Skip to main content


Paul Simon - "The Obvious Child"

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 (5+ / 0-)

    Editor, Daily Kos Elections

    by James L on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 07:38:38 PM PDT

  •  How many counties will Quinn carry this time? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY, Alibguy

    He only won three last time and still won, we could realistically see a map with only Cook County blue.

    •  Little Egypt is still blue. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, JGibson, sulthernao

      He could try to make inroads in the Quad City region this time.

      “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:06:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He'll probably at least win Alexander County (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, MichaelNY, pademocrat

      Alexander County contains Cairo, at the very southern tip of the state; it's heavily black, with a significantly southern character, and is very inelastic. Quinn won it by over 4% in 2010, and it was the only county in Illinois where Obama did better in 2012 than in 2008. David Miller, the Democrat in the 2010 Comptroller race, won Alexander County by 5% even while losing every other county except Cook, and losing statewide to Judy Baar Topinka by 12%.

    •  He won four (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, jj32, MichaelNY

      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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:26:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cook, Jackson, St. Clair, and Alexander. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades

        I have a feeling he'll win Rock Island, Champaign, Peoria, and Madison, in addition to the four mentioned.

        •  Where do you get that feeling? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Has Quinn been trying to appeal outside Chicagoland lately?

          “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 09:06:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cook, St. Clair, Madison, Alexander, and Sangamon (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, KingofSpades

            Doubt he wins Champaign as the county is very heavily red outside of Urbana-Champaign...where turnout will be low b/c of college students not voting.

            •  Wouldn't it make sense to target them? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, KingofSpades

              "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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:58:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL, not very much, no (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                You can put a lot of resources into targeting them, and still the marginal increase in turnout will be very, very small.  That Quinn is disliked perhaps makes even a marginal increase impossible.  College kids who aren't self-motivated to vote for its own skae will not otherwise vote without a substantive reason.  Quinn's own unpopularity probably offsets any other substantive reason that can be sold......and it's doubtful anything else can be sold.  Rauner isn't Brady, he doesn't come off as some crazy right-wing nut.

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

                by DCCyclone on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:34:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why the LOL? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  I figure that the campus has a chapter of Democrats that can handle the duties involved, leaving the campaign itself to work the other areas.

                  It's also a school of about 45,000 people, with a combined admin/academic staff of about 10,000 people. Unless they are already maxed out to the point where everybody is already voting, there's probably some untapped potential. Considering he won his last race by under 32,000 votes, I wouldn't think his campaign would snuff his nose at another 500 from UIUC.

                  "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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:58:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well that would be fine (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    Sure, as long as the campaign or state or national parties aren't investing more than modest resources in it, that's perfectly fine.

                    But the campus Democrats will need advice from pros on how to effectively gin up turnout, and they still likely won't succeed.  They'll probably end up with whatever is "normal" for that campus in a federal midterm.

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

                    by DCCyclone on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:23:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A little personal history to get you hopeful: (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY, Audrid

                      When I was involved with my College Dems chapter, the head got a call from, possibly among other people, the state party chair because turnout absolutely surged. Turnout for what, you ask? Not the presidential election but the 2004 New York Democratic presidential primary. If you don't recall, New York was part of the Super Tuesday contests of March 2. While this officially clinched the nod for Kerry, I don't think there was a lot of question it was going to be him, as Edwards hadn't won a state. Thus, it would be considered hard for most people to get anyone, especially college students, to really care, right?

                      I want to say it was anywhere from 800-900 students that showed up, compared to around 100-150 four years earlier. If my memory is failing me, and it was 600, it was still well beyond the expectations of anyone involved.

                      Now, there could be something unusual about this. Maybe the mere fact that Edwards posed something of a challenge to Kerry was enough to get people more involved, or maybe anti-Bush sentiment was just that strong. But I didn't go to Berkeley or Oberlin or Wesleyan or any other supposedly very liberal school and the primary was in March, in New York, not Iowa.

                      But the mere fact that the state party chair took notice suggests it was something unexpected and definitely something to be proud of.

                      I say this because, as I mentioned above, Quinn won by under 32,000 votes. He might not be a liberal lion, but was Kerry or was Edwards? I doubt it'll take a lot to give the college chapter leadership some hints on how to drive turnout, and if it's possible to get a surge of people in a not particularly liberal school in March to give a crap about a presidential primary, maybe it's possible for the UIUC people to drive a few hundred more people to vote in an election that is a midterm, but one that is definitely going to be in the news. And considering it wouldn't be surprising for Quinn to be in a tight race, nobody should snuff his or her nose at any extra votes that come from anywhere.

                      "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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:24:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I see it wasn't clear I was referring to Urbana- (0+ / 0-)

                  Champaign the college campus and not the small counties. My bad. Now I can see why you LOLed, lol.

                  "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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:05:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

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

                statewide Dem campaigns pretty much always try to turn out students. It just doesn't pay very high dividends.

                "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

                by James Allen on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:13:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Isn't Sangamon even more red than (0+ / 0-)

              Champaign? Obama lost it by high single digits in 2012.

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

              by sapelcovits on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:35:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  CO-Sen: Gardner switches on personhood (11+ / 0-)

    despite gathering signatures for it in 2010, supporting it in 2008 and 2010, pushing a bill for it in the legislature, and being a co-sponsor on a similar bill in Congress recently: http://www.denverpost.com/...

    It's like he felt there was a clear danger here, but instead he just comes off as a flip-flopper who wants to avoid being yet another Republican who gets dragged down by the personhood movement (also on the ballot here).

    Also, the AFP's ad that they slightly edited from an NC run was rated "False:"
    http://www.politifact.com/...

    “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:02:43 PM PDT

    •  Can this be turned into a mini-debacle for him? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Rosalie907, jj32, MichaelNY

      Based on his wording, it seems the real reason he flipped was because it failed by more than a 2-1 margin in 2010.

      “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:03:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What a phony (12+ / 0-)

      And he'll probably switch again if he gets re-elected.

      Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011) Voting is a louder voice than a bullhorn but sometimes you need that bullhorn to retain your vote.

      by Rosalie907 on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:18:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And it's not an evolution of opinion (5+ / 0-)

        People who were opposed to SSM in the past but who are for it now make up for their years of past inaction or ambivalence or even disdain with solid action in favor of the thing they once opposed.  I doubt Obama was really against SSM in 2008, but it was a net-negative position at the time. But even before his famous coming out in favor of SSM, he still hired a record number of LGBT people, sweeping out old de facto federal hiring discrimination.  What was at issue was that social cons were using his silence on SSM to try to drive a wedge between core Dem activists and the AA community.

        Gardner, meanwhile, will still vote the same and try to keep a solid record with Right-to-Life, it's just that he allegedly won't vote for this particular referendum anymore (but he could anyway, it's a secret ballot).  He will not work to help make sure there is readily available contraceptives and family planning available to prevent unwanted pregnancies that could lead to abortion.  He'll just tip his hat once in opposition to this referendum and that will be that.

        “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:30:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm still not buying this guy as a credible threat (7+ / 0-)

      Unless 2014 ends up being a very GOP election I'm just not seeing this Gardner as having much chance against Udall.  He sounds like a paper tiger.  Basically a guy people may like now just as an a mostly unknown alternative to a Democratic incumbent, but someone whose numbers can only drop as his seriously right-wing views become better known.

      •  I think you could be right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, MichaelNY

        He's definitely better than Buck, but it wouldnt surprise me if he is near his peak in the head to head performance. At least, in terms of the margin, Udall by 2 or so.

        But a lot depends on the how the rest of the year goes, if the economy and Obama's approval improves.

        •  I can't help but think that if Bennet won in 2010, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, jj32

          Udall will win in 2014. Gardener comes across better than Buck, but, if I had to bet, it's cancelled out, if not surpassed, by the fact that 2014 probably won't be as bad as 2010. We just need to focus like a laser on getting our voters out.

          Has anyone here crunched the numbers to see how the more liberal areas compared to the more conservative areas in 2010 versus 2008 and/or 2012? Bennet won, of course, so I can't think anything really odd happened, but maybe I am wrong.

          "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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 12:15:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  He's definitely a credible threat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Gardner would beat Udall in a genuine wave, but a genuine wave isn't plausible.  In a slightly favorable GOP election like 2002 or 2004, Gardner likely loses narrowly to an incumbent Udall, but we'd sweat it along the way.

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

        by DCCyclone on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:36:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  good issue for his primary opponent, then. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

      by James Allen on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:35:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MI AG (13+ / 0-)

    I want to see polling on Michigan's AG race after the striking down of the gay marriage ban.  The Free Press intoned, tonight, that this was a huge defeat for Bill Schuette, in particular.  If he keeps this worthless fight in a state where about 60% of polled voters would vote for same-sex marriage, I don't see how Mark Totten doesn't beat him, even lacking name recognition.

    •  Most MI Republicans are rabidly anti-gay (0+ / 0-)

      hence the state has some of the worst laws on the books in regards to gay people outside of the Deep South.
      Is Schuette one of them?

      “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:34:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't say that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, MichaelNY

        I think the laws are strict out of coincidence of which way elections fell more than MI Republicans being particularly anti-gay.  I'd say the state Republican parties in neighboring states like Indiana and Ohio are far more culturally conservative and Christianist.  To be sure, the last two chairmen of the state Republican Party have been Jewish businessmen, much less concerned about social and religious issues than things like Right to Work and tax cuts.

        That said, of the elected GOP state-wide officials, Bill Schuette is the only true conservative cultural warrior among the group.  He's definitely a true believer along with being a country club/corporatist conservative.  Bill Schuette is easily the most odious of the state-wide officials (which include Ruth John, Rick Snyder and Brian Calley and barring the state supreme court).

    •  Has Totten done well enough in fundraising? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, MichaelNY

      “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:40:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can only find one (obviously crappy) poll (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, MichaelNY, pademocrat

      On this race.  It's from Conservative Intel/Harper Poll of Michigan and sounds like a republican pollster.  In it Schuette only lead by a lousy 42-33 margin.  Definitely sounds like he's ripe for defeat.

      •  The last poll (4+ / 0-)

        The last legit poll taken of this race was by PPP bak in December which showed Schuette up on Totten 40-38.  What made this virtual tie all the more shocking to the political establishment (beyond Mark Totten even less well known than Mark Schauer), as this same poll showed support for Obamacare at record lows in Michigan at the time.  Basically, it showed that Schuette was going to really have to fight to win re-election.

        SoS Ruth Johnson is the only one out of the big three state races who is looking solidly favored, and that's mostly because she's the only one without an actual challenger for the time being. lol

        •  SoS (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, abgin, gabjoh

          I hope the Dems have an announced candidate for SoS soon.  I'm not worried that they won't have a good candidate because there are several good options, like Jocelyn Benson and Barb Byrum.  The race, however, will be an uphill fight since there is an incumbent.  So the Dem need their candidate out there raising money and building their name recognition asap.  

          •  At this point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gabjoh, MichaelNY

            At this point Michingan Republicans have fundraising advantage in every statewide race. I hope the Democratic money wake-up and help to figth hard all them because all are vulnerable at this point.

            To defeat all them would be so bad for the Republican bench in future years.

    •  Schuette Seems Vulnerable (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, MichaelNY

      PPP's December poll seemed to indicate that Schuette is vulnerable. According to their poll, Schuette has 24-25 favorables, and despite Totten having a pretty anonymous 7-13 favorability rating, Schuette only led Totten 40-38. I think it's pretty remarkable that this race has gotten so little attention. PPP didn't even talk about these numbers in their write-up!

      Looking through Totten's website, as far as his credentials go, he seems like a pretty strong candidate on paper. It helps that he seems pretty young, too (bench-building and all). According to a campaign press release:

      Today the Mark Totten for Attorney General campaign will file its campaign finance report for 2013, setting a new record. The Totten campaign raised more support and has more cash-on-hand than any Democratic candidate for Attorney General entering the nine-month period to the general election since Frank Kelley...In today’s filing, Totten reporting raising $170,548.51 in 2013, with $128,411.49 cash on hand.  Ninety-percent of Totten’s support came from within the State of Michigan at an average contribution of $252.
      That includes outraising Jennifer Granholm from her 1998 win and Gary Peters from his 2002 almost-win. While $170K doesn't sound like much, when you put it in that perspective, it sounds passable. Even so, Totten will need some outside help if he hopes to keep up:
      Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican from Midland elected to the statewide office in 2010, raised $1,396,670 in 2013, and has $1.395 million available for the upcoming campaign.
      Hopefully, with Schauer and Peters having a good chance of romping up-ballot, and with this court ruling coming out, Totten can overcome Schuette. If only we could convince Jocelyn Benson to run for Secretary of State again...
      •  Fundraising (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, KingofSpades

        Even Democrats were laughing at the spin Mark put on his fundraising, though.  The reason he'd outraised either of the previous two was that he got in much earlier, and before that, Democrat Frank Kelley was Michigan's AG for 37 years.

        It's good to posted Schuette's numbers, too, but I just want to be sure to make the point that there is absolutely nothing special about Toten's haul, and that his press release was ridiculously deceptive and everyone realized it, even his supporters. lol

        Totten has a shot, but if he wins, it'll will be because of who is up-ticket and his work ethic, because his fundraising prowess is absolutely miserable compared to his opponent, who is basically a subsidiary of Dow Chemical along with Dave Camp.  

        Bill Schuette (R-Dow)/Bill Schuette on Duty (for Dow).

    •  First Same Sex Marriage in Michigan (6+ / 0-)

      The first same-sex marriage in Michigan is believed to have happened in my home county of Ingham, this morning.  It was a surprise, as Barb Byrum (who may or may not be running for SoS or lt gov.) hadn't mentioned she'd be opening here office, today.

    •  Governor Snyder's statement is ridiculous (7+ / 0-)

      And, Governor Snyder's statement on all of this is ridiculous and so typical of him:

      Snyder spokesperson Sara Wurfel: "We respect the court’s ruling and recognize that there are going to be appeals filed.

      "The Governor’s been clear in his support for adoptive families and in particular the work of DHS to strengthen children’s services and matching kids in foster care with permanent families. Key, essential progress has been made.
      "Michigan's statute and our state's Constitution are very clear on this matter. This was not about LGBT or adoption issues, but about obligation to defend the law and Constitution as people wrote or amended it, and the voter-initiated language in the Constitution clearly prohibits him from giving the benefits of marriage to a same sex couple. That’s a responsibility he has to, and does, take seriously.

      "If voters decided to change Michigan's provisions, or ultimately courts conclude the provision of the Michigan Constitution cannot be enforced, he'd respect those decisions and follow the rule of law. (The) Governor is going to remain focused on ensuring Michigan's continued comeback and quality of life for all Michiganders."

      This man could have been graceful and simply announced he wouldn't be fighting this and STFU.  As a Ann Arbor businessman, I don't think he cared one way or the other about this issue, yet he's still playing the game.  Disgusting.  No, Rick, this was very much about adoption; that was the original point of the suit.
    •  Well, that was quick (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      It was fun while it lasted.  About 24-hours later, and an appellate court has issued a temporary stay on the decision.  :(  Why I thought the courts would wait a few more days is beyond me.

      •  Was pretty much inevitible (0+ / 0-)

        Even as a SSM supporter, I am deeply unsettled by Federal District Judges trying to make policy. Ruling against the ban was fine, and imo the correct legal decision. Deliberately failing to grant a stay when it was both clearly supported by precedent and was going to be issued anyway was a clear step into policy, and an effort to preempt the appeal. It also potentially damages the plaintiffs, as it provides reason to doubt the impartiality of the original decision. That will likely not matter here, but why give the excuse.

        •  this is how this country works. (6+ / 0-)

          "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

          by James Allen on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:16:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Completely disagree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, wadingo, HoosierD42

          I think there is a difference between accepting and simply stating how the courts work, and then a progressive making a personal "activist courts" argument about why this was the right decision.  It's really bad enough that I see disingenuous conservatives make similar arguements, that happen to be convenient.  

          I'm not willing to entertain such a overly legalistic/academic take on such an important civil rights/liberties issue on which one side has now gained both the legal and moral authority on a "teach the controversy" argument.  I'm not willing to personally say that I think this is how it should be done on a civil rights issue of such importance, if even I understand the possibilities of the procedure.  Otherwise, it's concern trolling as far as I'm concerned.  I'll leave that to conservatives and then more legitimately to people who have to be divorced from the emotions of the situation.  

          I don't care how it's done; I want it done and I want it done, quickly.  As a direct beneficiary of the Civil Rights movement, I'm not here to take the side of procedure over people and a nation who has waited more than long enough for justice.

          I don't see this as "fedral districts judges trying to make policy," BTW.  And I also find that framing of an issue like this in those terms as suspect and off the mark coming from a progressive.

            •  Or at least a conservative (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, I had thought so, too.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:57:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  encountered (0+ / 0-)

              I'd never seen him on here before, nor did I even consider the name a political statement, or at least a non-ironic one.  I stand corrected, nonetheless, and it completely makes sense.  

              I've encountered quite a few of these conservatives in the last few days who are smart enough to know "It's not in the Bah-bull!11!!!" isn't going to work, anymore, so they conveniently fall back on "states' rights" arguments, or all the legalese that seeks to delay the inevitable for what I can only imagine is out of spite.  It's far more sophisticated than the cultural arguments, but I do not for one minute believe that one can legitimately be for a civil right as basic as marriage and fairness under the law, and then concern troll over the means by which it has came about given how little the other sides believes in and is conerned with fairness

              Two wrongs may not make a right, but they always don't make a new wrong, either.  And, in this case, it's a false choice, because nothing wrong was done, here, beyond the original wrong done by denying someone their civil rights.  It's like whining over the illegality of disobediance while saying you support civil rights.  The focus of an individual tells you a lot about what they really believe.

            •  Traditional Conservative (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Skaje, MichaelNY, sacman701

              Or process one if you will, which makes the current GOP, as a largely reactionary, post-policy entity quite distasteful to me, but I don't think I have made a particular secret here that while I support Democrats right now as a matter of the lesser evil, as do many on these board, what I hope for is for viable and sane Center-Right party as opposed to viable further left party.

              Nonetheless, I have not voted Republican for several cycles now, and try to abide by the rules here. I apologize if I caused offense, but its exactly the contempt for process on the Right, whether it be gerrymandering, vote suppression, or abuse of the filibuster that makes the GOP so distasteful. And a someone not ideologically of the Left, a left-wing version of the GOP, which uses the same tactics for "good" ends is not what I am after.

              •  Thing is, "process" is all well and good, (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HoosierD42, Skaje, MichaelNY, sapelcovits

                but it's also historically been used to slow down movements such as this one.  Martin Luther King actually commented on this once, on the "moderate" whites telling black people to just wait, and give it time, and how that was almost as bad as those actively working against them.

                The fact is, this ban was unconstitutional. The 14th amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all citizens, as I'm sure you know.  This ban was part of the state constitution, sure, but, well, guess what?  Federal law, including the constitution, trumps state law, and always has.  That's even in the US constitution.

                A judge acknowledging these things is not judicial activism, nor is it a judge making a law.  It is an interpretation, which, by the way, is the constitutionally proscribed job of our judicial branch; and I fail to see how one could argue that it's an incorrect interpretation, constitutionally speaking.

                •  I agree with you, not surprisingly (0+ / 0-)

                  I think that since an appellate or even district court judge can easily find this a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, s/he can void the state constitutional amendment as being in clear conflict with the superior Federal constitution and is under no obligation to impose a restraining order on the judgment. What's wrong with that process? I see nothing wrong with it.

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:33:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have no problem with an Appellate Judge doing so (0+ / 0-)

                    District judges are supposed to be bound by SCOTUS precedent, and current precedent is still that the 14th Amendment does extend to Sexual Orientation, with the SCOTUS declining to change that in either 2003 or 2013.

                    Now clearly SCOTUS is going to either going to reverse themselves at some point in the near future; if they weren't, this court, which is likely the most conservative you will see for a while, would have reversed Judge Walker on the merits rather than dodging the issue, and Scalia wouldn't have signed onto that dodge.

                    And clearly such a change has to come at least initially from the district level.

                    But here we run into why stays exist - stays exist precisely when the District judge is ruling against precedent and there is therefore a substantial chance of reversal on appeal and/or when the consequences of not granting a stay are likely to substantially effect the plaintiffs, the course of the appeal, or other individuals. Whether one buys the first argument(nominally true, substantively less so, the higher courts will  likely dodge or uphold at this point as a reversal by a conservative majority would risk SCOTUS intervention), the second is true.

                    I understand why I seem cold-hearted on this and will try and avoid the topic from now on, but I just feel that SSM will arrive in 18 months or so inevitably, whereas the damage done by the precedent that Federal District Judges can issue broad-sweeping injunctions(about Obamacare, Abortion Access, perhaps striking down the minimum wage) is a bad one, and like having State AGs nullify state laws, is one that depends on the assumption that Liberal/Progressives will always control the courts/AG offices.

                •  judge-made law happens all the time (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, sapelcovits

                  in the Anglo-American common law system. Even going beyond your statement shouldn't be controversial.

                  "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

                  by James Allen on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:16:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  WI-Gov: Gravis Poll has Walker 49-44 over Burke: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, abgin

    “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:58:16 PM PDT

  •  Musings on red state elections (7+ / 0-)

    I'm interested in several red state/district elections.

    1: AR-02/04. Both are open seat contests with the Big Dog's personal involvement. Both have strong Democrats running against generic Republicans.

    2: NE-02. We didn't get our preferred candidate, but we still have a good candidate running against a fairly weak incumbent.

    3: NM-02. For the first time, we've got a strong Hispanic candidate (and a female to boot) running against a white guy in this heavily Hispanic district. It'd be nice to take this seat, even if it does have Little Texas nestled inside it.

    4: LA-06. Edwin Edwards' old connections to the African American community in LA will doubtlessly prove useful both to his own bid for the seat and to Mary Landrieu. While I would love to steal this R+19 seat from the Republicans, the more important part is seeing how much Edwards can drive up AA turnout in this district. LA-06 is nearly 1/4th black, and Landrieu needs all the support she can get from the AA community for her bid. She herself likely won't be able to motivate minorities as much as Edwards, so any extra AA votes Edwards gets is likely to be a vote Landrieu would never have gotten this cycle.

    5: GA-Sen. There was a recent poll showing David Perdue in the lead in the primary. However, this contradicts other polling, and doesn't make sense. I still think Broun or Gingrey will be the eventual nominee, and if one of them is the nominee, Michelle Nunn will be narrowly favored for a win.

    6: KY-Sen. McConnell keeps making gaffe after gaffe and misstep after misstep. As a guy running for his sixth term, he should know better by now. I doubt it's the case, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's being actively sabotaged by his Paulist campaign manager. If McConnell falls, Rand Paul becomes the top Republican political boss in the state, which increases his power and helps his bid in lining up traditional Republican donors/supporters for his 2016 Presidential run.

    7: MS-Sen. Everyone's heard of Travis Childers and his run against the neo-con. No one expects him to win, but then, no one really expected Joe Donnelly to win either.

    8: GA-Gov. Nathan Deal seems to be well-positioned for a primary win, and Jason Carter will have the "famous last name" effect that Nunn has. I wonder how much their coattails will affect one another.

    My main point in this is to say, if we are as competitive in this cycle as we believe, then the south isn't lost to our party. It's just going through a bit of a dry spell while the south exorcises some of its more vile racism through dealing with the Obama presidency. I think that, if we can successfully take some of these seats, it bodes well for us in 2016 when the scary black man will no longer be the defacto head of the party, and southern dems can point to HRC as one of their own.

    AR-02 and -04 will be especially important to watch. We're fielding the best candidates we can find there, so it's a great test to see just how implacably Republican the south has become. If we lose these races, plus AR-Sen and the other races I mentioned, then we should start to concentrate our efforts on the midwest and the mountainous states, and give up on Appalachia and the old confederacy for now.

    On that note, I have high hopes that MT can be made more friendly to us, and that AZ will start trending towards us much sooner than expected.

    TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

    by Le Champignon on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:59:47 PM PDT

    •  Completely agree with you (5+ / 0-)

      I don't think the South is lost to us, especially Georgia.

      Mind you, I also think that Utah will eventually come back to us (at least to a Missouri/North Carolina-esque partisan shift) one day, so...

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

      by Gygaxian on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 09:18:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I find it helpful to not think (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SaoMagnifico, Gygaxian, MichaelNY, gabjoh

        in terms of absolutes like we'll control everything but in terms of building a strong national party to get as many people who, at least in theory, believe in good and/or active government and find people who might one day be willing to try to advance. We might not win Utah at the presidential level, but we can, hopefully, win at least one congressional seat. Doing that probably means working to build a stronger party at the lower levels, even if the payoff doesn't happen right away. Maybe it'll mean a stronger party at the upper levels to, but even if doesn't mean that directly in terms of wins, it means our agenda gets a stronger chance of passing or at the very least a fairer hearing.

        "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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:50:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! Thanks for explaining what I meant (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          I didn't mean winning Utah on presidential level at all, though it probably looks like I did. Congressional would be good enough for me.

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

          by Gygaxian on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:00:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  *too (0+ / 0-)

          "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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The South is likely lost until a GOP White House (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisJohn, sacman701

        The suburban South is a toxic match for Democrats in good times or bad.

        The rural South however is a dreadful match for both parties, which is why the Democrats could make real progress there in 2007-2008. The problem is that the way in which each party annoys the region is in direct proportion to their ability to do so, and right now it's the Democrats in the drivers seat.

        For Democrats I feel the problem is not Social Liberalism or Environmentalism per se, but rather that the party seems obsessed with pandering to those constituencies to the exclusion of others. Hence being concerned about global warming is not an issue, but the perception that the vague ideological concerns of urban voters about sea levels in South Asia trumps actual jobs in Appalachia is toxic. Ditto for the juxtaposition on issues like abortion and gay rights.

        The thing is, that precisely because Democrats on going to be most effective on those issues while in office(and those are the issues, unlike jobs/stimulus, where congressional approval is not required), as long as there is a Democratic Administration the party is going to look obsessed about those issues. And that's going to really limit the party's appeal.

        I think that whenever a Republican Administration is in office and tries to touch benefits or spending though, you'll see a huge revolt.

        •  This is interesting (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisJohn, BenjaminDisraeli, wadingo

          And I especially agree with one part in particular: That people in places like Appalachia don't necessarily hate the idea of global warming, but rather the fact that we don't seem to care about them. This is 100% true. We don't seem willing to understand that people in the coal industry have given their whole lives to the job. They may have worked twenty, thirty, forty years in the mines or the supporting industries doing grunt work and rising up to management, all while working a good union job that Democrats used to support to the exclusion of all other things.

          Not any more. Now we care about the sea levels with no thought to the ramifications of our climate change policies on real, live people. Now, the coal industry as a whole is anathema to the survival of the planet - that much is a fact. But we need to do more to provide an alternative rather than welfare and unemployment benefits. These are good ideas to prevent people from falling into the pit of poverty, but to a man who's worked his whole life, it's a piss poor substitute for a job.

          We need to go back to the days when we advocated for government jobs and government spending as economic relief. Treat coal mining regions like WV and eastern KY almost like disaster regions that need to be economically rebuilt from the ground up, gutting the industry and creating a brand new one in its place. And I'm not talking about BS sweep-the-floors jobs, I'm talking about real, honest-to-god jobs that make a person feel useful to society - valued, even - and that a person with coal mining experience can easily transition to.

          TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

          by Le Champignon on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:36:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Like what? (0+ / 0-)

            What industry do you suggest?

            I mean, I agree with you, but you know you couldn't have gotten the kind of jobs program you're talking about through Congress.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:54:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps manufacturing of some kind (0+ / 0-)

              It's still blue collar, still heavily unionized, and the work isn't significantly different (i.e. requiring manual labor and the ability to work with fairly intricate machinery and power tools). Plus WV/KY is poised to ship to the highly populated NE and SE markets in the US.

              Maybe relocate some auto industry plants to the region. We had the controlling stock in GM for a while - I dunno why we didn't try to get them to expand to more plants outside of MI.

              TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

              by Le Champignon on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Michigan also has disaster areas (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                uclabruin18, wadingo

                Favoring WV/KY over MI, which votes Democratic now, is not something that would be politically advantageous for the Democratic Party, even if it were good policy (which I believe it is not).

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:09:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  South (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, wadingo

                  It also seems like GM's plants already in the south like Bowling Green (KY) and Spring Hill (TN) don't seem to effect the politics of those state's much, even as these states are relatively high growth areas.  I'm not sure more plants would do that much to change these states.  Whereas, I do increasing capacity cut in the industrial midwest not only as good economic policy, but as good politics, too, with large political returns.  

                  I think the foreign automakers should start seeing to it that they start organizing the plants they operate here like the one's they have back at home, or at least back off anti-union policy.  To VW's credit, they did kind of realize this near the end down in Chattanooga, though probably too late in highsight.  The Japanese autos should really back off their anti-unionization efforts.  

                  I do think it should be incumbent upon the foreign autos to start using their weight to turn Souther politics in a more progressive direction.  They'd been content to work hand-and-glove with this destructive economic policy for years because it got them cheap labor, but they are kind of seeing what happens when those politics are taken to their inevitable conclusion.  It's not good for the politics, which aren't good for the workers, which ultimately isn't good for the companies in the long-term.  I think a good example of them cozying up to Southern Republicans who policies came backc pretty directly to bite them in the ass was when that BMW exec I think it was, was arrested under Alabama's anti-immigrant law.  Eventually, this stuff comes full circle.

        •  Is there really a war on coal, plus more: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, wadingo

          1. There's almost no way to go but up in the suburban south. This isn't to say that we can win it outright, of course, but rather that we can limit our losses. I know I say this a lot, but it's definitely more right than wrong, if only because the cumulative effects could be big. If we go from losing some of these places, like Lexington County, SC, by 30 points instead of 38 points, it'll add up and pad our margins everywhere else.

          Sestuna Mudo described to me the challenges we face in the region perhaps better than anyone else, and I don't intend to minimize that. I'm just saying that if we work for cycle after cycle and get nowhere, voting is FAR more inelastic there than any of us could imagine, or we are making incompetent efforts. Anything resembling a decent operation would have to yield some results.

          2. We shouldn't necessarily turn our attention from more appealing opportunities but rather strengthen the local operations so they can function regardless of the strength at the top. I said yesterday to Gygaxian in regards to Utah that efforts towards the bottom might not translate into success at the top, but it should help with getting us a stronger majority at the legislative levels, which is, in a lot of ways, much the same.

          3. I don't think we need to entirely disregard the older parts of the states, but at some point, you need to realize things change. It might be worth it to focus more on the parts that are growing rather than the parts that growing, even if it means some short term defeats. On the other hand, a large part of our views/solutions (gay marriage support and an increase in the minimum wage) don't require a lot of changes.

          4. It should also be said that just because we support something doesn't mean we need to make that the entire focus of the campaign. It's probably not the end of the world to be pro-choice, as long as we don't seem like we are throwing it in their faces.

          4. Is there really a war on coal? I think it was GradyDem who posted in the last six weeks or so that despite all of the rhetoric, the industry (or maybe the areas as a whole) aren't doing bad and, in fact, have seen employment increase. I am pretty sure he said something like this, and if so, it makes you wonder if we really need to tread so lightly with actions that might not be particularly friendly to coal.

          5. There's a larger policy question that, while not really meant for here, needs to be considered. I don't think working in the coal industry is immoral, but it does entail negative effects to the environment. Since it's not an immoral activity, it's not like we should put the screws to the industry like we should something really terrible, but it might mean that we shouldn't feel bad if something like pollution taxes hurt the industry. And having a broader party that competes in more places makes the political risks less severe.

          "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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:21:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Edwards still hasn't lost his zeal and charm. (6+ / 0-)

      I'm glad prison took nothing out of him: https://twitter.com/...

      “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 Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 10:06:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My feeling is that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aamail6, James L

      Arkansas is lost for the Dems. Pryor and Ross may or may not pull off narrow wins (Ross might have a better shot than Pryor at this point), but I don't see any of the Congressional districts coming back in 2014 or any other year in the near future. And in general I think we're in an era of polarization such that Democrats winning red districts/states and Republicans winning blue districts/states is going to be extremely rare.

      •  I see that for blue districts (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, Jacob1145, wadingo

        but I don't think the evidence has accumulated enough that we can say one way or the other for red districts. The bluest district held by a Republican seems to be CA-31 at D+5, and that was a fluke that will be corrected in 2014. After that, I think the next one is CO-06 at D+1.

        On the other hand, we still have incumbents winning in GA-12 and formerly UT-04 and NC-07 with Republican PVIs in the high single and low double digits.

        Plus, I expect things to change when Obama is out of office. Coalition lines aren't static, and Obama, as the figurehead of the party right now, has a very different coalition than the next likely head of the party.

        TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

        by Le Champignon on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:43:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  CA 21 is D+2 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

          by lordpet8 on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 01:07:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, wadingo

          that Republicans have a harder time winning D+ PVI districts than Democrats winning R+ PVI districts, and there are a few Dem stalwarts in heavily Republican districts, but with Matheson and McIntyre out, that only leaves Rahall, Barrow, and Peterson in the really tough areas, and Rahall is 50/50 at best to hold on. That just doesn't seem like enough evidence to me that Democrats can still win in red districts, particularly when it's looking like a big struggle just to win open swing seats like NJ-03, VA-10, and IA-03.

      •  why's that? AR-02 is only R+8, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madmojo, MichaelNY, wadingo

        Arkansas is R+14. Why do you think we could win statewide but not in AR-02 when its open with one of the most appealing candidates we could get?

        "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

        by James Allen on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:20:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pryor is an incumbent, for one thing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, wadingo

          and the areas where he needs to run up the score to win aren't in AR-02 (aside from Pulaski County). The problem with AR-02 is that it has a blue core surrounded by deep-red suburbs that are really intractable in a federal election.

          For what it's worth, I think AR-Sen is currently Lean R, so it's not like I think Pryor is the favorite or anything.

  •  MI gay marriage (17+ / 0-)

    As a result of today's court decision, clerks in several MI counties (Muskegon, Washtenaw, and Oakland) plan to open tomorrow and issue marriage licenses.

    http://www.freep.com/...

  •  Dayton and DFL got their big tax relief measure (13+ / 0-)

    through tonight. Should help with the midterm.

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

    by askew on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 09:21:20 PM PDT

  •  Does anyone happen to know how to track down (0+ / 0-)

    AP results from 2012 congressional primary elections? Do they maintain those pages? I really, really need them.

    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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 12:30:36 AM PDT

  •  Nixon's retirement map (9+ / 0-)

    The CA GOP was excited about the 1962 Governors race. The state had already voted 3 times for a GOP president and the state felt the governorship would be another easy win,. But much to the dismay of the polls and GOP hopes Nixon still came up short.

     photo 1962_zps8510cf13.png

    Brown dominated in many of the northern and interior counties and led Nixon to declare his last press conference.

    * Note: Party colors are not inverted.

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

    by lordpet8 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 03:55:41 AM PDT

    •  ^ state GOP Party* (6+ / 0-)

      With that said Nixon still was an improvement from the 1958 map when Brown won in a landslide. Pat Brown lost only 4 counties and carried the state by nearly 20 points!

       photo 1958_zpsda1367fb.png

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

      by lordpet8 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 04:02:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Marin and Santa Cruz Counties (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, MichaelNY

      Are both red :( who knew.

      Then again, it makes sense because they really started becoming Democratic in the early 1970s when the hippies arrived.

      For more election analysis and redistricting maps, check out my blog http://racesandredistricting.blogspot.com/ CA-2 home, College in CA-37, go Trojans!

      by Alibguy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:25:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, Modoc County went blue?! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8

      “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:23:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yup you'd never guess what was Brown's (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, MichaelNY

        best county either. It was Plumas County of all places! He scored 66.4% of the vote in 1962 and 74% in 1958. The county was more Democratic than San Francisco.

        Amazingly Plumas was a D stronghold and Democratic Gubernatorial candidates won it in every election from 1954-1978. It even voted against Nixon in his 1950 senate election.

        Democratic fortunes began to wane in 1966, when San Francisco overtook Plumas as the more Democratic county. By 1978 Plumas was no longer D+ county as Jerry Brown got a higher % of the vote statewide than he did in the county. Plumas finally turned red in the 1982 Governor's race and has continued to be safe R county these days (with a few minor exceptions).

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

        by lordpet8 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 01:58:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  OH-General Assembly (6+ / 0-)

    Wanted to once again promote my diary on the 2014 races for General Assembly in Ohio coming up in the fall.
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Trivia question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    What future red state Governor once saved a future Democratic icon from a rip tide during their college years?

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

    by DrPhillips on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:20:43 AM PDT

  •  thanks Clark County, WA voters (6+ / 0-)

    for this man.

    Don Benton, Clark County’s Director of Environmental Services, is thinking about billing The Columbian newspaper $150,000 for littering.

    According to The Columbian, Benton, who is also a Republican state senator, unveiled several proposals on Wednesday to pay for a settlement fee the county incurred after violating the Clean Water Act. One included a six-figure “litter fee” to any daily newspapers that are produced and distributed in Clark County with a circulation of more than 28,500, which only applies to the Columbian.
    ...

    Vancouver’s city attorney, Ted Gathe, told The Columbian he had questions about the legality of the proposal and expressed uncertainty whether any state law gave counties the right to impose special fees on a business inside a city.

    "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

    by James Allen on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:10:34 AM PDT

  •  What's on your Election Night playlist? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avedee

    When you're watching returns come in, what kinds of songs are good to listen to? Don't need to be politics-related at all, just songs that fit the mood of an exciting election night?

    Mine are the Rolling Stones' "Start Me Up," Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop," and for when the county election administrators are taking long ganja breaks, The Proclaimers "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)".

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

    by Jeff Singer on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:20:15 AM PDT

    •  I usually make a "movie night" out of it instead (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff

      I get some nachos, a bottle or two of beer (I'm a type one diabetic so I can't go for the full six pack), maybe some pizza, and watch the talking heads - mostly because, for all its faults, the news media is still good at hitting F5 on the SecState websites of 50 states so I don't have to. In 2012, I watched Anderson Cooper, which wasn't bad actually. In retrospect, I should've watched Fox just so I could hear their lamentations.

      TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

      by Le Champignon on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:36:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  nothing in particular (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff

      On the last three big general election nights I've been in class for two and out at parties for one.

      On smaller elections and primaries I usually have things I'm doing like homework and just have the liveblog open in a tab, unless its one I'm particularly interested in, but even then I usually have other things I'm doing.

      "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

      by James Allen on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:38:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff

      Country Joe McDonald: Tricky Dick
      The Fifth Estate: Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead

      For ganja breaks---
      Iron Butterfly: In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida
      David Peel & the Lower East Side: I Like Marijuana

      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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 12:52:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Depends which state I'm watching. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darth Jeff

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

      by sapelcovits on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:47:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

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

      Achilles Last Stand
      Let Me Stand Next To Your Fire
      Glad

      formerly demographicarmageddon

      by bonzo925 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:28:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  FL-11 Actually has a progressive running (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sulthernao, ChadmanFL

    The district includes all of Hernando, Citrus and Sumter Counties and a sizeable chunk of Marion County, including my home in Ocala. It also includes a big piece of The Villages, the staunchly Republican retirement mega-community between Ocala and Leesburg.

    It's a roughly 60-40 Republican district currently represented by Tea Partier Rich Nugent. Roughly 87% of the population is white, 51% female, 31% retirees.

    Nugent's opponent in 2014 is Ocala businessman Dave Koller, who's running on a very progressive economic populist message. This should play well in the mostly rural district where unemployment is above 16%, but whether it will play well enough to overcome the strong Confederate/Tea Party/Religious Right streak running through the district remains to be seen.

    Koller's biggest obstacle is going to be getting his message out. Ocala doesn't have its own TV market, so he'll have to advertise in both the Tampa and Orlando markets to reach the majority of residents. In such a heavily Republican and demographically challenging district, it's doubtful he'll get any help from the national party. I'll be doing diaries on this race as it develops.

    I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

    by ObamOcala on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:43:58 AM PDT

  •  PA-Sen: New Tom Wolf TV ad: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Gygaxian

    covering manufacturing: http://youtu.be/...

    Question: How is the LG running mate chosen and who is the likely pick?  I'd go for Critz, probably.

    “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:53:00 AM PDT

  •  Senate: Here we gooooo. Boom. (14+ / 0-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    Exactly, what we need right now. Ain't playin no more chuck and davey boy

    •  hmm (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, MichaelNY, DCCyclone

      The article says their internal polling shows that "out of state billionaires are trying to buy the election" works, but I'd think the main thrust of the campaign would have to be defending Dem policies and attacking GOP policies on the merits. The attack ad on Gardner hits him for his vote for the Ryan plan, which should be effective.

      SSP poster. 44, CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

      by sacman701 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:38:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think there is some merit to that quote. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, ehstronghold

        Harry Reid wouldn't be slamming the Koch brothers nearly everyday if he didn't think it polled well. But I think you are right--the main thrust of this campaign is to counter those attack ads defending D policy and attacking R policy

        •  I'm very nervous about their "polling" on this (5+ / 0-)

          One of my pet peeves on public polling that I hope is less of problem in private polling...but that I fear is still a problem...is unintentionally "leading" questions that produce the answer you hope for, and you mistakenly think it's something you can run on.

          Polls are terrible at teasing out what voters really consider voting issues, and if you've got an issue that isn't one, then you have to do a lot of work to establish a foundation for it in public opinion...and still might fail.

          This attack on the Koch brothers or "outside billionaires" or however they put it looks on the surface to me like a classic example of polling something that bothers you, getting the answer you want, and then running ads on it.

          I can tell you as someone who has been an election poll respondent many times, these questions aren't worth much.  I answer these questions on candidate qualities and issues of day honestly, as the questions are asked and based on the choices of answers provided......but much of what's asked about is stuff I don't give a shit about, and I realize a lot of others, too, probably don't care.

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

          by DCCyclone on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:57:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They likely didn't do polling (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, wadingo

            but rather focus grouping. Frank Luntz proved the efficacy of focus grouping ages ago. See "government option" versus "public option".

            TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

            by Le Champignon on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:45:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, Luntz masterminded "Death Tax" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, wadingo

              That was his magnum opus.

              “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:53:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Forgot about that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KingofSpades, wadingo

                hell, even I use that term. Estate tax just sounds stupid. If I had a middle ground, I'd choose inheritance tax, but most people wouldn't know what inheritance tax meant.

                And if I were wanting to go all Frank Luntz on the issue, I'd go "privilege tax" or "fairness tax" or something similar.

                TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

                by Le Champignon on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:49:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  To be sure (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, wadingo

                  Luntz also coined "government option," but that didn't take hold much.  His work on redefining climate change and the estate tax are far more influential.

                  “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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:58:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Focus-grouping is also very problematic (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, sacman701, wadingo

              First of all, you're dealing with a much smaller sample than a poll has.  It might be a dozen people, maybe two dozen, but it's not hundreds.  So the risk is very high that what you get isn't representative.

              Second, you're still dealing with a captive audience, similar to a poll, who respond only to your stimuli, insulated from the competing messaging of opponents and their allies, or more importantly news coverage of politically significant events.

              That second problem means, again, you get people going along with what you want to them to think more often than they would in the wild.  Even if you try to give them competing messages to test comparative value, the quasi-controlled environment conceals how they really respond outside the room.

              I just don't buy it that hammering conservative billionaire political bankrollers will translate to any votes.  It's been a longtime truth in American politics that no one cares where either side's money for ads and other messaging comes from.  The messaging itself has to resonate on its own terms for it to work.

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

              by DCCyclone on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:22:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think you are being a touch too literal. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MetroGnome, wadingo

                Is hearing ad after ad about the Koch brothers going to rile up the masses? Probably not, unless something very unusual or bad happens, like a chemical explosion in a factory owned by them or something. As we see with the DSCC using them to shake us down for more money, the people most motivated by this are partisans and are, I would think, likely to be more motivated than other voters.

                But it could help hammer home the message that these people and others like them are buying politicians and elections to enact their personal views, in large part to benefit their personal wealth, at the expense of everyone else. Even if the connection is tangential, it could help. I mean, I'd bet the Koch Brothers care more about being against a minimum wage increase in an ideological sense rather than how it affects their bottom line, but that doesn't matter. If we can get people to be angry about the fact that that Republican Politician X is against a minimum wage increase by mentioning that the Koch Brothers are supporting him, so be it.

                The reverse of this is, to some degree, President Obama's moves on the minimum wage for those who work for federal contractors, among other things. A solid move on the merits, it's not likely to have a huge impact, I'd guess. But it drives home the point of who is trying to raise wages for those at the bottom of the income scale and is entirely reinforced and contrasted by the hysterical howls coming from the right. Even if every single person whose wages were raised by executive order voted for us, the impact would probably be minimal. But it might get those already on our side more excited, make our donors give a little more, and make some centrist or center-right voters at least give us a second look. It's an easy move to make for him, and the benefits, while not huge, are probably still meaningful if you figure he's doing a lot of small things like this.

                "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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:59:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I'd be worried if you weren't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCCyclone

            The moment you start feeling good about anything, then I'll know we've come upon the end of days, and then I'll yell "DOOOOM!!!11!" with the best of them.

  •  CO-03: Ex-Sen. Abel Tapia running for Dems: (10+ / 0-)

    http://www.chieftain.com/...

    Buffie McFadyen, who dropped out shortly after running, would be better served running in 2016.

    “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:18:52 AM PDT

  •  Strategist Who Helped G.O.P. Rise in South Dies (4+ / 0-)

    Howard Callaway is his name. He was a conservative Democrat who switched parties and served in the Nixon administration.

    I figured cribbing part of The Times obit headline would help get some eyeballs. I don't want to copy about half of the article, so go read the whole thing.

    I wonder if he changed at all in his later years.

    "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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:38:09 AM PDT

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

      He also could have become Georgia's first Republican governor since Reconstruction back in 1966.  He beat Lester Maddox by about 3,000 votes but because neither one of them got 50%, it was thrown to the Georgia legislature to decide.  As this was the South in the 60s, Maddox prevailed due to the Democratic supermajorities in the legislature.

  •  Something I've been working on from time to time (8+ / 0-)

     photo DemocraticStatesofAmericaObama60_zps6eb496a0.png

    (click for full size)

    It's a compilation of my most effective gerrymanders for every state while keeping them within the realm of plausibility (for the most part, ahem NV). Some could use some serious improvement but I left them colored in anyway: WA, NM, GA, SC, KY, IN, VA, MD, and NY, but among the states that are more or less solid there's:

    ME - both districts are as Dem as the state
    NH - strengthened Shea porter & put Manchester in 2nd, but didn't hurt Kuster b/c of eating into Bass' incumbency strength
    MA - protected Tierney, strengthened the 9th
    RI - same
    CT - all districts as Dem as the state
    NJ - very solid 10-2, all 10 Ds are as Dem as the state
    PA - 13-5 relying on Critz to win a Romney seat.
    WV - Rahall kept the same but 2nd is tailor made for Glen Gainer in 2014. Alternately you could put Charleston up to Morgantown in the 3rd to protect Rahall alone by giving him an Obama '08 district.
    NC - very solid 9-4 with 7 D+5 districts
    TN - 3 very safe Obama seats, made the 4th Dem enough that DSJ would have lost to Eric Stewart by a few points in 2012
    AL - 3 safe Obama seats, 2 majority black
    MS - 2 safe Obama seats, both majority black
    FL - non-FDA compliant 16-11 map where every district is D+5 except Murphy's and the 2nd but we'd still win those
    AR - 1 solid Obama seat, 1 heavily blue dog seat
    OK - 1 solid Obama seat, moves Boren a few points left
    IL - 14-4 with all Chicagoland dists over 60% Obama 08, 13th & w 12th significantly more D, 17th barely less so.
    WI - 5 safe D seats, Duffy's voted for Obama by 7, Ribble's just barely.
    IA - all 3 Dem districts are 57% Obama '12
    MN - 5 safe Dem seats, Walz and Peterson safe and strengthened a bit
    MO - 3 safe seats, incl. one for Carnahan, plus Ike Skelton gets a seat that voted for Obama by 7.4% Over McCain
    KS - KCK to Manhattan district Obama won by 13% in 2012
    NE - Terry screwed as Omaha to Lincoln seat voted Obama by 10 over Romney
    CO - 5 safe D seats all over 57% Obama
    UT - 1 solid seat voted Obama by 12 over McCain. Matheson keeps more of old district and his seat is strengthened about a point or two. For LOLs the two others gave Romney over 85%.
    AZ - 5 safe seats while Ben Quayle's(!) improves to vote the same as the state.
    NV - 3 totally safe seats. Alternately you could not do Reno-LV and make 2 safe seats and get Heck's to move left enough where Oceguera narrowly wins.
    ID - Envisions Walt Minnick running in a seat McCain won by just 8 and where he'd have easily held on in 2010.

    Additionally this assumes we get strong candidates for every seat such as SHS in South Dakota and one of our statewide officeholders in Montana (not McGrath or Schweitzer, that'd be cheating).

    As for the non-'final' ones, NY is a solid 24-3 but one of the upstate vote sinks can be flipped. MD is 7-0-1 but 8-0 is easily done. VA is 7-4 but 8-3 is possible. KY needs county splits and would change a lot, but it's a 1-3-2. OH I didn't do. Indiana is a 3-3-3 which needs a good amount of work. MI I didn't do. SC is 3-4 but it can probably be cleaned up. GA is 7-6-Barrow but can probably go 8-6 easily. LA is 3-3 and could probably be cleaned up. TX was 18-17-1 but can be more effective. NM is a 3-0 but it's not exactly plausible. WA is a 7-2-1 but can be more effective. Didn't do OR or CA.

    Overall that would have been a gain of 69 for 270 total without even doing CA (+7?), TX (+8?) OH (+7) and MI (+5?)

  •  It's been done, my two best friends have passed on (28+ / 0-)

    A local veterinarian came to my home earlier today to put down my two best friends - my 22 year old black cat Meow and her daughter Marble, a 20 year old brownish colored calico cat.  Had them since I was about 10 or 11 years old, but both were in bad health.  Meow had stopped eating 4 days ago from kidney failure and could barely walk.  They were best friends, usually sleeping cuddled up together.  RIP old girls.  I'm heartbroken and will never forget you.

    •  *hugs* I'm so sorry Chadman. (4+ / 0-)

      You did the right thing for them, and I hope you find peace in your decision.

    •  I'm sorry n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChadmanFL

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 12:42:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I feel for you man. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, ChadmanFL

      My family's first cat was declawed (because we didn't know that was a terrible idea), got into fights with bigger cats, and had asthma (which we didn't even know cats could get). Died after about a year and a half due to a bad asthma attack. So I know how you feel, sorta.

      Hopefully you can build up a friendship with any new cat you might have; my current cat has been one of my best friends for 11 years.

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

      by Gygaxian on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 01:39:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I know the pain you go through. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChadmanFL, MichaelNY

      We all wish you well in this hard time.

      “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 02:59:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you all for the heartfelt wishes (6+ / 0-)

      It's been a VERY tough day.  Every time I walk through the house today I looks in the spots my cats typically hung out at wondering where they are, then reality hits.

      That being said I still have my youngest cat Baby, who is still only 11.  My sister named her that because she was the smallest kitten she'd ever seen when we got her.  We didn't realize she was a Maine Coon (massive breed of cat) who grew to 18 pounds!  

      Maybe some things happen for a reason.  Coincidentally tomorrow a brand new pet rescue facility is opening up not too far from me.  I've already looked through the website and found a few black colored kittens that look similar to Meow.  I'm going to the grand opening tomorrow and hopefully coming home with one (maybe two?) of them.  None can ever replace what I lost, but maybe it can help fill the void.

      •  How is Baby taking the loss of the other two cats? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChadmanFL, KingofSpades

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:56:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oddly enough she seems lost/confused (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades, MichaelNY, madmojo

          I say this because she was never at all close with the other two.  Female Maine Coon breed cats can be very controlling/territorial.  She more or less avoided my older cats and was at times unpleasant to them, sometimes guarding food/water bowls and jumping out and swiping at them.  She is literally twice the size my older cats were.  I figured she wouldn't exhibit any behavioral changes with their passing, but that isn't the case.  She seems to be depressed today, laying around more than usual and looking around rooms as though she wondered what happened to the others.  Seems like she's just very confused by being the only cat around for the first time in her life.

          She is the biggest problem I'm going to have in finding a new cat or two.  My vet recommended if I get a new cat  I should get one that is at least moderately or possibly large sized, not shy and willing to defend itself.  Those traits will be what I'm going to keep in mind when looking for another cat.  There's actually a cute male Maine Coon kitten at a local shelter I may check out.  While I'm sure a male Maine Coon could defend itself fine against my female I'm not sure I want another cat THAT big.  Male Maine Coons usually grow even larger than females, and given my female is nearly 20 lbs I can only imagine how massive the male would grow to.

  •  Wow how strange, in the Wyoming st house (14+ / 0-)

    Democrats left a Republican uncontested in a 64.7% Obama two party seat, while Republicans left a Dem uncontested in a 29.5% and a 31.1% Obama seat. In the state senate Democrats were uncontested for an open 33.1% Obama seat. That's incredibly unusual for seats that lopsided for Romney or Obama to only have the opposing party on the ballot.

  •  So I was looking up US demographics (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    And I find the fact that Utah has 15 out of the 20 most English (in ancestry) cities in America hilarious for some reason. Though it seems like most of the ones in Salt Lake County intermarried into Scandinavian families, as I know a lot of Seeligs, Jensens, and so forth.

    Looking at American demographics in terms of specific communities is kind of neat, though. Like Puerto Ricans, Native African immigrants, etc.

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

    by Gygaxian on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 01:36:55 PM PDT

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

      I've never found it really odd.  As tight as group as you guys are, religiously, I've never been surprised that they self-identified, ethnically, as a tight group, either.

      What I've always found kind of funny is the Scots-Irish and some English increasingly identifying as "American" in the South.  They are generally no more or less ethnically mixed than any other self-identified ethnicity in this country.  This self-identification also more often than not seems to be code for an ideology I'm not particularly fond of.

  •  FL-Gov: Scott's co-chair departs amid issues (9+ / 0-)

    with Scott's allies, notably with their racial humor: http://www.miamiherald.com/...

    “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 03:44:18 PM PDT

    •  Klassy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, KingofSpades
      Fernandez began expressing his frustrations at least a month ago when he sent an email to top Scott allies and complained about two campaign aides who had joked around in a cartoon-style Mexican accent en route to a Mexican restaurant in Fernandez’s home town of Coral Gables.

      Fernandez, who is Cuban, wouldn’t comment about the email.

      So klassy.  And, yet, the rest of the article shows Fernandez falling on his sword.  I'm glad he quit; he at least had that much self-respect.  But, apparently, he didn't have enough to follow through by publically condemning the tone of the campaign.  It's like the lawyer apologizing to Cheney for shooting him in the face.
  •  Off topic (6+ / 0-)

    but for those Star Wars fans here, I strongly suggest you hit up Netflix asap because the entire Clone Wars series including the episodes that were in production when Disney gave the series the ax are up on Netflix.

    I haven't watched all of the final episodes of Clone Wars, but the first three cover some back story behind Order 66 and are well worth watching especially since you realize how the whole series was better than all of the Prequels put together.

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

    by ehstronghold on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 03:55:18 PM PDT

    •  I always enjoyed the Star Wars video games (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ehstronghold, Darth Jeff, Gygaxian

      way more than anything else Star Wars oriented after Return of the Jedi (and even now going back and watching the original trilogy it's hokey due to the technology, but I've probably seen them all 20+ times). Such a shame LucasArts totally botched the Knights of the Old Republic trilogy and laid that egg of an MMORPG instead of the third one. Kind of amazing it's been nearly 10 years since the first two RPGs in that series came out, they were excellent.

      Oh man how the prequels sucked. I just hope the Disney ones aren't equally as terrible but that would take trying to do.

    •  Star Wars? Can't say I'm a fan at all... (0+ / 0-)

      I haven't seen the Clone Wars, but I'll check it out when I have time. I've heard good things but I have a long list of TV shows I want to see.

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

      by Jeff Singer on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 04:27:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I haven't seen the Clone Wars (0+ / 0-)

      as I grew increasingly aware on how Lucas botched the prequel trilogy, I have no interest in seeing anything not related to the original trilogy (excluding the even worse Stars Wars Holiday Special from '79, which was so bad, Lucas himself disowned it).  Is Clone Wars actually good?

      “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 04:36:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Rifftrax to the Holiday Special is great (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, Skaje

        It's the only safe way to watch it. I have seen numerous episodes of MST3K (And The Room seven times), but the Star Wars Holiday special is the single worst attempt at entertainment I have ever watched. No question.

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

        by Jeff Singer on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 04:56:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the Grace Jones part is so cringeworthy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Darth Jeff

          that I have no words to describe the amount of discomfort.

          “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:02:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's really amazing how bad it is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KingofSpades, LordMike, Skaje

            I don't think it could have possibly be worse without trying.  

            My awful movie hierarchy is: Plan 9 From Outer Space> most other bad movies> Battlefield Earth> Troll 2> Hobgoblins> Manos the Hands of Fate> The Wild World of Batwoman> The Room> The Star Wars Holiday Special.

            Not saying Plan 9 is good or anything, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as a lot of people say it is in comparison to a lot of other movies.

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

            by Jeff Singer on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:14:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've never seen it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Darth Jeff

              though I've heard enough about the SW Holiday Special from people more attuned to sci-fi than I to know that it can only be appreciated in the spirit of, in Nancy Pelosi's words, "embrace the suck."

              I wonder what the guest stars who appeared in it were thinking; Bea Arthur probably would have kept "Maude" going for longer if she had known this would be one of her next roles.  According to Wikipedia, Carrie Fisher puts on the DVD at parties when she needs people to leave at the end of the night.

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

              by Mike in MD on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:09:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bea Arthur is the only good thing about it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KingofSpades

                Granted her role as a singing bar owner on Tatooine isn't great, but she actually tries to do something with it. Compared with the rest of it, aside from an only mediocre cartoon (which is actually the first appearance of Boba Fett), Bea Arthur's scene is a masterpiece.

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

                by Jeff Singer on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:11:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  You have not lived (6+ / 0-)

              until you've experienced the unique horror that is "Miami Connection".

              The official description: "A martial arts rock band goes up against a band of motorcycle ninjas who have tightened their grip on Florida's narcotics trade."

              Yeah.

              If you can't make it through the whole film (with its incomprehensible editing, awful acting, and oh yeah the fact that for some reason the movie is set in Orlando not Miami), just listen to the track that introduces you to Dragon Sound.

              But if you go in with a good attitude and try to appreciate it on a "so bad it's good" level, you'll have a good time.

      •  In (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, Darth Jeff, lordpet8, aggou

        my opinion Clone Wars (the series not the movie which kicks off the series) is good. I mean it wouldn't have lasted five seasons before being axed by Disney if it wasn't good.

        The good thing about Clone Wars is that it fills in that massive blank between Episodes 2 and 3. Also Anakin Skywalker in Clone Wars doesn't come off as some immature teenage brat like he did in the movies.

        The show also makes use of the extensive amount of material in the novels and comic books covering the same time period. The writers also do a decent job in making sure the episodes didn't devolve into the "random battle of the week" type of show.

        The show also does a good job of putting a human face on the Clone Troopers which are portrayed as just tools in the art of warfare in the movies.

        Of course the show does have it's flaws like the movie that introduced the series which was a complete piece of shit.

        And then there are shitty episodes like (SPOILERS AHEAD).....the episode where R2-D2 and C3PO are trapped in a underground cavern and get into contact with a mythical tree like creature and the episode where Anakin, Obi-Wan and Ahsoka end up on some moon like ship where they come into contact with the Dark Side of the Force.

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

        by ehstronghold on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:10:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I thought they were fantastic! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ehstronghold

      The first 3 and the last 4 were my favorite of the last season. Really helped clear up how Order 66 came about, and how Yoda was able to come back after dying, but Q Jin wasn't.

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

      by aggou on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:34:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  RI House Speaker Gordon Fox Quits (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, sapelcovits, MichaelNY

    Yesterday, state and federal investigators raided his office and home. Today, he quit. It hasn't been clarified why he was being raided in the first place, but it seems like they found something pretty damning if he'd leave the speakership for this.

    •  I guess this is a good thing. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, DownstateDemocrat, gabjoh

      Fox was a social con in a state that's monolithically Dem.

      “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 Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 04:44:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you're confusing him with (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32, KingofSpades, Jacob1145, MichaelNY

        Senate President Paiva-Weed. Fox is openly gay.

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

        by sapelcovits on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:54:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Strongly Dem, but socially conservative (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueSasha

        As noted below, Fox was not a same-sex marriage opponent.

        That said, while RI is heavily Dem -- the House is 70 to 6! -- there is a very strong strain of social conservatism among Democrats here.  The state is nearly 2/3 Catholic, and it tends to be very Catholic (older houses in RI usually have a big built in alcove in the living room where you put up your crucifix, many have Mary-in-a-bathub shrines in the front yard).   Good fraction of old school Ne Deal Italian/Portuguese/Irish union Dems, not just newfangled progressive/enviro/secular ones.  

        So even though the state is overwhelming Democratic, it's closer to 50/50 on abortion and gay rights.  

        •  I'm not sure about abortion (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, wadingo

          but polling has consistently showed gay marriage with support in the high 50s or so in RI. the reason why it took so long to pass has little to do with the people and everything to do with the politicians.

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

          by sapelcovits on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:57:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Still low relative to Dem % (0+ / 0-)

            Nationally, you would expect that in a state that went Obama +28 and that has 90% Democrats in its state legislature, gay marriage would poll higher than "high 50s".   The Democratic election numbers are like Vermont (same sex marriage support closer to 70%), or like the Seattle or San Francisco metro areas.

            Agreed the the politicians lagged far behind the population in RI.  Still, on average Democrats in RI more socially conservative than the average Democrat nationally, certainly compared to other 'coastal' Democrats.

  •  NC-Gov (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abgin
  •  NC Redistricting: If Perdue had veto? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, WisJohn, ChadmanFL

    This map looks at what might have happened if Perdue had veto power over redistricting.  I'm not sure if Stephen has mapped out this scenario yet.

    In 2011, Republicans had majorities but not super-majorities, so Perdue had veto power (and used it effectively) over most of their crazy legislation.  But on redistricting, her hands were tied.  I think the most likely scenario would have been a compromise or "least change" map that protected incumbents.  But they probably would have screwed Kissell a little bit because Republicans would never agree to anything that let Democrats keep a lock on their 7-6 majority in the delegation.  

     photo ScreenShot2014-03-22at94945PM_zpsb874eb52.png

    # - President - Lt. Gov.
    1 - 68/32 Obama - 71/29 Coleman - GK Butterfield (D-Wilson)
    2 - 41/59 Romney - 43/57 Forest - Renee Ellmers (R-Harnett)
    3 - 37/63 Romney - 40/60 Forest - Walter Jones (R-Pitt)
    4 - 65/35 Obama  - 65/35 Coleman - David Price (D-Orange)
    5 - 36/64 Romney - 37/63 Forest - Virginia Foxx (R-Watauga)
    6 - 34/66 Romney - 35/65 Forest - Howard Coble (R-Guilford)
    7 - 49/51 Romney - 52/48 Coleman - Mike McIntyre (D-Robeson)
    8 - 47/53 Romney - 52/48 Forest - Larry Kissell (D-Montgomery)
    9 - 41/59 Romney - 39/61 Forest - Sue Myrick (R-Mecklenburg)
    10 - 35/65 Romney - 36/64 Forest - Patrick McHenry (R-Lincoln)
    11 - 45/55 Romney - 46/54 Forest - Heath Shuler (D-Haywood)
    12 - 73/27 Obama - 72/28 Coleman - Mel Watt (D-Mecklenburg)
    13 - 63/37 Obama - 63/37 Coleman - Brad Miller (D-Wake)

    The 1st is 51% black and the 12th is 42% black.  The 12th gives all of its Guilford precincts to the 13th and takes in more of Charlotte, keeping its ugly I-85 shape.

    McIntyre's and Miller's districts are drawn safer for them (not that they needed it) and Kissell's district is altered to be more competitive for Republicans.  It's probably toss-up/tilt-R under these lines, and he'd still be vulnerable to a Fayetteville primary challenger.  Shuler's district sees almost no change - literally it just added like four precincts, so he would probably be strongly favored there as long as he wanted to be in Congress.  If he retired, it would be lean R.

    Of course, NC Republicans might try to pull a trick that Republicans have pulled in other states: creating one or two more majority minority districts and getting black representatives to help them pass the map.  Hopefully Democrats would have been able to whip their votes and make sure that didn't happen.

    I would prefer the Council of State to have control over redistricting, as they are all elected at-large.  Letting the legislature have full control with no check by the governor is ridiculous.

  •  Erika Harold (0+ / 0-)

    what was the hype with her all about? In my time of reading (and sometimes trolling) redracinghorses, there was a lot of talk about her and how she could be a rising star and what not.

    Had she won the 2012 primary, would she have been easier to defeat?

    formerly demographicarmageddon

    by bonzo925 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:18:18 PM PDT

  •  HI-Gov (0+ / 0-)

    I have a question that I'm doing to myself.

    Do you think it is possible that now we have a significant number of Hanabusa (D) - Aiona (R) potential voters?

    •  I really doubt it. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:56:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We don't know if they'll be on the same ballot yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      If you're asking whether or not there will be some people who vote for Hanabusa in the senate primary and Djou in the general, then yes, I think there will be.  How many, I don't know.

      •  I was asking (0+ / 0-)

        If some Hanabusa (D) supporters or potential voters in the senate race would consider to vote for Aiona (R) in the gubernatorial election.

        And if this possiblity can be an explanation for the bad numbers of Abercrombie in the last (and alone) poll.

        •  Hawaii polling sucks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          I wouldn't look for explanations of HI poll numbers until we have the actual election results.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:11:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree that the polls for HI (0+ / 0-)

            have an important lack of precission. A 10% or a 15% of deviation in the difference is possible but the last poll suggest different things.

            A PVI of D+20 lead to a 70% D - 30% R result in an even year. It means a difference of +40% for the Democratic Party. But we have a poll with a -8% for Abercrombie. It is a deviation of a 48% in the difference between the two parties from the logical result.

            The poll would be bad failing the winner. The poll would be bad if the real result would be +5% for Abercrombie. But here we have someting more. I'm not convinced that the alone trouble here is about the polling failures in Hawaii.

        •  Some perhaps (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, wadingo

          But then again, some Schatz supporters will also probably vote for Aiona.  With the Dem Senate primary being the single biggest election this year in Hawaii, a ton of GOP-leaning independents and actual Republicans will be participating in the open primary.  In 2006, the highly contested Senate contest between Sen. Akaka and Ed Case drew 236,000 votes.  The GOP primary the same day drew under 25,000.  That November, Akaka beat Cynthia Thielen 210,000 votes to 126,000.  So it's pretty clear to me that the GOP electorate basically ignores their own primaries in favor of voting in the Dem primaries.

          In 2006, it was clear that moderate Ed Case was drawing the most GOP support.  This time around though, it's not as clear.  Schatz is running on a more progressive platform, but he's also got a more outsidery profile that appealed to the Case fans, whereas the Dem machine is backing Hanabusa.  So I'm not certain how GOP voters will break down in the Dem primary...my suspicion is that Schatz will take a majority of them, but not nearly as dramatic an advantage as Case had in 2006 with Republicans.

          Abercrombie's bad numbers are simply awful Hawaii polling.  Remember, there have been polls that were 30-40 points wrong.

          •  One further comment (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, wadingo

            My understanding is that Democrats think Schatz is more liberal, but Republicans think both Schatz and Hanabusa are identical far left liberals.  So I don't think Republicans are likely to line up for Hanabusa to stop Schatz on ideological grounds...it's not like they see Hanabusa as a moderate or anything.

  •  Random thought (16+ / 0-)

    Friday, the 21st was my birthday. That was also the day Michigan's gay marriage ban got struck down. Last year it was the day Gov. Hickenlooper signed Colorado's civil unions law, and in 2010 it was the day the House passed the ACA. Not sure what is going on here but I'm lovin' it.

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

    by sapelcovits on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 01:15:30 AM PDT

  •  Politics of the ACA: Ezekiel Emanuel's Thoughts (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sulthernao, geoneb, MichaelNY, wadingo

    He's the brother of Rahm (and Ari, if you find that interesting, like I do) and was very much involved with the policy design of the ACA. If you're not familiar with him, read this.

    Via Brad DeLong, he gave an interview with Harold Pollack, another health policy guy who is good to read, and in addition to the policy arguments that are interesting, there are some political comments. It's a long piece, too long to really post the whole thing, so I only highlighted the parts I thought were new and/or interesting, but read it all. It's worth your time.

    ZE: ...The two key problems in creating political disaster were poor public communication, which started very early on, really the summer of 2009, and then poor implementation and execution.  The difference between policymaking and execution wasn't clearly understood and acted upon by key decision makers.
    ...
    ZE:  Perhaps the key principle concerns the importance of speed. Every piece of legislation works against the clock. You start off, especially in health care, with 65 or 70 percent support. That support will only erode as you get more specific. So doing something quickly is absolutely essential. Wilbur Mills drafted Medicare and Medicaid within two months of the convening of the new Congress. Two months. And then he had passed it in the House. Within six months, it was signed by Lyndon Johnson. That gives you a sense for how fast you need to act if you want to survive.

    We were reminded of this throughout the process of working on ACA. Phil Schiliro, head of Legislative Affairs for the White House would constantly say: "We'll solve it in conference. Don't slow the process down for some details, important as they are, because we'll solve it in conference." Our immediate task was to get the bills passed.

    ...
    HP:  It's amazing how many things in American health policy over the next decade are going to be problematic because Martha Coakley ran a bad Senate campaign. This led to Scott Brown’s victory, which deprived ACA of its badly-needed scrub in the conference committee. Many errors and glitches just couldn't be fixed because of the ongepatchke endgame through which ACA needed to be passed….

    ZE:  So speed is one principle. You must also be aware that you're dealing with people. In particular, you're dealing with two of people’s natural tendencies: First, people prefer the familiar, the habitual, the things they know. Proposing a whole new set of ideas or approaches is inherently problematic. How did we get to finance Social Security and Medicare by payroll taxes, starting benefits at age 65. These aren't things we invented. This system was invented by Bismark and the Germans. Then it was carried through to Social Security and then adapted to Medicare Part A. This willingness to adopt familiar things, even when they're not optimal, is something I didn't fully appreciate until I saw it in action over and over again on the Hill during the health reform debate.

    ZE:  In 1965, they probably had it easier. LBJ had a huge majority, and they were starting from almost Ground Zero. There were far fewer pre-existing programs you had to work around or alter. That just made it just a whole lot easier to expand Social Security and to do Medicare and Medicaid. Within ACA, path dependence limited what we could do. We faced specific institutions and constituencies that constrain what was politically feasible. Beyond the interest group politics, people are inherently conservative. They prefer their habits. That status quo bias constrains things, too.
    ZE:  Many people have lauded Nancy Pelosi’s efforts. One aspect is often overlooked: Requiring all three pertinent committees to work together to produce one bill. That was masterful. She completely understood the legislative process and the need for not having multiple bills. That was very, very critical.
    ZE:  If you talk to Republicans, they say: "Democrats didn't do malpractice reform.” If you talk to doctors, they ask: “Why didn’t ACA include malpractice reform?" Whether like to hear it or not, President Obama has done more for malpractice reform than any other President. It may not be what you want, but no other President's done as much as he has.

    Many people--myself, Bob Kocher, Larry Summers, and the President--were sympathetic to malpractice reform. This Administration was not in any way hostile to malpractice reform. We worked hard to develop policy options. The President was sympathetic. He did announce some pilot programs in September 2009 because he wanted to do something. But you have to recognize that malpractice is fundamentally a state issue, not a federal issue. It's hard to get states to go along. The federal government has to incentivize states. It can't dictate to them.

    And the fact of the matter was this: there was no good political reason to do big malpractice reform. Republicans weren't going to negotiate. Trying to use malpractice to get them on board wasn't going to be fruitful. As for the doctors--despite all their public statements--when they got into the back room, they just didn’t put malpractice at the top of their agenda.

    As my brother eloquently noted in an expletive-filled discussion with me: “It ain't happening. We don't need to put it in, and we're not going to offend our base for nothing. We're already offending our base with the public option and with the Cadillac Tax. I'm not going to lard it on for no reason at all.”  That's the brass tacks of it, and you shouldn't blame the President.

    If there's one surprise here, it’s that the doctors could have pushed harder and made it one of their top three items. As my brother clearly stated, it wasn't.

    ZE: ...The skeptic will point to Maine’s Olympia Snowe. She was negotiating. We worked really hard to satisfy her requests. I remember one day Peter Orszag, the go-between for the Administration and her, brought back a list of ten things that she wanted in the bill. It was part of my responsibility, working for Peter, to work on these, to make sure that we had these ten things in the bill that would satisfy Senator Snowe. We worked really hard to get her. In committee, she voted for ACA. Then when it got to the floor, the Republicans put the screws to her. Despite the fact that she wasn't going to run for re-election, she voted against it. That suggests to me they really were never serious.
    ...
    ZE: ...I can tell you that I've talked to many HR people from big corporations, CEO's of modest sized corporations. All of them are interested in sending their workers to the health insurance exchanges, all of them.  Much will depend upon how well the exchanges work over the next few years.

    "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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:49:56 AM PDT

  •  Mitt Romney in 2016? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, wadingo

    Sounds crazy, but he has been criticizing Obama on Ukraine quite frequently. Today he was on Face the Nation.

    Perhaps more interestingly, Stuart Stevens, his former campaign aide, defended a Romney campaign claim about Chrysler moving Jeep production from Toledo, Ohio to China. It became an issue, because Chrysler announced recently, they would be adding 1,000 workers to the Toledo plant to relieve exhausted workers. link.

    Maybe it's just Stevens trying to defend the campaign he ran; he does have a column at the Daily Beast so it's no as though he is writing this out of the blue.

    But still, while it's unlikely Romney would be the nominee in 2016, he wouldnt have much to lose by running either. Especially given the "moderate field"(Christie and Jeb) might not be that appealing to some voters and especially some donors.

    •  I could only see it *IF*... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, lordpet8, Jacob1145, wadingo

      ... you have a situation in the fall of 2015 where everyone looks completely unelectable. Romney might in that case be able to pull of a late entry, especially if drafted by establishmentarians as a savior.

      Even that's extremely unlikely — I suspect most of the leading contenders will look electable enough by then and if there is a draft effort it'll probably focus on different figures, not a previous nominee.

      •  In that situation, I think (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        we see a lesser known governor or some House member make a serious run.

        But as much as we like to talk about people like Christie, Walker, and Bush, there are others out there. I forget to bring up Thune, but he's probably acceptable to everyone. There's got to be at least one or two people that are willing to take the plunge and aren't complete jokes. Thus, there's no need for Romney.

        I also think at least one of the people we currently talk about, like Bush or Walker, will run. Egos run big, and thinking of yourself as president is a mighty fine ego stroker.

        "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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:20:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bring him on n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skaje, MetroGnome, wadingo

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:20:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, wadingo

      I could totally see him not giving up the ghost.  Losing at such a high level is hard, and we've had plenty of perenial candidates in our history.  I mean, John McCain is still pissed he lost to Dubya, let alone then going on to lose to Obama, and making both of them continue to pay for it to this day.  

      The speed of the media makes it a bit harder to make the third time the charm.  But, if his last run didn't show us anything else, it's that he think she deserves the presidency more than just about anyonee I've ever see run and lose, and he's supremely pissed that he and the Koch Bros. couldn't buy it, either.

      Nobody puts baby in a corner.  Run, Willard, run.

      •  I think your comments about Romney are spot on, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        but I think his personality and desire can't overcome the need to find someone new. There's got to be at least someone who is better than him who would run. I imagine the monied types feel like that, and they probably won't give him the time of day unless the other choices are, quite literally, Santorum and 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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:23:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  there goes that youthful appeal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wadingo, HoosierD42, MichaelNY

      he's older than Hillary.

      "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

      by James Allen on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:42:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At (0+ / 0-)

      this point Romney is probably aiming for a cabinet position in a future GOP administration.

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

      by ehstronghold on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:59:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just a gut feeling (0+ / 0-)

        But I doubt he'd accept one. He would have no credibility to be something like Secretary of State, and I doubt his ego will really be assuaged by a lower-level cabinet position.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:38:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I highly doubt he'll run (0+ / 0-)

      He was against it in 2012, but Ann and Tagg talked him into it. After I learned that, I understood exactly why he was such a lackluster candidate. If you yourself don't want to be president, then why would anyone else?

      The shame of it is, I think he theoretically could've been an okay president. Certainly not as bad as Reagan or Shrub the Second. But after the primary, and after the tea party wave, Republicans have to toe the conservative line or be thrown out. The chance of him becoming president died the minute people started prancing around in 18th century garb.

      TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

      by Le Champignon on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:27:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  538: Reps narrowly favored for Sen (15+ / 0-)

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/...

    Nate Silver has.. issues.

    Some highlights:

    1: He claims PPP has a poor track record. It doesn't.

    2: He places WV and SD at the same chance of Republican win: 90%.

    3: Has Landrieu at 45%. She's led all the polls, massively outraised her opponent, is a third term incumbent who has fared better in worse political environments, yadda yadda - but STATE FUNDAMENTALS! Obama approval!

    4: Hagan is a 50/50 bet. I'd say it's pretty close to that, but there's no way Hagan has a better shot than Landrieu. Landrieu is our strongest incumbent among the Endangered Seven (LA, AR, AK, NC, WV, MT, SD).

    5: Michigan at 55% Democrat. Where's the state fundamentals to bump this one up? Pff.

    6: Yes, Michigan and AK are tied according to Nate at 55% chance for Democratic control. el oh el

    Here are the two money quotes for why I'm having trouble taking his analysis seriously:

    So the most appropriate use of polls at this stage is to see whether they roughly match our assessment of the race based on the fundamentals. Where there is a mismatch, it could indicate that the polls are missing something, that our view of the fundamentals is incorrect, or some of both — and it means there is more uncertainty in the outlook for the state.
    But we take the polls that show the race as a toss-up at face value.
    Either the polls are to be taken at face value or they're not. Michigan's fundamentals are that it hasn't voted for a Republican Senator since 1994, and for a Republican president since 1988. It is a very blue state that Obama won nearly 10% in 2012, and seventeen percent in 2008. The same polls that are predicting a Land win are the same polls that showed Romney competitive. Yet we're only narrowly favored to keep the seat?

    I respected the guy's analyses in 2012, but if he's going to be making some blatantly self-contradictory remarks, I can't help but wonder as to why. Trying to drive clicks to the new website, maybe.

    TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

    by Le Champignon on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:12:49 AM PDT

    •  I think it's a fair analysis (7+ / 0-)

      It's March, and I think the analysis is for how he sees the Senate playing out right now. And I think it's fair. It's a tough political climate and a very good map for the GOP.

      That said, it's March. I've seen people pointing out that Silver had a 62% chance of GOP takeover in August of 2012.  

    •  Landrieu trails Cassidy in 3 of last 5 polls (11+ / 0-)

      Her leads are all for the jungle primary. If it comes to it I'd rather fight against Tillis in a more favorable state if I had to choose.

      But in general Nate isn't saying anything I haven't been saying for months without the need for statistical models.

      "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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:52:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not bad (5+ / 0-)

      He's just judging it based on the data as it is now.

      “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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:02:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it is a fair analysis based on the data (0+ / 0-)

        that is available. I know he makes some assumptions of a state's lean, etc. that can sometimes be wrong, but he is usually pretty good at painting a fair statistical picture. He has a pretty strong track record (yes I know about ND and MT...but they seem more anomalous), and I don't know that we can easily dismiss him

        I also think this is a good reason of why Democrats need to take this election very seriously, especially races like CO and MI. I do not think they will be as easy as we expect.

        However, usually his early forecasts almost always change, and I am inclined to think it will do so significantly before Nov 2014.  

    •  LA (6+ / 0-)

      Landrieu has certainly not "led in all the polls," and even when she has led it's been nothing to write home about. And I also think Hagan is the stronger incumbent in that list. I'm sure there could be a good argument about whether Landrieu is more or less vulnerable, but it's certainly not clear cut enough to use all caps mockery!

    •  #1 trending topic on Facebook right now. (0+ / 0-)

      According to what mine says at least...  Ugh.  Great.

      •  He is like a magician (7+ / 0-)

        Making people believe only he can do something which is actually quite simple by making it look complicated. Good luck to him and his smoke and mirrors.

        "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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:28:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ha. Well put and I agree. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jacques Kallis, MichaelNY

          Sometimes his stuff (and he's not alone ... try sports stats geeks as well) reads like he just discovered statistics and is the only one who understands it. His claim to fame is being the most prominent among a lot of people (including many who post on this site) who understood that Obama was very likely to win based on the statistical evidence. He essentially "won" a fight against a bunch of political hacks who weren't even trying to win -- in the sense of getting a prediction right for its own sake. The people he was fighting with all had an agenda and were trying to push it, which is fine and appropriate and not at all what Silver was doing. Most of them probably knew exactly what he did -- that Obama had a big edge.

    •  as an NC resident, I just don't see Hagan losing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stephen Wolf, MichaelNY, wadingo

      sure she's not very popular and being hammered on obamacare. but she'll either be running against a crazy teabagger or the speaker of the nc house.  the nc legislature is very, very, very unpopular right now. the nc gop raised taxes on movie tickets. for most people, that's way, way worse than obamacare. that's kinda pathetic, but that's the way it is for most voters.

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

        but I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch. After the primary, if it's Tillis or Brannon, I'd be happy to move NC-Sen to Lean-D. But the only reason it's Tilt-D right now is because one of those two will likely be the nominee. If Republicans had a candidate who could pass as generic R, I'd be rating it as Tilt-R right now.

        TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

        by Le Champignon on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 11:35:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Giving Land for too much (12+ / 0-)

      credit by calling her a great candidate. His read on MI is probably the biggest problem here.

      Not too surprised by GA and KY and I expect it from him. He loves state fundamentals and famously missed ND in 2012 since polling was sparse and he doesn't use internals. While at DKE we all saw Heitkamp's internals that Berg never responded to and knew it was a 50/50 race.

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

      by Jacques Kallis on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:26:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Land (9+ / 0-)

        Not only does he call Land an "excellent" candidate, he refers to her as a moderate.  No way is she a moderate.  She may have a more moderate style but her political beliefs are not moderate.  This is why she has held zero public events.  Land knows the more she speaks on the issues, the more voters will see how conservative she is.  

        •  Land (5+ / 0-)

          Land has been able to escape holding any kind of real opinion for over a decade, now, first, as being SOS which is a fairly technical, non-political job (well, at least when she was SoS way back when).  And then secondly, as a GOP committee chairwoman where she basically pulled the party line.  So, basically, she's eitheer been apolitical when she's had to be, or hackishly Republican when she's had to be, but hasn't had to take or utter any policy position herself.

          The unfortunate thing for her is that Gary's not going to let her get away with not taking positions on issues, 'cause why else would she be running for the United States Senate.  The people deserves to know, and if anyone knows anything about Peters, he will force her to give the answers the voters so righteously deserve.

          Land's not an "excellent" candidate.  She's a Generic Republican who will now be forced to reveal her true self to the public.  Moderate?  Not this West Michigan Christianist loon.  Everytime the Dutch Mafia is revealed for who they really are (Pete Hoekstra, Dick DeVos, etc...), they lose.  And when they are able to slip through (Dave Agema), they become liabilities on a grand state scale.  You'd have thought the MI-GOP would have learned, by now.

    •  Yeah, this is absurd and wracked with problems (8+ / 0-)

      And I see Silver is letting his little spat with PPP color his vaunted "data-driven analysis".

      Kind of pathetic, honestly -- and I say that as somebody who paid rapt attention to FiveThirtyEight in 2008, 2010, and at least the first few months of 2012.

      Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:30:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Eh, Silver's a little overrated... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sulthernao, MichaelNY, lordpet8, wadingo

      ... but I think his assessment is fair at the moment.

      Granted, it's hard to gauge some of these Senate races in a vacuum, as Montana and ND showed last cycle. But I think most here would come up with something similar:

      - SD is gone, WV is likely gone, AR is probably gone, and MT leans towards being gone.

      - LA, NC, and AK are all pure tossups at the moment; we could hold all three, but given their state lean and the political cycle, we could also lose all three, and probably would if the trend in November is hard against us.

      - KY and GA are promising but let's not pretend that we're anything but underdogs here. And Georgia basically requires the primary going to the most extreme candidate AND a flawless race AND a non-disastrous political climate in November.

      Beyond that, most here view NH as probably safe, and view CO, IA, and MI as likely holds. I'm not as certain about the last three — yes, Land may be a weak candidate in MI, but polling generally has her ahead and MI is close enough that it will vote for a Republican in GOP political climate. So while I'd call us the favorites in all three, I wouldn't put them as anything other than Lean Dem right now.

      •  I have to say... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gabjoh, bjssp, wadingo

        I'm aware of the respective fundamentals of each state, but from what I've read and from my experience observing the careers of both politicians, I believe Secy. Tennant is a significantly better candidate than Sen. Walsh. I actually think we're likelier to hold onto West Virginia than we are to keep Montana. I think we'll still lose both, but the polling from West Virginia has been more promising and I think the dynamics of the race favor us more in West Virginia.

        I'm not all that scared of Rep. Capito. If Republicans put up a fauxderate woman who didn't present herself as a culture warrior and came across like an ordinary suburban or small-town mom in, say, Pennsylvania or Virginia, I'd worry. But Capito's profile doesn't have a ton of upside with swing voters in West Virginia, and it's going to make it harder for her to run a culture warrior-style campaign against Tennant that gives voters the kind of red meat then-Gov. Manchin fed them by shooting that cap-and-trade bill.

        Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

        by SaoMagnifico on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:48:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree on this (0+ / 0-)
        Georgia basically requires the primary going to the most extreme candidate AND a flawless race AND a non-disastrous political climate in November.
        It doesn't have to go to Broun. Another Republican (notably but not necessarily Gingrey) could also piss the election away with an extreme or/and stupid remark or several.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:29:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It really depends on if they open their mouth (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          and are gaffe prone after the primary.

          Mourdock and Akin were still rather competitive just after their primary wins. Only when they opened their mouths did they run into trouble.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

          by lordpet8 on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 01:32:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes it does (0+ / 0-)

          Because of the runoff, conservative voters pissed off with Broun can go to the libertarian. Unlike in Indiana, where all that was needed was for Republicans not to vote for the Republican, in Georgia they have to vote for Nunn. I think Nunn has a real chance, though below 50%, of coming first in November. I think her odds of being elected to the Senate on January 6th, 2015, are very slim.

          •  You're assuming (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jacob1145, bythesea

            that whomever wins the Republican nomination will be a good enough candidate not to piss away the election with an extreme or/and stupid remark. I think your confidence is misplaced.

            I agree that Nunn has a less than 50% chance of winning this election, but I think the chance that the Republicans blow it is probably at least 30%, and probably higher. That's significant and may not require Broun to represent the Republicans in the general election, but I certainly think it's possible that he could win a Republican runoff.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 02:25:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They have to blow in twice and in multiple ways (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              They have to blow it enough that GOP voters who are coming out to vote for Deal/Other Statewide Republicans not only don't vote for the nominee, but also don't vote Libertarian, and that enough don't abstain.

              Otherwise you have a round two on January 6th in the dead of winter, and Democrats simply have not won runoffs in Georgia in over a decade. In fact, they generally stopped winning them when the state was still Safe D.

              Indiana is only partially comparable. There is little to no history of cross-over voting in Georgia outside the congressional incumbents since 2002 or so. You need solid Republicans who want a Republican senate to pull a D lever when they can pull no lever or vote Libertarian instead. Add in a state, unlike Louisiana where no Democratic organization exists and you see why I think Kentucky remains a much better prospect.

              •  A lot of this is true (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, BKGyptian89

                But it wasn't that long ago that Sam Nunn was an uber popular senator, and people remember him fondly. It's not that Georgians are solidly Republican so much as they are solidly conservative. If the choice is between an embarrassing lunatic like Broun or Gingrey and the likeable daughter of a popular senator, I'd bet on the likeable daughter any day of the week and twice on sunday.

                The calculation I made a week or so ago showed that Nunn only needs to gain four more percentage points out of the white vote to be near-guaranteed a win. That's not at all insurmountable.

                TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

                by Le Champignon on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:47:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  I agree on Hagan (3+ / 0-)

      I do think she has a better shot than Landrieu. Landrieu has a serious, A-list opponent. Hagan won't. I think that more than makes up for Landrieu's superior quality as a proven and wily winner.

      I agree with you on the rest.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:22:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nate is not a pundit or analyst (0+ / 0-)

      His analysis has never been good, with wildly inconsistent logic.

      Accountants have no special skills in judging what tastes good.

      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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:35:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's also conservative on his predictions (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, Jacob1145, wadingo

      Remember he wasn't perfect on the senate races last time. He had the GOP winning MT and ND.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

      by lordpet8 on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 01:25:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He has New Hampshire and Kentucky (8+ / 0-)

      both at 75% for party retention.  And that is why I can't take this stuff seriously.  Putting Minnesota and Oregon at 90% instead of 99% also budges the overall numbers towards Republicans.  Illinois at 95%, but Kansas at 99%.  Hawaii and New Jersey also only at 95%.  That absolutely does lower the overall expected value of Dem seats by a bit, even if absolutely none of those seats are going to flip.

      In fact I just added up the numbers assuming that NH, IA, MN, OR, and everything above is safe Dem (100%), and that SD, WV, and everything below is 100% safe GOP, and got 49.7 expected Dem seats instead of the 49.2 that Silver got, using the same numbers for all the other competitive seats that he had.

      For analysis like this, slotting three seats at 90% instead of 100% makes exactly the same mathematical difference in the overall number as switching a single seat from 70% to 40%.  That's why it's so important to focus on making realistic predictions for the safe seats if you want to pretend that summing up the probabilities means anything.

    •  For me the biggest issue that has Nate Silver is (0+ / 0-)

      is to have a too transparent methodology.

      As example. Nate Silver write:

      The single best measure of the national political environment, in our view, is the generic congressional ballot.
      including a link to a resume of Real Clear Politics about the generic congressional ballot polls. If we open the link we see:

      RCP Average    2/19 - 3/16    --    41.2    40.8    Democrats +0.4

      Rasmussen Reports    3/10 - 3/16    3500 LV    38    39    Republicans +1
      PPP (D)    3/6 - 3/9    1152 RV    43    40    Democrats +3
      Rasmussen Reports    3/3 - 3/9    3500 LV    39    39    Tie
      FOX News    3/2 - 3/4    1002 RV    40    38    Democrats +2
      ABC News/Wash Post    2/27 - 3/2    RV    46    45    Democrats +1
      Rasmussen Reports    2/24 - 3/2    3500 LV    39    36    Democrats +3
      CBS News/NY Times    2/19 - 2/23    RV    39    42    Republicans +3
      Rasmussen Reports    2/17 - 2/23    3500 LV    41    37    Democrats +4
      Rasmussen Reports    2/10 - 2/16    3500 LV    41    37    Democrats +4
      McClatchy/Marist    2/4 - 2/9    970 RV    46    44    Democrats +2
      Rasmussen Reports    2/3 - 2/9    3500 LV    40    38    Democrats +2
      Rasmussen Reports    1/27 - 2/2    3500 LV    39    40    Republicans +1
      PPP (D)    1/23 - 1/26    845 RV    40    42    Republicans +2
      Rasmussen Reports    1/20 - 1/26    3500 LV    42    37    Democrats +5
      ABC News/Wash Post    1/20 - 1/23    RV    45    46    Republicans +1
      FOX News    1/19 - 1/21    1010 RV    41    43    Republicans +2
      Quinnipiac    1/15 - 1/19    1933 RV    37    38    Republicans +1
      GWU/Battleground    1/12 - 1/16    1000 LV    41    43    Republicans +2
      Rasmussen Reports    1/13 - 1/19    3500 LV    41    35    Democrats +6
      Rasmussen Reports    1/6 - 1/12    3500 LV    41    37    Democrats +4
      Quinnipiac    1/4 - 1/7    1487 RV    37    38    Republicans +1
      Rasmussen Reports    12/30 - 1/5    3500 LV    40    38    Democrats +2
      Rasmussen Reports    12/23 - 12/29    3500 LV    40    40    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    12/16 - 12/22    3500 LV    39    42    Republicans +3
      CNN/Opinion Research    12/16 - 12/19    950 RV    44    49    Republicans +5
      FOX News    12/14 - 12/16    1027 RV    43    43    Tie
      ABC News/Wash Post    12/12 - 12/15    RV    47    45    Democrats +2
      PPP (D)    12/12 - 12/15    1316 RV    43    40    Democrats +3
      Rasmussen Reports    12/9 - 12/15    3500 LV    40    40    Tie
      Quinnipiac    12/3 - 12/9    2692 RV    38    41    Republicans +3
      USA Today/Pew Research    12/3 - 12/8    1579 RV    48    44    Democrats +4
      Rasmussen Reports    12/2 - 12/8    3500 LV    38    43    Republicans +5
      McClatchy/Marist    12/3 - 12/5    988 RV    43    43    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    11/25 - 12/1    3500 LV    38    43    Republicans +5
      CNN/Opinion Research    11/18 - 11/20    749 RV    47    49    Republicans +2
      Rasmussen Reports    11/18 - 11/24    3500 LV    41    40    Democrats +1
      Rasmussen Reports    11/11 - 11/17    3500 LV    39    40    Republicans +1
      FOX News    11/10 - 11/12    1006 RV    40    43    Republicans +3
      Quinnipiac    11/6 - 11/11    2545 RV    39    39    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    11/4 - 11/10    3500 LV    41    39    Democrats +2
      Rasmussen Reports    10/28 - 11/3    3500 LV    43    37    Democrats +6
      PPP (D)    10/29 - 10/31    649 RV    44    38    Democrats +6
      GWU/Battleground    10/27 - 10/31    1000 LV    44    41    Democrats +3
      Rasmussen Reports    10/21 - 10/27    3500 LV    43    37    Democrats +6
      FOX News    10/20 - 10/22    1020 RV    45    37    Democrats +8
      CNN/Opinion Research    10/18 - 10/20    RV    50    42    Democrats +8
      ABC News/Wash Post    10/17 - 10/20    RV    48    40    Democrats +8
      Rasmussen Reports    10/14 - 10/20    3500 LV    43    36    Democrats +7
      Pew Research    10/9 - 10/13    1259 RV    49    43    Democrats +6
      Rasmussen Reports    10/7 - 10/13    3500 LV    45    38    Democrats +7
      Democracy Corps (D)    10/6 - 10/8    860 LV    47    43    Democrats +4
      PPP (D)    10/4 - 10/6    1000 RV    46    41    Democrats +5
      Rasmussen Reports    9/30 - 10/6    3500 LV    40    40    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    9/23 - 9/29    3500 LV    42    38    Democrats +4
      Quinnipiac    9/23 - 9/29    1497 RV    43    34    Democrats +9
      PPP (D)    9/25 - 9/26    790 RV    45    40    Democrats +5
      Rasmussen Reports    9/16 - 9/22    3500 LV    40    37    Democrats +3
      Rasmussen Reports    9/9 - 9/15    3500 LV    38    38    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    9/2 - 9/8    3500 LV    39    39    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    8/26 - 9/1    3500 LV    39    37    Democrats +2
      Rasmussen Reports    8/19 - 8/25    3500 LV    38    39    Republicans +1
      Rasmussen Reports    8/12 - 8/18    3500 LV    38    38    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    8/5 - 8/11    3500 LV    39    39    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    7/29 - 8/4    3500 LV    38    41    Republicans +3
      Quinnipiac    7/28 - 7/31    1468 RV    40    36    Democrats +4
      Rasmussen Reports    7/22 - 7/28    3500 LV    39    38    Democrats +1
      Rasmussen Reports    7/15 - 7/21    3500 LV    40    38    Democrats +2
      Democracy Corps (D)    7/10 - 7/15    841 LV    43    44    Republicans +1
      Rasmussen Reports    7/8 - 7/14    3500 LV    38    39    Republicans +1
      Quinnipiac    6/28 - 7/8    2014 RV    39    34    Democrats +5
      Rasmussen Reports    7/1 - 7/7    3500 LV    39    40    Republicans +1
      Rasmussen Reports    6/24 - 6/30    3500 LV    38    39    Republicans +1
      Rasmussen Reports    6/17 - 6/23    3500 LV    40    39    Democrats +1
      Rasmussen Reports    6/10 - 6/16    3500 LV    39    39    Tie
      PPP (D)    6/11 - 6/13    603 RV    47    40    Democrats +7
      Rasmussen Reports    6/3 - 6/9    3500 LV    40    38    Democrats +2
      Rasmussen Reports    5/27 - 6/2    3500 LV    40    40    Tie
      Quinnipiac    5/22 - 5/28    1419 RV    38    38    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    5/20 - 5/26    3500 LV    41    39    Democrats +2
      ABC News/Wash Post    5/16 - 5/19    RV    48    40    Democrats +8
      Rasmussen Reports    5/13 - 5/19    3500 LV    39    40    Republicans +1
      Rasmussen Reports    5/6 - 5/11    3500 LV    40    38    Democrats +2
      PPP (D)    5/6 - 5/9    1099 RV    45    43    Democrats +2
      Rasmussen Reports    4/29 - 5/5    3500 LV    40    38    Democrats +2
      Quinnipiac    4/25 - 4/29    1471 RV    41    37    Democrats +4
      Rasmussen Reports    4/22 - 4/28    3500 LV    39    40    Republicans +1
      Rasmussen Reports    4/15 - 4/21    3500 LV    41    39    Democrats +2
      Rasmussen Reports    4/8 - 4/14    3500 LV    42    38    Democrats +4
      Rasmussen Reports    4/1 - 4/7    3500 LV    41    38    Democrats +3
      Quinnipiac    3/26 - 4/1    1711 RV    43    35    Democrats +8
      PPP (D)    3/27 - 3/30    1247 RV    46    42    Democrats +4
      Rasmussen Reports    3/25 - 3/31    3500 LV    44    37    Democrats +7
      Rasmussen Reports    3/18 - 3/24    3500 LV    43    38    Democrats +5
      Rasmussen Reports    3/11 - 3/17    3500 LV    43    38    Democrats +5
      Democracy Corps (D)    3/9 - 3/12    840 LV    46    42    Democrats +4
      Rasmussen Reports    3/4 - 3/10    3500 LV    43    40    Democrats +3
      Rasmussen Reports    2/25 - 3/3    3500 LV    43    40    Democrats +3
      Rasmussen Reports    2/18 - 2/24    3500 LV    43    38    Democrats +5
      Rasmussen Reports    2/11 - 2/17    3500 LV    43    37    Democrats +6
      Rasmussen Reports    2/4 - 2/10    3500 LV    42    39    Democrats +3
      PPP (D)    1/31 - 2/3    800 RV    45    45    Tie
      Rasmussen Reports    1/28 - 2/3    3000 LV    44    38    Democrats +6
      Rasmussen Reports    1/21 - 1/27    3000 LV    45    37    Democrats +8
      Rasmussen Reports    1/14 - 1/20    3000 LV    44    39    Democrats +5
      Democracy Corps (D)    1/10 - 1/14    852 LV    46    42    Democrats +4
      Rasmussen Reports    1/7 - 1/13    3000 LV    43    37    Democrats +6
      PPP (D)    1/3 - 1/6    1100 RV    47    41    Democrats +6
      Rasmussen Reports    1/2 - 1/6    3000 LV    44    38    Democrats +6
      Rasmussen Reports    12/26 - 12/30    3000 LV    46    35    Democrats +11
      Rasmussen Reports    12/17 - 12/22    3500 LV    44    38    Democrats +6
      Rasmussen Reports    12/10 - 12/16    3500 LV    46    38    Democrats +8
      Rasmussen Reports    12/3 - 12/9    3500 LV    46    36    Democrats +10
      Politico/GWU/Battleground    12/2 - 12/6    1000 LV    45    42    Democrats +3
      Rasmussen Reports    11/26 - 12/2    3500 LV    47    36    Democrats +11
      Rasmussen Reports    11/19 - 11/25    3500 LV    45    40    Democrats +5
      Rasmussen Reports    11/12 - 11/18    3500 LV    45    40    Democrats +5
      Rasmussen Reports    11/5 - 11/11    3500 LV    45    42    Democrats +3

      From the 117 polls included in the list, 71 are from Rasmussen Reports. It means a 60.68% of the polls from where Nate Silver take his best measure is from the Rasmussen House (that without count the Fox polls and others...).

      For me this is the biggest trouble of the numbers of Nate Silver. Why has been Rasmussen as interested about to poll the generic congressional ballot? It is so easy to drive Nate Silver's numbers where you want dominating the narrative in what he call the best measure.

      Nate Silves's transparency is also his biggest weakness. His politican analisis has been dominated by the pro-Republican polling in the last years, and despite his effort to reduce this influence, it was not enough in 2010 and 2012 leading him to fail in some close elections.

    •  Don't disagree with him but his site is crap (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BKGyptian89, Setsuna Mudo

      His analysis of the senate race is just like everything else he's ever produced: obvious points made to look insightful through a mix of sophistry and arrogance.

      His new site is incredibly boring and uninsightful and has debuted to very poor reviews. I am personally going to very much enjoy watching it flame out over the course of the next few months.

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

      by okiedem on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 03:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  OR-04 - DeFazio compared to Obama (5+ / 0-)

     photo DefaziocomparedtoObama2012_zps388a927e.jpg

    No precinct-level data for Coos or Joesphine counties, so focus on the rest.

    There were a couple precincts where Obama outperformed DeFazio, but they weren't significant enough to show up. The lightest blue is where DeFazio performed up to 5 points better than Obama, the next lightest is 5-10 points better, then 10-15 points better than Obama, and then there's one little precinct in Douglas County where DeFazio did about 20 points better than Obama, in the city of Riddle.

    Eugene and Corvallis both come up as the lightest blue, as well a few other more Democratic precincts like the far northeastern one in Lane County and the west side of Florence, a number of precincts in Albany and a smattering of rural precincts. Like in OR-01 and OR-05 the incumbent tended to outperform Obama less in urban and very Democratic areas, and more in rural and less Democratic areas. A few exceptions are the southern end of Curry County, Josephine County (probably because Art Robinson is from the part of the county that's the most Democratic) and Springfield, where despite being one of the largest cities and leaning Democratic, in the city and nearby area DeFazio consistently outperformed Obama by 5-10 points or more. Springfield is DeFazio's base, so not surprising.

    Clearly DeFazio's best area compared to Obama was in Roseburg and Douglas County. In Obama's best precinct in Roseburg he got 49% of the two party vote, while DeFazio got nearly 62% there.

    "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

    by James Allen on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:00:49 AM PDT

    •  actually to correct myself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      abgin

      much of Eugene shows up as the lightest blue, areas like South Eugene and downtown and the precinct immediately north of campus across the Willamette River, where there are tons of student apartments. Many of the less Democratic areas like most of North Eugene and much of west Eugene are the second lightest color, though.

      "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

      by James Allen on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:19:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  here's a bit closer in on the urban areas (0+ / 0-)

       photo DeFaziocomparedtoObamaLinnLaneBenton_zpsb0239747.jpg

      Corvallis is the mess of light blue in the northwest, Albany is the patchwork of different blues just east of it. Eugene-Springfield is close to the bottom of the image.

      "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full." - Clarence Thomas in Philip Morris USA v. Williams

      by James Allen on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:59:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Will Obamacare fatigue fade? (14+ / 0-)

    So in the next week or so, open enrollment in the ACA ends for now.  I think it re-opens in November.  I wonder if this means that some of these made up horror stories end up going away for a while.  Already the press has put the ACA behind them for the most part.  (Fixating on Ukraine and the missing plane.)  I think they're tired of hearing about it and know they can't really make any more hay out of it.  So I wonder if the approval numbers will go up slightly and and despite the Republican plan to keep the ACA at the forefront, people just begin to care even less than they already do.  And some people will realize that they're better off with it.  (I got it, costs me 20 bucks a month with my subsidies, and am now covered when over a year ago I was kicked off due to Ulcerative Colitis and bi-polar disorder.  Now I get free visits to my doctors, minus copay, where I was having to get my mom to help me pay the 300 dollar bills I got each time before now.)  I think this could help us, as though the Kochs will push on it in their ads as they have for years now, people just won't care as much in November.  I'm sure we'll have another crisis of some sort by then, anyway.  There'll be another something to run on.  This could really help Hagan and Landreau, the two being hit hardest on the ACA.  Your thoughts?  

    (Sorry if this was too policy related.  It's sort of both electoral and policy, and I thought it belonged here.  I just included the policy stuff to explain why I thought the electoral situation could change.)

  •  If you could redo the 2010 elections (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Wolf

    in the House only (everything else the same, and the GOP still gets to gerrymander the same states next year), but you still have to pick 63 net Dem losses, what changes would you make so that recapturing control is easier in 2012?  They have to be realistic changes...let's make the cutoff at races that were 5 points or less either way.  Here's the changes I would make:

    New losses
    CA-11 (McNerney): Easy 2012 recapture
    CA-20 (Costa): Same, and Vidak doesn't win state senate seat
    GA-02 (Bishop): Tempt GOP to dummymander
    IA-03 (Boswell): Gone in 2012 anyway
    KY-06 (Chandler): Also gone in 2012
    MA-10 (Keating): Axe that district in reapportionment
    MO-03 (Carnahan): Screwed in 2012 anyway
    PA-04 (Altmire): Same
    PA-12 (Critz): Same
    UT-02 (Matheson): Let them have the seat early
    VA-11 (Connolly): Tempt GOP to dummymander
    WA-02 (Larsen): Easy recapture
    WI-03 (Kind): Tempt GOP to dummymander

    So with 13 new losses, we can now save 13 more tactical seats

    New victories
    CO-03 (Salazar): Would be safe after
    MI-07 (Schauer): Stronger profile for governor run
    NV-03 (Titus): Keeps Heck from getting entrenched
    NY-13 (McMahon): Should be safe after
    SD-AL (Herseth-Sandlin): Same
    VA-05 (Perriello): Could have been in Congress awhile
    VA-09 (Boucher): Might lose eventually, but not anytime soon
    WA-08 (Reichert): Our last chance at him
    WV-01 (Oliverio): Might have held on awhile

    Those are the 9 most important ones as I see it.  The remaining 4 could be:

    AL-02 (Bright): But might get gerrymandered out
    IL-08 (Bean): Makes next Dem map easier
    IL-10 (Dold): Same, and makes defense easier in future
    NH-02 (Kuster): Why not

    Those changes alone wouldn't have made House control obtainable in 2012, but they would have put us a lot closer.  Boehner would have probably had a very small majority, and how the GOP decided to remap Virginia, Wisconsin, and Georgia would have been interesting and potentially caused them problems defending overextended incumbents.

    •  I'd drop Boucher since I think he was screwed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skaje

      come 2012 with Romney winning so heavily there and that area zooming right after his cap and trade vote. Maybe Oliverio as well, but definitely wouldn't consider Bright, or Bean. With Bright he was worthless and just cost money, plus he might have lost anyway. Bean would only have been worth it if she resulted in Dems going for 14-4. Otherwise you've just trader Tammy Duckworth for her which is a downgrade.

      On the other hand I'd keep Altmire as I think he could have defeated Rothfus thanks to district incumbency instead of Critz. Now that gives me 3 seats left to give to:
      NJ-03 John Adler (maybe he doesn't get staph infection then, but even so we'd be tossup at worst in special)
      WA-02 Rick Larsen (if we lose this but win WA-08 this gets vote sunk for them thanks to Tim Ceis)
      WI-03 Ron Kind (rather save him for the bench, doubt they'd do dummymander)

      We lost several seats by less than 5 or just over it that I think we'd have been tossup at best to hold the next cycle simply due to how damn red the seats were, changing partisanship, and the GOP realizing the incumbent was far more vulnerable than previously, among them:
      AL-02 (simply partisanship, maybe Bright wins)
      GA-08 (Marshall gone in redistricting)
      MO-04 (Skelton never really challenged)
      MS-04 (Taylor never really challenged)
      NC-02 (Etheridge screwed in redistricting)
      OH-01 (Driehaus screwed in redistricting)
      VA-09 (same, plus dist zooming right)

    •  What would a GOP dummymander of WI look like? (0+ / 0-)

      Assuming Kapanke (R-La Crosse) beat Kind.

      Gay farm boy, 21, who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -5.12, -1.74, "No tears. Remember the laughter, stories and good times we shared."- My dad (1959-2013).

      by WisJohn on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 03:53:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dumb idea, but I wonder what Harry Potter politics (5+ / 0-)

    looks like (or should look like if Rowling fleshed out that part of her world). I.E, it seems there's a parliamentary system, and though there's no parties, there seems to be basic political divides (reactionaries/conservatives tend to be pro-Voldemort, while liberals seem to be pro-Muggle), and Rowling herself has said that she would never vote Tory, which seems to indicate a certain political flavor within her Harry Potter world.

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

    by Gygaxian on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 04:28:02 PM PDT

  •  Columbus, OH the frontrunner for DNC 2016? (7+ / 0-)

    That's according to this article, about Philly making a bid for the convention. I dont have an issue with Columbus, but I think PA would be good as well. It's likely we will have a Dem governor in PA in 2016, although both states could have a competitive Senate race, and OH will likely be more competitive at the presidential level.

    Then again, I suppose it's debatable how much impact a convention will have on turnout in the state.

    Also, this is funny:

    "Young kids today say, 'It's banging,' " Dougherty said. "If she's the candidate, Philly will be a banging convention."

    Rendell stammered for just a moment at that before asking the media: "Put the correct interpretation on that."

    •  I think Philadelphia is the right city for the DNC (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, sulthernao

      I think it would make a lot easier to win PA, increasing the turnout in the area of the big city. I think the state and the city need it. And also the Democratic Party.

      •  And it would be right in my backyard! (0+ / 0-)

        Philadelphia is a diverse city with Center City being the nexus of all.

        “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 Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:27:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        The GOP held their convention in Philly in 2000 and Bush didn't win Pennsylvania in November.

        OTOH, Dems convened there in 1936 and FDR won PA then, something he didn't do in 1932 (it was one of only 6 states he lost); from the Civil War until 1936 it was usually considered safe Republican.  In 1948 both parties convened there and Dewey won PA.

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

        by Mike in MD on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:46:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think (0+ / 0-)

          I think there is some sleeping vote in the area of PA and is necessary to wake up them in order to win easier and with less money the state.

          Also, it would be very interesting to improve in the area from the point of taking the majority in the US House again. From the 43 seats between D+1 and R+4 currently in Republican hands, 9 (20.9%) are in a close circle around Philadelphia:

          NJ-02, NJ-03, PA-08, PA-06, PA-15, PA-07, PA-16, NJ-05 and  even NY-11.

          I think the DNC in Philadelphia would give a good chance of defeating some of them.

        •  PA for FDR in 1936 was due to other factors (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          abgin, MichaelNY, lordpet8, sulthernao

          The key was that the New Deal broke the Philadelphia Republican machine. Hoover won Philadelphia in 1932, but FDR won it with over 70% of the vote in 1936; Republicans have never again won Philadelphia in a presidential election. In fact, Pennsylvania's shift was already apparent by 1934, when Democrats picked up 11 House seats on top of the 8 they picked up in 1932 (amazingly, just before the 1930 election, all 36 of Pennsylvania's House seats were held by Republicans). This accounted for all the Democratic gains in 1934; outside of Pennsylvania, the House was a wash that year.

          Incidentally, this provides a good opportunity for me to share one of my favorite electoral maps. Note that Leip uses international colors, so red is Democratic and blue is Republican. Aside from a few counties (like Lancaster, which has always been a Republican stronghold), it's almost a perfect inversion of the modern Pennsylvania map. The Democrat would actually have won this race if not for Philadelphia's huge Republican margin!

      •  OH more important than PA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I think Clinton is well positioned in PA the state is a great fit for her as well. Ohio is THE battleground state and there won't be any bailout boost that Obama got in 2012 in 2016 so having a convention there helping with turnout would be extremely helpful there.

        •  I disagree about it (0+ / 0-)

          Obama won twice with OH outside the needed Electoral Votes to win.

          Without PA today the chance of winning the election for a Democratic candidate seems so low.

          •  I don't think that's what henster is saying (0+ / 0-)

            henster is saying that (assuming Clinton is the Democratic candidate) Clinton is very unlikely to lose PA but will have to fight hard to win OH.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:05:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  PA and OH (0+ / 0-)

              If H Clinton need to fight hard to win OH, PA is not granted.

              If H Clinton has PA granted, it will not be necessary to fight hard to win OH.

              The PVI of both states is too close to have PA granted and to need to fight hard for OH at same time.

              It is necessary to remember that PA was the 22nd state for Obama, after NV, NH and IA.

              •  Obama and Clinton don't have the same profile (0+ / 0-)

                Remember, Clinton killed Obama in the 2008 primaries (I hope it's OK to mention that) in PA. In any case, I don't think anyone can make a persuasive argument that PA will have a lower percentage for any Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 than OH does.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:28:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Western PA may swing back to Clinton (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, ProgMD

                  It has swung hard to right in the past few years under Obama he just doesn't connect as well as Clinton did with blue collar white voters in those areas. Much of the swing away from Dems has been because of Western Pa. any improvement there for us would make the state extremely difficult for Repubs. to pickup.

                •  This was not the argument (0+ / 0-)

                  The argument was that OH was twice outside the minimum number of states necessary for Obama to reach the majority of the electoral votes.

                  PA will be easier than OH but not by a big margin. It would not be a margin enough big to have granted PA and need to fight hard in OH.

                  Also PA was a Clinton state in 2008, but also was OH, and her victory was by close margin in both states.

                  •   Clinton won both states by 10 points (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    28, gay male, partnered and living in Indianapolis (IN-7). Raising money for the most important social movement in Indiana in generations -- Freedom Indiana. www.freedomindiana.org. We will defeat HJR-6!

                    by IndyLiberal on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:59:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I get your argument (0+ / 0-)

                    But I don't think Clinton (if she's the Democratic nominee) can count on doing as well in states like Colorado as Obama did. On the other hand, depending on her opponent and the overall climate, she may be able to win in Indiana and Missouri, and conceivably Arkansas, but Ohio would be easier.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:43:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree about Colorado (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm waiting very interested also the new poll for the presidential election in New Mexico. Until now there are not results for 2016 from WA, OR, NM and NV.

                      I think Colorado has a good chance to have the VP. There is a strong bench of first level politicians (Ritter, Hickenlooper, Udall, Bennet, Salazar and even Peña).

                      For other competitive states like VA, OH, FL or even NC surely H Clinton is the strongest part of a potential ticket. I don't know if she can be able to win redder states, maybe possible if the Republican nominee underperforms the Republican potential, but this is not very likely taking into account that all their best will run in the open race.

                      •  How are you figuring who a "1st level politician" (0+ / 0-)

                        is? Didn't Ritter leave office so unpopular that a ticket including him would be more likely to lose Colorado?

                        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                        by MichaelNY on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26:44 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Hickenlooper was a huge upgrade (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY

                          but I don't think Ritter was at Quinn or Corbett levels.  The last polls I saw had him at like 40-50 disapprovals and trailing Scott McInnis in mid single digits.  Given the wave building that year, he would have probably lost to McInnis...that is if McInnis was his opponent, and not the Dan Maes / Tom Tancredo wonder team.

                        •  Ritter was not the most unpopular (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY

                          It was not a good year for a reelection in a state like Colorado, but surely he would have survived after the implossion of S McInnis and D Maes in the case of running for reelection.

                          I think the fact of W Ritter running not and leaving the place for a more popular politician of his own party talk good about him, and being young enough, I think he should be considered for something. It is an attitude that deserve to be rewarded.

                          It is not easy to find a state with as many prominent Democratic politicians as Colorado enough well placed to be considered for something. It is an impressive bench.

    •  I still like St Louis the best (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, jj32, Avenginggecko

      The swingiest of the swing states with a popular Democratic governor and a lot of cultural appeal. It's midwest and the gateway to the west all wrapped up into one.

      Plus it's got two very important races in 2016 - governor and US Senate.

      Nixon's the One!

  •  Big Dog Alert (5+ / 0-)

    Bill Clinton will headline the MIDems annual Jefferon-Jackson Dinneron April 26.  He'll be at Cobo Center.  The best thing about the announcement?  The MIGOP's response.

    Republicans took note of Bill Clinton as the dinner headliner next month.

    "Two weeks ago national Democrats switched out Gary Peters’ campaign manager, and this week they announce Bill Clinton is coming to headline their annual dinner; I guess word got out that Gary Peters’ campaign is flailing,” said Darren Littell, spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party.

    “What Democrats don’t realize is that the reason his campaign is suffering is because Gary Peters lied to Michigan families about being able to keep our health care, and a new campaign manager and a visit from President Clinton won’t change that fact."

    Yes, friends, they are still trying to make Gary Peters/Obamacare "lie" a thing.  Stop trying to make Obamacare lie happen; it's not going to happen. lol  It's all they got, apparently.

    So, when is Dubya going to headline an event for Land in Michigan..?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site