Swing State Project

As we wind up this fundraising quarter, I am sure you are all getting inundated with emails from different candidates asking for your support.

Like most of you, I know that our country is ready for change. After seven years of failed leadership from George Bush, it’s time we send new leaders to Washington. But as we’ve seen recently, it’s not just enough to elect Democrats; we must elect better Democrats.

Together we can create a Congress that will bring an end to the war in Iraq, ensure that every American has healthcare, and never capitulate when it comes to protecting our Constitutional liberties. But to create this Congress, I need your help and there is no better time to help than right now.

My opponent, Mark Kirk, is not only one of the top Republican fundraisers in the nation, but he has also been one of the biggest defenders of this administration. He didn’t just vote to get us into the war in Iraq, he actually was handpicked by the President to craft the language to get us into it. Just a few days ago, he was caught spreading the false claim that China is drilling off the Florida coast, a fabrication that even Vice-President Dick Cheney has disavowed.

The Republicans are going to do everything they can to hold onto this seat, so we need to do everything we can to have the financial resources we need to win come November.

In just over 200 days, we are going to swear in a new government. Let’s do everything we can right now to make sure it’s a government that will deliver the change we all deserve. 

Join our movement for change by signing up for a virtual phone bank, committing to walking in a Fourth of July parade, or adding .10 to any contribution you can make today to help us bring the change we need to Washington.  

Please visit my website at www.dansealsforcongress to learn more about my campaign.

Thank you for all of your hard work and your commitment to demanding more from our government.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and Open Left.

 

Who’s the most powerful member of the House? If I told you it was Tim Mahoney, you’d probably laugh in my face; after all, he’s a freshman, and a bit of a flake. Well, if you order all members of the House from most liberal to most conservative (using DW-Nominate scores for the 110th Congress), Tim Mahoney is #218 out of 435. He’s smack in the middle of the House, and the whole thing pivots around him, in the same way that Anthony Kennedy holds all the cards on the Supreme Court because he’s #5 out of 9.

There are several things wrong with my proposition, though: first, 435 is a lot larger than 9, and there are a lot of transitory coalitions that form around various topics, so the spectrum isn’t always very clear. You aren’t even going to get aggregators to agree on who goes in what slot (ask National Journal, they’ll tell you that #218 is Mike McIntyre; ask Progressive Punch and they’ll tell it’s Charlie Melancon).

More importantly, just as Matt Stoller mentioned yesterday in regards to 60 as the ‘magic number’ in the Senate, there aren’t very many votes where it actually comes down to the bare minimum. Even controversial things tend to pass by a sizable margin once the initial haggling shakes out (the most recent Iraq Supplemental passed 268-155, and the FISA Amendments passed 293-129); actual 218-217 votes are almost unheard of. As he sagely pointed out, the key is to build the coalitions and implement the infrastructure that allow progressives to control the discursive arena in Congress regardless of actual numbers so that the progressive POV becomes more of an institutional inevitability.

Nevertheless, some of that sense of the ‘possible’ within that discursive arena is directly influenced by the seat count. Think back to the backstory behind the FISA vote last week: a lot of Dems voted with leadership, but leadership’s hand wasn’t forced by a widespread popular uprising, just by the 21 Blue Dogs who signed the January letter of intent to jump on board the Republicans’ discharge petition. We’ll probably never know who those 21 signatories were (although, given the spectrum in the House, one can assume it included Mahoney, McIntyre, and Melancon), but it’s clear they turned the tide on the FISA amendments. Looking at the pivot point, Pelosi could have safely ignored 12 Blue Dogs (233 – 12 = 221), but she couldn’t safely ignore 21 (233 – 21 = 212).

What if, on the other hand, there weren’t fewer Blue Dogs, but rather more Progressives in seats that are currently occupied by moderate (or, in a few possibilities, extreme) Republicans? If there were only 7 more Democrats, all Progressive or New Dem, then Pelosi also could have ignored the 21 Blue Dogs (240 – 21 = 219). Now, of course, this is pure speculation that only 21 Dems would have signed the discharge petition, but my point stands that it would take only a few more net Progressives to move the core Blue Dogs past the pivot point and thus out of the House’s driver’s seat (or at least out of reach of the steering wheel). In shorter words, the goal for the 111th Congress needs to be: Progressives + New Dems > Blue Dogs + Republicans.

More over the flip (including many tables)…

So the question is: how many progressives (they don’t have to be card-carrying members of the Progressive Caucus; non-capitulating New Dems and unaffiliated types work fine too) do we need to add above the pivot point in order to push all of the Blue Dogs down the spectrum, to below the pivot point? Here’s where we get to break out the tables, starting with where we are right now in the current 110th Congress:

Rank	District	110th Rep.	110th Score	Caucus	Bad Votes
215.5	FL-02	Boyd	-0.198	BDC	Iraq, FISA
215.5	TX-28	Cuellar	-0.198	NDC, CHC	Iraq, FISA
217	MO-04	Skelton	-0.193	Unaff.	Iraq, FISA
218	FL-16	Mahoney	-0.186	BDC, NDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
219.5	MN-07	C. Peterson	-0.177	BDC	Iraq, FISA
219.5	TN-04	L. Davis	-0.177	BDC	Iraq, FISA
221	TN-06	Gordon	-0.165	BDC	Iraq, FISA
222	UT-02	Matheson	-0.163	BDC	Iraq, FISA
223	TX-22	Lampson	-0.158	BDC, NDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
224	AZ-05	Mitchell	-0.148	NDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
225	PA-10	Carney	-0.144	BDC, NDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
226	GA-08	Marshall	-0.135	BDC	Iraq, FISA
227	PA-04	Altmire	-0.12	NDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
228	OK-02	Boren	-0.119	BDC	Iraq, FISA
229	IN-08	Ellsworth	-0.118	BDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
230	AL-05	Cramer	-0.112	BDC	Iraq, FISA
231.5	IN-02	Donnelly	-0.107	BDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
231.5	NC-11	Shuler	-0.107	BDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
233	GA-12	Barrow	-0.080	BDC, NDC	Iraq, FISA
234.5	CT-04	Shays	0.241	MSP	Iraq, FISA
234.5	NJ-02	LoBiondo	0.241	MSP	Iraq, FISA

As you can see from this table, Pelosi is able to consider legislation without needing to rely on the worst 15 Blue Dogs on the final vote. (Again, though, she’s still affected by what happens in committee and other back-room wrangling.) However, there are a lot more Blue Dogs than that, if you continue on up the totem pole.

One thing worth noting is that 7 of those 15 Blue Dogs below the pivot point are freshmen, indicating that maybe we didn’t come as far in the 2006 elections as we thought we did (many of our pickups were in red districts inhabited by corrupt or incompetent Republicans… 2008 looks to be somewhat different, as a lot of the GOP fruit that outright spoiled has been picked and now the lowest-hanging fruit is mostly in moderate suburban districts, which is what this year’s Red to Blue targeting reflects). Although the pivot point is much better than where it was in the 109th Congress (where #218 was Jim Gerlach, not only giving the Rs control of the House but giving Dennis Hastert license to ignore the 14 Republicans to the left of Gerlach), we swelled the ranks of the Blue Dogs in 2006, so much so that the pivot point is right in the middle of the Blue Dog caucus.

Now let’s look at where we might be after the 2008 elections. I’m going to look at three different scenarios: a pessimistic scenario (where we only pick up 13 seats: the Lean D and Toss-up seats according to Swing State Project), an average scenario (where we also pick up the Lean R seats, giving us 26 seats), and a wildly optimistic scenario (where we also pick up the Likely R seats, giving us 56 new seats). I’m plugging in the new freshmen according to the scores I predicted for them last week. (I also need to fit the three new mid-term guys in there: based on their records so far, I’m assigning Childers and Cazayoux a score of – 0.200 and Foster a score of – 0.300. I also need to give a score to the three new Cuban-American reps, who didn’t fit in my formula; for an easy solution, I’ll just give them each – 0.400.) Let’s start with the pessimistic scenario:

Rank	District	110th Rep.	110th Score	Caucus	Bad Votes
216.5	TN-08	Tanner	-0.230	BDC	Iraq, FISA
216.5	TX-27	Ortiz	-0.230	CHC	Iraq, FISA
218	PA-17	Holden	-0.227	BDC	Iraq, FISA
219	CA-11	McNerney	-0.226	Unaff., Fr.	FISA
220	GA-02	S. Bishop	-0.22	BDC, CBC	Iraq, FISA
221	LA-03	Melancon	-0.218	BDC, NDC	Iraq, FISA
222	AZ-08	Giffords	-0.215	BDC, NDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
223	PA-12	Murtha	-0.21	Unaff.	Iraq, FISA
224	IL-08	Bean	-0.209	BDC, NDC	Iraq, FISA
225	TN-05	Cooper	-0.208	BDC	Iraq, FISA
226	MS-04	Taylor	-0.207	BDC	Iraq, FISA
227	IN-09	Hill	-0.204	BDC, NDC, Fr.	Iraq
229	LA-06	Cazayoux	-0.200	Unaff., Fr.	Iraq, FISA
229	MS-01	Childers	-0.200	Unaff., Fr.	Iraq, FISA
229	OH-18	Space	-0.200	BDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
231.5	FL-02	Boyd	-0.198	BDC	Iraq, FISA
231.5	TX-28	Cuellar	-0.198	NDC, CHC	Iraq, FISA

Under this scenario, Tim Holden becomes the new pivot point. Although we’re past the point where 21 holdouts can provoke a mutiny, we’re still in the Land of the Blue Dog. We’ve added 13 new Democrats, and the good news is that all of them fall above the pivot point, pushing the list down so that the pivot point is one of the less objectionable Blue Dogs.

Now let’s look at the average scenario (26 pickups, including all of the Lean Rs):

Rank	District	110th Rep.	110th Score	Caucus	Bad Votes
216	WV-01	Mollohan	-0.269	Unaff.	Iraq
217	KY-06	Chandler	-0.264	BDC, NDC	Iraq, FISA
218	CA-20	Costa	-0.259	BDC, CHC	Iraq, FISA
219	GA-13	D. Scott	-0.257	BDC, NDC,  CBC	Iraq, FISA
220	SD-AL	Herseth	-0.253	BDC, NDC	Iraq, FISA
221	ND-AL	Pomeroy	-0.247	BDC	Iraq, FISA
222	TX-17	C. Edwards	-0.246	Unaff.	Iraq, FISA
223	KS-02	Boyda	-0.239	Unaff., Fr.	Iraq, FISA
224	AR-04	Ross	-0.235	BDC	Iraq, FISA
225	NC-07	McIntyre	-0.234	BDC, NDC	Iraq, FISA
226	PA-08	P. Murphy	-0.233	BDC, NDC, Fr.	FISA
227	VA-09	Boucher	-0.231	Unaff.	Iraq, FISA
228.5	TN-08	Tanner	-0.230	BDC	Iraq, FISA
228.5	TX-27	Ortiz	-0.230	CHC	Iraq, FISA

Now we’re getting a little closer to the light at the end of the tunnel. Under this scenario, Jim Costa becomes the pivot point. He’s a Blue Dog, and there are still a few Blue Dogs above him, but we’re starting to reach the bottom of New Dem terrain. Of the 26 Dems we’ve added under this scenario, only one of them is projected to slot in below the pivot point: Paul Carmouche in LA-04 (-0.200).

Now let’s look at the extremely optimistic scenario (56 pickups, including all Likely Rs):

Rank	District	110th Rep.	110th Score	Caucus	Bad Votes
215	WA-09	A. Smith	-0.308	NDC	FISA
216	TX-15	Hinojosa	-0.304	CHC	Iraq, FISA
222	AK-AL	Berkowitz	-0.300	—	—
222	AZ-01	Kirkpatrick	-0.300	—	—
222	FL-13	Jennings	-0.300	—	—
222	IL-14	Foster	-0.300	Unaff.	Iraq
222	IL-18	Callahan	-0.300	—	—
222	MN-06	Tinklenburg	-0.300	—	—
222	MO-06	Barnes	-0.300	—	—
222	MO-09	Baker	-0.300	—	—
222	NC-08	Kissell	-0.300	—	—
222	OH-16	Boccieri	-0.300	—	—
222	WV-02	Barth	-0.300	—	—
228	MD-02	Ruppersburger	-0.292	Unaff.	Iraq, FISA
229	TX-16	Reyes	-0.291	CHC	Iraq, FISA
230	OH-06	C. Wilson	-0.289	BDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
231.5	IA-03	Boswell	-0.288	BDC	FISA
231.5	PA-07	Sestak	-0.288	NDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
233	AL-07	A. Davis	-0.286	NDC, CBC	Iraq, FISA
234	FL-22	Klein	-0.278	NDC, Fr.	FISA
235	CO-03	Salazar	-0.275	BDC, CHC	Iraq, FISA
236	NY-20	Gillibrand	-0.272	BDC, NDC, Fr.	Iraq, FISA
237.5	AR-02	Snyder	-0.271	NDC	Iraq, FISA
237.5	CA-18	Cardoza	-0.271	BDC, CHC	FISA
239	WV-01	Mollohan	-0.269	Unaff.	Iraq
240	KY-06	Chandler	-0.264	BDC, NDC	Iraq, FISA

We’re finally starting to make some progress. Under this scenario, #218 is part of an 11-way tie, but #216 is Ruben Hinojosa. We’re pretty much out of Blue Dog territory here, and the pivot point has started to move into the realm of the New Dems. Unfortunately, we’re also starting to reach a point of diminishing returns here: to bring about a 56-seat pickup, this requires sweeping not only all the moderate suburban seats but also a lot of seats that are more rural and conservative, meaning that we’ve added to the ranks of Dems who fall below the pivot point (18 of the new 56 fall at or below the pivot point).

And unfortunately, you can see we’re still at a pivot point where most of the veterans have voted the wrong way on the most recent Iraq Supplemental and FISA bills. For instance, we’re still a little short of pushing down Lipinski, Kanjorski, Etheridge, Dicks, or Dennis Moore.  However, the important thing to remember is that it will be a different playing field: one where, most likely, they’ll be working with President Obama rather than fretting over how best to oppose President Bush. Congress won’t need to act as a brake on out-of-control Iraq policy, and FISA… well… FISA remains a big question mark, but it’s unlikely that Congress would need act as a brake on further attempts to expand the President’s unchecked powers.

Instead, we’ll be needing to worry about whether we have enough votes to overcome any Blue Dog defections from Obama’s agenda. No doubt there will be enough votes to overcome any defections on the relatively uncontroversial stuff (there was only one Dem defection on the SCHIP veto override [Jim Marshall], and only two defections on the Employee Free Choice Act [Boren and Taylor]). But we need enough Progressive votes in the House to push Blue Dog objections to, say, universal health care and more progressive tax brackets, down below the pivot point.

One last Stupid Excel Trick before wrapping it up. This left me thinking of the last time the Democrats had a Congressional majority: the first two years of the Clinton administration, which were a legislative disaster by most anyone’s standards, where conservative Democrats (I suppose they were still ‘Boll Weevils’ back then; the term ‘Blue Dog’ hadn’t really been invented yet) scuttled most attempts to implement anything other than the most incremental change. Let’s take a quick look at where the pivot point was back then:

Rank	District	103rd Rep.	103rd Score
216	WI-01	Barca	-0.169
217	TX-02	C. Wilson	-0.166
218	AR-01	Lincoln	-0.161
219	TX-25	Andrews	-0.154
220	CA-19	Lehman	-0.152
Very very long break…
260	LA-03	Tauzin	0.083
261	NY-23	Boehlert (R)	0.088
262	FL-01	Hutto	0.090
263	ME-02	Snowe (R)	0.098

(This table doesn’t include 3 Republicans who fall in the gap: Morella at 250, Fish at 256, and Gilman at 258, and 1 Democrat who’s off the chart: Ralph Hall at 272).

If there’s any wonder why Clinton got hosed during his first term, this is it. Even though he started office with a gaping 258-176-1 edge in the House (right where we’d be under the average scenario from above, with 26 pickups), look at the DW-Nominate score for his pivot point: Blanche Lincoln (who now has graduated to the Senate): – 0.161. (And yes, right above her is Charlie Wilson, of Charlie Wilson’s War fame.) That’s a significantly lower score than the current pivot point we’re saddled with (Tim Mahoney, at – 0.186). Remember that these are DW-Nominate scores, which are designed for comparing one Congress against another and measure only left-to-right movement, not the distortions caused by the size of the caucus.

Clinton had fully 41 Democratic representatives below the pivot point, and most of them were more conservative than your average Blue Dog today. In fact, 20 of them were more conservative than today’s most conservative Dem (John Barrow)! (Only 3 of those 20 remain today, and only one as a Dem [Gene Taylor], with two party-switchers [Ralph Hall and Nathan Deal]; other delightful rogues from that gallery include Jim Traficant and Gary Condit.) So, by that measure, consider that we may well have a more progressive House right now than Clinton had to work with, despite the showy seat count in the 103rd (thanks to fewer, but more cohesive, Dems). Adding more progressives in the next Congress, on top of what he have now, will only help us more.

Rasmussen (6/25, likely voters, 5/22 in parens):

Bruce Lunsford (D): 41 (49)

Mitch McConnell (R-inc): 48 (44)

(MoE: ±4.5)

So Lunsford comes back down to earth — or rather, it becomes even more clear that Rasmussen’s May poll was an outlier. However, the numbers are still pretty good, with McConnell failing to crack the 50% mark.

On another, but related note: One thing I didn’t realize yesterday about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Millionaire’s Amendment, was that the ruling only applies to House campaigns:

The ruling pertained only to House campaigns, but the Senate has a very similar rule that experts say will likely be struck down as soon as it is challenged.

In Kentucky, such a ruling could have large-scale implications for the Senate race. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who like Gillibrand is one of his chamber’s most prolific fundraisers, is facing a wealthy self-funder in businessman Bruce Lunsford (D).

Lunsford’s campaign could ostensibly challenge the Senate’s version of the rule, preventing McConnell from tapping his donors for contributions several times the normal limits.

Lunsford’s campaign was noncommittal Thursday but didn’t discount its legal options.

Sure, Lunsford would be given a boost if he could spend freely and not raise Mitch’s contribution limits, but the optics of some rich dude going to court in order to re-write campaign finance law to his advantage are not so good — and it still might take months for his case to get anywhere.

The option is on the table, though.

In 2004 and 2005 Smith voted against protecting our servicemen and servicewomen from bankruptcy. In 2005, George Bush signed into law harsher bankruptcy rules for American facing heavy levels of debt. Chris Smith voted against measures against extending special bankruptcy protections to deployed servicemen and servicewomen. [Vote # 107 2005, Vote #9 2004]

This year, roughly half of New Jersey’s National Guard is being actively deployed to Iraq. According to recent data, over forty percent of Guardsman and Reservists lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty. Many reservists left thinking they would be deployed for 6 months and have ended up staying for a year or even longer and may be shipped out again. Additionally, many military families face difficult financial challenges. Over 20% of military families report having received WIC aid or food stamps from the government. [Los Angles Time 5/16/05; Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation Military Families Survey March 2004]

More after the jump.

Instead of offering reasonable protections to members of the military, Chris Smith voted to raise his salary by $32,600 since 1999. [CRS: Salaries of Members of Congress Updated January 8, 2008; 1999 Vote #300; 2000 Vote #419; 2001 House Vote #267; 2002 House Vote #322; 2003 House Vote #463; 2004 House Vote #451; 2005 House Vote #327; 2006 vote #261; 2007 Vote #580]

“While Chris Smith was busy raising his own salary he was also denying bankruptcy protection to servicemen and servicewomen who are taking a pay cut to fight for their country. They deserve an explanation,” said Josh Zeitz campaign manager Steve D’Amico.

This kind of vote is exactly why we need to elect Josh Zeitz and bring Chris Smith back to New Jersey. I know you know that already, so if you can volunteer, please email me at: ian_at_joshzeitz_dot_com. To learn more about Josh and his stance on the issues, please visit his website.

Stuart Rothenberg, May 21, 2008:

Nor does the Mississippi 1st district result mean that “there is no district that is safe for Republican candidates,” as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said recently. That’s just silly hyperbole and something the Maryland Democrat undoubtedly will be embarrassed to have said.

NRCC Communications Director Karen Hanretty, June 25, 2008:

“This is a challenging environment,” she said. “Any Republican running for office has to run basically on an independent platform, localize the race and not take anything for granted. There are no safe Republican seats in this election.”

The Associated Press has a story on a recent self-administered post-mortem by House Republicans following the back-breaking special election losses of seats in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The verdict? GOP candidates lost because they could not overcome the “negative perception of the national party.”

Gee, you don’t say?

But the report also included an interesting nugget on some early DCCC expenditure plans for this fall. The DCCC has booked some advertising time in advance for three key races:

The DCCC has reserved $2.1 million for advertising for a seat in New York City in which Republican Rep. Vito Fossella intends to retire. Fossella, who is married with children, recently acknowledged fathering a child out of wedlock.

Democrats also said they will spend $1.2 million in the Portland, Ore., area, hoping to hold the seat of Democratic Rep. Darlene Hooley, who is retiring.

The third target is the seat held by Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado, where Democrats said they had reserved nearly $700,000 in advertising time.

Tom Cole has criticized the DCCC in the past for reserving time this far in advance, saying that such moves tip the committee’s hand. But I like the aggressive buy planned in New York’s 13th. If Staten Island Republicans are having a hard time recruiting a candidate now, how much harder is it going to be when prospective candidates (of which Guy Molinari assures us there are still a couple in existence) see that $2.1 million ad buy coming down the pipe?

I’m not as convinced that Kurt Schrader needs that much help, as Mike Erickson is seriously damaged goods at this point, but I’m sure the DCCC can scale back their ad time at their discretion.

Rasmussen (6/24, likely voters, 5/27 in parens):

Ronnie Musgrove (D): 47 (47)

Roger Wicker (R-inc): 48 (46)

(MoE: ±4%)

Musgrove still pulls even with Wicker despite having a poorer favorability rating (47-43 to Wicker’s 56-32), probably due to Musgrove being better known as a former Governor. Still, Wicker has begun putting his healthy cash-on-hand lead to good use by airing ads in Southern Mississippi, where he is largely unknown.

Here’s a bright spot from the poll which might give us hope for Mississippi’s future: Voters between ages 18-29 favor Musgrove by a whopping 68-27 margin. Wow. Conversely, voters 65 years and older prefer Wicker by a 60-34 margin. Let’s hope that Barack Obama’s candidacy can energize young Mississippians.

Bonus finding: Speaking of Obama, McCain still only has a 50-44 lead in Mississippi.

UPDATE: (by Crisitunity) The same poll also covered incumbent R Thad Cochran vs. ex-state rep. Erik Fleming in MS-Sen-A (the regularly scheduled Senate election). No surprises: Cochran is up in that one, 59-32.

I’m not kidding here: Doug Lamborn, freshman incumbent, is facing off against Jeff Crank, whom he defeated in the 2006 primary in this safe R district to replace retiring Joel Hefley. He’s also facing off against 2006 primary candidate ex-AF Maj. Gen. Bentley Rayburn. (Lamborn won in 2006 by consolidating the wingnut vote, helped along by the Club for Growth.) An internal poll gives the lay of the land in this race:

David Hill Research (R)/Wilson Research Stragies (R) (5/27-29, likely voters):

Doug Lamborn (R-inc.): 51

Jeff Crank (R): 27

Bentley Rayburn (R): 13

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4.3%)

Now I know what you’re thinking: boy, if those two ‘mainstream’ candidates could somehow combine their votes, they’d be pretty competitive with Lamborn. Turns out that Crank and Rayburn were thinking that, too. The poll was commissioned by both camps as part of their rather unusual gentleman’s agreement on who would get to go the distance against Lamborn:

Republican 5th Congressional District candidates retired Maj. Gen. Bentley Rayburn and Jeff Crank signed a do-or-die agreement last month setting the conditions under which the weaker of the two candidates would drop out of the primary race against Congressman Doug Lamborn….

They agreed to stand by the results of a poll of 400 respondents scheduled to start May 27.

They’ve run into a minor hitch, though: Rayburn is refusing to abide by the poll’s results, as the two campaigns have devolved into a battle royale over methodological minutia and paying for the poll. Even if Rayburn does fall by the wayside, this can’t be helping Crank’s chances.

The Colorado primary is Aug. 12.

The Texas Lyceum (6/12-20, likely voters):

Rick Noriega(D): 36

John Cornyn (R): 38

Undecided: 24

(MoE: ±3.1%)

Big John is in a big world of hurt, if this is to be believed. 38% for an incumbent, with 24% undecided, spells trouble. (I haven’t heard of Texas Lyceum before, but this is an independent, not internal, poll. One caveat is that their partisan split is 32% Republican and 44% Democrat, which seems high for Texas even factoring in switches caused by the Dem primary.)

As a bonus, this poll shows McCain leading Obama in Texas by only 5, 43-38, with Barr and Nader each drawing 1.

H/t WoodyNYC.

The Rick Noriega campaign has sent out a fundraising email citing a recent poll that shows him trailing the incumbent Big John Cornyn by only 2%, among adults and with a large undecided vote.

more below the fold

Link to the source:

http://www.texaslyceum.org/med…

Freshman U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, leads Democratic challenger Rick Noriega in the poll, but the margin is slim and a large number of voters haven’t made up their minds. Cornyn had the support of 38% of the likely voters in the survey, to Noriega’s 36%, with 24% saying they’re not committed to either candidate.

Oh, you were probably wondering about that other race, too.

Republican John McCain would beat Democrat Barack Obama in Texas if the race were held now. But a significant number of Texans said they haven’t picked a favorite yet. Among likely voters, McCain had the support of 43% of those polled to 38% for Obama. Libertarian Bob Barr and independent Ralph Nader had about 1% each. One of every six voters – 17% – said they haven’t decided who will get their vote in November.

Obviously they didn’t lean on the leaners, but that’s O.K. with me this early in the campaign. (It’s from June 12-20, with 1,000 respondents, 8 of 10 said they were registered to vote.)

I’m really excited to see so many voters with an open mind on this race. Lessee, now all Noriega needs is $20 million for a massive media effort. He just might get the money. A poll that shows him trailing by only two points and Obama within five, that makes Texas a real battleground state.

It’s only one poll, I know, I know. But I like it!