The Capitol Alert AM Email raises an interesting point: 

If Speier does jump in, that may open the door for a third candidate — Sen. Leland Yee, who replaced her in the Senate. All three represent San Francisco’s South Bay and, unlike Lantos or Speier, it’s the middle of the election cycle for Yee, who wouldn’t have to risk his own seat to run.

But there is another issue lurking in the back here: Will Leland Yee run if Jackie runs. A three-way race would likely favor Lantos, but that’s hardly clear.  Here’s the thing for Yee, if he doesn’t run and then Jackie wins, the seat is out of play for another 20 years.  If Lantos wins, then he can run in an open seat whenever Lantos retires. While it’s not totally clear how he would affect the race, I think it’s almost a no-brainer for Yee if Speier enters.

Yee has been something of an enigma in the City. On the Board of Supervisors, he represented a heavily Chinese district, which, for the City, is/was fairly conservative. In the Assembly he was known primarily for going after video games. He has come up with some interesting legislation, but isn’t particularly loved by some of the major clubs in the City. However, the power of the Chinese vote would assure him a decent result if he ran.

This could be a wild ride folks.

This should be very interesting.  It looks like Jackie Speier, who was a fine state Senator who just missed in a there-are-no-losers primary for Lt. Governor with John Garamendi last year, is going to run for Congress in a primary against longtime incumbent Tom Lantos.

“It’s Time!” declares an e-mail circulated by supporters to “friends” and “fans” this past week, announcing the first organizing meeting of the Jackie Speier for Congress Exploratory Committee on Tuesday at a home in Hillsborough.

Speier has been consulting with friends and supporters about a run since a poll conducted by allies in January showed her a 2-1 favorite among voters in the 12th Congressional District, which covers northern San Mateo County and parts of San Francisco.

Speier has since hired at least one staffer to start gearing up. Nonetheless, she told us late Friday that she hasn’t made a final decision – and that when she does, we’ll be among the first to know.

This is the first interesting primary fight on the Democratic side that we’ve seen in the US Congress this cycle.  Speier would likely be seen as an upgrade to Lantos for progressives.  So far this year Lantos has condemned MoveOn and intimated that “Europe was not as outraged by Auschwitz as by Guantanamo Bay.”

Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry’s 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she’s still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.

For all of you CA-45 fans, “moderate” Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she’s still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.

On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she’s being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.

(I was working on a similar post, but I’ll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new “when the chips are down” scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA’s congressional delegation, in descending order.

Senate:

92.86 Boxer, Barbara
90.45 Feinstein, Dianne

House:

100.00 Pelosi, Nancy
98.43 Sánchez, Linda T.
97.49 Capps, Lois
97.18 Lee, Barbara
96.43 Richardson, Laura
96.24 Solis, Hilda L.
95.92 Woolsey, Lynn C.
95.91 Filner, Bob
95.30 Matsui, Doris O.
95.19 Becerra, Xavier
94.98 Farr, Sam
94.67 Honda, Michael M.
94.65 Lofgren, Zoe
94.03 Roybal-Allard, Lucille
93.42 Napolitano, Grace F.
93.42 Thompson, Mike
93.38 Eshoo, Anna G.
93.31 Waters, Maxine
93.20 Miller, George
93.10 Davis, Susan A.
93.10 Tauscher, Ellen O.
92.79 Sherman, Brad
92.45 Schiff, Adam B.
92.38 Berman, Howard L.
91.80 Watson, Diane E.
90.51 Lantos, Tom
90.28 Baca, Joe
90.19 Sanchez, Loretta
89.49 Waxman, Henry A.
87.74 Stark, Fortney Pete
84.86 Cardoza, Dennis A.
83.86 Harman, Jane
82.97 Costa, Jim
82.45 McNerney, Jerry

I’m guessing that at tonight’s Calitics’ Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house — wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.

Senate
Yea
Diane Feinstein

Nay
Barbara Boxer

House
Yea
Joe Baca (CA-43)
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
Sam Farr (CA-17)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Tom Lantos (CA-12)
Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
Grace Napolitano (CA-38)
Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Adam Schiff (CA-29)
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
Mike Thompson (CA-1)

Nay
Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Howard Berman (CA-28)
Lois Capps (CA-23)
Bob Filner (CA-51)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Barbara Lee (CA-9)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Doris Matsui (CA-5)
George Miller (CA-7)
Linda Sanchez (CA-39)
Brad Sherman (CA-27)
Hilda Solis (CA-32)
Pete Stark (CA-13)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Diane Watson (CA-33)
Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)

Leading up to the election last November, Chris Bowers initiated the Use It or Lose It project, urging unopposed members of Congress to contribute their money to the DCCC in support of other competitive races.  In addition, I found 64 more districts with token opposition (Republican had raised less than $10,000 total).  California’s districts, safely drawn as many of them are, were well represented on these two lists, and while many of California’s Democrats were very supportive, not all of them were.  Our representatives have a responsibility to support the party as a whole whenever possible, and sitting on piles of cash is both a waste and a betrayal of good faith.  Here’s a look at how the delegation performed so that we can start applying pressure where necessary.

Let’s begin with completely unchallenged Democrats from last cycle.  I’m not yet getting into what help these Democrats did or did not give the party or individual candidates (one thing at a time).  This is simply the raw numbers, but certainly a few things will jump out.

Unopposed (or unfunded Republican) and Cash on Hand (12/31/06):

CA-05 Doris Matsui  $78,466
CA-07 George Miller  $176,990
CA-12 Tom Lantos  $1,367,651
CA-14 Anna Eshoo  $341,669
CA-16 Zoe Lofgren  $147,670
CA-17 Sam Farr  $112,511
CA-20 Jim Costa  $205,014
CA-28 Howard Berman  $407,149
CA-29 Adam Schiff  $1,376,605
CA-31 Xavier Becerra  $448,286
CA-32 Hilda Solis  $143,566
CA-33 Diane Watson  $2,488
CA-34 Lucille Roybal-Allard  $38,943
CA-35 Maxine Waters  $101,768
CA-37 Juanita Millender-McDonald  N/A

Total: $4,948,776

So obviously, not all of these people are being miserly.  Diane Watson, for example, isn’t exactly going home to swim in money or anything.  There’s no way of knowing whether any of these districts will face a serious challenge in 2008, but with the exception of Jim Costa in CA-20, all of these districts have a PVI of D+12 or more and thus aren’t particularly vulnerable.  That means that the money is legitimately in play.  Some of these folks get it, some (Ahem Tom Lantos? Adam Schiff?) seem not to.

In addition to the above, there are several more California Democrats who faced only token opposition.  For our purposes here, I’m drawing a different (though still arbitrary) line at $25,000 in total money raised to establish “token” status.  Without a doubt, it’s tough to run a serious campaign in this state with $26,000, but I think the bar is low enough so as to not be debatable.

Token Republican Opposition and Cash on Hand (12/31/06):

CA-06 Lynn Woolsey  $24,531
CA-10 Ellen Tauscher  $211,924
CA-30 Henry Waxman  $652,596
CA-36 Jane Harman  $225,448
CA-38 Grace Napolitano  $194,155
CA-43 Joe Baca  $7,044
CA-51 Bob Filner  $6,369

Total: $1,322,067

Again offered without comment on extenuating circumstances (particularly with respect to primary challenges).  Again, not everyone has a deathgrip on the cash here.  Woolsey, Baca and Filner are clearly spending what they’ve got.  It’s important though that we make sure this commitment keeps up.  And again, there’s no way of knowing this far out where we’ll see a well-funded challenge, but Filner and Tauscher are the only ones on this list who represent districts with PVIs of single-digit Dem leanings, which means these folks for the most part don’t need to be worried about a tough Republican challenge.  Henry Waxman for example, and God bless his legislative ass-kicking, really doesn’t need that money to keep himself in office.  Spend it through the DCCC, spend it on local infrastructure, but don’t just let it rot.

This cannot be a last-minute project like last year.  We have to work towards creating a culture of support for the party whenever possible.  And if we have representatives who don’t feel that the country is better off with more Democrats in office, we need to know that sooner than later.  Last year, Marty Meehan (MA-05) sat on more than $5 million and then, when he wasn’t going to be able to run for Senate, took the money and went home.  We won’t miss him, but that money really might’ve helped, say, Larry Kissell or Charlie Brown.  This is what we’re trying to avoid.

This is not meant to be a one-way street.  Those who are not in need should pay in as much as possible, and those who are in need should take out as much as needed.  But it only works when the caucus buys into the idea that the financial health of the party is more important than the financial health of the individual.  Working together will be much more effective over the long haul than working as individuals, and it’s important to convey that message to our representatives.  So as you watch fundraising progress, and as you have opportunities to talk with your representatives, think about and ask about the degree to which they’re supporting the party as opposed to their own bank accounts.  House Dems are kicking some serious ass so far in 2007, which is great.  Let’s make sure that the DCCC gets the extra support from our Representatives that it deserves.