Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 6/8 (Morning Edition)

by: DavidNYC

Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 8:03 AM EDT


  • DE-Sen: Biden alert? Dem senate candidate Chris Coons says a Biden fundraiser is "in the works." I sure hope so! I think Coons is a sleeper candidate, and it would be ridic for Biden not to help a fellow Dem out in his own state (which is just outside of DC, anyhow).

  • NV-Sen: It may be too late to save her fricasseed campaign, but Sue Lowden has an over-the-top ad out hitting Sharron Angle for her support of a Scientology-backed plan to offer massage therapy to recovering drug addicts. Be sure to check out the cameo of a certain couch-jumping Top Gun star at about 20 seconds in.
  • NY-Sen-B: So as you know if you're a faithful SSP reader, the state GOP put two dudes on their ballot line for the September primary: Bruce Blakeman and David Malpass. They did not include ex-Rep. Joe DioGuardi, but (and this is a big "but," DioGuardi did score the Conservative Party's ballot line all to himself. Though DioGuardi says he'll try to petition his way on to the GOP ballot, Republicans don't seem to have a lot of faith in him becoming their nominee, and they want to avoid a split ticket. So Conservative chair Mike Long got a bunch of calls asking him to bounce DioGuardi from his party's line, but he refused, pointing out that DioGuardi got 70% of the vote at the Conservative convention. Ah, the New York GOP - still a train wreck.
  • ID-Gov: The Idaho Statesman has a pretty good profile on Dem gubernatorial nominee Keith Allred, who is running a surprisingly vigorous (and decently-funded) campaign against the not-so-hot incumbent Butch Otter. The most interesting detail is the fact that the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, a chamber-of-commerce-type big business lobby, is already attacking Allred - not something you usually bother doing with an un-serious candidate.
  • SC-Gov: Rudy Giuliani jumped in with a last-minute endorsement of AG Henry McMaster yesterday - though note that the unlovable loser finished sixth in the South Carolina primary in 2008. (Though Joe Lieberman reassured him that it was actually an eleventy-way tie for fifth.) And in a seriously weird last-minute desperation move, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer released, uh, well... you'd expect me to say "released a poll," right? Nope - he released the results of a polygraph test (!), which he claims show he had no involvement in the various Nikki Haley affair allegations. Talk about protesting a wee bit too much, huh?
  • AL-05: A douchey move from a douchey guy: Bud Cramer, the Democrat who held this seat before giving way to Parker Griffith, is not "ready to endorse any candidate for Congress" - even though, you know, we have a nominee (Steve Raby). Cramer actually pulled this same shit last cycle after he announced his retirement, dithering for several weeks before finally endorsing Griffith. Back then, Cramer suggested he might endorse a Republican - and I guess he finally got his wish when Griffith switched parties. Jesus, though - do the right thing already.
  • FL-24: Former Winter Park Commissioner Karen Diebel scored an endorsement from Mike Huckabee in her bid to become the GOP nominee against Rep. Suzanne Kosmas.
  • MA-10: Republican Jeffrey Perry has been under fire for his oversight of a police officer under his command while Perry was a police sergeant in the early 1990s. The officer, Scott Flanagan, was ultimately fired and pled guilty for illegal strip-searching a 16-year-old girl. Now, the Cape Cod Times reports that Perry's own accounts of the incident and its aftermath are contradicted by police records from the time. In an earlier interview, Perry suggested that he had acted with alacrity in handling the situation, but now it appears he waited 24 hours to write up the officer, and almost a week to take a statement from a witness to the search.
  • NC-08: Heh, he actually went ahead and did it. Weapons-grade wingnut Tim D'Annunzio launched a defamation suit against his runoff opponent, Harold Johnson, for a "radio ad targeting D'Annunzio for his 'life of drugs, crime and time served in prison' and for supposedly failing to pay an employer payroll tax, having tax liens, and withholding child support." D'Annunzio had previously threatened to sue the chair of the NC GOP, but this is so much more fun.
  • NY-13: Rep. Mike McMahon scored the endorsement of the Independence Party, which means he'll have their ballot line in November (something he didn't have last cycle). And while he won't get the support Working Families Party thanks to his "no" vote on healthcare, the WFP isn't expected to nominate any kind of challenger, so their line will likely remain blank in this race - thus avoiding a split of the left-leaning vote. A Dem primary challenge at this point also looks remote. Meanwhile, McMahon raised $140K at a fundraiser hosted by none other than Mike Bloomberg. He was also expected to take in some $90K at an Anthony Weiner event, which was also slated to feature Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro, a Conservative.
  • NY-29: Judge David Larimer of the Western District of New York ruled against Republicans who were seeking to force Gov. David Paterson to call the special election for this vacant seat earlier than November, saying Paterson was empowered to call it for the fall. An appeal to the Second Circuit is possible, but no word yet on whether one is planned.
  • VA-11: This seems really lame.
  • CA-SoS: I guess maybe we were too busy laughing when we first heard stories that Orly Taitz was running for California Secretary of State to bother writing it up... but not only is she on the ballot, the CA GOP is worried she might win the primary! She's running against Damon Dunn, another ex-NFLer (what is with those guys running for office this year?), but Dunn's deliberately ignored her rather than attack. The Republicans have little chance against Dem incumbent Debra Bowen, but Orly as their nominee would be a nice, months-long goiter for them to deal with.
  • Blue Dogs: I think I agree with everything Chris Bowers says in this post.
  • Games: Several folks in comments were recommending a new game called Congress Forever the other day, where you battle for control of the House and Senate. I haven't tried it yet, but it looks like the perfect nerd timewaster.
  • Polling: Nate Silver just released the latest version of his pollster ratings, which analyzes a truly massive data set of "4,670 distinct polls from 264 distinct pollsters covering 869 distinct electoral contests" going all the way back to 1998. He lays out his methodology in a separate post, which is a must-read. Also, that gang of polling maniacs over at PPP are soliciting your votes again: The choices this time are LA, MA, PA, WA or WI.
  • Redistricting: Politico has a piece out which claims that Republicans are lagging in the race to raise money and set up legal groups to wage the coming round of redistricting battles. I'm a little skeptical, because the article says that Republicans are hurting thanks to a lack of soft money in the post-McCain Feingold world - but if anything, Dems were known as the party most dependent on soft money before campaign finance reform passed. Still, P'Co suggests that Dems are more organized because of some top-down control being exercised by the Obama political operation.
  • DavidNYC :: SSP Daily Digest: 6/8 (Morning Edition)
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email

    About the GOP race against Schumer....
    Didn't Larry Kudlow say back in '09 that he was strongly leaning towards running against Schumer in '10?  Was he just blowing smoke (as usual) against an enemy of his?

    Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
    So little time, so much to know!


    Just blowin' smoke
    The two candidates who made the GOP ballot to take on Schumer are fmr. CIA Officer Gary Bertsen and campaign strategist Jay Townsend.

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

    [ Parent ]
    He was also talking about running in Connecticut
    for the Dodd seat.

    And in 1994--or was it 1988?--he talked about running against Pat Moynihan in New York.


    [ Parent ]
    That may be the most over-the-top negative ad of the cycle so far
    And Sue Lowden might be the biggest crash-and-burn candidate of the cycle.  But my "Douche of the Year" award so far would have to go to Andre Bauer.  Unless she is shooting for the "Best Actress in a Statewide Role" award, I tend to believe Nikki Haley here, and she's really been hit with some of the nastiest stuff I've seen in my 20+ years of observing politics -- all because the good old boys don't want to see a woman of color be the Republican candidate for governor of a Deep South state.  I wouldn't be shocked if she gets 50% outright and avoids a runoff.

    Haley
    I think the good ole boy network has really tried to railroad her from the minute polling showed her in the lead.  The one blogger threw out the allegations of her unfaithfulness, and then others tried to "confirm" their own affairs with her.  Then the next thing you know, you have people close to Bauer calling her an "f-ing raghead just like our president".  This whole campaign has been totally hideous and it's a not a surprise given the state in question.

    At this point, I know that Rex and Sheheen are running on our side, but a part of me is hoping that Haley wins it all in November just to piss off the GOP establishment there.  Of course, if they manage to damage her somehow and the democrat wins as a result, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

    23, Male, Democrat, OH-13


    [ Parent ]
    Though of Course If She Wins
    She's got national candidate written all over her, and I don't know if that's something Democrats would be pleased with.

    [ Parent ]
    Jindal-Haley 2012?
    Just a thought to mull over.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well, that ticket might be a bit exotic
    Although both are solid conservatives, and hey, if they can win over LA and SC, the rest of the GOP primary would be a piece of piss. I can just imagine US and Indian Flags being waved at the RNC 2012.

    Haley would be a good contrasting running mate to say Huckabee(God Forbid) or Romney.

    A good looking, telegenic, tea party candidate with moderate appeal and a great life story to boot.

    They don't come around too often.


    [ Parent ]
    They're still on Bobby Jindal?
    I thought he came pretty close to killing his chances at the nod with his response to Obama's speech last year.

    26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

    [ Parent ]
    Any party that rehabilitated Dick Nixon
    can more easily rehabilitate Bobby Jindal.

    I'm guessing his chances for '12 (or more likely '16) rest on his performance with the Gulf oil disaster.


    [ Parent ]
    I know little of Jindal
    Has he accomplished anythign legislatively?  I know he has a compelling background and has one heck of a resume overall, but who is he and what has he done?

    [ Parent ]
    Ethics reform
    That was his major thing. He reformed LA ethics and removed perks of public office. He did that in his first few months in office. He cut taxes six times. He also performed well with his responses to Gustav and oil spill. The oil spill is pushing him up towards someone the party wants to run for pres or VP again.  

    [ Parent ]
    Please,
    As a Louisiana voter too I have to say you aren't paying attention if you think Jindal, (rated by CREW as the third most corrupt Governor, partially for gutting the state ethics board), has done anything more than superficially deal with the issue of corruption.

    And yeah, all his tax cuts are serving the state so well right now; they're cutting entire degree programs at LSU to deal with the massive higher education cuts he's trying to put to the university system, cuts which will hurt our state's competitiveness a lot more in the long run than if Jindal had the guts to do the right thing and raise taxes.

    And if by good oil spill performance you mean going around whining about Obama's performance rather than getting the state's ass in gear when it comes to managing the booms and cleanup, then yeah, great job.

    I'm still incredulous you find that Jindal reformed LA Politics, that's probably the most ridiculous statement I've seen in sometime. Anyone who's been following close attention knows he only changed the trappings.  


    [ Parent ]
    One speech does not kill a pres candidate
    Bill Clinton gave a bad speech.  

    [ Parent ]
    Only one chance for first impressions, though...
    And Bobby Jindal IS Kenneth the Intern.

    He's still likely to fare better than Angry Grizzly Snowbilly as a candidate, though, I'll definitely grant Jindal that. Then again, I kind of also think the Republicans might do better than either one if they nominated an actual angry grizzly bear.

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


    [ Parent ]
    When?
    And how bad was he mocked for the speech? Was he already a known name before the speech?

    That's the thing about Jindal's horrible speech. It was his introduction to most people, and, well, he ended up being compared to a Saturday Night Live character (or wherever that guy is from).

    Anytime Jindal gives a big speech now, no matter if it is great or not, he'll still be looked at as that guy.


    [ Parent ]
    He's probably referring to
    Clinton's speech at the 1988 Dem convention.

    26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

    [ Parent ]
    At that speech
    There were cheers when he said, "In conclusion."

    [ Parent ]
    How many people actually watch the responses?
    I'll tell you: VERY few. If they did, Jindal would be known nation wide. He's not. He would register much higher recognition in national polls. He doesn't.  

    [ Parent ]
    In a rarity, GOPVOTER is right. Still, 2012 is not an option......
    The Louisiana calendar makes a 2012 run impossible.  Even with Iowa/NH and others pushed back a little, Jindal can't get reelected in November 2011 and then run for Prez...he'd have to do both simultaneously, and that's not doable.  If he wants to be President, 2016 is his first realistic shot.  Unless, of course, he calls it quits on the governorship after one term.  But unless he really doesn't want to be Governor anymore, that's a stupid move.  Any Republican smart enough to be a serious Presidential candidate is also smart enough to know beating Obama is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

    What's truly amusing is how Republicans are scrambling to elevate what few people of color they have to the political pedestal.  Obama has really forced the GOP's hand on this.  Obama's elevation to the Senate alone put him on the radar screen, and as 2007 progressed, the alarm on the right was already striking, and well-placed:  a strong chance of a Democratic victory with either the first woman or first black man or even the first Hispanic President.

    But alas, the teabaggers are the GOP's long-term doom, no matter what happens this November.  People of color are not going to vote Republican in the party's recent and evolving form.

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


    [ Parent ]
    He loves being Gov
    I don't see him leaving in 2011 for a longshot bid for president. One reason I could see him retiring though is b/c we always go with the loser. If he was a loser in 2012, he'd be in line in 2016. I think he will run in 2011, but I don't see him finishing the term. He is still probably the front-runner for the VP nod in 2012, and if we win, he resigns. Even if he is not VP but Republican's win, he is probably the frontunner for HHS. And if we win, he will need something to do until 2020, so he could run for Senate in 2014. Now, there is still a good chance none of that happens, and if not, his term ends at the perfect time for a Pres campaign.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah
    she would automatically be guaranteed a role on the national stage if she won.  

    Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're right
    She seems to have unlimited potential, and while I'd certainly want our candidate to win the general election (and PLEASE do it in a non-racist and non-sexist way, unlike the Republicans), I'd be very, very suprised if she's not the next Governor of South Carolina.

    If that comes to pass, she's got a really, really tough job ahead of her -- SC has very high unemployment, have not made investments in really anything (and are not likely to under her administration), etc., etc.  The reality of being an administrator can take the shine off of anyone.


    [ Parent ]
    But
    You make a key point about her possible administration. Haley will simply be a clone of Sanford in regards to policy.

    She'll simply continue what he's done, and he's angered many in the state.


    [ Parent ]
    Getting on a National Ticket
    Doesn't depend on competence (or at least achieving much) when it comes to actually governing.  

    [ Parent ]
    from 2012 forward
    I don't know if we'll ever see a major party presidential ticket again with two while males.

    [ Parent ]
    Ive thought this for some time
    And I think that mainly has to do with Palin.  Hillary was too much of an A-list candidate and her run I dont think really will have benefitted women in politics more than getting to say, look we finally have one!  She blazed the trail, yeah, but I dont think Hillary, or Pelosi for that matter, are the ones that will create a greater women in politics mantra.

    Palin was extremely under-qualified, lacked experience, and very clearly lacked the knowledge on specific and important policy matters.  Palin I think created a Sarah Standard, you dont need to be a Hillary Clinton to make the ticket.  We can now judge our female politicians the same as male politicians; you dont have an ounce of political talent, just gotta be charismatic as shit and know how to wave.

    I spose I only talked about women and not racial minorities.  But I guess that is a bit of an out of sight out of mind instance because after Obama, there's only Jindal and Cory Booker coming down the pike.  (I dont include Nikki Haley because in politics, perception is reality and people wouldnt perceive her to be a racial minority until the news told them she was.  Obama is mixed-races but he's a black politician because people perceive him to be black.)


    [ Parent ]
    2008 did one really great thing
    The political glass ceiling for minorities and women was shattered.  When a guy named Barack Hussein Obama can be elected President and when a woman as unqualified as Sarah Palin (makes George W Bush seem like Einstein) can be taken seriously as she is, you know something has changed.  

    [ Parent ]
    Her "potential" and "elevation" is entirely affirmative action......
    It's amusing how the Obama era has forced Republicans to fast-track every candidate of color they can find.

    I'm Indian-American myself, and what makes Jindal and Haley ironic is that most Indian-American voters are base Democrats.

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


    [ Parent ]
    It's a logical followup
    to the cabinet picks of Bush 43. I suspect it was by far the most lacking of white men in any R administration.

    They talk about ending affirmative action, but use it in practice.

    I therefore fully expect that at least the R VP candidate will not be a white man.


    [ Parent ]
    If we're going to talk about affirmative action picks
    By people that oppose affirmative action for everyone else, let's not forget the ultimate example of this -- putting Thomas on the bench.  It was perhaps the most unwarrented pick in the history of the Supreme Court, and an insult to the memory of Thurgood Marshall.

    [ Parent ]
    Martyr Haley
    Haley is a Sanford protege and a Palin supporter.  I DEFINITELY hope she doesn't win the general election or rise to any prominence.  But the unproven affair allegations and that awful slur have turned her into a martyr.  More than just coasting to a Rep nom as I'm expecting, she's got people rallying for her without realizing that they're rallying for a Palin supporter.  I really hope Vincent Sheheen can break this spell and keep Haley from riding the martyr gravy train.

    [ Parent ]
    Sheheen has no chance
    This race goes to Solid R if Haley wins the nomination.  Hugely popular R candidate + solidly red state + bad environment for Dems = blowout

    23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

    [ Parent ]
    Not necessarily
    I'm not convinced that Haley's popularity will last beyond the bounce.  Sanford was the first governor to win reelection in a long time.  So the governor's office is not a solid Republican lock.  Obama lost SC by only 9%, and DeMint is currently polling under 50%.  So I think Sheheen has a chance.

    [ Parent ]
    Hugely popular?
    Maybe just among Republicans. Look, she's Sanford protege and she's, besides Bauer, is the candidate Democrats want to face most because they feel good about beating her, and indeed to polls have been close thus far.  

    [ Parent ]
    Of course
    I think South Carolinians must have seen the two guys claiming to have slept with her and said "yeah, sure you did."

    26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

    [ Parent ]
    Hahahaha!
    Who?  You?  I say you didn't get none of that!

    23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

    [ Parent ]
    Thats not the only reason
    The fact that she's an Indian-American Woman is only part of the reason they hate her. She lost her chairmanship of a major committee (Can't remember which one now) for fighting to get votes on the record. The establishment didn't want their constituents to know what they voted for, and Haley wanted them to be held accountable. Well, she won and they will hate her forever.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'll make a prediction now
    Nikki Haley will be a keynote speaker at the 2012 GOP convention and one of the most sought-after endorsements in the country during that year's GOP primaries (my guess is she goes with Palin.)

    Palin has whiffed on a couple of endorsements this cycle ("McGowan") but she is playing her cards well for a presidential run. Iowa and South Carolina are her two key early states, and having Branstad and Haley on her side would help a lot. Nevada is another big early one, and Palin is probably wishing she'd endorsed Angle right about now.

    20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08


    [ Parent ]
    Its not too late for Angle
    Last week at this time she hadn't endorsed "McGowan".  

    [ Parent ]
    Serious question:
    Will Branstad be on her side?  From what I've heard, he was surprised by her endorsement and doesn't seem to fit in with the type of Republicans she appeals to.

    Why would he suddenly back her?


    [ Parent ]
    Branstad won't back her, or anybody for that matter......
    Not only does Palin not fit Branstad's brand of politics, but endorsing at all in the caucus/primary is very dicey in Iowa or New Hampshire.  I'm a native Iowan and know the state well.  Downballot elected officials can endorse without consequence, but a Governor needs to be more careful.

    In 2008, Chet Culver didn't endorse, nor did state party chair Scott Brennan (who, by the way, was my supervisor when I was a summer intern for Senator Harkin 22 years ago!).  Tom Miller endorsed Obama, but Miller is a wildly popular A.G.-for-life and in the twilight of his career and can do whatever he wants.  The Vilsacks were with Hillary, but Tom Vilsack was an ex-Governor, that's different.

    Regarding Branstad in 2012, assuming he's Governor, in crowded 2012 field he's not going to want to piss off anybody.  I'll be shocked if he endorses unless it turns out there's only one broadly-appealing and electable choice...I'm thinking of a scenario where, say, it's Daniels or Pawlenty or Thune (but only one of those three), and then people like Palin or Huckabee or even Gingrich (although he's all smoke and no fire, he won't run), plus minor also-rans like Santorum.  I can see Branstad in that type of scenario deciding it's important to back the one guy with potential to give Obama a serious run and avoid horrible negative coattails.

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


    [ Parent ]
    The only problem is
    that Mitt Romney endorsed both of the candidates before Palin did. I think Mitt might sit out the 2012 if he thinks the GOP doesn't a chance though.  

    [ Parent ]
    She's not running for president
    Of course, she won't actually says she's not running until we're really close to primary season. Keeping the public interested in her helps sell books and land speaking gigs.

    Actually taking the time to run for political office would seriously cut into the amount of money she could make. I can't imagine she would want to disentangle herself from all of her business dealings to do the heavy lifting required for a national campaign. Running a serious presidential campaign is a lot different than running for vice-president for 9 weeks.

    Grifting pays much better than public service.


    [ Parent ]
    Haley wouldn't endorse Palin
    Haley is actually a serious policymaker and a true fiscal conservative, and wouldn't return a favor to endorse someone she knows is hopeless. More likely she'd pick someone outside the box. Maybe Pawlenty or Thune or Gingrich.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well said IndianaProgressive!
    I couldnt agree more with everything you wrote.

    I think Jon Stewart said it all last night on the Daily Show. The South Carolina part starts at 4:30 if you want to skip ahead:
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa...

    I almost fell off the couch laughing at the  Larry Marchant being a "flaming" Southerner part. After seeing what a closet case Larry Marchant is I am inclined to totally believe Nikki Haley.

    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 ]
    Nice Digest
    Remind me to write a check to the conservative party. We owe them so much.

    If Orly somehow wins then I laugh my head off. But seriously Republican's can't be that crazy.

    Glad to hear about Biden, I don't think we can automatically write Coons off.

    Bud Cramer, seriously? I suppose he could be considering a return to politics someday but all the same this all kinds of stupid.

    If the Republicans screw up Nevada Senate then they are really, really stupid. Seriously any living breathing body could beat Reid and this stupidity they are doing right now appears to be the only thing that can save him. Just amazing.  

    Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  


    Orly Taitz and the decline of the CA GOP
       The reason Orly Taitz has a chance of getting the Greedy Old Party nomination for CA SoS is partially because the GOP has almost no chance of winning the seat from Debra Bowen, the Democratic incumbent who is one of the best SoSes in the country. The CA GOP has to run someone; they have to maintain the idea that they are a major party in the state. Their problem is that in 21st century CA a generic Dem has about a 10% advantage over a generic Repub (that's probably understating it.) The mainstream or establishment GOP candidate for SoS is a rich businessman/retired football player named Damon Dunn. He can self-fund to some extent and provides Steele-style diversity to the ticket (he's a big Black dude.) What makes Dunn as much of a joke candidate as Orly is that he never voted in his life until two years ago (and no, he isn't age 22 or so.) He is supposed to run the elections better than Debra though he hasn't voted much. Wow!

      If I were a Repub I just might vote for Orly to stick it to the GOP good old boys. Meanwhile the Republicans are only able to win statewide under unusual circumstances: Ahhnold in the recall, and Poisoner for Insurance Commissioner in '06 against the doofus Cruz Bustamante. This year they will only be competitive in a few of the races: Governor, with eMeg and her piles of dough, Senator, with Carly Failorina and her slightly smaller pile of dough, and maybe Lt Governor with Abel (slightly more moderate than his brother Cain) Maldonado, who is the appointed incumbent Lt Gov. (Our elected Lt Gov was John Garamendi, who won a seat in the House of Representatives leaving the vacancy.) Maldo might not even win his primary today in which case the GOP nominee would be Sam Aanestad, a State Senator who will lose to the Dem. The only other possibility of GOP victory would be if they nominate Steve Cooley for AG. He is the L.A. County D.A. who might be able to beat Kamala Harris, the S.F. County D.A. who may be the Democratic nominee. He is no sure thing for his primary; if their nominee is a more rightwing type that one goes into the likely Dem column.

       I would not be surprised if the Democrats sweep the statewide offices this year (though it will take a lot of GOTV effort). The Repubs continue to go with far right crazies and lose elections outside their safe districts. Orly is just the most flamboyant crazy.

    52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28


    [ Parent ]
    Great post by Chris Bowers
    And I express similar sentiments in my diary, but also discuss some other political implications of rescuing or not rescuing state governments.

    My feeling is the Blue Dogs would rather have it both ways - not put their names on legislation that saves states from calamity but see that legislation pass, anyway. In other words, they're trying to see if they can get away with being cowards. And so far, they can't.

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


    Everyone would rather have it both ways
    The sad truth is that now might be the perfect time for states to go bankrupt.  Not only the federal govt but also state goverments need to get back to fiscal soundness so maybe doing it all at once will help.

    No doubt every politician wants to have everything their own way.  Not a sinlge politician wants deficit spending I'm sure, but all benefit from it and most every member of congress has voted for deficit spending of some kind.

    I'm not so sure primarying Blue Dogs helps anyone though.  These mostly rural areas they represent are probably not going to vote for a more liberal person than the Blue Dog.

    I'd really rather not cede seats to Repubs in any cycle just to eliminate the conservative wing of the party.  Because once some of these blue dog districts are gone, Dems might never win them back.

    In terms of the actual issue he discussed in the article regarding cutting funding for the unemployed to buy health insurance and state funding, seriously it has to end some time.  The govt has backstopped people like 2 years of unemplyment in some cases, has paid for a bulk of their COBRA and so on.  And the states have been given tons of money the last 2 years to do what they will, and this money ahs saved many jobs.  (I mean with 10% unemployment, the DMV should be open only 3 days a wekk in most states.  People without jobs shouldn't really be that turned off by slower customer service at the DMV if it cuts costs.)

    But seriously it might be time to let the public sector feel the full brunt of the economy that the private sector has already felt.

    Its time for people to put together a real job growth plan.  No more $1,000 tax incentives for hiring the unemployed, make it $10,000, or $20,000.  Continue waving the employer portion of SS/Medicare taxes on new employees for the foreseeable future.  And I'm sure there are many more and (likely) better ideas you all have.  


    [ Parent ]
    Dont want to get in trouble for arguing issues
    But I'll just say unequivocally, no, you are quite wrong and most people on this site would think so as well I imagine.  The public sector is the only part of this country still functioning normally.

    [ Parent ]
    Well depends on the meaning of "functioning normally"
    Pretty much every portion of the public sector (fed, state, county and munipal govts) is surviving on increased debt and deficits.

    Also, it doesn't seem like we're too far off line, we're discussing issues and the impact on party dynamics and elections.  As my old junior high math teacher used to say, "close enough".

    LOL.


    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I totally smirked typing that
    This will be one of the few times in my life when the private sector is a bigger mess than the public sector.

    Well then here's how Id argue against doing that politically oriented.  The Dems are the ones in charge up and down ballot in a majority of this country; allowing the public sector to fail means the Democrats failed.

    And even more so, government and taxes have been dirty words since the Reagan revolution.  This is the perfect opportunity to get our pro-government footings and exemplify how yes, government can be effective, yes it does work, and yes, it can accomplish things much better than the private sector can at times.  Particularly when the private sector has collapsed and has no way of pulling itself up by its boot straps.  As Franken always said on the campaign trail, it's great that many people can pull up their bootstraps and get their shit together, but some people dont even have boots.  What makes the federal government different is that they dont have any boots either, but they can borrow as many pairs as they want from China.


    [ Parent ]
    Tax cuts just don't work as well as spending. That's established......
    There is a multiplier effect by putting money into the economy, and some ways of doing it are more efficient than others.  Spending is more efficient than tax cuts.  Former Reagan Administration economist Bruce Bartlett penned a very readable column on this last year at one point that I wish I had at my fingertips now to link.

    The problem with tax cuts is that employers won't hire based on temporary tax cuts.  They want to know the economy will be strong enough for the indefinite future to support keeping new employees long-term.  The whole point of spending is to jump start the economy.  Tax cuts of the kind you specify don't do that.

    All that said, the Blue Dogs are trying to be responsive to their constituents, and they see that as a means to winning votes just as much as "avoiding" further job losses resulting from reduced government spending.  Really, a big share of swing voters are worried about deficits and the debt.  I am, and I'm a liberal.  But I understand and support Keynesian economics.  But most people don't, and they don't think the spending is helping--they're wrong, but that truth doesn't help us on election day.  So ultimately I come down on the same place on the politics of this, the Blue Dogs really are caught between a rock and a hard place.  They're really just making a non-substantive gesture whether they realize that or not, but democracy is imperfect, and public perception leads to rewarding gestures over substance.

    Chris Bowers has a valid take in his blog post.  But there is a competing take that is also valid regarding Blue Dogs' electoral prospects, that convincing voters the spending is for the best is a lost battle, and more votes can be won by the gesture.  They might be damned if they do, damned if they don't.  This recovery is slower than we needed or I thought would happen, and it still yet might cost us the House no matter what we do.

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


    [ Parent ]
    We probably disagree on some things
    But if spending at these levels is the only solution, then we can't really fault any fiscal conservative (blue dogs or otherwise) for doing anything against the spending I don't think.  I'm not sure if you'd agree with that point.

    While I agree tax cuts won't necessarily spur hiring, I think they'd do better than what's happening now.  The purpose of business is to maximize profits.  The current economy, to the detriment of workers, has shown corporations that profits can be maximized by simply increasing productivity.  All of the spending isn't helping spur job growth anywhere either, at least not in a significant way.  Tax cuts can increase profits and spur hiring, if they are big enough.  At the moment they simply aren't.  Considering 26 weeks of unemployment costs the corporation doing the layoff and the state govt each $5,000-$8,000 on average, a $10,000 incentive to hire might work.  Who knows?

    The sad truth is no one has really put forth a compelling idea heading into the elections.  Dems want more spending and maybe some minor tax cuts, Repubs want big tax cuts and only minimal spending.  (That's an over-simplification I know).

    I can't say as though I'm planning to vote this fall based on economic concerns, since no one has shown me yet they can do better than just waiting it out.  I'm sure I'm in the minority there.  Then again I'm also way mroe optimistic about Novemebr for Dems as well.


    [ Parent ]
    I think "waiting it out" is the only REAL solution......
    The CBO has studied and concluded flatly that the stimulus has saved or created jobs in the millions and caused unemployment to be lower than it would be otherwise.

    And the biggest myth in public belief about the stimulus is that it was all spending.  In fact there were $282 billion in tax cuts over 2 years, roughly 40% of the total.  That compares to Bush's $150 billion tax cut stimulus in 2008.  So that's almost $500 billion in tax cuts alone over 3 years.  And for all that, the spending is helping more than the tax cuts.

    The problem with your tax cuts-for-jobs idea is that, again, employers won't hire if they're not confident they can afford the new employees once the tax cuts are over, and they don't gamble on that front.  Hiring is just not something employers gamble with, especially in a recession.

    I do sympathize with the Blue Dogs' plight in vulnerable districts, but ultimately they're best served by whatever policy best hastens the recovery, and that's spending rather than tax cuts.  But this recovery is just too slow for anything to help that much in time for the midterms, especially this late.

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


    [ Parent ]
    If the Democrats don't give a hand to the poor and unemployed
    in a very weak economy, they will lose big and deserve it. This isn't about long-term deficit-cutting, which is extremely popular, at least in theory (and which, for whatever it's worth, I strongly support and consider very important).

    Focus on the politics of this: The Democrats traditionally represent themselves as the party of working people, and right now, many working people are actually not working - unemployed - or working poor. If they just stand by and let the states deal with deficits by imposing savage cuts and big tax and fee increases, do you think it'll somehow be the Republicans in Congress who are going to be blamed by the voters?

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


    [ Parent ]
    Not Sure
    After the "Bush Dogs" mess, and considering Bowers is already not a fan of the Blue Dogs, it's difficult to take anything he says about them seriously.

    Besides, the Blue Dogs main goal is a balanced budget. Whether or not their actions as a caucus have contributed towards such a thing is debatable, but considering a balanced budget is their goal, it's not a difficult concept to see why they'd oppose the spending Bowers mentioned.

    As far as vulnerability, one thing to remember is that the so called "most vulnerable" Blue Dogs usually come from Republican leaning districts, so cutting spending is something that would attract these voters towards a Democrat.


    [ Parent ]
    Oh
    And I should add, if Blue Dogs are going to suffer so bad because of this, isn't that a good thing for those on the left who want "More and Better Democrats"?

    If you want a more liberal caucus and fewer Blue Dogs, then why complain when they do something that might cause them to lose some seats?

    Maybe that purity idea is not such a good thing after all?


    [ Parent ]
    One conventional wisdom among progressives
    is that "blue dogs" are all about the pork for their home districts -- the pork is the main reason why they're still Ds.

    If I'm understanding that "conventional wisdom" correctly, that's too simplistic.

    I definitely did not like the "Bush dog" concept. OTOH, Bowers is perhaps the most serious intellectual force in that area. And the Bowers diary on that topic is consistent with what I believe is the progressive conventional wisdom w/r/t blue dogs.

    I think the most apt slogan for blue dogs that I've seen is "progress with economy". (wish I remember where I saw that poster). To some, that's moderation. To others, that's inconsistent.  


    [ Parent ]
    Purity...
    Blekh, yuk and gag lol

    The Dems got big majroties by being open to vast differences of opinion because some times their is mass agreement.  It makes me sad when people are so against certain Dems when I look at all this Congress has (and will) accomplish.  Everyone who is remotely a Democrat should be VERY ahppy with the last 18 months.

    We can't get into a world or primarying blue dogs as I don't see how it yields any better results than Tea Party folks primarying more "liberal" Repubs.

    Not that this was Bowers point, but as it relates to purity and the development of a more liberal caucus, I think it fits.


    [ Parent ]
    We're happy now
    but we wont be happy come November when we get our asses kicked because we cant together as a party.

    [ Parent ]
    And to be more specific about Dems getting a majority
    by being a big-tent party, if we lost every Blue Dog elected in 2006 and 2008, the Dems would still have a majority.  When it comes 2006, the Democrats elected 11 Blue Dogs and 19 other Democrats, we only needed 15 to get the majority.

    Im too lazy to go through the numbers so I wont refute the Democrats won a majority by being a big tent party, but that big tent party did not need to include Blue Dogs.

    (Bleh, Im not really this anti Blue Dog....  They can stay in the caucus, I could careless because we wont do better in many of these districts.  I just hate seeing them work with the GOP to dumb down our legislation.)


    [ Parent ]
    You don't get a balanced budget
    by triggering a vicious double-dip recession.

    We are going to have to agree to disagree that savaging state budgets to the nth degree is a good reelection strategy for any Democrats.

    Let's not lose sight of what we're talking about: State and local governments have already made deep, bloody puncture wounds in their budgets. If they have to cut through the bone, what's left? Not many of the Democrats, in my opinion.

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


    [ Parent ]
    Is Giulianin crazy
    Given the polling and expectations of a Haley win, why would he endorse at this time?

    He is running for Prez in 2012 right?  And Haley is the likely governor right?  Wouldn't endorsing Haley's opponent 2 years earlier kind of harm his chances in SC, especially since Haley will be able to deliver a solid ground operation to whomever she wishes.

    Maybe I'm being very "simple" in my thoughts, but why did Giuliani endorse in this contest?  And does McMaster have anything to gain from the endorsement of a NY liberal Republican former mayor.


    Hmmm...
    Yes, Giuliani is crazy if he thinks he'll do any better in the 2012 primaries than he did in 2008.

    26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent

    [ Parent ]
    Thoughts on Endorsement
    Don't know if electability is much of a factor, but I see some reasons for Giuliani endorsing McMaster.  McCain has endorsed McMaster (after McMaster endorsed McCain for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008) and McCain and Giuliani are close to each other on the political spectrum and Giuliani endorsed McCain after Giuliani dropped out, McMaster is South Carolina's Attorney General and is a former South Carolina US Attorney and Giuliani also is a former prosecutor, and McMaster has a very good chance of getting into a runoff with Haley.  

    [ Parent ]
    Cali
    Just voted in Cali--voted for Brown's token opposition Aguirre and couldn't hold my nose for Boxer--her competition is so weird (Kaus and another guy no one any has talked about)--so I skipped the Senate race altogether.

    Voted Yes on 13, 14 and 16 and No on 16 and 17.


    The Republicans
    will have a field day with this post. First, John Kerry voted for the Iraq War before he voted against it. Now, Zeitgeist9000 voted for Prop 16 at the same time he voted against it. ;)

    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 ]
    Oops
    You got me!

    I'll shut up now and go to sleep.


    [ Parent ]
    David, you are one of the best at predicting sleeper candidates
    and you did not fail us now. Coons in DE is indeed one to watch and support. I feel some November magic that may call for Republicans to build a mote around their Castle!

    AL-05
    I think the criticism of Cramer is a little overboard. He's always been about the space programs in North Alabama, even to this day, since he's a lobbyist for the city of Huntsville.

    Obviously I hope he endorses Raby, but just because he doesn't come out of the gate the day after the Primary is not a reason for concern.


    MS-GOV: Hattiesburg Mayor running
    http://www.wpmpradio.com/?p=1330 Mayor Johnny Dupree is running to be the first black gov of MS. Hattieburg is Mississippi's 3rd largest city. I know its kinda old, but this wasn't on here before. He has a campaign site and all.  

    Wow, talk about planning in advance.
    Does it really make sense to starting running so early?  Offically, I mean?  Obviously it's probably never too early to line up donors and all, but I'd imagine you lose some of the benefits of the official announcement and all.

    [ Parent ]
    It's early, but not horrendously so
    Plenty of candidates had declared by this time last year for 2010 races, especially lesser-known ones who needed to build up name rec.

    Let's see if he can learn from Artur Davis' mistakes, in a state with even fewer white Democratic voters than Alabama.

    20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08


    [ Parent ]
    It happens often
    Most candidates that are running this yr had announced by summer of last year.  

    [ Parent ]
    But that's a year/year and a half of running.
    Here, we're talking about well over two years.

    [ Parent ]
    MS-gov is in 2011
    They're one of the off year states.

    28, Unenrolled, MA-08

    [ Parent ]
    No
    If he announced in April 2010 and the General election for Mississippi Governor is in November 2011, that's certainly not well over two years.

    Both John Oxendine and David Poythress have been running for Governor here in Georgia since the summer of 2008. Oxendine is still the front runner for the GOP nomination.

    I'm not a fan of long, drawn out campaigns, but it seems to be more and more common these days.


    [ Parent ]
    Oops. Forgot it was an off-year state.
    My mistake.

    [ Parent ]
    How is the congress game?
    It sounds like something that I would love and would be up my alley, but I'd like to hear from people here who have played it before burning $20

    I would like to know too


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




    17, CA-06,  


    [ Parent ]
    Blue Dogs
    I literally nodded up and down while reading that entire Chris Bowers post.  The problem is that none of these Blue Dogs are actually listening to their constituents, they are listening to the tea-baggers who care enough to call in and complain, they are watching the Fox News motivated stories, and they are straight up listening to GOP talking points.  And as Bowers points in the first sentence, they dont care about budget deficits or have an actual ideology, and we all know how much many of them love their government pork, they aren't any exception in this department.  What makes me dislike the Blue Dogs is that instead of working with the Democrats to have a coordinated message, a coordinated strategy, a strategy that will keep us all afloat, they instead are working with the GOP to make our bills be less effective.  How on Earth can we argue that extreme action and government interference was necessary to prevent total economic destruction when we have a giant segment of our caucus saying the complete opposite?

    I will say I dont hold House Blue Dogs to such a poor degree as I do with with the Lieberdems in the Senate who 100% completely fucked us over in HCR.  If they had just followed along, shut their fucking mouths, and rolled over, well, they'd all still be in the Senate come 2016.  Instead Lincoln is pretty much DOA, Lieberman has tier 1 challengers waiting and the party will abandon him this time, and it seems likely Nelson and Landreiu will both be retiring because they think they'll lose anyway.  And the worst part is that they took us all down with them.

    One ray of light for us that makes this differently than the GOP is that they got taken down because their policies got us to where we are.  We got here because of 4 douchebag Senators who made HCR take 6 months longer than it should have and made the Democrats look weak, ineffectual, and like we cant even get a flipping piece of legislation passed after taking A YEAR of working on it.  Hell, let's make that 5 Senators, August through November was Baucus' fault.


    Ok
    Andrew,

    Please explain to us the purpose of the Blue Dog Caucus.
    Thanks.

    When you've got the liberal wing of the party wanting most of these guys out, well, how in the world do you expect there to be any type of "coordinated message" or "a strategy that will keep us all afloat"? Instead of the Blue Dogs having to accept the liberal view, maybe the liberals should consider implementing some of the Blue Dog ideas. It goes both ways.

    You've got groups making coordinated efforts to get rid of Blue Dogs, yet you want the Blue Dogs to fall in line and support the party line on everything? That's insane. Bobby Bright and Jim Marshall should get a pat on the back for voting their districts, even when it means voting against the party.

    The great thing about our party, in contrast to the GOP, is that we have a wide variety of ideologies within the caucus.

    The moment the party does what you want and becomes a unified party incapable of having varying opinions, then, well, we'll become no better than the GOP.

    Last time I checked, the teabaggers are constituents just like anyone else. It's entirely possible that the teabaggers are a large chunk of voters in certain Blue Dog districts.


    [ Parent ]
    The problem is Blue Dogs have the stupidest, hardest to understand ideology
    I understand the GOP, they'd rather have zero taxes and dream of a government that only pays for military expenditures and their social conservatism has always been easy to understand, it's the same mentality I had when I was 5.

    However, the Blue Dog economic position is non-existant and really seems only meant to piss off liberals.  You can complain all day about being against raising deficits and follow through with that by voting against increased welfare expenditures.  Well, then dont vote $1 trillion (so far) in unfunded, deficit adding war expenditures that total 1/6th of the total amount we've added to the deficit since 2000.  Or all the pork projects.  That's why they bug me, and probably most liberals, issue wise.  You want to piss off a liberal, tell them you only favor government expenditures when it comes to war and not to help the poor.

    The other big problem is that the Blue Dogs arent helping Obama and the Democrats with their "push to represent their districts better."  This wouldve been fine before when both parties worked together.  Not today, the GOP has made politics a go it alone job with your party vs theirs.  Having one of our largest caucuses constantly working with the other side only makes us all look bad and undercuts our overall legislative and electoral strategy.


    [ Parent ]
    It does
    Instead of the Blue Dogs having to accept the liberal view, maybe the liberals should consider implementing some of the Blue Dog ideas. It goes both ways.

    That's exactly what happens. If anything, the Blue Dogs, because they're the Democrats least likely to care greatly if liberal legislation fails or want their names to be associated publicly with it, have disproportionate influence. I say that not really to complain, but just to make a fairly self-evident observation, but one worth remembering.

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


    [ Parent ]
    It's very unclear
    that if Lincoln had just quietly voted for cloture - maybe with an explanation - and voted "No" on HCR, that she wouldn't still lose.

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


    [ Parent ]
    Can you try that again?
    I think I'm reading a quadruple negative, combining your title, with "No," "wouldn't," and possibly "lose"

    Are you saying that Lincoln would have won re-election if she voted for cloture but against HCR? Or are you saying that she'd just have a better chance in just the primary?


    [ Parent ]
    I think Pan means
    that had Lincoln voted for cloture and against the bill, Halter might not have run so she'd win the nomination and likely the general.

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


    [ Parent ]
    That makes sense, ty
    Far fewer people would have encouraged Halter to run if Lincoln had voted as you suggest.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not what I meant
    I meant that she still might have lost, though probably in the general election and not the primary (which it looks like she still might win in a runoff tonight; I hope not).

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


    [ Parent ]
    I voted in SC
    I just voted in Simpsonville, SC, in the Dem primary.  I voted for Vincent Sheheen for governer (to avoid a runoff), Tom Thompson for Education Super (a teacher/college dean vs an education dept. bureaucrat), and Vic Rawl for Senator (the other guy's not a serious candidate).  

    I was Dem voter #14.  By the time I voted, the Rep voters were up to 114.  I don't know if this is because the number of Rep voters is much higher in the Upstate, or if Dems are crossing over to vote in the Rep primary because it's the "only primary that matters".  I'm against crossing primaries.  The Dems will never build a strong party if no one's bothering to vote in their primaries.  And I worry that if few Dems vote in their own primaries, jokes like Robert Ford and Alvin Greene might win.


    MN Gov poll
    From A firm I had not heard of, Decision Resources Ltd.

    http://www.twincities.com/ci_1...

    Dayton (D): 40
    Emmer (R): 28
    Horner(I): 18

    Kelliher (D): 38
    Emmer (R): 28
    Horner (I): 17

    Entenza (D): 34
    Emmer (D): 27
    Horner (D): 19

    "Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan



    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