Tag: 2008 Elections

Today, the Zeitz for Congress campaign unveiled a new radio advertisement titled “Eight Nights.” The ad draws attention to Chris Smith’s failure to live in New Jersey, having spent only eight nights in the state during 2007, and the recent revelation that Smith received nearly $80,000 in tuition breaks reserved only for official Virginia residents.

You can listen to the ad here.

“After twenty-eight years in Congress, Chris Smith has become a creature of Washington. The voters I speak with are shocked and outraged when they learn Chris Smith refuses to live in New Jersey and does not pay our high property taxes. For many of them, learning Smith receives in-state tuition discounts in Virginia is the final straw,” said Josh Zeitz. “It’s not too much to ask that our representative in Congress actually lives in New Jersey.”

Key Facts:

   * Chris Smith spent only eight days in 2007. [PolitickerNJ 4/28/08]

    * Chris Smith is the only member of the New Jersey delegation to not own a home in New Jersey. [PolitickerNJ 4/28/08] He’s saved nearly $60,000 in property taxes by living in Virginia.

    * Chris Smith receives in-state tuition benefits reserved only for official Virginia residents. [Politico 10/20/08]

Josh needs your help to defeat Chris Smith. Please consider volunteering as well as contributing to the campaign. To put it bluntly, the more money we can raise the more play this ad gets on the radio, and the more undecided voters we can reach. We also need volunteers to help get out the vote. To volunteer contact ian_at_joshzeitz_dot_com.

Last weekend my fellow Iowa blogger 2laneIA published a comprehensive diary on Congressman Steve King’s “greatest hits.” Click the link to read about King’s suggestion that we electrify the border fence with Mexico like we do “with livestock,” his prediction that terrorists will be “dancing in the streets” if Obama becomes president, and his pride in working to scale back funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (which he calls Socialist Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents). I mentioned a few more low points for King in this post.

Yesterday the man Ann Coulter calls “one of my favorites” helped warm up the crowd at a Sarah Palin rally in Sioux City.  

According to Iowa Independent, King suggested that electing Obama could be a step toward totalitarian rule:

“When you take a lurch to the left you end up in a totalitarian dictatorship,” King said.  “There is no freedom to the left. It’s always to our side of the aisle.”

Sioux City Journal political correspondent Bret Hayworth wrote on his liveblog,

10:12 a.m.: King gives the first of what will be two speaking opportunities, this one the longer, for nine minutes. He lays out several versions of the words “liberal” and “socialist” in describing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He mentions the ACORN group and earns a big “Booooo.” King said a Google search of “Acorn Fraud” gets you 2 million hits of possible stories.

King said it’s not a stretch to link Obama to the ACORN group, since he worked for them in voting matters. “Obama is ACORN… When I see Obama, I see ACORN branded on his forehead,” King said.

King has embarrassed Iowans with his bigotry and extremism for too long.

If he is re-elected, he won’t just be an irritant for Iowans. King severely disrupted the House Judiciary Committee’s efforts to question Douglas Feith in July, and I’m sure there will be more where that came from in the new Congress.

Iowa’s fifth is an R+8 district, but Rob Hubler has a real shot in this race, for reasons I discussed here.

Send a message to Steve King by donating to Hubler for Congress.

I suspected that Republican Congressman Tom Latham’s internal polling must be showing a close race when he put up a negative tv ad on the bailout. Now the first public poll of Iowa’s fourth district is out. Research 2000 for Daily Kos found this:

Tom Latham 47

Becky Greenwald 42

undecided 11

Click the link for the internals.

Interestingly, the same poll found John McCain leading Barack Obama in the fourth district by 46 to 42 percent. Given the many polls showing Obama above the 50 percent mark in Iowa, I would have thought Obama would be leading McCain in this D+0 district.

If Greenwald is doing as well in IA-04 as Obama, then I feel really good about our chances for an upset in this district. Obama’s superior ground game could easily be worth several percentage points on election day.

Paging EMILY’s list and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: please start spending some money on tv ads in this district! Greenwald has launched a good web ad recently, but she hasn’t been on tv for the past ten days or so.

EMILY’s List endorsed Greenwald last month, and the DCCC added her to Red to Blue in early October, but I am not aware of any independent expenditures on her behalf yet. (UPDATE: Supposedly the United Auto Workers just went up on the air with an anti-Latham radio ad, but I haven’t heard it and don’t have a transcript.)

Please donate to Greenwald if you can.

Hey folks,  I just got home from the fabulous Merkley/Gore event in Portland and wanted to write up my reactions.  Besides finally meeting the lovely Sarah Lane in person, it was a great time and certainly worth reporting on!

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

I was not smart enough to bring a camera, unfortunately, so I can’t post any of my pictures but it was a fun event.  About a thousand showed up and we had really great fun, especially when we discovered that the metal bleachers a lot of us were sitting on could be stomped on to make lots of noise.  I was in the front row on one side of the stack about a third of the way back, so I had a great view!

Below is my review of the speakers who were part of this great event:

Governor Kulongoski: I love Ted, I really really do, and I really wish I saw the fire in his belly more often than occasions like tonight.  He did a good job warming up the crowd and MCing the first part of the evening.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR-3): What can I say, I love Earl.  He would make a great transportation secretary in an Obama administration, I’m just saying.

Rep. David Wu (OR-1): Except for an odd little bit about 9/11, he was great!  He got some audience callbacks going on Obama/Merkley/Schrader’s names.

Brad Avakian (Labor Commissioner): I love this guy.  He kept slipping the name “Jeff Merkley” randomly into his speech, and we went nuts whenever he said it.

Ben Westlund (State Treasurer Candidate/State Senator): Proof that Republicans can see the light and become Ds.  I wish he’d had a bit more time because if he gets going he can be a great speaker.

John Kroger (AG to be): Listening to him, you can really tell why he was such a good litigator.

Then they lowered the lights and played this little video (a new Merkley ad):

Jeff Merkley (next US Senator): He was his usual awesome self.  Did a great job both laying out his image but also clarifying why Smith’s time had passed.  That led us to the main attraction of the evening…

Al Gore: WOW!  He really would have been a great President if only given the chance.  He was on target all night, even when interrupted early on by a 9/11 conspiracy nut (to which the crowd chanted “Merkley, Merkley, Merkley” to drown out the noise of the guy on the megaphone).  Some memorable lines:

There’s a single common thread that runs through all these crises.  Our ridiculous, absurd dependence on dirty, expensive, carbon-based fuel. That’s the common thread

This is one of those moments in history when one era is ending and another era is beginning.  And you can almost hear the hinges creaking as that door opens up

Gore closed with perhaps his most powerful line of the night:

Do you want somebody who’s 10 percent of the time there (Smith)?  Or do you want somebody who’s committed, heart and soul?

After this I feel fired up and ready to go, 11 days to a new America, let’s make it happen!

Let me know what you think.

Americans appear ready to sweep a lot of Democrats into office on November 4. Not only does Barack Obama maintain a solid lead in the popular vote and electoral vote estimates, several Senate races that appeared safe Republican holds a few months ago are now considered tossups.

Polling is harder to come by in House races, but here too there is scattered evidence of a coming Democratic tsunami. Having already lost three special Congressional elections in red districts this year, House Republicans are now scrambling to defend many entrenched incumbents.

In this diary, I hope to convince you of three things:

1. Some Republicans who never saw it coming are going to be out of a job in two weeks.

On a related note,

2. Even the smartest experts cannot always predict which seats offer the best pickup opportunities.

For that reason,

3. Activists should put resources behind many under-funded challengers now, instead of going all in for a handful of Democratic candidates.

Allow me to elaborate.

1. A lot of seemingly safe incumbents have lost in wave elections, even in districts tilted toward their own party.

The Republican landslide of 1994 claimed my own Congressman Neal Smith, a 36-year incumbent who had a senior position on the House Appropriations Committee. Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley spent “what aides say may total $1.5 million to $2 million, a staggering amount for a House race” in 1994, but he still lost to George Nethercutt in Washington’s fifth district.

Many of you probably remember long-serving House and Senate Democrats in your own states who were swept away in the Reagan landslide of 1980.

By the same token, a lot of entrenched Republicans lost their seats during the 1974 post-Watergate wave. That was the year Iowans elected Tom Harkin and Berkley Bedell in the fifth and sixth Congressional districts, where both candidates had lost elections in 1972.

2. Even the political pros and the best analysts cannot always handicap Congressional races accurately, especially House races where public polls are scarce.

In 2006, could anyone have predicted that Lois Murphy (who almost beat Republican Congressman Jim Gerlach two years earlier) would fall short again in PA-06, while the massively under-funded Carol Shea-Porter would defeat Jeb Bradley in NH-01?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee poured millions into IL-06 in 2006, only to see Tammy Duckworth lose to Peter Roskam. Meanwhile, Larry Kissell didn’t get the time of day from the DCCC and came just a few hundred votes short of beating Republican incumbent Robin Hayes in NC-08.

My point is that we can’t always know where our best chances lie. Sometimes a stealth candidate can catch an incumbent napping in a race that hasn’t been targeted by either party.

Look at the seats Republicans are now worried about, according to Politico:

GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.

Markos commented on the Politico piece,

Shadegg’s AZ-03 is R+5.9.

Terry’s NE-02 is R+9.0.

Brown’s SC-01 is R+9.6

Lungren’s CA-03 is R+6.7.

We haven’t had any public polls in Iowa’s fourth or fifth district races, but last week Republican incumbent Tom Latham (IA-04, D+0) released his first negative television ad, suggesting that his internal polls may show Becky Greenwald gaining on him.

I can’t tell you today who will win on November 4, but I guarantee you that some Democrats in “tossup” seats will lose, even as other Democrats take over “likely Republican” or “safe Republican” districts. Which brings me to my third point.

3. We need to expand the field of Republican-held districts we’re playing for.

Thankfully, the bad old days when the DCCC would target 22 races, hoping to win 15, are just a memory. The DCCC has put more than 60 Republican-held seats in the “Red to Blue” category. Not all of those seats have seen media buys or other significant financial investment from the DCCC, however.

Plus, as I mentioned above, Dan Lungren is sweating bullets in CA-03, which isn’t even on the Red to Blue list.

In 2006 we won at least two seats that were not in the Red to Blue program (IA-02 and NH-01) and came oh, so close in NC-08.

The bottom line is that a lot of Democratic challengers with the potential to win are not getting the support of the DCCC. This post at Swing State Project lists lots of seats once thought safe for Republicans, which are becoming competitive.

Where can netroots fundraising have the most impact? In my view, it’s in the winnable districts where there will be no influx of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the DCCC or other outside groups. Many of these are districts where an additional $50,000 or even $25,000 can make the difference.

The mother of all moneybombs dumped three-quarters of a million dollars into Elwyn Tinklenberg’s campaign in 24 hours over the weekend. It was a strong statement against the intolerance and bigotry Michelle Bachmann (MN-06) displayed on Hardball.

While I respect the enthusiasm, I can’t agree with those who are still asking the netroots to give to Tinklenberg, even after he’s collected more than $750,000 and the DCCC has promised to put $1 million into this race. Tinklenberg now has the resources to run an aggressive paid media and GOTV effort for the next two weeks. He probably has more money than he can spend effectively with so little time left.

Raising $50,000 for each of ten good challengers would be a better use of our energy than continuing to push activists to give to Tinklenberg.

Remember, few challengers are able to match incumbents dollar-for-dollar, but that doesn’t mean they can’t win. They don’t need to match incumbent spending, but they do need the resources to improve their name recognition and capitalize on the Democratic wave.

Which House races should we target for a moneybomb? I would suggest looking at the list of candidates on the Blue America ’08 page at Act Blue, as well as the candidates endorsed by Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund. We have good reason to believe that those candidates will stand up for progressive values.

I would then pick a few Democrats on those lists who are not benefiting from large independent expenditures by the DCCC or others.

Our money will go further in districts with relatively inexpensive paid media.

I would also favor candidates taking on particularly odious incumbents, such as Dennis Shulman (running against Scott Garrett in NJ-05) and Debbie Cook (facing Dana Rohrbacher in CA-46). RDemocrat has written a book’s worth of material on why we should support Heather Ryan against “Exxon Ed” Whitfield in KY-01.

And what kind of Iowan would I be if I didn’t mention Rob Hubler, who is taking on Steve King in IA-05? My fellow Iowa blogger 2laneIA published this comprehensive diary showing that if we’re talking about the most ignorant and bigoted wingnuts in Congress, King gives Michelle Bachmann a run for her money. Click the link to read all about King’s “greatest hits,” including his suggestion that we electrify the border fence with Mexico like we do “with livestock,” his prediction that terrorists will be “dancing in the streets” if Obama becomes president, and his pride in working to scale back funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (which he calls Socialist Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents). King considers his work to reduce SCHIP funding a “key moment” in his Congressional career.

Amazingly, there’s even more to dislike about King than 2laneIA had room to mention in that piece. For instance, while still a state senator, King was a leading advocate for Iowa’s “official English” law, which was adopted in 2002. Then he filed a lawsuit in 2007 to stop the Iowa Secretary of State’s office from providing voter information in languages besides English. It’s not for nothing that Ann Coulter calls King “one of my favorites.”

Hubler is a good progressive who spoke out against the FISA bill and supports the Responsible Plan for Iraq. I just found out yesterday that during the 1980s he was INFACT’s national director of the boycott against Nestle. Hubler also happens to be running a great campaign, but he is not getting much outside help except from Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund, which has sent an organizer to work on the campaign.

Two dozen House Democrats already represent districts with a partisan voting index of R+5 or worse. We should be able to increase that number in two weeks and send home Republicans who didn’t even realize they were in trouble.

Few people have enough money to donate to every worthy Democratic candidate. But if the netroots could raise more than three-quarters of a million dollars for Elwyn Tinklenberg in just over 48 hours, we ought to be able to raise $50,000 each for ten good challengers, whose races are relatively low-profile.

Who’s with me on this, and which districts should we target?

The following is the updated version of a FAQ guide I published before OR’s primary in May talking about how Oregon’s Vote by Mail system works.  In addition, I have added information on how to interpret Oregon’s results on election night.

Cross-Posted from Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

The following is a combination of basic facts about Oregon’s election process and how to track results:

Q: So when did this whole Vote by Mail thing start?

A: Vote by Mail became law in 1998 as the result of the passage of an initiative backed by former SOS Phil Keisling (D).  However, what really spurred this development were two factors.  First, the 1990s had seen a steady but substantial increase in the number of people voting by mail with somewhere between a quarter and a half of all ballots being cast that way.  Second, when Senator Bob Packwood (R) resigned due to allegations of sexual misconduct in 1995, the state decided that, in order to conduct a fairly quick special election to fill this vacancy, they would do it entirely by mail.

Q: Does it make a difference in turnout?

A: Yes, it does.  Oregon has always been a high turnout state, turnout in the 1996 general election was 71%, but it has gone up since vote by mail became law.  Turnout in the general election since its passage has been 80% (2000), 69% (2002), 86% (2004) and 71% (2006).

Q: So how does this process actually work, how do you vote?

A: I’m glad you asked.  Here is my summary (mostly copied from my Friday diary btw):

1. Register to vote at least 21 days before an election.  A bit restrictive I know but it is what it is.

2. Receive Voters’ Pamphlets for primary and general elections somewhere around 2-3 weeks to as much as a month before the election, containing the normal candidate entries, arguments on ballot initiatives, etc.  This information is also available online at: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/may202008/guide/cover.html

3. Receive a ballot about 2-2.5 weeks before an election.  The ballot comes inside an outer envelope which contains a return envelope and a “secrecy envelope” (more on that later) along with a pamphlet detailing basics about the ballot initiatives if any are on the ballot for that election.  

4. Fill out your ballot (a sample from Multnomah County showing the candidates for all districts in the county is seen here (an actual ballot only contains the races you are actually voting on): 2008 General Election Sample Ballot  either at home, at a booth at the County elections office or anywhere else you wish.

5. Seal the ballot inside the secrecy envelope and then seal that inside the return envelope.  Sign the return envelope.

6. Either mail it in (proper postage must be attached) (before Friday only since ballots must be received by election day) or drop it off at any of your county’s drop boxes by 8 PM on election day (Multnomah County’s List of Drop Boxes is provided here: Multnomah County Official Drop Sites.

7. The signature on your return envelope is then checked and compared with the one in the registration database.  If it matches they open the return envelope (storing it separately) and the ballot inside its secrecy envelope is placed on a tray to be counted.  

8. The fact that you have voted is registered and political parties/other interested groups can check the list so they know who still should be targeted.  The upside of this is that once you vote you stop getting campaign calls, mail, canvassers, etc.

Q: So how are ballots counted?

A: As follows:

1. When a ballot is received, it is scanned and compared with that on file either by computer or by hand.  In either case, a pollworker monitors the process to check all signatures.

2. After being verified, all ballots are separated into precinct batches (the coding for that is on the outer envelope).

3. Beginning a week before the election (ballot deadline date), opening boards (groups of 2-4 people from different political parties) open the return envelopes and separate the secrecy envelope from the return envelope (to assure a secret vote).  The return envelope is set aside to serve as the official register of who voted.  Ballots are always monitored to ensure that they are not lost or tampered with.

4. The secrecy envelope is then opened and ballots are taken out, straightened and inspected for irregularities, then sorted into sealed boxes (again by precinct) to wait for election day.

5. In preparation for election day, the crews test all the optical scanning equipment (they also test it on election day before any ballot is counted) to make sure it is working properly.

6. Starting as early as 12:01 AM on election day (although most, if not all counties start later) counties may start feeding the ballots into the optical scanners to tabulate results.  The first results are released at 8 PM and counting continues until all ballots are counted.  The ballots are always kept so that they can be used to facilitate any necessary recount.  This entire process is observed by a neutral observer board, consisting of equal numbers of Ds and Rs (usually 2-5 of each).

Q: So how is security ensured and have there been any incidents of fraud under this system?

A: Security is ensured because paper ballots mean that we can always go back and check the results.  Also, the ballots are quite easy to understand and fill out.  As to fraud, there has not been a single significant incident of fraud since the system was put into place (and trust me there are many interest groups that would love to find such examples).  In addition, Oregon’s open government laws, some of the strongest in the nation, make it easier for almost all election records to be examined by any interested citizen.

Q: But there are some problems right?

A: Yup.  Not many but two in particular.  First, the software they use to tabulate the results is not open source software.  Second, the auditing procedures required to ensure the results reported are correct are good but could be better.  Still, most voting advocates recognize that Oregon has one of the best systems in the country.

Q: How do I track results?

A: Oregon’s SOS will have a results page but the link is not available yet.  The best alternates are:

The Oregonian (Statewide Newspaper of record): (http://www.oregonlive.com/)

KGW (NBC affiliate in Portland): (http://www.kgw.com/).

Q: How long will we have to wait for results and will there be exit polling?

A: 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 typically by this time.

Exit polling is conducted by calling those who have already voted as well as those who have not voted but can be expected to vote.  It actually tends to be more accurate as a result since they can base their sample off those who have indeed voted rather than a random sample.r.

Q: What are the key counties?

A: The following are the seven largest counties in the state:

Multnomah (Portland, all the way east to Mt. Hood): 422,000 registered voters.

Washington (Suburban, tech-heavy and agricultural): 267,000 registered voters.

Clackamas (Suburban and agricultural, fastest-growing urban county in the state): 220,000 registered voters.

Lane (Eugene, Springfield and other assorted communities, mix of urban, suburban and rural): 205,000 registered voters.

Marion (Salem (OR’s capital), mix of assorted industries/communities): 148,000 registered voters.

Jackson (Medford, Ashland, the largest R leaning county in the state): 119,000 registered voters.

Deschutes (Bend and Central Oregon, one of the most beautiful places in the state): 92,000 registered voters.

If this confuses you, watch this video on OR’s Vote by Mail process:

So that’s it.  Let me know any questions or comments you have.

Yesterday the creator of the Iowa Voters blog let Bleeding Heartland readers know that “The Brennan Center (with help from Sean Flaherty of Iowans for Voting Integrity) has released a major report on the status of election readiness.”

I recommend checking out this report to see how your state matches up. Iowa does fairly well. Thanks to the efforts of Secretary of State Mike Mauro, we adopted a law earlier this year banning touchscreen voting machines. Also, Iowa has same-day voter registration, which means very few people will have to use provisional ballots if they show up on election day and are not on the voter rolls.

In fact, the Iowa Voters blogger noted,

Iowa is one of eight states given credit for “best practices” in ballot accounting and reconciliation. See the third map.

On the other hand, we fall into the black space on the bottom map regarding audits of the machine readout. That’s Mauro’s next challenge. Someone needs to hand count some ballots after the polls close to see that the machines got it right in their hi-speed readings. Haste makes waste! Slow down and double check the damned things!

That challenge is for the government to face next legislative session. If we get good audits we can join the list of only six states that get shaded green on the top map (Alaska, Oregon, California, North Carolina, and our neighbors Missouri and Minnesota).

I agree that we need to have better audit procedures for our optical scanner counts, but I’m very relieved we won’t have to worry about some Iowa counties using touchscreen machines. It looks like the presidential race in Iowa will be a blowout for Barack Obama, but we could easily have Congressional or state legislative races that are close enough to require recounts.

With the election less than 3 weeks away from us, it’s time for another 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.  So, I’ll rank these in terms of tiers.  The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a legitimate chance of switching (but I ain’t guaranteeing anything).  The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point.  Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play.  And the safe seats?  Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.

This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there.  Also see my previous September diary to see what things have changed since my last update.  Previous rankings are in parentheses.

Note: The RNC looks to be getting into the Senate races to prop up some of their candidates and keep Democrats from getting to 60 Senate seats.  If they decide to end up dropping a moneybomb into a particular race, then that can quickly change the dynamics I’ve written up below.

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%.  Move along.  Nothing to see here.  This is about as lopsided as you’re gonna get, but still, no official predictions from me.

2. New Mexico (2): Rep. Tom Udall (D) is running against Rep. Steve Pearce (R).  Outside groups like the Club for Growth had been pouring money into this state attacking Udall, and the polling had shown the race getting a bit closer.  But more recently, Udall’s re-opened his massive lead.  Pearce has not gotten above 41% since early September, while Udall has been consistently over the 50% mark at the same time.  The NRSC cancelled their TV advertising in this state last month, leaving Pearce and the 527s to fend for themselves.  Udall also still has a massive cash on hand advantage over Pearce.

3. Colorado (4): Rep. Mark Udall (D) is Mo Udall’s son, and Tom Udall’s cousin.  He’ll face off against former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R).  Schaffer had previously lost the GOP primary for that Senate seat back in 2004 to Pete Coors.  Schaffer has been known for his close ties to Jack Abramoff and human rights abuses on the Marianas Islands.  Right-wing groups had been attacking Udall with ridiculously false ads, which hurt his numbers, but recently the polls are showing Udall slowly but surely increasing his lead over Schaffer.  This has caused Schaffer’s campaign manager to start attacking the pollsters when their numbers are unfavorable to Schaffer.  That’s not a sign of a winning campaign.  To make things worse for Schaffer, those right-wing groups like Freedom’s Watch have now pulled out of the Colorado Senate race.

4. New Hampshire (3): Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D), who John Sununu (R) beat in 2002 along with some illegal phone-jamming on Election Day for which several GOP operatives went to prison, has led Sununu in almost every single poll taken in 2008.  General rule of thumb: any incumbent polling under 50% in an election poll is in trouble.  Add to that, the fact New Hampshire strongly went blue in 2006 all over the place, kicking out both Republican Congressmen and flipping over 80 seats in the state House, giving Democrats control of both state legislature for the first time since 1910, and Sununu has to be considered the most endangered incumbent.  But he won’t go down easily, and the polls are starting to tighten a bit.  Sununu also still has a significant cash on hand advantage.  That money will probably make this race closer, but given how much New Hampshire has changed, I’m not sure how much that money advantage will help Sununu.

5. North Carolina (5): Amazing.  The polls are showing 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.  This, as Obama’s numbers similarly are growing in North Carolina.  The DSCC’s ads against Dole have been quite effective in framing a theme of ineffectiveness about Dole.  You even have Republican insiders say Dole is “virtually certain” to lose.  This has caused Dole to throw the kitchen sink in negative attack ads against Hagan.  Interesting fact, Hagan is the niece of the late Lawton Chiles, the longtime Senator and Governor of Florida, who came from behind to win re-election to the governorship in 1994 by defeating Jeb Bush.

6. Oregon (7): Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D) is challenging incumbent Gordon Smith (R).  Smith seems worried, as his commercials have him embracing Barack Obama and John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Ron Wyden (Oregon’s Democratic Senator) and fighting Bush!  Then, he turned from trying to prop up his own record to smearing Merkley with a misleading ad implying that Merkley is pro-rapist.  Stay classy, Gordon.  (It of course misrepresents what actually happened, and when it was introduced as a stand-alone bill, Merkley of course voted for the tougher penalties.)  Smith trying to tie himself to Democratic politicians has gotten so ridiculous that the DSCC has stepped in with a TV ad mocking Smith for doing so, and showing his real record.  This is probably because the polls now show Merkley pulling into a nice lead over Smith.  In an interesting twist, Smith is actually a cousin of the two Udalls running for Senate.

7. Minnesota (8): 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 has been friendlier to Al, with every poll taken in October now showing Al Franken in the lead, as Coleman’s own numbers keep falling.  Much of the fall seems to come from the impact of Independence Party (not to be confused with Alaska’s secessionist version) candidate Dean Barkley (who was appointed to the Senate when Wellstone died), who is pulling in a significant chunk of the vote.  And while Franken’s numbers have also fallen with some of his support going to Barkley, it seems that Coleman is losing even more support.  There’s also yet another story about Coleman getting lots of free stuff from yet another big GOP donor, which led to a bizarre press conference with Coleman’s aide repeateding the same rote denial sentence for three minutes straight.  In what seems like a McCain-like campaign stunt, Coleman has also just suspended all negative ads coming from his campaign, and is urging Franken to do the same.  Of course, the NRSC isn’t stopping its negative ads against Franken.

8. Alaska (6): 84-year-old Ted Stevens (R) is seeking a sixth term, but he has been indicted on 7 felony counts for not disclosing the gifts (over $250,000 worth) he got from oil company Veco Corp.  Democrats got their top choice when Anchorage mayor Mark Begich entered the race.  His father Nick Begich was a former Congressman, who was killed in a plane crash along with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-LA) in 1972.  Now while the polls had already shown Begich leading Stevens before the indictment, Stevens was still able to easily win his primary at the end of August, and combined with McCain’s Sarah Palin pick, the polls have suddenly gotten much friendlier to Stevens, and I don’t think it was from his primary win over some no-name challengers.  And to complicate matters, the federal prosecutor was somehow so incompetent that key pieces of evidence against Stevens were thrown out, greatly increasing Stevens’ chances of getting off scot free.  Non-partisan polling now shows Begich only up by 2 or 3 points, with Rasmussen actually showing Stevens having regained a slim lead.  Still, the incumbent Stevens is under the 50% mark.

9. Georgia (NR): Former state representative Jim Martin, the 2006 Democratic Lt. Gov. nominee, thankfully won the Democratic primary over DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones (see previous update as to why Jones would’ve been a horrible candidate).  Starting with the economic collapse, poll after poll showed a completely different race, with Martin only behind by a statistically insignificant margin.  Early voting and African-American turnout may make a difference in this race, as well as the presence of the Libertarian Senate candidate, given that Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr is from Georgia, and will likely shave off some points from Chambliss’s right flank.  Martin, however, does not have much cash on hand.  Good news is the DSCC is going to be helping him out with TV ads against Chambliss.  Remember, Chambliss 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”.

10. Kentucky (11): 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 have suddenly shown Lunsford gaining significant ground on McConnell.  The DSCC has responded by coming in to Lunsford’s aid also.

11. Mississippi-B (9): 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.  That’s the seat that Travis Childers (D) won in May.  That has to be a shot in the arm for former Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D), though Wicker has shown himself to be a prolific fundraiser.  The latest polls still show this to be a pretty tight race, with Wicker slightly up but still under the 50% mark.  It may all come down to the African-American turnout in this state.  The 2004 exit polls showed they made up 34% of the electorate.  So if black turnout increases, that should benefit Musgrove.  And because this is technically a special election (to fill out the remainder of Lott’s term), there will be no party identification on the ballot in November.  That can actually work to our benefit in a state like Mississippi.  The GOP is worried about this race, as Governor Haley Barbour (R) tried to bury the race at the bottom of the ballot, even after the local county district races.  The problem is that Mississippi election law clearly states that races for national office are supposed to be at the top of the list.  This went all the way to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which asked Barbour nicely to follow the law, which he actually did!

Tier II

I decided, for the sake of my own sanity, not to try to rank the Tier II and III races.  These are given in alphabetical order, by state.

Maine: Rep. Tom Allen (D) is running to challenge Susan Collins (R).  But he just hasn’t seemed to be able to gain much traction.  Collins has worked hard to craft her moderate credentials.  The most recent polls still have Collins at about a double-digit lead over Allen.

Texas: Netroots Democrats got the challenger they wanted to face John Cornyn (R).  State rep. and Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Rick Noriega (D) served in Afghanistan after 9/11, and was chosen to coordinate relief efforts in Houston after Hurricane Katrina.  The few polls on this race (Rasmussen seems to be the only one polling it) show Cornyn slipping a little bit recently, though he’s still at the 50% mark.  The big problem for Noriega is still fundraising for a huge state like Texas, though an appearance from Bill Clinton should help.

Tier III

Idaho: With Larry Craig (R) retiring after his airport bathroom… ah… incident, it’s looking like a rematch between Lt. Governor Jim Risch (R) and former Congressman Larry LaRocco (D), who lost the 2006 Lt. Gov. race to Risch by a sizable 58%-39% margin.  The latest polls are not kind to LaRocco.  At this point, wild card independent rancher Rex Rammell won’t be anywhere near enough to help out LaRocco.

Kansas: Pat Roberts (R) is up against former Congressman Jim Slattery.  There had been high hopes for Slattery, but the polls have not been kind to him.  This is about to fall into safe territory, even with Slattery’s innovative new ad.

Louisiana (10): Mary Landrieu (D) was considered the most endangered Democratic incumbent in 2008.  But the NRSC just pulled out of this race, leaving turncoat John Neely Kennedy (R, no relation to the Kennedy family in Massachusetts) to fend for himself.  The sparse polling shows Landrieu still holding a sizable lead.  The Republican tilt of the state is the only thing keeping this race from falling even further into safe territory.

Nebraska: With Chuck Hagel (R) retiring, former governor Mike Johanns (R) quit his job as Bush’s Agriculture Secretary to run for this seat.  The netroots were thrilled when rancher and history professor Scott Kleeb (D) threw his hat in the ring.  While Kleeb lost the NE-03 House race in 2006, that district is the most Republican in Nebraska, and Kleeb got a higher-than-expected 45% of the vote.  That’s had a lot of people thinking he would actually win in the other two districts, and thus a statewide race.  Of course, that didn’t take into account how he’d be running against the former governor.  The last two Rasmussen polls show Kleeb has gained ground, but that means he’s only down by 14 points instead of being down by over 25 points.

Oklahoma: James Inhofe (R) is being challenged by state senator and netroots favorite Andrew Rice (D), who lost his brother in the 9/11 attacks.  They could not be farther apart when it comes to energy and environmental issues.  The latest polls show Rice has improved his numbers a bit.  Still, losing by 13 points instead of losing by over 20 points is still a loss, even if Rice almost matched Inhofe in Q3 fundraising.

Democratic safe seats

Arkansas (Mark Pryor)

Delaware (Joe Biden)

Illinois (Dick Durbin)

Iowa (Tom Harkin)

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)

Mississippi (Thad Cochran)

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham)

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander)

Wyoming (Michael Enzi)

Wyoming (John Barrasso)

So there you have it, my personal rankings for the 2008 Senate races, as they stand with less than 20 days to go.  These are my picks, and I’m sticking with them… until my next update, at least.

Feel free to rip me apart in the comments, telling me I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, how could I possibly put a certain race in Tier II or III when it’s so obviously a top tier race, why I’m being too optimistic in some seat, etc.  Have at it.  🙂

In this edition of my reports on Oregon political news, I talk about how the Oregon Democrats keep improving their chances of a big win in 19 days.  Namely, voter registration for Democrats has crushed all previously existing records and Jeff Merkley, for the second quarter in a row, outraised Gordon Smith.

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

In this edition, I discuss four stories:

1. Democrats set new Voter Registration Record.

2. Merkley outraises Smith.

3. New Poll Confirms Schrader dominates Erickson in OR-5.

4. My Favorite Local Ads.

Democrats set new Voter Registration Record:

Story: Oregon tilts heavily to Democrats in registration

With the conclusion of the voter registration period on Tuesday, the near final voter registration numbers are now in (registrations count if they were postmarked by Tuesday so these may increase slightly).  The winner is unquestionably the Democratic Party.  In 2004 there were 829k Democrats and 762k Republicans (these numbers are misleadingly high because the old county by county system meant that if you moved within the state your name was often not removed from your old county’s list).  As of Tuesday there are 928k Democrats and 693k Republicans, a record number of Democrats and a record gap between the two parties for Oregon.  To quote the article discussing these numbers

According to the state Elections Division, between May 21 and Wednesday, 4,123 registered Democrats became Republicans. During the first four months of the year, 2,106 Democrats did the same. For all of 2008, 26,657 Republicans switched their registration to Democrat and 6,229 Democrats became Republicans, a net gain of 20,428 registered Democrats.  The Democrats did even better among nonaffiliated voters, who make up about 20 percent of the Oregon electorate. Since Jan. 1, 52,064 previously nonaffiliated voters registered as Democrats and 6,344 as Republicans, a net gain of 45,720 for the Democrats.

 I do not yet have the breakdown by district or county but a look at the most recent statistics available there, covering through the end of last month (http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/votreg/sep08.pdf) shows that Democrats have made gains statewide and that, for example, even if you removed Multnomah County (Portland) from the picture) Democrats would still have a statewide registration edge of around 70k voters, more than they had four years ago.

Merkley Outraises Smith for the Second Quarter in a Row:

Following the submission of Gordon Smith’s fundraising numbers for last quarter, I can now safely say that Jeff Merkley once again outraised Smith.  According to the wonderful Sarah Lane, Netroots director for Merkley, these are Smith’s numbers:

$1.87 million raised

$4.8 million spent

$1.5 million on hand

.

We know from previous reports that Merkley raised somewhere in the $2-$2.1M range last quarter and although expenditures/COH numbers are not yet available, Merkley looks to be in great shape.  Further proof that Merkley’s grassroots-based fundraising effort can outraise the lobbyists and special interests that fund Smith’s campaign.

New Poll Confirms Schrader dominates Erickson in OR-5:

The first poll of the year is out in OR-5 and Democrat Kurt Schrader leads Republican Mike Erickson 51-38 (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=66f4a22a-0b85-4b86-9040-84643db392ec).  Although there are some strange findings in this poll, such as that younger voters slightly prefer Erickson, it is further proof the long-held belief that Schrader will cruise this fall.

My Favorite Local Ads

The following are my three favorite local ads of the cycle:

Suzanne VanOrman (D), running against Ultimate Fighter Matt “The Law” Lindland (R) for State Rep:

Greg Matthews (D), running against John Lim (R):

No on 64 ad (Ban on Political Deductions for Public Employee Unions):

Let me know what you think.

UPDATE: The DCCC  added IA-04 to the Red to Blue list on October 14 and moved IA-05 up from Races to Watch to Emerging Races.

There have been no public polls in the race between Republican incumbent Tom Latham and Becky Greenwald in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district, and neither candidate has released any results from internal polling.

However, Latham may be increasingly concerned about holding this D+0 district amid what looks like a landslide victory for Barack Obama in Iowa.

Until this week, Latham’s campaign messaging touted his record and mostly ignored his challenger. But on Monday he went negative, issuing this statement blasting Greenwald’s support for the recent bailout package. (She came out against the first bailout bill the House considered but supported the version that cleared the Senate before coming up for a House vote.)

Latham voted against both bailout bills, one of very few times he’s ever refused to support something the Bush administration wanted. For months, Greenwald has been hitting him on his lockstep Republican voting record. He is clearly grateful to have this issue to separate him from the White House and Republican leadership in Congress.

Last week Latham and Greenwald held two radio debates, and Latham brought up his no votes on the bailout at every opportunity. I commented at Bleeding Heartland that the bailout was the only thing that kept the second debate from being a rout for Greenwald.

During and after the debates, Greenwald brought up Latham’s consistent Republican voting record on lots of issues, including the deregulation of the banking sector which has contributed to the current economic problems. She also linked Latham to John McCain’s failed approach on health care reform and hammered him for supporting a privatization scheme for Social Security.

Latham denies he has backed privatizing Social Security, but to paraphrase Josh Marshall, he uses classic Republican “bamboozlement” language on this issue. He has supported private investment accounts, which could be devastating to seniors’ income in a bear market.

Greenwald has challenged Latham to televised debates as well. He declined one invitation and is dragging his feet on rescheduling an Iowa Public Television debate that was postponed while Congress was considering the bailout.

The third quarter financial reports for Latham and Greenwald are not available at Open Secrets yet. As of June 30, Latham had a big cash on hand advantage, in part because he sits on the House Appropriations Committee and in part because Greenwald had to get through a four-way Democratic primary (she won with more than 50 percent of the vote).

Greenwald’s summer fundraising must have been reasonably strong, because she went up on tv in September, got the endorsement of EMILY’s List, and was put on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Emerging Races” list.

No doubt Latham still has a money edge, because he has been advertising more extensively on tv and radio throughout the district. His first two television commercials focused on a bill he co-authored to address the nursing shortage and the need to “crack down on Wall Street greed” and help Main Street businesses.

Most House race rankings still put IA-04 in the “likely Republican” category, but this is a district to watch, especially in light of the big Democratic gains in voter registration and Obama’s double-digit statewide lead over McCain, confirmed by at least ten polls.

If Latham does hold on to his seat, I think he should send Nancy Pelosi a thank-you note. Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate subsidies. Here’s Latham’s voting record that relates to government checks on corporate power. Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate tax breaks in general (including sub-categories on tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and for the wealthiest individuals).

Yet despite his long record of standing with corporations rather than middle-class taxpayers, the bailout has allowed Latham to position himself this way going into the home stretch of the campaign:

“Reckless Wall Street CEO’s made a mess and they asked Iowans to pay to clean it up,” noted Latham for Congress spokesperson Matt Hinch. “Tom Latham stood up in Congress and protected Iowans by twice voting no on this massive Wall Street bailout. Tom Latham believes that, as a matter of principle, it is wrong to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to reward, benefit and bailout those on Wall Street who created this mess.”

Highlights of Becky Greenwald’s endorsed Wall Street bailout plan includes:

* The largest corporate welfare proposal in U.S. history all at taxpayer expense;

* Gives the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and Wall Street veteran and former Goldman Sachs CEO, Henry Paulson a no-strings checkbook with $700 billion in taxpayer funds to spend as he sees fit;

* The Washington Post reports that there is a strong possibility of conflicts of interest, since the same companies who created the mess on Wall Street will, “be managing the assets while also selling their own troubled securities to the government.”;

* Taxpayer funded pork in the bill included tax breaks for rum, sports entities, television and the manufacturer of wooden arrows for children;

* And, no guarantee by Secretary Paulson that his plan will actually work.

“Becky Greenwald would reward the same greedy CEO’s who caused this crisis,” continued Hinch. “Becky Greenwald would spend $700 billion of Iowans’ money to fix Wall Street mistakes and greed. No accountability and no guarantee it will even work. It’s clear that Iowans can’t trust Becky Greenwald with our tax dollars.”

I don’t know whether this tactic will work for Latham, but I do know that if he were very confident, he would be sticking to a positive message.