Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Williams gleefully pointed out that photos of the people Bass and Guinta replace, U.S. Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes, have already been scrubbed from the Democratic Party website, which still features President Obama, Lynch and U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.
Kevin Landrigan:
State Democrats aren't waiting for official terms to end to assume their minority role.
The party's website got scrubbed last week, with reference to "N.H.'s majority party'' deleted and the smiling faces of still-sitting Congressmen Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter removed from their top right billing on the home page.
To be fair, it's impossible to tell whether Landrigan expressed the same glee when he stenographed Williams' talking point on this non-story. Or did he find it first and tell Williams? Or am I expected to be dumb enough to believe that it just happened to show up on two of the Sunday political columns independently?
It's the laziness that bugs me more than the various allegations of bias.
Here it is, the Sunday before election day, and the Union Leader, New Hampshire's most right-leaning, Manchester-centric, statewide newspaper has so far refused to endorse former Manchester Mayor and Republican Frank Guinta for Congress.
I'm guessing this is a big reason why:
Think a Union Leader endorsement doesn't matter to the GOP base?
Union Leader: While the rise of Ovide Lamontagne and Rich Ashooh were due to many factors you have to give credit to editorial page of the Union Leader for endorsing both and giving them extra conservative credibility.
Think New Hampshire isn't in play?
The Democratic National Committee transferred loads of cash to state parties across the country in a final get-out-the-vote push as they attempt to save the House from slipping from Democratic control and face multiple competitive Senate contests.
...The states where Democrats are spending are home to some of the closest and most critical contests on Tuesday.
New Hampshire: $200,000
GOTV!
Call NHDP at 603-225-6899 to find out how to help.
Call the Shea-Porter campaign at 603-531-9653 to find out how to help. ALL HANDS ON DECK: WE CAN WIN THIS RACE!
Kevin Landrigan's piece in the Sunday Sentinel is all about the PAC behind the pro-Kuster ad
(Ad targets Bass over Jaffrey firm stock) -- not about the story the ad tells: Bass's apparent conflict of interest by setting up a meeting between his relatives' company and the then Sec of Energy. This meeting was followed by his purchase of stock in the company - within days of his leaving office. From what I understand this is precisely why Maxine Waters, Congresswoman from California, will be investigated by the House Ethics Committee following the mid-term election. With the enormous influx of PAC-backed ads into this election, is the composition of the PAC the real story here or is the fact that, if elected, Bass is likely to face investigation as soon as he is seated in the US House?
This ad, running now, appears to state the truth. It is not a negative, deceptive or a down and dirty ad. It is a clear and true ad about Bass's apparent unethical behavior. Bass himself has not been able to clear up the questions the ad raises. He says the meeting didn't happen or he doesn't remember it, but the Sec of Energy at the time DOES remember it and there is evidence that it did take place. It seems to me that the story regarding this ad should be about its accuracy and its implications for our District -- rather than about who is paying for it to run.
That much was evident by how little Bass managed to squeak by two ticket splitters with no money and little name recognition.
But now here's another metric:
There were 5,000 more Republicans voting in the 1st Congressional District primary won by former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta than there were casting ballots in the 2nd CD race that former Congressman Charles Bass won.
Yes, it's true the 2nd District has increasingly become an even more Democratic-leaning district than the 1st District, but the falloff in the GOP primary wasn't seen while Bass served in Congress, or even in 2006 when he lost to Democrat Paul Hodes.
Of course, columnist Landrigan can't let something that damaging to Republicans remain in print on its own, so right-leaning pundit Landrigan chimes in:
The election demographics make it all the more critical that all Republican voters are super-motivated to vote for Bass in November.
Annie Kuster can win this race, despite a media environment in Nashua that consistently handicaps the red team.
Liberal blogs have contained some strong criticism of party and House leaders for their treatment of Horrigan, and there's at least chatter about whether there's a way to undo his resignation.
This one liberal blog, at least, has thousands of members (and even more opinions). The two of them who wrote about l'affaire Horrigan have actual names and are in fact not unknown in the New Hampshire political world. They deserve credit for their views!
Also, intentional or not, Landrigan's blurb suggests there was some kind of coordinated or universal sentiment here on that event. That is not correct.
See, in order for Landrigan to notice, a Democrat has to be ahead in the polls:
Shea-Porter has received plenty of free media attention following a trip to the Middle East and getting several spending projects for the district through the U.S. House.
Too much can be read into all the numbers when the margin of error in the congressional district races is plus or minus 6 percent.
It's worth noting that the Bass leads over Swett, 17 points, and Kuster, 18 points, are well outside that, however.
Note the re-hash, too, of the unbelievable "free media" line.
I repeat: it is a minor miracle that Democrats are able to get a foothold in this state given the prevailing media paradigm.
Shea-Porter has gotten plenty of free media following a trip to the Middle East and getting through the US House several spending projects for the district.
Yeah, that daily, month-long pounding she took over a phony scandal from the Union Leader, with an occasional assist from the Telegraph and WMUR, was sure plenty of free media!
I swear I don't know how Democrats manage to make any footholds in this state given the prevailing press paradigm.
That creaking sound you hear is Bob Giuda hanging there, twisting slowly, slowly in the wind - yet to acknowledge his campaign for Congress is over.
In today's Nashua Telegraph, Giuda attempts to explain his marriage-equality-leads-to-bestiality meltdown to Kevin Landrigan.
According to Giuda, he said a few, female gay rights advocates "aggressively came after me" for his opposition to same-sex marriage.
The image of a former Marine fighter pilot and FBI agent cowered by a few "aggressive" teenage girls is probably not the image a potential Congressman wants to convey.
I think I've finally figured out why state media gatekeeper Kevin Landrigan's columns are so often irritating, and therefore, why I bother to read them less and less.
In Kevin Landrigan's world, Democrats have no principles and are guided by politics in every decision.
He never states this openly. Rather, it's like a natural law in the Universe According to Kevin Landrigan, and as a result, all the ink in the column devoted to Democrats falls neatly into that assumption.
According to Kevin Landrigan, John Lynch opposes gambling because it locks up the Law and Order electoral constituency. Carol Shea-Porter gives back Charlie Rangel money because she's scared of the NHGOP press releases; and when it gets explained to him that it was returned right after the Ethics Committee made their judgment on Rangel, the NHGOP still get the last word.
According to Kevin Landrigan, Maggie Hassan is targeting skyrocketing health care costs because it's allegedly going to be a tough year for a Democrat, and this will bring out the purple shirt people:
Republicans leaders insist this was a strategic blunder for "Maggie Care,'' as it's been lampooned coming on the heels of the volatile federal health care debate in Washington.
Yet, whatever becomes of this reform effort in the 2010 session, this is sound politics on at least one level.
All signs point to fiscal conservatives as energized in this election, and that could spell trouble for the Democratic majority.
Hassan's crusade will ensure those "Health Care for All'' activists, known for their purple T-shirts, are working overtime for her re-election, and for other Senate Democrats, as well.
(And, relatedly, did you notice in the passage above how in Kevin Landrigan's world, "fiscal conservative" is automatically not aligned with the Democratic party? Despite eight years of George W. Bush and his multi-trillion dollar war of choice, PayGo rules established by Democrats, and deficit-reducing health care reform that doesn't make donut holes?
Curiously, Republicans in Kevin Landrigan's world rarely fall under this guiding principle.
Addinger: Note, by contrast, Pindell's take, who gives Hassan an "UP" mention in his political standing for the week for pushing something for the public good that might be politically bad for her:
The Senate Majority foreshadowed her huge policy gamble of S.B. 505 and some predicted/vowed that this would be the week when the Hassan for Governor 2012 campaign would be derailed. But that didn't happen, did it? Setting aside the policy idea itself and focusing purely on the politics, Hassan was setting the agenda with a bold plan on the dominant issue in American politics. Could she have rolled it out better? Yes. Will there need to be floor amendments to get this thing passed in the Senate? Yes, though it passed committee days after being introduced. Could next week be a disaster for her bill and her politically? Yes, it could.
This is the traditional media climate Democrats work under in New Hampshire.
The saddest thing is that almost nothing has changed about this media culture since I started paying attention four years ago, with the exception of more Pindell, and less Dorgan.
Landrigan on President Obama's visit to the southern New Hampshire city (over the border and just north of Scott Brown's voters)::
But Obama's defiant defense of the need to reform health care drew, by far, the biggest response.
..."I do not quit; we are going to get that done," said Obama, claiming comprehensive health care reform is near the finish line rather than out of the running.
A standing ovation from this crowd of more than 1,000 at Nashua North High School began slowly but steadily grew, prompting Obama to nod and twice repeat, "We have to get it done."
And for the Claire McCaskills of the senate who are wondering whether they should emulate Evan Bayh's reelection strategy rather than practice public service: are you anxious about using reconciliation to fix the worst parts of the bill?
Well, then, Judd Gregg's got your bipartisanship right here:
"The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win," Gregg told his Senate colleagues on the floor.
He added, "Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate (that) has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions... Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."
But even if his newly combative approach notches the president some rhetorical wins, he risks alienating people at the same time.
Earth to AP: the President already has alienated people throughout 2009, the year of Lucy and the Football. Scott Brown kept all the McCain voters; Not so much for Coakley and the Obama voters. In that margin was the GOPer victory, and not all of it can be blamed on Coakley's astoundingly poor campaign.
I'm going to blockquote this, to me the perfect time capsule of marriage equality supporters, opponents, and press coverage, without commentary:
Predictably, experts can be found on both sides of this volatile social issue.
Boston University School of Law professor Linda McClain is an expert in family law and religion.
...[quote explaining Lynch's position and legal precedent]...
Brian Brown is executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which helped bankroll the telephone call campaign and television ads opposing gay marriage.
...[quote criticizing Lynch for allegedly breaking his word]...
Did you hear? The marriage equality bill is going to lose in the House. Kevin Landrigan told me so:
The House will likely vote later this week to reject legislation (HB 436) that would legalize same-sex marriages.
Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, appeared to signal so in a Friday commentary.
"House Bill 436 should be adopted because, in fact, it is OK to be as we are and who we are," Splaine wrote.
"It may still take a while, but every time there's a story about voices speaking out for equality and fairness, we're touching lives and very likely saving a few."
Now, where have I heard those words in the last graf before? Oh yeah, the same place where Jim also wrote this:
House Bill 436 took a step toward approval by surviving on a tie vote during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee. What it means now is that the bill will go to the House floor next Tuesday "without recommendation." It's a position from which we can win.
Don't let the pundits bury this bill before it's been voted on.
It would have been more shocking had Lynch not made his nomination of Republican Ayotte, of Nashua, to another four-year term as attorney general.
Lynch surely didn't need the outcry not just from GOP leaders from Coos County to the Atlantic Ocean, but also the echo of many law-enforcement executives.
Ayotte got the nomination Wednesday, but she learned of it nearly two weeks earlier before Lynch took a half-week vacation.
...This doesn't stop even prominent Democrats from muttering that too many Republicans get perks from this three-term chief executive.
"Sometimes, we think he's more kind to those in the other party than to those of us in his own,'' one declared - privately, of course.
Phew - glad we avoided that outcry. You'd think from some of the muttering going around - privately, of course - that we Democrats won decisive victories in 2006 and 2008 and have some sort of party ID advantage.
I like Landrigan a lot, but this is just silly, and makes me wonder about the other nuggets of inside baseball in the piece:
Why would Hodes leak a statement about his Senate plans to the liberal Blue Hampshire blog? To curry favor with the more left-leaning base of the party that's always been more enamored with Shea-Porter.
Blue Hampshire was founded by bloggers Dean Barker, Michael Caulfield, and Laura Clawson, formerly of The Yankee Doodler, NH-02 Progressive, and Blue Granite. While chiefly following the Paul Hodes and Charles Bass congressional race, they occasionally became part of the story itself, most notably when a top aide to Bass posed as a liberal blogger on their sites to dampen support and contributions for Hodes.
This place began among Hodes' followers and supporters.
But the premise itself is wrong, twice.
1) Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes have near identical, and progressive voting records in the House, even, and especially, when it conflicts with the Democratic leadership (vide FISA, TARP, etc.)
2) Each has his and her own strong and vocal left-leaning base. His has given a new voice and strength to Democratic voters north of Nahsua. Hers has figured out how to confront indies and Republicans directly and focrefully and successfully in a very tough district. If there's anything this blogger knows - who started in '06 following Hodes, and spent much of the past two years learning about Carol Shea-Porter and her grassroots army - it's that reality.
The pundits, national and local, would love nothing more than to pit CD1 lefties and against CD2 lefties. It would make for great press. Don't let 'em. Paul has announced a run. Carol has not announced whether she will run. Both are representing us far better than we had it for a long, long, long time in the House. That is all.
While DiStaso spins our embarrassment of riches into trouble, Landrigan's analysis is a refreshing bit of balance:
They have their own pedigrees, having beaten entrenched Republican incumbents in 2006.
Shea-Porter's victory goes down as smaller by numbers than Hodes', but all the more impressive since hers was a nationally targeted seat for Republicans and a rematch with former GOP Congressman Jeb Bradley.
He has the base where Gregg began his Washington career, representing the 2nd District from 1981-88.
Shea-Porter has strength in the tougher district for Democrats generally. That includes the Seacoast, which in recent years has become Gregg's home turf.
Hodes is a better fundraiser and by many objective accounts got more done in his first two years on Capitol Hill.
But Shea-Porter is seen by many as better able than Hodes to carry the change-agent message two years ahead and really go after Gregg as a GOP-establishment stalwart who no longer fits the profile of what New Hampshire voters are looking for from their leaders in Washington, D.C.
I would change "got more done" to "has a higher profile as frosh class prez and with his Waxman committee" (unless I'm missing something) and would also argue that both Carol and Paul represent real change, but I'm mostly down with that.
Another interesting question is what it would mean to leave behind each district. I honestly don't think NH-01 would be so direly vulnerable with Carol as Senate nominee as people assume, but it definitely would be muy competitive. And there have been a few grumblings already, and that's without hearing what Stephen is up to. On Paul's side, I haven't heard a peep about whether Jennifer S. Horn-Palin will have a field cleared for her, or whether a Republican more in line with the district will emerge.
In CD1, some obvious names that comes up are Steve Marchand and Maggie Hassan, while in CD2 there's Jay Buckey, Katrina Swett, and perhaps even Molly Kelly.
Horn was a first-time candidate, but her base of support and some name recognition along the southern tier helped her win several southern New Hampshire towns, including Amherst and Hollis (both narrowly), Litchfield, Brookline, Mason, New Ipswich, Pelham, Windham and Salem.
If I may add a footnote to that: in six of the towns mentioned, Paul Hodes, who beat Horn in her own home base of Nashua, improved his performance from 2006. In three of them significantly so: Litchfield (+3.7%), Pelham (+4.3%), and Salem (+3.7%). And furthermore, Paul flipped Nashua-bordering Hudson (+3.3%), a town that Bass took two years ago.
Somehow, in my original diary, I left out Salem (since fixed). With 13,748 total votes cast, that was a huge omission on my part, and for Hodes to do almost 4 points better in such a big place in one cycle is great news. Though Mr. Landrigan is correct: Ms. Horn captured that populous southern tier treasure - by 34 whole votes.
How did Shea-Porter pull away from Bradley so convincingly this second time around, with almost four times the victory plurality as she had received in 2006? Shea-Porter beat Bradley the first time by 5,100 votes; this time, it was by 20,000.
For starters, she won in more places. Two years ago, Bradley actually won more than Shea-Porter did, edging her out 41-39. But she turned the tables on Nov. 4, winning 47 communities to 33 for Bradley.
Manchester was pivotal for the Democratic victor. Two years ago, Bradley won two of the 12 wards and lost the city by only 1,000 votes. This time, Shea-Porter skunked him throughout and built up a bigger winning margin there - 6,066 - than she had in the entire district during their 2006 contest.
p.s. I hope to have my Hodes' version of this up tonight. And a sneak preview: what I thought would be a fairly tedious numbers exercise in Hodes' pwnage over Horn turned out to hold a real surprise - one that Mr. Landrigan in particular will find of interest.
p.p.s. - And to the part of the Telegraph column that addresses the UNH numbers - our issue with the UNH poll isn't about the 11th hour daily tracking poll numbers. Of course those are going to be close to the outcome. The problem is the ridiculously small sample sizes for the CDs, combined with the non-attention to party ID data, which both combine to create all kinds of drama that don't necessarily exist. And then get widely reported in the state media. Like, e.g., that the NH-01 re-match would actually be close.
