Saturday, December 29, 2007
On Marriage and Civilization
Earlier this month, I received an e-mail from someone with some text from Congressman Walberg's campaign website, and some thoughts that I could potentially turn into a post. I started working with it, but found that one item in particular was taking up a lot of space, and deserved a post of its own. Now, I'm finally getting around to writing this post.
On Congressman Walberg's campaign website, he writes:
There's a lot to work with in there and a lot of contradictions. But tonight, I want to focus on just one item:
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Many in Washington support redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization.Let's talk about marriage and civilization.
Before going any further, I'll say right now that I know that my position on same-sex marriage is not popular in this state or this country. Michigan adopted an amendment to the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage in 2004 by a 59 to 41 percent margin. Only two counties-- Ingham and Washtenaw-- had a majority of voters oppose the amendment. I opposed that amendment, and I support allowing same-sex couples to have the same rights that I enjoy.
But that's not important right now. I believe what I believe, and Congressman Walberg clearly states: "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." That's a perfectly legitimate position to take, and if he had left it at that, I would have left it alone.
Instead, he said:
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Many in Washington support redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization.It's that second sentence that's a problem. Walberg gets his facts wrong on both counts.
"Many in Washington support redefining this institution..."
Do some people in Washington support redefining marriage-- or, rather, opening it up to same-sex couples? Yes. A few politicians here and there do. But Walberg's claim in the full text above was that these were the differences between his agenda and the "status quo in Congress." To me, that implies that he thinks a majority of Congress is trying to redefine marriage.
Is anyone in Congress trying to redefine marriage right now? Here are the bills that have been introduced in the 110th Congress that relate to defining marriage, with relevant text:
HR 107 (January 4, 2007)
"To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia to consist of the union of one man and one woman."Pretty straightforward.
HR 300 - We the People Act (January 5, 2007)
HR 724 - Marriage Protection Act of 2007 (January 30, 2007)
"To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.In other words, this bill says that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, cannot be challenged in any court.
H. J. Res. 22 - Constitutional Amendment (February 6, 2007)
Did any of those look like those liberals wanting to redefine marriage? To me, it looks like the only folks interested in defining marriage in Washington are folks like Tim Walberg.
Now, about that other part...
"... redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization."
So, marriage is the foundation of civilization? Here I was, thinking the wheel and fire had something to do with it.
Seriously, though, here's what the American Anthropological Association had to say:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.The experts say that Tim Walberg is wrong. What does make a civilization? Wikipedia says:
Marriage, however, didn't seem to make it in there.
I disagree with Congressman Walberg on same-sex marriage, but I realize that a lot of people disagree with me. But to suggest that Walberg is part of a struggling minority defending traditional marriage or to suggest that marriage is the foundation of civilization is both stupid and wrong.
And besides, is there anyone right now that thinks same-sex marriage is going to be an important issue in 2008? Is this what Walberg is going to try to run on?
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Looking South and Looking Forward
On Tuesday, December 11th, voters in the Ohio 5th Congressional District chose a new member of the House of Representatives. The incumbent, Congressman Paul Gillmor, was found dead on September 5th, leaving the seat open for a special election. The Ohio 5th is located in the northwest corner of the state, just to the south of Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties in the Michigan 7th.
Having lived in Michigan my entire life, I know the danger of ever suggesting to anyone that Michigan is anything like Ohio. It’s just not done. That said, I feel that the results from Tuesday and the overall course of the campaign leading up to those results offer us a glimpse of what might, perhaps, happen in the Michigan 7th come November 2008.
The Ohio 5th shares certain characteristics with the Michigan 7th. It’s a geographically large district, stretching across northwest Ohio, while being careful to exclude major Democratic-leaning population centers. Like the Michigan 7th, it’s gerrymandered to be an easy Republican win. It’s PVI is R+10, while the Michigan 7th’s is R+2.5, so it is more Republican than the 7th District, meaning that it should be easier for a Republican to get elected there than here. President Bush carried the mostly rural district with 61 percent of the vote, and in 2006, Congressman Gillmor was re-elected with 57 percent over under-funded Democratic challenger Robin Weirauch.
In the special election, Weirauch was the Democratic nominee once again, with no real opposition in the primary. Her opponent was state Representative Bob Latta, who had to overcome a fierce primary over a Club for Growth-sponsored Steve Buehrer. Sound familiar? Still, Latta is no Joe Schwarz, being more conservative and a much worse campaigner. After some grassroots energy and some encouraging polling, it looked like Weirauch might have a chance at winning, capitalizing on bitter Republican voters withholding their support from Latta.
I’ll spoil the ending for you, in case you didn’t already know it. Latta won, Weirauch lost, and the margin was roughly the same as the 2006 election (Latta 57 percent, Weirauch 43 percent). There were several Michigan bloggers doing work for the Weirauch campaign—most notably lpackard at Michigan Liberal—and if you’re interested, read what she wrote about her experience during the final days before the election (here, here, here, here, and here). It’s definitely worth checking out.
But the Democrat lost. Bummer, eh? Is it a sign, perhaps, that running against Walberg is a hopeless cause, because he’s got the advantages of incumbency and a gerrymandered district? Well, not so fast. In addition to the $508,000 that now-Congressman Latta spent, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent $537,038.24 in order to pay for a status quo victory.
So why is the amount that the NRCC spent so significant? Well, simply put, that was 21 percent of their total cash available, $2,513,816. The DCCC, in contrast, has $29,212,545 available to spend, and used less than one percent of their cash available (about $244,000) on this election.
In the past eight years, there have been 25 special House elections. Of those 25, only three resulted in a change of party. Special elections generally reflect the composition of the district, with a lower turnout and less attention paid to the national issues that could lead to a “wave” election as in 2006. While immune from the “wave” forces, however, they do potentially predict such waves in the election cycle which will follow. When Paul Hackett nearly won in the Ohio 2nd in 2005, it was a sign that even the most Republican seat could be in play.
Bob Latta didn’t almost lose the way that Jean Schmidt did in 2005. However, he did show us the price tag that comes with just an ordinary win. Unfortunately for the GOP, there just isn’t enough money to spend that much on every competitive district. When the NRCC is looking at which Republican-held districts are vulnerable, they’ll see the Michigan 7th. They’ll look at Tim Walberg’s lack-luster fundraising, they’ll look at Mark Schauer’s campaign, and they’ll look at Walberg’s performance thus far.
Does anyone think the NRCC would be willing to spend $500,000 to save a freshman in a blue state when there are so many open seats and senior members with strong Democratic challengers? Is it possible that the NRCC might do the math and count Tim Walberg as a loss?
I’m not saying Walberg won’t get any support from his party, but when their resources are so limited, is it worth it to put up a big fight to save one of the least important members of the caucus? With no sign of improvement in the NRCC’s finances, there’s a very real chance that Walberg could find himself on his own. Will the Club for Growth bail him out again?
Meanwhile, the DCCC is still targeting the Michigan 7th, and Mark Schauer had no trouble at all raising money in the third quarter. Walberg still has a big advantage as the incumbent in a gerrymandered district. But his advantages are slowly dwindling.
For those interested, Chris Bowers offers his explanation for why Weirauch lost. It’s good advice for messaging and issues in 2008, which any Democratic candidate should read—especially one in a district like ours.
Beautiful But Empty
From the Battle Creek Enquirer:
Beautiful and empty. Honestly, I wish I had thought of that. If you've ever heard Congressman Walberg speak, his rhetoric sounds great, but means nothing. Beautiful and empty.
Walberg's website reads:
The Great Lakes are a treasure essential to both Michigan and the entire nation.Beautiful, isn't it? But how does he really feel?
“I don’t know how many of you realize that here in this state in the United States, we do not allow even the slant directional drilling under the Great Lakes... Our environmental lobby has done so well in lobbying efforts from keeping us from doing that, that we don’t drill in ANWR, we don’t drill under the Great Lakes... I don’t understand that.”On Iraq, Walberg says:
Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.That sounds pretty good to me. "A new strategy," with "quantifiable goals and measurable results" is a reasonable policy. But when Congress considers legislation that
Directs the President, by January 1, 2008, to transmit to the congressional defense, appropriations, and foreign relations committees a comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq. Requires the President to update such strategy no later than July 1, 2008, and every 90 days thereafter, including a description of the number of Armed Forces deployed to Iraq and the missions for which they are so deployed.Tim Walberg votes No. A beautiful promise, but, apparently, empty.
For that matter, Congressman Walberg promised $500,000 for W.K. Kellogg Airport, which was a particularly beautiful promise. We weren't supposed to notice that it was an empty promise, as he went ahead and voted No on that funding.
When given these symbolic gifts, what was Congressman Walberg's response?
Yep. More empty promises.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Van Hollen: Walberg Is A Target
We've heard it before, but it's always nice to hear it again. Unlike in 2006, when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee more or less ignored the Michigan 7th, it'll be a top target in 2008.
Today, subscription-only Roll Call has a list from Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), head of the DCCC, of the 40 seats they'll be targeting. Via MyDD, here's the list:
AK-AL: Don Young(Emphasis added.)
I'm a little disappointed that MI-08 and MI-11 aren't on there too, but I'm more than satisfied to see that the DCCC is going to make a serious attempt to pick up seats in Michigan. What are the qualifications for a seat to get on this list?
Among the 40 Republican-held seats the DCCC is targeting generally, Van Hollen acknowledged that not all of them are exceedingly vulnerable to a Democratic takeover. But he said they all exhibit potential, and include a mixture of the following factors:I can see a few ways that the 7th District fits into those. As I said, it's not necessarily news, but it's always good to see.
Odds and Ends
I haven't been doing a great job here lately, but hopefully that'll change in the near future. After a couple of stressful weeks, I took a bit of a blogging vacation. But I'm back.
I'll have plenty of Walberg Voting Record updates coming up, but for now, here's some stuff that should be posts on their own. Instead of giving all the topics the time they deserve, I'm going to try to run through them all in this post.
The DCCC has been kind enough to put me on their press release e-mail list. Here's some of what they've been sending me lately.
Representative Tim Walberg Puts Big Oil Ahead of Middle Class Americansand
Representative Tim Walberg Opposes Middle Class Tax Relief for 23 Million Americansand
Representative Tim Walberg Voted Against Community PolicingThat's the DCCC's take on his votes. Perhaps biased? Maybe. But I am glad to see they're keeping the pressure on him as we approach November 2008.
Susan Demas has a column in a recent issue of the Battle Creek Enquirer that's kind of harsh on all fronts, criticizing both Congressman Tim Walberg and Michigan Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer. It's worth reading, even for those of us that might not agree with everything she says. Francis Pepper mentioned the column in a post below, but I wanted to point out something from the last couple of paragraphs:
While acknowledging that Schauer would be a better congressman, it's more than obvious that Demas wants a third alternative. Is she talking about Sharon Renier? I can't speak for her, but I'm guessing probably not. Is there another candidate that Demas is hoping will jump into the race?
I don't know yet, it's one of the things that I've decided not to decide. It is a purposeful choice, not to decide. What candidates do at this stage of the game is go out there and vie for name recognition. I don't perceive myself as having name recognition problems in the 7th Congressional District, first. And secondly, quite frankly, the mechanism by which the Congress operates is seniority and whether you're a junior member of either the majority or the minority in the U.S. Congress, you're not pulling a lot of strength. Decisions are made by committee chairs, ranking members, senior members, so the status of a junior member, especially a junior member of the minority party, whichever party that may be after 2008, isn't going to be much.Schwarz then continues to talk about the things he would like to still work on in the committees he served on, but says that while it was a privilege to serve in the House, "it's not the be all and end all."
It's always dangerous to read too much into statements like this, because politicians can and do change their minds (as they should). But to me, I'd say that right now, I don't think Schwarz will run. If that's who Susan Demas and others are looking toward as a viable third option, it doesn't look like it'll happen.
It looks like Jack Lessenberry reached about the same conclusion I did. If you watch the end of the program, he offers his own commentary, in which he compares Joe Schwarz to Al Gore. Both, he explains, are politicians who lost close elections and then went on to do a great deal of good work outside of elected office.
As for me, I thought I'd throw in my own thoughts on Joe Schwarz. If Schwarz were to challenge Tim Walberg and win the Republican nomination, I would not vote for him, I would vote for the Democratic nominee. If Schwarz were to run as an independent against Walberg and a Democrat like Mark Schauer, I would not vote for him, I would vote for Schauer. If Schwarz were to run for the Democratic nomination, I probably would not vote for him in the primary.
Why? Because, despite the lies Walberg espoused, Joe Schwarz is a conservative man. He and I disagree on countless issues, and if he ran as a Democrat, he'd certainly not represent the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But he's a thoughtful, honest conservative, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I have nothing but respect for him, even when we disagree, because hearing him speak, you can tell that he truly believes the things he says, and he's thought them through.
Of course, maybe I'm just easily fooled by politicians that look and sound genuine. After speaking with Mark Schauer, I was left with the impression that he was a genuine, hard-working progressive reformer, but according to Susan Demas, that's not true. Interesting.
And now, the last item is a challenge for all of you loyal Walberg Watch readers. About six months ago, I got a new computer, and discovered Windows Movie Maker was pre-installed on it. Now, it's not much compared to the high-quality video production software available, but to a novice like me, this is new and exciting.
After a while, I started making some videos related to Tim Walberg. Not so much attack ads as informative videos, showcasing some of Walberg's votes and finer moments (like, drilling for oil in the Great Lakes, or "Iraq is as safe as Detroit"). But they're a little dry... Before they can go on YouTube, they need background music!
That's where you come in. I can't just stick in music from my own collection because that runs into copyright violations. I may, in fact, be the only YouTube user that cares about that, but nevertheless, I want to avoid phone calls from lawyers. Does anyone know of a good resource where I can get high-quality, public domain audio recordings? MP3 files would be best.
I hope everyone's holiday season is off to a good start.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
"Campaign finance for charlatans"
(Cross-posted from To Play the King.)
The Battle Creek Enquirer recently did a compare-and-contrast piece on the political fundraising practices of Tim Walberg and Mark Schauer.
The article takes both candidates to task.
"What I find revolting is that both men swim the sewage of politics and don't retch - they actually seem to feed off the stench," writes author Susan J. Demas.
It's worth a read.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Does Walberg Support Torture?
Today, the House of Representatives considered HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act conference report, which reconciled the House and Senate versions previously passed. It reauthorizes funding for our intelligence-gathering agencies (at a cost of $2.00 per American). As far as I know, that part wasn't controversial, and I'm guessing that Congressman Walberg and most other members of Congress are fine with funding our intelligence agencies.
Here's the part that people disagreed with:
That's right. The controversial part, apparently, is that the bill bans torture. That's controversial.
As you read above, the House passed the conference report, 222 to 199.
Congressman Tim Walberg voted No. The entire Republican delegation from Michigan shared his position.
I was ready to write up something on how absurd it is that anyone would think it's unreasonable to outlaw torture, including waterboarding-- the simulated drowning technique mentioned above. But instead, I'll give you a much better take-down, by DHinMI at DailyKos. I don't usually like to quote entire posts, but really, you can't get a better explanation than this:
Congressman Walberg, I admit, I don't know that this is the reason why you didn't support the bill. Maybe you had an issue with the cost, or maybe you thought that our intelligence agencies would be protecting the wrong people or something... that seemed to be your problem with S-CHIP, after all.
But the impression I get is that you and your Republican colleagues opposed this bill because you think torture is just fine. You think it's a legitimate method of interrogation, even if it doesn't actually yield results and is a violation of human rights and any sense of decency we might have.
That's the impression I get. Am I right? Congressman Walberg, do you believe waterboarding is torture? If you do, do you think it's a legitimate interrogation technique?
If you don't think waterboarding should be allowed, then I'll issue an apology for this post right away. I would feel terrible if I accused you of something so despicable as supporting torture and it wasn't true. I'd really appreciate a response or a public statement to clear things up. Torture is a serious thing to me, and I find it hard to believe anyone who claims to be Christian-- or, for that matter, anyone who claims to have any morals, regardless of faith-- would support it.
Do you support the use of torture, Congressman Walberg?
I'm sending a copy of this post to his office in hopes of a response, but I think it would be great if more people were to ask him about it. Contact Congressman Walberg and ask him about this vote. Ask him whether he supports torture. I'm eagerly awaiting his answer.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study Act - Walberg Votes No
Today, December 4, 2007, the House of Representatives examined HR 3998, "America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study Act". The bill's description:
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct special resources studies of certain lands and structures to determine the appropriate means for preservation, use, and management of the resources associated with such lands and structures.In the text of the bill, there is a list of ten historical and natural sites, from the site of the Battle of Camden to Harry Truman's birthplace to the Mississippi River itself, and it authorizes the Department of the Interior to study ways to preserve the sites and possibly integrate some into the National Parks system. It's a study only.
HR 3998 passed, by a vote of 326 to 79.
Congressman Tim Walberg voted No. He was the only member of the Michigan delegation to vote against the bill.
Nice. I guess someone didn't like history class field trips.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Rick Baxter and Walberg Staff Changes
I first wrote about Rick Baxter nearly a year ago as then-Congressman-elect Walberg was setting up his office. Baxter, who had represented a state House district in Jackson County until losing re-election to former Jackson mayor and current Representative Martin Griffin, had just been named as Walberg's district director. (Around the same time, he also became the head of the Jackson County Republican Party.)
Baxter, Walberg, and Joe Wicks (Walberg's chief of staff) have a long history together. Baxter volunteered for Walberg's state House campaigns while a student at Lenawee Christian High School, and Joe Wicks helped run Baxter's first state House campaign and was Baxter's own chief of staff until leaving to help Walberg.
So it really was kind of strange this fall when Baxter decided to quit.
Rick Baxter, formerly district director for U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, said Friday he resigned his position with the congressman's Jackson office on Oct. 16 to work in the family business.Back to the family business? The article goes on to explain that it had absolutely nothing to do with Mark Schauer entering the race, and that it was just an "interesting coincidence."
Right. Because a young, motivated, rising Republican would never jump off a sinking ship to save his own political career. Obviously that's not why he left.
Now, I don't know whether the family business was the real reason that he quit or not. But here's the strange thing-- apparently, the rest of Walberg's staff doesn't know either.
I usually don't post much on rumors, but this was very interesting. From an e-mail I received not too long ago:
As far as Baxter's leaving, that is a lot more complicated. His leaving is very hush, hush and most of the general staff have no idea why he left. The little bit I know is that there were some bad feelings between Baxter and Wicks and Walberg himself. The best I have put together is that Baxter was "too honest" about his analysis of Walberg's public speeches and told Walberg exactly how he felt. Baxter would tell both Wicks and Walberg what he disagreed with as far as messages coming out of DC, press releases, their bad press relationships, and things Walberg would say in public. I know Walberg didn't like to be corrected and Wicks said it was Baxter not respecting Wick's or Walberg's positions. Now how that came to Baxter leaving and if that was the main reason I don't know. Both District and DC staff really don't know why he left. They just got an email from Baxter one day that said he had resigned and they haven't seen him since. I'm sure it does Walberg no good to down talk Baxter, due to his strong ties to Jackson and his connect to Jackson money, and it does Baxter no good (especially if he has future political plans) to down talk Walberg who is loved by the conservative voters in and around Jackson. But something pushed him to leave.At the request of the source, I can't give you the name of the person who sent me that. Unfortunately, there's not an easy way for me to verify any of that... for some reason, I don't have a lot of friends in the Michigan GOP who would tell me about this sort of thing. So, take that as you will.
So, Baxter, Walberg, and Wicks may have had a personal clash, and now Baxter's out. How does that change the way Walberg's office is run?
First, it's worth noting that Rick Baxter was an important figure in Walberg's office. As district director, he was present at many of Walberg's events and was the only highly-publicized hire while Walberg was organizing his office. Serving as the chairman of the Jackson GOP at the same time probably helped to strengthen Walberg's ties with the party establishment, who had overwhelmingly supported Joe Schwarz in the 2006 primary. And, of course, as I've written before, Jackson County is very important to winning the district.
Losing that presence will probably hurt Walberg some. But there's perhaps a greater impact. As Walberg Watch readers noted last January, some of Walberg's staff in the district was hired by Rick Baxter and had worked with him before. Jill Larder (field representative, then casework/awards) and Mary Ann Duffy (constituent relations) each worked for Baxter in the past. What kind of impact did Baxter's sudden departure have on them? It's certainly worth asking about.
It's especially worth asking about in light of Baxter's replacement, Ryan Boeskool. He had been the field representative for Eaton and Jackson Counties. From the same source above, he has a decidedly different managing style than that of Rick Baxter, and is apparently not all that popular with the district staff. As the source claims, Boeskool will "openly berate employees in front of their co-workers," including Keith Brown, the Lenawee and Hillsdale field representative. Brown is the oldest and most experienced person on staff, having worked as Nick Smith's district director. Boeskool sounds like a nice fellow, eh? Apparently the incident with Brown led to some real bad feelings with the staff.
Now, some of you are probably thinking to yourself, "Fitzy, this is all very interesting, but a lot of it is coming from one source! How do we know this isn't all made up?" I asked the same thing, and I can't give you a good answer, except to say that if the person who sent me this e-mail made it all up, s/he made a lot of details and did a good job of it. It's consistent with what I know of Walberg, Wicks, and Baxter, and sounds plausible enough for me to write about it. Plus, I'm the trusting sort.
If you want, the source also makes a prediction:
This isn't public yet, but another staffer for Walberg is leaving next month [this month; I got the e-mail in November]. Tony Reinhard who is their DC scheduler and who also worked on the 2006 campaign is leaving before the end of the year.and
Tony is not leaving on good terms and is being forced out. They are giving him this time only so he can find another job and so they can say he is just leaving for a "better opportunity."So, let's see what happens. I'm kind of curious.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Sharon Renier Website Updated
Although my last post was focused on a Schauer-Walberg race, there is still a third candidate running-- Sharon Renier. She filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC on October 15, 2007, and in the third quarter she raised $810 and spend $187.43.
Compared to Schauer and Walberg, it's not much of a campaign, but it is a campaign and deserves mentioning.
Now, she's updated her campaign website, which had gone unchanged for a year, with a new design and links to contribute through PayPal and ActBlue.
I just thought I'd mention it.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
The 2008 Election and Geography
Before I begin this post, I want to be clear that it's not an endorsement of Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer. That's not a pro- or anti-Schauer statement, either, but merely a reaffirmation that I'm not endorsing anyone on this blog in the Democratic primary, because I don't want to be accused of bias one way or another. Sure, I have my personal preference, but I can and will enthusiastically support either Mark Schauer or Sharon Renier.
All of that said, right now, there's a very strong chance that Senator Schauer will be the Democratic nominee. In terms of money and name recognition, he's certainly the strongest Democrat the district has seen in the last 15 years. He's in a pretty comfortable position to win his party's nomination.
So, assuming Joe Schwarz does not run as an independent, what would a Walberg versus Schauer campaign look like? It would certainly be a contrast in ideology and a contrast in style, but there's another aspect that I'd like to look at: geography.
Here's Michigan's 7th District, with the hometowns of Congressman Walberg and Senator Schauer indicated.
Walberg-- the red dot-- is Tipton/Franklin Township, while Schauer-- the blue dot-- is Bedford Township/Battle Creek. The map above really isn't necessary, I just wanted a visual way of showing that Walberg comes from the eastern, southern part of the district and Schauer comes from the northern, western part. You all knew that already, but I like maps.
So what's the significance of that? Well, it's not just that Walberg's end of the district makes refrigerator compressors and Schauer's end makes cereal. There's a significant population difference:
The map above shows the percentage of the total 7th District voters who voted in the last presidential election year that came from each county. (I used 2004 because, like 2008, it will be a presidential election year.) For example, 19.2 percent of 7th District voters in 2004 cast their ballots in Calhoun County. The data that produced the map:
Again, I just really like maps.
From this, we see that Schauer is from and has a history representing the more populous parts of the district, while Walberg's strength-- primarily Lenawee County, which he represented in the state House, and the conservative southern tier of counties-- has fewer people. When we draw onto the map Senator Schauer's current Michigan Senate district, we see:
From this, we see that Senator Schauer's current district already covers nearly 40 percent of the district's voters, including Battle Creek and Jackson, the two largest cities. In 2002, he was elected with 55.1 percent, and in 2006, he was re-elected with 61.2 percent. (In 2004, John Kerry received 46.4 percent in the Senate district.)
That's not a bad base to start off with. There are a lot of voters who know Schauer's name, know the work he's done for their communities, and are used to voting for him. They know him and, based on the previous election results, they seem to like him.
So what does that mean for Schauer?
In 2006, Sharon Renier won Calhoun County, Eaton County, and Washtenaw County, while Walberg won everywhere else. Let's assume that Mark Schauer can do the same, while perhaps increasing the margin in Calhoun County (Renier's 51 percent in Calhoun County was well below Schauer's 61 percent and Granholm's 57 percent, suggesting room for improvement). Absent an enormous victory in Calhoun County (as in, >70%) or in Eaton County, the key to winning, as I pointed out about a year ago, is Jackson County.
In addition to having the largest population on my map above, Jackson County is the only county that Jennifer Granholm carried in 2006 and Sharon Renier did not. Walberg won Jackson County 51 to 46. Could Schauer do better? Let's look at that map again.
Most of Jackson County is in Schauer's Senate district, including the city of Jackson. Schauer carried the Jackson County portion of his district with 56 percent in 2006, but in 2002, he lost that portion of his district, 47.7 percent to 52.3.
So, really, what does all this mean? I really wish I could say, in big bold letters, "Schauer wins!" but I can't. There are a lot of things I haven't taken into account, but here's what it comes down to:
All in all, I think Schauer starts off with the geographic advantage, which may be enough to blunt Walberg's incumbency advantage. But that's just my gut feeling.
And I got to make some nice maps. So, there's that too.
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008