Unfortunately the power of the online moneybomb can cut both ways, as extremist Christine O'Donnell has apparently raised $1 million this week, a big amount for any state but especially for a state like Delaware that has a population low enough that it only has one representative in the U.S. House.
That's another reason we can't take the Delaware race for granted (along with Sen. Reid's less-than-helpful "my pet" comment about Chris Coons). And it's another reason why we need to donate now to three "Bang for Your Buck" Senate candidates who can help us reform, maybe even end, the filibuster.
If you want to go straight to the ActBlue page for these 3 candidates, please click here.
Here's more background - there's much more (including an FAQ) at my Wednesday diary about this.
After Tuesday's Delaware primary shocker, I think there are two important questions:
- Where will progressive dollars go furthest in Senate races?
- Will spending in those races help end or reform the filibuster, the one thing above all else that has blocked the progressive change America voted for in 2008? (No more of that "we need 60 votes" stuff. Thomas Geoghegan had an excellent summary in 2009 of why the filibuster has to go.)
each senator gets one vote whether he or she comes from a state of 626,000 (Alaska), 12.3 million (my state - Pennsylvania) or 33.9 million (the most populated, California). (Figures are from the 2000 census.) I think highly of Barbara Boxer but my money might go 50 times further in Alaska (plus incumbents can usually raise money more easily).
(Also, I don't see California electing a Palin-endorsed, anti-choice failed former corporate executive. :-)
I think the three Senate races where our money can go furthest are:
- Scott McAdams - Alaska, population 626,000, which gives it 1 House member - Paul Hodes - New Hampshire, which has 2 House members - Chris Coons - Delaware, which has 1 House member(UPDATE: New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote Thursday about her visit to Alaska to observe McAdams and included this: "An Alaskan political campaign costs less than a tenth of one in big-media states like Florida and New York. He could probably run a competitive race for a million dollars, which is about the equivalent in California of Barbara Boxer’s postage budget.")
All three of these potential senators would prevent more far-right Republicans from reaching the Senate, especially extremists like Joe Miller (who thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional! ) and of course Christine O'Donnell. Hodes' opponent Ayotte was the establishment choice, but how moderate can Ayotte be if Palin endorsed her?
Two of these Democrats have expressed support for reforming the filibuster -- Hodes and Coons.
And I'm encouraged by the signs about McAdams on this issue: While I haven't found a comment from McAdams about the filibuster, I think he would probably listen to fellow Alaska Democratic Senator Mark Begich, who has expressed his frustration with it and his support for reform.
From what I've read, McAdams also seems to be mostly progressive, not a Lieberman or Ben Nelson type. (Plus, why would McAdams want to spend all that time and effort getting elected, plus all that travel time between D.C. and Alaska, just to let Mitch McConnell and the rest of the minority stall practically everything?)
So if these candidates win, they represent at least two votes in January to change the Senate rules, and probably three.
Here's my ActBlue page for these 3 potential filibuster-enders.
There's an FAQ at my Wednesday diary. (It addresses things like: why not Nevada? why not Kentucky? who else on the ballot this fall favors filibuster reform?)