Tag: 2008 Elections

A few key resources for election night:

• Our color-coded map of poll closing times and key races to watch.
• In the diaries, calwatch has a list of official election night results websites (secretaries of state and the like).
• County-by-county baselines in key swing states (and races with tight Senate races).
• Crisitunity has a list of ballot measures worth watching.
• County-by-county baselines for IN-03 and KY-02 — two of the first key House races to watch tonight.

Polls are closing in Indiana in a few minutes — we’ll be up with our first liveblog thread shortly.

There’s no question that this has been an extremely rough year for Republicans — just take a look at how far Democrats have spread the playing field in the House battleground this year. The fact that Dems are seriously contesting deep-red districts in Indiana, Nebraska, and Virginia tells you the story of this election pretty quickly.

We’re all aware of the top-tier races, but one thing I know that we’re all quietly waiting for are the freak race shockers of 2008. Few expected the likes of Carol Shea-Porter and Dave Loebsack to knock off Republican incumbents in 2006, and on election eve two years later, a lot of people are finding themselves scrambling to identify possible stunners. Our good friends over at the Cook Political Report, for instance, just moved OH-12 and MI-08, two tossup districts with underfunded Democratic challengers, to their “Likely Republican” column from their previous rating of Solid Republican. If the prognosticator class is doing a double-take on races as quiet as those ones, you know that tomorrow could be potentially explosive.

So if you had to guess, where might we see a surprise win tomorrow and why? I might go for something like IA-04 (a tossup district that Obama is likely to romp in), but I’m sure some of you have even freakier long-odds hopes.

This is it.  It’s time for my final look at all the 2008 Senate races.  There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively.  Obviously, quite a few of the races are considered “safe” for the incumbent.  So what are the competitive races?

Again, just to be clear, I don’t do predictions.  Every time I do, horrible things happen.  So I won’t even make an actual prediction on the Virginia Senate race, because doing so would effectively jinx Mark Warner.  And with the election tomorrow, tiers no longer matter, so I’ll simply rank the competitive races where party control of the seat may switch.  All others are deemed safe seats, which now include all of the Tier II and III seats from last time.

See my previous mid-October diary to see what things have changed since my last update.  Previous rankings are in parentheses.

Tier I

1. Virginia (1): Former popular Governor Mark Warner (D) is still cruising.  Former unpopular former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) hasn’t even gotten above 35% in any poll taken since early September, and Warner cannot get below 55%.  Only God or the Devil can stop this one now, but still, no official predictions from me.

2. New Mexico (2): Rep. Tom Udall (D) is running against Rep. Steve Pearce (R).  Since October, Udall’s re-opened his massive lead after getting hit by attacks from conservative independent groups.  Pearce has not gotten above 42% since early September, while Udall has been consistently over the 50% mark at the same time.  The NRSC has basically conceded defeat in this race.

3. Colorado (3): Rep. Mark Udall (D) is Mo Udall’s son, and Tom Udall’s cousin.  He’s facing off against former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R).  All the late October polling shows Udall ahead by double digits.  The NRSC finally pulled out of Colorado last week after doing a head fake.

4. New Hampshire (4): Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D), who John Sununu (R) beat in 2002, is back for a rematch.  She has led Sununu in almost every single poll taken in 2008, and without some illegal phone-jamming on Election Day to help Sununu out this time around, Shaheen looks to be in good shape.  Though Sununu still has a significant cash on hand advantage, it hasn’t helped him.

5. Alaska (8): Conviction!  84-year-old Ted Stevens (R) was convicted on all 7 felony counts for not disclosing the gifts (over $250,000 worth) he got from oil company Veco Corp. last Monday.  Anchorage mayor Mark Begich (D), who had been in a very close race with Stevens, has now opened up a decent lead in the polls, turning what seemed to be a nailbiter into a more comfortable lead.  Something about voting for a convicted felon, I guess.  Still, Rasmussen’s poll has it as a single-digit race, so don’t count out Alaska’s unique brand of crazy just yet.

6. North Carolina (5): The polls have shown a complete reversal of fortune starting in August.  Kay Hagan (D) has been climbing steadily in the polls, while incumbent Elizabeth Dole (R) has been steadily falling.  So what do you do if you’re Dole?  Run an incredibly horrible attack ad calling your opponent, a Sunday school teacher, “godless”.  That’s the sign of a desperate and losing campaign, as four different polls taken in late October now show Hagan at or above the 50% mark.

7. Oregon (6): Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D) is challenging incumbent Gordon Smith (R), and has been steadily gaining ground in the polls over the past month.  Every non-partisan poll taken in late October showed Merkley with some kind of lead.  Still, none of them showed him at 50% or above, so this one’s not a done deal yet.

8. Minnesota (7): Norm Coleman (R) won this seat in 2002 only after Paul Wellstone (D) died just a few weeks before the election.  Comedian Al Franken got the DFL (basically the Democratic Party for Minnesota) nod.  The recent polling now shows a pure tossup, with some polls showing Franken in teh lead, and some polls showing Coleman leading.  But late-breaking news has a new lawsuit filed against Coleman alledging $75,000 being funneled to Coleman’s wife from a big GOP donor.

9. Georgia (9): Former state representative Jim Martin (D) is going up against Saxby Chambliss (R), who ousted Vietnam veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland (D) in 2002 by running a despicable ad blending the images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein into Cleland’s face, earning him the nickname “Shameless Saxby”.  Starting with the economic collapse, poll after poll showed a completely different race, with Martin only behind by a statistically insignificant margin.  However, they all still show Martin trailing.  Now, Georgia has a rule that the winner must get over 50% of the vote, and the Libertarian candidate may take enough away that nobody can get 50%, in which case it will go to a runoff in December.

10. Kentucky (10): Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) is now a top target of the Democrats.  Wealthy businessman Bruce Lunsford (D) can afford to self-fund, and he’ll need to, with McConnell’s HUGE warchest of over $9 million.  In just the last month, the polls suddenly showed Lunsford gaining significant ground on McConnell, but the latest two polls show McConnell gaining ground again, getting over the 50% mark.

11. Mississippi-B (11): Roger Wicker (R), appointed by governor Haley Barbour (R) on New Year’s Eve after Trent Lott (R) resigned to become a lobbyist, was previously the Congressman from MS-01.  Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D) has kept it close in the polls until recently.  As with Kentucky, the latest two polls now show Wicker above 50%.

Democratic safe seats

Arkansas (Mark Pryor)

Delaware (Joe Biden)

Illinois (Dick Durbin)

Iowa (Tom Harkin)

Louisiana (Mary Landrieu)

Massachusetts (John Kerry)

Michigan (Carl Levin)

Montana (Max Baucus)

New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg)

Rhode Island (Jack Reed)

South Dakota (Tim Johnson)

West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller)

Republican safe seats

Alabama (Jeff Sessions)

Idaho (Jim Risch)

Kansas (Pat Roberts)

Maine (Susan Collins)

Mississippi (Thad Cochran)

Nebraska (Mike Johanns)

Oklahoma (James Inhofe)

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham)

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander)

Texas (John Cornyn)

Wyoming (Michael Enzi)

Wyoming (John Barrasso)

So there you have it, my final rankings for the 2008 Senate races, as they stand with less than 24 hours to go.  We’ll see what happens tomorrow.

Just a reminder — tonight is your last chance to enter SSP’s prediction contest. We’ll be cutting off all entries at midnight Eastern tonight, so get cracking. (And you also have a few hours left if you wish to revise your earlier predictions.)

Babka is on the line here, people!

UPDATE (David): The contest closes in three hours! Get your last-minute predictions (or tweaks) in now!

Also, Daily Kos is having a predictions contest, too. Win both and you can eat delicious chocolate babka while surfing the net on your new MacBook!

LATE UPDATE: It’s done! No more entries will be accepted.

The genesis for this title is a Willamette Week article titled “Red Dawn” published in July of 2006 which claimed, at the time, to show evidence of a Republican surge in the Beaver State.  It goes without saying that those predictions were dead wrong as the Democratic party has more than tripled its registration edge in my home state and seems poised to post strong wins statewide.  Below are my final summary predictions and some things to watch Thursday.

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

The Statewide Layout:

Total Registered Voters: About 2.2 Million.

Democrats: 45%

Republicans: 32.5%.

Nonpartisan/Others: 23.5%.

Turnout Projection: 80-85%.  We’re at about 54% as of yesterday in Multnomah County, which closely parallels the state as a whole (http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2008-11/turnout.shtml).  Democrats are currently outvoting Republicans by 7% and Independents/Third Party Members are lagging well behind that pace.  As of now, just less than half of the votes cast in Oregon have been cast by Democrats.  I doubt that margin will hold but if we end up anywhere close to that it will be a very good night.  FYI, there is not a single county in the state currently where a higher percentage of Republicans have voted than Democrats.

This means I think that about 900-950k votes will be required to win statewide, once you account for third party votes in many races.

How to Watch OR Results:

There are four good places to track Oregon’s results:

Official SOS vote tracker-http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/.  Note: There is no link there yet but it will go active on election night at 8 PM.  This is the best statewide results tracker.

KGW (Portland’s NBC affiliate)-http://www.kgw.com/.  Widely considered the best in Portland, KGW often does live streams of its election results broadcasts.

The Oregonian-http://www.oregonlive.com/-Oregon’s largest statewide paper, based in Portland.

The Register-Guard-http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/index.csp-The leading paper in Eugene, Oregon’s second largest city.

Results Reporting:

Results will typically be released on the following schedule (all times Pacific):

8 PM-Ballots due, Multnomah County releases its first count (ballots cast before Monday night), expect this result to be skewed in Obama’s favor.

9-9:30 PM-Major counting completed of ballots cast prior to Monday/Tuesday in most counties.  Results are typically updated every 30-60 minutes.

11 PM-Most results apparent.  If the margin is 3% or less we may have to wait overnight but anything more than that they’ll have called it by now.

12 PM Wednesday-Count completed by this time.

FYI, exit polling IS conducted via phone survey, so you can expect a call on the Presidential race at least AT 8 PM.

Things to watch for:

Washington and Clackamas Counties-If either goes blue, Merkley will win the Senate race, period.  I’m betting Washington does and Clackamas will be close.

36 State House Seats-Thanks to one of our crazy ballot measures in the 90s, you need a 3/5 majority in the legislature to pass revenue increases.  We have that in the Senate and will not lose it.  We need a net gain of 5 (which is I would say very possible) to get it in the State house.

Dark House State House races-There are always 1 or 2 that no one expects to be close but are (the races in Medford and the Dalles last time were and Minnis’s seat was shockingly close in 2004).  They are almost never actual upsets but this year they may be.

Projected Results:

For a more detailed description of results, read my prior diary: How Blue will Oregon Be?: My Near-Final Predictions.

Key:

Size of Districts:

State House: Aprox. 55k.

State Senate: Aprox. 110k.

The incumbent is always listed first, or failing that, the incumbent party.  All minor parties are listed after the two major parties.

Party Key:

D=Democratic

R=Republican

G=Pacific Green

C=Constitution

L=Libertarian

I=Independent Party (This IS a political party, NOT those running as independents).

P=Peace Party (Ralph Nader’s party formed to get him on the ballot).

N=Not a member of a party, or what is otherwise known as independent.

Key:

x-=Pickup.

l-=Loss.

Statewide Candidates:

US President-Obama (D).

US Senate=x-Merkley (D).

Secretary of State-Brown (D).

Attorney General-Kroger (D).

State Treasurer-Westlund (D).

Labor Commissioner-Avakian (Nonpartisan Office).

Ballot Measures:

Measure Type:

C-Constitutional.

S-Statutory.

Explanation of Special Case for Measures 57/61: Once it became apparent to the legislature last year that what is now known as Measure 61 would qualify and would likely pass, they referred their own alternative (Measure 57) to the ballot.  In order to deal with conflicts should both pass (as many, if not most, consider likely), the legislature put a clause in Measure 57 stating that if both pass, the one with more yes votes becomes law while the other fails.

Legislative Referrals:

Measure 54 (C):

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

Projection: Pass.

Measure 55 (C):

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

Projection: Pass.

Measure 56 (S):

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

Projection: Pass.

Measure 57 (S):

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

Projection: Pass with more votes than Measure 61, thus becoming law.

Citizen Constitutional and Statutory Measures:

Measure 58 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore.

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

Projection: Fail.

Measure 59 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

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

Projection: Fail.

Measure 60 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

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

Projection: Fail.

Measure 61 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Kevin Mannix

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

Projection: Pass but with less votes than Measure 57, thus meaning it effectively fails.

Measure 62 (C):

Chief Sponsor: Kevin Mannix.

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

Projection: Fail.

Measure 63 (S):

Chief Sponsor; Bill Sizemore

Summary: This measure would allow minor home modifications (costing less than $35k) without a permit.

Projection: Fail.

Measure 64 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

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

Projection: Fail.

Measure 65 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Former SOS Phil Keisling (D)

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

Projection: Fail, narrowly.

Congressional Races:

District 1: Wu (D-inc).

District 2: Walden (R-inc).

District 3: Blumenauer (D-inc).

District 4: DeFazio (D-inc).

District 5: Schrader (D).

Oregon Legislature:

Key: *=Targeted Seat.

Oregon Senate:

Current Composition: 18D, 11R, 1 I.

Projected Composition: 18D, 12R (1 I to D and one D to R).

Safe Races:

1 (Roseburg)-Kruse (R).

2 (Central Point)-Atkinston (R).

5 (Lincoln City)-Verger (D).

14 (West Slope/Beaverton)-Hass (D).

18 (Tigard/SW Portland)-Burdick (D).

21 (SE Portland)-Rosenbaum (D).

22 (Portland)-Carter (D).

23 (NE Portland)-x-Dingfelder (D), this is technically a net pickup of 1, as Avel Gordly is an I.

25 (Gresham)-Monnes Anderson (D)-This one may be a bit closer than expected because the Rs have fielded a candidate via write-in.  I still believe it is going to be Monnes Anderson by a lot though.

28 (Klamath Falls)-Whitsett (R).

29 (Pendleton)-Nelson (R).

30 (Ontario)-Ferriolli (R).

Competitive Races:

9 (Stayton)-Girod (R).

12 (McMinnville)-Boquist (R).

*27 (Bend)-l-Telfer (R).

Oregon House:

Current Composition: 31 D, 29 R.

Projected Composition: 38 D, 22 R.

The following seats are rated either safe or likely:

1 (Gold Beach)-Krieger (R).

2 (Myrtle Creek)-Freeman (R).

3 (Grants Pass)-Maurer (R).

4 (Central Point)-Richardson (R).

5 (Ashland)-Buckley (D).

7 (Roseburg)-Hanna (R).

8 (Eugene)-Holvey (D).

9 (Coos Bay)-Roblan (D).

10 (Newport)-Cowan (D)-She won this seat by all of 750 votes two years ago and the Rs couldn’t find an opponent for her.

11 (Eugene)-Barnhart (D).

12 (Springfield)-Beyer (D).

13 (Eugene)-Nathanson (D).

14 (Eugene)-Edwards (D).

16 (Corvallis)-Gelser (D).

21 (Salem)-Clem (D).

22 (Woodburn)-Komp (D).

25 (Keizer)-Thatcher (R).

27 (West Slope, my district!)-Read (D).

28 (Beaverton)-Barker (D).

29 (Hillsboro)-Riley (D).

31 (Clatskanie)-Witt (D).

32 (Cannon Beach)-Boone (D).

33 (Portland)-Greenlick (D).

34 (Beaverton)-Harker (D).

35 (Tigard)-Galizio (D).

36 (Portland)-Nolan (D).

38 (Lake Oswego)-Garrett (D).

40 (Oregon City)-Hunt (D).

41 (Milwaukie)-Tomei (D).

42 (Portland)-Koppel-Bailey (D).

43 (Portland)-Shields (D).

44 (Portland)-Kotek (D).

45 (Portland)-Dembrow (D).

46 (Portland)-Cannon (D).

47 (Portland)-J. Smith (D).

48 (Happy Valley)-Schaufler (D).

53 (Sunriver)-Whisnant (R).

55 (Medford)-Gilliam (R).

56 (Klamath Falls)-Garrard (R).

57 (Heppner)-G. Smith (R).

58 (Pendleton)-Jenson (R).

60 (Ontario)-Benz (R).

Projected Pickups (all D):

*26 (Wilsonville)-x-Adamson (D).

*37 (West Linn)-x-Eberle (D).

*49 (Gresham)-x-Kahl (D).

*50 (Fairview)-x-Matthews (D).

*51 (Clackamas)-x-Barton (D).

*52 (Corbett)-x-VanOrman (D).

*54 (Bend)-x-Stiegler (D).

Projected Holds (D or R):

Note: These are all possible takeovers by the opposition party.  I am merely stating that I think they are more likely to be holds than takeovers, although in some cases, like the Canby seat, it will be very close.

6 (Medford)-Esquivel (R).

15 (Albany)-Olson (R).

17 (Scio)-Sprenger (R).

18 (Silverton)-Gilliam (R).

19 (Salem)-Cameron (R).

20 (Independence/Monmouth)-Berger (R).

23 (Dallas)-Thompson (R).

24 (McMinnville)-Wiedner (R).

*30 (Hillsboro)-Edwards (D).

*39 (Canby)-Kennemer (R).

59 (The Dalles)-Huffman (R).

Well that’s it, let me know what you think.

The Des Moines-based American Future Fund is exploiting loopholes in rules governing political advocacy groups in order to run campaign advertising in targeted races without disclosing its donors.

The Des Moines Register provided the latest evidence in this article from Saturday’s edition: “National group airs ads on Iowa House.”

For background on the American Future Fund, a 510(c)4 organization “formed to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint,” you can read this piece by Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock, this TPM Cafe story by Mrs. Panstreppon, or Paul Kiel’s report for TPM Muckraker.

The American Future Fund is associated with heavy-hitters in the field of campaign advertising. Its media consultant is Larry McCarthy (creator of the 1988 Willie Horton ad), and its legal consultant is Ben Ginsberg (who was involved with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004).

Representatives for the American Future Fund deny that the group seeks to influence elections. For that reason, they are not subject to campaign disclosure rules governing political action committees and other groups that make independent expenditures during election campaigns.

However, the American Future Fund’s radio and television commercials this year have focused on candidates running in competitive Senate races, such as Republican incumbent Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Democratic candidate Mark Udall of Colorado, and Democratic candidate Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. You can view many of those ads at the AFF’s You Tube channel. Note that while these commercials ostensibly are focused on generating phone calls in support of a particular issue position, they haven’t been aired in states without a contested Senate seat.

Now the AFF is weighing in on key Iowa legislative races. From yesterday’s story in the Des Moines Register:

On Wednesday [October 29], AFF launched television ads in Iowa that criticize Democratic Reps. McKinley Bailey of Webster City, Paul Shomshor of Council Bluffs, Elesha Gayman of Davenport and Art Staed of Cedar Rapids. All four are incumbents struggling to hold onto their seats in the face of strong Republican challengers.

Other ads that compliment Republican Reps. Doug Struyk of Council Bluffs, Jamie Van Fossen of Davenport and Dan Rasmussen of Independence. Struyk is a Republican leader whose opponent has spent little; the other two are dealing with strong Democratic challengers.

AFF’s spokesman explained the timing of the political messages by saying it took months to compile analysis on the legislative session, which ended in April.

What an amazing coincidence. Analysis about legislative action completed more than six months ago resulted in television ads that appeared six days before a general election.

In another amazing coincidence, the AFF’s ads happen to focus on candidates running in six battleground districts being targeted by both parties. Dozens of legislators who voted the same way on those issues, but represent uncompetitive districts, are not subject to AFF’s advertising blitz.

I could only find two of the American Future Fund Iowa’s tv ads on You Tube. One praised the Republican incumbent in Iowa House district 81, Jamie Van Fossen, and the other criticized the Democratic incumbent in House district 9, McKinley Bailey.

It’s worth noting that while urging viewers to call legislators, these ads give the phone number for the switchboard at the State Capitol. However, the switchboard is currently closed, because the legislature is not in session. The AFF spokesman explained that the law requires advertisements to use official phone numbers, but he is evading the issue.

These commercials cannot be intended to generate citizen communication with legislators if they are giving a phone number that no one is currently answering.

Clearly the AFF selected the subjects and timing of their advertising in order to influence the outcome of legislative elections in Iowa. (The Republican Party of Iowa is concentrating its resources on making gains in the Iowa House, where Democrats have only a 53-47 majority.)

The tv ads direct viewers to the web site of the AFF’s Iowa chapter: www.iowa.americanfuturefund.com.

AFF spokesman Tim Albrecht

told The Des Moines Register last month that AFF is a group that focuses solely on national issues. “At that time we were, but after a lot of analysis and reviewing what had occurred in the last legislative session, we decided to open an Iowa chapter,” he said.

It is AFF’s first state-based chapter in the country, said Albrecht, who is a former spokesman for Iowa Republican legislative leader Christopher Rants and AFF’s only paid staff member.

Earlier this year, the Iowa Future Fund was incorporated by the same people behind the American Future Fund, and the Iowa Future Fund ran television ads criticizing Democratic Governor Chet Culver. (Here is one of the Iowa Future Fund’s ads against Culver.) In March, the Iowa Democratic Party called for an investigation into the Iowa Future Fund’s advertising campaign and failure to disclose donors. In April, a press release announced the creation of the Iowa Progress Project to replace the Iowa Future Fund. In theory, the the Iowa Progress Project was going to focus on state issues, while the American Future Fund focused on national issues.

It is unclear why the American Future Fund decided to create an Iowa chapter, rather than have the Iowa Progress Project pay for television commercials about Iowa House incumbents. If anyone has any information regarding the Iowa Progress Project or the decision to create an AFF Iowa chapter, please post a comment or send me a confidential e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Can anything be done to force the AFF to disclose who is paying for these commercials? Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, told the Des Moines Register that his office had received a complaint about the ads, but that campaign disclosure laws do not apply because the AFF ads do not urge viewers to vote for a candidate.

Mr. desmoinesdem has extensively researched election law and tells me that one relevant case in this area is Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. Wisconsin Right to Life was running ads urging people to contact their senators about judicial filibusters. Senator Russ Feingold was up for re-election, and the ads did not urge people to vote against him, but the FEC considered them “sham issue ads” that were intended to influence an election and therefore were subject to regulation by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold).

The Supreme Court had previously upheld McCain-Feingold’s provisions on political advocacy ads (in the McConnell vs. FEC case), so the key question was whether Wisconsin Right to Life’s ads were the kind of political advocacy Congress can regulate. With Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, the court

held that McConnell v. FEC did not establish the test that any ad intended to influence an election and having that effect is express advocacy. Such a test would be open-ended and burdensome, would lead to bizarre results, and would “unquestionably chill a substantial amount of political speech.” Instead, the Court adopted the test that “an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” The Court further held that the compelling state interests invoked by the government to regulate advocacy did not apply with equal force to genuine issue ads. Neither the interest in preventing corruption nor the goal of limiting the distorting effects of corporate wealth was sufficient to override the right of a corporation to speak through ads on public issues. This conclusion, the Court held, was necessary in order to “give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship.” The dissent by Justice Souter called WRTL’s ads indistinguishable from political advocacy ads and accused the majority of implicitly overruling McConnell v. FEC.

I agree with Souter’s position that so-called issue ads targeting candidates in key races shortly before elections are really political advocacy ads subject to McCain-Feingold. If the American Future Fund were mainly trying to influence Iowans’ views on issues, they wouldn’t be running their commercials only in battleground districts. Also, the timing of the ads only makes sense in the context of this Tuesday’s election. As I mentioned above, no one is currently answering the phone number AFF asks viewers to call.

But Smithson has to look at the AFF’s Iowa advertising from a narrow legal perspective. Clearly the ads are promoting favorable opinions about some Republican incumbents and unfavorable opinions about some Democratic incumbents. But as long as the ads urge people to call a telephone number (even a non-working one), courts would probably not hold that the commercials have “no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”

I am not an expert on election law or disclosure requirements for 501(c)4 organizations. Perhaps there is some way Congress could require more financial disclosure of 501(c)4s so that they would not be able to run campaign ads with no accountability.

I don’t know the solution, but I do know that we can help Democrats fight back against the American Future Fund’s ad campaign by giving to the Iowa House Democrats’ Truman fund or to the following individual candidates:

McKinley Bailey (incumbent in House district 9)

Art Staed (incumbent in House district 37)

Elesha Gayman (incumbent in House district 84)

Paul Shomshor (incumbent in House district 100)

Phyllis Thede (challenger in House district 81)

Gene Ficken (challenger in House district 23)

Just as we did in 2006, the Swing State Project is having a downballot election prediction contest. We’ve handpicked fourteen hot House and Senate races (and one gubernatorial race) from all across the country for you to think hard about and submit your best guesses.

The rules are simple: Only one entry per person will be accepted (so if you post multiple revisions, we’re only going to look at your last post), submitted as a comment in this thread (e-mail submissions will be junked). Submissions will be accepted until midnight Eastern on Monday, November 3rd.

What we’re interested in is the final margin between the Democratic and Republican candidates (except for the tiebreaker), and the goal is to have the lowest score possible. So if you think that Debbie Cook will beat Dana Rohrabacher by a score of 55-45, what we care about is that you think it’s going to be D+10. If she wins 53-47, that’s D+6, so you get four “error points” added to your score. (Remember, fewer points = better.)

This also means that if Cook wins 50-40 (and third parties take the rest), you’ve still “nailed it” according to our system and get a perfect score of zero for the race. If, on the other hand, you call it D+10 and it winds up being R+10, you’ll get 20 points added to your score.

So let’s cut to the chase! Here are the races that we’ve selected:

WA-Gov: Gregoire (D) v. Rossi (R)

AK-Sen: Stevens (R) v. Begich (D)

MS-Sen-B: Wicker (R) v. Musgrove (D)

CA-46: Rohrabacher (R) v. Cook (D)

FL-25: M. Diaz-Balart (R) v. Garcia (D)

LA-01: Scalise (R) v. Harlan (D)

NE-02: Terry (R) v. Esch (D)

NH-01: Shea-Porter (D) v. Bradley (R)

NM-02: Tinsley (R) v. Teague (D)

NY-13: Straniere (R) v. McMahon (D)

OH-02: Schmidt (R) v. Wulsin (D)

PA-11: Kanjorski (D) v. Barletta (R)

TX-22: Lampson (D) v. Olson (R)

WY-AL: Lummis (R) v. Trauner (D)

And the tiebreaker:

MN-Sen: Coleman (R) v. Franken (D) v. Barkley (IP)

Ideally, your entries should look something like:

WA-Gov: D+6

AK-Sen: R+8

And so forth. However, for the tiebreaker (MN-SEN), please predict the EXACT FINAL SCORE for each candidate. You are free to predict final scores for the other races as well, but you’ll make our lives a lot easier if you list the expected margin first as shown above.

Once again, the deadline for your submissions is midnight Eastern on Monday — so get your predictions in soon. The top three finishers (ie, those with the lowest overall scores) will be treated to some of SSP’s favorite chocolate babka (as pictured here).

Have at it!

I know this site mainly focuses on Congressional, statewide, and state legislature races, but in California, ballot measures are a big deal and can set examples for the rest of the nation. Thanks to Calitics ( http://www.calitics.com ), I was able to find enough information on the 12 ballot measures to give my recommendations, which are over the flip.

Prop 1A (High Speed Rail): This measure will allow the state to purchase $10 billion in bonds for creating a high speed rail system. The money will also be leveraged to get federal dollars and private investments. For more information, check out the California High-Speed Rail Blog. ( http://cahsr.blogspot.com/ )

My Recommendation: YES!!!

Prop 2 (Farm Animal Conditions): This measure will require farm animals to be able to stand up, turn around, and basically be comfortable in their cages. Despite the protests from Big Agriculture, this measure could level the playing field for small farmers. Here is a cute video from the “Yes On 2” campaign: ( http://uncaged.yesonprop2.com/ )

My Recommendation: Yes

Prop 3 (Children’s Hospital Bonds): This measure would allow the state to sell bonds to provide additional funds for children’s hospitals. Though I don’t like the idea of ballot-box budgeting, this will probably be a very good investment, as the state’s hospitals in general need a lot of work and some could go to ensuring that all county and other public hospitals remain viable.

My Recommendation: Yes

Prop 4 (Parental Notification): The anti-choice jerks are at it again for another encore, after failing in 2005 and 2006. For the third time, we’ve said that we want to make sure that our teenage girls are safe. Like the failed 73 and 85, this measure requires parental notification, which is fine if the teen has a functional, supportive family, but can be dangerous in abusive, dysfunctional families. Unlike 73 and 85, this one allows for a judicial bypass, but can you realistically expect a distressed teenage girl to go through the courts? This one is running close, so get the word out! In addition, this is a great case for reform establishing a limit as to how many times one can bring similar ballot measures to the ballot.

My Recommendation: NO-NO-NO-NO-NO!!!

Prop 5 (Drug Rehab): This would decrease the nonviolent offender prison population by moving them into rehab, and reducing sentences for these nonviolent offenders depending upon their successful completion of rehab program. This is a follow-up to the wildly successful Prop 36 of a few years back, which saved millions of dollars. Unfortunately, Senator Feinstein came out against Prop 5 in a press release that merely rehashes the No on 5 campaign talking points. Let’s be smart, not pseudo-tough.

My Recommendation: Yes

Prop 6 (Gang Measure): This measure increases prison sentences for young gang offenders and would likely cost about a billon dollars per year, which would guaranteed go up since the measure guarantees increases for inflation, and higher prison expenses as a result of new or longer sentences, as well as $500 million for jails for more prisoners. Too much money for far too few results. ( http://www.votenoprop6.com/mn_… )

My Recommendation: NO!

Prop 7 (Renewable Power Standard): This measure is not necessary since there already is a renewable power standard in California thanks to recent anti-global warming legislation. Though this measure would expand those requirements from 20% to 50% by by 2025, plants smaller than 30 megawatts would be excluded when they have been leading the way on our path towards energy independence.

My Recommendation: No

Prop 8 (Anti-Marriage Amendment): Not much to say here, except that the measure would eliminate marriage rights for same-gender couples. Reject bigotry!

My Recommendation: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!

Prop 9 (Victim’s Rights): This measure reduces the frequency of parole hearings and allows victims and their survivors to be present. The OC Register does a great job explaining why you should vote against it ( http://www.votenoprop9.com/ocr… ):

Prop. 9 would place those rights into the state constitution rather than into statutory law, the distinction being that the constitution is much more difficult to change if problems develop. It would also give crime victims and their families the constitutional right to prevent the release of certain documents to criminal defendants or their attorneys, and the right to refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence to a defendant. The constitution would be changed to require judges to take the safety of victims into consideration when granting bail. It would make restitution the first priority when spending any money collected from defendants in the form of fines. It would also extend the time between parole hearings from the current one to five years to three to 15 years.

An interesting note on this measure: it was funded by Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder and former CEO of Broadcom, who happens to have been indicted for white collar fraud as well as drug charges including accusing “Nicholas of using ecstasy to spike the drinks of industry executives and employees of Broadcom customers.”

My Recommendation: NO!

Prop 10 (Natural Gas Giveaway): This would sell $5 billion worth of bonds to help Californians buy cleaner cars. The problem is that “clean” is defined as using natural gas, and hybrids are not included. It also wouldn’t require that the commercial trucks purchased with the overwhelming majority of these funds stay in the state, and is just a power grab by Swift Boat Liars funder Funder T. Boone Pickens. We do need cleaner fuel, but not by shifting from one fossil fuel (oil) to another (natural gas).

My Recommendation: No

Prop 11 (Redistricting): This measure would give equal power to Democrats and Republicans to draw the maps, and would exclude from the commission anybody who has had any experience relevant to the process, and gives Republicans too much power. It’s opposed by leading minority organizations and the Democratic Party. For more information, see this diary at Calitics: ( http://www.calitics.com/showDi… )

My Recommendation: NO!!!

Prop 12 (Veterans Bond): These things always pass, and are always pretty small. This bond funds a program to help veterans purchase farms and homes.  It’s a decent program, and the bond has passed something like 20 times over the last 100 years.  It likely will again. Despite our concerns over ballot box budgeting, helping out our veterans is a worthwhile cause.

My Recommendation: Yes

Democrat Becky Greenwald has been low on cash the last few weeks, but her campaign bought 60 seconds of air time on the CBS and NBC affiliates in Des Moines and Mason City immediately before Barack Obama’s prime-time special on October 29.

Greenwald’s ad was outstanding and could not have been more clear about the contrast between her and incumbent Tom Latham. Click the link to watch the commercial, which made clear that Latham is a Republican who’s voted with George Bush 94 percent of the time–even more often than John McCain. Meanwhile, the ad made clear visually and in the voice-over that Becky Greenwald is a Democrat who will support Barack Obama’s policies.  

I hope they will be able to air this commercial during the final days of the campaign. Please donate to Greenwald’s campaign if you can afford to, so that more viewers will be exposed to this message. It’s much stronger than the biographical ad Greenwald was running in late September, which didn’t make much of a case against Latham.

In response to the Research 2000 poll showing a tight race in IA-04, Latham’s campaign released partial results from an internal poll showing him ahead by 22 points.

Latham’s early tv spots were positive about his record (while avoiding the Republican label). In October he started running negative ads on the bailout in heavy rotation.

We’ll find out next Tuesday if Obama’s coat-tails are enough to overcome Latham’s big edge in paid media. It’s a D+0 district where Democrats have made huge gains in voter registration in the past two years.

In related news, Time magazine says IA-04 is a “race to watch.” The political director of EMILY’s List says he is “cautiously optimistic” about Greenwald’s chances and falsely claims that EMILY’s List “came on board” for her soon after meeting with her this summer. In fact, EMILY’s List didn’t endorse Greenwald until September 16. The group has been communicating with Greenwald’s campaign but hasn’t run any ads in Iowa’s fourth district.

The Des Moines Register endorsed Greenwald today, while the Mason City Globe-Gazette endorsed Latham over the weekend.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that the United Auto Workers PAC has been running a radio ad criticizing Latham for voting for tax breaks for corporations and against equal pay for women. The ad also says we need Becky Greenwald in Congress.  

With a week to go, it is time for me to really make some predictions about where the races will go this fall.  I will update them on November 4 but if I had to guess, what is below is what I think will happen.  The real question for Democrats, in summary, will be not will they increase their majority but by how much.

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

The Statewide Layout:

Total Registered Voters: About 2.2 Million.

Democrats: 45%

Republicans: 32.5%.

Nonpartisan/Others: 23.5%.

Turnout Projection: 85-90%.  We are maybe just slightly behind where we were in 2004 when we finished with 86% turnout BUT the pace has picked up and I think that we’ll get close to 90% by the time it’s all said and done.  Typically we can take the turnout Friday before the election and roughly double it to get the projected turnout.  We’re at about 28-30% right now (an inference made from looking at today’s Multnomah County returns, which tend to parallel the state as a whole at http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2008-11/turnout.shtml).

This means I think that about 900-950k votes will be required to win statewide, once you account for third party votes in many races.

Key:

Size of Districts:

State House: Aprox. 55k.

State Senate: Aprox. 110k.

The incumbent is always listed first, or failing that, the incumbent party.  All minor parties are listed after the two major parties.

Party Key:

D=Democratic

R=Republican

G=Pacific Green

C=Constitution

L=Libertarian

I=Independent Party (This IS a political party, NOT those running as independents).

P=Peace Party (Ralph Nader’s party formed to get him on the ballot).

N=Not a member of a party, or what is otherwise known as independent.

Key:

x-=Pickup.

l-=Loss.

Statewide Candidates:

US President

Candidates: Sen. John McCain (R) vs. Sen. Barack Obama (D), Ralph Nader (P), Cynthia McKinney (G), Bob Barr (L) and Chuck Baldwin (C).

Summary: This has always been Obama’s state and it will remain that way convincingly

Projected Winner: Obama.

US Senate

Candidates: Sen. Gordon Smith (R-inc) vs. Speaker of the OR House Jeff Merkley (D) and David Brownlow (C).

Summary: Jeff Merkley appears to be on a clear both to victory.  Not that he can’t lose this but he is ahead and unless something fundamental changes very soon, Merkley will be Oregon’s next Senator.

Projected Winner: x-Merkley.

Secretary of State

Candidates: State Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D) vs. Eugene TV Reporter Rick Dancer (R) and Seth Allan Wooley (G).

Summary: Rick Dancer may make it a little closer than previously expected, having run a number of TV ads financed primarily by timber interests.  Still, Brown should have little trouble winning this race.

Projected Winner: Brown.

Note: Brown would be the first GLBT candidate ever elected to statewide office in the US, a fact which has honestly not come up at all in the campaign.

Attorney General

John Kroger (D) faces only minor party candidates and should cruise.

Projected Winner: Kroger.

State Treasurer

Candidates: State Senator Ben Westlund (D) vs. former Kulongoski staffer Allan Alley (R) and Michael Marsh (C)

Summary: Again Alley may narrow the margin a bit but I really doubt it’ll end up being that close in the end.  Westlund cruises.

Projected Winner: Westlund.

Labor Commissioner (Technically a nonpartisan race, 2 year vacancy filling election)

Candidates: Former State Senator Brad Avakian (D-int.) vs. Founder, Instructor/Provider of a physical and mental fitness program Pavel Goberman (D) and Losing CD1 Candidate Mark Welzycko (D).

Summary: Avakian should have little trouble, given his status as a well known figure in state politics and the lack of funding for any of his opponents.

Projected Winner: Avakian.

Ballot Measures:

Measure Type:

C-Constitutional.

S-Statutory.

Explanation of Special Case for Measures 57/61: Once it became apparent to the legislature last year that what is now known as Measure 61 would qualify and would likely pass, they referred their own alternative (Measure 57) to the ballot.  In order to deal with conflicts should both pass (as many, if not most, consider likely), the legislature put a clause in Measure 57 stating that if both pass, the one with more yes votes becomes law while the other fails.

Legislative Referrals:

Measure 54 (C):

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

Known Opposition: None.

Projection: Pass.

Measure 55 (C):

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

Known Opposition: None.

Projection: Pass.

Measure 56 (S):

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

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

Projection: Pass, I really don’t think this will be that close.

Measure 57 (S):

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

Known Opposition: Kevin Mannix and his crew.

Projection: Pass with more votes than Measure 61, thus becoming law.  I think that both will pass though.

Citizen Constitutional and Statutory Measures:

Measure 58 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore.

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

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

Projection: Fail, this has really not gained any traction at all and should fail pretty convincingly.

Measure 59 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

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

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

Projection: Fail, the third time is NOT the charm for Sizemore.

Measure 60 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

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

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

Projection: Fail, as noted before, a similar measure failed in 2000 with 65% against.  Thus, in this climate its hard to imagine it doing much better.

Measure 61 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Kevin Mannix

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

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

Projection: Pass but with less votes than Measure 57, thus meaning it effectively fails.

Measure 62 (C):

Chief Sponsor: Kevin Mannix.

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

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

Projection: Fail, I think the message has gotten out that this cuts money from schools and people like money for schools.  It could be close though.

Measure 63 (S):

Chief Sponsor; Bill Sizemore

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

Known Opposition: A wide coalition led by building companies.

Projection: Fail, Sizemore continues his losing streak here.

Measure 64 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

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

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

Projection: Fail, the third time is not the charm once again.

Measure 65 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Former SOS Phil Keisling (D)

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

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

Projection: Fail, narrowly.  This is a gut feeling and I may well be dead wrong but I just think the major party opposition will kill this.

Congressional Races:

District 1: Wu (D-inc) will cruise.

District 2: Walden (R-inc) will have little trouble.  If the margin is under 10% that’s a victory for the Ds.

District 3: Blumenauer (D-inc) is well-loved in this district and for good reason.

District 4: DeFazio (D-inc) faces only minor party opposition.

District 5

Candidates: State Senator Kurt Schrader (D) vs. Businessman and 2006 R Nominee Mike Erickson (R).

Registration Info: 165k Ds, 144k Rs, 88k NP/Others.

Summary: Yes Erickson has money, yes he has been running ads but no I don’t think he has much of a chance of winning this one.  Schrader wins easily.

Projected Winner: Schrader.

Oregon Legislature:

Key: *=Targeted Seat.

Oregon Senate

Current Composition: 18D, 11R, 1 I.

Projected Composition: 18D, 12R (1 I to D and one D to R).

Ratings Changes:

None.

Safe Races:

1 (Roseburg)-Kruse (R).

2 (Central Point)-Atkinston (R).

5 (Lincoln City)-Verger (D).

14 (West Slope/Beaverton)-Hass (D).

18 (Tigard/SW Portland)-Burdick (D).

21 (SE Portland)-Rosenbaum (D).

22 (Portland)-Carter (D).

23 (NE Portland)-x-Dingfelder (D), this is technically a net pickup of 1, as Avel Gordly is an I.

25 (Gresham)-Monnes Anderson (D)-This one may be a bit closer than expected because the Rs have fielded a candidate via write-in.  I still believe it is going to be Monnes Anderson by a lot though.

28 (Klamath Falls)-Whitsett (R).

29 (Pendleton)-Nelson (R).

30 (Ontario)-Ferriolli (R).

Competitive Races:

9 (Stayton)

Candidates: Fred Girod (R-int) vs. Bob McDonald (D).

Registration: R+4k.

Summary: The fact that this race is even competitive ought to really scare the Rs.  Girod still has the edge though.

Projected Winner: Girod.

3rd-12 (McMinnville)

Candidates: Brian Boquist (R) vs. Kevin Nortness (D).

Registration: R+2.5k

Summary: The Rs had to scramble to get Boquist to run for this fairly safe seat.  This district is certainly changing but I don’t know if it is changing fast enough or if Nortness is a good enough candidate to replace the well-known Boquist.

Projected Winner: Boquist.

*27 (Bend)

Candidates: Marien Lundgren (D) vs. Chris Telfer (R).

Registration: R+3k

Summary: This is Ben Westlund’s seat and it would be a huge accomplishment to hold it (he won it twice running as a Republican).  I dont’t think it will happen but this one to watch..

Projected Winner: l-Telfer.

Oregon House:

Current Composition: 31 D, 29 R.

Projected Composition: 38 D, 22 R.

The following seats are rated either safe or likely:

1 (Gold Beach)-Krieger (R).

2 (Myrtle Creek)-Freeman (R).

3 (Grants Pass)-Maurer (R).

4 (Central Point)-Richardson (R).

5 (Ashland)-Buckley (D).

7 (Roseburg)-Hanna (R).

8 (Eugene)-Holvey (D).

9 (Coos Bay)-Roblan (D).

10 (Newport)-Cowan (D)-She won this seat by all of 750 votes two years ago and the Rs couldn’t find an opponent for her.

11 (Eugene)-Barnhart (D).

12 (Springfield)-Beyer (D).

13 (Eugene)-Nathanson (D).

14 (Eugene)-Edwards (D).

16 (Corvallis)-Gelser (D).

21 (Salem)-Clem (D).

22 (Woodburn)-Komp (D).

25 (Keizer)-Thatcher (R).

27 (West Slope, my district!)-Read (D).

28 (Beaverton)-Barker (D).

29 (Hillsboro)-Riley (D).

31 (Clatskanie)-Witt (D).

32 (Cannon Beach)-Boone (D).

33 (Portland)-Greenlick (D).

34 (Beaverton)-Harker (D).

35 (Tigard)-Galizio (D).

36 (Portland)-Nolan (D).

38 (Lake Oswego)-Garrett (D).

40 (Oregon City)-Hunt (D).

41 (Milwaukie)-Tomei (D).

42 (Portland)-Koppel-Bailey (D).

43 (Portland)-Shields (D).

44 (Portland)-Kotek (D).

45 (Portland)-Dembrow (D).

46 (Portland)-Cannon (D).

47 (Portland)-J. Smith (D).

48 (Happy Valley)-Schaufler (D).

53 (Sunriver)-Whisnant (R).

55 (Medford)-Gilliam (R).

56 (Klamath Falls)-Garrard (R).

57 (Heppner)-G. Smith (R).

58 (Pendleton)-Jenson (R).

60 (Ontario)-Benz (R).

Projected Pickups (all D):

*26 (Wilsonville)

Candidates: Matt Wingard (R-int.) vs. Jessica Adamson (D).

Registration: R+2k

Summary: Sometimes the opportunities just fall into your lap.  In this case, it turns out that Wingard has been arrested for using a screwdriver on his son.  Wingard has run a bad campaign, Adamson a good one, I’m calling the upset.

Projected Winner: x-Adamson.

*37 (West Linn)

Candidates: Scott Bruun (R-inc.) vs. Michele Eberle (D).

Registration: D+ less than 1k.

Summary: Were this 20 years ago, or even 10, Eberle would have absolutely no chance in this district given the Bruun family’s strong legacy there.  This year is not normal, however, and Eberle has been running a great campaign.  I’m calling it a pickup.

Projected Winner: x-Eberle.

*49 (Gresham)

Candidates: John Nelsen (R) vs. Nick Kahl (D).

Registration: D+4.5k

Summary: Two years ago about the only major disappointment I had was Minnis winning this district.  Republicans think Kahl is a lightweight because he’s young and relatively inexperienced.  Kahl certainly would appear to face an uphill battle but this district’s D tilt should be enough to put him over the top.

Projected Winner: x-Kahl.

*50 (Fairview)

Candidates: John Lim (R-inc.) vs. Greg Matthews (D).

Registration: D+3k

Summary: How Lim keeps winning here is a mystery.  Matthews finally puts Lim out of his misery with a win here.

Projected Winner: x-Matthews.

*51 (Clackamas)

Candidates: Linda Flores (R-inc.) vs. Brent Barton (D).

Registration: D+1k

Summary: How I would love to get rid of the racist Flores.  Barton has the money and he has the message.  Say goodbye to one of my least favorite people in the legislature.

Projected Winner: x-Barton.

*52 (Corbett)

Candidates: Matt Lindland (R) vs. Suzanne VanOrman (D).

Registration: D+2k

Summary: In case you’re wondering, yes Matt Lindland is indeed otherwise known as UFC fighter Matt “The Law” Lindland.  He should stick with Ultimate Fighting as VanOrman should pick this one up for the Ds.

Projected Winner: x-VanOrman.

*54 (Bend)

Candidates: Chuck Burley (R-inc.) vs. Judy Stiegler (D).

Registration: D+1.5k

Summary: This district has been trending blue over the past several years thanks largely to an influx of California retirees.  Stiegler lost by less than a thousand votes when this was an open seat in 2004.  I think this is the year the Ds break through and win their first state legislative race east of the Cascades since the 1960s.

Projected Winner: x-Stiegler.

Projected Holds (D or R):

6 (Medford)

Candidates: Sal Esquivel (R-inc.) vs. Lynn Howe (D).

Registration: R+3k

Summary: No one believed me two years ago when I said this seat would be competitive, and then Esquivel barely eked out a win.  My guess is that he won’t be caught napping this time, though.

Projected Winner: Esquivel.

15 (Albany)

Candidates: Andy Olson (R-inc.) vs. Dick Olsen (D).

Registration: D and R even

Summary: This district was not on anyone’s list but mine two years ago as potentially competitive.  Now with an even registration mix, a chance for an upset is there.  Olson, a former State Policeman, is popular in this district making it a likely hold.

Projected Winner: Olson.

17 (Scio)

Candidates: Sherrie Sprenger (R-int.) vs. Dale Thackaberry (D).

Registration: R+2k

Summary: Following a bloody and divisive R primary, Thackaberry has a real chance to pull an upset.  Add to that the fact that Sprenger has never won a general election here.  Still, this is an R district and thus more likely than not Sprenger holds.

Projected Winner: Sprenger.

18 (Silverton)

Candidates: Vic Gilliam (R-int.) vs. Jim Gilbert (D).

Registration: R+2.2k

Summary: This is one of my dark horse races this year.  Gilliam is the favorite but Gilbert may well pull the upset.

Projected Winner: Gilliam.

19 (Salem)

Candidates: Kevin Cameron (R-inc.) vs. Hanten (HD) Day (D).

Registration: R+ less than 1k

Summary: This is a district that should be more competitive than it has in the past.  Cameron is vulnerable, especially to a good candidate such as Day.  Interesting fact, Cameron runs the cafeteria that operates in the basement of the Oregon Capitol that I ate in probably three times a week during the 2005 session.  Let’s just say, his food is much better than he is as a legislator but this is still a historically R-leaning district so he has the edge.  This is one of a number of seats that could go blue on election night..

Projected Winner: Cameron.

20 (Independence/Monmouth)

Candidates: Vicki Berger (R-inc.) vs. Richard Riggs (D).

Registration: D+1k

Summary: Berger is one of the last remaining liberal Republicans that Oregon used to develop like crazy.  She’s in for fight for her life this time due much more to both the state of the Republican party and the slight D registration edge though.  I still think she pulls it out, barely.

Projected Winner: Berger.

23 (Dallas)

Candidates: Jim Thompson (R) vs. Jason Brown (D).

Registration: R+2k

Summary: Thompson likely has the edge here.  If this seat falls, it will be a very long night for the Republicans.

Projected Winner: Thompson.

24 (McMinnville)

Candidates: Jim Wiedner (R) vs. Bernt Hansen (D).

Registration: D and R even.

Summary: This was the seat that Kossack Sal Peralta almost won in 2006.  If Hansen can run a good campaign, a win is definitely possible here.  However, from all accounts Wiedner has the money and has run a very solid campaign so I think he holds this one.

Projected Winner: Wiedner.

*30 (Hillsboro)

Candidates: David Edwards (D-inc.) vs. Andy Duyck (R).

Registration: D+2k

Summary: This is the Republican’s only targeted seat and Duyck might have been a good candidate ten or even four years ago.  Instead, I think that the longtime Washington County politician will fall short against Edwards, who ran a campaign fraught with problems, much of it self-inflicted, in 2006, and still won.  Edwards should win far easier this time around.

Projected Winner: Edwards.

*39 (Canby)

Candidates: Bill Kennemer (R) vs. Tony Forsberg (D).

Registration: D+1k

Summary: I’d love to be able to say that Forsberg will win this one but I think that Kennemer is well enough known he’ll barely hold on for the win.

Projected Winner: Kennemer.

59 (The Dalles)

Candidates: John Huffman (R-int.) vs. Mike Ahern (D).

Registration: R+1k

Summary: This one is going to be very very close and as an open seat battle it can surely go either way.  That being said, this is a historically R district and I think Huffman will pull it out.

Projected Winner: Huffman.

Well that’s it, let me know what you think.