Tag: joe serra

like il-03, there are new endorsements that have been announced since the first post.  john laesch has gotten the afl-cio endorsement [PDF], the endorsement of pdachicago, and the endorsement of the western regional council of the united electrical, radio & machine workers of america.

bill foster has increased his growing list of endorsements with endorsements by senator durbin, afscme state council 31, planned parenthood, seiu as well as 22 nobel prize winners and a growing list of voters.

jotham stein got the endorsement of harry katz, dean of cornell university’s school of industrial and labor relations, which i failed to mentioned before.

the local papers have been covering the fact that there is a special election in the district.  the daily herald covered both the opening of candidate’s petition drives and the first day of filing:

Laesch, a Newark carpenter who challenged Hastert a year ago, turned in more than 1,700 signatures and Foster, a former Fermilab scientist from Geneva, had 1,832.

The top Republican and Democratic vote-getters in the special primary will compete in the special general election March 8 to fulfill the remainder of Hastert’s term, which ends in January 2009.

a candidate’s forum was held in st charles for candidates of both parties.  the three major democrats attended, and the daily herald, the st charles republican and kane county chronicle covered the fireworks.  so did aurora’s openline blog.  openline also gave more general coverage of the race.

kendall county democrats have set up their own board for following this race.

several outlets picked up the dueling endorsements of durbin for foster and afl-cio for laesch.  rich miller’s capitol fax blog noted that, “Both of these endorsements are important in a Democratic primary, and neither will come with a whole lot of cash.”  the beacon news and courier news covered it, as did the kane county chronicle.  aurora’s openline blog hit at this angle.  both the daily herald and the chicago tribune’s clout street blog covered the dueling unions (afl-cio and afscme) angle.

laesch was interviewed for the progressive news daily podcast.  he also live blogged at firedoglake.  the campaign congratulated their “all-volunteer army of John’s friends and neighbors in the 14th district” for getting on the special election ballot.  wurfwhile covered laesch’s endorsement by the alf-cio and was late in his coverage of laesch’s november press conference (but not for the video of it.  otoh, archpundit points out that laesch’s energy statement supports banning corn-based ethanol, and takes contradictory positions on spending money on scientific research.  he also points out the irony of anger at planned parenthood’s endorsement of foster, when he refused “to accept donations from pro-abortion rights political action committees” in 2006.

jotham stein got coverage for his education proposal in the daily herald and for filing his paperwork for the special election.  stein was also busy on the airwaves, getting interviewed on the mike koolidge show and wls’ connected to chicago

foster has been the big winner of news coverage, both local and national, this time. us news and world report reported on the foster as scientist angle.  george bush’s assault on science is getting attention everywhere.  the beacon news covered foster’s energy plan.  the kane county chronicle covered durbin’s endorsement of foster.  several of the sun-times local papers covered planned parenthood’s endorsement of foster: here and here.  

foster is also getting lots of local blog support.  hiram wurf talked about his endorsement of foster, other key endorsements, the durbin endorsement, the afscme endorsement, the planned parenthood endorsement, the trouble seeing foster’s grassroots support, and the seiu endorsement.  archpundit had stories about foster’s endorsements and foster’s new commercial.

aaron krager, of faithfully liberal, blogged about his volunteer stint for the foster campaign as well as foster hitting the air waves.  clout street also covered foster’s new cable ad.  nosugrefneb talks about a letter making the rounds of scientists and grad students at the university of chicago, university of illinois at chicago and northwestern.  prairie state blue covered foster’s live blogging for dailykos, including video of the session.  that blog also covered foster’s nerdiness.  aurora’s openline blog wonders why foster accepted the planned parenthood endorsement.

john laesch has a spiffy new website up (link above) that is more high res and feature rich.  the text for the site seems to be the same, but it now includes a photo suitable for print media and a flickr photostream.  i hadn’t noticed before (so it may be new), but the site encourages you to “Nominate John Laesch at Democracy for America” but it has (so far) failed to apply for the dfa endorsement.  (campaigns can apply at this link).  one new feature, it’s spanish translation, hasn’t been completed yet.  nonetheless, this is a great improvement.  simple, easy to navigate, eye candy.  laesch also has a new youtube video.

stein also has a new video up on his website (link above) that focuses on family.  stein’s spanish page IS in spanish!  (not new, just the contrast.)

foster has a new cable ad running.  they also have a new brand across the web reminding everyone of the special election on march 8th.  looking past the february 5th elections, are we?

given the proximity of christmas, you might think that the campaigns would be slowing down.  not happening.  the laesch campaign begins its gotv training on saturday at 10:30.  the stein campaign will continue to release his ideas and positions on the issues and volunteers are working out of the campaign headquarters to communicate with supporters and people who signed their petitions.  the foster has begun an email campaign asking their low dollar donors to recommit for the special election or to bring in a new donor to our campaign.  

outlook

if the first posts in this series was designed to lay a foundation, this next group will be focused on looking at the fundamentals in this race.  like blocking and tackling decide football games, the fundamentals decide elections.  there are five fundamentals that are thought to be decisive in the outcome of elections:

1. the candidates

2. money

3. the environment (deciding factors that campaigns can’t change)

4. the climate (deciding factors that campaigns can influence)

5. their organizations

probably the biggest factor right now in this race is the political environment.  and the most important environmental factor is the upcoming special election.  the fact that the special election is a month away from the special primary focuses all attention on this question: who scales up fastest?  the campaigns have six weeks to identify supporters and then educate them on voting twice for them on the same ballot (once for the general election and again for the special election).  the campaigns already lost a week or so because they had to circulate petitions (again) for the special election.  christmas and new year’s will cost them some more time.  this is even more true for the laesch campaign (and possibly stein’s), since they are so dependent on volunteer expertise.  the foster campaign staff will undoubtedly work the same amount during that week.  (i worked on christmas day last year, so i sympathize.)

one of the questions asked of the campaigns dealt with their candidates.  the laesch campaign was unable to participate, since they are currently flooded with questionaires that they are working on.  still no word whatsoever from the serra campaign.

the stein campaign argues:

we have the best candidate because our candidate represents the district best.  Jotham may be a lawyer but at one point he was a cabby and struggling to make it through college.  On the other hand he has done fairly well in life and represents that portion of the population of this district too.  So he has seen both ends of the spectrum.  Also Jotham at least knows what the issues are, one of the candidates goes way to far to the left for this district, and the other well he doesn’t like to talk issues he just throws money at the problem of winning a primary.  The other thing is, I’m willing to bet that jotham has knocked on more doors and spoken one on one with more voters then the other two.

Jotham speaks so well to voters on the issues.  Jotham has been the first to stand on a lot of issues that the other two guys have been trying to make hay out of.  Jotham was the first to say he was against an ID card, Laesch had a press release about how he was against them.  Foster came out against global warming and for renewable fuels, I hate to say it but Jotham has been talking about that since the beginning and with a better plan then Foster’s that everyone can benefit from.  I believe if folks could have a sit down chat with Jotham on the issues they would support him.

foster’s campaign chimes in:

Bill Foster is the only candidate with deep roots in the community, a background of solving problems that appeals to voters and the only candidate with the resources to compete against entrenched Washington Republicans who will fight like hell to save this seat.

He has spent a lifetime changing institutions for the better and when he puts his mind to it, he has always met with remarkable success.  When Bill worked on integrated circuits, he first learned how to make and design integrated circuits so he could lead a team of designers.  When Bill entered politics, he did it as an activist in a campaign that had little chance of succeeding.  He is the only candidate who knows how to put together a winning team.

they further argue:

That as a scientist and a businessman Bill is a refreshing change of pace from the usual politician.  He makes decisions based on facts, not the fictional reality that partisanship demands.  He also is uniquely able to make a huge impact on technical areas like energy policy because he can tell you if something can work in the lab and in the business plan.

all in all, the three main candidates in this race all come with flaws.  some argue that foster is charisma-challenged and too impressed by his intelligence, others believe that laesch has a messianic complex, and stein is too policy-focused and that hasn’t yet caught on (it’s late, there’s only a little time left to do so).  i’d call any comparison of these three candidates a draw — a gambler might say, pick ’em — but the contrast with il-10, where you have two high-energy, dynamic candidates couldn’t be more stark.

does this matter?  well, yeah.  in part, because voters are starting to feel the pain.  the foster campaign notes that:

Voters are still talking about all the problems we need to solve, especially ending the war.  Their newest concern is the nervousness about the economic situation in the US because of the mortgage crisis.

the stein campaign observes some differentiation in the concerns of the district:

In a place like Aurora, their worried about Jobs and the current housing mess.  In a place like Geneva, their worried about more taxes.  Out west in a place like Geneseo, its jobs.  A lot of the people out west work in places like Davenport and Moline, that’s outside the district, and are worried about places like John Deere and the Arsenal and Alcoa.  Currently there are no problems, but there are rumors that John Deere will be moving their HQ out of the Quad Cities.  Which makes people fear that maybe the second most recognized american symbol in the world after coke will start moving jobs overseas slso.

the political climate is changing, and only those campaigns who maintain comprehensive contact with the electorate will be able to respond to those changes.  there is no question that the laesch campaign has maintained contact with the netroots.  but it doesn’t appear that they have the same close relationship with the electorate.  the momentum from being the 2006 candidate was squandered (partially, perhaps even majorly, because laesch took time to get married).  the fact that they didn’t have the most signatures, or raised the most, even in the small dollar category, is evidence of this.

the point on money has already been made.  foster has not only committed his own resources, he’s raising money, significantly from new sources.  stein has made the effort, and we will see how that’s going on his next report.  laesch has an extraordinary burn rate; it’s a good thing that he’s got signs left over and volunteers committed to helping his campaign.

which leaves their organizations.  in a sense, this isn’t just about their organizations, but their potential to scale up.  the laesch campaign seems to recognize that they are it, with “little or no help expected from the national or state Democratic Party.”  given their organizational structure, they may not be able to handle a massive influx of assistance, even if they received it.

the stein campaign still suffers from the lack of a campaign manager, someone who conducts the chorus, as it were.  stein has a capable staff, but not enough of it (especially for the special election).  no one doubts that jotham has worked hard as a candidate — he’s raised the money to demonstrate that — but he’ll need more people working hard if he’s going to win a special election.

in a way, the stein campaign recognizes that they have to scale up.  they say that their keys for winning are:

Talking to the voters, putting a good field plan for the final

stretch into place.  Focusing our message so that our supporters know they

can vote twice for our candidate.

good field plan requires lots of leadership and experienced captains.

foster’s campaign is clearly the most scaleable.  in fact, scaleability seems to have been part of the plan from the very beginning.  they have been taking on staff and apparently training volunteers.  the campaign has plans to integrate local and state democrats into their gotv efforts after the primary is decided.  it is this inherent scaleability that gives foster not only the best chance to win the special primary, but a decent shot at taking the seat blue.

how can this be?  laesch’s supporters continue to trumpet his stands on the issues and believe that this will deliver him to victory.  the problem with that is that voters don’t even know laesch’s name, let alone his stands on the issues — and that assumes that voters in the 14th would prefer laesch’s stands to the other candidates.  laesch has neither the money nor the organization to effectively deliver his message to the electorate.  activists and ideologues may focus on issues and where candidates stand, but voters rarely do.  voters may become vaguely aware of a congressional candidate’s message, but they have neither the time nor inclination to go much beyond that.  in the end, the perceived advantage that laesch had — that he had run before — is minimized by the fact that his name recognition was in the high thirties among the general electorate, and mid-40s for democratic voters.  he has better name recognition now, before foster’s and stein’s mail starts to drop.  but those numbers don’t make him secure from the challenge.  by contrast, seals’ name recognition is almost double laesch’s.

the message that voters will see this election follows the money and the organization.  in both these areas, foster’s campaign has been out front.

each race has a lens through which a political campaign can be viewed.  in the il-03 race, the lens is the emergent scandal surrounding dan lipinski and whether any challenger can coalesce their social and political networks before the bombardment of advertising begins.  in the il-14 race, that lens is the concurrent special election.

denny hastert’s resignation announcement last night sets up a special election, who’s primary most likely will be conducted concurrently with the primary for the november 2008 general election.  in several ways, this sets back campaigns, because they basically have to start all over again.  illinois’ election laws are (from my perspective) quite arcane.  by law, there was no vacancy until hastert’s resignation takes effect.  “Dan White, executive director of the State Board of Elections, said he had yet to receive notice of Hastert’s resignation.”  one assumes that this will come today.  this begins the countdown.  the governor has to call an election within 120 days of the vacancy for both the primary and the “general” (it’s easier to call it a special election, and i will) elections.  the governor has five days to set a date for these two elections; the primary is expected to coincide with the february 5 primary in illiois.  apparently, as bill pascoe writes, “NO election (including a primary election) can take place fewer than 50 days after the creation of the vacancy.”

But Illinois law also sets periods for collecting signatures, for filing candidacies, and for challenging candidacies. It’s my understanding that when you add up these discrete periods, you end up with a time frame of 50-57 days as a minimum requirement before ANY election — including a primary election — could be held.

cq notes, though:

The state board of elections prefers that there be at least 72 days between the day the governor sets the special general election and when the special primary election is held, to allow for enough time to prepare. That 72-day window is not binding in state law, though, and the state elections board could oversee the election under a more compressed timetable if the governor so mandated.

The Illinois election code does require, though, that the candidacy filing period for a special congressional election occur 50 to 57 days before the special primary election.

to me, the really interesting thing about this illinois review article (right-wing blog) was the admission by “one former State Board of Elections counsel [who] said the fact is no one really knows yet how to handle a special election at the same time a primary is being conducted.  They are two completely different elections, and demand two different sets of signature petitions.  But the state code doesn’t make the procedure clear.”  and there’s the rub.  no one really knows how to handle a special election at the same time as a regular (primary) election.

there is the thought that this special election — the first for congress in 2008 — will provide a few hints of voters’ overall direction for the upcoming national campaigns, perhaps a bellweather.

The Democrats, in their 2006 upsurge, captured several House seats in districts that traditionally have favored Republicans. The contest in the 14th District – where Hastert has long dominated House races and where President Bush took 55 percent of the vote in 2004 – may test whether the Democrats continue to have the momentum to put even more Republican seats into play, or whether the GOP position has stabilized to some degree.

perhaps.  but this is unknown territory, and one that requires both the candidates and their campaigns to work harder, raise more money, and push their supporters harder:

The dual nature of the campaigning – for the special election and the regular primary – could become costly for candidates who will be forced to intensify their efforts since it is unlikely that a primary voter would vote for two separate candidates for the same office to cover different time spans.

this isn’t unheard of (there are examples where people are on the ballot for two different things, such as a party office and a government office), but the 14th congressional district doesn’t really have a democratic party organization that one can rely on to get this across to voters.

the race for the open seat in il-14 is one of the most covered campaigns in illinois.  there’s an entire blog dedicated to it (although it came out of the 2006 campaign and has a decided laesch p.o.v.).  hiram wurf continues to cover the race from a few miles away.  aaron krager has put together a fine analysis of the race.  

as i mentioned above, in a real sense, the campaigns must start over.  they must pass petitions again, and mobilize volunteers to circulate petitions rather than persuade voters or identify supporters.  the complexity of one’s campaign organization is increased.  the advantage goes to the candidate and/or campaign that can best handle this increasing complexity — who can, in a phrase, do two or more things at once.  and there’s a clear benefit to those who have done this before.

many believe that this benefits john laesch, who was the 2006 democratic nominee.  laesch does have the support of the netroots — especially the netroots outside of illinois.  he also has the benefit of having spent time in every corner of the district.  if the electorate is not that familiar with john, the district’s political activists are.  he enjoys the support of many of them.  he is apparently the first in the race to get a union or special interest group endorsement.

one thing that the laesch campaign has excelled at is getting earned media (they pretty much have to), and they are doing this again.  they’ve been good about using youtube in the same way, including, for example, putting up video of press conferences that may not have been attended by the press.  (you can also find debate footage at the friends of laesch youtube page.)

the consensus front runner in this race appears to be bill foster.  for a first time candidate, foster entered the race remarkably prepared.  in 2006, foster took off ten months to volunteer for patrick murphy’s successful run for congress, and he hews closely to the positions that propelled murphy to election.  but probably the biggest advantage that foster brings into this race — and perhaps why he’s perceived as the front runner — is that he knows, and is prepared to do, what it takes to win a seat in congress.  open seats for congress are more competitive and more driven by money.  congressional quarterly’s CQ Politics’ Top 10: Money Leaders in Open-Seat House Races names foster as one of the most aggressive candidates raising money for an open seat in congress — along with two of the republicans running for the seat.  david wasserman, an editor at the highly regarded cook political report, predicts that winning this seat will cost at least $2 million.

foster has convinced others that he’s serious about winning this seat.  his endorsement page not only includes early indicators like civic action, but illinois behemoths like dan hynes (state comptroller) and leading illinois progressives like alexi giannoulias (state treasurer and obama ally).  and it’s gotten him into the candidate’s boot camp.

foster would like to make this race “a national referendum on the policies of George Bush,” but some progressives want to make it a referendum on bill foster.  i guess they identify foster as the front runner, too.  much has been made of foster’s willingness to caucus with the blue dog democrats, and his focus on fiscal responsibility.  others simply object to the presence of a self-funder — especially since their favored candidate isn’t raising that much money.  this hand-wringing about a serious candidate in a district with a pvi of +5 R forced chris bowers to admit, “it is important to note that Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs are not the same thing… To put it one way, a Patrick Muphy Blue Dog is the sort of Blue Dog to whom I can provide enthusiastic, activist support for Congress.”

what some may not see is that foster is bringing new people into the democratic process and, presumably, into the democratic fold.  that should be something that progressives support.  “More than 80 percent of Foster’s donors are first-time donors, and nearly three-quarters are scientists like Foster, a former Fermilab physicist.”  he’s expanding the base in an area that is decidedly red, “The Foster campaign reported 680 contributors in the third quarter filing period,” with a large number saying that they were first time contributors.  and he’s doing it based on issues that progressives support: “The first, second and third issue is Iraq,” foster says.

you can see this focus in the second of foster’s youtube videos, Bill Foster: We Must Change Course in Iraq.  foster’s youtube page also sports a biography video.  foster’s campaign also hosts a blog, has a facebook group and a flickr page.  and, as i was writing this, foster’s first television ad went up.

jotham stein was first in the race and has been making the rounds building support.  he was the first candidate to hire staff, and has been dedicated to raising the money he needs to compete.  his website is the only one to have a spanish version, which is interesting since approximately 20% of the district is hispanic.  the numbers are far higher for democrats in the district.

early on in his run, stein used former candidate christine cegelis to guide him through the process of running for office.  his background in the law and policy has given him the basis for the most extensive issues proposals of the democrats running.  stein says,

I know I can do much better. In this campaign, I will offer real solutions to many of the real problems facing our country. From defeating global warming, to having a strong national defense, to more jobs for our district, to guaranteeing food and health care to our kids, I am taking a stand.

along with the usual facebook page, stein adds a myspace and he’s taken advantage of the democratic party’s partybuilder tools.

joe serra entered the race last.  he comes at the race from a different position.  serra says, “I am running because I feel that the elected officials in Congress today are not getting the peoples business done. I am running to rebuild our greatest asset – our military.”  unique among the candidates, serra has applied for endorsement by democracy for america, which requires that you fill out their simple questionnaire.

stein’s field director noted that “hastert just threw a wrench into a lot of field programs out there.”  he observed that most people are still focused on the presidential campaigns, and they are undoubtedly not aware of the fact that they will face three different elections in the next 120 days.  needless to say, few understand that the campaigns again have to collect 873 signatures to get their candidates on the (special election) ballot.  how these four campaigns interact with the electorate over that time will be key to their success.

the foster campaign has been concentrating on their mailings and phone banking.  they prepared to run in the special election all along, they tell me.  the moment hastert stepped down, the campaign emailed its supporters and they got immediate replies, i am told.  their focus now, as expected, would be to prepare for another round of passing petitions.  their campaign office (1035 E State St, Suite J, Geneva) has been a hub of activity and potential volunteers are asked to email meredith@foster08.com to find out more.

the foster campaign is also speeding up the hiring of additional staff in preparation for the special election.  both the foster and the stein campaigns had about two dozen people circulating petitions for them for the regular primary, as well as the candidates and members of their families.  given the compressed nature of this next run (about three weeks to pass petitions), they will probably need double that.

the stein campaign has been doing coffees and door-to-door of late, working out of their campaign headquarters at 115 campbell in geneva.  they understand that a “grassroots movement is needed,” that this period is all about educating the public.  they are re-focusing on “getting jotham on the ballot” for the special election, although no specific plans had been made yet.  stein’s field director admits that “people are going to be confused” by all this and they’ve made plans to make the process a little easier.  that includes taking advantage of an already planned large event and getting people involved at that point.  but they “can’t comment on specific plans for a special election right now.”

the volunteer who answered the phone at the laesch campaign conveyed the location of their campaign offices at 46 w downer place in aurora, but didn’t feel comfortable answering more questions.  she passed the message along, but i didn’t get a call back from them.

efforts to reach joe serra were not effective.