Skip to main content

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest banner
Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.
Leading Off:

OK-01: If you were following along with Tuesday night's election results, one thing you saw was the absolutely shocking, out-of-nowhere upset victory by Jim Bridenstine over Rep. John Sullivan in the OK-01 Republican primary. Bridenstine beat Sullivan 54-46 in a race that was on almost no one's radar, and in this dark red district, he'll be the heavy favorite in November.

So just who is Jim Bridenstine, anyway? We first flagged his candidacy a couple of weeks ago, when the American Academy of Ophthalmology placed a $39K radio ad buy in support of incumbent Sullivan. That was the first sign that something may have been brewing in this little-noticed primary, and it sure does appear that Bridenstine utterly blindsided Sullivan. Then again, those strange medical professional PACs often spend money in weird, uncompetitive races (see the dentists in ID-02, for instance), so there wasn't much reason to read too much into this at the time.

Bridenstine, a Naval Reserve officer, combat pilot, and former executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, describes himself as a "Republican Patriot for U.S. Congress" on his own website. On the campaign trail, he criticized Sullivan for being something of a "do-nothing" congressman with a history of missed votes. (Recall that Sullivan spent some time in rehab to treat his alcohol addiction.) On top of that, Bridenstine also piled on the usual tea party themes of reigning in government spending—something that now seems to be a compulsory exercise to win any Republican primary.

One thing we did miss was a Bridenstine internal poll from May which showed the race tied in the low thirties; evidently, Sullivan missed that, too. Bridenstine also went on the air with a number of different ads, as did Sullivan. Bridenstine seemed to eschew the opportunity to put his television spots in front of a national audience (say, via Politico's Morning Score), which may have been a wise move that allowed him to sneak up on the incumbent.

In the end, Bridenstine raised almost $250K to Sullivan's $1 million. Sullivan was also boosted by a number of PAC independent expenditures—notably from the aforementioned Ophthalmologists, but also the American Society of Anesthesiologists. In total, the anesthesiologists spent $44K and the ophthalmologists $57K on mailers and radio ads in a last-minute attempt to shore up Sullivan... but it was too little, too late. And Sullivan seemed to know it, too, offering this remarkable quote just days before the primary:

"I never had a race like this in all my life," Sullivan told The Associated Press from Washington, as he prepared to jump on a flight back to Oklahoma for a last-minute campaign push ahead of Tuesday's primary to decide who will be the Republican nominee representing Oklahoma's 1st congressional district. "The only mistake I made was I ignored it for too long."
P.S. Major props to Xenocrypt in the comments for exposing what was actually an under-the-radar proxy fight between ophthalmologists and optometrists in this race. It turns out that Sullivan co-sponsored a bill in 2011 (the "Healthcare Truth and Transparency Act") that rankled the interests of optometrists (who do not have medical degrees), while favoring ophthalmologists (who are M.D.s). Sullivan's primary race became something of an inter-professional turf war, with some 66 optometrists cutting checks to Bridenstine's campaign, totaling $30K, with an additional $5K thrown in by the American Optometric Association itself. And as we outlined above, the American Academy of Ophthalmologists responded with mid-five figures in spending on Sullivan's behalf. Click the link for more details. (David Nir & James L)


AZ-Sen: Holy smokes:

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake, who is running for Senate in Arizona, denied this weekend that he had ever supported the Apartheid government in South Africa while a lobbyist for a Namibian uranium mine, but new audio reveals that his denial may not hold water.

In 1987, Flake testified before the Utah State Senate in support of a resolution expressing support for the government of South Africa while racial segregation laws were enforced—largely to support U.S. mining interests in the region. In testimony flagged by a Democratic source, Flake opposed sanctions on the regime, arguing they only worsened the living conditions for black South Africans.

Here's the full transcript. Check out this part in particular:
South Africa's a major source to the free world of vital minerals such as manganese, cobalt, platinum, gold, etc. South Africa has over 70 percent of some of these minerals, the rest… provides the free world with over 70 percent. The only other supplier in many cases is the Soviet Union.

Without a dependable and economic source of these minerals, many industries in the United States and the free world would be severely impacted and the cost of these manufactured items would greatly increase. I think that's—that's pretty well known. As far as going against moral standards, I think it coincides with our moral standards.

If the government of South Africa falls, it depends on how it falls if it did fall. If it fell to radical elements to the left, then this could happen, and that is a fear of many people. We would be deprived of an ensured economic source of these vital minerals.

I'm not sure how to read that bolded sentence other than that Jeff Flake testified that Apartheid "coincides with our moral standards." (By the way, this is some amazing opposition research. My hat is off to whomever dug this up.)

P.S. Flake is clearly worried about his primary: He's reportedly bought $1.4 million worth of airtime from July 9 through August 28, which is primary day. Self-funding businessman Wil Cardon has been nipping at Flake's heels.

FL-Sen, OH-Sen, PA-Sen: In all three of Quinnipiac's new swing state polls, Barack Obama and the incumbent Democratic senators are leading. Those margins range from a whopping 16-points for Sherrod Brown, though, to a troublesome 1-point lead for Bill Nelson over Connie Mack. PPP is also out with an Ohio Senate sample, finding Brown up a less-gaudy seven points over Josh Mandel. PPP also has another look forward to the 2014 OH-Gov race. We've packaged all of these polls up in one place, so click through for all the numbers and our complete analysis. (David Jarman)

MI-Sen: Kaaaaaaaaaaahn!!! Republican state Sen. Roger Kahn says he's considering a challenge to Dem Sen. Carl Levin, who isn't up for re-election until 2014. Levin turns 78 on Thursday and has served in the Senate since 1979. He hasn't yet said whether or not he'll seek a seventh term. Kahn, meanwhile, is term-limited, so he's looking for other options.

MO-Sen: Majority PAC, what you might call the "official unofficial" super PAC of the Senate Democrats, has purchased another $44K media buy on behalf of Claire McCaskill. (The buy might be to extend the rotation of this spot released back in May, or possibly for a new spot we haven't seen yet.) (James L)

MT-Sen: VoteVets is out with a tough new ad hitting GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg. The ad, narrated by Iraq War veteran Jim Kearns, lambastes Rehberg as a "millionaire" who continually votes to raise his own pay while voting against research to build better prosthetics for wounded veterans. Morning Score says the buy is for $100K, a considerable chunk of change in Montana. (James L)

ND-Sen: James Hohmann at Politico reports that the American Crossroads super PAC's "non-profit" affiliate (that would be Crossroads GPS) is up with a $180K buy hitting Democrat Heidi Heitkamp on the usual Obamacare distortions. The spot is in response to a recent Heitkamp ad in which she pushed back at the "lie of the year" about the Affordable Care Act; Crossroads simply just says, "Nyah nyah, it does so take away seniors' healthcare!" (James L & David Nir)

NM-Sen: The ad war in this race is really starting to heat up. American Crossroads is out with a new ad backing Republican ex-Rep. Heather Wilson, citing the usual purple state messaging claptrap (she's apparently an "independent voice for change" who "stood up to both parties to cut wasteful Washington spending and supported lower taxes to let New Mexicans keep more of their hard-earned money"). Size of the buy: $170K.

Meanwhile, the League of Conservation Voters is out with a new ad of their own, titled "Emma," which features a young blonde girl drinking water that Heather Wilson voted to poison with MTBE. (Well, not really, but she did vote for legislation that included provisions to shield polluters from MTBE-related lawsuits.) Politico's Morning Score reports that this is a $150K buy, but the LCV only filed a $90K expenditure report with the FEC. (They've also reported spending about $114K on a series of mail pieces against Wilson.) (James L)

OR-Sen, OR-Gov (PDF): The presidential race is the only game in town this year in Oregon, so to round out its sample of the Beaver State, PPP tested some preliminary matchups for 2014, when Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber and Sen. Jeff Merkley will be up to re-election. They find things a little closer than you might expect, especially if Republican Rep. Greg Walden gets involved in either race. He probably won't, though, as he's climbing the House leadership ladder and would most likely prefer to keep his perpetually safe seat in OR-02 rather than roll the dice on a statewide run... but keep a wary eye on him. Walden, who has statewide favorables of 27/16, comes within 1 of Kitzhaber (42-41) and actually leads Merkley by 2 (42-40).

Once you get past Walden, though, there isn't much left on the GOP's bench; the other options they tested don't come that close. But that's mostly thanks to lack of name rec, and neither Kitzhaber nor Merkley crests the 50% mark. GOP state party chair (and 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary loser) Allen Alley trails 46-36 against Kitzhaber and 43-37 against Merkley; state House co-speaker Bruce Hanna trails 46-33 versus Kitz and 43-35 against Merkley; and state Senator (and 2006 GOP gubernatorial primary loser) Jason Atkinson trails 45-30 against the governor and 43-34 against Merkley. (David Jarman)

TX-Sen: It looks like the two-month-long Texas GOP Senate runoff is finally heating up. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has his first ad up of the second round, in which he accuses President Obama of supporting "amnesty" (presumably for illegal immigrants). More amusingly, Dewhurst claims that ranchers along the border are being "overrun by human traffic—now it's international gangs and people from the Middle East and China." Crossing that Sino-Amero-Arabian-Mexican border? Also, at about 10 seconds in, one rancher is wearing fit-over sunglasses that make him look like the Lone Ranger. The runoff is July 31.


MT-Gov: Montana, like Washington, seems to be one of those "frequent disclosure" states, with fundraising reports due almost every month lately. It's the same old story, thought: In the most recent reporting period, from May 27 through June 20, Dem AG Steve Bullock took in $191K while ex-Rep. Rick Hill raised just $55K. And because Hill had to spend most of his resources in order to win the GOP primary earlier this month, he has just $118K on-hand versus $777K for Bullock.


HI-02: VoteVets is putting a fresh $98K injection into this race on behalf of Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, putting an ad that they first released in May back on the air for a two-week rotation. (James L)

MI-03: Ex-state Rep. Steve Pestka has responded with his own poll of the Democratic primary (from GQR), showing him up 39-15 over activist Trevor Thomas. Pestka has a 24-11 favorability rating while Thomas is at 9-6. Thomas published a poll last week that had Pestka up by a smaller 21-16 margin. The primary is August 7.

NC-08: Boom goes the dynamite. The Club for Growth just placed some big buys on behalf of Republican Scott Keadle for his runoff against Richard Hudson. The breakdown is as follows: $310K on TV, $50K on radio, and $40K on mail. The ads aren't available online as yet. (James L)

NY-08: This is amusing: Even though Hakeem Jeffries smashed him in the Democratic primary by a score of 72-28 (dayumn!), Charles Barron "called for a recount and said he would not be calling Jeffries to congratulate him on the win." Fortunately, I can tell Barron right now what the results of a recount will show.

Anyhow, while Barron dominated coverage of this race for the last couple of months, one important thing not to lose sight of is the fact that Jeffries will be replacing Ed Towns, a useless back-bencher with no discernable ideology beyond pure self-interest. And it was the strength of Jeffries' campaign, bolstered in large part by early support from key labor unions and the Working Families Party, that pushed Towns to the exits. As far as progressive values are concerned, this a huge, huge upgrade, and Jeffries will make the Democratic caucus in the House better.

Grab Bag:

Census: Just an FYI: According to the Census Bureau's own calendar, census data will not be made available for newly redistricted congressional districts until January of next year.

Redistricting Roundup:

MD Redistricting: One small detail worth noting about the Supreme Court's summary affirmance of the lower court ruling that rejected a challenge to Maryland's new congressional map is that one claim alleged that Maryland's new law that counts prisoners (for the purposes of redistricting) where they are from, rather than where they're incarcerated, was unconstitutional. The three-judge panel which first heard the case didn't buy that argument, and because the Supreme Court has now affirmed that decision (albeit without a written opinion of their own), that means such laws are, indeed, constitutional. Only a handful of other states have such laws, most notably Delaware and New York, but hopefully this will help pave the way for more such legislation in the future.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

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.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Marist Polls (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, DCCyclone

    NH O45-R45
    MI O47-R43
    NC O46-R44

    MI surprises me on how close it is, guess money is going to be spent there.  Fact still up in NC though is nice to see.

    Hey you, dont tell me theres no hope at all Together we stand, divided we fall.

    by marcvstraianvs on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:06:00 AM PDT

    •  Crosstabs (4+ / 0-)

      Obama job approval in NH is 47-45 and 50-44 favorable. Romney favorables are 45-45.

      Obama job approval in MI is 48-42 and 51-41 favorable. Romney favorables 37-43.

      Obama job approval in NC is 47-47 and 48-45 favorable. Romney favorables are 40-42.

      "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 Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:21:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm dying to know what OFA MI private polling... (0+ / 0-)


        This is now way too many public polls from way too many sources saying it's margin-of-error to dismiss out of hand, as I've been doing all along.

        And yet, OFA and allies are acting like we're up double-digits.  Is this a reincarnation of NV-Sen 2010, where public polls are missing something?

        I'm still confident Michigan isn't a real battleground.  I say that mainly because OFA continues to ignore it in their spending.  And partly because even this Marist poll makes clear that Obama's job approval, his favorables, and Mitt's favorables ensure Obama will win the state, probably more comfortably than the ballot test suggests.

        The whole point of invading enemy turf to put a state into play is to force the opponent to invest there.  If OFA isn't investing in Michigan and we win there anyway, then close polling doesn't matter.

        That distinguishes from North Carolina, where Mitt and allies are spending heavily to secure it, and gaining no ground.

        I dismiss all the recent polls that said we somehow went from up 1-3 points to trailing 1-3 points in NC.  That's all meaningless margin-of-error movement.  Now we have confirmation it's a tossup, with job approval, not just the ballot teset, confirming it.

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

        by DCCyclone on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:04:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't think they were doing NC (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, tietack

      that result surprises me a little but not much, it is effectively a tie there according to numerous polls.

      MI is a little narrower than I thought but not much, I was expecting Obama to be about 6 points up there.

      NH is the biggest question mark. Ras had Obama +5, and we know about his bias. ARG had Obama +8 and that is one state where they can generally be relied on (their head-to-head state polls were actually good in 2008.). So NH is probably the one that is the most off. Still, considering all the recent polls, Obama does have a modest lead there.

      •  They kept changing the list, screwing it up! (0+ / 0-)

        At different times they would say OH/MI/NH or OH/NC/NH, and I never saw them say it would be OH/NC/NH.  Their conflicting write-ups on Twitter and on the First Read blog were too many for me to think they just had's almost like they changed their minds about which 3 to poll.  But Ohio was promised virtually every time, and now no Ohio.  No biggie because they already did Ohio before, and maybe that's how they decided the selections in the end.  But I woke up not knowing exactly which 3 states it would be!

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

        by DCCyclone on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:59:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  These Don't Strike Me As Credible..... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, jj32, sacman701

      Obama is extremely unlikely to win North Carolina and lose New Hampshire this fall.  

      •  unlikely but I wouldn't totally rule it out (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        R30A, RoIn, lina

        NH is a bit "maverick" while NC is trending Dem in recent elections largely due to demographic shifts. If Obama wins nationally by something like 2% it's just about conceivable that he could narrowly win NC and narrowly lose NH.

      •  It's perfectly credible (0+ / 0-)

        Things change.  North Carolina and New Hampshire are both purple states now.  Obama has a higher floor in NC than NH because of people of color in NC compared to a much larger group of white swing voters in NH.

        You're having a hard time grasping this because it's so new.  And of course even last time NH still was 4 points more Democratic than NC.  But swing voters aren't unified anymore, they're divided, so we easily could lose more ground in NH than NC where so much more of our vote comes from a bigger Democratic base with a foundation of people of color.

        I agree it's still very unlikely we both win NC and lose NH.  But it's not inconceivable.  OFA is working a different approach in the two states, with TV ads moving swing voters our way being a much bigger deal in NH and "adjusting the electorate" being a relatively bigger part of the campaign in NC.

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

        by DCCyclone on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:12:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  MI Marist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541, DCCyclone

      Given that there has been anti-Obama ads being aired in MI with no pro-Obama/anti-Romney to counter them, a 4% lead is decent.  I think a mid-high single digit lead (4-9%) is about what I expect.  I don't believe the tied/Romney leading polls.  

  •  Halperin (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark27, LordMike, DCCyclone, askew

    Not much to quibble with except to say the GOP take is eerily similar to what we were saying in 2004.

    "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 Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:06:56 AM PDT

    •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, askew

      But of course at this time in the cycle, Kerry was ahead.

      “The country tried everything Romney says, and it brought the economy to the brink of collapse”

      by Paleo on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:10:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry was ahead so long as people... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...thought in generic-D terms, but when they saw the actual candidate they didn't like him, however unfairly.  So I agree that there are similarities here but they argue in our favor.

        Romney '12: Bully for America!

        by Rich in PA on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:16:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Creatures of habit expect history to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      repeat itself.

      For some reason, experience does not register enough to effect a change.

      So, how do creatures of habit change?  Imitation, I think, accounts for any change.  If a powerful person comes along to trigger adulation, the impulse to imitate follows as they "imprint" on someone new.  That's the danger President Obama presents and which is why it is important for the political operatives to denigrate his ability to influence at every turn.

      The McCain ad, entitled, "The One," was an effort to immunize the electorate against Obama's charms.

      Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage" People to Wall Street, "let our money go."

      by hannah on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:34:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Team Romney thinks it's 1992 (0+ / 0-)

      Chuck Todd has reported explicitly that Romney's campaign sees this election as 1992.  That's what they think this resembles.

      They actually would be right if we had a 1992 electorate, which was 87% white.

      But under an electorate that will be at most 74% white, and far more likely 72%, it's not 1992, and Romney can't win with a campaign that assumes 1992 redux.

      It's become increasingly clear to me that Romney's campaign is aiming for a whites-only coalition.  They surrender black voters by necessity, a smart move.  But they surrender Hispanics and other people of color by declining to invest in anything more than trivial campaigning to them, by taking policy positions anathema to Hispanics and other people of color, and by openly fondling racist and xenophobic elements of the GOP.  So they think they can settle for the same 20% of people of color that McCain got, but somehow will drive down Obama's white support to a level that still elects Romney.

      It's because of things like this that I remain confident of Obama's reelection.  Romney is not running a winning campaign.

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

      by DCCyclone on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:28:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Priorities USA continues Bain attacks: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, DCCyclone, askew

    And Romney realizes that he's losing this messaging war on Bain:

    It has been working and David Plouffe was right to doubt the so-called beltway bed-wetters:

    "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Theodore Seuss Geisel

    by KingofSpades on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:14:38 AM PDT

  •  So, it turns out John Sullivan had (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    landed on my Dufus Brigade.

    Louie Gohmert(TX-01)
    Joe Wilson(SC-02)
    Joe Walsh (IL-08) v. Tammy Duckworth
    Steve King (IA-04) v. Christie Vilsack
    Michele Bachmann(MN-06) v. JIm Graves
    Tom Graves(GA-14)
    Paul Broun(GA-10)
    John Culberson(TX-07)
    Phil Gingrey(GA-11)
    Clif Stearns(FL-03)
    Frank Guinta(NH-01) v. Carol Shea-Porter
    Charles Bass(NH-02) v. Ann McLane Kuster
    Allen West(FL-18) v. Patrick Murphy
    Daniel Webster(FL-10)
    Austin Scott(GA-08)
    Lou Barletta(PA-11)
    Patrick McHenry(NC-10)
    Chip Cravaack(MN-08)
    Thaddeus McCotter(MI-11)
    Sean Duffy(WI-07) v. Pat Kreitlow
    Eric Cantor(VA-07) v. Wayne Powell
    Jeff Denham(CA-10)
    Steve Womack(AR-03)
    Steve Southerland(FL-02) v. Leonard Bembry
    Virginia Foxx(NC-05)
    Joe Heck(NV-03)
    John Campbell(CA-45)
    Andy Harris (MD-01)
    Peter King (NY-03)
    Frank Lobiondo(NJ-02)
    Nan Hayworth (NY-18)
    Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
    Mike Coffman (CO-06)
    Robert Dold (IL-10) v. Brad Schneider
    John Fleming (LA-04)
    Diane Black (TN-06)
    Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
    Justin Amash (MI-03)
    Robert Hurt (VA-05)
    Jim Jordan (OH-04)
    Don Young (AK)
    Paul Ryan (WI-01) v. Rob Zerban
    Collin Peterson (MN-07)
    Renee Elmers (NC-02)
    Timothy Walberg (MI-07)
    Mike Rogers (MI-08)
    Peter Hoekstra (MI-Sen)
    Adrian Smith (NE-03)
    Vern Buchanan (FL-16) v. Keith Firzgerald
    John Sullivan (OK-01)v. Jim Bridenstine
    Scott Rigell (VA-02)
    Ann Marie Beurkle (NY-24)
    Michael Grimm (Ny-11) v.Mark Murphy
    Tom Rooney (FL-16)

    After the first 25, which is what we have to replace with good Democrats to regain the majority in the House, the additions are based on recommendations from other Kossacks.  Obviously, somebody had Sullivan's number. :)

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage" People to Wall Street, "let our money go."

    by hannah on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:23:23 AM PDT

    •  don't forget Val Demings (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      who is facing off against Webster in FL-10. some other strong candidates for our side who have won their nomination: Patsy Keever in NC-10, Jose Hernandez in CA-10 (lots of 10s!), Sean Patrick Maloney in NY-18, Joe Miklosi in CO-06, Dan Maffei in NY-24, and Paul Hirschbiel in VA-02. also, Peter King is NY-02 (not NY-03), Tom Rooney is FL-17 (not 16), Leonard Bembry in FL-02 is unfortunately not assured of winning his primary, and Thad McCotter is thankfully gone next year because of his well-publicized ballot screwup.

      Male, currently staying in Osaka-01. Voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

      by sapelcovits on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:30:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You should add (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Barton and Neugebauer of texas to your list. Google them if you need proof of their awfulness.

      Registered in NY-02, College CT-01, Spent most of the rest of my life on the border of NY-08 and NY-15

      by R30A on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:58:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wave elections don't manifest until Aug/Sep (0+ / 0-)

    In 2006 everybody knew Dems were going to gain, but the floor only fell out from under the GOP in September. Same for 2008, Obama v. McCain was actually very close until September. Dems looked like they had a decent shot of holding the House and only losing a few senate seats until August 2010. Kerry was also ahead of Bush in summer 2004.

    Lesson: Polls don't mean much at this stage

    •  Polls are part of "preparing the ground" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      for the assault, softening up the enemy.  Political operatives do think they are waging a war and the public is their enemy.
      The operatives are an amoral bunch.  One assessment of themselves I've heard is "you're only as good as your last campaign."

      Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage" People to Wall Street, "let our money go."

      by hannah on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:50:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think that's because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      people don't see a reason to settle on a candidate until closer to the election.

      If they're upset with the incumbent, for any reason, they'll say they're going to vote for whoever is their opponent.

      Then, when you get to Sept/Oct, when the election is only a few weeks away and they have to seriously think about who to vote for, they start to actually LOOK at the candidates, and often change their minds.

      Just like that dress might look great on the rack, and you might like it on the model, but when you are seriously thinking of buying it you go try it on - and find out it doesn't fit you right, will need major alterations, or it just looks like crap on YOU.

      Then you go back and wear the same one you wore to the last event, because you KNOW that looks good, even if you really wanted something new.

  •  I keep saying it but no one believes it... (9+ / 0-)

    The eye doctors are taking over the country one Congressional district at a time.

    I can see it coming.  I'm a pupil of history.


  •  Economy signs seem steady, but ok. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Davidsfr, LordMike, sapelcovits, R30A, jj32, askew

    Unemployment claims fell 6000, prices rose, incomes up, 1st quarter GDP not revised up or down.

    "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Theodore Seuss Geisel

    by KingofSpades on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:46:35 AM PDT

    •  UC claims drop was smaller than that (0+ / 0-)

      It's reported as 6000, but the weekly report always compares the "initial" report for the preceding calendar week with the revised figure for the week earlier.  That's not apples to apples.  There is always an upward revision of 2k-5K as the initial report is incomplete, claims get added that were missed in initial reporting.

      So the "drop" was really 1000 to 4000, not 6000.

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

      by DCCyclone on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:30:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Heather Wilson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There's a long history of mega-money from Texas Republicans, including Bob Perry of Swiftboat fame, to bolster her election runs.  (Presumably, Perry's sunk some millions into Rove's operation.)  One year, I was a poll worker in NM-03.  There'd been so many ads for that race on TV, for like 6-months, a voter brought her ballot to me to ask where the Heather Wilson v. Patricia Madrid line was on the ballot.  (That being NM-01.)

    Meanwhile, John McCain deep-sixed a bunch of documents implicating Wilson in the Abramoff tribal scandals, involving Sandia Pueblo in NM-01.

    I guess maybe I should dust those old diaries off and repost updated versions.

    Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden 8/10/09)

    by Land of Enchantment on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:14:00 AM PDT

  •  I live in Oklahoma 1. Of course, I'm not a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bumiputera, Amber6541

    Republican, so I didn't follow the Sullivan/Bridenstein race until the last few days, mostly because I can barely stand to think about Sullivan at all, he's such an embarrassment. See this:

    I think Sullivan's trying to say he's Oklahoma's own Jan Brewer, rude and crude.

    I'm thrilled he's out, but I'm worried that his tea-party-pandering opponent is no better, maybe worse.

    On the other hand, there IS a dark horse Dem, John Olson in the race. He doesn't seem to have a Wiki page, but from his campaign site, here's his stand on various issues.

    District one voters are not so much blood red as they (we) have been hopeless. This could be our chance to break a right-wing political machine that's been in plave here since the 60s when this state elected its first-ever Republican governor.

    Please help us by throwing this guy a high 5 today (more if you can), Here's his Act Blue page. We're going to need all the help we can get, especially once the national  teahadists take a good look at what's going on here. Please help keep progressivism alive here.

    Eliminate tax breaks that stimulate the offshoring of jobs.

    by RJDixon74135 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:46:01 AM PDT

  •  oops (0+ / 0-)

    you say:

    reigning in government spending
    for "reign" read "rein". the metaphor is not from monarchy but from equestrianism.

    "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible." - Janet Malcolm

    by slangist on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:15:00 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site