Tomorrow’s the big day. Hopefully all of you are going to get out and vote. If you’re in New York, I hope you’ll vote on the Working Families Party line — they support the most progressive candidates, and are certainly more in line with my values than the Democratic party is. And you won’t be hurting mainstream Democratic politicians by voting for Working Families — Eliot Spitzer and most other Dems are listed on the ballot as Democrats and as Working Families. It doesn’t matter if you vote for them on the Democrat line or the Working Families line; they’ll get your vote either way. The difference? The Working Families Party is unified behind issues like universal healthcare, bringing the troops home, affordable housing, alternative energy, equal rights, a reform of the Rockefeller drug laws, marriage equality, immigrant rights, and more. Voting these values sends a strong message to Democratic politicians that there’s a thriving, progressive contingent within the party, and that we must be represented if they want to secure our support. Politicians pay attention to where their votes are coming from. If you’re a New York voter, make sure that your vote represents your values. Eliot Spitzer and Gloria Steinem have more about Working Families.
But we aren’t all in New York, and it’s not the New York race that’s going to make or break a Democratic majority in the house or the senate. The Congressional elections are the big deal on Tuesday, but we can’t forget important state measures, like the South Dakota abortion ban and the parental notification laws on Oregon and California. And this isn’t exactly a monumental year for women’s rights — while voters are considering banning abortion and limiting abortion rights in several states, only 15 percent of the more than 1200 candidates in this election cycle are women. (Interesting sidenote: Only 70 percent have email. Who are the 360 candidates who have yet to discover the internets?)
I hope you’ve all taken the time to evaluate the candidates in your state and your district. But since I know we’re all busy people, and not all of us have the time to look up every single fact about the people running for office and the big issues up for a vote, state-by-state thoughts are below the fold (Senate only, sorry — I don’t have time to look into every district in question. Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments, though).
Here’s what the election break-down looks like:
via Wikipedia:
List of U.S. Senate seats up for reelection in the 2006 election. The states are color-coded: red meaning a Republican incumbent, blue meaning a Democratic incumbent, and yellow meaning an independent candidate. Gray means no seats in that state are up for reelection in 2006. Light blue means a Democratic incumbent is not running and pink means the Republican incumbent will not run in 2006.
The New York Times has a more helpful map, which organizes states according to how strongly Democratic/Republican they are. From that map, we see that there are three states which are truly up for grabs: Missouri, Montana and Virginia. Forty states are pretty much sure to go Dem; 47 are pretty sure to go Republican. Eight are leaning Dem, and two are leaning Republican. If those elections all go as expected, we’ve got 48 Democratic states and 49 Republican states. Since these three middle states are going to make or break the majority, we’ll cover them first.
Missouri
James Talent (R) v. Claire McCaskill (D)
(I support McCaskill).
Talent is the incumbent senator, and is outspending McCaskill — he also has significantly more cash on hand than she does. McCaskill is endorsed by the Sierra Club and NARAL Pro-Choice America. Talent is one of the most anti-choice members of Congress. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and is against stem cell research, despite the fact that most Missourians are in favor of it. McCaskill supports stem cell research, and is pro-choice. She’s a very strong progressive candidate, and one of the few women up for election this year.
Montana
Conrad Burns (R) v. Jon Tester (D)
(I support Tester).
Conrad Burns is the Republican incumbent, and another one of the most anti-choice sitting Senators. He’s also an absolute nutcase, and notoriously corrupt. He votes against measures which would reduces the instances of unintended pregnancy, like birth control access. Tester is pro-choice, with a focus on reducing unintended pregnancies through education and prevention. He led the fight for contraceptive equity in Montana by asking the state attorney general to pursue the question of whether Montana state law requires insurance companies to cover contraceptives (the attorney general found that it does). Tester opposes the PATRIOT Act, and supports stem cell research, which his opponent has voted against. Despite Burns having spent almost twice as much as Tester (and having about twice as much cash on hand), the latest polls show Tester inching ahead. Cross your fingers, and if you’re in Montana, get out and cast your ballot.
Virginia
George Allen (R) and James Webb (D)
(I grudgingly support James Webb)
This is one of those unfortunate lesser-of-two-evils races. Webb is essentially a Republican on national security issues, but has been very critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war and the “war on terror.” He’s loosely pro-choice, but not great on general civil rights issues. He’s against affirmative action, calling it “state-sponsored racism.” He’s against same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions. But for all of Webb’s faults, George Allen, the Republican incumbent, is far and away worse. He’s against marriage equality, and co-sponsored the Marriage Amendment, which would enshrine gender-based discrimination into the Constitution. He takes the “stay the course” line in Iraq, without proposing any real solution or plan of action. He’s strongly anti-choice, and as governor of Virginia pushed through a parental notification law. He’s anti-immigrant, calling illegal immigration one of the biggest problems facing our country, and claims that it’s undermining our security and our economy. Webb’s nowhere near perfect, but Allen is a hell of a lot worse. Getting him out of the senate would be a major victory.
Those are the biggies. But there are some other contentious and interesting races which are certainly worth following. They are, loosely from left coast to right:
Washington
Maria Cantwell (D) v. Mike McGavick (R)
(I support Cantwell).
Maria Cantwell is the incumbent senator in my home state. She’s one of the strongest pro-choice senators, earning a 100% pro-choice voting record from NARAL Pro-Choice America. She’s great on the environment, and is endorsed by the Sierra Club. She strongly opposed drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, and has been a leader in pursuing alternative energy. She narrowly unseated Slade Gordon in the last election, which was no small feat. Her opponent is pretty terrible. He’s proposed mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients who care for children, and wants to get rid of the estate tax, ensuring that the wealthiest Americans will be able to get even greater tax breaks in passing on their wealth to their heirs. He’s anti-same-sex marriage, and his views on choice issues are mixed: He doesn’t support a federal ban on abortion, but supports parental notification laws and a ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortion. In other words, he wouldn’t outlaw abortion, but he’d be happy to limit it. Luckily, it looks like Cantwell is going to take the race. I can’t vote for her because I’m registered in New York, but hopefully those of you who are from my lovely home state will turn out for Cantwell.
Minnesota
Amy Klobuchar (D) v. Mark Kennedy (R)
(I support Amy Klobuchar)
Klobuchar is pro-choice, and supports stem cell research. She’s anti-war, and focuses largely on issues that affect the middle class. Kennedy, by contrast, is anti-marriage-equality, supports a ban on so-called “partial-birth abortion,” supports parental notification laws, wants to extend welfare work requirements, wants to require colleges to allow military recruiters on campus even if doing so violates their anti-discrimination policies, and supports making English the official language of the United States. In short, Kennedy’s a very bad choice. Luckily, Minnesota is leaning blue, but make sure you get out and vote to make sure that Klobuchar gets the seat.
Arizona
Jon Kyl (R) v. Jim Pederson (D)
(I support Jim Pederson).
Republican incumbent Kyl has the edge over Pederson, but Arizona Dems can still get it together and take the election. And this one is certainly worth taking. Kyl voted to erect a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and sponsored two Constitutional amendments to prohibit abortion, without making exceptions for rape, incest, or the pregnant woman’s health. He cast a “No” vote on important legislation that would have prevented unintended pregnancies by giving $100 million to sexual health education and contraception access. He voted “Yes” on banning so-called “partial-birth abortion,” labelling the fetus as a person under the law, maintaining a ban on military base abortions, and limiting stem cell research. NARAL Pro-Choice America gives him a 0 rating on pro-choice positions. He supported Constitutional amendments banning flag burning, and is against marriage equality, voting for an amendment which would have disallowed same-sex couples from having the same marital rights as opposite-sex couples. He voted against expanding the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability, and voted against a law which would have prevented employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation in their hiring practices. He supports loosening wiretapping restrictions on cell phones, and scores very poorly on the ACLU’s evaluation of his civil rights record. He voted against establishing a timetable to get our troops out of Iraq, voted no on investigating potentially corrupt contract deals in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has unquestioningly backed the mess we’ve created in the Middle East. Further, he’s against universal healthcare, and consistently votes to protect insurance companies and HMOs at the expense of American citizens. Long story short, he’s pretty damn bad. Pederson, by contrast, is generally pro-choice, and supports sexual health education and contraception access. He’s endorsed by NARAL, and is challenging one of the more anti-choice sitting senators. He’s also endorsed by the Sierra Club, supports finishing the job in Iraq and getting our troops home, wants to redirect our anti-terror campaign to focus on actual terrorists, and endorses renewable energy sources and protecting the environment. Kyl has a decent margin, but he doesn’t have the election in the bag. Arizona voters still have time to shift this election.
Michigan
Debbie Stabenow (D) v. Mike Bouchard (R)
(I support Stabenow)
Stabenow is the incumbent, and she’s got a pretty solid lead — and thank goodness for that. Her opponent is endorsed by all the major anti-choice groups, including National Right to Life, Michigan Right to Life, and Citizens for Traditional Values. He has a 100% anti-choice voting record, is against stem cell research, and is endorsed by the NRA. He opposes same-sex marriage and right-to-die legislation, going so far as to help push through Michigan’s ban on assisted suicide. He’s against universal healthcare, and virtually any government funding of medical care. Stabenow, by contrast, has a 100% pro-choice voting record. She’s the first woman to be elected as a U.S. Senator in Michigan, supports patients’ rights, and has worked to protect the environment and Michigan’s Great Lakes. She’s endorsed by the Sierra Club and NARAL, voted against redeploying troops to Iraq, and voted for investigating potentially corrupt contract deals in Iraq and Afghanistan. She supports making prescription drugs affordable and available, and making college more affordable for middle-class families.
Ohio
Mike DeWine (R) v. Sherrod Brown (D)
(I support Sherrod Brown).
Incumbent Mike DeWine is a pretty bad guy. He’s strongly (and proudly) anti-choice, and has a 100% anti-choice voting record. He co-sponsored legislation which would criminalize aunts, grandmas, and friends who took minor girls over state lines to have abortions; is against stem cell research; wrote the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which unnecessarily established fetal personhood under the guise of making it a crime to kill a fetus in the commission of a crime; co-sponsored the so-called “partial birth abortion” ban, which offers no exception for the pregnant woman’s health; voted in favor of legislation which bars organizations abroad who receive U.S. funding from even mentioning abortion as an option or agitating for abortion rights in their own countries; voted against sexual health education and contraception access to reduce unintended pregnancies; and voted to confirm both Roberts and Alito. He voted in favor of a constitutional amendment against marriage equality, voted no on prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and voted against adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, and in favor of loosening wiretapping restictions on cell phones. He’s strongly pro-big-business, and generally supports corporate welfare and tax cuts for the richest Americans. He voted to go into Iraq, does not support setting a time-table for withdrawl, and voted against investigating contract awards in Iraq and Afghanistan. His Democratic challenger, who has an edge in the polls, wants to pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, and supports drawing up some sort of plan for the future. He’s pro-choice, supports stem cell research, opposed legislation that would criminalize friends and relatives who accompany girls across state lines for abortions, voted against the law that established fetal personhood, voted against the so-called “partial birth abortion” ban, voted against federal funding of healthcare providers who refuse to offer information on abortion, is endorsed by NARAL and has a 100% pro-choice voting record. He’s against the PATRIOT Act, against a Constitutional amendment against marriage equality, voted against dangerous legislation which would have denied any federal court jurisdiction to hear cases regarding the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, voted against banning gay adoptions in DC, sponsored a Constitutional amendment for gender equality, and scores an 87% voting record in support of civil rights by the ACLU. This one is a no-brainer. But the latest polls show DeWine making some gains — if you’re in Ohio, don’t be complacent with this one.
Tennessee
Bob Corker (R) v. Harold Ford (D)
(I grudgingly support Harold Ford)
This is another of those lesser-of-two-evils races. Both candidates are anti-choice, but Ford supports measures to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions, and supports stem cell research. He voted in favor of banning partial-birth abortion and supported legislation that would criminalize people who helped minors cross state lines to obtain abortions, but opposed legislation granting personhood to the fetus, withdrawing U.S. funds from international health clinics, and funding healthcare organizations that refuse to provide information about abortion. Overall, a very mixed bag — and NARAL only gives him a 30% pro-choice rating. However, he is decent on environmental issues, and has been endorsed by the Sierra Club. And Bob Corker is worse. He’s against embryonic stem cell research and marriage equality, and, despite having employed illegal immigrants, supports build the “security fence” along the Mexican border. Of course, Ford has voted to support the Minutemen, but voted against required reporting of illegal immigrants receiving hospital treatment. He’s highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq situation, but did vote to authorize the war in the first place. So, far from perfect. But if I were in Tennessee, I would still hold my nose and vote for Ford.
Pennsylvania
Rick Santorum (R) v. Robert Casey Jr. (D)
(I grudgingly support Casey)
Rick Santorum is a bad, bad man, and I would support just about anyone running against him, provided that they were less bad. Which is why I back Bob Casey, despite the fact that he’s anti-choice. Why even bother to support the less bad candidate? Well, to start, there’s this. And then there’s the fact that Santorum is definitely in the running for Worst Sitting Senator. He’s as anti-choice as they get. He’s blindly and ignorantly pro-war, refusing to question the Bush administration’s blunders and supporting the corporate-sponsored corruption that’s grown in the wake of our “victory” in Afghanistan and our destruction of Iraq. He’s virulently homophobic, opposes marriage equality and pretty much all basic rights for gays and lesbians. And he claims to be a forerunning in the “War on Islamic Fascism.” Yeah. There is nothing good about this man. Do I hate encouraging people to vote for an anti-choice candidate? Yes. But to be fair, Bob Casey is anti-choice in the vein of Harry Reid — that is, he supports programs that have been proven to lower the unintended pregnancy rate and the abortion rate, like comprehensive sexual health education, affordable and accessible contraception, healthcare access, etc. Were abortion rights up for a senate vote, I don’t think that he would vote to make abortion illegal. At the same time, Casey is good on healthcare issues, the environment, and the Iraq war. He may be personally anti-choice, and that bothers me, but he doesn’t seem like he’s ready to legislate his personal morality on the rest of us. And that matters. Perhaps I’m a sell-out to the Democratic party for endorsing him, but he’s astronomically better than Santorum. And that matters.
Maryland
Ben Cardin (D) v. Michael Steele (R)
(I support Ben Cardin)
This one is a no-brainer. Ben Cardin is great on human rights issues, taking a stand against employment discrimination and hate crimes leveled against gays and lesbians. He was a leader in bringing the war criminals in the Balkans to justice, and has been a major player in the war on human trafficking. He voted against the Iraq war, and now seeks to take our little imperialistic project in a new (and better) direction. He’s a big supporter of public schools, and is good on environmental and energy issues. He’s been a reliable vote in favor of increased access to childcare and early childhood education, even testifying before Congress about the need to increase childcare funding for lower-income families. He’s very pro-choice, and has taken on insurance companies in their lack of coverage for contraceptives, mammograms and cervical cancer screenings. He’s received perfect scores from NOW and the American Association of University Women. In short, Cardin’s an excellent choice. The same cannot be said for his opponent. Michael Steele opposes the most promising types of stem cell research. He supports embryo adoption for embryos left at fertility clinics. He’s vague on his abortion views, saying only that he thinks stare decisis should rule when it comes to Roe (that is, the court should not overturn it). He’s decidedly anti-choice, but goes the route of increasing restrictions on abortion to the point where Roe is nil, instead of pushing the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. He’s against marriage equality, and has said that he would still vote to authorize the Iraq war even if he knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. In other words, he’s a homobigot, is against women’s rights, and is an apologist for the administration and the mess they’ve created. It’s an easy choice, Marylanders.
New Jersey
Robert Menendez (D) v. Thomas Kean Jr. (R)
(I support Menendez)
This might be another “hold your nose and vote” election for some liberals in New Jersey — I know that if I lived there, I would feel that way. Menendez isn’t so bad on the issues, but he’s just a jerk. Luckily, though, we don’t have to like him as a person to vote for him. And he is much better than Kean on the issues — he supports stem cell research, he’s stongly pro-choice with a 100% rating from NARAL, and he’s good on environmental issues with an endorsement from the Sierra Club. He’s strongly anti-war, and has been pushing for an exit strategy to get our troops home and stabilize the situation over there. He voted for the anti-flag-burning amendment, which is a drawback, but a silly one — that amendment gets trotted out every year around election time, the liberal senators knew it wouldn’t pass, and some of them voted for it to please their constituencies. Obnoxious? Sure. But definitely not a deal-breaker. Menendez isn’t great on marriage equality, but he does oppose a Constitutional amendment enshrining discrimination into law. Kean holds essentially the same views on same-sex marriage, but is bad in other civil rights areas — he’s against affirmative action, and though he claims to be pro-choice he supports restrictions on abortion rights. And the biggie: He supports the war in Iraq. Yes, even now. Menendez may be an asshole, but I hope that we’re voting on the issues, not personality. And hopefully, New Jersey will go blue.
Rhode Island
Lincoln Chafee v. Sheldon Whitehouse
(I support Sheldon Whitehouse, but not particularly strongly)
I can’t bring myself to endorse a candidate just because they have a D next to their name. And this race is kind of a relief, since both candidates are actually pretty decent. And they both have fantastic names, don’t they? But I think Whitehouse’s international policy stance is stronger, and so he gets my endorsement — although I think Chafee tops the list of Republican senators I wouldn’t be nervous about keeping on (Olympia Snowe might rival him). Chafee is endorsed by NARAL and the Sierra Club, but I can’t help thinking that those endorsements were strategic, since the incumbent is usually favored to win. Chafee is strongly pro-choice. So is Whitehouse. Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against the Iraq war; Whitehouse is strongly anti-war. Both have generally good, though somewhat mixed, civil rights records. Both are good on sexual orientation issues. Whitehouse inches ahead because he’s generally slightly better on these things, but I won’t be heartbroken either way. Perhaps this makes me a bad Democrat. I don’t care.
Connecticut
Ned Lamont (D) v. Alan Schlesinger (R) v. Joe Lieberman (I)
(I support Ned Lamont)
Lieberman is going to win, and this pains me. He’s a whiney titty-baby who needs to give it up, realize he wasn’t the Democratic choice, and back the fuck off. I don’t have the patience or the stomach to discuss all of his downfalls (primary of which is his stance on the war), but suffice it to say that Lamont is the clear progressive candidate, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Lieberman switches party affiliation once he’s elected. Fuck him. If you’re in Connecticut, I really hope you cast your vote for Lamont, and at least give Lieberman a run for his money.
The other races are all pretty set, and it’s almost midnight and I just don’t have the time/patience to detail all of them. Get out and vote tomorrow. Feel free to leave your thoughts about particular races/issues in the comments. And since an endorsement post would be nothing without a prediction, I say that the Democrats take the House but not the Senate.