Google Ads

Site Stats

2Q House Fundraising Round-Up

by: James L.

Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM EDT

Yesterday was the deadline for House and Senate campaigns to file their fundraising reports for the second quarter of 2007.  Like we did for the first quarter, we've amassed a list of noteworthy fundraising numbers for House incumbents and challengers.  While this list is seriously mega, it is not meant to be comprehensive.  If we've missed anything, please post the numbers in the comments.  And remember: these numbers are adjusted for rounding.

Scroll buttons ready?  Away we go!

A few quick notes:

  • Republican challengers who outraised Democratic incumbents: Jim Ryun (KS-02) and Andrew Saul (NY-19).
  • Democratic challengers who outraised Republican incumbents: Charlie Brown (CA-04), Russ Warner (CA-26), Jim Himes (CT-04), Michael Montagano (IN-03), Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Andrew Duck (MD-06), David Nacht (MI-07), Kay Barnes (MO-06), Eric Massa (NY-29), Vic Wulsin & Steve Black (OH-02), John Boccieri (OH-16), Darcy Burner (WA-08).  Go Team Blue!
  • Republican incumbents who were out-raised by other Republicans: Wayne Gilchrest (MD-01), Jean Schmidt (OH-02) and Ralph Regula (OH-16).
  • Democratic incumbents who were out-raised by other Democrats: Steve Cohen (TN-09).
  • Anatomy of a Dud: Sean Sullivan, just a few months ago, was a highly touted Republican recruiting coup in Connecticut against freshman Rep. Joe Courtney.  As the former commander of the Groton naval base, he could conceivably have some appeal in the district, where Groton holds a special mystique.  However, after three full months of campaigning, Sullivan has only $31K raised and $14K on hand to show for it.  According to The Politico, Republicans in Washington are plenty furious at his "disastrous" fundraising pace, and he's now persona non grata in DC.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Courtney is on pace to amass $1 million before the year is over.  I love it.
  • NY-20 and PA-08: Before today, the talk was all about how impressive Mark Kirk's (R-IL) fundraising pace is.  Leave it to Kirsten Gillibrand and Pat Murphy to blow his take out of the water.  Gillibrand raised a massive $707K, and Murphy collected over $750K.  Gillibrand's tally sure makes the not-insignificant fundraising reports of challengers Sandy Treadwell and Richard Wager, well, a little less significant.  And you've gotta believe that Murphy's staggering figure is going to give any would-be challenger a serious pause.
  • AZ-01 and CA-04: Rick Renzi's and John Doolittle's incredible shrinking cash-on-hand figures sure look like ominous signs for the embattled incumbents.
  • WV-02: Can someone please tell John Unger to file his July quarterly report?  At the time of writing this, I cannot find Unger's report in the FEC database.  Inquiring minds want to know how much support he's attracting.
  • Take a look at the CoH figures for most of these potentially vulnerable Republican incumbents.  The thing that you should note is that very few of them are bigger than $1 million.  I suspect that that is the lingering effect of 2006: many of these incumbents, realizing that it was a wave year, dumped all or most of their warchests on ensuring their re-election.  Yet another blow to the traditional Republican money advantage.
  • UPDATE: Unger's report is in.  Less than $27K raised, but this isn't a Sean Sullivan-type report since Unger only officially filed for the race around the end of the quarter.  He'll have to make a good showing in the third quarter, though.
James L. :: 2Q House Fundraising Round-Up
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Ohio is on fire!
If one considers the collapse of the Bush presidency, the GOP debacle in Ohio in 2006 (where we took back most of the statewide offices) and now these numbers, it's hard not to be optimistic.

The details tell the story. For example, as Jerid noticed at BSB, just two wealthy families provides the bulk of Mr. Regula's 37 donors. Would it be fair to speculate that a desperate plea went out to generate just enough donations to maintain the PRETEXT of an active campaign?

I think that it entirely fair to say that throughout Ohio "we've got 'em right where we want 'em."

Namely, back on their heels, and in disarray.

But we've got to remember, this race is a marathon, not a sprint.

Earl Britt

One thing to note in TX 10
Larry Joe Doherty loaned himself $100,000 of his $175,000 so he and Grant are head to head in actual fundraising.
Of course, loaned money spends as well as donated money, just doesn't reflect broader support.

Are you missing VT?
Welch?  Or have I forgotten how alphabetical order goes and I'm just missing it?

Like I said...
...this list wasn't meant to be comprehensive.  I kinda figured that Welch is safe, therefore I haven't been recording his totals.

[ Parent ]
Makes sense.
And by now I can't even remember why I was interested in him.

[ Parent ]
Impressive new D's
I may have missed a couple, but a lot of our freshmen have 500K plus on hand, which is impressive: Giffords, McNerney, Mahoney, both Murphys, Klein, Hall, Gillibrand, Altmire, Sestak, and Rodriguez. Walz, Yarmuth, Space, and the new Indianans aren't far off.

Nebraska numbers

Kleeb is the only announced challenger, right now, and he didn't start fundraising until the last couple of days of the quarter, so there's no real number for him other than what's left over from 2006.

Terry's starting to get a warchest going. Not insurmountable, but we need to get moving here in Omaha if we want to beat him this time.

Jean Schmidt
Was outraised by both Democrats and the other Republican.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

Ohio 2 -- Schmidt outraised by both Wulsin (D) and Heimlich (R)
This is another case of a Republican incumbent being outraised by a fellow Republican.  Schmidt's fundraising ($96K in quarter, $75K COH) is anemic to say the least.

Thanks guys.
I somehow left her out of the "Republicans outraised by Republicans" list the first time around.

[ Parent ]
CA-11 Jerry McNerney and Dean Andahl
First, what a great chart.  It's a wonderful resource.

As to CA-11:

In his CA-11 race against Jerry McNerney, Republican Dean Andahl raised $265,000 of his $288,000 from 206 individual contributors.  That's a good number, but note that it is an average of $1,289 per person.
He had a big fundraiser in late June where 300 attended and 250,000 was raised.  http://www.cctextra....
The Republican establishment has clearly rallied to Andahl.  He will be a very tough competitor, and in my view, about as good as the R's could hope for.  This will be a tough race (but we all expected that).  But as to money raised during 2Q, Andahl has gathered the low hanging fruit. 

who is a former
state assembly member, who has about a third teh cash as the Democratic incumbent the best candidate the Republican party can trhow at us in a Democratic leaning district. Andal's take is not impressive considering that almost all his money came from one fundraiser.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
At R+3...
...I wouldn't call CA-11 "Democratic-leaning".  Democratic trending, maybe.

[ Parent ]
ten years, it will be D+2.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Ten years from now
It'll have been redrawn.

[ Parent ]
I meant to say Republican leaning, it was abrainfart on my part, I know the statistics of this district quite well.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Tough Race
One would have to be crazy to think that Jerry is not in for a tough race.  This one will go down to election day just as 2006 did.  All that will hurt us is overconfidence. 

Impressive numbers?  Yes.  Lots raised, and Andal only entered the race in late May.  And that's more than Jerry raised all the way through mid 3Q 2006.  But as I said, Andal gathered the low hanging fruit. 

Former assembly member?  Yes, but also member of the Board of Equalization and Tax Franchise Board, a member of school board of trustees, and part of Arnold's transition team.  The guy is conservative and well-connected.  He will be a tough candidate.  It would behoove our side to take seriously such candidates in republican leaning districts against our freshmen.  I know I do. 

[ Parent ]
Look at what Chris Shays just did (CT-04)
Shays, Bush's favorite chickenhawk in Congress, thought he was homefree after he beat Diane Farrell by a whisker for the second time last year.  So he dispensed with all of his talk about timelines for withdrawal and went back to supporting the escalation and opposing timelines offered by the Democrats.

But hold on there!  Just 48 hours after Democratic challenger Jim Himes announces that he's raised $353k, Shays comes out and says that the troops should be withdrawn by December 2008.  If that isn't an example of "money talks," I don't know what is. 

How curious that Shays, the avowed pacifist (CO status granted in 1972), has no problem letting other young men bleed into the sands of the Iraqi desert for years to come, but he's not about to face his own political mortality. 

The guy will say anything to keep his seat.

Let's remember that number- just 48 hours after Himes announces his fundraising total.  Is anyone else nauseated by the guy?

Re: Warner (highly misleading numbers)
Warner out raised a minor amount of cash against an incumbent with 2.0M in the bank! Look at the first quarter....raised 3K!

In examining the FEC doc's I see that the 2006 campaign ended with a 117K surplus.

The 2008 cycle apparently yields just 4 donors (the 3K) and the rest as a mysterious increase in the 2nd quarter accounting.

I believe it is the merged 2006 funds that showed up the 2nd quarter. If this isn't true then the total on hand should be about double what it is today.

Warner raised only $55K from individuals in 2006. The majority of that support came from his endorsement by Wes Clark. $156K came from his own pocket. I believe it is these funds that showed up in this report.

To his Warner's credit, his current expenses show some professional consulting expenses that might indicate a more professional campaign in creation for 2008.

Remember...Warner lost the primary to Cynthia Matthews whose entire campaign reciepts for 2006 was only $54K. She lost the 2004 General by 13% and the 2006 General by 19%.

The key number against incumbents is Cash on Hand.

Many don't feel the need to do serious fundraising against opponents they know they can bury in cash if they need to do so.

Dreier for example could raise a $1,000,000 with 2 or three fundraising events in Washington.

Let's not celebrate a report without understanding the context. I would hold that true for any district.

This is not aimed at Russ Warner as a negative. It's simply one district that I know well.

I would do the same analysis for any candidate before celebrating his/her report.

KS-2 Nancy Boyda
I would be terrified over the fact that Jim Ryun outraised Nancy Boyda except for two facts.  1) wise or not Boyda has called for the DCCC to back off her campaigns in an attempt to claim that she is a Kansas, not a national Democrat. 2) Jim Ryun is already in near full blown campaign mode fighting moderate GOP hopeful Lynn Jenkins for the Republican nomination to oppose Boyda.  The Club of Growth is already launching TV ads against Jenkins with the usual epithets of "big spender" "high taxer" and so forth.  So this campaign has started already full speed ahead and a lot of that money raised in this race is being used to fight the next round of the Kansas GOP Civil War.  KS-2 is going to be a smackdown of Titanic proportions in 2008 and this is a race I am following as closely as able.  Boyda is one of my 4 "adopted" Dem freshmen, the others bring Steve Cohen of Tenn., John Yarmuth in KY, and of course, Steve Kagen of the 8th CD in Wisconsin.

It is not often I have strong feelings about a GOP primary but Jim Ryun is about as fruit loopy as you can get and nearly anyone in that district would be better suited for Congress than Jim Ryun.  Go Jenkins go!  America will be better off if she can cut off one of the Religious Right's many serpent heads.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

On the other hand
Jenkins poses a much greater threat to Boyda in the general, and the growth of the Democratic party in Kansas mostly relies on stealing dissatisfied and moderate Republicans and independents who are enraged that their party has been taken over by wingnuts, hence Jim Ryun.

[ Parent ]
Can't say I agree with you
it proves to be an illusion that a Democrat is always better off facing a wingnut than a moderate.

Jim Ryun ran a terrible campaign in 2006.  The leadership of the religious right has prioritized retaking KS-2 and Kansas in general.  They revel in the politics of the irrelevant, witness the evolution wars in Kansas.

I am sorry but I disagree with you.  America is not better off when wingnuts win Republican primaries.  Sometimes they do perform like Randy Graf in Arizona, but sometimes they win like Jean Schmidt in Ohio.

I see no reason to believe that Lynn Jenkins would be a superior foe for Nancy Boyda in KS-2 at this time.  Moderate GOPers have not racked up impressive scalps in Kansas afterall unless they switch to the Democratic Party.  Witness Phil Kline's re-emergence as the Johnson Co., DA after getting blown out in his re-election campaign for Kansas state attorney general.

Kansas was not better off because wing nut Phil Kline won that GOP primary in 1998 and the result was a relentless harassing attack on abortion and the gay community in Kansas.  Phil Kline had a 19 year old fella jailed for 12 years and put on a sex offender list for life because he was caught having oral sex with his 17 year old boy friend.  A 19 year old male caught having sex with his 17 year old girl friend would get 6 months jail time in Kansas.

People get hurt when the Jim Ryuns of the world win office and thus humanity is better off if they are eliminated asap as wingnuts do win election in Kansas.

Read "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank if you are interested in Kansas wingnuttery.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
True on many counts
That yes, Jim Ryun DID run a horrible campaign, and thought he was perfectly safe after successfully beating off a better financed Nancy Boyda in 2004, and that Ryun would likely have more financial backing from wingnut groups like CFG.

Jean Schmidt though is a horrible example, though. The only reason why OH-02 is ever on the map is simply because of Jean Schmidt. Democrats shouldn't ever be winning there much less competing there as it is a ruby-red district, but they can do so thanks to Schmidt's wingnuttery. Look at how Vic Wulsin did better than next door neighbor John Cranley, who had a much better resume, better financed, and had the full support of the DCCC; however Chabot hung on thanks to the fact that he wasn't considered to be a wingnut (even though he pretty much is).

Phil Kline is probably not the best choice for example, either, seeing as how the ONLY reason he was swept out was because of his wingnut views. Republicans still control all other statewide offices other than Governorship and, now thanks to Kline, Attorney General. His resurgance in Johnson Co. had nothing to do with elections and everything to do with being picked by the county Republican party to fill in Morrison's old job (a bit of irony there, actually).

Yes I agree, there are many examples where we want 'moderates' rather than wingnuts, Wayne Gilchrest and Walter Jones, as well as a few of the New Jersey Republicans, but electorally speaking, the only reason why the seats of Tim Walberg and Mike Ferguson were in play (and will be next year) were because of their extreme views/voting records.

Take a marginal district like MN-03 with Ramstad. Had its  candidate been Michelle Bachman, Tim Walberg, Jim Ryun, they would have been defeated precipitously despite it being a 51% Bush district. With Ramstad, it is his for life barring some Foley scandal, and that is simply because he is "moderate".

Or take the success stories of Specter versus Santorum.

[ Parent ]
I agree, STate Treasurer
Jenkins is a far stronger candidate as a woman, and a moderate Republican. Boyda can beat Ryun, will beat Ryun because of this priamry, (exclusing a disatorous Democratic presdiential campaign), but cannot beat Jenkins. Boyda beats Ryun by siphoning moderate Republicans and conservative to moderate independants who may not like her, but prefer her over the wacky far right, fundy Ryun who offends them and is just too conservative for them to vote for. Through Jenkins in, she gets those votes, beat Boyda by a 6-8 point margin, and hits the burgeoning KS-DP with a serious blow. Against Ryun, Boyda wins 51-49, further entrenches herself and saves a district for us, and Jenkins possibly decides to run for Governor in 2010 instead. Ryun may run again in 2010 feeling that Jenkins primary sabotaged him in 08 and was the only reason he lsot. That would give Doyda a third victory.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Pretty optimistic
If Lynn Jenkins wins the primary, any votes she might take from Boyda on her left she will lose to the wingnut who sits out the election on the right pouting that she defeated posterboy wingnut extraordinaire Jim Ryun.  This is Kansas and their wingnuts are serious about being true believers.

I have seen nothing that indicates that Boyda is in trouble in KS-2 so far.  She seems to be settling in well and her populist people driven campaign is ready for round 2. She is well poised to expand on her close 2006 victory margin. 

Jim Ryun has much greater fund raising power than Lynn Jenkins and after Jenkins takes over a year of sustained pounding from the right Boyda is not going to look much more liberal than Jenkins, from a wingnut perspective.  The Club of Growth is already pounding away at Jenkins branding her a liberal in TV ads. 

So we are going to have to agree to disagree.  I assert Ryun is the greater threat ultimately because by November of 2008 Jenkins will be damaged goods.  Jenkins is already being defined and has yet to seriously fight back against the right wing branding that is going on in KS-2.  I remember how John Kerry allowed himself to be swift boated and Jenkins is already close to have a swift boat problem.

You have to watch the trends in the state and they are moving Boyda's way.  If she continues her competent start there is little reason to think they will replace her. The GOP voters that sent Bill Graves into the KS Governor mansion have shifted in electorally significant numbers into the Kathleen Sebelius led Democratic party. Boyda appeals to the same electorate that simply adores Sebelius, the most popular politician in the state at the moment.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
I honestly don't know
how well the theory of "wingnuts staying home" really holds in reality, and this isn't an attack on you, but I really don't think this theory has been proven enough in actual elections. There's no doubt, in any event, that Lincoln Chafee for example, brought more moderates in than he alienated conservatives. There's no way that Laffey would have garnered the 48% of the vote Chafee acquired. He would have been lucky with 40%, and he actually wasn't the most conservative wingnut out there (when compared to someone like Walberg). Specter, too, undoubtly brought more votes due to his moderation than did some of the 49% of Toomey Republicans that decided to stay home or vote Constitutional.

But you do bring in a good point that likely Ryun and Ryun allies will try to tarnish Jenkins' reputation to death; If this is a close primary and Ryun barely gets by, it's very likely that a good many of the Jenkin Republicans will vote Boyda, similar to how many Northup Republicans are voting Beshear in Kentucky (though different circumstances, granted).

My overall assertion, though, is that the longer the Kansas Republican party continues to nominate draconian conservatives like Phil Kline and Jim Ryun, there's bound to be a backlash among moderate Republicans and independents who have been, as of late, supporting Sebelius, Dennis Moore, Paul Morrison, and to a smaller extent, Nancy Boyda. Jenkins, though, would likely halt or reverse that trend, so I think it's to the Democratic Party of Kansas's advantage that the Republicans nominate bad candidates like Jim Ryun.

But we'll see how this is all plays out.

[ Parent ]
we agree on backlash
the civil war in the Kansas Republican party is very real and while I failed to articulate my thoughts completely I agree that a Ryun win would drive a number of GOP moderates disaffected with social conservatism towards Boyda.  Kansas is close to verging on a three party state, with only two voting options.

Johnson County has a lot of very wealthy corporate minded Republicans and they are pro-science and pro-schools.  The beginning of the tipping point was the rise of the Intelligent Design movement and the attack on Evolution (Science in general) in Kansas.  Johnson County Republicans are not particularly interested in those issues and inherently understand that undermining science undermines business.  Science creates innovation which spurs creation which generates business opportunity.  They do not want religious barriers to interfere with the process and that is part of the fundamental strain behind the GOP Civil War. 

Something else with the potential to help Ryun v. Jenkins is  the longer the Brownback presidential campaign remains viable and active the more it will benefit Ryun.  Ryun and Brownback are close political allies.

They don't stay home, they just skip over the race when they vote.  And this type of behavior certainly does happen.  A progressive version happened right here in Dane Co., Wisconsin in the Attorney General's race in 2006. The Progressive community was disappointed that progressive Kathleen Falk first even challenged, but then ran a nasty campaign of personal attacks against progressive AG Lautenschlager who was politically weakened by a DUI early in her term in office.  On election day Jim Doyle received 10,000 more votes than Kathleen Falk in Dane County (Madison) and Kathleen Falk is Dane County Executive mind you, and she lost state wide by about 6,000 votes.  If every Doyle voter were a Falk voter she would have won that race. What happened was progressives did not vote in that race.  I work at the polls and I saw many ballots where no vote was entered for the AG race while they voted Dem in general.  So I have seen the effect with my own eyes on legal ballots, it happens. Both on the left and on the right.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
is Madison one of the most liberal cities in the country, Dane county is supposed to be really artsy and liberal.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
I've got to disagree, again.
but not about Kansas, anyhow. I do know about the Wisconsin AG race as I happily voted for Doyle and Falk right here in Dane County. And, while it's possible that Falk did create some small backlash among progressives, I'd say that number was neglible, and that the main reason why Falk fared worse than Doyle was mostly due to that she ran a lousy "I'm an electable progressive" campaign while Doyle campaigned (and governed) largely as a moderate. Moderates do actually exist in Dane County. One friend of mine actually voted for Doyle/Kohl but also Magnum/Van Hollen, knowing full well that Van Hollen was very conservative, but she claimed that Falk was a ridiculous candidate and person (or crazy, as she termed), and though I'm not sure, she probably would have voted for DUI Lautenschlager over Van Hollen.

[ Parent ]
well you are alone in your observation
Like I said I was a Poll worker and I saw live ballots.  I did more than talk to a friend.

It is an ecological fallacy to draw inferences from a friend to the entire population of WI CD-2 and then claiming relevance to the one voters action.

Did you even look at the voter totals or was your friend so ultimately critical that just knowing what she did reveals the penultimate truth of Dane County voting habits?

The final vote statewide 2006 was:

Doyle:  1139115
Green:  979427
Total  2161700 (counting write-in & 3rd party)

Van Hollen: 1023457
Falk:  1016005
total  2,124,167 (counting write-in & 3rd party)

Votes for Governor minus votes for AG: 37533

So Doyle outpolled Falk by 37,533 statewide

Statewide Margin of victory for Van Hollen over Falk: 7452

Jim Doyle 2006 re-election 2006
Dane county total Doyle votes Governor: 213940
Dane county total Falk votes for AG:  211402
Gov total minus AG total  2538
Dane County total votes Doyle:  149661
Dane County total votes Falk:  138507
Dane County Gov minus AG totals  11154

As you can all see 11154 is larger than 7452

I was correct about what I said about Dane County, it was pissed off Progressives who reacted to the slimy campaign of personal attacks that Falk ran against fellow Progressive Peg Lautenschlager.  She lost the race right here in Dane County where she is County Executive and which typically offers up the largest percentage of the vote for progressive candidates statewide

So I will stand by voting totals for my analysis and you can stand by your critically important friend for yours and we can let the Swing State Project readers determine for themselves whose analysis is worth reading.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
I used her as an example of the habbits of moderate ticket-splitters who actually do exist even in Dane County. I just provided an example towards my assertion Doyle did better than Falk for, among other things, he was perceived as a moderate.

But let's look at the voter totals for a second. 1.74% of voters voted in the Governors race but not the AG race, which is a common trend among many downticket races (although not the 12% found in FL-13), and these %s generally never exceed 3%. But what we find here is that 1.18% of the voters in Dane County opted out of AG race who voted for Governor, a lesser % than statewide.
Doyle received 69.9% of the vote in Dane County, and Falk received 65.5% of the vote in Dane County, a difference of 4.4%. Doyle recieved 52.7% of the vote statewide while Falk recieved 47.8%, a difference of 4.9%. This is also before contemplating what the Green party voters voted for in the AG race.

Also keep in mind that Van Hollen recieved 44030 more votes than Mark Green, despite there being an overall decrease in votes by 37533. He gained 14046 in Dane County alone.

So what this shows you is that Falk was simply a worse candidate statewide than Doyle, and while it is possible that a few progressives may have opted out of the vote, such as in Dane County, it was neglible as the % that opted out was less than the statewide totals.

It's hard for me, and probably most other number-crunching election analysis people to conclude anything other than Doyle being much more popular among moderate ticket-splitters than Falk, as I had just given you a personal example of mine. I honestly do not think the "Progressive opted out to vote" theory doesn't hold much water in this example.

[ Parent ]
March of the Prgressives - away from Falk
you are the only commentator I have seen coming to your conclusions.  Dane County lost Kathleen the election. Had she performed to the Democratic standard she would be Attorney General today.  In a race this close it is possible to claim vote totals almost anywhere tipped the scale but Dane County was Kathleen's home base and she under performed there because she alienated a significant portion of the progressive electorate in Dane County - Madison. She crushed Jim Doyle in Dane County in the 2002 Democratic Gubernatorial primary in Dane County so there is no excuse for her to be running behind Jim Doyle by over 11,000 votes in the general election four years later. 

It is as simple as that.  The march of the Progressives - away from Falk.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
Yeah the 2002 DEMOCRATIC primary
However, not every single voter in Dane County is registered as a Democrat nor voted in the primary. Yes I agree with you that she did underperform in the county she was supposed to win very handily (taking the same % as Kerry, even though Kerry won statewide and she didn't). But underperforming wasn't a result of progressives. As I already showed you, much less people opted out of the AG race in Dane County than the state at large, so there was no evidence supporting a mass sitout of progressives not voting in this race; in any event, the ones that didnt vote for AG that did for Governor couldn't have won her the race either. It would also be faulty to say that progressives voted for Van Hollen, a huge conservative (he claimed on a scale of 1 to 10 of conservative, he was a 9) along the lines of 11,000-12,000 people. It happened among moderate, swing voters and ticket-splitters who didn't like Falk as a candidate.

[ Parent ]
Not true
You look at where the falloff in voting occurred for Falk and it was Madison urban districts like the one I worked in that witnessed the depressed turnout for Kathleen.  That is where the Progressive vote is, the urban wards in Madison.

Where do you have evidence of moderate swing voters in Dane County swinging away from Falk?

You are not correct about this.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
And furthermore
The Capitol Times and the Wisconsin State Journal also provide evidence to buttress my case.  Dozens of letters to the editor were printed from self proclaimed Madison progressives announcing they were sitting out the AG race.  Such letters to the Editor are not to be found for any other race on the ballot in 2006.  There were no letters from self identified moderate Dems proclaiming allegiance to Van Hollen and the remainder of the Democratic ticket writing those letters.

And if it was moderates falling away from Kathleen as you are suggesting then Van Hollen's right wing blather pulled them in? In Dane County?  It is one thing to argue that thousands of voters stayed home, but your suggestion that they migrated en masse defies credulity.  We both know Kathleen's progressive bona fide's are not questionable, but she emphasized law and order and did not run very hard on progressive issues to scare the middle away from her in the first place. Falk simply did not run an in your face progressive campaign.

So we have personal testimony in the form of letters to the editor.

We have my eye witness account that there were indeed numerous ballots that voted straight line Dem while skipping the AG race (I personally viewed these mind as a poll worker). And we have voter totals showing Falk 11,000 votes behind Jim Doyle in Kathleen's home county Dane, the acknowledged stronghold of the Progressive community in Madison. 

And we have the narrative of the campaign that does lend itself to an analysis that Falk ruptured moderate voters.

Yours is a theory looking for evidence that is not there I'm afraid.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
typo: word ommission added
"And we have the narrative of the campaign that does (NOT) lend itself to an analysis that Falk ruptured moderate voters."

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
Yeah I'm sure
that some progressives didn't vote in the race at all; I mean afterall, there are still liberals who approve of Bush's job performance. But the evidence is just not there to say that progressives skipped out on the race and thats why Falk recieved 11,000 less votes than Doyle in Dane, considering that the rate of not voting in the AG race was less in Dane County than in the entire state. The votes are simply not there, and the evidence is not there to support your claim.

You also can't seem to refute the fact that Van Hollen recieved 14,000 more votes than Mark Green in Dane County. What, did the progressives vote for him instead?

"self identified moderate Dems"

please cite for me where I have mentioned that Van Hollen won because of Moderate Democrats breaking to support Van Hollen? Moderate SWING voters and Moderate DEMOCRATS are two very different things, my friend.

Such swing voters, for different reasons (and not always sound reasoning, but then again I guess we've lived too long in the Bush era) chose Van Hollen over Mark Green. Perhaps because they were normally Republican-leaning, but liked Doyle. Perhaps because they were Republican-leaning, but disliked Mark Green in particular. Possibly because they were marginal Democratic voters, voted for Doyle, but felt compelled to "balance" their ticket by voting for a few token Republicans (hey, it doesn't make much sense I know, but we are talking about Swing voters here afterall). Or maybe they read or watched something bad about Falk in the newspaper or on TV, and decided to vote for Van Hollen. In addition, Doyle was the incumbent governor, which in Political Science is automatically supposed to siphon marginal votes here and there. There are lots of theories as to why swing voters vote the way they do.

"Kathleen's home county Dane, the acknowledged stronghold of the Progressive community in Madison.  "

yeah, not every person in Madison is a steadfast progressive. Keep in mind that Falk actually did not run behind John Kerry in '04 in Dane County.

But your theory just doesn't hold all too much credibility here, I'm sorry.

[ Parent ]
So all those letters to the Editor
from Progressives announcing that they were sitting out the AG race mean nothing?

And Kathleen challenged Peg ever so slightly from the right not the left.  Indeed, Falk was further to the right than Van Hollen on drunk driving in an effort to hightlight Lautenschlager's DWI.  There is nothing in the Falk campaign that would have ruptured moderate swing voters.  If the electorate accepted Lautenschlager's policies they would not  have rejected Falk's.  The difference between 2002 and 2006 was the DWI.  As I stated all along it was Kathleen Falk's campaign of personal attacks that enraged the progressive community (again I cite numerous letters to the editor to both of Madison's newspapers making such claims compared to zero letters to the editor of voters behaving as you suggest).

No swing voters are on record as saying "gee, I was really attracted to J.B. Van Hollen because he ran such a mainstream campaign that I just have to vote for him".  If Falk had not gotten into the mud and alienated her core electorate, she would be Attorney General today.

It was not the fringe supporters that were peeled away by a superior Van Hollen campaign deftly attracting them.  It was Kathleen driving core voters away in disgust over her treatment of Progressive icon Peg Lautenschlager in the Democratic primary.

Document swing voters in Dane County voting against Falk.  I challenge you. Or the contrary, document evidence that the Progressive core solidly stood solid with Falk.  Ha!

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
Perceptions are all that counts
not actual issues. Since when were elections decided by issues? We're in America for crying out loud here. All you need is the perception of being the moderate or sensible candidate. You don't actually have to be that.

You're basiscally saying that Falk kept progressives from voting for her. Well who did they vote for, write-in? Did they not vote? Both are on slim evidence. Did they vote for Van Hollen? Were they really progressives if they did?

Anyhow, I did at 10 minute search of some personal analysis towards the race:
http://www.waxingame... and . Both discredited that silly progressives not turning out to vote theory, and both said that Falk was a lousy candidate/campaigner and got hammered in attack ads by the WMC and by Van Hollen. Actually, the most interesting bit is that the only TV market she improved in from Doyle, the Twin Cities market, is the market that never gets TV ads (because it's too expensive for too few votes). Interesting, to say the least.

But anyhow, it's probably best to drop this conversation, because, afterall, "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves."

[ Parent ]
2002 v. 2006
Wisconsin Attorney General
Dane County

Total votes AG:  166778 Gov: 172033
D-Lautenschlager  112719  67.58%
R-V.Biskupic  53898  32.32%
scattered  161 < .01%

2006 Attorney General's race

Total Votes AG  211402  Gov: 213940
D-Falk  138507 65.52%  increase over 2002 29237
R-Van Hollen  72348  34.22%  increase over 2002 15270
scattered  547 < .01%

increase in votes 2002 to 2006:  44624
increase in Dem vote 2002 to 2006: 25788
Falk underperformed among new voters by 3449 votes
increase in GOP vote 2002 to 2006: 18450 
% of increase to Democrats 2002 to 2006:  57.79%
% of increase to GOP 2002 to 2006:  41.79

increase write votes in 2002 to 2006 Dane Co.:  386
Vote fall off Gov to AG in 2006  2538
margin Falk underperformed in Dane Co.  3449
Total  6373
margin of Van Hollen victory over Falk statewide: 7542

So I guess I was a shade off: Dane County explains 84.5% of the 7542 vote margin that Falk lost by.  The other 1169 votes that she lost the election by are attributable to the remainder of the state of Wisconsin.

So what happened is an increase in voting generally and that  surge would mask a 3-4 % shift within the overall Progressive electorate away from Kathleen.  57.79 % of new voters chose Falk while she was running 11,000+ votes behind Jim Doyle in Dane County.  Yet 65.52% of the total Dane County electorate chose Kathleen. The voting surge was in the student wards and the 18-29 year old electorate KainIllc, the most progressive wards in Madison.  Think about it a second.  The very same type of student wards that handed the Dems the State Senate by delivering 2 campus based seats in Eau Claire as the student vote surged.  The same voters that in Dane County rolled up 66.93% opposition to the Gay Marriage Ban amendment.  So yes, there is reason to believe that the Dane County electorate is dominated by progressive voters who were motivated to vote, as it would be difficult indeed to locate a better issue to separate progressives from moderates and liberals than gay marriage.  Given the Gay Marriage Ban was defeated in Dane County 67-33 while it passed by a  margin of 59-41 statewide puts the Dane County electorate in perspective.

Gay Marriage Ban Amendment Dane County
Yes  70377
No  142491
Total votes: 212868
that is 1466 voters who voted No on the Gay Marriage Ban and skipped over the AG race.  How much evidence do you need that there was a progressive undervote in the AG race in Dane County?

And the tide of incoming voters obscured the movement of Progressive voters.  There were more new voters than there were Falk defecting progressives.  That is not a fact I am challenging.  But the surge in new voters generally obscured the movement within the smaller progressive community in the overall voter totals

But you did begin your half of this debate by arguing it was moderates that cost Falk the election, and then backed way  off as you did some googling for material on the Wisconsin AG elections.  Here is what you stated in one of your first comments: "I just provided an example towards my assertion Doyle did better than Falk for, among other things, he was perceived as a moderate.".  So what you are even debating has shifted since we started this discussion.  Now all the sudden your claims are the media did in Kathleen and the Wisconsin Manufacturers Association spending accounts for the entirety for the scope of her defeat.  Hardly moderate Democrats in Dane County.  So it is difficult to pin down a moving target, your very premises shift under your fingers as you type.  At least I still am arguing my original proposition progressive undervotes (in Dane Co. and statewide). Am guilty of adding this after the fact but it does demonstrate bitterness toward FALK in the Democratic electorate so it is at least as relevant as you bringing in WMC media spending at the last minute and arrogantly pronouncing the debate over because of it. 

Fond du Lac County (home of Peg Lautenschlager)

Lautenschlager 15713 50.81%
V.Biskupic  15210 49.19%
Total  30923

Falk  13974 37.17%
Van Hollen  23617 62.82%
Total  37591

that is a swing for the Democrats from +503 votes to -9643 in Fond du Lac County alone, and is easily attributable to fall-off over Falk's tactics.  9643 is larger than 7542 which was Van Hollen's statewide victory margin.

And progressives are human too, so yes, it remains possible to be a progressive voter and still vote for an ultra- conservative Republican like Van Hollen.  It is very odd that you would even question that.  All someone needs is a belief that their vote is sending someone a message.  Like telling politicians that personal smear campaigns like Falk aimed at Lautenschlager are not acceptable.  Which is what a number of voters did in the 2006 AG race.

The debate over the question is hardly a sealed deal as you intimate, and the fact one of your two sources is Paul Soglin who has a grudge against Kathleen the size of Lake Mendota hardly lends itself to the presumption of objectivity on your part.  Your source has an axe to grind against Kathleen Falk and is about as biased a source against her as is humanly possible to locate, even with google. 

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
Alrighty then
comparing the 2002 AG race and the 2006 AG race is pretty frivilous for the conversation we've been having. We were talking about why Falk lost despite Doyle winning by 7%, which you claim was by progressive voters.

I do think that student voters tend to be more progressive, but they're not a uniform bloc as you would like to believe. Among the ranks of 18-29 year olds are plenty of liberals, moderates, conservatives, socialists, libertarians, apathetic people who just decide to vote for the hell of it, what ever. And yes, even among 18-29 year old moderate and conservative republicans, they are much more likely to vote against the ban than the rest of the population. Using this test as an indication for who is progressive, at least among this population group.

And no, never did I back off my assertion, and never did I claim that it would be impossible to discount individuals who skipped out of the race nor JBVH-voting progressives, just like you can't discount conservatives who skipped or Falk-voting deep conservatives. But that's not why they lost the election.

Yes, television ad blitzes by JBVH and the WMC did a good job of driving moderate voters away from Falk. But again, I'll repeat since you never seem to listen. I'm talking about moderate voters, not moderate democrats, the 10% in the middle of the state that predominately lost Falk the election. Yes you could cite cases where the contrary happened, but the best convential wisdom holds that Falk lost among a small slice of moderate voters, not some zero-evidenced claim that progressive voters decided to stay home costing her the election.

[ Parent ]
you simply do not need moderate voters
to explain Falk's loss in 2006 and that has been my point all along.  It matters not if they are Dems, or GOP, or independents.  You have not established that it was moderate voters that provided Van Hollen's winning margin in Dane County.  What you located was an explanation that claimed that the Wisconsin Manufacturers Assn spent so much money that Falk was overwhelmed statewide, not exclusive to Dane County, while no other Dem was hurt noticeably. Yeah, right.

It has been true since gaining sufferage in 1972 that the student vote has leaned Dem and favors a more liberal/progressive agenda than the electorate as a whole. They are the block of voters whose voter turnout increased most markedly from 2002 to 2006.  And lo and behold, Dane County has more of those student voters than anywhere else in Wisconsin.  And gee it isn't it coincidence that the only two counties in Wisconsin that voted no on the amendment had large student voting blocks (Dane & LaCross)? and isn't it amazing that the students who are filled with conservative, moderate voters in your political schema turned out in such numbers to defy the remainder of the state and vote no to the gay marriage ban, and to oust the Senate GOP from their majority, and to tidal wave in favor of Doyle?  A group need not be uniform to have a significant impact on turnout and candidate voter totals.  All they really have to do is deviate significantly from past behavior.  And turning out in records numbers while overwhelmingly voting no to the gay marriage ban certainly is suggestive all by itself that it was the surge in the progressive minded segment of the college student electorate that was crucial.  Yet enough of these progressive voters passed on Falk, and apparently only Falk, to torpedo her campaign.  If you can show me that moderate student voters voted in excessive numbers for Van Hollen then I will back down for the record :) But moderate means moderate, not a voter who voted YES, YES, GREEN, Van HOLLEN. You have your chance.  Good luck locating No, No Doyle, Van Hollen voters in significant numbers outside of the campus dominated wards in Madison.


Madison -- The number of student votes on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus has continued to outpace those from 2002 as election day went on, compared with new tallies from Young Voter Strategies in Washington, D.C.

In seven key wards at UW-Madison, nearly 5,980 votes were cast by 4 p.m., compared with nearly 3,300 in 2002. The increases weren't as big as they were when tallied at 11 a.m., but some precincts were reporting a 100% increase in turnout.


"On the flipside, opposition to the amendment - including among UW-Madison students - may have fueled a turnout jump in Dane County. That translated into more Doyle votes.

There were 24% more votes cast in Dane County this time than in 2002, and the county registered the highest percentage of "no" votes (67%) in the state."

So I provided the proof that the student vote surged, and was sympathetic to the progressive agenda as reflected by their strong opposition to the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment.  Now you can prove they are raging moderates who were attracted to J. B. Van Hollen's "moderate" pleasing campaign.

And comparing the 2002 to 2004 AG races is not the least bit "frivilous" as you put it.  2002 set the standard met by Peg.  You cannot tell how the electorate shifted from 2002 to 2006 if you do not know where it stated, that is common sense. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you typed faster than you thought when you claimed otherwise.  Just because we disagree about the causation behind Falk's defeat does not mean I question your intelligence. In challenging Peg, Kathleen and her Doyle Democrat supporters argued Kathleen was the stronger candidate because they feared the commercials that the GOP would put together to hammer Peg on the DUI.  You do not win elections by fearing the opposition.  And you rarely help the Party by undercutting your incumbents as they run for re-election.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
they don't, Republcians
aren't whiney stay at home losers, like Democrats can be. They don't just sit at home if they've got a Demcorat to beat, they hold ther noses and vote Republican. Look at 06, for all the countless reports of an early civil war with the conservative faction, all the disatisfaction, all the talk of conservatives just staying home and not voted, it never materialized. They turned up in normal numbers. Yours is the theory that has just not proved to hold through. Jenkins is the extremely popular State Treasurer. She takes the vote4s Boyda has to have to win, moderate republicans, independants, and conservative Democrats. Ryun does not.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Tell me ArkDem
How many Members of the House of Representative used the State Treasurer's office as a springboard to Congress?

Who cares if you are popular as State Treasurer?

These days State Treasurer's are in the news more for selling cocaine than winning House seats.

What evidence other than the label "moderate" which you seem to ascribe magical powers to, do you have for asserting Jenkins has significant electoral appeal that may challenge Ryun's or Boyda's in KS-2?

I will put my knowledge of KS-2 up against yours any day.  Anyone who uses this site can review my commentary on KS-2 as the 2006 elections evolved and I was spot on and among the few people in the entire nation to call a Boyda upset over Ryun when even the DCCC and other 50 State Strategy proponents were skeptical.  Meanwhile your contributions to commentary on KS-2 were....? 

Being contrarian is not being an analyst.  The common wisdom was Ryun would win in a walk over Boyda in 2006 and I challenged it and was spot on correct.  I am again challenging the common wisdom as lazy analysis not fact based and I stand my my analysis of KS-2 until facts are presented of a changing eletoral environment.

Jim Ryun is the foe to fear in KS-2 not Lynn Jenkins.

"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." -- Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

[ Parent ]
How do you think about the GOP primary?
On one hand, one wants Ryun to lose to Jenkins because he's got awful policy positions and she doesn't.  On the other hand, one presumes that Ryun would be much easier for Boyda to beat than Jenkins would be; Boyda could expect to scoop up half or more of Jenkins' supporters in a Boyda-Ryun race.  Then there's the calculation of the odds of Boyda losing; if she stands a very good chance of losing in either case, then one would want Jenkins to win so that the eventual outcome, Congresswoman Jenkins, is not so bad.  So how do you sort through those and decide who to root for, I wonder?  I'd been rooting for Ryun so far, but you just said "Go Jenkins go", so obviously you got a different outcome from this calculus.  (Or maybe you just want Jenkins to bloody Ryun up a bit, but not beat him; that's my actual preference.)  I'd be curious if you'd share your thinking a bit.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

[ Parent ]
and 3
Boyda doesn't have a primary.  Kansas primary is in August of 2008 - one of the latest in the country so Ryun and Lynn need to raise enough to sustain themselves for the primary fight of their lives. 

Too - does anyone know the spread of how much of that is primary vs. general dollars?

join the Everyday Citizen

[ Parent ]
The key to holding KS-02
is for Boyda to turn out every Democrat and Independent possible and then winning about 10% of moderate Republicans.  This is basically the same strategy as Dennis Moore's.

And Republicans in NY-20
were talking shit. One was quoted saying that if you're a Republican, and you've ever thought about running for congress, now's your chance. They feel this district is theirs for the taking, and they're getting all puffy and overconfident. They are either blind to the great strides Gillibrand has been making with ciztens with her great consituent services and moderate voting record. They see this as a solidly Republican district, but Bush only got 55% here in 2004, far from overwhelming, and Gillibrand is already on line to raise 4 million dollars. Treadwell, as a former chairman of the State Republican party, and former SoS, is a credible and formidible candidate, he has a primary which is going to sap his resources, and then he's going to have to face Gillibrand with her tons of money and better name rec. She's entrenching herself even better than I had hoped, and once she gets by this year, I think she can secure her hold on the district.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

Republicans think they should own the white bread suburbs.
They just can't accept that their extreme agenda is alienating their traditional support in districts like NY-19 and NY-20.

[ Parent ]
NY-19 and NY-20
NY-19 will be much easier to hold than NY-20.  NY-19 almost has as many registered Democrats as Republicans and has a growing minority population which is fueled by the flight of Hispanics and African Americans from the city to the suburbs.  Hall should be able to win narrowly here in 2008 and 2010 and be safe in 2012 when the legislature extends the district to pick up heavily Democratic precincts in the Bronx. 

NY-20 is tougher, but Gillibrand is one of the top fundraisers in the House and is a very saavy politician.  The district has a lot of ticket splitters that will support her at the Congressional level even while voting Republican at the Presidential level.

[ Parent ]
Why must we make all Democratic held districts in New York safely democratic. What's wrong with actually having moderate, swing districts.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Upstate NY
is already trending Democratic. I remember reading a diary in Kos last year showing that of all of the districts (then) held by Republicans in Upstate, all but one (Randy Kuhl's) were trending Democratic in registration numbers; that all of them (except for possibly Walsh's) had a plurality of Republican voters; That many of the Republican voters have begun voting Democratic (what he called 'Legacy Republicans'); and that yearly registration numbers have shown tremendously higher rates of Democratic and Independent registration than before (except Kuhl's). This bodes well for our 3 new incumbents, for Dan Maffei, for our highly touted candidate versusing against Reynolds, for the future against McHugh, but badly for Eric Massa.

Of course redistrictring will undoubtly play a role in refiguring out the landscape of Upstate, and in large part not because of politics but because of its stagnant population growth, where it will likely lose a seat in the next census. Probably the most fair would be to combine Reynolds and Kuhl, consolidate Buffalo into 2 districts (from 3), Rochester into 2 (from 3), while likely moving the rest of the Upstate districts westward slightly (as reflecting population changes). This plan, while supported by common sense (and not splitting cities + counties for incumbent protection) would likely yield 1 safe Republican district and many others ripe for takeover.

[ Parent ]
I dunno
parts of Kuhl's district are trending Democratic, and Reynolds is trending rapidly Democratic. We could draw to where it's not safely Republican, to where there is a longshot chance a strong Democrat could win there.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Rochester and Monroe County
seems to have swung the most heavily towards the Democrats from 2004 to 2006. (I made a minor mistake, there are 4 districts encompassing Monroe, not 3). 2 of the 3 Republicans who currently represent all won it in 2002 and 2004 (though in Walsh's case, he had no challenger in 2004) except Kuhl. Monroe was the only county that Massa won in 2006, gaining 9% over the '04 challenger, Maffei narrowly carried it by a few hundred votes, and though Reynolds still won Monroe, he lost 4% (which, admittedly, was the most unimpressive part).

[ Parent ]
Two cycles until redistricting... two cycles until redistricting...
You know folks like McNerney, Gillibrand, Space, Lampson, and Mahoney are just chanting this in their sleep.  And Carney, and Altmire, and Walz, and Kagen, and Giffords, and Mitchell, (although actually, we may be too weak in AZ to get a good redistricting.  Kansas too.)

And I bet Melissa Bean would become a much better Democrat if we could change her district a bit.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

[ Parent ]
is an independent commission, but there is a good chance that Republican territory is removed from both AZ-05 and AZ-08 to create a new district. 

McNerney can be made safe by extending the district into heavily black and Hispanic areas near Oakland and getting rid of Republican parts of Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

Space can be made safe by removing heavily Republican areas at the western end of the district and giving him most of Democratic leaning Stark county. 

Carney is going to be very tough in PA-10.  The problem is that the only Democratic territory nearby is in Paul Kanjorski's district and Democrats won't want him to give up that territory. 

Altmire should be easy to make safe:  just give him some more urban precincts near Pitsburgh. 

Kagen can be made safer by taking out some of the Republican counties on the Western end of the district and give him Democratic leaning territory like Oshkosh that is now in WI-06. 

We need to make gains in Florida and Texas to make sure that Lampson and Mahoney are made safer providing that they are still around.

[ Parent ]
why is there all this
talk of pointless gerryamdnering. NY-20, NY-19, and CA-11 are all quickly trending Democratic, and will be wuite willing to elect Demcorats. Why is there such urgency to Gerrymander them, all the three are only moderately Republican leaning. Altmire's district may have voted for Bush, but that's becasue it's socially conservative like him. It's an ancestrally Democratic district and Altmire is a very good fit for it. There's no reason to mess with Pittsburg, that district should be split up into Murphy's and English's districts if anything. I agree about Space.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
The most likely, and easiest, change in CA-11 is to fill the hole.  In 2000, a strong Dem section was carved out of CA-11 and put into CA-18, just to the south.  The Dems were afraid of losing the seat due to Gary Condit.  The hole is basically both sides of I-5 through Modesto.  The problem is once returned to CA-11, CA-18 will be more Republican. 

[ Parent ]
Bean doesn't need a more Democratic district
neither does Walz. Giffords district is fastly becoming Democratic because of Tuscon and a raising latino population, again no reason to change it. Mitchell's district could maybe be tinkered a little.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Did you notice IL-4?
Its going to be an open seat, and there will be nothing more than nominal Republican opposition.

However, Chicago Alderman Manny Flores raised almost $500k this quarter.  There are 2 other candidates that I know of, and neither of them were in that ballpark.

In fact, the word on the street is that Flores crushed every other first time candidate in fundraising this quarter.

UID 445...I'm special

We'll have to keep an eye on Tennessee 09. Nikki Tinker (sore loser, much?)  raised over $100K to run against the Democratic incumbent, and it doesn't appear to be from the funnel of Emily's List - she's not on their latest endorsement list, anyway. (I checked this afternoon.)

I recognize that it was an accident that TN-09 elected a progressive last cycle because none of the middle of the road candidates would withdraw, and they split the vote.  Nevertheless, Cohen's someone we definitely want to keep, now that he's in Congress. 

I think I'll add him to my 2008 roster on ActBlue, at least until we see what the Third Quarrter fundraising figures are:


Do drop by and see who my other early picks are.

Half the population believes our electoral system is broken. The other half believes it is fixed.  

I agree, fully
the black establishment polticians are mostly highly conservative, when they don't need to be. Thisw is a liberal district. Tinker ran some despicable anti-semetic mailers last year, said the district should elect a black Reperesentative just because most of it's reisdents are black, and she's a really conservative business democrat, (she was an airline executive).

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Fundraising a question
Has anybody done statistical calculation of these data?  Is there a list of above-average fundraisers? Like to report that data on my blog.

Ted Shlechter aka DrTed of TheBridge

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.


Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

SSP Resources


Powered by: SoapBlox