Skip to main content

Daily Kos Elections Live Digest banner
Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.
To our amazing readers: We'll be taking a short holiday break, so there won't be a Digest on Thursday and Friday. We'll be back in action on Monday. Have a great Fourth of July!

9:05 AM PT: PA-Gov: Is there any way Gov. Tom Corbett hasn't already been triaged by national Republicans? Franklin and Marshall College finds him trailing Democratic nominee Tom Wolf by a 47-25 margin, which is where you might expect to see a challenger just starting out in an odd-numbered year, not an incumbent five months from Election Day. Indeed, except for a PPP poll conducted a year-and-a-half ago, Corbett's never even made it out of the 30s. There's just not much more to say here.

9:55 AM PT: IL-10: A new poll from Harper Polling for the American Action Network, a pro-GOP establishment group, finds ex-Rep. Bob Dold! leading freshman Democrat Brad Schneider 42-39. The poll also says that Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn trails Republican businessman Bruce Rauner 49-37 in the district, and that even Barack Obama's approvals are under water at 44-46. If you're inclined to believe these numbers, they're awfully pessimistic for Team Blue, and Schneider's argle-bargle response doesn't inspire much confidence.

But here's a little something that the AAN was undoubtedly hoping no one would remember. Last year, Harper also surveyed the 10th on behalf of the NRCC and found Dold ahead 44-39. Sure, it's just a couple of points, but that still means Dold's trendlines are negative or flat at best, something Harper's memo naturally declines to mention.

10:15 AM PT: MS-Sen: Gasoline poured, matches at the ready. A conservative group called True the Vote has now filed a lawsuit trying to overturn the results of Mississippi's GOP Senate runoff, claiming, of course, that Democratic primary voters impermissibly cast votes in the Republican contest. Loser Chris McDaniel has expressed his support for the suit, even though he once voted in a Democratic primary himself, back in 2003. This could really wind a real fiery mess.

10:46 AM PT: TX-Gov: When Greg Abbott's handlers actually allow him to talk to the press, his usual response is "no comment." Now you'll understand why, once you read these jaw-dropping remarks:

Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, under fire for blocking public access to state records documenting the location of dangerous chemicals, said Texans still have a right to find out where the substances are stored — as long as they know which companies to ask.

"You know where they are if you drive around," Abbott told reporters Tuesday. "You can ask every facility whether or not they have chemicals or not. You can ask them if they do, and they can tell you, well, we do have chemicals or we don't have chemicals, and if they do, they tell which ones they have."

That's just awesome. Think about all the unnecessary regulations we could eliminate if only we adopted Abbott's way of thinking!
  • What are the ingredients in that yogurt you're eating? Just drive around to Chobani and ask! If you haven't been poisoned first!
  • Are there any side-effects for your heart medication? Just drive around to Pfizer and find out! Hopefully you aren't already experiencing palpitations!
  • Is there supposed to be a stop sign at the end of this street? Just drive around to city hall and see what they say! If you make it!
Unfortunately, Abbott's wise plan didn't prevent the deadly fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas last year that killed 15 people and injured over 160. But really, those folks should have just driven around some more to learn about the dangerous chemicals in their neighborhood. Abbott, who's running for governor against Democrat Wendy Davis, might want to check in on the chemicals in his part of town, too, because some nasty ones are clearly getting into his water supply.

11:13 AM PT: DLCC: The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee has unveiled what they're calling their "Flip Chart"—a list of Republican-held legislative chambers which the DLCC thinks it can either pick up or make gains in. Eight close chambers make their top-priority "Emerging Majorities" list, while another nine that are less competitive are listed as "Chambers to Watch." The state Senates in Washington and New York don't appear anywhere, but that seems to be a technicality, because Democrats hold majorities in both but renegade Democrats have handed control to the GOP in both cases.

11:54 AM PT: TN-04: It's certainly seemed like GOP Rep. Scott DesJarlais has been dead congressman walking for quite some time, not least because his fundraising's dried up and his challenger in the Aug. 7 primary, state Sen. Jim Tracy, has been raking in big bucks. But the one thing we haven't seen is any polling, until now. A group with the too-good-to-be-true name of Citizens for Ethics in Government is actually supporting the incumbent, and they say they've got numbers from an outfit called Right Way Marketing that put DesJarlais up 45-20 on Tracy.

Tracy's campaign refused to comment on the poll, saying it lacked "legitimacy," but they also declined to provide alternative numbers of their own. And he even started advertising several weeks ago, so hrm ....

12:00 PM PT: MA-Gov: I guess you could call it Grossmentum? State Treasurer Steve Grossman has released an internal poll from the Global Strategy Group showing him down by a seriously hefty 47-24 margin to state Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Democratic primary for governor, but the idea here is that he's improved from an even more awful 51-16 spread last October. Are numbers like these really going to impress anyone?

12:31 PM PT: Media Markets: Campaign advertising has already reached avalanche levels this year, but where are ads piling up the deepest? The Washington Post's Reid Wilson has compiled a list of the five media markets have seen the most ad spending in the first half of the year, and the surprise at the top is Denver. That's thanks to not only to Colorado's competitive Senate race but also the hotly contested battle for the state's 6th Congressional District. (Wilson's figures includes future ad reservations as well.)

Denver is followed by Tampa—mostly because of the adpocalypse related to the 13th District special election earlier this year—then Detroit, Anchorage, and Little Rock, each of which are in states with top Senate races. Wilson's rankings are based on the total number of dollars, though; if you factor in how expensive each market is, the thickest ad density has to be in dirt-cheap Anchorage, not populous-and-pricey Denver.

Indeed, the world of media buying is an arcane and complicated one, even when thinking about statewide races, and even more so when thinking about what markets overlap which congressional districts. To help make that a little easier, we've created a helpful guide that you'll want to bookmark.

Our database details which media markets are found in each state and each district as well as the reverse—that is, which states and districts are found in each market. We also go one step further, breaking everything down by percentage. Just as an example, now you can know that all of Alabama's 1st District is in the Mobile market, but the larger Mobile market is almost evenly split between Alabama's 1st and Florida's 1st, just over the border. (Mobile's market also encompasses little bits and pieces of three other districts.)

There are a few other details to be aware of. Even though it's heavily targeted with ad dollars, we don't include Alaska in our analysis, since the state's three media markets (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau) don't have hard-and-fast boundaries the way they do in the lower 48; in fact, most of the state, geographically speaking, doesn't fall in any media market at all.

And you might observe that in Washington, D.C. isn't included in the district-to-market tab, but it is included in the market-to-district tab. That's because if you advertise for a race in state or district covered by the Washington market, you're still paying to reach those 600,000 people in D.C. proper, regardless of their disenfranchisement.

Like we said, it's complex. But if you keep our spreadsheet handy, it'll help you make sense of all the political advertising destined to come our way this year. (David Jarman & David Nir)

12:52 PM PT: NC-Sen: You'd think that North Carolina Republicans, eager to defeat Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, would try to smooth the way for state House Speaker Thom Tillis as much possible, but nope. Shortly after winning the GOP nomination in May, Tillis had to head back to the capitol in Raleigh to preside over a new legislative session—one that's still dragging on as we speak. Remarkably, Republicans leaders in the state Senate have sandbagged the House's budget, hammering it for relying on "gimmicks."

The criticisms are correct on the merits, but surely handing Tillis a nice clean victory and letting him get back out on the campaign trail ought to be more important to his fellow Republicans, no? Yet that's evidently not the case; hell, one Republican senator even said he thought Tillis should have been spending more time on legislative matters. The longer this goes on, the worse it'll get for Tillis, as polling has shown him heading south while lawmakers are in session. Hagan has to be counting her lucky stars—and smiling.

1:15 PM PT: KS-Gov: This isn't strictly electoral, but if you want to understand why Kansas is burning, this piece from the New York Times' Josh Barro explaining the devastating effects that GOP Gov. Sam Brownback's extreme tax cuts have had on the state's coffers is excellent reading. Thanks to these fundamentally crazy cuts, Kansas' revenues have fallen far short of expectations (just 56 percent of projections in April and May, for instance), further reductions in spending on priorities like education are all but assured.

And it doesn't help that Brownback recently referred to his efforts as a "real live experiment." Treating Kansans as though they're just unenlightened subjects in a sadistic test dreamed up by glibertarian college Republicans on an all-night Ayn Rand bender is not going over well, which explains why Brownback's doing so terribly in the polls. A measure of sanity may yet be restored to Brownbackistan.

1:42 PM PT: Maryland: Here's an excellent piece of historical trivia that political junkies will appreciate. User David T., a denizen of the Alternate History Discussion Board, describes in detail the career of segregationist Maryland Democrat George P. Mahoney, who lost nine separate bids for governor and senator between 1950 and 1970 but managed to have a serious impact on the outcome at least half a dozen times. Most famously, the racist Mahoney eked out a narrow plurality win in the 1966 Democratic gubernatorial primary, appalling mainstream Democrats who then voted en masse to elect none other than Spiro Agnew in the general election. But Mahoney screwed things up for Democrats on many more occasions—click through for more on his "remarkable" career.

1:54 PM PT: AR-Sen: The Hobby Lobby ruling gave GOP Rep. Tom Cotton an opportunity to make an unforced blunder that could have real repercussions:

It's another example of how Obamacare infringes on the liberties of all Arkansans. Barack Obama and Mark Pryor think that faith is something that only happens at 11:00 on Sunday mornings. That's when we worship but faith is what we live every single day. And the government shouldn't infringe on the rights of religious liberty. So I'm pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling but it's just another example of why Obamacare is bad for Arkansas.
Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, who is well-known for being very religious, responded by accusing Cotton of questioning his faith, but Cotton is refusing to back down. Weirdly, Cotton even defended Pryor's piety last year when the NRSC launched a very similar attack. There's really no percentage in trying to denigrate a man's religiosity, so what on earth is Cotton trying to accomplish?

2:22 PM PT: MI-03: In a scathing new ad for Republican businessman Brian Ellis, a Marine veteran attacks GOP Rep. Justin Amash for his dovish views on military and intelligence affairs, such as his support for closing Guantanamo and, referring to the NSA's voracious data-gathering, his vote to "shut down American intelligence for monitoring terrorists." He then repeats an incendiary quote from another Republican congressman, California Rep. Devin Nunes, who described Amash back in May as "Al Qaeda's best friend in the Congress."

Amash has struggled to defend himself against these assaults, since his brand of doctrinaire libertarianism doesn't typically play well in Republican primaries. All he could say in response is that members of the military "don't support unconstitutional NSA spying on ordinary Americans" or "unwise, open-ended wars." Even if there's some sense in which he's not full of it, what matters is whether GOP voters at large—and not just the veterans he claims to have spoken with—agree with Amash.

2:43 PM PT: Ads: A new FCC mandate that just went into effect this month now requires all TV stations to post all political ad buys online (many stations were previously exempt), giving us much more insight into campaign spending. The Sunlight Foundation is helping everyone to keep track of it all with their excellent Political Ad Sleuth, which is worth a bookmark. And on a related note, Nathan Gonzales points out that when party committees and super PACs publicly announce ad reservations via press release (in order to get around anti-co-ordination rules), they don't necessarily follow through immediately if at all, so just exercise skepticism whenever you see reports about reservations.

AK-Sen: Three current and former mayors from the Fairbanks region (including one Republican) praise Democratic Sen. Mark Begich for opposing the EPA, keeping a coal plant operating, and helping a fighter jet squadron stay at nearby airbase.

AR-Sen: The conservative Government Integrity Fund is reportedly going up with six-week, $1.1 million buy on behalf of GOP Rep. Tom Cotton, while the National Education Association is spending $430,000 to boost Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor over the next two weeks. The spots are not available yet.

NC-Sen: Crossroads GPS attacks Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan on Obamacare with some cheesy animation, claiming it's hurt jobs.

AZ-Gov: Republican Doug Ducey promises to be as hawkish as possible in cracking down on immigration.

AL-06, GA-01: The Club for Growth wastes several seconds quoting John Adams before attacking GOP state Rep. Paul DeMarco as a tax and debt hiker. The buy is $255,000. The Club is also spending $359,000 on Georgia state Sen. Buddy Carter, another Republican, but the spot is not online.

2:48 PM PT: CO-Gov: Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez has emerged from the GOP primary almost broke, with just $35,000 cash-on-hand. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, meanwhile, has $579,000 in the bank after raising over $3.1 million for the cycle. If his cash total looks "low," that's because he's already reserved nearly $1.4 million in fall advertising time, locking in lower rates than Beauprez will be able to get.

2:52 PM PT: NY-24: Attorney John Katko, who wound up as the GOP nominee against Democratic Rep. Dan Maffei after all of the NRCC's top recruits declined, has posted a surprisingly strong fundraising quarter. Katko says he raised $329,000 and has $357,000 on hand, though there's no word on whether any of that might be self-funded. Maffei has yet to report his totals.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

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


More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Illinois-10 Poll (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, James Allen, abgin

    Harper Polling (R)

    Dold (R) 42%
    Schneider (D) 39%

    This race will be close no matter what IMO, especially with the competitive governor's race.

  •  NJ-Gov 2017 (5+ / 0-)

    Looks like everyone's interested in this election, which may take place next year or in 2016 depending on Christie's impeachment or resignation.  Montclair Councilman Bob Russo announced his intention to run the other week.

    Other interested candidates so far have been Steve Sweeney (the State Senate President from South Jersey), Steve Fulop (the Mayor of Jersey City), Phillip Murphy (a former Goldman Sachs executive and Ambassador to Germany).  There are a few more who seem interested, but haven't made overt moves yet.

    •  Any updates on the bridge scandal? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It seems to have dropped off the radar, though that is probably mostly a function of our attention-deficient media. Does it look like it will be enough to justify impeachment?

      •  There's a new bridge scandal (6+ / 0-)

        Regarding the Pulaski Skyway.  I'll admit that I haven't really been able to look into it, as I've been incredibly busy lately, but it's been in the NJ news quite a bit.

        From what I've been reading in my limited time, it seems that the walls are starting to close in on Christie.  The federal investigation is going well and it seems improbable that at least one of the inner circle won't flip.

        Impeachment is a very real possibility, but the one caveat to that is Christie's approval rating is still positive.

        The thing to understand about NJ politics, at the state level, is that it's really controlled by a small group of power players whose influence lies at the county, or at best regional, level.  Christie has been part of this power structure since being elected, along with South Jersey boss George Norcross, Essex County boss Joe D., and the powers that be in Hudson County.  Unless it can be proven that he did something that is truly and clearly criminal, those other three power centers would likely need to decide to drop him for impeachment to happen.

      •  There are no updates (7+ / 0-)

        Because prosecutors conduct their work behind closed doors, in secret, and there really haven't been many leaks lately, except for the Pulaski Skyway story that Trosk mentions. But when the prosecutors are ready to unseal indictments, hoo boy. It's not going to be good for Team Christie.

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

        by David Nir on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:13:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Fulop's the best of the lot (4+ / 0-)

      Still would like Rush Holt to take a look at it.

      ABS.  Anybody but Sweeney.

      "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

      by Paleo on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 11:20:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Anyone but Sweeney indeed. I actually hope Holt... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Caped Composer

        Anyone but Sweeney indeed. I actually hope Holt stays out, because too many North Jersey or progressive candidates will give Sweeney the nomination.

        In a two-way contest (Sweeney-Fulop), I don't think Sweeney can win. In a four-way, however (like Sweeney-Fulop-Holt-Wisniewski), I don't think Sweeney can lose. He'll lock up South Jersey, probably do well in Essex (where I think he gets the line) as well as the working-class white towns strewn throughout the state.

  •  Coordinating in plain sight (12+ / 0-)

    I recognize many here already know how this is done, but Nathan Gonzales' piece is still recommended:

    For example, on May 26, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure arm announced it’s intention to reserve weeks six through eight and weeks one and two on broadcast television in the St. Louis media market, which is likely to be used for a race in Illinois’ 12th District....

    Strategists at House Majority PAC, the go-to outside group for House races on the Democratic side, saw the hole in weeks three through five and, on June 18, reserved broadcast and cable time for St. Louis during that time. Then on June 27, the DCCC confirmed its initial reservation plans.

    Now Democrats have ensured that they have airtime in St. Louis for virtually all of September, October and early November without unnecessary overlapping of time....

    Announcing intentions through the press is one way that party strategists communicate. The other way is to make the reservation with local television stations. That information is public (just not always easily accessible), and media buyers from interested groups on both sides of the aisle are checking local stations on a daily basis for new ad buy information.

  •  MS-Sen: Lawsuit filed (16+ / 0-)

    Well this didn't take long. Our old friends from the worst-named group EVER, True the Vote, has filed a lawsuit asserting irregularities in the vote (cough cough them damned negroes cough).

    The best possible outcome for Childers is if the vote is nullified and McDaniel found to be in the lead with the "corrected" vote. Prediction: I'll go so far as to say we take the seat if that happens. There's no way Cochran fans will let that slide, and the black community would come out with a vengeance. Of course, I'll also go on record as saying it's very unlikely to be overturned, but we can hope.

    •  Haven't Had This Much Fun With A GOP Primary..... (9+ / 0-) least since Alaska in 2010.  Hard for me to imagine McDaniel gets enough legal breaks going his way to successfully steal this thing, but I hope he draws it out as long as possible.  When the Philadelphia, MS, newspaper editorial board is calling you a crank, it's time to reassess your tactics and consider perhaps going away before squandering your last molecule of dignity.

    •  The claims of vote buying are interesting (7+ / 0-)

      Not saying that I completely buy them, as the Reverend was paid for the interview, but one thing that stood out to me was the text messages he produced. The person who sent them is a Wicker staffer who has had legal trouble before. There might be nothing here, but I wouldn't be surprised if something shady did turn out.

      Both campaigns seem shady to me, as both desperately wanting to win.

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

      by DrPhillips on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:54:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure what the end game is with this. (12+ / 0-)

      McDaniel can find all of the illegally-cast ballots that he wants, but seeing as we have the secret ballot in our country, there isn't a way for him to definitively prove that the ballots were cast for Cochran. Unless he's able to provide proof in the form of thousands of affidavits from people who claim that they illegally voted for Cochran when they were ineligible to do so, he's not going to be able to actually win by simply having ballots tossed out.

      A good case study for this is the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election, where Chris Gregoire's margin over Dino Rossi was so small that it led to nearly a year of litigation. Ultimately, the judge responsible for overseeing the litigation upheld Gregoire's victory, but he did something interesting that pertains to the case of McDaniel and Cochran: The Republicans claimed that felons illegally voted in the election, and that they likely voted for Gregoire. They suggested that the judge use a statistical model to determine how many votes to subtract, judging in part on how the precincts voted in which the felons were registered. Because, the Republicans argued, the amount of illegal votes cast exceeded the margin, the illegality likely impacted the election results. He bought the argument, but did not buy into the implications of it. Here's what ended up happening:

      The Republicans, he said Monday, didn't submit every illegal vote in the state to proportional deduction, nor did they apply the formula to a valid scientific sample of the illegal votes.

      "This is not consistent with generally accepted scientific standards," the judge said.

      Nor, he said, is it valid to infer that felons vote just like their neighbors in their precinct. That doesn't take into account such factors as the gender of the voters and the candidates, he said.

      An election such as this should not be overturned because one judge picks a number and applies a proportional deduction analysis," he said. "To do so would constitute the ultimate of judicial egotism and activism."

      So that left direct evidence as the only indication of how illegal votes were cast. The Republicans didn't submit any, rejecting the idea of interviewing felons about how they voted. But the Democrats filed statements and supporting documentation from five felons on the GOP list who are registered in pro-Gregoire precincts: Four said they voted for Rossi, and one said he voted for Libertarian Ruth Bennett.

      Bridges found that evidence credible, so he deducted those votes from Rossi and Bennett.

      It's certainly possible that McDaniel could attempt to sue and force a rerun of the election, which I think he would likely win, given the widespread reporting that Cochran relied on Democrats to beat him and the anger at Cochran for doing so.

      But it seems like a lot of this is uncharted territory. The example brought up a few days ago of the 1986 Democratic primary in the Alabama gubernatorial election is an interesting case study, both on the procedure of how such a process might work and on the general election implications of such a process. All in all, I think this is going to be very interesting to watch.

      20, FL-07. UCF student pursuing a B.A. in Political Science, future teacher/politician. Yes, I'm proudly supporting Charlie Crist! "The Republican vision is clear: I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own." -Elizabeth Warren

      by Tyler Yeargain on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:51:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Have to expect stuff like MS lawsuits when uppity (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      people vote. Now if their votes only counted 3/5s...
      Hey, check the Constitution! Maybe the Roberts Court can be persuaded, hmm? You know, original construction.

    •  Am I missing something... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If there are a sufficient number of votes that were cast in  the GOP runoff, by people that voted in the Democratic primary held three weeks earlier, then wouldn't those votes  be illegally casted?  

      All one would have to do is compare the two lists for matching registration numbers.

      On that basis, couldn't a new election be required by the courts?

      •  Thinking (0+ / 0-)

        I was kind of thinking the same thing, though, I'm not sure if "illegal" describes it.  It obviously breaks the GOP bylaws, so I guess it's illegal in that sense and they'd have a good case in court.  I think McDaniel actually has a case, here, if he can prove this.  I also think, however, that the courts will be loathed to take this up even if this obviously breaks GOP party rules for their elections.

        Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kodos.

        by MetroGnome on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:07:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  FYI -- I'm a loyal reader (8+ / 0-)

    but I'm actually not really very amazing

  •  MI 2016 PPP (18+ / 0-)

    PPP's new Michigan poll continues to find that Hillary Clinton would be a heavy favorite in the state in 2016. She leads all of her potential opponents there by double digits- it's 47/37 over Rand Paul and Jeb Bush, 48/36 over Mike Huckabee, 48/35 over Chris Christie, and 50/34 over Ted Cruz.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:38:15 AM PDT

  •  Sandra Fluke ‏got Endorsed by the Teamsters (21+ / 0-)

    City of Cedarburg, WI-06

    by LordNicholas on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:49:07 AM PDT

  •  NE-ballot: Minimum wage petition (7+ / 0-)

    Signatures are due tomorrow to get a minimum wage increase on the November Ballot.  Approximately 81,000 signatures are needed (Nebraska is funny in that you don't know exactly how many signatures you need until after you turn them in, as the requirement is 7% of the number of registered voters on the day signatures are due).

    Sen. Jeremy Nordquist, who runs  the group Nebraska for Better Wages, says the group is on track to collect enough signatures.  He also says polling shows 60% of voters approve of raising the minimum wage.

    The group has raised $721,000 so far, with $405,000 of that coming in just the last month. Nearly half of that, $350,000, has come from Omaha rich-dude Richard Holland.

    If passed, the minimum wage would increase to $8 on January 1 next year, and $9 on January 1 2016.

    28, NE-2 (resident), IL-9 (part-timer), SD-AL (raised); SSP and DKE lurker since 2007

    by JDJase on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:09:23 AM PDT

  •  No digests this weekend (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Won't there at least be separate daily open threads or something?  Otherwise this comments thread is going to get pretty fucking long by Sunday.

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

    by Mike in MD on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:21:19 AM PDT

  •  MA-Gov: Steve Grossman releases internal (11+ / 0-)

    showing him down 23 points.

    Coakley: 47%
    Grossman: 24%
    Berwick: 9%

    Grossman is claiming this shows improvement since all the way back in October of last year when his internal showed Coakley up 51-16 on him.  So, uh yeah he's gained 8 points in 8 months.  Congratulations.

  •  Great AK-SEN ad (13+ / 0-)

    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 Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:28:19 AM PDT

  •  KY-Sen: Hmm, GOP pollster gagged by client (23+ / 0-)

    against showing their poll from a few weeks ago showing ALG ahead 49-46:

    “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 Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:32:23 AM PDT

  •  I don't (7+ / 0-)

    know how many of you have been watching the news out of Hong Kong lately, but last month 800,000 people participated in a nonbinding referendum on how the candidates for Chief Executive (basically a Governor) should be selected which was dismissed by Beijing as illegal.

    Students and those under 20 support candidates for Chief Executive being nominated by the general public while older residents support retaining the nomination committee mandated in Basic Law (Hong Kong's constitution) while making the committee more diverse and open to candidates than what Beijing would like.

    Now hundreds of thousands of protestors (many of them students) have taken to the streets demanding Beijing grant further autonomy to Hong Kong to run their own elections.

    For those who are wondering in exchange for Britain handing Hong Kong back to China back in 1997, China was required to maintain the status quo and many of the rights the citizens had under during British rule until 2047.

    This meant that people in Hong Kong have far more freedoms than those living in Mainland China. For example during Google's brief foray into China they attempted to get around China's stringent internet censoring by routing their searches through Hong Kong servers. It also means that Hong Kong is for all intents in purposes a separate country within China.

    It'll be interesting how China tries to deal with this. They'll try to crack down, but China doesn't want to risk its position on the world stage and Hong Kong is the crown jewel of the country.

    Also I wonder how many people in Hong Kong still wish they were part of Britain. After all many in Hong Kong still looks down at the rest of Mainland China.

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

    by ehstronghold on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:42:41 AM PDT

  •  Dems have been doing well in the (0+ / 0-)

    GCB and head to head polling, despite Obama's approvals.

    But now those approvals are starting to concern me.

    I didnt think he would at or near 50% this year, but the approvals have gone in the wrong direction in the last few months. He is closer to the 30s than 50s.

    Better ACA news and steady, possibly accelerating job growth hasnt done anything for Obama's numbers, likely overshadowed by Ukraine, Bergdahl and Iraq. So it's a bit frustrating, since it's not really clear what Obama can do to raise his numbers. That Quinnipiac poll on the worst president, even with its caveats, is not helpful either.

    The flip side is that if Dems can hold the Senate, then I think maybe the narrative changes  post-2014.

    •  two minds on GCB (0+ / 0-)

      On the one hand in 2010 it was tied until early July when it shot up in favor of the republicans and democrats never recovered.  On the other hand, the 2014 national congressional ballot looks like 2010, except with the dems where the GOP were in 2010.  Still it's only a few points, I think we need to wait a bit longer before we can tell what direction the winds are blowing, it's possible some voters haven't started paying attention yet.  My fear is many people don't want to support the GOP, or the dems and we see lower turnout than normal for a midterm, but conservatives show up at their usual midterm  numbers, skewing the percentages in their favor.

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

      by DougTuttle on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:10:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Approval rate vs. economy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The economy was very bad in 2010, with unemployment over 9.5% nationally almost the entire year.

        Job growth sputtered over the summer, some of which might have been because of census jobs being shed, but still.

        The economy is better this year vs. then, and job growth could be accelerating.

        Obama's approval though is lower vs. 2010.

        •  true, but (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32, bythesea, ehstronghold, pademocrat

          perhaps they're self sorting.  Looking at the 2006 exit polls (because all the pundits say that year proves an improving economy won't help obama (eyeroll)) shows that party preference may have fogged the view of the economy for both groups.  basically half of the people thought it was good, the second half bad, and dems won those who thought it was bad and republicans those who thought it was good.  If people who don't approve of the president see the economy as bad, despite gains, it may not matter, unless things become so great no one could say the economy was bad, unless they were being paid to say so.

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

          by DougTuttle on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:29:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This isn't true (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bythesea, sacman701, jj32, JBraden, askew

        Dems almost never led the GCB average for the entirety of 2010, and may/june ended up being a fluke where things started to become tied again. Then it took off and exceeded the previous leads.

        This year, we've led almost all the GCB polling, consistently so. This just isn't going to turn into 2010.

        •  and i think it's too early to know (0+ / 0-)

          i agree that dems are certainly doing better than they were in 2010, but the dems leads in may to june and feb-april of 2010 could have been indicative of an electorate that wasn't paying attention yet.  

          The trendlines for the last month in 2014 were similar to those for 2010, only with the parties reversed, so yes, it is possible that people are starting to pay attention and are choosing the democrats over the republicans.  It's also possible that a lot of people still aren't paying attention or need more time to decide, since this is divided government, not single party, which is easier to cast blame.  This is just my opinion, but i think it's too early to yell doom or be certain that this won't be like 2010.

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

          by DougTuttle on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 02:20:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            A meteor could strike NYC and Obama could come out and say "sucks to be y'all" to the victims. That might facilitate a 2010 wave, as would other pure miracles for the Republican party. But it's just not happening this year. In fact, given what we've seen of polling, and comparing it to 2010, we're more likely to see a wave than the Republicans. Obama's approval numbers either haven't touched downballot dems so far, or his approval numbers are keeping a pretty decent sized Dem wave down to a near-tie. Take your pick, but that's the evidence as I see it.

  •  Awful Quinnipiac Poll for Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, LordMike, PSUCentrePA
    President Obama's job approval rating, inching up since a negative 38 - 57 percent in December, 2013, his all-time low, is stalled at a negative 40 - 53 percent. This compares to the president's negative 42 - 50 percent job approval in an April 2 national survey.

    Today, the president gets negative scores of 10 - 88 percent from Republicans, 31 - 59 percent from independent voters, 37 - 57 percent from men and 42 - 49 percent from women. Democrats approve 79 - 13 percent.

    The president gets mixed grades for character as voters say 48 - 48 percent that he is honest and trustworthy and 51 - 47 percent that he cares about their needs and problems. He gets a negative 47 - 51 percent for leadership qualities.

    The economy and jobs are the most important problems facing the country today, 35 percent of voters say, with 12 percent listing politicians/campaigns/corruption, 6 percent each for healthcare and foreign affairs, 5 percent for the budget and 4 percent each for education and immigration.

    Obama gets negative grades for his handling of most key issues:

        Negative 40 - 55 percent for handling the economy;
        Negative 37 - 57 percent for foreign policy;
        Negative 40 - 58 percent for health care;
        50 - 40 percent for the environment;
        Negative 44 - 51 percent for terrorism;


    His JA recovery seems to have halted for now and he's back to Dec-Feb numbers. I don't see him with positive approval rating by November so Dems will have to keep their distance and hope there's no wave because of him.

    •  It's foreign policy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      His FP ratings are now worse than his ratings on the economy.

      I think stronger FP ratings also help the ratings on issues like "leadership" and "competence", two other areas where his numbers have suffered.

      I think there are only two ways for his ratings to recover by the end of his term. A steadily improving economy, and better ACA news, along with no more major bad news stories(VA, Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Berghdal), or some bin Laden raid type moment that makes him seen as a good leader again.

      Number 1 is the more likely, especially given that the first two components(economy, and ACA) seem to be cooperating, but who knows.

      •  The border crisis is also a factor (9+ / 0-)

        The flood of migrants many of women and children has to be having a effect. Lingering effects from the VA scandal also is hurting him as well considering no meaningful legislation has reached his desk to fix it. On top of the Iraq crisis it's just one stream of bad news after another for him. A continuous stream of bad press is never good for any politician and Obama is getting a dose of that when news was stable he was improving.

        •  Right (0+ / 0-)

          Yeah, the endless stream of bad news is having an effect.

          Hopefully, that stops at some point.

          •  Alot is beyond his control though, he can help in (0+ / 0-)

            Iraq and Ukraine but he's not going to heal deeply held divisions there.

          •  It won't stop because the media hasn't covered (4+ / 0-)

            good news for Obama since election. Last time Pew did a study they found over 90% of all media coverage on Obama was negative. The constant stream of negativity in the media with an almost complete absence of positive news means people will view Obama negatively. For that to change, we need a new media. It has nothing to do with what Obama does or doesn't do.

            For example, after all the bitching from the left that Obama was going to start a war in Syria and all the bitching on the right that Obama wasn't going to start a war in Syria, he got the Syrian government to turn over all of their chemical weapons last week. Not a peep was heard about it on the news.

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

            by askew on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:34:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think all you need to know... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PassionateJus, askew

              About the conventional media landscape -- mostly network and cable television, but newspapers and (surviving) newsmagazines as well -- is that British comedian John Oliver's new show on HBO has become very arguably a better source of current event analysis than any conventional media source.

              This is both the strength and weakness of new media platforms like Slate, Vox, BuzzFeed, Salon, Huffington Post, Wonkette, FiveThirtyEight, and others. They're doing some really great, insightful, and incisive things in the realm of political and social commentary, data-driven analysis, some enterprise reporting here and there -- but their audience (and thus their influence) is a drop in the bucket compared to the cable shows, nightly news, talk radio, and even major papers.

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

              by SaoMagnifico on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 11:06:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, bythesea, LordMike, wadingo

      Only 6% say foreign affairs are the biggest problem, but his recent drop in approvals is clearly due to the Iraq situation and foreign policy generally.

      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 Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:08:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually 12% if you include terrorism and war (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, LordMike

      as foreign affairs instead of separating them.  Still low.

      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 Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:09:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shouldn't that be "bleeding," not "burning" KS? (5+ / 0-)

    It's more appropriate considering the rapid bleed of revenue and education.

    “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 Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:24:16 PM PDT

  •  MS-Sen is ripe for a made for Tv movie (15+ / 0-)

    Or at least a good documentary.  There's just so much crazy it's hard to believe this race has played out like this.

    - Neo-Confederate loon challenges long-time respected conservative republican in the primary.

    - McDaniel supporters break into nursing home of opponent's wife to illegally take pictures of her dementia ravaged body in a cheap political attack.

    - One of the masterminds behind the nursing home incident commits suicide immediately after McDaniel's runoff defeat.

    - Three McDaniel supporters sneak into a county courthouse in the middle of the night in an obvious failed attempt at altering the primary results.

    - With the threat of minorities (legally) voting in the primary runoff McDaniel goons attempt to suppress Democratic turnout in the runoff before backing off.  But not before energizing minority voters from turning out in favor of Cochran.

    - McDaniel loses runoff election by a decent margin, blames it on minorities, sends people to review votes and files lawsuits.

    Am I missing anything?  

  •  What does Cotton expect to accomplish? (11+ / 0-)

    I'm pretty sure I remember Pryor being featured in Bill Maher's "Religulous" as an example of a vocally Christian legislator.

    Have lived in: CA-28, CA-30, CA-24, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01, GA-10, NY-09, IL-01, NY-12

    by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 02:09:16 PM PDT

  •  KS-gov (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, David Nir, The Caped Composer

    was "glibertarian" a typo or intentional?  either way, it was hilarious and apt, kudos.

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

    by DougTuttle on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 02:09:48 PM PDT

  •  Arkansas Senate (0+ / 0-)

    Blunder? Are you sure? Ok, I don't know that much about Arkansas, but isn't it possible that that kind of attack plays well with many voters there?

  •  WI-SD-17: Dem primary turns nasty (0+ / 0-)

    Basically, the Democratic primary in the open 17th State Senate District of Wisconsin has become a fight between the state party establishment, which is, for the most part, backing former Jim Doyle and Ron Kind aide Pat Bohmack, and local Democratic leaders, many of whom are backing former Wisconsin Department of Transportation official Ernie Wittwer.

    All of this started when State Senate Minority Leader Chris Larson gave a speech at this year's DPW convention strongly praising Bohmack, but he didn't mention Wittwer at all in his speech. That set Wittwer off big time, and quite a few Democratic leaders in the southwestern part of Wisconsin, including Lafayette County Democratic Party Chairman Mike Gallagher and 2012 state assembly candidate Maureen May-Grimm, are rallying to Wittwer's support. In addition, a second county party official, Green County Democratic Party Chairman Phil Fransen is "leaning towards" supporting Wittwer.

    Bomhack's decision to move up from a state assembly race to a state senate race may have backfired big time, as Bomhack is viewed by many local Democrats in SD-17 as a carpetbagger (specifically, he grew up in Waukesha County and attended college at Stanford University in California) and a political opportunist.

    •  It has or are you reading too deep in it? (5+ / 0-)

      Stanford is a top school and lots of people go out of state to go to a prestigious school.

      The late Eli Wallach went to college in Texas despite being a born-and-bred Brooklyner.

      This sounds an awful lot like the hullabaloo over nothing in the IL-13 Dem primary.

      “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 Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 03:34:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Frankly, this whole primary is a huge and (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, Jacob1145, ArkDem14, bythesea

      unnecessary mess.

      Wittwer is certainly qualified to be a Senator, but his fundraising was frankly mediocre. You're not going to beat Howard Marklein's $145K warchest unless you're the ghost of Bob LaFollette himself. Personally, I think Wittwer is qualified for the job, but his campaign is uniquely unimpressive. If his fundraising picked up, then I'd have no issues with Wittwer being our candidate. However, in this capacity we may very well be sacrificing a 56% Obama District. Marklein already represents a 59% Obama district, so don't think that he can't win this.

      Also, Pat Bomhack is not a carpetbagger. He simply had the audacity to go to College.

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

      by BlueSasha on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 03:35:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NYT: Dems making a big push to (10+ / 0-)

    get single women to the polls.

    Nowhere is the courtship of unmarried women as intense as in North Carolina, where Senator Kay Hagan, a Democrat struggling for a second term, recently has shown gains even in a Republican poll. Midway through a recent Saturday of campaigning, she described her mobilization strategy: “Heels on the ground.”
  •  F&M has Obama at 34% in PA (5+ / 0-)

    The same poll that also had Wolf up 22 points over Corbett also showed Obama with a 34% approval rating in PA. But it's deceptive because F&M only counts "excellent" & "good" in that number and not "fair". I am not sure why F&M does the whole excellent, good, fair, poor etc. thing but it's very deceptive and unnecessary all pollsters should just have approve/disapprove and not have different categories.

    •  Yeah, there are two ways of doing this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Approve/disapprove or use the different categories and dont report approval rating....since they didnt actually ask approval rating.

      Trying to turn the categories into approval/disapproval just seems messed up.

    •  "Fair' is a fuck-up in polling (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, sulthernao, AndersonDelValle

      "Fair" is a waste of time to offer as a choice, you get people who tip slightly toward approve and others who tip slightly toward disapprove.  I think a majority of "fair" responses are really disapprovals, comparing these types of polls with other contemporaneous polls.

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

      by DCCyclone on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:32:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This has been criticized (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      by Steve Singiser, among others, on this site.

      Just ask if they approve or disapprove, along with "why" or if they feel strongly, and if they say "well, sorta maybe, I don't know", then call them undecided.  "Fair" to me implies something like "well, he/she's doing OK, I guess, but..." which doesn't necessarily mean disapproval.  "OK" or "so-so" could just as easily mean approval, albeit tepid and unenthusiastic approval.

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

      by Mike in MD on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:54:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  CO-St. Sen: Post-primary fundraising numbers: (9+ / 0-)

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

    by KingofSpades on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 03:44:47 PM PDT

  •  Colorado state senate fundraising (7+ / 0-)

    from  The crazy candidates that prevailed in those two primaries with establishment Republicans have very little money left over.  The GOP does have one well-funded candidate, but he's also an RMGO nutter.  I think every Dem seat will be held this year.

    Additionally, the two Republicans that won in recalls are getting outraised by their Dem challengers.  Rivera in particular seems to have given up and is not even raising money.  So it's looking real likely the Senate will be back at 20-15 after this November.

  •  thoughts about the current RW (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I, like many fellow DKErs was a Bush critic when he was in office and was overjoyed to see his approval rating slide downward during his second term. However, as the tea party wave of terror took America (and the state legislatures) in 2010, I began to think that Bush was the best this country could get as a republican.

    A lot of the recent republicans in office are worse than Bush when it came to appropriations (some of them don't even like pork and others voted against the farm bill). On immigration he was also a lot better than the current GOP (he might have even signed Corker-Hoeven). The only issue he was really conservative on was foreign policy and many dems probably hold similar views.

    I'm not saying this to try to provoke everyone, but does anyone agree that a lot of the post-Bush republicans are largely worse than him (Cruz and Lee are the two that come to mind).

    idiosyncratic, slightly anarchist, darwinist, moral relativist, fan of satire

    by bonzo925 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 04:41:34 PM PDT

  •  2014 a good election year for Republicans? (0+ / 0-)

    Refresh my memory. What are the arguments for this hypothesis again? Is it:

    1. It's the second midterm of Obama's presidency, and the second midterm traditionally is bad for the president's party.

    2. Gerrymandering of House districts is going to prevent any swings in that currently GOP-controlled chamber.

    3. Obamacare and other policies associated with Democrats are going to fail/be unpopular.

    Is that about the gist of it? #3 seems to be the most easily debunked. Obamacare's fortunes have improved significantly, and I'm not really sure what other policies the election is supposedly going to turn on.

    Can we punch any more holes into this narrative?

    •  I'd go with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      1. Yes, 2nd midterms are almost always bad for the party of the President.  But so far tree's little to no evidence it'll be any worse than a natural election.  Dems have a small lead on the congressional ballot and are doing fine in individual Senate and Governor's race polling.

      2. For the most part yes.  Dems literally have to win the national House vote by something like 7 points minimum to take the House.  

      3. Yes, it;s a fairytale.  If Obamacare were really toxic our candidates in tough races like Begich, Landrieu, Pryor, Hagen, etc. wouldn't be embracing it.

      •  1. 2nd midterms (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        2006, Bush: Bad for president's party (Iraq War)
        1998, Clinton: neutral
        1986, Reagan: neutral
        1976, Nixon/Ford: bad, but total complete crazy circumstances
        1966, Johnson, bad (Vietnam War)
        1958, Eisenhower, bad (1958 recession)
        1950, Truman, bad (Korean War)

        Are we absolutely sure that this "2nd midterm" thing is consistent and reliable?

        •  With any midterm, you have to go with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the president's approval rating.

          Ratings were great for Clinton in his second midterm and Bush 43 in his first, and those didnt go badly for their parties.

          Clinton's were awful in his first midterm and Bush were awful in second, and their parties got shellacked.

          That's why Obama's approval rating concerns me so much right now.

        •  1986 was a pretty good Dem year (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ArkDem14, Christopher Walker

          Dems gained 5 House seats and 8 Senate seats to take the Senate.  Though the GOP did gain 8 Governorships that year thanks to a lot of Dem-held Governorships being open races.

        •  Reagan's wasn't neutral (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Democrats ran away in the senate races, netting a whopping 8 seats and picking up control of the chamber.

          I believe you mean 1974.

          1966: It's hard to say, yes the Dems lost seats but they were still in firm control of congress. (The election largely undid the 1964 election. It would be like if 2010 just reduced Democrats to their 2006 majorities.) The midterm brought the GOP to relevancy but they would have a long way to go to reach a majority in congress or governorships.

          "There are three basic types: the Wills, the Won'ts, and the Can'ts. The Wills accomplish everything, the Won'ts oppose everything, and the Can'ts won't try anything"

          by lordpet8 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:37:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe he's considering the Governorships (0+ / 0-)

            The GOP did clean up in the 1986 Governor's races, netting 8 pickups.  But ya, Dems did great in the House and Senate.  Though the Senate turnover had a lot to do with republicans winning entirely too many seats in 1980.  A lot of fluke freshmen GOP Senators lost in 1986.

            •  Oddly enough, it looks like (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ChadmanFL, Christopher Walker

              Democrats may well sweep a bunch of governorships this year if cards keep falling their way.

              I could see Democrats losing 3 seats in the senate and only picking up 5 house seats, while picking up the governorships of the following states: ME, PA, MI, WI, KS, and FL, perhaps NE if Pete Ricketts proves he's still the same guy that outspent Ben Nelson 3:1 to lose by 26 percentage points. Even then, that's still a net gain of 6 governorships. Meanwhile, Democrats are strong favorites to hold OR, MN in my opinion. Arkansas and Illinois are toss ups. The rest are safe races.

              "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

              by ArkDem14 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:05:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It's Obama's approvals that worry me the most (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think Obamacare's fortunes are improving too.

      I think despite the contraction in the first quarter, job growth looks steady.

      But Obama's approvals have gone backwards over the last few months. It's just been one bad news story after another.

      Combine that with the fact that so many of the Dem held Senate seats are in conservative seats, and I think there is some legitimate worry.

      I will say, I think Dems have been holding up well in the polling though. If Obama can catch a break, stop the slide, then I think we can hold the Senate and limit losses in the House. And then, I think it's a whole new ballgame in terms of the political narrative going forward.

      •  My Gut Says This Year's Senate Races...... (0+ / 0-)

        .....will play out like those in the equally defensive Senate races of 2004.......Democrats defying gravity and polling competitively until after Labor Day when reality catches up with them during the scrutiny of the campaign's final innings and things slip away.  Yesterday's Erskine Bowles and Brad Carson will be today's Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu.  Hope I'm wrong.

        •  an optimist as always, Mark, but you're ignoring (8+ / 0-)

          one big thing: Pryor and Landrieu are incumbents. Bowles and Carson were running in open seats.

          We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

          by James Allen on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:59:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We'll see (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bythesea, JBraden, LordMike

          Bowles and Carson werent incumbents, and I think it actually helps Pryor, Landrieu and other Dems that this isnt a presidential election year. If it was, then they would need a lot of voters to split tickets. I'm not sure Cotton is that strong a candidate either.

          But you could be right, I think a lot will depend on the economy, and if Obama can halt this slide in his ratings. He wont be at 50% or close by Nov, but if he can climb back into the mid 40s, then I think Dems can hold the Senate.

          One difference between today and 2004, even 2010, is that the GOP is viewed much more negatively now.

          •  I Think You're Right That Cotton Is Pryor's.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

   chance as he's clearly not shaping up to be the political wunderkind the GOP was hoping for.  But it still seems like a tall order to expect Cotton to be as lame as Rick Berg and for Pryor to be as electric as Heidi Heitkamp, which is the dichotomy I imagine necessary for Pryor to pull this out.

            •  Fair point (0+ / 0-)

              It's going to be very difficult to hold the Senate, but I think things could still fall into place for Dems.

              Begich seems like a strong campaigner and Grimes has lived up to the hype. CO will be close, but I think Gardner might be too conservative for the state.

              Tillis and Ernst are both weak candidates, and NH, MN, VA havent really developed for the GOP. MI seems to be moving away from them.

              It's going to be tough, but if we can manage 50 + Biden, I think that's pretty good for a tough cycle.

              •  I'm Still Holding Out Some Hope For Begich And.... (0+ / 0-)

                .....especially Hagan, who I always thought was the best-positioned of our endangered seven to survive given the Dems' stronger starting point in NC and the unpopularity of their Legislature of which Tillis is the face of.   And while I'd give the Dems the advantage in CO, IA, and MI, it'd be quite a feat for them to win all of them given the worsening election fundamentals.  I thought 50-50 was the Dems' best-case scenario a year ago for this cycle and still feel that way.

            •  The great thing is, Hagan, Pryor, and Begich (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, Christopher Walker

              don't need to win majorities to win. Pryor could get by with around 49% of the vote with the libertarian in, maybe even 48.5%. Hagan is in a race where she may even be able to win with 47% of the vote if the Lib is taking 7% of dissatisfied anti-establishment voters; that is to say she may be able to win just by matching Obama's 2012 performance, though with her own local strengths. Begich has a good history on his side too: in Alaska's last two competitive senate campaigns, third parties took around 7% of the vote, and the state seems very pro-incumbent generally. Ted Stevens was the last prominent incumbent in Alaska to lose, and he had to be indicted for that to happen. Before that it was Frank Murkowski but he was a disaster.

              "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

              by ArkDem14 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:30:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not comfortable (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                relying on spoilers to win, but that's always possible, and we can't assume that Libertarian or other poll responses will ultimately end up as Republican votes; often it's a protest against both parties and the whole establishment.  It's probably more likely that Green party voters will go Democratic, but again far from certain.

                Alaska politics does seem to be especially amenable to third and fourth parties.  Regarding Frank Murkowski, he may have been a disaster to the state but he was defeated by someone who ultimately proved to be an embarrassment to it and an unbecoming (if now irrelevant) pox on national politics as well, though of course she didn't seem that way at the time.  It's ironic that one of the big complaints made against Frank was appointing his daughter to the Senate, but there Lisa Murkowski still stands, having survived two reelection bids in some of the most difficult of circumstances.  Belated vindication of a sort?

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

                by Mike in MD on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:44:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  i'm just saying, Begich (0+ / 0-)

                  merely has to maintain his 2008 coalition, which doesn't seem hard.

                  "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

                  by ArkDem14 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:56:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Dems incumbents have a great record (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mark27, ArkDem14

          OF getting re-elected.  These are the only Dems who lost in the general election in recent elections.

          2012 - None
          2010 - Lincoln (AR), Feingold (WI)
          2008 - None
          2006 - None
          2004 - Daschle (SD)
          2002 - Cleland (GA), Carnahan (MO)
          2000 - Robb (VA)
          1998 - Moseley-Braun (IL)
          1996 - None
          1994 - Wofford (PA), Sasser (TN)

          Just 9 incumbent Dems in the past 10 election cycles have been defeated.  Roughly one per cycle.  Even in crappy elections like 1994, 2004 and 2010 our incumbents hold their own.

        •  Erksine Bowles was also a poor candidate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and Brad Carson had the misfortune of running against the one Republican absurdly popular enough to beat him in his own congressional district (Tom Coburn represented it from 1994-2000, before abiding by his term-limit pledge). Oklahoma is also much more conservative than either of those two states and more dominated by the religious right than either of them too.

          The 2004 map was simply a disaster for Democrats; they defied too much political gravity in 1998 and had too much defense. It was always going to be impossible to hold onto South Carolina and Georgia with Bush at the top of the ticket. Those two were automatic losses. The same with defending an open seat in Louisiana, which frankly state Democrats didn't expect to be open (John Breaux should have run for another term which he would have won easily without major opposition), especially when John Kennedy ran a populist, anti-Iraq war campaign to the left of Chris John and forced him to fight a two-front battle with the united Republican front on one side and what seems in hindsight to be their stalking horse candidate on the other.

          Had it gone to the run off, I imagine Chris John would have won. The runoff was still intrinsically an aid to Democrats (instead of just incumbents) at the time, as they were much better at getting their voters out and the vote pool was more favorable to them (Melancon upset Tauzin Jr. that year in the runoff, though Willie Mount got smashed because of fucking Don Cravins Sr. refusing to endorse and wanting to sue the state Democratic party for endorsing her over him during the first round).

          2004 wasn't as bad as you make it seem for Senate democrats; it was just a horrible break, probably led by Bush managing to mobilize just enough conservatives to the polls to stave off another weak year for Republicans; Democrats actually won the majority of votes case for Senate that year. They came within 1% of holding on to Florida, 4% of holding on to NC despite Bowles being so lackluster (he wasn't the party's first or second choice there), with in 1% of Daschle holding on, within 1% of beating Jon Bunning. Within 3 points of beating Lisa Murkowski. Had things been just slightly different, conservative turnout lower, Kerry not peaking too early, etc, just a tiny twinge in the volatile political environment (and better recruitment in NC), and Democrats could have seen the following happen:

          Lost: SC and GA
          WIN: KY, CO, IL, AK
          Hold: SD, FL, LA, NC

          For a net gain of two seats. The thing is, a D + .5 more favorable environment alone would have likely eliminate at least 2 Republican pick ups and possibly given Democrats Kentucky, for a net loss of only -1.

          "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

          by ArkDem14 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:25:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'd Say The Dems Are In Way Too Vulnerable..... (0+ / 0-)

      ......of a position for you to be this dismissively cocky about the GOP's November fortunes.  Almost every conceivable metric is trending against the incumbent party right now and it's getting pretty late in the game for a turnaround or to expect the news headlines will soon become favorable.  This cycle is taking form much less clearly than previous midterms so it's hard to tell how bad things will be for Democrats, but I suspect when November comes along you're gonna regret ridiculing the historical precedents of midterm election cycles.

      •  Interesting response (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SaoMagnifico, itskevin, ChadmanFL

        Including your wrong assumption that I am cocky or ridiculing anything.

        •  Sorry If That Wasn't Your Posture..... (0+ / 0-)

          .....but it certainly seemed as though it was.  And even operating under the assumption that you were being cocky, I wasn't condemning it.  I just think the fundamentals of this cycle need to be trending towards the incumbent party for them to have a nondisastrous election night....and right now most of those fundamentals are trending against the incumbent party.

          •  Midterms in general are bad for Pres' party (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But then again, the House (just thinking of that chamber) wasn't always as evenly divided as it is now either. There was a time in the 20th century when Democrats could lose dozens of House seats and still keep the majority, so the definition of "bad for the Pres' party" has changed over time.

            It's all enough to make one skeptical of the idea of macro historic fundamentals in elections.

      •  Okay so.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SaoMagnifico, Jorge Harris

        beyond SD, MT, and WV, which competitive senate seats do you consider Republicans to be favored in?

        Beyond McIntyre's and Matheson's seats, which Dem House seats do you believe Republicans to be favored in?

        If you're concerned that Dems need a turnaround, then you can point to those uber-vulnerable seats that are likely to fall. If there aren't at least six states listed in the answer to question #1 and, oh, I dunno, another five or ten from question #2, I'd say you're paying attention to the wrong polling metrics.

        Politics is still local for the most part. Looking at Obama's approval numbers and our numbers on various issue polling is all well and good, but it doesn't tell us much about a midterm election. The Obama brand is toxic; but the Republican brand might as well be made of pus-stained shit dipped in fermented, rotten eggs.

        We're seeing that in the individual polls for individual races; which, in a midterm, is by far the most important metric.

        •  Arkansas, Louisiana, and Kentucky For Starters.... (0+ / 0-)

          It's just hard for me to imagine that with Obama's toxic approval ratings in these states that the tide won't turn against members of his party when the lower-intensity voters become engaged in the fall.  I'm not getting into individual House races as it's way too early, but with the mood of the country souring, it does not portend good things for the incumbent party for when more voters start to pay attention to elections in the months ahead.

          •  But that's not borne out by evidence (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            No one even bothered to challenge Pryor in 2008 even as Obama lost by, what, 25%? AR is actually our strongest hold of the Endangered Seven. As for KY, the polls don't suggest that McConnell is winning.

            Obamapproval (tm) just doesn't necessarily correlate to a Dem's performance in a state. I mean, shit, look at ND, where Heitkamp won an open-seat race even as Obama got destroyed on the same ballot. It's just not as much of a factor as you believe it is.

            •  The "Evidence" In June...... (0+ / 0-)

              ......barely qualifies as circumstantial, particularly when it comes to a midterm where fewer voters are engaged in elections than in a Presidential year.  We're probably gonna be having a much different conversation in October....a conversation more reflective of where the traditional partisan baselines are at.  The fact that we're talking about three states in the inelastic South makes me even more skeptical about victory for Obama's party.

              •  The south.. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ChadmanFL, Alinskyite

                is practically the definition of elasticity when it comes to downballot voting patterns. How else do you explain the existence of Landrieu, Pryor, Hagan, etc in the first place? These states have been red for a long, long time.

                •  I Explain The Existence Of Landrieu And Pryor..... (0+ / 0-)

         holdovers from a less partisan pre-Obama era, an era in which Landrieu was still never able to do better than 52%.  I'll concede, however, that we don't yet have enough evidence to write off Arkansas and Louisiana as reflexively inelastic the way most of the Deep South is, but certainly the races of 2010 and 2012 have suggested an inelastic Republican realignment....and 2014 strikes me as the final exam on whether anything remains of the states' Democratic downballot traditions.

                  •  2016 is the final exam (0+ / 0-)

                    We'll have incumbent Republicans in both states with a southern lady running for president. If we can field respectable challenges to them like Pryor in 2002, and either take the seats outright or lose within 5%, we'll know that the Obama era was just a fluke. And I'm holding out hope that it is, because otherwise we're going to have trouble taking the House this decade.

                    •  No matter how much you say it, (0+ / 0-)

                      very very few Southerners will think of Hillary as a "Southern lady."

                      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 Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:32:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  And like I posted upthread (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mark27, ArkDem14

              Only 9 Democratic incumbent Senators have lost total in the last 10 election cycles.  During that span no more than 2 Dem incumbents have ever lost in a single cycle.  Not even in 1994 or 2010.  

        •  that and the generic ballot (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itskevin, DCCyclone

          for House races. So far the generic ballot pattern looks a lot like 2012, and not at all like 2010.

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

          by sacman701 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:18:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana (0+ / 0-)


      •  you mean like jobs? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, ArkDem14, askew

        We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

        by James Allen on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:03:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Four More Reports Like That Will Help..... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32, benamery21

          .....the endless speed bumps we've encountered on the path to a V-shaped recovery in the last five years suggest to me it's a longshot though.

          •  nothing fazes your negativity (6+ / 0-)

            We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

            by James Allen on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:22:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Probably Not This Cycle..... (0+ / 0-)

     doesn't feel like it's gonna be a good one to me.  Not as bad as 2010, but mainly because we're not as overexposed as we were then and have fewer vulnerable incumbents and open seats.  But in 2012, I was bullish on Obama for a good year in advance....most days anyway!  So at least that cycle, my negativity was fazed.

              •  I feel like I never need to read your comments (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ChadmanFL, SaoMagnifico

                I always know what you're going to say. It's an endless stream of the same stuff about how we're doomed.

                Except the ones about Minnesota and Iowa, where you have knowledge I definitely don't have.

                We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

                by James Allen on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:27:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? I Was Thinking My Doomsaying Has Been.... (0+ / 0-)

                  .....has pretty restrained so far this year as there hasn't been the flashing red warnings of an impending trainwreck there was at this time in 2010.  I've tried to keep my bearishness to myself as much as possible but on certain occasions--like tonight--am compelled to be a wet blanket when looking at the dampening election fundamentals.

              •  You were bullish? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ArkDem14, propjoe

                That's not how I remember it.

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

                by SaoMagnifico on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:35:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I Remember Returning To DKE In The Fall of 2011... (0+ / 0-)

                  .....and predicting Obama was favored to win in 2012.  I certainly had some days where I backpedaled a little on that in the ensuing year, but my overall position was always measured confidence in an Obama victory.

              •  No cycle feels good to you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I was negative about our chances of holding the Senate early this year, but the past 2-3 months I've been much more sanguine and frankly I bet if the election were today we'd hold it.  We'd lose 3 for sure, a good chance of 4, but only an outside chance of 5.  And we need to lose 6 to lose the Senate.

                As far as Arkansas is concerned, Pryor has been winning.

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

                by DCCyclone on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:59:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  2012 Felt Good To Me..... (0+ / 0-)

         I said, I had less than confident and panicky days during that cycle, but my posture was that Obama had the advantage a year before the election and generally stayed that way until the following November.  And I fell in line that year on Senate races after early pessimism as well, openly liking our chances in Indiana and North Dakota long before it was cool.  I was, to be fair, cool on our chances in Missouri and Montana throughout and was pleasantly surprised.  Hope I'm wrong again this time with Arkansas.

          •  L-shaped (0+ / 0-)

            It's the "lazy L" recovery.  

            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 Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 01:41:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  that's the ADP survey (0+ / 0-)

          It usually moves more or less with the BLS survey that provides the official number, but they don't move in lockstep. That said, I expect the economic news for the rest of the year to be mostly pretty good.

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

          by sacman701 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:16:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why bother (0+ / 0-)

        Typing this comment out?

      •  Like? (0+ / 0-)

        econometrics are actually positive. And Democrats remain pretty stable in the Generic ballot and are running superior campaigns, it would appear.

        "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

        by ArkDem14 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:31:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  it will be at least a little good for them (0+ / 0-)

      just because we have so many senate seats in red states up, and several of them open which we'll almost certainly lose. Our incumbents all look like at least tossups, though.

      We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

      by James Allen on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:04:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  2014 will be largely a good year in the senate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, LordMike

      for the GOP. This is mainly due to the amount of seats (7 Romney states) we have to defend. Also Democrats have very few viable targets to make gains (KY GA).

      The house will be a wash. Gerrymanders will prevent either party from gaining a substantial amount of seats (more than 10)

      The Governorships lean towards the Dems as this will be an election to correct the 2010 R wave. Expect the Dems to net a few governorships.

      "There are three basic types: the Wills, the Won'ts, and the Can'ts. The Wills accomplish everything, the Won'ts oppose everything, and the Can'ts won't try anything"

      by lordpet8 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:32:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MI-03 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sacman701, Christopher Walker

    I think the commentary on MI-03 is really kind of off.  The ad is over-the-top and desperate in a district where this kind of campaigning doesn't go over well.  This isn't going to do Ellis any favors, at all.  

    Ellis seems to really be miscalculating.  Were Amash really unpopular, these kind of attacks might help Ellis, though, even then I'd question by how much.  Amash not only has a fanbase, but he has a lot of respect from people who don't necessarily agree with his politics because he's generally consistent (or at least less hypocritical) than other Republicans.  He's about as close as you get to a Ron Paul Libertarian without being Ron Paul and without all of the racist baggage and other assorted nuttery associated with Ron Paul.

    I think had Ellis kept this about the issues and simply used the narrative that Amash is out of touch, this might have been a competitive race.  But, Ellis and his backers have made this oddly personal and the whole campaign against Amash seems unsavory and disjointed.  According to Ellis Amash is either too liberal or two conservative depending on the day.  This is what happens when you run against and honest-to-goodness liberatrian.  You have to be smart to form a coherent message against him or her.  Brian Ellis is not a smart politician and it shows.  

    If anything, this ad hurts Ellis instead of its intended target.  You are not going to swiftboat Justin Amash.

    Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kodos.

    by MetroGnome on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:22:59 PM PDT

  •  DLCC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Not sure why the Ohio Senate is on the second list while the Ohio House is not. We have a decent shot at taking away the GOP veto proof majority in the House by gaining a single seat, while we have almost no chance of gaining the three seats needed to take away the veto proof edge in the Ohio Senate.

  •  Virginia (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abgin, jj32, ehstronghold, PassionateJus

    I guess there's an election on Sunday for HD-48? Del. Brink resigned literally a few days ago and somehow there's a primary caucus already scheduled?
    My state is tripping.

    Grew up in southern VA. Have worked in 9 states across America. Managed races in NM/VA/DC. Was Deputy Political Director at DGA for the 2012 cycle. Follow me @bharatkrishnan if you want to be my friend.

    by Bharat on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:56:01 PM PDT

  •  CO-Gov: Beauprez running mate chosen (0+ / 0-)

    Douglas County Commissioner Jill Repella:

    Apparently, he offered it first to the Chair of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, but she declined.

    I guess early reports of a likely Beauprez-Gessler ticket were either trial balloons, phony, or fell apart.

    “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 Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:07:08 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site