As promised last night, here are my notes/liveblog of the foreign policy section of the debate (behind the cut). I've also included my final thoughts at the end.
My Final Impressions: I think that on substance, this was pretty much a draw. I think that Obama did better than McCain on the economy because he was almost certainly better able to connect with the ordinary middle class voters and speak to the concerns that they have. McCain had two arguments: earmarks and government spending. But I do not think that those two things are going to resonate strongly with the public this time around, especially since McCain didn’t really bother to explain how those issues are really connected to the current crisis. I also think Obama did a pretty good job of diminishing the importance of earmarks as a percentage of the federal budget.
I also think Obama did very well on tax policy. He talked about the necessity of ordinary people getting tax relief and how his plan would provide that and how McCain’s would not. He also did a very good job of beating back McCain’s argument about corporate taxes.
All that being said, I think that he could have gone more on the offense on the economy. He should have spoken more about how deregulation led to the current crisis and how McCain has always been a champion that sort of deregulation and he can’t speak credibly about wanting to regulate. Maybe that will come in the next debate…I hope so.
I thought McCain probably came out a bit ahead on the substance of the foreign policy debate. While I think Obama did a great job of painting McCain as having had horrible judgment at the beginning of the war and how it would unfold, I think he did a poor job addressing the issue of the surge and why withdrawal with a time table would be ok. He should take a cue from Joe Biden on that issue as Joe handled it very well on the news networks after the debates. I also think McCain probably came out ahead on the Iran discussion because I think Obama got himself bogged down in the whole Kissinger thing.
While the substance was a draw, I think Obama is the winner of the debate. First, he was calm, knowledgeable and spoke directly to the American people and I think he did a better job of at least acknowledging the problems that they had. That is reflected in the early polling numbers about the debate which suggest that he had about a 40 point lead in the category of candidate “that better understands my problems.” Second, this was McCain’s best subject—foreign policy. McCain needed to come in here and kick Obama’s ass and he clearly did not do it. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Obama, I think everyone will have to admit that he showed a tremendous understanding of all the issues and was able to speak with authority and went toe-to-toe with McCain on his greatest strength. I think he allayed a lot of fears with his performance. That leads me into the third reason, McCain’s personality and attitude. McCain never looked at Obama the entire night, Obama constantly addressed and looked at McCain. Was he scared? Angry? What? I think that the public is going to react poorly to that, it could be for McCain what Bush I’s habit of looking at his watch was in 1992….bad. Also, McCain was clearly very dismissive and contemptuous of Obama on the foreign policy part of the debate. He kept saying that Obama didn’t understand things, but that is not going to work unless Obama clearly can’t hang with McCain on these issues, but its obvious that Obama has all the knowledge he needs. Those accusations aren’t going to hold water and I think they are going to turn off a lot of people, and that is reflected in the reports from the focus groups that some of the networks were running.
We don’t see the full impact of the debates for a few more days, but I expect that this is going to help Obama.
I had planned on live-blogging the debates. But, instead, I decided to take notes on paper and then post them online later. I'll put my post-game impressions tomorrow.
8:02: Here we go...the Republic hangs in the balance. Moderator is explaining the rules..I like that there is back-and-forth permitted. Maybe it won't be a glorified press conference.
8:03: QUESTION: Eisenhower talked about "security and solvency," where do you stand on the economic plan? Obama: We need to proceed "Swiftly and wisely," we need proposals to protect the taxpayers and he lays out four key principles: 1) Oversight; 2) Mechanisms for the taxpayers to get a return on their investment when there are profits and the market bounces back; 3) Getting rid of Golden Parachutes; 4) Steps to protect homeowners. He says that this is the final verdict on 8 years of bad economic policy which Bush and McCain were championing. **Overall, I think this was a mediocre answer by Obama, he could have started stronger**
McCain: He says that he's feeling better about things tonight. He says that we're being bipartisan for the first time in a long time. He says that this could be the "greatest financial crisis since the great depression." He says that this is the beginning of the end of the crisis and talks about how he went to meet with the House GOP. *This was not a good answer either. It opens the door for Obama to attack McCain for injecting Presidential politics into the negotiations and stalling them...will he take the opportunity?"
8:09: Back to Obama--He says that we need to go to the roots of this problem. He says he saw this coming and talks about the warnings he gave to the administration.
McCain: McCain goes back to Eisenhower and the military to make his point. He gives the "two letters" story to talk about "responsibility." He basically says that he'll vote for whatever bailout deal is negotiated. *this could be a good theme for McCain to use, we'll see. However, I'm pretty sure Ike never resigned in that second letter."
Obama: Obama agrees that responsibility is important, but its not just now that we need it, we always need it. He talks about McCain saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, basically saying that McCain is late to the party on this. **I think this was a fairly strong answer by Obama, and he needs to keep hammering this point.**
8:13: McCain says that we've got to fix the system. He says "Stricter interpretation of reguliations and agencies..." He talks about the fundamental belief in the strength and ability of the American worker.
8:14 QUESTION: WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM ON THE ECONOMY? McCain: he admits that the GOP was largely to blame for this mess since they were in power. He blames earmarks and the major increases in spending during the Bush administration. He pledges to veto EVERY new spending bill with earmarks, and he says that Obama has $932 million in earmarks. **It very clear that earmarks and spending are going to be McCain's big points on the economy.**
Obama: He notes that earmarks are only $18 billion of the federal budget, not very much. He points out that McCain is proposing $300 billion to the wealthiest and corporations. He says that CEOs are getting $750,000 average tax breaks under McCain's plan and he leaves millions of middle class people out. He said that this was the policy of Bush.
McCain: He counters that Obama waited to suspend his requests for pork barrel spending until the last couple of years, so he's late to the party. Claims that earmarks have gone up 300% in the last 5 years and he's fought against it his entire career and that Obama would be $800 billion in new spending**Looks like I was right, he's back to the earmarks...I wonder how important the country thinks this is**
8:19: Obama: Says that we need to close tax loopholes and incentives that send jobs over seas. He talks about the need to reform the health care system and that "I pay for every dime of it."
McCain: He says that taxes on business was the cause of all the outsourcing because they pay less taxes overseas. So we need to cut business taxes and keep the jobs at home. He then goes back to the discussion of earmarks and calls Obama a "recent convert" to the cause. He also talks about giving tax breaks and incentives under his plan.
Obama: He states plainly that if you make less than $250K, you are not going to see your taxes increased. He rebuts McCain's point about corporate taxes by noting that while the rates are higher here, the loopholes and incentives that McCain supports mean that we effectively have the lowest corporate tax rates in the world and we still ship jobs overseas. He then answer's McCain's plan for health care tax credits by noting that for the first time ever, we are going to tax health benefits. **This was an incredibly good answer by Obama.**
8:23: McCain brings up the energy bill and asks people to look at their records and who kept spending under control. McCain talks about Obama having voted to raise taxes on lower income people (which is a lie).
Obama: Quickly points out that McCain wants to give billions in new tax breaks to oil companies.
8:26: QUESTION: WILL YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP ANY OF YOUR PRIORITIES FOR THE RESCUE PLAN? Obama: Obama says that we may have to delay doing things because of the budget crunch. But, there are things that are going to have to be done no matter what: Energy indpenedence, health care reform, tech and science education, college access, and infrastructure improvements. **To be honest, i thought this was kind of a weak answer**
McCain: "We've got to cut spending," and then he brings up the "most liberal senator" accusation. He then talks about the need to eliminate "cost-plus contracts" and explained what they were, adn then talks more generally about reforming and streamlining agencies. He then points to the need to cut ethanol subsidies. **I thought this was a good answer by McCain, but he lost Iowa with this answer when he wanted to cut ethanol subsidies."
8:30: QUESTION: SO WHAT WILL YOU DELAY? Obama: Some parts of the energy plan may have to be delayed because of budget constraints. He did say that we could save some money by cutting subsidies to private insurance companies under medicare since they don't save any money for the consumer, and he blames lobbyists for this. He answered the "most liberal senator" charge by noting that he worked with Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to pass government transparency legislation and that he was only the most liberal because he spent so much time opposing Bush's policies. **This was a pretty good response, he was smart to take on that "most liberal" charge. I liked the swipe that he took at lobbyists, but will he push that theme like he needs to?"
McCain: McCain says that we'll institute a "spending freeze" for everything but defense and entitlements.
Obama: A spending freeze is using a "hatchet where you need a scalpel." He points to the $10 billion a month that we spend on Iraq and that we need to reign that in.
McCain: McCain says that $700 billion is going overseas because of oil and that we need to do offshore drilling and nuclear power. mcCain goes back to his work on global warming. **Obama needs to respond by pointing out that we won't get a drop from any new drilling for at least 5 years...will he do it?**
8:35: QUESTION: WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BAILOUT WILL EFFECT YOUR BUDGETS? Obama: Yes, of course, and elaborates a bit. He then made the point that we need to know the President's values when making decisions in that sort of situation (obviously implying that McCain will not value the midddle class or protect them when making cuts).
McCain: He says criticizes Obama's health care stance by saying we shouldn't hand our health care to the FG and says thats what Obama will functionally do. Then he said that Obama would lead to massive new spending. McCain says we can trust him to adjust spending and take care of veterans. He blames out of control spending for the economic crisis.
Obama: Points out that it was a President from McCain's party that did all this and that MCCain supported him and voted for just about every budged that includes the spending that McCain is criticizing.
McCain: Says that he opposed the president and that he got a running mate who will oppose that stuff too. **This is a HUGE opportunity for Obama to go after Palin. McCain brought her into the discussion and she is the earmark queen**
*****I was planning on doing the whole debate tonight and then folllowing up with my impressions. But its late and I'm tired. So the foreign policy part of the debate and my closing thoughts will come some time tomorrow.*****
I arrived at Baylor Law in late January, 2005. Now, almost 3 years later I'm a little less than 3 weeks from graduation, which means its time to take stock of my experiences here. Looking back on it, I have no doubt that I have received a top-notch legal education. But if I had to do it all over again, would I make the same decision to come to Baylor? After some thought, as much as it pains me to say it, I've concluded that no, I would not come to Baylor if I had a do-over (Yes, I would still go to law school)
Before I get into the reasons why, I will give the experience its due and talk about some of the positive things to come out of this experience. First, I've made some fantastic friends here that I hope will remain close friends for the rest of my life. You can't ask for friends better than Tasha, Ashley (and their husbands Dan and Ryan) and Allison. I only hope the fact that I'll almost certainly end up in a different city from all of them won't cause us to drift apart and lose contact as seems to happen so often.
Secondly, I have had some fantastic professors and some truly amazing classes. The troika of practice court professors are as good as you can get. They are incredibly demanding, but rightly so because they take their duty very seriously--that is to produce lawyers who are competent to represent their clients and be able to stand up to more experienced lawyers on the day that we get our law license. These guys know all that there is to know, and I'm glad that I had the experience with them. Additionally, I came in to Baylor interested in Constitutional law but desperate to learn more, and I will lot leave disappointed. If you include my kindergarten years, I've been in school for over 20 years, and I've never had a teacher/professor that I've liked more than Prof. David Guinn.
Third, while Practice Court was definitely the worst 6 months of my life, I survived it and I KNOW that I will leave here better prepared and better trained than probably 99% of the graduates of other law schools in this country. While I have complaints about the program that I'll detail below, there is no questioning the results.
If you put aside the stuff about the friendships (because I'm not sure I really say that I'd ever be willing to give them up), If I were to go back in time to June 2004 and tell myself what to do, I'd tell myself not to come here. I know that I've already listed some of the really positive things to come out of my time here, I think the negatives will end up outweighing the good.
First, the City of Waco: I've been lucky thus far in my life. I grew up in Dallas, though not the greatest tourist city on earth, its a great place to live with all the things that I could personally want in a city. Then I went to Athens, Georgia. Athens is, without question, one of the two best college towns in America (Athens and Austin are 1a and 1b). Those of you that have been there don't need me to explain why it kicks so much ass. Plus, its close enough to Atlanta to get all the benefits of the big city that might otherwise be lacking in Athens. That proximity was a great thing because I am a city boy at heart. Waco, on the other hand, SUCKS. It is thoroughly uninteresting, with nothing but an interstate highway and nearly every chain restaurant known to man, plus its really ugly. I know for a fact that I would have been happier in any of the other cities that I was considering for law school).
But Waco's inherent suckiness is not the biggest problem with the town, its the location. Waco is not a big town, with only about 100,000 people, and it does not have a thriving legal community (despite the fact that we've got some really good professors). So going to school here, its damn near impossible to make the connections with lawyers from Dallas or Austin, those connections being really important to getting a job at the end of law school. Plus, given the location, while we do have on-campus interviews twice a year, our location keeps a lot of firms away, so the opportunity to get a job coming out of that process is extremely small.
Second, and perhaps the biggest problem, is that Baylor Law does a piss poor job of promoting itself, and blame for that has to lay squarely at the top (I'm looking in your direction, Dean Toben). Baylor is ranked somewhere near 55 in the U.S. News & World Reports rankings, but there is simply no excuse for us being that low given our astronomical bar passage rate and the skills that our graduates leave here with. With our ranking being lower than it is, the value of my degree suffers and makes it just that much harder to get a job. But the general ranking is not the biggest problem regarding publicity--it is the utter lack of knowledge about the Practice Court program in the legal community. Practice Court produces the best trained graduates in the state of Texas, and I'd put it up against any program in the country, but very few people seem to know about it or understand it. If a firm doesn't have a Baylor grad near the top of the hierarchy, the chances are they've probably never heard of Practice Court. And if the firm is outside of Texas, there is pretty much zero chance that they know anything about it. And its just not the type of thing that you can explain properly in a 20 minute interview or in a cover letter. What is the point of going through that hell if we can't take advantage of it when trying to get a job?!!! Given the lack of legal clinics at Baylor, PC is THE mechanism by which we show we have experience, but it apparently doesn't do us any good! I feel like I've put myself through this for nothing. This is not the fault of the professors, this is the fault of the administration.
The third big problem is grade deflation: Baylor actively tries to depress its grades. If you've got a 3.2 here, thats pretty much the same thing as getting a 3.65 at the University of Texas. They want the students to "earn" their grades, but they don't seem to realize what they are doing to our job prospects. Our grades here are so much lower than anywhere else in the region, and when you combine that with the lack of understanding about the Baylor program, that creates a BIG problem for us. When these law firms get our transcripts and my resume, and see that I'm in the top 25% of the class, they might actually consider me, but when they look and see that means I've got around a 3.2....that application is probably going straight to the trash pile. When I was making my decision to come here, if I had known that the school's policies would put me at such a disadvantage on the job market, I wouldn't have willingly put myself at that disadvantage. Because while all the training is great, in the end I still have to get a job, I'd have gone somewhere that I could be on a level playing field with everyone else.
The bottom line is that I think I am now at a disadvantage because I went to Baylor, when there is no excuse for not having an advantage because I went here. If I had the choice, I wouldn't do that to myself again.
This was posted on the front page of Daily Kos. I'm posting it here because its just so damn good. URL: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/31/0538/71562
A couple of years ago I stirred up the wingnutosphere into a frothy rage arguing that while Republicans like to accuse Democrats of being "terrorist sympathizers", Islamic fundamentalism was more in tune with conservatism than progressive values.
Once upon a time, it was easy for the American Right to smear its opponents on the left -- they could simply equate them with the nation's communist enemies. It didn't matter that the American "left" (Democrats) had more in common with the Right than international communism, the smear was useful. Now, however, our international enemy -- Islamic radicalism -- is actually the polar opposite of what liberals stand for -- their actions on women rights are deplorable, they insist on theocracy, they loooveee torture and the death penalty, they demand to control the culture (TV, movies, music), they rail against rampant sexuality, they seek to spread their ideology via force, and they have a well-defined black-and-white sense of truth.
Remind you of a certain American party?
That's why hysterical assertions by the wingers that liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win are so absurd. As absurd as it would've been to claim that Reagan wanted the Communists to win the Cold War. The Taliban/Al Qaida/Hezbollah/Jihadists of the world are the exact embodiment of evil in the liberal mind. They are everything we are against, and against everything we are for.
In fact, they are exactly what we see in the Republican Party as the GOP continues to consolidate power -- creeping theocracy, moralizing, us versus them, embrace of torture, the need to constantly declare jihad on someone, hysterics over football-game nipples, control over "decency" on the airwaves, lyrics censorship, hostility to women freedoms, curtaling of civil liberties, and so on.
So it's pretty obvious -- we don't love terrorists. We don't want them to win. For them to win would be to realize our greatest fears. The muslim terrorist is truly the anti-liberal. Like matter and anti-matter.
Republicans, on the other hand, hate the terrorists because they're Muslim. But aside from that, they've got far more in common than they'll ever admit to themselves.
I then took this thought further, comparing how conservatives are like our Islamic enemies here and here. A few samples:
Tolerance
Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity Liberals: Live and let live
Marriage
Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other
God
Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone
You get the point.
Now there was a ton of whining about these posts from the usual suspects. But ultimately, this is the bottom line reason we don't like Islamic Fundamentalist AND the GOP -- their moral absolutism, their militarism, and their oppressive efforts to impose their rigid morality on the rest of us.
Today, a Republican state senator in Montana confirmed all of this in pitch-perfect form:
As a Republican state senator in Montana and as a human being, I am offended by Senator Craig's existence. Why oh why are most of the perverts that get caught Republicans? Are there more of them or are they just stupid? The thought of a US Senator chasing love in all the wrong places makes me think longingly of the Ayotollahs in Iran. They would just kill the turkey.
Yup. This guy said what the rest of them think. They want theocracy. They want a system which enforces their prejudices and bigotry. They want a world in which violence is the first and only solution to every challenge.
Again, the only reason American conservatives hate Islamic Fundamentalism is because of the "clash of religions" thing. Otherwise, on the issues, they see eye-to-eye on just about everything.
Today, when discussing my cousin's upcoming wedding, my grandmother again tried to pester me into taking dancing lessons (ballroom dancing and line dancing). I do not dance. This is only the latest in a number of attempts that she had made over the years, and I have resisted every one of them. But then today she made it interesting. She said that there is now a standing offer on the table: She offered me $1000 to take the lessons (which she would also pay for).
But I still don't want to take the lessons, they just don't interest me. Plus, I don't dance. But....maybe if she upped the offer to $2000..... Then I could buy the new iMac that I'm coveting. I don't feel guilty about that because they have more money than they know what to do with.
Aug. 12th, 2007 @ 04:02 pm
On Friday night I went to Borders Books & Music to buy Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The book is awesome, btw. When I got to the store there was a blue line of tape snaking through the store which was what the people in line had to follow. The people with the orange wristbands got to go through the line first, then the people with silver, and then purple, and so on and so forth.
My sister and I had silver wristbands and we got to go through the line on the second wave. After getting through about 2/3 of the line, the blue tape took us down a row of sports books. On the shelf, however, we saw one book that was clearly out of place. Its title was "Make your own sex toys." It was hilarious. It had instructions on such things as how to whiddle your own dildo or to make your own "gimp mask." Hahahaha. I took a picture with my camera phone so that I could post it here, but unfortunately it did not save properly :(
Jul. 23rd, 2007 @ 05:20 pm
I'm off to Borders to pick up my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as soon as it goes on sale at 12:01 AM! So excited!
Jul. 20th, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
We're about 16 months away from the 2008 Election. Most of the stuff you hear in the media these days is about the Presidential race. Of course, we all care about that but the battle for control of the United States Senate rages on and gets very little coverage despite the fact that it is vitally important. The GOP only needs to gain 2 seats to get the chamber back and the Democrats have a lot of pick-up targets in their drive to get a filibuster proof majority? Will either succeed? I doubt it, but you never know. So I've decided to take y'all on a short tour through next year's competitive Senate races and what I think the possibilities are for each. Remember, we're a long way away so anything can happen, but this is how I see it now. Enjoy!
Democratic Held Seats: 1. South Dakota: This seat is held by Sen. Tim Johnson who was re-elected in 2002, beating John Thune by 532 votes in a VERY bad year for Democrats. 2008 appears to be shaping up to be another pretty good year for the Dems so one would think that Sen. Johnson would have an easier time of it in 2008. However, there are several dynamics at work in this race which mean it won't be a total slam dunk for Johnson. First, Johnson suffered a major stroke in January of this year and still has not returned to work as he is still trying to complete physical therapy. Second, however, is no major Republican challenge has stepped up to challenge Johnson. The Republican Gov. Mike Rounds has decided not to run, if he had Johnson would be in a heap of trouble. Also, Johnson has a fairly large warchest and his fundraising this year has been more than adequate. Thus, without a big name Republican challenger, the big question will be how the voters in the state respond to the stroke? Will it deter them from voting to re-elect Sen. Johnson? We don't know the answer to that question yet, but my guess is "no" it will not be a huge problem. If it is, the popular Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth is waiting in the wings and Johnson could bow out in favor of her. Forecast: Leans Dem Retention
2. Louisiana: Currently held by Mary Landrieu who won re-election in a Dec. 2002 run-off. Depending on who you ask, this is either the GOP's biggest or second biggest 2008 target. In fact, the NRSC Chairman Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has guaranteed that Mary Landrieu will be defeated next year. I think he's wrong. Its true that this is a seat that should be competitive: Its in the South, Katrina caused a number of likely Democratic voters to leave the state, and she barely won last time. Despite all that, I think Landrieu will hold on for several reasons. First, the Louisiana GOP has absolutely no bench. The one rising star that they have, Rep. Bobby Jindal, is running for governor this year and will likely win which will take him out of the running. There are a few other names being thrown about but none of them have much. Second, despite the fact that Katrina caused a number of lower income, and likely democratic voting, Louisianans out of state, Sen. Landrieu's approval rating is holding steady at about 54%, so she's looking good regardless of whether or not those voters come home. Third, she's got a TON of money and she won't face a primary challenge so she won't have to spend any of it until the general election. Fourth, she's gotten on the anti-War bandwagon and thats the side the vast majority of the American public is currently on. So barring some unforseen development, she's in good shape. Forecast: Leans Dem Retention
3. Montana: Currently held by 5-term Sen. Max Baucus. The GOP would love for this seat to be competitive, they somehow think that it is, but they are living in a dream world. Baucus won re-election comfortably in a horrible year for Democrats in 2002. Montana is strongly trending blue, having an extremely popular Democratic Governor and in 06 they ousted GOP Sen. Conrad Burns in favor of Democrat Jon Tester. Add in the fact that there is currently no credible challenger. The only challenger is the Fmr. Majority Leader of the Montana House, and he's a f'in NUTS (see: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ErsJK9R9pZQ). Plus, Baucus has a ton of money. To be quite honest, I really don't like Max Baucus. He's a corporate shill and he's almost single-handedly derailing meaningful health care reform in the Senate. But unless we can boot him in a primary (Maybe John Morrison?), he's not going anywhere. Forecast: Safe Dem Retention
4. The Democrats do have to defend several other seats next year but they are all safe seats for the Dems. They are: Arkansas (Unless Huckabee runs), Michigan, Illinois, Delaware, Massachusettes, Rhode Island, Iowa and West Virginia.
Republican Held Seats: This is where it gets very interesting.The GOP has 22 seats to defend and more than half of them are in play. The Democrats need a 10 seat pickup to get a filibuster proof majority. I know what you're saying, "Don't the dems have 51 seats? Don't they only need 9?" No. Why? Because Joe Lieberman is a not a Democrat and we won't have a true majority until we can boot his sorry ass out of the caucus. So while there are more than 10 seats in play for the Dems to take, i don't think they'll get that many.....but stranger things have happened.
1. Colorado: Open Seat: Wayne Allard has announced that he is not running for re-election and thus this is an open seat. On the Democratic side we've got Rep. Mark Udall (CO-2) who has already announced that he's running. He is not expected to draw any serious primary opposition. On the Republican side we've got.......currently nothing. There is no announced GOP candidate, though it is expected that Fmr. Rep. Bob Schaffer will run for the seat, but he just got finished being trounced in the 2006 race for Governor by Democrat Bill Ritter. Colorado is strongly trending blue and I expect that next year will be no different. This is about as close to a sure thing that you'll see next year. Forecast: VERY likely Dem pick-up
2. New Hampshire: Currently held by John Snunu: Snunu won a squeaker over Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in 2002. Since then, however, the state has been trending Democratic. In 2006 the Democrats held on to the governor's mansion, won both US house seats and both houses of the state legislature for the first time in decades. Now, Snunu's support of the war and Bush's other agenda items has sent his approval rating into the tank. His approval numbers are in the mid-30s and they don't look to be getting better anytime soon. Recent polling has Shaheen beating Snunu by more than 20 pts, so if she decides to enter the race, its hers. She says she'll announce before September and I'd bank on her running. If she doesn't, the nomination will probably go to Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand. Low name ID has allowed Snunu to stay ahead of Marchand in the polls thus far, but I don't see that continuing. Forecast: A. IF Shaheen runs: VERY likely Dem pickup; B. If Shaheen doesn't run: leans Dem pickup.
3. Minnesota:Norm Coleman backed into this seat in 2002 when incumbent Democratic Sen. (and my personal hero) Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash about 10 days before the election. The conservative media then spun the events at the memorial service against the Democrats. As a result, Coleman won a very tight race against Fmr.Vice-President Walter Mondale. Since then, Coleman has been a fairly reliable supporter of the Bush administration and its policies which has sapped his popularity in Minnesota. While he still is able to maintain some moderate veneer, the voters of MN have started to see through that which has made him vulnerable. There are currently two challengers in the race. First is Comedian/Satirist/Political Commentator Al Franken and Second is MN AG Mike Ciresi. Franken has to be considered the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination as he is raising money hand over fist (including outraising Coleman last quarter) and has established a grassroots operation that Paul Wellstone would be proud of. That being said, its too early to count out Ciresi. I do think that in the end Franken will get the nomination. Franken has fairly high negative ratings which will hurt him, but on the flip side his ability to raise money, his grassroots operation and the fact that its so easy to tie Coleman to the Bush administration should help to counteract that. And, I think everyone remembers how Democrat Amy Klobuchar won the open senate seat by 20 pts in 2006.... Forecast: TOSS-UP.
4. Oregon: Gordon Smith is a multi-term incumbent and has always been fairly popular in this otherwise reliable Democratic state, but that may be coming to an end now. The Bush administration, and by extension the GOP, are VERY unpopular in Oregon and its taking a toll on Smith. While he has attempted to distance himself from the administration, especially on things like the war, it does not seem to be having much of an effect and his numbers continue to go into the tank. Over the course of the past year Smith's approval ratings have dropped from the 60s down into the low-to-mid 30s, and his general re-elect numbers are about as bad. The problem is that the Democrats don't as of yet have a top-tier candidate. The only declared candidate is Steve Novick, a former Justice Department lawyer who won the Love Canal case for the Federal Government. Novick has done fairly well in fundraising but is still greatly hampered by a lack of name recognition among Oregon voters. I think as time goes on there is a decent chance he can solve that problem and unseat Smith. If the Dems get a bigger name in there, I'd say that this is almost as likely to flip as Colorado, but until then I'll call it a toss-up. Forecast: Toss-up
5. Maine: Susan Collins has held this seat since 1996 and this is the first time that she is vulnerable. Collins has a reputation as being a very moderate republican, and maybe she is, but that has not translated into meaningful opposition to the administrations policies. But the fact that she is facing a tough reelection fight may have forced her to try to back up her words with actions as she was one of 3 republicans to vote to break the filibuster on the Levin-Reed bill that would have forced Bush to bring home the troops. That being said, there are plenty of sound bytes out there for her opponents to use against her. The other thing working against her is that when she was first elected, she pledged only to serve 2 terms in the Senate. She reaffirmed this as recently as 2004, but has decided to break that pledge and run for re-election to a 3rd term. Collins has drawn a top-tier challenge in Rep. Tom Allen, a very popular figure in the state. Allen has managed to keep pace with Collins' fundraising efforts, which was no small feat. Forecast: Toss-up 6. North Carolina: Libby Dole won the seat in 2002 after it was vacated by the retiring Jesse Helms. She won a narrow victory then and if she wins this time it will probably be by an even smaller margin. Dole's tenure in the Senate has been undistinguished with no major legislative achievements to her record. Mainly she has simply been a reliable supporter of the Bush administration and its goals. This support of the unpopular President and the war combined with her abysmal record of achievement has left her extremely vulnerable. The only thing that Dole has going for her is the fact that she currently lacks a challenger though that will probably change. Gov. Mike Easley and Rep. Brad Miller have both passed on the race, but it looks like State Rep. Grier Martin will challenge Dole. A recent poll had Dole beating Martin 43-37 with Martin's name ID being almost zero outside of his own district. With Dole's numbers well below 50% and only a 6 point lead over an unknown challenger, Dole is in some serious trouble. I rate this a toss-up only because Martin has not yet decided to enter the race. Forecast: Toss-up
7. Virginia: The seat is held by multi-term incumbent John Warner. What makes this race strange is that no one really seems to know whether or not Sen. Warner is going to run again. He raised all of $500 during the first quarter and only raised about $60K in the second quarter. This, combined with the fact that he's 80 years old, has led many to speculate that he is going to retire. If Warner runs again, the Republican's probably keep the seat. Why? Not because he's not vulnerable, but it just appears that the top Democratic contenders would just choose not to run again. However, if Warner retires, then all bets are off. In that scenario, the Republican nominee would almost certainly be Rep. Tom Davis (VA-11). Who would he face? The rumblings are that in that scenario the uber-popular Fmr. Dem. Gov. MARK Warner would enter the race, in which case he would likely handily defeat Davis. I call this a toss up just b/c we don't know who is running! Forecast: Toss-up
8. Nebraska: The seat is currently held by moderate Republican Chuck Hagel. He is the only solidly anti-war Republican in the Senate. Anywhere else in the country that would assure him a totally unfettered walk to reelection...but not in Nebraska. Its not so much that the war is popular in Nebraska, but it is that the war is very popular with the Republican primary voters and so is the President. So if Hegel were to survive a primary, he'd waltz through the general, but thats the problem...its looking exceedingly unlikely that he'd survive a primary. State AG Jon Bruning has already declared his candidacy and will run on a pro-war, pro Bush platform. Because of this, Hagel has not yet said that he is running again and it appears more likely every day that he will choose to retire. Thats where it gets interesting. Fmr. Democratic Senator (and current President of New School University) Bob Kerrey has let it be known that he'd strongly consider running for his old seat if Hagel chooses to retire. Because of the split in the GOP that Bruning's candidacy would cause, if Kerrey decides to get into the race I think it likely that he would win. But at this point I still think Hagel is going to try to keep his seat, which is why I give the GOP the other hand. Forecast: Leans GOP retention
9. New Mexico: Pete Domenici has held this seat for quite a while, and until the beginning of this year no one really thought that this seat would be competitive, despite the fact that most observers believe that New Mexico will go blue in the Presidential race. But then the President decided to fire a bunch of US Attorneys. One of the US Attorney's fired was the US Attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias, and there have been indications that Domenici was involved in the political mechanations that led to the firing and then was not very forthcoming about it. As a result Sen. Domenici's approval ratings have fallen dramatically and potentially makes him quite vulnerable next November...if a challenger steps up, and there is currently not one in sight. This is one of two states where the DSCC has dropped the ball and doesn't seem to have a legitimate challenger on the radar. Sen. Schumer needs to pay attention and find a legitimate candidate to take a run at Domenici. But until this happens the GOP is going to hold it. Forecast: Leans GOP retention
10. Alaska: Ted Stevens is batshit crazy and has held this seat for over 30 years. This is the guy that likened the internet to a "series of tubes" that can "get clogged up" with e-mail. But Alaskans are a weird bunch and have always liked this guy. For the longest time it seemed like Sen. Stevens would be there until he died in office or decided to retire. But things can change and that may be what is happening here. Over the last couple of years there has been an ongoing FBI corruption probe in Alaska and shortly after the 2006 election Ted Stevens' son Ben (a state Senator) found himself right in the middle of it when the FBI raided his offices. This cast a bit of a shadow over Ted Stevens and then it has come out lately that there were several earmarks being directed towards businesses and projects that his son may have been involved in and then there are allegations that Ted Stevens may have received improper gifts in the form of remodeling to his house and now the FBI is looking into this. Stevens himself has admitted that this could cause him serious trouble in his re-election bid next year. The only problem for us is that we don't currently have a candidate and the Democratic bench in Alaska is NOT deep as the state tends to be blood red. But there is one potentially strong candidate out there: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Begich is the son of fmr. US Rep. Nick Begich who was killed in a plane crash in 1972 along with US Speaker of the House Hale Boggs. If Begich does not run then Stevens will hold this seat, simply because we don't have anything else. If Begich does run, and this probe continues like I think it will, I think the Dems have a very good chance of taking this seat. Forecast: A. If Begich does not run: Safe GOP retention; B. If Begich does run: Toss-up
11. Kentucky: This seat is held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell one of the Bush administration's biggest cheerleaders. Unfortunately for him, his ties to the administration hang like an albatross around his neck, giving him an approval rating of 46% vs. a disapproval rating of 45%. It also does not help that the Kentucky GOP is in shambles, with Gov. Ernie Fletcher being the most corrupt governor of any state since Edwin Edwards (Louisiana). Not too long ago a poll came out showing that Rep. Ben Chandler tied with McConnell, but Chandler has not entered the race (and is not expected to). The poll shows that McConnell is staggeringly vulnerable but until we get a candidate we won't be able to take advantage of it. Until then, its a likely GOP retention. Forecast: Likely GOP retention
12. Texas: John Cornyn has held this seat since 2002 and is an absolute tool. He is the Bush administration's mouthpiece in the Senate, its most reliable cheerleader. Luckily Bush's ratings aren't very good here anymore and Texans have started to take notice of Cornyn's act, and as a result he is one of the most unpopular senators in the country. Meanwhile, the Texas Democratic Party has enjoyed a resurgence of late, gaining seats in the state house at a steady rate and we also picked up 2 seats in the US House in 2006 (TX-22, 23). Both the state and national parties are totally committed to this race. Additionally, unlike some of the other top-tier races, we already have 2 good democratic challengers to Cornyn. The first is trial attorney Mikal Watts who has already pledged $10 million of his own money to the race (which would eliminate any fundraising advantage that Cornyn might have). The other is state Senator Rick Noriega of Houston. Noriega is a Lt. Col. in the US Army and did tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Either candidate is capable of defeating Cornyn, but each has their drawbacks. Watts is anti-choice which will not endear him to Democratic voters, and to win this race we don't need anything that will defeat turnout. Secondly, given the success "tort reformers" have had in this state, the fact that he is a trial lawyer could really hurt him. But, he's got the money and will not be outspent by Cornyn. That alone makes him very formidable. Noriega, on the other hand, will not be able to raise money like Watts can (who raised 1.2 million last quarter) and that could be a problem because this is going to be an expensive race. But Noriega does have things working for him that Watts simply does not have. First, Noriega's army background will greatly help him as we love veterans in this state, and the fact that he has stayed in and recently served will further help him. Second, he will play very well with the hispanic community and that could doom Cornyn if they decide to turn out. Third, Noriega is the darling of the netroots which has become the dominant force in the Democratic party. Unfortunately, in the end, this is Texas and its still a red state (though maybe not for much longer) and Cornyn has to be considered the heavy favorite to win....but its not a sure thing. Forecast: Likely GOP retention.
13. Wyoming: There are actually 2 seats up in Wyoming this year. Sen. Mike Enzi is up for re-election because his term is up. The other Senator, John Barasso is up for re-election because he was a mid-term replacement for the late Sen. Craig Thomas who died of Lukemia several months ago. Wyoming is one of the reddest states in the country and its unlikely that either of these seats can be taken by the Democrats but there is one possibility that would put Barasso's seat in play. Note that Enzi's seat is absolutely safe. In an odd anomaly, Wyoming has a Democratic Governor, Dave Fruedenthal, and he is EXTREMELY popular. If he were to decide to take on Barasso he would likely win. There are rumblings that Gov. Fruedenthal may just decide to enter the race, but as of yet he has declined to say that he is considering it. Forecast: Enzi--SAFE GOP retention. Barasso--A. If Freudenthal does not run: Safe GOP retention; B. If Freudenthal does run: Likely Dem pick-up.
14. The other seats the GOP has to defend should be absolutely safe, they are: Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi (unless Cochran retires), South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee.
Questions? Comments? We're here 24-7 for all your 2008 election news and analysis needs.
Jul. 20th, 2007 @ 09:43 am
I'm baaaaaack!!! The Practice Court program, the worst 6 months of my life, is finally over!! w00t! So the plan is to actually start posting on this thing again. Will it happen? Stay tuned...
Jul. 19th, 2007 @ 02:58 pm
I haven't been this excited about a movie in a very long time. I'm going to see it at 12:01 am on the IMAX, and I bought my tickets 2 weeks ago (yes, I'm a huge dork). I'm really happy that this is coming out during the one week that I'm in Dallas.
I'll be really interested to see how the Venom part of the storyline plays out. I'm sure that the Venom character will look fine, but I hear that Venom isn't in the movie all tha much so I hope they don't rush throught it too quickly.
A full review will come later.
May. 3rd, 2007 @ 02:49 pm
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
tkeane002's journal
frustrated