Tag: Election 2008

Obama beat McCain 61%-37% in California, performing 7% better than Kerry in his 54%-44% win over Bush. Here are the county-by-county percentages for Kerry and Obama and the difference between those percentages. Counties that flipped from Bush to Obama are bolded.

County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff
Alameda	75.2%	78.8%	3.6%		Kings	33.8%	42.1%	8.3%		Placer	36.3%	43.4%	7.1%		Shasta	31.4%	36.0%	4.6%
Alpine	53.3%	61.0%	7.7%		Lake	53.2%	58.2%	5.0%		Plumas	36.9%	42.8%	5.9%		Sierra	33.2%	37.4%	4.2%
Amador	36.6%	41.6%	5.0%		Lassen	27.6%	31.5%	3.9%		Riverside	41.1%	50.3%	9.2%		Siskiyou	37.8%	43.3%	5.5%
Butte	44.2%	49.9%	5.7%		Los Angeles	63.2%	69.2%	6.0%		Sacramento	49.6%	58.5%	8.9%		Solano	57.2%	63.5%	6.3%
Calaveras	37.1%	42.2%	5.1%		Madera	34.8%	42.4%	7.6%		San Benito	52.7%	60.5%	7.8%		Sonoma	67.2%	73.7%	6.5%
Colusa	31.6%	40.0%	8.4%		Marin	73.3%	78.0%	4.7%		San Bernardino	43.6%	52.1%	8.5%		Stanislaus	40.4%	49.9%	9.5%
Contra Costa	62.3%	68.0%	5.7%		Mariposa	37.6%	42.5%	4.9%		San Diego	46.4%	54.2%	7.8%		Sutter	31.9%	40.8%	8.9%
Del Norte	41.4%	45.4%	4.0%		Mendocino	63.5%	69.6%	6.1%		San Francisco	83.1%	84.2%	1.1%		Tehama	32.1%	36.7%	4.6%
El Dorado	37.4%	43.7%	6.3%		Merced	42.3%	53.4%	11.1%		San Joaquin	45.9%	54.5%	8.6%		Trinity	42.8%	50.8%	8.0%
Fresno	41.7%	50.3%	8.6%		Modoc	25.8%	29.8%	4.0%		San Luis Obispo	45.6%	51.4%	5.8%		Tulare	32.9%	41.5%	8.6%
Glenn	31.7%	37.8%	6.1%		Mono	49.3%	55.6%	6.3%		San Mateo	69.5%	73.5%	4.0%		Tuolumne	38.6%	42.5%	3.9%
Humboldt	57.7%	62.3%	4.6%		Monterey	60.4%	68.2%	7.8%		Santa Barbara	53.2%	60.4%	7.2%		Ventura	47.6%	55.3%	7.7%
Imperial	52.5%	62.3%	9.8%		Napa	59.5%	65.2%	5.7%		Santa Clara	64.0%	69.5%	5.5%		Yolo	59.4%	67.1%	7.7%
Inyo	38.9%	43.9%	5.0%		Nevada	45.0%	51.5%	6.5%		Santa Cruz	73.0%	77.5%	4.5%		Yuba	31.6%	41.5%	9.9%
Kern	32.6%	40.2%	7.6%		Orange	39.0%	47.7%	8.7%

As you can see, a lot of the counties that showed the most improvement from 2004, including a lot of those that flipped, are in the areas of the state that experienced the fastest growth this decade. This is good news for us heading into the 2010 elections, because a lot of congressional and state legislative seats in these areas are ripe for the picking. This is also good news for redistricting, as the rapid growth of Democratic numbers gives the Democrats more room overall and allows for further gains by them.

You can also see that the counties in the multi-county Democratic stronghold of the Bay Area showed smaller Democratic growth numbers. This does not exactly mean that the region is trending Republican; rather, it has just pretty much maxed out its Democratic numbers. So just relying on our old strongholds in the Bay Area and L.A. County only takes us so far, and I am pleased to see the improvements in the fast-growing counties, which allow us to expand our playing field greatly.

Check below the flip for the juicy details on the numbers by districts.

The districts are colored by the party of their current occupants. Republican-held districts that voted for Obama are bolded.

Congressional District

District	Kerry	Obama	Diff		District	Kerry	Obama	Diff		District	Kerry	Obama	Diff		District	Kerry	Obama	Diff
CA-01	59.7%	65.6%	5.9%		CA-15	62.9%	68.4%	5.5%		CA-28	71.0%	76.2%	5.2%		CA-41	36.9%	43.7%	6.8%
CA-02	36.6%	42.7%	6.1%		CA-16	63.4%	69.6%	6.2%		CA-29	61.2%	67.6%	6.4%		CA-42	36.9%	44.9%	8.1%
CA-03	40.8%	49.2%	8.4%		CA-17	65.6%	72.1%	6.5%		CA-30	66.1%	70.4%	4.3%		CA-43	58.1%	68.0%	9.9%
CA-04	37.4%	43.9%	6.5%		CA-18	49.3%	59.2%	9.9%		CA-31	76.9%	79.9%	3.0%		CA-44	39.9%	49.5%	9.6%
CA-05	61.1%	69.5%	8.4%		CA-19	37.9%	46.0%	8.1%		CA-32	62.3%	68.2%	5.9%		CA-45	43.1%	51.5%	8.4%
CA-06	70.3%	76.0%	5.7%		CA-20	50.6%	59.6%	9.0%		CA-33	82.8%	86.8%	4.0%		CA-46	41.6%	47.9%	6.3%
CA-07	67.1%	71.7%	4.6%		CA-21	33.7%	42.1%	8.4%		CA-34	68.8%	74.7%	5.9%		CA-47	48.6%	60.1%	11.5%
CA-08	84.2%	85.4%	1.2%		CA-22	31.0%	38.3%	7.3%		CA-35	79.0%	84.4%	5.4%		CA-48	40.4%	49.3%	8.9%
CA-09	85.9%	88.1%	2.2%		CA-23	58.3%	65.5%	7.2%		CA-36	59.0%	64.4%	5.4%		CA-49	36.5%	45.1%	8.6%
CA-10	58.5%	64.9%	6.4%		CA-24	43.1%	50.5%	7.4%		CA-37	73.5%	79.6%	6.1%		CA-50	43.9%	51.3%	7.4%
CA-11	45.3%	53.8%	8.5%		CA-25	39.9%	49.4%	9.5%		CA-38	65.3%	71.3%	6.0%		CA-51	53.4%	63.1%	9.7%
CA-12	71.5%	74.3%	2.8%		CA-26	43.7%	51.0%	7.3%		CA-39	58.5%	65.5%	7.0%		CA-52	37.7%	45.0%	7.3%
CA-13	70.9%	74.4%	3.5%		CA-27	59.3%	66.1%	6.8%		CA-40	38.4%	46.6%	8.2%		CA-53	61.2%	68.2%	7.0%
CA-14	68.3%	73.0%	4.7%

Board of Equalization

District	Kerry	Obama	Diff
BOE-1	67.2%	72.1%	4.9%
BOE-2	42.7%	50.9%	8.2%
BOE-3	42.4%	50.6%	8.2%
BOE-4	65.6%	71.5%	5.9%

State Senate

County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff
SD-01	38.6%	45.8%	7.2%		SD-11	68.3%	73.3%	5.0%		SD-21	63.2%	69.2%	6.0%		SD-31	41.6%	49.7%	8.1%
SD-02	63.3%	68.7%	5.4%		SD-12	47.7%	57.9%	10.2%		SD-22	74.1%	78.3%	4.2%		SD-32	58.9%	68.4%	9.5%
SD-03	77.8%	81.6%	3.8%		SD-13	67.4%	72.2%	4.8%		SD-23	65.0%	70.0%	5.0%		SD-33	36.3%	45.2%	8.9%
SD-04	36.9%	43.0%	6.1%		SD-14	34.8%	42.5%	7.7%		SD-24	64.4%	69.6%	5.2%		SD-34	46.6%	57.3%	10.7%
SD-05	53.7%	62.3%	8.6%		SD-15	52.5%	59.1%	6.6%		SD-25	72.3%	78.7%	6.4%		SD-35	40.3%	47.9%	7.6%
SD-06	55.6%	64.3%	8.7%		SD-16	49.5%	58.9%	9.4%		SD-26	81.6%	85.8%	4.2%		SD-36	34.5%	42.1%	7.6%
SD-07	60.9%	66.7%	5.8%		SD-17	39.9%	48.7%	8.8%		SD-27	59.5%	66.1%	6.6%		SD-37	41.2%	50.3%	9.1%
SD-08	73.9%	75.8%	1.9%		SD-18	30.2%	37.5%	7.3%		SD-28	61.6%	67.2%	5.6%		SD-38	40.3%	48.3%	8.0%
SD-09	81.1%	84.0%	2.9%		SD-19	48.4%	55.6%	7.2%		SD-29	41.8%	48.9%	7.1%		SD-39	57.6%	64.8%	7.2%
SD-10	67.3%	71.4%	4.1%		SD-20	65.4%	72.5%	7.1%		SD-30	62.3%	68.7%	6.4%		SD-40	52.9%	62.1%	9.2%

State Assembly

County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff
AD-01	60.1%	65.5%	5.4%		AD-21	66.6%	72.0%	5.4%		AD-41	62.3%	67.8%	5.5%		AD-61	54.4%	63.2%	8.8%
AD-02	32.3%	38.0%	5.7%		AD-22	67.3%	72.1%	4.8%		AD-42	72.0%	75.5%	3.5%		AD-62	61.8%	71.3%	9.5%
AD-03	41.8%	48.0%	6.2%		AD-23	66.2%	71.5%	5.3%		AD-43	63.9%	70.3%	6.4%		AD-63	42.6%	51.1%	8.5%
AD-04	38.1%	45.2%	7.1%		AD-24	62.1%	68.0%	5.9%		AD-44	60.8%	67.2%	6.4%		AD-64	41.2%	50.0%	8.8%
AD-05	42.3%	51.1%	8.8%		AD-25	38.0%	44.9%	6.9%		AD-45	78.5%	80.6%	2.1%		AD-65	39.0%	47.0%	8.0%
AD-06	71.0%	76.2%	5.2%		AD-26	41.8%	50.7%	8.9%		AD-46	80.6%	83.9%	3.3%		AD-66	34.4%	43.7%	9.3%
AD-07	65.1%	70.7%	5.6%		AD-27	66.7%	71.8%	5.1%		AD-47	80.7%	85.3%	4.6%		AD-67	39.6%	46.1%	6.5%
AD-08	55.6%	63.3%	7.7%		AD-28	59.8%	68.3%	8.5%		AD-48	86.0%	89.1%	3.1%		AD-68	38.4%	47.4%	9.0%
AD-09	66.0%	73.4%	7.4%		AD-29	36.3%	44.4%	8.1%		AD-49	61.2%	65.3%	4.1%		AD-69	52.7%	64.4%	11.7%
AD-10	42.5%	51.1%	8.6%		AD-30	42.2%	51.1%	8.9%		AD-50	70.6%	76.9%	6.3%		AD-70	42.0%	50.9%	8.9%
AD-11	64.3%	69.7%	5.4%		AD-31	52.8%	62.2%	9.4%		AD-51	75.5%	81.4%	5.9%		AD-71	34.4%	44.6%	10.2%
AD-12	79.1%	79.0%	-0.1%		AD-32	28.7%	35.8%	7.1%		AD-52	86.1%	90.8%	4.7%		AD-72	38.3%	47.3%	9.0%
AD-13	85.6%	87.5%	1.9%		AD-33	43.1%	49.5%	6.4%		AD-53	56.9%	62.4%	5.5%		AD-73	38.5%	46.5%	8.0%
AD-14	80.6%	83.8%	3.2%		AD-34	32.6%	40.6%	8.0%		AD-54	56.6%	61.9%	5.3%		AD-74	42.4%	50.2%	7.8%
AD-15	49.6%	57.6%	8.0%		AD-35	59.7%	66.9%	7.2%		AD-55	63.0%	69.4%	6.4%		AD-75	43.2%	51.3%	8.1%
AD-16	85.6%	87.9%	2.3%		AD-36	38.4%	49.3%	10.9%		AD-56	55.1%	62.1%	7.0%		AD-76	59.6%	66.2%	6.6%
AD-17	49.7%	59.5%	9.8%		AD-37	43.8%	51.0%	7.2%		AD-57	58.8%	66.2%	7.4%		AD-77	35.8%	42.7%	6.9%
AD-18	69.7%	73.8%	4.1%		AD-38	43.6%	51.4%	7.8%		AD-58	60.8%	66.4%	5.6%		AD-78	51.2%	60.2%	9.0%
AD-19	69.3%	72.9%	3.6%		AD-39	69.9%	76.4%	6.5%		AD-59	39.6%	46.6%	7.0%		AD-79	56.0%	65.0%	9.0%
AD-20	65.9%	70.3%	4.4%		AD-40	60.3%	66.9%	6.6%		AD-60	38.4%	45.8%	7.4%		AD-80	51.6%	59.6%	8.0%

Texas went for McCain, big whoop. But the real story is in the margins. George W. Bush carried Texas over John Kerry by a 61%-38% margin. Four years later John McCain has carried the Lone Star state by a comparatively weak 55%-44%. The gap has shrunk by 12% points in the democrats favor.

Here’s the quick scorecard post election day:

US Senate: Cornyn 55%-43%, no change

US House: Dems – 1 for 20 R – 12 D

State Senate: Dems +1 for 18 R – 12 D and 1 outstanding (R defense)

State House: Dems +3 for 75 R – 74 D and 1 outstanding (R defense)

Dallas County moves to hard democratic, from weak democratic

Harris County (Houston) emerges as a purple county from solid republican

Tarrant County (Fort Worth) reflects the state as a whole

Bexar County (San Antonio) has a slight democratic lean

Travis County (Austin) is a liberal bastion of democrats

U.S. Senate

Rick Noriega was underfunded in his campaign. That is the first thing to say in “what went wrong.” However, I have seen some people suggesting that we could have recruited better. Considering the depth of our bench and how well (or poorly) seasoned it is in Texas, I disagree. The results form the senate race almost matched the presidential results, so this was in no way a vote of confidence for Sen. Cornyn. So, where can Rep. Noriega go from here? I have heard rumors that he is interested in more of an executive position. The obvious positions that emerge are Lt. Governor and Harris County Judge (more on that later).

U.S. House

I lost my Congressman. It sucks. More importantly, the loss of Nick Lampson is a body blow for NASA in the next congress as there are no diehard supporters of NASA in the U.S. House who hold any seniority. I’m hoping Rep. Lampson gets an appointment by the administration relating to space and aeronautics. A statewide run is not in his future because in all honesty, his campaign teams from both 2006 an 2008 were not run as the well oiled machines that several other successful campaigns have been.

A quick note on Chet Edwards won re-election against a tier 4 for opponent by a 53%-45% margin. This is a reminder, he will never be safe in the current TX-17 and it is imperative why we need to take control of the state house.

My condolences to Larry Joe Doehrty and Michael Skelly. Both were great candidates but could not overcome their districts’ PVIs, where the dial only moved a few percentage points in their favor.

Pete Sessions won re-election by the exact same margin he did in 2006 and Kenny Marchant lost several points this time around. Keep your eyes on these two, TX-24 and TX-32 may have life in them.

State Senate

WENDY DAIVS (D) WON SD-10!!!! This district is completely confined within Tarrant County and was held by cigar chomper Kim Brimer (R). Brimer spent most of the spring and summer suing Wendy to try and keep her off the ballot, he failed at least three times. I interned for Wendy last spring, and I am so proud of her, she also has the potential and background to go statewide if she wants to. There are more US Congressional district in Texas than there are state senate seats, so I doubt the Congress will be in her future. More importantly, the filibuster line for the Texas Senate was 11 members. There are now at least 12 Democrats. Good news.

Meanwhile, the special election in SD-17 will be finalized in December. Fmr Congressman Chris Bell (D) will finish off Fmr Judge Joan Huffman (R) then. A Republican spoiler filed as a democrat in the special and took 13% of the vote. Her total combined with Bell’s would have been well over 50%. If we win this come December Dems will be at 13 Senators and +2 overall. We’re not done.

State House

We lost three of our own seats, including two incumbents and one open seat. Juan Garcia (D) was elected against a corrupt R in 2006 and Dan Barrett (D) was elected in a special in late 2007. The open seat was in rural areas near College Station (home of Texas A&M). Garcia and Barrett were great guys but they both have a future somewhere in Texas politics if they really want it.

Alright, post-mortem over, we picked up six seats so far. The winners are as follows:

HD-52 (Williamson County, Round Rock) – Maldonado (D) wins an open seat 48.6%-47.4%

HD-78 (El Paso) – Joe Moody (D) wins open seat 51.5%-45.1%

HD-96 (Tarrant County) – Chris Turner beats hard right ideologue Bill Zedler 51.2%-46.6%

HD-101 (Dallas County, Mesquite) Robert Mikos (D) wins open seat 50.6%-49.3%

HD-102 (Dallas) – Carol Kent (D) beats long time incumbent Tony Goolsby 53.0%-47.0%

HD-133 (Harris) – Kristi Thibaut (D) beats Jim Murphy 50.6%-49.4%

Overall theme of the winners? Public education. Kent and Maldonado both have experience in public schools and all the rest had public education as part of their platform. Miklos and Thibaut were both surprising wins even though they were both expected to be close. Moody is 25 years old so expect to hear more from him later on. Chris Turner’s win over Zedler is a victory against partisanship, for those familiar with Virginia politics Zedler was sort of our equivalent to Cuccinnelli. Kent and Moody should be safe from here out due to how their districts are changing in democrats favor.

Meanwhile, Dallas dems have been on such a rise, a candidate who was little more than a name on the ballot may have pulled off an upset pending the recount. Bob Romano (D) is 29 votes behind immigrant hater and school voucher supporter Linda Harper-Brown in Dallas County’s HD-105. If Romano pulls this one out the House becomes a 75-75 tie. Expect Romano to face a stiff primary challenge in 2010 should he win.

Final Result? The odds of Tom Craddick remaining speaker are extremely slim. Expect a new Speaker who will allow members to bring forward legislation that is important to their districts. It’s a good day for Democracy in the Texas House.

Dallas County

Dems won everything by large margins at a county level. Obama finished just shy of 60% and so did many of the judges. Embattled Sheriff Lupe Valdez (Female, Minority, Lesbian) finished with 55%

Harris County

Houston, we have liftoff. All but three, maybe four judges got over the finish line. They are the first democrats elected county wide in Harris county since the early 90s. Joining them are our new County Attorney Vince Ryan (D), County Clerk Loren Jackson (D), and (most importantly) the lead democratic vote getter Houston City Councilman and now, Sheriff-elect, Adrian Garcia. We were 5,000 votes short in winning District Attorney and finished behind in decent margins for County Judge and Tax-Assessor/Collector. All offices should be held by Democrats within 6-8 years.

Tarrant County

No gains, but Tarrant held margins exactly even as the state as a whole. Want to take the state’s temperature? Watch Fort Worth.

Bexar County

A few judges gained in San Antonio, but nothing drastic. This county remains fairly non partisan.

Travis County

Obama won 67% in this Austin based county. Everything else followed.

A Few Other Notes

Galveston Counties is becoming more of a white flight county with margins diminishing. This is very bad news for Galveston where most offices are held by Dems. Dems barely held the open Sheriff seat 50.5%-49.5% against an underfunded, under-qualified republican. I can only hope that it is due to Democrats leaving the island from Hurricane Ike.

Democrats won their first Judge on the 1st Court of Appeals, a 14 county court that includes Harris and Galveston county then stretches out towards Austin. Congratulations Judge Jim Sharp.

Fort Bend County, home of Sugarland is moving Democratic with several 53-47 wins for the republicans. Not bad.

Fort Bend County Commissioner Place 1 has moved to the Democrats. It’s just a low level County Commissioner but I thought you all would like to know due to who won it. Netroots hero and original Dean Dozen candidate, Richard Morrison.

The Future

It’s good. Houston Mayor will be an open seat in 2009 due to term limits and I have only heard Democratic names mentioned.

The state house is 1 or 2 Dems behind from switching over and we got 1 cycle to do it. We did New York’s Senate, time for our House.

Governor. Dems started winning Harris County and that’s the greenlight. Houston Mayor Bill White should be ready to go for us. All eyes are now on Hutchison and what she chooses to do. All of Texas’ Republican politicians are in a holding position, waiting on her and what she chooses to do. Rick Perry has no term limits and wants to keep his job. As for the other offices, Former Comptroller John Sharp is supposably looking at the Senate seat and Noriega may be eyeing Lt. Gov.

Time will tell, but we’re looking good.

Updates

Some more information:

Quickly, I was horribly wrong about Denton county. It went from +40 Bush, to +26 McCain. I am thrilled by this news and personally I am determined to flip this county even if I have to take it over myself, I just graduated from Denton’s University of North Texas, so it is a bit of a vested interest.

1) Bell County. We had a good state house race here, lost it by the same margin Obama did. Very promising change in margins. Perhaps we can try again next year.

2) Major movement in Cameron County (Brownsville)

3) Several Valley districts moved Dem between 10%-20%

4) Nueces County (Corpus Christi) is still red (surprising) but less so by 10%.

5) There is a slow creep democratically across Ron Paul’s TX-14 (Corpus to Galveston). My guess is this is more of an immigration line more than anything consisting of Mexican immigrants moving north.

Want to help defeat conservatism right in the heart of Red America?  How about Alabama, Heart of Dixie, where 29 year old attorney Josh Segall is the latest addition to the DCCC’s Red to Blue list.  If elected, Segall won’t be just another Blue Dog Democrat — he’s a true progressive, a better Democrat in a place where merely more Democrats would be welcome.

The Democratic party can and should take back Alabama’s 3rd District this year. The seat was held by a Democrat from 1875 until the 1996 election when Glen Browder retired and (now governor) Bob Riley won election to Congress as a moderate Republican. It was an open seat in 2002, a terrible year for Southern Democrats. The DCCC pulled out of the race late and Joe Turnham was completely off the air for a full two weeks before election day.  He lost by only 3800 votes. It’s kind of poetic justice that the DCCC is stepping in to help Segall — late, but not too late to make a critical difference in the race.

Josh Segall is running in AL-03 against 3 term incumbent Mike Rogers, the least effective Alabama Congressman in recent, and maybe not so recent, memory.  He’s been a rubber stamp for Bush, ranked 403rd out of 435 by Congress.org and is such a sucker he voted for CAFTA after receiving assurances from textile plant officials that the trade agreement would be be good for the local textile industry.  Good for the business owners who paid Alabama employees to pack up the manufacturing equipment for shipment to Central America; not good for East Alabama workers whose wages have plummeted as manufacturing jobs disappeared.  In the video below, Segall makes the point that sending jobs overseas should be regarded as a national security issue.

There’s more information about Segall and the nature of this race in my diary from a couple of months ago, including this list:

What Josh Segall supports:

– Network neutrality legislation and bringing affordable broadband internet access to every household in Alabama,

 – Health care benefits for national guardsmen and reservists,

– The GI BIll for the 21st Century,

– A moratorium on unfair trade deals such as CAFTA

– Investing in renewable energy and alternative fuels.

– The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

And he’s pro choice, recently telling a reporter “We should have fewer abortions, and I wouldn’t advise it for a family member, but I don’t think the federal government should decide that for you.”  

Introducing Segall for a recent liveblog, Howie Klein said:

Rogers is a classic rubber stamp Republican with an abysmal and indefensible voting record. Yes, it’s Alabama but Rogers is part of the right-wing jihad against working families and on those kitchen table issues Alabama is just like the rest of the country. And right now, they are steaming. Even in Alabama Bush’s approval rating is in negative territory, with barely 45% of the voters feeling he’s doing an acceptable job.

Rogers has the appearance of a beaten man lately, so much so that the publisher of the Anniston Star (they backed Rogers last time he had significant opposition) wrote this, emphasis mine.

We sat down with our congressman, Mike Rogers, the day after he voted for the unpopular but apparently necessary financial bailout bill. He seemed different, not particularly energized by the prospect of two more years in the House.

He was fatalistic, as if he were a helpless observer-victim of political earthquakes over which he had no control, whose direction and personal consequences were unknowable. “I might be defeated,” he said flatly.



…

Segall is a long shot but he could win, and what I gathered from our sit-down with Mike is that he doesn’t care all that much.

Maybe having to vote in favor of that 700 billion dollar bailout has left Mike Rogers demoralized, or maybe he realizes that he’s in over his head in Washington.  After all, he still thinks the decision to invade Iraq was a good one and that al Quaeda was in Iraq and that the Chinese were drilling for oil off the Florida coast.  Whether out of touch or out of his depth, Rogers needs to be out of Congress.

Here’s video of a recent debate between Segall and Rogers. It’s rather long (15 minutes — I’ll work on a highlights cut soon) but you can tell from just the opening statements that Josh Segall has substantive ideas for improving conditions in East Alabama.  Unlike Rogers, he’s not satisfied with the status quo.  Josh is the kind of Democrat who will rebuild the Democratic brand in the South — pushing infrastructure improvements, alternative energy and other legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of working families.

Mike Rogers has lost ground recently and is now polling below 50%.  This is no forlorn hope; Democrats can take this race.  If you want to see more and better Democrats, especially in Southern states, please support Josh Segall with a contribution, small or large.  We need to make sure Josh Segall has the resources to stay on the offensive right up to election day — this is the time to press the attack, not back away from the fight.

Dr. Bill Durston, a progressive Democrat running for Congress in California’s 3rd Congressional District has just released a poll that shows that he is in a dead heat against the Republican incumbent, Dan Lungren.

From an email sent to Durston for Congress supporters on Tuesday, October 7th:

We’ve just received great news from a poll of 500 likely voters conducted by the respected polling firm, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, and Associates. Dr. Bill Durston is in a statistical dead heat with Dan Lungren in California’s 3rd Congressional District!

When voters were asked who they would vote for if they were to vote today, 33% chose Lungren, 30%, chose Bill, 7% chose another candidate, and 30% were undecided. With a margin of error of 4%, the differences between Bill and Lungren were not statistically significant.

After hearing a positive profile about both Lungren and Bill, the tallies were even closer – 39% for Lungren and 38% for Bill. After hearing about some of Lungren’s many shortcomings, including his Hawaii vacation paid for by special interests, his allegiance to the Bush-Cheney administration, and his fondness for taking money from Big Oil, voters chose Bill over Lungren by a margin of 43% to 34%, a difference which is highly statistically significant.

This news should bring more attention to the race for this seat. David Dayen from the Calitics blog wrote:

This could be a good time for outside groups to jump in.  CA-03 is one of those under-the-radar seats nationwide that is very, very winnable, and a late push could easily put Durston over the top.  Furthermore, he’s a solid progressive Democrat who supports single-payer.

Once the voters of the 3rd Congressional District learn that Dr. Bill Durston is a decorated Marine combat Vietnam veteran and an emergency room physician, who has served both the country and his community, they will vote for him.  They are even more likely to vote for Bill when they learn that their current Representative, career politician and carpet-bagger Dan Lungren, cares more about the big money corporate special interests than he does about the people of his district.  

Hopefully, once the voters hear about some of Lungren’s shortcomings, Durston will take the lead.

With your help, we will prove the politicos wrong and put Bill Durston into office!

Securing the votes in Congress to pass real immigration solutions into law isn’t going to be easy. The next President – no matter who wins – will need to lead his own party first to get it done.

Senator Obama would surely have an uphill climb, even with a Party Platform that favors comprehensive reform. But, given an enforcement-only Party Platform and the policy positions of most Republicans in Congress, Senator McCain may need to scale a brick wall to bring his party on board!

Nevertheless, both candidates continue to talk about reform (at least in Spanish).

Well, we’ve already heard enough rhetoric- we want a roadmap. We’re asking the Senators how they will unite their own parties to pass real immigration solutions into law.

We’re saying, Show America the Immigration Reform Roadmap during the next presidential debate on October 7th!

Resources

The Republican Platform

The Democratic Platform

Why doesn’t the DCCC put out ads against all 3 Florida Congressmen? The Orlando market covers Districts 7, 8 and 24, so they would kill three birds with one ad.

According to the NRCC, no Republican District is safe this year. All three Florida Congressmen are corrupt, so let’s kick them all out this year.

www.actblue.com/page/fayeforcongress

Donate now to help put more progressives in Congress.

I am not sure if this has already been posted, but it is a story that should interest everyone.  Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (a prominent Democratic outfit) just released a poll they conducted of the 45 most competitive GOP-controlled districts (as defined by them), and the poll shows that Democratic challengers lead 50-to-43.  

The survey was conducted of 1,600 likely voters from May 19-26.  Very interestingly, the firm did a similar poll four months ago which found Democrats trailing by one point.  This change certainly shows substantial move towards Democrats as we get closer to November.  

Before doing their poll, CQR decided on what they believed were the top 45 most competitive districts currently in GOP hands (I will go over those below), and then chopped them into a first tier and a second tier.  In the first tier districts, Democrats held a healthy 51-to-42 lead.  Perhaps even more interesting, in the second tier races, Democrats lead 48-to-45 percent.  

According to the poll, Bush is weighing down many GOP candidates, as his approval rating in these 45 districts — many of them red districts — stands at 33 percent.  

When named in individually-polled districts, the GOP incumbents received an average approval rating of 38 percent.  Democrats polled 17 points ahead of the GOP on the issue of the economy, and 11 points higher on the war in Iraq.  Republicans polled three points higher than Dems on the issue of handling illegal immigration.  

The poll found that Dems hold a five-point advantage on current party ID, and edge the GOP with independents by a slim 43-to-41.  

Perhaps most troubling is that in these districts, Obama and McCain are tied 47-to-47.  

Here are the districts included in the poll, broken up by tier:

TIER 1.  AZ-01 (Renzi), CA-04 (Doolittle), CT-04 (Shays), IL-11 (Weller), MI-09 (Knollenberg), MN-03 (Ramstad), MO-06 (Graves), NV-03 (Porter), NJ-03 (Saxton), NJ-07 (Ferguson), NM-01 (Wilson), NY-13 (Fossella), NY-25 (Walsh), NC-08 (Hayes), OH-02 (Schmidt), OH-15 (Pryce), OH-16 (Regala), PA-06 (Gerlach), VA-11 (Davis), WV-02 (Capito Moore), and WY-AL (Cubin).  

TIER 2.  AL-02 (Everett), AK-AL(Young), CO-04 (Musgrave), FL-08 (Keller), FL-13 (Buchanan), FL-21 (L. Diaz-Balart), FL-24 (Feeney), ID-01 (Sali), IL-10 (Kirk), IL-18 (LaHood), KY-02 (Lewis), LA-04 (McCrery), MD-01 (Gilchrest), MI-07 (Walberg), MO-09 (Hulshof), NJ-02 (LoBiando), NM-02 (Pearce), NY-26 (Reynolds), NY-29 (Kuhl), OH-01 (Chabot), OH-14 (LaTourette), VA-02 (Drake), VA-10 (Wolf), WA-08 (Reichert).  

Keep in mind, these districts were chosen not just based on our chances of winning them, but also on their breakdown (i.e. PVI index).  So, while we may have a mediocre opponent in a district, in a vacuum it can still be considered Tier One.  

While they hit all the close ones, at the outset you can probably pick a bit at some of these selections.  CA-04, MO-06, OH-02, WV-02, WY-AL and probably NC-08 should all be in the second tier as they are fairly strong GOP strongholds and not that close to going blue in the long haul.  While we will not win PA-06, it should be on in the poll as the district is winnable, we just did not recruit a top person.  

In Tier Two, we could argue this, but in my opinion, as it stands now, ID-01, IL-18, VA-10 and probably MD-01 should be Tier Three districts.  You could argue OH-01 being in Tier One.  While NY-26, NY-29, WA-08 and probably CO-04 should be Tier One in terms of flipping, the districts themselves are Tier Two districts.  While we will not win these two this cycle, NJ-02 and OH-14 are certainly competitive for us, we just have crummy opponents for them.  (Incidentally, we need to target these two hard in 2010).    

On balance, this poll is fascinating and I think they did a good job in bracketing the districts by current race and general character.  Clearly, the GOP brand, even in pretty red districts is badly damaged (like we didn’t know that already), and the Democrats have a spectacular opportunity this November.  Heck, even if a handful of these districts are a little poorly-organized by tier, the fact that we are ahead nine points in Tier One — which includes several really red districts like MO-06, OH-02, WV-02, and WY-AL bodes very well for us.  Ditto Tier Two.  

Obviously that Obama-McCain head-to-head is very troubling, but Obama has a lot of time to get and there and make his case to the independent voters in these swing districts.  I like his chances, as it stands.  

You can take this poll with a bit of salt because it is from a Democratic pollster.  Also, with an overall sample size of 1,600, divided by 45 districts, that comes out to an average of just under 36 voters per district — hardly a large sample.  

Yet, while I will not look at this poll as gospel, I think the overall numbers we get are promising and show that at the very least, we have much better strength then the GOP going into November, even in red-leaning districts.  If this poll is accurate, a 25+ seat gain is possible.  

http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?…

Andrew Rice, Democratic State Senator from Oklahoma and candidate for U.S. Senate, already has incumbent Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican Party, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) worried.  He also has Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and thousands of local and national supporters convinced that Andrew Rice is “going to surprise people” with his Senate campaign.

Rice followed a unique path to politics, winning a state senate seat after graduating from Harvard Divinity School, doing humanitarian work in Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand, and working with nonprofits such as the Texas Faith Network and the Red River Democracy Project.  After losing his brother David, who worked in the South Tower of the World Trade Center, on 9/11, Andrew became an advocate for open government and policy reform.  Along with other 9/11 victims’ families, he helped push for the formation of the 9/11 Commission and opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.

(more below)

After his advocacy work in Washington, Rice decided to become more involved in policy, and he wanted to start in his home state.  He returned to Oklahoma and founded the Progressive Alliance Foundation, a non-profit that advocates fairness and equity in public policy.

Rice ran for Oklahoma State Senate in 2006 with a dedicated door-to-door campaign.  After knocking on nearly every door in the district, he won his seat with almost 70% of the vote.  While in the Senate, he has championed legislation to expand children’s health care, established a Hunger Task Force, and authored legislation to aid caregivers for the elderly.

Now, Andrew Rice is taking on one of the most partisan and out-of-touch members of the U.S. Senate.  Rather than taking action on issues such as climate change, energy policy, children’s health care, and veterans’ benefits, incumbent Sen. Jim Inhofe prefers to block progress toward solutions.  A clear symbol of the status quo, Inhofe needs to know that the rest of us want to move forward, and that it’s time for him to retire.

Andrew needs your help now to continue building momentum in his efforts to unseat Jim Inhofe.  He issued a challenge that reflects the kind of campaign he’s running: to achieve 2008 donors by the end of 2008.  We’re counting the donors, not the dollars, and focusing on getting support from real people, not special interests.

Read more about Andrew at our campaign website, andrewforoklahoma.com, and note yesterday’s post at myDD from oriole223.  Andrew’s campaign presents a great opportunity to replace a partisan and out-of-touch Republican with a progressive Democrat in the Senate, but we need your help now to do it.

– Team Rice

andrewforoklahoma.com

actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18228

Crossposted from www.eyesontrade.org.

Once, many of the issues we talk about on this blog were discussed mostly among Rust Belt labor unions or in street demonstrations. But tough questions are increasingly being asked in a variety of places, from the ivory tower to the campaign stump… and in both instances, the focus is on a change in the rules of globalization, rather than perpetuating the stale debate about whether “yes” or whether “no” on globalization. Witness Harvard's Dani Rodrik's new paper, articulating what he says is now the “new orthodoxy” on trade:

We can talk of a new conventional wisdom that has begun to emerge within multilateral institutions and among Northern academics. This new orthodoxy emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries and improved governance in the poor countries.

Rodrik goes on to push this new orthodoxy further, articulating what he calls his “policy space” approach, allowing countries to negotiate around opting-in and opting-out more easily of international rules and schemes as their development and domestic needs merit. Citing the controversy around NAFTA's investor-state mechanism and the WTO's challenge of Europe's precautionary approach in consumer affairs, Rodrik poses the following challenge to the orthodoxy:

Globalization is a hot button issue in the advanced countries not just because it hits some people in their pocket book; it is controversial because it raises difficult questions about whether its outcomes are “right” or “fair.” That is why addressing the globalization backlash purely through compensation and income transfers is likely to fall short. Globalization also needs new rules that are more consistent with prevailing conceptions of procedural fairness.

And this focus on a change of rules hit the political arena today, with a major policy speech by former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). See here. Among the important points, that thus far are only being articulated by Edwards among the top candidates:

* For years now, Washington has been passing trade deal after trade deal that works great for multinational corporations, but not for working Americans. For example, NAFTA and the WTO provide unique rights for foreign companies whose profits are allegedly hurt by environmental and health regulations. These foreign companies have used them to demand compensation for laws against toxins, mad cow disease, and gambling – they have even sued the Canadian postal service for being a monopoly. Domestic companies would get laughed out of court if they tried this, but foreign investors can assert these special rights in secretive panels that operate outside our system of laws.

*The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let's be clear about something – this isn't just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.

*NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests – not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

*Today, our trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors. The multinationals get their say, but when one goes to Congress it gets an up or down vote – no amendments are allowed. No wonder that corporations get unique protections, while workers don't benefit. That's wrong.

So, our movement has made real progress when things like Chapter 11, Fast Track and the precautionary principle are even being discussed by politicians and academics in the context of trade policy debates. And hopefully Edwards' raising of these issues will put pressure on the other candidates to follow suit. In the meantime, you can help turn the nice words into action by clicking here.

(And so it begins. This is just a taste of what will be in store for many of our freshman class over the next two years. We need to be prepared to weather this storm and push back aggressively. On another note, it’s pretty interesting that the NRCC would hone their attack on the subject of immigration, considering that it’s next to impossible to find a race where that “hot button” issue gave the Republicans a decisive assist–with the exception of the CA-50 run-off, perhaps.



Update: It’s also possible this this mailer was a holdover from November that somehow got “stuck” in the mail. Stranger things have happened. I’d keep your eyes peeled on the FEC’s independent expenditure page to see if the NRCC reports spending any money in this district. – promoted by James L.)

Cross posted at Say No To Pombo

UPDATE:  This story has now been picked up by the largest newspaper in CA-11, the Contra Costa Times.

Last Thursday, Jerry McNerney took the oath of office as a member of the 110th Congress. A scant five days later, with what must surely be unprecedented speed, the NRCC has sent out its first anti-McNerney campaign mailers of the 2008 election to voters in CA-11. 

It’s worth noting that in the run-up to the 2006 elections, the NRCC spent over $1.3 million to prop up threatened incumbent Rep. Richard Pombo, all to no avail. In the days leading up to November 7, the NRCC sent out no less than 20 anti-McNerney mailers (strikingly, they couldn’t think of one single pro-Pombo message). Looks like old habits die hard.

So if anyone out there thinks that McNerney’s 2008 re-election will be easy simply because he won in 2006 by a 6% margin — er, not so much. Expect a steady drumbeat of anti-McNerney disinformation over the next two years. The only real question is, what are we going to do about it?