November 2006

Had Enough?

ArchPundit November 5, 2006 0 Comment

About that VFW Endorsement

ArchPundit November 4, 2006 0 Comment

From the Spring VFW PAC publication (you can also find the October dated endorsement list):

When it comes to endorsements, the VFW-PAC Director, SalvatoreCapirchio, says “words aren’t enough.”

According to Capirchio, the VFW-PAC is exploring a number of changes to the 2006 endorsement
process—designed to take a more hard-line approach on which candidates to select.

“It’s not enough to say you plan to vote favorably for veterans—you must have a proven track record of being a strong ally,” continues Capirchio.

“We must know candidates’ in-depth perspectives on important issues.

Wehope to send ever eligible candidate a detailed questionnaire to probe the key issues. If they don’t respond to our questions, there should be no chance for an endorsement. A VFW-PAC endorsement speaks volumes about a candidate, and for that distinction, we will accept nothing but our strongest advocates.”

Capirchio says they are also discussing other changes, including changing the Endorsement Policy
so VFW-PAC can support challengers (as well as incumbents).

“The goal is to allow VFW- PAC to evolve with the changing dynamics of political landscape,” he
explains. “These issues will be explored further at our board meeting in March.”

Huh, sending out questionnaires to all eligible candidates? Seems like a strange standard given the Roskam campaign tried to sell it as being something they sought out and that’s how it occurs. Oops.

Another strange thing:

From the Sacramento Bee on September 10th:

Endorsements by the VFW PAC, however, are made on the basis of answers to questionnaires. Capirchio said the PAC is trying to broaden its coverage of veterans issues and this year sent a more elaborate series of questions to members.

Because Doolittle did not reach the threshold on the questionnaire, he was dropped from the endorsement list.

While Capirchio said the VFW is trying to expand its endorsements to include worthy challengers, this year its questionnaire didn’t make it out to all challengers. He said he doubted that Brown would have gotten one.

As a consequence, there is no VFW PAC endorsement in the race.

Roskam’s camp claims they didn’t know about the endorsement until November 1st yet the endorsement list is from October and other candidates started their announcments in early/mid-October.

The letter to Hulsoff in the above link is actually dated October 4th. It’s possible that the letters were staggered, but most places do their endorsements at meetings at one time so this is, let’s say odd. In fact, the 2004 endorsements made it into the VFW Magazine for October. On top of that, Bernie Sanders has been touting his endorsement since at least mid-October so something isn’t adding up here from the Roskam camp response that Rich Miller has up.

Your Virginia Obama Porn

ArchPundit November 4, 2006 0 Comment

The Prediction Post

ArchPundit November 4, 2006 0 Comment

Going race-by-race in the House gets me more switches than going with an overall model, but here are my predictions for US House, US Senate, and Governors. I also add in my Illinois predictions.

For the House, IA-2, IL-10, and CO-5 are the longer shots, but almost all the other are what happens with a 2-1 split on undecideds to the challenger. If I had to do an estimate based on a generic number I’d probably put the pick-up between 30-35 so going race by race I end up with more. The wave seems to be uneven so I’m betting Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York, Colorado, and Ohio will have the races playing off of each other. We then have some spectacularly badly run races (Hayworth) and some scandals such as in California. Otherwise, just a little nudge in places where incumbents haven’t been tending to the District well and they’ll get blindsided.

The thing about waves is that they don’t take out the most entrenched, they take out those who aren’t paying attention and are in swing or leaning seats. Nearly all of the above except the Nebraska seats fit those categories. There’s something in the water in Nebraska this year.

In the Senate, the only long shots are Pedersen and Lamont. Obviously some of these races are not definitive, but with the national winds, the ties should go to the Dems.

For Governor, I think mine are all the conventional wisdom except Alaska and Nevada. Nevada has the scandal going on and somehow Knowles has some weird mojo that’s made him competitive.

Illinois. I still don’t get why Hynes doesn’t have the biggest margin–then again, the guy just had twins and has hardly campaigned and is headed to a 2-1 margin. Rutherford has laid a big egg during this race. He’s barely, if at all, raised his profile which was the entire point. Stu Who? did even worse.

The other three races, well, those are predictions, not wishes.

The Illinois Senate isn’t one I’d bet my life on, but looking at the races that are competitive and the national wave interacting with local dynamics, the Dems should have some pickups.

The House–everyone’ll think I’m crazy, but despite playing almost all defense, the national wave and Congressional races will pick up three races is my guess. I have pretty low confidence in that one.

* Indicates a pickup.

Testy Testy

ArchPundit November 3, 2006 0 Comment

I heard this interview with Tom Reynolds (R-NY) head of the RNCC operation on NPR this morning It is still making me giggle.

And Yeah

ArchPundit November 3, 2006 0 Comment

I’ve seen the Dems House race stuff–screw them too—the IL Dems ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are supposed to know better.