Please join me in welcoming Rep. Paul Hodes to OpenLeft for a chat about his race against anti-equality Kelly Ayotte, the state of LGBT initiatives in Congress, and how we can advance the movement for full equality.
As I wrote this afternoon, this chat is part of a series of chats with candidates for Congress who would make strong LGBT equality champions and are in competitive races.
This chat is being simultaneously hosted at AMERICABlog, Pam's House Blend, The Bilerico Project, and Good As You. You can submit a question for Rep. Hodes below on his campaign and LGBT equality using CoverItLive below.
Give voters in both parties some credit: they feel like they are being treated badly by politicians, and they are pushing back hard. The results in November probably won't be good for Democrats, because Democrats are running things and people tend to vote their pocketbook, but this anti-establishment thing can have some very good effects in it for progressives, too. Yesterday's results were for the most part an example of that.
On the Democratic side of things, there was only one big disappointment for progressives yesterday, and that was Steve Lynch winning his primary against Mac D'Alesandro. Lynch is a pro-war, anti-health care reform, anti-choice Democrat who was running against a strong progressive SEIU organizer. Mac got in late, was dramatically underfunded, and the old machine is still strong in Democratic politics in Boston, so this one was always a long shot, but it would have been great to have won that race. The good news, though, is very, very good:
In the NH seat left open by Paul Hodes running for Senate, strong progressive Ann Kuster shocked the Democratic establishment by beating Joe Lieberman's Presidential campaign co-chair Katrina Swett. Swett is part of one of NH's most powerful Democratic establishment families, and Kuster's win shocked a lot of people. Backed by MoveOn, DFA, PCCC and Blue America, along with many other progressive bloggers and NH's progressive activist community, if she can win her race she will be another strong voice for progressive values in Congress.
Carolyn Maloney utterly crushed the candidate of, by, and for Wall Street, winning her race 81-19 in an anti-incumbent year. Carolyn was a true champion on the credit card regulation bill last year and the financial reform fight this time around, and the big dogs on Wall Street decided they didn't like having such an independent-minded reformer in their back yard, so they recruited Reshma Saujani, a hedge fund lawyer known and trusted by the Street, to take Carolyn on. I guess the message about Carolyn beating up on Wall St too much didn't play so well, even in Wall Street's backyard.
Eric Schneiderman narrowly beat the more establishment (and conservative) Democrat, and former Republican, Kathleen Rice in the NY Attorney General race. This is one of the most important elected positions in the country, as the AG has a great deal of power over who and how to prosecute on Wall Street. If he wins the general election, he will be an aggressive prosecutor of the financial malfeasance perpetrated on us by the biggest banks.
As for the rest of the good news for Democrats, let me turn to the Republican side. Again, give voters some credit: Republican primary electorates have come to be dominated by angry voters just as mad at their own establishment as they are at Democrats, and they are letting their inner dogs howl. As a result, we now have a Delaware Senate seat that has gone from being very uphill for the Democrats to very unlikely for the Republicans in the blink of an eye. And in NH, where the conventional wisdom had AG Kelly Ayotte sweeping to a primary victory and then easily fending off Hodes, the primary there has left a complicated, likely recount election that might not be settled for weeks to come- and whoever comes out of that mess will be damaged and financially depleted.
Given how bad the political climate is, starting out the year, the establishment pols on both sides had assumed DE, NH, NV, CO, KY, and AK would all probably be in the Republican column on election day in November. As of today, Democrats have even or better odds in all those states. Even in FL, where the odds are still against Kendrick Meek, a Republican civil war has given us a chance where we had none. The tide is still against us, but some Republican ships are crashing against the shore, and as a result, Democrats are still alive. As I said last week, this idea of a narrative about Republican extremism is building strength fast, and may be giving us a key to beating them. What we have to remember, though, is that Republican primary voters are not the only ones feeling anti-establishment. Democrats had better seize the populist moment, expose the opposition's insanity but also paint themselves as progressive outsiders determined to clean up corruption in Washington, and fight for the other 98% of us who aren't Wall Street bankers and insurance company execs.
Please join us at 6 PM EST tonight for a live chat with Rep. Paul Hodes, the Democratic nominee for the open Senate seat in New Hampshire.
I am a big believer that if you're going to make a criticism, be specific. If it's of a tactic, prove that there's a better one. If it's of an organization or group of people, show what the problems are and/or who the bad actors are.
That's why I cringe lately when I hear a lot of friends and colleagues in the LGBT community have been (rightfully) complaining about "the Democrats" in Congress and the White House, and how "the Democrats" don't deserve LGBT support this fall. Because every time I hear it, I think back to the aftermath of the New York State Senate vote on marriage equality, where all of the post-vote narrative- including from Democratic State Senator and bill sponsor Tom Duane- was "This is all the Democrats' fault." I wrote at the time that aside from Democrats being responsible for the bill getting as far as it did in the first place, such rhetoric makes people who aren't into politics identify "Democrat" with "sucks" or "no better than Republicans"- something that's not helpful when strong progressives run. It also creates this false notion that the solution is simply to engage in as many primaries as possible, even if there are Republicans who are equally vulnerable. And while we've been kicking anti-equality State Senators to the curb- another one last night- we'll never get a vote on marriage again under Republican control.
The same is true on ENDA, DOMA and other issues under Speaker Boehner. If we're ever going to build a pro-equality, and progressive majority, in Congress, our community has to seek and find our allies. That's a one-by-one process, not a party-by-party process. The LGBT community has to continue to find our enemies and our champions, and that's what I want to talk about today.
Today, OpenLeft along with AMERICABlog, Pam's House Blend, Bilerico Project, and Good as You will be launching a series of live chats with selected pro-equality champions in tight races. Rep. Paul Hodes from New Hampshire's 2nd District is the first candidate. He's from one of five states where same-sex couples have the freedom to marry- and he's a strong marriage equality supporter himself. He's a co-sponsor of inclusive ENDA legislation, as well as the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA. And he's voted to add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate crimes statutes, and to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And he's a straight ally, and running against an extremely anti-LGBT equality Republican. He's exactly the kind of champion I believe the LGBT community needs to get into the Senate and start moving the ball down the field.
Rep. Hodes will be joining us, along with allied blogs AMERICABlog, Pam's House Blend, Bilerico Project, and Good As You tonight at 6 PM. We'll be using CoverItLive.com. This isn't just another chat to talk about his race to replace anti-equality Republican Judd Gregg in the U.S. Senate, although, that's an important one I'll discuss tonight. We'll be asking, and want you to ask, about the holdup on LGBT issues in Congress, how we can get more straight allies in Congress and in the public on our side, what resources pro-LGBT activists can leverage to get more members of Congress elected and on our side, and how to move our movement forward. It's more of a "salon" than a live chat because if you're going to be asked for your support, you deserve that.
Please join us tonight at 6 PM EST for a live chat with Rep. Hodes, and bring your best questions.
Update: Going back through a memory of Hodes, I came across his live chat at Blue America, back when the No On 1 campaign was raging. Here's Howie on Hodes:
Today, he's asked us to let our readers know that he'd like anyone who was considering donating to his campaign during this live blogging session, instead donate to the No on 1 campaign in Maine. Paul isn't a frightened, mealy-mouthed congressman tiptoeing around equality with a "separate but equal" non-solution for marriage rights. You don't hear him talking about domestic partnerships. He favors equal rights under the law for all couples regardless of gender. "The legislation passed in New Hampshire," he reminds us, "will ensure that all Granite Staters have equal rights under the law. And the law is consistent with the spirit of New Hampshire expressed in our state motto 'Live Free or Die.' Marriage equality gives equal justice to New Hampshire residents. I will continue to work for those same principles as a US Senator and I am a proud co-sponsor of the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act."
As we await the historic vote on health care reform, it's important to remember that we're just ten days away from the end of the first fundraising quarter of 2010. The fundraising totals reported in this quarter will be pivotal to determining the tenor of many races for the rest of the year. If there is any time to contribute, now is the time!
Please head over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and contribute whatever you are able to these terrific Democratic candidates for Senate.
Democrat
Currently At
End-of-Quarter Goal
Distance to Goal
Kendrick Meek
$25
$300
$275
Bill Halter
$445
$750
$305
Joe Sestak
$1,320
$1,600
$280
Paul Hodes
$1,447
$1,700
$253
Robin Carnahan
$1,163
$1,400
$237
Remember, the contribution you can make isn't just a donation to a single candidate or political campaign. It's an investment against Republican obstruction (and conservaDem enabling) and an investment toward achieving that more perfect union.
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!
Last cycle, I started an ActBlue page specifically for Democratic Senate candidates working to pick up seats held by Republicans. I named it the Expand the Map! ActBlue page because the goal was to expand the map of competitive Senate seats. The effort was a big success, achieving over 300 contributions and $40,000 for the Democratic Senate candidates included on the page.
Today, I kicked off the 2010 edition of the Expand the Map! ActBlue page with three Democratic candidates for Senate: Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes, and Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak.
In New Hampshire and Missouri, we have the strongest candidates available, candidates who will also make terrific Democratic Senators. In both races, however, fundraising will always be a top priority. Missouri Republican Roy Blunt will be able to tap his lobbyist buddies and corrupt cronies for cash ad nauseum. No doubt the NRSC will also make holding New Hampshire a top priority; and the D.C. GOP establishment has already begun fawning over Palin-esque quitter Kelly Ayotte. Carnahan and Hodes need our support! A few years back, all four of New Hampshire's and Missouri's combined Senate seats were held by Republicans. Wouldn't it feel great to have flipped all four?
In Pennsylvania, y'all know the deal. Arlen Specter was a Republican Senator for decades. Even though he changed his Party affiliation, he's still not a Democrat as far as I'm concerned. Joe Sestak is a real Democrat, and he - not Specter - should win the Democratic primary. But Specter has a significant edge when it comes to campaign cash; and, Ed Rendell will do all he can to shut off Sestak's fundraising. Let Specter, Rendell, etc. know that they can't shut down the netroots by supporting Sestak!
Please, please, please help kick off the 2010 cycle's Expand the Map! effort by sending these highly deserving Democrats a few bucks. $100 makes a huge difference, $20 makes a huge difference, $10 makes a huge difference! Hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make your voice heard.
This is not just a contribution to these Democrats' campaigns. This is a contribution toward slowing and eventually stopping Republican obstruction in the U.S. Senate. Thank you SO much!
Again, this is fantastic news. Now, can we please get someone at least moderately progressive as a Commerce Secretary nominee?
Update (Chris): President Obama's statement is pretty great:
For Immediate Release February 12, 2009
STATEMENT FROM PRESS SECRETARY
ROBERT GIBBS
"Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President's agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama's key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart."
Update 2 (Chris): The timing of Gregg's withdrawal indicates it is part of the broader Republican attempts to oppose President Obama and the Democratic trifecta at all costs. TPM quotes a Democratic congressional staffer:
It's hard not to think that Gregg's withdrawal, with the grumbling about the census and the stimulus, was not timed to cause the most damage possible to the Obama administration. Releasing the statement just as Obama took the stage in Peoria was clearly designed to undermine the President's event. The fact he scheduled a presser only seems to confirm it. The classy exit would have been to wait til tomorrow afternoon to quietly bow out. Basically Gregg decided not just to politely decline, but rather to blow shit up and burn the bridge behind him. Do not think this portends good things for the wider political climate.
If the larger GOP strategy can be describe as putting all of their chips on "FAIL", this has to be seen as a significant addition to that pile, no?
Quick update on the possibility of Democrats reaching sixty seats in the Senate, and thus theoretically having enough Senators to render Republican filibusters impossible.
Anonymous Democratic sources indicate that New Hampshire Republican Senator, Judd Gregg, is now the leading choice for Commerce Secretary.
However, anonymous Republican sources indicate that Gregg would never accept the position unless he was replaced by a Republican in the Senate.
(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.
If we needed confirmation that we have lost control of our energy future, we got it yesterday. President Bush was in Saudia Arabia trying to convince King Abdullah to help out our economy by increasing oil production. According the report I read, the response was "lukewarm." Clearly, we need to take back control of our future by ending our dependence on foreign oil. Today, I presented a plan to do just that-- and it appears below. I would be interested in your comments.
As you all know, our country is facing tremendous challenges.
Today, men and women from New Hampshire are risking their lives for us in Iraq. They are fighting to protect America's interests in the Mideast, and to protect our access to foreign oil.
Today, our nation's economy is being hard hit by oil prices, which have more than doubled since 2003, but our fight for energy independence is woefully under-funded.
Today, we are all living in a world where the polar ice caps are melting.
I wonder if Steve Marchand and Katrina Swett still think it was a good idea to drop out in New Hampshire. A new ARG poll shows a dramatic turnaround in what had long been considered one of the top four pickup opportunities for Democrats:
A new poll to be released today shows Republican Sen. John Sununu has taken over the lead in next year's possible U.S. Senate race against Democratic former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen.
The American Research Group polled 558 likely voters Dec. 16-19 and found Sununu with 52 percent, Shaheen with 41 percent and 7 percent undecided. Earlier ARG polls showed Shaheen leading Sununu, most recently by 46 to 41 percent in September.
Sununu's upsurge could be happening for any number of reasons - or this poll could just be an outlier - but there is one particular possibility: That the recent attacks from Jeanne's husband Billy, against Barack Obama's teenage drug use, might have taken a toll on her Senate campaign.
I wonder if that is what we are seeing in New Hampshire now, too. Billy's Shaheen's attacks against Obama could be doing serious damage to his wife's standing among New Hampshire Independents, among whom Obama leads. Even apart from hurting Shaheen in a key voting block, this is the sort of incident that could make her look like another crass politician by engaging in vicious, racially-tinted character attacks through a surrogate. That won't help her among anyone.
Unfortunately for Democrats, two of her three opponents in the Democratic primary, including her two best funded and most experienced opponents, have dropped out. Jay Buckey is the only candidate Shaheen still faces. Now. Buckey's chances aren't probably any better than Shaheen's, but unless this poll is an outlier, they probably aren't any worse than Shaheen's either.
Update: I should emphasize that the possibility of this poll being an outlier is pretty high. The Governor numbers look screwy, too, for example. We'll have to see what's up when the next polls come out...
No one else is above 5%, and it is strange how all four candidates end up on round numbers. The odds of that are pretty low, about 1-1024. Also, with a 19.0% lead, that means Clinton has reached the firewall point in New Hampshire, where even in the event that she finishes third in Iowa, she would still (narrowly) be projected to win in New Hampshire. That makes this poll a very big moment for the Clinton campaign, as it is actually the first time since February where she is clearly in the driver's seat for the nomination. For a very long time, she was still vulnerable to a second or third place finish in Iowa, while simultaneously trailing in the Iowa polling average.
In the Senate race, Jean Shaheen leads John Sununu in two new polls, but not by the double digit margins that previous polls had shown:
Rasmussen. 9/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines)
It should be noted that the incumbent rule does not, and has never, applied in campaigns where the challenger previously held equivalent elected office (Shaheen was once Governor of New Hampshire). This was even noted in the original paper proposing the incumbent rule theory. So, this does in fact look like a reasonably close race, given that two polls confirm the closer campaign at the same time.
STATE BLOGS
