Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2010 Columbia University Democrats
Hello hello my favorite left-wingers,
Welcome to the third installment of Senate Election Watch 2010 with your tremendous board members Matt and Bridgit. Today we are looking at President Obama’s old standby, the Illinois senate seat being vacated by one Roland Burris. Burris, who has only been in office for two years, has had his tenure shrouded in controversy, being that he was appointed by ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich, who has since been impeached and removed from office on corruption charges. Burris, at the urging of the Democratic Party and President Obama, has declined to seek reelection, leaving the Democratic primary open to a variety of characters.
The Illinois primary was this past week, on February 2, making it the first 2010 election in the nation. On the Democratic side, a hotly contested battle ensued, with current Illinois treasurer Alexi Giannoulias coming out with 38.9% of the vote, about 5% more than the runner-up, David Hoffman, the current Inspector General of Chicago. The Republican half of the race was much less exciting, with current U.S. Congressman Mark Kirk taking 56% of the vote, a solid 35 points over his next closest competitor.
If there ever was a race (after Massachusetts of course) that would show the greater feelings of the country and its direction, Illinois must be it. Early polling, prior to the primary, had the race jumping all over the place, with both Giannoulias and Kirk seemingly having 5% leads over each other, depending on what poll you looked at. The first poll taken post-primary by Rasmussen the day after the primary, had Kirk with a 6 point lead. However, there is a 4.5% margin of error, and 10% of the Illinois voting population remains undecided.
Kirk has been able to take the lead in Illinois due to his strong fiscally-conservative record in the House, and socially moderate policies. Illinois has a strong Democratic tradition, and although they have no partisan registration, it is a state where true conservatives have had much trouble winning elections. Kirk has achieved popularity by playing off of independents’ and moderates’ current frustration with the direction of the country. Giannoulias is not a weak candidate however, having defeated State Senator Christine Radogno in 2006 for the Treasurer position, becoming not only the youngest person in the nation (at 30) to hold that office, but also becoming the first Democrat to hold it in 12 years.
The campaign has already gone negative, with the National Republican Senatorial Committee running an ad the day after the election comparing Giannoulias’s ethical record to that of Tony Soprano. Kirk himself criticized Giannoulias for mismanagement of a college savings program and for his work at Broadway Bank. Giannoulias responded by calling Kirk a “Washington insider” who is not right for Illinois. With things getting this hot nine months from Election Day, the state of Illinois and the country as a whole can only wait and see how it pans out. If the economy continues to struggle and Obama’s plans fail, it is likely that Kirk, a moderate, can steal the seats from the Democrats. However, if things improve (as they surely must), Giannoulias should bring out the Democrats and win a striking victory. We can only hope.
Next Week: Nevada Senate Race (Will Our Glorious Leader Survive?)
I don’t always get political, but when I do, I prefer the Democrats. Stay liberal my friends.
This post appeared in the Columbia Spectator on February 10, 2010.
The issue of marriage equality ought to resonate widely on this campus. College, at its best, prepares you for the next steps you take in life, from your career to your relationships. The possibility of open discussion about our futures, between students on an equal footing, reflects the ideal of the undergraduate community. If an important part of many of those futures is prohibited by law, for no reason other than sexual orientation, the achievement of this ideal becomes next to impossible. We have a large, active community of LGBTQ students here at Columbia – whose rights our government systematically denies. Regardless of the broader question of student engagement in politics, the issue of marriage equality is one of basic fairness, which, by affecting our friends and classmates, affects each of us.
In the fall of 2008, the College Democrats saw an opportunity to bring marriage equality to New York by helping the Democratic Party reclaim control of the New York State Senate for the first time in decades. The Assembly had already passed a marriage equality bill in 2007, and Governor David Paterson had announced his support for the measure – the Senate, it seemed, needed only to fall into Democratic hands to make marriage equality a reality here in New York. College Democrats members devoted hours volunteering on the campaign of Joe Addabbo, a City Councilmember from Queens who was running against a very vulnerable Republican. Addabbo had supported LGBTQ rights while on the City Council, and he advocated extending the right to marry to same-sex couples throughout his campaign. On December 1, 2009, however, Addabbo and seven other Democrats voted against recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry, and, because of their votes, the Marriage Equality Amendment fell in the Senate, 38-24.
Just over a year after the passing of Prop 8 in California and less than month after the referendum in Maine, this vote reflected not only the fragility of the gains made in the fight for full civil equality for LGBTQ citizens but also the cowardice of the politicians in the New York State Senate. Since that vote, LGBTQ Activists have been gearing up for another fight to bring marriage equality to New York.
This Thursday, the Students Advancing Marriage Equality (SAME) Campaign will bring that fight to Low Plaza. To highlight the hypocrisy of Addabbo and the other seven Democratic State Senators who voted against the bill in December – many of whom also campaigned in 2008 in support of marriage equality – we will be distributing petitions to be signed and sent to the offices of these Senators. Students representing the College Democrats and several LGBTQ organizations will speak, reflecting on the personal relevance of this issue as well as its political importance. We invite you to join us on Low Plaza to express your anger: anger at the unfairness of a law that prevents two people in love from getting married, anger at the snail-like pace of the progress on LGBTQ rights in this country, anger at the failure of politicians to keep their most fundamental promises.
Students, faculty, administrators, and other New Yorkers alike often lament the disconnect between the Columbia campus and our surroundings. Protected by the bubble of our classrooms and our dormitories, too often we can ignore the problems of the real world without feeling their consequences. Not this time. We, or someone we know, has or will be unable to marry, simply because they seek to marry someone of the same sex. The SAME campaign hopes to change that. As Columbia students, we have a stake in this city and this state. We all need to realize that and get involved – not for involvement’s sake, but to make New York a better and more just place to live.
Welcome to debate on Guantanamo Bay!
Debating for the Dems: Sarah and Jeanine!
(8:09) Republicans open – these are enemy combatants, don’t deserve civilian rights
(8:10) Democrats Opening: Guantanamo Bay and testimony does not aid in America’s national security. The information is often false. We’ve betrayed the values upon which this country has been founded.
(8:18) Is the right to Habeus Corpus for all constitutional? is it statutory? Republicans are arguing that enemy combatants are not given the right to Habeus Corpus, citing laws surrounding prisoners of war. Dems disagree
(8:20) Republicans ask: If Guantanamo Bay closes, do you honestly think that one less person will be recruited to Al Qaeda? Dems had argued that Guantanamo Bay harms US national security by providing a recruiting point for terrorist organizations. Audience starts to react to the debate by nodding emphatically.
(8:25) Oops – Republicans just said that they don’t care how prisoners are treated…..
(8:26) Republicans argue that we should turn to other alternatives. We should bring in Human Rights groups and open it to more Media access. Dems ask if they are being truly humane and Republicans argue that the debate is over whether the Guantanamo Bay should be closed – not whether torture is ok. That torture is wrong is (thankfully) a bipartisan opinion on this campus.
(8:34) Should sleep deprivation and solitary confinement be used? Republicans say yes. It does not leave permanent physical damage.
(8:36) What should happen? Dems: They need to have a trial and should either be released or convicted. Republicans: These detainees have important information and that is the issue with these solutions.
(8:40) Question is “name a piece of credible intelligence from Gitmo” – Republicans say they can’t name one but there has been claims that terrorist attacks have been stopped. Democrats cite military officials that claim that no credible evidence has been found.
(8:43) Should enemy combatants be read their miranda rights? Dems say that they need to clarify what the battlefield is here. On a battlefield, you need to do it in all reasonable speed. But in places like chicago O’Hare where Padilla was taken, this is no problem. Republicans say we should not give them to civilian rights.
(8:46) Good question from the Republicans – people kill Americans for everything from giving women voting rights to Guantanamo bay. When does it stop? Great Dems answer: When something makes someone hate us, that is not cause enough. But when it violates our principles and contributes to people hating us, then it should be stopped.
(8:50) How do we classify enemy combatants? Republicans don’t answer the question, but Democrats reinforce it.
2009 was supposed to be the year of marriage equality. After Democrats took control of all three branches of the state government, leaders including Governor David Paterson promised to pass marriage equality. However, Democrats had a very narrow majority of the Senate, a 32-30 split meant that just one Democratic defection would tie the Senate and create a gridlock. Very quickly, Senator Ruben Diaz, an ordained reverend from the Bronx, took advantage of that, threatening to join with the Republicans and prevent the Senate from getting anything done if Democrats tried to hold a vote on gay marriage. While this was resolved and he dropped his threat, it seemed that marriage equality might not come to a vote in the Senate at least until 2011.
Then, in a big surprise, soon after coming to an agreement on the state budget and passing it at the very beginning of December, marriage equality suddenly appeared on the Senate agenda. In the day before the vote, the State Assembly passed the gay marriage bill by a huge margin in order to boost the prospects and momentum of what would be a historic act. There were numerous very emotional speeches in favor of the bill, with only one exception, that of Ruben Diaz who once again spoke against the bill. Normally, bills only come to a vote after the Senate leaders know it will pass, and considering the debate prior to the vote, the odds seemed very good.
But when the votes came in, all that changed. First, Senator Joe Addabbo, from Queens, whom we had volunteered for and helped to elect in 2008 in a campaign supporting of marriage equality, voted “No”. Apparently, he was spooked that his protege had just lost an election to a Republican, and thought voting for the bill might endanger his reelection campaign. Then, Senator James Alesi, a Republican from Rochester, who was known to support gay rights but feared a primary challenge from conservative Republicans, voted “No”, as well. The bill quickly sank, gathering only 24 Democratic votes, while no Republicans stood in favor of marriage equality. 8 Democrats even voted against the bill: Diaz, Addabbo, Darrell Aubertine (North Country), Shirley Huntley (Queens), Carl Kruger (Brooklyn), Hiram Monserrate (Queens), George Onorato (Queens), and Bill Stachowski (Buffalo).
If we want marriage equality in 2011, we’ll need to flip 8 votes to support the bill. Onorato is planning on retiring and will likely be replaced by a supporter of marriage equality. Stachowski and Monserrate are facing primary challenges from supporters of marriage equality, and that leaves 6 votes left. We’re starting with Joe Addabbo, and working to gain those 6 votes in support of marriage equality.
Greetings fellow depressed and angry Dems,
Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com had a great piece last fall about the Democratic senators representing states that McCain won in November 2008. Of these thirteen senators, only two are up for reelection in 2010: Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Byron Dorgan (ND). These two seats are the focus of our post this week.
North Dakota: Open (D)
Dorgan announced in January that he would not seek reelection in the fall. While no democratic candidate has announced their intentions to run thus far, there is speculation that the former North Dakota Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp will run. She faces tough competition in North Dakotan Governor John Hoeven. Current polls have her down 21 points. However, these polls are premature considering neither party has started to spend significant amounts of money in the race and the primary isn’t until June 8.
Heitkamp was Attorney General from 1993 to 2000 when she lost a gubernatorial bid to Hoeven. Her biggest achievement in office was contributing to a multi-state lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Hoeven, meanwhile, sports an 87% approval rating after nearly a decade as governor, the highest of any governor in the United States.
It doesn’t look good for the great state of North Dakota.
Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln (D)
With her latest approval ratings at 27%, the Democrats chances look almost as bleak in Arkansas. Lincoln has not been able to connect with any portion of the voting electorate, having only 51% of her party’s support, 17% of independents, and just 9% of Republicans. It appears here initial resistance to health care reform and her continued berating of the public option has gotten her no where politically (shocking). The one possible advantage that the Democrats have in Arkansas is that the Republican primary is shaping up to be a brutal fight, which could enable Lincoln to solidify her support amongst her own party and try to make inroads with independents before the GOP has a candidate. In fact, there are 9 announced candidates in the Republican primary, including the vice-chair of the Washington County Tea Party (WOW). In any case, it is still unlikely that the Dems will hold on to this seat, but there does seem to be a slight glimmer of hope here, unlike in North Dakota.
These two feisty liberals are very sad to report on these two states today, but hopefully with an economy turning around and more impressive Democratic legislation to come in the next few months, the tide will be turned and the Dems will retain these two states.
Next Week: Obama’s Old Seat! Illinois.
I don’t always get political, but when I do I prefer the Democrats. Stay liberal my friends.
