Month: August 2008

KANSAS

Jim Ryun vs. Lynn Jenkins

2nd – Boyda (D) – Leavenworth, Pittsburg, and Topeka.

In 2004 Nancy Boyda was defeated by incumbent Jim Ryun by a 15% margin.  Two years later, in a surprise upset of the night, Nancy Boyda defeated Jim Ryun by 4% (a 19% improvement from two years previous).  In fact, Boyda was only one of two unsuccesful challengers from 2004 to win in 2006 (McNerney was the other).  The fact of Mark Foley, the infamous page scandal congressman, being his Washington neighbor, may have less to do with Ryun’s loss than what he did in the days prior to the election.  Once he realized that he was facing a closer race than 2004 he invited Bush and Cheney to fundraise with him.  At a time when both were toxic, and still are, the mere invitation to both may have convinced the electorate that Ryun was indeed too aligned with Bush and Cheney, resulting in his defeat.  Ryun now wants his job back, yet he faces a competitive primary challenger in State Treasurer Lynn Jenkins.  The primary itself mirrors an ongoing battle within the Kansas Republican Party.  Ryun is a staunch conservative and Jenkins is considered a moderate.  Republicans dominate both chambers of state government, yet many moderate Republicans have voted with Democrats on social issues strongly opposed by conservatives.  In 2006, party division not only led to Ryun’s loss, but also to that of five state house seats, and a state attorney general detested strongly by moderate Republicans.  The Ryun-Jenkins race is just one of many featuring conservative vs. moderate.  Conservative leaders in the state senate have recruited fellow conservatives to challenge what they call “liberal” Republicans who are running for re-election this year.  While Ryun is expected to win the primary due to strong conservative turnout, the primary challenge has left him with an inability to concentrate solely on Boyda.  The advantage in this Republican leaning district clearly lies with Boyda.  She has established a fairly moderate voting record, thereby allowing her to appease the moderate voters of the Republican Party.  Campaign support from a popular Democratic governor and sharing the ballot with the last Democrat to represent the district, Jim Slattery, are also strong advantages.  If Ryun wins the primary, then expect a large percentage of Jenkins supporters to shift to Boyda, providing her with sufficient support in overcoming the Republican dominance of the district.  If Jenkins wins, then expect many of Ryun’s supporters to overlook the race in its entirety.  After all, if a moderate Republican is a “liberal” in Kansas, then what would one consider a moderate Democrat?  As for any role Senator Roberts plays in this race could be interesting.  If he campaigns aggressively for Ryun, then he could alienate Republican moderates and narrowly lose his own re-election.

Rating: Leans Democrat (Ryun wins)/No Clear Favorite (Jenkins wins)

Another interesting race to watch:

Johnson County DA – Former State Attorney General/Current Johnson County DA Phil Kline vs. Steve Howe

MICHIGAN

Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick vs. Mary Waters vs. Martha Scott

13th – Kilpatrick (D) – Detroit.

In most circumstances, Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick would be considered safe.  However, her problem is one beyond her control: her son.  As mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, has been caught up in one scandal after another.  Rather than discipline or scold her son publicly, Kilpatrick has instead scolded those that have criticized her son.  Her response toward her son’s behavior or lack of appropriate response has drawn criticism, especially after Detroit taxpayers have been left paying millions following the actions of her “failed” son.  As a result of her inaction towards the matter Kilpatrick finds herself in a three-way primary.  State Representative Mary Waters, considered the most serious threat, and State Senator Martha Scott, have decided to force a primary.  Kilpatrick is taking the threat that the primary poses seriously and for good reason.  She herself was elected by defeating a fellow Democratic incumbent in a contentious primary.  The lessons of that primary are surely with Kilpatrick now.  She also has funding, unlike both of her opponents.  Unlike a primary with just one opponent, the three-way primary guarantees that votes against Kilpatrick would be split between Waters and Scott.  The later of whom is merely seen as a placement candidate meant to help Kilpatrick, rather than hurt her.  In the end there is no denying that her son is a liability, yet the nature of the primary, the lack of funding by both opponents, and Kilpatrick’s past experience versus an incumbent, makes her well prepared in surviving this challenge.

Rating: Safe Democrat  

MISSOURI

Dan Bishir vs. Blaine Luetkemeyer vs. Danie Moore vs. Brock Olivo vs. Bob Onder

Judy Baker vs. Lyndon Bode vs. Steve Gaw vs. Ken Jacob

9th – Open Seat (R) – Columbia, Kirksville, and Washington.

The decision by Kenny Hulshof to abandon his seat and run for Governor has created a contest that few could have anticipated.  Five Republicans, four Democrats, and a libertarian are all in the running to win this seat.  The two most competitive Republicans are former State Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer and State Representative Bob Onder.  The two most competitive Democrats are State Representative Judy Baker and former State House Speaker Steve Gaw.  Luetkemeyer and Onder share much in common.  They are both social issue candidates (abortion, guns, gay marriage, and illegal immigration).  Neither seem well versed (or hardly interested) in the economy.  They also have self-funded a majority of their campaign (70% for Luetkemeyer and 53% for Onder).  Realizing that Luetkemeyer’s money can prove detrimental in a crowded primary, Onder has already started attacking him (yet there is hardly any issue where they differentiate).  In the end, Onder is likely to win the primary.  The Democratic race features Baker, who is from Columbia, the major population center in the district.  Gaw hails from Moberly, a more rural area of the district.  Baker has raised almost twice as much as Gaw, yet all of his funds have been individual contributions.  Baker is appealing to liberals in Columbia, wheras Gaw is reaching out to more conservative Democrats.  Turnout will be the key in determing who wins the Democratic primary.  If Baker wins the primary she will have an uphill climb in appealing to voters outside of Boone County (Columbia).  In 2004, Bush and Kerry performed even in Boone County, yet Kerry lost every other county in the district.  In 2006, Senator McCaskill carried Boone and Pike counties, yet only carried 47% of the districtwide vote.  Half of the vote totals will come from four counties (Boone, Franklin, Saint Charles, and Warren).  Gaw has more appeal outside Boone County, since he is running as a conservative Democrat (publicly supporting oil drilling) and is a farmer, a strong asset in an agricultural district.  Interestingly, Huckabee carried a majority of the counties here, yet Romney carried two important counties (Boone and Saint Charles).  On the Democratic side, Clinton carried every count, except Boone.  McCain provides no assistance to any Republican nominee, neither does Obama for the Democrat (other than in Columbia).  Following the primary (August 5th) a better picture will show which party has the upper hand here.  Therefore, since no nominee has been selected, ratings are based on hypothetical match-ups.

Rating: Likely Republican (Onder vs. Baker)

Rating: Too Close to Call (Onder vs. Gaw)

Rating: Leans Republican (Luetkemeyer vs. Baker)

Rating: Leans Democrat (Luetkemeyer vs. Gaw)  

Another interesting race to watch:

Governor – Congressman Kenny Hulshof vs. State Treasurer Sarah Steelman

This is a reminder for all Georgia residents: don’t forget to vote for Jim Martin tomorrow in the Democratic Senate Primary runoff against Vernon Jones. Jones, a Democrat-in-name-only who proudly brags that he voted for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, has neither the statewide name recognition, the ability to raise funds, nor the personal character to defeat Saxby Chambliss next fall.

Jim Martin is a person of tremendous intelligence, decency and integrity. He served for nearly two decades in the Georgia House of Representatives, including chairing the House Judiciary Committee; and ran a strong, though unsuccessful, campaign for Lieutenant Governor in 2006, where he garnered 75000 more votes than Dem Gubernatorial candidate Mark Taylor.

More on the flip…

Here’s what The Atlanta Journal Constitution had to say about the two candidates in their endorsement of Jim Martin:

Martin is clearly the better choice.

As a Vietnam veteran with a long and admirable career in public service and the law, Martin has the background and credentials to represent Georgia well. As a state legislator, Martin was known as a workhorse, someone who knew the issues and who could work with colleagues to get things done. That same combination of wisdom, hard work and collegiality served Martin well as head of the state Department of Human Services under Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes and then Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue.

Jones, a two-term DeKalb County CEO, is an intelligent man and has been a competent county administrator. Unfortunately, his temperament, judgment and behavior make him a bad fit for higher office. His style is confrontational, and he has shown very little ability or willingness to respect conflicting views. Put simply, Jones would not be good for the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. Senate would not be good for him.

You can read the entire endorsement in the AJC archives here.

Chambliss is vulnerable. Recent polling shows that fewer than 40% of Georgia voters are planning to vote to re-elect him this November.  Here is recent polling data from the Mellman Group here.

Turnout is expected to be low in tomorrow’s election, so please make every effort to ensure you get to the polls and select Jim Martin, a solid progressive who can and will defeat Saxby Chambliss this fall.

And if you have a few bucks to spare, please consider a donation to Jim Martin here.

To be crossposted at Daily Kos.

Two weeks ago we looked at the racial breakdown of population changes from the years 2000 to 2007 in the states that are projected to gain seats after the 2010 census. In many of the states (Arizona, Florida, Nevada) Hispanic growth far outpaced white growth, and this was especially pronounced in Texas. I vowed to return to this when the 2007 estimate, broken down by congressional district or county, was released; well, it hasn’t, but I thought I’d look at the changes from the 2000 census to the 2006 estimate, broken down by county.

The changes are pretty dramatic, and they show that the Hispanic and African-American growth is solidly concentrated in the metropolitan areas (which was something I was concerned about when I last posted on this). For redistricting purposes, it helps us immensely to have this growth concentrated as much as possible, so that even if the Texas GOP controls the redistricting process, they may have no choice but to concede several new majority-minority or ‘influence’ House districts, instead of being able to disperse and dilute those votes.

In the following tables, I’ve broken the large counties down by the metro area they’re part of. There’s also a separate table for ‘rest of the state,’ which is all of the counties that are left over.

Houston area

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Brazoria	46,131	10,363	10,027	7,274	17,628
Fort Bend	138,735	31,662	32,575	32,832	37,973
Galveston	33,393	15,056	1,049	2,795	12,485
Harris	485,629	-4,677	95,933	35,369	364,560
Montgomery	104,522	64,104	7,022	3,873	29,027

Dallas area

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Collin	207,176	99,096	26,944	35,834	42,912
Dallas	126,826	-139,664	33,058	15,357	221,832
Denton	151,262	74,506	15,295	14,986	41,487
Tarrant	225,076	31,307	44,605	18,331	129,308

San Antonio and Austin area

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Bexar	162,661	9,515	9,725	10,310	132,625
Travis	108,726	20,270	4,161	14,309	70,191
Williamson	103,863	56,529	6,916	6,645	28,123

South Texas

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Cameron	52,490	-3,825	-363	1,755	50,988
Hidalgo	131,171	2,365	812	2,079	123,642
Nueces	7,812	-7,164	-595	564	14,130

Other major counties

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Bell	19,973	3,156	6,399	1,683	9,307
El Paso	56,988	-11,704	-634	1,048	67,699
Jefferson	-8,137	-13,138	-1,099	-215	6,011
Lubbock	12,234	554	180	749	10,207
McLennan	13,372	1,195	729	1,476	9,205

Rest of state

Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
872,657	270,799	72,870	26,253	511,393

As you can see, there is a huge concentration of Hispanic growth in Harris County (Houston and its closest suburbs), to the extent that even if Republicans solely control the redistricting process they may have to concede the creation of a new Hispanic-majority district in central and south-west Houston (probably accompanied by pushing the current 7th further out into the western suburbs to maintain its strong Republican lean).

There also looks like the possibility of a Hispanic-majority district in Dallas, particularly if it’s a barbell-shaped district that takes in western Dallas and the central part of Fort Worth with a strip of suburbs in between (accompanied by pushing the 24th and 32nd further north into Collin and Denton Counties, fast-growing conservative exurbs to the north of Dallas). If Republicans control redistricting, they might not want to concede this district as well, but the population numbers might pave the way for a Voting Rights Act vote-dilution lawsuit that could force the creation of the district anyway.

Remaining Hispanic growth seems dispersed enough that the remaining two seats (of the four Texas is predicted to gain) are likely to be those long, squiggly Republican-leaning rural seats that the Texas GOP seems to love so much. But even there, the Texas Republicans are going to be fighting a slowly losing battle, building bulwarks against a rising tide.

UPDATE: It was asked in the comments if this data was available broken down by congressional district. As with counties, it isn’t broken down by congressional district for 2007, but it is for 2006, so here are the districts in the two major metro areas:

Houston area

District	2000-04 PVI	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
TX-02 (north suburbs)	R+12	95,936	5,766	36,233	10,339	44,521
TX-07 (west Houston)	R+16	111,479	10,157	34,502	16,457	53,946
TX-08 (Montgomery Co.)	R+20	112,708	71,110	3,618	4,381	32,795
TX-09 (south Houston)	D+21	46,698	-21,186	5,334	-1,836	72,098
TX-10 (west suburbs)	R+13	197,489	58,452	21,843	22,577	91,974
TX-14 (Brazoria, Galveston Cos.)	R+14	80,660	30,099	5,389	6,249	33,776
TX-18 (north Houston)	D+23	35,176	-22,950	-1,530	-16	61,501
TX-22 (Fort Bend Co.)	R+15	156,439	12,262	44,954	35,114	62,637
TX-29 (east Houston)	D+8	38,363	-34,178	-507	3,034	71,678

Dallas area

District	2000-04 PVI	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
TX-03 (Collin Co.)	R+17	161,646	39,434	32,662	34,758	57,888
TX-04 (Collin Co.)	R+17	129,236	64,729	14,452	8,631	38,159
TX-05 (eastern suburbs)	R+16	62,297	4,304	11,094	3,112	44,988
TX-06 (southern suburbs)	R+15	100,664	4,912	34,321	5,874	56,831
TX-12 (Ft. Worth)	R+14	98,789	44,514	6,271	5,363	43,648
TX-24 (airport area)	R+15	115,310	-15,695	28,387	23,600	79,641
TX-26 (Denton Co.)	R+12	162,261	73,887	8,893	11,041	63,934
TX-30 (south Dallas)	D+26	31,221	-23,647	-7,824	-364	60,496
TX-32 (north Dallas)	R+11	2,734	-45,354	6,716	-1,596	44,824

This puts into pretty stark relief why TX-07, TX-10, and TX-32 are suddenly on everyone’s maps: demographically, they’re totally different districts than they were four, let alone eight, years ago.

White House Announces Bush Administration to Leave a Record Budget Deficit of $482 Billion.

Since January when we began our campaign for the 5th District seat in the US Congress, I’ve consistently stressed that my biggest concern is the fiscal mess that has happened in Washington.  This week, White House officials admitted the Bush administration would leave office in January 2009 with a record budget deficit sitting on the books of $482 BILLION.   This record $482 billion deficit is coupled with a record debt of $9.5 trillion.  

On January 20th, 2001, when George W. Bush was sworn in to his first term in office and the Republican Party had control of both houses of Congress, the United States government had a record budget surplus, our economy was in a period of record expansion and the national debt was being paid down.  In fact, if the Bush administration would have continued the fiscally responsible polices from the 90’s by continuing to grow the surplus and pay down the debt, the federal debt could have been retired by 2013.

It is all fantasy now thanks to the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 8 years, but, imagine what we could have done in the United States after the debt was paid off in 2013.  Our country would have had a surplus of funds that we could have invested in a complete rebuild of our infrastructure to make it ready for the next century,  We could have made a real effort at addressing the health care crisis because funds would have been available.   We could have invested in updating and upgrading our military and providing for our veterans.  We could have had a real investment to fix our public education system.  All these possibilities – GONE.

In the 90’s, difficult decisions were made and sound fiscal policies were put in place by the federal government.  These decisions were made in a bipartisan manner with a Democratic administration in the White House and the Republicans in control of Congress the second half of the decade.   Rather than sticking with sound logic in support of a fiscally strong government, Republicans in Congress joined with George W. Bush in the early days of his administration and decided that short term gratification from across the board tax cuts, with the overwhelming majority directed towards the top 2% income levels, was more important than the long term fiscal and financial security of the federal government.

In the 5th District race, voters will have the decision to choose between more of the same fiscal irresponsibility as my opponent continues to voice his strong support for the Bush tax cuts.  Or, they can choose something better because I believe we must show the courage and responsibility to clean up this fiscal mess once and for all.  It won’t be easy in the short run, but, if we make the commitment to stick to strong fiscal policies, we can finally invest in the things we need to in order to make the lives of our citizens better and our country more secure.  

Campaign Receives Endorsement from Pennsylvania AFL-CIO:

I am pleased and excited to announce that our campaign has received a letter from the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO endorsing my candidacy.   I am truly honored that we have received this important endorsement as it represents support from working men and women, not only in the 5th district, but from throughout Pennsylvania working for our cause.  

In announcing the list of endorsed candidates in a press release posted on Yahoo.com, Bill George, President of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO said “These candidates have proven themselves to be the friends and supporters of working families.  They understand that workers are struggling in this economy with stagnant wages, soaring prices for health care, gas and food.  They advocate and support an agenda that mirrors the priorities of the labor movement.  We are confident that they will put this country back on track toward prosperity and opportunity for all not the few.”.

The letter from the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO concluded with the positive exclamation “Congratulations on Labor’s endorsement!  On to Victory!”.

Major Fundraising Event for DuBois area / Elk and Jefferson Counties:

Campaign Chairman Henry Guthrie and his wife Molly have finalized plans for a McCracken for Congress fundraising event to be held Friday August 15th at the Lion’s Club Sky Lodge in DuBois.  This is going to be a fun filled evening with entertainment from the Moore Brother’s Band and a Chicken BBQ dinner.  We are inviting several local and state level elected officials.  Tickets for the event are $20.  We are also looking for sponsor level support for the event for a donation of $150 or more.  Please contact Henry or Molly at 371-1892 or 577-2398 for ticket information.   Also we would greatly appreciate it if you could take 10 or more tickets and sell them.

Recap of the Past Week:

The majority of the past week was spent working close to home at the Clearfield County Fair.  The response from people visiting the Democratic booth was tremendous.  I was also encouraged by the positive comments and remarks that we received from people interested in the Obama campaign.  I have to recognize the people who put in the time and effort to make the booth available for the week.  Specific recognition goes to County Chair John Sughrue, Sue Lemmo and Terry Noble for leading the effort over the past months to have the booth.   Also, Patrick Yingling was at the booth several nights, County Controller Claudia Read worked for many weeks to schedule people to work the booth and Rodger Baumgardner was on hand every evening to make sure the booth was properly secured at closing time.

Tuesday evening I made a trip to Potter County to spend the evening working with County Chair Norma Nichols in the Democratic booth at the Potter County Fair.  It was a very positive visit and I made contact with many voters from Potter, McKean and Tioga counties.

On Friday evening, I traveled to St. Marys for the Elk County Democratic Picnic.  Media Advisor Diane Kesner traveled with me to shoot some footage that we will use later in commercials for the campaign.  The event had a great turnout with the highlight of the evening coming from a rousing speech given by Rep. Dan Surra who talked about the problems facing our region, state and country.  Rep. Surra made it clear that this is a key election in the history of our country and he called on everyone to get involved to elect the candidates who will work to solve the problems.  State senate candidate Don Hilliard also gave a tremendous speech addressing the important issues in his race.  

On Saturday, Kelly, Amanda and I made a trip to Juniata County to appear in the parade for the Fayette carnival in McAlisterville.  While this was a small parade, it was an important event for the campaign.  Fayette Township is the only municipality in Juniata County that is part of the 5th District.  Juniata County Commissioner Teresa O’Neal has been working with me to make sure our campaign has a presence in Juniata County.   Although Juniata County only has a very small portion in the 5th District, it is important to me that we include them on our campaign schedule.

Scheduled Events for the Upcoming Week:

Monday — Clinton County Fair — 6 PM

Tuesday — Meeting with Sierra Club — State College

Wednesday — Elk County Fair — 6 PM

Thursday — Sykesville Fair — 6 PM

Friday — Tentative — Venango Co. Fair

Saturday — Multiple Events Subject to Change — Clinton County Fair Parade / McKean Co. Fair / Warren Co. Fair

Sunday — Potter / Cameron County Joint Democratic Picnic — Austin PA

—————————————

We now have campaign materials available!  Don’t forget to pick up your magnetic bumper sticker or campaign yard sign.

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

With the final signature verification complete. Oregon’s ballot measure slate is set for this year.  Below I review each ballot measure and discuss its chances of passing as well as its impact on the candidate elections this fall.

Cross-posted from Loaded Orygun: http://www.loadedorygun.net/sh…

Some Oregon Initiative Basics:

Although commonly thought only as an Initiative process, the actual truth is that there are four major types of ballot measures (of which the first two are by far the most common):

Legislative Referrals-Typically these are constitutional modifications but they can be statutory as well (See 2007’s Measure 49, which modified the state’s land use laws as an example).  Depending on the specific measure, they require either a simple majority or, in some cases, a 3/5 majority to get on the ballot.

Citizen Statutory Initiatives-Change or create state law.  They require 82,679 signatures.

Citizen Constitutional Initiatives-Change the Oregon Constitution.  They require 110,358 signatures.

Citizen Referrals-Refer a recently passed law, by the legislature, to the people for a vote, most recently seen in the failed attempts to get votes on the state’s new domestic partnership (civil unions) and GLBT civil rights laws.  They require 55,179 signatures, which must be turned in within 90 days after the law is signed by the Governor.

Ballot Measures are listed by ballot measure number.  Measure numbers are sequential and the first measure this year will be Measure 54.  This summary does not include any local ballot measures.

Key:

Measure Type:

C-Constitutional.

S-Statutory.

Race Ratings:

Tossup-Less than 3% margin projected.

Lean-3 to 10% margin.

Likely-11 to 20% margin.

Safe-Greater than 20% margin.

Note: Ratings assume the measure will qualify.

Progress-O-Meter:

How progressive is this initiative, on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being very much not progressive and 10 highly progressive.

Campaign Impact:

What impact will this initiative have on candidate elections this fall, 1 being low and 10 being high.

Legislative Referrals:

Measure 54 (C):

Summary: This corrects a bizarre flaw in the state constitution that prohibits citizens under 21 from voting in school board elections (a provision which is, of course, not in effect but should be removed anyways).

Known Opposition: None.

Progress-O-Meter: N/A, technical measure.

Campaign Impact: 1, no impact.

Outlook: Safe Yes.

Measure 55 (C):

Summary: Minor fixes to the state’s redistricting process.

Known Opposition: None.

Progress-O-Meter: N/A, technical measure.

Campaign Impact: 1, no impact.

Outlook: Safe Yes.

Measure 56 (S):

Summary: Partially repeals the Double Majority law requiring that 50% of registered voters cast ballots in an election for a bond measure to pass for May and November votes.

Known Opposition: Taxpayer Association of Oregon (Far Right), Bill Sizemore (Sponsor of all things extremely libertarian).

Progress-O-Meter: 10, gets rid of a really stupid law.

Campaign Impact: 3, this will get some play on the far right but I doubt it’ll have much of a real impact.

Outlook: Likely Yes, the legislature’s approval should allow this one to win pretty easily.

Measure 57 (S):

Summary: Proposes an alternative to Kevin Mannix’s (R-Of Course) property crime sentence minimum initiative.  Focuses state policy on treatment rather than prison for low level drug and property crimes.

Known Opposition: Kevin Mannix and his crew.

Progress-O-Meter: 7, its not a great law but its a damn sight better than Mannix’s proposal.

Campaign Impact: 7, this will probably, along with Mannix’s measure, be the main focus of many campaigns this fall.  It will have an impact for sure.

Outlook: Leans Yes, my guess is that with both on the ballot, Mannix’s extreme measure will fail when compared to this one.

Citizen Constitutional and Statutory Measures:

Measure 58 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore.

Summary: This measure would require English immersion rather than ESL for children for whom English is not their primary language.

Known Opposition: I would think a lot of progressive groups will mobilize against this one.

Progress-O-Meter: 2, progressives don’t like race-baiting measures like this one.

Campaign Impact: 4, this might get some wingnuts out to vote but I don’t think it’s much of a real issue.

Outlook: Leans to Likely No, I think the racist anti-immigrant folks will discover that they have limited political power after this one fails.  However, it is impossible to know exactly how this will turn out because this is the first immigration measure to make the ballot here.

Measure 59 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

Summary: This is at least the third time that Sizemore and his gang have proposed this measure, which makes federal income taxes fully deductible on state returns.  This measure largely benefits high wage earners and would blow a huge hole in the state’s budget.

Known Opposition: A leading coalition of progressive groups will once again mobilize against this one.

Progress-O-Meter: 1, really really bad.

Campaign Impact: 3, yawn.  This ain’t new so this isn’t giong to swing many votes.

Outlook: Likely No, the good news is that although Sizemore can qualify measures, he can’t pass them.  This proposal has failed by increasingly wider margins every time it’s been proposed.

Measure 60 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

Summary: This would require “merit-pay” for teachers in public schools.

Known Opposition: The Oregon Education Association will doubtless go all out against this measure.

Progress-O-Meter: 2, merit pay simply doesn’t work.

Campaign Impact: 5, the Repubs will definitely try to make this an issue this fall.

Outlook: Leans to Likely No, in 2000 a similar measure was rejected with 65% of the vote.  Given the more favorable political climate for education since then, this one will likely fail.

Measure 61 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Kevin Mannix

Summary: This is Kevin Mannix’s draconian sentencing measure for property and low-level drug crimes.

Known Opposition: Most of the Legislature for one (See Measure 57) as well as most of the moderate and progressive groups in the state.

Progress-O-Meter: 1, oh Kevin, your ideas suck so much.

Campaign Impact: 8, this is probably going to be the most closely contested ballot measure this fall except for perhaps the primary initiative.

Outlook: Leans No, with the competing measure by the legislature, this one may go down, which is good because withotu the competiting measure it would likely pass.

Measure 62 (C):

Chief Sponsor: Kevin Mannix.

Summary: Dedicates 15% of Oregon Lottery proceeds to crime fighting/prevention efforts.

Known Opposition: The current groups that receive lottery funds, schools and parks, have opposed this.

Progress-O-Meter: 4, not horrible but not great either.

Campaign Impact: 5, although closely contested I can’t imagine this one will get too much play either way in the campaigns this fall.

Outlook: Tossup, IMHO a bad idea but measures like this have fared pretty well in the past.

Measure 63 (S):

Chief Sponsor; Bill Sizemore

Summary: This measure would allow minor building changes without a permit.

Known Opposition: None but anything Sizemore proposes won’t stay without opposition for long.

Progress-O-Meter: 5, I honestly don’t know what Sizemore is up to here but I bet it’s no good.

Campaign Impact: 2, I don’t know what this is but it doesn’t look like it will have to much of an impact.

Outlook: Leans to Likely No, I don’t get this one but Sizemore’s name on the measure should be good enough to kill it.

Measure 64 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

Summary: Sizemore brings back an old and twice-failed idea to ban public-employee unions from using dues for political purposes.

Known Opposition: The progressive movement in this state will mobilize to kill this one.

Progress-O-Meter: 1, strikes right at the heart of the progressive movement.

Campaign Impact: 8, In the current political climate, this measure will certainly get some play and will clearly have an impact.  We are already getting the misleading “Democrats hate the Secret Union Ballot” ads from some right-wing interest groups.

Outlook: Likely No, Sizemore=without power, Public Employee Unions=Powerful, enough said.

Measure 65 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Former SOS Phil Keisling (D)

Summary: Creates a Top-Two Open Primary in which all parties run their candidates on the same ballot and the top two, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election.

Known Opposition: Both the Oregon D’s and R’s oppose this strongly.

Progress-O-Meter: I’m not even going to try to rate this one because I know I will get slammed if I do but I personally oppose it.

Campaign Impact: 7, This will get a fair amount of play on the left for sure, but I don’t think this measure will break through to independent voters.

Outlook: Leans No, if this qualifies, the state parties will spend a lot of $ to kill it, so I’ll list it as leans no for now.

Let me know what you think.

There was plenty of arguing going on over the weekend based upon the lot of us being silly little boys and girls picking our favorite Ninja Turtle.  I had a small epiphany though.  Why don’t we put that arguing and competitive spirit (because I’m one of the most competitive sons of bitches alive) into a game come this November.  A senate selection game, where we choose and predict the outcome of the ’08 senate races.  We can pick who we expect to win in every senate race and by how much (minus uncontested races).

Per example of scoring (we can refine this emensely, this is just an idea):  50 points to every one selected correctly and single point deductions to how far off we are.  As in this situation.  Let’s say I were to have, in Alaska,  Mark Begich beating Ted Stevens by 15 points and Begich were to beat Stevens 55-41 (13 point differential).  I would have earned 50 points for selecting it correctly and deducted 2 points because I was off by 2.  Meaning I made 48 points for that race.  But let’s say by some divine intervention, I made that same prediction and Stevens were to beat Begich 50-48 (2 points), because not only Begich lost, leaving me with 0 points for selection but because of the 17 point swing of my prediction, I would have wound up with -17 points.

Like I said, it’s just a thought.  But let me know what you think.  It will also be going on whille I’m doing fantasy football so I will need a mid-week fix.  To the winner go the strangest bragging rights ever.  “Why you so happy today?”  “Oh nothing I just won a senate prediction game.”

P.S. Leonardo was by far the best Ninja Turtle.

Okay.  So I’m following some of the news outlets and their “Eric Cantor is being vetted for McCain’s VP” jamble.  I check politico’s story, and they have a picture of the guy.  First thing I think is to search for a picture of John Gard, because I saw his face in an article in the written newspaper of Politico from months ago.  Lo and behold.

Cantor’s website displayed

Gard’s Website

Photos I first saw of each of them:

Cantor

Gard

It’s really kind of odd.  The glasses, the hair.  Almost the exact same.  Gard looks a little younger.  Their facial structures are slightly different.  But, wow.  

Another worthwhile bit of information.  In excess to being very active with Obama’s campaign for Wisconsin, another note to Jim Doyle’s possible run for re-election (No term limits in Wisconsin) is that he raised a solid amount of money and has one million in the bank.

If I had to guess, unless he takes a job in an Obama administration, he is running for re-election.  Hell, who wouldn’t?  After six years of fighting with Republicans, he will finally have a legislature that works with him.  

On Saturday a fundraising solicitation arrived in the mail from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. It asked me to confirm delivery of the enclosed “supporter card” within ten days, and also to “help keep my 2008 re-election campaign on the road to victory” with a special contribution.

Funny, I wasn’t aware that Harkin needed any extra help. Everyone in the election forecasting business has labeled this seat safe for him. The available polling shows Harkin with a comfortable lead.

According to Open Secrets, Harkin had $4.1 million cash on hand at the end of the second quarter. His little-known Republican opponent, Christopher Reed, has raised a total of $11,765 for his Senate campaign and had $292 (two hundred and ninety-two dollars) on hand as of June 30.

Harkin’s letter got me thinking that we need a “Use It Or Lose It” campaign for 2008.

In 2006, MyDD and MoveOn.org launched a “Use It Or Lose It” campaign to contact “ultra-safe Democratic House Representatives and ask them to help fully fund all of our competitive challengers this cycle.” The project spurred at least $2.3 million in additional major donations from House incumbents (click the link to read details).

A similar project targeted at safe incumbents in the House and Senate has the potential to raise even more money this year.

The Democratic House and Senate campaign committees have been crushing their Republican counterparts in fundraising. At the end of the second quarter, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had about $46.2 million cash on hand, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $54.7 million cash on hand. As of June 30, the DSCC had about twice the cash on hand as the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the DCCC had six times the cash on hand as the National Republican Congressional Committee.

But we should be able to outspend the Republicans even more if our Democrats in safe seats donate more to the relevant committees.

Everyone agrees that the Democrats have an unusually large number of solid pickup opportunities. Here’s the Swing State Project list of competitive Senate races. All them are Republican-held but one (Louisiana), and that one is “lean Democratic.” Only one Democratic-held seat (New Jersey) is even on the “races to watch” list.

Look at the most recent Senate forecast by Chris Bowers. He’s projecting a pickup of six seats. He also lists ten “Democratic held, uncompetitive locks”:

Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockefeller)

I haven’t added up the cash on hand numbers for all those incumbents from the latest FEC filings, but it must total many millions of dollars.

In the past six weeks, the DSCC has sent out many fundraising e-mails touting “11 battleground states” (Alaska, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia).

How many more Senate races could become more competitive if the DSCC were able to put significant resources behind our candidates? Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Georgia immediately come to mind.

The netroots are already working hard to promote Democratic challengers for Republican-held seats. Daily Kos has featured 10 House and four Senate candidates in its “Orange to Blue” ActBlue page. MyDD is raising money for five Senate candidates on its “Road to 60” ActBlue page. SenateGuru even went “on strike” until readers donated enough to three of eleven candidates on SenateGuru’s ActBlue page.

But it’s likely that Tom Harkin alone could donate more to the DSCC than all of the donors to all of those ActBlue pages combined.

Not only that, but safe Democratic incumbents sitting on huge war chests could do a lot for legislative candidates in their home states. A few thousand dollars can go very far in a statehouse race.

I don’t mean to pick on Harkin. (After all, he was the only senator to have the guts to vote against confirming Gen. David Petraeus as the new chief of U.S. Central Command last month.)

More to the point, I know Harkin is already helping other Democrats. He has reportedly donated to the Iowa Democratic Party’s GOTV efforts. Over the weekend he held a joint event with Becky Greenwald, the Democratic candidate in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. He’s holding a fundraiser with Rob Hubler, candidate in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, this Thursday. Earlier this summer, he gave $2,000 each to five Iowa House and five Iowa Senate candidates, plus an extra $5,000 to two candidates who received the most votes from constituents in Harkin’s “Building Blue” contest. I hear rumors that Harkin will hold fundraisers for other Democratic candidates in key Iowa statehouse races, or perhaps donate substantial amounts to the Iowa House and Senate Democratic leadership funds.

For all I know Harkin has already donated a substantial amount to the DSCC as well. I couldn’t find a list of Senate incumbents who have given to that fund.

But still–Harkin had more than $4.1 million in the bank at the end of June, which is more than 14,000 times the amount his Republican challenger had in the bank. Couldn’t Harkin dig a little deeper to help the DSCC get behind Scott Kleeb, Jim Slattery, Andrew Rice and other good Democrats?

While I’ve talked primarily about Senate races in this diary, of course a potential “Use It Or Lose It” 2008 campaign should also focus on some House incumbents. The DCCC has reserved ad time in 51 districts so far, and only 17 of those are Democratic-held. (Click here for the first wave of DCCC ad buys and here to see the 20 districts targeted in the second wave.) I take that to mean that the DCCC feels confident about holding more than 200 of our House seats.

There have to be at least 150 House Democrats who meet the “ultra safe” standard and should be putting more of their campaign funds into the DCCC pot.

Look at Swing State Project’s list of competitive House races. Four Republican-held seats are in the “lean Democrat” category, another 11 are “tossups”, another 17 are “lean Republican,” and at least two dozen more could become competitive with more money for Democratic challengers to spend. Meanwhile, no Democratic-held seats are in the “lean R” category, and only two are even rated tossups.

How many of those Lean R or Likely R races can we break open with more money for challengers to spend? How many races not even on Swing State Project’s list right now could become surprise wins for us, along the lines of NH-01 in 2006?

For instance, Swing State Project’s list does not currently include the two Republican-held seats in Iowa, but in my opinion both Becky Greenwald in IA-04 and Rob Hubler in IA-05 have a chance to win in a strong Democratic year. (I explain why here and here.)

I look forward to reading your thoughts and comments on a possible Use It Or Lose It campaign. Bob Brigham had some great suggestions earlier today at MyDD:

1. The earlier the better. Getting the money moving now helps a great deal with budgeting. Money spent just after Labor Day is worth far more than a last minute spree just before the election.

2. When it comes to lose it for senators, I wouldn’t just focus on those with a safe race this year, but those who left 2006 with big warchests.

3. I think after they pay up, they should be made a secondary ask to their supporters to get involved in local federal races. This is easy to do. Yet since most out of state money comes from blue, urban areas, this segment could be asked to Adopt-A-Race.

MyDD user Ramo already thought of a reasonable proposal for the senators:

If you’re Landrieu, Lautenburg, or Obama, we’re not asking for anything.  If you’re vulnerable in 2010 (Boxer, Salazar, Dorgan, Reid, and Feingold), we’re asking for 3% of your CoH.  If you’re vulnerable in 2012, we’re asking for 7% (McCaskill, Tester, Conrad, Menendez, Brown, and Webb).  Otherwise, 10%.

That would net us $9.693 million.

It will be very interesting the order we see the races come in on election night. It’s fun that we predict through our “Cattle Calls” which seats we think are going to flip from the most likely to the far-reaching, but even more so, we will know rather quickly on election night if Democrats will have a shot at the magical-filibuster-proof majority (for the last time, 60 seats is NOT a veto-proof majority).

EAST: As the east coast polls close we’ll see Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, and North Carolina first at varying times given the different poll closing times, getting 2 to 4 seats and a big indication of if it’s going to be a 5-6 seat pick-up or 8-9.

CENTRAL: Then we get some big-time news with Minnesota and Mississippi-B (even Louisiana to boot). Right there, we’ll have a lot of the current “Lean GOP” races called (if they can be) in Maine, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Mississippi-B.

As we complete the Central area, Democrats will know if their dream of a 60-seat filibuster majority is viable or if they are in for a good night with a 6 seat pick-up. Of course by this point, we Democrats hope that we can take whatever races we have won thus far and add +4 more onto them.

MOUNTAIN WEST: We move into the next category which should hopefully be races that are called as soon as the polls are closed in New Mexico and Colorado. Let’s hope there is no uncertainty when these polls close.

PACIFIC: Finally we have Oregon, followed by Alaska. Neither of these of course are certain, and if things aren’t going out way, we could end up with the “floor” of seats at DEM+4, or we could be riding a Democratic wave all the way to DEM+10 (and my dream of having 60 without Lieberman being needed for cloture).

I am hopeful that by the time the polls close in my home state of Florida (panhandle included), we’ll be off to an excellent start with at least 3 seats on the East coast which will make my nerves a little bit less stressed as we move across the nation, both for the presidential election (which should be a no brainer) and our fate in the Senate.  

It is becoming more and more clear with each passing day that our competitive Democratic challenges to the 32 Republican held state senate seats has grown to the 12 to 14 seat range.  A great deal of money will be needed to materialize many of these dozen or so challenges into Democratic pickups in November.  Early in the cycle it seemed as though we would enjoy the advantage of former Governor Spitzer’s fundraising prowess to foot the bill needed to do the job.  Of late, it has become apparent that Governor David Paterson will not be bringing anything close to those resources to the table.  

more after the flip

Our 30 incumbents as a group have raised well as have many of our challengers.  But to expand the playing field in the spirit of our NDC Chair Howard Dean’s fifty state project we will need our incumbents who will greatly benefit from gaining the majority to play a key role as well.  The fact that we have so many safe seats that will be effectively unchallenged in November reminded me of the 2006 successful campaign to get safe Democratic US House and Senate candidates to kick in from their resources to help fund what became a 30 seat house and 6 seat senate pickup.

While visiting MYDD today, I read desmoinesdem front page post calling for a 2008 version of the “Use it or Lose it” campaign.  Here is desmoinesdem brief description of the effort:

In 2006, MyDD and MoveOn.org launched a “Use It Or Lose It” campaign to contact “ultra-safe Democratic House Representatives and ask them to help fully fund all of our competitive challengers this cycle.” The project spurred at least $2.3 million in additional major donations from House incumbents (click the link to read details).

So, why not a similar effort lead by our TAP Community to get the DSCC to bring the pressure to bear on our unchallenged or under-challenged state senate incumbents that can raise significant funds to be distributed among our growing list of competitive challengers.  Lets take a look at some of the Cash on Hand in the July BOE reports for these Democratic State Senators:

SD 07 – Craig Johnson  453.9 K  (Contested Gen.)

SD 10 – Shirley Huntley  6.9 K  (Light Primary)

SD 12 – George Onorato 278.0 K

SD 13 – John Sabini     52.0 K  (Not Running)

SD 14 – Malcolm Smith  782.0 K

SD 16 – Toby Staviskey 215.0 k  (Light Primary)

SD 17 – Martin Dilon    28.1 K

SD 18 – Velm.Montgomery 52.0 K

SD 19 – John Sampson    33.6 K

SD 20 – Eric Adams      35.0 K

SD 21 – Kevin Parker    45.5 K  (heavy Primary)

SD 23 – Diane Savino    67.5 K

SD 25 – Martin Connor   83.0 K  (HEAVY PRIMARY)

SD 26 – Liz Krueger    324.5 K

SD 27 – Carl Kruger   1814.6 K

SD 28 – Jose Serrano    30.3 K

SD 29 – Tom Duanne     114.7 K

SD 30 – Bill Perkins    38.7 K

SD 31 – EricSchneiderman 47.8 K

SD 32 – Ruben Diaz      30.3 K

SD 33 – Efrain Gonzalez(10.8 K)  (Light Primary)

SD 34 – Jeffrey Klein   NA

SD 35 – Andrea Stew-Cous, 180.5 K(Contested Gen.)

SD 36 – Ruth Thompson   0.0 K    (Light Primary)

SD 37 – Suzi Oppenheimer 68.8 K  (Contested Gen.)

SD 46 – Neil Breslin    148.5 K  (Primary???)

SD 48 – Darrel Aubertine 45.3 K  (Contested Gen.)

SD 49 – David Valesky   191.6 K(Gen.Opp only 31k)

SD 58 – William Stachowski 47.3 K

SD 60 – Antoine Thompson  50.5 K

While most of our incumbents have some level of sacrificial lamb challengers, I only listed contested General for our targeted incumbents or where some quasi reasonable funds were raised by their opponent.

If we exempt all our incumbents with contested Generals and Heavy contested primary challenges we have 21 incumbents in no genuine threat sitting on 4.2 million dollars.  That is 4.4 M with no need to spend it in 2008 and an ongoing ability to raise it.  If each of these incumbents were assessed to donate back to our serious challengers just 25% of their COH we would have over $1M more to invest in our challengers.  That is one million dollars more to enable the challengers to make strong stretch drive runs at their GOP incumbents or open GOP seats!  Even if Carl Kruger has other electoral ambitions with that 1.8 M he has a proven ability to easily raise back his 450 K boosty! A powerful majority chairmanship has got to be worth the price of 25% of an unneeded campaign stash.  If it can be done with our congressional incumbents who thirsted for a return to the majority why not our incumbent state senators who are four times as parched!

The question is, How do we go about bringing the kind of pressure on these state senate incumbents as MYDD and Moveon.org did in 2006 and plan to do again this cycle?