Month: December 2008

For the sake of ending whatever remnants there are to “Franken’s goose is cooked” chatter there may be, I’m giving a simple run-down of the math here.  The numbers I am taking are sourced from the Star Tribune’s results page found here: http://ww2.startribune.com/new…

Every challenged ballot is like taking that vote out of the total count, which is why Coleman and Franken’s numbers have both gone down as the counting has progressed.  Looking at the totals, there are almost 6,000 total challenges, (3,070 challenges by the Coleman campaign, 2,882 challenges by the Franken campaign for a total of 5,952).  Meanwhile, Franken and Coleman have lost only a total of 4,871 votes.  (Coleman has lost 2,373 votes and Franken has lost 2,498 votes).  

Doing the math, 5,952 challenges – total votes lost 4,871 means that, with four counties outstanding, (Wright, Winona, Scott, Rock) and parts of three other counties outstanding, (7% of Ramsey County, 7% of Hennepin County, and 40% of Dodge County) we have found 1,081 votes that were missed by machines.  It is completely impossible to determine who these votes go to, because the results are hidden, for the most part behind challenges.  The only new votes we can determine are in counties where there is actually a net positive for a candidate.  Of these 1,081 new votes, at least 16 votes have gone to Coleman and at least 24 votes have gone to Franken.  

The rest of the new votes are hidden behind challenges.  In fact, the 1,081 number may be high, because Coleman and Franken can challenge ballots that are expected to go for Barkley or others.  We can go county to county.  The largest source of new votes comes from:

~60 votes from Anoka County

~280 votes from Hennepin County

~150 votes from Ramsey County

These new votes will probably make less of a difference than the panel ruling on challenged ballots.  

Star Tribune has picture of nearly 600 challenged ballots asking for you to rule on them.  I don’t know if you need to log in first or what, because the pictures are not working on my computer.  http://senaterecount.startribu…

As of right now for 6,000 challenges, Franken needs to win 216 more than Coleman.  That’s 3,108 to 2,892.  AKA 51.8% to 48.2%.  However, for every challenge that gets thrown out, the percentage Franken needs to win challenges edges up.  

Public Policy Polling (11/29-30, likely voters, 11/22-23 in parens)

Jim Martin (D): 46 (46)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 53 (52)

Undecided: 1 (2)

(MoE: ±2.7%)

Tom Jensen says:

Chambliss is up 71-28 on Jim Martin with whites. For Martin to win the runoff with that performance, the electorate would have to be 34% African American. Given that it was only 30% for the general election with Barack Obama at the top of the ballot and that early voting was less than 23% black, that does not seem particularly likely.

Not looking good. The other survey, from Insider Advantage, isn’t looking much better (11/30, likely voters, 11/23 in parens):

Jim Martin (D): 46 (47)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 50 (50)

Undecided: 4 (3)

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Matt Towery of IA offers some succor:

The race could be a 10-point blowout for Chambliss, or under the right circumstances, a very tight contest. This is like trying to forecast snow in Georgia – almost impossible.

I’m not sanguine. Nine polls by five different pollsters have all given Chambliss the lead. Could they all be wrong, Alaska-style? Sure, but I wouldn’t count on it.

Florida CFO Alex Sink won’t run against GOP Sen. Mel Martinez:

Florida’s chief financial officer, Alex Sink, has decided to run for a second term as CFO and forego a run against Martinez. She made the decision over the Thanksgiving weekend.

This is too bad — Sink was probably our best bet to torpedo the hopelessly mediocre Martinez. It looks like she has her eye on the Governor’s mansion when Crist is term-limited out of office in 2014.

Whoever runs in her place will likely be someone without statewide name recognition (e.g. Ron Klein), which will make this a bit tougher, but still doable with a good campaign. I wonder who Bob Menendez is calling tonight.

Nate Silver is handicapping the 2010 U.S. Senate races at Fivethirtyeight.com and had this to say about Iowa’s seat, held by five-term incumbent Chuck Grassley:

Grassley will be 77 in 2010 and could retire, in which case the race probably leans Democrat. Absent a retirement, a kamikaze mission by someone like Tom Vilsack against the popular incumbent is unlikely to succeed.

Over at Iowa Independent, Chase Martyn begs to differ:

Grassley has not had a truly difficult race in some time.  […]

In 2004, Art Small […] received no institutional support from the Democratic party, which essentially conceded the race before it began.

In 2010, the picture is very different.  While Grassley’s approval rating remains high, almost everything else has changed.

Democrats have begun to truly dominate Iowa’s political scene. […]

What happens if former Gov. Tom Vilsack jumps into the race for Senate?

Fending off Vilsack’s challenge, Grassley could face deficits in both fundraising and name identification for the first time in decades. […]

Far from a ‘kamikaze mission,’ as Silver calls it, the emerging conventional wisdom around here is that Vilsack would have a real chance against Grassley in 2010.

Perhaps “kamikaze mission” is too strong a phrase, but we need to acknowledge that Tom Vilsack or any other Democrat would be a serious underdog against Grassley. Yes, Iowa now has far more registered Democrats than Republicans (about 106,000 more, last I heard), but Grassley has always benefited from a strong crossover vote.

Grassley will face substantial pressure not to retire in 2010, in part because several other Republican-held Senate seats are likely to be vulnerable. Furthermore, Iowa Republicans hoping to unseat Governor Chet Culver would love to be able to focus their spending on that campaign, rather than divide their resources between the gubernatorial race and defending an open Senate seat.

As I see it, four factors could push Grassley toward retirement:

1. A health problem (God forbid).

2. An unpleasant 2009 in the Senate minority. Grassley loves his job and has gotten along well with Montana Senator Max Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. But what if the enlarged and emboldened Democratic majority doesn’t need to cut as many deals with Grassley as Baucus has done in the past?

3. Deteriorating relations between Grassley and the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party of Iowa. For background on this tension, click here or click here.

4. A top-tier Democratic challenger who can raise a lot of money and has free time to campaign.

And that brings me to the paradox in the title of this post. Clearly Grassley’s retirement would give Democrats the best chance (some might say only chance) to win this seat. However, Grassley is more likely to retire if Tom Vilsack or another major-league Democrat jumps in now, instead of waiting a year or longer to see whether the incumbent will decide to step down for some other reason.

Challenging Grassley means embarking on long and exhausting uphill battle. But putting Grassley on notice soon that Democrats will not give him a pass is one of the few things we could do to improve the odds that he will retire.

Hoo boy. This would be nice:

Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), whom Specter defeated by less than two percentage points in 2004, said he hasn’t ruled out a 2010 rematch, but has no timetable for a decision.

Toomey, the president of the conservative Club for Growth, insisted Specter faces more hurdles than he did four years ago.

“He’s significantly more vulnerable now than he was in 2004,” Toomey said in an interview.

He argued that Specter’s core constituency in the GOP, which he called “liberal and moderate Republicans,” have since left the party and will be unable to vote in Pennsylvania’s closed Republican primary. That will make it more difficult for Specter to prevail against a conservative opponent, Toomey said.

Go for it, Pat!

In what can only be described as something that is a long time coming, longtime Oregon conservative activist (and complete A-hole) Bill Sizemore was jailed today after being found in contempt of court for the fourth time.  The specific incident this time was Sizemore’s failure to file federal and state reporting forms required for organizations he controls to maintain their tax exempt status.

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

This story stems from this article: Bill Sizemore jailed for contempt of court

Key Quote:

The dramatic moment just after Wilson finished a more than two-hour recitation of her findings in the case. Two Multnomah County deputies who had been in the back of the courtroom approached Sizemore, who was sitting at a table facing the judge, handcuffed his hands behind his back and led him from the courtroom.

This was in response to a lawsuit filed by Sizemore’s longstanding enemies, and one of, if not the, most powerful unions in the state, the Oregon Education Association among at least one other teacher’s union.

Sizemore has honestly had this a long time coming.  Below is a brief history of Sizemore’s OR political activity.

1990-Don McIntyre (one of Sizemore’s precursors) proposes and helps pass Measure 5 (Similar to the infamous Prop 13 in CA), sharply limiting property taxes and hindering state government ever since.

1994-Sizemore passes Measure 8, later overturned, which would have required public employees to pay part of their salaries.

1996-Sizemore passes Measure 47, a follow-up to Measure 5, which later requires the legislature to propose and pass Measure 50 as Measure 47 proves to be constitutionally unworkable.

1998-Sizemore wins the Republican nomination for OR Governor and loses badly to incumbent John Kitzhaber (D).

2000-The Oregon Education Association and AFT-Oregon file a racketeering lawsuit against Sizemore.  The accusations center around submission of false or fraudulent signatures and submission of false tax reports to hide Sizemore’s use of political campaign funds for his personal expenses.  In 2002 a jury found against Sizemore in the amount of $2.5M, which has had yet to pay a dime of.

2002-Oregon voters pass Measure 26, banning payment per signature for initiative petitions, a measure directly aimed to stop the sort of about perpetrated by Sizemore.  Opponents have tried via the courts, thankfully unsuccessfully, to overturn it repeatedly.

2003-The court orders dissolution of Sizemore’s Oregon Taxpayers Union-Education Fund for the violations described above.

2004, 2006 and 2008-Sizemore proposes a series of initiatives, all of which fail.

2008-Oregon voters pass Measure 56, overturning the “double majority” requirement at the center of Sizemore’s Measure 5/47/50 victories in the 1990s but leaving the property tax limitations themselves intact.

Most recently this story came out, which I previously reported on and so will repeat my thoughts from then:



Sizemore admits to personal use of funds:

Story here: Oregon anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore admits personal use of funds

Anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore is known for many things, such as running a series of insane ballot measures every two years.  However, one thing he would prefer not to be remembered for is his mis-use of funds donated to nonprofit organizations under his control, which partially led to a judgment against him several years back for racketeering.  Under the terms of an injunction resulting from that lawsuit, such usage of funds was not allowed.  Despite this, it was revealed that Sizemore “wrote checks from the foundation account for $660,326, almost all of it for his own benefit. Sizemore also charged another $88,176 to a foundation debit card at Wells Fargo.”  Included in his purchases was a car for his wife, braces for his daughter, a time-share in Mexico and my personal favorite, 15 1-ounce gold pieces.  It seems that perhaps the real reason Sizemore doesn’t like paying taxes is that the pesky government insists he follow the law.

Let me know what you think.

From the Hotline:

Sources close to Rep. Dennis Moore (KS-03) say that the congressman may not run for re-election in ’10. It’s unclear if he will launch a Senate bid instead; Sen. Sam Brownback (R) is stepping down that year and is expected to run for GOV.

Via a spokeswoman, Moore said today: “I am honored to be serving the people of the Third District and have every intention of continuing my work in Congress on their behalf”

This district would be a challenging hold in an open seat situation, especially if the GOP nominates state Sen. Nick Jordan, a candidate with appeal to both the conservative and moderate factions of the KS GOP, who held Moore to 56% last month. Democrats do have something of a bench in this suburban district, as four of the nine state senators representing this CD are Dems. But no matter what, this one would be tough.

Who should run against “Diaper” Dave Vitter in 2010?