Open Left - 2008 House election

Stolen election in Alaska? Five reasons why that accusation is premature.

Celtic Diva — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:30:00 GMT

Many people are shocked that convicted felon Ted Stevens could possibly be ahead of Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich in the fight for his US Senate seat, or that under-investigation Congressman Don Young has probably held on to his seat against Ethan Berkowitz. This seems especially dubious as polls that were correct in every other state were seemingly way off in Alaska. An article in the Anchorage Daily News titled "The Pollsters missed the mark" discusses this:

"The real question is where were the all the Democrats?" Dittman said, noting the voter turnout was supposed to be in record proportions. Instead, only an estimated 57 percent of registered voters had a say - a far drop from the 66 percent turnout in the 2004 presidential election, according to state elections division figures.

The issue of the incorrect polls has triggered some concern both here and in other parts of the country, especially on the "interwebs" where folks have raised the specter of a "rigged election." It's understandable that we're all having flashbacks to Alaska 2004, where the Division of Elections reported some precincts had over 100% turnout. (Voting "early and often" is not just a tongue-in-cheek saying in Chicago!)

However, we should all subscribe to the "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" mantra of "Don't Panic!" I can think of at least ~~four~~ five reasons why:
1) Per the Division of Elections, there are three different types of ballots that still must be counted: 1/2 of the early voting ballots (9,500), the absentee ballots (48,000) and the "questioned" ballots (16,000). ("Questioned" ballots come from registered voters who go to a different precinct and are allowed to vote the Congressional and Presidential elections or un-registered voters who go to a precinct and are allowed to register and vote in the presidential election only. All of these votes are checked by hand to determine the voters status.)

That's 73,500 ballots which equal about 15% of all registered voters in the state of Alaska. That's a lot of votes yet to be counted.

2) While Ted Stevens is making the claim that absentee votes "always break conservative," we are operating in an entirely new world because of Barack Obama's campaign strategy. As the result of an Obama and Begich Campaign "Get Out the Vote" juggernaut, it's quite possible that those absentee, early voting and questioned ballots will break Progressive (I know mine is in there)...completely turning that "conventional wisdom" on its head. Also, the absentee ballots are often military-dominated, which has caused them to trend towards conservative in the past, polls and FEC records have shown this election cycle that both the oversees and US-stationed military have heavily favored the Democratic presidential candidates...specifically Barack Obama...over the McCain ticket when it comes to political donations. This "conservative assumption" no longer carries any weight.

3) Much of this "poll angst" is based on the inaccuracy of the pre-election polls. However, those are not the "canaries in a coal mine" when it comes to election tampering or election fraud. International election-watching experts like Nobel Peace Prize recipient President Jimmy Carter have made the case for watching exit polls:

Exit polls are the most accurate way of detecting election fraud. In fact, according to my fellow peace witness, Dr. Daniel Hurwitz - professor of mathematics at Skidmore College - if the exit polls are more than 1 percent different from the outcome of the election, "something fishy" is going on. The 1 percent rule is what international election protection organizations (like the ones that send in Jimmy Carter as an observer) use to judge whether or not fraud is taking place.

The AP conducted an exit poll in Alaska of 20 random precincts polling of 1294 Alaskans:

"...the exit poll and incomplete ballot results had the 40-year incumbent with a very slight lead - 3,363 votes - over Democratic rival Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage. More than 60,000 absentee and questioned ballots remain to be counted, so the outcome may be days in coming."

I have talked to AP and have gotten some of the mathematical break-out. However, since 253 of the 1294 polled were absentee/early voters, I won't be able to do an accurate comparison until all of those votes are counted.

4) Per the Democratic Party, changes have been made since 2004 which ensure that (and this is important) every Alaskan has a paper ballot. Any possible machine discrepancies should be caught in a recount, which we can almost guarantee will happen by either the Begich or Stevens campaign after all ballots are counted.

5) Alaska is the only state in the US that knew Obama had probably clinched the presidency almost two hours before our polls closed at 8:00 PM. Between the the good folks at Rasmusson, etc...giving both Begich and Berkowitz a "comfortable" lead and the news showing that Obama would probably be the victor before many folks got off work, it's possible they just went home. This reason makes me the most uncomfortable and is the one I will refuse to accept unless, in the end, all evidence points this direction.

While vigilance in the voting process is definitely required and rage over past problems is understandable, these accusations are premature. According to the nice lady at the Division of Elections as well as Heather Rauch of the Begich Campaign, all ballots should be counted by November 21st.

Let's wait until then before we "don the tin foil."

Linda Kellen Biegel is blogmistress at Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis--Alaska's only Progressive Community Blog.

My Election Projection--From October, 2006

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:30:00 GMT

I'm really not temperamentally suited to being any better than any of you at making number-crunching prediction this close to the election. Yeah, I'll toss some numbers out--maybe. But my heart isn't it. I'm not interested in being right. I'm interested in dreaming big, making impossible predictions. Which is where October 2006 comes in. Because that's when I first let my thoughts about 2008 start to slip out... thoughts that had been seriously brewing since Katrina, 13 months earlier. Because that's what I do best.

Now, I didn't write specifically about 2008. Nostrodamus I am not. But I wrote about 2006 in terms of realigning elections, and I said that what was an overlooked key to them was two consecutive wave elections in the House. Well, it's pretty obvious what that means. We're about to say "hello" to number 2.

Here's a chart from my October 20, 2006 post, "What A Dem Landslide Could Mean", with a bit of explanatory text:

The chart below shows the House share controlled by Democrats (top, blue line) and the percent change in share (bottom, red line), regardless of whether its a gain or loss. The yellow lines mark the three realigning elections-two definite (1896 and 1932), one questionable, at best (1968). The dotted purple lines mark the congressional elections of 1974 and 1994:

As you can see, the volatility of House elections has declined significantly in the last few decades. Not shown on this chart is what happened in 2006--another wave election, smaller than 1994, in fact, a little bit smaller than 1980. But, of course, it started from a place of greater strength than GOP was before 1994. So being poised for a somewhat similar wave election this Tuesday, we really are set up for the first true realigning election since 1932. That's what I predicted two years ago, and I'm sticking with it.

More on what it means--and maybe what's ahead--on the flip.
About 10 days after that diary, I wrote another one, " Beyond Red & Blue---The Possible Underpinnings of A November Sweep", which got into the question of challenging the reigning narrative as one of the key ingredients in pulling off a realignment. I'd like to excerpt some parts of that diary, to ressurrect my thinking at that time--and then comment on it a bit.

My underlying argument is that the biggest, unrecognized gap in American politics is between extremist movement conservatives and ordinary conservative voters, and that compared to this, ordinary liberals and conservatives have a good deal in common. It's the reigning narrative that hides this, and that needs to challenged and overcome. Here's what I said about that at the time:

It is the movement conservative narrative that construes politics in terms of liberal/conservative polarization, and obscures the degree of overlap between liberals and conservatives by demonizing liberals. The realigning potential of this election consists in part of ~~the~~ fragmenting [the] grasp of the ultra-conservative narrative.

Explaining the nature of that potential is the purpose of this post.
I will do this in three parts: (1) De-mythologizing liberal/conservative polarization. (2) Highlighting the conservative/ultra-conservative split. (3) Discussing the potential for narrative reconfiguration.

Skipping through most of the post, here's what I say about #3:

(3) The potential for narrative reconfiguration.
To date, the most comprehensive, up-to-date work dealing with conservatives narratives comes from cognitive linguist George Lakoff. Lakoff's work centers on cognitive metaphors, and the more general phenomena of cognitive and linguistic frames. These are not narratives per se, but they are the underpinnings of narrative. Furthermore, Lakoff's own work is not primarily directed in a way to help us work on opening up the conservative/ultra-conservative gap. It illuminates the differences between liberal and conservative worldviews-and even, more subtly to the differences between what he calls "ideological conservatives" and "pragmatic conservatives." But even this last distinction is not the one I'm aiming for. It's not what isolates a mere 1% or so of the population.
The effective core of conservatism is identity politics. It's what binds ordinary conservatives with reactionary ultra-conservatives. Mostly, it's about race, religion and ethnicity, depending on these to over-ride class. But opposition to unions is also part of the mix. Free and Cantril found a striking correlation between operational conservatism and opposition to power-sharing with outgroups:

This opposition to organized political power is easily translated into everyday language: "They're okay, as long as they know their place." Although the nature and degree of such exclusionary attitudes has certainly altered over time, the GOP's reliance on anti-gay initiatives and hysteria about illegal immigration are clear reminders that the basic logic remains firmly in place.

And, of course, we've seen a whole carnival freak show of GOP boogeymen fantasies trotted out this time to try to smear Obama. Nothing new under the sun.

But here's something important, about the differece in how liberals and conservatives approach challenging problems, and starting with the thread of different approaches to the immigration issue, I move on to the question of how to frame an open-ended identity politics of inclusion--which, I think, is a good summary of what's been key to Obama's success:

Moreover, the example of illegal immigration shows that there can even be a rational foundation for such fears. Illegal immigration is a problem-it's just that it's part of a whole complex of problems tied to neo-liberal "free trade" economics that conservatives have no intention of examining, much less challenging. It's much easier to blame the victims with the darkest skin color. This is the essence of the liberal/conservative split: liberals engage in systematic analysis, seeking out complex patterns of cause and effect, while conservatives are quick to place blame on entire groups of individuals who in reality have very limited power or choice to do things differently, given the systemic forces they face.
Writ large, the problem that liberalism faces is just this: how to promote policies that change the systemic forces people face, when conservatives keep insisting that the problem is the people themselves. The answer, of course, is that conservative rhetoric only goes so far. Despite the hold it has, only the hardcore ultraconservatives steadfastly refuse to embrace liberal policies that work. Furthermore, new such policies can be introduced, but they need to be framed in the right sort of rhetoric.
Ironically, the best example of this is recent years is probably Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, with its rhetoric of "putting people first," and standing up for those who "work hard and play by the rules." Clinton's campaign rhetoric was pitch perfect-ironically, since his GOP-lite governance did not deliver what it promised. Yet, the answers are there, if we combine that sort of rhetoric with policies that actually deliver what Clinton promised.
One key aspect of Clinton's rhetoric deserves special note-his talk about people who "work hard and play by the rules." This is a formulation for a broadly inclusive counter-identity to set against conservative identity politics. It says nothing about who people are, in terms of race, religion, skin-color, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. It defines them by shared values-not values talk, but actual, real-life, day-to-day values. And this, of course, is what the promise of America has always been about. This is what liberals-and Democrats of all stripes-ought to be talking about every day. It's what underlies everything we want to do, which is why we should bring it up every time we talk about doing anything.
This is hardly a panacea, but it is a starting point, a foundation. Narratives of inclusion, based on shared aspirations are an antidote to narratives of exclusion. And a Democratic House-even if it stands alone-can be a perfect place to start launching such narratives, via legislation such as increasing the minimum wage, empowering bulk purchases of prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, increased spending on veterans' health care, etc. Above all, the House can become a place for holding hearings and staging debates-both about the widespread and systemic scandals and failures of Republican rule, and about what can be done to repair the damage done. and replace the policies that caused it.

Well, of course, the House as a whole did a terrible job of living up to its promise, even if some members, such as Henry Waxman, did a great deal of exemplary work. But, on the plus side, Barack Obama did articulate a narrative of aspirational, inclusive identity. And now we'll have another chance to get Congress back on the track it should have been on the last two years.

So I don't know that much about the smaller stuff--and I'm not pretending the small stuff isn't important. One damn hanging chad is important. Getting 60 Senate seats is important, rather than 57 or 58... even if Obama can "work with" a couple of Republicans here and there. He shouldn't have to be doing that. But what I mean by small stuff is simply this: If we have the vision and the narrative right, then everything else can follow from that. But if we don't, then everything will be a struggle. Including those last couple of senators. And it won't even matter if they're Republicans or Democrats. Because if you don't have the vision and the narrative right, then Mary Landrieu and Max Baucus and Ben Nelson can be just as hard for us as any Republican we might hope to pick up.

But with all that by way of caveat, okay. Here goes: I say we make 60 in the Senate without Lieberman: Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Alaska, Minnesota, Kentucky and Georgia. I say it not coming from my head, but from my heart--with the proviso that my head had a chance to veto it, and did not. Ditto the House: we pick up 33 seats. And Obama wins all the Kerry states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Indiana.

My heart would like to add Montana, Arizona and Goergia, but my head has to veto something and so it vetoes those.

I really hope my head is wrong.

Outlook for Congress: Part 3, Longshots

Mimikatz — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:10:17 GMT

This is the third is a series. Open seats were profiled first, then our top targets. This is the third, on longshots, then I'll revise the first two in light of recent primaries and events.

Initially, NY-13 moves from "Top Target" to "Open" with the retirement announcement from Vito Fossella. That now makes 25 Open Seats we can contest. I'm moving VA-02 (Drake) to Top Target because of the favorable picture in VA. It is R+6 and Gerald Nye is the Dem.

What makes a longshot? A heavily GOP seat with a stellar candidate, strong to phenomenal fundraising, lots of grassroots support, and unpopular incumbent. These are some of the factors that can propel a candidate to victory even in a strongly Republican district. Or maybe it is a slower-starting candidate in a more favorable district. In any event, here are some districts to watch, with the incumbent, PVI, challenger and, because most are "Safe R," a brief comment about what makes it worth watching.

AL-03 (Rogers) R+4 Josh Segall He's raising cash.
AZ-03 (Shadegg) R+6 Bob Lord Ditto.
CA-45 (Bono-Mack) R+3 Bornstein
CA-46 (Rohrabacher) R+5 Debbie Cook Huntington Beach mayor raises cash
CA-50 (Bilbray) R+5 Nick Leibham
CO-04 (Musgrave) R+9 Betsy Markey
FL-06 (Stearns) R+8 Tim Cunha
FL-08 (Keller) R+3 8/25 primary
FL-09 (Bilirakis) R+4 8/25 primary
FL-18 (Ros-Lehtinen) R+4 Annette Tadddeo
FL-21 (L. Diaz-Balart) R+6 Raul Martinez
FL-25 (M. Diaz-Balart) R+4 Joe Garcia
IL-13 (Biggert) R+5 Scott Harper
IN-03 (Souder) R+16 Michael Mantegano
IN-04 (Buyer) R+17 Nels Anderson
OH-14 (LaTourette) R+2 Bill O'Neill
KS-04 (Tiahrt) R+12 Donald Betts, Jr.
NJ-05 (Garrett) R+4 primary, Shulman
NV-02 (Heller) R+8 Jill Derby
PA-03 (English) R+2 Kathleen Dahlkamper
PA-18 (Murphy) R+2 Steve O'Donnell
SC-01 (Brown) R+10 Linda Ketner Local businesswoman raising cash
SC-02 (Wilson) R+9 Rob Miller
TX-07 (Culberson) R+16 Michael Skelly local businessman raising cash

That's 24 longshots, some really longshots, to watch. The 3 South Florida seats are interesting, particularly as Obama tries to appeal to younger generation of Cuban-Americans who are more interested in contacts with Cuba than the elders. All 3 challengers look promising and are raising respectable amounts of money. Many rate these as "likely R" rather than safe R. The two South Carolina seats are also interesting, especially SC-01. They have been extensively covered at Swing State Project.

Outlook for Congress: Part 2, Top Targets

Mimikatz — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:08:55 GMT

In addition to the 24 open seats discussed here, there are 20 top targets and, for the forthcoming last installment, 20 or more long shots. Incumbency is worth at least 5 points, so these seats all have a PVI of R+5 or better, or a strong candidate who at this point is raising nearly as much (>80%) or more money than their target or running against a scandal-plagued incumbent. Here are the seats, again with the incumbent, PVI, Dem candidate and Swing State Project ranking.

AK-01 (Young) R+14 Ethan Berkowitz Tossup
CT-04 (Shays) D+5 Jim Himes Lean R
FL-13 (Buchanan) R+4 Christine Jennings Likely R
FL-24 (Feeney) R+3 8/26 primary, Kosmas Likely R
ID-01 (Sali) R+19 Walt Minnick Likely R
IL-10 (Kirk) D+4 Dan Seals Lean R
MI-07 (Walberg) R+2 Mark Schauer Lean R
MI-09 (Knollenberg) Even Gary Peters Lean R
MO-06 (Graves) R+5 8/5 primary, Barnes Lean R
NC-08 (Hayes) R+3 Larry Kissell Lean R
NY-13 (Fossella) D+1 9/9 primary Tossup
NY-29 (Kuhl) R+6 Eric Massa Lean R
NV-03 (Porter) D+1 8/12 primary, Dina Titus Lean R
OH-01 (Chabot) R+1 Steve Dreihaus Lean R
OH-02 (Schmidt) R+13 Dr. Vic Wulsin Lean R
PA-15 (Dent) D+2 Sam Bennett Safe R
VA-05 (Goode) R+5 Tom Perriello Safe R
VA-10 (Wolf) R+5 Judy Feder Likely R
WA-08 (Reichert) D+2 Darcy Burner Lean R
WV-02 (Capito) R+5 Anne Barth Likely R

The two "safe R" seats were added because of the Dem PVI in PA-15, although Dent has proven to be a tough opponent, and the stellar fundraising of Tom Perriello in VA-05, which is a R+5 district. I might have moved that seat to Likely R. Some others we might have liked to see on this list such as CO-04 (Musgrave) are relegated to long shots at this point, primarily because of fundraising. But it's early, and some candidates have just gotten started. I'd guess at this point that we could take at least half of these seats, some of which (MI-07, NC-08, NY-29, WA-08) I might upgrade to tossups. Some of our best opportunities may come from the longshots. If we get 5 or more from that list, that would make at least 30 seats. But expect the picture to brighten as the campaign progresses.

Outlook for Congress: Part 1, Open Seats

Mimikatz — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:36:07 GMT

With Tuesday's eight-point victory by Travis Childers in MS-01, a district with a PVI of R+10, nearly all of the open GOP-held seats must be considered to be in play this cycle. There are now 26 open GOP-held seats, and all but CO-06 (Tancredo) and MS-03 (Pickering) should be in play. We appear to lack a strong candidate in CO-06 (R+10) and MS-03 is an R+13 district. That leaves the following 24 seats, with their current occupant, PVI and Dem candidate(s) and current Swing State Project rating:

AL-02 (Everett) R+13 6/3 primary, Bright and others Likely R
AZ-01 (Renzi) R+6 9/2 primary, Kirkpatrick, Shanker Tossup
CA-04 (Doolittle) R+11 C. Brown Lean R
CA-52 (Hunter) R+9 6/3 primary, Butcher, Lumpkin Safe R
FL-15 (Weldon) R+4 8/25 primary, Blythe Likely R
IL-11 (Weller) R+1 Debbie Halvorsen Lean D
IL-18 (La Hood) R+5 Colleen Callaghan Likely R
LA-04 (McCrery) R+7 primary 11/3 Lean R
MD-01 (Gilchrest) R+10 Frank Kratovil Likely R
MN-03 (Ramstad) R+3 Ashwin Madia Tossup
MO-09 (Hulshof) R+7 8/5 primary, Gaw, Baker Likely R
NJ-03 (Saxton) D+3 John Adler Tossup
NJ-07 (Ferguson) R+1 Linda Stender Tossup
NM-01 (Wilson) D+2 6/3 primary, Heinrich Tossup
NM-02 (Pearce) R+6 6/3 primary, McCamley, Teague Likely R
NY-25 (Walsh) D+3 Dan Maffei Lean D
NY-26 (Reynolds) R+3 9/9 primary, Powers Tossup
OH-07 (Hobson) R+6 Sharen Neuhardt Safe R
OH-15 (Pryce) R+1 Mary Jo Kilroy Tossup
OH-16 (Regula) R+4 John Boccieri Tossup
PA-05 (Peterson) R+10 Mike McCracken Safe R
VA-11 (Davis) R+1 6/10 primary Byrne, Connolly Tossup
WY-AL (Cubin) R+19 Gary Trauner Likely R

So there you have it--that's 24 possible seats, 11 of which are already Tossup or Lean D. In some others our candidate isn't the greatest, but neither is theirs, so we have a chance. In some the PVI is high, but in MD-01 the GOP candidate is a wingnut. We should be able to take 12-16 of these seats. Not too many real progressives, but all of them would be an improvement over the current occupant, in some cases a very substantial improvement.