Monday, October 08, 2012

Politico Wins The Weekend's Worst Hack Job Competition


Sessions & Israel

I almost wrote Alex Isenstadt a note to ask him if the DCCC had written his column about potential upsets or if they just told him which candidates to include. It's embarrassing that he pasted "Here's Politico's look at five potential Democratic upsets to watch" onto a list that came directly from the DCCC. Is that reporting? Are these Politico guys aware that America is more than just a theoretical construct and they ought to get out and visit sometime and not just depend on what they're told by Steve Israel and Pete Sessions for congressional coverage? DC is a closed loop; you won't learn anything useful there other than what the party machines want you to see.

The 5 races the DCCC handed Isenstadt (with information Isenstadt didn't bother to look for or report):

FL-02: Steve Southerland vs Al Lawson- Lawson is a very conservative former leader of the state Senate who beat the DCCC's chosen Blue Dog in the primary. He knows how to win in the quirky Panhandle district. Obama lost to McCain 45-54% but would have lost by less (47-52%) under the new boundaries, bad news for Southerland. He beat pathetic Blue Dog incumbent Allen Boyd in a year disillusioned Democrats stayed away from the polls in droves-- which is what led to the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse that swept Boyd away 54-41%. This year Democrats-- who outnumber registered Republicans 234,480 (51%) to 158-657 (34%)-- will be turning out big time and that will help Lawson. As of July 25, however, Southerland had raised $1,212,911 and Lawson had only taken in $187,376. If this is an upset, it's because Lawson is so woefully underfunded. Isenstadt mentions that the NRCC has reserved $150,000 in TV time for Southerland but doesn't mention if the DCCC is stepping up to the plate for Lawson, who like all these candidates the DCCC pushed on Isenstadt is on the Red To Blue list. Isenstadt's "analysis" of the financial disparity is a pure DCCC line: "Southerland has also struggled with fundraising, collecting just $1.2 million since he was elected-- a pittance for a sitting House member." No mention that he's a million dollars ahead of Lawson.

FL-10: Daniel Webster vs Val Demings- This is one Beltway Dems have been touting all cycle and they would love to elect a hackish, mindless Bible thumper and corrupt New Dem like Demings who will never disobey an order from leadership. It's a new district that was carefully redrawn to favor Webster. Obama would have lost 47-52% under the new boundaries and there's virtually no chance Demings will beat him, even though he's one of the most unaccomplished and ineffectual freshmen in Congress. However, she's outraised him, outspent him and has more cash on hand. As of July 25- she had raised $1,129,614 (with $632,176 left) and he has raised $887,434 (with $577,088 left). Polls show Webster up by 5% and only Steve Israel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, two of Washington's most clueless leaders, could really believe she can win. Wasserman Schultz is probably just hoping she turns out Democratic voters in Orlando for Obama, her only real function.

CA-36: Mary Bono Mack vs Raul Ruiz- Ruiz is the best Democratic candidate of the lot but this is a tough district-- and redistricting made it tougher. Formerly the 45th, Obama beat McCain 52-47% in 2008 while Bono Mack beat a well-positioned, highly touted opponent Steve Pougnet 51-42%. Under the new boundaries Obama would have still beaten McCain but by 50-47%. In 2010 Bono Mack spent $2,486,844 and Pougnet spent $1,843,288. As of this year's June 30 reporting deadline, Bono Mack reported having spent $860,085 with another $848,211 on hand and Ruiz had spent $222,623 with $624,872 on hand.

IN-08: Larry Bucshon vs Dave Crooks- A Steve Israel favorite, Crooks is a reactionary Blue Dog in the southwest of the state-- "the Bloody Eighth" which swings back and forth between conservative Democrats and more conservative Republicans. In 2008, Obama lost to McCain 47-51% and under the new boundaries would have lost 48-51%. In 2010 the seat was open and Bucshon slaughtered Blue Dog Trent Van Haaften 58-37%. Although Bucshon outraised Crooks, $844-566 to $742,605, Crooks reported more cash on hand on June 30-- $530,191 to Bucshon's $386,851.

NY-11: Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm vs Mark Murphy- This is a weird race. Grimm, who is basically a mafioso, is about as corrupt as a congressman can be without being indicted, although that's probably coming. Only David Rivera (R-FL) and Buck McKeon (R-CA) are on a level of crookedness with Grimm. So the Democrats recruited the son of Abscam, Mark Murphy... you know, so voters wouldn't have a clear, simple shot. (Mark's pop is former Staten Island Congressman John Murphy who was defeated in 1980 after being indicted for bribery.) In 2008 Obama won the Staten Island-Brooklyn seat 55-44% but under the new boundaries would have lost it 48-51%, good news for Grimm. Also good news for Grimm is that Staten Island voters expect politicians to be corrupt and don't usually hold it against them. Grimm has raised $1,780,715 and still has a warchest of $1,297,809 (although, presumably a good part of that is going to attorneys to keep him from being indicted before election day). Murphy hasn't kept up and has only raised $372,701 and has a million dollars less than Grimm on hand.

If Isenstadt wanted to shed the hack thing with a revisit, he could talk about 5 real potential upsets, one not being followed by the DCCC (nor NRCC):

CA-25: Buck McKeon vs Lee Rogers

NY-23: Tom Reed vs Nate Shinagawa

PA-16: Joe Pitts vs Aryanna Strader

WV-01: David McKinley vs Sue Thorn

MI-11 (the open Thaddeus McCotter seat): Syed Taj vs a reindeer rancher

And a thought to go to sleep on tonight... Obama's Better Than Romney

Labels: , , , , , ,


At 10:55 AM, Anonymous ap215 said...

On NY-11 that's the district where i reside now SI is totally conservative & Mark has a tall order in his way if he wants to dethrone Mikey Suits from his seat so we'll see.


Post a Comment

<< Home