Month: December 2007

Cross Posted @ Daily Kos and MyDD

Yea, the title of the diary looks like it could be the subject line of a casino or gambling spam email that we all get on a regular basis, but this one is for real.  Look, I wasn’t around in late 2004/early 2003 and thus had no idea what to expect here come primary season this year.  To put it lightly, some of us, myself included, could use a little break from candidate diaries, candidate promoting, and candidate critiquing (I’m trying to be nice).

Earlier today I stumbled upon a website called Fantasy Congress.  In short, it is like any fantasy sports game – you draft a “team,” earn points, and try to place first in your league.  The lone difference is that instead of drafting baseball players or football players, you’re drafting politicians.  Likewise, your team primarily earns points based on your politicians’ legislative activity, vote attendance, and generated news.

That is the basic idea – for more details on trading, the points system, etc, be sure to check out the website.  I’ve set the “Daily Kos 2008” league cap at fifty players – the maximum it will allow me – so, the first fifty people to either comment below or send me an email – nypopulist(at)gmail(dot)com – indicating they are interested, I’ll send you the password and you’ll be all set to start would should be an interesting gaming experience.  You’ll also have to register with the site (don’t worry, it’s free) in order to play – please register with your handle here at Daily Kos we have an idea who is who.

To make things interesting, however, the winner of the league will get to choose a real-life (Democratic) candidate that the other forty-nine participants must donate $10 to.  Yea, it’s not much, but many people can’t afford much more, like myself, and hey, $500 ain’t too shabby.

Don’t worry, the draft is not “live” so you wont have to be online or available at a specific time to take part – each participant begins with 1000 “political capital” and proceeds as if the draft is a silent auction – you can put any or all of the 1000 on a legislator and the person with the highest bid get ’em; you can place your wagers at any point from now until January 2nd. The league starts on Friday, January 4 and ends on Friday, May 23 – good luck and may the best politico named NYPopulist win!

This data is for the Florida Senate. Information on the Florida House Numbers can be found here.

The Florida Senate currently has a 26 – 14 Republican majority. This means we need to pick up 6 seats to reach 50% in the chamber and 7 seats to win back the majority. We have two election cycles to accomplish this, but we will only have an opportunity at each Senate seat once, since only about half of the districts are up for grabs in any given election (except for years ending in 2).

Something that should be noted is that winning Senate seats can be much more difficult than winning House seats. Open seat contests are less frequent. In some cases we are facing entrenched incumbents who have already served for many years. In other cases, the districts are served by high-ranking officials (President, Pro Tempore, Majority Leader, etc..) and finally often it is the case we must take on candidates who were very popular in their State House districts. For all these reasons, I think our chances at taking back the Senate are lower than the chances of taking back the House, though it's close because we only need six or seven more seats in the Senate. Nevertheless, it’s a good idea to take a look at the partisan appeal of the districts first to see where our best chances of potential victory could be. In part 2, I’ll take a look at individual districts in the swing categories, examining past performance by our candidates in the most recent elections, possible retirements, and our top likely targets.

For reference, here is a district map of the Florida Senate.

2000 Democratic Performance (Presidential)

# x 2008 signifies the number of races that will be contested in 2008 Statewide Performance: 49 %

Category 1: 70 – 100, 3 districts (2 x 2008), 3 D, 0 R

Category 2: 60 – 69, 8 districts (5 x 2008), 8 D, 0 R

Category 3: 54 – 59, 2 districts (1 x 2008), 2 D, 0 R

Category 4: 47 – 53, 7 districts (4 x 2008, all R), 1 D, 6 R

Category 5: 41 – 46, 12 districts (6 x 2008), 0 D, 12 R

Category 6: 31 – 40, 5 districts (1 x 2008), 0 D, 5 R

Category 7: 0 – 30, 3 districts (1 x 2008), 0 D, 3 R

Due to gerrymandering, we already face a field of seats that is stacked against us despite the even split in the state. Democratic voters have mostly been thrown into the 11 districts that make up the first two categories, while Republicans have been spread out mostly into Category 5 districts, which favor the Republican Party. Democrats hold all 15 seats in the lean-Democratic districts and one seat (Charlie Justice in the 16th district) in Category 4. Republicans, likewise, hold all 20 seats that lean to their side. They also hold six of the seven swing districts in Category 4. Basically, if we want to win back the Senate we are going to have to win as many of these as possible and for every seat we don’t win in Cat. 4, we’ll have to win one in Cat. 5. Remember we need to take six seats from the Republicans.

Democrats have shown the ability to compete in some of the category 5 races, so certainly we could a have a shot at a few of these. In 2006, for example, the Democratic candidate lost by only four points 52 % – 48 % in an open seat contest in the 10th district (Gore – 41%). In this case, Democrats faced very controversial Republican Ronda Storms. In 2010, I’m sure Democrats will also give her another strong challenge.

If seats open up on the Republican side our chances of winning seats will naturally increase. In the 25th district (Cat. 4) represented by Jeff Atwater, Democrats did not even bother to field a challenger in his most recent re-election battle in 2004. Several high-profile Democrats may be stepping up to take him on in 2008, however, and it looks like there is a good chance he could be taken down if former state Sen. Skip Campbell runs. If well-financed Democrats were to step up in any of the incumbent-held districts, then that would give us better chances of winning. More on this in Part 2.

That finishes this part of the analysis. Now we have some data on districts, so we can make better judgments on what districts we should be challenging in the future. In part 2, I’ll actually take a closer look at the individual districts that will have elections in 2008, particularly in categories 4 and 5.

Election results can be found here and FPC Wiki Pages are here.

Category 1: 18, 29 (x), 33 (x)

Category 2: 01 (x), 19 (x), 30, 31 (x), 32, 34, 35 (x), 39 (x)

Category 3: 06, 27 (x)

Category 4: 07 (x), 11 (x), 13 (x), 14, 16, 25 (x), 28

Category 5: 03 (x), 09 (x), 10, 12, 15 (x), 17 (x), 20, 21 (x), 22, 23 (x), 24, 26

Category 6: 02, 08, 36, 37 (x), 38

Category 7: 04, 05 (x), 40

Cross-posted from Flapolitics.

I was reading Mike Lux’s post at Open Left on Congressional districts and why the Democratic caucus votes the way it does when an idea popped in my head. I was thinking why don’t we do something like this for the Florida legislature, but instead use it to see how we can take back the legislature.

In this edition, I’ve compiled the Florida House seats list. Like Lux did with Congress, I put the Florida House seats into seven categories based on Democratic Party performance. Unfortunately good data is not available for 2004 performance on the presidential level in individual state house districts, so I’ve had to stick with 2000 data, which is provided by the government. Some districts have seen demographic changes, particularly in central and southern Florida, so this list is not going to be completely accurate, but it will give us an idea of what we should be thinking about when we choose what seats we want to go after for the next two cycles.

Let’s keep in mind the goal is taking back the Florida House by 2010, so first of all we can have good policies again in our state. On the national level it also might interest outsiders, because if we win a chamber in government, then Democrats would have a say in the redistricting process that will affect the maps of Florida’s likely to be 27 Congressional seats for the next decade. It is obviously very important to the Democratic Party both inside the state and on the national level that we succeed in winning one chamber by 2010.

So now let’s get on to how we win back the Florida House. Currently as it stands, Republicans hold 78 seats to our 42 seats. That’s a 36-seat majority, meaning we need to win 18 seats to move into a tie with Republicans. Luckily we do have two more election cycles to accomplish this task. In 2006, we got off to a good start (if I remember correctly we picked up six seats?). Then in 2007, we built on that momentum, winning the 49th district (Cat. 3) seat in a special election.

2000 Democratic Performance

Statewide: 49 %

Category 1: 70 – 100: 20 districts, 20 D, 0 R

Category 2: 60 – 69: 10 districts, 10 D, 0 R

Category 3: 54 – 59: 5 districts, 5 D, 0 R

Category 4: 47 – 53: 19 districts, 5 D, 13 R

Category 5: 41 – 46: 40 districts, 1 D, 40 R

Category 6: 31 – 40: 19 districts, 1 D, 18 R

Category 7: 0 – 30: 7 districts, 0 D, 7 R

From this data we can see that as Democrats we already have the odds stacked against us. Despite having a 49 – 49 % split in the 2000 elections, the Republicans gerrymandered the districts to give a 66 – 35 district lean advantage to the Republicans, with 19 tossup districts in the middle. Even if we carry every tossup district, that still gives us only 54 seats. So to get to the magic 60 number, giving us 50% of seats, we must win an additional 6 seats from the lean Republican categories (We already have two of these, so four more), assuming we win every tossup and every lean-Democratic district. At the moment, we do hold every lean-Democratic district, but we only hold 5 of the 18 tossup districts. We hold two Republican favored districts, one in a 38% and the other in a 44% Democratic performing district. We therefore need to win at least four more of the Republican favored districts and for every district we don’t win in Category 4, we will need to win additional ones in Category 5.

From this I would say a central part of our strategy should definitely be going after those tossup districts. We really must win quite a few of those if we want to win back the House. It also should be noted that Democrats performed quite well actually in several of the Category 5 districts in 2006. We actually won the 107th district in 2006 and two of our four closest losses were from the 48th and 70th districts, where we captured 48 % and 49 % of the votes, whereas Gore pulled in only 45 % and 43 % in those districts, respectively. I’m not going to speculate on the possible causes of this movement here, though it could be any sort of things (good candidates, demographic changes, bad Republicans, statewide sentiment, etc…). The main good news though is that many Cat. 5 districts are certainly within reach for Democrats.

Another thing we should look at going into 2008 and 2010 are seats that will open up due to term limits. I looked at this particularly for the tossup districts. In 2008, we will see four open seats, one currently held by a Democrat and three by Republicans. In 2010, there will be five open contests, all seats currently held by Republicans. This gives us eight golden opportunities to pick up seats over the next two election periods. Like with the case for lean-Republican districts, just because a seat is not open does not mean Democrats are not able to compete. In 2006, the Democratic candidate captured 49% of the vote in the 83rd district against a Republican incumbent running for a 3rd term in office. Of course the open seats probably offer a better chance at victory for Democrats in most cases, but if we compete with a strong candidate and finances, then we can really compete in any of the Category 4/tossup districts and likely some of the Category 5 ones, as well. In particular, there are ten open seats that will be fought for in Cat. 5 districts. There will also be a special election in 2008 in the 38th district, a Cat. 5 district. We may have a chance there, especially given Bob Allen’s scandal-ridden resignation that opened this seat up.

Overall, from this data for 2008 I would say we definitely want to take a good look at those three open Republicans seats and look at defending our own. We’re also going to have to make a strong effort to win some of the other tossup districts and take a deeper look at several of the Cat. 5 races to see which ones will offer us our best chances of pickups. Remember, demographics have been changing in many of the districts, so those would be the ones to really look at. As an example, we know the 119th district (Cat. 5) where Michael Calderin is running has been growing in independent registration, while Republican registration has been declining most rapidly. Gore took 43 % in the district, but if that election were held again today perhaps that performance would be 45 % or higher. Of course it’s difficult to say, but it’s something to think about.

Here are the categories with their respective districts and open seats for 2008 are indicated for Categories 4 and 5, where we’ll surely be making several of our prime targets in 2008. For information on state house representatives, you can visit the Florida Progressive Coalition's Wiki Page and for information on the district performance see here.

Category 1: 08, 39, 55, 59, 78, 84, 86, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 118

Category 2: 14, 15, 23, 27, 58, 88, 89, 92, 99, 100

Category 3: 36, 49, 53, 85, 97

Category 4: 09 (open-D), 22, 26, 28, 35 (open), 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 65 (open), 69, 81 (open), 83, 87, 91, 101, 120

Category 5: 03, 10 (open), 20, 21 (open), 24, 25 (open), 29, 30, 31 (open), 32 (special election 2008), 33, 34, 37 (open), 38, 40 (open), 41, 42 (open), 43, 47, 48, 54, 56 (open), 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 79 (open), 80 (open), 82, 107, 114, 116, 119

Category 6: 05, 06, 07, 11, 16, 17, 62, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 102, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117

Category 7: 01, 02, 04, 12, 13, 18, 19

Welcome to the Weekly Open Thread, Holiday Edition. Things are getting awfully quiet on the non-presidential horserace front, but I suspect that once the holidays are over and we’ve got our nominee figured out, things will heat up considerably.

In the meantime, for those of you with time off, I hope you all enjoy yourselves! Happy holidays!

like il-03, there are new endorsements that have been announced since the first post.  john laesch has gotten the afl-cio endorsement [PDF], the endorsement of pdachicago, and the endorsement of the western regional council of the united electrical, radio & machine workers of america.

bill foster has increased his growing list of endorsements with endorsements by senator durbin, afscme state council 31, planned parenthood, seiu as well as 22 nobel prize winners and a growing list of voters.

jotham stein got the endorsement of harry katz, dean of cornell university’s school of industrial and labor relations, which i failed to mentioned before.

the local papers have been covering the fact that there is a special election in the district.  the daily herald covered both the opening of candidate’s petition drives and the first day of filing:

Laesch, a Newark carpenter who challenged Hastert a year ago, turned in more than 1,700 signatures and Foster, a former Fermilab scientist from Geneva, had 1,832.

The top Republican and Democratic vote-getters in the special primary will compete in the special general election March 8 to fulfill the remainder of Hastert’s term, which ends in January 2009.

a candidate’s forum was held in st charles for candidates of both parties.  the three major democrats attended, and the daily herald, the st charles republican and kane county chronicle covered the fireworks.  so did aurora’s openline blog.  openline also gave more general coverage of the race.

kendall county democrats have set up their own board for following this race.

several outlets picked up the dueling endorsements of durbin for foster and afl-cio for laesch.  rich miller’s capitol fax blog noted that, “Both of these endorsements are important in a Democratic primary, and neither will come with a whole lot of cash.”  the beacon news and courier news covered it, as did the kane county chronicle.  aurora’s openline blog hit at this angle.  both the daily herald and the chicago tribune’s clout street blog covered the dueling unions (afl-cio and afscme) angle.

laesch was interviewed for the progressive news daily podcast.  he also live blogged at firedoglake.  the campaign congratulated their “all-volunteer army of John’s friends and neighbors in the 14th district” for getting on the special election ballot.  wurfwhile covered laesch’s endorsement by the alf-cio and was late in his coverage of laesch’s november press conference (but not for the video of it.  otoh, archpundit points out that laesch’s energy statement supports banning corn-based ethanol, and takes contradictory positions on spending money on scientific research.  he also points out the irony of anger at planned parenthood’s endorsement of foster, when he refused “to accept donations from pro-abortion rights political action committees” in 2006.

jotham stein got coverage for his education proposal in the daily herald and for filing his paperwork for the special election.  stein was also busy on the airwaves, getting interviewed on the mike koolidge show and wls’ connected to chicago

foster has been the big winner of news coverage, both local and national, this time. us news and world report reported on the foster as scientist angle.  george bush’s assault on science is getting attention everywhere.  the beacon news covered foster’s energy plan.  the kane county chronicle covered durbin’s endorsement of foster.  several of the sun-times local papers covered planned parenthood’s endorsement of foster: here and here.  

foster is also getting lots of local blog support.  hiram wurf talked about his endorsement of foster, other key endorsements, the durbin endorsement, the afscme endorsement, the planned parenthood endorsement, the trouble seeing foster’s grassroots support, and the seiu endorsement.  archpundit had stories about foster’s endorsements and foster’s new commercial.

aaron krager, of faithfully liberal, blogged about his volunteer stint for the foster campaign as well as foster hitting the air waves.  clout street also covered foster’s new cable ad.  nosugrefneb talks about a letter making the rounds of scientists and grad students at the university of chicago, university of illinois at chicago and northwestern.  prairie state blue covered foster’s live blogging for dailykos, including video of the session.  that blog also covered foster’s nerdiness.  aurora’s openline blog wonders why foster accepted the planned parenthood endorsement.

john laesch has a spiffy new website up (link above) that is more high res and feature rich.  the text for the site seems to be the same, but it now includes a photo suitable for print media and a flickr photostream.  i hadn’t noticed before (so it may be new), but the site encourages you to “Nominate John Laesch at Democracy for America” but it has (so far) failed to apply for the dfa endorsement.  (campaigns can apply at this link).  one new feature, it’s spanish translation, hasn’t been completed yet.  nonetheless, this is a great improvement.  simple, easy to navigate, eye candy.  laesch also has a new youtube video.

stein also has a new video up on his website (link above) that focuses on family.  stein’s spanish page IS in spanish!  (not new, just the contrast.)

foster has a new cable ad running.  they also have a new brand across the web reminding everyone of the special election on march 8th.  looking past the february 5th elections, are we?

given the proximity of christmas, you might think that the campaigns would be slowing down.  not happening.  the laesch campaign begins its gotv training on saturday at 10:30.  the stein campaign will continue to release his ideas and positions on the issues and volunteers are working out of the campaign headquarters to communicate with supporters and people who signed their petitions.  the foster has begun an email campaign asking their low dollar donors to recommit for the special election or to bring in a new donor to our campaign.  

outlook

if the first posts in this series was designed to lay a foundation, this next group will be focused on looking at the fundamentals in this race.  like blocking and tackling decide football games, the fundamentals decide elections.  there are five fundamentals that are thought to be decisive in the outcome of elections:

1. the candidates

2. money

3. the environment (deciding factors that campaigns can’t change)

4. the climate (deciding factors that campaigns can influence)

5. their organizations

probably the biggest factor right now in this race is the political environment.  and the most important environmental factor is the upcoming special election.  the fact that the special election is a month away from the special primary focuses all attention on this question: who scales up fastest?  the campaigns have six weeks to identify supporters and then educate them on voting twice for them on the same ballot (once for the general election and again for the special election).  the campaigns already lost a week or so because they had to circulate petitions (again) for the special election.  christmas and new year’s will cost them some more time.  this is even more true for the laesch campaign (and possibly stein’s), since they are so dependent on volunteer expertise.  the foster campaign staff will undoubtedly work the same amount during that week.  (i worked on christmas day last year, so i sympathize.)

one of the questions asked of the campaigns dealt with their candidates.  the laesch campaign was unable to participate, since they are currently flooded with questionaires that they are working on.  still no word whatsoever from the serra campaign.

the stein campaign argues:

we have the best candidate because our candidate represents the district best.  Jotham may be a lawyer but at one point he was a cabby and struggling to make it through college.  On the other hand he has done fairly well in life and represents that portion of the population of this district too.  So he has seen both ends of the spectrum.  Also Jotham at least knows what the issues are, one of the candidates goes way to far to the left for this district, and the other well he doesn’t like to talk issues he just throws money at the problem of winning a primary.  The other thing is, I’m willing to bet that jotham has knocked on more doors and spoken one on one with more voters then the other two.

Jotham speaks so well to voters on the issues.  Jotham has been the first to stand on a lot of issues that the other two guys have been trying to make hay out of.  Jotham was the first to say he was against an ID card, Laesch had a press release about how he was against them.  Foster came out against global warming and for renewable fuels, I hate to say it but Jotham has been talking about that since the beginning and with a better plan then Foster’s that everyone can benefit from.  I believe if folks could have a sit down chat with Jotham on the issues they would support him.

foster’s campaign chimes in:

Bill Foster is the only candidate with deep roots in the community, a background of solving problems that appeals to voters and the only candidate with the resources to compete against entrenched Washington Republicans who will fight like hell to save this seat.

He has spent a lifetime changing institutions for the better and when he puts his mind to it, he has always met with remarkable success.  When Bill worked on integrated circuits, he first learned how to make and design integrated circuits so he could lead a team of designers.  When Bill entered politics, he did it as an activist in a campaign that had little chance of succeeding.  He is the only candidate who knows how to put together a winning team.

they further argue:

That as a scientist and a businessman Bill is a refreshing change of pace from the usual politician.  He makes decisions based on facts, not the fictional reality that partisanship demands.  He also is uniquely able to make a huge impact on technical areas like energy policy because he can tell you if something can work in the lab and in the business plan.

all in all, the three main candidates in this race all come with flaws.  some argue that foster is charisma-challenged and too impressed by his intelligence, others believe that laesch has a messianic complex, and stein is too policy-focused and that hasn’t yet caught on (it’s late, there’s only a little time left to do so).  i’d call any comparison of these three candidates a draw — a gambler might say, pick ’em — but the contrast with il-10, where you have two high-energy, dynamic candidates couldn’t be more stark.

does this matter?  well, yeah.  in part, because voters are starting to feel the pain.  the foster campaign notes that:

Voters are still talking about all the problems we need to solve, especially ending the war.  Their newest concern is the nervousness about the economic situation in the US because of the mortgage crisis.

the stein campaign observes some differentiation in the concerns of the district:

In a place like Aurora, their worried about Jobs and the current housing mess.  In a place like Geneva, their worried about more taxes.  Out west in a place like Geneseo, its jobs.  A lot of the people out west work in places like Davenport and Moline, that’s outside the district, and are worried about places like John Deere and the Arsenal and Alcoa.  Currently there are no problems, but there are rumors that John Deere will be moving their HQ out of the Quad Cities.  Which makes people fear that maybe the second most recognized american symbol in the world after coke will start moving jobs overseas slso.

the political climate is changing, and only those campaigns who maintain comprehensive contact with the electorate will be able to respond to those changes.  there is no question that the laesch campaign has maintained contact with the netroots.  but it doesn’t appear that they have the same close relationship with the electorate.  the momentum from being the 2006 candidate was squandered (partially, perhaps even majorly, because laesch took time to get married).  the fact that they didn’t have the most signatures, or raised the most, even in the small dollar category, is evidence of this.

the point on money has already been made.  foster has not only committed his own resources, he’s raising money, significantly from new sources.  stein has made the effort, and we will see how that’s going on his next report.  laesch has an extraordinary burn rate; it’s a good thing that he’s got signs left over and volunteers committed to helping his campaign.

which leaves their organizations.  in a sense, this isn’t just about their organizations, but their potential to scale up.  the laesch campaign seems to recognize that they are it, with “little or no help expected from the national or state Democratic Party.”  given their organizational structure, they may not be able to handle a massive influx of assistance, even if they received it.

the stein campaign still suffers from the lack of a campaign manager, someone who conducts the chorus, as it were.  stein has a capable staff, but not enough of it (especially for the special election).  no one doubts that jotham has worked hard as a candidate — he’s raised the money to demonstrate that — but he’ll need more people working hard if he’s going to win a special election.

in a way, the stein campaign recognizes that they have to scale up.  they say that their keys for winning are:

Talking to the voters, putting a good field plan for the final

stretch into place.  Focusing our message so that our supporters know they

can vote twice for our candidate.

good field plan requires lots of leadership and experienced captains.

foster’s campaign is clearly the most scaleable.  in fact, scaleability seems to have been part of the plan from the very beginning.  they have been taking on staff and apparently training volunteers.  the campaign has plans to integrate local and state democrats into their gotv efforts after the primary is decided.  it is this inherent scaleability that gives foster not only the best chance to win the special primary, but a decent shot at taking the seat blue.

how can this be?  laesch’s supporters continue to trumpet his stands on the issues and believe that this will deliver him to victory.  the problem with that is that voters don’t even know laesch’s name, let alone his stands on the issues — and that assumes that voters in the 14th would prefer laesch’s stands to the other candidates.  laesch has neither the money nor the organization to effectively deliver his message to the electorate.  activists and ideologues may focus on issues and where candidates stand, but voters rarely do.  voters may become vaguely aware of a congressional candidate’s message, but they have neither the time nor inclination to go much beyond that.  in the end, the perceived advantage that laesch had — that he had run before — is minimized by the fact that his name recognition was in the high thirties among the general electorate, and mid-40s for democratic voters.  he has better name recognition now, before foster’s and stein’s mail starts to drop.  but those numbers don’t make him secure from the challenge.  by contrast, seals’ name recognition is almost double laesch’s.

the message that voters will see this election follows the money and the organization.  in both these areas, foster’s campaign has been out front.

(From the diaries – promoted by James L.)

I’m really happy to announce the next endorsement on the Blue Majority page, Wyoming candidate Gary Trauner.  Like several of Blue Majority’s candidates, Trauner nearly won in 2006.  He was up against super-wingnut Barbara Cubin, and lost by only .5%, 47.8% to 48.3%, with the balance going to the libertarian in the race.  Cubin, instead of running for reelection, has chosen retirement.

The Republican establishment in Wyoming is in disarray, with a probable field of 5-7 candidates vying for the nomination (the primary is in August).  Possible Republican establishment choices include former state treasurer Cynthia Lummis and Cheney acolyte Tom Sansonetti, both of whom sought to fill the Senate position opened up when Craig Thomas died, and that John Barrasso now occupies.

Though Wyoming is a deeply red state, in 2006, about 25% of the Republicans in the state voted for Trauner over Cubin.  A much higher percentage have voted for the well-liked conservative Democratic Governor, Dave Freudenthal, so this is a place where the electorate is willing to pull the lever for Democrats.  A libertarian populist streak runs through the state, one that Trauner captures with his grassroots-driven and outspoken campaign.  

In Wyoming, as in the rest of the country, people are looking for leadership.  And that’s what Trauner is about.  His blog is peppered with familiar arguments about the rule of law, media accuracy, secrecy, and core constitutional values.  And he speaks out when it’s hard, not when it’s easy.  Here is what Trauner said about the FISA legislation back in August.

Yesterday I announced my intention to run again for Wyoming’s lone seat in the US House.

On my long drive home, I had time to think about what really matters to me this election.  And I kept coming back to 2 things: 1) my belief that we need true leaders who will “do the right thing” regardless of party or political calculation, and 2) my concern that the politics of fear is beginning to corrode our Constitution and our country from the inside out.

Which brings me to the current debate about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (known as FISA), warrantless government intrusion and large corporations, specifically telecom companies.  We hear a lot these days about National Security.  Certainly, we must maintain a strong military to protect our Nation from external threats .  However, there won’t be much left to defend if we fail to enforce the law and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.  As one constitutional scholar recently wrote, “There is no such thing as a ‘patriotism exception’ to the laws that we pass. It is not a defense to illegal behavior to say that one violated the law for ‘patriotic’ reasons.”

Let’s review the situation: First, Congress – Republicans and Democrats – passed multiple laws to prevent the government from intruding in our lives by secretly getting information on American’s communications from private telecom companies. Next, Telecom companies proceeded anyway, in conjunction with our federal government, with the exact behavior these laws criminalized. Finally, the Administration vows to veto any bill that does not give retroactive blanket immunity to these companies.

Granting blanket retroactive legal immunity to large corporations who may have broken the law undermines, at its core, the very notion of American Democracy. It is a slap in the face to every law abiding citizen in this country who believes that laws should be applied equally to everyone, even powerful and influential corporations. Democracy and Constitutional freedom is hard work. Ben Franklin put it clearly as we were forming this nation, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither.”

Forget politics – this is about right and wrong, about what makes Wyoming and America great and what we need to do to keep it that way.   Amending the FISA law to ensure our ability to monitor foreign-to-foreign communications for intelligence purposes is the right thing to do.  Allowing companies, public officials or individuals to break the law and get away it is not.  Ensuring our constitutional system of checks and balances is the right thing to do.   Allowing one branch of government unchecked ability to determine, in its sole discretion, whether or not to intrude in our private lives or follow the law is not.

Blue Dog Democrats tend not to stand up for the Constitution because they think that the public is willing to let the government intrude into every facet of their lives.  They think that convincing Republicans to vote for you is about pandering to fear.  Gary Trauner stands this equation on its head by showing actual leadership.  He actually fights for core Constitutional values, says no to fear, and is able to persuade Republicans to vote for him as a result.

Now, Wyoming is not an easy state for a Democrat, but there are several trends that make this race winnable.  One, there is tremendous frustration with the war in Iraq, and a strong sense that there needs to be a change in strategy.  Two, though Wyoming is an energy patch state and has a budget surplus, it also has one of the highest percentage of people working multiple jobs in the country.  The people are struggling, and the benefits of high energy prices are going to large companies which don’t put their profits back into Wyoming.  

Three, the ‘hook and bullet’ crowd of hunters, fishers and ranchers are beginning to see climate change and environmental damage as a real threat to their way of life.  With more BTU’s of coal in Wyoming than BTU’s of oil in Saudi Arabia, the state is being physically gutted.  Fishermen and hunters are noticing gas rigs in their favorite spots.  And Gary told me that that when he goes to talk to ranchers, he is beginning to hear less about cheap beef imports and more about health care and climate change.  Rancher families that have lived on the same land for five generations are noticing the extended drought and changes in weather patterns, and are beginning to realize something has got to be done to curtail carbon emissions.  

Trauner is a businessman, and he likes to talk about Congress as a board of directors and the President as the CEO.  He told me that any board of a company where the CEO had a bad strategy, used bad information, didn’t plan well, didn’t execute, and was unwilling to consider any other path to success would have a a fiduciary responsibility to put some restrictions on that CEO.  Trauner said that “there is no way you can give someone like that a blank check”.  He will carry this attitude forward in Congress as an aggressive Western Democrat.

The key to Trauner’s race is to appeal to the independent libertarian streak that runs through Wyoming.  Voters are fed up with the establishment and with bad decisions coming from DC, and are looking for someone willing to authentically carve a different path forward.  Trauner’s willingness to speak out on core constitutional principles and his aggressive grassroots campaign are important ways to build that narrative, and his track record in 2006 and ability to appeal to Republicans suggest he can win.  He has after all already forced Cubin out of Congress.

That said, this is not a safe race.  It’s Wyoming.  And Trauner isn’t a milquetoast candidate with your standard political rhetoric.  He’s outspoken and aggressive, not when it’s easy, but when decision-makers in DC just want to pass bad legislation, like blank check war funding and immunity for telecom companies.

And that’s why we need Trauner in Congress.  Because he’s a leader.  And with Trauner standing strongly for the Constitution in Wyoming and getting Republican support, it’ll be increasingly difficult for anyone to use the ‘oh the bill of right isn’t popular in my district’ excuse.  The Constitution is popular everywhere, except, perhaps, in DC.

You can read more at his remarkable blog.

Blue Majority

Gary Trauner for Congress

Dear Friends,

Today I announce my candidacy for United States Congress. The 7th District is one of the best educated and hardest working in America and it’s time the citizens of this District had a representative who reflects that. I will bring new energy to Washington to work to turn things around and get this country back on track. I need your support to do that.

I came from Ireland with my family when I was a child. We had only $200 to our name and few possessions, but that didn’t matter because my family believed that if you worked hard, played by the rules and got a good education, you could succeed. So that’s what I did – I studied hard, went to college and got a business degree from Harvard.

I built a wind energy company from the ground up, turning a two-man operation into a multi-billion dollar business. The energy-related challenges we face cut across almost every aspect of our lives. From global warming and air quality to national security, I will use my expertise to work with both parties to solve our nation’s greatest challenges. I’ve been blessed with opportunities to succeed and I made the most of them. I’m running for Congress to make sure everyone has those opportunities.

When it comes to the change we need in our nation, the current war in Iraq tops the list. While the war was being poorly managed, John Culberson was signing off on a blank check with no accountability. That’s no way to run a foreign policy, a business, or a family budget. It is time to bring things to a close in Iraq and start looking at ways to bring our troops home.

We have a choice to make this November. We can once again send to Washington a career politician who’s never met a problem he couldn’t make worse. Or we can send an entrepreneur with a record of getting things done and solving problems.

You will hear a lot about my candidacy in the coming weeks, but I wanted you to hear it from me first. Please take a moment to visit my Web site – www.SkellyforCongress.com – and help me bring new energy to Congress.

Thank you,

Michael Skelly
Candidate for Texas’ Seventh Congressional District

Andrew Rice, Democratic State Senator from Oklahoma and candidate for U.S. Senate, already has incumbent Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican Party, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) worried.  He also has Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and thousands of local and national supporters convinced that Andrew Rice is “going to surprise people” with his Senate campaign.

Rice followed a unique path to politics, winning a state senate seat after graduating from Harvard Divinity School, doing humanitarian work in Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand, and working with nonprofits such as the Texas Faith Network and the Red River Democracy Project.  After losing his brother David, who worked in the South Tower of the World Trade Center, on 9/11, Andrew became an advocate for open government and policy reform.  Along with other 9/11 victims’ families, he helped push for the formation of the 9/11 Commission and opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.

(more below)

After his advocacy work in Washington, Rice decided to become more involved in policy, and he wanted to start in his home state.  He returned to Oklahoma and founded the Progressive Alliance Foundation, a non-profit that advocates fairness and equity in public policy.

Rice ran for Oklahoma State Senate in 2006 with a dedicated door-to-door campaign.  After knocking on nearly every door in the district, he won his seat with almost 70% of the vote.  While in the Senate, he has championed legislation to expand children’s health care, established a Hunger Task Force, and authored legislation to aid caregivers for the elderly.

Now, Andrew Rice is taking on one of the most partisan and out-of-touch members of the U.S. Senate.  Rather than taking action on issues such as climate change, energy policy, children’s health care, and veterans’ benefits, incumbent Sen. Jim Inhofe prefers to block progress toward solutions.  A clear symbol of the status quo, Inhofe needs to know that the rest of us want to move forward, and that it’s time for him to retire.

Andrew needs your help now to continue building momentum in his efforts to unseat Jim Inhofe.  He issued a challenge that reflects the kind of campaign he’s running: to achieve 2008 donors by the end of 2008.  We’re counting the donors, not the dollars, and focusing on getting support from real people, not special interests.

Read more about Andrew at our campaign website, andrewforoklahoma.com, and note yesterday’s post at myDD from oriole223.  Andrew’s campaign presents a great opportunity to replace a partisan and out-of-touch Republican with a progressive Democrat in the Senate, but we need your help now to do it.

– Team Rice

andrewforoklahoma.com

actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18228

Oh great:

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) is seriously reconsidering his previously announced decision to retire in 2008 and could reverse course and run for re-election, according to Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill familiar with his thinking. […]

Calls to Ramstad’s office seeking comment for this story Tuesday were not returned.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who is one of Ramstad’s closest friends in the House, said on Tuesday that Ramstad is indeed having second thoughts about his decision to leave the House. Ramstad and Kennedy have been champions of mental health parity legislation and the Rhode Island Democrat said the possibility that Congress could pass the legislation next year was weighing on Ramstad.

“It’s very much impacting his decision,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy said he felt that Ramstad would feel more comfortable leaving if leadership on both sides of the Capitol would agree to pass the mental health bill through both chambers early in the new year.

Kennedy also asserted that Ramstad has in some regards become a bargaining piece in the debate over passage of the mental health parity bill, citing the fact that Ramstad’s district is expected to be a hotly contested battleground if he sticks to his retirement decision.

“Democrats know that his seat would be in play,” Kennedy said. “He’s a bargaining chip right now. … If Democrats want to pick up a seat, all they need to say very frankly and clearly is ‘we’re going to make this happen.'”

Ramstad’s moderate district is just the kind of turf that Democrats do well in during open seat races, and just the kind of territory that Dems need to capture in order to expand their House majority.  Having Ramstad stick around for another race would make him the prohibitive favorite.

A change of heart by Ramstad would perhaps be the biggest Christmas gift he could offer to the NRCC.

UPDATE: MN Campaign Report has been hearing the same rumors.  Apparently, Jim McCrery’s retirement caused Ramstad to reconsider, figuring that the advanced seniority on some key committees might be too attractive to turn down.  If this turns out to be the case, the GOP’s retirement bonanza truly is a tragedy of riches for Democrats.

That’s what it looks like.

After making a bunch of noise about a potential Senate bid against Mitch McConnell — and against any Democrat who was considering the race — outgoing Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo openly mulled the possibility of returning to the state legislature instead.

It looks like the road is now clear for Stumbo to return to his old state House seat.  The district’s current incumbent, state Rep. Brandon Spencer (D) abruptly resigned his seat tonight, after previously indicating that he would run again.  Stumbo will release a statement tomorrow morning.

I think we can put two and two together here.  Thanks for spending so much time dissing Crit, Greg!

UPDATE: Stumbo has made it official.