Typo

"The New York Democratic Lawyers Council filed an FEC complaint against Hall this week..."

Think you mean Ball.

---

by: Zeitgeist9000 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 18:49:42 PM UTC

Hmm, thanks

A little like that time in NJ-03 when Saxton and Sexton ran against each other.

---

by: Crisitunity @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:10:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Warner v. Warner

John vs. Mark, VA Senate.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:08:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Taylor v. Taylor

Robert vs. Alfred, Tennessee governor 1886. Unlike most similar cases, these two were actually brothers.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:12:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Thanksgiving

must have been REALLY awkward.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

---

by: Tiger in BlueDenver @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 23:38:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chu v. Chu

CA-32 July 14th runoff.
IIRC they're cousins.

---

by: homerun @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 00:14:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cousins by marriage. n/t

---

by: Politik @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 02:12:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama won Nobel peace prize

Some observations (not all of them original):

1. My first thought was that this is going to be albtross around his neck.

2. The Guardian has observed that this is more Nobush and less Nobel.

3. The Taliban, the Hamas and the Republicans are against it.

---

by: fai calif @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 18:52:18 PM UTC

Funny thing is

Hamas was more polite about being against it and the Taliban was more objective (factually correct) in their opposition to it than the RNC's opposition to it.

Not really that funny, actually.  

---

by: sulthernao @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:12:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why an albatross?

He hasn't achieved anything to deserve it, though.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:27:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nuclear disarmamemt

On nuclear weapons, the issue the Nobel Committee cited, he's down a fair amount already.

---

by: Foggy Magoo @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:29:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's a short list:

Human Rights, Justice, and Equality:
-Closing Guantanamo Bay
-Ending Torture by the United States
-Signed the Fair Pay Act
-Push for Disarming Nukes

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:55:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Guantanamo hasn't closed.

And while I'm all for the Fair Pay Act, that's not Nobel Peace Prize worthy.

---

by: wmlawman @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 22:34:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well Gitmo will be closing next year

Thsn again if Congress gets it's way it could be delayed but still. Yes the fair pay act isn't actually Nobel worthy but the rest of the things Jeramiah mentioned are.

Plus the reason they nominated Obama for the Nobel isn't because of what he did on paper per se but off of it. Just with Barack in office, tensions created by the U.S. towards other countries when Bush was in offics had died and Obama trying to reach out to countries we have considered our "Enemy" for eight years has done alot of good in the world and that's one of the reasons the Nobel cited for giving him the award.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:24:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's probally read the AP opinion article on it

And thought this. I read it, but I could care less about what the AP and their concern trolling has to say.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:04:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have no idea why anyone

could think winning the Nobel Prize for Peace is a bad thing.

If there are really Americans out there who would be more inclined to vote against someone who won the Peace Prize, then we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

---

by: skaje @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:45:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Listen to Talk radio sometime ...

... you will hear plenty of people do just that.  The right is foaming at the mouth today.

Much more so than the Olympics, this is energizing the right.  

This gives them credibility when they say Obama is all style and charm and not substance.  The vote was in his second week as President. It is difficult to justify, IMO.    

Not to mention it is an unwanted diversion from Healthcare.

He gains nothing good from this, but gets new baggage.

---

by: vicupstate @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:09:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

nomination not vote

The nomination was two weeks after he was inaugurated, which wignuts are portraying as the vote.  I think the actual decision was fairly recent.

---

by: Foggy Magoo @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:11:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oooh, the right is foaming at the mouth! SCARY!

Have we found anything that WON'T send them into a fit of impotent rage?

Honestly, this is a problem for Obama 'cause talk radio says it is? C'mon, they haven't been right about a single other damn thing they've said for the last 20 years, so don't go thinking they've put it all together now.

---

by: colbycakes @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:23:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's all over the news and the net too..

ACORN, Olympics, Nobel Prize,  that monster keeps getting feed, and that makes it stronger.  

Ignore them at your peril.  

---

by: vicupstate @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:32:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"My peril" has been pretty swell so far...

...given that Dems stopped (or significantly cut back on) going into hysterics about what the right wing says in 2006 and 2008.

Seriously, I get an abundance of caution, but ACORN and the Olympics haven't been major issues on anyone's radar, no matter how desperately the right wing pundits want you to think they have been- and, btw, the right wing pundits really, REALLY want you to think that, they really really want us jumping at our own shadows and hesitating to use our biggest strengths. They want you to think that the monster is getting stronger, but check any objective measure- election results, Republicans' favorability ratings, nightly news ratings- it's shrinking fast. At this point, our fear of this "monster" is the only think keeping it's heart beating.

---

by: colbycakes @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 22:50:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then why is the GOP's prospects improving for 2010?

Fundraising, polling, candidate recruitment.  How about THOSE measures?  The monster is going to show up in droves at the polls. That much is certain.  

---

by: vicupstate @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 23:38:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because the GOP have nowhere to go but up

Seriously.

---

by: panhandler @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 04:49:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not because of "The Right"'s foaming at the mouth.

Democratic failures, Democratic delays on major legislation (often caused because they're afraid of criticism from "The Right"), the fundamental difficulties of governing (the majority party has to make some decisions that will piss off someone), the fact that Democrats don't have any easy targets (fundraisers love a winner), and the fact that Republicans have explicitly been recruiting people that PISS OFF "the right" (Crist, Kirk, Castle, etc.).

It's got nothing to do with "The Right". But if you want to make "The Right" happy, then by all means, keep crediting them with all of this. I wouldn't say you'd be their MVP in 2010 (this is just blog comments, after all) but they'll certainly find some way to reward your efforts.

---

by: colbycakes @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 14:32:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The right isn't surging because the Left hasn't been successful..

it's because the Left MIGHT be successful, if they (the right) don't engage.  

The right is enthused and angry.  If the left can't counter that, the Democrats will face significant losses next year. I lived through the '82 and '94 elections, and history can and will repeat itself.

The left didn't have to have it's act together to win big in 2006, the right won't have to either.  They just have to get their base out (virtually guaranteed) and be the alternative.  

All I am saying is the left doesn't need to add fuel to their fire, it needs to be proactive (in fundraising, recruitment, etc.) and it needs to run scared.  

A triple loss on Nov. 3rd is still a possibility and it WOULD change the national agenda dramatically.    

---

by: vicupstate @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:00:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong Wrong Wrong

Just because the "Right" is angry dosen't transulate into 1994 like losses because as so many people here have stated, the elections of 94 and '10 are different. We screwed up in 1994 because of a vairety of controversial issues we took on such as guns, the budget, DADT and the failed health care reform. That and mixed with the fact the Democrats have been in power since the 50's and had have went through a viriety of scandals in the 80's and had nothing to offer, the GOP on the legislative side was fresh and appealing (yes at once point in time Newt Gingrich was very appealing to voters) they had leaders that could sway voters and the contract with america was a very good idea.

Also we had alot of Dem incumbents have have been beat red for years and the only thing that were keeping the seats blue were the incumbents. Alot of those guys retired after 1994 leaving alot of open seats that were mostly picked up by the GOP in 1994, this lead to the bulk of the GOP pickups that year.

Outside of the economy and healthcare, which will pass. The Democrats haven't touched anything controversial that peril 1994 and we don't have too many open seats and the ones that are mostly safe.

Sorry, try again. This isn't 1994 and it will never be. Your concern trolling must stop because it's getting downright insane. No one cares that the right is fuming on talk radio and about the Nobel, ACORN or the olympics because they been angry for years and that will never change. No matter what Obama does or says, it won't change the opinions of wingers like Rush and Beck so stop with that. Plus talk radio has never been right and never will not to mention most people with a brain dosen't care either And i'm not going to be nervous or ashamed that my President won the Nobel because i'm proud he won it.

As for fundraising well for the time everything is going their way for the moment, but their peaking for the moment. Everything that their excited about will die by next year because on one will care about Rio getting the Olymoics over Chicago, Obama winning the Nobel or healthcare because it will be passed. By next year outside the south where I seeing the Dems taking a beating because of all the teabaggers and Co. living down their, they will be fine. They will no seats that's for sure but we will pick up a couple and we will retain Congress.

As for election, we will lose VA-Gov, retain NJ-Gov by a razor thin margin but pickup NY-23. It will be a gleeful night for the GOP unless you live in VA. Now enough with the concern trolling already.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:03:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Corrections

In the paragraph, when I was said this:

"Also we had alot of Dem incumbents have have been beat red for years and the only thing that were keeping the seats blue were the incumbents. Alot of those guys retired after 1994 leaving alot of open seats that were mostly picked up by the GOP in 1994, this lead to the bulk of the GOP pickups that year."

I meant to say that we have had incumbent represent beat red DISTRICTS. Didn't put that word in while I was typing

And this:

As for fundraising well for the time everything is going their way for the moment, but their peaking way too soon. Everything that their excited about will die by next year because on one will care about Rio getting the Olymoics over Chicago, Obama winning the Nobel or healthcare because it will be passed. By next year outside the south where I seeing the Dems taking a beating because of all the teabaggers and Co. living down there, they will be fine. They will no seats that's for sure but we will pick up a couple and we will retain Congress.

I meant to said they will lose seats. Sorry for the errors guys.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:11:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

1994 level losses are not likely, very unlikely...

... but the loss of 20-30 seats is possible. Losing all three races next month is possible too. Especially if Dems continue to see the GOP candidate as an acceptable alternative.  

However, Health care was a hot issue then, and will be again. The Healthcare implementation will not even take place until after 2010, so it WILL be an issue.

The economy could be better or NOT.  Unemployment wasn't suppose to exceed 8% remember.

You NEVER gain ANYTHING from underestimating the opposition.  

I am not trolling, I am trying to give some much needed perspective.  The left needs to inspire and engage its believers.  We can't allow the right to control the dialogue, which they are doing too much.

---

by: vicupstate @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:20:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But you are trolling

When you come on here and says be scared because the right on talk radio is pissed and history will repeat itself on 1994. That's concern trolling in my book. Regardless of what you said once healthcare will be signed it won't be issue because it's signed and in the books. Yes some of it won't be enacted until after the election but that dosen't make a difference when the debate is over and the bill is signed.

And I don't see the Dems losing three seats, only one Virginia. Corzine is coming back on Christie and Bill Owens is getting alot of traction up in NY-23. Yeah you are concern trolling whatever you want to admit or not.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:30:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also I don't see the GOP still at an good alternative

Not when their party is dominated by the hard right and they have clowns like Steele and Limbaugh as their leaders. The one guy I could say was a good leader in the GOP was former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, but thst died when Obama nominated him to be the Ambassador to China. The the great white hope in New Jersey the GOP was putting all their hopes into is turning out to be a dud as well.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:34:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But I will agree with you on this

The lost of seats. I don't know about 30, but a net loss of 20-25 isn't entirely out of question solely because were the party out of power and we had some guys get elected that were destined be comes one term wonders, we've seen that in wave elections from both parties. But a 1994, hell no. Atleast there we can find some common ground.  

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:55:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No One Has Said...

...anything about "underestimating" Republicans, or that they don't have a very good chance of doing some serious damage in 2010. I think we all agree with that.

But let's be clear, that's not where this discussion started. It started with the assertion that the Nobel Peace Prize was a problem for Democrats because "The Right" is mad about it. And that just doesn't follow, if only because they're mad about EVERYTHING- from a Presidential speech to school children to Rachel Ray's scarf. But nobody's saying the President should stop speaking to kids, or that Rachel Ray should wear less (...well, you know what I mean).

It's a lot of sound and fury, but it signifies nothing. Again, I understand an overabundance of caution, but I also recognize jumping at shadows. Acting like one week stories and prestigious international awards (that most Presidents would KILL for, under ANY circumstances) are major burdens for a Presidency that we support is definitely the latter.

And again, it's exactly what "The Right" wants us to do. They want us to keep saying, "How do we get over the ACORN problem?" because that means we keep bringing it up. They want us to hesitate to mention the Nobel Peace Prize, because they know how prestigious it is. And, more than anything, they want us to keep thinking that "The Right", the rage-filled talk show hosts and pundits, control the debate, because if we believe that- then they kinda do.

We certainly shouldn't underestimate them. But nor should we let them referee the game, either.

---

by: colbycakes @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 20:44:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Winning the Nobel Prize ..

... gave heft to the argument that Obama is all glib talk and gets by on his charisma, without having substance to back it up. That is just the image the right wants to create.  

It wasn't reality before, and it isn't now, but the argument has more credibility than it did previously. The rationale for him receiving this award is thin at best.  

The prize committee did him no favors, IMO.

Not to mention this was a distraction from Health Care, just when things were looking more promising.  

So, the right scores a basket, that they didn't even throw.      

---

by: vicupstate @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 21:30:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Having win the Nobel is no problem

Because it's a prestige award, that noble people win he didn't get it just because of charisma, but because of his accomplishments. Oh wait, it's bad because them darn lefties like Paul Krugman wins it so it's bias towards lefties so it must be bad yes?

This isn't a distraction to health care because winning the award is just a moment that will go away soon. Plus the debste isn't as smooth as you think it is, espically in the Senate. Just because you win a certain award dosen't mean it's a distraction to the reform battle that's taking place in DC. But since your a concern troll that shivers every time the right (who criticize anything Obama does) says something you wouldn't know.

The right didn't score a basket, they lost one because their boogy man won a prestige award. It fuels their anger, but since there always angry about everything Obama and the Dems do it dosen't matter at all.

The faster you stop caring everything little thing the right's goon squad nitpicks about, the more clearer you will see things. I was just like you at one time, always listening to what Rush, Beck, Hannity and O' Reilly have to say. Quiver everytime they criticize the Democrats until I realize their nothing but knee jerk Republicans who parrot nothing but the talking points the GOP has to give them and never contributing to anything notewhile to politics that I realized there not worth my time and after that I stopped liatening to them. The same to for reading Politico. After that I was more clearer in my mind.

Sorry man, this isn't a bad thing as much as you want it to be.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 23:16:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Make Good Points Colby

But I do disagree with you on a few points. I think the Democratic delays have more to do with it than failures, like the delay on healthcare. Your right governing is hard and no matter what your going to angry people no matter what you do and as the GOPers the Republicans have recruited, outside of Charlie Crist, Kirk and Castle are far from shoo-in's. But still you made some good points Colby.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 18:19:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I should have said...

"perceived failures"- things like, "Oh, the stimulus failed" and "Health care reform is DOA" (which is just strange, but oft repeated...).

And you're right, most of the Republican's recruits aren't anything special. I wouldn't even say I honestly favor Kirk or Castle in their respective races (as for Crist...well, anything can happen, I s'pose). But it wasn't so much that they're all gonna win as it is that they're the best chance the Republicans have to win, and they've had notable moments in their career where they've had to fight off "The Right" as it's been defined in this conversation. So their success- and whatever success they may give the Republican Party- can't really be attributed to "The Right".

---

by: colbycakes @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 20:48:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL

oh, the horror.

The foam ing at the mouth right isn't important in any way.  If Obama at lunch or won the Nobel peace prize they would criticize him.

This is major, game-changing development that marginalizes the wingnuts even more.

---

by: tommypaine @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:59:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"early" award not unprecedented

Willy Brandt got the prize after just starting Ostpolitik
Bishop Tutu got the prize long before Apartheid was dismantled
Gorbachev got the prize just after starting Peristroika

---

by: tietack @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:14:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our digests may be "open threads"

But that does not mean they are "talk about anything" threads. Obama and his Nobel Prize is not a good subject for SSP chatter.

---

by: James L. @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:25:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some of us are still surprised

And surprises tend to make people forget guidelines. I agree, such talk is not necessarily appropriate for SSP or even an open thread, but it's based on a very unexpected but pleasant surprise. (i.e. cut us some slack)

Nevertheless, I think the reminder is appreciated.

---

by: tietack @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:48:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes it is

and as a result, I haven't commented further on the peace prize.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 07:11:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I concur with tierack.

Some of us when we get surprising and good news like Obama getting the Nobel that we do for the moment forget the rules and post our feelings on the matter, but thanks for the reminder.

That's why i'm going to stop debating the concern issues with vicupstate basically because it's the wrong place to do, we both made our points made and these issues are something we can't really agree on like his concern that is if Obama keeps doing anything were doomed because the right wingers on the radio of steaming made and that were going to lose all three seats and health care will still be a issue next year and that the GOP will be a viable alternative next year in which I strongly disagreed with him on and my disagreement with him. We found common ground on the loss of house seats next year but that's it. You made your point known and my opint known so lets call a truce and enjoy the weekend.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 19:04:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where's The Link for KS-Sen?

---

by: Don't Tase Me, Bro! @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 18:54:21 PM UTC

It's from a "source"

SSP is hitting the big leagues; we actually have "sources" now.

---

by: Crisitunity @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:10:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Great White Dope

Prayer works!

Just yesterday I was bitching about how KS-02 represented a pickup opportunity for Dems if they could find a decent candidate. A second-term State Senator re-elected with 58% of the vote in a Republican district? That's as A-list as we're gonna get in Kansas. Go, Laura Kelly, go!

And good on McKinney for going for Treasurer...now all we need is someone to run against Kris "Don't Let The Brown People Vote" Kobach for SoS.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:13:40 PM UTC

CT-Gov

That could be big, if it turns out to be true, and there are any other factors on the table. Rell owes her popularity to being perceived as one of the least corrupt politicians in a state second only to New Jersey in political corruption. The problem is that almost any Democrat that runs against her is compromised in some way. As long as people still see her as "oh, well, she's a little corrupt but still better than the alternative", she'll keep winning, even in an anti-incumbent year.

Still, it says something to me that they're worried about Blumenthal, arguably one of the most risk-averse politicians in the country. Maybe Rell has some internals showing her in much worse shape than we've been led to believe.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:36:55 PM UTC

Interesting she polled on Blumenthal

as he has been signaling more interest in running against Lieberman in 2012.  He's easily the most popular Democrat in the state right now though.

---

by: DFLer @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:41:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right,

which is why I think it's strange that the Rell camp seems to be so concerned about him coming after them. Lieberman's popularity is in the toilet and he's obviously the easier target. Are Rell's handlers just exhibiting typical GOP paranoia, or do they know something we don't, like maybe the prevailing anti-incumbent mood has hit CT harder than we think? With all of the attention focused on CT-Sen, no one's really polled CT-Gov. Might be worth looking at in a couple of months.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 02:37:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

GA-08 update

http://www.swingstateproject.c...

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:39:31 PM UTC

CA-10

A single Republican poll aside, is there anyone who thinks there is even the most remote possibility that John Garamendi will not be the next congressman from CA-10?

Male, 23, DC-At Large

---

by: JFM110 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:49:01 PM UTC

I'd be surprised if Garamendi gets under 60%

I guess a 42-58 loss or so would be spun by the GOP as a good showing.  I don't think even they are hoping for much here.

---

by: skaje @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:51:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Garamendi wins, but it's not a runaway

That's what the California GOP hopes, at least. I actually think Harmer could keep it within high single-digits if he runs a solid campaign.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 19:56:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If this "poll" was adjusted to the 65%

Voting Democratic in the primary I wonder what the margin would be.

---

by: conspiracy @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:11:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even VA wingnuts avoid Palin

Rs in Virginia, the state of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, don't want Palin campaigning in their state.

---

by: tietack @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:16:43 PM UTC

Do the Dems have anybody interested in running

against that nutjob Bill Posey in FL-15 yet?  That guy is so off the wall that just about any normal person should be able to beat him.  And how about Chris Lee in NY-26--any action there yet?

68, Dem-leaning indie, MI-8

---

by: jimmich @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:25:55 PM UTC

Well, he is part alligator...

Could be a tough one.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

---

by: daman09 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:00:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Creigh Deeds got nominated how again?

He has run a terrible GE campaign. With all the gains the dems have made in VA it'll be a shame to see them lose the governor's mansion.

---

by: Lila @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:32:25 PM UTC

It is just not the Gov's mansion.

We are losing the Lt Gov's condo and the AG's apartment as well.

---

by: fai calif @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:03:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

?

The VA Lt Gov and AG are both already Republicans.

Male, 23, DC-At Large

---

by: JFM110 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:05:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What does the Insurance Commissioner have? A single-wide trailer?

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 22:50:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The coordinated campaign

was apparently depending on the Obama voters to come out again, which they (unsurprisingly) aren't. Regardless of who might have won the nomination, they would have pretty much been dead on arrival.

The Democratic Party of Virginia needs new leadership, but that's probably not going to happen.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 23:59:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NJ-Gov: Christie up 5

http://www.njascu.org/PSB_Poll...

Corzine and Christie are both netting about 75% of their party base, but this poll gives Christie a 12% edge among Independents, and Daggett is only 3% behind Corzine in that group.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:50:34 PM UTC

One false step by Cristie - in the past or in future

and the dam will break.

The question is:

will it?

I am keeping the commandments and praying to God for a little muck.

---

by: fai calif @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:58:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FWIW,

September 30 to October 5, 2009.

---

by: andgarden @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:18:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

According to Political Wire this was based on online interviews

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)

---

by: Darth Jeff @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 21:21:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting

So, if you go to pollster.com, set the sensitivity to high, and yank the Penn poll, Corzine takes the lead. . .

---

by: andgarden @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 22:13:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Star Ledger endorses Daggett

Daggett is only gonna take votes away from Christie qat this point.  Either disaffected Democrats or moderate Republicans.

The overall poll trends show Corzine holding steady and Christie losing ground.  And Christie's panicing.  Complaining about people calling him fat.  Complaining about Corzine jumping on Christie wanting to eliminate a requirement that insurance companies must cover mammograms.  Complaining, complaining, complaining.  And presenting budget fantasies that don't make up 96% of the deficits.

I live in NJ and this one looks like an outlier to me.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 04:49:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have a number of friends in Jersey....

...and if I'm not mistaken, most of them plan on voting Daggett. Or not at all. Even my liberal pals over there aren't crazy about Corzine, but Christie's no alternative.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

---

by: andyroo312 @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 15:34:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Christie

needs to borrow Bob McDonnell's campaign manager for a few weeks

---

by: GOPVOTER @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 15:36:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA-Gov

My biggest worry is Tom Campbell. He will be hard to beat if Republicans hold their nose up and vote for him. He will beat Moonbeam (and Newsom) among the independents handily. He is one of the few Republicans I will think twice before voting against (definitely). Has anybody heard of an independent rightwingnut running if Tom Campbell is the candidate?

---

by: fai calif @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 20:55:07 PM UTC

Campbell doesn't have the money

to compete in a general.  As I've said before, Campbell has a great chance at winning the nomination simply because Whitman is beginning to implode while Poizner has failed to gain any traction (not to mention he hasn't bothered to attack Campbell yet, so he must believe he won't win any of his supporters).

Campbell has a great political makeup to win, but he has really low name ID across the state and won't raise nearly the same amount of money as Brown.  He may be called Moonbeam, but Jerry has broad name recognition, a large warchest, and high favorability ratings from voters 55 and older who still remember his and his father's tenures as Governor, all of which make him an extremely formidable candidate in the general.  Campbell would keep it in single digits if he won the nomination, but I don't see how on paper he could pull this off.

As for a wingnut, I'll repeat this ad nausuem - it won't happen.  If it hasn't happened now, where the Republican field has been set for months and would have given plenty of time for an Orange County conservative to launch a gubernatorial bid in protest of the current crop of contenders, it won't happen by November.  California gubernatorial and senatorial races are only second to Presidential campaigns in their complexity and amount of money required, and the economic crisis has severely limited the number of would-be self-funders.  It takes months to get a campaign going, and there's no wingnut that I've seen on the ground here in SoCal that is interested in launching such a kamikazee bid.

---

by: DFLer @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 00:25:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Campbell will get money if he gets the nomination

That goes without saying because he will have beaten two very well funded primary opponents and for lack of a better term, he will be a media phenomenon.

His name recognition is not low, the opposite actually.  I would assume he is more known than Whitman and especially Poizner (who hardly any joe-on-the-street knows).

---

by: tommypaine @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 02:03:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tom Campbell

I know, I know.  Campbell is a "moderate".  Fortunately my fellow Bay Area people know better.  Campbell has taken plenty of right-wing positions in the past, therefore he will get blown out in the Bay Area. All a dem has to do is not get totally creamed in the rest of the state and carry Latinos.
My prediction is that Brown carries all 8 counties in the Bay Area by at least 25 points.  After that all he would have to do is win LA and he's at 50+1.  Does anybody think Campbell is well liked enough to perform better than that?

26, D, MO-05, Hispanic

---

by: 707stuckinKCMO @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 13:14:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tom Jensen has early info from NJ

if tonight's numbers hold Corzine will be up by more than he has been in any poll yet. Lot of calls left though

Fingers crossed.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 02:55:17 AM UTC

At the very least it shows momentum continues

---

by: conspiracy @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 17:12:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How do you link to a tweet?

---

by: GOPVOTER @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 00:28:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Click the time and date underneath the tweet

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:42:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]