Google Ads


Site Stats

Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?

by: James L.

Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 1:46 PM EST


Happy New Year!

James L. :: Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In? | 414 comments
Chicago-Mayor: Obama unlikely to campaign for Emanuel
Apparently the Boston Globe is no longer a liberal paper?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

that comparison is so offensive I don't even know where to begin. To say nothing of the fact that Scott Brown's not even from Boston! (unless they were taking a potshot at him by alluding to his time on Beacon Hill. hmm. maybe the Globe's still on our team after all)

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/

Is this the article you're referencing?
http://www.boston.com/lifestyl...

If so, yeah, that's a pretty presumptuous comparison. Sounds a lot like the Rubio-Obama comparisons that we had going on last year. Don't know where they're going with that

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

[ Parent ]
Tomorrow at this time
America will have its first Latina Governor. Gov. "One Tough Nerd" will be gov. Half of "Sandrew" will be Governor.  
Does
anyone know if Andrew Cuomo will be sworn in Times Square right after the ball drops at midnight like Bloomberg was in 2002?

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
It's going to be a VERY low key event at the Governor's mansion
http://www.timesunion.com/defa...

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


[ Parent ]
was he really.......
Unimpressed.
[ Parent ]
He was sworn in
I guess right after the ball dropped, because he is now officially Governor Andrew Cuomo. The world is ridded of Gov. David Paterson. Thank God.  
[ Parent ]
I will forever be grateful for
former Governor Paterson. He gave the world Senator Gillibrand.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Lo!
The only good thing he ever did during his administration: picking then-Rep. Gillibrand and not Caroline goddamn Kennedy to replace Secy. Clinton.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Also
[ Parent ]
Meh….
He had better options than Gilly. Don't get me wrong I'm glad he didn't appoint Kennedy but I still stand that Gillibrand was the wrong choice.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
I know that's not the popular position around here, but I agree
I think Paterson should've appointed a temporary place holder (like say, fmr. Rep. Liz Holtzman) and allowed for a primary in 2010. I would've been delighted by the sight of a showdown among the likes of Carolyn McCarthy, Steve Israel, and Harold Ford, among others. I bet Gillibrand wouldn't have even ran.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
and we might not have repealed DADT

[ Parent ]
Huh? Cuomo would've been a "yes" and Lieberman/Collins would've still pushed it


For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Gillibrand was an outspoken opponent of DADT.
She made it one of her central issues like Rep. Murphy in the house. Her work on DADT repeal insured Collins and Leiberman had a starting point to work from.  

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Cuomo wouldn't have
shut down the Armed Services committee and force a hearing. He wouldn't have endlessly e-mailed his supporters to fight for it. He wouldn't have made it a central issue of his.

Gillibrand is largely the reason it got repealed, it became HER issue. I don't think if it would have happened without her because it might have been an issue without a champion.  

[ Parent ]
Lieberman and Collins
Were champions of it too.  
[ Parent ]
Worst. Idea. Evar.
OMG, no. A primary like that would've been a terrible idea.

A bloodbath that leaves a whole bunch of House seats open in a Republican year (a few of which could've been vulnerable) thus weakening the NY delegation's clout, drains money and volunteers and attention from other races, leaves the victor wounded, cash-poor, and bloodied ....and worst of all, offers the potential for a Senator Harold Ford of New York? No friggin' thank you. I'm with Paterson on this one.

And frankly, I don't think Israel, McCarthy, or any other current congresscritter from NY would've been much better than Gillibrand. She's young, smart, politically adept, a great fundraiser, tough-but-a-Mom, and the prettiest lady to grace the Senate since... well...ever? And she's voted pretty much like any of the others would have, and she scared Harold Ford away from the race while simultaneously ruining his Tennessee credibility as he publicly flirted with the idea, ensuring that he probably won't run in either state, at least for awhile. For that alone, she's awesome.

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

[ Parent ]
And she can speak Mandarin!


19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Seriously?
Might as well make her President now.
[ Parent ]
Yes, we need a Mandarin speaking President!
Actually I think she is "semi" fluent in Mandarin, but still that's quite an accomplishment. I'm actually considering taking a Mandarin courses instead of Spanish.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Imagine the Presidential Election of 2020
Two Mandarin speakers, at a time when the GDP of China could match that of the US.

(Jon Huntsman also speaks Mandarin)

[ Parent ]
Or as soon as 2016, really...
Although I think Sen. Gillibrand might rather be in Senate Democratic leadership than the White House.

A match-up like that, though, would be killer. My dream contest is between Ambassador Huntsman (a Mandarin speaker, as you said) and Gov. Schweitzer (who is fluent in Arabic).

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
Better from a policy standpoint?
Who might have been better?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Agreed
Gillibrand has done everything right since she entered office. She's destined for great things, and I doubt that would have been true for anyone else Paterson could have selected

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)
[ Parent ]
I meant
that as a serious question. It's not as if the Democrats were without options to fill Clinton's seat. And while I voted for her, I don't know much about Gillibrand. I've heard she flipped on a few issues, but I am not sure what and how outrageously she did so.

Then again, from what I've seen of her, I've liked. And if she was as integral as some people here claim she was in getting DADT repealed, I like her even more.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Gillibrand was the best --upstate-- option available
While there were other excellent options, they were all Rockland (co) and below.

In addition, if Patterson had resigned after Ravitch was --ah-- is "confirmed" the right word? -- by the courts as LG, I think Ds would have kept at least the state Senate.

[ Parent ]
I have to wonder
if that's the sort of thing that they will struggle in trying to get back, even with partisan redistricting. If Obama wins New York as strongly as he did in 2008 and there's an emphasis on down ballot races in the state, wouldn't they be able to win it back in 2012?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
He
was sworn a bit after 11 I think. He did not officially assume office until 12.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Boston
Globe awards Scott Brown the title of "Bostonian of the Year."

http://www.boston.com/lifestyl...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

Posted this upthread.
Globe's going soft on us!

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 ]
Tea Party to Challenge Brown in Primary
Tea Party to Challenge Brown in Primary

http://scienceblogs.com/dispat...

Joe Cooper

[ Parent ]
Ah
The tea party; it's the gift that just keeps on giving.
[ Parent ]
how dare scott
act like a republican from mass ;p.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Affirmative action at work at the RNC
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

The possibility that the GOP may elect a woman as national party chairman for just the second time in its history is raising that prospect for candidates for the party's often-overlooked No. 2 post. That's because RNC rules require the co-chairman to be of the opposite sex of the chairman.

I hate that rule
Ann Wagner is losing a lot of support because of it. I'm glad that Villere is running if Wagner or Cino win. He is a family friend of mine.  
[ Parent ]
Can you name all the US Senators?
http://www.sporcle.com/games/s...
I got all of them for the first time!  
Name yes, spell probably not


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


[ Parent ]
I got 99 of them
Couldn't think of Jeff Merkley for the life of me. I even tried "Democrat who beat Gordon Smith," but unfortunately that didn't cut it.

Also, for the real nerds: Can you name all 435 House members? It's three parts:

http://www.sporcle.com/games/B...
http://www.sporcle.com/games/B...
http://www.sporcle.com/games/B...

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

[ Parent ]
I was looking for house members
Thanks! I can probably only do half of them  
[ Parent ]
Heh, just did the first one.
In my defense, I'm pretty drunk right now and it's 12:52 AM where I am. I could probably do better under easier conditions. Got to 84. Not going to do the other two now. But I think California is kind of keeping the score low, I mean, how many people know Sam Farr or Ed Royce? I don't.  

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)
[ Parent ]
Only us California election geeks.
I've had all the reps and the counties memorized for some time.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Dammit!
so close! I got all the voting members of Congress and the delegates for DC and Virgin Islands, but I forgot the name of the Guam delegate, had absolutely no idea how to spell the name of the Samoa delegate, and never knew the Puerto Rico or Mariana Islands delegates' names in the first place.

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 ]
Got
them all the first time also. Though I had to look up how Klobuchar was spelled and took a while to figure out Roberts was the 2nd senator from Kansas.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Roberts
He's pretty anonymous I guess. He was the last one I got, and one of the ones I never got every other time I did it.  
[ Parent ]
Roberts was my last one too
Yay for backbenchers...  

NY-01/NY-19
[ Parent ]
Got 98 out of 100
I forgot LeMieux was a senator and kept trying to put in the old senator from Florida's name. And for some reason I couldn't remember Sheldon Whitehouse's name.  
[ Parent ]
the interesting thing
Is to check out how everyone else did when you are finished.  Slightly surprised that McCain was the highest recognized.  Only because casual political people may have thought he didn't run again after he lost to Obama.  Sherrod Brown definitely got higher because when you put "Brown" you get both.  I think this also helped Jack Reed a bit, because people may have spelled Harry wrong.

[ Parent ]
I got them all too.
I got to 90 in the first 6 minutes, but had to thing quite hard about the last 10- including Alexander, Crapo, Roberts, Wicker, Reed, for some reason Inhofe, though he's fairly high-profile. And I admit I had to cheat on LeMieux. I kept typing DeMieux and finally googled the spelling.  

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)
[ Parent ]
I love Sporcle.
I tend to get about 75-ish on that quiz on my bad days, and 98-ish on good days, and these results always shock even my political friends, but I love how I can come here and feel bad about my scores.

They actually have one for the House (split into three parts; I got about 20 percent on each a while ago). It hasn't been updated for the 112th, though, and I'm considering making one for the new Congress, if I decide to procrastinate on my transfer apps anymore over break.

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets

[ Parent ]
I think they will be updated
After the new Congress is sworn in. The Senate one has Kirk, Coons, and Manchin, so I think they are updated.
[ Parent ]
They tend to keep the Senate one up to date
But the House one is user-created, and so I'm not anticipating that the person who made it will decide to come back and go through it. (Although it would be cool if they did!)

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets
[ Parent ]
They have Tom Reed and Tom Graves
So whoever made it is keeping up with the changes in Congress. We'll see on Monday if he revamps it.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
Marlin Stutzman, too.


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 ]
Wow, that is surprising
in a very good way. Looked at that user's other created quizzes as well, quite a bit of good stuff.

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets
[ Parent ]
Feeling stupid
I got 70. Several I missed for spelling. Others I could picture clearly. I can usually call the roll with the clerk, so I must be totally out of practice.

I'm having a bad day thinking of elected officials!  

[ Parent ]
got them
I had 4:29 left. I'm good at remembering useless information.

41, Ind, CA-05
[ Parent ]
82 out of 100
I know all of them, just ran out of time.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
Got all of em :D
BUT that quiz is wrong! it lists Udall as the senior senator from New Mexico and Bingaman as the junior senator. [/nitpick]

Anyway, I'm off to try to the HoR quizzes (which I think I can do now, but might slip up on once the new Congress is sworn in).

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 ]
Senators
Off the top of my head(with no help):

Alabama-Richard Shelby(R) and Jeff Sessions(R)
Alaska-Mark Begich(D) and Lisa Murkowski(R)
Arizona-Jon Kyl(R) and John McCain(R)
Arkansas-John Boozman(R) and Mark Pryor(D)
California-Barbara Boxer(D) and Dianne Feinstein(D)
Colorado-Michael Bennet(D) and Mark Udall(D)
Connecticut-Richard Blumenthal(D) and Joe Lieberman(R)
Delaware-Tom Carper(D) and Chris Coons(D)
Florida-Bill Nelson(D) and Marco Rubio(R)
Georgia-Saxby Chambliss(R) and Johnny Isakson(R)
Hawaii-Daniel Akaka(D) and Daniel Inouye(D)
Idaho-Mike Crapo(R) and Jim Risch(R)
Illinois- Dick Durbin(D) and Mark Kirk(R)
Indiana-Dan Coats(R) and Dick Lugar(R)
Iowa-Chuck Grassley(R) and Tom Harkin(D)
Kansas-Jerry Moran(R) and Pat Roberts(R)
Kentucky-Mitch McConnell(R) and Rand Paul(R)
Louisiana-Mary Landireu(D) and David Vitter(R)
Maine-Susan Collins(R) and Olympia Snowe(R)
Maryland-Ben Cardin(D) and Barbara Mikulski(D)
Massachusetts-Scott Brown(R) and John Kerry(D)
Michigan-Carl Levin(D) and Debbie Stabenow(D)
Minnesota-Al Franken(D) and Amy Klobuchar(D)
Mississippi-Thad Cochran(R) and Roger Wicker(R)
Missouri-Roy Blunt(R) and Claire McCaskill(D)
Montana-Max Baucus(D) and Jon Tester(D)
Nebraska-Mike Johanns(R) and Ben Nelson(R)
Nevada-John Ensign(R) and Harry Reid(D)
New Hampshire-Kelly Ayotte(R) and Jeanne Shaheen(D)
New Jersey-Frank Lautenberg(D) and Bob Menendez(D)
New Mexico-Jeff Bingaman(D) and Tom Udall(D)
New York-Kirsten Gillibrand(D) and Chuck Schumer(D)
North Carolina-Richard Burr(R) and Kay Hagan(D)
North Dakota-Kent Conrad(D) and John Hoeven(R)
Ohio-Sherrod Brown(D) and Rob Portman(R)
Oklahoma-Tom Coburn(R) and Jim Inhofe(R)
Oregon-Jeff Merkley(D) and Ron Wyden(D)
Pennsylvania-Bob Casey Jr.(D) and Pat Toomey(R)
Rhode Island-Jack Reed(D) and Sheldon Whitehouse(D)
South Carolina-Jim DeMint(R) and Lindsey Graham(R)
South Dakota-Tim Johnson(D) and John Thune(R)
Tennessee-Lamar Alexander(R) and Bob Corker(R)
Texas-John Cornyn(R) and Kay Bailey Hutchinson(R)
Utah-Orrin Hatch(R) and Mike Lee(R)
Vermont-Pat Leahy(D) and Bernie Sanders(D)
Virginia-Mark Warner(D) and Jim Webb(D)
Washington-Maria Cantwell(D) and Patty Murray(D)
West Virginia-Joe Manchin(R) and Jay Rockefeller(D)
Wisconsin-Ron Johnson(R) and Herb Kohl(D)
Wyoming-John Barrasso(R) and Mike Enzi(R)

50, straight white male, Democrat(Dan Boren/Gene Taylor 2012!), AL-7(born in AL-5)

[ Parent ]
Technically, a lot of those are senator-elects
and the Sporcle quiz is on current senators. So that means aside from Coons and Kirk, all the newbies from this year aren't senators yet.

Also, I love how you put Ben Nelson as (R). Freudian slip? ;)

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 ]
No
As I say about Joe Lieberman, Joe Manchin, Benny Nelson, and the like, "Walk like a Republican, talk like a Republican, Republican."

50, straight white male, Democrat(Dan Boren/Gene Taylor 2012!), AL-7(born in AL-5)
[ Parent ]
oh, didn't even see you do it for Manchin and Lieberdick
nice.

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 ]
I got 91.
At least one from every state except Wyoming.
[ Parent ]
2 Questions for SSPers
1: What "possible improbable" would you most like to see happen in politics? The kind of thing that most likely won't happen, but there's still a chance that it can. Something along the lines a brokered convention, or Michelle Bachmann being caught in a lesbian tryst with Katherine Harris.

2: If you could make any change to the way this country conducts elections what would it be? E.g. federal funded elections, parliamentary style democracy, proportional representation etc.

20, Ind, PA-14

Good questions
1) Democrats sweep the 2011 Governor races.
2) Pundits are fired for too many wrong predictions/ overall incompetence.   Or more seriously making the Senate proportional to state size.

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


[ Parent ]
Good one
1. Senate Republicans dwindle over the next six years to a Tea Party-based rump caucus of 20-25, featuring Rand Paul (one of the Senate Republican moderates) as minority leader. (I might write a diary about the path this takes; might be an interesting idea to look at the races from a different perspective).

2. IRV for executive positions, expand the House (to about 600-ish) and make the new seats elected proportionally, party-list style. (Not sure what I would do with the Senate; maybe get rid of it?)

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets

[ Parent ]
party list...
I'm concerned party list would cause a lot more crazies on both sides.  If you think we have some silly incoming Republicans in '11, I think any of the party-list style elections would have caused even nuttier ones to get in.  
[ Parent ]
Absolutely
Parties and party candidates are, regretfully, much more polarized now, then 30-40 years ago, and still, because elections are held by district, there is some room for variety: it's absurd to run Democratic liberals in most of the Alabama or Mississippi districts, just as it's counterproductive to run Republican ultraconservatives in most of the New England (though it happens, IMHO - Republicans could win CT-03,04 and MA-10 (may be even RI-01) with proper moderate candidates this year, but ran too conservative candidates instead). If there would be "party lists" - i fear my worst nightmare would come through: 435 "Nancy Pelosi-clones" running against 435 "John Boehner-clones"... And all my interest in politics would be lost immediately...
[ Parent ]
Do you mean CT-04/05?
I don't think a New Haven-based district will ever vote Republican.

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 ]
Of course. A "slip of mind"
In CT-04 and 05 they, theoretically, have very attractive candidates. But it will be more difficult in Presidential 2012, even if CT-05 will be open and Obama - not especially popular...
[ Parent ]
Hmm
I'm too ill to come up with a good answer for the first one, but as for the second, I'd like to see elections in the US move to an instant runoff system. Short of that, removing partisan identification for country-level elected positions would be a good step, too, at least for when it comes to offices that are more about providing services as opposed to executive decision making.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
[ Parent ]
Mine
1. I don't know, maybe a brawl in Congress like you see in foreign legislatures.

2. A Constitutional amendment mandating that federal funding be the sole source of campaign funds, that all unspent funds must be returned, and that receiving or giving money for campaign purposes is considered bribery with a penalty that (among other things) you'll never be allowed to hold ANY elected position at ANY level of government ever again.

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

[ Parent ]
Two is easy
(1) Abolish the Electoral College
(2) Abolish the Senate
(3) Increase the number of House districts to at least 1000 or so
(4) Put preference-weighted voting into effect nationwide (I don't remember the exact term, but I mean giving people 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices)
(5) Require stockholders to approve all political spending by corporations by a majority vote (do the same thing with unions; that's OK with me)
(6) Require all political spending to be publicized, never anonymous. The top 10 corporations or/and individuals funding any political advertising or direct mailing would be mentioned in highly visible form, by law.
(7) Prohibit all government employees from serving as executives, board members, lobbyists, or paid consultants of corporations that do business with the government for at least 5 years after leaving office (10 years would be better). Impose a similar prohibition on lobbying for foreign governments.
(8) Prohibit the government from hiring anyone who has served in such a capacity in private industry within the past 5 or 10 years.
(9) Prohibit corporations that have been found guilty of felonies or given out more than $10,000,000 in total damages from engaging in any political activity (notably including campaign contributions and lobbying) or receiving any Federal contracts for 5 or 10 years.
(10) Require Supreme Court Justices to be reconfirmed every 15 years or leave office.

As for 1, who the hell knows? I'll merely predict that some more sanctimoniously moralizing politicians will be caught with prostitutes or otherwise committing adultery in the next two years.

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

[ Parent ]
Your number 4 is ranked choiced voting (RCV)
We decided to go with this phrase in MN instead of instant run-off voting because it sounded less confusing.  Once we get our DFL majorities back in the state legislature, watch for a push to do this at the statewide level.  (Although with the DFL trifecta, they may aim for other legislation.)
[ Parent ]
Changes
1.)

a. A change that would yield a far less partisan supreme court, or at least one that take it from being so damned conservatively influenced. (Robets and Alito are far more to the right than Kagan and Sotomayor are to the left, period)

b. Sarah Palin publically and nationally humiliated/shamed either by her own words/actions or by someone in her own party, since she seems to relish being so petty, purposefully dishonest, and vile.

2.)

a. The banishment of caucuses in state primaries.  They are not anywhere near the most fair relfection and representation of the will of the electorate, particularly in larger states.  I'm not sure caucuses would even be fair for big city primaries.  Their only advantage is their cost, but you sacrafice way too much to get a cheap primary.

b. The division of electoral votes by congressional districts instead of by states for ALL states.

c.  This is a huge one: Moving Election Day to the first weekend of November.  I'm a huge proponent of increasing turnout and participation, and I'd like to see the biggest excuse for not voting removed, that is, that the voter claims to have been too busy or unable to take off from work.  

[ Parent ]
Id like to see
1) Sarah Palin '12 (I know that's a cop-out)

2) every state move to Oregonstyle mail in ballot system
 - Increase the house size such that every 200,000 people have a representative (exactly or as close as possible)
  -make election day a national holiday
  -eliminate voter registration, allow anyone who shows up with an ID to vote  

[ Parent ]
oops, didn't mean to cross out

[ Parent ]
Let's See
1. I'd love to see a pack of the well-known, closeted gay Republicans (Sens. Graham & McConnell and Reps. Dreier, & McHenry being among the best known examples) come out of the closet and try to influence Repubs to get past the hate. If it's just one, it would be easy enough for that person to get thrown under the bus, but several (officially) coming out together could have some influence.

2.
--Increase the house to 900-1000 members. National independent redistricting a la Canada (though I strongly dislike the provision that increases the number of seats so that slow-growing provinces don't lose MPs, but doesn't give quickly growing provinces more seats to keep things proportional, thus giving slowly provinces outsized influenced).
--Abolish the Electoral College. There's nothing I can add to this that hasn't been said already.
--I'm not 100% there on IVR, but we need to do some sort of run-off.
--Allow for election day voter registration on a national level.
--Abolish the Senate. Use the office space for the expansion of the House of Reps and turn the Senate chambers into a Best Buy. Send all 100 Senators to an island in the Pacific for a Survivor-style elimination. All of the losers have their citizenship revoked and have to experience the life of an undocumented resident until the House passes comprehensive immigration reform. The winner gets to be a greeter at the Senate Best Buy. Proceeds made from televising this event go towards life-saving organ transplants.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

[ Parent ]
I have to confess my support for IVR is mainly selfish
As someone that's far-left enough on most issues that I choose not to identify as a Democrat, the main reason I'd like IVR instituted is that it'd allow third-party candidates to run on the left without risking another Nader 2000 scenario. Its other benefits over first past the post are secondary!

Also, I'm 100% in favor of your proposal regarding the Senate. Any guesses as to who would win?  

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

[ Parent ]
My money would be on Sen. Mark Udall
He's a semi-professional mountain climber and he's not a douchebag.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Yeah, could very well be Udall
with Thune giving him a run for his money. Too bad the two hardcore states Alaska and Montana don't have any people fit for this- Begich and Murkowski both seem to be loving their office and their neat homes, Baucus, while he would have been a top-tier contender as a Freshman in 1978, might be a bit too old. He still runs super-marathons, but... well, he's still old. And Tester has a beer belly and 7 fingers. I don't think he'd do too well in this, he's more of a farmer than a hunter and fisher, as far as I know.  

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)
[ Parent ]
i dont know about you.
But Jim Webb would scare the crap out of me in any Survivor-like challenge.  I don't care how many years he's spotting the youngsters.
[ Parent ]
I don't know.
He's brave, sure. But he's not the only military veteran and I don't know how his Vietnam combat experience helps him that much in a Survivor-like game, I mean, he doesn't have to fight anyone physically there.

Also, we're going by strength and endurance right now. But why do you assume Webb wouldn't simply be voted off? Maybe someone like Pat Roberts, who's from what I hear well-liked by most Senators, could hold on for quite long based on that.

Otherwise, what about Nelson of Florida? He's an astronaut, looks like he's kept his body in shape, and he's got military training as well.  

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)

[ Parent ]
Making the finals, but getting no votes
After the merge, they always try to keep around to the end the annoying ones who would never get any votes... so I see DiFi making it to the end.  

DeMint would also be a possibility, but he would always choose to be in the smaller alliance...

[ Parent ]
DeMint
I'd totally bring him to the end with me. He would probably get David Vitter, Jim Inhofe, and, maybe, Tom Coburn's votes. Thats it. Unless we are using the 112th congress, then he'd get Paul, Vitter, Inhofe, Lee, and maybe Coburn and Toomey. If it was a 3 person finale like they do sometimes, I'd bring Vitter and DeMint. They aren't the most popular members of the Senate...
[ Parent ]
McConnell, Really? nt


50, straight white male, Democrat(Dan Boren/Gene Taylor 2012!), AL-7(born in AL-5)
[ Parent ]
My Answers
1. The Palin-Bachmann "super" ticket. Can you imagine those debates?

2. Increase House membership to 310 million. Everyone deserves to have their voice heard.

[ Parent ]
Here my two
1) Say hello the South Carolina State Rep Alvin Greene!

2) Since my 1st one was a joke my second answer will be a little more serious. I would eliminate all limits and caps on campaign donations and apply the gift tax to the receipt of campaign cash.

Candidates would be able to raise unlimited money from any individual US citizen. Any money over a certain level would be taxed and the proceeds from that tax would be used to finance the running of elections, create an instant disclosure system to allow everyone to know who is financing the campaign, pay for the creation and distribution of voter guides and televised debates.

The benefits of this kind of campaign finance reform is it wouldnt run up against any 1st amendment issues, it would raise tax revenue which would allow the govt to pay for a better run election system, it would subject candidates who avoided disclosing their donors to tax prosecution, would make it easier for candidates to raise money from fewer sources and allow them to spend less time fund raising and would increase the money we spend on electing our leaders.

Personally I think it is scandalous that in this country we spend far more money on how we elect our brand of toothpaste than how we elect our leaders.


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

[ Parent ]
Here's mine
1. Washington DC and Puerto Rico both declared states and granted senators and representatives
2. Abolish the Senate

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)
[ Parent ]
Your example of a brokered convention, I'd say on the GOP side in 2012, is the big one, especially since...
...the apparent change at state-level from winner-take-all to proportional allocation of delegates makes it more possible.

Although it's likely someone will rise to the top and others drop out along the way come Super Tuesday, if the field is fractured enough, there could be incentive for 3-4 people to stay in the hunt long-term, and strong disincentive for any of them to drop out.  The pressure will be intense to broker a deal pre-convention so there's nothing actually decided on the floor, and that's likely to happen, but I can see a scenario where 3 or more candidates run close enough to have a plausible shot at the nomination, and they can't cut a deal and it's all decided on the floor.  It would be the biggest political story of the year and such attention from Obama, but that doesn't hurt him if the story sucking the oxygen is one of GOP fratricide.  Besides, Obama will have all the money he needs to simply buy the voters' attention on the airwaves and on cable.

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

[ Parent ]
Perhaps we were just lucky
but I think the proportional allocation rules helped us in '08, keeping attention on the D race through the convention.

Given the fratricide we're seeing in the D party now, it is perhaps surprising that we didn't see such fratricide during the '08 primary race.

However, it did help that there were only two major candidates after SC.

What it would take to get to this scenario in the '12 R primaries is a 2nd and a 3rd place contender who are unwilling to withdraw --

my guess -- Palin would have to be in one of those two positions w/r/t delegates.

Perhaps a situation where Romney is leading, Palin is 2nd, and Ron Paul is 3rd in delegates would make that happen. (Could Ron Paul come close to winning the NH primary in '12, after a Palin win in IA, coupled with Romney wins in NH and NV? That could set up a big delegate split on Super Tuesday.) I could see Palin and Paul staying in through a brokered convention in that scenario. Perhaps there'd even be a 4th candidate representing the regular GOP establishment.

Alternatively, if Palin were leading, say after SC or Super Tuesday '12, I think other contenders would coalesce around her leading opponent.

[ Parent ]
It only helped because Edwards dropped out
If he stayed in he would have gotten enough delegates to force a brokered convention and could have played the role of kingmaker. The thought of that should scare us all.

When he dropped out for the life me I couldnt understand why. Now that we know the real story it makes perfect sense. In way we all dodged a bullet that he was forced to drop out. If he didnt things could have been much uglier for everyone.


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

[ Parent ]
Edwards was pretty much irrelevant by the time he dropped out
He came in second in Iowa but the media completely ignored him in favor of Obama and Hillary, and he got about 15% in the next few primaries. Even if he had stayed in, I doubt he would've gotten many more delegates.  
[ Parent ]
Not true
Because of the proportional allocation rules even if Edwards was only winning 15% he still would have picked up a lot of delegates.

Remember Obama only won 52% of the Pledged delegates. It wouldnt have taken much for Edwards to have enough to deny both Clinton & Obama the nomination. You can be sure that if his scandal wasnt about to come to light he would have stayed in and probably weaseled his way into a VP spot.

Scary.

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

[ Parent ]
Not sure about that
In Nevada Edwards garnered less than 4% of the vote. After Iowa and South Carolina, his best days were behind him.

Also, I doubt he would have been allowed the VP nomination. By spring it had become an open secret within the party that Edwards had engaged in an affair. Rumors began surfacing during the autumn of '07. The National Enquirer started investigating it in October, but the Edwards camp pressured them (and, if I'm not mistaken, other news outlets) not to print it. I read in Game Change that he listed his wife's fragile health as a reason why the media shouldn't speculate about his sex life.

He's a despicable dude, I can't believe I used to like him.  

NY-01/NY-19

[ Parent ]
In "Game Change"
The former Edwards higher-ups were quoted as saying that Edwards was over the night of the Iowa caucuses; either he lost and he lost it was over.  Or he won and they went to the NYT with the affair story.  They knew the game they were playing and I highly doubt it would have gone so far as to let Edwards' affair spoil his delegates going en masse to a candidate at the convention.

It was extremely re-assuring to read that and go, ok, some people do have brains, he would not have spoiled the 2008 election.

[ Parent ]
izengabe is partially right, but I think the bigger factor that made 2008 an anomaly...
...was that Obama and Hillary both were superstars with very large personal followings.  So they were able to use the primaries to organize various states that would matter in November.

You don't see that on the GOP side for 2012.  Palin is the only thing close to a star on their side, but all the polling shows most Republicans don't want her to run or to be the nominee; they're realizing she's unpopular with the general electorate and a real problem for the party if she's the nominee.  There was no hesitation like that among most Democrats regarding either Obama or Hillary.  Hillary had high negatives but also high-enough positives that most Democrats were comfortable with her, if she won the nomination.  So in sum I don't think a drawn-out nomination fight helps the Republicans in 2012 the way it helped the Democrats in 2008.  I think that's the case even if the GOP battle becomes a drawn-out two-way.

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

[ Parent ]
AK-Sen: Miller Concedes
This is NOT a joke, he has actually conceded
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
I guess he has some dignity left. . .maybe?
As a practical matter, not a single Senator will object to seating Murkowski, so his ride is over.  
[ Parent ]
So
He does this on New Years Eve?  I don't get the timing.
[ Parent ]
He wants to hide the fact he's conceding, I guess
It's too bad, if he had done this all with some dignity, even with his crap background he may have pulled off some sort of political win with the tea party backing in a state like Alaska eventually.
[ Parent ]
Should auld acquaintance be forgot...
And never brought to mind?

Hell yes. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Joe Miller.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
Chicago-Mayor: Davis drops out, endorses Moseley Braun
http://newsblogs.chicagotribun...

Emanuel vs. Moseley Braun is gonna be one filthy, juicy run-off.

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

Here's a better article on this...
http://www.suntimes.com/310511...

James Meeks is endorsing her, too. You get the sense they're trying to do everything possible to get competitive with Rahm. Davis even says he's going to transfer some of his fundraising to the Braun camp.

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

[ Parent ]
Did he
Even have any to begin with?  
[ Parent ]
The reemergence of old (Harold Washington days)
black-vs-white rivalry in Chicago politics?
[ Parent ]
To an extent, yes
The difference is, in this case, there are more blacks supporting Emanuel and white liberals backing Moseley Braun. There'll be a good 20-30% of each crossing over.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Don't think it ever left
Chicago's such an incredibly racially polarized and segregated city, I think racial politics are just kind of part of its identity.

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 ]
So have any of the candidates for mayor actually talked about what they'd do in office?

[ Parent ]
Curse and be black, respectively
That's not entirely fair, but the media coverage has focused on that, it seems. Of course, SSP's links have been my main source of information about the race, but I feel like there hasn't even really been even that glancing mention of the actual issues in the articles that is usually there.

The way I see it, now that this is (basically) a two-person race, each candidate has a key "outreach demographic". For Emanuel, it's Latin@s; if he can create the perception that he is on "their side", he can pretty much make his election assured. For Moseley-Braun, it's white liberals; someone here mentioned her relatively high popularity among them. If she can successfully portray herself as the Brave Warrior Against The Machine, From The Left, then she has a shot at ginning up support, and threading the needle by making the race unstable.

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I think the Hispanic vote is perhaps most key in this one
Watch who Chico and Del Valle, presuming Moseley Braun does make the run-off, endorse. Emanuel will win 70% of whites and Moseley Braun 80% of blacks. They'll basically split Asians and white liberals. What'll tip this thing is the Hispanic vote, and though Emanuel is running about 40% with them right now, a Chico/Del Valle backing of Moseley Braun could make it uncomfortably tight for Emanuel.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
If Moseley Braun does make it to a run off
what is the likelihood that Chico/Del Valle endorse her over Emanuel?

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
There's bad blood among Chico, Del Valle, and Emanuel
Then again, all of the major candidates have been throwing knives at Emanuel, though I've also see Del Valle targeting Chico, too. I'd be stunned if Chico or Del Valle actually endorsed Emanuel. I do think, however, there's a decent chance they opt out to endorse in the run-off. If they do, though I'd definitely bet on them going for Moseley Braun.

What'll be fascinating is if, come the run-off, Davis, Meeks, Chico, and Del Valle have all endorsed Moseley Braun. At that point, I think the national media starts to cover this at great length, especially if Moseley Braun can keep Emanuel to single-digits from the get-go.  

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

[ Parent ]
I hope so!
We need an interesting race and Emanuel seems to think he has it in the bag.  

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Iowa Senate district 35
Special election coming January 18, as Branstad appointed the current state senator to head the Department of Public Safety. Republicans picked their candidate on December 30; Democrats will pick a candidate on January 3. It's a Republican leaning district covering several rapidly growing suburbs/exurban areas in northern Polk County.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Happy 2011 SSP!
56
minutes until midnight here in California.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Yep!
I'm in the Sac suburbs.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Auld Lang Syne!


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Happy New Year!


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
Welcome to new Govs. Andrew Cuomo and Susana Martinez
They have officially assumed office. Gov.-elect Rick Snyder is expected to succeed Gov. Jennifer Granholm in Michigan later today.

Happy Feast of the Circumcision of Christ, everyone!

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

Yay!
Two of the worst governors in America are now out of office with great replacements!  
[ Parent ]
History made by Martinez
Not only is she New Mexico's first female gov, she is the first Hispanic female Governor in the US, and the first non-white woman to be governor of any state.  
[ Parent ]
We know
So what?  She's not someone defined by her racial background at all (the same is true with Brian Sandoval).  And she has not advanced Republican outreach to any new demographics (she only received 38% of the latino vote in a low-turnout year).

The exact same could be said about Kamala Harris in CA.  Not only is she the first female A-G there, she is the first non-white A-G there too.  Hmm, there was also a huge election 2 years ago where a far more impressive barrier was broken, but I can't quite remember. . . .

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but you didn't have to mention this twice.

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

[ Parent ]
Besides
it's not about the race, it's about the policies.  I didn't vote for Obama in the primary because he'd be the first AA president.  I did it because I found myself more aligned with his platform than with Hillary's.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Um
So Obama's victory is important and a barrier breaking accomplishment, but Martinez is not?

Come on now, seriously.

You mentioned Harris, but, I'm fairly sure GOPVoter mentioned Martinez because, well, she's just been officially sworn in. Notice how Haley was not mentioned, and, well, you know, that's kind of barrier breaking in SC.

Is it only important when a Democrat breaks a racial/gender barrier? That's surely how you're making it sound.

[ Parent ]
I'm a Democrat, but I agree with GOPVOTER
I think it's pretty cool that both New Mexico and South Carolina have their first female governors, and they're both women of color. I don't really care that they are Republican - a barrier broken is a barrier broken. Would I have voted for either - in the case of Martinez, no, in the case of Haley, maybe, if her opponent was a typical conservative Dem. (actually, I more likley would have abstained).

But it's still something for all of us who are Americans to be happy about to some extent. I'm fine with GOPVOTER posting this twice.  

[ Parent ]
Me, too
We don't have to agree with someone's politics to think it's pretty cool that her inauguration is a milestone.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Count me out of the lovefest......
I don't celebrate Republican victories.  And Martinez is a Republican victory, not a Latino victory.  As LookingOver pointed out, most NM Hispanics voted against her.

Sometimes I think this site is barely Democratic at all.

Perhaps because that's exactly the case.

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

[ Parent ]
No, this site isn't really Democratic.
I don't mind though. If the aim of the site really were to help Democratic candidates, raise funds, provide GOTV to them, a la DailyKos when it was still good for that stuff (prior to 2008), then I might object to it.

But I see SSP more as a place to discuss electoral politics with intelligent people of all (reasonable) political stripes. That the front-pagers and 80% of the users are Democrats is coincidental, I wouldn't mind if the split was 50-50 either.

If I want to chat with Democrats about how good we are and how bad the GOP is, I do it in real life or on Facebook or whatever. I used to frequent DailyKos, but that's pretty useless now.


18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)

[ Parent ]
The site is definitely Democratic in theory
there is a clear and open double standard for Dem and Rep users, and the owner and moderators are very clearly liberal Democrats. They make no effort to hide it, really.

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 ]
Sure it's Democratic.
But we're not really partisan hacks around here.  

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)
[ Parent ]
Nevertheless, the open double standard means
we can root for Democrats and Democratic issues here, while Republican guests cannot.

To me, that means this is a D blog, but without the effects of the echo chamber -- which makes us more objective.

[ Parent ]
More objective.
True, that.  Although sometimes I can be thin-skinned, I try to lessen any bias here and be more open.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
I'll second this
The only time I'll cheer a Republican to victory is if their opponent is corrupt or otherwise unfit for office. Diane Denish (and for that matter, Vince Sheheen) was neither.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
[ Parent ]
I'd rather Martinez had lost
But milestones are milestones, and at least worth noting.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
One that should not be celebrated
is if Palin becomes the first women Presidential nominee.  I did my "you go girl" for VP but well, different times with different information on the lady.  It really is a shame she's a moron and clearly isnt using these four years to learn some stuff.  I was fifty feet away from her during her big speech at the Republican National Convention and that will go down probably as the highlight of my political being.  She's a riveting hot mess.
[ Parent ]
Palin was no milestone in 2008, Team Blue beat her by 24 years......
Geraldine Ferraro was the 1st female major-party VP nominee.  We beat Palin by 24 years.

Ron Brown was the first black major party national chair.  We beat Steele by 20 years.

Thurgood Marshall was the 1st black Supreme Court Justice.  We beat Clarence Thomas by 20-plus years.

And it goes on like this.

The GOP got the first female Supreme Court Justice, I'll give them that.  But even then they had to surrender and accept a pro-choice one, even with anti-abortion extremist (no exceptions for rape or incest) Ronald Reagan as Prez!

Of course those are not all elections, but the point is it's clear our side, not theirs, accomplishes most of the milestones in breaking glass ceilings America.

I'll see their Susana Martinez and raise them a Barack Hussein Obama Junior.

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

[ Parent ]
What made you
decide to go to the RNC?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
If the DNC was held in New Orleans
I'd go even though its not my party. Its still a good experience.  
[ Parent ]
Good for you for having the courage
to observe the enemy first hand.

It is so important to understand the motivations behind the opposing party. (At least from observations on C-Span) I think the conventions are the absolute --best-- place to do that.  

[ Parent ]
I couldn't agree more on Palin n/t


"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
No, no.
I'm sorry for my language, I just was not in a good mood.  It's not this, it's everything.  I'm sick and tired of people implying how the Democrats lost control in D.C.  Is the Senate chopped liver?!  Geez, we overperformed projections for the Senate and few people talk about that.  So forgive me for sounding like a chode there, ok, I just was not in a good mood.

What happened to Dems in November was akin to what happened to Republicns in 1982.  This too shall pass.

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

[ Parent ]
It's also true about Bill Richardson
the now former Hispanic Gov of NM who was not defined by his racial background.

In addition, I think the more significant racial barrier is in the diversity of high-ranking elected officials in the R party. Seems like they tried in the '90s with JC Watts and Jennifer Dunn (both in the R House leadership) but that went by the wayside throughout the last decade.

Sure, it doesn't make R policies any more friendly to these groups. Nevertheless, it is good that talented politicos now have a path to power through both parties. The D party can't take African Americans or Hispanics for granted.

[ Parent ]
I assume you mean
racial and gender barriers, because Dunn was very much white.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Yup, to elaborate
If I remember right, she predated Pelosi in the House leadership.
[ Parent ]
Also a great year for marriage-vow-breakers & whore patrons!
Nikki Haley overcame multiple accusations of infidelity with the strength of her denials and the complicity of the GOP moral brigade.

Sen. David "Diaper" Vitter patronized whores and generally behaved like the giant baby he is, yet was re-elected handily over a man who's so committed to his state he literally teared up over its problems.

Sen. John Ensign still hasn't resigned, because unlike Larry Craig, he cheated with a correctly-gendered person, and paid her off, and somehow managed to not get arrested. And Sen. Lindsey Graham still hasn't resigned because he hasn't yet been caught with a gay prostitute.

And yes, Brian Sandoval is definitely not defined by his racial background. After all, even his kids aren't Latino. Although I'd guess that means his wife probably cheated on him to get them, so...yet another win for slutty folk!

And yes, GOPVOTER, we all realize that not everyone in the GOP is an old, wealthy, entitled white male, even if they act like it.

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

[ Parent ]
And yet
nothing changes.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Feast of the Circumcision of Christ
Had to look that up to see that it was real. Stuff like this is one of the reasons we say "Happy Holidays" instead of just "Christmas"; it's not just Hanuramakwanzaakkadan, it's also religious Christian holidays! (And I don't think there's a movement by us atheists to co-opt/reclaim this one, unlike Christmas.)

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets
[ Parent ]
This version of this song
Beats Elvis's version hands down!



50, straight white male, Democrat(Dan Boren/Gene Taylor 2012!), AL-7(born in AL-5)

The impact of Jim Webb on Prison reform
Note our own Teddy K's (OR-Gov) exit interview....

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/20...  

It's official
Michigan now has a Gov. Snyder.

Are there any other governors to be sworn in this weekend? I know that the new Congress starts Monday, and then Florida gets Gov. Scott on Tuesday.

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

No
Cuomo, Martinez, and Snyder are it this weekend. Then on Monday is Jerry Brown, Mark Dayton, Brian Sandoval, Scott Walker, and Matt Mead. Jan Brewer and Gary Hebert will also begin their first full terms. Tuesday is Chafee and Scott. Wednesday is Malloy and LePage. Thursday is Shumlin. Then it Dennis Daugaard on Saturday, and thats it for this week. Here is the complete list: http://www.nga.org/portal/site...
[ Parent ]
should I be scared or excited
for Tuesday?

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 ]
Looks like
the last new governor to be sworn in will be Tom Corbett on the 18th (two weeks from Tuesday).

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 ]
Fmr. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman leaves the door open on presidential run
Hmm
I think he is probably one of the strongest opponents, if he could make it out the primary.  
[ Parent ]
He's a smart person, he won't run in the tea-based primary
just to go down in flames. If he wants to be president he'll wait until 2016.
I hope he does run though, just so it'll help split the moderate votes to let a wacky slip through.  
[ Parent ]
I remember
when he signaled he was supportive of civil unions, which I think was around the time he became our Ambassador to China, someone said that he was going to become a Democrat before long. I always wondered if this person was kidding.

Anyway, Huntsman strikes me as a reasonable guy, but why wouldn't his Mormon faith be an issue while Romney's would be? Besides that, if he were to run in 2012 or 2016, how strongly can he run against Obama? It'd certainly be easier in 2016, but I can't see him making any deathly criticisms against Obama if he's part of his administration--or rather, seeing them be effective.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Probably, though I think he'd be a potential VP candidate for Huckabee
Or, any of the conservative GOP-ers likely to run. (Whereas Romney needs to choose a right-winger.)

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
So much jumping to conclusions on the part of the online media
Of course he's not ruling out a 2012 campaign. Does he want to send the message that he's afraid to run against the current crop of candidates, or that he thinks his boss is unbeatable?

But he'll run in 2016. And I might vote for him then. We'll see what happens.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
He accepted a government job from Obama
Kiss of death.
[ Parent ]
Yeah
I don't see him getting anywhere as a Republican. Saying that he was just answering his nation's call to service or something like that is not going to cut it.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
[ Parent ]
Do you think
he'll become an Independent, or will he go so far as to become a Democrat?

He's a nutty suggestion: Obama manages to convince Huntsman to run as a Democrat for the Senate in Utah in 2012. If he were able to do that, do you think the state party would go along with it? Honestly, I feel as if they'd be nuts not to.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I agree with your assessment
but I think he's more likely to run as an independent, and right now, I doubt he'd win, but it would be interesting. If I were living in Utah, I'd probably vote for him.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Perhaps he'd
run as an Independent, but would he caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans?

I go back and forth with holding certain people to certain standards when it comes to casting votes, but for someone like a Democrat or an Independent caucusing with them in the Senate from Utah, they'd almost be insane to not let this person do whatever he damn well pleased. The fact that his decision to align themselves with the Democrats would probably give them the Senate or add to that margin is invaluable.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
No upside there for Ambassador Huntsman
He wants to be president, and Cristing when he has a perfectly good job that will look great on his resume in 2016 is not a step in that direction. Nor is party-switching at all.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Well,
if he wants to be president, that's one thing. But if he wants an influence over policy and a very good chance of holding on to a seat for as long as he wants it, he could run for the Senate.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Who has more influence over policy...
Mike Huckabee or Sen. Hatch?

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Considering
Hatch is in the government and voting, I'd say Hatch, but I have a feeling you think the answer is Huckabee. Why is that?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Two words...
Bully pulpit.

Sen. Hatch is one of (as of tomorrow) 47 Republican senators, and he's one seen as DOA at the Utah Republican convention in 2012 at that. Huckabee is one of a handful of frontrunners for the presidential nomination and an influential commentator on the most watched "news" network in the country.

The likes of Gov. Schweitzer, Ambassador Huntsman, and other potential 2016 contenders can do more as experienced pundit-advocates (Howard Dean, President Clinton, and James Carville occupy similar positions on the left) than they can as freshman senators, and they can position themselves much better with a media platform than with a legislative career.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
I think he'll stay a Republican
And I think he'll be in the political wilderness until the Republican party drives itself off a cliff and they need someone to show the voting public that they aren't actually all complete nutters.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
[ Parent ]
I agree
And he can be a talking head on Sunday news shows, etc., as long as he wants until then. He won't become poor.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
For
all of you Californian SSP'ers here's the schedule for when Brown and all of the constitutional officers will be sworn in:

Monday:

Governor Jerry Brown (D)
Controller John Chiang (D)
Attorney General Kamala Harris (D)
Treasurer Bill Lockyer (D)
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson (D)*
Insurance commissioner Dave Jones (D)

Tuesday:

Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D)

January 10th:

Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (D)**

*Technically a nonpartisan position but Torlakson is a Democrat.
**Newsom is delaying his swearing in until this date so a more moderate board of superiors (City Council) can be sworn in and they can appoint a more moderate mayor. Outgoing GOP Lt. Gov Abel Maldonado will remain lieutenant governor until Newsom is sworn in.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capito...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

Why is
The SoS sworn in a day after everyone else?  
[ Parent ]
Schedule
was packed so Bowen voluntarily decided to delay her swearing for a second term a day.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
What a classy lady! :)


19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Hopefully Jerry Brown has a better relationship with his Lt Gov. this time...
I recall (I was like 11 at the time) the during his last term as Governor in the early 80s, Jerry couldn't even risk leaving the state, as the GOP Lt. Gov (Mike Curb?) would assume the mantle of "acting governor" and try to make appmts, veto bills, etc. until Jerry was officially back within the state.
[ Parent ]
I hope that
he is the long-awaited doctor to CA's budget problems.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Well, it helps that
his new Lt Governor will be a fellow Bay Area liberal Democrat.

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 ]
Speaking of which
What's Newsom doing serving as LG anyway? It's obvious that he wants to be governor or senator, and past LG's haven't been very successful trying to move up. Is it just because he doesn't think he has any other choice?

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)
[ Parent ]
He
chairs a few red ribbon committees, most notably gets a seat on the UC and CSU trustees I believe. I think his lieutenant governor run was just to prove he could win statewide and he was going to be termed out as SF mayor anyway so this keeps his name in the news for the next 4 or 8 years. Here's a good article about Newsom and what he wants to do:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
I'd be surprised if Gov.-elect Brown seeks reelection
And if he doesn't, the lieutenant governor-elect is a natural successor.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Lots of people want to be what they can't be
and end up being what they can be.  

Newsom's best hope for higher office is eight years of accomplishing something, which as LG is not easy.  Time is definitely his friend more than almost any other politician.  His lowlight was five seconds of exuberence.  The longer time passes and he does other things, the better for him.

[ Parent ]
Thats true
I was just reading about Curb the other day.  
[ Parent ]
So
have they figured out the Newsom succession yet?

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Belated New Year greetings to all
The great liberal revolt lasted about two weeks according to Gallup - 91% of liberal Democrats now approve of Obama's job performance. Overall, still holding up remarkabley well all things considered. 47-45 positive today. In comparison at this point Bush II was at 63% while Clinton was at 40, Bush I at 58 and Reagan 41. And he went as low as 35 at the end of January 1983. All to play for.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124...

Hey, buddy!
Suffice it to say that if economic growth continues to get stronger and thus ups employment numbers and Obama doesn't break my heart like Robert Kuttner seems to think he will at the State of the Union, it might just be a very fun election season in 2012.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Republicans hold veto proof majorities in both
houses in New Hampshire. Goodbye marriage equality.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/...

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

This is what I say about overreaching
not that I think marriage equality directly led to Democrats losing both houses of the legislature, I don't, but now what happens? Do New Hampshire Dems get credit from liberals for doing the right thing even though it fell through, or are they going to be criticized for not doing enough to prevent Republicans from overturning it.

[ Parent ]
Any sane person would give them credit.
It would be an incredibly difficult task to get enough Republicans to sustain a veto from the governor.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
I give them tremendous credit
but I notice a lot of people who don't give Democrats credit for doing things (or trying) and failing to capitalize politically on it. It's as if if Democrats do something good and it turns out it didn't save them, it's somehow their fault.  
[ Parent ]
Wow.
"The first couple was Adam and Eve, not two Adams and two Eves. To me, it's not normal."

and Republicans wonder why their party has an image of being all old white men. Must be easy to talk about Adam and Eve if you were alive at the same time as them. Go back to the Jurassic Period, douchebag.

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 ]
sorry. on a lighter note
can the Republicans repeal the law without putting it to popular vote?

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,
two things:

1. I always thought New Hampshire Republicans were more of the independent-minded, libertarian variety. Is that a thing of the past, or is was that never the case?

2. Wasn't it just in 2006 that they took the legislature for the first time in about 100 years? What the hell happened in just two cycles that reversed that, or did they only hold it by a few seats?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Well
1.) Statewide it's still true, but for NH Republicans, it never really was. Think about who won the 1996 GOP Presidential primary and got 37% in 1992 against an incumbent Republican president.

2.) A Democrat got elected President and started to do things. New Hampshire is a libertarian state. Republicans lost here because their party became a religious war-mongering deficit busting mess, Democrats lost because of stuff like the Stimulus and HCR. This was always going to be the first blue state to go red if Democrats even started acting remotely like Democrats.

[ Parent ]
But at the statewide level,
what did they do to be thrown out? Surely, state legislations can always fall victim to national circumstances, but did they?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Huh?
Not sure if you noticed, but in states similar and different to New Hampshire had legislatures flip due to little more than the national mood.  This wave just wasn't high, it was deep.  The Michigan House did an almost complete flip, this time around, and the GOP got a super majority in the state senate.  Seems to me that this was more the rule than the exceptions.  Unless you were in the most solidly of blue states (and/or certain Southern states where they still  hang on to the Democratic name for heritage sake), most of the state legislatures had huge swings, this cycle having little to nothing to do with what Dems actually did or didn't do.
[ Parent ]
What happened in 2010
was to the Dems what 1982 was to the Repubs.  Both saw disappointing losses in the House, saw a lot of state legs. turn against them, but did better than expected in the Senate.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Okay,
that's what I thought, which is why I asked that question. It is absolutely unsurprising that this happened, but I didn't want to assume it was entirely a national thing.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
They didn't do anything
small districts means big turnover. It was a national trend. In a state as populated with political independents as New Hampshire, with small districts and lower turnout, large swings are the norm. Independents have no party loyalty, so they go back and forth like a pendulum on crack.

John Lynch, despite having approval ratings around 60%, only won with 52.6% this time, down from 70%! in 2008.  

[ Parent ]
True
PPP also said that the enthusiasm gap was bigger in NH than pretty much anywhere else in the nation.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
which I guess blows up the idea
that Democratic candidates who run on progressive populist values will get out the vote on their side. Was there a ticket more friendly to progressive policies than Paul Hodes, Carol Shea-Porter and Ann Kuster?

[ Parent ]
Kuster was the strongest element
but it was not enough.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
How does it blow the theory?
You had a congress that didn't accomplish much of the progressive populist agenda due to the stupidity of the senate, and you had a president who remained mostly silent about the gridlock making the perception of failure worse.

Those congressfolk were great progressive candidates, but they had nothing to run on 'cos all their accomplishments were squashed by obstruction.

If anything, it reinforces the theory about GOTV.

[ Parent ]
how can they be great progressive candidates
but have nothing to run on, and why then was the enthusiasm gap greater in New Hampshire, where the candidates were great progressive, rather than, say, West Virginia, where there was no enthusiasm gap and Democrats ran like Republicans?  
[ Parent ]
There was an enthusiasm gap in WV....
...until some polls showed Manchin losing and it woke the more liberal folks up.  It certainly helped that the dems poured a lot of money into that race compared to NH.  It should be noted that Manchin's campaign actually did shift left as the campaign wore on and his numbers improved--watch the debate if you don't believe me.

The problem is, you are ignoring macro factors over micro factors.  Yes, the NH dems ran progressive campaigns, but the overriding macro factors dragged them down.  The "enthusiasm gap" naturally assumes that liberals stayed home--how would running a more conservative campaign managed to have dampened such an effect?  That makes no sense.

[ Parent ]
I never said run a more conservative campaign
I'm saying it doesn't make a lick of difference. It's not an either/or scenario. Politics isn't black or white. Democrats didn't show up in New Hampshire because they didn't. They probably wouldn't have shown up for a Blue Dog either. The enthusiasm gap was a random thing this year. You said the enthusiasm gap disappeared in West Virginia because liberals, who are like needles in a haystack in West Virginia, woke up to the possibility that Manchin, whom I've been told they hated anyway and didn't think was any different than Raese, could lose and voted. How come the same wasn't true for Feingold, better liked among liberals than Manchin, who was clearly losing since Labor Day in a state with many more liberals?  

You can't tell me it's because Democratic Senators killed a public option that Democrats didn't show up to vote for a guy who ran for the Senate promising to be another vote in the body for a public option, but did show up to vote for someone who said he wouldn't, because if that's what they did, then Democratic voters may be the most politically stupid and inept group of people in the history of democracy.  

[ Parent ]
Seems to me
Manchin recovered by attacking Raese and by separating himself from the national party by shooting the cap and trade bill etc.
[ Parent ]
What I read was that the Democratic base in southern West Virginia woke up late......
I read something by a political reporter (vague recollection is Ben Smith of Politico) around election day that said a GOP "operative" told the reporter that what I just said in my subject line was the decisive factor in Manchin's favor.

Now, I don't know WV well enough to have known that southern WV contains the strength of the state's Democratic base, and I have no idea what are the politics, on ideology and issues, of that base...maybe a lot of unionized coal miners?

Anyway, that would explain the margin of victory, which a lot of people overlook.  There seems to be this continuing mentality that Manchin won a barnburner and he's a tossup (Charlie Cook says so!) for 2012, but it was a 54-43 blowout!  And this in as bad a year as Democrats can have!

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

[ Parent ]
In all fairness
it's occasionally the case that a party does better in a certain race in a bad year than in a good year. For instance, the state senate race in Queens where Republican fossil Frank Padavan lost last year after hanging on in 2008. or how the Democrats picked up several governor seats last year which they lost in 2006/2008 (Vermont, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, sort of RI).

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 ]
If you remember
the article, tell me what it said about the base waking up late. Was it a matter of the base responding to Manchin or Manchin reaching out to the base? If it's the latter, I'd be amazed. I am consistently puzzled by the idea of politicians napping. You can't always be saved by campaigning hard, but at the same time, unless you are in a safer than safe seat, where your opponent usually never breaks 30 percent, you should be campaigning like your life is on the line.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
It was a short blog blurb that didn't answer your question. (nm)
nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Definitely agree that they had nothing to run on
And while the enthusiasm gap was bad, was it bad because of the liberal Dailykos wing of the party or the liberal wing who barely reads CNN?  And what should be pointed out is that on Election Night, regardless if you were a Progressive, a Liberal, a Blue Dog, or a New Democrat, they all got their asses kicked and that's because we as a party had zero message to offer.  Which shouldn't be surprising because it's hard to talk up the stimulus and how it saved the economy when like 10% of your caucus votes against it and parrots every GOP talking point under the sun on the topic.

I can say with confidence I read more articles with quotes from Democrats trashing our party last cycle than I did talking about us and our accomplishments positively.  I'd say that needs to be corrected, but the election itself pretty much fixed our problem number one.

(Remove all connotation, tone, and prejudice from this as I'm not making this observation with any.)   Here's a big fat giant thought that should really be analyzed further; was our majority so short-lasting and so tenuously held together because of the strategy of winning enacted by Emanuel at the DCCC in 2006?  The goal was always, find the candidates that best match the districts and run them in every district we can and we'll eventually cobble together a majority.  We won seats that, frankly, never belonged in our fold and would never be held long-term by Democrats.  I also think us losing the messaging so early on was because we had a San Fran woman leading the House and a black Chicagoan in the WH so it was easy to paint us as extremists.  And that'll stick if no one argues against it, or if members of your caucus tell the press they agree with that assessment.

[ Parent ]
Well
 We won seats that, frankly, never belonged in our fold and would never be held long-term by Democrats.

That was Howard Dean's doing, Rahm didn't want to even contest those districts.  

[ Parent ]
Which seats
"never belonged in our fold and would never be held long-term by Democrats"?

There were a few, sure, but a lot of them appeared to have big swings in a matter of just a few years.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
To amend what I said
My personal belief is what they did is...governed. I firmly believe, as cynical as I am, that Democrats will always lose when they try to govern because they are always outnumbered when it comes to messaging, both in number of outlets to spread their message, and in money.

That's not a reason not to do what's right, just don't expect to win by doing it.

People point to unemployment as a reason for the Democratic loss, but look at how well Democrats did in states like California and Nevada where there is high employment, while they got pummeled in the Dakotas and New Hampshire, where the unemployment rate is low.

Also, for every problem Democrats have to solve, they create another one. If we had tackled unemployment, the deficit would have been enough to sweep Democrats from power. If we had tackled both, high taxes would have been the reason. Then Democrats have the issue of A.) having popular support for their position from voters who won't vote for them anyway and B.) the fracture of its voting bloc between those who do everything to run from the liberal label, those who are political apathetic, and those for whom nothing is ever enough.

I give props to Nancy Pelosi because the day after the election, she stood there and said she had no regrets. That's how Democrats should govern, like they don't have long left to do it, because they probably don't.

[ Parent ]
Agree 100%
Great post.
[ Parent ]
If your goal is really to govern like you don't have long
then you have a responsibility to choose the best policies.

What I think happened is that, in terms of policy, the Democrats tried desperately to not rock the boat. It is not clear to me what anyone thought this was good politics. But important segments of the electorate felt that Democrats acted radically. So ultimately we ended up with the worst of both worlds.  

[ Parent ]
Not when the best policies can't pass
Sure, they all made mistakes and the results were imperfect but a lot of good has been achieved. In terms of politics the biggest problem was being seen to have other priorities than the economy and that was lethal.
[ Parent ]
The problem with saying "can't pass"
is that you preempt the whole discussion. First we have do address why better policy couldn't be passed. Leaving aside the possibility of abject corruption (i.e., through campaign contributions), probably what you mean is that Democrats from marginal seats felt that they could not put themselves before the electorate having voted for anything "better." Looking backwards, that doesn't have any merit at all, because they were mostly punished for what they did (or didn't do) instead. At worst, they made a horrible political calculation. At best, what they did was politically no worse than what they should have done to enact better policy.

Insofar as you're right about that regarding legislative priorities, much more could have been done, e.g., on foreclosures. Apparently Timothy Geithner impeded most any of that, to his eternal discredit.  

[ Parent ]
We did that
better policies couldn't pass because there weren't enough Democrats willing to vote for them. This has ALWAYS been the case, but previously, Democrats have been able to rely on the votes of some Republicans to mitigate Democratic opposition. We didn't have that luxury this time around.

Typical opposition in the ranks + unanimous Republican opposition were the reason better policies couldn't pass.  

[ Parent ]
It isn't enough to waive it away
as "typical opposition in the ranks" if that opposition was objectively responsible for impeding the political prospects of the party as a whole. Those Democrats in "opposition" got their wish (to oppose the agenda) and were mostly unable to keep their seats.

So what was the point of their opposition?

[ Parent ]
A good positive to take
What once worked (inoculative votes) may no longer be operative so they actually do the right thing. Though in lots of cases they were actually doing it out of principle. And we have to accept that the path to regaining the majority runs thru holding at least some conservative seats.
[ Parent ]
There's the rub
When "voting your district" also turns out to be bad politics, your poor judgement about is indefensible. I assume I don't have to say that I do not respect the judgement of those who support objectively bad policy.  
[ Parent ]
Was it bad politics?
Bobby Bright still got 49% in Alabama-2 (where Obama, in a good Dem year, got 36%), Gene Taylor got 47% in Mississippi-4 (where Obama got 32% in a good Dem year). Alan Grayson on the other hand only got 38% in a district where Obama won 53%.

Who looks like they made the better decisions?  

[ Parent ]
They just plain opposed it
it doesn't have to be some political manuevering. Bobby Bright and Walt Minnick were tea party Democrats. It shouldn't shock you, a good 10%-15% of Democratic voters have consistently said they support the tea party. Why does it surprise you that there were some in Congress?

and yes, they lost their seats, but people like Bright, Minnick, Gene Taylor, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, did perform better than Obama did in their districts two years earlier, so their conservative voting record did work, it was just too tough a year.

[ Parent ]
That assumes they didn't try
Which I just don't accept.
[ Parent ]
Didn't try what?
To pass better policy? That may be, but ultimately there were apparently not enough Democrats willing to get on board to do that. I question the political judgement of those unwilling to get on board. And to a lesser degree, I question the political judgement of those Democrats willing to champion the resultant compromises as "historic," etc.  
[ Parent ]
See now this is the problem
What would you rather they do? Tout the resultant compromises as "not really historic, just what we could get?"

I mean every "historic" piece of legislation was a compromise, many hated by progressives of the day. I mean by your definition, the Civil Rights Act wasn't "historic" rather just a "resultant compromise" that pretty much gutted the government's ability to regulate segregation in private matters. The lack of understanding of political history from some on the left astounds me.  

[ Parent ]
I am all for effective compromise
The problem is that the compromises were not effective (i.e., the stimulus with respect to actually solving unemployment) or have not yet been (i.e., the ACA--though I question that it will ever be).

Ultimately I probably agree that the policy enacted over the past two years was better than nothing. But making larger claims than that is not only misleading, it's also terrible politics. Why? The people in the electorate Democrats needed to sell it to did not believe it. The claims weren't credible. I am thinking especially of Axelrod's "recovery summer."  

[ Parent ]
But they were effective
the stimulus did stop the country from bleeding jobs, what it didn't do was spur job growth, but it never would have unless we allocated a couple trillion dollars into WPA-type programs, which would never have gotten anywhere, and even if they have, would have exploded the deficit enough where THAT would have sunk Democrats and possibly also triggered another recession anyway. It was impossible for anything to be done to bring unemployment down to around 5%, so our choices would have been this or 8% unemployment with a massive debt-busting deficit.

Of course no one was going to believe the Democrats when they sold their accomplishments, mainly because their own supporters mocked them, and Republicans wouldn't give them credit if they achieved world peace. There is no loyalty in the Democratic Party, not on the left nor the right. That was one of the points I made earlier, Democrats are naturally screwed because there's no loyalty to their accomplishments. The right in the party thinks they're too much, the left too little.  

[ Parent ]
The problem is
that the Administration claimed the stimulus would make unemployment much lower than it ended up being, even though there was good reason to think that it would not (Paul Krugman was on this). That was example #1 of several other examples where Democrats way oversold their accomplishments.

It is impossible and unreasonable to expect loyalty to that which isn't credible.

I think your point carries to the extent that it's true that the Republican base is willing to believe just about anything. The Democratic base generally just isn't like that.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah they were wrong
And said so.  
[ Parent ]
There was ample evidence at the time
that it wouldn't work. Even in their own materials.

If they had learned earlier not to promise what they couldn't deliver, they would have likely been in far better shape last year.

That leaves aside the whole discussion about negotiating strategy.  

[ Parent ]
except that it DID work
it just didn't work enough.

If they had learned earlier not to promise what they couldn't deliver, they would have likely been in far better shape last year.

then they never would have won an election, because as Al Gore and John Kerry taught us, you have to promise the moon and stars (or at least give the impression that you did) to get people on the left to freakin' vote.

it's a Catch-22.  

[ Parent ]
It didn't work to do what they said it would
And in a recession where people are hurting, you do not get any points for merely not making things worse. You have to make things better.

Or the people vote you out.  

[ Parent ]
it didn't end the recession?
is the economy growing, are we creating jobs?

Really, you can't see things aren't even marginally better, they are. 11 straight months of private sector job growth?

And in a recession where people are hurting, you do not get any points for merely not making things worse. You have to make things better.

You would if your supporters backed you up, because people didn't vote for Republicans because Democrats only stopped making things worse, they voted for Republicans because they think Democrats made things worse

[ Parent ]
I know, realistically, that the stimulus
was better than nothing. Unlike healthcare, I doubt if you will find many liberals who disagree. The fact that the Democrats were unable to diffuse false Republican messaging about the stimulus is not the fault of the Democratic base. If the stimulus had been sufficiently large to acceptably improve the unemployment situation, the Republican messaging wouldn't have even gotten off the ground.
[ Parent ]
As always
Eye of the beholder.
[ Parent ]
There's little evidence
that many people really care deeply about deficits. Certainly, the Republicans don't, and won't be penalized for once again pushing budget-busting tax cuts for the super-rich.

I think the idea that government jobs programs that actually employed armies of the unemployed to repair the infrastructure and construct the green infrastructure of tomorrow would not have been popular is absurd. But of course, we'll never know for sure, will we? What I do know is that it was the right thing to do, and I believe it would have worked on both the economic and political levels, because you can't argue that "the stimulus didn't work" if the government was directly employing people and everyone knew it.

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

[ Parent ]
The polls disagree about that
But certainly people care about jobs more.
[ Parent ]
They don't care about deficits
because there are no jobs, when they are jobs, they care about deficits (see 1990s)

That's the point I'm making. The solution to the jobs crisis is to create another crisis that plays into Republican hands.  

[ Parent ]
You have to calibrate things properly
Keynesian economics: Spend in poor economies, balance the budget and pay down the debt in boom economies. You think it wasn't manageable. I think it was. And we'll never know.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Yes
They tried to pass better policy but as you say there weren't enough Democrats willing to get on board. In hindsight it is easy to question the judgment of some but then again there was long historical precedent for voting against your party and thus saving your seat. Lots of great examples of this in 1994. And at the end of the day I think you MUST champion whatever you pass as historic. You stand by what you did and run on it. That is politics 101. Indeed I think one of the less recognized problems these last two years was the left not doing just this.
[ Parent ]
Another fundamental rule
of politics is that if you want the base to get on board, you have to give them a reason. And the healthcare bill, which dominated the political discussion, was uniquely unpalatable to the individuals who, had it been slightly different, would have been its biggest supporters. One blogger has some intersting thoughts on why:

[T]he initial goal was universal coverage . . . [M]ost liberals believe that decent health care is a right of every person in a wealthy, advanced country. . . . [Relatedly], liberals believe that government-provided health care has instrumental economic benefits. The most important of these is middle-class security. . .

People who might man the barricades for actual guaranteed health coverage for every American (even if provided through the private sector) have little interest in fighting for a requirement that everyone buy their own insurance, coupled with some iffy subsidies and regulations. . . .

There's no reason liberals should want themselves associated with the aspiration of cutting health care costs, nor with the concrete policy proposals of individual mandates or Medicare cuts. Rather, liberals want to be associated with the clean messaging of health care for all.

Put differently, it's absurd to expect that liberals were going to be willing to do the whole lift for the Republican-directed elements of the bill. If I were in charge of messaging for the ACA, I would have touted it to liberals as the largest expansion of Medicaid in history. That is something they would support and believe.  

[ Parent ]
Preaching to the converted
I don't disagree at all. As I said there is plenty to be upset about but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it and other legislation completely out of hand. That is playing into Republican hands. You and Nick are both making great points and as usual I see both sides and am stuck on the fence. Those splinters are a real pain in the ass!
[ Parent ]
They did
I know Democrats by me did point to the most liberal elements of it, but the netroots especially waved it off. "Well that's nice, but there's no public option"

[ Parent ]
True
But there were and are lots of mainstream Dems unhappy with it. You can see that in the polls that say a majority oppose the bill and a third of that opposition is from the left.
[ Parent ]
Let me give you a hint
The reason the left was so agitated about the public option was because they considered that to be the only truly important element in an otherwise lackluster package. That is to say, they do not believe that the three legs of mandate/subsidies/regulation will actually produce healthcare for all.

At the end, the best you could say for the package (so far as liberals were concerned) was that there was a lot of new money for Medicaid. But I don't think you need to think too hard to understand why Democrats didn't want to sell it that way.  

[ Parent ]
Because that's what the lefty leaders to them
no one gave a damn about the public option until it was clear it was DOA. For months it was discussed and promoted from the President on down and then suddenly when the WH and Congress gave up on it, it became the most important thing in the world.

But this is why I always argued not to tackle HCR at all, or do it in installments rather than comprehensive, because the left can't handle big comprehensive legislation. Everyone has a different view of what healthcare reform is, and no one seems to understand anything about the issue. It's big and complicated and easy to propagandize.

The public option wasn't going to make HCR all that much better and you pretty much admitted it, all it was was a pawn put forth by liberals in an attempt to prove they have some relevance.

[ Parent ]
You are not thinking clearly
The "public option" is not some new innovation. It is Medicare. And what liberals have wanted since the beginning of time is Medicare for all. They considered all the other parts of the proposals as frills and flimflam designed to get support from moderates. And given that the ACA is essentially Romneycare, I don't see how you could say they were wrong about that.

I think you are also mistaking policy for political strategy: liberals wanted the public option because they thought it was the difference between real healthcare reform and something else. Put differently, and I can't make this any clearer, liberals are not just team-cheering sheep. They actually believe things about policy and the world, and they typically won't just "get on board" because that's good politics.

You might say that I have a double standard for elected officials, but I think it's much more reasonable to expect unity from a few hundred people than from a few million.  

[ Parent ]
Medicare for all isn't a public option
it's single payer

liberals wanted the public option because they thought it was the difference between real healthcare reform and something else.

no, I really don't think they did. Even you don't believe that as you've said it was the "the only truly important element in an otherwise lackluster package."

liberals are not just team-cheering sheep.

No, they're not, and while that may be a positive thing from a moral standpoint, in our democracy, it's a vice that weakens the Democratic Party and leftist politicians. In American politics, loyalty is everything.

I don't necessarily think liberals should become team-cheering sheep, but they're weaker because they aren't. If they wanted to be effective, they'd celebrate HCR for being the historic step it was and premise it with the need for more progress on that front...hence the term "progressive" which, of course, comes from the latin term pro-gredi meaning "a step forward." Progressivism doesn't mean we solve all the problems at once. We made a step forward, now we take another, then another, then another

and for the record, half my family lives in Massachusetts, they're hardcore liberals who idolize Ted Kennedy and they love them some Romneycare.  

[ Parent ]
That quote you have from me
doesn't even begin to demonstrate that I think the public option was unimportant. I don't. Moreover, saying that Medicare is not a public option isn't even good semantics. In all relevant ways, Medicare is the clear model for the public option liberals had in mind.

As for the rest, there is at least one relevant difference between Romneycare and the ACA: in Massachusetts, there was never any realistic threat that the Republicans could smother it before it was implemented by refusing to fund it.

[ Parent ]
if Medicare is the model for the public option
then you're not looking for a public option, you're looking for single payer. Even if there had been a realistic chance at the public option, the left would have sat around a whined it was single payer. when the House actually passed a bill with the public option, what did the left do? They complained it wasn't "robust" or didn't do enough.

As for the rest, there is at least one relevant difference between Romneycare and the ACA: in Massachusetts, there was never any realistic threat that the Republicans could smother it before it was implemented by refusing to fund it.

your point being what exactly? If HCR survives, it'll end up being popular? God forbid that happens.  

[ Parent ]
There are other differences
related to implementation that I believe will make the ACA inferior to Romneycare. But the basic point is that the Democrats passed a very controversial program that was not designed to offer most people a tangible benefit in time for the election.

I am not going to relitigate the public option debate with you. What I can say is that even though the House passed version wasn't good enough compared to what could have been, it would have been exactly the kind of foothold needed to guarantee liberal support. In my view there would have been majority support for healthcare reform if it had been included.  

[ Parent ]
Maybe so
but it wasn't because the support wasn't there and in the end, it didn't really size up in what did in the Democrats in the election..and the enthusiasm gap nonsense is just that. The problem wasn't Democrats who stayed home, the problem was people who never showed up before voting Republican.

Take New Hampshire's first district, Carol Shea-Porter won her seat in 2006 midterms winning 100,600 votes, she won by 2.5%, she lost by double digits winning 95,600, a decrease of only 5,000 votes, or about 5%.

Frank Guinta on the other hand won 120,000 votes, an increase over Jeb Bradley's of about 25,000 votes, or over 25%.

Democrats showed up, Republicans showed up more. There wasn't any "angry liberals disappointed staying home" in this election. The base was rallied, we were outnumbered.

I can go across the country and show up how Scott Murphy lost in NY-20 by double digits despite winning just about the same number of votes Kirsten Gillibrand did in 2006, when she was by 6. This is true everywhere, just look and compare.

But that doesn't light the fires on DailyKos, I know.  

[ Parent ]
The November losses
are attributable to more than one factor. But the basic point that midterms are about turning out the base is unassailable.  
[ Parent ]
and the base turned out
they were very happy with what was achieved, they were just outnumbered.

[ Parent ]
I don't agree
But it's on a technicality.

Yes, staunch Democrats turned out. But a lot of new voters (from 2006 and 2008) may have stayed home, dispirited and without a transformative figure like Barack Obama on the ballot; many fickle independents, swayed more by the fact that the GOP racked up resounding victories in media cycle after media cycle, framing their arguments far better and arguing from a position of opposition (always easier to drive when you're in the backseat), than by any cataclysmic national shift in ideology or sense of ideological "betrayal" by the Obama administration (beyond the economy not magically rebounding to full strength inside of 18 months), turned the Republicans' way.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
and one more note on healthcare
what many on the left is missing is that this has not historically been an easy issue to tackle. It has sunk and eluded Democrats (and some Republicans) for over a century, but Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership decided to attempt to tackle it. At a time of great economic upheaval when there were clearly other issues more pressing, the grabbed the political third rail when they didn't have to. They did it because they promised to, to see it out whatever the end result may be, and the end result wasn't the great progressive revolution, but it was never going to be.

But what they did was change the narrative. It's no longer "do we deliver healthcare to the masses" now the debate is "how do we deliver healthcare to the masses"

that makes it historic, and progressive.  

[ Parent ]
No way
There was nothing wrong with getting HCR passed within the greater context of needing to work on the economy.  The problem I think was that there was a serious lack of planning.  They let the process start off as sausage making, which in turn let Lieberman have the freedom to do what he wanted in this process.  We needed to have been like the GOP and turned the whole process into a show.  They had their town-hall protest show, we should have had the, "How to Pass HCR in 3 Months" show.  Theirs would make TMZ, we'd win an Emmy.  And the Obama administration tried to frame this in economic terms, but they lost.

HCR should be a lesson to progressives for all time.  When you are going to heavily reform as important of an issue as health insurance, you can't let the process be a process.  Everything needs to be planned out from day one to the point where you know the exact day and time the bills will pass each house and when it will be signed.  Imagine if the House and Senate had identical bills from the get-go.  I still have no idea how HCR is funded because there were so many different ways discussed.  That is not okay from now on in the future.

There is only one thing that leaves me scratching my head extremely heavily.  How to respond to the town-hall protests.  I guess we should have had the bill done before summer break anyway, but how the hell do you respond to that?  I did see attempts to show how the whole thing was initiated by health insurance companies as a plot to sideline the bill, but it didn't stay that for very long.  And few politicians are going to say, well they didn't know what they are talking about and my constituents concerns are over-blown and wrong.  And what do you tell poor Claire McCaskill, who everyone knows has a big time town-hall style meeting on the topic set-up the week after we all see what happened at Kathy Castor's?  That one leaves me with more questions than anything else in politics.

[ Parent ]
Alright
This really went far afield from the mission of SSP. If we'd caught it in time, we'd have put a stop to it. We really expect more from longtime users - and this goes for everyone involved. We don't want to see more derails like this again, especially on toxic topics that we've had to warn people on in the past.
[ Parent ]
Both user andgarden and DNick together
seem to understand what really happened. Thank you. I learned something today.
[ Parent ]
The point on unemployment
and election night results in CA and NV is a great one.  Although, here's a thought that maybe when the national unemployment is bad, it being worse or better in certain states can get less important because everyone knows it sucks everywhere regardless.
[ Parent ]
Bingo
Although, here's a thought that maybe when the national unemployment is bad, it being worse or better in certain states can get less important because everyone knows it sucks everywhere regardless.

Bingo.  You hear folks generally talking like its the end of the world in even low unemployment states.  As long as there is a general national malaise, local circumstances get reduced in importance.

[ Parent ]
Which I learned the hard way.
I was thinking that the national media was missing the trees for the forest and gains would not be as dramatic due to local issues winning the day. Not anymore, in the Internet and 24/7 news age.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
general national malaise
will last as long as the national MSM wants it to last, which, as I can attest do because I work for a national media outlet, will last until the minute after Sarah Palin's inauguration.  
[ Parent ]
Prediction
I've been wrong a lot, lately, but something I don't even feel uncomfortable predicting is that Sarah Palin will never, never be president, or even vice president, of the United States.  Never.  I've never been so sure about a political prediction in my life.  Hell, Ron Paul has a better chance of becoming United Nations General Secretary than Sarah Palin has of becoming President of the United States.  You always here the "be careful what you wish for," well, I wish for nothing other than a Sarah Palin primary win.
[ Parent ]
I think you're right
but that just means the MSM will continue to act like everything sucks, even if unemployment drops to 5%.  
[ Parent ]
I don't get
that comment. Are you saying the media is making things worse or hiding the good news or something?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
yeah absolutely

[ Parent ]
And what are they hiding, exactly?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
they squash stories
about whatever job growth or economic growth we have, they overinflate negative stories to create negative feelings. And what that does is send a chilling effect in the economy. Small businesses aren't going to hire if they see all doom and gloom, and they don't do stories or help get out ideas that could help small businsses, etc.

I work for a MSM outlet, they're all either in the pocket of the right thing or afraid of competitors who are.  

[ Parent ]
DNick and Andrew seem to miss the REAL distinction with CA and NV......
It's people of color.  People of color have made CA virtually unwinnable for Republicans, and 100% unwinnable for conservatives.  And people of color have shifted NV from libertarian/center-right to center-left.

I think the same probably applies to CO, and indeed it was reported post-election that Michael Bennet and one other western Senator who just won reelection explicitly said in a private Dem Senate Caucus meeting that they owed their reelection to Hispanics.

And with people of color, what it comes down to is macroideology:  most of us see government as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Reid's and Boxer's and Bennet's voters aren't any less unhappy about the economy and unemployment than all the Republican voters.  They see the same problems, and feel the same about them.  But people of color and other Democratic voters just disagree with Republican voters, and this time swing voters, on the solution.

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

[ Parent ]
I could see
a legitimately moderate Republican winning in a lot of western states, someone who is like Lincoln Chafee although perhaps a tad less liberal. The problem is, they almost certainly wouldn't win a primary, because the Republican base is a lot more demanding of purity that the Democratic base is.

In the end, despite some short-term ups and downs, it's likely to make our party stronger. We might not always like the way the Kratovils and the Taylors of the world vote, but as long as they don't become Zell Miller-like clones, we will welcome them into the party.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Probably aren't enough opposing Republicans for repeal
I know a big chunk of the newly elected Republicans were supported by the "New Hampshire Liberty Association", an organization which watches with the state legislature and endorses candidates. It is a libertarian-y group, and many of its members have some type of connections to the hardcore libertarian Free State Project.

That is not to say that libertarian leaning automatically means they will vote for it. In fact, many of the most reliably libertarian Republican congressmen actually voted against DADT repeal- Walter Jones, John Duncan, and Jason Chaffetz stick out the most. However, there should be enough that are supportive of marriage equality for it not to cross that 2/3rds threshold.  

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04

[ Parent ]
they'll get some Republicans
because there are the handful of libertarians and those who really don't care about this issue and don't want to waste time on it, but I don't know if they'll get 32.

Based on my recent experiences with Republicans I know, I think a lot of them take sadistic pleasure in screwing people who don't see eye to eye with them. Remember how John McCain said he voted against the DREAM Act because Hispanics didn't vote for him for President?

It's up to younger and more sane Republicans to wrestle the party control from them, but I find those Republicans are moonlighting as Independents and Democrats at the moment.  

[ Parent ]
The Republicans you mentioned are from
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah, respectively. All rather religious states. I would imagine that in a state like New Hampshire which isn't that religious, libertarians might be more like Jeff Flake. (Although in all fairness I think he did vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment--but still)

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 ]
To me, the thing to watch will be...
How the White House reacts to a repeal effort, particularly a successful one (as it appears it will be, provided the new GOP leadership in New Hampshire is willing to sign on).

I think President Obama understands the pros and cons of weighing in. If he publicly decides marriage equality is a civil right and throws in behind Gov. Lynch, he can really get the base fired up (and perhaps turn off some libertarian-leaning people, particularly young people, both in New Hampshire and in Mountain West swing states where libertarianism is trendy) but he risks pissing off the "states' rights" crowd. And if he stays out, well, I imagine Lt. Choi will have some choice words for him, and I don't know if he can take many more dings from the FDL/HuffPo crowd without the "nobody likes Obama" narrative catching on.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
That narrative has already caught on
in part because it's true. I'm not sure Obama has a natural loyal "base," or ever did really. Perhaps young people and African-Americans, but they're not exactly politically active on a national scale.

The White House won't involve itself in this issue, because A.) it's a state issue and B.) it's not one they can change the outcome of, and may perhaps just make it worse by enticing Republicans who may not be leaning toward overriding a veto into doing it to spite Obama.

And whatever effect it may have to "fire up the base" will be blunted by something else anyway. I always hate the "fire up the base" meme because for those who aren't fired up, I believe it's because they don't want to be. They'll find another reason not to be. It's a waste of time for him to involve himself in a state issue (especially in a politically-important state that values states' rights) for the sake of trying to fire up people who will find another reason to not be fired up.  

[ Parent ]
Obama actually opposed Prop 8
so it wouldn't surprise me if he came out against a repeal effort in NH. However, Obama didn't really campaign against Prop 8 (for several fairly apparent reasons) and didn't really seem to mind when Prop 8 supporters played tapes of him saying he opposed marriage equality in an attempt to mislead voters into thinking Obama supported Prop 8.

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 ]
Puerto Rico
Someone mentioned above about Puerto Rico becoming a state and getting representation in both the House and the Senate.  I know a resolution was passed that Puerto Ricans could hold a vote to decide on their status...what ever became of that?  Is that now a moot point with the new congress?

Is there any real likelihood of PR actually becoming a state in the near future?  I'm sure that would cause a lot of strife in the House, as I believe it would be awarded 6 House districts based on population.

Male, 23, NJ-12

Puerto Ricans can now set up another referendum in
the near future to determine whether or not to continue with their current status. If they vote to change their status they will have another referendum to chose from multiple options (statehood, independent country, or a sovereign nation associated with the US).

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Yeah...
I knew that, I was just wondering when that referendum would take place, if at all.  I haven't really heard much at all about this since it originally passed earlier this year.

Male, 23, NJ-12
[ Parent ]
I don't think it made it out of the Senate.


19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Gotcha
Thanks for the info.

Male, 23, NJ-12
[ Parent ]
Weekly Open Thread Question is back.
Who would be Governor of New York right now had Patterson appointed Andrew Cuomo Senator?


Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
I
think Patterson would have pulled a Quinn and narrowly edged out Crazy Carl. As someone who would have voted green under this circumstance I'm glad Patterson is out. Or who would have ran had Patterson still dropped out?  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Better yet...
what would the %age have been between a patterson v. palladino contest?
[ Parent ]
Steve Levy
He would have run in the Dem primary and crushed Patterson, and then Crazy Carl. Then again, Republicans might have gotten a better candidate if Cuomo didn't run, like Giuliani or Collins. I think Levy would have beat Collins, but not Giuliani, but I also doubt he would have run.  
[ Parent ]
I wonder
what will become of Levy now that he's a Republican. I don't think he has a future in Democratic politics, but does he try to advance as a Republican?

And why didn't he try to align himself with Cuomo to become his running mate?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
If he stays a Republican he can run for Congress in 2012
Depending on how the districts are redrawn Levy could run for Congress as a Republican against Bishop in 2012. Levy's still fairly popular in Suffolk County and could draw enough Dem crossovers to beat Bishop who barely squeaked by this year.

Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...
[ Parent ]
If 2012 is another Republican year, maybe.
Otherwise, Bishop's probably ok, as in 2004, 2006, and 2008, he got by with pretty good (albeit not amazing) margins, including getting 58% against a legitimate opponent in 2008.

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 ]
Maybe, but
would he even win the primary? I don't doubt that Levy is still pretty popular, or at least not hated, among the population as a whole, but he's still a former Democrat who switched for purely political reasons. It's less convincing, I think, than Specter's switch. Why would they give the nomination to a guy who is likely a social liberal when they can give it to a guy who will probably be a social conservative, who might not lose because of it?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Congress in 2012 is a free run for Levy
He can stay County Ex and still run for Congress. I am sure he would cut a deal to get the Conservative Party line (after all he's got tons of county level jobs to give out) and the county GOP would do everything possible to clear the field for him.

So if Levy wanted to run he really would have nothing to lose.

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

[ Parent ]
Gov Rudy Giuliani
I think if Cuomo didnt run Rudy definately would have.

Or we still could have had Gov Andrew Cuomo and a Sen Patterson. Cuomo could have been a placeholder in the Senate for Patterson and then they could have swapped offices.

I still think appointing Gillabrand was the stupidest move Patterson made. Patterson was the one who wanted to be a US Senator. He should have just appointed a placeholder to give himself a chance to run for senate in 2010.

After all that was the office he really wanted to have and the one he was most suited for.

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

[ Parent ]
Paterson runs for re-election, prompting Giuliani to pull the trigger
The field is inexplicably cleared for the loathed Paterson, allowing him to win the Dem nod. Lazio drops out, and while Paladino still jumps in, he doesn't prove very competitive in the primary. Giuliani begins with a 30 point lead in the polls, but Paterson manages to hold on to enough Dems to close a bit by the general. Giuliani wins by high single-digits and Gillibrand eeks out a narrow victory over DioGuardi. Donovan, Wilson win AG and Comptroller.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Oh! I forgot Cuomo's our appointed senator...
Um, DioGuardi still wins the GOP nod and Cuomo blows him out ala Gillibrand.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Trivia
what is the lowest number where all districts of that number have congresscritters of the same party? (so for instance, 19 refers to CA-19, NY-19, TX-19, PA-19, IL-19, and FL-19, while 1 refers to the 1st district of every state.)

Bonus: what will that number be when the new congress convenes?

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/

Answers
17 is the current number-all Democrats. (Farr of CA, Meek of FL, Hare of IL, Engel of NY, Ryan of OH, Holden of PA, and Edwards of TX)

When the 112th takes office, that number will be 24--all Republicans. (Gallegly of CA, Adams of FL, Hanna of NY, and Marchant of TX)

[ Parent ]
yup.


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 ]
Need
some political help. Can a Congressman serve in two offices at once? I do not think so. There is a huge wikipedia debate going on right now that I'm on the losing end of. Some users are changing all the dates on wikipedia articles of special Congressional election winners to say that they assumed office the day they won. I think it should be listed as the date they were sworn in. I know for a fact Marlin Stutzman didn't resign from his Senate seat for at least a week after he won. I also know Garamendi didn't resign from LG for at least a couple of days after leaving office. If I can prove that they couldn't have served in both offices at the same time it would help my case. If anyone could get me a link I would appreciate it. Thanks.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
You're right
Their term doesn't begin until they're sworn in. That's a no-brainer.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Well
yeah I know. But try telling that to the boobs on wikipedia.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
This might not help
but here (pdf) is link to a CRS report describing the process for the Senate. My understanding from reading the first couple of pages is

1. If the election occured while the Senate is in session, the official term begins following receipt of credentials by the Senate and the subsequent swearing-in.

2. If the election occured while the Senate is adjourned sine die, the official term gets back-dated to the day after the election.

I assume the House works similarly, but I didn't find a source for that yet.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

[ Parent ]
Well, a house vote on November 15th had IN-03 as open
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...

Because Marlin Stutzman is not listed anywhere on the vote

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

[ Parent ]
I always questioned...
Whether the physical, actual OATH is required to begin a term.  Is it somewhere in the Constitution (obviously yes for the President) or the US Code (more likely)?  It seems to me, especially in the case of the Presidency, that if a judge really wasn't available to give the oath right away, a newly-ascended former Vice President would still be able to act in a crisis.  Here the 25th Amendment and the requirement for the oath could be at odds.  "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."  That makes me think, immediately.  Not when he finally meets the Oath requirement of Article 2.  There is no point whatsoever where there is a vacancy.  But this goes against Article 2.  Maybe the VP should take the PRESIDENTIAL oath when he's sworn in as VP, to play it safe.  
[ Parent ]
If you go by the 20th Amendment, it's not required:
"The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."
[ Parent ]
which is a good point...
So the oath is not the flipping point for regularly scheduled elections, but it is for specials?  That seems odd and worthy of discussion at least.
[ Parent ]
NH-02: Kuster seems to be gearing up for war
Her letter to her supporters gives me the impression that she's running again.

http://www.bluehampshire.com/d...

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

It would be great news

I hope she runs again.
[ Parent ]
Brad Henry is leaving office with pretty decent approvals
I really hope he decides to take on Inhofe. Getting a competitive Senatorial race in Oklahoma would be almost too good to be true.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news...

I would say the same about Freudenthal in Wyoming, but he just took a job at UW so I think he's out.

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)

And with Inhofe too!
He must be my least favorite Senator.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
"Visiting professorship"
means that this is just something he's doing; not a permanent or full-time thing. Also, being a professor at the University of Wyoming never stopped anyone else from becoming the Democratic nominee for Senate; look at the previous few, I think there's at least three professors.

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets
[ Parent ]
He may not win, but
this would be the 50 state strategy at it's greatest.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
But it's only
for three semesters, so perhaps Freudenthal could still be a candidate.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Does this mean Webb is running?
http://edition.cnn.com/video/d...

Probably not but interesting nonetheless. I guess he left plenty of wiggle room.

If Kaine stays on as DNC chair...
I think we're outta luck in Virginia next cycle. Webb has every appearance of a man who is done with elective office.

These seem like poor decisions IMO. Kaine wasn't a spectacular DNC chair and it looks like Webb doesn't really like campaigning.  

NY-01/NY-19

[ Parent ]
There's always Tom Periello

[ Parent ]
Perriello
If he runs, wins the primary, and beats whoever the republicans nominate, I will eat my hat.

16, Male, MD-8.
[ Parent ]
I think Periello could win
PPP had a poll that shown him tied or leading GOP candidates. It wouldn't be as easy as Webb or Kaine, but he'd be formidable, especially in a Presidential year.  
[ Parent ]
Kaine isn't contractually obligated to stay as chair until 2012
If Webb retires and Kaine is a good fit, it's easy for him to quit and run.  Rahm did it when the Chicago thing opened up.

That's not a big thing to worry about at all.

[ Parent ]
If Kaine were to leave
the DNC, who would take his place?  
[ Parent ]
No
idea. Definitely not Howard Dean. He and the administration are basically persona non grata with each other at this point.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
The co-chairs
Could any of them take over? Wasserman-Schultz is out since she is a congresswoman. Same for Mike Honda. I see no reason Linda Chavez-Thompson or Donna Brazile couldn't takeover though. I hope its Brazile, since she is from Kenner, LA, just next to my hometown.  
[ Parent ]
I think Bob Dole was the RNC chair
during part of his time as a Senator -- did something new happen to prevent someone from holding both a Congressional and the top party job at the same time?

(I think the job limitation is w/r/t a second federal job, e.g. someone can't be in Congress (branch 1) while also serving in the White House (branch 2)).

Nevertheless, Brazile would be a logical choice to succeed Kaine.

[ Parent ]
Its hard to
Mel Martinez was chair when he was Senator, but he did not manage day to day operations.  
[ Parent ]
Donna Brazile, FTW
I'm on board with Donna Brazile. She comes across as such a sweet old Southern lady, but Donna Brazile will choke a bitch. We need more of that in the Democratic Party.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.
[ Parent ]
I read her book a couple of years ago.
It's one of my favorites. I couldn't put it down.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
I kind of like
the idea of a Democrat who lost but who didn't basically run away from his party, maybe someone like Ted Strickland.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Baron Hill!
heh heh  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
[ Parent ]
That could work.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
SSP Writing Contest
Everyone take a crack at writing the release/remarks for Tim Kaine when he changes his mind to run for Senate (if/when Webb admits he hates his job and doesn't want to do it anymore).

"After carefully discussing this issue with my family and my President it is clear to me that I can best serve my country and the Commonwealth of Virginia by carrying on the mantle of leadership my dear friend Jim Webb has left for us.

I greatly appreciate the wonderful opportunity my party has given me in allowing me to serve as Chairman of the DNC, I give particular thanks to the staff that have made every day a joy. We have accomplished much together and I'm fully confident that with a new Chairman you will continue to be successful in putting Democratic ideals to work through issue based campaigns across our great nation.

As I begin this next step in my journey of service I look forward to a wonderful debate on the issues and building a strong campaign based on the needs and desires of the great people of Virginia.

PS George Allen said Macaca"

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Veto override
So Fred Upton thinks they'll get close in their symbolic vote for HCR repeal.

http://www.reuters.com/article...

They would need 290 if everyone voted. By my count there are only 14 Dems left who voted against it either time. Even if they all voted for repeal (which clearly they won't) that makes 256. Sounds like setting themselves up for a fall, no?
       

Bluster
There's no way they're even going to get a majority for repeal in the Senate. Assuming it could get a vote (actually, it might be good strategy for Democrats to allow one).
[ Parent ]
Which Dems would vote for repeal in the Senate?
Ben Nelson and Manchin maybe?
[ Parent ]
Only
Manchin probably. If Ben Nelson voted to repeal the same bill he voted for, it would hurt him even more politically.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Na, I can see Nelson voting for repeal
to strengthen his political position. The base will come out to vote for Obama no matter what he does so he doesn't have much to lose.  Th repeal will give him a perfect opportunity to appeal to conservative independents. Manchin I don't get though. WV seems like the kind of state the economic populist-ish campaign would work better.  
[ Parent ]
No chance, voting for repeal would kill him regardless of turnout......
If Nelson votes for repeal of the same law he voted for, just a year after voting for it, he's screwed in more ways than you realize.  Obama can't win Nebraska, so "Obama turnout" doesn't matter.  Nelson will just find himself having pissed off everyone and losing by a bigger margin than were he to just stick by his guns.

Nelson's best hope is for anti-HCR sentiment to subside, which I think it almost certainly will, which would help him with swing voters, and then for Obama surge turnout to again materialize in Douglas County, which would get him over the hump if it's otherwise already razor-tight.

I don't write off Nelson quite yet.  If he's in this much trouble in December, then I'll start writing him off, but things can change in a hurry.

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

[ Parent ]
Obama probably won't
win Nebraska, but I wouldn't say that turnout doesn't matter. Unless there's some sort of weird counter-mojo where any sort of presence, at all, motivates even more anti-Obama, pro-Republican voters to go to the polls and vote against him, meeting or surpassing whatever help an Obama presence gave to Nelson, any extra votes that Obama gets will probably help Nelson, too.

But anyway, yes, I think that voting for health care reform repeal would kill Nelson, primarily because anyone who is dead set against the law isn't voting for him or Obama anyway and is probably already ramped up to vote.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I dont think Nelson voted for the reconciliation portion
Which for me means he didn't vote for the final bill.  I dunno, wishy-washy.
[ Parent ]
I thought Manhin supported the healthcare bill
All of his conservative flips are annoying  
[ Parent ]
Probably not Manchin either
His ad with the the cap-and-trade-shooting also said he would "repeal the 'worst parts' of Obamacare." That makes me think he supports the bill as a whole and is only interesting in repealing certain aspects of it (whatever they may be in his mind.)

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
There is no chance it will ever get 60 votes to be put to a vote
It's a total waste of air to even talk about it.
[ Parent ]
Yup, if the Merkley filibuster rule proposal goes through
I don't believe 40 Ds would actually take turns talking on the Senate floor. It would come to a vote.
[ Parent ]
I think they could.
If nothing else than for PR reasons.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
No need
Remember that the Republicans allowed the Democratic proposal to end the war in Iraq to come to a vote. George Bush got to go on TV and veto it.  
[ Parent ]
No, because Harry Reid still decides what gets a vote......
The only way such a thing could get a floor vote, under any plausible set of rules, is as an amendment to something else, which Reid will work overtime to kill.

The Majority Leader has tremendous power on the floor.  Senate rules give the minority, and even individual Senators, tremendous power to stop things from advancing.  But the rules do not give minority blocs or individuals much power to advance things.  The power to advance rests overwhelmingly with Reid.  So getting a vote on HCR repeal will be virtually impossible without Reid's assent, which Reid has no incentive to give.  Democratic Senators want HCR in the rear-view mirror, they don't want to fight over it anymore.  They'll fight over implementation funding to make sure it's not gutted, but they're not going to want to vote on the fact of the law.

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

[ Parent ]
Under that assumption, Rs can't get a Senate vote on HCR
if/until they regain control. If they do in '14, they won't get a vote until '15. By that time, some of the benefits of HCR will have come through, and it would be a takeaway -- and if the CBO estimates come through, that takeaway would increase the deficit.

Lots of assumptions there, but it certainly sounds like a good campaign issue for '16 ("Cut the deficit, save HCR!")

[ Parent ]
I agree, it's ridiculous.
No way they get more than a handful of Dem votes.  There's no way they did they get to 2/3rds on this.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Veto or death by Senate?
I think the GOP can eventually force a straight up or down vote on HCR reform. It will be a convoluted mess to get there, but eventually I think Reid & company will allow a vote - if just to get things moving elsewhere.

Does it get 50 votes to even pass? My guess is yes and depending on how Reid allows it that might be enough.

More importantly, the WH may WANT a chance to veto a repeal, it gives them a prime stage to fully address the bill and make the case for keeping it. No matter what the HCR bill is all Obama's so rather than try to run away from it, why not take on the opponents/critics directly?

Without a major turnaround in the U3/U6 #s (and GDP to a much lesser extent), HCR will be they defiining issue on the Obama presidency, if the electorate still hates it by election day (and without other great news) Obama's re-elect is doomed.

I see no reason not to go straight at the GOP on this, an old political quote come to mind - "You OWN it whether you like it or not, so you sure as hell better SELL it!"

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
No, they won't allow that vote, they don't want it, and they're right not to want it......
First, there's no selling HCR by relitigating its very fact.  That's a losing battle for Team Blue.  The sale going forward must be done simply by implementing it and letting time pass for people to see they're at least no worse off than before, and perhaps marginally better off.  Claire McCaskill made the point in the spring or summer that HCR won't be popular in time for the midterms or even in time for 2012; it would be popular only a decade from now.  I didn't want to believe that at the time she said it, even as I conceded she could be right, but now I'm convinced she is right.

Congressional Democrats did the right thing but the American people don't believe that...yet.  And marketing isn't going to help anymore, they've done all the selling they can and the needle never budged, people aren't responding to any messaging.

So Senate Democrats are going to simply want to make sure the money is appropriated to implement at least everything that's popular in the law, and avoid at all cost any political relitigation of the law itself.

Reid will not allow a repeal vote unless and until it's clear that public opinion is strongly against repeal, and views Republican repeal attempts as overreaching.

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

[ Parent ]
HCR Poplularity
Even if Clair is right and the bill will eventually be popular, it certainly was NOT in '10 and what is the probablility of public opinion turning around on the issue before the '12 election without a major move by the WH/Dems to sell the product?

I think simply playing out the hand and hoping the public will somehow come around is a recipe for disaster. I'm not suggesting they'll just sit on their hands, but without having another major discussion of the policy involved, and that means a meaningful fight, there will not be sufficient input to create the public opinion swing needed, a major economic turnaround would make this debate irrelevant, but so far all signs point to the economic/jobs indicators being AT BEST neutral and likely still a major negative for Obama.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
It might have made a difference
at the margins, sort of like the personal life of a candidate in a particular district, but it was almost certainly not the biggest factor in the losses for the Democrats this past November. The economy was.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I don't think the two are seperate
The "JOBS! SPENDING! DEFECIT!" attack in '10 was particularly effective because it played into voters pre-existing notion that Obama and the democrats fiddled while rome burned. This is what I heard a lot "they spent $700B and we still don't have jobs, now their wasting all their time on healthcare when what we need is more jobs, not more healthcare".

Not saying it's correct or fair, but that is the perception.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
In
the next years the economy better improve to the point that voters actually believe its improving otherwise Obama and the Democrats are screwed. A 0.1% or even 0.5% drop in the unemployment figures this year is not enough. Or something really good happens in Afghanistan like how the Falklands war saved Thatcher and the Conservative party in England from a major electoral thrashing.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Worse yet
It needs to happen FAST (in econmic, not campaign speed). GOPers used to make the case that the economy had recovered and was "surging" in '92, but voters didn't perceive that (because of the MSM they say, because people are myopic IMO - and that is OK!).

If the U3 is still at say 8.5% in the spring of '12 I wouldn't put a plugged nickle on Obama's reelect, even if it fell to 7% by November.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Sidebar
I'm only using U3 as an example, I think GDP & U3 get a ton of MSM attention, but I do NOT believe that those stories drive voter's perception of economic recovery (or collapse or stagnation). U6 is far more useful, because is measure works who don't have work - and that affects voters behavior, not how actively they are looking for a job.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
It's all about the trend.
Don't place too much emphasis on any one particular point.

More specifically, if it's heading down below 8.0 percent leading into 2012 and is around 7.5 percent by August of that year, I'd almost guarantee that he'd be reelected. Why? It would have been dropping steadily, even if a bit slowly, for many months. It's hard to make that case if unemployment is higher, but if it starts dropping soon enough so that it gives the administration time to makes its case and voters to start to feel better, unemployment of 8.5 percent might not be a deal breaker, particularly if the Republican candidate sucks.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Yes & No
Trend is very important, going from 9.6% to 7% would guarantee victory, but only if it happens far enough out from the election for the improvement to take hold in the public psyche. For instance if the U3 were to go from 9% now to 7.9% by 1/3/12 I think Obama is in very good shape. However is the U3 stays at 9% for all of '11 and then drop below 7% on election day he is most likely (barring other events we cannot anticipate) dead meat even though scenario 2 had twice the yearly improvement.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
'92 is not an appropriate reverse analogy
If I'm understanding you correctly, that's the basis for your comparisons.

I'm guessing that if the first Bush had shown some compassion, had not looked at his watch during the second debate, had run a decent campaign, etc. he would have won. But instead, he looked out of touch in an economic environment where people were still hurting.

Will President Obama, with his technocratic tendencies, look out of touch in a similar way? Certainly, there's a risk of such. But I think he's learned not to make the mistakes of other recent campaigns.

[ Parent ]
Certainly not
I didn't mean to present them as a direct comparison, only an example of the delay between events, voter preception of events and corresponding alternation in voter behavior.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
What's the length of time
that is required for it to take hold in the public's mind, do you think? I'd say at least six months before August of 2012.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
So Feb. of '12?
I think that's realistic. It's dangerous to make to exact a prediction on voter perceptions, there are just too many variables. Sometimes an event can change perceptions virtually overnight (Bush's response to 9-11 and then Katrina being two obvious examples), but economic indicators just aren't part of most people's daily lives.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
Well, is
most of the frustration, distrust, or outright disgust over the fact that the health care reform bill and its controversial elements, most notably the individual mandate, was passed at all, or was it because it took place instead of a greater focus on jobs? The way most people talk, it sounds like they assume the former, which makes sense. After all, where's the proof that people were pissed because they felt, as you described, the Democrats fiddled while Rome burned? But even if that is the case, I don't think it played that much into the Democratic losses.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Jobs first
I think the failure of ARRA to lead to meaningful recovery colors voters perceptions of everything that came after. GOP attacks on ARRA were well crafted and effective, but that WH chart overlayed with the actual unemployment numbers was brutal. By being able to paint ARRA as a failure it made all subsequent legislative activity seem like a distraction from they key element needed for a recovery (whatever THAT is). The fact that the writing and passage of HCR turned into such a fiasco (perfect example of watching somone make sausage) only re-enforced that Dems were working on a priority that (as they saw it) wouldn't change their job outlook.

My basic point is that the GOP won the messaging battle on HCR and unlike Clinton in '94 the Dems passed the law this time. That's good from a policy standpoint, but unlike Clinton on '95 HCR is not going away as a primary election issue, so (IMO ONLY) the choice is to attempt to re-fight that major messaging battle on the WH terms (via VETO of repeal) or suffer a (perhaps fatal, perhaps not) slow torture by having 1000 messsaging battle on GOP turf (which will happen simply because they can decide which provisions to attack and when).

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
What you are saying
doesn't sound implausible, but there's no clear way that I can think of to measure this. I'll give it some thought today to see what I come up with.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
You may be right.
But it's important to remember that some important benefits kicked in right away and/or are kicking in right now. People will slowly realize this. If nothing else, the fact that kids are now allowed to stay on their parent's insurance until 26 should be massively popular and affect pretty much everyone. But seniors in particular should be happy because they will be getting discounts, and in some cases big ones, on prescription drugs and more access to preventative screenings.

With that in mind, the best path forward might be for the Democrats to let these changes happen and then, when the time is appropriate, remind voters that they voted for it and no Republican did. Marketing might not help, but subtle reminders, through town halls or something, probably wouldn't hurt.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Perhaps
If I was advising Reid or Obama I'd say go right at it, in my opinion "subtle reminders, through town halls or something" mean a death by a thousand papercuts.

A veto puts the spotlight on Obama to give a full throated response to GOP critics and defend the law in dramatic fashion. I think attempting to focus on small issues like keeping "kids" on parents HC till 26 (BTW this "affects pretty much everyone"? please explain) & preexisting conditions will have no discernable effect on overal voter opinion. First off I don't think those issues stand up to a "Defecit! Jobs! Spending!" campaign, but even the successes will likely not alter opinion on the overall law (I can easily see focus group participants saying "I love that my daughter can still be on my insurance and that I won't have to worry about my back surgery keeping me from getting insurance, but that Obamacare is EVIL!"

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
I personally
don't think the health care bill be the biggest issue of 2012, not by a long shot, so it's probably beside the point to even talk about this.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Really?
I don't see this issue going away, like it or not it's going to eat up a large percentage of the oxygen the next 2 years.

Now it's always possible that the economy could blow away all projections by turning dramatically one way or the other (U3 of 6% or 12% and HCR doesn't matter for sh!t), or events overseas or God only knows what will change the framework guiding the election - but only a fool counts on events outside of their control to protect them from threats that are under their control.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Obama having to issue a veto is a disaster for ALL Democrats in 2012......
Understand, we control the Senate.  Nothing gets through the Senate without Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats assenting to it.  And any such assent will be viewed as an endorsement.

If Obama has to veto something, it displays a huge rift between him and Senate Democrats, and it isolates him, and it leaves Obama supporters in the electorate furious at Senate Democrats.  It rips apart the party.  There's no other way it will be perceived.

Obama will not veto anything.  Nothing he would veto will pass the Senate.  Nothing he would veto will even get a floor vote in the Senate unless it's something unpopular that is doomed to fail and help Democrats politically by making the GOP look bad.

No further messaging will help on HCR.  It's just going to take time, and that's it.

And the only way HCR helps Democrats by being in the debate is by the American people being sick and tired of hearing about it, and therefore blaming Republicans for continuing to harp on it when the public wants them to move on to other things.  Most Americans don't like the HCR law but are willing to live with it for the time being to see what happens.  Congressional Democrats going forward are finally in sync with the public in wanting to just move on.  Whether the GOP "gets it" on that point is the only real issue.  If they're serious about wanting to gut it, they're going to have to be deliberative and use a scalpel to do so selectively and carefully and somewhat quietly through appropriations; that's the only way they can score politically.  And it will be a intriguing game of chess to see what both sides do.  But make no mistake, Republicans are dumb to be too loud about HCR in the 112th Congress, and Dems would be equally loud to be too loud.

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

[ Parent ]
"No further messaging will help on HCR. It's just going to take time, and that's it"
Even if true the question is when. If I were the WH & looking at potentially being bludgeoned with HCR I would look for opportunities to re-fight this battle on term I can control. The biggest mistake Obama made with respect to HCR was "over-learning" the lessons of Clinton's HC fight in '94, Clinton staked too much on making HCR happen and then couldn't deliver. Obama didn't want to "lower" his office to the level of mediator in chief and thus let Reid and Pelosi make sausage in public, with a terrible result (PR wise), the biggest issue with this is that by delegating negotiations to the house & senate the WH lost control of the message war.

You and I can disagree on the tactics that would bare the most fruit, but I'd hope you would agree that the strategy must be to change, or at least nullify, voters opinion on HCR. I don't think the issue is going away and to let the GOP set the parameters and timing of HCR debates over the next two years is too dangerous to contemplate.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
You really believe
that HCR repeal would pass the Senate this term? You think Manchin plus THREE Democratic senators who voted FOR reform last year are going to flip?

Can you show your work?

[ Parent ]
IF allowed to come to a vote
I do believe HCR repeal would get 51+ votes, 4 I think would go for it? Nelson (NE), Webb (VA), Manchin (WV) & Landrieu (LA), others I'd target if I was McConnell? Nelson (FL), Pryor (AR), Casey (PA), Lieberman (CT)...

I'll leave it up to others to decide how McConnell could attempt to force a vote, and I'd also be very curious for opinions on how the WH could frame another debate on HCR in which Obama could determine the format and timing of without bringing the bill to a Veto.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
I'd bet you a cool grand
that IF HCR repeal came up for a floor vote in the Senate, it would go down in flames. First, it would need to clear a filibuster, and I suppose that's where you could see some of the names you mention vote with Republicans. They could appease Dems by saying they're not sure how they're ultimately going to vote and they just want it to see it debated, etc., all the while being protected by the other 40+ Democrats who wouldn't support the motion and would render the whole exercise moot.

In the hypothetical event that it didn't require 60-vote cloture, I think the odds of it garnering the 4 votes it would need to pass are virtually nil. While HCR isn't exactly popular (yet), the folks you mention have much more to lose than gain by siding with Republicans. Not only would they not win back their conservative detractors, but they'd lose liberals and rank-and-file Dems. Politically, they'd be toast.

I find it odd that you mention some people who made very little noise about objecting to HCR last year, including Casey, Nelson (FL), and Webb. Just because those guys are up for reelection this cycle doesn't mean they've lost their marbles. Casey, for one, went to great lengths to broker compromise language on the abortion issue. Nelson participated in the Finance Committee hearings on HCR, from start to finish, in an extremely constructive way. I believe he even voted for one or both of the public option amendments in that committee.

Lieberman objected to various pieces of the legislation (most famously the public option), but he came around to offer full-throated defenses of the legislation. He's an HCR believer, especially of the individual mandate, which his constituent insurance companies will be fighting tooth and nail for. Pryor's not up for four more years, at which time HCR will have lost a lot of its resonance as a controversial issue. Landrieu also has four years, and has been striking a much more populist tone lately, even going so far as to take the floor with Bernie Sanders in his talking "filibuster" of the tax cut compromise last month. She also secured major benefits for her home state in HCR negotiations.

In other words, it just ain't happenin'.

[ Parent ]
Songs
When I go on Dave's App, I like to listen to music for the usually two-hour-long endeavor for large states. I would imagine a lot of you do the same.

My question: what songs do you like to listen to while you redistrict?

I'll start, I've been getting into The National. Been listening to their albums over and over while I redistrict.

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan

Songs
When I go on Dave's App, I like to listen to music for the usually two-hour-long endeavor for large states. I would imagine a lot of you do the same.

My question: what songs do you like to listen to while you redistrict?

I'll start, I've been getting into The National. Been listening to their albums over and over while I redistrict.

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan

The Beach Boys.
Naturally, since I've only really spent my time on DRA trying California redistricting.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Haha
I like to play "The Suburbs" by The Arcade Fire while redistricting New York. It makes Erie, Monroe, Westchester, and Long Island a lot of fun!

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan
[ Parent ]
My playlist is ever changing
Right now it is a rotation between Bottoms Up, Raise Your Glass, Grenade, Stay (Jason Aldean and Kelly Clarkson), various Saints songs (which will be taken out of rotation tonight after what happened today!), and whatever random songs I feel like listening too.  
[ Parent ]
You know Pink is a liberal, right?
Jk. ;)

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 ]
New Congress swearing-in
It's tomorrow, right? Does anyone know if it will be on C-SPAN, and what time?

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
Wednesday
C-SPAN will carry it, as it does every House and Senate session.  
[ Parent ]
It's on Wednesday
Public Law 111-289 pushed it back two days.

Both houses meet at noon -- the House is on C-SPAN, and the Senate is on C-SPAN 2.  Not sure which one I'll be watching yet -- usually the House is more interesting because there are actually votes (Speaker, rules package) on the first day, but if there are filibuster reform motions in the Senate this time....

23, male, Democrat, IA-02 (previously CA-26, PA-06, CA-06)

[ Parent ]
DRA Question
So I was doing LA on DRA. I did the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th district. All but the 1st were over around 150, and the 1st was under less than 100. Then, after I finished the 6th, it was still 8,000 people under, and everything was assigned. How is this possible?  
IA, CA Sen Special elections Tuesday
In CA SD-1, Republican Ted Gaines is running against Dem Ken Cooley for the seat of David Cox (R), who passed away on July 13.
In IA SD-48, Republican Ruth Smith faces off with Dem Joni Ernst, for Lt. Gov-Elect Kim Reynold's (R) seat.
Here is a list of legislative special elections this year: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in...
So that's why
I've been seeing a few Ted Gaines signs here and there over in Roseville.

Just asked my mother (who I'm visiting here) and she voted. :D  

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

[ Parent ]
IA SD 48
leans strongly Republican in terms of voter registration, and Chet Culver didn't break 40 percent in any of the seven counties that make up that state senate district.

Today Iowa Democrats will choose a candidate for the January 18 special election in Senate district 35 (northern Polk County, including Des Moines suburb of Ankeny). Republicans needed five ballots to select former ISU football player Jack Whitver. I thought it was weird for him to play up term limits as a way to stop "corrupt" career politicians in his nominating speech. This is the party that keeps going back to Chuck Grassley and Terry Branstad.

[ Parent ]
why so long a wait
for the CA special? If the vacancy happened in July, you'd think they would hold the special to coincide with the general election. In Iowa the governor has a pretty short time to declare a special election date, and then that date has to be no more than 45 days after the governor's declaration. But I know CA legislative districts are a lot larger than Iowa's.
[ Parent ]
especially since
they didn't seem to have any issues calling a special election for CA-SD-15 (Laird vs. Blakeslee, opened by appointment of Abel Maldonado to LG)...

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 ]
RNC chairman election
Gentry Collins is out, not that he ever looked like he was in a position to win. Iowa has had four previous RNC chairs; the last was pro-choice moderate Mary Louise Smith in the 1970s (still the only woman ever to have headed the RNC).

Wisconsin GOP chair Reince Priebus looking like the favorite unless supporters of the also-rans coalesce around a different alternative to Steele.

Sounds like Michael Steele 2.0
http://hotlineoncall.nationalj...

In 2009, Priebus was Steele's top backer on the committee. As general counsel, he was frequently asked to serve as Steele's top liaison to committee members and to put out fires after Steele uttered an embarrassing comment or angered a faction of the GOP. In a memo to RNC members, Connecticut Party chairman Chris Healy, who is supporting former RNC political director Gentry Collins, said that makes Priebus culpable for the RNC's poor performance.

Other parts of the article suggests that he's also a proxy for Barbour.

[ Parent ]
Majority
of RNC members oppose Steele according to Politico. 88 out of 168 RNC members will not vote for him.

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

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

It looks like there are
at least 88 sane people in the Republican Party.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Haha
Steele was the definition of "looked good on paper." I think he closes the book on the argument that Republicans can better appeal to blacks simply by putting African-Americans in leadership (although I still think his race marginally helped him in MD-Sen-06.)

It looks like a three-way race now, between Reince Priebus, Ann Wagner, and Saul Anuzis.

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

[ Parent ]
I'm still not entirely
sure why they put him in charge to begin with. I get the idea of putting someone besides a white man or woman in his position in order to broaden the party's appeal, but why him? There aren't that many black Republicans in the country, but surely there's someone better than him. But besides that, why not a Hispanic man or woman? There are simply more to choose from, and it's quite likely that the Republicans will have continued significant support amongst Hispanics (more than they do now, I mean) before they have it with blacks. Maybe they'd have to reach really far down and pick a state senator or something, but who cares so long as the person is competent? Besides that, even if you accept the idea that a lot of people in the party are uncomfortable with reaching out to minorities--and I am not sure I do--and thus stupidly believed Steele was as an equal to Obama, not all of them think like that. Enough people in the party seem to know how to do it--Karl Rove, for instance.

Basically, while it's always amusing to think that Steele has pictures of some top Republican screwing a goat, I'm starting to wonder just what else it could be.

Besides that, if you read about his life and educational background, it's not like he's Sarah Palin. He's well educated and worked in some fairly big law firms. (Maybe he was a dud at such firms, but that's not at all clear.) It makes you wonder why he looks and acts like such a moron.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Wagner or Anuzis
I think it will ultimately be one of them. If you are not supporting Priebus or Steele now, I don't see you moving to Priebus later. Anuzis is making a play for Steele's voters, which will hurt Priebus after Steele drops. I think Wagner is best positioned to pick up Collin's and Cino's voters. There have been many members who are either currently supporting Cino or Wagner, or have narrowed it down to those two since they are the only ones who never worked for Steele. Depending on who makes it to the last round, assuming there are only two candidates left, I see it being Priebus and Wagner or Anuzis, will defeat Priebus. At this point, I'd say it will be Wagner.
* I may be a little biased as a strong Wagner supporter.  
[ Parent ]
Your standard for sanity is quite low
I'd require a little more than just agreeing that Steele has to go to declare any of them "sane"!  I would be that some of those 88 still might be crazy birthers and xenophobes and tinfoil hat club members and whatnot.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
I can believe "sanity" w/r/t party building
Steele has not helped the image of the R party. I do think it's sane for Rs who want a growing party to oppose Steele.

That "sanity" does not necessarily extend to other issues; however, as these are party stalwarts who are voting, I suspect most are birthers and xenophobes only as far as it helps Rs get more votes.

[ Parent ]
4 new Govs today
2 reps, 2 dems
Jerry Brown
Mark Dayton
Scott Walker
Brian Sandoval  
SC
Wish SC was earlier, I'm tired of referring to Nikki Haley as Govenor-ELECT Hot Pants

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
Jerry
Brown now offically governor. Anyone who wants to watch Brown's speech (going on now as of 11:21am PST) can see here:

https://www.calchannel.com/cha...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
Chafee's today!
I'm excited :)

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 ]
Chicago-Mayor: Chico rasied $2.5 million in last quarter
Obama approval up to 50%
in today's Gallup tracker:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124...
Youngest______ trivia
*Includes people who have not yet taken office, but will this month
Who is the youngest_____:
US Senator?
Female US Senator?
Governor?
Female Governor?
US Rep?
Female US Rep?
Statewide office holder?

Answers
Mike Lee
Kirsten Gillibrand
Nikki Haley
Nikki Haley
Aaron Shrock
Kristi Noem
Tate Reeves (sp?)  
[ Parent ]
Some of them
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. No
7. No
[ Parent ]
Damn Kelly Ayotte! :)


19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Yes!
Its her. Has anyone ever watched her speak? She always seems like she's about to bust out laughing.  
[ Parent ]
Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In? | 414 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