It is a popular today to say that the South has switched from voting Democratic to Republican. Many people are fond of looking at previous electoral maps. Hey, isn't that funny - the states have completely switched parties. It's like the Republicans have recreated the Solid South.
That statement is unequivocally false. Most people have no idea how unbelievably Democratic the Solid South was. For half a century, Democrats in the Deep South did about as well as the Communist Party did in Soviet Union elections.
Here is a map of a typical Solid South state, filled with blue counties. It is the 1940 presidential election. I invite you to guess - what do these blue counties represent? Counties in which Roosevelt won over 70% of the vote? 80%? 90%? Remember, Roosevelt was quite a popular guy. He must have done pretty well in Alabama, part of the Solid South.
In the last two weeks voter registration and early voting has shown that voters are geared up and ready to take part in what has been called a "historical event" on November 4.
Americans appear ready to sweep a lot of Democrats into office on November 4. Not only does Barack Obama maintain a solid lead in the popular vote and electoral vote estimates, several Senate races that appeared safe Republican holds a few months ago are now considered tossups.
Polling is harder to come by in House races, but here too there is scattered evidence of a coming Democratic tsunami. Having already lost three special Congressional elections in red districts this year, House Republicans are now scrambling to defend many entrenched incumbents.
In this diary, I hope to convince you of three things:
1. Some Republicans who never saw it coming are going to be out of a job in two weeks.
On a related note,
2. Even the smartest experts cannot always predict which seats offer the best pickup opportunities.
For that reason,
3. Activists should put resources behind many under-funded challengers now, instead of going all in for a handful of Democratic candidates.
Want to help defeat conservatism right in the heart of Red America? How about Alabama, Heart of Dixie, where 29 year old attorney Josh Segall is the latest addition to the DCCC's Red to Blue list. If elected, Segall won't be just another Blue Dog Democrat -- he's a true progressive, a better Democrat in a place where merely more Democrats would be welcome.
The Democratic party can and should take back Alabama's 3rd District this year. The seat was held by a Democrat from 1875 until the 1996 election when Glen Browder retired and (now governor) Bob Riley won election to Congress as a moderate Republican. It was an open seat in 2002, a terrible year for Southern Democrats. The DCCC pulled out of the race late and Joe Turnham was completely off the air for a full two weeks before election day. He lost by only 3800 votes. It's kind of poetic justice that the DCCC is stepping in to help Segall -- late, but not too late to make a critical difference in the race.
"...Too many people do not understand or exercise their voting rights, and as a result, entire segments of our population - and especially formerly incarcerated individuals - are being underrepresented at the polls on Election Day." - New Jersey Sen. Ronald Rice (D-Newark)
(Okay, so this post covers a lot of the ongoing horror story of how the media continues to uncritically repeat baseless GOP "voter fraud" claims, but eventually it DOES deliver on the promised morsel of good news from Virginia--hopefully a sign that the tide is starting to turn. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.
The ACLU has launched a lawsuit in Alabama on behalf of some ex-convicts who have been denied their right to vote by the State. Good for them. I'll say quite simply that no one should be denied the franchise on the basis of any criminal conviction whatsoever, and yes, everyone currently in prison should be able to vote. Denying the franchise has not been demonstrated to be any kind of effective deterrent, punishment or otherwise effective tool in preventing crime or serving any worthwhile societal interest. As such, society has no right to deny someone the vote out of spite, vengeance or whatever basic emotional reasons are employed today. It is a violation of John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle which is a founding basis of what it means to exist in a "free" society. The real story is that denying the franchise to convicts is yet another conservative tactic for shrinking the electorate and creating a false conservative friendly environment.
Alabama does not bar all felons from voting, only those convicted of crimes involving "moral turpitude." In 2003, the civil liberties group says, the State Legislature clearly defined what those crimes are: murder, rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, incest, sexual torture and nine other crimes mainly involving pornography and abuses against children.
At issue in the lawsuit is not the list enacted in law but an expanded "moral turpitude" list developed by the state's attorney general, Troy King, in 2005. That list includes about a dozen additional offenses, most of them nonviolent, and several including the sale of marijuana.
There is one significant pieces of news hitting today about FISA and immunity for telecom companies. The fight is being taken directly to the voters through two complementary strategies. In the House, Steny Hoyer has been relentlessly focused on pulling a deal together, one that would probably grant some sort of de facto immunity to lawbreakers in the Bush administration and in the telecommunications industry (though it's often hard to tell the two apart). He has so far been unable to negotiate between the White House, Jay Rockefeller, Jon Kyl, and liberals in the House, but every time I make inquiries I hear that there is 'encouraging' news that a deal is possible. By the same token, the ACLU is quite aware of what is going on, and has been lobbying aggressively.
As Glenn Greenwald notes, even Speaker Pelosi is pushing for a deal. The significant news is that this issue is being taken to the voters. There are two strategies being employed to make this happen. One, the Blue America PAC has raised $75k and is blanketing freshman Blue Dog Democrat Chris Carney's district with radio, billboard, print, and cable ads criticizing him for caving to Bush on immunity for telecom companies. The extraordinary television ad they put together is here, and the theme is betrayal.
Two, the following radio ad, and one similar to it, are running in the district of Blue Dogs John Tanner in Tennessee and Bud Cramer in Alabama.
You can hear the radio ad in Cramer's district here.
These ads are put together by They Work for Us, an organization sponsored by Moveon and SEIU designed to hold representatives accountable to their constituents. I consult for this organization, and we are experimenting with some issue-based advocacy around core progressive values. This strategy is designed to be a positive encouragement to Congressional representatives to refuse to give immunity to the phone companies. The script is at the bottom of this post.
By moving FISA and civil liberties out of the activist space and educating voters through broadcast media, They Work for Us hopes to demonstrate to Congressional representatives that when Democrats stand up to the lawless Bush administration, voters will be supportive. At the same time, the Blue America action is designed to show that betraying progressives carries substantial costs. Glenn puts it well:
That is true particularly if there continues to be no incentive for Congressional Democrats to pay attention to their base and do anything other than support the right-wing agenda, because they perceive that they only pay a price when they oppose the Right. That is the incentive scheme that has to change.
I first noticed this problem in August, 2007, in a piece about the Working Conservative Majority, in which I traced both how the Democratic caucus has become substantially more progressive in the last six years and that it is still controlled by a swing group of conservative Democrats that mostly reside in the Blue Dog caucus (we call the worst ones part of the 'Bush Dog' caucus). Electing more Democrats - exceptional ones like Darcy Burner, Eric Massa, Leslie Byrne, and Martin Heinrich (who spoke out eloquently on FISA here), is part of the solution. Subsequent to August, progressives have defeated a reactionary Democrat - Al Wynn - in a primary and seated a progressive, Donna Edwards, in his place, but at the same time, added three new Blue Dogs to Congress: Bill Foster, Don Cazayoux, and Travis Childers. It's clear that an incentive system designed around rewarding Democrats, Blue Dog or otherwise, when they oppose radical right-wing policies, and criticizing them when they cave, is necessary. And that's what is happening, with Blue America and They Work for Us.
That's right. Bud Cramer (D, AL-05) will not be running for re-election this year, so Alabama will have not one but two open Congressional seats -- Terry Everett of AL-02 announced his retirement plans several months ago. This is going to be a very interesting year.
Sources say Cramer announced he would retire after 18 years in the House of Representatives, citing a desire to spend more time with his family. The announcement is totally unexpected ("a bombshell" according to several local Democrats) and comes with just three weeks left before the April 4 filing deadline.
Cramer was facing Republican Ray McKee, widely regarded as a token candidate, who is running on the fair tax and not much else. A stronger Republican is likely to step into the race now that the seat is open.
The Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls have both moved back toward Clinton today (yesterday's numbers in parenthesis):
Clinton: 46.5% (43.5%)
Obama: 39.0% (39.0%)
This could be due to any number of factors, including the debate, the inevitable fading bounce, superior Clinton campaigning, or even the demographics of Friday polling. (Considering the age gap between Clinton and Obama supporters, who do you think is more likely to be at home on a Friday night?) Whatever the cause might actually be, it could not come at a better time for Clinton, since Obama had pulled to within just two or three points in the days immediately after the departure of Edwards from the campaign. It also seems to be rippling into state level polls, as Rasmussen also shows Clinton leading in Missouri by nine, and in Alabama by five (Alabama is a must-win for Obama, and it should be noted that the previous Rasmussen poll of Alabama put Clinton up 15).
As far as big momentum changers in the final days go, it does not appear that either Edwards or Gore will endorse. If Clinton does win the nomination, it will be despite established media, progressive media, and conservative media, all of whom have given more favorable coverage to Obama. It is impressive that she has been able to turn back Obama's momentum, despite having comparatively few allies in virtually every media outlet.
An Alabama minister who died in June of "accidental mechanical asphyxia" was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask, according to an autopsy report.
"To me, it's a very clear view of the Republican agenda, said former [Department of Justice Civil Rights Division] Voting Section Chief, Joe Rich. "The GOP agenda is to make it harder to vote. You purge voters. You don't register voters. This is ripe for partisan decision making. You pick the states where you go after Democrats."
STATE BLOGS
Josh Segall
That's right.