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
(The following is a letter written by my daughter, Ariana, which I wanted to share with all of you)
You may know Paul Hodes as a public servant, a lawyer, or perhaps as a musician. I know him as something entirely different and unique. With less than a week left to go before New Hampshire decides who they'll send down to the US Senate, I want to tell you what I know about my father.
My father is a man of integrity, thoughtfulness, and strength of character who can stand behind any decision he makes because it's his own. He's smart, kind, and genuinely sensitive to the needs of his constituents; the combination of which allows him to weigh different outcomes of a situation, see the big picture, and understand how individuals might be affected by different decisions.
Out of everything I know about my father, the one thing that proves his earnest desire to do good is a simple choice he made many years ago: the decision he and my mom made to raise their family in New Hampshire.
The Tea Party is coming to town. Yesterday, Sarah Palin--Kelly Ayotte's biggest supporter--kicked off the Tea Party Express' national tour.
The Tea Party's final stop on their tour will be on the steps of our state house in Concord the night before the election.
Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck and their friends on the Tea Party Express are working hard on Kelly Ayotte's behalf. Ayotte proudly accepted Palin's endorsement and groups like Karl Rove's American Crossroads and the Glenn Beck-backed Chamber of Commerce have spent millions of dollars to boost her campaign
(Imagine the positive impact of having both Paul Hodes and Jeanne Shaheen in the Senate... now go make some phone calls or knock on some doors. - promoted by Mike Hoefer)
Yesterday, I stood with environmental leaders in New Hampshire to talk about my dedication to a national renewable energy standard. I challenged my global-warming denying opponent, Kelly Ayotte, to take a position on the issue. She responded that she would look at the proposal.
It's puzzling. Why would someone who doesn't think global warming exists think that we need to enact a proposal aimed at reducing carbon emissions? Why would someone who supports things like drilling off the coast of New Hampshire all of a sudden try to convince us she'd be supportive of renewable energy efforts in the US Senate?
In her competitive primary, we watched Ms. Ayotte move to the far-right wing of her party. Now, with the general election less than a month away, she's trying to have it both ways. She's hoping New Hampshire won't notice that big oil and coal companies continue to fill her campaign coffers as she talks about drilling off the coast of New Hampshire.
The bottom line is that Kelly Ayotte has as many doubts about global warming as I have about her ability to stand up to her special interest donors in the oil and coal industry.
Let's try something different: Which legislative races do you care about?
Out of over 6,000 state legislative districts up for grabs this year, we've chosen 40 key races to highlight on our 2010 "Essential Races" list. These are 40 critical races that we anticipate will show which way the political tide is turning this fall.
But we recognize our own limitations. There are plenty of other key races all across the country -- so we're asking for your help in identifying them.
For the next few weeks, we'll be accepting nominations from the public for 10 additional state legislative races to be added to our 2010 "Essential Races" list.
Mr. Sununu's petulant comments are partisan politics at its worst. Instead of engaging in a thoughtful conversation or offering any ideas for putting New Hampshire back to work, Mr. Sununu resorted to petty political attacks and childish name-calling. He showed disrespect to the Office of the Presidency.
As I travel across the Granite State on this campaign, there seems to be one thing the people of New Hampshire can agree on - Washington is broken. It doesn't matter if you're a Republican, Democrat or Independent. You've seen exactly what I see down there: a system that is simply not serving the needs of our middle-class families and small businesses any more. A system that has become rigged against the people it's supposed to support.
That's why yesterday I announced my proposals to change the Senate rules to increase accountability and break the partisan gridlock in Washington. Right now, Washington Republicans in the Senate are blocking a vote on a critical bill that will provide tax cuts and increased credit to New Hampshire's small businesses. My plan calls for an end to anonymous holds and gradually lowering the threshold needed to end debate and hold an up or down vote on Senate bills.
I just wanted to make sure you all saw the latest video from my campaign, which is about my time on the trail this week and my upcoming statewide tour:
(I'll have more later on Fred Malek. I took an especial interest in him during the 2008 Presidential race. - promoted by Dean Barker)
Kelly Ayotte and the Washington special interests behind her campaign are getting nervous. They're seeing the same things we are: my campaign is surging in the polls and the Sarah Palin endorsement is backfiring.
So what do they do? Launch an attack ad full of facts and figures so misleading I have a feeling they were taken straight off Glenn Beck's chalkboard. They're attacking me for standing up to the special interests and big oil companies and supporting efforts to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and address climate change.
The special interest group funding the ad, American Action, is headed by Washington insider Fred Malek, a top backer of the Ayotte-Palin team. He's a life-long K-Street Republican from Washington who wants to tell Granite Staters how to vote.
We knew this would happen. Ayotte and her special interest backers see that we're within striking distance of taking a senate seat that has been in Republican hands for the last 30 years. So they're throwing everything they can to stop my momentum. Plus, Republicans can't help themselves. They have nothing to offer this country but the failed policies of the past and nasty attacks.
For years, there's been an express train between Capitol Hill and K Street.
We have former employees of big corporations ending up in the agencies that are supposed to regulate them. We have former public servants securing high-paid jobs in the businesses they used to oversee.
That may be good for K Street, but it's bad for the American people.
Today I am announcing my plan to end the revolving door in Washington between public officials and corporate lobbyists.
I've spent a lot of time on this blog talking about how we need to end business as usual in Washington. Earlier this week, we got another disheartening reminder of what business as usual has become. Rather than stand up for the voices of the people who define and deliver democracy in this country, the Republicans in Washington resorted to political obstructionism and caved to the special interests, once again. They successfully filibustered the DISCLOSE Act, which is a crucial first step in undoing the damage inflicted by the Citizens United Supreme Court case. It would have allowed us to start closing the door on corporations trying to buy our elections.
You know what? I wasn't surprised by their filibuster. I was expecting it. I'm sure you were too.
But I think everyone here can agree - it is one sorry state of affairs that leads us to expect special interest-funded obstructionism from our public servants.
Over the past six months, my opponents have constantly reminded me of how crucial this race is. Whether it's a woman's right to choose or a family's right to affordable health care - they've shown us time and time again what we all stand to lose if Kelly Ayotte, Bill Binnie, or Ovide Lamontagne wins.
The legal justification for poll observers is transparency in the voter check-in process. The best protection against a corrupt poll worker saying, "Hi Joe. This time through you can be Mary Gibbs" and handing the fifth ballot to a co-conspirator is the observer (and the fellow poll workers, who are from different parties).
But the real reason poll observers show up is to keep track of which voters on their hot prospect list have already voted. That knowledge lets them not waste time calling those who have already voted, and concentrate on those who have not.
To do this effectively the poll watchers must be within hearing range of the voter at checkin in a fairly noisy room. That means sitting right behind the poll worker.
There isn't much room back there. You might fit two separate observers behind one poll worker - that's about the limit. But if every major campaign staffed up on observers, you would have volunteers from Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney trying to squeeze in.
Partly because of this, I assume, state law says that only "official" observers, certified by the Secretary of State or the major parties, are allowed behind the poll workers. Citizen observers can watch, but from farther away. If there is more than one check-in line, probably too far away to hear names as people check in.
There may be an issue in how Obama workers were blocked from access. This diary doesn't address that. I'm instead talking about how the system is currently incapable of supporting every campaign, if they all want effective observers.
I've heard rumors of precincts where the moderator allows campaign workers to simply come in at (say) 2PM and check the checklist, crossing names off their list of targets. It's a "win-win": the campaign gets the information it wants and the polling place is less noisy and crowded. ("Noisy" because the poll workers are supposed to repeat each voter's name loudly enough for the observer to hear.) That is not currently an officially recognized practice.
There's an old line about political campaigns: "Half of what we do is a complete waste of time. But we don't know which half." I nominate the observer function as a poor use of campaign workers. What does it accomplish? It avoids calling supporters who have already voted and possibly annoying them. But really, the cranky ones screen your calls anyway (Elwood admits guiltily). And it's easy to choose words that are fairly pleasant: "I'm calling to see if you have had a chance to vote today, and offer you a ride if you need one. You have? Great! Thanks, and have a great day."
Someone suggested that the whole process would work better if the check-in tables had computer terminals and the "who voted" list was updated electronically. I've thought about that, too. But there is too much mistrust of electronics in voting - often misplaced, I believe - to move in that direction. And the poll workers - many of whom are even older than me! - may not be early adopters of new technology.
I've spent time in corporate marketing. Years ago my company brought in a consultant for a half-day workshop on crafting effective messages. The consultant had worked in both commercial and political promotion. He claimed that every effective campaign / ad / speech used the same structure:
Identify a problem
Pin the problem on a villain
Introduce a solution
Raise a Call to Action!
Sprinkled in all that would be some schmoozing with the audience, proving that you can be trusted.
Last night I was curled up in my bed, early, exhausted, with my trusty laptop connected to my wireless network, reading blogs so I know what is REALLY going on, when the phone rang. It was a very nice new staffer from the Obama campaign, and he was calling me because I am a town chair.
As anyone who is a town chair knows, this is a constant drumbeat. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was very involved in last year's elections, and then we had some very important town elections in March. And then the 2008 campaigns started up early.
as a feminist, a local activist and an occasional volunteer for campaigns! But I am having an attitude problem, and maybe someone can help me get on the right track.
New Hampshire presents a structural problem for statewide candidates. There are no steppingstones, there is no ladder of advancement. Massachusetts and Vermont have Lieutenant Governors, Attorneys General, and Secretaries of State elected statewide. This gives political figures a chance to gain statewide exposure by running for, and maybe winning, a position that doesn't demand as big a campaign budget, and arguably is easier to attain, than Governor or Senator. The lower-level campaign provides statewide exposure.
New Hampshire has no such offices. As a result, our statewide candidates are frequently wealthy people with minimal electoral experience.
