Tag: Campaign

Throughout the years, we election junkies have seen some pretty spectacular campaigns, and some, well, less so ones.

But this year, Democrats face an uphill battle in holding on to their large congressional majorities.

It’s no secret that the House of Representatives (and the Senate for the more pessimistic) is in play.

However, if Democrats have one thing going for them, it is the quality of their candidates and the campaigns they are running.

The Democratic coalition is diverse. It includes minorities, college-educated whites, labour unions, and event remnants of the once “Solid South.”

This diversity allows for Democrats to nominate candidates that fit their district’s voting patterns (hey, what a concept). This goes to include a Bobby Bright in Alabama, a Mark Warner in Virginia, a Brian Schweitzer in Montana, and a Mike Capuano in Boston.

In contrast, Republicans have severely handicapped themselves by nominating candidates like a Rand Paul in Kentucky, a Raul Labrador in Idaho, and a Bill Brady in Illinois (hat tip http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Despite all this, it is not just the candidate that makes the race, but also the campaign (Hi Congressman Mark Critz).

And the campaign that I’ve been the most impressed with is that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Now, Sen. Reid was given a huge gift in the form of Sharron Angle. The former assemblywoman is a certified nut job, and her many gaffes provide ample fodder for campaign ads.

However, if there is a graphic that sums up the effectiveness of campaigns this year, look no further than PPP’s latest polling roundup:

http://publicpolicypolling.blo…

The graph on the page there shows the favorable and unfavorable ratings of each candidate, the net balance, and the percent unknown.

That last data point is the one I want to focus the remainder of this diary.

Let’s look at the candidates. You have a former state attorney general, a former congressman, a former congressman/former OMB director, a current congressman, a former CEO, a former state speaker of the house, a current congressman/former minority whip/father of the previous governor, and a former state assemblywoman.

Some of those are highly visible roles and titles and appear to be prime examples of normal Senate hopefuls, well that is except a former assemblywoman.

Yet the Reid campaign has made the name recognition of a former assemblywoman higher than any of the other candidates in any of the other races.

Sharron Angle’s unknown rating is 12%. To put that in context, I’d say that hovers near the Senator’s own rating and is probably well ahead of the state’s own embattled, lame duck sitting governor.

That is why Sen. Reid will win in Nevada in November, and will be joined in the Senate by Sens. Carnahan, Crist, Boxer, Feingold, Fisher, Sestak, Giannoulias, and Bennet.

Since Janet Napolitano went to Obama’s cabinet and McCain announced (repeatedly) that he was running for reelection, Arizona has seemed off the table for us.  This, being followed by Sebelius’s choice to join the cabinet instead of running for Brownback’s seat, certainly but a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.  However, I’m inclined to a never give up attitude, and I think McCain is still very vulnerable, even if it would be an uphill fight.  There’s no room for naivity though.  If we’re going to win, we need a very strong candidate……..  

The Mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon

(Credit where credit is due: I’m not the only one who’s thought of this, SE-779 floated this idea as well, so hopefully we’re on to something.)

For those of you that don’t know about Mayor Gordon, he’s bound to be one of the best mayors in the country and a rising star in the Democratic Party, and it shows.  He was elected mayor in 2003 with 72 percent of the vote and again in 2007 with 77 percent.  And Gordon’s not just a big name politician.  The guy’s the real deal.  He’s worked hard and used creative thinking to revitalize down town Phoenix, supported light rail, and launced the Works Progress Advancementproject, the heart of which is a compelling public works project.  The icing on the cake?  Mayor Gordon is on record standing up to Joe Arpaio and for civil rights.  And for all his hard work, Mayor Gordon earns tremendous praise from his constituents and drives the wingnuts insane.

Mayor Gordon is not only a good Democrat, he’s clearly a Better Democrat of the mold that’s shown great promise in the West over the last couple of cycles.  But here’s the rub-by all accounts, he’s interested in running for Governor.  The Arizona governor’s seat was lost to the Republicans when Napolitano went to the cabinet and the Secretary of State took over.  There’s no guarantee we’ll get the seat back, and we already have a top tier candidate for the seat in Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who’s also from the city of Phoenix.  The last thing we need is a rough primary between our two top candidates if we’re going to take back the governorship, especially when we could be working on taking down a high profile Republican senator.

McCain’s loss to Barack Obama and his conduct during the course of the campaign hurt him, so much so that it looked like Obama would be competitive in McCain’s homestate at one point.  Early on it looked like McCain would mend fences and work to keep a top challenger out of the running, but now it’s clear that with Napolitano gone he has no intention of doing anything but being a vindictive old man and an obstical in the path of progressive change.  What’s more, if Gordon were to run, he might not find himself facing McCain.  The far right has always had the knives out for the senator.  Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth gets a lot of buzz for a primary challenge.  In 2004, the Club For Growth (which will surely support any McCain challenger in the primary) tried to get Jeff Flake to challenge him.  And there’s always a few extra wingnuts drifting around Arizona like Randy Graff.  Gordon would have a strong advantage over any of these far-right nuts, but even if that dream scenario doesn’t play out he’ll still have a good shot at beating McCain.

Think about it, Arizona, like most of the west, is moving our way.  Obama will compete there in 2012 and would have competed there had McCain not been on the ballot last year.  McCain lost a lot of support among the growing Latino population in the state with his waffling on immigration, a group that Mayor Gordon has been a strong advocate for.  On top of that, McCain is working hard to further erode support among working and middle-class constituents by opposing a popular president’s economic reforms in a time where people are feeling the crunch.  What’s more, McCain has always gotten soft ball opposition in his reelection campaigns, and we’ve seen that he has a tendancy to flash his temper and trend towards self-destruct when he’s up against a real opponent.  So believe me, this one is doable.  It will be tough, akin to the Begich/Stevens contest last year, but still very, very, winnable.

So, if you think Mayor Gordon should run (and he will probably have to be drafted), why not drop him a line: http://www.mayorgordon.com/con… or throw his name out to the DSCC.

We can do this.  We can beat McCain on his home turf and send him packing for good while electing a Better Democrat and a great ally for President Obama to the U.S. Senate.  But first, we’ve got to make some noise and get him to run.

(Cross Posted at Senate Guru and DailyKos)

My name is Dan Seals and as many of you may know, I am running for Congress in Illinois’ 10th district. I wanted to take this opportunity to first thank all of you for the outpouring of support I received through Blue Majority but also to introduce myself as a candidate for Congress.

Like many of you, my decision to get politically involved was borne out of frustration. It was a decision borne out of frustration with President Bush’s re-election in 2004, frustration with our open-ended engagement in Iraq, and frustration with the record budget deficits that have saddled my three little girls with unimaginable debt.  

But it was also a decision borne out of optimism for a better future. That is why I am here today: I believe and know that we can do better. My grandparents and parents raised me with the knowledge that I was growing up in a better America than the America of their youth. Like them, I want to leave our country better off for my children, and that is why I am running for Congress.

Right now, due to wasteful federal spending on the part of the Republican Party and my opponent, Mark Kirk, each of my three daughters is over $30,000 in debt. That is over $30,000 in debt before any of them have reached the age of 10, much less gone to college or owned a home. I can’t imagine anything more un-American than saddling our children with this kind of debt.

This debt didn’t appear overnight. In fact, it is the result of seven-plus years of conscious, wasteful spending on the part of the President and the national Republican Party- from tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to hundreds of billions of dollars shipped overseas to Iraq.

My opponent, Mark Kirk, has been a part of this problem in Washington. From supporting tax cuts for billionaires and corporations who move offshore, to rubberstamping the Bush administration’s failed policies in Iraq, to giving away billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives to big oil, he has shown where his priorities lie.

Over the next several months, I look forward to talking not only with voters in the 10th district, but also with you. I look forward to putting an end to the myth that Republicans own the mantle of fiscal responsibility. But most importantly, I look forward to being a part of a Congress that understands that we have no greater duty than leaving our nation better off for our children and grandchildren.

To learn more about my campaign, please visit my website at www.dansealsforcongress.com.

Cross-posted at Open Left and Daily Kos.

Cross-posted from OH-16: John Boccieri for U.S. Congress

We’ve had a great response from our friends and supporters so far, but tomorrow is the last to vote in Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund’s “Pick A Patriot”.Major Boccieri is one of only ten Congressional candidates selected for the Pick a Patriot competition. So, please, if you haven’t already, take a minute to vote for John on the Progressive Patriots Fund’s “Pick a Progressive Patriot” site.

If you voted earlier this week, send a note to your friends and family – ask them to cast their vote too. The Progressive Patriots Fund is the leadership committee set-up by Senator Russ Feingold to promote a progressive reform agenda, and to support Democratic candidates across the country.

Thanks again for supporting Major Boccieri in the Progressive Patriot competition. These are the latest RESULTS!





I want to thank Butch, Brian, and Diane for all pulling together on my Birthday Wish for Bo! C’mon OH-16 get “The Boots on the Ground”!

Crossposted from Michigan Liberal

Friends,

First, I’d like to begin by thanking all of you for your support. Because of contributions from people like you, our campaign has just been ranked in CQ’s list of the top ten best funded challengers in the country. The voters in Michigan’s 9th Congressional district are tired of the failed leadership they’ve gotten from my opponent, Congressman Joe Knollenberg, for the past sixteen years, and they’re eager for a real change in Washington.

As a former Lt. Commander in the Navy, I wanted to take a moment to write to you this week as we pass the fifth anniversary of one of the most shameful moments in recent American history. On May 1st, 2003, President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, in front of the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner and said these words: “My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

More after the break. 

Five years later, another 3,919 brave American soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq, the country has descended to the brink of all out civil war, and the Republican candidate for President has suggested the possibility of remaining in Iraq for another hundred years.

Five years later, we have more troops in Iraq today (155,000) than we did back then (150,000).

Five years later, we are spending $1 billion every two and a half days in Iraq – money that we could be investing in jobs, infrastructure, and rebuilding our economy here at home.

Five years later, even though it is tragically clear that the mission was not accomplished, Congressman Knollenberg has continued to vote for President Bush’s failed policies. Our men and women in uniform deserve real leadership and a responsible plan to start bringing them home now.

We have also not accomplished the mission of taking care of our troops and veterans when they return home from combat. The brave men and women who have sacrificed for our country deserve the best health care we can provide – instead we have given them the Walter Reed debacle and a VA system with a backlog of more than half a million benefits claims.

This failure of leadership for our veterans is having terrible consequences. Last week, the VA confirmed a truly appalling statistic – an average of eighteen veterans commit suicide every day. At that rate, over 6,500 brave men and women who served and sacrificed for our country will take their own lives this year. That’s nearly 1,500 more than the total number of soldiers who have been killed in combat in Iraq.

Sadly, the reasons for this situation are all too clear. A recent study by the American Psychological Association reported that over 32% military personnel who had been deployed to war zones said that they suffered a ‘negative impact’ on their psychological well-being – but only 1 in 10 sought treatment for mental health concerns. The rest stayed quiet, out of embarrassment, or fear that, if they asked for help, their military careers would be in jeopardy.

As a veteran, I take this very personally. Quite simply, the failure of our leaders in Washington to care for our veterans may be the greatest, unspoken tragedy of the entire Iraq war debacle. The failure to reach out to those veterans who may not have physical injuries – but whose psychological wounds can be even more severe – is not only a betrayal of the sacred trust between our nation and our veterans, but it has serious repercussions on our long-term military readiness and security.

Care for our veterans is a fundamental, guiding principle of our democracy that our greatest leaders have always understood. In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke of our duty to “…care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan….” Three quarters of a century earlier, in 1789, George Washington put it this way: “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, is directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated.”

When Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, they started to address the serious failures in our VA and military health care system. Despite the objections of the President, Democrats passed the largest funding increase in the history of the VA. This was a good start, but we still need to do much more to care for our soldiers, veterans, and their families – and that will take electing real leaders to Congress, and replacing Bush Administration rubber stamps like Congressman Knollenberg.

When the House voted on a bill to guarantee that soldiers would have at least as much time at home as they spend deployed overseas, Congressman Knollenberg voted no.

When the House took up a bill that included $3.3 billion to improve military medical care, $1.8 billion for veterans care, and that would have started withdrawing troops this summer, Congressman Knollenberg voted no.  After that bill was vetoed by the President, Congressman Knollenberg voted to sustain the veto.

In Washington, I will work to bring about a responsible end to the war in Iraq and start bringing our troops home now. As a veteran, I will be a voice for a strong foreign policy that keeps America secure and takes the fight to our real enemies, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that we keep faith with the men and women who served and sacrificed for our great nation.

Real leadership means taking action to solve our problems – not passing the buck and waiting for someone else to act – and that’s what I will deliver in Washington. Five years after ‘Mission Accomplished,’ it’s long overdue.

I’m not going to do this alone. This campaign to unseat one of the biggest obstacles to change in Congress will take a group effort. We’re doing well now, but Congressman Knollenberg is going to be very well funded by entrenched special interests who don’t want to lose their inside man in the House Appropriations Committee. If we’re going to be able to fight back against the GOP smear machine and the negative attacks ads that we all know are coming, and if we’re going to bring real leadership to Michigan’s 9th District, I will need your help. 

Please visit http://www.petersforcongress.com/ to learn more, or click here to join the effort by contributing on ActBlue.

I’ve heard it said that the ideal political candidate is the individual who neither wants nor needs to hold public office. Instead, the ideal candidate is the individual who serves simply because he or she feels a civic and moral responsibility to do so.

This individual is Dennis Shulman, a Democrat running for New Jersey’s fifth congressional district seat in the United States House of Representatives.

So, who exactly is this ideal candidate? As a longtime student in Dennis’s classes and congregant at his services, I believe I’m in a unique position to answer this question.

Let me begin with some background. First, Dennis is a Harvard-educated, internationally recognized clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst. Second, Dennis is a revered and respected ordained rabbi in his New Jersey community. And, to put these facts in proper perspective, Dennis has been blind since childhood.

But this background information, as remarkable as it may be, fails to capture who this man really is. It does not convey Dennis’s fundamental decency, honesty, and integrity. It does not communicate the depth of his wisdom, compassion, and commitment. And it does not speak to the profoundly positive impact Dennis has had on my life, and upon the lives of countless others. Ultimately, mere biographical data is not enough-one must know Dennis to grasp what my words cannot express. 

While I’m only 30-years-old, I’ve lived and experienced enough to know with absolute certainty that human beings like Dennis Shulman are rare in this cynical and broken world of ours.

So, you might be wondering, why on earth would such a good man want to run for congress?

The answer is simple: His conscience dictates it. As a proud American who, in his words, feels “heartbroken and troubled by our recent direction as a nation,” Dennis feels obligated to take action. While writing checks, signing petitions, and attending political rallies is both important and necessary, Dennis feels compelled to do more. Certain in his belief that we as a nation can and must do better, Dennis is choosing to run for the United States House of Representatives. 

As someone who feels utterly disheartened by the corruption, cronyism, cynicism, and lies that are currently debasing and destroying our democracy, I have been waiting and searching, often in desperation, to find a politician that I can believe in and support without reservation. For me, Dennis Shulman is this candidate.

So, if you too are yearning for a candidate that you don’t have to support with one hand on the lever and one hand holding your nose, I tell you that Dennis Shulman is your man.

But don’t take my word for it.

Check Dennis out for yourself and read what others are saying about his unorthodox and inspiring exploratory campaign at Shulman for Congress

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.