« PA-Gov: New Poll Shows Swann Fumbling | Main | The Week Ahead in California and Montana »

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?

Posted by DavidNYC

And the number one reason not to attend law school: Bar review. Ugh. I'm sure you've got better things to talk about. Go for it.

Posted at 11:45 AM in Open Threads | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


It's all about the Iowa Governor's race, where the getting-contentious Democrat primary will be held June 6 and determine who will face off against Republican slimeball Jim Nussle. There's an embarrassment of riches on the Democratic side, but that's a good thing considering the intangible advantages Nussle brings to this race. Each of the Democrats brings his own set of strengths and weaknesses to the table, and for the first time in a long time, I'm honestly still undecided on which horse to go with, which is rare for me.

The frontrunner is photogenic golden boy Chet Culver, the two-term Secretary of State with the highest name recognition and a Captain America profile. While he seems like a good enough guy, I get the sinking feeling (a feeling shared by virtually every other informed Iowa political junkie) that Culver is probably not ready for primetime. Indeed, his performance in last weekend's debate struck me as the weakest. Whoever faces Nussle will have to remain on his toes throughout the campaign to win. Furthermore, the revelation that Culver used to be a consultant for sleazy meatpacking baron IBP (my corporate Lex Luthor) is definitely a thorn in my side. If I have a choice to vote for somebody who did lobby for IBP and someone who didn't, I'll probably pick the candidate who didn't every time.

Still, Culver's name ID and impressive numbers are hard to ignore. Two polls last week showed Culver leading the Democratic field 38-25-20, while head-to-heads with Nussle show Culver with a comfortable, and surprising, 49-41 lead. Nonetheless, I fear Culver's support is a mile wide and an inch thick. If he falters in the general, Nussle's geographic advantage (he's a Congressman in the most Democratic region of Iowa) will be almost impossible to overcome. The Democrat will need to pull off an inside straight to win this race anyway, so there's no margin for error whatsoever.

Mike Blouin is the establishment candidate supported by 80% of Democratic legislators and 90% of Iowa labor unions. He has a track record as a Dubuque area Congressman (going way back to the 1970's) and is the current Economic Development Director under Governor Vilsack. He is the best informed and best qualified candidate from what I can see and am currently leaning towards him. His statewide name ID is less than Culver's, but that can change in short order under the spotlight of a state election. A possible advantage for Blouin is his ties to eastern Iowa, which could help negate Nussle's geographic advantages to the region. A possible disadvantage is that Blouin is nominally pro-life on abortion. That could cut either way, possibly winning him votes among conservative populists but losing him votes among one-issue pro-choice voters who won't bother to go to the polls. Given that a state like Iowa is unlikely to forward South Dakota-style abortion prohibitions, I'm not too worried about it personally.

Ed Fallon is the candidate I would go with if I thought he had a chance. He's a Des Moines legislature with a track record for acting on conviction. He's Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold rolled into one, but without significant name ID or fiery charisma. He's funny and well-spoken and was victorious in last week's debate in my opinion, but I have a hard time seeing him winning statewide in Iowa. If the Republican contender was anybody other than Nussle, I'd be inclined to vote for my favorite guy in this race and that would be Fallon. I still may if the mudslinging between Culver and Blouin continues at fever pitch, rendering either of them unelectable.

June 6 is the big day and I'll be closely tracking the results. Should be a fun race right to the finish line, but the fun will end if that asshat Nussle gets 50.1% or better on November 7.

Posted by: Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 12:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Timmy Walz in the Minnesota 1st - He's a real progressive, he's against a total nincompoop, and his district is 50/50 in a year where we should win. He's also a fighting Dem, which I know hasn't been the complete success that people initially thought, but he's definitely one of the best ones out there.

Posted by: Drew Miller [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 12:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark, where in Iowa are you from?

Posted by: Drew Miller [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 12:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Drew, I live near Des Moines in central Iowa, but I grew up in MN-01 and am as excited as you about the impressive campaign Tim Walz has been running there.

Posted by: Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 01:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I live in Ames and grew up in MN-01 also. =) Although now my home is technically in MN-02 due to redistricting.

Posted by: Drew Miller [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 01:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Well David, I've been thinking alot about MN-06, and the 2008 Senate Slate. If 06 is a very good year, then I think that we field a serious challenge to the not so moderate Norm Colewell. In fact, the last time I can remember Colewell breaking with Bush is on the ANWR issue. But, I am very hesitant to believe that we can win here, because Rod Grams only lost 50-46 against Mark Dayton who spent like 8,000,000 of his own dollars, and Rod Grams was one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate. I'm still wondering whether Colewell would have won had Wellstone not died in a plane crash. Wetterling would probably be a good candidate though. I very tired of thinking about 2006, instead I'm moving onto 2008. Another big challenge that will be coming up is Colorado. Representative Mark Udall has announced that he will challenge 2 term incumbent Wayne Allard in 2008. Udall already has a very large campaign warchest, most of which came from his brief campaign for the Colorado senate in 2004. Allard is the second most conservative member of the Senate, and his views are definetly far outside of the mainstream in the increasingly Democratic and moderate Colorado. But, Udall isn't really that moderate himself, and that could what keeps him from winning. Allard is however, never very popular. If Susan Collins keeps her 1996 campaign promise to retire after two terms, then Representative Tom Allen should be able to win this Senate Seat. Then there's always the chance that Sununu could be challenged by either Governor Lynch, who is winning reelection with almost 74% of the vote in several recent polls, or Paul Hodes if he beats Representative Charlie Bass this year. Look for retirements, and lots of them on the GOP side, especially if they lose the senate. Ted Stevens likely to retire at the age 82+ and no longer being in the magority party. Thad Cochran might after 30 years in the senate and in his mid 70s, retire. We could win his seat. Pete Domenici, the ultra-conservative Repblican from New Mexico, he might retire after 36 years in the senate, and also being in his early to mid 70s. John Warner-VA has said he is retiring after 30 years in the senate. Anyone thinking what I'm thinking, I'd like to see Kaine take a go at it. If Bob Dole's health declines, Elizabeth Dole might retire. Or she may just retire anyway because she'll be 72, no longer in the majority party, and just doesn't want to stay another 6 years in the senate. NC governor Mike Easily could probably win. James Inoufe could very likely retire in Oklahoma. Wildly popular Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry would be our chance to win this seat. Chuck Hagel might leave to run on a Presidential ticket. Bob Kerrey could possibly win this seat back, or Maxine Moul if she wins her up hill battle against Fortenberry this year. Mitch McDonnell has will likely retire in 2008 as well. Congressman and former Attorney General Ben Chandler is also just about the only person who could win here. That's about it for now.

Posted by: ArkDem [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 02:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

ark dem- representatives who just won a race a year earlier wont leave to run for the senate. it would look to flaky. And mcconnell wont retire- hell be majority/minority leader at that point, so why would he want to retire. Hagel's seat will be safe regardless. Knowles could take Steven's seat. Kaine could run for Warners seat, but Davis will be a strong candidate. Easley i think will jump in regardless as he is term limited in 2008. Henry i dont know if he would actually jump into the race. Ex AG moore would be a strong candidate in Mississippi if Cochran retires. Allard has said he will probably retire, look for Owens to be the candidate there, maybe Musgrave. Depeneds if Owens runs for President. The whole TABOR thing has put him in not great stead with right wingers.

Posted by: yomoma2424 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 03:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It's a little early to speculate about 2008 Senate races, but bear in mind there will also be some likely retirements/defeats among Democrats as well. Joe Biden's Presidential ambitions would seem to indicate he's retiring, and likely to be replaced by Republican Michael Castle. Same situation with John Kerry, who will most likely retire from the Senate if he makes another Presidential run, which we all know he will. Since Romney is also running for President, we probably don't have to worry about him, but perhaps Bill Weld win return to give it another go. And whether Lautenberg runs again or not, the Dems' luck seems bound to run out sooner or later in New Jersey with the abysmal approval ratings of legislators from both parties. Furthermore, I can't imagine Mary Landrieu pulling off a third term in the "new Louisiana" and Tim Johnson is never truly safe in South Dakota....nor is Max Baucus of Montana.

Other possible Dem retirements...Tom Harkin of Iowa, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. If Shelley Moore Capito runs against Rockefeller, he may lose anyway.

So even with the slough of possible retirements on the GOP side in 2008, let's not kid ourselves into believing we're not gonna be playing our share of defense this year as well. One bittersweet proposition not being considered is that if John McCain is elected President, Janet Napolitano will be able to appoint a Democratic replacement for him.

Posted by: Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 03:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

mark - i wouldnt say biden is likely to be replaced by castle. castle will be 69 on election day, and that is late to start a senate career with no seniority and a lot of power in the house. I expect him to not run.

Weld would have no credibility if he switched states again, i would think that in MA you could see Healey run if she lost the GOV race, or maybe Andrew Card. I dont expect this race to be that competitive.

Lautenberg will probably in the end retire, and if Kean loses a close one i think he will run again for the R's. There will probably be an all out primary on the D side, with 3-4 congressmen duking it out.

Baucus will be safe unless Rehberg runs, and even then it is a lean D race

Landreiu will be in for a very tough race, but you gotta think whose gonna run against her. Jindall will prob win the governors race, and there arent that many strong candidates, although i expect it to be close.

Johnson your right is never safe, although since Rounds signed the anti abortion bill its probably a slightly safer seat. A definite toss up.

Harkin is only in his mid 60's so he probably wont retire. Levin probably will retire, Miller will be a difficult opponent. I think Bart Stupak may run for us. Rockefeller probably wouldnt lose versus Capito, WV still doesnt vote for republcians on the local level really. And i think Capito's star will be dimmed as i think Callaghan can take her down to the wire.

i am suprised though that Madrid jumped in against Wilson when she could have run against Wilson in 2008, except for a senate race to succeed Domenici

Posted by: yomoma2424 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 04:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

ARKDem, I'm from NE and I thought I might comment on what you said about the '08 Senate race:

"Chuck Hagel might leave to run on a Presidential ticket. Bob Kerrey could possibly win this seat back, or Maxine Moul if she wins her up hill battle against Fortenberry this year. "

Hagel might ineed retire to run for president, though this would be an enormously stupid move IMO (I don't think Hagel has a chance, especially if McCain is in the field to steal all the maverick thunder from him) so it's likely that he'll back down. If he does retire, Bob Kerrey is not going to run. If he wanted to stay in the Senate, he could have easily run for re-election in 2000. That he didn't, and that he chose to take up a job out of state (at the New School University in NY, NY) has pretty clearly indicated that he has no interest in remaining active in Nebraska politics... at least as a candidate.

Similarly, if Moul wins in NE-01 this year there's no way she would give up that seat to make a run for the Senate that she would likely lose. The Nebraska Democratic Party isn't stupid, they know that taking one of the three House seats is going to require a miracle and their not going to throw that away just to compete in the Senate race.

However, you should expect a serious candidate for this seat, even if it doesn't end up being a pick-up (or even close). Among the likely contenders:

Mike Fahey- the popular mayor of Omaha, where about a third of Nebraskans live. He's indicated that he wants to retire from politics after cruising to re-election last year, but the executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party has been quoted as saying that they would "Beg, borrow and steal" to recruit him for the Senate. Considering that any democratic Senate victory really relies more on winning comfortably in Omaha (leans Republican), Lincoln (leans Democrat) and the Indian counties in the East (safe Democrat, though Hagel managed to win them in '08) than on winning in rural west Nebraska, he might make sense as a candidate. But I do worry about his appeal to rural interests: if he can't keep it close in the third District, he'd have to win big in Eastern Nebraska in order to squeek out a victory.

Matt Connealy- state Senator and farmer, ran against Fortenberry in '04 and came reasonably close. Was term-limited this year but is staying in the public eye by running for Public Service Commission. Might have better appeal to Western Nebraska than Fahey, but has a smaller regional base.

Chris Beutler - state Senator for Lincoln. Term-limited this year, turned down a gubernatorial run but appears to be interested in staying in the public sphere. Is a great man and a great legislator, but his base in the usually Democratic Lincoln again might work against him.

Scott Kleeb- Candidate in NE-03. Has very little chance of winning in the nation's sixth most conservative district, but is a very talented and hard-working politician who's running an excellent campaign and whom I'm predicting will make this one surprisingly close. If he can manage that, then he'll be an obvious contender for Senate in '08: any Democrat who can cut down the Republican margin in the third district has the oppurtunity to win statewide, and NE-03 will be an upset even if the Republican wins by 10% or less (thus raising Kleeb's profile significantly). But we're still talking about a guy who's never held elected office here: perhaps if '08 is another "change" election, he would make a very appealing "outsider" candidate. As of right now it's all just empty speculation on my part.

Posted by: everrpa [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 05:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm focusing on CA-26 and the primary they'll be having there (and everywhere else in the state) on June 6th. The candidate that ran last time, Cynthia Matthews, who got 43% of the vote even though the incumbent spent a buh-zillion dollars to keep his seat in what should have been a cakewalk in such a Republican distict, is hitting for the nod again, and she actually has more funding this year, but now that she paved the way, other Dems want to try to exploit the fruit of her labor. One of the candidates is definitely the state Dems' establishment candidate, but I'm still hoping Matthews wins. For one thing, it will mean we'll still have 3 only gay or lesbian members of Congress (were she to win in November as well, natch) as opposed to the current closet case that currently occupies the seat, David Dreier. Dreier bears the unique distinction of being the member of the California congressional delegation (from either party) that won reelection with the smallest percentage of the vote.

So please support Cynthia Matthews, if you can! Link to where you can donate on her site accessible by clicking my user name.

Posted by: progressivemuslimnj [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 05:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


Pat Tiberi is the prototypical Rubber stamp Republican. The district is trending Dem and taking him out or wiping out his bank account would remove one of the GOPers being groomed for higher office.

He hasnt faced a real challenge since 2000.

Bob Shamansky is running against him and was the last Dem to hold this CD. The best way to describe Bob is that he is what Hackett would be in 30 years. Independent minded and tough as nails.

His age and positions on Medicare give him a lot of credibility with the older population - and this district has one of the oldest voter demographics in the state of Ohio.

He is also able to self finance enough of his race to well seed it and make it very competitive. He won his primary well against some tough opposition

This is the sleeper race in Ohio and help here would move it into very competitive territory

Posted by: Pounder [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 05:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

That was fun. How about a quick rundown of likely Republican nominees for NE-Sen '08 (assuming Hagel steps down):

Mike Johanns- the strongest possible candidate for either party, IMO. Former mayor of Lincoln, former governor, currently Bush's Ag Secretary: this guy remains popular despite running the state into the ground. He runs well everywhere in the state, but his home base especially (the Lincoln area) cuts deep into the Democratic base which is essential to any successful statewide run. His political machine (now inherited by Dave Heinemen) has managed to unite conservative advocacy groups with certain elements of labor, again cutting deep into the Democratic base. One hopes (and almost expects) that he'll be more interested in using his Washington experience to springboard him into some lobbying career rather than returning to public life in Nebraska.

Lee Terry- after Johanns, the strongest Republican for this race (and, IMO, the most likely Republican nominee). Again, his Omaha base makes it nearly impossible for Democrats to find enough votes to counter rural Nebraska's strong Republican tilt. He's just about the only Republican in the state who's regularly faced tough elections (defeating well-funded state Sens. Shelly Kiel and Nancy Thompson and was as Internet millionaire Jim Simon) and has always won by comfortable margins. Seems to be positioning himself as a potential statewide candidate and as a Hagel-esque pseudo-maverick: a few months back he gave an exclusive interview to the Lincoln Journal Star about how Congress should be purged of all the "Tom Delay people"... and Lincoln isn't even in his district).

Pete Ricketts- if he makes it a close race this time around but still manages to lose to the popular Sen. Nelson (which is exactly what I'm predicting will happen), he will likely return to politics in some capacity later. So why not another Senate race?

Tom Osborne- former Huskers coach, congressmen and gubernatorial candidate. Dr. Tom will not run: he's getting pretty old (69 this year), was clearly preparing for his retirement (turned down an '06 Senate race because he didn't want to commit to the six year term, only wanted to serve one term as governor), and was also obviously heartbroken to lose the primary to Governor Heinemen. Even though he's not running, though, there will still be a lot of talk of getting him in the race.

There will undoubtedly be many other contenders, but I think the likely nominees at this point are either Johanns or Terry. If neither of them runs, then it's a wide open field.

Posted by: everrpa [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 05:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Polling Report released a new Presidential Poll. It asked whether or not you would like to see a Democrat or Republican win the Presidency in 2008. It found that 12% of those that listed themselves as Republicans were unsure. 12% doesn't seem like a lot of people, but seeing as how close the 2000 elections were, I'd believe that it could decide an election. If even a small percentage of those 12%, that are unsure about whether or not they want a Republican or Democrat to become President, decide to go Democrat they could help put a Democrat into the white house in 2008.

Posted by: Craig [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 06:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In 2008:

Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Wyoming have no shot of being competitive

We have a shot to make Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia competitive

The GOP have possible pick ups in Arkansas, Deleware, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota, and West Virginia

I'm taking for granted that Biden and Kerry are running for President and a few Republicans too

Basically I'll run down the possibly competitive seats

Alaska: Stevens will likely retire, Knowles is our top tier candidate obviously but anybody know whatever happened to Fran Ulmer

Colorado: Allard is gonna retire and I doubt Owens runs the GOP will likely have Musgrave or Tancredo possibly a Norton and if they get really lucky Coffman, we will probably run Udall

Deleware: Biden is running for President I expect us to run Jack Markell the State Treauser because Minner is popular and Carney is running for Governor

Georgia: Hopefully the return or Max Cleland to the United States Senate, that would likely be the greatest day of my life

Iowa: Hopefully Harkin will run again if not we have a adequate bench, but Nussle will be unemployed about this time

Maine: For some reason i doubt Collins is really retiring, if she does Allen will take the seat

Massachusetts: We have ten Congressman and every statewide position as a bench let's just hope they don't all decide to run for Senate GOP don't have much -- No Romney, doubt Card or Healey maybe Cousins the guy they wanted for Senate this year

Michigan: Let's hope to God we can recruit Bart Stupak and on the GOP side Rogers, Cox, Miller, and Land all run and beat the hell out of each other in the primary

Minnesota: Betty McCollum hopefully although I like Mike Ciresi

Mississippi: We have a deep bench here acutally we can win with Moore, also Mike Espy and and Gene Taylor might be able to win in squeakers

Nebraska: I think our best shot would be Nick Feahy here, but thats only if Hagel runs for President

New Hampshire: I doubt Shaheen or Lynch will run after that we have a dry bench Dick Swett maybe??

New Jersey: I expect a large competitive field here Pascrell, Pallone, Andrews, Holt, and throw a few others in there too, I hope they don't beat themselves up too bad

New Mexico: We should take this seat we have Tom Udall if Madrid doesn't win but i expect her too, still I hope she stays in the House as Wilson would win the open seat if Madrid ran for Senate

North Carolina: I don't expect Easley to run for Senate although it would be great to be able to vote for him in my first Senate election we still have a strong bench in NC Perdue, Cooper, Moore, Miller

Oklahoma: I expect Inhofe to retire after Henry we can run a number of statewide elected officials or Boren, maybe the new Tulsa mayor Kathy Taylor

Oregon: Kitzhaber?? after him DeFazio maybe Hooley will be 70 and will only last a term DeFazio has 2 in him atleast

Tennessee: This race falls in the hands of Bill Purcell, we have nothing after him

Texas: There are a number of unemployed Congressman since 2004 maybe we can convince one of them to run Frost, Turner, Bell, or Henry Cuellar even seriously he will vote with Democrats 40% of the time its better than Cornyn isn't it

Virginia: Tim Kaine will be our best bet, after him maybe Boucher Moran or Byrne

South Dakota: We just have to keep Johnson here the GOP will try to recruit Rounds but hopefully he has a poor showing in 06 and decides against it

Louisiana: I'm hoping Blanco doesn't run and either Mitch Landrieu or Chris John does they will atleast show a respectable performance and then throw their support behind Mary, maybe she can hold on

Montana: Baucus will hopefully be safe after capitalizing on momentum for 04/06

Arkansas: Hopefully not competitve because the GOP is throwing probably there best candidate at the Governor's Mansion and he is gettin beat pretty bad at this point

I personally think we are doomed in Michigan without a little help from the GOP slime machine (them mudslidding at each other of course), but the rest of our Dem seats look ok

Posted by: Johnny08 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 09:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

johnny - why would blanco run for the senate - no one will be in the race for the dems other than landreiu. cleland wont run. in mississippi we cannot win with anyone unless cochran retires. if he does, Mike Moore will be the nominee. and i dont doubt that owens would run for the senate.

Posted by: yomoma2424 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 10:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

1. Kansas comes in play with Sebelius, Wyoming comes in play with Freudenthal, and Kentucky comes in play with Chandler (all unlikely however, except possibly Freudenthal). Sebelius will probably run for Brownback's open seat in '10.
-And damnit, I really want Alabama to be in play! I F'cking hate Jeff Sessions to death. Couldn't we throw like Baxley or Cramer? Anything?
-Collins will likely retire, and she has said recently that she is following her 2-term pledge.
-In Minnesota, Al Franken is making a run for it. He could very possibly win, but is no where near a safe candidate for victory.
-In South Dakota, I very well doubt that Tim Johnson is vulnerable anymore. Their strongest candidate was John Thune, and he's in the other Senate Seat... I personally don't think Mike Rounds could beat Johnson either, Johnson is currently more popular.
-In Louisiana, the latest SUSA poll shows Landreui in a better position, however this will probably be our #1 defense seat for 2008, and the Rethug's only chance of a pickup. Personally I think that this will get into the run-off.
-In Texas, our 2 strongest candidates would be, in my opinion, Chet Edwards (who would probably win us the Senate seat and lose us the house seat) and Bill White (Mayor of Houston). Chet Edwards basically wins everything, and Bill White's re-election in '05 makes oppressive dictators look bad - he won with like 92% of the vote.
-Arkansas is safe unless Huckabee runs, which is VERY unlikely. Even still, Pyror would have the edge.
-Montana is safe minus Denny Rehberg running, and even still Baucas would be favored.
-In New Jersey, our best bet is Holt or Pallone. I don't think Pascrell will jump in. I really hope Andrews isn't nominated.
-Georgia, Jim Marshall or Cox are our strongest bets.
-Delaware, Leans Dem unless Castle runs (then it turns into a toss-up).

Posted by: KainIIIC [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 10:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Two things first off on New Jersey. I don't think Lautenberg is going to retire it's just a gut feeling I have. To me it seems like he likes being back in the U.S senate and wants to follow the Robert Bryd path. Also on Arkansas I doubt it will be competitive Pryor is safe for as long as he runs for the seat.

Posted by: D in FL. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 10:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

what will be mildly annoying is that in michigan we will go from having a reliable vote to having a moderatly reliable vote in Stupak, who would be our only chance at winning this seat versus Miller or Rogers

Posted by: yomoma2424 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 10:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

What I meant was Blanco getting slaughtered in '07 will give the GOP huge momentum going into the '08 election in LA atleast so I hope she retires and the Dems run a respectable race so that Landrieu has a chance

Posted by: Johnny08 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 12:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"Nebraska: I think our best shot would be Nick Feahy here, but thats only if Hagel runs for President"

It's *Mike Fahey, and for those who don't know he's the two-term Democratic mayor of Omaha, by far the largest city in Nebraska.

Fahey has a few things going for him. First of all, Omaha leans Republican in state elections but it is a must win for any successful Democratic candidate, and Fahey is certainly a pretty popular guy (he cruised to re-election last year with over 60% of the vote). He's also a very talented politician, I've had the pleasure of meeting him a couple of times and he is really good at retail politics -again, a must-have for Democratic contenders in the state.

His problems are that he has no obvious appeal to rural Nebraska, where the overwhelmingly Republican lean could negate any margin that he wins in Lincoln and Omaha. If he can't figure out how to cut down that margin, then he won't win statewide. The second problem is that he already seems settled on retirement after the end of this term, and probably because of that he's been making some controversial actions lately... for instance, he vetoed a resolution passed by the city council to make prostitution a felony on the third offense (he said the answer was to focus more on rehabilitation and fighting the root causes of prostitution), he also put a lot of focus in his most recent State of the City address on getting Omaha to drop its anti-gay bias. These things don't seem to have really hurt his image as mayor, but they are pretty tempting campaign fodder.

Posted by: everrpa [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 11:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Any congressional race in Southeastern Pa. All the congressmen are feeling the heat, even Weldon who hasn't won a race by less than 10 points ever.

Posted by: ModGOP [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 01:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"In Texas, our 2 strongest candidates would be, in my opinion, Chet Edwards (who would probably win us the Senate seat and lose us the house seat) and Bill White (Mayor of Houston). Chet Edwards basically wins everything, and Bill White's re-election in '05 makes oppressive dictators look bad - he won with like 92% of the vote."

I'm all for a Chet Edwards senate candidicy: he is one of the smartest politicians out there, and he's popular and well-known in some of the most Republican territory in Texas. Add to that Cornyn's unpopularity (assuming that he doesn't climb out of the hole in the next two years, admittedly a big assumption) and we could have ourselves one hell of a race. And it doesn't seem too far-fetched a possibility, either: it's not as if Edwards has any real job security at the moment, even if he chooses to stay in the House he's looking at a tough re-election campaign every two years. I think a statewide race would be a no-brainer for him, especially if it was against a weak opponent.

Similarly, I have hopes that Bennet will retire in 2010 and Utah will send Jim Marshall to the Senate. I'm really impressed by our benches in some of these super red states. And a guy can dream, can't he?

Posted by: everrpa [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 03:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In Utah it is Jim Matheson. On Edwards I think we should wait untill after 2006 to see what the house looks like before asking him to run. If we hold the House by one seat I don't want to send Edwards off to run a senate campaign and risk loseing that House seat. And unless a great candidate comes we lose that seat which is 70-30 Bush.

Posted by: D in FL. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 03:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"In Utah it is Jim Matheson."

Oops, duh.

"On Edwards I think we should wait untill after 2006 to see what the house looks like before asking him to run. If we hold the House by one seat I don't want to send Edwards off to run a senate campaign and risk loseing that House seat. And unless a great candidate comes we lose that seat which is 70-30 Bush."

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't agree with the logic. We're not guarenteed to win the seat even if Edwards is the nominee, so why should we keep spending hundreds of thousands of dollars defending this seat every two years *and* sacrafice perhaps our strongest candidate for an office that has far more influence, anyway? There are pickup oppurtunities this election cycle that I feel more confident about than I feel about Edward's re-election, and that will almost certaintly be true in 2008, as well.

Posted by: everrpa [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 04:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

What I mean is with Edwards we have a strong shot of holding TX-17 with anybodyelse we lose it. In the TX-sen race it's 50-50 and we can end up loseing both the Senate and the House seat.

Posted by: D in FL. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 04:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"What I mean is with Edwards we have a strong shot of holding TX-17 with anybodyelse we lose it. In the TX-sen race it's 50-50 and we can end up loseing both the Senate and the House seat."

Which is a good possibility regardless of which seat Edwards runs for. Even if that happened, anyway, it's not like it's the end of the world. On the downside we lose one House seat, on the upside we gain the hundreds of thousands of dollars each cycle that we would have spent defending this incredibly Republican district and get to instead devote it to challengers in Democratic-leaning seats, potentially helping us pick up a seat to counterbalance TX-17, maybe even helping us pick up two seats or more.

Politics can't be all about risk aversion and short-term gain. It's nice having a Democrat in TX-17, but it's by no means neccesary for us to hold that seat in order to gain/hold control of the House. I think it'd just be a waste of Edward's considerable talent to hold him back from running for an office with far more power and influence just because we're afraid of losing a House seat that, in all liklihood, the Republicans are going to eventually take back, anyway (even if they have to wait for Edward's retirement or the next big Republican wave).

Posted by: everrpa [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 05:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

JOhnny08 - in Delaware, State Treasurer Jack Markell and Lt. Governor are both running for Governor. My money's on Markell. Beau Biden will be running for Attorney General. Not sure who would make a good candidate for the Dems right now, but I'll keep my ears open. Mike Castle will almost certainly run for Senate if (but only if) Biden retires. And I'm not 100% sure Biden will step down - John Kerry didn't step down in 2004.

Posted by: X Stryker [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 05:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

John Kerry didn't have to step down in 2004: he wasn't up for re-election. John Edwards was up and he did, in fact, step down. Although, Lieberman was up in 2000 and decided to stay in. So I guess it does run both ways.

I hope Biden runs again.

Posted by: everrpa [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 05:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

There was an article in the Birmingham News today about how Sessions is considering a presidential run as the tough on immigration candidate. I personally don't think Sessions will make the jump, but Cong. Artur Davis has already expressed interest in going statewide in either the 2008 Senate or 2010 Gov. race. If we pick up the Gov. this year, he'll likely run for Sessions' seat.

Posted by: BirminghamDemocrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 05:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Artur Davis for Senate? I've been impressed with him on C-Span, but I do have to admit that I'm afraid that the race factor in Alabama is too wide a gulf to cross. You're from there, so you'd obviously know better than me. It'd be amazing to see Ford elected in TN this year and Davis elected in AL in '08.

Posted by: everrpa [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 05:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I agree that the race factor at this point in probably insurmountable. Another viable candidate would be former Gov. Jim Folsom, Jr. but only if he narrowly loses in his run for Lt. Gov. this year.

Posted by: BirminghamDemocrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 05:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I just realized that the a former Gov. who loses a race for Lt. Gov proabably doesn't sound like an attractive candidate to a lot of non-Alabamaians. However, let me give the background on this. Folsom was Lt. Gov. and became Gov. after the resignation of a corrupt Republican. He didn't win a term in his own right. That was in the early 90s and he is now making a return to statewide politics. Although the Repub. nominee for Lt. Gov. won't be chosen until next Tuesday, it is likely to be George Wallace, Jr. I think Folsom stands a good chance of winning because there has been a fair bit of mud-slinging in the Repub. primary, but he will be well positioned for '08 with a close loss.

Posted by: BirminghamDemocrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 06:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

IMHO I think that Mitch Landrieu is going to take on "Queen Bee" Blanco. According to this site a lose is good for a future win so that he is now primed to take on Blanco who is not exactly beloved down there right now. That leaves big sister Mary in a stronger position with her brother on the state side of the equation.

Posted by: Lancearoo [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 07:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Colorado - because I'm there. As a mole in the organization I am happy to see Democrats run that appeal to a social liberal, fiscal conservative. I think the Democrats are running a slate of candidates that appeal to a centrist Republican like myself and that can dislodge the neos from control of our party. Happily crossing the street.

Posted by: El Paso Rockefeller Republican [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2006 11:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In case anybody missed the Montana Senate poll:

Dem Priamry:

Morrison (D) 42%
Tester (D) 41%


Morrison (D) 48%
Burns (R) 41%

Tester (D) 45%
Burns (R) 42%

Posted by: D in FL. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2006 12:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

CA CD-6 is reliably Dem. Marin & Sonoma Counties. Kerry won it with about 71% of the vote. Cong. Lynne Woolsey-D could be in trouble though.
Challenging her in the primary is popular and attractive Assemblyman Joe Nation-D-AD-6, politically to the right of Woolsey. Nation's AD-6 covers about 90% of CD-6 and Nation has received the endorsement of the SF Chronicle. Lynn is reliably left, so, would hate to lose her. Both Woolsey & Nation won their 2004 races with 72% of the vote.
If there is any sort of anti-incumbent mood floating, this could be a race to watch, although Nation is technically not an outsider given his 2 terms in the Assembly.


As much as I'd like to see Former Cong. Pete McCloskey-R take out Cong "Dirty Dick" Pombo in theCD-11 primary, I think we'd be better off hitting Pombo with a Dem Candidate. Both the SF Chronicle & SanJose Mercury News have endorsed McCloskey. No endorsement from them on the Dem Primary, the Mercury News has endorsed McCloskey and McNerney-D (the non-DCCC candidate)over Filson.

Both papers have endorsed Controller Steve Westly for Gov and St.Sen Jackie Speier for Lt Gov.

Only 8 days away.
My Govt, issued Voter Guide arrived, 144 pages. That is a gross?

Posted by: Predictor [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2006 01:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

CA 42 baby. We have a write in candidate :http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/29/83950/4020

Posted by: BENAWU [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2006 09:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Oklahoma Lt gov with the imminent entry of State Senator Cal Hobson on Thursday I belive Dems. will have a serius shoot at this seat.

Posted by: xenoph10005 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2006 01:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Another poll this time NC-11:

Shuler (D) 46%
Taylor (R) 42%

There was one on NC-08 but I can't find the exact numbers but apprently Rep. Hayes (R) is loseing support.


Posted by: D in FL. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2006 08:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I have a few things to say to Mark. One, Biden has shown only nominal interest in an attempted Presidential run. Two, Biden is actually younger than Mike Castle. Biden has been in the Senate since 1972, but, was and still is the youngest Senator ever elected. He was to young to be sworn in actually. He had to wait almost four months before being sworn into the senate. During the same time period his wife and second son died in a car crash that also nearly prevented him from becoming a Senator. Max Baucus is always popular. He got nearly 67% of the vote last time, and is highly popular. It is highly unlikely that Republicans will even be able to give a 5 term U.S. senator a feasable opponent. Rehnberg might be able to hold Baucus under 55% though. Now Mark, Baucus is only in his very early 70s, and he won't be retiring two years after becoming Chairman of the Finance Committee and becoming more powerful than he ever has been before. The thing with Landreiu is that she's a hugely talented campaigner who knows who to divide Republicans and manage to scrap together some conservative votes to win. LA will be a nail biter, but her two terms of incumbence, plus the total lack of any strong challenger in the future, make her seat a pretty sure bet. Tim Johnson is now also a two term incumbent. He's extremely well known having served in the house before becoming a U.S. Senator. He's also been, consistently one of the most popular U.S. Senators in the nation. Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin are both likely to run for another term. And four term incumbent Jay Rockefeller is unlikely to lose to anyone. Capito was shown to lose to Byrd by 18 percentage points, I'd bet that she'd lose to Rockefeller by at least 8 percentage points. Levin might just surprise everybody and announce he's not retiring, because his older brother still serves in the House, and he might not want to be outlasted by him. If Lautenberg dies before the Election, Rob Andrews will be appointed Senator, most likely at least. With a warchest that will probably reach almost 3 million dollars, plus the vast Democratic Fundraising machine, Andrews would win, even against Tom Kean Jr.

Posted by: ArkDem [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2006 09:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm interested in CT-SEN. Lieberman is already running attack ads and it's only May:


Posted by: Samson [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2006 11:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Absolutely right ArkDem. I was about to say the exact same things but you beat me to it. However, you're off on one small detail. Biden was 29 when he was elected, but turned 30 between the election and his swearing-in, so actually he didn't have to wait. You're right though that such circumstances did happen with someone but I forget who. I too highly doubt that Castle would run--he'll be 71 on Jul 2--and that is WAY too old to be giving up seniority in the House to become a FRESHMAN senator

Posted by: Corran [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2006 10:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Looking at 08 from a simply defensive perspective, my view is that whomever is in charge of the DSCC has to be good at convincing incumbents to return.

We only have 12 seats up while the GOP has 21 putting us almost assuredly at a point of strength. People like Levin, Rockefeller, Baucus and Harkin would be shoo-ins to win. If Nussle loses in 06 and runs he could give Harkin a run for his money, but the other 3 would be safe. As I assure you Miller in MI, Captio in WV and Rehberg in MT, none of them would jump into a race again those incumbents. But if those senators were to retire their seats would be hard to retain

Posted by: safi [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2006 12:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In regards to the whether or not biden will step down conversation if he runs for President, he very well may run for both since he is so damn popular in Delaware. Does anyone know what would happen then if he won re-election to the senate but could not serve because he was moving to the executive? Does Delaware state law require a new election? Does the governor fill the seat?

True, John Edwards withdrew from the Senate race when he decided to run for President... but also if I remember correctly he was not the most popular North Carolinan. He wouldn't have won re-election - also did not bring North Carolina over to the Dems for electoral vote purposes. Poor decision for VP.

Posted by: Ferris [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2006 01:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Edwards would have defeated that idiot Burr, had he stayed in NC. And frankly noone could have helped Kerry in the VP spot. It was Kerry's election to lose. Edwards was the best balance to Kerry's zero charisma personality. I think very few, if any, VP candidates have ever helped to any major extent. When it comes down to it people are voting for the Prez candidates, the VP slot is an after-thought, and it makes sense to choose the candidate who placed second in the primaries. Kerry was not the best canddate. More voters were focused on Teresa Heinz Kerry's negatives than Edward's positives.

Posted by: Predictor [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 31, 2006 01:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment