Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 6/3 (Morning Edition)

by: James L.

Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 8:06 AM EDT


Note: This digest was written entirely by DavidNYC.

  • AR-Sen: SEIU has a new ad out hitting Lincoln for her TARP vote and for her disloyalty during the health care debate. Props to CQ's Matthew Murray for trying to nail down the size of the buy from SEIU, which would only say that the run is "comprehensive." SEIU has gone pretty large in this race from day one, so they probably aren't going cheap on us now.

  • CA-Sen: Carly Fiorina, in a move which will no doubt endear her to the teabaggers but embarrass her in the eyes of the state of California, has taken to decrying concerns about climate change as "worrying about the weather" in a new ad.

  • CO-Sen: I Do. Not. Care. about this stupid non-story. Why are journalists so damn breathless about crap like this? It's like they've never heard of politics.

  • NV-Sen: According to an analysis by the WaPo, Chicken Lady may have spent $100K on her primary out of funds that were designated for the general election only. Lowden bought $220K worth of ad time, but had only about $100K of primary money (mostly a loan from herself) on hand, so that extra hundred grand had to come from somewhere. God, you know, I just can't decide whom I'd rather face more: this crazy lady, or the other crazy lady. Harry Reid, you are one lucky dude. Just pray Danny Tarkanian doesn't pull an Alice Kryzan/Creigh Deeds.

  • NV-Gov: A district court judge enjoined a shadowy conservative group, Alliance for America's Future, from running ads until it registers with the Secretary of State, saying that voters have the right to know who is behind political advertising. The group, which has ties to Dick Cheney, had planned to spend $250K on behalf of GOPer Brian Sandoval.

  • SC-Gov: I don't care about this story, either.

  • AR-02: In the AR-02 runoff, state House Speaker Robbie Wills, a white male, has been arguing that he's "more electable" than state Senate Majority Leader Joyce Elliott, who is black and a woman. The chair of the Arkansas NAACP sees that a "code word for racism." Wills responded by saying that Elliott has "extreme views" which are out of step with the district. I hope this primary doesn't get much uglier, because words like that will be used by Republicans against whomever our nominee is.

  • CA-19: Dick Pombo is trying to win a GOP primary by reminding voters that he's a longtime creature of Washington, DC. No wonder he lost.

  • ID-01: Dear Vaughn Ward: socks before shoes. Also, hire publicists to get your side of the story out before election day, not after. Actually, no - we love you, don't change a thing!

  • MI-08: This is unfortunate. Kande Ngalamulume, the only Democrat running against GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, is dropping out of the race, just three weeks after formally announcing his candidacy. Though Ngalamulume hadn't filed any FEC reports, Obama actually won this district 53-46 (a major swing from Bush's 54-45 win over Kerry), and even being able to pin Rogers down just a bit would have been helpful. Michigan's filing deadline was May 11th, and I'm not sure if local Dems can nominate a replacement.

  • NH-02: Some Teabagger Andrew Hemingway says he won't get into the GOP primary in NH-02. Meh.

  • NY-13: It's always confusing in NY-13, but here's the deal: The state Conservative Party has given its backing to GOPer Michael Grimm, who was also endorsed by the Brooklyn wing of the party - even though the Staten Island Cons  recently got behind Dem Rep. Mike McMahon. (Party chair Mike Long wasn't going to let McMahon get their nod, though.) To make things even more complicated, the SI Republican Party endorsed Grimm's primary opponent, Michael Allegretti, as we mentioned last week, and the Brooklyn GOP did as well the week before. But Grimm has at least one big player on his side: Rudy Giuliani, who did a fundraiser for him earlier this week. Anyhow, I'm sure you can sniff the cat fud: Grimm has already locked up the Conservative line, but Allegretti could definitely win the Republican primary. There's already a lot of bad blood between the two Republican Mikes, which means we could see something of an NY-23 redux here.

  • NY-18: Biden Alert! The VPOTUS squeezed in a fundraiser yesterday for... Nita Lowey? She has over $1.1 million on hand, and I'm not aware of any meaningful Republican challenger in this race. (Obama/Kerry: 62/58.) So what gives?

  • OK-02: This is interesting: Democratic state Sen. Jim Wilson says he's going to launch a primary challenge to conservative Rep. Dan Boren. Wilson specifically cited Boren's opposition to the healthcare reform bill in launching his campaign. The primary here is pretty soon, July 27th, though there's also a run-off on August 24th. However, as of now, there are only two candidates in the race.

  • TN-08: The internal warfare continues in the GOP primary to replace retiring Rep. John Tanner. Though the NRCC is still touting agribusiness kingpin Stephen Fincher, ex-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is doing a fundraiser for Shelby County Commissioner George Flinn. An establishment divided against itself... yields to a teabagger?

  • WI-07: Hah! We mentioned the other day that establishment efforts to clear the primary field for Dem Julie Lassa hit a snag when Some Dude Joe Reasbeck said he was going to run. Well, turns out he's run for office before: as a write-in (wait, there's more) in Texas (heh, there's still more) as a Republican (not done yet), earning 89 votes. Hold on, hold on - more! Who was he running against? Well, only the most famous write-in candidate of all time, Snelly Gibbr! Shit like this is why I love politics.
  • James L. :: SSP Daily Digest: 6/3 (Morning Edition)
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email

    NY-18
    Lowey has a self-funder running against her who has raised about $250k total (mostly from his own pocket). I still don't see why he'd fundraiser for her and not someone who needs it more, like Bill Owens.

    That CA-19 article
    sure is amusing.

    First proper sentence of the article: "For 14 years, Pombo held a special place in the hearts of America's environmental movement somewhere next to Capt. Joseph Hazelwood of the Exxon Valdez and the hunter who shot Bambi's mother."

    Best quote in the article: ""Having Pombo represent a district that includes Yosemite National Park is like electing Godzilla as mayor of Tokyo," said Warner Chabor, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters."

    38, Male, SP, NL / LMP, HU


    That's why a liberal bay area environmentalist
     Like me went out and campaigned against Pombo in 2006. Most people I talked to were pretty receptive to McNerney. I think if Pombo gets the nomination in the 19th, he wins. I really hope he does not get it.  

    for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....




    17, CA-06,  


    [ Parent ]
    "It's like they've never heard of politics"
    You totally right.  This type of quid pro quo offers, and deals, is as old as politics itself.

    Yes but in fairness if Bush did it we would all be up in arms about it.
    I think the problem with this whole "issue" is the way it has been handled.

    From the start the Obama administration should have simply said (with a straight face) that they loved Sestak and Romanoff and thought they were great people who could do great things.

    That upon learning they were unhappy in there current jobs wanted to see if there was a place for them and their immense skills in the administration and wanted to have a talk with them about a job.

    They should have said while they think both would make great Senators they still prefer to support the Dem incumbents. That the offer of a job was not to get them to run but rather learning they were interested in running told them they were looking at career changes and the Obama administration wanted to get there immense talent on their team.

    No harm in that. Now go prove that wasn't the motivation and their intent to talking with them.

    Why this is an issue is because the way Obama, his people, Sestak and Romanoff acted it makes it seem like they are covering up some elicited affair. They look incompetent at a time where there competency is being questioned (see the oil spilling into the gulf). They look like politics as usual trading jobs for political favors. The last person Obama wants to be compared to is his old Governor Rob Blagovich. Yet trading jobs for political favors is what he is on trail for. The mere fact that we can make a comparison just shows how bad they screwed and turned something so trivial into just a headache.

    Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
    http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


    [ Parent ]
    What?
    From the start the Obama administration should have simply said (with a straight face) that they loved Sestak and Romanoff and thought they were great people who could do great things.

    That upon learning they were unhappy in there current jobs wanted to see if there was a place for them and their immense skills in the administration and wanted to have a talk with them about a job.

    They should have said while they think both would make great Senators they still prefer to support the Dem incumbents. That the offer of a job was not to get them to run but rather learning they were interested in running told them they were looking at career changes and the Obama administration wanted to get there immense talent on their team.

    Oh yeah, because that sounds credible, the White House just so happened to offer jobs to the candidates who were planning to primary Democratic incumbents because they wanted to help them in their career choices. That just sounds ridiculous on the face of it, and it operates on the assumption that if Obama did offer Sestak and Romanoff jobs in his administration because they didn't want them to run against Specter or Bennet (assuming they were qualified for those jobs, which, as I understand it, both are) is somehow illegal, immoral, or unethical, which hasn't really been shown.

    In fact, comparing Obama even a little to Blagojevich is a joke because Blago was actually trying to sell the Senate seat (his demands were basically give me lots of money and I'll put whoever you want in this seat). Obama was trying to discourage strong candidates from running against Democratic incumbents, and one of the things he did was to offer them jobs (they were qualified for) in his administration, so that they wouldn't run for the senate seat. There is nothing criminally or ethically wrong with that, despite insisting the contrary.

    This is a controversy for controversy's sake, summer is always a really slow time for the news media and so, because they really don't have all that much else to cover, they latched on to this, and no answer the Obama administration could have given would've things any better.

    Politics and Other Random Topics

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


    [ Parent ]
    Compare and contrast this to Bush's US attorney firings
    Everyone knew why Bush fired all the US attorneys. But he went up there with a straight face said FU I'm president I have the right to do thsi and got away with it.

    Obama could have done the same thing here. Instead they tried to hide it, cover it up and create a cockamanie story with Bill Clinton about some unpaid advisory board that Sestak wouldn't have even been eligible to serve on! Come on! The whole thing has been handled very poorly thats why its a story.

    Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
    http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


    [ Parent ]
    That's an even worse comparison
    Bush didn't just fire them for political reasons, he fired them because they weren't aggressively going after Democratic politicians for trumped up charges of corruption and other bullshit, that's why David Iglesias (who was the US Attorney for my home state of New Mexico) was fired. This also doesn't change the fact that what Bush did, even if it weren't under those really shady circumstances, was extremely unusual for any administration to do.

    Pretending that the media has some sort of legitimate reason for asking these questions while blaming the Obama administration for not having an explanation for something they shouldn't have to explain in the first place is mind-boggling, to say the least.

    Politics and Other Random Topics

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


    [ Parent ]
    I think it's an appropriate comparison
    because everyone believed Bush did it for political reasons.

    If President Obama were straightforward and said, something like "I don't like it, but some political horse trading is required to get things done in government. So yes, I did have an associate offer person X a job if they would drop their campaign for office Y", IMO the story would have died right there.

    OTOH, if this leads to new standards of ethics on politicians, that might not be a bad thing.


    [ Parent ]
    US Attorneys are supposed to be relatively removed from political considerations though
    And it wasn't just that it was political, it was that it was bordering on corruption (trying to trump up criminal charges against your political opponents is simply not a legitimate reason to hire or fire anyone, period).

    The other thing is that what Bush did was really unusual, US attorneys aren't usually fired in the middle of an administration nor are they replaced in such a targeted way.

    What Obama has done is neither unusual nor is there any particular reason, on the face of it, to believe that Obama has done something unethical. That's why the story shouldn't have been pursued in the first place and that's why trying to blame the Obama administration for the sheer boredom of the press corps is ridiculous.

    Politics and Other Random Topics

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


    [ Parent ]
    I think the point is still correct
    What Obama has done is neither unusual nor is there any particular reason, on the face of it, to believe that Obama has done something unethical.

    And he should have just said so, during the press conference.


    [ Parent ]
    And I'm saying it wouldn't have changed anything
    The media latched onto this because there is nothing else to talk about. If the Obama administration had given the perfect response... they'd still be talking about it, because it's the summer and there's not much else to talk about to fill up hours during summer programing.

    It's irrelevant though, no one (outside of elite opinion) really gives a damn about it, so if Obama gave a brilliant response to the whole thing, he would've gained absolutely nothing from it, even if the media did stop talking about it.

    And as I said before, it's more a statement about how absurd the media has become than anything about the Obama administration, because Obama really shouldn't have to come up with any explanation in the first place.

    Politics and Other Random Topics

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


    [ Parent ]
    It's a completely bogus comparison
    As bogus as they come, it borderlines on ridiculous like half of what izengabe says.

    So now he's comparing offering positions to candidates so they won't challenge Democratic incumbents in a tough year and waste resources to Bush firing Attorney Generals for not targeting local Democratic politicians with enough trumpeted up charges? One is completely legal and the normal way politics is played, the other, trying to politicize the Justice Department, is both dangerous, unethical, and in my opinion, an unconstitutional power grab by the Executive Department.  


    [ Parent ]
    Bush got away with it
    because he was brazen.

    President Obama is in a little danger of this hanging over his head for a while because he wasn't straightforward about it.  


    [ Parent ]
    There is a valid comparison between the two events
    in that no-one outside the Beltway media and political geeks gives a fuck.  The US Attorney scandal was 1000 times worse than this, and nobody gave a fuck.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    They should have given a fuck
    It was criminal and constituted election fraud.

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


    [ Parent ]
    That was the point I was trying to make
    If it was handled right by Obama no one would give a darn about it.

    Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
    http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


    [ Parent ]
    Nobody does give a damn about it
    Except for a few reporters who have nothing better to do than manufacture controversies. And that's the point I've been making, they wanted to make this a controversy, so I sincerely doubt that anything Obama may or may not have said would've made the situation any different.

    Sometimes, there are situations that are simply outside of the administration's control, and this was actually one of them.

    Politics and Other Random Topics

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


    [ Parent ]
    It's even worse than that
    He fired the attorneys who refused to support illegal caging:

    Vote caging is an illegal tactic to suppress minorities [my addition: or any other group of people you want to prevent] from voting by having their names purged from voter rolls when they fail to respond to registered mail sent to their homes.

    Read this for more of the story.

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


    [ Parent ]
    The illegality of what Bush did is not relevant
    to the majority of voters. Nobody knows about it, so he got away with it.

    OTOH, President Obama sounded like he had to hide behind lawyers. So even though the job offers are normal practice, it sounds worse to the electorate.

    It's just fortunate that this is "silly season" where few voters are actually paying attention.


    [ Parent ]
    Got it n/t


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


    [ Parent ]
    This diary motivated me go all the way to 2006
    In order to see if "Snelly Gibbr" was who I thought it was. Turns out it is.

    OMG!!!
    "by someone who obviously never wanted the joy of using the machine to end, ShelleySkulaGibbsssss"

    I laughed. Out loud. At work. People think I'm crazy now.

    23, Male, PA-05 (summer) PA-12 (winter)


    [ Parent ]
    OMG, DraculaCunt!
    I had nearly forgotten about DraculaCunt! Good times!  Good times as I have my morning tea--thanks SSP!

    With all due respect to James' diary (linked above by Nichlemn), the Wonkette entry is a bit funnier. The diary, however, is more descriptive in case you don't quite know the whole story.

    http://wonkette.com/216976/pre...

    But 28 pages of write-in name misspellings that were accepted is just out of control funny.

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


    [ Parent ]
    arealmlc, please don't use that term......
    I am a man and thus not a target, but it's akin to the "n" word and shouldn't be used as a rule, certainly not as an insult.  It just crosses the line.  It's moments like these that make me wish we could edit our own comments here.

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

    [ Parent ]
    Although I agree with your sentiment DCCyclone....
    I do agree with what you are trying to do, but I think arealmlc was just re-stating who somebody voted for in that election and pointing out its absurdity.  I doing so, I believe he was actually condemning the sentiment of that demeaning language.  

    26, D, MO-05, Hispanic

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, I didn't remember or realize that. (nm)
    nm

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

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry if you were offended
    I would like to apologize to anyone offended, but the fact is that someone wrote in "Shelly DraculaCunt Gibs" in an actual election, and it was actually counted as a vote for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

    I agree that calling someone a c*** in almost any other circumstance is completely unacceptable.

    But seriously, it was counted as a vote for her. It's part of our American democratic experiment. And It. Is. Awesome.  

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


    [ Parent ]
    Gah
    Specifically, voting is awesome. Not the word. Oy.

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

    [ Parent ]
    I personally wasn't offended
    I don't like the word myself because it's demeaning, but the context that you displayed it was appropriate, IMHO.  I too thought it was funny that the vote counted.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks to Shelly
    we were given probably the only time in politics where it's appropriate to say cunt.  She got her footnote in history  :)

    [ Parent ]
    the cleaner but also funny misspelling for her
       was "Secular Gibbs" which someone turned into "Secular Bee Gees" which is the name I remember her by (not that I think about her too often.) She had the shortest career in Congress this side of Sen. Dean Barkley (I-MN, who was appointed by Jesse Ventura to Wellstone's Senate seat and served two weeks.)

    52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! About 1,230 results
    for googling "Draculacunt".
    THE INTERNET NEVER FORGETS.

    [ Parent ]
    CO- Sen. & Sestak Jobs
    The only reason this stuff is a story is because Obama went so far out of his way to claim to be a different kind of politician.  If he hadn't promised change and new kind of Washington I doubt the press would be making such a big out of these stories.  


    That's true, but even then it's only the chattering class who care about this......
    Ordinary voters just don't care.  It doesn't help Obama with voters that he doesn't let anyone sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, and it doesn't hurt Obama with voters that he dangles job offers to persuade guys to leave Senate races.  Only the political punditry cares.

    I've never been convinced that a promise to be a "different kind of politician" was a factor in anyone's decision to vote for Obama in 2008, or a factor in their opinion of him today.  Just because the chattering class and the right-wing noise machine think something is "important," that doesn't mean very many voters agree.

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


    [ Parent ]
    I disagree
    I think there were a lot of people who voted for Obama because they really believed he represented a new kind of politics.  While this one story isn't a big deal it along with, the Spector deal, and the Lincoln deal it does add up.  If you look at Obama's number's they continue to drop and this is certainly not going to help them rebound.

    [ Parent ]
    Rebounding right now.
    Gallup up 5 yesterday afternoon and Rasmussen up 3 this morning.  Stock market up big yesterday and up again today as of this moment at least.  We're about to get a fantastic jobs report.  BP made a significant step towards capping the oil leak today, not that it's necessarily all that likely to happen.  But cause for optimism.

    This is what I understand of Romanoff.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  He applied for a federal job and then ran for Senate.  Someone from the White House contacted him sometime later and presented him with three possible jobs, which he would have to compete for with no guarantee of being chosen for the position.  NOT A STORY.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11


    [ Parent ]
    Yup, spiderdem is right, there is NO DROP in Obama's job approval......
    The rebound in Gallup and Rasmussen just shows the previous "drop" was just statistical noise.  And there's been a lot of such noise.  Really, every week you see Obama both drop and rise in both daily tracks, which is to say he's really been constant, and all the changes have been just noise.

    I do worry about the oil leak as a major political problem that can still cause a real drop in Obama's job approval.  But I've started to feel better seeing the headlines the past few days, demonstrating more government action.  Thad Allen needed to be the spokesman early on, and it looks like the White House finally gets it on that point.  And the reveal on the criminal investigation of BP and Obama's repeated visits to the Gulf are helpful.

    None of this crap has anything to do with the substance of stopping the leak, cleaning up the oil, and recovering damages from BP, but public relations work matters because it's what a news audience actually sees.

    And I stand by it that I really don't think "different kind of politics" drove voting behavior in 2008.  I've never thought "process" matters to voters except to the extent process is tied to competence or corruption.  These job offers just don't come off as corruption.

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


    [ Parent ]
    Whistling in the Wind
    Obama's numbers have gone from the 60s to the mid 40s ho can you say there has been no drop off in his numbers.  You are completely missing the bigger ongoing story that Obama is not governing as he campaign and it will have a backlash.

    [ Parent ]
    No, I'm not missing anything, I think you're looking at the wrong things...
    ...as causes of his longer-term job approval drop.

    In fact, he's not in the "mid-40s," he's orbiting 50, and he's really a 50-50 President in that his disapprovals are basically in the same place.  Indeed, almost all polls except the badly-flawed Rasmussen show Obama's approval higher than his disapproval, and even further he's been in the same place since last fall with all changes up or down either very short-term or just pure statistical noise.

    And all this is caused by big issues average voters really care about, mainly the economy and the health care battle.

    Your notion that these news-cycle stories the political media focuses on or the primary fights somehow diminish Obama's job approval is badly misguided and completely unsupported by any evidence, and makes no sense intuitively if you step outside the echo chamber and talk politics with ordinary people who don't follow politics closely (and that's most voters).

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


    [ Parent ]
    Actually 48 in Ras and 50 in Gallup
    as of this moment.  

    Facts don't always fit your pet meme.  Obama's approvals have dropped because (1) conservatives who gave him the benefit of the doubt in the early days, hoping he would govern in a way that is appealing to conservatives, have gone back to where they were always destined to go; (2) the economic recovery has been slow and people are still hurting economically; (3) the slow, painful process of Health Care Reform and continued confusion and opposition to it substantively; and (4) concerns about deficits and spending.  There may be more, but bullshit process stories concocted by Darrell Issa are not on the list.  The media holds Obama to a higher standard, but I don't think the voters do.  If things go well, we'll credit him.  If things go poorly, we'll blame him.  That's life.

    I think his approval is going to go up.  I predict passage of the popular Financial Reform bill, a rise in the stock market, a decrease in unemployment, and economic growth in the coming months will lead to Obama approval in the 50's.  A lot else could happen though.  If it does, I won't try to mold the facts to fit my pet meme.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11


    [ Parent ]
    Thank you, great comment. (nm)
    nm

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

    [ Parent ]
    I concur
    Truth of the matter is that low approval ratings for a President isn't necessarily a bad thing.  During Clinton's first few years, he had moments where his approval rating was not good.  Same with Harry Truman.  Usually if you pass or attempt to pass meaningful, but controversial legislation (in the context that "controversial" means that many people will be affected), you will see drops in approval ratings.  I think Bill Clinton said it best in his autobiography.  To paraphrase Bill Clinton, people aren't against change as long as the change doesn't affect them.  We are creatures of habits, and as such change can be painful especially if we don't fully comprehend the change.

    That being said, I totally agree with you that Obama's approval ratings should be up in the near future for the reasons you have indicated.

    40, male, Democrat, NC-04


    [ Parent ]
    You're Right
    Obama has done everything he said he would during the campaign and he doesn't deserve any blame for his falling poll numbers.  Sorry don't know what I was thinking.  

    [ Parent ]
    Of course he deserves blame
    But some recognition of events outside his control wouldn't go amiss alongside the snark.

    [ Parent ]
    Obviously you weren't thinking.
    You were making up facts to feed into your pet meme.  And I said none of those things, Mr. Straw Man.  Obama definitely gets his share of the blame for Democrats making a mess out of health care for months on end.  I would also say the handling of the oil spill may be affecting his numbers right now.  But this Sestak/Romanoff bullshit, no sir.  The voters don't care.

    It's not even accurate to say his numbers are "falling."  They fell pretty sharply from May to September of last year.  They fell a little more from September to the end of the year.  Since then, they have been in a pretty steady, zig-zag holding pattern in the high 40's.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11


    [ Parent ]
    LOL
    How can you say I'm making up facts when you agree with me that Obama deserves the blame for his falling poll numbers.  As far as I know the repeated job offers haven't been polled yet, so what makes you so sure people don't care.  It seems like you are the one making things up.

    It is far to early to say that these job offers aren't going to hurt Obama.  They fly in complete contrast to everything he campaigned.


    [ Parent ]
    You are shaping the facts to fit your conclusion.
    "Making up" is too strong a phrase.  I know you like to do this because of a prior discussion I had with you in which you maintained that voting for HCR caused Alan Mollohan to lose a DEMOCRATIC primary, even though his opponent mentioned it for only two seconds (and even then equivocally) in campaign ads.  Experience and logic told me you were wrong then and that you are wrong now, and that you like to shape facts to fit your conclusions.  

    Experience and logic tell me that that these types of things do not meaningfully shift public opinion.  Things like the economy, the gigantic hole in the bottom of the ocean, scandals of the kind that are on the front page of every newspaper for weeks, and wars shift public opinion.  This is more like that shit with the cop in Massachusetts than like Monica Lewinsky or Watergate.  Experience and logic tell me this will be forgotten in fairly short order, probably when Congress gets back into session and the political media has something else to talk about.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11


    [ Parent ]
    STFU
    You are a child.  You have done nothing but make stupid, snarky, straw man arguments.  You are not worthy of debate with me or anyone else on this site, and I have nothing more to say to you except STFU.  End of discussion.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt that
    You love me.  You can't help yourself, every time I post something you have to reply and try and contradict me.  Stay away if you can, but I think you'll come back to me.  

    [ Parent ]
    OK then
    I will await your next misguided comment with bated breath.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    Ok
    now this is getting a bit creepy...

    21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
    please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


    [ Parent ]
    Crap Like This Really Undercuts YOUR Argument
    I just rechecked the thread, and no one said Obama's kept all of his campaign promises, that he's NOT to blame for his weakened polling, or even that you can't connect broken promises TO those polls. They've just said that he never promised to not endorse incumbents, and that endorsing incumbents is NOT what's bringing his polling down.

    Disprove THAT if you want/can. But when you instead just cold make up what the other side is saying- when it's printed directly above your post!- you might as well just wave the white flag.


    [ Parent ]
    You might want to look at this
    PolitiFact's Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

    That'll show you which promises he's kept or broken, and to what extent. If you care.

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


    [ Parent ]
    It's probably why he got college students so amped up
    New type of politics, no more getting lied to, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    They Did, But...
    "A New Kind of Politics" is such a vague term. I really doubt a lot of people expected him to NOT endorse incumbents who voted FOR his agenda. Moreover, I really doubt all that many people even KNOW he endorsed Specter, Lincoln, and Bennett, or that there was some sort of "deal" involved with the endorsement. I mean, his poll numbers dropped last year, well before anyone was writing about Sestak or Romonoff, and have stayed pretty stable since then.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo


    23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

    [ Parent ]
    agreed
    and that's why I think some Democrats don't like the fact that Obama endorsed Specter, Lincoln, etc., merely because they are/were incumbents.  People say that this is just what Presidents, so get over it.  But it's a tradition that makes people cynical (do people deserve to be re-elected just because they hold the seat now?), and it's a shame that Obama has continued it.

    [ Parent ]
    The whining about endorsing incumbents is just that: whining......
    If "some Democrats" think a "new kind of politics" means a President shouldn't endorse his own party's incumbents for reelection that "some Democrats" don't like, that's nothing more than sour grapes.

    Obama did very clearly the right thing to endorse and help Specter and Lincoln.  And I am a guy who is very happy Sestak won and hopes Halter wins.  Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if in reality Obama and his advisors very privately believed all along that Sestak had better odds in November than Specter; they see the same polling and more as all of us, and they know just as we do that an unpopular incumbent rarely recovers against a competent challenger in a tough year for the incumbent's own party.  But Obama leads the entire Democratic Party, not just the corners occupied by Sestak and Halter fans, and as such he has to go to the mat for those Democrats who already were chosen by their party and general electorates in their last go-around.  If Obama "stays out" of primary fights involving incumbents, it sends a message that Congressional Democrats can't trust him, and it poisons everything going forward.  The only exceptions are where the entire party is prepared collectively to throw someone under the bus, like Roland Burris.  The alternative is to privately push a troubled incumbent into retirement, but that makes sense only if there's somebody clearly better available to step in as the nominee.  That was the case in CT-Sen trading Dodd for Blumenthal.  But in AR-Sen that doesn't make sense because Halter polls only slightly better than Lincoln and still poorly against Boozman, and in PA-Sen it was a condition of Specter's switch that the party establishment back him.

    What Obama did is not a "tradition" or "just what Presidents do."  It's an affirmative political obligation that is necessary for the good of the party and the country.

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


    [ Parent ]
    you totally missed the point
    If Obama "stays out" of primary fights involving incumbents, it sends a message that Congressional Democrats can't trust him, and it poisons everything going forward.

    I'm not saying that Obama should stay out of primary fights.  Not at all.  I'm just saying that if Obama (or anyone) endorses a candidate, it should be because the endorser views the endorsee as being the best candidate, as someone worthy or support, not because he or she currently holds the seat.  It was totally obvious that Obama endorsed Lincoln and Specter simply because they were incumbents.  What's worse - Obama cut an ad saying that Arkansans should re-elect Lincoln because she "took on" the insurance companies, but that's just a dishonest joke.

    If Obama honestly believed that Lincoln was deserving of an endorsement, then I would really have no problem.  I just can't believe that, though.  My problem is 1) that Obama's endorsement was not based on merit, and 2) that he made up dishonest arguments as to why she should be re-elected.  What are you supposed to conclude from that other than you can't take Obama at his word?  Endorsements matter a lot in politics, especially to low-information voters.  People want to believe that if someone they respect (Obama) endorses a candidate, it's based on honest, substantive reasons.  Maybe it is just a fact that political endorsements don't actually mean anything, but that's part of what makes people cynical about Washington.  

    Furthermore, how the hell would Obama staying out of primaries send the message that Obama can't be trusted?  Does Obama being trustworthy mean that he will support you regardless of how you perform in Congress?  Maybe if Obama's endorsement were based on something other than incumbency, then the endorsement would actually mean something and so elected Democrats would think of it as something to be earned.


    [ Parent ]
    Re:
    "It was totally obvious that Obama endorsed Lincoln and Specter simply because they were incumbents."

    I don't think it is- I think it's totally obvious that he endorsed them because he needed to count to 60 on HCR, with a smattering of the fact that his VP is very close to Specter.

    Of course, if we can both come up with completely different explanations, then neither one of them is really completely obvious. ;)

    "Furthermore, how the hell would Obama staying out of primaries send the message that Obama can't be trusted? "

    Because it would be asking- demanding really- a Congressman to take a tough vote, then slog it out on his own when the election comes around. Biden's spoken at length about this before, how just those sorts of actions have poisoned executive/legislature relations in past administrations. If Congressmen don't think you're going to be there for them, they're not going to be there for you. You can view it as cold pragmatism, but it got us HCR and FinReg, and that's far more important than ending "politics as usual".


    [ Parent ]
    I understood your point, & my previous comment addresses and disagrees completely with it......
    In elections, we hold together as a party, because that's what democracy requires to win and then get things done.

    Do you not realize what a political disaster it would be if Obama actually withheld active support because he personally doesn't think a particular Democratic incumbent Senator isn't the best candidate?  It tells every Democratic incumbent that if you don't live up to Obama's personal purity test, then he'll throw you under the bus.  How much influence do you think Obama will have over anything in Congress after that?

    You're complaining that Obama doesn't impose a purity test on Democratic incumbents.  Well, you're right that he doesn't, and he shouldn't.

    Again, you don't get it that Obama has an obligation to lead the entire Democratic Party, even those parts of it who disagree with him to some or even great degrees.  He's not allowed to pick and choose based on personal pecadillos without suffering the consequence that every faction of the party who don't agree with him can and will, in turn, turn their backs on him.

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


    [ Parent ]
    argument, please?
    Do you not realize what a political disaster it would be if Obama actually withheld active support because he personally doesn't think a particular Democratic incumbent Senator isn't the best candidate?  It tells every Democratic incumbent that if you don't live up to Obama's personal purity test, then he'll throw you under the bus.  How much influence do you think Obama will have over anything in Congress after that?

    Why?  Where's the argument?  If Obama is popular in an incumbent's district, then he or she will actively support his agenda and try to win his endorsement.  He or she wouldn't want to be thrown under the bus by a popular sitting President, and so will try to live up to his "personal purity test."  Of course, if Obama is not popular, he and his agenda will be thrown under the bus.  But you haven't provided an argument as to why this is necessarily a political disaster.  It all depends on how popular Obama and his agenda is.


    [ Parent ]
    Not Really...
    "If Obama is popular in an incumbent's district, then he or she will actively support his agenda and try to win his endorsement."

    Based on what? We didn't see that at the beginning of Obama's term- indeed, while Obama was still very popular, Specter was mouthing off about how independent he was going to be, how he didn't like Card Check or Dawn Johnsen or blah blah blah. Hell, right after Obama carried Nevada for the first time in ten years, Harry Reid was saying how he wasn't going to be a rubber stamp. Alternatively, Obama's at his lowest point ever, but Charlie Crist is now supporting more and more of his agenda.

    Senators have their own political calculations, they have their own electoral coalitions, and no, they don't always act in their own rational self-interest. And a President needs to understand that.

    "But you haven't provided an argument as to why this is necessarily a political disaster."

    Because an individual Senator can bring down an entire agenda, especially in this environment, where the difference between filibuster and success is one vote. People want the President to DO things. They want him to pass his agenda. If he doesn't, he's seen as weak and ineffectual, and the entire party will suffer for that (if this sounds familiar, it's because it's what Republicans have been banking on since January 20, 2009). And, of course, more importantly, the President ostensibly thinks his agenda will make a better world, so it's an even BIGGER tragedy if it doesn't pass. But politically, it's because a Senator really can halt an agenda, and a stalled agenda hurts the entire party.

    Now, think about Specter. He comes over to Obama's side, and a couple months later, Obama endorses his primary opponent. Why would he support the agenda now? He's never gonna out-FOB ("Friend of Barack") the guy Obama endorsed, his only shot is to play the "both parties don't want me, I'm so awesomely independent!" schtick. And then vote against HCR. So now, we don't have HCR, Obama's agenda is in tatters, and yeah, that's pretty much a political disaster.


    [ Parent ]
    so basically your argument comes down to:
    Congressional Democrats view Obama's endorsement as an entitlement; if this endorsement is withheld or even made contingent on performance, then they will throw a hissy-fit and derail Obama's agenda.  Ergo, political disaster.

    I really want to believe that Congressional Democrats can't be that fucked up (because that's a really fucked up mindset), but I'm not sure I can convince myself of that.

    However, assuming for the sake of argument that Congressional Democrats are that spoiled, I don't think that's necessarily the ways things have to be.  As (at least nominal) head of the Democratic party, he could broke with traditional and established new rules, making it clear that his endorsement could not be taken for granted and that it would have to be earned (by at least supporting the party on procedural votes).  If he couldn't have done that, then the Democratic party is truly leaderless.

    Question for you: Do you really think that anything was required to win Obama's endorsement (if nothing more than a cloture vote)?  That's part of my problem.  He may have promised it to Specter when he changed parties, I don't know.  However, I sincerely believe that if Lincoln had filibusted HIR, single-handedly defeating the biggest piece of legislation in a generation, Obama would still have cut ads saying that Lincoln is a progressive hero.  

    I really want to believe that Obama's endorsement is based on some minimum level of performance, however, I'm not sure that it is.  I think it's example of Obama's strategy of granting a substantive concession and then hoping that the other party reciprocates.


    [ Parent ]
    But benny, you're the one throwing a hissyfit......
    I marvel that some people don't get why a Democratic President must back a vulnerable Democratic Senator for reelection.  This is Politics 101.  Why is it so hard to understand?

    And a lot of political junkies at DailyKos and other blogs are like this, they don't understand the basics of actions and consequences.

    Please step outside the echo chamber.

    Have you ever knocked on doors in a swing or even hostile neighborhood?  You learn a lot that way about where voters really are, and they ain't in our echo chamber.  And some of our Senators rely on those types of voters to stay in office.

    Obama was sub-40 in Arkansas on election day, and his job approval has been sub-40 there ever since he took office.  And still Lincoln voted for health care reform...and she probably sacrificed her career for doing that.  In exchange for that, what little help Obama can give her is the least he can do.  And if he won't do it, no one will step forward for him again.  It doesn't matter if he's popular in a particular state, that state's Democratic Senators know popularity comes and goes, and Obama would be a backstabber they want nothing to do with.

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


    [ Parent ]
    LOL
    I marvel that some people don't get why a Democratic President must back a vulnerable Democratic Senator for reelection.  This is Politics 101.  Why is it so hard to understand?

    And a lot of political junkies at DailyKos and other blogs are like this, they don't understand the basics of actions and consequences.

    Maybe if you would actually present some reasoning instead of some variation of: that's just the way things work, o politically naive one, get over it.  Do you really not understand how condescending that is?  

    Obama was sub-40 in Arkansas on election day, and his job approval has been sub-40 there ever since he took office.  And still Lincoln voted for health care reform...and she probably sacrificed her career for doing that.  In exchange for that, what little help Obama can give her is the least he can do.  And if he won't do it, no one will step forward for him again.  It doesn't matter if he's popular in a particular state, that state's Democratic Senators know popularity comes and goes, and Obama would be a backstabber they want nothing to do with.

    If Obama's endorsement was reward for her performance (in this case, not joining Republicans in defeating the biggest piece of domestic legislation, on a procedural vote), then fine.  He was justified in endorsing her. But that's not what we're arguing about.  I sincerely believe that his endorsement was based on nothing more than incumbency, and I think that's fucked up.  You seem to think the system by which incumbents are endorsed simply b/c they are incumbents is justified, and self-evidently so.  But you haven't presented any arguments.  Asking "Why is it so hard to understand?" is the rhetorical equivalent of pounding your fist.  Or are arguments not needed in your echo chamber.



    [ Parent ]
    re:
    Again, you don't get it that Obama has an obligation to lead the entire Democratic Party, even those parts of it who disagree with him to some or even great degrees.  He's not allowed to pick and choose based on personal pecadillos without suffering the consequence that every faction of the party who don't agree with him can and will, in turn, turn their backs on him.

    How is endorsing Specter and Lincoln leading the entire Democratic Party (which includes Sestak and Halter supporters)?  That doesn't even make sense.  No matter what Obama's endorsement is based on (incumbency alone or "personal pecadillos"), he risks alienating some Democratic voters, who can and will turn their backs on him.  The question is - why is the system in which endorsements are based on incumbency better than a system in which they are based on merit?  Again, you haven't provided an argument.


    [ Parent ]
    Bird In the Hand
    "The question is - why is the system in which endorsements are based on incumbency better than a system in which they are based on merit?"

    Because if you endorse the guy already in office- at least, if you do it right- you get his vote on your agenda.

    Now, sure, Sestak and Halter will probably vote for Obama's agenda, too, but fat lotta good that'd do for HCR, FinReg, Kagan, etc. And if Obama went into November with no major legislative victories in a year, well, the guys he endorsed probably wouldn't do so well, anyway.

    Of course, this assumes that we ARE talking about a system based on incumbency, not merit, which I'm unconvinced of. Remember, Specter and Lincoln DID vote for Obama's agenda, and the compromises they sought in doing so certainly didn't seem to upset him. So I see no evidence that he DOESN'T think they're fine Senators worthy of reelection.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm Unconvinced...
    That Obama even has that much of a problem with Specter and Lincoln, and only supported them because they were incumbents. I mean, they DID vote for Obama's top three legislative priorities (Stimulus, HCR, FinReg). Sure, they fucked around a bit with the first two, but it never seemed like those were compromises Obama couldn't live with, or was even particularly upset with.

    You can contrast this with Artur Davis- who's actually an old Obama friend!- who voted against HCR and got pretty unnoticeable White House support in HIS primary.

    So it seems to me that support for Obama's agenda, not incumbency in Congress, is Obama's litmus test for endorsements. And I can't fault that. Indeed, I'd think a lot LESS of Obama if he took the people who were voting WITH him in Congress and hung 'em out to dry.


    [ Parent ]
    Where would you draw the line on this?
    Again, you don't get it that Obama has an obligation to lead the entire Democratic Party, even those parts of it who disagree with him to some or even great degrees.  He's not allowed to pick and choose based on personal pecadillos without suffering the consequence that every faction of the party who don't agree with him can and will, in turn, turn their backs on him.

    Would you consider it a show of weakness if the president cut an ad or appeared at fundraisers for all of the furthest-right Blue Dogs who scarcely voted for anything on the Leadership's agenda, or those like Lipinski who are quite undependable despite a Dem-friendly PVI?

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


    [ Parent ]
    For me, the line is drawn when the incumbent has ethical or criminal problems
    For example, I think it was pretty ridiculous that the Democratic House caucus backed Bill Jefferson when he had bribery charges against him.

    By and large though, the president has to protect incumbents, because the basis of their political strength and power of any party ultimately rests in the number of members it has in power (the Republicans do the same thing with their incumbents, and any third-party members who get into office would also do the same).

    Politics and Other Random Topics

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


    [ Parent ]
    Agree with DGM, but also there's a line between House and Senate......
    Obama can't cut ads and record robocall messages for 255ish House members.  He would never spend any time actually governing if he did that.  And House members know that and don't expect it except maybe in a few rare cases.

    And he's not going to bother helping safe Democratic Senators, they don't need the help and don't ask for it.

    But if a vulnerable Senator asks for help, Obama has to provide it.  There are situational limits, like Specter perhaps having asked for an Obama visit right before the primary, but Obama's team saw Specter was likely toast by then and offered something less.

    I marvel at how many liberal political junkies live in an echo chamber, unable to recognize our party is a coalition of people who don't agree with each other on everything.  We're not the Republicans, and having 59-60 Senators and 255ish House members means you're going to have more internal divisions than a party with 40-41 Senators and sub-180 House members.  When we're such a big majority, the conservaDems need to be glad for the liberals, and the liberals need to support and understand the needs of conservaDems.

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


    [ Parent ]
    I agree with everything you said
    And this is more of a response to a previous comment you made, but I think that there is a case to be made (though, to be clear, I'd argue against it) that Blanche Lincoln shouldn't be protected for the simple reason that she wrote her own political obituary by trying to move to the right in such a blatant way (when she has always been a relatively liberal member for a Southern White Democrat). Her move to the right pissed off a lot of liberals and didn't really convince any conservatives to support her (which is why Halter has been able to force her to a run-off and could conceivably win).

    Politics and Other Random Topics

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


    [ Parent ]
    To say she "moved to the right" is greatly exaggerated.......
    She voted against reconciliation when her vote wasn't needed and she needed to manufacture cover before a hostile Arkansas electorate.  I doubt leadership or Obama minded at all.

    She pushed the health care bill rightward for the same reason.  But she was one of up to a half-dozen like-minded conservaDems, and her state is the most hostile to Obama of any state with a Democratic Senator up for reelection this year.  And in the end she still voted "yes" on a history-making bill.

    Where else has she voted against us or otherwise hurt us?

    I'm OK with the primary challenge and hope Halter wins for the simple cold-blooded reason that he has a slightly better chance of winning in November than Lincoln.  But the substantive complaints about Lincoln are so much hyperbole.

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


    [ Parent ]
    It's less in her voting record and more in her rhetoric
    I mean, yeah, even on things like the public, even if she would've supported it, it still probably wouldn't have passed (thank you Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson).

    So, fair enough.

    Politics and Other Random Topics

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


    [ Parent ]
    I think I wasn't clear enough
    I'm talking about a situation in which there was a serious primary between a Democrat who had either voted against almost everything advanced by the Leadership or had a very poor record in a rather high Democratic PVI district, or one in which the challenger had a better chance of winning, even if still a small one. Suppose, for example, that Blanche Lincoln had voted against just about every piece of legislation advanced by the Leadership, or perhaps even filibustered some things to death, and the situation were otherwise identical. How strongly would you support her in that hypothetical (really, fictional) situation, if you were Obama? Would you be kind of invisible, like Obama was in the Gubernatorial primary in Alabama?

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


    [ Parent ]
    I don't know that your hypothetical ever happens in real life......
    I think your question regards a problem that doesn't happen because it solves itself.

    A Democratic Senator who votes so one-sidedly against the Democratic agenda is doing so because he represents a conservative state where the Democratic President is unpopular.  In that instance, the Senator doesn't want the President anywhere near him, and the President doesn't want to help.  So no problem.  You're basically talking about Zell Miller, if he were still a Senator today.

    The only remotely close alternative scenario is Lieberman, a quasi-Democrat in a blue state.  But Lieberman has voted for Obama's agenda on everything.  Yes his rhetoric continues to be anti-Democratic at times, and he throws monkey wrenches into some things, but he doesn't fit your scenario as he's on our side on most policy issues.  Even on the Israeli flotilla attack he's been strangely out of sight; he's a ham and seeks out the camara for everything and likes to be a fly in the ointment on the Middle East, so it's surprising.

    Ultimately, Pan, your hypothetical isn't something I can recall happening in my lifetime.

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


    [ Parent ]
    OK, what you're saying makes sense
    So let's take the case of Artur Davis. What do you think happened there? Do you think the president stayed out (or more or less stayed out) of the primary because he knew Davis was gonna be drubbed or/and because he resented Davis' vote against health care reform, or for some other reason?

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


    [ Parent ]
    What it amounts to is this
    I know that in any general election, it makes sense for the president to visibly and loudly support his party's nominee, if asked.

    My question really relates to where a president draws the line in supporting an incumbent in a primary, and to what degree. I'm sure several factors are at play, but I think it's worth talking about them.

    (1) His time is valuable, and he faces a bunch of severe crises every day.
    (2) Most members aren't facing serious primaries.
    (3) He will want to particularly support vulnerable members who stuck their necks out for him on contentious votes. This would include many if not most of the Blue Dogs, of course.
    (4) If he knows for sure a candidate is toast in the primaries and can't recover, he may cut back on visible support, as he did in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primaries.
    (5) He may be less willing to go all out to visibly support someone who went out of their way to crap all over his agenda (such as Artur Davis), given the nature of the district they represent.

    Does this list seem accurate to you? Let's discuss some more examples.

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


    [ Parent ]
    I think you're looking at it the wrong way, because in reality Presidential involvement...
    ...is the exception, not the rule.

    Davis is a Congressman who ran for Governor, not for Senate.  There's no reason for Obama to want to get involved since a "Governor" Davis can't do anything for him.  And there's no reason for Davis to want Obama involved because Obama is strongly disliked in Alabama and, like in Arkansas, didn't even reach 40% in 2008.

    The RULE is the President does NOT get involved in other Democrats' elections except under particular circumstances when it is mutually beneficial.  As a rule, the President gets involved when asked if it also helps the Administration and doesn't hinder governing (e.g., a crisis right before a primary will require cancelling a planned rally).

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


    [ Parent ]
    This
    "When we're such a big majority, the conservaDems need to be glad for the liberals, and the liberals need to support and understand the needs of conservaDems."

    This is one of the best statements I've ever read on this site.

    Seriously.


    [ Parent ]
    Question on Conservative Party line on NY-13 ballots for anyone who knows (DavidNYC???)......
    So, the SI Cons endorsed the Dem McMahon, but the state party and Brooklyn Cons are with Grimm.

    Whose name is on the Conservative Party line on everyone's NY-13 ballots?

    Is it split, with McMahon the "Conservative" on SI ballots but Grimm on the Brooklyn ballots?

    Or does the state party endorsement control?

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


    I believe there is still a primary
    To decide ultimately who gets each ballot line

    [ Parent ]
    No Grimm is the only Conservative Party candidate on ballot.
    The county endorsements for Conservative Party are meaningless.

    Only Grimm got the Wilson Pekula to run on the Conservative Party line. Grimm will be the only Conservative Party candidate in NY-13.

    Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
    http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


    [ Parent ]
    McMahon can't be on the CP primary ballot.
    Under NY law, if a person is a registered as a member of another party, he or she can only run in the primary of another party of that party's state party OK's it.  As the State chair (which under CP rules, the chair basically IS the state party) is opposed to McMahon, he can't be on the ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    SC-Gov......
    I viewed the Will Folks claim as a big deal for awhile, especially when he started revealing text messages and cell phone records that really were pretty damning in their own right.  But then he stopped releasing stuff, and Haley has been adamant that the claim is an outright lie and there was no infidelity.  So the past few days I've revisited whether Folks is being honest.

    Now Marchant comes through with the claim of a one-night stand, and I'm even more confused.  I can't say "I don't care about this story" the way James does, because there's a real issue where someone is lying outright, and it's a real reflection on the liar's personal character.  But I'm no longer fully convinced Haley is lying......although, if she's not, and Folks and Marchant are, then it's the ballsiest (pun not intended when I first typed that but in retrospect I'll claim it!) attack on a major candidate I've ever seen in my life.  It's one thing to mischaraterize, even badly mischaracterize, something that actually happened, but it's something else altogether to completely fabricate a sexual encounter that never came remotely close to happening.

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


    If those guys are lying
    I'd like to see them sued for libel and defamation of character and harshly punished. I know that's a high bar to pass under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for public figures, but people simply shouldn't be able to get away with this kind of defamation - if that's what it is.

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


    [ Parent ]
    That would be very risky for Haley
    The easiest way to defend against a defamation charge is to prove the charges are true, so it is often the accuser who ends up being "on trial", at least in the public eye.  

    Don't forget what happened to Alger Hiss.

    28, Unenrolled, MA-08


    [ Parent ]
    It's "risky for Haley" only if the charges ARE true, in which case she won't sue anyway. (nm)
    nm

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

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong, risky either way
    Read up on Alger Hiss.  He was publicly accused of being a spy and sued claiming defamation. During the trial various circumstantial evidence was presented and the media used that to lynch him.  He was eventually convicted of perjury, although that was also on rather flimsy evidence.  His life and his career were ruined.  

    28, Unenrolled, MA-08

    [ Parent ]
    Except
    He was, of course, guilty, as things turned out.

    26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

    [ Parent ]
    There's no conclusive evidence for that


    28, Unenrolled, MA-08

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed
    If Folks and Company are lying she should sue. If only to prevent any other jackass from lying about something like this again.

    If she is lying than she's done. Not for the affair but for lying so convincingly with a straight face to voters.

    From an electoral point of view if Folks made this up the sympathy vote she could get for the way she got slandered could be quite large.

    I mean after this how could anyone launch a negative attack ad against her without looking like a total jerk?

    Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
    http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


    [ Parent ]
    NV-Sen: Angle with the lead, Lowden slips to third
    If Angle wins the GOP primary
    I think this race becomes at least lean Dem -- actually, at this point, I think it's lean Dem regardless of who wins it.  Yes, Harry Reid (who I actually like more than a lot of people here, but am not blind to his shortcomings as Majority Leader) is a lucky mf'r for how his opponents have imploded.  Further, he's an old street fighter with a ton of money in the bank -- I think he really shreds whoever is the GOP candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Club for Growth is the Club for Republican Shrinkage
    It will be like in all the races they get involved in, spend a ton in the primary, claim victory, and don't spend a cent in the general. Reid is lucky both Heller and the Secretary of State deferred on this race. I agree if Angle wins, it is very hard to see a path to victory for her. At least Sue Lowden can fund raise and has some of her own money to spend.  

    [ Parent ]
    I call
    the Club for "Growth" the Club for Democratic Growth

    19, Male, Independent, CA-12

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think there are any trendlines here
    but I'm starting to worry about Tarkanian.  He's an amateur but seems less controversial than the other two.  Rooting for Angle.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    Suffolk out of Mass.
    I'm still a little nervous about trusting Suffolk outside Mass after that disaster in NJ-Gov. They also underpredicted the margin in VA-Gov.

    [ Parent ]
    Not the only one though now is it
    A clear trend has developed.

    [ Parent ]
    Another big correction from Rasmussen
    20 point shift towards Blumenthal.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11


    Finally
    Some reality is seeping in.

    [ Parent ]
    Nice trendlines, Scott!


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

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh, he's fucking awful


    [ Parent ]
    Do you think it will stop him doing insta-polls?
    Anyone? Crickets.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm waiting for Izengabe
    to say this is bad news for Blumenthal.  

    [ Parent ]
    No, not going to say that.
    Obviously this is good for Blumenthal.

    But polls fluctuate and post the Nam story I dont think its as safe a race for Dems as it once was and has the possibility to turn bad.

    I stand by that.  

    Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
    http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


    [ Parent ]
    Fl Sen: Damn!
    Looks like Bud Chiles is really going to run and an indie.  What a disaster.

    http://www.tallahassee.com/art...


    FL Gov - Not Sen. Sheesh. n/t


    [ Parent ]
    I've about had it with Florida this cycle.
    There's plenty of other good statewide elections going on, and these races are giving me a headache. I'm ignoring Florida!

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

    [ Parent ]
    We should just do that always
    Ignoring Florida. Let 'em sink into the ocean on account of "the weather" ... as FAILorina calls it.

    I hope there's a Rahm Emmanuel of Florida who's going to tell Chiles that he will be dead to Florida Democrats if he does this. Because if he does, Sink is sunk.

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


    [ Parent ]
    Apparently he met with Sink
    and she told him she planned to spend $30 million on the race.  His decision here, and his rhetoric against "big money politics," suggest that Sink made a bad impression on him with that statement.  So he's going to hand the governorship over to McCollum for it.  Nice, dude!

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    Is that $30 million she plans on raising and spending?
    Or $30 million she plans on giving her campaign?

    [ Parent ]
    She said raise according to the article I read.
    But she's indescribably wealthy, so she could be planning to loan herself any shortfall.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    Well, that's ridiculously
    That adds up $6.21 a voter (based off of number from 2006 Gov).  That's not that bad at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Dude better have his own funds
    From the article:

    "Chiles said he will not take any money from political action committees and is limiting all contributions to $250 per person."

    Running for governor with those type of self imposed limits is like saying you want to build a rocket to the moon but will only use scrap from the local junkyard and what you have at hand. I bet he drops out in the future.  


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe he plans on walking the state
    like his father did.

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh, for fuck sake
    He doesnt even plan on winning!

    [ Parent ]
    That actually makes me breathe a sigh of relief......
    If he has no money, his name alone won't necessarily be enough to help him steal votes from Sink.  So let him draw a few oddball checks and fail miserably.

    I'm not convinced this hurts us.  Just being the late former Governor Chiles' son won't cut it with voters in a big state in an open-seat race with 2 well-funded major party nominees.  Chiles won't get much free media, and it sounds like he won't be able to buy any, either.

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


    [ Parent ]
    I disgree
    1) Name rec.  Yes, he's not known, but Chiles was a good governor and there's some residual name rec going on here.  It's enough for people to see it on the ballot.  They renamed Lakeland Middle Academy to be the Lawton Chiles Middle Academy and Lakeland/the I-4 corridor plays a role in state-wide elections.  (True, not Lakeland as much, but I'm sure there's some spill over.)

    2) Close race.  In a close race even a precentage point or two is enough to change the outcome.  While it won't be as close as 2000, it's still not easy to discount a third person/party.

    3) Walking the state.  Don't know if he'll do it, but if he does, he'll get his free press.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm still very skeptical he'll make even the slightest dent......
    It's become a routine thing for political junkies and the political media to talk up 3rd-party and indy candidates in all kinds of elections.  And those 3rd wheels always prove irrelevant.  Nader really did turn the 2000 election and, therefore, without hyperbole, American and world history.  And I think that event hypersensitized everyone into overstating the power of 3rd wheels going forward from there.

    For us and even the Obama campaign, it was Bob Barr in 2008.  Even David Plouffe himself said in a media call in September that year that the campaign's model for Georgia viewed 47% as enough to carry the state if Barr did well enough.  Well, they were uncannily awesome and did indeed get Obama exactly 47%, but as I knew all year that year, Barr had no ability to make himself visible and register with voters even in his home state.

    Now it's been these tea party challenges, which have proven important in Republican primaries but not in D-vs.-R battles except in NY-23, where it was actually a case of one Republican substituting for another rather than a true 3rd-wheel rising.

    So here we're worried about what exactly?  That Chiles an "outsider" based on...his daddy was Governor?  Um, nope.  That he'll "walk the state?"  Well, I wouldn't assume the media or voters will care.  Bud isn't Lawton, and it's been a lot of years since Lawton was Guv.  Visibility isn't really free at all, especially not in a big state.  Really, the only way Bud registers is if Republicans and conservative interests try to prop him up for their own cynical benefit, but that's not a calculation they'll necessarily make, and how to execute it is a bit of a head-scratcher.

    I'll believe Chiles is a monkey wrench only when there's hard evidence of it.

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


    [ Parent ]
    I doubt the media will pass up
    the easy, lazy story of comparing him to his dad if he pulls the same stunt.

    [ Parent ]
    Just saying
    Independents and 3rd-party candidates have won the Governorships of at least Maine, Minnesota, and Alaska (those are the ones I remember off-hand) and an independent is likely to win Rhode Island this year.

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


    [ Parent ]
    Rhode Island
    Lincoln Chafee (and Charlie Crist for that matter) is popular and has been elected statewide before. That he lost in 2006 was through no fault of his own but rather his party label. Chiles has name recognition but he lacks the popularity or prior campaign experience of Lincoln Chafee.

    21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
    please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


    [ Parent ]
    Would Chiles run on some sort of Indy ticket with Christ?
    If he does that could change the dynamic of both races.

    Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
    http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it
    First off Governors and Senators don't really run on a ticket - especially in this case where it is not a third party, but merely independant people.

    Also, who knows if their positions even align.  There's nothing to say they're anything like one another.


    [ Parent ]
    538 joins the New York Times
    It looks like primarily a boost for Nate

    http://mediadecoder.blogs.nyti...

    The New York Times said Thursday that it would begin hosting the popular blog FiveThirtyEight and make its founder, Nate Silver, a regular contributor to the newspaper and the Sunday magazine.


    wow, that's pretty damn huge
    I was just saying to myself this morning I dont read 538 nearly enough.  Kudos to Nate, and that bastard is only 32!  We'll be watching his career for the rest of our lives.

    [ Parent ]
    He's better than Charlie Cook...
    Who still wants the CT-Sen race to be a tossup, but has ever so reluctantly put it in lean Dem.

    There's a great article by Charlie lamenting the fact that he totally blew the call on PA-12.  He still can't understand how he got it so wrong.


    [ Parent ]
    Read that article
    The other day.  I got the vibe that he is passing it off as a total fluke.  

    23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

    [ Parent ]
    Rasmussen rejoins civil polling society, shows Blumenthal up big (link)......
    Well this puts the nail in the coffin of the notion (shared originally by me and many others on SSP) that the NYT hit on Blumenthal was his undoing.

    Rasmussen today:  Blumenthal 56, McMahon 33.  This follows DailyKos/Research 2000 showing 52-33, and Quinnipiac showing 56-31, both also well after the "Vietnam" story had settled in.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

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


    Oh, and some crosstabs for you......
    Blumenthal's favorability at 64-32, including 42% "very favorable."

    McMahon's favorability a horrid 38-47.

    Strangely, a 49-49 split on the question, "[i]n terms of how you will vote, how important is the issue of Blumenthal and his military service?"  Although, only 26% said it's "very important," and 23% said "somewhat important."

    They've got Obama's CT job approval at 56-43, and Rell at 53-45.

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


    [ Parent ]
    On Rasmussen...
    Assuming that he polls to create a Republican or conservative narrative (as Kos and others have charged) has anyone noticed this snap polling right after a primary or a controversy breaks has had the opposite result? In Kentucky, his latest poll indicates Paul's stance on Civil Rights and BP has hurt him, and in Connecticut, his latest poll shows Blumenthal has easily weathered this controversy.

    Not that any of this shows he's not trying to create a narrative - it just shows how it can backfire on him (and whoever his backers are) in a big way.  


    [ Parent ]
    I think his attempts to rig his polls simply produce results that get away from him sometimes......
    I don't doubt for one moment that Scott cleverly rigs his polls to push right-wing narratives.  He's learned through what now is a decade of experience that certain polling techniques produce certain biases that he likes, and he's fine-tuned those to a great degree.

    But then he ends up with occasionally BATSHIT CRAZY outliers, like his KY-Sen and AR-Sen post-primary polls that showed the Republicans winning competitive races by margins fit for a safe incumbent against a sacrificial lamb.  I imagine he realized those results only exacerbated trash talk against his methodologies, which he's become increasingly sensitive and defensive about.

    So he now came up with more sane results for some races to regain a little credibility.

    By the way, his latest MO-Sen poll today is yet one more showing movement toward Team Blue, with Carnahan now down just one point, 45-44, against Blunt.  Again, this is Rasmussen with a GOP bias, so he's again moved a race into the same territory as experts claim it's in.

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


    [ Parent ]
    NY-Sen: Blakeman endorsed by NY GOP, Malpass qualifies for primary ballot, DioGuardi fizzles
    http://twitter.com/#search?q=%...

    DioGuardi does have the Conservative line, though my suspicion is he'll net the same 4% as Marilyn O'Grady in 2004. Blakeman and Malpass are very moderate, but I don't think DioGuardi has the money or excitement to Scozzafava them.

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


    I applaud the sentiments about CO-Sen
    But what I do care about is Romanoff throwing Obama under the bus for his own political gain. Swings and roundabouts perhaps but I'm not happy about it.

    MO ras poll
    Now Rasmussen is showing blunt only leading by 1 point http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

    20, male, independent, WI-07.

    Does that mean Robin
    Actually leads in reality? I don't know but I can't really get excited either way with any of the garbage he spews out.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it means Scotty might be
    slowly moving away from narative setting and back to reality.  Maybe all the comments got to him.  Or maybe he realized no one in their right mind believed his CT or KY polls.

    [ Parent ]
    I think this poll is probably legit...
    The Rasmussen polls that are not legit are the ones taken after a controvery breaks (NYT story on Blumenthal) or right after a primary (Deeds, Paul, Dudley). This one has neither issue. I'm sure this race is a tossup right now (although it would be nice to see other polling).  

    [ Parent ]
    MO-Sen has had surprisingly little polling......
    Everybody in campaign punditry calls MO-Sen a "tossup."

    So I think Rasmussen just returned to reality here, I don't go so far as to think this poll proves Carnahan is actually winning.

    But I'll say this, if we can pick off a couple GOP-held Senate seats in November, it will be huge.

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


    [ Parent ]
    PPP had one in March
    Blunt +4. I agree there has been surprisingly few polls of what perhaps will be the closest race this year. Maybe that is the reason why.

    [ Parent ]
    Also, this Rasmussen poll has Obama's MO job approval at 46-54......
    I actually feel pretty good about that, since this is a state Obama lost.  He's held up well in MO since the election in spite of all the crap weighing him down these first 2 years.

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

    [ Parent ]
    MO
    With RAS showing only a one point lead for Blunt which Is a deadheat this means some should not dismiss A democratic
    pickup here anymore.While I wish we would get some non
    RAS polling here this helps confirm me feeling here this
    race Is a tossup.RAS previously had a 7/8 point Blunt
    lead.Robin Carnahan should not be dismissed.She was the
    only statewide Democrat to win here In 2004 when she
    was elected Secretary of State.

    SC-04
    Hey, if Inglis gets teabagged and his replacement is someone awful and embarrassing, think we could get Spartanburg Mayor Junie White to run? I know it's a R+15 seat, but SC Republicans have become soooo embarrassing lately that I'm almost thinking he could win. Almost.

    Because Junie White seems awesome: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/...

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


    A Democrat would be a heavy underdog in that district
    But good candidates are always best.

    I don't think I've said anything original or very meaningful in this post. :-)

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


    [ Parent ]
    Glad to see Im not the only Towleroad reader
    Its my 2nd stop after SSP every morning

    [ Parent ]
    Carly Fiorina
    Ugh, what is it about blue state Republicans that makes them so self-destructive? Tom Campbell is clearly the most electable candidate. He's been leading Barbara Boxer by 5+ points in the polls pretty consistently. He also doesn't put out moronic ads like those. Yet for some reason California Republicans are embracing a failed CEO whose campaign is a joke.

    You haven't kept up with polling, Boxer is beating all comers...
    ...in the last batch of polls, including Campbell.

    Yeah, Campbell still outperforms the others, but Boxer still beats him by 4-6 points in the last 3 polls I've seen.

    Before that last batch, Campbell was tied or very narrowly besting her.

    But Campbell never led Boxer by 5+ in polling averages or trends.  I don't know where you got that from.  Maybe an isolated poll or two at various points said that, but by and large Boxer has been winning except for a brief blip when she was basically tied, and now she's rising again.

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


    [ Parent ]
    The LA times poll had him up by like 5
    I think that is what he is referring to.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sure
    But that was one poll. Nothing consistent about it.

    [ Parent ]
    DCC said he hadn't been up in any polls
    I was just pointing out what poll INrepublican was referencing.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree Campbell is stronger
    But he has had nothing like that kind of consistent lead.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...


    [ Parent ]
    The problem for Cali Repubs
    is that only Arnold types can get elected, but the Cali GOP is so conservative that Arnold types can never get nominated.  Basically the GOP in California is so far outside the mainstream of the state, they are more like teh GOP in Texas.  

    [ Parent ]
    To be fair
    it is the same feeling that liberals have about ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln.  But the Dems in those states are more conservative.  Lincoln is going to lose the primary for being too Washington as much as being too conservative.

    [ Parent ]
    NV-Sen
    Angle leads Lowden and Tarkanian and Reid leads them all.

    http://www.dailykos.com/statep...

    Electorate D+3, down from D+8 in 2008.


    Also the racial composition...
    ...is 12% Latino, down from 15% in 2008.  It's worth noting Latinos were 7% in 2004, but steadily rising during the past decade per demographic changes the past decade.

    Also worth noting is that at least one pundit analysis I read some weeks ago said that Democratic operatives were planning for Latinos at 10% and are trying to get that up to 15%, same as 2008, to get Reid over the top.  Again, this new DailyKos poll says 12% and still has Reid up 6 on Angle, albeit still at only 43% himself.  I think 12% isn't crazy at all, although 15% seems like a longshot to me unless Latinos have kept increasing as a share of the population and the registered voter pool.

    Also, FWIW, at least one big GOP pollster, Tarrance Group, argues that the Republican nominee will have a polling bounce after the primary, and that the current trough is artificial.  But I don't agree with that, I think the attacks on TV and in the media are going to stay with voters and even be exacerbated once Reid and the DSCC go to bat, which I hope is soon after the primary.

    The bottom line is I actually am starting to feel good about Reid getting reelected, and in fact at this stage, shockingly, I'd actually bet on it.

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


    [ Parent ]
    I'd already moved it back to tossup


    [ Parent ]
    That's interesting.
    I'd argue any post-primary polling bounce is artifical and would settle back down, and not the other way around.

    [ Parent ]
    Totally agree, wmlawman. And I'm skeptical Angle will get any bounce at all......
    She's a controversial figure, and she's getting attacked on TV even as she rises.  I don't see how she gets a "bounce."

    I'm happy Reid will get Angle and I think he'll end up winning, but honestly I think Lowden is so weakened that if she pulls off the upset and wins the primary, he'll still clean her clock.  She has no campaign discipline, and Reid will exploit that just as well as Angle's extremism.

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


    [ Parent ]
    I'd move it to Lean Dem
    This race is turning out to be a disaster for the Republicans. No way can Angle win this.  

    [ Parent ]
    Lean Dem is premature
    Wait and see how things develop. But it looks like, in order for Reid to lose, voters will have to decide they hate him so much that they don't care if his opponent is a nut or an idiot.

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


    [ Parent ]
    Amazing how this race has changed
    Reid looked like very browned toast for a long time, and if there were a good Republican candidate, I think he would have ended up as a pile of carbon.

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


    [ Parent ]
    "None of the above" ain't getting 6-7% come election night
    When push comes to shove, those voters will either stay home or vote Republican. Call it Chris Daggett syndrome. My current thinking here...

    Dem - 35%
    Indie - 33%
    GOP - 32%

    Reid - 87/40/7 = 45%
    GOP nominee - 10/50/90 = 50%
    Ashjian - 0/3/2 = 2%
    None/Other - 3/7/1 = 3%

    Toss-up.

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


    [ Parent ]
    It'll come down to the Indies.
    This poll has them splitting pretty evenly.  I think you may be over-estimating Dem cross-overs a little bit, especially if Angle is the nominee.

    34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

    [ Parent ]
    Agree on crossovers, Angle is too toxic to best Reid on crossovers. (nm)
    nm

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

    [ Parent ]
    Look again, andyroo, this poll did NOT offer "none of the above" as a choice......
    The topline was a straight-up candidate-choice question, the only wrinkles being that Ashjian was offered as a choice as "the Tea Party candidate" along with Reid and each Republican, and the option of "another candidate."  And the survey results displayed "other" as a separate category from "none" and "undecided."  So anyone answering "none of the above" or "undecided" had to affirmatively volunteer that answer.

    And I wouldn't be so sure that "none of the above" won't do well on election day in this case.  A lot of Some Dudes are pulling in massive percentages of votes in primaries even against relatively benign incumbents, demonstrating voters' willingness to show up specifically to cast protest votes--indeed, it's a peculiar phenomenon I've never seen in my lifetime, and I remember well the several anti-incumbent cycles in my lifetime.  That "none of the above" is a real option on Nevada ballots is probably known to regular voters, as it's been there for a lot of cycles now and got some media attention in the early days.  And Reid and Angle will go into election day almost certainly both with upside-down favorables.

    All that together, I think it's conceivable that "none of the above" ends up scoring in the mid-single digits on election day, and possibly even high single-digits if Reid and Angle beat each other up enough.

    Ordinarily you'd be spot-on to dismiss the "none" responses, but there is significant evidence that this time could be different.

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


    [ Parent ]
    Gillibrnad may face split GOP
    http://www.google.com/hostedne...
    Joe DioGuardi won the Conservative party nomination. He did not make the primary at the convention. He will have to petition onto the Republican ballot and win the primary to avoid the Conservative and Republican parties from being split.  

    As I've said previously, I don't think DioGuardi will be a huge factor
    He'll probably net 4-5%, much like Conservative nominee Marilyn O'Grady in the '04 race vs. Schumer. Malpass and Blakeman are moderate, but I don't think DioGuardi has the money or is exciting-enough to Scozzafava them.

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

    [ Parent ]

    Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

    Primary Sponsor

    You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:



    Forget your username or password?


    About the Site

    SSP Resources

    Blogroll

    Powered by: SoapBlox