Skip to main content
Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 04:30 PM PDT
by James LFollow for Daily Kos Elections
Add keywords that describe this diary.
Separate multiple keywords with commas.
- 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
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 must be a member of a group to use this feature.
Editor, Daily Kos Elections
by James L on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 04:30:24 PM PDT
That would make my day.
Other than that, for California Senate, Sandra Fluke and Paulina Miranda.
I'll be helping them both until November.
Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.
by Shockwave on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:02:52 PM PDT
looks like a woman with a bright future in politics. I'll have to check out Paulina Miranda, not familiar with her.
Wishing you much joy and success in your work with them.
I'm on Twitter: ThisMagicalEarth@MagicalEarth
by ParkRanger on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:20:21 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
was giving her career a jump start.
City of Cedarburg, WI-06
by LordNicholas on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:02:49 PM PDT
was clearly this.
NC-04; 113th Congress Districts/Members Guide & Statewide Elections Data by County/CD/Lege Dist 2006-present for 50 states
by Stephen Wolf on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:08:46 PM PDT
Check this out ;)
(And yes, I did take my username from "Tom Sawyer")
27, male, Dem, born and raised in MO-08, currently living in MO-04.
by ModernDayWarrior on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:35:46 PM PDT
I didn't realize that she grew up in the dark heart of Pennsyltucky. And I don't mean the State College area. She's from Saxton, a small town in what might be the most conservative county north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Clearly she had to get out of there.
Impractical progressive Democrat. "I am becoming less and less interested in your estimates of what is possible." - President Merkin Muffley (Dr. Strangelove)
by redrelic17 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:23:25 AM PDT
conservative, but Pennsyltucky broadly is definitely up there.
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 Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:49:56 AM PDT
than any Michigan county. Bedford voted 77% Romney in 2012, while Romney only got 66.4% in his best Michigan county, Ottawa. Bedford has a small neighbor, Fulton, that is slightly more Republican, but Fulton is tiny. That said, Bedford is also tiny compared to Ottawa (Ottawa is more than five times as populous), so if you just take the southeast corner of Ottawa, then it's more Republican than Bedford (Romney probably got more than 80% there).
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:26:50 AM PDT
Those counties are pretty red.
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:43:03 PM PDT
Hancock County, the most Republican county in that doughnut around Marion, voted 69.4% Romney. The most Republican county in Indiana is Kosciusko County, located in the north of the state, between South Bend and Fort Wayne. Kosciusko County voted 74.8% Romney.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:47:24 PM PDT
Bedford and Fulton counties in Pennsylvania "win" that matchup too. They've both voted for the Republican presidential candidate with 72% or more of the vote in each election since 2004. I didn't bother to look before that.
by redrelic17 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:52:30 PM PDT
Sioux County Iowa, 83.6% Romney.
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:48:34 PM PDT
Although I'm not sure if that really fits the spirit of the question.
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:50:36 PM PDT
counties in western KS and NE that are 85-15 Romney. There's also Wayne county Illinois that's 78-20 Romney. Sioux county is probably the most Republican "Northern" county in America though due to its unique evangelical and Dutch demographics.
28, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.
by okiedem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 03:45:00 PM PDT
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 03:58:47 PM PDT
Bloomfield spent $200K! on his behalf. What do Bloomfield and Riordan know about Allen? Whatever it is, I'm endorsing Fluke.
Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:20:36 AM PDT
Democrats are trying to get Republican WI State Sen. Frank Lasee (R-Town of Ledgeview) kicked off the ballot for not living in SD-1, and Republicans are trying to get Democratic WI State Rep. Mandela Barnes (D-Milwaukee) kicked off the ballot for using two different home addresses on his nominating petitions.
Should Lasee be kicked off the ballot, that would leave Democratic candidate Dean DeBroux, a special education teacher, completely unopposed in SD-1. Should Barnes be kicked off the ballot, that would leave nobody running in AD-11. I'm not sure if Wisconsin allows write-in candidates to file after the normal filing deadline.
We are the 99.99%!
by DownstateDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:06:13 PM PDT
Is SD-01 generally considered competitive for us - i.e. if we luck our way into the seat, can we hold it?
Resident of TX-17 (Bill Flores-R); Solar Freakin' Roadways!; Senate ratings (3/10/14)
by Le Champignon on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:10:28 PM PDT
IIRC it went for Obama in 2008, although it's usually lean R.
by BeloitDem on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:59:24 PM PDT
I have not heard of such a thing before.
I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat
by OGGoldy on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:11:30 PM PDT
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama
by anshmishra on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:19:20 PM PDT
“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 Jun 06, 2014 at 06:18:24 PM PDT
the most. And as much as I'm able, I'm supporting Al Franken, Wendy Davis and Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire race). We have got to get the word over somehow to Scott Brown about "Once a dirt bag, always...". You certainly would have thought he would have gotten that message loudly and clearly when Elizabeth Warren trounced him in 2012. But he just got up and put yet another "For Sale To The Lowest Bidder" sandwich board on his back and front, and the Koch Bros and Rove certainly know a bargain basement deal when they see one. They snapped his worthless, sorry backside up in a heartbeat!
by LaBellaFarnese on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:13:19 PM PDT
Democratic challenger Jamie Damon has nearly matched incumbent Alan Olsen in fundraising and now has more money in the bank.
In reality, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing. - Rousseau, The Social Contract, note 5
by James Allen on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:15:40 PM PDT
Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.
by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:31:09 PM PDT
SD-08, SD-15, SD-20, SD-26.
by James Allen on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:59:03 PM PDT
But I suppose anything is possible.
by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:56:01 PM PDT
with a candidate who raised little money and everyone had written off. We are strong in that district. Republicans have a moderate incumbent with a big war chest, but the district moved our way in redistricting, and our candidate is raising decent money so far.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:27:11 AM PDT
There are now fewer Republicans than unaffiliated voters in Hood River County.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:58:15 AM PDT
Is strange. It stands out on your maps as uniformly blue, and off the top of my head, I think it's the second or third most Democratic county in the state, despite the fact it has no big cities, no significant centers of higher education, and an economic base that tends to skew Republican everywhere else.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:53:06 AM PDT
Nevada county, CA seems like it should be the same as the other mountain counties: older, mostly white, not much of an economy. But it's purple while the others are all red, and I think the reason is because it has a higher concentration of hippies, especially in Truckee, Nevada City, and Grass Valley.
SSP poster. 44, CA-6, -0.25/-3.90
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:37:28 PM PDT
Nevada county used to be solid red territory, now it looks much more swingy.
"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 Jun 07, 2014 at 01:05:30 PM PDT
only it's windsurfing AND ski resort.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:36:13 PM PDT
I think Hood River has more breweries per capita than anywhere else in the state.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:06:58 PM PDT
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:25:37 PM PDT
not below that.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:06:24 PM PDT
For a moment there, I was going to be really annoyed that we were running the head of Chase Bank...
"Pillows, but no sleep / Feathers, but no birds." | Pro-transit young black urban progressive (not liberal) | SSP/DKE | -9, -7.79 | NJ-05 | Yard signs don't vote. | $15 and a union!
by gabjoh on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:23:30 PM PDT
Name recognition is so important to get Democrats interested in caring about a candidate and voting. I'm doing what I can to spread the word on good progressive Dems.
I discovered Jason Ritchie in WA-08 about a week ago and wrote a couple of diaries about him. The GOP Rep David Reichert is up for his 5th term, but Pres Obama won this district in 2008 and 2012. Jason is very progressive and a good guy. We need him in the House.
He's reaching out to Latinos and is very interested in immigration reform. Apparently farmers and companies in the area are unhappy with Reichert obstructing immigration bills.
WA-08: Progressive Democrat Jason Ritchie is ready to turn this purple district BLUE!
What do you think? If anyone is nearby, he's having a campaign kickoff/BBQ tomorrow in Issaquah, WA.
WA-08: Meet Jason Ritchie (D) Sat, June 7 at his campaign kickoff/BBQ
I have very little info yet on Joe Bock, IN-02, but he's the next one I will look at. I have the impression he might be a good candidate, but just don't know.
Any info on these races is appreciated.
by ParkRanger on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:18:17 PM PDT
but, if Darcy Burner couldn't beat him, I don't know about Ritchie. Does he have any name recognition in that district?
by merrylib on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:33:55 PM PDT
I'm in Indiana so doing this from a distance. What I'm doing is writing articles and tweeting for him. I have some other ideas of how I may help.
There are 2 or 3 DKos groups for WA state and two of them have republished my diaries. It all builds together if we tweet, like on Facebook, write articles, donate, and volunteer.
Immigration appears to be a big issue in the area and Jason has been interviewed on a Latino station, written an article about it on Huffington Post and seems to have contacts with Latino groups.
My feeling is that times have changed. I think Jason can do it. If you look at the first diary I linked to above introducing him, you can get an idea of his stand on the issues. I hope you can vote for him or get involved.
He's having a campaign kickoff tomorrow in Issaquah, WA if you are close. Details in the 2nd link I have above.
Have a wonderful weekend, merry.
by ParkRanger on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:47:30 PM PDT
She was a bad candidate, period. The problem is now Rep. Reichert is so entrenched and he has a more comfortable district than he used to -- it's hard to see reason for optimism with any candidate.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:46:23 AM PDT
She would be fine for a blue district, just not for a purple one.
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:38:59 AM PDT
I can't forgive her for that.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:23:51 AM PDT
There was that time she claimed President Obama was a Republican on Twitter, though.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:57:19 AM PDT
If she had actually been in Congress, she would have fallen in line just like Raul Grijalva and all the other loudmouths did.
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:33:55 PM PDT
the dems have to go after it in an open seat
idiosyncratic, slightly anarchist, darwinist, moral relativist, fan of satire
by bonzo925 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:10:21 PM PDT
He has been involved with social justice causes and organizations for years, especially Oxfam. I would love to see him get elected, but am afraid his district is not as liberal as he is.
MI-8, 71, married, 7 children, 16 grandchildren, retired, independent but progressive
by jimmich on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:38:16 AM PDT
be a good one for me to look at. I'm realizing how important name recognition is. We can't depend on newspapers or television. All of our work together gets the job done.
by ParkRanger on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:25:16 AM PDT
DCCC is keeping an eye on that race too.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:29:24 AM PDT
on Global Health at Notre Dame.
26, Practical Progressive Democratic Socialist (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie!
by HoosierD42 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:39:48 PM PDT
I made a rough map for the performance of two Republicans.
note: this is still just a rough estimate till all the votes tallied. There were a few counties where Donnelly won by just a hair over Kashkari.
by lordpet8 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:58:45 PM PDT
Brown wins all of the coastal counties except Orange and does real well (for a Democrat) in Placer County.
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:18:04 PM PDT
This mostly makes sense except for Donnelly winning San Francisco.
by BeloitDem on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:02:02 PM PDT
saying something to the matter of: Donnelly needs to stop bashing SF values as they voted for him over Kashkari.
I guess a lot of the Dems wanted to have some fun in the GOP primary.
by lordpet8 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:07:14 PM PDT
Sorta like Author Kohl-Riggs getting something like 14% in the Republican primary for the recall election in Dane County.
by BeloitDem on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:13:13 PM PDT
Pérez has moved back into second, with Evans and Yee really close behind, 3rd and 4th separated by 452 votes.
Tammy D. Blair
(Party Preference: DEM) 170,379
John A. Pérez
(Party Preference: DEM) 725,557
Betty T. Yee
(Party Preference: DEM) 722,380
(Party Preference: REP) 722,832
(Party Preference: REP) 837,653
(Party Preference: GRN) 188,605
28 • Gay Male • CA-35 (new) • Pragmatic • Progressive • Liberal • Democrat
by BluntDiplomat on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:07:11 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:12:43 PM PDT
I had been wondering about that.
My heart sank when Evans (R) moved back in front of Perez (D) for second place, which would make the November election an all-Republican affair. But then my spirits rose again with the latest news this evening that Perez has recaptured second place.
Adding to the excitement, Yee (D) is now threatening Evans for third place. Perez, Evans, and Yee are all at 21.5% of the vote. Incredibly close. Can Yee even beat out Perez for second? Not if most of the uncounted ballots are from Southern California, where Perez is strong. Either of those candidates would be fine, though.
This race has been a roller coaster. If Perez or Yee wins in the end, it will have been an enjoyable ride.
My wife and I turned in our absentee ballots a half an hour before closing time. Wonder if they've been counted yet. We voted for Perez.
by stevenaxelrod on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:40:44 PM PDT
a 3 vote gain from yesterday and SB County is almost totally done.
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:15:16 PM PDT
to Aguilar, as they have been counting the regular ballots, with the last ballots being provisional ones that skew younger, more mobile, tenant-not-homeowner, etc.
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 Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:20:49 PM PDT
After learning the hard way in 2012, he ran a real campaign this time.
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:56:54 PM PDT
scored some state party endorsements and I think he had a bio on the ballot (I loved how Jerry Brown didn't even bother to do one this time)
by lordpet8 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:08:31 PM PDT
candidate must pay for if they want a chance to win is their statement in the voter's pamphlet. It boggles my mind how many candidates in obscure races don't want to pay for something that will be the main way voters decide whether to vote for them or not.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:35:04 AM PDT
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:17:19 PM PDT
But given California's epic ganja breaks, I won't be surprised if they only counted on weekdays.
by BluntDiplomat on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:20:39 PM PDT
unless it gets close to the certification deadline and they still have a lot to do. County governments aren't exactly rolling in extra dough, so they don't want to pay overtime to workers unless they really have to do it. I believe the deadline to certify is 30 days after the election, which is July 3.
Diehard Swingnut, disgruntled Democrat, age 55, CA-30
by Zack from the SFV on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:55:57 PM PDT
But after going through all 58 county websites, I have Perez up 536 on Yee and 8,236 on Evans.
I think it's looking good for team blue (though there's a good chance Yee might overtake Perez given the set of ballots left outstanding).
Editor, Daily Kos Elections. CA-12.
by jeffmd on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:43:33 PM PDT
I presume you made this after the 5:06PM PT update?
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:00:56 PM PDT
The SoS' 5:06 PT update was its reflection of Orange County's updates earlier in the day, which were already reflected.
by jeffmd on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:37:36 AM PDT
Talk about the comeback kid.
But why do you think the uncounted ballots point to Yee? Are there even more northern coastal votes to count than southern ones?
This question, Perez (D) or Yee (D), is so much better than the ones including Evans (R).
by stevenaxelrod on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:47:52 PM PDT
(over Perez) are much greater than Perez's margins over Yee. She's beating Perez by 20 in SF (~9,000 ballots), 17 in Santa Cruz (~14,000 ballots), 13 in Marin and Monterey (~5,000 ballots each). The only county where Perez's margin over Yee is in the double digits is Imperial (where he's 31 points ahead), but I estimate there are only about 2,500 ballots left there.
Perez has LA in his pocket (148,000), but he's only outpacing her by 5 there. But, Yee also has a few counties where she has that margin over Perez to offset: Sacto has 59,000, Sonoma has 28,000, Mendocino has 7,000.
Further, a lot of the Republican counties with lots of votes left where Evans will gain some ground on both Democrats also tip towards Yee - she has a 2.5% advantage over Perez in San Diego and 3.5% in Placer (~60,000 votes). Though this is offset somewhat by Orange County (36,000 votes), Perez's advantage over Yee there is only 1.3.
by jeffmd on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:15:05 AM PDT
Sounds close indeed, but perhaps, as you say, Yee has the edge.
by stevenaxelrod on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:01:14 AM PDT
The latest batch of votes from San Diego were very Yee-friendly...she actually outpaced Evans by 1.3 percent.
Alameda also had a new batch of votes. They were slightly Republican-friendly (...to the extent that Alameda County votes can be Republican friendly at all), but Yee almost doubled up Evans anyway.
by jeffmd on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:15:48 PM PDT
Texas — Sen. Rand Paul on Friday likened Democrats to the recently released Taliban detainees at Guantánamo Bay in a speech here at the Texas GOP convention.
“Mr. President, you love to trade people,” the Kentucky Republican and likely 2016 contender said to laughs, a reference to the deal made for the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
“Why don’t we set up a trade? But this time, instead of five Taliban, how about five Democrats? I’m thinking John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi …”
He was drowned out by cheers.
“Mr. President, you love to trade people,” the Kentucky Republican and likely 2016 contender said to laughs, a reference to the deal made for the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
“Why don’t we set up a trade? But this time, instead of five Taliban, how about five Democrats? I’m thinking John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi …”
He was drowned out by cheers.
by henster on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:12:14 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:15:57 PM PDT
Doesn't exempt a person from making ridiculous remarks on the topic. Just look at the crap McCain is spewing.
by ChadmanFL on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:08:40 PM PDT
surprised McCain hasn't said yet that since Bergdahl was a deserter/traitor he should have been left to the Taliban.
The Republican party is now an extreme right-wing party that is owned by their billionaire campaign contributors. - Bernie Sanders
by ehstronghold on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:16:56 PM PDT
just to clarify I'm not insinuating in the above post that Bergdahl is guilty of what FOX News and large chunks of the GOP is accusing him of.
by ehstronghold on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:23:34 PM PDT
Stepping in it would imply some kind of electoral or political negative consequence for him for saying something like this. Not only will be suffer no negative consequences from this, but it will only make him more popular inside his emotionally and socially detached party.
Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kodos.
by MetroGnome on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:50:24 PM PDT
by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:39:28 PM PDT
What the fuck is he talking about? Jesus Christ, wasn't the Republican party supposed to be the rah-rah military/America party. Have they actually just become the "fuck the black president party?"
I mean, obviously they have, but what the fuck?
by HumeanSkeptic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:52:02 PM PDT
by meromorphic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:58:14 PM PDT
in reference to the soldier who is being held prisoner there. So, maybe that makes the comment slightly less inhumane, but still equally as obnoxious.
by JacobNC on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:49:05 PM PDT
Par for the course for one of the most contemptible bits of rubbish in today's Republican Party.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:48:20 AM PDT
Can you picture any serious presidential candidate from the last, say, 225 years saying something like that? I can't either. Even leaving aside that he's well outside the mainstream on any economic issue, no one will take him seriously because he always comes off as a snot-nosed college libertarian.
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:46:18 PM PDT
As years go by, I find I have ever more disrespect and contempt toward Republicans and conservatives broadly, from top to bottom. And it's significantly because of stuff like this. Their rhetoric is the most vile stuff one would actually use against an enemy country in wartime, except it's toward Americans.
I have to remind myself consciously that there are plenty of Republicans and conservatives who don't talk or think like that. But those folks aren't on the internet, they aren't calling into radio shows, they don't have or seek a public voice of any kind. So they are muted. I can stay aware of them only by my personal interactions locally, offline and off the air.
But with Republican public officials and other conservative public voices routinely descending to the most delinquent juvenile rhetoric, my contempt only grows.
46, male, Indian-American, and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:54:21 PM PDT
And those Republicans who speak of still vote for the bad ones.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:56:54 PM PDT
Because the vocal portions of their base applaud them for it, and the Republicans/conservatives who are actually decent human beings by and large won't punish them for it.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:58:36 PM PDT
AR Attorney General runoff:
Looks like Rutledge will get it which is good, we need more women in the party IMO, and she is more than qualified I think. Besides, I think she could be a GOP rising star for the future.
ME-02 GOP Primary:
I think Raye wins this off of name recognition, if Raye wins the race is Lean Democrat, if it is Poliquin then it is Safe Democrat. So this is an important race.
NV Lt Governor GOP Primary:
I Want Hutchison to win because he seems like a better candidate over Lowden.
SC-State Superintendent GOP Primary: I rooting for Meka Childs In the GOP Primary, I think she has a good chance of making the runoff due to being the Deputy Superintendent.
I went 5/5 in my predictions this week. So I am 7/25 now. Hope to go 4/4 this coming week.
by PSUCentrePA on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:19:30 PM PDT
should win no problem. Lowden is completely broke and the establishment is behind Hutchison. Plus he has anti-Obamacare cred (represented Nevada in the failed lawsuit against the Individual Mandate/Medicaid expansion) unlike Lowden who's chickens for care gaffe gave the GOP Sharron Angle which resurrected Reid's reelection prospects from the dead.
by ehstronghold on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:50:57 PM PDT
by henster on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:37:21 PM PDT
there a bridge/tunnel/chokepoint Christie could have shut down to stop these protestors from getting to the rally site?
by ehstronghold on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:48:54 PM PDT
If I'm reading the LA Times map of the district right, Williamson who was the favored candidate of certain Hollywood stars didn't even carry more than a handful of precincts in Beverly Hills! So much for being Hollywood's candidate.
Williamson must be one of the most over-hyped candidates this year along with Ed Gillespie.
by ehstronghold on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:53:55 PM PDT
It actually makes sense where she won:
Topanga and Venice... hippies with money
Malibu... entertainment biz lefties
Greuel got the old money Westwood and Beverly Hills corporate liberal types.
The race really went according to what would seem most likely...
the southern half of the district (more Asian and more Republican) split between Carr and Leiu. The northern part of the district split between Williamson, Greuel and Miller centered areas.
Almost creepy how consistent the areas are, except for the weirdo far eastern appendage that oddly juts into the center of the city.
by tommypaine on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:08:20 PM PDT
Covers Hancock Park which is really upscale and sort of an extension of Beverly Hills except the housing prices are a bit lower. Hancock Park is interesting though in the fact that around Van Ness Ave, the area changes from being really upscale to more working class and minority. It's pretty instant.
Also, Hancock Park ends right before the Purple Line begins. They didn't extend the purple line out past Western because Hancock Park and Waxman didn't want it.
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 Jun 07, 2014 at 10:57:38 AM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:53:49 PM PDT
Scott Brown sure hasn't!
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:49:58 AM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:54:10 PM PDT
The Senate took a week off for Memorial Day, so so did I, unfortunately. But we were back this week, somewhat light.
Movement on current nominations
Bruce Hendricks and Tanya Chutkan make Obama's 109th and 110th female judicial appointments. 2 more until he sets a new record!
by HoosierD42 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:55:05 PM PDT
Based on political ideology based on their court decisions? I'm curious as to just how the various federal judged stack up ideologically.
by ChadmanFL on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:12:32 PM PDT
by HoosierD42 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:56:16 PM PDT
But some professors wrote a paper about this .
We find that while the Obama cohort is more liberal than the appointees of recent GOP presidents, they are not as liberal overall as some critics have at times suggested. Overall, the Obama judges are somewhat more liberal than the Clinton judges but slightly less liberal than the Carter and Johnson jurists. The Obama judges are effectively deciding cases as we might expect from mainstream Democrats.
by lordpet8 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:18:15 AM PDT
which is the judicial edition of ballotpedia.org
by Stephen Wolf on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:58:16 PM PDT
by Jimmy D 84 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:08:51 PM PDT
What kinds of DC cases do they handle?
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:16:03 PM PDT
So if someone can "make a federal case out of it" in Washington D.C., that's where it goes.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (not to be confused with the D.C. Court of Appeals) hears appeals from D.C. and from most federal agencies (which is why it is such an important court).
Ok, so I read the polls.
by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:28:23 PM PDT
They fulfill the same role as an intermediary court as the other federal district courts. The only difference is the D.D.C. and the D.C. Cir. have the exact same jurisdiction.
by HoosierD42 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:54:03 PM PDT
with your use of the word "jurisdiction."
Basically, they have the same territorial jurisdiction. The D.C. Cir. has a unique and special role that differs from the district court's
Chief Justice Roberts delivered a really good lecture on this subject a number of years ago:
It is when you look at the docket that you really see the dif- ferences between the D.C. Circuit and the other courts. One-third of the D.C. Circuit appeals are from agency decisions. That figure is less than twenty percent nationwide. About one-quarter of the D.C. Circuit’s cases are other civil cases involving the federal gov- ernment; nationwide that figure is only five percent. All told, about two-thirds of the cases before the D.C. Circuit involve the federal government in some civil capacity, while that figure is less than twenty-five percent nationwide.
by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:44:53 PM PDT
courts /= court's
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:51:56 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:52:30 PM PDT
that I was referring to the role of but one district court: D.D.C.
by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:53:30 PM PDT
Smackdown. Good point.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:00:05 PM PDT
for missing a period for that sentence. I quite literally missed a point.
by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:03:27 PM PDT
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:50:16 AM PDT
by pasuburbdem1 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:04:40 AM PDT
of not just winning, but winning big.
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:01:24 PM PDT
many books on Lyndon Johnson. Does anyone have a suggestion for which of the four is the most interesting?
by Stephen Wolf on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:04:10 PM PDT
Start at the beginning, and you will want to work your way through the rest. That said, each functions as a standalone. If you want electoral shenanigans, read the second; legislative genius, the third; and the power of the Presidency (and impotence of a frozen-out VP), the fourth.
Register NOW at early discount rates for Netroots Nation Detroit - July 17-20, 2014
by Adam B on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:11:28 PM PDT
so I ended up going with one of the longer editions (for some reason Master of the senate had multiple volumes) which was the Passage of Power (book 4, 2012). I'm currently halfway through Rick Pearlstein's Nixonland and reading all the parts about the 60s made me want to read more in depth about LBJ. The audio format though is for traveling/working out. I'll probably go download the first three books if I like that one.
by Stephen Wolf on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:20:43 PM PDT
I haven't tried one, but I think I would get impatient with the narration.
by Audrid on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:03:05 PM PDT
when you're driving alone though, otherwise I totally agree, plus you can read a lot faster than the person can speak.
by Stephen Wolf on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:30:59 PM PDT
It has occurred to me that if I get to go on study abroad I could learn to drive while in the US.
The main problem to this is that we drive on the different side of the road.
by Audrid on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:24:46 AM PDT
and between Macau and China all the time with few problems. It's just a matter of getting used to things.
24, D, pragmatic progressive (-4.50, -5.18), CA-14. DKE folk culture curator.
by kurykh on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:02:08 PM PDT
This is a total tangent, but since the subject has been mentioned... There are, of course, fast readers and slow readers, but my guess is that for the most part, there's just those two groups, with very few people in between. In my observation, slow readers are the ones who need to mentally "sound out" the words they're reading, while fast readers don't need to do that.
by meromorphic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:59:55 AM PDT
My company sent me (as part of a group selected by e-mail inbox volume) to a course in speed reading. The course instructor asked me, after the "pre-test," if I'd ever had a speed reading course in the past (no). I'm the slowest reader in my family. My pre-test was higher speed and higher comprehension than the rest of the (intelligent degreed) group tested after the course. There are a few people (not me), who can basically glance at a page of text and then recite it verbatim.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:34:04 AM PDT
How has the ACA personally effected you?
I'm reasonably certain I would have aged out of my parents plan by now under the old rules, and I'm not close to a position where I'd have employer-provided coverage, so I only have healthcare at this point thanks to the law.
by BeloitDem on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:10:15 PM PDT
It could have affected me a great deal, but Perry chose not to expand medicaid. As it stands, I'm mostly just affected by the preexisting conditions clause (I'm a type one diabetic), the lifetime and annual limits clause, and the free wellness exams.
by Le Champignon on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:50:10 PM PDT
Considering Obamacare is basically Romneycare and I'm from Massachusetts, that's not surprising.
by meromorphic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:51:45 PM PDT
but once I graduate from college it will allow me to stay on my parents' plan. I admit I'm not an expert on health care or anything relating to the medical field, but I have no doubt that eventually I will get to know more people who the ACA has personally helped.
(-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock
by ProudNewEnglander on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:08:46 PM PDT
Because if you are it's because of Obamacare that you have coverage.
by ChadmanFL on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:03:39 PM PDT
Some states had age requirements above 18, although I don't think any were as high as 26.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:08:48 AM PDT
but if I wasn't on my parents' plan I would be on my college's plan instead. That's why I said that as soon as I graduate from college, the ACA will allow me to stay on my parents' plan.
by ProudNewEnglander on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:07:11 AM PDT
A lot of plans allowed full-tine students to stay on their parents' policy past age 18 before the ACA (both of my youngest sisters, for instance). There were millions of folks helped by the "under-26" provision of ACA, but not everyone between 18-26 whose parents have a plan was ineligible beforehand.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:38:29 AM PDT
for the first time in decades. It is a local Los Angeles County public option called "L.A. Care" . It is an HMO. I have the card and an assigned doctor. Next week I will call to set up an appointment for a physical exam. I used to just pay for services and hope nothing major would happen that I couldn't afford. Now I no longer should have to worry about medical bill bankruptcy.
by Zack from the SFV on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:29:12 PM PDT
...other than giving me peace of mind that I know that I can get access to healthcare if the bottom fell out of my finances. That's a very big deal to me. It also makes sick people slightly less second class. That's an even bigger deal to me.
"I know you cannot force people to care. Ukraine is far away for many, all have own problems. But even if cynical, realize problem will grow. It isn't only people like me, raised in a dictatorship, who don't want it to happen to others"-Gary Kasparov
by LordMike on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:56:11 PM PDT
though I am on a family plan for the time being.
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:03:02 PM PDT
I've personally had quality insurance through my employer for 8 years, so it has not directly affected my own insurance much. But my mother in in her 50's and has been unable to work for many years, without disability coverage or any real income. I've been supporting her. Due to pre-existing conditions she had not had any insurance for almost a decade and had been putting off a lot of things.
With Obamacare I pay about $400 a month (would have been about $700 without subsidy) for a 100% Blue Cross plan with zero deductible for her. So far I've paid only about $200 out of pocket (doctors visit co-payments and RX) while the plan has paid roughly $8,000, mainly to have skin cancer removed, prescriptions and tests. I would have gone near broke paying all these bills out of pocket and my mom was too stubborn to go to the doctor for fear of the bills prior to having insurance.
I swear she didn't believe Obamacare was actually going to work until she got her insurance card in the mail and visited the doctor without paying anything for the first time.
by ChadmanFL on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:01:35 PM PDT
to HR when I got my job (with full benefits) almost 16 years ago was: Can I put my parents/siblings on my healthcare? Since I couldn't claim them as dependents for tax purposes, the answer was, of course, no.
As the go-to emergency loan/grant source for my extended family, the ACA will reduce my out-of-pocket.
Also, it means I could quit/change my job without worrying about healthcare.
Also, it means I can go to the doctor for treatment without worrying about setting up a scenario where my medical records block me from getting affordable healthcare in future.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:30:04 PM PDT
Been there for 8 years and they offer great plans at a very low cost. They even extend benefits to gay couples even in states like mine that don't have marriage equality. Only thing they don't extend health coverage to is adult dependents. :( No company I'm aware does that unfortunately.
by ChadmanFL on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:16:31 PM PDT
My new job offers great insurance to me dirt cheap, but does not cover my wife or baby at all at a discount. So to cover them through my job would have been $1,000 a month.
Thanks to Obamacare we were able to find a good plan that saved us a few hundred bucks a month, we kept our doctors as well.
by Socks The Cat on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:31:41 PM PDT
It would have been a big deal for me since I work for myself and hadn't had insurance in about ten years. But before it kicked in I got married last year and my wife is in the military so I have Tri-Care (which is awesome) instead.
I'm finally getting dental work done that I put off for years. It's amazing.
by PassionateJus on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:12:47 PM PDT
After I turned 26. Never got sick enough to go to the hospital, but it was a load off my mind. I'll probably check out the exchanges here soon.
by HoosierD42 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:59:27 PM PDT
I'm on my mom's health insurance plan for about a year and a half (my 26th birthday will be January 26, 2016). Prior to that, I had no health insurance whatsoever because I have Asperger's Syndrome.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:06:06 AM PDT
about whether Obama really brought about change, but that's pretty much it.
by Audrid on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:25:25 AM PDT
While I'm sure it brought the price of insurance down, the plans offered in New York are still too expensive for me to afford. $300-400/month for plans with large deductibles are basically useless. Thankfully I'll be able to get some decent insurance when I start grad school in the fall.
by Johnny Longtorso on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:12:48 AM PDT
was able to get health insurance for myself through my work because my employer bumped me up to a more permanent status in the company. I may still be in college and young, but if god forbid something bad were to happen for me at least I know I won't be bankrupted by huge medical bills. I mean us college students already have to worry about student debt!
by ehstronghold on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:23:10 AM PDT
when the exchanges launched, the ACA would have saved me $125-150 per month (for a gold plan) over the direct plan I had at the time. And most likely a lot more, as I was comparing the 2013 premium for the Anthem direct plan (pre-whatever annual increase there would have been) with the 2014 exchange premium.
The irony is that my employment status changed soon after, giving me insurance through my company. But it feels amazing to know I'd easily be able to get direct insurance again, if I ever need it.
by itskevin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:46:18 AM PDT
My parents are virulent anti-Obama conservatives and thought the ACA was the coming of the third reich. They both retired in their early 50s and didn't qualify for medicare.
They were "happy" with their junk insurance because it was cheap and all they needed. After all, they are both health nuts, exercise regularly, and don't drink or smoke.
About two months ago my dad was admitted to the hospital with recurring chest pains that had been going on about three months. His doctor said it was just acid reflux but it got to a point that they knew it must be something else.
Turns out he had major arterial blockage and his heart was function at 13% capacity. A few more days and it would have been 0%. He was admitted to the hospital and had stents and pumps pumping his heart for him and underwent major open heart surgery (it was so bad there were a few days they weren't sure if he would make it). Because they had a decent ACA plan, a bill that could have drained a huge chunk of their retirement or perhaps forced them back into work was almost entirely covered by their new insurance plan.
The ACA bashing is conspicuously absent from our conversations now.
by Avenginggecko on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:06:33 AM PDT
appreciate a bigger public health coverage.
Let the time to do the work.
by abgin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:22:25 PM PDT
when I critically needed mental health care. It might be the reason I'm still here.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:49:53 AM PDT
by Audrid on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:25:53 PM PDT
At the place I work, we switched insurance providers earlier this year and were told that, due to the ACA, rates would be going up. I should note that the person who put this together (one of my co-workers) is seemingly apolitical and wouldn't be the type to "blame Obummercare" - instead, I think this was just the new coverage requirements causing an increase, and noting that the ACA was the cause. We got one 20% rate increase in February, with another 20% rate increase coming around August.
Still, it costs less than what I would get if I went through the exchange (Wisconsin resident, mid-30s). And, even though I don't make a lot of money, I'm okay with the ACA in total even if my rates are going up some - while not perfect, far more good than harm has been done with the law.
by alphaaqua on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:15:59 AM PDT
How big is the company? Did the deductible change?
Do you mean your contribution to the premium is going up 44% in a 6 month period or that the premium is going up that much, or both (you should be able to see the company contribution on your W-2 if nowhere else)? Do you mean that the premium is less than the exchange price, or that your contribution to the premium is less than the exchange price, and is that with or without subsidies?
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:04:39 PM PDT
used to be paid by me and now are covered under preventative services.
Saved multiple family members money as well.
President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."
by askew on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:15:51 PM PDT
And, that's actually a feature of the ACA, not a coincidence. One of the very goals was to try to avoid touching at all the plans of people happy with what they have, including most employer-provided plans like I have.
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:46:11 PM PDT
With the new ruling I'm curious to see how much of it will impact the Governor's race. I've noticed Walker seems to be backtracking quite a bit.
Also in the large scheme of things, I wonder if perhaps Gay marriage may be a settled issue in the sense that it ends up being legal in all 50 states by the end of Obama's term. It really seems to be accelerating at a pace I never fathomed before.
by lordpet8 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:17:03 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:21:16 PM PDT
The Wisconsin Attorney General is a Republican who is appealing the case. So unlike in Pennsylvania, where Corbett was forced to make a decision as to what to do because the Democratic Attorney General, Kathleen Kane, refused to appeal, Walker can just evade the question, saying that the Attorney General is handling it.
by meromorphic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:50:09 PM PDT
...and, given that he's given every indication that he's going to fight the decision every step of the way, that's probably why he's not running for re-election.
I think WI-AG would be at least Lean D if not Likely D had Van Hollen ran for re-election.
by DownstateDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:07:52 PM PDT
issue despite that.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:59:15 AM PDT
is, at this moment, legal in every Gore state but Michigan.
by Chachy on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:01:02 PM PDT
But the judge's ruling is stayed.
by HoosierD42 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:01:47 PM PDT
by Le Champignon on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:32:51 PM PDT
Nice one, but groan worthy.
by OGGoldy on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:32:46 AM PDT
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:14:53 AM PDT
legal in every Gore or Kerry state besides MI. And still illegal in every other state.
by Chachy on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:22:48 AM PDT
Who is actually the only Senior Judge on the bench in the Western District of Wisconsin. She was appointed by Carter in 1979 and took senior status in 2010.
by HoosierD42 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:11:24 AM PDT
Social issues aren't the driving factor in this race. It's mainly business policies/budgets/growth, plus perceptions of Walker's character (a strong leader? a union buster?). I did not sense as much enthusiasm as I would have thought after the announcement yesterday. Maybe because it was late on a Friday as people were disconnecting from the news for their weekend...but I also think it's just not as big an event as it was with the first states. Even J.B. Van Hollen said recently that he expected the ban to be struck down (even if he'll fight for it to be reinstated).
Conservatives will vote for Walker for what they see as heroic actions against unions, and gay marriage isn't that important an issue to them (even if most would like to see the ban in place). Liberals will vote for Mary Burke (as of now, mainly as an anti-Walker vote), so this decision on the ban doesn't have an effect one way or another - if anything, it makes us liberals feel a bit better about living in Wisconsin. Moderates probably cared the least about the ban in the first place, and they're going to vote for a candidate based on the direction they feel Wisconsin is going and if they think Walker's doing a good job as governor (unless Burke makes an overwhelming case for her election).
by alphaaqua on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:25:36 AM PDT
roguemapper had a post the other day over at RRH about the original 1992 map with the infamous NC-12 that went from Durham to the Triad to Charlotte to Gastonia and I went back and drew it in DRA and calculated the 2012 data:
(population is in thousands, racial groups include Hispanics)
At the time state Democrats drew that map and were forced by the DoJ to draw the 1st and 12th, they intended the 6th, 9th, and 10th as vote sinks while the 11th was a potential pick up. We had incumbents in 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. This map awesomely uses crossover touch point contiguity several times. One thing I notice when I look at the map is how many Democrats are wasted in Greensboro who could have gone in the 5th, but other than that it tries to scoop up every pocket of strength it can given the constraints of the two black districts.
Looking at 2012 though we almost certainly win all four Obama seats including the 9th while Shuler and McIntyre win fairly comfortably in the 7th and 11th. If we didn't nominate Bob Etheridge again in the 2nd I think we win that one too since it has a bunch of conservadems and was a full point to the left of the state in 2012, but with his baggage he might have lost it but it's a Tossup at worst. The 5th might be winnable and certainly competitive given how loony Virginia Foxx is but it's still a right leaning district with a bad trend. Kissell's seat gets barely more Democratic and he's probably still triaged.
by Stephen Wolf on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:42:59 PM PDT
the first to be seriously challenged in court as an example of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. I think this was an example of the DoJ (in a GOP administration) using the VRA as an excuse to pack most minority precincts into one district and, not by accident, leaving other seats more Republican. Ironically, by now even the two monstrosities intended as such don't have African-American majorities (granted, the state as a whole has an additional district, but still...)
38, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat
by Mike in MD on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:01:33 PM PDT
be drawn that way?
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:02:35 PM PDT
though they didn't dictate those precise lines. After the Democratic legislature drew a district with an African American majority district in the eastern part of the state (the 1st), the Bush 41 DoJ demanded that a second such district be drawn elsewhere, so the 12th was contrived.
by Mike in MD on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:15:31 PM PDT
They demanded that VRA districts in the South be drawn to be as black as possible. That's why a lot of Southern states had really disgusting tentacle monsters for districts; this includes Cleo Fields's district in Louisiana and Corrine Brown's district in Florida, both of which were also successfully challenged. There was also less egregious stuff like running Alabama's VRA district into Montgomery when it didn't need Montgomery to be black-majority. The aim was, of course, obviously partisan, but certainly nobody in the Bush DOJ ever admitted it.
by meromorphic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:17:54 PM PDT
Ben Ginsburg was also a champion of that sort of thing.
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:22:40 PM PDT
This is the original Florida map, used in 1992 and 1994. At first, you'll just see the north Florida black sink, but zoom in on southern Florida. You'll notice Alcee Hastings's old district, and then when you look southward at Miami-Dade, you'll have to first convince yourself that what you see isn't a joke.
by meromorphic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:25:43 PM PDT
the North Miami area at the time to support the compact district that currently exists there?
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:32:39 PM PDT
Here it is. There was enough of a black population to draw a compact black district. But the Bush DOJ's interpretation of the VRA was "draw as black as possible, even if it's repulsively ugly".
by meromorphic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:35:31 PM PDT
At least in time for '96, they corrected the Congressional maps to be less ugly: http://archive.fairvote.org/...
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:42:04 PM PDT
They fixed Corrine Brown's district, but the map I linked is actually the one used in the latter part of the decade. You can see the 1992 / 1994 map here.
by meromorphic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:09:34 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:49:19 PM PDT
is such a convoluted mess, I can't make out which district is which. Geez...
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:03:11 PM PDT
for their obviously agenda-filled arguments for "black as possible, no matter what."
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:43:58 PM PDT
...it added a provision for majority black districts, so the packing was not only legal, it was encouraged. The CBC loved that provision as well, and still fights any attempt at any reasonable adjustments to their districts.
by LordMike on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:37:21 PM PDT
Majority VAP black is really all it takes.
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:19:05 PM PDT
standpoint, but keep in mind that black elected officials are also concerned with representation.
It's been shown across a wide variety of studies that black officials substantively represent in a good number of ways black constituents better than do similarly situated white representatives.
In other words, they're trying to make sure that the highest number of blacks in their state are getting the best possible representation.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:23:48 PM PDT
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:24:04 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:57:16 PM PDT
It's about elections and representation.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:00:36 PM PDT
It's supposed to allow more blacks in congress regardless of whether that provision ends up limiting the voice of African Americans on the political stage. It's a tradeoff, I guess. If one values diversity, it's good. If one values political power exercised by a minority, it's both good and bad.
Apparently Stephen Wolf has proven that you could easily draw a Democrat-less south if it weren't for the VRA, but the way it's implemented, you have fewer Democrats than might otherwise be possible with a "better" interpretation of the VRA.
I like the idea of limiting VRA districts to within a few percentage points of 50%. It maximizes minority political power, prevents them from being packed, and still allows minorities to elect minority candidates without any help from whites.
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:01:24 PM PDT
Sure, packing a 67% black Americans into a district ensures that those black Americans get good representation. But what about the 15-20-30% in the other districts? Wouldn't it be better to have two black Congressman represent 50.1% AA majority districts than one representing a ghettoized district?
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:54:27 AM PDT
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:19:31 PM PDT
it makes the Shawmander (FL-22 in the 2000s) look almost reasonable by comparison.
by KingofSpades on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:45:21 PM PDT
as a result of those maps ... sigh
Between the aggressive DOJ and the dummymanders, it's no surprise that GOP made large gains in the south.
by lordpet8 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:42:48 PM PDT
we could have additional ones in at least SC, AL, MS, and LA.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:05:04 AM PDT
or our lovely Supreme Court might find more parts of the act they don't like.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:26:20 AM PDT
Vox Populi (R)
by PSUCentrePA on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:46:53 PM PDT
28, Male, CA-26, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.
by DrPhillips on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:29:54 PM PDT
so they might not actually be too far off. (Source) Would be pretty funny, though, if Cantor actually got knocked off.
by Johnny Longtorso on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:17:20 AM PDT
A margin of 34 and a margin of 13?
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:00:55 AM PDT
since internal polls tend to be wildly optimistic.
by Johnny Longtorso on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:06:32 AM PDT
Internals are sometimes released to mislead, and sometimes are released completely honestly. The motive to disclose private numbers is always to create or stop a perception that the campaign leadership perceives in some way can hurt the candidate and campaign. Usually, campaigns don't care about perceptions, but those perceptions rarely reach voters, especially in a U.S. House race...so they don't disclose and just wave off Beltway or other chatter. But when they do care and want to disclose, they can simply disclose honest numbers if those numbers buttress the pushback.
In this case, I trust Cantor's internals more than Vox Populi. I bet Cantor's internals are closer to the truth.
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:44:14 PM PDT
If the Illinois governorship goes the way of its Midwestern neighbors like Snotty Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Snyder in Michigan and John Kasich in Ohio, it will be a very sad day for the entire country.
Many of my fellow Democrats in Illinois are very worried about this race if the Multi-Zillionaire Rauner wins--despite the large Democratic presence in the Illinois General Assembly. I actually thought things were beginning to look up for the Democrats nationwide until the Repugnican Bergdahl-Gazzi "Scandal" became practically the only narrative the media cares about. Now, I am worried that this will filter down to all important elections nationwide, including the Illinois governorship race.
The Dems were finally starting to wake people up about the Kochtocracy that our government has devolved into. Then this this latest "Ben Gazzi" scandal happened and appears to be canceling out recent "moral" gains we Democrats have made. Until this past weekend, a substantial number of people were beginning to realize for the first time that Obamacare will not kill them. I hope the narrative changes in a hurry--but this one may have the power to last.
by Midwesterners on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:49:15 PM PDT
the governor's race? Is there any evidence at all saying it effects any race in the country? If anything there could be a backlash for republicans.
D in FL at the SSP.
by Avedee on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:11:52 PM PDT
The only people up in arms about the Bergdahl stuff are people who never vote Democratic anyway. If anything, the Bergdahl issue is more favorable to Democrats than the VA scandal, which actually had the potential to be rather annoying.
by meromorphic on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:15:07 PM PDT
the Bergdahl controversy may turn members of the military against some Republicans.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:13:02 AM PDT
Servicemembers are mostly Republican voters because they are by and large conservative on a broad range of things. Some of them might be pissed at their own noise machine's noise on this and agree with the deal, but they're still going to vote loyally Republican because it's just not that important compared to all the reasons they normally vote Republican.
I think that's one thing about servicemembers that a lot of liberals miss, that men and women in uniform aren't Republican voters over military stuff, for the most part. Military and other security matters might matter in primaries. But they're conservative more broadly than that. This is simply self-selection, in that conservatives far more than liberals are interested in joining the military in the first place. It's the reverse of my workplace, where the nature of the work causes mostly liberals to apply for jobs there, and conservatives to decline to consider the place at all.
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:39:56 PM PDT
Enlisted folks are more balanced.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:05:41 PM PDT
skews the enlisted right of their natural demographic partisan level unfortunately. I think my brother still thinks Clinton cut the on-base toilet paper budget.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:22:44 PM PDT
It's disgusting that Republicans refuse to even dignify us by referring to us by the right name, but we shouldn't do that disgusting thing right back.
by HoosierD42 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:07:03 PM PDT
Hate to see "Democrat party" on republican sites (and i read them a lot in search of useful info, and frequently - not in vain), and hate to see "Repugs" to the contrary...
by Ragmod on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:21:06 PM PDT
I was going to make a comment on it, but meh. Usually I just stir shit up rather than provoke a thoughtful analysis of the problem. Suffice it to say that that kind of stuff belongs on the main page where people can gnaw on the red meat all they want. (Though the fact that this exists even there is almost intolerable.)
Fact is, several people here are Republicans, and as far as I've seen, they're fine folk. No need to insult them.
by Le Champignon on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:36:52 PM PDT
Whenever I see/hear someone say "Dumbocrat" or "Rethuglican" or "libtard" or "conservatard" etc. I usually lose interest in whatever they have to say and stop reading/listening.
(And while "Democrat Party" really ticks me off, I don't really put it in the same category as the others. If I hear it I start referring to that person with a different name, i.e. when my Republican friend Andrew says it, I start calling him André, since we're apparently allowed to change others' names to what we prefer)
28, NE-2 (resident), IL-9 (part-timer), SD-AL (raised); SSP and DKE lurker since 2007
by JDJase on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:09:23 AM PDT
It always ticks me off when people use those terms.
Civil conversations don't need them in my opinon, especially when discussing politics from the horse race perspective. Just doesn't seem to fit at all.
22, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Pedagogy. Not your typical DKE junkie!
by aggou on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:02:34 AM PDT
I was talking with one of my intelligent conservative friends a few weeks ago, and we both agreed that using terms like that is childish and immature, and does not contribute to a civil political society. It's one of my biggest pet peeves, and it extends to when people use mockery of politicians' names, though I notice that Republicans do that more than Democrats do. Things like Owe-blame-o and Hitlery Klowntown (which, admittedly, is one of the more...creative?...mockeries) get me really angry because they're stupid and pointless.
Either way, thank you. I normally just skip posts that have things like "Repugs" in them because I don't really care what the poster has to say if they are using words like that.
20, FL-07. UCF student pursuing a B.A. in Political Science, future teacher/politician. Wes Neuman for Congress! "The Republican vision is clear: I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own." -Elizabeth Warren
by Tyler Yeargain on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:26:18 AM PDT
For instance, both the Minutemen and the Tea Party are co-opting historical terms with positive associations for causes which are antithetical to the terms being co-opted. I refuse in most contexts to allow that co-option. There is a place for mockery.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:10:59 AM PDT
Speaker of the House as Mr. Boner. Yes, it's stupid and juvenile, but I am powerless to do otherwise. Same for teabaggers.
by BennyToothpick on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:27:53 AM PDT
I'm praying that Troy Jackson somehow wins the primary, although this probably won't happen unfortunately.
Jackson vs Raye would be a great race.
by willisorgeln on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:12:29 AM PDT
Cain is from more populous part of the district, and, being both economic AND social liberal has much better chances.. And Raye's campaign is far from perfect, Poliquin has at least equal chances in conservative's dominated Republican primary. General election could be another matter, but it may turn in usualy boring liberal vs. conservative race
by Ragmod on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:28:25 AM PDT
She's a noted bipartisan figure who cosies up with Paul LePage. On the other hand, Troy Jackson is a persistent advocate for Labor and working families and is a thorn in the side of LePage. But I guess being pro-choice is all that matters for some people. Sigh.
by willisorgeln on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:34:26 AM PDT
we need more of.
"When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.
by Paleo on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:47:03 AM PDT
Cain may not be as good an orator as Jackson, but she is no less liberal. And the only reason she has worked with Paul LePage is that that's the only way to get things done in Maine right now. While I like Jackson and think that he'd be an excellent Congressman, I like Cain better.
But if the race is close, there could be some very interesting patterns in the results. Cain will win her home county of Penobscot by a wide margin, and she'll probably also win Hancock and Waldo, since those areas are more socially liberal. Jackson will win his home county of Aroostook in a massive landslide, and he'll probably do well in working-class mill towns like Rumford and Jay. Androscoggin County could be the swing area.
However, if Cain really is 35 points ahead of Jackson as the most recent poll claimed, then she'll win every county except Aroostook.
by ProudNewEnglander on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:24:48 AM PDT
She supported tax cuts for millionaires, while Jackson always stood firm against Economic libertarianism. There's no doubt which one of the two has been a stronger advocate for Working Families.
But alas, if you think same-sex marriage and pro-choice policies are more important than progressive economic policy, I'm not surprised you would support Cain. That's all she's known for, and she's worth nothing more.
by willisorgeln on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:04:07 AM PDT
If you are going to make disparaging remarks like these about a Democrat (and one from Maine, a state where I have spent most of the last three years), then you need to provide some evidence. Both of the leaders of the College Democrats at my college are strong supporters of Cain, and both are strongly economically progressive.
Notice how I am not insulting or criticizing Jackson - you are the only one being critical of a Democrat here. This is one reason why I generally dislike talking about Democratic primaries - they can make normally calm and intelligent people say things that are truly out there.
by ProudNewEnglander on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:05:30 AM PDT
She has supported LePage's right wing, tax cutting, tea party budget. I don't care what Emily's List says, or what your College Democrat leaders say. But it speaks volumes that they're supporting someone who is willing to cosy up to the GOP leadership as opposed to someone who has been a persistent fighter for Working Families. And it's no coincidence that Jackson has received the endorsements of virtually every Labor union in the state.
Please feel free to vote for Cain, nobody's stopping you, and she's probably going to win. But she's nothing special and is probably going to be an absolutely worthless and colourless advocate in Washington.
by willisorgeln on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:52:51 AM PDT
I identify as a small l liberal because I've always thought that conservatives are rigid/dogmatic in thinking. The left is supposed to be more open minded and/or inclusive.
by bonzo925 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:26:15 PM PDT
Those of us who are still legally second class citizens according to the government feel very strongly about women and minority rights. Personally, I will always vote for a socially democratic candidate over someone who is an economic progressive but social conservative.
It's just difficult to support someone who "may tow the party line" but personally thinks you are less than they are.
Jackson voted against SSM in 2009 and voted against transgender discrimination laws in 2011. What a politician says is one thing, their voting record is another.
by Avenginggecko on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:32:47 PM PDT
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:55:42 PM PDT
Is when people who are economically left and socially conservative get to label themselves as "moderate."
No, you aren't moderate. You're regressive. You're oppressive. That isn't moderate, but hurtful and disgusting.
Moderate is a nice word. We shouldn't use nice words to describe bad people.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:57:29 PM PDT
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:07:10 PM PDT
but I'm wondering, after reading this comment, why you consider yourself a "Burkean."
by Chachy on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:19:58 PM PDT
I think that change needs to happen slowly and that certain cultural institutions need to be preserved.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:07:04 PM PDT
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:34:16 PM PDT
People who are economically left and socially conservative aren't "bad people". They typically live in contexts where being "socially liberal" is unthinkable and where institutions outside of the family and the church are non-existent. Even the public education system in these communities doesn't habituate the civic values of equality, tolerance and rationalism. So I think it's important to distinguish between inherent immorality and the immorality of political opinions or policies.
Why should we expect immigrants from small villages in Mexico or elderly voters in Harlan County to support gay marriage or reproductive rights if they've never encountered somebody who supports such policies?
by IdahoSocialist on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:16:56 PM PDT
Still, it is irksome. My main consolation is that the arc of history proceeds without any significant interruption from these folks. The internet and globalization in general has really helped to spread these ideas even into incredibly intolerant enclaves in America. We'll see marriage equality nationwide within a few years. No one's even thinking about trying to reverse Roe v Wade. And of course racism is dying. Literally - once no one's alive who lived in the sixties and seventies, America will be post-racial.
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:24:36 PM PDT
And American will not be post-racial for a good long while.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:34:32 PM PDT
overturn Roe v. Wade is absolutely foolish. That is the number one goal of a large segment of the Republican party. It's the first thing a Republican presidential candidate says they look for in a potential Supreme Court Justice. They're chipping away at it in the states.
For a large number of people, it is their sole aim.
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:57:02 AM PDT
its hard to look at the old segregationists like Richard Russell in the context of our time because he was probably brought up that way as did many people of his generation. The fact that many segregationists recanted their positions after 1970 confirms said hypothesis.
by bonzo925 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:28:53 PM PDT
and in fact I'd go beyond that. I'm a straight white man, and I feel very strongly about women's and minority rights.
by ProudNewEnglander on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:46:00 PM PDT
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:32:16 PM PDT
Did Cain support these budgets before or after the Democrats recaptured the majority in both chambers of the Maine legislature in 2012?
30 • Gay Male • CA-35 • Pragmatic • Progressive • Liberal • Democrat
by BluntDiplomat on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:48:03 AM PDT
Democrats make women's rights a priority.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:38:29 AM PDT
No thank you.
by willisorgeln on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:04:23 PM PDT
The "screw women get money" approach.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:10:14 PM PDT
by willisorgeln on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:14:48 PM PDT
We're still talking about the same thing, then.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:25:13 PM PDT
attention from the fact that they're giving away the store to wall street, banks, telecom companies nd multinationals. The party of FDR has become the party of Paul Tsongas.
by Paleo on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:16:10 PM PDT
these "social issues" make real, economic differences in the lives of real people. Reproductive choice can be vital to a woman's economic self-determination. I can't help but notice that most of the people I see protesting that "social issues" or candidate diversity don't matter are straight white dudes.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:34:36 PM PDT
We are Democrats because we believe that the Government does have a role in providing basic needs to its citizens. From robust healthcare for the sick, to strong social security for the needy, from collective bargaining rights for workers, to setting a living wage for the poor, these are the issues which will set what direction the nation wants to travel in, and what Democrats should be advocating for.
Social issues are side issues; everyone has their own moral guidance. They're a distraction from the main concerns. Unfortunately, social issue are too often the main focus for some people like Emily Cain and they use it as a shield to cover their sympathy for right-wing economic policy.
by willisorgeln on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:54:23 PM PDT
social issues and economic issues are not an either or. You can be both socially and economically left-leaning at the same time -- in fact the vast majority of Democrats are!
by okiedem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:00:16 PM PDT
and I guarantee that if Emily Cain is elected to the House, she will be both socially and economically progressive.
by ProudNewEnglander on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:47:19 PM PDT
We're Democrats because of broad agreement among ourselves on a wide range of priorities that, yes, include race relations, reproductive rights, other women's rights, LGBT rights. You dissent on those, you're in trouble electorally in our party......in fact, you probably are in more trouble than if you oppose the ACA or are indifferent toward unions.
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:31:49 PM PDT
despite our differences we need to work together. We need each other.
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:54:35 AM PDT
There are times when social crisises, if you were, take predominance. But the primary purpose of progressivism has been to fight and tame the inequalities and injustices resulting from the economic system that has existed since industrialism.
by Paleo on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:02:36 PM PDT
to you because you've never - I'm assuming you're a straight white male here - had to deal with social repression.
They're a central issue to a huge number of people because to those people social issues are also economic issues.
For the gay man who cannot visit his dying lover in the hospital to help choose end of life care because he isn't legally married, that is an economic issue.
For the black woman stuck in the ghetto because of the cycle of poverty created by social racial segregation, it is an economic issue.
For the Latino living in the colonias y el barrios porque el Anglo la sociedad lo regela hacia ese lugar, he is unable to get a decent job because all of those jobs are in other parts of town and he can't afford to travel that far.
For the Native American man struggling on the reservation because of the history of social repression, it is an economic issue.
For the Middle Eastern woman fired after 9/11 because she was a "terrorist," social repression is an economic issue.
But for the white man, all he sees are the economic issues that are relevant to him, blind to the intertwining social and economic issues relevant to everyone else whom he oppresses.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:08:59 PM PDT
Just to let you know, I'm Iranian, and my family has gone through one hell of a tough time facing and trying to escape repression in Iran. I'm too young to have gone through what many have, but that doesn't mean I don't understand or see it.
Also, I've changed my signature for your liking.
Economically Progressive, Socially Conservative Labor Democrat
by willisorgeln on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:19:23 PM PDT
We have the policy thread here.
Contributing Editor, Daily Kos Elections. 24, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-02 (resident).
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:22:17 PM PDT
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:08:38 PM PDT
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:12:30 PM PDT
Note that I was not disregarding your instruction intentionally. Your comment above was not above the parents of my related comments.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:34:56 PM PDT
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:36:18 PM PDT
to the groups they affect, such as minorities, women, and the LGBT community.
In fact, I would argue that to call them such as if it were inherently true is extremely offensive.
by The Dude 415 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:25:37 PM PDT
But when they're used to distract from, or the effect is to crowd out, economic issues, then I consider that to be a problem.
by Paleo on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:56:41 PM PDT
Although someone like Michael Bloomberg might fit the description of a socially liberal plutocrat the vast majority of Democrats do not. I'm sorry that the Democratic party is not nearly as far-left as you would like it to be but the reason for that has nothing to do with social issues.
by okiedem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:02:11 PM PDT
has been ongoing my entire life, and I support that progress--but not to the exclusion of economic issues. We have been regressing on economic issues over that entire period.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:12:38 PM PDT
by okiedem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:50:55 PM PDT
by bonzo925 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:29:58 PM PDT
the poster (or myself).
21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal, not progressive. For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.
UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city.
by jncca on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:34:17 PM PDT
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:52:54 AM PDT
At first I thought I'd support Cain, since she's a liberal pro-choice woman, but Jackson's brand of economic populism really appealed to me and I decided to fork over my very small contribution to his campaign instead. His past stances against marriage equality and abortion worried me, but I think if elected to congress he'll be like Brendan Boyle--perhaps personally opposed to SSM and abortion, but unlikely to break the party line and actually oppose them when it counts.
Proud Progressive Social Studies teacher. (-9.50, -8.05) "Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime."--Phil Plait
by betelgeux on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:47:53 AM PDT
Blue Virginia is providing updates about the Republican convention that's going on right now. It seems that Gillespie's coronation is being pushed off the rails by supporters of Shak Hill. It's quite possible that Gillespie could be pushed out of the way in favor of a Some Dude. Remember that Jim Gilmore barely won nomination over Del. Bob Marshall in 2008. Why do the Republicans keep doing this to themselves? A primary would have been easy for Gillespie - see George Allen's 65-23 win over Jamie Radtke in 2012.
by Johnny Longtorso on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:02:11 AM PDT
by convention last year. That truly was an upset.
by Johnny Longtorso on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:03:27 AM PDT
happened. When do they vote?
all T, all shade
by clevelandpacha on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:35:31 AM PDT
I don't know how long it'll take to get the results.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:37:30 AM PDT
Third District chair Chris Stearns takes stage to announce votes: Hill 165.7 Gillespie 309 #rpv14 #vasen
Third District chair Chris Stearns takes stage to announce votes: Hill 165.7 Gillespie 309 #rpv14 #vasen
Not quite sure what 165.7 votes means...but it appears that Gillespie won the the 3rd CD rougly 2-1.
by Possible Liberal on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:13:04 AM PDT
how...maybe that's how you get 0.7 of a vote?
by clevelandpacha on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:14:14 AM PDT
since the district is heavily Democratic
by clevelandpacha on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:15:03 AM PDT
"VA-4 (represented by Forbes) returns: Hill, 367; Gillespie, 957." "First District Hill 491.98 Gillespie 826.08."
Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.
by Johnny Longtorso on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:30:05 AM PDT
So they don't have anything to lose by running someone more conservative, other than a few points on Warner's margin of victory.
by JacobNC on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:40:25 AM PDT
and the beltway punditry. Will they finally acknowledge that the both sides are NOT at fault and that Republican Party has been taken over by loony-tunes and the extreme right wing once and for all???
by clevelandpacha on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:44:21 AM PDT
by ProudNewEnglander on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:51:31 PM PDT
Barbara Comstock probably doesn't want to be downticket from Shak Hill.
by Johnny Longtorso on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:49:53 AM PDT
Everyone knows that Ed Gillespie is god and will get 95% of the vote because he's so great on the Beltway cocktail circuit!
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:29:02 AM PDT
David Evans got more votes in 2010 GOP primary (against Strickland) than in 2014 top-two. This may have something to do with his performance this year.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:45:19 AM PDT
GOP total was 2,033,336
and Democrats were at 2,064,419
by lordpet8 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:44:57 AM PDT
for senator and governor. Even though Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina ended up winning easily, they were facing legitimate opponents.
by meromorphic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:41:10 PM PDT
urban/suburban areas in Oregon.
In HD-18 in mostly rural Marion/Clackamas counties, Obama got 39.4% of the vote, while marijuana legalization got 37.5%, a difference of less than 2 points. In neighboring HD-19 in mostly southeastern Salem, Obama got about 46.5% while legalization got 37.9%, a difference of 8.6 points.
In HD-24 in McMinnville (outside the immediate Portland and Salem metro areas) and rural Yamhill/Washington counties, Obama got a hair above 49% while legalization got 41.7%, a difference of about 7.3 points. In neighboring HD-26 in some outer Portland suburbs of Washington and Clackamas counties, Obama got 50.3%, while legalization got 38.5%, a difference of 11.8 points.
In HD-31 in Columbia County and some mostly rural precincts in northern Washington and NW Multnomah countes, Obama got 53.9%, while legalization got 46.3%, a difference of 7.6 points. In neighboring HD-33, in NW Portland and some suburban precincts in Washington County, Obama got 67.4% of the vote but legalization got only about 46%, a difference of over 21 points, and so it actually did worse than in HD-31 despite having a PVI 13 points more Democratic.
Are people in the suburbs just squares?
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:58:41 AM PDT
A lot of the nos in suburban Portland were "soft nos". Just anecdotally, I've spoken to people out in the suburbs who said they thought about it, but they voted no because they didn't know very much about the initiative or didn't think it was constructed as well as it should have been.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:44:40 AM PDT
if it passes this year I expect some of these brown precincts to have the biggest swings. Despite it doing better in the rurals I think there are fewer persuadables there.
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:56:39 AM PDT
or Latino and ethnic voters are not fond of marijuana legalization. Ethnicity is one out of many variables that influences people's views on marijuana but this variable appears particularly powerful when comparing Obama's vote share to the vote share garnered by marijuana legalization because Asians and Latinos are far from being median voters in both arenas of political life. They're much less supportive of marijuana legalization than the average voter and much more supportive of Obama.
This is obvious but it's pretty surprising how direct the correlation between the percentage of voting age whites and the overperformance of marijuana legalization is. Here is an example in Colorado:
(White Voting Age Pop, Marijuana Legalization support - Obama support)
Jefferson County (82.6% ,3.02)
Arapahoe County (68.0%, -.27)
Adams County (58.5%, -.11)
Douglas County (87.0%, 9.66)
Broomfield County (82.1%, 1.52)
I plan on testing my hypothesis and presenting my results in a diary. I also plan on looking at the death penalty and food politics. The psephology surrounding these issues astounds me.
by IdahoSocialist on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:14:53 PM PDT
to refer to minorities, please?
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:43:58 PM PDT
I don't want to get into a heated semantic discussion but the term "minority" is very insulting to me. We don't call white folks "majorities" or "pluralities" and I am not a number, I'm a human being.
Damn though it's difficult to negate the fallacy of racial identity while also providing good descriptions of political behavior for various groups. There's definitely voting behavior unique to "ethnic voters" or "minorities" or "people of color" but finding the right term while staying true to my principles is difficult.
by IdahoSocialist on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:32:21 PM PDT
is that it implies white people don't have an ethnicity, which perpetuates the idea that whites are normal and people of color are exotic. The term "minority" is often used because it gets at a particular power dynamic, although it's meaning isn't always completely synonymous with "people of color."
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:39:03 PM PDT
meant Italians, Central Europeans, and Irish-Americans!
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:17:12 PM PDT
some of them are very, very white. HD-33 has heavily Asian areas, some of the most in Oregon, though (WashCo between highway 26 and Multnomah County). But I said in a comment yesterday that in another heavily Asian area, a part of SE Portland by 82nd, that actually had less drop-off than many other (whiter) parts of Portland between Obama and legalization, so it wasn't very consistent.
by James Allen on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:04:32 PM PDT
Comedian Tracy Morgan, after a multiple vehicle crash in which he was a passenger (story here).
South African President Jacob Zuma, for official reasons that sound like transparent bullshit (story here).
Radio personality Casey Kasem, for an infected bedsore (story here).
Best wishes to all.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:43:03 AM PDT
Casey Kasem helped introduce me to the top 40 charts and all the stuff contained therein; I still listen to rebroadcasts of his "American Top 40" shows from the 1970s and 80s, and Ryan Seacrest's current continuation of that tradition. BTW, Casey is a longtime progressive Democrat.
by Mike in MD on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:22:31 PM PDT
high up on the list of potential sights for the DNC? It's the home state of the current President and the birth state of the possible future candidate of our party. Besides the fact that it could easily handle an event of that size.
by ndrwmls10 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:44:21 AM PDT
at Twitter first.
The 2016 DNC convention will be in one of these places: Birmingham, Cleveland, Columbus, New York, Philadelphia or Phoenix.
by ndrwmls10 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:47:36 AM PDT
Probably the most important thing that will decide what city gets it is the ability to raise money. This article explains it very well: For the first time in decades neither convention will receive federal funding. For a city to get picked to host the DNC or RNC, the party leadership needs to be convinced that the city is willing and able to raise the $18 million or so that they'll need.
Beyond that, there are a lot of other unsexy but important factors that will decide what city gets the DNC or RNC. They include the number of available hotel rooms, transportation, how cooperative the local leaders are, the weather (probably will want to avoid being in the path of a hurricane), ect.
For all the talk of "The Democrats should pick Columbus because it's in a swing state" or "the Republicans should pick Denver to close the book on Obama and the 2008 DNC," it's really going to be a ton of logistical and financial factors that decide who gets each convention.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:04:47 PM PDT
...that Birmingham is a non-starter, and that Columbus might not have the easiest time......though Cleveland has held conventions before, and is comparable a metropolis to Columbus. But I think there's a lot more money in Cleveland, it's an older large city with a lot more industry.
Phoenix is the only other newbie on the list, and is large enough to accommodate the convention. And I bet there are plenty enough rich people there to bankroll it.
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:26:43 PM PDT
afford it, with the likely exception of Birmingham. Columbus is big so maybe there are business interests that can help pay for it.
In any case, there should be no way that the DNC and RNC will select a city they aren't sure can pay for the convention, especially with federal money gone.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:32:17 PM PDT
Columbus is actually a bigger metropolis area than Cleveland and is growing, whereas Cleveland Metro is shrinking. All the economic growth in Ohio is centered around Columbus at the moment. It's the city that has a lot more money and a lot more industry.
Columbus has the hotel capacity to hold a big convention, being used to hosting nearly 100,000 at OSU football games, but it's arena is not as good, and would be dependent on Ohio State University for any auxilliary facilities. Cleveland just opened up a new convention center, has 2 large arenas for other events, and has improved its pitiful hotel capacity. Right now, it's biggest weakness is the airport, which lost it's Continental hub status with the recent merger, although the Columbus airport isn't great shakes, either. Cleveland has nicer blimp views, as Columbus has a pretty boring city architecture plan.
It would be a tough call between the two. Both cities would love to have the DNC, though.
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:10:54 AM PDT
by ndrwmls10 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:27:59 AM PDT
Cincinnati is the largest at 2.137 million, Cleveland next at 2.065 million, and Columbus the smallest at 1.967 million.
Granted, your other points are correct.
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 11:38:31 AM PDT
The rank-order of metropolitan area populations for those three big Ohio cities is the opposite of the rank-order by population of the cities proper. It probably won't hold up by the 2020 Census, though, since Columbus's metropolitan area will probably surpass Cleveland's.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 11:48:02 AM PDT
I think that the rank order by 2020 will easily be Cincinnati > Columbus > Cleveland assuming that no additional counties are added to the Cleveland area or that no counties are subtracted from the Columbus area.
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 11:51:36 AM PDT
Is in Kentucky?
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 03:56:19 PM PDT
Ohio portion: the vast majority
Indiana portion: about 1/10
Kentucky portion: about 1/4
But that doesn't really matter. It's all still the same metropolitan area.
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:13:40 PM PDT
Would the DNC prefer to keep the sprawl of the Convention to a single state? Does that enter into their consideration?
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:16:42 PM PDT
Note that Charlotte's metro spans two states.
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:24:03 PM PDT
Too unfriendly of an environment for a DNC.
I am hoping for one of the Ohio cities.
by askew on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:23:50 PM PDT
But that's just me.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:37:12 PM PDT
If the local leadership is willing and able to host the convention that matters far, far, far more than how the suburbs vote. Conventions (especially Republican conventions) are held all the time in areas that lean against their party: Philly, New York, Minneapolis...
Besides, Birmingham is a Democratic city: it's the suburbs that are blood red.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:38:58 PM PDT
Birmingham is tiny. It has no ability to host an event of this magnitude. The city proper has just over 200K people, the entire county triple that but still too small. It's not going to have the hotel and transportation infrastructure for this. The airport alone would be overwhelmed.
The fundraising aspect, too, that Darth Jeff mentioned above disqualifies Birmingham. The entire state is small, and the monied folks are all Republicans. Same for neighbors to the north and west. Georgia has plenty of rich Democrats, but then you just put the convention in Atlanta.
Birmingham is a joke on this list. I'm amazed it's on it at all, also given that there are no prominent Democrats in the state able to push for it.
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:21:07 PM PDT
If for some reason it does get chosen, it must have proven pretty convincingly that it can handle an event of this magnitude. Not holding my breath, but I don't see why the DNC would pick it when it wasn't ready just cause.
After what happened it Tampa in 2012 I think both committees will be a lot more careful about site selection. Tampa wasn't ready to take on the cost and the RNC had to spend an extra $30 million on the convention that could have gone to the general election efforts. I doubt either Reince Priebus or Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be that reckless.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:28:05 PM PDT
than Charlotte? They're pretty similarly sized.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:47:27 PM PDT
I don't know why, but this is something the RNC should have taken into account. Apparently Michael Steele picked the city when it wasn't ready and Reince and co were stuck with it.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:01:56 PM PDT
just to be fair (this doesn't abrogate your central point) the most useful population metric is metropolitan area. Birmingham's is 1.14 million. Still wayyyyy too small.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:46:03 PM PDT
New York is the biggest odd duck on that list. Birmingham is only second oddest.
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:57:09 PM PDT
Birmingham is majority-black. With the party increasingly relying on minorities for support, having a convention in a minority-majority city makes perfect sense.
Of course, that doesn't really ameliorate its shortcomings. If I were them, I'd have gone with Atlanta.
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:36:50 PM PDT
So were Tampa and Charlotte, but that wasn't much of a big deal in 2012.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:46:30 PM PDT
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:50:52 PM PDT
Given that recent major-party national conventions have been ridiculously oversized events, Birmingham would probably have all sorts of trouble hosting a major-party national convention.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:17:14 PM PDT
New York makes perfect sense. There is an unlimited amount of money there, and of course they have the transportation and lodging infrastructure to accommodate this event. New York is always a good choice.
Birmingham is a joke for reasons I and others identified in other comments.
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:24:10 PM PDT
Assuming a convention location is intended to help the party, New York obviously makes no sense at all.
If logistics were everything, Las Vegas would be the place to hold every convention every time.
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:38:23 PM PDT
If we hold it in NYC, the GOP will attack us as a bunch of out of touch liberals who care about New York values but not Iowa values.
If we hold it in Cleavland, the GOP will attack us as a bunch of out of touch liberals who care about New York, San Fransisco, Boston, and Hollywood values but not Iowa values.
In any case, by November no persuadable voters will remember or care if the convention was in New York, Columbus, or Fargo. What will matter is if a city gets picked that can't afford the convention, and the party needs to spend millions bailing out the convention instead of in the general. That's what happened in Tampa in 2012 and probably wouldn't happen in NYC.
As for Las Vegas, there were some big non-logistical reasons it was a risky choice.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:49:56 PM PDT
...for all Democratic conventions, and it would never cost us an election.
The convention is a big campaign rally, and the local effect is at best only slightly more than the local effect of any other single campaign rally. Obama's statewide bus tour in August 2012 did more for him than the conventions in Denver or Charlotte.
by DCCyclone on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:20:35 PM PDT
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:23:15 PM PDT
by DCCyclone on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:18:13 AM PDT
by bonzo925 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:34:56 PM PDT
But it's clear that the convention authority could not guarantee the venue during the accelerated timeline from the RNC -- they wanted to do in June -- and that not enough people wanted to pony up to give the RNC up-front money, as Dallas, for instance, has been willing to do.
"There wasn't any real appetite to buy into it," one insider with intimate knowledge told me. "Unless it's on your piece of dirt on the Strip, nobody cares."
"There wasn't any real appetite to buy into it," one insider with intimate knowledge told me. "Unless it's on your piece of dirt on the Strip, nobody cares."
The city's reputation was certainly a reason for the RNC's reluctance. But they may have been able to work around that, they couldn't work around uncertainty over funding.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:30:19 PM PDT
the party to be perceived as. Holding a convention in NY is a good way to be perceived as the party of NY liberals. I can't stand most liberals from up there. And that's primarily because of cultural struggles between the north and the south. They're insufferable pricks who think anyone below the mason-dixon line is a racist, uneducated dirtbag.
The Democrats can't survive as the coastal party. It needs to appeal to the south, and part of that is not being perceived as a party that holds conventions in the middle of liberalville USA. Birmingham is a bad choice, but Atlanta would be excellent, as would Phoenix. These are both big cities with a lot of minorities, yet are also fairly rich for southern cities. And most importantly, they're in Dem-trending, but still Republican states. Accelerating that trend towards the party is important. That's why we held the convention in North Carolina in 2012. It was a good choice, even if we still ended up losing NC.
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:51:45 PM PDT
We can win without the South. Hell, we can win with the coasts + assorted non-southern states.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:55:33 PM PDT
to include the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:52:38 PM PDT
On one hand, it's a great strategic choice. On the other hand, Phoenix is a terrible place.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:04:25 PM PDT
Besides Sheriff Joe and all that.
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:09:37 PM PDT
A mass of suburbia in the middle of a desert.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:55:33 PM PDT
you mean alluvial river valley with 1maf of natural flow water supply and a 2000 year irrigation history, you are correct.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:19:26 PM PDT
but the water supply in Phoenix isn't really enough to support the number of people and certainly not the development style of Maricopa County.
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:43:12 PM PDT
On water supply Phoenix is in better shape than most of the Western U.S.
Note that the majority of water use is still for agriculture (even in the Phoenix AMA) and that Arizona uses less energy per capita than 43 other states.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:49:52 PM PDT
Most of the water is still used for cotton farming.
The golf courses need more sand traps and fewer water hazards, though.
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:23:11 PM PDT
were 3 of the "5-C's" of the AZ economy they were still teaching in the 80's (Copper and Climate are the other two). Almost all of the commercial citrus is gone under to suburbia just as in the OC (they closed the last packing house in the Phoenix area 15 years ago), and the cotton is much less common due to loss of cropland and economics driving corn/alfalfa rotation (I grew up under a mile from a cotton field, played in the seed pile at a cotton gin, worked at multiple cotton gins, fed gin trash and cottonseed at dairies, etc). Pima cotton is native to AZ. I flew for the first time in a cotton farmer's small plane, and I know the family that bought and broke up Paloma Ranch.
Most of the golf courses use reclaimed water. The nukes at Palo Verde are the only ones in the U.S. using reclaimed water for cooling.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:05:39 PM PDT
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:53:21 PM PDT
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:55:50 PM PDT
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:57:51 PM PDT
It was... an experience.
I've been in Tucson a lot more in the summer. Not horrific, but the weather is still pretty rough. You have both the heat and some pretty heavy monsoons.
Then again I'm in New Orleans in the summer.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:49:46 PM PDT
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:59:42 PM PDT
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:01:19 PM PDT
Did you at least have a swamp cooler?
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:21:48 PM PDT
and my grandmother tells stories about wetting sheets and sleeping on the porch. It cooled off better at night then, because there was less heat island effect.
Of course, I also worked outside. I averaged about 5 gallons of water a day when doing that. I would cramp and get twitches in less than a day without replacing electrolytes.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:30:04 PM PDT
and shade cloth hung from the eave all along the south facing exterior wall.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:35:21 PM PDT
I'm so sorry. I've felt Texas heat. It's pretty similar to Phoenix heat, I'd imagine. It's not something I'd wish on anyone who didn't have a/c.
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:28:29 PM PDT
Texas heat is mostly 95-105 and either very humid (all the major cities) or moderate humidity (pandhandle and El Paso).
Phoenix heat is much hotter 100-115, but much less humid.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:37:14 PM PDT
How do you survive that kind of heat.
by Audrid on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:38:55 PM PDT
failing that, a wet towel is extraordinarily useful. Merely dampening your face every ten minutes works wonders. Wrap it around your neck and it really cools things off.
Of course, keeping yourself hydrated is key too.
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:42:21 PM PDT
I've been to Texas, but not for an extended stretch of 100 degree heat with major humidity. Where I am, we usually have that for a few days each summer, and I find it intolerable.
Oh, and up here we have some blockbuster rain//lightning storms in summer after these heat waves, one of which in August 2010 uprooted a massive willow tree right outside my apartment and dropped it right onto my car at the time.
by Mike in MD on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:57:14 PM PDT
in July and August, but not like the south (like El Paso, only hotter). But yes, direct comparison without inclusion of humidity is misleading to those from wetter climes. However, even if you convert to "apparent" temperature including humidity, Phoenix has a 30 year annual average of 35 days over 105 compared to 15 for New Orleans and Houston.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:59:06 PM PDT
from what I know, anything past the balcones escarpment is more dry heat.
by bonzo925 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:37:48 PM PDT
In Portland, it doesn't often get above 90 degrees, and it's hardly ever humid in the summer.
by SaoMagnifico on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:54:27 AM PDT
if you grew up in Phoenix (211).
by benamery21 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:30:01 AM PDT
by ndrwmls10 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:50:12 AM PDT
I just don't see any reason to assume that swing voters are going to go to the polls and care where some stage managed event they maybe tuned into on the last day was two months ago, if they even remember the location at all.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:10:34 PM PDT
I doubt you've ever lived in a city with a major convention. Conventions get featured on the local news day after day after day. They function as combinations of campaign rallies and free TV commercials. Campaign rallies and positive TV commercials have their impact on elections. If they didn't, nobody would do them. The impact isn't much, but it isn't nothing.
If it was just a business decision, the convention would be in Las Vegas, but as you pointed out, there are electoral risks in that. New York then could hold all the conventions, but there would be zero electoral value in that to either party.
A week of coverage of happy people doing supportive things for one candidate in Columbus has greater than zero value.
It is a business decision, but the minor electoral benefit is always part of that equation. It's not like Philly, Cleveland and Columbus are at the top of every business/fraternal/etc convention list! They are there because they bring something to the table for an electoral convention that isn't just hotel rooms and airport hubbiness. And Las Vegas isn't there for the correspondingly possible negative electoral reasons.
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:47:45 PM PDT
A ton of traffic and increased security for well over a week. A lot of businesses in the convention area will benefit, but for a ton of people in the metro area it's a massive hassle. I was in the NYC area during the 2004 RNC and the local news was full of a lot of problems. Yeah, maybe people would have been more understanding if it were the DNC instead, but it's not like the convention is a nice four day vacation for the area.
The DNC and the RNC aren't stupid. If it was clear that the conventions gave them a tangible boost in a swing state they'd only hold the conventions in swing states. And yeah, if the DNC thinks that New York and Columbus are both equally well equipped to host the convention they may as well go for it.
But the vast majority of what determines what city gets it is logistics and money. I'm quite sure in retrospect the RNC wishes they could have held the 2012 convention in Salt Lake City and saved $30 million and the day they lost due to Hurricane Issac.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:00:04 PM PDT
No DNCs or RNCs, but I'm no stranger to hosting big events. I'm familiar with the local news coverage. I'm also familiar with the extra traffic, stretched emergency services, and other hassles.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:22:39 PM PDT
If you select a city for the DNC you are doing one of the most important campaign acts in the city.
If you think electoral campaign is useful, the DNC is all campaigning and can be used by this way.
I think local people remember and appreciate it the election day.
by abgin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:59:51 PM PDT
I don't think there is any evidence the convention location effects votes in any tangible way. If anyone has any study or other evidence I think it would be worth seeing.
Even if there is some electoral effect, it's vital to not waste money on the convention. The first consideration for the convention needs to be if the city can pay for it. Even if you say the GOP got a boost in the Tampa area, I don't think it was worth the $30 million extra it cost the RNC.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:07:51 PM PDT
I can't stand most liberals from up there. And that's primarily because of cultural struggles between the north and the south. They're insufferable pricks who think anyone below the mason-dixon line is a racist, uneducated dirtbag.
As someone who grew up in Red State America, I often feel as though Red Staters often imagine there's way more antipathy towards them there actually is. Seriously, the East Coast is full of transplants, including from the South. Have you spent much time up there?
And in any event, holding the convention in NY hasn't exactly hurt us in the past. See: 1992, for example.
by liberalpragmatist on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:11:02 PM PDT
I don't think that exists in any major way. If it does, it's probably among the rural "heartland" and southern white (i.e. "red state") voters who think they're entitled to forever run the country. I am so fucking sick of their sense of political and cultural entitlement.
by Mike in MD on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:19:09 PM PDT
I'd also add that if white southerners by and large stopped acting like racist pricks then the north wouldn't have that impression, and I say that as a white southerner.
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:15:29 AM PDT
enough with antisemitic dog-whistles.
by bonzo925 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:36:24 PM PDT
before accusing a poster of anti-Semitism.
by jncca on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:50:55 PM PDT
would cost attendees 3X as much as any of the alternatives.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:01:34 PM PDT
Does it even have adequate accommodations for a convention? If I recall, one of the issues with Charlotte is that it wasn't really well equipped to handle a convention as well as lodging went. With Birmingham being smaller, I can imagine that problem would be more pronounced.
by DrPhillips on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:37:18 PM PDT
They were never seriously going to hold a convention here after seeing what happened to the 2012 GOP convention in Tampa. Hurricane season makes it too unpredictable to hold it down here. Philly or one of the Ohio cities would seem the most sensible for 2016.
by ChadmanFL on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:53:49 PM PDT
One, there's the unpleasant memory of 1968 -- an event that is nearly a half-century in the rear-view mirror, but not such ancient history that it wouldn't make for a smashing narrative to compare anything that went wrong at or surrounding the DNC to the 1968 fiasco and ask, "Is Chicago a cursed city for the DNC!?!?!?" God, that could get so annoying really fast.
Two, in terms of how the game of politics is played in this country, let's suffice to say Chicago is not a sterling example of citizen democracy in action, and its reputation reflects that. That angle might be less interesting than the "curse!!1" meme to the CNNs and MSNBCs of the world, but Republicans would beat it to death, and that could get annoying pretty fast, too.
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:50:10 AM PDT
I think the convention doing the Macarena was the worst thing that happened.
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:53:10 AM PDT
by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:54:05 AM PDT
by Tyler Yeargain on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:58:49 AM PDT
by Jeff Singer on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:10:11 PM PDT
In fact, I did it with them while watching the convention on TV. I still have the CD with the extended play and the remixes.
by DrPhillips on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:42:49 PM PDT
in Chicago, in 1996. So I think we're past the '68 convention. I do get what you are saying about Chicago's reputation though, but it would have been a very easy place to host the convention.
by ndrwmls10 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:55:22 AM PDT
as of 2016. Get over it. And the 1996 DNC was held there without trouble.
In any event, Chicago isn't on the final list. Most of those listed are fine, though Birmingham is a real surprise. Other than its civil rights history, I can't think of why it would be under consideration (if they want to go into red territory, why not Atlanta or someplace in Texas?)
by Mike in MD on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:58:15 PM PDT
Birmingham, forget about. Phoenix is too hot. New York too familiar. Philadelphia would be third.
by Paleo on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:11:10 PM PDT
Is the convention normally held out of doors? There are basically no commercial premises without A/C in Phoenix, and very few residential ones.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:55:57 PM PDT
at some points.
by Paleo on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:43:25 AM PDT
So they are the same time as California right now. That means the sessions would start at about 1-130pm and run until 8 or 9. That coincides directly with the hottest hours of the day. The average high temperature outside those hours in July is under 100 degrees with low to moderate humidity. From midnight to 8am it's under 90 (average high).
If the convention is held in the Eastern time zone, the sessions will start about 430-5pm, meaning the outside temperatures will reach peak before the convention starts.
Unless they plan to play golf during the sessions, outdoor temperature shouldn't be much of a concern.
by benamery21 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:37:36 AM PDT
Leonard Lance did terrible in the primary on Tuesday, I am curious to see if there is an opening here, we have a decent candidate is Clinton Mayor Janice Kovach.
18 year old gay Democrat living bright blue in deep red SC-04 (Gowdy). "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." - John Lennon
by SCDem4 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:32:11 PM PDT
is one thing, from the left - quite another. His district is not especially fertile ground for progressive...
by Ragmod on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:40:08 PM PDT
So she knows how retail politics. She talked about it when she talked to my Dem club.
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:16:30 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:16:41 PM PDT
Still, under "normal" situation this R+6 district is unmistakingly Republican. Something very unusual must happen for her win..
by Ragmod on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:31:50 PM PDT
Her town is also small so it's not like it's a hub or anything.
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:44:10 PM PDT
Strangely, though, it swung quite hard against Obama in 2012. Obama won Clinton by 10 votes in 2008, but Romney won it by 70 votes in 2012 (the two-party vote was 52.7% Romney). Hunterdon County as a whole trended against Obama, since Romney was a good fit for rich, heavily white suburban counties.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:39:43 AM PDT
In the Clinton Mayor's race, we're talking less than 1,000 votes. Can't compare that with a Congressional race.
She's also raised virtually no money. If Chivukula couldn't even get it within 10 points and 2014, I don't see how a comparative lightweight like Kovach even breaks 40%.
by Trosk on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:34:06 AM PDT
Even if all 13,000 Republicans who voted against Lance stayed home, he'd still win comfortably. Lance has gotten a higher percentage of the vote in the general than in the primary in the past three cycles. Also, Kovach has only raised $29k, and Clinton isn't much of a political base - it's a town of 2,700 people.
by Johnny Longtorso on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:46:27 PM PDT
but she can't win unless Lance really drops the ball.
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:15:48 PM PDT
We are now at the second ballot for State Treasurer, and Richard Mourdock deputy in the Treasurer's Office Kelly Mitchell led the second ballot and knocked off businessman Don Bates, Jr. It is now unto the third ballot with Marion Mayor Wayne Seybold, the establishment favorite. Howey sees Mitchell as the favorite given the antagonism between Bates and Seybold. A big factor will be how many delegates stay for the next ballot in Ft. Wayne and how many go home.
And Mourdock? He just stepped in it again. he compared the U.S. currently to Germany's financial situation when the Nazis took over Germany.
"So there's a time for silence, and there's a time for waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you'll know it. I don't think you should wait. I think you should speak now." -Taylor Swift
by SouthernINDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:39:57 PM PDT
released his delegates and they are free to vote for who they want. Given he was running to the right, Mitchell appears in the driver's seat according to Howey.
by SouthernINDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:50:11 PM PDT
And I see she has won! Hurray! Lol
by PSUCentrePA on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:57:47 PM PDT
The gift that keeps on giving.
by ChadmanFL on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:50:58 PM PDT
to have Donnelly over that asshat Mourdock.
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:14:50 PM PDT
If Hillary had eked out victory in 2008 and gone on to have a presidency comparable to Obama's, what sort of position would Obama now be in to win the 2016 primary?
by Chachy on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:11:23 PM PDT
Obama would likely not have become Sec. of State, so he would have more of a record in the Senate. I assume he would position himself as decently progressive, but not as anti-establishment as his '08 supporters would like - no Russ Feingold, more Dick Durbin. He would probably still be the favorite, but definitely not an unopposed one. For one, Hillary will have a VP - Bayh? - who will probably run and who could probably, depending on his and Clinton's performance, campaign as a centrist uniter. Obama would therefore have to run to the left, somewhat undermining his appeal with the general electorate.
Also, the coalitions might be different, with Hillary having an easier time with white women and less young people and minorities. She might being less of these into the voter pool, but keep more other voters. No clue on how to extrapolate this.
19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.
by Tayya on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:23:06 PM PDT
to the Supreme Court. His academic background is constitutional law, and there has been some talk of him possibly being appointed after he leaves office.
by meromorphic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:44:04 PM PDT
by BeloitDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:56:55 PM PDT
They only really started hating Obama after they realized he might actually become president.
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:57:21 AM PDT
After leaving office.
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:17:48 AM PDT
... and notwithstanding his ACA predictions, his predictions regarding court appointments has generally been pretty good.
That said, I don't know that Obama would have accepted.
by liberalpragmatist on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:12:50 PM PDT
As the close runner-up in 2008, he would likely be the prohibitive favorite just as Hillary is now. No one else would have a remotely comparable donor or volunteer base. The media would likely be talking him up as being able to provide a fresh start after the relentless partisan negativity of 2008-16 and 28 uninterrupted years of Clinton/Bush rule.
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:40:33 PM PDT
if he wasn't nominated for a cabinet post. If "Game Change" is to be believed, Obama was very unhappy in the Senate and in the event he decided not to run for president in 2008 (or lost), he was planning on returning to Illinois to run for Governor in 2010 (which would have probably been a primary challenge to Blagojevich's attempt at a 3rd term, as "F*cking Golden" would have never happened). So in the event we're talking about nominating "Governor Obama" in 2016, and assuming conditions in Illinois are similar to what they are now...yeesh.
Oh counterfactuals. The possibilities!
by JDJase on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:24:39 PM PDT
The IL governorship is something of a poisoned chalice, and it's likely he would have been encouraged by associates and colleagues to stay put -- there'd be little gain in removing himself from national issues, especially given how corrupt and difficult Illinois politics is.
by liberalpragmatist on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:14:01 PM PDT
167 delegates voted for Richards, 111 voted for Susan Happ, and 54 voted for Ismael Ozanne.
Looks like a two-way race between Richards and Happ, with Richards being the favorite.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:14:33 PM PDT
I'm not a fan of horse racing, but I'll go ahead and predict that Matterhorn will win the Belmont Stakes. That would mean that no Triple Crown would be awarded since California Chrome won the first two Triple Crown horse races (Kentucky Derby and Preakness).
by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:16:48 PM PDT
Failed to finish off the Crown. No shock there. We've gone 36 years without one and California Chrome, while being a decent horse, never struck me as the horse to break the streak.
My grandmother actually attended about 30 straight Kentucky Derbys before she retired to Florida. The last one she saw was the 1973 Derby won by Secretariat, widely considered one of the 2 or 3 greatest horses of all-time. Secretariat still holds the track record for all three Triple Crown events. I doubt his Belmont record will ever be broken considering it's a full 2 seconds faster than any other horse ever ran it.
by ChadmanFL on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:35:20 PM PDT
Chrome's owner has a good point that none of the horses to run ahead of him had competed in both earlier legs of the Triple Crown.
No question that California Chrome is not in the same class as some earlier Triple Crown winners, or even losers like Sham. Breeders aren't breeding for the distance or the durability to win a Triple Crown anymore.
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:47:05 PM PDT
I was having hope that this one would finally do it. :(
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:13:49 PM PDT
Straight from the SoS:
by kurykh on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:36:27 PM PDT
San Diego County actually counted a lot of ballots today, and has just 20000 left.
Yee +4649 (!!)
Yee actually did better than Evans in this batch. It was neutral for Perez, good for Swearengin, obviously good for Yee, and thus terrible for Evans.
by meromorphic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:50:34 PM PDT
by kurykh on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:01:20 PM PDT
I also checked some other big counties (Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside) and none of them are counting this weekend. San Diego is the only one that has updated today that I know of.
by meromorphic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:14:31 PM PDT
by itskevin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:54:52 PM PDT
than he did in the previously-counted votes in San Diego County. In the previously-counted votes, he was ahead of Yee by a bit, so this batch of votes was very unfavorable for Evans, since Yee actually got more votes than him.
by meromorphic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:14:20 PM PDT
but lost actual ground to Yee in this count, and lost percentage ground to Perez too.
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:14:35 PM PDT
Evans 3600 behind Perez, 1900 behind Yee.
Unprocessed page not updated tho.
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:04:59 PM PDT
haven't checked who else.
LA, Riverside, San Berdino, Orange did not
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:07:21 PM PDT
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:11:24 PM PDT
how many from Alameda?
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:11:43 PM PDT
by DCal on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:59:29 PM PDT
to JeffMD's spreadsheet, the updated totals are:
Note: JeffMD's spreadsheet (which includes data from the 58 county websites) is more updated than the SOS website for the following counties:
Santa Cruz (very minor difference)
by DCal on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:14:02 PM PDT
VA-03 - 67/33 Obama - Richmond, Danville, Roanoke
VA-11 - 64/35 Obama - Manassas, Woodbridge, Fredericksburg
VA-08 - 62/37 Obama - Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax
VA-02 - 60/40 Obama - Va Beach, Norfolk, Hampton
VA-10 - 59/40 Obama - Falls Church, Reston, Leesburg
VA-04 - 57/42 Obama - Chesapeake, Suffolk, Newport News
VA-07 - 54/45 Obama - Richmond, Charlottesville, Staunton
VA-01 - 57/42 McCain - Gloucester, Ashland, Culpeper
VA-06 - 58/41 McCain - Winchester, Lexington, Salem
VA-09 - 59/40 McCain - Bristol, Blacksburg, Cave Spring
VA-05 - 62/37 McCain - Colonial Heights, Lynchburg, Bedford
District 3 is majority black and district 11 is only plurality white (44%).
by JacobNC on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:13:50 PM PDT
Only three Republican districts, with the rest safe Democratic.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:20:23 PM PDT
I remember there was a thread where you and I were exchanging Democratic gerrymanders of Virginia. I believe that it was this map that caused me to concede defeat. This is truly an excellent map.
by ProudNewEnglander on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:27:48 AM PDT
And just like that, Yee is now in 3rd, and Evans is 4th. However, it's still all very close, with 1,760 votes separating 2nd from 3rd and 1,837 votes separating 3rd from 4th.
Tammy D. Blair
(Party Preference: DEM) 171,625
John A. Pérez
(Party Preference: DEM) 732,688
Betty T. Yee
(Party Preference: DEM) 730,928
(Party Preference: REP) 729,091
(Party Preference: REP) 846,628
(Party Preference: GRN) 190,543
In other races: CA-24, it seems that Justin Fareed has made up some ground on Chris Mitchum. Mitchum clings onto 2nd place by just 498 votes (20,470 to 19,972).
In CA-15, Ellen Corbett is 721 votes behind the Republican in 2nd place.
by BluntDiplomat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:11:35 PM PDT
still pull this off?
by El Hombre Azul on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:44:41 PM PDT
Per the calculations made by fellow posters upthread. Nonetheless, I'm just happy that it's getting increasingly likely we won't get shut out of the Top 2.
by BluntDiplomat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:54:01 PM PDT
Swearengin. Sure, she seems to be decently competent, having won an open seat in the Fresno mayoral election in 2008 by a comfortable margin (although the election was officially nonpartisan) while Obama was winning big. The CA GOP also doesn't have many good options. But the Central Valley is a terrible base for a statewide Republican. It's just not that big in terms of votes; in 2010, Orange County cast more votes than the entire Central Valley south of Sacramento County (for good measure, I'm also including the Sierra Nevada counties south of Amador). And because of that, Democrats can win solely on strength in the coastal counties (plus a few heavily Democratic inland counties like Yolo). Barbara Boxer is proof of that. In fact, if you take Boxer's 2010 race and suppose she gets zero votes in the Central Valley, using the most expansive possible definition (from Shasta County all the way down to Kern), Boxer still wins with a few hundred thousand votes to spare.
There's only two ways a Republican could conceivably win in California nowadays (top two shenanigans aside). One is to perform extremely well in Orange, San Diego, and the Inland Empire, and shear hard into Democratic margins in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County. Steve Cooley almost did that in 2010. He won Orange County with over 60% of the vote (Harris only got 31% there), held Harris below 60% in San Mateo and Sonoma Counties, nearly got 40% in Contra Costa and Los Angeles, and performed respectably in Santa Clara. So that's one way for a Republican to win in California. The other way is to run against Cruz Bustamante.
If Swearengin truly is a "rising star" (which is doubtful), it appears to me that Republicans have picked the ideal way to snuff her out, first by running her statewide, and second by running her in a downballot race where voters likely won't know much about the candidates and vote mostly based on party.
by meromorphic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:04:24 PM PDT
except in her home turf.
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:08:06 PM PDT
The controller race got zero attention, zero. I suspect it was an afterthought for about 99% of the voters.
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:20:37 PM PDT
I was just thinking aloud.
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:22:11 PM PDT
Some places Evans destroys Swearengin.
This race actually suggest people pay attention to downballot races. This isn't four candidates getting about the same percentage everywhere. Some areas are wildly different than others. And it isn't just Latino/Asian stuff like you might expect from the Dems.
The two Republicans had very different north/south appeal, and then also Central Valley/everywhere else differences.
It is harder to guesstimate eventual results because Evans did relatively quite well in some NorCal democratic areas, while doing lousy in LA... while Perez didn't do so well in some of the whiter Dem areas while kicking ass in LA.
It's too bad Blair peeled off as many votes as she did, because this would have been even more interesting with just the four plus the Green.
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:28:40 PM PDT
Rather, it shows that campaigns were targeting different voters in different regions. It doens't show that people "pay attention," because by and large people don't "pay attention" to anything other than presidential races, gubernatorial elections, and senatorial elections. Everything else is dictated by a complex mix of factors including partisanship, economic indicators, presidential approval, and campaign effects on a small percentage of the population (both persuasion and turnout).
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:40:10 PM PDT
You just said the voters didn't pay attention, then you said they paid attention to campaigns targeting.
So again, obviously it means people in different areas paid attention to something since people in many individual areas voted very similarly, but different areas of the state voted very differently in the state.
Perhaps the point you meant to make is people were manipulated and didn't understand the choices, but it's an objective fact that in this downballot race voters in different areas voted extremely different from each other.
by tommypaine on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:25:40 PM PDT
I'm saying that voters don't pay attention to anything of their own volition.
Saying that voters pay attention to something places the onus on them to be proactive in their approach to politics. The vast majority of people do no such thing.
On the other hand, campaigns target specific individuals who are easy to persuade or who need a bit of pushing to turn out to vote (if the campaign knows they'll support them). These voters really aren't "paying attention" in the way that you're assuming they do, but are rather just being "touched". Generally, campaigns want to make contact with voters four or five times through multiple methods, because voters do not pay attention.
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:19:17 AM PDT
Your comments are just your assumptions, which are obviously confusing things for no apparent reason.
I neither said nor implied voters paid attention to the degree they had a clue what they were doing. They could have; or they could have paid attention to the degree that campaigns lead them around by the nose.
Basically the distinction you are inventing isn't important or even interesting.
Again, you can't dispute the actual results. People in localities voted similar while the same sorts of people voted differently in other localities. This could be due to something as basic as one area was blanketed with yard signs, which gave people in that area their only information about this race, while there were no signs in another area. Or it could be people in Fresno, gasp, actually knew the name of their Mayor.
Whatever, doesn't matter at all. It just matters that this race is an example of a downballot race where voters plainly, deliberately, consciously chose one candidate over the other.
by tommypaine on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:06:51 PM PDT
You said this:
This race actually suggest people pay attention to downballot races.
And no, my comments are not just my assumptions, my comments are informed by decades of political science research.
Furthermore, I'm not disputing actual results (as you say), I'm giving you a more plausible explanation of those results than your own explanation.
It just matters that this race is an example of a downballot race where voters plainly, deliberately, consciously chose one candidate over the other.
It is you who is confusing the issue for no apparent reason and, frankly, I think this comment is better directed at yourself:
Basically the distinction you are inventing isn't important or even interesting.
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:12:55 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:11:02 PM PDT
Predict the state of each of these races if these following scenarios occurred:
1. Rockefeller didn't retire, and election is Rockefeller vs. Capito.
2. Nick Preservati is nominee instead of Tennant. Election is Preservati vs Capito.
3. Tennant is nominee for us, and well-funded Tea Party candidate defeats Tennant in primary.
1. Tom Latham got in for GOP, and Braley doesn't enter, leaving us with a B-list candidate like Mike Gronstal.
1. Democrats recruited John Barrow instead of Nunn. Republican primary went the same way as it did in reality.
Ashley Judd turned out not to be a stalking horse, and is our candidate. Election is McConnell vs Judd.
by El Hombre Azul on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:44:11 PM PDT
by benamery21 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:58:39 PM PDT
I hope we never get to the point where Tea Partiers win Dem primaries in contested races haha.
by El Hombre Azul on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:00:27 PM PDT
1. Capito 53 Rock 47
2. Capito 56 Prez 44
3. Tennant 54 tbag 46
IA. Latham 50 Gronstal 50, goes to photo finish
GA. Kingston 52 Barrow 48, and GOP wins GA12
KY. McConnell 57 Judd 43
by sacman701 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:16:04 PM PDT
Is about what I would have predicted. Mid-high single-digit loss. WV has changed and Rockefeller is much more liberal than Manchin. I really don't think he would have won.
by ChadmanFL on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:33:11 PM PDT
1. Rockefeller loses to Capito-Moore by mid single-digits. Rockefeller's numbers were in the toilet prior to his retirement announcement. This just isn't the same WV that elected him to may times in the past. He'll well left of Manchin, which is the kind of Dem it would take to win in WV these days.
2. Landslide Capito-Moore win.
3. Probably somewhere between tossup and tilt R.
1. Leans R race at best.
1. Race is about the same as it will play out with Nunn in the race. Nunn has the family name recognition to offset any advantage Barrow would have had.
1. Judd loses by double-digits.
by ChadmanFL on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:30:38 PM PDT
Rockefeller > Capito - 52 > 48
Preservati < Capito - 43 < 57
Tennant > Tea Party - 52 > 48
Gronstal < Latham - 45 < 55
Barrow < Kingston - 46 < 54
Judd < McConnell - 42 < 58
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:34:01 PM PDT
I used to think Rockefeller would lose.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:41:09 PM PDT
1: Comes down to the wire.
3: Assume you meant Capito is defeated in the primary. I'd say likely-D.
1: I'd say lean-R. Honestly, I'd have said tilt-R if it were Braley against Latham. Latham represents the swingy part of IA.
I'd put it at lean-R instead of tilt-D as it is now.
Likely-R instead of tilt-D as it is now. KY will never elect a hollywood star.
by Le Champignon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:33:29 PM PDT
Was the candidate the DSCC was trying to recruit prior to Tennant.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:38:40 PM PDT
1) Likely R race
2) Don't know much about Preservati to give you an answer
3) Since I'm assuming you meant "well-funded Tea Party candidate defeats Capito in primary", Lean D race
Tossup race, maybe with a slight tilt toward the GOP, although Gronstal is one of the more high-profile B-list Dems in IA (specifically, he's the Democratic floor leader in the Iowa State Senate).
Tossup race, although Barrow's coalition would be more rural and less suburban than that of Nunn.
Safe R race, Judd would perform close to Obama's 2012 numbers in Kentucky.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:16:35 PM PDT
by GradyDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:28:06 PM PDT
1. I'll say Rockefeller 53, Capito 47, though I could easily see this one going either way
2. Capito 57, Preservati 43
3. Tennant 55, TP 45
IA-Sen: Latham 54, Gronstal 46
GA-Sen: I'll go against the CW here and say Barrow 51, Kingston 49, which is about the same as I'd predict with Nunn
KY-Sen: McConnell 55, Judd 45
by ModernDayWarrior on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:08:19 PM PDT
Byrd gave Rocky significant "cover" as the more liberal but highly regarded senior senator. Byrd was bang for the buck the most liberal senator in a red state for years. He was never going to lose an election, and as long as he was there, Rocky was never going to lose an election. Even though senior senator merely denotes seniority, Byrd was truly "senior" to Rocky and gave him appropriate political cover.
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:57:10 AM PDT
Problem is Byrd isn't around anymore and the much more conservative Manchin occupies that seat. I just don;t see how someone as liberal as Rockefeller can win in WV anymore, even with his seniority and name recognition. That's why my prediction is that he would have lost to Capito-Moore by mid-single digits.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:45:55 PM PDT
after the NRSCs early bluster about being able to beat him was great.
by Avedee on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:17:41 PM PDT
There is an interesting guy named Thad Gerardot running for a state representative seat here in Indiana. If elected, he would be the state's first openly gay state representative. He previously worked for Freedom Indiana, which fought to keep a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality off the ballot.
Huffington Post article
by mts87 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:57:12 PM PDT
Here is a map. I drew it out roughly on DRA, and it voted about 51% Obama in 2008. However, given Allen County's 6% swing against Obama and the fact that HD-81 probably swung more since it has very few minorities (it's nearly 80% non-Hispanic white), I would guess it voted somewhere around 43% Obama in 2012.
by meromorphic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:11:58 PM PDT
to such an interesting young candidate, mts87!
Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.
"The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT -9.62, -9.13
by BeninSC on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:14:50 PM PDT
Democrat Rep. Win Moses (D-Ft. Wayne) in 2012 after Republicans packed Dems into HD-80 to create an 80.2% Dem district, which is majority-minority (and nearly 40% black). Win Moses had been around Ft. Wayne for a long time, and had a colorful past, and if he couldn't win in a presidential year, we aren't going to win it back in an off year when the state Democratic party is in shambles, and looking at potential further losses in the General Assembly, and better potential targets elsewhere.
by SouthernINDem on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:21:23 PM PDT
Granted, this is from a conservative blog, but Sam McCann, a Republican state senator who represents IL-SD-50, which includes part of Springfield and mostly rural areas between Quincy and the Metro-East, is reportedly considering running for governor as either an independent candidate or a third-party candidate.
Despite McCann usually being thought of as being aligned with the Tea Party, he's reportedly trying to win the support of teachers' unions for a possible gubernatorial bid. McCann would probably pull more votes from Bruce Rauner than from Pat Quinn, although he'd pull votes from both.
In Illinois, the filing deadline for independent and minor party candidates is June 23, so McCann has very little time in order to get on the ballot if he decides to go through with a run. If McCann does make the ballot, he'd probably be able to get 7-15% of the vote in the general election, which would probably give Quinn a second full term as Governor of Illinois.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:36:21 PM PDT
He'd be lucky to get 5%, just like almost every other highly touted independent candidate.
by wwmiv on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:41:13 PM PDT
He was a Green candidate who appeared to become a protest vote for Democrats who couldn't stand voting for Blagojevich (who was never really popular and always had an odd corrupt aura around him, even before he tried to sell a Senate seat). Whitney did especially well in college towns.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:43:29 AM PDT
Good girls shop. Bad girls shop. Shoppin', shoppin' from A to Z!
by Zornorph on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:15:52 PM PDT
Could you expound on why you think a candidate courting teachers unions would pull more from the GOP candidate than the Dem candidate? That seems flatly counterintuitive unless that's not his main strategy and you just kind of threw that in. Otherwise, at the very most it sound like his candidacy would be a wash, and more likely that it makes Quinn's chance harder, not easier.
by MetroGnome on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:54:21 PM PDT
That's why he'd probably pull more votes from Rauner, who is not well-liked by social conservatives, than he would from Quinn.
Of course, Rod Blagojevich won re-election in 2006 despite having to face a third-party candidate who ran to his left and got a little over 10% of the vote, so it wouldn't be unthinkable for someone like McCann to pull more votes from Quinn than Rauner.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:06:38 PM PDT
by abgin on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:20:03 AM PDT
Ed Gillespie wins the party's nomination:
Interesting how the erstwhile party of Lincoln displays pictures of Confederate generals at their convention. For those who wonder why the GOP can't seem to attract minority voters, you do know there was something called slavery they were trying to preserve?
by Mike in MD on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:09:02 PM PDT
At their convention?! Well, not too shocking I suppose. Richmond still does have an avenue full of statues dedicated to the leaders of a failed insurrection. The Cult of the Lost Cause it alive and well.
by ChadmanFL on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:25:26 PM PDT
are named for Confederates too. Probably thousands of miles of highway, total. I've also seen VA state issued license plates with Confederate flags on them and pictures of Confederate generals. In particular you will see a lot of honors for Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, who were Virginia natives. Robert E. Lee has a university (Washington & Lee) named partly in his honor.
And then you have the most infamous honor for Lee and Jackson: when Martin Luther King Jr. was given a federal holiday in the 1980s, Virginia decided to also honor Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee on the federal MLK day by making it "Lee-Jackson-King" day. In 2000, Lee-Jackson Day was made separate from MLK separate.
by JacobNC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:19:47 AM PDT
Well, to be precise, three counties and a parish. Two are rendered as "Jefferson Davis" (the ones in Louisiana and Mississippi), and two as "Jeff Davis" (the ones in Georgia and Texas).
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:48:39 AM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:55:47 AM PDT
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:29:49 AM PDT
with the union. Can't say the same for Jackson.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:55:20 AM PDT
or Jefferson-Jackson dinners.
The reality is most people from that era were assholes.
by tommypaine on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:09:04 PM PDT
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:56:34 PM PDT
And Jefferson was a founding father. There's a difference IMO when it comes to honoring Presidents of the United States as opposed to people who fought a failed insurrection against it.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 03:44:40 PM PDT
tend to be punished more for failing than for mounting an insurrection.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:34:59 PM PDT
There isn't anyplace else in the world I can think of where the participants of an insurrection that was crushed 150 years ago are still widely celebrated, with numerous monuments, parks, schools, etc. in their honor. But then again the deep south does love it's "peculiarities."
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:07:01 PM PDT
I doubt it's as rare as that.
by Audrid on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:22:59 PM PDT
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:57:34 PM PDT
on what you mean by country. I'm aware that England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland identify as countries in their own right, but the UK is the larger political entity to which Scotland belonged at the time. It was a rebellion against that entity. Whether it was justified or not is, of course, debatable.
But celebrating the confederate insurrection is just nuts. This wasn't a struggle to maintain some level of autonomy or because we weren't being granted a voice in politics or anything like that. It was a struggle to maintain the enslavement of millions of people under harsh, unlivable, dehumanizing conditions.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:26:55 PM PDT
but you clearly know what I meant.
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:57:51 PM PDT
are still Named after Nathan Bedford Forrest? You know, the Ku Klux Klan wizard and confederate general who ordered the massacre of black prisoners of war?
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:18:27 PM PDT
At least for a few more weeks. Jacksonville, FL has had Nathan B. Forrest public High School for a long time. Only in January 2014 did the Jacksonville School Boar vote to change the name. It will become Westside High School on 7/1/14 and it's mascot changed from the Rebels to the Wolverines.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 03:52:31 PM PDT
But they should have changed the name to William T. Sherman High.
by sacman701 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:06:09 PM PDT
by Audrid on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:22:23 PM PDT
and former Ohio Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy are running for seats on the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, which covers Franklin County.
by ndrwmls10 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 03:18:26 AM PDT
What do people think? I feel like this model undersells Grimes's chances, and Cotton being favored still seems wrong to me (despite Nate's explanation), though I can't find much else with which to quibble.
by yorkvillian on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:03:31 AM PDT
Oregon at 95%, Kansas at 99%, despite neither opposition party really standing much of a chance there. No wonder he predicts a Republican takeover.
He used to be a respectable dude. Now he's just clickbait. And then there's this utter dreck:
The quality of polling is somewhat problematic. Much of it comes from firms like Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen Reports with dubious methodologies
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:28:11 AM PDT
The problem is that when you are dealing with seats like Kansas, or to a lesser degree Oregon, they are simply not going to fall without a complicated series of events that likely goes beyond both the national environment and anything that is predictable. In the case of Kansas that would be Roberts losing or suffering from a scandal vastly greater than anything that has hitherto occurred. That is not impossible, but we probably don't have enough information to quantify that. If such information exists, which we have no way of knowing right now, his odds of losing are probably much higher than 1%, whereas without it I would venture they are much less than even 1%.
The same is true to a lesser extent for Oregon. I can imagine Merkley losing, but not in the normal course of events. A Bob Etheridge moment combined with a wave might do it, but I do not know how that can be quantified. So I find it hard to get annoyed with the 5% chance of a GOP victory, since Nate unlike the Post seems to grasp that these are not independent events.
I suspect the same is true of Arkansas. I think Pryor probably is marginally ahead right now. But if I were to project forward as a gut call based on what I know about Arkansas' recent history, what happened to the Democrats in the state senate in 2010, and Terry McAuliffe's performance in SW Virginia in 2013 v. the polls, I think a narrow Cotton win is probably slightly more likely than the alternative. As such, 55/45 probably looks right to me.
by BenjaminDisraeli on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:53:38 AM PDT
...in regards to his predictions. I feel that they are pretty on the mark at the moment. His feud with PPP is bizarre and makes no sense at all.
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:32:25 AM PDT
It boils down to him being mad that a pollster won't divulge the complete recipe for its secret sauce, even though his entire shtick for the past 7+ years has depended on him having his own inexplicable secret sauce.
by SaoMagnifico on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:38:46 AM PDT
...given away their secret sauce? No. So, this feud is bullshit.
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:46:50 AM PDT
and he wasn't able to crack the pattern.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:58:10 AM PDT
It's like calling Willy Wonka a hack and a fraud because he won't tell you how he makes everlasting gobstoppers.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:59:06 AM PDT
That's just indefensible...
by yorkvillian on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:30:09 AM PDT
that have been showing Cotton ahead.
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:31:40 AM PDT
PPP is not perfect, but it's near the top, regardless.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:56:25 AM PDT
Kansas? That pretty much means Safe Dem and Safe Repub respectively. Even DKE has Oregon rated as Likely Dem and not safe...
My only disagreement here is that Kentucky is probably something like 60-40 in favor of McConnell. But he is also right that there is not much high quality polling this cycle (with exception of PPP)
by clevelandpacha on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:15:19 PM PDT
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:30:40 PM PDT
is not at 95%. Nowhere close. Merkley is safe, 100% safe. I'd even say there's a greater chance of us taking Kansas than Republicans taking Oregon - and we only have an infinitesimally small chance of taking Kansas.
The problem with Monte Carlo models is that several of these "95%" cases add up to really skew the numbers in a particular direction. Essentially, the model is saying, "Democrats have more seats available to be contested this cycle." Well congratu-freakin-lations, Mr. Silver! Think we puzzled that one out ourselves.
As it stands, there are six seats Republicans hold with a 99% chance of winning or greater. Democrats have only one. And this has an effect:
Let's just consider the odds of holding all the seats which NS has us at 90% chance or more to keep. This is to say, what are the odds of keeping all of RI, NM, DE, IL, MA, HA, NJ, OR, VA, and MN?
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:40:47 PM PDT
the Senate is irrelevant. It comes down to individual races, so it's not that big of a deal. I'm not arguing that Oregon isn't safe, but come on DKE is lead by rational people who have reached a more bearish conclusion than he! Where's the kicking and screaming against them? Is Silver's model really that "egregious" on face value?
I'm not defending Silver 100%, but everyone here loves to get all up in arms about his predictions. Clearly he is more bullish on the OR race than DKE, so should we get all "congratu-freakin-lations" on DKE's ass too? It's seriously not the worst model out there, and it is much more rational than others (i.e. Washington Post fuckbaggery, Sabatao, etc).
by clevelandpacha on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:00:04 PM PDT
I've several issues with DKE's ratings, and find them unnecessarily bearish on numerous races. I also find them unnecessarily bullish on two races (SD and NC, FWIW). You're right that Silver's model is not the worst, but frankly, most of the people here at DKE could do a better job than any Monte Carlo model I've seen yet. All the models I've seen are pure CW nonsense.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:11:05 PM PDT
call all (or almost all) of the Senate races correctly on the day before the general. I predict that his estimates will improve a lot after he moves to the formal model and starts fine-tuning it.
In the meantime, he is trying to use his gut political judgement to replace numerical rigor, and that is not where his strengths lie.
by benamery21 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:54:04 AM PDT
by clevelandpacha on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:09:40 PM PDT
South Dakota Governor
Daugaard (R) 55%
Wismer (D) 35%
by PSUCentrePA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:10:42 AM PDT
Hello all. I apologize for being away. Given all of the primaries and other interesting things that have been happening, I wish I were posting here, but I am trying to devote my time to something professional, e.g. making a big career before I am institutionalized.
But anyway, on to something more important. I figured I'd post this here because this is one group of people who'd get it. This past week, I met a civil rights icon. Her name is Ruby Bridges. I'll be honest and admit that I thought I had never heard of her. When I looked her up, her story was came back to me a little bit. Still, her history wasn't as obvious to me as, say Rosa Parks'. Read the link above if you're drawing a blank or are only vaguely familiar.
I went to my brother's elementary school where he's a fifth-grade teacher to see her speak. She's older now, at 59, but apparently maintains a pretty active lifestyle as far as traveling around the country. I was only there because my brother called me to ask me if I could pick up nine-year-old niece and drive her there to see her, as she had just done a book report on her and would love to meet her. He told me I could stay and watch, which is what I did.
If you've read the link above, or if you've seen the TV movie, you'll realize what she was up against. Among other things, President Eisenhower (or Kennedy?) had federal marshals escort her to school, all the white kids' parents pulled them out of school, the only person who would teach her was a transplant from Boston, and people were protesting her presence, even going so far as to hold up a child's coffin. All of this, for a little girl who wanted to attend school. It seems so surreal, but of course, it happened.
Aside from the fact that it was cool to meet someone who persevered through that stuff, even for just a moment, I liked the fact that the kids seemed to get it, despite the presentation being about two hours long. In particular, as I was driving my niece to my brother's school, I tried to pick her brains a little bit. She's always been a little bit precocious, mostly in good ways, and that came through here. She was telling me how her friend's brother, the adopted African son of a couple my brother and his wife live near, couldn't go to school with her and her friends if the old system were still in place, and how she didn't care what color someone was so long as they were a nice person with a good personality, etc.
I guess you could call me one proud uncle.
I wanted to approach Ms. Bridges at the end, to see if she was as disgusted with the attempts to discourage voting as I am, but the kids were mauling her to get pictures and autographs and I had to run.
Anyway, I hope to be back to posting here regularly soon rather than later and I hope everyone is doing well.
"We have learned to turn out lots of goods and services, but we haven’t learned as well how to have everybody share in the bounty. The obligation of a society as prosperous as ours is to figure out how nobody gets left too far behind."--Warren Buffett
by bjssp on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:41:32 AM PDT
How Gillespie could pull off an upset
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:48:59 AM PDT
Now that is Peak Politico.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 11:21:37 AM PDT
James Hohmann leaves a lot to be desired much of the time, same as much of the Politico cast.
I suppose he can argue he's just reporting what Virginia Republicans are arguing, not arguing the same himself.
But that just raises the question: why are you doing that at all? Why do you think doing that is somehow your job?
Or, he shares the argument, because like most Beltway reporters, he knows Ed on a first-name basis and has him on speed dial, and for that reason alone refuses to resist the temptation to take him more seriously than he would otherwise.
by DCCyclone on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:31:10 PM PDT
Both are nothing more than a right-wing circle jerk.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:51:03 PM PDT
that a win for our lord and savior Ed Gillespie would be an upset!
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:23:12 PM PDT
Republicans have been in complete disarray on this issue since the open enrollment period ended.
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:26:34 PM PDT
It's so hilariously bad. and more or less a collection of GOP talking points.
by BeloitDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:28:05 PM PDT
I'm amazed at how quickly the ACA has collapsed as the defining issue of the campaign. Republicans bet the farm on this law failing miserably. What are they going to do now? Bergdhazi?
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:34:45 PM PDT
And Benghazigate. Obamacaregat is so 2013.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:38:39 PM PDT
Now I'm inspired to write my own masterpiece, "How Alameel could pull off an upset". Everybody out of the water!
by sacman701 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:07:58 PM PDT
The Baltimore Sun Poll
The article said that the GOP primary is much more volatile. The only other Republican that I think could pose a threat to Hogan winning is Craig. Looney-toon George didn't seem to catch on lol. Brown vs. Gansler has been an interesting race, I am just really surprised no one else besides Del. Mizeur got into the primary.
by PSUCentrePA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:51:02 AM PDT
Richard Mourdock has gone Godwin:
"The people of Germany in a free election selected the Nazi party because they made great promises that appealed to them because they were desperate and destitute. And why is that? Because Germany was bankrupt," he told a supportive crowd at the Indiana Republican Convention in Fort Wayne, according to the Indy Star.
"The truth is, 70 years later, we are drifting on the tides toward another beachhead and it is the bankruptcy of the United States of America," he added.
"Over the next several years, every time a program began to fall apart, Mr. Hitler's party was very, very good at dividing Germany by pointing to this group or that group," he said. "First they went after their political opponents. Then they went after the aristocrats. Then they went after the trade unionists. And ultimately of course they went after the Jews. They deprived them of their property, their rights, their citizenship, and for millions their humanity. Because they were bankrupt!"
"The truth is, 70 years later, we are drifting on the tides toward another beachhead and it is the bankruptcy of the United States of America," he added.
"Over the next several years, every time a program began to fall apart, Mr. Hitler's party was very, very good at dividing Germany by pointing to this group or that group," he said. "First they went after their political opponents. Then they went after the aristocrats. Then they went after the trade unionists. And ultimately of course they went after the Jews. They deprived them of their property, their rights, their citizenship, and for millions their humanity. Because they were bankrupt!"
by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 11:48:21 AM PDT
And thank heavens he lost the general election in 2012.
And he completely screwed up his history. The Nazi party, at their peak, only won 44.7% of the Reichstag's seats under free elections. It was when President von Hindenburg made the misguided decision to appoint Hitler to the open position of Reich Chancellor (under the advice of people who said it was the only way von Hindenburg could control him). When Hitler absorbed the presidency after the death of Von Hindenburg, he banned all other political parties.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:12:22 PM PDT
Germany's economy was on the rise from the horrific mega-inflation, which ended a decade before Hitler's party peaked.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:14:17 PM PDT
always have at best a tenuous grasp on the history of that period. It is not true that Hitler came to power as the result of a free election. In July of 1932, the Nazi Party made large gains in the Reichstag election and obtained a plurality of seats, but not a majority. The two anti-republican parties, the Nazis and the Communists, together had a majority of the seats, but obviously would not form a coalition; this "negative majority" means that no majority government was possible. The sitting chancellor, Franz von Papen of the conservative Catholic Centre Party, continued as a caretaker; a snap election was held in November of 1932. This was the last truly free election in Germany before the Nazi seizure of power, and in fact by November the German public had cooled down a bit. The Nazi Party actually lost a lot of seats in November 1932, but still had a plurality; thanks to gains by the Communists, there was still a negative majority.
The Weimar Constitution gave the President of Germany broad reserve powers, and Papen governed by emergency decrees of President Hindenburg, who was then senile and very reliant on Papen. This had been going on for some time, since the Reichstag even before 1932 was heavily fractured. A couple weeks before the July 1932 election, Papen had Hindenburg issue a decree dismissing the Social Democratic Minister-President (equivalent to governor) Otto Braun of Prussia, and Papen himself took over the Prussian government. The pretext was that Braun's government couldn't quell violent spats between the Nazis and the Communists, but the real reason was that the Prussian government had control over the Prussian police. Note that Prussia was by far the largest state in Germany; its position was roughly comparable to the position of England within the United Kingdom. In January of 1933, Papen convinced Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as chancellor, because Papen thought he could control Hitler; Hermann Goering was appointed interior minister for Prussia.
A new snap election was held in March 1933. The previous month was marked by violence against Communists and Social Democrats, and most of their publications were banned. The Prussian police, now under Goering's control, took no effective action against the Nazis. Even the Centre Party, which was generally more moderate than Papen and actually did not support Papen's governments, was heavily targeted. Suppression of Communists intensified after the Reichstag fire, which Hitler blamed on the Communists. On the day of the vote, Goering ordered members of the Nazi paramilitary organizations to work with the Prussian police to "monitor" the vote, and suppression and terror were used in other parts of Germany too. Despite all of this, the Nazi Party still failed to get a majority, and had to form a coalition with the German National People's Party, the right-wing nationalist party that had supported Papen.
The new Hitler government outlawed the Communists and vacated their seats, accounting for one-eighth of the Reichstag. Still, Hitler and his partners had nowhere near the two-thirds majority necessary to enact constitutional changes. But then the Centre Party sold its soul and agreed to vote for the Enabling Act; in return, Hitler promised that the Centre Party would remain legal (a promise he soon broke) and that Catholics would receive certain protections. During the Reichstag vote, the building was swarming with SA members who were there to intimidate the legislators. Goering, as President of the Reichstag, changed its rules so that members absent without excuse could be counted as present, so the Social Democrats couldn't boycott to deny a quorum. It is therefore very wrong to say that Hitler came to power democratically. He was only able to become a dictator after a series of extraordinary decrees, measures, and blunders by others.
Further, it seems that every Republican making Nazi comparisons always forgets a few additional points. One is that the first group targeted by the Nazis was the Communists. Another is the remarkable courage of the (socialist) Social Democrats. Otto Wels, the leader of the Social Democrats, was the only person to speak against passage of the Enabling Act. In the vote, every non-socialist voted for the act; every Social Democrat present (many had already fled or been arrested) voted against it, even though the act was sure to pass, and SA troops were all around them.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:46:43 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:05:50 PM PDT
This is far from the first time someone prominent on the right has compared the ACA to either Nazi Germany or American slavery.
by MetroGnome on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:19:20 PM PDT
Get a load of these:
Jeff Horseman @JeffHorseman · Jun 6
From Gooch strategist @JeffCorless - "Lesli Gooch will stand up here like Republicans stood up in Florida in 2000." 1/2
Jeff Horseman @JeffHorseman · Jun 6
"We're not going to let Democrats steal another election. Our tax rates and our healthcare depend on it." 2/2
Good reply here:
Brett Morrow @Morrow_Brett Jun 6
.@JeffHorseman But weren't Republicans in FL in 2000 trying to STOP votes from being counted? cc: @JeffCorless
Jeff Horseman @JeffHorseman · Jun 6
From @LesliGoochCA31 - "Pete Aguilar has arrogantly claimed victory with ballots still left to be counted." 1/2
Jeff Horseman @JeffHorseman · Jun 6
"I am not letting the Democrats get this REPUBLICAN SEAT." 2/2
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:30:51 PM PDT
...a heavily-Democratic district to someone like Leslie Gooch, it's Pete Aguilar (he's perceived as corrupt by many of the left). However, Gooch and her staffers are doing everything possible to throw the election to Aguilar.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:57:03 PM PDT
The only references to Aguilar being corrupt that I could find were a few left-wing bloggers whining about the fact that he talks to bankers or something. And not sensible left-wing bloggers. The kind of left-wing bloggers who complain about literally everything. That does not constitute "many of the left". Moreover, Aguilar was elected mayor of Redlands, which is one of the more conservative cities in the district (it voted for McCain and Romney). He might not be really awesome, but not everyone can be really awesome. And mediocrity is enough for a Democrat to win in CA-31, which, by the way, does not have a progressive activist base.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:04:07 PM PDT
Joe Baca got several percent of the vote in the primary, and that was despite Baca making sexist remarks about Gloria Negrete McLeod.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:18:50 PM PDT
The Democratic electorate here is low-turnout and heavily Latino. They're considered moderate Democrats, but are by no means conservative.
by kurykh on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:50:28 PM PDT
just bidness friendly in the IE ole boys network. He's got a bunch of highly conservative max donors, the sort of folks who only otherwise give to GOPpers, which raises a few eyebrows.
Between Pete and Baca or Pete and Miller or Pete and random GOPper, it's no contest. I was actually hoping Eloise would run in 35, to narrow the Dem field, although I'd take her over Pete in a head-to-head. That would have had the added benefit of letting Norma get some time in grade.
by benamery21 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 03:24:32 PM PDT
Did Howie Klein call him that?
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:04:35 PM PDT
by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:20:25 PM PDT
that perceive Aguilar as corrupt?
by kurykh on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 02:05:58 PM PDT
so no one worth taking seriously.
by geoneb on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:03:47 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:45:02 PM PDT
he accused Eric Swalwell of running a dirty campaign against Ellen Corbett. If anything it was Corbett who was running the dirty campaign which hopefully will blow up in her face.
Plus he seems to have some personal beef with Aguilar because Klein's Twitter feed constantly featured a picture of Aguilar flipping the bird at the camera.
by ehstronghold on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:12:44 PM PDT
which was Mark Halperin-level shitty.
by geoneb on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:26:33 PM PDT
She ran the most liberal of the three main contenders.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:36:34 PM PDT
he claimed Steve Israel and the DCCC were secretly backing Halvorson, when a look at Halvorson's fundraising totals for the race disprove that easily (she raised something like $40,000 or so, most of it from in-state donors; if the DCCC was backing her I'd expect her to raise more money, most of it from out-of-state)
He also backed Hutchinson as the "true progressive" candidate, even though Hutchinson was the "establishment" pick in that race initially, and attacked Kelly for accepting the endorsements of State Senators Napoleon Harris and Donnie Trotter (Harris is opposed to gay marriage, and Trotter was the establishment pick before he was caught trying to bring a gun onto a plane). Hutchinson, of course, had campaigned for her State Senate seat with the endorsement of the ISRA, and had accepted the endorsement of anti-gay pastors as well.
tl;dr: Howie Klein suffers from (Steve) Israel Derangement syndrome and has no idea WTF he's talking about when it comes to Congressional campaigns
by geoneb on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:45:49 PM PDT
...who backpedaled from her pro-NRA/ISRA stance as a member of the Illinois General Assembly as a congressional candidate (I called her out for that more than once). Kelly isn't a pure progressive (she voted against the Amash Amendement to reign in NSA spying, for example), but she's closer to it than Hutchinson was.
by DownstateDemocrat on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 01:22:18 AM PDT
RICHMOND — Republicans appear to have outsmarted Gov. Terry McAuliffe in a budget-and-Medicaid standoff by persuading a conservative Democratic senator to resign his seat, at least temporarily giving the GOP control of that chamber and possibly dooming the governor’s top legislative priority.
Sen. Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell) will announce his resignation Monday, effective immediately, paving the way for a deal he negotiated that includes awarding his daughter a state judgeship and himself a job as deputy director of the state tobacco commission, three people familiar with the arrangement said Sunday.
Sen. Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell) will announce his resignation Monday, effective immediately, paving the way for a deal he negotiated that includes awarding his daughter a state judgeship and himself a job as deputy director of the state tobacco commission, three people familiar with the arrangement said Sunday.
by Minnesota Mike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:05:10 PM PDT
by James Allen on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:07:53 PM PDT
Are there any pickup opportunities?
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:10:27 PM PDT
but in a year like 2015, with no statewide race on the ballot, it would be tough to pick up unless it was a really favorable Democratic environment.
by JacobNC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:31:43 PM PDT
Also, one in VA Beach, where the incumbent Republican is getting up there in years.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:35:38 PM PDT
I've been researching the VA leg today. Whats his Senate seat like i.e. can we hold it.
by El Hombre Azul on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:20:05 PM PDT
It's 67% Romney, 65% Allen
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:25:55 PM PDT
by Jeff Singer on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:33:47 PM PDT
The 38th in there went for Obama in '08. Did it collapse that much?
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:35:23 PM PDT
by JacobNC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:53:00 PM PDT
It would have voted strongly for Clinton and Gore would have won it (it's in coal country). Kerry would have lost it narrowly, Obama would have lost it badly in 2008 and even worse in 2012. That area of Virginia has swung away from us harder in the past few years than almost anywhere in the country.
by okiedem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:56:04 PM PDT
the only Dem who could win would be a local.
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:06:18 AM PDT
interested in the seat?
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:14:53 AM PDT
The only thing that Democrats will have a say in now is if a moderate or a nutjob gets elected...
by PSUCentrePA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:59:15 PM PDT
I wonder if we could find a moderate, medicaid-supporting Republican to run, and then prop up his candidacy.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:43:55 PM PDT
Democrats would have an easier chance of getting a moderate Republican elected, especially if the Tea Party plays havoc with trying to take the seat,
by PSUCentrePA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:03:02 PM PDT
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:32:49 PM PDT
he might lose in 2015 anyway and it would be best to leave now and have a job lined up for himself. He definitely screwed McAuliffe, though.
His district went for Cuccinelli by 35 points, so I wouldn't be surprised if a Democrat doesn't even file for the special election.
by JacobNC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:20:21 PM PDT
somebody like Puckett, can still win that district. My cousin lives in Bluefield.
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:29:45 AM PDT
....and this little shit literally buys himself out? I mean this is pure graft? Who is approving this "deal" anyways?
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:31:00 PM PDT
convince the tobacco commission to give Puckett a job.
by JacobNC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:34:57 PM PDT
Who the heck gets to approve that?
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:36:48 PM PDT
by JacobNC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:37:28 PM PDT
It's like friggin' Tammany Hall....
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:41:46 PM PDT
And this time the Democrats were on the unlucky side, I am uncertain why he just didn't switch parties.
by PSUCentrePA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:43:53 PM PDT
But if Northam was the one Democrat that Republicans were trying to convince to change parties, it means Puckett was out of reach.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:55:03 PM PDT
So please don't take that statement as a certainty, just a logical conclusion.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:04:23 PM PDT
Northam seemed game for political games, Putnem seemed to be one of those conservative Democrats "by family" and would never switch. Therefore, the VAGOP got its next best option...
by PSUCentrePA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:07:59 PM PDT
The Democrats in North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky should be on alert and try and lock down their parties. If another Democrat were to switch (particularly a retiring one) it would be now.
by PSUCentrePA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:06:07 PM PDT
this is VA's issue. But vigilance never hurts, of course.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:23:55 PM PDT
Democrats in Kentucky feel perfectly comfortable because their party still controls the State House and the governor's mansion. There are numerous "next-in-line candidates" (Edelen, Conway, Grimes etc.) A lot of the Kentucky Democrats are in districts that McConnell will lose this fall. They have no reason to switch.
On another note, look at Arkansas. No Democrats have switched parties (except Linda Collins Smith who was perfectly fine with traffic accidents in school zones because of cell phones) because they are still perfectly comfortable with their local party. A lot of them owe their political careers to Pryor, Beebe, or Clinton.
Party switches happen when the state party is actually dead (see: Alabama.)
by GradyDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:02:39 PM PDT
If Dems were to lose the state House in KY in November I could see the dam break and multiple Dems in marginal State House seats flip parties. We've seen a lot of that happen once Democrats lose their grip on state legislatures in the south.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:49:49 PM PDT
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:18:16 AM PDT
like what happened with Northam, but it may be too late.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:35:02 PM PDT
to stop it, but if it doesn't, I don't feel too bad. The Republicans are still shut out of statewide offices and the veto override margin is 2/3rds.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:37:54 PM PDT
Absolutely terrible news.
Odds of Democrats picking net seats up in 2015 are not very high. McAuliffe got hosed here. I doubt much of anything gets done after this as VA Republicans are pretty damn Conservative and seem to viscerally hate McAuliffe.
Its hard for me to fault someone for helping a daughter out, but this is a real scumbag move. Shady, very shady.
by Socks The Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:40:37 PM PDT
It's frustrating, but I'm not going to get upset because there is nothing I can do about it. We can only hope Republicans either work with McAuliffe or go batshit, helping Dems pick up seats like the 10th.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:46:27 PM PDT
...Democrats can't pick up any seats in 2015?
Do you have knowledge to support that?
Even just elsewhere in this thread there are comments identifying a couple winnable GOP-held seats.
by DCCyclone on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:52:33 PM PDT
for the 10th (which Watkins won 56-43 over a some guy in '11), the 7th, the 17th, and the 20th (though the first two are the most Dem)?
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:00:54 PM PDT
by okiedem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:48:33 PM PDT
I thought the GOP has a massive majority in the State House. Couldn't they just vote it down there?
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:01:46 PM PDT
Now even that little bit of leverage is gone...
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:29:27 PM PDT
McAuliffe can veto and allow a shutdown, and frankly I expect he's been planning for that all along. I doubt he and his team have been naïve enough to think the Virginia House GOP would fold without a shutdown first. Now even if the Senate passes the House bill, McAuliffe can still veto.
Keep in mind that there is still a pro-Medicaid majority in the state Senate because three Republicans support it. So that's TMac's political trump card. Whatever the GOP can do with a couple absences of Howell and whoever else is short-lived.
I don't know what McAuliffe will actually do. But "leverage is gone" is a very uninformed thing to say or believe.
by DCCyclone on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:49:48 PM PDT
That helps me feel a little better.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:57:45 PM PDT
...whether McAuliffe signs or vetoes a budget without Medicaid is likely something he decided long before the Puckett resignation was engineered, and the Puckett situation likely doesn't change his plans.
Now, I can see where if he folds and signs, the media and a lot of glib punditry will say categorically it's because we lost Puckett.
I'm saying that's highly unlikely.
by DCCyclone on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:09:21 PM PDT
...it's highly unlikely the Puckett resignation had anything to do with it, i.e., I bet McAuliffe had decided earlier a shutdown wasn't going to get him where he wants to be, and he was bluffing anyway.
by DCCyclone on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:11:08 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:12:53 PM PDT
...his playing this brinkmanship as far as he has already.
But I ultimately don't know.
by DCCyclone on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:11:30 PM PDT
and he had a statement already written.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:12:24 PM PDT
And a Shut down in VA is another. This is a tossup in public opinion if Democrats want to play this game of roulette. Minnesota was all but obliged to get rid of the tea partiers in MN. But who will the swing voters of VA blame? A united Legislature or Governor?
This is too risky politically for even McAuliffe IMO.
by PSUCentrePA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:47:57 PM PDT
And give the teabaggers what they want.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:51:33 PM PDT
He can't for reelection anyways (until there is a 4 year hiatus in between)
by lordpet8 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 01:38:30 AM PDT
He can't necessarily make himself look bad. He has to do what the public wants in the end and if he were to receive the most public backlash it may hurt Democrats chances of taking back the senate.
by PSUCentrePA on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 04:18:03 AM PDT
if you can't get medicaid passed anyway?
McAuliffe should do everything he can to get it passed, including vetoing budgets. If the Republican legislature isn't willing to play ball and accept the will of voters, then they can enjoy the shut down.
by Le Champignon on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:34:44 AM PDT
The public is largely indifferent to who wins this fight, but on balance Medicaid is popular.
It's simply your red-colored glasses telling you a shutdown hurts Dems more than the GOP.
by DCCyclone on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:14:05 PM PDT
to a sinecure to even things up until 2015?
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:24:31 AM PDT
Thousands will go without healthcare so he and his family can get patronage jobs. This is a move worthy of the worst machine state!
by redrelic17 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 11:13:46 PM PDT
...in Wisconsin four years ago. (Here's an explanation of that for those of you who aren't familiar with Wisconsin political history).
This scenario in Virginia involves outright bribery (or at least what I consider to be a form of bribery) by Republicans.
by DownstateDemocrat on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:53:04 AM PDT
"The Senate has a policy against appointing the relatives of active legislators to the bench. " His daughter's temporary judicial appointment last year is at risk if he keeps his office. He's 67, and doesn't want to stand in her way. This is not out of the blue.
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:03:26 AM PDT
at a local bank (11 years on) at the end of last year.
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:39:26 AM PDT
of VA laws allowing the governor to form a leadership PAC and flood money to recruit and win races in SD-10 (the most), SD-7, and some in SD-17 and 20.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:43:38 PM PDT
It goes by the name of Common Good VA.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:41:59 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:44:30 PM PDT
I'm sure he can lend a chunk to a PAC for the cause after his re-election.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:11:00 PM PDT
Unbelievable. Unbelievable. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Grew up in southern VA. Have worked in 9 states across America. Managed races in VA and DC. Was Deputy Political Director at DGA for the 2012 cycle. Follow me @bharatkrishnan if you want to be my friend.
by Bharat on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:21:39 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:40:11 PM PDT
Or at least investigated?
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:02:56 PM PDT
because months after our last governor was indicted and our current governor campaigned on ethics reform, we still don't even have a bill for ethics reform
by Bharat on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:24:52 PM PDT
The GOP has outmaneuvered him clearly it looks like they want to force him to do this executively to rally the base and pin the old 'dictator' tag on him. The thing is establishing it by EO may not even stand a legal test so a prolonged Gov't shutdown may be the only way to get either to fold and hammer out a compromise.
by henster on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:49:51 PM PDT
They are both wealthy with a ton of money that can be poured into PACs for ads and GOTV in Senate races next year. There are a lot of Republicans in Obama districts only there because of low turnout and poor Dem opponents. Dems need to recruit good candidates and have Warner campaign aggressively for against these Repubs next year if they don't vote for Medicaid expansion. Money and threats will move people.
by henster on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:58:12 PM PDT
Upthread there was, let's say, a bit of a disagreement over ideological labeling.
Or maybe there are many different labels for the same beliefs because of how complicated politics is. And maybe, because everyone here is in the top 0.1% most educated people in America when it comes to politics, we shouldn't criticize how others choose to label themselves.
by jncca on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:05:39 PM PDT
for being socially conservative both compromises the inclusivity of our environment towards fellow Democrats and is absurdly hypocritical considering 9 out of 10 of us would vote for a social conservative under certain circumstances, such as the upcoming Arkansas Senate election.
by jncca on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:08:56 PM PDT
Voting for a social conservative in cases like GA-Sen or AR-Sen is nothing more than being practical. I'm a social and economic liberal. But above all I vote for the lesser of two evils. If I can get an all-around progressive elected I vote that way. But if I'm stuck between voting for someone who votes the way I want half the time and some tea bagger like Tom Cotton I take the guy who agrees with me half the time. There's nothing hypocritical about it.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:15:25 PM PDT
to support the primary candidate you like best in a case like ME-2. People have legitimate reasons to support Troy Jackson or Emily Cain. I haven't researched the issue positions of each candidate so I don't have much of an opinion myself.
I think it's hypocritical to attack a social conservative personally, on this thread, for their beliefs (you didn't do this, just to clarify) while saying Mark Pryor 2014.
by jncca on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:18:02 PM PDT
It's just unnecessary vitriol, especially here on DKE. Wanna call someone "oppressive", "hurtful", "disgusting", etc.. take it to the main page. They love that kind of red meat.
Lord knows I don't agree with social conservatives, but they are a necessary part of the party if we want to compete in southern states. And we definitely do want to compete in southern states - AR-02, FL-02, etc are top pickup opportunities for us if we want to win the House this decade. I'd rather have a working majority on economic issues than no working majority at all.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:51:06 PM PDT
I don't really see those as in any way related per se. For example, if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, I think you're a bigot and can go fuck yourself. Personally speaking. However, I still donate to a number of anti-gay marriage politicians, if I think they are important to holding a democratic position, and they are the best possible candidate for their office. I also understand those who don't.
So I feel like I can do the following:
I'll give and support you Mark Pryor in 2014, but go fuck yourself for your socially conservative views.
And this is not hypocritical or wrong. I feel much the same way about a number of pro-life democrats.
Another way to think about it is that I recognize that there are limits as to how liberal a politician can be that is location specific. But I don't believe how liberal a -person- is has anything to do with location per se, nor that I have some ineffable obligation to respect those views as long as they wear the big tent hat. I don't like this being used against argumentation because the big tent argument is not that we need to tolerate every viewpoint any person might have, but rather that we need to accept compromise in our selection of politicians.
Which is to say if you are wrong in the south, you are wrong. If you are wrong in the North East, you are wrong. And I see no reason not to call people's views bigoted, hateful or wrong regardless of which side of the aisle they are on. I only ask that they give me the same courtesy and let me know when I am being bigoted, hateful or wrong.
by HumeanSkeptic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:08:03 PM PDT
Well I'll tell you right now you're being hateful.
by jncca on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 11:45:48 PM PDT
If bigots, of course, and I am very happy to be so.
by HumeanSkeptic on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 11:12:26 AM PDT
I don't 'hate' bigots per se, I hate bigotry. I prefer to use forceful wording to make the point that I find such views and viewpoints unacceptable. I don't mean that bigots are a special class of people per se, as we all have our internalized prejudices. Rather, I find it important to make clear that not addressing those, tolerating them, and encouraging them is wrong, full stop.
To that end, when I say that I want to be told when I am being bigoted, hateful, or wrong, I really do mean it, but I mean it in the sense that I'd like to be corrected of my mistakes. Have my feet held to the fire, if you will. If my tactics are incorrect or my beliefs wrong, I like to have that made known to me. That said, if a certain amount of harshness is seen as wrong, I am likely to disagree. I think that if one does act in a harmful and bigoted way, one ought to have one's feelings hurt, at least a bit. Because gay children and adults are killing themselves because of this hate, and if being made even a little less likely to express views leading to depression and suicide in gay kids or adults is a consequence of these hurt feelings, I am all for hurting them. It doesn't mean that there aren't other methods, and that I wish ill on anyone for the sake of causing ill. I don't believe in that sort of retributive justice.
So when I ask, I am serious, but I don't take "being mean" as enough to stop. I want dialogue, but more than anything I want an end to discrimination and bigotry.
by HumeanSkeptic on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 11:32:30 AM PDT
I wasn't insulting anyone here for being socially conservative...
I was insulting a specific candidate for being socially conservative. I realize now that because I used the language "you're" it came across as an attack on a fellow user, rather than a reference to my previous paragraph. I apologize. It was not my intention to attack another user at all, especially a user that I generally like and whose contributions are mostly good.
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:30:26 PM PDT
One of English's biggest problems...the word "you."
by jncca on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:37:06 PM PDT
as a problem of colloquial speech. We often informally use "you" where it would be more proper and less ambiguous to use "one", since the latter often feels too stuffy.
by meromorphic on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:54:59 PM PDT
by wwmiv on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:00:16 PM PDT
...by using the proper upper midwestern word, "yous" or by using the pittsburgh "yuns".
"Where are yous guys going?"
"What are yuns going to do about... (unintellligable Pittsburgh accented words)?"
by LordMike on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:43:48 PM PDT
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:51:52 PM PDT
Accurately portrays differences between manners of speaking between north and south.
I remember back during the Romney 2012 campaign how many flubs he made with regards to southerners. You could tell he had no idea how to interact with southerners.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:57:53 PM PDT
I moved from the right to the left in the US largely because I distrust two things:
1. Fanaticism and the belief that politics is a good v. evil cosmic struggle
2. Ideological blinkers
As someone who spent a lot of their formative time in Europe, I found the American Republican party to be frankly too Marxist for my taste. And by Marxist I don't mean in the Social Democratic, favor regulation way, but in the nutty pseudo-religious cult, Greek KKE/Trotskyiest manner. Central to the Republican world system are certain "known facts" such as that tax cuts raise revenue, or that privatization is always more efficient. When events don't work out as predicted, rather than reexamining their views based on new information they interpret that information in light of doctrine. If tax cuts failed to raise revenue and increased the deficit, its not because they don't work, but because they weren't tried hard enough.
My issue with the left on social issues is not the positions themselves; I favor same-sex marriage and government funding of healthcare, including abortion, for low-income individuals. Where I have an issue is in the tendency of some on the left to adopt a tone reminiscent of evangelicals or islamic fundamentalists in which socially we have reached the end of history, and they are on the side of angels in the great cosmic struggle against darkness. To have any ambiguity about abortion is to be anti-women, despite women being more pro-life than men. To disagree with tacitics on gay rights, or to come down differently on the balance between free speech and hate speech, or to even believe that such arguments have more than one clear cut side is to be homophobic, regardless of if your gay. The democratic position is not that gay marriage is a goal of policy, but that the most important issue facing America is for stockbrokers and management consultants to be able to marry who they want, and to avoid paying taxes on it. The litigant in Windsor was sympathetic in that she was unable to marry her partner, not in of herself or her own situation which was quite simply that she did not want to pay taxes on a multi-million dollar estate.
I think things like that get too easily lost and it hurts the Democratic party far more than the issues themselves do. I do not think Abortion or Gay Marriage per se are that damaging anymore in places like Kentucky so much as the patronizing and elites attitude with which they are adopted. When women's healthcare is spoken of in terms of health for the poor it can be effective even there. However, I think that many understandably found the Sandra Fluke v. Rush Limbaugh fight as a scuffle between two deeply unsympathetic individuals, a loudmouthed jackass and a women who could afford to put in more than $50K into her own vanity campaign for legislature after a $150K law school degree that she is not using, yet refused to chip in to pay for healthcare. I think the question of whether she should have been covered was ambiguous not because contraception coverage is ambiguous, but because I think its arguable that the wealthy should pay a share of their own healthcare costs. Does that make me a reactionary?
by BenjaminDisraeli on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 01:02:00 AM PDT
These party switches/takeovers seem to only happen to Dems. NY State Senate, Washington State Senate, almost happened with Northam in 2009 and now this deal today. Dems never see it coming I can't of where Republicans made deals with Dems and bailed on their party on multiple occasions in multiple states over the years. Renegade Dems seem to be a chronic problem all over the country maybe it's our over reliance on blue dogs or lack of party discipline but this needs be reigned in.
by henster on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:15:55 PM PDT
because Arlen Specter switched.
by Audrid on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:21:05 PM PDT
The blue dog coalition is almost dead. If anything, we need to be relying on them more. We're not going to take the House without more blue dogs.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:26:06 PM PDT
The problem is that a number of districts, which can elect Blue Dogs (even the most conservative, Bright-Minnick type), is much less now, then even 6-8 years ago. I can't imagine AL-02, for example, electing ANY Democrat now. And it DID electrd Bright in 2008.. Elections became much more polarized and predictable in most areas
by Ragmod on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:45:27 PM PDT
Where are we going to get any elected? Most of the true Blue Dogs, not those from CA or other places who belong to but don't vote like Blue Dogs, are from the southeast. And those are an endangered species.
Just look at the 2014 House map and assume as absolute best case scenario - Dems somehow take a slim House majority. Even in that scenario we don't gain many Blue Dogs. Almost none of our top-20 pickup opportunities are likely to be Blue Dogs. Maybe AR-02, FL-02, WV-02 and a very small number of others would be Blue Dogs, but most would not. Most of our top pickup opportunities are in the rust belt and northeast.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:07:10 PM PDT
Like you say, AR-02, FL-02, WV-02... but also NE-02, KY-06, IN-02, AR-04, KS-03 and KS-02, NM-02, ND-AL, SD-AL, and MT-AL. If we had these districts, we'd come fairly close to a majority even without the rust belt seats (which I agree are great targets themselves).
I've a hunch that several other seats could become competitive under a Clinton coalition - seats like MS-01, even. We're not going to get many blue dogs elected while the Scary Black Dude is the head of the party. But the wife of a popular southern governor and ex-president? Maybe.
It's just a hunch, mind you. It's hard for me to see the south electing guys like Travis Childers in districts like MS-01, and then becoming implacably, irredeemably Republican after 2010. Something has to change to make them competitive, and I suspect that change will happen when Obama is no longer president.
I guess we'll see.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:23:49 PM PDT
an optimist, while i am a pessimist.. AR-02, FL-02, WV-02 - may be (though i don't see Graham as especially Blue Doggish and candidate in WV-02 as very strong). NE-02 - also "may be" with independent conservative running. All other - very unlikely, and in some of these districts Democratic candidates are not Blue Dogs. With Clinton (not Obama) in 2016 and later - possible, but not that many. Ultrapolarization took it's toll...
by Ragmod on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 11:54:22 PM PDT
an car accident tonight. Witnesses say she was on her phone and sped through a red light. Previously, she was caught texting in her car. She should resign. She was elected through the terrible IVR system and really has been a terrible ineffective mayor.
by calvinshobbes on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:33:05 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:38:47 PM PDT
She had no business running for re-election in the first place.
by henster on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 08:59:38 PM PDT
That's my inference from your comment.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:16:04 PM PDT
She's always been a basketcase.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:11:01 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:35:47 PM PDT
Stanley Roberts of KRON4 would say, Jean Quan was behaving badly tonight.
by ehstronghold on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:48:03 PM PDT
But best wishes in spite of her self-inflicted accident. Glad nobody else was hurt it appears.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:09:28 PM PDT
I noticed that from Schauer's social media that he hung out in Detroit most of last week. I and many others have been saying that he needs to up his profile in Detroit for November, as has the polls.
Snyder has been going for Detroit hard, this year. He's smart enough to know that he won't be getting many votes out of the place, but to show that he cares could very well depress turnout. Furthermore, to keep from antagonizing the legislature and the governor to protect support from the state, Mayor Duggan essentially struck a backroom deal not to critizien the Emergency Manager, and that seems to have morphed into Duggan not criticizing the governor, which really puts Schauer in a bind, or at least makes his job harder. My hope is that this deal doesn't stop Duggan from ultimately stomping for and endorsing Schauer down the road.
For as much as Detroit has declined in population and thus electoral importance, it is still the most voter rich city for Democrats in the state, and you still need decent turnout in the city to win. A huge reason Bernero performed so poorly in 2010 was because voter turnout in Detroit was so incredibly poor. Schauer kind of starts out in the hole not being from the other side of the state (at least in his adult political life, he was actually born in raised in the metro area) and not having as many readily available connections, here. He'd be smart to just park himself and the city, really, since he's hit just about everywhere else in the state.
I don't expect Detroit turnout to be as low as in 2010. The Democratic machine is ramping up, and even outside of that Snyder pissed off a lot of people in the area with his policies just like everywhere else in the state. But, it's never foolish to talk up the importance of Detroit for Dems, and I'm glad to see Schauer hitting up the city proper, hard. One of the very basic things a Democratic candidate needs to do in Detroit is to simply show up and present and alternative, and that's more than half the battle, right there. This is a town that gave Obama over 95% of its vote in 2012, I believe. It's not going to be difficult to convince them not to vote for Mitt Romney, Jr. come November, but they also aren't going to turnout in the numbers we want them to if you don't show up.
by MetroGnome on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:31:42 PM PDT
Have not gotten to it this weekend. I hope to add something in the Monday Live Digest. Have been really busy. Hope tomorrow works out.
by SouthernINDem on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:00:20 PM PDT
Vox Populi (R) Poll
by PSUCentrePA on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 04:30:08 AM PDT
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 04:53:06 AM PDT
Vox Populi is leaning noticeably right, especially in this poll, then maybe. But I try not to "unskew" polls like this. They're garbage in, garbage out.
by Le Champignon on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:36:12 AM PDT
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:15:41 AM PDT
he will lose, though.
by benamery21 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:16:30 AM PDT
by you on soon
Or you may make changes below and Preview again, or Cancel this comment.
Donate to support Daily Kos.
© Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified
“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC