Senate Ratings

Here are Rothenberg's Senate ratings:

Lean Takeover (1 R, 0 D)

• VA Open (Warner, R)

Toss-Up (3 R, 1 D)

• CO Open (Allard, R)
• NM Open (Domenici, R)
  
• Sununu (R-NH)
• Landrieu (D-LA)

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 0 D)

• Coleman (R-MN)
• Collins (R-ME)
• Smith (R-OR)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (4 R, 0 D)

• NE Open (Hagel, R)
• Dole (R-NC)
• McConnell (R-KY)
• Stevens (R-AK)

As you can see, all four of our top four (8 in 08's "Good Chance to Win") are in "Lean Takeover" or "Toss-Up" categories and three of the next four (8 in 08's "Fair Chance to Win") are in "Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party." Kentucky, which rounds out our final eighth position is in Rothenberg's "Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party" category. We don't disagree with Rothenberg's assessment, but think that the DSCC will make this seat a priority to make the Republican's pay for doing the same to Tom Daschle. Rhetorically, the national party has already made Kentucky a priority. We'll see if resources follow. There are several other states that can compete with the Bluegrass State for number eight. 8 in 08 will publish an analysis of these "bubble" races sometime soon.

Rothenberg's analysis points to something that has been missing so far from 8 in 08's analysis: Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. While we are trying to pick-up additional seats, we are doing so in order to build towards a filibuster-proof majority that can ensure the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. We need to win nine net votes. Picking up nine will not do the trick if we lose one. So, we will keep an eye on Louisiana, and make sure we keep up a link to her campaign site so you can easily find a way to contribute to her reelection if you want to.

P.S. You don't see Mississippi in the ratings quoted above because the ratings don't yet reflect Lott's resignation. I assume the seat will rate "Currently Safe," and that should be true until we see some polls showing Musgrove or Moore making an impact above 40% or the Republican appointee showing below 50%.

Is Mississippi in Play?

A few weeks ago there was some speculation that Republican Senator Thad Cochran would retire. In the end he surprised some (but not all) in announcing his intention to run for reelection in 2008. With that, it appeared there would not be even a slim chance of the Democrats taking the seat in a state where no Democrat has served in the U.S. Senate since 1989.

Then, we all woke up the other day and Trent Lott announced -- not a retirement -- but that he was resigning. Despite a lot of unsubstantiated rumors, it does not appear that scandal is forcing Lott's hand. Nevertheless, now both Mississippi seats will be up in 2008. (This makes Mississippi the second state [along with Wyoming] with two Senate races on the ballot in 2008 -- and all four seats are currently held by Republicans.) And, despite a certain Republican appointment by Gov. Haley Barbour, the seat will be essentially open. There is evidence from the 2004 and 2006 elections that younger cohorts in Mississippi are trending Democratic and indeed Democrats have been elected to congressional and statewide office in recent years. One of those Democrats, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, told the Rothenberg Political Report yesterday that he "is seriously considering" running for Lott's seat. Another former statewide official, Attorney General Michael Moore, had considered running for Cochran's seat before he decided to run for reelection. Moore may be a candidate for Lott's seat as well.

Barbour will likely appoint someone like Chip Pickering, who is retiring from Congress but could still be a commanding presence in the race. In any case, with Musgrove running for an open seat, Mississippi goes from out-of-the-question to some chance. We'll stay tuned on this one, but it is not likely to break into our top eight races (yet).

Is EFCA undemocratic?

This is the propaganda that Corporate America and the Republican Party are taking to combat the EFCA -- that it's undemocratic. It's based on a two-prong naive premise that (1) the only way to have democracy is through a secret ballot election and (2) that a secret ballot election is democratic. It is a simple explanation and has the ring of a 8th grade civics lesson to it. However, the first prong is normative, not factual (and patently not true, IMO). Democracy can be had directly through public town-meeting like gatherings, through representative government via means of secret ballot elections, or through collaborative interactive processess (and those are only three possibilities). The second prong is empirical and simply depends on the context. The context for NLRB elections in this country is that management can intervene in union elections (in ways both legal and illegal) with almost no consequences. And more importantly, they actually do this -- and have been doing so as a matter of policy since the 1981 PATCO strike was busted. Workers are harassed and fired for supporting union drives every single day in order to influence voting. And where the union wins an election, the company files objections with the NLRB and stalls. Then, when the election is certified -- and if the workers haven't been scared or disspirited enough to change their minds -- companies refuse to negotiate a first contract (either outright or in good faith).

Research in the past few years has demonstrated that a majority of American workers would join a union if they believed it was safe to do so. Yet, unions lose elections too often, and where they win only about 30% even result in a first contract. What is interesting (but certainly not surprising) is that the same people calling for elections at the workplace now are the ones (or the kinds of ones) who argue that workers should not even be bound by elections (the so-called right to work folks). Labor law orginially was enacted to protect the right to organize, but it is now used to deny workers the right to organize.

The EFCA will level the playing field by allowing workers to join a union without having to go through a process (which is hardly a fair election) in which the company continually threatens and attacks the workers and it will require companies to either come to a first contract in a timely manner or submit the matter to arbitration. And one last thing about card check allowing the union to pressure people into joining union -- the public manner of signing the card opens
workers to pressure by the employer just as much (if not more) than the union. It's a specious argument. But--and this may wait until after Nov 2008--we're going to win this one, and the labor movement is going to finally turn around.

What is 8 in '08 all about?

The mission of 8 in '08 is to discuss the potential of the Democrats to build a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate so we can effectively pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). There are, of course, all sorts of good things that can come of a 60 seat majority in the Senate, but we focus on EFCA here because of its potential to significantly alter the organizing landscape for workers and allow millions of people to join unions without fear of retaliation, harassment, or repression from their bosses.

EFCA will amend federal labor law to require an employer to recognize a union where more than 50% of workers sign cards certifying their desire to join the union. It will also provide meaningful penalties for employers who violate workers' right to organize. Recent research shows that significant majority of workers would choose to join a union if they could do so without fear of reprisals from their bosses. Current law provides no meaningful penalties for lawbreaking employers, and the situation has been further complicated by ridiculously anti-worker decisions by Bush's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In September, the NLRB handed down a number of anti-worker decisions that have little or no support in the law. Not only do we need EFCA, we need pro-worker members on the NLRB.

What we hope to accomplish will only happen with both a Democratic President and a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. Plenty of folks are working on winning the presidency, but fewer are concentrating on the specific reasons we need a 60 vote majority in the Senate. There are more specific reasons than just EFCA, but EFCA is enough! We know that building an equitable economy for workers takes not only public policy, but strong labor and community organizing. The New Deal was successful in large part because of the labor organizing that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s. This organizing in turn created a strong constituency for pro-worker public policy. The Republicans and Corporate America have undone our equitable economy over the past forty years with continual attacks on working people and the public policy that supports their interests. Without a strong labor movement, there is a declining middle class. Labor is responsible for lifting millions of poor working families into the middle class in the postwar era. Corporate America and the Republican Party is responsible for pushing working families back into poverty in the neoliberal era. With EFCA we will have pro-worker public policy that will support the rights of millions of working people to organize collectively to better their wages, benefits, and working conditions. And people will organize, and in turn, we will have the constituency to turn back neoliberalism and restore our equitable economy.

We know we need the filibuster-proof majority because EFCA this year passed the House with over 240 votes and the Senate with 51 votes. A Republican filibuster prevented the Senate from adopting the law despite majority support in that chamber. Of course, Bush would have vetoed it, but he would have had to go on record doing so and then Senators would have to justify why they were supporting Bush's veto on the override vote.

What we will do with this blog is provide information and updates on EFCA and on the Senate races as we enter the 2008 election year. We know that the Democrats need more than 8 seats to capture a filibuster-proof majority, but we think that there are eight states in which we have either a fair or good chance to win. And if successful, we are that much closer to 60.

Good Chance to Win:
Virginia
Colorado
New Hampshire
New Mexico

Fair Chance to Win:
Maine
Minnesota
Oregon
Kentucky

ALL OF THESE SEATS ARE HELD BY REPUBLICANS WHO SUPPORTED A FILIBUSTER TO KILL THE EFCA