Chris Dodd May Have Challenger In Sam Caligiuri

While Sen. Chris Dodd should be a shoe-in for re-election in 2010 given Connecticut's Democratic tilt, he may face a tough challenge amid low approval ratings stemming from his involvement in the Countrywide scandal. Dodd received loans with special terms as part of Countrywide's VIP program, though Dodd says he was unaware that he received any special benefits.

Republican State Senator Sam Caligiuri, the former mayor of Waterbury said that he is "strongly leaning" toward running against Dodd. Caligiuri is currently a partner at the law firm of Day Pitney.

The Hartford Courant noted:

A graduate of Boston College, Caligiuri also holds a master's degree from Yale University and a law degree from Catholic University. He once served as an attorney in the mid-1990s at the state Capitol under then-Gov. John G. Rowland of Waterbury.

Former Rep. Rob Simmons has also been mentioned as a possible challenger for Dodd. While we think Dodd has a distinct edge right now, this will be a race to watch over the next several months.

Read More......

State of the Day - Vermont

It's hard to believe that the Green Mountain State was once the most Republican in the nation, never voting for Franklin Roosevelt. Now, it has become quite Democratic. Vermont has become a haven for cultural liberals. Republicans have had, in the words of unsuccessful 2000 gubernatorial nominee Ruth Dwyer, "to accept that people just don't agree with us on these issues." Gun control is not popular here, and Republican Governor Jim Douglas has had success with an electorate that seems tired of taxes. Nevertheless, the state has routinely elected a Socialist to statewide office and is a Democratic haven.

2010 will be a relatively quiet year for Vermont.

President – 3 Electoral Votes

2000: Al Gore (D) 51%, George Bush (R) 41%
2004: John Kerry (D) 59%, Pres. George Bush (R) 39%
2008: Barack Obama (D) 67%, John McCain (R) 30%

Vermont was President Obama's 2nd best state (behind Hawaii and the District of Columbia). It's hard to believe that George W. Bush only lost this state by 10 points almost eight years ago. The state is Democratic and trending more so. It has a large number of highly educated, antiwar liberals. Quite frankly, this state is absolutely awful for national Republicans. It would be virtually impossible for any Republican to win here at the Presidential level.

Governor – Jim Douglas (R)

2004: Gov. Jim Douglas (R) 59%, Peter Clavelle (D) 38%
2006: Gov. Jim Douglas (R) 57%, Scudder Parker (D) 41%
2008: Gov. Jim Douglas (R) 53%, Anthony Pollina (I) 21%, Gaye Symington (D) 21%

Governor Douglas should be a favorite if he runs again in two years. While Republicans are rare in Vermont these days, Lynch has managed to carve a good image for the state, where he remains popular. Given the division among the liberal candidates, the only question in 2008 was whether Lynch would reach 50% (in that case, the state legislature chooses a winner). If the Democrats can unify behind a strong candidate, they could make things difficult for Douglas.

Senior Senator – Patrick Leahy (D)

1992: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) 54%, Jim Douglas (R) 43%
1998: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) 72%, Fred H. Tuttle (R) 22%
2004: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) 71%, Jack McMullen (R) 25%

Senator Leahy is not going anywhere. He will continue to be around, much to the consternation of Republicans. Governor Jim Douglas is the only potential respectable candidate, and he seems unlikely to run.

Junior Senator – Bernie Sanders (D)*

1994: Sen. James Jeffords (R) 50%, Jan Backus (D) 41%
2000: Sen. James Jeffords (R) 66%, Ed Flanagan (D) 25%
2006: Bernie Sanders (D)* 65%, Richard Tarrant (R) 32%

Senator Sanders is a self-identified Socialist, which tells you all you need to know about Vermont. He would probably beat Governor Jim Douglas, and would crush anybody else.

House At Large – Peter Welch (D)

2004: Rep. Bernie Sanders (D)* 67%, Greg Parke (R) 24%
2006: Peter Welch (D) 53%, Martha Rainville (R) 45%
2008: Rep. Peter Welch (D) 83.2%, Mike Bethel (I) 4.8%

It would take a seriously Republican year to elect a GOP House member in solidly blue Vermont.

*Bernie Sanders is technically an Independent. However, he caucuses with Democrats, has a very liberal voting record, and is for all practical purposes a Democrat. The Democrats don’t even run people against him. Sanders is considered a Democrat for the purposes in this column.

Read More......

State of the Day - Utah

The Beehive State is probably the most consistently and heavily Republican state in the country. It hasn't voted for a Democrat for President since 1964, and then only barely went for Lyndon Johnson in his landslide. Mormons, who constitute a large amount of the electorate here, tend to be quite socially conservative and financially astute. This leads to a natural affinity for Republicans. With the exception of Democratic Representative Jim Matheson, who is a minor miracle despite several advantages, Democrats are a seriously weak opposition here.

Republicans will continue to dominate in 2010. One other curiosity: There's a possibility that Utah could pick up a seat in the House of Representatives as part of a deal made with Democrats to seat a representative from the District of Columbia.

President – 5 Electoral Votes

2000: George Bush (R) 67%, Al Gore (D) 26%
2004: Pres. George Bush (R) 72%, John Kerry (D) 26%
2008: John McCain (R) 63%, Barack Obama (D) 34%

It is hard to envision any circumstance under which any Democrat could win Utah.

Governor – Jon Huntsman (R)

2000: Gov. Michael Leavitt (R) 56%, Bill Orton (D) 43%
2004: Jon Huntsman (R) 58%, Scott Matheson (D) 41%
2008: Jon Huntsman (R) 78%, Bob Springmeyer (D) 20%

Not only is Utah heavily Republican, but Governor Huntsman is extremely popular. Four years is a long time, but Hunstman would likely win a large blowout if he runs again in 2012.

Senior Senator – Orrin Hatch (R)

1994: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) 69%, Patrick Shea (D) 28%
2000: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) 66%, Scott N. Howell (D) 32%
2006: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) 63%, Pete Ashdown (D) 31%

Despite occasional rumblings of a primary challenge, Senator Hatch is an institution in Utah and will keep this seat as long as he wants it. Representative Jim Matheson would be the best Democratic candidate. Pete Ashdown and Jan Graham are potential sacrificial lambs.

Junior Senator – Robert Bennett (R)

1992: Robert Bennett (R) 55%, Wayne Owens (D) 40%
1998: Sen. Robert Bennett (R) 64%, Scott Leckman (D) 33%
2004: Sen. Robert Bennett (R) 69%, Paul Van Dam (D) 28%

Robert Bennett could face a primary challenge from David Leavitt, the former Juab County attorney who prosecuted polygamist Thomas Green. Leavitt, the brother of former Utah Govenor Mike Leavitt, has expressed interest in running. Despite this potential challenge, Utah is not in the habit of ousting incumbent Republican Senators. Moreover, Bennett has not done anything that would make him vulnerable to a primary challenge. Bennett should be safe for another term in 2010.

House 1 – Rob Bishop (R)

2004: Rep. Rob Bishop (R) 68%, Steve Thompson (D) 29%
2006: Rep. Rob Bishop (R) 63%, Steven Olsen (D) 32%
2008: Rep. Rob Bishop (R) 65%, Morgan Bowen (D) 30%

This is barren territory for Democrats. They stand little chance against Bishop.

House 2 – Jim Matheson (D)

2002: Rep. Jim Matheson (D) 49%, John Swallow (R) 49%
2004: Rep. Jim Matheson (D) 55%, John Swallow (R) 43%
2006: Rep. Jim Matheson (D) 63%, Bill Dew (R) 35%

This is the "Democratic" seat in Utah, but it should still not be electing Democrats to the House. Matheson benefited from an outrageously inept Republican incumbent, some good fortune, a great Utah name, a moderate record, and obvious talent. Matheson will face serious trouble against a good Republican in a good Republican year, but right now he looks to be a favorite for 2010.

House 3 – Jason Chaffetz (R)

2004: Rep. Chris Cannon (R) 63%, Beau Babka (D) 33%
2006: Rep. Chris Cannon (R) 58%, Christian Burridge (D) 32%
2008: Jason Chaffetz (R) 66%, Bennion Spencer (D) 28%

The relatively moderate Cannon lost his primary to decidedly unmoderate Jason Chaffetz, which seems appropriate in this overwhelmingly Republican district. Chaffetz will have no problem with whatever underfuned and relatively unknown Democrat runs against him in 2010.

Read More......

State of the Day - Texas

The Lone Star State has always tended toward one party politics. Until the late 1970's, Democrats dominated state politics here. That situation has completely reversed. Democrats have not elected a statewide official since 1994. They haven’t even come close to doing so since 1998. Already controlling the State Senate, the GOP finally took back the State House in 2002. This enabled them to pass a redistricting plan ensuring Republican control of the House delegation.

The 2006 Governor's race revealed the basic breakdown of state politics. Governor Rick Perry’s 39% represents the basic Republican base, mostly social conservatives. Chris Bell’s 30% is the base Democratic vote. Carole Keeton Strayhorn’s 18% is mostly moderate and economically oriented voters that generally vote Republican, but can be swayed by non-Republicans. Kinky Friedman’s 12% represents disgruntled voters, nonvoters, apathetics, young people, and generally people with unpredictable voting patters. To win, Democrats must appeal to Strayhorn voters. Yet, they never do, choosing instead to go with more classically liberal candidates. It never, ever works for them.

Sen. John McCain won Texas by a healthy 11 point margin in November. McCain's winning margin fell far short of President Bush's victories in 2000 & 2004, but this should come as no surprise given Bush's native son status in the state. Sen. John Cornyn also coasted to a relatively easy victory.

For 2010, the gubernatorial race will be the big story. Republicans have avoided primary battles in recent years, but they may have one this time. Meanwhile, if the Democrats can field a solid candidate, they may actually have a chance to win here.

President – 34 Electoral Votes

2000: George Bush (R) 59%, Al Gore (D) 38%
2004: Pres. George Bush (R) 61%, John Kerry (D) 38%
2008: John McCain (R) 55% , Barack Obama (D) 44%

As noted above, it should be no surprise that Sen. John McCain's margin of victory here was smaller than President Bush's. Obama did seem to benefit a bit from increased African-American turnout and a good performance among Hispanic voters, but this was not enough to keep things close.

Texas should be a safe state for the Republican nominee in 2012. While demographic trends will help Democrats make the state more competitive in the long run, things will not change much by 2012. Moreover, if the Republicans nominate a candidate who is a social conservative or a Southerner, that candidate would likely outperform McCain among typical GOP constituencies.

Governor – Rick Perry (R)

1998: Gov. George Bush (R) 68%, Garry Mauro (D) 31%
2002: Gov. Rick Perry (R) 58%, Tony Sanchez (D) 40%
2006: Gov. Rick Perry (R) 39%, Chris Bell (D) 30%

Governor Rick Perry will face primary opposition, as he makes his third run for governor. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was long rumored to have an interest in the Governor's Mansion. On December 8, 2008, Hutchison made things official by launching a gubernatorial exploratory committee. Hutchison has transferred about $8 million from her federal campaign account to gubernatorial exploratory committee.

In addition to Perry and Hutchison, it is possible that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst may run as well. Dewhurst can tap virtually unlimited personal funds, but he is not beloved in the party.

Initially, it looked like Perry would be able to withstand a challenge from Hutchinson, since the Senator's pro-choice views tend to alienate conservative voters. However, a recent poll showed that Perry might be wearing out his welcome, as he trailed Hutchison by a significant margin. Hutchison would be a stronger general election candidate than Perry.

To have any chance of winning, Democrats are going to need to field a solid candidate who can appeal to moderates. The best candidate may have been Houston Mayor Bill White, but it looks like he is focusing on running for Hutchison's Senate seat, should she resign to run for governor. Rep. Chet Edwards would also be a strong candidate, but there is no indication that he will run. Without White or Edwards, the Democrats may be left with a token candidate again, like Chris Bell. Kinky Friedman has expressed interest in running as a Democrat, which would make the party more of a joke than it already is. Other possibilities include Tom Schieffer or state Senator Kirk Watson.

The GOP is a favorite to retain this seat, though the GOP primary will be worth watching to see what GOP candidate emerges.

Senior Senator – Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)

1994: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) 61%, Richard Fisher (D) 38%
2000: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) 65%, Eugene Kelly (D) 32%
2006: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) 62%, Barbara Radnofsky (D) 36%

Senator Hutchison has already announced she will not run again, and in fact may resign to run for Governor. If she serves out her term, the leading Republican would seem to be Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, who may get this as a consolation prize for being squeezed out of the 2010 gubernatorial race. Other potential candidates include Henry Bonilla, Representatives Kevin Brady, John Carter, Mike Conaway, John Culberson, Louie Gohmert, Kay Granger, Jeb Hensarling, Kenny Marchant, Randy Neugebauer, Ted Poe, and Mac Thornberry, and Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert.

Houston Mayor Bill White has announced that he will run for this seat if Hutchison resigns to run for Governor. White would be the strongest candidate the Democrats could field, as he projects a moderate image and has significant accomplishments as Houston mayor, especially on environmental policy. White could get significant business support and do well in Metro Houston, two bulwarks of GOP domination of Texas. Representative Chet Edwards would also be a great candidate. Anybody else would almost certainly lose. Potential sacrificial lambs include Chris Bell, Ken Bentsen, Lee Brown, Representatives Henry Cuellar, Lloyd Doggett, Charles Gonzalez, Al Green, Gene Green, Ruben Hinojosa Nick Lampson, Solomon Ortiz, Silvestre Reyes, and Ciro Rodriguez, Martin Frost, Ron Kirk, Barbara Radnofsky, Max Sandlin, Charles Stenholm, Jim Turner, and State Senator Kirk Watson.

Assuming Bill White runs for this seat, it should be one of the most competitive state-wide races in many years. The Republicans would still be early favorites to keep the seat, but Bill White would give the Democrats a better chance of winning here than they have had in recent election cycles.

Junior Senator – John Cornyn (R)

1996: Sen. Phil Gramm (R) 55%, Victor M. Morales (D) 44%
2002: John Cornyn (R) 55%, Ron Kirk (D) 43%
2008: Sen. John Cornyn 55% (R) Rick Noriega (D) 43%

Senator Cornyn's winning share of the vote in 2008 basically mirrored that of Sen. John McCain. Newly re-elected, Cornyn has been chosen to head the National Republican Senate Committee.

Cornyn's approval ratings have always been somewhat weak and his hard line immigration stances tend to alienate Hispanic voters. Still, Cornyn did not face much trouble in 2008 because Democrat Rick Noriega was too liberal and he did not raise enough money to truly be competitive in such a large state. While Cornyn remains a favorite for re-election in 2014, he could be vulnerable as the proportion of Hispanic voters continues to grow.

House 1 – Louie Gohmert (R)

2004: Louie Gohmert (R) 61%, Rep. Max Sandlin (D) 38%
2006: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R) 68%, Roger Owen (D) 30%
2008: Rep. Loui Gohmert (R) 88%, Roger Owen (I) 12%

This seat became totally inhospitable to Democrats after the DeLay redistricting. Democrats did not even bother fielding a candidate here in 2008, for good reason.

House 2 – Ted Poe (R)

2004: Ted Poe (R) 56%, Rep. Nick Lampson (D) 43%
2006: Rep. Ted Poe (R) 66%, Gary Binderim (D) 33%
2008: Rep. Ted Poe (R) 89%, Craig Wolfe (L) 11.1%

See House 1, and substitute "Poe" for "Gohmert."

House 3 – Sam Johnson (R)

2004: Rep. Sam Johnson (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Sam Johnson (R) 63%, Dan Dodd (D) 35%
2008: Rep. Sam Johnson (R) 60%, Tom Daley (D) 38%

This district didn't need DeLay to be safely Republican. Johnson is safe.

House 4 – Ralph Hall (R)

2004: Rep. Ralph Hall (R) 68%, Jim Nickerson (D) 30%
2006: Rep. Ralph Hall (R) 64%, Glenn Melancon (D) 33%
2008: Rep. Ralph Hall (R) 69%, Glenn Melancon (D) 29%

The 85 year old former Democrat Hall always seems ready to retire, but he never does. Any Democrat running against Hall faces very long odds.

House 5 – Jeb Hensarling (R)

2004: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R) 64%, Bill Bernstein (D) 33%
2006: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R) 62%, Charlie Thompson (D) 36%
2008: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R) 84%, Ken Ashby (L) 16%

By now, it should be clear that Texas has several House districts that are very safe for the Republicans. This is clearly one of them.

House 6 – Joe Barton (R)

2004: Rep. Joe Barton (R) 66%, Morris Meyer (D) 33%
2006: Rep. Joe Barton (R) 60%, David Harris (D) 37%
2008: Rep. Joe Barton (R) 62%, Ludwig Otto (D) 36%

Barton is very safe in this district that is south of Dallas/Fort Worth.

House 7 – John Culberson (R)

2004: Rep. John Culberson (R) 64%, John Martinez (D) 33%
2006: Rep. John Culberson (R) 59%, Jim Henley (D) 38%
2008: Rep. John Culberson (R) 56%, Mike Skelly (D) 42%

Culberson had real competition in 2008 from wealthy Democrat Michael Skelly, who out raised the incumbent. Culberson does not stand up to the spotlight too well. He has a penchant for stupid comments - for example, he trashed NASA and promoted arming the anti-immigrant Minuteman group. He has become an obstacle to any sort of public transportation in Houston. He seems to have a lot of trouble raising money for re-election, which is embarrassing considering he is on the Appropriations Committee.

Some polls shortly before the election showed Skelly within striking distance, but the Republican nature in the district was too much for Skelly to overcome. This West Houston seat isn’t as Republican as it used to be and is gaining quite a few minorities, but it is still simply too Republican for a Democrat to win. Things could be different in ten years.

House 8 – Kevin Brady (R)

2004: Rep. Kevin Brady (R) 69%, Jim Wright (D) 30%
2006: Rep. Kevin Brady (R) 67%, Jim Wright (D) 33%
2008: Rep. Kevin Brady (R) 73%, Ken Hargett (D) 25%

This is a seriously Republican seat even, by Texas standards. If it's good enough for Brady, it's good enough for me.

House 9 – Al Green (D)

2004: Al Green (D) 72%, Arlette Molina (R) 27%
2006: Rep. Al Green (D) unopposed
2008: Rep. Al Green (D) 94%, Brad Walters (L) 6%

This is one of the most Democratic seats in the nation. Green is safe in this district as long as he wants to run for re-election.

House 10 – Michael McCaul (R)

2004: Michael McCaul (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Michael McCaul (R) 55%, Ted Ankrum (D) 40%
2008: Rep. Michael McCaul (R) 54%, Larry Joe Doherty (D) 43%

This overwhelmingly Republican district, which stretches from Austin to Houston, should not give Democrats a chance. In 2008, the Democrats were high on their nominee, TV judge Larry Joe Doherty, but in the end McCaul won by a sizable margin.

McCaul’s problem is that nobody seems to like him all that much. That said, McCaul easily won against a well-funded opponent in a bad year for Republican incumbents. In the right setting, McCaul could be in trouble, but the politics of the district will make it difficult to unseat him.

House 11 – Mike Conaway (R)

2004: Mike Conaway (R) 77%, Wayne Raasch (D) 22%
2006: Rep. Mike Conaway (R) unopposed
2008: Rep. Mike Conaway (R) 88.3%, John Strohm (L) 12%

This is one of the most Republican districts (if not the most Republican) in the country. Don't expect the Democrats to give Conaway much opposition.

House 12 – Kay Granger (R)

2004: Rep. Kay Granger (R) 72%, Felix Alvarado (D) 28%
2006: Rep. Kay Granger (R) 67%, John Morris (D) 31%
2008: Rep. Kay Granger (R) 68%, Tracey Smith (D) 31%

Texans don't like uncertainty in House races (at least Tom DeLay doesn't). Here's another that will always stay Republican no matter what.

House 13 – Mac Thornberry (R)

2004: Rep. Mac Thornberry (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Mac Thornberry (R) 74%, Roger Waun (D) 23%
2008: Rep. Mac Thornberry (R) 78%, Roger Waun (D) 22%

It's hard to believe there are actually districts in Texas that are more Republican than this one. Regardless, Thornberry will continue to trounce his opponents. Will Roger Waun get trounced a third time in 2010?

House 14 – Ron Paul (R)

2004: Rep. Ron Paul (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Ron Paul (R) 60%, Shane Sklar (D) 40%
2008: Rep. Ron Paul (R) unopposed

The GOP would love to replace Paul with a real Republican, but Paul’s fundraising prowess makes that virtually impossible. No Democrat will ever win this seat.

House 15 – Ruben Hinojosa (D)

2004: Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D) 58%, Michael Thamm (R) 41%
2006: Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D) 62%, Paul Haring (R) 24%
2008: Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D) 66%, Eddie Zamora (R) 32%

Even though this district is 78% Hispanic, they will vote for Republicans in some circumstances (Bush carried this district in 2004). If Republicans cannot appeal to Hispanic voters, their odds of winning here may not be too high, but in the right circumstance, they could give Hinojosa a tough time.

House 16 – Silvestre Reyes (D)

2004: Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D) 68%, David Brigham (R) 31%
2006: Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D) unopposed
2008: Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D) 82%, Ben Mendoza (I) 10%

As you can see, Reyes does not have to stay awake at night worrying about his next re-election campaign.

House 17 – Chet Edwards (D)

2004: Rep. Chet Edwards (D) 51%, Arlene Wohlgemuth (R) 47%
2006: Rep. Chet Edwards (D) 58%, Van Taylor (R) 40%
2008: Rep. Chet Edwards (D) 51%, Rob Curnock (R) 48%

The conservative Chet Edwards has managed to hang onto this seat, even though it heavily favors Republicans. While many expected Edwards to coast to victory in 2008, the under-funded Republican candidate, Rob Curnock, nearly scored an upset this past November. Now that Edwards' vulnerability is evident, expect the Republican Party to put up a much stronger (and better funded) candidate against Edwards in 2010.

Edwards received some attention last summer as a potential Vice President choice for Barack Obama. While Edwards would have been too conservative to be on the national Democratic ticket, he would be a fantastic statewide candidate for the Democrats.

House 18 – Sheila Jackson Lee (D)

2004: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D) unopposed
2006: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D) 77%, Ahmad Hassan (R) 19%
2006: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D) 77%, John Faulk (R) 20%

Sheila Jackson Lee is very safe in this district. She will surely be on the aisle next Tueday night to shake President Obama's hand as he enters the House chamber for his address to Congress.

House 19 – Randy Neugebauer (R)

2004: Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R) 58%, Rep. Charlie Stenholm (D) 40%
2006: Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R) 68%, Robert Ricketts (D) 30%
2008: Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R) 72%, Dwight Fullingim (D) 25%

This is another very Republican district that will give Neugebauer several future victories, should he decide to continue running.

House 20 – Charles Gonzalez (D)

2004: Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D) 65%, Roger Scott (R)
2006: Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D) unopposed
2008: Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D) 72%, Robert Litoff (R) 25%

Gonzalez should crush his opposition in 2010, as he has in previous election cycles.

House 21 – Lamar Smith (R)

2004: Rep. Lamar Smith (R) 61%, Rhett Smith (R) 36%
2006: Rep. Lamar Smith (R) 60%, John Courage (D) 25%
2008: Rep. Lamar Smith (R) 60%, James Strohm (L) 20%

This is another district Democrats can forget about.

House 22 – Pete Olsen (R)

2004: Rep. Tom DeLay (R) 55%, Richard Morrison (D) 41%
2006 special: Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R) unopposed
2006: Nick Lampson (D) 52%, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R) 42%
2008: Pete Olsen (R) 52%, Rep. Nick Lampson (D) 45%

This is a heavily Republican seat in suburban Houston that was one of the few seats Republicans picked up in November. Former Democratic Rep. Nick Lampson owed his 2006 election to Tom DeLay's failure to withdraw before the 2006 Republican primary. Lampson made strong efforts and was not a terrible match for the district (defending NASA and having a moderate/conservative rcord), but the Republican nature of this district was too much for Lampson to overcome. Olsen should have no problem hanging onto this seat in 2010.

House 23 – Ciro Rodriguez (D)

2004: Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) 69%, Joe Sullivan (D) 29%
2006: Ciro Rodriguez (D) 54%, Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) 46%
2008: Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D) 56%, Lyle Larson (R) 42%

Rodriguez also won in fluke circumstances in 2006. After losing a primary challenge to Henry Cuellar in the 28th District, the Supreme Court threw out the district lines and ordered all party primaries in the affected districts. Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla barely missed winning outright in November, and Rodriguez surged past the demoralized Republicans in the December runoff.

This vast West Texas seat stretches from San Antonio to El Paso and includes Del Rio. It actually leans Republican even though it is a majority Hispanic seat. While Larson was not a terribly impressive candidate, Rodriguez won by an impressive margin. While Rodriguez could be vulnerable under the right circumstances and is not safe, he is an early favorite for re-election in 2010.

House 24 – Kenny Marchant (R)

2004: Kenny Marchant (R) 64%, Gary Page (D) 34%
2006: Rep. Kenny Marchant (D) 60%, Gary Page (D) 37%
2008: Rep. Kenny Marchant (D) 56%, Tom Love (D) 41%

Democrats will never win here as long as Republicans are on the ballot.

House 25 – Lloyd Doggett (D)

2004: Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D) 68%, Rebecca Armendariz Klein (R) 31%
2006: Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D) 67%, Grant Rostig (R) 26%
2008: Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D) 66%, George Morovich (R) 30%

This is a swing district by national standards, which makes it prime Democratic territory in Texas. Doggett is entrenched, has not faced any strong Republican opposition, and looks like he will win easy re-election in two years.

House 26 – Michael Burgess (R)

2004: Rep. Michael Burgess (R) 66%, Lico Reyes (D) 33%
2006: Rep. Michael Burgess (R) 60%, Tim Barnwell (D) 37%
2008: Rep. Michael Burgess (R) 60%, Ken Leach (D) 37%

This is another strong Republican district.

House 27 – Solomon Ortiz (D)

2004: Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D) 63%, Willie Vaden (R) 35%
2006: Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D) 57%, Willie Vaden (R) 39%
2008: Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D) 58%, Willie Vaden (R) 38%

Republicans really ought to find someone better than Willie Vaden in what should be a swing district. Ortiz is keeping this seat warm for his son, State Rep. Solomon Ortiz Jr.

House 28 – Henry Cuellar (D)

2004: Henry Cuellar (D) 59%, Jim Hopson (R) 39%
2006: Rep. Henry Cuellar (D) unopposed*
2008: Rep. Harry Cuellar (D) 69%, Jim Fish (R) 29%

* Cuellar had no Republican opposition in the all party primary after the Supreme Court redrew the district lines. Cuellar won 68% to fellow Democrat Frank Enriquez’s 20%

Cuellar has a moderate record and is tough. Nevertheless, Republicans should be able to do better than ninth tier candidate Jim Fish in a swing district that George W. Bush carried twice. If the Republicans get their act together, Cuellar could face some opposition. For now, he is a favorite in two years.

House 29 – Gene Green (D)

2004: Rep. Gene Green (D) unopposed
2006: Rep. Gene Green (D) 74%, Eric Story (R) 24%
2008: Rep. Gene Green (D) 75%, Eric Story (R) 24%

This is a majority Hispanic district and was designed to elect a Hispanic, but the Anglo Green has carved out a comfortable place for himself. It would take pretty much everything going right for Republicans to take this seat.

House 30 – Eddie Bernice Johnson (D)

2004: Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) unopposed
2006: Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) 80%, Wilson Auerbach (R) 18%
2008: Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) 80%, Fred Wood (R) 16%

This is a Republican free zone. The only question is whether Johnson's 2010 opponent can crack 20%.

House 31 – John Carter (R)

2004: Rep. John Carter (R) 65%, Jon Porter (D) 32%
2006: Rep. John Carter (R) 58%, Mary Beth Harrell (D) 39%
2008: Rep. John Carter (R) 60%, Brian Ruiz (D) 37%

Carter is not especially strong, but Democrats will not win the seat.

House 32 – Pete Sessions (R)

2004: Rep. Pete Sessions (R) 54%, Rep. Martin Frost (D) 44%
2006: Rep. Pete Sessions (R) 56%, Will Pryor (D) 41%
2008: Rep. Pete Sessions (R) 57%, Eric Roberson (D) 41%

While Sessions' winning margins have been under 60%, this district does not leave much room for a Democrat to win.

Read More......

State of the Day - Tennessee

The Volunteer State had very competitive two party politics for most of its history. Starting in the early 1990's, however, it became a seriously Republican state. Democrats have no chance of winning this state in a presidential race. Republicans have controlled the state's Senate seats since 1994, even holding onto an open seat against a strong challenge in the 2006 Democratic wave. Democrats often do better in state races. Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen remains popular, though the party recently lost control of the State Senate.

Tennessee was one of the few bright spots for Sen. John McCain. He managed to win the state by a larger margin than George W. Bush had in 2004. In 2010, the big focus will be on the race to succeed term-limited Governor Bredesen.

President – 11 Electoral Votes

2000: George Bush (R) 51%, Al Gore (D) 47%
2004: Pres. George Bush (R) 57%, John Kerry (D) 43%
2008: Sen. John McCain (R) 57%, Barack Obama (D) 42%

Al Gore took a lot of heat for losing his home state in 2000, but the state has changed drastically since he last ran here in 1990. It became heavily Republican in that time, so much so that he probably did well to run as close as he did. This change is illustrated by the fact that even though President Obama made significant strides in states like Virginia and North Carolina, he performed worse in Tennessee than John Kerry did in 2004.

The Republican nominee in 2012 will have no trouble winning here.

Governor – Phil Bredesen (D)

1998: Gov. Don Sundquist (R) 69%, John Hooker (D) 30%
2002: Phil Bredesen (D) 51%, Van Hilleary (R) 48%
2006: Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) 69%, Jim Bryson (R) 30%

Governor Bredesen cannot run for reelection in 2010. On the Democratic side, Harold Ford, Jr. would be a strong candidate for the Democratic nomination if he runs. If not, other possible candidates include Representatives Steve Cohen and John Tanner and Kim McMillan. Democratic businessman Ward Cammack of Nashville has already filed papers indicating he will run. The name of State Economic and Community Development Commissioner Matt Kisber has also been floated.

When former Sen. Bill Frist announced that he would not run for governor, it left the GOP primary race wide open. Three candidates have already declared their candidacies - Memphis District Attorney Bill Gibbons, Knoxville Mayor Bill Halsam, and TN-3 representative Zach Wamp. Other possibilities include Rep. Marsha Blackburn or Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey.

Given the state's Republican leanings, the GOP is a favorite to retain the governorship.

Senior Senator – Lamar Alexander (R)

1996: Sen. Fred D. Thompson (R) 61%, Houston Gordon (D) 37%
2002: Lamar Alexander (R) 54%, Bob Clement (D) 44%
2008: Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) 65%, Bob Duke, 32%

Senator Alexander is very well regarded in Tennessee and trounced his opponent this past November. Given Alexander's popularity and the Republican nature of the state, there is no reason to believe that Alexander will not be a favorite in 2014 if he decides to run for re-election.

Prediction: Sen. Alexander (R) 62%, Tuke (D) 37%

Junior Senator – Bob Corker (R)

1994: Bill Frist (R), Sen. Jim Sasser (D) 43%
2000: Sen. Bill Frist (R) 65%, Jeff Clark (D) 32%
2006: Bob Corker (R) 51%, Harold Ford (D) 48%

Senator Corker should be in good shape in 2012. Harold Ford, Jr. may be the best Democratic candidate (if he doesn't run for Governor instead), but it is hard to see him beating Corker if he could not do it in 2006. Moreover, if Ford runs for Governor and loses, it's hard to see him making another attempt at challenging Corker two years later.

House 1 – Phil Roe (R)

2004: Rep. Bill Jenkins (R) 74%, Graham Leonard (D) 24%
2006: David Davis (R) 61%, Rick Trent (D) 37%
2008: Phil Roe (R) 72%, Rob Russell (D) 25%

Former Republican Rep. Davis lost the Republican primary to Johnson City Mayor Phil Roe by 500 votes, but Roe had no difficulty winning in this heavily Republican district. Roe should trounce his competition again in 2010.

House 2 – John Duncan (R)

2004: Rep. John Duncan (R) 79%, John Greene (D) 19%
2006: Rep. John Duncan (R) 78%, John Greene (D) 22%
2008: Rep. John Duncan (R) 78%, Robert Scott (D) 22%

After Democrat John Greene lost three consecutive times to Rep. John Duncan, Robert Scott decided to give it a try, to no avail. This is another heavily Republican district that should re-elect Duncan.

House 3 – Zach Wamp (R)

2004: Rep. Zach Wamp (R) 65%, John Wolfe (D) 33%
2006: Rep. Zach Wamp (R) 66%, Brent Benedict (D) 34%
2008: Rep. Zach Wamp (R) 69%, Doug Vandagriff (D) 27%

Rep. Zach Wamp is running for governor, leaving this seat open. Republicans have a very high chance of retaining the seat. Preliminary calculations show that McCain won this district by a 62%-37% margin in 2008. Clearly, this is not Democratic territory.

House 4 – Lincoln Davis (D)

2004: Rep. Lincoln Davis (D) 55%, Janice Bowling (R) 44%
2006: Rep. Lincoln Davis (D) 66%, Kenneth Martin (R) 34%
2008: Rep. Lincoln Davis (D) 59%, Monty Lankford (R) 38%

This district could be very competitive for Republicans, but Davis' moderate record and the anti-Republican climate made this seat an easy retention for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. However, the district is not a Democratic one. Preliminary calculations show that McCain defeated Obama here by a decent margin. Davis has a clear edge here, but he could be vulnerable to an anti-Democratic wave.

House 5 – Jim Cooper (D)

2004: Rep. Jim Cooper (D) 69%, Scott Knapp (R) 31%
2006: Rep. Jim Cooper (D) 69%, Thomas Kovach (R) 28%
2004: Rep. Jim Cooper (D) 66%, Gerard Donovan (R) 31%

This is a Democratic leaning seat and Rep. Cooper should have no problem holding onto the seat.

House 6 – Bart Gordon (D)

2004: Rep. Bart Gordon (D) 64%, Nick Demas (R) 34%
2006: Rep. Bart Gordon (D) 67%, David R. Davis (R) 31%
2008: Rep. Bart Gordon (D) 74%, Chris Baker (I) 26%

Even though this seat leans toward Republicans (McCain won the district), Gordon is popular locally and it would take a serious Republican wave to endanger him.

House 7 – Marsha Blackburn (R)

2004: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) 66%, Bill Morrison (D) 34%
2008: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) 69%, Randy Morris (D) 31%

Blackburn survived a serious primary challenge from Tom Leatherwood. It is probably impossible for a Democrat to win this seat.

House 8 – John Tanner (D)

2004: Rep. John Tanner (D) 74%, James Hart (R) 26%
2006: Rep. John Tanner (D) 73%, John Farmer (R) 27%
2008: Rep. John Tanner (D), Uncontested

In the past, this district has straddled the national average, though John McCain did win here. Tanner has a strong grip on this seat and Republicans did not even challenge him in November. However, former GOP candidate James Hart managed to snag 54 write-in votes. Whenever Tanner leaves this seat, the Republicans will have an excellent chance to pick it up.

House 9 – Steve Cohen (D)

2004: Rep. Harold Ford (D) 82%, Ruben Fort (R) 18%
2006: Steve Cohen (D) 60%, Mark White (R) 18%
2008: Rep. Steve Cohen (D) 88%, Uncontested

In 2008, Cohen easily survived a nasty primary challenge in this African-American majority district. Cohen garnered attention in the fall by comparing Barack Obama to Jesus Christ and Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate. Cohen can continue to make such statements, because Republicans have no chance here.

Read More......

Programming Note

We wanted to let our readers know that we have been prevented from making daily updates in the last few days because of personal circumstances. However, we plan on continuing to provide updates and new State of the Day columns shortly. In the meantime, please feel free to check out our most recent State of the Day columns.

Read More......

NY-20 - Special Election For March 31, 2009

Yesterday, we reported on the coming special election to replace Rep. Kirstin Gillibrand in NY-20. Today, there is word that the special election will be on March 31, 2009, and that Governor Paterson will make the official announcement/proclamation on February 23, 2009.

Read More......

Harkin Advocates for Fairness Doctrine

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow caused some uproar among conservatives last week when she said that he wanted the resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Apparently, Tom Harkin made similar comments to radio host Bill Press.

Here is part of their dialogue:

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Well, anytime – just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.'

BILL PRESS: Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that's all. You know, we're not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that's why we need the fair -- that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

I take issue with Bill Press' comment that "they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another." Who exactly is "they"? Press' comments make it sound like conservatives are shutting down liberal radio across the country. In fact, it's quite the contrary. Radio stations are dropping liberal radio (most notably, Air America) because it is wildly unsuccessful. Radio stations stake their life on advertising revenue and liberal talk radio has generally failed to garner high enough ratings to bring in money for radio station owners. Given the fragile state of the radio industry, does anyone seriously think that radio executives would purposely turn down liberal talk radio if it was profitable?

The Fairness Doctrine is an obsolete policy meant for the 1950s when the airwaves and newspapers were the only sources of public information. Now that the Internet has put unlimited amounts of information at people's fingertips and cable news represents ideologies across the spectrum, there is no need for a Fairness Doctine. Indeed, if anything, liberal bloggers dominate the Internet, which counterbalances conservatives' domination of talk radio. Is anyone suggesting that conservative bloggers be given an advantage, since they are generally less popular than liberal blogs?

If the Democrats choose to push the Fairness Doctine, they are only likely to hurt themselves. First, it's highly questionable whether the doctrine could get enough votes in the Senate to pass. Second, the doctrine may very well be unconstitutional. Third, by pursuing the Fairness Doctrine, the Democrats are handing Republicans an issue that holds much salience with the conservative base. If Democrats want to ensure a united conservative base in 2010, they can be sure to strongly push the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine is antiquated and has no business becoming policy in the 21st century. Rather than forcing radio stations to balance their personalities, perhaps liberals should figure out more effective ways to succeed on air.

Read More......

Chris Dodd: Weak Polling Numbers - Is He Vulnerable?

New polling numbers out of Connecticut show that Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, of Connecticut, could be vulnerable in the 2010. Dodd has come under fire for participation in a special program at Countrywide Financial that gave him mortgages at special low rates. So far, Dodd seems to be weathering the storm, but it does mean that he could be vulnerable to a strong challenge in 2010.

Quinnipiac's recent poll in Connecticut showed that 42% of voters say they will "definitely" or "probably" vote for Dodd in 2010, whereas 51% say they "probably won't" or "definitely won't" vote for him in 2010. Only 41% of voters approve of the job Dodd is doing in Washington; 48% disapprove.

Obviously, these polling numbers are horrible for any incumbent. Still, we consider Dodd a favorite for re-election for now. Connecticut is a blue state, the Republican bench of candidates there is not terribly strong and Dodd should be able to raise huge amounts of money for his campaign. That said, if there is an anti-incumbent or anti-Democratic wave in 2010, Dodd could be vulnerable - especially if the GOP fields a solid candidate.

One potential GOP challenger whose name has been discussed is that of former Rep. Rob Simmons. Apparently, NRCC chair (and Texas Senator) John Cornyn has been trying to recruit Simmons for the race. Simmons lost his House seat by 83 votes in 2006. Other names mentioned include Greenwich businessman Tom Foley, Former U.S. Attorney Kevin O’Connor and State Sen. Sam Caligiuri.

Read More......

NY-20: Special Election To Fill Gillibrand's Seat

NPR's Ken Rudin examined the special election that will take place in NY-20 to replace former Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand came into office in the 2006 Democratic wave, defeating scandal-plagued Rep. John Sweeney. The special election in NY-20 will give the GOP a real shot at retaking a northeastern House seat.

Republicans have a solid shot at re-taking this seat. Rudin first examined the GOP candidate, James Tedisco, the minority leader of the State Assembly:

Their nominee is Jim Tedisco, the minority leader in the state Assembly the past four years. He won over GOP leaders who were also looking at other candidates, such as Treadwell and John Faso, who got clobbered as the party's gubernatorial nominee in 2006. Republicans are very high on Tedisco's chances.

The Democrats have nominated businessman Scott Murphy:

Democrats have come up with Scott Murphy, a venture capitalist who has never run for office before, has been involved in politics in his home state of Missouri -- and who, according to Politico's Josh Kraushaar, failed to pay "thousands of dollars in taxes on a start-up computer software company he owned more than a decade ago." In the wake of l'affaires Geithner and Daschle, not to mention allegations about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, Republicans feel they have a winning issue.

The NRCC sponsored a poll of the district that gave Tedisco a large 50-29 lead. While the GOP probably has an edge here, the poll likely reflects Tedisco's name recognition and notoriety in the district. Governor David Paterson has not set the date for the special election.

Read More......

MN-3: Madia Not Running In 2010

In November, DFL candidate Ashwin Madia lost his race against Republican candidate (and now Representative) Erik Paulsen in MN-3. Madia was a relatively unknown candidate who upset state senator Terri Bonoff to win the DFL nomination. While Madia was highly touted by liberal bloggers, he ended up losing to Paulsen by a significant seven point margin.

It looks like there will be no rematch in 2010. Madia told a liberal blogger that he will not be a candidate for 2010. For the DFL, this is probably a positive development. While Madia was a great fundraiser and attracted a lot of attention, it's highly doubtful that he could beat Paulsen in 2010 if he failed to do so in the anti-Republican atmosphere of 2008.

Read More......

Five Things the President Can Do to Turn Things Around

1. Quit being so negative. We're seeing words like "catastrophe", "black hole", "crisis", etc. The problem here that we have a major problem with confidence in the economy. These sort of words don't help. Yes, we're in a recession. Everybody knows that. Don't make it seem like you don't believe in America's capacity to rebound.

2. Explain, clearly and concisely, why THIS stimulus package is really needed to turn things around. I understand that you won't start over. Yet, America is losing confidence in the centerpiece of your administration so far. Address the nation from the Oval Office. Take us through the $800 billion. Discuss the major spending proposals and explain why they will help jolt the economy. You are leaving the discussion of this bill to your opponents.

3. Take command. You delegated most of the bill writing to Congress. For your magnanimity, you got a bunch of questions about contraceptives. Congress failed. You got the mandate, you got the numbers. Quite a few members of Congress owe their jobs to you. You have the purse strings (politically). Step in. After explaining what it is you want and why, fight for it. You're the boss.

4. Back up the talk on ethics. 'Nuff said.

5. Make a public initiative everybody can agree on. You tried to be bipartisan with the stimulus package, but it turned about to be a mistake because you picked an issue on which there are legitimate, unbridgeable differences between the two parties. You can still be "postpartisan", you just need to highlight an issue Republicans will help you with. I have an "out of the box suggestion." After the stimulus package, deliver a major address targeted to the young people of America, asking them to refrain from using drugs. Why do I say this? I'm not advocating stiffer drug laws or a moralizing crusade, but American demand for drugs has led to a frightful wave of homicides in such disparate locales and Mexico and Afghanistan. The border areas of Mexico, in particular, have become frightfully unsafe. This is a national security, and humanitarian nightmare. Nobody has the pull factor with younger Americans that you do. Use it to do some good.

Read More......

State of the Day - South Dakota

The Coyote State on balance is pretty conservative, with perhaps a strain of economic populism. However, personal politics has always been more important here than ideology or party identification. The result is that generally have the upper here (and dominate Presidential races), talented Democrats can succeed. In recent years, Democrats Tim Johnson and Tom Daschle have had outstanding Senate careers, and Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has entrenched herself in the House.

The formula shows no signs of changing. Republican Governor Mike Rounds faces term limits in 2010. Herseth Sandlin may run for his job, and she’d be a good candidate, but she would leave behind an extremely vulnerable House seat. Republican Senator John Thune, who also has a good personal connection with South Dakotans, should win reelection easily.


President - 3 Electoral Votes

2000: George Bush (R) 60%, Al Gore (D) 38%
2004: Pres. George Bush (R) 60%, John Kerry (D) 38%
2008: John McCain (R) 53%, Barack Obama (D) 45%

The President did better here than either Al Gore or John Kerry, hardly a shock given that he ran much better nationally. He still did not come all that close, and it would take a historic landslide to color South Dakota blue in 2012.

Governor - Mike Rounds (R)

1998: Gov. Bill Janklow (R) 64%, Bernie Hunhoff (D) 33%
2002: Mike Rounds (R) 57%, Jim Abbott (D) 42%
2006: Gov. Mike Rounds (R) 62%, Jack Billion (D) 36%

Rounds cannot run for reelection. Barring an established Democrat running, the Republican primary should be determinative. Lieutenant Governor Dennis Daugaard, State Senator Dave Knudson, and Brookings Mayor Scott Munsterman have already announced their candidacy for the GOP nomination. At this early juncture Daugaard and Knudson are the apparent leaders, with Daugaard having an edge in name recognition.

Senior Senator - Tim Johnson (D)

1996: Tim Johnson (D) 51%, Sen. Larry Pressler (R) 49%
2002: Sen. Tim Johnson (D) 50%, John Thune (R) 50%
2008: Sen. Tim Johnson (D) 62%, Joel Dykstra (R) 38%

Johnson got a free pass in 2008 as he recovered from a near fatal blood vessel rupture in the brain. He will always be vulnerable to a strong challenge, but he has done enough to have an edge.

Junior Senator - John Thune (R)

1992: Sen. Tom Daschle (D) 65%, Charlene Haar (R) 33%
1998: Sen. Tom Daschle (D) 62%, Ron Schmidt (R) 36%
2004: John Thune (R) 51%, Sen. Tom Daschle (D) 49%

Thune should be safe for 2010. He has been mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate, and he certainly looks like one.

House At-Large - Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D)

2004: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) 53%, Larry Diedrich (R) 46%
2006: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) 69%, Bruce Whalen (R) 29%
2008: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) 68%, Chris Lien (R) 32%

Herseth Sandlin is safe against all but the strongest challengers. Even in a worst case scenario for her I think she now has enough strength to win.

Read More......

Obama's Bipartisanship Problem

As the battle over the stimulus bill has raged over the last week, talk of bipartisanship has been abounding. This should come as no surprise. Like the former President (George "I'm a uniter, not a divider" W. Bush), President Obama campaigned on bringing people together. Since the President made this inter-party cooperation a centerpiece of the "new politics" he was bringing to Washington, it should come as no surprise that the President wanted a bipartisan stimulus bill.

However, President Obama quickly learned that bipartisan cooperation is much more difficult in practice than in principle. After reaching out to Republicans with several meetings, the President faced one of his first political defeats when House Republicans (and ten Democrats) unanimously voted against the bill in the House of Representatives. The bill faced similar problems in the Senate, though a compromise has been reached that ensures the votes of a few moderate Republicans.

One of the problems with campaigning on bipartisanship is that it is incredibly difficult to achieve. Republicans and Democrats have very different ideas on just about every major issue that comes before Congress. True bipartisanship asks all members of Congress to put aside their priorities and ideologies in the interest of forging a consensus. Of course, the problem with such a consensus is that it makes no one happy. Democrats - who just won huge majorities in November - see little reason to give up certain provisions merely to placate the small minority of Republicans. Similarly, Republicans are in no mood to compromise their own principles, especially since doing so (especially on fiscal discipline) contributed to their own electoral defeats in 2006 and 2008.

What could the President have done?

In the past, President's have often achieved a lesser form of bipartisanship by crafting bills that obtain the votes of their own party, plus a handful of votes from the opposition party. President Obama could have crafted his own bill (does it surprise anyone that the Democrats in the House did not craft a bipartisan bill?) that included mostly Democratic ideas with a few ideas that had appeal to some Republicans. For example, Obama could have included measures that would have granted relief to homeowners facing foreclosure (34 Senate Republicans voted for such an amendment to the stimulus bill). Since the President's campaign themes included helping homeowners, Obama could have stayed true to his ideals while compromising with Republicans at the same time. Many Republicans may have opposed such a bill anyway, but Obama could have probably obtained more Republican votes in the Senate.

The stimulus bill illustrates a significant difficulty that President Obama will face every time he addresses a major issue. Since widespread partisan agreement is very unlikely to happen, the President will be faced with attempting a truly bipartisan approach (which will anger Democratic activists) or he will have to throw caution to the wind and pass legislation without Republican support (making his policies seem more extreme). Either way, the President will risk alienating voters as he tries to balance consensus with the ideological zeal of his own party. The battle over the stimulus bill may be nearing a close, but it shows that President Obama has a lot of work to do if he truly wants to achieve bipartisanship and the goals that formed the centerpiece of his campaign.

Read More......

State of the Race

This was not a good week for the Democrats, but Republicans are crazy if they think they are yet on the road to sustained electoral success.

President

This week, we perform our monthly check of the Republican contest for the 2012 nomination. Bobby Jindal becomes the stand-in on the chart, which otherwise has no changes.

Top Tier

1. Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. He's been more quiet than the rest of the contenders, but he continues to remain on fire with conservatives. He is the one candidate that can potentially become the Republican answer to the President in terms of pure magnetism. He has the highest chance of any of the leading contenders of deciding not to run, but also has the highest chance of icing the nomination away early and starting a "movement".

2. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. He made a speech this week saying that he wished he had won the nomination and the White House. If the economy is still struggling in 2012, he might be the best positioned as an economic expert. Of course, if the economy is humming, the President will probably be reelected. Romney still suffers from the fact that while he's everybody's second choice, he does not seem to be the first choice of any one constituency.

3. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. He's in good position with his television program. His chances depend entirely on the importance of social issues in the 2012 campaign. I'm skeptical he can branch out and appeal to economic conservatives. He also must fight with Jindal and Palin for social conservatives, and may need them both not to run.

4. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. She keeps plugging away. Palin needs to spend time making sound policy pronoucements (a Minnesota Star-Tribune op-ed this week on ANWR was a good start), and less time attacking bloggers. As of right now, too many Republicans either think she is an idiot or do not think she can win a general election. With other alternatives shaping up for social conservatives, she needs to correct that perception.

5. Newt Gingrich of Georgia. He continues to make noise and most Republican primary voters probably like him. His main problem is that he is totally unelectable in a general election. Nominating him might make conservatives feel good, but it would not help their cause at all.

Second Tier

6. Governor Charlie Crist of Florida
7. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
8. Senator John Thune of South Dakota
9. Rudy Giuliani of New York
10. Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina

Wild Cards, Longshots, and No Hopes Who May Run Anyway

Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi
Jeb Bush of Florida
Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia
Governor Jon Huntsman of Utah
Gary Johnson of New Mexico
Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Representative Mike Pence of Indiana
Governor Rick Perry of Texas
General David Petraeus of New York
Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
Fred Thompson of Tennessee

Tier I (Tossup)

Obama (9)

Kansas
Montana

Jindal (10)

Oklahoma
North Dakota

Tier II (Leaning)

Obama (3)

South Dakota

Jindal (8)

Alaska
Nebraska

Tier III (Likely)

Obama (55)

Alabama
Kentucky
Texas(+4)

Tier IV (Safe)

Obama (440)

Arizona(+2)
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida(+2)
Georgia (+1)
Hawaii
Illinois(-1)
Indiana
Iowa(-1)
Louisiana(-1)
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts(-1)
Michigan(-1)
Minnesota(-1)
Mississippi
Missouri(-1)
New Hampshire
New Jersey(-1)
New Mexico
New York(-2)
Nevada(+1)
North Carolina
Ohio(-2)
Oregon(+1)
Pennsylvania(-1)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington(+1)
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Jindal (13)

Idaho
Utah(+1)
Wyoming

Current Outlook
Electoral Vote
Obama 507 (pick up AL, AZ, AR, GA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, SC, SD, TN, TX, WV)
Jindal 31

Popular Vote
Obama 62.9%
Jindal 37.1%

Governors

We have no changes this week.

Democrats currently lead 28-22 in total Governors. Democrats lead 7-5 in races not up in 2009 or 2010. While we currently project a four seat Republican gain, giving them a majority, that gain could be as much as 13. Then again, Democrats could pick up a seat.

Tier I (Toss Up)

Democrat (5)

Connecticut (Jodi Rell)
Massachusetts (Deval Patrick)
New Mexico (Bill Richardson retiring)
Oregon (Ted Kulongoski retiring)
Pennsylvania (Ed Rendell retiring)

Republican (9)

Arizona (Jan Brewer)
Colorado (Bill Ritter)
Florida (Charlie Crist)
Iowa (Chet Culver)
Maryland (Martin O'Malley)
Minnesota (Tim Pawlenty)
Tennessee (Phil Bredesen retiring)
Texas (Rick Perry)
Virginia (Tim Kaine retiring)

Tier II (Leaning)

Democrat (5)

California (Arnold Schwarzenegger retiring)
Maine (John Baldacci retiring)
Michigan (Jennifer Granholm retiring)
New Jersey (Jon Corzine)
Vermont (Jim Douglas)

Republican (1)

Georgia (Sonny Perdue retiring)

Tier III (Likely)

Democrat (4)

Arkansas (Mike Beebe)
Hawaii (Linda Lingle retiring)
New Hampshire (John Lynch)
New York (David Paterson)

Republican (5)

Alabama (Bob Riley retiring)
Illinois (Pat Quinn)
Ohio (Ted Strickland)
South Carolina (Mark Sanford retiring)
Wisconsin (James Doyle)

Tier IV (Safe)

Democrat (2)

Nevada (Jim Gibbons)
Rhode Island (Donald Carcieri retiring)

Republican (7)

Alaska (Sarah Palin)
Idaho (Butch Otter)
Kansas (Kathleen Sebelius retiring)
Nebraska (Dave Heineman)
Oklahoma (Brad Henry retiring)
South Dakota (Mike Rounds retiring)
Wyoming (Dave Freudenthal retiring)

Current Outlook
Republicans 26 (pick up AZ, CO, IA, KS, MD, OH, OK, TN, VA, WI, WY)
Democrats 24 (pick up CA, CT, HI, NV, RI, VT)

Senate

We have no changes this week. I will deal with the New Hampshire situation after Judd Gregg as confirmed as Commerce Secretary.

Democrats lead 42-22 in seats not up for election in 2010 (this includes Al Franken, still tied up in the counting fiasco in Minnesota). We currently project a push in 2010, with a range of a four seat Democratic gain to a five seat Republican gain.

Tier I (Toss Up)

Democrat (4)

Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln)
Florida (Mel Martinez retiring)
Indiana (Evan Bayh)
North Dakota (Byron Dorgan)

Republican (5)

Colorado (Ken Salazar retiring)
Louisiana (David Vitter)
Missouri (Christopher "Kit" Bond retiring)
Ohio (George Voinovich retiring)
Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter)

Tier II (Leaning)

Democrat (3)

Nevada (Harry Reid)
Washington (Patty Murray)
Wisconsin (Russell Feingold)

Republican (4)

Kentucky (Jim Bunning)
North Carolina (Richard Burr)
South Carolina (Jim DeMint)
South Dakota (John Thune)

Tier III(Likely)

Democrat (4)

California (Barbara Boxer)
Delaware special (Ted Kaufman retiring)
Illinois (Roland Burriss)
Oregon (Ron Wyden)

Republican (4)

Alaska (Lisa Murkowski)
Georgia (Johnny Isakson)
New Hampshire (Judd Gregg)
Oklahoma (Tom Coburn)

Tier IV (Safe)

Democrat (6)

Connecticut (Christopher Dodd)
Hawaii (Daniel Inouye)
Maryland (Barbara Mikulski)
New York (Charles Schumer)
New York special (Kirsten Gillibrand)
Vermont (Patrick Leahy)

Republican (6)

Alabama (Richard Shelby)
Arizona (John McCain)
Idaho (Mike Crapo)
Iowa (Charles Grassley)
Kansas (Sam Brownback retiring)
Utah (Robert Bennett)

Current Outlook
Democrats 59 (pick up FL)
Republicans 41 (pick up CO)

House

Representative Paul Hodes announced that he will run for the Senate, vacating his seat in NH-2. Hodes had seemingly entrenched himself in what has been a tossup seat. We will move this race down to the tossup category, but leave it with the Democrats. This is the more Democratic of New Hampshire's two seats and the state has certainly been trending toward the Democrats.

We still project a 19 seat gain for Republicans. At this early date, the range of outcomes is quite wide, from an 10 seat Democratic pickup to a 49 seat GOP gain. Republicans will need 40 seats to take the majority.

Tier I(Toss Up)

Democrat (30)

AZ-1 (Ann Kirkpatrick)
AZ-8 (Gabrielle Giffords)
CA-11 (Jerry McNerney)
CO-3 (John Salazar)
FL-24 (Suzanne Kosmas)
IL-8 (Melissa Bean)
IL-14 (Bill Foster)
IN-8 (Brad Ellsworth)
IN-9 (Baron Hill)
KS-3 (Dennis Moore)
MI-9 (Gary Peters)
MO-4 (Ike Skelton)
NH-1 (Carol Shea-Porter)
NH-2 (Paul Hodes retiring)
NJ-3 (John Adler)
NM-2 (Harry Teague)
NY-24 (Michael Arcuri)
NC-8 (Larry Kissell)
NC-11 (Heath Shuler)
OH-1 (Steven Dreihaus)
OH-16 (John Boccieri)
OH-18 (Zack Space)
OR-5 (Kurt Schrader)
PA-3 (Kathy Dahlkemper)
PA-4 (Jason Altmire)
SC-5 (John Spratt)
TN-4 (Lincoln Davis)
TX-23 (Ciro Rodriguez)
VA-11 (Gerry Connolly)
WI-8 (Steve Kagen)

Republican (29)

AL-5 (Parker Griffith)
AZ-5 (Harry Mitchell)
CA-50 (Brian Bilbray)
CO-4 (Betsy Markey)
DE-AL (Michael Castle)
FL-8 (Alan Grayson)
GA-8 (Jim Marshall)
IL-10 (Mark Kirk)
LA-4 (John Fleming)
LA-6 (Bill Cassidy)
MI-7 (Mark Schauer)
MI-11 (Thaddeus McCotter)
MN-3 (Erik Paulsen)
MN-6 (Michele Bachmann)
MS-1 (Travis Childers)
NV-3 (Dina Titus)
NJ-2 (Frank LoBiondo)
NJ-7 (Leonard Lance)
NY-20 special (VACANT)
NY-29 (Eric Massa)
ND-AL (Earl Pomeroy)
OH-12 (Pat Tiberi)
OH-15 (Mary Jo Kilroy)
PA-6 (Jim Gerlach)
PA-10 (Christopher Carney)
UT-2 (Jim Matheson)
VA-2 (Glenn Nye)
VA-5 (Tom Perriello)
WA-8 (Dave Reichert)

Tier II (Leaning)

Democrat (22)

CO-7 (Ed Perlmutter)
CT-4 (Jim Himes)
FL-2 (Allen Boyd)
FL-22 (Ron Klein)
IL-11 (Debbie Halvorson)
IA-3 (Leonard Boswell)
KY-3 (John Yarmuth)
KY-6 (Ben Chandler)
ME-1 (Chellie Pingree)
MN-1 (Tim Walz)
MS-4 (Gene Taylor)
NM-1 (Martin Heinrich)
NY-1 (Tim Bishop)
NY-13 (Michael McMahon)
NY-19 (John Hall)
NY-25 (Dan Maffei)
OH-6 (Charlie Wilson)
PA-8 (Patrick Murphy)
PA-11 (Paul Kanjorski)
PA-17 (Tim Holden)
SD-AL (Stephanie Herseth Sandlin)
TX-27 (Solomon Ortiz)

Republican (35)

AL-2 (Bobby Bright)
AL-3 (Mike Rogers)
AZ-3 (John Shadegg)
CA-3 (Dan Lungren)
CA-4 (Tom McClintock)
CA-26 (David Dreier)
CA-44 (Ken Calvert)
CA-45 (Mary Bono)
CA-46 (Dana Rohrabacher)
FL-10 (Bill Young)
FL-12 (Adam Putnam retiring)
FL-13 (Vern Buchanan)
FL-15 (Bill Posey)
FL-16 (Tom Rooney)
FL-18 (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen)
FL-25 (Mario Diaz-Balart)
IL-6 (Peter Roskam)
IL-13 (Judy Biggert)
IA-4 (Tom Latham)
KS-2 (Lynn Jenkins)
MD-1 (Frank Kratovil)
MI-6 (Fred Upton)
MI-8 (Mike Rogers)
MN-2 (John Kline)
MO-9 (Blaine Luetkemeyer)
NE-2 (Lee Terry)
NV-2 (Dean Heller)
NJ-5 (Scott Garrett)
NY-3 (Peter King)
NY-26 (Christopher Lee)
OH-2 (Jean Schmidt)
OH-14 (Steven LaTourette)
PA-15 (Charlie Dent)
SC-1 (Henry Brown)
WV-2 (Shelley Moore Capito)

Tier III (Likely)

Democrat (22)

CT-5 (Chris Murphy)
GA-12 (John Barrow)
IN-2 (Joe Donnelly)
IA-2 (Dave Loebsack)
LA-2 (Anh Cao)
MI-1 (Bart Stupak)
MN-7 (Collin Peterson)
NM-3 (Ben Lujan)
NC-2 (Bob Etheridge)
NC-7 (Mike McIntyre)
NC-13 (Brad Miller)
OH-10 (Dennis Kucinich)
OK-2 (Dan Boren)
PA-7 (Joe Sestak)
PA-12 (John Murtha)
TX-25 (Lloyd Doggett)
TX-28 (Henry Cuellar)
WA-2 (Rick Larsen)
WA-3 (Brian Baird)
WV-3 (Nick Rahall)
WI-3 (Ron Kind)
WI-7 (David Obey)

Republican (35)

AK-AL (Don Young)
CA-24 (Elton Gallegly)
CA-25 (Buck McKeon)
CA-48 (John Campbell)
CA-52 (Duncan D. Hunter)
FL-5 (Ginny Brown-Waite)
FL-7 (John Mica)
FL-9 (Gus Bilirakis)
FL-21 (Lincoln Diaz-Balart)
ID-1 (Walt Minnick)
IL-16 (Don Manzullo)
IL-18 (Aaron Schock)
IA-5 (Steve King)
KY-2 (Brett Guthrie)
MI-2 (Pete Hoekstra retiring)
MI-4 (Dave Camp)
MO-6 (Sam Graves)
NJ-4 (Chris Smith)
NJ-11 (Rodney Frelinghuysen)
NY-23 (John McHugh)
OH-3 (Mike Turner)
OH-7 (Steve Austria)
PA-5 (G.T. Thompson)
PA-16 (Joe Pitts)
PA-18 (Tim Murphy)
SC-2 (Joe Wilson)
TN-3 (Zach Wamp retiring)
TX-10 (Michael McCaul)
TX-17 (Chet Edwards)
TX-22 (Pete Olson)
TX-32 (Pete Sessions)
VA-1 (Rob Wittman)
VA-4 (Randy Forbes)
VA-10 (Frank Wolf)
WI-1 (Paul Ryan)

Tier IV (Safe)

Democrat (164)

Republican (98)

Current Outlook
Democrats 238 (pick up LA-2)
Republicans 199 (pick up AL-2, AL-5, AZ-5, CO-4, FL-5, GA-5, ID-1, MD-1, MI-7, MS-1, NV-3, NY-20, NY-29, ND-AL, OH-15, PA-10, TX-17, UT-2, VA-2, VA-5)

Read More......

Alan Keyes Award

This week's nominees agreed to appear on The Price is Right (and Bob Barker came out of retirement for the occasion). The winning bid gets the award.

Announcer: MICHAEL PHELPS!!!!! NANCY KILLEFER!!!!! TIMOTHY GEITHNER!!!! TOM DASCHLE!!!!!! Come on down, you are the four contestants on THE PRICE IS RIGHT!!!!

Bob: It's great to be back. I'm glad to see there are no Samoans. Should we get straight to the bids? What do Barker's Beauties have for us to bid on today?

Announcer: It's the 2008 tax payment of a current United State Congressman!!!!

Crowd: OOOOOOHHHHH!!!!!

Announcer: This thirty eight year Congressman from New York has a salary of $120,000 and a beautiful rental property in the Dominican Republic. Cheap suits and year supply of Aqua Net not included.

Bob: Wow, great stuff, let's see the bids. Michael, you first.

Michael Phelps: $420, Bob

Bob: Michael Bids $420. Nancy:

Nancy Killefer: $2,000 minus the cost of illegal household help.

Bob. That's a bid of $1,972. Timothy?

Timothy Geithner: $700 billion.

Bob: We only have four digits on the display, Tim. Perhaps you might want to try a lower number.

Timothy Geithner: $700 billion.

Bob: Let's just say he's over. Moving on, Tom...

Tom Daschle: $1

Bob: Are you sure?

Tom Daschle: Yes, sir.

Bob: Okay, the....

DING DING DING DING DING

Bob: That sounds means somebody bid the exact price.

Crowd: OOOHHH!!!

Bob: Let's see. Actual tax liability of the Congressman is......ONE DOLLAR. Tom Daschle, come on up, you're the winner of the Alan Keyes Award......you get $100 for the exact bid, Tom. Why don't you reach into my pocket and pull out that bill?

Tom Daschle: Uh, no Bob. I think I'll pass. I'll be able to make it up soon enough.

Read More......

The President's Offensive

The media tells me that starting on Thursday, the President made efforts to go on the offense to sell his stimulus package. He's not going to politely ask for Republican support anymore. He's going to throw his muscles around with Democrats in Congress, making sure the stimulus becomes law. A change in strategies would seem to make sense. After all, he seems to be losing the public relations war and public support for this bill seems to be dropping every day.

Democrats seem to be appreciative of the change in tone, especially the efforts to win Republican support they though diluted the bill. However, the new public relations strategy will fail because it misses the point. The problem with the stimulus is not the marketing campaign and it has nothing to do with the lack of Republican support. Rather, it has to do with the bill itself.

This stimulus bill comes across as the legislative equivalent of a term paper begun six hours before it is due. It is voluminous, as legislators can produce line items in a hurry just like a rushed student can get out words to fill the page in a hurry. It might even have a few good points, at least in isolation. However, like a slapped together thesis, the authors of the bill do not seem to have taken time to ask the simple question: what is the purpose of this bill?

Is this bill designed to provide a short term "jolt" to the economy? If so, then why doesn't the bill have more spending in 2009-2010, and why does it have so many provisions that seem dubious stimulants? Is this bill supposed to represent the implementation of the core, long range Democratic platform? If so, why does it provide a lot of spending on a little things but not enough to reform any one thing? The bill seems like the sort of thing where they felt that they had to check these ideas off and give some lip service and line items to them, but did not bother to make the whole into a coherent plan of attack.

In the end, the bill is a massive pile of unrelated, uncoordinated spending for Democratic power brokers' pet projects that does not even begin to address the problem it is supposed to solve, and whose major long term effect will be to require the borrowing of more money. Does this sound familiar? It should. This is exactly the way in which Congress has spent money for years. It is a supersized version of the ridiculous 2006 Transportation Bill that President Bush laughably called "affordable". The American people have seen all of this before.

We often laugh at individual instances of voter ignorance, but the public as a whole is not as stupid as some people often make them out to be. They have seen this show before. They know it does not work. They suspect it will not work now. If the President and Congress want to sell this bill, they need to start over. If I may borrow a line from the campaign, you can put lipstick on a pig.....

Read More......

State of the Day - South Carolina

The Palmetto State encapsulates the political history of the Deep South. For a century the most Democratic of states, South Carolina is now among the more Republican of states. Blacks give the Democrats a sizable base, but they have not consistently been able to cut into socially conservative whites enough to win major elections. Thus, like Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia, politics plays out on racial lines. To win statewide, Democrats need white conservatives, and even that has not been enough this decade.

Senator Jim DeMint should easily win reelection and none of the House seats look interesting. South Carolina politics should center around the battle to replace Republican Governor Mark Sanford. Democrats are game, but they probably won’t be able to bring enough to the table to claim a successful 2010 in South Carolina.


President – 8 Electoral Votes

2000: George Bush (R) 57%, Al Gore (D) 41%
2004: Pres. George Bush (R) 58%, John Kerry (R) 41%
2008: John McCain (R) 54%, Barack Obama (D) 45%

As predicted, the President could not turn out near enough blacks to make South Carolina even remotely interesting. He will need to maintain approval ratings in the high 60’s to even think about doing so in 2012.

Governor – Mark Sanford (R)

1998: Jim Hodges (D) 53%, Gov. David Beasley (R) 45%
2002: Mark Sanford (R) 53%, Gov. Jim Hodges (D) 47%
2006: Gov. Mark Sanford (R) 55%, Tommy Moore (D) 45%

Sanford cannot run for reelection. Republicans seem to have an advantage in replacing him. Not only does the state favor the GOP, but the party has two potentially strong candidates in Representative Gresham Barrett and Attorney General Henry McMaster. For Democrats, State Senators Robert Ford and Vincent Sheheen have already announced their candidacies. Other Democratic possibilities include Joe Erwin (
a potential self-funder) and State Representatives Henry Ott and James Smith. Any of this group would start out as pretty heavy underdogs.

Senior Senator – Lindsey Graham (R)

1996: Sen. Strom Thurmond (R) 53%, Elliott Close (D) 44%
2002: Lindsey Graham (R) 54%, Alex Sanders (D) 44%
2008: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) 57%, Bob Conley (D) 42%

Admit it. There is something strange about the relationship between Graham and John McCain.

Junior Senator – Jim DeMint (R)

1992: Sen. Ernest Hollings (D) 50%, Thomas Hartnett (R) 47%
1998: Sen. Ernest Hollings (D) 53%, Bob Inglis (R) 46%
2004: Jim DeMint (R) 54%, Inez Tenenbaum (D) 44%

DeMint is likely to get basically a free pass in 2010.

House 1 – Henry Brown (R)

2004: Rep. Henry Brown (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Henry Brown (R) 60%, Randy Maatta (D) 38%
2008: Rep. Henry Brown (R) 52%, Linda Ketner (D) 48%

Brown’s 2008 performance was pretty poor in a heavily Republican district. The increased black turnout probably hurt him, and I cannot imagine the Democrats ever winning this seat. Even so, Brown should expect a sentient challenger in 2010.

House 2 – Joe Wilson (R)

2004: Rep. Joe Wilson (R) 65%, Michael Ellisor (D) 33%
2006: Rep. Joe Wilson (R) 63%, Michael Ellisor (D) 37%
2008: Rep. Joe Wilson (R) 54%, Robert Miller (D) 46%

Considering this strip of land from Columbia to Hilton Head isn’t hopeless for Democrats (though it is tough), Wilson turned in a much better result that Henry Brown in the First District. He is likely safe.

House 3 – Gresham Barrett (R)

2004: Rep. Gresham Barrett (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Gresham Barrett (R) 63%, Lee Ballenger (D) 37%
2008: Rep. Gresham Barrett (R) 65%, Jane Ballard Dyer (D) 35%

This seat is out of reach for Democrats.

House 4 – Bob Inglis (R)

2004: Bob Inglis (R) 70%, Brandon Brown (D) 29%
2006: Rep. Bob Inglis (R) 64%, William Griffith (D) 32%
2008: Rep. Bob Inglis (R) 60%, Paul Corden (D) 37%

Inglis has an announced primary challenger but will never see a threat from Democrats. Unlike his first tenure in the House (1993-1999), Inglis has not term-limited himself this time.

House 5 – John Spratt (D)

2004: Rep. John Spratt (D) 63%, Albert Spencer (R) 37%
2006: Rep. John Spratt (D) 57%, Ralph Norman (R) 43%
2008: Rep. John Spratt (D) 62%, Albert F. Spencer (R) 37%

This Northern South Carolina district leans Republican enough where Spratt will always be endangered in a Republican wave. Othewise, he’s fine and will remain favored.

House 6 – James Clyburn (D)

2004: Rep. James Clyburn (D) 67%, Gary McLeod (R) 31%
2006: Rep. James Clyburn (D) 64%, Gary McLeod (R) 34%
2008: Rep. James Clyburn (D) 68%, Nancy Harrelson (R) 32%

This is a black majority district. The Majority Whip is permanently and utterly safe.

Read More......

Parsing the President

On Thursday, the President penned a column in the Washington Post defending the stimulus package now pending in Congress. In this column, I will review his piece word by word, providing responses and commentary.

By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

He's not exactly Mr. Positive, but he is not wrong, either. I do find it odd that he says "we inherited". "We the People" did not inherit anything, because our history (and our contributions to the crisis by borrowing money we could not afford), predates January 20. I assume the President is reverting to his habit of using the "royal 'we'".

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

What Americans would like to see is action that suggests that "swift, bold, and wise" aren't mutually exclusive.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

I agree with him. Left unsaid is that doing stupid or ineffictive things ("buy American", anyone?) will make the problem even worse than doing nothing.


That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.

How does one measure how many jobs are "saved"? That's a benchmark it seems the President will never have to publicly face not meeting.

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

Unprecedented transparency? Well, bills considered by Congress (which is what this is), are public record and always have been, so I'm not sure about what this means. Of course, this factor has enabled many to point how much questionable spending this bill contains. That's just a throwaway political line.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

Here he simply misses the boat. The criticisms of his plan aren't based on the idea that tax cuts alone can solve the crisis. They are based on the idea that this package wastes money on things that provide poor value and don't stimulate the economy. Besides, "tax cuts" did not create this crisis, a multitude of poor personal borrowing decisions (i.e. subprime lending) did. Liberals generally have criticized the tax cuts as unaffordable due to America's spending needs. That criticism is fair, but this bill paid for by borrowed revenues as well. Is runaway spending on all manner of pet projects "change"?

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

Polls show that the public views this stimulus package skeptically, to say the least. Also, as we pointed out here yesterday, the infamous I-35 bridge collapse was not due to poor infrastructure maintenance.

Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.

I think we can all agree with that.

Now is the time to protect health insurance for the more than 8 million Americans at risk of losing their coverage and to computerize the health-care records of every American within five years, saving billions of dollars and countless lives in the process.

This is a fine idea. However, the tension between stimulus and other agendas shows itself here. Electronic health records, whatever the merits, will not stimulate demand and widespread business investments. As a measure for economic stimulus, it is dubious.

Now is the time to save billions by making 2 million homes and 75 percent of federal buildings more energy-efficient, and to double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy within three years.

Ditto. I'd also say that "doubling" output of alternative energe within three years seems unrealistic. Remember, that if the cost of energy increases, the costs to economic growth increases as well.

Now is the time to give our children every advantage they need to compete by upgrading 10,000 schools with state-of-the-art classrooms, libraries and labs; by training our teachers in math and science; and by bringing the dream of a college education within reach for millions of Americans.

I like the Martin Luther King rhetoric.

And now is the time to create the jobs that remake America for the 21st century by rebuilding aging roads, bridges and levees; designing a smart electrical grid; and connecting every corner of the country to the information superhighway.

Is this bill really going to do that?

These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay. They're patient enough to know that our economic recovery will be measured in years, not months. But they have no patience for the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action while our economy continues to slide.

If we believe public opinion polls, they have no patience for wasting money, either.

So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

In other words, any opposition to this bill is a "bad habit" and "old ideological battles". Could it be that opponents honestly do not think that this bill will help the economy, or may even hurt it? Coming together for the sake of coming together is useless, especially if it is to pass bad policy.

In the end, the President makes a nice rhetorical case for doing something. However, he still falls short in explaining why THIS particular bill is what is needed.

Read More......

State of the Day - Rhode Island

It doesn’t get much more Democratic than Little Rhody. Democrats dominate all levels of government from Presidential races down to State House and Town Councils. Republicans have had only two bastions of power here. The Chafee family held one Senate seat as increasingly liberal Republicans until Lincoln Chafee got bounced in 2006. Also, Republicans have managed to hold the Governor’s Mansion since 1995.

The only question here for 2010 is whether Republicans can hold onto the Governor’s Mansion. Governor Donald Carcieri is retiring, and this is always an uphill fight for Republicans. Neighboring Democratic stronghold Massachusetts finally elected a Democratic Governor in 2006 after sixteen years of Republicans, and Rhode Island Democrats have reason to hope that this is their year.


President – 4 Electoral Votes

2000: Al Gore (D) 61%, George Bush (R) 32%
2004: John Kerry (D) 59%, Pres. George Bush (R) 39%
2008: Barack Obama (D) 63%, John McCain (R) 35%

Well, if it is any consolation for McCain he ran relatively a bit better here than George W. Bush did. This state will never appear on anybody’s battleground list.

Governor – Donald Carcieri (R)

1998: Gov. Lincoln Almond (R) 51%, Myrth York (D) 42%
2002: Donald Carcieri (R) 55%, Myrth York (D) 45%
2006: Gov. Donald Carcieri (R) 51%, Charles Fogarty (D) 49%

Carcieri cannot run for reelection in 2010. This should be the year that Democrats finally take back the Governor’s Mansion. The leading Republican contenders, Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian and Steven Laffey, are probably too conservative for Rhode Island. Providence Mayor David Cicilline seems to be the most likely Democratic nominee. His name recognition and partisan identification give him a huge edge over any Republican.

Senior Senator – Jack Reed (D)

1996: Jack Reed (D) 63%, Nancy Mayer (R) 35%
2002: Sen. Jack Reed (D) 78%, Robert Tingle (R) 22%
2008: Sen. Jack Reed (D) 73%, Robert Tingle (R) 27%

Not that it really matters, but it was odd to see Reed’s margin dip by five points from six years earlier against the same hopeless opponent in a much better Democratic environment. At this pace, Tingle should defeat Reed 52-48 in 2038.

Junior Senator – Sheldon Whitehouse (D)

1994: Sen. John Chafee (R) 64%, Linda Kushner (D) 36%
2000: Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) 57%, Robert A. Weygand (D) 41%
2006: Sheldon Whitehouse (D) 54%, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) 46%

Rhode Island is not in the habit of ousting incumbent Democratic Senators. Whitehouse can hold this seat as long as he wants it.

House 1 – Patrick Kennedy (D)

2004: Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D) 64%, David Rogers (R) 36%
2006: Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D) 69%, Jonathan Scott (R) 23%
2008: Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D) 69%, Jonathan Scott (R) 24%

Kennedy is a jerk with a capital J, but that doesn’t affect his electoral prospects.

House 2 – Jim Langevin (D)

2004: Rep. Jim Langevin (D) 75%, Chuck Barton (R) 21%
2006: Rep. Jim Langevin (D) unopposed
2008: Rep. Jim Langevin (D) 70%, Mark Zaccaria (R) 30%

Langevin, paralyzed from the waist down as a teenager, is an inspirational story. He is obviously safe here.

Read More......

17 Days of Something Other Than Glory

The President took office seventeen days ago to great acclaim. He had won a nice electoral victory, had the vast majority of the public pulling for him, and seemed to enjoy wide media acclaim. He was poised to seize office and begin a historically great Presidency.

Seventeen days later, things do not look nearly so good. Quite frankly, the new President has looked way out of his depth, disorganized, and frankly incompetent. We can only hope things improve, because the beginning has been dreadful.

The new administration has been dominated by three major events. The first of these is the ballyhooed economic stimulus. The administration seems to have created a huge bill with little slops of everything, that engenders unanimous agreement only on the idea that it won't work to stimulate the economy. The effort appears almost ad hoc. This bill does not seem like part of any coherent plan. Even worse, the President seems to have abandoned leadership on the bill to Congress, an odd political decision given that his approval ratings are so much higher than theirs. All of this has contributed to recent polls showing that a majority of the public opposes the plan. Given that the stimulus has been the centerpoint of the administration's agenda, this is a bad sign.

The second factor is the repeated problems with appointees having tax problems. I wrote about this yesterday, so I will not elaborate here. However, the President certainly did not help his public standing by having appointees with this problem, and made matters worse by sticking with them despite repeated calls for more ethics and responsibility. At least he admitted to "screwing up", which is more than one can say for his predecessor. Still, damage had been done.

The third problem has been the nascent foreign policy, which admittedly has taken a backseat to domestic considerations. Still, what we have seen has been a series of decisions that will only please left wingers. The President's decisions to close Guantanamo and ban "torture" were expected, and probably won't cause widespread dissension among the public unless they contribute to further attacks. His interview with al-Arabiya was notable for its rather obsequious courting of public opinion in the Islamic world. While such an attempt may be admirable, he has earned derision for saying that the United States needs to be more "understanding" (of people who murder the purveyors of "disrespectful" cartoons) and hopes to make things like they were "twenty or thirty years ago" (when the Iranians took hostages). The interview made him look naive at best, ignorant at worst.

Thus, we have seen thus far a President who hasn't seemed up to the job. His foreign policy seems hopelessly idealistic. He is not living up to his idealistic rhetoric at home. His economic plans come across as shockingly incoherent and woefully underprepared. His leadership vis a vis Congress has been lacking. Between the lack of personnel vetting and economic preparations, one cannot help but wonder what anybody actually did during the transition. In short, this has been a clinic in how not to operate in the White House.

Most Americans desperately want this President to succeed. He has immense amounts of good will, and Americans will not turn on this man easily. However, even the President needs some results eventually. Any more seventeen day stretches like this one and more people may start to grumble.

Read More......

State of the Day - Pennsylvania

The Keystone State, with two big liberal cities, a whole lot of conservative country, and volatile suburbs, has long been a pretty good microcosm of America. Over the last few years, the state has tipped just to the left of the United States, voting closely against George W. Bush twice and heavily for the President in 2008. We can almost say now that Pennsylvania is a Democratic state. Democrat Ed Rendell won easily for Governor in 2002 and 2006. In 2006, Democrats took a Senate seat and four House seats. 2008 saw the Democrats add another House seat. The end result of the last four years has put Democrats with (the exception of the State Senate) controlling Pennsylvania politics.

2010 will go a long way to determining the future of politics here. Governor Rendell cannot run again. The parties have traded eight year tenures in the Governor’s Mansion for several generations, and the race should be hard fought. Senator Arlen Specter looks as vulnerable as ever, to a conservative challenge if not a Democrat. The Republicans also hope to pick off a few of the more vulnerable Democratic House seats. It should be a very interesting year in Pennsylvania politics.


President - 21 Electoral Votes

2000: Al Gore (D) 51%, George Bush (R) 46%
2004: John Kerry (D) 51%, Pres. George Bush (R) 48%
2008: Barack Obama (D) 55%, John McCain (R) 44%

John McCain, like George W. Bush, tried his hardest to win Pennsylvania, but unlike Bush he didn’t even come close. Despite all the campaigning and expenditures here, the state still voted the two points more Democratic than the national average that it always does. While Pennsylvania should continue to see major fights, it also is not going to determine the winner. It is the mirror image of Florida. If the Republicans win Pennsylvania, it is icing on the cake.

Governor - Ed Rendell (D)

1998: Gov. Tom Ridge (R) 57%, Ivan Itkin (D) 31%
2002: Ed Rendell (D) 53%, Mike Fisher (R) 44%
2006: Gov. Ed Rendell (D) 60%, Lynn Swann (R) 40%

Rendell cannot run for reelection. The parties have traded off the Governor’s Mansion every eight years since 1954. Attorney General Tom Corbett, who somehow managed to get reelected in the 2008 GOP disaster, looks likely to run. He’s a strong candidate, but Democrats have grabbed an edge in Pennsylvania, winning most statewide races this decade. The race starts as a tossup, but I’d have to give the Democrats the edge.

Senior Senator - Arlen Specter (R)

1992: Sen. Arlen Specter (R) 49%, Lynn Yeakel (D) 46%
1998: Sen. Arlen Specter (R) 61%, Bill Lloyd (D) 35%
2004: Sen. Arlen Specter (R) 53%, Joe Hoeffel (D) 42%

Every six years, the liberal Specter gets a primary challenger. Every time, he barely survives, before more easily beating back a strong challenge in the general election. This seems to be the scenario playing out this year. Governor Ed Rendell could probably beat Specter, but has expressed no interest in running. Representative Allyson Schwartz is seriously considering a run. She’s a good candidate and fundraiser and has a moderate record, but has no statewide name recognition. A more conservative candidate, should one defeat Specter, would have a hard time winning a general election. The odds are better than even that Specter holds on, but there is a serious chance that Pennsylvania elects a new Senator.

Junior Senator - Bob Casey (D)

1994: Rick Santorum (R) 49%, Sen. Harris Wofford (D) 47%
2000: Sen. Rick Santorum (R) 52%, Ron Klink (D) 46%
2006: Bob Casey (D) 59%, Sen. Rick Santorum (R) 41%

A pro-life Democrat with a great Pennsylvania name, Casey is well situated to win broad based victories for a long time.

House 1 - Robert Brady (D)

2004: Rep. Robert Brady (D) 86%, Deborah Williams (R) 13%
2006: Rep. Robert Brady (D) unopposed
2008: Rep. Robert Brady (D) 91%, Mike Muhammad (R) 9%

By his own admission, Brady spends 95% of his time on his other job as Philadelphia Democratic Boss. This makes me wonder why he is in Congress. This distant third place finish in 2007 primary for Mayor makes me wonder how effective he is at being a boss.

House 2 - Chaka Fattah (D)

2004: Rep. Chaka Fattah (D) 88%, Stewart Bolno (R) 12%
2006: Rep. Chaka Fattah (D) 89%, Michael Gessner (R) 9%
2008: Rep. Chaka Fattah (D) 89%, Adam Lang (R) 11%

Fattah is beyond safe in this seat, but his mayoral ambitions are probably dashed after finishing behind even Brady in the 2007 primary.

House 3 - Kathy Dahlkemper (D)

2004: Rep. Phil English (R) 60%, Steven Porter (D) 40%
2006: Rep. Phil English (R) 54%, Steven Porter (D) 42%
2008: Kathy Dahlkemper (D) 51%, Rep. Phil English (R) 49%

English did not run a vigorous campaign, obviously a huge mistake in this very marginal Erie based seat. If Republicans are smart, they will target this seat. A better Republican year and a good GOP candidate would probably be favored to knock off Dahlkemper, though she won’t be an easy target.

House 4 - Jason Altmire (D)

2004: Rep. Melissa Hart (R) 63%, Stevan Drobnac (D) 36%
2006: Jason Altmire (D) 52%, Rep. Melissa Hart (R) 48%
2008: Rep. Jason Altmire (D) 56%, Melissa Hart (R) 44%

This swing seat in suburban Pittsburgh will continue to be a tossup until Altmire holds it in something other than a huge Democratic year. That said, his impressive 2008 performance makes him a favorite.

House 5 - G.T. Thompson (R)

2004: Rep. John Peterson (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. John Peterson (R) 60%, Donald Hilliard (D) 40%
2008: G.T. Thompson (R) 57%, Mark McCracken (D) 41%

Thompson’s performance was not impressive enough to move beyond “Likely Republican” to “Safe Republican”, but this is not really a winnable district for Democrats.

House 6 - Jim Gerlach (R)

2004: Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) 51%, Lois Murphy (D) 49%
2006: Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) 51%, Lois Murphy (D) 49%
2008: Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) 52%, Bob Roggio (D) 48%

This Reading/suburban Philly seat is a true tossup, but you have to give the edge to Gerlach given his ability to hold on through the past two cycles.

House 7 - Joe Sestak (D)

2004: Rep. Curt Weldon (R) 59%, Paul Scoles (D) 40%
2006: Joe Sestak (D) 56%, Rep. Curt Weldon (R) 44%
2008: Rep. Joe Sestak (D) 60%, Craig Williams (R) 40%

Sestak won this suburban Philly seat thanks in large part to a scandal involving the Republican incumbent. However, the seat does have a legitimate Democratic lean and Sestak should have little problem continuing to win.

House 8 - Patrick Murphy (D)

2004: Mike Fitzpatrick (R) 55%, Virginia Schrader (D) 43%
2006: Patrick Murphy (D) 50%, Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R) 50%
2008: Rep. Patrick Murphy (D) 57%, Tom Manion (R) 42%

This suburban Philly seat is another tossup on paper, but Murphy did enough in 2008 to make me think the seat leans Democratic as long as he stays.

House 9 - Bill Shuster (R)

2004: Rep. Bill Shuster (R) 69%, Paul Politis (D) 30%
2006: Rep. Bill Shuster (R) 69%, Tony Barr (D) 40%
2008: Rep. Bill Shuster (R) 64%, Tony Barr (D) 36%

The Shuster Dynasty is one of the greatest pork purveying institutions in U.S. history, so you have to think Shuster loves the idea of “infrastructure improvements”.

House 10 - Christopher Carney (D)

2004: Rep. Don Sherwood (R) unopposed
2006: Christopher Carney (D) 53%, Rep. Don Sherwood (R) 47%
2008: Rep. Christopher Carney (D) 56%, Chris Hackett (R) 44%

Carney won this mostly Republican Northeast Pennsylvania seat due to a scandal, so it was astounding to see the GOP fail to put up a serious challenge here in 2008. This one looks like a tossup for 2010, and a good Republican in a good year would be a favorite to regain this seat for the Republicans.

House 11 - Paul Kanjorski (D)

2004: Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) unopposed
2006: Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) 72%, Joseph Leonardi (R) 28%
2008: Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) 52%, Lou Barletta (R) 48%

Only a big Democratic year saved Kanjorski in this Democratic leaning Scranton based seat, because on its own Kanjorski’s pathetically listless campaign would have fallen to anti-immigration activist Lou Barletta. Kanjorski needs to get his act together, but I would still rate this seat as leaning towards the Democrats.

House 12 - John Murtha (D)

2004: Rep. John Murtha (D) unopposed
2006: Rep. John Murtha (D) 61%, Diana Irey (R) 39%
2008: Rep. John Murtha (D) 58%, William Russell (R) 42%

Despite Murtha’s bizarre behavior over the past two years, including calling his own district a bunch of racists before the 2008 election, this Southwest Pennsylvania seat leans Democratic enough to where it is unlikely he will ever see real trouble.

House 13 - Allyson Schwartz (D)

2004: Allyson Schwartz (D) 56%, Melissa Brown (R) 41%
2006: Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D) 66%, Raj Bhakta (R) 34%
2008: Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D) 63%, Marina Katz (R) 35%

Schwartz has locked down this mostly Democratic suburban Philly seat.

House 14 - Mike Doyle (D)

2004: Rep. Mike Doyle (D) unopposed
2006: Rep. Mike Doyle (D) unopposed
2008: Rep. Mike Doyle (D) unopposed

This is an overwhelmingly Democratic seat. I cannot blame the Republicans for not trying here.

House 15 - Charlie Dent (R)

2004: Charlie Dent (R) 59%, Joe Driscoll (D) 39%
2006: Rep. Charlie Dent (R) 54%, Charles Dertinger (D) 43%
2008: Rep. Charlie Dent (R) 59%, Sam Bennett (D) 41%

Dent’s performance is impressive in the sort of swing seat that Democrats have picked up in spades the past two cycles. He has gained a serious edge in this Allentown based seat.

House 16 - Joe Pitts (R)

2004: Rep. Joe Pitts (R) 64%, Lois Herr (D) 34%
2006: Rep. Joe Pitts (R) 57%, Lois Herr (D) 40%
2008: Rep. Joe Pitts (R) 56%, Bruce Slater (D) 39%

Pitts is an underachiever, but this district is probably too Republican for it to matter.

House 17 - Tim Holden (D)

2004: Rep. Tim Holden (D) 59%, Scott Paterno (R) 39%
2006: Rep. Tim Holden (D) 65%, Matthew Wertz (R) 35%
2008: Rep. Tim Holden (D) 64%, Toni Gilhooley (R) 36%

This Harrisburg to Reading seat is quite Republican. Thus, while Holden has entrenched himself, I cannot rate this seat as more than leaning Democrat. Holden would be very vulnerable in a big Republican year, if we ever see one again.

House 18 - Tim Murphy (R)

2004: Rep. Tim Murphy (R) 63%, Mark Boles (D) 37%
2006: Rep. Tim Murphy (R) 58%, Chad Kluko (D) 42%
2008: Rep. Tim Murphy (R) 64%, Steve O’Donnell (D) 36%

As Democrats failed to come close to gaining this tossup suburban Pittsburgh seat during two huge Democratic years, it is highly unlikely they will do so in the future.

House 19 - Todd Platts (R)

2004: Rep. Todd Platts (R) unopposed
2006: Rep. Todd Platts (R) 64%, Philip Avillo (D) 33%
2008: Rep. Todd Platts (R) 67%, Philip Avillo (D) 33%

Crazy Eyes Platts has no worries in this district.

Read More......