Is anyone here planning on attending Netroots Nation in Austin next month? I wasn’t able to attend Yearly Kos in 2006 or 2007, but I’ll be there this year. In fact, I’ll be joining SSP blogfather DavidNYC, MyDD’s Jonathan Singer, and Brownsox & Markos of Daily Kos for a panel discussion on this year’s House and Senate races. Details are available here. It should be fun!
If you find yourself in Austin next month, be sure to say hello!
You might recall that after Republicans lost three out of four of their vacant House seats earlier this year, Stuart Rothenberg tried to reassure them and told the everything was going to be ok (“There there, you just had some bad nominees”). So I guess it comes as no surprise that when he comes across a Republican who can actuslly walk and chew gum at the same time, he went absolutely orgasmic, according to the Washngton Post’s Chris Cilizza.
Minnesota’s 3rd (Open seat, R): There’s no tougher grader of candidates for Congress than Stu Rothenberg. So when Stu praises a candidate, we listen. Of Republican Erik Paulsen, Stu wrote: “I wouldn’t say my interview with Erik Paulsen went well. I’d say it was spectacular.” (Stu’s column at Roll Call is subscriber-only.) WOW. Paulsen, a sitting state senator, has drawn similar reviews from Republican strategists who believe he is one of the most able candidates they have fielded this cycle. (The Fix has not yet met him — hint, hint.) Democrats nominated Ashwin Madia, an Iraq vet and first-time candidate.
I’ll leave it up to those of you in Minnesota to tell me how good Paulsen is, but this year it may not matter. From what I have seen about the district, it looks tailer-made for a strong Obama showing and a flip from red to blue. And Rothenberg better realize that just because the guy impressed him at a DC cocktail party, it doesn’t mean he will have much of a chance in November.
You know a politician is in trouble when the people around him begin to walk away. And in the case of Ted Stevens, they’re walking away fast. Such is the case in Alaska where the state’s AFL-CIO has endorsed Stevens’ opponent for the first time in decades, according to Roll Call (subscription only).
Bucking tradition, the Alaska AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-Alaska) opponent for the first time in recent history.
In what the union described as an unusually early decision, the 60,000-member organization voted this week to endorse Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) instead.
Alaska AFL-CIO President Vince Beltrami said the union endorsed Stevens in all of his re-election campaigns in recent memory, though Stevens had either a minimal or token challenger in many of those campaigns.
“My sense, having been a 20-year resident of the state, is that he’s not been not endorsed for decades,” Beltrami said. “So this is a significant departure.
Apparently the union has had a tradition of supporting Republicans in the state. They officially endorsed Don Young in the same meeting. Therefore, it must be a considerable measure how weak Stevens is and how likely they beleive Mark Begich will win. I’m starting to feel very confident about this race.
Boccieri Applauds House Passage of Emergency Supplemental Bill
Legislation Also Addresses Veterans Benefits, Critical Domestic Issues
State Senator John Boccieri, candidate for Congress in Ohio’s 16th District, today voiced his support for Thursday’s passage legislation that supports our troops both abroad and here at home. The measure which passed the House provides funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and addresses critical military issues.
Senator Major John Boccieri said:
“We must give our support this legislation, which gives our troops the resources they need to be successful while focusing on pressing issues here at home. Even though we’re giving our troops the necessary resources for their missions, we must find the will and the way to bring our troops home safely, honorably and soon.”
A second package expands GI benefits for a veteran’s education by allowing those who serve at least three years to receive free tuition, along with money for books, school supplies and housing assistance, at a public university in their state. A very important measure also allows veterans who serve longer tours to transfer their education assistance to a spouse or dependent.
Senator Boccieri, in a race for the empty 16th District House Seat, still rated at 4th Place in TheFix, WaPo’s Political Blog, continued:
“The expansion of education benefits for our veterans reduces burdens that many troops face when returning home – like finding a job and paying for college. This legislation gives our veterans and their families the opportunity to receive a quality education and build a successful career.”
Additionally, the bill includes a 13-week extension for unemployment aid for out-of-work Americans and allocates $2.6 billion for flood relief efforts in the Midwest.
Commenting on the state of the 16th Congressional District and Ohio’s gross unemployment numbers, Boccieri added:
“At a time when our economy is struggling and Ohio’s unemployment compensation fund has taken a hit, the extension of unemployment benefits would give Ohioans who have lost their jobs the resources to provide for their families as they find employment.”
The Fighting 16th District doesn’t deserve a candidate riding on the coat-tails of ex-Governor Bob Taft, convicted for Ethics Violations and leaving Ohio’s economy in shambles. It’s time our district took a stand against the status-quo and the misdirected leadership of the Republican Party. Let’s put a man of deep integrity fighting for the blue-collar workforce and our men and women who have serve our country with pride and honor, first!
Public Opinion Strategies for Jim Gerlach (5/20-21, likely voters):
Bob Roggio (D): 30
Jim Gerlach (R-inc): 56
(MoE: ±4.9%)
POS isn’t one of my favorite firms, but the numbers corroborate the conventional wisdom that Gerlach’s in much better shape this year than he was in the past two cycles, when Democrat Lois Murphy gave him stiff but unsuccessful challenges.
One thing that’s definitely worth noting are the favorability numbers for Gerlach and Roggio. Gerlach sits at a solid 58-20, while Roggio is at an almost comically low 4-1. Yes, those numbers suggest that Roggio has a mere 5% name recognition in this district.
Still, PA-06 is a Dem-trending D+2 district, and if Obama is crushing in November, an upset isn’t out of the question. However, it appears that Gerlach may get lucky this year if these numbers are accurate.
SSP currently rates this race as Likely Republican.
Within one day of each other, we suddenly have votes that take us right back to where we were a year ago, with repeat capitulations on the Iraq Supplemental and FISA. While I’m not happy about these votes, I don’t have any ranting to add to this matter, as that’s not really Swing State Project style; I’ll leave that to Glenn Greenwald and the good folks over at Open Left and Daily Kos. (In fact, I feel a little uncomfortable using ‘capitulation,’ since it’s always more complex than that, but what the hell… this is the blogosphere, where nuance goes to die.)
What interested me is that now we have a series of bookends, where we can measure how far we’ve come on changing the debate on funding the Iraq War and on FISA. Short answer, judging by the raw vote totals, is: not very far on the Iraq War, and we’ve gone way backwards on FISA. (Although comparing today’s FISA vote against the “Protect America Act” from last August is kind of apples and oranges, as today seemed to turn more on the narrow issue of retroactive immunity for telecoms rather than the overarching issue of spying on American citizens. I’d guess that fewer Congresspeople were bothered by the idea of letting the telecoms skate than by the much larger issues that were at stake last August.)
What I’m using for comparison purposes is, on the issue of the Iraq Supplemental, HR 2206 Roll Call 425 from May 24, 2007 (when the blogosphere first seemed to realize that, hey, wait a minute, maybe we aren’t going to be able to extract ourselves from Iraq with Bush still in office), versus HR 2642 Roll Call 431 from yesterday. On the issue of FISA, I’m comparing S 1927 Roll Call 836 from Aug. 4, 2007 (which was last year’s other big blogospheric freak-out, and the impetus for the “Bush Dog” project at Open Left), versus HR 6034 Roll Call 437 from earlier today.
Iraq Supplemental:
2007 total: 280 aye – 142 no – 11 NV
Dems in 2007: 86 aye – 140 no – 6 NV
GOP in 2007: 194 aye – 2 no – 5 NV
2008 total: 268 aye – 155 no – 12 NV
Dems in 2008: 80 aye – 151 no – 5 NV
GOP in 2008: 188 aye – 4 no – 7 NV
13 who flipped from aye to no (i.e. bad to good): Rob Andrews, Joe Baca, Leonard Boswell, GK Butterfield, Dennis Cardoza, John Dingell, Steve Kagen, Kendrick Meek (FL), Nick Rahall, Bart Stupak, Bennie Thompson (MS), Debbie Wasserman Schulz… and Jeff Flake (R)
3 who flipped from no to aye (i.e. good to bad): Corrine Brown, Artur Davis, and Tim Ryan
10 Dems and 1 Republicans went from no vote to no: the Republican was John Campbell (R). 4 Dems went from no to no vote. 7 Republicans and 4 Dems went from no vote to yes: the Dems were our three new guys, Bill Foster, Don Cazayoux, and Travis Childers, plus Howard Berman. 7 Republicans and 1 Dem went from yes to no vote: Pete Visclosky was the lone Dem.
Let’s take a look at who flipped the right way. The list includes recipients of some serious netroots pressure: Leonard Boswell (via his primary with Ed Fallon) and Debbie Wasserman Schulz (via the kerfuffle over the Cuban-American districts). It also includes Rob Andrews, who seems to have been burnishing his liberal credentials as he seeks statewide office in a blue state (he got skunked on NJ-Sen, but now rumor has it he’s angling for the newly created Lt. Governor position in 2009). Also, there are two Republicans who flipped, and it’s two of the most conservative: Flake and Campbell. I have to wonder whether they’ve truly turned on the war, or are engaged in a fit of libertarian pique over having to actually pay for it.
I’m still scratching my head over the ones who flipped the other way. The common thread I can think of is that Davis (who already votes the wrong way on FISA) and Ryan are both eyeing statewide office in red states.
FISA
2007 total: 227 aye – 183 no – 23 NV
Dems in 2007: 41 aye – 181 no – 9 NV
GOP in 2007: 186 aye – 2 no – 14 NV
2008 total: 293 aye – 129 no – 13 NV
Dems in 2008: 105 aye – 128 no – 3 NV
GOP in 2008: 188 aye – 1 no – 10 NV
2 who flipped from aye to no (i.e. bad to good): Baron Hill and Tim Walz
58 who flipped from no to aye (i.e. good to bad): Gary Ackerman, Mike Arcuri, Joe Baca, Brian Baird, Shelly Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Tim Bishop, Rick Boucher, Nancy Boyda, Corrine Brown, GK Butterfield, Dennis Cardoza, Kathy Castor, Emanuel Cleaver, Jim Clyburn, Joe Crowley, Norm Dicks, Rahm Emanuel, Eliot Engel, Gabby Giffords, Kirsten Gillibrand, Al Green, Gene Green, Luis Gutierrez, Jane Harman, Tim Holden, Paul Kanjorski, Dale Kildee, Ron Kind, Jim Langevin, Nita Lowey, Tim Mahoney, Carolyn McCarthy, Jerry McNerney, Greg Meeks, Dennis Moore, John Murtha, Solomon Ortiz, Nancy Pelosi, Ed Perlmutter, Nick Rahall, Silvestre Reyes, Dutch Ruppersberger, Adam Schiff, David Scott, Joe Sestak, Brad Sherman, Albio Sires, Adam Smith, John Spratt, Bart Stupak, Ellen Tauscher, Bennie Thompson, Mark Udall, John Yarmuth
9 Dems went from no vote to no; this includes some of our newest: Bill Foster, and Donna Edwards, on her second day on the job. 3 Dems and 1 Republican went from no to no vote; the Republican was Walter Jones. 12 Republicans and 6 Dems went from no vote to yes: the Dems were Don Cazayoux, Travis Childers, Ruben Hinojosa, Ron Klein, Laura Richardson, and Ike Skelton. 8 Republicans went from yes to no vote.
That’s a long list of Democratic defections (although it’s hard to call it a defection when it includes all the leadership). As for the two guys who turned the right way, Baron Hill and Tim Walz, they get big ups; I think in both cases they’re freshmen feeling more confident of their abilities to survive in their Republican-leaning districts.
The one Republican who voted no both times on FISA may surprise you: Tim Johnson, of IL-15, not generally known as a rebellious spirit. As for Ron Paul, the great defender of our liberties? Seems like he’s been taking some liberties of his own, as he managed to miss both FISA votes.
A few days ago I wrote about the House districts that made the greatest progress in 2006, moving from Republican to Democrat and, in the best cases, moving from wingnut to progressive. That left me wondering, however, where would the greatest changes in the House come in 2008? Unfortunately, that would require knowing where on the liberal/conservative spectrum the likely new freshmen in 2008 are likely to fall. That’s something where there won’t be useful metrics until at least, say, late 2009. After trying hard to put that question out of my mind, finally I decided, “Damn it, I want to know right now.”
I tried looking at issue pages and other content on a few candidate websites… and man, did my eyes glaze over fast. While I was pleased to see a general conformity with Democratic messaging and avoidance of right-wing talking points, there was little there to help a discerning eye differentiate between a Progressive, a New Dem, or a Blue Dog. Basically, everyone hates high gas prices and global warming; everyone loves job creation, access to health care, cute children, firefighters, and standing in front of scenic views in their districts.
So, I was left with no alternative but to do what any reasonable nerd would do when faced with the task of extrapolating future events: I performed a Poblano-style analysis using a variety of demographic factors, bearing in mind what demographics in a district tend to lead to what kind of representative getting elected. Just as whether a district would go for Obama or Clinton turned out to have little relationship to that district’s PVI, the PVI alone isn’t a good indicator for whether a district is likelier to produce a Progressive, a New Dem, or a Blue Dog.
More over the flip…
However, it’s not that complex: you need to factor in PVI (preferably more Dem-leaning), region (preferably northeast or west), ruralness (preferably more urban), education (preferably higher), and per capita income (preferably higher). (And this only applies in majority-white districts; obviously, there are a lot of districts that elect Progressives that have very low education and PCI numbers, but those are usually also non-white districts. Since Democrats already control all districts where Anglos are a distinct minority except for the three in south Florida, I just ignored that potential problem.) There’s only one element of ‘special sauce’ where I awarded bonus points, and that’s having endorsed the Responsible Plan for withdrawal from Iraq, which has become something of a statement of one’s progressive bona fides.
In testing the formula against the current crop of freshmen, it worked very well at predicting whether or not a representative would become a Blue Dog (and there are a lot of them among the current freshmen). It was a little screwier when predicting who would be a Progressive vs. who would be a New Dem. (For instance, it predicted John Hall and Peter Welch would be New Dems, while Joe Sestak and Ed Perlmutter would be Progressives (the opposites are true). Not that it matters too much, as the differences aren’t that great; it tends to be the difference between a Progressive Punch score of, say, 94 vs. 92.) Therefore, rather than using hard-and-fast predictions, I’ve tried to blur the boundaries a bit, with some ‘maybe’ categories on the cusp.
One last point to reiterate: these rankings don’t express how likely the Democrats are to pick up these seats. They express where these candidates, if elected, are likely to fit in on the liberal/conservative spectrum. The following tables include the demographics for districts for the candidates in toss-up and leaning seats, according to Swing State Project predictions. I also included all of our candidates in ‘likely R’ and ‘race to watch’ races, but I’m not including full demographic information in the tables for them. (A question mark next to the name means a primary still needs to be resolved.)
Likely Progressives
| District | Candidate | PVI | Region | Rural % | 4-yr. degree % | PCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT-04 | Himes | D+5 | NE | 4.1 | 42.2 | 41K |
| IL-10 | Seals | D+4 | MW | 0.4 | 47.5 | 39K |
| WA-08 | Burner * | D+2 | W | 12.4 | 37.4 | 31K |
* = Extra credit for Responsible Plan endorsement (although in Burner’s case, she’d still be “Likely Progressive” just based on district demographics alone)
Lower on the list: CA-46 (Cook *), CA-50 (Leibham), NJ-05 (Shulman *)
Likely Progressives, Maybe New Dems
| District | Candidate | PVI | Region | Rural % | 4-yr. degree % | PCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI-09 | Peters | D+0 | MW | 0.7 | 43.5 | 36K |
| NJ-03 | Adler | D+3 | NE | 3.8 | 27.2 | 26K |
| NJ-07 | Stender | R+1 | NE | 9.6 | 41.5 | 36K |
Lower on the list: CA-26 (Warner), IL-13 (Harper), PA-06 (Roggio), PA-15 (Bennett *)
Likely New Dems, Maybe Progressives
| District | Candidate | PVI | Region | Rural % | 4-yr. degree % | PCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MN-03 | Madia | R+1 | MW | 4.2 | 40.1 | 33K |
| NM-01 | Heinrich | D+2 | W | 8.7 | 29.5 | 20K |
| NY-13 | McMahon (?) | D+1 | NE | 0.0 | 24.0 | 23K |
| NY-25 | Maffei | D+3 | NE | 21.0 | 27.8 | 22K |
| NY-29 | Massa * | R+5 | NE | 41.6 | 26.1 | 21K |
Lower on the list: IL-06 (Morganthaler)
Likely New Dems
| District | Candidate | PVI | Region | Rural % | 4-yr. degree % | PCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO-04 | Markey | R+9 | W | 24.9 | 28.7 | 21K |
| NV-03 | Titus | D+1 | W | 3.7 | 20.4 | 25K |
| NY-26 | Powers (?) | R+3 | NE | 28.8 | 25.5 | 22K |
| OH-15 | Kilroy | R+1 | MW | 8.8 | 32.1 | 23K |
| VA-11 | Connolly | R+1 | S | 4.1 | 48.9 | 33K |
Lower on the list: AZ-03 (Lord), FL-15 (Blythe *?), MN-02 (Sarvi), NE-02 (Esch), NV-02 (Derby *), OH-14 (O’Neill *), PA-18 (O’Donnell), TX-07 (Skelly), VA-10 (Feder)
Likely New Dems, Maybe Blue Dogs
| District | Candidate | PVI | Region | Rural % | 4-yr. degree % | PCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL-11 | Halvorson | R+1 | MW | 21.8 | 18.5 | 21K |
| OH-01 | Dreihaus | R+1 | MW | 5.2 | 22.3 | 20K |
| OH-02 | Wulsin | R+13 | MW | 27.0 | 29.0 | 26K |
Lower on the list: CA-04 (Brown), CA-45 (Borenstein), FL-08 (Stuart?), FL-24 (Kosmas), MD-01 (Kratovil), TX-10 (Doherty)
Likely Blue Dogs, Maybe New Dems
| District | Candidate | PVI | Region | Rural % | 4-yr. degree % | PCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK-AL | Berkowitz (?) | R+14 | W | 34.3 | 24.7 | 23K |
| AZ-01 | Fitzpatrick (?) | R+2 | W | 44.5 | 17.5 | 15K |
| MI-07 | Schauer | R+2 | MW | 46.0 | 19.1 | 21K |
| MO-06 | Barnes | R+5 | MW | 33.7 | 21.2 | 20K |
| OH-16 | Boccieri | R+4 | MW | 26.4 | 19.2 | 21K |
Lower on the list: FL-09 (Dicks), FL-13 (Jennings), IL-18 (Callahan), KS-04 (Betts), MN-06 (Tinklenburg), PA-03 (Dahlkemper), SC-01 (Ketner)
Likely Blue Dogs
| District | Candidate | PVI | Region | Rural % | 4-yr. degree % | PCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA-04 | Carmouche (?) | R+7 | S | 40.7 | 16.7 | 16K |
| NC-08 | Kissell | R+3 | S | 30.6 | 18.2 | 18K |
Lower on the list: AL-02 (Bright), AL-03 (Segall), ID-01 (Minnick), IN-03 (Montagano), IN-04 (Ackerson), IA-04 (Greenwald), KY-02 (Boswell), MO-09 (Baker?), NM-02 (Teague), NC-10 (Johnson), OH-07 (Neuhardt), PA-05 (McCracken), SC-02 (Miller), VA-02 (Nye), VA-05 (Perriello *), WV-02 (Barth), WY-AL (Trauner)
(I’ve left out Annette Taddeo, Raul Martinez, and Joe Garcia, as I have no idea whether this formula applies to non-white districts. We’re basically flying blind in terms of where the Cuban-American community is headed, in terms of generational change and Castro no longer having much boogeyman power.)
Now, granted, this is an analysis performed in a academic vacuum, bereft of any anecdotal evidence from campaign websites, press releases, appearances, local rumor mills, etc., that might give more clarity to predicting a candidate’s ideological record. (For instance, Larry Kissell may not turn out to be a Blue Dog, or at least not a bottom-of-the-barrel one like John Barrow or Jim Marshall. And that’s not just because I’m taking it on faith, like much of the blogosphere seems to, that a man who posts regularly at Daily Kos simply can’t be a Blue Dog. Check out the issues section of his website; he starts out by framing his agenda using right-wing talking points, but when you click on each one, he performs a neat bit of jujitsu on each one. That’s progressive messaging.) (And conversely, from what I’ve heard of Mike McMahon, he certainly doesn’t seem like a candidate to be a Progressive, and that’s reasonable, given the social conservatism of Staten Island.) So I’m relying on you guys in the comments to debunk my analysis and provide the anecdotes that prove that so-and-so is going to be a Progressive, district demographics be damned!
Will the Hoosier State be a legitimate swing state this year? Barack Obama has included the historically GOP state in his first round of states receiving his first 60 second general election ad of the campaign, and he’s also assigned one of his top staffers to the state. Larry Sabato thinks this is all a big mind game designed to mess with the minds of camp McCain. What’s your take?
In other Indiana news, GOP wunderkind Jon Elrod has quit his congressional campaign against Rep. Andre Carson, and local Republicans are grasping at straws to find a replacement candidate. More in the diaries here and here.
Cross-posted at Blue Jersey.
The race in New Jersey’s 4th District is heating up, and NJ Dems are rallying around Josh Zeitz.
I would like to call your attention to this article, and to the strong backing Josh Zeitz has received from Governor Corzine (and the New Jersey Democratic Party leadership in general). Josh is going to defeat antichoice caucus chair and Bush-backer Chris Smith, and the fact that Jon Corzine is working energetically on his behalf makes clear that leading NJ Dems think so as well. Here’s just what the Gov. has been up to:
Corzine spearheaded a Zeitz fund-raising event at a Trenton restaurant last week, and plugged the professor’s candidacy at his governor’s gala for the State Democratic Committee last night.
While having his home state Governor’s support is fabulous, Josh also needs help, and especially volunteers, from politically active Democrats. Please take a look at his website , and email me at ian_joshzeitz_dot_com if you’d like to volunteer.
Rasmussen (6/18, likely voters, 5/20 in parens):
Jeanne Shaheen (D): 53 (50)
John Sununu (R-inc): 39 (43)
(MoE: ±4.5%)
This one closely mirrors a recent ARG poll that also showed Shaheen leading by 14 points. Again, independent voters give Shaheen her lead here, favoring the former Governor by a 59-31 margin.
Sununu has yet to publicly engage this campaign at a serious level, but it’s so far, so good for Shaheen.
Bonus finding: Obama leads McCain by 50-39 in the state.