Take a look at our numbers in the House of Representatives. Republicans have 232 seats, we have 202, and there is one Independent who sides with us. To comfortably take control of the Senate, we should try to take 20 seats away from the GOP. That would leave the Elephants with 212 seats, and us with 222.
That may sound like only a few seat, but as the recent Al Weed poll revealed, it's harder than it looks. Sure, this is a year for Democrats. But does that mean we're going to actually take advantage of the situation. A Democrat is favored over a Republican in the 5th District by nearly 14 points. Yet Al Weed is still solidly behind Virgil Goode. If this poll tells me anything, it's this: voters may be upset with the Republican Leadership, but they aren't going to just hand us the House.
So I began to think about a National Democratic Strategy. How can we take 20 seats in the house. Then it hit me: We need to win at least one new seat in 20 different states. Sure, if we can win more than one House seat in a state, that's great. But Democrats in each state should at least try to pull one change, and if only 40% of the state parties succeed, we'll be in business.
So, which race do I think can be Virginia's change? If you haven't guessed from the picture above, I'll spell it out for you: K-E-L-L-A-M.
Why do I think Kellam's race is more winnable than the others? After all, the 10th and 11th District tend to be leaning much more Democratic than the 2nd. I guess you could just check out the polls. Kellam recently released a poll showing him ahead by 3 points, with Drake having 40% more recognition! This is without any favortism, or "after the fact" polling (like the Feder poll). No, this shows that Kellam is easily our best chance for a pick-up in this state this year. No offense to Feder and Hurst fans, but they're going up against long-time incumbents who are relatively popular. Davis and Wolf are also able to put themselves a little further away from Bush due to their "moderate" reputations (whether they deserve those reputations or not...you be the judge).
Thelma is not so lucky. She's a freshman incumbent. She's continued to embrace her connection to George W. Bush, even as his popularity continues to drop. Phil Kellam comes from a family with deep historic connections to the area. His family is responsible for Modern-Day Virginia Beach. Heck, there are streets, bridges, even High Schools named Kellam! This is the perfect candidate at the perfect time in a seat we may not get another shot at again for years and years.
This is Virginia's contribution to a Democratic Majority. Virginia's Second is already considered by national experts to be one of the most competetive races in the nation. I know a lot of you may not ba able to vote for Kellam, but every cent helps!
I ask you to give whatever you can to help Phil Kellam to take out that hack Thelma Drake. This is the most competetive race in the state this year, and this entire state's best shot at helping to contribute to a Democratic Majority. Even if you don't live in the Second District, please give whatever you can. Together, we can take back the House!
Thanks for your time. God Bless.
Nice diary, also; I am going to say we need at least two new seats in the Dem column this fall. I can't give up on my favorite candidate, Al Weed.
The poll comes before the race even starts, and what does it mean for election day predictions? Well look at the poll from 2004. Al at 25% Virgil at 65%. Between then and election day, you can look at the change in two ways: a) a 12 point shift for Al, b) all undecideds + 1 go for Al. For this race, that would mean either a) 52-48 Virgil, or b) 51-49 Al.
Any way you slice it, Virgil is vulnerable and Al is within striking distance. Do we strike effectively? Can Al capitalize on this undecided slice of the electorate? No poll will ever say. That's for us to decide.
Yeah I work for him. But I'm right.
PA-6: Gerlach is already being outraised by Democrat Lois Murphy, who only lost to him by 1.5% in 2004. Plus, the district voted for Kerry for President.
CT-2: Rob Simmons' district voted for Kerry, and he only barely defeated his last opponent in 2004. This district leans Democrat, and Simmons' party label mey bacome a drag on him.
PA-7: Kurt Weldon's district is more Dem-leaning than it has ever been before, and Democrat Joe Sestak outraised Weldon in the last quarter. Name recognition could make this winnable.
KY-4: Ken Lucas' entry into the race made this one winnable, and in most polls Lucas either ties Geoff Davis or is ahead.
FL-22: Ron Klein, a close associate of Robert Wexler, will likely give Clay Shaw his closest race ever. This district has been trending Democrat for a while now, and voted for Kerry for president.
OH-18: Bob Ney's seat. Might have been safe but for his dalliances with Jack Abramoff. Democrat Zach Space is either tied or ahead in most polls.
OH-15: Deborah Pryce is one of those moderate Republicans being weighed down by Bush's sagging numbers. It doesn't help that Pryce's district includes most of Dem-leaning Columbus.
OH-1: Steve Chabot's seat has always been hotly contested, with the Democrat never winning less than 44% since 1994. This might be the year that the Cincinnati congressman's luck runs out.
IA-2: Jim Leach is arguably the most liberal Republican in Congress. But as Connie Morella learned, sometimes that letter you have after your name overshadows your record. This might be that time.
IA-1: With Nussle retiring, his Dem-leaning ditrict is up for grabs. The Dem-friendly towns of Dubuque and Waterloo are here, and the district voted for Kerry for president.
NV-3: Jon Porter, like Leach and Nussle, is a liberal Republican whose district is about 50/50. But the district is trending Democrat, and Porter is a relative newcomer with little in the way of incumbency protection.
NJ-5: Scott Garrett is far and away the most conservative congressman from the Garden State, and this despite the fact that his district is about 50/50 in partisan split. Highlighting his voting record might make him less palatable to his socially liberal constituents.
Granted that's only 13, but I came up with them more or less of the top of my head. 20 may be a longshot, but it's definitely possible.
:)
Then WE take back our country.
Dukie, this smacks a little of religious intolerance. What is it about megachurches you dislike so much?
If you don't attend a MegaChurch, I don't think you really have any place to comment.
Tim Kaine did well amongst those of faith. He did so because those voters recognized that his own faith was heartfelt.
Comments like yours and those of DukieDem show me that you hold those of faith in contempt. Great way to win them over there, seveneasypeaces.
Just remember, politics is the art of addition....not subtraction.
I find it ironic that you invoke Muslim extremists when the Bush administration has done nothing but provoke them and create more terrorists.
Here's a political science lesson for you. We need more oil, and out of fear OPEC will start trading oil for euros and not dollars, so we invade Iraq to secure a source of oil and maintain the supremacy of our dollars. This drives up the cost of oil. When oil prices are high, states with oil reserves have no reason for political reform because they can buy the support of their people with oil dollars. This emboldens leaders in Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, and a whole other host of bad guys. When the price of oil is high, the gap between rich and poor explodes in these countries. When this happens, there aren't any opportunities for even the college educated in Muslim countries, thus leading them to make desperate and radical decisions. This leads them into the arms of some very bad people and thus, creates more terrorists.
If we were serious about the war on terror, we could create a real national energy policy promoting conservation and expanding use of nuclear, solar, and wind power, and then free up our army to get the terrorists where they are and not invade and occupy states, thus creating more terrorists.
Keep it coming, I'll be here allw week.
Second, I'll repeat, my father isn't dead.
Third, with respect to energy policy, you should read some of my earlier postings on this issue. You and I are probably not far apart on this issue...and I think that you and I could forge some common ground. I work in the energy related field, as did my father, so I can say with certainty that all recent Administrations and the Congress have failed the American people with respect to energy policy. However, your party has been hijacked by environmentalist extremists who will not allow any of what you ask: nuclear, solar, and wind power.
That discussion, I'll save for another time.
On the house of cards gibberish, consider:
Sadaam had deals with European companies to sell his oil (mainly to French buyers)
Since the invasion of Iraq the price of a barrel of oil has tripled
There is a know 'terror premium' on oil that analysts estimate runs from $10-$30.
Reform is crippled in oil producing states when oil prices are high - see Putin, Chavez, the Grand Ayatollah here.
Middle Eastern Nations have economies that offer a huge lack of opportunity to even college graduates because oil gives them a trust fund economy
When a society has a lack of social opportunity and advancement, it leads to social disorder
Are all of these statements a clear linear progression? No. Are they completely unrelated? I'd have to argue not.
I wouldn't disagree that my party has a bit of a problem on energy issues, but yours isn't a group of saints either. As long as some of our leaders have a vested interest in expanding supply and doing nothing about demand we're going to be in trouble. There isn't a magic cure all, but nuclear (it's safe), wind (it doesn't harm migratory birds), solar (more feasible than some would think), maybe drilling (I'm on the fence on ANWR - tell no one), and ramping up production of hybrids and getting gaz guzzlers of the road is the only hope. Otherwise, if we haven't fought a war for oil yet, we will soon.
I'll explain more on this later.
I stand by my statement. Jesus would have to start a new religion, one based on liberal principles since his teachings have been so over shadowed. You might be surprised just how many people of faith are upset with this misministration. You might also be surprised just how many people are quietly faithful and teach their children Jesus's true teachings, to love and care for all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most mega-churches base their religion on the old testament which didn't include Jesus' teachings. It was so violent and vengeful. The Christian Reconstructionists come from the Old Testament. They should be the Vengeful God Reconstructionists. But Jesus loves them all.
However, my own experience with mega-churches is that they base their religion on love. I have found this to be the case with several churches I have attend ranging from Baptist to Presbyterian.
I never made the comment that Jesus belongs only to "me" or others of certain faiths. You made that statement.
While Jesus asked for quiet worship, the congregational worship is somehow contrary to His wishes. If that were the case, Jesus would never have delivered the sermon on the mount...and Peter would never have organized the early Church.
The primary point that I'd like to stress is that I believe many in your party are intolerant of Christian voters -- of self-described evangelicals.
They are terribly misunderstood as group...and they are often unfairly castigated.
Frankly, they are a wonderful group of people. And, they are loyal supporters once you've earned their trust.
Democrats have overlooked this group to their own detriment. In 1976, they supported Jimmy Carter but have obviously trended Republican since Ronald Reagan.
Just in terms of numbers, Democrats need to find a way to speak to them. From what I've seen here on RK and other liberal blogs, most progressives seem hell bent on antagonizing them.
If you want the South go after the preachers. They need money and are susceptible. I can remember the back room meetings by republican operatives soon after the theft of 2000 with some Black preachers. When people are hungry they are hungry. Then there was the campaign waged in Tenn and probably other states to make the people afraid they were going to lose their guns. NRA put out very glitzy flyers (through the churches) in Tenn about losing guns if Al Gore won. What a crock.
Simply put, people chose their Church but the Churches are now being played by the right wing.
Separation of church and state is extremely important and was why this country was founded. No use arguing which party uses the church better. It is wrong.