Showing posts with label House of Representatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Representatives. Show all posts

Friday, 25 May 2007

Capitulation

Unfortunately there is nothing else to call it.

It's being said a million times in a million ways - and hopefully the media and the Democratic leadership will wake up to the fact that it's not just the "loony left" who want to see Congress stand up to this Administration and insist that we begin exiting from their insane and failed military boondoggle in Iraq.

An accidental similarity in title of one of my posts of a year ago with a recent opinion piece by Mark Buchanan published by the New York Times, has led me to that article which seeks to explain the disconnect between the media's "conventional wisdom" about the feelings of the American people and the breadth and depth of what they really feel. It's an interesting read, but with the Times odd policy of making opinion available only by subscription, I can point you instead to this reproduction of it.

I try to regularly watch Washington Week in Review, largely because it keeps me in touch with the DC pundits' "conventional wisdoms", but I frequently bristle at what they choose to cover or ignore, and at the characterizations of perfectly reasonable beliefs as being "fringe". Dan Balz is particularly nauseating - but I digress. Of course if you pay attention to the sponsors of this "public television" offering, one quickly sees big oil, big agribusiness, and military contractors. Who are we kidding? Brancaccio's NOW and anything Bill Moyers does in contrast is funded solely by foundations or socially conscious businesses.

So I sit here heartsick and dismayed that the Democratic leadership was so gutless that it could not come back with a bill that mandated a sane exit as a contingency to funding. It's even more sickening that so many Democrats voted for this capitulation - both in the House and the Senate.

Certainly I called both my Senators (Murray and Cantwell) to express my dismay, and my Congressman (Inslee) to applaud his courage.

Still, I think it is important not to come unhinged. By all means, let us point out that people are dying due to these decisions, but let us be aware that this is but one vote, and our continued engagement can still play a role in subsequent votes. I am not abandoning the Democrats over this, nor will I drop out. The voice of dissent is growing. To use it effectively we must continue to be involved - not drop out in disgust.

The Democratic leadership has sadly ceded the Republican talking point that a vote against an unreasonable funding resolution is a vote against the troops - we must not cede the talking point that only the leftwing fringe would do otherwise. That is provably not the case, but the more of us who come unhinged, the easier it will be for the opposition to paint us as such.

Choose hope - stay resolute - adopt a calm anger

We are here to stay.

Monday, 18 September 2006

A Time for Partisanship

We should yearn for dialogue, not stridency; for calmly deliberated, rational solutions in public policy, not do-nothing bickering between shrill ideologues which leaves us with the status quo.

Frustration in America is palpable across the political spectrum. People with very different ideas about what direction is best are rightly annoyed that partisan divisiveness has engendered a climate of distrust.

Appealing to that frustration can result in some pretty compelling political advertising by candidates from any party who claim to represent a sensible deliberate approach to governance while attacking partisanship as a divisive source of political gridlock.

In my state of Washington, Republican candidate for Senate, Mike McGavick, is airing such a set of commercials. But I know that McGavick supports policies which run counter to my idea of good governance. (And his implication that incumbent Senator Cantwell is an exemplar of partisan divisiveness is dishonest. Cantwell's biggest problem may well come from the pacifist sensibilities of the liberal leaning Puget Sound electorate, many of whom were upset with the extent to which she supported Bush's Iraq policy.) More importantly, independents and moderate Republicans need to understand that in order for real dialogue to be restored, one-party control of government must be squashed.

That's right -- partisanship, specifically Democratic partisanship, is desperately needed right now to bring some balance to government so that dialogue can return.

Jack Whelan at the After the Future, summed it up brilliantly in a pair of posts (1) & (2) a month ago. Please read them both!
. . . moderates play right into the hands of the far right which hopes that no one mounts a serious opposition to their agenda. The longer the hard right can keep the moderates diverted in "reasonable" conversation, the more time it gives it to consolidate power. That's why moderates need throw their support to partisan Democrats, whether they like them or not. There is no other way to create a potent counterbalance to the power-grabbing agenda of the right. The right works hard to present a reasonable facade, but feels no need to negotiate or compromise unless it is forced to do so, and at the moment there is no political power potent enough to force such negotiations.

So my point is that moderates, if they really understood how serious the threat we are facing, would have no choice but to become partisans in opposing the current power grab by the far right. There is no way to communicate the seriousness of this threat moderately. And since moderates are inoculated against immoderate language, they cannot hear the alarm because it is alarmist. As such they are vulnerable to manipulation by the far right who achieve their ends precisely by playing moderates for the moderates that they are.

. . . There are no moderates in one-party systems; there are only collaborators. ... I consider myself a centrist, but I know many readers consider me alarmist. ... And I am particularly alarmed that moderates are still sitting on the fence because they think that's the grownup, reasonable thing to do. On the contrary, it's time to get alarmed, very alarmed.
Someone reading only this, or for that matter only Jack's articles might well complain that we have not cited the evidence that requires such an alarm. But I have to wonder what box such a person must have been living in for the last 5 years.

Friday, 9 December 2005

Tax Policy & Partisanship

First, hats off to the lone three Republicans in the House, Sherwood Boehlert (NY-23), Fred Upton (MI-6), and Jim Leach (IA-1) for bucking their party and voting against yesterday's Republican tax package HR 4297 which unfortunately passed by a 234-197 margin. The Senate version has yet to be voted on, but may face some problems with some Republican moderates already expressing doubt or opposition. This bill basically extends the Republican practice of giving marginally higher tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in the name of stimulating investment. In fact it keeps the tax code more complicated for those who have modest capital gains for little if any advantage, and irresponsibly starves our treasury in a time which should call for national sacrifice, especially on the part of those who can best afford it.

Treasury Secretary John Snow gives the usual talking points in favor of stimulating the economy (by giving tax breaks to the wealthy) and is quoted in the Washington Post story:
"Lower tax rates on savings and investment have benefited millions of Americans of all income levels either directly -- through lower taxes on investment returns -- or indirectly through new and better jobs and greater economic security for families," Snow said.
which concludes:
The Tax Policy Center, run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has concluded that the bottom 80 percent of households would receive 15.8 percent of the House tax cuts' benefit. The top 20 percent would receive 84.2 percent of the benefit. Households earning more than $1 million a year would get 40 percent of the tax cuts, or an average reduction of nearly $51,000.

Numbers such as these have given moderate Republicans pause in the Senate. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) last month single-handedly blocked the Senate Finance Committee from even considering an extension of the dividend and capital gains cuts. Instead, the committee drafted and the Senate approved a five-year, $60 billion tax cut largely aimed at restoring the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast and slowing the expansion of the alternative minimum tax.
It is striking to me how unified the Republicans in the House typically are when it comes to tax policy, hence I think it's worth calling out the three exceptions here. Leach is a representative whose integrity and independence I've noted before. Certainly as a percentage, though, the 54 member Republican caucus of the Senate shows considerably more independence from orthodoxy than the 231 member Republican caucus of the House. This is yet another reason that I feel the switch to a Democratically controlled House is more important than a switch in the Senate. The switch in the Senate is going to happen anyway in 2008 if not next year, the switch in the House really needs to happen in 2006.

Thursday, 28 October 2004

The Whole Shebang

There are a lot of great sites which gather information on Congressional races around the country, but the best ones split the information on many pages, often separated by state. Here I roll them all into one list.

The National Committee for an Effective Congress [Democratic] (for instance Washington State) is one great source for information on House races. The DCCC has opened up their tracking site for tonight's races.

The non-partisan Politics 1 (for example New York State) was my primary source for this list, and gives more information about each Candidate with links to websites where available, and lists more 3rd party candidates as well. I've provided a link to each state's page by clicking on the state name.

CNN is probably the best place to look at these returns as they come in, and those links are provided by clicking on coverage.

Third parties are included only where one of the major parties did not field a candidate. (I guessed at the most viable candidate.) The incumbent's party is listed in the 2nd column, and the incumbent party's candidate is the left of the two names at the end. Party affiliation is given in parentheses after the candidates name only if it is not D or R. A # before the incumbent party's candidate indicates that the actual incumbent is not running, either because of retirement, or because they are running for the Senate. Louisiana's asterisks are due to their unusual system of allowing multiple candidates of the same party to run followed by run-off elections, and I'm not sure I picked the favorite. Texas's asterisks are cases where two incumbents are running against each other due to redistricting.

Values in the W-02 column, courtesy Gender Gap, show the percentage of votes that the incumbent party received in 2002. Status is an indication for any races considered competitive, the current likelihood of victory. T is Toss-Up, 1 is close lean, 2 favored, 3 strongly favored. Those without an indication presumably would go easily to the incumbent party. These values rely heavily on the statuses indicated at ActBlue, with a few adjustments based on more (Democratically) optimistic prognostications at MyDD.

Here you go:
Dist     Inc  W-02   Status Candidate    Challenger

Alabama results: Alabama - California
AL-01 R 61 Bonner Belk
AL-02 R 69 Everett James
AL-03 R 50 R2 Rogers Fuller
AL-04 R 87 R3 Aderholt Cole
AL-05 D 73 Cramer Wallace
AL-06 R 90 Bachus
AL-07 D 93 D3 Davis Cameron
Alaska
AK-01 R 75 Young Higgins
Arizona
AZ-01 R 49 T Renzi Babbitt
AZ-02 R 59 R3 Franks Camacho
AZ-03 R 67 Shadegg Yannone (L)
AZ-04 D 67 Pastor Karg
AZ-05 R 60 R3 Hayworth Rogers
AZ-06 R 65 Flake Stritar (L)
AZ-07 D 58 Grijalva Sweeney
AZ-08 R 63 Kolbe Bacal
Arkansas
AR-01 D 65 Berry Humphrey
AR-02 D 99 D3 Snyder Parks
AR-03 R 99 R3 Boozman Judy
AR-04 D 60 Ross
California
CA-01 D 64 Thompson Wiesner
CA-02 R 66 Herger Johnson
CA-03 R 62 R3 # Lungren Castillo
CA-04 R 65 Doolittle Winters
CA-05 D 72 Matsui Dugas
CA-06 D 67 Woolsey Erikson
CA-07 D 71 Miller Hargrave
CA-08 D 80 Pelosi DePalma
CA-09 D 82 Lee Bermudez
CA-10 D 76 Tauscher Ketelson
CA-11 R 60 R3 Pombo McNerney
CA-12 D 68 D3 Lantos Garza
CA-13 D 71 Stark Bruno
CA-14 D 68 Eshoo Haugen
CA-15 D 66 D3 Honda Chukwu
CA-16 D 67 D3 Lofgren McNea
CA-17 D 68 Farr Risley
CA-18 D 52 Cardoza Pringle
CA-19 R 67 Radanovich Bufford
CA-20 D 64 D2 # Costa Ashburn
CA-21 R 70 Nunes Davis
CA-22 R 73 Thomas
CA-23 D 59 Capps Regan
CA-24 R 65 R3 Gallegly Wagner
CA-25 R 65 McKeon Willoughby
CA-26 R 64 R3 Dreier Matthews
CA-27 D 62 Sherman Levy
CA-28 D 71 Berman Hernandez
CA-29 D 63 Schiff Scolinos
CA-30 D 70 Waxman Elizalde
CA-31 D 81 Becerra Vega
CA-32 D 69 Solis Faegre (L)
CA-33 D 83 Watson Weber (L)
CA-34 D 74 Allard Miller
CA-35 D 78 Waters Moen
CA-36 D 61 Harman Whitehead
CA-37 D 73 Millender-McD. Van
CA-38 D 71 Napolitano
CA-39 D 55 Sanchez Escobar
CA-40 R 67 Royce Williams
CA-41 R 67 Lewis Mottahedeh (L)
CA-42 R 68 Miller Myers
CA-43 D 67 Baca Laning
CA-44 R 63 Calvert Vandenberg
CA-45 R 65 Bono Meyer
CA-46 R 62 R3 Rohrabacher Brandt
CA-47 D 61 Sanchez Coronado
CA-48 R 68 Cox Graham
CA-49 R 74 R3 Issa Byron
CA-50 R 64 R3 Cunningham Busby
CA-51 D 58 Filner Giorgino
CA-52 R 70 R3 Hunter Keliher
CA-53 D 63 D3 Davis Hunzeker
Colorado results: Colorado - Georgia
CO-01 D 67 DeGette Chicas
CO-02 D 60 Udall Hackman
CO-03 R 66 T # Walcher Salazar
CO-04 R 55 R3 Musgrave Matsunaka
CO-05 R 71 Hefley Hardee
CO-06 R 68 R3 Tancredo Conti
CO-07 R 47 R1 Beauprez Thomas
Connecticut
CT-01 D 67 D3 Larson Halstead
CT-02 R 54 R1 Simmons Sullivan
CT-03 D 66 D3 DeLauro Elser
CT-04 R 64 R1 Shays Farrell
CT-05 R 54 Johnson Gerratana
Delaware
DE-01 R 72 Castle Donnelly
Florida
FL-01 R 75 Miller Coutu
FL-02 D 67 D2 Boyd Kilmer
FL-03 D 59 Brown Brown (I)
FL-04 R 100 Crenshaw Grayson (I)
FL-05 R 48 R3 Brown-Waite Whittel
FL-06 R 65 R3 Stearns Bruderly
FL-07 R 60 Mica
FL-08 R 65 R3 Keller Murray
FL-09 R 72 Bilirakis Pasayan (I)
FL-10 R 100 Young Derry
FL-11 D 100 Davis Johnson (L)
FL-12 R 100 R3 Putnam Hagenmaier
FL-13 R 55 R2 Harris Schneider
FL-14 R 100 # Mack Neeld
FL-15 R 63 Weldon Pristoop
FL-16 R 79 R3 Foley Fisher
FL-17 D 100 Meek Musa (SW)
FL-18 R 69 R3 Ros-Lehtinen Sheldon
FL-19 D 72 Wexler
FL-20 D 100 # Schultz Hostetter
FL-21 R 100 Diaz-Balart Gonzalez (L)
FL-22 R 60 Shaw Rorapaugh
FL-23 D 78 Hastings
FL-24 R 62 Feeney
FL-25 R 65 Diaz-Balart
Georgia
GA-01 R 72 Kingston
GA-02 D 100 Bishop Eversman
GA-03 D 51 Marshall Clay
GA-04 D 77 D3 # McKinney Davis
GA-05 D 100 Lewis
GA-06 R 80 # Price Pelphrey (wi)
GA-07 R 79 Linder
GA-08 R 78 R3 # Westmoreland Delamar
GA-09 R 73 R3 Norwood Ellis
GA-10 R 100 Deal
GA-11 R 52 R2 Gingrey Crawford
GA-12 R 55 T Burns Barrow
GA-13 D 60 Scott
Hawaii results: Hawaii - Louisiana
HI-01 D 69 Abercrombie Tanonaka
HI-02 D SE* Case Gabbard
Idaho
ID-01 R 59 Otter Preston
ID-02 R 68 Simpson Whitworth
Illinois
IL-01 D 81 Rush Wardingley
IL-02 D 82 D3 Jackson Sailor (L)
IL-03 D 100 # D Lipinski Chlada
IL-04 D 80 Gutierrez Cisneros
IL-05 D 67 Emanuel Best
IL-06 R 65 R3 Hyde Cegelis
IL-07 D 83 Davis Davis-Fairman
IL-08 R 57 R1 Crane Bean
IL-09 D 70 Schakowsky Eckhardt
IL-10 R 69 R3 Kirk Goodman
IL-11 R 65 R3 Weller Renner
IL-12 D 69 Costello Zweigart
IL-13 R 70 Biggert Andersen
IL-14 R 74 R3 Hastert Zamora
IL-15 R 65 R3 Johnson Gill
IL-16 R 71 Manzullo Kutsch
IL-17 D 62 Evans Zinga
IL-18 R 100 LaHood Waterworth
IL-19 R 55 R3 Shimkus Bagwell
Indiana
IN-01 D 67 Visclosky Leyva
IN-02 R 50 R2 Chocola Donnelly
IN-03 R 63 Souder Parra
IN-04 R 71 R3 Buyer Sanders
IN-05 R 72 Burton Carr
IN-06 R 64 R3 Pence Fox
IN-07 D 53 D3 Carson Horning
IN-08 R 51 R1 Hostettler Jennings
IN-09 D 51 D1 Hill Sodrel
Iowa
IA-01 R 57 R2 Nussle Gluba
IA-02 R 52 R3 Leach Franker
IA-03 D 53 D2 Boswell Thompson
IA-04 R 55 R3 Latham Johnson
IA-05 R 62 R3 King Schulte
Kansas
KS-01 R 91 Moran Warner (L)
KS-02 R 60 R3 Ryun Boyda
KS-03 D 50 D1 Moore Kobach
KS-04 R 61 Tiahrt Kinard
Kentucky
KY-01 R 65 Whitfield Cartwright
KY-02 R 70 Lewis Smith
KY-03 R 52 R1 Northup Miller
KY-04 D 51 T # Clooney Davis
KY-05 R 78 Rogers
KY-06 D SE* D2 Chandler Buford
Louisiana
LA-01 R 81 # Jindal* Armstrong*
LA-02 D 64 Jefferson Schwertz
LA-03 R 87 T # Romero* Baldone*
LA-04 R 72 McCrery
LA-05 R 50 R2 Alexander* Blakes
LA-06 R 84 Baker Craig*
LA-07 D 87 T # Mount* Thibodaux*
Maine results: Maine - Missouri
ME-01 D 64 D3 Allen Summers
ME-02 D 52 D2 Michaud Hamel
Maryland
MD-01 R 77 Gilchrest Alexakis
MD-02 D 55 D3 Ruppersberger Brooks
MD-03 D 66 Cardin Duckworth
MD-04 D 79 Wynn McKinnis
MD-05 D 70 Hoyer Jewitt
MD-06 R 66 Bartlett Bosley
MD-07 D 74 Cummings Salazar
MD-08 D 52 Hollen Floyd
Massachusetts
MA-01 D 68 Olver Adam
MA-02 D 100 Neal
MA-03 D 100 McGovern Crews
MA-04 D 100 Frank Morse
MA-05 D 60 Meehan Tierney
MA-06 D 68 Tierney O'Malley
MA-07 D 100 Markey Chase
MA-08 D 100 Capuano
MA-09 D 100 Lynch
MA-10 D 69 Delahunt Jones
Michigan
MI-01 D 68 Stupak Hooper
MI-02 R 70 Hoekstra Kotos
MI-03 R 70 Ehlers Hickey
MI-04 R 68 R3 Camp Huckleberry
MI-05 D 92 Kildee Kirkwood
MI-06 R 69 Upton Elliott
MI-07 R 60 R3 # Schwarz Renier
MI-08 R 68 R3 Rogers Alexander
MI-09 R 58 Knollenberg Reifman
MI-10 R 63 Miller Casey
MI-11 R 57 McCotter Truran
MI-12 D 68 Levin Shaffer
MI-13 D 92 Kilpatrick Cassell
MI-14 D 83 Conyers Pedraza
MI-15 D 72 Dingell Reamer
Minnesota
MN-01 R 62 Gutknecht Pomeroy
MN-02 R 53 R2 Kline Daly
MN-03 R 72 R2 Ramstad Watts
MN-04 D 62 McCollum Bataglia
MN-05 D 67 Sabo Mathias
MN-06 R 57 R1 Kennedy Wetterling
MN-07 D 65 Peterson Sturrock
MN-08 D 69 Oberstar Groettum
Mississippi
MS-01 R 71 Wicker Washer (Ref)
MS-02 D 54 D3 Thompson LeSueur
MS-03 R 64 Pickering Magee (Ref)
MS-04 D 75 D3 Taylor Lott
Missouri
MO-01 D 70 Clay Farr
MO-02 R 67 Akin Weber
MO-03 D 59 D2 # Carnahan Federer
MO-04 D 67 Skelton Noland
MO-05 D 66 D2 # Cleaver Patterson
MO-06 R 63 R2 Graves Broomfield
MO-07 R 75 R3 Blunt Newberry
MO-08 R 72 Emerson Henderson
MO-09 R 68 R3 Hulshof Jacobsen
Montana results: Montana - New York
MT-01 R 65 R3 Rehberg Velazquez
Nebraska
NE-01 R 85 R2 # Fortenberry Connealy
NE-02 R 63 R3 Terry Thompson
NE-03 R 93 Osborne Anderson
Nevada
NV-01 D 54 D3 Berkley Mickelson
NV-02 R 74 Gibbons Cochran
NV-03 R 56 R1 Porter Gallagher
New Hampshire
NH-01 R 58 R2 Bradley Nadeau
NH-02 R 57 R2 Bass Hodes
New Jersey
NJ-01 D 93 Andrews Hutchison
NJ-02 R 69 LoBiondo Robb
NJ-03 R 65 R3 Saxton Conaway
NJ-04 R 66 R3 Smith Vasquez
NJ-05 R 60 R3 Garrett Wolfe
NJ-06 D 67 Pallone Fernandez
NJ-07 R 58 R2 Ferguson Brozak
NJ-08 D 67 Pascrell Ajjan
NJ-09 D 70 Rothman Trawinski
NJ-10 D 84 Payne Washington (G)
NJ-11 R 72 Frelinghuysen Buell
NJ-12 D 60 D3 Holt Spadea
NJ-13 D 78 Menendez Piatkowski
New Mexico
NM-01 R 55 R1 Wilson Romero
NM-02 R 56 R2 Pearce King
NM-03 D 100 Udall Tucker
New York results: Montana - New York
NY-01 D 50 D1 Bishop Manger
NY-02 D 58 Israel Hoffmann
NY-03 R 72 King Mathies
NY-04 D 56 D2 McCarthy Garner
NY-05 D 93 Ackerman Graves
NY-06 D 96 Meeks
NY-07 D 73 Crowley Cinquemain
NY-08 D 74 Nadler Hort
NY-09 D 65 Weiner Cronin
NY-10 D 96 Towns Clarke
NY-11 D 86 Owens Lieberman (C/SC)
NY-12 D 95 Velazquez Rodriguez
NY-13 R 70 R3 Fossella Barbaro
NY-14 D 75 Maloney Srdanovic
NY-15 D 87 Rangel Jefferson
NY-16 D 92 Serrano Mohamed
NY-17 D 62 Engel Brennan
NY-18 D 92 Lowey Hoffman
NY-19 R 70 R3 Kelly Jalamin
NY-20 R 73 R3 Sweeney Kelly
NY-21 D 75 McNulty Redlich
NY-22 D 64 Hinchey Brenner
NY-23 R 100 McHugh Johnson
NY-24 R 71 Boehlert Miller
NY-25 R 72 Walsh Hawkins (P&J)
NY-26 R 74 R3 Reynolds Davis
NY-27 R 69 T # Naples Higgins
NY-28 D 62 Slaughter Laba
NY-29 R 73 R3 # Kuhl Barend
North Carolina results: North Carolina - Pennsylvania
NC-01 D SE* Butterfield Dority
NC-02 D 65 Etheridge Creech
NC-03 R 84 Jones Eaton
NC-04 D 61 Price Batchelor
NC-05 R 70 R2 # Foxx Harrell
NC-06 R 90 Coble Jordan
NC-07 D 71 McIntyre Plonk
NC-08 R 54 R2 Hayes Troutman
NC-09 R 72 R3 Myrick Flynn
NC-10 R 59 R3 # McHenry Fischer
NC-11 R 56 R2 Taylor Keever
NC-12 D 65 Watt Fisher
NC-13 D 55 D2 Miller Johnson
North Dakota
ND-01 D 52 Pomeroy Sand
Ohio results: North Carolina - Pennsylvania
OH-01 R 65 R3 Chabot Harris
OH-02 R 74 Portman Sanders
OH-03 R 59 R3 Turner Mitakides
OH-04 R 67 R3 Oxley Konop
OH-05 R 67 R3 Gilmor Weirauch
OH-06 D 59 Strickland Murphy (?)
OH-07 R 68 R3 Hobson Anastasio
OH-08 R 71 Boehner Hardenbrook
OH-09 D 74 D3 Kaptur Kaczala
OH-10 D 74 Kucinich Herman
OH-11 D 76 Jones
OH-12 R 65 Tiberi Brown
OH-13 D 69 Brown Lucas
OH-14 R 72 R3 LaTourette Cafaro
OH-15 R 67 Pryce Brown
OH-16 R 67 R3 Regula Seemann
OH-17 D 51 D3 Ryan Cusimano
OH-18 R 100 Ney Thomas
Oklahoma
OK-01 R 56 Sullivan Dodd
OK-02 D 76 D2 # Boren Smalley
OK-03 R 76 Lucas Wilson (Ind)
OK-04 R 54 Cole Bradshaw (Ind)
OK-05 R 62 Istook Smith
Oregon results: North Carolina - Pennsylvania
OR-01 D 62 D2 Wu Ameri
OR-02 R 72 R3 Walden McColgan
OR-03 D 67 D3 Blumenauer Mars
OR-04 D 64 DeFazio Feldkamp
OR-05 D 55 D2 Hooley Zupancic
Pennsylvania results: North Carolina - Pennsylvania
PA-01 D 86 Brady Williams
PA-02 D 88 Fattah Bolno
PA-03 R 78 English Porter
PA-04 R 65 Hart Drobac
PA-05 R 87 Peterson Martin (L)
PA-06 R 51 R1 Gerlach Murphy
PA-07 R 63 Weldon Scoles
PA-08 R 63 T # Fitzpatrick Schrader
PA-09 R 70 Shuster Politis
PA-10 R 93 Sherwood Hannevig (C)
PA-11 D 56 Kanjorski Brenneman (C)
PA-12 D 74 Murtha
PA-13 D 51 D1 # Schwartz Brown
PA-14 D 100 Doyle
PA-15 R 57 R1 # Dent Driscoll
PA-16 R 88 R3 Pitts Herr
PA-17 D 51 D1 Holden Paterno
PA-18 R 60 R3 Murphy Boles
PA-19 R 91 Platts Sheeder (G)
Rhode Island results: Rhode Island - Utah
RI-01 D 60 Kennedy Rogers
RI-02 D 76 Langevin Barton
South Carolina
SC-01 R 90 Brown Dunn (G)
SC-02 R 84 Wilson Ellisor
SC-03 R 67 Barrett
SC-04 R 69 Inglis Brown
SC-05 D 86 Spratt Spencer
SC-06 D 67 Clyburn McLeod (C)
South Dakota
SD-01 D SE* D1 Herseth Diedrich
Tennessee results: Rhode Island - Utah
TN-01 R 100 Jenkins Leonard
TN-02 R 79 Duncan Greene
TN-03 R 65 Wamp Wolfe
TN-04 D 52 D2 Davis Bowling
TN-05 D 64 Cooper Knapp
TN-06 D 66 Gordon Demas
TN-07 R 71 Blackburn
TN-08 D 70 Tanner Hart
TN-09 D 84 Ford Fort
Texas results: Rhode Island - Utah
TX-01 D 56 T Sandlin Gohmert
TX-02 D 61 T Lampson Poe
TX-03 R 74 Johnson Vessels (L)
TX-04 R 58 R3 # Hall Nickerson
TX-05 R 58 Hensarling Bernstein
TX-06 R 71 R3 Barton Meyer
TX-07 R 89 Culberson Martinez
TX-08 R 93 Brady Wright
TX-09 D 59 D3 # Green Molina
TX-10 D 84 R3 # Sadun (wi) McCaul
TX-11 D 52 R4 # Raasch Conaway
TX-12 R 92 R3 Granger Alvarado
TX-13 R 69 Thornberry Smith (L)
TX-14 R 68 Paul
TX-15 D 100 Hinojosa Thamm
TX-16 D 100 Reyes Brigham
TX-17 D 51 D1 Edwards Wohlgemuth
TX-18 D 77 Lee Sullivan (L)
TX-19 R 92 T Neugebauer* Stenholm*
TX-20 D 100 Gonzalez Scott
TX-21 R 73 Smith Smith
TX-22 R 63 R3 DeLay Morrison
TX-23 R 51 Bonilla Sullivan
TX-24 D 65 R4 # Page Marchant
TX-25 D 55 D3 Doggett Klein
TX-26 R 75 Burgess Reyes
TX-27 D 61 Ortiz Vaden
TX-28 D 71 D3 # Cuellar Hopson
TX-29 D 95 Green Messina (L)
TX-30 D 74 Johnson Davis (L)
TX-31 R 69 Carter Porter
TX-32 R 68 T Sessions* Frost*
Utah results: Rhode Island - Utah
UT-01 R 61 Bishop Thompson
UT-02 D 50 D1 Matheson Swallow
UT-03 R 67 Cannon Babka
Vermont results: Vermont - Wyoming
VT-01 Ind 65 Sanders (Ind) Drown (D)
Virginia results: Vermont - Wyoming
VA-01 R 96 Davis Lee (Ind)
VA-02 R 83 R2 # Drake Ashe
VA-03 D 96 D3 Scott Sears
VA-04 R 98 R3 Forbes Menefee
VA-05 R 63 R3 Goode Weed
VA-06 R 97 Goodlatte
VA-07 R 69 Cantor Blanton (G)
VA-08 D 60 D2 Moran Cheney
VA-09 D 66 D2 Boucher Triplett
VA-10 R 72 R3 Wolf Socas
VA-11 R 83 R3 Davis Longmyer
Washington results: Vermont - Wyoming
WA-01 D 55 D3 Inslee Eastwood
WA-02 D 51 D2 Larson Sinclair
WA-03 D 63 D3 Baird Crowson
WA-04 R 66 R3 Hastings Matheson
WA-05 R 62 R1 # McMorris Barbieri
WA-06 D 64 D3 Dicks Cloud
WA-07 D 75 McDermott Cassady
WA-08 R 60 T # Reichert Ross
WA-09 D 58 D3 Smith Lord
West Virginia results: Vermont - Wyoming
WV-01 D 100 Mollohan Parks
WV-02 R 60 R3 Capito Wells
WV-03 D 70 Rahall Snuffer
Wisconsin results: Vermont - Wyoming
WI-01 R 67 Ryan Thomas
WI-02 D 66 D3 Baldwin Magnum
WI-03 D 63 Kind Schultz
WI-04 D 76 D3 # Moore Boyle
WI-05 R 86 R3 Sensenbrenner Kennedy
WI-06 R 100 Petri Hall
WI-07 D 64 D3 Obey Miles (G)
WI-08 R 73 Green LeClair
Wyoming results: Vermont - Wyoming
WY-01 R 61 R3 Cubin Ladd

* SE = Current Congressperson chosen in Special Election since 2002

Wednesday, 13 October 2004

Reasonable Right

In the early days of 2004, I believed that Bush's Achilles heel would be an oncoming wave of defections of prominent conservatives and Republicans whose consciences would demand that they put country ahead of party and publicly endorse the Democrat this time around. I continue to argue that a Kerry win would benefit the Republican Party long term, by strengthening the voices of reason and moderation within it. I clearly underestimated the power of loyalty and personal investment in the party that moderates feel, as the anticipated wave has been a trickle of mostly retired Republicans or non-office-holders. Even groups like Mainstream 2004, a collection of Republican ex-governors and ex-senators decrying extremism and calling for moderation within the Republican policy, come short of simply endorsing the opposition, though Linwood Holton, former Republican governor of Virginia and member of the group has suggested that he could not vote for Bush under the current circumstances.

Now that's not to say that there aren't a lot of long time Republicans who will defect this year. I think that especially in the over 60 crowd there are many who remember the days of Eisenhower, and are ready to say that enough is enough. But for anyone officially within the party, there seems to be a formidable taboo against officially endorsing a formal opponent. Hagel, Snowe, Collins, and sometimes McCain may equivocate about particular administration policies or stances, but you won't be hearing a cross-party endorsement. Even lonely liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee won't come out and say he's voting for Kerry, though to do otherwise would be inconsistent with his voting record in the Senate.

Conservative columnists certainly feel freer to express doubt and dissent at aspects of the policies of Republicans. But even so, there is surprising reluctance to give outright endorsements of the other guys in deference to the country ahead of party concept. I'm always looking for exceptions to this, and will be pleased to have more pointed out to me.

John Eisenhower, son of the former President, wrote an eloquent editorial endorsement of John Kerry, in which he says "we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past." He even goes on to express enthusiasm about his decision to pull the lever for Kerry, which is just about unprecedented for a prominent Republican.

Among the regular citizenry, of course, there's no such taboo. I found:
republicansforkerry.org
republicansforkerry04.org
republicansforhumility.com
republicansagainstbush.info
publicchristian.com
anotherrepublicanforkerry.com
in a quick web search.

I do hope some exit polls ask voters to identify who they voted for, if they voted, in 2000, as it will be interesting to see the number of switches. I agree with what I've read that the number of switches in both directions is likely to be unprecedented this year, as 9/11 and its aftermath, as well as the Bush response to it and the launching of two wars, had profound but uneven effects on almost all Americans.

Thursday, 16 September 2004

Electoral Reform

Campaign Finance Reform has gotten a lot of well-deserved attention in the last several years, and though cynics will tell you that corruption can't be stopped, I contend that McCain-Feingold is at least a step in the right direction. Sure people and money will find ways around any strictures, but that doesn't mean we should encourage corruption.

There are other types of reform though that have gotten much less attention, in spite of the fact that they could have widespread support.
Two Democratic Congressmen, Brian Baird of Washington and Gene Green of Texas, have teamed up this week to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that would do away with the Electoral College and install our Presidents by direct popular vote. Now it's a shame that we need to amend the Constitution to implement a common sense procedure, but that is the most certain way to effect such a change, and really it should be popular. Thomas Jefferson was an outspoken opponent of the Electoral College from its inception. Many of the early arguments in its favor have been obviated by today's technology, so getting rid of it should be a slam dunk, but both parties have vested interests in the system, so it's an uphill battle in spite of clear popular appeal. No less than 700 previous attempts have been made to eliminate or modify it so far, to no avail. If this year's election brings us a mismatch between the popular vote winner and the Electoral College winner for the second time in as many elections, however, maybe the will to do away with it will finally be overwhelming.

Other forms of Electoral reform well worth adopting are Instant Runoff Voting, which would empower the electorate to support third party and independent candidates without "wasting" their vote, and a depoliticization of the drawing of Congressional District boundaries. That one is much tougher, but the intensely partisan and divisive House of Representatives of the current day owes its fangs to the abominable creation of safe districts. There's a reason that the Senate is consistently the more moderate body, but that's a discussion for another day.

Friday, 11 June 2004

The Fight for Congress

Most pundits say there is little chance of the Democrats wresting control of the House of Representatives from the GOP this election year. The latest congressional redistricting in most states further solidified the creation of safe districts for incumbents such that very few districts are expected to be in play in any given election year. With the Republicans currently enjoying a 228-206 advantage, few have dared to suggest that the Democrats have more than a long shot chance to become the majority party. The unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in Texas alone is seen as likely to result in a pickup of 4 or 5 seats for the GOP, further widening the gap that the Demos would have to narrow. Here is one Republican's assessment of which races should be competitive in the House. More attention has been given to the Senate where the margin is much narrower, and more Demos are daring to hope for majority status.

The conventional wisdom may well turn out to be true, but here is my contrarian speculation that the House is actually likelier to change hands than the Senate. I will grant that this is partly wishful thinking on my part, as a majority switch in the House stands to create more political thunder than a switch in the Senate where greater moderation on both sides of the aisle tends to dampen the influence of the majority, especially when it's a slim one. Some may argue that the Senate is more important due to its role in confirming appointments, but it's the House where continuous control by Republicans since 1995 has resulted in partisan entrenchment and the establishment of rules creating institutional barriers to change rivaling those which the Democrats had built up after forty years of control of that body prior to the Republican Revolution of 1994. Frankly our nation would be well served by at least one switch in party control per decade to avoid that type of petty partisanship.

My inclination to believe a Democratic surprise may be in the works stems from the tide of unabashedly liberal activism, and the rising concerns of libertarians and fiscal conservatives, both of which have sprung up in reaction to the Bush administration's four-headed approach to governing by warmongering, rights abatement, deficit spending, and cultural divisiveness. This isn't to suggest that I don't believe the polls that show a closely split and increasingly polarized electorate, nor that I believe the Republican base isn't also going to vote in record numbers. But among the many constituencies which are NOT in either party's base, I suggest that those who are inclined to oppose Bush will be voting at a substantially higher rate than those inclined to support him. This is why the polls may be "lying".

While events could yet conspire for things not to turn out that way, this potential differential in who shows up in November could translate into both an unexpected landslide for Kerry, and longer coattails than have been seen in years. The reason I think the coattails might be more noticeable in the House than the Senate is largely regional. Only one-third of all Senate seats are up for a vote, and many of the closer races are for southern seats currently occupied by Democrats. The stronger cultural conservatism in the South is likely to mitigate my suggested turnout differential there, and the loss of just two or three of those Senate seats is likely to be insurmountable. In contrast, as always, every seat in the House is up for re-election, and a motivated large anti-Bush turnout could produce more surprises in House races previously not believed to be in play.

As a partisan myself, I am especially anxious to see the Democratic Leadership put more resources than they might otherwise be inclined to into House races which have historically gone Republican with percentages in the high 50s and even low 60s, especially outside of the South. One strategic arm of the Democratic establishment, the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC) seemed to share my take on the unique opportunity of 2004 back in their September 2003 Board Memo:
As President Bush’s ratings continue to slip, and the Republicans continue to be wrong on the issues that matter most to people, Democratic races for the US House and Senate have become even more competitive. Principally because of 2002 redistricting there are a smaller number of competitive US House races. While it will be a truly difficult challenge to overcome a 22-seat GOP advantage in the House, a weakened Bush and discredited GOP has the potential of putting many more House seats “in play” in 2004. It is possible that by this time next year there will be significantly more competitive House races and the Democrat’s prospects of recapturing control of Congress will be much brighter.
But in their more recent winter newsletter, they backed substantially away from such optimism, only barely mentioning that:
In addition there is a strong chance Democrats will be able to pick up a couple of seats in the House of Representatives.
In contrast, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, more of a fund-raising organization dedicated to winning seats in Congress, at least officially, seems to remain more hopeful. Personally I wish that Tom DeLay could become the sort of political lightning rod for the left, that Ted Kennedy and Hillary have become for the right. "Demote DeLay" could become the generic "vote for your local Democrat for Congress" yard sign. Alas it would be lost on the average voter outside of DeLay's own district, who's not inclined to think of their vote as having anything to do with majority control of Congress.

Control of the House by the Democrats, should my November surprise actually occur, is likely to be short-lived however. If accompanied by a Kerry Presidency, the motivated electorate I'm hypothesizing to show up to turn out Bush will fall back to their usual habits in two years, and the redistricting to favor the party currently in power will not have changed, meaning the GOP would retake most of the seats they lose this time around. Even so, an interruption to a Republican majority, should be celebrated by moderates everywhere, as it should substantially quell the activist right-wing freight train being led by Hastert and DeLay.

As far as my personal druthers are concerned, I actually am hoping for my prediction not only in the House but in the Senate as well, since I see the advantage of some of the moderate Republican leadership in that body tempering possible excesses of what would otherwise be one-party control across the board. This in spite of the fact that I test to the left of Kucinich in this on-line measurement of one's political compass, though I remain very skeptical of that result.