Skip to main content

Yesterday, Kos posted a list of 31 Democratic Senators confirmed to be voting against Alito, and three so-called Dems who are voting in favor.  Here is the list of 11 Democrats who are not on the list and can hence be considered undecided and must be encouraged to vote no.

Bayh, Evan- (D - IN)

Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA)

Conrad, Kent- (D - ND) -- Conrad announced today that he will not support a filibuster

Dayton, Mark- (D - MN) -- Dayton announced today that he will vote "No" on Alito

Dorgan, Byron L.- (D - ND)

Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA) -- Landrieu has announced that she will not support a filibuster

Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)

Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ) (No web site)

Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR) -- Mark Pryor has announced a "No vote against Alito but that he will not support a filibuster against him

Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)

Sarbanes, Paul S.- (D - MD) -- Sarbanes announced yesterday that he would vote "No" on Alito


I will contact these undecided Democratic Senators and:

4%1 votes
42%9 votes
52%11 votes

| 21 votes | Vote | Results

Bush did 6 points worse in this Calfornia district than in Paul Hackett's Ohio district.  But, apparently, no Dems have entered yet.  This looks like a perfect opportunity to capitalize on both Bush's and Gov. Schwarzenegger's unpopularity in California.  We need to find another Paul Hackett for this race immediately.

From today's Rollcall:

The House resignation last week of newly confirmed Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox kicked the race to succeed him in California's 48th district into overdrive, as the two top GOP candidates each basked in high-profile endorsements.

Cox's departure from Congress last Tuesday started the clock for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to schedule a special election. Under state law, Schwarzenegger has 14 days to set the date, making it likely that the primary will take place some time in October and the runoff election in December.


Should Kossacks find and fund a Democratic candidate in the special election to replace Chris Cox?

92%197 votes
2%5 votes
4%10 votes

| 212 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading
From Today's Rollcall (subscription only):

Warner Edges Allen in Virginia Independent Survey

July 28, 2005

A new Mason-Dixon poll conducted for the Richmond Times-Dispatch and other media outlets showed Gov. Mark Warner (D) leading Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) by a 47 percent to 42 percent margin in a hypothetical 2006 Senate matchup.

The survey was taken July 19-21 and polled 625 likely voters. It had a 4 percent margin of error.

Among independent voters, the poll also showed Warner with a significant lead among independent voters tested, 53 percent to 34 percent.

Warner had a 56 percent to 14 percent favorable/unfavorable rating, while Allen had 51 percent to 23 percent. Warner is in his final year as governor and appears more interested in exploring a presidential bid than in taking on Allen, who served as governor from 1993 to 1997.

Former Lt. Gov. Don Beyer is the only other Democrat that has been mentioned as potential challenger to Allen.

This looks like a real (and rare) opportunity for Democrats to pick up a Senate seat in 2006.


Do you think Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA) should run for U.S. Senate or U.S. President?

86%88 votes
9%10 votes
3%4 votes

| 102 votes | Vote | Results

General Summary of Plan:

Imagine that some state wants to create some government program at the state level (We call this state the "donor state" for reasons you see later).  The federal government itself won't do that program nationwide because it can't afford it in Bush's 2nd term.

This "donor state" that wants to create the program at the state level is unwilling to raise the necessary state taxes needed to to fund it, because people and businesses seeking to avoid extra taxation will move out to neighboring states, thereby partially frustrating the effort to raise revenue.

The solution to this is that the donor state agrees with neighboring states to raise taxes by the same amount (We'll call these neighboring states "recipient states" for reasons we'll see in a moment).

Since these neighboring "recipient states" and the donor state all raise their taxes by the same amount, there are fewer attractive lower-tax places for people and businesses to go, so fewer people and businesses move out of the donor state under this higher taxation.

Continue Reading
If this business about 'values' causing our 2004 defeat is true, it appears that a large group of people in this country decided to vote based on things that they see on TV, which don't affect their own lives and which are none of their business.

The economy surely affects everyone's lives, healthcare surely affects almost everyone's lives, the Iraq War affects many people's lives since their children or friends' children are dying or being mamed in Iraq and are in danger of being drafted.  Terrorism affect the lives of those living in or visiting a large city.  But 'values' (or 'moral values' as TNR now says) appears to have topped these in importance and brought John Kerry to defeat in 2004.

When people talk about voting on 'values' they mean gay marriage, abortion rights (including stem cell research), and some phony image of the president 'having strong faith' religiously.

Continue Reading

Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:37 AM PST

DeLong's take on Disaster 2004

by bobbypelgrift

Brad DeLong has a good post on our defeat


Josh Marshall's even better

I agree with Brad DeLong.  The problem isn't the Democrats' message.  I think the uphill battle really happens when you are running against an incumbent president who has come immediately after a president from the other party.  In the 20th Century, the only president whose predecessor was of a different party to lose reelection was Jimmy Carter, who lost under exceptionally poor economic and foreign policy circumstances.

I think it's correct that Bush is thoroughly incompetant. But that was offset by the fact that we have a television media, which is anti-Democratic and pro-Bush.  There were three pro-Bush-biased media events which, I think, sealed the election for Bush:

Continue Reading
I really think there are three pivotal states in this election: Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. Whoever wins two out of these three wins the Presidency.

Here's my reasoning (only my opinions -- feel free to disagree): Bush will pick up Iowa and New Mexico and win all of the 2000 Red States, except New Hampshire which he will lose to Kerry, and Ohio and Florida which are uncertain. Kerry will definitely pick up New Hampshire and win all the 2000 Blue States, except Iowa and New Mexico which go to Bush, and Wisconsin which is uncertain.

From the above scenario, Kerry surely gets 242 electoral votes, and Bush surely gets 239 electoral votes. 270 electoral votes are required to win the Presidency. Therefore whoever wins any two out of these three states wins the presidency: Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Ohio (20 electoral votes), and Florida (27 electoral votes)*

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

Click here for the mobile view of the site