Google Ads


Site Stats

CA-Sen: Move Along, Nothing to See Here

by: Crisitunity

Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 7:32 PM EST


Public Policy Polling (1/28-30, California voters, no trendlines):

Dianne Feinstein (D-inc): 51
Tom Campbell (R): 37
Undecided: 12

Dianne Feinstein (D-inc): 55
Carly Fiorina (R): 35
Undecided: 9

Dianne Feinstein (D-inc): 54
Darrell Issa (R): 33
Undecided: 13

Dianne Feinstein (D-inc): 52
Steve Poizner (R): 34
Undecided: 14

Dianne Feinstein (D-inc): 59
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R): 25
Undecided: 17

Dianne Feinstein (D-inc): 55
Meg Whitman (R): 35
Undecided: 10
(MoE: ±3.3%)

PPP's last couple polls (Nebraska, Arizona) have had some bad news for Democrats, so here's a nice refreshing chaser, albeit one that shouldn't offer any surprises. If Dems with lukewarm faves (Barbara Boxer, Jerry Brown) could win easily in the Dems' worst year in ages, the state's most popular politician (Dianne Feinstein, with 50/39 approvals) in a presidential year should be no contest. That's what PPP finds.

The only Republican here with even remotely positive favorables is Tom Campbell (who already lost to Feinstein once, in 2000, although he's better known now for losing the 2010 Republican primary to Carly Fiorina), although that may have to do with his little-knownness (21/18) than his moderatism. Everyone else is deep in the hole, no more so than Ahnold, at 25/65 (I think even "The Last Action Hero" tests better than that). My one quibble here is that none of these A-listers are likely to run, paving the way for an even sadder sack in the form of ex-Assemblyman and 2010 GOP primary loser Chuck DeVore, who should have been tested. (He's already said he's running for "something" in 2012; unless he plans to out-teabag one of Orange County's House members, that means the Senate race.)
Crisitunity :: CA-Sen: Move Along, Nothing to See Here
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

CA-Sen: Move Along, Nothing to See Here | 66 comments
Am I the only one who wishes?
...they'd tested Feinstein against a primary challenger? A left-nut teabagging, if you will?

Like, say, by Matt Gonzalez or a solidly-lefty Congressman or a termed-out state senator or something? Or heck, even Dan Choi, even if he didn't have his soul removed at CPAC?

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

You type faster
It seems PPP is doing similar forumla polls around the country, so we don't get any jungle primary ideas here.

DiFi will get some challenge from the left, but the question is whether it will be serious or not.  One thing for sure, CA is willing to elect a Senator significantly to the left of DiFi.

[ Parent ]
Someone SIGNIFICANTLY to the left of an ex San Francisco mayor?
That'd be pretty hard to find...

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10
[ Parent ]
DiFi isn't what one would call very liberal.
She's of the center left.

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 ]
Well... according to a friend
who had interned for her at some point, she is incredibly crabby and snaps pretty easily. If someone to the left of her wanted to oust her in a primary, it wouldn't be all that hard to Bob Etheridge her. That'd be a start.

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10
[ Parent ]
Nowhere near as bad as KBH.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
I would be crabby too
if my hairstyle hasn't changed since the 1980's. lol

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
It's befitting of her age. :)


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 ]
Carly Fiorina, is that you?


"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 ]
wouldn't help
That might have had some effect if the state had a Dems-only primary, but it now has a "jungle primary" similar to Washington's. Feinstein would clean up among independents even if the left wing of the party supported the challenger.

41, Ind, CA-05
[ Parent ]
True.
She may be from San Francisco, but she's by no means your stereotypical San Franciscan.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Heh
though Feinstein couldn't be elected to SF mayor today, she isn't the only center left person in San Francisco. The Board of Supervisors now has a majority of pragmatic liberals who are willing for example, go after the city's transit workers union in attempt to rein in their very lax work rules. I mean even sit and lie (meaning that the homeless/hippies cannot turn a part of the sidewalk into their own little home) passed here with 53.6% of the vote last November.

And then there are the progressives....

Watch the below video as former supervisor Chris Daly, part of the city's progressive wing attacks the police as a bunch of Republicans who "don't want to work." He also wanted to ban the Blue Angels from flying in San Francisco.



19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
People in SF were never happy with DiFi
She became Mayor only after George Moscone (and Harvey Milk) were assassinated. In fact, I think it's fair to think of her as in the conservative wing of the CA D party.

AFAIK, even Gavin Newsom is significantly to her left.

[ Parent ]
She was elected Mayor twice in her own right and easily survived a recall
If people weren't happy with her they'd have had plenty of chances to get rid of her.  I'm not sure she could get elected mayor today but at the time people seemed fine with her.

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
I have to disagree
DiFi was the best mayor SanFran has had in the last 40 years. She revitalized the city, she made it an example of one of the first real urban renewal renaissances in the U.S. Much of the reason the city is so beautiful, relatively low crime, and prosperous today lies in the foundation that she laid down in her 10 year tenure. She was hardly a fluke, and she was well-regarded in the community, even if today liberals are a little flaky. Even though she may have been more moderate than most SF Dems at the time, she had their support due to her competence and successful management.  
[ Parent ]
Fair enough, n/t

[ Parent ]
I agree with this, mostly
She certainly wasn't a bad mayor, and frankly, I think she'd make a pretty decent governor. I'm cool with her in executive positions. But as a Senator, she's ideologically out of step with California.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.
[ Parent ]
Um, no, LOL
Get serious.  80% of the state Democrats are to her left.
[ Parent ]
I find it somewhat doubtful when people say she's too moderate.
Name one Obama initiative that Dianne Feinstein has opposed.

Maybe she isn't as bombastic as Boxer, but she votes exactly the same way.

http://mypolitikal.com/

[ Parent ]
Strikes me as somebody
From the middle-third of the caucus. If that makes sense.
[ Parent ]
She likes bombing stuff
It isn't her domestic policies as much as her international ones. She also likes spying on people. She's basically the Jane Harman of the Senate except less obviously corrupt.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.
[ Parent ]
For a while I thought Feinstein
was going to vote to convict President Clinton during the impeachment trial.

In addition, she nearly joined Lieberman on HCR -- http://blogs.abcnews.com/theno...

[ Parent ]
a-nd she won't need millions of dollars from Obama
or the DSCC to fend off a challenger. She will be fine as usual unless something strange happens in the primary/top two format.  
[ Parent ]
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
We are talking about politics, not black and white.

Bernie Sanders and ben nelson both voted the same way yesterday, and so in your eyes that makes them the same?

Voting is a process where you decide if yes is better than no.  It has virtually nothing to do with core principles, which extend over a spectrum.  DiFi is one of the least progressive politicians in America, including Republicans.  She favors "change" for very little.  She opposes personal freedom concepts like pot decriminalization and Internet freedom.  Etc.  

America and California needs progressive leadership born of ideas, politicians who advocate a useful point of view.  This is a completely different concept than voting yeah or nay on some finished bill.

[ Parent ]
you may believe that but
Feinstein has a lifetime 85.1% rating from Progressive punch which is 38 out of 100. As a contrast Olympia Snowe has a 36.3 rating.
http://www.progressivepunch.or...

here was National Journal's ranking of the most middle of the road Senators for 2010:
http://hotlineoncall.nationalj...
46. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)      
47. Robert Byrd (D-WV)            
48. Bob Casey (D-PA)            
49. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)        
50. Mark Pryor (D-AR)          
51. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)          
52. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)      
53. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)        
54. Jim Webb (D-VA)            
55. Russ Feingold (D-WI)          

Liberal bloggers want to hate on her all day and all night but she isn't going anywhere until she wants to and that burns them so much.  

[ Parent ]
Again, so what?
Did she vote for that compromised, incoherent health care bill?  yes

Is he in favor of single payer health care?  no

All the Dems voted to keep the first.  Not many Dems support the latter.  Paying attention to the first and ignoring the second is just being willfully simplistic.

[ Parent ]
this is what
you wrote "DiFi is one of the least progressive politicians in America, including Republicans."  really? How many Republicans just voted against repeal of the health care law? Seems to me if few in the party support single payer than she is in the norm of the party.  
[ Parent ]
So what part of "to the right of 80%" of calif dems do you not agree with?
And I don't think you understand the standard definition of progressive, which is what I'm saying here.  

Progressive means: "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters."

DiFi supports the status quo. Many Republicans have ideas that they believe are progressive... deeply cutting taxes, deeply cutting spending, aggressively attacking the national debt, greatly altering the nature of the government, etc.  
 

[ Parent ]
and your definition is too vague
100% of challengers believe in change (vote out the incumbent). Incumbents in office believe in the status quo ... please vote for me to keep my job. That doesn't make one progressive or the other not. Everyone has beliefs and ideas they want to advance. Feinstein has voted for almost every major piece of legislation favored by the Obama administration. How is she a stasis politician? How has she impeded legislation? Has she supported and voted to sustain filibusters? I'm sure if you ask Republicans about their ideas of cutting taxes, spending, etc ... they would not call them "progressive" ideas, they would call them conserv[e]ative ideas.  
[ Parent ]
80% to the right of Democrats in California? I have no idea
because you can pick and choice one or two issues but as a whole, she is a mainstream Democrat who has 60+% approval among Democrats in California and is the most popular politician in California.  
[ Parent ]
There's a couple of useful distinctions one might make
For example, someone might argue that Feinstein's approvals say little about her ideological relationship to most Dems in California...they might not know about her positions, she might just have a lot of name recognition and incumbency and such.  

On the other hand: I don't like what I know of Feinstein's positions and record on civil liberties and national security issues, but let's try to compare her positions to Cali Dem's: She's against pot decriminalization, ok...CNN's exit poll of Proposition 19 has Democrats at 56% for it, 44% against it.  Exit polls have their problems, but this one matches the L.A. county and Bay Area percentages recorded by the Secretary of State.  Other pols against Prop 19 included Brown, Boxer, Newsom, and Harris.  Sure, it seems like a lot of rank-and-file activists were for it (judging by the apparent support of a lot of county Democratic parties and state legislators), but while being against pot decriminalization might make someone less of a progressive, it is hardly evidence that someone is that out of the CA Democratic party mainstream.  Still, you'd get different results about how heavily CA Dems were for Prop. 19 from looking at rank-and-file activists vs. registered-D voters.  

I don't know about the CA democratic party vs. Feinstein's positions on the Iraq war, as they've changed over time.  It looks like CA Dems were massively against the surge (using a Field poll from 2007) but Feinstein seems to have been making anti-surge noises at that time, and indeed voted for one troop withdrawl: http://www.senate.gov/legislat...  She also did vote to keep funding the war.  CA Dems were very pro-date-specific-withdrawl at this time, and it's entirely possible Feinstein did not go as far as the bulk of her party at this time.  She did not vote on Feingold's amendment for withdrawl one way or the other.  My apologies if these votes are mis-described, as I am working from this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...  

As for the decision to go to war in 2003, CA dems were against it 49-45 in a November 2002 Field Poll, so Feinstein was not in the plurality of her party there.  By April 2003, if this is relevant, CA Dems supported the war 62-37.  You can see the Field polls here: http://field.com/fieldpollonli...  

She's pro-death-penalty, and the considerable majority of California Dems seem to agree with her (and disagree with me), using another Field poll: http://field.com/fieldpollonli...  She's pro-flag-burning-amendment, which I think is stupid, but I can't find any CA Dem polling about it.  I also don't know of any polling on the surveillance stuff. Long story short, it doesn't look like she's ever been that far out of the positions expressed by the bulk of California Democratic voters, at least on that handful of issues.  Activists are another story.  I can easily believe that Feinstein is to the right of most of the California Democratic Party activists.  

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

[ Parent ]
Here's the roll call on the Supplemental to fund the war
http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

I don't know if anyone ever did a good CA Dem poll of "should your Senator vote against appropriating money in order to force the end of the war", but you can see that Boxer and Feinstein voted differently.  You can also see from the Field poll that a timeline to "begin" withdrawing troops was massively popular with CA Dems, while only(?) 53% of CA Dems supported withdrawing "all" troops from Iraq: http://field.com/fieldpollonli...  I am not sure how to interpret Feinstein's votes and actions vs. the median CA Dem voter, but this is probably the best place to look for a case that she is well out of her party's mainstream.

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

[ Parent ]
Oh c'mon
Those approve questions are loaded.  Ras called me and asked if I "approved" of Obama, and I said I did, which I certainly don't all the time.

DiFi's popularity is lukewarm.  You could take a lamp and search all year for ten people who are passionately supportive of her.  At the same time, she could beat any Republican easily.

You act like life is like a telephone poll with only two choices, thumbs up or thumbs down.  Reality is more complex.

The reality is she is FAR to the right of the mid-point of CA Democrats, and CA voters will accept far more progressive Democrats than her.  From a progressive perspective, it would be really really good if she retired as her replacement will almost certainly be much more progressive than her.

One thing you said is right.  She is more or less mainstream Democrat, which is another way of saying she is much more conservative and unprogressive than California Democrats.

[ Parent ]
I agree
That she probably doesn't have a lot of passionate supporters (ie activists) and that CA dems would support someone more progressive than her--hell, they already do: Boxer.  But neither of those things implies that she's far to the right of the median CA democratic voter.  Somewhat to the right?  Sure, and consistently, and as far as I can think she's never on the other side of the median CA dem.  (Possible exception: how was DOMA polling among CA dems at the time?)  I don't know what evidence there is that she's far to the right of the median CA democratic voter--on which issues?  I forgot about Supreme Court nominations and interrogation policy, I suppose those are possibilities, but I really would prefer a poll before I say for sure, since I don't want to assume how the CA dem population breaks down.  From those poll numbers I did cite I'd put her to the right of maybe 55% of the CA Democratic party--does that seem well-supported?  (To the limited extent that it makes sense to assume voter ideology at all).

25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)
[ Parent ]
people know her positions because she has run so many times
and each time she releases ads talking about fundamental Democratic core values such as being pro-education, pro-environment, for choice, protecting SS and Medicare, growing the economy, sensible gun safety measures, etc. These are core issues that continues to resonate with CA Democratic voters and she is well in the mainstream of Democratic voters. Do some in the party want to pull the party to the left on certain issues talking about single payer or legalizing pot or whatever. But on the core, fundamental Democratic issues she has been with the vast majority of CA Democrats and CA voters in general. You cannot win that many elections comfortably and without outside help by being out of step.      
[ Parent ]
Of course you can
And you just even said why.  She is in the mainstream of CA voters in general, which includes the left 50% of the independants and Republicans.

She is a CA moderate, a bit left of center for the state, which makes her significantly right of center in the CA Dem party.  I don't see how you can possibly resist that.  There are millions of members of the california Democratic party center.  That is the whole point of being the "center".  In general all but the right 5% of these of the CA Dems support "Democratic core values", so that is saying nothing at all.

She is a big government corporatist.  She'll support some health care reform, but she won't want to disturb the status quo of how big insurance companies do business, etc.  That is her flavoring on almost all issues, and has been since she was the second most conservative member of the SF Board of Supes.

She'd be a fine Senator from Nebraska or Indiana.  We can elect far, far better in CA.

[ Parent ]
you can continue to say that and believe that but the fact is
she just introduced  legislation calling for the HHS Sec. to review and regulate  insurance premium rate hikes and deny them if deemed excessive, etc.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/pu...

You may not like how she accomplishes things but she has passed significant legislation on the environment, gun safety, health, national security.

The fact is Democrats in the state continue to renominate her and the entire electorate continues to reelect her. Far better? That is of course your opinion. She has been a great Senator and I would take Senator Feinstein over someone like Kamala Harris, someone who will require millions of dollars to prop up and who will essentially vote the same way on 90-95% of the issues.  


[ Parent ]
Typical Feinstein band-aid thinking
Save the status quo.  Pathetic.

The chasm between Feinstein and Harris is enormous, but Harris shows how much further CA residents will go than DiFi.

I'd rather have progressive government whatever it costs to elect someone, but your assertions fail to hold water.  Boxer easily won reelection.  Someone with politics somewhat to the left of her and more personal charm could win by even more.  We don't need DiFi to hold this seat for a sensible expense.

[ Parent ]
that is your problem
"whatever it costs to elect someone." This isn't monopoly money. We both are typing away in front of the computer like armchair generals but the fact is people have to raise the money. People have to enter races and people have to make choices about where resources are needed. It is great Boxer won but it took millions and outside help from Obama on down to win.  It will take millions of dollars to prop someone as politically damaged as Harris. Yes, it would great to spend millions on every race but that isn't the real world. What you "rather" doesn't matter because Feinstein isn't going anywhere until she wants to.  
[ Parent ]
Polling
suggests she would have won a blowout against Brown and Newsom. I think she would beat a challenger with no trouble at all. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about her but obviously she has made a good impression on Californians.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
As for the GOP,
would it surprise anyone if Tom McClintock jumped in the race? Granted he only would if he was either a) out of a district, or b) in a D+ district. However, he seems to always be looking for higher office, running for Governor, Lt. Gov, and Controller twice, twice only losing by .4-2.3 percent He wouldn't have a chance against Dianne Feinstein, but I'm wondering if his ego is big enough.

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10
[ Parent ]
I think
he'll stay in the house. He's lost one too many elections statewide plus I believe Boehner gave him a subcommittee chairmanship where he can rail against global warming and what not. Its not a coincidence that McClintock had a change of heart when it came to term limits earlier this year.

"Of all the mistakes I've made in public life, the one I regret most is advocating for term limits for the Legislature," said Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay, a leading conservative figure in California who was one of a small number of incumbent legislators who backed the term limits measure two decades ago. "It has harmed the institution badly."

http://www.mercurynews.com/pol...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
But what if his district
disappears, or he is somehow thrown into a district that is D+, or is thrown in the same district as Dan Lungren?

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10
[ Parent ]
He'll have a district to run in
It will become more compact, but still winnable.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
That's the only way he runs
A Dem district could appear in the northeast, encouraging Lundgen to run in the same district, and Lungren would thrash him in a primary.

Chances of such a configuration are less than 50%, but it is definitely possible.

[ Parent ]
Probably pretty true, I thought of that scenario as well.
Dan Lungren struck me as the smartest person in terms of pure intelligence on the Hill, and is pretty well respected by a whole lot of people. He's also very articulate, and I agree both qualities would help him absolutely thrash McClintock. Word on the street is that if a Republican wins in 2012, Lungren will push very hard for the AG job that he's desired for decades. While I'd like to avoid seeing this play out as a Republican, a McClintock vs. Lungren primary would be pretty amazing to watch unfold.

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10
[ Parent ]
He also ran statewide
in bad years for California Democrats, 1994 (obviously), 2002 (very ugly primary and very unpopular incumbent governor that still won reelection anyway), and 2006 (great almost everywhere else but not so much in California due to another ugly gubernatorial primary).

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
About Grey Davis
Why was he so unpopular going into the 2002 election?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Dot
com bubble burst by 2002 and Davis had to do some really unpopular things to keep the budget balanced. Plus the whole extortion scheme by Enron was happening at the same time. Davis did what Harry Reid did this year, made sure the most far right opponent got out of the GOP primary and vaporized him. But on the flip side turnout was dramatically lower because most people didn't want to vote for Simon or Davis. Which had the unforeseen consequence of lower the # of signatures needed to get a certain recall on the ballot.... Darrell Issa got involved here too, but that's a story for another time and another thread.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
don't forget
the power outages! boy, will that be a part of my childhood

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)
[ Parent ]
Davis failings were also in part similar to Arnold's
VERY high hopes, followed by great disappointment.
[ Parent ]
Don't forget the new top two primary
That will complicate any attempt to "coffee filter" Feinstein as she could attract Republican and indie crossover votes.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
Mentioned in the other thread about Issa's greater unfavorability than even Poizner
But one thing really stands out looking at the numbers together... all the GOP manage to fall between 33 and 37%... except Arnold who collapses to 25%, eight points less than Issa, which means Arnold loses 1/4 of the people who would support the least popular other GOP choice.   Brrrrrrrrrr.

And to beat the dead horse, I wish they would have not just sampled DeVore, but sampled any Dem instead of Feinstein, and any Dem against Feinstein and one or two Republicans inthe jungle primary setting.  

I'm a bit surprised Ahnold did that well.
A miserable failure for seven years. Then descended into total douchebaggery on his way out the door. http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...
[ Parent ]
I would like to see someone more

Like Mary Bono Mack. But still it is interesting to see polls like this.

This week we have a lot of states polled by PPP. Some reason for it?

SC
AZ
NE
SD
CA
someone more?

Maybe they want to preempt Rassy.
I'd much rather PPP polls be prolific then let Rasmussen set the narrative with regards to elections.  
[ Parent ]
Carly Fiorina
I really hope she runs again

Carly:  "I was a CEO of HP!"
Voter:  "Umm.... HP as in Hewlett-Packard?"
Carly:  hangs head in shame "yes...."

California has reached a point where it doesn't matter who runs for Team Red......
No Republican who can survive a primary is electable.  The state GOP rank-and-file remain in denial about this and won't compromise on who they nominate.  They're going to have to learn to swallow hard and accept nominees who are culturally and environmentally liberal.  I bet someone who is both of those but also anti-tax and anti-regulation (except on the environment) could eek out a win.  But the CA GOP is no different from the rest of the country, pretending their state can elect conservatives.  Democrats are much better at this, quickly able in most states to accept who can win.  Not only have Republicans been worse at this through my lifetime, but they're actually going in the wrong direction.

California is the harbinger.  And conservatives remain in denial nationwide about this.  Their good midterm last year doesn't help them come to terms with reality.  I remain convinced that a generation from now, Republicans will find themselves unable to win the Presidency.  They'll have to be in bad shape for a generation before coming around.

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

[ Parent ]
Your first two lines--
"No Republican who can survive a primary is electable.  The state GOP rank-and-file remain in denial about this and won't compromise on who they nominate."--sum up why, like you, I am more confident for the Democrats in the long term. We can win in red states, even the ones that aren't turning purple, if we devote the necessary resources and don't face terrible fundamentals, while the Republicans look to be locked out of some states barring something unusual because they refuse to compromise, even a little.  

"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 suggest both of you read Perminantely Blue by Dylan Loewe
Permanently Blue pretty much outlines why dems will likely be the dominant political party for quite a while.  He goes in depth about the republican presidential primary process, and how they will need to make a hard choice about their party.  It's whether to take the long view, and moderate enough to become/remain politically relevant with minorities, much to the chagrin of that party's base, or to be short sighted, and keep appeasing their base (Spoiler Alert: They don't tend to ever take the long view)

The begging is a little rough around the edges, but the main material in the book is pretty good, and even divulged some info I didn't know about (like how dems need to maintain strong congressional majorities mid-decade to implement sampling into the census to make sure everyone is counted, which of course helps democrats).

It will be interesting to see how politics unfolds in the next couple elections.  No better time to be alive

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

[ Parent ]
Hmm
to implement sampling into the census

I thought the Supreme Court said this was unconstitutional.

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure if he is using sampling the way you think he is
He explains it as the Census Bureau doing the initial Census, and after they complete that, they do a statistical sampling of ~400,000 people to produce an accurate result.

Again, I'm not census history expert, but I would guess if anythig was ruled unconstitutional, it would be because they wanted to use pure sampling, not doing the traditional census, then incorporating sampling data.

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

[ Parent ]
I think RRH is taking an honest look at this
at least so far,

Republicans have no choice but to engage Hispanic voters. It's simple math, and there are plenty of people within their ranks, including Rick Perry, who recognize this. The challenge for them, as has been much discussed, is how to keep their current supporters happy - which mostly means how to avoid getting primaried - without burning bridges for generations.

I'm not sure about Rick Perry, but that's the essence of the R conundurm. More bottom line:

As Blase, founder of Somos Republicans, puts it, "If GOPers continue with the anti-immigrant sentiments, we will not gain the presidency in 2012".

[ Parent ]
I read
a little of that book, but decided not to purchase it because I felt I got a lot from it just by skimming. I guess I should take another look.

Anyway, I wonder if they have to hit a really low bottom before they rebound fully. (In five or ten years, I mean. Current events may give them an artificial high for a few cycles.) I'm slightly more confident in their chances because a lot of Democratic areas seem to be more willing to take a chance on Republicans, even conservative ones, than Republican areas are willing to take a chance on Democrats. It'd be a difficult needle to thread, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a conservative Republican elected Governor of New York if the party got a little bit lucky.  They need to be more small government rather than anti-government or for government and corporations. The problem is, they seem to be fiercely anti-government, and I am not sure how they will ever win with that. Some areas of the country will certainly respond, but not a lot of them, and almost  certainly not the growing ones.  

"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 Picked it up just because it was $14 at borders, and I had a gift card
It honestly wasn't an OMG I NEVAR KNEW THIS!! Type of book, but it does crunch a lot of numbers.  One note of advice, he predicted the 2010 elections incorrectly (large losses, but maintain majorities), but smartly stated that 2010 doesn't really matter in the long run due to the people who wouldn't come out to vote vs. who would.

It's an interesting read, especially for the SSP crowd.

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

[ Parent ]
as has been pointed out before
due to CA's new system it's easier for a sane Republican to get through the primary.

However even Tom Campbell probably couldn't win statewide nowadays. If we're talking about next year's senate race specifically, he already lost to DiFi 12 years ago. If he couldn't win then, he can't win in a presidential year where Obama is likely to outperform Gore and after the CA Republican Party hit an iceberg and is slowly sinking.

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 ]
CA-Sen: Move Along, Nothing to See Here | 66 comments

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

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox