When Regis leaves television?

I think that Chris Murphy would be a good choice.

---

by: juliana @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 17:59:32 PM UTC

I

used to watch him all the time but haven't in the past years but I just randomly watched him when he made the announcement. Sad, this one sure isn't.  

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

---

by: hoosierdem @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 02:24:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very Nixonian

The left won't be able to kick him around anymore. Shame.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 18:25:22 PM UTC

At least he's got a sense of humor.

I was thinking this morning that while there are always ways for the fundamentals to turn against us, there's almost no excuse for the Democrats to lose big in Connecticut or Massachusetts. It's slightly--and I mean slightly--more forgivable in Massachusetts, since we are going up against an incumbent who isn't an idiot and won't sink himself. But seriously, McCaskill, Tester, and Webb would run through the streets naked to get the sort of advantages that the Democrats running in these two states will have. I wouldn't expect either candidate to coast, not the least of all in Massachusetts; in fact, I expect them to campaign until the polls close, as if their children were being held hostage and the only way that they could be released was to win. Yet it shouldn't be as difficult as it will be in a lot of other states. I just hope the Democrats get their shit together and run campaigns that won't make several members of their party hang themselves.

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 18:38:50 PM UTC

You know I still maintain Connecticut will be an easy Dem win next year

I guess you're right - you can't fortell everything that will happen, but it will be harder to beat Scott Brown than to get a Democratic win in the Nutmeg state (and, gun to my head, I expect both to happen at this point - Connecticut to go Dem and Scott Brown to fall).

---

by: markhanna @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:09:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree,

but I still think the Democrats should take it as seriously as possible. Politically speaking, there's virtually no reason either seat should go to the Republicans. And yet, the one in Massachusetts did, mostly because Martha Coakley is a gigantic butthead. (By "butthead," of course, I mean several other things, some of them not particularly appropriate.)

Just think, if we had won that seat, even by a smaller than normal margin, we wouldn't have to waste money on what should be a pretty easy win--money that could have gone to supporting the incumbents in Virginia and Missouri or making a serious play for a seat currently held by Republicans. Not to mention the fact that one more reliably Democratic vote would be in the Senate.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:14:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My biggest concern is the party establishment needs to persuade Courtney to stay in the House......

The most risk to us comes from both Murphy and Courtney leaving their House seats to clash in the Senate primary.  We'll win the Senate seat with the primary winner, but I don't want to see both those House seats open.  Yes they are Democratic seats and the fact of a Presidential year gives us the edge in both, but they're not truly safe seats and strange things can happen.  Find a way to clear the field for Murphy, and get a good recruit for his House seat, with the rest of the delegation staying put.

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

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:25:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree

Courtney is too old. Blumenthal is no spring chicken either so that should also be taken into consideration.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:27:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

57 isn't THAT old by Senate standards.

He'd have at least 2-3 terms in him.

I agree on the open House seats, but if we lost one of those to the GOP it would probably be Murphy's seat anyway. There's no bench in CD2 except for Rob Simmons, who seems to have taken his ball and gone home after the GOP screwed him over in the 2010 Gov primary.

CD5, on the other hand, is the most Republican CD in the state, actually narrowly went for Bush in 2004, and has a fairly limited bench. Still, it would be nice if CT Dems only had to focus on one district instead of two.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:36:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If he was the only choice

Then certainly but Blumenthal is 65 next month. Building some seniority would be nice.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:39:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

although you have to ask

Why do we non-CT residents care about seniority?  I make the same argument all the time but as people from another a state, shouldnt we hope that they go with the oldest kook that can win?

---

by: Andrew @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:47:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just one of several factors

And it matters nationally if there aren't open seats all the time.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:49:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suppose.

We need to think of seniority at the House level too. DeLauro will be pushing 70 soon and Larson is in his early sixties - actually, only a few years older than Courtney and with a whole lot more seniority to show for it. If we assume Murphy gets the nod and with Himes having even less seniority due to Chris Shays taking forever to go down, Courtney could very well become the #2 in the CT house delegation in a decade or so if he stays put. Especially with how seriously powerful DeLauro is - there'll be a definite vacuum there when she leaves.

With that said, I've always backed Murphy. He's young, telegenic, and has a great amount of appeal to all kinds of Democrats and independents. I've never seen him just hanging around in the House. Courtney I can see hanging around in the House for some time. Maybe keep him as a backup in case Blumenthal implodes, or has to run a real campaign in 2016. And then there's Himes, but eh...let him represent Fairfield County for as long as Fairfield County will re-elect him. I don't see him having appeal anywhere else.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:07:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both seats should be enough safe after the redistricting

But well, all in the primary can be too much.

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:00:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

no

CD05 went for Kerry by about 1000 votes.  

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/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 13:52:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not at all

at 57 he could serve three terms easily and still be 'young'(by standards in the senate)

---

by: primaryarlen @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:48:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still think it is an issue

Especially considering the advanced years of the occupant of the other seat. Fundraising may also be an issue Murphy has brought in almost a million more in total despite only running 3 times to Courtney's 4.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:52:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is the point where Patty Murray, Pelosi/Hoyer,

and the White House Office of Political Affairs ask Courtney, "What do you want?"  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:30:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sure Darrell Issa is on tenterhooks at the thought

I certainly hope they are leaning on Kohl, Bingaman and Webb pretty hard.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:31:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sestak/Romanoff

You mean Bill Clinton asks him, right?

---

by: patlak @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:33:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly

The promise of a Murphy endorsement from Malloy, Blumenthal, DeLauro, Dodd and Himes would probably do the trick.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:34:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would say so

Someone needs to sit down with Rep. Courtney - probably Rep. Israel - and say, "Look, the establishment is backing Rep. Murphy, everyone thinks he's more competitive and self-sufficient in a race like this. What would it take for you to join us?"

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:00:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NH-Sen last cycle

CSP was interested and deferred to Hodes who looked stronger on paper. Same deal. (Yes, I know it didn't end well but that isn't the point.) Having said that, if he does run it isn't exactly OH-Sen either.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:02:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CSP wouldn't have done better.

She lost big too, in a congressional race against a mediocre candidate -not a huge Guinta fan. Hodes at least had strong opposition.

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)

---

by: Twohundertseventy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:09:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would blame the party establishment, too, for what happened in MA-Sen 2009.

Capuano, clearly the more electable candidate, was kept from gaining momentum because it was Coakley's "turn", and the western and eastern establishments refused to get along and play well with each other.

Fortunately, now that Choke-ley has blown her ambitions for higher office and both geographical factions of the MA Dems have serious egg on their faces, there's really nothing to keep them from uniting behind a candidate who can actually win this time. Such as basically anyone not named Coakley, though I do hope Capuano is the nominee. That guy actually knows how to campaign.

In a Capuano-Brown race, Capuano would win greater Boston and western MA easily. Brown would lead in the middle (around Worcester), in the outlying western suburbs, and on most of the Cape. Assuming both run good campaigns with presidential turnout, I see Capuano winning with about 52% of the vote. Brown's good, and we shouldn't be complacent, but he still owes his job to winning in an off year in the middle of winter against arguably the worst candidate the MA Dems have put up in the last 30 years.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:32:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

^^^^^This (especially last sentence)^^^^^^^^

---

by: markhanna @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:39:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Coakley was far from the worst...

that honor would almost certainly go to John Silber.

And, by the way, whom do you consider "the Western Establishment", aside from Richie Neal and Petrolati (neither of whom were really involved in the Senate race)? The bulk of the Dem power structure in Mass has always seemed to me to be concentrated in Suffolk and Middlesex, with the occasional outlier like Therese Murray from other parts of the state.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:41:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't say "far from the worst"

Silber was pretty bad, but he was running as sort of an "anti-Dem" Dem, and people always knew that election was going to be close. Coakley's campaign was arguably the worst run by a mainstream candidate who was expected to win since Dick Thornburgh lost to Harris Wofford back in 1991.  

---

by: markhanna @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:55:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps

but the statement was about MA-Dem candidates. And I think we can agree that Silber was far worse as a candidate than Coakley. Coakley was just negligent; Silber was actively self-destructive.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:59:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, yeah...

I mean, Coakley did win office before, while Silber obviously never won an election.

I think where I would split the difference is that Coakley had a worst campaign than Silber, while Silber was obviously a worst candidate. Which makes it doubly mindboggling that Coakley managed to lose.  

---

by: markhanna @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:49:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'd like to make a nomination...

Caprio.  So you have a former liberal Republican and a mainstream Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.  And you come in a distant third with 23%?  Heckuva job, Frankie!  Worse than Maine in my mind, because Maine has a history of 3 Way Races...I don't know how Caprio allowed Chafee to get so much oxygen.  I mean, it's okay to lose, but the you're the Democrat and 77% choose someone else? In Rhode Island?!

---

by: patlak @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:10:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Caprio shot himself in the foot.

When Chafee began polling closer, Caprio hoped for a presidential endorsement to lock down support.  When he didn't get it (Chafee was an early supporter and campaigned for Obama in 2008), he said that Obama can take his endorsement and "shove it."

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:18:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yep.

Another reason why it was one of the worst capmaigns of '10.  What was the risk/reward for that statement?!  Obama stayed out of the race...he didn't openly support Chafee.  Caprio didn't have to remind everyone.  

---

by: patlak @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:27:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fine with me.

Chaffee will probably make a better governor anyway. Caprio can take his political CAREER and shove it. If he's going to be an entitled crybaby like Coakley, he deserves what he gets.

We really need to get the entropy out of New England politics. There's this attitude of "just because I've won a bunch of uncontested races for a statewide downballot office that most average voters don't care about I'm somehow superstar material" that really doesn't follow, and leads to Dems losing races they should win.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:14:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Martha Coakley has been an excellent public servant for over

a decade. I guess we can call her any name under the sun, because she lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

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)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:24:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just because

she's good at her job doesn't mean she can't be a shitty candidate. I mean, didn't she take a vacation in the middle of the campaign?  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:29:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying she wasn't a bad candidate. Though she was highly

qualified. I'm talking about the after the fact vitriol and name calling that serves to denigrate her is a little annoying.  

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)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:35:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's wrong with being pissed?

Like I said, she can be a good public servant while still being a crappy candidate. She might have had a close race otherwise, but is there really that much doubt that she would have almost certainly won if she had actually campaigned competently? That's where the frustration comes from, and it is completely justified. I'm still pissed at Al Gore for losing in 2000.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:46:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think there are more constructive ways of being pissed.

She did end up winning the Attorney General's race with 62% of the vote, but I see we are not going to agree on this subject.

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)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:57:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But we weren't

talking about her race this past November. We were talking about her race last January.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 23:11:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be fair, Al Gore did win. :)

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 06:29:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gah! She's not that good at her job!

Martha Coakley is an awful politician AND an awful AG.

Remember when Aqua Teen Hunger Force's Mooninites terrorized Boston and she went on TV to talk about how "sinister" they looked? Or how she conveniently didn't investigate Mayor Menino's totally suspicious email record destruction? Or improperly misused state resources to oppose the liberalization of marijuana laws as well as lied her ass off about what the law actually did? Or when she drafted a totally horrific obscenity law [for example: David & the other SSP editors would be criminally liable if I, a commenter, posted a picture of goatse ... even if they deleted it immediately]. Thankfully, she got her ass handed to her in court when a federal judge was like "Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?"

She is a giant vortex of awful.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:00:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She is also the first Attorney General

to challenge DOMA in federal court and has been successful so far on that front. Quite frankly most attorney's general oppose liberalizing marijuana laws, like Attorney General Kamala Harris. In fact she was not the one who misused state resources. The district attorneys were the ones who misused state resources. She also wasn't the only person involved in drafting the obscenity law. She's hardly a giant vortex of awful, but then again this all stems from Wikipedia.    

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)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:28:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Facts can't influence feelings this way.

It takes more than facts to change feelings.

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

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:48:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please Please Please

"We really need to get the entropy out of New England politics. There's this attitude of "just because I've won a bunch of uncontested races for a statewide downballot office that most average voters don't care about I'm somehow superstar material" that really doesn't follow, and leads to Dems losing races they should win."

Please tell this to Susan Bysiewicz!

25, Male, CT-01 (home), Perth-Wellington riding (sometimes)

---

by: WalterSobchak @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 23:03:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well,

Chaffee wasn't exactly an unknown figure in the state. And wasn't there word that Caprio met with the RNC about running as a Republican? If that was true, then what is the base supposed to do?  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:12:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unless

there's some sort of surge amongst Republican voters that go even more heavily for Brown than we think is possible, it seems like the Democrat running simply has to win at least 80 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Independents to win.

What I wonder, though, is whether there's some unused potential in the Democratic strongholds of the state. Are there lots of voters that are registered but aren't turned out or aren't even registered? If that is the case, then perhaps the Democrat running simply has to focus on turning out an extra 100,000 or so voters.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:07:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe in the general vicinity of Dorchester/Roxbury/Southie.

There are a ton of minorities in that area, and I doubt that all (or even many) of them vote. If they did, Stephen Lynch would probably be out of a job.

It's just a shame in this case that a Senatorial candidate can't have a running mate. I think a Capuano/Chang-Diaz ticket would be phenomenal, and would definitely turn out a lot of low-interest voters in south Boston.

Of course, a lot of those voters might turn out for Obama (and no one else) anyway, so that's really something to look out for. That extra minority bump for Obama, if it happens, could really hurt Brown.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:11:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How often does that happen?

From what I can tell, there's usually some drop off from the top of the ticket to the bottom, but if there's a surge in voters coming out for one particular candidate, doesn't that usually translate into more voters for the other significant candidates running on the same ballot? Isn't that what helped people like Dreihaus and Perriello?

Chang-Diaz seems like an interesting candidate, but at the same time, she's very, very young. She could easily run for something better in ten years and still be very, very young.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:17:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lynch doesn't represent the minority parts of Boston

Southie, which is overwhelmingly Irish, is in his district, as well as Eastern Dorchester, which is the whiter part of the neighborhood.  The parts of town that are non-white are almost all in Capuano's district.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:52:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Southie is pretty white

most of Dorchester is in MA-08 (especially the minority-heavy parts) as is all of Roxbury.

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/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 13:57:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

unregistered

I know you often suggest there are a lot of unregistered voters out there (in various states) who just need to enter the process, but I'm sure you know that campaigns on both sides spend A LOT of money every cycle to do exactly what you suggest.  Usually both sides do exactly what you are advocating (though probably Obama did the best job of it ever in '08).  They have full-time paid people going to these areas to register people.  In my experience in the process, there is a great percentage of people that will never register.  People like my sister-in-law, who say, "I don't want to because when I was registered, I always got called for jury duty." "But Lisa, that's from your driver's license" "NO!".  ugh.  People who may have a poor past or are in troubled situations (debt, etc) and don't want the world to have another record of where they are or what they are doing.  Your idea to register more people in Texas and other places is awesome, but trust me, it's done every single election.  If Obama couldn't convince them in '08, I'm not sure anything short of a large cash payment will make it happen!  
(Just my experience, and I really enjoy your posts, so I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything!)

---

by: patlak @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:06:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell this to your sister-in-law.

"They want everybody to serve jury duty.  Now, do you think that more people get driver's licenses, or register to vote?"

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

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:14:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, yes,

some are easier to register than others.* I could be wrong about this, but I highly doubt there was anything in Massachusetts that was remotely close to the efforts in other states in 2008. There were probably some small scale efforts, and some natural increase due to the excitement of the race, but nothing resembling what we saw in, say, Virginia. If that's the case, if they have barely targeted the low hanging fruit in the state, then they would probably receive a lot of return on their investment. And unless there are a lot of Republicans waiting to come out of the wood work, I have to think this helps the Democrats.

There's also the possibility that there could be a decent number of people who are registered but never turn out. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if that is the case in Massachusetts, but I've never heard of turnout in the state being anything but average.

*I've brought this up before, but it still amazes me, if it hasn't changed much since then: in October of 2008, about 94 percent of eligible voters in Ohio were registered. Not all turned out, of course, but if it hasn't gone down for any reason besides the usual stuff, like births, deaths, and moves in and out of state, both sides are rapidly approaching the point where there's really nobody left to register. I have no idea if something similar is happening in other states that are always focused on during presidential elections, but if it is, the list of swing states will probably grow by itself. After all, if there's nothing left to do in Ohio, why not try to see what can be done in Kentucky?

http://www.samefacts.com/2008/...


"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 23:04:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Capuano's current district is D+32

On what basis are you saying he knows how to campaign?

(I'm not dissing him; I'm just asking.  After all, he was effectively my representative for several years.)

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

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:59:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree with almost everything

in that post.

Capuano lost the primary because voters decided that he has the abilities and stature for House Rep but not enough to be the Senator they want.  How sore he was at losing didn't exactly disprove the verdict.

There's a case to be made that Capuano's buddies mostly in Boston who did nothing to get voters to turn out decided the General election for Brown.  He spent a campaign vocally trying to disparage and distance himself from the usual insinuations made of Italian American politicians- and then an undignified collusion of sorts took place against the person he lost to.

He's done.  He doesn't realize it, but he is.

---

by: Baystater @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 06:36:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

true that

but beating brown will be the harder task(the guy is a vote-getter)

---

by: primaryarlen @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:50:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

he knew he could not win

pretty simple  

---

by: primaryarlen @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 19:46:47 PM UTC

Let's

take a trip into the time machine...courtesy of Youtube and CNN.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:34:32 PM UTC

Lautenberg hasn't changed a bit!

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:51:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow . . .

Look at that video.  Among the GOP Senate candidates that year . . . Chafee, Jeffords, Weiker, Roth.  You rarely get GOP candidates like these folks these days.  

However, Keyes is in there for comic relief.  

---

by: kewgardens @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:54:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah

Center-left Republicans sure have changed.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:55:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Roth was actually pretty conservative, wasn't he?

---

by: markhanna @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 20:59:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not compared to Repubs of today

Hell, John Heinz is also mentioned there. He was a real moderate.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:32:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't believe this was all before I was born

Good to see old faces like Kennedy, Byrd, and Sarbanes crop up. I also have to say that Lieberman looks more dignified now than he does with that weird mop of gray hair.

And WTF do they include West Virginia in the East??

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)

---

by: LennyLiberal @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:08:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There being so many liberal Republicans mentioned in that clip

that it got me thinking about the overall state of politics.  Is our move towards hyper-partisanship simply to blame on the realignment of the parties?  And then it makes me wonder what kind of partisanship there was from 1900-1928, when the parties weren't in midst of re-alignment and were very solid in their standing and bases.

I personally would mark 2010 as the end of the 20th century re-alignment; the NE for the most part* withstood what was a giant wave year and the South finally toppled.  

*NH is a very special case and has the government hating mentality of the South.  Upstate NY was a nightmare but it's depopulated rural areas so what can ya do?

---

by: Andrew @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:27:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As

long as Independents make up what like 70% of the voters in NH, it will always be the roadblock to New England becoming super blue just like the south is now super Red.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 00:48:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's absolutely because of partisan realignment

The "bipartisan consensus" people look back on nostalgically was the outlier historically. Basically, the Democrats' ideological flip from being the more conservative of the two-major parties (something that began slowly in the late 1800s, but decisively broke with the New Deal and FDR) resulted in lots of liberals, moderates, and conservatives in BOTH parties. That made partisanship a very poor indicator of ideological beliefs.

If you look pre-New Deal, partisanship and polarization in Congress was actually quite high - not quite as high as today, because the parties were weaker at the national level, but still very high compared to the '50s and '60s.

See this graph: http://polarizedamerica.com/im...

(Taken from this page: http://polarizedamerica.com/)

People often note that the filibuster stopped working because major legislation always had bipartisan majorities. That was true in the '50s, but I've read that in the early 20th Century and late 1800s, almost all major legislation actually DID pass on a near-party-line basis. Bipartisanship didn't emerge until later. The reason the filibuster didn't play such a big role was that before cloture rules existed, there was an implicit assumption that if the minority didn't stop filibustering, the majority could just change the rules - that meant that determined foes might keep talking for awhile to delay a bill or grandstand, but they'd usually yield the floor and bills would pass the Senate on a party-line vote.  

---

by: liberalpragmatist @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 01:01:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh wow.

So basically, this is a realignment that began around 1930 and is still being felt across the country?

Dang!

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

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 20:11:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still I think the realignment will be continue the next years

at least until 2016.

Looking to the prospect of both parties for 2012 it seems clear.

Republicans looking to ND-Sen, NE-Sen, MT-Gov, NC-Gov...

Democrats looking to MA-Sen, NV-Sen, ME-Sen...

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 05:22:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think

any of those are really examples of realignments.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:10:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

Some of them would be examples of the realignment of the last decades. As example, MA, ME and NV become blue in the last decades, Nevada recently. And NC was a lot bluer 50 years ago.

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 09:29:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

MA realingned in the "last decades"?!

the one state that voted for McGovern in '72, and has not voted for a R for President ever since? I do not know their history pre-72, but given the impact of the Kennedys, I suspect it's been pretty darn blue back to at least '60.

I'm not convinced w/r/t any of the other states you cite either.

NC may have voted for more Ds 50 years ago, but even in the case of Sam Ervin, they were rather conservative Ds. Up to the '10 election, successful Ds were considerably more liberal than the Ds of 50 years ago.

If 50 years is your criteria, NV voted D in '60. If "the last decades" is your criteria, NV has voted for both Ds and Rs for federal offices frequently ever since. While that may change in the future due to demographics, that has not changed through '10.

And ME can be argued both ways, based on their history.  

---

by: tietack @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:57:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MA voted for Reagan in 1984

Along with every other state except for Minnesota (and DC).

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 13:57:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right about '84

my points still stand.

---

by: tietack @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 15:12:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the previous commenter

was talking about 20th century realignments.

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 18:06:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then what did you mean by

will be continue the next years

---

by: tietack @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 18:56:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mean the realignment of the 20th century end not still

and will countinue in the next years.

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 21:27:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As an example

how is MA still realigning?

---

by: tietack @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 21:33:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd argue

that if North Carolina is undergoing any sort of realignment, it's at the state legislative level. I don't think there's any clear trend in any other form.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 16:49:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

1:32!?

He's been criticized as a "Johnny come lately"?!?  What is this, 1924?!

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:14:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A welcome nonretirement announced.

Bill Nelson will run again.

http://politicalwire.com/archi...

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:33:36 PM UTC

Phew

though I think Bill Nelson will have a tough race in 2012, better he run than leave an open seat because we don't have a decent bench down there outside Alex Sink who's probably eying a 2014 rematch against Governor Fraudster and Debbie Wasserman Schultz probably wanting to further her career in the house.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:35:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we can all predict a Governor (Democrat) Sink

this time 2015.

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)

---

by: ndrwmls10 @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 21:37:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dunno

I predicted one the last time. I'm getting almost as cynical about Florida as I am about Texas.  

---

by: markhanna @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:01:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed

I'd bet Rick Scott's fortune that Rick Scott wins re-election if he runs.  I really don't see how governing a large state with a Republican tilt with an improving economy leaves much opening for her in 2014.  

Its unlikely he increases his negatives as governor because I just don't see that many pressing issues he'll face that could polarize enough people to flip them to Sink.

Its still a state that hasn't elected a Dem Guv in a  while, and Rubio got 50% of the vote for Senate.  

---

by: rdw72777 @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:49:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually,

he received 48.9 percent of the vote. Not that there's a huge difference or anything, but still...

I won't try to predict anything about the races in 2014, but perhaps Rick Scott will be our Christine Gregoire: he manages to sneak into office with a small margin each time. Or will he? It wouldn't surprise me to see him reelected, assuming things get better in the state, but he wasn't elected under normal circumstances. If he's never able to expand his base, we could easily have an opening.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 23:09:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that analogy is correct

But not for the reaosn you mentioned.  She's won pretty much all her poltiical races by 5+ points except one, in 2004.  I see the exact same trajectory, Scott slips by in 2010 and wins by close to 10 in 2014.

---

by: rdw72777 @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 23:51:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well,

I wonder if he wins at all. He could easily, given the advantages of incumbency and the possible center-right status of the state, but at the same time, it doesn't look like he has a strong base of support. That could change, but if it doesn't, I'm not sure he wins by ten unless the Democratic candidate sucks badly.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 03:13:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rick Scott - Christine Gregoire?

mmm... better...

Rick Scott - Arnold Schwarzenegger

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 05:35:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you all overestamate Scott

let him embarrass Florida in office before assuming he'll get reelected.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  

---

by: D in FL @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 15:19:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

was I the only one who saw that

one of Gov Scott's first acts was to change the discrimination clause of the state government to get rid of sexual orientation, but wups, he also got rid of the disabled and another group I cant remember that's always included.

---

by: Andrew @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:34:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Awesome.

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

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:12:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There wasn't any doubt was there?

At least he hasn't announced it four times like Dick Lugar.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 22:34:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reading that article

I had forgotten Lieberman lost CT-03 in 1980 to a GOP one-term wonder. I guess Reagan was either extremely popular in the New Haven burbs, or Joementum just gave an early hint of his future suckitude.

Though, ten years later Rosa DeLauro took over; imagine how shitty if Joe had won here and stuck around the House that long.  

25, Male, CT-01 (home), Perth-Wellington riding (sometimes)

---

by: WalterSobchak @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 23:15:35 PM UTC

He would have done less damage from there

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 23:21:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Connecticut had party lever voting then

and the massive Republican majorities that resulted after Reagan did away with them.  Small d democracy was improved, but the Republicans were able to hang on to the state house for a little longer through inertia.

---

by: FerdinandTheBull @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 02:03:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny

Just like last year. Dorgan gave us the your fucked announcement then Dodd gave us the news we would in fact keep his seat after all. Same thing this time around, though CT was not close to being as bad as it was with Dodd.  

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

---

by: hoosierdem @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 02:16:17 AM UTC

True :)

The ND-CT link :)

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 06:13:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't forget the out of left field

Bill Ritter, I won't run for a second term in CO announcement.  I honestly think he could have won a second term even if the GOP didn't fuck up that gubernatorial race with their nominee and Tancredo.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:18:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This

makes things a lot simpler. Himes or Murphy can now waltz into the Senate without that unpredictable x factor. I'm kind of rooting for Himes but Murphy would be fine as well. Susan is the only one who could make this thing competitive, even then she's got the edge I would think. I'm glad to see Lieberman go. We will get a good liberal who will not cause us trouble. I'm no purist but we can do much better in the nutmeg state. I'm glad Lieberman was graceful enough to leave early on without struggle.  

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

---

by: hoosierdem @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 02:22:51 AM UTC

CT

Hopefully just Murphy gets in and coasts past Suzy B and whoever the Republicans put up.

29/D/Male/NY-01

---

by: Tekzilla @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:01:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree about many things

---

by: abgin @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 06:24:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rep. Murphy is getting in tomorrow...

http://www.dailyructions.com/m...

Apparently he has an internal poll showing him up on Bysiewicz by 12 points, 47% to 35%.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 08:54:05 AM UTC