Skip to main content

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

CO Recall: In a devastating result for Democrats, two legislators who supported new gun safety laws, state Senate President John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron, both lost in recall elections spurred by the NRA and gun activists on Tuesday night, Morse by less than 2 percent, Giron by 12. Morse will be replaced by Republican Bernie Herpin; Giron's seat, meanwhile, will be taken over by another Republican, George Rivera. Both Herpin and Rivera have to go before voters next year, and both seats gave Barack Obama about 58 to 59 percent of the vote in 2012, so they won't be easy holds for the GOP. But last night's results show just how badly Democratic turnout dropped in these unusually timed, off-off-year elections.

For now, Democrats' 20-15 edge in the Senate has been whittled down to a precarious 18-17—and the NRA and their allies will crow about what this means for proponents of gun regulations. Conservatives have talked about ushering in a "wave of fear" among Democratic lawmakers nationwide, but more immediately, they might attempt another recall to try to take control of the chamber, since Republicans clearly benefit when holding elections in non-presidential years. This falloff in enthusiasm in years not divisible by four is probably the biggest electoral challenge Democrats face nationwide right now, and these recalls, if any good is to come of them, should spur the party to seriously address this major problem.

NYC Mayor, Comptroller: As we put the Digest to bed late on Tuesday night, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio had just edged past the 40 percent mark he needed in order to avoid a runoff in the Democratic primary for mayor, with former city Comptroller Bill Thompson in second place at 26. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the one-time frontrunner, was a distant third with 15, while ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner fell all the way to fifth, with less than 5 percent, behind Comptroller John Liu, who took just 7.

De Blasio, who successfully portrayed himself as the most progressive option in the race, was just a micron over 40 with a handful of precincts still left to report, so the outcome may have changed by the time you read this. In addition, paper ballots (such as absentees and provisional ballots) still need to be counted, and the Board of Elections was reportedly preparing for a recount. If a second round is necessary, de Blasio and Thompson will face off on Oct. 1. Whoever the nominee is will go up against former MTA chief Joe Lhota, the winner of the Republican primary, in November.

Meanwhile, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's comeback bid fell short (though less abysmally than Weiner's). He lost the Democratic primary for comptroller to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer by a 52-48 margin. Republicans haven't held the comptroller's office since 1945, and Stringer will be the heavy favorite in the fall.

Senate:

MT-Sen: State Rep. Franke Wilmer, who took 18 percent en route to a second-place finish in last year's primary for Montana's lone House seat, is the latest Democrat to say no to a Senate bid in Montana. However, she did not rule out a repeat bid for MT-AL, which would once again become open if freshman GOP Rep. Steve Daines seeks a promotion to the Senate.

NC-Sen: Is it a good month or a meh month for Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan in PPP's polling? It's a good month—in fact, judging by the toplines alone, it's her best month ever:

At this point it doesn't matter who the Republicans put forward though—Kay Hagan has a wide lead over all of them. She's up 12 on Heather Grant at 48/36, 13 on Jim Cain and Lynn Wheeler at 50/37 and 48/35 respectively, 14 on Mark Harris at 50/36, 15 on Thom Tillis at 51/36, 16 on Greg Brannon at 52/36, and 17 on Phil Berger at 53/36. Hagan is up by at least 16 points with independents in every match up.
In fact, it's the highest Hagan's ever scored against Tillis, her only notable declared opponent so far, and only the second time she's hit or exceeded 50. But her job approvals remain middling (43 approving, 39 disapproving), and as Tom Jensen notes, every potential Republican candidate still has low name recognition. So I'd ascribe this to the usual gyrations (Hagan's been as low as 45), and like Tom, I still think this will be a very close race.

SC-Sen-A: A one-day poll (taken on a Sunday, apparently for in-house purposes) from Republican firms Landmark Communications and Rosetta Stone Communications shows Sen. Lindsey Graham in less-than-great shape in the GOP primary. Graham takes just 42 percent against a split field, but his three opponents are all far behind: state Sen. Lee Bright is at 13, businesswoman Nancy Mace is at 10, and businessman Richard Cash is at 7.

As we've been saying all along, a weak Graham could very well get saved by the clown car effect, where the anti-incumbent vote gets split among various challengers, and this poll shows that could happen. However, South Carolina requires runoffs if no candidate takes more than 50 percent of the vote, so Graham could be vulnerable in a second round. But if he's to face a serious threat, someone will have to really catch fire.

SD-Sen: Republican pollster Harper Polling has a new poll of South Dakota's open-seat Senate race, pitting GOP ex-Gov. Mike Rounds against former Tom Daschle staffer Rick Weiland. Rounds leads Weiland, the only declared Democrat, 52-38. Rounds sports a 47-31 favorability rating, while Weiland sits at an even 24-24, which seems like a surprisingly high level of name recognition for someone who hasn't held office before.

Rounds also faces several opponents in the Republican primary, and while Harper didn't test that contest, they did pit those other hopefuls (PDF) against Weiland. All of these contenders are little-known (and aren't likely to win their party's nomination), and Weiland's vote share stays pretty stable against all of them. He edges physician Annette Bosworth 38-36 but trails state Rep. Stace Nelson and state Sen. Larry Rhoden 40-38 and 41-35 respectively.

Gubernatorial:

CT-Gov: Businessman Tom Foley started indicating his interest in a rematch almost immediately after his narrow loss to Democrat Dan Malloy in 2010's gubernatorial race. Now, finally, on Tuesday, Foley announced that he would... create an exploratory committee? Sigh. Everyone always loves to drag things out as long as possible, and I'd be quite surprised if Foley, who would be the likely frontrunner for the GOP nomination, didn't actually wind up running. But I guess we all need a little kabuki in our lives.

Anyhow, Foley might have an edge in the primary, thanks to his near-miss last time and his huge personal fortune (he spent $11 million of his own money), but he doesn't have the Republican field to himself. Several other candidates are running or exploring, including Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, state Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, and state Sen. Toni Boucher. Malloy, incidentally, has not yet said whether he'll seek re-election.

PA-Gov: There's a big cultural gap between the rural parts of southwestern Pennsylvania (which used to be the core for Democratic votes in the state) and the suburbs of Philadelphia (which have become the new Democratic keystone in the Keystone State, as the SWPA collar counties have turned red). But here's an endorsement that comes as a bit of a surprise, bridging that gulf: The United Mine Workers just gave their backing to Rep. Allyson Schwartz in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, to go up against incumbent GOP Gov. Tom Corbett.

I'd have expected them to hold out for someone who's a better cultural fit for them, though, like former state Auditor Jack Wagner, who may or may not be getting in to the race. But in any event, the UMW's money may be more of a difference maker than the votes it can deliver, though. There's just not much mining left in Pennsylvania, and it looks like there are only around 12,000 UMW members left in the state. (David Jarman)

RI-Gov: The best chance for Rhode Island Republicans to take back this office probably depended on the unpopular Lincoln Chafee somehow being the Democratic nominee. However, despite the incumbent's decision to retire, one Republican seems to be pressing ahead anyway. Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, one of the big fishes in the very small pond that is the Rhode Island Republican Party, has announced that he will indeed… create an exploratory committee. Seriously, what is with New England Republicans and exploratory committees today?

A January PPP poll (PDF) pegged Fung's statewide favorable rating at a quite good 55 percent, with only 14 percent seeing him unfavorably. However, he almost certainly needs an unpopular Democratic foe to prevail in this deep blue state, and neither Treasurer Gina Raimondo nor Providence Mayor Angel Taveras look like pushovers. (Darth Jeff)

VA-Gov: Hoping to bring the never-ending story of Star Scientific to an end, Republican Gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli has announced that he'll donate $18,000 to the charity Cross Over Ministry—the value of the gifts he received from Star and its CEO. Of course, with Gov. Bob McDonnell still under federal investigation over his ties to the company, it doesn't look like Cuccinelli will be able to put this story to bed anytime soon. (Darth Jeff)

House:

ID-02: Maybe Republican Rep. Mike Simpson's people think they have something here with labeling his primary opponent, the Club for Growth-fueled Bryan Smith, a "personal injury lawyer?" They used it twice when putting out a statement last week in response to Smith's first ad, and now they bring it up three more times in their own first ad, a radio spot with a "significant district-wide buy" behind it. It's part of a broader theme that Smith is being dishonest about Simpson's record, as the ad also reminds listeners that Simpson has an A+ NRA rating and voted to repeal Obamacare 39 times. (David Jarman)

NH-01, NH-Sen: With most of the highest-profile New Hampshire Republicans declining to pursue a bid for any of the state's major offices next year, James Pindell runs through an extensive junior varsity roster for all four races: governor, senator, and both seats in the House. In a separate piece, John DiStaso drills down on a couple of these. Ex-Rep. Frank Guinta was just in DC meeting with the NRCC about a comeback bid in NH-01 and had previously said he'd declare his plans this month, while ex-state Sen. Jim Rubens is expected to announce a run for Senate a week from Wednesday.

Other Races:

FL-AG: Given news stories like this one, it is unthinkable... unthinkable... that any liberal would be so churlish to think that conservatives don't take life or death issues seriously:

There is no graver responsibility and act of state government than an execution.

In Florida this week, a campaign fundraiser takes precedence.

Attorney General Pam Bondi persuaded Gov. Rick Scott to postpone an execution scheduled for tonight because it conflicted with her re-election kick-off reception.

Words fail. Whatever your position may be on the death penalty, there is something truly awful about someone who treats it as a mere item on their daily schedule, and a low-priority item, at that. Bondi, 47, won election in 2010 by a 55-41 margin over Democrat Dan Gelber. There's no word yet on potential challengers this cycle, but she definitely just made herself a more appealing target. (Steve Singiser)

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Dammit! C'mon, New York, is going to a (8+ / 0-)

    prostitute such a bad thing that you're going to throw that man's abilities down the garbage chute forever?

    I'd be willing to bet a fairly substantial sum of money that at least 40% of all male politicians have gone to a hooker sometime. But I guess getting caught is unforgivable.

    Of course, being the soulless social libertarian that I am, I think prostitution should be legalized and regulated (with an eye toward minimizing health risks and giving the sex workers some legal protections against abuse) so obviously this was never a big issue for me.

    Good work on DeBlasio, though.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:20:44 AM PDT

    •  The Part I Didn't Like About Spitzer (13+ / 0-)

      I believe you are referring to Spitzer.

      I agree with you that prostitution should be legalized. I actually am friends with a few high end escorts and their jobs would be a whole lot safer if they didn't have to worry about being thrown in jail.

      That said, I can't forgive Spitzer for his hypocrisy. Remember, he made a name for himself in prosecuting prostitution rings, at the same time going to them himself. Unlike you and I he has never been a "social libertarian" on this issue. Even today.

      So I'm glad that his comeback has been derailed.

      •  OK, it's true I don't like hypocrites. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stude Dude, wmspringer, XenuLives

        But it's hard to pass up somebody who has the inside dirt on a lot of 1% bastards--and is willing to use it. Not many people who get close enough to them to know anything are of a mind to use that information--or have enough guts to do so.

        Maybe he doesn't need to be the elected official. If I were him, I'd get my revenge by being a more behind-the-scenes staffer and feeding all my information and knowhow to somebody else who could stand in the spotlight and use it.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:59:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  race wasn't spitzers to lose (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, scott5js

      and not even Spitzer challenged Stringer's ability to do the job.  

      52-48 was closer than i'd have expected, anyway.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:55:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  IOKIYAR (3+ / 0-)

      David Vitter is still in office. And unlike Spitzer he's a family-values prig.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:16:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eeeew. Yes, it's absolutely OKIYAR. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stude Dude

        My theory is that sometime in the late 80s/early 90s male Republican politicians started envying the fact that male Democratic politicians had more success with women than they did, and contrived this particular kind of scandal-mongering as a puerile revenge.

        Nah, that isn't really my theory, but I do like to speculate on whether it played a subsidiary role in the establishment of the Republican scandal machine.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:30:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And I could have voted for Weiner (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SouthernLiberalinMD

      I am opposed to the stigmatizing of sexting; if I lived in NYC this would be an opportunity to cast a protest vote.
      A reservation I would have is whether he pushed himself on unwilling audiences. I do not think I have sufficient evidence. I would probably say he would not make the runoff anyway so why be picky.
      As a gay male I would not be discombobulated if a guy did that with me. I would be considering whether I could trust the guy, but that is SOP.
      Yes, I am a soulless social libertarian and make no apology for it.

      Censorship is rogue government.

      by scott5js on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:08:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In NYC, I'd not cast that protest vote (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scott5js

        (though I agree with you in principle) because apparently DeBlasio is actually, genuinely a good candidate, and was surging to a lead. That's good news, and I'd support it with my vote. It happens so rarely.

        If there were no good candidates, I'd cast that protest vote with you.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:01:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the work and staying up late! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eve, whaddaya, 3rdOption, Stude Dude

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:21:02 AM PDT

    •  Turnout did not lose the recall in Pueblo. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mbradshawlong

      I just did the math, based on the known Democratic turnout from COB Monday night, vs the total vote count on Tuesday.

      As of Monday, for every 1 Republican that voted, 1.4 Democrats had voted. Unaffiliated were only 20% of the total.

      Based on the numbers, for the Republicans to beat the Democrats purely in terms of turnout, for every 1 Democrat who voted on Tuesday (including 696 mail-in ballots), 3.7 Republicans would have had to vote (assuming Unaffiliated stayed at 20%).

      I do not believe that, in Pueblo, a very blue community, it is possible to have an almost 4:1 Republican turnout on Tuesday.

      Therefore, I believe it is absolutely wrong to say that Democratic apathy or off-year off-election cycle low turnout "favored Republicans".

      There is another cause for the loss in Pueblo, but Democrats not turning out won't be the answer.


      "Politeness is wasted on the dishonest, who will always take advantage of any well-intended concession." - Barrett Brown

      by 3rdOption on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:36:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That may be so, but what I was talking about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3rdOption

        was meant in a more general way.

        Unless the Democratic party radically changes its methods (fat chance) high turnout generally favors Democrats and low turnout favors Republicans. That's been true for a long time. In general. Obviously, no trend is going to hold true in every instance, esp. not here where there was a specific litmus-test issue being used to influence the vote.

        My ruminations were about how to get a larger turnout, in general, and whether or not the Democratic party was likely to accomplish that aim.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:58:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't see a solution to voter apathy (14+ / 0-)

    Especially when we are continually told that voting the party line fuels GOTV. Obviously not in Colorado yesterday. It really is the bite on the behind from the presidential year electorate becoming more favorable to national Democrats. It is not a viable strategy for a political party to rely on people who only bother to vote every four years.

    "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 Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:31:12 AM PDT

    •  gun control advocates not motivated (12+ / 0-)

      If you ask most people, they support some gun control but they won't make an effort   to vote in a special election while gun supporters are foaming at the mouth to get revenge. Just the way it is in issue voting.

      •  Hey, I live in Colorado, and (14+ / 0-)

        if there are any gun control advocates here besides the 2018 Democratic state senators and the guy I see in the mirror every morning, I've never met them.

        The Democrats did the right thing, but it was suicide -- but then, that's what being a Profile in Courage is all about.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:44:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure the exact number (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itskevin, caul, stevenaxelrod

          But PPP always finds strong support for background checks most everywhere. Even amongst Republicans. But xgoper is correct (like polls showing support for SSM) that it doesn't motivate people to vote in isolation.

          "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 Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:51:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  background checks ok, extra money from gun buyers (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishbone, andalusi

            and magazine restrictions not ok.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:29:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  guns is NOT (6+ / 0-)

            a "voting issue" for those supportive of gun control (with the exception of a thin slice of voters). Guns can be a deciding issue for gun rights supporters.

            You hear gun rights supporters say that they won't vote for anybody that doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment.

            You don't really hear gun control supporters say that they won't vote for anybody that doesn't support gun safety laws.

            Beyond that, gun control advocates have generally sucked for years and years. Apparently (sympathetic to the cause) Dem operatives in DC are "pleasantly surprised" by how much better they've been in the last 10 months or so, but what a fucking low bar. It's going to take a lot of time for them to build and will probably take a lot longer if Bloomberg is the face of it all. Pryor took a lot of hits from the left for his background checks vote but when he took a shot at Bloomberg in his response ad, he was right. Bloomberg is TERRIBLE as a front figure for guns (climate change and other issues).

            Nancy Pelosi: "We have a Democratic president -- Thank God!"

            by Newsie8200 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:10:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)

              Guns isn't an issue that motivates me. I know some Democrats who didn't like our last Democratic governor Ted Strickland's strong pro-gun positions and 2006 NRA endorsement (Oddly, and showing heir partisanship, they declined to endorse him in 2010 against John Kasich who was never a particular advocate for gun owners rights). I didn't care that much.

              Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

              by anastasia p on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:21:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  suicide is never courage (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, Neo Control, wishbone

          Suicide acomplishes only one thing, it ensures that person is not around to fight the next day.  Which is what these two Dems did.

          They didn't address mental health, they didn't address the root cause problems that make a person snap and want to kill people.   They didn't do anything to keep that from happening again.  They didn't do anything to solve real problems.

          Instead, they blamed inanimate objects, restricted Constitutional rights, and equated all citizens with criminals.  That wasn't an act of courage, it was an act of stupidity and they lost because of it.

          •  Dems DID address mental health. Hickenlooper (5+ / 0-)

            did and state legislators tried - but of course, the NRA didn't support the mental health policy associated with gun control.

            •  No, not really (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wishbone

              I've asked over and over again for clear definitions on how a person with mental illness would fail a background check.

              Does having Asperger's cause a person to fail?
              Does depression or anxiety cause a person to fail?

              If a person is deemed to fail, is that through due process in a court of law?  Or are 2nd Amendment rights now taken away by doctor's note?  Those questions are all un-answered.

              They didn't do anything but scribble down some meaningless words that didn't address the recent mass shootings.  No one, not one single Dem, has done any of the heavy lifting.

              •  What does that have to do with Colorado addressing (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aquarius40, stevenaxelrod, corvo

                mental health and guns?

                Here's a Google of Hickenlooper and mental heath policy:

                http://www.google.com/...

                http://denver.cbslocal.com/...

                Here's more on Colorado and mental health policy:

                After 120 days of intense debates, emotional advocacy, and legal fine-tuning, we are proud to say that 2013 truly was the Year of Mental Health at the Colorado state capitol.
                Opinion: The Year of Mental Health at the Colorado Legislature
                http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/...
                •  Colorado didn't address the Aurora shooting (0+ / 0-)

                  The links you provided state one thing.  That if someone is committed to a mental health facility, that information would be provided for background checks.  As it should be.

                  But the Aurora shooter was never committed.  And a note from a psychiatrist doesn't superseed Constitutional rights.

                  Show me a serious proposal where the Aurora shooter would have had his rights taken away from him via due process in a court of law.  If you can't do that, then rights win out.

                  •  When you find that magic wand that can (4+ / 0-)

                    instantaneously solve the problem, please let Colorado legislators know.

                    You said Dems did "nothing" to address mental health.

                    You are clearly wrong. But you are right that this is a sticky issue and probably one that is unsolvable via legislation.

                    I'm sure you'll never be satisfied, so continue the conversation amongst yourself.

                    •  It doesn't exist (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      wishbone

                      So Dem legislators should stop pretending it does, and stop pretending they can solve criminal problems by taking Constitutional rights away from people.

                      Gun bans, NSA spying, Patriot Act, Free Speech Zones.  They're all the exact same thing.

                      •  I thought we were talking about mental health (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        stevenaxelrod, askew, corvo

                        policy. And you're wrong about gun bans - they do work, just ask an Australian.

                        •  Then push a Constitutional Amendment (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          wishbone

                          Australia doesn't have a 2nd Amendment.  Get rid of that, then you can have your gun ban.

                          But just remember that the 1st and 4th Amendments will go with it.

                          •  You keep changing the subject - the question you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            askew, corvo

                            raised was whether gun bans work or not, not whether one could pass in the U.S. And, I don't think we need, nor could get a ban in the U.S.

                            To answer your question, bans have worked in Australia.

                          •  No, that's NOT the question I raised (0+ / 0-)

                            I didn't raise a question on gun bans in general.  Look at the Australia crime data and you will see plenty of guns still being used in violent crimes.  Australia drop in murder rates matches our own.

                            The question I did raise, was how people with mental illnesses would have their 2nd Amendment rights revoked.  Would it be through due process in court, or via a simple doctor's note.

                            Do all people with Asperger's lose 2nd Amend. rights?
                            Do all depressed people?  All anxious people?  All people who tell a shrink they had a suicidal thought?

                            Are you going to address the due process issue, or not?

                          •  Here we go...confusion, distortion, blah-di-de bla (0+ / 0-)

                            change the subject - typical of the pro-gun side.

                            Your points were:

                            1. mail in voting shouldn't be blamed
                            2. Dems did "nothing" for mental health
                            3. Gun bans don't stop gun violence

                          •  I've never liked mail-in voting or early voting (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Norm in Chicago

                            I think we should all vote on the same day, and during the same hours.  It's only fair.  If you can't get up the motivation or put up with a line to vote, then you really don;'t have any right to complain when the other party wins.

                            I've always thought of early and mail-in voting as gaming the system.  I don't see it as much different than voter ID laws.  That's just gaming the system by the other guys.  I do support absentee voting, however - especially for students and military.

                          •  I see it the other way - how long is the line you (0+ / 0-)

                            stand in? How many hours does it take to get through and do you have to take time off work (and money out of your pocket) to vote?

                            Long lines, to my mind, is voter suppression.

                            I think early and mail-in voting is on the rise, because people don't trust that when to go to vote on election day, they won't be faced with a 5-hour wait.

                          •  It breeds complacency (0+ / 0-)

                            The easier we make voting, the more we make it less and less effort, the more people will give up on voting altogether when things like mail-in-voting are taken away.

                            It's almost a perfect system.  Get everyone dependent on mail-in-voting, get them lazy, then take it away.  Boom, only the hardcore crazy right shows up to vote, and presto, no more government services.

                          •  It's a big subject - lots of facets (0+ / 0-)

                            What, can't discuss more than one thing at a time?  Boring.

                            1)  Correct, mail in voting should not be blamed.  If people wanted to support the two Dems and their legislation, they would have.  If they wanted to make the effort, they would have.  They didn't.

                            2)  I wasn't talking about doing "something" for mental health in general.  I meant they didn't address mental health with respect to background checks.  And neither have you.  Address due process in court, or drop it.  You don't get to revoke Constitutional rights with a note written by a shrink who may or may not be a quack.

                            3)  Gun bans do reduce GUN violence.  But just like chemical weapons in Syria, the anti-gun side is happy to ignore all violence that isn't gun violence.  The AR-15 is just another "WMD" to you guys, and as long as a WMD isn't used, mass slaughter is just fine.

          •  your definitions are strange. (0+ / 0-)

            One can be both courageous and stupid.  

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:44:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I guess that's suicide in a nutshell (0+ / 0-)

              Those who are brave enough to be stupid end up dead.

              •  Norm... (0+ / 0-)

                You very clearly have no understanding of suicide AND obviously have never suffered depression.  Your comment is part of a blind stupidity shared by chunks of society that fail to see major (and other) depression for what it is...  a disease.  It is not stupidity, or cowardice, or laziness...  it is a disease.

                Your little comment seems cute and innocuous to you, but it perpetuates a hateful clulessness that hurts people who are struggling with a often hidden, difficult to diagnose and deal with medical issue.  

          •  What they passed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stevenaxelrod

            was good practice for mental health. If you have a suicidal person providers always try to get the guns out of the house until the person has responded to treatment.

            The restrictions were reasonable and in line with what was possible. I agree that there needed to be some money dedicated to mental health services but with our cash strappped government sometimes all you can accomplish is regulation.

        •  Yet polls show (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude, stevenaxelrod

          MOST people are advocates of sensible gun regulations.

          While I'm at it, hat tip to my congresswoman who actually voted against a campaign finance bill, something she supports, because it had a carve-out exclusively for the NRA, and she is a big gun control advocate. But in this urban district which went for Obama by some absurd total (several wards on the east side of my city by a 10-1 margin), she's not in danger.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

          by anastasia p on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:19:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and in yesterday's elections, (0+ / 0-)

            MOST people stayed at home.

            I'm sure there was quite a degree of overlap between those two MOSTs.

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:03:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Last time I checked (0+ / 0-)

              we don't get to trample people's rights, just because "Most" people agree we should.  If you buy that logic, we'd still have Jim Crow laws.

              •  I'm not arguing right or wrong; (0+ / 0-)

                I'm explaining voter demographics.

                Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                by corvo on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:30:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is.. (0+ / 0-)

            ..what constitutes 'sensible gun regulations'?

            To me, universal background checks and a uniform process for the issuing of CCW's are sensible and I support them.

            Outright bans on CCW's and .50 caliber rifles are things I oppose and I vote accordingly.

            I suspect your definition of sensible differs from mine.

            My point is that saying the majority favors sensible gun regulations is a bit too open ended because there's more than a little nuance involved.

    •  One way is to put voting at their doorstep (8+ / 0-)

      and mailing a ballot to every voter.  We saw a clear experiment last night.  Colorado is largely a vote-by-mail state now, and when people didn't have that usual option, they just didn't show up.

    •  Do what they do in Australia (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya, HM2Viking, Aquarius40

      make voting compulsory by law.

    •  As far as my experience goes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike

      in swing states like PA and FL, the party puts fuck-all into midterms, unless there is some specific reason like a particular race that is really high-profile. In solid-blue states like MD, there's more put into the midterms (in MD there are presidential election years and gubernatorial, and the governor's race brings more visibility and attention to the midterms, IMO). I'm guessing that what's really going on here is that, if the state party is powerful and well-funded (as in blue states) more is made of midterms; where the state party is less powerful or in outright disarray, not so much.

       But the fact is, for the sake of gaining and maintaining majorities over the Republicans, that's kind of bass-ackwards.  If the party is really interested in gaining and preserving majorities in Congress, they should be seriously investing in swing states during midterms. The blues will for the most part stay blue, though obviously one should never expect to coast to victory (thank you, Martha Coakley).

      There are ways that we could boost midterm turnout, but (again IMO) the party is moving very much away from doing them.  Although of course we had anti-Bush sentiment to help the process along (which shouldn't be underestimated) I think it's no accident that midterm voter turnout significantly increased when Dean was doing his 50-state strategy.  You can see we lost almost 6 million voters between 2006 and 2010, although I guess someone with better election math foo than me might know a reason why you can't just straight-up compare the number of voters in 2006 to the number of voters in 2010.  But as I understand the numbers, between 2002 and 2006, we increased our voter turnout by nearly 7 million; between 2006 and 2010, we lost about 6 million of the 7 million we'd gained; in 2014, who knows? If we do go to war with Syria and it lasts into the summer of 2014 or later, I would expect a higher voter turnout than in 2010. Otherwise, my guess is it's going to continue to be low (just a guess, and of course big galvanizing events that aren't wars can also happen).

      The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:19:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For instance, Bob Casey was one such (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christopher Walker, scott5js

        high-profile race, probably b/c Santorum was so loathsome.  He was so loathsome that he managed to piss off former Republican (maybe at the time still Republican) Teresa Heinz. That sort of thing can help generate interest (it's always good to have an intelligent and extremely motivated  person with lots of money behind a campaign).

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:23:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just For The Record (3+ / 0-)
          He was so loathsome that he managed to piss off former Republican (maybe at the time still Republican) Teresa Heinz.
          She had left by then.  She left in 2002 when the Repugs went after her and her husband's good friend Max Cleland.  She said she guessed it was Cleland's fault for only losing three limbs in service to his country and not all four.

          “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

          by RoIn on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:35:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Another instance of loathsomeness. (0+ / 0-)

            The Republicans of that era present a whole buffet of loathsomeness.

            The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:47:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  this probably has alot to do with $ (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD

        and ability to raise $:

        in swing states like PA and FL, the party puts fuck-all into midterms, unless there is some specific reason like a particular race that is really high-profile.
        Without someone high profile at the top of the ticket, it's hard to raise money and run a proper coordinated campaign.

        It also matters that you have someone at the top of the ticket that is a party-builder. Not every Dem is.

        Nancy Pelosi: "We have a Democratic president -- Thank God!"

        by Newsie8200 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:14:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Talk up voting in every election (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PassionateJus

      Do so, and tell Democrats you know that you do. I think I last missed an election in 1974.
      When I have called in to Pacifica station KPFT in Houston I have sometimes said I vote in every election. I have always gotten good reception from radio hosts.
      If you live in Houston please vote for Mayor Annise Parker and for Jenifer Pool for one City Council seat (at-large). Early voting starts Monday October 21.

      Censorship is rogue government.

      by scott5js on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:20:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Relying on "our" atttention deficit voters is and (0+ / 0-)

      will cost dearly and perhaps lose the game for the long term. We see in a number of states the efforts of those allowed in by "yay, yay I voted!—not interested next year" crowd rigging the system to prevent even more steadfast and interested voters on our side from voting at all. I am truly pessimistic that the younger voters that bring us momentary glimmers of hope have the attention span to consolidate gains. Worse, I think it is getting almost too late because I see the country rapidly on the road toward what many second world countries are trying to climb from.

      I hear a lot here about older voter turn out. Yep, those of us just WW II and just after grew up in a culture where responsible people voted. Civics was taught and my civics, in a deep South state, relentlessly taught us that every election counted and that inattention had bad results.

      I have to admit I'm personally getting fed up with people on this site and that I come into contact with elsewhere that should be allies, should help get the kind of government I want and they chatter about who cannot be bothered to do the duty of a citizen, pay attention and vote consistently and long enough to actually bring about some of those changes we want.

      Maybe it is going to take the hot poker up the ass for some of these people to find their civil rights really, really infringed upon in an up close and personal way by thuggish local politicians they support by standing by instead of turning out when they are needed. It is in those off elections, those little local things, where the things that can end up with you losing property, being really cheated, going to jail when you protest, being shot by rogue law enforcement are purged or let happen. Then that poker is just as likely to get me and it is just possible it is too late to turn back if this win one, too fucking busy and inattentive next time continues.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:30:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Colorado disaster (9+ / 0-)

    was fueled by the lack of universal vote-by-mail in these two races.  For whatever reason a judge in Colorado decided that universal vote-by-mail was not applicable for these two races.  And that cost us the Morse race for sure, but probably also the Giron race.

    I suspect that vote-by-mail was the fundamental reason why Colorado has turned from a lean-red state to a lean-blue state.  I would suggest passing VBM or some equivalent in every blue state, and putting it on the ballot in every other state.

    •  Was that only for this election? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, Gygaxian

      And was there ever a reason given for getting rid of it?

    •  Dem leaning indies are still too lazy (5+ / 0-)

      The biggest problem the Democrats have, is getting their lazy Dem leaning independents to the polls!  Poll after Poll shows the U.S. is actually a liberal leaning country, but too many of the people responding in those polls simply are too lazy to vote, especially in special elections.  The Repugs know this, which is why we see all the voter suppression laws across the country.

      Sometimes I think America doesn't deserve the Republic they have.

      •  Lazy is far too harsh and innacurate (4+ / 0-)

        Indifferent is far more accurate. Most independents aren't political moderates that are highly informed, they're people that largely don't care enough to vote past the presidential race.

        Just because they aren't as passionate about the same issues as you are doesn't make them lazy, and it doesn't give you the right to personally judge them anymore than you have the right to call an overweight person lazy for not exercising as much as another might. Grow up.

        •  Which is why the "ground game" will always... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude, scott5js

          ...be more important than media spending for us. I bet there were enough votes out there to retain at least one of those Senators who lost in Colorado - if only a few thousand dollars had been spent identify and cajoling a few thousand casual supporters to the polls.

          I know for many of us the idea of talking people into electoral participation is abhorrent: people ought to participate in EVERY election just because.

          But we don't.

          Over the decades I have missed a handful of special elections or tiny primary contests simply because they never made it onto my personal "radar."

          When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

          by Egalitare on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:06:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Lazy is a perfectly applicable term (0+ / 0-)

          Not voting because you're not "passionate" about your democracy is damn lazy!  Many Americans have died to preserve this very fragile democracy. If you can't take a few hours to inform yourself and participate in the democracy by voting, than you're pretty damn lazy in my book.

          Voting is pretty important.  I suggest you reassess your priorities mike, and at the very least, don't go around telling people to grow up because you might underestimate the importance of democracy.

          •  You really think that voting is the only way (0+ / 0-)

            to participate in a Democracy? What if they are enlisted soldiers who actually do fight to preserve the democracy, but they don't vote? Are they lazy? What about other public servants who contribute to the general welfare of society on a daily basis? Do you have to vote in every election to preserve democracy? Because democracy has been doing alright for the last 200+ years with marginal participation, particularly outside of the presidential level.

            The problem with attitudes like yours is that you seem far more concerned about puffing up your chest and feeling self-important than you do about actual causes. Any practical logic would tell you that you don't insult people who you want to convince to work with you on something.

            It's one thing to be frustrated with a political loss. It's another to call names and act like a child/bully.

            I suggest you reassess your level of self-importance, and at the very least, don't go around calling people names simply because they don't do what you want them to do.

            •  Without voting, there is no democracy (0+ / 0-)

              here's the google definition of democracy:

              a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
              Without voting, you don't get elected representation.

              And our democracy is NOT doing "alright"!  The Oligarchs are getting more and more control, precisely because non voters and half the voters, don't inform themselves properly and vote the crooked bastards out.  Citizens United, voter suppression laws, overturning voter protection laws... No, our democracy is not doing "alright".

      •  Both of these districts had large %s of voters (4+ / 0-)

        who vote by mail. The recallers successfully tossed out mail in voting for this election. That is the single most important thing to understand about why this election went the way it did.

        And that decision wasn't made until late in the process. The recallers did a good job of confusing, distorting, lying and cheating (within in the bounds of what is legal as decided by a GOPer Sec. of State and the courts).

      •  lazy? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rhauenstein, Chas 981

        People have lives. They work 2 jobs and chase their kids around when they are not at work.

        Give them a break. Respect the voter.

        Nancy Pelosi: "We have a Democratic president -- Thank God!"

        by Newsie8200 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:12:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Voter? they didn't vote, that's the problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          XenuLives

          I understand and sympathize with the people who absolutely can't get to the polls, but the VAST majority of eligible voters who don't vote, are too busy keeping up their facebook page or watching American Idle to take the time to vote.

          The polling data is clear, this would be a very different country if people who can vote actually went out and voted.

          •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pollwatcher

            And I think this is our most important effort for this year's municipal elections and next year's Congressional ones.

            We have to motivate people to go out and vote.

          •  Prove it (0+ / 0-)

            How could you possibly know that "the VAST majority of eligible voters who don't vote, are too busy keeping up their facebook page or watching American Idle (sic) to take the time to vote"??!

            I assume this is based on your VAST research into voting patterns?  

            This is ignorant, "get off my lawn" style whining with no basis in fact.  

            Our energy should be going into doing everything we can to win the votes we need, not self-righteously judging the very people we need to win.  

    •  Blaming vote by mail only makes my point (5+ / 0-)

      Gun restrictions poll well among a bunch of wishy-washy people who wring their hands and say "oh, we must do SOMETHING!".  And they're perfectly happy to say they support gun restrictions when called and asked about it.

      But they're not willing to fight for their positions.  They're not willing to actually go vote for them.  And I'm not even sure if vote-by-mail is enough.  Maybe if they were all sent stamped, pre-addressed ballots that were already filled in, maybe, possilby, those wimps would have the energy to put the ballot back in the mail box.
      More likely it would just sit unopened in the junk mail pile.

      •  Who do you think are the people who vote by mail? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge, Norm in Chicago, Egalitare, askew

        Many are elderly, sick or don't have a car to get to the polls.

        Yeah, their not willing to fight. Bull.

        The NRA and the right won this fair and square - but it was dirty. That doesn't mean they didn't win and Dems should take heed - the NRA and right is going to pull every trick in the book to win. IE, voter suppression by cutting off mail in voting, limiting polling places, etc. If they do that and the courts sign off on it, then more power to them.

        •  on net, (0+ / 0-)

          making it easier for people to vote will make it harder for special interests to win over positions that have majority, but diffuse support.  It does not mean there will never be a conservative victory thru VBM or IRV or whatever reform you propose.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:59:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I thought the GOP was all old people (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40, Victor Ward

          And Dems were all young.  We have age on our side.  By your logic, Dems should have won this in a landslide.

          So how did all the old sick Republicans get to the polls while all the young healthy Dems just couldn't manage?

        •  You made my point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Norm in Chicago, scott5js

          Scorched earth politics is what the right has developed over time. Its the win at all costs mentality.

          Burn the house to the ground rather than allow your opponents a place at the table.

          A scorched earth policy is a military strategy which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. It is a military strategy where all of the assets that are used or can be used by the enemy are targeted, such as food sources, transportation, communications, industrial resources, and even the people in the area
          •  True, and I wonder how the general voting public (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HM2Viking

            is going to view this - what the Dems passed was by no means radical. In fact, the background check bill was very similar to the background check policy passed by the Colorado GOP 12 years ago post Columbine.

            How does the casual voter/viewer see this? I bet a lot see the right and the NRA as totally bonkers - they recalled legislators because they passed background check policy?

            I think there is a possibility this will be a "win the battle but lose the larger war" kind of deal.

          •  How do you think the North won the Civil War? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            scott5js

            Sorry, but scorched earth policy works, and usually works very well.  There's a reason "salt the earth" is in the old testament.  It's the winners of thousands of years of war who lived to write that book.

            •  Salt of The Earth Is New Testament (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Norm in Chicago
              There's a reason "salt the earth" is in the old testament.
              It is in the New Testament.  It is part of the Sermon on the Mount which is about as far from "scorched earth" as one can get.

              “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

              by RoIn on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:39:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're confusing two different terms. (0+ / 0-)

                As a fan of ancient history, I must point out that being the salt OF the earth is not at all the same thing as salting the earth

                Salting the earth is a bad thing. It was performed on the territory belonging to conquered enemies to prevent them from growing crops.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                Salting the earth does show up in the old testament.

                Judges 9:45

                The battle went on all day before Abimelech finally captured the city. He killed the people, leveled the city, and scattered salt all over the ground

                "Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." -- JFK

                by Tryptophan on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:21:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Military? (0+ / 0-)

          The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:25:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well...as a former Floridian I don't consider (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Norm in Chicago

          voter suppression to be "fair and square." I'm guessing Ohioans don't either.

          Nonetheless, your primary (heh) point stands.

          The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:26:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Quite wrong (0+ / 0-)

        VBM would have doubled the turnout yesterday and kept these two senators in office.

    •  You can blame what you like (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward, LordMike

      But it is really just like in Texas.  The apathy of liberals who think that they can insult then be friendly.

      Colorado is a state with a low population density that has a relatively high gun murder rate for the density.  One would expect it to be half of what it is.  It is a state with a above average median family income, but still a poverty rate that is not that much less than average.  Almost 9 out of 10 people are white so there is not a lot of diversity there either.  It is clear that since problems like gun violence and poverty do not effect the elite of the Colorado, they it is not a big issue.  They want their guns.

      So,in a nice way, we have to educate the elite that these things are a problem.  That having a murder rate so high is  problem, even if they don't see it.

      •  Again nonsense (0+ / 0-)

        These districts were won by Obama by 20%.  Have an electorate that Obama won by even 10 and these two are still in office.

        The electorate that came out yesterday were voters that went to Romney by 5-10%.  There was a 10% registration edge for the Rs yesterday.

  •  Wonder how the Wisconsin... (5+ / 0-)

    ..."recall should just be for cases of misconduct", "democrats"  feel about this...?

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:06:38 AM PDT

  •  Well, last night was a great night in New York... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neo Control, mbradshawlong

    but not so much in Colorado.

    I honestly think we should eliminate not just recall elections but also special elections for any political office in the U.S. other than Congress. Either that, or make voting mandatory in all elections.

    As for Colorado, maybe having the Speaker of the House be an ultraliberal safely ensconced in his Denver seat isn't that great of an idea. It insulates him from what the state outside of Denver really thinks.

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:08:24 AM PDT

    •  It's our job to get voters to the polls (5+ / 0-)

      rather than to eliminate recalls and special elections simply because we have trouble with them. On recalls, if enough people are mad at their legislator to produce a valid petition, said legislator really should have to make the case to his supporters that he should be re-elected. Remember that Morse and Giron last won elections in 2010 of all years!

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

      by fearlessfred14 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:09:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  turnout in PA on Nov 5, 2013 - expected low again (9+ / 0-)

    In PA, we have general elections every year in November.  In the odd-numbered years, we elect judges, school boards, township officials.

    Turnout this November is expected to be low, as usual, with GOP turnout higher than Dem turnout - as usual.

    These off year elections are MEANINGFUL for PEOPLEs' LIVES and RIGHTS.

    We are voting to retain for another 10 years (or not to retain) 2 Justices of the State Supreme Court (one a Dem and one a GOP), voting for a new judge on the state Superior Court (a Dem versus a GOP), voting to retain or not to retain judges on the state Superior Court, plus electing many county-level judges for Courts of Common Pleas (the lowest level court in the state).

    These are judges who may be called on to rule on issues that affect our daily lives.

    In PA the judges who will ultimately rule on whether SAME SEX MARRIAGE is allowed or banned in PA were elected by the voters - but many are Republicans because Dem voters do not bother to vote in the off year elections when judges are on the ballot.

    Elections have consequences - and failure to vote in elections has consequences.

    If more Dem voters had bothered to vote in past elections for the state Supreme Court (including past retention elections - retain yes or no for another 10 years), we could expect to have same sex marriage in PA in a matter of months (when the state Supreme Court rules on this).  But because so many Democrats have various excuses for not voting, PA may not have same sex marriage at all - because the conservative GOP judges who WERE elected to the state Supreme Court in those low-turnout elections will find some excuse to continue the ban on same sex marriage in PA.

    Think about that!

  •  not gun safety laws (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neo Control

    It's exactly that sort of dishonest framing that loses.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:24:54 AM PDT

  •  Its GOTV Stupid! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan, rbird, wmspringer, Stude Dude

    I hope the DCCC gets the message in time for 2014.  Spending gobs of campaign cash on adds trying to convince a minority of mainly slightly right to far right voters to vote for our candidates is a waste of money.  It would be far more productive to use that same cash on GOTV efforts to turn out the majority of Dem. base voters and to register new Dem. base voters.  That's how we win in 2014.  

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:36:22 AM PDT

    •  People spend lots of money on TV (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude, Aquarius40, LordMike, askew

      because it still works. The research and polling shows it in race after race after race. It's true that in some races, the budget should be adjusted and more should be put into digital (for example) and a little less on TV. But campaigns love to get on TV because it works.

      In a lot of places, you have NO choice but to go after slightly right of center voters. I work in politics, and one of the best things is to watch a focus group participant (usually right-of-center) change his/her mind after watching an ad you helped put together or after listening to a Dem attack on a Republican.

      DCCC spends tons of money on GOTV efforts. Party committees AND progressive groups spend millions on base turnout and turning out infrequent progressive voters.

      Nancy Pelosi: "We have a Democratic president -- Thank God!"

      by Newsie8200 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:18:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Weiner not only lost big time but was upstaged by (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ekgrulez1

    his sexting partner:

    Sidney Leathers

  •  Well, that really sucks (3+ / 0-)

    Came to Kos this morning just to find out what happened with the Colorado recalls; I had hoped to hear we gave the NRA a black eye, but it sounds like their voter suppression tactics (combined with an odd-year election) won this one. :-(

  •  balanced ticket (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott5js

    In my youth, the state Rs in NY ran a ticket of Lefkowitz, Fino, and Gilhooly--meant to appeal to the perceived strongest ethnic groups.  Notice--all white guys.  Now 50 years later, DeBlasio balanced the ticket within his family--white guy, black lesbian wife, kids doing the commercials.  You can be cynical and claim it's the same game--or, you can say--look how far we've come--look who is getting pandered--look who has the power.  Politics can be very obvious.

    Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

    by melvynny on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:47:27 AM PDT

  •  One way to improve turnout in off-years (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    is to have municipal issues brought before the people in the district, even if they are non-binding referendums on things young people and Dems care about.  The Religious Right has been using this tactic for years.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:49:57 AM PDT

  •  We are a lazy bunch... (9+ / 0-)

    Anyone paying attention to what Republicans have been up to will see that the game is at the local and state level.  They know we won't show up in off-year elections.  Why don't we?  Fuck if I know, but we are the laziest bunch of shits on the planet.  Even in state districts where we have a great deal of strength, we just don't fucking show up.  In this instance, it wasn't gerrymandering that sunk us, WE sunk us.  What is it, we don't realize just how fucking important local, state, and congressional elections are?  Even after all the examples from Wisconsin, Michigan,  to the House of Representatives?

    We're pathetic.  

    Tell me what to write. tellmewhattowrite.com 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

    by rbird on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:54:58 AM PDT

    •  people only care about president (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike

      Most people probably couldn't tell you who their representative is or senator. The presidency is different, people feel they make a statement when they vote for president.
      The only time people vote is when they are mad like democrats in 2006 and  republicans in.2010.

  •  If the gamesmanship starts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    of a baseless recall then the Co Democratic Party will have to fight the battle by going after another 2 sitting GOP senators.

  •  Scorched earth politics (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, LordMike, scott5js

    Attempting to overturn legislation through recall rather than normal legislative processes is the new GOP game plan.

    •  And it is a strategy that will work (0+ / 0-)

      Unless Democrats and anti-gun liberals realize that 80% of people, even a good number of liberals, SUPPORT the Second Amendment and say that it means what it says: that NO infringement on law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms are acceptable.

      That means no attempts to 'make a registry of firearms' that can be used in the future to seize firearms from private citizens, just like the lists of Jews were used to kill and arrest Jews in Nazi Germany.

      That means no undue and oppressive 'regulations' on how you have to store your firearms (insisting on a gun cabinet with plated glass and a trigger lock to be sold with guns is okay, nothing more) that are a de-facto attempt to make owning a weapon so expensive that the poor and less well-off cannot afford to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

      Don't even TRY the 'think of the children' thing, because all things considered.... very few children are killed by guns compared to other things killing them.
      Yes, those killings/accidental deaths are tragic but they DO NOT justify more restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

  •  You think turnout was bad? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShoshannaD, LordMike, scott5js, jncca

    Come to Cincinnati. The turnout for our mayoral primary yesterday was a miniscule 5.68%.
    Unsure whether to laugh or cry.

    Just another day in Oceania.

    by drshatterhand on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:07:15 AM PDT

  •  Who Cares (4+ / 0-)

    The next time some ugly mass shooting occurs in Colorado (and it will, the people there can't help themselves) I'll greet it with a big "meh." You get what you vote for, so who cares if they now can buy a 10,000 round per minute weapon?

  •  i figured Liu would get more votes than Weiner (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rexxnyc, Gygaxian

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:21:03 AM PDT

  •  RI Gov not a sure thing (0+ / 0-)

    Your assumption that the Dem is a shoo in for RI Gov is unfounded.  RI has had mostly GOP Govs over the past few decades.  The Dem nominee needs to show that they can govern responsibly and provide some check on the Dem legislature or voters will put another Republican in the Governor's chair.

  •  Well it seems the "Repeal the Second Amendment"... (0+ / 0-)

    ...folks are pretty quiet today. As they should be. Maybe, just maybe we will relearn the lesson that Bill Clinton learned in the 90's. Gun control focused on the limiting the rights of responsible citizens is a loser for our party. Let us instead push for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and severely punishing the criminal use of firearms.

    As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

    by wishbone on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:55:28 AM PDT

  •  So Anthony Weiner only Got 5% of the Vote? (0+ / 0-)

    And then flipped everyone off?

    Dude is a joke.

    I'm a "right-wing freak show," or at least that's what one nobody on DKOS seems to think.

    by kefauver on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:30:01 PM PDT

  •  I am personally celebrating the CO recalls (0+ / 0-)

    The Second Amendment, speaking as an extreme liberal on most other subjects, means what it says: NO restrictions on law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms are acceptable.

    If they truly want to cut down on gun crimes, they would legalize the drug trade, which is where 90%+ of the gun crimes in America, including gun related murders, are coming from today.

    They would also start focusing on putting people who use guns in the commission of a crime behind bars for a long time.

    I'm sick and tired of people saying that I have to give up my rights to own firearms simply because some people misuse and abuse their right to those firearms. Whose main purpose is NOT to murder a human being today that are not owned by the military (99.999% of guns are never used to kill someone) but to target shoot, hunt game, and use for self-defense from people who attack you.

    Yes, there are some very tragic accidents that happen and yes, some children end up dead.... but some children end up dead from various household chemicals, getting run over by cars, etc. and I don't see people calling for those to be made illegal.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site