I do like the cognitive dissonance in the Rasmussen poll

considering that Gov. Heineman was the one complaining about budget shortfalls and asked Nelson to bring home the bacon.  

---

by: sulthernao @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 23:35:29 PM UTC

I don't believe the Rasmussen poll about Ben Nelson

The most interesting thing to note about Rassmussen is that they are the only poll that makes you pay to see their crosstabs. Go figure

---

by: jmartin4s @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:10:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paying for crosstabs is no big deal......

I'm a Rasmussen subscriber because they had better-than-average results in 2004 and 2006, but they fell back to "the pack" in 2008 (meaning they were fine but not exceptional) and have jumped the shark badly this year.  Their issue polls always have been biased quite obviously by design, but this year they really have gone off the deep end even in election polls and in Obama's job approval.

All that said, that one must pay for crosstabs is perfectly reasonable because that's Rasmussen's business model, they don't do media polls except occasionally for Fox Noise Channel.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:15:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, and I forgot to mention, I agree that the poll is bunk. (nm)

nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:36:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

MI-Gov - it's Rick Snyder, not Tom n/t

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 23:50:53 PM UTC

Rosenthal and Obama on the ballot

I'm not normally one to blow my own trumpet but when I suggested something similar with regard to boosting AA turnout most of you poo-poohed me.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 23:58:38 PM UTC

There are over 3000 registered users on this site

Are you saying that the majority of them voiced disagreement with your suggestion?

---

by: James L. @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:04:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can only speak for those

That commented. The vast majority were negative.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:10:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't pooh-pooh the idea of trying

I just doubt that it will work. But I could be wrong.

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

---

by: Pan @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:59:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

NY-Gov: Paterson Plays Race/Daddy Card

Not sure if this is relevant or has already been brought up, but it looks like Paterson is pulling out all stops to thwart Andrew Cuomo from kicking his ass, which now includes playing the race card...with his own father throwing down the gauntlet. This to me seems like pretty low for the Governor.

What's next? We're going to see a tag team steel cage match between the Patersons and Andrew/Mario?

---

by: Don't Tase Me, Bro! @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:19:03 AM UTC

Oh brother

First he trots out his wife now Daddy? Go away David, you are making an ass of yourself.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:20:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Forgive me but I'm getting a little sick of this attitude that because Paterson is black

 Cuomo just can't run against him. I might have amnesia but didn't we elect the first black president last year? I think some people need to put down the race card and just stop that already. Not saying that there's still not a lot of racism out there, because lord knows there still is (I mean just look at some of the anger that's been directed at Obama during the health care debate). But this attitude about Cuomo running against Paterson in a primary is somehow a step backwards for black politicians is just ridiculous.

Paterson is unpopular for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with race. The Caroline Kennedy saga, the recession and some other things. And you know I'm gonna be fair here and say that while I do think Paterson should step down. I do think there has been a bit of a pile on by the media, and I do think Cuomo is not exactly the savior that some people are making him out to be. But none the less if Paterson does not dramatically get him poll numbers up within the next few months he should step down. And you know I also can't believe that some other prominent African American leaders wouldn't be a little distressed by the fact that whatever republican runs against Paterson it's a dead heat. But with Cuomo he easily puts away the competition by 40 points or so. And also let's not forget that Paterson was not elected to the position. There are also a lot of other people in NY that are on the ballot in 2010. Including several house members that are in swing districts in NY, as well as an appointed senator and controller. Paterson needs to keep that in mind as he continues to embark on his suicide mission.

---

by: Democrat2010 @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:49:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen

It is bad for whatever reason it is played. But it is particularly annoying when African Americans themselves play it. "Equality when it suits" smells bad.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:54:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what makes this complicated

for Cuomo is his "shuck and jive" gaffe during the primary wars. At least that's my reading of it.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:35:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed

But still, the only way Cuomo doesn't win the primary and the general is if he allows them to scare him off. Hopefully he calls their bluff. The only thing that matters is the job Paterson has done and how Cuomo would do it differently.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:39:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I've said all along...

Cuomo would steamroll over Paterson in a Primary, and he knows that perfectly well. On the flipside, I believe Cuomo's so miserably haunted by nightmares of the aforementioned '02 race that he may indeed opt not to run in the first place, fearful that all of Paterson's vote in the primary (which would probably be about 30-35%) would stay home in resentment of Cuomo's victory.

Paterson suddenly shooting up to a 40% favorable (which would theoretically put him in a better position than Corzine) in recent polling must give Cuomo a greater headache than ever.

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

---

by: andyroo312 @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:12:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh?

Corzine's numbers were never as consistantly bad as Paterson's have been, and Cuomo has been leading both Cuomo and Lazio by at least 30 points for a long time now. Even if Paterson throws the kitchen sink at Cuomo it's so unlikely that any of the third-tier nobodies the Republicans are running would even come close to Cuomo.

I'd have a really hard time believing that Andrew Cuomo's seriously worried about that.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:58:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a very bad gaffe

and I believe it shows prejudice. I wasn't aware of that one.

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

---

by: Pan @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:04:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just realized my comment could give rise to an off-topic tangent

so let me amend by saying that, partly due to my own reaction, I can understand why this gaffe would hurt Andrew Cuomo's prospects or/and engender particularly bad feelings by politically visible blacks (and some others).

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

---

by: Pan @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:05:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It looks like Ben Nelson's reelection chances

stem entirely from his decision to support the health care bill. If he had voted against, Nelson is only 10 points behind, instead of 31 pts. But of course, nobody has asked the more important question whether Dave Heineman will seek higher office. Heineman has good precedent to draw from: Nelson himself went from governor to senator.  

---

by: Don't Tase Me, Bro! @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:23:15 AM UTC

Nate has a better candidate in mind

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:24:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't know Nate has a sense of humor :-P

But if he WAS serious, I'm pretty sure Jesus would have better things to do than run for office, like being the SAVIOUR OF MANKIND, for one!

---

by: Don't Tase Me, Bro! @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:44:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting data point

even if it's Rasmussen

3* What if Senator Ben Nelson voted against the current healthcare reform legislation being considered by Congress and prevented it from becoming law. If the 2012 election for United States Senate were held today would you vote for Republican Dave Heineman or Democrat Ben Nelson?

Assuming no fraud on Rasmussen's part, it's quite a stark contrast.

---

by: tietack @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:33:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I doubt Nelson will even run again in 2012

He had to be convinced to run in 2006 by Schumer. If it looks like he'll be in for a tough fight, he'll probably just retire.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:36:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sure plenty of corporatinos

will pay him to sit on their boards.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:36:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Link re 2006?

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:44:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just googled

schumer nelson 2006

and found http://dyn.politico.com/member...

SNelson was considering retiring instead of seeking reelection in a conservative-oriented state in 2006, and Schumer told POLITICO that when he assumed the DSCC chairmanship, Nelson was his first call.

The logic was clear, Schumer said: "He runs, we win; if he doesn't run, we lose." So he gave in, he says, to extensive demands from the Nebraskan

---

by: tietack @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:48:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Heineman or bust though

I think the headlines this poll has generated are a bit misleading and only further demonstrate that the mainstream press is about sensationalism.  If Heineman doesn't run for Senate Nelson should be fine.  I don't think any members of their House delegation or their other statewide officeholders could take on Nelson - he has too high a name recognition and has been around for too long.  Until we start to see polls showing that even generic R can beat him we shouldn't worrying about his seat.  So calling Ben Nelson "in trouble" for a potential reelection bid that's 3 years out against the strongest possible opponent that hasn't even made any indication he would run is a tad off.

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:02:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree completely

I am getting a bit tired of the crepehangers who are writing off Democratic politicians simply for supporting health care reform.  When people realize that the world is not going to end in six months, and that there are some seriously good things that are going to happen because of it, then the only people who will hold those yes votes for HCR against Ben Nelson and his ilk will be the most far-right teabaggers, and they will have so isolated themselves that they won't matter.  

68, Dem-leaning indie, MI-8

---

by: jimmich @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 15:46:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Rasmussen poll shouldn't be taken seriously at all......

Ben Nelson is not going to lose by 30 points.  Or 20 points.  Or 10 points.  Even if Heineman is the Republican nominee, it would be no worse than a nailbiter.

Rasmussen is a sensationalist pollster with dubious methodology to produce a right-wing bias, essentially the Fox Noise of pollsters......and one bit of fitting trivia is that Rasmussen doesn't do media polls except occasionally for Fox Noise.

And if health care really is that big a deal with Rasmussen's respondents, Nelson's prospects will improve dramatically very quickly after Obama's signing ceremony.  Health care reform will grow popular over time, and people will be fine with it most likely by the midterms and certainly by 2012.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:21:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You mentioned access to Rasmussen cross-tabs

Is there sufficient info from the cross-tabs to debunk their polls?

(e.g. skewed samples of Ds and Rs, biased in geographic distribution, leading questions, etc?)

---

by: tietack @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:30:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The biggest flags are...

...favorability numbers and leading questions.

The favorability numbers aren't going to show anything in Nelson-vs.-Heineman because they have high name recognition.  But in many other Rasmussen trial heat polls you see candidates who we all know have virtually zero name recognition showing only a fraction of of the population having "no opinion."  My classic cite on this is Rasmussen's NC-Sen poll from some time ago that tested, among others, Democratic lawyer Ken Lewis who has never run for or been appointed to anything in his life.  Only about one-third of respondents said they had no opinion of him.

Leading questions show up in the choice of issue questions in trial heat polls.  They'll ask, for example, who'll do a "better job" at "reducing government spending."  And there's never a countervailing question to juxtapose against it, like " who will do a better job preserving funding for schools and public safety."  So Rasmussen's questions are biased toward conservative ideology up front.

Also skewing results are Rasmussen's one-night samples, which is a notorious practice rejected by virtually all other pollsters.  That't not from crosstabs, but it's a big problem.

Ultimately I think Rasmussen's inaccuracies come from two things:  (1) a dubious likely voter screen; and (2) the nature of responding to robocall polling, especially regarding certain types of questions offering very simple choices where the respondent hasn't really given any thought to the question except when asked on the spot for the recorded survey.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:49:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent info, thanks! n/t

---

by: tietack @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:52:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How often does Ras ask these leading questions?

Do they typically only do it on issue polls or are they common in head-to-heads?

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

---

by: Darth Jeff @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:20:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The example I gave is in election polling......

In fact, you see a pattern where Rasmussen uses certain stock questions almost no matter the race, and sprinkles in one or two state-specific questions along with them.

It's one of the stock questions to ask, "who do you think will do a better job at cutting government spending?"

They might also ask, "who will do a better job on the issue of taxes?"

People on the spot reflexively will say they want, in the abstract, lower government spending and lower taxes, but they balk when confronted with the reality of specific spending cuts and budget deficits.  So an honest public poll wouldn't ask the government spending question without asking a question that frames spending in a way more favorable to liberals and Democrats, such as my example on "preserving funding for education and public safety."  Rasmussen doesn't do that.

Rasmussen's "issue polling" essentially is "message-testing" polling that partisan pollsters do for their clients.  It basically looks like Scott Rasmussen is signaling to his conservative brethren, "here's how we can win!"

Rasmussen's issue polling is actually worse than this, they skew their questions much more, but that's public data, not behind a subscriber wall.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 14:04:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow, that's pretty low of them

One more question: do they ask these leading questions before or after the head-to-head questions?

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

---

by: Darth Jeff @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 17:37:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Memory serves

They don't have a standard method. I'm sure I've seen it mentioned that they sometimes ask leading questions before. He clearly inflates Republican numbers and deflates Democrats. And more so on issues. Presidential job approval is still the biggest give away. He always measured Bush approval among adults yet always had him about five points better off than any other pollster. The exit poll supported the others. Then as soon as Obama becomes president he switches to the more subjective likely voter model which Dems generally do worse with. Now he may be onto something and the turnout disparity he finds come next November may be very real but even the few others that poll LV find nothing like as bad a situation. A picture says a thousand words...

http://junkcharts.typepad.com/...

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 21:14:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question ordering is unclear, but...

...in the crosstabs chart Rasmussen always shows head-to-head first, with stuff like candidate favorability and issues further down.  That may or may not match question ordering.

A poll honestly gauging voter preferences will first ask the trial heat with the choices of named Democrat, named Republican, a named third-party or independent candidate if a major one is running, and then undecided.  The choices can and probably should be rotated to minimize choice-ordering bias which also can be very real (due to the psychological effect of "primacy and recency"), but the trial heat question should be first.

Rasmussen will throw in "some other candidate" as a choice in its trial heat polling to pick up generic 3rd-wheel preferences, but that, too, skews the results because you see abnormally high percentages of people making that choice even when no major 3rd wheel is running.

Ultimately Rasmussen shows, among other things, the limits of robopolling.  Robocall polling actually can be quite good and just as good as live callers, but there is a problem in that respondents feel pressured to impulsively answer questions about which they've given no real thought, unlike how they'd answer those questions if given the opportunity to pause and think when dialoguing with a live caller.  There's this notion, a credible one, that in some cases respondents might be "more honest" on a robocall than with a live caller, but what people miss is that the opposite also can be equally true, where people feel more at liberty to respond to questions with flippant answers that are not serious or honest, and also that they might give impulsive answers that don't accurately reflect their sentiments.  The most dramatic illustrations of this problem come from Public Policy Polling, which purposely has thrown outrageous questions into its robopolls this year to test how crazy people are, but instead got what clearly are very inflated numbers on questions like, "Is Obama the anti-Christ?"

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 21:46:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No polling method is perfect

But I still maintain SurveyUSA comes damn close.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 22:08:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I agree, SUSA is the best robopoller, with PPP 2nd-best. nm

nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 02:58:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the explanation

Always good to know what goes on in the deep dark work of Rasmussen Reports.  

Intrestingly fellow robo-poller PPP has found many politicians with very low name recognition so I think it's more Ras then anything.

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

---

by: Darth Jeff @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 23:44:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree, Rasmussen is unique in that regard. (nm)

nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 02:58:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ken Lewis is a bad example

While I agree that Rasmussen's numbers are based on a much-too-Republican electorate (and I think that's what it all boils down to; I don't think he needs to stick his thumb on the scales more than that), Ken Lewis, the attorney who was contemplating a run for office, shares a name with Ken Lewis, the controversial CEO of Bank of America, which is the largest private employer in Charlotte, NC.

---

by: boojumsnark @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 16:20:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm skeptical the BofA CEO is a household name......

Everyone knows about the Enron scandal, but outside the world of political junkies and other news junkies, was Kenneth Lay really a household name?  I don't think so.

You might be surprised by how little name recognition a lot of people really have who are well-known to regulars on these political blogs.  Hardly anyone in the business world is a household name...it's people like Ross Perot, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Ted Turner, and Lee Iacocca who are out there.  It's easy to contrast their name rec with that of a guy like Ken Lewis.

Oh, and further undermining the notion that people were simply confusing candidate Ken Lewis with the BoA CEO is that Rasmussen showed the candidate with dead even 33/33 favorable/unfavorable numbers (with 34% at "not sure").  I bet any big bank CEO would reveal a net UNfavorable rating with the general public anytime this year among people who recognize their names.  Oh, and the crosstabs further showed Ken Lewis with 53-13 favorability with Democrats and 47-5 favorability with liberals.  Do liberal Democrats in North Carolina love BofA CEO Ken Lay?

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 03:51:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Ben Nelson had shut up

said nothing, voted for cloture and against the bill, he would be in a much better position.  The less he said, the better off he would have been.

Nelson killed himself by making a big fuss about the bill, forcing a special sweetheart deal for his state and then voting for the bill.  By putting himself as a swing vote and exerting his influence, he hurt himself across the board.  

Same thing Blanche Lincoln.

---

by: JSmith @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:31:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where's

the Rasmussen poll showing Blanche Lincoln 20 points down to the generic Republican because of her Health Care vote?  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 14:34:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hrmm

"The less he said, the better off he would have been. "

Do you have anything to back this statement up with?

---

by: RuralDem @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 14:42:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MISC

We better get someone in TX-10.  If we start fofeiting races left and right like Republicans did the past 2 years, we are in bad, bad shape.

Nelson seems likely to lose in 2012 no matter who faces him unless its token opposition.

29/D/Male/NY-01

---

by: Tekzilla @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 00:30:29 AM UTC

I agree with you on Nelson

and Dick Durbin is going to get destroyed in 2014 by that guy who said Mark Kirk is gay.  By then the Republicans will have veto-proof majorities in both houses, and President Palin will have overturned Roe v. Wade by executive order.  

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

---

by: spiderdem @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:10:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeh very funny spiderdem

I must admit I think it is far too early to predict the demise of Nelson. However the withdrawal of our candidate in TX-10 is a heartbreaker.

2010 Race Tracker Wiki

---

by: benawu @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:35:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A heartbreaker

but was he really going to win this cycle, and isn't that what it's all about.  Good chance there will be a better Houston area district to go after in 2012, even if Dems don't get a seat at the redistricting table, no?

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

---

by: spiderdem @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:39:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe

maybe not but he would have been competitive.

2010 Race Tracker Wiki

---

by: benawu @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:20:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No

See recent diaries by myself and Nathaniel90.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:25:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep

In 2010 the election is of course fought on the current boundaries. The assumption that Perry will be automatically re-elected and that we won't win back the Texas House is reasonable re 2012 redistricting but far from a lock. McDonald would have been competitive in 2010 IMHO.

2010 Race Tracker Wiki

---

by: benawu @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 22:17:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But

the world's going to end in 2012!!!!!!!

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:06:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bobby Bright

I am hearing he could run for Governor of Alabama next year.  Anyone have thoughts?  I would think he may not be able to win the D primary but if he somehow did he would be a very strong general election candidate.

Libertarian secular Republican, MO-7

---

by: AC1 @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:05:33 AM UTC

Um...in the 2010 election?

He'd be a little late to the party to on that one with Sparks & Davis in the primary for the 2010 election, especially since he's already committed to running for re-election to Congress and has built up campaign funds there he couldn't transfer.

That said, if Bright wins in 2010 (and 2012) and neither Democrat wins the governor's race, he'd easily be among the strongest candidates we could possibly field. And based on what he did in Montgomery, he'd probably make a darn good Governor.

Btw, does anyone else miss Don Siegelman right about now? Damn you, Karl Rove.

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

---

by: arealmlc @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:27:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I believe

Bright already said he had no intentions but to run for reelection in 2010. Plans can change, but I really doubt he's going to jump from one difficult race into an even worse one.

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

---

by: Bob Bobson @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:40:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Source?

Can you link to a source where you heard this? Just curious because Bright's already said no to running for Governor and the filing deadline is coming up fairly soon (April).

---

by: RuralDem @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 10:15:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tea Baggers Trying to recall Senator Menedez

Irrelevant to the stories posted today but I thought you guys would find this amusing. Local teabaggers in my home state of Jersey are trying to recall Senator Bob Menendez for his support for the current Health Care bill. I guess they never found out that it's not legal to recall a federal position holder within a change in the Constitution or a law passed by congress. Here's the link

http://www.politickernj.com/ed...    

17, Gay Male, Democrat, NJ-8  

---

by: GayTeen4Obama @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:38:29 AM UTC

Steve, not Mark.

The Dem consultant is Steve Rosenthal.

---

by: BruinKid @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:39:56 AM UTC

Crikey

I have a serious problem with first names, it seems.

---

by: James L. @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:41:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Minor correction

the date for the digest is shown as September 29. I almost got confused and thought it was the real September 29 digest.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 17:06:10 PM UTC

Can't believe it was sitting there for so long...

And no one said anything! How embarrassing.

---

by: James L. @ Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 00:52:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]