A version of this post went out to OpenLeft e-mail action list members in New York State and Connecticut. If you're not on the OpenLeft action list, you can sign up here.
Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars
There's been a lot of talk in various progressive circles about sending Democrats a message, either through voting or staying home. But messages need to have a clear signal in order to communicate with politicians. So, what if you could support Democrats tomorrow, but send a message at the same time? It's the best of both worlds.
In my home state of New York, and in Connecticut, you can- and I want to tell you how.
In New York and Connecticut, third parties are different, because they can endorse candidates also running as Democrats or Republicans (a unique kind of system called electoral fusion which enables candidates to run on multiple ballot "lines". For over a decade, the Working Families Party has used this power to endorse the most progressive major-party candidates running for office and make sure they win -- without spoiling elections Nader-style.
It's a strategy that works. The Working Families Party has raised New York's minimum wage, passed living wage laws, fought hard against transit fare hikes, pushed for a moratorium on unsafe natural gas drilling, and helped elect real progressives in every corner of the state. Tomorrow, you can vote, and send a message, by voting on the Working Families Party line.
I grew up in suburban Buffalo and went to college in Rochester. Since I turned 18, I've been voting Working Families Party every election I could. And I'm not alone- over 155,000 people voted for Spitzer on the Working Families Party ballot line in the 2006 gubernatorial election, and nearly 160,000 for Obama in 2008, as well as for other elected officials up and down the ballot, from Rep. Louise Slaughter to NYC City Councilmembers. Votes on the Working Families line count the same as Democratic votes for these candidates, but they lend a more powerful message: that you want Democrats to fight - really fight - for progressive values.
Matt Damon explains it all:
At a time when many people feel like Democrats in New York State or nationally haven't done much, the WFP has done more for ordinary New Yorkers. That's because they focus on issues, not personalities. Living wage jobs. A fair tax system. Better and affordable mass transit. Fair treatment for the elderly. LGBT rights. Investment in education. It's a common-sense progressive party, with a strategy that lets progressive New Yorkers hold their politicians accountable. When an elected official gets into office, he or she can see how many of those votes came from people trying to send him a message that they want him/her to be a progressive- and act accordingly while in office.
On November 2, thousands of progressive New Yorkers will be voting for Andrew Cuomo, Eric Schneiderman, and the rest of the Democratic ticket on the Working Families ballot line - Row E. In Connecticut, Dan Malloy, Richard Blumenthal, and others will also appear on the Working Families line. Here's hoping you'll join us- and spread the word.
This was supposed to be a nice quiet evening, the calm before the storm. Instead, we get a safe Senate seat in Connecticut that might not actually be safe anymore. The New York Times is reporting that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has lied about serving in Vietnam:
At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.
"We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam," Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. "And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it - Afghanistan or Iraq - we owe our military men and women unconditional support."
There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.
The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post's publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.
In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.
This campaign is not polled very often, but what few polls there are show Blumenthal lead of anywhere from 13% to 36%. And yes, the 13% lead is a Rasmussen poll.
This campaign should not have been a problem, but it might be now. It remains to be seen whether the NYT report will hold up, and also whether a story like this can erase such a large lead. It is entirely possible on both counts.
The biggest problem of all is that the nominating convention to get on the ballot for the Democratic primary is this coming weekend. This story is still unfolding, so there is no way to have clear answers to either the two main questions (is the story true? does this finish Blumenthal with the voters?) by Friday. A second way to get on the ballot would be for someone to file 7,500 signatures by June 8th, which is doable but still tricky given the lack of any other campaign, the lack of clarity on the two main questions, the compressed timeframe, and the holiday weekend.
It would have been better if this happened a month ago. Or, it would have been better if Blumenthal didn't exaggerate his record. Whatever the case, it is still possible for Democrats to win this seat. For one thing, Blumenthal's numbers might now collapse. For another, if Blumenthal's numbers do collapse, other polling has shown Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy ahead by 7%.
Democrats are facing a difficult enough political environment that being saddled with a few disastrous candidates could turn 2010 into 1994. Coakley was weak in Massachusetts, in Illinois Giannoulis also had a scandal break out the week before his primary, in Pennsylvania Arlen Specter's party switch actually made him really unpopular, and now this. All four of those states should have been wins, but at this rate maybe none of them will be. The Democratic Party is recruiting, or at least backing, some pretty damn sucky candidates this year.
Shoddy forensic science has led to a major setback in a murder investigation that could close the door on efforts to bring the killer to justice. The family of murder victim Suzanne Jovin was recently informed that the DNA evidence in her case was useless because it was contaminated by a lab technician. A DNA sample collected from under Jovin's fingernails after her 1998 murder was found to match that of the lab worker that processed the evidence, not her killer as was previously assumed.
In recent years, forensic science has become a staple of criminal prosecutions. Jurors increasingly expect trials to include conclusive forensic evidence pointing to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Although forensic testing has a reputation for producing accurate and objective evidence, it is not flawless. In fact, a lack of quality standards in forensics labs and of adequate training for technicians has resulted in potentially important evidence being rendered worthless or just plain wrong far too often. Moreover, since most states lack any type of meaningful oversight of its crime labs, mistakes continue to occur and problems remain uncorrected.
The top hat and tuxedo-clad "Billionaires for Budget Cuts" descended on Hartford yesterday, heaping some damning praise on Republican Governor Jodi Rell for her steadfast refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to close the state's $8 billion budget deficit.
The Connecticut Working Families Party sponsored the tongue-in-cheek rally as part of a month long campaign against the Governor's regressive budget proposal. Her plan calls for closing the gap with taxes on the middle-class and billions in cuts to basic services working families dependent on. But Rell is defiantly opposing a proposal to raise income taxes on the wealthy, what many progressive economists say is the best solution for states facing budget shortfalls.
The billionaires - "Robin Eublind, "Rich N. Luvenit," and "Iona Lottabotes" - called "Our Jodi" their "best investment." Arriving at the Capitol by limousine, they chanted a refrain the Governor has taken to heart, "taxes are for little people!"
With an estimated 23 million 18-29 year old citizens turning out to vote in the 2008 presidential election, it is easy to assume that young people today have overcome the stereotypical image of "apathetic youth." Yet, while the last few election cycles show an ever-growing interest in political engagement, young people are still underrepresented in the U.S. electorate-a problem that seems to have more to do with lack of access than lack of interest.
A new Quinnipiac poll shows Lieberman's approval rating in Connecticut is down to just 38%. This is actually record-breaking for the Quinnipiac poll:
"Sen. Joseph Lieberman appears to be paying a high price for his embrace of Sen. John McCain in the presidential race. This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator - except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could.
Only 21% of Democrats approve of Lieberman's performance as Senator. Also, 40% of Independents, and 68% of Republicans approve of Lieberman's performance as Senator. It is kind of funny, but also not surprising, that Lieberman's constituents are far more aware of his partisan inclinations than his fellow Senators, or even President-elect Obama.
Lieberman isn't up for re-election until 2012. Given that, since 2006, he has been granted a committee chair, I won't be surprised if he is able to make a recovery. Obama validating Lieberman will, I'm sure, run through just about every campaign commercial Lieberman makes for the Democratic primary, too. Expect at least 42 Democratic Senators to endorse him, and campaign for him, in the 2012 Democratic primary, too. Further, don't expect many, if any, challengers to come from elected Democratic officials in Connecticut, for fear of reprisals should they challenge Lieberman. So, while Lieberman has a low approval rating, he is by no means particularly vulnerable right now.
Also, from the poll, it would appear that the northeast is more progressive than the West Coast:
Connecticut voters oppose 61 - 33 percent amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Republicans support such an amendment 49 - 46 percent, while Democrats oppose it 73 - 23 percent and independent voters oppose it 58 - 34 percent. Men oppose an amendment to ban same-sex marriage 56 - 38 percent while women oppose it 66 - 28 percent.
I always thought the northeast wasn't given sufficient recognition as the most left-leaning region of the country, which I think it fairly obviously is.
(One of the most devastating consequences of Bush Administration policy--not just the financial meltdown we are now experiencing--has been the systematic neglect of state and local governments, which have suffered two of the worst financial crunches in history under Bush. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
The financial crisis has dug in its heels and Treasury's plan to buy up troubled assets hasn't been able to dislodge them. There have been numerous reports that the crisis has spread outward from Wall Street to afflict auto dealerships and the commercial paper that businesses and public institutions use to meet payroll. But when The New York Timesreported last week that cities, states, and local governments are having difficulty in bond markets - stoking fears that infrastructure projects, services, and payrolls will have to be canceled or scaled back - MayorTV decided to set off to several cities to ask mayors how the financial downturn is affecting them.
Our first stop was Stamford, Connecticut where Mayor Dannel Malloy was anything but optimistic about the economy.
In the aftermath of the presidential primaries, stories of unprecedented voter registration and turnout are drifting to the back burner. But with an exceedingly imbalanced electorate, the fight to create access to the voting rolls and enforce the voting rights of all Americans continues. With historic voter registration drives underway and a preview of the types of problems that could occur in November, the focus of the media is beginning to shift towards the less sexy, but crucial elements that work to maximize voter participation while ensuring eligible voters can cast their ballots and have them counted. In Project Vote's view, this is a welcome development since many of the potential issues require more time to sort out than is available if problems are noted only weeks in advance of the election. This week, election officials, advocates and a presidential candidate worked to assist in or restore voting rights for hospitalized veterans in Connecticut, minority citizens in Georgia, and former felons in Tennessee.
In January, I wrote the following about Ned Lamont's endorsement of Obama in which I expressed mild dissatisfaction with the decision. The gist of the post was organized around the idea that the endorsement made sense only if Lamont could persuade Obama to take on the FISA fight strongly because Obama had not been particularly helpful (to put it mildly) during the Lamont campaign.
And while it's not exactly what we're talking about today, I suppose it's worth noting that Lamont endorsed Obama, and then we did win the FISA fight. So my mild concern is now obviated. Lamont made a decision to endorse Obama. I had my reservations, but I was wrong, and the decision paid off.
So thanks, Ned, for what you did. It is possible to work from the inside and make change.
The donors threatening Nancy Pelosi are listed below. I bolded the ones who contributed to Joe Lieberman's campaign for Senate in 2006, when he won reelection as an independent.
Marc Aronchick Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof JB Pritzker Amy Rao
Lynn de Rothschild
Haim Saban Bernard Schwartz Stanley S. Shuman
Jay Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner
... Adding that Haim Saban is the fiscal sponsor of extreme right-wing hawk Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institution and Lasry was a Bush donor.
... Aravosis notices that 30% of these donors slept in the White House when Bill was President. I don't have any problem with that, actually, I just think it's funny how transparently transactional they are.
Here's the first bit of evidence I've seen on how race will matter from the primary to the general.
The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.
One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.
In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.
A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.
While race is often considered the most important factor, I do not actually think that is the case here. The most obvious parallel, where a sizeable chunk of Democrats chose to vote for an incredibly hawkish maverick style politician with an undeserved reputation for liberal politics, was the 2006 Lieberman-Lamont race. I in fact said that the 2006 Senate race at the time was a test run for John McCain's campaign, and all campaign strategists working on the Presidential race noticed exactly what the limits were of the liberal coalition at that time.
In the primary, Lamont took 52% of the vote to Lieberman's 48%, but in the general Lieberman got 33% of the Democratic vote. And the primary determinant of that chunk was age. That is true right now as well. And frankly, why shouldn't it be? Old people get that that having an old President will mean that their views are better represented. Young people believe that having a young President will mean that their views are better represented. This isn't and shouldn't be a surprise.
As a progressive partisan, it's disappointing that so many older white people are willing to abandon the Democratic Party to send young people into wars just because they don't want a younger African-American male to run the country. And indeed, if you look further at the poll, McCain picks up most of his 'McCain Democrats' among the 26% of the Democratic population who want to keep some troops in Iraq. Most Clinton supporters aren't like that, only a quarter at this point are even considering voting for McCain, I have talked to a few, and the unspoken identity problems are both age and race.
I saw this during the Lamont race, only very few people were actually on our side. It was a scarring experience, and the youth surge had not yet happened the way that it is helping to offset the 65+ advantage for Clinton and McCain. At any rate, Obama's going to have to make up for his deficit by appealing to independents, something which fortunately he is doing against both McCain and Clinton.
Update: I thought this comment is illustrative of the conversations I've had with older Clinton supporters that won't vote for Obama in the general.
As one of those "older white people willing to send young people into wars," I think you just don't get it. First, I am old according to you, 68 to be exact. I protested the Vietnam War, dragged my children and friends to Washington to demonstrate for a woman's right to choose, made phone calls for Jesse Jackson back in '84, and worked for McGovern when there were lots and lots of young people energized to participate - you're not the first ones to get involved.
I, for one, am not going to shift to McCain, but I am part of the fall-off. I am not going to vote for Obama. I am going to vote LIKE Obama. When I go to the polls in November, if there is not a woman at the top of the ticket, I will simply be noted as "present." Then I'll look downballot and vote for the rest of the candidates.
I don't know now whether I will ever get to vote for a woman if Clinton is not nominated this year, but I do know that in the future I will vote for any woman over any man for president - regardless of her qualifications or her background (there have been a lot of male rogues and roués on the ballot over the years, I'm not expecting a female candidate to be perfect). And after all, this year, you and many others are eager to vote for a thinly qualified male over a more qualified female? Think of your own state senator (a part time job, by the way), put him in the U.S. Senate for a year and tell me if you think he or she is qualified to be president. That's how I see Obama - he may make your heart flutter, but so does Brad Pitt.
And so I wait to see what happens this year and if Clinton is not nominated, I just hope I live long enough for someone else to be able to crack the glass ceiling.
The Connecticut for Lieberman Party is holding a statewide party meeting to nominate candidates for office on March 6, 2008 at 6:30 PM at 243 Zion Street in Hartford, Connecticut.
Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Hillary Clinton to 6 percentage points among Democrats nationally in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking three-day average, and interviewing conducted Tuesday night shows the gap between the two candidates is within a few points. Obama's position has been strengthening on a day-by-day basis. As recently as Jan. 18-20, Clinton led Obama by 20 points. Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking is based on interviews conducted Jan. 27-29, all after Obama's overwhelming victory in South Carolina on Saturday. Two out of the three nights interviewing were conducted after the high-visibility endorsement of Obama by Sen. Edward Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy.
Clinton's lead in the three-day average is now 42% to Obama's 36%. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race Wednesday after Gallup conducted these interviews, ended his quest for the presidency with 12% support. Wednesday night's interviewing will reflect the distribution of the vote choice of former Edwards' supporters as well as the impact, if any, of Hillary Clinton's popular vote win in Florida on Tuesday.
The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Connecticut's Democratic Presidential Primary shows the race couldn't possibly get any closer. New York Senator Hillary Clinton attracts 40% of the vote and so does Illinois Senator Barack Obama. John Edwards is a very distant third at 11% while 3% say they'd vote for some other candidate and 6% are not sure.
On the Democratic side, the combined results of three nightly samplings of 400 different voters - for Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday - found Hillary Rodham Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 31 percent and John Edwards at 12 percent.
But when taken alone, Sunday's tracking - just a day after Obama's big win in the South Carolina primary - had Obama leading Clinton, 35 percent to 32 percent, with Edwards' share growing to 16 percent. And pretty much the same numbers came up Monday.
Survey USA, the other organization to poll California after South Carolina, shows Clinton ahead by 8% among likely voters, but with a gaping 24% advantage among those who has already voted.
Overall, there does seem to be movement toward Obama, which is good news for his campaign when it comes to securing Edwards supporters. However, the evidence is both a little spotty and a little thin. Further, Clinton can still rely on a large advantage among early voters, and bounces almost always fade. Tomorrow's polling, which will be the first after Florida, and after Edwards has dropped out, will provide significant insight.
Barely noticed in the crush of attention paid to the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board case was coverage of what we think may be an emerging strategy to vilify Election Day Registration by using the same cries of voter fraud that typify arguments for voter ID laws.
Both Obama and Clinton betrayed Lamont and all of us during the 2006 campaign. Hillary Clinton, while she did do a fundraiser for Lamont, had her husband go onto Larry King after the primary and back Lieberman by saying there was no difference between the candidates. At that moment, all of Lamont's establishment support dried up, and we lost 30% of the Democrats in the general election. At the same time, after promising to endorse the winner of the primary, Obama went through Connecticut by train and refused to stop in the state out of fear of challenging Lieberman. He had earlier in the race spoken out at the Jefferson Jackson dinner for Lieberman, his mentor.
I talked to Ned today, and expressed all of this. And he knows it. And nothing can reverse the outcome of that election, which set the stage for the complete Democratic capitulation on Iraq we saw throughout 2007.
A few weeks ago, Obama refused to help out during the Senate FISA fight, when Chris Dodd bravely filibustered the Bush administration's top priority to expand wiretapping authority and immunize telecom companies who had broken the law. The fight is probably coming around again, and Lamont promised he would advocate internally for Obama to actually stand with Dodd this time. I doubt Obama will filibuster, though it would be really good for his campaign and I would become an excited advocate for Obama were he to do so.
Still, I hope Lamont is able to persuade Obama to actually stand for principle. That would make his endorsement truly meaningful.
STATE BLOGS
