Progress Illinois

Wow. Big news today out of Michigan.  The McCain campaign has announced that they're pulling all staff out of the state and redistributing them to Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida.

So taking that into consideration, let's have a look at the current map.  What emerges is that McCain is being forced to defend the following Bush states: Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio.  Meanwhile, with Michigan abandoned and Pennsylvania looking increasingly out of reach, there are only two Kerry states that stick out as possible GOP pick-ups and they're both in our neck of the woods: Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

Continue reading »

We've been carefully tracking Indiana's swing state status, but now it appears the race for Missouri may be just as tight.  A CNN poll released today has Barack Obama leading John McCain by one point -- 49-48 percent.  The last CNN survey in the state -- conducted three weeks ago -- had Obama down by five.  The most recent polls by Survey USA and Research 2000 had Obama trailing by two points and one points, respectively.  Both were conducted in the middle of last week.

The new numbers have Electoral College trackers shifting Missouri to the left.  CNN moved the state from "lean McCain" to "toss-up."  Today, Pollster.com did the same.

Here's a ringing endorsement for the ongoing war in Iraq. Despite describing itself as the "largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America," Vets For Freedom (VFF) had some trouble scaring up like-minded folks to rally at the vice presidential candidates debate in St. Louis tomorrow night. So they decided to offer some local frat boys money to pose as war supporters.

The Huffington Post reports:

In an email obtained by the Huffington Post, Vets for Freedom field staffer Laura Meyer offered a fraternity at St. Louis University a "sizable donation" -- plus free lunch -- if it could use their pledges to demonstrate outside the VP debate.

Continue reading »

In the last year, the state of Illinois has aggressively pushed for stricter standards against air pollution at the national level. That push has now put us at odds with one of our neighbors across the Mississippi. Today the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports how Missouri's Department of National Resources (DNR) is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to weaken ozone regulations. Meanwhile, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is suing to have those regulations strengthened.

Here's the background: in March, the EPA lowered the standard of acceptable ozone pollution to 0.075 parts-per-million from 0.084 parts-per-million. The problem with the new limit is that the EPA's own scientists found it still allowed for a dangerous level of pollution. In response, Madigan -- along with the AGs of New York, California, Oregon, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania -- signed a petition demanding that the regulations fall in line with the scientists' recommendations:

"It is simply unacceptable for EPA to ignore its own science advisory committee and set the new ozone standard at a level that will make breathing more difficult for children, seniors, people who work outdoors and those who already suffer from chronic lung disease," [Madigan] said.

Fearing that the new rules may hurt local industries, the Missouri DNR took the opposite position, joining the state of Mississippi in suing the EPA to bring the ozone limit back to pre-March standards.

Only time will tell whether either lawsuit will succeed, but with over a dozen other states backing her petition, Madigan certainly has the numbers on her side. Another good sign for the Illinois-backed suit? Missouri's own Attorney General Jay Nixon does not support his state's legal challenge. The DNR asked him to back the suit but he refused, saying that "the new [EPA] standard is an effort to protect public health" and pointing out that the agency had failed to provide any factual basis for its suit.

As the summer election season hits its stride, we're seeing more and more evidence that Barack Obama is benefiting from the cross-country battle he waged with Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary. Yesterday, National Journal's Carrie Dann reported on how the drawn-out contest helped Democrats cement their presence in important battleground states:

A glance at the primary calendar offers a list of red to purple states where Obama and Clinton stumped feverishly after McCain accepted the party mantle against the backdrop of the White House lawn on March 5. Democrats battled in Indiana, North Carolina and Montana -- all states touted by the Obama campaign as potential electoral pickups -- as well as in Oregon and Pennsylvania, Democratic-leaning states where McCain hopes to gain ground. [...]

[T]he difference in simple ground covered in the five contested states that held post-March 4th primaries is striking. In the Tar Heel State, for example, Obama held a total of 14 events over nine campaign days. McCain has spent only three days there, one in a private meeting with evangelical iconBilly Graham and his son. In Indiana, Obama made 26 appearances over 20 days, to McCain's two. McCain trails Obama by more than five campaign stops in Montana, 10 in Oregon and 25 in Pennsylvania.

All told, in those five states, Obama has campaigned for a total of 54 days to McCain's 13, giving Obama a net lead of 41 campaign days. That lead has grown, not shrunk, since Obama clinched the nomination and began campaigning in nontraditional regions as part of his campaign's avowed 50-state strategy.

Continue reading »

Critics of the Indiana voter ID law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court late last month warned that the highly restrictive bill could set a dangerous precedent by giving cover to other fledgling anti-voter campaigns nationwide.

Our neighbors in Missouri are already upping the ante.

Legislators there are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would force potential voters to provide a proof of citizenship to register. While most states require some sort of identification to vote -- generally a utility bill, a paycheck, drivers license, or student/military id card -- the Missouri law would narrow eligible verification materials to an original birth certificate, naturalization papers, or a passport.

Why is such an amendment necessary? Supporters say proof of citizenship measures improve the accuracy of registration rolls, gives voters confidence in the process, and eases growing concerns about illegal voting by undocumented immigrants. But just as in Indiana, the evidence of such fraud is nonexistent. Indeed, The New York Times reported that, between October 2002 to September 2005, the Justice Department indicted only 40 voters for registration fraud or illegal voting, 21 of whom were non-citizens. Missouri lawmakers can't provide any relevant local evidence of voter fraud.

Meanwhile, the negative effects are striking. Robin Carnahan, Missouri's secretary of state, estimated that the law could disenfranchise up to 240,000 already registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship. And in a crucial presidential swing state, those voters could tip the scales. According to a January study by Brown University, if voter ID policies had not been in place in 19 states in 2004, turnout would have increased by more than 1.6 million.

The fate of the Missouri bill is still very much up in the air, as it would have to be approved by voters in the state's August gubernatorial primary before the legislature could enact it. But sadly, with the Supreme Court's implicit blessing, the odds are in its favor.