Skip to main content

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest banner
To receive the Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest via email each weekday, sign up here.

2Q Fundraising:

CA-11: Ricky Gill (R), $420K raised (note: this is the 24-year-old kid)

CO-04: Cory Gardner (R), $316K

FL-Sen: Adam Hasner (R), $560K raised, $460K cash-on-hand

FL-22: "No, not that" Patrick Murphy (D), $450K raised (that brings him to an eye-popping $800K over about 16 weeks)

IN-Gov: Mike Pence (R), $1 million raised; Jim Wallace (R), $500K raised; John Gregg (D), $717K raised

ME-Sen: Olympia Snowe (R), $1 million raised, $2.7 million cash-on-hand

Senate:

CT-Sen: Connecticut's firefighters union just endorsed Dem Chris Murphy's campaign for Senate, the latest labor group to do so.

ME-Sen: Two non-Some Dude Maine Democrats say they are each "seriously considering" a run against Sen. Olympia Snowe: state Rep. Jon Hinck and former SoS Matt Dunlap. Glad to see this, since the last six months have been filled with little more than speculation and declinations. Meanwhile, Snowe still seems concerned about protecting her right flank, co-authoring some op-ed with Jim DeMint in the WSJ. If I could ratfuck any primary in the nation, I think I'd go all-in on whichever teabagger looked most promising in the Republican senate race here.

TX-Sen: No surprise: Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst leads the GOP primary field in PPP's latest, with 40% of the vote, compared to 11% for Ted Cruz and Dan Patrick. Tom Leppert takes just 5% and Elizabeth Ames Jones 3%.

Gubernatorial:

WA-Gov: We've got our first Elway Poll of Washington's open seat gubernatorial race, and contrary to PPP and SurveyUSA, they find not a lot of people engaged in the race yet. Rather than doing an Inslee/McKenna head-to-head, they do a kitchen-sink version of the state's Top 2 primary, running just about everyone who's been associated with the race, and find that 49% have no opinion. Among those who do, Republican AG Rob McKenna leads Dem Rep. Jay Inslee by a whopping 20-17. Throwing in all the other Dems (Brian Sonntag, Dow Constantine, Lisa Brown, Aaron Reardon) and GOPers (Clint Didier, Bill Bryant), though — none of whom individually tops 3% — gives the Dems a 26-25 cumulative edge, for whatever that's worth. Generic Dem also leads Generic Republican 48-36 (although, interestingly, they break that down to Generic Liberal Dem 22, Generic Moderate Dem 26, Generic Moderate GOPer 16, and Generic Conservative GOPer 20). As for the current governor, Chris Gregoire posts her worst approval numbers yet, at 36/58 (although — dubious method alert — that's counting "fair" as a negative response).

House:

CA-North Coast: Marin County Supervisor Susan Adams says she'll run in the open seat (currently the 6th CD) being vacated by Rep. Lynn Woolsey. She joins fellow Democrats Jared Huffman and Norman Solomon.

CA-36: I was under the impression that local FOX affiliates didn't have much to do with FOX News Channel, but why should I trust any part of the Rupert Murdoch empire? A local station in Los Angeles aired a nine-minute long piece purporting to "set the record straight" about Janice Hahn's involvement in a gang intervention program (a report the L.A. Times called "discredited"). Meanwhile, a group called the National Republican Trust PAC seems to be the only outside GOP group coming to Craig Huey's aid, airing a radio ad on his behalf.

CA-Orange County Coast: Irvine Mayor Sukhee Kang, a Democrat, announced he'd run for Congress… but against whom is unclear. This new district (which of course only exists in draft form) is now home to two Republican incumbents, Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and John Campbell. Kang is the second Korean-American with mayoral experience to announce a run as a Democrat for Congress this year; former Edison, NJ mayor Jun Choi previously said he'd challenge GOP Rep. Leonard Lance in NJ-07.

GA-14: Jim Galloway of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution takes a look at possible candidates for Georgia's pending 14th CD, which will undoubtedly be safely Republican (and will likely be centered around fast-growing Hall County in the state's northeast). Radio host Martha Zoller and state Rep. Doug Collins have already hired consultants, but they're unlikely to be the only people interested in such a seat. Depending upon how it's drawn, state Sen. Jim Butterworth and cardiologist Chris Cates (who lost last year's GA-09 special election) could also get in, but I suspect we'll hear many more names before this is done.

IA-02: Republican John Archer, who had been considering a run, formally filed paperwork with the FEC to establish a campaign committee. He'll face Rep. Dave Loebsack.

IL-17: Former Rock Island Mayor Mark Schwiebert says he won't join the Democratic field in the redrawn 17th CD.

IN-05: Everything's coming up Milhouse for Rep. Dan Burton. Ex-Rep. David McIntosh, who hasn't held office in a dozen years, had been weighing a possible return to Congress and now says he's forming a committee to explore a run in Burton's 5th. It's great news (no, really) for Dan Burton because it increases the chance of another split primary field, since his chief 2008 opponent, John McGoff, is also running once more. Serious game theory fail here.

ME-01: I don't have time for this sort of thing, but if you want to read about possible GOP challengers to Rep. Chellie Pingree, go for it.

MI-04: This seems odd: A new anti-free trade, supposedly non-partisan super PAC called the American Jobs Alliance is airing radio ads against Republican Rep. Dave Camp over his support of a trade deal with Korea.

MO-02: The exceptionally insane Jane Cunningham (click here for a refresher) says, contrary to prior noises she'd been making, that she'll seek a second term in the state Senate, rather than run in the GOP primary for Todd Akin's open seat. Too bad — she'd have been fun on the campaign trail!

NC-11: Joshua Miller of Roll Call has a run-down on possible challengers to Rep. Heath Shuler, who is likely to get screwed by redistricting no matter how the inevitable lawsuits turn out. The biggest fish is Jeff Hunt, district attorney for the counties of Henderson, Polk and Transylvania, who says he's "taking a long, hard look" at the race. ophthalmologist Dan Eichenbaum (who ran in the GOP primary last year) is already running, and retired Army colonel Spence Campbell (who ran in the GOP primary in 2008) says he plans to. 2010 nominee Jeff Miller says he's unlikely to try again.

NY-09: Ah, the New York Republican Party. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. After the Queens Conservative Party announced they'd back 2010 nominee Bob Turner, the GOP is reportedly leaning toward… not Turner, but to attorney Juan Reyes, who served in the Giuliani administration and supposedly has big money ties. Reyes may have more chops than Turner, but nothing has been more of a nightmare for the GOP in New York special elections than split ballot lines.

VA-02: One-term Dem ex-Rep. Glenn Nye, who lost in last year's GOP wave, says he won't seek his old seat back this cycle. Based on his comments (click through for them), it feels to me like he's not particularly interested in a return to politics in the future, either.

Grab Bag:

Florida: A final tidbit from PPP's Florida poll: Dems hold a 45-40 advantage on the generic House ballot in the state.

State leges: Josh Goodman, writing at Stateline, has a fascinating piece on the history of multi-member state legislative districts, which he says "not too long ago was the dominant method of electing state legislators." Multi-member districts have, however, been on the wane for quite some time, and the movement against them has been particularly pronounced this year in several states. Click the link for the full story.

Redistricting Roundup:

New York: Gov. Andrew Cuomo once again reiterated his pledge to veto any redistricting maps that aren't produced by an independent commission, even though such legislation has long since been declared dead. I keep expecting Cuomo to trade what strikes me as a bit of calculated obstinacy for something else, but that just hasn't happened yet — and given his repeated statements, it's a lot harder for him to back down now. Meanwhile, the legislature is slated to finally begin work on the new maps, starting with a series of public hearings.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 05:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  John Archer, is he running an anti-Xindi campaign? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Jobs (5+ / 0-)

    Ouch, ouch and ouch.

    I am really starting to get worried.  A few months ago I was confident Obama would be reelected, but these numbers just will not improve.

    30/D/M/NY-01/SSP: Tekzilla

    by Socks The Cat on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:07:57 AM PDT

    •  . (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah. I'm done with it. I no longer think that Obama will be reelected. 18,000 jobs in one month? No.

      21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

      by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:12:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Outlier... (4+ / 0-)

      All the other job reports and polls showed a hiring rebound.  Often the "official" jobless numbers, which are also based on a poll, can get outlier results either way.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:17:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wishful thinking IMO (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inoljt, wsexson, MichaelNY

        Ok, so I read the polls.

        by andgarden on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:19:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well BLS is the authority of record, but... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheUnknown285, MichaelNY

        ...there are revisions upward and downward later...but the new revisions for April and May were downward, the first time that's happened in a long time!

        I'm a little more worried than before, but really the election all comes down to the next year, not the past 3 months.  It's 16 months before the election, if things get better and job growth picks up and unemployment drops up to a full point (or close to it) over the next 12 months, Obama is fine.  If not, probably toast, unless the GOP picks a disaster of a nominee which is possible.

        43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

        by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:24:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well: (7+ / 0-)

          We've been repeating that every single month for the past five or six months. Every time a worse than expected jobs picture comes out we say "it'll get better". Every time something is revised downward we say "it'll get better". Well, unfortunately for the economy (but not for gays), it doesn't look like it gets better.

          21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

          by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:28:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's not good.... (9+ / 0-)

          ....and the negativity will result in a feedback loop, futher stifling growth.  I don't understand these "revisions".  Why can't they get them right the first time?

          There isn't much time left, and all the WH has going for it is the "confidence fairy" to try and spur some more employment.

          I was hoping for some good results today with all the other indicators having looked really good the last few weeks, but a report like this could cause even more contraction, and that's a big problem.

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:31:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed, these numbers (9+ / 0-)

            have me more depressed than anything in a long time. One month of subpar growth is a potential outlier, two starts a trend. I'm by no reason writing Obama off, but I'm far more pessimistic than I've been since he was elected. If these sorts of numbers continue, president Bachmann is a real possibility, which makes me want to puke.

          •  There's no feedback loop (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Caped Composer, NMLib, MichaelNY

            People don't make personal economic decisions based on these statistics or their morale about the macroeconomy.  They make decisions based on their immediate surroundings.  And the sum of those personal decisions make up the macroeconomy.

            So this awful news--and it is awful--isn't going to stifle growth.  Rather, it comes down to what is really going on out there...I still think the crisis in Japan and energy prices have a lot of impact on what's happened short-run, and we'll see improvement as those effects subside.

            The longer run problem is housing.  That's what's really dragging the economy in the larger picture.  That's not going to get better for quite some more time, but it doesn't prevent the short-term job growth bursts like we had earlier this year.

            43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

            by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:02:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, there is... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BeloitDem, drobertson, MichaelNY

              People do make decisions on this.  The small business owner decides not to hire 'cos the economy looks bleak from these reports.  He then cuts back on his personal spending.  A Million small business owners do that, the economy contracts even more.

              Big business does their forecast and they see the same thing, curtailing hiring for the year.  That decision won't be revisited until next year.  A 100,000 big businesses do the same thing, and it makes things even worse, which prompts bigger cutbacks next year.

              Although Geithner's "confidence fairy" isn't enough to pull us out of a recession, if the confidence fairy goes bye bye, the economy gets worse.

              GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

              by LordMike on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:15:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It could have some effect (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, MichaelNY

              on the decisions of people to spend, but it's not going to be anything major. It wasn't as if we lost 800,000 jobs or gained 800,000--in other words, it wasn't a major move in one direction or another.

              Hopefully, though, this will encourage the administration to fight for any sort of stimulus measures at all to be part of the debt ceiling. There was word a payroll tax cut was part of the discussion. The one from the employer side, plus an extension of the one from the employee side, will hopefully be included. If nothing else, today's report should have been a slap in the face to the Obama administration that something else needs to be done.

            •  housing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DCCyclone, MichaelNY

              Multi-unit building is likely to pick up later this year. Apartment vacancy rates have already dropped down to normal levels, and rents are going up. Single-unit building is still a no-go zone, although the inventory is slowly being reduced along with delinquencies. Prices appear to have stopped falling, but I would not expect them to go back up by much in most areas.

              Employment is a lagging indicator and this report mostly confirms that the 2nd quarter was bad. Most of the other indicators (manufacturing, etc) picked up in June and I would expect things to get better going forward.

              SSP poster. 41, CA-5, -0.25/-3.90

              by sacman701 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:23:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  . (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                Multi-unit building resumed in Austin about a year ago. Single-unit building in the core started back up recently, but single-unit in the suburbs is still a no-go.

                21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

                by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:26:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure if this is right for an elections thread (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                drobertson, MichaelNY

                but I wonder just what constitutes a "recovery" in housing?  Much of the news suggests that we won't have full recovery until we get back to the bubble-type housing price growth of the mid-2000s, which made housing unaffordable for many middle class wage earners and eventually burst starting a takedown of the broader economy.  I don't think we need, or should have, a repeat of that for a healthy economy.

                •  housing recovery (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  I would define a recovery as getting back to a normal number of units (enough to cover population growth given expected changes in household size) being built every year, maybe 1.3 to 1.5 million units. We grossly overbuilt in the mid-00s so the recent weakness is understandable.

                  SSP poster. 41, CA-5, -0.25/-3.90

                  by sacman701 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:31:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  But, as Yogi Berra once said... (4+ / 0-)

          It's starting to get late early.

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:27:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There is something to this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      Considering that there has been close to nothing done since the stimulus as far as employment goes, with the budget and the debt ceiling being the main focus as of late, it's hard to see what is being done at all correct employment situation.

      25, Male, CA-24, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

      by DrPhillips on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:52:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Counter-argument (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, dc1000, drobertson, sawolf, MichaelNY

      I believe that Krugman and Masket have both pointed out somewhere-or-other that personal income growth, not unemployment, has historically been the best economic indicator for elections (Krugman pointed out that the economy was adding jobs at a "fairly torrid pace" before the 1994 elections, and Masket has pointed out that there have been good and bad elections with high and low unemployment and that people who are unemployed or near-unemployed tend to be from lower-turnout groups.)  I'm on my phone, so linking is hard, but I do think that we should look at a range of economic indicators, even though I am sure they are correlated and obviously a bad jobs month does not help personal income growth.  

      25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

      by Xenocrypt on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:19:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also remember (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drobertson, MichaelNY

        That all of these models have a foreign policy/war factor as well, and Nate's post about the limits of models in general.  

        I also think that the debt ceiling debate is absolutely about jobs, since if the debt ceiling is not raised there could be another financial crisis, and also, without the ability to issue more debt, there's not even the possibility of further stimulative actions.  Of course, it's very hard to see further stimulative action emerging from the current divided government anyway...and one more thing I think is that "focus" on jobs is pretty much irrelevant.  Results are relevant, but I don't think most voters know or care what the President is "focusing" on in speeches and so forth.  The question is: what policies are there that could improve job or income growth that could get through a divided government, and how can they be advocated for

        25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

        by Xenocrypt on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:48:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The President will be making a statement shortly (0+ / 0-)

      About these numbers. We'll see what he has to say.

      25, Male, CA-24, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

      by DrPhillips on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:41:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd love for Obama to take responsibility (0+ / 0-)

        for these numbers but also to demand something, even if it's not something specific, to be done. He needs to call Boehner and Cantor and everyone else by name and demand that they do something to help people. And yes, he can both take final responsibility and place the onus on the Republicans for blocking job creation.

        •  Obama should go all Harry Truman on their ass (4+ / 0-)

          The only way I see Obama getting reelected (barring a miraculous recovery and/or spectacular yet hilarious implosion of the GOP nominee) is to make it clear Republicans in congress are preventing action on the economy.If he just repeats "do nothing congress" over and voters really see him as the sincere one he could win. Of course if there is one president who is the polar opposite of Obama (in terms of personality anyway) it's probably Truman (or possibly LBJ) but he's got a year or so to change that.

          •  I kind of agree. (0+ / 0-)

            He has to do it more in his style, but he needs to make it clear that he'll do whatever it takes to create jobs. I don't understand why he isn't going with the line, "We've got a backlog of infrastructure projects in this country, and if the Republicans in the House would work with Democrats to put together a bill, I'll sign it the moment it gets to my desk." What's the downside?

          •  I hear this a lot, and I'd (0+ / 0-)

            Like you to consider the following question: what percentage of the population a) would follow politics enough to know what the president was saying over and over in his speeches and who he was blaming by name and b) would believe him or be persuaded rather than having a "cynical uninformed voter" reaction of "oh they're all lying crooks, who cares what he says" and c) would not already by liberal political junkies overwhelmingly inclined to vote for him?  My impression is that a lot of swing voters tend to be uninformed and respond to politics on a broad emotional level (broad as in they like having income, emotional as in they don't like politicians who sound mean, I don't remember where I'm getting that last one from, though--Yglesias?  General point stands either way.)  That's not to let the POTUS off the hook, but again, think policy choices and results, not speeches.  Unless you or someone can give me empirical evidence that there's a lot more voters who fit a), b) and c) than I think there are.

            25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

            by Xenocrypt on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:05:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can I answer? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tietack, LordMike, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

              Rather than answer these questions individually, I'll say this:

              All indications are that, despite some problems with his record in certain areas, people still like Obama. That's why his numbers have held up. They are, I think, looking for a reason to vote for him. He needs to give them one, beyond what he has already done. And if he can't give it to them directly in the form of better job creation, he can do it by trying. The Republicans have nothing to offer besides tax cuts for the rich and claims that reducing federal spending will help create jobs. The first seems like the same old crap, because it is, while the second seems kind of, sort of plausible, so people might want to do it--that is, until it affects their spending. Meanwhile, people know infrastructure spending. They also know that the government employs teachers. He can make the argument that if he were to do Legislation A and Legislation B, we'd have better roads and smaller class sizes, or whatever else, and more people would be employed. He can, as I suggested above, place the blame on them for the lack of job creation. Perhaps it won't work, but he'll be forcing them to own whatever happens.

              Think of it this way: if people feel he's really fighting for them and the other side isn't, then perhaps he'll get an extra point or two in the swing states, particularly if his opponent is a lunatic like Bachmann. And if he starts out at n+1 or n+2 in Ohio or Florida, he''ll probably win in any situation where he's not automatically losing because things are so bad.

              •  Excellent analysis (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Xenocrypt, Inoljt, MichaelNY

                In addition, I'm not convinced that a Harry Truman would sell well today, at least to "swing" constituencies.

                We talk a lot about demographic changes here. Well, America sure has changed in the past 60+ years.

                "I hope; therefore, I can live."
                For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

                by tietack on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:38:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In Jules Witcover's "Marathon" (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Xenocrypt, jncca, MichaelNY

                  about the 1976 campaign, the Carter staff specifically decided not to have Jimmy try to emulate the "Give 'Em Hell, Harry" style of Truman.  The reason being that while Truman's fighting manner might have played well in 1948, back then most people only saw it once.  By 1976--or 2011--most voters would be seeing/hearing it on TV (or today, also online) night after night and it would soon start to come off as strident and wearisome.

                  In any event, I don't think Obama could really emulate Truman if he tried.  He'd probably come off as shrill and in some ways phony.  He's got a good case to make for himself--and against the GOP--in a more refined fashion, so long as it isn't too refined (someone should consistently remind him he isn't speaking to the Harvard Law Review).

                  •  I think people today are looking for Truman- (5+ / 0-)

                    style "truth." The GOP nominee (probably Bachman more than Romney) will relentlessly blame Obama for any bad economic news, so what can Obama say in response? The only thing I can think of that would work is something to the effect of " I sent congress all these bills doing X, Y and Z to create job and congress is to busy bickering to do anything about it." This would be especially potent if Rep. Bachman becomes the nominee. There's not much else he can say really.

                  •  Those are interesting points (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jncca, MichaelNY

                    About changing demographics and media environments between then and now.  I'm also not sure the extent to which the political benefits of the "Give 'em Hell, Harry" stuff are basically political folklore.    

                    25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

                    by Xenocrypt on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:50:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  As I said below, (0+ / 0-)

                    it's definitely possible for a modern Give 'Em Hell, Harry-style attack to be launched against Republicans. He doesn't have to look like Jim Cramer on crack to be effective; in fact, that would work against him. Don't believe me? Take a look at this (and then, of course, tell me that the goosebumps didn't return to your arms). Or rather, read just these paragraphs:

                    We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

                    Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

                    These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

                    America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

                    This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

                    This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

                    We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

                    Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

                    (The text, of course, doesn't exactly match the video, but it's close enough.)

                •  I think Truman would sell. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bumiputera, jncca, SaoMagnifico

                  Or rather, I think his style, updated for the modern era, would sell.

                  (I'm about to mix a lot of different notions here, but hopefully my point comes across.)

                  One thing I consistently forget when I call for him to go nuts on the Republicans is that it's not his style, for better and for worse at the same time. What made him seem so appealing during the campaign was that he was cool, calm, and collected, compared to McCain, who even if understandably, seemed to unravel as the days went on. There are disadvantages to bringing the Harvard Law Review, but there are some clear advantages that only he could possess. Plus, and perhaps more importantly, his appeal lies with the post-partisan, non-Keith Olbermann style. People like him, even if they don't always like what he's doing, and as we see in poll after poll, that's always an advantage, even if it's bigger in some cases than it is in others. I'd even go so far as to say that, at this point, I'd rather have people like him than anything else--aside from strong job creation, of course. But at the same time, why can't Obama fight vigorously while still trying to remain a good guy? There's no inherent conflict, I think, in trying to do things like call up Dick Cheney in the hospital to wish him well and in trying to demand that Republicans offer job creation plans. He can be both firm and tough while still retaining his intellectual edge and sense of decency; I think his convention speech is proof of that. The question is, why isn't he doing this? Why does he seem to be actively picking up the other side's talking points? Does he really believe it? Perhaps. But is Geithner really just like Phil Gramm? He still has, from what I can tell, a decent number of the same people working for him--Jason Furman and Diana Farrell at the NEC, for instance--and lots of Clinton people--Gene Sperling, also at the NEC, and Katherine Abraham at the CEA, for instance--who probably aren't Republican clones. I usually see the long play in his moves, but this time, I don't.

                  I also don't understand why his political people aren't giving him more of a hard time, if in fact they aren't. DCCyclone and I have disagreed slightly over the power of what I recommended above--trying to put the Republicans on the line--but it's worth a try, no? I don't want him to put politics above all else--although, in this case, good politics and good policy happen to align quite frequently--but I'd very curious to see what his political operators think of what he's doing. Do they sense an immediate trade off of appealing to the base and scaring off Independents? Do they really, truly think he's going to suffer by asking the Republicans to put up or shut up, even in the sweetest, most polite terms possible? And if not them, then why not one of the many eager, ambitious, attractive young Democrats around the country? Why isn't Kirsten Gillibrand making this case? How about Chris Murphy or Martin Heinrich or Dianna DeGuette? If politics is like being in the mob and we don't want the boss to get his hands dirty by going after the other side, let one of the underlings do it. They don't have to go ballistic on television to make a point. They simply need to launch the sort of persistent, sustained campaign that the Republicans launch when they want to get a point across. Except, in our case, we'd be relying on fact rather than fantasy.

                  I felt like I had more to say, but I guess I am done--for now, any way. Despite the fact that this stuff is probably giving me ulcers and taking years off of my life, I can't look away. I continue to hold out hope. Why, exactly? Well, I can't remember where, exactly, I read it, but I remember reading that, during the campaign, Christina Romer, his first head of the CEA, and possibly her husband sent economic plans to the campaign in what amounted to an application to work for him. (Something like this, anyway.) She's obviously a serious scholar with a sterling reputation, and while Obama appears smart and well informed, he's not an economist. Still, he sent back the papers they sent him with markings all over it, wanting to know more and asking for points to be clarified. He's an academic, too, obviously, and they generally have open, inquisitive minds. My point is that even if he's not going where we'd like now, there's probably a possibility, perhaps even a big one, of him going where we'd like in the future. Compare that to Bush, or to pretty much any of the Republicans running. The mere fact that he's not insane is reason enough to vote for him for a second term, but the fact that we may be able to move things in a positive direction is even more of a reason to get behind him.

                  •  We need to stop comparing to the past (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Nickers

                    Obama is Obama, he's one of a kind in his own right.  He's someone future candidates and Presidents will be compared to, not someone to compare against others.  As such, he can't be "like" some past President we remember fondly in hindsight.  Give 'em hell Harry was given hell in the form of dismal job approvals for most of his Presidency.  Only years later was he appreciated.

                    We're in uncharted ground here politically.  It really is the worst recession post-WWII, and that makes this time different from all before it.  It's clearly not remotely as bad as the Great Depression, so that's not a valid precedent.  And the political culture is so radically different that it's no use comparing to a previous era.  Nonwhite voters are the biggest force we've ever been numerically, enough so to save Obama even if he gets just 39% of the white vote.  So demographics alone change the story.  Unfortunately Stu Rothenberg doesn't seem to get it that the Voting Rights Act isn't being repealed, black people still get to vote, so demographics matter and it's not all about white voters and white independents like he pretends.  And as I said above, Obama is a unique political figure and well-liked because of it, he can't copy others.  Obama just needs to be Obama, and either that's good enough or it isn't.  Obama is the guy who gives soaring speeches that lift our hearts, and calms us in troubled times with his words.  His Giffords shooting speech in Arizona was an example of who he uniquely is.

                    All this crap about how Obama should act, more emotion, more calm, less this, more that, it all reminds me of Iowa State basketball fans complaining about our head coach's "sideline demeanor" in a bad season (and we've had only bad seasons for quite a few years now).  The coach isn't emotional enough, he doesn't work the refs enough, or he's too loud and crazy and swears too much, or whatever else they make up to rationalize in the dumbest way we we're losing.

                    This stuff about how Obama acts in public is much the same.  He is who he is, he's himself, and it doesn't matter how he acts as long as he's sincere.  Acting like Truman or any other way does not help one damn bit.

                    43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                    by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:54:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I think we only disagree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                drobertson

                Marginally, if that.  I agree that afaik Obama maintains good personal favorability, and I have no reason to doubt that some swing voters fall under "like him personally but need a bit more to commit to voting for him."  Where I'm not sure I agree is when you get to "and if he can't give it to them directly...he can do it by trying."  That's where my skepticism about how many undecided voters would know he was trying and be persuaded by that comes in.  

                I do agree that the Republicans have nothing to offer (and, as an aside, if they're counting on the economic fundamentals to sweep them into office despite that, they should remember that goes both ways), but that hasn't changed--they pretty obviously had no program in 2010 and did extremely well.  People do know the government employs teachers, but remember that's state and local government, not federal government--anything the federal government does there would have to be in the form of (conditional?) aid to states and municipalities.  Now, I think that's a good idea, but I don't think a majority of the House agrees with me, nor am I confident that it would be accepted by Republican governors, since I am not sure if their self-interested hypocrisy would beat their ideology.  I don't know if people know about infrastructure spending, but I do know that Republican governors feel quite free to turn down infrastructure funding, so again, I'm not sure that would happen.    

                Obama could make proposals for those things, and make a case for them, and blame the Republicans if they fail.  But: where I disagree is when you get to "Perhaps it won't work, but he'll be forcing them to own whatever happens."  If the bills fail, then the Republicans could just say "Obama is wasting your time with go-nowhere big spending instead of cutting spending to grow the economy."  I think that's a bullshit argument, but who cares what I think?  I'm a partisan, and I think what they're saying now is bullshit too.  The only way they'd be "forced to own whatever happens" is if a nontrivial number of swing/undecided voters heard the President's speeches and were persuaded by them to use that as their benchmark for evaluating the statements and positions of politicians of the opposing party.  I don't think there's any reason to think that would happen--that's why I asked the question about what percent of voters who are currently undecided would be informed enough to hear the speeches and malleable enough to be persuaded permanently by them without having already been persuaded.  

                But, I do agree with your last paragraph, at least to the extent that you believe the effects of presidential speeches and such to be limited to "an extra point or two in the swing states."  I didn't mean to imply that such things had no effect--the reason I asked the question was to suggest that the effect was limited.  It's certainly possible that there'd be some minor effect that would matter in a close election.  (I don't have time to look for exact links, but there have been good posts by J. Bernstein about both of the things I've mentioned--that Republicans are not constrained in their rhetoric by the standards of the other side, and that some things might only matter in close elections, but 2012 might well be one.)  

                25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

                by Xenocrypt on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:36:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately, agreed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      The numbers have to start improving very, very soon.

      Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:12:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's where I disagree. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SaoMagnifico, sacman701

        It's still early enough, I think, so that a trend could start months down the line and still save him. As I am sure you agree, these things tend to build on themselves, so it's not like they can truly be taken in isolation, but imagine if we saw very minimal job growth for the rest of the year (less than 50,000 new jobs per month) but then, starting in January or February or even March, started seeing 300,000 jobs per month. Imagine that continued leading into the fall. I think that's long enough for the White House to regain strength and control the narrative about what is happening.

        Of course, for both the sake of the economy and for the sake of the party, I hope the numbers get better a lot sooner than that.

        •  ... (4+ / 0-)

          But that isn't going to happen. This debt deal is going to stifle growth.

          21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

          by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:42:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bumiputera, drobertson, MichaelNY

            Just as it has in Britain, mind you.

            21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

            by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:48:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe, maybe not (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nickers, MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico, jncca

              Push the spending cuts and tax cuts a little more into the future, and it mitigates.  And really whatever effect it has is only on the margins at worst, it's not going to change the trajectory of the recovery.

              Obama changed the economy's trajectory with the stimulus and bailouts.  So that's done.  It's just a matter of how quickly job growth happens.  Cutting spending, even by quite a bit, won't reverse it, just slow it down.  Yeah that sucks, but we're stuck with it.

              I think everybody on our side needs to get real about the debt limit deal:  political reality compels it.  The best we can do is extract big pounds of flesh from the GOP in exchange.  Ironically the teabaggers are ensuring that.  Like Russ Feingold's intransigence forced Senate Dems to go right on Wall Street reform in search of GOP votes, the teabaggers' stupidity forces Boehner to go left to reach 218.  He can't get 218 GOPers no matter what, he can afford only 22 defections and Greg Sargent this week wrote that he probably has at least 50 defectors and perhaps many more.  Getting dozens of Dems means either accepting real tax hikes and surrendering and flip-flopping on that issue, or surrendering on entitlement cuts.
              Boehner wants a deal, he's made that clear, and he illustrated in the spending bill fight that at the last second he'll accept whatever is the best deal he can get.

              43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:00:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Possible, but not definite. (0+ / 0-)
        •  Fair enough. (0+ / 0-)

          Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:44:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  WTF? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      I saw this whole discussion and no reference to what it refers to.  I looked at the business section of the Saint Paul Pioneer Press today.  The headline: "June Job Data a Pleasant Surprise."

      "A private report said businesses hired twice as a many workers as economists had expected.  Applications for unemployment benefits have reached a seven-week low."

      Now I don't know who's right or what it means, but saying that the President will definitely be reelected (because he's so much better than Romney, Bachmann and Perry) or he's sure to lose because of some economic number is obviously ridiculous.

      A ton's going to happen between now and the election.  the President has been before 40 and 60% approval for most of 3 years.  Enjoy (or bite your nails and be sick) the ride.

      Right now it looks like it will be close and there will be a lot of close Senate and house races.  Good for us...and maybe good for the nation .

      •  Maybe they're referring to the ADP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCCyclone

        payroll processor report which came in earlier this week.  For some reason, it never seems to comport with the BLS statistics; usually when one is better than expected the other is worse.

        •  Yes it's ADP, and making it harder is... (0+ / 0-)

          ...there's no pattern that ADP is consistently more optimistic or consistently more pessimistic than BLS.  They're consistent usually only in the broader trend, not in the monthly numbers comparisons.

          I think the initial jobless claims are key.  They, too, haven't been exact, but they've been a real good clue to the trajectory of unemployment and job growth, and the CW that 400K weekly is the magic line has held true.  We've had bad jobs and unemployment news ever since the weekly jobless claims climbed consistently back over 400K, after having been below that for a consistently long time.

          43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:02:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The ADP report usually shows beginning of trends (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCCyclone

            better than the BLS. Several months into an upturn or downturn the difference between the two reports evens out.

            Because the ADP is up and new applications for unemployment are down (down by double digits in 18 states) and key sales figures are up, the stock market drop was small and stocks inched up before the close today.

            The job market isn't good but it isn't as bad as the BLS suggests.

            •  The markets were, indeed, stunningly calm (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KingofSpades, tietack

              I feared drops of 2-3% in all 3 biggies.  But Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P all ended up down well under a percentage point, and in fact lost less today than they all gained on Thursday.  At their worst this morning their losses were orbiting just 1%.

              But really we've been getting mixed signals every month for a couple years now, with no pattern emerging in the tea leaves to offer predictability in what to expect on jobs and unemployment when those magic numbers come out each month.

              I still believe quite confidently that things will be better a year from now.  But I keep ratcheting back my expectations, now thinking unemployment will still be in the low 8s a year from now, instead of the high 7s as I had thought earlier this year.

              43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:13:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are the markets pricing in a "deal"? (0+ / 0-)

                I think they are to some extent. But not sure bonds are safe even in the event of a "temporary" default. Which is probably why nobody believes it'll happen.

                "I hope; therefore, I can live."
                For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

                by tietack on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:23:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They're expecting a deal, yes (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tietack, NMLib, MichaelNY

                  The markets don't believe default will happen.

                  I'm quite confident they're right.

                  Boehner has made clear he agrees default would be a national disaster, and a deal must happen.  Everything he says that appears to suggest unwillingness to compromise is just posturing to coerce the most conservative deal possible.  Fortunately, contrary to the beliefs of some on the left, our President and Congressional Democrats really do have firm principles they won't surrender just to make a deal.

                  By the way, Senate Dems just released their proposal, with a 1-to-1 ratio on tax hikes and spending cuts, no touching social security, and only minimal cuts, with none to benefits, on Medicare and Medicaid.

                  Non-starter with the GOP, but it's the right starting point for our side in this.

                  43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                  by DCCyclone on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:07:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Re NY Redistricting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GradyDem

    If Cuomo vetos the map and we go to court, will his administration draw their own map proposal?  Or will the Court look to appoint a special master to draw a map?  If it's the former, then I bet we end up in a battle between Cuomo and LATFOR over the better map, which will help push LATFOR's map in a positive direction.  If it's the latter, then under principles of judicial districting Dems are going to pick up a huge number of seats, because courts can't go as far above the population variation level as the legislature can, which means that upstate districts will grow and downstate districts will shrink.

    That sound you hear is the coming irrelevance of the Republican Party in the New York State Senate.

    Fact are stubborn things. -John Adams

    by circlesnshadows on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:20:00 AM PDT

  •  TX-35 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Walker, MichaelNY

    Castro effectively launches his campaign against in Doggett in Austin. This means he realizes where the votes in the primary are...

    21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

    by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:20:46 AM PDT

  •  Imagine (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    propjoe, supercereal, grover

    Imagine the Senate under these circumstances:

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/...

    http://www.good.is/...

    Very interesting.

    Gotta love Texas for being the most similar to its current state.

    21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

    by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:59:54 AM PDT

  •  That's impressive for John Gregg. (9+ / 0-)

    I was not expecting those kinds of numbers from him.

    19, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus, male, Dem, (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin for Senate!

    by ndrwmls10 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:38:29 AM PDT

  •  Some Dems worried about Janice Hahn? (0+ / 0-)

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Not banking on an upset since, unlike Hochul/Scott Brown, there hasn't been any polling evincing one.  Still, the lack of numbers coming from the race is a little odd.  My guess is that Hahn's numbers are less than overwhelming but Huey's aren't very heartening fo rhim.

    NY-12 resident, lives across the street from NY-14

    by Bobby Big Wheel on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:41:44 AM PDT

    •  The only concern should be about turnout (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone, MichaelNY

      The seat is D+12, politically, there's nothing to be concerned about. An ultra-conservative like Huey would be hard pressed to pull off an upset. Last year's race for the Assembly district that somewhat mirrors CA-36 gives an idea of what the Republican ceiling is.
      http://www.ourcampaigns.com/...

      25, Male, CA-24, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

      by DrPhillips on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:51:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  my impression (0+ / 0-)

      is given what Janice Hand has been doing of late, and the tone of her press releases, the Hand campaign is going all in for the Independent vote.  

      What I cannot determine is if this is a sign of weakness on the part of Hand, if she is polling poorly among independents, or if there is simply a large number of undecided independents out there to be won.  But from afar, she seems to have misplaced the "D" behind her name all the sudden when talking about her resume and qualifications.

      Now that Pat Boone has endorsed Craig Huey, you know Janice Hand must be worried :)

      "My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." --Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

      by walja on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:35:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The fourth option (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        walja, MichaelNY

        As I and others have said before, is that Hahn is trying to build up a more moderate image for when the district becomes more moderate after redistricting, as would happen under the released lines.  Especially since, despite the fact that she has a "moderate insider" image in the blogs, her local image might be more ideological (I've read her referred to as the most pro-labor member of the city council, and Calbuzz called her one of the three most liberal members iirc).  Now, this might be a little premature, but I didn't say it's what I'd do--it just might be her thinking.

        25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

        by Xenocrypt on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:11:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We're polling it this wknd (eom) (10+ / 0-)

      Political Director, Daily Kos

      by David Nir on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:32:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perry (9+ / 0-)

    Perry likely to run, say Texan political insiders.

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

    21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

    by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:27:08 AM PDT

    •  I think if he runs, he gets the nomination. (0+ / 0-)
      •  It's a tossup... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itskevin, MichaelNY

        There is the potential of him and Bachmann splitting the anti-romney vote and Romney pulling a McCain.  However, I think that Perry will lap Bachmann which will put him in a strong position to win the nomination.  It wouldn't be a lock, however, because Bachmann will still pull votes from him.  If she concedes at some point early on, then the nomination is Perry's for the taking.

        GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

        by LordMike on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:58:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed, that's an accurate view of the situation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LordMike, MichaelNY

          There is a chance of the anti-Romney vote being split. But I think Perry, in the end, will be a much stronger candidate than Romney.

          •  I meant, Perry will be a stronger (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            itskevin, drobertson, LordMike, MichaelNY

            candidate than Bachmann. Conservatives love Texas, particularly their economic policy, and so I think Perry beats Romney on that issue. He is more socially conservative than Romney.

            •  I hope Perry runs because he could beat Romney (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, MichaelNY

              Bachman can't.  And Perry likely would be weaker in the general than Romney, although I don't think it is a clear picture, as Romney would be far stronger in the Gore-Kerry states, and far weaker in Virginia and North Carolina.

              http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/21516/201/804/660248

              by tommypaine on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:04:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Romney would be no weaker in Virginia (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LordMike

                I live here, and someone like Romney plays better these days than Perry.

                I've commented here before that a good state-level parallel to Perry is Jerry Kilgore, the GOPer for VA-Gov 2005.  Kilgore was a hick who played poorly culturally in the rapidly-changing urban crescent.

                Perry would have much the same problem.

                The urban crescent dominates Virginia politics now, and they're much more amenable to a generic American like Romney than a cowboy or redneck who brings up the specter of secession.

                North Carolina is moving in the same direction, but is a half-step behind Virginia in changing.  I don't know that Romney would perform better than Perry there, but I bet he'd perform about the same.

                43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:12:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  grover, MichaelNY

                  I may not agree with Perry politically. I may not like Perry as a person.  However, as a Texan, I resent you calling Perry a hick. He is emphatically NOT a hick.

                  Hick ≠ Cowboy.
                  Hillbilly ≠ Cowboy.
                  Any other epithet which does not apply to Perry ≠ Cowboy.

                  21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

                  by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:54:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    grover, MichaelNY

                    If you'd hear me talk, you'd think I was a hick too. The shtick is wearing thin, really. As much as a detest Perry's politics, calling him a hick is like calling all Texans hicks.

                    I am not a hick. Perry is not a hick. Bush wasn't even a hick.

                    21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

                    by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:57:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Pick your own adjective, then (0+ / 0-)

                      You've complained about every term I've used, the fact is he comes off as something along the lines of a hick/redneck/hillbilly or pick something else.  "Cowboy" alone doesn't cut it, that can be someone from Wyoming or Colorado and doesn't capture Perry's Bible Belt fundamentalism and typical Southern embrace of racist dog whistles.

                      I've seen him on TV, he's an immediate "no way" for President for suburban swing voters outside the South.  Culturally they want a generic American.  Romney is that, Bachmann is closer to it than Perry in spite of being identically batshit crazy hard right, and Bush was closer to it than Perry because he came from a patrician Northern family and had his father's name, even if Dubya himself was a Texan with a Southern accent.

                      By the way, I did some research on this in the midst of a twitter exchange with Nathan Gonzalez not too long ago, and the GOP has never nominated a Southerner except for Bush 41 and Bush 43...and Bush 41 wasn't really a Southerner, and Bush 43 was viable only because he had his father's name.  Obviously this in significant part comes from the South having been solidly Democratic for so many generations until Nixon picked the lock and Reagan soon after blew the door wide open.  But it's still striking that a party with an overwhelmingly Southern base has not produced a Southern Presidential nominee in all these recent decades.  There is a cultural barrier there that will affect Perry, and that doesn't affect Southern Democrats.

                      43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                      by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:23:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Perry (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        tietack, James Allen, grover, MichaelNY

                        Is simply a rancher cowboy. He isn't a hick, a redneck, or a hillbilly. He isn't even a Southerner, so what you've said really doesn't apply to him (even though the appearance to the rest of America is that he's Southern by virtue of being Governor of a partially Southern state).

                        Hick: An unsophisticated provincial person

                        Perry is much more sophisticated than you give him credit for, though provincial does describe him quite well.

                        Redneck: a white member of the Southern rural laboring class

                        Perry is not Southern, nor of the laboring class. He's a Westerner (anything west of Fort Worth in Texas is Western, not Southern) and his family was rancher overlord material.

                        Hillbilly: a person from a backwoods area.

                        The panhandle is not backwoods.

                        21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

                        by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:06:22 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Also, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY

                        You are just plain wrong. Eisenhower was from Texas and was southern (He was from Denison).

                        21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

                        by wwmiv on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:33:25 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Eisenhower was from Kansas, not Texas (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          HoosierD42, MichaelNY

                          He was born in Texas and his family left when he was 2, too young to have any memory at all.

                          He grew up in Kansas.

                          He's not "from" Texas anymore than my wife, who unequivocally says she is from Virginia, is "from" Tennessee for having been born in Nashville, or "from" Philadelphia for having lived there briefly as a toddler when her dad was in graduate school.

                          43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                          by DCCyclone on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:03:14 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  You're looking at it backwards (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  Perry won't lose crazy loon wingers that Romney will.

                  They won't flip to Obama obviously, so it won't be a swing of two votes, but one less vote for Romney from some nutloaf voting third party will matter (in comparison to what Perry could do, not necessarily who wins the state in the general).

                  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/21516/201/804/660248

                  by tommypaine on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:54:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wrong, crazy loon wingers will vote for Romney (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NMLib

                    They showed up to vote for McCain despite despising him, and they'll do the same for Romney.

                    Partisans are never stupid enough to stay home.  Once in awhile they're stupid enough to vote for a 3rd wheel like lefties for Nader in 2000, but they don't stay home.

                    The Presidency is always a huge deal, and the crazies want to beat Obama enough to show up for almost anyone.  They want to win much more badly than they wanted to win in 2008, and in 2008 they all showed up.  Little acknowledged is the fact that McCain won almost a million more votes than Kerry 4 years earlier, and Kerry was acknowledged to have enjoyed sky-high turnout in his favor (but still less than Dubya).  So no one on the right stayed home in 2008, and they won't stay home next year.

                    Perry gains nothing on the right over Romney, but loses a bunch in the middle.

                    43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                    by DCCyclone on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 10:11:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Didn't some hard right-wingers (0+ / 0-)

                      stay home in 2008? You really think NONE of them did?

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 12:42:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Only trivial numbers of people stayed home (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        NMLib, MichaelNY

                        Again, this can't be emphasized enough, McCain won the 3rd-largest vote total for President in American history.  He was behind only Obama '08 and Bush '04.  He beat Kerry '04 by almost a million votes, and everyone agreed that Kerry '04 had fantastic turnout (but Dubya stunned everyone with even more fantastic turnout that blew through what everyone thought would be his ceiling).

                        Now, "no one" is an exaggeration.  Of course there were scattered pockets of people and individuals everywhere who stayed home because of McCain.  But their numbers were trivial in the electorate.  Just like there were scattered pockets of people and individuals everywhere who refused to vote for Obama after always having voted for Democrats for President their entire lives...they, too, were trivial, as Obama blew through Dubya's '04 vote total for a stunning 69.5 million votes.

                        43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                        by DCCyclone on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:47:08 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  A lot of Republicans stayed home in (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      2008.  I was just doing numbers for top of hte ticket in Oregon in some precincts for 04, 08, and 10, and in some precincts the Republican candidate for gov in 2010 got more votes than McCain in 2008.  That shouldn't happen.

                      "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

                      by James Allen on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 02:37:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oregon had the highest... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY

                        Voter turnout last year, IIRC. It only had something like the fifth-highest turnout in 2008.

                        Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

                        by SaoMagnifico on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 04:05:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Some variance is going to happen (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY, DCCyclone

                        But despite Dudley being a lot closer than McCain, McCain still had more votes statewide than Dudley, and remember, McCain didn't compete for Oregon.

                        Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 24 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                        by NMLib on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 04:12:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  But it still shouldn't happen (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY

                          in a midterm election compared to a presidential election.  And this is in the area around McCain's Oregon HQ.

                          "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

                          by James Allen on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 06:33:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So what? (0+ / 0-)

                            How big were these precincts anyways? Were they large Portland districts, or were they small rural precincts with maybe a few hundred people. And were these precincts in an area where Dudley was just uncommonly strong compared to McCain?

                            A few precincts is nothing, there were plenty of precincts in Texas, for example, where White got more votes than Obama did, but then again, those were also precincts where Obama did pretty abysmally anyways.

                            Since you're looking, how did Dudley do compared to Gordon Smith in those precincts, did he outperform him there?

                            Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 24 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                            by NMLib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:06:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I wasn't looking at how Smith did there. (0+ / 0-)

                            I was looking at some suburbs of Portland.

                            "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

                            by James Allen on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:46:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dudley is from that area (0+ / 0-)

                            He lives in Lake Oswego, just south of Portland, so it's not terribly surprising that Dudley got more votes than McCain.

                            Incidentally, what were the percentage numbers and the total votes?

                            Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 24 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                            by NMLib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:14:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I wasn't looking at Lake Oswego, (0+ / 0-)

                            I was looking at some of the peripheral suburbs and exurbs in Clackamas County, and if you know anything about the people there, you know that they resent people who live in Lake Oswego.

                            This is the district:
                            Photobucket

                            Precinct 568, which is in the Oregon City area, cast 280 votes for Obama, but only 176 for Kitzhaber, and 293 for McCain, but 307 for Dudley.

                            Compare it to Estacada's precinct 361, where Obama got 279 to Kitzhabers 171, and McCain got 366 to Dudley's 228, a much more typical change for a midterm election from a presidential one.

                            Also note that in this new district, in 2004 overall more votes were cast.  Obama got about 2,000 more votes than Kerry had, but McCain fell short of Bush's total by about 5,000.

                            "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

                            by James Allen on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:32:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That strikes me just as an unusual precinct (0+ / 0-)

                            Plus, it's one where Dudley really outperformed McCain percentage-wise (McCain won approximately 51% of the vote there, Dudley won approximately 60%.

                            Actually, it strikes me as similar to the Austin area (particularly the suburbs, Obama did a lot better in those areas than Democrats normally did)

                            Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 24 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                            by NMLib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 05:35:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  considering (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama won 56-40 statewide, while Kitzhaber barely won, there are a lot of precincts where Dudley overperformed McCain, and even a few, like this one, where he actually got more votes, because in 2008 Republican turnout was so low.

                            "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

                            by James Allen on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 07:18:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In Oregon probably... (0+ / 0-)

                            But in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Colorado; McCain got more votes, and generally by a lot.

                            Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 24 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                            by NMLib on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 08:38:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                      Really, let's get serious here.

                      Do you know any harcore eveangelical Christians?  If you do, ask them, would you vote for a heretic to be President?

                      You think of "crazies" as primarily political people.  Sad to say, like the rest of the world, most of our "crazies" are religous fanatics.  The tea partiers will vote for the Republican, because they are motivated by economics.  Many of the extreme evangelicals will not vote for Romney because God has told them they can't.

                      I have yet to meet a hardcore evangelical who would vote for Romney.

                      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/21516/201/804/660248

                      by tommypaine on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 04:35:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh please... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY, DCCyclone

                        This sounds like the phantom Jews who won't back Obama, it's lovely, but there's no real polling evidence suggesting that they won't vote for Romney against Obama.

                        What's even more interesting is your condescending attitude, based only on limited interactions, it's like deducing that liberals won't vote for Obama because you read Open Left's comments section...

                        Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 24 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                        by NMLib on Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 05:57:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually there is polling (0+ / 0-)

                          Read PPP's bible belt polling.

                          As for anecdotal eveidence, sure that's what it is, but pretending there are zero others in the US who won't vote for a Mormon is completely laughable.  

                          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/21516/201/804/660248

                          by tommypaine on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:21:13 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Their polling doesn't support your point (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            NMLib, MichaelNY

                            PPP has never had polling reveal evangelicals or anyone else refusing to vote for Romney over Obama.  On the contrary, Romney posts the same numbers in trial heats vs. Obama that any Republican can be expected to get.

                            That shows whatever their dislike of Romney or his faith, they'll hold their noses and vote for him.

                            We are not going to be able to count on anyone refusing to vote for Romney because of his religion.  I'm glad for that, it's sickening to win that way.  We have to beat him straight up.

                            That is, if he's the nominee.  Even as weak as his competition is, he's still a weak frontrunner.  His fundraising underscores that point, even despite his $12 million superpac haul.

                            43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

                            by DCCyclone on Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:51:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  No more likely than was Haley Barbour (0+ / 0-)

      So many of these people have teased and then declined that I don't trust any tea leaves on Perry running unless and until he announces he's doing it.

      These people are scared of running.  They don't want to lose, and they're afraid they can't win.  "Fire in the belly" as Barbour put it is a big part of that, it's partly less due to their impression of Obama's vulnerability than their recognition of what it takes to have a 50-50 chance to beat him, and they're not willing to go all in for what it really takes.

      Maybe Perry is different, maybe now that the picture is clear he's able to see a path to victory simply because of the weak competition.

      But I would welcome him as the nominee, frankly he brings a much worse image to the table than Barbour.

      43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:08:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wi Recalls - the genius that is Luther Olson (5+ / 0-)

    Luther Olson is one of those Republicans who generate brain freezes in those around him when excercizing his rapier wit against Democrats.  Here is a great example from Sean Sullivan's National Journal article.

    Republican Luther Olsen, who is trying to hold on to his job in the state’s 14th Senate District, says he is baffled by the Democratic strategy. Olsen’s district is another area that went for Obama in 2008 but reversed course in 2010. He predicts that the effort to link local candidates with Ryan will only backfire. “I’m surprised, because there’s a lot of people who think Paul Ryan should run for president,” Olsen told Milwaukee’s Fox Television affiliate in June. “So if you’re hooking Paul Ryan to recall Republicans, that’s probably a good thing.”

    This highlights what a huckleberry Olson really is, the personification of the "Goofball Factor" in Wisconsin politics today.

    link to complete article: http://www.nationaljournal.com/...

    "My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." --Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove

    by walja on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:28:17 AM PDT

  •  CT Sen. (8+ / 0-)

    Chris Murphy pulls in 925K. 2 mill CoH. Per facebook.

    My political philosophy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIX0ZDqDljA

    by drhoosierdem on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:41:30 AM PDT

  •  Is This a Big Reason Why Job Creation Has Stalled? (5+ / 0-)

    Is this why Obama is so eager to pass the debt ceiling increase? Via Ezra Klein, I found this argument from Michael Ettlinger of the Center for American Progress. I think his argument is very, very persuasive:

    Most businesses don’t make big investments or ramp up hiring when they see a substantial risk of the economy tanking. They don’t want to be on the hook for the costs if there aren’t going to be customers and revenue for what they produce. Right now the failure to increase the federal debt limit is creating such a risk and that may well be why the economy is starting to drag ...

    It’s more than a coincidence that this slowing pace began when the attention in Washington, financial markets, and the media turned from the 2011 budget to the debt limit — and when Republicans in Congress and their conservative allies started most pointedly digging in their heels on a debt limit increase, attaching extreme conditions for their votes. That’s a situation that would give any rational business pause.

    It wouldn’t be at all surprising to see an economic impact given the potential effect of a failure to raise the debt limit and the chance that this scenario may play out. After all, even if one believes the chance of inaction is small, it’s a big risk. One would expect to see decisions on hiring and investment postponed until the uncertainty is relieved. That’s not to say every business and corporation has its eyes on the debt limit debate as it makes its decisions. But the doubts about the economy that the debate is creating are certainly causing greater caution.

    Businesses in this country hire millions of people each month, and if that caution is causing just 100,000 or 200,000 fewer hires than would otherwise occur, that would show up as a large impact on net job creation. And that may be just what’s happening.

    To be clear, I think it's definitely the case that the economy needs more stimulus, whether that is aid to the states, infrastructure spending, targeted tax credits, overall rate reductions, or some sort of payroll tax holiday. That said, this doesn't strike me as a Confidence Fairy argument. It's as if businesses are thinking, "Well, once they do the right thing, we can expand, even a little." Merely passing the debt ceiling increase with no strings attached would put them at ease, in other words. As Ettlinger says, even a small effect on the order of 100,000 to 200,000 jobs per month would be absolutely massive. That's the difference between an Obama loss and a potential steamrolling of whatever candidate they offer up.

    If this is the case, and we manage to pass a debt ceiling increase that doesn't fuck with aggregate demand too much and/or get a some form of stimulus, perhaps job creation will return to its previous strength or even get better in coming months. Should this happen, he'll almost certainly be fine for 2012.

    •  I think oil prices are the biggest factor (0+ / 0-)

      The rise in oil late winter/early spring has squeezed economic growth in May and June. Prices have eased a bit since then, and that may set up a rebound starting this month. Some of the most recent economic data as been better, and that may be reflected in this month's report.

      But certainly, getting the debt ceiling raised is a big issue. My hope is, since it's a ten year deficit reduction plan, most of the cuts come in 2013 and beyond. And so Obama can check that box, and say he got a bipartisan deal on deficit reduction. It will be harder for Romney or whoever to use the deficit as an issue against him.

      •  That would certainly make sense. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SaoMagnifico

        No doubt, no one factor is holding everything down. But the line where Ettlinger says that just a small difference in the hiring each month can make the difference in the overall numbers really sticks with me. If so, it's huge. Like I said above, to the extent that four or five months of 200,000 more jobs per month opens up the spigot so that it goes to 250,000 and then, after four or five months of that, goes to 300,000 or more per month, he goes from possibly beating his opponent to probably beating him to steamrolling him. At the risk of driving myself nuts, I'm going to be reloading Calculated Risk every chance I get for the next month see if any good news continues. Even just the slightest improvement will help him tremendously.

      •  Then that will hurt Democrats in the 2014 midterms (0+ / 0-)

        If the economy stalls out again in 2013 or 2014, Democrats could be down below 170 seats in the House and 40 seats in the Senate.  

    •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY

      I don't think you have to believe that the economy's overall problems are due to anxiety to believe that there might be some additional problems due to anxiety thanks to the unprecedented debt ceiling issue.  However, that means that if and when the debt ceiling is resolved, only those additional problems would be solved, not the overall problems.  Also, it's pretty easy to make "this thing happened then that thing happened so this thing caused that thing" arguments, so I'd like more information--maybe a survey of business owners?  I know they do those--about the extent to which there is anxiety about the debt ceiling among business owners.  

      25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

      by Xenocrypt on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:37:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, it's kind of an issue of scale. (0+ / 0-)

        Assuming this is having some effect, it doesn't have to be huge for the jobs picture to go from looking awful, like it did this morning, to looking good if not particularly great. And if the debt ceiling were to be resolved with some form of stimulus, it'd be even more of a good sign for businesses to hire.

        Granted, none of this means things will get that much better so quickly. But it's kind of like weight lifting or cardio training, where every little bit helps build up your strength. I happen to think that a lot of people are holding back on making some purchases because they are worried, and they start spending after some good news, that will add to growth, which will add to even more growth.

    •  As I keep saying... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone, MichaelNY

      The debt ceiling situation is an absolute must-win for President Obama. If the country defaults on the debt, it's basically game over, and while I think the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, invoking that argument would be nearly as bad.

      Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:19:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Simpler than that. (0+ / 0-)

      Teachers and civil servants losing jobs, more and more 99ers every week, anemic (or worse) job growth that doesn't even keep pace with population growth. Demand gains just can't be sustained in the face of those countervailing pressures.

  •  IN-02: Veteran and Military consultant (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen

    Brendan Mullen running as a Democrat.

    http://bit.ly/...

    19, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus, male, Dem, (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin for Senate!

    by ndrwmls10 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:59:34 AM PDT

  •  Cillizza fails on OR redistricting (5+ / 0-)

    over at the WaPo Cillizza talks some OR redistricting, implying that the map is much better for Republicans that before.  On OR-01 and OR-05 he's right.  On the much less examined OR-04, he's wrong.

    The other Oregon district that could be competitive is DeFazio’s Eugene-based 4th district — but probably only if the 13-term incumbent runs for higher office or retires.

    The good news for Democrats is that the district got a little better for them in the new map. The district picks up Democratic-leaning Corvallis and doesn’t add too much of the more conservative Grants Pass area in the southwestern part of the state, as Republicans had wanted.

    The city of Grants Pass remains entirely in the district held by the state’s lone Republican, Rep. Greg Walden. Under the new map, his massive 2nd district, which covers the eastern two-thirds of the state, remains the same except for the changes near Grants Pass.

    This was the big accomplishment with the map for Democrats.  DeFazio has been there for as long as I've been alive, but the district is trending away from us as is.  This is principally because Eugene hasn't been getting a lot more Democratic, while the red counties (Linn, Douglas, Coos, Curry, and Josephine) have all been getting redder, and the Coos Bay area has flipped from Democratic to Republican (though still has some residual Democratic votes).

    Putting all of Corvallis in the district puts the district back on a Dem tilt for the next decade, shoring it up if DeFazio would retire.  DeFazio is likely the second most popular politician in the state (he's the only Dem who outpolled Gordon Smith in 2007), after Wyden, so he's not going anywhere as long as he wants the seat.

    Where Cillizza is wrong is in saying that Republicans had wanted to put Grants pass into the district.  In the Republican map they didn't, they also put all of Corvallis into it instead.  They seem to be very short-term oriented, and so went for weakening Wu's district instead of DeFazio's because Wu is weak and DeFazio is strong.  However, OR-04 is D+1 and OR-01 is D+8, so it would make more sense to go after DeFazio's district in hope that he retires than after Wu's.

    So yeah, in some ways this is good for Republicans, but OR-01 is still gonna be better than even D+5, and they won't be able to take out Schrader in OR-05, so all they've done, I think, is lock up OR-04 for Democrats for another decade, regardless of whether DeFazio retires.

    "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

    by James Allen on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:28:11 AM PDT

    •  Cillizza is so smug. I can't stand reading (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, DCCyclone

      or watching him when he's on MSNBC.

      19, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus, male, Dem, (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin for Senate!

      by ndrwmls10 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:38:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Somehow, Democrats got Republicans... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, MichaelNY

      To vote for maps that consolidate the Democratic advantage of previous maps.

      Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:21:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  unless Schrader does something (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SaoMagnifico

        shocking like run for governor, in which case we'd have to pray that a Brian Clem, Dave Hunt, Betty Komp, or even a- (goes pale) -Mike Schaufler, could win an even district.  Or, alternatively, Lynn Peterson.

        "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

        by James Allen on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:40:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd say Clem would run and win (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          Hunt and Komp would be good backup plans for the district, but we know Clem is hungry, Salem is going to be increasingly the city that keeps the district in the Democratic column (and thus the political center of the district), and Clem would be a really strong candidate.

          I figure Rep. Schrader will probably stay where he is, though.

          Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think ironically there was less of a sense (0+ / 0-)

            that he would like to be governor after he got the 5th CD, since now being in congress it'd be easier for him to actually become governor.

            I'm actually wondering if Hunt, now out of leadership in the house, might run in the new 20th SD.  I'm looking at the numbers right now to see if it would be realistically competitive.

            "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

            by James Allen on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:55:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think he could make a race of it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen

              It's probably, what, 7-8 points to the right of the state as a whole? Which puts it at about even split on Obama/McCain performance? It should be realistically competitive, even if I'd give Olsen the early edge (Lean R).

              Hunt would be a great recruit, though.

              Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

              by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:08:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  2-way vote (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SaoMagnifico

                Kerry about 47.3 Obama 52.5, so I think that's running about 4-5 points behind the state.  In an even year with a good candidate like Hunt it could come down to the wire.

                Also, Alan Olson, who beat my dear Martha Schrader in that district last fall, was ranked by WWeek's the good, bad and awful as the worst metro area senator, not impressive at all, nor was his fundraising and campaign in 2010.  His win just came unexpectedly.

                A rookie at 63, Olsen, who defeated incumbent Sen. Martha Schrader (D-Canby) in 2010, is a building contractor who likes to cite Wikipedia in his frequent but rarely illuminating questions on the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Olsen did pass a bill that eases licensing requirements for contractors working on their own property and federal lands. “Martha Schrader was no gem, but man…Clackamas County got the short end of the stick,” says one observer. “Noted for asking a lot of questions, only occasionally constructive,” adds a critic.

                Hell if Hunt doesn't run, I might.

                "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

                by James Allen on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 06:31:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  I think the district is not getting more R (0+ / 0-)

      It was one of the only two districts to go Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Also, Eugene seems to be getting more blue with the university people faster than the southern counties in the district are becoming more red.

      For more election analysis and redistricting maps, check out my blog http://racesandredistricting.blogspot.com/

      by Alibguy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 02:54:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the opposite (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SaoMagnifico, supercereal, grover, jncca

        Lane
        1980 - D+4.04
        1984 - D+7.16
        1988 - D+11.79
        1992 - D+11.95
        1996 - D+7.38
        2000 - D+5.04
        2004 - D+8.00
        2008 - D+10.31

        Linn
        1980 - R+0.67
        1984 - R+1.55
        1988 - D+1.01
        1992 - R+1.54
        1996 - R+5.84
        2000 - R+8.58
        2004 - R+10.20
        2008 - R+9.69

        Coos
        1980 - D+5.86
        1984 - D+5.96
        1988 - D+10.47
        1992 - D+7.47
        1996 - D+0.57
        2000 - R+4.80
        2004 - R+6.18
        2008 - R+5.01

        Curry
        1980 - R+4.25
        1984 - R+5.73
        1988 - R+1.11
        1992 - R+1.80
        1996 - R+5.63
        2000 - R+9.92
        2004 - R+9.50
        2008 - R+8.41

        Douglas
        1980 - R+6.48
        1984 - R+6.82
        1988 - R+2.05
        1992 - R+5.37
        1996 - R+12.22
        2000 - R+16.01
        2004 - R+16.83
        2008 - R+14.68

        Josephine
        1980 - R+10.12
        1984 - R+12.66
        1988 - R+8.15
        1992 - R+6.79
        1996 - R+10.72
        2000 - R+14.63
        2004 - R+13.75
        2008 - R+11.32

        (the 4th's share of Josephine is less Republican than the 2nd's.  In terms of registration, I think the 4th's has about 1,000 more Republicans than Dems, the 2nd's has about 5,000 more)

        Adding all of Benton makes it better
        1980 - R+2.84
        1984 - D+4.31
        1988 - D+7.60
        1992 - D+8.03
        1996 - D+5.36
        2000 - D+4.08
        2004 - D+7.53
        2008 - D+11.35

        "every time we start a pie fight a wingnut gets his wings"- MinistryofTruth -6.38, -4.15

        by James Allen on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:03:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama Ties Romney in Pennsylvania (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Take a look. Well, this kind of like the last result, except that he's tied instead of trailing by one. PPP calls this weak, and that's not entirely inaccurate. I think it's more middling than anything else. As you'll see below, Romney is underwater in the state by a pretty big margin, and being the Not-___ candidate only gets you so far. Since I continue to believe that he would win, even if only narrowly, against any of the other candidates besides Romney, I'll only focus on him. Here are a few things I noticed, in no particular order:

    1. He's only down by one with his approval with Independents. That's key, because he'll probably have a hard time winning them back, should he lose them, than winning back Democrats.

    2. His approval rating amongst Democrats is up by six to 74. That's still too low, but up is up, and really, nobody has 100 percent approval.

    3. Will these people that don't always like him vote for him? PPP argues that it's white, older, more conservative Democrats that are giving him trouble. That kind of makes sense, but at the same time, McCain won ten percent of Democrats in 2008, and Bush won 15 percent in 2004. It's certainly possible, although not necessarily likely, that he could worse, but any sort of wedge issue is likely to benefit the Democrats here. (No doubt, I think the Ryan plan is still going to be a huge factor, but it's not at all reflected here, because it's not brought up.) I don't know if he's facing a similar situation to Bill Nelson in Florida, where Democrats may not be in love with him but vote for him anyway. I could definitely see it. Why? Well...

    4. Romney is actually underwater here, by a full 11 points at 35/46. If nothing else, this proves that it's possible to have people not like you or not approve of you and still vote for you, for both sides. Perhaps Romney is already capturing all of the anti-Obama Democratic vote. Why? Well...

    5. He's getting 18 percent of the Democratic vote here. Eight percent of people are undecided. These numbers seem a little high to me. It's certainly possible for him to fall further, but figure that if he split the remaining undecideds here and won back just 30 percent of those Democrats going to Romney, he'd be at about 84 or 85 percent, which is what Kerry received in 2004.

    6. Romney continues to do inexplicably well with blacks. Obama's approval with them is 84 percent yet he only captures 77 percent of their vote against Romney? Hell, he only gets 87 percent against Palin? PPP is a good polling company, but I can't believe these numbers are right.

    7. Obama leads Romney amongst 18-29 year-olds and 30-45 year-olds, but trails him amongst 45-65 year-olds and those older than 65. The margins aren't extreme in any case, and there are a lot of undecideds, but merely splitting from those who have expressed a choice now (adding three points to the third group and four to the last) would improve his numbers. This is where the Ryan plan could make a big difference, I think.

    Anyway, I don't know whether to think this is a high point, a low point, or more of the same. If PPP polls this again in a month, after there is some bad news (I hope I am wrong on this one) with his overall stance slipping nationwide, perhaps he'll be down. I still think he's favored in the state, unless things get a lot worse, and if they get better, he'll probably win handily.

    •  Always ignore the black crosstabs (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wwmiv, MichaelNY, jncca

      This cannot be emphasized enough in almost all polling.  Black crosstabs almost always understate Dem strength and/or overstate GOP strength with black voters.

      But that doesn't mean the total sample isn't accurate.  In the actual election today PA probably would be a tossup vs. Romney, with Obama doing a lot better with black voters but slightly worse with white voters than polling says.  That's because the margins of error in the subsamples even out.

      43, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and a boy, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 07:18:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  CA-Orange County Coast (0+ / 0-)

    I had some high hopes for this districts prior incarnation, CA-48, in 2010 with Former Irvine Mayor Beth Krom running for the congressional seat, but, unfortunately due to the environment, she got trounced.  Lucky for us Dems, it won't be 2010 next year, and this district would have gave Obama a 1.4 point win as opposed to the .7 win he actually attained in 2008.  I think Kang is in a good position to win this district, especially with his ties to the Asian community, which by looking at ethnic data, seems to be quite large in this district, which is unsurprising due to it being based around irvine and having UCI in the district. It also helps that he won an impressive 64.1% of the vote in his campaign for re-election as Irvine's mayor in 2010.

    I'm not sure who the weaker incumbent is, whether it is Campbell or Rohrabacher, but I think Campbell is quite wealthy, so I would assume that Rohrabacher would be the better choice.

    I would put this race up as one of the races to watch come 2012, I just hope he gets out of that top two primary alive, because there is always the chance that it could just be Campbell and Rohrabacher running against each other in the general, and that would be terrible.

    Swingnut since 2009, 20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

    by Daman09 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:03:57 PM PDT

    •  If a Dem doesn't get in top two (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jncca

      I'd personally get great pleasure in seeing Campbell thrash Rohrabacher.

      It's still impossible to even guess about the shape of the district though.  The Latino-favoring "visualizations" suggest far different second draft maps than the first drafts, which makes no sense to me, but still, this next batch may be very different from the first.

      Mayor of Irivine though is a good Dem candidate somewhere no matter what.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/21516/201/804/660248

      by tommypaine on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:10:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WI Maps released. (0+ / 0-)

    My political philosophy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIX0ZDqDljA

    by drhoosierdem on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:27:25 PM PDT

    •  I expect a challenge (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades

      This map would create chaos for clerks.

      From looking at it, it decimates the 5th, 8th, and 21st, with the 14 probably weakened as well.  So I think Pasch and Clark, if they win would be in districts that they probably cannot win.  Additionally, they go after many Assembly Dems.  Just look at the baconmandered 13-15th AD's, which basically put Cullen and Staskunas out of a district.

      All Wisconsin, All the Time, Social Democrat, currently WI-05/SD-05/AD-13 (Home), NY-22 (College), formerly Oxford East (Study Abroad)

      by glame on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:46:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nusbaum and Clark aren't in their recall districts (0+ / 0-)

      If they win their recalls, they can't run for reelection, because they were both drawn out of their districts. (the other four are okay)

      Also, if Pasch wins, she'd vacate the 22nd Assembly District seat, but that district doesn't exist anymore, and the new 22nd AD is mostly in Waukesha county. So if she wins the recall, the GOP picks up an Assembly seat right away.

  •  California redistricting: New Maps?! (0+ / 0-)

    http://redistrictingpartners.com/...

    I'm not sure what these are, but if I am correct, these are what analysts believe the new maps will look like when they are released based on publicly available information.  If so, I am quite disappointed that the commission has redrawn many of the orange county districts.

    I guess we will find out on July 10th (or whenever those "Official" new maps come out)

    Swingnut since 2009, 20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

    by Daman09 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:42:16 PM PDT

    •  I really hate these visualizations (0+ / 0-)

      They make it seem as if racism redistricting is valid, while also utterly ignoring the communities of interest mandate... cut Ventura/Oxnard in half?  Cut Santa Cruz in half?  These aren't huge places, and they are surrounded by wide open spaces, so how can anyone imagine splitting them is sensible.

      Bottom line, I'm telling myself to just ignore them since they are so radically different from the first drafts.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/21516/201/804/660248

      by tommypaine on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 04:17:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  mcclintock has a primary (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.facebook.com/...

    calaveras county supervisor john spellman is in

    18, D, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college next year). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. Put your age and CD here :) -.5.38, -3.23

    by jncca on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:11:02 PM PDT

  •  Glenn Nye (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCCyclone, MichaelNY, itskevin, jncca

    You know, it's probably a good thing that Glenn Nye isn't returning to politics, because he is not a very good politician.

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

    by arealmc on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 01:55:45 PM PDT

  •  CA-11 (0+ / 0-)

    That is amazing for a 24 year old to raise that much money. But he is the only announced candidate so far. Maybe that is why?

  •  The GOP has the House for a generation (0+ / 0-)

    I fear Republicans have the keys to lock us out of control of the House for a generation.  With control of redistricting in most states, Republicans have the keys to make sure that the Democratic vote is packed into as few districts as possible.  We are already seeing that in North Carolina, where Democrats are about to lose four seats.  

    Obama winning the 2008 election will make sure that Republicans have the House and most state legislatures for a generation.  

  •  Don't forget Wisconsin... (0+ / 0-)

    Please be advised that the battle is still on in Wisconsin, with the upcoming recall elections in full swing, no addition of the election kos post should not have a piece on them.

  •  I (0+ / 0-)

    Was very glad to see Glenn Nye decide that staying out of the VA-02 race was a good idea, because frankly, if he had run again, I'd have found a way to push the button for Rigell instead of Nye.

    As I told my wife the other day, I justify it this way: Glenn Nye did nothing but piss me off being in Congress, because of his constant and arrogant intransigence in voting against the Democratic majority.

    I barely even know that Scott Rigell is in Congress, so even if he's voting with the Baggers 99.99% of the time, I had zero expectations of him as a Congressman, so his incredibly low bar for not sucking is being met more or less.

    The way the Democratic Party of Virginia has been lately, I honestly don't know who they think they're gonna scrap together to run for the seat. It's gonna suck.

    It makes me more and more angry every day that I can't run myself, because I think I would be just the kind of guy the progressive (Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party) movement would like and I think I could sell my vision in a populist style to the masses.

    Sigh.

  •  Wow...y'all have forgotten about NY-9 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    (ex-Wiener) in which I live.

    Turner was a pretty formidable candidate in 2010, though he lost.

    He is not an asshole and is pretty persuasive and likeable on video. He is the classic "businessmen should run government"-type and I am actually GLAD that the local GOP is backing a normal Repub hack.

    OK go back to what you were all doing....

    I'm not paranoid, I'm just well informed--SherwoodB

    by SherwoodB on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:36:01 PM PDT

  •  Georgia (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I wonder hoe long it is going to take to turn those Atlanta suburbs blue?

  •  We have 2 problems with Florida Dems. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    One is getting them out to vote. That's how we ended up with a crook for a Governor.

    The second problem will be the terrible new laws passed by our crooked Governor and his lackeys in the State Legislature.

    Several of them will make it harder to register new voters who will most likely vote for Obama et. al. and there are also new laws which will end up making voters use provisional ballots which are usually not counted.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site