Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 6/10 (Afternoon Edition)

by: Crisitunity

Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 3:50 PM EDT


AR-Sen: Here's a non-surprise. Americans for Job Security, who poured $1.8 million into anti-Bill Halter ads during the primary, say they probably aren't going to be doing any further work on behalf of Blanche Lincoln. The anti-labor group already got what it wants (two anti-labor candidates), so its work is done. Also worth noting, Nate Silver points out what a tough lift a Bill Halter victory would have been, revealing something called the 'blogginess' index (a factor of being white, liberal, and college-educated), on which Arkansas scores very low and Pennsylvania scores pretty high (by way of explaining how Pennsylvania was more responsive to a labor/netroots primary challenge -- although I'd point out that actual labor and netroots support wasn't the main factor in pushing Joe Sestak past Arlen Specter, whereas it was the driving force in Halter's bid). I'm not sure if he noticed or not, but the rank ordering of the states on that index is quite similar to the graph of most liberal-to-conservative Democratic electorates that Andrew Gelman introduced last week.

CO-Sen: Jane Norton is making a rhetorical rush to the right, if her new advertising is any indication: it's all about stopping "Obamacare" and "yanking it out by the roots," and it's playing mostly in the dark-red Colorado Springs market. Wondering why? She's probably seeing the same thing in her polling as what Republican pollster Magellan (who are getting quite active in offering public polls of Republican primaries where they don't have a horse in the race) is seeing. They have a poll out today showing Weld County DA Ken Buck leading Norton, 42-32.

IL-Sen: Worse to worst for Mark Kirk? It looks like frustration with his constant politicizing of his military service was present even within the Department of Defense, as a DoD memo has surfaced that expressed "concerns arising from his partisan political activities during his last two tours of active duty." Kirk was required to get a waiver before deploying to Afghanistan in 2008, which required him to write out "an acknowledgment of limitations required for all candidates on active duty."

NC-Sen: This is kind of an out-of-the-blue endorsement, but it may help Elaine Marshall gain a little traction with the national netroots. Ohio SoS Jennifer Brunner is apparently OK with endorsing outside her own state's boundaries, as she offered her support to Marshall.

NV-Sen: Echoes of Rand Paul's still-in-progress post-primary makeover? Jon Ralston notices that Sharron Angle's wacky website just got scrubbed, with no discussion of her positions at this point (no mention of Social Security elimination, for instance). Meanwhile, the GOP signals that they're going to actively get involved in breaking out the message massage oil and work on rehabbing Angle: RNC head Michael Steele has pledged his support. RNC funds will go to the Nevada GOP rather than directly to Angle, whose campaign actually was in the red ($139K CoH, $179K debt) on May 19. (Compare that to Harry Reid's $9.1 million.) And Angle's reaching out to the GOP establishment, too, to the extent that she says she's willing to accept campaign help from John Ensign, a flip-flop from her pre-primary position. Fitting, though, since she's been a big proponent of embracing radioactive waste in Nevada. (And while I don't ordinarily like to honk my own horn, after looking back through the SSP attic, I have to remind everybody that I forecasted an Angle primary victory back in October.)

SC-Sen: There's a growing sense that something's amiss with Alvin Greene's entry to the race, to the extent that Jim Clyburn explicitly called him a "plant" today and asked for a probe. The real puzzle is the timeline on Greene's obscenity arrest, obtaining a public defender because of his indigence, and then his filing for the race:

The South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, which operates the state's public defender program, makes clear that courts take into account "the number of people in your household, whether you own any real estate, or have money in the bank" when deciding whether to assign a public defender to a defendant.
Greene has claimed that he paid the $10,400 filing fee out of his savings from his military pay. But he was discharged from the Army in August 2009 and says he hasn't held a job since then.
So, in economic terms, the timeline goes like this: Greene's military paychecks stopped in August. Three months later, he filed an affidavit with a South Carolina court claiming to be indigent. And four months after that he walked into the South Carolina Democratic Party headquarters with a personal check for $10,400.

Losing gubernatorial candidate Robert Ford (who's African-American) also sheds some light on how Greene might have won despite his complete unknownness: apparently, in South Carolina, "Greene" (as opposed to "Green") is understood to be an African-American last name. With South Carolina's Democratic electorate with a black majority, voters with no other information about the two choices might vote based purely on that.

UT-Sen: After previously having had some nice things to say about him, 4th place finisher Cherilyn Eagar went the whole way and endorsed Tim Bridgewater for the GOP Senate primary against Mike Lee.

WI-Sen: Republican businessman Ron Johnson, who has some personal wealth to draw on in his bid against Russ Feingold, is launching his first television ads. A source tells SSP that this is a one-week statewide ad buy for about $350K.

AL-Gov: Second-place finisher Robert Bentley is out with an internal poll (by Dresner Wicker) giving him a big lead in the runoff against Bradley Byrne, 45-29. That's somewhat plausible, since Bentley seems likelier to consolidate the votes for the most conservative options, Roy Moore and Tim James, than is "moderate" Byrne. (Of course, since James is paying for a recount, it's not a done deal that Bentley's in the runoff.)

CO-Gov: Scott McInnis, facing a primary from teabagger Dan Maes (who pulled even with him at the state convention), now says he "doesn't remember" serving on the board of pro-choice group Republicans for Choice. However, paperwork filed with the FEC lists him on the group's letterhead as a board member from 1996 to 2005... that's ten years.

SC-Gov: Nikki Haley is out with an internal poll giving her a big lead heading into the runoff against Gresham Barrett, 62-28 (suggesting she's gotten the majority of the gains from the primary, where she led 49-22). Barrett's staying in (despite a sandbagging by the RGA), and he's already out with a TV ad, where he appears with a drill sergeant who calls him "a Christian family man who won't embarrass us." I'm not sure if that cringeworthy line is supposed to be an anti-Mark Sanford dogwhistle or an anti-Haley dogwhistle; maybe it's intended to do double-duty.

GA-09: Despite losing the runoff in the special election in the 9th, Lee Hawkins is continuing to fight on; he'll also challenge Rep.-elect Tom Graves in the regularly scheduled July primary. Hawkins didn't fare as poorly as expected, staying within 56-44, and may be counting on the late-breaking news about Graves's attempts to dodge a lawsuit over an unpaid business loan continuing to be a story in coming months.

ID-01: Greg Smith & Associates released a poll (apparently not on any candidate's behalf), showing Raul Labrador leading Democratic freshman Walt Minnick, 36-24. Recall, though, that this is the same pollster that found Minnick leading "the Republican" candidate 50-20 before the primary (and the link also helpfully provides a list of other times Smith has been way off the mark).

VA-05: This should put to rest any notions that ex-Rep. Virgil Goode was considering a third-party independent teabagger-powered run in the 5th, or that he might throw his backing to one of the minor-league third-partiers running. Goode endorsed establishment Republican Rob Hurt to go against Rep. Tom Perriello.

Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 6/10 (Afternoon Edition)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Something odd is happening in SC
I think it is a very legitimate question to ask where the 10K came from.  More importantly, we need to have legitimate candidates in statewide races -- not that we would beat Senator DeMint, but to; 1) Build up the longterm viability of the party, and 2) Not look like a bunch of f'in buffons!

Great point made in a diary on Kos about the
50 state strategy and how if we still had it, things may have been different here.

What a freaking mess.  You'd think primary voters would be the ones informed enough to be able to distiguish between the candidates for Senate.


[ Parent ]
Why would we bother there?
DeMint is safe. If we were going to try to fuck up the Dems, we would do it with someone semi-vulnerable, like Grassley, Isakson, Burr, or Vitter.

[ Parent ]
The challengers in those races are too strong
to "fuck up" with someone like Alvin Greene, but I get your point.  The bigger point is that if something nefarious was done here, it was a self-defeating tactic.  The risk of fallout from some kind of criminal scandal is 1000 worse than having Jim Demint take on Vic Rawl.

I would add that PPP showed a 49-31 race, and another poll showed 50-43, so DeMint was not in super-safe territory, although he was close to it.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11


[ Parent ]
Good question
It's not like Senator DeMint had anything to worry about, even if we had found a top-shelf challenger.  Unless DeMint did his own version of a Tango Argentino, it doesn't make any sense.  But still, an unemployed guy never before involved in politics came up with 10K to file for a US Senate race, and doing no campaiging, won it by a wide margin.  It's very strange.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps to help your Governor nominee
Several months ago, it seemed possible that Andre Bauer could be the nominee, and he would have trouble against a Democrat.  By putting Greene as a Trojan Horse, that may sow some division in the Dems, which may depress turnout and allow Bauer to win.

[ Parent ]
DeMint was not a 'lock' against a strong opponent ..
Rawl may or may not have been that opponent, but he had the potential to be.  The few polls taken of this race reflect that.  Having Rawl as the nominee would at least lower the 'blow out' margin, which helps down-ballot.

SC GOP politics is in the gutter, and has been for decades.  Look at Chris Cilliza's last "Fix" post, if you need proof.  Look particularly at the Rod Shealy (a political consultant, still in business today) scandal, which involved paying the filing fee for an unemployed black fisherman to run in a GOP primary. The purpose of which was to drive up white turnout to the benefit of Shealy's sister, a candidate for LT.Gov.    

Someone once told me years ago, 'nothing in politics just happens, somebody somewhere makes it happen'.  I have found that to be very sage advise.  SOMEBODY paid that guy's fee.  It may or may not have been a GOPer, but it would fit the M.O. if it was.

Local hate radio has had a field day with this story, and it has diverted attention from the GOP embarrassments of late.

BOTTOMLINE, there was reason from the GOP standpoint to put this guy in the primary.  I understand how he got 52% or so, but 59% still puzzles me.  


[ Parent ]
Two words
Nixon. Watergate. Having said that I doubt the GOP had anything to do with it.

[ Parent ]
AR- Endorsement
Quite a change from http://www.politico.com/news/s...

to

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

Halter's got a big decision to make. I see the following:

A) He does not endorse Lincoln, and continues to be loved by the outside groups that propped up his campaign yet becomes disliked by most Arkansas voters. His political career in Arkansas will be finished. Remember, he's not that well thought of by most of the establishment now anyway. This will only make it worse.

B) He does endorse Lincoln, the voters in Arkansas realize his attempt at party unity, and he's rewarded by continuing his career, probably moving up the ladder in a few years.

I hope Halter chooses B. Whether Lincoln wins or loses, at least he can say he tried to bring the party together.


I would be absolutely shocked
if Halter does not endorse Lincoln and campaign with her, if asked. Have there been any previous signs that he wasn't a loyal Democrat who endorses his party's nominees?

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


[ Parent ]
Nope
Not that I know of.

However, considering how angry labor is at Lincoln, even though her AFL-CIO and SEIU scores are fairly high, I can see them trying to convince him not to support her.

I mean, they're wanting to make a point, right?


[ Parent ]
Your post reeks with arrogance and entitlement
with the insinuation that somehow any Democrat is entitled to a labor endorsement.  As the AFL-CIO spokesman told the White House yesterday, "Unions are not an arm of the Democratic Party.".

[ Parent ]
I disagree
Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to ask whether those Unions which supported Halter

would ask -- or even push him to withhold (or even just tone down) an endorsement of Lincoln.


[ Parent ]
They can ask whatever the hell they want
It makes no difference. And they'd be stupid to try to tell Halter what to do now.

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


[ Parent ]
Huh?
You're way off base there. I'm pretty sure I'm one of the few Democrats on here that's not really big whether or not a candidate has union support. If anything, I'd say that try to bully Lincoln, but that's a discussion for a different post.

Nice try though.

However, I guess I'll try to explain my thoughts in a different way.

Halter was clearly the choice of unions and liberals in the media and blogs. Halter did get many votes, but his campaign was clearly supported mainly by out of state interests. I mean, look at what DKos and others were doing with helping to raise funds for Halter. Lincoln surely had her outside support as well, but she had support from the Arkansas Democratic establishment.

Outside labor (and in state labor) contributed greatly to Halter because Lincoln (although her scores were high) was supposedly "anti-union".

My point is that I could see the unions, who are still angry at Lincoln, easily saying to Halter:

"Hey, we worked our tails off for you because you stood with us. If you dare endorse Lincoln, we're through with you in the future."

I say that because many of those that supported Halter are still claiming a moral victory even though Halter lost.

If the unions truly believed in making a point, as everyone is saying, then why not continue to show that you're NOT beholden to Democrats by threatening to stop supporting a candidate who turns around and endorses a candidate the unions dislike?


[ Parent ]
Because that is sour grapes.
They made their point - they will go after those who block their priorities.  Why would they then try to stop a Halter endorsement?  What do they care at that point?  It's not like they're then obligated to support her.

[ Parent ]
Well
I bring that up because Halter has truly become the union and liberal blogosphere/media candidate.

Maybe I watch too much tv and read dKos and other blogs a bit too much, but Halter was mentioned and promoted constantly.

Lincoln wins and everyone has to find a way to explain how Halter had a moral victory.

The unions wanted to primary Lincoln because she was against them.

Why not continue to exert pressure? She could easily become even more "anti-union" (as anti-union as having 80%+ scores would be) because of the crap they gave her.

They're not obligated to support her, but everyone is saying the unions showed they can apply pressures successfully. Why not continue to apply that pressure until November and get her to support any upcoming union supported legislation?


[ Parent ]
Also
It might be sour grapes, but if they're truly committed to the cause of putting pressure on supposedly "anti-union" Democrats.

Politically it's not a good move, but neither was getting involved in Arkansas.

Someone on MSNBC made a great point. Lincoln is, by all definition, the establishment candidate. However, because of so many outsiders getting involved, and the race becoming nationalized, she made Halter the establishment candidate.

Southerners do not like outsiders getting involved too heavily :)


[ Parent ]
Getting involved in Arkansas
wasn't a bad move politically.  Hell, they got the WH to back down and meeting with them at union headquaters to deal with the comments that had been issued over the past day or so - showing that they've definitely got the WH's attention.

So how does acting like a baby help?

Did she really make him the establishment candidate?  I was under the impression she was attacking him as an outsider/funded by outsiders.  And he was supposedly, as noted by those in Arkansas, hated by the establishment there.


[ Parent ]
Oops
Yeah, I messed up there.

She was definitely the in-state establishment choice, but those out of state (except President Obama and President Clinton) favored Halter.

She did have White House support, but the so called base (unions and liberals) of the Democratic Party outside of Arkansas did not support her, instead they threw their support behind Halter.  


[ Parent ]
You think the unions are so irrational
that they will hold it against a candidate they supported for endorsing the Democratic who defeated him? Seriously? You are living in a different world from me, friend.

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


[ Parent ]
Well
Normally, no. However, in this case, as much as everyone harped about how bad Lincoln was, and how she was no friend to labor, it's hypocritical to me for them to ignore Halter's endorsement of Lincoln.

Politically it's insane, and 99% of the time I wouldn't even think it'd happen.

In this case though, as extreme as everyone has railed against Lincoln, it'll look bad for the unions when Halter endorses Lincoln.

The unions are "not an arm of the Democratic Party", so why not continue to flex some muscle and ensure that Halter does not support Lincoln?


[ Parent ]
How does it look bad for the unions if
Halter supports her?  I would like to see where Halter and/or the unions said Boozeman would be better.

[ Parent ]
Well
I think it looks bad because the unions and others are still spinning Halter's loss as a moral victory.

Lincoln has been made out to be anti-union, even though she has fairly high scores. If Lincoln is as bad as the unions made her out to be, why not put pressure on Halter NOT to support her.

Unions have explicitly stated that they are not an arm of the Democratic Party, so why not put pressure on Halter, the candidate they fought tooth and nail for, to withhold his endorsement of an anti-union politician?

That would send quite a message.

Again, from a political standpoint it's off the wall and irrational, but if they really believed Lincoln to be as bad as they harped for months, then how bad would it look for their candidate to back her?

Make Halter choose between the out of state interests who nationalized the race and helped him raise money or the Democrat who defeated him in the Primary.

Basically, it boils down to Halter being a friend of labor, or a supporter of Lincoln.


[ Parent ]
I still don't buy your premise at all.
This is no longer Halter v. Lincoln.  This is now Lincoln v. Boozman.  You're still framing it in terms of the primary.

The unions lost the race, though they made a point.  They've now disengaged and have moved on.  There's nothing left here - unless they want to look ridiculously petty.  And they don't.

If Lincoln is as bad as the unions made her out to be, why not put pressure on Halter NOT to support her.
 Because no one has said Boozman is better.  And again, Halter v. Lincoln is over.  I could repeat this after everything you said.

Basically, it boils down to Halter being a friend of labor, or a supporter of Lincoln.
 Bullshit.  That's a false dichotomy as again, we're done with primary.  

[ Parent ]
LOL
No one said Halter was better than Lincoln either.  That's all a perception not really backed up by fact.  

Nothing personal, but an entrenched Halter wouldn't have voted for HCR either.  He's also not for EFCA.  As a matter of fact, I honestly don't think Halter and Lincoln would have voted differently on anything.


[ Parent ]
Well
Repeat it all you want, I don't care.

The fact that you're saying unions made a point, and the fact that the unions are still on TV saying they made a point simply reinforces what I'm saying. Y'all think you made a point, but you really did nothing since you thought you were going to win and ended up losing.

Since you're fussing about repeating, I'll complain about having to repeat this:

Politically, it's crazy.

However, if the unions and the liberal blogosphere truly believed in making a point, they'd pressure Halter not to endorse Lincoln. That would truly send a message.

I mean, like the unions have said, they're not an arm of the Democratic Party, so why not flex some muscle and really make a statement by convincing Halter to stay neutral.


[ Parent ]
You're right RuralDem
But I think admitting defeat or being wrong also is politically crazy.  LOL.

As such, I stand by my slightly different stance.  It was a publicity stunt that got WAY more free media coverage than actually trying to accomplish something ever could.  $10 million could have helped primary many "NO" voting representatives in the house.  But it would not have been this big of a story because they could have only won a few of those such races (at most).  And they would have been scattered throughout rural areas and would have actually furthered the anti-incumbent mantra that was initally being reported prior to this primary season.  And Labor didn't want that.

As a matter of fact, I can't even find where Labor endorses or doesn't endorse based on EFCA?  It just seems odd that Halter and Lincoln have the same position on EFCA, the next big Labor priority.


[ Parent ]
Halter said he'd filibuster EFCA
like Lincoln said?  Funny, I don't remember that.

Oh, and in case anyone doesn't remember, she said she would not support the bill, or even support the consideration of the bill: http://www.efcareport.com/2009...


[ Parent ]
He doesn;t support it.
In a 59 seat majroity, he doesn't have to be part of the filibuster.  If he doesn;t vote for cloture it goes nowhere.  He hasn't even said he would do that from what I can find.

Please provide links if I'm wrong.


[ Parent ]
You said they have the same position
Her position is not only does she not support it, but that she'll filibuster it.  I'm saying he's never said that.

If he doesn't vote for cloture, then he's part of the filibuster.  


[ Parent ]
What's the difference
Honest to good GOD.  Its about results.  Whether he actively filibusters or sits by and votes no on cloture (tantamount to filibuster), the EFCA does not pass.

At some point will results matter.  Or is defending an unproveable hypothesis the only goal of unions these days.  I thought for sure they were out there working for working families.....


[ Parent ]
They did nothing?
It's not ideal that they didn't win.  Of course it would have been better that they won.  But that doesn't mean nothing was accomplished.

And you've come up with this idea, that you say is crazy, and now insist it's the only way to make a point.  Glad you think so, but that's not reality.  Again, you're still within the Halter v. Lincoln framework.  That race is over.  Done.  It's now general election time.  The unions won't be working for Lincoln, unlike the party establishment.  They've moved on.

You still haven't addressed my question - where did the unions say Boozman is better?  Because ultimately, you're saying that they should pressure Halter to try to keep the base split for the general.  Doesn't sound like anything they've advocated.


[ Parent ]
Well
The reason I say its the only way to make a point is because losing to Lincoln in the primary did nothing.

All we heard about on the blogs and from the unions were that Halter would win, and it was taken as a given.

He loses, and now there's this sudden spin that "oh, he lost but hey we still made a point". Nah, it doesn't work like that.

Instead of being honest and saying "wow, we were way off, the voters of Arkansas apparently did not support our beliefs", it was warped into "oh we lost but hey it was close and we sure did make Lincoln worry".

I never stated that the unions prefer Boozman. I'm not sure where that's coming from.

Why would the unions care though if the Democratic base is split in the General? They're not an arm of the Democratic Party.


[ Parent ]
We're just going to go round and round.
You've created a position out of nowhere that you claim is the only way to make a point; a position you also say is crazy.

If that's what you want to believe, that the only way for a point to be made is for them to pressure Halter into not endorsing Lincoln, then that's what you want to believe.  I'm obviously not going to change your mind.

The primary race is over.  The position that you created advocates for it to be continued.  There's no reason for it.

I think we need to respectfully agree to disagree here.


[ Parent ]
Well
They've yet to make any point.

Shouting victory for 2-3 months then losing both the Primary and Run-Off doesn't equal making a point.

The unions feel they have made a point by getting rejected by the voters of Arkansas. I simply suggested a way for them to actually make a point that others might take seriously.

I'm not pushing for a continuance of the Primary. Nice try though.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


[ Parent ]
I remember George McGovern
and how George Meany withheld the endorsement of the AFL-CIO, I think because McGovern defeated Humphrey in the '72 primaries.

[ Parent ]
It's more complicated than that
Meany refused to endorse McGovern for two reasons, one he opposed repeal of Taft-Hartley in the past and had several other anti-labor votes and secondly he was for surrender in Vietnam and too dovish on foreign policy.  Lastly, he was never close to labor, and Meany just didn't trust him.

In retrospect, Meany's suspicions were correct.  George McGovern was one of the people that anti-EFCA groups used to oppose card check, McGovern was in many ads for them.

I think losing the endorsement of the AFL-CIO ended any chance McGovern had to run a respectable race against Nixon.  He lost by 23%, but had the unions endorsed him, he may have lost by only 10-15%.


[ Parent ]
The point is still holds
Labor sometimes refuses to endorse Democrats.

It's not like Nixon even tried to be good for labor (with the possible exception of the Teamsters). And McGovern was no conservadem.


[ Parent ]
That is how it should be IMO
Labor should endorse its allies and oppose its enemies, not give carte blanche to one party.  Nixon wasn't bad for a Republican on economic issues.  


[ Parent ]
He laid the ground for relations with China
I could find quite a few people who think the eventual trade relations with China are more harmful to American manufacturing industries than NAFTA.

[ Parent ]
Well the real person responsible
was not Nixon.  He didn't open it up completely.

The guy responsible for both NAFTA and PNTR with China makes me seethe every time I think about him or his behavior. So I don't want to go any more on this direction.

 


[ Parent ]
So you're saying that George McGovern
the successor to Robert Kennedy as the "Tribune of the Underclass,"

was an enemy of the working man?


[ Parent ]
He was certainly was not a trusted friend
proven again by his kissing the rear of business leaders by appearing in anti-EFCA ads.  He was no Bobby Kennedy.

But look at his record.  He was against several pro-labor initiatives during his Senate career, the most egregious being against repeal of right-to-work laws and against labor law reform during the Carter years.

I'm not sure what I would have done in 1972. I'd probably voted for McGovern, but holding my nose.   McGovern was better than Nixon on many issues.  Nixon was better than McGovern on some issues.  


[ Parent ]
The fragile nature of the Democratic coalition
I thought about a number of reactions to user NewMex9999's pro-Nixon notes, some more verbally violent than others... Then I remembered the fragile nature of the forces that bring Liberals and Labor together.

Despite the anti-war nature of current Labor leadership, I'm not convinced that reflects the feelings of a majority of Labor members. After all, they were pro-War in Vietnam.

There are a number of common interests. But I wonder if Liberals and Labor are driven together simply by the common taunts of current Republicans.

In other words, in a world without the wingnut faction of the Republican Party, would US politics be organized differently?

1) Would pro-Business, growthers, and Liberals find common cause in one party, united perhaps by thoughts of civil liberties?

2) Would Labor, social conservatives, and pro-government types find common cause in a second party?

As crazy as that sounds, I think that reflects the current politics in the UK. In that case, party 1 is the Conservative/LD coalition, party 2 is the current UK Labour party. I wonder if that would be a more stable configuration for the US as well.


[ Parent ]
Before I can answer your question
Could you please define the term "Liberals"?    

You are right that not all or even most union members are anti-war.  I'm probably on the hawkish end to be honest, but many more union members are to the right of Obama.  But Obama did fairly poorly among union households, winning them 61-38, by the same margin as Kerry.  Compare that to the Democrats winning 74% of union households in House races.  Part of that was race (unfortunately) but part of that is many union members are sick of Democrats saying one thing on the campaign trail and then pushing neoliberal policies once in office (see Clinton, W).  I think a Democratic nominee who clearly supported pro-worker policies (including against bogus trade deals like NAFTA and with China) would get 80% of the union household vote, including that of many who are conservative on other issues.  

Also my responses were not "pro-Nixon", they were just trying to give a balanced view of the 1972 election from a labor perspective at the time as I understand it.  


[ Parent ]
Discussion moved
I've sorta recapped the discussion in the weekend open thread. I have my own definition of "liberal," but that may not jive with that of others, at least here.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the discussion so far
by the way.  I've enjoyed it.

[ Parent ]
Chuck Colsen used the term "surrender"
To describe the McGovern-Hatfield proposed withdrawal from Vietnam.

And until his conversion, Colson was perhaps the second meanest guy in the Nixon administration.

Do you associate yourself with the Chuck Colson crowd?


[ Parent ]
I'm a foreign policy hawk
and make no bones about it.  I'm as neocon as it gets on foreign policy.  I support Israel to the hilt, support strong action against Iran and against terrorism, support enhanced interrogation and waterboarding, etc.  Before that I was strongly anti-communist.  

As I said before, I am a Democrat because they usually stand up for working people and equal rights (including for women and gays, not for terrorists or illegal immigrants).  I do not support dovish policies, amnesty or immigration, multiculturalism, separatism, coddling criminals, and other far out things.  I supported Obama in 2008 in the primary and the general despite his support for these things, not because of them.  I almost supported Bush in 2000, and if I didn't come from a union background, I probably would have.        


[ Parent ]
No point in doing so
If the unions truly believed in making a point, as everyone is saying, then why not continue to show that you're NOT beholden to Democrats by threatening to stop supporting a candidate who turns around and endorses a candidate the unions dislike?

The unions wanted a scalp to show other Dems that they were serious, and Lincoln was their cheapest path to one.  She was going to lose anyway in the general so it didn't really hurt them much long term.  

The unions knew that Halter would lose too, which is why they didn't really care whether he was really pro-labor or not.  


[ Parent ]
LOL
Unions supporting one non-labor candidate over the other, I'm betting quite a few union members will not be too ecstatic about this.

At the end of the day, which media source will union members likely be paying attention to, the MSM (which is saying it was a waste) or the blogosphere (which is saying what a success it was).

Oh well, I guess the SC allows union members to not pay the union amounts spent on political purpose, the membership will decide whether it was a good sepnd.


[ Parent ]
As a union member
I certainly found it to be a good spend.

[ Parent ]
Again look at the deeper point
You are also a netroots guy.  How do those union members in the rust belt feel about this (and yes I'm aware SEIU isn't an industrial union).

Trust me, union folks, particularly the proverbial working man in middle america, do not like wasted money.  Whether they believe this foundation accomplished anything is the true debateable fact.  What isn't debatable is that no tangible progress on labor issues was made with this $10M spend.


[ Parent ]
So do these rank and file
not understand that any race is a gamble?  Or are they normal people with normal common sense?

[ Parent ]
Gambling by definition has a potential to win
Not really much of a gamble if they had no chance of furthering their issues with actual legislators and/or legislation.

I'd think these rank and file, as well as anyone on earth, would understand that.

However if you'd like to gamble with me and have no chance of winning, I could send you my address and you could just mail me some money.

Oh yeah, I can do sarcasm as well.


[ Parent ]
You assume this is the only way to further their position:
Not really much of a gamble if they had no chance of furthering their issues with actual legislators and/or legislation.

I don't believe that assumption.  I don't believe that any one expected that Halter winning would suddenly lead to EFCA being passed the next day, etc.


[ Parent ]
Specifically, what priority was it to further?
If your argument is it will make members of Congress/Senate think twice about crossing the Labor movement, please tell me which representatives and Senators will do so.  

Looking the members of the house who voted against HCR, I can see about a dozen that could have been primaried during this cycle.  And I don't see single one of those that voted against HCR that I think would vote any differently today.

Unfortunately, this is the most pro-Labor Congress we will see for a while.  The fact that Labor is so angry with one member is quite ridiculous.

Why isn't passing EFCA and getting members in congress who are pro-EFCA a priority?


[ Parent ]
We lost the opportunity to pass
a compromise version of EFCA (which is fine with me) when Brown beat Coakley in January.  

The word on the Hill in late 2009 was that the Democratic moderates would "go along" with (i.e. not filibuster) an EFCA that removed card check and replaced it with mandatory elections with in 10 days of turning in the cards.  Specter wanted a change in the arbitration process to require a baseball style arbitration, or last best offer, the unions were apparently ok with it.  

After January we only had 59.  But there was no indication of whether there were any GOP votes for this compromise, the assumption was that there were none, although I heard that Snowe and Murkowski were open to it.    


[ Parent ]
Why are we even talking about EFCA?
HCR was the final straw that made labor go, for fuck sake you are worthless and we are going to primary you.  And that is what I heard Halter talk a lot more about and being a bigger reason for jumping into the race.

I havent thrown in my 2-cents and so I will now.  Lincoln sucks hardcore as a politician, she tried to play both sides, she made the moderates think she was wishy-washy, that she had no idea what was going on, and that she would do or say anything to win.  She completely lacked any independent leadership and relied solely on poll numbers to make her political decisions, which is not a strategy you should be following blindly like she did.

Halter came out and said he wouldnt have pulled that shit with HCR.  And by that shit, I mean talking to the television more than to Harry Reid about your problems with the bill.  She stabbed us in the back not by being crappy about the bill, but by not keeping her problems in the family.  She stabbed us in the back and sold us down the river so she see her name be in the headlines, so she could look like the queenmaker and get to say, look AR I made HCR more to your liking and I did awesome.

Instead, her grandstanding and queenmaking made the bill take so long to pass that having your name associated with it in such a heavy manner would be a death knell.  Her strategy was her own undoing because she thought she needed to make sure she spent enough time pushing us away that instead during that time, everyone got sick of HCR, but there's goes Blanche going on and on about HCR.  I saw her and Lieberman on tv talking about HCR almost as much as Obama, stupid.  

In summation, she's a damn fool and deserved a primary for being such an inept politician, for stabbing us in the back, and for making passing HCR so craptacular that she has now taken us all down with her.  She along with the other Lieberdems single-handedly created this pro-GOP environment that'll lead to getting our asses kicked.  I blame them 100%, nobody else's fault.  No one except Sen. Lincoln, Lieberman, Nelson, Landreiu, and Baucus to some extent.


[ Parent ]
Oh Ok
So you found it good to spend over $10 million to attack a Democrat as anti-union that has the following scores:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue...

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/l...

AFL-CIO - 2008: 90%, Lifetime: 82%
SEIU -  2008: 75%
AFSCME - 2008: 78%, Lifetime: 81%

If you think that is "anti-union", then, well, I think you need to take a look at what you'll be getting with Boozman.

It's not good unless you think single digits and low teens mean someone is pro-union!


[ Parent ]
But we're on the path to purity
LOL.  Success!!!!

[ Parent ]
RuralDem
I hope I am not getting too much in ideology here but isn't Halter pro-life? I thought you were socially conservative but an economic populist. So why would you not back the socially moderate populist over the socially liberal slightly less populist. If I am at all being rood in asking I sincerely apologize but I am just curious. Thanks.  

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

[ Parent ]
I think again they're about the same on choice
Not willing to try and over-turn it, but avoiding expanding it and probably of the group that tried to ban abortion funding in HCR.

There really is no difference between them.  Not a single stated position where they are different.

Of courser Lincoln is against EFCA and Halter simply says it can't pass and he wants a compromise.  Oh and Lincoln says she's open to a compromise too.  So that HUGE difference is what everyone's all about lol.

Again, there's just nothing to prove that Halter would vote for HCR given how unpopular it is in Arkansas.  He's a conservadem like Lincoln in every way.


[ Parent ]
I stand corrected
I could have sworn I heard he was moderate on abortion.

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

[ Parent ]
He probably is moderate, depends on "moderate" definition
Certainly neither is liberal on abortion.  I think moderate on abortion would mean different things to different people.

[ Parent ]
Halter is a member of the Democratic Party
Regardless of who supported his candidacy, he will endorse the nominee. Are you being sarcastic and polemical here?

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


[ Parent ]
I'm sure he'll endorse her
He's just getting over the shock of defeat. Give him a few days to collect his thoughts. The world won't end if he doesn't endorse her within a week of the election.

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 ]
Right
I never said he had to hurry.

[ Parent ]
He'll endorse her
and Boozman will win this race by at least 15 anyway.  I hope the DSCC doesn't waste any money in this race.  

[ Parent ]
Bingo
I could see some disgruntled Halter supporters staying home even if he does stump for her.

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

[ Parent ]
Either Way
Personally, I think she'll do better than expected.

However, if you're going by polling, then I hope you'll admit the seat would be lost regardless of the nominee.


[ Parent ]
You
never explained why you think Lincoln would do better.

I think you are one of the only ones who support Lincoln, at least in the primary. So you can say why?

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26


[ Parent ]
Well
At first, and I believe I wrote early on about this, I thought Halter was a staunch liberal and as a Conservative Democrat, I'll take a moderate over a liberal any day. Over the past couple of weeks it seemed like he's actually much more moderate.

However, even though he came off as more moderate than I thought, I felt Halter's campaign was too "outside the state" to be successful. Besides, I felt that Lincoln's chairmanship counts for something, and she's well liked by the establishment in the state.


[ Parent ]
I agree
I think Lincoln will start to poll surprisingly well. This race has PA-Sen 2004 written all over it. Incumbent (Specter) was supposed to lose in the Republican primary to a candidate who was more inline with the core of the party (Toomey). The incumbent wins, then limps forward against a candidate who was of the party that represents the majority of voters in the state (Hoeffel). Incumbent wins that race, as well.

I know pre-primary polls show that I may be a nut case...but I'm not 100% convinced that Lincoln is completely dead.

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


[ Parent ]
I agree that Halter would have lost badly too
Never suggested otherwise.

[ Parent ]
Great
Just wanted to clarify that.  

[ Parent ]
And personally I have no problem in backing Lincoln
If nothing else, she is pro-choice, which itself is worth something coming from Arkansas.

[ Parent ]
She's also
decently pro-military, pro agriculture, and so on.

She is actually decently pro-labor, though I know many will disagree.

She also voted to give DC a voting seat in the House.
She also voted to create a Federal Budget Deficit Commission.
She voted to extend unemployment benefits.
She voted to raise the minimum wage.
She voted for Lilly Leadbetter.
She voted for S-CHIP.

And regarding HCR, its not like she wasn't disengaged.  She introduced an amendment to reduce the limits that healthcare companies can deduct on their fed tax returns, thereby creating more tax dollars from executive salries in the healthcare field.  This amendment did not pass.  She was also involved in some other areas of the bill to get something palatable (to her) done and it just didn't work out.

Again, Blacnhe Lincol is not pure evil.  Bill Halter is not a saint.


[ Parent ]
Actually
she is a horrible Agriculture chair. Pro-Agriculture is a very large stretch. I simply can't wait for someone new to take the chairmanship. I still want Blanche to win but I will be happy to finally have a decent agriculture chair.  

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

[ Parent ]
What exactly did she do wrong
on Ag issues?

[ Parent ]
We
probably shouldn't get too much into this because it is very off topic but I find Senator Lincoln cares a little bit too much about  corporate agribusiness than your everyday farmers and also her views towards the environment are much too far to the right for me and environmental issues come up often in the agriculture committee. Let's just leave it at that. Sorry I hope we have not gotten too far off topic.  

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

[ Parent ]
ID-01
Could be a be careful what you wish for scenario. I don't put a lot of faith in this poll, but I bet Labrador is getting a post-primary bounce. If Labrador runs a generic R, local-based campaign, that could be tougher for Minnick than a national candidate.

FEC Contribution limits
Is there any limit for how much a sitting senator or Rep can donate from his account to a candidate or other senator?  

It's probably either
the personal limit of $2000 (or so) or the PAC limit of $5000.  The only unlimited is campaign to party.

[ Parent ]
Must be 5k
I remember Kyl giving Coats 5k, so that must be it. Thanks!

[ Parent ]
Independents in Virginia
Kenny Golden filed in VA-02, and Jeremiah Heaton filed in VA-09, so there will be third-party options in all the districts Democrats are defending.

These are all tea-baggers, right?
So, assumingly, they'll siphon off Republican votes?

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

[ Parent ]
It's not quite that simple
They're both conservative candidates, to be sure, but looking at Heaton's website, he seems to be striking a more populist tone than teabaggy. Golden is more in line with the teabaggers, and he may get the Hampton Roads Tea Party endorsement because they don't like Scott Rigell.

[ Parent ]
Longtime
Iowa state rep Paul Bell passed away a few day's ago (RIP). Can someone tell me what his district is like? I know we have a narrow majority in Iowa right now and I would hope this does not complicate things at all.  

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

Part of Jasper County, which went about 53-45 for Obama.


[ Parent ]
So
this seat is losable. I suppose this does complicate things a bit.  

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

[ Parent ]
Are we all tired of Arkansas yet
I can't decide if I am or not....

I most definitely am
And if I wasn't before I certainly would be after reading the derail upthread.

[ Parent ]
SC SEN - Anyone catch the Olberman interview?
It was like watching a deer caught in the headlighs of an oncoming car.  And that was while being interviewed by a partisan pro-Democratic interviewer.  This is going to be ugly.

I almost feel sorry for the guy.  He's in WAY over his head and needs to get out whether he knows it or not.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...


I'm
actually in the minority but I don't think he is a plant and I don't think he should drop out unless he want's too. I wouldn't blame him if he did though, with the press he has gotten.  

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

[ Parent ]
I agree
He can't drop. It's the fault of the South Carolina Democratic party for not running ads and boosting up the candidate. 59% of Democrats in South Carolina voted for Greene. He's the nominee of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, that's the way our democratic system. We're just pissed because we may have screwed up a chance to make Jim DeMint sweat.

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

[ Parent ]
I agree not a plant.
Politics seems to draw lunatics and wack jobs to it like flies to a light bulb.

IMHO, this Greene guy is a bit of a wack job with most likely some emotional problems. I read somewhere that his miltary release wasnt so cut and dry and his obscenity arrest shows he has issues.

For a guy like that to have delusions of grandour and to think he could be a US Senator is understandable.

The sad part is he will be put throught the blender because of all this. You got to feel bad for the guy.

But this is a Democracy. They Democrat voters of SC in their infinate wisdom choose him to be the party's senate candidate. For a bunch of party boss to try and take the nomination away from him seems wrong to me.

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 ]
The Democratic party can't run ads for either candidate..
... it has to be officially neutral. Plus, it doesn't have any money for ads to begin with.

There were things the party could and should have done, starting with a criminal background check, but running ads of any kind is not one of them.  


[ Parent ]
I don't think he's a plant either.
I do think he's a poor shmoe about to be put in the blender.  The press is going to eat him alive.

And that "obscenity" charge?  Good luck plea bargaining it or making it go away now.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...


[ Parent ]
Count me in
You can count me in the "not a plant" crowd.  Without evidence, I just cannot buy that a political party would do something this reckless.  Further, even if I accepted the premise that the SC GOP would be willing to do put a plant in the Dem primary, it seems inexplicable they would shell out more than $10,000 for a filing fee and then leave him no campaign to run on.

[ Parent ]
And if he was a plant
The "planters" would be pretty dumb not to do a simple background check on his criminal record.

Maybe the NY Republican party would do such a thing, but not in any other state.


[ Parent ]
Yep
I hope Clyburn and everyone else who says he's a plant actual provides some proof, otherwise they'll lose credibility with me.

The guy seems like a novice, but who cares? If he wants to run, let him run. He paid the fee, and unless Clyburn or someone else can prove otherwise, then leave it alone.

Clyburn's also accusing two other blacks of being GOP plants in SC.


[ Parent ]
DON'T BE SO NAIVE !!!!
This guy is a plant.  He was unemployed and spent $10,400 of his own money to run for Senate??

Proving it may be difficult, but common sense and HISTORY indicate it could easily have happened.

From Wikipedia under "Rod Shealy":

While running a campaign to elect his sister Sherry Martschink to Lieutenant Governor in 1991, Shealy recruited unemployed black fisherman Benjamin Hunt, Jr. to run for Congress against Republican Arthur Ravenel, Jr. in an effort to play to racial fears and increase the turnout of white voters. Shealy covered the $5000 filing fee for Hunt, the same amount as a contribution to Martschink's campaign from Laidlaw Environmental Services that Shealy failed to report.[3] Once the masquerade was uncovered, the story gained widespread media attention. At Shealy's trial, former state Representative Robert Kohn testified that he was asked by Shealy to find a black man to run against Ravenel.[4] Shealy was convicted for violating campaign laws and fined.[5] Hunt said that he was promised $500 to run but never received the money.[4] Shealy later referred to the fine as a "political parking ticket" and claimed it had a positive effect on his consulting business.[6]

Afterwards Shealy stopped working as a political consultant and developed a chain of newspapers. After a rival newspaper owner announced that he was running for state treasurer in 1994, Shealy stepped back into consulting to find a candidate to run against him.[5]

This is SOUTH CAROLINA folks, home of Lee Atwater, you know Karl Rove's mentor!!

If someone paid the $10,400, they violated campaign election law, BTW. Also, the check was HANDWRITTEN. In other words there was no printed account name on it.  It was a blank 'counter check' that the bank gives you while you normally wait on your printed checks. Greene first attempted to pay the fee with cash. SOund fishy anyone??

I do believe this guy was a plant and hopefully it will be proven, if true.  Regardless, this is an indictment on the collective intelligence of the SC Democratic party, both it's voters and it's leadership. A simple background check last April would have uncovered this nonsense.  Carol Fowler's head should roll for that.  They simply saw dollar signs and took this guy's money.

THIS BULLSHIT will probably cost Sheheen dearly in his winnable but (slightly) uphill quest for the Governorship!!  As a lifelong SC resident, I have no trouble believing this guy was a plant, placed by SOMEONE.

For more on SC's illustrius history of dirty tricks please refer to this "Top 5" list.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...


[ Parent ]
The
guy won 60% of the vote. That is a pretty clear decisive win. How would a plant get that many votes? Crossover votes perhaps, but don't you think someone would have spelt the beans. I don't know about the filing fee, he claimed to have gotten the money from when he served our country overseas and that if he just kept the money that he would spend more time unemployed. Running for office can help you get connections and while it may seem odd I see no proof that he is a plant. I really don't buy it. We had very little shot at DeMint anyway and why would DeMint or anyone associated with him want to risk DeMint's career over getting an embarrassing candidate for us? I saw the interview with KO and he did not look good but if the guy paid the fee and wants to run, well he won the primary so he should be allowed.  

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

[ Parent ]
Rod Shealy ain't Jim DeMint
No, Jim DeMint or anyone high up would not pull a stunt like this, but what would keep ANYBODY, I mean ANYBODY  with 10k from doing it????  Not a DAMN thing !!!!

You know somebody that wanted to embarrass the party, just for the hell of it?  A dittohead maybe.  If someone paid his fee, then they BROKE THE LAW!!!!

This ignoramus can SAY he saved the money, but what unemployed person would spend it that way?  Yeah, he would have made some 'connections' by NOT campaigning.  Give me a break.  He is DEFINITELY making impressions now.  Would YOU hire this dolt?

If the guy was just an rube, then I might say, 'we fucked up, and we got to live with it', but this guy could be a FELON before election day. Roland Burriss anyone ??!!  Mark Foley anyone  ??!!

I LIVE in this state and the Haley-Folks-Marchant scandal is now old news, with the DEMOCRATIC party now looking like the party with it's head up it's ass.  

Do you think that is helping ANYONE on the TICKET??  I assure you, it is not !!  If a GOPer pulled this stunt, he succeeded in his goal, I assure you.

You need to come down to the Palmetto state and get schooled on dirty politics, because it ain't just in Chicago. Or maybe, you actually believe McCain has an illegitimate black child.  

 


[ Parent ]
Anything
is possible I suppose but how did he get nearly 60% of the vote?  

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

[ Parent ]
what do you think of Carol Fowler's theory
that voters, unfamiliar with both candidates, picked the one that came first?

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 ]
It boosted Greene, but not enough
Conventional wisdom says 2-5% bumps occur with being the first name listed on the ballot, even when candidates are relatively well-known.  With a complete unknown, maybe that's 7-10% (out of my rear-end guesswork style).  Still, that's nowhere near enough mojo to explain Greene's win.  Fowler isn't precisely wrong, but she doesn't have the whole story either.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
So
I know that with SSPers, Louisiana was a popular choice for the "Where do you want to poll?" on PPP Well it won.

And Tom Jensen wants to know what he should ask on the poll. Anything in particular you want to see?

https://www.blogger.com/commen... - drop him a note

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26


Jerry Brown compares Meg Whitman to Joseph Goebbels
link doesn't seem to work for me
but wow, seriously? Idiot, does he want to lose a winnable race?

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 ]
It was, if this account is true,
a conversation with someone he ran into while jogging on a trail.  Still, he shouldn't have said it.

[ Parent ]
Not a big deal at all for Brown
I think he wins this race fairly easily and by a bigger margin than expected.

He strikes me as a very strong candidate for California.


[ Parent ]
Ever since he entered the race
I knew he'd be a strong candidate. Not just because it is almost impossible for a Republican to win statewide barring unusual circumstances, but because he knows how to do the job, which it seems the majority of voters want after Arnold proved to be the disaster we thought he'd be.

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


[ Parent ]
does florida's media market bleed into SC's?
i understand they are quite far apart, with georgia in the way, but with greene hitting the airwaves in FL and Greene winning in SC, is it possible some of FL's greene's ads, whether it be internet, or media, somehow made it to SC and confused the voters?

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

Internet, certainly possible
Television, no way.

Here's a map of US media markets

http://www.truckads.com/images...


[ Parent ]
I hate these house races results this week
AR-2: Joyce Elliot winning the Dem nod.

Iowa-3: Brad Zaun winning the GOP nod. I am worried about him the most.

VA-2 and now VA-5 with Goode not running.


Zaun has no money
He raised all of $120k over six months. The RNCC didn't even put him on their stupid "young guns" list that they put half the candidates running on. I'm sure the Republicans will help him raise money, but he's got a lot of catching up to do.

[ Parent ]
AR-2
Elliot's victory is a prime example of us giving away a seat that we should win.

Lincoln would trounce Boozman by 30-40% AND Regina Thomas would beat John Barrow 70-30 before Elliot would have a chance at that seat.

Ah well, maybe Elliot's loss will still be spun into some type of moral victory for the left in Arkansas.


[ Parent ]
Interesting fact about my AG
AG Buddy Caldwell (LA) is known for his impersonations of Elvis. I never would have guessed from looking at him or hearing him talk.  


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