A Quick Rundown of Orange County (and a quick note at the end)

This article by the New York Times highlights what we here on the ground already knew: The political winds are turning against the Republicans here. I already detailed this with my two previous diaries, but i want to add another part: the state of the local races here two very competitive Assembly districts.

Recently, Art Pedroza of the Orange Juice Blog recently wrote a scathing criticism of the leadership and the workings of the OC Democratic Party. While i disagree with him on certain issues, he makes a strong point by saying:

Make no mistake about it- the Republican Party of Orange County is the enemy.  They hate Mexicans.  They hate homosexuals.  They hate the poor.  They are corrupt, for the most part.  Stop kissing up to these people!

Now on to the locally contested races:

AD-68

Challengers: Phu Ngyuen (D) vs Allan Mansoor (R)

Registration: 40.1% Rep./32.7% Dem./21.9% Ind

Analysis: Located in the South-west part of OC, this district is extremely diverse with Hispanic enclave Stanton to the north, down to famed Little Saigon and the ethnically diverse meltingpot known as Costa Mesa. Democrat Phu Ngyuen is running a strong campaign against Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor, who is known for his Joe Arapaio-like bullying of immigrants. Ngyuen was recruited by the Dems for his strong ties to the Vietnamese community, a very competitive voting group and has the backing of the entire OC Democratic Party leaders. According to the Secretary of State, Ngyuen has $136,604 CoH while Mansoor is at a jaw-dropping $8,617! However, this race is still favorable to Mansoor due to his stature in Costa Mesa and the generally pro-Republican lean of 2010. Still, if Ngyuen can pull within single digits, that’s a win in itself.

Rating: Leans Republican

AD-70

Challengers: Melissa Fox (D) vs Don Wagner (R)

Registration: 42.3% Rep./30% Dem./23% Ind

Analysis: This race is gonna be one to watch on election day. Attorney Melissa Fox is up against Don Wagner, a member of the Coastal Community College District and a vocal social conservative. This district is open after Chuck DeVore’s pathetic attempt to beat Carly Fiorina in the Republican Senate race. Fox has been hitting the ground hard, running a stellar grassroots campaign and recently won the Democracy for America’s Allstar Grassroots campaign. However her fundraising is small, having raised only around $27,000 and having an anemic $7,747. But Wagner manages to beat (or stump below?) that, having raised $163,208 he is now at an amazing….$425. Yes, four-hundred and twenty-five dollars. But to be fair, he did face a very crowded Republican Primary, where he was the underdog against favorite Steven Choi, an Irvine Councilman. The folks at Orange Juice and the Liberal OC have been relentlessly going after Wagner since the campaign’s started. It amazes me that even though this district, with its large Republican registration, not only voted for Obama (51-47) but against! Prop 8 (50-50 narrowly) and yet they keep giving us Chuck DeVore-style religious wacko’s like Wagner. Nevertheless, my heart says this race is a Tossup but my mind tells me its another Leans R, but i’m letting my heart win for today.

Rating: Tossup

For those who are interested, here’s some links:

http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Ca… — Secretary of State’s Website for Campaign Funds

http://orangejuiceblog.com — In my opinion, the best place for knowledge on OC politics. Some posters have libertarian tendencies (such as Art Pedroza) while others are solid progressives (like Vern Nelson), but its still a very telling website to learn more on OC Politics.

http://votemelissafox.com — Melissa Fox, Democratic Nominee for AD-70

http://votephu.com — Phu Ngyuen, Democratic Nominee for AD-68

(Note: Wednesday is my first day of school (go juniors!), so my presence on SSP will be limited. But i’ll be back as much as i can to catch up on any delicious cat fud that may appear and of course i’ll stay for the November elections, so this may be my final (diary) post for a while. =)

(Note 2: This post was intended to focus on all local OC races, but i only picked AD-68 and AD-70 because of the competitiveness and visibility it has gotten.)

Analyzing Swing States: Pennsylvania, Conclusions

This is the last part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Pennsylvania. The previous parts can be found here.

Conclusions

For many decades, Pennsylvania constituted model of Democratic strength based upon working-class votes. Today that is changing, especially in the southwest. For the moment, nevertheless, the swing state Pennsylvania remains Democratic-leaning. This is more because of an unusually strong Democratic machine than any natural liberalism in Pennsylvania.

In 2008 Democrats won Pennsylvania by double-digits, amassing a coalition based upon poor blacks in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, rich whites in the Philadelphia suburbs, and working-class votes outside Appalachia. It is a strange-looking combination, but it works.

More below.

Republicans built their strength upon small towns and exurban communities in “the T,” along with working-class votes in the southwest.

For decades, Republicans have been strengthening in western Pennsylvania, while weakening in eastern Pennsylvania. This map indicates these changes.

Pennsylvania,Conclusions

Although it doesn’t look like it, the 2008 Democratic candidate (who won by 10.32%) actually did better than the 1992 candidate (who won by 9.02%).

From all this, the best news for Democrats would be the blue shift Philadelphia’s suburbs have undergone. Republicans will take heart in the Appalachan southwest’s even stronger movement right.

I have previously opined that these changes benefit Democrats on the whole. Indeed, this whole series of posts has inclined toward a theory of continuing Democratic strength in Pennsylvania. I will conclude this chain of posts, therefore, with a map Republicans will like – the 2008 Pennsylvania results by municipality. This illustrates how President George W. Bush almost won Pennsylvania in 2004.

Pennsylvania,Conclusions

Note: Several months ago I posted several diaries analyzing the swing state Pennsylvania. In a search of my posting archives, I just found out that I’d apparently forgotten to post this final part – so here it is.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Analyzing Orange County: Why America’s Most Conservative County is Trending Blue (part 2/2)

For part 2, i stick to mainly text (sorry, no pretty graphics this time) to describe in detail how the Democratic trends in Orange County coincide with the overall social views on LGBT rights and Abortion.

While John McCain narrowly won Orange County, a so called bastion of conservatism (In fact, other than the Central Valley and parts of North Country, Orange County is indeed the only Republican turf left in the LA Area), support for Propositions 8 and 4 (A measure making underage pregnant women have to get permission seeking an Abortion) were higher at 58 and 55%, respectively. Why the stark difference between the two? Well, if you think it has to do with self-identified Republican voters, you’re half right, follow me below the fold.

While its a certainty that some Republicans and Independents crossed over to vote for Barack Obama, they were also instrumental in passing Props 4 and 8. But another extremely significant voting group helped as well: Hispanics. I was going to make a map (like the one with presidential results earlier) showing support/opposition to these ballot initatives, but its very easy to tell where support came from. Cities like Santa Ana, a “sanctuary” city home to a large (if not, massive) Hispanic population, voted overwhelmingly for not only Obama, but for Props 4 and 8.

First, let’s look at the so called “Blue” cities, that voted for Obama but for 4 and 8, the Yes/No results show how strongly the vote was for/against using the whole county as a baseline average:

Santa Ana:

Obama/McCain: 66/32

%Hispanic: 78%

Y/N Prop 4: 62/38 (+7 YES)

Y/N Prop 8: 62/38 (+4 YES)

Anaheim:

Obama/McCain: 51/47

%Hispanic: 48%

Y/N Prop 4: 59/41 (+4 YES)

Y/N Prop 8: 61/39 (+3 YES)

Buena Park:

Obama/McCain: 52/46

%Hispanic: 35%

Y/N Prop 4: 61/39 (+6 YES)

Y/N Prop 8: 62/38 (+4 YES)

These three cities were essential for President Obama’s near-victory here, but they weren’t the only surprises on election day. Next, i look at cities that voted for John McCain, but voted against or narrowly for these propositions.

Huntington Beach:

Obama/McCain: 45/53

Y/N Prop 4: 49/51 (-6 NO)

Y/N Prop 8: 53/47 (-5 YES)

Newport Beach:

Obama/McCain: 40/58

Y/N Prop 4: 47/53 (-8 NO)

Y/N Prop 8: 51/49 (-7 YES)

Dana Point:

Obama/McCain: 47/51

Y/N: 49/51 (-6 NO)

Y/N: 51/49 (-7 YES)

Newport Beach is strongly Republican, over 50% of its registered voters are Republicans, yet it opposed Proposition 4 (thus affirming a Pro-Choice stance) and barely supported Prop 8, all-the-while giving an 18-point victory to John McCain, while Huntington and Dana Point show similar, yet slightly more favorable results on both.

What does this all mean? Well, while Hispanics are generally pro-Democratic, notice extremely carefully that they aren’t pro-Liberal, and their Catholic views on Abortion and gay rights are in line with typical social conservatives. But, there is also a “country club” force in Orange County, the fiscal hawks who are in total agreement with the Tea Partiers, but are increasingly disillusioned with the Christian-right faction of the Republican Party. To sum it up: don’t just look on the surface to find your electoral answers for these voters, you have to dig further. It’s going to be interesting what the electorate will look like come 2012.

Help a Howard Dean Democrat Win Scott Brown’s Seat

Beltway political pundits are pointing to Scott Brown’s recent U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts as a sign that Republicans nationwide should be excited about their prospects in November.

You know what would be a terrific rebuke to that false logic: a progressive Democrat winning the historically Republican state senate seat that Scott Brown gave up upon his election to the U.S. Senate.  Turning the Scott Brown seat from dark red to bright, progressive blue would make a resounding statement with these political pundits and be a big victory for progressive change.

Dr. Peter Smulowitz is that progressive Democrat!

Dr. Smulowitz is a health care expert and progressive Democrat, very much in the proud, progressive tradition of Dr. Howard Dean.  He will bring to Massachusetts government innovative ideas on reducing health care costs while focusing on primary and preventative care – ideas that can be duplicated in states across America.  Dr. Smulowitz will fight for economic growth and job creation, particularly by easing the tax burden on small businesses and promoting investment in green industries.  He will fight to make government more transparent and responsive to its citizens.  And he will always fight for civil rights and privacy rights, including protecting marriage equality for same-sex couples and reproductive rights for women.

The primary in the special election to fill Brown’s old state senate seat is in just a few weeks, on Tuesday, April 13.  Dr. Smulowitz needs your help in the Democratic primary to make sure that a Howard Dean progressive can succeed the conservative Scott Brown.  Dr. Smulowitz has a primary challenger, a hack in the state legislature who was formerly a member of the state House leadership under two consecutive House Speakers, Tom Finneran and Sal DiMasi, who both eventually became convicted felons and who both represent what is wrong with Massachusetts state government.  This hack’s ties to the convicted felon former Speakers make her completely unelectable in a general election.

On the other hand, Dr. Smulowitz can help champion progressive change by winning conservative Republican Scott Brown’s old State Senate seat.  But we need your help in the progressive blogosphere!

Please join our fight to help a progressive Democrat, rather than an establishment hack, win the primary and have the opportunity to turn the Scott Brown seat blue.  Please make a contribution today via ActBlue!

The pundit class thinks that Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat going to Scott Brown is a big, bad omen of what is to come for Democrats in November.  Electing a Howard Dean Democrat, Dr. Peter Smulowitz, to succeed Scott Brown would turn that omen on its ear and send a poweful message of its own.  Please join our fight!

On the web:

*Dr. Peter Smulowitz for State Senate campaign website

*Contribute to Dr. Smulowitz’s campaign via ActBlue

*Become a fan of Dr. Smulowitz on Facebook

*Follow Dr. Smulowitz on Twitter

Good news for Texas Democrats

Bill White, the former Mayor of Houston, is sitting on $5.4 million for the general election.  Roughly twice as much as either Rick Perry or Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  

Kay Bailey Hutchinson

1.1M raised

8M spent

2.3M Cash on Hand

Rick Perry

850K raised

8.8M spent

2.5M CoH

Debra Medina

450K raised

228k spent

291K CoH

Bill White

2.2M raised

2.7M spent

5.4M CoH

Farouk Shami

1.1M raised

5M spent

1M CoH

Thanks to the BurntOrangeReport for the numbers

http://www.burntorangereport.c…

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Proposal For 2012 Primaries

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

– The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

– The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

– Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

– Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

– This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

– By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

– Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

– Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

– Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

– All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

– Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

– Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

– American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri

North Carolina

Indiana

Florida

Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio

Georgia

Virginia

Colorado

South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota

Arizona

South Carolina

Iowa

New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nevada

West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi

Wisconsin

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut

California

Illinois

Delaware

Maryland

Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska

Idaho

New York

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Vermont

Hawaii

OR-Sen: East Oregonian calls debate for Novick over Merkley

The East Oregonian reviews last Tuesday night’s Oregon Democratic Senate primary debate, and although they describe it as a “low key affair” with a lot of agreement between the candidates on policy, they give the edge to Steve Novick for style.

They describe Merkley as coming off “smug … there was a definite lack of emotion in his responses.” By contrast, they call Novick’s answers “spontaneous and less stilted … for those watching closely, it’s apparent he analyzes and thinks quickly on his feet.”


With so little difference in substance, style may influence some voters. And the edge from the first debate seemed – let’s repeat that, seemed – to favor Novick.

That’s because while Merkley seemed confident, he also came off as, well, a bit smug. He kept his focus just above the audience of potential voters. His answers seemed almost memorized from a script, a script closely resembling his thoughtful position statements on his campaign’s Web site. He only glanced at Novick once throughout the debate. There was a definite lack of emotion in his responses, although there also was a momentary rise in feeling when he talked about health care and education.

[snip]


By comparison, Novick noticeably turned and listened intently whenever one of the other three candidates were responding to the questions the East Oregonian news staff posed. While his answers weren’t overflowing with emotion either, at least they seemed spontaneous and less stilted.

However, he did miss an opportunity to separate his candidacy from Merkley’s. Novick didn’t emphasize distinctions of different solutions to the problems facing Oregon and our great nation. But for those watching closely, it’s apparent he analyzes and thinks quickly on his feet.

[snip]


Maybe, in the end, the answer for the lack of verbal fisticuffs came from Novick.

“We’re all good Democrats here,” he said.

WV HR2: Why John Unger Matters for Retaining the Majority

The Democratic field is cleared for State Senator John Unger (campaign site) to challenge Foleygate/Page Board scandal star and incumbent Wall Street Journal Republican Shelley Capito for West Virginia’s Second Congressional District seat.

The Democratic House leadership seems to be lining up behind Unger’s bid to unseat the increasingly vulnerable Capito, hopefully giving Unger vital early support in a district the Democratic leadership dreadfully under-invested in the 2006 cycle. Unger has even been honored as one of Rahm Emanuel’s “Six Pack”, one of only six candidates to whom he has donated so far in this cycle.

It is a very encouraging sign that Monday evening six of the leading House Democrats (including Hoyer, Emanuel, and Van Hollen) will host a big old fundraiser (info) for Unger.

In 2006 Democrats picked most of the low-hanging fruit in regaining the House majority. Seats in which we have a legitimate takeover opportunity are few and far between (and we have several seats we won in 2006 we are going to be hard-pressed to hold and need to offset).

John Unger’s campaign in 60-some percent Democratic registration WV-02 offers us a chance to pick the GOP’s pockets of a seat which traditionally belongs to us. Read on for the who, how and why.

OK, with the formality of condensing my verbose but incredibly persuasive arguments into few enough characters to fit into the Main Text, let me now indulge in my customary Faulknerian self-indulgence.

THE DISTRICT

First off, WV-02 is not a seat any Republican, even the daughter of beloved but convicted former Governor Arch Moore, should ever hold for long.

As noted, Democrats retain over 60 percent of voters by registration. This figure has dropped from the 2-to-1 edge held for generations. Two factors account for the GOP’s small gains over the years.

FACTOR ONE:
The Eastern Panhandle has grown remarkably quickly. And most of the new arrivals have been Republicans. The 2000 and, especially, the 2004 Bush campaigns did a fantastic job getting these newbies registered and out to vote. Capito has benefited enormously from this. In fact, without this influx of Republicans, she never would have won the seat in the first place. The Panhandle, particularly Berkeley County (the most populous and fastest growing of the Panhandle counties), provide Capito’s margin.

WHY UNGER WINS

John Unger’s State Senate District includes Berkeley County. And his electoral success there, despite his Democratic identity and generally progressive politics, is quite impressive.

In 2006, Unger simply pounded his GOP opponent in Republican-friendly Berkeley County, clearing 63 percent. In the rest of the district, Unger did even better: clearing 67 percent.

Unger can compete with Capito in her base region. Unless Capito can rack up big majorities in the Panhandle, the math just does not work for her in the rest of the district… especially as she continues to lose ground each election in the other major population center of WV02 (Kanawha County).

Capito’s vote percentage has fallen in each of the last three general elections (60% in 2002; 59% in 2004; 57 in 2006). Had anyone from outside the district itself invested in Mike Callaghan’s energetic but underfunded challenge in 2006 until the weekend before the election, Capito would have dropped well below the 55 percent figure which redflags vulnerable incumbents.

Unger is uniquely suited to chip away or (Lord willing and the DCCC actually writes some checks before election day) actually reverse Capito’s margin in the county she has to win big. He’s a proven vote-winner in the region key to unseating Capito.

FACTOR TWO

The erosion of Democratic support among values voters has converted a lot of previously reliable Democratic voters into tacit Republicans when it comes to federal elections. We simply have lost a lot of our old pro-labor base on the abortion issue. They can’t in good conscience vote their economic self-interest at the expense of their moral code. In a district in which a plurality of Democratic primary voters self-describe as pro-life (let alone the general electorate), the identification of the national Democratic party’s rigidly pro-choice stance has created for the Republicans the wedge they have used to keep Capito in office.

WHY UNGER WINS

Remember I said GENERALLY progressive politics?

John Unger is pro-life. And I don’t mean the heartless, calculating kind of pro-life that seems to fill the ranks of GOP office-seekers. Unger spent a year working for Mother Teresa (I kid u not.check pix as a college kid.

Just as an aside, is there any better way to annoy Christopher Hitchens than to back a guy who worked for Mother Teresa?

His position on abortion is a matter of deeply held faith rather than political calculation. And, when you check out his websites and see all his charitable and relief work, you will realize this is a man of compassion in action. His concern for future generations does not end at the moment of birth.

Contrast Unger’s position on abortion with Capito’s twists and turns over the years on this vital issue.

Capito spent her early career as a pro-choice Republican. When she decided to run for Congress, she began to morph into a pro-lifer. By the time she filled out her NPAT form for Project Vote Smart for the 2004 cycle she was checking off on opposing abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the woman, voted for the Global Gag Rule, and rated a 30 percent from NARAL.

Attempting to keep her feet in both camps, Capito spoke one way to choice groups and another to lifers… effectively blurring the public perception of her true position and allowing folks to see what they wanted to see.

However, Capito made a rather uncharacteristically overt and unambiguous move in the wake of the GOP losing control of the House: she joined the GOP House Pro-Choice PAC.

I can only spitball as to the logic behind her decision. Perhaps she decided in the wake of the loss of the House, the wind was blowing in the other direction (and in the word of Mayor Quimby, let it not be said that she did not also blow).

In any event, she has made an enormous strategic blunder. Abortion was the only thing holding her up among fundamentalist voters. At the very least this will suppress their turnout. More likely it will seriously erode her margin among values voters. Almost certainly it will hurt her at the polls in a district where pro-choice is not an edge in a Democratic primary… let alone a general election.

Now imagine the following scenario:

THE MANCHIN AND GIULIANI FACTORS

Governor Joe Manchin will be heading the ticket. And running as a pro-life candidate. With his favorability and job approval ratings in the 80s and facing only a sacrificial lamb GOP challenger, the only real question is if 70 percent is a ceiling or a floor for his vote. Manchin is going to have long coattails.

This is going to happen. It will boost Unger across the district. Republicans will be demoralized. Indies will trend heavily Democratic. And wayward Dems will come home even if just to jump on the winner’s bandwagon.

But imagine the scenario if Rudy Giuliani is on the GOP ticket. The voters of WV02 will have a choice between pro-life Democrats and a Republican federal ticket headed by a Planned Parenthood Contributor and seconded by someone who flipped to the other side on the pro-life majority.

The Republican edge on values issues evaporates and possibly reverses. Capito will be bleeding lifers all over the district while facing Unger popular in the region she has to rack up even bigger majorities than ever just to survive.

THE PANHANDLE DEPENDENCY:

The math does not add up to a majority for Capito without the Panhandle margin. Berkeley County alone accounted for 14.74 percent of her total 2004 vote (think that’s the best year to use as it was the last Presidential election year). Her dependence on huge winning margins in Berkeley has  grown and continues to grow over the course of her terms in office.

In the 2002 off-year cycle, Berkeley County accounted for 11.05 percent of her vote total. In 2006 the figure swelled to 13.29 percent. Extrapolating from this and the 2000 to 2004 change, just to stay even from her a natural erosion elsewhere, she would need to boost her Berkeley County numbers to 17 percent of her vote total.

Now what that means in performance on the ground is Capito would have to boost her percentage of the Berkeley County vote from 68.5 percent in 2004 (which was rung up with the massive Bush exurban GOTV effort deploying enormous resources there virtually unopposed) to 79 percent in 2008. She would have to raise her vote total from 21772 to 25105 in a county which only saw 31768 votes in a record-turnout year for the GOP.

Does anyone think she can do that against a guy who pulls 63 percent of the vote AGAINST the tide?

CONCLUSION: UNGER BEATS CAPITO

John Unger is uniquely suited to win this race.

Why do you think the DCCC recruited him to run? Why do you think West Virginia’s Congressional delegation took the unprecedented step of endorsing a candidate before the filing deadline?

John Unger is the only dog we got who can win this fight. Capito has left her flank open on social issues. Unger can exploit this. Capito has become too reliant on unsustainable margins from the Panhandle to hold her seat.

MONEYBALL

With the GOP having lost control, Capito can’t raise money like she did when she was in a position to reward her corporate benefactors. Despite moving back to the Finance Committee (usually a gold mine as financial services firms line up to throw money at its members) after the 2006 thumping, Capito’s fundraising is lagging (309K cash on hand in her last quarterly versus 472K at the same point in the last cycle).

And her peril is greater than it appears. With the majority, she could raise vast amounts quickly. With Democrats holding the majority, there is very little incentive for business to up the ante for Capito. She simply can’t raise two millon in the last months before Election Day 2008 now because it is no longer a prudent investment for big business. She is no longer positioned to give them a good return on the money invested.

My guess is she will max out around a million and a half dollars in 2008.

This sounds like a lot, but one has to consider what she had to spend to survive Mike Callaghan’s energetic but underfunded 2006 challenge to Capito.

WHY HER 57 PERCENT IN 2006 WAS AN UNDERPERFORMANCE

As I whined earlier, the Callaghan campaign got almost no institutional support from the national party apparatus and campaign committees. While Callaghan did a fantastic job raising 600K from a less than wealthy district (in comparison, the 2004 nominee raised less than 100K), the total is somewhat inflated as most of the money did not arrive until it was too late to do anything with it.

After a bruising three-way primary against two essentially unelectable opponents, Mike Callaghan’s campaign was essentially broke. With the noticeable lack of outside-the-state financial support, Callaghan had to take valuable time away from the stump in a district which has historically rewarded retail campaigning to focus on personally raising from small donors enough money to keep the offices open and the phones on.

Callaghan had no choice. There simply aren’t enough max or even high amount donors in WV02 to raise enormous sums of money without a lot of time-intensive effort by the candidate.

Meanwhile, Capito was raising money in increments of hundreds of thousands as leading Republicans willingly trekked to the state on her behalf. It is truly shameful that Capito was able to raise $2.44 million to add to the million she had salted  away from past campaigns with out breaking a sweat because her party gave her backing while Democrats left our nominee twisting alone in the wind.

And so we arrive at Labor Day 2006. Capito starts her media campaign. Fully aware that Callaghan does not have the funds to go on air, she unleashes a relentlessly upbeat series of ads in a massively heavy rotation. She doesn’t mention Bush. She doesn’t mention she’s a Republican. She’s just this nice lady you shouldn’t fire.

Then the Mark Foley scandal breaks, Capito is a member of the Page Board. She takes the tack that no one told her, conveniently ignoring her job was to provide oversight and her own responsibility to keep herself informed. She panics and goes negative. And I mean, she goes viciously, relentlessly, personally, and dishonestly negative against Mike Callaghan. She drops a million and a half dollars on negative ads (and at West Virginia rates, that is an enormous number of gross rating points). She keeps this up for weeks. Until the week before the election, West Virginia’s radio and TV is wall-to-wall Callaghan-bashing ads.

Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Mike Callaghan doesn’t have enough money to respond… unless he wants to miss a payroll for the campaign staff. It is to his credit that he chose to take the punches rather than short his people. He goes on the road and tries to fight back as best he can.

I said this district rewards retail ( and it does, as the last three flips have gone to the candidate who outworked on the ground the opponent who relied on an air war alone). West Virginians expect to know or at least meet the folks for whom they pull the lever. But no district rewards retail enough to overcome a $3,000,000 to none edge (especially when a radio spot costs twenty bucks a run).

And so it goes. Capito spends all the 2.44 million she raised for the 2006 cycle and the million or so she had stashed away for a future statewide run. Perhaps realizing her unceasing negativity is building to the point of backlash, in the last week and a half, Capito shifts to an (arguably…and weakly so) humorous TV spot where she’s saying she’s busy and scurries around in fast-motion silent movie style.

A late poll shows Callaghan closing. The national party throws in enough money for a small buy the weekend before the election. That is all Mike Callaghan had to fire back at three million bucks of mostly vicious, personal, and fallacious attacks over the course of three months.

Despite this utter lack of support for a promising young challenger, Callaghan actually knocked Capito’s percentage down a couple of points… nearly below the 55 percent vulnerability trigger.

With any backing at all, this would have been a much closer race. With substantial backing in the wake of the Foley scandal and Capito’s ridiculously incoherent rationalizations of her irresponsibility, Callaghan would have beaten Capito.

If this is an unreasonable conclusion, why did Capito spend it all? She’s been saving for a statewide for years. I see no other reason than she saw the possibility of a defeat which would derail her political future. Kudos to Mike Callaghan for making her spend it all (“make him spend it all, Arch” was the unofficial motto and slogan on the most popular bumper sticker of Capito’s father’s run against Jay Rockefeller, my fellow West Virginians of a certain age will recall).

WHY AM I RANTING THEN?

I am terrified we will let let another golden opportunity pass. In John Unger we have another viable candidate with a winnable race against a vulnerable incumbent in a Democratic leaning district in a swing state.

Face it, folks. The way Congressional districts are drawn these days, there are very few seats left where we have a reasonable chance of a Republican-to-Democrat flip. WV-02 is one of the best chances we have.

And we are going to need it.

We caught the Republicans napping in 2006. And Foleygate broke just at the right time to derail their counteroffensive. They were about to start waving the bloody shirt right when the Foley/Page Board scandal shifted the environment (remember we were falling fast in the generic preferences the three weeks before the Foley story broke).

The GOP is doing everything they can to force into retirement any of their folks who carries a whiff of scandal. They are cutting loose from President Bush.

Simply put, we can’t count on them making mistakes again they way they did in 2006.

And now we are playing defense. In politics, like a knife fight, it is always easier and more productive to attack than defend. We have to be smarter and tougher than we were in 2006 just to break even.

We simply can’t afford to pass up opportunities like the one John Unger (campaign site).

It is encouraging to see Members from the leadership showing early support for Unger and his race in WV-02. I truly hope this is one they shortlist for special attention.

And I beg anyone who reads this to contact the DCCC, their unions and professional associations, friends, neighbors, and anyone they bump into on the street to get involved.

Check out Unger’s bio and record. This is a good man with a great shot at winning a crucial seat.

The campaign e mail is info@ungerforcongress.org

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...