Swing State Project

The NRCC is way, way behind the DCCC in cash on hand… $6.73 million to the DCCC’s $45.27 million as of the end of April. A lot of that probably has to do with big money donors sitting on their wallets, seeing that an investment in the NRCC is about as likely to pay dividends as an investment in that nice man from Nigeria needing your help with his bank account problems. Some of that gap, however, went toward paying for the renovations on Christopher J. Ward’s house.

Politico is reporting today that Ward, the NRCC’s former treasurer, diverted up to $725,000 from the NRCC to his own purposes over the course of six years. (This goes all the way back to Tom Davis’s turn at the NRCC’s helm, so it can’t all be pinned on Tom Cole being asleep at the watch.) Money that was supposed to be used to pay for galas where the President fund-raised for Congressional GOPers instead… well…

Court documents filed by DOJ charge that Ward diverted more than $500,000 from the President’s Dinner accounts to his own use, using the funds to pay his mortgage and to finance nearly $200,000 worth of home renovations.

Original NRCC estimates of how much Ward may have appropriated were along the line of $500-600K, but the NRCC’s outside auditors confirmed today that the actual damage was $725,000. In addition, Ward managed to grab $28,000 from the NRSC via joint fundraising activities and $47,000 from other GOP leadership PACs, for a total of almost $800,000. (Not to mention the $530,000 the NRCC has spent on lawyers and accountants tracking down the fraud!)

“It was important to get to the bottom of what happened,” House Republican Leader John A. Boehner said. “Clearly, it’s not nearly as bad as many of us said it might be.”

Well, it probably is a relief… to the extent that no one higher-up than Ward was found to have been engaged in any embezzling. As for the number of close races coming in November that could have been turned around with that $800,000, the damage can’t be calculated yet.

The Great Orange Satan, in their efforts to move beyond merely reporting polls to actually driving them, polls Oklahoma:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (6/9-11, likely voters, no trendlines)

Jim Inhofe (R): 53

Andrew Rice (D): 31

(MoE: ±4%)

A 22-point gap: at first glance, not that hopeful for Rice. However, digging deeper into the poll, most of that gap seems attributable to the fact that no one knows who Rice is: 52% of respondents said they were “Unsure” when asked whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him.

Inhofe’s low re-elect numbers show the desire for change is there. It’s up to Rice (and the DSCC) to break through the clutter and let voters know he’s an option:

If the election for US Senate were held today, would you to reelect Jim Inhofe, would you consider voting for another candidate or would you vote to replace Inhofe?

Reelect 39

Consider someone else 23

Replace 28

Over the past few weeks, our nation has been swept with the shocking revelation from former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan that the Bush White House engaged in conscious deception to lead our country to war with Iraq. After the thousands of American lives lost, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated, and five plus years spent in Iraq, this latest disclosure underscores the need for change in Washington.

When I first launched my campaign for Congress in December 2005, I made ending the war in Iraq a central part of my campaign platform. Even as political pundits warned that opposition to the war in Iraq would show “weakness” on the part of Democrats, I was outspoken in my opposition to the war. In my opinion, some things are too important for political games. And a war—this misguided war—is one of them.
 

As I met with voters across the 10^th district in 2006, I learned that the pundits were all wrong. People here didn’t think of the war in electoral terms, instead they thought of the human loss every time they opened the paper to see that another young Illinois soldier had died heroically in the line of duty. As the details of the march to war increasingly came to light, they began to oppose it for moral reasons.
 

Scott McClellan’s revelations may not be entirely new, but they are entirely shocking. Here is an insider in the Bush administration who acknowledges that not only our government’s intelligence was faulty, but—even worse—our government actively peddled propaganda to promulgate their flawed war agenda.
 

Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee released two bipartisan reports on pre-war intelligence that confirmed McClellan’s allegations. The reports found that the Bush administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq,” leading Intelligence Committee Chair Senator Jay Rockefeller to declare that the Administration had “led the nation into war under false pretenses.”
 

According to Congressional Quarterly, my opponent, Mark Kirk, was one of nine Congressional Republicans hand-picked to craft the language to go to war. He wasn’t just one out of 435 votes, not just one of the dozens of talking heads on cable news stations, but one of nine Congressman who helped lead us into this unnecessary war.
 

Since then, he has been one of President Bush’s most reliable allies in Congress. In the last year alone, he has voted 9 times against establishing a responsible timetable withdrawal, despite growing signs that our troops are in the crosshairs of an Iraq civil war. Even worse, The Politico recently identified him as a ringleader in the effort on the part of Republicans to vote “present” on war spending.
 

Despite his complicity in propagating this war, he went to the White House in May 2007 to complain to President Bush that the war was hurting his re-election chances and continues to refuse to even list the war in the issues section of his website.
 

Leadership is about standing up for what is right, asking the tough questions, and demanding accountability. Mark Kirk has failed the 10^th district and our nation on all three counts when it comes to the war in Iraq.

 

I’m running for Congress because I believe it’s time for a change in Washington. It’s time we restore honor, honesty, and accountability to Congress. I can’t think of any better place to start than by ending this war in Iraq.

 

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and Open Left.

A short open question:

Is the current “mood” around the country more anti-Republican or more anti-incumbent?

Twelve members of New York City’s Democratic House delegation, led by Charlie Rangel, are uniting to support Mike McMahon for the open seat left behind by retiring Rep. Vito Fossella. From a joint statement released by Rangel:

“Following the lead of local Staten Island and Brooklyn Democrats, the New York City Congressional delegation is proud to stand behind Staten Island Councilman Mike McMahon in his campaign for Congress.”

“This year, we have an historic opportunity to turn the last Republican Congressional district in New York City Democratic. We are committed to seeing that Mike McMahon is successful.”

Additionally, the Hill reports that DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen will campaign with McMahon this weekend.

McMahon will square off with Brooklyn attorney Steve Harrison in the state’s September 9th primary.

The Lafayette Independent Weekly has a long profile on state Senator Don Cravins, Jr., who says that he’s “99.9% sure” that he’ll run against incumbent Rep. Charles Boustany in Louisiana’s 7th CD this fall. Cravins, who was one of three African-American state legislators considering runs for Congress as independents this year, will run as a Democrat, albeit a rather conservative one:

If Cravins decides to run and rolls out his campaign commercials for the 7th Congressional District, voters will learn they’re not dealing with the usual African-American Democrat. Cravins is a blue-collar philosopher, a former altar boy who’s conservative on social issues. As for guns, he can sit around talking arms and ammo all day – he is, after all, the commander of the reserve unit in Opelousas, recently promoted to the rank of captain. “Some people play golf,” he says. “I strap on a vest and a gun for fun. That’s what I do. It takes my mind off of things and puts me in the community. I’ve already worked 19 hours this month and can’t wait to get back out.”

[…] He’s the only game in town in the 7th District, as far as Democrats. Former state Rep. Gil Pinac of Crowley has decided against running, as has Lake Charles Mayor Randy Roach. Kyra Jennings, the Southern regional press secretary for the DCCC, confirms that the national party is courting Cravins and willing to pump resources into his bid. “We have reached out to him, and we think he would be a strong candidate,” she says. “Voters want someone who is connected to their communities, and I think Congressman Boustany has shown time and time again that he is out of step with the district.”

The entire article is worth reading in order to find out what we’d get with a Cravins candidacy in this R+7.4 district.

McLaughlin & Associates for Mark Kirk (6/9, likely voters, 3/16 in parens):

Dan Seals (D): 32 (29)

Mark Kirk (R-inc): 53 (50)

(MoE: ±6%)

You can take this with as many grains of salt as you wish, but as it stands now, Seals has room to grow, even according to this poll. His name recognition is 30 points lower than Kirk’s, and it remains to be seen whether Kirk can withstand a vigorous campaign by Seals combined with Obama’s presence at the top of the ballot in this D+3.6 district. Holding on, despite his early lead, will be a formidable task.

SSP currently rates this race as Leans Republican.

Benenson Strategy Group for Jill Long Thompson (5/20-22, likely voters):

Jill Long Thompson (D): 39

Mitch Daniels (R-inc): 46

(MoE: ±3.5%)

That’s not as bad a margin for JLT as was the case in a recent Indiana Legislative Insight poll, but the fact that Daniels is ahead in Thompson’s own internals does suggest that the incumbent has the early edge here. This one is tough, but doable — and a very critical office to hold for the next round of redistricting.

Quinnipiac (6/5-8, likely voters):

Frank Lautenberg (D-inc): 47

Dick Zimmer (R): 38

(MoE: ±2.6%)

That’s a fair sight better than the most recent Rasmussen poll that had this race tied.

Lautenberg still has the same problems: his weak approval ratings (46-35) and a sense among voters that he’s just too old to start another term in the Senate (54-41).

It will probably be closer than it has to be (as always seems to be the case in New Jersey), but Lautenberg should be fine in the end.