Skip to main content

Daily Kos Elections Live Digest banner
Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.

12:54 PM PT: VA-Gov: Hmm. Former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, who lost in the 2009 Democratic gubernatorial primary, is reportedly calling supporters and major players to inform them that he plans to run for governor again next year. That's not the "hmm" part, though, since a repeat bid always seemed likely. Rather, one such McAuliffe backer, Hampton mayor Molly Ward, says that T-Mac told her that Sen. Mark Warner had "given him the green light" to proceed. Warner, a former governor himself, is also a potential 2013 candidate, and he recently told reporters that he'd decide by Thanksgiving. Warner's also said that other hopefuls shouldn't wait on him to decide, but I wonder if McAuliffe is maneuvering now to try to keep Warner out.

1:21 PM PT: UT-04: The AP is being ridiculous and has still refused to call the race in UT-04, where Dem Rep. Jim Matheson has a 2,646-vote lead over Mia Love, who in any event has conceded. So why are they holding off? Probably because there are some 43,000 provisional and mail ballots still left uncounted in Salt Lake County. But as UtahPolicy.com explains, there's no way for them to change the outcome: Love would need 63% of those ballots in order to win, but among votes already tallied in SLCo., she's only taken 44%. That's an impossible hurdle, which explains why Love conceded the race. But it doesn't explain why the AP is being so obstinate.

On a related note, the Salt Lake Tribune has a lengthy look inside Matheson's exceptionally improbable win. One important detail: Libertarian Jim Vein took over 5,700 votes—more than the margin between Matheson and Love. A Democratic group called UTE PAC spent $10K on calls to Republican voters, trying to convince them to support Vein instead of Love. It looks like that ratfucking paid off handsomely.

2:18 PM PT: AZ-02, -09: We're still waiting for the remaining votes to be counted in Arizona's 2nd and 9th, but here's an update (which may be out-of-date by the moment I hit "post"). In the 2nd, Republican Martha McSally's lead over Rep. Ron Barber is now down to 426 votes, so Barber may still have a shot at hanging on. Meanwhile, in the 9th, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema's edge over Vernon Parker is now at 2,715, making her look like a good bet to win.

2:59 PM PT: WA Ballot: Great news! The AP has now called the contest for Washington state's same-sex marriage ballot measure for the good guys. Though there are votes still remaining to be counted, opponents have thrown in the towel. This means gay marriage supporters went an amazing four-for-four this cycle, approving marriage equality in Maryland and Maine as well, and also rejecting a ban in Minnesota.

3:04 PM PT: State Leges: While some races are still undecided, the DLCC has done some preliminary math and they've conluded that Democrats have picked up a net of 170 state legislative seats nationwide. And if you haven't seen it yet, you'll also want to see their list of which chambers changed hands on Tuesday night.

3:30 PM PT: NE-02: Here's another under-the-radar race that wound up shockingly close: GOP Rep. Lee Terry turned back underfunded Dem challenger John Ewing by just a 51-49 margin, meaning Ewing almost certainly ran ahead of Barack Obama. I will say we always thought an upset was possible and kept this one at "Likely R" the whole way through, though, precisely because we thought Obama could keep it close, because Terry's often underperformed, and because we believe enthusiasm among African-American voters would be unusually high, given that Ewing is one the area's most prominent black elected officials.

With some more money and a better-run campaign, Ewing might have pulled it off; if I were him, though, I'd think about waiting until 2016 to try again. However, he doesn't sound all that enthused, saying: "My initial thought is no, to be perfectly honest. But I don't know if I can give you a complete answer on that." Hopefully he'll change his mind.

3:49 PM PT: KY-Sen: The Great Mentioner has already cranked into high gear in Kentucky, where Republican very-much-the-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is up for re-election. McConnell may be the only GOP senator potentially vulnerable in 2014, and the KY Democratic Party is a lot more robust than its counterparts in most Southern states. (Dems just hung on to the state House on Tuesday, for instance.) The sexiest name in the early going is actress Ashley Judd, who's politically active (she announced Kentucky's votes for Obama at the DNC), but that's mostly just because she's famous, not seriously considering the race (she hasn't said a word).

Other names are more plausible (and some will be familiar to political junkies, even if they aren't as well-known as Judd): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, Lt. Gov. Jerry Abramson, and Obama chief fundraiser Matthew Barzun. Only Abramson is quoted on the record, and he's not ruling anything out. McConnell, though, already has a $6.8 million warchest and will be very formidable, so I wouldn't be surprised if Dems were not able to land a top-tier recruit.

4:01 PM PT: Meanwhile, another Republican, state Sen. Kirk Dillard, sounds like he's gearing up to run for governor himself. You'll recall that Dillard, who just won re-election to the legislature on Tuesday, very narrowly lost the 2010 GOP primary fellow state Sen. Bill Brady (who in turn went on to narrowly lose to Dem Gov. Pat Quinn). Speaking of Quinn, as we've mentioned before, his terrible approval ratings have painted a big target on his back, and now another Democrat is holding open the door to a possible primary challenge: former White House chief of staff Bill Daley.

4:04 PM PT: MN-Gov: Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson, a Republican, says he's "thinking about" running for governor in 2014, when Dem Gov. Mark Dayton will be up for re-election.

4:12 PM PT: Judd responded to her name getting circulated by Rep. John Yarmuth and offered a very non-commital statement that definitely doesn't close the door. And Grimes has previously also indicated an open mind.

4:22 PM PT: IL-02: I don't particularly care for Michael Sneed's third-person writing style, which makes his writing sound somewhat gossipy ("Sneed has learned," "a top Sneed source," and the like), but his past stories on Dem Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. have by-and-large panned out, so I'll mention this one: Sneed reports that Jackson "is in the midst of plea discussions with the feds probing his alleged misuse of campaign funds." We'll see where this one goes. Jackson, by the way, was just re-elected with 63% of the vote in his solid blue district—by far the weakest haul of his long career.

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

  •  Umm ... Is this supposed to be blank? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY, CF of Aus

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 12:52:46 PM PST

  •  Much as I have qualms about Warner (12+ / 0-)

    I'd rather have a safe senate seat.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 12:58:02 PM PST

  •  Just dont think McAuliffe would be a good (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dc1000, Paleo, MichaelNY

    candidate. There has to be another Mark Warner-type who could run.

  •  I'm going to write more about it soon (5+ / 0-)

    but the Democratic candidate in Oregon's HD-52 came within a few hundred votes despite severe limitations:

    Nordbye, 67, accepted no more than $50 a year from donors who also had to live within House District 52.  As a result, he couldn't afford a single mailing during the general election campaign and he was written off by the Salem insiders.  On top of that, Gov. John Kitzhaber crossed party lines to endorse Johnson and give him a $500 donation.

    Johnson wound up spending more than $180,000 on his campaign while Nordbye spent $15,000, most of it on a contested primary race.

    He says he may run again, and might allow for a higher cap on contributions.  I hope he doesn't, and Democrats recruit a better candidate.  If Nordbye was able to do that well on just his shoe-leather, I want to see what someone can do with a real campaign and party and third-party support.  This district should be a top prospect in 2014, especially since it's senate district is also swingy, also lost in 2010, and will also be up.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:07:20 PM PST

    •  I never understood this sort of thing (9+ / 0-)

      A candidate for State House here who ran an aggressive campaign with many volunteers similarly refused to take donations and predictably got thumped. (He was challenging a long-time Democratic incumbent from the left.)  Campaign contributions are just too insider baseball for most voters, I think.  Fighting with a hand tied behind your back just makes you look stupid, not brave.

      30, (new) MA-7, Unenrolled

      Truman: "The buck stops here!"
      Romney: "The buck stops somewhere in the next county..."

      by Marcus Graly on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:24:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I figured Warner would ron for Gov... (5+ / 0-)

    Because it would be a better spot to launch his 2016 Presidential run from.  However it seems like Warner might be finding some power in the Senate as a gang of x leader in the next Congress, especially when it comes to budget issues and re-writing the tax code.  He might see those bi-partisan accomplishments as a better feather in his cap for a Presidential run.  

    They have the billionaires, We have the Big Dog!

    by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:08:58 PM PST

    •  I think a bid for governor would make it more diff (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Woody, MichaelNY

      difficult.

      The calendary would not be friendly with this option.

      In a best for him he would serve only one year of his single term. I think this is not a serious option if he want to run in 2016.

      I think the alone Republican that can make it competitive for 2014 would be McDonnell and he also has more ambitions. He think he must be cold about a bid against Warner with Warner as incumbent.

    •  Doesn't make sense to me (5+ / 0-)

      2014 is the lastest a candidate could start running for 2016. He'd have been elected for 1 year. Why even run for that seat if 1/4th of the way through you look for a different seat.

      Anyway, I think he'd defer to Hilary running and if she does run he'd be on the Veep Shortlist from day 1.

      (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song: F(x)'s Nu ABO

      by kman23 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:00:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  VA-GOV: It will be interesting to see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV

    if the Republican establishment dumps Cuccinelli after 2012, when even Bob McDonnell admits the GOP needs to become more inclusive and less crazy.

    VA-03 (current residence) NC-07 (home)

    by psychicpanda on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:25:28 PM PST

  •  A list (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, MichaelNY, CF of Aus

    Of the Republican congressmen in the bluest districts using Obama 2008 numbers, following this election:

    55% Obama
    IL-13 (Davis)

    54% Obama
    NV-03 (Heck)
    WI-08 (Ribble)

    53% Obama
    WI-07 (Duffy)
    PA-06 (Gerlach)
    NJ-02 (LoBiondo)
    PA-08 (Fitzpatrick)
    MI-06 (Upton)
    NY-19 (Gibson)

    Compare that to the 2010 class, which saw twelve Republicans in 56% Obama or better seats.  Additionally, there were three in 55%, 7 in 54%, and 10 in 53%.

    Overall numbers after 2010: 32 Republicans representing Obama 53% or better districts before this election.  After this year?  Just 9 Republicans.

    •  CA-31 - Miller - 56% Obama (6+ / 0-)

      White Male, 36, New FL-14 (Castor), proud father of a 4-year-old daughter. "This is Wendy's guys! This is Wendy's!" - Mitt Romney, October 9, 2012.

      by spiderdem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:27:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ack (3+ / 0-)

        Totally forgot that one because it wasn't contested.  I was going through my 2010 incumbent list and forgot Miller had been redistricted up into a 56% Obama seat.  Oh well, I figure that honor will be short-lived.

        •  CA31 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bumiputera, lordpet8, MichaelNY

          Miller was the Charles Djou of this cycle. In 2014 the Dems won't need to hand-pick a candidate and scare everyone else off unless Miller gets a serious and well-funded primary challenge that could siphon off enough votes to finish second. This problem is more likely in an open seat, and both parties in CA will have to watch out for that in the future. (It almost bit the GOP in the ass in CA8. If Jackie Conaway had gotten 1,081 more votes and John Pinkerton 4,814, this very red district would have had a Dem-on-Dem general.)

          SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

          by sacman701 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:51:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  What are the stats for Dems in unfriendly PVI (0+ / 0-)

      districts?

    •  I can't wait (5+ / 0-)

      For the 2012 numbers to be calculated, and PVI to be updated.

      Obama's average decline nationwide was about 4.6% compared to 2008.  But it varied from state to state.  He did better in AK, MS, and NJ, and had no change worth mentioning in AL, LA, NJ, and RI.  

      In DC, HI, VT, MA, MD, CA, CT, ME, WA, MN, NH, IA, VA, OH, NC, GA, AZ, SC, TX, AR, and OK, Obama's margin of victory fell considerably, but less than the national swing.  Thus these states (along with the ones mentioned above) probably got got a bit more Democratic in PVI.

      In contrast, Obama's slippage was greater than the average in IL, DE, MI, OR, NM, WI, NV, PA, CO, IN, MO, MT, SD, ND, WV, NE, KS, TN, KY, ID, UT, and WY.  Thus on a statewide level, PVIs here became more Republican.  

      What will this mean for individual races?  My guess is that the PVI of a lot of the "swing" seats left in IL, WI, PA, and MI is going to drop considerably.  They'll still be tempting, but probably more in the R+1 to R+3 range.  

      In contrast, a few more seats we wouldn't consider are going to look tempting in places.  Perhaps a few more pickups in California and Florida.  Holding onto our Arizona seats will be easier than it seems as well.  

    •  Substantial falloff in MI-06 (0+ / 0-)

      Berrien County and Cass county swung hard right. Even the two most Democratic counties in the district, Van Buren (woot) and Kalamazoo, lost about 3% of Obama performance.

      The district is now one where Romney has a slight majority in the two-party vote but that's inexact because I counted all of Allegan County and the parts of very Republican Holland in Allegan are not part of the district.

      28, Male, MA-08 (hometown MI-06)

      by bumiputera on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:47:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe "substantial" is the wrong word (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        because as telephasic notes, the nationwide dropoff is 4.6%. So a 3 point drop overall is not too bad. This area is slowly trending D.

        28, Male, MA-08 (hometown MI-06)

        by bumiputera on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:50:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Michigan moved because Romney ran ads here (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, bumiputera

        McCain conceded Michigan so early that by just running against Obama in Michigan Romney would do better. I don't think it's anything more than just this.

        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song: F(x)'s Nu ABO

        by kman23 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:02:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Probably the same reason as WI (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sacman701, MichaelNY

          McCain conceded the state in '08 and got blown out, particularly in rural areas. Romney contested the state and even picked his running mate from Wisconsin and the PVI barely dropped (the CPVI might even have moved up to D+3 due to 2004 falling off).

          Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02. "You're damn right we're making a difference!" - Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison)

          by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:20:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The Democrats have a structural advantage (8+ / 0-)

    at the presidential level. A few observations:

    -Electoral vote totals in the last 6 elections:

     Dems:370, 379, 266, 251, 365, 332
     Reps: 168, 159, 271, 286, 173, 206

    -Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. The only exception was the narrow post-Sept. 11/wartime win by incumbent Bush. This is the mirror image of the previous 6 elections, where Dems only narrowly won the post-Watergate election of 1976.

    -States worth 242 EVs have gone Dem every election in the last 20 years. That's not counting 33 EVs in NM, NV, CO, and VA, states that are clearly trending Dem. That's already 275 EVs where the inherent lean favors Dems.

    -No state that Obama won is clearly trending republican.

    -Obama won 290 EVs outside of the south. He won 272 outside of the south and Ohio.

    -In a year in which the fundamentals (arguably) suggested about a 2% win for Obama, and in which he won by 2-3%, he won his tipping point state by 4.7%.

    •  We have GOT to turn those numbers into House votes (4+ / 0-)

      Please proceed, governor

      by Senor Unoball on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:38:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Republicans need a Presidential candidate from NY (0+ / 0-)

      or CA to change the electoral college. The Democrats floor is just so high today that a Republican needs to basically sweep the swing states to get to 270.

      (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song: F(x)'s Nu ABO

      by kman23 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:04:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think we should look at this with caution. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sacman701, MichaelNY, bumiputera, jncca

      Especially the popular vote part.  Look at this graph of the UE rate since 1969.

      Things got worse, and stagnated (from an insanely low base), then got better, and Nixon got re-elected.  

      Then things got worse...but then better, but Ford lost anyway, probably because of Watergate.

      Then things got sharply worse over 1980, and Carter lost, despite a mild improvement pre-election.

      Then things got way worse...but then way better, back to before at least, and Reagan won re-election.

      Then things got better and better, and H.W. Bush won.

      Then things got worse throughout 1991/most of 1992 (again, a mild pre-election improvement), and then Clinton won.  

      Then things got better more or less monotonically until 2000, with Clinton getting re-elected along the way, and then Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the White House.

      Then things started to get worse...but then they started getting better, more or less from 2003 on, and Bush won re-election.  

      Then things started getting much, much worse, and Obama won the White House.  

      Then things started getting better, and Obama got re-elected.

      What we haven't seen is a Democratic incumbent win despite things getting worse during their election year, or a Republican incumbent lose despite things getting better during their election year, maybe except for Ford, as far as I know anyway.  

      And I know, Nate Silver, you can't fit the precise Presidential margins around such things in a linear regression model.  There are models that undershot Obama for 2012.  Demographics might or might not explain some of that difference.

      But I think that's the context you think about demographics and so on in, not the other way around--what's going on, and incumbency.  After all, demographic change has gone in one direction since before 1988, as far as I know.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:31:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So few data points, so many theories (6+ / 0-)

        that fit them...

        But there's one prominent theory out there that seems to fit, that had predictive value regarding the 2012 election, and that basically makes sense of the way the electoral map has changed over the last 20 years. This is Ruy Teixeira's Coming Democratic Majority theory.

        As I said in a response to you below, the amount by which the Dem share of the overall vote has exceeded the Dem share of the white vote has gone from 4 to 6 to 6 to 7 to 10 to 11 from 1992 to 2012. Clearly Democrats have been benefitting from the growing minority population.

        Meanwhile, Dem share of the white vote has had no real trend and has remained in the 39-43% range.

        But also note that the Dem white share has decreased throughout the south in those years. Which means it must have increased outside the south.

        Clinton was winning in the 90s partly by holding onto something like Carter's southern coalition. But he actually didn't need it - he could have won just by his performance in non-southern states. This was the emergence of the new Democratic coalition. And that coalition has stayed more or less entirely intact in every election since then (i.e., those 242 EVs I mentioned).

        I suppose it might just be luck of the draw in terms of the timing of recessions. But that doesn't explain why all those states have stayed in the Dem column, regardless of the economic fundamentals. And it doesn't explain the gap between Dem white share and overall share increasing every election, regardless of the fundamentals.

        •  Within a given national situation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          I think that demographics can do much to explain the variation between states or districts or counties or whatever.  But most swings are mostly uniform.  It's definitely a factor, but if you ask me, say, the percentage of the vote the Democrat's going to get in Colorado next time around, I'm going to want to know the national situation more than the Hispanic growth rate or whatever.

          27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

          by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:25:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's misleading. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Englishlefty, MichaelNY

            Dem performance in CO is what it is because hispanics and blacks are x% of the population, and because x% of whites are socially liberal professionals, etc. From one election to the next, a state's not going to change that much, so of course the national situation will overwhelm whatever demographic changes happen in four years' time. But over the long-term, the demographics set the baseline for party performance.

            That's why Virginia votes for Democrats now even though it didn't in the '90s.

            •  I agree that (4+ / 0-)

              they set the baseline, especially if you broaden "demographics" to include ideology.

              Because of Colorado's demographics (among other things), I'm confident it'll vote somewhat more democratically than the country.  

              But I'm not at all confident it'll vote for Democrats--that depends on the national circumstance.

              If the economy was sliding back into a recession, or if there had been an increasingly bloody conflict, then I think those 242 supposedly solid votes would become just another pattern that stopped lasting.

              Look--we're Democrats.  I think we should give ourselves some credit, and say a big part of the reason Democrats have done well in Presidential elections is because they've been better at being Presidents.  

              An explanation of Barack Obama that has nothing to do with George W. Bush--with Iraq--with the recession--I don't see why we should even aspire to that, and I don't see it in the numbers, either.

              27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

              by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:58:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess that's the difference. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                Under "neutral conditions" I would expect Colorado to go Dem in 2016, along with another 260-300 EVs' worth of states or so. (I actually think 2012 was fairly close to what we might call "neutral," though that's obviously a problematic term.)

                And I think that things will have to go pretty badly for the Dem to get less than those 242 (or 253, really, because of NM and NV) in 2016 - Obama won all those states by 5% or more.

                Anyway, I'll agree to disagree.

  •  2013 & 2014 Gov Races by PVI (6+ / 0-)

    This looks pretty good for us.  Democrats in bold.

    1. AR (OPEN) - R+9
    2. ME (LePage) - D+5
    3. MI (Snyder) - D+4
    4. NJ (Christie) - D+4
    5. NM (Martinez) - D+2
    6. PA (Corbett) - D+2
    7. WI (Walker) - D+2
    8. IA (Branstad) - D+1
    9. NV (Sandoval) - D+1
    10. CO (Hickenlooper) - D+0
    11. OH (Kasich) - R+1
    12. FL (Scott) - R+2
    13. MN (Dayton) - D+2
    14. NH (Hassan) - D+2
    15. VA (OPEN) - R+2
    16. OR (Kitzhaber) - D+4
    17. AZ (OPEN) - R+6
    18. CA (Brown) - D+7
    19. CT (Malloy) - D+7
    20. GA (Deal) - R+7
    21. IL (Quinn) - D+8
    22. SC (Haley) - R+8
    23. MD (OPEN) - D+9
    24. SD (Daugaard) - R+9
    25. TN (Haslam) - R+9
    26. NY (Cuomo) - D+10
    27. TX (Perry) - R+10
    28. RI (Chafee) - D+11
    29. HI (Abercrombie) - D+12
    30. KS (Brownback) - R+12
    31. MA (OPEN) - D+12
    32. AL (Bentley) - R+13
    33. AK (Parnell) - R+13
    34. NE (OPEN) - R+13
    35. VT (Shumlin) - D+13
    36. ID (Otter) - R+17
    37. OK (Fallin) - R+17
    38. WY (Mead) - R+20

    White Male, 36, New FL-14 (Castor), proud father of a 4-year-old daughter. "This is Wendy's guys! This is Wendy's!" - Mitt Romney, October 9, 2012.

    by spiderdem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:38:51 PM PST

    •  2014 Senate Races by PVI (5+ / 0-)

      This does not look pretty good for us.  Democrats in bold.

      1. AK (Begich) - R+13
      2. LA (Landrieu) - R+10
      3. AR (Pryor) - R+9
      4. SD (Johnson) - R+9
      5. WV (Rockefeller) - R+8
      6. MT (Baucus) - R+7
      7. ME (Collins) - D+5
      8. NC (Hagan) - R+4
      9. VA (Warner) - R+2
      10. CO (Udall) - D+0
      11. IA (Harkin) - D+1
      12. MN (Franken) - D+2
      13. NH (Shaheen) - D+2
      14. NM (Udall) - D+2
      15. MI (Levin) - D+4
      16. NJ (Lautenberg) - D+4
      17. OR (Merkley) - D+4
      18. DE (Coons) - D+7
      19. GA (Chambliss) - R+7
      20. SC (Graham) - R+8
      21. IL (Durbin) - D+8
      22. TN (Alexander) - R+9
      23. TX (Cornyn) - R+10
      24. KY (McConnell) - R+10
      25. MS (Cochran) - R+10
      26. RI (Reed) - D+11
      27. MA (Kerry) - D+12
      28. KS (Roberts) - R+12
      29. AL (Sessions) - R+13
      30. NE (Johanns) - R+13
      31. OK (Inhofe) - R+17
      32. ID (Risch) - R+17
      33. WY (Enzi) - R+20

      White Male, 36, New FL-14 (Castor), proud father of a 4-year-old daughter. "This is Wendy's guys! This is Wendy's!" - Mitt Romney, October 9, 2012.

      by spiderdem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:46:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If we *only* lose 5 seats and retain the majority (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        spiderdem, aamail6, Woody, MichaelNY

        I'll be thrilled.

        •  I was saying that about only losing 3 seats (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DCCyclone, MichaelNY

          In 2012.  And look what happened.  +2 seats.

          •  Yeah, people keep saying this... (7+ / 0-)

            But we had pickup opportunities this year in MA, ME, NV, IN, AZ. And we only had to try and defend 3 seats in R+6 states or worse.

            In 2014, we have no pickup opportunities as good as any of those 5 listed above unless Collins retires, and we're defending six seats in states than are R+7 or worse, and that's not counting NC or VA. And it'll be a mid-term year, too.

            The '12 and '14 maps are just not comparable.

            •  well two years out (6+ / 0-)

              Nobody considered ME or IN competitive.  They only became competitive due to a retirement and primary loss.

              •  Yeah, people keep saying this, too... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lordpet8, MichaelNY, jncca

                But look at what I wrote: IN was still more competitive than anything we have a shot at in '14 short of a Collins retirement, even though it was a long-shot!

                •  Collins may end up retiring rather than face (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lordpet8, MichaelNY

                  a tea party primary challenge. We'll end up getting at least 1 GOP retirement by 2014 and we may even get 1 incumbent losing in a primary.

                  President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

                  by askew on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:58:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dems need to recruit credible challengers (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ChadmanFL, Woody, MichaelNY

                    in KY, GA, SC, ME, TN, TX.

                    Any one of those IMO are prime candidates to get teabagged.  They could well be the IN of 2014.  If Collins retires or gets teabagged then ME is a prime target.  The others would take a minor miracle but we got a few minor miracles this year and 3 last time out so you never know.  If they go uncontested then we are guaranteed to lose.

                    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                    by DisNoir36 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:29:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  TX (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Zack from the SFV, jncca

                      That race got "teabagged" this year, and look what happened? The Tea Party guy won. I wouldn't waste too much time or money on TX or TN, if there isn't enough of either to go around.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:21:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You never know (0+ / 0-)

                        a 50 state strategy is what got us the majority in 2006 and 2008.  How the hell could one predict Mark Foley or Sharon Angle or Richard Mourdock.  You can't so you run in every race.  We were going to lose Texas anyway no matter whether or not a teabagger won or lost the primary.  BUt we were also supposed to lose Indiana no matter whether it was Lugar or Mourdock.  Didn't quite end up that way.    

                        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                        by DisNoir36 on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 08:44:51 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Nothing looked competitive this year (6+ / 0-)

                  MA and NV were the only seats that looked competitive at the start of the year, and we lost NV anyway.

                  And still we got two other pickups thanks to Snowe's surprise retirement and Lugar's surprise primary loss.

                  I was on record the past couple months as predicting D+1 in the Senate, sweated it, and then was proven overly pessimistic by a seat.

                  I'll go on record now as saying we will hold the Senate come 2015.  Our net losses will be 5 max, and I bet no more than 4.  I see only one seat, SD, that is a likely loss up front.

                  44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                  by DCCyclone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:18:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Way to early to make definitive predictions. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    but I think anything from -2 to -10ish is plausible.

                  •  Is SD a loss because of a Johnson retirement (3+ / 0-)

                    or because it's just too red?

                    I said this to Chachy above, but it's worth repeating: instead of saying we don't have good candidates, let's find some and then give them the support necessary to win. It might sound pointless, but unless we work on competing in harder areas, we will always be fighting on their terms. We are willing to take candidates that aren't hardline liberals, unlike the Republicans who cost themselves very winnable seats in the name of ideological purity. The absolute worst thing that will happen to us is that we waste a lot of money and make little to no difference in the end, but if we get reasonably credible candidates who are willing to work at it, we will most likely help ourselves for future races. And given that we really don't have a lot of truly endangered incumbents, it's not as if trying to be aggressive will really make it a strict tradeoff.

                    "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

                    by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:19:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm betting we lose Arkansas, West Virginia, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY, bumiputera

                    South Dakota, and possibly Louisiana and Alaska, but I think the latter two will hold on.

                    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                    by James Allen on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:06:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Instead of saying there aren't pick ups in 2014, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Caped Composer, MichaelNY

              let's find some candidates that are willing to take the plunge, hook them up with professional staffs, and give them the resources necessary to mobilize voters and advertise. We have to defend our incumbents as well, but there are only a handful of Democrats who are more likely to be in serious trouble than not.

              "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

              by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:13:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  More than anything we need to... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, Zack from the SFV, jncca

                Besides making sure no one retires, the most important thing to do is to take a page from Claire McCaskill & Harry Reid and try to get the least electable Republican through the  primaries. The Dems at the top of this list will have giant targets on their backs, which makes them likely to attract a lot of opponents. Unless a big-name governor-type can steamroll his/her way through the primary, it should be at least an option in a lot of races.

                If you'll notice, it wasn't always a Tea Party insurgent winning the primary all by themselves, sometimes an awful candidate had help (McCaskill dropped $2m to boost Akin). And as Jim Matheson recently showed us, boosting Libertarian candidates to siphon away votes will also be helpful.  

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

                by arealmc on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:10:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And make sure to follow through in the general (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  As a Madisonian, the Republicans' ratfucking in WI-02 (a hostile open seat vacated by a R) back in 1998 provides a cautionary tale. Musser was a decent fit for the district and chose her opponent well (Wineke would have crushed her), but her campaign was probably too homophobic for that district even in 1998.

                  That said, 1998 was another century, and it shows.

                  Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02. "You're damn right we're making a difference!" - Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison)

                  by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:54:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Sure, I guess that's a good strategic move, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  but first and foremost, we need to make sure we have good candidates ourselves.

                  "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

                  by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:18:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  If we lose 5 we'd maintain the majority because (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JGibson, MichaelNY

          of Biden

          (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song: F(x)'s Nu ABO

          by kman23 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:09:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  We can update PVI... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        spiderdem

        For statewide offices with 2012 data right now.  I'll take a look at this tonight.  

      •  Keep in mind it's hard to beat an incumbent (13+ / 0-)

        Senator.  All of 3 lost between 2010 and 2012 (Scott Brown, Russ Feingold, Blanche Lincoln).  Just one in 2004--Daschle.  Two in 2002--Hutchinson and Cleland--and I suppose you could count Jean Carnahan.  In other words, 7 incumbent Senators have lost in the past decade outside of the Democratic wave years of 2006 and 2008.

        Five in 2008 and six in 2006, but those were big waves.  

        Of course, then there's 2000, a neutral year but six years after a wave, where six incumbents lost: Roth, Abraham, Grams, Ashcroft, Gorton, Robb.  But even then, it took the likes of popular governors George Allen, Tom Carper, and Mel Carnahan in many of those cases.

        Certainly, the chamber could flip in 2014, but I imagine it would take either a wave or a really strong group of challengers.  Or, I suppose, if the incumbency effect really is weakening over time.

        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

        by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:06:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

          Why in a neutral year, we will likely keep the Senate even with all of our vulnerable incumbents.

        •  But 2006 was crazy against your theory because... (6+ / 0-)

          ...we didn't just beat 6 incumbents, we batted almost .500 against them because the GOP had only 14 incumbents running, along with open seat we didn't get anyway.

          But yes, incumbents are tough to beat.

          My view is that the GOP will again lose a seat or two thanks to their lunatic voters.  That's the problem that the GOP really has, it's not an organized tea party or talk radio stars or other elected or unelected leaders, it's the voters themselves.  And they can't be corralled.  They have to learn on their own that what they do is killing them, which is hard to do when they had such a great 2010 and can easily blow off Angle and O'Donnell and other nuts.  They will look at 2012 and just write it off as a one-off and insist Mitt wasn't conservative enough, etc.

          So that, too, will help us.

          44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:21:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What I mean is that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            incumbents are hard to beat absent a wave.  I suppose I don't know everyone's state's PVI and so on.  If there's a wave in 2014, Democrats are in trouble, maybe big trouble, but if not, I don't think the "expected" outcome is the loss of the Senate.

            And I agree about their "Senate problem", as Politico put it or whoever.  Hard to deny that after Tuesday.

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

            by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:35:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  To synthesize our posts. (6+ / 0-)

            If Republicans nominate a crop of excellent candidates, Democrats are in worse trouble.  But fortunately for Democrats, they haven't really been doing that very often.

            Let's see, 1998, Peter Fitzgerald beat Carol Mosley-Braun.  Chuck Schumer beat Al D'Amato.  John Edwards beat Lauch Faircloth.  

            1996, Tim Johnson beat Larry Pressler.

            1994, Fred Thompson beat Jim Sasser, Rick Santorum beat Harris Wofford.

            1992, Dianne Feinstein beat that appointee guy, Russ Feingold beat Bob Kasten, Lauch Faircloth beat Terry Sanford, Paul Coverdell beat Wyche Fowler.  

            1990, Paul Wellstone beat Rudy Boschwitz.

            1988, Bob Kerrey beat that other appointee guy, Richard Bryan beat Chic Hecht, Joe Lieberman beat Lowell Wiecker, Conrad Burns beat John Melcher.

            1986, Bob Graham beat Paula Hawkins, Tom Daschle beat James Abdnor, Brock Adams beat Slade Gorton, Kent Conrad beat Mark Andrews, Richard Shelby beat Jeremiah Denton, Wyche Fowler beat Mack Mattingly.  (Six years after a wave.)

            What you have (unsurprisingly) are mostly a bunch of people who'd probably have been judged strong recruits even before they won.  Recruitment matters, as Plain Blog says along with everyone else.

            I actually think Republicans did a decent job of nominating good candidates on paper in 2012, in some cases anyway.  Allen, Heller (if you call him a recruit), Rehberg, Mack, Thompson, Mandel, Lingle, Wilson.  Hard for me to imagine better Republican candidates for those races from a recruitment perspective (i.e., the stuff you know before the campaign starts).      

            And I actually think some of them--actually, basically everyone except Mack, who did way worse than DKE punching bags Mandel and Thompson--performed relatively well, or at least not terribly, given the year and the state, but nearly all of those states went blue, and Dems had mostly good candidates and/or incumbents as well.  Except, as it turns out, Shelley Berkley.  

            And of course, as you say, their real problem is the primary electorate (and the party actors that influence it), where they just keep throwing away opportunities.

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

            by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:56:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not 1 senate seat I see us winning as of now (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Georgia is a possibility and Maine if Collins isn't the candidate but that's about it.

        What I'm wondering about is whether the Republicans will nominate terrible candidates for Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana and more importantly if that will even matter in those states.

        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song: F(x)'s Nu ABO

        by kman23 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:08:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not as Bad as first glance ... (5+ / 0-)

        ... may suggest.

        Some of those Dems in R+ States are popular with their constituents, and the power of incumbency helps.

        And please GOD let the tea party keep voting for nut jobs in the primaries.

        A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

        by falconer520 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:18:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Snyder is going to be Tea-Partied (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JGibson, Englishlefty, MichaelNY

      I have a friend in the Michigan Tea Party (no idea how we're friends) and he's hated among the base (because he's not a Republican populist). They're going to help the Democrats a lot by knocking out the incumbent and running a Tea Party nut who'll turn off the moderate Republicans in Michigan who won't vote in a primary.

      (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song: F(x)'s Nu ABO

      by kman23 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:06:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, bumiputera

        Not that someone won't run against Snyder, but that it will work. From what I understand, Snyder approved a lot of conservative measures that made Dems mad and Republicans happy.

        Blueonyx - care to weigh in?

        •  Snyder (5+ / 0-)

          Snyder has done a lot that should make the GOP happy but many never accepted him as a "real" Republican.  So there's a good chance of a primary challenger but I'm doubtful it will be successful.  As things stand now, I don't see a serious challenger stepping forward.  It would probably be an unknown tea party candidate who Snyder would probably defeat.  If Snyder does something to really anger those in his own party during the next year or so, then a more serious candidate could emerge (like AG Schuette).  

    •  Joe Walsh already considering 2014 IL-Gov run (8+ / 0-)

      Yes, the ex-deadbeat dad and right-wing loudmouth Joe Walsh, who got his ass kicked by Tammy Duckworth in IL-8 this cycle. He may also mount a 2014 IL-Sen run. He couldn't win Vermilion County if he ran statewide in Illinois, and Vermilion County is quite conservative.

      Illinois Democrats like myself are drooling over the thought of ratfucking a statewide Republican primary for Walsh. That lunatic can't win a statewide election in Illinois!

      Committed to making sure that Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson are shown the door in 2016!

      by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:19:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Though we should really have new CPVIs (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JGibson, MichaelNY, bumiputera

      I know that Kasich is now in an EVEN seat, and Walker is probably in a D+3 seat. Christie might well be the GOP governor in the second most hostile seat, of course behind AR. From where it looks now, we lose AR-Gov by a landslide and pick up at least ME-Gov and PA-Gov. Everything above #15 is highly candidate dependent, particularly Walker, Kasich, and Scott.

      Specifically about Walker:

      He's probably favored for reelection, so long as he keeps a decently low profile like he's kept for the last year or so. He's got the uncommon luxury of essentially complete control of the state GOP, which he is careful to maintain (to the point that he won't endorse in primaries), so he won't be challenged from the right like Snyder even if he tours Wisconsin with Obama after a devastating blizzard. However, there are three ways I could see him losing:

      1) Ethical issues. It's not just John Doe; Walker's administration has been pretty crooked. If he can keep blaming bit players and federal regulations, he won't be too damaged unless the scandal is very severe. If, on the other hand, he gets a reputation as a crook, he'll lose except in a red year.

      2) Creating controversy at the wrong time. He'll probably try to avoid this one, considering that he admitted that hastily introducing Act 10 was a mistake, but he can't afford to "drop the bomb" in 2014. Starting and losing a fight with Obama about Obamacare would probably hurt him a lot; Wisconsin just elected a Senator who campaigned on Obamacare as a positive good.

      3) A blue wave could sink him. He's a conservative governor in a state with a Democratic lean, albeit a slight one, and if conservatism is in trouble, he probably will be too.

      Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02. "You're damn right we're making a difference!" - Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison)

      by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:56:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did you guys know that some rich idiot (7+ / 0-)

    was spending a million bucks of his own money to run against Steve Cohen in 2012?  And this same guy lost the TN-08 Republican primary last time, after more big spending (see the previous link)?

    And Cohen got 3/4 of the vote, exactly the same as he did last time.

    I actually appreciate this idiot, George Flinn, since it's such a good test case.  You rarely see anyone spending a lot of money in a safe seat.  Although there's that Bill Bloomfield guy.  And it seems like Cohen bothered going up on the air against Flinn.  I wish he hadn't!  That'd be a better "found experiment".

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

    by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:43:09 PM PST

  •  Ugh, look at this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I knew Andyroo became a Republican (Boo!), but he actually did work for Romney's HQ.  Scroll down his twitter feed:
    https://twitter.com/...

    Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

    by KingofSpades on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:43:11 PM PST

  •  The Drubbing in Dixie (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Woody, MichaelNY

    I was just looking theough the new House numbers and this is the breakdown of the House post election in the Confederate 11 states.  A large number of these Dem seats are minority-majority.

    Republicans - 98
    Democrats - 40

    In the U.S Senate it's 16 Repubs, 6 Dems.  All so depressing.

  •  And now the list (4+ / 0-)

    of Democratic representatives in the reddest districts, using McCain 2008 numbers.

    58% McCain
    NC-07 (McIntyre)

    56% McCain
    UT-04 (Matheson)
    WV-03 (Rahall)
    GA-12 (Barrow)

    51% McCain
    AZ-01 (Kirkpatrick)

    50% McCain
    MN-07 (Peterson)
    FL-26 (Garcia)
    AZ-02 (Barber) if he wins

    Unless I've missed anyone, these brave 8 are the last Democrats remaining in districts McCain won.  Even following the 2010 bloodbath, 13 Democrats still managed to hang on to McCain districts.

  •  PVI vs. Representative. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Englishlefty, MichaelNY

    Am I right that if Bilbray holds on, the only Republicans in seats where Obama got more than 53% of the vote will be Reid Ribble, Mike Coffman, and Joe Heck (54% seats), Rodney Davis (55% Illinois seat), plus fluke Gary Miller (56%)?

    That's...striking.  Not a lot on the D side either, right?

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

    by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 01:55:17 PM PST

  •  Thoughts on Kentucky (5+ / 0-)

    Barring changes in the final results, it looks like the Kentucky House will be 55-45 for the Dems. There is one seat where the Dem candidate is only 5 votes ahead in HD-07, so the result could potentially decline. The Senate will have one additional Republican in SD-03 where it looks like Sen. Joey Pendleton (D-Hopkinsville) was narrowly defeated, but has asked for a recanvass of his 297 vote loss. That puts the KY Senate Majority at essentially 24-14 (there is one independent that caucuses with the GOP).

    Democrats will be thankful that they held onto the House, which without 4 key Democratic retirements, they would have gained no seats. Two good things for Democrats are that they will get to redraw the House districts and that they will not have President Obama at the top of the ticket again. For those of you waiting for the new maps of the legislature, I would think that they may come late, so that some potential challengers may be drawn out of their seats. Democrats may also target some of the new GOP members and pair them up. Look for a seat in Western Kentucky and Eastern Kentucky to be cut out, replaced by a Republican seat in the Louisville suburbs, and a competitive seat around Lexington. Senate Republicans probably eliminate the same areas with a similar map as they had in 2012.

    The issue of coal is big in Kentucky. Take a look at the NY Times map, and some of the biggest swings to the GOP are in Eastern Kentucky. It even surprised Rep. Teddy Edmonds, whose seat is likely chopped up in redistricting. Ben Chandler gained several Democratic counties in Eastern Kentucky in redistricting, that helped to defeat him this time. His vote for cap and trade helped his defeat, along with the Obama numbers and a lot of outside money. The good thing is for 2014 in the House seat, that it seems that most of the strong Democrats live around Lexington-Frankfort, so they should draw a good candidate. As far as KY-01, people must be thinking that Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Hopkinsville) may be retiring. Chris Hightower, who lost to Rep. Martha Jane King (D-Russellville) in HD-16, who is close to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Bowling Green) has already announced a primary challenge to Whitfield.

    As far as Mitch McConnell, I do not think Ashley Judd or Ben Chandler should be our pick. Ashley Judd is more likely a potential candidate in Tennessee. Chandler was beat over the head about the coal issue, and McConnell would do so again. Unless Crit Luallen changes her mind and jumps in, Alison Lundergan Grimes may be a strong candidate for us. She is from a well connected family in Lexington, and should benefit from national money to defeat McConnell. She has also gotten high marks in her job as Secretary of State. Also, she does not give Mitch McConnell as much material to attack. She was a big vote getter in 2011 as well. Her family is also very close of the Clintons, and I would expect help from Bill and Hillary for her.

    "So there's a time for silence, and there's a time for waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you'll know it. I don't think you should wait. I think you should speak now." -Taylor Swift

    by SouthernINDem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:06:15 PM PST

  •  Election Post-Mortem: Schadenfreude edition (5+ / 0-)

    Decided to repost this here because I got into the other digest late.

    I pretty much spent my whole day yesterday observing the Right wing freakout over Obama winning, here are some gems I came across.

    Crazy Youtube lady who blames the Libertarians for not sharing her facebook posts [NSFW Language]: http://www.youtube.com/...

    BONUS CRAZY: Same lady, but with an Orchestra [NSFW language, but soothing instrumental]: http://freemusicarchive.org/...

    Obviously racist XM Radio Host Anthony Cumia [NSWF youtube image and language]:

    Sad White People Mourn Mitt's Loss Photo Blog: http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

    Then there is pretty much every Free Republic Post.  Have a schadenfreude full day!

    Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college)

    by Daman09 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:07:14 PM PST

    •  Regarding that racist radio guy . . . (0+ / 0-)

      . . . I hope his disgusting rants make everyone's skin crawl, regardless as to melanin count!

      29, chick, Jewish, solid progressive, NY-14 currently, FL-22 native, went to school in IL-01. "We need less of that War on Women, and more of that Warren woman!"-- writer Paul Myers.

      by The Caped Composer on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:35:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He is the typical "I've got mine" type of ass (0+ / 0-)

        It's pretty much Karmac justice though, he lives on Long Island in an EXTREMELY wealthy area, and hasn't had electricity for 10 days.

        I think his reality is just falling apart, which is funny to witness.

        Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college)

        by Daman09 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:08:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Crazy Youtube Lady's (0+ / 0-)

      distraught, angry screams was beautiful to listen to. Nothing makes an Obama win better than the Conservatives going crazy afterwards

      21, Male, Latino-Spanish, OK-1 (Tulsa: The Art Deco, Terracotta, and Cultural Gem of Green Country!)

      by gigantomachyusa on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:22:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "grave miscalculation" indeed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MBishop1, bythesea, DCCyclone, MichaelNY
    They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night.
    Not sure why Romney campaign would do that. I would think you would want the most pessimistic turnout model(with a reasonable range), so you werent caught by surprise.

    That seems to be the approach Obama's campaign took. I remember Axelrod and/or Cutter talking about Ohio being close, and maybe they would get a 2-3 point win, even when public polling was more optimistic. And that's how it ended up.

    link

  •  WI-Gov 2014 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JGibson, MichaelNY

    The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which is in the tank for Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, ran an editorial calling for Walker to work with Democrats, despite Republicans holding control of the Wisconsin State Assembly and winning control of the Wisconsin State Senate.

    Looks like Walker's right-wing bubble may have just burst, and, if Walker tries to make a serious effort to work with Democrats, it would probably reveal a major weakness Walker and his cohorts in the Wisconsin Legislature have: they're not comfortable at working with people they do not consider to be "one of them". I watched As Goes Janesville, and they played the part of the Fake Koch prank call where Walker told Ian Stewart (who claimed to be David Koch) that Tim Cullen (a D who acts like an I) voted for some of the Wisconsin GOP's legislative proposals, but Walker also said that Cullen was "not one of us".

    The road to 2014 in Wisconsin politics starts NOW!

    Committed to making sure that Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson are shown the door in 2016!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:28:17 PM PST

  •  Allen West court tantrum postponed to tomorrow. (7+ / 0-)

    So says NBC Miami

    I hope the judge tells him to get the hell out of his courtroom or holds him in contempt or something.

  •  AZ-02 (6+ / 0-)

    I'll be really glad if Barber pulls this off. McSally has a great bio and could get entrenched as an incumbent even in this d-leaning seat. It really says something about how much better a candidate she is than Jesse Kelly that she over-performed in what was probably a worse electorate for Republicans in a bluer district.

  •  My only disappointment (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawolf, Woody, MichaelNY, bumiputera

    esp. on the senate side was Nevada. That was a bummer. You told me we'll hold Montana and North Dakota, I be like your'e too hopeful. Still thought it should been Cortez-Mastos instead of Berkley

    Oh well! we have to wait another six yrs to have a crack at that seat again.

    Another thing I was surprised at Gilibrand wining Hamilton Co. in Upstate NY. Think of all of the recent prominent NY pols. Carey, M. Cuomo, Schumer, Moynihan, Clinton, Spitzer and A. Cuomo. None of them won that county. So big ups to her for that. And Obama won Staten Island, but I wonder if Sandy had not exist, would he won it.

    But overall is was a good night!!!

    Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

    by BKGyptian89 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:49:21 PM PST

    •  Especially the way she lost (5+ / 0-)

      Heller and Republicans dredging up that ethics "scandal" when it was the only damn transplant center of it's kind in the state...

      I do agree though, Cortez Masto or Ross Miller would have definitely won, but I'm sure Miller wants to be governor someday and it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case for Cortez Masto either.

      It just sucks big time that Dina Titus lost so narrowly in 2010.  If she had won then run for senate we would hold both the senate seat and NV-03 today.  That ranks up there for me with us losing the Colorado house by ~150 votes... we could have gerrymandered the congressional map to give us Reps. Pace and Miklosi and ensured that Republicans don't win the legislature for a really, really long time.

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

      by sawolf on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:55:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah it does sucks (0+ / 0-)

        as far as  losing the CO House, they only hold one seat. So Dems can probably win it back soon. Im from NY, so imagine how I feel about the Repubs holding a narrow senate majority.

        The bright side tho, is that at least we're not going to lose the US senate in 2014. So it's at least four more years of Dem control. And 2016 will be very huge for us. Maybe 4 seats at best.

        Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

        by BKGyptian89 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:15:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you bet on the Kentucky Derby? (0+ / 0-)

          Because those are some mighty premature predictions of yours! It is completely possible for the Democrats to lose the Senate in 2014, depending on circumstances, and it is by no means certain the Democrats will make a net gain in 2016, though all things being equal, they probably will, just based on how big the Republican Class of 2010 was.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:47:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Im looking at potential vulnarable seats (0+ / 0-)

            when it comes to 2016 (Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina) plus 2014 would be a HUGE stretch for the GOP  to net 11 seats. Tuesday we were expected to lose seats, but instead we strengthen our majority. Every Democratic held seat was held. That put us in a good position in 2014, despite if the GOP made gains.

            So thats why Im optimistic, that at least Dems will have the majority for the next for ears. We don't have the house, but the senate is very important, esp. for the SCOTUS.

            Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

            by BKGyptian89 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:27:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Colorado House in 2012? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gigantomachyusa

        "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

        by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:36:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the way he wrote it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          i thought they lost the CO House. I know Dems have it ,plus the NY Senate Dems have

          Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

          by BKGyptian89 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:53:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No I meant in 2010 along with Titus (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, bumiputera

            Speaking of Colorado, it's really easy to give Tipton a 57% Obama seat without going into Denver or Boulder, and give Coffman a 60% Obama seat with just a tiny bit of Denver, so I have no doubt both of them would have been DOA had we held the CO house in 2010.

            NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

            by sawolf on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:24:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The basis of any good CO gerrymander (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              1) Crack Denver
              2) Crack Colorado Springs

              CO-03 can be made pretty safe Dem by taking in the blue heart of Colorado Springs, as well as Pueblo and the ski counties.  CO-06 just needs to shift some precincts to get closer in to Denver, not taking in outlying exurbs like Brighton and Highlands Ranch.  5-2 is thus super easy to do.  If one wants to get creative, a sixth swingy seat can be made from Fort Collins and Greeley, allowing only one safe GOP seat (the rest of El Paso County, Douglas County, and rural areas to the east).

    •  I think it's partially her being from Upstate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      rather than being another NYCer (or Hillary) , as well as being that her old supporters in Warren, Washington and Saratoga counties would be out campaigning for Owens.

  •  CA-26: How Brownley won (6+ / 0-)

    http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/...

    Oxnard voters provided Brownley with her entire margin of victory and then some. She carried Oxnard by 12,360 votes; she won districtwide by 7,099.

    Meanwhile, in Thousand Oaks, Strickland underperformed the Republican voter registration advantage, winning 54 percent to 46 percent. That 8-point margin is 2 points less than the city's 10-point GOP registration edge -- which means Brownley likely picked up a fairly good number of Republican crossover votes.

    Brownley clearly picked up most of Linda Parks' support with little trouble. Brownley held mid-40s in all of the cities with high GOP registration and the small portion of Simi Valley gave her 47%.

    26, Male, CA-24 (new CA-26), DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:54:06 PM PST

  •  PVI +2 or worse House seats for 2014. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCCyclone, MichaelNY

    Pretty top heavy for Dems.  Dems in bold.

    1. UT-04 (Matheson) - R+14
    2. NC-07 (McIntyre) - R+11
    3. GA-12 (Barrow) - R+9
    4. WV-03 (Rahall) - R+6
    5. MN-07 (Peterson) - R+5
    6. TX-23 (Gallego) - R+5
    7. FL-26 (Garcia) - R+4
    8. AZ-01 (Kirkpatrick) - R+3
    9. CA-07 (Bera) - R+3
    10. CA-36 (Ruiz) - R+3
    11. AZ-02 (Barber) - R+2
    12. CA-31 (Miller) - D+2
    13. NY-18 (Maloney) - R+2
    14. NY-21 (Owens) - R+2
    15. AZ-09 (Sinema) - R+1
    16. FL-18 (Murphy) - R+1
    17. IL-13 (Davis) - D+1
    18. MN-01 (Walz) - R+1
    19. PA-08 (Fitzpatrick) - D+1
    20. NH-01 (Shea-Porter) - D+0
    21. NJ-02 (Lobiondo) - R+0
    22. NV-03 (Heck) - R+0
    23. NY-01 (Bishop) - D+0
    24. NY-02 (King) - R+0
    25. NY-19 (Gibson) - R+0
    26. OR-05 (Schrader) - D+0
    27. PA-07 (Meehan) - R+0
    28. WI-07 (Duffy) - R+0
    29. CA-03 (Garamendi) - D+1
    30. CA-52 (Peters) - D+1
    31. CO-06 (Coffman) - R+1
    32. FL-13 (Young) - R+1
    33. IA-03 (Latham) - R+1
    34. MI-06 (Upton) - R+1
    35. PA-06 (Gerlach) - R+1
    36. TX-15 (Hinojosa) - D+1
    37. CA-09 (McNerney) - D+2
    38. CA-16 (Costa) - D+2
    39. CA-26 (Brownley) - D+2
    40. CT-05 (Esty) - D+2
    41. IL-12 (Enyart) - D+2
    42. MD-06 (Delaney) - D+2
    43. MI-08 (Rogers) - R+2
    44. MN-02 (Kline) - R+2
    45. MN-03 (Paulsen) - R+2
    46. NJ-03 (Runyan) - R+2
    47. NV-04 (Horsford) - D+2
    48. OH-10 (Turner) - R+2
    49. OR-04 (DeFazio) - D+2
    50. PA-15 (Dent) - R+2
    51. TX-28 (Cuellar) - D+2
    52. WA-03 (Herrera Beutler) - R+2
    53. WA-08 (Reichert) - R+2
    54. WI-08 (Ribble) - R+2

    White Male, 36, New FL-14 (Castor), proud father of a 4-year-old daughter. "This is Wendy's guys! This is Wendy's!" - Mitt Romney, October 9, 2012.

    by spiderdem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:54:08 PM PST

    •  Here's my excel table with all the districts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spiderdem, Xenocrypt

      with 2008 Obama/McCain, the PVI, and the new incumbents by first and last name, so you all can easily sort it to do this sort of thing:
      https://docs.google.com/...

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

      by sawolf on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:59:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unsurprisingly, the most common first name (7+ / 0-)

        will be John/Jon at 20, tied with Michael/Mike/Mick at 20.  James/Jim/Jimmy is #3 at 16 members.  Surprisingly though, there will be 15 members named Steve/Steven/Stephen, which I think is a fairly common name, but definitely wasn't my guess for #4.  The name I figured would be in the top 5 of course, is Bill/Billy/William at  13 or 14 (not sure whether to count Clay as William or Lacy for MO-01).  Needless to say, the list of most common names is very male heavy because congress itself is.

        Among surnames its Johnson, Miller, Scott, and Smith in a 4 way tie for first with 4 each.  Bishop, Davis, Rogers, Thompson, and Young were all tied for fifth most common with three each.  I'm surprised that no more than 4 members share the same surname.  Also somewhat ironically, all of the Scotts are from the South haha.

        Predictably, among the most common first and last names we have exactly 1 duplicate: Mike D. Rogers (AL-03) and Mike J. Rogers (MI-08)

        Anyway, there's your useless trivia for the day.

        NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

        by sawolf on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:14:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  ... (0+ / 0-)

      Can you please organize these by PVI?

      22 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); Intern w/ Gallego for Congress; Office Personnel at CCA.

      by wwmiv on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:01:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Despite trailing by 15,000 votes (5+ / 0-)

    everyone's favorite tea party nurse/lawyer Ann Marie Buerkle has so far refused to conceded. There are still some 17,000 absentee ballots outstanding but she'd have to win like 90% of them.

    She is one of the most confident, self-assured candidates I've ever run across. A true ideologue! She has a very harsh, schoolmarmish demeanor. But if she really thinks she can pull this off, she is nothing short of delusional.

    (Some have said she hasn't conceded because Maffei took forever to concede in 2010, but Buerkle only won that race by less than 1,00 votes, while now she is down by 15 times that number).

    I would be shocked if she doesn't run again in 2014. She may even try and primary liberal Richard Hanna in  the district south of hers.

  •  I had an idea last night (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bfen, gigantomachyusa

    about New York redistricting. Does anybody know if Diane Savino wants to move up to Congress. Maybe the IDC could be convinced to join the Dem caucus and help to initiate mid decade redistricting. Create a seat favorable for her, and several other seats.

    20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

    by ndrwmls10 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:56:43 PM PST

  •  I have to say, it is simply amazing (12+ / 0-)

    That we held every Senate seat we picked up in 2006. For that matter, we also held every Senate seat we picked up back in 2000. I think many people would have been pretty amazed if they were told 1-2 years ago that the Senate would be D+2. It is just sort of surreal.

    22/Male/ D/Native of OH-16, Attending Graduate School in NC-04. Re-Elect Betty Sutton and David Price!

    by liberal intellectual on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:09:25 PM PST

  •  So in state legislatures (5+ / 0-)

    It looks like pretty much our entire net gain nationwide in seat totals is New Hampshire, due to it's 400 seat state house.  

  •  Electoral votes the last 20 years (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, borodino21, bfen, MichaelNY, MBishop1

    Dems have ranged from 252 to 379.  Republicans from 159 to 286.  Democrats have exceeded 300 EVs (actually 330) four times.  Republicans none.

  •  Blue west coast and east coast? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Audrid, LordMike, Englishlefty

    I wonder if sometime in the not too distant future, every state on the east coast could go Dem in a presidential election. SC would be the hardest to flip, of course, but Obama didnt see much drop there(44%). Similar situation in Georgia(45%). Every other state has gone Dem in the last two election, except for NC, which looks to be a genuine swing state now.

    •  I'm starting to think... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, LordMike, JGibson, DCCyclone

      that Virginia is now a blue state, and NC will be in about 8 years.  It's officially a swing state right now.  Virginia passed right over swing state status, right to blue.

      SC will take another 20 years or so, I think.  GA will switch first.

    •  I think the real question is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone, Englishlefty, MichaelNY

      Is there any way to make enough inroads in FL to make it Blueish and eventually stay blue?  

      Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college)

      by Daman09 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:48:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bythesea, DCCyclone, Woody, MichaelNY, jncca

        Get the demographic picture to look like it did on Tuesday. Oh, and get the Cubans to shift (this may actually be happening).

        Ok, so I read the polls.

        by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:12:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It wasn't really "blueish" on Tuesday. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, jncca

          Romney almost won even as he was losing by a nontrivial margin nationally.

          27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

          by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:24:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Relative to what, though? (0+ / 0-)

            It's hard to compare FL to anywhere else (though it now has the same electoral weight as NY).

            Ok, so I read the polls.

            by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:25:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What I mean is (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gigantomachyusa, MichaelNY

              with the same demographic picture, and a somewhat worse national mood, it'd probably go red.  Miami-Dade seems to be trending blue, yes, and Obama held on to a point or two more of his vote share than he did nationally.  But I don't think it makes sense to call a state blue simply for that reason.

              Here's Florida's D/R Presidential vote shares for the past few years (along with Miami-Dade):

              2012: 49.9/49.3, vs. 50.4/48 nationally.  Florida is R+1.3 (Republican share), or D-0.5.  Miami-Dade is 61.8/37.7.

              2008: 50.9/48.1, vs. 52.9/45.7 nationally.  Florida is R+1.6 (Republican share), or D-2.  Miami-Dade is 58.1/41.6.

              2004: 47.1/52.1, vs. 48.3/50.7 nationally.  Florida is R+1.4 (Republican share), or D-1.2.  Miami-Dade is 52.9/46.6.

              2000: 48.85/48.81, vs. 48.4/47.9 nationally.  Florida is R+0.9 (Republican share), or D-0.4.  Miami-Dade is 52.6/46.3.

              1996: 48.1/42.3, vs. 49.2/40.7 nationally.  Florida is R+1.6 (Republican share), or D-1.1.  Miami-Dade was 57.3/37.9.

              1992: 30.9/49, vs. 43/37.5 nationally.  Florida is R+11.5, or D-12.1.  Miami-Dade was 46.7/43.2.

              1988: 38.5/60.9, vs. 45.7/53.4 nationally.  Florida is R+7.5, or D-7.2.  Miami-Dade was 44.3/55.3.  

              (First link via Plain Blog.)

              So, ever since 1996, Florida's Republican Presidential numbers have usually been about 1.5 points stronger than the nation's.  If you look by margins, or Democratic vote share, things jump around a bit more.

              The really big change happened from 1992 to 1996, and I think that's around when South Florida started being far more D-friendly.

               But I don't think 2012 really stands out as "ah, the demographics on that day plainly made the state very different!".  Overall, Florida was a little bit more Republican than the country, like it's usually been.  I don't see any reason to think that if Romney or a Republican were winning nationally, Florida would go anything but red.

              27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

              by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:52:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am a big believer that demographics is (0+ / 0-)

                (ultimately) destiny in politics. Saying that a state has been thus-and-such a way relative to the nation is a quick and dirty way of assessing the partisanship of a state, but it doesn't really tell you much about the nuts and bolts of why it votes the way it does.

                Ok, so I read the polls.

                by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:00:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Ok that was a long comment. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              I just worry that we focus so much on demographics.  Demographics are very important, yes, but elections aren't just about demographics.

              27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

              by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:55:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's hard to isolate an independent variable (0+ / 0-)

                in politics. But I think the world of polling tells us something: you can take demographics to the bank in a way that you just can't do with partisanship.

                Ok, so I read the polls.

                by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:02:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  ? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, jncca

                  What do you mean?  Obama won 92% of Democrats and lost 93% of Republicans, per CNN's exit poll.  That's a much stronger relationship than with any of the racial breakdowns (except for African-Americans).  I think a voter's partisanship says far, far more about how they're going to vote than their ethnicity does.  

                  But I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

                  27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

                  by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:26:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I mean the demographic composition (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Englishlefty

                    of the electorate.

                    Sure Obama won the overwhelming majority of Democrats. They called themselves Democrats!

                    Ok, so I read the polls.

                    by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:30:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The electorate was less white in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      than in 2012, and Obama did worse.

                      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

                      by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:31:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Look back to 2000 and 2004 (0+ / 0-)

                        One election does not make a trend.

                        Ok, so I read the polls.

                        by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:36:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Why just then? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bumiputera

                          The country's been getting more and more diverse for...I don't even know how long.  Since they changed the immigration laws in the 60s?

                          Have Democrats been doing better and better, monotonically, since the 60s?  Sometimes.  But, for example, I think that Democrats' streak of Presidential victories has rather more to do with the contingent circumstance of having two Presidents who were elected around a recession, who then presided over varying degrees of improvement, then it has to do with anything demographic.

                          I'd be interested to see an argument that, for example, Obama did better than he "should have" done based on non-demographic factors, that Democrats consistently have such an advantage, and that such an advantage has been growing.  It wouldn't surprise me (digging around a bit looking at models) if it was true by some magnitude or other.  But, again, in the context of other factors.

                          27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

                          by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:09:05 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  First time I've seen the word "monotonically" (0+ / 0-)

                            outside math lecture.

                          •  Obama got less of the white vote than Dukakis did. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            But won with room to spare.

                            As for this:

                            The country's been getting more and more diverse for...I don't even know how long.  Since they changed the immigration laws in the 60s?
                            No. The minority share of the electorate was basically flat until 1992, when it was still 87% white, with just a few percent hispanic or asian. That's when it started dropping - to 83% in '96, 81% in 2000, 77% in '04, 74% in '08, and now 72%.

                            Here's (a) the Dem percentage of the white vote in those years, respectively: 39, 43, 42, 41, 43, 39.

                            Here's (b) the Dem share of the overall vote for those years: 43, 49, 48, 48, 53, 50.

                            And here's (b-a) for each election: 4, 6, 6, 7, 10, 11

                            Given those numbers, the idea that Democrats aren't benefitting a ton from demographic change seems pretty preposterous.

                          •  You're completely tilting this... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            by not accounting for Perot and Nader!  

                            Look at the Republican vote share.

                            53, 38, 41, 48, 51, 46, 48.
                            Or--better yet--the Democratic two-party vote share:
                            46, 53, 54, 50, 48, 53, 51.
                            Or maybe Gore+Nader in 2000, which would be:
                            46, 53, 54, 52, 48, 53, 51.
                            And--the idea that Democratic share of the white vote declining is independent of demographic change--I don't think there's much reason to assume that.

                            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

                            by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:06:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I might have misread you. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            But I also think you have to look at the Democratic share of the white vote in the context of demographic change.  Both parties move to carve the electorate, and if some (new) groups go to Democrats, it makes perfect sense to me that other groups would go to Republicans.

                            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

                            by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:14:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The purpose was to demonstrate (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            the increasing gap between Dem share of the white vote and Dem share of the overall vote. Without considering Dem performance among whites, clearly Dems have benefited from the growing minority share.

                            Now, I assume you're not arguing against that point - which leaves the possibility you hint at: maybe Dem support among white has declined through increased racial polarization. But I don't think there's any evidence of that at all outside the south. Dems have clearly declined among southern whites - and still are; witness the ongoing slide in WV, KY, et. al. But there's been no such decline outside the south, and probably an increase in most places.

                          •  And the other thing that happened (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY, jncca

                            since 1989?  Again, it's that UE dropped from mid-1992 to November 2000 or so (helping, more or less, Clinton, Clinton, and Gore), then from mid-2003 to mid-2007 (helping W. Bush, then hurting John McCain), and then from late 2009 or so to now (helping Obama).

                            What we haven't had is a test case: A Democratic incumbent presiding over a near-Election-Year recession, or a Republican incumbent presiding over Election Year improvement (except for W. Bush--who won!).  I think we can all agree there.

                            Again, I'm sure demographics play some factor, but in my opinion they're in the context of the national situation and so on, and not the other way around.  Within a constant national situation--comparing states, counties, districts--demographics can explain much within that.

                            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

                            by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:12:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  There needs to be a big investment made (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andgarden, bjssp, MichaelNY

          in the state party. I cant really understand the disconnect between the Dem performance at the federal and state level. At the federal level, Dems surprisingly won the presidency, and also picked up some House seats and held on to the Senate seat. While they made gains in the legislature, it's amazing how they seem consistently shut out from local, state wide office. Alex Sink seems to be the exception in the last decade.

  •  Amazingly, it seems like (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, lordpet8, MichaelNY, bumiputera

    Democrats lost a seat in the House, after super-incumbent Jay Goyal retired.  (I don't have time to look right now, but I doubt his district could have gotten much worse in redistricting.)  Possible some other seats changed parties and it cancelled out--that'd be a lot of checking.

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

    by Xenocrypt on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:44:24 PM PST

  •  Re camp Romney's internal polling (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCCyclone, MichaelNY

    If the rumors turn out to be true, who would hire Neil Newhouse?

    I previously presumed that he wasn't incompetent. I may have to revise that assessment.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:47:31 PM PST

    •  Agree, I'm just shocked (8+ / 0-)

      Their internals were crap.

      What's puzzling and makes it worse is that you can't attribute a flawed racial composition for bad polling in states like New Hampshire or some of the Midwest where there are few minorities or minority composition is stable.

      This is really bad.

      44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:37:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They underestimated D-heavy demographics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        including sections of the white vote, such as youth, that lean left in white swing states like NH.

             And even in a fairly white state such as Wisconsin, bad assumptions about black turnout still lead to substantial polling errors if they're bad enough, and they completely misread the North Side of Milwaukee. I'll probably go into this further in one of the county analysis diaries I'm planning (especially once more election data comes out), but Milwaukee County turnout was 78%, similar to Dane County, certainly a record, and probably driven by sky-high black turnout. That alone could have accounted for two points of margin for Obama and Baldwin.

        Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02. "You're damn right we're making a difference!" - Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison)

        by fearlessfred14 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:25:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  With some scientific models (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        You do have to filter it with a degree of common sense. Fortunately for us, the "common sense" of Rs meant they didn't believe our models where non-whites, in many cases, turned out at levels greater than '08.

        Many non-partisan polls, including PPP captured it.

        If Rs had "boots on the ground" with any degree of intelligence, they would have seen the microtargeting that we were doing, the GOTV that was enhanced relative to '08. Perhaps the leaders of the Romney campaign got those reports. But if they did, they probably sent them to the "round file", based on R "common sense".

        I hope; therefore, I can live.

        by tietack on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:44:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Romney had fireworks planned for Tuesday (19+ / 0-)

    Rich, arrogant, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

    http://politicalwire.com/...

    Can you believe what an asshat this megalomaniac would have been as president?  Thank goodness he got crushed.

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:48:48 PM PST

  •  2014 senate races (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    on list above only # 1,2 and 4 "might" lose.

    •  I wouldnt count out Begich or Landrieu (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, bumiputera

      now South Dakota is pretty much already gone. Johnson will certainly retire, plus the recently former Gov said he planing on running This is not like North Dakota where the DSCC was able to recruit Heitkamp and she successfully won. I don't think SHS will not run. She probably want to run for Gov some day, and is enjoying her time out of the public light right now.

      West Virginia, If Rockefeller retires this won't be a gimme for the Republicans. Tennant would be a good recruit to hold this, and probably the only WVDEM I could see running for that seat.

      But I think it's a wise not to underestimate Begich or Landrieu. Especially Landrieu, we've what happens when ppl do.

      Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

      by BKGyptian89 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:38:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see any reason to believe that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bjssp, MichaelNY, bumiputera

        Johnson will "certainly" retire.  Yes, he might.  But there is absolutely no reason to be certain.

        27, NE-2 (resident), IL-9 (part-timer), SD-AL (raised); SSP and DKE lurker since 2007

        by JDJase on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:52:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  his health is certainly something to consider (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          and when you have a former governor who is being a prick and saying he's running before the seat is up, when considering the man just came off a stroke not that long ago, in baiting him to retire. At least that how I view it.

          But look it politics. Im sure when Kirk's seat comes up, Bustos or Duckworth will try to force him into retiring with the DSCC hell bent on getting that seat back.

          Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

          by BKGyptian89 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:00:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hannity flipping on immigration... (9+ / 0-)

    They must be really friggin' scared....

    http://www.politico.com/...

    I guess it really might happen now if the right wing noise machine is going to support it.

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:23:16 PM PST

    •  Wow. Now that's interesting...n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, MichaelNY
    •  Surprising coming from him (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, MichaelNY, bumiputera

      but I think that's a sentiment we will see from other Republicans.

      They have an incentive to get comprehensive reform now. They can tell themselves that Hispanics really are Republicans, and this is just the barrier to them realizing that. And while it adds to Obama's legacy as president, a win on this issue might not help the Dem nominee in 2016. That's maybe some of the "fever breaking" that Obama's second term provides. And the president will give them what they need on border security to get the votes. But we'll still have to see how it plays.

      Tax increases are harder, because GOP has less incentive to cave on that. Anti-tax increase is THE brand of the GOP.

    •  Good. But they're kidding themselves (8+ / 0-)

      if they think this will be sufficient to win over the voters they need. Matt Yglesias expresses it well:

      The GOP doesn’t have a problem with Latino voters per se. Rather, it has a problem with a broad spectrum of voters who simply don’t feel that it’s speaking to their economic concerns. The GOP has an economic agenda tilted strongly to the benefit of elites, and it has preserved support for that agenda—even though it disserves the majority of GOP voters—with implicit racial politics...

      Latinos aren’t into [the republican] agenda for roughly the same reason that Asians and African-Americans aren’t—absent the frisson of worry about the “white establishment” being forced into minority status—it’s just not very compelling.

  •  NV-Sen (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, BeloitDem, MichaelNY, jncca

    Just took a look at the results for the whole state.  Did None of the Above screw us?  It clocked in at about 5% in Clark County.  Kind of wish the GOP succeeded in their attempt to remove that option now...

    Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college)

    by Daman09 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:29:22 PM PST

    •  It got 4.5% statewide (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, jncca

      and 4.5% in Clark. The only places where it significantly deviated from the statewide total are in some of the rural counties: 2.9% in Elko, 3.0% in White Pine, 5.8% in Pershing, 6.0% in Esmeralda, and 7.7% in Mineral. Hard to see any kind of correlation there.

  •  MD-06 results (8+ / 0-)

    John Delaney ended up crushing Roscoe Bartlett, despite some internal polls claiming it was close. In particular, it's pretty impressive that he won Frederick County by 20 points, and he actually won Washington County while Obama and Cardin lost it.

  •  I feel like this hasnt been discussed much yet (7+ / 0-)

    But will the RNC get a new chair next year? In terms of elections, Preibus did horribly, much worse than Steele after the 2010.

    But I guess the RNC might be in better financial shape, so perhaps that is all that matters.

    For Dems, I'd really like to see David Plouffe to be chair. Or Jim Messina. I think the focus for the DNC the next four years will be voter organization/strategy. I think both are good at fundraising too, which is important. Less important is being a spokesman for the party, imo, since Dems control the WH.

  •  AZ update (12+ / 0-)

    AZ just had a mini-vote dump and some races look different now:

    sen: Flake is now up 4.66%.
    1: Kirkpatrick is up 6,183 votes, or 2.87%.
    2: Barber is up 582 votes, or 0.24%.
    9: Sinema is still up 2,715 votes, or 1.60%.

    SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

    by sacman701 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:40:01 PM PST

  •  AZ-02 - Barber now up 582 (9+ / 0-)

    according to teh Twitters, which are never wrong.

    White Male, 36, New FL-14 (Castor), proud father of a 4-year-old daughter. "This is Wendy's guys! This is Wendy's!" - Mitt Romney, October 9, 2012.

    by spiderdem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:40:19 PM PST

  •  Some Dubious math from kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawolf, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    First of all, He thinks that nominating Linda McMahon cost them BOTH Connecticut senate races, while I think that the only way we could have realistically lost either was by renominating Chris Dodd, which means that without the Tea Party, we'd be at a 50-50 tie with Joe Biden breaking in our favor.

    But even if you give them both CT senate seats, they'd only be at 52-48.

  •  Our some dude against Issa got 41.1% (6+ / 0-)

    not bad

    Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

    by KingofSpades on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:11:26 PM PST

    •  Pointed this out earlier (4+ / 0-)

      I'm in the district, and even though our candidate was a somedude with no money, and was probably WAY too liberal for this district, he still clocked in a decent margin.  I'd wait to see what the presidential numbers are in the CD, before I name it as a top priority for CA dems, but at worst this seat needs to be a second to third tier priority in 2014, because the demographics in San Diego and Orange County are only going to get better.  I'd be unsurprised if a credible candidate with funding bumped these numbers up another 5-6 points.

      Issa is a bomb thrower, and while I haven't looked at the SD part of the district, I'm unsurprised Issa had an underwhelming win in the OC portion of the district relative to it's PVI.  Tetalman received 24.2% in the OC portion of the primary, and he received 33.6% in the OC portion in the general.  

      Seems like a larger jump than it should have been from Primary to general.

      Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college)

      by Daman09 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:30:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Barber down again (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, MichaelNY, bumiputera

    Went too quickly to figure out which update came from where. But Barber is now down 81 votes. That's still a big improvement for him, since he was trailing by 400 votes at the start of the day.

  •  Does the dude who won the special election (0+ / 0-)

    still get a full congressional pension? If so, that's not a shabby deal at all.

  •  The irrelevant Democrats in the Indiana House (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, HoosierD42

    selected Rep. Scott Pelath (D-Michigan City) as their new leader. It is going to be a tough job to try to bring the Dems in the legislature back to relevance.

    http://www.courier-journal.com/...

    "So there's a time for silence, and there's a time for waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you'll know it. I don't think you should wait. I think you should speak now." -Taylor Swift

    by SouthernINDem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:10:31 PM PST

  •  MI House Leadership Election (5+ / 0-)

    It seems that Speaker Jase Bolger - who is currently under investigation by a grand jury for elecation fraud and who won his race the other night by a razo thin 51/49 margin - will remain speaker, which blows my mind.  Even if he makes it through the grand jury investigation, and I'm not at all convinced that will be the case, he is begging to face a recall, next year.  It really speaks to the irrationality of the legislative GOP in Michigan.  This was a supremely stupid move, and Bolger is now even talking about revenge against labour since they tried to oust him and since they loss the collective bargaining initiative.

    The Dems pick some unknown guy out of Pontiac who won a special election literally last year.  I hear he's far more progressive than our last two house leaders, but I know very little else about him.  That said, anything more progressive than Dillon and Hammel will be a good match for Senator Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer.

    Anyway, the I believe the house, tonight, is still at 59/51.  I haven't been paying enough attention to see if there are any outstanding races.

    •  I have met Tim Greimel (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      He is a nice guy. He spent a lot of time campaigning for Dems this election. I think it was time for a newer face to be in charge of the caucus. He was the freshest of the contenders for leader.

      M, 23, School: MI-12, Home: NY-18

      by slacks on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:23:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Democrats in Kentucky don't pull out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY

    all the stops to try to defeat McConnell, I'm not sure what the hell to think. I get that it won't be a cakewalk, but still, what do they have to lose?

    "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

    by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:28:24 PM PST

  •  did some AZ-02 counting (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChadmanFL, aamail6, DCal, MichaelNY, bumiputera

    Cochise County: McSally is leading overall by 21%. It was reported this morning there were 14332 ballots left (all in district).

    About 2650 were processed today, which McSally won by 25%, netting 663 votes.

    -

    Pima County: Barber is leading overall by 3%. It was reported this morning they have 67K ballots left, of which about 60% could be in district, so 40K.

    About 8800 ballots were processed today, which Barber won by 11%, netting 1008 votes.

    -

    McSally could net about 2400 votes out of Cochise still. That would mean Barber needs to win remaining the vote out of Pima by at least 8%. He's up by 3.4% in the county, but 11% among what was counted today, and I doubt we've gotten to the provisionals yet.

    let me know if I made any mistake.

  •  What will a good economy do for the '14 elections? (6+ / 0-)

    I'm thinking that we're about to come out of the recession with fairly steady economic growth. Yes, it won't be fast enough to alleviate the suffering of the unemployed.

    But by '14, I'm thinking that we'll be in a full-scale economic recovery, and that will have unknown effects on the '14 elections.

    My guess is that it will help minimize losses in the Senate.

    I hope; therefore, I can live.

    by tietack on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:51:52 PM PST

  •  AZ-02 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Englishlefty, MichaelNY

    I know McSally had an internal out showing it to be a line ball race, but did anyone expect it to be this close?

    I know House Majority PAC and Ron Barber were up with attack ads at least three weeks before election day so you can't really accuse them of being caught sleeping at the wheel.

    Still it's amazing we could Gabby's seat. I guess we should be glad Republicans nominated Jesse Kelly instead of Martha McSally for the special election otherwise things would of turned out really different...

    By the way, how did Obama do here?

    Mitt Romney: Lacking judgement

    by ehstronghold on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:14:55 PM PST

  •  Christie emailed Romney condolences (10+ / 0-)

    But, he called President Obama

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) told reporters Thursday he reached out to President Barack Obama with a personal phone call to congratulate him on his reelection. Mitt Romney, the man Christie had campaigned with and raised money for, got a conciliatory email, the governor said.

    “We didn’t have a political strategy discussion," Christie said of his Wednesday phone chat with Obama, Bloomberg reports. "I said, 'Congratulations on your win last night, Mr. President,' and he said, 'Thank you.'"

    Asked if he'd given Romney the same treatment, Christie said that he hadn't.

    “No; we exchanged e-mails last night,” Christie said, according to Bloomberg. “We haven’t spoken on the phone yet.”

    More fodder for the conservatives desperate to blame someone for Romney's loss.

    26, Male, CA-24 (new CA-26), DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:15:18 PM PST

    •  Incredibly smart politics from Gov. Christie... (8+ / 0-)

      Looking ahead to one year from now.

      Keeper of the DKE glossary. Priceless: worth a lot; not for sale.

      by SaoMagnifico on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:18:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Probably right (5+ / 0-)

        He has no threat from a primary challenge, so he can afford to do this sort of thing with an eye towards the general election.

        •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LordMike

          I understand that to run in 2016 he needs to win in 2013 but this seems to me to be short-sighted.
          I don't see any Democrat in NJ voting for him next year because he called Obama instead of emailing. On the other hand, I can see a lot of Romney loyalists and donors that he could use in 2016 in a tough field very very much resenting that petty spit in the face.
          But then again, that's Christie. Petty, insulting and bullying to the end, even with his "friends"

          •  I don't agree with you at all (0+ / 0-)

            I think many Democrats will vote for him for reelection after his performance in the aftermath of the storm, and that includes his friendliness with Federal officials who are helping his constituents.

            I'll say this: I think that his behavior strongly suggests that he has decided not to run for President in 2016, because I didn't see him winning the Republican presidential primaries before the storm and definitely can't imagine in a million years that he'd win them now. But I think that he has come close to guaranteeing reelection for Governor, absent major events we can't know about in advance ("unknown unknowns," as political strategists apparently say).

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:18:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah we disagree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Plenty PLENTY of Governors with less baggage than Christie has had stellar crisis management and then gone on to lose.
              A year is a LONG time in politics. And Christie is still a live wire with an unpleasant personality.
              Let's remember he won because Corzine was awful. NJ is still strongly Democratic and Christie still strongly conservative on many issues. Against a better opponent, he will have a tough time.
              I think making that kind of pronouncement right after the storm happened is way overreacting.
              Talk to me in six months and we shall see. Politics will take over again. Guaranteed.

            •  Oh and clarification (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, tietack

              Oh and my point was about his embrace of Obama being a voting issue next year, not his actual management of the storm. I am dubious about either being definitive (as mentioned above) but in the context of his reelection I dont see what calling Obama while emailing Romney is supposed to bring him except Romney-land's grudge. It is not like NJ doesn't already know he had been campaigning for Romney for months and quite aggressively at that.
              So really no sense in doing that call/email thing except being petty.

              •  If Romney had embraced Obama on certain isses (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                e.g. the war in Afghanistan, "Obameycare," the DREAM act, I think Romney would be President-elect today.

                I hope; therefore, I can live.

                by tietack on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:07:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then we're lucky he didn't (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tietack, askew

                  Because quite apart from his basic corelessness and mendacity, he showed himself to be quite incompetent. I think he would have been a calamitous president, regardless of whether he was mostly acting like a conservative or a moderate.

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:15:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly, we know he has "no core" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    which suggests that he would have been perfectly willing to make these changes --

                    I think he would have done so had his pollsters seen the electorate that did turn out, instead of unskewing to an '04 electorate.

                    I hope; therefore, I can live.

                    by tietack on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:17:50 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  If the Tea Party is purged by '16 (5+ / 0-)

        I predict that Christie will be the front runner for the Rs.

        I hope; therefore, I can live.

        by tietack on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:07:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's really too bad he wasn't being conciliatory (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      uclabruin18, bumiputera

      when he had the chance to accept a really good deal on a new and urgently needed railway tunnel under the Hudson. I don't think he'll get another crack at that, either.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:15:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Charlie Cook's ratings on IL-11 and UT-04 (7+ / 0-)

    I found it amusing that the last race rating change he made before the election was moving IL-11 from Leans D to Tossup, in the republicans favor.  Bill Foster destroyed Biggert in one of the biggest incumbent defeats of the year by a 58-42 margin.  Biggert must have massively underperformed the private polling.  I suspect a big part of it was her support of Mourdock even after he made his rape statement.

    Another one of his final moves was shifting UT-04 from Tossup to Leans R, thinking Matheson would lose.  Can't say I blame him for missing that one though.  Pretty much every sign pointed to Love winning that race handily.

  •  NJ-05 (4+ / 0-)

    holy crap. Adam Gussen lost Bergen County, 51-47.

    recall that Gussen is from Bergen and that heavily D Hackensack and Teaneck (well, most of Teaneck) were added in redistricting.

    Gussen might have been one of the worst candidates we ran this cycle in what could have otherwise been a winnable race. Paging Connie Wagner, Tim Eustace, and Bob Gordon.

    Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

    by sapelcovits on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:26:57 PM PST

  •  Idiot. (20+ / 0-)
    Presumably upset by President Barack Obama's reelection, a Georgia teen, like many other disgruntled Americans, took to Twitter to express her frustrations. She could never have imagined, however, the sort of backlash she would get for her tweet.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    As the article and many other tweets from Australia have pointed out 1) Australia has a Prime Minister not a President, 2) Their Prime Minister is a woman, 3) Julia Gillard is an atheist.

    Anyone wanna bet that if someone asks her to point out Australia on a map she'll point at China or something? Well at least if she moves to Australia she'll love Tony Abbott since both of them are intellectual nobodies.

    Mitt Romney: Lacking judgement

    by ehstronghold on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:40:22 PM PST

  •  On politico's map (5+ / 0-)

    I'm seeing AZ-02 as such:

    McSally: 119,617
    Barber: 119,536

    So yeah, pretty close so far, but Barber is undeniably catching up.

    As for AZ-09, it's starting to break open now:

    Sinema: 87,227
    Parker: 83,385

    The gap is almost 2% now, expecting a call pretty soon on this race.

  •  OpinionWorks sucks ass at polling MD (9+ / 0-)

    Question 7 (expanding gambling)
    Them: 39-54
    Voters: 52-48

    Question 4 (DREAM)
    Them: 47-45
    Voters: 58-42

    Question 5 (approve congressional map)
    Them: 36-33
    Voters: 64-36

    Question 6 (gay marriage)
    Them: 46-47
    Voters: 52-48

    MD-06
    Them: 42-41 Delaney
    Voters: 59-38 Delaney

    Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

    by sapelcovits on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:59:13 PM PST

    •  That's so bad (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sapelcovits

      it's hard to see how it can be accidentally bad. They should give up and do something they can't mess up, like dirt shoveling. Then again, maybe they'd shovel it onto someone's roof, with that kind of track record.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:22:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Random post-election comments (17+ / 0-)

    I've been largely absent from commenting or even reading here for a couple days as I recover and get back to other responsibilities.  Just a couple days of campaign work, and my household chores and work assignments at my job pile up.

    My apologies if some of what I say here is just parroting what's already been discussed.  I haven't caught up on all the discussions here and perhaps never will.

    On Team Romney's polling really saying after all that they were ahead or tied in all those battlegrounds, I'm just stunned.  That truly is political malpractice of the highest order.  Waging a competent campaign requires cold-blooded perspective on the horse race.  That a major party Presidential nominee with top national help would fail in this is just stunning.  Public Opinion Strategies is experienced in Presidentials, too.  And they actually are one of the only outfits to openly talk about demographic shift and the GOP needing to adjust for that.  That one of their principals was guilty of such obviously wrong demographic modeling is a professional crime.

    On Cubans in Florida, I'm not 100% convinced Obama won them.  I know Plouffe said they won them in his conference call.  But Anna Navarro, a Florida GOP consultant, insists on Twitter a Republican can't reach 38% in Miami-Dade, which Romney reached, without winning at least 60% of Cubans.  My guess is she knows what she's talking about.  And that Romney got 38% of Florida Hispanics compared to 27% nationally tells me that he probably did win the Cuban vote.

    But I'll say this, if Obama won Cubans or even scored in the 40s with them, that is a disaster for the Florida and national GOP.  They cannot afford that, with white voters shrinking precipitously as a share of the total as it is.

    On results broadly, there is so much to be giddy about, it's not even all sunk in with me yet.  Obama winning Virginia was important to me.  But that he won Florida makes me ecstatic on a whole another level.  Baldwin and Warren make me giddy, the latter for her sake, for the left's sake, and for revenge against Scott Brown.  Baldwin is a double trailblazer, she already was the first-ever openly LGBT to get elected initially to the House (as opposed to coming out while in office then winning reelection).  That she pulled this off in a purple state like Wisconsin instead of a more liberal state is actually very, very important to advancing that cause.

    Gay marriage getting the voters' direct thumbs up in four states is huge.  That was the political glass ceiling, winning those damn referenda, and finally the left has broken through.  The dam has broken, states will follow precipitiously, with Obama backing gay marriage and getting reelected in addition to these referenda this will now rightly be a liberal litmus test in primaries.

    Tim Kaine, of course, is very important to me personally.  It's my state, and George Allen is a racist unfit for public office.

    I'm relieved the election is over.  The anxiety is gone.  Everything I care about most is secure for 4 more years.  I'm basking in satisfaction.  I drive with great pride with the bumper stickers on my car, the Romney stickers suddenly largely gone, as are most of their yard signs (they were strong in McLean, stronger than Bush '04 or McCain, even though we still carried (barely) most of the precincts here).

    That's all I have for now.  As a junkie, I am both lucky and unlucky to live where there's an important election every year.  Next year is the Governorship, plus L.G., A.G., and the House of Delegates for which we'll have a hot local race.

    Thanks to all of you for being here as a community for me to share.

    44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

    by DCCyclone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:24:38 PM PST

    •  Not everything we care about is secure... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paleo, James Allen, Englishlefty

      The president is in "negotiations" with the GOP on entitlement cuts.  Unless he changes his typical negotiating strategy, we'll give away everything and get some magic beans in return.  I hope he's learned from his past experiences on the matter.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:35:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sigh (10+ / 0-)

        This is where so many liberals fall down in failing to understand where things really stood in 2011.

        Obama had no leverage to negotiate.  The American people were squarely against him and his agenda.  Yes they cared about deficits and debt, and yes they wanted spending cut after what they viewed as a failed stimulus.  They were dead-set opposed to any more spending to create jobs...the word "stimulus" or anything like it made them roll their eyes and shake their heads.

        The people have outgrown all that this year.

        But in 2011 that's where they were, and that's what Obama was compelled to respect.  It wasn't about negotiating strategy, it was about public pressure, embodied by what they would reward or punish.

        Obama has leverage now because the default "do nothing" position produces the Clinton tax rates and eviscerates the military, which repels the GOP.  So they have to play ball.  And the public now, at least for the forseeable future, sides with Obama over Congressional Republicans, the opposite of 2011.  Obama can sit on his hands, he couldn't do that in 2011.

        44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

        by DCCyclone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:50:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand he has leverage now... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingTag, Chachy

          ...but will he use it?  He's never used his leverage in the past.  I hope that he will.  I think that he will, but you can never be too sure with him.  He will take a deal, any deal, at any cost just to have a deal.  He also gives up way to much initially.  I hope he's learned a few lessons.

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:56:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He has never used it in the past? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, NMLib

            He used it to ram through health care reform even after it was very unpopular.

            He used it for a debt ceiling deal that eviscerates the military and leaves taxes in place, and doesn't cut entitlement benefits at all.

            He used it early on for a supermassive stimulus of almost $1 trillion.

            That's just for starters.

            I'm just amazed by how much goes down the memory hole.  Nothing is ever enough or ever remembered.

            44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

            by DCCyclone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:42:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Who said Obama is in "negotiations" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike

        on entitlement cuts?

        "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

        by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:54:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Washington Post today... n/t (0+ / 0-)

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:57:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Link? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tietack

            "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

            by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:59:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Couldn't find the wapo article again... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KingTag, tietack, MichaelNY

              Here's a WSJ article:

              The White House also was trying to decide whether any offer should include deficit-cutting proposals that Democrats might find unappealing, such as changes to Medicare and Social Security.

              "He's going to try to send a message that he'll be flexible too, and he wants to effectively demonstrate that as early in this process as possible to try to set a new tone," said one White House adviser.

              http://online.wsj.com/...

              GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

              by LordMike on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:13:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm having a hard time worrying about this (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LordMike, askew, MichaelNY, DCCyclone

                stuff right now. For one thing, an unnamed adviser hardly speaks for the entire party. There's no reason at all for him to give away much of anything without substantial increases in revenue, and there's almost no way that any substantial increase in revenue is going to get past the nutballs in the House, particularly if it's going to be rushed. That's to say nothing of the Senate, which isn't going to along with any sort of drastic cuts. And on the off chance that there are major entitlement changes, I'll need to see what they are before I object.

                "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

                by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:53:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I saw similarly vague reports (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, askew, DCCyclone

                last year saying the same thing.  Nothing came of it.

              •  Allusions are normal parts of negotiations in the (0+ / 0-)

                public eye. Skaje is right, for the reasons stated by bjssp.

                I hope; therefore, I can live.

                by tietack on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:10:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I see nothing related to the negotiations in WP (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCCyclone

            please link.

            I hope; therefore, I can live.

            by tietack on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:16:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  And thank you for your service! n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tietack, sapelcovits, bumiputera

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:24:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oregon Republican House Leader (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, ChadmanFL

    changes from Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) to Mike McLane (R-Powell Butte).  McLane is pretty new, and represents a very large, very rural district in southern eastern Oregon.

    The new speaker of the state house should be Tina Kotek (D-Portland).

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:47:33 PM PST

  •  Obama's popular vote margin above (9+ / 0-)

    3 million now, according to CNN totals. According to their site, CA went from 69% counted yesterday all the way to...70% today. 45% of WA still out too.

  •  I was looking at my local election results (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    67 percent for Linda Sanchez in CA-39, 72 for Cristina Garcia in AD-58. Obama got 61 and 65 percent respectively in 2008. These are districts just north of 50 percent Hispanic CVAP and 15 percent Asian CVAP. That huge swing in the Asian vote (11 points compared to 2008
    ) was definitely seen here. But it was felt most in Sharon Quirk-Silva's shock victory over Chris Norby to give Dems 2/3 in the assembly. That district is just over 20 percent Asian CVAP. I thought Ed Royce would have to sweat by the end of the decade when I first saw that district and trends are definitely looking good. Getting an Assembly district in Orange County without Santa Ana is pretty huge.

    29, M, Swingnut, CA-38 resident. Chairman of the DKE Ginger Left-handed caucus. Huge Angels, Lakers, Bruins, Kings, Galaxy fan. Follow me on Twitter: @Artesialove

    by uclabruin18 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:51:27 PM PST

  •  Was looking at the NY Times map (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, jncca

    of the 08/12 Shift and of the states that had the most counties shift from 08/12, they were
    1. Illinois (mostly in southern Illinois)
    2. Kentucky (mostly in SE Kentucky)
    3. Utah
    4. West Virginia (mostly in southern part of state)

    Looked like the largest shift was Boone County, West Virginia in a +20.8% GOP shift.

    "So there's a time for silence, and there's a time for waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you'll know it. I don't think you should wait. I think you should speak now." -Taylor Swift

    by SouthernINDem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:07:12 PM PST

    •  At least in the case of southern Illinois, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, JGibson

      it doesn't look like all of the votes that Obama lost from 2008 went to Republicans.

      "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

      by bjssp on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:16:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama improved in all the Black Belt. (0+ / 0-)

      It's pretty clear.  It stretches from VA's Southside region to the southern Mississippi Delta region and is named for the quality of the soil for agriculture (highest quality).

      Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

      by KingofSpades on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:51:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  When I say this, I mean a shift of over 10% GOP (0+ / 0-)

    "So there's a time for silence, and there's a time for waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you'll know it. I don't think you should wait. I think you should speak now." -Taylor Swift

    by SouthernINDem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:07:43 PM PST

  •  ME-St. House: WoW-playing Demcrat won! (8+ / 0-)

    Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

    by KingofSpades on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:36:22 PM PST

  •  Ashley Judd rumor I heard... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, bumiputera

    When I was in Charlotte for the DNC (parents were delegates), I met a member of the Tennessee delegation who was eating dinner at the bar I was at.  He stated that Lamar Alexander may be retiring in 2 years (speculation based on some of his recent votes), and if so then they want Ashley Judd to run for that open seat.  She was a member of the Tennessee delagattion along with him, and I'm pretty sure she announced their state's vote total at the convention, not Kentucky's...At any rate, she has a public policy degree, and is a very smart woman.  I'm interested to see what she decides to do.  

    •  TN (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bjssp, MichaelNY, uclabruin18, bumiputera

      The Dems actually have a bench in TN...on paper. Phil Bredesen must not want to run, which is understandable as he will be 71. John Tanner (70), Bart Gordon (65), and Lincoln Davis (71) might not be up for it either and obviously all passed on this year's race. Cooper and Cohen won't want to throw their House seats away. That leaves...not much. Judd would be a massive underdog, but would probably at least be able to generate some positive buzz for the comatose state party and she wouldn't embarrass the party like that Alvin Greene-level knucklehead who ran against Corker did.

      SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

      by sacman701 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:49:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can she self fund at least partially? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, jncca

        The way I think rich folks should self-fund is match dollar for dollar donations to their campaign.  So if I donate $50, she'd match that and thus double my donation.  

        If she's serious she needs to hit the talk shows and show she has the chops and understands the issues.  I'm not saying she doesn't but she'll be treated as an airhead pretty face starlet by the MSM.  

        They have the billionaires, We have the Big Dog!

        by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:38:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site