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.

10:01 AM PT: MA-Sen: I've been wondering what Stephen Lynch's path to victory might look like for a long time—in fact, since before he even got into the race. Fairly predictably, though, the conservative Lynch has trailed Ed Markey in every poll, sports poor favorability ratings among Democratic primary voters, and since he's well to the electorate's right on most issues, he doesn't have much room to maneuver. (Go negative and he'll face much more serious blowback over his own record.)

So, at last, Lynch has settled on a plan: go full-on douche and run against "the establishment," while throwing a slam at the woman Massachusetts just elected as their new senator last year. Here we go:

Lynch, in a Herald interview, accused party bigwigs in Washington of going so far as to sabotage his fundraising to make sure his rival and fellow congressman Edward J. Markey is the Democratic nominee.

"No, they haven't been fair," Lynch said. "They've basically said, 'Markey's our guy, don't give to Lynch.' "

They haven't been fair! Man. If I ever see a politician successfully kvetch his way into office, I'll be seriously impressed. But I think voters, if they're even listening, probably find these kinds of complaints to be utterly whiny, and find it hard to respect candidates who make them. And Lynch is really letting his pique get the better of him:
The South Boston Democrat and former ironworker even got in a little dig at the woman who defeated Brown — U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren — telling the Herald that he would be the only U.S. senator who has "had to work for a living."

Asked about Warren, a fellow Democrat, Lynch responded: "Well, Harvard professor. That's work."

Let's see. Warren is very popular among Massachusetts Dems, most of whom aren't going to respond well to slurs of higher education born out of Nixonian resentment. (I mean, hell, Lynch himself went to law school.) This doesn't seem like a successful play to me, but then again, Lynch's playbook was always pretty threadbare to begin with.

And while Lynch is busy denigrating one of the most prominent women in the state, Markey's out with a new ad (his third of the race) touting his support for of "equal pay for equal work" legislation, his efforts to make insurance companies cover mammograms and birth control, and his pro-choice credentials, including endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. There's no word on the size of the buy.

10:49 AM PT: PA-08: Democrats have landed their first challenger to GOP Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, former U.S. Army Ranger Kevin Strouse. Strouse hasn't run for office before, but that's because he's only 33 years old and has spent the last decade doing three tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by a turn at the CIA. As Keegan Gibson notes, that makes his bio a bit similar to that of ex-Rep. Patrick Murphy, the last Democrat to defeat Fitzpatrick. But this'll be a tough nut to crack, as Murphy's win came during the 2006 wave and the Philadelphia suburbs have proven to be stubbornly Republican on the congressional level, even while tilting to Obama.

11:00 AM PT: LA-Sen: In a major stroke of good fortune for Rep. Bill Cassidy, who just announced his own bid for Senate the other day, fellow Rep. John Fleming will not follow suit. Indeed, Fleming specifically cited Cassidy's entry as a key reason for not wanting to run himself, saying that defeating Dem Sen. Mary Landrieu is of over-riding importance. Fleming may be playing the mensch here, or he may just not have believed his own internal polling that he said showed him a path to victory over Cassidy. As I said at the time, though, it seems like he was trying to "psych himself up" to take on Cassidy; instead, he's psyched himself out.

Now the question is whether other Republicans will follow suit and keep the field clear for Cassidy, who was always the establishment choice. There are still several other folks out there who are weighing the race, and some of them are most decidedly not team players. In particular, I'm thinking of ex-Rep. Jeff Landry, who has a major chip on his shoulder after getting squeezed out of Congress thanks to redistricting last year, when Louisiana lost a House seat. He certainly had the bona fides to run as the conservative true believer, and he could cause problems for Cassidy if he does.

11:22 AM PT: Gibson also plays Great Mentioner and suggests some other possible Democratic contenders, including County Commissioner Diane Marseglia, State Rep. Steve Santarsiero, and Doylestown Borough Council President Det Ansinn. He drops Murphy's name, too, but I can't imagine him seeking a comeback this cycle.

11:49 AM PT: GA-Sen: As Democrats wait to see if Rep. John Barrow will take the plunge for Georgia's open Senate seat, Jim Galloway mentions a brand new name: Michelle Nunn, daughter of former Sen. Sam Nunn, who for four terms held this very seat before retiring in 1996. Nunn is CEO of the non-profit Points of Light, a volunteer service organization; she hasn't run for office before, but obviously her family name would open doors. Local reporter Lori Geary says that Nunn is indeed considering a run.

12:04 PM PT: PA-Gov: Wealthy businessman Tom Knox has decided he won't join the Democratic primary for governor, though he may take another stab at the Philadelphia mayor's race in 2015. (He tried once before in 2007, spending over $10 million of his own money.) Don't confuse him with Tom Wolf, another businessman who did just decide to enter the gubernatorial field earlier this week. (And don't confuse him with Tom Wolfe, the guy who wrote Bonfire of the Vanities and like to wear all-white suits.)

12:42 PM PT: CA-21: The Hotline's Scott Bland reports that the upcoming special election in California's 16th Senate District is interfering with DCCC recruitment efforts in the 21st Congressional District, which has very similar lines and is held by freshman GOP Rep. David Valadao. Because it's an open seat and somewhat bluer than CA-21, SD-16 is attracting a lot of attention from Dems who might otherwise be interested in running for Congress.

But I think this is hardly catastrophic. The primary is scheduled for May 21 and the expected runoff will take place July 23. While Democrats would surely like to get started against Valadao as soon as possible, most potential candidate will become "available" quite soon. Of course, there's a question as to whether anyone will want to run back-to-back races, but the congressional seat holds a major enticement: Unlike the state Senate, there are no term limits.

1:12 PM PT: DCCC: The DCCC is sure to have a very good month of April. On Wednesday, President Obama headlined the first of eight sets of fundraisers he's agreed to do for the committee, bringing in $3.3 million at a pair of events in San Francisco. At one of them, he made sure to give a shout-out to Rep. Mike Honda, who is being challenged by former Commerce Department official (and fellow Democrat) Ro Khanna. Obama previously endorsed Honda, but notably, Khanna's campaign is being run by several Obama veterans.

1:21 PM PT: WV-Sen: GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito says she raised $915,000 in her first full quarter running for Senate. That's not a bad haul for such a small state, particularly since she's the only candidate in this open-seat race, and she will also reportedly show $2.4 million in cash-on-hand. But she's actually been in the race since the end of November and kinda took it easy in the final month of last year, pulling in less than $19K (PDF) in December.

2:55 PM PT: FL-Sen: And then there were six. Florida Sen. Bill Nelson just became the latest high-profile politician to change his mind about same-sex marriage, saying "if The Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn't, and I won't." That leaves a mere half dozen Democratic senators who haven't yet announced their support for marriage equality: Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Mary Landrieu, Joe Donnelly, Mark Pryor, and Tim Johnson. If you're interested, the Huffington Post has gathered each of these senators' most recent statements on the issue; as you can see, four have switched sides in little over a week.

3:10 PM PT: CA-Gov: Republican ex-LG Abel Maldonado, just a month after saying he was considering a run for governor, has formed a campaign committee, a move that lets him start raising money. I still don't know how he thinks he can win in solidly blue California, though.

3:21 PM PT: CO-06: Democrat Andrew Romanoff says he raised over $500K in the first quarter of the year. That's a pretty impressive sum, especially considering he only began his efforts at the start of February. Romanoff is running against GOP Rep. Mike Coffman.

3:33 PM PT: MA-05: Though Ed Markey's seat hasn't actually become vacant yet—first, he has to win the special election for Senate—the three Democrats who (so far) have already gotten in the race to succeed him have now released their first quarter fundraising numbers. State Sen. Catherine Clark led the way with $261,000, while state Sen. Will Brownsberger was close behind with $255,000, while state Rep. Carl Sciortino took in $155,000. Local reporter David Bernstein says, though, that Sciortino had more donors (over 750) than either Clark or Brownsberger.

3:44 PM PT: Pittsburgh Mayor: There's been a big turnaround in the open-seat mayoral race in the Steel City, ever since City Controller Michael Lamb and City Council President Darlene Harris both dropped out and endorsed former state Auditor Jack Wagner. That turned it into a two-man contest between Wagner and City Councilman Bill Peduto, who led Wagner 30 to 20 in a Keystone Analytics poll just a month ago. Now Wagner has stormed into first place in a brand new Keystone survey, hoovering up literally all of the vote that had been going to Lamb (13 percent) and Harris (5 percent). That's taken him up to 38, while Peduto remains stuck at 30. You almost never see such a perfect transfer of support, but it's hard to describe the results any other way, so it certainly looks like Wagner has all the momentum right now.

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 (11+ / 0-)

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

    by David Nir on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:00:10 AM PDT

  •  A Colbert-Busch upset should be a top priority (11+ / 0-)

    The message it would send-a bold Democrat with integrity and can beat Republicans in their own backyard-makes it so enticing.

    Who has a link to donate to her campaign?

  •  DCCC Raised $3.2 Million At Obama Fundraiser (16+ / 0-)

    Roll Call just put out this piece noting that the DCCC raised $3.2 million at an Obama fundraiser last night. That's a mindblowingly large haul, and to think we've got seven more of these (at least!) that he's committed to over the rest of the cycle. This kind of engagement is what gets me really excited about President Obama being more engaged in Congressional elections this time around.

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

    by AndySonSon on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:05:45 AM PDT

  •  PA-8 (8+ / 0-)

    An Iraq War veteran named Kevin Strouse is the first official challenger to Mike Fitzpatrick.  In the same article, PoliticsPA points out, probably correctly, that most or all of the top tier candidates, including Patrick Murphy, the Iraq War veteran who took down Fitzpatrick the first time (should he run again), will likely wait until 2016 when the seat will be open assuming Fitzpatrick honors his term limits pledge.  

  •  Pgh-Mayor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darth Jeff

    Pittsburgh's campaign finance limits are lifted for this year's mayor's race because of operation of the city's millionaire'a amendment.  Beyond that, I'm not going to comment, as I served as counsel to Jack Wagner in ensuring that he could therefore use his pre-candidacy funds in this race, and there's plenty in the media you can read if you're interested.

  •  WI-Gov: More Ron Kind Tea Leaves (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, WisJohn

    He opened his "Kind Answers" with a response to a question about private school vouchers. Not a significant federal issue, but a huge deal on the state level, given that Walker is trying to expand the Milwaukee voucher program to other school districts in the state (none of which are in WI-03, BTW)

    http://www.youtube.com/...

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

    by Gpack3 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 09:40:56 AM PDT

  •  New post on voting in the 84th House. (4+ / 0-)

    Over at my site.

    Here's the overall result of running the "ideal" algorithm on the votes of the 84th House.

     photo 2Dfinalfw_zpsab23f019.png

    The Southern Democrats (and a few more rural-type Democrats) are the cluster at the top, and the moderate northern/urban Republicans are clustered at the bottom.  But they're still closer to their own party than to the other one.

    Here's my favorite chart, showing the different cross-party clusters from two votes, one on eliminating a public housing provision and the other on the Democratic farm plan that Eisenhower vetoed.

     photo rollcall7292fixedfw_zpsb8372276.png

    You have green districts--basically urban moderates in both parties--backing the public housing provision and opposing the Democratic farm bill.

    Blue districts--rural moderates/conservatives--opposed the public housing provision and supported the Democratic farm bill.

    Black districts--mainstream Democrats--supported the public housing provision and the Democratic farm bill.

    Dark red districts--mainstream Republicans--opposed the public housing provision and the Democratic farm bill.

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com.

    by Xenocrypt on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 09:41:07 AM PDT

  •  Carville climbs aboard Hillary Express (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, lordpet8, ArkDem14
    “I’m not going to waste my time writing you about how great Hillary is or how formidable she’d be – you know it all already,” he says in the e-mail, which was shared with Post Politics. “But it isn’t worth squat to have the fastest car at the racetrack if there ain’t any gas in the tank — and that’s why the work that Ready for Hillary PAC is doing is absolutely critical. We need to convert the hunger that’s out there for Hillary’s candidacy into a real grassroots organization.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
  •  CA-SEN: Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darth Jeff

    Bloomberg speculates on Sandberg's future, especially after the publication of her book, "Lean In", and notes she could possibly run for Senate down the line, depending on if Feinstein/Boxer retire.

    Sandberg has had some involvement in politics for a while, serving as chief of staff to Larry Summers at Treasury and fundraising for Obama last year.

    "Facebook COO" and having Larry Summers as a mentor might make it tough to win votes among liberal voters. But she could be an outsider candidate among many elected officials, with strong support from Silicon Valley and at least some ability to self fund.

    I think she is more likely to be Treasury Secretary or an economic adviser to Hillary if she wins the presidency. But she would be an interesting candidate for Senate.

    •  Interesting notion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zack from the SFV, jj32, gabjoh

      I highly doubt Feinstein has more than six years left in her career, perhaps less than that. But Sandberg would be at a real disadvantage running statewide as a novice, against what would be a very large number of seasoned Dem officeholders. The House would probably be a better bet if a seat opens up, otherwise she'd have problems similar to Khanna.

      Of course, the other possibility would be that she'd eventually run Facebook if (when?) Zuckerberg gets kicked out. Most business articles I read suggest his ability to manage a large, public corporation is questionable.

      •  I'm of the opinion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kleinburger

        that Kamela Harris would be a top option to succeed Feinstein in 2018. I am of the opinion that Boxer will retire in 2016, but my favorite candidate for that race would be State Comptroller John Chiang.

        "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:28:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can't give up ground on women (0+ / 0-)

          Especially because there are some states which won't as a matter of practice elect women.

          Kamala Harris and another female, preferably Hispanic or Asian (Judy Chu or Loretta/Linda Sanchez among others).

          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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:35:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I.E. (0+ / 0-)

            I know that many here disagree on this, with good reasons on both sides, but until we get to rough parity I view that seats that are held by women should not go to men when they retire.

            When we get to rough parity, I'd have no problem with seats going back and forth between genders to get the best qualified person possible.

            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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:37:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hopefully you'll rethink such an attitude (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Stephen Wolf, jncca, ArkDem14

              So "parity on woman" would trump "parity on race"?  So a white woman must be chosen over a black or Asian man?  So a progressive Asian man must not be chosen and instead a non-progressive white woman should be chosen.

              I'm glad most people don't think as you do.

              Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

              by tommypaine on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:06:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No (0+ / 0-)

                Did you read my comments at all?

                I'd rather the seats went to minority women. I value both parity on race, sexuality, and gender. And not even must, if Chiang has something so awesome to offer that can't be found in another minority and female candidate, then I'd support him, but he just doesn't seem that impressive to me.

                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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:14:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read your comment, so don't grasp at straws (0+ / 0-)

                  Sure if you can mix up a progressive minority woman in a blender, that would be a good thing, but here in real life, there are tons of men of color, gay men, or otherwise progressive/working class/minorities men who both deserve from a parity perspective a place before a white woman, and deserve from a best candidate perspective deserve to be supported.

                  Partity is a horrible first thing to base government service on.  For starters, I'll take "honesty" over any other genitalia.

                  Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

                  by tommypaine on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:29:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not grasping at straws at all (0+ / 0-)

                    In the vast majority of states, there won't be this situation that you put forth of a minority male versus a white female. Almost all of the time it's gonna be a white male v. a white female, just because of the numbers.

                    And even then, if it is possible to kill two birds with one stone (which I've said multiple times in this thread not just in response to you - but in response to others before you came along and commented on this) then I'm totally for it.

                    And I do support minorities for office as I've repeatedly made clear in my entirely of posting history in the same way that I framed my post above on women.

                    This isn't me grasping at straws. It is a genuine ideological framework of diversity that I wholeheartedly believe in. And to have you sit there and tell me that I am grasping at straws on this is just simply insultory.

                    And you know what - there are good reasons for why we should be aiming at parity for all sorts of groups. For starters more progressive governance is likely to be the biggest result. Female legislators are, on average, more liberal than their male counterparts. Minority legislators are, on average, more liberal than their anglo/white counterparts. Minority women, coincidentally, are, on average, more liberal than both of the others.

                    Trust in government has been shown to rise when elected officials mirror in demographic characteristics (interestingly, class has been shown to not be a statistically significant factor for this metric, but even then class should be an important consideration for other reasons - namely policy) of the overall population.

                    And given that trust in government has repeatedly been found to be linked to quality and durability of democracy, supporting all minorities - whether they be gender, sexuality, racial or ethnic, religious, etc. - for public office until they get to at least parity is a very important consideration.

                    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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:40:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Now you are really grasping at straws (0+ / 0-)

                      You made an unwise comment.  Back off from it all you want, but sexism is a poor way to prioritize your choices.

                      Honesty/integrity and issues trump things for most voters, not sexism.  And then, gender is not the only reason, or even the biggest reason, people have been held down for.

                      Wanting diversity in government is good thing, and one reason to make candidate choices, but it is a very poor one to have at the top of the list.  A government full of Laura Richardsons would suck mightily.  And there are a lot of ways this country is diverse, not just gender.

                      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

                      by tommypaine on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:01:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                        You are totally and completely off.

                        I am in no way grasping at straws nor am I in any way retreating from my original comment at all, nor do I consider identity the most important factor - just a factor that should be given very heavy weight among many heavily weighted factors

                        ... as I have made very very very abundantly clear over the many years that I have been a part of this community.

                        For you to sit there and pseudo-personally attack me over some perceived notion that I'd always support a corrupt woman like Laura Richardson over a competent man (which is just another straw man to knock me down exactly like the one you used above with the very rare thus far example of a minority man versus a white woman) is just too much at the moment for me to take.

                        Given the community's extreme disrespect over the last few weeks to a few members that have since decided to leave (like DownstateDem, who I felt compelled to stick up for in a way just before he left), I am deciding to take a very large step back as I now see that I am being treated here in the very same way.

                        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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:09:22 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Read your own comment, for pete's sake (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ArkDem14, jncca
                          until we get to rough parity I view that seats that are held by women should not go to men when they retire.
                          That's what you said.  Laura Richardson over any penis, period.

                          I sincerely doubt you mean it, but your comment on its face is way over the top, and you should consider backing away from it, rather than get all pissed off when its illogical extremism is pointed out.

                          Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

                          by tommypaine on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:21:03 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Goddamn, people, calm down (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          wwmiv, Stephen Wolf, Audrid, WisJohn, Skaje

                          Tommy, wwmiv clarified what he meant. Why do you feel this need to jump all over him after he did that? Let it drop, man. You never can let something go and we get plenty of threads of you and somebody else (name a DKEer and it's happened) going 'round and 'round over something completely minor.

                          Wwmiv, don't "take a very large step back" just because one person is being combative. This is nothing like the DownstateDem situation; that was a case where he had trouble figuring out how to constructively contribute and people were impatient with him. I agree that wasn't always handled well -- but it's a stretch at best to equate that situation to you getting in an argument with tommypaine, who is one of the more argumentative people here and always has been (for better or worse).

                          Man. I think we all just need to relax here.

                          Keeper of the DKE glossary. Priceless: worth a lot; not for sale.

                          by SaoMagnifico on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:27:28 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  That's an equally troublesome (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wwmiv

              reverse sexism, when you're supporting a woman just because they are a woman, as opposed to a man. If Kamela Harris ran, I'd back her, but I figure she'll wait for 2018 and pick between the gubernatorial race and Feinstein's open seat. Boxer also seems likely to retire in 2016 though, so there will be an open seat then as well. Perez will likely run, and while his biography is interesting, he's a little to LA machine politico for my tastes.

              John Chiang just seems like an ambitious, progressive, well-liked official who would fit in nicely.

              I also think when talking about "Asian" it's important to distinguish "East Asian" (e.x. Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Chinese), from "South Asian" (e.x. Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan).

              "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:22:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Definitely like to see more women in office (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwmiv, tommypaine, The Caped Composer

            as long as they're decent progressives that is.

            I.E there's no way I'd back a Nikki Tinker over a Steve Cohen situation.

            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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:40:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well really (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lordpet8

              It's all a very delicate balance on the process toward having true diversity in government. Cohen is obviously the black community's candidate of choice - and I hope he keeps winning because he's a great representative - and AAs at the house level are doing pretty well anyway from a "parity" perspective, so it isn't as if we have to support an AA challenger against him under my framework anyway.

              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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:47:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Progressives (6+ / 0-)

          Whoever is our nominee (and I don't have a preference for the moment) they should be solid progressive à la Boxer on both social and economic issues. California dems shouldn't settle for less.

          •  I'm behind Chiang (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ArkDem14

            I really like him, and Asian-Americans are as underrepresented in the Senate than women relative to their percentage of the population, for those who care about that.

            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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:46:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bumiputera

              Which is why I like Judy Chu. Kill two birds with one stone.

              And, technically, Kamala Harris would kill three birds with one stone: Black, Asian (Indian), and Female.

              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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:52:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'd love to see both of them in the senate (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kleinburger

                when Boxer ('16) and Feinstein ('18) retire, though my pie in the sky favorite would be Barbara Lee whom I doubt would ever run or win the top two spot.

                •  :) (0+ / 0-)

                  Sadly, it'd be a suicide run for her.

                  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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:55:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah it's impossible to win as the "most liberal" (0+ / 0-)

                    candidate under top two. Maybe under the old closed primary system where you just needed a simple plurality and several members run, but I could never see her winning, especially without being an Alan Grayson like "star" to boost her profile. Afghanistan only gets you so far, but I'm betting that when Boxer retires the top Democrat gets something like 25% or more, especially if it's Harris or Chiang.

                    •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

                      I actually foresee a Republican coming in first when those two retire, given that their establishment will push very hard for a rally around a single candidate. That might actually end up being a problem for our side, and if two Republican (moderate v. conservative) are able to get 20% each while our field is fractured I can easily see a Miller situation happening.

                      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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:03:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  sounds interesting and I'd like to take you up (0+ / 0-)

                        on that bet. I just don't see CA Republicans coming out of this downward death spiral anytime soon, If anything they may continue to fracture.

                        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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:33:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Impossible, how do you you figure? Likely. (0+ / 0-)

                      It's much likely the more progressive (seriousness of candidates being equal) choice will win with top two, as the Republican(s) will peel off far more votes from the rightish Dem than the Greens and Peace and Freedom will peel off from the progressive Dem.

                      The "most liberal" of the peer candidates will always have an initial edge.  What will matter much more though will be how many progressive candidates, how many Republicans, any extra novelty on the Greens/P&F, etc etc.

                      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

                      by tommypaine on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:11:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Because Lee is at the point where she's (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        wwmiv, BoswellSupporter

                        one of the most liberal members of congress, period. And while that's great for someone like me who would be significantly to the left of every member of Congress including Lee herself, Democrats overall have a massive contingent of moderates who might find some of her positions a bit too much, especially when the alternatives are solid liberals in their own right with higher profile like Chiang, Harris, or Hilda Solis.

                        That's why I said it will take Alan Grayson type shenanigans for Lee to have to win. She has no name rec statewide and liberal voters in the state aren't so far to the left that they immediately say "Kamala Harris? No way she's a conservadem!" the way that Republican primary voters sometimes do to solid conservatives. Harris et al are perfectly acceptable liberals to the vast majority of Democratic voters in the state, especially the somewhat higher info voters who determine primary placement.

                        If no one of any stature runs then sure Lee might have a shot, but all the big money interests will line up behind other candidates either because they're viewed as more viable or aren't so flamingly left-wing. But Lee, without a high profile, is just a generic liberal D. Generic liberal D loses a top two spot any day of the week to High Profile liberal D any day of the week.

                        •  I wasn't talking about Lee (0+ / 0-)

                          I was addressing your: "it's impossible to win as the 'most liberal'" comment.  

                          Not only is it not impossible, it is more likely than not.  In any race of five equal merit candidates, the two most likely to have an edge are the one furthest left and the one furthest right.

                          Look at the 2010 AG race.  It's the closest thing to a top two situation as we've had.  Throw all those primaries together, and Harris loses no votes to anyone.  Cooley probably wins the primary by more, but that doesn't matter.  The person percieved as the most liberal Dem would be his opponent.

                          Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

                          by tommypaine on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:13:58 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That wasn't my point though (0+ / 0-)

                            Lee is very left wing even among liberals and it's that fact that makes her hard to elect statewide because there are other perfectly liberal options who would finish ahead of her. I didn't say a liberal couldn't win the top two statewide as Harris herself very well proves. In fact a solidly liberal candidate very may well be favored to win a top two spot when one of Boxer or Feinstein retires, but it certainly won't be someone so liberal as Barbara Lee that they're a shoo-in for most left wing senator overall, or top 5 most left wing house member.

                •  Lee would be awesome (0+ / 0-)

                  But I really doubt she'd risk her safe seat for a very dicey senate run.

            •  Asian American's would have half of (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wwmiv, ArkDem14, askew

              their representation relative to the population if it wasn't for Neil Abercrombie.

              •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                They would.

                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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:54:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thankfully, he put in the most progressive (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wwmiv

                  candidate rather than appealing to identity politics

                  [begin fighting now!]

                  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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:15:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Not interesting for me. (8+ / 0-)

      Sandberg gives huge money for the cause fof "education reform" that inevitably short-circuits what the local community wants to do, in favor of over-reliance on standardized testing and techno-utopianism.

      http://www.snappac.org/ Students for a New American Politics!

      by redrelic17 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:21:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stephen Wolf, ArkDem14

        The California bench is well stacked and we certainly don't need a New Democrat whose main concern is big corporate interests. That's practically her area of expertise. California can elect a better Democrat for sure.

        21, Male, Latino-Spanish, OK-1 (Tulsa: The Art Deco, Terracotta, and Cultural Gem of Green Country!); Currently studying in Madrid, Spain

        by gigantomachyusa on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:09:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  She'd be an interesting choice (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, LordMike, gabjoh

      I don't think nearly enough people know or care who Larry Summers is for any association with him to be an issue.  (At most they may remember his brief appearance in The Social Network where admittedly he didn't come off well, but that's probably it).  

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

      by Jeff Singer on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:13:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's no formidable bench, so a rich person (0+ / 0-)

      can make noise about CA's two Senate seats, but it's pointless if any such election remains years away.

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:57:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Chris Kelly (former chief privacy officer for FB) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff, jj32

      ran for attorney general in 2010 in the Dem primary and lost to Kamala Harris.

      Also, Sandberg is going to have to register as a Democrat if she hasn't already if she wants to win. Silicon Valley money only goes so far before the gains start to plateau far below the 50%+1 barrier.

      23, D, pragmatic progressive (-4.50, -5.18), CA-14.

      by kurykh on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:35:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lynch is a relic of a bygone era. (9+ / 0-)

    ...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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:15:05 AM PDT

  •  Professors are Lazy. (17+ / 0-)

    That's a donation to Markey from me.

    Elizabeth Warren left a top-tier university to follow her husband to a lower-tier university and then she clawed her way through law school while raising kids. Lynch can go take a flying jump at the moon for being such a flaming asshole. That bastard has one of the easiest jobs in the world (safe seat in congress). My mild distaste for him has become abject hatred.

    http://www.snappac.org/ Students for a New American Politics!

    by redrelic17 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:24:28 AM PDT

  •  This might be a bit OT, but on Lynch: (13+ / 0-)

    I really dislike this idea that certain jobs "count" as "real work" and others don't.  It reminds me of Yglesias' point from earlier today that there's "a problematic tendency to simply dismiss this kind of work [jobs that more women work at than men] as inherently less valuable than 'manlier' occupations like working in a factory".

    I suppose, being charitable, Lynch might  have mean that (all?) other Senators didn't "have to" work.  And of course many politicians do come from very privileged backgrounds, but this is just nonsense.  I don't even know why I'm bothering, but:

    You might recall that Jon Tester was a teacher and a farmer.  But I guess he was an organic farmer so that doesn't count, plus teachers are government employees, and it's not manual labor, so whatever.  

    Ron Johnson, as he liked to point out, was an "accountant and a manufacturer".

    Al Franken was a comedian and a comedy writer, and we all know what an easy gig that is.  

    Mike Enzi was a shoe salesman.

    Pat Toomey worked in finance and then opened a restaurant.  But he went to Harvard, so I don't know if anything he does counts as real work.

    Barbara Mikulski got her start in another cushy sinecure: being a social worker for seniors and at-risk children.  Doesn't count!  Wasn't in a factory.

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com.

    by Xenocrypt on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:28:04 AM PDT

    •  That said. (7+ / 0-)

      I have to admit it's impressive--and yes, an unusual background for a politician as far as I know--that Lynch ended up a Congressman when he graduated from Wentworth Institute of Technology at the age of about 33, or even just that he went from that same background to getting a J.D. from Boston College as a union president, and later a Master's from the Kennedy School at Harvard as a state senator.  

      People with college degrees are vastly over-represented in Congress.  93% of the House and 99% of the Senate have bachelor's degrees.  That's compared to 31% of the country.  

      Lynch went on to get a number of degrees, but again, I still think it's an impressive story.

      But it doesn't add to his accomplishments to demean the accomplishments of others.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com.

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:40:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It should be noted that Ron Johnson (4+ / 0-)

      didn't build his business, but married into it. And got government money.

    •  I've noted something similar with (9+ / 0-)

      the right wing criticism of Obama as "never having had a real job" by which they mean private sector job. Never mind that he worked at a law firm, lectured at the University of Chicago, and was, of course, a community organizer. Although, I guess in the last job, the organization might have gotten federal funds, so it doesnt count.

      But if you apply that criteria to several conservative stars, they dont really look that good either, in fact, even worse in some cases. It seems like for the vast majority of their adult lives, Ryan, Rubio and Jindal, for instance, have had some type of taxpayer funded job.

      •  Apparently to most Republicans (5+ / 0-)

        that isn't real work, but mismanaging a baseball team and oil investments while relying on your family to bail you out, or buying up companies and laying off workers while pocketing profits for yourself is constructive labor.  

        Working hard for lower wages and needing to avail yourself of government benefits at time makes you a "taker" in their little world.

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

        by Mike in MD on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:40:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Jindal's had a chip on his shoulder (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8

        ever since he didn't get into medical school. But yeah, Mike Foster appointed Jindal head of the Louisiana University System when Jindal was 26 years old. That's the kind of person Foster was.

        "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:32:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  lol really? I've never heard this story before (0+ / 0-)

          Perhaps if he got in to Med School, he wouldn't have turned to politics and LA would have a totally different governor.

          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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:57:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, that's an anecdotal story (6+ / 0-)

            that I just realized wasn't accurate. Jindal was accepted into Harvard and Brown Medical schools. He just didn't go into Med school. But honestly, as much as I dislike Jindal, there are few politicians, including brainiacs like Warren and Obama, who can match Jindal's educational pedigree and his academic accomplishments.

            The problem is that for all his intelligence his an idealogue who lacks empathy for other people, and is quite blinded by his egoism, which has inflated to an absurd degree. All very surprising considering he simply isn't that charismatic a politician, and benefitted in his last two gubernatorial campaigns from the falling apart of the Louisiana Democratic Party as much as anything.

            "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:30:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Jindal got into medical school (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ArkDem14, lordpet8, bumiputera

          He just didn't go because he got the Rhodes Scholarship instead.  Nevertheless, the point about him spending his whole life in some type of government job is completely accurate.  

          •  He went into Jim McCrery's office (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lordpet8, ProgMD, pademocrat

            right out of college. And then Mike Foster appointed him head of the State Health Department, in charge of 12,000 employees, at age 24. At age 28, he was appoint head of the University of Louisiana system. Then he joined the Bush administration. Then he ran for Governor in 2003. Then he lost. Then he ran for Vitter's open congressional seat in 2004. Then he ran for Governor again in 2007.

            "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:31:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And all of that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bumiputera

              makes it ridiculous for him to claim that government jobs aren't real jobs or attack anyone for not spending "enough" time in the private sector.  I just don't think it's fair to attack him for not being smart, at least academically, because he can clearly cut it in the classroom.  It actually makes it all the more mystifying that he associates himself with so many people who see being intellectual as some kind of mortal sin.  

              •  As a public professional though (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bumiputera

                Jindal's been intellectually lazy at best, and obtusely ignorant at other times ("Something called volcano monitoring?"). Like I said, he has an excellent academic pedigree, but as a politician he hasn't been a shining example of moderation and critical thinking. The opposite in fact.

                "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:49:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Completely agree (0+ / 0-)

                  I didn't see your post upthread before replying.  Jindal is just like all of the members of the GOP Doctors Caucus who become elected Republicans and then become willfully ignorant of all of the science that they at some point had to have learned.  Someone with his background and pedigree in health policy could really have done excellent things for healthcare in Louisiana but for ideological reasons has made other choices.  

                  •  Let's not forget Jindal endorsed (0+ / 0-)

                    and campaigned for Rick Perry in the 2012 Republican primaries.

                    "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:25:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Pew Research (10+ / 0-)

    finds support for legalizing marijuana at 52%-45%.

    Just three short years ago, support was at 45% to 50% opposed.  10 years ago, support was only at 33% and opposition at 60%.

    This rapid (and accelerating) increase in recent years mirrors that of support for same-sex marriage in many ways.  You have young Americans driving the change; in this poll, those born after 1980 support marijuana legalization by 65%!  But it's not just that, every age group is also evolving on the issue.  Support among baby boomers has shot up as well to an incredible 50%.  It is only those born before WWII that remain opposed, but even their 32% support is double that of ten years ago.

    The poll also finds that 48% of Americans have tried marijuana (up from 38% a decade ago), and the number is over half if senior citizens are excluded.  27% of those born after 1980 have used it in the past year alone.

    The party breakdowns are also quite interesting.  Democrats favor it 59-39%.  Independents favor it 60-37%!  Republicans stand alone at 37-60% opposition.

    I fully expect marijuana legalization to be the clear consensus of America in 5 years or so.  Will it be a consensus of politicians?  Perhaps not.  But the Republican Party risks alienating young voters (and everyone, really) if they cling to their socially conservative platform.  Yet at the same time, they are so dependent on the so-cons that they can't reject them either.

    •  Republicans will still oppose it for years to come (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Skaje, gigantomachyusa

      the sole reason it's illegal today is that there's plenty of profit to be made that way (prison industry, drug testing industry, paper industry, tobacco industry, you get the point)

      However on the bright side, I fully expect to see plenty more state level initiatives that will pass. I'd imagine if California had tried again last year it easily would have since it came within a mere 5 points of passing in the worst possible year, 2010.

      •  Republicans may oppose it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skaje, kleinburger

        but Democrats give them cover by also opposing. For whatever reason this is still seen as a 'joke' issue by a lot of folks (politicians laughing when it gets brought up, etc) rather than the racial justice issue that it actually is.

        Those profit motives you listed are exactly right and are what I believe will keep this issue from flipping as quickly and easily as SSM has in the last 5 years. Many Democrats are also indebted to elements of those industries.

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

        by Jacques Kallis on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:14:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know the moment it gets taken seriously? (4+ / 0-)

          When someone loses an election because of it.

          I'm serious! AIPAC got taken seriously after they destroyed Paul Findley's career. At this point, the smart thing to do would be to find the most anti-pot beatable politicians, and then field competitors to campaign on the issue and beat them. Until then, it's a joke.

          •  I think part of the reason though is the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jncca

            people who advocate for legalization also tend to be on the margins of electoral politics, i.e. people who vote consistently third party/Ron Paul or not at all. So even if there's a large mass of people who support legalization, it's hard to focus them onto one target the way AIPAC is able to. However this should matter less and less if pro-legalization becomes a supermajority position.

            I still think the way to go is going to be ballot initatives leading to federal legalization/decriminalization, not by defeating tons of anti-legalization Democrats in primaries.

        •  Well (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisJohn, Stephen Wolf

          The Democratic thinking is that the socially liberal voters supportive of marijuana legalization will vote for the Democrats regardless. Coming out as a party in support of MJ legalization would seriously undermine the "security/crime cred" the Democrats have built up (or the Republicans have lost, whichever). Remember that in the 1970s the Democrats lost partially because they did not distance themselves enough from the druggies and the societal fringe of the times and were easily branded by Republicans for being indifferent to rising crime and moral degradation. I think the Democrats are now being overly cautious for those same reasons. For the first time Democrats are now the mature party of foreign policy and a moderate tough-on-crime stance has helped mend that perception of Democrats as being weak.

          Legalization will happen eventually, sure. But given the moneyed interests controlling the GOP and the Dems being scared to wade into this issue for historic reasons, I can certainly say marijuana legalization will probably come next decade, not this one. I am sad though that marijuana legalization's rising approval isn't met by the same rising approval for abolishing the death penalty. I can't for the life of me understand why those numbers don't shift. Our European friends for decades have rightfully seen it as egregious that a state be able to kill one of its citizens.

          21, Male, Latino-Spanish, OK-1 (Tulsa: The Art Deco, Terracotta, and Cultural Gem of Green Country!); Currently studying in Madrid, Spain

          by gigantomachyusa on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:20:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lots of people are pro-pot and don't think it's (0+ / 0-)

            egregious for a state to kill one of its citizens.  They're not really necessarily related issues.

            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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:36:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not in the abstract, but they're highly tied (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gigantomachyusa, gabjoh

              as an issue of racial justice or just as a historical "crime" issue in general. You have to have an appreciation for the culture of the late 60s and the 70s where being pro-death penalty and being for the war on drugs went hand in hand.

              They are also not too different in terms of first principles; mainly that being opposed to the death penalty and prohibition fall under a largely live and let let set of principles, while the reverse is very punitive/authoritative.

              So they're certainly tied together in practice, especially on the racial angle.

            •  What I'm trying to say though (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Stephen Wolf, Jacques Kallis

              is that the marijuana legalization movement has been wholly based on socially liberal & libertarian young whites (and mostly males). That's why compared to other prominent social issues, MJ legalization is supported more by men than women (what other social issues have men more supportive than women?). At the same time the movement seems to be reaching a critical mass amongst whites yet the movement has inadequately begun to couch their movement in terms more favorable for minorities to get on board.

              Why? Because the marriage legalization movement has become a 'personal freedom' argument above all. It's now joined with gay marriage and abortion, etc. But MJ legalization is more importantly also a crime and punishment issue and therefore a minority civil rights issue. However, majorities of blacks and a plurality of Hispanics do not approve of marijuana legalization (Blacks 46-54, Hispanics 42-48) because the movement has failed to highlight the gross impact of harsh marijuana laws on minority communities, or failed to explain the ratio of black men in prison for having small amounts of weed, or the thousands of Hispanics south of the border who die annually as a result of our backwards drug policy. Yet, instead of making these arguments to minorities, the MJ legalization movement has continued to place itself on the 'personal freedom' argument and seems completely content in ignoring a whole swathe of potentially supportive citizens who simply lack the information. The movement is badly structured. Compare the gay rights movement and its impeccable national strategy to the hodgepodge, badly funded marijuana legalization movement. Advocates of marijuana legalization are not being logical in advocating their cause properly.

              At the same time, and rather ironically, Blacks and Hispanics are less supportive of the death penalty than the median American (and a majority of Blacks disapprove overall). So you have two issues that clearly fall in the 'crime and punishment' section of the political discussion, yet Whites support marijuana and the death penalty while minorities oppose both. Why not link the two arguments (I disagree completely with your assertion that they aren't related) and try to build up both movements at the same time. 59% of young people support the death penalty yet 65% also support marijuana legalization. There's significant overlap. How so many youth can reconcile supporting one and not the other is what's incredibly frustrating and puzzling for me. Both movements could appeal to different demographics by joining together and making these two issues more closely tied.
              http://www.people-press.org/...

              21, Male, Latino-Spanish, OK-1 (Tulsa: The Art Deco, Terracotta, and Cultural Gem of Green Country!); Currently studying in Madrid, Spain

              by gigantomachyusa on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:31:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, I can explain (0+ / 0-)

                I have no problem at all with the government killing its own people provided there is a fair trial.  It protects us against the (extremely small but still possible) risk of that person escaping from prison and killing again.  However, trials are not always fair, as we've seen with people being exonerated from death row.  So while I support the concept of the death penalty, I oppose it in practice.

                On marijuana legalization (and all other personal freedom issues), I'm pretty close to diehard libertarian.  I see the link from a racial perspective (and racial disparity in death sentences is one of the reasons I oppose it in practice), but marijuana to me is not about race but about freedom (and I've never smoked it and don't plan to)

                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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:49:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  House Dems who have yet to support Gay Marriage (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psychicpanda, bythesea, Skaje, gabjoh

    With all the focus on the senate the house has been overlooked.

    I found a list online:
    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/...

    Seems to be a mix of people in conservative red districts, Minority/majority districts, and couple of swingy districts

    Though there are a few names on there that surprise me.
    I don't exactly know how accurate this is, as folks are evolving on the issue rather quickly.

    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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:51:59 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psychicpanda, bythesea, lordpet8

      I was wondering where House Dems were at.  I assumed they would have a solid majority in favor at this point given how few red-district Dems are left.  I look forward to seeing that list dwindle even further in the coming weeks.  Kudos to Rep. Ron Barber for endorsing marriage equality in a tough district!  Hopefully Kaptur, Titus, Rush, and Larson get their names of that list soon, they really have no excuse.

      As for the Republicans, to my knowledge they still only have Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and (sort-of) Richard Hanna.

      •  Why do you say Hanna (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psychicpanda, wwmiv, pistolSO, jncca

        is only a sort of supporter?  He signed onto the DOMA brief, and, if I recall correctly, is a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus.  That sounds like a supporter to me.

        •  I haven't actually seen a single statement (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ArkDem14

          from him where he straight up says "I support marriage equality" or anything like that.  This was his statement when signing on to DOMA repeal:

          “New York State allows all its citizens the freedom to marry the person they love,” he said. “Under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has a Constitutional responsibility to respect New York’s right to set its own laws. It’s my job to see that it does.

          “It is right to extend equal protection under federal law to all couples who are legally married without infringing upon religious freedom and beliefs,” Hanna continued. “This legislation does not tell states who can be married or who must be treated as married, nor does it require any religious institution to violate their own convictions.

          “I respect the deeply held beliefs on both sides of this issue,” he said. “The simple fact remains that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure all legally married couples are treated equally under federal law – and this bill would achieve that proper standard.”

          Basically boils down to "New York has same-sex marriage, so I think the federal government should honor that".  He says nothing about his personal beliefs on the issue, nor does he explicitly support New York's law.  He even cautions that a repeal of DOMA doesn't actually allow same-sex marriage in places that it currently isn't, as if worried that he might be seen as supporting that.  His statement was nothing like IRL who actually made a full statement of support for same-sex marriage.

          At best, I suppose Hanna is secretly supportive but just wants to keep a low profile about it.

    •  I think the list mistakenly includes some actual (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8

      spporters.  Barber has been crossed off now, and several others have been claimed thus far (at least in the comments).

      •  yeah I think we just need to send a few emails (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bythesea

        out to some congresscritters and I'm sure that list will be cut in half.

        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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:42:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Love that one of Barber's (likely gay) employees (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, bythesea

      wrote to the awesome gay blog Joe.My.God!!!

      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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:36:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm seeing 8 CBC members (0+ / 0-)

      Seven of the eight represent districts with zero chance of flipping and Sanford Bishop's district is pretty close to safe D post-2012 redistricting.  Of course all but Rush's district is in the southeast.  Maybe they wrongly think they'll get a legit primary challenger if they support it.  I don't know why they would as the primary voters in these district went almost 100% for the President who is giving them cover on the issue.

      •  The Southern African-American districts (0+ / 0-)

        are more socially conservative than VRA seats elsewhere.  Several of them actually take in large amounts of rural territory.  It's no coincidence that they've produced conservative representatives in the past like William Jefferson, Harold Ford, and Art Davis.  Whereas CBC members from elsewhere in the country tend to come from purely urban seats in socially liberal areas.

        Not saying that I'm not disappointed in them anyway, but the regional correlation is not surprising.  With exception of Rush, they are Southerners, and will be the last people in the country to finally endorse marriage equality.  They don't fear primary challengers; this is just what they believe.

        •  Ford and Davis (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordpet8, ArkDem14

          They always had an eye towards running statewide.  I don't think their centrist tendencies had anything to do with their districts.  Cohen now represents Ford's old district and he's one of the most liberal members on congress, and white too.  And he's never had a serious primary challenger since his original election.  

        •  Well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca

          Bill Jefferson was an entirely urban district. The successor district isn't entirely, but is three quarters-ish.

          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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:31:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's still urban (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwmiv

            they spaghettied the district into downtown Baton Rouge to pack black voters into one district that was probably not VRA compliant.

            "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:33:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Also Harold Ford (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stephen Wolf, Skaje, NMLib, jncca, pademocrat

          That district was entirely urban and still is.

          The only rural AA districts in the country are the Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, southern Georgia, and Mississippi seats.

          Everything else is for all intents and purposes urban and you can even make an argument that the Alabama seat is pretty much urban at this point given that it is dominated by medium sized urban centers.

          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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:33:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sadly, my guy [Enyart] is on there. (0+ / 0-)
  •  That's just a really dumb statement for (7+ / 0-)

    Lynch to make about Warren. For a lot of reasons.

    That statement probably wins the award for dumbest move by a Dem this year, taking away the title from "Debbie Halvorson criticizes gun control on FOX news."

    •  Very true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gigantomachyusa

      But it might be personal with Lynch. That was supposed to be his seat, after all! He didn't run in the special after Ted Kennedy passed, which by all sources he's kicked himself over ever since. Now Warren has it, and naturally, according to Lynch she's inadequate because she isn't Lynch.

    •  It makes sense in the context of past history. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      levlg, BenjaminDisraeli, bumiputera

      A conservative Democratic upset usually has a few features.  

      First that it's class based.  Or perhaps better put tribal based.  You portray yourself as the candidate of the working class ethnic catholics.  The other guy is supporting by wealthy Brahmin.  Harvard versus Boston College is always icing on the cake.  60 or 70 years ago you might even throw in Boston Braves versus Boston Red Sox.

      Second a faux outsider mantle.  Outside in that you run against the national establishment and their local representatives.  Elizabeth Warren fits that perfectly actually.

      And third.  Be an insider in that you have the support of the local establishment.  And someone who still lives in the state can correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression Lynch does not having any Billy Bulgers helping to pilot his campaign like John Silber had in 1990.

      And that is the key.  He needs money to help drive in the large independent vote some of whom are actually Republican who like the ability to pick and choose which party primary they can vote in.  And he needs local political machines to corral voters on his behalf.

      Otherwise he runs on his national credentials versus Markey's.  Which of course makes him road kill.

      The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

      by Taget on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:42:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Colbert-Busch Dem opponent endorses Sanford (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, ArkDem14

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

    Given she absolutely demolished him in the Dem primary and he's a perennial candidate, this shouldn't actually influence a single vote. Still, bad optics. It doesn't state what Frasier's reason for the Sanford endorsement is. I just don't get it. Maybe because Colbert-Busch is a woman?

  •  PAC launches to promote bearded candidates (9+ / 0-)

    Not a late April Fools Joke:

    A Political Action Committee (PAC) launched this week to support bearded candidates, according to paperwork filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

    The Bearded Entrepreneurs for the Advancement of a Responsible Democracy (BEARD) was founded by 30-year-old Jonathan Sessions, who sits on the Columbia, Mo., Board of Education, according to his website.

    Could primary purges of clean shaven Congressmen be far behind?

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

    by Jeff Singer on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:17:25 AM PDT

  •  CA-21: senate vacancy complicated recruitment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darth Jeff, abgin

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/...

    In January, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee invited Kern County Supervisor Leticia Perez to Washington for President Obama's inauguration, an honor bestowed on a handful of important recruits. The committee has prioritized enlisting candidates early in its top target districts, and even though Perez had just won her first elected office in November, she looked capable of marshaling the voters who carried the 21st Congressional District for Obama even as Valadao also won.

    But those plans unraveled in March when Democratic state Sen. Michael Rubio unexpectedly resigned to take a corporate lobbying job, triggering a special election in his 16th state Senate District.

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

    by DrPhillips on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:26:57 AM PDT

    •  We might need presidential turnout here anyway (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff, bumiputera, pistolSO, ArkDem14

      the district is zooming leftward thanks to a dramatic generational drop in the white population percentage, but turnout really craters here in midterms.

      However, this is a Democratic district and I'm still pissed that Costa ran away to the safer district next door while this one retained 3/4ths of his old seat. Regardless I see exactly zero chance of Valadao being reelected in 16 in what will be at least a D+6 if not greater seat.

      •  not zero (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darth Jeff

        Valadao beat Hernandez by about 15, and that was with an open seat. He's putting together a relatively moderate voting record. I agree that the district should continue to move left, but I think with incumbency in 2016 Valadao would likely beat Hernandez or a similarly weak Dem by about 10.

        I think a serious Dem who runs a good campaign would beat Valadao by 5-10 in a district the Dem presidential candidate is likely to win by 15-20, but Dems in the area will have to break with their recent history of infighting and tripping over their own feet. As of now I'd give Valadao about a 20% chance to hold the seat in 2016.

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

        by sacman701 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:03:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right, but I think the chances of us nominating (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JGibson

          another John Hernandez 4 years from now are effectively zero. This seat will just be too enticing for the Perez's of the world to stay away and I think we'll get a top tier contender if we don't this cycle.

          But even if we don't, I can't possibly see us nominating someone as horribly suited to campaigning as Hernandez. Even a Blong Xiong would be able to scrape together $600k-$700k and that's enough for a win against a fairly mainstream conservative Republican. The only way I see Valadao sticking around in 2017 is if there's a massive Republican wave and we nominate another Hernandez.

        •  For us inside baseball people as well (0+ / 0-)

          Valadao was one of two freshman to get appointed to the Appropriations Committee! They really want him to stick around [the other, by the way, is David Joyce (OH-LaTourette's Syndrome)]

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

          by HoosierD42 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:51:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Costa is a lazy campaigner (0+ / 0-)

        though, and hasn't exactly performed well the last few cycles.

        "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:36:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  While that's partially true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ArkDem14

          he also would have been a multi-term 75% district incumbent holding a then D+4 seat. There's no way in hell he would have lost last year and his margin probably would have been closer to Obama's, though his actual margin wasn't all that different than Obama's in reality given how 3/4ths of the district were new to him. He was also a much better fit for the 21st last year than the 16th given his incumbency and relative moderation.

          I think it's high time he retired though (I doubt we can primary him out unfortunately) as there's no excuse to have a Blue Dog like him representing a Dem trending D+8 district. I seriously don't understand why he and Cardoza did what they did though, especially since they were such good buddies. Each clearly had a district to run in where they would have cruised.

    •  I would tell the vacancy is doing the work faster (0+ / 0-)

      I would tell that the senate vacancy is doing the work faster still.

      The new state senator will be close to a frontrunner, that is campaigning a very important part of the District very hard and very early.

      Then, This can be helping, if the elected new state senator runs vs Valadao.

  •  Get ready for another exciting GOP primary in2016: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, bythesea, Taget

    ==============
    Rick Santorum appears to be eyeing the White House again, with the former Pennsylvania senator telling Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg that he may run for president in 2016.
    =
    ===============

    Woo-hoo! Santorum, Rubio, Cruz, Gingrich (yes, Gingrich), Randy Paul... Yep, those debates featuring birth control, the gays, etc. should really help the Republican Party get in touch with the yoots today.

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:37:29 AM PDT

  •  The Mark Penn Test (21+ / 0-)

    Posting this because its funny and as an 'anyone but Hilary 2008' person it speaks to my one and only concern with her candidacy at this point.

    "The Mark Penn Test, which I just invented, determines whether or not a person should be trusted with the presidency, based solely on one criterion: Whether or not they pay Mark Penn to do anything for their campaign. Paying Mark Penn means you’ve failed the Mark Penn Test."

    http://www.salon.com/...

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

    by Jacques Kallis on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:23:53 PM PDT

    •  Yup, this is a valid concern (5+ / 0-)

      I've noted before, there are probably several "junior" level 08/12 Obama staffers who could serve as campaign manager strategist for Hillary in 2016.

      Hopefully, she hires one of them. It would be good for her campaign and good for the party.  

      •  Another thought on this (5+ / 0-)

        If you are Hillary supporter, why would you want Mark Penn advising her, after what happened last time?

        I would think big donors to Clinton might be most opposed to Penn, given they want their money to lead a Hillary win.

        And I think it could lead to problems in the party if Obama advisers are completely shut off from top positions in Clinton's staff.

        •  Obama advisers don't care about being shut out (4+ / 0-)

          The top people are happy to go out as 2-time winners for Obama.  Others are happy, too, no matter what the future brings.  The itch is scratched.

          And some will be hired by HillaryWorld anyway, just as some from the Clinton world joined Team Obama.  It's a cottage industry, everyone works for everyone else at that level.  After all, there are not a lot of people available who can claim to have worked on a successful Presidential campaign.

          I agree that Hillary must have a lot of important supporters who hate Mark Penn.  But she won't necessarily listen to them.  We don't know if she's learned anything, and won't know until she decides to run and we start seeing who she's bringing on.

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

          by DCCyclone on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:14:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Aye, just like Fred Davis for Republicans (5+ / 0-)

      Penn, Schoen, and Cadell must be ditched permanently.

      "...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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:51:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As a followup to the poll (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gabjoh, bythesea, KingofSpades

    on marijuana legalization, I went ahead and did a policy-related diary on DK main, if any of you were interested.  My first non-DKE diary in over four years.

  •  PA-8, Sweet! I want Fitzpatrick and Barletta to (0+ / 0-)

    be top targets next year.  I'm going to take a closer look at Kevin Strouse.  Be honored to have my home state send another Iraq & Afghanistan veteran to congress.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:57:02 PM PDT

  •  Oh no, this is awful, Roger Ebert passed away! (16+ / 0-)

    RIP to a legend in his own time: http://www.suntimes.com/...

    "...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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:00:44 PM PDT

    •  I'm said to hear. (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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:38:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm almost done a Dem gerrymander of MN (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JonathanMN, WisJohn

    as reiterated, I've kept Minneapolis and St. Paul whole.  I made MN-1 a point more Dem, made MN-07 a district Obama very narrowly won in 2008 (I gave it St. Cloud), upped MN-08 to >55%, made MN-02 51.3% Obama, made MN-03 58% Obama.

    "...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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:18:16 PM PDT

  •  Ro Khanna (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jacques Kallis, Gygaxian

    He should move to New Jersey and run against one of the Republicans that have a large Indian American community (I.E.  5, 7, and 11) OR, better yet, primary Andrews (who also has a large Asian American presence now in Cherry Hill).

    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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 02:09:58 PM PDT

    •  5 and 11 have a large Indian community? (0+ / 0-)

      I was under the impression that the Indian population was largely concentrated in Middlesex and Somerset counties, i.e. NJ-06 and NJ-12.

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

      by sapelcovits on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:24:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They all have a good presence (0+ / 0-)

        But moreso in the 6 and 12 than the three Republican districts.

        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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:35:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bumiputera

          if Chivukula couldn't win in 7, I doubt Khanna would do much better.

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

          by sapelcovits on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:35:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Khanna would have a (0+ / 0-)

            substantial war chest and huge party backing, and R+6 isn't so Republican as to be impossible to win. I'd prefer he run against Garrett, though, which is only R+4 and trending our way.

            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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:40:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Note* (0+ / 0-)

              I'd prefer he run against Garrett in this fantasy land of better candidate placement.

              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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:40:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Disagree on that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wwmiv

                Garrett's is the type of district where Obama underperformed the average significantly enough that it's pretty evenly split partisan wise, especially looking at Bergen County. I don't have data to back this up, but my hypothesis is that districts where the presidential ticket substantially underperforms are the type that are going to be more averse to an outsider carpetbagging in to run. The opposite is at least likely true: districts where Obama overperformed are going to be less unfriendly towards outsiders coming and then running a few years later.

                •  I'm not sure you can back that claim up (0+ / 0-)

                  But it's an interesting claim nonetheless.

                  As for the Garrett claim, the district is R+4 at the top of the ballot, but would you mind linking to your comment on NJ partisan averages that you did over the last week-ish (as I'm sure you included NJ in that series of comments)?

                  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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:57:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here you go (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    wwmiv

                    http://s1131.photobucket.com/...

                    Basically these are estimated based off Obama's 2008 performance by county, but Obama pretty significantly underperformed the 5 race average (senate '06, '08, '12, gov '05, '09) in Bergen County which makes up a huge chunk of the district. Using those numbers though, the partisan average pretty much matches Obama's numbers despite him doing a whole 4% better than the average statewide.

                    I'm pretty sure Menendez narrowly carried the district in 2012 for instance, as Lautenberg probably did too in 2008. Corzine '05 was basically a coin-flip here too.

                    Garrett should be on any list of the 17 districts we need to win back the house, especially if we're targeting seats like CO-03 with a similarly strongly conservative Republican thrown into a competitive seat by redistricting.

            •  party backing doesn't really mean much (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bumiputera

              and Chivukula was no slouch himself in the fundraising department. plus he wasn't carpetbagging from out of state and he at least had elected experience (although granted he didn't represent any of the district).

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

              by sapelcovits on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:53:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wwmiv

        Lots of Indian people here in NJ-11, my neighboring town of Parsippany is chock full of them.

        Barbara Buono for NJ Governor 2013, Terry McAuliffe for VA Governor 2013

        by interstate73 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:00:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, Khanna should primary Brown in NH-Sen (5+ / 0-)

      First $1000 goes for bus fare.

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

      by DCCyclone on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:06:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bill Nelson now supports marriage equality (19+ / 0-)

    http://www.tampabay.com/...

    Simply put, if The Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn't, and I won't.

    So I will add my name to the petition of senators asking the Supreme Court to declare the law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional.

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

    by Jeff Singer on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 02:34:22 PM PDT

  •  CA-gov: when it rains (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, Darth Jeff, ArkDem14

    It Maldonados:

    http://www.sfgate.com/...

    I'm not even sure he could get into the top two, but he sure can try.

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

    by Ryan Dack on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:01:23 PM PDT

    •  Maldo (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff, KingofSpades

      He'd have a better shot in 2018. With Brown probably taking most of the indies in 2014, there might not be enough left over for Maldo to combine with GOP moderates and get himself into the top 2. In 2018 many more of the indies will be up for grabs, and he could position himself to get most of them.

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

      by sacman701 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:05:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He'd be better off (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32, Darth Jeff

        going for CA-24 in 2014, when there will be: A. less Dem turnout B. Capps potentially retiring

        "...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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:09:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Capps isn't retiring , most likely, (0+ / 0-)

          and CA-24 is a district with a legal voting population that's over 60% white. The district leans Democratic because of liberal, politically engaged, relatively wealthy, white voters, not just low turnout minority groups.

          "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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:41:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If the GOP field is uber weak, he can (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff, ArkDem14

      but the problem is that he can't beat Brown.  He couldn't even win a de-gerrymandered Capps district that is in his own backyard.  Here he risks becoming a perennial joke candidate.  Besides, CA is doing much better now that the unthinkable has happened and Democrats have 2/3rds and the GOP can't hold budgets hostage anymore.

      Also, I take exception to the article's calling him the highest ranking Latino official in CA in over a century.  Bull**!  First of all, and despite his weakness, Cruz Bustamonte bears that title.  And unlike Maldonado, Bustamonte actually got ELECTED to LG, he didn't get appointed to 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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:08:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How many times can you lose by double digits (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, ArkDem14

      and still be taken seriously?  

      Looks like we're going to find out.

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

      by Jeff Singer on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:17:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maldo has hired Fred "Demon Sheep" Davis!!! (4+ / 0-)
      Strategist John Weaver served as chief adviser for the 2012 presidential campaign of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and the 2000 presidential campaign of Arizona Sen. John McCain, while Fred Davis, creator of the famous "Demon Sheep" ad for U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina in 2010, will be Maldonado's media and advertising consultant.
      These two are also on the Bob Barr campaign for GA-11.  

      Suddenly I'm going from boredom to utter excitement and glee about this race.  

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

      by Jeff Singer on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:20:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, what a chump (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darth Jeff, ArkDem14

        Fred Davis also produced "Godless," "Debbie Spend-It-Now," McCain's "Celebrity" ad, the "I'm not a witch" ad, and tried to sell Joe Ricketts on an ad idea to portray Obama as a "metrosexual black Abe Lincoln."  I was just mentioning upthread that serious candidates should blacklist Fred Davis if they're smart, but since this is against Republicans, I say go ahead.

        "...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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:27:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  VA-Gov: American Bridge PAC (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, kleinburger, skipos

    releases tumblr based blog on Ken Cuccinelli's greatest hits: http://kenontheissues.com/

    "...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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:02:19 PM PDT

  •  National liberal LDS organization has been formed (10+ / 0-)

    http://www.sltrib.com/...

    Very excited about this. If we can convince LDS folks that it's fine to be Democrats/have Democratic principles, and even convince more leftist Mormon candidates to come out of the woodwork, it'll be a victory in itself. I'm a member of the Utah LDS Dems, and even though I feel left out in Utah Dem thought (as I'm basically as left-wing as Rocky Anderson on multiple issues), this is a great opportunity.

    I'm especially interested in the LDS Dem counterpart to the popular Mormon Family Home Evening program. http://ldsdems.org/...

    If we can build up an infrastructure as basic as this, it will help grow the (tiny) numbers of LDS Dems.

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

    by Gygaxian on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:21:13 PM PDT

    •  This is great (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      Though it won't really help in Utah, it could help marginally in Arizona (say half a percent or so).

      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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:37:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm guessing it's geared towards young adult LDS (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ArkDem14, Gygaxian, gabjoh

        You could take a long-term view. If Utah's Hispanic population keeps booming and LDS youth shift markedly towards Dems, it could make the state's usual margins dwindle rapidly in a few decades. We'd still only win it once in a blue 1964-style moon, but hey it's progress

        21, Male, Latino-Spanish, OK-1 (Tulsa: The Art Deco, Terracotta, and Cultural Gem of Green Country!); Currently studying in Madrid, Spain

        by gigantomachyusa on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:05:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dont think we'd win it even in a 1964 style wave (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bythesea

          I think Utah would be one of the lone holdouts in that type of wave now.

          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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:17:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you'd need a 3rd party spoiler/R split (0+ / 0-)

            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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:00:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I would take a more pessimistic view nationally (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gabjoh

          But it could potentially cut the GOP margins in half in statewide races within a decade or so. I mean, we already have one equal Democratic contender against any Republican (Jim Matheson), so with more LDS people willing to support a Democratic, we could have an actual bench.

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

          by Gygaxian on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:05:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, it could help in making mormon politcs (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bythesea

        more open to liberalism so that you have more Harry Reid types. After all, I think I remember seeing polling analysis that suggested that if Mormons voted Democratic at the rate that other whites/Christians did, Utah would be ridiculously solidly Democratic.

        However, I think if we were truly trying to 'convert' Utah to being Democratic (no pun intended), it would have to involve a secularization of politics more akin to how Catholics vote today. The Church might tell them one thing, but they certainly vote another way.

      •  Perhaps it could help (0+ / 0-)

        Seeing as how Utahns are already comfortable splitting their vote for a Democrat who they see as a "moral" person (Ben McAdams, Jim Matheson, Bill Orton in the 90s until they perceived that he had "sold them out"). I think being able to portray Utah Dems as moral, decent active LDS (which a lot of them are), instead of "immoral" (Utah conservative perception) liberals who don't understand Utah values. Utah Mormons need to understand that not all Utah Democrats are ex-Mormons, inactive Mormons, or anti-Mormons.

        Though yeah, that could help in Arizona a lot more, especially with the LDS Latinos.

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

        by Gygaxian on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:03:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As a former Mormon (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gygaxian, bumiputera

      I'm not sure how well a politically based Family Home Evening would go over with most people who are LDS, even liberal leaning ones.

      Age 25, Republican, WA-03 (represented by wonderful Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler), getting married in September:)

      by KyleinWA on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:17:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

        Though their beginning example (of the importance of being involved in civics and finding examples of good citizens) seems innocent enough. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

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

        by Gygaxian on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:07:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Working on a new project (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwmiv, ArkDem14, psychicpanda

    Calculating what percent of each congressional district is in a given metro area (using my own definitions, which are narrower than the Census definitions)

    So far I've done Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, and Delaware, skipping California for now.

    I'll start with the "rural" AL-7, because it was being discusses upthread.

    Birmingham: 46%, D+27 (08 numbers)
    Tuscaloosa: 13%, D+6
    Montgomery: 7%, D+42
    RST (Rural/Small Town): 34%, D+6

    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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:09:08 PM PDT

    •  Eh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stephen Wolf

      This sounds great, but if you're going to do it pretty please stick to census definitions of metropolitan area as those standards are rigorous, standardized, and methodologically sound.

      I'd also look at media market, which is pretty informative for our purposes.

      Also, I agree with the assessment of "rural" for AL-7, which I noted above.

      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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:20:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You'd also need a way to delineate between your (0+ / 0-)

        categories

        I'd go with anything that is included in an MSA under 500,000 as small city, any MSA over 500,000 as large city (maybe do an intermediate category between 500,000 and 1,000,000), and then a small town/rural category of counties that are either mSA or not within an MSA or mSA.

        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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:22:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You can do it that way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psychicpanda

        I think people who live in small towns where many people commute to big cities should be considered rural, and I think the Census is wrong in how they define "urban" vs. "rural."  So I shall stick to my way.

        The differences between my method and the Census are also pretty small.

        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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:51:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Technically (0+ / 0-)

          The census isn't taking a stand on urban v. rural in its metropolitan area definitions.

          This is a common - and huge - misconception. They readily acknowledge that there are huge areas "captured" by metropolitan areas that are considered rural.

          They have an entirely separate metric called an urban area which is delineated along census tracts based on density both in population and in built form, which are always smaller than their metropolitan area definitions simply because of the way that they define the two terms.

          Austin, for instance, is around 1.8 million in its metropolitan area, but only 1.4 in the urban area. Totally different metric, totally different definitions, and totally different results.

          In fact, the census bureau puts out urban/rural calculations for districts every year just as they do for racial statistics, but they don't do it for metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural divides because of the more "slipperiness" of those concepts.

          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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:01:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's probably my fault for still following (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCCyclone

    Gallup, but there may be a split developing between their polling and non tracking polling, kind of like what we saw in the election. Quinnipiac and Marist, in recent days, have showed Obama's approval rebounding from their previous polls. 49-45 in Quinnipiac, vs. 45-46 a month ago. 50-46 in Marist, vs 45-48 three weeks ago. Yet Gallup has his approval generally down to 47-48 today.

    Again, maybe my fault for following Gallup, but I find it interesting, because I think Quinnipiac and Marist tend to be on the low end when it comes to Obama's approval. I think Marist was the only non Gallup poll to have Obama's approval ever in the 30s(39-52, 9/13/-14 2011 to be exact).

    I doubt we will get any more media polls until later in the month, and I guess it's debatable how much these approval rating polls really matter right now.

    link.  

  •  Scott Brown may run for Senate... In NH (9+ / 0-)

    WTF?

    I think this is what jumping the shark politically looks like.  

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

    by Jeff Singer on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:29:00 PM PDT

  •  GA-Sen: John Barrow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwmiv, bumiputera

    It's been frustrating me how some people (posters on this site and Democrats in Georgia) have been rallying behind John Barrow for Senate.  I understand Barrow can do what he wants with his campaign but I wouldn't be encouraging him.  We are at such a loss for House seats that are winnable - conceding John Barrow's seat is another impossible rung to climb.  Same with Nick Rahall in WV-03 although we would have a better shot at replacing him with a Dem.

    •  I agree when it comes down to it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psychicpanda

      but only because I don't think fielding Barrow over the likely alternative will make or break the difference. That will be determined by whether or not the GOP nominates a nutter like Paul Broun.

      Another thing to consider though, is that we're A) unlikely to take the house majority this decade and B) if we do, Barrow will still vote pretty conservatively and it's unlikely he'd be the 218th vote anyway since it would likely take a pretty big wave. So while he certainly would throw away his house seat, the marginal value of it is only worth the speaker's vote and that can definitely be outweighed by the strength of his senate candidacy.

      Alternatively you could think about it like this: what will Barrow vote with us for on the big ticket items in that district? Probably not very much, which couldn't be further from the truth with Nick Rahall who votes with us on most everything big.

    •  Why is nobody pushing Thurbert Baker? (4+ / 0-)

      Is he out of 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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:43:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hopefully not (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psychicpanda, HoosierD42, bumiputera

        He'd be great, for reasons I'll no longer discuss.

        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 Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:51:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thurbert Baker would be a solid candidate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, bumiputera

        There aren't a lot of African-Americans in the deep south who have been elected statewide.  Baker did it 3 or 4 times (can't remember the exact number) as Georgia Attorney General.  He was originally appointed to the post by then-Gov Zell Miller and always maintained the image of a moderate to conservative Dem.  He made the unfortunate choice of running for Governor in 2010 against Roy Barnes in the Dem primary, where he had no chance of winning.  He could still be an attractive Senate candidate against someone as odious as Gingrey or Broun.

        •  I'm not so sure it was a bad idea (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bumiputera

          Because running for Governor in a primary he was never going to win kept him from being defeated for Attorney General, which I think he likely would have been. It keeps his electability more intact than otherwise.

          Of course, he might have also been using it as a backdoor retirement.

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

          by HoosierD42 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:02:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But why do you assume he's guaranteed to hold his (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stephen Wolf

      House seat if he doesn't run for Senate? The Senate electorate would be more Dem-leaning than his House district is.

      Plus an extra senate seat is worth more at the margin than an extra house seat.

      Plus we're much more likely to lose the senate in 2014 than we are to win the House.

      Plus the odds are decent that even if he could hold his House seat next year, he'd lose it some time later this decade. On the other hand, if he won the senate seat, he'd be guaranteed to keep it for 6 years, and then be able to run again in 2020, a presidential year, when GA's demographics will be that much more favorable to Dems.

      On the other hand, if there's a candidate who would be as strong or stronger than him, then sure, it'd be better if that person ran. But wanting to cling to his house seat is not enough reason, by itself, to not want him to run for senate.

  •  I knew Bill Nelson would come around (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwmiv, lordpet8, askew

    for somebody religious as he is and part of that C street group. Deff proud that he's one of my fav senators.

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

    by BKGyptian89 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:51:00 PM PDT

    •  Who's next? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm guessing Heidi Heitkamp, but Mary Landrieu or Tim Johnson wouldn't surprise me.

      Keeper of the DKE glossary. Priceless: worth a lot; not for sale.

      by SaoMagnifico on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:30:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think Landrieu is probably next (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew

        if I had to guess, even though she's from Louisiana, she been able to hold her own in that state, ever since Breaux left. Johnson as well since he's leaving.

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

        by BKGyptian89 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:37:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Landrieu sounds like she really wants to (8+ / 0-)
        "According to the U.S. Constitution, marriage and family law are reserved for the states," Landrieu said. "The people of Louisiana have made clear that marriage in our state is restricted to one man and one woman. While my personal views have evolved, I will support the outcome of Louisiana's recent vote."
        One of the big LGBTQ groups in Louisiana has stated they're sensitive to her political considerations.  I doubt there will be a strong push from the left in Louisiana to get her to switch: it seems pretty widely understood that she's far and away the best Senator for gay rights Louisiana will probably produce for a while.

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

        by Jeff Singer on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:41:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yea (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32, R30A, abgin

        Id say Tim Johnson because he is retiring and doesn't have to worry about bigots being pissed.
        I think there is a 1% chance Landrieu comes out to support gay marriage before her next election. Same goes with Pyror. However with gay marriage support rising at 1.5% a year by the time those two face another election they'll see little to no harm from supporting gay marriage.
        If Heitkamp and Donnely had a backbone they'd support gay marriage given that at current trends by the time they are up for re-election there states will probably be tied for gay marriage support.

        We only think nothing goes without saying.

        by Hamtree on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:58:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of all the Democrats left in the sen. (7+ / 0-)

          I would say there's a 0.1% chance Pryor ever comes around on the issue.

          I think he'll be the last one to oppose, until he retires.

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

          by aggou on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:14:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pryor seems to be very evangelical (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jj32

            From wikipedia:

            Pryor is featured in the 2008 Bill Maher documentary Religulous, in which he tells Maher that he could believe in Young Earth creationism, yet he also sees evolution as a feasible idea. He states at the beginning of the interview that he is an Evangelical Christian. He also states that he believes in the Rapture, and that "You don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate".

            According to author Jeff Sharlet, Pryor is affiliated with a political organization called the Family. Sharlet quoted Pryor as stating that through the Family he "had learned that the separation of church and state was a sort of secular exaggeration" and that "Jesus did not come to bring peace. Jesus came to take over."

            To his credit though, he did vote for DADT repeal, something no evangelical Republican did.  I don't think he will ever come out for SSM.
            •  You guys think he "never" will (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bfen, WisJohn

              but how many of you expected even just 8 years ago that senators from FL and NC and VA and MT and AK and a republican from OH would ever support same sex marriage?

              •  I did (0+ / 0-)

                but I'm young and have blinders on.

                Yes, it is bread we fight for -- but we fight for roses, too! | Pro-transit young black urban progressive | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | MO-05: come for the jazz, stay for the burnt ends | Yard signs don't vote.

                by gabjoh on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 06:34:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Donnelly should now (0+ / 0-)

          A recent poll showed that 45% of Hoosiers think gay marriage should be legal.  As for a constitutional amendment banning it?  Fifty-four percent (54%) against that and only 37% are for it.

          Joe, it's time.

          27, male, gay, living with and loving my partner of over 4 years in downtown Indianapolis (IN-7).

          by IndyLiberal on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 04:22:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  perhaps Tim Johnson (0+ / 0-)

        due to the retirement factor.

        however, I'm going to go ahead and predict the next one will be a Republican, either Murkowski or Collins.

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

        by sapelcovits on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 02:19:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  PA-08: Kevin Strouse (0+ / 0-)

    I'd hit it.

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

    by HoosierD42 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:36:15 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site