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:

MA-Sen: Holy shnikeys! Democrat Elizabeth Warren somehow keeps blasting through every personal fundraising record she sets. Her new second quarter numbers are in, and she hauled in a beyond-monster $8.7 million! That compares to $6.9 mil in 1Q, which beat the $5.7 mil she raised in the quarter before that, which beat the $3.2 mil she raked in in her very first (abbreviated) quarter in the race. Dayumn! To top it off, Warren's cash-on-hand is $13.5 million. That compares with $11 million at the end of March. Obviously she's spending a lot, but she keeps upping her take. And no, Scott Brown has not released his totals yet.

2Q Fundraising:

CT-05: Elizabeth Esty (D): $340K raised, $900K cash-on-hand

FL-18: Patrick Murphy (D): $508K raised (yowza!)

IN-Sen: Rep. Joe Donnelly (D): $900K raised, $1.3 mil cash-on-hand; Richard Mourdock (R): $1.6 mil raised. Note that Mourdock had a competitive primary and isn't revealing his cash-on-hand, so I'd be willing to bet that Donnelly has more money in the bank.

MI-Sen: Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D): $1.5 mil raised, $4.5 mil cash-on-hand

NC-Gov: Pat McCrory (R): $2.2 mil raised, $4.4 mil cash-on-hand

NY-25: Rep. Louise Slaughter (D): $530K raised (broken leg and all!)

RI-01: Rep. David Cicilline (D): $300K raised, $825K cash-on-hand; Brendan Doherty (R): $200K raised, $663K cash-on-hand

MN-02: Mike Obermueller (D): $253K raised (in two months), $214K cash-on-hand

NY-27: Rep. Kathy Hochul (D): >$500K raised

IL-13: Rodney Davis (R): $440K raised (in six weeks), $400K cash-on-hand

WI-01: Rep. Paul Ryan (R): $957K raised, $5.4 mil cash-on-hand


CA-Sen (PDF): Field Research is out with its very first poll of the California Senate race, where ultra-longshot autism activist Elizabeth Emken is trying to unseat Dem Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The incumbent has a 51-32 lead, though given how unknown Emken is (she has favorables of 22-13), those numbers are a bit meh. In the last couple of years, Field has shown Feinstein with weaker job approvals than she's been accustomed to in her long tenure in office; right now, she stands at 45-32—pretty much her weakest standing in 20 years—which helps explain her results in the head-to-heads. An upset will still be well-nigh impossible for Emken, but I suspect Feinstein is going to have to work harder than she'd like.

CT-Sen: In her new ad, ex-SoS Susan Bysiewicz tries to compare her extremely uphill battle for the Democratic nomination ("some people say I shouldn't run for the Senate because I didn't get the party endorsement") to some legislative accomplishments that also supposedly faced steep odds (stopping "drive-through mastectomies" and banning "gifts from lobbyists") but ultimately won the day.

MO-Sen: Ex-Treasurer Sarah Steelman is out with her first ad of the race, a compare-and-contrast spots which starts off hitting GOP primary frontrunner John Brunner for being from St. Louis (as opposed to "real Missouri") and for allegedly donating to a group called the "Humane Farming Association" which the narrator mocks for wanting "to give farm animals rights." The second half features Steelman talking to the camera about what a great conservative she is (pro-life, pro-"sanctity of marriage," and "I love to hunt!"). Brunner, for what it's worth, says the contribution came from his daughter (via his family's foundation), not himself.

ND-Sen: Whoa: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS just spent $800K on an ad buy which will "run from September to the middle of October"—a large sum in any state, but positively monster in tiny North Dakota. On top of that, another conservative "charity," American Commitment, is starting a $115K ad run on Tuesday (the spot's not available yet).

When you add the serious third-party spending—Democrats are playing heavily here, too—plus all of the unanswered polls showing Dem Heidi Heitkamp either tied or ahead of GOP Rep. Rick Berg, it's clear that Republicans are now very concerned about this race. While an open seat in a red state should favor them, this is why candidates and campaigns matter, because in this case, we can no longer say that the GOP has the edge. We're therefore moving our rating of this race from Lean R to Tossup.

NM-Sen: The Sierra Club has a new spot going after Republican Heather Wilson, with an interesting visual approach. Footage of adorable kids drinking water, taking baths, and brushing their teeth is slowly covered over by a dark, oily sludge as the announcer attacks Wilson for allowing "big oil" to get away with "polluting hundreds of ground water sites with toxic chemicals" while accepting polluters' campaign cash. The buy is for 2,140 gross ratings points in Albuquerque as well as 500 points on cable in El Paso.

NV-Sen: A poll fragment is out in the Nevada Senate race, not as useful as true toplines but potentially telling. It's a poll of Latino voters only, taken by Latino Decisions as part of a poll of several western battleground states; they find that Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley leads appointed GOPer Dean Heller by 23 points, 53-30. At first glance, that seems great, but it's actually a bit iffy for Berkley (though presumably that cushion will grow as her name rec increases). Barack Obama, by contrast, leads by 49; Harry Reid beat Sharron Angle by 39 in 2010 exit polls, while Rory Reid won Latinos by 32 points that same year and still lost. (David Jarman)

Meanwhile, the House Ethics Committee has voted to continue an investigation into whether Dem Rep. Shelley Berkley's efforts to save Nevada's only kidney transplant center represented a conflict of interest because her husband, a nephrologist, works with the program. The committee's press releases notes that "the mere fact of establishing an investigative subcommittee does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred."

OH-Sen: This is kind of interesting. "Vote with party" scores are easy to come by for members of Congress—various organizations put out different numbers that are generally used in attack ads to say, "So-and-so voted with George W. Bush/Barack Obama/Nancy Pelosi," etc. "92/95/98 percent of the time!" But you don't commonly see figures like this for state legislators, which is why I like the fact that the Dayton Daily News went to the trouble of calculating such a score for Republican Josh Mandel, who served in the state House for four years before getting elected state treasurer in 2010. It turns out Mandel, who of course likes to tout his independence, voted against his party "on just 29 occasions during 654 votes, or about 4.5 percent of the time." For what its worth, Mandel's opponent, Sen. Sherrod Brown, has voted with the Democrats 92% of the time, according to

While we're on the race, last week we mentioned Majority PAC's new ad attacking Mandel; thanks to the magic of independent expenditure reports, we now know the buy is for a pretty sizable $379K.

VA-Sen: Democrat Tim Kaine just bought another $1 mil in fall TV airtime, adding to the $2.5 mil he's already booked. Republican George Allen previously reserved $3 million.

WI-Sen: In a new TV ad, Democrat Tammy Baldwin talks about how she was raised in part by her grandparents (she was born when her mother was only a teenager), and how she in turn took care of her grandmother when she grew old. That experience, she says, is why she "know[s] it's wrong" when "people in Washington talk about slashing Medicare benefits instead of asking millionaires to pay their fare share."

P.S. Be on the lookout for this PPP poll on Tuesday: Tom Jensen says that businessman Eric Hovde has "a small lead" over ex-Gov. Tommy Thompson in the GOP primary.


IN-Gov: The AP reports that GOP Rep. Mike Pence has spent $1.4 million so far on television ads to promote his campaign for Indiana's open governor's mansion. The spots have been remarkably content-free—or as reporter Tom LoBianco puts it, they're "touchy-feely pieces detailing his courtship with his wife, his history growing up in Indiana and a devastating storm that struck his hometown of Columbus." We mentioned the first two spots in previous Digests; the third one can be viewed here.

ME-Gov: Republican Gov. Paul LePage goes Godwin:

"We the people have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo—the IRS."
What a fucking asshole. Why do all these Republicans think it's okay to compare ordinary bureaucrats to genocidal bastards?

NH-Gov: Even though conservative activist Kevin Smith probably hasn't raised much money, he's somehow managed to become the first gubernatorial candidate from either party to go up on the air in New Hampshire this year. The ad has something of an odd theme: Smith complains that his father, "like many Granite Staters," commutes to work in Massachusetts—which he says is "not right" and therefore promises to create jobs in New Hampshire. But tons of anti-tax Massholes move out of the Bay State and just across the border to New Hampshire because they want to work in Massachusetts while avoiding many of its taxes. Do they want to work in New Hampshire instead? I don't think that's the idea.

WA-Gov: One thing I've noticed: Post poll results about the Washington governor's race, and in the comments you always get a lot of carping from locals about the invisibility of Democrat Jay Inslee's campaign. Inslee seems to have been marshaling his resources until closer to the election, but it looks like we're at that "close enough" point, and now he's the first candidate to hit the TV airwaves (Rob McKenna, by contrast, has been relentlessly focusing on ubiquitous online advertising all year, which may contribute to locals' vague sense of Inslee being outgunned). Inslee's first at, "Get to Work," is, unusually, a minute-long spot, which gives him enough elbow room to both introduce himself and his family at length, and talk about his job proposals. (David Jarman)

WI-Gov: The AP takes a post-mortem look at spending in the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall, where GOP Gov. Scott Walker spent an extraordinary $33.4 million. By contrast, his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, only spent $6.6 mil. (None of this counts outside spending by third-party allies.) Here's the breakdown:

The Walker campaign's biggest expenditure—$16 million—was TV advertising, double what the campaign paid for anything else. The next largest expenditure was $8.1 million for mailings. Other notable expenses included $1 million for radio ads; a little more than $554,000 for website development; $441,000 for legal fees; $285,000 in wages; $226,000 for automated calls; and $36,900 for online advertising. [...]

The biggest expense for Barrett's campaign was TV, too. He paid $4.2 million for ads between March 30 and June 30, a hefty number but only a quarter of Walker's TV spending.

The mayor didn't spend more than $625,000 on any other area—his next largest payouts were $623,000 for online advertising; $406,875 for automated calls; and $240,107 for staff wages.


FL-18: Yep, more Allen West slavery comparisons. The Republican congressman was on FOX News (where else?) this past Sunday:

That is an unfortunate consequence of failing economic policies coming from the president so that now when people are running out of the unemployment benefits, now they are looking toward going on Social Security disability... so once again we are creating the sense of economic dependence, which to me is a form of modern, 21st century slavery.
It's his new favorite theme. Just a week earlier, you probably saw these remarks:
"He does not want you to have the self-esteem of getting up and earning and having that title of 'American,'" the congressman said of the president. "He'd rather you be his slave and be economically dependent upon him."
In non-insane FL-18 news, a super PAC called American Sunrise is spending $55K on online ads to boost the candidacy of Democrat Patrick Murphy, who of course is running against West. (Ordinarily, I wouldn't mention web ad buys, but this is a fairly sizable purchase.) If the organization's name rings a bell, it's because they're the folks who announced back in January that they planned to support three Dems in different races around the country—the day after one of them, Andrew Hughes, dropped out of WA-01.

Hughes decided to re-engage in a quixotic bid against veteran Dem Rep. Jim McDermott in WA-07, so it's unclear whether Sunrise will still stick with him. And their third dude, Joaquin Castro, is a lock to win the safely blue TX-20. That means only Murphy is left, so we'll see if the group devotes their planned "$1.5 to $2 million" on him alone, or if they branch out—assuming they wind up spending what they claimed they would. (This is their first expenditure of the cycle.)

IL-02: Illinois's senior senator, Dick Durbin, is weighing in on the issue of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s health, which has remained shrouded in mystery. Durbin, rather surprisingly, prodded his fellow Democrat, saying: "As a public official, there comes a point when you have a responsibility to tell the public what's going on. [Jackson] will soon have to make a report on the physical condition he's struggling with." Jackson hasn't been seen since early June; his staff later said he was being treated for "exhaustion," then make the picture sound graver (albeit still very vague) last week. For what it's worth, Jackson probably doesn't care what Durbin thinks—Durbin refused to get involved in Jackson's primary earlier this year against ex-Rep. Debbie Halvorson.

KY-06: Republican Andy Barr is out with another internal poll (again from Public Opinion Strategies), and he's trying to convince people that Dem Rep. Ben Chandler's 47-42 lead actually represents some kind of genuine movement from the 49-42 Chandler edge Barr came up with in January, as opposed to just noise.

NC-08, -09, -11: A week from Tuesday, Republicans will hold runoffs in three North Carolina congressional districts: the 8th, the 9th, and the 11th. As per usual, we've compiled all of the pre-runoff fundraising reports, which were recently filed with the FEC. In the 9th, you'll see Robert Pittenger's self-funding train rolls on, with another $788K tossed in from his own bank account. Meanwhile, in the 8th, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's YG Action Fund spent another $46K on mailers attacking Scott Keadle, on top of the $23K they've already shelled out.

We're not done with the 8th District just yet. The American Action Network, the "mainstream" Republican group that goes around boosting candidates like Richard Lugar, often finds itself at odds with the Club for Growth, and NC-08 is yet another example. The AAN (which is run by ex-Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman) is apparently set to start airing an ad attacking dentist Scott Keadle, reportedly backed by a 750-point buy. Like the YG Action Fund, the AAN wants former congressional staffer Richard Hudson to win. Meanwhile, the CfG, predictably, supports Keadle, and they've put their money where their press releases are, spending over $400K on his behalf since the runoff (and more than $700K overall).

NY-06: Rory Lancman says he's ready to vacate the Working Families Party line this November to help fellow Assemblymember (and Democratic primary victor) Grace Meng beat Republican Dan Halloran in the fall (though in this blue seat, she's heavily favored no matter what). New York has very stupid rules about replacing candidates, but since Lancman is an attorney, he can be nominated to a judgeship (that he'll have no intention of running for) in order to clear the WFP spot. There's one other way to get your name off the ballot: As Lancman archly jokes, "I could die between now and then."

NY-13: With the math very much against him, state Sen. Adriano Espaillat conceded the Democratic primary to Rep. Charlie Rangel. Espaillat, who came up about 2% short, is also dropping his lawsuit challenging the results, though he said that other groups may pursue alleged incidents of voter suppression. Espaillat also would not say whether he would seek re-election to the state Senate; he has until Thursday to decide.

But don't even think about breathing a sigh of relief: The New York City Board of Elections remains as fucked-up as ever, with 28 previously uncounted ballots mysteriously discovered on Monday. Obviously that's not enough to make a difference, but it's just further proof that the BoE is a criminally incompetent organization filled with pathetic patronage hacks. For a chilling look at what the board is really like, I strongly encourage you to read this 2010 Village Voice piece from investigative journalist Tom Robbins. Appalling stuff.

WA-01: Democrat Suzan DelBene is out with her second ad, a positive spot in which she touts her work as director of the state's Department of Revenue. She hits two mild partisan notes (on issues that always poll well): She supports "passing the Buffett Rule, to make millionaires pay their fair share" and "cracking down on Wall Street abuses."

Meanwhile, that new super PAC Progress for Washington is doubling its efforts: They're spending another $21K on mailers, presumably the same negative flyers attacking DelBene that they shelled out $21K for last week.

Other Races:

OR-Init: It looks like Oregon will join several other western states (Washington and probably Colorado) in having a ballot measure in November allowing the legalization, sale, and regulation of marijuana. Supporters have turned in more than twice the number of signatures needed to qualify, and hopefully its presence on the ballot will help drive turnout from otherwise unlikely-to-vote youth voters. Other initiatives looking likely to qualify for the ballot include an end to corporate tax "kicker" rebates (good) and an end to the state's estate tax (bad). (David Jarman)

Grab Bag:

Ideology: Here's a new wrinkle in the efforts to quantify anything and everything about politics: It's now possible to assign a DW/Nominate-style score to members of the judiciary, which can be directly overlaid with congressional numbers. The 7th Circuit's Richard Posner (a jurist who's generally regarded as one of judicial conservatism's brightest lights but who attracted a lot of attention last week for complaining how the GOP has left him) is the example that VoteView focuses on.

It turns out Posner's somewhat right: In the 1970s, there were a number of congressional Republicans to the left of Posner, but now, there aren't any. Posner, though, is more moderate than you might have thought: He occupies roughly the same ideological space as Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, and Olympia Snowe. Of course, Article III judges aren't elected so it's mostly a theoretical exercise... but this kind of analysis could just as easily be applied to state-level courts, which are elective offices in many jurisdictions. (David Jarman)

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Tue Jul 10, 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

  •  Yes, and 3.1 million dollars in June alone: (8+ / 0-)

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:01:47 AM PDT

    •  I think the Kennedy seat is again safe (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennyp, Christopher Walker

      that is some fund raising.  I sure hope some debates are scheduled because I think Warren is extremely smart.

      •  Safe? (11+ / 0-)

        no, not safe. Is Warren likely to win? Probably. Bit with polling being as close as it has been, this seat is far from safe. The one thing it is is EXPENSIVE. It does make me wonder if a couple million here would be better directed at Montana, North Dakota or Nevada.

        •  I think there is some value (8+ / 0-)

          in targeting a seat that, if won, will likely be safe for Democrats for a long while.

          Conversely, if Brown wins this year, he's going to be pretty entrenched in the seat.

          •  well, obviously long-term has to be a consideratio (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            R30A, lina

            but then the question is where do you draw the line? Warren is no spring chicken and is unlikely to run 12 years from now due to age, and we are back to an open seat situation again.

            so Hypothetically speaking, is 12 years of Elizabeth Warren worth 6 years of each Heller, Berg, Ryberg and Steelman? granted there is no way to know where the money would have been beat used until after the dust settles and we see it in hindsight. but with the Democrats clinging to control or the senate, I would trade for a Scott Brown if it meant I could have a McCaskill, Heitkamp, Tester, and Berkely for the next 6 years.

            •  The spending by Republicans on MA-Sen (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              could also go to Nevada, Montana, North Dakota and Missouri.

              I don't know if Democrats can use the money more effectively in those states than Republicans, but if they can't, it's a wash, except that Democrats would just have taken one possible pickup off the table.

            •  There's more than just numbers... (10+ / 0-)

              I know that politics is a numbers game, but not entirely. The kind of coverage the Warren race is getting outshines the attention to the other three states combined. Warren is as true a progressive candidate we will likely get in a Senatorial bid. Coming out on top in this race will be a shot in the arm for candidates seeking to stand against Wall Street power, will loosen the "control through fear" that gives Wall Street a significant influence with members of both parties in the Senate (and House), and will provide a sizable microphone to someone who can eloquently outline progressive positions and vision in an easily comprehensible message. I would rather have one progressive senator with strong messaging skills and media attention than four moderates that will hang us out to dry to protect their seat, giving Republicans the veneer of bipartisanship and muddying the distinction between the parties. Progressives can only win when the distinction is clear, the plan is coherent, and the message is broadcast. Electing the Warrens of the party will do that in ways that sheer numbers games cannot. Quantity is important, but quality can beget future quantity.

              •  Heart vs. Head (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sacman701, aamail6, R30A, jncca

                in no (modern) circumstance would I ever trade 1 senate seat for 4. Especially when that 3 seat difference will likely be the difference between majority and minority status. Warren will get ZERO accomplished if she is a minority party senator. Democratic senators can be whipped when their votes are needed, Majority Republicans would push their own agenda. Control if the senate is INFINITELY more important than one liberal hero in a minority caucus. I am sorry, but on your point in this last post is dead wrong. One 100% liberal voice does not counteract the Four 100% conservative voices that come out of that situation.

                •  this x 1000 (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OGGoldy, R30A

                  The Senate is about numbers, not messaging. All else equal it helps to have a senator who can present issues well (I think Warren has the potential to be the next Pat Moynihan in that regard) but 4 seats are always better than 1. 2 seats are always better than 1.

                  SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

                  by sacman701 on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:37:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
                    The Senate is about numbers, not messaging.
                    What? It's a deliberative body with a small membership that grant large amounts of floor time to every individual senator, regardless of his or her party's majority or minority status. The filibuster, debate structure, statewide electorate bases, and institutional culture all provide individual senators with broad discretionary powers and disproportionate influence over all aspects of governmental operations. Indeed, most senators fancy themselves worthy of the presidency, and many wield their power with comparable effects and media attention. Majority status means much less in the Senate than in any other democratic institution in this country. The entire institution is built around messaging. Plain and simple. Extensive debate + glacial legislative procedures = importance of messaging. As I point out below, we've had the Senate since 2009. Yes we lost the House, but even when we had it, the Senate was the problem.

                    My point is NOT that numbers DON'T matter. Read my comment below for a full explanation. Numbers do matter, but only if we have people in place that have the vision and courage to use them for good policy. I don't care as much about the brand in charge if the results are still lukewarm policies. I want strong labor protections, revenue increases from the wealthy to decrease income inequality, stimulus spending, retrofitting revitalization of our cities, infrastructure repair and updating, implementation of sustainable energy (and unionized green jobs with it), higher education funding support that decreases the need for excessive student loans, Medicare for all, the end of TBTF financial institutions, and a stronger federal presence in ensuring all public schools are well funded and staffed with excellent, well compensated teachers. Can you see a centrist Democratic coalition having the courage to clearly, unequivocally fight for that platform? No? Then what good is their majority? Good enough to slowly negotiate away the gains of previous generations with sociopaths on the right?

                    I'm a Democrat through and through, and will of course support them, but I am a progressive above party, and I want results. As I see it, the only way we will get intelligent policy-making is to force the party to be more progressive. If that means a few years in the minority while we make our case to the public and build a class of fighting progressives, it will only strengthen our cause (we'll see how the public feels about conservative policies after a few years under them).

                    I'm telling you, people will participate in greater numbers when they have a REAL choice, not a choice between a Republican or the person who will only give Republicans some of the cuts they want.

                    •  ok (0+ / 0-)

                      I see where you're coming from, but that's basically the same argument Jim DeMint makes when he says he'd rather have a minority of true believers than a majority that includes squishy types. It's an all-or-nothing strategy that depends on engineering a major ideological shift, and that sort of thing usually comes to nothing. There are plenty of other arenas for winning hearts and minds, but Congress is the only place for passing good laws or blocking bad ones.

                      SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

                      by sacman701 on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:39:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Hmm... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus, dufffbeer, lina

                I think you might be overestimating the power of the majority in the Senate and under-valuing the game of inches involved in constructing/changing the political framework necessary for building a more progressive Democratic majority.

                First, the Senate. Let's take a quick step-back and think back to 2009. We had the House by a significant majority and a 60 vote Senate majority that included two independents and a bunch of moderate Democrats. What did we do? We passed a health care law built around conservative ideas and saw moderates from the Dem caucus (technically an independent [Lieberman]) kill the major liberal provision that would have ensured a significant reduction in premiums. In other words, we passed a Republican bill with a few Democratic amendments (pre-existing, 26, yada, yada). We caught some decent student loan reform. Woo-hoo, we put a band-aid on a system that is collapsing, a higher education financing system much more in line with conservative ideological preferences no less. We failed to close Gitmo. We passed a toothless financial regulatory reform bill, despite having the public on our side on that issue and despite having Wall Street utterly discredited in every possible way. So how's that majority status of spineless moderate Dems working out for us? They botched the messaging on even the GOOD things they did, campaigned against their own accomplishments, and worked to water down the party's reforms for fear of losing (which many of them did anyway).

                The minority party was able to block passage of anything too significant, scale back the one significant piece of legislation to ideas that were theirs in the first place, and intimidate Democrats into running away from a coherent message, let alone a progressive message.

                Back in the '80's Republicans shifted more and more towards ideological purity, making their strategy a strategy of long-term goals. Not only would they take the majority, but they would do so on their terms so they could pursue an unapologetic, ideological agenda. Guess what? It work. Incrementally, we have been implementing more and more conservative policies and debating in more and more conservative political frames and terms. They created a unified, coherent message, and fought for it plank by plank. They drew a distinct line that gave voters a clear choice. In the minority, they disrupted as often as they can, taking every opportunity to highlight examples of how they would do things differently. Now, we live in a world that progressives celebrate the protection of a mandate to purchase private insurance from an industry that profits from a public good.

                My point was that we can't keep lying to ourselves that pragmatic politics is good politics. It's not. Being in the minority does not mean we can do nothing. We can block legislative initiatives, form a coherent message, and make the distinction between the parties crystal clear. Obama limited the size of his stimulus because his political advisers told him the public wouldn't like it if it was too big, and he did so against the advise of his ECONOMIC advisers.  Now, unemployment is still high, but fiscal stimulus is widely viewed as a failure because he missed his chance by worrying about political pragmatism. Obama switched to deficit discussions in the midst of high-unemployment because pragmatic political advisers said he should. Do we see the trend in how bad the outcomes are if we obsess over political pragmatism? I say we build for the future. We make the distinction clear, give voters a clear choice, and when we do take back Congress and the WH (be it 2012 or 2016), we have a class of politicians with a real mandate and the spine to follow through.

                I respect political pragmatism and understand it. We live in the moment, so building for a better future coalition is not exactly an inspirational rallying cry, but if we really want to see good policy implemented, I'm convinced it has become necessary. 2009 is my proof. After living through that, I see no other way. If you still disagree, then we may have to respectfully agree to disagree.

            •  Elizabeth Warren Will Be A Cabinet Official And/Or (0+ / 0-)

              a presidential candidate.  Her fund-raising already says that she's a national democratic leader.

        •  Rec'd you for 1st part, but last part is wrong (10+ / 0-)

          No, the money would NOT be better directed at other states.  Audrid is right, winning Massachusetts now makes it safe for a long time.  You gotta win the lowest-hanging fruit, and this is one of those.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:43:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm reluctant to send Warren anything. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aamail6, R30A

          I like her a lot, but it looks like she's going to have all the money she needs.

          Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

          by bjssp on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:18:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This doesn't seem to be an effective push-back: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, majcmb1

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:02:52 AM PDT

  •  I wish there was someone from FL-18 (0+ / 0-)

    who could tell us whether this clown is being frowned upon for his antics:

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:04:01 AM PDT

  •  Even Charlie Cook is joining the bandwagon... (10+ / 0-)

    ....of Obama optimists.  Will wonders never cease?


    by LordMike on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:06:42 AM PDT

    •  yes, up till now he's insisted it'll be very tight (5+ / 0-)

      even at points where state polling was suggesting a much more comfortable Obama advantage.

      Here's a link to the full article

      Basically he's adding to the chorus saying that the Bain ads are a serious problem for Romney. Didn't Mittens read about the 2004 campaign and a certain problem Kerry had over swiftboats...?

      Voters also have to be willing to hire Romney. If the challenger is deemed unacceptable, a potentially decisive slice of the electorate could reluctantly return to the incumbent. Voters’ willingness to hire Romney is being severely damaged, at least in swing states, by the advertising efforts of the Obama campaign and Priorities USA, a pro-Obama super PAC. The ads are devastatingly tough, portraying the former Massachusetts governor as a private-equity version of Gordon Gekko, a heartless corporate barracuda who has made a fortune acquiring and looting companies, laying off workers, and ruining lives and communities. That’s the story line, anyway. These ads lead to the conclusion that Romney is not to be trusted in the Oval Office.

      Romney’s tenure running Bain Capital, layoffs, outsourcing, and now his personal finances give Democrats plenty of great fodder. If you live in or visit a swing state and turn on a television set, you will be deluged by these ads. Maybe they are accurate and fair, maybe they aren’t. Regardless, they are hard-hitting and running with great frequency.

      •  I wonder what Rove thinks about this (6+ / 0-)

        as it's a classically Rovean tactic - focus on something about your opponent that's supposed to be a strength and turn it into a weakness. With Kerry it was his vietnam vet status; now with Romney it's his business expertise.

        I have to say I'm not a huge fan of negative advertising, preferring contests that play more by the Queensberry rules. Still, if it's going to happen at least let it be our side that's better at it. Unusual for Democrats, frankly.

        •  Just desserts for what they did in 2004 to us... (10+ / 0-)

          What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  It is classic Rovian, and I love that we are doing it.  They deserve some of their own medicine.


          by LordMike on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:49:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think the great myth of 2004 was... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades, markhanna

          ...that the Swift Boat ads hurt Kerry, that they were the key.

          I saw something, I think on ABC's blog The Note, just this morning repeating that tripe.

          I know even Kerry's own campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, after Kerry's defeat cited the Swift Boat attacks as the killer.

          I think she was very wrong.

          I recently watched a few Bush '04 ads attacking Kerry, and they were far more devastating than what the Swift Boaters did.  And those Bush '04 ads didn't attack Kerry's military service, they attacked his national security record as a Senator.

          Oh, and Rove didn't conceive of the Swift Boat attacks, those were by an independent wingnut group.

          What Obama is doing is "Rovian" for sure, but not in the sense of "attacking the opponent's strength."  Rather, both Obama now and Rove then exploited the opponent's weakness.  And Kerry, as a Massachusetts liberal with a liberal Senate voting record except for his lone vote in favor of the Iraq War, was easily exploited as "weak on national security" based simply on the longtime public perception toward Democrats as being just that.  Kerry tried to use his war record to insulate him from that, but it proved irrelevant to voters because, as has been proven for a long time, voters disregard military service virtually altogether.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:00:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd hate to say this (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            New Rule, Odysseus, LordMike

            But Kerry defeated Kerry in '04. He just wasn't that good a candidate. As a result, Indie voters didn't see a good enough reason to change from the devil they already knew.

            •  I Didn't Think He Did Much Wrong.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              His idiotic "I'm John Kerry reporting for duty" posture at the convention speech was the only real mistake he made.  He was a light years better candidate than Gore four years earlier.

              •  I agree that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                he really didn't do that much wrong, but that is not enough. I think he just didn't come off as all that likeable, and sort of stiff.  Let's face it, the knuckleheads that ultimately seem to end up deciding elections in this country are mostly basing their vote on that sort of factor.

              •  His hands were tied by uncontrollables (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                itskevin, stevenaxelrod, LordMike

                The big thing Kerry lacked was money.  His campaign was near-broke at one point after he wrapped up the nomination.  That's why he went dark on TV for awhile.  None of this was his fault, he just didn't have an organic following to be able to raise a lot of money, and as a Democrat he belongs to a party that doesn't have nearly as many rich supporters as the Republicans do.

                Perhaps he made a mistake accepting public financing for the general and could've done better on his own, but that's very speculative.

                I do think the hyper-focus on trying to insulate himself from "weak on national security" by touting his military record was a mistake, not because of Swift Boaters but because voters had long established they don't care about military service in picking a President.  If anything, Kerry's big messaging strategy mistake was in failing to explain how he would keep America safe that was different from Bush, and also explaining more clearly what he would do in Iraq (to this day I don't remember what he said other than to slam Bush).

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

                by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:39:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't Mitt remember his 1994 campaign.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Same thing...


        by LordMike on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:49:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Post poll this morning (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        suggests Bain isn't having much of an impact.

        "Romney's work buying and restructuring companies before he went into politics
        Major Reason to support  23
        Major Reason to oppose  24
        Not a major Reason
        to support or oppose  50

        Maybe swing state numbers are different.  The same polls say that by 40-36 voters believe Romney cut jobs in business rather than creating them.

        There is something Rovian in all of this - his business background is a net wash right now - credit Obama's advertising for it.

        But it doesn't look decisive in a poll that is tied at 47.

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:38:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong question, perhaps (0+ / 0-)

          I think the right question is on who voters trust with the economy. I think it's too early to tell the effects of the Bain ads on that measure.

          but I think Rs have historically have had a lead in that polling question.

          If that measure can be neutralized in our so-so economy (and I think the Bain ads can do that), then President Obama wins re-election.

          "I hope; therefore, I can live."
          For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

          by tietack on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:27:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Trust on the economy (0+ / 0-)

            has varied with its ups and downs, obviously.  I don't get why anyone who isn't a GOP hack or right wing ideologue would trust Republicans more on the economy since 1990 or so.  

            At least Romney's narrow edge on "trust to handle the economy" is neutralized by Obama's better understanding of the problems people face and the perception that he has a clearer plan to deal with the economy (though neither gets majority support on that score.)  The Bain criticism may really be working to shape these perceptions; the record of the GOP in Congress might be hurting Romney as well. (Don't give control of the government to Boehner and the Bain-er?)

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

            by Mike in MD on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  PPP in VA asked the "softer" question (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            of whether it made voters there more positive or negative about Romney, and it was 40-29 "more negative". Hard to say how much any of this actually translates into votes but it surely can't help his prospects that one of the main items on his CV is now perceived as a negative.

        •  but we don't know (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          what the answer to that question could have been if Bain was actually a highly respected company.  If not for the negative attention it is being given, those numbers very well could have been 60% or higher as a major reason to support.  Considering Romney's main claim to being qualified to be president is his corporate experience, having only 23% thinking it is a major reason for support might be concerning to the Romney campaign.

    •  I think Cook reads DKE (4+ / 0-)

      as he even joined us in commentary at SSP on occasion.

      "I hope; therefore, I can live."
      For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

      by tietack on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:39:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know that Nate Silver does (0+ / 0-)

        he had an account at SSP even

      •  well he should really (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I know he has a lot of insider sources but there's a collective wisdom here that he and other commentators could probably benefit from.

        At any rate his most recent version of the state rankings (from July 2) is a lot more credible than some of the earlier editions. He moved PA from tossup to lean O and Maine and New Mexico both shifted from "lean" to "likely". I can't think there was too much data from those 3 in that period so maybe he paid some attention to the hammering he was taking here and no doubt some other places. I would have kept NC as "tossup" rather than "lean R" but accept there was a fair bit of supportive polling for Romney in that period so the change wasn't so surprising. 247 EVs is precisely where I would currently put it for Obama, though I'm also optimistic about most of the "tossups", especially NV and VA.

  •  NC-08: What's up with Keadle? (0+ / 0-)

    Is there some kind of genuine fear that if he wins the runoff that Kissell would have a better chance?

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:07:33 AM PDT

  •  NYT reporting 47/47 race today (0+ / 0-)

    Hope other national polls show better than that. Didn't look at cross tabs so nothing more intelligent to add at this point

  •  If Republican Pacs are having to spend a lot (8+ / 0-)

    of cash defending Republican Senate seats in places like North Dakota....

    ND-Sen: Whoa: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS just spent $800K on an ad buy which will "run from September to the middle of October"—a large sum in any state, but positively monster in tiny North Dakota. On top of that, another conservative "charity," American Commitment, is starting a $115K ad run on Tuesday (the spot's not available yet).

    When you add the serious third-party spending—Democrats are playing heavily here, too—plus all of the unanswered polls showing Dem Heidi Heitkamp either tied or ahead of GOP Rep. Rick Berg, it's clear that Republicans are now very concerned about this race. While an open seat in a red state should favor them, this is why candidates and campaigns matter, because in this case, we can no longer say that the GOP has the edge. We're therefore moving our rating of this race from Lean R to Tossup.

    .... then they could be in a lot of trouble in November.

    I think I'll donate some cash to Heidi Heitkamp, just to piss off the Republican SuperPacs.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:21:33 AM PDT

  •  Web ad on the tax disclosure issue: (0+ / 0-)

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:57:06 AM PDT

  •  Zogby/Moonie Times: Romney 43-42 (0+ / 0-)

    800 LVs.  FWIW

    The same margin as two months ago.

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

    by Paleo on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:00:28 AM PDT

    •  That kills the streak (0+ / 0-)

      the ABC/WAPO poll came in a tie, but this one is an actual lead for Romney, first one in a non tracke since the week of May 21.

      FWIW, indeed.

      •  Last one was (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lina, pademocrat

        Mason-Dixon, 5/10-14.  Zogby's last poll was taken during that span.

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

        by Paleo on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:22:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Zogby polling (0+ / 0-)

        I know what it's worth.  It and $5 will get me the featured footlong sub of the month at Subway.

        They and the Washington (Moonie) Times go way back; in 1996 Zogby pulled a bare 1-point lead for Clinton out of his rear orifice the weekend before the election and the MT displayed it on the front page as if Moses was holding it up on stone tablets.

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

        by Mike in MD on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:33:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Memories fade (0+ / 0-)

          in 1996 Zogby actually had the Clinton-Dole numbers exactly right: 49-41%. It is true he showed the race closer than anyone else, and he did have the margin as little as 4 points during the week before the election when most other pollsters had it in double digits. But he never had Clinton only 1 point ahead, and certainly not the weekend before the election.

  •  ME-Sen: LePage digs himself deeper (11+ / 0-)

    Stopped by a reporter, LePage at first wouldn’t comment, but when told that Jewish groups in the state were upset about his choice of words, he became more terse, using profanity within the short interview.

    “It was never intended to offend anyone,” LePage said. “And if someone’s offended, then they ought to be goddamn mad at the federal government.”

    Oh boo hoo, you electoral accident.  It was a horrible analogy.  Maybe some survivors should tell you what the Gestapo were like, but I'm afraid you'd shut the door on them while muttering some anti-Jewish slur.

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:03:12 AM PDT

  •  Mitt and Latinos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Mitt is going to lose Latinos as badly as he's losing them in Nevada he's toast.  A 49% margin?  That means Obama is getting 75% of the Latino vote or close to it.  Anything over 70% and Mitt is done.  States like CO, NV, NM, FL and so on are out of his reach.  States like AZ and TX are suddenly too close for comfort.  

    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

    by DisNoir36 on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:09:52 AM PDT

    •  Can't extrapolate like that (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Audrid, KingTag, dufffbeer, jncca, pademocrat

      ESPECIALLY to Florida, where the Cubans have next to nothing in common with the Mexicans found in Nevada

      •  I always cringe when people extrapolate crosstabs (6+ / 0-)

        across state or especially regional lines. If Democrats ever won 75% of the Hispanic Vote in Texas, the electoral map would look a LOT different. But the fact or the matter is Texas Hispanics don't vote like California Hispanics. its akin to taking a poll of White voters and saying "Obama gets 70% of the white vote in Vermont, therefore he can win 70% of the white vote in Mississippi". it just doesn't work like that. The same can be said of other races as well. For instance in Oklahoma the Native Americans are a core REPUBLICAN constituency, where that would be unfathomable in North Dakota. the only rave that it sort of works with is the black community, which is 95% Democratic in every state.

        •  if Obama wins Hispanics 75% nationwide (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          though, chances are he's doing well with Puerto Ricans and Venezuelans, plenty of whom live in Florida.

          Male, currently staying in CA-24. Voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

          by sapelcovits on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:24:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What's Your Source On Oklahoma Native Americans? (0+ / 0-)

          I've noticed that the counties with the highest Native American populations in OK are more likely to be the Democratic-leaning counties.

          •  Can't really do a web search on my Droid at work (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bumiputera, Mark27

            But the difference between Oklahoma native Americans, particularly the Osage Nation and Native Americans elsewhere was alarmingly stark. Wiki may have a good link on the subject. And that is not to say that White Oklahomans are less Republican than the Native Americans, but Republicans win the Native vote by fair margins, which is unheard of elsewhere in the country.

    •  The problem is ` (0+ / 0-)

      that in AZ and TX the electoriate is polarized over immigration, and it doesn't help.  

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:41:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MI-14 (0+ / 0-)

    The issue about Hansen Clarke's mother's death certificate is still raging:

    27, Male, MA-08 (hometown MI-06)

    by bumiputera on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:18:50 AM PDT

  •  IN-Gov - Interesting release (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Rule

    Gregg put out a policy reform that he would do once elected and it had to do with a major overhaul in child protective services and has launched the issue into the general campaign.

    Pence was quiet and made a press release effectively stating "I'll get one out closer to election day"

    It sorta comes on the heels of Daniels who campaigned on children safety as Indiana is still one of the worst in the nation for child abuse and deaths from abuse and yet cut nearly 200m from the CPS budgets by recapturing those funds.

    Should prove to be a strong stick to beat Pence about the head with.

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:40:11 AM PDT

  •  yahoo! (8+ / 0-)

    $100 of that is from me!  I feel like a Koch brother suddenly.

  •  NV-Sen: Berkeley allegations (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Rule

    How serious are the allegations against Shelley Berkeley?  Do people think she should step aside?

  •  First Read on "Apples to Oranges": (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCCyclone, Odysseus, pademocrat

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:21:49 AM PDT

    •  The primary vs. general money is... (4+ / 0-)

      ...something I've wondered about.

      I've actually maxed out in the primary, anything more I give is money OFA cannot spend until September.  So I've held off on more giving, as I've got enough personal financial stuff to deal with first.

      But I've wondered if Romney has had a bigger share of his haul than Obama's as general election dollars.

      First Read is the best, this is yet another example of why they're a must-read.  No one else in the political media points out some of the things they point out.

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

      by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:12:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't this apply to Obama, too, though? (0+ / 0-)

        At least this answers my question of when the primary and general elections begin and end, legally speaking.

        On a similar note, might this explain the burst of fund raising in the fall in 2008, at least in part? I don't know what the campaign does if it receives more than it is legally allowed to accept, and it might not even be a thing for enough people for it to make a difference, but considering the size of Obama's donor base, I could understand if it juiced the totals to some degree.

        On a less related note, I saw a comment of yours yesterday regarding primary versus general election spending now compared to 2008. I've made similar points before, and it's nice to know I am not alone in my thinking.

        Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

        by bjssp on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:41:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It doesn't apply the same, no (0+ / 0-)

          Obama has far more grassroots donors and dollars from people of more modest means.

          Romney has a lot more rich people giving him money.

          This means Obama gets a much higher percentage of his money than Romney from people who, even with repeat donations, cannot afford the $2500 max for the primary, which in turn means a higher percentage of Obama's money than Romney's can be spent in the primary.

          Regarding fall 2008, no that's correct, because you're allowed to give general election dollars before the conventions, indeed at any time.  Obama got $5000 checks from people in spring 2011; he was allowed to spend only $2500 of each such check before the September 2012 convention, and has to bank the other $2500 until after the convention.

          While someone like me might wait until later to give any general election money, I'm unusual.  Most $2500 donors can afford $5000.  In my case, I couldn't afford $2500 all at once, but I could afford it in many smaller chunks......I'm a tweener that way, but not the norm.  And it's possible I won't give another dime depending on how my personal finances look going forward.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:13:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Josh Green on Romney's issues: (0+ / 0-)

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:24:33 AM PDT

  •  I guess "holy shnikeys" (whatever they are ) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bfen, LordMike

    is more appropriate than um.. "Great Scott" .. in this case

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:44:23 AM PDT

  •  PPP: Obama up 50-42 in VA and 47-46 in NC (14+ / 0-)

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

    by Paleo on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:53:10 AM PDT

    •  And to think I foolishly thought... (9+ / 0-)

      ...that just this once, I might beat Paleo to the punch.

      But alas, no.

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

      by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:56:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Goode is good for Obama in VA (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sulthernao, bfen, pademocrat

      with him included Obama's lead expands to 49-35. Good gets 9%, which almost certainly wouldn't hold up, but if he does get on the ballot there it should be enough for Obama to lock down the state.

      •  That's a throwaway, can't be trusted (5+ / 0-)

        Goode will outperform expectations if he pulls in even nine-tenths of one percent, you can forget about 9%.

        Goode is a non-factor.

        Lots of people make ballot test choices in in telephone surveys that they will never make in the voting booth.

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

        by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:07:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I expect Goode to get 1% in VA (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that is his home state. He may do better in VA and other states if word gets out abouty Romney's profiting from the fetus disposal company, that is a story that could do him lots of damage in Bible belt states.

          •  "Home state" is meaningless (0+ / 0-)

            Bob Barr's home state was Georgia, he got some actual media coverage in his 2008 Libertarian bid because he was more high-profile all along than Virgil Goode ever was.  And Barr ended up getting less than 1% in Georgia.

            Goode was a Congressman for one-thirteenth of the state's population and then got beat.  He doesn't have any kind of following that would generate votes in a quixotic minor-party Presidential bid.

            I'm sorry but you're entertaining a mere fantasy here, any notion of Goode getting more than a trivial handful of votes is a mirage.

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

            by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:34:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  With Goode on the ballot in VA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Obama up 49-35, with Goode getting 9.

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

      by Paleo on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  holy crosstabs batman (0+ / 0-)

      The sample in VA is 73% white and only 33% Dem 33% Republican and Obama still leads by 8 points.

      That is insane!

      •  bit too good to be true I fear (0+ / 0-)

        If he were doing this well nationally he'd surely be up 10% - it's considerably better in VA than his 2008 performance among every demographic I'm looking at.

        •  at any rate, with that lead and that sample (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          VA really does look like a "firewall", as PPP put it in the writeup. Not quite as good as winning Ohio but Obama would only need one or two more of the battleground states to clinch re-election.

        •  Ignore the turnout model, as I've said before... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sulthernao, itskevin

          ...PPP had a consistent history in 2010 of getting similar toplines over time in the same race even as their turnout models changed.  It's just a quirk of their polling, I can't explain it.  But next time PPP might have more Democrats and less white, and still the toplines won't be any better.

          That doesn't mean the turnout model doesn't matter in real life, because it does.  But in PPP's polls, it doesn't seem to matter.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:09:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I take your point about PPP but I don't think (0+ / 0-)

            it can be dismissed entirely. To take another couple of data points, the Obama-McCain breakdown of the sample was 48-44, while there were almost twice as many over-65s and half as many 18-29 voters as in 2008.

            It is pretty much impossible that the actual turnout in Virginia will be anywhere near as favorable to Romney on all these demographics as it is in PPP's sample, so his main hope is that PPP are somehow way off in accuracy. His numbers among moderates for example are particularly horrible - 27-60 on favorability and only 28% of moderates say they'll vote for him. He has to hope that's just plain wrong, an outlier, because he's toast if the reality is anything remotely close to that.

            •  Part of the problem (0+ / 0-)

              in looking at the cross tabs is that they can lead to grossly simplified conclusions. It's easy enough to play around with the numbers--I do it all the time--but it's more likely that we're going to adjust the parts that seem off for us and leave the ones that seem right alone. You're making them appear better than they might be.

              Take PPP's polling of Pennsylvania, for instance. Back when he looked weak in the state, in 2011 at various points, Obama was getting somewhere between 75-80 percent of blacks, which is far less than anybody expects him to get on election day. It would be perfectly reasonable, I think, to expect him to get no less than 90 percent, all things considered, if not higher than that, but adjusting just that number means a sharp and possibly unrealistic improvement in his overall numbers. You could adjust the other numbers downward, but then, why do that?

              None of this is to say that we can't play around. As I said above, I do it all the time. Just don't get too wrapped up in the details if the top lines seem believable.

              Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

              by bjssp on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:53:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes it can be dismissed entirely (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              With all due respect, your comment just cited more crosstabs I dismiss.

              Again, PPP does this all the time, having the turnout model change by party or race or other things, and yet the toplines remain largely consistent.  This happened through the 2010 cycle, and it's happening again now.

              The last Virginia poll PPP put out had almost identical toplines, with Obama up 51-43, the same 8-point margin as the 50-42 today, but that was with more Democrats, and I think more black voters.

              So you're going to say we should trust that the GOP has improved likely turnout and yet hasn't gained any ground overall?  That's not realistic.

              You can't trust the crosstabs or even the turnout models very much in these public polls.  Just treat them as being in roughly the right ballpark, but with no precision at all.

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

              by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:06:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Good news (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The firewall is still holding up at this point.

      26, Male, CA-24 (new CA-26), DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

      by DrPhillips on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:06:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wonderful to see, particularly in Virginia. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That Virginia appears to be edging closer and closer to Lean D rather than tossup is nice, as it's more of a base than a territory in which we need to advance. North Carolina is kind of trickier, since we won it by such a small percentage last time, but perhaps he's bringing together the coalition there just as he is in Virginia, albeit at a slower rate.

      Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

      by bjssp on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:17:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Virginia (6+ / 0-)

      Congratulations, you're now a Northeastern state.

  •  nice (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bumiputera, askew, pademocrat

    so it was +1 in NC, 3 points better than their previous poll.

    The party breakdowns in VA must be fairly unfavorable to Obama for it to be still "only" +8 with such a good performance among Indies and Dems.

  •  what's the deadline for ballot access in VA? (4+ / 0-)

    Goode has 4K signatures, probably needs 3x that amount to qualify

    Deputy Political Director, DGA. Opinions here are my own and in no way represent the DGA's thinking.

    by Bharat on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:18:06 AM PDT

  •  Recalled WI GOPer throws in the towel: (5+ / 0-)

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:23:28 AM PDT

  •  Carville now happy with OFA campaign messaging (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, itskevin, stevenaxelrod, pademocrat

    Hail to the king, baby.

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:44:27 AM PDT

  •  NH residents pay MA income tax (0+ / 0-)

    When you live in NH but work in MA, you still pay MA income taxes. So it certainly would benefit people in NH if they could work in NH instead, provided the salary stayed similar.

  •   "Why do all these Republicans think it's okay... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hamtree, stevenaxelrod, dufffbeer

    ... to compare ordinary bureaucrats to genocidal bastards?"

    Because they know how they would act if they were bureaucrats, and assume everyone else is just like them.

    William O. Douglas- “I am for the individual over government, government over big business and the environment over all.”

    by WaltK on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 10:04:20 AM PDT

  •  Obama is desperate to define Romney...NOW! (0+ / 0-)

    Here is my take on the election.

    We're seeing all of these Bain outsourcing ads and this blitz about Bermuda corporations & swiss bank accounts because the President needs to have Mitt Romney defined as an out of touch, white-bread, billionaire who is a neanderthal on social issues who is in some way corrupt, not too bright and ideally has the compassion of Snidely Whiplash.

    He's doing this because it is virtually impossible for the President to run on the key issue in this election - the poor state of the economy (more on that shortly).

    Right now, most people haven't fully tuned into the election cycle.  They aren't thrilled with the President's performance, think the economy is poor to lousy (depending on how many friends/relatives are out of work) and really don't know much about Mitt, except that he seems rather boring.

    If Romney can make it through the summer as in the same neck & neck position, given the $$$ that the GOP will bring to the race and the likely continuation of poor/not good economic news the President has a real problem.

    (no, I'm not Nostrodomas - but, given everything - what's more likely a sudden improvement in the economy or Greece/Ireland/Israel-Iran, etc blowing up?).

    If he can fight off the President's attempt to define him negatively and instead is viewed as a competent, boring, technocrat who did a decent job leading a deep blue state -the election will circle back 100% (barring an Israeli strike on Iran) to the economy.

    And that would be a real problem for President Obama.

    Because then all Romney has to do is to put up ad after ad in which he runs things like the 30 times the White House has said to ignore the bad monthly employment figures or the spot from the last campaign where the President says if he can't make things better he should be voted out after one term (paraphrase).

    If he has avoided becoming a cartoon character in the minds of most Americans and holds his own in the debates and on the campaign trail that is a very difficult for President Obama to overcome.  

    And, before you blame things on President Bush or the GOP Congress -- I don't think that will hold up with the electorate, either, because the President will then be viewed as the "anti-Truman" (the buck stops.....over there) who isn't leading.  

    Again, very tough.  So he has to define Romney now or I believe things will start to look increasingly like like 2010 come October, with a completely fired up tea party base along with independent voters willing to give the new guy a chance leading to Democratic reversals.

    Not a pretty picture for most Kossacks.


  •  MO-SEN (0+ / 0-)

    I'd really like to see a legitimate polling firm's current numbers for the Missouri Senate race. AFAICT, we last saw non-Rasmussen polling data on May 24.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site