Tag Archives: U.S. Senate

My Final 2012 Predictions, National-Level and California-Level

I was able to squeeze some time out of my hectic schedule to make my routine election predictions for 2012. After these results, I will have my “Partisan Factor” predictions for California, basically merging a national and a California diary into one.

For the national-level results, I used a combination of state polls and national polls, and factored in the results from 2008 to come up with my predictions. For the California-level results, I used registration and presidential, Senatorial, and gubernatorial results to come up with my “Partisan Factor”, which is how I predict each competitive district will go.

Here are my predictions, signed, sealed, and delivered, beginning with the presidential race. Switches from 2008 are noted with an asterisk.

2012 President

State Result D Electoral Votes R Electoral Votes
Alabama
Romney by 19.23
9
Alaska
Romney by 20.43
3
Arizona
Romney by 6.84
11
Arkansas
Romney by 22.87
6
California
Obama by 19.92
55
Colorado
Obama by 2.59
9
Connecticut
Obama by 15.74
7
Delaware
Obama by 26.09
3
District of Columbia
Obama by 87.03
3
Florida
Romney by 0.26*
29
Georgia
Romney by 6.71
16
Hawaii
Obama by 36.69
4
Idaho
Romney by 24.19
4
Illinois
Obama by 18.81
20
Indiana
Romney by 5.43*
11
Iowa
Obama by 2.79
6
Kansas
Romney by 13.81
6
Kentucky
Romney by 14.55
8
Louisiana
Romney by 17.52
8
Maine
Obama by 15.29
4
Maryland
Obama by 22.39
10
Massachusetts
Obama by 21.84
11
Michigan
Obama by 5.18
16
Minnesota
Obama by 8.34
10
Mississippi
Romney by 12.06
6
Missouri
Romney by 8.3
10
Montana
Romney by 5.11
3
Nebraksa
Romney by 13.41
5
Nevada
Obama by 3.64
6
New Hampshire
Obama by 3.01
4
New Jersey
Obama by 14.33
14
New Mexico
Obama by 11.66
5
New York
Obama by 26.87
29
North Carolina
Romney by 0.46*
15
North Dakota
Romney by 19.11
3
Ohio
Obama by 2.96
18
Oklahoma
Romney by 29.59
7
Oregon
Obama by 9.78
7
Pennsylvania
Obama by 6.09
20
Rhode Island
Obama by 22.98
4
South Carolina
Romney by 7.87
9
South Dakota
Romney by 6.65
3
Tennessee
Romney by 13.95
11
Texas
Romney by 14.9
38
Utah
Romney by 33.45
6
Vermont
Obama by 37.56
3
Virginia
Obama by 2.05
13
Washington
Obama by 12.05
12
West Virginia
Romney by 12.99
5
Wisconsin
Obama by 5.8
10
Wyoming
Romney by 31.23
3
Total 303 235

Next up is the short and sweet table of governor races. Pickups are noted with an asterisk.

2012 Governor

State
Result
Delaware
Safe Markell (D)
Indiana
Pence (D) by 7.87
Missouri
Nixon (D) by 13
Montana
Daines (R) by 0.5*
New Hampshire
Hassan (D) by 3
North Carolina
McCrory (R) by 14.25*
North Dakota
Dalrymple (R) by 35
Utah
Safe Herbert (R)
Vermont
Shumlin (D) by 34.00
Washington
Inslee (D) by 0.5
West Virginia
Tomblin (D) by 21
Total Governors 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats, 1 Independent

Now for the Senate races. I don’t know if it will happen, but I predict a status quo. Again, the good old asterisk for the pickups.

2012 Senate

State Result
Arizona
Carmona (D) by 0.5*
California
Feinstein (D) by 19
Connecticut
Murphy (D) by 4.67
Delaware
Safe Carper (D)
Florida
Nelson (D) by 7.43
Hawaii
Hirono (D) by 18.5
Indiana
Donnelly (D) by 3*
Maine
King (I) by 18*
Maryland
Cardin (D) by 26.09
Massachusetts
Warren (D) by 4.67*
Michigan
Stabenow (D) by 13.5
Minnesota
Klobuchar (D) by 30
Mississippi
Safe Wicker (R)
Missouri
McCaskill (D) by 6.25
Montana
Rehberg (R) by 1.13*
Nebraska
Fischer (R) by 13*
Nevada
Heller (R) by 5.14
New Jersey
Menendez (D) by 18
New Mexico
Heinrich (D) by 9.67
New York
Gillibrand (D) by 43
North Dakota
Berg (R) by 5*
Ohio
Brown (D) by 6.14
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) by 5.14
Rhode Island
Whitehouse (D) by 25.5
Tennessee
Safe Corker (R)
Texas
Cruz (R) by 21.5
Utah
Safe Hatch (R)
Vermont
Safe Sanders (I)
Virginia
Kaine (D) by 1.57
Washington
Cantwell (D) by 16.5
West Virginia
Manchin (D) by 39
Wisconsin
Baldwin (D) by 2.67
Wyoming
Safe Barrasso (R)
Total Senators 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, 2 Indpendents

Finally, the competitive House races, which will result in a Dem gain of 3 seats for a 239-196 GOP majority.

2012 U.S. House

District Result
AZ-01
Paton (R) by 1.88
AZ-02
Barber (D) by 5.63
AZ-09
Sinema (D) by 2.56
CA-03
Garamendi (D) by 15
CA-07
Bera (D) by 1.25
CA-09
McNerney (D) by 1.25
CA-10
Denham (R) by 1.13
CA-24
Capps (D) by 2.5
CA-26
Brownley (D) by 0.5
CA-36
Bono Mack (R) by 0.63
CA-41
Takano (D) by 6.25
CA-47
Lowenthal (D) by 15
CA-52
Peters (D) by 0.31
CO-03
Tipton (R) by 5
CO-06
Coffman (R) by 4.38
CO-07
Perlmutter (D) by 7.5
CT-05
Esty (D) by 3.13
FL-02
Southerland (R) by 6.25
FL-10
Webster (R) by 5
FL-16
Buchanan (R) by 10
FL-18
West (R) by 4.59
FL-22
Frankel (D) by 3.89
FL-26
Rivera (R) by 2
GA-12
Barrow (D) by 4.25
IL-08
Duckworth (D) by 8.75
IL-10
Dold (R) by 1.88
IL-11
Foster (D) by 2.81
IL-12
Enyart (D) by 4.94
IL-13
Gill (D) by 0.63
IL-17
Bustos (D) by 0.63
IN-02
Walorski (R) by 12.5
IN-08
Bucshon (R) by 10
IA-01
Braley (D) by 15
IA-02
Loebsack (D) by 10
IA-03
Latham (R) by 3.75
IA-04
King (R) by 3.44
KY-06
Chandler (D) by 5.19
MD-06
Delaney (D) by 5.5
MA-06
Tisei (R) by 5.5
MI-01
McDowell (D) by 1.31
MI-03
Amash (R) by 11.25
MI-11
Bentivolio (R) by 6.25
MN-02
Kline (R) by 15
MN-06
Bachmann (R) by 6.25
MN-08
Nolan (D) by 2.56
MT-AL
Daines (R) by 8.67
NV-03
Heck (R) by 9
NV-04
Tarkanian (R) by 0.56
NH-01
Guinta (R) by 5.31
NH-02
Kuster (D) by 4.85
NJ-03
Runyan (R) by 10.63
NY-01
Bishop (D) by 8.69
NY-11
Grimm (R) by 13.38
NY-18
Hayworth (R) by 4.75
NY-19
Gibson (R) by 3.75
NY-21
Owens (D) by 2.06
NY-24
Maffei (D) by 1.56
NY-25
Slaughter (D) by 9.38
NY-27
Collins (R) by 2.06
NC-07
Rouzer (R) by 0.63
NC-08
Hudson (R) by 10
NC-11
Meadows (R) by 12.5
ND-AL
Cramer (R) by 12.25
OH-06
Johnson (R) by 4.38
OH-16
Renacci (R) by 1.88
OK-02
Mullin (R) by 11.63
PA-06
Gerlach (R) by 15
PA-08
Fitzpatrick (R) by 11.25
PA-12
Critz (D) by 1.88
RI-01
Cicilline (D) by 2.83
SD-AL
Noem (R) by 12
TN-04
DesJarlais (R) by 5
TX-14
Weber (R) by 6.25
TX-23
Gallego (D) by 1
UT-04
Love (R) by 8.19
VA-02
Regel (R) by 10
WA-01
DelBene (D) by 5.25
WV-03
Rahall (D) by 12.5
WI-07
Duffy (R) by 6.25
WI-08
Ribble (R) by 15
Total Representatives 239 Republicans, 196 Democrats

Now onto my final California predictions:

U.S. House

District Registration CPVI 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. PF
CA-03
R+2.7
D+2.8
R+6.3
R+3.0
R+2.3
CA-07
R+8.0
R+0.9
R+9
R+4.1
R+5.5
CA-09
R+1.4
D+4.3
R+3.8
R+2.2
R+0.8
CA-10
R+8.3
R+3.8
R+12.3
R+9.6
R+8.6
CA-24
R+6.4
D+4.3
R+6
R+6.5
R+3.7
CA-26
R+5.6
D+4.0
R+6.3
R+7.3
R+3.8
CA-36
R+8.9
R+2.1
R+10.2
R+10.2
R+7.9
CA-41
R+5.7
D+5.9
R+1.6
R+0.3
R+0.4
CA-47
R+0.4
D+6.3
R+0.3
R+1.5
D+0.7
CA-52
R+7.6
D+2.5
R+9.2
R+11.0
R+6.3

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

District Registration CPVI 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. PF
SD-05
R+13.2
D+0.6
R+8.8
R+6.0
R+6.9
SD-19
R+0.8
D+7.9
R+2.2
R+3.4
D+0.4
SD-27
R+3.8
D+4.7
R+5.7
R+7.2
R+3.0
SD-31
R+8.0
D+3.8
R+5.4
R+4.0
R+3.4
SD-39
R+2.8
D+8.6
R+2.0
R+3.8
R+0.0

State Assembly

District Registration CPVI 2010 Sen. 2010 Gov. PF
AD-08
R+5.9
EVEN
R+7.9
R+3.0
R+4.2
AD-16
R+4.1
D+8.3
R+2.8
R+3.9
R+0.6
AD-21
R+2.6
D+2.2
R+8.9
R+5.7
R+3.8
AD-32
D+3.2
D+0.3
R+9.6
R+11.1
R+4.3
AD-40
R+8.5
D+0.2
R+8.4
R+6.3
R+5.8
AD-44
R+8.0
D+2.5
R+8.2
R+9.5
R+5.8
AD-60
R+12.5
R+1.1
R+10.7
R+9.2
R+8.4
AD-61
R+4.3
D+8.7
R+0.1
D+1.1
D+1.4
AD-65
R+8.8
R+1.9
R+10.6
R+11.2
R+8.1
AD-66
R+5.1
D+2.8
R+6.4
R+7.5
R+4.1
AD-78
D+0.2
D+12.0
D+3.4
D+1.4
D+4.3

Assuming districts with a PF of less than R+7 are Dem wins (California’s Cook PVI is D+7), then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 37 DEM, 16 GOP

(Districts 3, 7, 9, 24, 26, 41, 47 and 52 go DEM; 10 and 36 go GOP)

Safe DEM (29): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46, 51, 53

Safe GOP (14): 1, 4, 8, 21, 22, 23, 25, 31, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 28 DEM, 12 GOP

(Districts 5, 19, 27, 31, and 39 all go DEM)

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 55 DEM, 25 GOP

(Districts 8, 16, 21, 32, 40, 44, 61, 66, and 78 go DEM; 60 and 65 go GOP)

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 23, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 42, 55, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

California Race Chart 2010 (Part 2 of 3: Congressional Races)

Here is Part 2 of my analysis of this fall’s elections in California, which will cover the Congressional races. Part 3 will cover the state legislature.

Cross-posted at Swing State Project, Daily Kos, and Democracy for California.

Incumbents are in boldface. In the case of open seats, the party of the retiring incumbent is listed without boldface.

D: Democratic

R: Republican

L: Libertarian

G: Green

AI: American Independent

PF: Peace and Freedom

SW: Socialist Workers

I: Independent

Senator:: Barbara Boxer (D) vs. ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R), Duane Roberts (G), Gail Lightfoot (L), Edward Noonan (AI), Marsha Feinland (PF), James Harris (SW-W/I)

Even after Arnold decided against running, and long before “Coakley” became a verb, I expected Boxer to be in a tough fight in 2010. Fortunately, she is no slacker and knows how to run a tough campaign, hitting her opponent where it hurts (in this case, on attacking Fiorina’s praise of outsourcing and using former HP employees). She is polarizing, but fortunately the Democratic base in California is big enough for her to win even if she loses independent voters by single to low-double digits.

Outlook: Lean Boxer

U.S. HOUSE (Composition: 34 Democrats, 19 Republicans)

CA-03 (Sacramento suburbs): Dan Lungren (R) vs. Dr. Ami Bera (D), Art Tuma (L), Lerry Leidecker (AI), Mike Roskey (PF)

Registration: 40.31% GOP, 37.55% DEM, 17.72% DTS, 4.42% other

Profile: This is one of the Democrats’ best chances of picking off a GOP-held seat in the House. This suburban Sacramento seat was strongly Republican early in the decade before rapidly swinging left to become an Obama-voting district in 2008, also nearly catching Lungren off-guard. Bera has outraised Lungren every quarter this cycle, and don’t be surprised to see this as one of the closest races in a GOP-held seat.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Toss-up/tilt Lungren

CA-11 (San Joaquin County and parts of East Bay): Jerry McNerney (D) vs. attorney David Harmer (R), David Christensen (AI)

Registration: 39.45% DEM, 39.00% GOP, 17.54% DTS, 4.01% Other

Profile: This was expected since the end of the last cycle to be another challenging race for McNerney, especially after Harmer won the primary. Harmer, as you may remember, made the 2009 special in the more Democratic CA-10 a 10-point race against Garamendi. Fortunately for Harmer, the 11th is much less Democratic and he now has more name recognition. Unfortunately for Harmer, the race in CA-11 will be in a general election rather than an off-year special, so turnout is guaranteed to be higher. Also, the trends in registration are more in McNerney’s favor, flipping to a Dem advantage in registration for the first time, mirroring the trend to the Dems statewide in registration.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Lean McNerney

CA-18 (Upper Central Valley): Dennis Cardoza (D) vs. agribusinessman Mike Berryhill (R)

CA-20 (Fresno, part of Bakersfield): Jim Costa (D) vs. farmer Andy Vidak (R)

CA-18 Registration: 49.85% DEM, 31.81% GOP, 14.32% DTS, 4.02% Other

CA-20 Registration: 51.45% DEM, 31.02% GOP, 12.64% DTS, 4.89% Other

Profile: Not on anybody’s radar screens until about a month ago, the Central Valley is now the source of two more competitive races, with water a hot issue here and the Republicans harping the issue nonstop. The 18th is less Democratic than the 20th, owing to the lack of a major urban center, having gone for Bush narrowly in 2004, but Cardoza is taking his tougher-than-expected reelection more seriously, so I expect Costa to have a slightly tougher reelection than Cardoza.

CA-18 10/23/2010 Outlook: Likely Cardoza

CA-20 10/23/2010 Outlook: Lean to Likely Costa

CA-44 (Riverside, Corona, San Clemente): Ken Calvert (R) vs. educator Bill Hedrick (D)

Registration: 43.11% GOP, 33.87% DEM, 18.38% DTS, 4.64% Other

Profile: One of the out-of-nowhere near-upsets of 2008, Hedrick is back for a rematch. Calvert is trying to avoid being caught asleep at the wheel again, and Hedrick is surprisingly lacking in the money department despite coming very close last time, so I don’t like his chances this time.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Lean to Likely Calvert

CA-45 (Most of Riverside County): Mary Bono Mack (R) vs. Palm Springs mayor Steve Pougnet (D), Bill Lussenheide (AI)

Registration: 41.29% GOP, 38.31% DEM, 16.17% DTS, 4.23% Other

Profile: Democrats got a top-tier recruit here in the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs. Bono Mack has taken heat for her vote against repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, even though her district has the highest proportion of gays of any Republican-held district, and Lussenheide is challenging her from the right, on some of her “insufficiently conservative” votes such as cap-and-trade. I expect Pougnet to perform better than Bornstein last time, though still come up short.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Likely Bono Mack

CA-47 (Anaheim, Santa Ana): Loretta Sanchez (D) vs. Assemblyman Van Tran (R), Ceci Iglesias (I), Gary Schank (I)

Registration: 46.90% DEM, 30.90% GOP, 18.67% DTS, 3.53% Other

Profile: Like the Central Valley Dem districts, the Orange County Dem district, which also voted for Bush like CA-18, is now a hot race after being off most radar screens until about a month ago. Sanchez didn’t help herself by the gaffe “The Vietnamese are after my seat”, which I thought was really boneheaded, considering all that she had done for them in the past. I still expect Sanchez to win, though by less than against Tan Nguyen from 2006.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Lean to Likely Sanchez

CA-48 (Central Orange County, including Irvine): John Campbell (R) vs. Irvine Councilwoman Beth Krom (D), Mike Binkley (L)

Registration: 44.41% GOP, 28.99% DEM, 22.45% DTS, 4.15% Other

Profile: Once expected to be a top-tier race, this district fell off the radar screen as the touted former mayor of Irvine Beth Krom has lagged on the money front.

10/23/2010 Outlook: Likely Campbell

Safe:

CA-01 (North Coast): Mike Thompson (D)

CA-02 (Northern Sacramento Valley): Wally Herger (R)

CA-04 (Northeast, including Tahoe): Tom McClintock (R)

CA-05 (Sacramento): Doris Matsui (D)

CA-06 (Northern SF Bay): Lynn Woolsey (D)

CA-07 (Northeast SF Bay): George Miller (D)

CA-08 (San Francisco): Nancy Pelosi (D)

CA-09 (Berkeley, Oakland): Barbara Lee (D)

CA-10 (Inner East SF Bay): John Garamendi (D)

CA-12 (Lower SF Peninsula): Jackie Speier (D)

CA-13 (Southern East Bay): Pete Stark (D)

CA-14 (Silicon Valley): Anna Eshoo (D)

CA-15 (Santa Clara, Cupertino): Mike Honda (D)

CA-16 (San Jose): Zoe Lofgren (D)

CA-17 (Northern Central Coast): Sam Farr (D)

CA-19 (Yosemite, part of Fresno): Jeff Denham (R) – vacated by George Radanovich (R)

CA-21 (Tulare): Devin Nunes (R)

CA-22 (Bakersfield): Kevin McCarthy (R)

CA-23 (Southern Central Coast): Lois Capps (D)

CA-24 (Inner Santa Barbara/Ventura): Elton Gallegly (R)

CA-25 (Palmdale, Big Empty): Buck McKeon (R)

CA-26 (Northeastern L.A. suburbs): David Dreier (R)

CA-27 (Western San Fernando Valley): Brad Sherman (D)

CA-28 (Eastern San Fernando Valley): Howard Berman (D)

CA-29 (Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena): Adam Schiff (D)

CA-30 (Malibu, Beverly Hills): Henry Waxman (D)

CA-31 (Hollywood): Xavier Becerra (D)

CA-32 (Covina, Baldwin Park): Judy Chu (D)

CA-33 (Culver City): Karen Bass (D) – vacated by Diane Watson (D)

CA-34 (Downtown L.A.): Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)

CA-35 (South Central): Maxine Waters (D)

CA-36 (Beach Cities): Jane Harman (D)

CA-37 (South Central, Long Beach): Laura Richardson (D)

CA-38 (Southeastern L.A. suburbs): Grace Napolitano (D)

CA-39 (Southeastern L.A. County): Linda Sánchez (D)

CA-40 (Northern Orange County): Ed Royce (R)

CA-41 (Most of San Bernardino County): Jerry Lewis (R)

CA-42 (Chino, Brea): Gary Miller (R)

CA-43 (Ontario, San Bernardino): Joe Baca (D)

CA-46 (Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Palos Verdes): Dana Rohrabacher (R)

CA-49 (Temecula, Oceanside): Darrell Issa (R)

CA-50 (Northern San Diego suburbs): Brian Bilbray (R)

CA-51 (Imperial County, southern SD suburbs): Bob Filner (D)

CA-52 (Eastern San Diego suburbs): Duncan D. Hunter (R)

CA-53 (San Diego): Susan Davis (D)

100,000 Strong: Sept. 1 Money Bomb!

It’s great to be back here blogging with you at Calitics!

First off, I’d just like to thank you for all of your support in the past. I really appreciate everything you’ve done — and continue to do.

It’s no secret: I’m in the middle of a tough re-election campaign against my right-wing opponent, Carly Fiorina.

Carly Fiorina is relying on her multimillion dollar personal checkbook to fund her Senate campaign against me. She’s already poured in millions of dollars, and she’s ready to spend millions more. And if that isn’t enough, George W. Bush’s top operative Karl Rove just launched $1 million of attack ads against me in Los Angeles.

But I have a secret weapon, something even more powerful than all of that: You, and the grassroots support of tens of thousands of supporters across California and across the country.

So, on September 1, our campaign is launching a new online effort — “100,000 Strong for Boxer” — our first ever “money bomb,” to demonstrate our campaign’s strong grassroots strength all on just one day.

Beginning today, we’re collecting pledges from friends like you to make September 1 a big success — and I’m asking you to stand up and be counted.

Make your pledge to our “100,000 Strong for Boxer” September 1 money bomb right now!

www.barbaraboxer.com/moneybomb

We’ve set a huge goal of 10,000 individual donations for our September 1 effort — which will also help us break through an amazing mark of 100,000 total grassroots donors to our campaign to-date.

It’s our most ambitious online fundraising push yet — and we can’t do it without you. Our opponents will be watching closely to see if we make it.

You can help us show that 100,000 grassroots Boxer donors are strong enough to combat Fiorina’s big checkbook, all in one day.

Be a part of this historic event by making a pledge to “100,000 Strong for Boxer” right now.

www.barbaraboxer.com/moneybomb

Fiorina and her allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Karl Rove, have already reserved nearly $9 million in TV time on California’s airwaves — and I’m sure that’s only a down payment.

The voters in California are going to have a clear choice in this election. I’m proud of my record on jobs, health care, the environment, choice, good public schools, and so many other issues we care about.

But I need your help to get our message out, in the wake of the millions upon millions that our opponents will put on TV:

www.barbaraboxer.com/moneybomb

Thank you so much for standing with me, today and every day!

— Barbara

Our Senators, the Climate Bill, and Tying Your Shoes with One Hand

Last Thursday, the Senate voted 53 to 47 to defeat the Murkowski resolution that would have undermined the EPA's ability to reduce global warming pollution. The vote provides a useful guide to how senators might act on a climate vote.

Of course, it is not a clear-cut comparison because some people voted against the flawed resolution to make a point about process or simply to support the science. It is significant to note that we have 10 more votes in favor of reducing carbon emissions than we did the last time climate change was discussed on the Senate floor two years ago.

But here is what I find most interesting about last week's vote: the number of Senators who have all publicly exclaimed that global warming is a pressing problem but who voted to block the EPA from dealing with it. Are they sitting on an “election year fence” or are the deep pockets of Big Oil & Coal companies propping up their campaign contribution fences? The question must be asked – Why do these senators benefit from burning caveman fuels?

Senator Rockefeller, for instance, said: “I am not here to deny or bicker fruitlessly about the science… In fact, I would suggest that I think the science is correct. Greenhouse gas emissions are not healthy for the Earth or her people, and we must take significant action to reduce them. We must develop and deploy clean energy, period.”

And yet the man voted to hamstring the EPA. Indeed, Senator Rockefeller intends to push his own bill that would put the EPA's effort to confront global warming on hold–giving West Virginia's coal industry a free pass for two more years.

Senator Chambliss from Georgia, meanwhile, said, “I know the climate is changing.” And Senator Hutchison from Texas declared: “As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote the use of clean and renewable sources of energy….It is important that we work together. We are the elected representatives of the people.”

And yet both of them voted against one of our main tools for combating global warming pollution: the EPA.

I'm sorry, but if you really believe this is a crisis, why wouldn't you want to fight it with every weapon available? Why wouldn't you deploy the muscle of both Congress AND the federal government?

While I was listening to last week's debate, I couldn't help but be reminded of teaching my three-year-old how to tie her shoes. I showed her how to do it with two hands, of course. Why on earth would I suggest she do it with one?

Yet that is what these Senators seem to be proposing. Senator Collins from Maine said:
“I believe global climate change and the development of alternatives to fossil fuels are significant and urgent priorities for our country.”

Why would she want us to fight global warming with one hand tied behind our back?

On the one hand, these statements are good news – despite the yelping of Inhofe and Hatch, the Senate is not a bastion of climate deniers. There's even a consensus that something must be done. The bad news is they're still not doing it. What is it that these Senators actually would support that isn't just some vague theory?

Our First Boxer Virtual Fundraiser

( – promoted by shayera)

It’s great to be here blogging with you at Calitics!  I look forward to stopping by regularly and working with you in the weeks and months ahead.

As you probably know, I’m running for re-election in 2010, and our June 30th fundraising deadline is rapidly approaching.  It’s important that we post solid numbers at the end of each quarter to show our potential right-wing opponents that we’re ready for anything they throw at us. But this deadline is even more important than most.

Why? (Edit by Brian…See the flip)

Because we understand that former HP CEO Carly Fiorina is poised to jump in the 2010 Senate race any day now. She’ll be the best-funded opponent I’ve ever faced, with nearly unlimited personal resources to pour into the campaign. We need to be ready to match her deep pockets with the grassroots support of friends like you.

So at this critical juncture, we’re going to do something truly unique – and I hope you’ll be a part of it!

On Tuesday, June 30th, at 6:15pm PT / 9:15pm ET, we’ll be hosting our first ever Boxer Virtual Fundraiser. You don’t need to drive anywhere, or get dressed up, or find a babysitter for the kids. In fact, all you need to do is jump online to join us.

During next Tuesday’s Boxer Virtual Fundraiser, I’ll be speaking to you live via webcast from San Francisco. I’ll share the latest information about the campaign and answer some of your questions in real-time – and you can just tune in over the internet to watch, listen, and participate.

Plus, because this is a virtual fundraiser, we don’t need to rent a room or pay for food and drinks. So 100% of your contribution will go directly into our Media Fund, preparing us for the attacks that are sure to come.

We’ve made it easy and affordable for everyone to participate in this grassroots fundraiser – and I hope you will.

Please click here to RSVP for our first Boxer Virtual Fundraiser now — and join us online next Tuesday at 6:15pm PT!

We’re going to have to get creative and pull out all the stops to win in 2010 – and next Tuesday’s online virtual fundraiser is just the first step.

Thanks so much for your continued support. I look forward to speaking to you Tuesday night!

Help Expand the Map of Competitive U.S. Senate Races

I know that California doesn’t have a U.S. Senate race in 2008.  But 33 other states do.  And anyone following the news over the last year-and-a-half has read about Senate Republicans filibustering anything and everything that moves, breaking the record for filibusters in a two-year Congressional session in less than one year!

It is critical that we expand our majority in the U.S. Senate to reduce this historic rate of Republican obstructionism, so that an Obama administration can proceed with an agenda that helps rather than hinders American progress.  I have been following this on my blog, Senate Guru, very closely and have been pushing for us to expand the map of competitive Senate races.

To that end, I have established the Expand the Map! ActBlue page, raising much needed funds for Democratic Senate candidates in uphill but competitive (or very-close-to-competitive) Senate races.  Every one of these Democratic Senate candidates who wins her or his race means one less Republican filibustering progressive legislation.  And every one of these Democratic Senate candidates has a message that will resonate with voters – all they need are the resources to get their messages out to the electorate and prevent the Republican incumbents from muddying their records.

With Monday night being the deadline for the second fundraising quarter of 2008, it is critical that we get funds in to help these Democratic candidates show strength.  So, please, please, please contribute if you can to any of the terrific candidates for Senate on the Expand the Map! ActBlue page.  Even though these candidates don’t represent your state, if elected, they will defeat the Republican obstructionism that very much impacts you and your state.