The last day of the third fundraising quarter of 2009 (whoa, time really flies!) is this Wednesday, September 30. Our Democratic candidates for Senate need to make as big a fundraising splash as possible in the third quarter to help refute the growing conventional wisdom among the traditional media pundits that 2010 could be a Republican year.
Please, please, please consider making a contribution today to our Democratic candidates for Senate via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page. I've set some lofty, pie-in-the-sky goals that, if we were able to meet them, I'd be wonderfully surprised and gratified and blown away by your generosity.
Democrat
Currently At
Goal
Distance to Goal
Robin Carnahan
$681
$1,000
$319
Paul Hodes
$780
$1,000
$220
Joe Sestak
$758
$1,000
$242
Charlie Melancon
$193
$400
$207
Please click on over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make a contribution to help stop ongoing Republican obstruction in the Senate. Every contribution makes a real impact whether it's $100 or $25 or $10 or, well, any amount. Want to rebel against multiples of five and contribute $63 or $39 or $27, knock yourself out!
Remember, the fundraising quarter ends this Wednesday, so please contribute today if you can. Thank you SO much!
(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.
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.
(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.
Earlier today, the Senate failed to reach cloture on the renewable energy bill by only one vote. As was the case with all Democratic legislation, 60 votes were required (Republican legislation only need 50 votes, of course). The final tally was 59-40, with John McCain not voting and Mary Landrieu as the only Democrat or Independent who voted against the bill.
Let's review the situation here. Mary Landrieu is, by far, the most endangered Democratic incumbent this cycle. A Survey USA poll released today showed her narrowly ahead 46%-42%, but well under the important 50% marker for incumbents. Landrieu will need a ton of outside help from her Democratic Senate colleagues in order to get re-elected. At the same time, Democrats only need her vote in order to pass an important renewable energy bill.
Now, maybe I am missing something, but isn't there an obvious point of leverage in this situation? The leadership should turn the screws on Landrieu's potential outside support in order to get her to pass this bill. That is what leadership should do. Landrieu needs something from other Senate Dems, and Senate Dems need something from Landrieu. Instead, Landrieu will get the help she needs from Senate Dems, and Senate Dems will roll over for Landrieu:
Senate Democrats stripped Thursday two key provisions from a sweeping energy bill aimed at reducing US reliance on foreign oil in order to gain support from the Republican minority.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats agreed to remove a provision that would have cut billions of dollars worth of tax breaks to oil companies.
The majority also decided to take out another provision requiring that 15 percent of America's electricity come from renewable, environmentally-friendly sources by 2020, Reid said.
Let me be blunt: having 15% of our electricity come from renewables by 2020 is way, way, way, way more important than electing Mary friggin' Landrieu to another six year term in the Senate. It isn't even close. Second, Democrats don't even need Mary Landrieu in order to maintain their majority, since they have at least ten strong Senate targets in 2008, while Republicans only have Landrieu. Third, Landrieu is probably going to lose anyway, given both her current weak polling situation and the destruction that has devastated Louisiana's African-American community. I'd put her re-election chances at less than one in three.
The fact is, Democrats don't really need Landrieu come election time, but she needs other Democrats. As such, we could have applied major pressure relevant to her election. However, instead of making her feel any real pain for defeating this legislation, Harry Reid decides to cave on renewable energy standards and tax breaks for oil companies. That isn't leadership--that is pathetic. This was as obvious a moment where real pressure could have been applied to pass important legislation, and the Senate Democratic "leadership" utterly failed to do anything.
We need new leadership in Congress. Or, perhaps to phrase this better, we need leadership Congress. Right now, I don't see how what Harry Reid is doing qualifies.
Update Commneter Ron notes that Landieu could have voted against the bill, and still allowed it to pass:
She could still have voted against the bill, but she voted against her party to filibuster the bill. That is unbelievable.
It is a Zogby poll, but it seems to be a telephone poll and a straight-up trial heat rather than their dubious online polls (not that all online polls are dubious, just that Zogby's are). It is an internal poll, but there are no other polls out there right now to confirm or deny these numbers. Considering the impact Katrina had on the residents of the state, it also isn't that surprising. Local Dems ended up being blamed locally, and much their voting base has either died or been shipped off to different parts of the country. This could very easily be a Republican pickup.
However, other than Louisiana, things look just fine for the other eleven Democratic incumbents running. In South Dakota, Tim Johnson still lacks a major opponent, and the only poll on the campaign from March 2006 showed him with a healthy, 53%-39% lead on Republican Governor Mike Rounds. At the time, Rounds had a 60% approval rating in the state, showing Johnson's strength. Rounds is the strongest possible candidate Republicans could have come up with, and he doesn't seem to be running. Granted, it is possible that Johnson's illness has weakened him not only physically but also in public opinion polls. Then again, it is also possible it has helped him in with public opinion. There is no polling data to confirm that one way or the other.
Another potentially endangered Democratic-held seat is Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey. A Quinnipiac poll of the state in September showed Lautenberg only narrowly ahead of a generic Republican, 39%--36%, and net negative in the does deserve vs. does not serve to be re-elected question, 36%--46%. Certainly, these are not great numbers. However, the Republican bench is thin and no major candidates have declared. Also, Lautenberg does lead a generic Republican, which means he would probably do even better against an actual Republican (candidates rarely do as well as partisan generics). Further, New Jersey has been a place where expensive Republican efforts have lately come to nothing. Republicans saw mirages in the state in 2004, 2005 and 2006, but ended up losing all of those campaigns by substantial, expensive margins. With a depleted bench, it seems highly unlikely they will break that string this time around.
Every other Democratic incumbent, Pryor (AR), Biden (DE), Durbin (IL), Harkin (IA), Kerry (MA), Levin (MI), Baucus (MT), Reed (RI), and Rockerfeller (WV), all appear perfectly safe. All nine are listed as "Solid D" by the Cook Political Report, which is their saest ranking possible. CQ politics rates six of the nine as "safe Democrat," their highest ranking, and Pryor, Baucus and Harkin as "Democrat favored." Hard to imagine anything coming of those three, given that Iowa is turning blue again, Harkin has an approval rating close to 60%, Pryor is in the same position, and Baucus is well over to 60% according to multiple polling organizations.
So, basically it looks as though, to go along with their gains, Democrats are likely to lose one seat, Mary Landrieu's in Louisiana. Of course, with lots of money to support her, even that isn't a guarantee. Holding the Senate, or even the House, do not appear to be real issues for Democrats in 2008. Expanding on current advantages doesn't even really appear to be an issue, either. As such, how far those leads can be expanded, the quality of the new Democratic members of Congress, and whether we can add the White House on top of it become the more pressing electoral issues.
LA-Sen: Landrieu Threatened By Party Switcher
Even though he hasn't declared yet, in Louisiana Treasurer John N. Kennedy Republicans might have their first, serious chance of defeating a full-term, Democratic incumbent since Tom Daschle. After long being recruited to do so, Kennedy has now switched parties:
In a move that could throw a shadow over growing Dem optimism about making gains in the Senate in 2008, Louisiana Treasurer John N. Kennedy announced today that he is switching from the Democrats over to the Republican Party - a change widely seen as being a preliminary move towards challenging Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu.
While Landrieu is vulnerable, on the bright side, Kennedy ran for Senate as recently as 2004, as a Democrat. He finished in a dismal third place with 15%, well behind Democrat Chris John who took 29%. So, as a campaigner, he may not be all that formidable a foe.
Edwards Up In Rasmussen National Poll
In the daily Rasmussen tracking poll, John Edwards has reached or surpassed 15% in six of the last seven days, including 17% today and 18% yesterday. Additionally, he now only trails Obama by 4%. This is significant, since Edwards has never surpassed 15% since Rasmussen began daily tracking, since he only reach 15% twice from July 29th through August 20th, and since he has been at least 8% behind Obama for several months in this poll. It will be worth watching to see if this becomes a real trend, or if it is just a random, short term blip.
Candidate Support Still Fluid In 2008 Primaries
Pollster.com looks at a recent Michigan poll showing Gore ahead, and makes the following important conclusion:
This result does help demonstrate something useful, however, which has less to do with Gore than with the current support for the frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Just how real (or solid) is her support, at least among Michigan Democrats? The fact that preference for Clinton drops from 45% to 32% with Gore's name included, suggests that many of her supporters remain open to an alternative. Less clear, of course, is whether any of the actual candidates (Obama, Edwards or any of the others) can replicate Gore's apparent appeal among Michigan Democrats (as support for the others also drops with Gore included). But the fact that the simple addition of Gore's name to the list of choices shakes up current preferences to this degree tells us that the vote preferences we are watching are still tentative, and the Democratic race is still a long way from over.
While it may seem that candidate support is fairly static in 2008, it is also pretty soft. Once major events occur in the campaign, such as the results of the first primaries and caucuses, expect big changes in all polls, both national and on a state by state basis.
Punidtocracy Occupies Non-Partisan, Non-Ideological Fringe
Basically, an entire generation of David Broder acolytes are joining him in decrying partisanship and ideology in the political process, as demonstrated by their lust for Michael Bloomberg. As Kos notes, these pundits are the political fringe, since Bloomberg never receives more than 10% in any national poll. And of course they are on the fringe, as most people identify with one party or another, and with either conservatism or progressivism / liberalism (even if they don't always understand what their self-identification means). The lust for corporate, billionaire bi-partisanship is primarily a phenomenon of the pundit class that grew up hating hippies. Unfortunately, since pundits appear to hold their jobs for life, we may have to keep putting up with this nonsensical fringe for at least another twenty years or so.
Entire Pacific Coast Now Deep Blue According to Survey USA, Clinton leads Giuliani 52-42 in Oregon, 55-40 in California, and 56-39 in Washington. Those are the best matchups for the GOP on the West Coast. I think the days of Washington and Oregon as "swing states" are over. The Pacific coast is now deep blue. Maybe Alaska could follow before long…
I have not stated much on the Vitter mess, because it is hypocrisy at its highest. But when Govenor Blanco of Louisiana "weighed in" about she hope his indiscretions will not "hurt" Louisiana getting its federal assistance, I was like "why is she putting a dog in this fight?" Especially, her.
STATE BLOGS
