MA-05: Tsongas wins

Dems win special election. Votes are still being counted, but it's been called by local media and the final tally is expected to be around 53-47.

Yeay us, except that this is a district that Kerry won 57-41 in 2004 meaning Tsongas underperformed her party (a 10-point swing toward the GOP). Bad candidate? Well, no one could be inspired by a machine-backed retread from the previous century running a low-energy campaign. Good candidate on their part? Perhaps, this Ogonowski character they ran seemed to run a smart race. The political environment? It's not as if Democrats are too excited with the performance of their leadership in Congress. The vagaries of a low-turnout special election? Perhaps -- it's how Democrats have been able to snag Republican-leaning seats the past few cycles, including two (in Kentucky and South Dakota) the year before they were blown out in 2004.

So read into this race as little or as much as you want. It probably doesn't mean much.

•  Congrats!

  Congrats to Tsongas.  

  for political commentary, visit:
  http://www.politidose.com/

  by josephpatrick on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 06:58:07 PM PDT

  •  Very low turnout in my precinct

    I voted late in the afternoon and not a single person from my street had voted yet.
    

    The towns in this district are pretty red for Massachusetts (rural with lots of farmers and seniors) so it's not surprising this was as close as it was given the grassroots campaign Ogonowski energized.
    
    I didn't hear a peep from Tsongas during the primary - her Dem opponents were all over town and did lots of mailings.
    
    I did get weekly (daily during the past week) postcards from Ogonowski, promoting his singular issue of promising to combat illegal immigration.
    
    One postcard had Tsongas' photo next to Bush's, saying they had the same position on illegal immigration. Seemed like a risky tactic.

    by greenies on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 10:08:46 PM PDT

•  ain't it grand!

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by aaraujo on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 06:59:12 PM PDT

  •  Maybe...But Here Is What I Fear....

    Ogonowski does not concede (he hasn't yet) and somehow challenges the result.

    This would possibly prevent the MA Secretary of State from certifying the election tomorrow, which would make it impossible for Tsongas to participate in the S-CHIP override vote this week.

    A bit unlikely, I know...but I would not doubt any sketchy little scenario as long as there are Bush-admiring GOPers involved....

    by Steve Singiser on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:15:35 PM PDT

    •  That's probably on his mind

      Is the race close enough to ask for a recount and prevent Niki from going to Washington.

      Remember, with Niki, Democrats have a full 233 seats for the first time since April.

      Republicans still have 2 vacant seats.

      by nrafter530 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:20:29 PM PDT

      •  I meant to say

        going to Washington right away...keep her swearing in from happening as long as possible and possibly keep her from voting for the SCHIP veto override

        by nrafter530 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:21:08 PM PDT

      •  The Race Is Not Close Enough....

        Six points, about 5000 votes (with 88% reporting).

        by Steve Singiser on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:21:12 PM PDT

        •  that woould be classless and would prompt

          a backlash, he ran a good race and will want to keep his reputation in tact. He's probably the best hope the GOP has in a statewide race.

          by nevadadem on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:26:13 PM PDT

    •  Even so, would Niki be sworn in so quickly?

      With the scheduling of this vote, I didn't think the winner would be able to participate.

      by Ralph Kramden on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:34:23 PM PDT

      •  She said a couple days ago

        that if the election could be certified quickly, she'd make a beeline for DC and make that her first vote.

        But so far, Ogonowski's not conceding.

        Typical.

        by bumblebums on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:40:27 PM PDT

        •  The election has been certified

          She'll be sworn in Thursday morning, in time to vote on the S-CHIP bill.

          by rox63 on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:20:15 AM PDT

    •  He conceded rather quickly.

      by homoaffectional on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:08:05 AM PDT

•  I think the citizenry of MA is

  generally distracted by game 4 anyway.

  by ablington on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:01:03 PM PDT

  •  Since Cleveland Just Made It 6-0....

    They'll be returning their focus to politics any minute now....

    :)

    (Well, maybe not. Maybe they'll turn their focus to the N.E. Patriots!!)

    by Steve Singiser on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:03:52 PM PDT

    •  Really?

      Oh well.

      by ablington on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:04:42 PM PDT

    •  Correction, 7-0 n/t

      by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:35:13 PM PDT

    •  The Rockies will be well-rested and waiting...n/t

      by Spoonfulofsugar on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:40:18 PM PDT

      •  Nauseating.

        I'm actually cheering on an NL team this year if the Indians go all the way... let's just say I'd rather vote Republican than cheer for Cleveland.

        I even preferred the YANKEES to Cleveland.

        by MNPundit on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 11:23:22 PM PDT

        •  Go right ahead

          & root for a team that oughta be called The Colorado Springs Rockies because their ownership & clubhouse atmosphere are  everything James Dobson could wish for in a professional baseball team.

          by DJ Rix on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:32:17 AM PDT

          •  Cleveland Indians

            Have the most horrendous mascot in Chief Wahoo
            Broke Joe Mauer's Knee
            Broke Justin Morneau's Hand
            Sabathia whines like a baby every single time he comes to the Dome

            As I said, GO ROCKIES!!

            by MNPundit on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 04:49:53 PM PDT

•  It's obviously evidence

  that House Democrats have to get really aggressive on Iraq. Not funding, of course.

  by andgarden on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:01:44 PM PDT

  •  I think its more of a mix

    of general voter laziness and Ogonowski being a motivating and sympathetic character to his base in one of the more conservative MA districts.

    by ablington on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:03:29 PM PDT

    •  You might be right

      But I prefer the political implications of my reading.

      by andgarden on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:04:40 PM PDT

      •  Actually...

        ...your reading might be correct, given that the GOP candidate actually ran by trying to make himself out as being more "anti-war" than Tsongas.

        Tsongas supports leaving a residual force behind in Iraq.  The Republican attacked her for that, saying that he favored a full withdrawl.

        by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:22:42 PM PDT

        •  ???

          Where's the link? As I understand things, the guy wasn't for withdrawal at all..."now that we are there" and all that junk.

          by lynne1 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:57:59 PM PDT

          •  Link

            http://www.politics1.com/

            It should be at or near the top of the page, under Tuesday News Update.

            by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:03:35 PM PDT

            •  I don't think that's actually correct

              I think I recall the hammering of Niki on the indefinite troops thing...but Ogo is not anti war. He's for some sort of indefinable "victory" to be achieved first.

              I think the thing against Niki was a sort of "well if you're for withdrawal, why do you want to leave some troops behind?" I think her answer was along the lines of, you would leave troops in the area (outside Iraq) ready to jump in on limited mission into Iraq if needed, but they would not be deployed there permanently.

              Ogo starts out talking about the war by saying, "I was against it at the start, BUT now that we are there..." Here's his policy on the vague "victory" thing.

              by lynne1 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:34:05 PM PDT

    •  The Democrats were lazy, the Republicans were not

      Higher turnout in Republican areas than Democratic.

      by Smallbottle on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:34:33 PM PDT

      •  disagree - see primary results below

        a lot of work went into this from both sides.  The Republicans got better turnout for the main election than for the primary, but Dems worked damn hard and people showed up for both elections.

        The real difference is what happened with the Republicans - honestly, 13,000 total Republican voters in the primary, for the whole district?  that's beyond pathetic.

        by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:52:48 PM PDT

        •  All the reports said lite turnout in Lowell, etc.

          compared to Republican areas.

          I just go by the news. I wasn't there.

          by Smallbottle on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:57:54 PM PDT

          •  lite compared to presidential, but pretty good nt

            by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:32:38 PM PDT

        •  unenrolleds

          outnumber us all (Dems and Repubs). If I recall.

          The Republican party barely exists in MA. All the Repubs are in the Dem party. ~sigh~

          by lynne1 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:59:15 PM PDT

          •  right - something like 38% U n/t

            by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:30:56 PM PDT

        •  There are still 13,000 Republican voters...

          ... left in the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts, let alone that district alone?  Now that's what's surprising.

          by homoaffectional on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:17:23 AM PDT

  •  No,No,No-You're Reading it all wrong

    It means we must be bipartisan (as in George and the 'publickens tell us what the compromise is) and for God's sake we must keep all that powder dry!

    by dehrha02 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:07:50 PM PDT

    •  Keeping the powder dry

      did win the last election and appears to have won this election.

      by givemhellHarryR on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:16:37 PM PDT

  •  I don't think so

    From what I saw it was more a result of Tsongas running a crappy campaign than anything. Also I've read that this is the most Republican-friendly of the districts in Massachusetts, which means it is still Democratic-leaning, but not overwhelmingly so.

    by oceanstar17 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:26:34 PM PDT

•  Weird.

  I'd forgotten completely about this election, then tonight, I was going through a stack of old political books and ran into "A Call to Economic Arms" that Paul T. had signed in 91.  Synchronicity's freaky stuff.

  by Crashing Vor on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:03:11 PM PDT

  •  Was that the one Clinton used against him in Fla?

    I never got over that.

    by Bush Bites on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:00:50 PM PDT

    •  One reason of Bill was so successful

      was that he could kill without shouting like the Republicans.  

      by Crashing Vor on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:15:20 PM PDT

  •  Wow.

    I have two signed copies of his last book.

    Interesting note: it was Paul who was the first Democrat elected in that district in 100 years, when he won it in 1974.

    by Fonsia on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 10:42:32 PM PDT

•  I don't buy this part. . .

  The political environment? It's not as if Democrats are too excited with the performance of their leadership in Congress.

  Especially in that neck of the woods, all politics is local.  It sounds like, policy and morality aside, they had a better candidate than we did.  The fact that we won anyway (even if it was too close) is why it's called a safe seat.

  I just wish it were a wee bit safer.

  by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:03:55 PM PDT

  •  Also, Don't Forget....

    That national Republicans had a lot more invested in this race than national Democrats.

    I am not just talking about money here (although that factors in), but the GOP was counting on the upset. Right now, it is 51-45. That is a wider margin of victory than Bilbray vs. Busby, which was seen as a reprieve for the GOP.

    by Steve Singiser on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:05:54 PM PDT

    •  Wish I could remember where I read it....

      ....but I do remember seeing an article on some MSM site recently that made it sound like the Repub was going to take it.

      Frankly, I bought the spin and had already written off the district.

      So, there ya go.

      by Bush Bites on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:10:44 PM PDT

      •  Now I remember! I saw it on "Republico"

        http://www.politico.com/...

        LOL.

        by Bush Bites on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:13:38 PM PDT

    •  That race was pathetic

      Some people are just idiots and will vote for anyone with an R next to their name.  I still think that district could be in our column.

      by SoCalLiberal on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 11:25:07 PM PDT

    •  that's dead wrong...

      from my understanding, the RNCC send no money to the Ogonowski campaign, only a manager.

      In any event, Niki outspent Ogonowski by about 2:1.

      The NRCC is spinning it as a referendum on taking advantage of Congress' poor approvals. See that here.

      by papicek on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:08:58 AM PDT

  •  They had a more

    intriguing candidate, anyway.

    by ablington on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:06:16 PM PDT

    •  I don't know a lot about the race. . .

      just what I've read here.  But it sounds like he both had a better story (his brother was one of the 9/11 pilots, right? -- against a "dynastic" inheritance that everyone here hates so much) and also was a better campaigner -- more energetic, better spoken, etc.

      by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:08:12 PM PDT

      •  Although he sucked at the debates

        by ablington on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:08:50 PM PDT

      •  Not really

        He was good at riling up the base according to the normal Repub Washington playbook - he got real anti-immigrant at the end. Said he didn't like the SCHIP bill cuz oogity boogity illegal kids could get it...of course, he's full of shit, besides NOT saying how he'd vote on the override if given the chance...instead, he'd say "I want to redo the bill all over again." Okaaaaay...

        by lynne1 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:01:19 PM PDT

  •  Fair enough...

    ...but the GOP candidate ran strongly against the Iraq War.  To the point where he tried to portray himself as being more anti-war than Tsongas.

    Tsongas favors leaving a small resdidual force behind in Iraq, whereas the GOP candidate ran on a platform of full withdrawl.  He attacked Tsongas for backing the idea of leaving even a small force behind.

    I'm sure a lot of factors came to play in making this election so narrow.  But, what we ought to do when discussing it is bring up as often as possible the fact that the Republican ran against his own party on Iraq, and frame this as "proving" that supporting the Iraq War will be a drag for congressional candidates.

    by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      ...but the GOP candidate ran strongly against the Iraq War.  To the point where he tried to portray himself as being more anti-war than Tsongas.

      ...
      But, what we ought to do when discussing it is bring up as often as possible the fact that the Republican ran against his own party on Iraq, and frame this as "proving" that supporting the Iraq War will be a drag for congressional candidates.

      I wish I could use that whole message as a sig line, in 72-point type. Maybe reverse blinking video, too.

      by Smallbottle on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:33:20 PM PDT

      •  There's a catch

        Source

        Regarding his Democratic and Republican rivals making promises and plans for the removal of troops now, Ogonowski said any immediate withdrawal would be foolish and shortsighted.

        "I’ve got a lot of friends over there. They’re in the front lines," he said. Even still, Ogonowski said if troops departed from Iraq today, they would only return within a few years to stabilize a worse military situation.

        From an operations standpoint, if American soldiers came home tomorrow, it would still take three months to retrieve the aircraft and tanks, he said. In the meantime, the machinery would be left in the wrong hands.

        Among other reasons not to leave, said Ogonowski, Iraq’s closest neighbors are enemies and a coalition of the region’s countries is necessary. Also, he believes the United States needs to work with the Iraqi people. Victory will be declared when the Iraqi government is capable of providing citizens with safety and security.

        So the biggest difference between Ogonowski and Bush on Iraq.

        Ogonowski says now that it was a mistake. But he's willing to buy the pottery barn and open a few new ones.

        by RBH on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:40:44 PM PDT

        •  Fair enough...

          ...though I should note that most Republicans wouldn't let things like "facts" get in the way of good spin.  ;-)

          by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:43:04 PM PDT

•  Blue is good

  I'm waiting for the 2008 map to come out after the elections to see how much different it is from 2004

  BLUE

  by eeff on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:04:18 PM PDT

•  I don't suppose

  anyone did any exit polling, did they?  I'd be curious to know whether democratic voters were generally upset or frustrated with Congress.

  by pontificator on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:05:38 PM PDT

  •  Doubt it.

    On both counts.

    by ablington on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:06:56 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      Too small an election for anyone to pay for exit polling.  And I doubt voters were focusing on national leaders as opposed to the candidates themselves.

      by pontificator on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:21:47 PM PDT

      •  I think a LOT of people paid attn. to natl. level

        Turnout at least in my town was high, and very high numbers voting for the Republican, much more so than I'd have expected, and Gore and Kerry both won here.  People are pissed at Congress from both sides:  R's feel like their vote never matters, and D's feel like Congress isn't doing enough.  We had a third party candidate getting some exposure, too--his yard signs said "so your voice will be heard."

        but no, no exit polling, other than just talking to each other.  :)

        by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:29:16 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for the on the ground report!

          Let us know if you hear anything else.

          by pontificator on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:31:07 PM PDT

•  A lot of people had to bust ass so that

  it didn't mean much.  Obviously, if the R had won, it would have meant a lot.  Luckily, he didn't, so it doesn't.

  by beachmom on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:06:00 PM PDT

•  I backed Jamie Eldridge in the primary...

  It's good to see Niki going to Washington - she's one more vote for SCHIP, anyhow!  But Eldridge was a much better candidate, someone I though the netroots could get behind - perhaps another time...

  by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:06:38 PM PDT

  •  5th district

    In retrospect (Jamie was my guy too, I've liked him since the Patrick campaign work he did) I don't think the 5th is capable of electing a guy like Jamie...he did real well here, what was it, 15%? but there's a real chance he would have been hammered by conservative Dems/unenrolleds who can't bring themselves to vote that way...maybe in a few years, when Jamie's message on fair trade is more widely accepted, because we've lost a lot of blue collar jobs here.

    by lynne1 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:04:26 PM PDT

    •  yeah; a good friend was working for him

      ...it'd have been nice.

      Sigh.

      Honestly, I think it'll help when he's a little older.  He sort of came across like a kid.

      by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:06:42 PM PDT

      •  He's incredibly intelligent

        Actually, every time I went to a primary debate, I saw him win over other people's supporters.

        I don't think he came across too young...but his name recog and money was just not the same as other candidates. Donoghue had a huge urban base (Lowell) and Niki Tsongas had, well, the name. Eldridge was from Acton, the south end of the district with no cities.

        From what I understand, Jamie's probably a shoe-in for Pam Resor's state Senate seat, as everyone keeps saying she's retiring.

        You'll see Jamie again.

        by lynne1 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:38:48 PM PDT

        •  Good name, though.

          by Fonsia on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 10:44:25 PM PDT

  •  In retrospect

    I wish we could've been more involved in that primary. But the race never seemed to have that spark necessary to take it national. Despite popular perception, I can't create a national race from scratch.

    by kos on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:52:53 PM PDT

    •  I never did get why the spark was lacking

      I was always shocked this race never went national, especially in this climate. I was almost as shocked, especially after DFA's endorsement, that Eldridge never built steam. He would have been an amazing congressman... one of the top people we'd be counting on. Alas.

      by Ryepower12 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:54:48 PM PDT

    •  I wrote several diaries on the primary race...

      ...and I did several blograisers here, matching funds for Jamie, but I never got any traction.  It's a shame - he's the type of solid progressive we want in Congress.

      by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 05:00:51 AM PDT

•  Really

  I don't think anyone expected Tsongas to win 57-41 the way Kerry did against Bush.  55-45 would have been a safer bet.  So yes, she did underperform, but no one expected her to match Kerry's numbers in the presidential election, especially with a tough opponent like Ogonowski.

  by Skaje on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:07:25 PM PDT

  •  Also, remember

    that this district has seen close races before.  Incumbent Democrat Chet Atkins only won here by 51%-49% in 1990 and he only won by 53%-47% when the district was open in 1984.  

    by UpstateDem on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:12:06 PM PDT

•  The RNC's talking points

  were no doubt ready for distribution to David Broder, John Roberts, CBS, and the rest of the ditto machines.  Too bad.

  Tsunami's coming your way, Repugs.

  by deben on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:08:45 PM PDT

  •  They would have been rather sucky...

    ...talking points, given that the GOP candidate was running by (at least ostensibly) being more anti-Iraq War than Tsongas.

    If he had won, all we would have needed to do was point that out, and say that it shows that being against the GOP line on Iraq is the best thing for congressional candidates to do going into the election.  Now that we've won, I say we should still, when explaining the narrowness of the race, say that it reflects dissatisfaction with Iraq.

    There are a lot of other factors in the race, yes.  But, sometimes spin is important for things like this.

    by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:30:56 PM PDT

    •  I still disagree with this

      In the end, he was talking pretty much "stay the course til victory" - if he hammered Niki for being less anti war than him, it didn't last long...

      by lynne1 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:05:29 PM PDT

      •  Still, if Ron Gunzburger is right...

        ...he at least tried to hammer Tsongas for being less anti-war.

        I think that would be an important point to make.  Even if he is still "pro-war," then you just say that even pro-war candidates are afraid of being seen as pro-war.

        by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:07:17 PM PDT

        •  Yes

          That's sorta true..though, he was pretty up front about it generally in the debates.

          He ALWAYS premised it with "I was agin' it 'for I wuz fer it" though...LOL

          by lynne1 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:40:16 PM PDT

•  hey kos, I thought you were a political expert!

  you compare this election to Kerry's performance in 2004. was that one a special election? um, that would be a no. voter turnout is always higher in presidential elections.

  when you bash Tsongas as being "from the previous century" that surprises me. could your animus toward her be because she's pro-choice?

  by megaera on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:11:21 PM PDT

  •  pro-choice

    "could your animus toward her be because she's pro-choice?"

    Kos isn't pro-choice? Huh?

    by thecount on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:17:00 PM PDT

    •  no, he's not

      he's said abortion is "horrible", he's done whatever he can to downplay the choice issue, and he attacks NARAL and Planned Parenthood every chance he gets.

      by megaera on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:28:11 PM PDT

      •  I hear that he also...

        ...steals candy from babies and beats up grade schoolers for their lunch money.

        by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:33:13 PM PDT

      •  he attacks them for endorsing repubs

        and helping defeat thier own adgeneda.....many people think abortion is horrible but also beleive it's not the governments job or business what choice others make. Abortion in ny opinion is usually the wrong choice but it's not my choice to make.

        by nevadadem on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:37:40 PM PDT

        •  yeah, and here kos himself disses a DEMOCRAT

          kinda strange!

          but let's kick Linc Chafee in the ass because he's nominally a republican!

          good times.

          by megaera on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:59:15 PM PDT

          •   Linc isn't a Republican

              He's tendered his resignation: didn't want to be in a Big spend/Big war party.

            by Parise on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 10:40:56 PM PDT

      •  attacking NARAL

        FireDogLake and Jane Hamsher specicially have been trouncing on NARAL for their crappy support of republicans.  As long as a candidate mouths the words "pro choice", they will support them, even if that vote will be for a republican majority that wants to ban all types of contraceptives.

        NARAL has been bought and sold and has been compromised -- as was AARP.

        Kos is not the only one hammering NARAL.

        by GrandmaJ on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:59:21 PM PDT

        •  yeah, and I'm trouncing on kos

          for his crappy non-support of a DEMOCRAT, for fuck's sake.

          by megaera on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 08:01:16 PM PDT

          •  Just for the record

            there are some democrats I would happily 'trounce' on.  Just saying...

            by GrandmaJ on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 05:40:36 AM PDT

  •  Actually, it's because Tsongas is a woman

    like Hillary.

    Kos is backing "the new ideological leader of the Democratic Party" Frank Lynch, obviously!

    Ok.. probably not.

    I only found out about "the new ideological leader of the Democratic Party" because he qualified for the ballot in the Utah Primary. Lynch claims to be "the most important emerging national leader since Abraham Lincoln came out of nowhere to transform America"

    Lynch/Gravel 08!

    by RBH on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:19:16 PM PDT

  •  What are you talking about?

    What is your animus towards kos?

    by givemhellHarryR on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:22:34 PM PDT

  •  I smell

    the "Kucinich is the true progressive" camp here.  

    by givemhellHarryR on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:24:55 PM PDT

    •  Well, he is

      But Tsongas was not our best choice, since she's pretty much of a centrist Democrat, I believe.

      by metal prophet on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:07:39 PM PDT

  •  

    

    by shpilk on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:54:16 PM PDT

•  A win is a win is a win!!! We'll take it.

  (And, so would the Red Sox about now--ArGGGHH!)

  by Phil S 33 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:13:04 PM PDT

•  When a Dem wins

  it always means something!

  by Radiowalla on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:13:18 PM PDT

  •  ...an angel gets its wings? n/t

    by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:38:21 PM PDT

•  Maybe the Dems had nothing to be excited about

  I see this is like choosing Clinton for our nominee except it would be much closer and we might lose.

  We need real proud progressives on the Democratic side to get people excited.  It isn't enough to not be a Republican.

  by pioneer111 on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:14:29 PM PDT

•  Did Larry Craig

  ...just use the phrase "active spreader"?   sigh...

  by dogeatdogi on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:15:54 PM PDT

•  Starbucks Staff in a Dunkin's District n/t

  by SGS on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:16:39 PM PDT

  •  Did you see Mystic River?

    Starbucks Staff in a Dunkin's District

    That's a great synecdoche. Say, isn't that the district where there were floods a few years ago? I remember Romney up there running his mouth, when he had cut funding for measures that would have prevented the floods in the first place.

    In Mystic River, Laurence Fishburne's character and his partner step out of some shop, coffees in hand. Fishburne says, "see, this is just like Dunkin' Donuts except 10 times more expensive". Personally, I go to Au Bon Pain. Starbucks coffee is too bitter and Dunkin coffee has tasted weird ever since they were bought by the Carlyle Group (I swear it's not just psychological). At ABP, they actually have light cream rather than Half&Half.

    I thought Ogonowski's personal story (running his brother's farm and helping his brother's family) would carry some weight, but someone above wrote that he was terrible in the debates, and, hm, maybe it had something to do with him being a Republican.

    by DrReason on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:28:57 PM PDT

    •  yup, floods for Mother's Day '06 n/t

      by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:40:02 PM PDT

    •  rec'd for "synecdoche"

      ah, takes me back.  I think you're the only other person handy who knows what it means  :)

      by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:42:02 PM PDT

      •  a funny story about that word

        I learned it in 11th grade. Mrs. Lockwood had a number of figures of speech taped to the wall of her English classroom, with examples. For synecdoche, it was "Not a hair perished", from Shakespeare's The Tempest. Well, I remembered the quote but not the word, and spent years trying to remember it.

        So, I'm at work one day, and a buddy and I are into learning uncommon words, "extravasate" and the like. I am just flipping through the dictionary, and lo and behold, "synecdoche" catches my eye. Now I can die in peace.

        But let me tell you about my one-man crusade to get people to stop saying "acronym" for abbreviations that aren't actually acronyms. I'm losing, but I'm going to keep fighting. :O)

        by DrReason on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 11:18:36 PM PDT

        •  or "disinterested" for "uninterested"

          not out of pedantry (I can live with words changing meaning), but because to make them synonyms is to lose the meaning of the first word.

          (hint: most people want a disinterested judge but not an uninterested one)

          by Kit on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 06:08:33 AM PDT

    •  I liked the movie, but didn't they move the river

      to Southie?

      by Smallbottle on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:44:02 PM PDT

      •  you mean when Sean Penn kills Tim Robbins?

        They drove out to a bar and got him drunk. I don't think it was made clear where they were. Southie might have been implied. One of Mark Wahlberg's brothers is in the movie (I only know cause I just looked), and I hope a local boy wouldn't have let them rearrange our geography.

        That reminds me of an interview with Mark Wahlberg. He was in prison when New Kids on the Block comes on TV. He tells his prisonmates that one of his brothers is in the band. They don't believe him at first, but when they see he's not joking, one of them says, "your brother's on TV and you're in here? Man, you're (some expletives alluding to his idiocy)". Said brother actually visited him later, making Wahlberg "the man" for a few weeks.

        by DrReason on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 11:26:08 PM PDT

        •  Don't forget Dorchester

          Lehane's novels often refer to very specific streets and places in Dorchester as well as East Boston or Chelsea (the Mystic connection), but he oddly resists making the setting entirely as it exists in reality. This strange mixture actually drives me nuts, but, hey, they're his books.

          by Kit on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 06:11:46 AM PDT

    •  That is

      Has Dunkin's coffee changed since 2005?!  that's when I used to have it (we don't have one near me in DC but in New England, you know how it is, every place I lived was literally 4-5 blocks from Dunkin Donuts).  It's much better coffee than Starbucks.. and I'm pretty picky about coffee.

      by daria g on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 06:08:32 AM PDT

  •  No shit

    Well, except for Concord. There, it's more Gevalia.

    I mentioned elsewhere, I called her office and told the staffer she was using the wrong message. Let Mr O be the outsider. But steal the bring-the-bacon-home message, and say, who's going to do more for the district with a Democratic House & maybe White House--me, or a Republican?

    The Globe published a column saying the same thing. She didn't listen.

    by Smallbottle on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:30:07 PM PDT

•  Congratulations

  To those who worked on Tsongas' campaign.

  Nice job.

  by deben on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:17:51 PM PDT

•  Big Congrats!

  To ALL of us!!

  by dogeatdogi on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:20:30 PM PDT

•  Tsongas low margins = low support for Iraq War

  The fact that Tsongas ran an uninspiring, "machine" campaign is likely part of the reason for her low margins.  But, another reason may be because the GOP candidate was actually running a more "anti-war" camapaign than Tsongas.

  From Politics1.com:

  The CD-5 special election contest features community college dean Niki Tsongas (D) facing off against retired USAF officer Jim Ogonowski (R). Tsongas is the widow of the late US Senator Paul Tsongas (D-MA), while Ogonowski is the brother of an airline pilot killed in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. While Ogonowski has run a strong campaign versus a somewhat lackluster effort by Tsongas, the demographics of the district favor the Dem. Although Ogonowski has received significant funding from Congressional Republicans, he positioned himself as the more anti-war candidate in the race. Ogonowski supports a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and attacks Tsongas for her support of keeping a residual force there. Tsongas claims Ogonowski really backs President Bush's war plans and would not begin withdrawals until the White House is satisfied we have "achieved victory" in Iraq.

  by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:20:36 PM PDT

  •  I guess people see this as a Republican war (!)

    But I still don't forgive my state for voting for that idiot Romney.

    he positioned himself as the more anti-war candidate in the race

    And I guess people saw this as just that, positioning.

    by DrReason on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:31:06 PM PDT

    •  I'd hope so...

      ...but maybe it could still explain some of the narrowness of the race?  People seem awfully pissed off about Iraq.

      To be honest, I think we ought to play this up as a factor regardless.  Whenever the GOP mentiones the race being so "narrow," just say that it was because the GOP candidate ran hard against the Iraq War - and say that it "proves" that favoring the war will be a drag for any candidate in 2008.

      by WayneNight on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:36:39 PM PDT

•  Ahem

  I think it means a lot.  You hit the nail on the head when you say that Democrats are not "too excited with the performance of their leadership in Congress."  A lot of us who turned out to vote for Democrats in 2006 might not be so eager to turn out in 2008 when we know Bush won't be President any more.

  A lot of voters in my demographic (circa 18-25) can't much be bothered to turn out and vote.  We will if we see a swaggering cowboy.  We might not when all the Democrats have to offer is a minimum wage increase and a vetoed SCHIP bill which is "too expensive".  Meanwhile our soldiers are getting IEDed in 100+ degree weather while the Iraqi parliament goes on vacation because it's "really hot".

  You're damn right I'm not too excited with the performance of my "leadership" in this excuse of a Congress.

  by onetwostep on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:22:21 PM PDT

  •  The not turning out

    in 2008 attitude is exactly how we got Bush in the first place.  Don't count on a politician to excite you excite yourself until the deadwood is out.  

    by givemhellHarryR on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:27:14 PM PDT

    •  ...

      I'm not speaking for myself, I'm speaking for my generation.  And you know it's true; without something to inspire us, my demographic just won't care to turn out.

      I follow politics, but most people my age don't.  I mean, I'll be there in the voting booth come November, but I just don't see as large of a turnout among my colleagues; they only seem to care insofar as they have a bad guy to vote against.

      by onetwostep on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:30:22 PM PDT

      •  Well I am about 3

        years removed from your generation and will not stop.  My life is Bush Clinton Bush Clinton.  

        by givemhellHarryR on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:33:12 PM PDT

        •  turnout low across many age blocks

          I think the bashing of 18-25 year olds is a little unfair, given the low turnout among much older voters, too.  For the presidential elections, my town got over 11,000 voters to turn out; for this one, about 4,000.  There just aren't enough youngsters to take the blame for all of it; it's 40 year olds, too.

          by Crazed Weasel on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:58:09 PM PDT

      •  Does this mean Romney?

        they only seem to care insofar as they have a bad guy to vote against.

        Romney has that presidential look and sounds reasonable. He bullshits and flip-flops left and right, but it's hard to portray his as being crazy like Giuliani is. Sadly, I worry that Romney might win because the hatred of, say, Hillary Clinton is far out of balance with anything someone reasonable-sounding like Romney might elicit.

        That prospect terrifies me.

        by DrReason on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:39:52 PM PDT

        •  Hopefully Not

          As harsh as I am about Congressional races, I think a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.  Right now I am leaning towards Gore...

          by onetwostep on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:46:20 PM PDT

        •  Hill drive people daft

              When I try to communicate similar concerns about Hillary, people won't listen.  Of course we should be concerned. We can't blow this opportunity.

          by Parise on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 10:45:06 PM PDT

  •  18-25 year olds

    The short event horizon of 18-25-year-olds and their attendant lower voting participation is why campaigns don't dare depend upon them.  Sometimes "change" is like steering an oil tanker...it takes a while but you don't give up putting pressure on the rudder for a sustained period of time.

    by InigoMontoya on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:29:40 PM PDT

    •  Sure

      But 18-25 year olds are exactly the demographic candidates want to capture.  Think about it: almost every college campus has voting easily accessible to students who spend much of their free time near operational voting booths.  It's not as if socioeconomic factors prevent most of this generation from voting, unlike other voting blocks.  We turned out in droves to vote against Bush in 2004 and 2006, and it did eventually chip away at the Republican majority.

      by onetwostep on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:34:21 PM PDT

    •  dynasty

      Maybe after all these years of Bush-Clinton-Bush people are getting turned off by politics being the family business. This could be a negative for Hillary - America might just want fresh faces for a change.

      by blue coyote on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:16:59 PM PDT

  •  I don't get it

    How does Bush vetoing SCHIP because it's too expensive demotivate people from voting for Democrats? The veto seems on its way to being overturned. Likewise, the Dems can't actually do all that much about the soldiers being in Iraq, because they don't have enough votes. I'll concede on all kinds of other matters (wiretapping, etc.), but not these two.

    And despite all the catastrophes this administration has created, minimum wage doesn't motivate our youth but a cowboy would? Pathetic.

    by DrReason on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:35:47 PM PDT

    •  Good Points... but...

      Are you excited that all the Democrats have accomplished is a (too slow) minimum wage increase and an SCHIP bill which may or may not pass?  Meanwhile they have skated by on the issues you mention (wire tapping, habeas corpus, etc.), of which I can mention many many more...  are you excited about that?  Don't make excuses about "not enough votes"... really.  That's the kind of attitude that got us into Iraq.  Whether you have the votes or not, you stick to your principle, you stand up against this swaggering cowboy and his "compadres".  You don't cave in!

      by onetwostep on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:42:03 PM PDT

      •  SCHIP was a bipartisan bill

        vetoed by the cowboy in the white house.  Had nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans for that matter.  The cowboy in office is the problem.

        by givemhellHarryR on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:47:24 PM PDT

        •  Huh?

          So now the Democratic majority has no responsibility to actually pass bills that the American people overwhelmingly support?  Who absolved them of this responsibility?  The pope?

          by onetwostep on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:51:18 PM PDT

          •  No actually

            the pope could not get an amendment passed to outlaw the veto power the president has.  Actually the pope is at fault.