Fourteen Important 2008 Senate Races

Here's an interesting article by John J. Miller of the National Review Online. He breaks down 14 of the most important senate races this year, for positions that are currently held by four Democrats and 10 Republicans. The result?

Three likely Republican retentions (AK, MS, KY)
Two leaning Republican retentions (OR, ME)
Two likely Democratic retention (AR, NJ)
One leaning Democratic retention (SD)
One leaning Democratic takeover (VA)
Five tossups (NM, NH, MN, LA, CO)

Before the tossups, this would equate to the Democrats picking up one seat out of nine. In the tossup states, the Democrats have the best shots to win in Colorado, New Hampshire (very close) and New Mexico (stronger possibility of Democratic takeover than CO or NH). This would mean that the Democrats would pick up four seats, retain three and lose one (Louisiana)--all told, that's a three seat Democratic shift after only 14 of 35 races have been decided.

--Wyndam

Mike made calls for Richardson. Will you?

Michael Lipkin here again with a piece on rallying support for Richardson via phone banking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you all had a fun New Year’s. But now we’re officially in 2008, which means it’s finally an election year. Iowans are just itching to vote with their primary only two days away. All the articles I’ve read recently stress how on edge everyone is, the flurry if emails being sent this way and that and the last minute campaign ploys.

Bill Richardson is no exception. I’ve gotten no less than three messages in the past two days about how much my money is needed more than ever. But the ever-strapped-for-cash student I am, I honestly don’t have the $50, 100 or 200 they constantly ask for. But what I do have is time.

Bored just rattling around this break, I decided to take the Richardson campaign up on an offer they proposed a week ago. I called voters. Anyone can go to the Richardson website, register and be provided with a list of 30 or so registered voters in Iowa and convenient summaries of the governor’s stances on important issues.

At first I was a little nervous. I generally dislike people calling with a pitch, regardless of the “product” as a rule of thumb, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone. So the prospect of me calling people of the blue made me a little uneasy.

But once I sucked it up, it wasn’t that bad. Well, after the first couple rejections at least—the mid-West politeness helped. For every six people that hung up almost immediately, there were two who patiently listened and one who actually responded with questions and comments.

Some people were already pro-Richardson, in which case I suggested they might want to call some people. Others were die-hard Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama supporters, who quickly thanked me for my time and hung up. But there were one or two that were genuinely undecided. These were the guys who listened without interruption to my short spiel and asked something at the end, like why I supported Richardson in particular, or what the details of his Iraq policy are. Not to sound cliché, but for a those calls, I actually felt like I had in some small way helped the governor’s campaign. I sincerely thank all those that accepted my brief commentary on my candidate and hope they spread the word.

So I encourage anyone with a few minutes to spare to go to the campaign website and call a few people up. It could make all the difference.

Oh and by the way, the New York Times had an article today about the impact bloggers make on campaigns. Here’s to the Richardson Campus!

Richardson picks up 65 New Hampshire Endorsements

The campaign just issued a press release: 65 prominent residents of the Granite State have endorsed Governor Richardson for president. Eight state senators, five Democratic town chairs, 11 business leaders, 32 local activists and nine educators have pledged their support for the governor.

--Wyndam

The role of Bill Richardson in Iowa

Believe it: Bill Richardson can, and probably will, decide who wins Iowa.

It is unlikely, at this stage, that Richardson will win the state--while that's obviously his goal, I think the campaign would be ecstatic with a third or second place finish. There may be just a candidate or two too many to leap to claim victory.

However, that doesn't mean he can't have a profound impact on who wins the state. Iowa has an unusual caucus system: in order to have their votes counted in one of Iowa's 1784 districts, a candidate must receive 15% or more of the vote. If a candidate does not get 15% of the vote, then his supporters are free to vote again for someone who does reach the 15% threshold.

This where the second-tier candidates can decide who wins each district--they can direct their voters to some other candidate. Voters, of course, are not obligated to follow such orders, but in the past, they have generally complied with their candidate's wishes. And, all of a sudden, a district can swing from one front runner to another.

Hypothetical example: Hillary Clinton received 31% of the vote in District A. Barack Obama got 35%. John Edwards has 18%. Obama has seemingly eeked out a close victory, but wait! Joe Biden, who received 11% of the vote, instructs his supporters to vote for Clinton. Some do, and Clinton ends up edging Obama by a few points.

Bill Richardson will receive 15% + of the vote in many districts, but certainly not all of them. As the leading second-tier candidate, he'll likely have the most voters to give in the districts where he doesn't reach the 15% margin. So, who will he direct his people to vote for?

Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama in the districts where Kucinich doesn't qualify. But Kucinich is a third-tier candidate, and unless the race is exceptionally tight, he doesn't figure to make much of a difference. The people who can change the tide of the election are Biden, Richardson and maybe Chris Dodd. Of that group, Richardson will have the most to give.

So what does he do? He's been a long political ally of the Clintons, despite his recent negative comments on Hillary, so does he send his people her way? It's also been rumored that Richardson is Clinton's top choice for Vice-President--would he give her his people as an act of good will to secure that nomination? Or, will he concentrate on becoming president, and thus send his voters toward Obama/Edwards in attempt to stop Clinton from winning Iowa and thus halt her momentum going into New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, where she is leading? By doing the latter, he can create more parity at the top of the Democratic race, which leaves the door open to more high-finishes for Richardson.

No matter what he chooses, the Markos Zuniga, the founder of the Daily Kos, feels that "Richardson will get to play kingmaker."

Iraq is Richardson's main issue, and Edwards's views on the conflict come closest to matching Richardson's--Clinton's are far off. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

--Wyndam

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: The Daily Kos (different writer this time) agrees again re: Richardson's "kingmaker" status.

The RIAA crosses the line

The Recording Industry Association of America, the lobbying arm of the music business, is filing a suit against against a man who imported a CD he bought to his computer. I could see the RIAA's argument against free music downloading, but now it's illegal for me to add my latest Red Hot Chili Peppers's album to my iTunes collection? Come on...

--Wyndam

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Thanks to Mike for pointing this clarification out: apparently, the RIAA isn't suing this guy for downloading a CD to his computer--they're suing him for moving the audio files to a shared music folder. However, the still condemn importing music to computers, they just realize that they can't do anything about it. That's still wrong.

Compare the Candidates!

I'm asked this frequently: "Where can I find a good comparison of all the candidates on the issues?"

Good question! Here's the answer:

I generally use Vote Gopher for these purposes. You can compare candidates by issue, and they give you quotes to back it up. Issues 2000 (a.k.a. On The Issues) does the same (yes, it's updated to 2008) and is more extensive, but for the major issues, I find Vote Gopher more user-friendly.

My favorite site, though, is Open Secrets, which logs all monetary transactions made by the candidates (from the initial donation to where the money is spent). A great insight into the world of political fund raising, and where the money goes.

But if you want to compare the candidates side-by-side on one sheet of paper, I suggest getting a back issue of the New York Times from December 30. On pages 16-17 of the National Section (the A section, in this case), there is a full, broadsheet chart that includes the positions of all the major candidates from both parties (that means no Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, and certainly no Mike Gravel) on some of the main issues--Iraq, Health Care, Taxes, Detainees, Interrogation, Immigration, Energy and Climate Change. It's not perfect, but it's the easiest way to compare the candidates. And if you can't get a hold of that, the Times has a nice section with the candidates' biographies, web sites and relevant articles.

--Wyndam

Ron Paul the racist

How this man has any supporters is beyond me. Here are two posts, from both sides of the aisle, on Paul's racism.

As the liberal site Daily Kos shows, Paul would vote against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which fully enforced the Equal Protection Clause and in essence granted equal rights to people of all races (full voting rights came the next year, in the Voting Rights Act of 1965). Paul's justification for this stance is nothing more than perceived semantics about property rights. And, if he were Abraham Lincoln, he would not fight the Civil War. While Paul is correct in saying that the Civil War did not start as an effort to free slaves, it did become that. Paul--are you sitting down?--recognizes this, and says that slavery would have phased out over time. I'm at a loss for words. Let's move on.

Captain's Quarters, a conservative blog, furthers this argument. Paul blames blacks for crime, and Jews for being power-usurping leeches. It includes several Paul quotes from various sources. Read them all. The last quote on blacks is particularly disgusting and stereotypical--it sounds like something straight out of Jim Crow south, KKK propaganda.

On blacks

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote [in 1992].

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

On Jews

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

I'll let Captain's Quarters sum all this up: "Anyone who thinks that a man with this in his past can get elected President... is as deluded as Ron Paul. Anyone defending these statements marginalizes himself."

Yup. None of this is new, but it bears mentioning time and time again.

Oh, and Happy New Year!

--Wyndam