(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.
A few weeks back, Marjorie Childress had a great article about net neutrality over at the Independent (the other place I write and actually get paid for).
Something interesting that I remember this weekend was seeing which candidates were the most net-friendly. I don't mean just showing up and glad-handing at Netroots Nation or sending staff, but also understanding net neutrality.
And the divide between Democrats and Republicans was as clear as the digital divide between the middle-class urbans and lower-class rural New Mexicans.
The New Mexico Independent was curious about what those who are running for federal office in New Mexico think about the issue. As it turned out, Democratic contenders were all informed on the topic and knew where they stood. Conversely, none of the Republicans running for Congress responded to the inquiry. They either declined to comment because of the complexity of the issue or declined all comment. First Congressional District candidate Darren White refused to respond despite several requests.
I got to speak to both Ben Ray Lujan of the Third Congressional District and Martin Heinrich of the First at length this weekend about various issues.
And of course, net issues came up (we were at Netroots Nation after all!). As Marjorie wrote, both Lujan and Heinrich were informed on the topic. And they both impressed me.
Senate candidate Tom Udall wasn't there, but his was the first I remember having a position on net neutrality. And he had two of his web guys there, mingling with the crowd and pointing out the candidates from other states that I didn't know by sight (turns out that's just about everyone but Darcy Burner and Donna Edwards). In my defense, I know their names and their stances on the issues... I just don't know what they look or sound like.
In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. But so far, it's been all over the map. I'll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the "good guys" are.
First, let's start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill. They do deserve credit, as it's their jobs on the line.
Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.
The New Mexico netroots launched the new True Blue New Mexico campaign earlier this week -- with the Democratic candidates for all the federal races.
You can donate at the True blue New Mexico ActBlue fundraising page, where you'll find the full slate of Democratic candidates New Mexicans can vote for come November.
This year, voters around New Mexico and across the country have voted for change in record numbers, and not just for presidential candidate Barack Obama but for more local races as well. Progressive candidates already shocked incumbents in New Mexico's state Senate primaries earlier this month.
An interview I conducted for New Mexico FBIHOP with one of our finest progressive Representatives soon to be one of our finest progressive Senators.
The folks at the Tom Udall campaign were nice enough to allow New Mexico FBIHOP a few minutes out of Udall's busy schedule to speak to him on the phone after he got off an airplane earlier this week.
We spoke about a number of issues, from Iraq to gas prices to what he will decide in endorsing Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (no, he didn't say who).
Something that came up over and over: gas prices. As anyone who drives (and if you live in New Mexico, then you probably drive a significant amount) knows, gas prices have gone through the roof.
So what is to blame? What can be done?
"We should take a look at price-fixing," Udall told New Mexico FBIHOP in a phone interview. "This administration has been completely lax in looking at whether there is price fixing going on. I supported a price-gouging law. That legislation has passed the House it hasn't been dealt with the Senate yet."
(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.
We are in a unique situation in New Mexico. There is an open Senate seat as well as three open House seats. The other Senate seat is already held by a Democrat (Jeff Bingaman). This means four out of five federal seats are up for grabs. In other words, we have an opportunity to make a True Blue New Mexico.
Today, on January 23, the George W Bush administration, current and former employees alike, will do their best to get Republicans elected. Dick Cheney will hold a fundraiser in DC for Senate candidate Steve Pearce. He has already held a similar DC fundraiser for Heather Wilson. And none other than Karl Rove himself will headline a fundraiser today. Rove will be in Artesia, NM to raise money for the New Mexico Republican Party.
You can do your part by donating to great progressive Democratic candidates (no Bush Dog Dems here) at our ActBlue page
Yesterday, when I claimed that Marty Chavez was implying that Tom Udall was unelectable because he was a liberal by saying "the contrast in records between me and the Congressman won't situate him well for the general election," more than one commenter thought I wasn't giving Chavez a fair shake. Perhaps the quote was taken out of context, or I was simply reading too much into it. Well, today Marty Chavez has offered some clarification:
"I feel very strongly that this is going to be a Democratic pickup and I'm going to be that Democrat, because I'm a moderate Democrat," Chávez said. "I think the Republicans are more afraid of me than some others." (…)
"Philosophically, he's so far to the left," Chávez said. "I'd rather not have him in the race, but that's a challenge I'd not shy away from."
So yes, Marty Chavez is quite clearly stating that he is more electable than Tom Udall because Udall is a leftie, and he, Chavez, is a moderate. But here is my favorite part about Chavez:
"I think I get a bad rap from progressives," he said.(…)
"I have legitimate progressive credentials, but I am pro-business," Chávez said, adding he believes the two can go together.(…)
"I'm a moderate Democrat," Chávez said"
Note to Chavez: you don't get to be both a moderate and a progressive. Doesn't work that way. You can't be both a moderate and a conservative, or a moderate and a liberal, or a moderate and a fascist. If you want to be a moderate, call yourself one. If you want to be a progressive, then call yourself that. Trying to occupy two ideological positions at once is about as an overt sign of pandering as a politician could possibly concoct. Please explain how someone can be both a progressive and a moderate without simultanesouly explaining how those terms have no meaning.
And oh yeah: you might begetting a bad rap from New Mexico progressives for claiming that progressives can't win statewide in New Mexico. You might also be getting a bad rap from reality by claiming that you are more electable than someone who outperforms you in general election polls by 20 points. Just a thought, on both counts.
I'm kind of irritated by this, but mostly I don't get it. Marty Chavez seems to be trying to ward off a Udall entry into the New Mexico Senate primary by calling him a liberal:
"This will not be a sweet primary. It just won't," Chavez said during a telephone interview. "The contrast in records between me and the Congressman won't situate him well for the general election."
Yes, it is certainly irritating to hear a Democrat criticize another Democrat by calling him or her a liberal. As Swing State Project notes, that sort of Republican talking point isn't helpful to Democrats, to put it mildly.
But mostly, I just don't get it. Most voters in Democratic primaries are self-identified liberals and / or progressives, and surely that will be as true in New Mexico as it is almost all places in America that aren't in the south. So how, exactly, does attacking someone for being liberal help someone in a primary campaign? You might as well run for Governor of Massachusetts by attacking someone for being a Massachusetts liberal. Attacking Udall for being liberal will come off as an attack on liberals in New Mexico in general. Insulting voters you need to win doesn't make any sense to me.
It seems to me that electoral success of DLC-nexus types in primaries is dependent on self-identified liberals internalizing the argument that liberals and progressives are unelectable. You can't win too many Democratic primaries without liberals, and so attacks on liberals can only work in primaries if liberals themselves believe the attacks being sent their way. That certainly isn't going to work in New Mexico, where polls show Udall outperforming Chavez by 38 points against Steven Pearce, and 22 points against Heather Wilson. It also won't help when Chavez recently claimed that he is pretty much the same as Udall on the issues, stating "if you look issue by issue I doubt you'll find much difference ... You will find that we will vote together almost all the time."
One of the greatest dangers to the DLC-nexus and conservative wings of the Democratic Party is when liberals and progressives start believing they can actually win. It makes me think that the post-election narrative last year was mainly about conservatives becoming worried that such a belief might actually start to sink in. The last thing liberals and progressives need to hear is that Democrats are winning despite running on virtually the same exact platform as Walter Mondale, or that we have been undergoing a twelve-year shift in national demographics that significantly favors Democrats and progressives. After all, once the Democratic electoral problem is solved, the DLC loses all-purpose entirely. There is no need to keep telling a party that keeps winning elections how to win elections, and there is no need to frame every policy proposal you make in terms of electability when the electorate has a built-in slant in your direction. In other words, there is no role for a concern troll wing of the party when the party is winning.
Like fellow progressive caucus member Peter DeFazio (Oregon) before him, Tom Udall (New Mexico) has opted out of a run for Senate. Both would have had excellent chances. A February poll for the DSCC found DeFazio already ahead of Gordon Smith 42%--38% in a pretty blue state. New Mexico is an open seat in a slightly lean-Democratic state, and Udall reports $712K cash on hand as of June 30th.
These were two seats where Republicans could have been replaced with very, very solid, progressive Democrats. In fact, despite their tendency to recruit Bush Dogs, these were even cases where the Schumer led DSCC would have been happy--if not eager--to have progressives in the race. As an active member of the Blue Majority fundraising page, I would have been personally eager to endorse either one, and I imagine the folks at Blue America would have felt the same way. Jonathan Singer, another member of Blue Majority, was active in both Draft DeFazio and Draft Tom Udall (I believe he founded the later). Basically, everything was in place for these two: very winnable races where they would start in the lead, plus lots of establishment and grassroots support to back them up along the way. They could have replicated Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown in 2006, no problem. And yet they both passed.
At Open Left, we spend a good deal of time criticizing Bush Dogs. However, let me pause for a moment to criticize progressive caucus members. We simply can't build a more progressive Senate if progressive caucus members keep passing up opportunities to run for higher office. If progressives keep passing up on runs at higher office, should we be surprised that the Democrats who end up in higher office are often less than progressive? This is a failure of progressive leadership at the highest levels. I am well aware of the way conservative Democrats are often recruited for Senate by our existing leadership, but the DSCC does not share the entire blame here. In fact, in at least DeFazio's case, they really wanted the progressive to run, as demonstrated by releasing a poll showing the Defazio--Smith trial heat. I can't imagine they would have been opposed to Udall running, either.
We can't build a more progressive Democratic Party if progressive Democrats don't run for higher office. The double DeFazio and Udall let down are extremely disappointing. Honestly, it lowers not only my opinion of both men, but also of the congressional progressive caucus itself. This is a group of representatives who have a huge natural activist base and many great political opportunities to shine, but they consistently fail to step up to the plate. Media bias is not the only reason we hear more about the Blue Dogs than we hear about the caucuses in Congress. Part of it is that they are constantly trumpeting their own ability to stall legislation, their own ideology, and taking advantages of the opportunities presented to them to run for higher office. Progressives just are not doing the same things, at least to the same degrees. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is full of Democrats who could make activists feel a lot better about the party, but they are doing little to provide us with that feeling. They need to start stepping up more--a lot more-and one of the areas to start would be to take advantage of Senate campaigns where you would actually start in the lead.
Show some leadership, please. We are in desperate need of it.
