Congress is where the real battles are being fought and where the Dems can make real gains as the GOP puts all its efforts into squeezing Old Man McCain into the White House. This is our best opportunity in years to put more progressives and especially more women into the House. Why women? They are more apt to be progressive and less scandal prone, for starters. Here are some notable women running to replace male incumbents:
Hard on the heels of a favorable poll showing him 8 points ahead and the indictment of his principal opponent, Mark Begich is our newest Better Democrat.
Mark, running in Alaska for Ted Stevens' Senate seat, is currently mayor of Anchorage. He opposed the FISA capitulation, supports net neutrality, takes a reality and science-based view of global warming, and is pro-choice. He supports responsibly redeploying out of Iraq and overhauling our health care system. Mark is as good as it gets in Alaska on energy issues and he is the kind of sensible Democrat who can win there.
It is likely that Stevens will resign after the primary so that (assuming he wins) the state GOP can pick a replacement. But another candidate in the GOP primary is the self-funding Vic Vickers, who placed a $400,000 ad buy before word came of the indictment.
So Mark still needs our help. Alaska is one of the cheapest media markets, so our dollars will go a long way. You can support Mark here at our Better Democrats Act Blue page, along with recent additions Debbie Cook and Dennis Shulman, who were profiled here.
We will be adding one more Better Dem this week (hint: a South Florida woman).
So put your money where your mouth is and help elect Better Dems.
Mr Tubes going down the same. He's being indicted on 7 counts. Read more on the indictment here and Kos' speculations on the political implications here. The big question seems to be whether he can be replaced on the ticket if he doesn't voluntarily resign.
Update
Stevens is ranking member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, a position he must now resign. It appears that second in line is no other than John McCain, someone who has failed to attend a committee hearing since sometime last year, or, indeed, failed to participate much at all in the Senate since early last year. Will this be an occasion to examine John McCain's chronic Senate absenteeism?
Over the weekend Paul Rosenberg considered this question from the standpoint of trends, macro factors and models. But winning requires good candidates running good races in places where they can win. Looking at the Senate I'd have to go with the pros in Paul's post--the Dems will win a minimum of 4, maybe 5 seats (CO, NH, NM, VA, also AK or OR) and if things break right, 8-10 seats (all of those 6 plus 2-4 of KS, KY, ME, MN, MS and NC.
And the House? A minimum of 20 seems eminently doable, plus another 10 is possible. To see which seats, look on the flip.
There's More...
:: (17
Comments, 660 words in story)
digg it
Next week we will be adding 3-4 names to our Better Democrats list at Act Blue, so watch this space. Here's an update on our current candidates, including the district, Cook PVI and Cook Report rating for each race.
Darcy Burner, WA-08, PVI D+2, Toss up. Darcy had a stellar Q2 in fundraising, outraising Dave Reichert and coming in fifth in the Swing State Project power rankings, with 136% of the cash that Reichert has. In addition, following the tragic loss of her house in a fire, enough was raised to give her a needed break. She is back on the trail.
Sam Bennett, PA-15, PVI D+2, R favored. Sam Bennett, like all of our Better Dems, had a good fundraising quarter, coming within a hair of her incumbent opponent's total and leaping 25 spots in the Swing State power rankings. She now has 52% of her opponent's CoH (solid for a Dem) and has been added to the DCCC's "emerging races" list.
Debbie Cook, CA-46 PVI R+6, Likely R. One of our new additions, Huntington Beach mayor, environmental lawyer and energy expert Debbie Cook was a hit at Netroots Nation. She outraised opponent Dana Rohrabacher for the second straight quarter. Although the 20-year veteran of Congress has a big lead in CoH, Debbie is closing the gap in a year when GOPers are finding fundraising challenging at best. She also has a big lead in enthusiasm.
Eric Massa, NY-29 PVI R+5, Toss up. Eric Massa clocked in at #10 in the Swing State power ratings, our second Better Dem with more CoH (105%)than his incumbent opponent. In what looks to be a very blue year in New York State, Eric continues to vigorously challenge Randy Kuhl in this upstate district. He was unable to come to Netroots Nation this year because of a meeting with labor leaders, but sent his thanks for netroots support.
Tom Perriello, VA-05 PVI R+6, Likely R. Tom Perriello also had an extremely competitive quarter in his bid to unseat turncoat Virgil Goode, and his CoH stands at 62%, very good for a first-time challenger. He continues to build support, hitting Goode on the housing issue, and has been added to the DCCC emerging races list.
Dennis Shulman, NJ-05 PVI R+4, Likely R Our second new addition, Dennis Shulman, the blind rabbi running against extreme right winger Scott Garrett, got a nice write-up in the most recent New Yorker Magazine. He had a good quarter and has 40% of Garrett's CoH in a prohibitively expensive media market. He has been added to the DCCC emerging races list, and should benefit from some DCCC ad buys in the NY/NJ media market.
Jeff Merkley, OR-Sen Jeff's race has been upgraded by Cook to Toss-up, and one recent Rasmussen Poll showed him in the lead. He made a very strong impression at Netroots Nation. His fundraising continues strong, but because of his competitive May primary, he has a long way to go to match his opponent's CoH. Because he is a strong progressive, his race is absolutely key to improving the Senate next year. He needs your support.
That's our round-up for the week.
Please give generously to our Better Democrats and watch for more updates and additions. Keep us all posted on the races you are watching and candidates worthy of progressives' support.
Obama's speech was a terrific reminder that America can lead and be respected in the world if it once again has a President who is a true leader and someone whom the world can respect. To someone who saw news clips of JFK's Berlin speech, this was every bit as exciting. Obama spoke primarily to the young people of Europe and the world, promising them that America would stand with them in facing the very real challenges and sacrifices that lie ahead--terrorists, nuclear weapons, the dark side of globalization, gross inequality, and global climate change. He soundly rejected the idea that any nation, no matter how powerful, could go it alone. Above all this city, he said, reminds us of how much we need each other. The desire for liberty is greater than any of the things that divide us. He called upon people to "tear down the walls" that divide races, countries, religions, ideologies.
As one of the MSNBC commentators said, George Bush goes to Europe and draws huge crowds of protestors. What a treat to see an American leader speak to cheering, enthusiastic crowds again.
And for the home folks, over and over he said how much he loves American and what it has traditionally stood for, the promise that drew his father from Kenya to the US. No one else could have done what he did. McCain seems so small at this moment, so 20th Century.
I had just turned 18 when JFK won his election for President and nothing since has given me such hope for the future. Don't be afraid to let yourself hope, folks. Hope, and work to make that better future a reality.
NBC/WSJ are releasing a poll tonight at 6:30 pm Eastern, but First Read has a preview, and according to their poll, the public supports the Obama-al Maliki position that we need to have a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, rather than the McCain position (whatever it is today) by a margin of 2 to 1, that is, by 60% to 30%.
As many of us predicted, as soon as the public understood that the Iraqis wanted us to set a timeline to leave, they were supportive of the Obama position. Ther public has always supported leaving when things were bad, and also when they seemed ok. Support for staying goes up when things are bad but they are promised to be better in the near future, say, in 6 months. That has always been the appeal of the Friedman Unit. But now that the Iraqi government has made their views clear, the way is cleared for a majority here to also favor a timeline as Obama has proposed.
BY now most everyone has heard that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has essentially validated Obama's timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, putting John "We'll stay for 100 years" McCain in a real box.
Per Josh Marshall, this is a very big deal--perhaps even a game changer.
All understand it is a given that the war is unpopular and that the vast majority of Americans want out as soon as possible. The big of wiggle room is just what's 'possible.' McCain has invested his entire campaign in support for the purportedly nascent Iraqi democracy al Maliki represents and the claim that Obama's support for a timetable for withdrawal irresponsibly risks losing the gains we've achieved and giving Iraq back to al Qaeda.
Here, with a brush of the hand and in so many words, al Maliki says, "No, we're good."
What exactly is McCain to say to that? He can hardly turn against Maliki or say he doesn't have a feel of the situation on the ground.
What's more, he's given Obama want amounts to a potent new talking point by defining American redeployment out of Iraq as 'victory'. Says Maliki: "So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
Caught naked with the towel on the floor, the Bush camp apparently exacerbated the problem by distributing the Reuters story on al-Maliki's remarks, which were made to a German magazine, to a huge distribution list. Said one GOP adviser to Marc Ambinder: "We're fucked."
And the reaction from the McCain camp? It's all politics; al-Maliki is just pandering to the locals to get elected. he really doesn't want us to leave.
"His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out," said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The military says 'conditions based' and Maliki said 'conditions based' yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders."
Oh really? I'd say a public who is very tired of the war and who is told by the Iraqi government that we can leave with honor in 16 months will jump at that statement even if General Petraeus and John McCain want to stay until the end of the century.
Update on the flip
There's More...
:: (29
Comments, 128 words in story)
digg it
We all want better Democrats but we don't want to squander our resources on hopeless causes. We want people who have a chance to win, whose election will make a difference, and where WE can make a real difference. Here are three such races:
Debbie Cook in CA-46 Debbie Cook, the Mayor of Huntington Beach, a lawyer and environmental and energy activist, opposes Dana Rohrabacher, a former Reagan speechwriter, 20-year House veteran, friend of the Taliban both in Afghanistan and in the GOP. She outraised him in Q2. Cook rates it "Likely R" but she is his stiffest challenge ever.
Betsy Markey in CO-04 Betsy Markey, an aide to Senator Ken Salazar, Democratic activist, businesswoman, former government computer security expert and congressional staffer, is running against Marilyn Musgrave, one of the chief gay-bashers and least liked members of Congress. She outraised Musgrave in Q2. Cook rates the race "toss-up".
Dennis Shulman in NJ-05 Dennis Shulman, blind rabbi and psychologist, opposes Scott Garrett, another of the most conservative members of the House. He supports the Responsible Plan (as does Cook), opposes FISA (as do the other two), and is endorsed by J-Street. Ending the war, health care and care of disabled veterans are among his issues.
On the flip: My criteria and more details on the two races.
Daniel De Groot had a post yesterday suggesting more focus on economics issues. Coincidently, or maybe not, this is "economics week" for both the Obama and McCain camps.
Understanding where we are and how we got there is essential to the formulation of smart and effective solutions. The New York Times' Steven Greenhouse has recently written "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker," a book that distills much of what is wrong with our economic situation today. He discusses it at TPM Cafe, setting out what to me is the crux of what is wrong with today's economy:
In recent years, the statistics regarding income disparity in America have been startling. After-tax annual income for the bottom fifth of American households inched up just 6 percent from 1979 to 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. During that time, income for the middle fifth of households grew by a modest 21 percent, with much of that gain caused by women in many households working more hours. Over that same period, income for the top fifth of households jumped by an impressive 80 percent, while income for the top 1 percent more than tripled, soaring by 228 percent.
The highest-earning fifth of households received 51.6 percent of the nation's after-tax income in 2005, meaning that the income of the top fifth exceeded that of the bottom four-fifths. As for the top 1 percent of households, they received more after-tax income than the bottom 40 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A study that Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez did based on federal tax returns found that the top 1 percent of households, averaging $1.1 million in annual income, received nearly 22 percent of all reported income in 2005, up from 9 percent in 1980. That income shift helped create the greatest level of inequality since the Roaring Twenties.
As someone who grew up in the 1940s and 1950s, when the average CEO earned only 40 times the salary of his average worker, instead of over 300 times as it is today, this stalling of the economic escalator is one of the most dismaying aspects of modern America. Quoting Greenhouse again,
Lawrence Summers, the former Harvard president and Treasury Secretary, found that were it not for this increased inequality the bottom 80 percent of Americans would be doing considerably better. If the distribution of income today were the same as in 1979, Summers said, assuming the same level of economic growth since then, income of the bottom 80 percent of Americans would be about $670 billion more a year--or about $8,000 per family. For many households in the bottom half, this would mean a welcome 20 to 30 percent increase in income, perhaps the boost needed to avoid foreclosure.
The return to the class stratification of the Gilded Age is as much a betrayal of the American ideal of opportunity as George W. Bush's security state and executive overreach are a betrayal of the Founders' vision of a government of laws, checks and balances. It has not always been this way and it need not be in the future. How we got here is largely a combination of deregulation moves that allowed those with money to make ever more money through manipulated markets and subsidies while preaching the glories of the free market, and tax policies which allowed them to keep ever more of what they made. The history and politics are very ably set forth at length in this post by DHinMI yesterday at Daily Kos contrasting the New Deal/Great Society years with the Reagan/Bush years.
Rising income inequality is every bit as unsustainable as our excessive energy usage. It risks economic havoc as consumers are unable to continue buying goods and services, it risks political instability and it is morally wrong as an abuse of power and position by the strong and a betrayal of our ideals as a nation. We need to reverse the policies that got us here and try new solutions. Part of what makes us Democrats is a profound belief in the virtues of expanded opportunity and broad prosperity. Let us measure the proposals of the candidates against these principles.
There is good news. First, via Rasmussen, identification with the Democratic Party continues to be high. Caveat, it's all adults, not likely voters, and based on surveys going back just to 2002.
During the month of June, 41.0% of Americans considered themselves to be Democrats, 31.5% said they were Republicans and 27.5% were not affiliated with either major party.
This marks the fifth straight month that the number of Democrats has been between 41.0% and 41.7%. During that same period, the number of Republicans has also stabilized, ranging only from 31.4% to 32.1% [since January 2004]. Prior to February of this year, neither party had ever reached the 39% level of support.
And how does this compare to 2006 and 2004? Much, much better.
In 2004, the Democrats began the year with a 2.3 percentage point edge over the GOP. That grew to 4.0 points by March before moving in the Republican direction for the rest of the year. By Election Day in 2004, the edge for Democrats was a mere 1.6 percentage points.
In 2006, the Democrats began the year with just a 1.6 percentage point advantage. That grew to 6.1 percentage points by November.
Second, the preference for the Dem Party seems to be translating into a preference for Dem congressional candidates. The Cook Political Report yesterday published a new Competitive Race Chart, and it is all good news for the Dems. Preview: They now list 68 potentially competitive seats, and many races with netroots-promoted candidates have made it onto the list.
There's More...
:: (22
Comments, 330 words in story)
digg it
Turns out, not so good. While we angst over Obama's every move and worry about the Dems yet again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, it seems things aren't going too well on the other side of the fence.
First, there were reports of serious grumbling among many GOPers with the McCain campaing:
While the practice of second-guessing presidential campaign decisions is a quadrennial routine, interviews with 16 Republican strategists and state party chairmen - few of whom would agree to talk on the record - reveal a striking level of discord and mounting criticism about the McCain operation.
"It's not just message or not having just one single meta-theme to compete with Obama," said a veteran Republican strategist with close ties to McCain's top advisers. "It's not just fundraising, which is mediocre. And it's not even just organization, which is [just] starting or nonexistent in many states."
"McCain's campaign seems not to have a game plan. I don't see a consistent message," said Ed Rollins, a veteran of Republican presidential campaigns. "As someone who has run campaigns, this campaign is not running smoothly. But none of this matters if they get their act together."
And now reports of a high-level shakeup. within the McCain camp.
And how's that drive to retake Congress going? Between Mitch McConnell's admission that the GOP isn't going to retake the Senate to the anemic GOP prospects in the House, not so good. The vaunted GOP "Regain Our Majority Program" (ROMP II, formerly "Retain Our Majority") has only one open seat contender and two challengers, one of whom is running for Tom DeLay's old TX-22 seat, and 5 incumbents needing defense. And a GOP fundraising machine has been exposed as something out of the Producers, keeping 95% of the money they raised for candidates or funnelling it to cronies.
Meanwhile the Dems "Red to Blue" program has 18 open seat contenders, 20 challengers and another 20 "emerging races," for a total of 50 more than the GOP's list. And the Dems right now have a 37 seat majority in the House. And Dem registration and voter identification are both way up.
So don't get discouraged. Things look better for us right now, as to both electoral prospects and the possibility of positive change, than at any time since I cast my first presidential vote in 1964.
You know the old saying: he who pays the piper calls the tune. Nowhere, as we have seen recently, is that more true than in politics. Now I'm not suggesting that our elected office holders sell their votes. What I am saying is that if we want better Democrats, we have to support the candidates that reflect our values, and offer them an alternative to dependence on corporate money.
Now is one of the key times to make those donations. First, it is still early enough in the cycle for the money to help the candidate hire staff and build an organization to help get their message out to the voters. The money that goes into organization will pay big dividends down the road. By fall most of the money goes for advertising, much of it for 30 second commercials that by then will be reaching diminishing returns. The money that comes in now is what makes the fall push more effective. So don't wait to give.
Second, at midnight on June 30 the second quarter ends. Fundraising reports are due thereafter and will be made public in mid July. Fundraising totals are a prime way that party leaders, opponents, potential supporters and the media gauge the strength of the various candidates. We certainly want our folks to look like strong, successful candidates because that will help bring in even more support and money, maybe even cause some shift in the other side's resources.
We've talked a great deal lately about targeting our resources to get the most good for our investment in candidates. To that end we have created the Open Left Better Democrats page. Donna Edwards has taken her seat with our help and is already providing the kind of leadership we need. Darcy Burner, Jeff Merkley, Sam Bennett, Eric Massa and Tom Perriello all support the responsible plan for ending the war and have issued statements against the recent FISA bill. Regina Thomas has as well and is in a July 15 primary against Blue Dog John Barrow. We need to send them to join Donna as the leaders for our future. We'd like to see 50 supporters and at least $4000 by the end of the quarter. Even $10 can make a difference with enough folks giving.
But the important thing is to give what you can before the end of the month. While we will have profiles of new additions to the list in the coming months (possible ideas here), we likely won't have another major push until the end of September. So do it now!
Not a new generation age-wise, but a new generation of leaders in Congress who weren't there at all, or at least weren't in leadership positions, on 9/11 and in the years immediately thereafter. Those folks, fundamentally decent and hardworking though some of them are, are simply too compromised to be able to lead us out of the wilderness into which Bush and Cheney have led us. That is the plain and simple truth.
It is clear to me now that what happened on the FISA bill was exactly what Jonathan Turley described on Countdown on Thursday.
OLBERMANN: And, also hidden in here behind this headline - if you immunize the telecoms, are you not also immunizing the president, the Bush administration and, to some degree, the Congress that went along with all of these crimes in the last seven years?
TURLEY: Well, there's no question in my mind that there is an obvious level of collusion here. We now know that Democratic leadership knew about the illegal surveillance program almost from its inception. Even when they were campaigning about fighting for civil liberties, they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program as well as a torture program. And ever since that came out, the Democrats have been silently trying to kill any effort to hold anyone accountable because that list could very well include some of their own members.
And, I'm afraid this is Washington politics at the worst. And, so, I think that what you're seeing with this bill is not just caving in to a very powerful lobby, but also caving in to sort of the worst motivations on Capitol Hill since 9/11. You know, the administration was very adept at bringing in Democrats at a time when they knew they couldn't refuse, to make them buy in to this program, and now that investment is bearing fruit.
OLBERMANN: So, it's self-protection is the answer to the question of why Congress didn't let FISA, this bill, at least, go sunset and do this in the next administration. The answer is really self-protection?
TURLEY: I'm afraid it is.
I think that's exactly right. But Barack Obama was not in the Congress until January, 2005. He represents the kind of leadership we need. I do believe he opposes the FISA Bill and understands precisely why it is wrong and unconstitutional. I also believe he is sincere in wanting to craft a new kind of response on national security that doesn't cower before the Bush/Cheney regime, that espouses and sticks to a few basic principles, including the limits of military force and the false trade of civil liberties for safety, and that is nuanced and smart. He wasn't (and still isn't) one of the leadership group who was briefed on so much of the Bush/Cheney constitution-shredding measures that they were sucked in up to their gills, to the point that they were never able to really confront Bush/Cheney. (Kind of explains taking impeachment off the table, doesn't it?)
But Obama wants to get elected, and he knows he will need Congress to govern effectively. He doesn't want to meet the fate of Bill Clinton, who was stymied in several initiatives in his first two years by congressional egos. So Obama knows he will need their help. He must have made the calculation, when they explained their problem to him, that the best he could do was to come out against at least parts of the bill, but he would have to give them cover and couldn't give the ruse away. That's why they waited for the compromise until we had a nominee, why he waited to make a statement until it was basically meaningless, and why he really won't do anything to stop immunity, nor will anyone else.
He is far and away the best we have, precisely because he has been part of that world, and only a minor part at that, for only four years. But he is going to need a leadership team in the Congress, if not next year then in 2011, who is not tainted by their collusion with the worst of Bush/Cheney regime. Slowly but surely the Congressional leadership must be purged and replaced by new leadership who was not suckered into selling our constitutional rights for the chance to feel a little bit powerful, to stay in office, out of fear at being tarred as a traitor.
In the election of 1868, the generation that had brought about the Civil War was summarily thrown from office and replaced by men twenty and thirty years their juniors in what Strauss and Howe call "the largest generational landslide in American history." This time age need not be the determining factor, but whether a person colluded with Bush/Cheney. We can start by electing better Democrats and promoting new leaders, and by exposing what the current leadership appears to have done.
In the wake of the FISA and Iraq funding debacles, getting better Democrats is on all our minds. There are two measures of "better" here--the absolute and the relative. Which Democratic candidates are most likely to be the most progressive in office, and which are going to represent the greatest improvement over the incumbent? Those are where we ought to concentrate our efforts.
Chrisitunity at Swing State Project has an interesting post that uses the kinds of demographic factors that Poblano uses in his analyses to predict who is likeliest to be a progressive, New Dem or Blue Dog if elected to the next Congress. Commenters also suggested looking at whether there was a college or University in the district as a possible "progressivizing" factor.
On this basis, the most likely to be progressive are Jim Himes in CT-04, Dan Seals in IL-10 and Darcy Burner in WA-08, as well as Debbie Cook in CA-46, whose race is ranked lower. Next most are John Adler in NJ-03, Linda Stender in NJ-07 and Gary Peters in MI-09. Among the "maybe" progressives using these criteria are Martin Heinrich in NM-01, Dan Maffei in NY-25 and Eric Massa in NY-29.
But among those who may not be so progressive in an absolute sense are some who would be replacing really bad incumbents, and thus improving the over-all progressivity of the House. Here I'd put Betsy Markey in CO-04 (replacing gay-basher Marilyn Musgrave), Tom Perriello (replacing Virgil Goode in VA-05), Judy Feder in VA-10 (replacing Frank Wolf) and Debbie Cook, mentioned above, replacing Dana Rohrabacher in CA-46. Perriello and Feder both seem to be more progressive than their districts' demographics would suggest.
This is the third is a series. Open seats were profiled first, then our top targets. This is the third, on longshots, then I'll revise the first two in light of recent primaries and events.
Initially, NY-13 moves from "Top Target" to "Open" with the retirement announcement from Vito Fossella. That now makes 25 Open Seats we can contest. I'm moving VA-02 (Drake) to Top Target because of the favorable picture in VA. It is R+6 and Gerald Nye is the Dem.
What makes a longshot? A heavily GOP seat with a stellar candidate, strong to phenomenal fundraising, lots of grassroots support, and unpopular incumbent. These are some of the factors that can propel a candidate to victory even in a strongly Republican district. Or maybe it is a slower-starting candidate in a more favorable district. In any event, here are some districts to watch, with the incumbent, PVI, challenger and, because most are "Safe R," a brief comment about what makes it worth watching.
AL-03 (Rogers) R+4 Josh Segall He's raising cash.
AZ-03 (Shadegg) R+6 Bob Lord Ditto.
CA-45 (Bono-Mack) R+3 Bornstein
CA-46 (Rohrabacher) R+5 Debbie Cook Huntington Beach mayor raises cash
CA-50 (Bilbray) R+5 Nick Leibham
CO-04 (Musgrave) R+9 Betsy Markey
FL-06 (Stearns) R+8 Tim Cunha
FL-08 (Keller) R+3 8/25 primary
FL-09 (Bilirakis) R+4 8/25 primary
FL-18 (Ros-Lehtinen) R+4 Annette Tadddeo
FL-21 (L. Diaz-Balart) R+6 Raul Martinez
FL-25 (M. Diaz-Balart) R+4 Joe Garcia
IL-13 (Biggert) R+5 Scott Harper
IN-03 (Souder) R+16 Michael Mantegano
IN-04 (Buyer) R+17 Nels Anderson
OH-14 (LaTourette) R+2 Bill O'Neill
KS-04 (Tiahrt) R+12 Donald Betts, Jr.
NJ-05 (Garrett) R+4 primary, Shulman
NV-02 (Heller) R+8 Jill Derby
PA-03 (English) R+2 Kathleen Dahlkamper
PA-18 (Murphy) R+2 Steve O'Donnell
SC-01 (Brown) R+10 Linda Ketner Local businesswoman raising cash
SC-02 (Wilson) R+9 Rob Miller
TX-07 (Culberson) R+16 Michael Skelly local businessman raising cash
That's 24 longshots, some really longshots, to watch. The 3 South Florida seats are interesting, particularly as Obama tries to appeal to younger generation of Cuban-Americans who are more interested in contacts with Cuba than the elders. All 3 challengers look promising and are raising respectable amounts of money. Many rate these as "likely R" rather than safe R. The two South Carolina seats are also interesting, especially SC-01. They have been extensively covered at Swing State Project.
Over the past few days we have been treated to dueling tax policies from the two candidates, and if there were ever any question about the contrast between the two, and the direction Obama wants to take, this was it. Obama made it clear that not only is he serious about doing something about inequality in the country, he understands the role of tax policy in exacerbating the divisions that began to grow in the late 1990s.
One of the best breakdowns of the two plans comes from CNN. The most thorough comes from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.
What is clear is that Obama intends to require those who have benefitted from the uneven prosperity of the last 10 years to give something back to the country that made that wealth possible. That the purchasing power of ordinary Americans is falling dangerously should be apparent to anyone; spreading prosperity more widely is not only a matter of fairness, it is essential to keeping our economic system humming and preserving social stability.
Compare the treatment of the top 1% under the two plans, per the Tax Policy Institute:
BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M (top .1%) - $269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up (top 1%) - $45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K (95-99%) - $7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K (90-95%) - $4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K (80-90%) - $2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K (60-80%) - $1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K (41-60%) - $319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K (21-40%) - $113 -$892
Under $19K (0-20%) - $19 -$567
There are three things to notice here: first, under McCain's proposal no one's taxes are raised to replace lost revenue. He evidently believes the Tax Fairy will take care of things. Second, under Obama only the top 1% of earners will see their taxes increased. For the top .1% (approximately 335,000 filers) the difference between the two plans is almost a $1 million difference in their tax bills. Of course for the tippy top, the 146,000 tax filers with the multi-million dollar incomes, the increased tax bill will be very high indeed. Third, the lower four quintiles (0-80%) do better under Obama's plan than McCain's, increasingly better as one goes down the income ladder. This is real relief for the middle class and working poor.
So Obama is pretty aggressively making the case for greater tax equity, appealing to the 99% who will do better under his tax plan. But don't expect the top 1% to give it up willingly, despite how much their incomes have increased over the last ten years. They will fight Obama tooth and nail, through surrogates and shadow groups, with faux populist rhetoric and traditional GOP dirty tricks.
More detail below.
There's More...
:: (26
Comments, 285 words in story)
digg it
In addition to the 24 open seats discussed here, there are 20 top targets and, for the forthcoming last installment, 20 or more long shots. Incumbency is worth at least 5 points, so these seats all have a PVI of R+5 or better, or a strong candidate who at this point is raising nearly as much (>80%) or more money than their target or running against a scandal-plagued incumbent. Here are the seats, again with the incumbent, PVI, Dem candidate and Swing State Project ranking.
AK-01 (Young) R+14 Ethan Berkowitz Tossup
CT-04 (Shays) D+5 Jim Himes Lean R
FL-13 (Buchanan) R+4 Christine Jennings Likely R
FL-24 (Feeney) R+3 8/26 primary, Kosmas Likely R
ID-01 (Sali) R+19 Walt Minnick Likely R
IL-10 (Kirk) D+4 Dan Seals Lean R
MI-07 (Walberg) R+2 Mark Schauer Lean R
MI-09 (Knollenberg) Even Gary Peters Lean R
MO-06 (Graves) R+5 8/5 primary, Barnes Lean R
NC-08 (Hayes) R+3 Larry Kissell Lean R
NY-13 (Fossella) D+1 9/9 primary Tossup
NY-29 (Kuhl) R+6 Eric Massa Lean R
NV-03 (Porter) D+1 8/12 primary, Dina Titus Lean R
OH-01 (Chabot) R+1 Steve Dreihaus Lean R
OH-02 (Schmidt) R+13 Dr. Vic Wulsin Lean R
PA-15 (Dent) D+2 Sam Bennett Safe R
VA-05 (Goode) R+5 Tom Perriello Safe R
VA-10 (Wolf) R+5 Judy Feder Likely R
WA-08 (Reichert) D+2 Darcy Burner Lean R
WV-02 (Capito) R+5 Anne Barth Likely R
The two "safe R" seats were added because of the Dem PVI in PA-15, although Dent has proven to be a tough opponent, and the stellar fundraising of Tom Perriello in VA-05, which is a R+5 district. I might have moved that seat to Likely R. Some others we might have liked to see on this list such as CO-04 (Musgrave) are relegated to long shots at this point, primarily because of fundraising. But it's early, and some candidates have just gotten started. I'd guess at this point that we could take at least half of these seats, some of which (MI-07, NC-08, NY-29, WA-08) I might upgrade to tossups. Some of our best opportunities may come from the longshots. If we get 5 or more from that list, that would make at least 30 seats. But expect the picture to brighten as the campaign progresses.
With Tuesday's eight-point victory by Travis Childers in MS-01, a district with a PVI of R+10, nearly all of the open GOP-held seats must be considered to be in play this cycle. There are now 26 open GOP-held seats, and all but CO-06 (Tancredo) and MS-03 (Pickering) should be in play. We appear to lack a strong candidate in CO-06 (R+10) and MS-03 is an R+13 district. That leaves the following 24 seats, with their current occupant, PVI and Dem candidate(s) and current Swing State Project rating:
AL-02 (Everett) R+13 6/3 primary, Bright and others Likely R
AZ-01 (Renzi) R+6 9/2 primary, Kirkpatrick, Shanker Tossup
CA-04 (Doolittle) R+11 C. Brown Lean R
CA-52 (Hunter) R+9 6/3 primary, Butcher, Lumpkin Safe R
FL-15 (Weldon) R+4 8/25 primary, Blythe Likely R
IL-11 (Weller) R+1 Debbie Halvorsen Lean D
IL-18 (La Hood) R+5 Colleen Callaghan Likely R
LA-04 (McCrery) R+7 primary 11/3 Lean R
MD-01 (Gilchrest) R+10 Frank Kratovil Likely R
MN-03 (Ramstad) R+3 Ashwin Madia Tossup
MO-09 (Hulshof) R+7 8/5 primary, Gaw, Baker Likely R
NJ-03 (Saxton) D+3 John Adler Tossup
NJ-07 (Ferguson) R+1 Linda Stender Tossup
NM-01 (Wilson) D+2 6/3 primary, Heinrich Tossup
NM-02 (Pearce) R+6 6/3 primary, McCamley, Teague Likely R
NY-25 (Walsh) D+3 Dan Maffei Lean D
NY-26 (Reynolds) R+3 9/9 primary, Powers Tossup
OH-07 (Hobson) R+6 Sharen Neuhardt Safe R
OH-15 (Pryce) R+1 Mary Jo Kilroy Tossup
OH-16 (Regula) R+4 John Boccieri Tossup
PA-05 (Peterson) R+10 Mike McCracken Safe R
VA-11 (Davis) R+1 6/10 primary Byrne, Connolly Tossup
WY-AL (Cubin) R+19 Gary Trauner Likely R
So there you have it--that's 24 possible seats, 11 of which are already Tossup or Lean D. In some others our candidate isn't the greatest, but neither is theirs, so we have a chance. In some the PVI is high, but in MD-01 the GOP candidate is a wingnut. We should be able to take 12-16 of these seats. Not too many real progressives, but all of them would be an improvement over the current occupant, in some cases a very substantial improvement.
As Matt noted below, Congress has finished the Farm Bill and is due to send it to the President. Bush says through his Agriculture Secretary that he will veto it.
The issues at stake are discussed in my earlier post and comments thereto. The Farm Bill sets food policy for the next five years. This year, despite the efforts of reformers, food advocates and environmentalists, Speaker Pelosi essentially gave into farm interests in setting the level of direct subsidies, mostly for corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and cotton, but added substantial funds for food stamps, nutrition programs, conservation, organic farming and marketing assistance for growers of fruits and vegetables to get the bill passed. More money for special interests was added in conference to gain more adherents, including a $126 million subsidy for raisers of thoroughbred horses, a sop to Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
The conference negotiators did lower the income levels beyond which direct subsidies would begin to be capped to an adjusted gross income of $750,000 for farmers and $500,000 for landowners, however this would still allow couples with $2.5 million in income to receive subsidies at a time of record crop prices. And it still enacts the expensive new program for "permanent disaster aid" for plains farmers in marginal areas just when global climate change may shift the optimum areas for growing crops.
Barbara Boxer deserves kudos for preventing subsidy advocates from taking the funds from conservation and food programs. But the $300 billion bill that is left is bloated and Bush threatens a veto. Congressional leaders hope to override because of all the goodies, including much-needed food aid, that would be lost if the prior program has to be extended. But remember that the folks who can't quit subsidies for rich non-farmers are some of the same folks who can't fund educational subsidies for our troops or an expansion of the SCHIP children's health program because of "budget concerns." This is lawmaking at its worst, when a supposed "win-win" turns into a big loss for the public interest.
The House-Senate conferees have failed yet again to resolve differences over one of the major pieces of legislation this year, the bloated Farm Bill which, in the midst of a world food crisis fueled by record prices, authorizes over 5 billion dollars annually in subsidies to growers (and once-growers) of corn, wheat, rice cotton, soybeans and a few other crops. Some charge Congress with subsidizing components of the junk food that is partially responsible for the recent increase in obesity, as well as destructive farming practices such as excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers that contribute to water pollution.
As background, the Farm Bill comes up for renewal every five years. The core of the bill is the subsidy program, a relic of the New Deal. In the last few years 1.3 billion dollars has gone to people who don't farm at all. Although subsidies once made up most of the funding provided by the Bill, in recent years nutrition programs have increased in size, this year making up two-thirds of the cost of this year's bill.
Beginning last year a frontal assault on subsidies was launched by food advocates, organic farming advocates, environmentalists and fiscal realists. House Speaker Pelosi, seeking to protect the seats of freshmen representatives from farm states, largely let the farm lobby write the bill, although she has insisted on increased aid for nutrition and food stamps. Farm state Senators also added a big new "permanent disaster" program for mostly wheat farmers in areas where farming has not been successful lately.
Now the bill is stuck on the issue of capping subsidies to the biggest growers and funding the permanent disaster program and nutrition programs. Cuts to child nutrition programs have been proposed, and for programs for fruit and vegetable growers (largely in California) who do not receive subsidies.
Congress has given another two-week extension of the current program to try to reach agreement. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill if direct subsidy payments are not capped at a level much lower than what farm state legislators want, $500,000 in adjusted gross income vs phased caps beginning at just under $1 million to reduce the cost of the bill. Advocates of the bill are betting that Bush won't veto it or they will override. Because much of the conservation, nutrition and food stamp money is new money, there is pressure on reformers to pass the bill as well.
One of the major problems in America today is the growing gap between the rich and not-so-well-off. It is not just that the really rich have so much more compared to the rest of us (cool link), but that upward mobility seems to have stalled for most people as well. As a consequence, as the US slides into recession, many people are struggling just to stay afloat.
While the middle class has remained relatively stagnant, the differences are growing at the extremes.
Since the late 1990's average incomes have declined 2.5 percent for families on the bottom fifth of the country's economic ladder, while incomes have increased 9.1 percent for families on the top fifth, said the report from the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Economic Policy Institute.
The result is that the average incomes of the top five percent of families are 12 times the average incomes of the bottom 20 percent.
In those states with the most pronounced income gaps the differences are even greater: in New York, the average income of the bottom 20% is $17,107 while the average income of the top 5% is $262,679. This means that as an aggregate group the top 5% in New York have 3 times the income of the entire bottom 20%. For the whole report, see here.
These differences did not just happen through the invisible hand of the market. While some are the result of demographic trends, most are the outcome of deliberate policy choices, acting not an invisible hand but a strong thumb on the scales to benefit one group at the expense of another. Different policy choices aimed not at letting the rich make and keep more but on eliminating barriers that frustrate upward mobility, charging the wealthy a fair share of the cost of maintaining the struture that defines and protects their wealth and limiting the growth of great family fortunes will all help redress the balance back towards what it was in the mid-20th century.
A responsible plan for reversing growing income inequality would have three components: fairer tax policies, expanding opportunity and rebuilding the safety net.
We all want more Democrats in the Congress, but how many more is realistic? Senator Chuck Schumer has suggested as many as 8 Senate seats (Dems are ahead in 5 already: VA, NH, NM, CO and AK). The Cook Political Report has been quoted as predicting 5-10 House seats and 3-6 Senate seats. I'll say right now that I think 20 House seats is realistic. How?
First, as the SF Chronicle noted on Monday, 29 House GOPers have announced their retirement, and only 6 Dems plus Tom Lantos' vacant seat (CA-12). So the GOP has many more open seats to try to defend, so many that in their straitened financial circumstances, they can't expect to do much offense.
This creates a historic opportunity for the Dems. Normally, after a "wave" election such as 2006, when 33 House seats changed party, the winners lose at least a few seats in the next election. The Dems won 8 seats back in 1996, following the stunning 1994 election, when the GOP took a net 54 seats and control of the House from the Dems.
But this year is different. The big Dem retirements occurred in 1994, and were a big reason why the GOP took the House that year. In 2006, there were only the normal few retirements; the big GOP defections are occurring this year, as the GOPers consider another 2-4 years in the minority.
Secondly, 1996 was the midpoint of Clinton's first term, while in 2008 the public is clearly fed up with George Bush and the GOP, and may well sweep a Dem into the White House with the help of a swell of new voters, or new Dem voters. And then there is the money issue. The NRCC is dealing with an apparent embezzlement scandal on top of the loss of power, recruitment is down and their candidates just can't get any traction.
So the GOP is weaker than normal, and the Dems position is stronger, portending a possible second wave election. Here's how the races look as of today.
There's More...
:: (17
Comments, 279 words in story)
digg it
Via carpetbagger, This doesn't sound good at all. An iceberg twice the size of Manhattan has broken off the Wilkins Ice Sheet in Antarctica, stunning and alarming scientists. The shelf itself, larger than Connecticut, is now on the verge of collapse.
A vast ice shelf hanging on by a thin strip looks to be the next chunk to break off from the Antarctic Peninsula, the latest sign of global warming's impact on Earth's southernmost continent.
Scientists are shocked by the rapid change of events.
Glaciologist Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado was monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and spotted a huge iceberg measuring 25 miles by 1.5 miles that appeared to have broken away from the shelf.
"Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened," he said. "I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread - we'll know in the next few days and weeks what its fate will be."
This ice shelf was stable until about 1993, and then began to retreat. This is unlike the recent unprecedented melting of sea ice in the the Arctic. In Antarctica, there are huge masses of ice up to 2.5 miles thick that lie on top of bedrock and flow toward the coast (ice sheets), and ice shelves that extend into the sea. The breaking off of part of the ice shelf does not cause a rise in sea level, because the ice shelf is resting on the sea. However, it is a portent of things to come.
According to Bill McKibben, 350 parts per million is the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and we have already exceeded this level. We in the developed world in particular need to reduce our carbon footprint because we use so much. We have only about 10 years to get this right or the changes will be irrevocable. This is just more evidence of that.
Barack Obama's hearalded speech on race is the most honest appraisal of racial problems in America I can remember a politician ever giving. It is long and nuanced, not easy to encapsulate in sound-bites. He describes his experiences in the Trinity United church of Christ and with Reverend Wright, saying that while he disagrees with some of Wright's statements, he understands the frustrations that give rise to such views. He also understands the frustrations that give rise to views such as those expressed by Geraldine Ferraro. Both views, he says, are wrong because they are limited and based on stereotypes, and assume that America is static, that we cannot change.
The entire speech is at TPM Election Central and it is well worth the read.
Here's the nut of the speech:
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
more:
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
And then this:
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
It continues in that vein. It is quite remarkable. His biggest gamble is to treat the subject with the depth and seriousness and complexity that it deserves. He is banking on enough reporters, pundits and voters hearing him out on this very difficult subject. If anyone can move our dialogue on race, our political discourse and our media coverage forward, he can.
If we can't, as he says, we are condemned to repeat this mess over and over again.
Do you believe we can win another 32 House seats from the GOP this cycle? I do. We have two simple goals for the 2008 congressional elections: more and better Democrats. These goals require different, but complementary strategies, and these will be the subject of a forthcoming series of posts. More Democrats posts will focus on those seats Democrats can take from the GOP and those that must be protected, looking for winners. Better Democrats posts will focus on those races where truly better, that is more progressive, Democrats are running, looking for candidates specially deserving of our help.
In comments in this and the last election cycle I have proposed a rough division of labor in which the DCCC protects incumbents and recruits and promotes candidates who, in their judgment, stand a good chance of winning. The Netroots dilutes its clout if it then simply piles into the same races as the DCCC. In a seminal article about "Spreading the Field" Ruy Teixeira, quoting political scientist David Krasno, advocates spending less money on the obvious, high-profile races which end up costing several million dollars, and more on mid-level races where the dollars go farther and the marginal value of each additional dollar is greater.
That should be the main job of the progressive blogosphere--finding and promoting strong candidates in other than the high-profile races. There are several advantages to this.
There's More...
:: (15
Comments, 614 words in story)
digg it
