Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 9/25 (305 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd say he should've sat down a while ago... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem

    He made his point, now let's move on.

    21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Pedagogy. Not your typical DKE junkie!

    by aggou on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 07:00:02 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's more about Ted Cruz (16+ / 0-)

      running for President than anything else.

      •  It's all about him (18+ / 0-)

        raising money and getting names on a mailing list. His talking for 20 hours isn't slowing down or stopping anything. At all. It's all for show. He knows it, the GOP knows it, the media knows it, everybody knows it except his rubes. That's who he's talking to.

      •  I say let him. (15+ / 0-)

        There are few Republicans In would rather face on a general election than Ted Cruz. Some of the birthers won't vote for him, and his extreme positions will alienate nearly every squishy suburban voter in the country. He would get eaten alive in a debate against Clinton.

        I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

        by OGGoldy on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 07:19:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (6+ / 0-)

          Dems need to do everything they can to get Cruz in the primaries.  Heck Holder should petition the Supreme Court now to get a ruling on his eligibility just so he can't use that as an excuse to not run.

          And then a Draft Palin for VP movement and you have the recipe for taking back the house.

          "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

          by rdw72777 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 07:23:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If Cruz is the Republican nominee (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bjssp, libertyjusticemercy

          I think we'd be looking at a 45 state sweep for the Dems. Likely everything outside of Texas and the deep South.

          •  Even Wyoming? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            libertyjusticemercy

            How amusing that even in our likely best scenario, we STILL don't get Texas, right? ;]

            But yeah, he'd be a disaster for them. It'd the sort of scenario where Republicans could drop all over the country because turnout would be down, Democratic enthusiasm would be sky high, both as a result of Cruz and because it'd be obvious we were going to crush it, and because we'd have all the resources we needed to win.

            "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

            by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 07:36:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Unlikely, even assuming it's Clinton/Cruz (3+ / 0-)

            and the 2016 environment is quite favorable to Dems with a decent economy and Obama popular I think this is likely our ceiling:
             photo Clinton-Cruz2016_zpsac185ea8.png

            And that's with Clinton winning by like 12-15%.

            •  I would expect Kentucky to go before Kansas (16+ / 0-)

              "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

              by conspiracy on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 07:47:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think Clinton is more likely to win (11+ / 0-)

              West Virginia against Cruz than South Carolina.

              •  Perhaps more to the point (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                libertyjusticemercy, DCCyclone

                "Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever?"

                http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

                "As a conservative here is what I know: The GOP’s 2016 presidential nominee will be more conservative than ever, and have a heck of a time winning the Electoral College."

                "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

                by conspiracy on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 07:53:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Her math is exactly how I see it (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WisJohn, JBraden, stevenaxelrod

                  I always was struck all last year how every pundit's ratings of the states in the Presidential always put at least 236, or 246 with Wisconsin, in the Obama column up front.  Some of those were "lean" instead of "likely" or "safe," but still we were conceded an advantage in them.  And Romney was always below 200.  That this was in what was supposed to be a "very close" election was striking.

                  That's why I regard it highly likely that Obama begins a long stretch of Democratic Presidencies.  Sure there's a chance of the GOP preventing that, I can picture Chris Christie actually winning the GOP nod and making us sweat up through election night and maybe even winning if our nominee runs a bad campaign.  But I think a GOP win is highly unlikely.

                  45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                  by DCCyclone on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:31:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Unless they try to do an EC rigging scheme (0+ / 0-)

                  like they contemplated early this year. Any actual attempt at that will blow up in their faces. Which will be rightly deserved.  

                  NY-9/NJ-10; Russians can give you arms but only the United States can give you a solution. -- Anwar Sadat

                  by BKGyptian89 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:42:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

                  Walker could pick up Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and possibly Colorado.

                  You don't fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting. -President Andrew Sheppard (D-Wisconsin)

                  by Gpack3 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 12:40:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Doubtful, I think the realignment there over coal (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                libertyjusticemercy, DCCyclone

                is permanent. I don't think she'd get 35%, but winning a majority there would seem impossible with Cruz being the anti-climate warrior he is.

                •  Normally, I'd say you might be right, (5+ / 0-)

                  but in a situation where states such as NC, VA, and OH start out as Likely D, who knows? If nothing else, she'll have the time and resources to contest a state like West Virginia if she wants to do so.

                  "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

                  by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 07:59:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah (9+ / 0-)

                    I think Kansas never falls to Clinton. The idea that it does is whacko bird. Kentucky and West Virginia probably don't either, but they're much more likely than Kansas.

                    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                    by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:03:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Although why wouldn't try for Clinton for KS? (0+ / 0-)

                      Seriously, if you are winning the Midwest, the New South, the Southwest, and all of the usual blue states, what's left?

                      Give HRC all of the Obama 2012 states, plus AZ, NC, MO, GA, IN, and MT. Excluding TX, that's 17 states, assuming you don't think she'd fairly easily win AR or LA. If you think she'd spend on average $10 million in each state, that's only $170 million. Considering we already win the most expensive states and wouldn't have to spend as much in the others, like FL, that seems well within reach. That's not to say it's the best course of action, only that it is quite possible if she wants it to be against someone like Cruz.

                      "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

                      by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:18:37 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Because I don't think Clinton could win (6+ / 0-)

                        Kansas even if she tried, whereas if she did try she could maybe win Kentucky or West Virginia. Kansas is one of those states that is as reflexively anti-Democratic as they come.

                        I'll remind you that Kansas has been one of the most - if not the most - consistently and strongly Republican states in the entire country. There has never, ever been a time where the Democratic party was the dominant party here, which cannot be said of, I think, any other state (including, fwiw, Utah).

                        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                        by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:23:21 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I know that, but the point I'm (0+ / 0-)

                          making is that there's probably not a lot to lose by doing so. In a situation where she's up against Cruz and it's clear she'll basically win no matter what, she'll have all the money she needs from the outset. She couldn't completely ignore the usual states, but she probably wouldn't have to fight for them like Obama did. This frees up time and resources to play around to some degree. Given that all of the remaining states except for Texas are cheap, she could probably be aggressive if she wanted to be.

                          "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

                          by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:26:40 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  There is, in fact, a lot to lose (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            James Allen, jncca, BeloitDem

                            All campaigning has opportunity costs, the time and money spent in one state takes away from others.

                            Hillary won't contest Kansas unless a blowout win is obvious and states like Georgia and Texas are already secured.  And that can't happen unless the GOP not only nominates someone like Cruz or Paul or even worse, but also the GOP nominee runs a campaign that makes McGovern '72 look good in comparison.

                            45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                            by DCCyclone on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think you misunderstand me, DCC. (0+ / 0-)

                            HRC against Cruz was the obvious hypothetical, I thought, as were all of the other conditions, or something similar. It's not that I expect this to happen, only that a certain set of circumstances makes it possible, at least in theory.

                            As I said, it's not as if we can devote no resources or time at all to standard swing states. But if we are starting out with a state like OH or FL being Lean D, at worst, to say nothing of PA, that frees up time and resources.

                            There are obvious candidates for any Democrat in a situation like the one we're describing. Certainly, GA or AZ would be a better target than some deep red state. But aside from TX, there's no state that is a big money pit. Even GA, which can't be cheap, doesn't qualify. And aside from TX, GA, and perhaps AZ or KY, what's left? ID? KS? ND and SD? Anything that's left is small and cheap to campaign in.

                            You probably don't need to spend $10 million in most of the deep red states to compete effectively. That's why I used an average.

                            There are, as you indicate, opportunity costs to this possible strategy. I thought I indicated as much. I just think they aren't as extreme as you imagine. Basically, what I am saying is, if competing in FL usually costs $40 million, we could probably drop that down to $35 million, and there we have the money to compete in, say, MS.

                            I also think the money advantage could be incredible, as I indicated above. Against someone like Cruz, it'd be ridiculous, because not only would HRC be HRC, but she'd be against Cruz. The only problem I see her having is if it looks so obvious she'll win, people feel as if there's no point in giving more. But she'll still have plenty--certainly enough to compete in the Obama states plus a few others, but also, I suspect, to compete in at least a few of the usual red states.

                            And on that note, she doesn't need to complete in all 50 states to be unusually aggressive. All of the 2016 Obama states, in this hypothetical, plus NC, AZ, GA, and MO, would be 30. She could be less aggressive than I suggest above and target all of those, plus, say, SC, AK, MS, KY, ND, and SD, and probably not come close to breaking the bank. That still leaves 14 states, including TX, ignored.

                            "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

                            by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 10:49:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Idaho (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Gygaxian

                          Other than Frank Church, there had never been a dominant Democratic force in Idaho.

                          I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

                          by OGGoldy on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:32:23 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope (6+ / 0-)

                            Between the depression and the early 40s the state was utterly dominated by Democrats.

                            Their state house, at one time, was 59D-4R and the state senate 35D-9R.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                            by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:35:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Between the depression (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wwmiv

                            and the early 40s" was a brief time, less than a decade.  Idaho's New Deal domination in the 1930s was an aberration from the Republican norm, as it reverted fairly quickly.  Still, it was likely a useful interlude of reform.

                            Interesting how, according to the chart, the state senate there has had the exact same 28R-7D balance for the last decade (and that is an improvement from the late 90s/early 2000s.)

                            38, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

                            by Mike in MD on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:50:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                            But despite it being short, it still existed. You can't even claim any time period whatsoever for Kansas. Ever.

                            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                            by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:54:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Going further (0+ / 0-)

                            We held all statewide offices for most of the time period going until the late 40s, while having almost parity in the state legislature. We were doing pretty damn well there.

                            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                            by wwmiv on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:56:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OTOH, hasn't Kansas had a tradition (0+ / 0-)

                            of very moderate Republicanism?

                            Wikipedia is telling me this:

                            The Kansas Democratic Party has not been able to send a U.S. Senator to Washington since 1939, a record currently unmatched by any state party in America, Republican or Democratic. Kansas Democrats haven't controlled the Kansas Senate since 1917, the only period in which Democrats have ever held a majority in the upper house, and the Democrats have had only three non-consecutive two-year periods of majority control in the Kansas House of Representatives, the last being in 1991
                            Wow...

                            "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

                            by bjssp on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 09:00:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Kansas had a Democratic Governor (0+ / 0-)

                          as recently as 2011. So "reflexively anti-Democratic" is a bit of an exaggeration.

                          25, Practical Progressive Democratic Socialist (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie!

                          by HoosierD42 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:40:52 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  PPP WV poll (0+ / 0-)

                Possibly - though in the new PPP poll of WV she trails Cruz (and all other Republicans).

                •  Clinton could beat Cruz based on today's numbers (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WisJohn

                  Cruz is ahead 44/41... but at this point Cruz is a generic Republican to half the voters.  She could easily turn 2% of the voters based on Cruz's no doubt lunatic campaign.

                  Of course she may suck campaigning too, but WV, SC, KS, KY would loom as the swing states.

                  Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

                  by tommypaine on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 12:49:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  no way KS goes blue (4+ / 0-)

              otherwise, I agree with the ceiling.

            •  Hard to say (4+ / 0-)

              My gut tells me Clinton would have an easier time bring back WV and KY than flipping KS and SC, as others have mentioned.  But the realignment may be more permanent than we realize.  Either way, I love the idea of an election where WV, KY, KS, and SC are the swing states.  Florida would probably be like a 10 point blowout in that scenario for us.

              •  Just to clarify to everyone (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Skaje

                the map I posted was her ceiling period. Under any circumstances, including a 18 point blowout over Barry Goldwater II Ted Cruz.

                I don't think she'll come remotely close to Kansas, just that I think the issue of coal prevents us from winning West Virginia or Kentucky under any circumstances. South Carolina and Kansas would probably be the very hardest states to win out of the ones I colored blue.

                If I had to guess an actual map, I would probably color Kansas, South Carolina, Louisiana, the Dakotas, and probably Arkansas red even against Cruz since I think it would take some serious implosion and abandonment by Republicans for him to lose by more than 10. Texas would only go blue if we get some pretty massive investment by team Clinton, but I wouldn't say it's out of the question if he's losing by 10 even though that drops it from R+10 to R+5 at minimum.

            •  If Hillary can get SC she can get MS, maybe AL too (0+ / 0-)

              I also like our chances in Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia in this scenario.

              You don't fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting. -President Andrew Sheppard (D-Wisconsin)

              by Gpack3 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 12:23:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  You expect consistency from birthers? (12+ / 0-)

          The idea that Barack Obama isn't eligible to be President is an insane conspiracy theory. Why would they create a conspiracy theory about one of their own?

          There are very few people who will openly cop to racism in America today, most racists these days subscribe to tokenism by supporting minorities who are loudly and obnoxiously saying things they agree with to convince themselves and others that they're not racist and to draw a contrast to the "bad" minorities. Ted Cruz is as loud and obnoxious as they come.

      •  Also (4+ / 0-)

        he was probably shamed into doing this by the Republicans in the House.

        The Republican party is now an extreme right-wing party that is owned by their billionaire campaign contributors. - Bernie Sanders

        by ehstronghold on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:11:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site