Google Ads


Site Stats

NY-Sen-B: The Next Senator from New York?

by: DavidNYC

Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 9:23 PM EST


Caroline Kennedy faces the press:



DavidNYC :: NY-Sen-B: The Next Senator from New York?
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NY-Sen-B: The Next Senator from New York? | 66 comments
humm
Probably not the best press coverage she could get by not answering these questions.

I wish Governor Paterson picks someone outside the box, like Jonthan Powers even. Iraq War vet, younger. He wouldnt have the name rec. that people like Kennedy would, but hes got time and its NY, its not like a Republican is going to win here anyways.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

Powers doesn't live in New York anymore
as far as I've heard.

Caroline's biggest draw is how close she is to the President-elect, which is what New York needs right now.

I think she could've handled the press better, but that may take work. Obama didn't exactly handle the press well when he started...Palin was a disaster (though she improved over time...her turkey massacre conference was a big step up)


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Aw
Didnt know he doesnt live in NY anymore.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.
[ Parent ]
That was the crux
Of the Working Families Party's attempt to have his name replaced with Alice Kryzan's - that Powers had moved out of state and was no longer eligible. The state courts agreed with that theory, but the federal courts disagreed and over-ruled (more or less). So Powers left the state (took a job in DC, apparently) and stayed on the WFP line.

Didn't make a difference to the final results, though. Kryzan got crushed.

[ Parent ]
Since she'd be your Senator
I'm interested in hearing what you think David?

From a political perspective, ith her making it clear that she wants to run I don't know if Gov. Patterson can pick some member of Congress whose name ID outside of their district is virtually nil.

I'm extremely negative on this choice
When the rest of us were suffering in the wilderness, fighting back against the GOP smear machine which called us traitors and worse, losing election after brutal election, and wondering if a new day would ever dawn, we sure could have used a Caroline Kennedy. Yet as far as I know, she was busy attending black-tie charity balls, only emerging from her chrysalis to write an op-ed in the Times just this year.

The idea that she is now in the mix simply because she can get the governor to answer her calls is appalling to me. Talk about entitlement! Hell, I'm interested in the appointment, too - just Paterson doesn't pick up the phone when I ring.

I say, either appoint a caretaker or change the law to permit special elections. I don't have as much of a problem with celebrities or legacies running for office as some others do. But I deeply resent when the powerful use their connections like this to bypass the democratic process.

And with each passing day, I have diminishing respect for Caroline Kennedy's political skills. Let's not forget that there will be another election right away in 2012. The GOP bench may be thin today in NY, but nobody knew the name George Pataki (some nobody state senator) in 1994, either.

[ Parent ]
i agree with you 100%
This story is driving me insane. And frankly (no offense to Kennedy or to her defenders) this just seems to be Palin-redux to me. Not just because she isn't answering questions or because she seems unqualified but because of her lack of a public record. We simply have no idea where Kennedy stands on any issues, or even whether she has any interest in any issue (except education, since she threw a fundraisers for nyc schools...). At least Palin had some public record on some issues. Frankly Palin seems to have more obvious qualifications and far less entitlement to me... and I never thought I'd defend her.
[ Parent ]
I don't recall anybody saying Palin isn't qualified to be Governor of Alaska
The question was whether she was up to the task of being VP. Being one of a hundred is very different. The lack of a public record shouldn't be a worry. Does anybody seriously believe she won't vote with Obama?
[ Parent ]
The draw to her
has a lot to do with how much she will vote with Obama.

I think more so, it's how close she is to Obama and how she can advocate for New York directly to him. That's what's driving this.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Exactly
Ideology is not the issue. I don't think electability is either. However, people have very valid concerns with regard to experience and justification. It would be very interesting to know what Hillary thinks. I presume Patterson has asked her.
[ Parent ]
Hillary
came out and asked her supporters not to thwart Caroline. It appears that she may be in favor of Caroline's appointment.

Hillary and Paterson are pretty close. I don't think he'd do this if she objected.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
RE: Hillary and Paterson
Really? I heard that he resented having to endorse her.
[ Parent ]
I believe that was Spitzer
I remember hearing about how Spitzer didn't want to endorse her. I remember hearing about how Paterson walked through the snow of NH and Iowa for Hillary.
[ Parent ]
safi's right
she had a frosty relationship with Spitzer.

She's very close to Paterson. He endorsed her and campaigned for her and helped her out...but he was also favorable to Obama and resisted criticising him during the primary campaign.

Paterson was groomed to take this seat if Hillary had become President.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Lynch mob
I saw the tape on TV.  That was no press conference.  The pack was out to have a supreme gotcha moment.  Caroline was disposed to answer; her aide was the one that advised retreat.  Uncle Teddy's Presidential aspirations were killed off. Lest we forget by the ferocious interview of Rogre Mudd in 1976 and the constant replays and snide comments that stemmed from the question, "Why do you want to be President?"  Until that moment, it was "assumed" that Teddy would have at the least one run as nominee.

Hugh Hewitt celebrates the event by calling similar public destructions a "Roger Mudd moment."

As for Pataki, years before he ran for governor, a kid who worked for me but was connected told me that Pataki, then an obscure mayor, was the next big thing for the Republicans.  They planned to run him as County Exec in Westchester and then more.  Of course, Pataki moved out of Westchester to IIRC Putnam where he primaried incumbent state senator Mary Goodhue, was treated with kid gloves in the State Senate (voting against the leadership to build his record with their consent) and was slotted as Al D'Amato's guy to run for Governor.  Unknown?  Yes, but wired up the gazoo.

Caroline has people working the phones and is trying to slowly build support upstate.  She leads the polls by giant margins.  It would certainly be great if she had a history running for office and winning or a history of being a major fund raiser, etc.  I'm not sure if these would make a difference.  JFK was groomed up the ladder (US House, Senate), Bobby had national experience but no elective record (Congressional staff member, Attorney General) and proved to be a great campaigner.  Teddy had neither the grooming nor the experience in high profile slots.  Kennedy Townshend in MD was Lt Gov but was a campaign disaster.

The more time we have to sort it all out, the better.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think it's reasonable
To call reporters with cameras a "lynch mob."
[ Parent ]
Mudd interview
That was in 1979.  And it wasn't that bad, but the post-Watergate media was looking for anything to harpoon Kennedy with to show that they were "fair."
[ Parent ]
How best to behave in this situation
is a bit of a tough one, I think.  None of the people who are being mentioned as interested are really answering questions, but then, there could be said to be a difference between Caroline K. and the others because of their elected status.  At the same time, the tradition around how you lobby for this kind of appointment generally suggests you keep a low-profile.
Case work
As an attorney what kind of case work has she done?  This isn't a gotcha question I was wondering what her expertise may be.  I know she wrote some books and that's great, but do we have more information?

Please donate to amcharities.org to help build more after school centers in the Miami area.  

23, Democrat, IA-2

Case work
I've read numerous articles that say that Caroline Kennedy has never practiced law.  Sorry to disappoint you.

Shalom,
ZWrite

[ Parent ]
WOW
How nervy is it to make comparasions between Caroline and Palin.  Frankly some people should check themselves on that front.

It wasnt so long ago the same critics were saying what business does Hillary have... How Dare the carpetbagger move to NY and become a Senator... Just what experience does she have, they said, other than having married the President.  No experience other than one failed attempt at policy.

I guess the only qualifications needed to be appointed is to have already been in office... yet we spend how much of our collective time promoting and working for 1st time candidates.

Such the double standard because of her last name, which for me, as a liberal, already tells me some things about her background, her positions and her credentials.  We may not be blessed to have Uncle Ted fighting for us much longer, I for one, would be damn happy to see Caroline pick up the torch.

What can a name tell you about her positions?
I remind you that Birch Bayh was a staunch liberal. Evan Bayh, not so much.
[ Parent ]
And so if someone was critical of Clinton
Eight years ago, you can't be critical of Kennedy on somewhat similar grounds now? At least Clinton ran for the office and didn't seek an appointment.
[ Parent ]
cant have it both ways
so the criticism is that shes seeking an appointment... well sorry, the law doesnt provide another remedy to this situation... so are the sour grapes that shes "unqualified" (as most first time candidates would be, not having proved themselves in office) or that shes seeking the appointment or that shes some dynastic priviledged elite.

[ Parent ]
Appointing Senators blows totally
But she's a way better choice than most, especially from a mercenary it's-nice-to-have-high-profile-Democratic-women perspective.  Also, if she doesn't get it, hopefully that will kill Cuomo too.
I posted my concerns on another diary...
...last night and got slammed pretty hard.

I agree exactly.  Where was she when Dems were dreadful in the early 2000's.  She did nothing, no public statements, no political aspirations, nothing.  The lack of a public record is a big issue.  And why would voting 100% of the time with Obama be good.  Some of his policies don't necessarily benefit New Yorkers.  How much campaigning did he do in upstate NY?

Now while people may not like Hillary (or Palin for that matter), consider this about them in contrast to CK:
1.  They were elected, and ran campaigns.  
2.  Both had some prior experience, even if Hillary's wasn't as official.
3.  Both were wildly popular with their constituents who elected them.
4.  Both actually seemed to go out and meet the people they represent (I'm referring to Plain in her governor role...i know the vP thing was a mess.  Hillary visited every county in the state at least once per year.

CK could have run when Hillary did but didn't because she didn't want to fight a Repub congress/president.  Why would I want her if when the fighting gets tough she will back down and NY won't get served.

I also hear people talk about the causes CK supports, and while admirable, why not keep doing that if its so important.  Couldn't someone else with tested views, experience, etc represent NY and CK could just keep doing fundraisers, writing books, etc.

NY needs solid "give em hell" representation, not quiet demure passivity that won't have a noticeable impact other than replacing a woman with a woman.

Obama might be better served by CK not getting selected.  His VP selection co-chair gets appointed to Senate to fill a vacancy he helped create.  Good god, Blagojevich got caught before doing the deed, why would Obama not weigh in on this.  The quid pro quo is somewhat there...

In 2000 he kids were 12, 10 and 7.
Now they are 20, 18 and about to turn 16.

This talk about "where was she" is pretty nauseating.

Even more so when only a fool would not recognize the personal risk involved with her becoming a politician.

[ Parent ]
"she" not "he"

[ Parent ]
I've got a solution to everyone's problems.
If Norm Coleman wins, Patterson can appoint Al Franken as Senator from New York.  Eh?  
WIN.

[ Parent ]
Why bother with Al Franken when you can choose from
Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart?

They're both New Yorkers.

[ Parent ]
An Article that fits this diary:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey, now Mayor Bloomberg's main political guru, has been working the phones to snare support for Kennedy, sources said. Obama advertising specialist John Del Cecato is also on her team.

Meanwhile, a senior state Democrat told The Post that Charles O'Byrne, a Kennedy family friend who officiated at the wedding and the funeral of Caroline's brother John Jr., was directly involved in Caroline's efforts to win the Senate post.

The troops are rolling.  She probably has the biggest and best advocates / staffers / etc. going for her right now.  

I think that this is one of the biggest elephants in the room
with this whole affair.  Her immediate contact network is gigantic and very influential.  Just from that and by reminding people whose seed she came from, she could raise quite a bit of cash.  With a little skill and a lot of hard work, she could be fundraising at astronomical levels.  I can think of few things that move you up the power structure faster than being to raise tons of money for your colleagues.  If people are trying to figure out whose best for New York, just imagine the influence New York would wield if in a few cycles Schumer is Majority Leader and Kennedy is DSCC chair.
It's a perfectly legitimate question as to if she's really going to commit to this; if she just woke up one morning and decided it would be fun to play Senator, then I'd guess not so much.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.
[ Parent ]
If anything she is more qualified than Ted when he was appointed
And that turned out pretty well.
We didn't have blogs then. Let alone internet
That's why we couldn't bitch and moan over every possible disappointing thing we have next to 0 control over.  
[ Parent ]
Teddy was not appointed
He ran for the first time in a special election in 1962.
[ Parent ]
Placeholder
In that case, a placeholder was appointed.  Teddy was not old enough to be appointed to the vacancy but was old enough to run in 1962.
[ Parent ]
So he did
My bad.
[ Parent ]
Come to think of it
Can anybody think of any appointed Senators that went on to have long and distinguished careers? I nominate Ted Stevens. Unfortunately.
[ Parent ]
George Mitchell?
Sam Ervin, Howard Metzenbaum and Lincoln Chafee are others I'd name.
[ Parent ]
A Lot More Haven't
You can point to a lot more appointed Senators who either did not have distinguished careers or who lost when they had to run for the seat. Of the past 49 Senatorial appointments, 39 ran to keep the seat and only 19 won. You can see the list at Nate Silver's post:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...
[ Parent ]
B.F.D.
Why don't you people get worked up about the fact that Obama has appointed more Republicans than progressive Democrats to his cabinet instead of bitching about the appointment of a progressive Demcorat as senator in New York.
well said
period.
[ Parent ]
because
we dont focus so much on presidential politics.

And in all honesty, Obama can do whatever he wants.  I have full trust in him that he knows what needs to be done to turn the country around so I'll just let him get to then.

I'd rather Obama pick Republicans who are qualified and know what they are doing over CK getting picked because she is a Kennedy.

How do you guys think CK would do in a special election?  I'd say if we think she can win that, then whatever, enjoy being in the Senate and rock it out like Ted has.

[ Parent ]
Its kind of interesting
To see the mostly negative reaction from this thread. I don't know any of you personally, but I think its safe to assume that most of us are post-Baby Boomers. So we weren't alive for Vietnam, and the JFK and RFK assasination. I say this because I spoke to my uncle and aunt who remember all of those things and their thrilled about this. When I tried to bring up the critiques of her, they almost got angry as they view her almost as a member of the family.

The other thing, is that I honestly think this may be inevitable now. I think Andrew Cuomo is the only person whose got the name ID to be a plausible alternative. But he's got some of the same critiques surrounding him of nepotism, but he's got a good bit of political experience. Also because of his past marriage with a Kennedy this choice could be seen as a poke in the eye. Of all the other names mentioned, can Patterson really stand at that podium and announce Kristen Gillibrand, or one of those other Congresspeople whose name has been mentioned, who 7 out of 10 New Yorkers have never heard of?

You're right
As a baby boomer I can say that a lot of people don't understand the emotional aspect when it comes to the Kennedys.  There's a sense, rightly, that they never got to fulfill their promise because of the assasinations.  Plus a lot of nostalgia for those who remember Caroline as a little girl at her father's funeral.
[ Parent ]
And
I say that as someone who is one day younger than Caroline.
[ Parent ]
interesting
I never considered that.  I remember when JFK Jr. died in a plane crash, all my family was together at the hospital for my gramps and everyone was like, holy crap really, wow.  I was like, what someone died and it's important because of their last name?  They were all born in the early 60's so they at least remember some of it.

But yeah, and I guess I never realized that the Kennedy's never got the great presidential term that they should've had.  Interesting.  Not that I like the idea that a family is owed something like that but wow, two assassinations of that magnitude.

[ Parent ]
Name Recognition Won't Matter Much
safi: Of all the other names mentioned, can Patterson really stand at that podium and announce Kristen Gillibrand, or one of those other Congresspeople whose name has been mentioned, who 7 out of 10 New Yorkers have never heard of?"

Sure, I think so. Because in two years, when the appointee and Patterson are up for reelection, most New Yorkers will have heard of whomever the appointee turns out to be.

Name recognition isn't necessary right now. It will be an advantage when the election comes, and there's plenty of time to become well-known between now and then. Heck, people without much name recognition have risen from relative obscurity at the start of the campaign season to win statewide office.

So I think the best thing for all involved is to appoint the person who will do the best job. Perhaps that person is Kennedy (though I'm skeptical). But I doubt her celebrity background would matter much if she doesn't do a good job, or that someone else's lack of name recognition now would matter much in two years.

[ Parent ]
Picking Gillibrand
Or Higgins or any of the others names being thrown around who have 30% name ID isn't where potential backlash occurs. Its picking those people over Caroline Kennedy is where the potential backlash occurs.  
[ Parent ]
And....
In two years, I doubt anyone will care. Backlash has to be pretty darn severe to last that long, which is several lifetimes in politics.
[ Parent ]
With her making her
Intentions so publically known why would Gov. Patterson want to start a fight with the Kennedy's. And then with Caroline saying she's gonna run in 2010 regardless of whether she gets the appointment, it makes zero political sense for Gov. Paterson to choose someone else.
[ Parent ]
Excessive Fear
I think the consequences of "picking a fight with the Kennedys" is greatly exaggerated. The people will decide the elections, not the Kennedys. I really find it hard to see that Kennedy/not Kennedy question will play any major role in his 2010 campaign. Much more important will be whether that person has done a good job for two years, not the person's name.

Not to mention other, far more important factors: if the economy is recovering and Patterson gets to restore some budget items, he'll be looking good regardless of who he appoints to the Senate. And if the economy is doing terribly, he'll be vulnerable no matter what. The importance of this appointment to his election prospects pales in comparison.

By the way, it doesn't make "zero" sense for Patterson to appoint someone else. If he thinks someone else will be a lot better at bringing back transit funding for NYC and aid for upstate NY, then it makes tons of sense. It's possible that Kennedy could do that, but it's also possible that others might be more successful. And if that's the case (and I'm not assuming that it is), then appointing someone else would be good for Patterson.

[ Parent ]
And you don't think
The Kennedy's and the name they have and the type of money they can raise could have an impact on voters?

As far as the job they do, the fact that this person is essentially running for election right away, its difficult to see how this person could do a good or bad job. Plus, I doubt the voting records of Caroline Kennedy and Kristen Gillibrand would be that different.

I said it would make zero political sense. The things you listed off were policy issues and while it would be nice if politics didn't play a part in this decision, its silly to believe that'll be the case.

[ Parent ]
The Things I Mentioned Were Political Issues
It's a political issue as to whether someone can secure federal aid for NYC. It's a political issue as to whether someone can secure federal help for upstate. Federal aid is helpful politically even if it's bad policy. And if whomever gets the seat succeeds on those political tasks, then I don't think very many people will care whether the name "Kennedy" is attached to it or not.

As for fundraising, Gillibrand has shown the capacity to raise a lot of money; $4.5 million for a House race puts her in the top tier. Only her self-funded opponent and Charlie Rangel raised more in NY. Steve Israel has also shown substantial fundraising capacity, not for himself but for dozens of other candidates whom he has helped. So fundraising shouldn't be much of a problem, especially given the substantial Democratic lean in New York.

If Kennedy doesn't get the not and primaries the person who does, fine. I'm all for voters getting to decide the issue. And I'm confident that whomever comes out of the primary will win the seat. And given that, I just don't see how Patterson has anything to fear from appointing someone besides Kennedy.

[ Parent ]
Given the fact
That the person who gets appointed will essentially be running non-stop for 4 years, I don't think whomever can secure federal aid for NYC is going to be issue numero uno. Its simple unrealistic to expect whomever gets this appointment to accomplish a great deal in there first 2 years of office, which is why political matters are going to be of such great consideration with this appointment.

Gillibrand and the others you name are good fundraisers for Congressional candidates. But if you think any of them will be able to raise the kind of money Caroline Kennedy could, your out of your mind.

Caroline's made her desire for this seat well known, she's meeting democraitc big wigs across the state, her cousin Kerry is being a surrogate for her on television and she polls way better than any other candidate except for Cuomo. With all of those things, if you think Patterson won't see a political backlash from the Kennedy's if he chooses some Congressperson with 30% name ID, well let's just say we're on different wavelengths.

[ Parent ]
They All Can Easily Defend The Seat
But if you think any of them will be able to raise the kind of money Caroline Kennedy could, your [sic] out of your mind.

They all can raise enough money to defend the seat comfortably. Isn't that all that matters? Do you really think any of them would be at risk of losing the seat?

if you think Patterson won't see a political backlash from the Kennedy's if he chooses some Congressperson with 30% name ID, well let's just say we're on different wavelengths.

What "backlash," especially since the election isn't for two more years? And whomever gets the appointment will have far more than 30% name ID by then. And I bet Schumer had far less than that when he ran. D'Amato probably had less than that too (Wikipedia states that he was "rather obscure" before defeating Javits in the primary).

I just think the importance of present-day name recognition is vastly overstated, especially when the election is two years off.

[ Parent ]
No its not.
Raising enough money to defend a seat is much different tha raising enough money to scare off any credible challengers. Gillibrand and others can raise a few million in a quarter which is good and respectable. But Caroline Kennedy could easily raise 15-20 mill. And no Republican will want to run against that. That't not even taking into account how much better Kennedy would be in terms of fundraising for other democrats.

Do you actually beleive that the Kennedy family wouldn't take it as an affront if Patterson chooses some Congressperson with 30% name ID. I'm not talking about election day, I'm talking about when Patterson makes this decision. And when it comes to his decision making process for this decision, it makes zero political sense to choose someone other than her or Cuomo.

[ Parent ]
But...So What?
So what if Kennedy could raise enough money to scare off potential challengers? If any of the Democrats could raise enough money to keep the seat, then it doesn't matter. And if Republicans want to waste their money trying to win it, so much the better for Democrats.

And so what if the Kennedys take "affront" if Patterson nominates someone else? Are they going to actively campaign against him? How many votes for someone else could they deliver? Remember that Ted couldn't even deliver his home state of Massachusetts for Obama, even with Governor Deval Patrick's support.

I really think the effect of Kennedy support or lack thereof is greatly exaggerated. And once again, Patterson doesn't need to worry about the effect of his decision today; the politics of the situation means it's election day that matters to him.

[ Parent ]
Speaking of New York
Governor Paterson better get his act together quick.  These numerous tax hikes are causing his approvals to plummet.  He's gone from 60%+ approvals to 45% in only a couple months.  If he doesn't turn things around he will be ripe for a challenge in 2010.

http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...

Do you approve or disapprove of the job David Paterson is doing as Governor?

Approve 45%
Disapprove 44%


On the same link...
Do you support? Or do you oppose? The governor's proposed budget?

Support 26%
Oppose 56%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job the New York State Legislature is doing?

Approve 17%
Disapprove 68%


[ Parent ]
He knows that
and he likes the idea of running with a Kennedy on the ballot.


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
2010 Is A Political Lifetime Away
If he doesn't turn things around he will be ripe for a challenge in 2010.

And if the economy is on the rebound, he'll be hard to challenge. Most people don't think we'll be in this bad shape when 2010 rolls around, and restoring expenditures may make him look very good.

I'd put my money on recovery.

[ Parent ]
Ya, it's way off
But with a big majority in the state house and a newly elected slim state senate majority, he needs to get things accomplished in the next two years.  This budget with countless tax hikes aren't going over well with even dems, much less moderates and republicans.  Even New York has it's limits on taxes.
[ Parent ]
A Caretaker Appointment
Have to say I'm warming to the idea of a caretaker appointment. If Kennedy thinks she's the best person for the job, let her take it to the voters in 2010. In the meantime, Patterson could appoint someone who would vow not to seek the seat in the special election. Someone like Liz Holtzman comes to mind, if she's interested (I know I've heard her name floated around).

I know the Democrats would like to avoid a primary, but I think any of the likely candidates emerging from the contest--Kennedy, Cuomo, Israel, Gillibrand, or somone else--would not have a great deal of trouble keeping the seat.

Sorry, I Was Overseas For A Week
So I didn't have enough time to respond to this, since the computer I had access to had no speakers and I couldn't find any. But anyways Caroline, that looked like absolute crap! If you want to be a Senator, you kinda have to answer questions.

Please don't turn into another Sarah Palin.

NY-Sen-B: The Next Senator from New York? | 66 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox