Democrats have lost the three federal elections since November 4th: Georgia Senate, and the run-offs in Louisiana 2nd and 4th congressional districts. It is pretty easy to explain all of these losses in local ways:
Jim Martin trailed Saxby Chambliss on Election Day, despite a huge voter turnout effort from the Obama campaign. Lacking the same energy, the state reverted to its red-state form.
LA-02: William Jefferson is a famously corrupt member of Congress. Despite the D +28 partisan voting index, what happened in this district is similar to what happened in Tom Delay's old seat, TX-22, in 2006. It is possible for Republicans to win deep blue seats or Democrats to win deep red seats when the favored party is under a cloud of extreme corruption.
LA-04 was a narrow loss, as predicted by non-partisan polls, in a fairly red district. No big deal, really, even if disappointing.
These localized explanations are satisfactory. However, it is also safe to say that the constant talk about the need for bi-partisanship and a "team of rivals" coming from Democrats isn't exactly encouraging Democratic turnout these days.
All three of these elections, especially GA-Sen and LA-02, featured very low Democratic turnout. It probably didn't help that national Democratic leaders, including Barack Obama, are telling everyone, Democrats included, how great it is for Republicans to be included in the federal government. When one of the major parties is telling everyone that it is great when the opposing party wins, then the opposing party is probably going to win.
I'm starting to see a pretty easy path for Republicans to regain power. All they need is, first, for every Democratic leader to keep saying how great it is for Republicans to share power. Next, they need Democrats to keep making people like Robert Gates, instead of Dick Cheney or George Bush, the national face of the Republican Party. Those two messages will keep electing Republicans for years to come, and it will be entirely our own fault.
Looking through recaps of last night's defeat in the Georgia Senate election, I agree with a lot of what Matt, Kos and Nate Silver have written.
Matt argues that it the country hasn't shifted so far to the left that a progressive has a decent shot in a statewide election in Georgia. Rather, we all knew it was always a longshot campaign, and people didn't want to invest in such a difficult election both after big wins in November and with so much other positive news for Democrats. Even Obama didn't invest himself too strongly, not wanting to risk political capital so recently after his election. So, Democratic turnout and activism were both down, making an already underdog campaign virtually impossible to win. I agree: we have moved the country, but a large, stable leftward shift has not yet materialized. We have more work to do.
Kos makes similar points to Matt about the lack of Democratic activist and voter enthusiasm, adding that special election and runoff elections have frequently swum against the dominant political tide. For example, Democrats won the Louisiana runoff in 2003, while Republicans won it in 2007. Republicans won the CA-50 special election in June 2006, but Democrats won the SD-AL and KY-06 special elections in early 2004. In all of those cases, the next federal election turned in the opposite direction. So, perhaps this result doesn't really mean much at all nationally, and is simply local. Again, I agree.
Nate brings up a more disturbing possibility: Democrats are already in the hot seat in the mind of the electorate, and will lose seats in both 2010 and 2012 unless they make real progress turning the country around. In other words, if Democrats can't fix the nation's problems, the country will actually turn back toward Republicans, and there will be no two to four year grace period as I have previously surmised. The reason Nate's thesis is so disturbing is that a new Democracy Corps poll shows he is probably correct.
This is a thread for returns in the Georgia Senate race. Keep in mind that the early returns will probably, just like on November 4th, be from more pro-Chambliss areas.
Update: Martin is underperforming November 4th by about 8%:
I have a spreadsheet comparing results by county between the runoff and the general election. Martin appears to be underperforming by about 8%. It looks like it will be a short night, unfortunately.
Chambliss will win. It will probably be called very soon. Damn. Much now rests on Minnesota, including the Employee Free Choice Act.
Martin doing 3.2% worse than his 48.5% share of the two-way vote on Nov 4th. That means he's at like 45%.
Hopefully a lot of Absentee/Early Voting in the numbers. Again no democratic counties are in - with extremely low turnout, moderate turnout in those counties can win it for Martin.
Update 3: The numbers are really bad, and Martin is underperforming everywhere. Chambliss will win, and I will stop updating.
We're about to finish the 2008 election cycle with the conclusion of two elections for the United States Senate, a recount in Minnesota and a runoff in Georgia. It's hard to imagine a better illustration of America's oddball and potentially disastrous election process.
The Senate election in Minnesota is being recounted in what most consider, ballot challenges aside, an admirably scrupulous process. In Minnesota, every voter votes on a paper ballot read by optical scanners, and ballot-marking devices are available in every polling place to serve voters who cannot use a pen to mark a ballot due to vision, dexterity or other disabilities. Recounts are done by hand. If there is doubt about the intent of the voter, the ballots can be examined, and standards for evaluating intent applied. Part of the reason there are so many unresolved ballot challenges in Minnesota is simply because there is independent evidence of voter intent to evaluate.
Part three of my continuing series on the five congressional campaigns with undecided outcomes--Georgia Senate, Minnesota Senate, California 4th, Louisiana 4th, and Ohio 15th--can be found in the extended entry. There are important updates on all five campaigns.
These numbers are a little bit different than the ones you might be seeing at most election results sites. The reason is that I am allocating the Alaska Senate race, Louisiana's 2nd congressional district, and Virginia's 5th congressional district all to Democrats. I don't consider the ongoing counting or runoffs in those districts to have any realistic chance to change the outcome.
The two remaining Senate seats in my chart are Georgia (December 2nd run-off) and Minnesota (recount starts next week). The three remaining House seats are the California 4th (still counting 35,000 provisional and absentee ballots), the Louisiana 4th (December 6th run-off) and the Ohio 15th (still counting 27,000 provisional ballots, pending lawsuit) I discuss the current state of each of those campaigns in the extended entry.
With the Alaska Senate campaign turning heavily in favor of Democrat Mark Begich, in the extended entry I provide a run-down of the five closest campaigns that have still not been called, who is likely to win each campaign, and what it means for the overall balance of power. All of that, plus election forecasting notes can be found in the extended entry.
Yesterday, I asked you to help Democrats Jim Martin and Mark Begich via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as the Georgia Senate race heads toward a run-off against Shameless Saxby Chambliss and the Alaska Senate race heads toward a protracted vote count and possible legal battle against convicted felon Ted Stevens.
You responded with hundreds of dollars and we are so close to our goal on the Expand the Map! ActBlue page - please help Martin and Begich meet the goal this weekend:
Democrat
Current
Goal
Difference
Jim Martin
$3,385 $3,900
$4,000
$615 just $100
Mark Begich
$5,553 $5,820
$6,000
$447 just $180
Please make a contribution today via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and help Jim Martin and Mark Begich eject Saxby Chambliss and Ted Stevens from the U.S. Senate.
With only seven days until the polls close, most campaigns have already made their final media purchases for this cycle. However, even though campaigns are winding down their paid media purchases, there is still plenty of time for you to run a low-cost, easily changed, personalized paid advertising campaign for whatever swing state or whatever congressional campaign you wish.
It is time to ramp up the Personal Paid Media campaign. Between now and the election, I will personally run at least 15 of these, and probably closer to 30. In the last twenty-four hours alone, I started three new Google Ad campaigns, all targeted at key congressional races. Check them out in the extended entry.
Over in Quick Hits, Neil the Ethical Wereworlf provides a link to saxby-chambliss.com, a website he put up on the Georgia Senate campaign. Neil seems to have done it on his own, first by purchasing a URL the Chambliss campaign foolishly let slip by, and second simply by producing some very cool content for the website.
To top it off, multiple commenters in the thread have indicated they will redirect their personal Google Ads on the Georgia Senate campaign toward the page. It is a remarkable confluence of the Personal Paid Media campaign and some great work by Neil. Fantastic, outstanding, creative grassroots activism.
Well done Neil. And well done WI Dem and Brian Weatherson who are running Google Ads on the Georgia Senate campaign. If you want to start running Google Ads for a campaign this year, click here for great guide on how to do so. And, if you want to support Jim Martin, hop on over to the Better Democrats page, and drop in a few dollars.
In a September 25th blog post titled 'The Nation Will Right Itself If It Fixes Sex', Christian Civil League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath writes that the financial crisis facing Wall Street is a symptom of America's sinful sexual culture, including the acceptance of gay unions.
"Our crisis is a symptom, not the cause," writes Michael Heath. "I am not saying I know whether this financial crisis is God's judgment or not. It is not for me to know that definitively."
Heath goes on to list policy changes that would make God "crack a smile," including: End abortion rights and defund non-profit groups supporting it, amend state constitutions to ban gay marriage and eliminate domestic partnerships and civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, and end discrimination against private religious schools and homeschools.
This is exactly how monks in medieval Europe would explain the problems facing a group of people: bad stuff happened to you because God punished you for sinning. Wars, famine, disease were all explained this way. It is, um, uh, interesting to see this line of thought alive today in the United States of America.
From a "more Democrats" perspective, it is important to keep in mind that this is what we are up against: rank medievalism and anti-modernity. The good news is that this "God is punishing us for our sins" explanation of the problems we face isn't getting many takers from the public. Even the Georgia Senate race, as confirmed by two polls in the last two days (see here and here), is now within two and a half points because of this meltdown. If the Georgia Senate race is now too close to call, then the number of Democratic pickup opportunities is enormous. There are going to be a whole lot of "more Democrats" in 2009.
The key is to make sure that those "more Democrats" are also "Better Democrats." Over at the Better Democrats Act Blue page, we have a selection of eight challengers who we promise will all be of the Better variety. I believe that every single one of them are candidates that either Matt or I have personally met, who also would have voted correctly on both FISA and the Iraq war, and all, or virtually all, of them also singed the Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq. With the current political environment, they all have a good chance right now, and by contributing today you can make a difference in their campaigns. Even though Act Blue was down for about three hours today, we are still more than halfway to our goal of 100 contributors today, Let's push that over the top, and move closer to a progressive governing majority.
(Oh, Yeah! The SENATE! - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
So with the Alaska primary and the conventions now over, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So what are the competitive races?
Again, just to be clear, I don't do predictions. Every time I do, horrible things happen. So I won't even make an actual prediction on the Virginia Senate race, because doing so would effectively jinx Mark Warner. So, I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a legitimate chance of switching (but I ain't guaranteeing anything). The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous August diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
One of the primary ways to Expand the Map of competitive U.S. Senate seats in 2008 is to empower with resources Democrats in states that Republicans hope to take for granted, so that they can focus on more traditionally battleground states. Four such red states in 2008 are Mississippi, Kansas, Georgia, and Tennessee, where former Governor Ronnie Musgrove, former Congressman Jim Slattery, former state legislator Jim Martin, and former Tennessee Democratic Party Chair Bob Tuke are running to oust ethically questionable Roger Wicker, Bush-cover-up-artist Pat Roberts, Shameless Saxby Chambliss, and Lamar!, respectively.
$100 makes a huge difference. $10 makes a huge difference. We're now less than two months from Election Day. Supporting these red state Democrats at this critical juncture expands the map, makes the NRSC sweat even more, and increases Democrats' chances for overcoming historic Republican obstructionism in the U.S. Senate. Let's keep that momentum going!
So with about three months to go, with Ted Stevens' indictment dominating the Senate news, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So what are the competitive races?
I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching (but I ain't guaranteeing anything). The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous May diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
Senate Guru is on strike! What are the Guru's demands? To get the Guru back to blogging, we need to raise seven twenty-dollar bills each for red state Democratic Senate candidates Jim Martin, Jim Slattery, and Ronnie Musgrove on the Expand the Map! ActBlue page. Your Andrew Jacksons will go toward a great cause: dislodging Shameless Saxby Chambliss, Bush-cover-up-artist Pat Roberts, and ethically questionable Roger Wicker from the U.S. Senate. So, please, this weekend, send your twenties to these competitive Democrats in red states via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and get the Guru back to blogging!
(Since much of Chris' analysis of late (No Future, Spend Early etc) hinges on winning a senate supermajority, seeing additional senate analyses is useful. - promoted by Daniel De Groot)
So with less than half a year to go, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching. The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
Follow me below the fold for all the races. This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous March diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
