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.

8:17 AM PT: TX-Sen: So Gravis Marketing just released a poll showing Sen. John Cornyn ahead of Rep. Steve Stockman by a 43-28 margin in March 4 GOP primary, much closer than probably anyone expected. However, Stockman and Cornyn are not the only two candidates on the ballot. While most of the others are Some Dudes, there's also tea partier Dwayne Stovall, who just earned a whole bunch of media attention thanks to a whacky TV ad likening Mitch McConnell to an animated turtle. The poll was conducted before Stovall's ad hit, but he probably should have been included regardless, since he's raised the third-most overall. That's still pennies, but it's not like Stockman has much money, either.

8:36 AM PT: IA-Sen: Ah, too bad. After teasing us for months, conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats has decided not to run for Senate. A BVP entry would have made it more likely that the GOP nomination would get thrown to a convention, which is required if no candidate takes more than 35 percent in the primary. And Vander Plaats, thanks to his name recognition and network of conservative Christian supporters, would have stood a good chance of getting his party's nod, something Democrats would have enjoyed very much as well. Alas, it's not to be, but the Republican field still remains very split, and Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley has managed to outraise all six GOP candidates combined.

8:44 AM PT: CA-11: Even though just about every Democrat in creation seems to have endorsed state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier to replace retiring Rep. George Miller, at least one has other ideas. Alameda Councilman Tony Daysog says he's considering a run of his own, though he acknowledges he only has a few weeks left until the March 7 filing deadline. Daysog has made a couple of other unsuccessful bids for higher office (Assembly, mayor) but has never reached this high before.

8:54 AM PT: NJ-Gov: There's not much of a horserace angle here, but Alec MacGillis' excellent new piece in the New Republic is a must-read for understanding how corrupt New Jersey machine politics has managed to thrive in the new century, and how GOP Gov. Chris Christie has proven a master at manipulating it for his personal political advantage—until Bridgegate, of course. There is one interesting electoral angle worth highlighting, though. As Christie headed into his re-election campaign last year, he assiduously cultivated Democratic power brokers like the infamous George Norcross, as well as Democratic elected officials, in order to help run up his own score. In so doing, he deliberately froze out his own party. Writes MacGillis:

As Election Day neared, you could be forgiven for mistaking Christie for a Democrat. State Republicans were frozen out; candidates were told not to include his name or picture on their literature. "We didn't get the support," says George Wagoner, a losing Assembly candidate.
Focusing on Democratic outreach may have helped Christie pad his margins, but this helps explain why he had zero coattails in the legislature despite winning by 22 points. Indeed, Republicans managed to net zero additional seats, a rather remarkable feat given the size of the victory at the top of the ticket. But if Christie was treating his own party like lepers, then it makes sense. And it also means there will be fewer people ready to stand by him as he continues his long tumble downward.

9:15 AM PT: WV-Sen: EMILY's List is pushing out a new poll of the West Virginia Senate race, conducted by Clarity Campaigns, that shows a surprisingly close contest. GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito is beating Secretary of State Natalie Tennant (an EMILY endorsee) by just a 45-39 margin, much closer than a pair of polls from PPP and Harper last September that had Capito up around 15 points. There's no crosstab or sample information available, though. As for Clarity, they don't have much of a public track record, though a last-minute Indiana poll in 2012 nailed both the Senate and governor's races that year.

9:59 AM PT: HI-Sen, -Gov: The Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now have, as they do from time to time, commissioned a poll from Ward Research of all of Hawaii's major races this year. We'll start at the top with the Democratic primary for Senate, though you'll want to take in all of their results. Ward, which hadn't previously surveyed the contest, finds Rep. Colleen Hanabusa leading Sen. Brian Schatz 48-40. These numbers inspired Schatz leak a month-old internal poll from the Mellman Group that instead have him ahead 41-37, a slight uptick from his 38-37 edge last June.

Ward actually has a pretty decent track record in difficult-to-poll Hawaii, while Mellman clients haven't released very many polls from the Aloha State. (They did, however, work for Mazie Hirono's successful Senate campaign last cycle.) So their Senate findings are certainly plausible, especially since Hanabusa, with a favorability rating of 62-27, is still slightly better known than Schatz (51-25). However, Schatz's team sent out a reminder that Ward seriously muffed the HI-02 Democratic primary last cycle, putting Mufi Hannemann up 10 when Tulsi Gabbard won by 21.

It's Ward's gubernatorial numbers, though, that are really out there. The race hasn't been polled by anyone previously, but even so, Republican Duke Aiona's 48-40 lead over Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie is just hard to believe. Now, you might say that Abercrombie's not well-liked, so perhaps it's possible that he's trailing. But he's not that unpopular, with favorables of 45-48, and Hawaii is still an extremely blue state. (Aiona's remarkably popular, though, earning a 58-26 favorability score.)

Here's something else that stands out. Aiona, the 2010 GOP nominee, also beats state Sen. David Ige, who is challenging Abercrombie in the Democratic primary, by a 51-34 spread. Ige is mostly unknown, so he's a decent stand-in for Generic Democrat. But if Aiona is actually beating Abercrombie because of the incumbent's singular flaws, then his share of the vote shouldn't be higher against Generic D. (Think about it this way: Alaska Sen. Mark Begich's support is going to be stronger against the despised Joe Miller than it would be against a generic Republican.)

Ige, who just earned the endorsement of the 13,500-strong Hawaii State Teachers Association, is also not too far behind Abercrombie in the primary matchup, trailing 47-38. So either this poll shows that Abercrombie, despite sporting a middling favorability rating and running for re-election in a solidly Democratic state, is somehow in incredibly dire straits... or it's just simply incorrect. (And if it's the latter, then the Senate numbers are questionable, too.) No matter what, though, this is an excellent example of why you can never judge a race based on a single survey, especially in quirky Hawaii.

10:49 AM PT: MD-Gov: An OpinionWorks survey of Maryland's Democratic gubernatorial primary for the Baltimore Sun finds Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown beating state Attorney General Doug Gansler 35-14, with Del. Heather Mizeur just behind at 10 percent. That's in keeping with the 20-point leads Brown's generally had in other polls, but thanks to the higher undecideds, this is Gansler's worst-ever showing in a three-way race—and also Mizeur's best. While Gansler has far more cash than Mizeur does, his fundraising has slowed down thanks to his frequent stumbles. If these numbers are right, and if a serious anti-Brown movement does coalesce, it's not impossible that Mizeur could be the beneficiary.

There are also GOP primary numbers, but the contest is a mess, with almost 70 percent of Republican voters undecided and no candidate taking more than 13 percent.

11:44 AM PT: NH-Gov: John DiStaso reports that businessman Walter Havenstein, who along with his wife Judy has been a major donor to GOP causes, is considering a bid for governor. So far, the only Republican who has announced a campaign against Gov. Maggie Hassan is conservative activist Andrew Hemingway.

1:00 PM PT: HI-01: The Ward Research poll discussed at length above also included a test of the Democratic primary for Rep. Colleen Hanabusa's open 1st District seat, though note that the sample was a rather small 272 voters—lower than the bare minimum 300 you typically see in political polling. Here's how the field breaks down, with each candidate's favorability rating in parentheses:

State Senate President Donna Mercado Kim: 31 (49-22)
State Rep. Mark Takai: 21 (34-10)
Honolulu City Councilmember Stanley Chang: 10 (22-12)
Honolulu City Councilmember Ikaika Anderson: 10 (33-13)
State Sen. Will Espero: 6 (22-14)
Activist Katherine Xian: 2 (3-4)
Undecided: 21
Unsurprisingly, the well-known Kim is in the lead, but the poll was taken before Honolulu City Councilmember Joey Manahan, whose geographic base overlaps with hers, joined the race. While Manahan may or may not have the chops to stop Kim himself, his entry may at least make things harder for Kim and give another candidate a better shot at victory. Kim remarkably voted against the same-sex marriage legislation that passed the Hawaii legislature by wide margins last year, so a progressive alternative would be welcome.

1:11 PM PT (Darth Jeff): Texas: With the Lone State state's March 4 primary rapidly approaching, Joseph Vogas at Burnt Orange (aka Daily Kos Elections community member Trowaman) gives us a rundown of the races for statewide office. Every statewide post will feature an open seat race except for the state's very powerful lieutenant governorship, where David Dewhurst is fighting to win renomination.

For those looking to get deep in the weeds, Burnt Orange also gives us a round up of the competitive primaries for the state House and Senate seats. Altogether, an excellent resource for those looking to learn more about Texas politics.


2:03 PM PT: WI-Gov: Here's that RGA ad we were expecting, attacking likely Democratic nominee Mary Burke, who served as Wisconsin's secretary of commerce for a few years in the middle of the last decade under Gov. Jim Doyle. A slightly over-the-top announcer exclaims: "Burke was a senior member of the Doyle administration that left Wisconsin with 130,000 fewer jobs and a $3 billion budget shortfall." The narrator also throws in a jab at Burke's "family business," Trek Bicycle Corp., claiming it "outsourced Wisconsin jobs to China." The buy is reportedly for six figures, which usually means "a bit over $100,000."

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

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

    by David Nir on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:00:19 AM PST

  •  HI-Sen: Two new polls out over the weekend. (7+ / 0-)

    An internal from the Schatz campaign has him up 41-37%. The poll was conducted by the Mellman group last month.

    The Honolulu Star-Advertiser poll shows Hanabusa up 48-40%. It was conducted by Ward research, which had a decent track record in 2012.

    •  I think Hanabusa has a decent lead (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Taget, MichaelNY

      And while I don't buy that Aiona has a double digit lead over Ige and an eight point lead over Abercrombie, I have been consistently saying the Gov's race will be closer than many people expect (everyone here has it at safe D) and I stand by that.

    •  I like this Schatz guy (0+ / 0-)

      is this primary challenge a case of ID politics?

      •  That basic question has led to lots of flame (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darth Jeff, MichaelNY, gabjoh, JBraden

        wars here.  The basic summary, with as little bias as possible.

        Inouye died and wanted Hanabusa to succeed him.  Schatz is an Abercrombie ally.  There is a racial component, but they also represent different factions, with Schatz/Abercrombie more limousine liberal and Hanabusa/Inouye more allied with the blue-collar machine.  These factions do also have racial components.  On top of that, there are gender and age differences (seniority matters in Hawaii).

        But in the future, this isn't a topic to be discussed except on the horserace.  Not about who we like or dislike.

        21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
        politicohen.com
        Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal, not progressive. For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.
        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city.

        by jncca on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 02:51:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  HI-Gov: Teacher's Union for St. Sen. Ige (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Taget, ArkDem14

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

    by Setsuna Mudo on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:12:08 AM PST

  •  Gravis poll: Cornyn 43, Stockman 28 (4+ / 0-)

    It also gives Stockman a 28-18 favorability rating, with Cornyn clocked in at 49-27. The poll was taken of 729 "likely Republican primary voters".

    I'm well aware of Gravis' decidedly sub-par record, so take this poll with a Texas-size grain of salt. That said, it's fun to pretend an upset can happen, right?

    "We are the leaders we've been waiting for." - Paul Wellstone

    by MrLiberal on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:32:34 AM PST

    •  Sorry, forgot the link (0+ / 0-)

      "We are the leaders we've been waiting for." - Paul Wellstone

      by MrLiberal on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:33:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The only Problem with... (8+ / 0-)

      ... pretending an upset could happen is that if he were to win the Primary we would probably be stuck with Senator Stockman.  

      Vote Democratic. We're not perfect-but they're NUTS! - Barney Frank

      by Minnesota Mike on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:46:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Stockman-Cruz Texas Senate Delegation...... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Taget, betelgeux, MichaelNY

        ....making the Coburn-Inhofe delegation next door look sane by comparison.

        •  I don't think Cruz is insane. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Taget

          To me, he looks like an egomaniac that is quite ideologically rigid and isn't afraid of pissing all over people to get what he wants.

          Stockman, on the other hand...well, I am struggling to think of what he's said or done that's so nutty, so I looked it up. He's still not as bad as Gohmert, but then, who is, except for a bunch of other members of the Texas delegation.

          "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

          by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:31:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Stockman was one of the nuttiest (12+ / 0-)

            pieces of driftwood brought in by 1994, and among those who immediately lost afterwards.

            I mean you just have to do a few google searches to find Stockman's 1990s militia group brand of weirdness.

            A Republican member of Congress from Texas has suggested that the Clinton Administration staged the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex., to convince Congress that it should ban assault weapons.

            "Waco was supposed to be a way for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and the Clinton Administration to prove the need for a ban on so-called 'assault weapons,' " the Representative, Steve Stockman, who is a strong opponent of gun control, wrote in the June issue of Guns & Ammo magazine.

            And he also that Janet Reno was indictable for premeditated murder.

            Here's some of his second go around of greatest hits:

            The best thing about the Earth is if you poke holes in it oil and gas come out.
            http://thehill.com/...

            "If Babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted"

            Back in the 1990s he tried to defund all sex education programs through the federal government and to totally discredit the work of Alfred Kinsey. After Newtown Stockman raffled the exact gun used in the murder of dozens of children as a gimmick to get people to sign up for his email newsletter list.

            His tweeting is simply awful awful awful. And includes things such as joking about the Boston Marathon bomber that "Suspect thought he could escape in backyard boat after hearing Gore speak on global warming.”

            You just haven't followed Stockman enough if you don't think he's an absurd figure.

            "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:52:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I just meant that nothing recent came to MY mind. (0+ / 0-)

              I can think of stupid shit said and done by Bachmann, by Gohmert, by Joe Barton, and so on, so yeah, you're right. I haven't followed him enough, because, after reading what you said....wow oh wow.

              "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

              by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:56:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  He also declared (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LordMike, MichaelNY, JBraden

            "Give Us Barabbas" after the Reid took the nuclear option.

            And clarified:

            “That’s in reference to mob rule,” he said. “As you know, the mob ruled and killed Jesus, an innocent man (and spared Barabbas). We have a rogue Senate.”
            http://mobile.wnd.com/...

            "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:56:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actions vs. words (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArkDem14, LordMike, Setsuna Mudo

              I remember, back in the AOL days, when I read this site that listed all sorts of crazy shit said and done by Republicans. Some of it, like sending out mailers to black voters implying it was illegal to vote, like Helms did, was just offensive, but some of it, like Dan Burton pretending he was a CSI by duct taping a watermelon to prove the Clintons murdered Vince Foster, was amusing because it was so stupid. (This site also had some Democrats listed, for what it's worth. Apparently, Dick Gephardt once gave a speech to the CCC.) You've got a better handle on this stuff than I do, so tell me, does it seem like there's less action and more words today? I mean, if someone tried to lead a buyout of CBS, as Jesse Helms did in 1985, wouldn't that be big news and mean a lot of egg on the face of Republicans? I think so. Stockman raffled that gun, sure, but most of his garbage appears to be offensive tweets and insane suggestions. The same goes got a lot of these clowns, but maybe I am forgetting something.

              "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

              by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:04:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  But as long as the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Taget, gabjoh

        voting records would be the same (they essentially would), the crazier the rhetoric, the better for us. However, it's questionable whether it would be good to deprive the GOP of their top two, as Thune seems the logical choice. Unfortunately, he's one of their most charismatic members; it's doubtful that any Senator elected later than 2004 could be a party leader, so Thune, Alexander and Enzi seem like the only real options beyond Cornyn and McConnell, as far as wanting the job and being acceptable to the classes of 2010 and 2012.

        ME-01 (college) ID-01 (home) -9.85, -3.85

        by GoUBears on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:45:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He would be easier to beat in 2020 than Cornyn (0+ / 0-)

        So I wouldn't be mad about it.

        26, Practical Progressive Democratic Socialist (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie!

        by HoosierD42 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:07:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  whe cruz forced a vote on the debt ceiling (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Taget, LordMike

      a lot of columnists claimed it could hurt republicans because it forced cornyn and McConnell to vote in the affirmative.  I get the logic with McConnell since it could force him to waste extra money fighting Bevin, but does anyone think Cornyn is more vulnerable?  especially with the primary coming up fast.

      NH-01. First time living in NH, waiting for the candidates to start a courting.

      by DougTuttle on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:26:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Something different on Presidents Day (6+ / 0-)

    Hunter S. Thompson's Obituary of Richard Nixon.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/...

    Vote Democratic. We're not perfect-but they're NUTS! - Barney Frank

    by Minnesota Mike on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:41:46 AM PST

  •  Happy president's day (0+ / 0-)

    NH-01. First time living in NH, waiting for the candidates to start a courting.

    by DougTuttle on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:32:53 AM PST

  •  Rep. Underwood-SC (5+ / 0-)

    Yglesias and some others were having a House of Cards Twitter discussion about how implausible it was to have a white Dem in leadership from South Carolina anymore. But if the state hadn't been gerrymandered, an outcome where there's, say, a black majority district, and then a swingish district with a large black minority would be totally plausible, and Underwood would be just the kind of pol that could hang on to such a seat as a Dem.

    I bring this up to make a point: the face that every single state in the south, AR and KY excepted, is a republican gerrymander, is something that people seem weirdly oblivious about. Another example of this is how people say Republican only gain X number of seats from their gerrymanders in OH, PA, and MI, and therefore it's not enough to make the difference in who controls the House, but they ignore the states like LA and, indeed, SC (not to mention TX), where a court-drawn map well could have yielded more Dem-leaning seats.

    •  Spratt was fairly prominent (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, lordpet8

      before he was defeated in 2010, and the show seems to be running about 1-2 years behind where we are in real life, so perhaps, even without gerrymandering being a factor, it's not all that odd to see someone like FU advance.

      Good point on gerrymandering. BTW, did you know last week was the anniversary of that term being created?

      I think people are too focused on individual states when considering gerrymandering. If you consider states where it looks like Democrats are struggling at all levels (i.e. not Florida, North Carolina, or Virginia), you can see why it'd made a difference. Take, say, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia (which might be in the same category as North Carolina soon). If Democrats managed to have 6-8 more seats between all of the ones available they don't now control, it'd make taking the House this year a lot easier. Republicans would still dominate, but we'd be a lot stronger overall as a party.

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:45:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That someone like exists is possible. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      killacity, emops

      Spratt was a good example.  And you never know when someone might be able to eek their way back against the odds.

      The part that is a bit hard to get is Underwood's comfort level.  He seems rather secure and even while taking conservative issues doesn't say the elephant in the room that should be so apparent for someone in his position.  That he is incredibly vulnerable with a target on his back and he needs to separate from party orthodoxy to survive.

      Now you could point to Jim Cooper who has a relatively safe white district.  In fact some of have argued too conservative his district as it stands.  But even he lives in terror that things may change come redistricting.

      I'd expect a real life Underwood to at the very least be fretting constantly over who his next Republican opponent is.  Actually given his personality on the show I would've expected him to have switched his party registration already.

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

      by Taget on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:33:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interestingly though, Spratt's district had (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Taget, killacity

        never gone Republican after reconstruction until 2010. The show seems to make the assumption that Underwood is just too personally popular and vicious enough to obliterate any opponent that he's secure. There's even that one episode in season one where he deflects a potential Republican challenge.

        Even though the show says it's 2014 in season 2, it seems to clearly be taking place in the 2009 cycle with them even talking about how redistricting will occur the following cycle.

        Incidentally they allude to a house majority of 225 in season 2 and a senate minority of 44 or 45 seats (can't remember exactly) in s02e03. On the whip's vote count board where they move magnetic names around they show districts like UT-02 and FL-05 being Democratic... if they showed the whole House I'd map it out.

        •  the timeline (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stephen Wolf, Taget

          seems really weird as of season two [although I'm only on episode 6].  The existence of the tea party, which helped at least one senator get elected already doesn't make much sense.  It's the Garrett's first term and he won in a wave of change, suggesting that Republicans were in power for at least the last term and possibly two terms.  So when did the tea party come into being so it could influence elections?  IRL The tea party first started in 2009-2010, but didn't get anyone elected until the midterms and underwood mentioned the midterms were coming up, so the tea party must have come into being during the republicans administration, be at least five years old [if a dem was president two terms prior] or they weren't really thinking this through.  

          NH-01. First time living in NH, waiting for the candidates to start a courting.

          by DougTuttle on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:20:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Last season sometime (0+ / 0-)

          they showed a full map of PA and it was very clearly the old districts. I don't remember how the colors matched up with reality...I was still trying to figure out how they were talking about a gubernatorial run by the Republican mayor of Pittsburgh.

          •  Another thing that annoyed me... (0+ / 0-)

            They were talking about how important it was for them to win the PA Governorship because of redistricting but it was supposedly 2013 two years after redistricting would have normally taken place.

      •  they left Cooper alone last time n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  That's true, but (0+ / 0-)

      House Reps from relatively white Southern districts, even though elected as Democrats, tend not to be reliable votes for the Party's national agenda when it matters.

      That's why seats in the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic and West Coast generally have highest value, Colorado and Florida and such ones medium value, and Southern seats don't get a lot of love.  

      •  An alternative (0+ / 0-)

        - ultra-right Republicans, who are very reliable vote for far-right agenda. So, i will gladly take these "unreliable Democrats" in such districts. And don't forget - North-East and Midwest lose seats in the House with each redistricting. Quite frequently - a Democratic seats, as will happen, say, in Rhode island in 2022. Soon it may become technically impossible to get House majority without substantial number of Southern seats. And that mean - exactly without that "unreliable Democrats from the South"

        •  I think that's fairly silly (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          propjoe, gabjoh

          Since new sources of seats in the south will come from newly created Democratic-leaning seats, and the majority will come from maxing out northern seats and West coast seats.

          "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:43:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You may consider it's silly (0+ / 0-)

            I - don't. Let's disagree and end it on this. I have no confidence that "new sources of seats in the south will come from newly created Democratic-leaning seats". At all

            •  If you don't think that, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, jncca

              Then you've shown yourself a bit clueless of demographics. Even in Texas, 2 of it's 4 new seats had to be Democratic vote sinks. Similarly, southern states with a lot of growth, such as South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia, if they gain new seats, will be stuck with some tough choices, especially considering that the VRA is still an important legal barrier in many respects.

              What's anachronistic is the argument that any future Democratic majority in this increasingly polarized environment where the Democratic party is more firmly a leftist party than at any time in its entire history, going to come from white, (presumed male it seems), center-right southern politicians.

              Not by winning, in the long term, seats like:

              NJ-02, NJ-03, PA-08, NY-23, NY-02, NY-19, CA-21, CA-31, CA-19, CA-25, CO-06, NV-03, MN-02, diverse southern suburban-urban districts like FL-10, and FL-27, and even FL-02 is fairly urban and diverse, VA-10, VA-01, eventually even some of the Texas districts, some which are majority minority right now but still Republican strongholds for the moment).

              "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:47:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  As i already said (0+ / 0-)

                - let's end this discussion. I could write an equally long post with opposite arguments, but it will not convince you, just as this one didn't convinced me.

              •  You probably know (0+ / 0-)

                that i really hate an increseangly polarized Congress and situation, where almost all candidates on one side (not only in proogressive districts, where they are natural fit) are more and more "left", while all on another side (not only in conservative districts, where they are natural fit) are even more "right". In such situation there is no sense to follow politics and elections closely: look at district PVI and, volia, in 90% of cases you already now who will win. Is this anyway interesting? May be for some, but, surely, not for me.

                •  I'm having a little trouble following you (0+ / 0-)

                  And whether either of us like the current situation isn't really the point. I've only noted this is what is happening, and this is what it likely means. What you said is already the case and has been for a while. That's why the vast bulk of DKE's discussion is directed towards a few congressional districts and a few states, where elasticity of electorates is a fairly rare factor nowadays.

                  "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:38:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  In short: (0+ / 0-)

                    i don't see demographic factors having too much influence until next redistricting, and 2021 is too far away for me to think about (as i am not sure i will be alive then). So, i am more interesting in NEAR future, and i consider an idea of outright conceding "center-right Democratic vote" to Republicans a bad one at least tactically.

                    [offtopic]In addition - i treat political races exactly as horse races, and one of the main area of interest in them to me was an unpredictability of many of them. Is it interesting for you if you know winner in advance? So (it's absolutely personal for me) if polarization will grow further - i will simply stop to pay any attention to political races here. As i said above - that's pure personal reaction, but personally for me it was MUCH more interesting, say, in 1970th, when Democrats still could win Mississippi, Alabama and Oklahoma, and Republicans - New York, Massachusetts and Vermont[/offtopic]

    •  in fairness (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArkDem14, HoosierD42, JBraden

      it's not the only show that had some laughable election districts or math.  The West Wing, for all its strengths had some ridiculous electoral results.  The democratic senator from Idaho who switched parties, hoynes being from texas, Santos winning SC and TX, Bartlett only losing six or so states  in his re-election.

      NH-01. First time living in NH, waiting for the candidates to start a courting.

      by DougTuttle on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:13:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  It made more sense (0+ / 0-)

          if you consider the fact that 2000/2004 were more like reality (Maine being kind of competitive, Bush losing CA by only 9 in 2004), Vinick being a moderate Republican, and the nuclear accident being something that would affect the outcome of the race, especially in SC, which has 4 nuclear plants, 2 of which are close to other states. Also, I haven't fiddled with the numbers, but I imagine the writers were kind of stuck due to the EC.

          "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

          by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:01:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

            •  Vermont is the really odd one, (0+ / 0-)

              but again, SC has four nuclear plants. If there's a nuclear accident, perhaps it'd go up for grabs. And AZ seems to be heading our way anyway, or at least it does when it's not 2010. A Hispanic Democrat running would at least be competitive, no? Also, Bush got 44 percent in Maine in 2000. Vinick was, in the show's reality, a legitimate moderate, at least on social issues, so I could see him winning the state in a close race.

              I think you have a much stronger case to say that the show isn't realistic if you consider the Santos campaign never thought about contesting Illinois until late in the game and/or that Bartlet might have been competing in Kansas during his first general. Or maybe he meant the primary when CJ said she saw Abby give him a shot in a hotel room in Manhattan, KS.

              "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

              by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:23:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I so want to write the article ... (0+ / 0-)

                ... on how Josh Lyman was much more lucky than good as a campaign manager.

                •  At that point, (0+ / 0-)

                  the show was almost two different shows rolled into one. Had the campaign stuff been in its own show, there might have been more time to show why he was supposedly so good. I guess the best thing you could say was that Santos wasn't going to embarrass the party and JL helped with that.

                  Oh yeah, about the show being unrealistic: a big time guy like JL quits the administration to run the campaign for a relative no namer? That would have been bigger news than it was presented on the show, don't you think?

                  "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

                  by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:36:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He wasn't that good. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    askew

                    Every good move Santos made was because he stuck to his own instincts and surprised his staff. And yet, my goodness, how every presidential aspirant was begging Josh to join them.

                    Also, my biggest bugaboo with seasons 6-7: Leo McGarry was an awful choice for VP.

                    •  Yeah. (0+ / 0-)

                      Why not have him join Josh or back a different candidate and have them compete? If budget costs were a factor, as I suspect they were, just hire some unknown and then have him be conveniently offscreen, as all of the non-deputy people were most of the time.

                      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

                      by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:50:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, the Leo as VP part of the election storyline (0+ / 0-)

                      was ridiculous. But, season 6 and 7 are my favorite part of the series because I love the election storyline and seeing Donna grow into a vital part of the Santos campaign. Plus, I always liked Joshua Malina better than Rob Lowe.

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

                      by askew on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:11:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I didn't like Toby (Josh Malina) (0+ / 0-)

                        When he abruptly switched allegiances from Bartlet's team to Russell's, and got weirdly militant about it.

                        26, Practical Progressive Democratic Socialist (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie!

                        by HoosierD42 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:11:47 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I think it made sense. He wasn't one of the (0+ / 0-)

                          original Bartlet gang and didn't have that loyalty to him so he was able to focus on building the future of the party.

                          Josh Malina played Will Bailey. Richard Schiff played Toby who got stuck with the awful leak story in season 7.

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

                          by askew on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:23:24 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

          •  I can see CA (0+ / 0-)

            heck the entire reality was different from 1974 on, so it's possible that republicans never lost the hispanic vote in CA and it remained competitive.  Still, I'm not sure if any one issue could turn SC into a blue state, even for one election, at least not with a grand shift in demographics or ideology.  They seemed to try to explain it by saying it was voter turnout, supposedly it was up a lot in some states, while plummeting in others, but that didn't make any sense.

            There also seemed to be either a denial in how much democrats had lost in the south and midwest, or it was an entirely different reality.  That second part doesn't make much sense either considering it was going for realism.

            NH-01. First time living in NH, waiting for the candidates to start a courting.

            by DougTuttle on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:12:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, consider the nuclear accident. (0+ / 0-)

              Also consider how many seats we had in the South prior to 2010, how Vinick only won CA by 80,000 votes while Bush lost it by 9 in 2004, and remember that the show ended in 2006. That's almost 8 years ago.

              "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

              by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:24:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I never really watched the West Wing (6+ / 0-)

        And someone here a while back posted a bit of dialog wherein one operative claimed that the president's approval rating was about to shoot up because he was going to go on all the Sunday talk shows... and stuff like that is why I don't cotton to most American political dramas.

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

        by David Nir on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:53:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  just started on netflix (0+ / 0-)

          it is pretty good, except when it gets into electoral maps.  That and it tends to feel a little preachy, even ayn rand-y the way characters raise a fuss every time something happens they disagree with.  Senior staff I get, but temps and assistance have practically refused to work because of ear marks or whatnot.  and for the record I meant Ayn Randy in the sense that characters will recite personal beliefs any time they see something shiny, not in terms of ideology.  

          NH-01. First time living in NH, waiting for the candidates to start a courting.

          by DougTuttle on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:04:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It was a great show (0+ / 0-)

          because it had great drama, with fantastic acting and superb writing and wonderful directing, but it wasn't the most realistic ever. Not so much with the small details altered for dramatic effect, but, to me at least, with a few things that I notice as I rewatch episodes. For instance, there's one episode where Leo the COS is talking about unfunded federal mandates, and POTUS describes what they are, as if he's in a car showroom trying to make sense of a different model. A Nobel prize winner in econ isn't familiar with that term? Ahuh. Still, you are (or at least I was) mesmerized by the writing that you don't hear this right away. Aaron Sorkin has a unique and sometimes annoying way of creating dialogue, but he's definitely one of the finer writers we have working today.

          There's also an element of it capturing the essence of public service, with the show being a valentine to people who are trying to do the right thing.

          "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

          by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:06:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Never watched it (0+ / 0-)

          but the descriptions of what happens on the show makes it sound like political fan fiction to me.

    •  They should have had Underwood be from AR or WV (0+ / 0-)

      At least states that have a history of electing strong influential Demosaurs and both states have strong state parties. Actually I'm surprised they didn't have him from Arkansas because if they did we would get a Bill Clinton vibe you know. SC has been red much longer than either AR or WV. Also NC would've also been a great state for Underwood considering the Dems down there have been one of the most progressive parties in the South.  

    •  Underwood seems to come off as (0+ / 0-)

      a throwback to the old Sam Rayburn days.

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

      “The Republican party can’t be the party that thinks one of the biggest problems is that there’s too much love in the world.” - Alex Castellanos

      by lordpet8 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:19:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's actually very easy to make a safe white Dem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArkDem14

      seat in SC:

       photo ScreenShot2014-02-17at83051PM_zps6c9ad138.png

      This district went for Obama by a 54/45 margin and is only 32% black.

      It's also possible to draw a swingy district in the northern part of SC that would elect a white Dem.

      •  You can draw a black majority district that (0+ / 0-)

        doesn't go into either Charleston or Columbia and give both their own districts that would be likely to elect Democrats, or no worse than 50-50.

        ...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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 05:39:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just a rough cut, but it could look like this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca, Stephen Wolf

          Assuming 3 Democratic districts is an explicit goal, this could be what it looks like.

          CD-1 (Blue, Charleston): 53.6 Obama 2008, 59.7 White, 30.8 Black
          CD-2 (Green, rurals): 61.3 Obama, 50.8 Black, 45.3 White
          CD-6 (Cyan, Columbia): 55.2 Obama, 55.5 White, 36.7 Black

          26, Practical Progressive Democratic Socialist (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie!

          by HoosierD42 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:57:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  LOL at these TX-Lt. Gov Ads (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, admnok

    I guess it's nice that these guys aren't blaming Obama for any past, current, and future drought problems. Here's the link.

    "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

    by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:55:31 AM PST

  •  A good analysis of the UAW's loss last friday... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geoneb

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:28:22 AM PST

    •  Good article. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Taget, killacity, MichaelNY

      I have to wonder if the appeal of the union was lower because workers were already making more than those on the lower end of the two-tier structure in other states, but then, I have never worked in a factory, so I am not really sure of what else might be discussed.

      I have mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again: I read somewhere that the service sector unions are growing at a decent if not great rate, but that the losses in the industrial sector swamp that growth. Aside from that not going on forever, I'd assume there's only so many ways you can threaten to move a service sector job before you are stuck. Maybe the solution is to focus like a laser on that type of organizing.

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:39:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I realize this was a vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff

      But this isn't really about electoral politics as such, so I think this is better for the policy thread.

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

      by David Nir on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:40:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, it was a major issue in Tennessee (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, MetroGnome, MichaelNY

        Not from a policy perspective even, but was rallied against by conservative groups, and politicians, including Bob Corker and Governor Haslam.

        "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:59:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What you just said (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          Both supports what I said, and points to why we have this policy in the first place. "Major issue" emphatically does not mean "okay to talk about in the LD." Quite the opposite. Major issues that don't involve the electoral horserace don't belong here.

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

          by David Nir on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:04:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was under the impression that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            we often relate major issues to politics. Hence a discussion on the Keystone Pipeline and it's potential benefits to Mary Landrieu. The numerous discussions of gun control legislation and their electoral ramifications. The daily discussions of Obamacare facets and how these are playing out among political groups and to what effect.

            "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:46:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArkDem14

              But I think the issue in this case is that neither are the Republicans in Tennessee likely to suffer nor are the Democrats in that state likely to gain from this.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:51:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  If there's a clear and direct link (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArkDem14

              To electoral matters, then it might be okay. Those still are not my favorite discussions. And I don't see how this news relates to the horserace at all, nor was there any attempt to frame the discussion that way.

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

              by David Nir on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:04:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  MN-Sen: Franken numbers (12+ / 0-)

    Some numbers on Al Franken from the StarTribune's Minnesota Poll.  It's the same poll that had the numbers published Saturday night showing Gov. Mark Dayton at a 58-29 approval spread and President Obama at a 43-50 spread.  Sen. Franken is at a 55-34 job approval spread, with him approval matching his high from last June and disapproval up June's 29%.  No head-to-head numbers for this year's election.

    Minnesota Poll: Among partisans, Franken remains a polarizing figure

    The way the StarTribune works, there will probably be more numbers for other issues/people/maybe match-ups the next few evenings, so keep watching their website.

  •  Today in Stupid (6+ / 0-)

    Well, it's really Yesterday in Stupid, since it was posted on February 16, but still, take a look at this:

    Example Three:

    Alan Keyes claims that Rep. Michele Bachmann’s plan to sue President Obama doesn’t go far enough and may actually aid Obama’s “dictatorship.”

    Instead, he wants the Tea Party darling — who last year accused Obama of “committing impeachable offenses” — to join his Jesus Christ-endorsed campaign to get congressional candidates to pledge to support the impeachment and removal of the president.

    I consider this election related because, if this nonsense goes forward and blows up in the faces of the Republicans, I suspect it'll be damaging to them as we approach election day. (Side note: I forgot this guy had a PhD from Harvard.)

    Check out the link for equally dumb but not election-related stuff. Poor Missouri...

    "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

    by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:53:44 AM PST

    •  Doubt it'll hurt the whole party (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, MichaelNY, gabjoh

      In 2009 and 2010 there was plenty of this. The Birther movement was in full swing, and every day there seemed to be another horrible quite from the Tea Party. Individual Republicans were damaged when they embraced the stupid, but it didn't stop the party as a whole from winning big.

      Let's not forget that in the Fall of 2010 that there was probably no candidate in the entire country who got more attention than Christine O'Donnell. She was pretty much a walking Dem caricature of Republican insanity. She absolutely cost the GOP the Delaware Senate seat, but I don't think there's any reason to think she had a real impact in any of the other 49 states.

      Contributing Editor, Daily Kos Elections. 24, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-02 (resident).

      by Jeff Singer on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:05:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it has any impact, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I suspect it'll be national because it's something that lots of people might be asked about, especially if it comes up during primary season. It's entirely idiotic, but there's a certain portion of the base that appears to believe all sorts of stupid shit. It goes beyond being confined to one or two areas.

        But of course, this is just speculation.

        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

        by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:09:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If the House Republicans actually held impeachment (0+ / 0-)

        hearings, I think that would be at a different level than all the birther shit, and I do think it would get indignant anti-Republican voters to show up more at the polls.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:54:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That MO Bill is DOA (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bjssp, pademocrat, MichaelNY

      Nixon will veto it, run against Blunt and beat Republicans over the head with it.  The state legislature is the perfect foil for a moderate, competent, popular Democrat.

      29, Hispanic, Current home: MO-05; Born: CA-13; Raised: CA-5; Political Work: KS-03, KS-02; Other work: TX-16

      by killacity on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:17:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a little old (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, lordpet8

    http://thinkprogress.org/...

    But it's a very good expose I think of the movement conservative groups squandered what remaining capitol they had. I think this article explains why Boehner moved past the debt ceiling so quickly and has finally been willing to ignore the radical majority in his caucus to actually get things done.

    "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:58:34 AM PST

    •  There's that old joke (7+ / 0-)

      that goes something like: "A conservative is someone who runs for office saying the government doesnt work. Then they get elected and prove it."

      That's basically what happened with the tea party. They just seem to be anti-policy, any policy, any policy is not conservative enough. Whether they feel that way because they genuinely want something more conservative, or because they cant stand to compromise with Obama and Senate Dems, I dont know, probably the latter. But whatever it is, I think it has frustrated even other Republicans, like Boehner.

      In that way, I think the tea party is very different than the Gingrich-era Republicans, who at least had a set of priorities, Contract with America, that they tried to enact.

      •  I remember reading (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, ArkDem14, KingTag, MichaelNY

        that several of these guys--a majority, perhaps--didn't show up to the introductory session given at Harvard by professor Theda Skocpol. It's not at all a partisan thing, but basically like a walk around the office if you're a new hire or something. It was an indication they weren't interested in governing and actually working with anyone if there ever was one.

        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

        by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:25:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ridiculous Hypocrisy from Peter King? (4+ / 0-)

    Remember when relentless gasbag Peter King became filled with anger and threatened to possibly switch parties because some Republicans said the very notion of government relief for Hurricanes, like Sandy, was objectionable? Rep. Tim Cotton was one such person. King said anyone giving money to Congressional Republicans was "insane." Turns out, all you need is a hawkish background, because King gave $1000 to Tim Cotton, and Cotton didn't even ask.  

    I guess this hardly the most jaw-dropping level of hypocrisy we've ever seen. King's a very big hawk himself, after all. Still, Cotton didn't even ask! What's his reason for doing this?

    From Steve Benen and the NYDN.

    "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

    by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:21:56 AM PST

  •  WV-Sen, Glad to hear! had a feeling this race (9+ / 0-)

    would tighten up soon.

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

    by poopdogcomedy on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:28:07 AM PST

  •  OH-HD 88: Oops (7+ / 0-)
    A longtime Republican in the Ohio House has withdrawn from seeking re-election because he failed to sign his paperwork enough times.

    State Rep. Rex Damschroder of Fremont in northwestern Ohio says he's now checking to see if he can run as a write-in candidate for the seat.

    http://www.whio.com/...
  •  NH-Gov: Possible New Candidate for GOP (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emops, David Nir, MichaelNY

    This linkis chock full o' news. First, it appears Andrew Hemingway might have some competition for the governor's nomination in the form of Walter Havenstein, who the article notes is a "former BAE Systems president and former CEO of Science Applications International Corporation" as well as a former Marine. He's got lots of connections to the state party due to his history of fundraising and activism, the article notes.

    If he runs, wouldn't he have a leg up, since Hemingway is working on a sequel entitled The Morning Cinnamon Bun Also Rises supposedly not their first choice?

    Also, look at the line up headed to New Hampshire in March:

    Scarborough joins a lineup that includes Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Rep. Pete King of New York, former Ambassador John Bolton, 2012 presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Santorum and others.

    ...

    Cruz is the fourth potential 2016 presidential candidate to agree to appear, along with real estate magnate Donald Trump, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who may just try again in '16 himself, is also scheduled to appear.

    Sounds like a good time.

    "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

    by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:47:36 AM PST

    •  *spits out drink* (6+ / 0-)
      Scarborough first floated the idea of running for President in 2012. Last Wednesday, asked about it by radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, he said, "I won't rule anything out."
      •  For the comedy, please, but also (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        because we could see a rotating try out of replacements for him on "Morning Joe." Coming to you live from NYC, "Morning Joe(?) with Mika and...

        1. Pat Robertson?
        2. Rudy Giuliani?
        3. Chris Christie?
        4. Sean Hannity?
        5. Brent Bozell?
        6. Rush Limbaugh?
        7. Alan Keyes?

        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

        by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:58:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Makes me think there is a chance that 2016 GOP (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, bjssp, MichaelNY, JBraden

      lineup could be almost as bad as 2012. I can see Christie, Ryan and Rubio all not running for a variety of reasons. Christie because of the scandal, Ryan because he will be Ways and Means chair, Rubio because he wants to run for re-election.

      Also, maybe Walker doesnt run either.

      Then you are basically left with the names you have there, plus Rick Perry.

  •  Suffolk Comm. Picks Lee Zeldin to Fight Tim Bishop (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setsuna Mudo, ArkDem14, MichaelNY

    What did George Demos do to tick off the local party guys so much? Not sure, but they apparently don't like him and are instead endorsing Lee Zeldin, who ran a relatively decent race against Bishop in 2008:

    “The 1st Congressional District needs one of its own, not someone who’s a part of the bigger establishment, like Tim Bishop or George Demos,” said Jesse Garcia, the chairman of the Brookhaven Town Republican Committee, when reached on Friday, a day after the GOP convention held at the Ramada Inn in Holtsville.
    I am just glad that Altschuler isn't running again. Not that I think he's particularly dangerous, but if I never, ever see a series of dueling ads, one implying Bishop is like Nixon and the other saying Altschuler will personally ship your job to China, it'll be too soon.

    No word yet on who will run for Zeldin's state Senate seat.

    "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

    by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:54:23 AM PST

  •  West Virginia was on the expanded GOTV list (8+ / 0-)

    The DSCC have a plan but I'll need to see some corroboration before I can change the ranking.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:08:45 AM PST

  •  Iowa and Colorado (5+ / 0-)

    Senate races in both look precarious in polling but far less so when you look at the fundraising situation. The blue state losses in 2010 all had well funded Republicans. Ron Johnson pumped millions into his campaign and Toomey and Kirk barely won.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:31:15 AM PST

    •  Braley/Jacobs (0+ / 0-)

      There's no guarantee that Mark Jacobs or Joni Ernst will be the nominee.  Ernst or Jacobs have a shot at defeating Braley.  The perceived frontrunner among activists is Sam Clovis and Clovis can't get  general election votes in Eastern Iowa once he starts his rants against gay adoption or eliminating income taxes for corporations

      IA-2 Born, raised, currently reside.

      by BoswellSupporter on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:53:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  HI-GOV: My concern here is that I dont think (0+ / 0-)

    we have ever seen a poll with strong approval for Abercrombie, at least not recently. We can chalk that up to having little polling from HI in general, or the quirkiness of polling there. But still it worries me.

    Aiona was Lingle's Lt. Gov, and I dont know how popular she is anymore. So maybe Abercrombie can use that to win. But still, I think it will be a close race.

  •  FL-13 Early vote by mail numbers (10+ / 0-)

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

    The Pinellas Supervisor of Elections reports that as of Friday, 44,326 mailed ballots had been returned in the race between Republican David Jolly, Democrat Alex Sink and Libertarian Lucas Overby.

    The numbers show:

    • Republicans sent in 18,786, or roughly 42 percent, of the ballots received so far.

    • Democrats sent in 17,387, or roughly 39 percent, of the ballots received so far.

    • Other voters — which could include independent voters, or members of smaller political parties such as Libertarians, sent in 8,153, or roughly 18 percent, of the ballots received so far.

    ......
    According to the Supervisor of Elections, about 37.1 percent of district's voters are Republicans, 34.7 percent are Democrats and 24 percent have "no party affiliation," sometimes called independents. The rest are in smaller political parties.

    That is actually is not bad for Dems. Republicans normally have a greater turnout in Pinellas county but independents tend to vote Democratic so if the turnout is close advantage should go to Sink.

    Vote Democratic. We're not perfect-but they're NUTS! - Barney Frank

    by Minnesota Mike on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:59:51 AM PST

  •  OR state senate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aamail6

    ...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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:04:40 AM PST

  •  NYGov: Cuomo plans reelection campaign without NYC (11+ / 0-)

    http://nypost.com/...

    The governor’s polling numbers show he will win the city with a huge margin. He knows that, he’s told people that, so he doesn’t think he needs the mayor or city Democrats for political help.
    As a NYC democrat, I may end up voting third party rather than for Cuomo (assuming the spread stays the same against a Republican). He is seriously pissing me off.
    •  Ah (6+ / 0-)

      so Andrew Cuomo is going to run his reelection like Chris Christie did then?

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

      by ehstronghold on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:39:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It could mean a more robust Dem operation upstate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, DCCyclone

      if that's how I'm reading that excerpt.

      “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:51:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I wondered about that. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bythesea, ArkDem14, MichaelNY

        The article says Skelos is his chief ally, but if he absolutely romps it upstate, perhaps he'll have a Democratic senate even with the gerrymander.

        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

        by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But (11+ / 0-)

        knowing Cuomo his own reelection campaign is going to be built around him and just him. Other Democrats be damned especially if it means if Democrats could gain outright control the state senate.

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

        by ehstronghold on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't mean to suggest nth dimensional chess (0+ / 0-)

          is what's happening, but I'm not sure he'd get anywhere if he went after the Republicans that hard. So perhaps this is an indirect way of doing it and getting a Democratic senate.

          Or maybe this is a way of trying to burnish his bipartisan image--not in the sense of Christie running up the score in a shady/illegal way, but rather him focusing on areas where he feel he can spend his time wisely. Off the top of my head, though, I am not sure how much untapped potential there is for a Democrat in the city versus upstate.

          "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

          by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:11:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, that's probably more likely (0+ / 0-)

          I'm just kind of tired in the brain after a test I took earlier this afternoon.

          “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

          by KingofSpades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:26:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Cuomo is getting on my nerves (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, betelgeux, KingTag, MichaelNY

      He's going to win reelection handily, in the high 60s possibly and he's acting like he's in the fight of his life.

      He's acting like Chris Christie except that he's a Democrat in a Democrat friendly state.

      I can't wait for this guy to run for President in the future and get demolished in the primary.

      •  He doesn't bother me as much as (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JDJase, lordpet8

        he bothers some here. Maybe it's because, on most days, I am closer to him ideologically, at least in sentiment, than others are, or maybe it's because I explain away his moves with the maps with some degree of cynicism.

        Whatever the case, I am glad BDB is pushing leftwards, at least rhetorically.

        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

        by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:39:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But like others have said in this convo (4+ / 0-)

          he bothers me in that he only cares about himself and getting himself ahead which is another way hes just like Chris Christie (disregarding the possible illegal things Christie might be involved in).

          I wouldn't have much of a problem if he was trying to be moderate and be buddy buddy with Republicans in a moderate/purple state.

          But New York is a blue state, and solidly so.

          •  Cuomo has been good for NY (5+ / 0-)

            You may not like him ideologically but he has been a very good Governor for the state compared to the past Govs they faced he's a breathe of fresh air. The budget is balanced with a surplus and the economy is a lot better and is trying to the tax burden on small business and the middle class I can't fault him for that. He's with us on most issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. he even raised taxes on the wealthy in his first year in office.

            •  You could say the same for Jerry Brown (5+ / 0-)

              except Brown makes it clear he wants Dems to run the show.

              “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

              by KingofSpades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:17:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  true but the GOP in CA was something else (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KingofSpades

                Who knew we could get so much dysfunction from party that still could throw wrenches in the system despite being in the minority.

                “The Republican party can’t be the party that thinks one of the biggest problems is that there’s too much love in the world.” - Alex Castellanos

                by lordpet8 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 02:45:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, so true (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LordMike, bjssp, MichaelNY

                  Republicans in NY are either rather constructive in the Senate and irrelevant in the Assembly.  In California, the GOP in both houses was downright destructive.  Late budgets, horrible cuts, radio jocks going ape** if any Repub steps up to compromise in good faith, and marathon sessions.

                  “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

                  by KingofSpades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 02:55:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  California is so incredibly polarized (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    Our Democrats tend to be very liberal and our Republicans very conservative.

                    21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                    politicohen.com
                    Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal, not progressive. For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.
                    UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city.

                    by jncca on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:11:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's not quite the case. (0+ / 0-)

                      Republicans brought the state to the brink with the holding of budgets hostage for years and years and demanding worse and worse cuts as schools got worse and worse.

                      I can see a dual problem with the parties in NY and NJ, but not so in California.  Republicans wrung the state like a goose while the business conservatives who sometimes had valid complaints like Roger Niello were only a fringe number.

                      I'd say Jerry Brown is an infinitely better tool at moderating Dems than Republicans are.  The latter have no interest in governing, only destruction.

                      “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

                      by KingofSpades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:19:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Eh, not so much constructive (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gabjoh

                    as just interested in maintaining power. The Republicans in the New York State Senate do their best to screw New York City and heavily black neighborhoods all the time, but they let as much get through as they have to to also get funding for their constituents and contributors.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:20:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  He also gave the State Senate to the Republicans (11+ / 0-)

              Unlike Jerry Brown.

              •  With the way some of the NY Democratic State (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KingofSpades, lordpet8, ArkDem14

                Senator were acting the last time they were in charge, I don't blame him one bit. Sorry, but more NY state Senator were arrested than defeated for election since 2007, I don't mind it so much.

                •  That's the one ironclad point for his disconnect (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lordpet8, MichaelNY

                  with the state Dems.  But there are good Dems too, ones that could use his help, like these: Cecilia Tkaczyk (who won a district Republicans drew for themselves), Ted O'Brien, and Terry Gipson.  Also, whoever the Dems run for the odious Greg Ball's SD.

                  “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

                  by KingofSpades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:49:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And allowing them to draw their own districts (6+ / 0-)

                  that insulate them from challengers helps in that regard how...?

                  If we had a 38/25 Democratic majority as a court-drawn map easily could have elected, we wouldn't have had to rely on corrupt pieces of crap for a 1 seat majority like we did in 2009 and 2010.

                •  Don't buy it (8+ / 0-)

                  A partisan dynamic helps Cuomo with what he wants to do, i.e. maintaining above 60% approval ratings for the next two years (and hoping that Hillary Clinton declines a presidential bid). Republicans take some of the heat off him and also allow him plenty of moments to be a gracious compromiser, which is popular with the public and with pundits. They also allow him an excuse not to run too fast on issues where he would have to take polarizing stances. Plus, Skelos is his bud!

                  Just about the last thing Cuomo would want is to face a unified Dem legislature. For one thing, he would now have to spend all his time adjudicating disputes among Democrats, which would create losers and grind down those 60% numbers real quick there. For another, his ties with NY Republicans are stronger than his ties with progressives, and there's a good chance he'd be much less effective in such a scenario. I'm not a huge fan of Cuomo because I think he's obviously just trying to coast until he can inevitably run for president, and I suspect his tacit blessing for the "coalition" was thought of only from this perspective.

                  •  Some Govs like split control (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LordMike, WisJohn, MichaelNY

                    They can tout their 'bipartisan credentials' and how they can work together with the other side and that looks good with voters. I'm sure Sandoval and Martinez appreciate having a Dem legislature because they don't have to sign off on any crazy GOP bills there's a reason why their so popular they haven't had to sign anything controversial.

            •  Eh (12+ / 0-)

              He's a business Dem running the state where labor-left and liberal politics are strongest in the nation. Nobody would get elected in NY without Cuomo's social issue portfolio, but it's entirely possible to imagine someone with more progressive economic policies holding the post.

              The comparison to Brown is interesting. There are definitely similarities, but I think Brown's moderation is part of his vision for governance, while Cuomo's is tactical triangulation to preserve his power and positioning. Just my opinion, but I trust Moonbeam's integrity more.

              •  Yeah, Brown is also acting in the interest of (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ArkDem14, MichaelNY

                preventing the confirmation of the fears that Republicans have sowed for years that Dem supermajority = taxing, spending orgy.  It also helps protect their supermajority's chances.  And it's paid off, the legislature's approval ratings are the highest they've been since the start of the '00s.

                “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

                by KingofSpades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:52:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Absolutely right (4+ / 0-)

                Your second paragraph is spot on.

                Brown cares about governing and advancing the state of California. The Dems in Cali also need 2/3 in both houses to advance their agenda. In New York all you need is a majority.

                Cuomo has his own agenda and that is making himself look good.

            •  I'm more on Cuomo's side on policy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              than on party loyalty, but I think a lot of people who are rightly angry over the party loyalty stuff get even angrier because he's not as liberal as he might be.

              "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

              by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:28:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe we can write in each other's names. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tk421, sapelcovits, Jorge Harris, gabjoh

      I'm totally down if you are.

      Or would David Nir like two votes for governor of NY?

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:41:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm planning on voting third party (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        if only they can get five percent for an automatic ballot line to run in local/state house races in NYC.

        "Pillows, but no sleep / Feathers, but no birds." | Pro-transit young black urban progressive (not liberal) | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | NJ-05 | Yard signs don't vote. | $15 and a union!

        by gabjoh on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:49:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see what's wrong with this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BoswellSupporter

      Cuomo's polling numbers are absolutely correct. He'll win NYC in a huge landslide, just as all statewide Dems do. Why focus on it when you can focus on swingier parts of the state?

      It seems to me that people from NYC truly think that the world revolves around them. I'm not a fan of Cuomo, but at least he realizes that the world does not revolve around NYC.

      (-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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:33:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sounds like he's just like Pataki (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sapelcovits, gabjoh

      And if so, screw him. Someone from the city should run in a primary against him in that case.

      “Every program he has for his re-election is geared to upstate, and that involves taking money away from the city,’’ the Democrat, an important de Blasio ally, continued.
      New York City has been screwed over for decades. A Democrat doing that is an abomination, really repugnant (and I'm using that not only as a synonym for "disgusting," but in its original Latin origins in the word "pugnare," "to fight," as something that makes me want to punch him).

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:15:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  NY-State: Marijuana legalization 57-39 (7+ / 0-)

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

    New York State voters support 88 - 9 percent the legalization of medical marijuana, with overwhelming support from every group, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

    Voters also support 57 - 39 percent the legalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal use, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

  •  I spent a lot of work on my recent diary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, VAPersian, aamail6, wwmiv

    on how the House would have gone if the 1990s lines were locked in forever.  Check it out.

    21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
    politicohen.com
    Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal, not progressive. For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.
    UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city.

    by jncca on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:43:12 AM PST

  •  AR: Voters like Obamacare, except when you (13+ / 0-)

    call it Obamacare.

    Talk Business-Hendrix College shows a 48-33 support for continuing the Private Option.

    Support falls to 35-39 when you mention Obamacare.

    I'm kind of surprised Obamacare even polls that well in AR among LV.

    I really hope the legislature doesnt end the private option, but if they do, I hope Pryor mentions frequently on the campaign trail that they kicked 85k off their insurance.

    link

  •  UT legislator wants to move presidential primary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, lordpet8

    to the beginning of the year, before NH and Iowa.

    Apparently he (newly appointed state rep Jon Cox) thinks he can have some leg-way in doing this, since the primary voting would be done online. And he says that Utah is ignored by everyone anyway, so the RNC cutting their delegates would not be a strong threat against this.

    Personally I think it's a stupid idea. What do you guys think?

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

    by Gygaxian on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55:46 AM PST

    •  I'm all for some sort of lottery for both sides. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gygaxian, emops, betelgeux, sulthernao, gabjoh

      Randomly assign the states into 5 or 10 groups, then hold the primaries on the same day for all states in that group. Hell, make it like when they do the lottery during the news, when we pick balls out of a basket or something, just for kicks.

      It might have to be slightly controlled so that you don't get a bunch of states with similar profiles grouped together, but one way or another, you'd get a much more diverse mix of primaries going first. Imagine how much more interesting it'd be to see, say, Colorado, Delaware, Alabama, Wisconsin, and Georgia all having a primary on the same day, the first set to be held that year.

      I also think it'd do a lot to increase political participation, especially if we're still going to have the Electoral College.

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:18:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sounds like a good idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gygaxian

      For starters, good idea to recognize it is the 21st century.

      All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian. -- Pat Paulsen

      by tommypaine on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:55:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh sure, the online bit is awesome (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike

        It's just that I think Utah's attempt to jump the line when even they acknowledge that it won't be seriously contested is silly.

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

        by Gygaxian on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:58:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing to lose (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LordMike, Jervill, Gygaxian, gabjoh

          No one cares now.  No one has ever cared about Utah's primary.

          This idea would not only change that, but it would be innovative, which makes it a double winner.

          Additionally, delegates have not actually mattered in nearly forty years.  So losing half or even all the votes is of no consequence.  What you want, as a state, is candidates to spend money there and take the issues of your state seriously.  An Internet primary allows you to jump the 20th century caucus and in person voting states that think they are entitled to be first.

          Anything that messes with the idiotic monopoly of Iowa and NH is a great idea, especially if it comes from a state no one pays any attention to anyway and thus can't be penalized in any meaningful way.

          All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian. -- Pat Paulsen

          by tommypaine on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:25:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  eh (0+ / 0-)

            this may just be me not wanting to break the law of New Hampshire, but I'd rather not have the Utah Democratic party have an outsized influence on the nomination process.  It's not much more diverse than New Hampshire, but the party hasn't won a major statewide office (senator/gov] since 1984 and probably won't win one for decades.  I can see the logic of changing states, but not to Utah.  Somewhere like ohio, Delaware, or virginia, a state that is somewhat competitive for both parties and similar to the nation as a whole.

            NH-01. First time living in NH, waiting for the candidates to start a courting.

            by DougTuttle on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 02:11:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Knowing the Utah Dems (0+ / 0-)

              Yeah, we'd probably mess it up. We are most certainly not representative of the state as a whole (though most of our statewide candidates tend to be white, male, Mormon moderates), and we have a long losing streak, as you've said. Even places like Kansas and Arizona have had Democratic governors/senators in more recent times then we have.

              I'd like to see some sort of serious effort to revamp the party, or at least improve our messaging and candidates. I don't think that the party base will back down on LGBT/other social issues or be willing to share their party with the majority Mormons (though those polls taken in early January make it look like moderate LGBT issues aren't so much of a losing issue), so candidates and messaging are probably the best way to go. If only we could find some kind of financial and infrastructure support...

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

              by Gygaxian on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:37:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  It's never going to work (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike

      New Hampshire has a law that says that their primary must be at least a week before any other state's primary. I'd hope that states would have learned by now not to mess with Bill Gardner.

      My personal view on the primary is that Iowa and New Hampshire should have their early caucus and primary, and then Nevada and South Carolina should have their primaries later in January, and then every other state should have their primaries on the same day in February.

      (-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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:39:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obviously an Internet primary would trump NH (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gabjoh

        You can move up an Internet primary with a moments notice.  A polling place primary like NH would have no chance to compete.

        The Utah idea takes into account that NH would never let them be first with a polling place primary, but any Internet primary will always be able to beat a polling place one.  

        All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian. -- Pat Paulsen

        by tommypaine on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 05:37:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can't have a primary entirely on the Internet (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisJohn, jncca, BoswellSupporter, Avedee

          First, that would disenfranchise anyone who doesn't have Internet access.

          Second, how would the administrators of the election communicate to the voters exactly where to go on the Internet in order to vote?

          And three, there's always the problem of hacking. I wouldn't trust the results of any election entirely on the Internet.

          So, moral of the story, having an election entirely on the Internet is a really bad idea.

          (-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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:16:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Indiana State passes HJR-3 (6+ / 0-)

    in the same form as the House did. This officially puts it off the 2014 ballot. The legislature will have to pass an identical version of this resolution in either 2015 or 16, and it may be moot by then if the Supreme Court acts by then.

    It passed 32-17. Sen. Sue Landske (R-Cedar Lake) did not vote due to being excused for health reasons. The Senate vote in 2011 was 40-10. Republicans voting no were Sen. Mike Delph (R-Carmel), Phil Boots (R-Crawfordsville), Pete Miller (R-Danville), Vanetta Becker (R-Evansville), and Ron Alting (R-Lafayette). One Democrat voted yes- Sen. Richard Young (D-Milltown). Delph voted no as a protest for not placing anti-civil union language in the resolution.

    "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:04:23 PM PST

    •  So in 3 years (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, propjoe, MichaelNY, gabjoh

      Despite being a "smaller" ban, the margin dropped exactly in half, from +30 to +15. The times, they are a-changin'....

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

      by David Nir on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 02:14:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is correct (5+ / 0-)

        and the House went from 70-26 to 57-40, despite a 9 seat GOP gain in 2012.

        "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 02:53:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, good point (4+ / 0-)

          What was the D-R split in the Senate in 2011? And what is it now?

          I think it'll be very dicey to re-pass this in two years (if the SCOTUS doesn't make it moot). Pressure will be way more intense as well. The sense I got early on was that organizers were really expecting to fight this one out at the ballot box this fall—the lege was a foregone conclusion.

          But things quickly snowballed in our favor, so I think the pro-equality forces are going to feel way stronger at the outset of the next legislative session, and they'll act accordingly.

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

          by David Nir on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:24:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The senate was the same 37-13 as now (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sulthernao, MichaelNY

            but they have a good shot at expanding their majority this year thanks to their gerrymander and only half the seats being up each cycle.

            •  I think that the Senate has several seats in play (3+ / 0-)

              SD-06- Sen. Sue Landske (R-Cedar Lake) is retiring. Republican Rep. Rick Niemeyer (R-Lowell) is the favorite, but Dems are not conceding it. Likely R
              SD-15- Sen. Tom Wyss (R-Ft. Wayne) is retiring. A who's who of Ft. Wayne Republicans, but this is the least GOP seat in Allen County. Dems may have a chance if the GOP side gets nasty. Lean R
              SD-29- Sen. Mike Delph (R-Carmel) in complete meltdown in a mixed Indy/Carmel/Zionsville seat, which is not a culture war capital. Dems have a descent candidate, and Republicans might not mind if Delph didn't come back in 2015. Tossup
              SD-45- Freshman Sen. Jim Smith (R-Charlestown) is facing a very strong challenge from former Jefferson County Commissioner Julie Berry. Tossup
              SD-46- A rematch in the Floyd County, plus Clarksville/Jeff seat. Sen. Ron Grooms (R-Jeffersonville) faces Floyd County Commissioner Chuck Freighburger, who managed to survive 2012 in Floyd County, not a small feat for a Dem there. Lean R
              SD-47- Sen. Richard Young (D-Milltown) saw his seat move a few points more Republican. GOP has a primary between Harris Whitis from Harrison County and Erin Houchin from Washington County. State GOP wants Houchin, and she has several big endorsements, and also works for Sen. Dan Coats. Tossup versus Houchin, Lean D versus Whitis
              SD-48- Sen. Lindel Hume (D-Princeton) is retiring. Dems landed Dubois County Commissioner Larry Volmer, while the GOP will fight between SD-47 2010 nominee Ted Metzger and Rep. Mark Messmer (R-Jasper). Tossup with Volmer, Lean D with Metzger
              Hopefully, Dems may get challengers to Sen. Jim Tomes (R-Evansville) and Doug Eckerty (R-Muncie). Those are winnable seats. They may also see if Sen. Jim Waterman (R-Shelburne) loses his primary. If he does, that seat could come into play.

              "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:10:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  VPAP has 2013 statewides by HD/SD districts! (6+ / 0-)

    “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

    by KingofSpades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:07:19 PM PST

  •  Cuomo tweet hinting at something? (7+ / 0-)
    Which state had the most governors go on to become President? #NY, with four: Martin Van Buren, Glover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR.

    Link

    Or maybe I'm just overlooking this...

  •  MD Gov Poll (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, pademocrat, MichaelNY

    Even with some growing anti-Brown sentiment, I dont think Gansler's free fall will help Mizeur much. But if she does manage to come in second over Gansler, it will be a huge embarrassment to him. We still have  several months until the primary in June, but even with 40% undecided it's going to be an uphill climb for Gansler to become competitive, let alone stay competitive. There's a reason Brown hasn't done much campaigning. He can coast to the nomination at the point, but he has enough cash to bury Gansler if his numbers start ticking up on internals.

    •  I don't understand who's still supporting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gabjoh

      Gansler, and why Mizeur hasn't already passed him.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:35:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because she has zero profile outside her district (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gabjoh, MichaelNY

        Gansler is probably at or very close to his floor at 14 (barring some truly horrific scandal). I think Mizeur is planning on using the session of the General Assembly to try to raise her profile. She requested Brown & Gansler come testify in the hearings on raising the minimum wage and pot reform. It behooves Brown not to debate at this point, because the policy differences between the three are not all that different (Gansler is by far the least liberal of the group though) and debates would only legitimize Gansler's campaign. And without debates, I'm not sure how Mizeur ups her profile.

  •  Interesting... from that MD-Gov poll (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY

    incumbent governor Martin O'Malley has just a 45/42 approval rating in a state Obama won with 63% of the vote. Ignoring the 2016 primary implications of that (you can read all about that part of the poll at the link), I wonder if O'Malley's relative lack of popularity will be damaging to Brown whom he picked as a running mate and was not elected on his own. Brown has already taken some hits for the rather crappy roll out of the state's healthcare website/exchange and that 35% in the poll is really not all that imposing. Others have had him much closer to 50%.

    •  O'Malley's approvals in MD (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

      have always been rather anemic. It's not that people don't like him, but he's had some bad press lately (prison scandal & exchange rollout being the biggest) and he's being rather hands off in governing lately, taking several trade trips in the past year. And he gets hit on taxes in the local media constantly, particularly in the DC suburbs that are always comparing MD's taxes to VA's.

    •  O'Malley was never really that popular (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, DCCyclone, MichaelNY, pademocrat

      His approval rating always were so-so I think it's the taxes. He raised and implemented a lot of new taxes as Governor and that's not very popular even in deep blue states. Just look at California, Washington state and how many times they vote down tax increases at the ballot.

  •  voters as percent of (2010) population in 2008 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JacobNC, MichaelNY

    here it is by each state:

    Maine 0.55
    New Hampshire 0.54
    Minnesota 0.549
    Wisconsin 0.525
    Vermont 0.519
    Michigan 0.507
    Iowa 0.505
    Montana 0.498
    Ohio 0.496
    Missouri 0.489

    Colorado 0.478
    Oregon 0.477
    Pennsylvania 0.474
    North Dakota 0.472
    Massachusetts 0.471
    South Dakota 0.469
    Virginia 0.465
    Connecticut 0.461
    Delaware 0.46
    Alaska 0.459
    Maryland 0.456
    Washington 0.454
    North Carolina 0.452
    Wyoming 0.452
    Rhode Island 0.448
    Florida 0.447
    DC 0.442
    NJ 0.441
    Alabama 0.439
    Nebraska 0.439
    Mississippi 0.435
    Kansas 0.434
    Louisiana 0.433
    Illinois 0.431
    National Average: 0.426
    Indiana 0.425
    Kentucky 0.421
    Idaho 0.42
    South Carolina 0.415
    Tennessee 0.41
    Georgia 0.406
    New Mexico 0.403
    New York 0.394
    Oklahoma 0.39
    West Virginia 0.386
    Arkansas 0.373
    California 0.365
    Arizona 0.36
    Nevada 0.358
    Utah 0.347
    Hawaii 0.333
    Texas 0.322

    The bold states are the top ten highest and lowest percents. As a rule of thumb, it seems the closer one gets to Canada, the more voters there are. The glaring exception is NY.

    •  Utah at 34.7%? Ouch. (0+ / 0-)

      We need to fix that. I wonder if the non-voters here are more Democratic? I'd assume most are, since voting is pretty much considered a civic duty by the majority church (and as a rule, Mormons tend to be Republican), and Dems probably don't see the point in voting in any county besides Salt Lake.

      I also wonder how much the Utah Dem bid to register 40,000 new voters by November 2014 will change the numbers...

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

      by Gygaxian on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:42:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You could get just about the same spread (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      by taking the Census's data on those over the age of 18 in each state.  More than anything, this simply shows the "older" states and the "younger" states.

  •  Ken Buck pathetically tries to appeal to women (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY

    The Daily Caller has a ridiculous piece on Buck trying to show his 'softer side' and as a 'female-friendly' candidate. Predictably he has some random women praise him in a lengthy video testimonial and is trying to neutralize the 'Democrat's War on Women rhetoric'.

  •  Presidential Trivia the OK President (7+ / 0-)

    Martin Van Buren is often credited as the father of the Democratic. While Democrats are often referred to as the party of Jackson, it was Van Buren who capitalized on making use of Jackson's popularity and building up a party that could outlast the presidency of Jackson.

    He was from Old Kinderhook(OK), NY. His supporters coined the term "OK"
    http://www.history.com/...

    “The Republican party can’t be the party that thinks one of the biggest problems is that there’s too much love in the world.” - Alex Castellanos

    by lordpet8 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:15:53 PM PST

    •  He also (5+ / 0-)

      had terrible luck, as the Panic of 1837 happened right after he entered office, and was partly (if not mostly) due to Jackson's destruction of the Bank of the U.S.

      Is there any other president whose record has aged worse than Jackson's? On the positive side, he did manage to avoid a secession crisis in South Carolina in the 1830s and expanded the vote, but when you think of what was euphemistically called "Indian removal," the appointment of Dred Scott author Roger Taney to the Supreme Court, and the shambles he made of state banking policy, I think it's hard to give a net positive rating to the guy.

      •  Jackson was quite a character (7+ / 0-)

        He nearly died during the revolutionary war, the British soldiers spared his life since he was just a boy at the time.

        He knew how to duel in a rather cruel way. I remember a history teacher telling me a story about how he let a guy shoot first at the duel (you only get one shot). Jackson was counting on the very good odds that that bullet would miss a vital organ (as often was the case someone is shooting in a hurry). Once he was shot, Jackson took his turn, he had all the time he needed to aim unlike his opponent.

        I actually think the National Bank would have survived had not Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle not tried to use it as a political liability against Jackson. The Bank wasn't even due to be renewed yet either. Jackson would have been rather ambivalent toward the bank. It was knowing his opponents supported it that made him feel he had to oppose it.

        As for Jackson's historical standing it seems he gets a lot of shine from his belief in the union and opposition to secession or even nullification. In that sense he believed in a federal government over states rights.
        He's far from ever being a "good" president but he is indeed a fascinating president to study.

        As for other presidents I know Harding's approvals and standings fell crashing down after he died. Only then did all the corruption come out taint him.

        “The Republican party can’t be the party that thinks one of the biggest problems is that there’s too much love in the world.” - Alex Castellanos

        by lordpet8 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 04:01:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Indian Removal was a thing of the time (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8

        The settlers were moving in anyway with the support of the local state governments. Jackson did not remove the Indians per se - rather he declined to use the Army to enforce their absolutist demands and force a civil war. Instead he offered to mediate. The Cherokee turned him down, preferring to go to the court, at which point he washed his hands of the situation and declined to fight a civil war to keep them in control of 35% of the land in Georgia with 7% of the population.

        Was the choice moral? Perhaps not, but from the perspective of the health of the United States, the continued existence of the country, and probably the long-term good of everyone it was the right one. Fighting a civil war would have resolved nothing even if you won, as you still would have had an untenable political/land situation in the south with the Indians refusing to sell and the southerners resentful and rebellious.

        Jackson did handle the actual removal horribly, and failed to properly enforce his own later efforts at compensation and protection.

        •  TIL (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stephen Wolf, Stephen N, MichaelNY, gabjoh

          human rights violations are ok if it's a thing of the time.

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

          by sapelcovits on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:27:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well if we're going to say that the times (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lordpet8, JBraden

            and cultural differences don't matter, we will have to condemn everyone in history who came before us. They all did things we abhor.

            ...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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:04:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's a difference between people who act (5+ / 0-)

              within a racist or otherwise abhorent system and people who take affirmative actions to further acts of oppression. It's fair to excuse someone like John Adams (who implicitly supported a system which perpetuated slavery and committed genocide against Indians but did not actively seek to bolster slavery or Indian genocide) while condemning someone like Andrew Jackson (who actively participated in Indian genocide) or Jefferson Davis (who actively worked to uphold slavery).

              27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

              by okiedem on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:12:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sure we can find a great number of things (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lordpet8, MichaelNY

                Adams did that would be disgusting today too. I know I've read some, though I don't recall them. I don't think there are many in history who couldn't be condemned for something or another just because of changing mores.

                ...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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:30:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  While I don't believe in historical moralizing (4+ / 0-)

                  (there's no need to wring our hands of Genghis Khan at this point) I just don't think we should be holding out people who engaged in genocide or perpetuated slavery as honorable people who deserve national adoration.

                  27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                  by okiedem on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:39:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I can agree with that, (0+ / 0-)

                    but why draw the line there? Why not other atrocities or outrages? What makes those merit "historical moralizing" and others not?

                    ...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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:07:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There are particularly egregious abuses (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Stephen Wolf

                      And it's worth noting those which faced some opposition at the time. A good example is the policies of Christopher Columbus, and even more so his son, toward the native people of Hispaniola. There was no unified support for those policies. He was condemned by at least one Spanish priest.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:46:56 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  levig's entire point originally (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, Stephen Wolf

              (at least as I understood it) was that Jackson's legacy is disgusting when viewed through a modern lens. in that sense the "but all my friends were bigots too!" defense doesn't help him much.

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

              by sapelcovits on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:26:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  If there is one thing US history (5+ / 0-)

            has taught me is there was no perfect president without flaws as they were all human.

            If I tried to apply very strict principles of good moral character to all the presidents I don't think anyone would get higher than A-, so not even Washington, Lincoln or FDR would get an A/A+ in my book.

            It's rather hard to compare presidents from the 19th century to our era today anyways. Jefferson pushed for castration law on gays in his state of Virginia (if one didn't do more research they wouldn't know that was Jefferson trying to liberalize the sodomy laws in VA where the current punishment was death. He failed by the way the Virginia legislature preferred the death penalty)

            Are some presidents way worse than others? sure!

            “The Republican party can’t be the party that thinks one of the biggest problems is that there’s too much love in the world.” - Alex Castellanos

            by lordpet8 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:46:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Washington definitely doesn't get that high (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lordpet8, gabjoh, sacman701, JBraden

              He was a slaveowner, and one of his slaves was so depressed at his condition that he killed himself. Moreover, Washington traveled to Virginia every so often in order to avoid having to free his slaves, and pursued one who escaped to Maine. It is true that he tried to have his slaves released from captivity upon his death, but his wife certainly did not.

              In spite of that, I think that Washington was probably our second-greatest president after Lincoln, because had he not indignantly rejected being made King of America, and had he not volunteered to step down and preside over a peaceful transfer of power to another man, US history would have been very different.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:58:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Technically (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          It would not have been a civil war, as Indians were outside the body politic. Civil wars are between body politic factions who claim to be rightful representatives of the entire body politic.

          24 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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:31:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Meh so the US Civil War wasn't a civil war then? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gabjoh

            The Confederacy wasn't claiming to be the rightful government of the entire country but was rather trying to secede claiming a unique identity from the rest of the country (read: slavery).

            27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

            by okiedem on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:49:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The US Civil War /is/ a civil war (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Because they both claimed to be the rightful sovereign insofar as the body politic is concerned over the southern people and land.

              24 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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:07:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The North didn't believe there was (0+ / 0-)

                a Southern body politic. I don't understand the difference between Southerners who were under US jurisdiction (but thought they should not be) and Indian tribes who were under Federal and Georgia jurisdiction but thought they should not be subject to some of the sovereign's laws. If anything, the Indian war was closer to a civil war than was the US civil war since the Indian tribes were not seeking to form an independent country.

                27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                by okiedem on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:15:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  FYI I do sort of get what you're saying though (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwmiv, sulthernao, MichaelNY

            the difference between a civil war and a foreign war is that  civil war is usually thought to be between two entities within the same country or political unit while a foreign war is between two different countries or political units. Although Indian tribes were considered separate countries in the very earliest days of the country, even by Jackson's time that was no longer considered to be the case. From then to this day Indian tribes are considered neither a subset of the federal or state governments nor a truly foreign entity. Instead they have a unique, intermediate status which is hard to fully define.

            27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

            by okiedem on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:58:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's exactly what I'm saying (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              But there's an important insight that comes from the name "civil" war itself. The reason we call them civil wars is because whoever the two sides are must have some legal, political, or moral claim to be representative of the civil society (the body politic) therein.

              In this case, Indian Americans would have had no legal, political, or moral claim to represent civil society then understood. They were effectively outside the body politic of the United States though operating within the systemic confines of a body politic that they were excluded from. Thus, it would have been something more akin to a genocide (and, well, what actually happened was genocide as well) than a civil war.

              24 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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:16:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's a gray area though (0+ / 0-)

                a minority ethnic group seeking autonomy or secession is distinct from a political struggle for control over a central government. I think most people would view it as closer to such a conflict than to a war between nation states.

                27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                by okiedem on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:19:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  It would have been with the White Settlers (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sacman701

            Along with the state of Georgia, which would have enjoyed popular sympathy. It would have been fought by a southern-officer-ed army whose loyalty was needed against South Carolina. At best it would have established the legal authority of a Federalist Supreme Court, and it would have done nothing to actually resolve the Native American situation in the south, which was that a tiny minority incapable of defending themselves owned an enormous amount of land that they refused to sell, but demanded that Washington protect them from the local population.

            Jackson did not ignore the Supreme Court. He declined to use the US Army to enforce it in a manner that would almost certain have led to a military conflict with Georgia - namely to arrest and deport the White settlers and Georgia militia.

            The world was very different in 1836 not just in terms of acceptable views, but also in terms of technology. Today the idea of state militia ignoring a federal army is absurd - in 1836, Georgia probably had almost as many troops, they were almost as well-armed, and they could expect volunteers from almost every state in the south.

            It was a bad idea which is why Jackson tried to mediate between the two sides. When that failed, he washed his hands of the whole situation.

            •  Interesting explanation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BenjaminDisraeli

              Thanks.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:36:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  With Hindsight (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                Its an interesting question as to whether he would have done differently if he could have. But at the time its doubtful that anyone in the Presidency could have done much different. As awful as it sounds, it was impossible to use force without national popular support, and what support the Cherokee had was in the wrong part of the country, namely New England and New Jersey, and it was made up of such anti-Jackson Whigs that they might as easily have shifted their criticisms of Jackson from his lack of support for the court back towards the "King Andrew I".

                Had a Whig been in office like Adams, they would have faced a united South, and probably a united West(concerned about the precedent set in their own cases).

      •  I think expanding the vote was great for (5+ / 0-)

        the American political system.  Of course it was only for white men, but in those days it was a very populist/progressive move.

        Jackson has a lot of negatives but still, some positives, and I don't think you can rank him below horribly incompetent presidents like Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson.

    •  I am upset with Van Buren (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, Audrid, lordpet8, LordMike

      I am a National Parks buff and have one of those Passport books, so if any of you have one, you know that you quickly become absolutely obsessed with collecting more and more stamps. I had a free flight and went to Albany and got to spend three days and two nights in that region (I spent one day in NYC via the Metro North from Poughkeepsie). On my last day, I cut my time at Hyde Park short to visit the Martin Van Buren NHS, and found it was closed for the season, depriving me of a stamp in the North Atlantic Region.

      "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 Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 06:19:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Etymology of OK (0+ / 0-)

      There are various theories advanced, but one thing that's for certain is that the word already existed when Van Buren was running for president. Have a look here.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:41:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  WI AD-88: Another 50-50 seat opens... (16+ / 0-)

    Rep. John Klenke (R-Green Bay) is unexpectedly resigning after two terms. Klenke rode in on the 2010 wave, defeating Democratic Assemblyman James Soletski 51%-49%. Mitt Romney here 50%-49%, and Tommy Thompson just 49%-48%. Democrats tend to do slightly better at the more local level in Brown County, so expect a nail-biter election, especially as Klenke only received 52% in 2012 against a very low-profile opponent.

    The 88th District consists of eastern Green Bay and De Pere, and eastern suburban towns of Title Town.

    Amazingly, the fight might have already formed. The Republican is John Macco of Ledgeview: a businessman who challenged State Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) and lost 54%-46%, about one point behind the President.

    The Democrats also have an elected official: Dan Robinson, a Brown County Board Supervisor from the more center-conservative De Pere.

    I think we might have a toss-up on our hands here!

    http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...

    "Go Forth in Love and Peace" --Be Kind to Dogs -- And Vote Democratic" --Dying words of Senator Thomas Eagleton, 2007

    by BlueSasha on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 05:04:04 PM PST

  •  Mellman (7+ / 0-)

    Small point.  Mellman, while a fine Democratic pollster, did not poll for Sen. Mazie Hirono's US Senate campaign last cycle.  Pete Brodnitz of Benenson Strategy Group did.  BSG is also polling for Colleen Hanabusa's Senate campaign.

  •  Florida misc (9+ / 0-)

    FL-Gov: Instead running away from Obama, Crist is running towards Obama and is embracing him.

     He's going to be the nominee, I have no doubt about that, but he has to shore up his left flank, and convince Dems who are skeptical about him, that he is indeed one of us.

    Alex Sink ponies up to Charlie Crist, and donates to him. Whatever problems Sink had with Crist since his conversion, it looks like she has put that behind her.

    FL-13: Another case of Republican hypocritically crying foul, when they do the same thing with ads.

    And Jolly touting in my opinion meaningless endorsements. As if these mayors are going to help him win the race.

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

    by BKGyptian89 on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 05:13:58 PM PST

  •  Harold Ford Jr. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32

    I thought I heard something recently about him running for NY-02 is this true?

  •  Full HI Poll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/...

    Tulsi Gabbard with 76/7 approval rating!  Only slightly less popular than God.  This includes 61/13 approval from Republicans.

    Charles Djou and Duke Aiona both have positive approval ratings among Democrats.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site