Cross posted from SoapBlox/Chicago
written by bored now, formatting by wegerje
first in a series

....
donors and volunteers are valuable, and shouldn't have their time wasted:

three times in the past eight days i've been asked about how a potential volunteer and contributor should budget their time in campaigns within shouting distance of chicago.  this isn't really an easy request.  how you should spend *your* time and money should reflect your priorities, your ideological leanings, and your "vision" for the country.  if you are really concerned about local things, even in so-called red districts, you should spend your time helping to build up your local party organization, regardless of your candidate's chances in the fall.  think strategically, act locally.

meaning, how you spend your time and money doesn't have to be objective.  an exercise like this one does.

a mentor of mine, stealing liberally from sun tzu, developed a fairly decent set of variables that he believed were determinative in the outcome of elections:

  1. the candidate
  2. money
  3. local political environment
  4. local political climate
  5. field (gotv) organization

the candidates in the list below all meet some basic level of competitiveness.  same can be said about their fund-raising and field organization hitherto this point.

local political environment, meaning those aspects about this election cycle that we *cannot* change (ie, the state these races are in, the three wars in the middle east, gasoline prices, patrick fitzgerald, etc), sets the stage for these races.  rod blagojevich is nominally at the top of the ticket in illinois (congressional races will be listed first on the ballot, but historically congressional races are not considered the "top of the ticket" in voter's minds).  while we continue to come across evidence that the governor enjoys *considerable* support in the city of chicago (approximately one-third of the electorate), it appears that his support is less solid outside the city limits.  otoh, george bush and the war in iraq act as a huge drag on republican candidates.  israel's invasion of lebanon and the recent stem cell veto haven't really worked their way into the electorate's consciousness, so i would only be speculating what kind of effect they will have on november.

the local political climate are those aspects of the overall context in which these races that can be changed.  in some places, such as the chicago mayoral election in 19851983, the political climate was changed significantly by the 100,000 new voters that were registered by the forces rallying around harold washington.  another way to alter the political climate would be to convince people to relinquish their spot on the ballot, fundamentally changing the dynamics of the race.  one aspect of the political climate that is changing is in terms of partisan funding.

there are two other factors that i personally consider: (aggressive) messaging and the 2008 presidential election.  aggressive messaging is one of my (three) keys to a campaign (money and organization being the others).  if you are not willing to communicate strong contrasts between yourself and your opponents, you shouldn't be in the race.  you have to give voters sufficient reason to consider you, especially if you are asking them to fire someone they've voted for before.

finally, for me, everything has a context, and the one overarching context for these elections are the 2008 presidential elections.  there is nothing more important to me than insuring that george bush's pre-emption doctrine does not become our national security policy by default.  there is, at the moment, no consensus behind the bush doctrine, moral thinkers understand that it is fundamentally immoral, and bush has done little to create a broad consensus behind it, either here or abroad.  nonetheless, karl rove has done his best to see that opposition to the bush doctrine is silenced, and many democrats have been cowed by these tactics.

so, on to the list.  remember, these are the most competitive races that one could, if so motivated, reasonably travel to from the chicagoland area in a relatively short period of time:

1. Claire McCaskill for Senate (Missouri): if you are tired of bush's supreme court and appellate nominees, the senate is what it's all about.  claire is a great example of what we call running for two -- she ran for governor in 2004, and basically never stopped running.  more importantly, mccaskill learned the lessons from democratic successes in colorado and montana, namely to draw links between democratic issues and voters, greater reliance on volunteers, and aggressive messaging tailored to the local electorate (cf, The Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2006 for more on this).  in this case, mccaskill has placed herself squarely between jim talent and the voters.  and, like democrats farther west, she has gone after rural voters in the so-called red areas (out-state, in missouri parlance) with four RV tours between the major urban centers.

mccaskill is running against senator jim talent, who won the 2002 special election for the remaining years of the carnahan seat (he died before election, beating john ascroft in 2000).  polls show mccaskill slightly ahead, research 2000 gave her a 49%-43% lead -- although careful observers will remember that mccaskill was slightly ahead in 2004.  mydd has an interview with her, the dscc has this biography, emily's list has this political report, and this breaks down her stance on the issues.  she blogs and she's demonstrated grassroots support by winning barbara boxer's leadership pac challenge.  the fix ranks this race 4th among 2006 senatorial contests and both larry sabato and charlie cook have this as a toss-up.  for those who chanted, no more alitos!, this race is for you...

contributions can be made here.  COH: $2,050,483  (talent COH: $5,674,707)

2. Governor Jennifer Granholm (Michigan): if you care about presidential politics, and especially about the republican expansion into swing states like iowa and new mexico in 2004 (largely due to extension of the voter vault database), then this is your race.  but there's more, because as mydd points out, granholm is being swift-boated.  granholm seems to be another one of those democrats that drives republicans insane, because she is attractive, bold and effective as a communicator and coalition-builder.  as governor, she has been pushing programs on issues that progressives care about like education, the environment, jobs and health care.  governing magazine named her an outstanding leader in "Grading the States 2005."  granholm successfully brought google to ann arbor, michigan as part of her "Jobs for Michigan" program.  seven other companies opened new headquarters there last year, and toyota plans to build a state-of-the-art research and development facility.  granholm expanded health care coverage for 300,000 uninsured residents and in 2004, she introduced the MiRx Card, providing discount prescription drugs to uninsured families.  since 2003, michigan has enrolled almost 50,000 additional children for health insurance.

governor granholm is running against dick devos, former chairman of amway.  devos is sinking tens of millions into his campaign, and the michigan gop is running one of the most aggressive voter vault, voter id projects in the country.  polls have tightened considerably since devos went on tv, from granholm being slightly ahead, to devos surging, to somewhat closer.  the dga has this record of achievement, emily's list has this political report, there's another one here, and here is her stance on the issues.  the fix ranks this race 8th among 2006 gubernatorial contests and both larry sabato and charlie cook rate this as a toss-up.

contributions can be made here.  COH: (reporting period closes today)

3. Bruce Braley for Congress (Iowa): everyone knows that, if democrats are going to take back the u.s. house of representatives, they must win seats currently held by republicans.  bruce braley is running for the open seat in the 1st congressional district of iowa, currently held by jim nussle (R).  john kerry won this congressional district, 53% to 46%, which made it a natural target for democrats when nussle choose to run for governor.  braley is pro-choice and considered a solid progressive and favorite among the grassroots in eastern iowa.

braley is running against restaurateur mike whalen, who was outspoken in the republican primary about illegal immigration.  braley has this diary on daily kos, and is registered with dfalink.  the associated press has this biography, project vote smart has this breakdown.  braley has made the dccc's red-to-blue project as well as actblue's blue america project.  the fix ranks this race 1st among 2006 congressional contests and both larry sabato and charlie cook have this race as a toss-up.

contributions can be made here.  COH: $130,706  (whalen COH: $215,223)

4. Baron Hill for Congress (Indiana): in 2004, mike sodrel defeated incumbent congressman baron hill, 49% to 49%, while bush enjoyed almost a 20 percentage point advantage over john kerry.  in 2006, it's payback time.  congressional democrats have made a considerable commitment to winning back this seat, reserving 11 weeks in the evansville, indiana television market, 6 weeks weeks in the louisville, kentucky market and 3 weeks in the indianapolis market for this race.  hill recently benefitted from president clinton's first fund-raising effort for a congressional candidate.  this ought to make sense, as hill could easily be defined as a dlc-type democrat.

hill has set up his own meetups and is cultivating grassroots support in louisville, across the river from this congressional district.  project vote smart has biographical information and here is hill's stances on the issues.  hill is another member of the dccc's red-to-blue project.  the fix ranks this race 6th among 2006 congressional contests.  both larry sabato and charlie cook have this as a toss-up.

contributions can be made here.  COH: $973,305  (sodel COH: $1,138,911)

5. Dan Kotowski for State Senate (Illinois): it won't surprise me if the illinois state senate seat in the 33rd district isn't the closest race in illinois.  dan kotowski is the former executive director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, and -- perhaps unsurprisingly -- won the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence's first candidate endorsement for 2006.  dan was heavily backed by jan schakowsky's organization in the primary, and i'd expect them to continue to put resources behind winning his election.  schakowsky was joined by various unions and interest groups in endorsing dan over a well-funded opponent in the democratic primary, including ivi-ipo.

dan has centered his campaign around 1.) Providing quality education; 2.) Securing affordable healthcare; 3.) Guaranteeing that the dream of home ownership stays within reach; and 4.) Promoting a vibrant business environment.  he is running against cheryl axley, who was appointed to the senate when dave sullivan resigned.  she is the elk grove township gop committeeman, and was previously the township clerk for 12 years.  given the morbidity of the democratic party in illinois (dpi has largely handed over its electoral duties to the governor's campaign), and the fratricidal conduct of maine township republicans, dan's commitment to going door-to-door and building a strong base may be sufficient to win in this normally republican district.  both dfa groups and idn are supporting dan's candidacy.

contributions can be made here.

more on this list later!