This may may strike a raw nerve for some people, and I really apologize for that, but I have to say it.  In 2004 and 05, I was a lobbyist on domestic violence for a non-profit women's group.  If you're in that community, you know that there are certain traits and histories that are common among victims of domestic violence.  For example, having been abused as a child, and thus not really knowing what was right, or what you deserved, or when or how to stand up for yourself.  Abuse someone for their first 18 years, and they think that's what their life is supposed to be like.  They often have their self-importance and self-concept literally beaten out of them.  People often, idiotically, ask why the woman doesn't leave her batterer.  (The question they should ask is why men commit violence against those they love to begin with)  The answer to that question is complicated and multifaceted, but I think part of it is that the victims A) don't know any better, and B) enable it, knowingly or unknowingly (which is hardly to put them at fault).

Soon after the 2004 election, a piece circulated in the DV community that really seemed to be on the money.  It argued basically that Democrats acted like DV victims.  The Republicans hit them, but they didn't really do anything about it, so Republicans were emboldened to hit them again--with more frequency and intensity (I'm reminded of Al Franken's deconstruction in The Truth With Jokes of the 2004 campaign).  What we tend to think of as being nice or fair or decent sometimes resembled enabling the Republicans to defeat us.  Thus, until we collectively got some therapy and strength/confidence/support/certainty, the GOP would keep beating us.  If you act like a doormat, you will get walked on.

Four years later, things look very different.  I don't think Democrats look much like that anymore.  Except for Lieberman apologists.  On a practical level, even if you don't believe in punishing Lieberman for the MANY ridiculous things he's done, the reality is that as long as he gets away without paying a price for them, he will keep doing it!  Lieberman is like a bully who keeps attacking everyone else in his party, many of his "friends", and every time he sees that he can commit a transgression against us without repercussion, he is only emboldened to commit more and bigger ones!  Appeasement, like Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland voting for the war only to lose their seats anyway, does not work.  So far Holy Joe has merely had to run for reelection as a sort of independent.  He won a fourth term in 2006, he was credited with all of his Senate seniority as a Democrat, and he was allowed to chair a committee even after announcing that he'd just ignore Katrina and "let bygones be bygones"--damn those killed or sick from formaldehyde-laced FEMA trailers.  Lieberman is a bigger asshole every year, but he has yet to pay any price for it at all.  Indeed, any backlash he does face (a credible primary opponent) just feeds his martyr complex and drive for attention.  The media play jujitsu and portray Lieberman as the victim and those horrible left-wing bloggers as bullies (because it's fine for Pat Toomey to challenge Arlen Specter, but not for Ned Lamont to beat Lieberman).

Bumped from the diaries -- Jonathan... This is a great project, one that I'm sure we'll be keeping an eye on here at MyDD in the coming year.

The next census is coming up in just 17 months, and 2009 ushers in the last round of state legislative elections before congressional districts have to be redrawn.  Tom DeLay and his crazy 2003 Texas remap showed us how important this can be; without the Lone Star State's mid-decade redistricting, Democrats actually would've gained House seats in 2004 (kudos to John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Brian Higgins, Charlie Melancon and John Salazar).  Granted, the House is not as close anymore, looking like about 256 Dems to 179 Republicans after this year's elections.  But even that is partly a result of GOP-controlled redistricting in 2001 (MI and PA for example).  And Republicans are already plotting to retake the House by gerrymandering 30 House districts.  While I welcome any discussion about whether maximizing the number of Democratic seats would conflict with the goal of maximizing the number of liberal/progressive House members, I suggest that our first goal should be to maintain Democratic control of the House.  Not every election will be as kind to us as 2006 and 2008.  The 1996 through 2004 House elections were like trench warfare.

This is actually a two-part process: in 2010, the Census tells each state how many House seats it gets (reapportionment), then in 2011, each state draws new boundaries for its House districts (redistricting).  Redistricting is especially important in states gaining or losing House seats.  We can't be sure which ones those are until the Census tells us in 2010, but this nifty map (PDF) offers projections based on 2007 population estimates.

EXCLUSIONS: Seven states (AK, DE, MT, ND, SD, VT, WY--plus DC if our new President and Congress give it a vote!) have only 1 House seat.  None are projected to gain a 2nd seat, nor is any state with 2 seats expected to lose one.  So these states don't concern us.  Another 7 states--AZ, HI, IA, ID, ME, NJ, and WA--use nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting processes (though the state legislature has the final ability to approve or reject maps in Iowa and Maine).  So we're really looking at 36 states.

And what do we need to do in those 36 states?  In short, everything we can in 2009 and 2010 to make sure redistricting is controlled by Democrats, then in 2011 pressure governors, state legislators, and whoever else makes redistricting decisions to draw maps with the highest possible number of Democratic districts (no more lame incumbent protection that costs us 10 seats in CA!).  This means looking at governorships and state legislatures, and at how the redistricting process works in these 36 states.  It could also mean some tough debates with state Democratic parties and incumbent House members who'd prefer their district to be more Democratic at the expense of putting others in play--for us, incumbent protection must generally take a back seat to getting more seats in Democratic hands.

GOVERNORS: Luckily, we're in relatively good shape these days in the Statehouses.  We have 21 Governors to the Rs' 15 in the 36 states in question.  Two states have governor's races in 2009: NJ doesn't concern us, but Tim Kaine is term-limited in VA, so that should be a key priority.  The Republicans seem to have picked their candidate while we have a primary between Terry McAuliffe, state Sen. Creigh Deeds, and Del. Brian Moran.  There are 36 governors' seats up for election in 2010.  AK, AZ, HI, IA, ID, ME, SD, VT, and WY don't concern us here.  So that leaves 27 governors' races we need to watch; 16 that are now Democratic vs. 11 that are now Republican.  Since a lot of new governors were elected in 2002, 12 of these are term-limited in 2010: Sebelius, Granholm, Richardson, Henry, Kulongowski, Rendell, Bredesen, Riley, Schwarzenegger, Perdue, Carceri, and Sanford (7Ds, 5Rs).  We could see close gubernatorial races in 2010 in CA, IL if Blago runs, MI, MN, NV, OR, PA, SC, and WI.

STATE LEGISLATURES: We start 2009 controlling 60 of 98 partisan legislative bodies (Nebraska has a nonpartisan unicameral legislature).  The National Conference of State Legislatures has this map showing which party controls each state's legislature and this table showing the party composition of each.  Those that look close enough to warrant our attention and participation include the KY Senate, LA House, VA Senate, and VA House in 2009; and the AL Senate, CO Senate, IN House, MI Senate, MO House, NV Senate, NH Senate, NY Senate, OH House, OK Senate, OR Senate, PA Senate & House, SC Senate & House, TN Senate & House, TX Senate & House, and WI Senate & House in 2010.

What I'd really like to see is for this to become a big, ongoing project of online progressives, like the Road to 60 in the US Senate or the Oil Accountability Project.  If we pay attention to and get involved in the right state-level elections, we can put control of the next round of redistricting in more Democratic hands.  If we follow that up with strong persuasion and accountability, we can preserve and grow the Democratic House majority in Congress.

So here are my questions for you: What do you think of this idea?  How does the redistricting process work in your state?  What is the current (2009-10) partisan makeup of your state's US House delegation?  How many more Democratic seats or fewer Republican ones could we get through better redistricting?  I await your comments.

There are 34 Senate seats up in 2010; 19 Republican and 15 Democratic.  Here are the senators whose seats are up then, along with the year they were first elected to the Senate, their age on Election Day 2010, the percentage of the vote they got in 2004, and any other notes including possible challengers, retirements, and if their state voted for the other party's presidential candidate in 2008.

Evan Bayh (D-IN), first elected 1998, age 54, 2004: 62%
Robert Bennett (R-UT), first elected 1992, 77, 69%
Kit Bond (R-MO), first elected 1986, 71, 56%, possible retirement
Barbara Boxer (D-CA), first elected 1992, 69, 58%, Arnold??
Sam Brownback (R-KS), first elected 1996, 54, 69%, Kathleen Sebelius?
Jim Bunning (R-KY), first elected 1998, 79, 51%, said 2004 opponent looked like one of Saddam Hussein's sons
Richard Burr (R-NC), first elected 2004, 54, 52%, Obama state, Gov. Mike Easley?
Tom Coburn (R-OK), first elected 2004, 62, 53%
Mike Crapo (R-ID), first elected 1998, 59, 99%
Jim DeMint (R-SC), first elected 2004, 59, 54%
Chris Dodd (D-CT), first elected 1980, 66, 66%, chairs Banking Committee & two subcommittees
Byron Dorgan (D-ND), first elected 1992, 68, 68%, McCain state
Russ Feingold (D-WI), first elected 1992, 57, 56%
Chuck Grassley (R-IA), first elected 1980, 77, 70%, Tom Vilsack?, Obama state
Judd Gregg (R-NH), first elected 1992, 63, 66%, John Lynch?, Obama state
Daniel Inouye (D-HI), first elected 1962, 86, 76%, will chair Appropriations
Johnny Isakson (R-GA), first elected 2004, 65, 58%
Patrick Leahy (D-VT), first elected 1974, 70, 71%, chairs Judiciary
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), first elected 1998, 50, 56%, McCain state
Mel Martinez (R-FL), first elected 2004, 64, 49%, Obama state
John McCain (R-AZ), first elected 1986, 74, 76%, Janet Napolitano?
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), first elected 1986, 74, 65%
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), first appointed 2002/elected 2004, 53, 49%
Patty Murray (D-WA), first elected 1992, age 60, 55%, chairs Vets Affairs if Lieberman kicked out of caucus, chairs 2 subcommittees
Harry Reid (D-NV), first elected 1986, 70, 61%
Ken Salazar (D-CO), first elected 2004, 55, 51%
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), first elected 1998, 59, 71%
Richard Shelby (R-AL), first elected 1986, 76, 68%
Arlen Specter (R-PA), first elected 1980, 80, 53%, Ed Rendell?, Obama state
John Thune (R-SD), first elected 2004, 49, 51%
David Vitter (R-LA), first elected 2004, 49, 51%, prostitute problem?
George Voinovich (R-OH), first elected 1998, 74, 64%, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman?, Obama state
Ron Wyden (D-OR), first elected 1996, 61, 63%

TBD: Obama's replacement in Illinois

Hi Everyone!  Election Day is fast approaching (12 days!), which means lots of work and fun for hardcore political junkies like me.  Every two years I compile a comprehensive Election Night Helper (2006 edition) which is intended to help you digest the results as they come in by knowing when the polls close in each state and what the key races are in each.  This time I've added state legislatures that are in play (important for the 2011 redistricting) and some of my own predictions, as well as governors and congressional seats--all in the most user-friendly format I could devise.  The top also includes links to several helpful objective resources to help you follow on your own whatever interests you specifically between now and Election Day; a lot can still happen in 2 weeks so these races can be moving targets (Rep. Michelle Bachmann's crazy comments last week have just put her MN-6 seat in jeopardy).  I hope this is really helpful, and I encourage you to reproduce it and spread it widely.  If you want the file in Word or PDF with all the formatting intact, just email me at sandwichrepair at yahoo dot com.  Ditto if you think there are any big races or ballot issues I've omitted.  I haven't finished putting major ballot issues in, but I thought it was time to get this out already.  If you want version 2 with them added, email me.

At this point, I'm not ready to meaningfully predict the presidential popular vote (52-45?), the overall turnout, or the House of Representatives (251-271 Democrats?  Maybe the most since 1993-94 or earlier).  I do think, at the moment, that Democrats will end up with 59-60 Senate seats--the most any party has had since 1979-80--and that Obama will win something like 350-375 electoral college votes (Clinton won 370 in 1992 and 379 in 1996).  On top of all the Kerry 2004 states, I think he will gain CO, FL, IA, NM, NV, OH, and VA (which would total 338).  IN, MO, NC, ND, and WV are all possibilities.

Assuming Obama wins, the networks will offer you some facts about him as president-elect right after they declare him the winner.  Here are some they may include:
*America's first African-American/biracial president (duh)
*First African-American/biracial person to lead a majority white nation
*First Democrat to win 50% of the popular vote since 1964 (LBJ)
*First senator elected president since 1960 (JFK)
*First Northern Democrat to be president since 1960
*First Midwestern president since Gerald Ford (MI)
*First Midwestern president elected since 1948 (Truman-MO)
*Voter turnout is likely to be the highest in over 40 years--young, new and black voters will be key.
*4th youngest president (47; after Bill Clinton at 46, John F. Kennedy at 43, and Teddy Roosevelt at 42)
*First Democrat to win NC since 1976, and/or IN, ND, and/or VA since 1964.

One of Missouri's best governors ever, and America's only posthumously elected U.S. senator, was cruelly killed in a plane crash on the night of October 16, 2000.  Many of us still hold on to the powerful and meaningful slogan "I'm Still with Mel".  He was a shy, decent, principled, unpretentious man who did everything he could to make concrete improvements in Missourians' lives.  He boosted education statewide--which especially benefitted rural and poor districts.  He put his political capital on the line repeatedly to protect abortion rights and veto late term abortion bans and funding cuts to Planned Parenthood.  He led a successful fight against gun proliferation in 1999.  And because of his efforts (as we fight for SCHIP expansion), Missouri was the most improved state in the nation in the proportion of kids who had health insurance 1993-2001.  Political analysts considered him our best Senate recruit of the 2000 cycle, except that he didn't have to be recruited--he announced his candidacy for John Ashcroft's Senate seat the day after the 1998 elections.  It's unfortunate that he never got to serve.  My Dad is 59 and has lived most of his life in St. Louis.  In the wake of Mel's death, he told me he hadn't seen such a public outpouring over the death of a politician since Bobby Kennedy.

Please take a moment to remember Mel and his family.  Don't let the flame go out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Carnaha n

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/20070830/NEWS02/708300333/1 003/NEWS02

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/07041 7/health/health_health_outcomes_cda_u_s

What a bargain our health care system is!  We spend 245% as much as Canada on health care per person each year, and the result is...worse health care.  Explain to me again how this is the "best health care in the world"???  Harry Truman proposed universal health care for the US in 1948.  It's decades past time we had it.

Study in new medical journal compares health outcomes in Canada and U.S.
Tue Apr 17, 8:10 PM
By Anne-Marie Tobin

Amidst all the White House 2008 polls flying around, I wanted to do one purely for fun that tests the withdrawn or foregone Democratic candidacies (Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Tom Vilsack, and Mark Warner--so far--I'm omitting Gore since that still appears to be controversial).  You can register your vote here.