohio?” Mr. Latta asked. “Do we want this group to be able to buy an election? I don’t think that’s what voters want.”

Republicans Mike Smitley (R-Van Wert), Mark Hollenbaugh (R-Bowling Green), and Fred Pieper (R-Paulding) did not raise enough money to require filing.

On the Democratic side, Weirauch reported taking in $40,354.89 in contributions, of which $4,750 is from Democratic party committees and $2,200 is from PACs. Over $19,000 is from individual contributions too small to require itemization. She reported $26,845.17 cash-on-hand, but the Blade reports that she received an additional $11,000 from unions after the filing deadline, so at the moment she has $37,845 on hand. “I’m very enthusiastic about our fund-raising and I’m confident we’ll have the resources we need,” Weirauch told the Blade. Wierauch’s primary opponent George Mays, who is self employed in the karaoke and disc jockey business, did not raise enough to require filing.

I’m (pleasantly) surprised by the news about union support for Weirauch, as I had heard that they were leery about supporting Wierauch strongly this time around after seeing her lose two prior attempts at the Congressional seat. If their attitude has changed, it has to be due to the nastiness of the GOP primary fight between Buehrer and Latta (extraordinarily negative for this staid, largely rural district), and perhaps the impressive ground-game effort displayed by the Weirauch camp, both tending to improve her prospects in the general election.

I’m sure that Weirauch would decline to answer the question of which GOP front-runner she’d rather face, but in my mind it would unquestionably be Buehrer, whose ideological extremism and out-of-state support would surely be negatives to moderate and independent voters in the general election (set for December 11th). With his larger war chest and more help from PACs like Club for Growth, Buehrer could conceivably make that come true, although Latta still seems to me the candidate to beat on the GOP side.

Former New Mexico AG and 2006 candidate against GOP Rep. Heather Wilson made it official today — she won’t be seeking another bid:

Madrid notified the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other groups today that she won’t run.

“I think that this is a Democratic year and I would have been the strongest person in the race, but this is just not the year for me,” Madrid said in a telephone interview.

That’s largely due to the fact that her father, who lives in Las Cruces, is not well.

“I’ve spent quite a number of years away from my family, particularly in my last year in office, and they need me and I need them,” she said.

Despite the fear that an open seat race might crowd the Democratic primary, former Albuquerque City Councilor Martin Heinrich looks to be in a good position, with several potential challengers taking a pass on the race.