Month: March 2009
Competitive Congressional Districts in California
CA-03 (Sacto suburbs; Obama 49%):
CA-04 (Northeast/Tahoe; Obama 44%):
CA-11 (Suburbs east of Bay Area; Obama 54%):
CA-24 (Ventura County; Obama 51%):
CA-25 (High Desert/Big Empty; Obama 50%):
CA-26 (Northeastern L.A. suburbs; Obama 51%):
CA-44 (Riverside City/southern OC; Obama 50%):
CA-45 (most of Riverside County; Obama 52%):
CA-46 (NW OC/Palos Verdes; Obama 48%):
CA-48 (Irvine/Laguna Beach; Obama 49%):
CA-50 (Northern S.D. suburbs; Obama 51%):
Outlook for the California State Legislature in 2010 – March 2009 edition
With the release of the new registration numbers, I now have updates for the open and/or competitive State Senate and State Assembly districts. With the district results that I found (Senate here and Assembly here), I put in a new column, showing the margin of the 2008 presidential winner in each district, so we can clearly see what our biggest targets are.
Our current numbers in the Senate are 25 Democrats/15 Republicans, with winning 2 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3; and in the Assembly 51 Democrats/29 Republicans, with winning 3 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3.
Cross-posted at Calitics and Democracy for California.
SENATE
Republicans (4)
| District | Incumbent | DEM | GOP | Margin | 2008 Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Democrats (5)
| District | Incumbent | DEM | GOP | Margin | 2008 Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assembly numbers are over the flip…
ASSEMBLY
Republicans (16)
| District | Incumbent | DEM | GOP | Margin | 2008 Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Democrats (15)
| District | Incumbent | DEM | GOP | Margin | 2008 Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In the Senate, our obvious plan of action is to win the 12th and possibly the 4th if we have a strong candidate, and hold the 34th. In the Assembly, we have a lot of offense opportunities and of course, we will need to defend our 4 freshmen in vulnerable districts (Huber especially, Buchanan, Block, Perez). As for the potentially vulnerable Republican districts we should target, we should prioritize them like this:
(I) Open seats in Obama districts: 5, 33, 37, 63, 70
(II) Incumbents in Obama districts: 26, 30, 36, 38, 64, 74, 75
(III) Incumbents in McCain districts with small (<6%) registration edge: 3, 65 (There are no open seats in these districts.)
(IV) Other open seats: 25, 68
NY-20: Could the Special Election Be Postponed? (Updated)
That’s what the AP is reporting tonight:
A U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit could delay next week’s special election in the 20th Congressional District because military and overseas absentee voters might not have enough time for their votes to be counted.
The complaint says the Department of Defense has determined that overseas voters need at least 30 days to receive and return ballots. The DoD recommends at least 45 days.
In New York, a special election must happen within 30 days of the governor calling for it. The ballot for this vote was certified March 11.
Republican Jim Tedisco is running against Democrat Scott Murphy in the March 31 election.
The state Board of Elections is still reviewing the complaint. No court date has been set.
A postponement would throw a nice little wrench into the spending plans of both candidates and the various outside committees and PACs who anticipated a March 31st vote.
Can anyone remember the last time a special election was postponed due to court order this close to its scheduled election day? I’m having a hard time thinking of any examples.
(Hat-tip: TAP)
UPDATE: The Hill chimes in with their own piece, suggesting that the likeliest course would not be a postponement of the entire election, but a court-ordered extension of the deadline for receiving absentee ballots from April 7th to April 13th. That makes more sense to me.
ActBlue Looking for Your Ideas
“I believe candidates with strong, sound stances deserve our support, and this is a race where your dollars can make the difference. Please make a contribution to this critical cause.”
Sound familiar? If you have any experience with our fundraising pages you will have seen this (and perhaps fallen asleep to it) a few too many times. It is the default text for ActBlue’s fundraising pages. ActBlue’s customizable fundraising pages allow progressive activists to raise money for the best Democratic candidates out there easily and effectively, and the fifty state blog network has taken advantage of this feature to support state and national candidates with customized, targeted pages. But while the original blurb did help Democrats use our pages, we’re in year 5 of ActBlue, and this is definitely year 3-4 material. We’ll be working with thousands of new fundraisers this cycle, and we want to make sure they have the best language. And, well, this isn’t it.
So, we need ideas.
We know you’re best equipped to know what language will appeal to your friends and neighbors, so we wanted to give all of you an opportunity to create the next fundraising page blurb. If we pick yours, it will show up automatically on almost every fundraising page created on ActBlue. To show our appreciation, we’ll send the winner and two runners-up an ActBlue Ice Cream Scoop! (No, we’re not kidding. And trust us, it’s a high quality scoop – The Original Zeroll.)
Okay, here are the guidelines:
- The blurb must be fewer than 50 words.
- It has to be fairly generic (no specific issues or names), but still get across the basic reason for the fundraising page. This is something our current text does fairly well, if you are looking for an example.
- If you can make it apply to pages for candidates and/or committees, all the better. If not, at least make it appeal to people looking to donate to candidates.
- We are Democrats, and our pages are for Democrats. If your message would appeal to Democrats, that would probably earn points.
- Humor is a big plus, but only that universal humor that works for everyone.
- Effective fundraising is personal. Think about what kind of language would help you be a better fundraiser, and think about why your friends and family might feel compelled to give.
- All entries must be received by 3/25.
Fill out your entry form right here! Thank you for your participation!
ActBlue is active in all 50 states, helping Democrats raise money for their chosen candidate from the comfort of their living rooms and offices. We believe that your voice should be heard everywhere from your state capitol to the Senate floor, and we’re working to make sure it is. Please support our work with a $15 recurring contribution today!
Decoding the Districts
If you’ve been poring over the presidential results-by-congressional district data that we’ve compiled, you’ve probably noticed that there are a whole lot of districts that flipped from being won by Bush in 04 to Obama in 08 (64 of them, to be exact), and only one that flipped from Kerry to McCain. That’s interesting enough, and other analysts have already delved into that… but I decided to look at one more data point, and also factor in what the district did in 2000.
When I start talking about districts in terms of them being “GBM” or “BBO” or “GBO” it may sound like I’m talking in terms of genetic code. I’m using those as shorthand for how the district performed in the last three elections: being won by Gore/Bush/McCain, or Bush/Bush/Obama, for instance. In a way, though, we are very much talking about the genetic code for each district, because each of these classifications reveals a lot about what kind of political ecosystem the district is located in.
Over 80% of all House districts are either Bush/Bush/McCain or Gore/Kerry/Obama; not so interesting. I’m concerned with the remaining 75 districts. Many of them aren’t what you’d traditionally think of as swing districts, but rather red districts in blue states that got pushed along by Obama’s strong performance in those states. Time will tell whether these become the “new” swing seats, or if they fall back as the blue wave passes. These fall largely into the “BBO” category:
Bush/Bush/Obama: CA-03, CA-11, CA-24, CA-25, CA-26, CA-44, CA-45, CA-48, CA-50, FL-08, FL-18, IA-04, IL-06, IL-08, IL-11, IL-13, IL-14, IL-16, IN-02, KS-03, MI-01, MI-04, MI-06, MI-07, MI-08, MI-09, MI-11, MN-01, MN-03, NC-02, NC-08, NE-02, NH-01, NJ-07, NY-19, NY-20, NY-23, NY-24, OH-01, OH-12, OH-15, OR-05, TX-23, TX-28, VA-02, VA-04, VA-10, VA-11, WA-03, WI-01, WI-06, WI-08
You can see a couple different trends here, primarily previously-Republican-leaning suburbs in states where Obama cleaned up (California, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) or where it was closer but he made a big push (Virginia, Ohio, Florida). There are also a fair number of rural Michigan districts here as well, pointing toward McCain’s more general collapse in that state.
There are also a few of the most conservative Hispanic-majority seats that finally cracked, and a few formerly red districts in midwestern cities that benefited from heavy Dem targeting (IN-02, NE-02). There are also a few rural northeastern Rockefeller Republican seats in New York and New Hampshire where patience with today’s GOP seems to be finally exhausted. Finally, I see at least three seats where I would wager that Dukakis actually beat Bush I, but where Democratic fortunes started to wane in the mid-90s until the recent rebound (IA-04, OR-05, and WA-03).
Gore/Bush/Obama: CA-18, CA-47, FL-10, GA-02, GA-12, IA-03, NJ-02, NJ-03, NV-03, NY-01, TX-15, TX-27
Among the “GBO” districts, there’s a mix of several things. There are more Hispanic-majority districts, where Bush’s attempts at Latino outreach in 2004 may have helped him eke out a win. There are some northeastern suburban seats where Kerry didn’t play very well (partially but not entirely explained by the 9/11 effect, perhaps). There are a few Georgia districts where paltry African-American turnout may have harmed Kerry, and finally some of the most knife’s-edge swing districts of all (FL-10, IA-03, NV-03), where Gore’s slightly better overall nationwide position vs. Kerry seemed to make the difference.
Bush/Kerry/Obama: NC-13, OR-04, TX-25
See a commonality here among the “BKO” districts? These are three districts dominated by college towns (Raleigh, Eugene, Austin) but with conservative surroundings. In OR-04 and TX-25, a lot of that may have to do with a strong Nader effect depressing Gore votes (and in Texas, a favorite son effect boosting Bush). Interestingly, Nader wasn’t on the ballot in North Carolina in 2000, meaning that this shift is probably based on demographic changes in the Research Triangle as liberal whites from elsewhere move in.
Gore/Bush/McCain: AR-01, AR-04, NJ-04, NY-03, NY-13, TN-08, WV-03
There are two clear sub-groups among the “GBM” districts: some of the most Dem-friendly districts (and ones that would be particularly responsive to favorite sons Clinton or Gore) in the Appalachian arc finally falling through the floor. And some of the most socially conservative districts in the New York metro area, where the 9/11 effect was especially pronounced and still seems to linger… but where Gore also seemed to overperform.
Gore/Kerry/McCain: PA-12
The lone “GKM” district, as I’ve discussed before, is one that’s trending away from us because of, more than any other reason, mortality. Former unionists who formed a strong Democratic core in the collar counties around Pittsburgh are dying off rapidly, leaving a mix of their economically dislocated and culture-wars-susceptible descendants, and new exurban residents. This brings us to the last possible permutation: the Bush/Kerry/McCain district… and there ain’t no such beast.
SSP Daily Digest: 3/24
• IL-10: Roll Call takes a look at the potential GOP and Dem fields to replace Rep. Mark Kirk should he decide to run for Senate. A spokesperson for ’06/’08 nominee Dan Seals says that he’s in for a third crack at the seat if Kirk vacates the scene, but state Sens. Michael Bond and Susan Garrett are also possible recruits. For the GOP, potential contenders include state Reps. Beth Coulson, JoAnn Osmond, and Ed Sullivan Jr — as well as state Sens. Dan Duffy and Matt Murphy. Coulson, perhaps the most moderate choice the GOP has to offer, might run into some problems in a GOP primary against a more conservative choice like Murphy. (J)
• PA-Sen: The Republican caucus in the Pennsylvania state Senate seems reluctant to comply with Arlen Specter’s desire to allow independents to vote in closed-party primary elections. If the state ultimately leaves the primary rules as they are, Specter will face the daunting task of convincing independents and Democrats to change their party registrations over to the GOP column in order for him to gain leverage against Pat Toomey. (J)
On a very related note, Specter just announced this afternoon that he will be opposing EFCA (an about-face from his previous support for it in previous sessions). Apparently he now thinks the GOP primary is his biggest worry, not maintaining union support for the general.
• MN-06: We’ll never get tired of loving Michele Bachmann. Her latest:
I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.
• CO-04: Speculation is growing about who the GOP will find to take on freshman Rep. Betsy Markey in this one-time GOP stronghold turned swing district. State rep. Cory Gardner seems to generate the most buzz, who has already met with the NRCC. Other possibilities include former UC regent Tom Lucero and Ft. Collins city councilor Diggs Brown.
• MI-12: Sander Levin must have had a lot of advance notice of the just-announced primary challenge from state senator Mickey Switalski, because he’s already produced an internal poll from the Mellman Group showing him demolishing Switalski. Levin beats Switalski 62-14 in a head-to-head, and maintains a 74-15 favorable rating. (Switalski’s favorables are 23-8, leaving 69% unsure.)
• NH-02: Another GOPer has lined up for the open House seat left behind by Paul Hodes: Len Mannino, former Milford selectman and current school board member, is publicly expressing his interest. He’ll face an uphill fight against talk radio host Jennifer Horn, who seems to be aiming for a rematch.
• CT-Sen: In 1970, Connecticut’s senior senator, beset by ethical issues (including a Senate censure) and health troubles, failed to re-claim the Democratic Party’s nomation and came in third as an independent that November. That man was Thomas Dodd, Chris Dodd’s father. Click the link for some fascinating details about his saga. And let’s hope that history doesn’t repeat – or even rhyme. (D)
• TX-Gov: Todd Hill of the Burnt Orange Report sat down for an extended interview with Democratic candidate Tom Schieffer. (D)
Redistricting 2011: Penn. & Utah
Episode 6 in my redistricting series. By this point I’m tired of having these maps and data lying around burning a hole in my Microsoft Word documents, especially in light of the new Census county estimates for 2008. So I’m knocking out all the already-completed states for your and my nerdy enjoyment. Today, some keystones with your Jell-O?
Previously covered:
Diary 1: Massachusetts and Texas
Diary 2: Michigan and Nevada
Diary 3: Iowa and Ohio
Diary 4: Georgia and New Jersey
Diary 5: Florida and Louisiana
Those strangest of bedfellows, Rust Belt Pennsylvania and booming Utah! (spelled with an exclamation point as on state license plates) just below the fold…
Pennsylvania
Needless to say, this is truly a state of contrasts, from the upwardly mobile, newly liberal-leaning Philadelphia suburbs to the numerically shrinking, increasingly Republican towns of western Pennsylvania. In the vast “T” between Pittsburgh and Philly lies some of the most conservative and rural territory in the entire old North, along with a Democratic island in the Penn State campus and its environs.
What will redistricting see in Pennsylvania? Hard to say. The least likely option is a Democratic gerrymander, thanks to a healthy 30-20 GOP majority in the State Senate. Republicans have an outside shot at a redux gerrymander thanks to the open governor’s mansion and narrow 104-99 Dem edge in the House. My money is on a continued power split, since it is tough (though quite far from unheard of) for a party to pick up both the governor’s mansion and a legislative chamber in one cycle in a competitive state. I drew my hypothetical Pennsylvania map (again, using 2007 stats) with according assumptions.
Split partisan power in redistricting usually means all-around incumbent protection, which particularly helps the Democrats and their weaker seats (the 10th, 3rd, 12th, 11th, et al.), but also the Republicans in at least two cases (the 15th and 6th). There is, of course, a wrinkle: Pennsylvania will be losing at least one seat in reapportionment; possibly two, but one seems more likely unless North-to-South migration really picks up in the next year. With much of the state’s worst population loss occurring in the west, and with Western Pennsylvania Democrats a bit overrepresented at the congressional level (at least considering trends in the region), it seemed likely that a relatively new Democrat would be eliminated, or at least put in a tough spot against an incumbent Republican. John Murtha’s seniority means his is likely not to be the unlucky musical chair, unless he’s finally ready to retire in 2012 at age 80. That’s a possibility, but I drew the map to combine Republican Tim Murphy and Democrat Jason Altmire in a competitive (but doubtlessly McCain-supporting) western district. Meanwhile, Murtha and Erie’s Kathy Dahlkemper are both strengthened. Of course, this assumes that Murtha, Dahlkemper, Altmire, and Murphy are all reelected in 2010, and all four have at one time or another been targeted recently.
One oddity in the west as a result of the eliminated district? Bill Shuster’s 9th moved all the way into former Murtha country, though it kept Shuster’s home in-district. (Yeah, doesn’t make much sense, but with the 12th trending GOP, and Murtha getting quite up there in years, you can bet Democrats will try to salvage all their strength in the Pittsburgh area). In the east, I did my best to shore up Chris Carney, whose district is darned difficult to gerrymander for a Dem, as well as 2008 underperformer Paul Kanjorski and Charlie Dent, whose 15th District tilts Democratic in its current form. I also attempted to make the Philadelphia-area districts more compact and logical, which may have been a case of my quixotic reformer instincts overreaching.
Now, every map has at least one Achilles heel, and mine is Tim Holden’s 17th District. I simply could not figure out how to make it Dem-leaning without some seriously ugly and disruptive lines. In fact, it got more Republican in this map…not my intention, I assure you. Also, Shuster’s district moving west meant that Platts and Pitts would see some major turf changes.
This isn’t my best map (I’m much happier with Texas and Ohio), but perhaps it isn’t the travesty Louisiana and Massachusetts were. I aimed to lessen Pennsylvania’s “emaciated serpent” factor while protecting potentially vulnerable newbies. Without a doubt, a state legislator with real redistricting software (rather than a calculator, Census estimates on Excel, and Paint) could draw something more effective and precise. But you can judge for yourself:
District 1 – Bob Brady (D-Philadelphia) — still ethnically mixed and heavily Democratic, the home of Rocky Balboa. (Cue Bill Conti and his horn section.)
District 2 – Chaka Fattah (D-Philadelphia) — the only VRA district in the state, still majority-black.
District 3 – Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Erie) — barely voted for McCain as-is, so I aimed to maximize the influence of Dem-friendly Erie County and competitive Mercer County. I also divided Butler County to further minimize GOP strength. This district would have voted for Obama by an inch, no more than 51-48 or 52-47, but I think that’s the best I could do.
District 4 – Jason Altmire (D-McCandless) vs. Tim Murphy (R-Upper St. Clair) — both incumbents live in suburban Allegheny County, so the district includes a healthy 25% of that county along with the remaining 65% of Butler and all of Beaver and Lawrence. It’s nice and compact, and pretty competitive — my guesstimate is the numbers will actually be more Democratic than the McCain 55-44 stat seen in both Congresscritters’ current districts, which could bode well for Altmire.
District 5 – Glenn Thompson (R-Howard) — super-Republican “T” district, including one Obama base: Centre County and its many Penn State students. Why are these public university towns (State College, PA; Gainesville, FL; Athens, GA) always situated in a sea of red?
District 6 – Jim Gerlach (R-Chester Springs) — I simplified the lines to include 69% of Berks and 85% of Chester Counties, two of the more swingy counties in the Philly suburbs (compared to Delaware and Montgomery, each 60-39 for Obama). Gerlach would have a slightly more favorable seat here, but there is a huge caveat: he is exploring a 2010 run for Governor, which could be bad for our chances of holding the governor’s mansion but is probably good for our chances of picking up PA-06.
District 7 – Joe Sestak (D-Edgmont) — all of Delaware and 18% of Montgomery = a strong (and compact) Dem seat.
District 8 – Patrick Murphy (D-Bristol) — all of Bucks plus remainders of Berks and Montgomery; the vote here should be similar to my proposed 6th (about 54-45 for Obama), and if I’d wanted to gerrymander a bit, I could have made it more solid.
District 9 – Bill Shuster (R-Hollidaysburg) — now essentially a Western PA district! Not my slickest map-making, but I was worried about holding the 12th in future election cycles.
District 10 – Chris Carney (D-Dimock) — this was fairly well-done, OTOH, though I couldn’t be too aggressive for fear of weakening Kanjorski; I included 96% of Luzerne County and 28% of Lackawanna, while cutting out GOP-leaning (but Dem-trending) Pike; a 54-45 McCain district would hopefully be a lot closer to even now.
District 11 – Paul Kanjorski (D-Nanticoke) — I don’t know if Nanticoke would be in the 10th under these lines, so ignore them because the 4% of Luzerne left in the 11th would ideally include Kanjorski’s house. Other than Pike, every county in this district voted for Obama, and the expansion into Northampton County is intended to replace lost turf in Luzerne County. The district might technically be a hair less Obama-supporting than before, but there is a serious silver lining here for the incumbent: Lou Barletta’s Hazleton is no longer included.
District 12 – John Murtha (D-Johnstown) — this being the only district in America to switch from Kerry ’04 to McCain ’08 set off an alarm in my head; coupled with frequent controversy about Murtha himself, it was enough to prompt my version’s radical changes to the old lines. While the 65% of Westmoreland County doesn’t help, I’ve included all of Murtha’s native Cambria County along with competitive Indiana County and (this is key) 18% of Allegheny.
District 13 – Allyson Schwartz (D-Jenkintown) — 80% of Montgomery and the remaining 5% of Philadelphia for a compact, logical, and safe Dem seat.
District 14 – Mike Doyle (D-Forest Hills) — entirely within Allegheny County.
District 15 – Charlie Dent (R-Allentown) — yes, it’s heavy in Democratic Lehigh County, but retains just 18% each of Dem-leaning Northampton and Berks, now including all of heavily GOP Lebanon and even 20% of GOP-friendly Lancaster. This might still have voted for Obama, but by a heck of a lot less than 56-43.
District 16 – Joe Pitts (R-Kennett Square) — stretches along the south from Adams to Chester Counties, but ruled by Lancaster County, of which it comprises 80%.
District 17 – Tim Holden (D-Saint Clair) — this is my biggest disappointment. It was drawn in 2002 for George Gekas to defeat Holden, and somehow I managed to make it more Republican than before, when it should have been easy to push into the Dem column through mild adjustments. Holden can win this district as I’ve drawn it, but when he retires, all bets would be off. There must be a way to grab some Philly suburbs for the 17th without drawing the lines too revoltingly.
District 18 – Todd Platts (R-York) — okay, so it’s a lot less compact and a lot more Shuster-ish. But it’s still dominated by his York County base and still safely Republican (more so, actually).
Mapping the Keystone State, and still failing in some of my goals, was migraine-inducing, so you can imagine how relieving it is to be switching gears here for a state with just four districts, a state like…
Utah
This was a cinch to draw, since the legislature already green-lighted (green-lit?) a plan called Plan L back in late 2006 when Utah pols hoped for lame-duck congressional approval of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act. Now, whether that bill will eventually become law is still up in the air given tensions over the poison pill gun issue, but regardless of the immediate outcome, Utah will get a fourth district in reapportionment, and the state is overdue for an urban Salt Lake seat in the next decade. The current map includes three districts that combine cities/suburbs along the populous Wasatch Front with isolated small towns and desolate rural areas. That was done to hurt Jim Matheson; but GOP lawmakers, who can genuinely approve any map they want to in this heavily Republican state, appear likely to give Matheson the most Democratic district possible in order to ensure hard-right GOP hegemony in the other three districts.
Why would they do this? Well, Salt Lake County is trending Democratic, even voting for Obama in 2008 after going to Bush by 20 points in 2004. A new urban district is likely to be concentrated around Salt Lake City, and should the popular Matheson run in a rural district, there would actually be a good chance of two Democrats in a four-member Utah delegation! Thus, the best solution for Republicans is to put Matheson in the urban seat and carve themselves deep red rural turf.
My 2nd District, designed for Matheson, concentrates just about all the Democratic areas in Utah other than Moab, and creates a new 4th along the western portion of the state that would favor a Republican from Salt Lake, or (if the Salt Lake vote was split) someone from the fast-growing St. George area who commanded rural support. (Trivia for those who haven’t been: most of the state is indeed known for its high elevations, dramatic snow-capped mountains, and pristine skiing, but St. George actually has palm trees and relatively hot, humid summer temperatures ideal for growing cotton! Weird, I know.)
Here’s the Utah map, probably one of the least controversial I’ve drawn (and again, though I’m using 2007 estimates and not 2000 Census data, the legislature’s prior work served as a clear blueprint for my plan):
District 1 – Rob Bishop (R-Brigham City) — the northwest corner of the state, dominated by Davis and Weber Counties along the Front.
District 2 – Jim Matheson (D-Salt Lake City) — considering it would comprise 60% of Salt Lake, 6% of Davis, and all of Summit, this district might have literally voted for Obama…yes, it’s now possible to draw a genuine Democratic seat in Utah! And while the legislature may not draw Matheson something quite as favorable, they are sure to stick him in a safe urban district to avoid introducing a new Democrat into the delegation.
District 3 – Jason Chaffetz (R-Alpine) — the largest area in the state, but Utah County (Provo-Orem) reigns supreme.
New District 4 – Safe Republican, contains 40% of Salt Lake and all of Washington — odds would favor a second Salt Lake County Congressman here (a Republican to complement Matheson), but if rural areas stick together, there is room for someone from outside the Wasatch Front.
Comment away!
KY-Sen: Bunning Blames McConnell and Cornyn For Fundraising Woes
From the AP:
Bunning said during a conference call Tuesday that McConnell and Texas Sen. John Cornyn have put doubts about his 2010 candidacy into the minds of possible donors. Bunning claimed McConnell and Cornyn, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have tried to recruit someone to challenge him in the GOP primary.
This race is the gift that keeps on giving. McConnell and Cornyn are clearly trying to starve Bunning into retirement, but it’s becoming an increasingly plausible scenario that a stubborn but cash-strapped Bunning may emerge as the Republican nominee for this seat in 2010 — at which point Cornyn and McConnell may find themselves falling over ass-backwards in order to refill the old coot’s coffers. It doesn’t get much better than this.
(H/T: P’co)
King (R-NY) of Convenience
(Cross posted from 21st Century Democrats)
You can search this nation far and wide and still wind up with very few elected moderate Republicans. As I've discussed before, the Republican tent is shrinking: those who don't subscribe to a narrow set of backward ideas are pushed out. Some have reacted courageously, like the trio of Republican moderates who voted for the stimulus bill. Some however, take the convenient route. Case in point: New York congressman Peter King, who represents the moderate 3rd district, was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act in 2003. This was back when President Bush was certain to veto the bill if it passed, so King hopped on board, appeased the unions in his home district, and kept everyone content. Now that we have a President who supports the measure, King has jumped off the wagon. From his official statement:
“I do not, however, intend to support EFCA in this Congress. Our country is facing its most severe economic crisis in 75 years. It is a crisis different from previous recessions in that it includes restricted credit, massive job loss, a plunging stock market and increased foreclosures and bankruptcies. Virtually every component of our economy is suffering. While I am confident we will recover, I believe the road ahead will be long and difficult. Under these conditions, I have concluded that the Employee Free Choice Act would be too severe a shock to our economy at this time and would be counterproductive.“
He concludes the statement with a telling sentence: “I will continue, of course, to monitor the situation but that is my current thinking.” From that statement, you might actually think that Congressman King is going to monitor the economic situation. However, what he's really going to be watching are his chances to defeat Kirsten Gillibrand in the 2010 Senate race (Gillibrand is a 21st Century Democrats endorsee and a strong Employee Free Choice supporter). As we've heard, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn is reaching back in time for his 2010 candidates, and he seems to have his sights set on former-Governor George Pataki. If Peter King wants Party money for his Senate bid, he needs to look like the “better Republican.” It'll be Pataki vs. King in a beauty contest of conservatism. He can't be doing things like – gasp – protecting the rights of working people. It would be so un-Republican of him. And while we're at it, let's talk about the idea that the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would be a “shock” to our economy in these troubled times. Look, the economy is already shocked; working families are shocked by the $2,000 on average that disappeared from their income between 2001 and 2007. The bill does NOT get rid of the option for the NRLB secret ballot election, even though the current election system is rife with flaws. And despite popular belief, when management and labor bargain on equal terms, it helps the workers as well as the management. Just ask this group of 40 leading economists, including two Nobel laureates, who put a full page ad in the Washington Post last month supporting the bill.
Peter King isn't watching the economic situation. He's watching John Cornyn and George Pataki, and he's watching Senator Gillibrand's poll numbers to see if he has a shot at her seat.Meanwhile, Politico reports that numerous Freshman Democrats are voting for the bill despite their electoral vulnerability. There's something to be said for political courage: not everyone has it.
by Doug Foote