Swing State Project

(From the diaries. – promoted by James L.)

With Chuck Hagel once again saying that impeachment could be an option, it felt like the right time to visit this topic: What if Chuck Hagel does decide to run for re-election?

Let’s say, tomorrow, a month from now, six months from now, Chuck Hagel wakes up, realizes that running for President is a fool’s errand, and decides that he’s going to just run to keep his presumably safe U.S. Senate seat.

He could be the Joe Lieberman of 2008.

Understand, of course, that this would be a “bizarro”-Joe Lieberman. Like Lieberman, he’s a staple on the Sunday morning talk shows, advocating a war strategy that is diametrically opposed to his own party. But if you lined them up side-by-side, I doubt that you’d find many issues which they’d agree on. Their similarities begin and end with how they are reviled by the rank-and-file of their own party. And that’s what I draw from here.

The anecdotal evidence is strong enough. Republicans don’t like Chuck Hagel. There’s a vocal group of Nebraska Republicans – they show up almost daily in the letters to the editor – who want to see him challenged. They may yet get their wish.

Ten days ago, Attorney General Jon Bruning announced his intention to run for Senate – should Hagel not seek reelection. But the Lincoln Journal Star’s Don Walton sees a potential for Bruning’s campaign to become a vehicle for an anti-Hagel movement, and I’m inclined to agree: 

Bruning launches his “ground game,” identifying and organizing supporters across the state.

And he begins the rather challenging task of attempting to raise funds for a campaign he may never wage.

Hagel loyalists in the Republican ranks are going to hold tight, one would guess.

Bruning loyalists will step forward behind their man.

And what will Republicans who are angry with Hagel for opposing President Bush on Iraq do?

Judging by letters to the editor, telephone messages and anecdotal evidence, there are a lot of them out there.  They are upset, and they are energized.

Do the anti-Hagels put their hopes, and money, with Bruning?  Help him build a sturdy campaign vehicle?  Implore him to run?  Coalesce into their own organization, whether Bruning’s a candidate or not?

So, just kind of picture this: Nebraska Republicans, increasingly upset at Hagel’s continued criticisms of Bush, line up behind Bruning. Not elected Republicans, of course. The Nebraska Republican establishment will be firmly behind Hagel. Bruning, surprised by the enthusiasm of his supporters, preempts Hagel’s late summer announcement by announcing that he will, indeed, run for Senate regardless of Hagel’s intentions. Hagel decides to run, setting up a showdown in May of 2008.

There is one key difference, of course: if Hagel loses the Republican nomination, he can’t run in the “Nebraska for Hagel” party. Nebraska law expressly forbids running for the same office after losing the primary.

Race Tracker: NE-Sen

by sidof79

After brief talk of his retirement after his current term expires, Lamar Alexander appears to be posed to defend his seat in 2008.  He was a surprisingly vocal opponent of The Surge, and yet still voted with the GOP when the time came.  He has hired Tom Ingram as his chief of staff, the same Tom Ingram who helped get Fred Thompson, Bob Corker, and Lamar himself get elected to the Senate (if you still think “flannel shirt” when you hear “Lamar Alexander,” that was Ingram’s idea).  Curiously, though, he has raised very little money at this point.  With all the talk about being a moderate, calling for bi-partisanship in the Senate, he remains a Bush rubberstamper (anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-Bush tax cuts, pro-capital punishment, pro-life, anti-marijuana legalization, pro-social security privatization, pro-missile defense) and party loyalist.  So he needs to go.  Maybe they’ll talk him into another presidential run.  They’re asking pretty much everybody nowadays.  Here’s a look at his possible Democratic replacements.

http://bluesunbelt.c…

Check out this list of states:

Arkansas: 9.76%
Arizona: 10.47%
California: 9.95%
New Mexico: 0.79%
Nevada: 2.59%
Michigan: 3.42%
Washington: 7.18%

The number following each state is the presidential voting margin in 2004. All of them are around 10% or less, in some cases a lot less. So the first-cut answer to the question posted in the title is that all of these states are swing states, or something like it.

But take a look at this list as well:

Arkansas: Bud Cummins
Arizona: Paul Charlton
California: Carol Lam
New Mexico: David Iglesias
Nevada: Daniel Bogden
Michigan: Margaret Chiara
Washington: John McKay

I’m sure many of these names ring a bell. They’re all former US Attorneys who were fired for their refusal to subvert justice in the name of loyalty to the Bush administration. And funny enough, they all ran US Attorneys offices in swing states.

Now, correlation does not prove causation. But when it comes to the Bushies, you can put nothing past them. And we do know that one of the reasons John McKay was fired was because he wouldn’t pursue bogus allegations of voter fraud after the very close gubernatorial race in Washington state in 2004. So I could very easily believe that Bushco wanted loyalists in these states in particular so that the GOP could maintain their necessary fiction that Democrats are purveyors of rampant voter fraud.

Fortunately, with aggressive oversight, we can at least hope that the new lackeys Dick Cheney has installed will be scrutinized like hawks, especially when when get close to election day. I know I’ll be watching.

UPDATE: Others have made a similar observation on this correlation. (Hat tip to mcjoan.)

During the nearly two years that SurveyUSA has tracked Senatorial approval ratings, Republican Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico has never seen approval ratings below 60%.  Well Pete, that era is now over:

Granted, a 57/35 approve/disapprove rating is by no means catastrophic, but as the U.S. Attorney scandal continues to bubble, I wouldn’t expect to see his numbers improve any time soon, either.  And if an ethics complaint against Pajama Pete manages to materialize in the Senate over his role in the David Iglesias scandal, expect to see even further damage to his “Saintly” image in the state.

(Hat-tip to New Mexico FBIHOP for the scoop.)

Race Tracker: NM-Sen

The House of Representatives passed an emergency supplemental war spending bill today by a 218 to 212 margin. The bill includes a firm deadline–August 31, 2008–for American troops to disengage and leave Iraq. Only two Republicans–Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Wayne Gilchrist of Maryland–voted to hold the Bush Administration accountable and move to end the war in Iraq. The rest? Loyal as ever to the President. It seems that the vast majority of the Republican caucus has yet to learn the hard lessons of the 2006 elections. Must we teach them a second time?

Here is a list of the 62 Republicans occupying marginal districts (those with a PVI of R+5.0 or weaker) who voted against the bill in a show of solidarity with President Bush today.

State	CD	Incumbent	PVI
DE	AL	Castle	D+6.5
CT	4	Shays	D+5.4
NJ	2	Lobiondo	D+4.0
IL	10	Kirk	D+3.6
NY	25	Walsh	D+3.4
NJ	3	Saxton	D+3.3
NM	1	Wilson	D+2.4
WA	8	Reichert	D+2.3
PA	6	Gerlach	D+2.2
NY	3	King	D+2.1
PA	15	Dent	D+1.6
FL	10	Young	D+1.1
NV	3	Porter	D+1.0
NY	13	Fossella	D+0.8
IA	4	Latham	D+0.4
MI	9	Knollenberg	R+0.1
NY	23	McHugh	R+0.2
MN	3	Ramstad	R+0.5
OH	1	Chabot	R+0.5
VA	11	Davis, Tom	R+0.6
NJ	7	Ferguson	R+0.6
OH	12	Tiberi	R+0.7
NJ	4	Smith	R+0.9
IL	11	Weller	R+1.1
OH	15	Pryce	R+1.1
MI	11	McCotter	R+1.2
PA	3	English	R+1.6
MI	8	Rogers	R+1.9
AZ	1	Renzi	R+2.2
WI	1	Ryan	R+2.2
PA	18	Murphy	R+2.2
OH	14	LaTourette	R+2.2
MI	6	Upton	R+2.3
MI	7	Walberg	R+2.5
MN	2	Kline	R+2.7
OH	3	Turner	R+2.9
IL	6	Roskam	R+2.9
FL	8	Keller	R+3.0
NC	8	Hayes	R+3.0
FL	24	Feeney	R+3.1
CA	45	Bono	R+3.2
NY	26	Reynolds	R+3.5
OH	16	Regula	R+3.6
MI	4	Camp	R+4.0
CA	26	Dreier	R+4.1
FL	13	Buchanan	R+4.1
FL	7	Mica	R+4.1
FL	15	Weldon	R+4.1
FL	9	Bilirakis	R+4.3
AL	3	Rogers	R+4.3
FL	18	Ros-Lehtinen	R+4.3
NJ	5	Garrett	R+4.4
MI	10	Miller	R+4.4
FL	25	Diaz-Balart, M.	R+4.4
IL	16	Manzullo	R+4.5
CA	50	Bilbray	R+4.6
IL	13	Biggert	R+4.7
CA	24	Gallegly	R+4.8
IL	14	Hastert	R+4.8
MO	6	Graves	R+4.8
VA	4	Forbes	R+4.9
WV	2	Capito	R+5.0

The new Representatives from PA, elected with slim majorities, have a problem, but there’s a solution.

Problem:

We all know what’s happening with congress and fundraising.  It’s become a frequent news story: no sooner are members of the 110th Congress in office than they are required to raise millions for their reelection.  It’s just a question of math: raise as much as possible or you’ll lose, because your opponent will be doing the same thing.  I wrote about Jason Altmire’s experience (D, PA-4) earlier. 

This Tuesday, The Philadelphia Inquirer had a story on the problem Patrick Murphy (D, PA-8)faces:

There’s no such thing as a governing period now? It’s one campaign into the next.  It’s really two full-time jobs – being a congressman and being a candidate.

Jason Altmire and Patrick Murphy are just two vulnerable freshmen who need to raise money to stay in office, from day one.  To win the next election, they are already in full campaign mode, 24/7.  There’s a tension between having time for policy making and raising enough money.

Even though he won in 2006, Altmire was outspent almost 2 to 1.  Murphy raised $2.4 million, a huge sum, but Michael Fitzpatrick had over $3 million at his disposal and that race was decided by 0.6% of the vote (1,521 votes).  Clearly each had a strong message that worked with voters.  Still, with such slim majorities they would have a better chance of securing their reelection if they could spend the next 20 months legislating and communicating their work with constituents without the huge workload of raising several million dollars.

Meanwhile, the Inquirer highlighted another PA congressman’s dilemma.  Joe Sestak (D, PA-7) said:

I know fund-raising is important? but more important is outreach and getting people to know me.? Voters are like sailors.? They want you to look them in the eye, to grasp their concerns, to know you care.

As the paper points out, the former 3-star general knows how to lead and inspire, if he’s given the support and resources to do it.

Solution:

This morning the Philadelphia Daily News endorsed legislation for public financing of congressional elections introduced on Tuesday by a bicameral, bi-partisan team featuring Sens. Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter, and Reps John Tierney, Todd Platts and Raul Grijalva.

The Daily News, The Baltimore Sun, Adam B (on Daily Kos) and a host of other bloggers and journalists are endorsing public financing at the state and national level.  This is great news for the state of the nation, and we need to make sure the momentum grows.

Under public financing, the 2008 races could be spent talking to constituents door-to-door and at town hall meetings, instead of at high-dollar events with a handful of people who are already convinced to vote for them.  In fact, Durbin’s proposals encourage candidates to choose grassroots campaigning because they can qualify for public funds with small donations of $5 from average citizens.  Under public financing, Jason Altmire, Joe Sestak and Patrick Murphy would both have been given matching funds to level the playing field.  How many more voters could they reach in November 2008 with that kind of freedom?

(Bumped. – promoted by DavidNYC)

You are… my density.

The Swing State Project will be undergoing a server upgrade sometime tomorrow.  There’s a strong chance that we’ll be offline for about an hour during the mid-afternoon on Friday, although we don’t know for sure at what exact time the site will be inaccessible.  Sorry for the inconvenience, but like I said, we’ll only be gone for an hour.

Matt Singer over at Left in the West has a good summary of the latest Montana-At-Large House race rumors:

So what’s going on with the Congressional race here in Montana? Recently, I’ve been hearing three names over and over again:

• Bill Kennedy — Bill is the lone Democratic County Commission in Yellowstone County. I’m hearing that he’s definitely throwing his hat into this ring, but there’s been no announcement, so take it with the same grain of salt that you take anything in the political rumor mill. That said, Bill brings some strengths to this race. He represents a swing county that is Dennis Rehberg’s base. He lost the race for Secretary of State in 2004, but I hear he appreciates the reasons for that defeat and has vowed to not repeat the mistakes. If there are “factions” in the Democratic Party, Bill and I are from different ones. I worked for and supported Jon Ellingson for S.O.S. in 2004. Bill was John Morrison’s primary treasurer in 2006, while I supported Jon Tester. All that said, Bill has always struck me as a genuinely nice guy and good human being. With the right kind of campaign, he could be a formidable opponent to a huckster like Rehberg.
• Jim Foley — A former top aide to both Pat Williams and Max Baucus, Jim Foley has flirted with running for office for years. A recent Roll Call article said rumors were spreading that he was eyeing a race for Congress. Both the DCCC, which works on recruiting for these campaigns, and Jim himself refused to comment. That said, the story wouldn’t have mentioned him if someone hadn’t placed it and it wouldn’t have been placed for no reason. He’s probably feeling out the waters. His strength? A huge percentage of members of Congress are former staff people who understand the grueling work it takes to get there. His weakness? He’s been based for years in Missoula, so he’ll have to deal with the (often exaggerated) implications of being tied to the progressive hotbed of Montana, but he’ll do it with few of the benefits. Jim himself is not beloved by the Missoula ‘roots. Final Note: I don’t have this on any authority, so don’t quote me, but I’d guess Jim Foley would not jump into this race until after Rehberg explicitly says he’s running for re-election. Jim knows the tougher race Rehberg expects, the more likely he is to jump into the Senate race. Jim is loyal and he wouldn’t look to set up a tougher race for his former boss. Again, this is just my gut, so take it with a half a grain of salt.
• Dennis McDonald — The current chair of the Democratic Party in Montana, Dennis may find his background as a rancher and relative political outsider comes in more useful as a candidate than as a behind-the-scenes manager. Dennis is a founder of R-CALF, has deep connections across rural Montana, and could undermine part of Dennis’s base. He’d continue the successful formula that has worked for Montana Democrats — run a rancher or farmer who is good on gun issues and can be forceful on trade, keep the base unified, and win. What’s his biggest weakness? He’s never been a candidate, much less a statewide one in a high-profile race. And he doesn’t receive the natural political benefit of that, since as chair of a political party, he’s relatively easy to paint as a typical insider.

Here’s my dream scenario: an aggressive, credible Montana Democrat tosses his hat in the ring, giving Republican Denny Rehberg an extra incentive to vacate his House seat and take on Democratic Senator Max Baucus that same year.  Baucus beats back Rehberg, like he did in 1996, and Democrats have a serious shot to reclaim the House seat that Democrat Pat Williams held until 1996.  Two stones to kill one bird–that sort of thing.

Of course: A) this is extremely wishful thinking, and B) I’m sure that neither Max Baucus nor the DSCC would look upon such a strategy with good humor.  Baucus has what it takes to beat Rehberg, but I’m sure he’d prefer to take on someone a bit lower down the totem pole.

Race Tracker: MT-AL | MT-Sen

Everyone here should be aware of the following advertisments on YouTube smearing John Breaux.  He has not yet annouced, but the Louisiana Republicans are already prepared to bombard Louisiana citizens with falsehoods and distortions.

Here are the You Tube videos:

This is full of falsehoods.  Has anyone ever heard of the Breaux Act, an act that secures millions of dollars every year for coastal restoration and wetland protection projects?  And what of David Vitter’s citation of Breaux’s healthcare plan in his proposal to transform the Charity Hospital system of LSU?  I can go on and on.

This is just vacuous.  And since when is Jindal, who took money from DeLay, Abramoff and former Rep. now lobbyist Livingston? 

Jindal used these quotes in 2003, and he still lost to Blanco.

Republican Party of Louisiana video on television:

By the way, Jindal moved from Baton Rouge to Kenner in order to run for Vitter’s former House seat, LA-01.  Jindal is the carpetbagger, not John Breaux.

I hope this helps.  And let us use the comments to invalidate these claims and to perform opposition research on Piyush “Bobby” Jindal.