Month: March 2008

Candidate filing is sailing along with lots of states now having completed candidate filings. And other than an unfortunate performance by the Texas Democratic Party we are humming along.

Below the fold for details and 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!***

Lots of House races now have Democratic candidates that have bobbed up in the last week or so:

AL-02 – R+13,

CA-02 – R+13,

CO-05 – R+15.7,

IL-18 – R+5.5,

MO-08 – R+11,

NE-03 – R+23.6,

OR-02 – R+11,

UT-01 – R+26,

But one race goes to the uncontested in 2008 list:

AR-03 – R+11,

And one race comes off the list entirely!:

IL-14 – R+5 following Bill Foster’s superb special election victory last Saturday.

So 398 races filled! This of course includes 234 districts held by Democratic Congresscritters.

But we also have 164 GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic opponents.

So here is where we are at (GOP Districts):

Districts with confirmed candidates – 164

Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 1

Districts with rumoured candidates – 13

Districts without any candidates – 15

Filing closed – No Democratic candidate – 8

The GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic challengers are as follows:

AL-01 – R+12,

AL-02 – R+13,

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,

CA-02 – R+13,

CA-03 – R+7,

CA-04 – R+11,

CA-19 – R+10,

CA-21 – R+13,

CA-24 – R+5,

CA-25 – R+7,

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-46 – R+6,

CA-48 – R+8,

CA-49 – R+10,

CA-50 – R+5,

CA-52 – R+9,

CO-04 – R+9,

CO-05 – R+15.7,

CO-06 – R+10,

CT-04 – D+5,

DE-AL – D+7,

FL-01 – R+19,

FL-04 – R+16,

FL-05 – R+5,

FL-07 – R+3,

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-18 – R+4,

FL-21 – R+6,

FL-24 – R+3,

FL-25 – R+4,

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-15 – R+6,

IL-16 – R+4,

IL-18 – R+5.5,

IL-19 – R+8,

IN-03 – R+16,

IN-04 – R+17,

IN-05 – R+20,

IN-06 – R+11,

IA-04 – D+0,

IA-05 – R+8,

KS-01 – R+20,

KS-04 – R+12,

KY-01 – R+10,

KY-02 – R+12.9,

KY-04 – R+11.7,

LA-01 – R+18,

LA-04 – R+7,

LA-06 – R+7,

MD-01 – R+10,

MD-06 – R+13,

MI-02 – R+9,

MI-04 – R+3,

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-02 – R+9,

MO-06 – R+5,

MO-07 – R+14,

MO-08 – R+11,

MO-09 – R+7,

MS-01 – R+10,

MS-03 – R+14,

MT-AL – R+11,

NE-01 – R+11,

NE-02 – R+9,

NE-03 – R+23.6,

NV-02 – R+8.2,

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-03 – R+3,

OH-04 – R+14,

OH-05 – R+10,

OH-07 – R+6,

OH-08 – R+12,

OH-12 – R+0.7,

OH-14 – R+2,

OH-15 – R+1,

OH-16 – R+4,

OK-05 – R+12,

OR-02 – R+11,

PA-03 – R+2,

PA-05 – R+10,

PA-06 – D+2.2,

PA-09 – R+15,

PA-15 – D+2,

PA-16 – R+11,

PA-18 – R+2,

PA-19 – R+12,

SC-01 – R+10,

SC-02 – R+9,

TX-03 – R+17,

TX-04 – R+17,

TX-06 – R+15,

TX-07 – R+16,

TX-08 – R+20,

TX-10 – R+13,

TX-12 – R+14,

TX-13 – R+18,

TX-19 – R+25,

TX-24 – R+15,

TX-26 – R+12,

TX-31 – R+15,

TX-32 – R+11,

UT-01 – R+26,

VA-02 – R+5.9,

VA-04 – R+5,

VA-05 – R+6,

VA-06 – R+11,

VA-07 – 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-06 – R+5,

WY-AL – R+19,

The following GOP held districts have a candidate that is expected to run but is yet to confirm:

WA-05 – R+7.1,

The following GOP held districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!

FL-06 – R+8,

GA-03 – R+?,

GA-06 – R+?,

GA-07 – R+?,

GA-11 – R+?,

NJ-02 – D+4.0,

NY-03 – D+2.1,

OK-03 – R+18,

OK-04 – R+13,

SC-04 – R+15,

TN-07 – R+12,

UT-03 – R+22,

VA-01 – R+9,

The following districts have not a single rumoured candidate:

AL-06 – R+25,

CA-22 – R+16,

ID-02 – R+19,

LA-05 – R+10,

LA-07 – R+7,

MI-03 – R+9,

MI-06 – R+2.3,

MI-08 – R+1.9,

MI-10 – R+4,

OK-01 – R+13,

SC-03 – R+14,

TN-01 – R+14,

TN-02 – R+11,

TN-03 – R+8,

WI-05 – R+12,

And last but not least the list I did not want to have to include.

The following Republicans will not have a Democratic opponent in 2008:

AR-03 – R+11,

KY-05 – R+8

TX-01 – R+17,

TX-02 – R+12,

TX-05 – R+16,

TX-11 – R+25,

TX-14 – R+14,

TX-21 – R+13,

Finally due praise to those states where we already have a full slate of house candidates – Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

It is also interesting to note that we have only one race left to fill in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho,  Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Thats 31 states with a full slate, and 12 states with one race to fill!  That is more than 85% of the states with a full or nearly full slate of candidates 7.5 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, LA-06, MS-03, VA-04, VA-06 and WI-06; 8 of 10 districts we did not contest in 2006! Of the other 2 TX-11 will again go uncontested whilst AL-06 does not currently have a Democratic candidate.

We were on track to beat the 425 races we contested in 2006 but with the Texas unfilled races it now seems unlikely.

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

John Mertens  has agreed to become the new chair of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

John Mertens shown here accepting the Chairpersonship from John Orman.

The Connecticut for Lieberman Party has asked for the Senator’s resignation,

which brought us to the attention of Wall Street Journal, who mentioned us under the byline “Bottom Stories of the Day”.

The Party’s Over

From the (Bridgeport) Connecticut Post, another story that reads like something out of the Onion:

Connecticut for Lieberman Party Chairman John Orman called Tuesday for Sen. Joe Lieberman to resign, saying his advocacy of a military strike against Iran could explode into a global conflict.

We have requested that the Connecticut Secretary of State investigate whether Senator Lieberman knowingly circulated a false petition in his Senate race against Ned Lamont:  

(Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz’s response):

“Believe me, I know there are people who feel very frustrated with Senator Lieberman’s choices because we hear from them every day in our office,” Bysiewicz said Wednesday. But “the next time people will have the opportunity to opine on Mr. Lieberman’s candidacy will be in 2012.”

However, a new generation has agreed to carry the torch.

The Connecticut for Lieberman Party has voted to endorse Barack Obama.

We have elected new officers:

Party Chair: John Mertens

Party Treasurer: Tomoyo Wakamatsu

Party Secretary: Mark Friedman

Two additional State Central Committee members:

Paul Borucki

Ann Marie Krupski

Parliamentarian: Mark Friedman

We have elected Candidates for State Representative

1st District: Mark Friedman

4th District: Bryce Snarski-Pierce

20th District: John Mertens

29th District: Tomoyo Wakamatsu

90th District: Peter Votto

We have new members:

All of our members are aware that our Senator has voted  for the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248) to protect telecoms:

Some of our new officers:

Our new website has a Pay Pal account, to assist in the continuation of the party’s political action.

When we look at large amounts of data, it’s hard to grasp all the relationships just from numbers.  If we just have lots of subjects but not a lot of variables there are some fairly common graphs to help show the data (see graphics: the good, the bad, and the ugly for some methods).  

But if we have a lot of variables, as well, then even those plots aren’t a complete solution.  One attempt to model data like this, with lots of subjects and lots of variables, is the biplot.  More below the fold

There are various types of biplots; we’re only going to be talking about the most common kind: The principal component biplot.  There are a few steps to making one of these.  You can get all math-y, but I’m not going to.  I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible, but if you hate math, and want to get to the politics…. well, look at the figure and then skip down to where I have the phrase “Interpreting the biplot”

This type of biplot works with variables that are continuous, or nearly so.  That is,  variables that can take on any value, not just a few.  Things like weight, height, and so on, rather than things like religion, or hair color, that can only take certain values.  

I had data on various demographic aspects of each of 435 congressional districts:  

% White non-Latino, % Black non-Latino, % Latino, % other

Median income, % in poverty

% Rural

% Veterans

Cook PVI

and whether the Rep was a Democrat or Republican

Except for the last, all these are continuous, or nearly so.  I changed Cook PVI a little, giving negative values to those that were R and positive to those that were D.

How can we represent all these data on one graph:

(it’s a little bigger here )

wow…. what’s that?

Well, the first thing I did was a principal components analysis (PCA) .  Skipping a lot of possibly important information — Get a correlation matrix of the data.  The goal of PCA is to find new variables that are linear combinations of the original variables.  The first PC should represent as much of the variance in the table as possible.  The second PC should represent as much of the remaining variance as possible, subject to being orthogonal to the first PC (you can think of orthogonal as meaning ‘unrelated’, although that isn’t exactly right).

In the figure above, note that the x-axis (that’s the horizontal one) is labeled Dimension 1: Proportion of variance .46.  That means that one variable, a linear combination of all the other variables, represents about half the variance in all those variables.  In other words, if you wanted to predict all of the original variables using only one number, this new number (the PC) would account for about half the variance in all those other numbers.  The y-axis (the vertical one) says that dimension 2 represents .24 of the variance.  So, together, this plot represents about 70% of the variance in all the original variables.

Next, each district gets a score on each of the PCs.  Those are the dots.  I’ve labeled some of them (more below).

Next, each variable gets whats called a loading on the PCs (never mind the details).  These are represented by lines.  

Interpreting the biplot.

OK, no more math (well…. I hope not!)

How to interpret the biplot?  First, note that the two proportions add to .7.  This biplot leaves out a lot (more below).  But it can still be useful.  Next, look at the lines. For example, poverty goes to the lower left.  So the variable poverty is low on PC1 and low on PC2.  Both Cook and Latino are off to the left, so they are low on PC1 and moderate on PC2.  White is off to the right.  

The CDs in the lower left (AL07, MS02, SC06, GA02) are high on poverty and high on Black….indeed, these are all “Black districts”.  The ones all the way on the left (NY07, FL18, 21, 25) are highly Latino districts, that aren’t Republican (more later).  The ones on the lower right have a lot of veterans.  And so on.

Now, we can use this biplot to find districts that might be vulnerable.  When there’s a black dot (Democratic rep) in a sea of red dots (Republicans) or vice versa, that might be a seat that’s vulnerable.

Vulnerable Republican seats include FL18, FL21, FL25, CA42, NM02, CA25, CA21 (that’s the red dot near NY28).

It’s reached the point in Florida and Michigan where neither remaining candidate in the Democratic Party Marathon is even trying to sound reasonable, much less presidential.  Hillary Clinton is arguing the unsupportable position that the original primaries should count, as originally formatted, even though they were held in opposition to party rules and with the understanding by all candidates  that they would not count.

Obabma is arguing an equally unsupportable position that, because the political powers in the two states (and in Florida, this means the Republican-controlled legislature) broke the rules, the people of two of the largest and most critical states should be disenfranchised with regard to the party nominee.

normboyd40 :: Methinks I Smell Raw Politics: Boyd’s eye View

 

I have two thoughts on this issue.  First, a pox on both their houses. Let the contest go as it is going.  Let them get to the convention, refuse to allow the superdelegates to vote, and nominate Al Gore on the second ballot, with John Edwards as his running mate. (Or John Edwards, with Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson)

Second, stop the stupid squabbling. Hillary – get over it! The original primaries may have seemed like a dream come true for you, but that’s because they were a dream.  In the sense of not associated with reality. Get over it!

Obama, knock off the pontificating.  It makes YOU look stupid when you talk to us like WE are stupid.  Of course, you would love to ignore two states that may just vote for your opponent, but don’t stand there, as “candidate for all the people, all the time” and then say the millions of Dems in these two super-sized states can be ignored. Your camp says “There are serious concerns about security and making sure that everyone gets to vote”.  But then you say that the better alternative is to simply guarantee that nobody gets to vote.

So, both of you are exposed for just what you are.  Typical machine politicians ready to do anything at all for a victory. Yes. it is true, I will still vote for one of you, if that’s how it ends up, but only because the alternative is unthinkable. No longer will I be able to cast my vote proudly and happily for someone I see as a great American and a potentially great President.  No, I will be voting to end the Bush years, to avoid the Bush Lite ascendancy, and get us out of Iraq and back into the rule of law and reason.

A plausible solution for Florida and Michigan has been waved in our faces by a Democrat who, quite frankly, isn’t the most progressive or most loyal to Democratic causes, Sen. Bill Nelson. He would like to tweak the system to favor his candidate,  naturally enough, but that can be dealt with. Florida and Michigan have enough big money Democrats to finance this do-over as a mail-in primary.  Don’t tell me the US Mail is less trustworthy than Dieboldt Corporation. We can do this.  We can do it fairly and efficiently, and we can get a nominee. If not, go back to my first scenario and draft either Al or John.

Oh, and Gov. Dean?  May we humbly suggest going back to winner-take-all primaries next cycle?  God, I hate it when the GOP is more competent that we are.

 

Not a bad get for the Kansas Democratic Party:

Former Rep. Jim Slattery has reconsidered his political future and will challenge Sen. Pat Roberts this fall, a state Democrat official said Wednesday.

Slattery will make a public statement next week that he will enter the race, said Mike Gaughan, executive director of the Kansas Democratic Party.

“He intends to make the race. He’s been talking to Kansans disappointed with the way Pat Roberts has been inattentive to Kansans’ needs in Washington,” Gaughan said. “He was somebody that we talked to last year about the importance of running against Pat Roberts.” […]

Slattery, of Topeka, represented the 2nd District of eastern Kansas from 1983-94 and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1994. He had been mentioned as a potential Senate candidate but said in November he wouldn’t challenge Roberts. Asked earlier this month in Kansas about rumors he was interested again, he said: “I’m interested in many things.”

Expect the Kansas GOP to focus heavily on Slattery’s current job title: a Washington lobbyist.

Still, considering how quiet the Democratic recruitment efforts have been here (self-financing candidate Greg Orman dropped out earlier this year), someone with Slattery’s political experience is a pretty decent score here.

cross-posted from Election Inspection

According to the most recent polls taken, Democrats stand to pick up 5 Senate seats (AK, MN, NH, NM, VA). Two more are tossups (CO, MS-B), and only one Democratic-held seat is vulnerable enough to rate Lean Democratic (LA). Check out the polls below the fold; some are recent, some are old!

State	Incumbent	Poll	Dem Candidate	%	Rep Candidate	%
AL	Sessions	SUSA 8/25-8/27	Figures	37	Sessions	59
AK	Stevens	R2K 12/3-12/6	Begich	47	Stevens	41
CO	Allard	Rasmussen 2/11	Mark Udall	43	Schaffer	44
GA	Chambliss	Strategic Vision 12/7-12/9	Vernon Jones	27	Chambliss	57
GA	Chambliss	Strategic Vision 12/7-12/9	Dale Cardwell	25	Chambliss	57
GA	Chambliss	Strategic Vision 12/7-12/9	Rand Knight	23	Chambliss	58
GA	Chambliss	Strategic Vision 12/7-12/9	Josh Lainer	22	Chambliss	58
ID	Craig	Myers Research 11/13-11/19	LaRocco	34	Risch	48
LA	Landrieu	SUSA 12/06-12/10	Landrieu	46	Kennedy	42
ME	Collins	SUSA 10/26-10/29	Allen	38	Collins	55
MN	Coleman	Rasmussen 2/16	Franken	49	Coleman	46
MS	Wicker (replaces Lott)	Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 12/2-12/5	Musgrove	48	Wicker	34
MS	Wicker (replaces Lott)	Research 2000 12/10-12/12	Musgrove	39	Wicker	47
NE	Hagel	Research 2000 11/12-11/14	Kleeb	39	Johanns	47
NH	Sununu	Rasmussen 2/13	Shaheen	49	Sununu	41
NJ	Lautenberg	Rasmussen 2/27	Lautenberg	46	Joe Pennacchio	38
NJ	Lautenberg	Rasmussen 2/27	Lautenberg	46	Murray Sabrin	31
NM	Domenici	NM State U. 1/22-1/31	Tom Udall	58	Heather Wilson	30
NM	Domenici	NM State U. 1/22-1/31	Tom Udall	53	Steve Pearce	31
NC	Dole	PPP 1/21	Kay Hagan	35	Dole	48
NC	Dole	PPP 1/21	Jim Neal	30	Dole	49
OR	Smith	Rasmussen 2/13	Jeff Merkley	30	Smith	48
OR	Smith	Rasmussen 2/13	Steve Novick	35	Smith	48
SD	Johnson	Rasmussen 3/4	Johnson	63	Joel Dykstra	28
TX	Cornyn	Research 2000 9/24-9/26	Noriega	35	Cornyn	51
VA	John Warner	Rasmussen 2/19	Mark Warner	57	Gilmore	37

Election Inspection will be tracking these polls through November and beyond.

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen heard the messages of Swingstate Project crafted by Davidnyc!  I copied this from the DCCC homepage:

Saturday’s big Democratic win of Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert’s seat is just more proof that voters are looking for the big change that Democrats will deliver.

In South Florida, we have three strong Democratic challengers fighting for change against some of President Bush’s most reliable rubbberstamps. Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21), and Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-24) have rubberstamped President Bush’s failed agenda time and time again. With only underfunded challengers as opponents, they have become entrenched politicians unwilling to respond to the will of the voters.

Those days are over. Democratic challengers Annette Taddeo (FL-18), Raul Martinez (FL-21), and Joe Garcia (FL-24) are running tough campaigns against the South Florida Republicans that will force them to defend their blind support of President Bush. With Bush’s approval numbers mired in the 30’s, that’ll be no easy task.

The DCCC will be right alongside these candidates taking the fight to these loyal Bushies. The DCCC’s sole mission is to elect Democrats to the House and that’s just what we plan to do. We do it by ensuring our challengers have all the resources we need, knocking on doors, making calls and making sure no Republican attack goes unanswered.

While some of our Members may not always be able to actively campaign with every candidate, you can be assured that the DCCC will be there.

In a recent blog post at Swing State Project, there was frustration against Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s call that she would not be campaigning for South Florida candidates. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz works tirelessly to help elect more Democrats to Congress. She has made clear that she supports the DCCC involvement in these South Florida races and has made sure that a Member who could completely throw themselves into those races would be assigned to them.

These Florida districts are ready for the big change that Democrats will deliver with a Democratic President and a strong Democratic Majority. Let’s keep the focus on beating Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21), and Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-24).

I was very impressed to read that our progressive blogosphere has pierced another layer of recognition with the head of the DCCC actually citing the Swingstate Project posts and criticisms of Wasserman-Shultz!  Van Hollen’s predecessor, Rham Emmanuel at times left me with the sense that he had very little regard for the progressive blogs, especially regarding his efforts in 2006 to replace Progressive Challengers who ran well in 2004 with more conservative challengers who he felt were better fits for the district.  I find this a sign of progress regarding the attention that leaders like the heads of our national party committee at least recognize our concerns.  Congrats David!

Today, the DCCC unveiled the second wave of participants in its Red to Blue program.  The 13 beneficiaries are:

Kay Barnes (MO-06)

Anne Barth (WV-02)

Darcy Burner (WA-08)

Robert Daskas (NV-03)

Steven Driehaus (OH-01)

Jim Himes (CT-04)

Christine Jennings (FL-13)

Larry Kissell (NC-08)

Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)

Eric Massa (NY-29)

Gary Peters (MI-09)

Mark Schauer (MI-07)

Dan Seals (IL-10)

There are few surprises here, but the committee’s stamp of approval given to replacement candidate Anne Barth, who is running against incumbent GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito in WV-02 seems indicative of the DCCC’s desire to bust open the 2008 playing field in a big way.

It’s not just the netroots who are up in arms about the fact that key South Florida incumbents Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek are refusing to support fellow Dems Annette Taddeo, Joe Garcia and Raul Martinez. Local Democrats are outraged, too:

Two influential congressional Democrats from South Florida are coming under fire from Miami-Dade Democrats for sitting on the sidelines as the party seeks to oust three Republican incumbents.

Miami-Dade party members meeting late Monday to elect a new leader said they were dismayed that Democratic Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston and Kendrick Meek of Miami have decided not to publicly support the Democratic challengers.

“I was appalled when I saw certain elected officials think they have the right to anoint who can run,” Bret Berlin said as he was elected chairman of the county party. “That’s not their job, it’s our job.”

His words echoed those of North Miami Mayor Kevin Burns, who also ran for county party chairman. He told the crowd at the meeting that he couldn’t “believe two of our elected Congress members have the nerve to stand up and say they won’t support three local Democratic candidates.”

Fortunately, party leaders in the area are having absolutely no trouble getting behind our three excellent candidates:

County Democrats say they may have their best shot in years to unseat at least one of the three, and after winning the county party’s election, Berlin immediately moved to “pledge support behind the three Democratic candidates.”

The more than 100 party executive committee members who assembled at the American Legion Hall in Miami unanimously agreed.

But rather than upbraid Wasserman Schultz and Meek for their embarrassing attempts to recuse themselves from these vital races, the DCCC has signalled its assent:

The national party has said it’s “very excited” about the races, and Jennifer Crider, communications director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the party has made similar arrangements when other members of Congress have conflicts.

“It doesn’t change our level of commitment in any way or diminish it,” Crider said. “Members [of Congress] have to do their own politics as well. We completely understand they need to do what’s best for them and their constituents.”

How utterly dismaying. Anyone who has read The Thumpin’ knows how bitterly Rahm Emanuel fought against this insulting practice. Attitudes like Meek’s and Wasserman Schultz’s were one reason the Dems languished in the minority for twelve years – and, if they aren’t curbed now, will be a reason we don’t expand our majority.

What’s more, Meek & DWS sit in totally safe districts. In Debbie Dubya’s home base of FL-20, voters chose Kerry over Bush by 64-36 in the last election. Meanwhile, in Meek’s FL-17, Kerry was favored by an almost hilarious 83-17 margin. So the idea that DWS and Meek could possibly be doing “what’s best for them and their constituents” by kneecapping strong challengers and damaging the Democratic Party’s prospects is totally ludicrous.

As I’ve said before – and as I won’t stop saying – Debbie Wasserman Schultz either has to completely change her tune on this and vocally embrace our challengers, or step down from the DCCC. And for his part, Kendrick Meek should do the same. South Florida Democrats – and the whole party – deserve nothing less.

I’m getting a lecture on recruitment when A, you haven’t done a goddamn thing and B, we’ve got a [Republican] target and you’re out there kissing his ass in the press?

– Rahm Emanuel (The Thumpin’)

I can’t say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office.

– Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Miami Herald)

You see, in my trade, this is called – what you did – you cracked out of turn. Huh? You see? You crumbed the play.

– Joe Mantegna (House of Games)

Why is a co-chair of the DCCC’s Red to Blue program blathering to the press about her inability – nay, refusal – to help fellow Democrats, and how fond she is of a particular Republican? If this truly is such a sensitive issue, Debbie Dubya could at least have kept things quiet and handled matters privately in Chris Van Hollen’s office.

Instead, for no reason at all, she chose to make a big public mess of it. And things like this have serious reprecussions:

However, Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks political campaigns, said the lack of support from top Democrats could make donors leery.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a favorite of leadership, somebody on the move,” Rothenberg said. “When somebody like that doesn’t want to be a major player in taking on a Republican, that’s a signal.”

No shit. Bizarre public confessionals like Debbie Dubya’s can have a devastating impact on promising challengers like our South Florida trio, especially with big donors and establishment players. Is it too much to ask key Democratic leaders not to air their dirty laundry down at Lincoln Road Mall?

Debbie Dubya herself said: “At the end of the day, we need a member who isn’t going to pull any punches, who isn’t going to be hesitant.” We also need someone who is savvy enough to keep his or her mouth shut for the duration of the campaign cycle. It’s bad enough that Wasserman Schultz is kneecapping excellent candidates. Her inability to refrain from “cracking out of turn” is another reason why she should step down from her post – unless she does a 180 on this, and vocally supports Raul Martinez, Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo, just like proud Democrats everywhere are doing.