Note: for all potentially competitive seats, I’ll include in paranthesis which of the big three issues the incumbent voted for (ST: stimulus, CT: Cap & Trade, HC: health care).

Dem held seats – 12
Safe seats – 10
9) Al Green vs Steve Mueller (D+22)
15) Ruben Hinojosa vs Eddie Zamora (D+3)
16) Silvestre Reyes vs Tim Besco (D+10)
18) Sheila Jackson Lee vs John Faulk (D+24)
20) Charlie Gonzalez vs Clayton Trotter (D+8)
25) Lloyd Doggett vs Donna Campbell (D+6)
27) Solomon Ortiz vs Blake Farenthold (R+2)
28) Henry Cuellar vs Bryan Underwood (D+0)
29) Gene Green vs Roy Morales (D+8)
30) Eddie Johnson vs Stephen Broden (D+27)

First of all, it should come as no surprise that those double-digit PVI seats are safe. Just be happy the GOP managed to find someone to run in them; two of those seats were unopposed in 2008. While TX-15 looks competitive on paper, it’s a rematch of 2008, where Zamora only got 32% of the vote. That’s too much ground to make up. The 28th district also looks promising, but it’s heavily Hispanic and the white Underwood has little fundraising and little presence. Dr. Campbell has the same problem in the 25th district, albeit doing a bit better on the fundraising front. But when Doggett has never gone below 65% of the vote, I have a hard time seeing an insurgent victory here. I almost considered the 27th district to be a potentially competitive seat, but Ortiz is a long term Congressman in a heabily Hispanic district who’s been winning by 20 points recently. But if there is going to be a dark horse victory here, that’s the seat it will be.

Competitive seats – 1
23) Ciro Rodriguez (ST, HC) vs Francisco Canseco (R+4)
Quico Canseco is a perennial candidate, although this is his first primary victory. While that doesn’t spell good news, the fact is that he’s Hispanic (hey, it’s demographics; I hate it too…), wealthy, has a decent operation, and solid conservative credentials. He’s big on border control (which should be good for voters along the, y’know, border), and has been hitting Rodriguez on his health care vote and his lack of town hall meetings. A recent internal poll from Quico has him down only 48-45, which isn’t too bad. But the incumbent near 50 already? This one will clearly be difficult. But if Rodriguez can be successfully tied to Pelosi and Obama, and if Canseco can raise his name recognition, he could have a chance here.

Lean Takeover seats – 1
17) Chet Edwards (ST) vs Bill Flores (R+20)
Yeah, you saw that right. R+20. This is the most conservative district in the US that is held by a Dem. And Edwards has held it primarily by distancing himself from the national Dem party. Yet his luck can only last so long. In 2008, he won 53-45 against an underfunded challenger, and he now has a serious challenge from businessman Bill Flores, who’s done well with fundraising and in garnering name recognition. Flores, for his part, is planning on tying Edwards to Obama (who only received 32% of the vote here) and as someone not serious about fiscal discipline. And it may work out: a Republican poll conducted in May has Flores up 53-41. Yeah, it’s a partisan poll, but that’s some serious distance between the two. If not for Edwards’ past skills at winning here, I’d say this one would be in the bag.

Rep held seats – 20
Safe seats – 19
1) Louis Gohmert unopposed (R+21)
2) Ted Poe unopposed (R+13)
3) Sam Johnson vs John Lingenfelder (R+14)
4) Ralph Hall vs Valinda Hathcox (R+21)
5) Jeb Hensarling vs Tom Berry (R+17)
6) Joe Barton vs David Cozad (R+15)
7) John Culberson unopposed (R+17)
8) Kevin Brady vs Kent Hargett (R+25)
10) Michael McCaul vs Ted Ankrum (R+10)
11) Mike Conaway vs James Quillian (R+28)
12) Kay Granger vs Tracey Smith (R+16)
13) Mac Thornberry unopposed (R+29)
14) Ron Paul vs Robert Pruett (R+18)
19) Randy Neugebauer vs Andy Wilson (R+26)
21) Lamar Smith vs Lainey Melnick (R+14)
22) Pete Olson vs Kesha Rogers (R+13)
24) Kenny Marchant vs Alex Dunaj (R+11)
26) Michael Burgess vs Neil Durrance (R+13)
31) John Carter unopposed (R+14)

Considering that all the seats have a double digit advantage in PVI, you know there’s not much to be worried about. A few key races: Hall is 85 years old in the 4th district, which is really the only reason you might worry that he won’t make it. In the 10th, McCaul has not been winning by much recently (54-43 in 2008), but this race is a rematch of 2006 where he won by 15 points in a worse year for Reps. Pete Olsen’s a freshman in the 22nd, but he lucked out when the LaRouche advocate Kesha Rogers won her primary. She’ll get no support from the establishment, although maybe running on an “Impeach Obama” platform will help her… And while this is Ron Paul’s first election after gaining national attention and thus may get more skepticism, his opponent doesn’t seem like much. All told, none of the Dem opponents look like top tier candidates (none has raised more than $50k so far), so things should be safe all around.

Potentially competitive seats – 1
32) Pete Sessions vs Grier Raggio (R+8)
This appears to be the token race the Dems are interested in. In all fairness, they could have a decent shot if 2010 is similar to 2008. After all, the demographics are trending away from Republicans very quickly in this district, and it likely won’t be an R+8 seat much longer (if it still is). Raggio is a serious candidate, an attourney who has raised ~$150k so far, and has the backing of the Dem establishment. Sessions, meanwhile, won by 16 points last year to an underfunded and undercampaigned opponent. The Dems would dearly love to pick off the NRCC chair, but he has raised over $1 million, and he did win by 16 in a heavily Dem year. Frankly, I’m not worried.

Final Thoughts
Not much is happening in Texas this year. I think if the Republicans can take TX-17, we should all be happy. After all, it’s already a 20-12 advantage for Reps in a state with a few large cities and a huge Hispanic population. Needless to say, being far far away from the border (well, the Mexican border, that is), it’s hard for me to get a feel for how the immigration debate will affect the results. But I see no reason to disagree with the experts who see Texas as not changing too many incumbents.

Previous analyses
Illinois
Indiana

The big question is whether or not the 2008 election was an anomaly or not. Indiana’s swing left was, if I recall correctly, the largest in the nation. How a state that went from a reliably Republican state surrounded by blue states to voting for Obama (this is despite the fact that he only got ~50% in the primary against Hillary) is beyond me. Even weirder, it happened at the same time that the state was reelecting Mitch Daniels (the mild-mannered version of Chris Christie) as governor by a wide margin. So is Indiana’s experiment with leftism over? We hope so.

During the primary, we had proof that the Tea Party is very active in the state, but unfortunately their presence can be summed up as “close but no cigar.” While Stutzman’s challenge of Coats was well known, two Republican incumbents in the House were nearly picked off, and would have been if the anti-incumbent votes weren’t split. Let us hope they don’t become discouraged by these results, and that there’s still enough enthusiasm in November.

Note: for all potentially competitive seats, I’ll include in parenthesis which of the big three issues the incumbent voted for (ST: stimulus, CT: Cap & Trade, HC: health care).

Dem held seats – 5
Safe seats – 2
1) Peter Visclosky vs Mark Leyva
7) Andre Carson vs Marvin Scott

IN-01 is Gary, IN-07 is Indianapolis, so the chances of winning either one of these is slim. Mark Leyva is the perennial candidate in the first district, and keeps losing 70-30. And while Carson is a freshman, she won 65-35 in 08, and Bush didn’t get above 43% in this district.

Competitive seats – 2
2) Joe Donnelly (ST, HC) vs Jackie Walorski
The second district is the purplest district in Indiana, being the only one that voted for both Bush and Obama. In other words, to win here, Republicans need to bring their A team… and you can’t argue much with who they got. Jackie Walorski is a popular State Rep from South Bend and a blunt, outspoken conservative. She can raise money, articulate conservative values, and attack Donnelly for not being as conservative as he claims to be. Needless to say, claiming to be Pro-Life and voting for Obamacare isn’t going to fly in this strongly Catholic district, regardless of what Notre Dame says. Donnelly is certainly nervous, as he’s apparently already commissioned two polls this year. Frankly, I wouldn’t have expected this one to be competitive except that Donnelly voted for Obamacare. There were angry town halls here just like the rest of the nation, and I don’t think you can count on the Independents to support the Dems on this one.

9) Baron Hill (ST, CT, HC) vs Todd Young
Hill took his first name to heart when he showed up on Youtube hilariously demanding that he shouldn’t be videotaped in fear of showing up on Youtube. That worked out well, didn’t it? Young, meanwhile, is an attorney who survived a challenging 3 way primary (all three had over 30% of the vote), basically being more establishment that Travis Harkins and more conservative than Sodrel. He’s proven himself adept on the election field, and should give Hill a run for his money if he can get the fractured Rep primary voters behind him. At the very least, his fundraising’s been pretty good, and the demographics favor him. From what I can tell, Hill isn’t all that popular among the left, so while they will defend him, I don’t expect an all out blitz from the netroots to save him. The Cook PVI is R+6, Bush won 59-40 in 2004, and Hill’s nasty attitude and the fact that it’s NOT Sodrel’s 5th attempt to unseat him will hopefully be enough to get his constituents to fire him. For the record, a Sodrel internal poll from way back in March had him tied with Hill, so presumably Young is in the same range as well.

Lean takeover seats – 1
8 ) Trent Van Haaften vs Larry Bucshon (open)
Blue Dog Brad Ellsworth abandoned this seat to run for the Senate, and the Dem party establishment chose Van Haaften as his replacement. Meanwhile, Dr. Larry Bucshon survived a tough primary against Tea Party activist Kristi Risk. This is the reddest seat of the three (Bush won 62-38 in ’04), and it’s an open seat to boot. To give you an idea of just how red it is, Van Haaften was actually courting the Tea Party. Not a bad idea, but after the district got burned by Ellsworth on the health care bill, do you think they’ll trust another “conservative” Dem? I don’t think so. Bucshon appears to be solidly conservative and can raise money, so he’s got a pretty good shot here. The Dems are already running ads against him, so you know they’re worried.

Rep held seats – 4
Safe seats – 4
3) Mark Souder vs Tom Hayhurst
4) Todd Rokita vs David Sanders (open)
5) Dan Burton vs Tim Crawford
6) Mike Pence vs Barry Welsh

If it wasn’t for the fact that this is a Republican year and these are deep Red districts, I’d have a hard time declaring the first three to be safe. After all, the 4th is an open seat, and Souder and Burton performed terribly in the primaries (Souder also perennially underperforms on election day). But if these guys weren’t cut down in 2008, they’re not going to be cut down now. With any luck, Souder and Burton can both be knocked out in the primary come 2012, but I’d prefer they stick around until then. And with 3 other House races, a Senate race, and a very close State House (held by Dems 52-48), I can’t see anyone pouring money into these races.

Final Thoughts
There’s a pretty good chance here that Indiana will swing back heavily to Republicans this year, wiping out all of the gains made by the Dems in 2006 and 2008. I don’t know if all three seats will flip, but it’d be nice to get at least two of them. As long as the competitive primaries didn’t create a lot of bad blood, Indiana will hopefully be fun to watch in November.

The good news? Judging by how the primary went in downstream races, the Tea Party is rather active in Illinois. If that’s true, hopefully the grassroots enthusiasm will continue through November. I count 5 competitive House races here, with 4 of them being held by Dems.

Note: for all potentially competitive seats, I’ll include in parenthesis which of the big three issues the incumbent voted for (ST: stimulus, CT: Cap & Trade, HC: health care).

Dem held seats – 12
Safe seats – 8
1) Bobby Rush unopposed
2) Jesse Jackson Jr vs Isaac Hayes
3) Dan Lipinski vs Michael Bendas
4) Luis Gutierrez unopposed
5) Michael Quigley vs David Ratowitz
7) Danny Davis vs Mark Weiman
9) Jan Schakowsky vs Joel Pollak
12) Jerry Costello vs Teri Newman

The first six of those seats are Chicago. Yeah, guess why the Republicans can’t win there. As much fun as it would be to see Jackson Jr go down, it just isn’t going to happen; the best Isaac Hayes can hope for is to start opening a few eyes. As for the other two, IL-9 is northern Chicago suburbs, so it’s still long shot. IL-12 should conceivably be competitive. It’s only D+3, is located in the southwest corner of the state, and Bush nearly won this district in 2004. However, Costello was winning handily even in Rep years of 2002 and 2004, and Teri Newman looks like a weak candidate.

Potentially competitive seats – 2
8) Melissa Bean (ST, CT, HC) vs Joe Walsh
Bean barely eked out a win in 2004 and only won modestly (51-44) in 2006 in this R+1 district North of Chicago. Based on demographics, past voting history, and general trends, Walsh should do well here. So why is it off the radar for most? Well, Walsh’s fundraising isn’t that great (he raised $95k in Q1 this year and is sitting on only $46k, compared to over 1 million for Bean), which doesn’t bode well for an expensive market. He’s got the grassroots activism down (he was the Tea Party choice, beating out better funded establishment candidates), but that may not be enough to help him in this purple district (especially since he seems to have pissed off the establishment). He also appears to be having a wee bit of a campaign implosion. Combine that with the fact that he’s having personal financial problems, and the possibility remains that he just might not be a strong enough candidate. A Feb poll from We Ask America put both candidates tied at 38%, but it’s a new polling firm so I don’t know how much to trust them.

17) Phil Hare (ST,CT,HC) vs Bob Schilling
This one’s not on any of the professional lists, but a couple conservatives have a feeling about this one, and I can’t blame ‘em. This is a fairly purple (yet very bizarrely shaped) district with a very liberal representative. And Schilling is a conservative, Tea Party candidate, giving the purple voters a clear dividing line. The problem? Hare won his first election (in 2006) comfortably, faced no opposition in 2008, and has $750k compared to only $110k for Schilling. And with this race on few people’s radar, he may not get much support. But a grassroots campaign might help, and maybe Brady will have coattails in this district. At the very least, that same We Ask America poll put this one at 39-32 for Hare, so there’s still an outside chance.

Competitive seats – 1
14) Bill Foster (ST, HC) vs Randy Hultgren
The Republicans lost this seat in a special election in 2006 thanks in part to some nasty infighting. Hopefully that doesn’t happen this time, as State Senator Hultgren was the compromise candidate between the nepotist Ethan Hastert and several Tea Party neophytes. With any luck, everyone’s happy with Randy. The district is slightly Republican, with an incumbent who claims to be moderate yet still voting for the health care bill. Bad news, like the rest, is that Foster’s winning the money battle, with over a million in the bank compared to only $100k. The good news is that Hultgren can still fundraise; he just needed it all for the competitive primary. As long as there’s no infighting here, Hultgren should be able to pull this one out. A poll last week by Tarrance Group (R) had Hultgren up 45-44. Sure, it’s an internal poll, but that’s a pretty good number to be at 6 months out.

Lean Takeover seats – 1
11) Debbie Halvorson (ST, CT, HC) vs Adam Kinzinger
Kinzinger is certainly well known among the Tea Party crowd, an Iraq war vet and domestic hero. He’s that wonderfully rare breed of a candidate: a solid conservative with a great personal story, can excite the grassroots, and yet is still supported by the national party. He’s facing a rubber-stamp freshman in a reddish district who had a not-so-impressive win (58-34) over an underfunded second tier last minute replacement candidate. To be blunt, I think Halvorson is a weak candidate and Kinzinger a strong one. Two polls seem to confirm this: a Kinzinger internal poll which puts him up 44-38 in March and a We Ask America poll that has him at 42-30. Sure, they’re not the most trustworthy polling organizations, but a challenger up by 6? That’s big. Yet, once again, he’s underfunded against his opponent, although his fundraising has been pretty good (hopefully he’s spending it all on infrastructure and not wasting it).

Rep held seats – 7
Safe seats – 6
6) Peter Roskam vs Ben Lowe
13) Judy Biggert vs Scott Harper
15) Tim Johnson vs David Gill
16) Don Manzullo vs George Gaulrapp
18) Aaron Schock vs D.K. Hirner
19) John Shimkus vs Tim Bagwell

Almost all these seats look purple based on their PVI, but that could be because of Obama’s home field advantage. Honestly, I don’t know much about these races, but from what I can tell none of the challengers have made much of a splash in terms of fundraising except Scott Harper in IL-13. But that’s a rematch (Biggert won 54-44 in 2008), and anyone who survived the Obama wave in 2008 should do well this time around. In any case, not even the left-wing analyses I’ve seen have any of these seats on their radar. Don’t expect any netroots or party support for these challengers given the other important races in Illinois.

Competitive seats – 1
10) Bob Dold vs Dan Seals (open)
I can’t look at this race without thinking that Bob Dold should refer to Bob Dold in the third person. In any case, Mark Kirk is vacating this seat to run for the Senate, and it’s a rather blue-ish seat (D+6, although part of that is Obama’s home field advantage; Bush lost 47-53 in 2004). It’s the third most vulnerable Rep-held seat, and it’s a tough one. Dold’s trying to walk a tightrope by appealing to the moderate squishes who kept Kirk installed even during the Obama reign while not pissing off the grassroots. Seals, meanwhile, has been a perennial candidate against Kirk and gave him a good run (losing 53-47 in both 06 and 08). So, does the fact that he’s not running against an incumbent outweigh the fact that it’s no longer a Dem year? Hard to tell. The We Ask America poll put this at Seals winning 40-37, and they’re both pretty competitive in terms of fundraising.

Final Thoughts
I saw a pattern here; promising Republican candidates are woefully underfunded. Is that a hint to everyone? Yeah, probably. But besides that, things look good. Of the 5 competitive seats, there’s only one candidate I’m not a fan of (Joe Walsh, but in all fairness I never liked the Eagles much). Hultgren looks like a reasonable politician in IL-14, Kinzinger is exciting in IL-11, and Schilling looks like a worthwhile dark house in IL-17. With the possibility of taking over both the Senate and the Governorship, hopefully Republicans and grassroot activists will be fired up throughout the state. All things considered, a pickup of 2 seats here would be nice, 1 acceptable, and a net of no gain or a loss would be a disappointment.

Or not.

In any case, a quick report of the night. The unfortunate side effect of planning your protests around a bus tour is that things can be late. Very late. The bus was about 90 minutes late, leading to a somewhat restless crowd waiting around and signing nomination forms for candidates or anti-health care amendments. My random guess on crowd size was about 1000; the LSJ claimed 800, and the Tea Party organizers said the police estimated 1500. Not quite as large as I would have expected.

To be honest, I was a bit disappointed with the lineup. The event seemed to be focused more on entertainment and less on activism. A few politicians gave talks, most notably Mike Cox and Mike Bouchard for governor, Brian Rooney running against Mark Schauer in the 7th district, and some state rep who’s name escapes me (hey, he wasn’t in my district, so I can’t vote for him). Only a few activists spoke as well. Instead, a lot of the time was taken by musicians singing Tea Party related songs. I don’t listen to country music and tend to segregate (wait, can I say “segregate” in a post about the Tea Party, or is that racist?) my entertainment and my politics, which led to that part being somewhat boring.

But besides that, it was fun. Much of the conversation revolved around Bart Stupak, and it was obviously celebratory. He was criticized, not necessarily for voting for the health care bill, but rather for sacrificing his principles for a worthless piece of paper. Integrity and principles were some of the common themes surrounding the day. It’s not surprising to see general distrust of politicians be a major theme; it’s long been my belief that we’ve reached a tipping point between joking about how bad Congress is and now believing it (see Gallup’s polls showing record anti-incumbency fervor as an example). Some attacking of the media and it’s dismissive attitude was prevalent as well, and there was also plenty of attacking of both parties (while still clearly favoring Republicans). I would have preferred a stronger warning to Republican candidates that they better walk the walk if they do get elected, but whatever. Both national and local politics were emphasized along with local activism, which was quite useful. And thankfully, the weather was nice.

A few picks follow:


View from across the street, about 20 minutes before it was scheduled to start.

While waiting, Mike Bouchard got up and started campaigning. Which is nice since the buses were so late, but would have worked better if we could actually hear him.

The crowd just before the buses arrive.

Heh

That’s why I was a bit disappointed to see this article up on Watts Up With That. Now, I don’t mean to criticize the site or its founder; they do excellent work. But he’s clearly not well versed in the realm of biofuels. So first, a brief background on this paper (pdf)and the controversy it is involved in. Back in early 2008, the idea of considering indirect land use change (ILUC) to determine greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol production was first introduced. Let’s ignore the idea of whether we should care about GHGs in the first place. The theory behind ILUC is simple and intuitive; if we grow more corn for ethanol here, we can’t make as much food. So in order to meet that demand, we’ll have to grow it somewhere else. And that means cutting down the rainforest or something to that effect. Obviously, the science is more complicated, and relies a lot on agricultural economic models. But that’s not really needed for now. This paper is an update of this concept. It claims that an increase from 2001 ethanol production (~1.7 billion gallons) to expected 2015 levels (15 billion gallons) will not reduce worldwide GHG emissions due to the added emissions from, well, cutting down the rainforest and stuff.

Now, because ethanol is disliked by the conservative community (and I won’t be getting into that), and because WUWT has a large conservative readership due to global warming also being disliked, this paper appears to have been readily accepted as fact. Fortunately, it didn’t appear to spread across the blogosphere, but I assume it would have been readily accepted at practically any conservative site. And all of those sites would be suspicious of the global warming crowd.

So what’s the connection here?

As everyone knows, the entire global warming theory is based on a model of the Earth’s climate. We’re supposed to trust that this model is accurate. Even if there’s no actual data to support it. Even if, intuitively, the climate is too complex to predict in a simple model. We assume the model is a perfect representation of reality.

That’s absurd, of course. That’s why I’m so skeptical of the global warming theory. And the more scientifically inclined “skeptic” sites, including WUWT, agree that it’s a huge pill to swallow.

Now do you see the connection? The whole indirect land use change theory is based on complex economic models. We’re supposed to trust that these models are accurate. Even if there’s no actual data to support it. Even if, intuitively, global agricultural economics are too complex to predict in a simple model. We assume the model is a perfect representation of reality.

Allow me to present exhibit A:

In the model presented in this paper, they assume a 17% decrease in export production from corn grain and a 12% decrease in exports of soy due to the increase in ethanol production. Makes sense, as we need a lot more corn to make all this ethanol. However, we’re about 60% of the way there (current US ethanol production is ~9-10 billion gallons). So some of these effects should start to be seen. And what have we seen instead?

Our corn and soy exports have traditionally increased or stayed constant since 2001, with only a couple weak years.

How about exhibit B?

The model starts with 2001 corn yields of 8.5 Mg/ha (about 3.8 tons/acre). They then go through some complex calculations to estimate the yield in 2015, and it looks like they assumed almost no change in yield.

However, in 2009, average corn yields were 4.6 tons/acre (a bushel is 56 lbs), an increase of about 20%.

Their model has nothing to do with reality.

And yet, because some people think ethanol is a scam (again, I’m not getting into that debate), they’ll readily accept this paper’s findings. While simultaneously rejecting global warming.

Rather silly, isn’t it?

Now, the question you need to ask yourself is this: can you trust me on this, given my own personal and financial interest in biofuels in general (not necessarily corn ethanol, but still…)? You should be skeptical of everything, including me. But at least I laid out some facts that you can investigate on your own, n’est-ce pas? Just as these people did. So who’s right?

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to work on my own models that are not testable in reality… Ah, how we love the politicization of science…

Now, let’s look at this from a Dem’s perspective. This isn’t necessarily a lost cause for them like, say, Arkansas or N Dakota is. After all, the Rep candidate is going to be either a has been (Coats), a guy who can’t campaign (Hostetler), or a nobody (Stutzman). Meanwhile, they’d get to hand pick their candidate. And while some on the Right are claiming that the caucus format would lead to a loony Lefty getting nominated, that’s not really the case. The people doing the nomination will be smart, politically active, motivated folks, and they’ll choose someone who’s at least viable. To the Dem perspective, this is still a winnable seat. And so they will choose a candidate who gives them a good chance to win.

And who will that candidate be? The popular suggestion is Brad Ellsworth. Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly have also been mentioned. Why these three? Well, they all have a lot in common: they’re all in Congress, all representing moderate to conservative districts, and all claim to be fairly moderate themselves. While other names have come up, the biggest have either already declined (former Gov Joe Kernan) or are in India (former Rep Tim Roemer). So chances are, it’s going to be one of the three Congressmen.

Oh, they all have one other thing in common: they all voted for the Health Care bill.

Now, in terms of the Senate race, that’s an obvious boon to the Reps. Dems will still believe that they can win despite that, and maybe they can if the Rep is sufficiently weak. But it’s going to hurt them and they know it. All three of them are most likely going to have to go out of their way to explain the vote or at least make it irrelevent. All three of them want it to go away, even if only for their own election bids in their own districts.

How likely are they to want the health care debate to continue? How likely are they to vote for it again if Pelosi brings it back up?

Voting for the Health Care bill once before the Massachusettes miracle is one thing, but voting for it again? That would kill their chances in a red state like Indiana. Ellsworth, at least, has a ready-made excuse: he’s pro-life, and could claim the lack of the Stupak amendment in the Senate bill is enough to change his mind. In any case, if only one of them is going to run for the Senate, only one is certain to be a no vote. But if all three are running, and Pelosi tries to schedule a vote beforehand? Likely, she’ll lose all three.

Given how razor thin the margin was the first time, Pelosi has no room for error here. Of course, it was unlikely that she could pull it off in the first place, but this just made it one vote harder.

* I know some Republicans are trying to push the Z-list candidate D’Ippolito across the line, which would automatically make her the candidate (no caucus can be held if it’s not a complete vacancy). Even though I might still know some people in the 8th district (where she needs her signatures), I’m not going to help. I don’t believe in getting involved in other party’s primaries, and I don’t think it’s right to try to gain the system to give the general populace LESS of a choice. Democracy works best when the people have real choices, and I’m not going to try to limit people’s choices simply because Sen. Bayh was a day early in his announcement. That said, democracy REALLY works best when the rules are followed, so if D’Ippolito does make it in I hope there’s no shenanigans to dump her.

** Anyone know what Indiana’s laws are for Independents? It wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming D’Ippolito does make it, an establishment Dem tries to run as an “Independent.” That would just make it harder for them, of course, but at least it means the seat won’t be a Safe R.

Thanks to recently filed Congressional expense reports there’s new light shed on the Copenhagen Climate Summit in Denmark and how much it cost taxpayers.

CBS News Investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports official filings and our own investigation show at least 106 people from the House and Senate attended – spouses, a doctor, a protocol expert and even a photographer.

For 15 Democratic and 6 Republican Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,406 tax dollars each. That’s $2,200 a day – more than most Americans spend on their monthly mortgage payment.

All in all, this little fiasco has cost the US taxpayers over a million dollars. And while plenty of people are asking, rightly so, why Congress had to send a delegation when they have no say in the matter, to me it’s a matter of respect.

These people have no respect for your money.

You are the one paying for this. Maybe it’s important, maybe it’s not. We elect our representatives trusting that they’ll know what to spend our money on. But isn’t it fair that they’ll be considerate of the fact that they’re using our money?

The article talks about Congressmen being surprised that it cost so much. Did they not care? Did their staff not care? Did none of them even think to bring up the fact that the prices were absurd? That $2200 is more than some people earn in a month? Did none of them think it worth their while to protest, or to get a better deal?

Why did Nancy Pelosi outright refuse to respond to CBS queries? Does she think she doesn’t owe her employers an explanation?

And why were there so many spouses and family members taking the trip on the taxpayer’s dime??? Isn’t this against the rules? I’m sure Pelosi will be on this… oh wait, her spouse was one of them.

Again, respect. Or lack thereof. If I’m spending my own money, then the only one I have to answer to is myself. But if someone else is paying me to go on a business trip, then I should be darn sure I can justify every penny to them if I have to. Heck, personally I feel guilty for even food expenses, on the basis that I have to eat no matter where I am. I don’t expect Congresscritters to stay at the local Econolodge, but a little concern for their expense accounts would be nice. Because if they’re not going to care what they spend when they travel, can we expect them to be respectful of the billions upon billions of dollars in the rest of the budget?

*Looks at the deficit* OK, that was a stupid question.

I don’t want to be beholden to anybody. I don’t owe anybody anything. Martha Coakley is in lock-step with all the special interests, she’s part of the Democratic machine in Massachusetts. And she’ll be the same way in Washington.
…
One of the things that’s made me an effective legislator in a highly and heavily-controlled Democrat area is to look at each bill on its own merits. I’ve never been anybody whose vote can be taken for granted. People need to earn my vote. If it’s a good piece of legislation that is a Democrat piece and is good for my state, and it makes sense for the people of the United States, then it’s possible I’ll support it. But for anyone to think that I’m going to be in lock-step with anybody, I think they’re mistaken.

This is what we need in Washington. It’s easy to say no when the other party is in power. But as Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln proved, it’s not so easy when your party is in power. It’s not so easy when you’re being pressured to toe the line on something that’s just a bad idea in general and has flaws galore in it, but the President in your party really really wants it. The Democrats aren’t doing it now, and the Republicans didn’t do it from 2001-2006. It’s why we hate both parties. So will Scott Brown be one to buck the trend?

Now obviously, he’s from Massachusetts. Obviously, he’s going to have positions I don’t like. Obviously he’s not going to vote the way I want him to all of the time. But that doesn’t mean he’ll be the type of moderate that we all hate. Voting against the party doesn’t mean you have to do it Snowe or Graham style, where you go for a sense of bipartisanship to make yourself look better to the “moderates”. When you do that, you’re basically saying you’re unprincipled, and are merely calculating how to vote to preserve the correct image. Instead, we need people in Washington who’ll buck their party when the party has a bad idea.

Assuming Brown wins (and it’s looking more and more likely), he has absolutely no incentive to be beholden to any ideology, any party leaders. He’s from Massachusetts, it’s not like he’ll be in the Senate for long. Likely he’ll be tossed out in 2012, and there’s nothing the RNC can do to stop it. So what Brown said is absolutely correct; what does he owe them? He’ll caucus with them, vote no on health care, but what else? And, since he’ll likely be thrown out in 2012, what does he owe the voters? I know that sounds bad, but I’m referring to image here. He doesn’t need to pretend to be anything to be reelected.

The only way to get reelected in 2012 is the same thing that may be catapulting himself to the Senate in the first place: act with complete integrity.

Everything about Brown’s campaign so far has been positive, honest, and forthright. He hasn’t run from views that may be unpopular, nor has he married himself completely to the conservative cause. Hence we get this silly confusion among the left, calling him a Tea Party Republican in one breath and a liberal Republican the next. Instead, he speaks his mind, and says he wants to do what’s best. He’s a Republican, yes, but an independent Republican. For once, people can look past the label, past the partisanship, and choose based on the person himself. And they like him, even the Democrats. And so people flock to him. Huge crowds of people, it looks like.

It’s the only explanation for why he’s in the lead. We trust him. We believe he’ll do what he thinks is right for the country. He doesn’t seem like a politician. It’s a perfect contrast with his opponent, who is as fake and nasty and beholden to political interests as they come (see Dan Riehl for an excellent take on Martha Coakley). And if there’s one thing that people are absolutely fed up with, it’s the politicians. Obama was able to pretend he was different, and so he won handily. Bob McDonnel said he was different, and he won a landslide. We don’t want people that will agree with us all the time; we know that’s impossible. Instead, we want people we can trust.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I trust Scott Brown to do what is best. And because of that, I can forgive the times I disagree with him.

West Virginia 01
Location: The northern third of the state. It doesn’t contain Charleston or any other large cities, but does include WV University. It’s fairly rural, a bit blue-collar-ish, almost purely white, and supposedly fairly conservative.

Incumbent: Alan Mollohan
Alan Mollohan is a long termer, being around since the early 1980s. While he had a couple tough elections early on, he’s since become completely entrenched and hasn’t had to deal with a tough reelection. Heck, he didn’t even have an opponent in 2008, which was more or less the norm for a while. So what keeps him in there? Well, a tradition of voting for democrats and the belief that he brings home the bacon, er, pork. He’s a member of the appropriations committee; of course he’s going to get some juicy stuff. Unfortunately for him, that may be his undoing. Rather than benefiting his district, it looks like he pulled a Murtha and had it benefit himself. A typical income when he first appeared, he’s now one of the richest Congressmen. How? By steering nearly half of his earmarks to groups that he’s connected with. Funny how that works. Also, it appears that some of his earmarks are actually hurting his district as well. Because of this, he’s been under investigation for quite a while, and recently it became clear that the Justice department still isn’t done looking at him. And perhaps because of that, his fundraising has been anemic. He’s only raised $200k so far this cycle, and it looks like most of that has gone to lawyers. Let’s just say it’s not a pleasant time for him, and that it’s no surprise he’s on the GOP’s retirement watch list (to say nothing of the “most corrupted politicians” list). Voting wise, he’s with Pelosi on all the big ones (stimulus, health care, increased debt ceiling, Stimulus II: It’ll work this time, honest!) except, naturally, cap and trade (given WV’s coal based economy).

Cook Partisan Index: R+9
Cook Race Rating: Likely Dem
CQ Politics Race Rating: Safe Dem
Rothenberg Rating: Safe Dem
Larry Sabato: Safe Dem
(Note that, this far away, all these ratings are geared towards the incubent. Take them with a grain of salt)

Previous election results:
McCain 57, Obama 42
Bush 58, Kerry 41
Bush 54, Gore 43
2008 Mollohan 100
2006 Mollohan 64, Wakim 36
2004 Mollohan 68, Parks 32

Confirmed Republican Candidates (and their websites):
Cindy Hall
David McKinley
Scott Smith
Tom Stark
Daniel Swisher
Mac Warner

Most of Scott Smith‘s website doesn’t work, and his Twitter and Facebook hasn’t updated since July. He’s a young coal executive, but given his lack of updates my guess is he’s a long shot. Daniel Swisher is also a businessman and a political neophyte. His website is nice and professional looking, but for the most part all it does is attack Mollohan. Which, in all fairness, I can’t complain about. He’s yet another longshot (his 3rd quarter fundraising was a mere $5k), so why not try out the negative attacks to see what sticks for the real candidate? Cindy Hall is aiming at the grassroots, but all of the talk I’ve heard of her has been pretty dismissive. Her website is amateurish and it seems her campaign is as well, including recruiting a high schooler to run her office.

So let’s move on to the next tier of candidates. Tom Stark is a veteran, Tea Party activist, and small business owner with a detailed website and good, solid ideas. I haven’t seen him get much noise in the media or in the internet, but at least he’s still out there plugging away. He’s certainly the ideologically pure candidate, and his enthusiasm is certainly not questioned, but it remains to be seen if he can build the grassroots into a viable candidacy. Mac Warner has family connections, as his brother was a former state GOP chairman and gubernatorial candidate. His website’s a bit sparse on his positions, but he’s been active at getting his word out elsewhere. From what I can tell, he’s about what you would expect: a conventional conservative. I haven’t heard anything particularly impressive in his campaigning so far, but in all fairness to him, I haven’t looked hard. At the very least, his bio is worthwhile, and he should have the political know-how to run a good campaign.

State Senator Clark Barnes was in the race, despite not actually being from this district. He said he came in initially so that there would be someone running with legislative experience, and said he bowed out because there are candidates now. I’m assuming he’s referring to David McKinley, the newest candidate and probably the front runner (or at least Warner’s top rival). He’s a former state rep, former gubernatorial candidate (lost the primary), and an architectural engineer. What does this mean? He’s got political experience, he’s got political connections, and he’s rich enough to self fund. Unfortunately, since he just filed pre-candidacy papers, he doesn’t have a website yet, so we can’t see his positions. But he did speak at a Tea Party meeting, so you can get what he’s talking about there. Namely, limited spending, pro Constitution, socially conservative. So all things considered, I don’t think he’d be a bad idea.

Analysis
Despite the Presidential numbers above, WV has only recently started looking at Republicans. They voted for Clinton twice and Dukakis before that. Between that, their two blue Senators, governor, etc, it’s obvious that this is a state that has not been on Republicans’ radars. But look at all the problems Mollohan’s having this time around. Fun piece of trivia: there’s currently 6 Republicans running against him. He’s only faced 6 total Republicans his entire career. This is someone who’s never had to campaign in the last 25 years. And suddenly, 6 different people want to take a shot at him? That’s some pretty serious discontent right there. If it’s enough to grab an extra 15-20% in votes, well, who knows? But that’s in line with the swings we saw in Virgina and New Jersey, so it’s possible.

And like I said, it’s nearly a perfect storm. Between the ethics complaints, the potential wave, the poor fundraising, the health care anger, and everything else, Mollohan could find himself swept out of office. One big caveat here: the WV Republican party is broke and incompetent. So whoever the eventual winner of the primary is, they’re going to have to do it alone. By the same token, there’s no upstream races that could help or hurt them. Also, with cap and trade fading, the anger at Democrats (at least in WV) may fade a bit as well. Of course, Mollohan voted against C&T, but apparently he didn’t take any sort of leadership position in opposing it.

So it’s not as if it’ll be easy. And Warner and McKinley both have some negative sides. Warner’s connections with the state GOP party may be a net negative (remember that bit about it being broke and incompetent? Sure, someone else is running the show now, but apparently Warner’s brother wasn’t much better). McKinley’s a bit old and didn’t win a primary in a big race. Still, I have to guess that he’d be the better candidate, given his supposed ability to self fund and his former campaigning experience. This is a seat that I think the GOP will want to target this cycle, and if so then maybe this will be the year that he’s finally kicked out.

Given Mollohan’s ethics problems, that would make me very happy.

Other links of interest
West Virginia Red (looks to be the largest WV-centric rightwing blog)
Parkersburg Tea Party (has videos of several of the candidates’ speeches)
West Virginia Watchdog (good independent news source)

The Congressional Research Service serves the Congress throughout the legislative process by providing comprehensive and reliable legislative research and analysis that are timely, objective, authoritative, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.

Values

As Congress’s legislative agenda adjusts to the ever-changing issues of the nation and the world, CRS realigns its services to meet those needs. But our commitment to our core values does not waver. CRS analysis is confidential, authoritative, objective and nonpartisan. These core values underscore our service to Congress and are an enduring feature of CRS work.

Confidential. All queries and exchanges with Members of Congress are held in the strictest confidence. Legislators and congressional staff are free to access CRS experts and analysis, explore issues, dispute them, ask questions about them, or float an unusual idea — all without question, challenge or disclosure. CRS employees do not discuss work undertaken for a Member or a committee with another congressional office or with anyone outside the organization.

Authoritative. All services and products are authoritative and accurate. Analysts demonstrate rigorous research methodologies, free of built-in bias. They present, explain and justify any critical assumptions; investigate and recheck data anomalies; use primary resources whenever available; double-check all statements of fact; and document and vet all sources. This assures Members, as they engage in debate, that the analysis they rely on is as accurate as it is current.

Objective and Nonpartisan. We maintain an outstanding reputation for objective and nonpartisan analysis. Our experts are vigilant in evaluating issues without bias. A multi-layered review process also helps ensure that CRS products present issues and analysis in a manner that is fair, considered and reliable.

Their annual budget is around $100 million and they issue ~700 reports a year, along with numerous other inquiries. Given the size of our government, that seems like a pretty reasonable drop in the bucket to me. There’s only one problem: we’re not special enough to see what they do. That’s right, the CRS – a nonpartisan resource for legislation – only makes their reports available to members of Congress. There’s no problem with top secret information or anything, it’s simply not available.

Why?

Congress is there to serve us. We elect our representatives trusting that they’ll make the best decisions possible. But then we reelect them based on whether or not we agree with what they did. Every step of the way (unless security is an issue, of course), we should be able to second guess them. To do that, we need the best information available. So if they’re going to base their decisions in part based off of these reports, shouldn’t we be able to see these reports too?

Besides that, there’s the basic issue of transparancy. This is our money that’s paying for this service. That means we own it. Not Congress, not the government, but us. We the people. And being the owners of this service, we should be the ones with access to it. How are we supposed to know they’re doing their job correctly? How are we supposed to know their reports truly are nonpartisan?

It’s a simple rule, but one I live by. All else being equal, increase the power to the people, not the government. There’s no logical reason for why this isn’t available to us. It wouldn’t cost much; just a fraction of their current budget. There’s no security issues. It wouldn’t hamper their ability to perform. So why can’t we see them? Why doesn’t someone in Congress change this?

Because it won’t effect their ability to get elected. I know. But besides that?

On the plus side, a lot of their reports do end up getting leaked to the public. Open CRS has done an excellent job in collecting them. But that’s not enough. We need to get the entire thing out there. If we had legistlators actually committed to honesty and transparancy, this might happen. Funny, I don’t see that happening with either party.