It's Almost As Though The Georgia GOP Has Figured Out A Way To Elect Michelle Nunn To The Senate

Sam Nunn (L), Michelle Nunn (R)

Virginia Republicans who weren't paying close enough attention are still wondering how their party got saddled with such radical extremists at the top of their ticket. Neo-fascist Ken Cuccinelli and certifiably insane sociopath E.W. Jackson are not going to attract any of the independent swing voters Virginia Republicans need to win statewide, not even against a Democratic candidate as patently unattractive as Terry McAuliffe. But there was no primary. The Cooch manipulated the system so that a nominating convention, dominated by extremists and radical ideologues, would determine who the candidates were. That was a disaster for Virginia Republicans-- and some Georgia Republicans would like to follow suit.

With Michelle Nunn looking more likely to run for the open Senate seat-- and looking like she could beat any of the extremists, especially Handel or Broun, the far right of the Georgia GOP is doing exactly what Nunn's advisors were hoping they'd do: follow Virginia down the yellow brick road... to electoral oblivion. The far right activists are petrified that Rove and other "pragmatists" are trying to manipulate the process in favor of someone who could win a general election.

Georgia Republicans are weighing an election shift that could reshape the state’s political landscape by giving grass-roots activists tremendous new clout in picking the party’s nominee.

State GOP leaders plan to vote Saturday whether to take a first step away from the summer primaries that elect the party’s nominee and toward allowing a convention of party insiders to choose the candidate for statewide and national office. Consider it an audition for a more sweeping electoral change.

Not surprisingly, some elected Republican leaders and assorted power brokers are wary of an overhaul they fear could disenfranchise the roughly 700,000 people who vote in party primaries and cede power to a smaller group of activists.

But supporters say the change is needed to offset what the resolution calls the “power of Big Money and Big Media” and give more say to the activists who feel they’ve been ignored during the GOP’s ascendancy.

“This is an effort to try to remove money from the nominating contest, and some who aren’t in support of it are the ones who enjoy the privilege to dictate who will be our nominee through their money,” said Dale Jackson, a LaGrange businessman who chairs the state GOP’s 3rd district.

“Right now there are a very few people who are participating, and those are the people who can afford to spend hundreds if not millions of dollars to influence who wins the nomination.”

The pitch comes at a pivotal moment for Georgia Republicans. Gov. Nathan Deal and other leaders routinely acknowledge the party needs to broaden its message or risk facing a resurgent Democratic Party emboldened by a growing minority population. And the heated competition for an open U.S. Senate spot triggered a race to the right that some fear could give Democrats a better chance at seizing the seat.

...The party’s establishment wing hasn’t been keen on the idea, and some point to Virginia as a prime example why. Virginia’s Republicans selected E.W. Jackson, a little-known minister and attorney, as their candidate for lieutenant governor despite controversial comments about gays and abortion that could haunt him during the general election.

“I’m not sure less democracy is the solution, at this point in our history, to whatever ills or frustrations are out there,” House Speaker David Ralston said this week. “I can’t support that and I don’t support it. I re-read the resolution this morning and I’m not sure what the rationale for it might be.”

Brant Frost V, the Coweta County GOP chairman who brought the resolution, said his reasoning is simple: The grass-roots base that powered the GOP for generations during its political exile has been “discriminated against” as the party came to power in the past decade. Enough members of the party’s 16-member resolution committee agreed, setting up Saturday’s vote.

“We’ve seen the cost of a primary spiral out of control, and that means you’re excluding candidates who can’t raise the money,” said the 23-year-old, whose family has been influential in GOP politics. “Politics is like a stew. You’ve got to have money, support, the ground game. But we’ve so spiced it up with the money angle that we’ve completely deadened the effect of all the other essential ingredients.”

...Top Republicans, though, are wary of any changes. Ralston, a Blue Ridge Republican, said the voters in his North Georgia district spend their nights going to Little League games and weekends hunting and fishing-- not at party meetings and insider conventions.

“Are we going to tell them that if they don’t have time to be an activist then we are going to disenfranchise them?” he asked. “I’m not going there.”

He may have no choice-- and that would open the door further to a crackpot like Paul "Lies Straight From the Pit of Hell" Broun, a John Bircher, Karen Handel or Phil Gingrey, all fringe candidates Nunn could beat statewide. Although there's another Democrat running as well, Branko Radulovacki-- "call me Dr. Rad"-- an Atlanta psychiatrist, Republicans are blasting away at Nunn.

“National Republicans are so terrified of the possibility of a Michelle Nunn candidacy that they are already misleading the public about her and her record,” said Matt Canter... at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “The divisive Tea Party primary and the demographic changes in Georgia, make this seat one of the best pick up opportunities for Democrats this cycle,” he said.

This is what the Georgia neo-fascist/KKK/Bircher grassroots wants to send to the U.S. Senate:

Read More

Hanabusa Cozies Up to Defense Contractors

by PaiaGirl

Hanabusa: Using bipartisan coziness with defense contractors to tout China Cold War and promote military spending

When given the chance, Hawai'i voters reject candidates who favor a hawkish foreign policy. Despite the military playing a major role in the local economy, Hawai'i residents don't want to see more war or unnecessary defense spending.

In 2004, Hawai'i gave John Kerry 54% of the vote in his effort to remove President Bush, despite Vice President Cheney's fear mongering.

In the 2006 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, reactionary Congressman Ed Case sought to oust Senator Daniel Akaka on the basis of the incumbent's opposition to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Akaka's pro-peace agenda was rewarded with 54% of the primary vote (he cruised to re-election against token opposition in the general).

In 2008, Hawai'i voters rejected the McCain-Palin agenda of interminable war by giving the Obama-Biden ticket its highest margin of victory of any state. Obama got 70% of the vote.

In 2012, Hawai'i voters emphasized their distaste for pro-war politics, as Case was again defeated in a Democratic primary (this time by progressive Mazie Hirono, who crushed him in the primary and Republican Linda Lingle in the general, by 17 and 25 percentage points, respectively) and Obama again received 70% of the vote over aggressively pro-war Mitt Romney (once again making Hawai`i his best state).

Given Hawaii's strong (and apparently increasing) preference for peace, it's strange Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Senator Brian Schatz by stoking a cold war with China and lavishing praise on her defense-contractor benefactors.

Then again, considering that Hanabusa chairs the National Security Task Force of the right-leaning New Democrat Coalition and Buck McKeon's Congressional Drone Caucus, her tack is perhaps not so surprising.

Cold War with China

There's nobody in Congress more committed to maintaining and increasing military spending than Republican Randy Forbes of Northern Virginia. He has a robust section of his Congressional website dedicated to raising fear of the risk to America without more spending on weapons systems and defense contractors. He's shrewd enough to recognize that non-state terrorist threats don't justify traditional forms of military spending, so he founded and chairs the Congressional China Caucus.

The caucus is composed of conservative Republicans and Democrats and promotes the wildly unlikely possibility of another Pearl Harbor attack, this time from China, and similar military risks.

Incidentally, Forbes also founded and co-chairs the Congressional Prayer Caucus (co-chaired by Blue Dog Democrat Mike McIntyre), whose members include Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Virginia Foxx, and Joe Wilson. There aren't many prayers for peace emanating from that group.

This may the reason the U.S. military is stocking up on littoral combat ships ('LCS' for fighting on the China coastline) and may explain then state senator Hanabusa teaming up with Sen Inouye and Republican Gov. Linda Lingle to exempt the Hawaii Superferry from environmental review. That corporate handout to presidential candidate, John McCain's defense advisor, John Lehman's company left the taxpayers whistling for almost $200 million in MARAD and state loans.

Opponents of this corporate hand-out maintained that this project was actually a prototype test for the military's new littoral ship design and was unsuited for civilian transportation between islands. Lo and behold, the Navy did take them over as LCS after Hawaii Superferry went belly up.

Hanabusa spent last week supporting Forbes in his effort to generate more interest in spending on weaponry to beat China and to chastise the Obama Administration for not doing enough to prepare for World War III.

Here's a press release issued by her office:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01) and J. Randy Forbes, Chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommitee [sic], delivered remarks at the release of a new study from the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments entitled “Shaping America’s Future Military: Toward a New Force Planning Construct.”

The study, authored by CSBA’s Mark Gunzinger, develops insights from the Department of Defense’s previous force planning constructs, and then builds on them to identify elements of a new construct that could help the U.S. military to prepare for the future.

"This report comes at a particularly significant crossroads for our nation's defense forces,” said Hanabusa. “Our shift to the Asia-Pacific region [i.e., Cold War with China] will call for a fresh look at not only our defense posture, but how we integrate concerns for economic and diplomatic stability as well. We face vital strategic choices and must have the clarity to look beyond budget concerns [emphasis added; message: "spend, spend, spend!] to a long term strategy to deal with a changing world and emerging threats. This is not a partisan issue; it is the question of our nation's future. I am pleased and proud to join Chairman Forbes in fostering this discussion."

“The failure of the Defense Department to adequately prepare for the threat of sequestration is just the most recent example of the importance of long-range strategic planning, a discipline which seems nearly forgotten in today’s Washington,” Mr. Forbes said. “I’m pleased to join with my Armed Services Committee colleague, Congresswoman Hanabusa, at the release of CSBA’s newest report offering a detailed plan for the future of America’s military. Nothing could be less partisan than the long-term health of the U.S. Armed Forces.”

Hanabusa and Forbes share a foreign-policy vision and a love for one another's intellect:

What could be more nonpartisan than a new cold war two decades after the last one ended and a dozen years after 9/11? Obviously, something new is needed to help at-risk defense contractors.

Hanabusa previewed her joint appearance with Forbes by issuing a press release a few days earlier that extolled the new National Defense Authorization Act and its support for "the U.S. pivot to the Asia Pacific region" and for keeping open all existing U.S. bases. In the release, though, she lamented that the NDAA doesn't authorize enough military spending:

"Unfortunately, the NDAA does not address the unthinking across-the-board reductions that arise from sequestration, and once again demonstrates the importance of removing those draconian cuts. The House Armed Services Committee has heard defense officials describe over and over again the harsh impacts these across-the-board cuts have on to our military; we have already seen some of the damage. Continuing to do nothing is not a responsible alternative. We have a job to do, and things won’t get better unless and until we finally address the problem. I am confident my defense savings reporting requirements in this legislation will help outline a path forward for dealing with sequestration. "

As a backup measure, Hanabusa even buttressed her case for more military spending by raising the specter of war with India earlier this spring:

Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, U.S. Representative Colleen Hanabusa spoke at the Brookings Institution, one of the nation’s most influential think tanks based in Washington, D.C., about the United States’ strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific.

Hanabusa, member of the House Armed Services Committee, reiterated that U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region will represent additional capabilities. “This new force can take on greater humanitarian missions,” she said, “allowing the United States’ military presence in the Pacific to have implications far beyond what we classically consider within our defense posture. Clearly the role of the military will no longer be simply that of a fighting force; it will also bear a diplomatic and humanitarian face and, as a stated purpose, enable trade and economic growth in the area. As President Obama has said, the Asia-Pacific region will largely define whether the 21st century will be marked by conflict or cooperation.”

Hanabusa also pointed out that current prosperity in the region demonstrates both a need and a product of the U.S. presence. “Continuous U.S. presence in the Asia Pacific is needed to balance the emergence of rising powers-- rising powers that benefitted the most from the international order that was established by this US presence post WWII.  The dynamic environment in Asia as a result of maintained peace has most recently propelled countries like China and India to remarkable growth.”

Increasing the U.S presence in the region also offers technological and economic benefits, said Hanabusa. “Military technology is our equalizer, and the edge that we have in R&D will keep us viable in the manufacturing industry.  China and India may have an advantage in labor costs, but they hold none of the abilities we have in highly advanced defense technologies. If we can merge this military edge back to the private sector, we can take advantage of the edge we possess and maintain our status as the world’s greatest nation.

Give her credit for consistency, back in 2011 she was advocating for more military spending in Roll Call, contending that war with somebody in Asia was inevitable:

"The Pacific is undeniably the theater of the future."

Coziness With Defense Industry

According to the ACLU, "BAE Systems (is) a multi-billion dollar military contractor that profits from the exploitative labor of people behind bars."

According to the FEC, BAE Systems is also a major Hanabusa campaign contributor.

According to Hanabusa's official website, BAE Systems is deserving of congratulations.

She used her bipartisan military-spending credibility to convince a Republican-led Congressional committee to hold a "Defense Industry Roundtable" in her district last year and to convince House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (of defense-contract-rich Maryland) to hold a high-dollar D.C. fundraiser for her Senate campaign last week.

Shortly before she announced her run for Senate, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (headed by former Blue Dog and defense-contractor-friendly Steve Israel) hosted a Hanabusa fundraiser. Considering that her Congressional district is one of the most heavily Democratic in the nation, the DCCC's interest in ostensibly supporting her House campaign seemed a little odd.

She showed her loyalty to her No. 2 contributor Northrup Grumman in 2011 by traveling to Pennsylvania to participate in a House Armed Services Committee hearing on how to make defense procurement easier for contractors. She proudly touted her participation on her Congressional website.

So, give her points for transparency. Her website is replete with tributes to defense contractors and military spending. For that and other actions, she's been rewarded by the industry.

It's hard to believe she'll be similarly rewarded by Hawaii's electorate in the primary on August 9, 2014. But she does have more than a year to use that contractor money to tarnish Senator Schatz.

Even with this defense-contractor money, things look bleak for Colleen Hanabusa.

Every Hawai'i candidate who is endorsed by both labor and environment wins. She's lost labor and although the big environmental organizations like Sierra Club have not yet endorsed, observers think that Schatz is a shoo-in for their support.

Hanabusa went up against the Sierra Club in their lawsuit over the exempting of the Superferry from environmental review (and lost) and she angered environmentalists by voting with the GOP to exempt coal-fired boilers from increased EPA standards.

Sen. Brian Schatz, on the other hand, has made climate change a key cause. Add in peace and progressive groups plus Schatz's powerful fundraising and Hawaii's distaste for conservative war hawks and Hanabusa's future is looking mighty shaky.

You can judge for yourself if you're going to the Netroots Nation in San Jose this week. Yep, the CISPA and FISA-loving Chair of the New Dems' National Security Task Force, Colleen Hanabusa, will be hanging out with progressive bloggers. Strange bedfellows.

People from the mainland often look at Hawai'i Democratic primaries and try to say that they break on ethnic politics. Although ethnicity does play some role, ideology and values are actually the decisive point, which is why progressives have been beating conservatives. Recall, that in 2004, Dennis Kucinich actually won Hawai'i's Second Congressional district (caucuses)-- a direct reaction to the Iraq War, and a sign that progressives were beginning to gain traction. In 2006, besides Akaka over the reactionary Case, Hawai'i-observers also saw progressive Mazie Hirono defeating corrupt conservative Colleen Hanabusa in the primary to replace Case in his congressional district. And then in 2010, voters also chose progressive Neil Abercrombie over conservative Mufi Hannemann for governor, and Brian Schatz over conservative Norman Sakamoto for Lt. Gov. If you'd like to help reelect Senator Schatz and defeat a corrupt conservative challenger, you can do it right here at the Blue America Senate page.

Read More

Begich Admits What His Voting Record Proves: At Heart He's A Republican

Yesterday on CNBC Mark Begich (D-AK) admitted what people who watch Senate votes closely have already figured out: he's really a Republican calling himself a Democrat. Tied with the wretched Heidi Heitkamp, Begich has been voting more frequently with the GOP this year than any Democrats other than arch-conservatives Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Begich is constantly pulling the Democratic Senate caucus away from progressive policies and advocating against working families and for predatory corporations. But yesterday was the first time he publicly admitted that he's really nothing but a Republican.

"Probably a Rockefeller Republican," the Alaska senator told CNBC Monday morning when asked whether he was closer to identifying as that or as a Pelosi Democrat.

The comment signifies Begich's efforts to put some distance between himself and national Democrats in the libertarian-leaning state.

I recall that Rockefeller was governor of New York, then Vice President, for the entire time I was growing up. There's nothing I remember about him that could even vaguely be called "libertarian." Rockefeller was an icon of the corporate elite and represented the interests of the very wealthy against working families... just like Begich does. Most recently, though, Begich was one of the small handful of Democrats who voted with the Republicans against background checks for terrorists and criminals. He's since dug in on the issue and says he's not changing his mind. Big mistake-- unless he plans to run without any campaign contributions from Democratic donors. Will the NRA finance his shaky reelection effort?

Begich, a pathetic political coward, was actually doing well among Alaska voters before he jumped on the NRA bandwagon. A poll in February showed him as a nearly sure bet for reelection.

Voters approve of Begich’s job performance by a wider margin, 49% to 39%, and independents approve of Begich 54% to 32%. Begich also gets approval from 24% of Republican voters. If Parnell ran for Senate against Begich, the two would be tied at 48% each. Otherwise Begich leads Dan Sullivan by 6 points (47/41), Mead Treadwell by 8 points (47/39) and Sarah Palin by 16 points (54/38).

“Despite Alaska’s Republican tilt, Begich remains surprisingly popular going into his reelection campaign,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Begich and Parnell both have solid independent and crossover appeal with voters.”

Then came his cowardly vote for the NRA and against background checks and now he looks like he will probably lose his seat in the Senate. Just two months after the February poll, voters had soured on Begich because of his vote against background checks.

When we polled Alaska in February Lisa Murkowski was one of the most popular Senators in the country with a 54% approval rating and only 33% of voters disapproving of her. She's seen a precipitous decline in the wake of her background checks vote though. Her approval is down a net 16 points from that +21 standing to +5 with 46% of voters approving and 41% now disapproving of her. Murkowski has lost most of her appeal to Democrats in the wake of her vote, with her numbers with them going from 59/25 to 44/44. And the vote hasn't increased her credibility with Republican either-- she was at 51/38 with them in February and she's at 50/39 now.

Mark Begich is down following his no vote as well. He was at 49/39 in February and now he's at 41/37. His popularity has declined with Democrats (from 76/17 to 59/24) and with independents (from 54/32 to 43/35), and there has been no corresponding improvement with Republicans. He had a 24% approval rating with them two months ago and he has a 24% approval rating with them now.

60% of Alaska voters support background checks to just 35% opposed, including a 62/33 spread with independents. 39% of voters say they're less likely to vote for each of Begich and Murkowski in their next elections based on this vote, while only 22% and 26% say they're more likely to vote for Begich and Murkowski respectively because of this.

At this point almost any mainstream conservative Republican can beat Begich-- like Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell. His only hope for reelection would be if the Republicans nominate someone certifiably insane... like Joe Miller... which is likely. It's just another example of the Republicans moving out towards outright fascism and the Democrats moving right into the conservative space. And then we wind up with crap on two legs like Patrick Murphy and Charlie Crist in Florida, migrating over to the Democratic Party because it's now becoming as conservative as they are.

Read More

New Jersey Has A Senate Front-Runner Nearly As Sickening As It's Gubernatorial Front-Runner

You never know what's going to actually happen in a low turn out, late summer primary special election. Who will even show up at the polls? Polling shows a big preference among New Jersey Democrats for the much-hyped Newark Mayor, Cory Booker. Last week Monmouth University released a poll that confirms what all the other polls show-- Booker leads his opponents.

Among potential voters in the August Democratic primary – i.e. registered Democrats who regularly vote in general elections and say they may vote in the Senate primary – Booker holds a commanding lead over his challengers, garnering 63% support, compared to 10% for Holt, 8% for Pallone, and 6% for Oliver... Cory Booker’s name recognition far surpasses that of his rivals. Currently, 3-in-4 likely special election voters have an opinion of Newark’s mayor. And that opinion is overwhelmingly positive, with 61% holding a favorable view and just 15% an unfavorable view. Even Republicans are more likely to have a positive (39%) rather than negative (26%) opinion of Booker.

Only 4-in-10 likely voters have an opinion of the other three Democratic contenders, and those views tend to be divided. For Frank Pallone, 24% have a favorable opinion to 17% unfavorable. For Rush Holt, 22% have a favorable opinion to 18% unfavorable. For Sheila Oliver, 20% have a favorable opinion to 19% unfavorable.

The problems with Booker-- that he's a corporate whore and a shill for Wall Street banksters who is all talk and no action when it comes to working families-- have apparently been as overlooked by New Jersey voters as the (very similar, but much worse) problems with Chris Christie. Jason Farago took a good long look at Booker for The Guardian last week-- Cory Booker: the inexorable rise of Newark's neoliberal egomaniac-- and it makes you want to figure out who's the better alternative between the two progressives, Rush Holt and Frank Pallone.

Cory Booker, the hedge fund guys' favorite politician and the most self-regarding official in America, is more likely than not headed to the US Senate-- and I can't imagine he's dismayed at the accelerated schedule. He may be esteemed by Wall Street tycoons and Hollywood titans, and worshipped by an unserious internet brigade that prefers its politics in GIF form, but Booker has not had a good run of it lately in New Jersey's benighted largest city. Carjackings-- the signature Newark crime; they used to call it "the carjack capital"-- have gone up for four years in a row. Violent crime, which had been declining in Booker's first years, has spiked again; in summer, things will get worse. Police have been laid off, firefighters too, as Booker has slashed city budgets. And when the mayor recently tried to get an ally of his on the city council, the meeting devolved into a ruckus, with police officers resorting to pepper spray.

Except for a stinging New York Times report last year, one doesn't hear much about the actual conditions of life in Newark-- a city that, to what I suppose is Booker's credit, has made conditions friendlier for companies such as Panasonic (enticed with a $100m tax break) and the Manischewitz kosher wine firm. But oh, one hears an awful lot about Booker. All politicians are to some degree wannabe celebrities, but it has been a while since we have met a showman as narcissistic as him: a man who makes Chuck Schumer look camera-shy, who makes Michele Bachmann seem like a subtle media operator.

He sleeps in tents. He shovels snow. He brings diapers to stranded mothers. He runs into a burning building, then holds a press conference to celebrate his own heroism. He tried to live on food stamps for a week, which I almost admired-- but then he told his story to Face the Nation, and then the Today Show, and then the Daily Show, and then Piers Morgan on CNN.

No one other than Vladimir Putin could pull off these bathetic, 360-degree political theatrics-- though even Putin would have blanched at Booker's made-for-TV rescue one cold Newark night of a freezing mutt named Cha Cha, bearing the dog in his arms like the Lamb of God. "This dog is shaking really bad," he told an airhead local news reporter-- who had earlier arranged the entire pseudo-rescue with him via Twitter. Had she really been concerned, she could have just called the cops or, you know, rescued the dog herself. Instead, she told Booker to meet her at the scene with her camera crew and, when it was all over, even got her picture taken with the man of the hour.

It'd be one thing if the Soviet-style personality cult and let's-come-together Twitter banalities-- recent days have seen him post self-help quotations from Bruce Springsteen and the Dalai Lama-- were just marketing for a progressive political program. But Booker is a far more conservative figure than the Cult of Cory, which is too busy making Superman or Chuck Norris jokes, may actually realize. He is a long-time advocate of charter schools and, more quietly, of voucher programs: a favorite hobbyhorse of the men of high finance. George Will, the paleoconservative columnist of the Washington Post, is a big fan. Michelle Rhee, the fallen DC schools chancellor whose union-busting, corporatist education reforms resulted in a citywide cheating scandal, is someone Booker calls "a friend of mine"-- and we should add that Newark's charter schools were embroiled in a cheating scandal of their own last year.

And of course, Booker has the unwavering support of the big bad industry just across the river from Newark. Since his days as a city councilor, he has hoovered up cash from the financial services sector-- but unlike many other tri-state Democrats who seduce the Street in a marriage of a convenience, Booker legitimately thinks that big money knows best and the public sector should do its bidding. When, in May 2012, Booker confessed that he found it "nauseating" for the Obama campaign to impugn Mitt Romney's career in private equity, Democrats were shocked. They shouldn't have been.

Booker's whole career has been a testament to a poisonous financial-corporatist consensus, which dresses up the interests of big money in post-ideological garb. (That helped him win the support this weekend of the most powerful man in New Jersey: George Norcross III, the feared political boss and owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who said he liked Booker because he was "a Democrat that's fiscally conservative yet socially progressive.")

Remember that $100m donation to the Newark schools from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, promoted with its very own Oprah episode? The cash didn't go into the Newark school system; it's controlled by a non-governmental fund, with Booker on the board, and has been so unaccountable that the ACLU had to sue the city to learn what was going on. (Booker's office first denied that the emails the ACLU sought existed; when a judge ordered the emails to be made public, the Booker team released them on Christmas Eve.)

Add to this Booker's privatization of the Newark sanitation department, and his repeated attempts to do the same to the water supply, and the picture becomes clearer. In the world Booker and his cohort inhabit, there are no systemic problems and no class interests. There are only pesky inefficiencies, to be fixed with better data and more money from smart, happy, rich people who can spend their cash far more sensibly than the public sector.

Poor Frank Lautenberg. The so-called "swamp dog" was one of the great remaining liberals in the Senate, a quiet but committed defender of unions and the working class, and a constant advocate for progressive taxation. And New Jerseyans have a chance to vote for a successor in his mold. Two quite progressive House members, the long-serving Frank Pallone and the physicist-turned-politician Rush Holt, have both declared their candidacies.

But it seems far more likely that the next senator from New Jersey will be the anti-Lautenberg: a neoliberal egomaniac who sees government as nothing more than a charity for billionaires and corporations to support as they please. There may be no stopping the rise and rise of Cory Booker. But let's at least recognize his impending triumph for what it is: another victory for the men in the glass towers, enabled by a nonstop publicity campaign waged 140 characters at a time.

New Jersey hasn't elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in decades. Cory Booker conveniently identifies himself as a Democrat but, at this point, he'll be New Jersey's first Republican-- at least when it comes to economic justice-- in many years. Tragic.

Read More

Lindsey Graham Wants War-- War Against American Civil Liberties, War In The Middle East

Lindsey Graham seems to be losing his mind. Thursday he claimed that American intervention in Syria-- supplying arms, enforcing a no fly zone-- is not to help the rebels but to end war before Syria can use chemical weapons against... the U.S. He put out an official press release with fellow warmonger John McCain in the hopes up drumming up some war fever and seeing Obama blunder into an unpopular and unnecessary war that could easily escalate into a war involving Israel, Iran, Turkey and Russia.

“The conflict in Syria has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. The United Nations reported today that the death toll in Syria is approaching 93,000. Hezbollah is all in. Iran is all in. Iraqi militant groups are flowing into Syria to fight for Assad. Russia continues to provide military and diplomatic support. Assad is dramatically increasing his use of airpower against civilians and opposition forces in Syria. A report today stated that Assad’s forces conducted at least 5,000 air-to-ground attacks last month alone.

“A decision to provide lethal assistance, especially ammunition and heavy weapons, to opposition forces in Syria is long overdue, and we hope the President will take this urgently needed step. But providing arms alone is not sufficient. That alone is not enough to change the military balance of power on the ground against Assad. The President must rally an international coalition to take military actions to degrade Assad’s ability to use airpower and ballistic missiles and to move and resupply his forces around the battlefield by air. This can be done, as we have said many times, using stand-off weapons such as cruise missiles.

“We cannot afford to delay any longer. Assad is on the offensive with every weapon in his arsenal and with the complete support of his foreign allies. We must take more decisive actions now to turn the tide of the conflict in Syria.”

As you may know, Blue America is trying to help South Carolina Democrat Jay Stamper defeat Graham next year. He told me he didn't think Graham could surprise him any longer. "But today, he did, with the absurd suggestion that arming Syrian rebels sympathetic to al-Qaeda will help prevent Syria from using chemical weapon against the United States. I have one question for Graham: how does helping radical Islamists overthrow a secular government in Syria make us any safer? How does helping the terrorist al-Nusra front gain power over Syria's chemical weapons stockpile make anyone safer? Whatever tortured logic Graham is employing seems to be geared toward reaching a justification for escalated U.S. involvement. He's grasping at straws in a desperate scramble to justify war. And can there be any doubt that his desired result is other people's son's and daughters being deployed on the ground in Syria." You can help him do that here. And you won't be alone. A prominent South Carolina libertarian website, FitsNews.com, run by Gov. Nikki Haley's lover, ran a guest post by Stamper on civil liberties well worth reading.

Jay Stamper: My Twitter Backlash

When I read about Edward Snowden’s disclosure of the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program, I had two immediate reactions: this guy looks like my cousin Brendan and this guy is a hero.

At great personal risk, Mr. Snowden broke the law in order to expose a much larger criminal enterprise: The Defense Department’s outrageous and unconstitutional mass-monitoring of domestic civilian communications. To my mind, his willingness to be branded a criminal and live as a fugitive makes his actions all the more heroic. And the irony that a champion of civil liberties was forced to seek refuge in the shadow of totalitarian China is more damning and embarrassing to us than to him.

So, as the news broke, I impulsively reached for my iPhone to tweet my support. Then I hesitated. Why take sides on such a divisive issue? Why not wait and see what happens? It’s not as if the media were beating down my door for a comment. There’s no hurry. And a tweet is forever. But then I was caught by surprise by a flash of embarrassment at my own lack of courage.

So, I tweeted:

The reaction from my small Twitter following was instant and almost universally disapproving. In short, it seemed that most of my progressive tweeps had gone all state security on me. People whose tweets were ordinarily peppered with terms like “choice,” “equality” and “civil rights” were now throwing around words like “treason,” “security” and “homeland.” It sounded like their accounts had been hacked by G. Gordon Liddy. I was getting a few messages of support-- from Republicans.

What was going on? Why were so many of my fellow Democrats flaking out on civil rights? What happened to being a card a carrying member of the ACLU? I’ve entertained a few theories. Maybe in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Democrats are still so irrationally terrified of being viewed as soft on terrorism that we feel the need to overcompensate, jumping at any opportunity to prove we’re just as mercenary as anyone else. But the real explanation turns out to be more obvious; and less disturbing than it is depressing. Though initiated under President Bush, PRISM was expanded (and exposed) under a Democratic administration. The backlash I experienced was probably just a case of Democrats protecting a Democratic administration. This theory is supported by the numerous emails I received from Democrats telling me to cool it on the hero talk because I was playing right into the hands of the Republicans.

As Democrats, we should not be trying to minimize the seriousness of genuine misconduct when it happens under a Democratic administration. On the contrary, Democrats-- not Republicans-- should be the most ardent critics of a Democratic administration that operates in a manner inconsistent with our values. After all, it’s our brand that’s being tarnished.

Unfortunately, the political landscape is so poisoned and polarized that many of us-- in both parties-- aren’t even aware we’re part of the problem. Too much time spent in the echo-chamber of partisan group-think has made us unbelievably smug and complacent. Demonizing the other side is easy, and seeing a good idea for what it is becomes impossible when it originates from someone with the wrong political credentials. A liberal number of my liberal Twitter followers unfollowed me after my controversial tweet-- a pretty illiberal thing to do if you ask me. Even if you do disagree with someone, why cut off the conversation? The Southern Poverty Law Center follows the KKK and I’m pretty sure they’re not fans.

I’m as frustrated as anyone with GOP political theater, the faux outrage surrounding non-scandals like Benghazi and other transparently cynical attempts to hobble the President’s second term agenda in advance of next year’s mid-term elections. But lets not sink to their level. If we view important issues through the lens of partisan self-interest, we are playing the game by their rules. We may gain momentary advantage but in the long term, we’ll be viewed as intellectually dishonest, we’ll lose credibility and we’ll end up defeating our own cause.

It’s like PRISM itself; it may have seemed clever at the time but the blowback just isn’t worth it.

If you'd like to help Jay end Graham's disgraceful career in Congress, here's the place.

Read More

Is There Any Way To Keep Wall Street Shill Cory Booker Out Of The New Jersey Senate Seat?

2 NJ pols who play on the same team-- the Wall Street team

There are two excellent candidates running for what was Frank Lautenberg's New Jersey Senate seat: progressive congressman Frank Pallone and progressive congressman Rush Holt. Holt's career-long Progressive crucial vote score is the best of any New Jersey congressman: 91.88. For 2013 his score is 100, a distinction shared by only 15 Members. Pallone's career-long score is 86.10, not bad, and for 2013 it's a super 96.77, the second best score after 100 (and something he shares with liberal champions like Barbara Lee, Alan Grayson, John Conyers, Donna Edwards, Judy Chu, John Lewis, Matt Cartwright and Jan Schakowsky). Clearly, both these guys have been voting in the spirit of Lautenberg. I asked a dozen Members of Congress I trust-- imagine trusting that may of them!-- for advice about what Blue America should do. This e-mail sums up the responses pretty well:

They’re both liberal. Holt is more intelligent; Pallone has better people skills. Pallone is very disciplined, even though he doesn’t come across that way. Pallone has more legislative accomplishments. Either one would be good in the Senate, but Holt would add something interesting to the mix, whereas Pallone would simply fit in.

The problem, of course, is that there's a third Democrat in the race... the front runner: Cory Booker. [A fourth jumped in today as well-- Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver.] Booker is a nightmare for progressives. He's a careerist corporate whore and a 100% tool of Wall Street. Outside of social issues, he might as well be a Republican. Last week BuzzFeed outlined how Booker, who is enjoying a 40-point lead right now, could still be beaten-- in a low, low turnout August primary-- by Pallone or Holt.

New Jersey political insiders said Democratic competitors will seize on the narratives that have persisted around Booker for years-- that he spends too much time outside of New Jersey; that he is more popular outside the state than inside; that his record in Newark can’t hold up to scrutiny-- and that they play up their longstanding relationships with the state party apparatus, which Booker has been known to challenge.

Before Lautenberg’s death-- when the race to fill his seat was still slated for November 2014-- polling showed Booker led the two congressman in a potential Democratic primary by a hefty margin: with 50 percent of respondents voting for Booker; seven percent for Holt; and just four percent for Pallone.

Booker, poll numbers aside, is far from untouchable-- particularly in New Jersey, where, as one state operative observed, “nothing is inevitable.” Below are four of the central strategies in the campaign to take down Booker, as described to BuzzFeed by campaign strategists, political observers, party officials, and Democratic operatives in New Jersey.

Cast him as a party outsider

Booker first announced he would run for Lautenberg’s senate seat last December, two months before Lautenberg announced that he would retire at the end of his fifth term.

New Jersey Democrats didn’t like that math: Booker couldn’t have waited for Lautenberg to bow out before saying he wanted to run for senate? The move roiled Lautenberg loyalists, and Lautenberg himself, compounding Democrats’ frustration that Booker had not run for governor. He had been, it was widely felt, the only candidate who could have given Christie a run for his money in 2013.

“His announcement was viewed as stepping on Lautenberg’s toes without bringing the country and state party into the fold,” said Brigid Harrison, a political science professor at Montclair State University, and a close observer of state politics.

“It was viewed as being a little politically expedient and premature, but I don’t know that the Lautenberg resentment is going to carry over,” Harrison said, adding that what was more worrisome for Booker is the “disappointment Democrats felt when he didn’t challenge Christie.”

In a state where county party “bosses” have far-reaching political sway, Booker is already behind in fostering relationships with state party leaders, and the New Jersey Democratic establishment. He’s viewed by many as the antithesis to a team player [although one of the state's most corrupt bosses just endorsed Booker].

...One New Jersey Democratic strategist involved in the special election race said that not many state leaders “are hearing directly from [Booker]; they’re hearing from his staff, but not him.”

“His biggest obstacle is that he has not developed the county-level political connections that are really important in New Jersey politics,” said Harrison. “Pallone has strong connections in the county organizations, and if he’s able to use his influence to get endorsed by the county chairs, that carries some measure of weight in a typical primary.”

Pallone has “consistently tried to keep a solid relationship with the powers that be within the state party,” Harrison added.

Doug Muzzio, a Baruch College political science professor and longtime observer of New Jersey politics, said those relationships could help Pallone quite a bit this fall. “It matters. Those organizations have some muscle to them,” he said, but added, “Does it mean that you win if you’ve got it? No.”

State intra-party politics haven’t held Booker back in the past, either: He built his political career on challenging incumbents, first in an improbable city council win against four-term incumbent George Branch in 1998; and again in 2002, when he tried and failed to unseat Sharpe James, a corrupt mayor who held Newark city hall for two decades, before Booker finally beat him four years later.

Play up the self-promoting “absentee mayor” caricature

Ahead of his senate run, Booker’s campaign office released a financial disclosure form, the filing required of candidates running for senate. But his office also sent reporters four other documents detailing Booker’s earnings from paid speeches at colleges, corporations, and non-profits across 32 states over the past five years. The speeches-- he has given 90 in total since 2008-- earned Booker $1.3 million, about three quarters of which he gave to charity, according to his office.

The document dump, not required by any campaign finance regulations, appeared to address the persistent line of attack on Booker: that he spends too much time outside of Newark engaging in activities that amount to nothing more than self-promotion. The paid speeches, the interviews on cable news shows, the technology conferences-- Booker’s level of national prominence can seem improbable for a city mayor.

Last summer, a Star-Ledger review of 18 months worth of public documents and news reporters found that Booker had spent over 21 percent of his time out of town. The article dubbed him the “absentee mayor.”

It’s a title that could hang over Booker this fall if a rival like Pallone or Holt tries to push the issue to the fore of the campaign.

“The big thing will be hitting him on the ‘absentee mayor’ stuff,” said a Democratic operative involved in the race. “He’s gotten a lot of business into the city by going around the country being a cheerleader for Newark, but there’s a way to make it a negative too.”

“Booker’s biggest thing is that he’s a rock star. People know him because he’s on Bill Maher’s show, and he tweets, but those people aren’t necessarily New Jersey Democratic voters who will come out in a primary in August,” the operative added, noting that 70 percent of Booker’s first-quarter senate contributions came from outside the state, according to a Philadelphia Inquirer review of Federal Election Committee reports.

If Pallone and Holt want to move the polls back in their direction, said Muzzio, they’ll have to go on the offensive, and fast. “Clearly, those attacks will be the test,” he said. “You can go positive, but you’ve got to go negative if you want to take Booker down. You’ve got to say, ‘This is a show-horse. Not a work-horse.’”

Earlier this year, when Lautenberg was waging cold war over the way Booker had laid claim to his senate seat, the show-horse critique was one he turned to on more than one occasion. In a speech at a New Jersey Chamber of Commerce dinner in Washington, Lautenberg noted that Booker had skipped the event. “I’m disappointed that Cory Booker couldn’t be here tonight. I’d think that spending time out of the city was one of his favorite activities,” he said. “Perhaps we were too close to Newark.”

Point to Booker’s failures in Newark

When the New York Times took a hard look at his seven-year record as mayor of Newark, Booker called the piece “just frustrating as heck.”

Although Booker suggested at the time that the article had misrepresented his management of Newark city hall-- he and his staff even crafted a rebuttal to send to another news outlet-- it certainly won’t be the last time Booker has to defend his performance as mayor.

The city, New Jersey’s largest, has shown marked improvement in areas over the last seven years: population has increased for the first time in six decades, and crime has decreased broadly, with a 17 percent decrease in the homicide rate since Booker took office in 2006.

But with a significant spike in violence from 2011 to 2012, Newark still ranks 20th, behind Nashville and Philadelphia, on last year’s Federal Bureau of Investigation list of America’s most dangerous cities. Earlier in his tenure, Booker also laid off more than 600 public workers, and 163 police officers, an unpopular decision which he still remembers as “painful.” (Booker, though, announced earlier this year that he would hire back 50 officers.)

According to a poll published in the Star-Ledger earlier this year, Booker is well liked within his city: Seventy percent of likely Newark voters have a favorable opinion of him, and 65 percent approve of his performance as mayor.

But one a strategist connected to an opposing campaign said one weak spot in Booker’s campaign would be “the fact that his record in Newark is even debatable,” the source said. “You look at Pallone and Holt and you see a proven record in Washington, not to mention a voting record.”

As mayor of a city, Booker has managerial experience that very well may appeal to voters, but Pallone and Holt have both voted on a range of economic, social, and foreign issues on the floor of the House, providing voters a clear sense of where both candidates stand on national policy.

Rival candidates could also seize on Booker’s strained relationship with state teachers unions, as well as his support for charter schools, which are championed by the same hedge fund and Wall Street communities that have financed Booker for years.

“That’s what makes us least comfortable,” said Steve Phillips, a progressive fundraiser whose political action committee has vowed to raise $1 to $2 million for Booker. “I understand the complexities of trying to do something for lower-income kids in a political bureaucracy, but if I could wave my magic wand, I wouldn’t want him as close to the hedge fund folks as he is.”

Take advantage of the shorter race

The other factor at play in this race is time, state operatives say. When the clock gets moved forward by more than a year-- the primary for the race that should have been held in 2014 is now just 66 days away-- even the presumed leaders of the pack find themselves scrambling.

“None of the candidates have established a real coherent message yet, because they didn’t expect to thrown into this,” said Muzzio. “There is no organization, and there are a lot of unknowns.”

...The mayor will also have to speed up his fundraising efforts. According to FEC filings, he has $1.6 million in cash on hand, as of March 31, compared to Pallone’s $3.7 million. Holt, meanwhile, has just $790,000. The most recent records available, though, do not include a fundraising swing Booker took through California, where he headlined a private Los Angeles reception, where major motion-picture producer Jerry Weintraub hosted and Democratic kingmaker Jeffrey Katzenberg was a big-name attendee.

But operatives inside the state say both Pallone and Holt can rake in the cash, too-- and may be able to compete with Booker now that time is more limited.

Holt, who has had to run much more competitive reelection races than Pallone, may better adapt to the competitive field of the special election. The former physicist’s first successful race in 1998 was not one many believed he could win-- he did, but by just under three percent of the vote. More recently, he held his seat in 2010 in a particularly tough race against Republican Scott Sipprelle, an independently wealth candidate who financed much of his own campaign.

“Holt is the only one who has won a race that no one said he could win,” said one state Democratic strategist. “Pallone has never had a tough race. There’s a difference between throwing elbows and kicking someone in the nuts, and Holt knows how to do that. We’ll see if Pallone does,” the source said.

With just weeks until the primary, elbows will be flying earlier, and candidates will be angling to get on the air in the expensive New York City and Philadelphia media markets-- New Jersey doesn’t have its own-- as soon as they can afford it. Whether Pallone or Holt can throw enough elbows to edge Booker out in just under 70 days remains an open question.

But in a sprint to the finish, “it’s all possible,” said Muzzio. “Booker can lose it. Holt and Pallone are substantial guys, and in a short race, any number of variables can come into play.”

Read More

Many People Think Georgia Will Elect A Democratic Senator Long Before Texas Does

Future Senator Michelle Nunn and ex-Pres. George H.W. Bush

Zac McCrary and Brian Stryker from the Blue Dog polling firm, Anzalone Research, see Georgia turning into a purple state as soon as 2010. Demographics really are destiny, they assert. Florida, Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado have trended Democrat and now Texas is moving in that direction.

Texas is no doubt becoming more Democratic by the day, and groups like Battleground Texas are already hard at work smartly building the infrastructure to help make Texas competitive. However, demographic and election data indicate the same trends that will make Texas a swing state will even more immediately put Georgia's 16 electoral votes in play, expanding Democrats' paths to an electoral vote majority.

In 2012, Georgia was the second most competitive state carried by Mitt Romney (+7.8% Romney)-- behind only North Carolina (+2.0% Romney)... And in 2008, Georgia was the third most competitive state won by McCain, behind only Missouri and Montana... Obama's Georgia vote share declined in 2012, as did his national vote share. However, the Obama vote share decreased less in Georgia than it did nationwide, and Obama's 2012 Georgia performance came even closer to his nationwide vote share (5.57% vs. national) than did his 2008 performance (-5.99%).

...Most fundamentally, Georgia is quickly becoming less white and less rural. In 2000, Georgia's population was 63% white; as of the 2010 Census the state's population is 56% white. Of the state's 1.5 million new residents between 2000 and 2010, more than 80% (1.2 million, or 81%) were non-white.

Over the past decade, the 6% growth among Georgia's white population pales in comparison to the 26% growth rate among African Americans. This is in stark contrast to the growth patterns of the 1990s, when Georgia's white population grew by more than double that rate (16%). Since 1990, Georgia has gained more than 1.2 million African American residents and has served, according to the Wall Street Journal, as a "magnet for black professionals" from other parts of the country.

However, Georgia's increased competitiveness is not driven solely by African American voters. Georgia's Hispanic population grew by 96% over the last decade-- a growth rate double the national average and second only to North Carolina's. From 1990-2010, the state's Hispanic population has risen from roughly 100,000 to more than 800,000-- now totaling 9.1% of the state's population. Additionally, Georgia's Asian American community grew by 81% from 2000-2010 and has almost quintupled since 1990.

The epicenter of these demographic changes is the Atlanta metro area. As this area grows more diverse, it is becoming more Democratic and expanding its footprint on the state's body politic. Metro Atlanta comprised roughly 52% of the electorate in the 2000 presidential race, but 54% in the 2012 election (and likely 56% in the 2020 election). Of metro Atlanta's roughly one million new residents over the past decade, 90% are non-white (54% African American / 31% Hispanic). This growth reduced the metro area's white percentage from 60% in 2000 to 51% in 2010. Conversely, African Americans (from 29% to 32% of the area's population) and Hispanics (from 6% to 10%) have undergone a population boom. The electoral effects have been unmistakable. In 2012, Obama actually took a majority (50.3%) of the two-party vote in the metro area, roughly six points higher than John Kerry's 44% in 2004.

...Over the next ten years, Georgia will likely add 500,000 more Hispanic and 600,000 more African American residents. The 2008 electorate (that yielded just a 5-point McCain win), is on track to be several points less white (from 65% to 61%), more African American (from 30% to 32%) and more Hispanic (from 3% to 5%). These projections indicate that a 2020 Democratic nominee who performs the same among each racial subgroup as Obama did in 2008 (according to exit polls) would take roughly 50% of the statewide vote, reminiscent of the Obama campaign's narrow victory in North Carolina in 2008.

While Georgia Democrats have struggled in recent statewide elections, Democrats have a solid bench of rising stars including Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Congressman John Barrow, state legislators Jason Carter, Stacey Abrams, Scott Holcomb, and non-profit founder/CEO Michelle Nunn, among others. (Disclosure: Kasim Reed and Jason Carter are Anzalone Liszt Grove clients). Such Democratic candidates will be well-positioned to run for Governor or Senate as the state's political hue shifts from red to purple. And while the Atlanta-media market is very expensive, a statewide television buy in Georgia is roughly the cost of a North Carolina buy and 20% less expensive than a statewide buy in Virginia. A Georgia buy is also just one-third the cost of a statewide broadcast buy in the Lone Star State. As Georgia's political winds shift, Democrats should be able to field strong candidates with the ability to marshal the necessary resources to communicate with voters in a robust way over the next decade and beyond.

So what about next year? Can the daughter of beloved and legendary 4-term Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, Michelle Nunn, win the open Senate seat the crazy teabaggers drove Saxby Chambliss into giving up? This week Kyle Trygstad of Roll Call took a hard look at what's shaping up to be one of only three long-short opportunities for Democratic take-overs in red states, the other two being Kentucky (Miss McConnell) and South Carolina (Lindsey Graham). Trygstad agrees with the Anazalone team that "a surge in the black and Hispanic populations around Atlanta has altered the political outlook in Georgia’s statewide races for decades to come."

“I believe that Georgia is in a great position to go for a Democrat not only in 2014, but 2016 as well,” said Tharon Johnson, a top Democratic consultant in the state and President Barack Obama’s national Southern regional director in 2012.

Next year, the party’s hopes rest on the perfect political storm-- including the quality of likely candidate Michelle Nunn’s campaign, the registration of tens of thousands of potential voters and a GOP primary race to the right that debilitates the eventual nominee.

Operatives from both parties agree Georgia is headed for swing-state status, as suburban Atlanta continues to sprawl. They estimate that, as soon as 2016, the state will get the kind of attention from presidential contenders that Virginia’s new purple-state status invited in 2008.

The Peach State was considered safe Republican territory in 2012, when Obama’s team declined to invest any advertising or field efforts like those seen in swing states. Still, Obama won nearly 46 percent of the vote.

Blacks now make up 31 percent of Georgia’s population and about 30 percent of its active voters, according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Georgia Secretary of State’s office. Hispanics now account for 9 percent of the population but remain underrepresented in the voter rolls at just 2 percent. Similar demographic trends are also occurring in states such as Texas and Arizona.

The lingering question is: How soon can Democrats use their demographic advantages to consistently compete in federal elections in these states? Some national Democratic strategists believe that their first, best shot is in Georgia.

Johnson listed five specific necessities for Nunn to win and show her state as competitive:

• Full engagement from the political operation of Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, the most popular Democrat in the state.

• A coordinated voter registration operation that targets African-Americans, Hispanics and young, white progressive voters.

• Significant assistance from national Democratic organizations, including the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

• A coalition of voters based on the 1998 road map drawn by Michael Thurmond, Thurbert Baker and Roy Barnes-- Democrats who all won statewide.

• Avoiding a costly primary.

Democrats’ chances increased in January, when Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss announced his retirement. As their top chance to pick up a seat, there is a strong probability DSCC officials will spend significant money to win it.

But the timing isn’t perfect. Even though Georgia is headed toward becoming a routine battleground, midterm electorates are generally older and whiter-- which favors Republicans.

“I think a Democrat winning in Georgia right now for this seat is at best slim to none, and leaning toward none,” said Tom Perdue, a longtime consultant to Chambliss. “And not her name-- I mean N-O-N-E.”

Polling, however, shows Nunn decisively beating at least one of the top GOP choices: former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel. She ties Rep. Phil Gingrey if he;s the nominee and is within the margin or error if John Birch Society extremist Paul Broun is the GOP nominee. And she hasn't even announced whether or not she'll run yet, although the DSCC has been telling insiders she is definitely running and that she'll announce later this month-- and so is EMILY's List.

Read More