Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 12/14

by: Crisitunity

Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 3:31 PM EST


AK-Sen: To quote Troy McClure, "here's an appealing fellow... in fact, they're a-peeling him off the sidewalk." Yes, Joe Miller didn't even wait until today to make his decision about whether or not to appeal to Alaska's Supreme Court; he already pulled the trigger on his appeal (despite the fact that everyone but him knows that he's, at this point, roadkill). Arguments are set for Friday, so (since he can't introduce new evidence, which the trial judge found sorely lacking, at the appellate level) this should get resolved pretty quickly.

CT-Sen: Linda McMahon is sounding very much like she's ready to run again in 2012 against Joe Lieberman and a Dem to be named (maybe she found another $40 million under the couch cushions). She has a meeting planned with the NRSC's John Cornyn, presumably to discuss her next move. Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman (who lost control of his own vanity party, the CfL) is seeming likelier to run again, thanks to encouragement from both sides of the aisle, and he may even have a useful vehicle to do it with: the new "No Labels" party-type thing courtesy of Michael Bloomberg. Meanwhile, there's more follow-up from yesterday that, yes, Rep. Joe Courtney is considering a run for the Dem nomination (which could set up a primary against fellow Rep. Chris Murphy); he says he's "looking at it" and, if he runs, will announce soon. That pretty much leaves Rosa DeLauro as the lone Dem House member in the state who hasn't said yes or no, and today, as you'd expect, she said a loud "no."

ME-Sen: Roll Call seems to have read the same article as everybody else yesterday that had that baffling interview with Andrew Ian Dodge -- the tea party impresario who claims to be in contact with a killer-app candidate who will unite the teabaggers and defeat Olympia Snowe -- and just flat-out concluded that Dodge is the mystery candidate himself (meaning that he's spent the last few months talking to himself?). As added evidence, Dodge doesn't dispute a local blog's reports that he plans to run.

MI-Sen: Despite his strong name-rec-fueled showing in a PPP poll last week of the GOP Senate primary (or perhaps because of it), ex-Gov. John Engler is now saying that he has no plans to run for Senate, and will be staying in his role as head of the National Manufacturers Association. Strangely, the biggest-name candidate beyond Engler associated with the race, soon-to-be-ex-Rep. and gubernatorial primary loser Peter Hoekstra, sounded pretty indifferent about it when asked by a reporter yesterday, saying "We'll see. I'm not sitting around yearning to get back into office."

MN-Sen: PPP is out with GOP Senate primary numbers, and it's a familiar story: the GOP base is irretrievably enamored with a female politician who's poison in the general election. Rep. Michele Bachmann (who loses the general 56-39 to Klobuchar) leads the field at 36, far ahead of more establishment figures like outgoing Gov. Tim Pawlenty (20) and ex-Sen. Norm Coleman (14). They're followed by new Rep. Chip Cravaack at 7, Tom Emmer at 6, John Kline at 5, Laura Brod at 4, and Erik Paulsen at 2. There's not much indication that Bachmann is interested in a Senate run -- in fact, she's currently sending out fundraising appeals based on the threat of a rematch with Tarryl Clark -- but there's also word that Amy Klobuchar's camp is most worried about facing Bachmann of any of the possible opponents, probably because of her national fundraising capacity (although it may also be a bit of public don't-throw-me-in-that-briar-patch posturing).

NV-Sen: Need some evidence that Rep. Shelly Berkley is planning a Senate run? National Journal looks at her repositioning, as one of the key members of the party's liberal wing in the House to break away and support the tax compromise, suggesting that she's trying to tack toward the center to play better in the 2nd and 3rd districts. (Of course, it's worth noting that she wasn't that liberal to begin with, as a member of the New Dems, not the Progressives, and with a National Journal score usually putting her around the 60th percentile in the House.)

IN-Gov: Evansville mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel isn't in a hurry to declare whether or not he's going to run for Governor, although with Evan Bayh's recent demurral, the iron would be hot. The key indicator, though, will be whether Weinzapfel runs for another term as mayor; the election is in 2011, and it's assumed that if he does run for re-election a gubernatorial run is unlikely. He'll need to make a mayoral decision by Feb. 18.

MT-Gov: The Dems have lined up a real candidate for the governor's race, maybe the best they can do if AG Steve Bullock doesn't make the race. Dave Wanzenreid, if nothing else, has a long resume: currently a state Senator, he served previously as a state Rep., as both minority and majority leader in that body. He was also chief of staff to ex-Gov. Ted Schwinden and then state labor commissioner in the 80s.

Crossroads: American Crossroads, after its avalanche of late-cycle ads a few months ago, is already getting back in the TV game. The Karl Rove-linked dark money vehicle is spending $400K on radio advertising in the districts of 12 Dems who won by narrow margins, urging them to vote in favor of the tax compromise package. Tim Bishop, Jim Costa, Gabrielle Giffords, Gerry Connolly, Ben Chandler, Jason Altmire, Bill Owens, Maurice Hinchey, Heath Shuler, Gary Peters, Joe Donnelly, and Sanford Bishop are all on the target list.

Votes: There's a strange array of "no" votes on the tax compromise that passed the Senate 83-15. The Dems have a few votes from the left (Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold (although it's gotten kind of hard to tell if he's doing anything from the left or not anymore)), but also some votes from some pretty avowed centrists (Jeff Bingaman, Kay Hagan, Mark Udall) too, of which Bingaman is the only one up in 2012. John Ensign was one of the few GOP "no" votes, although you've gotta wonder whether it's because he's trying to save himself in a primary by appealing to the far-right or if he's just given up and voting his conscience.

Census: While you wait for the main course on Dec. 21 (the day for reapportionment hard numbers), the Census Bureau is out with a gigantic appetizer. They're rolling out their first-ever 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey (their one-year samples aren't that reliable, but over five, they are). The ACS covers a lot of the deeper demographic information that used to covered by the Census "long form," covering stuff like poverty, housing values, commute times, and education. Information is available all the way down to the block level, but here's an array of county-level maps to start with.  

Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 12/14
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I get why liberals hate the tax compromise
But why does the far right hate it? Purely because of the decicit? But they are all about low taxes right? Oh my head hurts with those people.

More that it doesn't make the tax cuts for the rich permanent, I think


[ Parent ]
But I thought all these Tea Party types
Were meant to be regular, working class Americans? Just like liberals shifting from "the deficit doesn't matter" I guess. My head still hurts.

[ Parent ]
They are regular, working-class Americans, who...
...believe that somehow they can all achieve the American Dream one day and become millionaires, and they don't want to be taxed to the point where they're not millionaires after they become millionaires, and so they are against taxing millionaires now.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
and doesn't permanently
bury the estate tax.

[ Parent ]
The unemployment benefits
The Erickson crowd seems to think for some reason that the Republicans could have gotten 100% of what they wanted without conceding anything to the Democrats. Apparently, he forgot that we don't even control the House yet. It's pretty ridiculous to see people accusing Republicans of folding in the tax debate.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
Too sides of the same coin
Pretty ridiculous to see anybody being accussed of folding IMO.

[ Parent ]
Even two
I must learn to proof read.

[ Parent ]
To quote my namesake
"Compromise is when both sides sit down to eat the same shit sandwich"

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Also called governing


[ Parent ]
Two facts that people don't understand
1. Governing is a shitstorm.
2. The people involved in governing are really not much different from the rest of us.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
If you know you are eating shit...
Why take a bite?  

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04

[ Parent ]
Because someone's gotta to do the governing.


party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
I'm not accusing the Dems of folding
Like someone said below, when the left and right both hate it, it's a compromise.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
That would be me
Not saying you were but plenty are.

[ Parent ]
And Tarp was a big success


"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
Red Team Bloggers
are all up in arms about extending unemployment, but the actual elected officials have no stomach for the visuals of playing scrooge on the issue, especially since they did get a VERY big (and largely unreported) consession that it's not extending benefits for the 99'ers.

I am surprised the GOP hasn't gotten more thumbs up for going with the social security tax holiday, it's going to be very hard to not extend that too in a years time (unless unemployment drops significantly) and (at least accoridng to daily kos) the holiday is a dagger to the heart of social security funding.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
The left hate it
The right hate it. The definition of compromise.

[ Parent ]
How is the GOP folding?
They got everything they wanted and more (estate tax provision was incredibly generous).  They didn't give up anything.  the unemployment extensions isn't "giving up" anything 'cos that was just a club to bash dem heads with.  It didn't take anything away from them.

[ Parent ]
MassGOP said what they give up
They are up in arms about unemployment benefits. I take it you have a job?

[ Parent ]
That's not giving up anything...
The GOP isn't losing out on anything by allowing Dems to get what has been traditionally given by congress during tough times.  What items have the GOP "given up" by allowing unemployment benefits.  It's not like they actually care about the deficit, so that's not it.  They got 100% of what they asked for and gave up nothing.

[ Parent ]
So Red Staters aren't complaining?
What they are truly losing out on is the ability to say Obama raised taxes. That is all this is about at the end of the day.

[ Parent ]
So, they "conceded" a short term political talking point...
Not exactly balanced compared to what our side gave up.  

[ Parent ]
Sigh
Okay, timeout. I can see I'm not going to persaude you here so we will just have to agree to disagree.

[ Parent ]
Actually, no
One more thing. People's taxes actually going up, mid-income taxpayers, in this economy is not a "talking point" you idiot. Now, I'm out.

[ Parent ]
In this case, user LordMike
is an accurate reflection of the thoughts of a lot of people at DK.

Unfortunately, he makes his points in a way as annoying as former user JSmith.

And when such an approach leads to a battle of emotions, people forget the facts that are on our side. That is how we as Ds lose the American electorate.


[ Parent ]
People respond to emotions not facts
unfortunately. Politics isn't fair.

[ Parent ]
And when we respond emotionally
Rs destroy us as nuts.

The only way we win is with the facts -- within reason of course (i.e. no Dukakis-like reactions to strong personal issues), mixed with a decent level of empathy.

But as I noted earlier, President Obama can't afford to respond with strong emotions, or he risks "confirming" the worst racial demagoguery of the Limbaughs of the world.

The biggest "fact" that we're counting on is economic recovery. Based on even difficult recessions, the trend should be our friend in '12.


[ Parent ]
i disagree with your entire premise
And if I weren't at work I'd elaborate more but I'll just leave it at this: climate change.

[ Parent ]
eh, i smoke 100's, i got time
And I should say that you aren't 100% off from what I think as tea-baggers show that emotional politics can be nuts.  But, nuts win with the right messaging.

[ Parent ]
They think unemployment benefits
keep people from looking for work and thus hurts business because that tax money could be going to rich people and corporations. They're also pissed the tax cuts aren't permanent, only extended for 2 years.

That's what they gave up.

Seriously, the right is not happy at all. In fact, from where I sit, they seem far less satisfied than most on the left.


[ Parent ]
Because Obama wants it...
Pretty much that's it.  It gives Obama a victory, however pyrrhic and that is good enough for them to be opposed, regardless of the  merits.  The GOP got everything they wanted out of this deal and the Dems got crumbs.  There is no rational reason for them to complain.

[ Parent ]
The more times you say it
Doesn't make it any more true. And frankly, to continue to call unemployment benefits "crumbs" is deeply offensive to me. Obama also wanted to avoid raising taxes on the middle-class at all costs. What he got is worth it.

[ Parent ]
You are arguing that unemployment benefits are a concession.
They are not.  A concession for the GOP would have been continuation of the old estate tax rates, for example.  Extending unemployment benefits is something that is normally done when unemployment is high.  The GOP held it hostage to extract concessions on our side.  The fact that they let it go doesn't make it a concession on theirs.

[ Parent ]
Rubbish
Again you are ignoring the fact that the right don't like it either so what makes you think the new GOP House would pass it? You are also ignoring the payroll tax rate provision and plenty else.

[ Parent ]
On the whole we got far less
We got 13 month extension of the unemployment rate costing 70 billion. They got a two year (and probably permanent) extension for the richest costing hundreds of billions. Did Republicans give up something? yes. But on the whole we got a far less while basically ceding that tax argument to Republicans. Worst part is the tax cuts are now almost assuredly going to be made permanent which will force cuts in other services (i.e SS). That's not worth it

[ Parent ]
Making them permanent is completely unsustainable.
People who think tax cuts somehow boost revenue are in for a massive bucket of cold water when this is considered again.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Exactly, but will that convince Republicans to vote for tax increases
If the last thirty years are any indication no, which is why we've got to do it now.

[ Parent ]
If the public is truly opposed to tax cuts on the rich
they will vote any Republican will wants to make them permanent out of office in 2012, and if they don't, then we don't have the public on this.


[ Parent ]
Your presuming a rational electorate
Which it clearly isn't.  People don't take economics into account when voting. Exhibit A:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143...

There is no way that if with these current majorities Democrats couldn't get the top marginal tax rate to expire that they could do it while being in the minority ( in the house at least) and barley workable majority in the Senate)


[ Parent ]
Well if we don';t have a rational electorate
then we shouldn't be surprised when irrational people in government win  

[ Parent ]
Why not?
isn't that the whole idea of a Representative democracy? At least when I'm voting for a Democrats I'd like to know that he is somewhat competent. Look, Obama broke many of his campaign promises and I'm OK with that because I know it's unrealistic to expect a politician to do everything he promised. But ending these Tax cuts for the rich wasn't just a promise, it's what he based almost his entire campaign on. This tax deal is a terrible deal because it virtually insures a permanent cut. Obama gave Republicans an entire farm in exchange for a cow.   It's not that we didn't get everything we wanted, it's that Republicans got virtually everything they wanted, a legitimization of their ideology, and basically giving up something that shouldn't be conterversial at all and should be automatic. (http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/why-republicans-should-relax-and-learn/)  

This deal is a massive Overtone window shift to the far right and Democrats screwed this up royally.

(rant over)


[ Parent ]
First off
once again, he didn't give away the farm, so stop saying that

second off, he didn't want to give away "the farm" as proven by the fact that the guy went around the fucking country for two fucking months making the case to end tax cuts on the rich and response from Congress and the people was a great big "meh"

The American people couldn't give a flying fuck if we made tax cuts on the rich permanent. Oh hey, its fine if we don't, but whatever if we do. So, the more involved, the more dedicated side wins, and that's not us. we didn't legitimize their ideology, the voters did last month.

It has nothing to do with Democratic competence, it has to do with whether or not they have a base of support backing them up, and they don't. They have a few hundred people on the blogsphere. The Republicans have an entire fucking TV network. They win. The end  


[ Parent ]
Exactly
the public sadly has the Republican's back on the issue. I hate it how the blogosphere treating this like Obama is acting like the Native Americans who sold Manhattan off to the British for a jar of glass beads. I'll let Al Franken continue my reply here (he voted for the tax cut compromise):

A lot of people are unhappy that the president punted on first down, and I'm one of them. Extending the excessive Bush tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires will explode our deficit over the next two years without doing anything to help our economy. I think it's simply bad policy.

But for Minnesota's middle class, struggling to get by in a tough economy, there's a lot in this bill that will really help: tax cuts for working families, a payroll tax holiday, energy tax credits, and the extension of Recovery Act initiatives that are already making a difference.

And for the Minnesotans truly suffering right now -- men, women, and children on the edge of economic disaster -- the alternative is simply unacceptable. If we let Republicans block unemployment benefits, even temporarily, there will be a lot more pain for working families, a lot more homeless kids spending Christmas in a shelter or a car.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12


[ Parent ]
My point is that it's bad policy
regardless of what the public thinks. If a president is going to institute bad policies because it makes for good politics I'm not interested.

Also, most polls show that a majority want the the cuts for the rich to expire. Your right though, people don't really care that much about anything else as long as they get a tax cut themselves. But a good communicator and a good politician should be able to frame this debate as wall st. vs. main st. "Goldman Sachs tax cut" or something. Democrats didn't really whole heartedly try to do that

I think Democrats could have won this if they were aggressive enough. but  Democrats aren't aggressive, if they were they would be Republicans (-Will Roger, I believe)
 


[ Parent ]
I love the argument about...
how we could just "frame the debate" and sell it to the American people and presto chango the R's would cave.  They did not.  They will not.  American people agree with Dems but who cares? I am a Dem through and through but we do suffer from the theory that, if people are only told what is good for them, they would embrace our policies.  Not true because I am from Louisiana and R's are constantly voted in to take more and more away from the poor and middle class and you know who they vote for again and again?

Do you think the R's care what the polls say? Do you think they care what the Tea Party says? Notice how before the election we heard more about the Tea Party in the MSM than anything else.  The election is now over...why don't we hear about them as much anymore?  

We only hear about R's as if the Tea Party disappeared...

41 African-American Female DC
Taxation but no representation...


[ Parent ]
I stood out on a NYC street
with MoveOn.org two weeks ago trying to organize a petition to hand to our Congressman to stop the tax cuts on the rich.

We got like 30 people out of hundreds who walked by to sign it. But we did get a few dozen people call us communists and tell us to move to China. They did exactly what you said, invoked Wall Street (which isn't popular in outer-borough NYC). No one paid attention. You can be the best communicator in the world, but if no one wants to listen to you, you won't get your message out.

I'm not sure if you're recent to politics, but I don't think I've ever seen, in my 20 years involved in politics, where good policy was also good politics.

In a democracy, first and most important is what the public thinks, because they're the ones who keep you employed. Democracy is supposed to work because good policy should be popular. If it's not, then democracy is failing.  


[ Parent ]
You just claimed the following:
"But ending these Tax cuts for the rich wasn't just a promise, it's what he based almost his entire campaign on."

That's just wrong. People are acting as if the last election was fought over a single issue--tax cuts--but it very much was not. His opposition to the original tax changes and promise to return the rates to their previous levels was a policy response to a particular issue, not a general value like being pro-choice or something. You can still disagree with his decision, but you or anyone else can't be taken seriously when you spin this as more than it was.

Me? I'm not particularly thrilled with the decision, but if it's the best possible move available (in the sense of what is politically possible right now), then I get why he did it.  I'm hoping it's some sort of move designed to earn him credibility for fundamental tax reform and/or more stimulus measures, and if it is, I'll feel better about it, partly because I know his heart is probably with the idea higher taxes on the rich.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
It's a consistent pattern
People say they don't do this, but people always get mad when politicians don't do exactly what they want, all of the time--especially if said pols are on their side of a given party or issue division.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Ok, maybe I'm a young idealist
But I still think this deal is bad. Republicans would not let everybody's tax cuts go up, they just knew that Democrats were going to cave on this issue. Unemployment benefits are more popular than tax cut, there is no reason that Republicans should have been politically able to take unemployment benefits hostage (as Obama himself put it) and get away with it. Also, Boehner said that he'd  vote for middle class tax cuts if he knew that that's the only possibility, so the assertion that they were never going to cave if Dems were more aggressive is false.

furthermore, you can't tell me that that Obama didn't base almost all his speeches on "tax cuts for 95% of working families" or some variation.  Unlike the public option, which I realize we couldn't get either way, Obama promised this in almost every speech he made, Yes this wasn't a single issue campaign (as campaigns rarely are) but if you picked an specific issue most mentioned in the campaign , "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" would be definitely it.

I'm not mad at Obama for getting half the loaf. I'm angry that he gave away far more than he got. If a policy is not net positive than of course people are going to be angry with it. Most people enthusiastically supported the health care bill despite a lack of Public Option because on the whole it did a lot more good than bad. This policy does more bad than good (in my opinion)


[ Parent ]
You're absolutely wrong on the politics when you say...
...unemployment benefits are more popular than tax cuts.

They most certainly are not.

In full disclosure, I work professionally in the field of unemployment insurance, although in this comment I'm not defending unemployment benefits so that "disclosure" doesn't reveal any relevant bias.

The fact is only a small percentage of people receive unemployment insurance, while the overwhelming majority of people pay income taxes.  People very much care a lot more that their taxes don't go up than they care about emergency UI being extended.

And as I pointed out elsewhere on this, it's amazing to me how lost in the memory hole it is that ending the tax cuts for the rich already got 2 Senate votes that failed miserably, one for income above $250K and one for income above $1 million.  Those votes were liberal hero Chuck Schumer's idea, and we got only 53 votes in spite of having 58 in the Democratic Senate caucus.

There is zero chance that Republicans would surrender on tax cuts for the rich in the next Congress.  They will scream to high heaven that they want tax cuts and Obama and Democrats raised your taxes, and they will win the political argument because people like lovespolitics and LordMike who are supposed to be defenders of playing hardball refuse to acknowledge that the very votes they wanted actually had even taken place.

Look, in my perfect world all the tax cuts would expire and we'd use the money to help close the deficit, and my 2nd choice would be Obama's 1st choice of letting the tax cuts expire for income over $250K.  And I say that even in spite of being in a household that benefits from the tax cuts being extended for the highest current bracket.

But there is what we want, and then there is political reality, and part of playing smart politics is knowing when there's a difference.  And there is a difference here, most people don't care if rich people get a tax cut.  That they say they prefer tax cuts only for the middle class in a telephone survey doesn't mean they care if the rich, too, get to keep their current rates.  But most people care very much that their own taxes not go up just to ensure the rich pay higher taxes.  The net of htis is that there's no way to message what you want in a way that can win.

Obama played this correctly.  By doing so, he dodged a bullet that would dog him for the next 2 years and hurt our entire party in 2012.  We had to clear the decks of this issue.

The fact that not more than 10 Democrats out of 58 were willing to vote against this deal tells you all you need to know about the politics of it.

And unlike the Iraq War vote, no one's safety or survival is jeopardized by voting for this.  That makes the politics even easier, there's little of conscience involved.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
Thank you...
most people do not care about anyone else's taxes but their own. That is why I laugh when I happen to go over to DK (not that much at all anymore) where everything is a crisis and they are looking for a person to primary O in 2012.

If that happens, the giant sucking sound that you here will be loyal portion of the Democratic base exiting the party.  Not saying that they will vote R but I am saying that a good number will not vote.

41 African-American Female DC
Taxation but no representation...


[ Parent ]
Nope.
They'll insist, against all available evidence, that tax cuts still raise revenue and that we have a spending not a revenue problem. Never mind that this talking point really doesn't make any sense, Democrats will acquiesce and then cut the federal payroll and dismantle Social Security, doing extremely little for the deficit but pleasing Versailles' lust for austerity nonetheless. Republicans will then run ads attacking the Democrats for dismantling Social Security, sweep back into total power, cut taxes for the ultra-wealthy some more, and burn what is left of the social safety net.  

[ Parent ]
In my experience here
Repeated bouts of hyperbole, especially when they make the same point, are strongly discouraged here.

If I understand the moderators correctly, I've seen several partisan D posters banned here for such behavior.


[ Parent ]
MI-Sen
If I'm the Michigan GOP I doing the Meposian Dance of Joy that Engler is taking a pass, that is as sure a loser as Bachman would be in Minnesota. If I was a betting man (and I am NOT) I'd put money on Terry Lynn Land being the GOP Nominee. Hoeksta was probably already sick of DC and doesn't want a return ticket, Candace Miller seems to be enjoying the House and not likely to risk what will be a very safe seat and growing seniority to run for the upper house - plus I think the state party types like Land a lot and will fall in behind her (though not necessarily be able to clear the primary field)


"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


One of these days...
A Congressman from Michigan's going to come back home and build a turtle fence.

[ Parent ]
Build a turtle fence?
We need a rattlesnake fence.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
We need Jobs, Jobs Jobs
    for all the unemployed slobs.

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

[ Parent ]
Will the Republican put healthcare on the back burner,
the back burner, for now?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Terri Lynn Land.
Blew her chance for statewide office and political capital this year with her stupid "Boucher/Land" gimmick; she's not running for Senate. Plus, if its going to be someone from West Michigan unless the field is cleared for them by the state party (and I doubt the state party could do that), it'll be someone like Hoekstra or Amash with some credbility with some part of the conservative base.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

[ Parent ]
Amash will likely sit tight a bit
He could run, but he can probably get a more name recognition by waiting in the House for awhile and building up more of a network. This cycle he got by with a bit of money from the Paulistas, a couple interests and the DeVos family, but he also had a much cheaper race due to the fact he is in a safe Republican district. Statewide would be a whole different can of beans.

If this were Utah, then sure he could go for it. I see a lot of similarities between Chaffetz and Amash. But Amash doesn't have a convention where activists rule the day; he has to deal with a primary and the necessary money that comes with it.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04


[ Parent ]
Probably right.
I don't think Amash will run, but then again people didn't think Amash would jump into the house race when Ehlers was still officially running, especially since he'd only been elected to the state house in 2008. He's ambitious and, from what I can tell really takes his libertarianism seriously (the Libertarian candidate in the debate even criticized him for being too "dogmatic" about government agencies being unconstitutional). Plus, it wouldn't be unprecedented; Rod Grams in Minnesota did the same thing in 1994 and won. Carpe diem and all that junk, as they say.

I'd argue that no really serious candidate except maybe a 2010 retread like Hoekstra will emerge on the Republican sside, and the best Republicans could hope for in Michigan will be that they get a Rick Snyder/Ron Johnson self-funder who runs a smart race.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)


[ Parent ]
Courtney doesn't strike me as particularly strong
Anybody know more than me? Will he likely defer to Murphy?

Courtney is a hero to Labor
He has led on a bunch of Labor issues in Congress, including the big push to modify the HCR excise tax on generous health plans. He also did extremely well in this year's election, in what is generally a very tight district.

But my sense is that he's just trying to raise his profile a little with his statement of interest. I bet he demurs.


[ Parent ]
PPP Polls
PPP's recent state polls give me the same feeling (though turnout in presidential years is higher), similar thing happened in their early 2010 polls, looked good for Dems till they switched to likely voters, so it's very hard to know the real picture.

22, Male, Conservative Republican, anti-teabag, NY-8

Two things
1.  Is anyone else afraid that Linda McMahon could squeek through in a three-way?  She'd probably start out with a floor of 40%.  While the CT-05 representative is a great candidate, do we really see Lieberman's candidacy crashing below 20%?

2.  Rasmussen has been remarkably quiet post-election while PPP has put out a number of polls.  Do you think they're staying mum since they've been pretty discredited after the 2010 elections?


1. Yes.
2. No. He'll be back with avengence in the new year mark my words.

[ Parent ]
Please please PLEASE
NEVER put the words "Linda McMahon" and "three-way in a sentence again.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Re: McMahon, not necessarily
At this point, I know voter models seem rather silly, but I can imagine a three-way scenario that looks something like...

D - 40
I - 34
R - 26

Lieberman - 21/40/24 = 28%
McMahon - 3/26/71 = 28%
Murphy - 76/34/5 = 44%

Really, as long as Murphy holds most Democrats, he should prevail in a three-way. McMahon couldn't win a two-way vs. Murphy, though I could fathom Lieberman winning in a three-way if the GOP fielded another Schlesinger. If Lieberman runs GOP, I think you'd see a fairly close race, though Murphy would still probably triumph. So, yeah...in conclusion, I don't see any scenario where McMahon wins, I see a couple of scenarios where Lieberman wins, and I see a lot of scenarios where Murphy wins.

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


[ Parent ]
I think it is possible
But unlikely.

[ Parent ]
I agree
And I doubt Sen. Lieberman will even try a run for the Republican nomination after carrying the torch on DADT repeal.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
I don't think McMahon's floor
is anywhere near 40% with Lieberman in the race. In some of the areas where Lieberman is most liberal, McMahon is rather squishy herself, such as with reproductive rights (she's more or less pro-Choice) and DADT (she's pretty strongly against it). If you have someone who more often than not votes Republican because is leaning towards Lieberman because of his unabashed pro-war voting record, what does McMahon have to offer them? Slightly more conservative economic views?

She definitely could consolidate enough Rs and center-right Independents to build a 40% foundation, but I don't see how she starts there automatically.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


[ Parent ]
You can't call McMahon's floor 40% in a 3-way when she got just 43% in a 2-way......
She's going to bleed more than 3% in a 3-way, even as the only right-of-center alternative.

For one thing, McMahon did in fact benefit from the wave.  Although she was too personally disliked in too liberal a state to come close to winning, her 43% still was more than she would've gotten against Blumenthal for an open Senate seat in a non-wave year.  In a year like, say, 2002 or 2004, both modestly bad years for us, she would've been in the 30s in this same match-up.

And that's her floor, somewhere in the 30s.  Her floor is lower than it has to be because she herself is personally disliked, so that hurts her even more.

I don't think McMahon can win a 3-way in 2012, and in fact I think a competent Democratic nominee easily would finish in the mid-40s and perhaps break 50.  Lieberman, for his part, is likely to finish 3rd in a 3-way.

I stand by it that Lieberman's only path to victory is as the Democratic nominee.  The question is whether he's smart enough to figure that out, and run in the primary.  He's actually got a solid record in his current term when it comes to floor votes, having defected on virtually nothing.  If he raises gobs of money and endorses Obama's reelection relatively early, his chances of suriving a primary by scaring off top challengers or pulling out a plurality in a divided anti-Lieberman field are better than some people realize.  He'd still be the underdog, but his odds would be closer to 50-50 than many admit.  But his odds are close to zero as an indy, and absolutely zero in a Republican primary.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
I'd call 40% her ceiling
I really don't see McMahon doing any better than that; in fact, next time around, I see her doing a whole heck of a lot worse. She has no redeeming qualities, she's already played every card in the deck, and Connecticut has already said "no thanks".

Sen. Lieberman's approval ratings are in the toilet, he doesn't have a party that would be willing to take him, and he's getting old anyway. I don't know if he'd finish behind McMahon, but he wouldn't win.

I don't think Lieberman could win a Democratic primary. I expect the field will clear for Rep. Murphy, or Rep. Courtney if Murphy decides against a bid. Secy. Bysiewicz is probably one of the least popular Democrats in the state after bungling the gubernatorial vote count; she's no obstacle. After being beat like a rented mule twice now, Ned Lamont says he's not going to run for office again. The other Connecticut representatives don't appear to be interested. How big can the field possibly get?

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native


[ Parent ]
Well, in all fairness to McMahon, she did get 43% vs. Blumenthal
I suspect in a two-way race, her ceiling is probably around 46%, and that's only if she's against a crappy Democrat like Bysiewicz. In a three-way with Lieberman, her ceiling's probably more near 35%.

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

[ Parent ]
A clear field is key, but it doesn't take much to divide the field......
What if Murphy and Courtney both decide they want it and refuse to drop out?  Competitive battles like that happen all the time.  And what if Bysiewicz or someone else is at least strong enough to siphon off a few points, even if only in the single digits?  And what if Lieberman has $10 million banked and has toed the line on floor votes for 4 years under Obama and endorses his reelection relatively early, like sometime in 2011?

I think if Lieberman decides to run in the Democratic primary, and he's got the cash and a reasonably loyal record in his recent history, everyone will pause and realize it's far from a slam dunk that he can't win the primary.  Voters have short memories, the stuff that pissed off Democrats for so many years might not be so visible anymore.  Certainly this tax cut vote won't matter, it was 81-19 today.  Joe is pro-science on global warming and dealing with it, he's been at the forefront of trying to repeal DADT, and he's got other stuff he can tout in TV ads.

I don't want to leave the impression I support Lieberman, because I don't, I want him gone in favor of a real Democrat, someone from the Democratic wing of our party.  A state like Connecticut will give us that.  But I've seen too often how much early impressions prove wrong when actual campaigning starts.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
I too think there's a scenario where Lieberman can win the Dem nod
Let's face it - in all likelihood, had Lieberman run against two (or more) liberal challengers in '06, he would've retained the nomination. In all fairness, despite his primary loss, Lieberman was a more popular commodity then - he still had residues of the '00 VP run, had just run for the presidential nod two years prior, and the establishment was firmly behind him. Thus, his floor of '06 will hardly be the same for '08 - he ain't getting 48% in a Dem primary, methinks.  

As it stands, I don't think Lieberman could prevail vs. Murphy only, but...should the likes of Murphy AND Bysiewicz make a run, he's got a path to victory. Per '08 primary exit polling, the Democrats' ideological breakdown was 55-37-8 liberal-moderate-conservative. If Lieberman were to win 20% of liberals, 50% of moderates, and sweep the conservative vote, that would bring him to 38%...in theory, enough to squeak out a close three-way.  

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


[ Parent ]
My list of comments
MN-Sen: I am surprised PPP polled Laura Brod and it makes me wonder what they've heard about her.  She was an up and coming state rep who was widely talked up as a gubernatorial candidate for 2010, but then she abruptly said she had health issues to deal with and decided not to run for anything in 2010, including her state house seat.  Any other Minnesotans know about her better as maybe I just didnt follow her story enough.

IN-Gov: This was exact same mentality Minneapolis mayor had for his gubernatorial run in 2012.  I even personally asked him once when I got the chance and he told me flat out he had a decision he needed to make.  He chose both and he managed to run a real campaign and a shadow campaign all without looking douchey.  Caveats, he didnt win both and the endorsement process probably self-selects people who would overlook issues like running for two offices at the same time.


MN-Sen
Brod was suggested by some of the commentators.  

[ Parent ]
I don't know how she even shows up in a poll
As deeply in tune with Minnesota politics, her name barely registers in my "I've heard the name" part of my memory. I remember Kelly Doran better than I remember her.

On a side note related to MN-Sen, I would be astonished if Kline, Bachmann, or Paulsen pulls the trigger. I know very little of Cravaack to say one way or another on him, plus he is in a rough, rough district for a Republican.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


[ Parent ]
I'm too lazy
right now to find the link, but I remember reading a headline about Klobuchar being very nervous about Bachmann possibly running. Is this a head fake or some type, or does she know something I don't know? Things would have to be really, really, really bad for the Democrats for someone like Bachmann to have a real shot at knocking off Klobuchar, so I have to think she's just not trying to look entitled.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Fundraising
Klobuchar is going to use the threat of Bachmann to drive her fundraising.

Remember, Bachmann is in the most Republican district in the state at R+7. She won it with only 52% this year, and won it with less than 49% in 2008. She would have a VERY hard time being competitive against someone as popular as Klobuchar. The problem with the Republican party here, is they have a ceiling of about 48% state-wide. And someone as conservative as Bachmann would have as hard of a time in a Republican environment like 2010, and would have an even harder time in a presidential cycle. Tom Emmer, who has a lot of the same feel as Bachmann lost in this Republican wave. The only thing that Klobuchar is wary of is the fact that what Bachmann could raise from the teabaggers would put Angle and O'Donnell to shame.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


[ Parent ]
WI-Sen: Kohl at 50/35 approval, up comfortably over possible GOP opponents
Meh
He'll probably retire. But Feingold also leads with decent favorables. All because of the electorate.

[ Parent ]
Do we really want...
Fiengold back when he would not practice the "Dark Arts" of negative campaigning?

Yes, sebby is back in the building and here to take on all those who would argue that Dems had the votes to pass the middle class tax cuts only because if they did, the tax package we wanted would have passed.  

41 African-American Female DC
Taxation but no representation...


[ Parent ]
Supposing Obama said that he would veto any legislation
that keeps the tax cuts for the top 2 percent, do you think that Republicans would have allowed everyone's taxes to go up?

[ Parent ]
They would use the --hypothetical-- veto threat against us
claiming proof that Ds are all about raising taxes.

Yes -- to some extent, it would be a game of "chicken".

(Thank you for discussing the issue rationally, with minimal hyperbole. It is a nice contrast to some other users.)


[ Parent ]
We had the Congress for 2 years...
read about Obama's 11/18 and 11/22 meetings with Schumer in the MSM.  The Dems in the Senate had no plan... Schumer's wanted to let all the taxes expire and blame it on the GOP.  Not a sound argument because the public feels we control 2 of the 3 branches come Jan and all 3 now.  So who would they blame?  Forget that we have several Blue Dogs that, on most issues, vote R. That is an inside argument.  

The real ticking timebomb was the AMT.  I get hit with it every year even with the patch but most are exempt because of the patch. This would not have been fixed.

41 African-American Female DC
Taxation but no representation...


[ Parent ]
Why does everyone forget that the Senate VOTED on exactly what liberals want???......
They voted on keeping the same rates only below $250K and got only 53 votes.  They voted on keeping the same rates only below $1 million and still got just 53 votes (albeit a different mix of Senators).  We needed 60 and didn't come even close!  And those votes were liberal hero Schumer's idea.

In my perfect world we'd let all the Bush tax cuts expire, but political reality is that we're not going to get that, period.

It's amazing to me that even when Congress votes on exactly what liberals want, so many complain after the vote that we didn't hold out and demand what already failed!

But ultimately this is, naturally, the time of greatest venting.  The midterm is over, the next election is a long ways away, do intraparty squabbling is without any harmful consequence.  A year from now people will be more united, and come spring/summer 2012 everyone will be ready to go to the mat for Democrats, no matter what people say now.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
"only 53 votes"
Sorry, I'm not picking on you. It just pisses me off that a majority of Senators and the vast majority of the country population wise voting in favor of a bill is insufficient because of an unconstitutional supermajority requirement.

[ Parent ]
Agree completely. But it takes 67 votes...
...to change Senate rules!  At least, that's how it is mid-Congress, I don't know for sure if the governing resolution at the start of a Congress can be decided by less.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I want Feingold back
in a presidential year he could win, and overall he's a good senator.

[ Parent ]
I'll second that
Although hopefully he's learned a thing or two from losing this time around.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

[ Parent ]
I love Feingold as much as the next guy,
but I don't think he's cut out for the Senate. I think more politicians should be like him personally, but we shouldn't have to worry about defending a Senate seat in Wisconsin even in a bad year, especially from someone like Ron Johnson. If Bennet could squeeze by, certainly Feingold should have been able to. I know it was an anti-incumbent year and he had been in Washington for a while, but I think a lot of people saw Feingold as a kind of outsider. He should have run on that image.  Do I wish more senators were civil, principled, and even-tempered like Feingold? Of course! Do I also think you need to take off your gloves once and while to smack an idiot like Ron Johnson around so we never have to utter the words Senator Ron Johnson? Absolutely. We have a strong and deep bench in Wisconsin. Let Feingold go save the world as a private citizen, let's replace Kohl with a real campaigner in 2012.  

NY-01/NY-19

[ Parent ]
I guess this might mean Feingold attempts a run?


19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

[ Parent ]
I hope
not. I know 2010 was a bad year, but Feingold hurt himself more by refusing DSCC help. Also a Roll Call article a few weeks back said that Feingold's campaign was erratic and not up to the task of beating Johnson. Plus Johnson was the only gazillionare this year running for office who got the message just because you could self fund, doesn't mean you should outspend your opponent to the point the voters feel like puking when they see your ads (see McMahon, Linda and Whitman, Meg)

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Forgot
the link....gah

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12


[ Parent ]
I hope not
Kohl is a lock, and Kind would overperform Feingold in all ways, including taking help.

[ Parent ]
Probably
But could do worse on these numbers. I do hope Murray is putting pressure on Kohl and Bingaman to run again. Doing so would go a long way in helping to make the playing field a little less daunting.

[ Parent ]
And on Conrad too.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
These people have to retire sometime
And while I think that we absolutely have to avoid a mass exodus, we have to come to grips with the fact that some of them have to retire in a presidential year that will be more favorable to us than the midterm of 2018 will likely be (unless a Republican is in office in 2016).  

We do have to keep Conrad in as long as possible.  I'm iffy about Kohl staying.  I think it would be good for him to stay so that the WI democratic party can get its shit together after its worst cycle in a long time.  However, I think it might be good to get his replacement in before Ryan wants to abandon his budget post and the other GOPers who were recently elected mature into viable candidates.  Bingaman should probably retire while Susana Martinez is still not a viable candidate.


[ Parent ]
Yes, they need to
work hardest to prevent a Conrad retirement.  Also, I don't really know why he'd want to retire.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
I would agree
If the number of seats up on either side weren't so lopsided.

[ Parent ]
That will remain true in 2018
The only difference would be that, in 2018, we might be coming off a good year in Senate races in 2016 (when the 2010 class will be up), so we'll be more able to bear the losses. Still though, we're going to have to get the retirements out of the way eventually, and I'd rather a couple be done this year than have a huge exodus the next time around (also, remember that guys we aren't even considering right now, like Tester, Cardin, and Casey, might also retire 6 years down the road). I think we'd be better off if someone like Bingaman retired this year instead of waiting another cycle, after which Heinrich or whoever would probably have a tougher time holding it for us. Also think we'd be better off with Feinstein and Webb retirements, though the first is for ideological reasons and the second is because Kaine is a better campaigner.

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

[ Parent ]
I largely agree with you
but is there any reason to think that NM wouldn't be demographically more favorable to us in 2018 than it will be in 2012?

[ Parent ]
I agree on all three counts
I think Rep. Pomeroy might run for Senate if Sen. Conrad retires, but if he doesn't, the Democrat-NPLers are screwed. Atty. Gen. Stenehjem and Commissioner Kalk would both trounce Some Dude, and they'd probably sweep Pomeroy aside as well, though at least Pomeroy has some built-in name recognition and connections.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
PPP needs to get out and poll North Dakota
We need to see where we stand there, and if Pomeroy would even have a chance in the event of a Conrad retirement

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

[ Parent ]
They cant
They dont own any voter info for ND and its really expensive.  

[ Parent ]
Isn't
robocalling illegal in ND also? (PPP does robopolling). I believe Rasmussen is able to bypass that restricting by having a live voter introduce the polling questions or something. Or am I thinking about Indiana?

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Maybe so
I always remembered it as they did not have the info, but maybe it is illegal there too. I know it is in IN.  

[ Parent ]
Voter info?
I thought ND doesn't have voter registration?

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
A Republican winning office in 2016 is more likely than not
If Obama is defeated, the Republican should be the favourite in 2016 by virtue of being the incumbent. If Obama is re-elected, then an open seat likely leans towards the out-party (even if Obama is popular as an outgoing President, that won't necessarily translate to a win, see Nixon and Gore).

[ Parent ]
Agree
The only time that has happened post-war is 1988.

[ Parent ]
But it happened......proving it happens. I see a structural advantage for us...
...in the electorate going forward as nonwhites grow in vote share, and Republicans are doing nothing to stop the bleeding with people of color.  They're excited about Rubio, a couple Hispanic Govs, and Nikki Haley, but those elevations are drowned out by the naked racism and xenophobia emanating from the GOP all the way from federal elected officials down to the teabagging rank-and-file.  And that doesn't even consider the fact that most people of color fundamentally disagree with the GOP on the role of government in society.

The math is going to get very difficult for Republicans going forward.  It's already the case that a Democrat can reach 50% of the national popular vote with just 40% of the white vote.  And the growing Hispanic and other nonwhite vote is already turning Nevada, Colorado, and NM more in our favor over time.  Same goes for Virginia and NC, although they're not quite as far along as the 3 aforementioned SW states.

I think by 2016 the Republican Party will face a crossroads.  The national electorate by then very well could be 30% nonwhite, nearly double its vote share from my young adulthood when Bush 41 and Clinton were getting elected.  Either the GOP departs for real from the racist and xenophobic rhetoric to give themselves a real chance at victory, or they suffer a loss they didn't expect in a 3rd straight presidential.

Demographics matter and can really change the story fast.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
The post-war elections do provide hope
that we can retain the WH in '16, even after one party held the Presidency for 8 consecutive years:

'60 JFK v. Nixon was close
'68 HHH v. Nixon was close
'76 Carter v. Ford was close
'00 Gore v. Bush was close

Yes, there are exceptions.

'52 Ike had the benefit of a peace platform against an unpopular war. Even if we're still in Afghanistan in '16, I don't see Rs twisting enough to go anti-war, unless they're taken over by Ron Paul.

'88 Dukakis was a deer in the headlights.

So while it's normal for the Presidency to change hands after 8 years in one party, the real axiom is that such elections are almost always nail-biters.

And in a nail-biter Presidential election, the demographics are going to make it increasingly difficult for Rs by '16, assuming President Obama is re-elected.

However, under such circumstances, generically, '16 would change from "slight lean R" to "slight lean D".  


[ Parent ]
A Republican nominee will never outflank a Democratic nominee on being ANTI-war......
Supporting every facet of GWOT is central to conservatives and Republicans.  That we have a Democratic President remaining committed to prosecuting the war in Afghanistan has really torn both parties, with a lot of conservatives grudigingly and silently agreeing with Obama's policy and thus muting much of whatever they otherwise say about Democrats on foreign policy, and a lot of liberals and other Democrats opposing the President's policy but remain muted because he's our President.

So Obama has the benefit of political silence on the issue.

And public opinion overall has turned ambivalent and torn, but not yet firmly against the war as they were against Iraq by 2006.

If public opinion takes a sharp turn against continuing in Afghanistan, Obama will not stay there unless he's personally convinced it's necessary for national security.  And because he's a Democrat, he'll still get a longer leash from swing voters and his own party than a Republican would get; it's "Nixon goes to China," a crossover policy that mutes opposition from all sides.  But of course Obama will have limits on how far he can go with it.

Ultimately there won't be a Republican presidential nominee who says we should get out while Obama says "stay."  And there won't be that iteration in 2016, either.

Democrats are just more restrained on military action than Republicans no matter what.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
If Gore had been
a few small things working for him--winning his home state or Arkansas, picking Jeanne Shaheen as his running mate, winning Ohio, or having retirees fill out a fucking ballot correctly in Florida--he'd be president.

I'd also question the historical precedent because it's unlikely Biden will be the nominee. Assuming we win in 2012, our party's nominee will be associated with the Obama administration by virtue of being a Democrat, but not in the same way as if he or she were directly in the Obama administration. That's a key difference.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Bingaman
If he retires we will be fine with Martin Heinrich. Depending on who we are able to get his House seat could be in danger. I am not familiar with the bench in ABQ but I am sure that there are capable state legisltators (please no Patricia Madrid though!!!!!!!!!)

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

[ Parent ]
An open senate seat doesn't happen very often
Plus, unlike 2008, there's no obvious super-candidate like Udall was (and really, the second Udall jumped in was the second that seat became lost to the Republicans).

Heinrich would probably be a favorite, but there are so many Democrats who could run that I couldn't begin to say who's going to win. Thankfully, either way, it'll happen in a presidential year when Obama should win the state pretty decisively.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Lucky Johnson doesn't want a run
If Gary Johnson wasn't busy trying to go run for President, he would be able to put up a really solid challenge to whoever the Democrat ends up being (Bingaman or Heinrich). Although we can debate how effective Johnson's tenure was, the economy was not as crappy as it is now and it wasn't John Engler level in Michigan back then. Couple his pretty strong name req with a bit of self fundability, and you would have had a freakin strong candidate.

Alas, Gary Johnson is determined to pull 2% in the Republican primary for President.  

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04


[ Parent ]
Yes Kohl is a lock, but he is old and
probably doesn't want to run again. It's up to the DSCC and the state party to find the strongest candidate. Whether or not that is Feingold is another story.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

[ Parent ]
Kohl
isn't too old. If he wants to stay on I see no problem with it. I am hoping for Kohl to stay on as the race is easier with him. If not Kohl then Kind or Barrett seem the strongest to me.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
I guess in Senate terms 75 isn't old, but
I would rather see him retire in 2012, than 2018. It would be a much safer bet.  

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

[ Parent ]
Yeah
that's a good argument. We should be able to win the seat with little to no trouble in 2012, who knows what the environment will be like in 16 though. Also the Gov can run in 2016. Depends on who the GOP runs this time. They don't have a huge bench. Ryan is giving up his Chairmanship and after that it's the LG, state legislator or random rich dude.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
Ryan is not


Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
I wished they polled more Democrats.


19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

[ Parent ]
The LG
Is NOT next. One, she has had some health issues, just getting over a serious fight with colon cancer, and she is fucking nuts! The AG is next, then ruch guys and state legs.  

[ Parent ]
so let me get this straight
the good people of Wisconsin just tossed Russ Feingold from the Senate, despite the fact that they like him and would be ok with sending him back in 2 years.

W

T

F

????????


[ Parent ]
As the link from PPP said:
"Those numbers might seem amazing barely a month after he was defeated for reelection but it's a reminder just how different the midterm electorate was from the state's voters as a whole."

Also, "2012 is a long ways off but at this early point it looks like Wisconsin's Republican swing in 2010 may have been more of a blip than a signal of an emerging trend."

But yes, what the hell? Wouldn't an attitude like this at least force you to demand of the alternative candidate a plan to move the economy forward?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Feingold's loss proves one thing
"exciting the base" does nothing to help your electoral prospects despite what GOS, OpenLeft, or FDL says.  

[ Parent ]
Well,
maybe the part of the base that loves Feingold exits far more outside of Wisconsin than inside it. Or maybe he did excite the base but Johnson excited the Republicans more.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Nonsense
When we had candidates like Lincoln, Bright, Minnick, etc. losing across the country, it shows that ideology had very little to do with Democratic losses this cycle. Furthermore, given that Perriello came so close to holding on, I think the idea that energizing the base doesn't help is downright ridiculous. No, we aren't going to get away with running Bernie Sanders in every district, but base energy is one factor that every candidate should be considering. Feingold lost because he was a Democrat running in the wrong year and because Johnson caught him napping.  

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

[ Parent ]
Periello is the only example of it working
and even then, I'm not so sure by how much. Bobby Bright did still outperform Obama two years earlier by double digits where Russ Feingold, with Alan Grayson, Paul Hodes, and basically every other lefty folk hero wildly underperformed Obama from 2008, most by double digits.

It doesn't matter how much you "excite the base" if the "base" aren't the ones voting for you, or, as in the case of Feingold and Grayson, aren't even showing up.  


[ Parent ]
Paul Hodes was a lefty folk hero?
Anyway, your mistake is in assuming that if one side turns out its voters, the other side can't. That's just not true. Think of John Kerry in Ohio in 2004, who was beating or exceeding his targets for what he thought he needed to win the state. He still lost to Bush, who managed to do a better job at turning out his voters.

What I think you mean to say is that while turning our your base can give you a win if both sides are about even or can secure a larger-than-expected victory, it can't override the fundamentals. That's absolutely true.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
That would be true if...
...feingold had actually motivated his base.  He spent most of the string and summer trying to woo teabaggers with at least 3 ads sporting teabaggger endorsements and then voting against the wall street reform bill... none of these moves endeared him to his "base" and actually drove them away from him.  Since the enthusiasm gap was especially pronounced this year, it's pretty clear that the base was not motivated at all by Feingold.

Fiengold had won a good number of Republicans in 2004.  His inability to win them over this year seemed to bother him something awful, since he pandered to them every chance he could.  It was a fatal mistake.


[ Parent ]
odd
Didn't expect Feingold to poll that well. If Kohl retires, I wonder if the Dems' best bet would be to run Feingold for his seat and then have Kind take out Johnson in 2016. I think Kind would be likely to wipe the floor with Johnson in a presidential year.

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
This is an honest question, not sarcasm or anything...
but why isn't anyone talking about Tammy Baldwin?  I always thought she had her eye on Kohl's seat?

Male, 23, NJ-12

[ Parent ]
I thought the same thing, but then again
she's been in the House for a while and she's a lesbian.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

[ Parent ]
Romney is becoming comical.
Seriously, he shifted right in '07-'08, but now he's becoming incredibly laughable in his transparent attempts to pander and sound like he's been right-wing all along.  First, he attends that "Values Voters" event that he, McCain, Giuliani and Thompson avoided in late '07.  Now, he's saying the tax cut deal is bad because it both increases the deficit and is only a temporary extension of tax policy.  ROFL! If it were permanent, the effect on the deficit would be far greater, Mitt!  All it takes is a basic graphing calculator and a list of stats to figure that out.

Anyway, here's his op-ed:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/o...

Can any Bay Staters here tell me whether Romney has lost his marbles since he left the governorship?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


Thune
Basically attacked him on it without mentioning his name. Romney polls the strongest now of all the Republicans but I'm not sure how long that will last. Other than Palin he seems the most vulnerable to attack from other Republicans.

[ Parent ]
Que
the flip flopper ads from 2004, except replace Kerry with Romney.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Romney's great strength...
...is that he can talk out of both sides of his mouth and get away with it.  Sometimes he does it at the exact same time leaving one group thinking he's said one thing when everyone else thinks he's said another.  It really is a rare gift.  He's managed to do it successfully for years even when people call him on it.  I don't know how he gets away with it.  It's blatantly obvious.

[ Parent ]
In 2008
his run petered out and he never got closer analysis for his positions like Giuliani did.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Um, he didn't get away with it at all, in fact it killed him......
Romney was the runaway frontrunner in Iowa and NH and the slight frontrunner nationally as late as Thanksgiving 2007, and he ran a textbook perfect campaign all the way through.

And yet he fell apart and won almost nowhere.

And this was all because he was transparently a phony and most Republicans saw right through him.

He's going to have the same problem even worse in 2012 thanks to RomneyCare, which didn't hurt him last time but will next time.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
In there, he also
calls for privatizing , er, creating individual unemployment savings accounts in lieu of the current UI benefits system.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
In some ways,
he has a point as far as tax policy goes, if you accept the right-wing way of thinking on the issue. Some seem to feel that spending cuts should have been a party of it, which is why people like Inohofe and Sessions voted against it. And if you really, truly believe that uncertainty over taxes is holding up business planning and/or making it harder than it needs to be, kicking the can down the road doesn't help. I, of course, don't understand what's so goddamn hard about calculating two different tax rates, but then again, I am not one of the precious but strong small business owners allegedly under constant attack from bureaucrats in Washington who is also unable to afford an accountant, ever.

But anyway, it's kind of odd, because while I don't think much of him as a politician, I think he'd be a non-terrible president if he didn't let the nut jobs call all of the shots as president. He's not a dumb guy, but he is a shameless panderer, much more so than most in recent times. I almost want to see him get the nomination just to see how he deals with RomneyCare, yet I worry that if he is able to brush it off, our media is as truly spineless as some say it is.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Romney
He doesn't scare me, because I don't think he believes a word of his own BS. He's basically a competent, pragmatic management-consultant type, and I think he'd run the US government much the same way he ran the Mass state government.

I think he's similar to George HW Bush in that he appears to absolutely hate campaigning.

41, Ind, CA-05


[ Parent ]
He himself doesn't scare me,
for pretty much exactly the same reasons you outlined. But in order to win, he needs to team up with the Palin supporters and similar individuals, and I'm not really sure I want to give them any sort of chance to have power, even indirectly. Unless his plan is to try to win the presidency, then bank on a strategy of moving the party to the center by himself after telling the hardcore right-wing to go fuck themselves, at the risk of only getting one term, I am not sure how anyone can support him.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
caveat
I'd be ok with him as president as long as the Reeps don't have total control of Congress. I don't think he would veto much of anything a Reep Congress would come up with, which would be a problem. This would be less of a concern if the Dems controlled at least one house, or even if the Reeps had something like a 51-49 margin in the Senate which would cause most House bills to get filibustered. (I would eliminate the filibuster, but the likely damage from total Reep control is lower if it's still in place.)  

41, Ind, CA-05

[ Parent ]
I just chuckled thinking about
the possibility of a Romney/Palin administration. That would be rich. Romney would probably try to be bipartisan and moderate, and Palin would cry bloody murder. It would be the first time in hundreds of years that a sitting Vice President would want to challenge the sitting President for reelection

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

[ Parent ]
They almost all WANT to...
But would she?  No way.  She would never be the VP nominee again anyway unless there was some convention shenanigans.  

[ Parent ]
Romney scares me
because I believe that he is a shape shifter.  That said, he just does not seem like the type to inspire GOPers to vote, organize, rally etc.  As we know, people vote "for" someone and not "against" someone...

41 African-American Female DC
Taxation but no representation...


[ Parent ]
I think Romney would beat Obama
but I don't think he can win the GOP nomination, especially not after Republican primary voters get a thorough education on "Romneycare."

[ Parent ]
Romney's path is the same as McCain's...
Let the conservatives beat each other up in the primaries and sneak past with 33% of the vote.  That being said, the RNC has changed the rules making this path much harder for Romney this time around.  Don't ignore Romney's strength out west with his Mormon base.  They won't care about his flip-floppiness, only that he's one of them.  

[ Parent ]
Romney versus Obama would be like 2004
GOP turnout would be all about the incumbent and not their own nominee. That dog won't hunt. I also think his strength out west is overstated. Like every Republican he is weak with Hispanics and that is far more important than any boost from Mormons.

[ Parent ]
No Boost
Mormons already vote, and they already vote Republican in overwhelming numbers. Nevada is the only swing-ish state where LDS affiliation would help even a little.  


36, M, Democrat, MD-03

[ Parent ]
^^^^^^THIS. (nm)
nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I think he meant in a GOP primary
Mormons are an important part of the Republican primary electorate in many Western states, and give Romney a demographic base of support that the other candidates don't have in that part of the country. It didn't do him much help in 2008, but the new primary calendar may be to his benefit. After IA and NH is LDS-heavy Nevada, and assuming Romney survives South Carolina, the next group of states to vote include Mormon-friendly ID, MT, and WY as well as New England's ME, RI, and VT, where he has natural appeal to primary voters.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
Why do you say Romney has natural appeal
in ME, RI, and VT?

Is this only because he used to be MA gov, or is there another reason?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01


[ Parent ]
Just the regional thing
New England Republicans are more moderate and secular than their nationwide counterparts. I can't see Palin, Huckabee, or Gingrich playing well in the northeast.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
ABC/WP poll
This is not 1994 or 2006. The American people are deeply skeptical of the GOP. Obama job approval 49-47.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...


Still not entirely comforting...
The likely voter polls said the same thing a month an a half ago, yet all those folks who disliked and were skeptical of the GOP enthusiastically pulled the lever for the republican when it came time to vote.

I admit this election shell shocked me a bit... I don't think I can trust these types of polls ever again.  They seem to show no correlation with what goes on in the voting booth.


[ Parent ]
Midterm madness
Different electorate. Plus they were able to win despite their unpopularity because they were running against something. Much harder to do that when you are it.

[ Parent ]
and their supporters are distributed more efficiently
across House districts.

[ Parent ]
As many have said,
different electorates are a key. But there's also the possibility, if it's not absolutely the case, that these votes for the Republicans were much more votes against the Democrats than anything else.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
That's even less comforting to know...
They hate the GOP, but voted them in over Dems... Where does that put us?

[ Parent ]
I think it's more comforting,
because it doesn't mean that there was some huge ideological shift in the electorate, but rather a desperate response to desperate times. If I had to guess, I'd say that the long term trends still favor the Democrats, even if short-term events keep knocking them down for a few years. So yes, it does suck that they won just because they weren't in power, but that doesn't mean we are shut out of power for a generation.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Did
anyone else get a White House Christmas card? Those are soooo cool. I feel like a kid seeing my name on an envelope from the WH. I didn't think I would get one this year as I didn't give any money to the DNC or organizing for America but I was pleasantly surprised.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

I think I asked this last week,
but nobody responded, so I will ask you, did you get an e-mail from Organizing for America asking you to write letters supporting the government employee pay freeze? I saw a link to Fire Dog Lake from Krugman's blog, but while I have gotten a bunch of e-mails from O.F.A. in the last few weeks, I didn't get that one, or so I think. Perhaps I deleted it and don't remember, but I don't think so.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I've
not been to FDL in ages. No I don't remember seeing that email but I really don't pay that close attention to them.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
Hmm.
I'm not saying they simply made it up, but you'd think it'd be mentioned more than once if it did in fact occur. Very strange.

And I never go to that site, by the way. I might never go except for when I click through from some other site, if only because Hamsher seems to be the epitome of everything that is really annoying and obnoxious about the left. I believe it was Hamsher, for instance, that suggested Lynn Woosley be primaried because she supported the less-than-ideal health care reform.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Don't mind me for correcting one point
She suggested Woolsey resign as Chair of the CPC and that Bernie Sanders ought to be primaried (I think).

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
You could easily be right.
I don't remember the specifics because everything I've read about her has come through other blogs. The point--that she made absolutely terrible suggestions that wouldn't accomplish anything, at all--still stands, as I think you would agree.

She's certainly entitled to her opinion, but she seems to differ from someone like Eric Erickson only in ideas, but definitely not in tactics.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


[ Parent ]
Sherrod Brown
According to Cillizza he will switch his vote. If that doesn't say something nothing ever will.

I do not understand why he would.
Was something further promised?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
Perhaps the China currency amendment...
...that was cosponsored with Snowe.

[ Parent ]
He said he only did it to show the House they had allies
And he spoke to his pastor.

[ Parent ]
Very disappointing... n/t


[ Parent ]
Since when is Sen. Mark Udall a moderate?
He's been one of the guys leading the charge on both opposing the tax/benefits compromise and supporting DADT repeal. His cousin, Sen. Tom Udall, is substantially more moderate.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

Pedro Espada has been indicted for embezzlement!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi...

Half of the quartet of corruption, sleaze, and incompetence (Monserrate, Espada, Diaz, Kruger) are going to be gone.  But taking down Espada was the biggest hit to their cabal and will help insure competent leadership when we take back the St. Sen. majority in 2012.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


final-f-ing-ly
I'm being completely serious here, this is not snark.  New York has had children for leadership in their legislature for years, maybe now something can be accomplished.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
Thank heavens.


20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
LA Leg: Big D-R Switch
State Rep. Fred Mills, and leading candidate for an open senate seat special election in January, that could determine control of the state senate, has switched to Republicans. This is a crushing blow to Dems, as this one was a real rising star and was not old like the others. He was the Dems only hope of winning Troy Hebert's (I) senate seat, and he announced his switch on the first day of filing. Now that he has switched, and is still running for this seat, this is almost guaranteed to go Republican. I said a few weeks ago when talking about this seat. This switch is not particularly surprising. Mills was an ally of Bobby Jindal and former Lt. Gov Scott Angelle, who also switched to the Republican Party in October. He was also an ally of state Sen. Mike Michot (R). They both hosted joint fundraisers for Bobby Jindal and Scott Angelle this year.  

Oh who gives a crap about how many switch from D to R in La
(from a native), they can have all the R's they want because the state is in a really bad way (even more so than most).  That budget deficit is major and Jindal has no concrete plans to resolve the problems.  He has checked out on La and never stays in any job for long but that said, he will easily win re election.

41 African-American Female DC
Taxation but no representation...


[ Parent ]
So
the Dems recruit this guy to run and then he switches on them?  Who will be the Dem in the state Senate that switches and flips the Senate?

Libertarian secular Republican, MO-7

[ Parent ]
Yep
Atleast he gave them 3 days to recruit someone else unlike Bayh. No one is sure, but everyone knows that, come the 2011 elections, both bodies of the leg will be controlled by Reps. This senate seat will bring it to 20-19. There are rumors about up to 5-6 more senators pondering switches.  

[ Parent ]
it's not even really the senators fault.
if Louisiana and the rest of the south had just started voting republican locally when they started voting republican federally, then the legislature would have been more attune to the electorate.  

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
Democrat or Republican....
They will still be corrupt.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
They've got the best ethics laws.
Nepotism is strictly disallowed.

Except for family members.

And sexy turtles.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01


[ Parent ]
Best ethics laws, best coach,
   Best turtle fence, best team!

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

[ Parent ]
"Republican SSP"
Hey GOPVOTER--you mentioned you wanted to set up a site like this one for the other team.  Have you got it running yet, or is it still in the works?  I'm interested in joining.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

It's in the works
We will be launching in early 2011. GOPVoter has been our contact man for the project; you can email him at jmlee0695@hotmail.com if you're interested in joining us!

Glad there's interest in our project here. We intend to be similar to SSP in terms of our content and philosophy (a Republican horse race site where Dems are welcome to comment), although we'll of course be starting small and won't be as sophisticated as this blog from the outset.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08


[ Parent ]
SSP Used to be tiny
Starting small is not a bad thing.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


[ Parent ]
i'm definitely planning
on visiting the GOPSSP (please call it that) as often as i visit this one, and I hope some of us come to support you in your endeavors (although if there are too many, it'll no longer be a republican site.)  on a related note, apparently RedState frontpaged a very strong GOP gerrymander of Pennsylvania.  Congrats to Dave for his app getting on the front page of that!

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

[ Parent ]
The gopsip?
lol.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Same
Now TWO sites will face the wrath of my voter models. Muhahahahahaha!!

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

[ Parent ]
Do you welcome commited Indies too?
(with somewhat left-of-center views, i.e. - myself)....))))

[ Parent ]
MassGOP covered it
We'll be launching sometime after the first of the year. We were aiming for mid-Jan, but it may be moved up.  

[ Parent ]
I would love to join when it's up
Although I'm not sure how I'll manage to post without taking the occasional passive aggressive shot at conservatives and Teapartiers like I'm able to do here.  

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

[ Parent ]
The
Mayor of Springfield Illinois dies from an apparent suicide. Very sad. I couldn't believe it when I read it because I had just randomly looked at his wikipedia page a day before he died and read the whole thing for the first time. The same thing happened when I read a former Illinois Senate nominee's page earlier this year, maybe I'm bad luck. I hate to sound insensitive but does anyone know of possible candidates to succeed him?
http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x...

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

Census maps by race etc
Just saw this on NYTimes http://projects.nytimes.com/ce...

It's like a redistricting guru's dream. You can almost go block by block to see where you can carve out seats. I'm impressed by the Hispanic explosion in the Southwest but why they don't vote in equal numbers is depressing.  

Indepedent/Lean D. Dude.
All 5s (now TX-5; frmly VA-5 and CA-5)  


These are amazing, thank you for posting the link
n/t

38, Male, SP, NL / LMP, HU

[ Parent ]
Difference between "professional left" and "liberals"
I was glad to see this on the FP of DK

The Post-ABC poll suggests that the administration is right about one point: The "professional left" and liberals are not the same. MSNBC host Keith Olberman said last week Obama had lost the Democratic base with the tax deal.

Not so much. As Dan Balz and Jon Cohen write, "his approval rating among liberal Democrats stands at a lofty 87 percent, almost identical to where it was in an early October poll and down marginally from a survey later that month."

Perhaps reason is returning to the rest of the liberal blogsphere.


OH-Sen: Brown at 40/37 approval, tied 43-43 vs. Dewine
More bad news
I don't put too much stock in ballot tests this far out, but to have Brown tied with an albatross like DeWine is not good. Being ahead of the other 3 republicans is meaningless since no one knows who they are (no opinion numbers are between 62-73%, which is about the level you could just start makin up names to test, "If the election were held today would you vote for Sherrod Brown or Alfred E. Newman?".

I think too much is made of the 23 Dems up vs 10 GOPers, the real number in my mind is 6-2, six Dems up are toss-ups to me (MO, MI, MT, VA, NE & OH) while 2 GOP seats are toss-ups (MA & NV) more seats could be in play (especially if open) like FL, ME, ND and go knows what will happen in CT.

If I'm Patty Murray (and that God I"m not, I have my own bag of shit to hold) I have to wonder how to shore up so many seriously imperilled incumbents.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Polls this far out
had Robin Carnahan leading Roy Blunt by decent margins.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
True
And polls had Feingold in solid shape too, but as much as Angle & Buck proved that incumbents under 50% CAN win it's still not where you want to be. I'd be curious to see what the eventual re-election % are for incumbents under 50% at a various stages in the elections cycle. I'm betting a lot has to do with the LV/RV & the name ID of the challenger.

Back in college I remeber the rule of thumb was an incumbent who got less than 40% in a re-elect/someone else/don't know test was in trouble. I don't know if stats would bare that out or not, but it seems like a better indication than a ballot test vs either someone the respondant has never hear of someone they know and hate (see Engler in MI).

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Ouch
not surprising though, Sherrod Brown is pretty ideologically out of step with Ohio. Its possible DeWine would take the plunge, he doesn't have to run for reelection until 2014 though my gut tells me he'll stay out of this race.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
I think DeWine knows he is radioactive
The only reason he won the AG race was people 1. Didn't realize he was the same guy they just fired in '06 2. Didn't pay a lick of attention to the AG race besides voting for the guy with the R behind his name.

Forget the favorable/unfavorable for the GOP candidates, no one knows who the hell they are. I hear Jim Jordan looks like a formidable candidate (and is a solid vote getter, though in a very solid GOP district) and his idiology would make for a stark contrast with Brown. I think the others will stay out and it will be Jordan for a some dude in a primary.

I think Jordan will get a lot of support among state GOPers, if nothing else they very much want to chop up his district to shore up the rest of the non-cleveland districts. I think they will cut 1 dems district (abviously in Cleveland since that's all Dems have left), but it is possible to cut 2 dem disricts in N. Ohio by salamandering OH-9 & OH-17 to split OH-13 & then pack OH-10 & OH-11 together. This would create some VERY shaky GOP districts surrounding Cleveland. If I had to hazard a guess they cut up Kucinich's district between the other Dems and then use Jordan's district to shore up the GOP seats, much smarer move than tring to get the Dem delegation down to 3 reps.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Ohio Redistricting
Has SSP done an Ohio Gerrymander yet? I haven't seen one....

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Sure
These two are post-election. This one is slightly older.

As a site use tip, I found these by clicking on "All Tags" at the bottom of the original post of this thread, finding the "Ohio" tag, and clicking on that.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.


[ Parent ]
This is one I'm really concerned about
Sen. Sherrod Brown is well to the left of the Ohio general electorate. He only won in 2006 because then-Sen. DeWine was a terrible candidate and then-Secy. Blackwell was dragging down the Republican brand in that gubernatorial blowout race.

Brown needs to make a really good case for his reelection, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him move toward the middle as he has done on this tax/benefits compromise bill.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native


[ Parent ]
Better numbers than I expected...
Remember that Dems got shellacked here a few weeks ago.  For Brown to have a positive approval is pleasantly surprising.

As for indies, they blow like the wind.  Sherrod is a good campaigner, and he'll follow the Strickland path.  His support may not be broad, but it is deep.  As long as Obama competes in the state (and all signs point to that being the case), Brown should end up being OK and should even overperform Obama.

I'd like to add that Senator Metzenbaum was also way to the left of the Ohio electorate, yet he became an icon.  Sherrod Brown isn't Russ Feingold--he's not going to run a lousy campaign.

We also have to find out how the GOP brand as a whole is going to being 2012.  Mr Kasich hasn't been exactly lighting it up right now.  He pissed off a bunch of cops the other day, and you don't want to piss off the police organization if you want to stay in good standing.  

So, I wouldn't panic, yet.  Brown is doing as well or poorly as expected for a Dem in December 2010.


[ Parent ]
Strickland got Shellacked?
The open senate seat was a romp sure, and the GOP picked up the swing CDs, but Strickland and Brown were elected together in '06 and only lost by 2% or whatever.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
No, he was spared...
Dems overall got shellacked.  Strickland was the outlier.  He ran a good campaign and almost pulled it out.  Sherrod brown has a similar profile to Strickland's and can do the same in what should be a better year for dems overall.

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

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

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox