(Oh, Yeah! The SENATE! - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
So with the Alaska primary and the conventions now over, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So what are the competitive races?
Again, just to be clear, I don't do predictions. Every time I do, horrible things happen. So I won't even make an actual prediction on the Virginia Senate race, because doing so would effectively jinx Mark Warner. So, I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a legitimate chance of switching (but I ain't guaranteeing anything). The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous August diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
So with about three months to go, with Ted Stevens' indictment dominating the Senate news, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So what are the competitive races?
I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching (but I ain't guaranteeing anything). The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous May diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
If it's as much a Democratic year as the three special election victories and current polling suggest, the utterly unthinkable not very long ago is conceivably in range: 60 Democratic seats in the Senate. There are a lot of races in play, and with a strong wind at our back, we could have a legitimate shot at it. But the only path to getting there is that some uphill races are going to have to come through. Races in states like Alaska, Mississippi, Kansas, North Carolina and Texas- Republican states with extremely well-financed and well-established incumbents- are going to be damn tough to pull off. Sixty is potentially within reach, but we in the progressive community are going to have to invest in a variety of different uphill gambles to give ourselves a chance.
I'm going to argue here that the Scott Kleeb race is one of the places we ought to make that gamble in. Nebraska is a Republican state, for sure, but so are the others I listed above. Scott's opponent Mike Johanns is a fairly well-liked former governor, so he will be tough to beat, but he's not an incumbent and compared to the well-established incumbents referenced above, he's no more formidable than any of them, and can't point to seniority, committee chairmanships, or pork he's brought home as the incumbent to bolster his case. The fact that Johanns was Bush's Agriculture Secretary, given the messy politics of the farm bill, isn't going to help him either.
The polling on the race also shows that Scott has a shot at this thing. One private poll I'm aware of shows only a 10-point gap, which would put this closer than Slattery in Kansas, Hagen in NC, and Noriega in TX, all races that many of us think are potentially winnable. And what that poll does not reflect is that young people in NE are registering Democratic by a two-to-one margin over Republicans, and that there is some serious outside organizational money being put into youth registration and turnout in NE.
That polling also doesn't reflect the real weaknesses in Johanns' record, starting with the farm bill fiasco, or the split in NE Republican politics between the more moderate Hagel Republicans and the right-wingers. And it doesn't reflect Scott's strength as a candidate- this is a guy who ran a competitive race in the 5th-most Republican congressional district in 2006.
I would add one final note here: unlike a lot of these Senate races, Scott is a grassroots, netroots kind of guy. I hope Lunsford in Kentucky, and Shaheen in New Hampshire, and Hagen in North Carolina, just to name three examples, all win their races this fall, because they are better than their Republican rightwing opponents and get Democrats closer to 60. But they are all more conservative, establishment candidates. Taking a gamble on Scott is worth doing because he relates to our values better than those kinds of candidates.
I will admit my bias here, with NE being my home state and Scott and his wife being friends, but I am pretty hard-nosed when it comes to politics, and I hope you will give Scott some coin before the June 30th quarterly deadline passes. He's a good fundraiser and is raising some decent money, but to get any DSCC help, he's going to have to have a big quarter. I think it's a gamble worth taking.
(Since much of Chris' analysis of late (No Future, Spend Early etc) hinges on winning a senate supermajority, seeing additional senate analyses is useful. - promoted by Daniel De Groot)
So with less than half a year to go, it's time for another look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So I'll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching. The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.
Follow me below the fold for all the races. This is meant to be a primer for both newcomers and political junkies alike, so some of the information may seem repetitive for you junkies out there. Also see my previous March diary to see what things have changed since my last update.
Update 9--Childers Wins MS-01: The AP and MSNBC just called MS-01 for Childers. That's pretty cool. We are going to win everywhere in November. Landslide city.
Update 8--Very close in Mississippi: Republican Davis closes to only 700 votes, but most of the remaining counties are Democratic, especially the 85%+ Dem county of Prentiss.
Update 7--Narrow Growing Democratic lead in MS-01: Comparing the primary and general election results in the foursix ten multi-precinct counties where 90% or more precincts have returns, Democrat Childers is doing better in three of the fourfour of the sixseven of the nine seven of ten. That is a pretty good sign, though not enough to call the race yet. Almost, however.
Update 6--Kleebn wins Nebraska Senate primary: Even though only 5% is reporting, Scott Kleeb is ahead by an absurd amount in the Nebraska Senate primary. Pretty easy to call an election when someone is ahead by 50%. I won't update this one anymore.
Update 5--McCain still only at 76%: McCain is only at 76% in West Virginia, which is pretty much what he did in Indiana. Kind of funny that about one-quarter of the Republican electorate is still voting against McCain, more than three months after Super Tuesday. Pretty funny.
Update 4--Deceptive margin in MS-01: Childers is well ahead in MS-01 right now, but SSP reports that he is running about even with his results from the primary. So, it still looks like it will be a very close result in MS-01.
Update 3--Tee vee watching is painful: Election nights are the only nights I watch tee vee news. Its pretty painful, as TPM shows, but I did learn that Obama is wearing a flag pin now. I guess the key is just to attack him from the right.
Update 2--Other Dems Still on Ballot: The reason the numbers don't add up to 100% in West Virginia is because the other Democrats are still on the ballot. In particular, Edwards is probably getting a decent percent, and would have been strong here if he was still in the campaign.
Update--Clinton Wins West Virginia: Everyone calls West Virginia for Clinton. No surprise. Let's see what the various final margins will be. Exit poll can be found here. Quick extrapolation from the gender numbers indicates 65%--32%.
Scott sent a message to supporters this morning and set the goal:
Our voters need to know much more about our campaign. They need to know that we've united ranchers and environmentalists, young people and seniors, and Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.
(Hat tip to Paul over at Nebraska Blue who got me thinking about this.)
"Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose - the pioneers away out there [pointing to the West], who rear their children near to Nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds - out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their young, churches where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead - these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak."
- William Jennings Bryan
Are we, as Democrats, doomed to dismiss what could be our greatest block of voters in 2008. The rural vote in Nebraska is far too important for our party to lose this cycle. In fact, we can not win statewide without it. But how exactly do we do that, and which candidate is more likely to build a Democratic coalition among those voices that mindle with the birds.
I want to thank everyone who submitted a logo for consideration. Jane, my team, and I have gone through each of them and have spent a long time discussing our favorites.
We had initially intended to do a small contest -- three of our favorite choices -- but we were truely overwhelmed by the interest, creativity, and unique ideas that came in, so we're opening it up to a selection of 10 wide-ranging choices.
Ryan Anderson at the New Nebraska Network reported this morning on the increased chatter that Republican businessman Tony Raimondo was considering running for Senate... as a Democrat. This is a terrifying proposition, as I will explain in a moment, but worse than that is the information that we are hearing from several sources: the DSCC and the NDP are actively recruiting Raimondo to run for this Senate seat. Their logic? Money trumps all. Because it worked so well for 2006 Republican Senate candidate Pete Ricketts.
In 2004 Tony Raimondo was the Bush Administration's pick for the newly created position of "manufacturing czar", but after an outcry from the left (led
brilliantly by the John Kerry campaign) his name was withdrawn from consideration. Why?
TONY RAIMONDO OUTSOURCED AMERICAN JOBS: When President Bush created
the position last year he said the nation had "lost thousands of jobs
in manufacturing...some of it because production moved overseas." And
some of the jobs moved overseas were moved by Tony Raimondo. In 2002,
just four months after laying off 75 U.S. workers, Raimondo announced
he planned to build "a $3 million factory in northwest
Beijing...employing 180." For his part, Raimondo was "unavailable for
comment" because he was on a "business trip to China."
TONY RAIMONDO IS HOSTILE TO WORKERS: Raimondo is "a longtime board
member of the National Association of Manufacturers," a group that is
notorious for opposing efforts to improve conditions for American
workers. NAM has lobbied to strip 8 million workers of federal
overtime protections, consistently opposed any effort to increase the
minimum wage to keep up with inflation and fought workplace safety
laws.
TONY RAIMONDO IS A UNION BUSTER: According to the business publication
Inc. Magazine, shortly after Raimondo took over Behlen in 1982 he
pushed hard to decertify the labor union operating at his company.
Raimondo coached management to sweet talk likely union supporters just
prior to the vote and, on a close vote, was able to bust the union.
Later, Raimondo said that had he not been able to get rid of the union
he was not sure he would "have had the courage or determination" to
continue operating the company.
TONY RAIMONDO FACED FINES FOR WORKPLACE VIOLATIONS: Under Raimondo's
leadership Behlen has been accused by the federal government of
maintaining unsafe working conditions. On 5/16/98 The Omaha
World-Herald reported "the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has proposed a $123,000 fine against Behlen
Manufacturing Co. of Columbus for alleged safety violations that
resulted in an employee being injured."
TONY RAIMONDO SHILLED BUSH'S TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY: On 2/7/01 the
Omaha World-Herald reported "Bush was meeting with Nebraskan Tony
Raimondo and dozens of other small business executives as part of his
weeklong effort to build momentum for his tax package." Raimondo was a
natural ally - he had twice given the maximum contribution to Bush's
presidential campaign. The tax cuts Raimondo supported will cut the
taxes of a middle class manufacturing worker (making about $35,000
year) $560 next year. Meanwhile the top 1% of earners (who make, on
average, about $1 million a year) will rake in over $41,000 because of
the tax cuts.
Will the next item on this list be: TONY RAIMONDO IS YOUR NOMINEE FOR SENATE?
We need to fight this. We have the opportunity to recruit a real
warrior in this race, Scott Kleeb, who will make Democrats stand up
and be proud. But we are in danger of having Scott passed over in
favor of a George Bush Republican with a large bank account. We need
to send the DSCC a strong message today: our party is not for sale.
Not to Tony Raimondo. Not to George Bush. Not to anyone.
In Virginia, Mark Warner has announced that he is running… for something:
This year's ICS was a terrific success and and what could beat that surprise visit from Mark Warner and his announcement that this time next week, he was "going to be a candidate for public office!"
Since I doubt he will run for US House, jump in the presidential campaign, or start a five-year campaign to primary Jim Webb in 2012, the options for Warner appear to be running for US Senate in 2008, or running for Virginia Governor in 2009. My guess is that this early announcement means he is running for Senate, as the Virginia Gubernatorial election is more than two years away. That is fine with me, since it would basically assure a Democratic pickup in Virginia.
A political logjam in Nebraska that has forced a slew of potential U.S. Senate candidates to tread water for months will begin breaking Monday, when Chuck Hagel formally announces he will not seek re-election.
Democrat Bob Kerrey, Republican Mike Johanns and others likely will begin unveiling their plans for the 2008 race in the coming weeks or, possibly, days.
No matter who runs on the Republican side, Bob Kerrey could potentially win this seat. I hope he runs, because I would like to see as much pressure on Republicans in as many seats as possible around the country. Kerrey would cause further headaches for already severely pressured Republicans.
In Idaho, according to Survey USA, Larry LaRocco can make a competitive race out of it, depending on who the Republican nominee is. While well-known Republicans Mike Simpson and Dirk Kempthorne would apparently start with huge leads on LaRocco, there is no guarantee at all that either would run or, if they did run, that they would win the Republican nomination. Against four other Republicans, LaRocco is either close or statistically tied. So, it appears that Democrats can even be competitive in Idaho now, but it will depend largely on who the Republican nominee is.
****
Getting the right matchup in all three of these seats will help us toward our broader goal of more and better Democrats. This is the case even if any of the Democrats in question are not viewed as among the "better Democrat" category by some. I would argue, for example, that no matter what some int he blogosphere might think of him, Bob Casey Jr.'s extremely strong showing during the 2006 campaign freed up a lot of Democratic resources for closer wins in Rhode Island, Virginia, Montana and Missouri. In the same vein, added pressure in the form of nearly guaranteed pickups (Warner in Virginia), surprisingly competitive elections (LaRocco in Idaho) or conservative Democratic candidates for an open seat in a conservative state like Nebraska (Kerrey), will all help out candidates like Merkley or Novick in Oregon (both progressives), Franken or Ciresi in Minnesota (same story), Allen in Maine, or the eventual Democratic nominee in New Hampshire (I think Jay Buckey would be a good progressive there). Further, key primary challenges in places in Connecticut can not only help Democrats become better, but can also breed more Democrats nationwide by finally convincing them to run against the war. More Democrats can lead to better Democrats, and better Democrats can lead to more Democrats. I point this out as one way of explaining why I have no problem engaging in numerous primary challenges on behalf of progressives, while simultaneously backing conservative Democrats in general elections against Republicans. More and better Democrats is not an either / or process for progressives, and I am happy to work on the "better" just as I am happy to work on the "more."
Update: Bob Kerry certainly does not look very conservative when his voting record is examined. It seems I misspoke by calling him a conservative.
The table is set. Labor Day is upon us, and a number of political deadlines are approaching. Decisions ready to be made. Political heavyweights ready to enter the arena, and some apparently ready to exit.
I've devoted quite a bit of virtual ink to this race, repeating myself dozens of times, going over every single sign, detail, rumor, or press account to get a better picture of what I believe is the most important race in Nebraska - for Nebraska - in 2008.
The evolution of this race - from the initial rumors of Hagel's retirement, to Mike Fahey's potential entry into the race, Hagel's March "announcement," and Bruning's primary challenge, followed by Kerrey's interest in a potential candidacy, has been one of the most fascinating stories of this young election cycle.
In Don Walton's article in the Lincoln Journal Star today, this quote stands out:
If it's ultimately Kerrey versus Johanns after 2008 primary voters have spoken and all the smoke has cleared, Nebraska may play host to next year's premier Senate race.
So say Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray in The Washington Post.
"A Kerrey-Johanns matchup would be the early front-runner for the marquee race of the 2008 cycle," they wrote last week.
We wait in anticipation for Kerrey's decision. More after the jump...
