Skip to main content
Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:49 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 Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:49:17 PM PDT
running in what primaries and in what states this week? It seems I get pieces here and there. Thank you!
"In this world, hate has never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate." ~ Buddha
by Leslie Salzillo on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 03:50:34 AM PDT
states - I just need info on the candidates so I can write/blog about them, to help inspire folks to get out and vote.
by Leslie Salzillo on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 03:52:16 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Interactive Maps for 2014 Races
The sound of one hand clapping is ‘cl’ – unless of course you're left-handed in which case it’s ‘ap’. (◕‿◕)
by Mopshell on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:35:35 AM PDT
and obtuse. Refusing to stop his helping LePage get reelected, spoting typical politician "I'll win because" yadda, yadda, yadda. Attacking Michaud. A rather unimpressive performance. He tries to both say he's an outsider and also more experienced.
by TofG on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:11:17 AM PDT
I suppose the good thing is that this election, he's not going to be much of a factor.
by gf120581 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:24:33 AM PDT
It's just going to make the left-leaning voters that he needs more likely to support Michaud (which, of course, is good for us).
If he was smart, he'd attack LePage, since after all the only reason why he got within two points of winning in 2010 was by running an anti-LePage campaign. Then again, if he was smart he'd realize that he can't win and drop out, but that's another story.
(-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 Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:26:17 AM PDT
Since Libby Mitchell had been given up for dead.
Not so this time. Michaud's too powerful a candidate and the desire to throw LePage out too great. Cutler now just an also-ran with an ego problem.
by gf120581 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:37:00 AM PDT
Michaud is NO Libby Mitchell.
“The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:22:31 AM PDT
it feels like nothing has happened, almost like perdue gave up.
NH-01. First time living in NH, waiting for the candidates to start a courting.
by DougTuttle on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:37:08 AM PDT
by DougTuttle on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:37:37 AM PDT
That's all I've heard out of it. He's definitely not given up though, and we'd be fools to count him out just yet.
Resident of TX-17 (Bill Flores-R); Solar Freakin' Roadways!; Senate ratings (3/10/14)
by Le Champignon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:21:14 AM PDT
I was expecting more and harsher ads though, a real mudslingfest.
by DougTuttle on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:32:36 AM PDT
Why? There's been no polling to suggest he's even competitive against Kingston outside of Perdue's own biased internal poll.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:04:51 PM PDT
Which politicians from your state can you see as a presidential contender in 15-20 years? Congressmen, State Senators and Representatives, statewide officeholders, countywide officeholders, dog catchers, prominent businesspeople, activists...
19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.
by Tayya on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:32:12 AM PDT
With some experience in Congress, they could be quite a force. With some luck, maybe Texas will be more competitive in 2018 and one of them can try their luck against Crazy Cruz.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:35:35 AM PDT
Realistically, though, I think there's about a 10X greater chance that George P. Bush ends up on a national ticket than either of the Castros: he's already about to be elected to statewide office, and he's both a Bush and hispanic, which ought to give the Republican establishment all sorts of wet dreams.
Meanwhile, I doubt Texas will elect any Dems to statewide office until the '20s (through a strong challenge to Cruz in '18 would certainly be worth the effort).
by Chachy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:17:16 AM PDT
I doubt there will ever again be a Bush on a national ticket. The name has been so thoroughly damaged as to be rendered totally useless to their efforts. It doesn't unite the conservative wing because the Tea Party remembers Bush as a big spender. It doesn't unite the "sane" wing because sane people realize that the Bush name alone is worth several percentage points to whatever Democrat is running.
It just won't happen, ever.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:40:45 AM PDT
even now. W.'s approval rating has already recovered into positive territory, I believe. At any rate by, say, 2024, we will be nearly a generation removed from W.'s administration, and George P. would have shaped his own political identity. Are you really so certain he wouldn't be able to overcome the Bush moniker at that point?
by Chachy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:25:54 AM PDT
It'd be like if Jason Carter ran for president. Only reason why he's viable in GA is because GA has always loved the shit out of Carter. I think Carter won every county in GA in '76, and all but four or five in '80. But he'll never be national candidate material.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:28:09 AM PDT
when your father is history's greatest monster.
by DougTuttle on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:53:27 PM PDT
by meromorphic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:10:29 PM PDT
By April 2017, Obama will have a higher approval rating than Bill Clinton. By then, the GOP will be saying that Obama was the reasonable one and Hillary is the dangerous anti-American radical whose schemes are far more socialistic than Obama's ever were. By extension, they'll also be talking about Bill the way they did when he was president.
SSP poster. 44, CA-6, -0.25/-3.90
by sacman701 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:23:35 PM PDT
It's not like people a decade or more from now won't still know he was the dipshit that created the worst recession since the Great Depression, was President when 9/11 happened and got us involved in two disastrous wars.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:10:52 PM PDT
The recession was caused by the race-pandering CRA, and made worse and prolonged by the food stamp president and his bailout giveaways to union thugs and Solyndra. Bush protected our Freedoms from Islamic communist oppression by fighting them over there instead of here.
snark, but nothing is so ridiculous they aren't already saying it.
People are still trying to blame the Depression on FDR and socialist entitlements.
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 Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:59:49 PM PDT
That decades from now Dubya will be looked upon as a complete and utter failure, near the bottom of the rankings of historical Presidents.
On the other hand I have a strong suspicion Obama will rank quite highly historically as far as Presidents go. The first President to embrace gay rights, reversing Bill Clinton and Dubya's complete failures on the issue, and the first President to get through major healthcare reform for all people.
I know there are a lot of right-wing revisionists out there, but FDR still ranks among the greatest Presidents of all-time in spite of their re-writing of history.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:42:54 PM PDT
You can't really hide the incompetence or not make it so people can't connect the dots.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:48:11 PM PDT
And fool some of the people. Especially if they want to be fooled. More especially if you own the press and the textbook companies and the school boards.
by benamery21 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:04:52 PM PDT
on gay rights. In retrospect, DADT was a horrible, discriminatory policy. But if you think about it, gay marriage probably polled in the teens at the time, and that came from a deep-seated hatred that just wasn't going away for a while.
I think Obama will be in the top ten, but not the top five. He's just.. not that great. Having six years of his presidency taken up by an intransigent Republican House does bad things to one's popularity. And the existence of the Republican House in the first place is at least half his fault.
And I doubt Bush will be near the bottom. Definitely in the bottom half, probably even the bottom quarter, but the man did several truly good things like the African AIDS initiative, a lot of stuff on race relations with Hispanics, and Medicare Part D was a damn fine idea (despite the rather awful motivation behind it and its terrible implementation).
by Le Champignon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:53:06 PM PDT
at the time, I bet DADT was considered reformative and progressive.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:58:02 PM PDT
Unfortunately, the witch-hunts continued, in violation of the intentions of the policy.
Formerly Pan on Swing State Project
by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:01:21 PM PDT
for most of the country at the time. Clinton spent significant political capital to make it happen, and part of why gay rights moved forward as quickly as it did in this country thereafter was that the RWNJ predicted apocalypse did not occur.
by benamery21 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:08:24 PM PDT
actually voted for the 1993 law (when Dem's had a trifecta). Simple repeal of the ban was essentially a fringe position, and seen as a 3rd rail by much of the Democratic caucus.
by benamery21 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:44:40 PM PDT
Doubt Obama ever makes top-5 lists of greatest Presidents, but I think by the later years of my life we'll see him on many top-10 lists. My feeling is that Obama will be seen as something of a transformational President. Basically a bridge between the conservative politics that dominated the Reagan-Dubya era for 35 years or so years and the coming, more progressive society that seems inevitable to follow given demographic/generational trends. People will probably look back at Obama and realize he did as much as he could to further progressive causes during his Presidency.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:59:29 PM PDT
It's one of the few things I somewhat liked about the Bush Presidency. Ya, I know a lot of it was a giveaway to big pharma. But at the end of the day it was a nice start, which can be improved upon as far as giving seniors RX coverage goes. Can you imagine if a republican President post-2010 tried to push an expansion of Medicare like Bush did? Republican heads would explode if that happened today.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:02:41 PM PDT
lead to a real mitigation of the problem, that will be seen as a crucial turning point in 100 years. We can only hope.
by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:00:38 PM PDT
Reagan was gawd-awful in many ways.
by benamery21 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:10:33 PM PDT
The narrative years from now will be that the achievements in Gay Rights were inevitable regardless of who was President. It may well not be true, but to suggest otherwise will be seen as diminishing the "movement" and it will be a useful line for everyone including Republicans to embrace after the fact.
Healthcare is going to be mixed because I suspect that the eventual final plan will be a doled-up version of Obamacare once people realize that all of its problems have been due to it not being extensive enough and the bureaucracy created thereof.
That will leave Obama with the Foreign Policy where I suspect he will come in for a severe thrashing. It is one field where Presidents are generally blamed for bad things that happen on their watch, and the whole thing is looking fairly dreadful right now. Obama's first team achievements - getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, are going to be swallowed by the disasters that will follow in the wake of American withdrawal, leaving him with very little.
by BenjaminDisraeli on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:06:36 AM PDT
no one would suggest that the civil rights movement would have proceeded at the same pace that it did if Barry Goldwater had been elected president.
Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.
by sapelcovits on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:30:17 AM PDT
landmark social welfare bills like Social Security and Medicare for how fucked up they were in the beginning, but as landmark social welfare bills that have stood the test of time. Regardless of how - we hope - the Affordable Care Act is improved over time, it will stand as a landmark - the first time since it was proposed 100 years ago by Teddy Roosevelt that a president was able to get a comprehensive national health insurance bill through Congress.
As for foreign policy, it's too soon to tell, but I don't think that the implosion of Iraq is easy to blame on Obama. He had to withdraw the troops for various reasons, but anyone who seriously believes that the presence of US troops would have prevented the current civil war is kidding themselves.
by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:17:10 AM PDT
for the reasons you stated, but George P Bush is unclear. But I doubt he gets elected Governor or Senator in Texas anyway.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:37:45 PM PDT
New Jersey has a few
The most likely right now is Steve Fulop, the Mayor of Jersey City and likely the next Governor.
Cory Booker is obviously much less than 15 years from a run.
Raj Mukherji, an Assemblyman from Jersey City, also stands out. He's only 29, but is a veteran, entrepreneur, and former Deputy Mayor. We'll have to see how his first elected tenure goes, of course.
NJ is a tough state to move up in, so I'm weary of mentioning more local politicians or activists.
I honestly can't think of a single Republican, mostly because I can't see anyone taking that intermediate step to Senator / Governor in a blue state trending bluer.
by Trosk on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:23:51 AM PDT
and not just because he used to be my Assemblyman back when I lived in Camden County. He spoke to my Dem club some months ago and he impressed us with his know-how on the property tax problem and how to fix it (one way being a local option for communities to institute other taxes to alleviate property taxes). He also talked about how he worked with McGreevey to fix the car insurance issues that plagued the 90s. When he left, we were all atwitter with how much we were impressed. Kind of the opposite of when we met Booker.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:35:50 AM PDT
and learned a lot from his late mother, an extremely popular ex-Mayor of Cherry Hill.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:36:58 AM PDT
Lou seems to be stuck in place. He probably gets the Semate seat when Beach retires, but I think he missed his real opportunity when Norcross was annoited the Congressional seat. Even though he's still young, I have a hard time seeing him rise to become Gov or Senator, let alone President.
Paul Sarlo is a bit more likely in my opinion, as someone who sort of fits Greenwald's mold.
by Trosk on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:06:39 AM PDT
I haven't heard his speaking yet, but everyone loves him.
He also represents a very, very diverse city. It's roughly evenly divided between Caucasians, African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:52:30 PM PDT
because Oregon will not produce a nominee or vp nominee in the near future.
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 Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:24:28 AM PDT
the class none of them would ever be on a national ticket because they were from Oregon and it was too small. Inaccurate on many levels, but the government teacher was also the gym teacher, so...
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 Jul 06, 2014 at 07:37:14 PM PDT
it's too small to matter in the electoral college, especially because it wouldn't swing based on the selection, and nothing else would swing either because of it. But it's also because the rest of the country kind of thinks of us as a joke, and as more liberal than we are, so no Democrat would be taken that seriously , and because any Republican who was prominent enough for consideration would be too moderate to get through a primary.
by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:52:01 PM PDT
And if Sarah Palin can get on a ticket, why couldn't someone from Oregon?
by jncca on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:20:45 PM PDT
and Senate Minority Leader. Circumstances aligned.
I'm not saying never, but not in the near future. Circumstances won't align to bring it about anytime soon.
by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:36:36 PM PDT
why was Joe Biden on the ticket? Delaware ain't exactly a swing state.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:59:22 PM PDT
can you think of anyone from Oregon someone would want? I can't.
by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:03:47 PM PDT
doesn't mean Oregon as a whole is useless to a national ticket should one emerge. Again, see Delaware, AKA Biden's home state.
by Le Champignon on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:27:01 PM PDT
by James Allen on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:42:21 AM PDT
by Le Champignon on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:49:04 AM PDT
by James Allen on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 07:37:31 AM PDT
He wanted someone he could count on to run as his running mate and not use the opportunity for his own selfish ends (like Bayh would have done).
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:47:25 PM PDT
He's young and has already shown some crossover appeal. I don't any Republican from CA being nominated, because the governor and senator positions will probably still be out of reach for them for the next 10-15 years.
by sacman701 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:06:38 AM PDT
Wikipedia just says he was born in Mexico to migrant farmworkers.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:13:14 PM PDT
by JacobNC on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:49:10 PM PDT
A really obvious answer is Joe Kennedy III. Both of our current senators, Warren and Markey, are rather old despite being in their first term (they're currently 65 and 67, respectively). It's almost certain that Kennedy will have an open senatorial seat to run for sometime in the next two decades, and he would pretty much be a lock, both because of his surname and the fact that he has actually tried to be a good representative and not just coast on his surname. I don't see any other members of our congressional delegation going for higher office (no, Warren is not running for president).
by meromorphic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:21:21 PM PDT
by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:24:09 PM PDT
Here's one little-noticed thing about Deval Patrick. Throughout much of his first term, his approval ratings were terrible because he faced a budget crisis and had to raise taxes. In January 2010, PPP found him with a 22% approval rating, but he won reelection because it is, after all, Massachusetts and he wasn't as bad as senate candidate Coakley. Then, after he won reelection, his approval ratings started to rise for reasons I've never really understood. A June 2011 PPP poll found that Patrick had a 54% approval rating, and ever since then, pretty much every poll has showed his approval hovering somewhere above 50%, so not wildly popular, but certainly acceptable.
Patrick could have easily run for reelection this year (Massachusetts does not have gubernatorial term limits) and cruised to victory. That he chose not to indicates to me that he wants to be done with electoral politics and go out on a high note. His wife, Diane, has had some mental health problems like depression, which really manifested during his first term in office. Patrick has said he wants to go back into the private sector, and I see no reason to doubt him on that. Of course, he might show up for various elder-statesman things, but he's almost certainly not going to run for president or do anything else really high-profile.
by meromorphic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:05:10 PM PDT
I think the Congressional gerrymander here makes our House Reps a no-go. If we're lucky then Mark Herring will have a meteoric rise over the next couple of decades but he's already 52.
Both Tim Kaine and Mark Warner could be decent bets to run for the big job but it'll be sooner than 15 years. Kaine is 56 and Warner is 59. Either one of them could make a run in 2016.
by PureTossup on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 03:56:00 PM PDT
in 2017. I doubt he eventually makes his way to the presidency, though. Mark Warner has frequently been mentioned as a vice presidential pick; I don't think he's a good pick for Hillary in 2016 because it unnecessarily risks a senate seat, but it's possible.
by meromorphic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:04:15 PM PDT
It isn't clear yet because it's obviously still early. Northam would be a non-starter for Virginia Democrats so we really need Herring or else we're going to have to settle for a weaker candidate.
I think Warner or Kaine would be great VP picks (but particularly Warner) because they would really help lock down Virginia's electoral votes. That could be particularly useful if for whatever reason Clinton doesn't run.
by PureTossup on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:50:18 PM PDT
and hopefully swing the Senate back to Dems if they pick up a seat in 2015 (namely Sen. Watkins' seat)?
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:56:22 PM PDT
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.
~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.
Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44
by paradise50 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:15:30 PM PDT
He is younger (43), and will have lots of executive experience (mayor of a large city and cabinet secretary). But if he wants a future in national politics he should run for Senate against Burr in 2016, rather than going into the private sector and losing relevance.
I suppose if Roy Cooper wins in 2016 and serves two terms successfully, he could also be considered for national office. I don't think Kay Hagan could be - she just doesn't seem like a great politician.
by JacobNC on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:46:40 PM PDT
for the dems, Ayotte for the gop
by DougTuttle on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:52:15 PM PDT
AG Kamala Harris I guess. None of the top Dem statewide officeholders are particularly inspiring.
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:42:46 PM PDT
He's unusual among California's Democrats in that he has a strong base of support near Sacramento, including suburbs and rural areas, because they have a lot of government workers. Maybe he'll try for the senate seat in 2016 if Boxer retires, or in 2018 when Feinstein is probably going to retire (she'll be 85).
by meromorphic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:10:44 PM PDT
Chiang gets major Republican (read: conservative) support. The offices he's run for are more or less apolitical, so we'd have to see 1) how'd he fare in a primary against another Dem, and 2) what his depth of support would be in a senate or gubernatorial race. He's prob a better fit for governor, but Newsom has that locked down for 2018. I'd like to think Harris has the upper hand if Feinstein retires in 2018. I don't get the impression Boxer is retiring in 2016.
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:39:31 PM PDT
just that the state workers and retired ones around Sacramento know he signs their checks and pension checks. I really don't like this meme that somehow he has some mass appeal just because he outruns other Democrats in these collar counties around Sacramento by thousands of votes. These counties offer relatively few votes compared to the counties that provide the bulk of Democratic victories in California. He ran as a incumbent in a relatively non-partisan office in 2010 against the same opponent he beat, barely breaking 50% statewide in 2006. He underperformed in 2010 vs. the last incumbent controller to run for reelection (1998) almost everywhere. Kathleen Connell won Orange/Riverside/Ventura/Placer/Madera/King/Siskiyou/Tehama while Chiang and most Democrats lost these counties.
by calvinshobbes on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:26:43 PM PDT
harshly because they did worse in 2010 than a Democrat did in 1998 is ridiculous. 2010 was not 1998, for all sorts of reasons.
by jncca on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:38:56 PM PDT
could be likely due to his mostly non-partisan office. People on here talk sometimes about his strength in these collar counties around Sacramento i.e. getting 2k more votes in some counties over Jerry Brown as some kind of indication that he will do well in a more partisan race statewide. Like he has some kind of mystical sway over Republican voters. Fine, that is to be determined. I say it is more a function of his office than any perceived personal strengths. In 1998, Connell won typically Republican areas in her reelection. She was very strong against a Hispanic Republican challenger who wasn't well known. She also received over 1.3 million votes in LA county for her reelection which was more than Boxer or the candidate for governor then. She then decided to run for LA mayor (non-partisan primary) and received only 24k votes and came in 6th place.
by calvinshobbes on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:24:17 PM PDT
Braley seems like a three term senator to me and not someone who would want to run for president
The time has passed for Branstad and Grassley
None of the representatives (King, Loebsack) are ones I see moving up to the governorship or senate (which are launching pads for the WH).
idiosyncratic, slightly anarchist, darwinist, moral relativist, fan of satire
by bonzo925 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:20:35 PM PDT
Besides the talk around Scott Walker, I can say on the Republican side maybe Sean Duffy given that he is still quite young.
On the Dem side, I might say Senate Minority Leader Chris Larson. I do not know if he could win anything statewide, but he is certain ambitious. He is only 34 and won his seat 4 years ago by primarying an incumbent and then ascended to Minority Leader only two years after that. I can see him having the kind of drive and ego needed to run for President, and I say that in a good way.
Social Democrat, WI-05
by glame on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:36:36 PM PDT
For the Dems, I think Pete Buttegieg is our best bet. Harvard grad, Phi Beta Kappa, Rhodes Scholar, 2010 Treasurer nominee and since 2012 has been the Mayor of South Bend.
Republicans, I think I fear Luke Messer and Susan Brooks the most.
26, Practical Progressive Democratic Socialist (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie!
by HoosierD42 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:43:31 PM PDT
There's off and on talk about Hickenlooper, or even Ken Salazar. I don't see it, and personally I'd prefer to not see them on a national ticket. Jared Polis is clearly trying to work his way up in House leadership, and may have a chance of being speaker one day, but that's it.
As for my home state of Hawaii, there's quite a few fans of Tulsi Gabbard (myself included). She probably will be Senator or Governor one day, but I don't see anyone from Hawaii making it nationally (after Obama of course).
by Skaje on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:27:31 PM PDT
and not just born there like Obama was, but someone involved in Hawaii politics, it would have to come through a Sarah Palin-like VP selection. Of course, the person would have to acquit himself much better than Palin did. There are just so many problems, including sheer logistical ones, against a Hawaii politician raising his profile nationwide on his own terms.
by meromorphic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:12:40 PM PDT
I think her biggest difficulty would be religious bigotry: There are a lot of Americans that wouldn't vote for an obviously non-Christian person for President. But other than that, I could see her doing well on the campaign trail.
by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:30:38 PM PDT
It's just ridiculously hard for a Hawaiian candidate to attend to duties in Hawaii and try to raise a national profile. We saw something similar when Neil Abercrombie resigned his House seat in order to focus on his gubernatorial campaign. It takes more than five hours to fly from Honolulu to San Francisco, which is the closest major metropolitan area to Hawaii. Unlike, say, Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, who can easily make time for random mysterious trips to Iowa, a Hawaiian would be hard-pressed to do similar things.
by meromorphic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:45:19 PM PDT
by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:02:16 PM PDT
"Hawaiian" is only used to refer to people of native Hawaiian ancestry (Dan Akaka, John Waihe'e, Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, and so on). The general term for someone from Hawaii is "someone from Hawaii" or "Hawaii resident".
by Skaje on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:26:06 PM PDT
kama'aina, often used for local discounts. But yes, she could be big but logistically its difficult without picking up the national capital to be smacked dab in Honolulu.
by Battlecloud on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:49:42 PM PDT
the name Akaka is one adopted by Chinese immigrants to Hawai'i. Dan Akaka is 1/4th Chinese, 3/4ths Hawaiian.
by benamery21 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:22:02 AM PDT
Also, state senator Clayton Hee (running for Lt. Gov.) is 1/2 Hawaiian, 1/2 Chinese. GOP nominee Duke Aiona is Hawaiian, Chinese, and Portuguese. Quite a few people have both ancestries (myself included), and there is a long history of Hawaiian-Chinese intermarriage in the state, going back to the 1800s. Names like Akau, Apana, Akiu, and Ahina are very common.
by Skaje on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 11:09:11 AM PDT
D'aww. Also didn't know Polis founded proflowers.com
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:30:02 AM PDT
And several others. Our Congressman has a magic touch with money.
by ColoDem on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:50:08 PM PDT
I used them to send e-cards way back when I was new to the internet ('99).
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:08:13 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:31:40 AM PDT
The former Senator was 86. Now both IL Senators at the time of my birth in Chicago have passed (Paul Simon being the other): http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
by geoneb on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:19:26 AM PDT
but I will never forgive him for voting for Clarence Thomas.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:39:17 PM PDT
That vote was a major black mark on his legacy, and also gave us Carol Moseley-Braun. Don't know if I can forgive him for either.
by geoneb on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:28:48 PM PDT
Joe Biden should have called in that second witness to testify to Thomas' sexual harassment.
That itself would have moved the vote to November (Thomas was confirmed in mid-October). Democrat Harris Wofford (who trailed by 40% initially to very popular ex-Governor and Attorney General Richard Thornburg) pulled of a 10% upset in the Pennsylvania special election in early November.
I'm very sure that had the Thomas vote been taken after that, he would have been rejected. GHWB then would have been boxed in picking a new nominee.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:33:57 PM PDT
how was Souter presented? Did he come off as conservative and later changed or was he a blank slate from the start?
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:45:48 PM PDT
and used to be conservative, but shifted?
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:49:42 PM PDT
Souter was suggested to John Sununu by a fellow New Hampshire resident, Senator Warren Rudman. Bush decided to pick Souter because Souter had a very thin record that was pretty much devoid of controversy, because Bush didn't want another Robert Bork situation. But organizations like the NAACP and NOW opposed Souter pretty vigorously. In the end, Souter was confirmed 90-9; among the 9 negative votes were Kennedy and Kerry. Souter voted fairly conservatively in the first few years of his tenure, but became more liberal as the decade went on, and was generally recognized as part of the liberal wing by 2000.
While discussing Rudman, Sununu would later say that "[Rudman] was more liberal than he liked the world to think he was."
by meromorphic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:51:59 PM PDT
There was warnings from hard right types Reagan administration officials about Souter's moderation (they thought he would end up being like O'Connor or Kennedy, not an outright liberal).
But in reality, Souter shifted the same way his state shifted. New Hampshire was a fairly conservative and heavily red state until the 1990s, when they finally realized that the Southern flavored socially conservative party was no longer in line with their values. I think when Souter saw how far right Scalia and Thomas really were, he shifted left.
Ted Kennedy later called his rhetoric and vote against Souter one of the greatest regrets of his Senate career.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:58:27 PM PDT
I turned out to be very wrong about him.
by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:03:40 PM PDT
Three Ds would have changed the vote.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:34:42 PM PDT
Liberal Dems should have at least started a silent filibuster (which existed then) on the grounds that Thomas' history of sexual harassment made him unfit to serve.
Heck, Dems had the majority. It ought to have been blocked in committee. Or maybe Ted Kennedy could have done the Robert Bork thing again and made it clear why Thomas was too extreme to serve as a distinguished justice.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:43:44 PM PDT
with Senator Dennis DeConcini being the lone Democrat to vote for him. Even conservative Alabama Democrat Howell Heflin (who would make Joe Manchin seem like liberal in comparison) voted against, as he considered Thomas completely unqualified. But a tie vote means that the nomination is advanced. But a liberal filibuster (on the basis that other witnesses needed to be heard) would have been sufficient to delay the confirmation hearing, and the Harris Wofford victory in PA would have killed it.
One also has to remember that the committee vote was taken before the sexual harassment came out. Thomas was considered to be a cinch for confirmation until that. It was after that came out that a second hearing was held to explore this matter.
Ted Kennedy was weakened for this hearing due to his behavior in Florida. He was caught drinking with his nephew (?) William Kennedy Smith in Florida on the night the latter was charged with rape. I think Kennedy (for good reason) was quite concerned with his own sexual history (including Chappaqudick) being made a major story if he took the lead on this.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:53:59 PM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:56:16 PM PDT
It was an inspiration for the two to run in '92.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:45:04 PM PDT
in large part because of Clarence Thomas' sexual harassment. But I don't think it would have changed if Thomas had been rejected.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:03:56 PM PDT
worst politicians in the country, categorizing them as hatemongers, sleazeballs, blowhards, horn dogs, and a couple "users and boozers".
I'm surprised that Gavin Newsom didn't make the sleazeball category, but a couple locals here made the Blowhard one: Art Robinson and Clackamas County Chair John Ludlow.
by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:40:44 AM PDT
section: it says Clackamas County, where I grew up, is largely rural. I grew up in a rural area, but the vast majority of people live in suburban communities.
by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:51:25 AM PDT
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:56:08 AM PDT
with the two IL entries.
(I'd add Jeannie Ives, the IL legislature's version of Michele Bachmann, to the list)
by geoneb on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:39:38 PM PDT
She's virulently opposed to LGBT rights, for example. Another one who I would have been added to the list is Kyle McCarter, a Republican state senator from the southern part of Illinois who is also known for being rabidly opposed to LGBT rights. Derrick Smith and Rahm Emanuel are two of the worst Democrats in this state, although I would have added Mike Madigan to that list.
Regarding Wisconsin, in addition to Brett Hulsey and Joel Kleefisch, I would have added one other Democrat (Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, who is to the right of Scott Walker on labor issues and once threw fireworks at one of his neighbors) and several other Republicans, including Scott Walker (many reasons), Scott Fitzgerald (violated open meetings laws during the fight over Act 10 in 2011), Bill Kramer (charged with sexually assaulting someone who was an aide to Ron Johnson at the time), Glenn Grothman (notorious for controversial/offensive remarks), and Ron Johnson (refused to report Kramer's sexual assault to the police).
We are the 99.99%!
by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:21:41 PM PDT
by bonzo925 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:40:06 PM PDT
Ives is just an embarrassment.
by sulthernao on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:18:17 PM PDT
Go look up her recent remarks on Chicago State. You stay classy, Rep. Ives.
Her Dem counterpart is Monique Davis, who sadly has the Nation of Islam HQ in her district and has their support. She's proven immune to primary challenges to the point where we're just waiting on her to retire...
by geoneb on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:33:27 PM PDT
for Ives' comments on CSU? google is failing me.
by sapelcovits on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:35:02 AM PDT
by sulthernao on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 05:08:40 AM PDT
His win was a consolation prize for Dems.
by KingofSpades on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:54:17 PM PDT
Mark Dayton. I mean come on, he's a pretty good Governor and wasn't near as bad a Senator as people made him out to be. His close election as Governor in 2010 saved Minnesota from becoming another far-right cesspool which would have controlled redistricting for the next decade like Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:40:06 PM PDT
Could have wound up as the next Michigan/Pennsylvania. Gerrymandered legislature plus off and on GOP governors would have allowed Republicans to wreck the state.
by Skaje on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:29:05 PM PDT
Long time reader, first time commenter here. I was wondering if anyone knew if there is a list of democratic mayors anywhere. I've done a brief web search but I can't seem to find one (even on the ncdm website).
by Tjones21 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:51:42 PM PDT
I found this. Plus, all the poorest cities have Democratic mayors (gee, I wonder why?) I found you a couple of sites to check out...
by paradise50 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:16:38 PM PDT
34 Democrats, 13 Republicans and 3 Independents who seem to be left of center.
by JacobNC on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:53:36 PM PDT
...finding which cities of any significant size that aren't suburbs dont have Democratic mayors. lol
Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kodos.
by MetroGnome on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:14:19 PM PDT
by sapelcovits on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:39:52 PM PDT
Obama's "low point" in Gallup was 38% approval. That was in 2011.
To compare, in late June 2006 George W. Bush was at 37% approval, in early July he was at 40%. Obama is currently in the low 40s. Bush's 2nd term average was actually 37%, lower than Obama's lowest point, and Bush's lowest point was a measly 25%.
by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:18:47 PM PDT
Although his campaign hasn't announced exactly when he'll run one or TV ads at this time, it will be sometime before the August 12 Democratic primary against Susan Happ and Ismael Ozanne. My guess is that Richards is going to be on the airwaves the final 1 or 2 weeks of the primary campaign.
Additionally, fundraising reports for the first half of 2014 for Wisconsin campaigns are due to be released this month.
by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 03:38:22 PM PDT
hasn't opened an office in Manchester yet and it's the biggest city in her district and the state. is this worrisome?
by DougTuttle on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:54:38 PM PDT
Former Assembly speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles) has decided to request, and pay for, a recount of votes in as many as 15 California counties — an effort to see whether he came in third on June 3 behind fellow Democrat Betty Yee… or not.
[...] Pérez’s decision means that beginning on Monday, local elections officials will take another look at ballots in Kern; Imperial; San Bernardino; Fresno; San Mateo; Orange; Ventura; Los Angeles; Riverside; Stanislaus; Tulare; Napa; Kings; Lake; and Merced counties.
[...] Pérez’s decision means that beginning on Monday, local elections officials will take another look at ballots in Kern; Imperial; San Bernardino; Fresno; San Mateo; Orange; Ventura; Los Angeles; Riverside; Stanislaus; Tulare; Napa; Kings; Lake; and Merced counties.
Under California law a candidate can ask for a partial recount and that is what Perez has done here. He's picked his best 15 counties for the recount. Also pay attention to the order of the counties listed because the recount will start with Kern county and end with Merced county.
I'm thinking this race will be settled late August/early September assuming Yee decides to follow suit and both candidates go to court.
The Republican party is now an extreme right-wing party that is owned by their billionaire campaign contributors. - Bernie Sanders
by ehstronghold on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:12:15 PM PDT
I wonder if they will be able to still send out ballots in time.
"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 Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:19:47 PM PDT
Just suck it up and move on. The only upside would be if the recount swings the LA County Sheriff's race so we don't have to suffer through the runoff.
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:41:05 PM PDT
Any politician worth their salt uses this extended Fourth of July weekend to kiss as many babies, shake as many hands, and attend as many parades as he or she can, and Michigan was no exception.
It was something of a tag team. Gubernatorial candidate Mark Schauer staked out the eastside of the state hitting up mostly Metro Detroit (Wyandotte, Plymouth, and Clarkston), but also went up I-75 to attend events in Bay City in the Thumb. Senate candidate Gary Peters, on the other hand, hit up West Michigan staying around the Grand Rapids suburbs where he campaign with junior Senator Debbie Stabenow.
I really need to begin to track the movements of the Republican candidates, but from little of what I can tell from the media's interest, it seems that they are likely campaigning less, or less conventionally, anyway. All the energy, anyway, seems to be on the Dem side of things, which is what you expect from a virgorous challenge with an incumbent deciding to try and hold ground.
by MetroGnome on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:21:25 PM PDT
Peters is going to win, but is the Nerd really going to lose?
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:41:08 PM PDT
I think he's going to have a tough road to re-election, tougher than any of the other midwest governors. The unpopularity of the GOP in general in the state, and his utter failures of leadership this year could really hurt him. But we're still months out and who knows what can happen? If, however, the most recent PPP poll is accurate, then I think it is very likely Schauer wins.
by HumeanSkeptic on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:50:54 PM PDT
If there is a slight D lean nationally, Snyder will be gone and Scott Walker will be in trouble. A slight R lean and both of them will be reelected.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:42:23 PM PDT
that strong this year. It feels like another neutral year, and I expect races to not all fall in line like that.
by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:40:32 PM PDT
but I still think there will be a tilt toward the very end. Something like 1998 or 2002.
If it is a D tilt, I think the post-election analysis will be the unusually strong (for a midterm) black and single women turnout.
by USA629 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:28:21 PM PDT
by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:56:55 PM PDT
Having a Democratic governor during the Great Recession (and Michigan's "One-State Recession" which preceded it and and melded into it) is what really killed Democrat's chances in 2010, along with Michigan just generally trading out parties in governorships.
People have really wanted to give Snyder the benefit of the doubt because of the Granholm years; they have really wanted to believe Snyder was the moderate he sold himself as. But I think voters are finally beginning to say enough is enough. The problem is that Snyder has governed little different frorm a tea party governor, and the Michigan electorate simply isn't as far right on social issues as Snyder and the legislature have governed.
That said, as long as he was getting stuff done, there were independents willing to stick with him and tolerate some of the less-than-savory social policy of the administration and legislature. I think what finally made this a close race, however, was not just his ideology, but his incompetence, and on this I'm talking specifically about the road funding fix he's been pushing for two years and failed to get through this cycle before the summer recess. This has become the single biggest issue among the electorate, and that something this important couldn't be resolved has sent Michiganders into a rage.
Snyder has very little clout with any one particular legislation faction. Nobody fears him. What's he's accomplished, thus far, has largely been because he wanted what the legislature already wanted. On some things - RTW, for insance - the tea party legislature actually steamrolled him and led the way. Michiganders aren't going to tolerate this political weakness and incompetence from the governor. The "One Tough Nerd" has shown himself again and again to be "One Weak Geek."
Rick's road to re-election has gotten extremely narrow. In fact, I think after the recent PPP showing his job approval in the crapper he has about one road left to take: He has to absolutely destroy Schauer. Because, I don't think there is any issue left on which he brings his favorables up to a level at which he can continue to largely ignore Schauer. The only way he wins is making Schauer as unpopular as he is. I think Snyder could get a tiny bounce if he gets the road deal done when the legislature comes back into session, but it won't be nearly the bounce to save him. And, if he isn't able to get the road deal even when the legislature's back in session, he's through. Period.
by MetroGnome on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:40:29 PM PDT
Is there anything on him that Walberg didn't already use?
by sacman701 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:15:29 PM PDT
Snyder seems to have an edge, but only a slight one.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:53:46 PM PDT
I would be surprised if Snyder lost. As MetroGnome mentioned, Snyder represents a general trading of the governor's mansion by the parties + a wholesale reaction against the Granholm years + reaction against economic environment and party in the White House. I would be genuinely surprised if he loses. I know the roads are bad (I grew up in Detroit). Maybe they are that bad. I would agree with you that Snyder has no "faction." He kinda came out of nowhere.
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:02:51 PM PDT
These have been wacky political and economic times in America, in general, and even more in Michigan. I won't be surprised if Snyder wins, but I think he's in an even tougher re-election campaign than Granholm was early on. It's going to take a lot for him to win. I think he's up to the task, on paper, but that same sheet of paper shows he's going to have an upward climb in a state that leans the way that it does with a state GOP party as unpopular as it is. He's tried mightly to seperate his image from that of the party's, but people are beginning to link the two.
by MetroGnome on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:08:16 AM PDT
at an equivalent time in the campaign?
by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:35:17 AM PDT
From about late-March to early August, DeVos was actually leading (or tied with) Granholm in most polls. In even the few polls she was leading, it was usually a narrow lead. People were really thinking she was going to lose, and quite frankly, I was surprised when she began to pull away in August. She ended up thumping him by a full 14% points; it was a thing of beauty.
The thing, here, though, is that Snyder has a lot less room to grow being a Republican in a blue(ish) state. Snyder is going to have to run the boards with independents, while Granholm just needed some of them (and she got more than I'm sure even she thought she would) since there are already more Dems than Republicans in the state. He's going to have to do something drastic like come out for marriage equality or have the state economy improve even faster than it already is to convince Indies that he's worth it, again. That's been one of the stories of this whole race, in fact. That the economy has been getting better for years in Michigan - with Michigan placing rather high in growth during the recovery, even - and yet he's not benefitting from it in any real way.
by MetroGnome on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:24:05 AM PDT
I'll admit I was skeptical when I saw the previews for Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on HBO. It sounded like just another show covering material The Daily Show and Colbert already had covered. But this show has turned out to be a real gem. It definitely covers the badly overlooked stories and contains some very memorable scenes every show.
by ChadmanFL on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:53:08 PM PDT
The interview is awesome.
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:53:54 PM PDT
The Leftovers which has nothing to do with politics. It's very Lost-esque (and I know some people will hate it for that reason) which is not surprising since Damon Lindelof is a writer/producer.
I'll check out Oliver's show. I saw the first episode and thought it seemed like a Daily Show ripoff but I'll have to give it another shot.
by JacobNC on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:55:00 PM PDT
I liked him a lot as a Daily Show fill-in, but I don't want to be preached at. The funny:preachy ratio is off so far. Hopefully he fixes it.
by jncca on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:59:08 PM 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