Alaska-- Bernie Country-- Has A Senate Race Heating Up Rapidly

As we've mentioned before, a homophobic and hypocritical DSCC refuses to acknowledge that Utah even has a Senate race this year because they are so freaked out that a ultra-progressive, working class, transgendered woman, Misty Snow, beat their preferred conservative Blue Dog candidate in the primary 59.4-40.6%. So they've given GOP radical Mike Lee a free re-election pass. Neither Misty nor the state of Utah is even mentioned on the DSCC website. On the other hand, the site does acknowledge that Alaska has a Senate race this cycle. On the page touting the candidates, they have this statement about Alaska: "Lisa Murkowski faces a tough reelection fight in Alaska-- earlier this cycle, Alaska’s other Senator, Dan Sullivan, refused to back her for reelection despite her support for him last cycle. Democrats won the Senate race in Alaska in 2008 and despite the GOP wave in 2014, came within a few points of winning again in this traditionally red state. Democrats are poised to run another strong race this time with a candidate who will put Alaska first."

What the DSCC doesn't mention is that the populist Democratic Party in the state-- which gave Bernie a 81.6% to 18.4% landslide over Hillary and massive victories in every single electoral district (numbers that beat Trump too)-- also nominated Ray Metcalfe, a former Anchorage state Rep who was one of the state's original Bernie for President organizers. Although he won the party nomination, 15,198 to 10,074, Metcalfe is not a Schumer kind of candidate. To start with, he's Alaska's best-known anti-corruption crusader, something that upsets the business model of the political establishment in both Alaska, where corruption is a way of life, and in DC, where politicians like Schumer would never/could never rise to the top without it. "When I was in the legislature," Metcalfe told me yesterday, "people around me were taking bribes." He worked with the FBI to expose the biggest political corruption case in contemporary America. This is the front page of Metcalfe's Senate website (you can easily see why it would freak out an establishment hack like Schumer):

If elected, Ray Metcalfe will be Bernie Sanders closest ally in the US Senate. Ray’s platform is Bernie’s platform. Following four years of service in the Alaska Legislature, Ray Metcalfe made a career of exposing political bribery. Ignoring the threats of Alaska’s rich and powerful, Metcalfe spent years helping Federal Investigators and Prosecutors connect the dots between dirty money and political favors.

Corruption exposed by Ray Metcalfe lead to the conviction of six Alaskan legislators, two oil lobbyists, (VECO owner Bill Allen and VECO manager Rich Smith) two lobbyists for the private prison industry, and the indictment of former Alaska Governor Murkowski’s Chief of staff.

America’s political machine has deteriorated into a system of mutual dependency between elected officials and large donors seeking financial rewards. After contributing, large donors send paid lobbyists to remind the beneficiaries of their contributions and what financial rewards they are expecting in return, creating an endless cycle of trading campaign contributions for appropriations and other financial benefits from Congress. Bernie’s climate agenda would get more attention from Congress if it did not have to compete with the fossil fuel industry’s ability to trade campaign contributions for profit protections and subsidies. Ray Metcalfe has an established track record of ending such vote buying schemes. If you want open, honest, ethical government, please contribute to his campaign.

The DSCC continues to throw away money on the loathsome conservative candidates with no chance of winning that it foisted on Democratic primary voters in Florida and Ohio. Forget Patrick Murphy and Ted Strickland. Please consider contributing what you can to progressives like Russ Feingold, Misty Snow and Ray Metcalfe by tapping on the thermometer on the right. The DSCC (and Alaska's grotesquely corrupt Democratic Party establishment) are worried that-- with teabagger and Trumpist Joe Miller in the race as a Libertarian and tearing Murkowski apart from the right-- Metcalfe could actually win. Worried that a progressive Democrat could beat a conservative Republican! That's how Schumer's reptilian mind works. So he's encouraging a proven corruptionist buddy of his, Mark Begich, to mount a last minute write-in campaign to draw votes away from Metcalfe and throw the election to Murkowski! (Before the Begich chatter got going, the violently anti-Bernie Alaska Democratic Party establishment decided to back independent candidate Margaret Stock as a way to derail Metcalfe.)

Begich beat Senator Ted Stevens in 2008, eight days after Stevens was convicted on 7 felony corruption counts. Six years later Begich, who supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and who has been tied to myriad corruption scandals from his time as mayor of Anchorage, was defeated in his reelection bid by GOP crackpot Dan Sullivan. Rollcall reported last week that if Begich does run-- and he has to decide this week-- he'll have some big challenges to overcome.

For one, the Democratic Party has a nominee, former state legislator and good-government activist Ray Metcalfe.

Metcalfe, who won his August primary with 50 percent of the vote, made it clear in an interview that he would not step aside for Begich, whom he considers corrupt.

“I tried to get Mark Begich indicted,” Metcalfe said.

In addition to the logistical difficulty of persuading voters to back a candidate whose name isn’t on the ballot, Begich would also face fierce resistance from the entrenched Murkowski.

We're hoping to get Metcalfe to tell us in his own words why he tried getting Begich indicted and what happened with that. This is an old ad from 8 years ago... stay tuned.

Will Running Against The Koch Brothers Help The Democrats In November?

By now you've probably noticed that the Democratic base's antipathy towards the fascist-leaning Koch brothers has been adopted by Harry Reid and is becoming standard fare in Democratic Party strategies against the "Koch-addict" Republicans. If you're wondering what's behind the new-found populism from the Democratic Establishment, Ashley Parker explained it for NY Times readers last week. "Democrats," she wrote, "are embarking on a broad effort that aims to unmask the press-shy siblings and portray them, instead, as a pair of villains bent on wrecking progressive politics." The ad, up top, for Mark Begich's campaign is the first in a series meant to tie Republican Senate candidates to the policies-- overwhelmingly rejected by American voters-- of the Koch brothers: The GOP is addicted to Koch… and the DSCC isn't just talking about Tom Ravenel and Trey Radel.

We've been worrying that the Kochs have targeted Alan Grayson in Orlando-- and have already spent $400,000 smearing him with their false TV and radio ads-- but the DSCC, of course, is worried about Koch millions going into campaigns against vulnerable incumbents Mark Begich (D-AK), Mark Pryor (D-AK), Mary Landrieu (LA), John Walsh (MT), and Kay Hagan (NC), as well as not vulnerable Jean Shaheen (NH) and against two targeted open seat candidates, Bruce Braley (IA) and Gary Peters (MI). That's why Reid has been leading the way on this.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, foreshadowed the campaign by taking to the Senate floor on Tuesday-- an unusual move-- for the second time in two weeks to accuse the Koch brothers of unfairly meddling in the political system by helping to pump more than $30 million dollars so far in television advertising and other activities into the most competitive congressional races across the country. On Wednesday, he attacked them again during his weekly news conference.

Many of the ads by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group backed by the Koch brothers, are especially critical of President Obama’s signature health care law.

But whether the words of Mr. Reid, a member of an institution with historically low approval ratings, and even the efforts of other Democratic groups, will be any match for what the Kochs can spend remains an open and urgent question for Democrats.

“Harry Reid can stand on the floor at the United States Senate and howl at the moon all night long if he wants,” said Ryan Williams, a Republican strategist. “But the reality is that he is powerless to stop millions of Americans from watching ads that tell the personal stories of real people who have been hurt by Obamacare. He’s basically spitting in the ocean and fooling himself into thinking that he’s making waves.”

In an interview in his Senate office on Wednesday, Mr. Reid said his outspokenness against the Kochs stemmed from his concern for the middle class. “Right now, because of people like the two brothers, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting squeezed out of existence,” he said. “They’re against everything that’s good for America today.”

Mr. Reid said his focus on the Koch brothers was both personal and political.

“How could I do nothing? How could I let these people try to buy America?” he asked. “Don’t I have an obligation, of someone that has been designated to run the Senate, to speak out when I see two people trying to buy America?”

Democrats say the strategy of spotlighting the Koch brothers’ activities is politically shrewd. The majority leader was particularly struck by a presentation during a recent Senate Democratic retreat, which emphasized that one of the best ways to draw an effective contrast is to pick a villain, one of his aides said. And by scolding the Koch brothers, Mr. Reid is trying to draw them out, both to raise their public profile, and also to help rally the Democratic base.

The approach stems, in part, from Democratic-funded research showing that many voters believe the political system is rigged in favor of the super-rich.

“Part of responding to these attacks that the Koch brothers are spending millions upon millions on is to make sure the voters understand who is behind them, and what’s behind them,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster. “And our research has shown pretty clearly that once voters recognize the source of the attacks, they tend to discount them substantially.”

In 2012, Mr. Garin produced a research project for Patriot Majority PAC, an outside Democratic group, looking at the public awareness that swing voters and traditionally Democratic constituencies have of the Koch brothers. He found that his focus group respondents had an “overwhelmingly negative” reaction to the Kochs’ political involvement, with their top concern being that “the Koch brothers’ agenda will hurt average people and the undermine the middle class.”

Craig Varoga, who runs Patriot Majority, used Mr. Garin’s findings to start a “Stop the Greed Agenda” campaign-- which seeks to highlight what it views as “mega-billionaire special interests,” such as the Kochs’, around the country. He also plans to do more to spotlight the brothers’ ideological agenda this year.

It's great that Reid and the DC Establishment Democrats are jumping in on this. Bernie Sanders, of course, has been pointing out the dangers of Koch-addiction for years. Greg Sargent used his Washington Post column a few days ago to get at the root of why mainstream Dems are finally on board-- getting voters to focus on actual positions advanced by the Republicans on behalf of the Kochs and other plutocrats that are at odds with the economic interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Why do these candidates oppose raising the minimum wage, or extending unemployment insurance, or expanding Medicaid, all of which would benefit so many people in the states they would represent? Republicans may claim a legitimate rationale for these positions, but the question is, how do you get voters to focus on the fact that these are really their positions?

Or, on local issues: Why does GOP candidate Tom Cotton of Arkansas oppose the farm bill, which many others say would benefit the state? (AFP opposes it.) Where are the GOP Senate candidates in Alaska on the closing of a refinery in that state, which was criticized by many local officials? (Koch companies own it.)

Dems hope to focus voters on these actual positions by painting candidates as beholden to an agenda held by outside interests. The Koch brothers are a proxy for special interests in general, an easy-to-understand concept designed to create a narrative framework within which voters might reach the general conclusion that GOP candidates’ priorities aren’t in their states’ interests; they are serving something-- or someone-- else.

This is similar to the Dems’ Bain strategy of 2012. This was widely seen as nothing more than an effort to paint Romney as a heartless plutocrat. In reality, the goal was to create a framework within which voters could be persuaded of his actual policies and priorities, which research had shown voters simply weren’t prepared to accept.

Begich Admits What His Voting Record Proves: At Heart He's A Republican

Yesterday on CNBC Mark Begich (D-AK) admitted what people who watch Senate votes closely have already figured out: he's really a Republican calling himself a Democrat. Tied with the wretched Heidi Heitkamp, Begich has been voting more frequently with the GOP this year than any Democrats other than arch-conservatives Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Begich is constantly pulling the Democratic Senate caucus away from progressive policies and advocating against working families and for predatory corporations. But yesterday was the first time he publicly admitted that he's really nothing but a Republican.

"Probably a Rockefeller Republican," the Alaska senator told CNBC Monday morning when asked whether he was closer to identifying as that or as a Pelosi Democrat.

The comment signifies Begich's efforts to put some distance between himself and national Democrats in the libertarian-leaning state.

I recall that Rockefeller was governor of New York, then Vice President, for the entire time I was growing up. There's nothing I remember about him that could even vaguely be called "libertarian." Rockefeller was an icon of the corporate elite and represented the interests of the very wealthy against working families... just like Begich does. Most recently, though, Begich was one of the small handful of Democrats who voted with the Republicans against background checks for terrorists and criminals. He's since dug in on the issue and says he's not changing his mind. Big mistake-- unless he plans to run without any campaign contributions from Democratic donors. Will the NRA finance his shaky reelection effort?

Begich, a pathetic political coward, was actually doing well among Alaska voters before he jumped on the NRA bandwagon. A poll in February showed him as a nearly sure bet for reelection.

Voters approve of Begich’s job performance by a wider margin, 49% to 39%, and independents approve of Begich 54% to 32%. Begich also gets approval from 24% of Republican voters. If Parnell ran for Senate against Begich, the two would be tied at 48% each. Otherwise Begich leads Dan Sullivan by 6 points (47/41), Mead Treadwell by 8 points (47/39) and Sarah Palin by 16 points (54/38).

“Despite Alaska’s Republican tilt, Begich remains surprisingly popular going into his reelection campaign,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Begich and Parnell both have solid independent and crossover appeal with voters.”

Then came his cowardly vote for the NRA and against background checks and now he looks like he will probably lose his seat in the Senate. Just two months after the February poll, voters had soured on Begich because of his vote against background checks.

When we polled Alaska in February Lisa Murkowski was one of the most popular Senators in the country with a 54% approval rating and only 33% of voters disapproving of her. She's seen a precipitous decline in the wake of her background checks vote though. Her approval is down a net 16 points from that +21 standing to +5 with 46% of voters approving and 41% now disapproving of her. Murkowski has lost most of her appeal to Democrats in the wake of her vote, with her numbers with them going from 59/25 to 44/44. And the vote hasn't increased her credibility with Republican either-- she was at 51/38 with them in February and she's at 50/39 now.

Mark Begich is down following his no vote as well. He was at 49/39 in February and now he's at 41/37. His popularity has declined with Democrats (from 76/17 to 59/24) and with independents (from 54/32 to 43/35), and there has been no corresponding improvement with Republicans. He had a 24% approval rating with them two months ago and he has a 24% approval rating with them now.

60% of Alaska voters support background checks to just 35% opposed, including a 62/33 spread with independents. 39% of voters say they're less likely to vote for each of Begich and Murkowski in their next elections based on this vote, while only 22% and 26% say they're more likely to vote for Begich and Murkowski respectively because of this.

At this point almost any mainstream conservative Republican can beat Begich-- like Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell. His only hope for reelection would be if the Republicans nominate someone certifiably insane... like Joe Miller... which is likely. It's just another example of the Republicans moving out towards outright fascism and the Democrats moving right into the conservative space. And then we wind up with crap on two legs like Patrick Murphy and Charlie Crist in Florida, migrating over to the Democratic Party because it's now becoming as conservative as they are.

Yes, There Are Still NRA Shills Among Congressional Democrats

Few are as blatant and tone deaf as John Barrow (New Dem/Blue Dog-GA), but there are Democrats firmly allied with the NRA in both the House and Senate. In fact, four of them in the Senate-- Mark Pryor (AR), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Mark Begich (AK), and Max Baucus (MT)-- just got unpleasant wakeup calls on the issue from Michael Bloomberg. He sent the letter below to hundreds of top Democratic donors urging them to stop writing campaign checks to NRA shills-- particularly these NRA shills. Heitkamp doesn't face the voters for another 5 years and Baucus is finally retiring. But Begich and Pryor are in tough reelection races for 2014 and if donors cut them off, they could be in trouble, although a case has been made that in both Alaska and Arkansas, being seen as someone not liked by the mayor of New York City does a candidate more good than bad in a general election. Last week we saw how billionaire Democratic donor Kenneth Lerer announced he would withhold contributions from NRA Democrats-- and possibly help fund primary opponents against them.

The move could inflame tensions that have simmered for weeks between Mr. Bloomberg, who blames the four Democrats for the defeat of the bill, and Democratic Senate leaders, who have privately told City Hall that the attacks can serve only to empower a Republican majority openly hostile to Mr. Bloomberg’s priorities.

By appealing to the Democrats’ financial base, Mr. Bloomberg is exploiting his relationships and prestige among wealthy New Yorkers to disrupt the flow of campaign money to key Democrats whose re-election next year will help determine whether the party retains control of the Senate. No state is more essential to the party’s fund-raising: Sitting Democratic senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $30.4 million from New York donors in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, more than in any other state.

...Mr. Bloomberg’s strategy creates a tricky situation for Senate Democrats. They do not wish to alienate the billionaire mayor, who has become increasingly aggressive and outspoken on the issue. But they say he should be more sympathetic, given that their party, with its fragile majority, has tried to take on the difficult subject of increasing restrictions on guns in the face of hostility from Republicans.

“What they are doing,” said one senior Democratic aide who, like many people interviewed for this article, declined to go on the record criticizing the mayor, “is increasing the likelihood of a 100 percent A-rated N.R.A. Republican being elected.”

For Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who was an architect of his party’s takeover of the Senate in 2006 and has aggressively built up the Democratic donor base in New York, and who is a close ally of the mayor, the notion that Mr. Bloomberg’s efforts could cost Democrats their majority is not an abstraction.

He praised the mayor’s effort, but added, “We should be mindful that pro-gun safety laws have a much better chance of passing under a Democratic Senate majority than a Republican one.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s idea to use his formidable resources against Senate Democrats was enough of a threat to the majority leader, Harry Reid, that he raised the issue with the mayor in Washington in February.

According to a person with direct knowledge of their conversation, Mr. Reid told the mayor that he thought any efforts to attack Democrats would be shortsighted, and could ultimately result in a Republican Senate majority.

“Do you think you’d be better served by Majority Leader McConnell?” Mr. Reid said, according to this person, referring to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Mr. Bloomberg appears undeterred. In May, he financed a $350,000 blitz of tough television ads against Mr. Pryor, featuring the fatal shooting of a friend of the senator. Mr. Bloomberg said voters would reward the senators if they heeded the public-- which broadly favors background checks-- instead of the National Rifle Association and other groups opposed to the legislation.

“If Democrats want to keep control of the Senate, what I would suggest is that they have all of their members vote for things that the public wants,” he said in the interview. “And if they don’t do that, the voters should elect different senators who will listen to them. That’s what democracy is all about.”

If a background-check bill passes the Senate, Mr. Bloomberg said, he will seek to put similar pressure on the Republican-led House, including appeals to Republican donors in New York who favor more gun regulation. Some Senate Republicans have already found themselves targets of the mayor.

This is the counter-ad that Pryor ran in Arkansas. "No one from New York or Washington tells me what to do; I listen to Arkansas." (He mostly listens the Walton family-- and to talking snakes.)



Bloomberg's letter:

I am writing to ask you: the next time these four Senators want you to support them with donations to their campaigns, tell them you cannot. Until they show that they will stand up for the American people and not the gun lobby, tell them you cannot support their candidacy. These “no” votes were a slap in the face to Americans everywhere. Polls consistently show that 90% of Americans-- including 82% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members-- support requiring background checks for all gun sales. But instead of standing up for what’s right, and for a common-sense measure their constituents support, these Senators made a calculated vote designed to pander to the gun lobby in anticipation of their next election.

...Senators Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp, and Pryor sided with the minority, reminding us of why so many people are angry at Congress. Astonishingly, the four Senators did this even as they ask New Yorkers, who contributed a significant share of the funding for their last election bids, to donate to them once again. Their votes were an affront to the nation. Make no mistake: loopholes at the federal level undermine our efforts to keep our streets safe.

By voting against background checks, these Senators told us they would rather bow down to a special interest group than support a common-sense measure to help law enforcement fight gun crime. Now you can tell these Senators: by voting against background checks, they voted against your values and your family’s safety. And until they show they will stop bowing to pressure from the gun lobby, you should not support them.

Last year Bloomberg money defeated NRA shill Joe Baca in California. Baca is trying to get back into Congress next year. Bloomberg is likely to make sure that doesn't happen. He should also help end John Barrow's miserable, craven career in politics.

DSCC Getting Its Dream Candidate, Joe Miller, Against Begich In Alaska?

DSCC & Tea Party agree Joe Miller should be the GOP nominee. The GOP... not so much

In the Quinnipiac poll released yesterday, voters across the country were clear that after weeks of intense right-wing propaganda and Establishment media drummed up poutrage, the GOP Scandalpalooza isn't as important to anyone as it is to deranged Republicans. By enormous margins-- 73-22%-- voters said dealing with the economy is a higher priority than the IRS, Benghazi, and Associated Press controversies the congressional Republicans are putting virtually all their energy into.

American voters say 43- 32 percent that congressional criticism of the Obama Administration's handling of the terrorist attack in Libya is 'just politics.' Voters say 44- 33 percent, however, that members of Congress who criticize the way the Obama Administration handled the IRS are raising 'legitimate concerns.' Criticism of the Justice Department's seizure of journalists' phone records also raises 'legitimate concerns,' voters say 37- 24 percent.

...But voters say 73- 22 percent that dealing with the economy and unemployment is a higher priority than investigating these three issues.

And the highest priority for Democrats is working to improve the economy-- especially Senate Democrats. As Greg Sargent pointed out in his Washington Post column yesterday, after reading the same Quinnipiac poll, "a variety of indicators, from rising home prices to buoyed consumer confidence to falling gas prices, suggest that the economy is improving at a stronger clip than previously anticipated."

If the recovery is strong next year, it could help Dems hold the Senate. That’s because, with Democrats fighting on defense across the board, Dem control of the Senate hinges on whether a half dozen incumbents can hang on. And an improving economy can help incumbents. As Amy Walter of the nonpartisan [actually it's extremely skewed towards Republicans but Greg writes in DC so...] Cook Political Report explains:

Good economic times are good for incumbents. After all, voters are more apt to look for change in tough times than they are in good ones. Significant economic anxiety contributed to the “wave” elections of 2008 and 2010. In 2012, the economy improved just enough to help President Obama win re-election.

This year, Americans’ confidence in the economy is as strong as it’s been in years. If that continues, it would probably mean a status quo cycle; which is the best that Democrats could hope for.

Democrats are the underdogs in 2014. They are defending seven Senate seats in deep red states, while Republicans have no vulnerable seats to protect…The best case scenario for Democrats is 2014 to limit their losses. An improving economic outlook could help them do that. The economic environment is much improved from where it was right before Election Day 2010. And, it’s even a bit better than it was in the fall of 2012.

And one of those deep red states with a Democratic senator is Alaska-- and Mark Begich, who has upset his own base with a series of wrong-headed right-wing votes, like backing the NRA demand to kill background checks (which is very popular in Alaska). Alaska is a tough environment for Democrats in statewide races. Obama only drew 41% of the vote there last year, worse than he did in Georgia, South Carolina, or Mississippi. And when Begich first won, in 2008-- with the incumbent Republican embroiled in a series of outrageous corruption scandals on the front pages of every newspaper-- it was a very slim lead: 151,767 (48%) to 147,814 (47%). Two years later, Scott McAdams, the Democratic challenger to GOP incumbent Lisa Murkowski, came in third. Murkowski, who had narrowly lost the primary to a neo-fascist teabagger named Joe Miller, ran in the general as an independent write-in candidate and won with 101,091 (40%), while Miller, the official Republican candidate took 90,839 votes (36%) and McAdams trailed with a mere 60,045 (23%).

Many Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents abandoned McAdams when polls showed he had no chance and voted for Murkowski to prevent the crazed teabagger from winning the seat. Well... the crazed teabagger is back. He wants to Republican nomination again, this time to run against Begich. A recent PPP survey found that Alaska voters are angry at Begich for voting against background checks. But will they vote for a certifiably insane militant gun loon instead?

When we polled Alaska in February Lisa Murkowski was one of the most popular Senators in the country with a 54% approval rating and only 33% of voters disapproving of her. She's seen a precipitous decline in the wake of her background checks vote though. Her approval is down a net 16 points from that +21 standing to +5 with 46% of voters approving and 41% now disapproving of her. Murkowski has lost most of her appeal to Democrats in the wake of her vote, with her numbers with them going from 59/25 to 44/44. And the vote hasn't increased her credibility with Republican either-- she was at 51/38 with them in February and she's at 50/39 now.

Mark Begich is down following his no vote as well. He was at 49/39 in February and now he's at 41/37. His popularity has declined with Democrats (from 76/17 to 59/24) and with independents (from 54/32 to 43/35), and there has been no corresponding improvement with Republicans. He had a 24% approval rating with them two months ago and he has a 24% approval rating with them now.

60% of Alaska voters support background checks to just 35% opposed, including a 62/33 spread with independents. 39% of voters say they're less likely to vote for each of Begich and Murkowski in their next elections based on this vote, while only 22% and 26% say they're more likely to vote for Begich and Murkowski respectively because of this.

Alaska will definitely be a high-profile, high-priority Senate battleground state this year. There's probably no one Begich would rather see as his opponent than Miller.

Apparently, the 2010 loss still smarts. Miller seems almost to be running as much against Murkowski as Begich.

“Though I was labeled an ‘extremist’ by the likes of Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich for telling the truth, both of our sitting senators now routinely engage in such ‘extremist’ rhetoric with respect to federal overreach, government spending, and entitlement reform,” Miller writes on his Restoring Liberty website.

Miller’s political manifesto is straight out of the tea party wing of the Republican Party.

“With the re-election of Barack Obama, our very way of self-government is in peril,” he says. “The Constitution is under attack, the value of human life degraded, religious liberties are threatened, the Second Amendment is increasingly in jeopardy, and the right to protection from unlawful search and seizure is giving way to a virtual surveillance State.”

He warns of a “looming debt crisis” and “the coming downgrade of America’s credit rating.” The US senators he says he most admires: Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Mike Lee of Utah-- those who will “confront President Obama, not one who will cut a deal to negotiate the terms of our surrender to his radical socialist agenda.”

...Earlier this month, a state judge ordered Miller to pay $85,000 in attorney’s fees to the Alaska Dispatch online news organization in Anchorage tied to a 2010 lawsuit to make public Miller’s employment records during his time as a part-time government lawyer. At one point in the dust-up, Miller’s security men at a town hall meeting handcuffed the editor of the Alaska Dispatch.

“Miller’s conduct, which included taking inconsistent positions, failing to disclose information during discovery, and his procedural filing, which the record did not support, all caused unnecessary delay and costs for both Alaska Dispatch” and the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska Superior Court Judge Stephanie Joannides wrote in her ruling.

Is there any chance that Ms. Palin could jump into Alaska’s 2014 US Senate race? It may be unlikely, but recent polls could tempt the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential nominee.

She enjoys a 62 percent favorable rating among Republican voters in the state, according to a Harper Polling survey earlier this month, and she leads Miller 52 percent to 19 percent in a hypothetical head-to-head match.

Miller, meanwhile, has a 49 percent to 34 percent unfavorable-favorable rating in that poll.

So, will the Democratic base forgive Begich his dalliance with the NRA and his generally conservative Republican voting record? Blue America certainly will not be adding him to our Senate page of endorsed candidates but I suspect that Alaska Democrats will hold their noses and vote for him... IF Miller is the nominee (or Palin). Miller is now publicly embracing the term "extremist" to describe him and his agenda:

NRA Shills In The Senate In Trouble-- At Least On Paper

Mark Begich will probably only win reelection if Alaska Republicans nominate Joe Miller

The Republican case for why the unpopular vote against background checks-- basically no one agrees with their position except hard-core Republican primary voters-- won't hurt them in 2014 is twofold: the House didn't vote on it at all, and in the Senate the GOP has only two vulnerable incumbents (the two closet cases, Lindsey Graham in South Carolina and Miss McConnell in Kentucky) and taking the NRA position won't hurt either of them in those states. So, yes, senators who voted no on Manchin-Toomey are taking a beating in polling, but most of them aren't up for reelection in 2014. Ironically, the most damage from the fallout over the Senate vote is likely to be among conservative Democrats who shamelessly shill for the NRA!

Jeff Flake (R-AZ) would get killed if he had to run in 2014... but he doesn't have to face the voters again 'til 2018. None of the Republicans who are losing ground with voters according to the PPP survey have to face voters while the vote is fresh in anyone's mind. Mark Begich (D-AK), on the other hand, may be in trouble.

New PPP polls in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio find serious backlash against the 5 Senators who voted against background checks in those states. Each of them has seen their approval numbers decline, and voters say they're less likely to support them the next time they're up for reelection. That's no surprise given that we continue to find overwhelming, bipartisan support for background checks in these states.

Here's the state by state rundown:

• After just 3 months in office Jeff Flake has already become one of the most unpopular Senators in the country. Just 32% of voters approve of him to 51% who disapprove and that -19 net approval rating makes him the most unpopular sitting Senator we've polled on, taking that label from Mitch McConnell.

70% of Arizona voters support background checks to only 26% who are opposed to them. That includes 92/6 favor from Democrats, 71/24 from independents, and 50/44 from Republicans. 52% of voters say they're less likely to support Flake in a future election because of this vote, compared to only 19% who say they're more likely to. Additionally voters say by a 21 point margin, 45/24, that they trust senior colleague John McCain more than Flake when it comes to gun issues.

• When we polled Alaska in February Lisa Murkowski was one of the most popular Senators in the country with a 54% approval rating and only 33% of voters disapproving of her. She's seen a precipitous decline in the wake of her background checks vote though. Her approval is down a net 16 points from that +21 standing to +5 with 46% of voters approving and 41% now disapproving of her. Murkowski has lost most of her appeal to Democrats in the wake of her vote, with her numbers with them going from 59/25 to 44/44. And the vote hasn't increased her credibility with Republican either- she was at 51/38 with them in February and she's at 50/39 now.

Mark Begich is down following his no vote as well. He was at 49/39 in February and now he's at 41/37. His popularity has declined with Democrats (from 76/17 to 59/24) and with independents (from 54/32 to 43/35), and there has been no corresponding improvement with Republicans. He had a 24% approval rating with them two months ago and he has a 24% approval rating with them now.

60% of Alaska voters support background checks to just 35% opposed, including a 62/33 spread with independents. 39% of voters say they're less likely to vote for each of Begich and Murkowski in their next elections based on this vote, while only 22% and 26% say they're more likely to vote for Begich and Murkowski respectively because of this.

• We saw serious improvement in Rob Portman's poll numbers in the second half of 2012 following his consideration as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, but he's taken a nose dive in 2013. Portman's approval has dropped a net 18 points over the last 6 months from +10 (35/25) in October to now -8 (26/34) in April. Portman's popularity decline has come across the board with Democrats (from 15/39 to 8/50), Republicans (62/11 to 46/19), and independents (28/23 to 24/32) alike.

72% of Ohio voters support background checks, including 87% of Democrats, 73% of independents, and 56% of Republicans. 36% of voters in the state say they're less likely to support Portman in a future election because of this vote to only 19% who consider it to be a reason to support him.

• And in Nevada Dean Heller has seen a more modest decline in his approval numbers, from 47/42 right before the election to 44/41 now. However with the independent voters who were critical to his narrow victory in November, his approval has dropped from 52/37 then to now 42/42.

70% of voters in the state support background checks compared to just 24% who are opposed to them. That includes 87% of Democrats, 65% of independents, and 54% of Republicans. 46% say they're less likely to support Heller the next time he's up for reelection compared to only 25% who are more likely to because of this vote, and as we saw last fall Heller has very little margin for error.

Taken together these results make it pretty clear that this issue could be a serious liability for the Senators who opposed overwhelmingly popular background checks in the Senate vote earlier this month.

Begich could lose his seat-- especially if a remotely mainstream Republican (i.e., not Joe Miller)-- runs against him. It's a classic example of a Democrat abandoning his own base's values to curry favor with his enemies... only to have his enemies laugh in his face. Democrats and independents are looking at Begich as a spineless coward and Republicans may like that one vote he took out of fear but they'll vote against him anyway. He deserves to lose his seat and, unless Miller gets the nomination, he probably will. Mark Pryor (D-AR)-- the talking snake guy with the IQ problem-- probably faces the same problem, although I haven't seen any polling yet to back that up.

Ted Cruz's NRA Filibuster Crushed

The failed filibusterers

With only two conservative Democrats caving to NRA pressure-- Mark Pryor (AR) and Mark Begich (AK)-- but with 16 Republicans agreeing that there should at least be a debate on gun safety, the Senate ended the filibuster led by Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Miss McConnell. The filibuster was shut down 68-31.

When Mark Begich first ran for the Senate in 2008, Blue America endorsed him and helped him raise some money. He's been a disappointment ever since, the polar opposite of courageous, seemingly only interested in extending his own career. His overall ProgressivePunch crucial vote score, 78.96, is putrid enough, but, with his reelection campaign gearing up, he's made a conscious effort to move further to the right. His score for the 113th Congress is a shocking 57.14. The only Democratic senators voting more frequently with Miss McConnell are Mark Pryor (his fellow filibuster), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO) and Kay Hagan (NC). Needless to say, if there was any chance Blue America would have re-endorsed Begich-- and, realistically, there wasn't-- he blew it today by attempting to deny the right of the Senate to even debate gun safety regulations. Good luck getting those Republicans in Alaska to vote for you, Mark.

These are the Republicans-- several willing to court primaries for the neo-fascist right and the deep-pocketed gun manufacturers lobby-- who voted against the filibuster yesterday:

• Lamar Alexander (TN)
• Kelly Ayotte (NH)
• Richard Burr (NC)
• Saxby Chambliss (GA)
• Tom Coburn (OK)
• Susan Collins (ME)
• Bob Corker (TN)
• Jeff Flake (AZ)
• Lindsey Graham (SC)
• Dean Heller (NV)
• John Hoeven (ND)
• Johnny Isakson (GA)
• Mark Kirk (IL)
• John McCain (AZ)
• Pat Toomey (PA)
• Roger Wicker (MS)

Now the debate begins. It's expected to last a couple weeks before the Senate finally votes on the weak and watered down gun safety proposals.

“With the vote we take today, we are turning the page. Against the NRA’s dominance, we are turning the page to do what is right by these families and by the American people,”  Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at a news conference with the family members.

Turning to the families, Schumer said Newtown was the reason the Senate acted. “The only reason we are turning the page is because of you. You spoke to Congress. You spoke to the American people. We looked in your eyes, we saw your loss. We saw the hole where your child, your sibling, your parent used to be.”

Despite the vote to proceed, several Republicans said they would continue to oppose the legislation.

“The government should not punish or harass law-abiding citizens in the exercise of their Second Amendment rights,” Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

Miss McConnell can lisp all the misleading NRA talking points he wants, but he very well aware that nothing in the legislation punishes or harasses any law-abiding citizens and is completely unrelated to the Second Amendment.

But Reid said Thursday that the first amendment to be debated is a bipartisan agreement to expand the gun background-check program that was announced Wednesday by Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Schumer. The agreement would extend the current background-check requirement from covering only sales at licensed dealerships to any sale that takes place at a gun show or that is advertised in print or online. However, checks would not be required for many sales between private individuals-- a key concession by Democrats that gun-control advocates eagerly sought.

The proposal also would permit gun dealers to sell firearms across state lines, and gun owners with state-issued permits to carry concealed weapons would be allowed to take their firearms through states that don’t allow concealed weapons. The bipartisan agreement also calls for establishing a national commission to evaluate causes of mass violence.

Other proposed changes to the bill will come from members of both parties.

Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) plan to introduce changes to the gun-trafficking provisions that would bolster legal protections for lawful gun owners who purchase weapons to give as gifts or raffle and contest prizes and are later used in a crime.

In a nod to groups seeking tighter gun restrictions, several Democratic senators plan to support amendments to ban military-style assault weapons and to limit the size of ammunition clips, but those measures are expected to fail. Another bipartisan group of senators plans to propose expanding programs that provide mental health assistance to military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

By yesterday afternoon, Boehner was pushing back against NRA operatives inside his House caucus who are demanding he kill the legislation-- if it passes the Senate-- when it comes to the House. He said the Hastert Rule was "never a rule anyway," opening up the possibility of him working with Obama to put together GOP-Democratic majorities to pass gun legislation, immigration and, of course, a budget, all of which are opposed by most Republican House members. It would be hilarious to see him thrown out by his own caucus and watch Cantor become the first Jewish Speaker before the loathsome Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who inherited that dream from her mentor, Rahm Emanuel.

With No Obstructionists Sabotaging Its Stimulus Program, China Takes Advantage Of The Worldwide Economic Slowdown

With Obama contending with obstructionists like Palin, DeMint & Bayh, China poses grave threats to the country

When Robyn Meredith wrote her NY Times best selling The Elephant and the Dragon about the rise of India and China, Bush was still playing at being president and the catastrophic results of years and years of ideological Republican governance hadn't yet manifested as the economic meltdown Obama inherited. In fact, when Meredith was writing, anyone who talked about an impending economic meltdown was ignored or derided as a kook. But her book was about China and India and how their developing roles would impact America and the rest of the world, so no one paid much attention to her prescience when it came to our current financial crisis. Her crystal ball sure was working:

With the brisk growth the global economy has enjoyed since 2002, these should be the best of times. As in past expansions, the U.S. unemployment rate was expected to fall-- and it did. American workers have become more productive each year, which normally leads to widespread raises. But the swelling economy has not led to fat paychecks this time; instead median hourly wages after inflation declined 2 percent from 2004 to mid-2006. For Americans, the missing link in a suddenly internationalized economy is improved pay. Much factory work has already moved overseas or has been automated, and America's blue-collar workers are earning less than they did in 1973. The migration of white-collar jobs [to India] has begun. Those who have lost jobs frequently must accept pay cuts when they find new work. Most of those who have kept their jobs aren't getting raises that run ahead of inflation, much less ahead of productivity increases. The reality is that many workforce changes have already begun and are likely to accelerate in coming years as more and more companies move jobs offshore and otherwise adjust to the rise of India and China.

Unfortunately, most households are unprepared for the turmoil: during the 1990s, the American savings rate began its plunge from over 8 percent to negative 1 percent in 2006. Americans didn't register much of the pain of smaller savings, first because stock prices soared in the 1990s, then because house prices began to zoom upward about the time the stock bubble burst. Housing prices have halted their powerful run-up, so many Americans may soon feel the weight of their unprecedented, credit-fueled spending binge.

Those looking closely see that American standards of living are already being pinched for all but the richest Americans. Middle-class expenses are way up, largely because of increased health care and college costs. Unless Americans make big changes, keeping up with the Joneses may mean going backward and downsizing the American standard of living. Some indicators show that Americans have in the past decade already begun to slide, but many haven't yet begun to feel it.

When all the pieces of the global economy work together smoothly, all the players involved benefit. In this decade a clear pattern has emerged: China became factory to the world, the United States became buyer to the world, and India began to become back office to the world.

But there are risks to both East and West as the strands of the global economy intertwine. As the world economy interconnects, the United States, China and India become more vulnerable to local disruptions in each other's economies. For instance, if the U.S. housing bubble bursts as quickly as the American stock rally ended in 2001, home prices in the country could plunge. Many Americans who had been feeling flush would suddenly feel poor, and many would be saddled with payments for home loans worth more than their houses. If that happened, a broad economic slowdown would follow, and many Americans would be forced to tighten their belts drastically, spending less on everything-- including made-in-China goods stacked on store shelves. A U.S. recession could force Chinese factories to shut down or lay off workers, most for the first time ever. Indeed, worries about a U.S. slowdown push stories about the U.S. housing market to the front page of newspapers half a world away in China. At the same time, India's army of computer programmers and call-center employees could also feel the ripple of a downturn in the U.S. economy. Indians wouldn't be answering so many 800-number calls from shoppers buying plane tickets or other goods. On the other hand, because service jobs can move across the globe quickly, American companies fighting to stay afloat might accelerate their movement of white-collar jobs overseas in a downturn that desperately crimps their profits.

China is a partner in capitalism but not in democracy, not by any stretch of the imagination. A rare upside to their authoritarian government is that their is no formal obstructionism permitted to hamper the government in a crisis. They have no Grand Obstructionist Party in China. They have plenty of corruption on all levels, including at the highest U.S.-like levels, but without a political party actively working to see the government fail-- regardless of how that hurts the nation-- China has been able to act with far greater speed, agility and purpose to take defensive action against the global depression. While partisan hacks of dubious patriotism-- like Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Richard Burr (R-NC), David Vitter (R-LA), John Boehner (R-OH), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)-- act with single-minded intensity to sabotage President Obama and prevent his program to rescue the country's economy from being enacted, China's government has acted with requisite haste to head the worst of the effects of the downturn off at the pass. This augers poorly for the United States, although not for China's unofficial chief American lobbyist, Mitch McConnell.

The global economic downturn, and efforts to reverse it, will probably make China an even stronger economic competitor than it was before the crisis... China’s leaders are turning economic crisis to competitive advantage, said economic analysts.

The country is using its nearly $600 billion economic stimulus package to make its companies better able to compete in markets at home and abroad, to retrain migrant workers on an immense scale and to rapidly expand subsidies for research and development.

Construction has already begun on new highways and rail lines that are likely to permanently reduce transportation costs.
And while American leaders struggle to revive lending — in the latest effort with a $15 billion program to help small businesses-- Chinese banks lent more in the last three months than in the preceding 12 months.

“The recent tweaks to the stimulus package indicate a sharper focus on the long-term competitiveness of Chinese industry,” said Eswar S. Prasad, a former China division chief at the International Monetary Fund. “Higher expenditures on education and research and development, along with amounts already committed to infrastructure investment, will boost the economy’s productivity.”

The international economic slowdown is also doing some things that Chinese authorities had tried and failed to do for four years: slow inflation, reverse what had been an ever-growing dependence on exports and pop a real estate bubble before it could grow even bigger.

The recession in most of the large economies in the world is inflicting real pain here-- causing a record plunge in Chinese exports, putting 20 million migrant workers from within China out of their jobs and raising the potential for increased and sustained social unrest. But as President Hu Jintao told the National People’s Congress last week, “Challenge and opportunity always come together-- under certain conditions, one could be transformed into the other.”

To that end, Chinese companies are shopping for foreign businesses to acquire. The commerce ministry announced late Monday that it was greatly easing the government approval process for Chinese companies seeking permission to make foreign acquisitions.

Over the past two weeks we've seen blatantly partisan, self-serving moves made by ambitious Republican governors Mark Sanford (SC), Rick Perry (TX) and Bobby Jindal (LA) to stand in the way of Obama's Stimulus package. Yesterday a cold wind blew down from Alaska: "Gov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services."

The news Thursday drew anger from those who accused Palin of putting her national political aspirations ahead of the state's interests, and admiration from others who say she has courage to turn down money that would expand government. The state Legislature will have an opportunity to override her decision.

...Palin first told the news media that she's turning down nearly half the federal stimulus money -- but later conceded that does not count the Medicaid money she is accepting. That brings down what she's refusing to 31 percent of what the state government could get. Local governments and nonprofits could still compete for stimulus grants.

The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.

The clueless soccer-mom is feeling intense anger from both sides of the aisle and it is likely that the Republican-dominated state legislature will override her with Democratic help. But why should she care about special needs students when she is far more qualified to parrot negative attacks on the president's humanity than on accomplishing anything for the poor residents of her state. At least she'll have two Senate allies in undermining Obama now that Begich has declared himself a member of Bayh's anti-Obama bloc. I wonder if Palin can see China from her front porch too. The DNC will launch a nationwide campaign today to combat Republicans and their right-wing Democratic allies who are trying to destroy Obama's program by sabotaging his budget. Lets hope it works-- and that we don't wind up with Sarah Palin and Evan Bayh stumbling around trying to figure out which way is up... for all of us.

"What we're really saying," said a Democratic strategist involved in the campaign, "is that this is a budget here, but all of these pieces...they're so central to function the economy, and this budget is a downpayment on any substantive reform that the president seeks on those - in those areas. If President Obama doesn't get a significant placeholder for health care reform, what are the prospects that you're going to get that going forward?" 

The same is true, the strategist said, of Obama's energy and education reform proposals.

And if the obstructionists keep up their partisan warfare against the president and he's unable to contend with the biggest threat we're now facing as a nation-- the world ditching the dollar as its reserve currency, which is a distinct possibility-- the game's over for us in terms of living beyond our means. This country will be barely recognizable a decade from now. DeMint, Cornyn, Burr, Palin, Bayh, Sanford, Boehner... the whole lot of them couldn't hurt America more if they opened the front gates to bin-Laden.

The ConservaDems-- Evan Bayh's New Anti-Obama Bloc

Tone-deaf douche bag Evan Bayh

If you've been over to Blue America lately, you may have noticed we've taken down a name. Many of us had a suspicion it was just a matter of time before our borderlinest endorsee from last year, Mark Begich, would, sooner or later, come screaming out of the closet as a full-blown... well, not sure exactly what. He's not interested in being a progressive, as we figured out as the Alaska senate campaign wore on and departing staffers warned us that he wasn't what he portrayed himself as. Then after the election... a so-so voting record. Oh well, we thought, at least he's not as bad as Landrieu, Nelson and Bayh. Today Bayh announced that Begich is as bad as himself.

Many allies had asked me why we weren't endorsing and raising money for Jeanne Shaheen last year. I wanted her to beat Sununu, of course, but I never add anyone to the Blue America list unless I want to write a check personally. And she just smelled like a Blue Dog or DLC character to me. That was borne out yesterday as she joined Bayh's Bloc of right-leaning conservative Democrats who seem eager to hold up President Obama's agenda, even if it means bolstering the heinous Senate Republicans.

Bayh's bloc's agenda is to eviscerate Obama's agenda in order to prevent healthcare reform and climate change policies. The Democrats willing to admit to being part of this new anti-Obama bloc are all the usual suspects, the conservatives with shit voting records who seem always eager to show the folks back home how much they detest working families and how dependable they are when it comes to denying the aspirations of ordinary Americans (listed in order of how frequently they vote with the GOP on contentious matters-- from bad to worse: Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Mark Warner (VA), Michael Bennet (CO), Kay Hagan (NC), Bill Nelson (FL), Herb Kohl (WI), Mark Begich (AK), Mark Udall (CO), Evan Bayh (IN), Claire McCaskill (MO), Tom Carper (DE), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Mary Landrieu (LA), and, worst of the worst, Ben Nelson (NE).

Bayh went on Joe Scarborough's right-wing morning show to blare his intentions of screwing up the Democratic Party and the country and admitted that "3 or 4" other Democrats are in "a witness protection program" (i.e.- too cowardly to admit what they are). Sources tell us that the others are Mark Pryor (AR), Max Baucus (MT) and Jim Webb (VA). I sure hope John Tester isn't a fourth.

Oh, well, we now have a new question for Senate candidates asking for Blue America assistance: "are there any circumstances that you would join with the reactionary, anti-family conservatives that Evan Bayh has formed to fight change?" If the answer is "yes" or "maybe" you can be sure they won't be on our endorsed list of candidates. Meanwhile Campaign for America's Future has launched the "Dog The (Blue) Dogs" campaign, urging Americans to call Blue Dog congresspeople and demand they support President Obama's budget. Bob Borosage explained what they're trying to accomplish yesterday at HuffPo. and Rachel Maddow explained the ugly phenom on her show last night:



If you don't like the idea of conservatives hijacking everything we accomplished last year-- and watering down everything Obama is striving to accomplish, and doing it all at the behest of their campaign donors Big Oil, Big Pharma, insurance companies, agribusiness, global corporations, Wall Street, please consider donating to a proven fighting progressive running a grassroots campaign for the Senate seat in Florida, Dan Gelber. The conservatives can always count on Big Business. Progressives like Dan count on us. The finance/insurance/real estate sector, responsible for the devastation of the economy is especially close to Bayh and many of the members of his bloc. These industries have donated more legalized bribes to members of Congress than any other sector-- $2.2 billion since 1990. and while most of the money has gone to actual Republicans (55%), take a look how some of the very worst Democrats have raked in the tainted money in return for voting against their constituents' interests (the 10 worst listed in order from corrupt to even more corrupt):

Jeanne Shaheen ($997,310)
Mark Udall ($1,669,706)
Blanche Lincoln ($1,671,292)
Tom Carper ($2,160,628)
Mary Landieu ($2,399,134)
Mark Warner ($2,431,066)
Ben Nelson ($2,667,406)
Bill Nelson ($3,056,968)
Evan Bayh ($3,987,896)
Joe Lieberman ($9,981,924

The Race To 60: Alaska, Minnesota, Georgia

Would Chambliss dare bring Bush back to Georgia for a campaign event?

By now, you surely know that Republican convicted felon and senator, Ted Stevens-- unlike sore losers GOP reps Marilyn Musgrave, Virgil Goode and Randy Kuhl-- has conceded defeat. Not sure when he'll be reporting for prison. Just kidding; he'll certainly be one of the Republicrooks Bush pardons. One assumes that Bush will refuse, as a matter of "principle," to read Russ Feingold's warning about the abuse of pardons, which in any case only addresses the really huge, heinous stuff the Bush Regime was involved in, not the bribery and corruption one expects from political hacks like Stevens.

Despite the conviction, Stevens keeps his pension, which the National Taxpayer's Union calculates at about $122,000 a year. Members of Congress can lose their pensions for being convicted of specified crimes, such as bribery and racketeering, but Stevens' offenses aren't on the list. Senators also have investment retirement accounts.

Anyway, that leaves the Democrats with 58 seats-- if you count Lieberman as a Democrat-- with 2 to go. As I mentioned the other day, I'm just a passive observer in the race to 60. But I figure readers want to know what's going on. So... let's start with Minnesota, where Paul Wellstone seems to be smiling down from Heaven. The recount started yesterday and it's all bad news for the bad guys.

By day's end, with about 18 percent of the vote recounted, Coleman continued to lead Franken -- but by only 174 votes, notably narrower than the unofficial gap of 215 votes at which the recount had begun. Franken's gain owed much to a swing of 23 votes in the Democratic stronghold of St. Louis County-- the result of faintly marked ballots and older optical scanners that failed to read the marks.

Nate Silver has a more comprehensive analysis of what happened yesterday than the Star Tribune, although the same ending, of course: a shrinking margin for Coleman (now 172 votes). The important thing to remember is that Democratic strongholds in Minneapolis and Duluth are yet to come in with their numbers, which are expected to overwhelmingly favor Franken.

Minnesota reports that it has thus far re-counted 15.49 percent of its ballots. If the first day's results are indicative of the pace that the candidates will maintain throughout the recount process, Franken would gain a net of 278 votes over Coleman, giving him a narrow victory. For any number of reasons, however, the results reported thus far may not be indicative of future trends.

Although Franken gained ground relative to Coleman, in actuality both candidates have fewer votes than they began the day with. This is because of the "challenge" process in which representatives of either candidate may challenge any ballot for any reason, which will subsequently be reviewed one at a time by Minnesota's canvassing board in December. Challenges can occur to ballots that had previously been deemed to be legal, in which case those votes will be deducted from the opponent's total. Coleman has thus far challenged 115 ballots and Franken 106. However, based on local reports, many or perhaps most of the challenges are frivolous, and are unlikely to be upheld upon review. Thus, the candidate who has challenged fewer ballots probably stands to gain ground once such challenges are adjudicated.

And that leaves Georgia's run-off. The good news for Jim Martin yesterday was an enthusiastic and very compelling endorsement from the state's biggest newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Jim Martin and Sen. Saxby Chambliss may be former fraternity brothers at the University of Georgia, but they look, act, think and speak in very different ways. The two candidates in the Dec. 2 Senate runoff offer Georgia voters a stark choice.

Martin, the Democrat, has been a fighter for the little guy throughout his life, and he’s proved effective in that role. He served his country in the U.S. Army in Vietnam and as a state legislator, lawyer and head of the state Department of Human Resources. Throughout his public life he has been known as a workhorse not a showhorse, someone whose first concern was getting the job done well rather than trying to get the credit.

In fact, Martin was so well-respected for his competence and ability to work across party lines that when Gov. Sonny Perdue became the state’s first Republican governor in a century, he asked Martin to remain as head of the state Department of Human Services.

In his six years in the U.S. Senate, Chambliss has set a very different course. He fought against stricter immigration policies not out of a sense of compassion, but because easy immigration and lax enforcement served the interests of industry. When he fought against reform of farm subsidies that cost taxpayers billions, it wasn’t out of concern for the small family farmer. The reforms championed by President Bush but opposed by Chambliss would have cut payments only to huge corporate farms.

Time and again, on issue after issue, Chambliss has taken the side of the powerful and influential over those of the taxpayer and general citizen. His performance this year at a Senate hearing, in which he took the side of corporate management by browbeating a safety whistle-blower at a Savannah sugar mill, has become the stuff of legend. (A few months earlier, an explosion at the plant had killed 14 workers.)

The less good news for Martin is that the polling data shows Chambliss slightly ahead, 50-46%. Polls are less relevant in special elections like this however because the entire game is turn-out, which is expected to be low. It comes down to this: will the Republican's hysterical fear-mongering about a Democratic ability to overcome reactionary filibusters of the Obama's agenda for change trump an effort-- if there is one, which I doubt-- by Obama to win the 60 seat filibuster proof majority and get on with the change he promised in the election campaign? Bill Clinton was in Georgia explaining the damage a filibuster will do. If Obama goes down there and does it, Martin will win. (And a radio spot is only a halfway effort and won't do the trick.) If he doesn't, Chambliss will be re-elected: