Skip to main content

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

9:10 AM PT: SC-01: By popular demand, PPP polled the special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, and the numbers they got back are quite something. Republicans still have to contend with a runoff on Tuesday, an unsurprisingly, ex-Gov. Mark Sanford, who finished first on primary night, is in the lead with 53 percent, while attorney Curtis Bostic is at 40. It won't be especially easy for Bostic to make up that gap, particularly since he'd have to convince some Sanford voters to change their minds, but Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch has to seriously hope he's unable to.

That's because Sanford's deep unpopularity with the electorate as a whole makes the race  in this dark red district very competitive. Comparing his general election head-to-heads with Bostic's is instructive:

Colbert Busch (D): 47
Sanford (R): 45
Undecided: 8

Colbert Busch (D): 43
Bostic (R): 43
Undecided: 14

Bostic's favorability rating is quite poor, at 30-42, but Sanford's is downright abysmal, 34-58. His notorious history makes him more than just polarizing: He drives 15 percent of GOP voters directly into the hands of Colbert Busch, who sports favorables of 45-31. Against Bostic, by contrast, she only takes 10 percent of Republicans. But even Bostic's toplines are pretty soft for a seat like this, which went for Mitt Romney 58-40 in last November's presidential election.

Still, there are far more undecideds in the Colbert Busch-Bostic matchup, and since they lean heavily Republican, they're very likely to come home to Bostic in the end. Sanford, by contrast, would have a harder time winning over a sufficient number of voters who haven't yet made up their minds simply because there are fewer of them. It's definitely still very much in reach for him, though, just given the demographics of the district, which is why a Colbert Busch win would be such an upset, even against some as disliked as Sanford.

The real tell about the competitiveness of this race will come if and when we see any serious outside spending here, particularly from the major party committees (the DCCC and the NRCC). It's not always a sure indicator that a race is close, though: Last cycle, Democrats spent heavily to protect a blue seat in an Oregon special election, while the GOP did the same in Nevada. Both contests wound up being quite lopsided, so sometimes third-party money comes in simply as a matter of insurance.

There are also always the caveats about polling special elections, which can be extremely unpredictable, and special election runoffs, which can be even moreso. But PPP has a good track record in recent years surveying oddball races, and their respondents say they supported Romney over Obama 56-40 last year, which is quite close to the actual figures. That doesn't mean PPP is necessarily right—the electorate could certainly wind up being either redder or bluer than usual—but it does mean they're in the plausibility ballpark.

But no matter what, it once again looks like the GOP is at risk of making what should be a safely Republican seat far more competitive than it ought to be by tapping a weird and unpopular candidate as their nominee. If Bostic's smart, he'll use these numbers to make an electability argument ahead of the runoff. But those kinds of appeals seldom seem to work with conservatives, and if Sanford can hang on, we could be in for a very interesting showdown on May 7.

10:32 AM PT: AK-Sen: Here's another red state Democrat who isn't afraid of how marriage equality will play on the campaign trail: Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, who just put out a statement confirming his belief that "same sex couples should be able to marry." This isn't really news, though. Begich had previously told the Human Right Campaign that he supports same sex marriage, something BuzzFeed seemed to miss when they started running a whip count on Democrats running for re-election in GOP-tiling states. But it's good to see that this matter is now firmly off the table, and in libertarian-ish Alaska, I'd be surprised if any Republicans even tried to make an issue of it.

11:16 AM PT: GA-Sen: GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey's sort of done the no-head-chicken dance when it comes to a possible Senate run: Last month, he reportedly began telling people he'd make a bid, but then publicly denied it—even though one consultant said Gingrey made an announcement on a conference call with a dozen people. So bear that in mind as you read this new report (based on an unnamed source) which says that Gingrey finally plans to launch his campaign on Wednesday. Given his history, I think I prefer to wait until we actually hear it from the horse's mouth.

11:42 AM PT (David Jarman): Maps: If you remember my animated map from a few weeks ago of the changing face of Kentucky's county-level presidential votes over the decades -- assembled via the amazing Open Heat Map -- you may have thought "Seems like you could make an animated map of the whole country that same way!" You sure can; the only real impediment is wrangling the more than 60,000 data points you need to make it work! But here's what it looks like at a national-level, over the years 1988-2012:

The coloration is based on each county's relative distance from the national average that particular year (something you probably know as "PVI"), rather than the Democratic candidate's percentage; that's done in large part to smooth out the effects of the Perot and Nader candidacies. It does have a bit of a distorting effect on Mike Dukakis's loss in 1988, as he still wound up losing many of those grey-to-light-blue counties, even as he was overperforming his national average, simply because his national average stunk so much. (It's also worth considering that '88 was something of a Democratic high-water mark in much of the rural Midwest, thanks to the farm crisis.)

Even allowing for that, though, the map clearly shows the increasing polarization of the country's rural and urban areas as the decades wore on. If you weren't paying close attention, you'd only notice the huge red explosions starting in the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains and slowly sweeping across the Plains and the South, and assume this map illustrated the utter destruction of the Democratic Party ... but, of course, those are mostly low-population counties, and even more important are the increasingly-intense areas of blue along the coasts and the Great Lakes.

The map is interactive, so you can pause on particular years, zoom in on particular states, and if you mouse over particular counties, you can see that county's PVI that particular year. There's one other way to approach this question, though, which doesn't look as much like a U.S.-shaped lava lamp but is a little easier to focus on: a stationary map showing the trend in the changed PVI from 1988 to 2012. It conveys the same idea, though: heavily concentrated red in the southern Plains and along the Appalachian Arc, heavily concentrated blue along the coasts, especially in the northeast, Florida, and California.

12:05 PM PT: MA-Sen: Hrm. A new MassINC poll for WBUR has Rep. Ed Markey leading fellow Rep. Stephen Lynch in the Democratic primary for the upcoming Senate special election, but the numbers are odd. Markey's up only 35-24, which represents a drop for both candidates compared to MassINC's survey from a month ago. Back then, the firm had Markey ahead 38-31, and there's really no way to explain how both candidates could have slid backwards. (Notably, WBUR doesn't even try to.) The undecided percentage is also a lot higher than we've seen in other polls, so take this data with a few grains of salt.

MassINC does, however, offer the first window on the GOP primary, where former US Attorney Michael Sullivan leads the pack with 28 percent, while state Rep. Dan Winslow is at 10 and businessman Gabriel Gomez at 8. Amusingly, Sullivan is also the preferred choice of Bay State Democrats, given his unapologetically conservative views on issues like abortion (he's against it, natch), but again, there are tons of undecideds.

Sullivan, though, fares the best in hypothetical general election matchups, though he hardly does well. He holds Markey to a 44-27 lead and Lynch to a 49-21 edge. That spread between the two Democrats is also found when they're paired against Winslow (Markey 44-22, Lynch 52-15) and Gomez (44-25 vs. 55-17). I wouldn't be surprised if Lynch tried to make some sort of electability argument based on these numbers, but again, I'm a bit skeptical of this poll.

12:12 PM PT: NJ-Gov: Quinnipiac may want to reconsider its plans to poll the New Jersey gubernatorial race every month, because it's the same thing every time. I'm not saying don't poll it at all, but it probably wouldn't hurt to take a break, especially since the campaign still hasn't heated up yet.

1:13 PM PT: SD-Sen: As expected, Tim Johnson has decided to retire rather than seek a fourth term in the Senate next year. Johnson faced an indisputably tough race ahead. While South Dakota once regularly elected Democrats to federal office, Johnson was the last one left standing, and his long record as a member of the blue team had inevitably worn on his reputation back home. On top of that, he drew the strongest possible opponent immediately after last November's election in the form of ex-Gov. Mike Rounds, who remains pretty popular. And though Johnson's mental acuity has never been in doubt, a 2006 stroke affected his mobility and speech, requiring the use of a wheelchair at times.

When Democratic incumbents retire in red states, that often portends difficulty in terms of holding the seat. But this case may be an exception. A recent PPP poll found Johnson losing to Rounds by 11 points, but if ex-Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin ran in his stead, she'd still trail, but by a much small 4-point margin. I suspect the difference boils down to tenure: Johnson has been in Congress since 1986 (starting in the House), while Herseth Sandlin served a little over six years before losing in 2010. Sometimes you're better off running without a lengthy history of votes and public statements attached to your name.

It's no sure thing that Herseth Sandlin will run, though, and if she opts not to, all eyes will turn to U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson, who is Tim Johnson's son. While Johnson is largely unknown and thus fared poorly in PPP's poll, he may actually have more upside than Herseth Sandlin: As a prosecutor, he has no unpopular votes to defend and can present the sort of law-and-order image that often works well for Democrats running on difficult red terrain.

And it's not necessarily smooth sailing for Rounds, either. Many conservatives view him as a "moderate," a dreaded label in a GOP primary. They'd likely prefer Rep. Kristi Noem, the woman who unseated Herseth Sandlin. Noem is being cagey, with her campaign saying she "hasn't ruled anything in or out," but if she were to run, PPP's survey showed the nomination would be a tossup between her and Rounds. And in various general election matchups, Noem makes the race noticeably more competitive.

But make no mistake about it: Regardless of whom either side puts forward, this is going to be a very difficult hold for Democrats, who face a very difficult Senate landscape overall. The one bit of optimism I might offer is that Dems managed to keep an open Senate seat in North Dakota blue last year, thanks to Heidi Heitkamp's brilliant campaign and the weakness of her opponent. We'd be very lucky indeed to replicate that success, though, but we'll be following all further developments here very closely, as always.

1:31 PM PT: And add MT-Sen's Jon Tester to the rolls of marriage equality supporters as well. Like Claire McCaskill, who got on board a day earlier, Tester was of course just re-elected to a second term, so it'll be quite a while before he faces voters again. But it probably won't matter by 2018: Nate Silver predicts that a majority of Montanans will also back same-sex marriage some time before 2016, while Missourians should follow suit not long after.

2:27 PM PT: P.S. A pretty good get for Bostic, whose greatest source of strength is among evangelicals: Former Sen. and one-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum has endorsed him and will campaign with him on Wednesday. But SC-01 isn't really Christian conservative turf. In fact, it was the only district Mitt Romney won in the state in last year's Republican presidential primary, even as Newt Gingrich beat him overall by a 40-28 margin. Santorum only took 17 percent statewide, so I doubt he did especially well here, either.

2:45 PM PT: PA-Gov: State Rep. Scott Conklin, who served as the Democrats' last lieutenant governor candidate, says he is giving "very serious" consideration to a gubernatorial bid. Conklin narrowly won the LG primary in 2010 but went down to a 9 point defeat in the general election with Dan Onorato at the top of the ticket. (The lt. gov. and gov. nominating contests are held separately in Pennsylvania.)

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

    by David Nir on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:00:09 AM PDT

  •  thanks for showing us the scheduled votes (10+ / 0-)

    on gay marriage in the RI Senate.

    speaking of which, six RI mayors are coming together to support marriage equality, and there's one Republican - Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian, who is easily the best person RI Republicans have on their bench. This move will reinforce his reputation as a moderate.

    Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

    by sapelcovits on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:17:00 AM PDT

  •  OH-4 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Woody

    In a DailyKos diary promoting John Boehner's OH-8 Democratic challenger Andrew Hounshell, a resident of OH-4 suggested running a progressive in the Republican primary against Jim Jordan!

    We tried that in the WI-Gov recall last year by running Arthur Kohl-Riggs against Scott Walker...Kohl-Riggs only got 3% of the vote. If it won't work against Scott Walker, it won't work against Jim Jordan or any of these other conservative Republicans.

    Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:43:05 AM PDT

  •  GA-SEN: Gingrey announcing run tomorrow (7+ / 0-)

    http://www.myajc.com/...

    Gingrey will hold events in Augusta and Atlanta to kick off his campaign, according to the person who is familiar with the plans but asked not to be identified before the official announcement, drawing on Gingrey’s roots growing up in Augusta and his life in the Atlanta area since he attended college at Georgia Tech.

    ...

    U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, a Savannah Republican, is expected to announce his bid soon. U.S. Rep. Tom Price of Roswell and former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel also are considering candidacies but remain undecided.

    23, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-01 (college).

    by Jeff Singer on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:33:33 AM PDT

    •  He's a Todd Akin defender (5+ / 0-)

      Gingrey claimed a while back that Todd Akin was half-right when he claimed that victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant.

      Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

      by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:39:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who would be better to run against: Broun (0+ / 0-)

      or Gingrey?

      Leftist Mormon in Utah, Born in Washington State, live in UT-04 (Matheson).

      by Gygaxian on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:41:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I still think I want Broun (7+ / 0-)

      to be the GOP nominee, but Gingrey is pretty damn crazy too.

      All I can say is, BRING ON THE BATSH*T!

    •  Gingrey on Colbert in 2006 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArkDem14

      Lovely individual.  

      Here's Jack Kingston, who was the first Better Know a District Guest.

      23, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-01 (college).

      by Jeff Singer on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:54:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At least they're not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darth Jeff, James Allen

        Lynn Westmoreland.

        "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

        by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:47:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's surprising how big in the NRCC he's become (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stephen Wolf

          Given what an idiot he seems to be.

          23, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-01 (college).

          by Jeff Singer on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:53:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •   (0+ / 0-)

            "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

            by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:55:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  He's more than an idiot (5+ / 0-)

            He's a racist idiot; he led the 2006 group of Representatives that held up the VRA, and he called Barack and Michelle Obama uppity back in 2008, then actually responded the criticism (and there was not nearly enough of a firestorm), by saying, "I’ve never heard that term used in a racially derogatory sense. It is important to note that the dictionary definition of 'uppity' is 'affecting an air of inflated self-esteem—snobbish.' That's what we meant by uppity when we used it in the mill village where I grew up." It takes some amount of gall to claim you grew up in the deep south in the 1950s and 1960s and pretended not to notice the word uppity used constantly to put down black people who didn't show whites the proper respect, or not notice that the word was almost always followed with the n word.

            "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

            by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:00:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh my god was that segment hilarious (4+ / 0-)

            Everyone should take the time to watch it... Westmoreland is a fucking dumbass and a bigot.

            "My responsibility is to not forget what I put in my campaign literature and to keep up with that and to read it to make sure that I am doing what I told the people I would do when they elected me"

            Colbert: "Le'ts talk about your legislative career for a moment sir. You have not introduced a single piece of legislation since you entered Congress. This has been called a do-nothing congress. Is it safe to say that you're the do-nothingest?"
            Westmoreland: "I..I.. well I guess... there's one other do-nothinger... I don't know who that is, but they're a Democrat. There's one Democrat do-nothinger and one Republican."

            •  That's such an easy question to deflect too... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Stephen Wolf, gabjoh, JBraden

              "Introducing legislation is not the same thing as doing something, I know that one of my colleagues introduced a bill recommending we all eat our veggies, that's pretty do-nothing if you ask me"

              That's off the top of my head, and I just woke up (thank you graveyard shift!)

              Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

              by NMLib on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:53:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It seems to be shaping up that there's a chance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArkDem14, bumiputera

      of both Gingrey and Broun going to the runoff which is really our best case scenario. Hopefully all three of Price, Handel, and Kingston run and split the "establishment" vote so that the two most extreme go to the runoff. Even with someone as strong as Barrow, I just do not see us beating Handel or Price and especially Kingston who would run very strong in south Georgia, despite all of them being very conservative. Broun on the other hand appears to be unelectable barring an utter collapse on our side.

      I was at first a bit surprised that Kingston was going to make a bid given that he's been in the house since 1992 and incumbents in the majority party with that many years of seniority rarely if ever make a run for the senate when their party is in the minority, but he's only 57 and could plausibly serve 4 terms.

    •  Wow, this is just becoming too ideal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden, pistolSO

      for Democrats. The fact that the Republican primary is going to turn into at least a four clusterfuck of competing, entrenched regional and ideological interests that will certainly drag on through a runoff, with tons of money and resources blown, lots of negativity, and plenty of trampled egos presents Democrats a prime pick up opportunity in a light-red, Democratic trending state. Though the state and national Democratic parties will have to really work on pumping up minority turnout, which was unusually low in 2006 and 2010, and had terrible effects on Democrats.

      "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

      by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:50:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus, those 3-4 Republican districts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ArkDem14

        will see the same kind of chaos.

        25, Practical Progressive Democrat (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

        by HoosierD42 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:31:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It really is settling to be a (0+ / 0-)

          perfect firestorm that would leave the eventual nominee with tepid support (and possibly low turnout), in the other base's region.

          Here's how it settles out:

          1. Jack Kingston: "South Georgia/Savannah county club crowd & South Georgia Republican establishment"

          2. Phil Gingrey: rural northwest Georgia & blue collar Atlanta westside exurbs. Some tea party aspirations, and social conservative connections.

          3. Tom Price: Suburban Atlanta Republican establishment support & northside exurbs and suburbs (the wealthiest areas of the state, mostly).

          4. Paul Brown: Rural northeast Georgia/Augusta, Athens, and some of the eastern Atlanta exurbs. Main tea party favorite.

          Aren't those battle lines simply wonderful? Imagine a Republican primary where those guys spend upwards of 15 million dollars to attack each other and in the end out conservative each other, and of course only one is going to emerge from the attacks and geographic fighting as the candidate.

          I'd really like to see Jason Carter run for U.S. Senate.

          "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

          by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:20:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  unimaginably wealthy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, ArkDem14

    Nevada sex-hypnotist Loren Parks is putting a little money into an initiative to put a mini-Right to Work law on the Oregon ballot next year.  It would only apply to public employees.  I don't see it getting off the ground at this point.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:39:31 AM PDT

  •  AR Gov. Mike Beebe vetoes Voter ID bill (8+ / 0-)

    The Arkansas state legislature, however, is expected to override his veto. I liked Beebe's explanation for doing so (it would cost Arkansas taxpayers $300,000).

    Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:43:40 AM PDT

  •  PPP: SC-01 (8+ / 0-)

    PPP finds Colbert-Busch leading Sanford 47-45, and she ties Bostic at 43-43. Sanford also currently leads Bostic in the GOP primary 53-40. I've had good feelings about this race since Sanford announced running - feelings I had about NY-26. I think we've got a very good shot at winning this.

    The Pragmatic Progressive (IN-4); Economic Left/Right: -7.12; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

    by AndySonSon on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:26:55 AM PDT

    •  PPP sent out the tweet (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden, KingofSpades

      Yesterday saying Colbert-Busch was leading but I was expecting something like 41-39.  Both candidates' top-line numbers are higher than I thought they'd be and give me a lot more optimism that she can pull it off.

    •  I'd give Busch 45% chance of winning the general (4+ / 0-)

      Sanford a 75% chance of winning the primary runoff.

      This will certainly be an interesting race, why the NRCC didn't clear the field for someone not named Mark Sanford is beyond me.  What a bunch of maroons.

      Certainly would love for this to turn into NY-26 (maybe more like NY-23, because Bill Owens survived 2010 and 2012).

      Anyone else wanna make bets?  I know May 7th is far away, and there is a chance Bostic could rally forces and defeat Sanford in the runoff, but its all in the name of good fun.

      Swingnut since 2009, 22, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

      by Ryan Dack on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:14:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bostic is beatable as well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gabjoh

        From what I've heard, Bostic is a Tea Party nutcase who doesn't have many political connections.

        Sanford is easier to defeat than Bostic, however. I'd say there's about a 25% chance of a Colbert-Busch win if she has to run against Bostic and a 45% chance of a Colbert-Busch win if she has to run against Sanford.

        Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

        by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:07:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The NRCC can't clear the field anywhere (0+ / 0-)

        Whoa, you know better Ryan!  Just look at the last couple cycles!

        The national parties are at the mercy of teabaggers who dominate primary electorates.

        But Busch is no better than 50-50 odds no matter what, and I think really less.  White Southerners are pretty loyal to the GOP in federals.

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

        by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:44:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Favorability Ratings (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, WisJohn, ArkDem14, pistolSO

      It's pretty clear why Colbert-Busch is winning in this district despite it being so red - she's pretty popular, and Sanford is definitely not.

      Focusing in on the potential race between Busch and Sanford it's surprisingly close for one simple reason- voters like Busch and they continue to strongly dislike Sanford. 45% of voters see Busch favorably to only 31% with a negative opinion. On the other hand Sanford is still stuck with a 34% favorability rating and 58% of voters seeing him in a negative light.
      Looking into the crosstabs, Colbert-Busch has a 61-17 favorability rating among "moderate" voters, gets a decent 26-40 favorability rating among "somewhat conservative" voters, and has locked up the liberal base. In contrast, Sanford has a 25-67 favorability rating among "moderate" voters, gets no crossover support from liberals, and only gets a 44-45 favorability rating among "very conservative" voters.

      Looking at Sanford and Bostic, I think it's noteworthy that while Sanford only gets a 44-45 favorability rating among "very conservative" voters, Bostic gets a 51-31 rating among the same group. However, Sanford gets a 54-38 favorability rating among "somewhat conservative" voters, while Bostic only gets a 33-34 rating among these voters. I wonder if very conservative voters will try and push Bostic over the top. Considering that we're only a week away from the runoff election, I doubt they could pull it off.

      The Pragmatic Progressive (IN-4); Economic Left/Right: -7.12; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

      by AndySonSon on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:15:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  PPP SC-1: Colbert Busch 47, Sanford 45 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin, JBraden, KingofSpades

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...

    PPP's first look at the special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District finds a toss up race. Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch leads Republican Mark Sanford 47-45 and ties Curtis Bostic at 43.

    This is a Republican leaning district and Barack Obama's approval rating in it is only 41% with 57% of voters disapproving of him. But Democrats are far more unified than the Republicans are. Busch is winning 87-89% of the Democratic vote while Sanford (76%) and Busch (72%) are both earning less than 80% of the GOP vote. Busch is also up by 16-18 points with independent voters.

    Sanford remains a strong favorite for the Republican nomination heading into next week's runoff. He leads Bostic 53/40.

    26, Male, CA-26, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:28:05 AM PDT

  •  MA Sen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darth Jeff, jj32, ArkDem14
    Markey- 35
    Lynch-25

    Sullivan-28
    Winslow-10
    Gomez-8

    Markey 44%
    Sullivan 27%

    Lynch 49%
    Sullivan 21%

    http://www.wbur.org/...
  •  SC-01: She's ahead 47-45 over Sanford (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBraden

    tied at 43 with Bostic.  Definitely a real good baseline.

    "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

    by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:03:32 AM PDT

  •  Gay Marriage (0+ / 0-)

    So arguments obviously did not go well for our side today, as almost everyone has noted.

    Sotomayor, specifically, appears as if she might bail on whether or not the court should even decide this question. And we certainly did not get Kennedy.

    Multiple justices (Roberts, Kennedy, and most of the liberals) also appeared to believe that the petitioners lacked standing.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/...

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

    by wwmiv on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:09:37 AM PDT

    •  You can't tell anything from the ?s/comments (10+ / 0-)

      made by justices. All the legal experts expected Obamacare to get struck down after the hearing and they were wrong.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:28:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oftentimes you can (0+ / 0-)

        especially on nakedly political issues like this.

        And even in the Obamacare case, the result was not particularly surprising according to many legal analysts. In fact, Scotusblog predicted the exact result and vote lineup using the language and questioning of the justices from the arguments.

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

        by wwmiv on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:33:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They did? (8+ / 0-)

          I've never heard anyone describe Roberts' ruling on the ACA as anything other than surprising.

          Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

          by David Nir on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:53:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Toobin was predicting an overturn (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, DCCyclone

            As were several prominent legal blogs and experts.

            "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

            by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:01:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I had low expectations (0+ / 0-)

              though I did think Toobin went overboard.

              "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

              by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:43:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I remember (0+ / 0-)

                the third day and final day of oral arguments was not terrible like the second day (I followed liveblogs on WSJ), and Toobin went from calling it a "trainwreck" on day 2 to a "plane wreck" on day 3.  That screwed up all the headlines, regardless of the fact that day 3 was pretty neutral.

                "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

                by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:02:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I called it (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades, JBraden, DCCyclone

          What surprised me was that he was the fifth vote, not the sixth.

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

          by Gpack3 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:46:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are completely wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades, James Allen

          There was hardly anyone who thought SCOTUS would uphold HCR on the tax argument.

          And Scotusblog predicted right after the orals that the tax argument was dead.

          Maybe Scotusblog changed the tune after further thought, but if they did, that still was just a half-ass guess.

          Every litigator I know scoffs at the notion that you can tell how judges will rule based on orals where judges are not already revealing they pretty much have their minds made up.  And these Justices today don't have their minds made up.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:48:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If the court doesn't decide that's bad for prop 8 (9+ / 0-)

      I'd love to see SCOTUS have a broad mandate in favor of same sex marriage but I don't know if that's realistic given this court.  If the court doesn't rule on Prop 8 that presumably means the lower courts' rulings against it stand.

      And askew's right: comments will only tell us so much.

      23, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-01 (college).

      by Jeff Singer on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:33:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Believing the petitioners lack standing (4+ / 0-)

      is a good thing.  It means the 9th circuit's ruling on Prop 8 stands.

      •  No. If the petitioners lack (0+ / 0-)

        standing, then they lacked standing to appeal to the 9th Circuit as well.  So only the district court's opinion will stand - and that likely has a much more limited effect.

        One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

        by AUBoy2007 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:56:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, (0+ / 0-)

          but if I recall correctly, the district court's opinion was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, right?

          So what's the problem?

          •  I believe (0+ / 0-)

            he means that if the 9th circuit opinion stood it would be binding on all states in the 9th, whereas the district court ruling is no binding precedent at all (other than this case of course.)

            CA-12, (-5.50, -6.77), originally CA-46

            by Jacques Kallis on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:18:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  District Court opinions do not (0+ / 0-)

            carry the force that Circuit Courts do.  As others have stated, District Court opinions are not binding prcedent - meaning there is a chance that the District Court's opinion only applies to those plaintiffs before it and no one else.

            So we could wind up with a situation where couples would have to sue on a case by case basis to get access to marriage - an unworkable solution.

            One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

            by AUBoy2007 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:29:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Who would that be up to? (0+ / 0-)

              The state government?

            •  No, you're misunderstanding what "binding" means (0+ / 0-)

              It has nothing to do with the districts court ruling only applying to the plaintiffs of the case.  The ruling itself STANDS (that ruling being that Prop 8 is unconstitutional for everyone).  

              The only effect of not having a binding decision is that it won't be considered precedent for FUTURE cases.

              27, NE-2 (resident), IL-9 (part-timer), SD-AL (raised); SSP and DKE lurker since 2007

              by JDJase on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:21:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did not speak cleary, you are right. (0+ / 0-)

                Separate from whether or not the opinion is binding on other courts, which it is not; there is definitely a question of whether the district court's opinion, the injunction against Prop 8 notwithstanding, actually applies to the whole state.

                The plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and not a class, and sued specific clerks.  There is a question of whether the district court can reach beyond these people and force others to comply.  And even if it is ultimately decided that the trial court could bind the entire state based on a lawsuit of a few individuals, it would be a fight.

                Really what I inartfully meant is that it is not as simple as just saying well, the district court ruled that Prop 8 was unconsitutional, so allowing that decision to stand is enough.

                One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

                by AUBoy2007 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:16:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  The court loves to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, JDJase, gabjoh, James Allen

      duck big decisions when possible, and they often use standing to do it, even when standing isn't an issue presented in the case as it is here.

      That the no standing argument both doesn't go against the clear trend in favor of equality and doesn't move the court forward too fast (CA gets same sex marriages, everything else stays the same), seems to make it the most likely outcome.

      CA-12, (-5.50, -6.77), originally CA-46

      by Jacques Kallis on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:45:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Standing is a real legal issue that matters (0+ / 0-)

        It's not some kind of dodge.  Standing matters, it's a very important legal boundary.

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

        by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:51:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But Kennedy also (7+ / 0-)

      argued that there IS an immediate legal harm to same-sex couples who can't marry, especially when there are kids involved.

      From what I've read, he basically said that the children of these couples want their parents to get legal recognition, and that that should be given some consideration.

      He also seemed open to the idea that a gay marriage ban may count as a gender-based classification.

      That makes me think there's reason to be optimistic about him coming to the light on this issue.

    •  I think if they decide that they shouldn't (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, bumiputera, madmojo

      have granted it, we should be very happy.  We were never getting a Loving decision on this.  So allowing the 9th's decision to stand it great for us.  There's no ambiguity as to the effect of the 9th's decision (unlike say if they rule no standing, and we're left with the district court's ruling).

      One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

      by AUBoy2007 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:58:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  To take the electoral angle on this... (9+ / 0-)

      I think any outcome where Prop 8 loses but a constitutional right to marriage isn't established is good for Democrats. It will continue to be a live political issue, but one where the majority is narrowly on our side, and the movement of public opinion is unambiguously in our direction. By 2016 the Republican candidate will very likely be compelled to be anti-gay marriage, even as the nation as a whole supports gay marriage 60-40 or so; so that Republican will be faced with the dilemma of either strongly supporting an unpopular opinion, or downplaying an issue in a way that alienates the Christianist base.

      On the other hand, a sudden nationwide right to gay marriage will bring shrieks of horror from the Christianists and motivate them to turn out in 2016 so that they can take back the "liberal" Roberts court, while simultaneously making our people complacent on the issue.

      •  Agreed that politically a huge ruling is bad (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itskevin, Berliozian

        It would alienate a lot of soft supporters of SSM who are sympathetic to the state's right's and liberal overreach arguments.  This doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for marriage equality in all 50 states, but we should recognize the huge political pitfalls if it's suddenly court ordered.

        23, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-01 (college).

        by Jeff Singer on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:11:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doubt it (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stephen Wolf, ArkDem14, gabjoh

          This is akin to the myth that Roe created a backlash among abortion opponents, and that we should have just let the states handle it. In reality, state by state progress on abortion had ground to a halt by 1973, and Roe has been a very popular decision ever since it was handed down. The decision might have thrown a charge into opponents, but it likely didn't create new ones. Looking at public opinion in states that legalized SSM via court decision versus legislative act, there's no real difference. A SCOTUS decision that established a broad right to marriage would probably be well-received if public opinion surveys are correct, considering that the Court is perceived as center-right. It wouldn't be well-received in the South, but whatever.

          •  The Court isn't percieved as center-right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JGibson

            http://www.people-press.org/...

            Also if all that happens is a backlash in the South that's still quite bad for us.  It'll make reelecting Pryor and Landrieu that much harder and diminish any chances we have at holding Rockefeller's seat, not to mention the small possibility of picking up Kentucky and Georgia.  Again, not saying we should let political considerations stop us from doing what's right but we should acknowledge the risks.

            23, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-01 (college).

            by Jeff Singer on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:27:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Landrieu (0+ / 0-)

              is already pro-choice.

              "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

              by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:54:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Disagree completely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          This is a live political issue no matter what SCOTUS rules.  No ruling would "settle" anything in political circles.  Conservatives and Republicans would still be against gay marriage, would still say so, and would still have to deal with the same increasingly adverse consequences from it.  The GOP rank-and-file wouldn't budge one bit.

          Brown v. Board of Education didn't "settle" school segregation politically.  It stayed a live political fight for many years.

          Same goes for gay marriage, no matter the ruling.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:53:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Definitely agree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darth Jeff, Chachy, itskevin, madmojo

        though of course I'd rather my LGBT friends and family have these rights affirmed sooner rather than later. I believe Josh Barro has written a number of times about this.

        But I see this playing to our benefit on a state-by-state basis rather than at the federal level as each state goes through the process of overturning gay marraige bans one at a time and the GOP is continuously on the wrong side of that fight.

        I don't necessarily agree that a sweeping decision would help the GOP in 2016 as I think this is basically off the radar nationally, except to the extent that the social con base forces it to be an issue in a GOP primary.

        CA-12, (-5.50, -6.77), originally CA-46

        by Jacques Kallis on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:14:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We probably shouldn't be discussing this here? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Nir, gabjoh

      But I have a quick factual question void of any opinion, which side is the petitioners?  Didn't a previous court overturn prop 8 meaning people for prop 8 would have had to petition to get it to the Supreme Court?  Or am I mixed up here?  

  •  California State Senate 16 (5+ / 0-)

    I really should do a diary on this race because there's a lot going on.
    The most notable thing is that yesterday afternoon (3/25), the state told Perez she has to move in order to be eligible to run for the seat. LINK  Perez lives along Alta Vista Dr in Precinct: Bakersfield 525. Which for those of you with long memories is the same Precinct Michael Rubio lived in before the was told he had to move to be eligible back in 2010. After the 2002 redistricting, Kern County Elections assigned the entire precinct to the wrong State Senate seat (16 instead of 18). The error was not discovered until 2010 when Rubio won the Democrat nomination for State Senate.

     All I got to say is: This what happens when you are trying to categorize hundreds of thousands of addresses geographically in a table with no geographic intelligence.

  •  Emily's List is putting much more focus on (7+ / 0-)

    Mayoral races now. They want to build a bench of female executives, that could potentially lead to statewide races.

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

  •  2 more senators support Marriage equality (11+ / 0-)

    We now have Begich and Rockefeller on board!

     

    In fact, the occasional victory for the GOP cannot hide the fact that this country is fast heading into another era, not of two-party democracy, but a party-and-a-half system. And the GOP is the half a party- Larry Sabato

    by lordpet8 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:09:29 AM PDT

    •  Begich pleasantly surprises me (6+ / 0-)

      Rockefeller is kind of expected since he's retiring. I'm guessing the southern D-senators will come out in favor soon after 2014.

      •  Begich is far and away the most liberal senator (10+ / 0-)

        relative to how conservative his state is. The only major issues where he doesn't vote with the liberal wing of the party appear to be those concerning oil/energy which is a requirement to represent Alaska. Are there any other issues where he doesn't usually vote with the left half of the caucus?

        Also Alaska is far more socially liberal than its Republican voting pattern would suggest as unlike similarly red states in the south such as Mississippi, Republican voters are primarily motivated by economic interests (oil!) than social conservatism (i.e. racial hatred). When you put that together with Begich being fairly liberal compared to his state, you get him supporting marriage equality.

        •  guns! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gabjoh

          20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
          politicohen.com
          Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
          UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

          by jncca on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:48:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  just curious (0+ / 0-)

          what you mean by racial hatred? Perhaps I just read that wrong, and got confused.

          21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Performance.

          by aggou on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 10:51:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll give you some electoral comparison (7+ / 0-)

            Look at the areas of the Deep south that swung sharply towards Republicans after the 1964 civil rights act was passed. They were primarily areas that also had a huge black population such as the black belt of Alabama. Northern Alabama, which was relatively very much less black, stayed Democratic a long, long time afterwards and only swung towards Republicans en masse and for good in 2010.

            This same dynamic is at play in areas of southern states without large black populations such as Appalachia and Kentucky. The shift away from the Democratic party has been much, much slower despite the overall ideological conservative mood of the electorate.

            But what I mean by racial hatred is that these are people who on economics favor Democratic policies for themselves such as progressive taxation, increased spending on the social safety net, and are by and large not wealthy, but because they have the perception, driven in large part by Fox News/Right Wing Radio and party elites, that blacks stand to gain a lot from Democratic policies, they vote Republicans. Think of the Jesse Helms Democrats who were voting Dem locally but voted Helms en masse because in the words of one of his call-in supporters, he "helped to keep the n***s down" (to which he chuckled in response, I can't remember where to find the recording of it otherwise I'd certainly link it). When it came to economics, these people reliably voted Democratic and did so in the state legislature in many states until 2010. But when Republicans made appeals to racism, even explicitly, as Helms did, these voters voted Republican.

            In short, it's southern whites hatred of blacks that causes them to vote against their economic interests, while in places like Alaska with an extraction-based economy, Republican voters are voting against their own interests to a much lesser degree.

            This is of course not to say that every southern Republican is a racist, but there is certainly a large proportion of the electorate that is and without racial hatred among whites, a lot of these states would vote fairly reliably Democratic thanks to economics, despite social conservatism as you can see in ~95% white states  like West Virginia.

            •  Ah, (0+ / 0-)

              That explains it a little bit better.

              I was just curious cause i'm socially and economically conservative, and I wanted to make sure you weren't implying every single one of us is a racist.

              21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Performance.

              by aggou on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:25:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Religion isn't as big a factor either (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Stephen Wolf, Berliozian, skibum59, jncca

              Alaska consistently ranks high in people self described as "non religious."  Lets not make the mistake of assuming Alaska is a very socially conservative state just because of Palin.  It's more economically conservative/socially libertarian.

            •  Jimmy Carter brought together a unique coalition (4+ / 0-)

              of poor whites and blacks briefly reversing Goldwater tide. Of course it didn't last, but it was neat seeing Carter win districts that now are 70-80% Republican today.

              In fact, the occasional victory for the GOP cannot hide the fact that this country is fast heading into another era, not of two-party democracy, but a party-and-a-half system. And the GOP is the half a party- Larry Sabato

              by lordpet8 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:43:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed, I think he's the last truly southern Dem (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lordpet8, Chachy

                we'll have seen in terms of voting coalition. Even in 1980 when he was getting demolished by Reagan, there were plenty of white conservadem areas in the south that stuck with him such as northern Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi where Obama got ~25%.

                I would really love to have a complete (and I do mean complete) set of pres by CD statistics, both for the current districts for every and all presidential elections, and the historical iterations for the presidential elections at the time. I know some people on uselectionatlas.org have mapped some out, but not all.

              •  His was the last gasp of the Old Democratic Party (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jncca

                I often comment that 1980 was the moment the Democrats lost in one big day all the white voters we would lose, and that's true because of Carter's 47% in 1976.  But one can argue that Carter's coalition was a last-gasp recreation of the old party coalition that actually vanished first in 1968 and again in 1972, before reappearing one last time as a blip in '76.  But I still mark 1980 as the flip because it was when a solid majority of white voters made up their minds once and for all that they would never again vote for a Democrat for President.

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

                by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:57:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Even HCR (0+ / 0-)

          He more or less kept a low profile and went along with the ACA.

        •  Tammy's still got him beat, IMHO. (0+ / 0-)

          Very liberal Dem in a purple state beats moderate Dem in a red state.

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

          by Gpack3 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:53:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not me (6+ / 0-)

        He's pretty much progressive on everything except environmental issues.  Begich has far exceeded my expectations for an AK senator.

  •  MN Supreme Court (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ArkDem14, KingofSpades

    Dayton to appoint former U.S. Attorney to replace retiring Justice Paul Anderson. Anderson was appointed by Republican governor Arne Carlson. Ostensibly this changes the composition of the court to be 4 R, 2 D, and 1 that won election without an appointment. That being said, Anderson sits on the left half of the court, as 4 of the justices are very conservative jurists appointed by Tim Pawlenty.
    http://www.minnpost.com/...

  •  IA-SEN: King is leaning towards Senate run (9+ / 0-)

    link

    Lt. Gov Kim Reynolds and Agriculture secretary Bill Northey are also considering the race apparently.

    Northey seems like he would be the strongest candidate for GOP.

    •  Has Braley officially announced yet? (0+ / 0-)

      Or is he still taking his time setting up the insidery foundations?

      "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

      by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:59:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just do it already. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin

      "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

      by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:42:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Northey is nothing special (0+ / 0-)

      No one is excited about him.  But he's a statewide elected who also is a blank slate, which is his selling point compared to King.  Reynolds, for her part, has baggage, plus has never run in her own name for anything bigger than state legislature although that's not fatal......Tom Vilsack was just a state Senator when he knocked off Congressman Jim Ross Lightfoot for IA-Gov '98.  But Reynolds' personal baggage is a bigger problem.

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

      by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:00:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WATN/DfA (8+ / 0-)

    Howard Dean's Democracy for America (formerly Dean for America) says it will start targeting state legislatures with Virginia being first up. No clue whether they'll continue to be purists and only fund long shot liberals or whether they'll actually be constructive and in the case of Virginia fund the rural blue dogs and suburban moderates needed for a majority.

    •  They'll support true progressives in red areas (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO

      Expect DfA to run a bunch of Tammy Baldwin/Paul Wellstone-type progressives in conservative areas of Virginia and other states.

      Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

      by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:13:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hope they are pragmatic (0+ / 0-)

      RWNJ (and I rarely say that) Del. Bob Marshall is in a 55% Obama (for both 2008 and 2012) district with a fast-growing Latino pop.  He should be public enemy number one.

      "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

      by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:41:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama numbers are irrelevant (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCCyclone

        You're not going to get anything close to Presidential-level turnout in a state legislative election in Virginia.

        •  You can try. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordpet8

          And I know of the dropoff, but still, he's far too conservative for a district Obama and Kaine won by no less than 10%.

          "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

          by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 03:20:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We do try and trying super-hard isn't good enough (0+ / 0-)

            They won't show up and vote, period.  They just don't care much.

            We'll at least do a lot better than 4 years ago, since TMac at least will run a much more competent campaign than Deeds ever did.  And that will help our turnout.  But not by any amount that amounts to anything more than a shadow of Presidential turnout.

            VA-Gov 2009 and 2005 both had fewer raw votes (just under 2 million each time) than VA-Sen 2006 (well over 2.3 million).  That should tell you something.

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

            by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:22:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What's VA's problem? (0+ / 0-)

              How did VA Dems hold the Governorship in 2001 and 2005, win back the St. Senate in 2007 (and get rather close in the House) if there's such a huge dropoff in Dem participation?

              "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

              by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:15:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  They're targeting five districts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stephen Wolf, KingofSpades

      so far they've announced they'll be targeting the 86th (Tom Rust) and 87th (David Ramadan). Good choices -- Rust holds the most Democratic district of all the House Republicans, and Ramadan barely won the 87th when it was open. The Democrats have a strong challenger in the 87th -- John Bell ran against Bob Marshall in 2009, raised a ton of money, but it was the wrong year for, well, just about any Democrat. I don't know anything about the candidate running in the 86th.

      •  The 86th has a primary, but... (0+ / 0-)

        ...Jennifer Boysko is the presumed nominee.  She's great, savvy and an extrovert.  The other guy is a very nice guy, Herb Kemp, who seems a bit green for this.  Boysko is raising all the money, Kemp really hasn't accomplished much...no surprise.  Boysko will be a strong challenger.  No way to know this early how she'll fare vs. Rust, except that as always the top of the ballot matters, so TMac better perform well here and statewide.

        The 34th also should be targeted, that's my district and Kathleen Murphy is our candidate.  She's well-connected, smart, and strong.  She's the mother of Mark Murphy who was the Democratic nominee against Michael Grimm in the Staten Island-based U.S. House district last year, and Kathleen's ex-husband from very long ago was Congressman John Murphy of Long Island.  I've given Kathleen $500 and will knock on doors for her, I've worked the polling place with her twice in the past and she's great.  Barbara Comstock will set yet another fundraising record for a Delegate race this year, but Kathleen has the connections locally and across the region to raise enough to compete.

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

        by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:28:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  SC-01 Santorum endorses Bostic (6+ / 0-)

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

    Also, I was shocked to see Colbert-Busch/Sanford in the mid-high 40s; I was expecting something like 41/39. Also if Haley and Graham are underwater in the 1st district, shouldn't they also be even more underwater in the whole state which is 2% less conservative? Kind of surprised to see that as their last poll had at least Graham with decent favs(approvals). I'd be interested to see another statewide poll soon.

  •  SD-Sen: DeMint declares war on Rounds (22+ / 0-)

    https://twitter.com/...

    DeMint's Senate Conservative Fund calls Rounds "too liberal," is searching for another candidate.  

    I'm not familiar with the far-right case against Rounds: what has he done to piss them off?

    23, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-01 (college).

    by Jeff Singer on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:11:30 AM PDT

    •  This is your cue Noem! (9+ / 0-)

      Also your cue SHS!

      •  I'm pretty sure Noem could not (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32, R30A, JBraden, KingofSpades

        beat SHS after a bruising (and narrowly successful lets say), priamry with Rounds. Not in a neutralish national environment, which seems to be what this cycke is shaking out to be--at worst. If things continue to improve and the current sentiment persists, it'll actually be a marginally favorable environment to Democrats in most places.

        "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

        by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:58:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She could, but SHS would have the edge. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBraden, gabjoh, ArkDem14

          "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

          by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:38:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't say that at all (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jncca

            It's South Dakota.  It's a conservative state.  Any scandal-free Republican has a slight edge over a Democrat of comparable name rec, all other things being equal.  A bruising primary alone won't necessarily hurt Noem, an honest look at past primaries on both sides shows that a tough primary usually doesn't hurt......occasionally it does, usually it doesn't.  It does drain money, and that matters in a late primary, like in WI-Sen 2012.  But I don't know how late next year's SD-Sen R primary is.

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

            by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:31:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Noem is not scandal-free (0+ / 0-)

              She voted against VAWA.

              25, Practical Progressive Democrat (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

              by HoosierD42 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:50:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Noem is very conservative, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HoosierD42

              more than a little abrasive, and tarnished as a legislator by her VAWA vote, which means she's going to get absolutely destroyed in the NA vote if it's her versus SHS. Then there's the frustration over the lack of a Farm Bill, which Noem has been hit particularly hard with. Despite a second tier Democrat, no Republican primary, and Romney's coattails, Noem didn't win reelection by a particularly impressive amount in 2012, and just barely beat the popular SHS in 2010 by 2 points in a very strong Republican wave.

              Simply put, in a neutral year without a big Republican wave, and with a bruising Republican primary, SHS starts off as a clear, narrow favorite over Noem, even when taking the state's ideological bent under consideration (which falls apart when viewing South Dakota's regard for keeping Democrats in its national delegation and maintaining balance in order to have the most influence, as well as Democrats' strong record their when it comes to winning federal elections on populist issues.

              "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

              by ArkDem14 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:10:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think you supported your argument (0+ / 0-)

                The points in your first paragraph are all well and fine, I don't disagree with them.

                But none of it supports the conclusion at the start of your second paragraph.  SHS would not be a favorite at all.  That Noem won in a wave doesn't matter because she's now an incumbent conservative Republican in a state that strongly favors Republicans over Democrats, and mildly favors conservatives over centrist/center-leftish Democrats.  Yes there are exceptions like when SHS won and Johnson himself, but they are exceptions to the rule.  Johnson won initially because Pressler was damaged goods, and SHS won an open seat.  Beating an incumbent who isn't obviously damaged is hard.  And doing this in a midterm with a Democratic President makes it a small bit harder......not overwhelmingly so, but it tips the scale just a little bit more.

                I'm not saying SHS can't win, or that it might not be a pure tossup.  But it's definitely not a lean or tilt in our favor.  It's a tossup at best, tilt R or even lean R perhaps.

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

                by DCCyclone on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 06:48:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  GA, IA, SD (6+ / 0-)

      What do you have in common with DE, NV, CO, IN and MO? We might be about to find out.

      "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 Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:16:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iowa is a near lock (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JBraden, DCCyclone

        I'm sorry but unless 2014 is a disasterous year for Dems, and there's no evidence it will be, King is not going to beat Braley.

        Georgia is definately in play if we get the right candidate.  Barrow is an annoyance but I think he's got a good shot at beating someone like Broun, Handel or Gingrey.

        •  Yet somebody other than King would likely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gabjoh

          Be very competitive. That was the point.

          "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 Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:57:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't be so sure of that (0+ / 0-)

            Whatever King's liabilities are, and they are many and fatal statewide no doubt, his campaign chops are more proven than any other mentioned GOPer.  I wouldn't assume Braley wouldn't beat Northey or Reynolds or anyone else by more than he'd beat King.

            Meanwhile, this hasn't been suggested anywhere I've seen, but if King demurs anytime this year then don't assume the pressure won't be brought to bear on Latham all over again.  It might very well be for naught, but it's possible out of panic that Branstad, his Iowa GOP allies, and the NRSC will put the squeeze on him to run for the seat.

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

            by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:35:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But don't you think Latham would be running (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WisJohn

              if he didn't think King were going to? The fact that he's not is the first Tea Party gift to us of the 2014 cycle.

              And I am genuinely amazed that they are doing this for a third cycle in a row. I was sure the Akin/Mourdock fiascos would have convinced them to quite their nonsense. But it turns out I continue to have no clue what goes on in the minds of True Conservatives!

              •  No I don't think that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JBraden, Stephen Wolf

                Latham has real personal incentives to stay in the House without Steve King ever existing.  Latham has seniority, he's tight personally with Boehner, he has guaranteed reelects now as long as he wants them and stays scandal-free, and beating Braley statewide will be very tough...it's tossup/tilt D in that matchup.  Why give up a bird in the hand, if you're Latham?

                This Iowa race isn't like those other teabagger classics, where we looked like likely losers against better GOPers.  This one leans ever so slightly our way even against the best GOPer.

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

                by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:54:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Because Republicans had trifecta and barely (0+ / 0-)

      didn't do more to please the conservative base?

      In fact, the occasional victory for the GOP cannot hide the fact that this country is fast heading into another era, not of two-party democracy, but a party-and-a-half system. And the GOP is the half a party- Larry Sabato

      by lordpet8 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:45:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you DeMint! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisJohn, JBraden, KingofSpades, pistolSO

      If this works out to be SHS retaining the seat for Democrats, we really owe DeMint a thank-you, heh.

      Leftist Mormon in Utah, Born in Washington State, live in UT-04 (Matheson).

      by Gygaxian on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:52:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please do, let us keep the seat. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO

      Noem is brainless enough for them to boost.

      "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

      by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:39:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  DeMint is stupid. (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with him on the issues, but not in tactics.

      21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Performance.

      by aggou on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 05:38:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  2013 Big City Mayoral Races Guide (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Wolf, madmojo, bumiputera, abgin

    I just posted my guide to this year's big city mayors races.  Quite a few fun under-the-radar elections, including the Omaha primary next Tuesday!  

    23, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-01 (college).

    by Jeff Singer on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:48:05 AM PDT

  •  Wow awesome map program David Jarman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darth Jeff

    I'll definitely have to start using that for states like Alabama and Kentucky where DRA screws up the color by .csv function and coloring all the counties manually is fairly time consuming.

    Anyone got any request for what I should do first? I've already done all of the 2006-2010, 2008-2012 downballot trends using DRA, but maybe I could upload them to openheatmap for states like Kentucky so that you can actually mouse over the trend if there's interest. Also don't forget that if you want to you can do them yourself as all the data for every D vs R statewide election for every county nationwide (sans Alaska) since 2006 (+2004 pres) can be downloaded from my spreadsheets here.

    This was definitely nice to see though, especially since the NYT got rid of their awesome 2008 maps and used those stupid arrows that obscured neighboring counties in many regions.

  •  David Jarman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Jarman

    In the 1988-2012 change map, something looks off (Northern Michigan was what made me realize it).  Is it based on PVI?  Or raw percentage?  Because the UP has definitely gotten redder.

    20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
    politicohen.com
    Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
    UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

    by jncca on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:00:33 PM PDT

    •  Check the scale (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Jarman

      the gray was -10 and even some of the lighter blues are in the negative. That threw me off at first too, but I can kind of see why it's scaled that way since there are counties that trended roughly 50 points R and nothing that I can think of at least that was the equivalent trending D. I feel like there has to be something that beats Osceola Florida's D+25 trend; that's the highest I could find with a quick look.

      •  The best trend is (6+ / 0-)

        Clayton County, Georgia, which swung something like D+40; it was rural and white in 1988, and now is mostly-black exurbs.

        And, yeah, the colors are scaled slightly differently on the stationary map, which I did first. I just used the default setting on the stationary map; the way it works is the middle color on whatever spectrum you choose is pegged to the median data point, and since the large majority of counties trended R, some of the less-R-trending counties still show up light-blue if you look closely (case in point Marquette Co., MI, which went from D+11 to D+5 from '88 to '12, by way of reference to jncca's question). I later found a way to do a manual override when doing the animated map by switching the red, grey, and blue values to 0, which creates a more accurate color scale for our purposes, though I found that leaves the map more grey and less colorful. If you tinker with the app yourself, you'll see what I mean.

        Editor, Daily Kos Elections.

        by David Jarman on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:25:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Henry County, GA seems similar to Clayton (0+ / 0-)

          "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

          by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:37:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  30 years ago if I recall (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KingofSpades

            Clayton County (as well as Newt's CD 6 based around ATL airport) sort of had a reputation as being a haven of "suburban rednecks" if I recall. A lot of George Wallace types who weren't as wealthy as those in Northern Fulton or East Cobb and wanting a more rural lifestyle but wanting to be in commuting distance of Atlanta.

            RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

            by demographicarmageddon on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:15:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  MA-SEN: I was just thinking it would be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abgin, DCCyclone

    good to get a PPP poll here, since we are a month into the primary campaign and a month away from the the primary election.

    Now, I do we hope get a poll from PPP, at least by the first week of April, to see if they confirm WBUR's results or not.  

  •  Gov Christie in Panic Mode! (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, jj32, dc1000, JBraden, itskevin, skibum59

    His lead over Democrat Barbara Bueno falls to 35 in the latest Quinnipiac poll! The horror.

    Iranian and German by origin. British by birth.

    by germankid101 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:14:37 PM PDT

    •  Don't worry. (6+ / 0-)

      Come election day, he will win with 100% of the vote.
      Barbara Bruno herself will vote for Christie.

      /snark

      Gay farm boy, 20, who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -7.00, -3.13, 2012 Daily Kos Elections Pick'Em runner-up.

      by WisJohn on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:24:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Barbara Buono is very close to winning (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      germankid101, WisJohn, dc1000, JBraden

      Democrats. Winning Democrats, that is.

      (-9.38, -7.49), Blood type "O", social anarchist, KY-01, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy." — Stanisław Lem

      by Setsuna Mudo on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:54:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, she already is, according to it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JBraden

        But there's a gradual trend towards normalcy here and she's unknown by 79%.  A person with the campaign said a few weeks ago they plan to do a bio ad before the June primary.

        "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

        by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:36:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Her support already higher than her name rec... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades, Stephen Wolf

          ...which means the trial heat polling is meaningless right now except to reflect that yes, Christie is strong.

          But when the challenger is over 30% in the ballot test despite only 10-10 in favorables with 80% having no opinion or not even recognizing her name, that means you can toss the ballot test numbers for awhile.  When her "no opinions" drop down bigtime, then the ballot test will mean something.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:39:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Here's another one. (9+ / 0-)

    Jon Tester announces support for SSM. Which Dem Senators haven't publicly supported SSM yet?

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:23:49 PM PDT

  •  NC-poll High Point University (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, DCCyclone

    http://projects.newsobserver.com/...

    They have little track record though find approval ratings for Obama, McCrory, Burr, and Hagan quite similar to what PPP recently has found, but disapproval is far lower:

    Obama 44/48
    McCrory 50/25
    Burr 36/20
    Hagan 38/22
    Right/wrong track 28/64

  •  Georgia CD Partisan Averages (2006-2010) (5+ / 0-)

     photo GACDData2012_zps45346add.png
    Not too different from the 2006-2008 data from DRA, but I will say that the trend in the state was unambiguously negative for winning more seats. The four districts that Obama won all trended strongly Democratic, while the one marginal seat we hold, the 12th, was trending mildly GOP as was the next least red districts, the 1st then 8th which we held until 2010. Though already heavily red, the 7th trended modestly Dem while the 6th trended more strongly towards us, but these districts probably wouldn't be competitive until the end of the decade even with a favorable national environment, especially without a reinflation of the housing bubble that caused much of the shift in the Atlanta metro last decade. My approximation method also probably overestimates the Dem average in the 6th but short of collecting all the precinct data (very time consuming) there's nothing I can do about it.

    On the optimistic side though, it looks like both Thurbert Baker and Michael won the 1st, 8th, 10th, and 12th in addition to the Obama districts in their 2006 reelections, though no Democrat carried anything outside of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 13th in 2008 or 2010. I think if we can't get John Barrow, either of them would make a strong candidate though I feel like if Harold Ford had been white he'd have won in 2006 so there's certainly the racial voting element to beware of. For laughs, ~40 year incumbent agriculture commissioner Tommy Irvin won the previous 8 districts, plus the 3rd, 14th(!) and almost the 9th(!). Northern Georgia really trended sharply Republican between 2006 and 2010 and obscenely so since 1990.

    Next up to do I have Colorado, Ohio, Michigan (Detroit area might be too much though), some of the rest of Florida, and maybe Utah and Hawaii. Unfortunately all of these later states have required using Obama's 2008 and 2012 district vote share as a proportion of his county vote total as an estimator for other Democrats. So obviously there's a bit of an error factor, but it shouldn't be too off, especially for districts like GA-14 where county splits were basically irrelevant.

  •  Johnson makes it official, announces retirement (6+ / 0-)
    “I will be 68 years old at the end of this term, and it is time for me to say goodbye," he said. “The Bible says there is a time for every season….now our season is to spend more time with our 6 grandkids and in the state we love.”
    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
  •  West Virginia will have the opportunity to be last (0+ / 0-)

    state to ban gay marriage.  IF Republicans ever win the legislature it's pretty much inevitable a constitutional ban on SSM will be passed by voters.  Even ten or fifteen years from now, I bet it passes.  WV is just such an old, conservative, religious state.  That's why it's shocking that Rockefeller would "come out" considering his state's demographics... although it was the right thing to do.  It probably hurts the Dem who runs against Capito, not that they ever really had a chance anyway.

  •  OH CD Partisan Average (2006-2012) (4+ / 0-)

     photo OHCDData2012_zps7fc0eb85.png

    In terms of the trend, the 6th is moving the strongest away from us and I don't think we'll have any shot at it baring a mid-decade remap that restores Athens to the district despite it being the most Dem of the GOP held seats as currently drawn. Unfortunately, the 3rd and 11th trended strongly towards Dems which is unhelpful since they're vote sinks.  Furthermore, the trio of competitive northeast Ohio districts, the 7th, 14th, and 16th were all modestly trending GOP as was the probably out of reach 4th. Good news though is that the 1st trended sharply Democratic and if we ever get a fair-map Chabot is a goner. The 10th district also trended somewhat Dem and should be a great pick up opportunity if Turner ever retires; the 2nd district also trended Dem but without mean Jean is probably a lost cause. Finally, the 5th, 12th, 13th, and 15th were all fairly static.

    And Brown/Mandel by district:

    OH    53.1%    46.9%
    01    49.2%    50.8%
    02    46.5%    53.5%
    03    71.9%    28.1%
    04    42.8%    57.2%
    05    45.3%    54.7%
    06    47.2%    52.8%
    07    47.1%    52.9%
    08    38.2%    61.8%
    09    70.1%    29.9%
    10    50.4%    49.6%
    11    84.5%    15.5%
    12    46.0%    54.0%
    13    67.3%    32.7%
    14    50.1%    49.9%
    15    48.2%    51.8%
    16    47.9%    52.1%

    Nice to see that he won the 10th which Obama also won in 2008 but lost last year, as well as the 14th where Obama narrowly lost in 2008. Unfortunately even Brown couldn't win the 6th, which is trending away from us rather fast. Republicans also did a very, very good job with their gerrymander as only the 14th was less than 3.5% more GOP than the state (which has a '12 PVI of R+.5)

  •  In general, how do people feel about the (0+ / 0-)

    Dems chance of holding the Senate next year? How many seats do you see them currently losing?

    On the one hand, it seems like GOP has a clear path to getting the 6 seats they need. There are seven Dem seats in states that Romney won, plus open Dem seats in IA and MI. Add to that the possibility that some strong GOP challenger could emerge in CO, NH and NM.

    otoh, I think Dems only lose CO, NH and NM in a wave election and maybe not even then(look at Bennet winning in 2010). I think Dems hold IA with Braley in the race and Latham declining. I think Dems hold MI too if Peters runs. Begich, Hagan and Landrieu wont face easy races, but their favorables/approvals seem to be in decent shape. Pryor and Baucus seem to be in a weaker position, although, as yet, without top tier challengers.

    So right now, I see 2-4 losses. WV and SD, and maybe MT and AR.

    To me what this means is, if Dems can catch a break in even one race, it could help them a lot. Catching a break could be 1. a tea partier wins the primary(Noem, Broun) 2. A strong GOP challenger declines to run(Sean Parnell, Terri Lynn Land, Tom Cotton/Steve Womack). 3. Dems get a strong challenger in a GOP held race(Allison Grimes, John Barrow, SHS). 4. Along the lines of number 3, a Dem recruit ends up being surprisingly strong and pulls off an upset(Nick Preservati, Brendan Johnson).

    •  Nah (5+ / 0-)

      I don't think CO, NM or NH would fall, even in a wave year.

      As long as Democrats win two of NC, AR, LA, AK, MT (which I consider to be the competitive seats), they will hold the Senate.  That doesn't look like it will be very hard... although we should aim to hold all of those and get a good candidate in GA (not John Barrow!).

    •  I see us losing that same 2-4 (5+ / 0-)

      as well with only South Dakota looking like a sure loss. West Virginia has had zero polling that didn't foolishly just test Nick Rahall who would make a terrible statewide candidate. Now if Capito is crushing someone like Natalie Tennant by 20 points then that's another matter.

      Montana is probably going to be a tough dogfight of a hold but Baucus isn't in great shape and as of today I think he probably loses, but that could certainly change once he unloads the power of a fully armed and operational battle station his finance chair millions on them.

      So if I had to choose an outcome for every race, I think we'd lose those three. Certainly though, Pryor will have a tough race as will Begich.

    •  I like our chances of holding onto the senate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, WisJohn, JBraden

      Looking back at what the Dems had in 1994, they went into those elections with basically more open seats to defend we have now(5 vs 3).

      So far I still like approval numbers I'm seeing for many of the redstate dems, it won't be all that easy for the GOP to get up to six seats. I also think we'll have a few tea party candidates save us time and energy in some of the races too.

      In fact, the occasional victory for the GOP cannot hide the fact that this country is fast heading into another era, not of two-party democracy, but a party-and-a-half system. And the GOP is the half a party- Larry Sabato

      by lordpet8 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:16:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I see 3 losses at most (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, itskevin
    •  I would probably say a loss of 3 seats (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden

      SD and WV are the likely flips, along with maybe one other one (possibly AR). Hagan, Begich (Parnell will probably opt for an easy reelection as Gov instead of a tough Senate race) and Landrieu look to be in good shape as of now.  I also don't think a pickup in GA is completely out of the question if the Dem candidate is strong and the R is Paul Broun or similar.  

    •  I would tell... 52-54 with the current numbers (0+ / 0-)

      1.- I expect not trubles for the Democratic incumbents in bluer states than VA. And the situation in the open seats of NJ, MA and IA seems under control now. Im A little surprised about the strenght of M Landrieu in LA. Good surprise. The Republicans in Louisiana will have a hard time building a strong candidacy against her. She is being able to keep out the race to the strongest Republicans. At this point she seems favored.

      2.- Then, the number of Democratic seats that I see endangered now is limited. At this point I would tell that MI, AK, NC, MT, AR, SD and WV are endangered.

      3.- I expect a retirement of S Collins, because I think the Democratic Party will fight hard the seat because need to win in favourable constituencies, and she will have also some teabagger fight. No-one Republican find until now a good balance to survive to both challenges at same time in a blue state.

      4.- By the end, I think MI will keep a blue senator, but after hard work building a strong candidate. It seems not likely that the worst potential challengers in AK (Parnell) and NC (McCrory) run. I tend to think that the Democratic Party can keep the three.

      5.- MT and AR seems to have the most endangered Democratic incumbents of the cycle. For these seats I would not be surprised if the Republicans are able to recruit the strongest potential challengers (Racicot and Cotton). But if the Republicans have not them, it would be a very good sign for the Democratic incumbents.

      6.- SC(se) and GA. If the Democratic Party can have the strongest challengers in booth race, I think it is possible to win booth races. But I'm skeptic about the success in the recruitment (The strongest challenger in GA mean not J Barrow). Without a recruitment success I would not expect a full fight from the Democratic Party.

      7.- SD and WV are now open seats and surely will not have the strongest potential Democratic candidates. I expect not the Democratic Party fighting this seats with full strength.

      8.- In the rest of the Republican seats, the Republicans seems favored over the best Democratic potential challenger, and while it would not be by high margin in some states, I think it is enough to keep the strongest Democrats out the race. Then, this mean Republican victory without full fight from the Democratic Party.

      Then, I think the most likely case would give to the blue team between one and three seats less (52-54).

      •  The Republicans will need to work their own seats (0+ / 0-)

        While I see not a Democratic victory at this point in SC(se), GA, KY, TX, like I see not a Democratic victory in SD or WV, I think mid level candidates can emerge in some of the races. I mean J Barrow, N Tennant, N Rahall, S Herseth-Sandlin, A Judd,... Every race with this kind of candidates will require hard work to the Republicans.

        If fact, with this kind of candidates it is possible to have a narrow vitory in red states in good years, like J Donnelly or H Heitkamp do the last year. But also they can lose, like C Melancon, R Carnahan or E Marshall do in 2010. The most likely case is a result between both (2010 and 2012), and this mean surely a race in single digits.

        They will not win easily this kind of seats. And this will prevent to the Republicans from spending money in other less favourable races, like OR-Sen, CO-Sen, IA-Sen, surely MI-Sen, and maybe ME-Sen, if S Collins retires.

    •  I don't understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden

      why everyone seems to be so pessimistic about MI.  The Republicans have a better chance of picking up the senate seat here with Levin gone, but it's not terribly likely.  The only Republican to hold a senate seat here since the 70s is Spencer Abraham, and he only served one term, and was elected in '94, which was a shitty year for us anyway.

      Right now, I still say Lean/Likely D for that seat, unless there's a wave.

      And I really don't see where you get NM being vulnerable from.  No one seems to be considering Udall to be in any trouble.  Same with NH and CO.

      Honestly, I think you're being a little paranoid.

      I think we definitely lose WV and SD, and maybe MT.  Other than that, I like our chances.

      •  I didnt mean to suggest CO, NH, and NM (0+ / 0-)

        were vulnerable. Just meant, I could see a strong challenger making the races a little more competitive.

        And I'm not that pessimistic about MI, especially if Rep. Peters is our candidate.

        I do think Terri Lynn Land or Ruth Johnson could be strong candidates for the GOP and I dont think either has ruled it out.

        •  If it's not Land or Johnson, (0+ / 0-)

          I don't even know that we'd necessarily need Peters to be able to keep the seat.

          Just as I think if it's Land or Johnson vs. Peters, the GOP still get their asses kicked.

          I also wonder if Peters entering the race would make Land/Johnson/Rogers less likely to run.

          Rogers, especially.  I don't see him giving up his chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee for a longshot senate race.

          If the GOP candidate is Amash I think we win no matter who we run.

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        At this point the vulnerabilities are limited to WV, SD, MT, and AR with IA, NC, LA, and AK less vulnerable but potential losses. There are no other potential losses out there, and that includes MI. And IA, NC, and AK are developing in very positive ways for us at the moment, so don't be surprised when they end up being total nothing-burgers.

        I don't even think we lose all of the top four. In fact, I think we probably only lose net 2 this cycle considering that GA and KY may yet end up developing in our favor (and maybe even TX given Cornyn's complete anonymity). WV is probably the only sure loss looking at the current field, but there's always room for a tea-bagging. And if that happens, we may yet hold it with this self-funder. And SD is a barnburner on par with Heitkamp, who I'll remind everyone was behind in almost all public polling of the race by 5-10 points. Only her released internals showed her in striking distance or tied. SHS even against Rounds might be primed for a similar showing, especially if she runs a similar operation as Heitkamp. AND Rounds is looking like he'll be tea-bagged by someone. And that someone may not even be Noem, it might be someone even weaker for a general but better in a primary.

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

        by wwmiv on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:43:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All true. (0+ / 0-)

          Though I personally don't expect us to pick up any seats next year.

          You're right though, that it all ultimately depends on candidates.  Remember, many, even Nate Silver, were predicting a narrow Tester loss last year, and ND was considered a tossup.

          Hell, to be honest, considering how red their states were, I think McCaskill and Donnelly should've lost last year.  The only reason they didn't is because Akin and Mourdock were shitty.  Even then, though, if they'd kept their mouths shut on women's issues we may be looking at two fewer seats than we currently have.

          I think Georgia is more likely to go in our favor, especially if someone like Broun gets the nomination.  But even that's only if we find someone good.

    •  I think without more retirements... (7+ / 0-)

      ...we hold the Senate absent an anti-Democratic wave.  And such a wave is very unlikely, perhaps impossible, since a GOP House already prevents anything from happening that could turn voters against us.

      Johnson retiring doesn't concern me, unless Rounds gets teabagged (which I suppose could happen) we lose the seat and in my head I'd written it off last year.  I don't feel Rockefeller retiring hurts us in WV, if we lose it it's probably the case that Rocky, too, would've lost to Capito (and yes I think she would've run regardless).  I think we hold Iowa.  The ones where retirement clearly hurts us would be Arkansas; Louisiana; Alaska.  North Carolina, we'd clearly be hurt if Hagan stepped down, but it's still plenty winnable.  As long as those incumbents run, I think we're OK.

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

      by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:49:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32, DCCyclone, KingofSpades

        Pryor has already launched his campaign, so we're good there. Landrieu has announced. Begich is already doing huge fundraising pushes and has announced, and Hagan has set up some campaign infrastructure. So we're all good on all of those.

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

        by wwmiv on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:13:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure, I'm not expecting these retirements (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wwmiv

          But I don't write it off, either, since it's still absurdly early.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:49:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  At this point (0+ / 0-)

            The only Dem Senator not yet announcing a retirement who I could see retiring is Baucus (MT).  And Baucus retiring wouldn't be the worst thing in the world as there are viable Dems who could run in an open seat.

            I still have a feeling Susan Collins might end up retiring, leaving the Maine seat ripe for the picking.  I think Cochran (MS) and Enzi (WY) could end up retiring, but neither seat is remotely winnable for a Democrat.

            •  By viable Dems it's basically just Schweitzer (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bumiputera

              Bullock was just elected and running now would look rather stupid, especially since he was only elected with a bare plurality (thanks Libertarian party!) While Baucus has pretty middling approval ratings, he brings the name recognition, but most importantly the money that no other Democrat could dream of having thanks to his finance committee chairmanship and probably extensive fundraising network from decades on the hill. Schweitzer is the only Montana Democrat, despite us holding several other statewide offices, who comes as remotely close to having a chance as Baucus. Just look at how we lost by a solid 10% for the house race when it because generic R vs generic D. I really would love to see Schweitzer run in Baucus' stead though as it's a twofer of getting to have your cake and eat it to; Schweitzer is more liberal than Baucus on key issues like health care and is much more popular at home.

              As far as the others, I don't know about Maine. Collins could certainly end up retiring as it's about a year earlier in the cycle than Snowe did, but unlike Snowe she seems to be a much more adept politician, is 6 years younger and only just recently got married to one of her senior staffers (and long time friends) meaning she has no children so I'm not sure what she'd do in retirement that she can't accomplish as a senator in terms of her goals.

              In Mississippi I'd really love to have a test case of Cochran retiring, Jim Hood running (he has a free shot, why not?) and Republicans nominating some total nutjob. I don't even think Hood could win against a Todd Akin, but I'd love to be proved wrong. It's just been a very long time since we've won a federal election in a state that polarized though. On the other hand, if Cocrhan doesn't retire this term it's incredibly likely that he'll retire in 2020 when the state will have trended more Democratic (less white) and black turnout will be at it's highest basically ever for a senate election and if Hood hasn't lost the 2019 gubernatorial election (assuming he can get reelected twice which he did in a landslide in 2011 of all years), he would obviously also have a clear shot then when he'd just be 59. Either way I'd give us maybe a 5% chance of picking up the seat when Cocrhan retires.

              The final seat where we might have a retirement that's worth talking about at this point is Kansas. Despite having an 80 year streak of not electing a Democrat, it provides us an interesting opportunity under a few conditions. Tim Huelskamp would make an ideal foe (and to a lesser degree Mike Pompeo) while if either of Kevin Yoder or Lynn Jenkins runs they'd give us an outside shot at picking up their seats. Couple that with Sam Brownback being very unpopular and Dems having an outside shot at knocking him off with someone center-right like Parkinson and this seat could get interesting. Roberts would be 78 at the end of the term and could retire anyway, but I wouldn't be shocked if Huelskamp tried to teabag him. I'd love to see Parkinson run for senate in that scenario, but the state could see a lot of good come from him running for governor and vetoing all the crazy shit the legislature is passing now that the far right is in firm control.

      •  I could see Capito losing a primary (0+ / 0-)

        Doubt she has an easy path to the nomination.

    •  I'm part of the consensus, I guess (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32

      I think we lose 2-4 seats, with SD and WV being the likeliest losses. After that MT and AR are the most likely.

      Assuming we can hold the Senate, 2016 is going to be fuuuuuun....

      25, Practical Progressive Democrat (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

      by HoosierD42 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:17:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I say 30% chance we lose the Senate. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32

      WV and SD are goners - 90%+ chance we lose both. MT is a likely loss. AR is a toss-up, AK and LA are narrowly leaning towards us, I think. All in all, I predict 4-5 losses.

      Interestingly, I seem to be on the pessimistic periphery with my 2014 Senate predictions around these parts, though I was right in the middle of the pack with my 2012 predictions. (OTOH, I was predicting Obama would lose at this point in 2011; maybe I'm a long-term pessimist and a short-term optimist...?)

      •  Why is that? (0+ / 0-)

        MT is most likely tossup and it slides to lean D if Scweitzer goes in.

        "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

        by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:08:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32, jncca

          of this - he's in the low- to mid-forties against candidates who have any name rec at all. Ask yourself: if you saw a Republican incumbent with numbers like that in a somewhat blue state like Pennsylvania or Michigan, wouldn't you think that we would have a better than 50/50 chance of winning that race? And it's just seemed to me like he's been unpopular there every since his ridiculous handling of the ACA.

          •  I'm reminded of Burr (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jj32

            The fact he's ahead 3 over the just recently elected A-G Tim Fox is pretty good.  If he runs again, I want him to put whatever warchest he has to use early.  Either way, I hope Schweitzer stops the swagger and is seriously thinking about running for Senate, rather than thinking he's not "senile enough" for it.

            "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

            by KingofSpades on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:19:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I'm somewhat the same way (0+ / 0-)

        I tended to be pessimistic last year.

        The Gallup daily polls showing Romney like +5, +6, +7 and over 50 really freaked me out. :)

        I was pessimistic about the Senate too, although after Snowe retired, I remember noting that it was possible that Dems could actually gain seats.

        I think it's really hard to make predictions the year before the election. Seems like in each of the last two cycles and probably the 06 cycle, things changed dramatically before the election. I remember, in 2005, predictions of GOP gaining Senate seats and it seemed plausible. Same with Dems gaining Senate seats in 2009. And the conventional wisdom in 2011 was that GOP would gain back control of the Senate.

  •  So much red on my Facebook today. (9+ / 0-)

    I love it. This large show of support has to be great for the cause politically as well.

  •  Nate Silver's gay marriage prediction is flawed (0+ / 0-)

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    Although NC banned gay marriage last year I have a hard time believing that KY and WV are more pro-gay.  Libertarian-leaning Wyoming also should not be near the bottom with deep Southern states.  And it's wrong to assume that each state will become more pro-SSM at equal rates.  New England states will probably approach 80% support for SSM while Southern and Plains states will be slower to change.

    A majority of Oklahomans will favor gay marriage in just seven years?  James Inhofe will sooner grow wings and fly!

    •  yeah that OK prediction seems a bit too bold (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psychicpanda

      Oklahoma was one of the few states where a majority of younger people (18-29) were voting Republican in 2008
      http://s18.photobucket.com/...

      Sure I guess it's possible, but right now it looks as likely as saying Rick Berg has a 92.5% of winning a senate seat in ND.

      In fact, the occasional victory for the GOP cannot hide the fact that this country is fast heading into another era, not of two-party democracy, but a party-and-a-half system. And the GOP is the half a party- Larry Sabato

      by lordpet8 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:23:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree on Kentucky (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stephen Wolf, psychicpanda

      A constitutional amendment passed in 2004 with 75%, and even got 61% in Jefferson, 62% in Franklin, 65% in Kenton and 57% in Fayette. I could see that Fayette has likely swung over, and probably Jefferson and Franklin, but those are the only counties that it did not pass with at least 70%. Most counties were well over 80% support.

      "So there's a time for silence, and there's a time for waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you'll know it. I don't think you should wait. I think you should speak now." -Taylor Swift

      by SouthernINDem on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 05:30:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  New Jersey favors same sex marriage (11+ / 0-)

    64-30, according to the new Quinnipiac Poll. You have to scroll down near the bottom to see the numbers.

    Same-sex marriage is actually more popular than Chris Christie!

    If that number is to be believed, its one of the highest numbers I've ever seen in any statewide polling in favor of same-sex marriage. Democrats should put it on the ballot in 2013, if Christie vetoes it again. It could possibly drive up democratic turnout.

    •  I agree 100%. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, bythesea, jncca

      It could have so many unintended effects for Chris Christie. He wants it on the ballot? Fine! Let's put it on there. Let's energize Democrats! And let's see him campaign against it and lose support. And, hey, if he doesn't vocally oppose it, I look forward to the fact that he was not hissing and spitting against efforts to install the "homosexual agenda" being used as a line of attack in the 2016 Republican primaries.

      I probably could've phrased that better, but it is what it is.

      19, FL-07 (school), MD-07 (home). UCF sophomore, politically ambitious, vocally liberal--what else could you need to know?

      by tqycolumbia on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:06:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Christie badly needs a referendum to decide it (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden, KingofSpades, jeffmd, askew

      He's squeezed on this issue, that's why he wants a public referendum in the first place so he doesn't have to choose between his party's base and his state's liberal-leaning general electorate.  If it's out of his hands, he can wash his hands of the issue whatever the result.

      I'm actually OK with that.  NJ voters will legalize SSM if given the chance.  That's what's really important.  The 2016 Presidential will take care of itself.

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

      by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:48:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Last one today, Colorado CD Averages ('06-'12) (4+ / 0-)

     photo COCDData2012_zps943b0d44.png

    Both the 3rd and 6th are only slightly more Republican than the state and we should definitely continue to target both (and it should be clear why the DCCC did just that in 2012). However the 3rd trended strongly away from us in 2010 while the 6th was trending modestly towards us, so I have little doubt they won't both vote the same way for much longer. Still it's a shame that Sal Pace did worse than even the 2010 average last year in the 3rd. I thought he would narrowly win but in retrospect he should have gotten to at least 47% given that Obama did and he underperformed considerably there. I haven't really yet heard an authoritative account as to why Pace performed so poorly and it wasn't a race I was following closely, but this table should show you why I had the race as tossup/tilt D in my final prediction.

    I feel very good about Romanoff's chances next year, especially with Udall and Hickenlooper leading the ticket. I do wonder though if the court had drawn its own map (or there had been an independent commission) whether  the 6th would have been slightly more Democratic, which would have been enough to knock off Coffman. Joe Miklosi certainly would have been preferable to Romanoff too who I'm sure will be a New Dem if he wins.

  •  WI-Gov (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCCyclone, abgin, bumiputera

    Progressive blogger Jud Lounsbury has reportedly been told by some Republican strategists that Scott Walker may "pull a Romney" and bail on a 2014 re-election bid for Governor of Wisconsin despite having already named his re-election campaign staff, in order to focus his undivided attention on a possible presidential campaign.

    If that happens, the big question mark becomes Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. She could run for governor, run for another term as lieutenant governor, run for another office, or leave politics. If Kleefisch runs for governor in the event that Walker does not run for re-election, Kleefisch may face a primary challenge from someone with more political experience than her, although she should be able to survive such a primary challenge, as she's a right-wing extremist who is known for making offensive statements, which seems to be an asset in Republican primaries in Wisconsin and most other states. Additionally, she'll draw a top-tier Democratic challenger, such as Congressman Ron Kind, Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, Outgamie County Executive Tom Nelson, State Senate Minority Leader Chris Larson, State Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, State Senators Jennifer Shilling, Kathleen Vinehout, Julie Lassa, Dave Hansen, etc.

    Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:17:01 PM PDT

    •  If his leg isn't being pulled and... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wwmiv, JBraden, Chachy, bumiputera

      ...this is real, it's obviously a big deal.

      Dumb move by Walker, he's better off getting reelected which keeps him on a platform to stay in the news, which is important to run for President.  Romney got away with no office last year only because his opponents were all clown candidates and of course only Perry had any potential at all.  And it did hurt Romney in '08, as he got pasted almost everywhere.

      But Walker just isn't known or popular enough to carry his current public image forward without a platform against much higher-profile competition than Romney faced last time.

      But more importantly for us, the open seat becomes much more winnable, and the GOP should shit bricks over it.  It's a pure tossup out of the gate, and we'll compete just fine financially.

      All that said, my first reaction is to take with a grain of salt what GOP operatives are telling a liberal blogger.

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

      by DCCyclone on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:46:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll just quote the last part b/c I agree w/ it (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCCyclone, JBraden, Chachy, HoosierD42
        All that said, my first reaction is to take with a grain of salt what GOP operatives are telling a liberal blogger.
        That's all that matters here.

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

        by wwmiv on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:50:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site