Skip to main content

The Cure -- "Friday I'm In Love"

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

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    Editor, Daily Kos Elections

    by James L on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:00:10 PM PST

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

    There's a few names floating around, Gov. Codey, Barbara Buono, Lou Greenwald, Steve Sweeney, and the elephant in the room.......Cory Booker.

    While Codey is without a doubt my number one pick, unfortunately Booker may be the only one in the field of potentials who can possibly take down Christie. I do however think Booker would much rather run for Senate in 2014 as Christie right now is holy here in Jersey.

    I expect alot of outside money for this race from both sides so who knows, this can possibly turn into a race but I honestly think Christie will win in a landslide.

  •  Virginia Gov (0+ / 0-)

    Just thinking of how the GOP will try and cover Ken Coo Coo nelli's past statements will make for great tv.   Oh for the joy of more popcorn!

    I can't force you to do anything, I can just make you regret it!

    by restondem on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:23:00 PM PST

  •  PVIs (7+ / 0-)

    https://docs.google.com/...

    CA-49: R+5 to R+4
    CA-50: R+14 to R+13
    CA-51: D+11 to D+16
    CA-52: D+1 to D+2
    CA-53: D+7 to D+10

    Issa is probably safe for the decade. That district isn't moving fast enough to put it in play anytime soon with such a strong incumbent. Peters is probably not out of the woods, only having moved a point towards us and Obama actually suffering one of is bigger falls in that district in the state and given that the Hispanic population there is not insignificant.

    CO-1: D+17 to D+18
    CO-2: D+8 to D+8
    CO-3: R+4 to R+5
    CO-4: R+12 to R+11
    CO-5: R+15 to R+13
    CO-6: R+1 to D+1
    CO-7: D+3 to D+5

    Tipton is probably not a good target anymore, having moved eve further away. Coffman is definitely still a target, though it might take until 2016 to knock him off given turnout drop in midterms for Hispanics. Perlmutter is probably now off the GOPs target list.

    WA-1: D+3 to D+4
    WA-2: D+8 to D+9
    WA-3: R+2 to R+2
    WA-4: R+14 to R+13
    WA-5: R+6 to R+7
    WA-6: D+5 to D+5
    WA-7: D+28 to D+29
    WA-8: R+2 to R+1
    WA-9: D+15 to D+17
    WA-10: D+4 to D+5

    The GOP probably has no good offensive targets anymore in this state, as both Heck and DelBene have moved out of the danger zone. Herrera Beutler might be interesting if we could get a good nominee there, but the better option is, interestingly, Reichert. His district actually moved towards us in PVI and Obama won it this go around as well.

    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

    by wwmiv on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:24:31 PM PST

    •  Yeah, WA-08 was a surprise this year (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bjssp, jncca, MichaelNY

      The more conservative Portland suburbs (Clackamas, Skamania, and Clark counties) moved pretty hard against President Obama this year (Obama still carried Clackamas by about his national margin, but he exceeded it there in 2008, and he won Clark again, but by one of his slimmest county margins in the country; he actually lost Skamania outright, which came as a mild surprise to me), but Obama held up well in the Seattle area. I actually would have expected the opposite; Seattle's suburbs have a reputation for being more affluent and business-minded than Portland's, deserved or not.

      I'd be interested to see if the margin looks much different in Ellensburg this year than it did in 2008. I think that would be a good place for a challenge to Rep. Reichert to originate; it's a college town, but it's in conservative Kittitas County (east of the Cascades), so a Democrat could potentially have a supportive liberal base there while being able to rally regional sentiments for a representative from central Washington. That would only work if said Democrat also appealed to King County liberals and centrists who have been more or less comfortable voting for Reichert in years past.

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

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:37:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  could backfire (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tietack, MichaelNY

        King County moderates sticking with one of their own instead of the guy from Inland.  I think Washington and California are pretty similar in terms of Seattle = Bay Area and Central Washington = Central Valley.  And I'd advise a Bay Area candidate if there were a similar district in California (for example a less gerrymandered version of McNerney's old district).

        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
        politicohen.com
        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

        by jncca on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:45:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  While you're on the right track (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca, MichaelNY

          There's a significant difference between Seattle/Bellevue and the rest of King County, which includes places like Twin Peaks (aka Snoqualamie Falls from the TV show), as well as Auburn, sort of a blue collar suburb.

          I hope; therefore, I can live.

          by tietack on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:43:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Snoqualamie Falls (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KingofSpades, tietack

            I've been there; it's really pretty.  King County is kind of similar to California's East Bay.

            Far West you have the most liberal parts, along the water (Seattle = Berkeley, although Seattle is much larger), then South of that are heavily minority Democratic areas (South Seattle, places like Tukwila vs. Oakland, San Leandro), then further South is also pretty blue collar (Auburn, I think Des Moines vs. Hayward, Newark).  However, further East are wealthy suburbs that are ancestrally R but getting bluer (Bellevue and areas East of it vs. LaMOrinda, Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville), then in the far East are semi rural areas (idk what they're called in Washington, but in the East Bay it's Brentwood, Discovery Bay, Tracy which is technically Valley but kind of Bay Area)

            19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
            politicohen.com
            Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
            UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

            by jncca on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:00:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Snoqualamie Falls. Sounds familiar. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tietack

              That talk about locations in King County reminds me of when I was a toddler living in Seattle (from age 2-4).  I remember that whenever people greeted each other and said where they're from, they'd say they're from East, South, West, or North Seattle.  We lived in West Seattle.  I remember the Fremont troll, flying a seagull-shaped kite Gasworks Park where there was always a strong wind from the Sound...

              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 Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:11:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The diversity in King County (0+ / 0-)

              suggests diversity in their politics -- thus, showing how the King County vote can split.

              That's confirmed by membership in the King County Council, split 5-4 D-R.

              There's no reason for King County voters to stick together when faced by a candidate from Ellensberg -- unless that candidate shows an antipathy towards King County. To be fair (and why you may be right in some cases) I found that antipathy to be fairly common (at unscientifically determined levels) from east of the mountains,  and from even north of the King County line (aka Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom counties).

              I hope; therefore, I can live.

              by tietack on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:18:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  If we are to get back the majority (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      homerun, MichaelNY, James Allen, kman23

      Reichert may simply have to be one of the targets.  We can always hope for a surprise retirement.

  •  CA AD 61 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    Glad to see my new assembly member, Jose Medina, getting a head start. He was appointed to the Chairmanship of Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy today

    http://blog.pe.com/...

    In 1977, 31 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. That grew to 49 percent in 2009. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, support swelled to 70 percent in 2006, All while Republican opposition stayed the same.

    by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:36:56 PM PST

  •  MI: Looks like RTW will become law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Any polling on this? Could this actually help Dems in the state win back the legislature and/or the governor's mansion? There seems to be a decent number of pro-Labor Republicans in the state.  I wondering if this is more like SB5 in OH or Walker's legislation in WI.

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

      do we have a reasonable chance of having it overturned by initiative?

      I say this is a better question 2014 is a looooonnngg time away in politics. While we wait for that, the motivation to push back could lessen and the ability to get the funds necessary to fund the push back could be severely impaired.

      Or maybe I am wrong; I certainly hope I am. Perhaps there are simply more affected by this than there were in Wisconsin. I just worry that it's going to be put on the back burner.

      I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

      by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:28:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I said it in Wisconsin (12+ / 0-)

      I'll say it again here.

      Democrats need to be very careful not to overestimate the popularity of unions and organized labor. They can be very powerful assets to Democrats in terms of mobilizing votes -- but as we saw in Wisconsin, for the majority of the electorate that is not unionized, just talking about the "assault on organized labor" and "union-busting" doesn't have a whole lot of appeal to swing voters, at least not on its own.

      A lot of people (unfortunately) really like the idea of "standing up to the unions". The RWNM has been waging war on the idea of labor for years. Whether we like it or not, they have been very effective at sticking unions with a lot of negative connotations in many people's minds.

      If Democrats go after Gov. Snyder and the Republicans, they need a broader message. They need to attack things like the emergency manager laws, the gerrymandering (which I maintain is the issue Democrats need to bring into the mainstream if they ever want to take back the U.S. House), and the overall pattern of Republicans pretending to want to be fiscally responsible leaders and then embarking on radical agendas with no mandate from the people to do so.

      I suggest an approach like, "Rick Snyder is a nice enough guy -- too nice. Snyder said he would fight for us, but every time Republicans in Lansing have rammed through legislation that hurts the people of Michigan, Snyder just hasn't been able to tell them no. Tell Snyder we're tired of not having leadership in Lansing. Michigan is hurting, and we deserve better."

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

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:46:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I admit that my views on unions are...conflicted. (0+ / 0-)

        Sometimes I worry that I'm not exactly a mainstream Democrat over economic issues.

        •  I'm an old-school Oregon Republican-style Democrat (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordpet8

          I hear you. Although the Republican scapegoating of unions as responsible for all the world's ills makes me a lot more sympathetic to them than I'd probably naturally be.

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

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:25:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What's a Oregon Republican-style Democrat? (0+ / 0-)
            •  I would have been a Republican... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Audrid, bjssp, MichaelNY, pademocrat

              If I were living in Oregon 40 years ago. I probably would have migrated to the Democratic Party during the 1980s, but I would have voted for then-Sen. Hatfield in every election up until his retirement (would have voted for then-Rep. AuCoin when he ran for Senate in 1992 against then-Sen. Packwood, though).

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

              by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:34:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What was the big difference between the (0+ / 0-)

                Democrats and Republicans back then? For all of the talk of the Democratic party marching to the right, it's not clear they were ever really that far to the left. I wonder how much of it is simply the Republicans becoming far more conservative and refusing to deal/being perfectly willing to bring the government to a halt to get what they want.

                I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:39:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know if there was a "big" difference... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bjssp, MichaelNY, Audrid

                  At least ideologically. Probably the best modern analog I can think of are the National and Labour parties in New Zealand: both fairly socially liberal (though rather unevolved on abortion rights; I don't share that particular stance, of course) and with similar philosophies on the role of government, that being that a government should provide for and defend the rights of its people, but the difference being that National (like the Oregon Republicans of yore) are more white-collar and take a more classically liberal view of government and economics, while Labour (like the Oregon Democrats of then, continuing to the present day) are more blue-collar and sympathetic to a social democratic view of government and economics.

                  Note I do distinguish between classical liberalism as expressed by the likes of Locke, Smith, and Bentham, and neoclassical liberalism as expressed by Hayek, Friedman, and Mises. I consider the latter to be the forebear of right-libertarianism and anarcho-conservatism, while the former to be the forebear of left-libertarianism and libertarian progressivism on the modern political spectrum

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

                  by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:55:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Sao has in the past (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              described himself as a kind of Mark Hatfield Democrat, which is essentially being pro-government but not necessarily for big government, pro-social programs and specifically pro-education, and kind of a pacifist and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy.

              I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

              by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:36:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with those, except for isolationism. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                A world like the 1930s with an isolationist America is a pretty terrifying idea.

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

                  I'm not really an isolationist as much as I favor extracting ourselves from alliances with countries that do not share our sense of political economy and our commitment to human rights. Alliances with few and friendships with many is my preference. I see our strongest natural allies as being fellow members of the Anglosphere (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, chiefly), very closely followed by the enlightened democracies of Western Europe, East Asia, and the Southern Cone. I'm less enamored of our entanglements in the Middle East and Africa (except for emerging democracies like Liberia, which has strong historical and cultural links to the U.S., and Botswana, among a smattering of others).

                  And as for our use of military power, I favor limited intervention with a coalition of allies in the case of clear and present and egregious crimes against human rights when it is clear that our action would have popular support on the ground. I felt we should have acted in Syria last year, before Islamists were able to fill the void that the NATO-led coalition occupied in Libya; I was a very strong supporter of our actions in Libya. I don't like going around trying to pick a fight, as we did with Iraq; I also don't like playing chicken with Iranian warships, because it frankly just makes us look ridiculous.

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

                  by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:06:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't want to get into a dispute about issues (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Zack from the SFV, sapelcovits

                    So I'll just say that to support a commitment to human rights by other governments, it helps if you also hold your own country to one. If your own government flouts human rights at home and abroad, it has no standing to complain when other governments do likewise.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:58:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I do agree with this (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      Then again, we're hardly on the same level as our buddies in Bahrain, for example.

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

                      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:15:30 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What do you think about Singapore? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY
                        •  Singapore isn't a liberal democracy (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY, kman23, jncca

                          I don't mind trading with countries that aren't liberal democracies, but I don't think we should call them allies or pledge any commitment to them beyond a trade deal, if it's in our economic interests.

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

                          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:20:35 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think you're being fair to Singapore here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Audrid

                            Although it certainly has profound one-party dominance it has free and fair elections and a liberal society with a strong rule of law. If one party dominance necessarily equated to not having a liberal democracy than you couldn't call France from the 1960s-1980s, Italy from the 1940s-1980s or Japan from the 1940s-1990s liberal Democracies either.

                            26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                            by okiedem on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:56:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To expand (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Audrid, WisJohn

                            Although the People's Action Party certainly does some strong-arming to maintain its control so too do Democrats though things such as the Illinois gerrymander and Republicans through voting restrictions targeting minorities or gerrymanders in PA, and OH. Almost every democracy in the world is at least somewhat corrup and illiberal. Only a  few stand out as being ultra-clean and uncorrupt like Norway, Switzerland, Minnesota, (New Zealand?).

                            26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                            by okiedem on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:59:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The PAP in Singapore (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sawolf, Audrid, Zack from the SFV

                            has maintained power in part by selectively prosecuting opposition candidates for "libel" when they criticize PAP politicians. The courts then impose fines that bankrupt the opposition candidates. Then, Singapore's law prohibiting bankrupt individuals from running for office kicks in and gets them thrown off the ballot. Show me something that severe in the US; I'd be curious.

                            The PAP certainly would have won free, fair elections for decades, and quite possibly, every election from the year Singapore was expelled from the Federation of Malaysia until today, but as things stand, Singapore is certainly an illiberal democracy, not a liberal one.

                            For the record, I think that's good enough for a warm alliance between the US (not an extremely liberal democracy ourselves, at this point) to be just fine.

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:11:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As far as political freedoms go, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY, AussieforObama2ndterm

                            Singapore has been liberalizing very quickly in the last decade.

                            Case in point: the PAP at the last election has reversed its policy of withholding upgrading of public housing in opposition-held constituencies.

                            Also, libel suits have become very rare ever since around 2000 (which is the earliest time I can be confident that my memory does not fail me).

                            Honestly, as much as I believe in liberal democracy, I would still vote for the PAP, simply because I don't believe any opposition party could run the country anywhere as well in the short to medium term.

                            As regards social freedoms, I think the PAP is being held back more by society's conservatism than the other way round.

                          •  All of what you say makes sense (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Zack from the SFV

                            And the fact that a party is the only competent one is an excellent reason to vote for it.

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:26:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think times are changing in Singapore (4+ / 0-)

                            I lived in Singapore for 10 years and still have many friends there

                            Putting aside the blatant gerrymandering and the less-than-subtle ways that the PAP had/has for silencing their political opponents, I think that a lot of the PAP's immense reservoir of support came from the generations that remembered the hard times that Singapore went through before and after its independence and how Lee Kuan Yew essentially transformed what could have easily been a third-world developing country torn apart by racial strife and entirely dependent on other nations into the a first-world booming economic powerhouse with a cohesive multiracial society. Many members of those generations did have concerns about the way that the PAP subverted parliamentary opposition but largely thought that the benefits -economic prosperity, social cohesion, first-class status et all- overwhelmingly outweighed the disadvantages

                            The up-and-coming generation, however, has never known anything else other than those benefits and so therefore they are beginning to focus in on the disadvantages more than their parents and grandparents have. Additionally with the technological advances that have been made, the official government-controlled media is facing the predicament that other media outlets are facing in the sense that younger Singaporeans can now get independent sources of news and information and don't depend on the government sources as much as was evident in the past

                            And it's having some, albeit limited as yet, impact on political trends. The opposition gained some significant ground at the last election (when I say significant, it must be understood as being significant in the context of Singapore politics -the government still won in a massive blowout but the opposition performed strongly by Singaporean standards). Equally as interesting was the race for the position of Singapore's elected presidency. While the two major candidates for the position were aligned with the PAP, it was clear that the government's preferred candidate for the position was Tony Tan -a former senior government minister who was once in line for succession to the Prime Minister's job. In days gone by, Tan would have more likely than not coasted to victory by an easy margin but this time he only ended up winning by only a handful of votes in a surprisingly close race. That was seen by some as a sign of changing times and an increasingly restless electorate that could not be taken for granted

                            The PAP has gone some way toward recognizing this fact and adapting to changing times, as evidenced by the above posts on here. Lee Hsien Loong, the incumbent Prime Minister, has defied some of the stereotypes of him as a hot-tempered dynasty kid and has actually proven to be a surprisingly adept Prime Minister. But there are still some sections of the PAP whose response to the changing political trends has been very clumsy and awkward. This was never more evident than in last year's election when some members of the older generation of the PAP -namely former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew -gave rather condescending and patronizing lectures to young voters about why they should vote for the PAP. After the disappointing election result, this was seen to have had the opposite effect than what was intended and Lee and his successor as Prime Minister -who had made similar comments -were diplomatically put out to pasture in the post-election aftermath

                            I don't think one should overestimate the signs of change and conclude that one-party rule in Singapore is one the wane -far from it. I do not see any sign that the PAP's control of Singapore is in danger and the fact that the PAP is slowly and gradually taking steps to adapt to change -albeit in a rather clunky way at times -means that it is avoiding the mistakes of many similar one-party governments whom entrench themselves in their old ways and do not respond to change until it is too late. Additionally, Singapore has very little of the corruption that has plagued some of the ruling parties neighboring countries (Lee Kuan Yew was always very strict on this point) and class/socio-economic disparity is not much of an issue in Singapore as most of its citizens are relatively well-off. Problems in race relations do exist but they are nowhere as prevalent as they are in countries such as Indonesia or Malaysia because the government has made a concerted effort to promote racial harmony and integrate the various cultures and races. So there's no simmering powder keg that I can see which could result in dramatic upheaval in the way that we've seen in other one-party states. And, while support for the PAP is not what it once was, it is still there in overwhelming force and there is no viable alternative.

                            But it will be interesting to watch political and electoral trends and how the government adapts to it over time. Singapore has the potential to be much more interesting over coming years than it has been in the past

                          •  Thanks for that very informative post. n/t (2+ / 0-)

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:11:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  when my family were progressive Republicans (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bjssp, SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY, bythesea

            the men of my family were still proud union members.

            ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:57:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

              Have always -- continuing to the present day, actually -- been one of Oregon's neat little quirks.

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

              by SaoMagnifico on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:23:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Same with Michigan until about 5 years ago (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                Part of the reason why Dingell had such good election numbers is that he did well among Reagan Democrats who were union members. He's one of the few Michigan Democrats that has done well with that group and I think it's largely because metro Detroit is where the vast majority of union works exist.

                (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:35:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I understand where you are coming from. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not so much pro-union as against one-sidedness in a bunch of ways. There can certainly be problems with unions and those that deal with them, but it seems like the default position is anti-union, pro-corporation, no matter what the issue is.

          I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

          by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:29:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think unions in the US ought to have more power. (0+ / 0-)

            However, unions like those who basically wrecked Britain's economy during the 70s were too powerful.

            •  And then Maggie Thatcher got back at them (5+ / 0-)

              by bringing the mining industry to near ruination.

              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 Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:50:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  All groups can get out of control. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike

              The difference, as I see it, is that nobody ever seems to question those at the very top and instead focuses on those at the other end. As Brian Scwheit

              I hesitate to say much more, since I am far from an expert on this subject, but while I understand the basic argument that public unions are different from those in the private sector because they are dealing with one government as opposed to multiple private firms, I'm not sure it's right to simply not allow public collective bargaining. There's got to be a way to create a better system of checks and balances to balance the interest of workers and the public and workers and private sector firms.

              I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

              by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:55:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The Conservatives came back on the unions... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KingofSpades

              In the UK way too hard. That wrecked certain sectors of the economy -- coal mining comes to mind -- as much as anything else did.

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

              by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:07:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The cost of coal mining in the UK also killed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                the industry. I'm not saying Thatcher and her party isn't a key player in the demise of the UK coal industry but the truth was that the UK coal mines weren't cost efficient.  

                (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:37:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Institutions are run by people (6+ / 0-)

          Therefore, all are imperfect. But if you really want to understand what unions have done, why don't you look at working conditions in places where unions have virtually no power, like Bangladesh, where two fires in the last two weeks killed hundreds of people because the workers weren't allowed to freely leave, or the US about 100 years ago, when we had a similar conflagration at the Shirtwaist Triangle Factory here in New York. Etc., etc., etc. This is not the place to go into great detail, let alone to argue, but I will just tell you that pressure from unions and its political arm (socialist and labor movements) was mainly responsible for the end of child labor, maximum hours laws, minimum wage laws, product safety laws, workplace safety laws, Social Security, and most of the other protections of public safety and the individual right not to starve or die needlessly in the US, and also in Europe, Canada, Australia, and numerous other places. I don't have much use for conflicted feelings over the union movement in general, though any reasonable person will nod their head when complaints are made about particular unions or union leaders who were corrupt, ineffective, or destructive. Management can mess up or be dishonest, and so can unions.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:06:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think you are on to something. (0+ / 0-)

        I'd say part of the pitch could be that other workers could form their own unions, but (a) it's not at all clear people could even imagine doing something like that and (b) I am not sure of the best way to characterize it. Or maybe it's just better to not make the issue so prominent.

        This is part of the reason why I suggested focusing on states outside of the Rust Belt today. I don't think we should give up the fight anywhere, but if the overarching goal is to give workers options and unions more room to operate, which I think it is, it might in some ways be easier to try to create a constituency almost from scratch.

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:44:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sao and Audrid, you should (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, SaoMagnifico, Audrid

        both watch this clip of Brian Schweitzer and Mitch Daniels from back when Scott Walker introduced Act 10 in Wisconsin. (Start at 4:20 for the interview.) For Sao, I think it's good because it shows how to effectively discuss this. And Audrid, this kind of sums up how I feel: it's not life or death, just important in its own way because it means that some people have a voice where they might not otherwise have one and, in some cases, it might be more efficient to bargain with people as a group.

        On a larger note, this is yet another example of why I think Schweitzer might be a force to be reckoned with in 2016, assuming he wants it and assuming gun control isn't an albatross for him. He's direct and articulate, passionate without being a loudmouthed zealot, and comes across as genuine. In this specific clip, I think he does a good job of responding to Daniels' claims.

        Also, has anyone asked the private sector unions, specifically the Teamsters, about Mitch Daniels reversing himself on RTW?

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:11:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I remember watching this... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bjssp

          When it first aired and loving it. Gov. Schweitzer is goddamn compelling. The problem is that Democrats who don't have the same kind of distance that he does from the subject, nor the same rhetorical talent and natural intellect, frequently talk about it the wrong way. Instead, you get a bunch of activist-style leadership, well-meaning Democrats getting up in front of aggrieved crowds with a bullhorn, and it's just not what it takes to win over the people. It enthuses the base, but the Republican base always turns out, so Republicans are able to spend time appealing to swing voters instead of just marching their supporters back and forth down State Street and resurrecting old Teamster chants.

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

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:40:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know about Wisconsin... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bjssp, MichaelNY

        I know in Ohio that union sympathy remains high, especially in the hinterlands of the state (excluding the southwest) which are typically quite red.  

        Michigan should have a similar high affinity, except out west, but like you said, it shouldn't be overestimated.  There is a love/hate relationship with labor in MI.  Most of those who have any experience with unions in their extended family or friends, or grew up in a pro-union area love them and will fight to the end for them.  Those who didn't have feelings that vary from ambivalent to hostile--either unions make their jobs or business more difficult, or they've been told over and over again how unions ruined Michigan and that's why all the jobs left.

        The message from labor must be inclusive to all of the middle class, and they must make that case explicitly clear.  The wisconsin protesters did do an admirable job of that initially, but they went too far for too long.  They also focused too much on Walker himself instead of the agenda.   The complaints about MI right to work should be focused on the political ram through, the people funding it, and how it's designed to hurt the last bulwark against the 1% and the last defenders of the middle class.  Middle class needs to be part of each and every message they put out.

        Ohio SB5 provided the template, not Wisconsin.  They need to follow that one to the T.  Currently, they are doing the right thing.  They are focusing on the unfair process and making the law toxic as a result.   Once the law is actually passed, they have to back off the protests and focus on the biggest organizing campaign ever.

        GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

        by LordMike on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:30:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As was discussed elsewhere, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          if it's able to be reversed by initiative, that seems to make it safe. Depending how quickly this process can take place (which I asked about below), there seems to be straightforward process: be absolutely, goddamn sure that every single person already sympathetic to this cause turns out and, mostly to win the news wars but also to try to expand the coalition, do what you said as far as talking about it.

          I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

          by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:45:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Part of the problem is that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jncca, LordMike

        a lot of Democrats themselves are not especially enthusiastic about unions (this includes me).

        This is especially true for the intellectual elite, the people who Bill Clinton brought into the party. When even on a site like DKE you have people saying they're not great fans of unions...it makes you understand why Democrats haven't been fully able to summon up and mobilize their full strength in fighting anti-union efforts by Republicans.

        http://mypolitikal.com/

        by Inoljt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:39:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why aren't you particularly enthusiastic... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BeloitDem, MichaelNY, tietack, askew

          ...about unions?  You don't like paid holidays and weekends off?  Or perhaps you hate the volunteering and gotv they do for democratic candidates.  Or their strong stand for workers rights?

          Trying to figure out your beef with labor...

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:18:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Organized labor... (7+ / 0-)

            "The folks who brought you the weekend".  (to quote a popular bumper sticker)

            Not all unions are perfect (I am particularly annoyed sometimes with the DC Metro transit workers union) but they've almost always been, on balance, a force for economic and societal good IMO.  And their flaws are pretty insignificant compared to the sins of unchecked big business, finance, and the Republicans who do their bidding.

            37, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

            by Mike in MD on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:31:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Zack from the SFV, Skaje, askew

              Factories used to post signs saying "If you don't come to work on Sunday, don't come to work on Monday." I originally was going to post more, but I fear this is an issues-based derail, so my only observation is that it's dispiriting that some Democrats don't see labor rights as fundamental, and that shows the degree to which the Democratic Party is not a socialist party but a pro-corporate party.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:25:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not that you (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, LordMike

                directed this comment at me, and like you, I hope not to derail this thread, but...

                For me, as I indicated above, it's not that I don't see labor rights as fundamental. As a basic matter of fairness, in a few different ways, I think we should be far more pro-union as a country, but I think these things go beyond unions. I suspect a lot of Democrats feel something similar to this, or at least no outright hostility to unions*, but rather are simply being kind of spineless by simply moving with the crowds.

                *As I've pointed out a few times, it was Evan Bayh, of all people, who signed an executive order in 1989 (which, really, isn't all that long ago) creating collective bargaining rights for Indiana state workers.

                I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:11:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But being spineless on a right (0+ / 0-)

                  means that you don't really see a right as fundamental, correct?

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:28:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Maybe that was a poor choice of words. (0+ / 0-)

                    I just think there's a difference between not taking up unionization as an issue because it's not really relevant and being actively anti-union. There are plenty of ways to address the rights of workers without focusing on unions, and given that in a lot of ways this appears to be a state issue as opposed to a federal one, I could imagine why some federal Democrats don't take it very far.

                    I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                    by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:16:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  States' rights Democrats? (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't think that's it. Those folks left the party when the Democratic Party became the champion of Federal control over civil rights.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:19:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We have a few "states' rights" Ds in the PacNW (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY, Zack from the SFV

                        people who pushed against Bush when pushing statewide health care reform -- also when pushing "assisted suicide" laws.

                        If I were a pro-pot person in WA, I'd be getting ready to use the 10th amendment in support of Washington's right to legalize marijuana use.

                        I hope; therefore, I can live.

                        by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:18:46 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  what, we don't believe in a legitimate role for (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        tietack

                        state governments and federalism?  Should everything be controlled by the feds?  I don't think so.  If that makes me a states' rights Dem, so be it.

                        But isn't that really believing the opposite, that there shouldn't be an expansive federal government that has more power than a strict and conservative interpretation of the constitution?

                        ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:51:17 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm having trouble parsing your last question (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bfen

                          My feeling is, if you believe something is a right, you'd want the Federal government to enforce it and not leave it to the states if they're violating it. On the other hand, if the Federal government is determined to violate it, you'd take recourse to state action. That's a pragmatic viewpoint in service of individual rights, not a position that "states' rights" should ever trump individual rights, like the right to organize a union, for example.

                          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                          by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:29:20 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Man, I'm not coming through clearly at all. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY

                        Others can tell me if I am wrong, but aside from some small movements here or there, there have been no major moments in the last few decades. It has been, in a lot of ways, a slow and steady decline for private sector unions, and no better than holding steady for public sector unions. While this was happening, Democrats didn't always hold the right positions of power to make any difference. Even when they did, their coalitions didn't consider unionization a big issue.

                        This isn't to say that they were anti-labor, only that, rightly or wrongly, they didn't pay a lot of attention to the issue. I certainly understand why this might have been the case, and I imagine you could understand it, too. I mean, are you going to fight what might easily be a losing battle? Hell, would you even have the chance to do so, if the opposition party doesn't even give you a voice?

                        Now, I suspect things might be different. There are very few explicitly pro-labor/union Republicans left in the House and Senate and only slightly more at the state level. Not all of the members of the unions are behind us, but the battle lines couldn't be clearer. We've still got an emerging coalition in a lot of places, but in a political sense, it might behoove Democrats in, say, Colorado and Nevada to push for greater labor rights and union rights for all workers. It could make a small group of people a lot more powerful and make us direct allies of them.

                        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                        by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:33:37 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Yes brought you (0+ / 0-)

              Most of the good unions brought was what 100 years ago? I still support unions and such but I think unions today have more or less hit their ceiling in what they can do for employees these days. Besides uniting the work force into a structured coherent system, I think the benefits of unions are capped.

              (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

              by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:43:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  heck no (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Skaje, MichaelNY, BeloitDem, gabjoh

                maybe what they can do for their own members, but most workers are not organized, and a lot of people could see a lot of improvement.

                ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:53:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Some sure (0+ / 0-)

                  However, as you said many of those workers aren't unionized and won't be anytime soon. Which does limit the good unions can do. That's partially my point.

                  I think Unions too often have pitted ownership against the employees and I think that's a mistake and it's sad. Ownership and workers should pull together. They both have a vested stake in the company. Pitting the two sides against each other has helped CEOs sell this notion that employees are replaceable, that unskilled labor is fine, that CEOs should look after themselves first and foremost, etc. And because of this unions have hurt their employees quite a bit. I'm not saying unions aren't good. I do believe in them.

                  Maybe I'm missing a portion of what unions do because the mere act of existing is what helps their employees but it seems like often unions just hurt their own employees. It seems like often unions don't buy into the issues that the company says that have. Sometimes they're right but I think often they're just being naive. Unions seem too slow in adapting to the changing economy. The people that need union protection (migrant workers, any jobs that pay minimum wage, etc.) aren't unionized and those that are often use the union to fight modernization. I think in today's world things move so fast that often unions with 5-10 year contracts, where every change in a contract is fought, that they're often just as much of a hinderance on who they represent.

                  The truth is if we wanted to help the people that need unionization most their are other easier changes to make like raising the poverty line by 150 to 200%. Increasing welfare payments, making college free, make education better, etc. None of that would come from unions and it'd help them more IMHO than anything that a union could do (except making sure migrant workers have safer working conditions).

                  (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                  by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:55:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Unions have sometimes guessed wrong (5+ / 0-)

                    in being so suspicious of management that they didn't accept facts about companies actually being on as weak a financial footing as they said they were. But blaming unions for pitting workers against management and ignoring hundreds of years of depredations by capitalists against their employees that necessitated both the union movement and a fair degree of suspicion of management's intentions and honesty in showing their real books is putting your head in the sand.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:04:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  During the heyday of the union movement (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Skaje, BeloitDem, Zack from the SFV

                in the 1950s-70s, a large number of American workers had decent salaries, good benefits, and were able to live a middle-class lifestyle. What's happened since unions started to weaken/be weakened? And you think this is their ceiling, today?

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:21:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't think that's the sole reason (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jncca

                  Is it part of the reason? Sure. Also, the economy isn't growing at 10% annual rates. The US was so far ahead of the rest of world post WWII that even if we kept everything the same, the middle class would have been hampered with the rest of the world catching up. Additionally, despite the best efforts of unions numerous jobs would go abroad no matter what. There are dozens of reasons why middle class growth has slowed. Putting it on union demise is simplistic. Energy costs, global competition, technology evening the playing field, US education dropping quickly, CEOs that are career CEOs, a finance industry interested in short term gains and not growth, limited government investment in infrastructure, etc. are also reasons.

                  (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                  by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:36:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  If unions aren't around to keep fighting (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, Zack from the SFV

                those benefits will slide backwards.

                •  I think that's way too simplistic (0+ / 0-)

                  Not saying the overall idea is wrong but just saying that unions are the reason why benefits aren't sliding back seems way too simplified. Many companies are decent companies that care about their employees. Even with unions there are still companies that hurt their employees. I think unions are generally a good thing but for the average worker they don't alter their work much.

                  (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                  by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:32:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Make an analogous argument about civil rights laws (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BeloitDem, gabjoh

                    "That's way too simplistic. If companies had the right to discriminate against people of color, disabled people, and women, many of them wouldn't do it because they love their workers. So civil rights laws really don't have much effect on the average black, female, or disabled worker."

                    Do you find that a credible argument? I don't, nor do I find yours the least bit credible.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:38:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How does this have anything to do with (0+ / 0-)

                      civil rights laws?

                      Is a Hitler comparison next?

                      I don't even know how to respond to this comment.

                      My whole point was that you saying that benefits will slide without unions seems simplified for a number of reasons.

                      1) White collar sectors don't tend to have unions. However, tech companies and the like seem to have decent pay/benefit packages. If good benefits can come without unions, how does losing them guarantee a loss in benefits?

                      2) There are dozens of different reasons why benefits might be pushed back. For example, despite pay being stagnant and no new benefits nobody can say benefit packages haven't gone up this past 20 years. It has. However, it's all gone into Health Care costs. So to the union member they don't see their benefits or pay increasing but that's not true. The company is putting in more money. It's just that the employee doesn't see the real costs. Unions have nothing to do with this. This is purely a cost increase issue.

                      3) Companies tend to give benefits when the economy is expanding. When companies need to compete they have to attract the best candidates. When unemployment is 7% they don't need to. Chris Hayes this morning mentioned that in parts of North Dakota McDonald's is giving $300 bonuses to new employees. That proves that with or without unions, it's competition for employees that's the key for benefits.

                      4) Globalization is more of a cause than union push back. Why pay an employee $40k and a huge benefit package (mostly eaten up by HC cost) when you can get a similar employee in South Korea and your not on the hook for health care? Even if with unions this is happening. It's a stronger force than unions. With or without unions this will continue if Health Care costs in the US are ridiculous.

                      5) Still totally confused by the inclusion of civil rights laws. You said x proves y. I said a through x might prove y. You come back with some people are racist and without civil rights bills they'd hire based on their racism. People don't hire based on union push for right's. That's basically the analogy your making.

                      (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                      by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:14:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  One issue is immigration laws (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY

                        US tech workers have done OK in large part because immigration laws have kept out guest workers.

                        One area where the US brought in a lot of foreign workers back in the '60s is aerospace -- and that's one white collar area that is relatively heavily unionized.

                        But that cuts both ways -- the lack of skills within the US has meant that some tech work has been moved overseas.

                        I hope; therefore, I can live.

                        by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:33:59 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  The point is (4+ / 0-)

                        When companies have no restrictions on how much they abuse workers, they usually abuse workers. That's the history. Sure, if workers are at a premium in a particular occupation or boom economy, that doesn't happen. But the entire function of unions is for workers to have strength in unity, rather than having to bargain individually with employers. And you're bringing in hiring, whereas the post your replied to dealt with benefits.

                        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                        by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:34:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm yet to see anything to convince me (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    James Allen, MichaelNY

                    That it's possible to have a big business capitalist society that does not result in a race to the bottom on working conditions without at least some level of organization of labor to push back. Sure, there's an argument to be made that everyone does better when workers have money to buy things and leisure time, but that sort of long-term thinking usually gets lost in pursuit of a quick buck.

                    •  Look abroad (0+ / 0-)

                      There are countries abroad with capitalist societies and without strong union push back (doesn't mean no unions) that have strong middle classes.

                      I still think the growth of the economy and competition over employees is a far, far bigger player in benefits/pay than unionization. As I said above, the tech industry is known for good pay/benefit packages and it's not unionized. However, because the employees are skilled and there is a shortage of them, competition for employees ensues.

                      Sadly, unskilled labor is available all over the world. That makes cost control the key. The one thing the US employees has going for it is with the incredible decrease in energy costs in the natural gas field, manufacturing goods in the US should become much much cheaper. When energy costs and shipping costs trump labor costs, companies will move back to the US. That has nothing to do with unions though.

                      (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                      by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:20:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where? What societies? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BeloitDem, LordMike, MichaelNY

                        Show me a "capitalist" society abroad with a strong middle class, and I think I can show you a government that intervenes -- at least in education, but probably also in protecting their biggest businesses -- and supporting worker rights in exchange for labor peace.

                        I hope; therefore, I can live.

                        by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:37:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  At least in the past, Unions were v. Environment (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, James Allen

            And that perception fuels some of the problems that Unions have within the Democratic party today.

            Economically, the interests of some unions (e.g. UMW, USW, even the UAW) are still anti-environmental protection.

            Nevertheless, there are other unions with admirable records on the environment -- but they are primarily white (and pink) collar.

            I hope; therefore, I can live.

            by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:10:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, tietack, kman23

              Historically some unions have been extremely racist and many more have at least reproduced racism preexisting within society:

              That's not so much the case anymore, but the history is undeniable. I've had this argument before with people on here, but never had the courage to back myself up because it always felt like I was being shut down.

              http://www.amazon.com/...

              23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

              by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:17:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know that's true (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tietack, BeloitDem

                That was not a unique feature of the union movement, though: It permeated American society. Also, the Pullman Porter union was very important not only for the railway workers but in the history of civil rights. So it's a checkered history with lots and lots of viciousness and ugliness, but not a totally bad one.

                I spent some time tonight listening to and writing about white privilege. Sadly, even among union workers, it is sometimes very difficult to avoid the desire to see someone as worse off than you, so instead of uniting with your fellow worker whose skin is darker than yours or whose legal status may be undocumented, you figure that if you fight him, you will keep your job and your benefits, and they won't just go to the non-union guy somewhere else or to another country, which is actually what's likely to happen.

                By the way, in the 1930s, the South African Communist Party fought against rights for blacks in order to protect the rights of the white working class who their unions represented. They eventually atoned for their participation in apartheid in a big way, but even they were collaborators.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:26:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  That points to the other modern flashpoint (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                Immigration. Conceptually , more workers -- whether they be migrant workers or guest workers in Silicon Valley -- would depress the wages of people who are already here legally.

                Nevertheless, the AFL-CIO has done well supporting pro-Immigration policies.

                One reason, in my understanding, is because there are so many undocumented workers.

                I suggest that it is easier to organize workers who are "on the books".

                I hope; therefore, I can live.

                by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:35:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Also, they know that when immigration reform (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, BeloitDem

                  happens, many of these workers will join sectors that have existing unions. Don't anger future union employees by opposing the inevitable.

                  (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                  by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:45:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  nowadays most union members (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, BeloitDem

                are not white men.  Which makes it easier for Republicans to demonize them.

                ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:52:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  although when people think "union" (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Allen, gabjoh, skibum59

                  they still think "white man." I know I do, even though it's not really accurate.

                  19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                  politicohen.com
                  Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                  UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                  by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:58:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

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

              But certainly not more a problem from unions than from corporations. Good point, though.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:27:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  For a long time I didn't really have an opinion. (0+ / 0-)

            Then I went to another region of the world (Latin America) where unions where very very powerful, much more powerful than in the United States.

            And, to be honest, it sucked. I missed countless meetings because the subway workers kept on striking and closing down the subway without warning. My professors loved to randomly cancel class to participate in protests. I'm lucky that the time I was there there wasn't a student strike, which happens every few years and closes down the university.

            When I was traveling on a bus, a protest blocked the road. That meant that I had to sleep the entire night on a motionless bus and then try to find taxis to go around the next day. When I finally got to my destination, I noticed that all the kids were at home and not at school. That was because the teachers were striking, the people told me.

            When I came back to the United States, the unions had just mounted another strike - the waste pickers were refusing to pick up the trash, the bus-workers were refusing to drive their buses, the subway workers were refusing to operate the subway.

            Of course, the unions in America are very different; they're a lot weaker (too weak) and don't have those powers. But that's why I'm not especially enthusiastic about unions.

            http://mypolitikal.com/

            by Inoljt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:43:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think inconvenience (5+ / 0-)

              is the biggest problem in Latin America, where very large numbers of people live in grinding poverty.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:05:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So, you're saying... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tietack, MichaelNY

              ...that you don't like unions 'cos as a comparatively rich person, you were once somewhat inconvenienced by some poor people trying to get a slightly better life.

              Why are you a Democrat again?

              GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

              by LordMike on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:27:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think anyone's denying that (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tietack, MichaelNY, skibum59

              they can get out of control, but is that any reason to essentially deny them the right to exist, not explicitly but for all practical purposes? I don't think it is. This might be something far more cultural than I realize, in the sense of it just not being possible here, but let's remember that a lot of countries that are quite rich have the vast majority of their labor force unionized and don't seem to have any problems. I can understand why some owners might feel animosity towards some unions, but the antagonistic attitudes can't really make things better.

              A good case question to ask is why Costco is able to have good relationships with its unionized employees.

              I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

              by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:43:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  IMO the dems need to have their own (0+ / 0-)

        July 26th movement.

        RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

        by demographicarmageddon on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:07:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The only semi-legitimate poll was from EPIC-MRA... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, bjssp

      It found the electorate split, but once they heard the arguments from both sides, they hated the bill 52-41.  Something like 40% were more likely to vote against Snyder as a result of the bill.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:21:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good starting point, it seems. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, MichaelNY

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:45:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  EPIC-MRA are terrible though, right? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, gabjoh

        They missed on the Presidential numbers by a lot and this issue should be much more complicated to poll then Obama or Romney.

        If this has any chance of being repealed then the union message needs to get out to non-union undecided voters before the Koch brothers and co have a chance to get their message out. Wisconsin proved that the key in winning a union battle is not in turning out union families. They'll turn out. It's getting the indifferent people on to your side.

        UAW and other unions NEED to get on the air now. They also need to get on the local news and explain why this is bad for the state and non-union employees, not just union workers.

        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

        by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:48:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Weekend tune! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades

    In 1977, 31 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. That grew to 49 percent in 2009. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, support swelled to 70 percent in 2006, All while Republican opposition stayed the same.

    by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:49:59 PM PST

  •  What %Hispanic VAP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    do the south Florida Cuban districts have to be to be VRA compliant? I'm drawing Florida and I have one at 61% VAP and want to make sure that's enough. I figure there isn't as much a dropoff between VAP and CVAP since most of the Cubans are children of exiles, not recent immigrants.

  •  WI-Gov (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a LONG list of potential Democratic candidates for the 2014 WI-Gov race:

    Former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
    Outgoing U.S. Senator Herb Kohl
    U.S. Senator-elect Tammy Baldwin
    Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug LaFollette
    U.S. Representative Ron Kind
    U.S. Representative Gwen Moore
    U.S. Representative Mark Pocan
    Former U.S. Representative Dave Obey
    Former U.S. Representative Steve Kagen
    State Senator Jennifer Shilling
    State Senator Chris Larson
    State Senator Jon Erpenbach
    State Senator Kathleen Vinehout
    State Senator Lena Taylor
    State Senator John Lehman
    State Senator Dave Hansen
    State Senator Tim Cullen
    State Senator Bob Wirch
    Former State Senator Barbara Lorman
    Outgoing State Senator Jessica King
    State Assemblyman Andy Jorgensen
    State Assemblyman Peter Barca
    State Assemblyman Brett Hulsey
    Outgoing State Assemblywoman Kelda Roys
    Dane County Executive Joe Parisi
    Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele
    Outgamie County Executive Tom Nelson
    Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk
    Kenosha County Supervisor Rob Zerban
    Bad River Chippewa Chief Michael Wiggins, Jr.
    Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett
    Former Illinois State Representative Doug Kane
    Political Author John Nichols
    Wedding Photographer Lori Compas
    Microbrewer Deb Carey
    Firefighter Mahlon Mitchell
    Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Mike Tate

    Additionally, there may be other Democrats that I haven't named who might consider a 2014 WI-Gov run.

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:56:57 PM PST

    •  King is probably my preferred candidate here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DownstateDemocrat, MichaelNY

      I'd like Feingold, Kagen, or Obey, but they wimped out on us in the recall, and that pissed me off.

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

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:48:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The reason I threw up a long list of candidates (0+ / 0-)

        ...is because there is NO clear front-runner on the Democratic side in regards to WI-Gov, nor has there been any movement by anyone to indicate that someone is considering a WI-Gov run.

        Feingold has reportedly shown interest in running for his old U.S. Senate seat in 2016, Kohl and Obey probably don't want back into politics, Baldwin is probably more interested in building a constituent service record as a U.S. Senator, LaFollette doesn't like to fundraise, Kind, Vinehout, Cullen, Taylor, Abele, and Lorman have serious issues with the base (in fact, Lorman was a Republican during her time in the Legislature but backed Barrett during the recall), Compas and Tate are "last resort" candidates, I question whether any Democrat who has never run statewide before can run an effective statewide campaign, Barrett has lost twice to Scott Walker, Kane is Vinehout's husband and a former Illinois state legislator, Carey may have an interest in running against Ron Johnson if Feingold doesn't run for his old seat, and Moore is noteworthy for being the only person to have ever defeated Walker in a competitive election (in the 1990 WI-AD-7 race).

        Since your preferred candidate is Jessica King, she would probably want a specific LG candidate, as King would probably consider the LG running mate to be an integral part of her gubernatorial campaign if she runs. Don't be surprised if King, if she does run for Governor, tries to clear the LG primary field for a personal friend of hers (possibly either Lori Compas or Joanne Staudacher)

        Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

        by DownstateDemocrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:36:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If King does that, she'd be an idiot (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca, MichaelNY

          She'll want someone who either has more experience in government than she does, a different geographic or ideological profile, or preferably at least two out of the three. A King/Compas ticket would be an absolute nonstarter.

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

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:38:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Brett Hulsey, really? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      He's egotistical enough to consider it, but I really doubt he's dumb enough to attempt it. He's somewhat unpopular even here in AD78, both because of his personality issues and the misperception that he is a conservadem. More likely he focuses on keeping his next crop of primary and Green Party challengers at bay (AD78 would rather vote Green than Republican if the Democrat was toxic, and Greens are likely to run a candidate here).

      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-Wisconsin)

      by fearlessfred14 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:13:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you considering running for Hulsey's seat? (0+ / 0-)

        You said you lived in Hulsey's district, and you indicated that he is vulnerable to a primary challenge or even a general election challenge from a Green or left-leaning independent candidate.

        Just figured that I'd ask that question.

        Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

        by DownstateDemocrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:40:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  My favorite is Tom Nelson (5+ / 0-)

      I seriously think he is a our strongest statewide candidate (or maybe a close second to Ron Kind).  He has a long past of winning in pretty conservative areas and the margins he could get in Brown, Winnebago, and especially Outagamie would be impressive.

      Social Democrat, WI-05

      by glame on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:17:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd rather see him run against Sen. Ron Johnson (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        He'd be a strong gubernatorial contender, though.

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

        by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:12:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just think if we are to take down Walker (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, bjssp

          we are going to need our strongest candidate, like a Kind, Nelson, or Feingold.  However, I feel like we would have a little bit more leeway with Johnson because of Presidential turnout in Dane and MKE, his near complete lack of visibility (if he had town halls I have not heard of any), and just abrasive personality.  At least Walker is a pleasant enough fellow.  I think there is more contrast between Johnson and Baldwin than just their ideologies.  Tammy would be one who would hold a town hall in Waukesha county and is just very approachable.  I do not think Ron would be caught dead anywhere near the Isthmus for anything other than a fundraiser.

          Social Democrat, WI-05

          by glame on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:54:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We need to focus on 2014 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, Inoljt

            Thinking about candidates for 2016 is a little premature when we still have a full cycle betwixt now and then.

          •  Tammy has several friends in Waukesha Co. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            One of them, Lisa Mux, is a progressive political blogger from Waukesha County, and she wrote this blog post a while back about Baldwin making a campaign stop in Waukesha.

            Mux ruled out any future run for public office a while back, presumably due to the fact that she has multiple sclerosis. She is a very dedicated progressive activist/blogger from a notoriously conservative region of Wisconsin, though.

            Wisconsin Democrats can't completely neglect the Milwaukee suburbs if they are going to defeat Walker in 2014 and Johnson in 2016, but they're not going to win Waukesha, Washington, and/or Ozaukee counties in a statewide election anytime in the foreseeable future.

            Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

            by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:02:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why are the Milwaukee suburbs so ruby red? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              I've never been to Wisconsin. The only Upper Midwestern state I've been to was Illinois. That was only for a few hours or so at Chicago Union Station. So perhaps you can tell me. The only city I could think of that have very GOP suburban collar counties is Charlotte.

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

              by BKGyptian89 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:58:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Nelson probably has issues with the base... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        ...if he has a known history of running up sizable margins in that region of Wisconsin. The Democratic base in Wisconsin is notoriously hyperpartisan, and it would probably require a candidate who plays well with the base and has enough personal popularity to win over persuadable voters, which is a very difficult balance to achieve, to win statewide in Wisconsin.

        Also, doesn't Kagen have a problem with the tribes stemming from an offensive joke he made a few years ago after he was late to some event?

        Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

        by DownstateDemocrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:56:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I want a Kind/King ticket (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, MichaelNY

      I don't think King has enough money or name appeal to beat Walker. Assuming the Koch's get involved again in Wisconsin, a perfect Dem candidate would need to raise what $15m minimum to have a chance? More realistically they'd need $20m or so assuming Walker pulls in $30-35m. I just don't think King could raise that. Ron Kind on the other hand could certainly do that. Also, beating Walker would really push Kind into contention for a 2020 or 2024 election. In 2020 he'd be 57 and in 2024 he'd be 61. In either case he'd be on the VP short list 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 du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

      by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:00:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kochs not Koch's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

        by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:02:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Kind has SERIOUS issues with the base (0+ / 0-)

        Keep in mind that Kind voted to support an NRA-backed witchhunt against Eric Holder. I wouldn't be surprised if the WI GOP were to try to ratfuck the Dem primary for an ultra-liberal primary challenger to Kind, similar to what they did in the 1998 WI-2 Democratic primary for Tammy Baldwin.

        Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

        by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:54:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so? He's one of the best candidates (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, tietack, R30A

          we could have.  We'd have to fight for him.

          ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:03:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think Kind is 100x better than Walker (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, tietack, R30A, WisJohn

          and that's why I want King as his Lt. I honestly don't think there is anyone but Kind on that list that both could win and would possibly run. So the question becomes do you take a Democrat that voted more conservative that you'd like as Congressman or Walker.

          Plus, I have no reason to believe that what Kind voted for as a Congressman would be similar at all to what he'd be like as governor. Many Democrats vote much more conservative in swing districts than they would in a safer statewide seat. Who knows if he'd be any different than Gillibrand.

          (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

          by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:26:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  i don't care if he has any issues with a "basE" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, R30A

          i want Walker out of Madison as soon as possible.

          RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

          by demographicarmageddon on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:16:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm curious about some of the CA house races (3+ / 0-)

    CA-15. Will Eric Swalwell get several significant liberal challengers in CA-15? Everyone in the district seemed intent to wait until Pete Stark retired rather than challenge him directly. Swalwell was the only one who took the gamble. Many probably think he didn't wait his turn as he has now jumped several rungs on the ladder going from a lowly city council member to Congressman. Maybe Sen. Ellen Corbett and Ro Khanna will challenge him, who many think deserved the seat once Stark retired.

    CA-44 Will someone give a serious challenge to Janice Hahn in CA-44? She lives in the district and has a lot of history there when she represented a large chunk of it on the LA city council, but she's representing a district that is only 7% white! Janice Hahn straight out of Compton. Or will that not matter. A whole lot of local officials endorsed Richardson too. Or will she be able to make it work as Steve Cohen has in Memphis, where he is even more popular nowadays than Harold Ford ever was.

    CA-31 Is Gary Miller even going to attempt to moderate his positions, especially on immigration, now that his district went 58% Obama or so and is now almost majority Hispanic? Or is he just going hope and pray another republican slips in because of the jungle primary? He seems he will be target number one come 2014.

    •  From what I understand (6+ / 0-)

      Hahn is close to labor.  Here's one writer on the Hahn/Bowen primary:

      Bowen’s base is pro-choice, pro-consumer/trial lawyer, and pro-environment. Hahn’s base is labor labor labor, plus African-Americans. (That’s thanks to residual affection for Kenny Hahn, though, unfortunately for her, there aren’t many black voters in the 36th.)
      "labor labor labor plus African-Americans" is a pretty good base in a Democratic primary.  Here's a fun quote about her father:
      As the Rev. P.J. Jones declared before a group of his fellow black ministers, in urging them to endorse Kenny for the 10th consecutive time: "I move we endorse Kenny Hahn for this 10th term on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors because he's the blackest thing we have downtown.''
      Anyway, I was curious who backed Richardson, so I looked it up.  The following is from a Los Angeles Times article re-posted by some fucking white supremacist blog that I'm not going to link to:
      The issue of race remains close to the surface of this contest, and many of the area’s black leaders have chosen sides. Richardson backers include the region’s two other African American House members, Democratic Reps. Karen Bass and Maxine Waters, plus former L.A. Councilman Robert Farrell, L.A. Councilman Bernard C. Parks, Assembly members Steven Bradford, Mike Davis and Holly Mitchell and several other elected city and school board officials.
      Well, I'm pretty impressed that Richardson managed to get endorsements from both Maxine Waters and from Diane Watson affiliate Holly Mitchell, given the longtime feud that I understand exists between the two camps.  But Hahn's support was pretty strong too:
      Still, Hahn has been endorsed by the state Democratic Party and a slew of elected officials and unions that don't often choose between two Democrats. Among the officeholders backing Hahn are California Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the California Labor Federation.
      Now that she's the incumbent, I don't expect she'll lose any of that support.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:50:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good questions (5+ / 0-)

      I think Rep.-elect Swalwell will probably hold CA-15 for years, barring some sort of scandal. It's going to be difficult for Corbett and/or Khanna to argue they "deserve" the seat or that Swalwell is doing a bad job, assuming Swalwell doesn't totally fuck up in his first term. If Corbett and/or Khanna wanted the seat, they should have ran this year. Swalwell wanted it, he ran, and now the seat is his. Fortune favors the bold.

      I don't know about Rep. Hahn. My impression is she's fairly popular. She's one of only two white Democrats who will be representing a VRA black district, IIRC (the other is Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, of course), and you generally don't get to do that barring a major scandal or some serious chops. In Cohen's case, it's clearly the latter; in Hahn's case, well, Rep. Laura Richardson's middle name is Scandal. We'll see whether this is a Joe Cao situation or a Steve Cohen situation, but if Hahn was able to clear the field of Richardson challengers this year, I've got to think the minority communities in her district are pretty happy with her. (Is CA-44 black-majority or black/Latino coalition? I can't remember off the top of my head.)

      Rep. Gary Miller is probably a goner unless he veers left or Democrats shit the bed again in CA-31. President Obama won the district by close to 20 points and Gary Miller does not have a reputation as a moderate at all. Democrats will probably line up a better, more aggressive challenge to Miller, make the top two, and beat him like a cheap rug in 2014.

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

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:54:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

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

      Is probably in it for the long-haul. Ro Khanna missed his chance.

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:57:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Swalwell I see as sort of a Dingell or Rahall (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      and holding the seat for quite some time

      RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

      by demographicarmageddon on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:17:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Comment feature fixed (0+ / 0-)

    Am I slow, or did this just happen?

    Anyways, cool.

    Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

    by tommypaine on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:14:20 PM PST

  •  Awesome comment from Live Digest (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, BeloitDem, gabjoh

    From user Silvan Elf:

    The upside of an initiative in MI

    Is that it's very hard for the Legislature to mess with it. To change a law initiated by the people requires a 3/4 vote in each house or another 50%+1 vote of the people to overturn/modify. (Or a constitutional amendment, but that is also 50%+1 vote, so basically the same but with the added burden of 2/3 in each house or gathering signatures.)

    So if it does end up having to go that route to get rid of the RTWFL garbage b/c of the appropriation, if they can get it passed that also pretty much takes care of RTWFL unless the GOP can get super-duper majorities in each house.

    It makes a lot sense now that national people would be involved with this. If they can beat it back this way, they are set for, well, maybe not forever, but close to it?

    I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

    by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:32:32 PM PST

  •  All of them. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MenhentheDem

    Especially IL-All and TX-All.

    TX House was 74D-76R in 2008.  Wiped out down to 48D-102R in 2010.  How do we push to take those districts back?

    Same question at the US house level.  257D-178R to a wipeout in 2010.  There must be 40 winnable House districts nationwide which will give the Democrats control again.

    -7.75 -4.67

    "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

    There are no Christians in foxholes.

    by Odysseus on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:55:11 PM PST

    •  TX-Leg (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, James Allen, kman23

      The map is worse for us now. There's no way we'll be getting as close as we were in 2008-10.

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:00:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even (0+ / 0-)

        With new maps by courts.

        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

        by wwmiv on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:01:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you think they will do more to (0+ / 0-)

          minimize population deviation abuses with the new court map next year?  I remember that being a big issue.  As was DFW HD's.

          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 Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:23:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  How so? (0+ / 0-)

          I'd have figured that court drawn maps would be inherently fairer to us than partisan maps. Is it a matter of the advantages of incumbency going to Republicans or something else entirely?

          I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

          by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:13:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why didn't they Delaymander the legislature (0+ / 0-)

        way back in 2003?  Were they only allowed to do Congressional districts?

        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 Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:23:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordpet8, MichaelNY

          There was no need to.

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:29:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well I'm sure they didn't count on (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            Dems coming perilously close to retaking the state house in the back to back elections that came right after.

            In 1977, 31 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. That grew to 49 percent in 2009. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, support swelled to 70 percent in 2006, All while Republican opposition stayed the same.

            by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:03:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  well keep in mind (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      that the Texas majority in the state house that came from the 2008 elections was mix of old school conservative Democrats, minority candidates, and progressives.
      We holding onto to some seats that were heavily Republican.

      For Example: We had Democrat Joseph P. Heflin  holding onto one of the last Panhandle seats for Dems. Bush had carried the district with over 70% vote. Heflin held onto this open seat for Dems by the skin of teeth in 2006 winning with just  217 votes, 14,323 (49.0 percent) to 14,106 (48.3 percent).

      The 2010 midterms were an utter blood bath for Dems in Texas, it cleared up a lot of deadwood in the chamber too. So the party now has the arduous task of rebuilding its numbers

      As for the US house, yes there are seats that we can target to take back the majority. The problem there aren't many Republicans left in seats that Obama won this year. So we will have expand the map to target marginally Republican districts. This may have to run some moderate Dem candidates to be effective in those areas.

      Looking at the math we need 17 seats for a bare majority. CA can probably squeeze out 3 more seats. but we have to make a play winning back many of the seats in the Midwest (Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa) and the Rust belt (PA, OH) all while holding onto the few tough seats like Matheson (UT), Barrow (GA), McIntyre (NC). Had Republicans not locked in their 2010 gains with redistricting we definitely could have done better in PA,OH, NC.

      In 1977, 31 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. That grew to 49 percent in 2009. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, support swelled to 70 percent in 2006, All while Republican opposition stayed the same.

      by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:19:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oregon once again beats Washington (6+ / 0-)

    This time, it's voter turnout -- yet again. Story here.

    All told, 82.8 percent of registered voters returned their ballots in Oregon, compared to 81.25 percent in Washington.

    It might seem that Washington should have had the much higher turnout this year.  After all, Oregon had no statewide race for governor or U.S. Senate, and none of the ballot measures attracted big voter interest.

    But nope! The Big O wins again. Might be the highest voter turnout in the country, as it was in 2010.

    This is why Republicans cannot win in Oregon and Washington (well, except for Secy.-elect Kim Wyman, apparently): pretty much all the voters vote. They're not immensely Democratic states, at least outside the major cities. Yes, their suburban areas tend to lean blue, which is a big help to Democrats; yes, Oregon's agricultural production areas are light red (Yamhill and Marion counties) or even light blue (Hood River County) instead of being blood-red. But mostly, it's that with those factors all considered, Democrats have a small but substantial edge in the electorate -- and that electorate is stable from election to election, because voter participation is consistently very high. Minnesota is the same way; increasingly, Colorado is as well.

    Democrats nationwide, take heed. It's in your best interests to expand voting access -- making it easier to vote and ensuring that everyone can vote. Because if everyone votes, Democrats will win darn close to every time.

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

    by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:05:15 PM PST

  •  MI: Unions Plan a Massive Display of Force (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, bjssp, MichaelNY, gabjoh

    Though, it's not going to change the legislative tragectory of the issue, Michigan unions are planning a massive display of force for Tuesday:

    LANSING — Union members plan to take part in civil disobedience training Saturday as they prepare for what’s expected to be a massive Capitol protest against right-to-work legislation on Tuesday, a spokesman for a workers’ coalition said today.

    “Over the weekend, thousands of Michiganders are expected to take part in an unprecedented number of actions in key legislative districts,” Jon Hoadley, a spokesman for We are Michigan, said in a news release. “On Saturday, workers will participate in a training to understand their rights should they choose to participate in civil disobedience.”

    These type of rallies are important not just for optics and symbolism, but also because they are huge organizational rallies, and we'll need every last person to get us over the finish line in 2014.
    •  They can also backfire big time... (7+ / 0-)

      It's not 1955 anymore.  A lot of our failure in WI was from non-union folks getting sick of the protests and no longer sympathizing with us.

      I hope they know what they are doing... It's important that they make the case for the entire middle class, not just unions.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:17:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, MichaelNY

        if this has been discussed before and I missed it, but what's the timeline for the initiative process? I hope it happens as soon as possible.

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:29:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

        But the protests were the reason they got as close in Wisconsin as they did.  The benefits of such protests outweigh the negatives, indisputably, if you ask me.  If you have any questions about the composition of We Are Michigan, they have a website.

        •  I'm not saying not to protest or fight back... (7+ / 0-)

          But, they should look at Ohio, not Wisconsin as the model.  In Ohio, they had lots of protests early on to make the bill toxic to the public, then they completely backed off on the protests and went straight to organizing.  That's what they need to do here.

          Ohio was successful.  Wisconsin was not.  

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:41:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely (6+ / 0-)

            You fire up the base, make it clear you're not gonna take it, and then you get down to the nitty-gritty of organizing. If you're on an initiative, you lay out an intelligent, broad, and compelling argument; if you're in an election, you pick a strong, appealing candidate who can speak to the feelings and win the trust of the electorate.

            The recall movement in Wisconsin thought it could win just because (it thought) unions were beloved and any attack on them would be seen as an attack on the general welfare. It wasn't very well organized, it didn't advance a strong counterargument against Gov. Walker -- it just got mad and yelled a lot. Mayor Barrett was a non-entity, a stand-in for "Not Walker" and the labor movement. He was basically the Wisconsin Democrats' Romney, as bad as that sounds.

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

            by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:46:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's not a fair distinction re Ohio & Wisconsin (11+ / 0-)

            Ohio wasn't successful because the mechanics of opposition.  It was successful because the public got to vote directly on the hated legislation, where in Wisconsin they were asked to throw out the Governor himself to express that sentiment and that was a bridge too far.

            It was what was on the ballot that was the difference.  What unions and allies did in the mechanics wasn't important to the difference in outcomes.

            If Wisconsin was going to turn out differently, the only solution would've been deep-pocketed individuals and institutions bankrolling massive amounts of attack ads on TV to counter Walker's and his allies' long barrage of ads--which went unanswered.  Those ads were the biggest thing to tip the scale in Walker's favor, after the thing was a tossup for a long time.

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

            by DCCyclone on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:15:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very true, DCCylcone (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico, gabjoh

              Actually, the demonstrations in Ohio were puny compared to Wisconsin's. What Ohio had was organization, and the potential of a repeal referendum. The legislature and governor moved fast and tried to blindside the unions, quickly lobbing onerous legislation that had never been mentioned during the campaign. The response was equally as swift, and it didn't involve massive demonstrations. It involved people like me going out and getting signatures to put in on the ballot, and the unions launching an all-in campaign to repeal it.

              Jon Husted is a dick.

              by anastasia p on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:40:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I really think it's a combination of the two (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              I think it's easier to repeal a law by referendum than it is to recall an elected official. And I think the massive pro-Republican spending in the recall helped Gov. Walker and his allies immensely. But Democrats have just as much political money as Republicans, as evidenced by this election, and they have a better GOTV formula.

              Democrats in Wisconsin never really coalesced around anything other than a hatred of Walker over pretty much one single issue, which was a year and a half old by the time the recall election actually rolled around. Democrats thought it was a big enough issue for voters to hand them a historic win by campaigning on that alone, with a campaign strategy fueled more by angry protests than by tactical thinking. And they paid the price for their lack of vision.

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

              by SaoMagnifico on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:40:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  No, I just completely disagree (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bjssp, LordMike, jncca, MichaelNY, kman23

          Democrats needed to run a person, not a movement, against Gov. Walker. Movements are too easy to collectively stereotype and vilify, especially when they've been around as long enough and have made enough enemies as the unions in the Rust Belt have.

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

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:41:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I just wonder (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LordMike

          if the protests are best kept as a temporary measure to bring attention to the issue. Are we expecting them to actually make Snyder not sign the bill? Of course not.

          The real fight will be through the initiative process or, longer-term, in flipping the state legislature and the governor's mansion. It's better than the pro-union forces spend time figuring out how to win that battle than to make more than a brief if worthwhile statement.

          I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

          by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:52:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The protests are meant to toxify the bill... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY, kman23, gabjoh

            ...just like the teabagger protests made the health care bill toxic.  It's also a slap at Snyder who claimed that he's "bipartisan" and didn't want "divisive" bills coming his way.  It's designed to make Snyder toxic as well.

            I don't know how long they plan to go on, but I hope that they shift to organizing relatively quickly and get on the case from person to person...

            Remember that these tactics are not new.  The New York Times and Time magazine have articles from the 1957 right to work fight in Indiana.  You could have sworn that they were from 2011 Wisconsin.  It's standard union playbook.  Whether or not they will be effective in the modern, non union age is another question.

            GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

            by LordMike on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:59:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not saying it's not worthwhile to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, MichaelNY

              make a little noise, but only a little. The key, as you and Sao say, is to switch to organizing very quickly.

              I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

              by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:05:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think Snyder really messed this up (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, DownstateDemocrat

              I'm sure he did this to help with his base (not his base I guess but the Republican's base) but 1) he just cost himself any Democratic support plus that of many independents and 2) I can't think that this will actually help him with the right. They still don't like him or trust him. Passing this bill doesn't change that.

              (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

              by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:23:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Concern trolling (0+ / 0-)

          Every little thing has become reason to complain and doubt and fret.  I'm done.

      •  I think they still have to demonstrate, regardless (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike

        It's worse for them to sit back and be passive than to risk alienating people, in my humble opinion. But yes, they absolutely need to tie anti-union laws to the destruction of a decent standard of living for the American working ("middle") class.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:25:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Civil Disobedience Will Backfire. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tietack, MichaelNY, jncca

      It is a huge mistake to assume that Obama voters are pro-union agenda voters.  

      Barack Obama received 2,564,569 votes in Michigan.  Proposal 2 received 1,949,513 votes.  

      At least 24% of Obama voters did not vote in favor of Proposal 2.  Without this 24% of the Obama coalition, Obama would have lost to Romney.  

      This is not a bad thing - in fact, it's a sign of the weakness of the Republicans.  There is no way that 24% of pro-union agenda voters would vote for Romney.  Their small tent won't work on a national scale.  

      But the blunt reality is that the union agenda does not have the support of the majority of Michigan voters.  

      I'm not saying that those in favor of the union agenda shouldn't protest and make their voices heard.  But civil disobedience will only serve as a wedge to drive Obama voters who don't support the union agenda away from the Democratic party, especially on the state level.

      Bringing forth right to work legislation now is a brilliant strategy by the state level Republicans to keep the Obama coalition from forming on the state level.  Protest overreach through civil disobedience will only make their job easier.

      Republican, MI-11, Member of the DKE Engineering Caucus, SSP: Bort

      by Bart Ender on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:41:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Proposal 2 was very different (0+ / 0-)

        Killing off union rights and pushing for union right expansions are very very different. The only reason I voted for Prop 2 was to ward off a bill like this. But the vast majority of Democrats from my region (Ann Arbor burbs) didn't like the union Proposals. However, none of them support union stripping either.

        I think comparing the two is very, very unfair.

        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

        by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:26:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

        Snyder just killed his election chances with this IMHO. For one thing, a stronger Democrat like Gary Peters is much more likely to run now. Two, Union groups have a reason to go after Snyder where as before they'd had a more or less let and let live attitude. I'm not saying the Unions would have been neutral but Snyder wouldn't have been the #1 target. Now he will be.

        Finally, what does this have to do with Obama and "his coalition". It's not like Obama was the first Democrat to win Michigan and that he's building a unique coalition. With the exception of 2010, Michigan has been a pretty Democratic state. Even Granholm, mid Michigan's economic collapse, destroyed her Republican opponent. Neither Michigan Senator has had any recent close elections. Republicans had to rely on an Indy turned Republican to win the Republican Primary to give them any chance of winning the governor's race in 2010.

        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

        by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:30:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

        I think Republicans are mistaken if they think the failure of proposal 2 means MI voters don't support unions/collective bargaining.  A recent EPIC-MRA poll showed that when people were provided with the arguments for/against RTW, MI voters were against RTW.  

        I'm pretty surprised by how Republicans seem to think that RTW is going to be politically beneficial to them.  I think Snyder's chances of re-election went down.   The entire premise of his candidacy was based on him being a moderate who would avoid divisive issues.  Clearly, that strategy isn't going to work in 2014.  Prior to this week, I felt the race was lean R.  Now, I think it will be a toss-up.  I also see Republicans losing seats in the House and Senate.        

  •  Colorado: Demographics vs. Trends, by County. (0+ / 0-)

    I'll probably write more about this later, but I noticed something interesting.  I put in Clinton's 1996 share of the Clinton/Perot/Bush vote, Perot's 1996 share (from the U.S. Elections Atlas, Obama's 2012 share of the two-party vote (from the state itself) and the 2010, 2000, and 1990 Census figures for non-Hispanic white population by County.  (I just combined Broomfield and Boulder counties for the post-2001 stuff).  Then I through Clinton, Perot, and the demographic numbers into a regression model to try to explain Obama's share.  

    The result?  Only Clinton's vote share was even statistically significant.  (I had to re-run this because of, believe it or not, different things disagreeing about whether "Elbert" or "El Paso" came first alphabetically.)

    Now, this is part of a larger project of this kind of thing, and in general, the demographic numbers are significant--iirc, they were quite significant in Florida, and in most other states I looked at.  

    But they weren't significant in Colorado.  I thought at first this was because I was looking at an average of Clinton in 1992 and Dukakis--which might have been anomalous.  But the same thing here.

    One potential influence: Has the Census changed its classification of "Hispanic" in any relevant way?  Are these really comparable figures?  That concerns me.

    Another possibility is that all of Colorado basically diversified "enough", and the changes within that aren't significant within Colorado.  Alternately, all of the tiny counties might be throwing something off, although I tried again with just Colorado's 11 largest counties, and similar result.  (Only difference is that Clinton becomes more correlated with Perot.)

    From looking at CD data earlier, I recall that CO-01 and CO-02 both trended sharply D in the 2000s, despite unremarkable or mild changes in the NHW population, and that's consistent with these numbers on Denver and Boulder counties.

    Also, I just realized I was using the wrong figures for 2000, but I re-ran it and it seems like everything above remains true.  I'd check it again, but I'm going to a movie.

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

    by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:13:50 PM PST

    •  *I threw, ugh. (0+ / 0-)

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:14:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Make sure you are looking... (0+ / 0-)

      At the voter turnout rate. My impression is that in Colorado, it has steadily climbed; record turnout was reported in many counties this year.

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

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:15:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not sure I really understand this (6+ / 0-)

      but my sense is that there are two different trends that are to Democrats' advantage in Colorado: growing minority population (mainly hispanics), and growing white liberal/yuppie population. These two trends are affecting, in many ways, a different set of counties: the first is especially evident, e.g., in Adams and Arapahoe; the latter in Denver and Boulder and the ski counties. So maybe that's part of the deal?

      •  Very likely. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, tietack

        Of course, it's something near a tautology that Democratic improvement comes from minorities plus white liberals.  (Minorities plus non-minorities equals everyone!)  So one question is "what kind of white liberals, and why?"  Are they really the "yuppies"?  If so, what drove the change?  Plenty of places have yuppies without marked Democratic trends.

        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

        by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:17:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ever been to Denver? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BeloitDem, MichaelNY, kman23

          Socially liberal environmentalists, all over the place. Culturally similar to Seattle, Portland, maybe Minneapolis...

          •  So what changed? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

            by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:00:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well what changed to cause Dem margins to (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Xenocrypt, MichaelNY, kman23

              nearly double in Hennepin and Ramsey counties in Minnesota from 2000 to 2012? Or to increase by 15 points in King County, WA? Or to increase by 20 points in Multnomah County, OR? Or to increase by 15 points in Dane County, WI? Basically anywhere that is urban and not socially conservative has swung toward the Dems. Colorado is a fairly urban state outside the south; so...

              I think the more interesting question, actually, is Arizona. Basically there are two states that are more urban than average that are outside the south and that aren't fairly Dem-leaning at this point: Utah and Arizona. Utah's got the Mormons. But what's Arizona's deal? The state is basically one big city, one medium-sized city, and a bunch of desert. Why is it not solidly Democratic? Why is it not even moving in that direction? Why did the white Dem share apparently drop a fair bit in this election, even though they had a republican home-state effect in 2008? Why is Phoenix acting like it wants to join Texas?

              •  Yes, this is what I was getting at. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chachy, okiedem, MichaelNY

                One of my problems with a (sole) focus on demographics is that it misses the extent to which Democrats have improved even in relatively demographically constant urban areas, which is a big part of the political change over the past 10-20 years.

                You're also right that Arizona is an interesting case, perhaps why the state's politics fascinate me so much.  Phoenix is not a very "urban" city, for one thing--have you ever walked around it on Streetview?  But Phoenix is certainly no Texas.

                27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:05:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you measured for religious affiliation I bet (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

                  you could explain almost all of the Democratic improvement among whites in urban areas. Secular whites have both become more numerous and more Democratic leaning in recent years (with something like 2-1 Democratic performance nationally which is likely much higher in urban areas because that number would be dragged down by secular libertarians in the Western states).

                  My guess would be that the stronger Democratic performance among urban whites and well-educated non-Southern whites generally is almost entirely a function of the phenomenon.

                  26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                  by okiedem on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:19:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, I can understand why (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    having the Census or the ACS ask about religion would make people nervous, but I'd really like to have good (or at least better) data there.  Still, I'm wary of falling into stereotypes--the well-educated, secular, yuppie Denver Democrat is an easy person to imagine, but we don't really know how many people there are like that, or how much they explain.

                    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                    by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:22:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Jews in particular have good reason (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BeloitDem, gabjoh

                      not to want official records of our religion. The Nazis had census records ready for them to use to drag off Jews and murder them.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:28:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

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

                        although I'd argue Muslims should be the most fearful, since  there's the most bigotry against them right now.

                        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                        politicohen.com
                        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                        by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:16:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  For the record I wasn't advocating having the (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY, gabjoh

                          census ask about religion. I was just making the point that it is an unmeasured demographic characteristic that explained the leftward drift among urban whites and highly-educated whites outside the South.

                          26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                          by okiedem on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:24:19 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Jews are subject to more hate crimes (0+ / 0-)

                          than Muslims, but I do agree that Muslims are more likely - God forbid - to be subject to official persecution than Jews. Actually, they do experience a great deal of official harassment, at least, already. But if anyone were to be put in internment camps in the US in the foreseeable future, I think Muslims are the most likely target.

                          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                          by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:31:58 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah that's what I was saying basically (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY, gabjoh

                            If for some horrible reason, a group of people was put through a Holocaust-like situation in America, it wouldn't be us this time; it'd be Muslims or the LGBT community.

                            19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                            politicohen.com
                            Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                            UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                            by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:43:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  By percentage of population, or total? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY
                          •  Total number of incidents (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tietack, AussieforObama2ndterm

                            Here's an FBI table of statistics on hate crimes from 2009. As you'd expect, by far the largest number of hate crimes were committed against blacks, but Jews seem to have placed second, with gays close behind. Some key points:

                            Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2009, there were 4,057 victims of racially motivated hate crimes.

                                71.5 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-black bias.

                            Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

                                71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
                                8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.

                            So, counter-intuitively, not even close.
                            Of the 1,482 victims targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias:

                                55.1 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias.
                                26.4 percent were victims because of an anti-homosexual bias.
                                15.3 percent were victims because of an anti-female homosexual bias.

                            Hate crimes motivated by the offender’s bias toward a particular ethnicity/national origin were directed at 1,109 victims. Of these victims:

                                62.4 percent were targeted because of an anti-Hispanic bias.

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:47:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  These (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BeloitDem, tietack

                            These statistics are nice, but can we get them relative to their percentage in the population? That'd be much more enlightening and I think that would even out some the disparity between Jews and Muslims.

                            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                            by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:55:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Jews and Muslims (0+ / 0-)

                            are similar in total numbers in the US. There are somewhat less than 6 million Jews here, with numbers of Muslims estimated at somewhere between 5 and 8 million.

                            Did you think the Jewish population was much greater than that? If anything, the surprising thing is how close the figures are on hate crimes toward blacks (~12% of the population) vs. Jews (~2% of the population).

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:27:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY, BeloitDem

                            No, I was assuming that the Muslim population was much less.

                            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                            by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:40:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Heck, I've even walked around it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  as a fleshy human being! It's a nightmarish hellscape of an urban disaster, to be sure. But is it less urban than Las Vegas or LA or San Diego or Tucson or Miami or Orlando or Raleigh? Seems to me the white populations in urban areas still tend to be Dem-leaning, at least relatively speaking, even when they've had garbagey Sun Belt sprawl patterns of urban development.

                  Unless they're in the south, like Houston and Dallas, where the white populations are overwhelmingly republican. But Phoenix didn't historically have that pattern. Kerry got 41% of whites in '04 (which basically means he got something similar to that in Maricopa). If Obama had done that this year, with the larger minority vote share and the much larger margin amongst hispanics, he might have won the state. Instead he lost it by 9 points.

                  So yeah, it's a mystery to me.

                  •  I've been there, I think, long ago. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    Don't remember it that well.  But I suspect it's considerably less urban than, at least, L.A. or San Diego.  

                    Indeed, if you consider this list of weighted metro density, Los Angeles comes in at about 12,000, Miami at 7,400, San Diego at about 6,900, Vegas at 6,500, and Phoenix at 4,400.  (Again, that's the metro area, but it's still interesting.)  Portland is right after Phoenix, and Tucson is far lower.  I don't know if they have info about the city proper--I'm trying to download the full report, and no, I don't think it has numbers for the city proper.  Still, I suspect a ranking for the city proper wouldn't be too dissimilar.

                    The Columbus "metro area"--which jncca has argued to me is considerably inflated--is even less dense, coming in at about 3,200, a little below Tucson.

                    Going by "pure" population density, and the city proper--let's see.  Los Angeles, about 8,000/square mile.  Vegas, 4,298.  San Diego, 4,000.  Columbus, 3,624.  Raleigh, 2,826.  Tucson,  2,294.  Miami, 11,136.  Orlando, 2,327.  Phoenix?  2,798.  So it's interesting to compare to Raleigh or Orlando or Tucson.  I suspect Raleigh and Tucson have stronger "white liberal" populations--but again, that's punting the question, to some extent.

                    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                    by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:48:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But you can't just look at density; you've got to (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      look at the programming of the urban fabric. I've seen some measures by which the LA metro area is denser than New York. But of course NY is more urban in any meaningful sense. Basically, LA, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Miami... these are all auto-centric cities, and that's what's relevant to the urban feel of a place. (Well, that and cultural amenities.) But the politics of these places varies, with the non-southern Sun Belt cities being consistently fairly liberal. But Phoenix seems to go against type in that respect.

                  •  Phoenix isn't that bad (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    I liked running along the Arizona Canal, on the dirt/gravel path along Central Ave, and in Paradise Valley. But it's true that most of the area is more suburban than urban. Most of the areas that went up in the 90s are a mix of strip malls, empty lots, and stucco and red tile subdivisions where every house looks exactly the same.

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

                    by sacman701 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:50:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  my guess is that (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    him suing their state made them less likely to vote for him.  I think Arizona, more than any other state, is a state where Obama underperformed what a 2012 version of John Kerry would've gotten.

                    19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                    politicohen.com
                    Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                    UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                    by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:04:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think it's pretty safe to say (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY, Jeremimi

                      that one of Kentucky, West Virginia, or Arkansas is where Obama underperformed the most what a 2012 John Kerry would have gotten.

                      Case in point, PPP's recent tweet that Hillary Clinton leads Rubio and Rand Paul in their Kentucky poll.

                      This is of course not to dispute your point that Obama underperformed; I think that's probably the case though I bet a good deal has to do with him simply not contesting the state.  Could he have won it this year? Probably not, but I can easily see him having improved a few points there.

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

                      by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:52:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am so curious to see what a Hillary Clinton (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        James Allen, MichaelNY, BeloitDem

                        electoral map would look like. I think she for sure would have won Arkansas in 2008, probably West Virginia, and maybe Kentucky. Would she win any of those in 2016? I don't know, but that's an intriguing tweet.

                        On the other hand, would she have any chance in NC? Would she be favored in Virginia? Or Colorado? I really don't know. I think she'd do well in Florida, but running against Rubio or Bush...?

                        •  I don't see any way HRC could have carried (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY, jncca, BeloitDem

                          WV or KY.  Especially the latter.  Hell, Bill Clinton barely carried KY in 1996!.  Maybe AR, by a sort of home state effect.

                          27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                          by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:17:22 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  To a certain extent I think a lot of the polling (6+ / 0-)

                          that we may see if she runs showing her doing well in Appalachia will be a bit of a mirage.  While I think a good deal of the 2004-2008 shift has to do with race, there's still a very clear trend against us even with white Democrats.

                          I just don't see her snapping back to 2004 levels of support in coal heavy counties in eastern KY, WV, etc. after coal's relative decline over those 12 years (to 2016) and having the right wing noise machine demonize Democrats as (somewhat rightly) bad for coal.

                          However, I still think she'd do a good deal better than Obama 2012, particularly in West Virginia, though she'd be hard pressed to do that well in North Carolina and really any state with a large part of the black belt.

                          Ugh, it's things like this that make me wish we could run experiments in some sort of real time parallel universes.

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

                          by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:17:25 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  I think that after cap and trade (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY

                        any national Democrat in Kentucky and West Virginia.  Arkansas is possible though; I don't think there's much coal there.  However, Kerry did almost the same in Arkansas and Arizona.  And Arkansas has gotten redder since then in general, not just because of Obama.

                        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                        politicohen.com
                        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                        by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:21:18 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And this is why it matters so much (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Chachy, BeloitDem, MichaelNY

                          that she's been SoS.  it's not just that she hasn't been criticized--she hasn't had to associate herself with any partisan issues.  (In fact, I don't even think she's strongly associated with particular positions on FP issues, although maybe that's just me.)

                          Does anyone seriously think Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton wouldn't vocally support carbon regulation, pro-choice positions, whatever?  Of course she would--just like every other Democratic Presidential candidate.  She'd give positions on the ACA and on debt ceiling negotiations and on Israel and on every other thing where whatever you say you lose some friends.

                          27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                          by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:44:42 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

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

                          By "matters so much", I mean, with regard to interpreting polling and so on.

                          27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                          by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:46:03 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  I dunno. (0+ / 0-)

                      I can't imagine the set of people who might vote for a Democrat, except for a Democrat who sues their Republican state government, is really all that large.  If they place that much salience on Republican-style immigration laws (or whatever it's about), then they'd probably have voted Republican anyway.

                      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                      by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:12:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  SB 1070 was pretty popular (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY

                        Rasmussen had the bill at 70% approval (I can't find a better polling firm right now).  Assuming a 5 point GOP bias in the poll, that's 65% approval.  Obama got 45% of the vote in 2008; that means (if my math is right) 22% of Obama voters support SB 1070.  20% of those 22% defecting from him over the issue isn't unreasonable.

                        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                        politicohen.com
                        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                        by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:19:18 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Could it be due to immigration from (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, Xenocrypt

          the rust belt and California? Being from Michigan I know quite a few people my age (mid 20's) that moved to Colorado in the last 5 years because of work? Being younger and educated they'd tend to be Democrats.

          I have no idea if California emigration is real but I've heard that as reasoning for better Dem numbers all over the west.

          (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

          by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:35:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

            I have the vague sense that Civil War-era California was divided, politically and maybe geographically, between emigrants from the North and emigrants from the South.

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

            by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:18:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

        Isn't the Hispanic population growing there, too? I'm guessing there's some growth in the Asian population, too, though at much lower levels.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:32:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Hispanic share of the Denver County population (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skaje, MichaelNY

          is not growing. Where it's really booming is in the suburbs.

          •  That's interesting (0+ / 0-)

            I'm guessing that the Denver area is one area where housing prices are cheaper in the suburbs, generally, than in the city?

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:30:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

              I'm just a 20 minute drive from downtown Denver and my rent is comparable to Oklahoma.  Not all the suburbs are this cheap (the Centennial/Littleton area south of Denver is pricier, and not coincidentally whiter and wealthier).  But the other three directions from Denver are booming in population, especially ethnic minorities.  That's why Obama dominated the suburban counties (Jefferson, Adams, and Arapahoe) in ways that Clinton never could, and he won the state by 4 points in 1992.

      •  I object to "yuppie" as a term in politics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I find that many "yuppies" are politically irrelevant.

        On the other hand, the white political force that combines with non-white populations in many places is the "creative class".

        To me, the "creative class" includes high-tech professionals along with artists and older line "hippies," where the cultures are surprisingly compatible.

        Yes, there is overlap between "creative class" and "yuppie", but people in the "creative class" are politically aware.

        I hope; therefore, I can live.

        by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:21:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ... Yuppie (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, MichaelNY

          Is literally a colloquialism of an acronym: Young Urban Professionals.

          They are almost always misidentified as being some kindof of Hippie Nouveau a la Hipsterism because of the similarity between the words Hippie and Yuppie. It couldn't be further from the truth.

          Those people are not the "creative class". They are the young business class. And they certainly are political aware. These are not political naive Hipsters who only care about their pot and crappy unlistened-to music.

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:39:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yuppie? (6+ / 0-)

            Guys, what is this?  1985?

            The term itself is somewhat dated, but it's always essentially referred to those in urban/suburban areas who are fairly/very well off, white collar, and upwardly mobile.  Politically, that translated into a GOP preference during the Reagan-era heyday of "yuppie"ism, but in the time since those who fit that profile have become swingier, if not as Democratic as "hipsters", the "creative class", or whatever.  The Republicans' Bible thumping and foreign policy adventurism has driven many of them away from the party.

            37, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

            by Mike in MD on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:49:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BeloitDem, MichaelNY

              The term was very much en vogue during the 1980s when it was first coined, but it also came into a renaissance mid-this-decade to describe the total political opposite.

              Back then it referred to the young "upwardly mobile" professional. Now it refers to the young "urban" professional. In other words, the white people causing urban core gentrification. But not the kindof gentrification driven by hipsters who want to live in the ghetto because it is so retro, the kindof gentrification where entire city blocks of affordable housing are razed and replaced by VMU development or expensive condos.

              23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

              by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:59:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I suggest that Mitt represents the "yuppie" class (0+ / 0-)

              If "yuppies" were politically aware as the rest of us, I suggest that Mitt would have used that bloc to clean up in the wealthier suburbs.

              I hope; therefore, I can live.

              by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:59:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not necessarily (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, kman23

                While Yuppies are typically in the upper quintile, they're still mostly not 1%ers and mostly think of themselves as middle class. They're generally very pro-public education, which Mitt did not take seriously at all, and more often than not socially liberal. While Mitt may have culturally projected a yuppieish image, he did not necessarily represent their interests.

                •  The Sylvans of the world wouldn't have a market (0+ / 0-)

                  without today's yuppies, which suggests to me that while yuppies care about education -- they aren't supportive of public education.

                  And I don't think yuppies took the social conservative element of the Republican party seriously, in their belief that socons can be controlled. Abortion remained legal under Bush II, and I suggest that Romney's image was no more Christian than Bush's among that group.

                  I hope; therefore, I can live.

                  by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:24:17 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yuppies care about public education. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    While they're more like to send their kids to private colleges, and there are certainly are a certain number of yuppies who send their kids to private school, the vast majority of yuppies send their kids to public school through high school, and are very concerned about the quality of those schools, a concern Mitt Romney doesn't really share.

                    •  Do you have data backing that up? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      I can't find any data on the subgroup.

                      I hope; therefore, I can live.

                      by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:43:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't (0+ / 0-)

                        But I've lived in and have relatives who still live in heavily yuppified areas, so I have a relatively good feel for the politics of those areas. I realize that doesn't count as "evidence," but I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that most people in suburban communities (where yuppies largely live) send their kids to public schools.

                        •  "most people in suburban communities" (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY

                          are not "yuppies".

                          I hope; therefore, I can live.

                          by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:05:06 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Upthread you said: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY
                            If "yuppies" were politically aware as the rest of us, I suggest that Mitt would have used that bloc to clean up in the wealthier suburbs.
                            Implying that yuppies are a majority in some suburban communities, a point I agree with.
                          •  Wealthier suburbs (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY, bjssp

                            are not all suburbs. In fact, I'll go further and suggest that they are a minority of suburbs.

                            I hope; therefore, I can live.

                            by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:26:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll agree that they're a minority of suburbs (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            But do you think that a majority of the people in these yuppified suburbs don't have their kids in the public schools?

                            My experience with these places is quite the opposite, while there's certainly a certain number of people who send their kids to private school, these communities tend to be very proud of their public schools.

                            Remember, these people by and large think of themselves as middle class, even though they're better off than most.

                          •  Really, though, unless one of us can cough up (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            a study on public school enrollment rates in upper quintile suburbs, we're arguing based on impressions.

                          •  I think you are correct. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BeloitDem, MichaelNY

                            At least around where I live, people tend to consider the public school system an extension of their homes, and they consider their homes to be more or less an extension of themselves. Taxes here are pretty high, but school budgets usually pass quite easily, because the thought of owning a home in a district where the budget didn't pass isn't very pleasant for a lot of people.

                            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                            by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:28:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  SAT Prep programs are not incompatible (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BeloitDem

                    with public school enrollment, are they?

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:33:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Same with Whole Foods and Apple (0+ / 0-)

                    (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                    by kman23 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:38:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Without "hippies" there would be no Internet (0+ / 0-)

            It took hippie-like cooperation to set up the common standards required for a network where communication can go from end to end based on a single set of protocols.

            If you take a look at the key people behind the Internet, the people behind the development of today's primary computer languages, you'll find that they look alike in many ways -- well, look at http://www.wired.com/... for a bit of the variations.

            Many hippies who created Internet companies got their piece of the pie, and moved into yuppiedom. But much of that happened in the '90s, before people in tech realized that they had to take part in political discourse, before politicians took charge of them.

            I hope; therefore, I can live.

            by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:53:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Fair redistricting (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawolf, KingTag, bfen, MichaelNY, DCal, GloFish, gabjoh

    This is going to sound hypocritical. I like drawing gerrymanders for fun on DRA, and not to toot my own horn, but I've drawn some good ones. I cheered the Democratic map in Illinois and said I was happy Democrats were fighting fire with fire where they could. I was one of those who criticized the Democratic maps in Arkansas and Maryland because they could have been better. I was livid over Democrats in New York rolling over on congressional redistricting when they could have shored up Rep. Hochul, eliminated Rep. Grimm, and probably done some damage to either Reps. Gibson, Hayworth, or Hanna (and maybe more than one of them).

    But after seeing Democrats crush Republicans this year, adding seats in the Senate and blasting Mitt Romney, I am just outraged over Democrats winning the national House popular vote but barely getting any closer to 218 seats. And I'm thinking maybe my partisan desire to see Republicans humbled in states where Democrats had control, just to see some measure of vengeance for Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, was (at best) misguided.

    I don't want to unilaterally disarm. I'm not interested in taking the high road if the high road leads off a cliff. But this is an issue that is as important as voting rights -- because it is voting rights. Americans voted for a Democratic-controlled House; they voted for Democratic control at all levels of the federal government. Instead, they're getting 2+ more years of Speaker Boehner and his buddies holding up everything in the face of an overwhelming mandate for the policies espoused by President Obama and the Democratic leadership.

    Democrats need to step up on voting rights, including fair redistricting. If they do, independents will join them. This isn't about making elections more winnable for Democrats, although that is a good political reason for Democrats to do it, because when maps are fair and more people vote, Democrats will do better, generally speaking. But it's really about basic fairness. It wouldn't be right if Democrats were gaming the system, either; my natural sympathy toward people who are getting kicked around like that might drive me in that case toward the Republicans, certainly more than bullshit like the made-up "war on religion" or "war on the wealthy" does.

    Fair redistricting should be enshrined in federal law (either case law or constitutional law), and it should follow either the Iowa model or the California model or some combination of the two. I'm usually loath to recommend anything from California, so you know how serious this is.

    Without fair redistricting, Republicans will hold the North Carolina legislature forever; they will hold the Michigan legislature forever; they will hold the Florida legislature forever; they will hold the Wisconsin legislature forever; they will hold the Pennsylvania legislature forever. And as a result, they will probably hold the U.S. House of Representatives as well.

    I almost hope Secy. Jon Husted or another one of these crooks tries to go through with some divide-by-gerrymandered-CD scheme for their state's electoral votes. And I hope President Obama names justices who are strongly sympathetic to voting fairness and equal access to the federal bench. Because of the gerrymandered House, it's unlikely that Congress will pass a law that would put a bunch of Republicans from blue and purple states out of a job, so our best bet on this may be (ulp!) the Supreme Court.

    Whatever the path forward, Democrats need to make a push on this. It would be nice if they could find some Republican allies on this issue -- some former or outgoing senators or governors or somesuch, your Gordon Smiths and Christie Todd Whitmans and Olympia Snowes. But it's time for some serious voter education. It worked in fighting back against Republicans who tried to restrict voting rights on the ground this year. I think it'll work in fighting back against Republicans for trying to lock in Republican legislative majorities, too.

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

    by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:34:03 PM PST

    •  I'm very seriously considering (5+ / 0-)

      putting some of my time into helping (via computer/donations) if there were a serious effort at a Michigan or Ohio initiative.

      I mean seriously rich liberals, this shit would be a slam dunk if there ever were if you put your money behind it.

      Ohio alone would have been worth 5 extra seats this year and Michigan probably 3, almost half of what we need to get the majority.

      For the time being I guess I'll just have to write an angry rant diary and hope it gets on the rec list ;)

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

      by sawolf on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:54:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am hoping to find out (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, MichaelNY, sawolf

        as soon as possible what the intentions of the Issue 2 (anti-gerrymandering) people are going forward. I think their campaign was weak this year and I knew they would lose. But I think they have to keep doing it every year until we win. And doing it in off years might be good as well. But they need to have a clear, direct message, and not try to persuade voters by telling them it's about something else that it's indirectly about. That's too complicated.

        The effort in Ohio WAS serious, but given the forces arrayed against it and its own missteps, it was too high a mountain to climb. But things are going to get worse for the GOP, and I think the anti-gerrymandering folks will learn from their mistakes. This is going to be one of my main focuses. I'll be calling the campaign organizers once this election ends for me (I'm STILL working at the board of elections!)

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:46:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Forever is a long time (0+ / 0-)

      You make a good point, though.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:30:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A lot of Independents give lip service (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      to stuff like redistricting, but most don't vote on it.

      ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:33:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is why we need to change that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

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

        by SaoMagnifico on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:18:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Views on political process (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, MichaelNY

          will never overcome views on politics in any substantial way.

          •  I don't necessarily agree with that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, sacman701

            People stood in line for hours to vote even after the outcome of the election was clear on 6 November -- poor people, naturalized immigrants, people of color. People surrounded elections offices demanding the right to vote early when they were denied in Florida. That was a reaction to Republicans trying to make it harder for people to vote. And if people will get that angry about not being able to vote, I think they can get angry about not being able to choose their own member of Congress because the game is rigged against them.

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

            by SaoMagnifico on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:28:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure I by that increased turnout (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, James Allen

              was all about voter suppression. That may have been part of it, but it really had to do with a holistic Republican attack on democratic constituencies - Attacking funding for students and public universities, hostility to immigration and social welfare programs, and racist campaign themes.

      •  Are most partisan Democrats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        sharp enough to pick up on the fact that, while this isn't designed just to help Democrats, it will at the very least put us even with Republicans? If so, it might not matter, and the pitch to good governance might be more for show.

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:57:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  pitch for good governance is inherently enough (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          to bring along Democrats, no need to consider partisan impact.  At least the liberals and progressives in the coalition.

          ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:15:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps, although it would be easier (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            to drive turnout on our side if they realized this would be giving them a greater chance at not having their preferred elected officials being gerrymandered.

            This is that, essentially. It's not the same as something that would directly benefit us, as in the ability to write maps to screw them over as much as they screwed us, but that's okay, as any fair drawing should give us plenty of room to win. We realize that, but do others?

            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

            by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:36:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Two unrelated things (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    1. Does anyone know what the highest % Jewish districts in the country are? FL-21, NY-10/12?

    2. I wonder how long after I post this until we have the state capitals by PVI: Crowdsourcing go! :)
    But seriously, I wonder what the most liberal/conservative state capital is and which one is the most liberal/conservative relative to its state.

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

    by sawolf on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:41:30 PM PST

  •  MI-Gov (7+ / 0-)

    State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer updated her website with a message saying 2014 will be "our year" when we fight back against Snyder's agenda.  Some are speculating that this indicates Whitmer may run for governor.    

    http://www.mlive.com/...

    •  I would really like that (7+ / 0-)

      I just hope she runs for one statewide office (Senate or governor) and Rep. Gary Peters runs for the other. No use wasting our two most promising rising stars in Michigan Democratic politics in a bitter primary against one another.

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

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:47:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Give me former U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer (0+ / 0-)

      over Whitmer any day. We just need to convince him to take the jump.

      Shauer gives us a much better state-wide candidate than Whitmer. This gives us a better shot at taking back at least part of the legislature.

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

      by slacks on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:17:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No offense, but the man was defeated. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Is he even considering a bid?

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

        by ndrwmls10 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:15:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He ran pretty well though (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          If Whitmer was in his district she'd have been defeated too.

          19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
          politicohen.com
          Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
          UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

          by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:44:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Doesn't mean much. He's not currently (0+ / 0-)

            an elected official, sitting from a position of power. Whitmer however is. This is what primaries are for though!

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

            by ndrwmls10 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:47:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, I'd be undecided (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              No dislike for Whitmer, but none for Schauer either.

              19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
              politicohen.com
              Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
              UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

              by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:10:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  He gets mentioned sometimes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, BeloitDem, MichaelNY

          I know a lot of people that want him to run. He is undecided, but people think he will make the jump. He has a lot of support in Washtenaw County/Ann Arbor.  He is an union organizer now, so I wouldn't be surprised if the unions push him.

          I met him all the way back during one of the ACA town halls. I got a brief moment to talk with him afterwards. He seemed to realize that voting Yes would probably kill his re-election chances, but he said that losing an election is worth doing the right thing.

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

          by slacks on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:30:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  he should run for something, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            but maybe not governor.  There are probably better options like Peters or Whitmer.

            ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:53:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Peters is our best option (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen, MichaelNY

              if Levin doesn't retire. He would be our best shot by far.

              I just don't think Whitmer is a better option than Mark Schauer. He lost of tough race in 2010, but Whitmer has never had run in a tough race. She has never even had a tough primary.

              I also don't think  running another candidate from Lansing is a smart idea.

              I would rather see her run for Attorney General, because we sometimes field terrible candidates.

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

              by slacks on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:13:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

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

          Yes, he lost but he only lost by 5% which isn't too bad given it was a strongly Republican election and a somewhat conservative district.  

  •  FL: Charlie Crist is officially a Democrat (19+ / 0-)

    He signed papers changing his registration....at a White House Christmas party.

    link.

  •  quiz: Which two states' 'other' vote was > 4% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    per cent in the presidential election?

    (per the current values on Wasserman's Vote Tracker spreadsheet)

  •  Cory Booker says Christie is vulernable (5+ / 0-)

    Might be a hint he is running?

    He will be on The Daily Show this week as well, so maybe that will give more clues. Or you know, he just announces a decision soon and we dont have to speculate anymore.

    I'm in the camp that hopes he runs for Senate. I dont think Christie is vulnerable, even though his sky high approvals will likely fall through next year. But not enough to lose re-election.

    Lautenberg looks like he will run for re-election, and I dont think Christie would primary him.

    •  I'd bet that we won't know on Lautenberg (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, jj32, MichaelNY

      until after next year's election.  I doubt he would retire if Christie loses, but I think there's a good chance he would announce in say, December of 2013 that he's not running if Christie wins.

      Either way though, there's no reason for him to give any hint that he's retiring before then, so I would't just assume he's running (or not).

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

      by sawolf on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:19:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What are the tea leaves for Lautenberg? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, MichaelNY, kman23

      I'm just incredibly nervous with the idea of a 90 year old Dem Senator in a state where a Republican Gov would  pick his replacement upon vacancy.

      Now if Booker should be the Gov next year, then no problem.

    •  You treat Christie's handling of Sandy... (7+ / 0-)

      the same way candidate Obama treated McCain's war hero status.  You say "I thought Christie did a great job handling Sandy and he should be commended BUT he also did x, y, z."  Booker has some good coverage from the running into the burning building, and then when Snowmageddon hit he was out shoveling while Christie was on a beach in Florida.

      New Jersey is a blue state and Booker would just have to hammer Christie on his politics non-stop.  Christie made a lot of hyper partisan attacks against Dems and Pres Obama - and that could be used against him - as could his using the Gov job as a stepping stone for a WH run.  

      If Christie is trying to use his Sandy handling and working with Pres Obama on it - Booker could go as far as pointing out that's what your supposed to do and Christie acting like it was some great feat shows how partisan he really is.  

      They have the billionaires, We have the Big Dog!

      by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:23:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Difference: McCain's war hero status (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        is only a tangentially relevant qualification for the Presidency; Christie's performance post-Sandy is suggestive of what he would do in other difficult situations as Governor.

        Nevertheless, your suggested strategy is perhaps the only way to go after Christie, and to some extent helped Clinton against Bush I.

        I hope; therefore, I can live.

        by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:24:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  How far to the left of Christie (0+ / 0-)

      is Booker? He seems very pro-Wall St. Is he super-liberal socially?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:35:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, I made a 9-5 (6+ / 0-)

    Democrat Map of Georgia.

    It's a brilliantly designed map, relatively clean, and passes (in my sketchy interpretation), VRA muster.

    "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

    by ArkDem14 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:24:31 PM PST

  •  Just finished my Florida Map (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades

    Should have it written up sometime this weekend. I think it's pretty clever, considering this is the first time I've ever tried to draw Florida. It should come out to about 14D-9R-4S.

  •  All the Ohio statewide races (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY, madmojo

    I want those offices swept clean, from Governor John "Cronies R Us" Kasich to treasurer Josh "The Empty Suit" Mandel, they ALL need to be ousted from office. We have plenty of good candidates. Among those mentioned for governor are Cuyahoga (Cleveland) county executive Ed FitzGerald, who has already announced he is seeking the office, Congressman Tim "The Good" Ryan, Rich Cordray and former governor Ted Strickland. I hope Ted stays out; unfortunately he set up his own defeat in 2010 by alienating the party's women. We don't want to go back. As for Cordray, if Obama can engineer his permanent appointment to the COnsumer Financial Protection Bureau, I think he'll stay. Cordray is a fantastic officeholder but he clearly is not comfortable campaigning. No idea what Ryan's intentions are.

    Further down the ticket, many are trying to recruit State Senator Nina Turner, a feisty advocate for voters' rights, to run for secretary of state against Jon "I Disenfranchised You Just to Show I Can" Husted. I've also heard the name of Judge Mary Jane Trapp mentioned. Both would be excellent.

    I know David Pepper, our auditor candidate in 2010, is looking to run statewide again. Maybe he could face off against attorney general Mikey "The Tea Party Stole my Soul" DeWhiny. Pepper is a tireless campaigner who outperformed most of the 2010 in Cuyahoga — at the opposite end of the state from where he's from (Cincinnati). He's younger and he's an up-and-comer, a possible future governor.

    We definitely have to get a good candidate to run against the Empty Suit, who is writing his opponents campaign material every day, the latest being the padding of his tax-funded payroll with more cronies who worked on his campaign. I've heard term-limited state house minority leader Armond Budish mentioned.

    The remaining officeholder we need to oust is Teabagger auditor Dave Yost. I think we can easily find a more attractive candidate. My only requirement is that they're not from Dayton. Dayton, you have a problem! Get it together.

    Jon Husted is a dick.

    by anastasia p on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:34:26 PM PST

    •  I would so love to have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      Jennifer Brunner run for her old job!

      In 1977, 31 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. That grew to 49 percent in 2009. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, support swelled to 70 percent in 2006, All while Republican opposition stayed the same.

      by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:53:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Strickland and women (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gabjoh

      What did he do to alienate women (definitely a dumb move!)?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:36:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Strickland is anti-abortion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

        by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:15:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't realize that. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:39:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Everyone is anti-abortion. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skibum59

          I don't think there's any such person who would call themselves "pro-abortion".

          24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

          by HoosierD42 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:34:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Disagree (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BeloitDem, tietack, Skaje

            Many people are not anti-abortion. If you had said that very few people are pro-abortion, in the sense of preferring abortion to happen as much as possible, you'd make a better point.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:40:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right, but I would go further than that even (0+ / 0-)

              And say that literally no one in their right mind considers abortion to be a desirable option.

              24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

              by HoosierD42 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:43:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think in some situations it's desirable (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, tietack

                When you are a 15 year old and are raped, an abortion is desirable.  Or do you mean nobody wants to get pregnant in order to have an abortion?

                19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                politicohen.com
                Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                by jncca on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:12:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, when I think of "desirable" (0+ / 0-)

                  I think of "man, I can't wait to have that abortion!"

                  24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

                  by HoosierD42 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:08:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If your life were in danger, you'd think that way (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Skaje, tietack

                    And there are lots of other situations that are in various ways similar. I think you've pretty much played your argument out.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:57:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "Sometimes necessary" and "a good option to have" (0+ / 0-)

                      Do not equal a net positive. That is my point that I feel people are either ignoring or not getting.

                      24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

                      by HoosierD42 on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 03:31:22 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  A woman's life is damn well a net positive (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        tietack

                        And you're the one who isn't getting it, in my opinion.

                        A friend of mine posted a photo of a woman holding a sign that said as follows:

                        "My vagina, my rules."

                        That's the bottom line. It's not your vagina and not my vagina. When women start telling us what we have to do with our dicks or men start getting pregnant, then we can come back and talk about the relative goodness or badness of abortion.

                        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                        by MichaelNY on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 03:53:30 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That's not what he's saying (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY

                          Look. This is a subject that we really need to move past. It is absolutely not appropriate for DKE discussion and will do nothing but inflame passions and stir feelings that should not be stirred.

                          I suggest that we all just take a break and not engage on this issue.

                          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                          by wwmiv on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 04:10:53 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  I know this is purely a debate of semantics (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, sawolf, tietack, skibum59, jncca

                and that we're all undoubtedly on the same page with regards to being pro-choice, but I still think you could frame it better.  The fact is, for a great number of women in this country, abortion is the most desirable option upon becoming pregnant, and it's important to frame it that way.  Otherwise we can fall into using right-wing frames of saying that abortion is by default a more undesirable choice than having the baby, when it isn't necessarily in all cases.

                Again, this is purely semantics.  On policy there's plenty to be gained by pushing contraception, which by itself would reduce the abortion rate.  But reducing abortions should not be the goal alone, but rather giving women more options so they don't find themselves in the position of needing one.  Total semantics, but I think it's part of the reason why even many ostensibly pro-choice people nonetheless indicate a general disapproval of abortion and are okay with some "common-sense" restrictions.  They recognize a woman's right to an abortion, but still feel uncomfortable with the idea, and think there's something inherently wrong with it.

                This contributes to the overall stigma placed upon women who have had an abortion.  Somewhere around a third of all women in America will have an abortion in their lifetimes, and it's important that we don't frame that as them making undesirable choices, but rather the most desirable choice they made at that time.

                •  Short version of what I just posted: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, tietack

                  not having an abortion means having a baby, which is also a choice, and sometimes an undesirable choice (I don't need to give examples).  Yet no one inherently frames childbirth as undesirable, yet too many people frame abortion as always undesirable.  For many pregnant women, abortion is the more desirable option.  They should be framed equivalently.

              •  Aren't we a bunch of men (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                trying to discuss the options a woman makes with her body?

                I hope; therefore, I can live.

                by tietack on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:48:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I am "pro-abortion rights" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            It is what it is.

            I hope; therefore, I can live.

            by tietack on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:22:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  2006 Senate Election Cycle (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    So I'm just curious on what the CW was for that cycle at the start?
    I've been hearing the GOP was rather hopeful about the gaining seats in NE and WA. They even believed that Lincoln Chaffee should be fine as the survived "the worst part of the campaign", surviving the R primary.

    I was only just getting into politics at the time, and really didn't start looking at the horse race till mid to late August. By that point things were not looking so great for the GOP. From my perspective it starting like storm that was building up, you had the Abramoff scandal, sinking approvals of both congress and the president. By the time the Mark Foley scandal broke I could tell the GOP seemed to be ready to hand us the House but Senate seemed to up in the air if not R leaning.

    I remember Pat Buchanan saying that GOP should keep the senate as they had a firewall with MO,TN, and VA. Democrats would need to pick up at least 2 of the 3 to win the senate. And for the most part Buchanan seemed to be right. While we're looking decent in Missouri, Tennessee was going to be a tough state to crack (still amazed how close we came that year). Even though we had scored a A-rate candidate, with Jim Webb in VA, it still looked like Allen still had the race in his corner. That was the case till he opened his mouth and uttered that one word.

    It really looked like the Dems had nearly everything go there way for that cycle.

    In 1977, 31 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. That grew to 49 percent in 2009. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, support swelled to 70 percent in 2006, All while Republican opposition stayed the same.

    by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:42:06 PM PST

    •  And then we still made net gains on top of that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, MichaelNY, itskevin

      This year.

      •  that makes for 3 cycles in a row (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, itskevin

        I'm itching for the 2016 senate elections, Democrats haven't made gains with that class of senators since 1986!

        In fact the 2010 election

        was the fourth consecutive election of "class 3" senators where Democrats have failed to gain seats and the third consecutive mid-term election held in a president's first term where Republicans have picked-up seats.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        In 1977, 31 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. That grew to 49 percent in 2009. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, support swelled to 70 percent in 2006, All while Republican opposition stayed the same.

        by lordpet8 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:52:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You not only one who can't wait (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gabjoh

          for the senate races in '16. I foam at the mouth thinking about those vulnerable GOP senate held seats, and the potential open ones in Iowa and Arizona.

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

          by BKGyptian89 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:00:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Going into 2005 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, andgarden, itskevin, lordpet8

      It was considered a tough map for Democrats. Beyond possibilities in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania most people had a hard time seeing further gains. But Iraq, Katrina and Congressional scandals allowed the party to compete in states carried by President Bush in 2004.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:59:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also at the start of that cycle (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8, MichaelNY

        the Republicans and the media (sometimes then and now I wondered if there was a difference) were hyping potential GOP pickup opportunities in states that didn't even vote for Bush.

        To use my home state as an example, they slobbered nonstop over Michael Steele's alleged crossover appeal and chances of winning until election day--when he lost by double digits.

        37, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

        by Mike in MD on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:41:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

        Events matter--that's why I try not to predict too much too far ahead.

        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

        by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:37:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Virginia seemed like a total long shot (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, lordpet8

        until George Allen opened up his big fat mouth.

        McCaskill's race was very close and it was considered at best probably 50/50. I think Tester actually winning Montana was only thought of as a serious possibility in the final few weeks of the campaign.

        Stabenow and Cantwell were supposed to have faced serious challenges but their challengers kind of fell apart and the national trend towards democrats that year helped those two greatly.

      •  The thing no one has mentioned here... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, bjssp, skibum59

        ...that establishes what a heavy lift we had was that of the 15 GOP seats up, only one was open, and that was in conservative Tennessee...and we lost that one in the end.

        We defeated 6 of 14 incumbents!  Nearly half!  That's stunning, it virtually never happens.

        Easy to see why it was logically folly to think at almost any point that we would take the Senate.

        And I remember vividly that even on election day morning, the CW was we would likely fall short a seat or two.  And I, too, thought that.  McCaskill and Webb in particular looked very iffy, as did Tester at the end as Burns surged.  Taking all 3 just didn't look likely.  But we got 'em.

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

        by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:33:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whitehouse wasn't a certainty either (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skaje, MichaelNY

          The polls were only wide enough to call Casey and Brown winners. That night is the example I always cite as reason not to put any faith at all in the predictive powers of betting markets.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:04:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But Whitehouse clearly was winning (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            It was close, but I remember vividly he was expected to defeat Chafee.  Chafee actually had to make a bit of a comeback at the end to make the final polls closer than earlier, although the 5-point Whitehouse win was a bit larger than the final polling margins as a I recall.

            But yes you're right that only Casey and Brown were up big, they were the only ones who were clearly a lock.

            Ford was actually beating Corker in September!  But then Corker turned his campaign around after a bad start, and the state's conservative bent reasserted itself.  The 3-point loss was actually a bit closer than expected.

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

            by DCCyclone on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:43:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Michigan union initiative(s) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordpet8, MichaelNY

    This seems like a good point from Matt Yglesias:

    In political terms this really does seem like the tipping point. For a long time the United States has existed as a "house divided" in this regard. Democrats in states like Virginia and Nevada didn't seriously try to repeal right-to-work laws, while Republicans in the northeast and midwest didn't try to implement them. But if right-to-work can pass in Michigan, then why shouldn't Republicans press for it in Wisconsin or Ohio or Pennsylvania?

    The particular political context here is that Michigan unions put an initiative on the 2012 ballot to enshrine collective bargaining rights in the state constitution. That was meant to be a prophylactic measure to stop something like this from happening. But they lost, even on an Election Day when Barack Obama handily carried the state. So what was meant to be a show of political strength turned out to be a show of political weakness, with the union cause running well behind Obama and signaling that a strong anti-union move wouldn't necessarily provoke a backlash around Michigan's ideological median.

    So... much reason to hope we'd succeed in an effort to undo this legislation at the ballot box?
    •  They didn't do it because that ref. failed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bjssp, BeloitDem, MichaelNY, LordMike

      they did it because they weren't going to have the votes next session.  That's the simplest and most logical answer.  Also, there was a broad campaign to vote no on all referendums this year.  In at least one of them (the EFM repeal), that was the right decision as "no" meant it would be repealed.  As was voting no on a corrupt contract to build Mackinac Bridge.  And yes, I think an initiative is the way to go and would be a good bet.  And it's not a citizen's veto, but a vote on alternative legislation.

      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 Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:27:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I kind of see some parallels to gay marriage here. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, LordMike

        The issue is pretty ideological, but in each case, different sides have the more fervent supporters. In the case of gay marriage, the Republicans probably had a larger absolute number of diehards, whereas the opposite is true with the RTW stuff. It's not clear when this will end up on the ballot, but if it's not during a regular election, this might favor us.

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:04:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Different circumstances, different vehicles (4+ / 0-)

      Here, voters are faced with actual legislation that's been passed, and they won't be voting to amend the constitution.

      Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

      by Paleo on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:34:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  From what I've been reading.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        ...the right is misinterpreting the results of prop 2, and even the brain dead MI pundits are agreeing with us on that count.  

        Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin are all risks.  As of mid-November the WI statehouse leadership said that there's no chance of bringing up RTW, and Walker has told his donors he doesn't want another labor fight leading up to his re-election.  Of course those folk lie all the time.

        In PA, RTW died a quick death after the 2010 elections.  I don't know if it will be revived.  The most historically pro-union parts of the state are now voting GOP, and the Corbett needs all the help he can get in a re-election.  The wildcard here is a primary challenge to Corbett which could cause a problem by forcing him to go right.

        In OH, the GOP is still feeling the burn from SB5, and the senate may be the last batch of moderate republicans.  Kasich promised during his election that he'd never push RTW, but we know that these guys lie and get away with it.  There is a ballot initiative festering around.  My guess that if the right wing powers want to push it, they will go that route and try to get it on the 2011 ballot.

        We certainly do need to keep an eye on those states, since the right wing money machine will push it.  PA and WI are the most dangerous, since there is no way for the public to fight back.

        GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

        by LordMike on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:07:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Now that Crist is a Democrat, he has a shot at (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, sawolf, pademocrat, MichaelNY, jncca

    making history: the first politician to run as an independent after losing primaries in both parties.  "The inverse cross-file", they call it.

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

    by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:20:26 PM PST

  •  My hometown completely flipped (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    I just realized that nearly every major office in my sector switched parties. Incumbent/sitting conservative leaning Dems were replaced with Republicans just as sitting conservative R's were replaced by Democrats.

    Mayor D -> R
    Inucmbent DINO, Ron Loveridge decided to retire after serving 10 years. A conservative leaning Democrat, many of us wondered why he still kept his D affiliation. Loveridge had endorsed George Bush from President twice and was now endorsing Republican John Tavaglione for CA 41. But he did do the Dems a big favor by endorsing Democrats: Roth and Medina for State Senate and Assembly. So I guess I will give him a pass.

    In the race to replace Loveridge, voters and had to decide between the two Republicans (the Dems did not make it to the run-off). We had chose between a  business friendly traditional-R or a independent-minded R.  In the end the Independent-R, Rusty Bailey won. I say independent because that's how he campaigned, I still don't know how he'll be in office, but at least it will be more of a surprise than just picking a traditional R.

    County Sup D -> R

    Longtime DINO Bob Buster, went down in defeat in a shockingly close race. He was replaced by a Howard Jarvis Tax Payers association backed candidate, Kevin Jeffries. The union bashing by Buster may have cost him the race, but now the unions will have to decide what to do with Jeffries(who is by no means a friend of the unions)

    State Assembly R -> D

    Incumbent Republican Brian Nestande was moved out my district during redistricting. Nestande was the number 2 guy in the GOP leadership. He caused quite a stir when he and Nathan Fletcher broke with the GOP to support Governor Brown's Tax bill. He provided the necessary 2/3rds majority to allow the bill to move the senate. As a result of his actions, Nestand resigned from his leadership position but chose to run for reelection. He won his race and still resides in the assembly today.

    Democrat Jose Medina won and easy to race to represent the area.

    State Senate R -> D
    My outgoing Senator is none other than former GOP senate leader, Bob Dutton! That name may sound familiar as this was the same Dutton that ran unsuccessfully against Gary Miller in CA 31. Dutton was termed out of the senate, hence his quixotic run for congress. Still even if he had stuck around, he'd have a very tough time running in the new reconfigured district.

    Democratic Major General Richard Roth ended up easily coasting in this swing district.

    In 1977, 31 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. That grew to 49 percent in 2009. In 1975, 51 percent of Californians supported abortion rights, support swelled to 70 percent in 2006, All while Republican opposition stayed the same.

    by lordpet8 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:30:55 PM PST

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

    How many members left in the BDC after the last election ? I'd venture about 15 but did anyone do a headcount ?

    •  I count 14 returning incumbents (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico, jncca, R30A

      From their website, out of 27 members in the previous session.

      John Barrow (GA-12)
      Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
      Jim Cooper (TN-05)
      Jim Costa (CA-16)
      Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
      Jim Matheson (UT-04)
      Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
      Mike Michaud (ME-02)
      Collin Peterson (MN-07)
      Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
      Adam Schiff (CA-29)
      Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
      David Scott (GA-13)
      Mike Thompson (CA-05)

      Of that list, only Barrow, Cooper, Cuellar, Matheson, McIntyre, and Peterson would be described as conservative Democrats.

      Out of the freshmen Democrats elected, quite a few may end up joining the Blue Dogs for fundraising purposes (as they did after 2006 and 2008).  Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01) and Bill Foster (IL-11) were Blue Dogs while in Congress previously, so they are likely (though not certain, as their seats are slightly different) candidates to rejoin.  As for the rest, I would keep an eye on Scott Peters (CA-52) and Patrick Murphy (FL-18), but other than them, I'd be surprised if anyone else joins the Blue Dogs that was elected last month.

      So I'd say 14 to 18 Blue Dogs, down from 27 after 2010.  16 or so seems likely this session.

      Tough break they've been getting lately.  They had 56 members after 2008.

    •  And the CPC ? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      Rhanks for the answers (and speculations ;-) about the Blue Dogs. And how many members in the CPCnow ? Above 80 ? 85 likely or not ?

      •  Congressional Progressive Caucus (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, kman23

        I count 61 returning incumbents out of 73 prior to this election.  The departing members are: Tammy Baldwin (to the Senate), Hansen Clarke, Bob Filner (to San Diego mayor), Barney Frank, Mazie Hirono (to Senate), Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Brad Miller, John Olver, Laura Richardson, Pete Stark, Lynn Woolsey.

        However, there are a ton of likely new members.  Obvious candidates (to me) include: Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Eric Swalwell (CA-15), Tony Cardenas (CA-29), Raul Ruiz (CA-36), Mark Takano (CA-41), Alan Grayson (FL-09), Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02), Tammy Duckworth (IL-08), Joe Kennedy III (MA-04), Dina Titus (NV-01), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Ann Kuster (NH-02), Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01), Grace Meng (NY-06), Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), Beto O'Rourke (TX-16), Marc Veasey (TX-33), and Mark Pocan (WI-02).  That's 20 names there, maybe some don't join, maybe others do.  But I think it likely that the CPC at least makes back the 12 it lost this past election, and continues to number into the 70s.

        Also, with the CPC now having a firmer base in the Senate (Hirono and Baldwin joining), they may begin to recruit members there (currently, only Bernie Sanders identifies with the CPC).  Elizabeth Warren would be an obvious choice out of freshmen senators.

  •  MT-SoS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, itskevin

    No, not Secretary of State. Superintendent of School.

    Statewide recount:

    http://missoulian.com/...

    I'm not sure this was mentioned anywhere else, but because Juneau seemed to get alot of support around here I thought I should spread the news.

    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

    by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:02:35 AM PST

  •  Arizona Trend (?) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, aggou

    I think it might be time we give up on an "Arizona Trend" argument in favor of other opportunities.

    Democrats have received between 44% and 46% in every election between 1996 and 2012 (that's 5 elections).

    If you want to make the argument that the 1996 result should be thrown out because of Perot then I'll just come back with the fact that Democrats have gotten 44.x% in every election for the past four elections.

    There is no trend. There is stand pat. There is the same. Democrats get 44%. Romney was wrong: It isn't 47%, it is 44%... At least for Arizona.

    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

    by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:15:24 AM PST

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

      This obviously doesn't include Gubernatorial and Senate elections, where we can sometimes do better.

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:16:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think this is a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      good argument in favor of not always relying on "State X is trending our way" when discussing these things. If the absolute percentages stay roughly the same, as is the case in Arizona, is it really changing in any way?

      Anyway, how has the racial composition of our percentage changed? I'd imagine it's much easier for us to have white voters come back to us, to the extent that they abandoned us, than it would be for the Republicans to get non-whites to come back to them. If something like that is roughly true, then perhaps a concerted effort (which really wasn't made made in the last few cycles, I should add) might be the key to winning.

      I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

      by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:54:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  targets (8+ / 0-)

      AZ has a red trend at the presidential level since 2004, but the Dems don't really have any other plausible new targets.

      GA was the only non-swing state that was closer, but it's extremely inelastic. Its Dem base is mostly black and already highly mobilized, and most of its white population is rigidly GOP. MS and SC are similar, only worse as they were less competitive in 2012 and aren't drawing in new Dem voters.

      MO is trending red as its culturally southern areas have become hopeless for Dems. IN is generically redder than AZ and doesn't have a favorable demographic trend. Obama lost every other state by at least 13.

      Unlike GA, MO, and IN, we still haven't seen what Dems can do in AZ when they seriously contest it. The SB 1070 issue hurt Obama's numbers among whites, but I don't expect it to hurt the Dem brand going forward, especially if some sort of immigration reform passes at the federal level. In contrast, it probably killed the GOP brand forever among most the state's growing and still largely un-mobilized Hispanic population just as prop 187 destroyed the CA GOP's chances of winning much of the Hispanic vote there. AZ7 was Obama's single most improved district from 2008 to 2012.

      I suspect that AZ will go red again in 2016 if the election is in doubt (Dems might win it if they don't need it), but if Dems want to broaden the map beyond the 2012 contested states AZ is by far the most plausible target.

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

      by sacman701 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:09:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama did better in MS in 2012 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sacman701, SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY

        than he did in 2008, no?

        That said, while I think you are more right than wrong with the "inelastic" label, it's important to remember that while we didn't ignore Georgia in 2008, we didn't really contest it like we did Virginia or North Carolina. It's certainly understandable why, but until we contest it vigorously, I wouldn't be so sure of anything.

        I'd say something similar for other states.

        Indiana's odd. There was a big swing away from Obama this year, but he still managed to get 43.93 percent of the vote.

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:18:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We aren't going to do much better with the (6+ / 0-)

          white vote, but that kind of stat does make me somewhat optimistic for someone like Jim Hood.

          •  If I had to bet, I'd say you're right. (0+ / 0-)

            At the same time, I think we've pretty much hit a floor with white voters in a lot of these states, particularly in the Deep South. I'm more than willing to stop making this point if there's academic literature or direct proof of experience that proves me otherwise, but I continue to believe that merely being there will improve our totals. It might be too high a hurdle to win in some states, short of a very good year and/or an exceptional candidate, but it wouldn't surprise me to see our presidential candidate get, say, 20 percent of the white vote and then see someone like Jim Hood get that extra 10 percent he needs in order to win.

            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

            by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:41:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why do you think we've hit a floor? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tietack

              It's fine to say academic studies to the contrary will convince you otherwise, but what's the basis for you to draw any conclusion at all about the floor of white support for Democrats in the Deep South, in the first place?

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:53:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Getting below 10 or 12% just seems impossible (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bjssp

                I think we have hit our floor in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and East Texas.

                19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                politicohen.com
                Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:23:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That just looks like an assumption (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Allen, tietack

                  Blacks vote Democratic in a greater percentage than that, so why, logically, is it impossible for whites in some parts of the country to vote more than 90% Republican?

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:34:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Blacks will go back to 90% once Obama is (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Chachy, MichaelNY

                    off the ticket, most likely.  I don't think there's been a fundamental shift.
                    Also, the fact that the percentages in 2008 and 2012 were basically the same means I think the trend has stopped.

                    19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                    politicohen.com
                    Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                    UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                    by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:45:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think that's an assumption, too (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tietack, gabjoh, BeloitDem

                      It's a legitimate argument, but the counterpoint is that if the Republican candidates continue to pander to racists or be racists themselves, there is no powerful reason for more blacks to vote for them. Moreover, it could well be that the reason the percentage didn't increase from 2008 to 2012 is that it was so close to 100%, an increase was very difficult. I guess you could make a similar argument about white Republican voting in the Deep South, but I'm unconvinced. Maybe, maybe not.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:11:06 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Republicans were far more racist in 1972 (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY

                        with the Southern strategy, and Nixon won 18% of their vote.

                        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                        politicohen.com
                        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                        by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:16:58 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Many Republicans supported civil rights in '72 (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BeloitDem, MichaelNY, bjssp

                          there was very little of the Christian conservative element in the Republican party of that time.

                          In contrast, many Democratic politicos in '72 still supported segregation.

                          Therefore, I disagree with your premise that "Republicans were far more racist in '72".

                          I hope; therefore, I can live.

                          by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:50:27 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I think the point jncca is making (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tietack

                            is that Nixon's campaign strategy was more obviously racist. That might be disputable. But your point is extremely well taken. And once Nixon got into office, since he cared above all about power, he saw to it that US Supreme Court rulings on civil rights were aggressively enforced.

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:51:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Overall, or in Deep South states? (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                          by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:15:32 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  It's not impossible. It's just guess, as I said. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                    by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:14:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  It's just a guess, really. But if you are willing (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, jncca

                to vote for Obama, a black Democrat from Chicago, as a Mississippi resident, which Democrat aren't you willing vote for? And really, to the extent that exit polling is more right than wrong, we're getting closer and closer to zero with white voters. Soon, there won't be anyone left!

                Also, my reference to academic studies was to my statement that they might prove my idea that simply contesting a state will help a candidate or party, not anything about our level of white support.

                I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:14:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Does Jim Hood have any ambition towards (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, BeloitDem

            governor or senate?

            I see that he's only 50 and already has three blowout wins under his belt, sort of similar to Jay Nixon's position in Missouri in 2008.

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

            by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:05:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

              I'm not really sure. He obviously would never run against Thad Cochran or Roger Wicker. Bryant can seek reelection in 2015, and if Hood challenges for governor, he runs the risk of losing his seat. He's extremely popular. I think he can win an open seat.

              •  Yeah that's what I was getting at (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                a la Jay Nixon, waiting for an open seat (or when your opponent implodes) seems the most likely since he is just 50 and could wait more than a decade.

                I'd take just about any blue dog Dem in Mississippi over Wicker or Cochran, they'd at least have the possibility of voting with us on something.  Hopefully Hood runs whenever Cochran retires and if he loses the open seat then either just runs for reelection or the next time gov is open.

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

                by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:35:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Why wouldn't he run agains them? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                Is it just too risky and too unlikely to go his way?

                I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                by bjssp on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:16:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Cochran has an approval of 57/23... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, bjssp, jncca

                  You don't run in a state where you are at a disadvantage to begin with, and then have to fight against a candidate who's really popular.

                  There will surely be some Hood vs Cochran polling this year, and my guess is he's down around 20 points. He'd probably lose 54-45 to Wicker. I'd hate to see him lose to Wicker, see his political career ruined, and not be able to run for something later.

      •  Yeah, not many new options, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen, MichaelNY

        mainly because Obama's already plucked all the low-haning fruit. I think our best bet is that some swing states solidify in our direction. CO and VA are heading that way, and NC and FL have age-based voting patterns that are phenomenal for us - young people in those places vote like they're in solid blue states. Can't say that Florida is trending our way for sure yet, but if it  does that would pretty much put  the electoral college on lockdown.

        I think Georgia and Arizona might be in play by 2020 or '24, and Texas by 2028, if present trends continue. But who even knows what the partisan alignments will be by that point.

        •  Lockdown (0+ / 0-)

          No, it wouldn't lock down the electoral college. It would just start out with more states being Democratic-leaning. If the country voted x amount more Republican than usual, a Republican could still win a presidential election.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:55:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Arizona has competing trends (10+ / 0-)

      The white population has been trending Republican, however, the Hispanic population has been both growing and trending blue. Eventually they'll run out of angry white dudes, but Hispanic growth will probably keep up.

      To paraphrase Agent Smith "One of these trends has a future, and one does not."

      •  Yeah (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, Chachy, MichaelNY, KingTag

        if Obama could just hit Kerry numbers among whites in Arizona, he would have won the state.  That's how badly we've fallen with white Arizonans.  They're starting to vote like white Southerners.  In many ways though, despite significant demographic and cultural differences from the South, Arizona's politics have often been linked to the South.  They joined with the Deep South to vote against Lyndon Johnson (yes, yes, I know Goldwater is from Arizona), they fought the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and they have taken aggressive anti-immigrant measures that not even Texas has considered, but many other Southern states have pursued in solidarity.

        I see our chances in Arizona in a lot of ways as being similar to Texas.  We'll keep falling lower and lower with whites, while doing better and better with minorities (who are growing as a share of the population).  But eventually, we'll win.

    •  Obama lost 4% from his 2008 margin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      country-wide.  He only lost .3% in Arizona, and he made less effort there than 2008.  The main trend is unmistakable.

      But there are multiple trends in place.  1996 in Arizona was a different place than now.

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:13:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  9 states left to be certified (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madmojo, itskevin, tommypaine, bythesea

    NJ certified yesterday.

    PA, VA, CA, HI, NE, NM, NY, TN and WV.

    Obama with a 3.65% PV lead.

    Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

    by Paleo on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:58:42 AM PST

  •  LA-03 runoff is tonight (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    any predictions? I'd say 63-37 Boustany.

  •  I'd like to write (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem

    a redistricting diary, but I don't know how to get pictures from DRA into the diary. Could someone explain to me how to do this?

    Thanks!

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), new ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:40:46 AM PST

  •  I published my new diary! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem, Skaje

    It's about Colorado redistricting. I hope you like it!

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), new ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:50:48 AM PST

  •  Berlusconi's running again! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:01:28 AM PST

  •  Talking about the bizarre situation (0+ / 0-)

    in NY politics, I remembered an article I skimmed a while back, called (I recalled) something like "Why New York City doesn't have a progressive coalition", contrasting the city's politics with places like Chicago and Los Angeles.  I eventually found it, and will read it now--it's

    New York: The Great Anomaly
    John Mollenkopf
    PS , Vol. 19, No. 3 (Summer, 1986), pp. 591-597.
    But here's another article I found, and you have to give the authors credit for this one:
    Mormonism and the New Christian Right: An Emerging Coalition?  
    Anson Shupe, John Heinerman
    Review of Religious Research, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Dec., 1985), pp. 146-157

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

    by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:09:42 AM PST

  •  Speaking of NY, a great Tweet. (7+ / 0-)

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

    by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:23:12 AM PST

    •  And yet more. (5+ / 0-)

      From today:

      Senate Democratic leader John Sampson said at a Saturday-morning rally that he’d be willing to step aside from his post in the conference if that’s what it takes to heal the breach with the five-member Independent Democratic Conference.

      [...]

      Even so, much of the rhetoric from black senators and advocates seemed designed to deepen the wedge between the mainline conference and the breakaway faction. Recent IDC addition Malcolm Smith was compared to a cockroach multiple times.

      “Backroom deals are putting us in the back of the bus again,” Bill Perkins repeated in a rising voice, citing missed chairmanship and issues that he said would be ignored if the IDC-Republican coalition holds. ” … Ask Gov. Cuomo where he stands.”

      Ruth Hassell-Thompson was even more pointed in her analysis, saying that blacks were suffering from a “delusion” that Barack Obama’s election had brought an end to racism. She said charges that the Senate Democrats were dysfunctional were “code words for ‘black folks in charge.’”

      And, here we go.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:49:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm glad someone's willing to sacrifice something (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SLDemocrat, MichaelNY

        for the sake of cohesiveness.  

        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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:57:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, dysfunctional (0+ / 0-)

        is not a code word for blacks in charge. The New York State Legislature has been dysfunctional for decades, irrespective of which party controlled which house of the legislature, which part of the state they came from, and what they looked like.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:59:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Honestly, though, I would not be surprised (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, gabjoh

          If there are some racial dynamics going on with the IDC.

          •  I don't disagree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Xenocrypt, gabjoh

            Racial angles should never be ignored in any aspect of American life.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:39:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think it is a race thing (0+ / 0-)

            It is more of an urban v. suburban dynamic. It appears racial because of the demographics, but that is slowly changing as the suburbs become more diverse.

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

            by slacks on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:16:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Urban vs. suburban has clear racial aspects (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BeloitDem

              And in particular, let's not forget that Westchester County was forced by the courts to desegregate and still has not complied with a court order to build affordable housing in Rye, so as not to segregate blacks in only a few towns. Yonkers also was forced to desegregate and resisted bitterly.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:32:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes it does (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                I agree with you that racial dynamics are linked to to suburban-urban dynamics. I am just trying to point out that IDC members aren't racists. They just tend to be frustrated that suburban issues are ignored by a majority of the Democratic caucus.

                I also wanted to point out that the demographics in suburban NY are changing. That is one of the reasons why these regions are trending blue. As a result, the mainstream Dems need to look more at suburban issues.

                Also addressing some of the important suburban issues (like property taxes and the MTA payroll tax) would help suburban minorities, and might accelerate the change in demographics.

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

                by slacks on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:53:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not accusing them of being racists (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  slacks

                  The problem in this state hasn't been open racism, but institutional racism in the form of deliberate gross shorting by the state - particularly the Republicans in the Senate, but also Governor Pataki, a Republican who used to represent the Peekskill area of Northern Westchester in the State Senate - of services in New York City and some other cities with significant non-white populations. Malapportionment of educational funding has been particularly well documented, and has hard hit schools in largely black and Hispanic neighborhoods like Harlem.

                  So when the IDC chooses to associate themselves with the party that's been the main pillar of institutional racism in the state, does that make them accessories? Of course that depends on results, but I think it's a warranted question.

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:19:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Stepping in for Dave this time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, M Riles

      We are discouraged from embedding tweets in the comments!

      24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

      by HoosierD42 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:43:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  NJ class 2 seat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

    Anyone remember Cliff Case? Looking at his ADA scores, he appears to have achieved the highest average score of any republican senator, clocking in at 88. His ADA average was actually four points higher than New Jersey's other senator, Pete Williams.

    Anyone know why the GOP leadership never stripped him of his seniority?

    RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

    by demographicarmageddon on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:42:59 AM PST

  •  The Difference Between Dane and Waukesha (7+ / 0-)

    While it is from a rabidly right-wing think tank, this article gives a good perspective on the difference between Dane and Waukesha counties: http://www.wpri.org/...

    While the author touches upon many important cultural differences between the two, with Dane's emphasis on shared commons and Waukesha's rugged individualism, I feel it is a bit too Madison centric in explaining Dane county. As someone who, in Wauwatosa, is close enough to Waukesha county, that feeling of "I have mine, so screw you" is definitely present.  I think a better level of analysis would be comparing the rural and suburban areas.  While places like Fitchburg, Sun Prairie, Middleton, Verona, and Menona are not as liberal as Madison, they still regularly vote 60-40 Dem, at least.  Additionally, those areas are even more demographically similar to Waukesha.   It is not just the presence of university and government employment as Dane has a sizable tech and medical presence, particularly Epic System.

    I think the author touched part of it in regards to migration patterns.  This is a generalization, but it seems like the people that settle in Waukesha do it to get away from Milwaukee while those that settle in Dane do it to come to opportunities that Madison and its environs presents.

    Social Democrat, WI-05

    by glame on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:05:03 PM PST

  •  WI-1 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY, bythesea

    Yes, you are reading that headline correctly: "Paul Ryan attacked from the right".

    I don't think Ryan is all that vulnerable to a primary challenge, given the fact that he has a massive war chest and is a solid conservative, but the cat fud is flying anyways!

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:22:53 PM PST

  •  Responding to Xenocrypt upthread so that (5+ / 0-)

    this map would fit, but here's what I think Hillary Clinton's 2008 win over McCain could have plausibly looked like:
    Photobucket

    Gets her to 347 EVs, just 18 lower than Obama.

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

    by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:26:54 PM PST

    •  interesting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, MichaelNY

      Clinton 96 + Colorado, - Arizona, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee

      19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:47:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I still don't believe (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BennyToothpick, MichaelNY, redrelic17

      she'd have won West Virginia, for the record.  But I think it would've been within five points.

      19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:47:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Though I can't find a listing of the actual polls (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I remember that she ran clearly ahead of McCain in WV polls in the spring of '08, and Wikipedia agrees (though without sourcing it):

        Not surprisingly, though, every poll out of West Virginia showed Hillary Clinton defeating McCain in West Virginia, sometimes by double digits.
        Obama only lost the state by 13 points in 2008, and if there's one state where a ton of voters would have a Clinton>McCain>Obama order of preference, it'd be West Virginia.
        •  That Wikipedia blurb is a throwaway (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, GloFish

          That's a good example of why not to trust Wikipedia too much.  I use them for some basic stuff that likely no one would falsify, but that blurb is nonsense.

          There was scant trial heat polling for West Virginia, especially early on.

          SUSA did 50-state polling released in January and again in March in 2008, matching up both Obama and Hillary vs. McCain, and while I've never been able to find the old January polls, the March polls show Hillary up 5 in WV, and that might be the only WV poll available all year for all I know.

          By the way, the same SUSA polling showed Hillary getting crushed 53-36 in Indiana, responding to drhoosierdem further below.  Same polling had Obama down 50-41 in the state, clearly better.  SUSA then had Hillary down 50-41 in Kentucky, 48-44 in Missouri, 51-41 in Louisiana, and up 51-40 in Arkansas.  So Arkansas and WV were the only states in that polling that Hillary led that people around here like to talk about.  She was down 50-40 in Virginia, compared to a 47-47 tie for Obama.

          Here are links:

          http://www.surveyusa.com/...

          http://www.surveyusa.com/...

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

          by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:22:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm with you there (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, MichaelNY

      but I think Clinton still would have won Virginia.  The trends were there, and Obama won the state by enough that I think they would have voted for any competent Democrat that year.  North Carolina, maybe, maybe not.

      I think West Virginia would have been close, and Missouri as well.  I suspect Clinton actually would have lost West Virginia by a small amount.  Arkansas also would have been closer than we would have liked, I don't think Clinton would have won by more than high single digits.

      •  Possibly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen, MichaelNY

        though she wouldn't have driven up minority turnout like Obama did, and polling early on showed her uncompetitive so it's also possible she wouldn't have spent there at all in favor of Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia.

        I think she would have at the very least gotten 48% in WV seeing as Obama got 43% without contesting it heavily and while being a black liberal.

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

        by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:18:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  McCain would've destroyed Hillary in Virginia (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sawolf, MichaelNY

        It was well-polled, Hillary was down big in all the same trial heats that showed Obama staying toe-to-toe.

        She would not have won Virginia, period.  She was not capable of producing a turnout model to pull it off.

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

        by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:06:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please explain why. n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tietack

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:28:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

            First, I linked to the SUSA March '08 polling in another comment.  That established my point with hard data.  I remember seeing other trial heat polling, not a ton but some, that always showed Obama outperforming Hillary by a lot...she never ran close vs. McCain in the state.

            Second, Obama had unique appeal at that time with swing voters and people of color, and some young whites.  Hillary had a chance to replicate that appeal with young white women, but not with people of color or Virginia swing voters.  She was a controversial figure with roughly break-even favorables nationally through 2007-08, and in Virginia a little below break-even.

            Outside swing voters, the Virginia primary revealed their respective strenghts and weaknesses, with Obama crushing her 64-35.

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

            by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:52:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for fleshing that out (0+ / 0-)

              I think folks downthread have addressed your arguments well, though. Forgetting these early polls, is it your contention that blacks wouldn't have shown up to vote for Clinton, or that a higher percentage of them would have voted for McCain vs. Clinton than vs. Obama, or what?

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:02:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Black voters among others (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                Black turnout is the single biggest thing, but not overwhelmingly so...swing voters, too.  White suburbanites in Virginia by and large liked Obama and disliked Hillary.

                But it was other people of color, too, who provided a turnout surge, partly because of the mechanics of the Obama campaign, and significantly because of his identity.

                Young whites were drawn to Obama, too, although young white women likely would've turned out more strongly for Hillary than for Obama...hard to guess that in Virginia since general election raw turnout hiked a massive 500K over 2004, and it's hard to imagine a bigger hike than that in one shot.

                But swing voters' mentality cannot be dismissed, there was a big difference in how they viewed Obama vs. Hillary, and the kinds of swing voters who dominate Virginia, upper-middle-class suburbanites, favored Obama.

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

                by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:21:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

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

                  You can't just say these things as if they are true.

                  The only polling data that you've proffered had Obama and Hillary both with large amounts of undecideds and both with roughly equal portions of "like" and "dislike" that are clearly within the margin of error of each other.

                  23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                  by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:26:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I've linked to two polls... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...and one showed a stark contrast in trial heats, the other a stark contrast in favorables.  Wish I could find more quickly, but they're hard to find.

                    And you know that because you're active in this exchange and have read my comments.

                    I can say, too, that people here I know in local Democratic circles (in which I'm active) never thought Hillary could win the state, and they thought Obama had a chance...doesn't mean they didn't think Hillary could get elected, just that they didn't think she could win Virginia.  But that's not "linkable" on a discussion thread, not political authority worth anything in online discussions.

                    But then I suspect no amount of hard evidence will satisfy you.

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

                    by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:31:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  How many are you suggesting would have chosen (0+ / 0-)

                  McCain if the opponent had been Mrs. Clinton, who actually chose Obama in the end? Or is it that you think a large number would have stayed home?

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:30:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  They would've voted for McCain, if... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    ...you're talking about swing voters, which I think you are.

                    People of color wouldn't have turned out as well.  Black turnout in particular would've been a few points lower.

                    Overall raw turnout would've been lower than it was (but still higher than 2004), white vote share would've been higher, and those are not good things for a Democrat in Virginia.

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

                    by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:35:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Give me some guesses at percentages (0+ / 0-)

                      It's hard for me to understand what would motivate people to choose McCain over Clinton, when they would have voted for Obama. McCain is a cooler hand on the wheel than Clinton? I doubt it.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:42:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Rough math...... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        NMLib, MichaelNY, jncca

                        I wish I could just use the exit polls as a crutch but the '04 exit poll claimed black vote share at 21%, while the '08 and '12 exit polls both said 20%......and that comparison is just plain wrong, black turnout was significantly higher with Obama.

                        The official Virginia results break down by Congressional district, so I can use that as a rough basis.  The VRA district, Bobby Scott's, had turnout of 239K in '04, and 303K in '08, with Obama also performing 9 points better than Kerry.  That 70K raw turnout increase was the largest of any single district, and it was in a low-turnout black majority district.  Compare VA-10 in NoVA which doesn't have all that many black voters, and the district flipped from 55-44 Bush to 53-46 Obama, with a 58K increase in turnout (330K to 388K).  The Kerry-Obama disparity reflects swing voters flipping, and of course new voters turnout out.

                        If you want a guess as to how this translates to a turnout model and bottom line performance, I would guess that with Hillary as the nominee she likely would lose 2-4% based on a less favorable turnout model, and a few more points that are harder to quantify from white swing voters.  Her public image was not good with suburbanites, it would've been a heavy lift to fix it, and the problem people here don't seem to recognize is that she likely wouldn't have tried......Virginia wasn't a needed part of her election plan.

                        And that's just it:  what would her plan have been?  Obama's all along included these "emerging" blueing states.  Hillary's did not by any account I saw at the time.  Her team was counting on succeeding with the same map where Gore and Kerry failed, with perhaps Arkansas thrown in for good measure and maybe one or two other states where Bill did well but Gore and Kerry did not.

                        Her team wasn't looking at investing long and hard to win Virginia.  Obama's was all along.

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

                        by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:59:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And Obama won Virginia in '08 by 6 (0+ / 0-)

                          So a loss of 2-4 points would have made it close.

                          As for the map, I remember Carville talking about --some-- of the emerging states, specifically Colorado and Virginia. No, it isn't as wide of a map as Obama had, but slow blue trends in those two states especially have been clear for several election cycles.

                          I hope; therefore, I can live.

                          by tietack on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:28:48 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Carville wasn't really on the team, though (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            If he and Begala were central on Team Hillary, I imagine she would've fared better.  But she decided to pay Mark Penn a lot of money and listened to him instead, and he and his ilk were typical DLC know-nothings who viewed the electorate as a bunch of right-wing white people who won't vote for you if you don't kiss the asses of right-wing white people, and even then you'll only eek out a plurality in enough states to sneak across the line with 270, unless you have someone like Perot stealing some votes a Republican must have.

                            That's an exaggeration, yes, but not by a lot!  It's the jaded view the 80s and 90s taught that crowd.

                            I don't think Carville and Begala had much influence on Hillary's '08 strategy.  If they did, that speaks poorly of Carville and Begala.

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

                            by DCCyclone on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:29:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  You know Virginia better than I do, (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DCCyclone

                          but I suspect the bigger problem would have been the potential lack of investment along with Clinton not being black rather than an image problem in suburbia.

                          I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                          by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:48:53 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How would not being black have hurt Clinton? (0+ / 0-)

                            That would have cost her a few African-American voters who might not have shown up, I guess, but wouldn't more whites have voted for her, such as in the southwestern part of the state? It's all conjecture, of course.

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:09:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe, maybe not. Clinton would have won blacks (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY, DCCyclone

                            nearly as much as Obama, but they might not have turned out as much for her. Let's remember that when you are winning at least 90 percent of them, one additional point of black turnout is like one additional percentage point of the vote.

                            She might have done better with whites, perhaps a lot better, but enough to make up for the drop off with blacks? That much is not clear.

                            By the way, this isn't being said, but I think it should be: I think there's a pretty strong chance that Obama would have been Clinton's vice presidential pick. If that were the case, who knows what might have happened?

                            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                            by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:50:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  bj inartfully phrased it, but he's right (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            NMLib, MichaelNY

                            It's not that "not being black" would "hurt," it's that Obama being the first black President was, as Joe Biden might say, a big fucking deal, so that people joined the electorate who had never voted before and wouldn't have joined the electorate otherwise.

                            And yes bj is right also that the lack of investment would've doomed Hillary in Virginia.

                            You don't win a closely contested state without making it a priority investment.  And Team Hillary was looking at the map the then-'traditional" way, without "emerging" states.  They just figured they could win the hard-fought states Gore or Kerry lost.  They weren't looking to "expand" the map into states that no Democrat had won in a long time or except under under unusual circumstances, like when Perot like Bill Clinton flip a few states that a Democrat wouldn't have won in a 2-way.

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

                            by DCCyclone on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:19:26 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're exaggerating (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          I believe that Hillary in '08 would have done better in VA than Kerry did in '04 -- and Kerry came within 8.

          My guess based on eyeballing exit poll numbers (yes, some dubious info), is that Hillary would have won Virginia solely if she did as well as Obama did among whites, that a Kerry share of the (assumed lower turnout) African American vote might have gotten Hillary to a plurality in VA.

          I hope; therefore, I can live.

          by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:37:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No I am not (0+ / 0-)

            I linked to the SUSA March '08 50-state polling in another comment in this discussion.  Hillary was down 10 in the same polling that showed Obama tied with McCain.

            People make too much of "demographics" as some sort of catch-all.  Obama had a unique ability to drag out favorable voting groups and also with swing voters in certain states that no other Democrat could replicate at that time.

            Hillary had no chance in Virginia, there was no support for her here.

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

            by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:44:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  and you might be making too much of (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, sapelcovits

              polling in March well before the primaries were even settled.

              ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:46:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Totally (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, James Allen

                And it's very hypocritical given that SUSA has been at various points DCC's whipping boy as evidence of "wild polling outliers" yet it becomes super convenient for him to cite when it backs up some pre-conceived notion that he has to hold himself to while banging others over the head for being what I'm sure he considers morons.

                23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:55:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  SUSA is erratic, for sure (0+ / 0-)

                  Even in real-time I remember being skeptical of those 50-state polls for showing what looked like rosy numbers for Obama in some of those states.  But he proved atypically strong in traditionally Republican states, so it was validated.

                  It's particularly hard now to find 2008 Virginia polling on hypothetical trial heats with Hillary, I've tried.  I have mostly just my personal memory which isn't bad since I followed campaigns as closely then as now, and I live here and am active here so I follow this state more closely than others.  The only other thing I can find quickly is an old VCU poll from May '08 that showed Hillary down 47-38 to McCain in a trial heat, Obama also down 44-36, and in favorables Obama at 36-28 and Hillary underwater at 34-38......which is part of my point, Hillary was a much more controversial figure at that time than people here are willing to remember.  She was roughly break-even in favorables nationally, and underwater in some states Obama won, including Virginia.

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

                  by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:08:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

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

                    And now you're citing another poll that has Obama and Hillary doing no different considering MoE against McCain in Virginia?

                    Hillary may very well have been controversial, but let's be real here: there is just as much "revisionism" going on with respect to Obama's perceived "super awesomeness" as there is with Hillary's "super awesomeness". And just as much going on about how "Hillary really sucked".

                    Neither candidate was doing very well at this stage of the game against McCain. All we can do is look at what happened and say "well. that happened." and speculate about what would have happened if it were Hillary instead. Because we don't have definitive data on Hillary after Obama pulled away. And an underwater by 34-38 within the MoE single poll in Virginia with high undecideds is not dispositive of anything.

                    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                    by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:13:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're not accurate (0+ / 0-)

                      It was not seriously disputed at that time, on SSP or in political journalism, that Obama was clearly stronger in the general election in Virginia, NC, Indiana, and Colorado.  The same might've been said about Nevada but that state was trending enough that it's one Hillary likely would've won anyway.  This was the CW and so much here pretends otherwise wishfully.

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

                      by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:16:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

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

                        And yet again you are deciding to use as evidentiary something that you often use elsewhere as your whipping boy: the conventional wisdom.

                        Pick a side. Stick to it. Is the CW wrong or right? Or does it depend on which position you yourself are arguing?

                        I'm not saying - with exception of Virginia, which I think polling contradicts to CW here - that Hillary was as competitive in these states early on. I'm saying that irrespective of the meager amounts of polling that were done, the polling itself showing Hillary not as competitive isn't dispositive of anything because the financial collapse had not yet happened, therefore we cannot say either way that Hillary would have won or lost or been competitive anywhere while relying on polling data because that data really doesn't exist after the financial collapse.

                        All that we can do is speculate about how that collapse would have affected her polling against McCain in a variety of states. That's all we can do. Speculate. That's it. Finito.

                        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                        by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:24:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  That is different from saying (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY, BeloitDem

                        "McCain would have destroyed Hillary in Virginia"

                        I tend to agree that Hillary would not have done as well as Obama. But to suggest that she would have been destroyed is an exaggeration.

                        In addition, if Hillary were the nominee after the economic crash of '08, her campaign team would have reacted differently.

                        We do not know whether Hillary would have gotten a bigger or a smaller bump as a result.

                        I hope; therefore, I can live.

                        by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:26:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Show me a poll after March then (0+ / 0-)

                Polling never showed Hillary competitive in Virginia.  She was always polling poorly, basically like a generic D vs. a generic R as the state knew it.

                People here invent out of thin air that she would've won this state or that state based on pure wishfulness.  Real evidence says otherwise.  She was very much still a controversial figure in 2008, that's one reason a lot of us were very nervous about her as the prospective nominee.

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

                by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:57:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                  Even the SUSA polls that you cited had Clinton v. Obama vis-a-vis McCain within margin of error.

                  And you are completely overblowing the amount of general election polling data that was available at that time. You keep saying things like "show me the data that showed he competitive" and I'd just like to turn that around and tell you to show us the data that didn't show her competitive.

                  23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                  by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:59:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  things didn't really end up really (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wwmiv, MichaelNY

                  breaking for Democrats strongly until Sept. 15th, and it's completely within the realm of possibility that the economic collapse that was happening then would have propelled her to just as big a victory as it did Obama, and perhaps even a narrow win in Virginia.

                  It's impossible to know what would have really happened, because it didn't happen.

                  ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:27:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Then show me won after March (0+ / 0-)

                There was never polling in Virginia that showed Hillary competitive in November.

                People here invent out of pure wishfulness, no evidence at all, that Hillary would've won this state or that state that Obama won as the first Democrat in a long time.  Real evidence says otherwise.

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

                by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:58:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                Clinton had less money than Obama, and it's doubtful her polling was showing any differently, so she probably wouldn't have put money into the state, which would have depressed turnout. Also, Clinton would not have been able to get the organic increase in black turnout that Obama got, so that's a double whammy right there.

                Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                by NMLib on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:05:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Allen

                  Clinton was just as competitive as Obama with money, and had she been our nominee she would have had just as much money to spend given that her candidacy was just as historic as Obama's.

                  No, she wouldn't have boosted African American turnout as much as Obama but she would have been more competitive with whites which, by the way, are a much larger portion of the electorate and a few percentage points increase against McCain does the exact same thing as boosting AA turnout a bit, perhaps even more.

                  23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                  by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:08:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No she wasn't (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    Obama was consistently out raising starting in January and was consistently outspending her in most primary states, even the ones he was losing.

                    Also, I like the presumption that Clinton would have just done better among white voters. That's a sloppy presumption, especially given Obama's support among more educated white voters than Clinton.

                    Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                    by NMLib on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:22:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

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

                      Yes, he was, but we're talking about a hypothetical general here, not during the primary. She would have had just as much money, but from different sources, as Obama had in the general. And Clinton's fundraising machine was viewed just as juggernaut-ish as Obama's before January if not more so. You can't just pick one time period and use only it as evidence. Over the entire cycle counting only periods where they were both candidates, it is clear that Hillary did functionally just as well as Obama in fundraising.

                      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                      by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:29:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What? (0+ / 0-)

                        What you're basically saying is that Hillary Clinton would have had as much money as Barack Obama in the general election because Barack Obama had raised that kind of money in the general election.

                        If you look at a period where they were both candidates, like the first quarter of 2008, for example, Obama raised $133 million to Hillary Clinton's $73 million. And then in the second quarter of 2008 Obama raised $104 million to Clinton's $44 million.

                        Plus, I think the major thing that you seem to be forgetting is how much of Obama's money was coming from small-dollar donors compared to Clinton's. She was still largely raising from donors who were completely maxing out, so her fundraising was extremely top-loaded compared to Obama's. Clinton would not have been able to count on Obama's fundraising because she wasn't building the network to do it, and frankly if Clinton would have won the nomination at that point, it would have had to be done in a way that would have alienated a large chunk of Obama supporters (as it would have almost certainly have involved a floor fight).

                        Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                        by NMLib on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:02:41 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  My recollection is that you are right (0+ / 0-)

                      Clinton's campaign didn't handle money nearly as well as Obama's.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:32:46 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  We now know of SUSA's problems polling VA (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wwmiv, James Allen, MichaelNY

              in '08 and '10, especially in areas like VA-05.

              Even taking SUSA's numbers at face value, using Obama's 6 point win in '08 as a baseline, that would have put Hillary down by 4 in VA.

              To suggest that a 4 point lead is at "destroy" levels is an exaggeration, especially since McCain would have been limited by federal financing against Clinton too.

              And I no longer take SUSA numbers at face value, especially given how early they were relative to the general election.

              I hope; therefore, I can live.

              by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:06:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  This is ridiculous (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, James Allen

          You are going way overboard here.

          If you really want to rely on all of these early polls, perhaps you'd like to explain why Obama in the SUSA data was behind in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey of all places and ofcourse Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina which he won narrowly and ahead in North Dakota which he lost.

          Early polling is not always as good as late polling, and neither candidate was polling as well against McCain early in the cycle. In fact, Obama did not develop a nice lead over McCain until the financial collapse had happened. I'm fairly confident that Hillary would have developed the exact same moderate lead at that point.

          States that nobody thought were going to be competitive for Obama suddenly became so at that point: Indiana and North Carolina (and don't give me the "North Carolina was close in SUSA early on" line as it was North Carolina was often closer to a 5-10 point lead early in the year for McCain with most people thinking Obama couldn't close the rest of the gap).

          And even in North Carolina, the difference in those SUSA polls was within margin of error for Clinton and Obama vis-a-vis McCain.

          The financial collapse would have made Clinton competitive everywhere that Obama was competitive except for perhaps the inner mountain west (Montana and the Dakotas) late in the cycle, including Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina and she was ahead of McCain in Arkansas, West Virginia, and tied in Tennessee in those polls. Perhaps she could have made major plays for those?

          And does anyone really think McCain would have won Oregon, Michigan, and Washington against Clinton? Ha. That's spectacularly funny.

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:51:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  She would have won Indiana (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, MichaelNY

      She had huge support in Southern Indiana. I imagine she would have gotten around 55% of the vote in 8th and 9th, instead of Obama's narrow victory and loss. Some counties had more people vote for her in the primary than Obama in the general. That was not because of Limbaugh either, I know those areas, lots of conservative Democrats who would have voted Clinton.

      •  Maybe, I just don't see how she would have (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tietack, James Allen, jncca

        had anywhere near the cash that Obama had, which was what allowed him to contest the state.  I just keep remembering who was running Clinton's campaign and it makes me think they would have been more cautious about expanding the map.

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

        by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:27:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, Skaje, MichaelNY

          Clinton almost went toe to toe with Obama in the primary in terms of cash. She would have had just as much cash in the general given the just as historic nature of her candidacy.

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:59:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah, I agree, money isn't the issue (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            the issue is whether she would've made up in Southern Indiana and among whites with to make up for the lower turnout among African Americans and others who were Obama voters.

            ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:05:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  No she wouldn't, so much revisionism here (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sawolf, KingTag, NMLib, sacman701, skibum59

        Hillary was never poised to run close or win Indiana.  Indiana wasn't open to a Democrat generally that year, Obama had a unique appeal that no one else could replicate.  Polling at the time showed Obama had a shot to run close there, there was no such indication re Hillary.

        I just shake my head at some of this stuff, people "remember" things that never were.

        Hillary would've done better in Appalachian, the Ozarks, the Deep South.  It likely wasn't enough to win any states Obama lost except for Missouri and perhaps Arkansas.

        States like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina, in addition to the emerging western states and Montana, those were all states where Hillary did clearly worse than Obama, and she wasn't likely to win any of them except perhaps Colorado and Nevada which still would've been tight.

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

        by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:12:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you, yes especially on Indiana (4+ / 0-)

          Obama had a massive spending advantage over McCain thanks to raising insane (at the time) sums after the primary season was over.  McCain essentially did not contest the state because if he did it would mean diverting money from critical states like Ohio.

          Clinton might have done better in the conservadem areas in IN-08 and 09, but that's just two districts where she would have done better.  She would have done considerably worse in the Indianapolis suburbs and north of the state, which is worth 5-6 districts.  I highly doubt she would have contested it and would have been surprised to see her break 47% there.

          In general I think her campaign would have been a lot more cautious than Obama's about expanding the map, which is why I doubt she would have gone into Arizona even though Kerry did better there than in West Virginia, but I think she definitely would have contested WV and AR and maybe KY due to spillover from other states.

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

          by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:25:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

          Yes, black turnout helped Obama and put him over the edge. However, people also seem to forget that he did extremely well in Marion County and Evansville. Clinton likely would have improved his margins in both of these areas, more so in the swingy Evansville area.

          In addition she would have kept his numbers in Monroe, which were key. Just look at the drop off in turnout in Monroe this year, 2008 was huge there. I see no reason why Clinton wouldn't get these folks out.

          She would have compensated loss in black turnout by doing well in rural areas. It is true Obama kept his losses down in many of these places, however Clinton would have won many of them outright. I can easily think of at least 5-6 McCain counties Clinton would have won off the top of my head.

          Race played a big role in rural areas. I hate to say it, but it is the absolute truth. Many of these folks were life long Democrats that would have been happy to vote for Clinton and were still pissed she lost.

          I might point out that Indiana did elected a 5-4 Democratic delegation and kept the statehouse, winning many areas that Obama preformed poorly in. Our statewide candidates kept it close, besides Long-Thompson, who was a special case. Indiana was certainly not opposed to voting for Democrats in 2008 and I firmly feel Clinton could have won it had she contested it.

          I will point out I did in fact support Obama in the primary. But I just do not agree that Clinton could have won West Virginia but not Indiana.  

          •  Also (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwmiv, MichaelNY, jncca

            I hate the thought, and it somewhat helped my decision, but I think there was a good chance she would have picked Bayh as her VP. No question she would have won it then.

            •  I will agree Bayh as running mate would've... (0+ / 0-)

              ...put it in play, but I strongly think still no better than a tossup, and in the end I doubt he would've carried her over the top.

              The running mate pick really doesn't help in the home state anymore.  Obama just won Wisconsin by a solid 7 even with Romney picking Ryan.  Palin got McCain a real bounce in Alaska!...and I think perhaps helped Don Young over the hump and also came close to saving Ted Stevens.  But that's a Republican state with a Republican home-state favorite, not the same as trying to put a normally hostile state into play.

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

              by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:39:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If anyone could have flipped Indiana (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, jncca, tietack

                with Hillary at the top, it would be Bayh. I honestly think he would have carried that for her. He's that popular. The real reason Paul Ryan didn't help at all in Wisconsin is because he only represented 1/8 of the state, and even then I bet a not-insignificant number of his constituents didn't know much about him.

                Bayh had been elected statewide 5 times, was very visible and had a legacy name as well. So there's no comparison.

                24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

                by HoosierD42 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:50:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The problem with that argument is... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NMLib, MichaelNY

                  ...Team Hillary wasn't looking at flipping Indiana or Virginia or North Carolina in their own general election math.

                  They had a very simplistic view of election math.  The primary election stategy was shock and awe at the outset, end it quickly.  And for the general, only Team Obama was looking at flipping states where a Democrat doesn't normally run close...Hillary and others weren't interested in that.

                  For a Democrat to win states like Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina requires a very early and very expensive commitment that no one but Obama was willing to make.  And that was significantly because they saw in their internal polling signs that Obama was uniquely well-liked in some states that don't normally like Democratic Presidential nominees.  Hillary wasn't looking at that.

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

                  by DCCyclone on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:23:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary would've done quite well in the Southwest (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          I don't think there's any evidence for your opinion on that, she was polling decently well enough and did well there in the primaries.

          ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:42:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No she wasn't and I proved it.. (0+ / 0-)

            ...in another comment linking to SUSA polling in March '08.

            She was down 17 in Indiana, not competitive at all.  Obama, too, was down, but by about half as much.

            Again, so much revisionism, it's amazing to me people forget Hillary was in a much weaker political condition back then than today.

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

            by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:54:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is getting really sad (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, drhoosierdem

              Even Obama was not that strong of a candidate early in the cycle. We were in the midst of a very very heated primary campaign and the financial collapse had not yet happened. The revisionism you keep citing really isn't here, because there wasn't much polling data either way. The only big set that is available is the SUSA data, but the SUSA data contains so many outliers and inconsistencies that you can't really rely on that as something definitive.

              By the time the financial collapse had happened, Hillary would have been just as competitive as Obama in many places, and perhaps moreso than Obama in others. But we'll never know because we never got that far with her. Ever.  

              23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

              by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:02:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Colorado (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, James Allen

            Hillary actually probably would have done better here than Obama given that she was just as attractive to the suburban culture of Colorado which the stereotype is largely the "security mom set" and a more attractive candidate than Obama for Hispanics. The same is probably true in Nevada.

            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

            by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:57:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bullshit... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DCCyclone, MichaelNY, BeloitDem, skibum59

              She was weaker than Obama in the Denver and Boulder areas by a lot, field largely by weakness among younger voters.

              Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

              by NMLib on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:32:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hillary would have been a disaster in the West (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Zilch appeal, especially in contrasts to Mccain.

              Trade Missouri for NC, CO, IN and maybe FL.

              Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

              by tommypaine on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:18:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  idk about that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, BeloitDem

              Colorado is a well-educated state, and Obama generally was more popular among well-educated voters.

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

              by sapelcovits on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:12:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure about that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              I think Clinton would have been strong enough to win any states Obama won by 10-12 pionts, like CO and NV. Especially in those two, where she would have had the strong hispanic vote. But in Colorado, I think there are a lot of socially liberaly, fiscally conservative whites that would have had an Obama>McCain>Clinton order of preference. Maybe the 2012 results are a good model for how Clinton would have done in CO in '08.

              As for Nevada, one thing people forget is how significant the (rapidly growing) black population is there. It was 10% of the 2008 electorate. Maybe Clinton wins Nevada by 7-8 instead of 12.

    •  I'll say this... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      I don't think Clinton would have been able to hold up turnout with Obama's turnout coalition, and there are states that Obama was clearly much stronger in than Clinton which allowed him to expand the map. For example, I doubt Clinton would have locked up states like Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, etc that Obama was locking up, meaning that she would be spending more money there, thus not spending money in states like Virginia, North Carolina, or maybe even Florida.

      This, in addition to the fact that her fundraising was ultimately weaker than Obama and had a higher burn-rate, makes a map like this very unlikely.

      Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

      by NMLib on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:14:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now here's where I think the argument is strong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY
        had a higher burn-rate
        You're wrong on her fundraising, but that's beside the point.

        Her campaign was run by idiots - which the burn rate, along with many other things, points to - which could have squandered any advantage that she could have had. That's the argument that should be being made by you and DCC, not that "polling had her uncompetitive" because the polling wasn't really very valuable before the financial collapse what little there was of it and there is no Hillary polling after the collapse (because obviously that was late in the game). We just don't know how things would have unfolded, and we can only look at the events and how they could have affected the campaigns of Hillary and McCain.

        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

        by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:18:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  she would've been fine in the NW (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        maybe 15 point wins instead of 17.

        ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:21:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton's fundraising and primay numbers there... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tietack

          Were extremely weak. She was never popular in the Pacific Northwest. She's not the right Democrat for those areas. I'm onmy smartphone now so I'm not in a position to search, but Clinton never had much strength in that part of the country. I don't know why there's this magical feeling about Hillary Clinton somehow being so amazingly awesome that she would've outperformed Obama in his weak states while not losing any real ground in his strong states, but it's a history rewrite of the highest order.

          Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

          by NMLib on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:29:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh come on (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, KingTag, James Allen, jncca

            Do we really think that she would have lost Oregon and Washington? Perhaps she wouldn't have raked up the same margins that he did in those states, but the only polling data we have from them are probably big outliers from a company that frequently has those.

            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

            by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:33:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  but she's still a Democrat (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwmiv, MichaelNY, Skaje, jncca

            and Oregon and Washington are now reflexively Democratic, as Oregon proved when we elected Merkley, who nobody knew, over Gordon Smith, who many had thought was invincible.

            Plus it became a Democratic wave when we had the economic collapse in mid September.  McCain may have weakened himself further because of his comments after that, but Obama didn't create his own success that came from it.  It was largely an organic reaction from voters that probably would've helped any credible Democrat.

            ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:53:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

              Merkley won on Obama's coattails, he only beat Smith by 3 points when Obama was winning by 16 points. But Obama was always leading in Washington and Oregon by either high single-digits or double-digits.

              The "wave" was there, but Obama was stronger than Clinton in a bunch of states. This whole nonsense about how Clinton would have won Obama's states (like Virginia and Indiana and North Carolina) while simultaneously doing leagues better than Obama in these Appalachian areas strikes me as comical, at the time she was seen as being weaker than Obama in most of these states, and she wouldn't have had any groundwork in Virginia (Kerry still lost the state by 5, and spent absolutely no time in the state in the primary, why would she have invested anything there?)

              Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

              by NMLib on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:40:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  okay, if you want a different example, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                it's we didn't lose a single statewide office in 2010, or a congressional district, despite Dems losing similar districts in other parts of the country.

                ...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 Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:49:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  "reflexively Democratic" -- not known before 9/08 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Oregon was a "swing" state in '04, but trending blue. McCain, due to his money problems, had to triage. He simply did not compete in Oregon.

              I hope; therefore, I can live.

              by tietack on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:34:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think money was what kept him from (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, tietack

                competing.  I remember hearing after '06 that the Republicans were not planning to contest the state in '08.

                ...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 Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:16:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  cool link i found (0+ / 0-)

    http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/...

    pages 17-19 are really interesting. These were pretty gerrymandered districts, well before most other states did the same. The 19th congressional district is pretty interesting looking. It gave Stevenson 61% of the vote and what's interesting is that McGovern probably did a hell of a lot worse.

    RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

    by demographicarmageddon on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:50:35 PM PST

  •  Map time, New CDs by DRA default colors (7+ / 0-)

    For those of you who've memorized not just every congresscritter, but also want to know their district number :P

    Photobucket

    (5000x3000 full sized here)

    I have previously seen other maps that do this, but none have a color scheme that actually makes it easier for me to remember the district numbers, given how much I've used DRA.

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

    by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:15:48 PM PST

    •  And two more (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bfen, WisJohn

      The first one is just the CD's overlayed on google maps, thanks to jeffmd.  This is what I initially used to make my template, until I'll break down and take the time to learn a GIS program.

      Photobucket
      full size here

      The second map shows Mitt Romney's binders full of women the districts won by women in the 2012 election.
      Photobucket
      full size here

      Dems have 58 of 201 districts for 29%
      Reps have 20 of 234 districts for 9%

      States with a majority female delegation from one party: Alabama, California, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Ohio for the Democrats and South Dakota and Wyoming for Republicans.
      Florida, Maine, and New Mexico Dems and Missouri, Washington, and West Virginia Republicans have a tie between men and women.
      Also, Democrats have almost as many women as Republicans do in the whole chamber in just California alone, with 18.

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

      by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:30:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm assuming no one saw this. (11+ / 0-)

    From PPP:

    This is not really immediately relevant but our KY poll is finding that Hillary Clinton would lead Rand Paul and Marco Rubio in h2h's there
    Clinton's strength in KY suggests Dems could still be competitive in some of these states in the future and it's more Obama than the party

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

    by ndrwmls10 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:25:12 PM PST

    •  It makes sense. My great aunt and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, MichaelNY

      uncle, who retired from the Chicago Police Department, moved down to Kentucky. They were Republicans, but had said they would vote for Clinton. They're a bit racist and wouldn't vote for Obama. They aren't culturally Kentuckians, but they have the same mindset.

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

      by ndrwmls10 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:27:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I mentioned it briefly upthread (7+ / 0-)

      but I think a lot of this sort of polling is a mirage in that the partisan trend of these sorts of states is very clear.  Clinton would certainly be one of the better candidates to appeal to them though, but it isn't like the national Democratic party's stance on coal is going to change overnight

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

      by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:33:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Coal is only important to a small section (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        of Kentucky. It isn't quite like West Virginia. I think it has more to do with the fact that President Obama is perceived as other. That has more of an impact then anything else.

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

        by ndrwmls10 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:37:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're understating it's importance (8+ / 0-)

          the regions of Kentucky that are heavily invested in coal are also the areas that a Democrat needs to win to carry the state as evidenced by the 2007 and 2011 statewide elections.  It's similar to black voters being an essential part of the Democratic coalition, without being able to count on those votes we'd never ever win tons of southern states.

          If a Democrat can't win coal country they can't win Kentucky. Period.

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

          by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:42:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Mirage is right (7+ / 0-)

        The voters' generic partisan preference eventually would reassert itself sometime in 2016, if not sooner.  In the end Hillary or any other Democrat would lose the state by double-digits.

        The only exception I could see is if we nominate someone like Brian Schweitzer, who is of rural white pro-gun America (and "someone like" is probably silly for me to say because Schweitzer is all we have in that mold), and the GOP somehow nominates someone who is a real disaster, someone worse than anyone in my life.  The latter isn't plausible given the improved field they'll have in 2016.

        I also don't think Hillary could win Arkansas in 2016.  GradyDem explained how the state's political gravity has shifted, the state is just too conservative now.

        And I'm skeptical of Missouri, too.

        Frankly, I don't see Hillary winning anything Obama didn't win except for perhaps an "emerging" state or two, the states that generically are moving our way with population shift.

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

        by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:04:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which suggests that race-based differences (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico

          in a vote for Barack Obama or some generic white D, are relatively trivial.

          1) If race makes a significant difference in the vote for/against against a particular candidate, then Hillary by definition should do better than Obama in such areas.

          2) But to twist it a bit, if racism manifests itself as bias against a party as a whole, then it no longer matters whether we nominate Hillary in '16, or say then or in '20 or '24 someone like Deval Patrick, Gary Locke, Julian Castro, Martin O'Malley, or Brian Schweitzer. Racism will have had its effect changing the voting behavior of whites in such areas. Even a candidate like John Hickenlooper would get around 10% of the white vote in places like Mississippi.

          I'm not sure about the effect of racism on voting behavior. But I am disappointed that we didn't see an effect from familiarity with President Obama, when comparing results from '12 and '08. So I lean towards hypothesis #2.

          I hope; therefore, I can live.

          by tietack on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:24:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think a "familiarity effect" is hard when... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico, tietack

            ...you're governing under circumstances as difficult as Obama inherited, with very little chance of righting the economy and extricating from the wars anytime quickly.

            Couple that with natural ideological disagreement, and white voters in certain parts of the country are only going to view the first term as validating their prejudices, rather than refuting them.

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

            by DCCyclone on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:42:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

              That I haven't seen a professional commentator make at all to date.

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

              by SaoMagnifico on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:13:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So if President Obama could run for a 3rd term (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, DCCyclone

              it sounds like you think that a "familiarity effect" would raise his share of the white vote in places like the deep south.

              I'm assuming that the economy will continue to improve over the next four years, and we'll be out of Afghanistan as well by '16.

              Under those circumstances, and based on your premise, it suggests that the next non-white Democratic candidate for President would get Kerry-like numbers from deep south whites, i.e. in the 20% ballpark in places like Alabama and Mississippi -- and more in places like Georgia.

              I hope; therefore, I can live.

              by tietack on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:50:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  You're referring... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, Inoljt

          To states like Georgia and (arguably) Arizona as emerging, yes?

          It'll be interesting to see what happens in 2016, assuming the Democratic nominee is white. I don't think black Georgia Democrats will only be enthusiastic to vote for a black Democrat, but at the same time, I spent more than three years of my life in Maryland and Washington, D.C., and I have seen firsthand the reverence in which many black people hold President Obama. I mean, one day the kids of those of us who are now in our late teens or early twenties are going to go through social studies classes and learn about Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and then the greatest and most accomplished black American of all, if not the culmination of black Americans' struggle for civil rights then the capstone of their progress over 150 years of American history, Barack Obama. Black Americans are living right now in an era that will be remembered as utterly historic for them. I think it's reasonable to expect a lot of them are a bit more excited about that than they are about the typical hue and cry of politics.

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

          by SaoMagnifico on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:21:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

            But black voters turn out very well and, albeit perhaps with somewhat less enthusiasm but nevertheless strong resolve, are very likely to continue to support Democratic candidates in huge percentages against extremist Republican candidates who pander to racism.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:52:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not black. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WisJohn, MichaelNY

            In fact, if I can joke for a moment, my white ass, as some of my nonwhite friends say, is about the farthest from black (and Hispanic/Latino) as you can get. But I gotta tell you, it makes me so very, very proud to have been able to participate in that historic moment by voting for him. I don't have the same personal connection that some people, but I got to be a part of something awesome.

            If I feel like that, I can only begin to imagine how people who are actually black feel.

            Now, on a more cynical note, if Republicans don't improve their relations with these people, our rock solid support might not dissipate. Turnout might not be as strong as it was this past year, but perhaps it won't be down that much. Time will tell, I guess.

            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

            by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:58:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  This is good, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, bfen, MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico

      but Hillary is at her high point.  What I'd like to see is whether Kentucky would still be ten points redder than the nation with Hillary running, or more like five as it was in the 1990s.

      19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:48:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's see. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        1984: Mondale gets 39% in KY to 41% nationally.  KY=R+2.

        1988: Dukakis gets 44% of the vote in KY, to 46% nationally.  KY=R+2.

        1992: Bill gets about 51.9% of the two-party vote in Kentucky, to 53.4% nationally.  KY=R+1.5.

        1996: Bill gets about 50.5% of the two-party vote in KY, to 54.4% nationally.  KY=R+4.

        2000: Gore+Nader get 43% in KY to 51% nationally.  KY=R+8.

        2004: Kerry gets 40% in KY to 48% nationally.  KY=R+8.

        2008: Obama gets 41% in KY to 53% nationally.  KY=R+12.

        2012: KY probably about R+13.

        KY was probably D+ in the Carter elections, maybe R+3 for McGovern.  1968, depends on how you account for Wallace.  Anyway, KY already started trending R under Bill, I think.

        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

        by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:09:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Point is. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jncca, MichaelNY, DCCyclone

        Even Bill barely won KY when he was an incumbent romping to re-election.  So if HRC is weaker there than Bill (relatively speaking), or if she were to win nationally by less than 8 or 9 points, or if you assume basically any R trend in KY from 1996 to 2012, then no, don't really think it's going to happen.

        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

        by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:13:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look at it on a county by county level too (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

          Bill Clinton performed far, far above what we could expect any Democrat to get in the coal regions of the state and that only barely got him a win.  Thankfully Louisville and Lexington have trended D and that's counterbalanced the other trend for state elections, but at the federal level your point is very clear that the state is trending away even before Obama.

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

          by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:18:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I suspect even Bill was losing ground vs. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sawolf, MichaelNY

            previous Democratic nominees in some of those areas, or at least vs. Dukakis.  (Although overall his performance was comparable--according to my old map, he over-performed in KY-01 and in KY-03 but under-performed in KY-05.)

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

            by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:23:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  It doesn't suggest a damn thing. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawolf, jncca, Skaje, BennyToothpick, MichaelNY

      Remember to disregard everything PPP says about their own poll results.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:10:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My thoughts on Egypt (4+ / 0-)

    MichaelNY ask me if I was willing to discuss my views.

    First of all I was never a supporter of Hosni Mubarak, and I was very happy when he was ousted nearly 2 years ago. I've was also very skeptical of the Muslim Brotherhood. Those that were old enough saw what happened in Iran in the late 70's. When the Shah was overthrown, and the Mullahs (in Iran's case the Ayatollahs) took over a popular revolt movement, and turned it for the worse. Those who weren't born around that time, and not old enough to remember like me, has saw what happened in Iran through achieved footage. Look where Iran has been for the last 35 years. So when Mubarak went down, and a new government was being formed, starting the process to elect a new president. That was my whole concern, was Egypt ending up like Iran, with the Islamist Mullahs taking over Egypt.

    Remember it was folks like these that where behind the assassination of Sadat in '81, for making peace with Israel a couple of years back. Where you had Sheikhs preaching anti-Sadat rhetoric in mosques all over Egypt. During that time Egypt economy was very bad where you had bread riots, and infrastructure decline. So you had Sheikhs taking advantage of people fears.

    My Mom lives in Cairo, and even though on American politics were pretty much on the same boat. She voted for Obama at the consulate in Cairo, when it comes to Egyptian politics she is supportive of Morsi, and think he should be given a chance. She's a very religious woman, however I'm not that religious and I’m  more in line with the secularist/liberals in Egypt.

    Im not surprise of what the Brotherhood and Morsi is doing. They've always been politically shunned and repressed going back to when Nasser was the president of Egypt, and the moment they get political power and get one of their guys in office, they start to act in a totalitarian way, and hijack the government where Egyptian people have no democracy. So when he issued himself these far reaching powers and try to sugar coat it as protecting the nation, people are not stupid, and saw what he was doing. He just recently scrap the controversial decree that has spark all the outrage you've seen in Cairo, but the referendum is still on.

    Morsi did not win by that much in the 2nd leg of the general, so as long there's an active opposition I don't think Egypt will be going in that way like an Iran did, but there are a lot of folks in Egypt who want it to be a Islamic state. Which I don't think is good.

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

    by BKGyptian89 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:31:49 PM PST

    •  One fix they should think about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BKGyptian89, MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico

      is not letting the military be an independent entity anymore.  If they stay that way, they may take over if they don't like the President and institute a military dictatorship.

      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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:02:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for addressing these things (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BKGyptian89

      Do you have any sense of what's likely to happen with the referendum? Do you think the new constitution will be adopted? And what happens if the voters disapprove the draft constitution? Would a new constituent assembly have to be elected?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:57:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's really too bad... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, BeloitDem, BKGyptian89

      That someone like Mohamed ElBaradei, who was actually involved in the protest movement, isn't president right now -- and a Muslim Brotherhood puppet is.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I remember watching the Egyptian revolution unfold on TV in Fiji and New Zealand early last year and just being so strongly attracted to this cause of freedom. It's painful to watch President Morsi and his cronies try to parlay a secular, democratic revolution into an Islamist awakening that millions of Egyptians want no part of -- especially with Morsi increasingly showing his own dictatorial tendencies, though I'm not sure how much of that is Morsi and how much of that is his Muslim Brotherhood "handlers".

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

      by SaoMagnifico on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:25:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Devil's advocate argument (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BeloitDem

        We did find out in the Egyptian elections how religiously conservative a lot of Egyptians are. The big surprise wasn't how well the Muslim Brotherhood did; they were the best-organized party and were expected to earn a plurality. The surprise was that the Salafists got about 25% of the vote. And the difficulty is that the Salafists, and to some degree, the Muslim Brotherhood, too, want to limit various individual rights in keeping with their interpretations of shari'ah. So that makes them opposed to individual rights often associated with democracy.

        However, the opinions of such a large - and at the post-revolutionary elections so far, majority - group of people have to be respected somehow, or else the will of the majority is completely denied. I guess the analogy in the US is the issue of whether a majority of the voters in a state can deny gays the right to marry, and I'd say no, but I wouldn't then say that when people vote the Republican Party into office, it shouldn't be able to do anything at all to pander to Christian Right people who voted them in. And Egypt is clearly a much more conservative country than the US, but with large Christian minorities. So all of this is a very tough thing to work out in what we hope is an emerging democracy.

        The thing I wonder is, if elections were held again now, how would people vote? Morsi won very narrowly, so maybe he could be defeated. But my guess is, when they have an up or down choice on the draft constitution, if the voting goes ahead as scheduled and isn't successfully blocked by angry demonstrators, I believe the constitution will be approved.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:01:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't really disagree with any of this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          It's truly disturbing, though, to see President Morsi trying to put himself and his Muslim Brotherhood allies above judicial oversight. I know the judiciary has a lot of problems due to the lingering powerful influence of President Mubarak on the composition of the bench, but doing away with checks and balances doesn't seem like it's the way to go.

          I'm also very concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood attacking nonreligious, moderate Muslim, and Christian Egyptians -- to say nothing of women, in a country where sexual harassment and abuse is a very, very serious social problem -- whether with violence on the streets or with discriminatory legislation. Egyptians may have voted for an Islamist government, but I don't believe civil rights should ever be up to a vote. And I don't think Egyptians voted for more subjugation, whether from the Mubarakites, the military, or the Islamists.

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

          by SaoMagnifico on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:18:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think that something had to be done (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SaoMagnifico

            to restrict the power of the Mubarak-appointed judiciary. They should not have been able to prohibit so many people from running for election, and they certainly should not have been able to unilaterally disband the constituent assembly.

            The problem was that President Morsi took complete judicial and legislative power, in addition to complete executive power, and that's effectively absolute dictatorship.

            I of course agree with you about protections for individual rights, but I don't think we should be surprised if Egyptian democracy, even if it does take root, does not end up being nearly as socially liberal or tolerant as, say, European democracies.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:32:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I was hoping that he did run (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I remember at one point everybody was thinking that Amr Moussa look like the heavy favorite, and I wouldn't mind if he was president. Even though Egypt has lots of conservative elements, in many ways it is western. You look at the young generation for example. Even tho Morsi is a conservative Islamist, I think he'll knows the economic repercussions that will have on Egypt. Just look at the tourism decline over the last two years.

        My thinking on why Morsi won was because, the other Shafik, people thought about him as being way too tied and entrenched in the old Mubarak regime.

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

        by BKGyptian89 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:42:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Safe Dem districts with pro-life Dems (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skaje, MichaelNY

    Which house districts (or are there even any pro-life senators other than Casey, Manchin, and Donnelly?) in general have a pro-life Democrat, and in particular which ones are safe D.

    The safe ones I have so far are:
    Henry Cuellar
    Mike Doyle
    Marcy Kaptur
    Jim Langevin
    Tim Ryan

    While the rest who aren't in safe districts are:
    John Barrow
    Jim Matheson
    Mike McIntyre
    Mike Michaud
    Colin Peterson
    Nick Rahall

    Are there any others? How about Jim Cooper or any of the other southern Reps? Or what about Dan Lipinski and Stephen Lynch?

    On the flip side who are the congressional Republicans who are nominally pro-choice? I have Shelly Moore Capito and Lynn Jenkins but can't think of the others.

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

    by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:49:33 PM PST

    •  nominally pro-choice Republicans (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawolf, MichaelNY

      There's 5 that self-identify as pro-choice.  Capito, Jenkins, Frelinghuysen (NJ-11), Dent (PA-15), and Hanna (NY-22).

      That's down from 9 before the election (Bono Mack, Dold, Bass, and Biggert were defeated).  None of the GOP freshmen are pro-choice.

      In the Senate, they are at 3 self-identified pro-choicers (Murkowski, Collins, Kirk), down from 6 before the election, following the loss of Snowe, Brown, and Hutchison.  None of their freshmen are pro-choice.

      As you recognize, all of the above are nominally pro-choice, they all have been there for GOP leadership's anti-choice votes.  Kay Hutchison had a 7% rating from NARAL but claimed to be pro-choice.

    •  Looks like we can add to pro-life, Safe D district (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      Sanford Bishop
      Jim Cooper
      Dan Lipinski
      Stephen Lynch

      And the nominally pro-choice Republicans include all of:
      Shelly Moore Capito
      Susan Collins
      Charlie Dent
      Rodney Frelinghuysen
      Mark Kirk
      Lynn Jenkins
      and Lisa Murkowski,
      though pretty much all of them vote for all of the anti-choice legislation like HR.3 so they're "nominally" pro-choice as I said.  Richard Hanna might also go into the nominal column but I can't find anything after a brief search.

      I wouldn't mind seeing any of Bishop, Cooper, Cuellar, Doyle, Kaptur, Langevin, Lipinski, and Lynch get primaried for their abortion positions (among others) since they're all from safely Dem districts.

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

      by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:31:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think Lipinski's district is that safe (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingTag

        It's a blue collar urban district and its Whites are trending away from us.  The Hispanic population is decent, but it's under D+5 and a pro choice Democrat could lose it.

        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
        politicohen.com
        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

        by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:36:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see why it would when (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BeloitDem, MichaelNY

          when all of the other Chicagoland Dems are pro-choice.  This district's been D+5 for the past 3 cycles and I think any mainstream liberal should be able to win that.

          ME-02 is the district where I think it might hurt us, which is why I didn't say I'd want Michaud primaried.  Honestly though, Lipinski, Lynch, had absolutely no excuse voting against the ACA while we had to have Reps like Bart Gordon vote for it.  They should have been ousted over that alone.  Hell even Jim Cooper voted for it.

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

          by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:43:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There has been discussion on IL-03 before (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sawolf, MichaelNY

          It was 58% Obama in 2008, which already means that if we lose it, that Republican will have the single bluest district by 2008 numbers in the country.  Even by 2012 numbers, it's still a solid 56% Obama, which represents a much smaller drop compared to almost all the other Illinois districts.

          Kerry almost certainly won the district as well by a few points.  There's only a single Republican left in the entire country representing a Kerry district in the House, and that's Mike Fitzpatrick of PA-08, which Kerry won by about a single percent (under the new lines, which chopped a couple points of Dem performance out).

          So no, we don't need an anti-choice (or any kind of moderate) Democrat to hold down a seat like this.  Yeah, we could lose it in a GOP wave, but that goes for a ton of other redder seats that we nevertheless held even in the last GOP wave.  Democrats successfully held down 22 seats in 2010 that Bush had won in 2004.  By comparison, Republicans only held 7 seats after that election that Kerry had won.

          My criteria for competitiveness at this point is whether Kerry won it in 2004.  If he did, we can nominate whoever we want and be pretty darn confident of holding it.

          The issue with IL-03 is simply that the legislature specifically drew the new district to remove a primary challenger and shore up Lipinski.  We might not get him out until he retires.

          •  For the non South/Appalachia (5+ / 0-)
            My criteria for competitiveness at this point is whether Kerry won it in 2004.  If he did, we can nominate whoever we want and be pretty darn confident of holding it.
            That seems like a generally apt statement, especially for an open seat.  And yeah I doubt Lipinski goes anywhere soon.  It's much easier to get the netroots liberals riled up over the Alan Graysons, Darcy Burners, Eric Griegos, and Ilya Sheymans of the world then it is to actively try to primary an incumbent.  Note that all of those were either open seats or Republican held.

            I'd love for Dkos, DFA, the PCCC, and MoveOn to go all out  for a liberal challenger to Lipinski or Lynch.

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

            by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:56:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Lipinski also takes it too far (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico

            He even was for redefining rape to a narrower definition (though I think he backed out when he realized how big a backlash that got).

            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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:09:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  How can you be sure of something like that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          on a House district level?

          I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

          by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:43:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because white blue collar urban areas are trending (0+ / 0-)

            away from us in many places.  Look at parts of Baltimore County.  Look at how Scott Brown won Massachusetts not only on the backs of wealthy moderates but on blue collar ones.  Look at parts of New York City (Bob Turner).

            19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
            politicohen.com
            Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
            UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

            by jncca on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:44:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

              because Scott Brown won once, that's proof of a trend? given Elizabeth Warren's margins in places like Worcester and Fall River, it's hard to believe she didn't win or at least tie among "white blue collar urban whites."

              as for IL-03, as long as Bridgeport continues to fill up with Chinese immigrants and the Hispanic growth in the suburbs goes south, we should be fine.

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

              by sapelcovits on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:33:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not just Massachusetts (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                It's happened in Baltimore County in places like Dundalk, as well as in parts of Queens and Brooklyn.  As well as the White, blue collar parts of St Louis

                19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                politicohen.com
                Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                by jncca on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:14:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Where's the evidence the district (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                is really moving away from us at any level?

                I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:10:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure I agree with that, jncca. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Turner's district was filled with Orthodox Jews and won in a special election, and both Kerry and Obama still won it. I'm not sure Scott Brown's special election means much of anything. Also, which races and what parts of Baltimore County?

              As far as Lipinski goes, at the presidential level, it seems to be trending more toward us, if anything.

              I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

              by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:04:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I mostly agree with jncca with one big exception (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, jncca

                jncca is absolutely right that urban blue collar areas have moved strongly to the right in recent years. Jncca is probably referring to Dundalk in Baltimore county but you could say the same thing about places like the strongly Republican Italian neighborhoods in places like areas of South Philly and the South Shore of Staten Island, and Republican-leaning Irish Neighborhoods like Woodlawn Bronx, South Boston, or Canaryville Chicago.

                The very very big but here is that almost all of these neighborhoods are quickly disappearing as the older white populations of these neighborhoods are replaced by newcomers (usually Asian and Hispanic immigrants). So although jncca has a point, it's largely moot since most urban blue-collar white neighborhoods are transitioning into non-white neighborhoods or into white-collar liberal neighborhoods.

                26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                by okiedem on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:40:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not trying to pick a fight here, (0+ / 0-)

                  so don't mistake my questions for hostility, but are we talking neighborhoods, down the precinct level, or big parts of an urban area? There's a big difference. And are you referring to absolute or relative moves? Another big difference.

                  I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                  by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:55:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You can't look at anything but neighborhoods (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY, Inoljt, jncca

                    because there's no other way to isolate the voting patterns of urban blue collar whites. These are relatively small parts of urban areas because there just aren't that many white blue collar areas left in major cities any more.

                    It's hard to isolate any movement because the effect of the increasing diversity in these neigborhoods is much stronger than any trend among working class white voters themselves but the bulk of the evidence does show that urban white blue-collar voters do tend to be Republican leaning.

                    I'm also not trying to be combative -- sorry if I came across that way.

                    26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                    by okiedem on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:02:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You didn't come across that way at all. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Inoljt

                      I just tend to ask a lot of questions, kind of like a DA badgering someone on the witness stand.

                      Anyway, this sort of shift, if there is even one, sounds plausible enough, but I'm not entirely convinced. That they've been less Democratic than other urban residents isn't surprising, but is there some sort of noticeable shift? That I question.

                      I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                      by bjssp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:12:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, there's definitely a shift (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY

                        Look at Dundalk, MD on DRA.

                        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
                        politicohen.com
                        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
                        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

                        by jncca on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:08:42 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  also (0+ / 0-)

        I don't want any of them primaried except Cuellar and Lynch because the others are good liberals or people I respect (Cooper) or not in fully safe districts.

        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
        politicohen.com
        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

        by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:37:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I believe Richard Neal is pro life (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:35:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah I'd have to agree; via wikipedia (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY
        Coming from a relatively Catholic district, Neal has a more conservative record on the issue of abortion than other Massachusetts representatives.[1] He said in 2010, "I have always opposed taxpayer funding of abortion. I'd keep Roe v. Wade and restrict it, I've always thought: keep abortion, with restrictions for late-term abortion. [Given] the voting pattern I have, both sides would say I'm mixed and guess what? That's where the American people are."[35] He voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which made the intact dilation and extraction abortion procedure illegal in most cases.[1] During debate on the House health care reform bill, he voted in favor of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, restricting government funding of abortion.[36]
        So nominally pro-choice, but effectively pro-life.  Definitely could get someone better on abortion out of such a heavily Dem district.  John Olver had a 100 from NARAL and I can't imagine that the new 1st is that much more socially conservative than the old 1st.

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

        by sawolf on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:39:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Gallego (0+ / 0-)

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:12:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kaptur pro life?!?! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tietack

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

      by BKGyptian89 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:30:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, she is (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tietack, LordMike, SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY

        It's the one issue she's conservative on, she's otherwise a down-the-line progressive. I believe she's even in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

      •  Yeah that's my reaction (0+ / 0-)

        She's the only female congressional Democrat who is pro-life.

        The whole reason I brought up this list is because I would eventually want to see us expand abortion rights when we next have the trifecta, and as you can see from the 2010 fight over the Stupak amendment, there are several blue district Dems who are anti-choice to some degree.  Kaptur is one of them, even if she's good on almost all other issues, and I'd hate for us to be in the same position in the future that we were with Stupak solely due to Dems like Kaptur.  So there's my logic.

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

        by sawolf on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:48:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Perot wanted her to be his VP in 1996 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, bjssp, LordMike

        because of her protectionist stand.  She's an interesting figure.

        She fought against the wall-street bailouts even more than some of the arch-conservative Republicans in congress too.  Has served longer than just about any other female in the House.

        I think she isn't pro-choice because of her Catholic background and that her old Toledo was very working class and maybe slightly conservative on social issues like abortion.

        She lost the top spot on the appropriations committee to Nita Lowey partly because she wasn't pro-choice enough and also because she ran against Pelosi a few years back in a leadership race.

  •  Hillary v. Obama (6+ / 0-)

    I think we should all just move on. This is turning into a huge flame war that we should have all avoided knowing the hurt feelings and miscommunications and big arguments that were had back on SSP over this.

    I apologize for any harsh comments that I may have made above.

    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

    by wwmiv on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:34:11 PM PST

  •  ugh, Obama only got 39.4% in the state house (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, drhoosierdem

    district I grew up in.  And that's 2 party vote, so in total votes its lower.

    ...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 Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:10:34 PM PST

  •  Catharsis (5+ / 0-)

    Mitt Romney talks to Philippine Rep. Manny Pacquiao in the dressing room before Pacquaio lost a bout with fellow boxer Juan Manuel Marquez. Story here.

    "Hello Manny. I ran for president. I lost," Romney told the fighter, according to Pacquiao publicist Fred Sternburg.
    I wish I could inject that straight into my heart. Mmmmm.

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

    by SaoMagnifico on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:10:26 AM PST

  •  Newt ADMITS Hillary is unbeatable if she runs (5+ / 0-)

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:38:41 AM PST

  •  Just Published my Florida Diary: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, bumiputera

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

    Check it out. It should be 15D-9R-3S.

  •  First big snow of the year in MN (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY, itskevin

    Woke up to 9 inches of fresh snow, and its kept snowing all day since.