Swing State Project

If the first day of the campaign is any indication, Gary Peters for Congress will make an impact.

• In the Detroit Free Press the DCCC says Knollenberg has “every reason to fear a strong candidacy from Gary Peters”
• Today’s Oakland Press quotes Gary as saying this race will be the “number one in the state”
• The Birmingham Eccentric highlights Gary’s goal to make health care affordable and available
• Crains Detroit quotes Gary saying he will “fight tooth and nail for every Michigan job”
• Talking Points Memo Election Central covered the announcement, highlighting Gary’s experience as a Lt. Commander and SEABEE combat specialist.
• mLIVE quotes Oakland County Democratic Party Chairman Dave Woodward calling Gary the “frontrunner”
• WLNS reminds readers Knollenberg is coming out of his toughest re-election ever
• Richard Owl Mirror’s blog compares Gary to Mr. Smith, and says we need to send him to Washington
• Michigan Class Notes is excited to see a strong challenger in the 9th
• The Detroit News mentions this race is going to be expensive, and that Knollenberg is hoping for a Democratic primary to waste resources
• So of course it is no wonder Gary raised over $2,000 in just one day at ActBlue
• Michigan Liberal,  Daily Kos,  MyDD, and Swing State Project readers all got to see the Peters Announcement

We will continue to introduce Gary to the blogosphere. If you would like to get involved in the campaign, please signup for email alerts at PetersForCongress.com. Show the DCCC that we need to pickup House seats in Michigan!

(Discuss. – promoted by James L.)

Most of the news in the Swing State Project is based around specific races and candidates, but I'd like to get a more general look at the Congressional races. More to the point, I'm trying to look into your expectations, what are you expecting in the 2008 elections? And what would you consider to be a huge win or a huge loss?

So, here are my expectations:

Senate Races

Expecting: (Dems pick up 2-3 seats)

Reason: The environment in the senate already gives the Democrats a huge advantage (only defending 12 compared to the Republicans' 22), in addition the national mood favors the Democrats pretty well overall. The individual races give me a bit more pause, the Democrats have a good advantage in two senate races already (Colorado and New Hampshire) with strong prospects in at least three other states (Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon). Having said that, the Democrats are in trouble in Louisiana, and in a presidential year, I'm having a hard time seeing Mary Landrieu surviving the race in Louisiana if the governors race doesn't turn around. Additionally, the Democrats might have another competitive seat in South Dakota, depending on the condition of Tim Johnson and whether or not Rounds decides to challenge him. The two assumes the Democrats win in both Colorado and New Hampshire and picks up one of the three states with high prospects and Mary Landrieu loses her seat, the three assumes the previous conditions with Landrieu keeping her seat.

Big Win: Dems win 5+ seats

Reason: In addition to the seats mentioned on top, there is still the potential for more competitive seats coming from North Carolina, New Mexico, Virginia, Alaska, and Kentucky. My minimum of five seats assumes a clean sweep of all the competitive seats, assuming how some of these states go, it could end up being a landslide, picking up 6-8 seats in the senate. Keep in mind that I think winning 8 seats is only technically possible, and I'd probably have a heart attack from shock if that happened.

Big Defeat: Dems lose 0-2 seats

Reason: The flip side of the coin has to be the possibility of some Democratic seats being compeitive. I've already covered Louisiana and South Dakota, so I'll also bring into the equation the possibilties of competitive races in Iowa and Arkansas. Huckabee could still challenge Pryor and the possibility is still there that he could lose. The zero assumes either no incumbent party lost seats or the Dems either picked up New Hampshire or Colorado but lost Louisiana, the 2 assumes the Democrats don't win anything and lose in Louisiana and in either Arkansas or South Dakota. Again, keep in mind this is another of the shock scenarios, the chances of this happening are about the same as the chances of the Dems winning 8 or more seats.

I've got to get ready for work, so I'll post what I think for the House a little later. And if you disagree with me, please, I want to know what you think.

Update:

Alright, I’m going to give my outlook for the House, now keep in mind that I’ve actually been concentrating a bit harder on the Senate than the House, so I’m only going to give what I think the general mood is, you House watchers, if you think I’m wrong, please speak up and correct me:

House

Expecting: Dems break even or pick up 1-2 seats

Reason: Ok, the overall national mood still favors the Democrats, and while the Senate is definitely a huge opportunity for the Dems, the House is a very different story. With the purging of a lot of Republicans from blue districts in the Northeast (Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New York) and the fact it’s a presidential year, I don’t really see the Democrats making a repeat of 2006. The Democrats are going to have to defend a bunch of newly acquired seats such as TX-22 and FL-16. The Dems do have the ability to knock off a few more Republicans though, (NM-1 [Heather the Feather] and CT-4, for example). While the DCCC does have a money advantage over the NRCC, it’s not as dramatic as the one between the DSCC and the NRSC.

Big Win: Democrats pick up 6+ seats

Reason: Keeping in mind all everything I’ve mentioned before, the overall mood does favor the Democrats, and with more retirements likely to be on the way from Republicans, the Democrats have the potential to make a few more competitive races in swing districts. Additionally, if the Republicans pick someone like Rudy Giuliani, who would likely hurt conservative turnout in Republican districts, that might be enough to give the Democrats an edge in a few more areas.

Big Loss: Republicans pick up 4+ seats.

Reason: Look, I want it to be perfectly clear, the Republicans won’t pick up the House next year, they just don’t have the resources, will, or stability to do it. Having said that, there are definitely circumstances where the Republicans can pick up a few seats, as I mentioned before, TX-22 and FL-16 are probably going to be difficult to hold on to, not to mention KS-3 and NH-2 (was it 1 or 2 that was the suprise pick up in House?). Additionally, the congressional seat won by John Hall might be in trouble if Ari Fleschier decides to run against him. There are still other districts with really big problems like in Arizona, Georgia, and a few other House seats, but you should keep in mind this is the “nightmare” scenario, one to be prepared for, but not paranoid about either.

The race to fill Republican Butch Otter’s open seat in Idaho’s first district was one of my favorite stories to write about last year.  In what is now a campfire legend, Bill “Brain Fade” Sali rode a wave of bad press for his asinine antics and bad reputation in the Idaho state legislature to a spectacularly dismal 49-46 victory over Democrat Larry Grant last November.  (And when Bush carries your district with 68% of the vote, no self-respecting Republican candidate has any business performing that badly.)

However, aside from being the handmaiden of his campaign benefactors, the economic regressives at the Club For Growth, Sali has kept a mostly low profile in the House this year.  So one might expect that Sali’s high negatives have softened over the past eight months, right?  Well, maybe not, if you believe the latest polling. 

Via The Hill and New West comes news of a new poll conducted by Greg Smith and Associates showing Sali with some serious baggage (“voters”, July 11-13):

Bill Sali (R-inc.)
Favorable: 29
Unfavorable: 46
No Opinion: 13
Unaware: 12
MoE: ±5.3%

Just dismal.  And how does Larry Grant fare, the rematch candidate who commissioned the poll?

Larry Grant (D)
Favorable: 28
Unfavorable: 13
No Opinion: 29
Unaware: 30
MoE: ±5.3%

So, despite losing a close race and feeling the full fury of the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Club For Growth (who spent $483,000 and $441,000 smearing Grant’s name, respectively, in the closing weeks of the campaign), Grant walks away with only a 13% disapproval rating, while 59% of the district’s voters either do not recognize his name or have no opinion of him either way.  Losing a House race, it would seem, does not earn one a great deal of meaningful name recognition.

While Sali has not shaken off his negatives, it is difficult not to mention that this district had little problem re-electing the late Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth despite her own psychedelically nutty reputation.  It seems that Sali still has yet to endear himself in the same way, though.

PS: You might remember the Boise-based Smith & Associates firm as the curators of a startling poll last fall showing Sali’s support evaporating while the rest of his Republican colleagues were in solid shape.

From SUSA (likely voters; 08/04 – 08/06; 7/14-7/16 in parens

Steve Beshear (D): 58 (59)
Ernie Fletcher (R-inc.): 37 (36)
MoE: ± 4%

Still a solid lead for Beshear, who currently is mopping the floor with Fletcher in all areas of the state:

In Western KY, Fletcher trails today by 8. In Eastern KY, Fletcher trails by 13. In North Central KY, Fletcher trails by 22. In greater Louisville, Fletcher trails by 34.

But wait, there’s a wrinkle in the poll: it oversamples Republicans, as Mark Hebert and Mark Nikolas (of the newly-resurrected Bluegrass Report) point out:

In the previous 30 Survey USA polls on Fletcher’s job approval, the average percentage of Republicans sampled was just 34.8% — and the previous general election match-up on Survey USA showed 37% Republican respondents. This means that Fletcher was barely able to tread water in this poll despite a 7 to 9 point advantage from oversampling Republicans. Very, very bad news.

I’d be quite surprised if this one didn’t tighten up in the months ahead, given what Mark describes as a utterly stenographic local media willing to carry Fletcher’s message, but that’s not a new challenge for any Democrat to face.

[Crossposted at Blue Hampshire, Daily Kos, MyDD, Open Left]

I just wanted to share my thanks to everyone involved with Yearly Kos in Chicago this past weekend.  It was a great event and an excellent opportunity to meet some of the folks here at Swing State Project (including DavidNYC) for the first time.  We'll be sharing more videos of our campaign events and my thoughts on the issues over the coming months.

 

 

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.

“A public servant with a record of fiscal discipline, Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Township) today announced he will run for Congress in 2008, pledging to fight outsourcing, help strengthen the economy and resolve the war in Iraq.” It’s official! Days after Joe Knollenberg made the announcement for him, Peters enters the race. It’s no wonder Knollenberg felt the need to attack. Gary has an extensive track record of fighting for progressive issues as a State Senator.

Peters will officially resign from his current position as Michigan’s lottery commissioner on Friday, August 10th. Under Peters, the lottery has come in $13 million under budget while generating record profits. When he was a State Senator, he returned an entire years worth of office expenses back to the state treasury! Gary will bring fiscal responsibility to Congress.

“Knollenberg has allowed the failed Bush agenda to go on while our brave men and women are getting shipped to Iraq and good-paying Michigan jobs are getting outsourced to other countries. -Gary Peters”

Gary gets it. Knollenberg has a terrible record on veteran’s issues, highlighted by the DCCC campaign last July. Peters will fight to protect our soldiers and our jobs. Knollenberg has been a rubber stamp for a failing administration. The choice is clear for 9th district voters.

9th District elected Democrats came out strong in support of Peters. Look at this list of endorsements. Our local leaders are excited to get behind an experienced legislator, who is ready to fight Knollenberg on the campaign trail and represent Oakland County in the People’s House.

The district is ripe for change, and Gary is the candidate to deliver. The Democratic base vote in the 9th district was above 50%. This is a winnable district. Joe Knollenberg is out of touch with 9th district voters on issues such as stem cell research, protecting the middle class, the importance of Social Security, and helping to make college education affordable. Gary Peters will continue his fight for progressive interests?Joe Knollenberg protects Washington special interests.  Let’s send a Lieutenant Commander to Congress to fight for us.

www.PetersForCongress.com

Learn more about Gary at his website, signup to receive email updates, and contribute at ActBlue!

$226,409.87

That’s how much the National Republican Congressional Committee spent in the fall of 2006 to protect Republican incumbent Mark Souder in a district that delivered only 31% of its vote to John Kerry in the last Presidential election.  (The DCCC saved its money for other races.)

In that race, Souder faced off with a Fort Wayne city councilman, Tom Hayhurst, who only had to raise $690K to outspend the incumbent’s war chest of $642K.  Souder eventually went on to win that election, but by a much smaller margin than any Republican has any business winning in the 33rd most Republican congressional district in the nation: 54%-46%.

Souder, who seems set in his sluggish fundraising ways, has found himself with yet another quick-moving Democratic challenger: Michael Montagano.  Montagano, a young (26!) lawyer, outraised Souder by a $106K to $84K margin in the second quarter.  That showing has already inspired comparisons between Souder and another lethargic Republican Indiana of yore: John Hostettler (formerly of the 8th District).  According to Roll Call (subscription required), DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen met with Montagano recently and came away impressed:

Souder’s 3rd district is heavily Republican – it gave President Bush 68 percent of its 2004 presidential vote – but even Republicans privately concede that Souder, who came to Congress in the Republican wave of 1994, had too close of a call last year.

[…]

Democrats think Souder could be 2008’s Hostettler.

“Chairman Van Hollen came away impressed from his meeting with Michael Montagano yesterday and believes this seat could be a potential sleeper race in 2008,” DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer said Friday.

With a PVI of R+16.3, Montagano would be serving the fourth-most Republican district in the nation with Democratic representation if elected.  The top three Democrats in that class?  Chet Edwards of Texas, Jim Matheson of Utah, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.  In other words, if Montagano is to have a shot in a Presidential year, even against a luckluster incumbent, he’s gonna need some mad political skills.  But if Montagano, like Hayhurst before him, could force the NRCC to drop some precious cash to shore up an incumbent in crimson red territory, that will be a victory in and of itself.

I had a whirlwind trip through Chicago for Yearly Kos this past weekend, and it was great to be with people who care about changing our nation's direction — and are willing to work hard to make that happen. I met some truly impressive people from all parts of the country — local and national bloggers, activists, former Clinton administration advisors, motivated citizens — and all of them are rolling their sleeves up for positive change.

One of the sessions I attended was of particular interest to me and other residents of the Texas 10th. It examined the prospects for Democrats in winning Republican-controlled House seats. Stan Greenberg, who ran polling for Bill Clinton, pointed out that Democrats have a solid lead over their Republican opponents, even in traditional GOP-held seats. Furthermore, this trend is likely to become more pronounced over the next year. This confirmed what I've discovered when talking to people in my district, Republicans and Democrats alike: the Bush White House has lost the public trust, and the lockstep support of its agenda by Congressional Republicans is getting us nowhere. People want change, not more of the same.

One of the highlights was the gathering of all the candidates at the Netroots Candidates Celebration on Friday evening. There were at least 20 of us, most of whom are running for US Congress. And seeing their enthusiasm, sincerity, and talents made me proud to be in their company:

http://www.dailykos….

A shot of the candidates that attended the event:

http://illinoisdemne…

It also turns out that bloggers I met at Yearly Kos have remarked on the race for the Texas 10th. Matthew Yglesias of the Atlantic Monthly wrote about it:

http://matthewyglesi…

I am already looking forward to next year's gathering. I'll bet there will be 50 candidates there in the summer of 2008, all of whom will have their Republican opponents quaking. America wants a fresh start, and the people I met in Chicago are just like the ones I meet here in Texas: they're ready to make it happen.

http://www.dangrantf…

Well 7 more districts now have candidates:
CA-52,
GA-09,
MI-09,
OK-05,
TX-26,
VA-11,
WI-05,

But 3 are now back to uncontested:
CA-46, (Brandt is running for the CA Assembly).
FL-21 (Our candidate has quit the party to run as an independent!)
TX-14 (our candidate has switched parties and is running for the GOP!)

Once again go and take a look at the 
2008 Race Tracker Wiki.
Below the fold for all the news.
(cross posted at MyDD, Daily Kos and Open Left)

321 races filled! This of course includes 233 districts held by Democratic Congresscritters.

But we also have 83 GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic opponents.

So here is where we are at (GOP Districts):
Districts with confirmed candidates – 87
Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 3
Districts with rumoured candidates – 29
Districts without any candidates – 83

1) The GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic challengers are as follows:
AL-01,
AL-03,
AL-04,
AK-AL,
AZ-01,
AZ-02,
AZ-03,
AR-03,
CA-04,
CA-24,
CA-26,
CA-40,
CA-41,
CA-42,
CA-44,
CA-48,
CA-50,
CA-52,
CO-04,
CT-04,
FL-01,
FL-08,
FL-09,
FL-10,
FL-13,
FL-15,
FL-24,
GA-09,
ID-01,
IL-10,
IL-14,
IN-03,
IN-04,
IN-06,
IA-04,
IA-05,
LA-01,
MD-01,
MD-06,
MI-07,
MI-09,
MN-06,
MO-06,
MO-09,
MT-AL,
NE-02,
NV-03,
NJ-05,
NJ-07,
NJ-11,
NM-01,
NM-02,
NY-23,
NY-25,
NY-26,
NY-29,
NC-03,
NC-08,
NC-09,
OH-01,
OH-02,
OH-07,
OH-14,
OH-15,
OH-16,
OK-05,
PA-03,
PA-15,
PA-16,
PA-18,
TX-04,
TX-08,
TX-10,
TX-11,
TX-13,
TX-26,
VA-05,
VA-06,
VA-10,
VA-11,
WA-04,
WA-08,
WV-02,
WI-01,
WI-05,
WI-06,
WY-AL,

2) The following 3 GOP held districts have candidates that are expected to run but are yet to confirm:
IL-16,
IL-19,
SC-04,

3) The following 29 GOP held districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!
AL-02,
AZ-06,
CA-03,
CA-45,
DE-AL,
FL-06,
FL-12,
GA-01,
GA-03,
GA-06,
GA-07,
GA-11,
KY-05,
MN-02,
NE-03,
NV-02,
NJ-02,
NJ-03,
NJ-04,
NY-03,
NY-13,
NC-05,
OK-03,
OK-04,
PA-06,
TN-07,
TX-02,
UT-03,
VA-01,

4) And last but not least the following 83 districts have not a single rumoured candidate:
AL-06,
CA-02,
CA-19,
CA-21,
CA-22,
CA-25,
CA-46,
CA-49,
CO-05,
CO-06,
FL-04,
FL-05,
FL-07,
FL-14,
FL-18,
FL-21,
FL-25,
GA-10,
ID-02,
IL-06,
IL-11,
IL-13,
IL-15,
IL-18,
IN-05,
KS-01,
KS-04,
KY-01,
KY-02,
KY-04,
LA-04,
LA-05,
LA-06,
LA-07,
MI-02,
MI-03,
MI-04,
MI-06,
MI-08,
MI-10,
MI-11,
MN-03,
MS-01,
MS-03,
MO-02,
MO-07,
MO-08,
NE-01,
NC-06,
NC-10,
OH-03,
OH-04,
OH-05,
OH-08,
OH-12,
OK-01,
OR-02,
PA-05,
PA-19,
SC-01,
SC-02,
SC-03,
TN-01,
TN-02,
TN-03,
TX-01,
TX-03,
TX-05,
TX-06,
TX-07,
TX-12,
TX-14,
TX-19,
TX-21,
TX-24,
TX-31,
TX-32,
UT-01,
VA-02,
VA-04,
VA-07,
WA-05,

Praise to those states where we already have a full slate of house candidates – Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It is also interesting to note that we have only one race left to fill in Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Thats 18 states with a full slate, and 6 states with one race to fill! That is almost half the states full or nearly full 17 months before election day, an impressive feat indeed!

Please note that in some races others at the racetracker site have confirmed candidates that I haven’t. This is because to satisfy me a confirmed candidate has either filed with the FEC, The Sec of State or has an active campaign website, or even if they come and blog and say yep I am running. Others are not so rigorous.

It is also great to see candidates in CA-42, TX-11, VA-06, and WI-06; 4 of 10 districts we did not contest in 2006!

We are well on track to beat the 425 races we contested in 2006.

*** Tips, rumours and what not in the comments please.***