0
   

News & discussion on house and senate races

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 06:48 pm
In other news, America's only independent, self-declared Socialist member of the House of Representatives, Bernie Saunders of Vermont, stands a very good chance of becoming Senator this year, in the race to replace Jim Jeffords.

(Funny, I was talking to a guy from Vermont just last night - he was among those liberals who purposefully moved up there in the 70s.)

Quote:
Vermont Would Send Sanders to Senate

Angus Reid Global Scan : Polls & Research
May 15, 2006

Bernie Sanders could earn a six-year term as one of Vermont's representatives to the United States Senate, according to a poll by Research 2000. At least 61 per cent of respondents in the Green Mountain State would vote for the independent candidate in head-to-head contests against two prospective Republican rivals.

Sanders has been Vermont's at-large member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1991. After independent U.S. senator Jim Jeffords announced his retirement from the upper house, Sanders launched his bid for the Senate seat. [..]

Sanders holds a 37-point lead over businessman Richard Tarrent, and a 42-point advantage over former Air Force colonel Greg Parke. [..]

Polling Data

If the 2006 election of U.S. Senate were held today, whom would you vote for if the choice were between Bernie Sanders, the Independent, and (the following Republicans)?

Option 1

61% Bernie Sanders (I)

24% Richard Tarrent (R)

15% Undecided

Option 2

64% Bernie Sanders (S)

22% Greg Parke (R)

14% Undecided


Source: Research 2000
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 400 likely Vermont voters, conducted on May 5 and May 6, 2006. Margin of error is 3.5 per cent.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 07:05 pm
The problem with Vermont is that it is more like a heard of cats than an organize polity. Bernie fits right in. I doubt this has much national significance other than frying the shorts of any number of righwingnuts.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 07:12 pm
What do you think of the Lamont phenomenon, Acquiunk? (I see that you're from CT yourself)
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 07:25 pm
Lamont has a snow balls chance in hell. He represents much the same population as the individual you spoke of who moved to Vermont, but there are many fewer of those in Connecticut.
Lieberman has two problem, one of which is of his own making. His first (and self made) problem is that he has national ambitions, he would like to be president. Therefore he has to make the kinds of statements that will inoculate him from the kind of slander that was hurled at Kerry in 04. Secondly he represents a state with a very large dependency on defense spending. Connecticut manufacture submarines, jet engines and military helicopters just for a stater, there is much more. He has to keep those people happy if he wants their campaign money. His calculation is apparently that he has a solid electoral base in the state and he can afford to affront the people who are backing Lamont.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 08:05 pm
What's with the main cities' Democrats backing Lieberman and, apparently, those in the small cities and rural areas backing Lamont? I would never have expected that; most of the time the liberals are in the cities. Is there a demographic or historic explanation, that you can think of?

(Connection of cities with the defense industry you mentioned? Liberal 'immigrants' from NY having mostly moved into the countryside, wanting to 'get away' from citylife? I'm totally guessing here..)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 04:41 am
The New York Times' Adam Nagourney reports that the race for the house is getting closer, and that the Democrats are beginning to have a realistic shot at winning it.

The New York Times wrote:

Read on

Yours truly, a firm believer in gridlocked government, is feeling increasingly optimistic.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 07:09 am
Hmm, count me still sceptic. I can see some seats changing hands, but no landslide. Anger at the Republicans, but no enthusiasm for the Democrats.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:11 am
nimh wrote:
Hmm, count me still sceptic. I can see some seats changing hands, but no landslide. Anger at the Republicans, but no enthusiasm for the Democrats.


Sure...a landslide looks next to impossible given the manipulation of district boundaries. But what "enthusiasm for the [Republicans]" could you point to in the 94 election? I don't think that was a significant factor at all. Rather, one could point to the incremental increase (beginning in the early seventies) of conservative organization, co-operation, and activism. Recall that Ralph Reed, after the Clinton win in 92, briefly went into such an emotional funk at the prospect of the new conservative movement's impeded gains that he briefly decided to quit politics altogether (see Sheena Easton's Gang of Five).

I think the other important factor in 94 was a very slick and effective marketing campaign run by Gingrich and his crowd. Joan Didion's Political Fictions details just how assinine and simplistic/jingoistic Gingrich's ideas were, but there are a million suckers born every minute. And, importantly, most of what Gingrich was up to wasn't setting forth sophisticated Republican policy prescriptions but rather was directed at attacking and derogating the Clinton/dem white house.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:15 am
Acquiunk wrote:
Lamont has a snow balls chance in hell. He represents much the same population as the individual you spoke of who moved to Vermont, but there are many fewer of those in Connecticut.
Lieberman has two problem, one of which is of his own making. His first (and self made) problem is that he has national ambitions, he would like to be president. Therefore he has to make the kinds of statements that will inoculate him from the kind of slander that was hurled at Kerry in 04. Secondly he represents a state with a very large dependency on defense spending. Connecticut manufacture submarines, jet engines and military helicopters just for a stater, there is much more. He has to keep those people happy if he wants their campaign money. His calculation is apparently that he has a solid electoral base in the state and he can afford to affront the people who are backing Lamont.


Quote:
Column: Lamont effort to beat Lieberman is gaining surprising strength
RAY HACKETT
On Politics

Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont will begin a state-wide petition drive Wednesday, a safety net of sorts to ensure himself a place on the Aug. 8 Democratic primary ballot in his challenge to three-term incumbent U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

It's not a bad idea, especially for someone who isn't very well known statewide.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the petitioning drive may not be necessary. Lamont would automatically qualify as a primary challenger if he can capture 15 percent of the delegate vote at the May 20 Democratic State Convention. And based on the buzz generated statewide by this race, I wouldn't be surprised if Lamont does significantly better than that.

I think it's possibly that Lamont could pick up 30 to 35 percent of delegates. If he does, Lieberman is in the battle of his political life.

What's going on here? How is it that the man who just six years ago won the popular vote as the Democratic candidate for vice president of the United States finds himself in a situation where members of his own party are turning on him?

Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq is the major factor. Rank-and-file Democrats oppose the war, and they see Lieberman's support as a break in traditional Democratic philosophies.

There's also the perception that Lieberman supports the president on a variety of other issues. That's not true, but that doesn't matter. It is what a number of Democrats believe.

There are basically two groups within the Democratic Party that are slowly moving away from Lieberman and toward Lamont. There are those who are angry with Lieberman, and would love nothing more than to see him retired.

There isn't anything anyone can say to convince them not to vote against Lieberman.

And there are others who are upset with him, and are leaning toward Lamont as a means of sending Lieberman a wake-up call.

How serious is all this? Consider:

# There are rumors that half of New Haven's 69 delegates intend on voting for Lamont at the convention. Lieberman's official residence in Connecticut is New Haven.

# In New Britain, a Democratic stronghold, reportedly the majority of its 31 delegates are backing Lamont.

# The Democratic Town Committee chairman in Manchester, Ted Cummings, is reportedly trying to broker a deal with his delegates, hoping to get a 17-10 split in favor of Lieberman. Earlier this year, the Manchester committee voted nearly unanimously in favor of a resolution expressing no confidence in the incumbent.

And there are pockets -- although smaller and not quite as dramatic -- of similar levels of discontent scattered throughout the state. All that adds up to convention votes in favor of Lamont.

Despite that, it is highly unlikely that Lieberman would lose the party's nomination at the state convention. But a strong showing by Lamont will certainly fuel his campaign -- and throw gasoline on the fires of those who want nothing more than to see Lieberman defeated in an August primary. And winning a primary in the midst of the summer isn't a guarantee for anyone.

Lieberman maintains the advantage, but nothing so strong that he can afford to take anything for granted. According to Federal Election Commission filings last week, Lieberman has raised $4.7 million during the election cycle that began in 2000.

Lamont reported $712,611 raised in the first three months of his campaign. More than half of that, however -- $371,500 -- came out of his pocket. The remainder of his funding -- $341,111 -- came from more than 4,300 individual donors. But not all of them live in Connecticut and, therefore, are not eligible to vote in a primary.

But if Lamont emerges from next month's convention having made a strong showing -- or stronger than what many might have thought -- those funds will continue to pour into the state.

For his part, Lieberman acknowledges -- in one of two television commercials his campaign launched last week -- that there is a growing dissatisfaction among Democrats. In the ad titled, "Common Ground," Lieberman says:

"I already know that some of you feel passionately against my position on Iraq. I respect your views, and while we probably won't change each other's minds, I hope we can still have a dialogue and find common ground on all the issues where we do agree."

As for Lamont's petition drive, his campaign is setting up "training sessions" across the state for those interested in volunteering to gather signatures, including one in Norwich. It's scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Marriott Courtyard on West Town Street.

The goal of the Lamont campaign is to collect 6,000 signatures of registered Democrats.

Ray Hackett is the Norwich Bulletin's chief political reporter, with more than 30 years experience covering politics on the local, state and national level. He has covered Connecticut politics for the Bulletin for more than 18 years. His column appears Sundays. Reach Ray Hackett at 425-4225 or rhackett@norwichbulletin. com
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:49 am
blatham wrote:
I think the other important factor in 94 was a very slick and effective marketing campaign run by Gingrich and his crowd.

Nice to see you around! How's the shop? Smile

Do you know who's running this year's Democratic marketing campaign? Do you think they can pull off something similar as Gingrich in '94, or at least not screw it up the way they screwed up the Gore and Kerry campaigns? These are honest questions by the way; I have no idea what the answer is to either of them.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:54 am
I don't know who's running the whole shebang (or if there even is such centralization), but I've been getting a lot of emails from Howard Dean on the subject (election gains in 2006).

A big part of the strategy seems to be to do grassroots/ people on the ground kind of stuff. For example, recently, they (Dean/ Dems) sent out fliers/ doorknob hanger things about the Democratic platform that people could print out themselves and distribute to neighbors. It was reported as a big success. Solicitations for money have a lot about putting organizers out there, working with the community on a face-to-face level. That sounds promising to me, not sure if it's actually as successful as has been stated (not doubting per se, just aware that the updates I get probably contain maximum spin). We'll see, I guess.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:57 am
Here's an example, with links removed:

    Dear [me], We're doing something completely new with the Democratic Party. Ordinary Democrats across the country made our 50-State Canvass a huge success, and we need to build on this enthusiasm and commitment. These national organizing days are part of an unprecedented grassroots strategy for the 2006 elections. We're putting our resources on the ground now to build our operation to win in November -- a fundamental shift in strategy for our party. Our 50-state strategy represents a commitment to building a sense of community everywhere and leveraging the power of that community to achieve permanent change. That change is going to start this year in every single state, in elections for every level of office from city councils to the U.S. Senate. We need to build steadily until then -- more staff on the ground, more outreach to ordinary Americans, and more resources to get out the vote. With your help we can raise $250,000 this week that will be focused on winning in 2006. Can you make a donation of $50 or even $25 to make it happen? Together we are changing the way politics gets done in this country - but we can't ignore reality. Like a business, politics requires long-range strategic planning. In the past, too often our party made real efforts in only a few select states. And too often that operation disintegrated after each campaign cycle, only to have to be rebuilt from scratch next time. Counties, Congressional Districts and even whole states were simply left behind, in some cases for decades. Slowly, the tendency to abandon tough fights shrank the number of places where we bother to compete until only a handful of states were left. We have a plan to build our operation everywhere over the next 6 months to deliver victories up and down the ballot in 2006. Will you make a donation to support this plan? While the GOP is surely in trouble now, come this fall you can be sure that they will wage a full-on attack. We know that the attacks will be even more shameful the more desperate they get. When Republicans get in trouble, their strategy is to make politics so bitter and divisive that people who want change lose all faith in the process. Our only hope to survive the GOP's scorched-earth campaign is to grow our operation now and build the strength that no negative TV-ad-blitz can take away. It's an ambitious strategy. But it is ultimately up to you to make it happen. Our $250,000 goal this week will jump-start the operation and get us on our way, but only if you make your donation: We're putting everything on the line with our new strategy. But we're already seeing the benefits across the country -- in unexpected places from Wyoming to Missouri, races that weren't "supposed to be" competitive have become within reach thanks to our party-building work together. You and I know that when we build our operation from the ground-up everywhere, our victories in November 2006 will only be the first of many to come. Thank you for your leadership. Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 12:45 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Column: Lamont effort to beat Lieberman is gaining surprising strength
RAY HACKETT
On Politics

[..] I think it's possibly that Lamont could pick up 30 to 35 percent of delegates.

[..] How serious is all this? Consider:

# There are rumors that half of New Haven's 69 delegates intend on voting for Lamont at the convention. Lieberman's official residence in Connecticut is New Haven.

# In New Britain, a Democratic stronghold, reportedly the majority of its 31 delegates are backing Lamont.

Well, the columnist got the overall number right (Lamont got 33%), but not the localities. Lamont did get an ample majority of the New Britain delegates, but in New Haven 57 of 69 went to Lieberman.

That said, diving into the blogs, one thing that's mentioned by friend and foe is that if the ballot had been secret, rather than one of delegates publicly declaring their vote, Lamont would have had a lot more still - some say even the majority.

The blogs are impressive. Look at the Ned Lamont for Senate blog itself, with lots of easy-to-view YouTube video links that convey the excitement. Then there's this Joe Must Go blog that does some good factchecking on prominents' endorsements of Lieberman (as well as a well-deserved snub of Hillary's).
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jun, 2006 06:34 pm
Good evening to yall. This thread has lain dormant for a couple of weeks but I am hopeful it will revive.

Please remember that this site, so far, has been for reporting on what is going on politically. Not a place for screaming insults at someone who disagrees. Please respect that premise.

There was an interview this afternoon on NPR (our Natiaonal Public Radio) with Richard Virgore. He is a conservative Republican who has been in the political arena for many, many years as a consultant.

I made a lot of notes, but I would suggest that you go, if you are interested, to npr.org for the full interview. I may have missed some of the nuances of what he was saying.

I think I heard him say that there is "frustration, anger and disappointment" amongst conservative Republicans about a "poorly led" effort (from Mr Bush or Congress, I dont know. I think he meant Mr Bush).
He told the interviwer that he had never seen anything like this.

And then he made, as I heard it, a stunning comment in response to a question about what conservatives might do. Where would they go? Some feel, some conservatives feel, that the situation is so bad that it is worth losing control of the House/Senate in order to get the party back on what they believe is the right path.
Again, I am reading from some notes. Please review what he said before commenting on specifics.

The US has traditionally been a two party system. I am inclined to believe, if anybody gives a sh*t about what I believe, that we are close to becoming a three party system: conservatives on the right, liberals on the left and a centrist group (now called moderate Repubs and moderate Dems) in the middle.

Thank you for reading this. I am looking forward to races going on in your area.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 08:20 pm
Quote:
Clinton Draws Line on Backing Lieberman

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Says Sen. Joseph Lieberman on Own if He Loses Party Primary

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for re-election if he loses their party's primary.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," the New York Democrat added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters." [..]

Facing a stronger-than-expected Democratic primary challenge from millionaire businessman Ned Lamont and sagging poll numbers because of his support of the Iraq war, Lieberman said Monday he'll collect signatures to assure an independent ballot spot for the November election if he loses the Aug. 8 primary. [..]

Democrats hoping to win back the Senate have been looking to win seats in states such as Pennsylvania, Montana, Missouri, Virginia and Tennessee, and Lieberman's decision to begin collecting the 7,500 signatures needed to assure a separate spot on the November ballot could complicate things. [..]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 01:23 pm
Totally random: talked to a guy who said he was a friend of Bernie Saunders (the Socialist Congressman running as favourite for Vermont Senator this year), today.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 03:25 pm
I just got a letter from Ted Kennedy (how do I get on these mailing lists?) on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSSC). According to the DSSC, the Democrats "intend to win" four senate seats currently held by Republicans (Missouri, Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania), and two open seats (Maryland and Minnesota). Those two open seats, however, are currently held by Democrats, so winning those seats wouldn't yield a net gain for the party in the senate. And with a 55-45 split in the senate (counting Jeffords as a Democrat), the Democrats would need to pick up at least six seats in the midterm elections in order to gain control of the chamber. So the DSSC's optimistic prediction that they will pick up four seats currently held by Republicans would still leave them in a minority.

The new Democratic campaign slogan: "Set your expectations for 'low!'"
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 11:57 am
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 12:08 pm
Quote:
Democrats plan $30 million of campaign ads

Signaling a new phase in the struggle for control of Congress, House Democrats have reserved time for more than $30 million worth of campaign advertising this fall in roughly two dozen congressional districts, with a heavy emphasis on the Northeast and Midwest.

The Democratic targets include clusters of Republican-held seats in the Philadelphia area held by Reps. Jim Gerlach, Curt Weldon and Michael Fitzpatrick, as well as the Ohio River Valley, where Reps. John Hostettler of Indiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Steve Chabot of Ohio can expect a protracted televised barrage.

Based on information available to date, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee intends to air ads for eight weeks in an attempt to defeat Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record) of New Mexico. Rep. Clay Shaw of Florida faces a particularly well-financed opponent, but he can also expect to face five weeks of Democratic-paid advertising.

After 12 years in the minority, Democrats need to pick up 15 seats this fall to gain control of the House.

Material about advertising reservations is publicly available. [..]

Two years ago, the two parties spent more than $70 million combined on their own advertising, which by law are undertaken independent of activity by the campaigns.

Judging by recent reports, the totals for 2006 will be higher.

The DCCC reported this week it had $32 million in the bank as of June 30, compared with $18.4 at the same point two years ago.

The NRCC reported slightly $26.5 million cash on hand as of June 30. [..]

Based on the time reserved to date, Democrats appear inclined to make Hostettler the recipient of their most sustained advertising barrage, 11 weeks in the area around Evansville.

Other targets include Reps. Dave Reichert of Washington, Mike Sodrel of Indiana and Rob Simmons of Connecticut.

Apart from Republican incumbents, Democrats intend to advertise in several GOP-held seats where lawmakers are retiring. They include districts held by Reps. Jim Kolbe in Arizona, Bob Beauprez in Colorado, Jim Nussle in Iowa, Mark Green in Wisconsin and Henry Hyde in Illinois.

The party also reserved time to advertise in districts held by Democratic Reps. Melissa Bean of Illinois, Leonard Boswell of Iowa and Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Republicans have signaled they will target all three for defeat.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 09:55 am
Quote:
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The devastating poll results for Republican Ken Blackwell in Sunday's Columbus Dispatch -- showing him 20 points behind his Democratic rival in his bid to become the most conservative big-state governor in modern times -- would try the faith of any candidate. Instead, Blackwell spoke passionately for more than a half-hour Sunday morning to the congregation at the Pentecostal Potter's House Church of God as he testified to his Christian faith and to his belief in a thin permeable membrane separating pulpit and politics.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/24/blackwell/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oz fest 2004 - Question by Love2is0evol
Human Events Names Man of the Year, 2004 - Discussion by gungasnake
Your 2004 mix tape - Discussion by boomerang
BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE... - Discussion by Frank Apisa
Weeping and gnashing of teeth - Discussion by FreeDuck
WOW! Why Andrew Sullivan is supporting John Kerry - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Margarate Hassan - hostage in Iraq - Discussion by msolga
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:06:23