Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Google Ads

Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 12/14

by: Crisitunity

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 3:18 PM EST


AR-Sen: We're up to eight Republicans packed into the GOP Senate field in Arkansas, none of whom are exactly top-tier but many of whom seem to have the capability to win both the primary and the general against Blanche Lincoln. The new guy is Stanley Reed, and although he hasn't held elective office before, he seems to have the insider connections to make a serious go of it: he is former president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, and before that was chair of the Univ. of Arkansas Board of Trustees.

CA-Sen/Gov: Here's an interesting rumor, courtesy of Chris Cillizza: moderate ex-Rep. Tom Campbell, probably the GOP's greatest threat in the general but an underfunded third-wheel in the gubernatorial primary, is considering moving over to the Senate race. Perhaps the news that Insurance Comm. Steve Poizner was planning to spend $15 million of his own moolah on his stalled gubernatorial bid was the last straw? It vaguely makes sense for Campbell (who has already run for Senate twice before, most recently in 2000), as he'd face off against underwhelming Carly Fiorina (who has lots of her own money, but no inclination to use it) and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who has nothing but the wrath of the teabaggers powering him.

IL-Sen: The Chicago Tribune has released polls of the primary fields in the Illinois Senate race, revealing no surprises but also still a lot of people left to make up their minds. The Democratic field finds Alexi Giannoulias in the lead at 31, with Cheryle Jackson within kind-of striking distance at 17, David Hoffman at 9, and free-spending attorney Jacob Meister at 1 (with 38% undecided). For the GOP, the most notable number may be that Patrick Hughes, who's gotten all the buzz as the guy behind whom all the right-wingers are coalescing, is actually getting nowhere at all. Hughes is at 3, tied with virtually unknown Kathleen Thomas (a former school board member from Springfield). Mark Kirk is at 41, but with 47% undecided, he still has a lot of selling to do. Speaking of which, the DSCC has a new website devoted solely to the man and his nonstop campaign-trail flip-flops: Two-Faced Kirk.

IL-Gov: The same Chicago Tribune sample also looked at the gubernatorial primary fields. Incumbent Pat Quinn seems to be having little trouble on his path to the Dem nomination, beating Comptroller Dan Hynes 49-23. (Hynes may be second-guessing himself for getting into this race instead of the Senate field.) On the GOP side, it looks like former AG Jim Ryan (and 2002 loser) is in pole position despite his late entry to the race, thanks to being the only figure with statewide name rec. He's at 26, with state party chair Andy McKenna at 12, downstate state Sen. Bill Brady at 10, suburban state Sen. Kirk Dillard at 9, businessman Adam Andrzejewski at 6, and DuPage Co. Board President Bob Schillerstrom at 2.

PA-Gov: Rasmussen's poll from last week of PA-Sen had a governor question too, and it shows all of the Dems getting thumped by Republican AG Tom Corbett. That probably has a lot to do with name recognition (Corbett gets his face in the news every day with Bonusgate, which is good for a bizarrely-high favorable of 59/18, while Auditor Jack Wagner is the only Dem with a statewide profile), but the Dems are starting out in a hole here once campaigning starts in earnest. Wagner fares best against Corbett, losing 43-30, while Corbett beats Allegheny Co. Exec Dan Onorato 44-28, ex-Rep. Joe Hoeffel 48-26, and Scranton mayor Chris Doherty 46-23.

NY-Gov (pdf): Breaking! David Paterson is still in deep trouble. He's at 23/76 approval, and 19/65 re-elects. He loses the Democratic primary to Andrew Cuomo 67-23 (and opinion is certainly solidifying behind Cuomo: 50% want him to run for Governor, while 31% want him to run again for AG). The good news is that Paterson still beats hapless ex-Rep. Rick Lazio in the general, 42-40, while Cuomo beats Lazio 68-22. Siena doesn't look at Rudy Giuliani at all, making his disappearance from the governor's race pretty apparent. Siena also takes a look at the Comptroller's race (although without any William Thompson or Eliot Spitzer permutations), and find Dem Thomas DiNapoli beating GOPer John Faso, 40-24.

RI-Gov: One state where the gubernatorial race looks less and less likely to go the Republicans' way is Rhode Island, where their only announced candidate, businessman Rory Smith, quietly backed out of the race on Friday afternoon, citing his "limited political experience and political network." Maybe state Rep. Joe Trillo could get coaxed back into the race for the GOP -- or they could just throw their backing behind former Sen. and former Republican Lincoln Chafee's independent bid (although based on his recent comments about the state party, it doesn't sound like he'd want anything to do with their backing).

SC-Gov (pdf): One more gubernatorial poll, leftover from last week. PPP polled South Carolina, and found numbers very similar to Rasmussen's numbers from last week. Basically, Democrats need to hope for a matchup between Jim Rex (the Superintendent of Education, and only statewide Dem officeholder) and hard-partying, car-racing, plane-crashing Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer; Rex wins that matchup, 37-36. Dems lose every other permutation. Bauer manages to beat state Sen. Vincent Sheheen 38-33, and Robert Ford 37-33. AG Henry McMaster beats Rex 40-31, Sheheen 41-27, and Ford 42-27. And Rep. Gresham Barrett beats Rex 40-33, Sheheen 41-26, and Ford 42-28. (By way of comparison, Rasmussen finds Rex beating Bauer 36-35 and losing his other matchups.) PPP didn't poll the primaries, but based on favorables, McMaster may be the likeliest GOP nominee, at 30/20, compared with Barrett, little-known outside his district at 14/17, and Bauer, toxic at 22/43. PPP also ran a generic D ballot against GOP Sen. Jim DeMint, who has no-name opposition so far, finding DeMint winning 47-38.

TX-Gov: As expected, Kinky Friedman ended his Democratic gubernatorial primary bid today. Friedman declined to endorse either Bill White (whose entry probably precipitated Friedman's exit) or Farouk Shami, despite some connections to Shami. What may not have been expected was that Friedman dropped down to the Agriculture Commissioner race, where he'll join fellow gubernatorial race refugee Hank Gilbert. While Friedman doesn't seem to have an agricultural background, he does have as an advisor and backer former Ag Comm. and populist pundit Jim Hightower.

ID-01: I hadn't heard any rumblings about this happening, but in case anyone was wondering, Larry Grant (the former software exec who barely lost the 2006 ID-01 race to Bill Sali) said he wouldn't primary Democratic freshman Rep. Walt Minnick in 2010. Minnick has raised some hackles for being the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus (not that that shouldn't be a surprise in an R+18 district, but he's been taking that to extremes lately, leading the way to scrap the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency). Grant also denied that he'd be running in 2010 as a moderate Republican (conceivably to Minnick's left?), although he seemed to suggest that he could prevail against that field of wannabes, accusing Vaughn Ward of being a "Sarah Palin Republican" and Raul Labrador a "Bill Sali Republican." (I wonder what that would make Bill Sali, if he decided to jump in?)

IL-10: In the Democratic primary clash in the open 10th, state Rep. Julie Hamos scored a big labor endorsement today, from the AFSCME.

IL-14: Ethan Hastert a moderate? Either the apple falls far from the tree, or the Main Street Partnership is having to greatly expand their definition of "moderate" is order to stay relevant in a GOP intent on purging itself into oblivion. At any rate, the Main Streeters' PAC gave to Hastert (making clear where the ideological fault lines lie in his primary against state Sen. Randy Hultgren), along with OH-15's Steve Stivers, OH-16's Jim Renacci, and NH-02's Charlie Bass.

KS-03: The specter of Republican civil war in the open seat race in Kansas's 3rd is abating, as state Sen. (and 2008 loser) Nick Jordan has the respect of both the moderate and conservative wings of the state's party. Maybe most significantly, state Sen. Jeff Colyer, from the fire-breathing camp, said today that he won't challenge Jordan in the primary. Moderate state Rep. Kevin Yoder is still exploring the race, though.

PA-10: Sophomore Democratic Rep. Chris Carney has been one of the juiciest targets with only token Republican opposition, but the GOP may have found an elected official willing to take him on: state Rep. Michael Peifer, who represents a rural portion of the district.

SC-01: Another Dem is in the hunt in the 1st, for the right to go up against Rep. Henry Brown (assuming he survives his primary). Retired Navy officer and accountant Dick Withington is getting in; his only political experience is losing a state Rep. race in 2004.

TN-03: The open seat in the 3rd should be attracting at least some Democratic interest, but following the withdrawal of establishment candidate Paula Flowers last month, now even the race's Some Dude bailed out: businessman (and 2006 loser) Brent Benedict got out, citing family health concerns. A few other potentially-credible Democrats are now looking at the race, though, including Chattanooga city councilor Andrae McGary and Hamilton County Democratic party chair Jeff Brown.

TX-10: Democratic businessman Jack McDonald has gotten lots of buzz for solid fundraising for a potential run against GOP Rep. Michael McCaul, who looks increasingly shaky in the demographically-changing 10th. Last week, he removed the "exploratory" part of his campaign account, making it official, although clearly he's been acting like a candidate all year.

VA-05: The Virginia GOP decided on a primary, rather than a convention, to pick the person who takes on endangered freshman Rep. Tom Perriello in the 5th. In a weird way, the primary is better news for the party's establishment, as the conventions tend to be dominated by the extremists who pick pure but unelectable candidates (recall last year's Senate flap, where the decision to have a convention drove out moderate Rep. Tom Davis and left them with ex-Gov. Jim Gilmore). With their top contender, state Sen. Rob Hurt, coming from the sane wing of the party, that increases his odds of getting through to the general -- but the downside is that this may drive dissatisfied teabaggers to the third-party right-wing candidacy of Bradley Rees in the general.

WA-03: A journeyman Democrat is considering the open seat race in the 3rd, potentially setting up a primary with early entrant state Rep. Deb Wallace. Denny Heck was a state Rep. in the 80s, lost a Superintendent of Education race, became Gov. Booth Gardner's chief of staff, and then founded TVW, the state's local equivalent of C-SPAN. The article also mentions a couple other Dems interested in the race not previously mentioned, including state Sen. Brian Hatfield.

Mayors: In a runoff election that had an undercurrent of homophobia thanks to the involvement of outside groups, city controller Annise Parker won on Saturday, making Houston by far the largest city to ever elect an openly LGBT mayor. She defeated former city attorney Gene Locke 53-47.

Redistricting: The Texas Tribune takes a look at the many moving parts in legislative redistricting post-2010 in Texas. Factors include whether the Dems will be able to pick up the state House next year (sounding less likely), and which state officials are on the Legislative Redistricting Board (which takes over if the legislature can't agree, which seems likely anyway since there's a 2/3s requirement for the maps to clear the Senate and the GOP is short of 2/3s there).

Demographics: Governing Magazine has an interesting piece on Gwinnett County, Georgia, which is as good an example as any of how suburbs, even in some of the reddest states, are becoming bluer as they become more diverse thanks to immigration. Gwinnett County has fallen below 50% non-Hispanic white, and it gave Obama 44% of the vote last year.

Polltopia: PPP is asking for help yet again on which congressional district to poll next. This time, it'll be a GOP-held district: Michele Bachmann's MN-06, Lee Terry's NE-02, or Pat Tiberi's OH-12.

Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 12/14
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
SC-1
I wish Linda Ketner would get back into that race, but 2008 was probably our best shot there for a while.  In a dream world she would run against Jim DeMint and plaster him.  

Please donate to amcharities.org to help build more after school centers in the Miami area.  

23, Democrat, IA-2


Interesting idea...
.... maybe the result in Houston will encourage her too.

DeMint's lackluster 47-38 lead over generic Democrat is not too impressive.  Obviously the teabag crowd loves him, but they aren't as numerous as they are vocal, even in red SC.

I do believe a decently funded, articulate Democrat could make things real interesting in SC.  The Chamber of Commerce types aren't sold on DeMint from my point of view.  


[ Parent ]
Doesn't SC have a lot of seniors?
DeMint just came out strongly in favor of a new push to privatize social security.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/...


[ Parent ]
To be really honest
I have a decent amount of respect for DeMint.  His views are horrendous, but they are consistent.  He wants to rail against government, privatize everything and let the people, including his rural white Southern base to go to hell.

OTOH, the rural conservative Blue Dogs and big gov't Repubs (e.g. Saxby Chambliss) rail against government when it helps blacks and liberals, but are unwilling to apply the same policies for white rural Southerners.  In other words, they are hypocrites, and DeMint is much more respectable, IMO.


[ Parent ]
Where are the voting records that support your assertion?
OTOH, the rural conservative Blue Dogs and big gov't Repubs (e.g. Saxby Chambliss) rail against government when it helps blacks and liberals, but are unwilling to apply the same policies for white rural Southerners.


[ Parent ]
The farm bill would be a good example
Any of them in the past few decades really, would seem to support his viewpoint. Larded with pork and giant subsidies for huge agribusinesses (that don't need them), the farm bill distorts the market with weird government regulations and gives handouts to people who've fallen on hard times (or not) AND, as the icing on the cake, pays people to not work (aka-plant crops).

Blue Dogs dominate the Ag committee and the farm bill's usually pork-laden and "centrist" enough that it attracts some Republican votes.

But everyone just thinks it's fine because that money is going to "Real America".

That, I think, is JSmith's point.

29, D, CA-27, 2nd class citizen


[ Parent ]
There are many African American farmers
many of the African American VRA districts in the South are primarily rural. So I don't see how the farm bill has a racial bias.

[ Parent ]
Just look at the members
I wasn't trying to make the argument that the farm bill was racist--just that it's pork, and wastes a lot of money. It's just that a lot of supposedly fiscally conservative reps don't call it pork when it comes to their own district (I would guess JSmith was arguing something similar). And thus, they're being hypocritical. I'd say military appropriations is similar, although it's subjected to a somewhat higher level of scrutiny.

And it's not rural VRA seats in the South that make up this committee. The Ag Committee Democrats are like a who's who of Blue Dogs and conservaDems:

Collin Peterson, Tim Holden, Mike McIntyre, Leonard Boswell, David Scott & Jim Marshall (GA), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Brad Ellsworth, Tim Walz, Steve Kagen, Kurt Schrader, Debbie Halvorson, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Baca, Jim Costa, Eric Massa, Bobby Bright, Betsy Markey, Frank Kratovil, Mark Schauer, Larry Kissell, John Boccieri, Scott Murphy, Earl Pomeroy, Travis Childers & Walt Minnick.

The most liberal person on this list is ... uh, California's Joe Baca? He clocks in highest on progressive punch at #155. That's 3 places ahead of Bart Stupak and 3 below Mary Jo Kilroy. Seriously, other than him, it's GA's David Scott (#174)...who, btw, is the only one with rural Southern VRA district on the entire committee. After that, it's Earl Pomeroy (184), Tim Walz (#195) CA's Jim Costa (#196) & Herseth-Sandlin (#200) and even with these folks already you're well into the most conservative quarter of the caucus.

In fairness, most of the Republicans on the committee are even more hypocritical (and nutty): folks like Steve King, Virginia Foxx, and Jean Schmidt.

And also in fairness, liberal Democrats aren't immune, either. It's just that liberals don't tend to make fiscal responsibility the supposed centerpiece of their entire political being and thus, are somewhat less hypocritical.  

29, D, CA-27, 2nd class citizen


[ Parent ]
That's different from what I quoted
and your basic point is well taken.

However, just scanning the member list, AFAIK, there are 0 members on the House Ag committee who represent urban districts. And given Ag committee control of food programs, I think that's unfortunate.

Furthermore, pork w/r/t agriculture is a different sort of thing - as most ag programs are at least regional, if not national in scope.

So taking a different philosophical slant, something like sugar price supports is no different from protectionist laws for an industry such as textiles.

Both fit into a populist slant.


[ Parent ]
CA-Sen: If Campbell runs, I imagine DeVore wins
As it stands, DeVore may have enough of the far-right crowd to edge out Fiorina. With another moderate in the mix, it'd probably be smooth sailing for DeVore.

Frankly, I can't picture Campbell proving all that competitive in either primary. He's always been a breath of fresh air for centrists, but I suspect the California GOP has little interest in propping him up for another run, esp. with high-profile contenders like Whitman (who I suspect runs away with her nod) and Fiorina in the mix.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast


DeVore already has the advantage
As he is based out of Irvine and the majority of the California GOP is in Orange County (which is where all of the Christian Right, anti-tax, pro-defense spending wingnuts reside).  He knows how to speak their language and can appeal to them.  Having Campbell in the race only adds another Silicon Valley type into the mix, a background that has made conservatives so leery of Fiorina in the first place.

I still think Campbell would have a shot at winning the primary with Poizner and Whitman bashing each other's heads in, but he probably realizes that even if he were to win the nomination he would have to face off against Jerry Brown


[ Parent ]
DeVore already has the advantage
Yeah, the advantage is that he's running against Carly Fiorina.  :)

But for the general, I think Campbell could give Boxer a heckuva race and would just get stomped by Brown.

29, D, CA-27, 2nd class citizen


[ Parent ]
Campbell's problem
is he has Lincoln Chafee's stubborness.  He can't win anything as Republican, and even though he could win a lot of things as a Democrat he does not make the switch.

He's better off in the Gov race though as both opponents are not far righters, so he could get plenty of lesser of three evils conservative votes that he could not get in the Senate race.

Also, he would make an excellent Governor and no better than an average Senator.  His strength is having a thoughtful position on every issue that he is willing to stand behind, and that is much more suited to an executive, and especially in a situation that is as messed up as California.


[ Parent ]
What are the odds
that a teabagger running as an independent could divide Republican votes and help Periello win reelection? He was a long-shot candidate in 2008, and because of that, it seems hazardous to count him out for reelection.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


Read again
Bradley Rees is the indie teabagger. I doubt he'll make much of a dent, though. Maybe 2-3% if the dissatisfaction among the far-right with Hurt's vote for the Warner budget (he's a pretty conservative Republican otherwise) continues to fester.

[ Parent ]
Not sure what you thought I didn't get on reading the post
Thanks for answering, though.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Denny Heck ran a good progressive race in '88
for Superintendent of Public Education - lost by a whisker. In '88, those I knew who worked for Mike Lowry also supported Heck - years before anyone knew about Lowry's scandals.

But '88 may have been too long ago, and TVW doesn't exactly keep someone in the public eye.


KS-03 Uh-oh
Two very bad things seem to be happening that could lose the totally winnable KS-03 for Dems.

One is Republicans consolidating around Jordan, who is very conservative, but isn't an unelectable wingnut. He ran a respectable race against Moore in 2008 (although he did get spanked in the end).

The other is that Democrats can't seem to find anyone from Johnson County to run and may opt for Wyandotte county executive/mayor Joe Reardon. This would be a bad move in my opinion. Though Reardon has done a good job in KCK (something even hardcore Republicans would probably admit), Jordan would be able to portray him as a liberal, union-loving, big-city, free-spending, suburbanite-hating, "San Francisco values" socialist. You might also hear how his father (former mayor) and grandfather (former county commissioner) ran a "political machine".

On the plus side, if Reardon somehow won, he'd probably be a shade or two more progressive than Moore, especially on union/trade issues. And he's young-ish (41) so he could settle in for a long incumbency if he won.  

29, D, CA-27, 2nd class citizen


Thank god
Wallace would be a right-winger's dream come true.

[ Parent ]
in what way?
Are you saying that she's an easy target, or too right wing?

[ Parent ]
too right wing
Waaaaaaaaaaaay too right wing.

[ Parent ]
Some of us disagree - see discussion at
http://swingstateproject.com/d...

Don't think a Jim McDermott could win in WA-03.

To restate a bit from my comment to that diary, I think her VoteSmart profile (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=51368 ) is promising -

Looks like Labor ratings of 90 to 100, and her NRA "A" record fits the district.

However, her environment record is mixed - the WA state conservation voter group loves her, the Sierra Club does not. That probably is also a good fit for the district.

So in what way is she "waaaaaaaay too right wing"? How progressive can one be and still win that district?


[ Parent ]
Jim McDermott, Pridemore is not
Of course, if you go solely on vote scores from WCV, you get one picture.  However, they singled her out as one of their "Green Duds" from the 2008 session, because

Representative Wallace has repeatedly earned our vocal support, so it pains us to single her out for her inexplicable vote against the most important bill to come to a vote in 2008, the Climate Action and Green Jobs environmental Priority. Her explanation that she "didn't have time to read the bill" doesn't fly given that this legislation was discussed and negotiated for months; was strongly supported by Governor Gregoire and nearly all members of Wallace's caucus, including environmental champions Hans Dunshee and Dave Upthegrove; and was debated on the floor of the House for nearly an hour before votes were cast. We were at a loss as to why she broke ranks with her Clark County Democratic colleagues, House environmental champions, and Governor Gregoire while siding with the few anti-environmental business interests that opposed the legislation. This dud of a vote came as a both a surprise
and a disappointment

She won't get far being one of only 3 Democrats to vote against this year's payday lending reform bill.  

I'm not sure you know the district as well as you think.  Pridemore has won countywide in Clark County, unlike Wallace, and even though he is vastly more progressive than the conservative Wallace, he has in spades something she lacks: charisma.


[ Parent ]
And in a district that Linda Smith won
over what I saw as a Howard Dean prototype (Jolene Unsoeld)

I'm not convinced that Pridemore can win. The district is much more than just Clark.

As for knowing the district, the voting record of Lewis county seems filled with people who believe in the Uncle Sam billboard.

Yes, there's Olympia too, but that seems likely to fall away in the next redistricting.

Sure there are disappointing votes from Wallace, but there are disappointing votes from Baird and the pro-business Don Bonker.

And I don't see how you can say "the conservative Wallace" about someone with 90 to 100 ratings from labor, 100 from NARAL, 80 to 90 from education groups, 90 to 100 from the Washington Children's Alliance, and under 30 from conservative groups,  


[ Parent ]
Because
a legislator's score on scorecards is not a sufficient measure of their worth.  Wallace is known in Olympia as one of the "ghost votes" that perpetually insist that House leadership decline to bring controversial bills up for a vote.

It's too bad that you don't think that Pridemore can't win but you are wrong.  Clark County makes up a significant majority of the population of the district, and while Lewis County is conservative, Pacific, Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum are ancestrally Democratic and Thurston is reliably progressive.  The battle ground (no pun intended, as Battle Ground is a city in Clark County) in this district is of course Clark County, in which the more-progressive Pridemore has already won countywide whereas the decidedly conservative Wallace has not.


[ Parent ]
Also, re: Jolene Unsoeld
she did lose to Linda Smith, but only in the tsunami year of 1994.  Before that, she held the seat comfortably for 3 terms.  While I certainly don't agree with your characterization of her as a "Howard Dean prototype," she was certainly more progessive than Baird and she held the seat nonetheless.

And, regarding 90 to 100 ratings from labor, it would be great if you would provide a link on that, because in the 2009 session (the first one in years where the real divide between conservatives and progressives in Olympia became clear), Wallace scored 38% from the Washington State Labor Council.  Her lifetime score from them is 82% which is among the lowest in her caucus.


[ Parent ]
I did provide a link
It's in parenthesis in one of the "parent" notes, from Project Vote Smart. (The URL is there, but not clickable I guess because of where I put the parenthesis. You'll have to click "Interest Group Ratings" and scroll down to see her Labor ratings.)

I'm not as optimistic about the coastal counties. As for '94, the 6 seats lost in WA that year was an expression of the swing nature of many of the districts.

Linda Smith's candidacy in '94 was also fueled by the same wingnut enthusiasm that we see today. The write-in way she won the R nomination was a precursor to "Scozzafavaed" in NY-23. Their enthusiasm now is tailor made for a district like WA-03.


[ Parent ]
TX-GOV:
Now that its likely to be White vs. Perry, Who here thinks Rick Perry is definately going to loose.

Nobody, I hope
White/Perry is the only matchup that gives Democrats a shot at winning, but it would still be Republican-leaning.

[ Parent ]
Umm... me
I still call this one Leans R even if Perry is the nominee.  Fourteen years of a goose egg in statewide Texas wins has a habit of doing that to me.  As much as I despise Perry this one is still well less than 50/50 for White.

[ Parent ]
Hrm...
Perry - 54%
White - 46%

Hutchison - 62%
White - 38%

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast


[ Parent ]
What is that?
An educated guess?  If so I'd say it sounds about right.  I'd go with.

Perry 53%
White 47%

Hutchison 59%
White 41%


[ Parent ]
If the rumblings out of the Senate are correct,
I believe that the Dems just guaranteed a bloodbath in November.

Their own fault.


Yes
You are absolutely right.  They are piece by piece dismantling the HCR bill to the point it will be toothless.  I never considered the public option (in its severely watered down form) an essential part of the package but the apparent capitulation on the medicare buy-in and probably the 90% medical loss ratio are going to kill democratic support next year.  It might even torpedo the whole bill in the house.

[ Parent ]
I was only ever interested in the public option
The subsidies are interesting, but not reform. The rest is somewhere between meaningless and a giveaway to the insurance companies. And for what it's worth, really bad politics.  

[ Parent ]
The public option
If it was tied to rates close to medicare it's useful.  The so-called "level playing-field" public option was never going to be a real public option in the sense medicaid and medicare are.  After the PO was so badly watered-down months ago it became meaningless to me.  But if they can't even get the medicare buy-in and 90% ratio in the bill it may do more harm than good.  

If we can't get a half-way decent bill done with 60 Senate votes and a huge house majority I doubt we ever will.  Which is exactly the reason I'm having trouble caring about elections anymore.


[ Parent ]
I think there was something to be said
for even the level playing field PO (not much, but something). At the very least, it was a concession for the individual mandate.

I think passing an individual mandate without any public option is what will create the bloodbath.  


[ Parent ]
Probably
And if I go unemployed or end up with a job that has crappy health insurance the government can fine me or send me to jail for all I care.  There is no way in hell I'm going to pay a damn penny for garbage private healthcare without any option of getting good public healthcare.

In fact I've even considered dropping my good heavily subsidized private insurance just to make a stand against the private insurers.


[ Parent ]
Sorry
Didn't mean to get off topic.  This whole thing is just VERY frustrating.  I'm sure I'm not the only one here who feels this way.

[ Parent ]
Frustrating, yes
but who really expected politics to NOT be frustrating? I don't think we'll ever get meaningful healthcare reform in this country, cause if we could do it, we would've done it decades ago.

All we're going to get is little improvements here and there and some shifting of the system.

In the meantime, I'm not going to give that cocksucking maggot from Stamford the fucking satisfaction of being demoralized.  


[ Parent ]
I wish we could point to one guy - Lie-berman
But it's far more than him.  It's having arguably the worst majority leader in U.S. history.  It's Ben Nelson's push for poison pills added on the bill.  It's Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln.  It's Tom Carper's push to disallow re-importation of drugs from other countries.  Lieberman is only a fraction of the problem.

[ Parent ]
The main person here is Harry Reid
I think that he let this kind of shit go on for way too long.

[ Parent ]
Couldn't agree more
He's a shell of past majority leaders.  How this incompetent fool ever got elected much less became majority leader is simply amazing.

[ Parent ]
Well, he's probably going to lose next year


[ Parent ]
Trust me
no majority leader is going to whip them in line...no one...not Dick Durbin, not Chuck Schumer, not even Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders.

LBJ didn't whip is people into line, he got Republican votes to cancel them out.

If you're looking for the perfect majority leader who will deliver perfect unison among the Democratic majority, you're better off searching for alike snowflakes.  


[ Parent ]
You do it using threats
reconciliation, nuclear option, cutting out all earmarks and pet projects, stripping said senators out of their seats, etc.

The problem is that Harry Reid is not feared, the way that other leaders were.


[ Parent ]
but all of these aren't realistic threats
Reconciliation is not a viable option, a nuclear option would need 67 votes because it requires a permanent rule change mid-session.

What leaders were feared? I can't think of one, and don't say LBJ because if he was feared, he would've changed votes and to this day no one person can tell me the name of a Senator who feared him enough to change their vote on something.


[ Parent ]
Fundamentally false!
The nuclear option doesn't need 67 votes!  That is why it is called the nuclear option!  You revoke the filibuster for certain legislation, ask the parliamentarian to rule on it, and overturn the ruling.  This is exactly what the GOP planned on doing with judges in 2005.  (And I wish we'd let them do it, because then there would be clear precedent for it).  The filibuster is a completely undemocratic and worthless rule, especially where a few small states can hold up legislation, and from a moral standpoint, should go.

Politically this would hurt the Democrats, unless it was done on the stimulus, which could be sold as trying to avert a crisis.  And that is where it should have been done. Instead of compromising with Repubs, Reid should have invoked the nuclear option on the stimulus package.

And reconciliation would have been a very viable option.  To suggest that it is not is complete bullshit.  It would probably throw out some of the parts of the bill, yes, but the most controversial parts would remain, and would be forced through.  And then you force the GOP to filibuster the less controversial parts.



[ Parent ]
It couldn't be done with the stimulus
because the Budget Act requires 60 votes to pass anything that increases the deficit, the stimulus was NOT filibustered.

You know what happens when we split the bill into controversial and non-controversial parts? the non-controversial parts become controversial, because all the focus would be on how the Democrats rammed through government run healthcare.


[ Parent ]
Then use the nuclear option
to change the rules on the Budget Act temporarily to a majority.  Find a way to use the economic crisis to eliminate the immoral filibuster.  

If there is a will there is a way.  And because it was an economic crisis, there wouldn't be much political blowback.


[ Parent ]
the rule change would be filibusterable
this isn't as easy as you think

[ Parent ]
BSSST. Here's just one way the nuclear option could work:
1. The chair announces that the body will move to a vote on final passage

2. A Republican makes a point of order (raising rule XX).

3. A Democrat moves to table that point of order, and that point of order is tabled by majority vote.

Presto: no more filibuster.  


[ Parent ]
uh no, doesn't work like that
because cloture has not be voted on. If you vote to table the point of order, you're tabling the whole bill.  

[ Parent ]
Just saying "it doesn't work like that" is insufficient
If the Senate conducts a roll call vote on a bill and a majority vote for it, who is to question the them? The CRS has covered this pretty extensively.

[ Parent ]
It would be
and that's the beauty of this strategy.  Because when they filibuster the rule change, you invoke the nuclear option on the filibuster, and claim that it must be done to avert the economic catastrophe that is currently going on.  In February 2009, the public would have swallowed it.


[ Parent ]
It can't be justified that way today
Even though it may be true in the long term

I don't think a majority would believe that's the case for HCR.


[ Parent ]
No if we went nuclear on health care
it would be seen as a power grab.  But if we had done it on the stimulus (which would have eliminated the filibuster on health care, cap-n-trade, etc as well) it could have been sold as an necessary thing to avert and economic catastrophe.

I really wonder if whether we would have been much better off with President Hillary Clinton than Obama.  My feeling is that she would have had a lot less difficulty in using this kind of politics than it seems that Obama does.  


[ Parent ]
Fine
worst thing that happens is that the non-controversial parts don't get through.  That's still better than what we will get out of this shit bill.  We would still get a public option, buy into Medicare, subsidies, and tax on the wealthy to pay for it.  These items are clearly budget related.

And it is clear that the non-controversial bill will be filibustered out of spite, you stiffen the stuff through reconciliation by making the public option and the other things effective immediately instead of 2013.  


[ Parent ]
JSmith is right on this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Before the "gang of 14" it seemed that 50Rs + Cheney would make the fillibuster subject to a simple majority.

However, I'm not sure it's wise to do so, as it would be a change to the rule in effect since 1806 (though revised in '17 and '75).

Democratic pollster Westhill Partners found that only 30 percent of Americans approve changing "the rules to require only 51 votes to end a filibuster - thereby eliminating the current system of checks and balances on the majority party."

But of course, this is Wikipedia....


[ Parent ]
Who cares
If you ask Americans what a filibuster is more will probably answer that it's some sort of vacuum cleaner than a parliamentary tool of the U.S. Senate.  NOONE really cares and if you think killing the filibuster will change the vote of more than .0005% of Americans you are seriously mistaken.  

[ Parent ]
I suspect a call for "minority rights"
against the "tyranny of the majority"

would have more resonance among normally Democratic voters, many of whom are or have been in a minority.


[ Parent ]
Well, that's the best case
but that's what the Supreme Court is for.

[ Parent ]
SCOTUS wouldn't side with us on this
never

[ Parent ]
If ever there were a political question, it's this


[ Parent ]
And in fact, seeing what you're responding to,
you apparently didn't understand my point. To restate: the Supreme Court already protects minority rights. For what it's worth, the Senate would protect small state even without a cloture requirement.  

[ Parent ]
SCOTUS would say they have no jurisdiction.
Each House of Congress is Constitutionally allowed to make its own rules.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Yes, but some of these rules
are built into legislation, and on that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction.

[ Parent ]
Rule II is not
And even if it were, I highly doubt that the Senate could tie its own hands in such a way.  

[ Parent ]
I seriously doubt the filibuster is one such rule.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
It's not about minority rights.
It's about stopping a narrow band of corrupt extremists from effectively taking things over..

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
You're talking reality
I'm talking narrative - which becomes reality in the way it affects elections.

[ Parent ]
Getting rid of the filibuster
when there is not a crisis will have political blowback, I have no doubt about it.  Had the GOP done it in 2005, they would have paid for it politically (although it is hard for me to see that they would have done much worse than they already did in 2006).  

And the Dems would be hurt politically if they do it to pass health care.  The question is whether the temporary blowback (in 2010) is worth the long term benefits (or perhaps in your opinion there are also downsides).  But I will continue to argue that the right time for nuking the filibuster was the stimulus, not now.


[ Parent ]
Then make our own narrative.
"Healthcare reform and the public option are popular.  The conservatives are blocking it.  We're changing the rules so we can pass what the American people want and need."

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
watch how fast it becomes unpopular after that


[ Parent ]
Voters don't give a shit about chamber rules.
"Did I benefit? Yes or no?"  That's what matters.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
I honestly don't believe that, sorry
The GOP has successfully outsmarted us on this before.  

[ Parent ]
But
Before the "gang of 14" it seemed that 50Rs + Cheney would make the fillibuster subject to a simple majority.

This would have been in direct violation of Senate Rule 22, and it wasn't even certain they could do it, and even people like Russ Feingold don't think it's a good idea.


[ Parent ]
Explain who could stop them


[ Parent ]
Um, the media?
Dude, the media can't explain that a public option would be optional and you think they'd be able to explain why changes in arcane Senate procedures are a big, sexy, juicy scandal-type thing.**

The problem is that the Senators who have the most power under the current system (Lieberman, Nelson, Snowe, all the moderate "gang" members) wouldn't want to change it.

I dunno though, if you called the changes the "Taking Away Joe Lieberman's All-Encompassing Power" bill, I think the public would strongly support it and would lobby to get it passed. (joke)

**For the record, I say this as someone who works in the mainstream media (still have a job! thanks, everyone, for continuing to watch TV!)

29, D, CA-27, 2nd class citizen


[ Parent ]
It would be politically damaging no doubt
unless it is done in the middle of what is seen as a crisis.  If we used the nuclear option for health care, it would get blowback.

That's why I think we should have found a way to do it during the stimulus fight.

As far as the filibuster, it is completely undemocratic and gives a small minority of special interests an ability to hold the country hostage.  I actually hoped that the GOP would have been successful in getting rid of the filibuster for judges in 2005, because I knew back then that we would see this day in the future.


[ Parent ]
Correct: the 67 vote requirement
is entirely unenforceable. With a cooperative chair and 51 votes, you can do absolutely anything you want in the Senate. Just like the House.  

[ Parent ]
So basically
we should just fuck the rules and do what we want...well, gee, I guess we shouldn't have bitched about the Republicans doing that a few years ago.

[ Parent ]
I have actually come to that conclusion, yes
They got everything they wanted anyway.  

[ Parent ]
I'm sorry
but if passing legislation requires us to do dirty underhanded sleazy tricks, then the system needs to be scrapped and revamped.  

[ Parent ]
Tricks?
What you refer to as "dirty underhanded sleazy tricks" is also sometimes called "majority rule." If that requires a few changes in the Senate rules to accomplish, then that wouldn't even make the top 10 list of dirtiest, sleaziest, most underhanded political tricks of the past year.

29, D, CA-27, 2nd class citizen

[ Parent ]
It's right up there with Obama opting out of the public
finance system after saying he wouldn't.  

[ Parent ]
Yes
And I never bitched about it.  I wanted the filibuster gone when we were in the minority as well.

[ Parent ]
I actually supported
the GOP in their effort to get rid of the filibuster for judges in 2005.  I have always believed that the filibuster was fundamentally wrong, especially in a chamber which is not divided by population.    

But now we see your true colors, DTOzone.  You care more about being fair to the Repubs than passing legislation to help the country.  


[ Parent ]
That was uncalled for
But not to be unexpected from you.

[ Parent ]
Sorry
The last statement was uncalled for.  I lost my cool here and I apologize to DTOzone and the rest of this blog.

[ Parent ]
I agree the filibuster is undemocratic
I think the whole fucking Senate is undemocratic and should be gotten rid of

But it's not and we have it and we have to deal with it, coming up with fantasy scenarios where we just run amok like the Republicans is not realistic. We didn't elect the Democrats to govern like the GOP did, if we wanted that, we voted for the wrong guys cause they flat out said they wouldn't govern like that.

Why don't we just get rid of the whole thing and just appoint dictators.

Fair to the Republicans? gee, no, I'd rather be fair to the Constitution and the laws and rules of the Senate, the piece of shit institution it is.  


[ Parent ]
There are many excellent reasons to support the retention of the fillibuster
even from progressives.

It is very possible that Ds will be in the minority in the Senate after 2014.

And if Ds then don't retain the Presidency, then Rs (potentially led by wingnuts) will have carte blanche to ruin the country.


[ Parent ]
Oh well
don't lose the majority.

[ Parent ]
If the American people elect a wingnut President
and elect a Senate full of wingnuts, then they deserve the wingnut policies that they get.  Elections have consequences.  

I admit that I kind of respect Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, because DeMint and Coburn at least advocates against government in all cases, including farm subsidies and earmarks, rather than just liberal programs and things that help blacks.  The white rural South elects Jim Demints and still asks for government help from liberal programs like farm supports and Social Security.  I find this completely hypocritical.  If they want to elect Jim Demints, then they deserve Jim Demint policies.


[ Parent ]
Three comments
1) The intent of the Senate is to slow things down - if there is an election of wingnuts in '16, then a Senate with a Fillibuster would give the American people a second chance.

2) Your second paragraph reminds me of Hunter Thompson, before he went on to describe his friendship with Pat Buchanan. If you believe that Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn have principles, then you too can be friends. (It also worked with Paul Wellstone and Jesse Helms.)

3) You repeat this allegation without substantiation, as there are very few actual Jim DeMints/Tom Coburns in either party.

The white rural South elects Jim Demints and still asks for government help from liberal programs like farm supports and Social Security.


[ Parent ]
You say cocksucking like it's a bad thing....eom


[ Parent ]
And to be honest
I might take a break from politics once again.  This whole HCR mess has me so disgusted I'm almost in tears.  What the hell is the point of a democratic majority if we get this shit sandwich they call reform?  If tonight's reports are even close to true it destroys the entire bill.  And whose to say these are the last concessions?  The progressives better make a STRONG stand on this or a lot of people (myself included) are going to make a strong stand next year by not donating and probably not voting for these fools.  

[ Parent ]
Which is exactly
what Lieberman is hoping for.  

[ Parent ]
I will be donating
to Harry Reid's Republican opponent.  I think almost anyone else would have already passed a bill out of the Senate by now.

[ Parent ]
Scientists would say by using one of these...
[ Parent ]
not really an answer
short of actually killing him, what do you do when someone doesn't care about reprecussions?  

[ Parent ]
Threats and reconciliation
perhaps even a threat to invoke the nuclear option on the filibuster as a whole.  

Lieberman would have been stripped of his chairmanship.


[ Parent ]
which is what he wants
Lieberman wants to be made a martyr, he wants to be a victim. That's how he won in 2006, by playing the victim and getting Indys and GOP voters to keep him in office.

There's a reason Quinnipiac clocked him with positive approval ratings last month, even after opposing the public option.  


[ Parent ]
He can end up as a martyr
who cares.  He won't get reelected as a Republican, regardless of what the polls say now.  My guess is that he probably won't run again.  Lieberman wants one thing, revenge against liberals who kicked him out of the party.

But the Democrats should have made his life miserable in the Senate.  They should have stripped him of his assignments, and let him go GOP.  Then they should have stripped him of any ability to deliver pork, etc.  Instead Harry Reid kissed his ass.

As far as the bill, reconciliation and nuclear option should have been put on the table from the beginning.  Max Baucus should have been told that there is to be no negotiation with any Republicans except for Snowe, Collins, and Specter, so don't bother with assholes like Grassley.  And the conservative Dems should have been told to shut up or face reprecussions.

Look at the way Mitch McConnell runs his caucus.  He does it much much better than Reid does.


[ Parent ]
Reconciliation WAS put on the table from the beginning
it still is on the table, but it would mean going back through the committees to pass with budget reconcilition rules.  

[ Parent ]
McConnell
I'll happily agree that Mitch is, for their side, a much more able leader than Frist was. But as far as keeping his side together it's useful to remember that he's got about 20-less senators to wrangle than Reid does. That makes his job (in terms of maintaining party unity) a lot easier than Reid's job.

[ Parent ]
Really ridiculous
Democrats are taking out one of the most popular elements of this bill due to the requests of one Senator over the wishes of the majority of the American public and a chance for any real reform. The public option was the only opportunity to force insurance companies to keep their rates on premiums stable.

I definitely see political vulnerabilities if the bill is passed in the Senate form. Democrats are going to be very susceptible of being attacked as supporters of the insurance industry. Even the subsidies that could satisfy some in the general public are not going to be delivered until 2013 or 2014. My feeling is that the base is not going to be motivated except to defeat corporate Democrats and Blue Dogs. We will see how less-activist Democratic constituencies respond to having any bill at all. If Obama and Democrats are unable to convince minorities and students, as well as the progressive base now, to come out, there could obviously be huge problems for 2010.


[ Parent ]
What the Dems should have done
or should do now.  
Scrap this bill.  Go through reconciliation, add the Medicare buy-in and the public option, and add some taxes on the wealthy.  Forget about the exchanges and everything else in the bill.  Yes, we lose some very good reforms on the insurance industry, but they are worth sacrificing for the stuff above.

I hope that Bernie Sanders and Roland Burris goes through with their threat to join a GOP filibuster on this bill.  Doing so may be the last hope we have to force something using reconciliation.


[ Parent ]
We would need to start over with reconciliation
go back to the House and Senate committees and get another bill through, it would take months, it's just not feesable after this  

[ Parent ]
Have to agree
Either strong progressives in the Senate (ya, there are a few) or house progressives are going to need to draw a line in the sand and not budge.  If someone like Sanders or Burris flatout promise to filibuster the bill unless the concessions top we're all screwed - now and in 2010.

[ Parent ]
If I were in the Senate
I would have already threatened to filibuster any bill without a public option. The biggest mistake that the Dems ever made was in believing that they could (must) get 60 votes. That was never true.  

[ Parent ]
Y'all can't resist going off topic can you
Very disappointing.

It's really not all that off-topic
The nonsense going on in the Senate on HCR right now very much impacts the 2010 elections and even 2012.  

[ Parent ]
Not the way you are discussing it
Mods have warned time and time again.

[ Parent ]
My comments
have been tied directly to political implications. I can't speak for others.  

[ Parent ]
PPP
Vote on where they poll http://publicpolicypolling.blo...
Please vote MA! This may be the only poll there and there is still plenty of time to poll the others. This is the last month for MA.  

Georgia
Poll Baker and Poythress against Isaakson.

Nobody has polled (medium-)strong Dem against Isakson.


[ Parent ]
Eh
99% chance that it shows Coakley stomping Scott Brown into the ground and we'll wish we asked for a different poll. Although I guess MA-Gov poll wouldn't hurt. But the Illinois primary is also fairly soon you know.

20, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)

[ Parent ]
Yeah
But we just got a Chicage Tribune poll and there are still 2 months left there. In MA, there is only 1 month. Plus, I think it'd be interesting to get some polling on-
1. Richard Tisei and his effect on Baker's candidacy
2. Brown and Coakley favorables

[ Parent ]
Doubt many people know who Tisei is
I suppose the favorables are a legitimate question though.

20, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)

[ Parent ]
Polling MN-06?
Why bother polling MN-06?  It would be nice if Bachmann was defeated, but isn't it projected that Minnesota is going to lose a seat after the 2010 census?  With 60%+ seats in the state legislature occupied by the DFL her district is going to be sliced apart with big smiles!

NY-Sen: Thompson up 13 over Gillibrand
Wow
I guess it should be expected given Thompson's strong performance in NYC against the $100 million man.  

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
Same poll: Guiliani up against both
50-40 over Gillibrand
52-36 over Thompson

Ref internals, Guliani's lead is mostly in the burbs, which I thought were mostly D in NY. He's even or leading among Hispanics.

Makes me wonder, I think Gulilani also flipped on immigration like McCain. Is that flip unknown, or does Guliani have some other positive attraction to Hispanics?


[ Parent ]
Well, New York Hispanics are different.
Most (correct me if I'm wrong about that) of them are Puerto Ricans and are therefore American citizens anyways and don't have to deal with immigration laws.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
I doubt it
It's possible that most Hispanics in New York who are registered to vote are Puerto Rican, which is what's important for electoral reasons, but I definitely don't think they are the majority of Hispanics here, nowadays. In the city, Dominicans outnumber them, and there are an increasing number of Mexicans and Central Americans (many of them undocumented, however) in both the city and the suburbs.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Rudy is uber popular in NYC burbs...
You have to remember that NYC burbs are made up of ex-NYCers and people who commute in. A lot of them remember the bad old NY and credit Rudy for turning things around. As a result he is very popular in the burbs.

Also while the NY suburbs were trending Dem their was a big tax revolt and a reversal in last months election.

Nassua County Ex Suozzi and long time Westchester Ex Spano both got the boot and a lot of local races went GOP that nobody expect. Nassua GOP was in their death throws a year ago and now they won control of the county legislature, the county ex and the comptrollers office which were all help by Dems.

Not surprised to see Rudy beating Thompson in the burbs. They only know Thompson as a NYC machine hack pol chariture of the $100 million worth of Bloomberg negative ads and Gillibrand never caught on.


Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

SSP Supports Scott McAdams

Scott McAdams for Senate

Goal Thermometer

Help Us Reach Our Goal!

Donate Today


Follow Us

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

SSP Race Ratings

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox