Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 7/2 (Afternoon Edition)

by: Crisitunity

Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 3:17 PM EDT


• AZ-Sen: J.D. Hayworth is still trying to spin away his shilling for free-grant-money seminars, saying that, in his defense, those grants really do exist. No, they don't, say the folks at Grants.gov, who would be the ones to know. Meanwhile, the Hayworth camp is attacking John McCain for his association with Republican bundler and convicted Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein, a guy McCain has claimed not to know. The Hayworth camp unveiled video of McCain and Rothstein together at a fundraiser, while the McCain camp answers that he can't be responsible for remembering every single donor he met over the course of a presidential bid.

• KS-Sen: Here's an interesting split in the endorsements of the various right-wingers jetting around the country playing kingmaker. You might recall that Sarah Palin recently added Todd Tiahrt to her list of Mama Grizzlies in the Kansas GOP Senate primary; today comes news that Jim DeMint will be stumping on behalf of rival Jerry Moran.

• LA-Sen: Charlie Melancon seems to finally realize he's been handed a prime opportunity to go on the offensive, in David Vitter's hiring and later defending of his repeatedly in-trouble-with-the-law aide Brent Furer. Melancon is now publicly asking why he "protected" Furer for two years.

• NH-Sen: You've gotta wonder about the sanity of a candidate, lagging in the polls and trying to capture Tea Party support, who looks at Dale Peterson and Rick Barber's viral video notoriety and thinks "Hey, that could be me!" Jim Bender, the distant fourth-wheel in the New Hampshire GOP primary, is out with a bizarre new ad that involves a crazed-looking, frosting-covered Uncle Sam actor devouring cake slices decorated like banks and cars.

• MA-Gov: Tim Cahill, currently lying in the middle of the street with RGA tire tracks all over his back, is trying to get back up on his feet. He's out with a second TV ad (his first one was back in January), a positive spot focusing on his time as state Treasurer.

• MD-Gov (pdf): Republican pollster Magellan just keeps churning out gubernatorial polls; while most of them have seemed right on the mark, this one's a little surprising. They find Republican Bob Ehrlich leading Dem incumbent Martin O'Malley 46-43. While O'Malley's approvals are plausible for a current incumbent (41/45), the fact that they have Ehrlich, who got bounced out of office in 2006, at 51/32, is perplexing. O'Malley did get one piece of welcome news today, though: you might remember that he was facing a quixotic but not entirely trivial primary challenge from the right from former state Del. George Owings. Owings dropped out of the race today, citing health problems.

• NE-Gov: Via press release, we've just learned that businessman Mark Lakers, the Democratic nominee, is dropping out of the gubernatorial race. He cites fundraising woes and family unhappiness in his decision. Apparently, there's a replacement candidate ready to be substituted by the state Dems (the uneventful primary was held May 11), although no word yet on who that is. We'll update with a link once we know more.

• NM-Gov: Fundraising numbers in New Mexico are out, courtesy of Heath Haussamen. It was a strong reporting period for GOPer Susana Martinez, who raised $611K, compared with Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, who banked $188K. You might think the disparity has to do with Martinez facing a major primary while Denish was uncontested, but Denish actually spent more than Martinez in that same period. Denish still has a huge cash on hand disparity: $2.2 million, compared with $300K for Martinez. (Expect to see a whole lotta RGA money flowing Martinez's way, though.)

• WI-Gov: Here's a surprising endorsement for Milwaukee mayor and Democratic candidate Tom Barrett: he got the backing of NYC mayor and well-known independent Michael Bloomberg. Apparently the two know each other from the big-city mayors community, and Bloomberg is a fan of Barrett's attempts to stop gun violence.

• TN-08: The state GOP chairman had to step in, weary-parent-style, to the squabble between Stephen Fincher and Ron Kirkland, saying that he loves them an equal amount. Actually, Chris Devaney said that they're both, as far as he knows, bona fide Republicans. (No mention of the primary field's red-headed step-child, George Flinn?) Today the battle between Fincher and Kirkland has already moved on to TARP, each trying to hang it around each other's necks despite neither one having voted for it. For fans who want more of this decidedly drama-filled primary, Reid Wilson had a thorough history of the race yesterday, focusing on why the NRCC has buddied up with Fincher so much.

• MI-St. Sen.: We always like to see state-based bloggers handicapping their state legislative races, as that's too far down in the weeds for even us know-it-alls at SSP to make educated guesses. Michigan Liberal's pbratt looks at the Michigan Senate - one of the few places where we're on the offensive this cycle, thanks to a whole lot of open seats - and foresees Dems falling just short, with 20-18 Republican control of the chamber after November.

• DGA: Also via press release, we've just gotten fundraising numbers from the DGA. While they aren't in the same league as the RGA (who've doubled up on the DGA in terms of both this quarter and cash on hand), it shows they're revving up for a huge gubernatorial year, too, with $9.1 million in the second quarter and $22 million CoH.
Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 7/2 (Afternoon Edition)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

SSP Daily Digest: 7/2 (Afternoon Edition) | 224 comments
MI-State Senate
As a sometimes poster at SSP (and a huge fan of all the work done here), I'm glad that folks are following the MI State House and Senate analysis.

I too am disappointed that the Dems haven't done better since my last look at the State Senate in February. Two strong Democratic candidates have dropped out-Marc Corriveau in the 7th State Senate District and Joel Sheltrown dropped out of the 36th State Senate race to run for Bart Stupak's congressional seat (and then dropped out of that as well). These were two seats that the Dems could have certainly challenged, and I would have considered both candidates to be front runners.

Stupak's resignation also cost the Democrats a shot at the 37th State Senate District. Gary McDowell was going to run for the Democrats until Stupak dropped out, and while it would have been an uphill climb in this Republican-leaning seat, if anyone could have won this race it would have been McDowell. Now the Dems have a sacrificial lamb in Bob Carr.

While all these three candidates were not slam dunks to win, I would have picked Corriveau and Sheltrown to win their races, making the margin in the Senate 20-18 Democratic. We'll see what happens.  

Mama Grizzlies, AZ-Senate
Am I the only one who finds it odd for a man to be included? Shouldn't he be a "Papa Grizzly"?

On a somewhat more serious note, what are the chances for both Republican candidates to be sufficiently damaged for Glassman to actually win the Arizona Senate seat?

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

Melancon needs to constantly attack Vitter
on criminal misogynist Furer and also on his hypocritical immoral behavior.

Again I'm ashamed that teh Senate did not expel Vitter for his repeated solicitation of prostitutes.

Vitter would beat Jesus this year

[ Parent ]
I don't disagree
which is why I stated that Vitter should have been expelled from the Senate.  Ensign should have as well.  It shouldn't even have been partisan given that Republican governors would have appointed their replacements.
[ Parent ]
Not in LA
Blanco was governor.
[ Parent ]
Fine
the Senate should have expelled him in 2008 once Jindal was in office.

It is a disgrace to the Senate that hypocritical scumbag Vitter did not resign, and a disgrace that he wasn't expelled when he did not.   Same with Ensign.

[ Parent ]
I dont think Ensign should have initially
His personal sexual relationships were not illegal.  However, when it came out that he helped out his mistress' family, that should have been heavily investigated and probably lead to expulsion.

With Vitter, Id rather his voters expel him than the US Senate (but I wouldnt disagree if they did) but what really ticked me off about that whole thing was how quickly it was off the radar for the media and swept under the rug.  Why did Spitzer get slammed as the hypocrite who now sleeps with the prostitutes he once convicted and not raise a media storm over the hypocrite who tells gay people their sex lives are disgusting yet who wears a diaper while doing it with prostitutes?  I call BULLSHIT!

At the same time, I feel bad for him.  Jesus sets an incredibly high standard and he breaks many a conservative politician.

[ Parent ]
You don't want to go down that road.
Once you open the door to expulsions, particularly for crimes such as prostitution, you've opened a pandoras box that is going to come back to bite you.  Same thing with impeachment. Once you successfully do it for something other than something completely uncontestable you'll see it becoming a political tool and that can be very damaging for democracy.  Particularly if you have majorities expelling minorities to form supermajorities.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...
[ Parent ]
I do support expelling adulterers
Adultery and cheating is a very serious matter!  If you are unable to remain faithful to the public, I really can't trust you in public office.

I believe Bill Clinton should have resigned and failing to do that, he should have been removed.  Same with all these useless immoral hypocritical GOP senators.

And it should be done in a bipartisan manner, i.e. removal should be contingent on someone from the same party being appointed.

[ Parent ]
I meant
If you are unable to remain faithful to your spouse, I really can't trust you in public office.
[ Parent ]
Would you have favored impeaching
FDR, Ike, JFK, and Reagan? (all 4 were also unfaithful to their wives)
[ Parent ]
No
but if I had known about their behavior at the time (and I wouldn't have), I'd have trouble voting for them.  And I didn't know that Ike was a lecher.  

But anyone today who commits adultery while in office, before they are in the process of a divorce or separation, is not fit to be in office.   It is the cheating and dishonesty that bothers me about adultery, more than the sex.

[ Parent ]
Oh please
Adultery is none of your business.

Seeing prostitutes is illegal.  Even then I don't care, but I can see other people do so it is a fine issue to talk about.

[ Parent ]
It is absolutely my business!
It tells the true character of an individual who wants to represent me.
[ Parent ]
And your judgment should determine if they resign?
Sorry, no.  

It can determine your personal judgement on your personal vote, but whether or not they did is none of your business in terms of right to continue to serve.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely it is
I do not believe that anyone cheating on their spouse in office should remain in office.  They should be expelled from Congress/legislature immediately if they do not have the human decency to resign.  There should be bipartisan agreement on this, and the replacement should be of the same party or there needs to be a special election.

I have no use for these scumbags, and I nearly voted for Bush in 2000 because I felt that a vote for Gore would reward Bill Clinton's horrendous behavior.

[ Parent ]
Why?
If that's one of the standards you use to decide who to vote for, then that's good for you. Expulsion and resignation, however, are pretty damn extreme positions to take for an act that isn't even against the law.

I feel that relationships are a private matter, and it's up to the people involved in them to decide what they want to do, not how a, frankly, prudish society wants to treat them.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
Adultery is illegal in most states
and in the military court-martials those who engage in adultery.

And it is far from prudish to state that society should not accept adultery and that public officials who commit adultery should resign.

[ Parent ]
Those are laws that are on the books
But I doubt they are enforced, and if they were, I doubt they'd survive Constitutional scrutiny.

And who cares how the military operates? There are laws that exist in the military that, simply put, would never be tolerated in an open society (and for good reason, given the strict need for unit cohesion).

I'm certainly not condoning cheating on one's spouse (or boyfriend/girlfriend, as I believe the two are only different in that one couple chooses to have society formally acknowledge) but a private relationship is always between the two people involved (and any children who are part of said relationship).

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
It is not relevant that the laws wouldn't
pass a constitutional challenge. The fact that the laws are on the books are a suggestion that the state considers adultery wrong.  As such, public officials need to adhere to such a moral ethic (or try to change it if they don't like it).

I agree that cheating is wrong regardless of official marriage.  And while one can argue that it is private for the average person, if you choose to be a public official and run for office, it no longer remains private but becomes a part of a candidate/politician's character.  Nobody is forced to run or hold public office, it is a choice.

[ Parent ]
There are a lot of laws on the books which are considered comical today
The state of North Carolina (and I'm sure several others) still require public office holders to believe in God in order to serve. By that logic, atheists in North Carolina shouldn't bother running for office unless they "try" to remove an unenforced (and probably ancient) law off the books.

And why exactly is the Constitutional challenge irrelevant to whether or not a politician should be expelled based on that standard? The Constitution is itself a reflection of American values, if the law itself would be considered against the Constitution then it's against American values (meaning that the American people, by their law of the land, don't really believe that adultery should be formally against the law).

It's part of a politician's character, but the expulsion route is pretty extreme, when you consider that to do so is ultimately to overrule the will of a majority of voters in a given state (voluntary resignation is a different matter, and I would not argue with you that Ensign, Vitter, and Sanford should resign).

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
Everyone
knew of Clintons womanizing in 92 but they elected him regardless. My view is he should have been censured and put it behind him.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Maybe for his previous womanizing
which Clinton lied about, he should have been censured.

But Lewinsky was new, and further, Clinton wagged his finger and lied to the face of every American when he claimed that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", and then later turned around and claimed that oral sex was not really sexual relations.  

This is behavior of a liar, cheat, and someone who should not be in office.  Bill Clinton should have been asked to resign, and if he did not, he should have been removed.  

I regretfully gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt in 1992 and voted for him.  But I voted for Perot in 1996 because I did not trust Clinton on anything.  And I nearly voted for Bush in 2000 due to Clinton's disgusting behavior, as I wondered whether a vote for Gore would be rewarding Clinton.

[ Parent ]
And Gore "lost"
in large part because he did so much to try to disassociate himself from Clinton, which was an idiotic strategy for a sitting Vice-President, especially since the President was so popular! The fact that you strongly considered punishing the entire country by not voting for someone who was not himself implicated in Clinton's personal behavior - well, that's neither here nor there but does tell us something about you.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Well if the country wants to stand by
that liar, I guess we deserved 8 years of Bush.  Thank God the voters of the Democratic Party didn't force another Clinton down our throat. (I would have likely voted for McCain had Hillary Clinton gotten the nomination.)
[ Parent ]
And the same
 if Edwards had gotten the nomination, if it had come out before the election.  I would have volunteered for McCain in that case.
[ Parent ]
Edwards
I'm normally not one to give a shit about politicans affairs. However, what Edwards did was sick. That is one case where an affair could affect my vote, had he been a Republican. Same for Ensign.  
[ Parent ]
Ensign
did something that was actually literally corrupt, so in a public morality sense, I think that was worse, but I do agree that Edwards is guilty of aggravated moral turpitude, and I'm glad his wife had the self-respect to divorce that scumbag.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
And Bill Clinton and David Vitter aren't?
Gimme a break!
[ Parent ]
Not as bad as those two

[ Parent ]
Maybe not as bad
but they are immoral degenerates none the less.
[ Parent ]
Nice
So you also blame the wife for the husband's cheating. OK, I don't plan on talking to you about this anymore, except, remember: This site isn't primarily about our opinions, but about what does or doesn't drive elections.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I don't
If Hillary Clinton were elected President, Bill Clinton would be part of the package.  That is simply not a package I could swallow.  If Hillary had divorced Bill (which she absolutely should have), then I could have considered her.  But given that Bill Clinton wasn't just a spouse but actually part of the political team, that was simply not something I could accept. If my only choices were Bill Clinton vs George Bush, I would certainly pick Bush.  And I dislike Bush to the teeth.

The character of a politician, which is compromised by those who cheating on a spouse, is a big issue in driving elections.  There is little doubt in my mind that the Democrats have lost many voters permanently due to their vigorous defense of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky episode.  It is an issue that is relevant to elections.

[ Parent ]
I agree with your first sentence.
To what extent one should hold the policies and political actions of one spouse against another? I don't know, but it should certainly be considered, especially when the former spouse is going to be an advisor and much of his team would have been, too.  Plus, don't run on your spouse's achievements if you don't want their political failings (e.g. NAFTA, China free trade, DOMA) to be held against you, too.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
DOMA and DADT not Clinton's fault
They were simply the best he could do.  I accept that.

NAFTA and China free trade, Clinton stabbed working people in the back.  He lied in the 1992 campaign that he would oppose NAFTA, then switched in early 1993 and twisted arms to force it through.  Even with a Republican President, NAFTA would have never passed the House.  But Clinton twisted enough arms of Democratic NAFTA opponents and barely forced it through.  I was a union member at the time and I remember how hard we worked to try to defeat it.  A similar story can be told about China free trade.

To be quite frank, it was this issue along with Clinton's extramarital affairs which forced me to vote for Perot in 1996.  

[ Parent ]
I care a lot more
about hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq and millions made homeless than I do about a blow job. And I think the American people ultimately were a lot more upset about the Iraq War - though they were much more concerned with the American war dead than the undercovered number of Iraqi non-combatant casualties, and it took until 2006 for them to really punish the Republicans - than they ever were with all that shit involving Clinton.

Keep throwing the first stone at the adulterers, and have a Happy 4th.

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

[ Parent ]
I am very strongly supportive
of "neocon" or hawkish foreign policy.  I absolutely think we did the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and support strong action, including war against Iran.  So that line of argument goes nowhere with me.  

As I said earlier, I support Israel to the hilt, support strong action against Iran and against terrorism, support enhanced interrogation and waterboarding, etc.  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.

Americans voted for Bush first and foremost because he was a good family man who did not cheat on his wife, and second because they believed he would keep the country safe.  When it was clear that his foreign policies were not doing the latter and his economic policies were destroying the country, they bailed on him.  

[ Parent ]
It's interesting
that both of us usually vote Democratic, but we are so extremely divergent in our world views. You sound to me like a hard-right anti-libertarian Republican to me, except that you usually vote Democratic solely based on economic issues, which are of overriding importance to you in most cases. I stand to be corrected by my Republican friends on this site, but I think that it's less true, nowadays, that people with extremely divergent world views, such that they would risk greatly offending each other in discussions, usually vote Republican, and that's a big part of the reason why the Republicans are currently out of power. Whether that remains true, only the future can tell.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Not so
You sound to me like a hard-right anti-libertarian Republican to me,

I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, far from hard-right there.  The reason why this kind of comment comes out is because most people on the blogosphere have never actually dealt with working class people.  In labor and working class circles, people with my views are quite common.  And as the power of unions have declined, the Democratic Party under Clinton moved away from standing up for working class people and their values, and these voters moved Republican.

But the rest of your post is right.  The politician that would probably be closest to my views would be Jim Webb, but more hawkish and more pro-labor.  

[ Parent ]
Define "Working Class"
Are you talking about blue-collar jobs only? As an Adjunct Professor who makes about $20K a year, I consider myself a member of the working class. Actually, I think all teachers are workers, anyway; my parents, who were full professors (my mother still is; my father is retired) always considered themselves workers, and unlike me, they were always represented by a union.

I take note of your correction on your views. I think my basic point is still true, though: There is a much wider range of views among Democrats than among Republicans, nowadays.

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

[ Parent ]
Blue and gray collar
I'm talking in particular about people who do not have a college education (or got a college degree while working, so didn't go through the "real" college experience).  I'm talking about people who served in the military, and went to college only later as adult students.  The blogosphere generally has zero understanding of these people.  

There are professionals represented by unions, and some of them are quite poor, but the world that they live in is quite different than the working class.

[ Parent ]
the results of the '98 elections suggest otherwise
I think Ds did as well as they did because Rs went to far against Clinton w/r/t adultery.

Just the fact that Ds gained House seats in the 6th year of a D Presidency was incredibly rare. And the big issue was R actions during the Impeachment inquiries.

I believe that started slowing the pendulum, to the point where Vitter and Ensign can survive even Republican primaries -- despite their adultery and other probably felonious behavior.

[ Parent ]
1998 was a dead cat bounce for Democrats
Democrats should have easily taken back the House in 1996 considering how many marginal and Democratic leaning seats Republicans held from 1994.  If Clinton hadnt undermined Democrats by making Republicans look productive when he signed Welfare Reform, Democrats would have certainly taken back the House in 1996.  Even with the DNC fundraising scandal that blew up in the final weeks of the campaign.  Democrats really had no where to go but up in 1998.  
[ Parent ]
AFAIK, 1998 was the first time the party holding the White House
gained House seats in the 6th year of a Presidency in the 20th century.

'94 Rs who survived Clinton in '96 should have easily survived '98.

Dead cat bounce my a**.

[ Parent ]
And 1994 was the first time a party did so poorly
In the first midterm of a Presidency.  

Look at the House results in other second year midterms going back to 1934:

1990(Bush, R) D+9
1982(Reagan, R) D+27
1978(Carter, D) R+11
1970(Nixon, R) D+9
1962(Kennedy, R) R+4
1954(Eisenhower, R) D+18
1934(FDR, D) D+9

No party did even over half as horribly as Democrats in 1994 in Clinton's first term since the early days of the Great Depression.  The fact that Democrats lost so much in 1994 made 1998 look fairly unspectacular.  Especially considering how Democrats should have been able to pick up 30 seats in 1996.  

[ Parent ]
'98 ended Gingrich's run as speaker
The base question for this thread is whether adultery matters to the voters.

The fact that Gingrich had to give up the Speakership because Rs underperformed in '98 says that overall, voters didn't care about President Clinton's adultery.

If Rs had overperformed, as you suggest, Gingrich would have remained Speaker through '06.  

[ Parent ]
Republicans were delusional
They didnt realize how lucky they were to hold as many seats as they did in 1996.  
[ Parent ]
If you were right
Ds would have taken back the House in 2000, when they took back 5 Senate seats. No "dead cat" bounce in the House election there either.
[ Parent ]
Democrats still gained a seat in 2000 in the House
and were five short of a majority.  The reason Democrats couldnt win it back in 2000 were numerous.  One was Gore's weak showing at the top of the ticket.  Another was the fact that many Republicans who had won in 1994 began to entrench themselves in marginal and Democratic leaning districts and Democrats stupidly stopped contesting those seats.  And finally, the fact that Democrats had tough open seats to defend in Michigan, Missouri, Virginia, and Long Island NY to defend and ended up losing all four, plus two incumbents who were caught unprepared(in Connecticut and Minnesota).  Had Democrats not left these four seats open and those two incumbents held on, Democrats would have held a one vote majority.  
[ Parent ]
Excuses don't cut it
5 seats in the Senate = 22 seats in the House

One seat in 2000 suggests no dead cat bounce. Just like '98 and '96.

The remainder are excuses, that should even out, especially with the larger numbers in the House. Gore was atop the ticket for the Senate too.

Conclusion remains the same: President Clinton's adultery didn't and does not matter in the minds of the public, for purposes of elections. And running on the adultery of the leader of the opposing party backfires.

The cases of Vitter and Ensign confirm this even with R primary electorates.

[ Parent ]
I was actuallly too generous
since only 1/3 of the Senate is up each year,

A gain of 5 Senate seats in one election ==
A gain of 66 House seats.

[ Parent ]
You cant possibly believe that
First of all, Democrats picked up four Senate seats in 2000, considering that Miller was appointed to Coverdell's seat in 1999, increasing Democratic numbers from 45 to 46 before the election.  Second, Senate seats have a far lower rate of incumbency reelection than House seats.  You must also factor in how favorable of a map Democrats had in 2000.  Four and very likely five of their six pickups came from states Gore carried even as he lost nationwide.  
[ Parent ]
The difference in re-election rates are trivial:
about 95% v. 85%. A marginal difference w/r/t math. So 4 seats equals "only" about 45 seats.

If your theory about a "dead cat bounce" held water, then the House map would have been equally favorable.

The conclusion holds. Adultery does not matter w/r/t elections, and can be an impediment if the opposing party pushes too hard.

[ Parent ]
He DIDN'T "have sexual relations with that woman"
What don't you understand? He. Didn't. Fuck. Her.
[ Parent ]
You are a father per your username
I hope you are prepared to tell your daughter when she is a teenager that oral sex is not "sexual relations".  
[ Parent ]
Did he engage in behavior
that was inappropriate for a married man? Absolutely. But they didn't have intercourse.
[ Parent ]
Oral sex is plenty to say that they had sexual relations
Heck, IMO, even a deep kiss would cross that line.
[ Parent ]
Do you also support expelling Sabbath breakers?
How about people who covet their neighbors' wife and ass? Perhaps people who take the name of the Lord in vain? All of these things are serious matters - for people who believe in observing the Ten Commandments.

Clearly, a majority of the American people, though believing in the sanctity of the Ten Commandments, don't believe in expelling politicians who stray from them. If they did, Clinton wouldn't have left office as one of the most popular presidents since polling had been done. So while I understand your opinion and agree with you that adultery is a bad thing for people to do, perhaps you might want to relax your Crusade a little, for the purposes of understanding and discussing what actually does and doesn't work in elections and campaigns.

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

[ Parent ]
Religion is not the issue
Cheating on a spouse tells you something about the character of a person, and someone who does that in my view cannot be trusted to hold public office.  I think a lot of people would agree with me on this issue, and not just conservatives.  It is especially an issue with women, and thus it is something is relevant when discussing campaigns.  

It is the cheating and dishonesty that bothers me about adultery, more than the sex.  I suspect that it is the same for many as well.

[ Parent ]
A majority of the American people
have clearly disagreed with you in some of the most important cases. You care a lot, but understand that most Americans didn't really want to know about the blue dress and all that shit. It was disgusting but didn't have any bearing on most Americans' opinions of Bill Clinton as President. And I don't think the stuff about Vitter is any different, as far as Louisianans are concerned.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I think even a majority of Republicans --now-- don't care about adultery
If they did, Vitter and Ensign would be toast -- and there would be (have been) R challengers to both.

So while there actions are disgusting, voters don't care. While there are civil and possibly criminal activities mixed in with the actions of Vitter and Ensign, those details are lost in the thought that:

"It's just adultery, and it won't affect my vote."

[ Parent ]
I'm not a fan of adultery.
And I will even goes as far as to say Bill Clinton really should have resigned.  He let his troubles become a distraction to the nation and his party putting all else aside.  On more partisan terms while he recovered it put Al Gore in an awful awkward position that helped in part doom Gore's presidential run.

But this is not about whether someone should have a sense of shame and resign when they are caught doing something so plainly wrong.  (I'm talking to you Senator Vitter)  It's about expulsion.

If expulsion became the norm for adultery then what you'd have is something akin to what happened with homosexuals in the UK.  Every politician would be investigated thoroughly not only by the press and the opposition politicians but by any blackmailer who came along.  You'd have every picture of every politician having lunch with an intern or niece thoroughly analyzed.  And with the power of photoshop and cgi perhaps not correctly.

You'd not only have people removed from real infidelity but for rumor of infidelity or just plain innunendo of infidelity.  This is not something you want in a Rovian world.

It's not about adultery it is what issues are a politican football that those who have a majority of the votes can use to remove someone from the side who doesn't have the majority of the votes.

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

[ Parent ]
I would accept your point of view
if politicians had the honor to do what Spitzer, McGreevey, and Souder did, which is resign the moment that they are caught cheating on their spouse.  But until that sense of shame is there on our politicians, I think impeachment/expulsion is the only solution.
[ Parent ]
Spitzer, McGreevey, and Souder
Didn't resign because they were "caught cheating on their spouses." McGreevey and Souder were caught cheating with staff members, and Spitzer was patronizing whores.
[ Parent ]
David Vitter was patronizing whores
and he did not resign.  So clearly, our collective morality has been reduced to a level where a politician patronizing whores can stay in office.  Disgusting.

[ Parent ]
Is there any evidence
that attacking Vitter for patronizing prostitutes, let alone repeatedly attacking him for that, will have any significant effects on his vote total in November?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I think it would lower his totals
below what it would be if there was no attack on this issue.

Granted, this is Louisiana, and that might only drop Vitter from 59% to 55%.

[ Parent ]
Damage has been done
Everyone knows Vitter has a thing for hookers.  Attacking him on it is like beating a dead horse.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7
[ Parent ]
I don't agree
a couple ads that goes through the disgusting details of his time with the prostitute (especially the gory details about the diapers) would shock some into not voting for him.
[ Parent ]
They know about that stuff
and I don't think they care much. Ads that harp on that may backfire, rather than help at all.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Bingo
Everyone knows.  Nobody cares.  If they did, he would have been ran out of town already.  Typically if you survive the first few months of a sex scandal being blown into the open, you survive it.

Now if we get confirmed stories of him using sex slaves or attempting to strangle a prostitute, it might be worthy of an attack ad.


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

[ Parent ]
I doubt everyone knows about the diaper thing
If Vitter wins, let him be a footnote in history.  "The first Senator to be known to have a freaky diaper fetish and yet, was re-elected."

Did he ever get convicted or anything for paying for prostitutes?

[ Parent ]
Do Johns _EVER_ get convicted?
Do they ever even get arrested? I doubt it.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Have there been other LA politicians in sex scandals?
My impression is that LA voters are more accepting of old fashioned corruption (e.g. Edwin Edwards, Huey Long) as opposed to sex scandals.

Or is it all one category to LA voters?

[ Parent ]
It is hard to say from the Presidential results
Clinton won LA 46-41 in 1992, but won LA 52-40 in 1996.  This suggests that they didn't mind the rumors for Clinton's adultery.  But after Lewinsky came out, Gore lost LA 53-45, a 20% swing from 1996 to 2000 (compared to an 8% swing nationally).  So perhaps there was some effect due to Lewinsky.  Even Texas only swung by 16%.
[ Parent ]
Clinton was from southern AR, not far from LA border
Which is why Clinton did so much better in Louisiana than Gore/Kerry/Obama. Case in point: Obama winning Indiana in 2008.
[ Parent ]
But Clinton didn't do that well in 1992
Dukakis lost LA 53-45, while Clinton won it 46-41, pretty much mirroring national results.
[ Parent ]
It looks like a lot of that could have been movement from Perot to Clinton
1992: 46 Clinton 41 Bush 12 Perot
1996: 52 Clinton 40 Dole 07 Perot

While in Arkansas, it looks like Dole gained more from Perot's slippage:

1992: 53 Clinton 35 Bush 10 Perot
1996: 54 Clinton 37 Dole 08 Perot

Ditto Tennessee:

1992: 47 Clinton 42 Bush 10 Perot
1996: 48 Clinton 46 Dole 06 Perot

And Georgia:
1992: 43*Clinton 43 Bush 13 Perot
1996: 46 Clinton 47 Dole 06 Perot

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

[ Parent ]
The average person in LA
knows that Vitter visited prostitutes.  They most likely don't know the details of what happened there.

And we aren't going to beat Vitter the usual way (so there is no consequences from said backlash), so why not just shred that immoral creep into pieces anyway?  It is not like this animal doesn't deserve it.  

[ Parent ]
the RGA has benefited
from major donors who stopped giving to the RNC out of disgust for Steele's leadership. It worries me that they are going to be able to give their candidates so much more help than the DGA, although the DGA hasn't done badly.
Steele
What was he thinking? Every Democrat's favorite Republican. Doh!
[ Parent ]
I wonder if he let slip what he REALLY THINKS......
I wonder if the guy really does oppose the war in Afghanistan and thinks it was a mistake.  Of course, that doesn't explain his assertion that Obama STARTED the war!

Or, maybe Steele has simply conditioned himself to bash Obama no matter what, talking out of his ass just to get jabs in without considering what he's saying.

This ultimately is the most bizarre attack he's ever made, attacking Obama for a policy every conservative and Republican actually cheers, and that is unpopular only on the left.  It's like Jerome Armstrong from MyDD took over Steele's body for a few minutes.

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

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't be surprised
To see Steele us that argument.  
[ Parent ]
The same thing happened on our side in 2006 & 2008
Donors didn't want to contribute to Dean's DNC, so they donated to the DGA, DSCC & DCCC.
[ Parent ]
working my way through documents
the Culver campaign published after going through state archives from Terry Branstad's four terms in office. They posted about 400 pages documenting Branstad's record of abusing power, using staff resources to do campaign work for himself and other Republicans. Unbelievable. Excerpt from the Culver campaign memo:

Used the power of the Governor's office and taxpayer dollars for political fundraising

   * Use of Governor's executive office staff to fundraise for campaigns
         o Draft fundraising letter from Doug Gross files for the RPI that focuses on the newly elected Democratic Party Chair
         o Draft fundraising materials from the Doug Gross files for the RPI fall fundraising event in 1983, Novemberfest.
         o Fundraising Correspondence between Governor Branstad and Governor Ashcroft regarding RGA contributions to his 1990 campaign
   * Fundraising using official Governor's office letterhead
         o Letter to Richard Kautz, from the Mathiasen files, and sent out with Branstad's signature, thanking him for contributing $200 to the Republican legislative campaign committee. The letter is on official letterhead.
         o Letter to Mike Draper, from the Mathiasen files and sent out with Branstad's signature, thanking a foreign citizen for contributing $300 to Republican Party of Iowa. The letter is on official letterhead.
         o Letter to Mike Ross, RPI - A letter from Jerry Mathiasen to the Republican Party of Iowa, on official letterhead, recommending individuals who could potentially buy tables at the Lincoln Day Dinner.
         o A note to a donor handwritten by Terry Branstad on official Governor's Office card stock thanking a couple for hosting a Carroll fundraiser. The donor had sent it back to the Governor's office in order to convince staff to that another letter sent by the donor ought to be shown to the Governor personally.
         o Note to call ALCOA regarding a $500 PAC contribution. Handwritten note says "Gov called 9/18/86"
   * Use of the Washington D.C. Office for fundraising
         o Memo from Phil Smith, Director of the Office of State-Federal Relations, regarding his work fundraising for the 1988 RGA dinner. It is on official state-federal relations office letterhead and a handwritten note indicated Governor Branstad called Smith back about the topic.
   * Fundraising phone calls made by the Governor
         o Fundraising phone call document

Used state resources to conduct opposition research

   * Lowell Junkins' Legislative Record - This document, from Doug Gross' files, summarizes gubernatorial candidate Lowell Junkins' votes throughout his entire legislative career. The first two pages are included in this presentation - the second clearly shows a state watermark.
   * Junkins Flip-Flops - This document lists "flip-flops" by Lowell Junkins. You can clearly see that the backside of the page is the letterhead for the "Governor's Office for Volunteers."
   * Note to UI Professor - Doug Gross used official Governor's Office notepad paper to send a copy of Junkins' campaign literature to a UI professor. He asked the professor for an analysis of Junkins' policy proposals.

Used state resources to recruit candidates for office

   * Note on official Governor's Office transmittal slip to call Marge Rogers and ask her to run in the 68th district. The slip says "Gov called 3/19/86"
   * Note on official Governor's Office letterhead regarding recruitment of a candidate against State Senator Boswell in 1991. A handwritten note indicates that the Governor made the call.

Used state resources to help run other Republican political campaigns

   * 1st page of the Bob Lockard for Congress Campaign Plan, from Jerry Mathiasen's files
   * Mathiasen files - fundraising letter by Branstad for Lockard
   * Mathiasen Files - District Consolidation Analysis - one of many memos outline legislative election strategy
   * Mathiasen Files - Edited radio scripts for legislative attack ads. The first ad attacks Democrats for voting for a sales tax increase that Branstad proposed and signed. The second ad attacks Democrats in the legislature for their position on drunk driving legislation.

There are approximately 1,000 boxes in the Branstad files, and I'm sure Culver wouldn't release all the best stuff before the 4th of July. Looking forward to learning more about how Branstad ran this state.  

I knew it
I knew I was right not to trust that mustache guy Branstad.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.
[ Parent ]
If SurveyUSA is right...
Obama's favorable/unfavorable rating in Washington state is 39/39 among registered voters.

SurveyUSA asks the favorable/unfavorable in the same way that CBS/NY Times asks the question (it gives you a neutral and undecided option).

Still, SurveyUSA and Mason-Dixon are completely inconsistent with the media pollsters.  If obama is even in Washington in terms of favorability, he'd be a net 7-10 at least nationally.

We'll see who's right this November.

SUSA is not remotely close to being right on that one......
There are undecideds on opinions of a sitting President, and there can be question phrasings that cause those undecideds to be in the 10% range, once in a great while a tick or two higher.  Gallup actually occasionally sees 10% undecided in its daily track (45-45 once recently), but that's as high as they get.

But nowhere in America are as much as 22% on the fence, for any President, at any time.

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

[ Parent ]
Well, if SurveyUSA is wrong
on Obama's favorables, then so is the NY Times/CBS News poll which uses the same questions.

Read what Mark Blumenthal from Pollster.com wrote about the NY Times/CBS News poll:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25...

"The lower-than-average favorable ratings produced by the CBS/NYT poll may seem at odds with those on other surveys and are apparently a source of confusion even for experienced reporters, but they ultimately provide a more accurate measure of the true opinions of real voters. If "somewhat favorable" really means "I know the name but I'm not sure," we ought to call it that."

SurveyUSA may be wrong but at least it can be held accountable this November.  The media pollsters don't do any state-by-state polling, so they can remain unblemished from any results this November.  If SurveyUSa  and Mason Dixon nail it this November, I think that's going to call in question any media polling on Obama's favorable rating.

[ Parent ]
President Richard Burr?


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 ]
Actually...
I see him as a dark horse for VP in 2012. If the Republican nominee is close or barely ahead in NC and he needs NC to win, Burr could be a strong choice.  
[ Parent ]
NC will not be decisive
not just yet. Obama barely won it despite a 7% victory nationwide. NC is trending blue but it's still R+4.

and surely if you want to shore up NC you can do better than a Republican who is barely surviving against a so-so recruit in a Republican year, is hardly known despite almost 6 years in the Senate, and tells his wife to take out money from the ATM during a recession...

...or maybe the Republican bench in NC really has fallen that far.

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 has
There are no recent former govs, no recent former sens young enough, no House members young and experienced enough.  
[ Parent ]
Pessimistic again tonight......
Pretty depressing day for Team Blue.  The job growth actually wasn't THAT bad, as the private sector numbers, sans census jobs, are all that matter, and in that regard May was the disaster rather than the June numbers released today.  But today's numbers, including so many people leaving the workforce (which is why the decline in the official unemployment rate is bad news), reinforces the point that we're in either a very slow recovery or outright stagnation.

The recent Battleground poll and NBC/WSJ poll also leave me as blue as I am Blue.

I'm thinking now we do, indeed, lose the House.  I think the tide of a bad economy will be too strong.  The following comment-&-response from a Marc Ambinder blog post perfectly says very concisely what's going on out there:

*Comment by Mgb1*:  With the background of dismal private sector employment growth, record low trust in government (cf. Pew Poll), approval of Congress in the low 20s, how can Democrats effectively message the accomplishments of the 111th Congress? Also, can a narrative of legislative success sell when the Democratic base is dispirited by Republican obstructionism (and the resultant compromises) and marginal voters are likely solely focused on the unemployment rate and disposable income growth?

Reply by Marc Ambinder:  I don't think the Dems can effectively message it. As Bill Clinton is fond of saying, until people feel like they're winning, they're not going to give you credit. Your question is an excellent synopsis of why many Democrats believe that, no matter what they do, or what the President does, they're going to lose the House. The only thing that could change the physics of the election is some sort of supernova-like event that bends time and space. As a side note: one reason why the resistance to health care reform has lifted a bit is NOT because the major reforms have been implemented and people like them... it's because the bill passed, and the world didn't end. Not exactly a wholesale change of opinion.

The only silver lining is that stunningly I still see a net loss of just 5 in the Senate.  That's because of the weakness of some of the GOP candidates, plus the "pickup" of Florida with Crist likely winning and caucusing with Democrats.  I'm still thinking Harry Reid survives thanks to Angle being a bridge too far even against the unpopular Reid.  And I think Mark Kirk is proving too weak in a Blue state like Illinois where favorite son Obama remains popular.  And I'm counting on wins by Feingold and Murray thanks to personal ability and being well-liked enough, and in Murray's case it's a Blue state.  Boxer I'm counting as a win because California ultimately is too liberal these days for someone as conservative as Fiorina to beat her.  And that's not giving Dems very many of the potential tossups, as I'm throwing in the towel on pickups in MO; OH; KY; and NH; as well as in 6 seats I'm conceding in DE; PA; IN; AR; ND; and CO.  The fact that we actually have 5 legit pickup opportunities including FL with Crist as "ours" will actually help us in Dem-held seats I predict we'll hold, in that the NRSC and other 3rd-party groups will have to help defend there at the opportunity cost of playing offense with those resources.

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

I feel more pessimistic too..
I think the House is a 50/50 right now, and I definitely didn't think that a few weeks ago.  A lot can happen in 4 months but it looking bleaker these days.

Senate is still too muddled to venture a prediction, but GOP takeover obviously requires them to run the table. That is never easy.  

I don't see Crist winning though. NH goes GOP, but I think OH and MO are still very much in play.  Fisher has to get some money though.  

[ Parent ]
Spare me vicupstate
You were the one last summer who thought it was such an awesome idea for Melancon to run against Vitter and leave his House district for Republicans to easily scoop up.  Now, Melancon isnt even competitive against Vitter.  
[ Parent ]
Not really that big a deal...
Melancon was not guaranteed victory  by running for re-election. Look at how many Southern conservadems such as Allen Boyd and John Spratt are facing tough challenges. Even if he had lost, but probably especially if he had won (isn't it more likely than not that Republicans will draw the LA map?), his district probably would have gone boom in redistricting anyway. If we end up losing the House by one seat then perhaps his decision will look stupid, but for the time being it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

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 ]
Spratt and Boyd voted for healthcare
That is their problem. I would have seen Melancon in the Dan Boren, Mike Ross, Gene Taylor column.  He would have been safe had he run.  Maybe he could have been eliminated in redistricting, but he would have likely survived if they gave him more Cajun country in LA-07.  The only way he would have been a sure loser in redistricting is if they combined him with New Orleans suburbs in LA-01.  I would rate Melancon's decision right up there with Ellsworth's running for Bayh's seat as the two most idiotic political decisions in in the last 10 years.  
[ Parent ]
What?
"two most idiotic political decisions in the last 10 years" ....that is simply ridiculous. Neither of those decisions are dumb at all, from both personal and political perspectives.

Ellsworth has a good chance to win, and his replacement--Trent Van Haaften--is probably going to win, too. Both men get to move up fast and we get really good candidates in winnable races.

Winning statewide in LA is always going to be tough for a Democrat, but if there's one candidate who can beat Vitter, it's Melancon. Polls don't look great now, but LA voters focus later than usual, thanks to their janky electoral schedule full of off-year elections and such. And if Republicans don't completely screw with Melancon's district, which I think they will, then another Cajun Democrat should win it in that case.

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

[ Parent ]
If they can't get any to run now
What makes you think they could get a Cajun Democrat to run against a Republican incumbent?  
[ Parent ]
Because everyone knows
...That redistricting is coming up and nobody is quite sure what's gonna happen with losing a seat. The likely winner, Hunt Downer, is in pretty good with the legislature, where the power is on this, but he'll also be the most junior Congressman, other than the likely new New Orleans VRA Democrat, who can't be eliminated, really...speaking of, then there's Eric Holder's Justice Department to contend with, and who knows what they'll do with VRA challenges.

Now, depending on what's drawn, Downer could potentially blanket much of the area and overperform for several cycles. But he's 64 already and a district drawn for him could fall to a Democrat, potentially. But there are some Cajun Dems on the bench, no? Depending on where the most Cajun district is drawn, it's not out of the question a Democrat wins it. Say, for example, they combine the 7th & 3rd and try to use the white suburban parts of Baton Rouge to hold one of the districts. I bet that Don Cazayoux could win another special election in such a district by overperforming in the Baton Rouge suburbs and getting some Cajun love, in, say 2015? And then get entrenched? One cycle does not a lock make...

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

[ Parent ]
Are you Anka?
Be up front, because you are resembling him or her. If you are not please accept my apologies but if you are then please leave this blog alone.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
You may be right
User kirgo registered on July 3, 2010

Yet he says:

You were the one last summer

Which suggests that person has been here before under a different username.

[ Parent ]
Oh spare us, "not competitve" get a grip
Down by nine points four months out is "competitive" on this planet if only because the freaking campaign hasn't even started yet.

Aside from Sestak, Melancon's candidacy is the best one of this cycle.  Odds are against him for sure, but he's a good candidate who fits well with a state he cares for.

[ Parent ]
the job growth number was very bad
especially since there is no political will in Congress for further stimulus. A double-dip recession is a real possibility. Obama lowballed the stimulus, and a lot of Democrats are going to pay the price.
[ Parent ]
Most of stimulus (capital projects at least) hasn't been spent...
... too long of a  pipeline.  What was lowballed even worse was the depth of this recession.  Whoever thought it was a good idea to throw out the 8% unemployment figure should be shot. YOu should NEVER predict economic stats.
[ Parent ]
Stimulus
I really do not think that any stimulus bill could have prevented the long recession or double dip recession we are seeing.  It would have only delayed the inevitable at best.  Our economic system has been built on a government and populace living way beyond their means for too long.  The economy still needs to bring this closer to balance.  

Instead of pumping tons of cash aimlessly into the system, the best thing the current administration could do to restore confidence is enact policies that encourage responsibility and frugality.  No administration would do this since it would require lecturing people and corporations to live within their means.


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

[ Parent ]
And because it is godawful economics.

[ Parent ]
It is more than economic policy...
Since the babyboomer generation reached adulthood our politics have lacked responsibility and prudence.  Both sides are guilty of it in differing ways.  

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7
[ Parent ]
What you believe demonstrates great ignorance of what a recession is......
You want to "encourage responsibility and frugality"?  That's what businesses and consumers have been demonstrating for 2 years, "responsibility and frugality."  They've stopped spending money.  And that's what a recession is, when people stop spending money because something (primarily housing crash in this case) triggered a decline in their wealth and they're scared.

The very austerity you suggest as government policy is where policy is headed anyway, and it's going to lengthen the recession if we're not lucky and discover after the fact that the recovery has sufficient momentuim after all to climb out of the hole.  "Austerity" is simply taking more money out of the economy.

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

[ Parent ]
It also demonstrates a popular perception
and why additional stimulus is politically difficult.  
[ Parent ]
It's called the
"paradox of thrift" in the econ world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
[ Parent ]
I understand the Keynsian arguement about
economic stimulus, but doesn't austerity eventually have to happen? When no one was saving money, tax rates were too low, and spending growing far faster than inflation austerity has to happen sometime. The argument against it seems to be one of not on my watch rather than it not being necessary.  
[ Parent ]
The failure has been in boom times......
"Austerity" is supposed to happen when times are good, the economy is expanding, and tax revenues are growing.  That's when government is supposed to cut back on spending and maintain or even increase tax rates.  But in American politics (I have no idea what happens in other countries) we squander in good times through increased spending and tax cuts!

This is the downside of democracy.

And it's why I strongly support an independent Federal Reserve, and I reject entirely the populist anger toward the Fed.  At least our monetary policy is insulated from politics and the Fed can tighten the money supply to prevent overheating in good times, which otherwise would be unpopular and discouraged if subject to popular politics.  I imagine loose money in a recession would be popular, though, although it's hard to guess since some faulty notion of "monetary restraint" as a political value parallel to fiscal restraint could bleed into popular opinion on monetary policy, as irrational as it would be.

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

[ Parent ]
Yeah
I also support an Independent Fed although I think they should have an inflation target instead of focusing on full employment.  
[ Parent ]
Austerity
Austerity seems to have worked in Canada.  The federal and provincial governments enacted a smaller and more targeted stimulus and setting an end date for such a stimulus.  It has worked.  The Canadian economy has almost consistently added more jobs than the US when you factor their population is a 10th of ours.

Fundamentally, our problem is an institutional problem that merely can be solved by a stimulus.  Our system has been built on a fraud with too many people living beyond their means for too long.  There is still too many that are overextended and until they are cleared from the balance sheet, our system will not be corrected.  Both parties refuse to admit it because it would make them look Unamerican as too many Americans live lifestyles that are economically unsustainable.  


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

[ Parent ]
Austerity worked in Canada
because for one they have a health care system that doesn't waste hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Also Canada's fundamentals were stronger.  The PC government in the late 1980s introduced a VAT tax (and got wiped out electorally for it in 1993).  That was followed by the Liberals cutting wasteful spending in the 1990s, they ended up cutting spending by about 20%.  

But I agree with you, our fundamental long term problem is personal debt.  

[ Parent ]
VAT
Switching from a system of payroll taxation to a VAT to maintain programs like Social Security and Medicare is an idea I would push if I was a member of Congress.  A 10 percent VAT would be less economically intrusive than our current system of payroll taxes.

In terms of a single payer system, I am not sure a single payer system would cut costs here.  We have a single payer system for senior citizens and its the most expensive in the world.

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

[ Parent ]
Well
you have to remember with Medicare costs are skyrocketing because you have a huge chunk of the populating reaching senior age and the Medicare reimbursement formula I believe payed out more for the more medical treatments you did no matter how unnecessary they were over more efficient medical care.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
It's expensive BECAUSE it's limited to OLD people!......
OF COURSE a program with eligibility LIMITED to people no less than 65 years old is going to be expensive!

OF COURSE it's going to be FAR more expensive than a single payer program open to EVERYONE!

If all those other countries that have a system of universal coverage, whether single-payer as in Canada or socialized medicine as in Britain or tight government control of private sector insurance as in Germany, limited their "all-in" coverage to old people, then their systems, too, would be Godawful expensive.

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

[ Parent ]
Well
By that standard, care for younger individuals would logically be higher in a single payer system as they would have to share the risk with older individuals.  This is far from the case though.  

The only way you are going to cut costs of senior health care is through rationing.  Most of western Europe and Canada do it.  I really do not understand why we are unable to do it.

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

[ Parent ]
I do know why we are unable to do it
50+ years of scare tactics by the right-wing that universal health care will bring rationing.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, and I actually laughed out loud at Ryan's last comment because...
...it's as if he doesn't follow politics AT ALL!

That every health care reform proposal ever conceived will lead to "rationing" is one of the primary ATTACK lines of Ryan's party.

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

[ Parent ]
Plus seniors
are a more reliable voting block than any other age group. You don't piss off the people who are the most likely to come out and vote.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Costs are about more than participation in the system......
I don't understand your first sentence, as in, I don't know what you're comparing.  Are you saying we spend no less on young people than countries with universal care?  Or that countries with universal care didn't see costs go up for young people when instituting such systems?

Either way, cost is about more than who participates.  That's one major factor, the size and characteristics of the pool, but there are a lot of other things that cause health care costs to rise (or not rise, as the case may be).

But it goes without saying that a system that enrolls all old people, who consume exponentially more health care than everyone else, is more expensive than a system that enrolls everyone, including all the healthiest people.

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

[ Parent ]
Sick people use more health care than healthy people
And because of how obscenely expensive it can be to get sick, the best way to deal with it is to have a system where everybody is covered.

There are always ways you can make things work to be more cost-effective, but the key there is not how much money can we save it's what is the best way to most effectively treat as many people as possible in the most inexpensive way. Ryan needs to get a clue about that.

Incidentally, as a fellow person who has benefited from F.E.H.B, you seem to understand the importance of real pooling in conjunction with strong regulations (as dysfunctional as the Post Office was and is, my family was able to afford the normally really expensive medications I've had to and continue to take).

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
Yup, I do, like you, appreciate the value of pooling. And I support....
...a real system of universal coverage.  But I embrace the politics of the possible, and what we got this year was what was possible.

I suspect we'll ultimately over the long-term move toward something similar to the German system, where private sector insurers still function but under very strict government control.

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

[ Parent ]
Oh definitely, and I wasn't complaining about HCR
The bill that passed congress was a good one given what was possible, though I will say that I'm pretty flustered with whoever came up with the brilliant idea of delaying implementation for 4-5 years.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
It also doesn't help that
before these people reach 65, their employers dropped them from their employer-sponsored health plans because it was apparently too expensive, and these people skip going to the doctor until they reach 65, and end up incurring a lot of medical problems that end up being costly because they couldn't get preventive care to avoid or reduce their medical problems.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Austerity
Is not what worked here at all.  Our banking structure was much stronger because of heavier regulation that avoided the worst excesses of the financial meltdown.  Our recession was always shallower than the USA and mostly caused because the US is the number one destination for our exports.

You are not wrong that over the cycle economies do need saving and investment but doing so now in the US would be disasterous for all of us.

Remember this the next time a boom comes and someone promises you a tax cut with no reduction in services.  The good times are the times to save and to encourage the population to save and invest.

[ Parent ]
Austerity has worked well in Canada
I would argue Canada has been on an austerity footing since the early 1990s with little deviation from it.  It has seen one of the greatest records of prosperity during the time frame and is in a stronger position because of it.  If the US was on such a footing, we would be in a stronger position today and the recession probably would have been far shallower.

In terms of tax cuts, I am against tax cuts or increases at this point.  The budget needs to be balanced using cuts.  Once that has been tried, it would be time to increase taxes.

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

[ Parent ]
"Obama lowballed" the stimulus is one of many leftist myths that piss me off......
I would love to know what exactly Obama critics would have done to get 60 Senate votes for cloture for a much bigger stimulus.  The stimulus we got was what was politically possible.  The alternative was not a bigger stimulus, but Obama and Congressional Democrats just losing big and using it as what would be a doomed talking point, with no help for the economy at all.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Exactly
what many people forget that in politics its not what's ideal that matters, its what's viable. Which is why many of the new voters Obama brought in who had rosy dreams are severely demoralized. No one cared to explain to them that "change" does not come easily.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Sticker price
The sticker price is not the problem in my book.  Actually I think Obama could have accomplished more in terms of a stimulus if it was far more targeted.  Most jobs in the recession have been lost in manufacturing and construction.  

The stimulus should have reflected this by focusing on:

1) Increasing manufacturing output by accelerating every defense program on the books.  We have a lot of wore out equipment that needs replacing and excess factory capacity.  We missed a chance to reequip ourselves and our allies at potentially lower rates.

2) Pushing through every infrastructure program on the books on an expedited time table.  This means truncating the regulatory requirements and getting shovels in the ground on big projects quicker.  We could eliminate the decades long backlog of upgrades and new construction with such a program.

3)  The infrastructure bonzaza would have created more manufacturing jobs seeing we would need construction equipment, new mass transit equipment, etc...

Obama could have accomplished these things with a $500 billion stimulus.  $150 billion for defense procurement and $350 for infrastructure

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

[ Parent ]
He could have simply done a payout
To every single American over 18 in 2009 and 2010 of around $2200 on a debit card that cannot be used to pay off loans/debts and had to be used to buy things and had to be spent by the end of the year.  That would have created a much needed boom.
[ Parent ]
Agree in part
But what was really needed was to start another "new economy" around new energy sources (green energy, nuclear, and coal) and mass transit.  Also dump as much as possible into education, that always pays back in spades.  We don't need to build more houses when people can't afford them.

I agree with expediting defense spending, but it should be for weapons we need, we don't need to be building any more wasteful Cold War weapons just to help the economy.    

And then aid to the states.  I would give the states whatever they asked for because plugging their deficits saves lots of jobs.

[ Parent ]
That is what the states having been using the stimulus for
For the most part.
[ Parent ]
Disagree
I see the states using the stimulus to merely plug their budget holes instead of eliminating a lot of waste that exists at the state level.  I see state government as the level of government with the most waste.

Any bailout for the states needs to be structured in such a way that state governments are forced to be more efficient.

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

[ Parent ]
Agree
I would include clean energy and mass transit as part of an infrastructure plan.  Give a third of the infrastructure component to mass transit (ideally commuter rail services), a third to highway improvement and expansion, and the last third to clean energy.  

In terms of the clean energy program, I would have made it a requirement that a state had to have 25 percent of its energy produced by clean sources (nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric) within 5 years or they had to pay the money back to the Feds.

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

[ Parent ]
Your point number 2 is an acutely Godawful idea because...
...sooner or later a major bridge will collapse or a tunnel will cave in or some other major disaster will happen, and it will trace right back to "relaxed" federal regulatory requirements.  And then Obama is dealing with something like...well...an oil spill!  Note the relaxation of regulations and enforcement that allowed the Gulf explosion to happen.

Regulations exist for good reason.  No one ever thinks about those reasons, they think about only what red tape they actually suffer.  That's human nature, people don't think through alternative scenarios, only what they actually live.  But if you remove the red tape, you have people dying in preventable disasters.

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

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily, ref MacArthur Maze
http://www.sfgate.com/maze/

IMO, it was an amazing private/public partnership where infrastructure was rebuilt in record time to California earthquake standards.

While there are skeptics, AFAIK, their doubts are based not on the work that was done -- but the belief that more of the Maze should have been rebuilt.

[ Parent ]
Um go around the country making the case
for a bigger stimulus?  Obama has enormous amounts of popularity and political capital in early 2009.  If he had asked for 3 trillion, he would have at least gotten 1.5-2 trillion.
[ Parent ]
That would have taken far longer to spend
Had it been 1.5 to 2 trillion, a much bigger chunk would have had to be spent in 2011 and 2012, when we dont need it.  Right now, only around 20% or around 150 billion is slated be spent after 2010.  The more money there is, the longer it takes to get it all paid out.  
[ Parent ]
Well
I'm not sure it would.  And given how weak the economy is, we might well need it in 2011 and 2012.

A lot of the money could have been used immediately for fixing the mortgage foreclosures mess, plugging state deficits and middle class rebates.  

But if a lot of the money were used for energy, medical technologies, and education, we might have been able to jump start another "new economy".

[ Parent ]
He is just talking out of his ass
Yes, of course having a bigger stimulus would mean more of it would be getting spent.  Saying dont make it bigger because we cant spend is not a real argument.  Someone needs the ban stick.
[ Parent ]
No he wouldn't, you overstate his "political capital"......
No Obama did not have political capital as expansive as you think.  There were limits on what Snowe/Collins/Specter would accept.  There was a reason why the Senate stimulus was smaller than the House, and it was accepted political wisdom that a trillion was a bridge too far to try to explain to voters.

We got what was possible.  Maybe Paul Krugman et al. were right, and it wasn't enough.  But it's what was possible, and that is life.  It's frustrating that we're still arguing the basics of Keynesian economics so many generations later, and that there's never been an easily-digestible explanation to the general public that the recession is one problem for which the ONLY solution is to throw money at it!  You can argue how much of that has to be through tax cuts and how much through spending, and exactly what tax breaks and spending to offer, but really those details don't matter that much.  The other reality that's hard to get across is that fiscal stimulus takes time, and that as hard as it is, patience is essential.

This recession is just structurally also much worse than anything since the Great Depression, so that makes it all even harder.

But Bill Clinton is right, voters are all about bottom lines, and the bottom line is that until they're winning they're not going to give you credit.

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

[ Parent ]
Hitting the trillion mark
would sound downright terrifying to me as human being coming from my government.  I can get over it, but hitting the trillion marks is a whole new ball-game and would probably cause the stimulus to be heavily scorned by most Americans.  Where are the jobs if you spent a TRILLION dollars?!  ($300 billion more, I believe, would not have made nearly enough of a dent to have changed anything.)
[ Parent ]
Agree w/you on all points, Andrew, and let me add a couple points......
Once in awhile the past 18 months there's a newspaper headline or TV news lede about some new massive number of a record deficit projection or debt number.  Every time I run across that, it sends a chill down my spine.  Partly that's because I do worry about deficits and the debt long-term, such a deep hole for a long time is something I don't want to see.  Ultimately a big stimulus was the least bad of poor options, as were the bailouts.  But significantly the chill down my spine is because I recognize the horrific political optics for Democrats.  Behind the sputtering economy, federal spending/deficits/the debt is the 2nd-biggest issue that's hurting us with swing voters.

And on whether an extra $300 billiion would have helped, I also don't think so.  We might be at 9.2% unemployment instead of 9.5, and that small marginal improvement is all we'd get.

It certainly wouldn't make a difference for the midterms.

Really, there's nothing the government can do that it hasn't already done to help the economy recover.  If what's been done isn't working any faster, then nothing works faster.  The economy is a massive ship that's slow to steer.

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

[ Parent ]
Further stimulus would not kick in until after the election
Which makes it essentially pointless.  
[ Parent ]
What is the source of your information?
per recovery.gov, less than 1/2 of the stimulus has been paid out.  
[ Parent ]
53% has been paid out
And this doesnt include the big summer payout that is supposed to happen.
[ Parent ]
Again, what is the source of your information?
what big summer payout?
[ Parent ]
Again, what is the source of your information?
what big summer payout?
[ Parent ]
If there is a double dip, it wont be declared until 2011
It would have more an affect on Obama's reelection than Dem chances in 2010, unless the economy just completely crashes, with unemployment going up a full point in the next three months, like in 2008.  
[ Parent ]
I swing from optimistic to pessimistic...
...and back again every few days.  Earlier this week, I felt that we would be alright, and today, not so much.

Unemployment extensions will pass... I think we'll get money for the states as well.  The silver lining of the bad jobs report (which was better than I expected, at least) is that it might scare some of the blue dogs from their suicidal tendencies and get some more money approved.

We'll also get the wall street bill, which will help, and Obama better not be stupid and delay the Iraq withdrawal in August.  The spill will have been hopefully contained by then as well.

The spill has really demoralized Democrats, but the thought of a GOP house will get us back up for the fight.  One thing all the prognosticators forget is that the GOP is still despised by the populace at large.  They don't know that and will make mistakes of hubris as a result of their ignorance.

And have some faith in the DCCC.  They know how to win tough races...

[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced about unemployment insurance
It got through the House. Now, it has to get through the goddamn filibuster-everything Senate.

Meanwhile, jobs are hemorrhaging because state governments are staring into a bottomless abyss, and Congress seems to have given up trying to rescue them.

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

[ Parent ]
It will go through...
Reid just needs Byrd's replacement vote for it to go through... I also feel that they will find some way, some how to get some aid to the states.  The jobs reports have to freak out even conservadems enough to do something.
[ Parent ]
Good point about Byrd's replacement
God, what a frustration the damn Congress is!

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
We can take solace that the filibuster may be dead soon enough
The GOP made their bed, hopefully come next January they'll be lying in it.  If we can hold onto the House, still have a workable majority in the Senate to compensate, we can be cruising going into 2012.  We wont need to talk to a single one of them if we dont want to.
[ Parent ]
I'm confused, where do you get the filibuster will be abolished???......
I know McCaskill claims to have 67 pledges, the number needed for any Senate rules change, to abolish the single-member "holds" that have held up so many Administration nominees.  But there's nothing remotely close to 67 votes to abolish or reduce the cloture requirement.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
I remember reading several times
that rule changes take a simple majority.  IIRC, since the constitution says the Senate is a self-governing body and their procedural rules are to be determined by the will of the majority of the Senate, they can change the rules however they want as long as the majority has ruled it so.  This is much like how both chambers are the deciders of the election qualifications for each of their members.

Maybe Im just being naively optimistic, but reading quotes from Pelosi to me shows that there is going to be a very large push up and down the Democratic establishment to get rid of it.  The filibuster Id say is the sole reason we are going to get our asses handed to us in 2010; all else follows from it.  Passing a bill simply shouldnt take this long.

And liberals are absolutely not going to accept the bills the Senate will pump out next Congress.  We'll need to convince a high single digit number of GOPers most likely so we'll be at the Dick Lugar point  It might as well not even have been written by Democrats by that point and the liberals will not accept this.  Nor will House Democrats, and maybe Obama may even get a little stern.

It's really too bad, the filibuster I think was a very important thing to have when not it's being abused.

[ Parent ]
Is there a difference maybe in votes needed
In the middle of session vs at the beginning of a Congress when setting rules?

(Forgive me moderators, I know procedural stuff isnt supposed to be talk about but filibuster reform is pretty essential to the future of our party I'd say.)

[ Parent ]
Nothing will be done in the next two years
Unless somehow, Democrats are magically able to gain seats in the Senate and only lose a dozen in the House.  

Everything will simply be go like this: Pass the House, die in the Senate, which will actually be a very good thing if Republicans control the House and the reason I oppose getting rid of the filibuster.  

[ Parent ]
Few things
I'm not entirely sure why liberals are so sympathetic to keeping a tool which ultimately has been used to thwart progressive policies most of the time (a majority vote senate would have passed a bigger stimulus, a public option, a stronger jobs bill, extension of unemployment benefits, and many other things).

Furthermore, Obama will still be the President and the Democrats are all but certain to have control of the Senate after 2010, so if the Republicans control the House, it doesn't really matter if the Senate is a 51 vote institution or a 60 vote one, since very little would happen anyways.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
Here's one link (Matthew Yglesias) explaining it (and it's 67)......
http://yglesias.thinkprogress....

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Well for fuck sake
Sometimes I agree with Rep. Dingell, the Senate was the worst idea that ever came out of the Founding Fathers.  That is such garbage and McConnell has lead us down a very dangerous path.

Do the GOP think that if they get a majority, we wont be fucking with every single one of their bills?  The most Republican GOP Senate there has been since Senators were elected was 1921 the 67th Congress, 59/37.  Not enough then, and they arent even close to getting it now.  They'd have to pretty much have a perfect storm for it to happen in the next three election cycles and gain 19 seats.  Very possibly as if they gain big this year, they've got two more cycles chock full of offense.  But our incumbents in the tough seats seem to do being pretty well.

Webber and Franken are two examples.  Both had the closest races in their respective cycles, and both I think have settled in extremely nicely.  

[ Parent ]
Senator Webber?
Gosh, I thought I knew all 100.... (unless you're talking about Jim Webb)
[ Parent ]
If the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate
Several conservative Democrats will vote for most of their stuff, just as they did the last time. You think for one second that Nelson of Nebraska will filibuster every piece of Republican legislation? And he's only the worst, not the only one.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Not every vote
They would pick and choose their battles. That is what they did before. Which is the difference between the parties in opposition because the GOP just oppose everything.
[ Parent ]
You really are saying the same thing I did
Only with somewhat different wording.

The Democrats do not stop most of even a radical hard-right agenda when there's a Republican president in office and anything close to a Republican majority. During the Reagan presidency, even with a sizeable Democratic majority in the House, there was pretty much of a functional Republican majority, based on a coalition of Bowl Weevil Democrats and Republicans.

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

[ Parent ]
Yes
But they also actually worked together to make legislation better and yet said a firm no on a few things. Recent examples being certain judges and Social Security.
[ Parent ]
It's been quite some time
since liberals blocked any Supreme Court nomination, and it really shows in the breadth of right-wing activist decisions by the Roberts Court. Even some Democrats in the Senate would vote against, and possibly filibuster, nominees who were as obviously equivalently left-wing, based on their records. Which might have something to do with why Pam Karlan has not been nominated.

It has not always been so, but since about 1992, and even more so in the last decade, the Democratic and Republican Caucuses in Congress have been different in attitude, and not merely ideological orientation.

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

[ Parent ]
Miguel Estrada?

[ Parent ]
Miguel Estrada
was never nominated for the Supreme Court, so his name isn't responsive to my previous post.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I wish I could be as optimistic as ya'll
I mean, it'd be great if we could just switch. I think everything will fall apart for Republicans b/c of Steele and Sessions, and ya'll think everything will fall apart for Dems.  
[ Parent ]
The truth is, things suck right now
I don't have to tell you that. And therefore, the voters have every reason to be angry. They're angry at the Republicans because even if their memories are short, they're not so short they don't remember 2008. And they're angry at the Democrats because the economy still sucks and things are looking scary, and they're the party in charge. They're also angry at incumbents (even though I take the point that they're likely to reelect most of them) because they're in office while things go to Hell. Because the voters are so angry at both parties and Congress, generally, I think the results of the November elections could be very surprising in a bunch of races and may be hard to accurately forecast.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Virtually no voters have ever HEARD of Steele and Sessions, and I even I don't know...
...why you're referencing Sessions.

If they were truly your worst problem, you'd win 100 seats.

Steele is Example 1 of the disconnect between the political media and political junkies on one hand, and 99% of voters on the other hand.  It's not that the Steele disaster is unimportant in politics, because it is truly damaging in ways that have a trickle down effect on the Repbulican Party, but it's not the sort of thing that directly matters to voters.  He's obviously an isolated clown, not a symptom of the many problems people should have with Republicans and conservatism, so no one cares about him.  Where he potentially does damage is in forcing the Republican establishment to reallocate resources to other campaign organs.  But that's doable, it's just more and normally unnecessary pain-in-the-ass work.

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

[ Parent ]
Their problem
Is strategy. Steele burns through money like nothing. Sessions has a pretty bad record in races we should have won, like NY-20, NY-23, and PA-12. The only race he did not spend nearly a million dollars in, HI-01, we win.  
[ Parent ]
False concerns......
Re Steele, the money is still flowing, it just gets redirected to other party organs or directly to campaigns.  Howard Dean was a lousy DNC fundraiser, and it didn't matter.  The money was still there, it just went elsewhere.

Sessions isn't great, but the NRCC has been a disaster under his 2 predecessors, the most recent one of whom was a former campaign consultant before he later became a Congressman.  So there's something structural wrong there, and certainly part of it is poor staff.  And yes it's costing the GOP seats, no question, but sometimes a party wins in spite of itself.  I scratch my head in particular at how the NRCC refuses to stop demonizing personalities as a front-and-center messaging strategy.  Nobody cares about Pelosi or Reid, or even Obama very much, in voting in a House race.  You can nationalize an election, but you do so with issues swing voters already care about, not what your conservative echo chamber cares about.  In 2010 voter concerns aren't about personalities, they're about particular issues, mainly the economy but to a lesser degree other things.  Really the NRCC can't seem to step outside its echo chamber, and that's their big flaw.  And donors seem to recognize that, since their fundraising is awful.  But they might just take the House in spite of it.  If they don't, there might finally be a reevaluation of theh NRCC's mentality.

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

[ Parent ]
It's still in part about turnout, part about nationalization/localization
w/r/t turnout, OFA is a new part of the equation.

Before '74, turnout in off-year elections was generally in the upper 40s(%) range. Since '74 it's been in the upper 30s.

And in recent off-year elections, it's included years where one side has been demoralized, the other energized.

This year, Rs are energized.

Can OFA make a difference this year especially with the first-time voters from '08?

w/r/t localization - Rs have yet to nationalize the election, at least to the extent that it was nationalized in '94. In this environment, strong local Ds can survive.

If the election is fully nationalized, that's another matter. But even then, OFA might be able to make a difference. Nevertheless, OFA is unproven in off-year elections.

[ Parent ]
OFA
Has OFA had an impact on any of the elections we have had since 2008?  I suspect OFA's impact is really tied to the quality of the candidate.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7
[ Parent ]
OFA hasn't even really TRIED to organize for elections since 2008......
The only election organizing work OFA has done was for Coakley starting just a couple weeks before the election, which was too late, and maybe for Critz although I'm not sure about that.  The guys at 538.com did an interview with OFA people awhile back where they talked about how the lesson learned from Coakley was that you have to start work well ahead of time, that a couple weeks isn't enough.

OFA already started for the midterms now, and I actually saw on my OFA account online that I can make calls generally for Virginia, where I live, and, alternatively, specifically for Perriello in VA-05 where I DON'T live.  It told me something that they're focused on Perriello early and not Nye or Connolly.  I think it shows their early view was that Nye is in deep trouble and that Connolly as safe, while Perriello is much more on the fence--although these are my personal speculations, I have no inside info.

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

[ Parent ]
Well
It is worth noting that Perriello stuck his neck out to support Obama's agenda and Nye voted against most of their major initiatives.  Which is why Perriello gets help first.  

Connolly is probably considered safe, and if it gets tighter, I'm sure OFA will try to help him.  If they have money and time, I'm sure Nye will get some help too.  But they are going to pull out every last stop for Perriello.  

[ Parent ]
If Democrats get as badly plastered
as a think is more likely than not they will, that fate was sealed in early 2009.  
[ Parent ]
Plastered, eh?
Newest Republican vote suppression scheme: making Monday, November 1st bar night in heavily Democratic areas.

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 ]
We should hit back
By subsidizing 2-for-1 specials on Rentboy.com that night.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.
[ Parent ]
Hahaha
Very true! Hell, Charlie Crist and Mark Kirk probably won't even show up to vote for themselves in that scenario!
[ Parent ]
I like the idea
For Crist!! Maybe we can get him that MN State Senators boyfriend.  
[ Parent ]
I blame Schumer in 07-08
For not recruiting a strong candidate to beat McConnell. He was vulnerable and won by only 8% against an unexciting candidate (Being a little facetious of course). Really though, almost every problem for the Obama administration can be traced back to the 60 vote obstruction requirement that McConnell, unlike any other senate leader in US History, has requiring of every vote... in addition to holding up nominees, etc. I'd imagine if he was beaten, and Alexander had 39 or 40 Senators in his caucus, his legislative strange would be different than pure nihilism.
[ Parent ]
But McConnell's Strategy...
...really isn't that brilliant. It's pretty much the natural extension of what Bob Dole was doing in 93-94. Anyone leading the Republican caucus probably would've done the same thing.

Now, if you mean to say that 60 Dems the whole time (and 61 for a bit, assuming Specter still switches) woulda been easier, you're probably right, but only marginally so. Remember, Obama wanted some sort of bipartisanship for the stimulus, and we had 60 for most of HCR, it's just that guys in our own party were rolling us, and even 61 wouldn't have been enough to let us ignore Nelson, Lieberman, and Lincoln.

But the bottom line is, even 39-member, McConnell-less Republican caucus would've played the obstruction game. Though the psychological toll of knocking them under 40 would've been something.

[ Parent ]
If Democrats lose the House, its gone for another 12 years
How are Democrats going to compete to win back the House in 2012 or ever 2014 or 2016 or 2018 when Republicans are redrawing the lines in PA, OH, GA, TX, IN, SC, WI, and FL? They will create safe new seats for their newly elected Republican Representitives so Democrats have no way of getting them back.  The short term thinking that Democrats had in 2008 is looking incredibly stupid right now and will likely haunt them for the next decade.  Win the White House(especially in bad times), lose Congress.  
[ Parent ]
Um....
In PA we'd have to lose the state house and gubernatorial, same for OH, IN we have the state house, WI the Dems currently have the trifecta, TX the dems need like 2 state house seats and then in TX, GA, SC, and FL the Dems have decent shots at worst in all of their gubernatorials.

You're just talking out your ass.

[ Parent ]
Do you realize there is an election in 2010?
In those states.  Democrats are likely to lose the state House in Indiana(they control it by just 52-48 and have a lot of open seats in very Republican districts) and the state House(which they control 104-99 and have a lot of tough open seats) and the governorship in PA.  In Wisconsin, Democrats are likely to lose the governorship and that could well wash away the narrow majorities in the state House and Senate there.  
[ Parent ]
Okay, But...
I don't know how they can draw the lines to keep a Democrat out of the districts centered on Indianapolis and the Chicago suburbs. Maybe they can split up the 2nd so it no longer unites some of the lake shore and South Bend, but that seems like it would just create a problem for two districts instead of focusing them in one. And the 8th has been competitive since the 60s, despite 5 different redistrictings. So I guess IN could probably get rid of 2 Democratic districts, but two extra Republican seats doesn't seem like the makings of an enduring Republican Majority, not in the face of the Demographic time bomb they're facing.
[ Parent ]
Yeah but that election hasnt happened yet
And as such, making claims that the Democrats wont be able to retake the House in 12 years is absurd.  And redistricting only accounts for so much and even then, you can only do so much in the states you listed.  PA, OH, and TX are all already very pro-GOP gerrymanders.  And let's see TX do some really stupid gerrymander again.  Hillary could run in 2016 and be the one to cause a curb stomping of the entire map, if we're predicting this far out.

But you think what you want new guy with three comments.  Such an increase in trolls lately.  At least you give us something to work with and analyze why it's wrong.

[ Parent ]
Well, if they can make TX and FL MORE gerrymandered...
...then hell, I'll allow it just to see HOW. PA and OH were already pretty bad, too.

But even if I accept that all those state houses are doomed (and I don't), the fact is, there just aren't enough sure-fire Republican voters out there anymore to really lock up a House majority for a generation (That, in fact, is why the Republicans have lost so many seats in these states they've already gerrymandered). Now sure, sure-fire Republican votes can be created if Dems do bad enough, but if that happens, it's not gonna matter WHERE the lines are drawn.

Moreover, I don't believe the Dems had this "short term thinking" you're talking about. I was pretty involved in a few campaigns, and I never heard this "win the White House, forget about everything else" strategy. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember the largest Congressional majorities in a generation come from that election...

[ Parent ]
That's the silver lining I always think of
We may lose big time in 2010, but the demographics are moving heavily against the GOP and they're going to be in a giant funk for a number of decades unless/until they can straighten themselves out.

They're pretty much done at the Presidency once TX flips, and that's not too terribly far off.  (Keep on moving to Dallas/Fort Worth everybody!)

[ Parent ]
Indeed (But I'll Rain on Your Parade Anyway...)
If the House falls this year, I can't see a Republican majority outlasting the Obama Administration (though of course, it would all depend on what happens in the 2016 Presidential race, and god only knows, right?).

My problem is, the country's got problems that need action, and even six years of divided government- and thus, inaction- might be too much.

[ Parent ]
Err...
Most of those states you listed have Republican-drawn maps in the first place, many of which turned out to be the dummymanders. Even if the Republicans control redistricting in all of those states (which is far from guaranteed) they'll probably learn from their mistake and shore up their own incumbents instead of drawing another house-of-cards map that will collapse on them again. In TX especially, I don't see how Sessions, Marchant, McCaul, etc get safe districts without concessions to the Democrats.

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 ]
2000 redistricting was already heavily Pro-GOP
PA and OH were both dummymanders that ended up backfiring pretty big (granted, they're likely to gain 1 or 2 in OH this year), and in FL it will be virtually impossible to extend any further - and TX will have to give unless they want to lose 4-5 incumbents in the next decade. In WI, the only incumbent of ours in danger is Kagen, but realistically, any areas that he'd reach into would make himself stronger or equal in strength (i.e. going into Winnebago would probably strengthen him as his base is Appleton) - the only interesting thing to come out of redistricting in WI would be weakening Paul Ryan in a Democratic redistricting (the GOP strengthened him in 2000). GA, they already tried to gerrymander two incumbents out and that failed, they'll just have to sit and wait for Marshall to retire. SC they could end up dummymandering themselves (as SC-01 and SC-02 are both in tenuous positions, if they want to go after Spratt, they'd be much smarter to shore those two up). Really, the only one i'm significantly concerned about losing 1 or 2 seats at redistricting is IN.
[ Parent ]
Paul Ryan
He'd probably be running for Senate anyway, so he wouldn't get screwed.  
[ Parent ]
Don't forget California
We're almost certainly going to pick up a bunch of seats there, too. On this very site there have been plenty of maps that swing 5-8 seats to the Team Blue ledger without significantly weakening most of the rest of the delegation's seats. Currently, it's 19 Republicans and 34 Democrats, but it wouldn't be a tremendous stretch to get it to 12 Republicans and 41 Democrats, many of whom would still be in liberal seats.

Even if Republicans somehow manage to retake the House, they won't do it by more than 5-10 seats, even under a rosy Republican scenario. California alone is probably enough to swing it back.

Of the big states, only New York could see any increase in the number of Republicans...and that seems unlikely at this point. And even if they did win there, it'd be mostly RINOs, not conservatives.

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

[ Parent ]
6-8 seats wont account for lost seats in PA, OH, and IN
And is especially not accounting for the fact that Republicans will make seats that they win in 2010 that would have been prime targets for Democrats to win back in 2012 like OH-01, OH-16, PA-11, PA-07, PA-08, IN-09 and maybe FL-08 far more Republican and out of reach for Democrats. And this is before accounting for newly elected Republican seats that will be made more Republican through incumbent protection plans, probably putting MI-07, IL-11, IL-14, and NY-24 back out of reach for Democrats.  
[ Parent ]
But...
PA and OH are already dummymandered, which is what makes your post hard to believe. You say they'll screw us over in OH-01, but how do they do that without putting OH-02 in danger? You say they'll screw us over in PA-07 and PA-08, but how do they do that without putting, say, PA-06 or PA-15 in danger?

You're forgetting that these seats you mention were already drawn to be Republican seats. It's only when they shifted out from under the Republicans that the Democrats won them.

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 ]
Okay, Cool, Just Ignore...
...everything else that has been said in this thread.

"6-8 seats wont account for lost seats in PA, OH, and IN "

Maybe not, but it will probably account for the seats the Republicans need to hold onto a majority in the House. Again: even the rosiest of Republican predictions have them taking the House by 5-10 seats. Even setting aside the fact that it's the most amateur form of armchair politics to assume five members of the Majority party won't be vulnerable in the next election, 5-10 seats CAN be found in CA with a favorable map.

"And is especially not accounting for the fact"

For the record: the thing you say next is NOT a fact, it's a prediction, based on ANOTHER prediction that Republicans will control the redistricting process. I rather doubt they WILL have such control in OH and PA, and in IN, Daniels may want to burnish his "honest broker" credentials (Stranger things...)

"that Republicans will make seats that they win in 2010 that would have been prime targets for Democrats to win back in 2012 like OH-01, OH-16, PA-11, PA-07, PA-08, IN-09 and maybe FL-08 far more Republican and out of reach for Democrats."

Again, OH, PA, and FL already have hideous Republican gerrymanders. The two implications of that fact (and it is a fact, unlike your crystal ball routine above) are that 1) it's hard to make these maps MORE Republican and 2) you can't trust Republicans to get that shit right, even if they try for it.

2 is exacerbated by the fact that the votes that might put Republicans over the top this year will prove to be rather illusory. The people who can- and might!- give Republicans the House aren't voting FOR the Republicans, they're voting AGAINST the economy. If conditions improve, they won't be pulling the R lever again. If conditions don't improve, well, then it doesn't matter anyway. Couple this with the demographic time bomb they're facing, and it's really hard to see how a gerrymander sticks.

"And this is before accounting for newly elected Republican seats that will be made more Republican through incumbent protection plans, probably putting MI-07, IL-11, IL-14, and NY-24 back out of reach for Democrats."

Of course it is, because those Republicans haven't even been elected yet, much less embraced by an incumbent protection plan. We've got no reason to assume that the Rs will win IL-11 or IL-14 (I don't know about the others). If they do, we have no reason to assume there will be an incumbent protection map; yes, I think IL will have divided government, but I think Mike Madigan is going to be eating Bill Brady's lunch 3 or 4 times a week. Hastert was the driving force for the Rs when they agreed on incumbent protection in the early 2000s, and IL Republicans don't have anyone as good at the game as him anymore. Finally, if IL DOES take an incumbent protection map, there's no reason to assume it will WORK. The last incumbent protection map didn't protect Phil Crane. It didn't save Hastert's or Weller's seat. It wouldn't have saved Hyde's had the Dems not splintered in the primary. And it's never really let Mark Kirk- or his possible successor- relax. The Chicago suburbs are becoming more and more like the city, you can't count on them to deliver the Republican vote anymore. Downstate still can, but, you can't turn that into any MORE districts than it already is. Indeed, IL is projected to LOSE at least one seat- so that pretty much voids any incumbent protection plan right there.

[ Parent ]
MI-07
MI-07 is already a safe Republican district; there really isn't any way to make it much more so.  The fact that a Democrat managed to win anyhow (and may again) says some pretty good things about Schauer, and some ... other things about the Republican candidate.  A more likely result of redistricting (even if Republicans write it -- and they probably won't have as much control as they did last time) is that Schauer gets protected so that Republicans can keep or take other seats.
[ Parent ]
Indeed, I was addressing the rambling fearmongering
Although I don't think that Cali Dems have the balls to pull what the GOP pulled in TX/PA/MI/OH/FL in 2000; they did after-all go with a bipartisan redistricting plan that year. That being said, they'll probably carve out 4-5 seats away from the GOP (1 Sacramento, 1 Santa Barbara/Ventura, 2 LA/OC/Riverside, 1 San Diego is my guess, last one being least likely) and shore up McNerney.

In New York, I think we're actually in pretty good shape: The State Senate will likely stay Democratic and even possibly increase in margins, thus giving us a trifecta. We'd likely try to lump NY-26 and our new loss in NY-29 into one uber GOP district (Slaughter's district can absorb a lot, and this is the region where population growth is smallest). If Arcuri loses, his can be eaten up by the surrounding districts, with perhaps a new Ithaca-based district added in its stead (sorry Maurice!). They can even gun for King's district if they'd like.

A lot will depend on the outcome of the 2010 elections, but redistricting should at the very least be much more balanced than in 2000. If we hold CO-Gov, for example, we can make Markey much safer.

[ Parent ]
Please elaborate on your forecast for the New York State Senate
Why do you think the people will reward the Democrats for failing so abjectly? I would think that there would be heavy anti-incumbent feeling right now, and that since the Democrats are - barely - in the majority, they'd get a bit more of the brunt of it. So clue me in: Which races do you think will be close, and in which direction?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
What about the ballot intiative
to have congressional redistricting done by the citizen's committee? If prop 20 the Dems would not be able to have a gerrymander.
[ Parent ]
There's another initiative to get rid
   of that commission altogether. I don't know yet which has an advantage; based on the general rule that it is easier to defeat a ballot measure than pass one maybe they cancel each other out and we have it as status quo. You know damn well that Nancy Pelosi and the CA Democratic House delegation will fight like hell against the one using the commission for congressional redistricting. That is why the original commission proposal didn't include congressional districts, so they didn't have to face the wrath of Nancy and company.

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28
[ Parent ]
They still faced the wrath of Nancy Pelosi
Prop 11 was opposed by Pelosi, Boxer, and the Dem party establishment in CA. Now this effort will definitely be opposed with more bravado than the prop restricted to state legislative districts.  
[ Parent ]
I suppose that I am defining "wrath" as
   raising and spending millions of dollars to defeat the initiative. Prop 11 didn't get as much attention near the end of a long ballot featuring more exciting stuff like animal rights, gay rights, crime and punishment and even abortion policy. That time the commission flew under the radar a bit. If congressional redistricting had been involved there would have been a much more intense campaign to defeat it I think.

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28
[ Parent ]
The delusion around here has really gotten epidemic
It's actually pretty funny to read some of these doom and gloom posts (for either side).

The country remains more or less split 50/50 like it has been for 20 years.  All it takes to move things significantly one way or another is good news or bad news, or a good candidate or a sucky one.

[ Parent ]
We're all rooting for your vision to come true. Seriously.
No one here except the few Repubs who've become regulars wants you to be wrong.

But most of us just think you are.

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

[ Parent ]
About what?
That the country is close to 50/50 split?

Given that every election for twenty years and basically every poll for two decades and this year says that, what is there to disagree with?

Sure Dems pushed that envelope in 2008, but the 2004 and 2000 elections being decided by less than 100k changed votes each makes it clear this is a divided country, with a ten percent or so chunk in the middle moving one way or the other.

[ Parent ]
Amusement
For two straight months of good jobs reports people whined that it was "just" the census. Well, then isn't the latest report "just" the census making it look worse than it is? Slow recovery yes, but certainly a recovery IMO.
89,000 new private jobs is nothing to shake a stick at
That's what should have been focused.  It aint that great, but it's up there.  And just read something on Newsweek about have non-financial private industry businesses are sitting on under $2 trillion but are too leery of the economy to invest.  LAME.   Effing spend it!!!  If all of it were spent, it would probably be enough to really jumpstart the economy.

Im just going to be patient, this is a long-term thing but not serious enough to make it still be unacceptable in 2012.  Obama will have saved the economy and he'll win in a landslide and hopefully win us some seats back.  Too bad we're really missing out on this Senate cycle.

[ Parent ]
That is the conventional wisdom
However, if there is a double dip, it WILL affect 2012.  Remember the 1990 recession began right about now in 1990 and the lingering effects from it lasted long enough to cost Bush reelection two years later.  
[ Parent ]
Okay, so?
Also, if Sarah Palin can make herself knowledgable, or Barack Obama admits he's in over his head, that "WILL affect 2012", too. But none of that's happened yet, so we needn't slit our wrists, as much as you're clearly dying to do so.

BTW, 1990 wasn't a double-dip recession, and Bush also had to deal with tone-deaf gaffes and a splintered right side of the country. Sure, we can remember the early 90s recession, but if we don't remember all the political aspects of 1992, we're painting a deceptive picture for ourselves.

[ Parent ]
I thought you neeeded between
100,000 and 120,000 new positions just to keep up with population growth? If that is the case then the news really isn't that great. It isn't just conservatives who think this either, http://www.fivethirtyeight.com... .
Also, it is best to treat the census jobs as irrelevant, they are short term and therefore not part of the longer term foundation upon which future growth is built. Counting them as either a positive or negative does not make much sense.
Finally, the idea the May jobs report was a "good" one is totally false. Everybody saw right through the temporary census positions to the anemic private sector growth.  
[ Parent ]
Didn't say it was "great"
Nor that May was "good". Your points on the census were exactly what I was saying. That didn't stop both conservatives and liberals spinning away then and now. Yes, growth is anemic but it is still growth. As I said, slow recovery but recovery nonetheless.
[ Parent ]
Oh I did say "good" for May
But I really meant the perception of the overall report rather than the "ok" underlying private sector job growth. Sure, the census masked that a little which was my point to begin with since people on both sides have been trying to have it both ways.
[ Parent ]
Okay
sounds like we agree.  
[ Parent ]
SSP Daily Digest: 7/2 (Afternoon Edition) | 224 comments

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

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox