The GOOD Guide to The Midterm Electionshttp://www.good.is/We know midterm are elections are boring, or at least sound boring. OK, they're boring. But this year there's a chance something big and exciting may happen. Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:38:51 -0800CakePHPhourly1en-us <![CDATA[The GOOD Guide to the Midterm Elections]]> http://www.good.is/post/the-good-guide-to-the-midterm-elections/ http://www.good.is/post/the-good-guide-to-the-midterm-elections/

Midterm elections are so uninteresting that political scientists have been able to write an equation for them:



Edward Tufte's 1975 Economic Theory of Midterm Elections states that people vote for or against the president's party based solely on his approval ratings and their disposable income. Those lawn signs, local ads, and even the candidates themselves are irrelevant. The equation is more accurate than pre-election Gallup polls. And an easy way to outwonk your dorkiest friends. You want to end an argument with a poli-sci major, just start doing math.

The reason midterms are the only time political scientists get to act like real scientists is simple: Even the few people who care enough to vote don't care enough to research the candidates. Assuming you don't have a vested interest in sugar subsidies, you don't really care who your congressperson is. No less your local judges. (Whoever invented voting for judges was obviously an incredibly smart criminal.)

I know, you truly believe Tufte's equation doesn't apply to you. You're different. You care deeply about politics.

You do not. What you care deeply about is getting in red-faced screaming fights about why the president is pure good or pure evil. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with the fact that you're an angry person. Politics just happens to be the socially acceptable way for you to vent that anger. If you were one socio-economic notch less intellectually aspirational, you'd be screaming at sports radio shows instead of "Meet The Press."

Compared to arguing over George W. Bush, fighting about your congressperson is, adrenaline-wise, a major letdown. First of all, you have to find out stuff about your congressperson. Even more challenging, you have to seek out an opponent who also knows something about your congressperson. Having done that kind of research, you might as well just run for Congress yourself.

Only about half of Americans vote in presidential elections and that comes with prime-time debates and, thanks to campaign finance laws, tons of slick mud-slinging television ads financed by vicious interest groups. So it makes sense that midterm elections always lose almost exactly 15 points from the previous presidential election. That means about a third fewer voters. And they largely vote for incumbents. Because, while you hate politicians, it just so happens that your representative happens to be a good guy. Particularly since he's running against someone you've never heard of who belongs to the party you don't like. You're starting to see how this works.

So if the incumbents have such an advantage, and any deviation in your vote depends-mathematically-on the president's approval ratings and your bank account, why are these people spending so much time and integrity fund-raising to finance their campaigns? Is all this corruption and time and money completely wasted? Is the best political textbook ever written actually No Exit?

Yes, in the macro-sense. But your guy, he doesn't really want to be in the House of Representatives, because being in the House sucks. If D.C. is like high school, Congress is the prom committee, only there's no prom. This is a place so boring that Dennis Hastert was charismatic enough to be elected leader. Not only do you have no power, but every two years you have to beg the public for a job where you eat lunch in a cafeteria.

So your representative is not playing to win so much as to beat the spread. If he can capture the outliers, if he can beat Tufte's equation by a percentage or two, if he can exceed expectations, then he can run again if he loses, or run for a bigger office if he wins.

This year voting will seem exciting because of a giant shift against the President, which, according to Tufte's equation, means that incumbents will fall. It will make everyone feel hopeful, like the system is working. And it is, in that when change is desired, the House changes violently.

Really, your research into the candidates won't matter. But that doesn't mean it isn't important. No, you won't affect who wins. But, with just a little bit of investigation, you can break free of Tufte's equation. You can impact whether someone exceeds his polling numbers-thereby controlling the future of his career. Democracy may be an unfortunately blunt instrument for policy, but it's a sharp one for destroying politician's lives. Our founding fathers fought a war for that. Enjoy it.
 

Voting primer:

Three steps toward being a good citizen on election day

1. Make sure you are registered.

Go to declareyourself.com to register. Sure the site may look a bit like a tacky MTV commercial, but it actually has some good content and provides some easily navigated avenues for all things electoral. Remember that you must register to vote 30 days prior to an election.
 

2. Know your polling place.

Go to mypollingplace.com to find your polling place. Then work through a series of increasingly specific maps.
 

3. Know what you are voting for.

This is probably the most important step of the three (even if it's useless without completing the previous two). On vote-smart.org, you can find extensive non-partisan information on the voting records of elected officials, candidate positions on issues, and descriptions of legislation.

]]>

Midterm elections are so uninteresting that political scientists have been able to write an equation for them:



Edward Tufte's 1975 Economic Theory of Midterm Elections states that people vote for or against the president's party based solely on his approval ratings and their disposable income. Those lawn signs, local ads, and even the candidates themselves are irrelevant. The equation is more accurate than pre-election Gallup polls. And an easy way to outwonk your dorkiest friends. You want to end an argument with a poli-sci major, just start doing math.

The reason midterms are the only time political scientists get to act like real scientists is simple: Even the few people who care enough to vote don't care enough to research the candidates. Assuming you don't have a vested interest in sugar subsidies, you don't really care who your congressperson is. No less your local judges. (Whoever invented voting for judges was obviously an incredibly smart criminal.)

I know, you truly believe Tufte's equation doesn't apply to you. You're different. You care deeply about politics.

You do not. What you care deeply about is getting in red-faced screaming fights about why the president is pure good or pure evil. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with the fact that you're an angry person. Politics just happens to be the socially acceptable way for you to vent that anger. If you were one socio-economic notch less intellectually aspirational, you'd be screaming at sports radio shows instead of "Meet The Press."

Compared to arguing over George W. Bush, fighting about your congressperson is, adrenaline-wise, a major letdown. First of all, you have to find out stuff about your congressperson. Even more challenging, you have to seek out an opponent who also knows something about your congressperson. Having done that kind of research, you might as well just run for Congress yourself.

Only about half of Americans vote in presidential elections and that comes with prime-time debates and, thanks to campaign finance laws, tons of slick mud-slinging television ads financed by vicious interest groups. So it makes sense that midterm elections always lose almost exactly 15 points from the previous presidential election. That means about a third fewer voters. And they largely vote for incumbents. Because, while you hate politicians, it just so happens that your representative happens to be a good guy. Particularly since he's running against someone you've never heard of who belongs to the party you don't like. You're starting to see how this works.

So if the incumbents have such an advantage, and any deviation in your vote depends-mathematically-on the president's approval ratings and your bank account, why are these people spending so much time and integrity fund-raising to finance their campaigns? Is all this corruption and time and money completely wasted? Is the best political textbook ever written actually No Exit?

Yes, in the macro-sense. But your guy, he doesn't really want to be in the House of Representatives, because being in the House sucks. If D.C. is like high school, Congress is the prom committee, only there's no prom. This is a place so boring that Dennis Hastert was charismatic enough to be elected leader. Not only do you have no power, but every two years you have to beg the public for a job where you eat lunch in a cafeteria.

So your representative is not playing to win so much as to beat the spread. If he can capture the outliers, if he can beat Tufte's equation by a percentage or two, if he can exceed expectations, then he can run again if he loses, or run for a bigger office if he wins.

This year voting will seem exciting because of a giant shift against the President, which, according to Tufte's equation, means that incumbents will fall. It will make everyone feel hopeful, like the system is working. And it is, in that when change is desired, the House changes violently.

Really, your research into the candidates won't matter. But that doesn't mean it isn't important. No, you won't affect who wins. But, with just a little bit of investigation, you can break free of Tufte's equation. You can impact whether someone exceeds his polling numbers-thereby controlling the future of his career. Democracy may be an unfortunately blunt instrument for policy, but it's a sharp one for destroying politician's lives. Our founding fathers fought a war for that. Enjoy it.
 

Voting primer:

Three steps toward being a good citizen on election day

1. Make sure you are registered.

Go to declareyourself.com to register. Sure the site may look a bit like a tacky MTV commercial, but it actually has some good content and provides some easily navigated avenues for all things electoral. Remember that you must register to vote 30 days prior to an election.
 

2. Know your polling place.

Go to mypollingplace.com to find your polling place. Then work through a series of increasingly specific maps.
 

3. Know what you are voting for.

This is probably the most important step of the three (even if it's useless without completing the previous two). On vote-smart.org, you can find extensive non-partisan information on the voting records of elected officials, candidate positions on issues, and descriptions of legislation.

]]> Joel Stein Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:24:00 PST <![CDATA[Know the Races]]> http://www.good.is/post/know-the-races/ http://www.good.is/post/know-the-races/

For the first time in several years, it's within the realm of statistical possibility that Democrats could take control of both chambers of Congress. Here are some of the closest and most interesting races to be decided this November 7th. When the votes are counted, the results of these campaigns could be either a revitalized Republican majority, or a potentially far-reaching change in the governance of our country.

The Senate

Six races that can shift the balance.

1. MONTANA

BURNS (R) v. TESTER (D)

In a recent Vanity Fair article, convicted briber Jack Abramoff claimed that he received every appropriation he requested from Conrad Burns' committee. The senator's connection to the ever-widening Abramoff scandal has many Montanans up in arms. His opponent, state legislator Jon Tester, won an insurgent primary campaign, trouncing the Democratic establishment's candidate. It will be difficult to unseat a long-serving politician like Burns, but Tester's authentic Montana persona (which includes a combination of pro-gun and conservationist positions) could prove just the thing.

2. PENNSYLVANIA

SANTORUM (R) v. CASEY (D)

If you google incumbent Senator Rick Santorum, one of the top results will be an unprintable sexual excretion maliciously named "santorum" by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage. Santorum, number three in the Republican leadership, is one of the Senate's most conservative members, and his negative comments on issues like homosexuality have riled Democrats as much as they've rallied Republicans. Democrats would like nothing more than to remove him from power. They've fielded Bob Casey, Jr., the pro-life son of a beloved ex-governor, who has surged ahead in the polls.

3. OHIO

DEWINE (R) v. BROWN (D)

After fighting off conservative primary challengers upset at his membership in the "Gang of 14" who compromised on filibusters in the Senate, Mike DeWine may still be tainted by a growing scandal in Ohio state politics that-no joke-involves the buying and selling of rare coins. Rep. Sherrod Brown, who forced the withdrawal of popular anti-war Iraq vet Paul Hackett from the primary, is hoping that anger at the President, and a conservative backlash against DeWine's more liberal policies, will finally give national Democrats a reason to forgive Ohio for 2004.

4. VIRGINIA

ALLEN (R) v. WEBB (D)

Incumbent Virginia Senator George Allen is a conservative poster boy often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in '08. Opposing him is newly-minted Democrat James Webb. Democrats hope that Webb's mélange of liberal (anti-war, pro-choice) and conservative (pro-gun, Reagan's Secretary of the Navy) positions will so befuddle the state's swing voters that they will give up trying to figure him out and simply elect him. Webb's recent party shift may strike some voters as opportunistic, while Allen's blatant presidential campaigning may turn off others. In the end, it may come down to Virginia's sizable population of military voters deciding how much more war they're willing to stomach.

5. WASHINGTON

CANTWELL (D) v. McGAVICK (R)

First term Senator Maria Cantwell won her last election by 2,229 votes, out of 2.5 million votes cast-a mere .09 percent of the total. This tenuous margin of victory puts her at risk against challenger Mike McGavick, a former insurance CEO. McGavick hopes that the absence of Bush's name on the ballot will keep him from being negatively associated with a national party that is increasingly unpopular in the state. Based on his poll numbers, his dreams may come true. Keeping this seat is the linchpin of the Democrat's dream of winning back the Senate.

6. MINNESOTA

KENNEDY (R) v. KLOBUCHAR (D)

Truly unpopular Democrat Mark Dayton (the only senator to close his office during the anthrax scare) wisely decided to retire rather than get trounced in this election, so this seat is up for grabs. Prosecutor Amy Klobuchar will try to hold on to the seat for the Democrats. She'll be running against Rep. Mark Kennedy, who is being hammered for having sided with the White House position in 97 percent of his congressional votes. Since neither candidate offers anything particularly exciting, this race will be a referendum on how the people of Minnesota judge the policies of both parties, without factors like charisma clouding their decision.

Other races to watch: Missouri, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee


THE HOUSE


Most people don't know who represents them in Congress. Even fewer can name the challenger to their current representative-one of the reasons why it's rare for an incumbent to lose a House race. Should the Democrats manage to grab 15 seats from the Republicans, you'll be hearing from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007-a vision of the future that is ratcheting up the GOP fundraising. Here are 15 races that, unlike most of the 435 House contests, have outcomes that may be in doubt.

CONNECTICUT

2nd District

Eastern Connecticut

SIMMONS (R) v. COURTNEY (D)

If Democrats want to take back the house, the best targets are moderate Republicans who serve in Democratic-leaning districts. Rep. Rob Simmons is a prime example. If his district decides they've had enough of the Republican party line, Joe Courtney is in-despite the fact that Simmons doesn't very often toe that party line.

FLORIDA

22nd District

Including West Palm Beach

SHAW (R) v. KLEIN (D)

As of June, state Senator Ron Klein had raised more money than any other nonincumbent candidate in his attempt to unseat 13-term Rep. Clay Shaw. But Shaw is a savvy vet of these House races, and the 22nd was redistricted in 2002 to give Shaw an edge against Democratic challengers-even popular, well-funded ones.

LOUISIANA

3rd District Southern Louisiana

MELANCON (D) v. ROMERO (R)

In this district hit hard by Katrina, Rep. Charlie Melancon is running against state Senator Craig Romero, who has grabbed a bunch of cross-the-aisle endorsements.

NEW MEXICO

1st District

Albuquerque and vicinity

WILSON (R) v. MADRID (D)

Patricia Madrid, New Mexico's attorney general, is fighting to take this seat in a district that went for Kerry by a slim margin in 2004. Wilson is popular, but may be dragged down by New Mexicans' low opinion of her party.

NEW YORK

24th District (open)

Central New York

ARCURI (D) v. MEIER (R)

Twelve-term congresswoman and moderate Republican Sherry Boehlert retired, leaving a vacuum in this fairly conservative (for New York) upstate district. State Senator Ray Meier is well liked, but District Attorney Michael Arcuri may be helped by having Democrats on the ticket (Clinton for senator, Spitzer for governor) who will win in a landslide.

NORTH CAROLINA

11th District

Including Asheville

TAYLOR (R) v. SHULER (D)

Charles Taylor made the ill-advised decision (later retracted) to come out against using federal money to pay for a memorial to the passengers of United Flight 93. Conservative Democrat (and former college football star and pro football burnout) Heath Shuler is coming on strong.

OHIO

18th District (open)

Suburbs of Columbus

PADGETT (R) v. SPACE (D)

Bob Ney, often implicated in the Abramoff scandal, suddenly dropped out of the race in early August. He has anointed state Senator Joy Padgett as his successor, but a Republican primary had not yet taken place at press time. Challenger Zack Space hopes his pledge to accept absolutely nothing from lobbyists if he is elected will resonate with voters tired of corruption.

PENNSYLVANIA

6th District

West suburbs of Philidelphia

GERLACH (R) v. MURPHY (D)

Lois Murphy is challenging Rep. Jim Gerlach again after losing to him in 2004. Gerlach needs to be as moderate as possible while still appearing conservative. His district isn't happy with the war, but isn't particularly liberal at heart either.

GEORGIA

8th District

Including Macon

MARSHALL (D) v. COLLINS (R)

Mac Collins lost a Republican primary in the 2004 senate race, and is looking to get back to Washington. Rep. Jim Marshall's district has been redistricted since he won his seat, and now leans more Republican than when he was first elected. Couple that with Collins' large war chest, and Marshall faces a tough test.

IOWA

1st District (open)

Eastern Iowa

BRALEY (D) v. WHALEN (R)

The fight for this open seat in Iowa may be an indication of how things will settle nationwide on election night. The district has been controlled by Republicans for years, but has been turning bluer recently. If Bruce Braley can claim the seat, Washington, D.C. might look different come 2007.

IOWA

3rd District

Including Des Moines

BOSWELL (D) v. LAMBERTI (R)

Iowa's hallowed place as the starting gate for the presidency means that its local races get a lot of attention from presidential candidates who want an Iowa friend come primary season. Sadly, incumbent Rep. Leonard Boswell has been hampered by health problems, making Jeff Lamberti's well-financed campaign to unseat him seem a bit heartless.

ILLINOIS

6th District (open)

Chicago Suburbs

DUCKWORTH (D) v. ROSKAM (R)

Tammy Duckworth lost both legs in Iraq, and her critique of the war has propelled her into a tight race with Peter Roskam, a well-funded state senator. It's a historically Republican district with an open seat, so Duckworth is going to have to get lucky.

8th District

Northern suburbs of Chicago

BEAN (D) v. McSWEENEY (R)

Rep. Melissa Bean has money in the bank and the weight of incumbency, but millionaire businessman David McSweeney has a chance in this slightly Republican district. McSweeney's business ties with Enron, however, won't endear him to many voters.

INDIANA

8th District

Southwestern Indiana

HOSTETTLER (R) v. ELLSWORTH (D)

Rep. John Hostettler once claimed that abortions and breast cancer are medically linked. He was also arrested for trying to carry a gun onto a plane. Pro-life, pro-gun Democrat Brad Ellsworth is just the kind of challenger that this conservative district might choose to replace their volatile congressman.

TEXAS

17th District

Including Waco and College Station

EDWARDS (D) v. TAYLOR (R)

This district includes the western White House in Crawford, and the president won it by 70 percent in 2004, yet it's represented by Democrat Chet Edwards. Proving that Democrats aren't the only party that can benefit by fielding Iraq vets, recently returned soldier Van Taylor is offering a formidable challenge to Edwards.]]>

For the first time in several years, it's within the realm of statistical possibility that Democrats could take control of both chambers of Congress. Here are some of the closest and most interesting races to be decided this November 7th. When the votes are counted, the results of these campaigns could be either a revitalized Republican majority, or a potentially far-reaching change in the governance of our country.

The Senate

Six races that can shift the balance.

1. MONTANA

BURNS (R) v. TESTER (D)

In a recent Vanity Fair article, convicted briber Jack Abramoff claimed that he received every appropriation he requested from Conrad Burns' committee. The senator's connection to the ever-widening Abramoff scandal has many Montanans up in arms. His opponent, state legislator Jon Tester, won an insurgent primary campaign, trouncing the Democratic establishment's candidate. It will be difficult to unseat a long-serving politician like Burns, but Tester's authentic Montana persona (which includes a combination of pro-gun and conservationist positions) could prove just the thing.

2. PENNSYLVANIA

SANTORUM (R) v. CASEY (D)

If you google incumbent Senator Rick Santorum, one of the top results will be an unprintable sexual excretion maliciously named "santorum" by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage. Santorum, number three in the Republican leadership, is one of the Senate's most conservative members, and his negative comments on issues like homosexuality have riled Democrats as much as they've rallied Republicans. Democrats would like nothing more than to remove him from power. They've fielded Bob Casey, Jr., the pro-life son of a beloved ex-governor, who has surged ahead in the polls.

3. OHIO

DEWINE (R) v. BROWN (D)

After fighting off conservative primary challengers upset at his membership in the "Gang of 14" who compromised on filibusters in the Senate, Mike DeWine may still be tainted by a growing scandal in Ohio state politics that-no joke-involves the buying and selling of rare coins. Rep. Sherrod Brown, who forced the withdrawal of popular anti-war Iraq vet Paul Hackett from the primary, is hoping that anger at the President, and a conservative backlash against DeWine's more liberal policies, will finally give national Democrats a reason to forgive Ohio for 2004.

4. VIRGINIA

ALLEN (R) v. WEBB (D)

Incumbent Virginia Senator George Allen is a conservative poster boy often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in '08. Opposing him is newly-minted Democrat James Webb. Democrats hope that Webb's mélange of liberal (anti-war, pro-choice) and conservative (pro-gun, Reagan's Secretary of the Navy) positions will so befuddle the state's swing voters that they will give up trying to figure him out and simply elect him. Webb's recent party shift may strike some voters as opportunistic, while Allen's blatant presidential campaigning may turn off others. In the end, it may come down to Virginia's sizable population of military voters deciding how much more war they're willing to stomach.

5. WASHINGTON

CANTWELL (D) v. McGAVICK (R)

First term Senator Maria Cantwell won her last election by 2,229 votes, out of 2.5 million votes cast-a mere .09 percent of the total. This tenuous margin of victory puts her at risk against challenger Mike McGavick, a former insurance CEO. McGavick hopes that the absence of Bush's name on the ballot will keep him from being negatively associated with a national party that is increasingly unpopular in the state. Based on his poll numbers, his dreams may come true. Keeping this seat is the linchpin of the Democrat's dream of winning back the Senate.

6. MINNESOTA

KENNEDY (R) v. KLOBUCHAR (D)

Truly unpopular Democrat Mark Dayton (the only senator to close his office during the anthrax scare) wisely decided to retire rather than get trounced in this election, so this seat is up for grabs. Prosecutor Amy Klobuchar will try to hold on to the seat for the Democrats. She'll be running against Rep. Mark Kennedy, who is being hammered for having sided with the White House position in 97 percent of his congressional votes. Since neither candidate offers anything particularly exciting, this race will be a referendum on how the people of Minnesota judge the policies of both parties, without factors like charisma clouding their decision.

Other races to watch: Missouri, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee


THE HOUSE


Most people don't know who represents them in Congress. Even fewer can name the challenger to their current representative-one of the reasons why it's rare for an incumbent to lose a House race. Should the Democrats manage to grab 15 seats from the Republicans, you'll be hearing from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007-a vision of the future that is ratcheting up the GOP fundraising. Here are 15 races that, unlike most of the 435 House contests, have outcomes that may be in doubt.

CONNECTICUT

2nd District

Eastern Connecticut

SIMMONS (R) v. COURTNEY (D)

If Democrats want to take back the house, the best targets are moderate Republicans who serve in Democratic-leaning districts. Rep. Rob Simmons is a prime example. If his district decides they've had enough of the Republican party line, Joe Courtney is in-despite the fact that Simmons doesn't very often toe that party line.

FLORIDA

22nd District

Including West Palm Beach

SHAW (R) v. KLEIN (D)

As of June, state Senator Ron Klein had raised more money than any other nonincumbent candidate in his attempt to unseat 13-term Rep. Clay Shaw. But Shaw is a savvy vet of these House races, and the 22nd was redistricted in 2002 to give Shaw an edge against Democratic challengers-even popular, well-funded ones.

LOUISIANA

3rd District Southern Louisiana

MELANCON (D) v. ROMERO (R)

In this district hit hard by Katrina, Rep. Charlie Melancon is running against state Senator Craig Romero, who has grabbed a bunch of cross-the-aisle endorsements.

NEW MEXICO

1st District

Albuquerque and vicinity

WILSON (R) v. MADRID (D)

Patricia Madrid, New Mexico's attorney general, is fighting to take this seat in a district that went for Kerry by a slim margin in 2004. Wilson is popular, but may be dragged down by New Mexicans' low opinion of her party.

NEW YORK

24th District (open)

Central New York

ARCURI (D) v. MEIER (R)

Twelve-term congresswoman and moderate Republican Sherry Boehlert retired, leaving a vacuum in this fairly conservative (for New York) upstate district. State Senator Ray Meier is well liked, but District Attorney Michael Arcuri may be helped by having Democrats on the ticket (Clinton for senator, Spitzer for governor) who will win in a landslide.

NORTH CAROLINA

11th District

Including Asheville

TAYLOR (R) v. SHULER (D)

Charles Taylor made the ill-advised decision (later retracted) to come out against using federal money to pay for a memorial to the passengers of United Flight 93. Conservative Democrat (and former college football star and pro football burnout) Heath Shuler is coming on strong.

OHIO

18th District (open)

Suburbs of Columbus

PADGETT (R) v. SPACE (D)

Bob Ney, often implicated in the Abramoff scandal, suddenly dropped out of the race in early August. He has anointed state Senator Joy Padgett as his successor, but a Republican primary had not yet taken place at press time. Challenger Zack Space hopes his pledge to accept absolutely nothing from lobbyists if he is elected will resonate with voters tired of corruption.

PENNSYLVANIA

6th District

West suburbs of Philidelphia

GERLACH (R) v. MURPHY (D)

Lois Murphy is challenging Rep. Jim Gerlach again after losing to him in 2004. Gerlach needs to be as moderate as possible while still appearing conservative. His district isn't happy with the war, but isn't particularly liberal at heart either.

GEORGIA

8th District

Including Macon

MARSHALL (D) v. COLLINS (R)

Mac Collins lost a Republican primary in the 2004 senate race, and is looking to get back to Washington. Rep. Jim Marshall's district has been redistricted since he won his seat, and now leans more Republican than when he was first elected. Couple that with Collins' large war chest, and Marshall faces a tough test.

IOWA

1st District (open)

Eastern Iowa

BRALEY (D) v. WHALEN (R)

The fight for this open seat in Iowa may be an indication of how things will settle nationwide on election night. The district has been controlled by Republicans for years, but has been turning bluer recently. If Bruce Braley can claim the seat, Washington, D.C. might look different come 2007.

IOWA

3rd District

Including Des Moines

BOSWELL (D) v. LAMBERTI (R)

Iowa's hallowed place as the starting gate for the presidency means that its local races get a lot of attention from presidential candidates who want an Iowa friend come primary season. Sadly, incumbent Rep. Leonard Boswell has been hampered by health problems, making Jeff Lamberti's well-financed campaign to unseat him seem a bit heartless.

ILLINOIS

6th District (open)

Chicago Suburbs

DUCKWORTH (D) v. ROSKAM (R)

Tammy Duckworth lost both legs in Iraq, and her critique of the war has propelled her into a tight race with Peter Roskam, a well-funded state senator. It's a historically Republican district with an open seat, so Duckworth is going to have to get lucky.

8th District

Northern suburbs of Chicago

BEAN (D) v. McSWEENEY (R)

Rep. Melissa Bean has money in the bank and the weight of incumbency, but millionaire businessman David McSweeney has a chance in this slightly Republican district. McSweeney's business ties with Enron, however, won't endear him to many voters.

INDIANA

8th District

Southwestern Indiana

HOSTETTLER (R) v. ELLSWORTH (D)

Rep. John Hostettler once claimed that abortions and breast cancer are medically linked. He was also arrested for trying to carry a gun onto a plane. Pro-life, pro-gun Democrat Brad Ellsworth is just the kind of challenger that this conservative district might choose to replace their volatile congressman.

TEXAS

17th District

Including Waco and College Station

EDWARDS (D) v. TAYLOR (R)

This district includes the western White House in Crawford, and the president won it by 70 percent in 2004, yet it's represented by Democrat Chet Edwards. Proving that Democrats aren't the only party that can benefit by fielding Iraq vets, recently returned soldier Van Taylor is offering a formidable challenge to Edwards.]]> Morgan Clendaniel Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:37:07 PST <![CDATA[Gerrymandering]]> http://www.good.is/post/gerrymandering/ http://www.good.is/post/gerrymandering/

Elbridge Gerry (pronounced with a hard G, like "gun") signed the Declaration of Independence and took a principled stand by refusing to sign the Constitution until it was amended to include the Bill of Rights. Sadly, for a man of such importance to the founding of our country, he is remembered only for the political maneuver that bears his name. While Gerry was governor of Massachusetts, his party radically changed the state's legislative districts to ensure future electoral success. A local artist remarked that one of the new districts resembled a salamander. The "Gerry-mander" (today usually pronounced with a soft G) was born. To this day, politicians constantly fiddle with the shape of districts-for reasons both noble (to consolidate the voting power of minorities) and selfish (to pack their district with supporters). Whatever the cause, new versions of the Salamander are rampant. We've compiled four of the strangest looking districts out there.

THE "DANGLING MODIFIER"

ARIZONA'S 2nd

The gerrymander to end all gerrymanders. Most of the district is huddled in the northwest corner of the state, but a narrow corridor connects it to a large block farther east. The corridor consists of the waters of the Colorado River, and nothing else- you must own a houseboat to live in this part of the 2nd. What accounts for this oddity? The eastern block includes a Hopi reservation, which objected to being represented by the same politician who represented a neighboring Navajo reservation. Apparently, this was the best solution anyone could come up with.

 



THE "CLAM DIGGER"

FLORIDA'S 22nd

The district is so mixed up with its neighbors that a two-mile drive will take you through parts of 4 different districts. The 22nd consists almost entirely of beachfront property, running 90 miles up the length of Florida's Gold Coast. The several forays it makes inland were added to get a few more Republicans in the district (it was formerly never more than 3 miles wide) because its Republican representative only eked out a victory in 2000.

 



THE "TENNESSEE STRADDLER"

TENNESSEE'S 7th

What seems to have happened here is that, upon discovering that the white suburbs of Memphis did not contain enough people to constitute a congressional district, the gerrymanderers simply decided to also include the white Nashville suburbs. That Nashville is halfway across the state didn't seem to matter at all. And once you've gone that far, why not throw in Clarksville while you're at it?

 



THE "LIGHTNING BOLT"

NORTH CAROLINA'S 12th

By combining the African American enclaves of several cities (Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and Greensboro), the district has the second-highest minority population of any of the state's districts. However, it has far fewer minorities than when it was first created in 1992. The original district, called "political pornography" by the Wall Street Journal, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1996, at which point it got wider and shorter, but still retained the essence of its ridiculous appearance.]]>

Elbridge Gerry (pronounced with a hard G, like "gun") signed the Declaration of Independence and took a principled stand by refusing to sign the Constitution until it was amended to include the Bill of Rights. Sadly, for a man of such importance to the founding of our country, he is remembered only for the political maneuver that bears his name. While Gerry was governor of Massachusetts, his party radically changed the state's legislative districts to ensure future electoral success. A local artist remarked that one of the new districts resembled a salamander. The "Gerry-mander" (today usually pronounced with a soft G) was born. To this day, politicians constantly fiddle with the shape of districts-for reasons both noble (to consolidate the voting power of minorities) and selfish (to pack their district with supporters). Whatever the cause, new versions of the Salamander are rampant. We've compiled four of the strangest looking districts out there.

THE "DANGLING MODIFIER"

ARIZONA'S 2nd

The gerrymander to end all gerrymanders. Most of the district is huddled in the northwest corner of the state, but a narrow corridor connects it to a large block farther east. The corridor consists of the waters of the Colorado River, and nothing else- you must own a houseboat to live in this part of the 2nd. What accounts for this oddity? The eastern block includes a Hopi reservation, which objected to being represented by the same politician who represented a neighboring Navajo reservation. Apparently, this was the best solution anyone could come up with.

 



THE "CLAM DIGGER"

FLORIDA'S 22nd

The district is so mixed up with its neighbors that a two-mile drive will take you through parts of 4 different districts. The 22nd consists almost entirely of beachfront property, running 90 miles up the length of Florida's Gold Coast. The several forays it makes inland were added to get a few more Republicans in the district (it was formerly never more than 3 miles wide) because its Republican representative only eked out a victory in 2000.

 



THE "TENNESSEE STRADDLER"

TENNESSEE'S 7th

What seems to have happened here is that, upon discovering that the white suburbs of Memphis did not contain enough people to constitute a congressional district, the gerrymanderers simply decided to also include the white Nashville suburbs. That Nashville is halfway across the state didn't seem to matter at all. And once you've gone that far, why not throw in Clarksville while you're at it?

 



THE "LIGHTNING BOLT"

NORTH CAROLINA'S 12th

By combining the African American enclaves of several cities (Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and Greensboro), the district has the second-highest minority population of any of the state's districts. However, it has far fewer minorities than when it was first created in 1992. The original district, called "political pornography" by the Wall Street Journal, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1996, at which point it got wider and shorter, but still retained the essence of its ridiculous appearance.]]> Morgan Clendaniel Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:23:02 PST <![CDATA[Political NASCAR]]> http://www.good.is/post/political-nascar-2/ http://www.good.is/post/political-nascar-2/

In the 2006 midterms, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Rick Santorum (R-PA), both running for re-election, have raised the most money of any candidate in their respective parties. Here are the NASCAR-style uniforms they would wear if companies were proud of their political donations, and if running for senate required a flame-retardant suit.

 


HILLARY CLINTON

Hillary Clinton's top contributions by sector:

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate $4,650,601

Lawyers & Lobbyists $3,533,740

Other $3,258,584

Miscellaneous Business $2,332,809

Communications/Electronics $1,808,119

Health $1,122,341

Construction $521,796

Ideology/Single-Issue $432,270

Labor $340,545

Agribusiness $211,565

Energy/Natural Resource $206,462

Transportation $118,210

Defense $86,050

TOTAL (as of June 30th): $33,180,949

 


RICK SANTORUM

Rick Santorum's top contributors by sector:

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate $2,812,841

Miscellaneous Business $1,373,537

Lawyers & Lobbyists $1,357,125

Health $1,258,021

Other $1,243,951

Construction $666,015

Energy/Natural Resource $651,541

Ideology/Single-Issue $563,073

Communications/Electronics $474,990

Agribusiness $399,237

Transportation $299,574

Defense $76,000

Labor $56,706

TOTAL (as of June 30th): $17,252,473]]>

In the 2006 midterms, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Rick Santorum (R-PA), both running for re-election, have raised the most money of any candidate in their respective parties. Here are the NASCAR-style uniforms they would wear if companies were proud of their political donations, and if running for senate required a flame-retardant suit.

 


HILLARY CLINTON

Hillary Clinton's top contributions by sector:

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate $4,650,601

Lawyers & Lobbyists $3,533,740

Other $3,258,584

Miscellaneous Business $2,332,809

Communications/Electronics $1,808,119

Health $1,122,341

Construction $521,796

Ideology/Single-Issue $432,270

Labor $340,545

Agribusiness $211,565

Energy/Natural Resource $206,462

Transportation $118,210

Defense $86,050

TOTAL (as of June 30th): $33,180,949

 


RICK SANTORUM

Rick Santorum's top contributors by sector:

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate $2,812,841

Miscellaneous Business $1,373,537

Lawyers & Lobbyists $1,357,125

Health $1,258,021

Other $1,243,951

Construction $666,015

Energy/Natural Resource $651,541

Ideology/Single-Issue $563,073

Communications/Electronics $474,990

Agribusiness $399,237

Transportation $299,574

Defense $76,000

Labor $56,706

TOTAL (as of June 30th): $17,252,473]]> Morgan Clendaniel Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:18:21 PST <![CDATA[Voting Matters]]> http://www.good.is/post/voting-matters/ http://www.good.is/post/voting-matters/

What kept 121 extra Feeley supporters inside on election day?

In the current political climate, where electoral math minimizes the importance of all but a few key states months before a presidential election, it's no surprise that more and more people are becoming disillusioned about politics. How could my vote matter, they wonder, when elections are decided by millions of votes? One vote is just a drop in the proverbial puddle. But, more often than you might think, elections (especially congressional elections) are decided by the slimmest of margins.

Take, for example, the 2002 election for U.S. Representative in Colorado's 7th district, which encompasses some suburbs of Denver and a large slice of the surrounding countryside. Once all the votes were tallied (and lawsuits decided) the Republican candidate, Bob Beauprez, beat Democrat Mike Feeley by 121 votes-.07 percent of the 163,477 cast. What kept 121 extra Feeley supporters inside on election day? Perhaps Denver's football team having the week off meant fewer people watching last-minute campaign commercials. Or maybe a snowstorm and police shootout in the city the day before the election added other reasons to stay inside. And, surely, a campaign visit by George W. Bush the week before fired up the local Republicans.

This is not a lone example. In the 27th District of New York, almost 300,000 people cast their ballots for their representative in 2004. The election was decided by 3,774 votes. And, that same year, only 130 voters separated the winner from the loser in the Washington gubernatorial race, an election in which 2.9 million people voted. The next time you think your vote doesn't matter, stop for a moment and think of poor Mike Feeley.]]>

What kept 121 extra Feeley supporters inside on election day?

In the current political climate, where electoral math minimizes the importance of all but a few key states months before a presidential election, it's no surprise that more and more people are becoming disillusioned about politics. How could my vote matter, they wonder, when elections are decided by millions of votes? One vote is just a drop in the proverbial puddle. But, more often than you might think, elections (especially congressional elections) are decided by the slimmest of margins.

Take, for example, the 2002 election for U.S. Representative in Colorado's 7th district, which encompasses some suburbs of Denver and a large slice of the surrounding countryside. Once all the votes were tallied (and lawsuits decided) the Republican candidate, Bob Beauprez, beat Democrat Mike Feeley by 121 votes-.07 percent of the 163,477 cast. What kept 121 extra Feeley supporters inside on election day? Perhaps Denver's football team having the week off meant fewer people watching last-minute campaign commercials. Or maybe a snowstorm and police shootout in the city the day before the election added other reasons to stay inside. And, surely, a campaign visit by George W. Bush the week before fired up the local Republicans.

This is not a lone example. In the 27th District of New York, almost 300,000 people cast their ballots for their representative in 2004. The election was decided by 3,774 votes. And, that same year, only 130 voters separated the winner from the loser in the Washington gubernatorial race, an election in which 2.9 million people voted. The next time you think your vote doesn't matter, stop for a moment and think of poor Mike Feeley.]]> Morgan Clendaniel Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:52:08 PST