It All Starts With Arizona

It looks like Arizona voters oppose a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Support amendment 38%
Oppose amendment 51%

I'll admint was skeptical when I saw polls out of Wisconsin and South Dakota indicating much rougher terrain for these amendments than in the past. But maybe this represents a trend, a fundamental reordering of the political system vis-a-vis marriage equality... I'm crossing my fingers, yes, but until I see a state actually reject one of these amendments, I'm not holding my breath.

RI-Sen: Chafee Could Be the Next Lieberman

New England senators are having a rough go of it. A new Rhode Island College poll shows Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee headed for defeat in the Sept 12 Republican primary:

Steve Laffey (R) 51%
Lincoln Chafee (R) 34%

Could Chafee be the next Lieberman? Here's how the situation in Rhode Island is different from the primary battle Sen. Joe Lieberman lost to Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

Connecticut is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and the primary battle was in the Democratic party. When Lieberman lost, the battle became an open seat in a liberal state with a weak Republican (Schlesinger), a moderately conservative independent (Lieberman), and a strong Democrat (Lamont). The latest Rasmussen poll has Lieberman leading, but only barely.

Rhode Island is also an overwhelmingly Democratic state, but the primary battle is in the Republican party. If Chafee loses, the battle becomes an open seat in a liberal state with a very conservative Republican candidate (Laffey), and a strong Democratic challenger (Whitehouse). No word yet if Chafee would run a feisty independent campaign on a "Rhode Island for Chafee" party ticket. The latest Rasmussen poll has Whitehouse beating Chafee, but utterly annihilating Laffey.

So basically there are two important differences to keep in mind when comparing the two races: the first is that Rhode Island is not a good state for a conservative candidate like Laffey in an open seat, while Connecticut is a good state for a progressive candidate like Lamont in an open seat. The second is that Republicans have a poor candidate in Connecticut and are thus unable to capitalize on the Democratic division, while Democrats have a strong candidate in Rhode Island and are very much able to capitalize on Republican division there.

Make sense?

TX-22: Special!

Who could possibly have seen it coming? Gov Rick Perry calls a special election to fill a vacant Republican office. This time, it's Tom DeLay's empty seat in TX-22. The date of the special election is November 7, which sounds awfully, naggingly familiar... But let me just say that if there's one thing Rick Perry knows how to do well, it's gain partisan advantage by setting special election dates. We all saw how well that worked for Rep. Ben Bentzin in state house district 48... oh wait... Donna Howard won that one didn't she?

Yes, November 7. The same November 7 as the general election. That means there will be two simultaneous elections that day: one for two-months' worth of representation, from November to January, and one for the next two years after that. Presumably, there will be a Republican and a Democrat on the ballot in the first race, but only a Democrat and a Libertarian in the second, with Republican candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs trying to win that race with a write-in campaign.

Anyway, Charles Kuffner thinks it will help Sekula-Gibbs by boosting the profile of the race and thereby getting more people informed about how to properly cast a write-in ballot, while Chris Elam at the Texas Safety Forum thinks it will just confuse voters. Personally, I think Lampson will win the full-term race just due to the money gap. (I think he's the single best funded Democratic challenger in the country, but I don't have the energy to find proof tonight. SSG, meanwhile, is just starting to campaign now.) But one effect might be to make Lampson seem more vulnerable in 2008 if SSG manages to win the special, which given the Republican tilt of the district, is not unthinkable.

Also, the Lone Star Project notes that the November special election date will make TX-22 the longest-vacant congressional seat since 1905.

CA-Gov: Schwarzenegger Looking Safer and Safer

I'm sorry to say it to all my readers out there in California, but Schwarzenegger is looking stronger and stronger for re-election. The latest Survey USA poll is mind-bogglingly good for him:

Schwarzenegger (R) 52%
Angelides (D) 38%

It makes me sad, because I am absolutely convinced that California would legislatively legalize gay marriage with a Democratic governor in office. Why? Because Schwarzenegger vetoed gay marriage legislation last year.

US House Predictions

A number of prognosticators have released their predictions for the balance in the US House after the November elections. Stuart Rothenberg, a non-partisan Washington establishment prognosticator if ever there was one, is predicting 15-20 seats will be picked up by the Democrats. They need just 15 to take control. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute, a non-partisan think-tank, is more optimistic about the Democrats' chances, predicting Democrats will pick up 25-35 seats.

And today, Chris Bowers of MyDD broke out his own predictions for the November congressional elections (with an incredibly detailed chart). He's predicting a Democratic gain of 15-25 seats.

My personal prediction, as of today, is the Democrats will pick up between 20 and 25 seats, making Nancy Pelosi the first female Speaker of the House. With just a 5-10 seat majority, Democrats will be less secure in their control of the House than Republicans do now, or than they did after coming to power in the 1994 midterm elections. The Democratic party will also be more internally divided than the Republican party, since more Democrats represent cross-partisan districts than Republicans. But Democrats will also be less internally divided, and more progressive, than they were last time they controlled the House (1994).

If the Democrats control just the House, without also taking control of the Senate, they will be in a precarious position. After a triumphant election victory, the people will expect results from Democrats. But with only one house of Congress, Democrats will be unable to truly drive their legislative agenda. So in that case, I think the Democrats will turn to the one tool they will have gained: subpoena power. They will begin to hold hearings into every Bush administration failure in the previous 6 years. And control of the Senate seems less likely for Democrats. Most predictions are for a Democratic pickup of 3-5 seats in the Senate. They need 6 for control. So this is likely the situation we'll be looking at.

AL-HD-54: Did I Do That?

The Alabama Democratic Party has reversed course and dismissed the challenge to Patricia Todd's victory in the Democratic primary for HD-54. The excellent Alabama Democratic blog Birmingham Blues has the skinny:

Of course, Patricia’s dispute was last on the agenda. Amy Burks, chair of the subcommittee that recommended disqualifying both Patricia and Gaynell Hendricks, read the recommendation. Chair Joe Turnham explained that a vote to uphold the recommendation would result in the disqualification of both candidates and a vacancy in District 54, while a vote to overturn it would end the contest and make Patricia the nominee.

Then Raymond Johnson spoke, supposedly on behalf of Gaynell, but primarily to insist that the committee hold Patricia to a standard no one else had to meet.

Bobby Segall was just as eloquent and impassioned on Patricia’s behalf today as he was on Thursday, and he dropped a minor bombshell — he had an affidavit from a former Democratic party chair stating that the portion of the bylaws used against both candidates had been repealed and replaced with a rule in line with the 1988 Fair Campaign Practices Act. He also continued to point out that no Democratic candidate had filed financial disclosure forms with the party this year, and that disqualifying Patricia on that basis would open the entire slate to challenge. In fact, he said that Gerald Dial (D-not really) was already planning to sue if the subcommittee decision was upheld. He said that real Democrats don’t discriminate against each other, they don’t selectively apply the rules, and they don’t consider elections to be preference polls for leaders to approve or disapprove.

Then we endured quite a few “points of order” that were primarily opportunities for individual committee members to express their opinions.

Finally, the chair called for a vote. He asked those who supported upholding the subcommittee’s recommendation to stand. They did, and at that point, I began to hope. Joe Reed prowled the aisles, glaring at those who remained seated, and succeeded in coercing a few more votes. Joe Turnham had to ask everyone to stand again because Reed’s machinations had screwed up the count. Then those opposed to the resolution stood. The counters counted, we sweated, my hands started shaking, and finally Joe Turnham announced the count:

87 votes to uphold the recommendation, 95 to overturn it. Those of us in the back of the room started cheering, and I ran for the lobby — and a wireless signal — so I could spread the word.

I suppose they must have read my previous post calling them out for selectively applying their bylaws to overturn primary results they didn't like and felt guilty enough to change their minds. All in a day's work... What's next?

Kudos to the Alabama Democrats. They deserve it for doing the right thing. And kudos also to Patricia Todd who, lacking a Republican opponent in the fall, is now all set to become a state legislator and the first openly gay elected official in Alabama.

Ridiculous

Patricia Todd was on track to become Alabama's first openly gay elected official, but a Democratic party committee just overturned her primary victory. MSNBC:

A Democratic Party committee Thursday night disqualified an openly gay candidate for the Alabama Legislature and the woman she defeated in the primary runoff because both women violated a party rule that party officials said no other candidate has obeyed since 1988.

The committee voted 5-0 to disqualify Patricia Todd, who was attempting to become the state's first openly gay legislator, and Gaynell Hendricks.

Committee chairwoman Amy Burks said earlier Thursday the party's executive committee would make the final decision and select a nominee for the seat from Birmingham's House District 54 at a meeting in Montgomery Saturday.

I don't know whether it was racism (Todd is white) or homophobia (also a lesbian), a little bit of both, or something else entirely, but applying a different standard to a single close race because party insiders don't like the result is unfair and undemocratic. The Alabama Democratic Party should be ashamed of itself.

AK-Gov: Murkowski Takes Third in Republican Primary

Alaska's Republican Governor Frank Murkowski didn't make it. The four-term-senator-turned-one-term-governor took third in the Republican primary the other day, losing to Republican nominee and former Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin, as well as finishing behind John Binkley, a state senator, with my favorite name of those in the race. Murkowski never really recovered from appointing his daughter Lisa to his Senate seat when he vacated it, and he regularly scores among the lowest approval ratings of any governor.

Palin will go on to face former two-term Democratic governor Tony Knowles. It should be a close race.

Pluto the Dwarf

Poor Pluto can't get no respect. Apparently, the International Astronomers' Union has demoted Pluto from planet to "dwarf planet", a new category made up just for Pluto. Solar System models the world over will now have to be decommissioned.

Just last week, it looked like we were being upgraded to a 12-planet solar system, as the astronomers appeared to be settling on a definition of planet that basically included all round things that orbited the sun. Pluto would have remained a planet, but its moon Charon would have been upgraded from moon to planet. The asteroid Ceres and the Kuiper Belt object Xena would have also received similar upgrades.

Which way is really better? Well, to be honest it doesn't matter all that much. Calling something a planet or not doesn't really add much to an understanding of what a world is or how it came to be. At least not to us regular non-astronomer folks. We're used to sci-fi books televion shows in which planets are alive, or teleport from solar system to solar system, or are built by all-powerful aliens. All of those fantastic imaginary worlds we happily call planets without a care in the world about whether the word is failing to distinguish the rocky inner solar system and gas giants from the small icy objects of the outer solar system.

The definition of planet has certainly evolved over time, but I'm a little sentimental about it. I think Pluto will always be a planet to me. But still, it is hard to justify calling Pluto a planet and leaving other objects out there. I mean look at all the similarly worlds we could be calling planets:


I suppose we'll have to make our solar system models a little more complex now. 8 planets and a few other things to boot...

Not Haley Joel!

I can't understand how such a great actor could do something so dreadful! CNN (emphasis mine):

Teen actor Haley Joel Osment, who suffered a broken rib last month when his car struck a mailbox, faces up to six months in jail on charges of driving drunk and possessing marijuana, authorities said.


The 18-year-old actor was charged Thursday with misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence, marijuana possession and driving under the influence with the special allegation of having a blood-alcohol content of .15 percent or higher. He also faces a vehicle code infraction of being under the age of 21 and driving with a blood-alcohol level of .05 or greater.

Osment's blood-alcohol level after the July 20 crash was measured at .16, twice the legal limit, said Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

Damn you Haley Joel Osment! I mean, plowing through mailboxes in a drunken haze, holding your friend's weed for him, being underage, all this I can forgive, but Haley... does the hair have to be so long? Oh the humanity!

VA-Sen: Poll Shows Allen Slipping

New poll coming out tomorrow. Dailykos' mcjoan has it (last months' numbers in parentheses):

George Allen (R) 47% (51%)
James Webb (D) 42% (41%)

Could it be that Virginia doesn't like racism? I mean, I suppose it could be...

VA-Sen: Allen Makes a Boo-Boo

George Allen has a problem. Rumors of racism swirl about him like a whirlpool and then he goes and says something like this:



Then, he half-apologizes for it. That should be just enough to make right-wingers angry he apologized without getting left-wingers to accept his apology. I'm with Matt Stoller on this one (bold emphasis mine):

I think Mr. Big Tough Republican just knuckled under to the PC police. If I were Jim Webb, I'd say something along the lines of 'Look, apologize, or don't. But be a man about it.'

If Allen can be pushed around by a 20 year old college student's hurt feelings and runs crying like a little girl to the liberal media to apologize, how's he going to stand up to, well, anything at all?

Democrat James Webb's chances to unseat Allen just inched up a little.

Alabama Legislative Primary Turns Ugly

What an unusual thing to read about happening in Alabama:

Patricia Todd is openly gay, and she expected her sexual orientation to be an issue when she ran for a legislative seat representing a majority black district. What she didn't anticipate was the fight that broke out over the fact she is white.

Todd, who defeated a black candidate in a runoff election last month (story), goes before a Democratic Party subcommittee on Tuesday to defend her 59-vote runoff win in House District 54, an area that includes both the richest and poorest neighborhoods of Birmingham.

A challenge filed over Todd's victory will turn solely on what happened during the vote and state election law, according to Joe Turnham, the state party chairman.

But the issue people are talking about is whether a white woman should get to represent a mostly black district in a state where blacks couldn't vote two generations ago and where race is still an overriding factor in carving out election districts.

A black Democratic leader urged black voters to support Todd's black opponent, Gaynell Hendricks, on the basis of race, and Todd fears racial politics may taint proceedings before the subcommittee.

"When do we get past this?" said Todd, who would become the first openly gay member of the Alabama Legislature. "I can't believe that in 2006 we're still electing people on the basis of race."

Ok, Todd won 51% to 49%. If some party committee somewhere ignores the results and hands the nomination to someone else on any basis other than who actually won, I imagine there are going to be a lot of pissed off voters out there. I know I'd be pissed off if my candidate won her primary and then was denied the nomination by some shadowy subcommittee of party functionaries. Wouldn't you?

South Dakota Would Reject Anti-Gay Marriage Ban???

This doesn't sound like South Dakota to me, but I'd sure love it if this were true:

A survey of 800 South Dakota voters shows that a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships would likely fail.

The poll shows that 49 percent of voters oppose the amendment with 41 percent supporting it and the rest undecided.

The results startled even LGBT rights groups which noted the state supported President Bush in 2004 by a margin of 60 percent to 40.

The marriage measure, called Amendment C, is scheduled to appear on the ballot this November.

How great would that be for South Freaking Dakota to reject an anti-gay marriage ban?

CT-Sen: Lieberman Loses Primary

Tonight, Sen. Joe Lieberman narrowly lost the Democratic nomination to his Senate seat in Connecticut to Ned Lamont - about 52% to 48%. Lieberman is going to continue to run as an independent. While he might still win in November, it's going to be harder than it looks from here. He's going to get tremendous media scrutiny as a loser over the next couple weeks, and there will be pressure from other Democrats to withdraw. Every Democrat who plans to run for president in 2008 will endorse Lamont. Lieberman might still pull it off, but at this point he's definitely the underdog.

Might the Republicans sneak one through this time by splitting the Democrats between Lieberman and Lamont? Well, not to be cruel, but not with their current candidate. Alan Schlesinger will not be the next senator from Connecticut. Republicans may try and bump him off the ticket, maybe for someone like Rep. Chris Shays or Rep. Rob Simmons, both of whom may well lose re-election if they don't go. Or they may funnel money and media support to Lieberman. Or maybe both. But they really don't want Lamont to win, because Lamont won't be cozy with Bush and Fox News the way Lieberman is.

So what happened to Lieberman? Well, there are a number of things he did wrong and Lamont did right, but it can be summed up this way: Lieberman lost touch with Connecticut. Lieberman sees himself as a statesman, a forger of grand compromises. So he continually positions himself as a centrist on any issue that might get attention, like being wishy-washy on social security, and a foreign-policy hawk. On lower profile bread-and-butter issues, he's a fairly reliable progressive, which explains why most of the traditional Democratic interest groups supported Lieberman in the primary. But Connecticut is one of the most Democratic states in the nation. And right now, Connecticut voters don't want grand compromises. They want Republican electoral blood. Especially on the Iraq war. And Lieberman gave them every indication he didn't hear them.

Not only has he been strangely stubborn about admitting anything is going wrong in Iraq, but he wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal demanding Democrats fall in line behind President Bush because of the war (this might be the link). To the ears of most Democrats who pay attention to politics, this sounded like Republican talking points being spouted by a Democrat in an outlet that is part of the Republican Noise Machine. Lieberman's active support for the Republican position in the Terri Schiavo case was also troubling to many Democrats. Connecticut voters are among the nation's most likely to support Democratic positions on these issues, and here's their senator, behaving like a Republican.

That's not to say there's no place in the party for a senator like Lieberman. There is: Nebraska. Democratic Senator Ben Nelson is one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, and he's perfectly suited for his home state. Though I don't particularly care for his issues, I'm aware that any Republican that replaces him is likely to be far far worse. And should Nelson fall in a Democratic primary, Republicans would surely take the seat. But Connecticut is a deep deep blue state that could support a much more progressive-minded Democrat than Lieberman. And it's trying to.

Personally, I like Lieberman. I like the way he talks -- his speaking style is very Jewish. And I respect his urge to compromise, even though I don't like some of the compromises he's chosen. But he's from the wrong state for his style, and that's just all there is.

Expect the results of this unusual night to act as a whip on the Democrats on the Iraq war, and on opposing President Bush more forcefully. It will probably throw them off message for a week or two though first.

TX-22: Tom DeLay Must Remain On the Ballot - Final Word

Justice Antonin Scalia, probably Tom DeLay's closest ally on the Supreme Court denied the Republican Party's request to overturn lower court rulings denying the party the right to switch out another nominee for DeLay on the November ballot. Since DeLay is utterly scandal-tainted, this is about the best result Democratic candidate Nick Lampson could have hoped for. If Republicans had been able to finagle a replacement candidate, they would have had an edge going into the election, but the race is definitely a tossup now. I wonder whether DeLay will actively campaign for his seat now, after having retired, resigned, moved to Virginia, and declared himself ineligible?

Note: Sorry for the long absence. No excuses. Just busy. But I still should have written something.