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.

10:08 AM PT: MA-Sen, MA-05: As expected, Democratic Rep. Ed Markey prevailed in Tuesday night's special Senate election in Massachusetts, turning back Republican businessman Gabriel Gomez by a 55-45 margin in a race notable for its low turnout. While a couple of pollsters incorrectly predicted 20-point blowouts, most surveys congregated in the high single-digits/low double-digits region, which turned out to be fairly accurate turf.

When he is sworn in, Markey will replace Sen. Mo Cowan, who was appointed to fill John Kerry's seat after Kerry became Secretary of State earlier this year. Markey's ascension to the Senate will also trigger a competitive special election for his House seat in the 5th District, to be held within 160 days of his resignation. At 65-33 Obama, the 5th is safely Democratic, meaning the primary will be hard-fought.

Several candidates have been gearing up for the race (with different degrees of activity) for some time, including Middlesex Sheriff Peter Koutoujian, state Sens. Katherine Clark, Karen Spilka, and Will Brownsberger, and state Rep. Carl Sciortino. Some issued formal announcements directly following Markey's victory, and more may join the race in the future. As always when it comes to special elections, we'll be tracking all developments here closely.

10:35 AM PT (jeffmd): How does Markey's 10-point win look compared to, say, Martha Coakley's 5-point loss? We can take a look: the first two maps show the 2010 special general election and last night's, while the third shows the swing between the two elections (with darker shades of blue or red indicating a greater swing towards Markey or Gomez, respectively). Markey outperformed Coakley almost across the board, with the exception of a handful of towns in Western Mass. (and Gomez's hometown of Cohasset on the South Shore).

(click for larger)
(click for larger)
Indeed, the dark red covering much of the state that punctuated Scott Brown's victory is largely reduced to two strands, one south and west of Worcester and the other west of Springfield (areas in which, perhaps not coincidentally, Markey's primary rival Rep. Steven Lynch peformed well). Markey's swings were particularly noticeable in the towns immediately north of the city of Boston: Markey outpaced Coakley by 16 points in Everett and his hometown of Malden, and by 14 and 13 points in Lynn and Revere, respectively.

10:50 AM PT: Special Elections: In some good news for Democrats on Tuesday night, former congressional and legislative aide James Kay held on to Kentucky's 56th State House District, keeping the seat blue in a special election. Kay defeated Republican Lyen Crews 44-34, despite former Democrat John-Mark Hack taking 22 percent as an independent. Though Kay outraised Crews two-to-one, Republicans tried hard to pick up the seat, with the RSLC (the GOP equivalent of the DLCC) spending at least $177,000 to make up the gap.

The victory preserves Democrats' 55-45 majority in the House, which is itself remarkable given that outside of West Virginia, this is the only legislative chamber south of the Mason-Dixon line still held by Democrats. Republicans are likely to target it for takeover next year, so maintaining our strength here is especially important.

12:14 PM PT: IN Ballot: Unfortunately, it wasn't all good news on the marriage equality front on Wednesday. Despite—or really, because of—the Supreme Court's rulings on DOMA and Proposition 8, Republicans in charge of the Indiana legislature said they intend to press forward with plans to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot next year that would ban same-sex marriage in the state. But doesn't Indiana already forbid such unions? Indeed it does, but only on the statutory level. Republicans want to stick it to same-sex couples even harder by enshrining their hostility toward gay marriage in the state constitution.

In fact, the legislature previously voted to refer such an amendment to the ballot two years ago; they have to do so a second time (likely in January) to complete the process. There hasn't been any polling on the issue since last year, and the picture was mixed, with one survey finding a slight plurality in favor of the amendment and another finding a sizable majority opposed. Given Indiana's general conservatism, I suspect the former is probably closer to the truth, which means pro-equality activists will have a serious fight on their hands to defeat this in 2014.

1:12 PM PT: VA-Gov: Oh man. Life is not good for Bob McDonnell:

A prominent political donor purchased a Rolex watch for Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, according to two people with knowledge of the gift, and the governor did not disclose it in his annual financial filings.

The $6,500 luxury watch was provided by wealthy businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr., the people said. He is the chief executive of dietary supplement manufacturer Star Scientific and the person who paid for catering at the wedding of the governor's daughter. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of an ongoing federal investigation into the relationship between Williams and the McDonnell family.

Williams's gift came in August 2011—about two weeks after he met with a top state health official to pitch the benefits of his company's health products at a meeting arranged by first lady Maureen McDonnell, according to people who know of the meeting.

I really suggest you read the whole piece, especially if you haven't been following the whole Star Scientific saga in detail. One of the most striking aspects is how McDonell's wife Maureen comes off as an utter chiseler who seemed to relish squeezing lavish boons out of Williams (the Rolex, a shopping trip to New York, even borrowing a Ferrari)—and of course, how Williams never appeared to hesitate to ply her with his largesse. There's a federal investigation underway pertaining to all these gifts; even if McDonnell somehow skates as a legal matter, I don't see how this ends well for him politically.

1:24 PM PT: MN-Gov: As expected, state Sen. Dave Thompson formally announced his entry into the Minnesota governor's race on Wednesday, making him the fourth Republican to do so. He joins businessman Scott Honour, Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson, and state Rep. Kurt Zellers, though several others are also considering the race, including state Rep. Matt Dean, Senate Minority Leader David Hann, state Sen. Julie Rosen, and former state House Minority Leader Marty Seifert. Polls have generally shown Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton in good shape for re-election.

1:50 PM PT: WI-Gov: Wisconsin Democrats, who've been having a hard time coming up with a challenger to Gov. Scott Walker, have reportedly been polling to test Mary Burke, a former state Commerce Department secretary under ex-Gov. Jim Doyle, as a possible candidate. Burke sounds like she's from a wealthy family (her father founded Trek Bicycle and she's donated millions to charity), and she also spent six figures to win a race for the Madison school board last year, but she isn't commenting about a potential gubernatorial bid.

1:54 PM PT: MI-Gov: Conservatives unhappy with Gov. Rick Snyder had been trying (via Facebook) to lure former state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop into challenging the incumbent in a primary, but it's not gonna happen. Bishop lost a race for Oakland County prosecutor last year, and he says he won't run because he's "in the private sector now and out of the loop."

4:24 PM PT: NYC Mayor: Christine Quinn's long ride downward continues. Quinnipiac's latest poll of the Democratic primary has more bad news for the city council speaker, who found herself in second place for the first time ever in a Marist survey earlier this week. Here's how the field shapes up, with May's trendlines in parentheses:

Christine Quinn: 19 (25)
Anthony Weiner: 17 (15)
Bill Thompson: 16 (10)
Bill de Blasio: 10 (10)
John Liu: 7 (6)
As Quinn fades (she once stood at 37 percent, back in February), Thompson, the former comptroller and 2009 nominee, moves up, though why is certainly a mystery. (The airwaves are largely quiet.) What's most remarkable, though, is just how damn close the race is overall—only 9 points separate first from fourth—and how low even the "frontrunner's" share of the vote is. It's been a weird, desultory race, filled with mostly lousy candidates who don't excite anyone, and if you believe Quinnipiac, it now looks like both runoff slots, not just second place, are very much up for grabs.

4:25 PM PT: CT-Gov: State House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, who has been weighing a gubernatorial bid for some time, now says that he'll announce whether he'll enter the Republican primary Thursday or Friday.

4:44 PM PT (David Jarman): VRA: With the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, their ruling on the Voting Rights Act yesterday is already starting to slide down the memory hole a bit. But we've rounded up some of the most interesting responses to the Shelby County case from various pundits and observers, oriented more toward the practicalities of what comes next, rather than mere denunciations (of which there were plenty, though Ari Berman's was a particularly good one, in terms of locating Tuesday's decision in historical context):

Dave Wasserman predicts that we won't see much re-redistricting in the wake of the decision, because the GOP already has the maps it wants in most of these states (partly because minority-majority districts help them with maximally packing Dem voters, partly because Obama's DOJ didn't aggressively challenge GOP maps other than Texas). In addition, Sec. 2 (which allows lawsuits after the fact, in cases of intentional discrimination) still stands as a guard against the worst abuses.

Of course, that presumes SCOTUS doesn't come after Sec. 2 in subsequent cases. That's what worries election law professor Rick Hasen, who thinks that a timebomb left in the earlier NAMUDNO case might be a prelude to an attack on Sec. 2. (Hasen also has a more general what-next piece in the New York Times that's worth reading.)

Nate Silver seems to join Wasserman in thinking that we won't see further redistricting hijinks, but less from a legalistic perspective and focusing more on the way that, redistricting or not, Democratic votes tend to be packed less efficiently into urban areas. That's not a new idea for the Daily Kos Elections readership, but, as always, his remarkably illuminating infographics alone make it worth checking out.

Texas redistricting expert Michael Li weighs in on what it means for Texas, probably the most intensely-affected state. That's not only in terms of their restrictive voter ID law (which now takes effect) but also in terms of their newly implemented congressional and legislative maps, which won't face preclearance now but will still face Sec. 2 challenges.

Reid Wilson has an interesting look at how the decision will affect maps in state legislatures more so than the House. And finally, there are good looks-forward from George Zornick and Dylan Matthews. Zornick discusses replacing Sec. 4 with a broader Sec. 4 that isn't limited to the South (useful, considering that some of the most blatantly suppressive activities in 2012 were in Ohio and Pennsylvania), possibly even applying preclearance everywhere. Matthews also talks about increasing litigation under Sec. 2 but also, relatedly, making more use of little-known Sec. 3, which allows courts to "bail-in" jurisdictions into preclearance coverage after there's been a finding of discriminatory acts.

4:46 PM PT: ME-Gov: Someone with access to polling conducted by the Maine Democratic Party has leaked a new survey to Ethan Strimling at the Bangor Daily News, and unsurprisingly, the results look good for Rep. Mike Michaud, who recently announced the formation of an exploratory committee. The poll, conducted by Clarity Campaigns, finds Michaud tied at 32 percent with GOP Gov. Paul LePage, while independent Eliot Cutler sits in third at 24. Other polls have shown Michaud close, but this is the first where he's not a few points behind the incumbent.

Strimling says he was able to review the crosstabs and notes that 40 percent of self-identified Democrats aren't yet supporting Michaud; most are going to Cutler (some are undecided), which I think actually presents an opportunity for Michaud if he can nuke Cutler from orbit. There are also a few other details on the poll, including sample composition, at the link. As for Clarity, we didn't see much of their polling last cycle, but their clients did release one late internal in Indiana which nailed both the Senate and governor's races.

4:50 PM PT: NJ-Sen: Kean University's new poll of the special Democratic Senate primary finds the same thing everyone else's has so far. Newark Mayor Cory Booker has a commanding lead over the field, taking 49 percent, versus 9 apiece for Rep. Rush Holt and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, while Frep. Frank Pallone brings up the rear with 6. If something's gonna change the dynamics of this race, it better happen quick, since the primary is very soon, August 13.

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 (9+ / 0-)

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

    by David Nir on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:00:13 AM PDT

  •  thanks for this list (16+ / 0-)

    of bills passed by the Texas Senate yesterday.

    (actually, due to time zones, MA-sen, the filibuster, and the Perry/Windsor decisions will all be on the same day for me.)

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

    by sapelcovits on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:09:15 AM PDT

  •  Why you shouldn't be too bum on ystrdy VRA dec (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paleo, bythesea

    http://youtu.be/...

    Obviously I was bummed yesterday, but the rest of the law is still intact. Republicans in general don't want us voting, but we're not going anywhere! So folks on those rightwing blogs like Redstate and RRH can get giddy all they want, and same for right sites like National Review and WSJ. Folks on those sites hate this President, and Dems to begin with. Most of them do I believe But in reality even tho this may seem like a gift for the GOP, I believe this can end up being a curse. People don't like their voting rights taken away from them. Look what happened last year.

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

    by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:19:14 AM PDT

    •  I would strongly challenge your premise about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OGGoldy, JohnnyBoston, skibum59

      RRH.

      It is nothing like RedState. It's definitely not "rightwing."

      Sure it leans right, but that's because it was founded with people who are Republicans. I would give the same qualification to DK and DKE.

      I even think the "hate" mention, towards the President shouldn't apply to RRH as a whole.  

      21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Pedagogy. Not your typical DKE junkie!

      by aggou on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:30:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Okay maybe I shouldn't had said "hate" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aggou

        But most people there aren't fond of him. I think that's safe to say.

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

        by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:48:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're right in that it's not anything (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OGGoldy, aggou, Stephen Wolf, propjoe

        like RedState, but I don't think you'd be effective recruiting for the Barack Obama Fan Club there either.

        At what point must a female senator raise her voice in order to be heard over her male colleagues in the room?" | Pro-transit young black urban progressive | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | NJ-05 - ! ...? | Yard signs don't vote.

        by gabjoh on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:53:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Very true, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gabjoh, JohnnyBoston, skibum59

          But you're not going to be able to do that here, either for Romney.

          But that doesn't make you guys super purist crazies, which is all I was getting at. Just that we're all partisans, but overall a little more level headed than some others in our parties.

          21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Pedagogy. Not your typical DKE junkie!

          by aggou on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:13:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The death of the VRA has been greatly (10+ / 0-)

      exaggerated.  One procedural tool was taken away, but the rest of the act remains in place.  Both the justice department and private citizens may go to court to challenge election laws as being in violation of the VRA.

      http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

      by Paleo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:31:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And congress can pass a new formula (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paleo

        Which, considering how little opposition there was to VRA renewal last time, doesn't seem that far fetched, though there will certainly be more opposition than last time. If I had to guess, I'd say it gets 70-75 votes in the Senate and 325-350 votes in the House.

        Gay suburbanite in NJ-11 Rush Holt for Senate!

        by interstate73 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:35:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ^^^THANK YOU for this (10+ / 0-)

        Too much hyperbole.

        I don't want to belittle the significance of this thing, but really no one is......everyone is just overstating it.

        The important thing is that now the Democratic Party and its allies need to step up to fill the legal void previously filled by DOJ.  And we have the institutional firepower to do that.  Get in there and monitor everything and be ready to drag GOP elected and appointed officials into court ASAP everytime they try to pull something.

        This doesn't mean no harm comes from yesterday's decision, I think for folks in Shelby County life just got a little harder.  But nothing happened yesterday to cause widespread debilitation of voting rights.

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

        by DCCyclone on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:35:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DCCyclone

          When I saw HuffPost's headline on this yesterday, I groaned.

          "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

          by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:47:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Kevin Drum made a good point.. (7+ / 0-)

        ... the problem this ruling creates is that while citizens can still file lawsuits to enforce VRA, by dismantling the formula for pre-clearance, it essentially opens the door to states and localities introducing vast numbers of discriminatory laws and redistricting criteria. While they can be sued, the process is likely to be far more drawn out, which means that enforcement is likely to become a good deal spottier.

        And yes, given their record on things like Voter ID, Republicans are certainly likely to try and squeeze every opportunity they can out of this.

        •  Can get injunctive relief (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBraden, DCCyclone, itskevin

          The entire process could be lengthy, but an injunction would freeeze the status quo in place and not permit the new law to go into effect immediately.

          http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

          by Paleo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:40:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The other thing that makes my eyes roll... (4+ / 0-)

            ...is that I'm seeing commentators on Twitter, people who get published, say things like we're going "backward on race."  This is a sweeping statement, being made by people less than a year after the first black President got reelected.

            Sigh.

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

            by DCCyclone on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:53:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't want to get too much into it (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArkDem14, Jacques Kallis, propjoe

              but it's a matter of a few at the top succeeding, and the masses of people of color getting screwed over.

              At what point must a female senator raise her voice in order to be heard over her male colleagues in the room?" | Pro-transit young black urban progressive | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | NJ-05 - ! ...? | Yard signs don't vote.

              by gabjoh on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:55:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's not hyperbole (4+ / 0-)

              To call this the return of Jim Crow. They literally overturned a law to outlaw Jim Crow laws.

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

              by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:06:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When the schools get resegregated, (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wwmiv, skibum59, DCCyclone, NMLib

                lynchings go unprosecuted (like the Trayvon Martin case getting shut down), and I can't marry a Black person, let me know.  Until then, you're being incredibly hyperbolic.

                20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                politicohen.com
                Love the class war, hate identity politics and purism
                UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

                by jncca on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:04:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's more hyperbolic (0+ / 0-)

                  to essentially dismiss the horrors of racism just because they've evolved into more subtle forms of intolerance.

                  I'd think my black neighbor here in New Orleans would really disagree with the implication above. Sure our things as bad as they were under Jim Crow? No, duh. That said, what SCOTUS did Tuesday was undermine the rights of millions, it was an assault on the civil rights of those living under preclearance.

                  23, Male, LA-02, TX-08 (originally), SSP: sschmi4

                  by Stephen Schmitz on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:42:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Schools are resegregated (0+ / 0-)

                  and lynchings are more likely to take the form of legal executions.

                  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 Jun 27, 2013 at 08:36:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  There is a silver lining (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      Part of what I might be doing next would involve organizing black voters. This would help in that.

      At what point must a female senator raise her voice in order to be heard over her male colleagues in the room?" | Pro-transit young black urban progressive | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | NJ-05 - ! ...? | Yard signs don't vote.

      by gabjoh on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:58:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Big Day in Politics: (1) Wendy Davis for Governor? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gabjoh, Gygaxian, jj32, betelgeux, bythesea

    Plausible? Thoughts?

    •  Yes, maybe within this decade (5+ / 0-)

      If she can hang on to her senate seat.

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

      by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:46:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or Congress, or something else? (3+ / 0-)

      How is she like on other issues?

      At least we know money won't be a problem for her going forward.

      At what point must a female senator raise her voice in order to be heard over her male colleagues in the room?" | Pro-transit young black urban progressive | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | NJ-05 - ! ...? | Yard signs don't vote.

      by gabjoh on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:48:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She will run, and lose (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, Mark27, propjoe, DCCyclone

      Texas is too far out of reach for Democrats right now. She will raise gobs of cash, but still lose 55-45. She may land herself a cush government or private sector job after 2014 though.

      I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

      by OGGoldy on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:59:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's (0+ / 0-)

        too bad now with VRA gutted TX Republicans will draw Wendy Davis out of existence.

        The Republican party is now an extreme right-wing party that is owned by their billionaire campaign contributors. - Bernie Sanders

        by ehstronghold on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:08:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ArkDem14

          They've already passed the final compromise map and Wendy is happy with it. They aren't going to go back and draw something else, at least for the Senate map.

          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 Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:11:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And even then (0+ / 0-)

            It wasn't as if preclearance was going to protect that district, as most every court decision balked at the idea it was a protected district.

            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 Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:12:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Did (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jacques Kallis

            Perry sign the maps into law yet? Because I heard he could just veto the final compromise map (assuming he hasn't signed it yet) and just let the maps the courts block stand.

            The Republican party is now an extreme right-wing party that is owned by their billionaire campaign contributors. - Bernie Sanders

            by ehstronghold on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:16:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Plus, GOP not really scared of her (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stephen Wolf

            They want every winnable seat they can get, no doubt, but I doubt any Texas Republican thinks Davis or any other Democrat can win statewide.

            I'm sure there are some Texas GOPers who see the writing on the wall that they have to perform better with racial minorities over time, but low rates of both Hispanic citizenship and voting participation among Hispanic citizens gives them a lot of time.  Until then, they're not worried about anyone on our side.

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

            by DCCyclone on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:19:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You think (0+ / 0-)

        she's going to run?

    •  I'm starting to think our best shot in Texas (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, gabjoh, betelgeux

      will be if Ted Cruz runs for re-election in 2018.

    •  She's gonna be too polarizing now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gabjoh

      Before she was the likable woman who got elected in a red district.  That's a great profile.  Now she's associated with abortions and social liberalism.  That's a horrible profile.  I think she just threw away her chances (however slim) of winning statewide this decade.

      20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Love the class war, hate identity politics and purism
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

      by jncca on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:00:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The law also had non-abortion related (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MetroGnome

        negative impacts. I think it'll be good on both the policy front and the "getting her elected" front if we can emphasize those as well.

        "At what point must a female senator raise her voice in order to be heard over her male colleagues in the room?" | Pro-transit young black urban progressive | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | NJ-05 - ! ...? | Yard signs don't vote.

        by gabjoh on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:09:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  2022 (5+ / 0-)

        In 2022 she'll be 59, which is hardly too old to run for governor. If Dems actually make an effort to organize Texas (which has comically low turnout) it may pay off by then, plus they'll have 9 more years of Hispanic kids aging into the voter pool.

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

        by sacman701 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:01:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Even in a state like Texas (5+ / 0-)

        the kind of extreme anti-abortion legislation Republicans have been proposing is not overwhelmingly popular.  If you believe the polls, not allowing exceptions for rape and incest is actually a complete fringe position, with even a majority of Republicans nationwide against it.  CNN in particular phrased a poll simply as "Do you think abortion should be legal in case of rape?" and found 90% of Democrats in favor, 81% of independents, and 76% of Republicans.  This is a winning issue, as even conservative states like Indiana and Missouri have demonstrated there are political ramifications to appearing extreme on the rape question.

        A lot of independents and conservative-leaning but not die-hard GOP voters may be willing to overlook Davis's filibuster if informed how far-reaching and extreme the legislation was.

        A great majority of America does seem to favor some restrictions, particularly on late-term abortions (which are almost always done for medical reasons, but whatever), but the ads write themselves when Republicans would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape.

        The biggest obstacle to Davis is not her image, it is the fact that Republicans have won every single statewide office in the state for quite a few elections now.  People are used to pulling the GOP ballot in all races, even the little-known ones.

        •  Yes, but to win, you have to be perfectly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DCCyclone

          inoffensive even to usually Republican voters.  Bill White was, but after this, I don't think Wendy Davis will be.

          20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
          politicohen.com
          Love the class war, hate identity politics and purism
          UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

          by jncca on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:07:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Draft movement by DK? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      Seems to be in the works judging by Kos' post on the FP :)

  •  NJ-Sen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, DCCyclone

    Just saw my first ad of the campaign, a Cory Booker spot about the work he's done for Newark and why he'd be a good senator. Pretty good, I think.

    Gay suburbanite in NJ-11 Rush Holt for Senate!

    by interstate73 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:38:23 AM PDT

  •  Big Day in Politics: (2) Rudd Ousts Gillard... (7+ / 0-)

    ... Down Under, former FM and PM Kevin Rudd has ousted Julia Gillard (who ousted him back in 2010)... polls showed Rudd doing better against the Coalition (the Australian Right) than Gillard, but at this point both are likely to lose.

    Curious from any Australian DKE'ers -- will the messiness of this second ousting hurt Rudd even more?

    •  It's (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, itskevin, KingofSpades

      a Hail Mary pass plain and simple. Rudd may not be able to win the election for Labor, but sure was going to do damn better than Gillard was. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of Labor MP's who sat on wafer thin margins who decided it was better to go back to Rudd than stick with Gillard.

      Certainty this means we'll probably see the election moved up to early August instead of September. It would be best in Labor's interests if Rudd calls an election right now to avoid losing a no confidence motion and to preserve as much momentum as possible.

      The Republican party is now an extreme right-wing party that is owned by their billionaire campaign contributors. - Bernie Sanders

      by ehstronghold on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:57:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Libs (0+ / 0-)

        Have a lot to attack Rudd on. The vitriol directed at him from
        his own colleagues over the past couple of years form excellent material for Coalition attack ads. Rudd theoretically can turn into something worse than Gillard for Labor.

        •  This was about getting rid of him (0+ / 0-)

          Gillard did not want a situation where he sabotaged the Labour campaign all the while hinting he would win/would've won in September, then too over and led the party for the next three years continuing these differences. Whatever happened she wanted this strife to end NOW.

          Which in a way it did. If Rudd loses now he has burnt so many bridges he is through.

        •  newest poll shows (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itskevin

          A Morgan Poll said Mr Rudd's return had lifted Labor by five points to a two-party vote of 49.5 compared with 50.5 per cent for the Coalition.

          Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/...

          When is the earliest date possible for the election?

          •  September 14 is the assumption (0+ / 0-)

            The election has to be before November 30, but Gillard announced it would be September 14 in January, albeit not formally.

            There's a mandated campaign period, of approximately one month. So even if the writs of election were dropped, the election couldn't be earlier than the end of July.

            There's been some campaigning focused on the September 14th date (Tony Abbott and the Coalition did a '100 days left' event in late May) and both parties seem to accept it, so it's hard to see the date changing.

            Editor, Daily Kos Elections. IL-07.

            by jeffmd on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:58:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  A sudden bounce is naturally expected (0+ / 0-)

            But I expect the gap to begin to widen again after not too long.

  •  DOMA goes down (15+ / 0-)

    5-4 Kennedy- Equal Protection.

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

    by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:03:42 AM PDT

  •  It sounds like Chief Justice Roberts' dissent... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, MrLiberal

    Suggests Perry will be dismissed due to lack of standing.

  •  I'm seeing reports on Twitter... (0+ / 0-)

    That Justices Roberts and Alito have leaked to press that their decision in Perry v. Hollingsworth is indeed that the defenders of Proposition 8 lack standing in federal court.

  •  Perry (0+ / 0-)

    No standing. :(

    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 Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:27:30 AM PDT

  •  Same-sex marriage is now legal in California (4+ / 0-)

    Proposition 8 cannot be defended due to lack of standing. Another 5-4 decision, majority led by Chief Justice Roberts, as expected.

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

      But only in CA, as the district court opinion is what will stand. The 9th circuit has been instructed to dismiss the case and their ruling is vacated.

      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 Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:30:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the fact that the Ninth Circuit did rule... (5+ / 0-)

        The way it did bodes well for gay marriage rights in Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and Pacific territories. That ruling may have been vacated, but jurists can still take note of it.

        •  Oregon IIRC had a federal judge (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bythesea

          overturn its ban yeah?

          although at the rate things are going it'll probably be repealed by ballot initiative before the courts do anything...

          the state I'm watching right now is Michigan, where a challenge to the state's marriage ban was put on hold pending the DOMA/Prop 8 rulings. there are also court cases proceeding in Illinois and New Jersey, but I'm guessing (slash hoping) that the legislature will beat the court to the punch in the former.

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

          by sapelcovits on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:41:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OTOH (0+ / 0-)

            IIRC the 9th circuit's decision had something to do with gay marriage being granted then taken away no? so might not apply to states besides CA...

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

            by sapelcovits on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:42:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Correct, but... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArkDem14

              Judge Reinhardt wrote that Prop 8 happened to appear invalid on the narrow basis of rights being taken away -- note that this could also apply in the case of Oregon, where Multnomah County began issuing same-sex marriage licenses prior to the constitutional ban -- but suggested the court could have ruled on broader ground in the same vein as Judge Walker.

            •  Yes, Reinhardt went hard... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Skaje, Christopher Walker

              on channeling Romer v. Evans, which dealt with a Colorado anti-discrimination law that was then repealed by the voters.

              (This was supposed to appeal to Kennedy, who authored the opinion in Romer.)

              Editor, Daily Kos Elections. IL-07.

              by jeffmd on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:50:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Odd bedfellows indeed (0+ / 0-)

      I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

      by OGGoldy on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:34:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a case for standing (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jncca, Gpack3, Darth Jeff, skibum59

        As opposed to Prop 8 itself.

        I think there is a real argument that elected officials should not be able to simply nullified laws passed by their predecessors or ballot initiatives simply by declining to defend them. Doing so defeats the entire purpose of having ballot referendums in the first.

        Imagine if the GOP refused to defend a successful redistricting reform in Ohio against a challenge on a technicality or Florida the Fair Districts Amendment against a challenge that only legislators can draw districts.

        Frankly I find myself split here. Happy Prop 8 is gone, but very sympathetic to the reasoning in the dissent regarding standing.

        •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skibum59

          I agree with the outcome but disagree with the ruling.

          20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
          politicohen.com
          Love the class war, hate identity politics and purism
          UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

          by jncca on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:07:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  don't want to get into a big argument here (0+ / 0-)

          but just a reminder that the standing argument nullified the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, not the district court decision.

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

          by sapelcovits on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:04:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hooray for them! (0+ / 0-)

      "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:46:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  5-4 no standing in Perry (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

    by Paleo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:29:40 AM PDT

  •  Question about old VRA section (0+ / 0-)

    Who decided which states must be pre-cleared under the VRA?  And why were certain southern/racist states excluded from the list?  No NC, TN, MD, AR, OK.

  •  I guess no court retirements (0+ / 0-)

    Was curious as to whether Ginsburg would step down after this term.  Guess not.  I hope she does either after next term or the one after to give Obama the opportunity to replace her with someone younger before his term runs out.

    http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

    by Paleo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:47:27 AM PDT

  •  NYC-Mayor... Weiner takes the edge (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ArkDem14

    according to Wall Street Journal/NBC New York/Marist. This comes to me as a bit of a surprise, previous polls indicated Quinn as a clear front runner.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...

  •  Dean Chambers: The IRS stole MA-Sen from Gomez! (18+ / 0-)

    Yes, quoting Mr. Unskewed Polls is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I can't resist:

    Markey obtained 7.9 percent more of the vote than did Coakley, while receiving only about 61 percent of the votes that Coakley got three years ago. At the same time, Gomez only got about 45 percent of Brown's votes and by percentages, a full 6.9 percent less. If Markey were to get the same number of votes he received today, and Gomez increased his turnout such that he would get about 52 percent of all the voters, he would had to increase his turnout to about 781,000 votes, or about 75 percent of what Brown got three years ago, which is about 260,000 more votes than he actually got today.

    But he lost by about half that. What it means is, he likely ran a bit less strongly as a candidates than Scott Brown did three years ago, but not that weak. This indicates that the conservative and Republican base, among Republican and Independent voters, is still substantially suppressed and it will take some time for Republicans and conservatives to rebuild the base on the right from the damage incurred by the IRS and Obama Regime massive suppression of political participation on the right. Without the political suppression, this is like a 50-50 race or even a 50 percent to 49 percent upset win by Gomez.

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

    by Jeff Singer on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:59:34 AM PDT

  •  So on the SCOTUS Prop 8 case Sotomayor dissented (0+ / 0-)

    And Roberts and Scalia were the two voting with the liberal wing on the 5-4 decision?  Any idea why Sotomayor would go that way?

  •  Again, SCOTUS provides another opportunity (6+ / 0-)

    about the differences between the parties, and how key these appointments are, and thus how important elections are.

    I dont think I really need to say that to anyone here, but just in case anyone from the front page sees this. :)

  •  UT-02: State Sen Luz Robles interested in running (8+ / 0-)

    http://utahpolicy.com/...

    Totally out of left-field (considering her political stances, pun intended). I never would've considered Robles as a Congressional candidate; she's definitely a Salt Lake City pol. My guess is that she's going to focus on Salt Lake County (UT-02 has a sizable chunk of Salt Lake County in it), and just crank up Latino voter registration and GOTV. Jay Seegmiller, the 2012 candidate, got 58.50% of the vote in Salt Lake County, though was decimated everywhere else.

    I don't think Robles has a chance (especially considering the strong GOP lean of the 13 counties that aren't Salt Lake), but since she's not up for re-election to the state senate until 2016, I say she should give it a try. She'll be able to see how many Latino voters there are in all those counties, and she seems a lot more charismatic than poor Jay Seegmiller. I think that she'll do well in 2014 if she runs, even if it's a mid-term year.

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

    by Gygaxian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:28:46 AM PDT

    •  trying to build herself up for something else (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gygaxian, gabjoh, bythesea

      down the road?

      ...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 Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:43:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very likely, though I can't imagine what (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, she's already a state senator, and the coveted position of Salt Lake County (and City) is/are already held by reasonably popular incumbents. She's got no chance at state-wide office (to be frank, she's a Mexican national and her side job is basically to be a liason between Mexico and the Utah states, which would not be popular in many parts of Utah, let alone the fact that she's a Democrat).

        Maybe she wants a County Council seat? Not sure.

        Maybe she honestly believes Chris Stewart would be a weak opponent; he certainly doesn't have the staying power of a Rob Bishop or a Jason Chaffetz (though considering their districts, they've basically got a cheat button). I personally think that if you get more votes from heavily-populated Salt Lake County and lessen the losing margins in the other counties (entirely doable), Stewart is beatable.

        I think she may be relying on immigration reform to level the playing field somewhat, though any citizenship/voting effects it might have won't be into effect by 2014.

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

        by Gygaxian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:30:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Breaking News from Australia (7+ / 0-)

    Australian PM Julia Gillard has been defeated in a Labor Party leadership ballot by Kevin Rudd, the very man she deposed just 3 years ago. An early election may have to take place.
    Here ends the socially conservative traditions of the Labor Party leadership. Some union officials won't be happy.

  •  must be a big day (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea, Zack from the SFV

    120 comments and I still haven't left for work.

    ...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 Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:45:41 AM PDT

  •  Rep. Raul Labrador has an interesting idea... (14+ / 0-)

    Of how Republicans should win elections: by not bothering to try to appeal to Latinos. Tweet here, and another.

    Keep on digging!

  •  A thought that came to me in the shower (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gabjoh, KingofSpades

    What if, instead of pushing fair redistricting, we opted for proportional representation as the best way to produce a fair and equitable House of Representatives? The idea being that each state would have the same number of representatives, but they would be elected from a party slate according to the statewide vote count.

    For example, California has 53 representatives, split 38-15 (I think that's right). In 2012, Californians voted for President Obama 60-37. If they voted the same way for the House -- omitting third parties, which can't just collectively win a seat -- the 53 representatives would be apportioned accordingly. (I believe that would be 33 Democrats and 20 Republicans, following the two-party vote.)

    In Texas, where there are 36 representatives, split 12-24, the state voted for Romney 57-41. Again following the two-party vote, assuming voters broke the same way on the statewide House vote, I believe you would have 21 Republicans and 15 Democrats.

    This would hurt Democrats in blue states and states where they have favorable maps, but it would help in red states and states where they have unfavorable maps.

    Parties could select their slate of candidates in much the same way they do now -- by primary, caucus, or convention -- and "rank" them as they see fit.

    The holy grail, IMO, would be to couple this with a form of the Wyoming Rule to make the distribution of congressional seats themselves more equitable. But that might be even less probable than proportional representation.

    •  I like the idea. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gabjoh

      And I think that's the best possible solution to the redistricting problems of our country. However, opponents will point out that representatives will then have no connection to a specific geographic territory or set of constituents, which is an incredibly reasonable objection. I think that the benefits outweigh the costs, though.

      19, FL-07 (school), MD-07 (home). UCF junior, politically ambitious, and vocally liberal. "Still, where'd the lighter fluid come from?"

      by tqycolumbia on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:11:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The major difference there (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skaje, MrLiberal, skibum59

      Is that would end the two party system so it's a nonstarter. It would take an act of Congress to authorize anyway; Mel Watt just introduced such a measure, but neither party would vote itself out of existence. California for instance would see a slew of 3rd and 4th party members elected as would Texas.

      Fair redistricting initiatives can garner Dem party support in places like Michigan where we'll never win the trifecta anyway and they're already legal under federal law.

      If we had a national initiative process I'd be all for it, but it just can't go anywhere short of a constitutional amendment.

    •  Proportional representation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gabjoh

      by state would be an issue in states with too few Reps to divide up, such as the at-large states or states with only a couple of Reps; New Hampshire would essentially always send one Dem and one GOPer to DC.  Probably a better solution would be some form of mixed-member proportional where each district elects its Reps and then top-up seats are given to make the proportion of seats match the nationwide congressional popular vote.  This would be vulnerable to skewing of the vote totals by unopposed candidates and would result in the size of House changing from session to session but might be better received overall.  In this Congress, the GOP won 234 seats and the Dems 201, so adjusting for the popular vote, the Dems should have had ~239 and would have won an additional 38 members selected nationwide at-large somehow.  

    •  As a purely hypothetical (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KyleinWA

      Thought exercise, its a decent idea. I think the main problem with it is that even as voters seem to becoming more partisan down the ballot I think most voters like and prefer voting for an individual and not a party.

      The other issue is the small states the states that have 5 or less Reps. In Kansas they have 4 Reps and Obama got 38%, should Kansas have 2 Dems or 1. Rhode Island Obama got 63% and they have just 2, should RI be 2-0 or 1-1.

      •  If I remember the 2008 primaries well (0+ / 0-)

        and the way delegates were allocated, the cutoff points are determined mathematically and whichever cutoff point the final result is closer to, that's your split.

        For instance, 2 district states would always split 1-1 unless someone tops 75%, because 76% is closer to 100% of the representatives than 50% of the representatives.  74% (or lower) is closer to 50% though.  So even Hawaii and Idaho would send split delegations.  Would be interesting...both states would not even need to send moderates from the minority party, as they are essentially safe.  There would be no Walt Minnick or Charles Djou.  Instead Hawaii Republicans would probably pick one of their so-con warriors, and Idaho could elect a hippie pacifist.

        3 district states would also probably split 2-1 (with the 2 going to whoever wins the state, no matter how narrowly).  The only way to achieve 3-0 is if the percentage is closer to 100% than to 66.7%, i.e. the winning candidate breaks 83.3%.  Again, impossible statewide in any state currently.

        4 district states would go 2-2 unless the winning candidate gets closer to 75% than to 50%, meaning 62.5% is the cutoff.  In this case, there would be a serious effort by Republicans in Kansas to clear that mark and get the third seat.  This however would ensure Jim Matheson's safety as Republicans could not hope to break 87.5% and sweep all four Utah seats.

        5 district is similar to 3 district in that the victor is automatically assured of winning the split (3-2 in this case), and 4-1 only happens if its closer to 80% than to 60%, so 70% is the cutoff.  Could Republicans pull that off in Oklahoma?  Maybe not, but they would reclaim two seats in Connecticut.

        It goes on from there, and in the bigger states the math is less interesting.

    •  I do not believe (0+ / 0-)

      that most people would accept voting for a party slate over an individual. I know I certainly wouldn't. I am a Republican, but there are Republicans I do not vote for because of who they are as a person., including my first congressional election in 2006.

      I would actually rather go the other way and abolish political parties.

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

      by KyleinWA on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:19:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That would do absolutely nothing (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NMLib, gabjoh, Skaje, DCal

        look at the Nebraska legislature? Who are the people composing it; do you have any doubts as to who is a Republican or Democrat?

        Proportional representation nationally with half or more of the chamber reserved for local districts seems to me to be the way to go. You get to vote for the person you like, but every vote has a chance of changing the outcome as to which platform is more represented in Congress. Getting rid of parties goes the opposite and it would all be about the cult of personality at the federal level at best, but in all likelihood we'd just know who would be a Democrat or a Republican.

        Nearly ever developed country utilizes some form of proportional representation and as such their politics are a lot less personality centered than ours are and the outcomes are much fairer, especially if you're like a massive majority of the electorate and your vote won't have any impact on the outcome of the election by itself.

  •  A good day! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea, betelgeux, sapelcovits

    RIP, DOMA!

    "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

    by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:44:02 AM PDT

  •  Ohio 2016 Q: Clinton and Christie tied (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, bythesea

    Clinton leads Paul by only 3.  With Obama's approval numbers at 40/57 clealy affecting those numbers.

    941 RVs.

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

    http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

    by Paleo on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:46:38 AM PDT

    •  Obama approval at 40??? (9+ / 0-)

      Pretty hard to believe.  Quinnipiac is generally pretty flaky early in the cycle, but this is pretty bad even for them.  Is PPP going to poll Ohio?  I find those numbers hard to believe.  Just like Fitzgerald at 33%.  Seriously?  Even generic D gets more than 33% in a poll.  

      I remember when Quinnipiac had Strickland down by 15 a few months before the 2010 election.  I know that Quinny polls Ohio a lot, but I think we need to see a few more from them before we start getting concerned at all.

      The good news is that even with this very republican poll result, Clinton is still doing well.  If she runs in 2016, I expect Ohio to be neck and neck as it has always been.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:55:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, as David pointed out yesterday (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JBraden, LordMike, MrLiberal, askew, jncca

        the statewide result was weird too. I definitely think Kasich is leading but it was odd that his lead expanded so much, even thought I think the favs for him and Fitzgerald basically stayed the same.

        I can believe Obama's numbers down too, but not 40-57. Obviously, the approval that matters most will be the one in 2016. He is going through a difficult stretch right now(although, ironically, not policywise, given the news on immigration reform and DOMA), but if he rebounds by 2016, then I think everything is okay for Clinton.  

      •  Yeah that defies common sense (0+ / 0-)

        Something is up with Q's model this early.  They are dropping pretty surprising polls.  We need a 2nd look at Ohio.

  •  Indiana legislative leaders to put (3+ / 0-)

    anti-marriage/civil union amendment through the General Assembly next session. They had put the issue off in 2013. This would place it on the ballot in November 2014. Senate President David Long (R-Ft. Wayne) is mentioned in this article. House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) is mentioned by Brian Howey. In case you were wondering, the GOP controls the Senate 37-13 (2-3 Dems likely to vote for it there) and the House 69-31 (up to 7 Dems may vote for it there).

    http://www.indystar.com/...

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

    by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:59:08 AM PDT

    •  What's the likelihood of approval by voters (0+ / 0-)

      If I had to guess, I'd say it will pass.  But you never know.

      If Republicans ever take WV's legislature you can bet we'll see a ballot measure there, too.

      •  Polling has been mixed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christopher Walker

        A lot of it depended on how the question was asked, but it seems like it may be a close vote. I think it may come down to the Indy suburbs. Southern Indiana and some of the counties in the NE part of the state will vote for it big. NW Indiana, Marion County, and the college towns should vote it down.

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

        by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:48:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  As SouthernINDem said, it's hard to predict (3+ / 0-)

        Expect the business community here to be solidly against it.  Eli Lilly (perhaps the most important corporate employer in Indianapolis -- and an extremely well respected community member) has been extremely outspoken against a gay marriage ban.  Again, as SouthernINDem said, a vote would very much break down on geographical lines -- South of Indianapolis (minus Bloomington) mostly for it, the Reg and Marion County against it.  

        I could see the "swing" area in a statewide referendum being how much of the vote a gay marriage ban would get in Hamilton County -- the wealthy, very Republican subrubs/exurbs north of Indianapolis.  These are conservative folks, but not of the same religious fervor as people say in rural southern Indiana, and a "keep government out of marriage" argument could play well there.

        We'll see.  Six years ago a gay marriage ban would have passed the state with 65% of the vote (and former Assembly Speaker Pat Bauer deserves most of the credit for never allowing it to be voted on), but today, who knows.

        •  This will certainly boost turnout (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IndianaProgressive

          if it ends up on the ballot. Without it, turnout will be pretty low as Secretary of State will be the top race statewide, and not likely to draw a great deal of interest.
          I seemed to get the vibe that there were a lot of Republicans in the General Assembly this year that would have had to vote for it if it were brought up for a vote but really wanted the issue to go away. I think it is possible that come January, Republicans may try to make it go away again.

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

          by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:22:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

            It's amazing that just a few years ago, it was rural Democrats who were terrified of this issue, and Pat Bauer pulled every string he could to make it go away.  Now, it's moe than a few Republicans who do not want to be put on the hot seat here.

            Even though he does not play a formal role in this, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, Governor Pence does.  I think it was pretty clear that Mitch Daniels really didn't care about the issue one way or another, but Pence is much more socially conservative.

            •  I have been surprised about Mike Pence (0+ / 0-)

              I expected him to push a hard right agenda, but he has been a pretty hands off Governor. He got part of his tax cut and his vocational jobs bill, but didn't seem to go much further. Part of it may have been that there had been so many radical proposals passed in 2011-12 (and 2005-06), and that the spending had been cut back so much, there was not much further to go for Pence. I am sure Pence will say something soon.

              Also, for people outside Indiana, the issue is not whether to legalize gay marriage in Indiana, it is whether to put in place a state constitutional prohibition against it and civil unions and domestic partnerships. Either way, it will still be illegal in Indiana.

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

              by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:43:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed on Pence (0+ / 0-)

                Do you remember back eight years, to Gov. Daniels' first session of the Assembly?  It was perhaps the most active a governor ever was in terms of pushing a particular agenda.  Compare that to Pence -- not all that much has happened, and he seems to have spent most of his time fighting with his own party over tax cuts.  He's either deliberatly being more hands off, or is a really weak leader.

                •  Daniels really was a leader in 2005-06 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  IndianaProgressive

                  He pushed the narrow House majority (52-48) into a lot of votes they really did not want to cast such as the daylight savings time bill in 2005 and the Toll Road in 2006. He also radically transformed the state with his 2005 budget. Was Pence even on television that much in Indy during the session?

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

                  by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:16:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I think even Republicans (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IndianaProgressive, JBraden

            are starting to see which way the wind is blowing.  They aren't about ready to endorse same-sex marriage, but they seem much quieter about opposing it.  Mitt Romney said almost nothing about it this past election.  It would make sense that some Indiana Republicans just want this issue to go away.  Same-sex marriage is already banned in the state.  They can just leave it at that.

    •  Well, Pence is pushing the amendment (0+ / 0-)

      Not much of a surprise, but he had been rather quiet during the session.

      http://www.14news.com/...

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

      by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:23:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gov. Brown says counties must issue licenses to (16+ / 0-)

    same sex couples

    http://www.latimes.com/...

    Gov. Jerry Brown said county clerks must soon begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue Wednesday.

    Brown has directed his Department of Public Health, which oversees marriage licenses, birth and death certificates and other such documents, to tell local officials the licenses should be issued as soon as a federal appeals court lifts a ruling that was temporarily making same-sex unions illegal.

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

    by DrPhillips on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:17:57 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the trend map of MA-Sen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abgin

    Is there an interactive version?

    "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

    by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:41:31 AM PDT

  •  KY HD-56: The Repub had an ad the last couple days (0+ / 0-)

    https://www.youtube.com/...

    Not a very good ad.  His wife appears to be smiling by frowning and the camera angles suck.  They're trying to be avant garde by doing angle switching, but when he's looking at the other camera, it doesn't work.  Also, much of the negative ads came from the RSLC PAC, who did ads like this:
    https://www.youtube.com/...
    and mailers like this against the Dem: http://www.pageonekentucky.com/... (note: he was at a law school Halloween party dressed as a jockey)
    Seems like they tried to use an Aqua Buddha strategy against Kay and lost, of course.

    "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

    by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:08:52 AM PDT

    •  The RSLC's grand total was $179K: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Christopher Walker, ArkDem14

      https://twitter.com/...
      Plus another 18-20K by a Louisville-based GOP PAC.  In contrast, the Democrat had only 50K spent for him by Louisville-based KY labor PAC called Kentucky Family Values plus in-kind help from the state party.

      "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:11:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kentucky GOP tries to blame (10+ / 0-)

    outside GOP groups and independent candidate for their special election loss in KY HD-56. The KY GOP chair noted that "56% voted for someone else [other than the Dem]". But does he realize that 66% voted for someone other than the Republican candidate?

    http://mycn2.com/...

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

    by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:12:07 AM PDT

    •  Heh, well maybe they should have spoken out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zack from the SFV

      earlier against the RSLC.  I read somewhere that McConnell may have steered the RSLC to spend here.  Besides, although Hack was anti-gambling and pro-life, he was endorsed by a Dem-friendly major newspaper and had some liberal views on environment and agriculture.

      "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:15:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I mean (0+ / 0-)

        of course they couldn't contact the RSLC and tell them to tone it down, but they could make a public statement or press release.

        "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

        by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:19:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If you figure Hack taking (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, ArkDem14, James Allen

        slightly more votes from Republicans than Democrats, Kay probably wins by 7-8 instead of 10. So basically Kay would win by about the same margin that Carl Rollins won the last two elections. I think it was probably more of a 50/50 split. I read where Hack's son is the head of the Woodford County Young Dems, so that tells you something. Also, Versailles is a small community where Hack may have gotten a lot of votes based on people knowing and liking him and not based so much on politics.

        I am hopeful for 2014 in that the anti-Obama stuff that worked very well in 2010 and 2012 in Kentucky did not carry the day for them this time. This probably helps keep Dems from retiring and with candidate recruitment for the KY House. This race has to make Alison Grimes think that her chances look descent for 2014 as well.

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

        by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:34:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hack is a well-connected ex-Dem (0+ / 0-)

          with deep roots in the local Democratic community. Who do Republicans think he took most of his votes from?

          "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 Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:33:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Took away from the Republican (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ArkDem14

            because Hack is an anti-gambling activist who was a Republican in the 80s.  I would say, though that even if 2/3rds of Hack's vote would have gone to the Republican, Kay still would have won by ~200 votes rather than 860.

            "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

            by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:03:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Rep. Tim Huelskamp will file constitutional (19+ / 0-)

    amendment to restore DOMA, along with other conservative reps.

    The rebranding is going great!

    link

  •  I think a more illuminating comparison (8+ / 0-)

    is between Markey in 2013 and Warren in 2012. I've made a map that shows where Markey did better than Warren and vice versa. Towns where Markey did better than Warren are in blue, and towns where Warren did better are in red. The scale is 0-2.5%, 2.5%-5%, 5%-10%, and more than 10%.

    MA 2013 Senate compared to 2012 Senate town map

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:16:30 AM PDT

    •  Minor mistake (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades

      Wrentham is colored wrong; should the same color as neighboring Franklin.

      Sorry about that, I think everywhere else is right.

      (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

      by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:19:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, Gomez got 66% in Wrentham (0+ / 0-)

        to Brown's 70% in 2012 (it's his hometown).

        "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

        by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:22:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ProudNewEnglander

      Markey did better in Essex, Middlesex, and Norfolk County, but less well in Worcester and Hampden County.  There also was poor turnout west of Worcester County.

      "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:20:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, itskevin

      that this is the more salient comparison.

      Markey outperformed Warren in his House District and some other affluent suburbs (Wellesley, Newton). In most blue collar towns he did worse, especially south of Boston.

      The turnout was so different (this one had barely a third of November's turnout) that that alone would account for a lot of changes. Gomez, interestingly, outperformed Scott Brown '12 in Central Mass. in the end. Most of the polling (with admittedly small sample sizes) had Gomez doing relatively poorly there, which I thought was a bad sign for a Republican. In the end Gomez did fine among the (very few) people who showed up there.

      "I am not for a return to that definition of Liberty under which for many years a free people were being gradually regimented into the service of the privileged few." Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1934

      by fenway49 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:01:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good article handicapping MA-05 primary field (4+ / 0-)

    http://atr.rollcall.com/...

    It has Katherine Clark and Peter Koutoujian as the frontrunners; Clark because of her early fundraising and organization, and Koutoujian because of his popularity in Middlesex County.    

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

    by Jeff Singer on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:26:20 AM PDT

  •  MN Gov: State Sen. Dave Thompson in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Walker, bythesea, askew

    A SSP guy in a DKE world.

    by Minnesota Mike on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:54:38 AM PDT

  •  Trivia note: Kerry also won by ten points... (9+ / 0-)

    In his first race for senator in 1984 against Republican Ray Shamie:  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  •  VRA: Bipartisan House group wants to fix VRA (18+ / 0-)

    Jim Sensenbrenner & Steve Chabot joined Mel Watt & Jon Conyers in calling for a legislative fix to Section 4:

    http://www.wispolitics.com/...

    Fixing the VRA isn't necessarily hopeless.

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

    by Gpack3 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:14:20 PM PDT

  •  Howdy y'all! (13+ / 0-)

    I just woke up after working all day and all night yesterday and the last three days in the Texas Capitol as a volunteer organizer to kill SB5.

    What'd I miss?  :-D

    SSP alumni, 28, Male, Democrat, TX-22 ('10); TX-14 ('12)

    by trowaman on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:53:41 PM PDT

    •  I hope you get to meet Sen. Davis in person (0+ / 0-)

      to congratulate her for this.  The TX filibuster is much more difficult to maintain than the US Senate filibuster (pre-silent filibuster).

      "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:58:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pshhh .... (13+ / 0-)

        I interned on her campaign in 08.

        When she was former city council member Davis, I was in the car with her going to a fundraiser. I was drinking with her at 08 D convention in Austin when she was still little known challenger.

        She's the best. I don't know what anyone sees in the Castro brothers when she exists. I've always been Team Wendy.

        That campaign tshirt just got promoted out of the gym shirt drawer and is now a day shirt. And it's going on today, even if I could prob make a good amount of money on it on eBay.

        SSP alumni, 28, Male, Democrat, TX-22 ('10); TX-14 ('12)

        by trowaman on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:07:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Geez, you're everywhere. (0+ / 0-)

          "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

          by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:35:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  HOLY SHIT I WAS ON MADDOW!!! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, lordpet8, gabjoh, jncca

      Intro video for Cecile Richards were she announces the vote. I'm seen facing the camera immediately to the right of Cecile. Holding up black iPhone filming the whole thing.

      White male, white undershirt, black jacket. My orange tshirt was being used to the sign in front of the podium.

      SSP alumni, 28, Male, Democrat, TX-22 ('10); TX-14 ('12)

      by trowaman on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:14:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was hoping (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GloFish

    we would see some more Democratic representatives endorsing marriage equality, given today's events.  But the holdouts have been oddly silent.  By my count, there are just 15 remaining in the House:

    John Barrow
    Sanford Bishop
    Henry Cuellar
    Bill Enyart
    Pete Gallego
    Gene Green
    Dan Lipinski
    Jim Matheson
    Mike McIntyre
    Collin Peterson
    Nick Rahall
    Cedric Richmond
    Terri Sewell
    Bennie Thompson
    Filemon Vela

    Some other lists include Corrine Brown, John Dingell, Bobby Rush, and Juan Vargas, because they have not stated clear support for marriage equality.  However, those four signed on to the brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA, so their support is assumed.

    •  Lipinski I've known about for a while (0+ / 0-)

      but I'm getting impatient with Cuellar, Sewell, Thompson, Vela, and Green - Green especially, since he represents an urban district.

      as for Richmond, hasn't he also said he opposes DOMA? again, urban district, he should really be going all the way, but better than the others...

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

      by sapelcovits on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:16:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  McIntyre doesn't even want gays in the boy scouts (0+ / 0-)

      http://www.wect.com/...

      so I highly doubt he'll support gay marriage.

      •  From everyone I know in North Carolina (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psychicpanda, Christopher Walker

        who personally knows him, and I mean beyond just as a representative, he's personally quite conservative. He seems to me to be the epitome of the Rep. who might be a Republican if he could keep the same voting record but he clearly can't what with party unity. I think that explains his past district voting record quite well given ho safe of a district that was for a center-right D, but he locked it down.

        I think he'll continue to be in between a rock on the one hand, let's say the non-conservativeness of the Democratic party, and a hard place on the other in Republican fiscon interests on the other, until he just loses reelection sometime this decade.

        •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

          This quote from a Daily Kos diary says it well:

          In scores of private conversations McIntyre has confounded his supporters by confiding to them his vision that he is doing the work of God who appointed him to lead the restoration of the Democratic Party as a conservative force for American renewal and a return to that olde tyme religion that is good enough for him.  Unsurprisingly McIntyre is anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-immigrant, anti-drug reform, supports a Constitutional amendment to permit prayer in schools and is pro-NRA.
          It's not McIntyre's fault for being an awkward, misfit in the Democratic caucus, though.  At the time he came into office, and until 2010, there were dozens of Democrats, leftovers of the boll-weevils and Dixiecrats, who were just as conservative as him, but they just sort of evaporated around him, losing re-election or retiring.

          I think the only thing keeping him in Democratic Party politics is the fact that he's one retirement away from an Agriculture chairmanship/ranking-member, and the fact that he'd get destroyed in a Republican primary.

          Plus, when you consider the region Mike McIntyre hails from, it's not surprising that he's a conservative Democrat.  Robeson County - which voted for Obama and has very high Democrat registration, was also the second most pro-Amendment One county in NC.  So McIntyre's views on gay issues are very much in tune with his community.

          •  Well from conversations with everyone I know (3+ / 0-)

            who knew him both from the 70s and today (he's 56) this is what I took away:

            If we had 'California-style' redistricting he'd basically have his old district back that would have voted 48% for Obama and for every single Democrat prior to that plus never having voted for a congressional Republican much less so in the current heavily Republican district. With that he'd have voted as well as he would have in his district last decade as both were equally safe for a Blue Dog democrat like he was even post 1994 or post 2010.

            However of what I know of him personally is from family that age; half of my family is extremely conservative from NC and when they knew McIntyre, it was from going to college at UNC with him at a similar time in the late 70s when he was both a vocally very religious, conservative, and active member of the  lacross team (I'm guessing it might have been a club then). Now if you're a conservadem from the late 1970s I can easily see why you might stick with the Democratic party due to fiscal policy). However all of this information was from my Goldwater Republican relatives who, while I strongly disagree with them on issues, I don't distrust in any manner and I have a close loving relationship with. All of this leads me to believe that:
            McIntyre genuinely agrees with conservative Democrats on all issues. Despite that It wouldn't shock me if he switched parties either in the next few decades, but at the same time I highly doubt he'd ever win reelection as a Republican and I think he realizes that so he doesn't. As I said, I think his calculation is entirely political and it's totally given the district he serves. It would be very interesting to see what he'd have done in say an R+15 district last year or an Obama D+3 district. We'd have seen two completely different Reps is my guess. But he seems to be someone whose political positions are genuinely of the conservadem position compared to anyone else who might hold office today.

          •  So I had a longer post written (0+ / 0-)

            but it got eaten by comments. Anyway, what it more or less said was that I have family from NC from the time of before the revolution and though that's not relevant here, the close relatives I have who went to UNC during the 70s/80s said McIntyre was quite personally conservative and very religious. That strikes me as someone who, if he hasn't already, would never switch to the Republican party since he hasn't already, but would also never be a gettable vote on matters like gay rights. He seems like one of the last true dixiecrats in Congress and given his constituency that isn't surprising seeing how it hasn't sent a Republican to Congress since Reconstruction but is also very conservative.

            Given his personal leanings he just seems like a conservative period and we're lucky he doesn't vote for more Republican crap, which is my take away.

            I've for a while viewed folks like him and Matheson as "null" votes. They vote no on everything that matters whether a Republican or Democratic congress is pushing it, so that their other votes aren't deciding but if they were, the status quo prevails.

    •  Matheson will never endorse marriage equality (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico

      or won't until the LDS Church does. Simple as that.

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

      by Gygaxian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:10:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Was anyone else not able to access Dkos (10+ / 0-)

    for the past few hours? It wouldn't have surprised me if the site crashed due to traffic today.

  •  Texas: Perry to call another special session. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew

    23/Male/ D/Native of OH-16, Now NC-04

    by liberal intellectual on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:41:14 PM PDT

  •  Marriage cases as bad as I thought yesterday? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwmiv, itskevin, AUBoy2007

    Seems not. Actually, it looks like we can celebrate.

    More than I get a chance to breathe--and review. (Because I know everyone here is interested in my opinion!)

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:43:05 PM PDT

    •  I was thinking of your comments as I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andgarden

      read Windsor today.  SPecifically your worry re: Kennedy and his anti-federalism impulses.

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

      by AUBoy2007 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:00:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This paragraph makes my head spin: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wwmiv, AUBoy2007
        Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.
        What I do know is that the indignitiy effected by laws like DOMA is not limited to the same sex couples some states allow to marry and their children. It is no less an indignity to anyone else who respects the fundamental rights Justice Kennedy articulated ten years ago today in Lawrence. Thus I also do not really understand what he means on the paragraph between pages 18 and 19. Is he really saying that states can create fundamental privacy rights that must be protected from Federal intrusion? Judy Miller got a raw deal on that basis.

        I worry that he's setting up Federalism as a sword for states. And that's just now how it's supposed to work. Then he cites to Loving. So, who the fuck knows.

        Ok, so I read the polls.

        by andgarden on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:10:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Honestly, I suspect the liberal justices were a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andgarden

          monderating influence on him.  (Which is why I was comforted that he was writting it, regardless of his impulses - it had to be something everyone would sign onto.)

          So he's giving as much as nod towards federalism as he can, but he can't base everything on it because then he's only writting a concurrance to the four liberal's equal protection decision.

          I think his nod to federalism is dicta pure and simple.  He'd love to go there, but in the end this is an equal protection/due process decision at its core.

          I suspect he focuses on those couples who are already able to get married because he's explicitly not writing a marriage equality is consitutionally mandated opinion - at least not yet.  So he's leaving aside broader themes but I think his language is clear - how many times did he mention the idea of "dignity."

          Will this case be used for its federalism concepts?  Maybe, but I don't know that it's as strong as you might fear.

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

          by AUBoy2007 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:25:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the conclusion (under the asterisks) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AUBoy2007

            confirms your reading. Which is why I am mostly happy.

            That said, listening to Kennedy at oral argument, I think we may win this next one on a gender discrimination basis. that's the argument that totally bypasses the "history and tradition" inquiry for substantive due process (assuming it is even necessary, which is up to Kennedy--see Lawrence ("times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.")).

            Ok, so I read the polls.

            by andgarden on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:32:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Ok, with the exception of one sentence (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AUBoy2007

      I love pages 25 and 26 of the majority opinion in Windsor. However, pages 18-20 are to some degree unintelligible to me.  

      If Justice Kennedy is sympathetic to the judgment of New York (and I believe that he is--or will soon be), then we really, really won.

      Ok, so I read the polls.

      by andgarden on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:01:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that Kennedy will be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        andgarden

        sympathetic to the judgment of New York based on the wording of this.  I think he just needs a bit more time.

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

        by AUBoy2007 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:29:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well if I'm not mistaken, I believe you get a vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andgarden

      at meetings of The Caucus, so of course it is ;)

    •  Rarely (0+ / 0-)

      Rarely is anything ever as bad as how you, specifically, think it will be...

  •  Preview of the next installment in the series on (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, Skaje, sacman701, jncca

    the political geography of the United States; that's right it's still going at part 11 :)

     photo NCbyGovVote-Obama2012_zps1cf343ab.png

    Here I'm comparing the gubernatorial elections from 2012 to Obama 2012 two party. In general, Walter Dalton ran 5% behind Obama statewide and did the very worst of the statewide ticket or even compared to the popular vote for the legislature or US House, which should tell you just how limited McCrory's 'coattails' were (aka nonexistent).

    However, befitting his status as a white conservadem, Dalton held up much better or even outperformed Obama in some of the counties in eastern North Carolina and far western North Carolina. These were for generations the bastion of white conservative Democrats in the state. He does about as you would expect for someone who got 44% of the vote in the main urban areas of the Triangle, Triad, and in Wilmington, but thanks to Obama's biggest overperformance vs. the average Democrat and the presence of McCrory's base, Dalton lagged a massive 10%+ behind in Charlotte and the surrounding area. Unsurprisingly, Dalton ran far ahead in his western NC Rutherford County base, though I was surprised to see just how badly he did in more Appalachian western areas like Hickory, Lenoir, and Morgantown while I thought that McCrory would have done a few points better in the Raleigh area given his statewide margin and the large number of more moderate suburbanites.

    Next week I should have a diary out with the remaining states by county and New Hampshire/Vermont by town.

  •  Rep Jackson Lee and others introduce a measure (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jacques Kallis, askew, Gygaxian

    to prevent mid-decade redistricting in the wake of the VRA gutting: http://thehill.com/...

    This is after Mel Watt recently introduced a bill to allow states to elect members proportionally (so that if Alabama voted 60-40 Republican it'd send 4Rs and 3Ds to Congress). Don't expect either to pass a Republican congress and I wouldn't bat an eye if Jackson Lee's bill got struck down should it pass given the Scalito Roberts Court's penchant for upholding any and all measures which might aid Republican gerrymandering without looking obscene.

    I still think our best effort is redistricting initiatives in blue states like Michigan, but I have no idea how to go about making that happen. I even emailed the MI Dem party about it and unlike the OH Dem party which got back to me, I never got a response.

    •  What did the (0+ / 0-)

      OH Dems say?

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

      by Jacques Kallis on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:15:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Basically that they were waiting until later (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jacques Kallis, TrueBlueDem

        in the decade to do it. Which, while I think is terrible from a national perspective, I can totally understand from a state perspective. If we win the gubernatorial and one of the auditors or secretary of state's races in 2018, we control state legislative redistricting and can gerrymander the shit out of both chambers. If we don't, well we can put an amendment on the 2019 or in the 2020 presidential year ballot to block a Republican remap in 2022. That of course wasn't what they said, but it at least seems to make sense when I think about it. I didn't push it further; I think it'll take union and non-partisan groups to put it on the ballot in either of those states though and I don't know how I'd cold contact those groups (especially the former).

        I just get sickened though when I think of us not winning the House until 2022 solely due to gerrymandering. That'd be like us not winning the presidency three times in a row due to the electoral college.

    •  God and they've already raised $1500 for it... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wwmiv, jncca, Audrid, gabjoh, Gygaxian

      imagine if the front page would try to raise money that fast in June of an off year for someone like Ann Callis, whom I doubt is any less liberal.

      •  Money's not fungible that way (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCCyclone, itskevin

        People give when they're excited. You can't just substitute one race or candidate or cause for another and assume you'll get the same results. In fact, I can guarantee you won't.

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

        by David Nir on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:06:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh I realize that wholeheartedly, but that's not (0+ / 0-)

          the point I'm trying to make.

          I'm saying imagine if the front-page was pushing hard for how extreme the votes taken by particularly offensive but defeatable Republicans like Mike Coffman were. Do you think they wouldn't generate enthusiasm based donations? And then crucially, money in the near term is worth a decent amount more than money in the election year fall when many candidates get added to orange to blue. Add time is cheaper, viability is better demonstrated to big donors, etc.

          But really, TX-Gov just isn't winnable barring a Perry renomination and even that is dubious on both counts. That's like donating to Louie Gohmert's opponent when Mike Coffman could very well lose.

          •  Well (3+ / 0-)

            The front page does do just that, and has every cycle since 2004, and will again this cycle. It's just hard to do it in an odd-numbered year. We'll see, though.

            We may want to start endorsing candidates earlier than ever for just that reason, though typically we've tried to avoid primaries except where there's a clear progressive option who is better than the rest of the field (or where there's someone awful like Ed Case).

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

            by David Nir on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:31:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Believe me I get all that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gygaxian

              it's just endlessly frustrating to see us donating at this early point to a 2014 race in Texas. What if Perry doesn't run? Polling shows Abbot, who has more than $10 million banked as quite popular among those that know him which means he's safe in such a red state. I guess what I'm bemoaning is this particular case, not Dkos and O2B in general which I think do more good than waste. I absolutely love how they endorsed Mark Begich in 2008 and how that might have just made the difference in such a close and cheap race.

              But I think there are certainly mid 2013-candidates like Begich or Schweitzer should he announce soon, or Andrew Romanoff or Ann Callis or Gwen Graham who are incredibly likely to be our nominees in their must win races who aren't any less liberal than Davis and I can't help but feel like this money is being wasted. Is the 'draft' money at least transferable to her reelection bid? I would be surprised if it were. At the end of the day I just hate that anyone would donate from gut level reactionism to an unwinnable race when there are plenty of winnable races with nearly equally vile opponents like the Mike Coffmans of the world.

              •  Did you click on the link? (3+ / 0-)

                Here it is. The money is for her state Senate account, hers to do with as she pleases.

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

                by David Nir on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:59:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for that immensely (0+ / 0-)

                  no I did not, I've been busy writing a gay marriage response diary and between that and yesterday's and today's travel/family obligations I haven't had nearly as much opportunity to read DKos as I'd like to in full, though of course I made exception to read most of the DKE comments as I always try to.

                  So I take back half of my previous comment and most of its full intent in that respect as I just figured it was raising for her as our gov nominee and that's it. Spending on Davis' reelection is definitely worth it barring her getting stuck in a  seat Romney won by 25%.

              •  I've alreaady seen people here (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lordpet8

                act like Callis is a conservadem compared to that other guy running.

                ...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 Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:03:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think Texas is as hopeless (0+ / 0-)

                Now, it's not the lowest-hanging fruit or perhaps the wisest race to spend hard-earned money on, which I think was your point.

                But look - Perry got 39% of the vote in 2006 and got a lower vote share than John McCain in the most Republican year ever, 2010.  And that was before his disastrous presidential run.  If Perry runs again we should at least have a viable, well-funded candidate, and not a Some Dude Paul Sadler (who got 40% of the vote in the second largest state in America!).  Normally I'm against running the most liberal candidates possible, especially in conservative states, but we've never really run someone who's excited the Democratic base in Texas, so, y'know, we should give it a try.

                Yes, a majority of Texans are pro-life.  But they are not as rabidly pro-life as the legislature.  There are a lot of suburban women in Texas, Democrats and Republicans, who would sympathize with Wendy Davis.  And simply not being Rick Perry may be enough to get a lot of votes from Texans who usually support Republicans.

                I'm not saying I expect Democrats to win Texas, it's still a very long shot.  But it could be on the map.

                •  My response to this is incredibly simple (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SaoMagnifico

                  Texas has an uber early March primary, so if Perry is renominated we have 8 months to nuke him and should.

                  Aside from that though, there's zero legitimate reason to raise money for a Texas race 18 months out when there are so many better targets that deserve our attention and Perry's replacement is popular and well funded and it's Texas.

                  Then you have the fact that despite Perry getting just 39% of the vote, Democrats for our gubernatorial nomination got just 30% the same year which to me demonstrates the fact that there were viable third party candidates, not that Perrry was toxic, but even in the year of 2010 when he got just 55% we got 42%. This is to say that statewide Texas prefers conservative candidates in their elections regardless of the costs; I'll give you a further example in that Democrats haven't won a statewide election since 1998.

                  All of this isn't to say that either the state is hopelessly conservative or that we have no chance statewide, just that Texas is going to be a long term project at least until we see Latinos participate near the same rate as whites or blacks.

      •  Whatever (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christopher Walker

        Her senate seat is up in 2014. She's on the ballot that year in a district/state Romney won with no Obama surge vote no matter what she chooses, GIVE HER MONEY!

        Seriously, give her her money.

        SSP alumni, 28, Male, Democrat, TX-22 ('10); TX-14 ('12)

        by trowaman on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:47:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't believe I've truly weighed in on the VRA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueDem

    and I know my posts are kind of jammed up against each other over the last hour or so (thanks to traveling the last two days and the site crashing), but I definitely concur with the above over Section 5 related redistricting.

    If section 2 is struck down though which would be insanely radical, we're absolutely fucked. The GOP could easily draw us out of our VRA related seats in all of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina with relative ease while destroying both of our South Georgia seats and even one of the Atlanta based districts if they're really aggressive. That's just the right off the bat ones though. They could probably easily draw us down to just 4 Texas seats and there would be zero realistic scenarios under which we retake the house after losing 15-16 seats and even in the next decade it would be hard. The Florida GOP could probably crack FL-05 as well if they really tried (though even their actual map is Fair District Amendment questionable) and the TN GOP could go for 9-0 though I doubt either happens, but you get the picture. Even packed VRA seats are better than the Section 2 absent alternative any way you slice it.

    Being a broken clock on the matter I'm at least entitled to being right twice a day, but short of a constitutional amendment, which is really hard, or retaking the current congress which is also really hard, our best shot at VRA re-authorization relies on us retaking the House and the best way to do that is fair re-redistricting initiatives in Michigan and Ohio among other states. I'm highly doubtful that the GOP controlled House would let any VRA re-authorization through when they know it might block their voter suppression like voter ID in Texas and I'm sure they're having wet dreams over being able to draw Wendy Davis out of her seat.  

  •  Excellent law review article on VRA-Section 3 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, TrueBlueDem

    http://www.yalelawjournal.org/...

    Recent discrimination can get the Justice Department to bail-in jurisdictions for a period of time if a federal court agrees for more individualized scrutiny. This may be a limited way for the Justice Dept. to get around the Shelby County ruling to go after states like Texas. Section 3 is intact.

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

    by SouthernINDem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:04:40 PM PDT

  •  26 US Senators sign letter thanking Wendy Davis: (14+ / 0-)

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

    Including red state Dems Jon Tester and Mark Begich.

    I'll be sure to use this the next time someone complains about Begich for being too conservative.

    23/Male/ D/Native of OH-16, Now NC-04

    by liberal intellectual on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:09:02 PM PDT

  •  Fmr ME Sen. Hathaway died (8+ / 0-)

    20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
    politicohen.com
    Love the class war, hate identity politics and purism
    UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

    by jncca on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:09:15 PM PDT

  •  TX-Gov: Davis was just on All in With Chris Hayes. (5+ / 0-)

    It sounds like she's going to run for Governor.

    Asked if she would run for governor, she said she wouldn't lie and can't deny she  has had aspirations to run for state office--but will enthusiasm from last night "hold"? If it does, "indications are that will be the case"--that is, she'd run for governor, I presume.  But those in other  states need to take up "the fight."  People do appreciate "when you take a tough stand."
    http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/...
  •  This maybe a little off topic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gabjoh

    but is anybody a fan of "the Boondocks"?  It somewhat has to do with politics, but also, race, pop culture etc..

    I personally love the show, and can't wait when when the new season starts this yr.

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

    by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:01:28 PM PDT

    •  I read the comics in grade school (0+ / 0-)

      It was so...real.

      "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:20:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Saw the first episode and strongly disliked it (0+ / 0-)

      Not a huge fan of anime, but I love the more 'noir' oriented shows out there. Cowboy Bebop, Samurai Champloo, Darker than Black are all among my favorite shows period rather than just anime.

      Not really sure how this relates to elections at all, but I will say I'm kind of amazed at how badly the Democratic Party of Japan got destroyed in this last election though not surprised. It also seems like 'Abenomics' might just work in terms of slaying deflation and good for them if it does. I can't think of a single very major nation that has had 2 decades of deflation since the dark ages which is a truly frightening thought.

      •  I thought the first episode was hilarious (0+ / 0-)

        The title of the episode is the Garden Party which can be seen on the tube. Maybe it's a little bit too raunchy or vulgar for some. But I think it's hilarious. Besides Pokemon, which was during elementary school, Boondocks is the only anime/cartoon I watch and like.

        Other than that I only watch sports, and news. And some music channels like MTV/2 or BET.

        And Big Brother started tonite too. Which is my summer guilty pleasure.

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

        by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:53:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent show. (0+ / 0-)

      And truly excited to hear they're finally coming out with another season. When did the last one end, 2010?

      "At what point must a female senator raise her voice in order to be heard over her male colleagues in the room?" | Pro-transit young black urban progressive | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | NJ-05 - ! ...? | Yard signs don't vote.

      by gabjoh on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:04:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

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

        The 3rd season was in 2010. You know it takes awhile for them to start a new season. A lot of the show is up to date with current events. Like for example the 3rd season started showing Obama's win in '08. So I'm sure they gonna be up to date with his reelection this season. The new season suppose to start in August btw.
         

        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 Jun 27, 2013 at 05:31:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  hell yes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gabjoh, BKGyptian89

      Haven't watched it for a few years, though.

      ...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 Jun 27, 2013 at 07:00:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, this has gotta be the 3rd time this week (0+ / 0-)

    that south Jersey has been hit by a sudden thunderstorm and cloud burst.

    "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

    by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:20:45 PM PDT

  •  Texas filibuster rule question: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gabjoh

    Any Texas filibuster experts out there? Is there a rule in Texas that only one person may filibuster a particular bill?

    Or is this not allowed based on Texas rules?

    23/Male/ D/Native of OH-16, Now NC-04

    by liberal intellectual on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:11:43 PM PDT

  •  Markey's district last elected a Republican... (11+ / 0-)

    to Congress in 1952!  (It was then numbered the Eighth Congressional District, and had somewhat different borders; it consisted of North Reading, Reading, Lynnfield, Wakefield, Saugus, Melrose, Medford, Malden, Everett, Stoneham, and part of Somerville.)  In 1952, for the last time it (narrowly) re-elected GOP Congressman Angier Goodwin.  In 1954, Goodwin was defeated by Torbert Macdonald, a Democrat and former Harvard roommate of JFK.  Since 1954, the district (later renumbered the Seventh and then the Fifth, and of course redistricted several times) has been represented by only two members of Congress:  Macdonald, and after Macdonald's death in 1976, Markey.

  •  So the Utah State Democratic Chair (4+ / 0-)

    Just proposed to his long-time partner. http://utahpoliticalcapitol.com/...

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

    by Gygaxian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:19:50 PM PDT

    •  Oh yeah, he's openly gay (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Christopher Walker, JohnnyBoston

      In case that didn't make sense. In fact, Utah's got an openly gay party chairman and a black party chairman. When did we get so progressive?

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

      by Gygaxian on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:20:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site