Swing State Project

The rumor mill is churning out a now-famous name:

One of the more interesting rumors rattling around in Democratic circles is that Lilly Ledbetter might run for AL-03 against Republican incumbent Mike Rogers in 2010. Interesting to think about, unlikely to happen, one reason being that she is over 70 years old. While several have heard the rumor, no one could tell the Parlor where it might have started.

Democrat Josh Segall challenged Rogers in 2008 and is said to be strongly considering another run. Another name in the mix on the Democratic side could be Calhoun County Commissioner Robert Downing.

I agree that Ledbetter is probably past the age where most people would consider making a first run for office, but it’s an interesting thought nonetheless. Alabama’s third CD was originally drawn to help elect a Democrat, so this district is potentially fertile territory. In 2002, Republican Mike Rogers won by just 50-48 when the seat was open. And last year, the unheralded and outspent Josh Segall held Rogers to a relatively meager 53-47 win.

So, Ledbetter or no, this could be a sleeper seat worth watching.

(Hat-tip: alpolitics)

I was seriously thinking of hiding the receiver when the switch broke ’cause it’s old. They’re saying things that I can hardly believe — they really think we’re getting out of control.

Progressive Punch has added a new and incredibly useful layer of analysis to its rankings of members of Congress by voting record.

The “Select by Score” pages now indicate how progressive representatives and senators are compared to the districts and states they represent.

Select by Score Senate rankings

Select by Score House rankings

As before, you see members of the House and Senate ranked from most progressive to least progressive, based on all votes as well as on certain “crucial votes.” Calculating a separate score for “crucial votes” reveals which Democrats are not reliable when the chips are down. This helps prevent gaming of the system, as when Joe Lieberman voted against filibustering Samuel Alito’s nomination for the Supreme Court, then turned around and voted against confirming him.

For the new feature, Progressive Punch has placed every state and Congressional district into one of five categories: strong D, lean D, swing, lean R, and strong R. Each Congress-critter’s “crucial vote” score is then compared to the political lean of the district or state. In the right-hand column on the “Select by Score” pages, every member of Congress now has a rating from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most progressive. Progressive Punch explains:

The “%” and “Rating” columns underneath the “Progressive Score vs. State Tilt” are two different ways of measuring the same thing. They both measure how naughty or nice a member of Congress’ voting record has been in relation to his/her district. We’re grading on a curve. Five stars in the “Rating” column indicate members of Congress who are doing the best in terms of voting MORE progressively than could necessarily be expected given their states or districts. Those with one star are performing the worst in relation to their districts.

For more details on the methodology behind this analysis, click here for House ratings and here for Senate ratings.

Why is this useful? It’s now much easier to see which Democrats in Congress are voting about as well as could be expected, and which ones should be doing a lot better.  

Here are a few examples. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid have identical lifetime progressive scores on crucial votes. However, since Feinstein represents a strong Democratic state (CA) and Reid represents a swing state (NV), Feinstein gets a 1 while Reid gets a 3.

Ron Wyden (OR), Barbara Mikulski (MD) and Amy Klobuchar (MN) have very similar lifetime scores, but Wyden and Klobuchar get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat states. Mikulski gets a 3 when graded on a curve that takes into account Maryland’s solid Democratic profile.

Similarly, Daniel Inouye (HI) gets a 1, while Jon Tester (MT) gets a 3 for almost the same “crucial vote” score, because Montana leans Republican.

Jeff Bingaman (NM), Jim Webb (VA) and Byron Dorgan (ND) have very similar progressive lifetime scores, but Bingaman gets a 2 for representing a lean-Democrat state, Webb gets a 3 for representing a swing state, and Dorgan gets a 4 for representing a lean-Republican state.

Scanning down the Select by Score House page, a few Democrats stand out. There’s Timothy Bishop (NY-01) with a 5 rating for how he represents his swing district, while most of the House members with similar lifetime scores get 3s, because they represent strong Democratic districts.

Dave Obey (WI-07) and Peter DeFazio (OR-04) get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat districts. Most of the House members with similar lifetime progressive scores get 3s.

Amid a large group of House Democrats who get a 2 when their crucial vote score is compared to how strongly Democratic their districts are, James Oberstar (MN-08) gets a 4 for a similar progressive score because he represents a swing district, while Michael Michaud (ME-02) and Paul Hodes (NH-02) get a 3 because their districts lean Democratic.

How can progressives use this information? One way would be to determine which incumbents in safe Democratic seats should face more pressure from the left. In extreme cases, this pressure could include a primary challenge.

Also, these rankings reveal which Democratic primaries should become top priorities for progressives when incumbents retire. For example, John Murtha (PA-12) and Henry Cuellar (TX-28) represent strongly Democratic districts but vote like Democrats representing swing or Republican districts.

I discussed Iowa representatives’ rankings in more detail at Bleeding Heartland. The relatively low score for Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was no surprise, but Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) didn’t fare much better when graded on the Progressive Punch curve that took into account their strongly Democratic districts.

In keeping with today’s economic climate, it looks like both the DCCC and the NRCC bought more election than they could afford in 2008, and are now both armpit-deep in debt. (The DCCC is replenishing its coffers more quickly, but it’s also deeper in the hole.)

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will report that it ended January with $2 million in cash on hand and $16 million in debt left over from the 2008 election cycle. The DCCC raised $3.5 million last month and spent $2 million.

Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee had $1.1 million in the bank on Jan. 31 and reported $6.5 million in debts. The NRCC raised $1.5 million and spent $1.3 million last month.

This has some immediate ramifications, though, because it leaves both parties pretty well tapped when it comes to funding advertising for the NY-20 special election. (Don’t look for the parties to trouble themselves in the IL-05 and CA-32 elections!) So far, both Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco have hit the airways; however, Tedisco’s ads have been partially funded by the RNC, while Murphy’s ads seem to be on his own dime.

Pass the popcorn.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride to 2010 in Illinois.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI…

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn called Friday for Sen. Roland Burris to resign.

“At this time we have a senator who has a cloud over his head,” Quinn said at a news conference. “It’s time (for Burris) to put the interest of the people of the land of Lincoln ahead of his own and step aside and resign from office.

“I think very highly of his career. He’s done so many good things,” Quinn said. “But at this time… to step away and resign (would be) a heroic act.”

It was a “gigantic mistake” for Burris to accept a Senate appointment from disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Quinn said. Quinn replaced Blagojevich when he was removed from office last month.

The Senate Ethics Committee has launched an investigation of Burris in the wake of disclosures that he spoke with Blagojevich’s brother about possibly raising money for the former governor.  Watch troubles mount for Burris »

The Sangamon County, Illinois, state’s attorney is also considering whether to file perjury charges against Burris.

Burris insisted Wednesday that he was innocent of any wrongdoing in his appointment to the Senate seat formerly held by President Obama.

“It is time to “squarely address the issue and do what’s right for the public interest,” Quinn said. iReport.com: Should Burris resign?

Quinn said he supported a bill introduced in the Illinois legislature that would set up a special election for all future U.S. Senate vacancies.

Illinois needs a “clear process for dealing with the issue of vacancies when it comes to the United States Senate,” Quinn said.

The bill would allow the governor to set the date of a special Senate primary within 72 days of the vacancy. A general election would follow within six weeks after the primary.

The governor would be empowered to name a temporary replacement until the special election.

Quinn said that if given the power to name a replacement he would not name someone with an interest in running in the special election.

Quinn was sworn in as Illinois’ governor on January 29. He had been serving as the state’s lieutenant governor until Blagojevich was removed from office.

Associated Press:

The head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee approached former Gov. George Pataki this week about running for the U.S. Senate in 2010, according to a person who spoke to Pataki about the private meeting. […]

Pataki, now in private law practice, hasn’t yet accepted or rejected the idea, the person said. The race would be against Kirsten Gillibrand, who was recently appointed to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton when she became Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

When the NRSC is desperate to drag in a bozo who left office with some downright cruddy approval ratings, you know that the GOP shelf is pretty bare in the Empire State.

So what of Peter King? He still could run, but one gets the distinct sense that his Viagra dosage is running pretty low now that he’s missed the opportunity to run against Caroline Kennedy.

(H/T: P-co)

Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman declares open season on white guys in suits, and that means you, Fat E. Bluntz Rep. Roy Blunt:

“I’m in the process of laying the groundwork that I need to get done before making an official announcement,” Steelman told POLITICO. “I’m definitely strongly leaning towards doing this.”

Her expected entrance in the campaign increases the likelihood of a divisive primary, which Blunt had been trying to avoid.

In the interview, Steelman took some sharp jabs at Blunt, describing the seven-term congressman Blunt as being part of the “old-boys’ network” who has spent too much time in Washington.

“Roy Blunt is another white guy in a suit, and I think the public wants change,” Steelman said. “There’s a good old boys’ network out there that’s hard to penetrate… and it’s not always in the best interest of the party or for conservative principles.”

Hoo boy. Can Steelman succeed in mucking up two statewide primaries in a row for the GOP? Granted, I fully realize that Hulshof was probably doomed anyway last year, but she sure didn’t make things any easier for Kenny Boy.

This one could be pretty fun to watch.