pageviewsThe AFL-CIO debate last night with 6 of the Democratic contenders for 2008 might be best summed up by the Chicago Sun-Times - "The winner last night was Big Labor" - but, in this debate, there were many honorable mentions.
This decade opened with 9/11, continued with Hurricane Katrina, and is now ending with awful heat waves, mines collapsing, and bridges crumbling. Instead of divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion, the Democrats last night got to finally talk about things that matter to working people everyday.
From Kucinich's passionate lines about NATO and the WTO to the disabled man, with tears in his eyes, asking "What's wrong with America and what will you to do to change it?" to Hillary's "I'm your girl." - this was a debate for everyone with the voices of average Americans being heard.
It's easy to be pessimistic after such a great debate; it's easy to see the father whose daughter had to buy part of her soldier's uniform in Iraq and the woman whose husband had died in the mine in West Virginia last year and think about the many obstacles the next administration has. But, this debate made me optimistic. These trials had truly made these, and all, Americans ready for something more. They were ready to ask the tough questions, while putting themselves on the line on national television, and this gives me hope that one of those Democrats onstage can help to start bringing this country back in the right direction.
Basically, if you didn't see the debate last night (and who thought they wanted to watch another in the long series?), you really should YouTube it/watch as many clips as possible/read some live-blogging. This very real debate was a refreshing break from the campaign non-realities we all get so caught up in.
With Vilsack dropping out of the race, the fundamental dynamics of the race for 2008 have changed. Vilsack was never a big player, but the fact that he was from Iowa had a chance of putting one of the three frontrunners in a devastating fourth place finish.
No longer is that possible. With Vilsack out, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards will surely each place in the top three, meaning Iowa is now a less decisive state, since no one will be eliminated or severely weakened by Iowa. The field will merely be sorted.
With Iowa and New Hampshire likely to each move up a week, Nevada actually becomes more important, and so do New Hampshire and South Carolina. If any of the top three win in Iowa, it may or may not give them momentum into New Hampshire, which will likely give Obama or Clinton a win. If Clinton were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, I think there is really no chance of preventing her steamroll to the nomination. But if Edwards or Obama wins in Iowa, and Obama wins in New Hampshire, Nevada becomes a contest between Obama and Edwards and South Carolina a contest between all three candidates. Even if Biden or Richardson or Dodd were to win second or third in any of these contests, the sheer number (approaching 20 now) of states with wealthy media markets on February 5th eliminate the chance of any of the second tier candidates winning without coming in first in one of the first four states. With the possibility that Florida could move up to the middle of January, that will probably boost Clinton, and give her a delegate lead heading into February 5th.
February 5th could, if Clinton wins the first four or five contests, be a coronation. If the top three split the first four or five states, I think you are likely to see Clinton emerge with a delegate lead but just barely, with Obama winning a huge chunk of delegates and Edwards taking a number of states himself.
With this split decision, each of the other second tier candidates will drop out and Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will split up the rest of February's winnings until the minnier Super Tuesday on March 6th.
That day will likely see Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland take center stage, and you can expect Obama and Edwards to do better than Clinton in those states.
We are then likely to see no candidate emerging with a majority of delegates and head into the August convention with no clear winner. There will be a convention fight and after one or two ballots, Edwards, who I think will come in third, will throw his support to Obama and give him the nomination over Clinton.
I know this seems biased, but I think that unless Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire, this is the situation that will play out. Tell me what you think.
Posted by Adam Hearts Dems at 6:52 PM 2 comments
Labels: ~adam hearts dems, clinton, edwards, obama, takes on '08, vilsack
As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Barack Obama. But as a political handicapper, I can be somewhat objective. I'll take the time now to predict the outcomes of the Presidential nominating fights on both sides.
Let's start with the Democrats. Assuming New Hampshire isn't a jerk, and Florida isn't stupid, the order of the primaries will be Iowa on January 14th, Nevada on January 19th, New Hampshire on January 22nd, and South Carolina on January 29th, with a barrage of states on February 5th, with California, New Jersey, Florida, and Michigan likely participating. That day will include more than a dozen contests, with possibly as many as a third of the Democratic convention's delegates at stake on that one day. At least that's the situation for the Democrats.
The Republicans will hold their Iowa and New Hampshire contests on the same day as the Democrats, but will hold South Carolina a few days after the Democrats do, but before February 5th. The February 5th national primary day will be the same for the Republicans.
So, this is where I think the race stands. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are competing for the top three spots in Iowa with former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. None of the other candidates realistically think they have a shot in Iowa with those four in the race. Because Vilsack is from Iowa, he is in an impossible situation. He must come in first in Iowa just to be a viable candidate, but a win in Iowa is no guarantee he will be a factor anywhere else. If Vilsack comes in anything less than first, he will drop out of the race.
Edwards, because he is the Iowa frontrunner and came in a close second three years ago, he also must win the Iowa caucuses. A second place finish will not kill him, but he'll be sigificantly weakened. A third or fourth place finish would nearly end his campaign. Obama and Clinton, because of their national organizations and frontrunner status, can afford a second or third place finish without being significantly wounded. A first place finish would give either of them unstoppable momentum, but a fourth place finish for either would weaken them severely. The point is, one of those four will be nearly kicked out of the race from Iowa. Iowa is an eliminator.
So then we go to Nevada. Edwards, because of his union support, must get first or second here, anything less would be deadly to him. Bill Richardson, who is from the Southwest and is Latino, must also come in first or second in Nevada to have any relevance in the process whatsoever. Clinton and Obama must come in at least third place, or will be viewed as weak and won't be able to recover. Therefore, Nevada is an eliminator, as one candidate won't survive it.
Next is New Hampshire, where Clinton and Obama are viewed as strongest. This contest will be decisive, as both Obama and Clinton must win, and definitely not come in less than second. Chris Dodd has also staked his claim to the nomination on New Hampshire, since he is from New England. He must place at least third to remain in the game. An Edwards finish lower than fourth would also kill his campaign. Therefore, New Hampshire will eliminate a candidate or severely wound them as well.
Finally, South Carolina is a must win for both Obama and Edwards. Edwards, who won South Carolina in 2004, was born there, and is a son of the South. If he loses the primary, he will be finished. If Obama, who is black, loses a primary where almost 50% of the electorate will be African-American, he will also be finished. Clinton must, simply because of her status, get at least third here. Joe Biden has decided his strategy to the nomination runs through South Carolina, and therefore, a less than third place finish here will kill him.
So after these four contests, where seven candidates all must score in the top three at some point, at least four will be eliminated, and the contests will sort the remaining three in terms of strength. Therefore, our party goes into February 5th with no more than three candidates, with one or two probably stronger than the rest.
Therefore, February 5th has the power to decide the nominee or prolong the fight till early March, when another Super Tuesday will occur. The only people who will have the standing and the money to win on February 5th are Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, and if one of them is already eliminated before that day, it will be decisive. Unfortunately for Edwards, out of the four big states, New Jersey, Michigan, California, and Florida, that hold contests that day, he has no strength in any of them. Therefore, the outcome of that day could depend on whether Clinton or Obama win big on the 5th.
In the end, I think that Edwards will probably not do as well as expected (it's hard when you're the frontrunner in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, you've got to place first in all three or look weak), and Clinton will probably place low in a number of the early contests, weakening her. I think all of the second tier candidates will all flounder, with maybe one exception, who will be eliminated after February 5th. On February 5th, Edwards, who will already be weak form the first few contests, will not do well, eliminating him. Obama and Clinton will probably pretty evenly split wins on February 5th, which will set up a contest leading up to the next Super Tuesday in March. Obama will probably do well in Ohio and some other states that day and Obama and Clinton will be neck and neck until the convention. In fact, I see a convention fight as likely in 2008. I know I'm out there in left field with this thinking, but I believe that Edwards will probably stick it out to the end, as a distant third place, and one of the lesser candidates will also have a sizable delegate count and will stick it out till the convention too. With Hillary and Obama nearly even in the delegate count and both with less than 50% of the delegates, I think we will see this fight go to a second ballot at the convention. The second ballot will probably see some of Edwards' votes go to Clinton and Obama pretty evenly, and Edwards will decide to endorse one or the other on the third ballot, and then we will have our nominee. I think Edwards is likely to endorse Obama, but who knows.
As for the Republicans, who I know a lot less about, I think Iowa will be very decisive. McCain is strong there, but Brownback and Huckabee might surprise some people. I think McCain may end up losing Iowa in an upset, and Brownback and Huckabee will be propelled into the top tier. New Hampshire will be a fight among McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the country club Republican vote, which I think Rudy will win. We then go to South Carolina, where McCain, who will be weakened at this point, will square off against Gilmore, Hunter, Brownback, and Huckabee. The winner of that primary, and the second place finisher, will set up a contest between Rudy, McCain, and either Brownback or Huckabee. I do not think that Romney stands a chance, and I've spoken to evangelicals who tell me that Mormonism is going to really hurt him. We then will go to February 5th, where the conservative alternative, likely Huckabee or Brownback (all the former governors and congressmen in the race will have dropped out by now and Gingrich won't run) will not do very well. Rudy and McCain will clean up, and they will fight it out till March, when a bunch of Southern states will support the conservative alternative. I think, similarly to the Democrats, Republicans will have a brokered convention, where Giuliani and McCain will be roughly tied in the delegate count, and the conservative alternative will have a substantial 10%-20% of the vote. This will set up a second ballot that I think will escape from Rudy to McCain and the conservative and eventually Rudy will endorse McCain on the third ballot in exchange for a VP slot. McCain, in my opinion, will turn out as the nominee.
That's my view of the race, what's yours?
Posted by Adam Hearts Dems at 11:15 AM 2 comments
Labels: ~adam hearts dems, biden, clinton, mccain, obama, takes on '08, vilsack
As the adrenaline from the midterm elections starts to die down and Democrats settle into the business of actually governing in Washington, the 2008 election season has already begun to ramp up.
Quick Political Updates:
-Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), serving a second term as chair of the DSCC, has said that he has firm commitments from all but one of 12 Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2008 to run. Tom Harkin of Iowa remains the lone holdout, but in a caucus-going year, it seems likely that Harkin is just looking for a little good old fashioned butt-kissing before making the inevitable announcement that he will run again. If Harkin unexpectedly decides to opt out of the race, Iowa’s Senate seat will become competitive in 2008.
-Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland was chosen by Speaker Pelosi to head up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2008 cycle. Of the announcement, Roll Call reported that “While Van Hollen was seen as a favorite in the race to replace outgoing Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who said he would not serve another term, the Maryland lawmaker is not viewed as a Pelosi loyalist.” Van Hollen, who co-chaired the DCCC’s “Red to Blue” program in the ’06 cycle, was elected to his seat in the affluent Washington suburbs by a very tight margin in 2002 following a hard-fought primary, defeating moderate Republican incumbent Connie Morella by 4%. Van Hollen was one of only 2 Democrats to unseat incumbent House Republicans in that cycle (he also benefited from 2000 redistricting that moved part of heavily African-American Prince George’s County into Maryland’s 8th District). An affable wonk known affectionately to members of his district simply as “Chris,” Van Hollen—who spoke to GUCD members at October’s general meeting—was chosen for the position over Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, an Emmanuel protégé who shares the Chicago native’s pit-bull attitude. Rahmbo said of the Van Hollen pick, “There is no one better prepared to take the reins of the DCCC than Congressman Van Hollen. Both his personal electoral experience and his leadership of the Red to Blue and recruitment efforts have shown that he is a political strategist and thinker of the first order.” (You can see his full statement here.)
-DNC Chair Howard Dean decided this week that the 2008 DNC presidential nominating convention will be held in Denver, Colorado. In choosing Denver over New York City, Chairman Dean made a strong political statement about the future of the Democratic Party, saying on Thursday that, “I have long believed that the essence of a Democratic victory goes through the West. If we are going to have a national party, we are going to have to have Westerners vote Democratic again on a reliable basis.” Though the Mountain West has been reliably Republican in recent presidential elections, the 2006 midterms showed a region that is trending increasingly blue. In 2004, Colorado had a Republican governor, a Republican legislature, and a 5-to-2 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation. Today, both houses of the state legislature as well as the governorship are in Democratic hands, and a majority (4 out of 7) of its congressional seats are held by Democrats. In 2004, Democrat Ken Salazar won a Colorado Senate seat that was previously held by a Republican. In nearby Montana, libertarian Democrat Jon Tester defeated GOP Sen. Conrad Burns in November, a victory that would have been unfathomable just a few years ago in the solidly red state. Today, the picture in the West is far different for Democrats, and Dean made an excellent political calculation in his long-delayed decision about where to hold the 2008 convention. Though the Denver bid had problems from the start—the city’s original bids were riddled with logistical problems, and labor unions threatened to rebel unless Denver began to unionize its hotels—any future electoral success for the Democrats will depend on recognizing the strong gains Democrats have made in the West. (A sidebar: Some in the party—such as UMBC political scientist Thomas Schaller in his influential new book “Whistling Past Dixie”—have even argued that Democrats should concede the “solid South” to the GOP and concentrate instead on winning votes in the Midwest and Western frontier. This is a dangerously extreme view that overlooks recent Democratic successes in the South. Besides the fact that the last two Democratic presidents have come from the South, Southern states were a sizable part of Democratic victories in 2006, providing prominent freshman Democrats like North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, and the 50 state strategy relies on the premise that Democrats will not concede a single state to the Republicans.)
-But we all know that all of this is just a side show to the real race in 2008: the race for the White House. The 2008 election will be the first time since 1952 that no sitting president or vice president will be running for the White House, representing a primary field that is wide-open in both parties. Though the Iowa caucus is still 356 days away, already a sizable field of contenders is shaping up. A quick glance at who’s in—and out—will be posted later today.
Following up on yesterday's post, I will now go through each of the 21 Republican seats up in 2008 and how we can target and win in every single one. So here we go!
Wayne Allard is our best pickup opportunity in 2008. Allard has made hints that he will retire after two terms in the Senate. If he does retire, expect either ex-Rep. Bob Beauprez (who just lost a race for governor by double digits) or Reps. Tom Tancredo or Marilyn Musgrave to run for the Republican nomination. Expect all of them to lose as Rep. Mark Udall is already planning to run, regardless of Wayne Allard's plans. Udall's raised over $1 million and will be formidable as Colorado is a blue state rising, with a Democratic governor, both houses of the state legislature, a majority in the Congressional delegation and one Democratic US Senator in Ken Salazar. Plus, Allard has only a 43% approval rating in the state and has only raised $100,000 for his reelection. This should be our Pennsylvania of 2008.
Oklahoma should be a prime pickup opportunity for us as well. Sen. Jim Inhofe is a crazy anti-gay bigot who claimed that never in his family's history had their been a gay member, proudly proclaiming this fact on the Senate floor with a picture of his family in the background. He is unpopular at home, with only a 43% approval rating and only a half a million dollars raised for reelection. If popular Democratic governor Brad Henry runs for this seat, he will easily beat Inhofe, as Henry has a 69% approval rating and just won his reelection with 67% of the vote against Republican congressman Ernest Istook. If Gov. Henry doesn't run, Democrats hold 7 of the other 8 statewide offices in Oklahoma, where Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Superintendent of Public Instruction Sandy Garrett each received over 60% of the vote this year as Democrats. If Democrats run anyone of these three candidates against Inhofe, they'll be elected to the US Senate.
Though many think it will be difficult to defeat Saxby Chambliss in Georgia in 2008, he is not a popular Senator, with only 47% approval. He barely won election in 2002, after he smeared triple amputee ex-Sen. Max Cleland. If Sen. Cleland returned to fight for his old seat, I think he could beat Chambliss, who has raised over $2 million. It clearly will take a lot of money to dislodge him, but it's possible. Democrats hold three statewide offices in Georgia, including Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who won 57% of the vote this year, and Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin, who won 56% of the vote this year, and Labor Commissioner Mike Thurmond, who won 55% of the vote this year. If any of those three run, they could certainly upset Chambliss with a bunch of money, and none of them would have to give up their jobs if they lost.
Jon Cornyn is one of the most sinister Republicans in the US Senate. If we could take him down, we'd have scored a major victory. His approval rating is 47% and he's raised nearly $3 million. If Congressman Lloyd Doggett, a conservative Democrat from Austin, challenges Cornyn, it could be a race, considering that Doggett has raised nearly $2 million. Austin Mayor Will Wynn is a Democrat who has deep pockets and could make a race out of it. Dallas Mayor Laura Miller could also make a run of it, as could Houston Mayor Bill White or El Paso Mayor John Cook or San Antonio Mayor Phil Hardberger. Winning in Texas will never be easy for a Democrat, but running the right campaign and raising enough money, could put Cornyn out of a job.
John Sununu is a very vulnerable Senator. Barely elected in 2002 over ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, he is not wildly popular, with only a 50% approval rating. He's only raised $500,000 and New Hampshire is a blue state rising, with Democrats having just taken over the State House and State Senate for the first time since 1911. If you look back to the last time Democrats controlled the Governorship and both Houses of the legislature, you have to go back to 1874. Having also picked up both New Hampshire congressional seats this year, New Hampshire Democrats are poised for a comeback. Considering the state will still play a huge role in the Democratic Presidential primaries in 2008, the Democratic Party here will be very strong. Democratic Gov. John Lynch is wildly popular, with a 74% approval rating, and having just won reelection with the same percentage. I doubt Lynch would be willing to give up the Governorship (New Hampshire Governors run every two years), but if he did, he would cream Sununu. The races for State Senate President and House Speaker in New Hampshire are underway, but whoever the winners are, they should seriously consider taking on Sununu if Lynch decides against a run. A smart and talented in New Hampshire with a lot of money should easily be able to beat Sununu in this blue and getting bluer state.
Lamar Alexander is waiting for a smackdown in Tennessee. With only a 51% approval rating and only $300,000 in the bank, he's not looking great for reelection. If popular Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen decides to run, he will be slightly favored in this race, and would not have to leave the Governorship if he loses. With a 62% approval rating and having just won reelection with 69%, he is very well positioned to beat Alexander. With Democrats controlling the State House and with only a one-seat deficit in the State Senate and half of the TN congressional delegation, there are plenty of candidates to choose from. While Bredesen would have a great time picking up this seat, there are plenty of Democrats who could beat Alexander too.
Norm Coleman is looking extremely vulnerable in a blue state like Minnesota. The only reason he won in 2002 was because Paul Wellstone's funeral was made into a media animal by the GOP. Had Sen. Wellstone lived, he would have easily beat Coleman. But it looks like Al Franken will make a run against Coleman, and if he does, look for him to score an upset and win. If Franken doesn't run, Democrats have a large bench in the state to beat Coleman, who has a 52% approval rating and almost $2 million in the bank. With Democrats now controlling the State Senate and the State House in Minnesota and a majority in the Congressional delegation, any Democratic candidate could have a great shot at picking up this seat. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, Attorney General Lori Swanson, and State Auditor Rebecca Otto could all make great candidates if Franken decides against a run.
Gordon Smith is a Red Senator in a blue state. Oregon has a deep Democratic bench and control of the Governorship, the State Senate and the State House, as well as five of six Congressional seats. Smith's approval rating is 51% and he has raised over $2 million, clearly afraid of a tough challenge. But Congressmen Wu, Blumenauer, DeFazio, and Hooley are all looking at challenging Smith, with Wu having raised the most with over $500,000 in the bank. Smith is very vulnerable and with a good Democratic candidate, he should be beaten.
Lindsay Graham will be very hard to beat in 2008. And it's not because he's so popular, with only a 53% approval rating and a hatred from SC's right, he could face serious primary opposition in 2008. But with over $2 million in the bank and no Democrat in the state who's popular and holds elective office, it seems difficult to consider beating him. The only Democrat to still hold statewide office in SC is Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, who won this year by 200 votes out of over 1 million cast. Unless there are some strong Democrats in SC that I don't know about, we have very little chance of picking this up, unless Inez Tennenbaum wants to come back and make a run of it.
Pat Roberts in Kansas only has a 53% approval rating and has only raised $700,000 in a run for reelection, signaling a possible retirement. If he retires, it looks like Rep. Moran or Tiahrt will run for the Republican nomination, having raised $1.3 million and $800,000 respectively. But either way, it looks like Democrats have a great chance to pick up this seat if popular Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius runs for the seat. With a 62% approval rating and having just won reelection with 58% of the vote, Sebelius looks well positioned to beat Roberts or take the open seat. But Democrats have a deep bench here, with former Republicans switching to the Democratic Party all over the place and taking a huge number of statewide elected offices. State Attorney General and former Republican Paul Morrison, who just won with 58% of the vote or Lieutenant Governor Mark Parkinson (a former Republican too) could also run, without having to give up their jobs, either, if Sebelius decides against a run. But either way, this looks like a prime pickup opportunity, with Republican defections everywhere.
Even though Chuck Hagel has a 55% approval rating, he has only raised $100,000 for reelection and is widely expected to retire, probably to run for President. If he retires, Congressional candidates Scott Kleeb, Jim Esch, and former Lt. Gov. Maxine Moul, who all did surprisingly well in their congressional races this year, all getting over 40% of the vote in this deep red state, could all run. Though they would have to raise quite a lot of money to combat Reps. Terry or Fortenberry, they could have a good shot at picking up this open seat if they can raise a couple of million dollars.
Larry Craig has been rumored to be retiring and very well could be, having only raised $300,000 and facing a primary challenge from the right in the form of Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez. A grueling primary fight could leave Craig bloodied, and an open seat could give us the opportunity to run ID-01 Congressional Candidate Larry Grant, who came very close to beating crazy Republican Bill Sali. Though this is a longshot, and Idaho is a very Republican state, having voted down every Democrat running for statewide office this year, it's worth a shot. I'm sure Idaho Democrats could find someone credible to give Craig or the Republican nominee a run for his money.
Mitch McConnell will be Senate Minority Leader and has a lot of money in the bank, $2.6 million to be exact. With a 53% approval rating, he is beatable, and with a good candidate, he could be beaten. If Congressman Ben Chandler, Attorney General Greg Stumbo, State Treasurer Jonathan Miller, State Auditor Crit Luallen, or State Senator Dan Mongiardo made a run for this seat, they all could have a great chance of winning it. It will be tough, and McConnell's fundraising prowess will make life difficult for a Democrat, but if McConnell makes himself look like an ass as Minority Leader in the next two years, KY Dems could beat him.
Sen. Elizabeth Dole could theoretically retire, after humiliating herself as NRSC chair this year and being very old, but is likely to run for reelection. If she does, term-limited Democratic Governor Mike Easley, with a 57% approval rating, should run against her. Dole's fundraising has been anemic, with only $200,000 in the bank. If Mike Easley can raise a lot of money, he could definitely beat Dole. If Easley decides against a run, ex-Sen. John Edwards could decide to return to the Senate if he loses the Democratic nomination for President. If both decide against a run, North Carolina has a huge bench of Democratic statewide elected officials who could run against Dole, though Easley is the clearest choice. Dole has a 58% approval rating, which is strong, but remember that Chafee had an approval rating in the low sixties two years out from his defeat this past Tuesday.
John Warner is expected to retire in 2008, having raised only $700,000 for reelection. With the strong possibility that popular former Governor Mark Warner will run for the seat, John Warner will probably retire to avoid a brutal defeat. With an open seat, and Reps. Tom Davis or Bob Goodlatte likely to run for the Republican nomination, it looks like the only thing that will change about the Senator from Virginia will be the first name, from John to Mark. John Warner has a 56% approval rating, while Mark Warner left the governorship with an 80% approval rating. Against Warner or Davis or Goodlatte, Mark Warner should have an easy time winning a seat in the United States Senate, and he would be foolish not to run. With huge popularity, a winning campaign apparatus, Virginia's turn to blue status, and deep pockets to pay for a run, Mark Warner should be our best pickup opportunity in 2008.
Jeff Sessions has a 60% approval rating, has $1.5 million in the bank, and is from Alabama. While it seems nearly impossible to beat him, conservative Democratic Congressman Bud Cramer has $1.7 million in the bank and could beat Sessions if he runs a good campaign. Rep. Artur Davis has also announced he plans to run for the Senate, though his $250,000 in the bank doesn't look like enough for a statewide race. If Bud Cramer runs, this will be a prime pickup opportunity in 2008. If he doesn't run, ex-Gov. and newly elected Lt. Gov (returning to another old job) Jim Folsom, Jr. could run a good campaign and beat Sessions too.
In Wyoming, Mike Enzi might retire, which could allow popular Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal an easy path to the US Senate. With a 61% approval rating, however, Enzi is not unbeatable in a direct matchup against Freudenthal, who has a 71% approval rating. Enzi only has $200,000 in the bank, and if Freudenthal can raise a lot of money, he should be able to make this a prime pickup opportunity. Having just won 70% of the vote in his reelection, Freudenthal would be formidable as a challenger or in an open-seat race. If he doesn't run, Congressional Candidate Gary Trauner, who could theoretically still win the Congressional seat he's down in by less than a thousand votes after a recount, could run. Trauner would have far less of a chance than Freudenthal, who really should run.
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (approval of 59%) looks like he's finally ready to retire, frustrated by his lack of progress on ANWR and having raised less than $200,000 for his reelection. Though Alaska has looked good for us two cycles in a row, with little success, this year could be different. Tony Knowles could run for the third cycle in a row, though I don't think he has the stomach for it. Ethan Berkowitz, the State House Minority Leader, or State Rep. Eric Croft, could run. But Alaska doesn't have a great crop of Democrats in office. That being said, if Stevens' retirement creates a bitterly divisive and nasty GOP primary that bloodies the nominee, Democrats could have an opening here.
Susan Collins is very popular, but also pledged only to serve two-terms and it looks like she might retire, having only raised $400,000 for her reelection. If she runs again, she will be hard to beat, having a 69% approval rating, though attacking her for breaking her two-term pledge in a blue state like Maine could signal her defeat. If she decides not to run, it looks like Rep. Tom Allen, who has raised $440,000, could take this seat. Run, Allen, run!
Pete Domenici, who has been in the Senate for six terms, and has only raised $265,000, looks ready to retire. With a 66% approval rating, he'd be hard to beat without Gov. Bill Richardson, who has a 69% approval rating, running against him. But if he retires, a lot of Democrats could pickup this seat, including Richardson, Rep. Tom Udall (Mark's cousin, who has raised almost $800,000, could we have two Udalls in the Senate?), Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, Sec. of State Mary Herrera, State Auditor Hector Balderas, State Treasurer James Lewis, or Attorney General Gary King. If Domenici doesn't retire, and Richardson isn't the VP or the Presidential nominee, he should run for this seat. Otherwise, we could relatively easily pick this up with an open seat.
Finally, Thad Cochran (69% approval) in Mississippi simply can't be beaten unless he retires. And thank God he looks likely to do just that. After five terms in the Senate, Cochran's retirement could allow former Attorney General Mike Moore, current Attorney General Jim Hood, Congressman Gene Taylor, Secretary of State Eric Clark, or State Insurance Commissioner George Dale to take the seat. Cochran has raised only $350,000, and if he retires, it looks like MS will be a great pickup opportunity for us.
So there you go, every seat. If everything goes well in every state, with the best candidate running on our side, and huge retirements on their side, it looks like there's not a single GOP seat up in 2008 that we can't win. But assuming retirements are slim, and we don't get our best candidates, we still look like we can make about 10 Senate races competitive, and hopefully pick up 5. If we can make 15-18 GOP seats competitive in 2008, we could end up with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2009, which would be terrific.
But let's keep in mind that this list has a number of women, Latinos, African-Americans, and Asian Americans as top candidates for office. As Chuck Schumer works to recruit the best candidate in every seat, he should be mindful of increasing these groups' representations in the Senate in 2009. Tell me all what you think, and let's put the pressure on Chuck to challenge every seat in 2008, and challenge them well. Everyone should individually push for their best candidates in each of their own states as well.
Posted by Adam Hearts Dems at 8:36 PM 2 comments
Labels: ~adam hearts dems, republican race, takes on '08
Democrats did an amazing job this year. We took back the majority in both houses of Congress, a majority of our nation's governors, a majority of state legislatures, and a majority of state legislators for the first time in twelve years. It was a massive victory and we have a lot for which to be proud.
But in 2008, we risk letting our majorities decline or weaken if we are aggressive about pursuing every single Senate, House, and Governor's race in the country as if they were top tier races.
You're crazy, Adam. Come on, challenge every seat?! We'll never be able to win every seat in the House and Senate and every governorship, so why waste our limited resources? Because it works.
Take this year. Jeb Bradley (NH-01) was an entrenched incumbent who had little chance of losing this year. Had we let this seat go unchallenged, we would not have been able to take advantage of the massive wave that hit the House of Representatives this year, electing Carol Shea-Porter to Congress, who, if she works hard, should represent this swing district for years to come. Had we not put up a challenger in FL-16, because Rep. Mark Foley consistently won with over 65% of the vote, we would not have elected Tim Mahoney to Congress after the Foley scandal.
So challenging every seat is critical. Waves, scandals, and personal gaffes (take Allen vs. Webb) can make long-shot races seem extremely plausible and easily winnable in most circumstances. So while I call on whoever is chosen to head the DCCC and the chair of the DGA to recruit great candidates for House and Governor in 2008 in every available seat, where we need to focus our recruitment focus is the United States Senate.
In 2008, Democrats are extremely lucky. Republicans have 21 seats to defend, including 7 freshmen (the easiest to knock off). Democrats have 12 seats to defend (with only one freshman). The picture gets better when you look at blue states versus red states. If you look at states where Democrats control at least three of the following (the Governorship, the majority of the Congressional delegation, at least one Senate seat, the State Senate, and the State House), there are nine states with a Republican Senate seat up in 2008 that meet that criteria, indicating that it is a states with much Democratic potential. Those states are Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee. By comparison, there are only 2 Democratic Senate seats up in 2008 that have Republicans holding three of the criteria. In other words, Democrats are running in Democratic territory and a lot of Republicans are not running in Republican territory.
Considering that there are expected to be very few open seats on our side in 2008 (Kerry, Biden, Lautenberg, and Rockefeller are the only possibilities, and none are guaranteed) and the GOP is expecting quite a lot of retirements (Allard, Hagel, Warner, and Stevens are all expected to retire and Cochran, Domenici, Collins, Craig, Inhofe, and Roberts have all been rumored to be thinking about it), it seems likely that the Senate field will be extremely favorable to Democrats in 2008. Assuming we have a strong Democratic nominee at the top of the ticket (my favorite is Senator Obama, but whomever you want), we should be able to hold almost all of our 12 seats, and pickup close to half of the 21 GOP seats, if we run strong challengers in every state.
So why don't we take a closer look at the Senate picture in 2008? Here's a state-by-state analysis.
Frank Lautenberg (NJ) will be one of our hardest incumbents to defend come 2008. Even though New Jersey is a reliably Democratic state that demonstrated that to us once again in 2006, Senator Lautenberg is the most unpopular Democratic Senator in the US Senate and one of the most unpopular overall. Assuming he runs, he'll face a stiff challenge from either 2006 GOP nominee Tom Kean, Jr., or US Attorney Chris Christie, or possibly a comeback from Christie Todd Whitman or Tom Kean, Sr., or any other of a number of GOP wannabees. I think Lautenberg will be able to hold them off and he'll certainly be better funded, but watch out for a close race. If Lautenberg retires, our chances of holding the seat depend on the Democratic nominee, who will almost surely be one of the six veteran Democratic congressmen in the state (my personal favorite is Rush Holt of NJ-12). If the Democratic nominee runs a strong campaign, and the Republicans don't nominate their best candidate, Dems should hold this seat easily.
Mary Landrieu (LA) will certainly be hard to defend, as she barely won reelection in 2002, and her approval rating is below 50%. Hurricane Katrina further jolted her popularity, and a sizable portion of her Democratic base has left the state fleeing Katrina. If the Republicans run a strong candidate, who is well-funded, Landrieu will be in the race of her life.
John Kerry (MA) may retire, in which case one of the 10 Democratic congressmen in the state will easily replace him. If he doesn't retire, he'll easily win. This is Massachusetts after all.
Mark Pryor (AR) won an upset in 2002 and is moderately popular with a 54% approval rating. If the GOP doesn't find a strong candidate to run against him (and in Arkansas, Democrats control everything, so it will not be easy), Pryor will easily retain his seat.
Dick Durbin (IL) is moderately popular and lives in an extremely Democratic state with no serious Republicans to run against him. He won handily in 2002 and should have no problem winning reelection.
Carl Levin (MI) is popular, won't be seriously challenged, and will win reelection handily.
Jay Rockefeller (WV) is extremely popular, and will likely not face any serious opposition in a state with few Republicans in elective office. If he retires, expect this to be hard to keep from Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R), but if he doesn't, this is a breeze.
Joe Biden (DE) is running for President, and if he retires, his son, Beau Biden, newly elected Delaware Attorney General, is likely to hold the seat. If he doesn't retire, the older Biden will win handily.
Tim Johnson barely won reelection in 2002, winning by about 500 votes. However, he is extremely popular now, with a 67% approval rating. Unless Gov. Mike Rounds (R) runs, he'll breeze to reelection. Even if Rounds runs, Johnson is favored to hold the seat.
Jack Reed (RI) is a Democrat in Rhode Island, and popular to boot. 'Nuff said.
So there you go, even in the worst case scenario, only six Democratically held seats will be remotely competitive in 2008, and the Democrat is favored to win all of those races except maybe Louisiana and West Virginia if Rockefeller retires.
The GOP is not so lucky. But I'll save that for a later post. Stay tuned!
Posted by Adam Hearts Dems at 8:57 PM 0 comments
Labels: ~adam hearts dems, senate race, takes on '08
Now that we've covered the Dems, let's take a look at the Republican nomination fight. (Disclaimer: I do not like any of the Republicans, so all objective analysis here.)
The Republican nomination will largely be decided by the 2006 midterms. If Republicans pick up seats (a near impossibility), a lame party-line conservative like Frist may win. If Republicans lose seats, but do not lose either house of Congress, conservatives will feel the need to nominate a Reaganesque conservative like George Allen. If Republicans lose one or more houses of Congress, Republicans will desperately seek sometime with cross-party appeal who can assure them victory, someone like John McCain, Chuck Hagel, or for those of you in fantasyland, Rudy Guiliani or Condoleeza Rice.
The way I see it, the Republican candidates are divided into the have-no-chances, the longshots, and the likelies. The have-no-chances are Gov. George Pataki of New York, who visited Iowa again this week, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who is looking like not running now that the immigration issue has come front and center, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is not running, so all you young conservatives out there can stop salivating (even if she ran, the day the Republicans nominate a pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, unmarried, black female intellectual internationalist, I'll become a Republican). The longshots are Bill Frist, Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Chuck Hagel, Sam Brownback, and Newt Gingrich.
Let's run through these.
Bill Frist - The man is boring! He is currently taking speech lessons, he has been a terrible majority (being worse than Trent Lott and Bob Dole is a difficult feat), he has no support among religious conservatives and very little establishment support. My theory is he will drop out after South Carolina, where he will have lost every contest up to that point.
Rudy Guiliani - The man is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control in a party that wouldn't nominate someone who is just one of those things! Rudy Guiliani won't end up running, but if he does, just running on a strong national defense, tough on crime, and pro-tax cuts won't cut it. He will have to answer to his two marriages, his adultery, his having lived with a gay couple once, and his failure as a mayor prior to 9/11. As we get farther from 9/11, his fame and celebrity diminsh, and when conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina find out about his liberalism, he won't even come in fifth.
Mike Huckabee - He's a nice guy who has worked hard on the obesity issue nationally, but he's not a small government conservative. He believes in government that works to solve social problems, a philosophy that will not go over well with the libertarian strain of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire. The man has low name recognition, and while his religious pull (he's a former Baptist minister) and his speaking style (he's a former Baptist minister) will make him a force in the debates, he won't get farther than maybe the VP slot, and that's pushing it.
Mitt Romney - The media has recently fallen in love with this guy. The conservatives think he's their man, and while he has pulled out his punches on the religious social issues, strongly worked against gay marriage in Massachusetts and has fought against stem cell research, his recent conversion to the pro-life community may ring too much of another Massachusetts flip-flopper for a number of Republicans. And as much as winning means to the GOP, they're not ready to nominate a Massachusetts politician, that's just too far outside the South for them. And finally, the man's a Mormon, and while we live in a much more tolerant society than when Jack Kennedy ran as a Catholic in 1960, most evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult that perverts Christianity. I've heard it from evangelicals I know, and they won't easily nominate him.
Chuck Hagel - If the war in Iraq still goes badly, and the country turns against the war, including most Republicans, Chuck Hagel may have a shot, since he is conservative on most issues except the war. However, Chuck Hagel is a lightweight candidate and even if the GOP turns against the war, and I don't think that will happen, he doesn't have much appeal among any faction of the Republican party.
Sam Brownback - The guy's a committed social and religious conservative and beloved by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. But the guy is a big government lover, and the business community, the libertarians, and the fiscal conservatives do not like the guy. He is charismatic and if some other people drop out, he may have a chance. But he is not anyone's first pick, and probably will not be.
Newt Gingrich - There is no one in the GOP who is smarter, wiser, a better strategist, and a better communicator than Newt Gingrich. He can go anywhere in the country and grab Republicans' attention, and he inspires a bunch of conservatives. He would be extremely formidable in a debate. But he has become a caricature. He looks like the devil to the media, the Democrats, and most of the country and people will not forget his affair, divorce, and remarriage easily. If Newt Gingrich had run in 1995 for President, he would be easily elected, but the damage has been done.
So here we come to the two candidates from which I strongly believe the GOP will pick a nominee. George Allen and John McCain.
Both have enormous establishment support, both have a strong appeal to the 1994 Republican revolutionaries, both are liked by mavericks in the party. Both are strong fiscal conservatives, who are conservative enough on social issues to get the religious types in line. But there is one difference, George Allen is liked by the Rush Limbaugh types, the partisan conservatives who want someone they can trust to be conservative down the line. These guys hate McCain. McCain has something Allen does not, electability. While McCain's move to the right now will damage his image as a maverick, centrist, independent, stright-talking truth teller, he will still have immense cross-party appeal and it is unlikely any Democrat will have an easy time beating him, no matter how bad the shape of the Republican Party is by 2008. If Republicans feel that power is slipping through their fingers, they'll go with the guy who can easily win, but who they will trust on most issues. If George Allen can't prove that he can definitely win the general, McCain will be the nominee.
Senate and House Forecasts in the Future.
I'd like to thank Or for his arguments in the last post. This is an important debate to have. We need to discuss these issues so that we can choose a nominee in 2008 that reflects our values and our hopes and who is able to lead not only our party to victory but our country into the future. I do not believe Senator Clinton is the person to do that. I have looked to the rest of the primary field and I fail to find an alternative either. Evan Bayh is too cautious, Mark Warner is severely inexperienced, John Kerry is old news, John Edwards lacks gravitas, Wesley Clark is too new to politics, Bill Richardson doesn't inspire, Tom Vilsack is too boring, Tom Daschle is nuts to run, Russ Feingold is creating a perception of radicalism, and Joe Biden has been in the Senate far too long. This does not mean I will not eventually throw my weight behind any of these candidates. One of them will probably be our next president, or at least our nominee; but I fear that we as a party have an opportunity, presented to us by the failed policies of the conservative movement, to do something more than win an election. We have the chance to win in the battleground of ideas. Let me elaborate further.
Democrats are too timid. We lack a spine. There is no reason we shouldn't call for universal pre-school, universal college, universal health care, a balanced budget, and a concerted effort to eliminate poverty in our nation and around the world. Our policies are not unpopular with Americans; they're unpopular with corporations. I have not seen a single poll showing that the American people think that only the rich should get treatment for illness, that only the children of CEO's should go to college and pre-school, that only a few should have the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
The reason I have called on Senator Obama to run is because he is the only person who I believe deeply cares about and understands these issues and the people affected by them, and the only person I believe has the ability to effectively communicate our values as a party. If this is too early, then maybe Senator Obama will fail. Maybe, like Ronald Reagan, who ran in 1968 after two years as governor, he will run again and again until he wins (Reagan ran again in 1976 and 1980 before being elected to the Presidency). But I am not calling for Senator Obama to run because I want him to eventually be President, I am asking him to run now because we need him to be our President.
Our country is in serious pain. I hear it on my dorm floor. Conservatives scream at me for wanting to kill babies, for destroying religious freedom by allowing deviant homosexuals to marry, for depressing the morale of our troops in Iraq by calling for them to come home, and for wanting to take away the "hard-earned money" of CEO's making $7 million bonuses so that poor kids can go to college. They call me a racist for supporting affirmative action simply as a temporary solution so minorities can seek their potential until we fix our broken educational and economic system. On race, religion, political affiliation, gender, age, sexual orientation, ideology, and nationality, there are enormous divisions in our country. It saddens me that we fail to look to the long-term and address dangerous problems like global warming, anti-Americanism in every continent, growing global poverty, HIV/AIDS, the financial insolvency of Medicare (while Social Security is very solvent for at least three generations, I will post on this later, Medicare will be insolvent in the next decade), the unnerving effects of globalization, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the problem of the uninsured and the undereducated. We need serious leaders committed to tackling these tough issues now, who have strong principles but who are willing to compromise to achieve good ends, who can challenge and inspire our nation to sacrifice a little self-interest for the common good, who will once again make the United States the moral and political leader of the free world, and who will debunk all the myths and lies about politics by demonstrating to the American people that our elected leadership genuinely cares about helping others and serving their communities.
Senator Obama is that man. He is the product of an interracial and international marriage (his father was Kenyan, his mother was Kansan). He used drugs as a teenager and got involved with gangs. But he also went to college (Columbia University) and law school (Harvard, where he was President of the Harvard Law Review, the first African-American in the position) because he worked hard, played by the rules, changed his life around, and believed in the American Dream. He was a practicing Muslim in his youth, and converted to Christianity, and is as devout as any evangelical. He moved to Chicago and New York after law school, not to seek big money, but to help the little guy by being a civil rights lawyer and then creating a voter registration initiative that registered 100,000 people in 1992 in Chicago. He has lived the lives of Americans from all walks of life and understands the issues that we all face. But through all the pain (his father left the country when he was two and Obama never saw him again), he never lost hope; even with a "funny name," this skinny kid is a United States Senator from the Land of Lincoln. In all the poverty that he has seen, he still believes that anyone in America can get ahead. With racism and intolerance subtly permeating every institution in our country, Senator Obama sees a world where African-Americans stop viewing intellectualism as "white" and where white people become better by working with and learning from their black friends. Senator Obama is the embodiment of the American character and the country needs him to lead.
Or makes good points about the political ramifications of Senator Obama's age and experience in comparison to other "lucky" Presidents like Wilson and Carter. But the winds are changing, and Senator Obama has only beaten the odds and pulled major upsets (he was running fourth in the Dmeocratic primary polls in Illinois until the primary and won a decisive majority in a large field). Senator Obama, even before the GOP changed candidates and the sex scandal with Jack Ryan came out, was ahead of his opponent by 22 points, before he was well-known. Senator Obama stuns people; he stuns me. I still believe in an America that challenges the conventional wisdom, embodied by Charlie Cook (whom I think is brilliant), and surprises the world. We have a choice in our party in 2008; do we want to win an election, do we want to defeat the Republicans, do we want to govern effectively, or do we want to change the world for the better? I want to do all of these things, and I strongly believe that there is no one in our party better suited than Senator Obama to accomplish them.
Maybe it is too early for Senator Obama, and maybe he will fail. But maybe he won't, and maybe we will see an America again that amazes us all, and makes us believe in miracles again.
Posted by Adam Hearts Dems at 4:53 PM 0 comments
Labels: ~adam hearts dems, obama, takes on '08, vilsack
Like most Democrats, I'm an enormous fan of Barack Obama. I want him to be President. But I don't think Obama should run in 2008. Adam's right in that race is more an asset than a liability for Obama. However, I have a few problems with his argument about age, and completely disagree with his argument about experience. Finally, Adam leaves something important out of the equation: opposition.
Let's start with the section on age. Obama is definitely not physically too young to be president. However, in politics, actual age matters a lot less than perception of age. Kennedy was a young president, Clinton was not. The three years didn't make a difference; Kennedy was just "youthful." Similarly, Edwards was a young candidate. It doesn't matter at all that he was 51; the same youthful good looks that made certain people on the GUCD board fall head over heels for Edwards made sure that everyone saw him as a young guy. Of course, a good campaign can define the candidate as whatever age it wants to, but it takes a considerable amount of effort to redefine a "young" candidate as "seasoned." With that said, Obama's age is not an insurmountable obstacle, and with some effort, he can make his youth work for him strategically. However, it's not the non-issue Adam makes it out to be.
Next, let's talk about experience. The past presidents section is nice, but by only counting raw time as an elected official, it's missing a lot. I'll go through these guys one by one:
Wilson: Sure, he won election after being governor for only two years... with less than 42% of the vote. Wilson had the distinction of facing not one, but two serious Republican contenders for President. I'm sure Obama would win if, say, McCain and Frist both ran in the general election. Too bad that's not going to happen. Also, Wilson was a governor, and as we all know, being a governor is a lot better than being a senator if you want to win an election for President. There's a world of difference between being one of 100 legislators and being an executive, not to mention the contradictory morass you generally have to get yourself into in order to be an effective senator. This is going to be a recurring theme.
