Skip to main content

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

11:37 AM PT: KS-Gov: We now have a third poll confirming that Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is in remarkably poor shape for re-election. Even though Kansas is a deep red state, PPP finds Brownback trailing his Democratic opponent, state House Minority Leader Paul Davis, by a 42-40 spread. That goes along with Brownback's miserable 33-51 job approval rating, down from an already-awful 37-52 a year ago. Davis, meanwhile, is mostly unknown, with a 23-18 favorability score, so as Tom Jensen says, the head-to-head results are indisputably a referendum on Brownback.

And it goes without saying that an incumbent stuck at 40 percent is in an unhappy place, which is what all the polling has shown. In October, SurveyUSA found Davis ahead by a similar 43-39 margin, but perhaps most telling, a Republican internal released earlier this month only had Brownback at 42, with Davis at 31. So why is Brownback in such dire straits? Well, there actually is such a thing as being too conservative, even in a state like Kansas, which until recently was home to a distinct branch of more moderate Republican office-holders.

Brownback and his allies snuffed out that wing of the GOP in the 2012 primaries, but the voters who supported those moderates didn't disappear. Instead, they've watched in disgust as the ultra-conservatives have rammed through radical legislation, including big tax cuts and spending cuts that have savaged education funding, among other things. Indeed, even many self-identified Republicans disapprove of Brownback's performance. And now Kansans have the chance to take these feelings out on their governor, who was never popular to begin with and was fortunate to ride the 2010 wave into office.

Of course, the undecided voters in PPP's survey lean heavily Republican—60 percent say they supported Mitt Romney versus just 27 percent who voted for Barack Obama. And ordinarily, that would offer a decent cushion for a Republican in a red state. But you can't simply allocate all of those Romney voters to Brownback, since they only say they're supporting him by a 63-16 margin, which is very weak. (Obama backers are 78-9 in favor of Davis.) And even if you did, Brownback would only wind up with a 51-47 advantage.

There is, in other words, something the matter in Kansas, but for once, the problem may redound to the Democrats' advantage. While Davis still has a lot to prove, and the Sunflower State's demographics still offer some insurance to Brownback, we no longer think the incumbent is likely to win. We've long had our eye on this race as a potential upset, and the polling has now demonstrated that Brownback's advantage has narrowed. If there's a blue state analog, it's Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, whose personal unpopularity has made him exceptionally vulnerable for re-election. Brownback's not quite there yet, but we're moving the race to Lean Republican to reflect his increasingly precarious position.

11:37 AM PT (David Jarman): WA-04: There's one more top-tier entrant to the Republican field for the open seat in the dark-red 4th: the former director of the state Dept. of Agriculture, Dan Newhouse. One potential problem for Newhouse among the more rabid GOP voters, though, is that he was appointed to that position by Democratic then-Gov. Chris Gregoire (though he was a Republican state Rep. before that). Another name you can strike from the list, though, is state Rep. Judy Warnick, who instead of running for Congress will seek a promotion to the seat being vacated by state Sen. Janea Holmquist Newbry (who went from exploring the race to a formal announcement in only a matter of days).

12:01 PM PT: GA-Sen: A new poll from the Hicks Evaluation Group and Apache Political Communications finds a five-way pile-up in Georgia's Republican Senate primary. Businessman David Perdue leads with 13, while Reps. Jack Kingston and Paul Broun are both at 11 and Rep. Phil Gingrey and former Secretary of State Karen Handel take 10 apiece. There's been almost no recent polling of this race, but everything we've seen to date suggests a wide-open affair—and one that should be ripe for some Democratic ratfucking.

12:12 PM PT: OR Ballot: New internal polling from Anzalone Liszt Grove on behalf of Oregon United for Marriage finds 55-41 support in favor of a ballot measure to repeal the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. That's up from 51-43 last July, though the issue could conceivably be moot by this fall. Oregon's attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, recently announced that she would not defend the state's ban in court, and judges in several fast-moving federal cases around the country have already found a constitutional right to marry.

Still, that's no reason at all to slack off in Oregon, since equality supporters would rather control their own fate rather than leave it up to lawsuits—and they undoubtedly want to remove this bit of bigotry from the state constitution regardless of what happens in the courts.

12:28 PM PT: KS-Sen: Meanwhile, PPP also rather predictably finds that Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, who has been lacerated for weeks over his thin ties to his home state, has seen his approval ratings drop a bunch. A year ago, the rather anonymous Roberts has a 31-28 job approval score; now that's down to 29-38. Even Republican primary voters only give him the thumbs up by a 38-32 spread. Roberts' tea party rival, physician Milton Wolf, remains almost entirely unknown, which helps explain why the incumbent holds a 49-23 lead. But against "someone more conservative" (aka Republican Jesus), Roberts clings to just a 43-39 edge. As we've been saying, if Wolf can get some real money behind him, he could definitely doom Roberts.

No matter what happens with the GOP nomination, though, Democrats don't realistically have a shot at a pickup. Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor, who has been weighing a bid since last November, takes 32 percent of the vote whether he faces Roberts (who earns 48) or Wolf (who gets 33). Even if Taylor were to get in, neither Roberts nor Wolf suffers from the deep unpopularity that Gov. Sam Brownback does, and Democrats would need a fatally flawed opponent to have a chance.

12:37 PM PT: NJ-03: Even though the Democratic establishment has rallied around Burlington County Freeholder Aimee Belgard almost from day one, it looks like she'll nevertheless face a contested primary in New Jersey's open 3rd Congressional District. Jack Fanous, the executive director of a veterans group called the G.I. Go Fund, says he's running, and he also claims to have raised $100,000 in a single week, though he doesn't appear to have filed paperwork with the FEC yet.

12:47 PM PT: LA-Sen: Chris Lehane, an advisor to billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, says that his boss's group, NextGen Climate Action, won't go after vulnerable Democrats who support the Keystone pipeline this year. That's a relief in particular for Sen. Mary Landrieu, who had reason to fear winding up in NextGen's crosshairs. But, says Lehane, "We're certainly not subscribing to what I would call the tea party theory of politics"—in other words, putting purity ahead of electability and thus sabotaging your chances at victory.

12:54 PM PT: MS-Sen: Quotes in a newspaper article are on thing. Video is something else entirely, and you can sure bet that Republican Sen. Thad Cochran wishes this newly unearthed clip had stayed buried. In a 2008 editorial board meeting, Cochran said that "I really like" both John McCain and Barack Obama, and then heaped further praise on the Democrat ("I think he will do an excellent job" with respect to diplomacy, and more). It's not hard to see these snippets winding up in an attack ad from Cochran's primary opponent, state Sen. Chris McDaniel.

1:03 PM PT: HI-Gov: Not long ago, former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann didn't dispute reports that he might switch parties to run for governor as a Republican. Now he's saying he might make an independent bid, or more specifically, run as a member of the new Hawaii Independent Party, which is still trying to qualify for the ballot. If this does happen, it could set up a bizarre three-way rematch between the three major gubernatorial contenders in 2010: Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie, Republican Duke Aiona (who is also considering a second bid), and, of course, Hannemann.

1:18 PM PT: FL-13: You never want to read too much into early voting statistics for a variety of reasons, but as of Wednesday, 42 percent of the absentee ballots cast in the FL-13 special election have come from Republicans while 39 percent have been from Democrats. But despite what that spread might imply on the surface, reporter Adam Smith interprets this as bad news for GOP nominee David Jolly.

That's because in 2012, Republicans actually had a 6-point advantage in the early vote, despite Barack Obama's massive efforts to win Florida. Even so, Obama still carried the 13th by about 1.5 percent. And while GOP Rep. Bill Young won handily, it's safe to say that Jolly won't have the same level of crossover support. Still, though, these early vote totals can change quickly, and if Republicans have decided to instead focus on Election Day turnout, then they may mean less than they have in the past.

1:21 PM PT: NH-Sen: In what's presumably an attempt to demonstrate that their negative advertising against Scott Brown has paid off—and an attempt to dissuade him from entering the contest—LCV has put out a new poll from PPP showing Brown trailing Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 47-39. Last month, PPP found Shaheen ahead just 46-43, the closest they've ever had the race.

1:24 PM PT: ID-02: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is actually capable of spending real money, has endorsed GOP Rep. Mike Simpson for re-election. Simpson faces a primary challenge from Club for Growth-backed attorney Bryan Smith.

1:34 PM PT: An update on Oregon: Pro-equality organizers say they are considering dropping their campaign if they receive a favorable ruling.

1:43 PM PT: NY-21: New York's Independence Party, a mostly corrupt, ideology-free institution that typically supports whichever candidate will funnel the most dough their way, has once again decided to back wealthy Republican businessman Matt Doheny. But the move is potentially fraught with peril. If Doheny loses the GOP nomination to Elise Stefanik, there's no real way to get him off the Independence line in November. That means he could wind up drawing votes away from Stefanik, which is exactly what happened to him in 2010, when Republican primary loser Doug Hoffman took 6 percent as the Conservative Party's candidate as Doheny lost by little more than 1 percent to Democrat Bill Owens.

2:41 PM PT: Here's a full link to that NH-Sen PPP poll.

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-)

    Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

    by David Nir on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 06:00:21 AM PST

  •  Snowed it (11+ / 0-)

    I am not sure if most of you are familiar with the term, but I am snowed in today here in Minnesota. Being snowed in literally means that the snow drifts are too high to be able to physically open your doors. So here I sit for a while. At least I don't have to fight the roads out there.

    I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

    by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 06:03:21 AM PST

  •  DC Mayor: WaPo endorses Bowser (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GAKeynesian, pademocrat

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    In an absolutely brutal editoral, the Washington Post endorsed councilwoman Muriel Bowser for mayor. I really dont see how Gray survives this election. His only hope is that the field is so crowded that he may be able to sneak through with a tiny plurality. Election is April 1.

    •  One thing I always want to hear more about (5+ / 0-)

      is how this information is shared. Is it usually more open source, or do people/campaigns want to keep it for themselves?

      Anyway, it was a good article. I suspect, though, that part of the problem lies in the fact that the Republicans are up against diminishing returns. As Setsuna Mudo once said to be in regards to competing in red areas, Democrats don't have the sort of relationships that Republicans have in these places. Maybe there's more to tap than I realize, but if you're already doing well because people are connected through churches and community groups, how much better can do you do? Will a technologically enhanced GOTV operation really make a difference here? This, of course, might lead into the problems the article alludes to: to be more dominant, you need to expand, but social conservatism is turning off voters and the people that you need to help you attract them.

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 06:56:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't speak for the Republicans (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bjssp, GAKeynesian, gabjoh

        but, Democratic state parties maintain voter file databases (typically managed by a 3rd party tech company like VAN), candidates typically have to "buy in" with a nominal fee to access the voter information.  Any data collected and entered into the database by campaigns' staff and volunteers are aggregated and searchable, indexed and updated with voter registration information and turnout history.  Public records and party driven data are thus collected and maintained by state parties.  I'm not sure if this is the case anymore, but when I worked for the party (during the Dean years) the DNC funded and had access to this information.  These data are most certainly not available to the public as Republicans would be able to benefit from these efforts.

        29, Hispanic, Current home: MO-05; Born: CA-13; Raised: CA-5; Political Work: KS-03, KS-02; Other work: TX-16

        by killacity on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:27:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I can't be bought, but I can be rented. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisJohn, Gygaxian, ArkDem14, GAKeynesian

      David Koch call me!  You guys need the help, I need the money.

      Note: I'm a committed enough Democrat that you'll have to wow me.  No lowballing.  Beggars can't be choosers.

      The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

      by Taget on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:23:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MI-Sen: TLL: Fake IDs, Voter Purges, Fed. Law Viol (9+ / 0-)

    So according to this article, TLL's campaign is claiming she did the state of Michigan a great service by eliminating the source of potential voter fraud by purging the roles. So far, so good, right?

    Unfortunately for her, she ended up violating federal law during one of these moves.

    Perhaps more unfortunately for the voters of Michigan and fans of democracy, the numbers don't seem to add up:

    Even within the scope of what was permitted, the numbers did not add up. During one of the periods the Times examined under Land's voter purge program, about 33,000 voters were removed from the rolls, even though 7,100 deaths took place in the state during that time and 4,400 people had moved out of state.

    Land's office disputed the accuracy of the report, arguing their records showed significantly fewer voters had been removed from the rolls. The Times pointed out that the problems were not unique to Michigan, and that states with Republican and Democratic election officials had struggled to interpret new federal laws, such as the Help America Vote Act.

    The most charitable interpretation here is that she was simply unsure of how to handle all of this stuff. A less charitable interpretation is that she was negligent but still not malicious in intent. Or maybe she just didn't really give a damn, because the goal was to get people off the rolls. I used to think this was unlikely, but the actions of her party over the last few years have made me think otherwise.

    Also, according to this article, admittedly not the most objective source, her time in office was marked by incompetence and fraud. Read the article for the details, but people working under her administration were sent to prison for selling undocumented immigrants IDs. They don't appear to have been high up, of course, but just imagine had this happened while a Democrat was Sec. of State. It'd be like Pearl Harbor on Fox News.

    Anyway, WHY IS IT SO GODDAMN DIFFICULT TO MAKE SENSE OF THIS PROCESS? Even with issues of federal/state boundaries, it can't be that mothereffin' complex, can it? I swear, I'm ready to run and file against Peter King right now for the sole purpose of making this my thing in Congress. My initial guess is that this less-than-comprehensive system benefits Republicans, even if it's not intentional on their part. Having a system that makes it easy to register and change registration, especially for people that don't drive and thus might not have IDs, isn't in their interest, and this would be true even if they weren't interested in partisan objectives when it comes to voting, which of course they are.

    "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

    by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 06:45:28 AM PST

    •  Of course there is no doubt they are doing this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bjssp, GAKeynesian

      to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning demographics.  That being said, deaths and moving out of state are not the only reason Michigan law allows removal of a voter from registration data; for example a voter may have moved to a different voting district and failed to re-register or the local voting board could have sent out polling information and had mail returned as deliverable. None of this, of course, means that TLL is not incompetent, just other reasons voters may have been removed.
      I strongly agree with your point that the entire procedure behind registration (in most states, not just MI) is anachronistic; there is simply no reason with our modern technology allowing us to painlessly update other secure information online with the government (for instance, does electronic filing of taxes in Michigan lead to tax fraud?) and our ability to database and track voter information means that secure information updates would be easy and secure to implement.  The ONLY reason not to modernize our voting systems is to make it harder for people to vote.  The only counter-argument that seems to hold some merit is cost, but are we saying we will deprive people of the right to vote based on something like .01% of the state's budget?

      29, Hispanic, Current home: MO-05; Born: CA-13; Raised: CA-5; Political Work: KS-03, KS-02; Other work: TX-16

      by killacity on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:37:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It couldn't be that hard for the office(s) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GAKeynesian

        in question to see if someone moved or otherwise verify the information, right?

        Until I have something more comprehensive to say, I'll simply state that if the cost is a problem, there's no reason this couldn't be paid for by the federal government, even if it were largely administered by states. No reason besides politics, that is.

        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

        by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:43:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This will have sticking power (0+ / 0-)

      Her single greatest claim to fame is that she was a really competent SoS.  That throws her entire reason for being into the trash.  Gary will destroy her on this (and fairly so).

  •  PA-Gov: Dem-on-Dem Violence begins (7+ / 0-)

    And it's McCord on Wolf:

    In an interview with NPR out in Pittsburgh, State Treasurer took a shot at former Revenue Secretary Tom Wolf in their battle for the Democratic nomination for Governor and also at sitting Governor Tom Corbett.

    “[The Democratic Party] says we’re here primarily for working people who don’t have a house with a $200,000 net worth, let alone $20 million net worth,” McCord said. “To say we’re gonna give the nomination for governor to anyone who can write a 10 million dollar check out of their own household, I think it’s not right. It’s not the right thing for the Democratic Party.”

    It was a not-so-subtle allusion to Wolf, who gave his own campaign $10 million, in addition to raising $3.2 million from other contributors.

    Wolf’s campaign declined to comment....

    It’s worth noting that McCord gave $1.7 million to his own campaign.

    •  Said the pot to the kettle <n/t> (5+ / 0-)

      "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

      by rdw72777 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:00:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  tell that to FDR the Kennedys. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jorge Harris, GAKeynesian

      ...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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:43:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To me its more about self-funding (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gabjoh, GAKeynesian

        I tend to lean against supporting anymore big self-funding megalomaniacs.

        "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 Feb 21, 2014 at 09:27:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is my prime complaint against John Delaney (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skaje, GAKeynesian, ArkDem14

          He literally came out of nowhere to run for Congress with his sole qualification being that he had a lot of money and was friends with Bill Clinton. Kind of a shitty end to Rob Gariagiola's career to have somebody swoop in and buy the seat out from under him.

          •  In all honesty, though (4+ / 0-)

            that didn't have to end Garagiola's career.  Delaney didn't make him skedaddle from his state Senate seat last year before the term was up; he'd probably be an easy reelection winner this year if he'd stayed put.

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

            by Mike in MD on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:50:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Gariagiola (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GAKeynesian, ArkDem14, jncca

            came across as a jerk though and I think that helped Delaney some: he was a credible non-Gariagiola (whether despite or because of Delaney's money).  If another serious candidate had run, like Ron Young, I could have seen them taking away votes from Delaney.  

            Also, like Mike said, he could have stayed put in the Senate for now. He's only 41; another opportunity for advancement, whether Congress or a statewide run, surely would have presented itself.

          •  Gariagiola got screwed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GAKeynesian

            But he also should've been prepared for such a scenario and if I remember correctly, he was caught completely off guard when it was pretty clear what was going to happen.  You don't self-fund and then do nothing with the money.

  •  NY-21 Woolf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChadmanFL, GAKeynesian

    Where is this guys website?  Why haven't we even heard from him since he was picked?

    Is he some kind of fake selection so Aubertine can take his time in running while the GOP primary heats up?

    I can't imagine Woolf being a real candidate with him doing nothing since being selected.

    32/D/M/NY-01/SSP&RRH: Tekzilla

    by Socks The Cat on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:03:42 AM PST

    •  It's been said that the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChadmanFL, GAKeynesian

      local party and the DCCC don't really work together on this stuff, so is it possible that his selection isn't the game changer we think it is? Others here know the inside baseball stuff better than I do.

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:06:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the problem is (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bjssp, sacman701, UpstateNYer, GAKeynesian

        That there really isn't any inside baseball.  For whatever reason, no one seems to want to run for the Dem side in this race.  Republicans have candidates, the Green's have candidates, but the Dems are a muddled mess.

        So I'm guessing Woolf was the best of who applied for the gig.  I don't think he's anyone we should get behind unless everyone, literally everyone who is better confirms once and for all that they won't run.  The Brooklynite hippy grocery store owner with a summer home in the district isn't a great profile for NY-21.  

        "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

        by rdw72777 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:12:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Probably, yes, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GAKeynesian

          but I'd like some more confirmation that everyone else we might prefer isn't interested. It's still pretty early, so there's no need to panic, but there's also no need to waste time.

          "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

          by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:15:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Considering the GOP (0+ / 0-)

          Badly did not want a primary between Stefanik and Doheny (in which Doheny is favored), I wouldn't exactly speak of their position enviously.

          Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

          by David Nir on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:52:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll take (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sacman701

            2 candidates running actual campaigns and trying to win over a single candidate not running a real campaign every day of the week.

            "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

            by rdw72777 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:03:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think he's fake (0+ / 0-)

      I think the county party chairs got charmed by him in-person...who knows why.  I doubt he actually runs if any significant opposition actually commits to the race, but I don't even know who they really interviewed during that process.  The party chairs didn't have to do any endorsement or anything like that.  

      Woolf looks pretty weak as a candidate thus far.

      "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

      by rdw72777 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:08:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some local GOP goons in my CT town (0+ / 0-)

        made up a fake Democratic candidate for State Representative. They claimed he was running in the Dem primary against the incumbent, and used that as "evidence" to prove that the incumbent was unpopular even among Democrats. Needless to say, they eventually had to come clean. The Democratic State Rep they were so intent on portraying as unpopular won re-election with over 70% of the vote, IIRC.

        Proud Progressive Social Studies teacher. (-9.50, -8.05) "Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime."--Phil Plait

        by betelgeux on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:28:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  NY-21 Doheny gets Independence line (9+ / 0-)

    Seems crazy that only a few days after entering the race Doheny has already secured the Indepepndence party line for NY-21.  Now we just need Doug Hoffman (or some other loon) to take the Conservative party line and Stefanik to get the Republican line...sounds sarcastic but it's a realistic scenario and a sure path to victory.

    http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/...

    "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

    by rdw72777 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:05:18 AM PST

  •  Davis leads Brownback by 2 (25+ / 0-)

    "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:16:25 AM PST

    •  I'll believe it when I see it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BeloitDem

      But that should definitely be giving Republicans nationwide pause. If they can't even keep Kansas just based on brand loyalty, they are not in for a 2010 redux.

      •  It might be unique to Kansas. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen, sulthernao, JBraden, jncca

        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

        by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:29:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It could be (0+ / 0-)

          But the fact that the numbers arent overly terrible for Senate points to something bigger to me.

          •  Oh, sure. I don't think it's going to be 2010. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            markhanna, JBraden, jncca

            If it ends up like that, I don't think we're seeing the signs of that now and probably won't for a few months. Kansas probably isn't the best example of that, though, since this is the first big reelection at the state level that deals with the extreme conservatism represented by Brownback and the more moderate elements that made up the state party in the past.

            "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

            by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:02:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Incumbency can still be a drag (0+ / 0-)

        Even in a negative environment. Especially in a gubernatorial race.

        "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:31:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, Kansas has recently elected Dems statewide (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pademocrat

        so it's extremely plausible.

        “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

        by KingofSpades on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:56:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stephen Wolf

          but I kind of had a "that was then, this is now" attitude towards Kansas.  A whole lot of states elected governors of the minority party in the 2000-2010 period, but seem to have decidedly turned against that now.  Kansas (and potentially South Carolina) offer hope of breaking that recent trend.

          A while back on DKE I asked "Are some states simply too red to elect Democratic governors, or too blue to elect Republican governors anymore?"  I guess we'll find out this year.

          •  What's being missed here (6+ / 0-)

            is that Kansas is extremely unique, hence why there is a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas".  Very Republican state but the Republican Party in KS is probably one of the most divided in the country.  Moderate suburbanites outside of Kansas City against the uber conservatives in the rural area.

            And up until redistricting, the moderate GOPers had somewhat of an alliance with the Democrats in the state senate to kill the absolutely batshit crazy stuff that would be expected out of a state as red as Kansas is.  Redistricting was done, the moderate suburbanite legislators were exchanged for conservative ones.  Hence why Brownback is very, very beatable this year.  He perfectly exemplifies the conservative side and we can win exactly how Sebellius did, by driving the wedge between the GOP and attracting GOP suburbanites to vote for us because we focus legislatively on things like funding education and transportation issues compared to allowing businesses to discriminate against gays or further restricting abortion.

    •  Also interesting are the Senate numbers. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, TrueBlueDem, JBraden

      Sebelius doesn't look like an option, but Taylor might be. A whopping 76 percent of voters here don't have an opinion of him, so despite the clear unpopularity of Obama in the state, perhaps he could successfully carve out his own identity. Against Roberts, he might not have a chance, but if Wolf gets the nomination, it looks open, at least right now. And Roberts could be in trouble. He's unpopular, and the Republican primary electorate seems to be open to someone more conservative.

      DSCC, let's get moving on this, okay?

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:27:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unless Wolf is a nut (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itskevin, KingTag

        It'll be like Nebraska last cycle. It isn't like the gubernatorial race where people disapproving of the job Brownback is already doing might be able to transcend the lean of the state.

        "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:33:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know if he's a nut, but (0+ / 0-)

          judging from his issues page, he's definitely someone we can attack. Hell, he claims he supports the FairTax, which, even if you assume the progressive measures were enacted, would still likely be horribly regressive. I imagine that alone is something that could be very damaging, as part of what is hurting Brownback now was his call to eliminate the state's income tax, based on the same sort of ideology.

          "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

          by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:39:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  KS-Gov (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sulthernao, ArkDem14, JBraden

      Neither party has served more than 8 consecutive years as KS governor since 1957.  It's entirely possible that Brownback's time is up.

      When Brownback's first term is up in 2015, Republicans will have held the governorship for 26 of the previous 58 years (Kansas used to have a two year term for governors), Democrats for 32, most recently prior to the 2010 election. Prior to 1957, Kansas was solid Republican, with only 8 of the proceeding 58 years under Democratic governors, and for no more than 2 years at a time.

      Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

      by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:30:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  # 6 on my list of possible takeovers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden

      I think Davis has a real shot.

      "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

      by Paleo on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:38:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He needs to be higher than 42% for me to have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueDem, JBraden

      confidence but Brownback at 40%... couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

      ...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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:57:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  In a less Republican state (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sulthernao, TrueBlueDem, killacity

      he'd be a dead man walking. He's almost in Corbett territory.  This poll does confirm that education could be an even more potent issue than I thought it would be, if even a plurality of Republicans think that he's short-changing schools.  The downside of 42/40 is that the undecideds are likely conservative-leaning but this race does have the potential to turn into something exciting.

      •  large amount of that Republican disapproval is (0+ / 0-)

        likely coming from Johnson county.  That being said, Johnson county (while pro-education funding) is not nearly as moderate as local conventional wisdom seems to assume.  Dennis Moore only actually carried JoCo once (in 2008, against a some dude opponent), they bounced their moderate state senators in droves in 2012, and Democratic performance in local elections has actually waned during this period.
        I would love to be proven wrong here, but I predict JoCo and Wichita will come home for Rs in the general.

        29, Hispanic, Current home: MO-05; Born: CA-13; Raised: CA-5; Political Work: KS-03, KS-02; Other work: TX-16

        by killacity on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:46:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Someone thinks Rick Scott EXTENDED voting in FL! (16+ / 0-)

    Dear All,
    I am new to Dailykos. I registered because I wanted everyone know how the mayor of Gainesville FL, Republican Ed Braddy said that FL governor Rick Scott actually extended voting rights!! Is there a price for the most barefaced lie of the year?

    The details are here
    http://citylimits.blogs.gainesville.com/...

    He, of course, forgets to mention the restrictions that Scott enacted right after he took power in 2010.

    I thought politician's lies cannot upset me anymore, but this one did.

  •  Maybe I'm crazy (4+ / 0-)

    but I'm starting to smell a developing Dem wave.  I know the numbers aren't there, but I think we may see some movement over the next few months.

    Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

    by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:34:51 AM PST

    •  Waving goodbye to US Senate control? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OGGoldy, LordMike, Stephen N, jncca

      "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:37:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Senate, at this point, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChadmanFL

        is not in play.

        TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

        by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:42:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately couldn't disagree more (13+ / 0-)

          "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:45:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yea, The senate is clearly in play (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Allen, LordMike, Mark27

            Right now we are playing with the range of -2 and -7 net. Keeping the senate is going to be tough.

            I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

            by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:50:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The numbers aren't there (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LordMike, Avenginggecko

            For one, they'd absolutely have to win LA, and Landrieu has led every legitimate poll in the state. With GA and KY looking more and more likely to flip, it'll be a miracle for the Republicans if we lose more than two or three seats, net. And that's presuming that Begich and Pryor lose their seats, as well as us totally bombing in SD, WV, and MT. No small assumption there, considering Begich is generally considered the mild favorite and Pryor, while the underdog right now, is hardly doomed.

            And even if we fail to flip GA or KY, that still leaves us with a tied Senate.

            TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

            by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:55:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My most optimistic take... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArkDem14, Avenginggecko

              Is that we break even, which would be a heck of a feat. I don't think a gain is in the cards, and I think a net loss of somewhere between one and six seats is probable.

              Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

              by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:18:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Today, that's true (0+ / 0-)

                I would describe net zero in the Senate as a big win.  Today a net loss of 2-5 seats is most probable.  We are playing defense except in KY and GA.  However, in the event that a wave develops we are potentially putting in play NE, KS, and MS.

                Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

                by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:20:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  That reads like the definition of "in play" (10+ / 0-)

              There is no guarantee Walsh, Hagan, Landrieu, Begich and Pryor all lose but it is very possible. And right now it looks like Democrats are behind in three of those and just barely up in two. I feel very comfortable projecting a loss of 5-7 right now but that can and probably will change. For better or worse.

              "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:25:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Guess I'm just more optimistic (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Avenginggecko

                Republicans would have to run the gamut on the following seats, taking all but one:

                LA
                NC
                AK
                AR
                KY
                GA
                MT
                WV
                SD

                My definition of "in play" is "reasonably likely to happen", i.e. north of 10%. Winning all eight of those seats is less likely than us taking the House.

                Just doing a probability analysis should clear it up. Let's assign some reasonable numbers of Republicans winning these seats:

                LA (30%)
                NC (40%)
                AK (40%)
                AR (60%)
                KY (50%)
                GA (50%)
                MT (80%)
                WV (80%)
                SD (95%)

                Multiplying the top eight yields a 1.4% chance of taking the Senate. We can quibble about the percentages, but it wouldn't change much. Republicans need to greatly increase their chances of victory in these states if they hope to capture the Senate.

                TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

                by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:45:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That isn't how statistics works (6+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueDem, Skaje, BeloitDem, Mark27, Chachy, jncca

                  You can't just multiply out percentages (which is what you've appeared to do here). And you are being WAYYYY too conservative with your estimates. In no real world are KY and GA 50/50 states at this point. SD is 99%+, WV is 95%+. You have to do a permutation calculation of every possible outcome and then run a loop to convergence of results to get the actual odds of the senate flipping, even once odds of individual races are determined.

                  I really wish that Silver would throw us a bone and show us some senate numbers in between his hours at ESPN

                  I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

                  by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:51:55 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Amen on Silver (0+ / 0-)

                    On SD, odds of a Rounds indictment or major scandal damage are probably higher than 1%.

                    Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

                    by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:01:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  To be clear (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sacman701, Stephen Wolf, gabjoh, Skaje, jncca

                    The reason you can't just multiply the odds, is that they aren't independent events.  National climate affects all of them.

                    Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

                    by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:02:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  95%+ for WV? (0+ / 0-)

                    I get it's WV and SMC's party is on the upswing, but NT isn't RW in SD, so shouldn't we CTFO and wait to see what this race looks like in a few months?

                    "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

                    by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:05:00 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh I am going to keep an eye on it (0+ / 0-)

                      And Talent is a good candidate, but SMC is going to widen the gap in this race. I'd be surprised if it's within 10.

                      I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

                      by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:07:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What makes you so sure SMC will romp? (0+ / 0-)

                        Unless I'm missing something, we've had exactly one new poll since September that tested NT vs. SMC. That had NT down by 6, but even if you think this is unreliable, because it's such a Dem friendly pollster, it seems to be the only poll in the last 6 months. I'll disregard the Crossroads from September poll and instead focus on the PPP results, which showed similar results but also showed NT to be unknown to more of the state's population.

                        There'd also something that tests SMC versus Rahall, but I am not sure why.

                        If I have missed something, fine, please let me know. But while I am more than willing to admit it will be a fight, I'm puzzled that so many are writing this off so soon.

                        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

                        by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:18:28 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's all in the numbers (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          markhanna

                          SMC has leads in the polling by double digits, but that isn't why I think it will blow open.

                          The reason I think it will blow open is the money. SMC has outraised Tennant 4:1, and has a 5:1 cash on hand advantage. The same poll you referenced shows Capito with higher favorabilities than the already state-wide elected Tennant, which is a red flag for us. But the bigger number is the fact that Capito has not sold herself on about ~20% of the Republican voters, likely ones that want a more conservative alternative. Once they come home following the primary and her coronation, I expect this to be a 20-point race almost instantly.

                          I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

                          by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:25:52 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Lead in one poll, where Manchin wasn't too popular (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Skaje

                            Don't get me wrong I think she'll win and comfortably so, but I don't think she's over 95% likely to, which is basically a lock. Tennant came reasonably close to matching Capito's 4th quarter haul which was her first in the race and the state is not going to vote for a state Republican by 20 points when it hasn't done so by even 10 in over 70 years. Not even Obama lost by that much in 2008 and his 2012 performance there is almost entirely attributable to coal.

                          •  Which poll are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

                            The PPP had SMC at 45/39/19 for F/UF/NS. NT was at 39/32/30.

                            The Clarity Emily's List poll's crosstabs aren't available, from what I can tell, but this is what our site had to say a few days ago.

                            As far as fundraising, yes, SMC has a leg up. She also got started a year before NT. In the last period when NT was an official candidate, they were a lot closer. We'll see what it's like for the first quarter of this year. I don't anticipate cash being a big problem, though, if only because NT is pro-choice.

                            Also, where are you getting the ~20 percent figure from?

                            "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

                            by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:47:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  I seem to recall that is exactly (0+ / 0-)

                    how we were taught probability; that the probability of independent events is the probability of each multiplied together. Thus 30/100 time 40/100, etc. We did the same thing to calculate the probably of rolling a 1 6 times with an ideal dice (1/6)^6. Le wasn't doing statistics, he was calculating probability.

                    "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 Feb 21, 2014 at 09:32:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Right, for a single outcome that is the case (0+ / 0-)

                      But you have to weigh that against EVERY possible outcome of all 34 races, and the use the summation of all permutations of a given number of victories. It is far more complex than what is done above.

                      And that is, of course, assuming that the events are independent variables, which they are not.

                      I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

                      by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:37:04 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I was just noting (0+ / 0-)

                        My grip of stats is still a little shaky.

                        "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 Feb 21, 2014 at 09:58:20 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Numbers aren't everyone's forte (0+ / 0-)

                          I am an engineer by trade, so it's kind of required. haha. So I try and explain it clearly when  it comes to political statistics.

                          I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

                          by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:02:22 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't really understand what (0+ / 0-)

                            process you were referring to when you talked about the summation of all possible permutations. Then again, my stats prof had a devil of a time with me because I always had the right answer and he never had any idea what the hell I was doing and I described things in a very weird fashion (like: "The probability of the null falls outside the calculated .05 alpha range of the map").

                            "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 Feb 21, 2014 at 10:13:37 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think what's meant (7+ / 0-)

                            is you need to assign a probability to every possible set of outcomes of the election.  For example, Landrieu/Hagan/Pryor etc. vs. Landrieu/Hagan/Cotton etc. vs. Landrieu/Tillis/Pryor etc. Some of the permutations might be zero probability (like losing Delaware but nowhere else).  Then you add up all of the probabilities that result in Dem control of the Senate vs those that result in GOP control and that's a better way to come up with the chances.

                          •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

                            Well put.

                            I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

                            by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:42:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now I know what you're talking about (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            OGGoldy

                            "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 Feb 21, 2014 at 11:03:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm also an engineer by trade (0+ / 0-)

                            And that's how this particular kind of probability works, at least when one is performing a particularly simple analysis (which, frankly, I was).

                            TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

                            by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:22:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm an engineer as well (0+ / 0-)

                            What are the odds?  ;)

                            Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

                            by benamery21 on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:48:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, these clearly aren't independent variables. (0+ / 0-)

                        Assuming Le Champignon's numbers are correct (I think they're optimistic), if there's a 30% Landrieu loses, and she in fact loses, then that's a world in which most or all of the other Dems lose as well. So maybe there'd be a 20% chance of us losing the Senate according to these numbers, not 1.4% (and again, I think these numbers are optimistic; I think our odds of losing the Senate are closer to 50%).

                        •  Depends (0+ / 0-)

                          I tend to prefer looking at Senate races in terms of individual candidates. WV is so likely to go for the Republicans because Tennant, while a good candidate, is not as good as Capito, who represents a third of the state and has done so for, what, over a decade now?

                          Everything should be analyzed race-by-race, with national mood an influence, but not the most important influence. It's entirely possible to have an excellent national mood for us and still lose seats, primarily because Capito and Rounds are excellent candidates. There are scenarios, for instance, where Landrieu loses and Pryor wins. It's not a likely scenario, of course, which is factored into the different probabilities of their winning. But as Nate Silver is fond of saying, even a 5% race still has the 5%-er winning 5% of the time.

                          That's why stats work, because they're not absolute statements on whether something will happen, but rather statements on whether something is probable.

                          Again, we can quibble about the percentages of each individual race, and in fact I'd probably do some amendments of my own now that I think about it. (For instance, I feel like Pryor is actually more of a 30/70 prospect right now, and Landrieu more of a "80/20".)

                          Perhaps I'll write up a diary on senate ratings. I'm not experienced in doing so, but everyone starts somewhere, and I'll be sure to justify everything.

                          And just to be clear, the 1.4% is a very simple analysis that I did in the five minutes I had before I had to leave. It wasn't meant to be an extensive analysis. It was meant to show that, if we look at what Republicans have to overcome, and if we look at fairly reasonable odds for each race, their actual odds of taking the Senate are far less than 50%.

                          TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

                          by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:31:39 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, right. (0+ / 0-)

                            But candidate quality, etc., is presumably factored into the percentages you give for each candidate's chances of winning. But the electoral outcomes are not independent of each other - if the environment is negative enough to overcome Landrieu's personal strengths, then it is very likely negative enough to overcome Tennant's strengths as well, for instance.

                  •  Rounds (0+ / 0-)

                    http://madvilletimes.com/...

                    There are two ongoing criminal investigations.

                    Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

                    by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:28:28 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  too optimistic (4+ / 0-)

                  WV is much closer to SD's near-certain 95%; while Landrieu, Hagan, and Begich are not all favored to win, especially if we're counting Georgia and Kentucky as 50-50 races. But what's most important is that, in any case, these are not fully independent events. The odds that the Landrieu/Hagan/Pryor/Begich races all go for the same party (either party, in fact) are higher than you're accounting for.

                •  As I said to someone else doing this (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ArkDem14, Chachy, jncca

                  You're doing traditional probability analysis assuming each Senate race is an independent event.  In reality, there's more or less a line that moves depending on how the year is going for each party.  Right now the line is somewhere around Arkansas or Montana.  Everything above that line is gone.  This isn't basic probability where any permutation makes sense...Democrats holding South Dakota but losing Louisiana, for instance.

                  If you really want to calculate odds of Senate control, focus on the actual tossup states (NC, LA, and AK).  Whoever wins 2 of those 3 should have the Senate.

                  •  There is a line that moves (0+ / 0-)

                    reflecting national climate, there is a point for each jurisdiction reflecting underlying partisan composition, which drifts from year to year, there is a band around each point reflecting relative elasticity of the electorate in that jurisdiction, and there is a slider on each band reflecting the specifics of candidate charisma/reputation/incumbency, funding, and local issues.

                    At least, that's how I think about it.  The relative position of races in a given year can be different than the underlying partisan composition, if the bands overlap, and the sliders are in different positions.

                    Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

                    by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:59:51 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  odds (0+ / 0-)

                  Here's where I'd put the odds of a GOP win in each state: AL 100, AK 40, AR 55, CO 5, DE 0, GA 75, HI 0, IL 0, IA 15, KS 98, KY 85, LA 45, ME 100, MA 0, MI 20, MN 5, MS 95, MT 70, NE 98, NH 5, NJ 0, NM 1, NC 35, OK 100/100, OR 2, RI 0, SC 99/100, SD 98, TN 100, TX 100, VA 2, WV 85, WY 100.

                  Some of those are subjective "averages" that depend on primary outcomes. In MS Cochran is 100, and in GA anyone but Broun or Gingrey is 95.    

                  SSP poster. 44, CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

                  by sacman701 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:15:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Hmm (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OGGoldy, markhanna, aamail6, jncca

              (1) Republicans don't have to absolutely win LA. The most likely GOP pick-ups at the moment are: MT, SD, WV, AK, AR, which means that they "absolutely" have to win either Louisiana OR North Carolina.

              (2) In any case, I'm not sure where the idea that Landrieu is likely to win is coming from. PPP's new poll had her leading 45-44 against Cassidy. Sure, that's a lead. But let's not stretch the definition of what's a good poll. And that's not even taking of NC, where Hagan was trailing in the two most recent PPP polls.

              (3) "With GA and KY looking more and more likely to flip." They're both looking promising, but we have little information about what's going on in Georgia, and Kentucky will remain tight to the end.

              (4) "As well as us totally bombing in SD, WV, and MT." That's looking highly likely at the moment. Something may happen in each of these states (especially in Montana), but no reason to be dismissive of the likelihood the GOP sweeps them.

              And while I expect Democrats to hold Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire and Iowa, at the moment a GOP surprise in any of these states looks more likely to me than a Democratic win in SD, WV or even MT.

              Keeping the Senate is definitely possible, but it's far too soon to declare the odds to be good.

    •  Don't think you're crazy at all (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      benamery21

      I've been smelling it for months. It's going out on a limb to predict a dem wave at this point, but that limb sure looks inviting as hell.

      TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

      by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:37:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think that's a burning weed you're smelling (7+ / 0-)

      "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

      by Paleo on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:42:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where is pot on the ballot? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike

        Will it help youth turnout?  Does anybody who doesn't already vote turnout to vote against legalization?

        Same questions for minimum wage.

        ActBlue raised twice as much in Jan 2014 as Jan 2012.

        Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

        by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:10:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I say the odds (9+ / 0-)

      Are about equal that Republicans gain control of the senate as Democrats hold even. I think that we lose 4-5 senate seats, hold pat in the House, and pick up a net of 3-4 governorships.

      I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

      by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:42:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If 2010 had been different (0+ / 0-)

        I.E. a bunch of looney toons that won because of the environment I would say we would probably be closer to break even on governor's mansions, but the crop of 2010 governors has been an absolute shit show for the GOP, only surpassed by their oversized number of House winners that were quickly weeded out for the most part in 2012.

        •  Probably (0+ / 0-)

          As of right now I see us picking up PA, ME, FL, and an upset in SC, while losing AR. and CT as a potential loss. I see us fighting for and coming up short in NM and OH.  NV never becomes competitive at all, IMO. Also, RI is one to keep an eye on as an R pickup.

          I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

          by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:58:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reps are not going to pick up (6+ / 0-)

            Connecticut or Rhode Island. While Malloy's approval ratings aren't great, his only opponents are either retreads or Fairfield County state senators who have no appeal to the rest of the state. I'd say Malloy gets 53-54 percent of the vote.

            As for Rhode Island, as long as the election is a two-way affair there's no way the Dem will lose.

            (-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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:03:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's roughly the CW, & I'm not saying it's wrong (0+ / 0-)

        based on where we are today.  I think the odds things improve markedly for us are better than the odds they worsen, and I think the odds of improvement are getting better.

        I have been hopeful that ACA will turn into a positive before the election, and that the economy will do enough better that folks don't hold it against Obama and by extension, Democrats.

        If we don't start to see some improvement in the numbers by April or May, I will be surprised.

        Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

        by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:15:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would be surprised if the numbers improve (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mark27, jncca

          It has been marred by serious problems, and hasn't been the silver bullet that a lot of people hoped it will be. I am 99% certain that the ACA will be an electoral liability in November, it's just a matter of magnitude.

          I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

          by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:31:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The polling is static (0+ / 0-)

            People's opinions of the law are baked in at this point. Nothing is going to change them in the short term. It's a wash as far as electoral impact IMO. The polling has been remarkably consistent. You either support the law, you hate the law, or you dont know there is a law.

            •  ACA (0+ / 0-)

              I'd expect the impact to be about the same as it was in 2012. What's new is that now the GOP will run its horror-story anecdote ads, and Dems will run their feel-good anecdote ads. I expect these to roughly cancel each other out. It will probably help the GOP get their base out more than it will help the Dems with their own base, but midterm mobilization is always easier for the GOP to begin with.

              SSP poster. 44, CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

              by sacman701 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:57:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  So I will say this... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          R30A, JBraden, aamail6

          I don't in any way sense a wave coming for the Dems. I think that's not close to the reality of where things stand today.

          But I do sense that things are getting better for the Dems. I'm positive we will lose seats, but I think I'm seeing a net 2-5 loss right now - in other words, a pretty neutral year.

          So I don't think you're crazy either. Way too optimistic at this point, (and that goes double for Le Champignon, who I think is flat out wrong when he says KY and GA are "looking more likely to flip."), but not crazy. I think the atmosphere is getting better. The Pew poll should come out pretty soon to potentially confirm.

          •  2-5 is where I am today (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JBraden

            We would lose seats in a neutral year, given where the seats are.  So if you think the climate is improving, we are on much the same page.

            Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

            by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:23:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'd say (0+ / 0-)

            that we're looking at a net loss of 1 to 3 as most probable. We'll likely lose MT, WV, SD, and AR, but pick up either or both of GA and KY. I'm optimistic about GA and KY - especially KY - because our candidates are incredibly strong and the polling has favored us tremendously. Not to mention our fundraising is on par or higher than theirs in those states.

            We can't look at the polls showing incumbents in trouble in AR and NC, then look at similar polls showing similar incumbent (or incumbent party) weakness in KY and GA, and make different conclusions. Doing so crosses the line between electoral analysis and punditry.

            TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

            by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:41:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Quote (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Skaje

              "We can't look at the polls showing incumbents in trouble in AR and NC, then look at similar polls showing similar incumbent (or incumbent party) weakness in KY and GA, and make different conclusions. Doing so crosses the line between electoral analysis and punditry."

              We have to take into account the lean of each of these states. The best is R+3. A GOP incumbent with poor numbers in a Republican tilting state has more margin for error than a Democratic incumbent in a GOP state.

              "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:54:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  We also need to look at stuff like... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Darth Jeff, sapelcovits, jncca

                The historical precedent of second midterms going against the presidents party (the one exception being the presidential impeachment midterm of 1998, which had an obviously special situation), the fact the Obama's approval ratings are at best slightly above water (but most likely a little below) and the quality of the Republican candidates (Mitch McConnell may be unpopular now, but so was Harry Reid in 2010 and both have in common that they are very experienced campaigners).

                Here's what bothers me about the idea that people who do not agree that a Democratic wave is brewing are somehow acting as "pundits." There's an implication that most of the commentators on this site, and I would guess David Nir as well, are "pundits" since Le Champignon is virtually alone in predicting a potential Democratic wave. This implies that we want Democrats to do poorly this year (pundit implying bias). This is untrue in my case and in the case of virtually all commentators who hold this opinion, I'm guessing. We simply want DKE to be reality based. I don't argue that Mitch McConnell is likely to win because I want the slimebag to win, but because I think historical factors and the lean of Kentucky argue against the accuracy of the current polls as a predictor of what will happen in November. I know people will disagree with me on this and I also realize they might be right and I might well be wrong (in fact, I hope so). But that doesn't make me a "pundit."

                If anything, it would be easy for me to accuse Le Champignon of being a pundit, since some of his commentary can come off as basically a press releases for the DSCC. But I don't believe that. I think he is sincere in analyzing the possibility of a Dem wave brewing. I just want him to respect the opinions of those of us who disagree.

                •  My intent wasn't (0+ / 0-)

                  to disparage the DKE community, which I hold in the highest regard. When I say "punditry", I mean that we need to be careful not to let things like "historical precedent" hold more sway in our analysis than they're worth. Just because Kentucky, for instance, hasn't elected a Democratic Senator in decades doesn't mean it isn't reasonably likely to do so this cycle. Historical precedent only works up to a point, as Senator Capito will likely be able to tell us after November, given that she'll hail from a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate since Elvis was all the rage.

                  TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

                  by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:12:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting email from Rep. Pocan this morning (8+ / 0-)
    Right now, Senate Republicans have the chance to end a serious hardship that millions of unemployed Americans are facing because the GOP failed to stand up for out-of-work Americans and pass an extension on unemployment insurance benefits in December. They’ve got a budget-neutral bill that Democrats put right in their hands, but refuse to act.

    NOW IS THE TIME FOR US TO ACT: STAND WITH MARK AND DEMAND THAT SENATE REPUBLICANS PASS OUR COMMON SENSE EXTENSION TODAY>>>

    I don't like to read too much into these things, but is it possible Pocan is eyeing Sen. Ron Johnson's seat in 2016? He doesn't name Johnson in the email, but it's unusual for a House Democrat to go after Senate Republicans -- and Johnson is a vulnerable-looking incumbent coming up for reelection in a couple of years.

    Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

    by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:21:44 AM PST

  •  Minnesota diaries - OGGoldy (14+ / 0-)

    Alright everyone that has been here for longer than~18 months, you likely saw my 2012 Minnesota legislature diaries, the final one of which can be seen here for a refresher, or a first peek if you weren't around then: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Would there be interest here for me to do a repeat of this series for 2014? I am more than willing to do them, but it takes several hundred hours to compile the diaries throughout the cycle with updates, and I want to make sure there is sufficient interest before I commit that kind of time again. Thank you in advance for the feedback.

    I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat

    by OGGoldy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:43 AM PST

  •  IL-13: don't worry about this one. George (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, KingofSpades, betelgeux

    Gollin has already won the Primary.

    http://bigdebshouse.wordpress.com/...

    "Go Forth in Love and Peace" --Be Kind to Dogs -- And Vote Democratic" --Dying words of Senator Thomas Eagleton, 2007

    by BlueSasha on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:43:13 AM PST

  •  KS-GOV: Sam Brownback = Pat Quinn? (0+ / 0-)

    I was hopeful about KS-Gov, but I am now wondering if the sheer republican lean of the state is enough to combat Brownback's awful approval rating -- much like Illinois' lean might be enough for Pat Quinn to squeak it out again.

    With that said, I think Paul Davis is a MUCH better candidate that Rauner or Rutherford are/will be in Illinois.

    28, gay male, partnered and living in Indianapolis (IN-7). Raising money for the most important social movement in Indiana in generations -- Freedom Indiana. www.freedomindiana.org. We will defeat HJR-6!

    by IndyLiberal on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:53:58 AM PST

    •  KS Republicans (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden, pademocrat

      DO vote for Dems for governor.  It wouldn't be unusual, although voting out an incumbent Republican would be.

      Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

      by benamery21 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:05:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think KS-GOV is doable (4+ / 0-)

      and SEN is not. I doubt Todd Akin would have lost in Kansas. It's a textbook case of deindustrialization/destruction of traditional agriculture moving mainstream people to the right, particularly on cultural issues (a destruction BTW caused by the Right, but anyway). In a Senate race that stuff is unavoidable, but in a gubernatorial race, it isn't always.

  •  Virginia (0+ / 0-)

    Does anyone know what the bench is for running statewide in VA? Moran is retiring and Scott is content where he is. Gerry Connolly is he only Rep. that seems plausible.  Tom Perriello seems unlikely and his name rec is low. Maybe Northam? Anyone know anything?

    •  Herring will be frontrunner for governor in 2017 (5+ / 0-)

      "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:01:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The bench (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geoneb

      Is what we have already elected statewide.  What else do we need?

      Since there aren't any races in VA that require a new statewide candidate until at least 2017 (if that), are you looking for a bench today or maybe the future bench (i.e. 2020 and beyond)?

      "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

      by rdw72777 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:43:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Federal Judge ruled that Cook County's (5+ / 0-)

    LGBT residents don't have to wait until June to start marrying when the marriage equality law takes effect statewide.

    http://www.suntimes.com/...

  •  Indiana- the punishment for Sen. Mike Delph (8+ / 0-)

    (R-Carmel) is he loses his leadership position, his press secretary, his #2 slot on Judiciary, and will have to sit in the back of the chamber behind the Dems. This is for Delph's twitter rant, but likely more for his breach of confidentiality during a caucus meeting on HJR-3. And Delph is up for reelection in a district that on paper is competitive (It is Carmel, Zionsville, and the western and northwestern parts of Indy). The GOP holds a 37-13 margin in the Senate (and are targeting two southern seats), so they may simply cut Delph off and try to get the seat back in four years.

    http://www.jconline.com/...

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

    by SouthernINDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:14:10 AM PST

    •  This is on the level of (0+ / 0-)

      what Senate Republicans are prepared to do to Ted Cruz if they had a chance.

      "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 Feb 21, 2014 at 09:35:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sounds like the California State Legislature (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      uclabruin18

      Except they also take away your office supplies, furniture, district office, and parking spaces, change your locks, and shunt you into the 391-square-foot "Dog House."

      24, D, pragmatic progressive (-4.50, -5.18), CA-14. DKE folk culture curator.

      by kurykh on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:43:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm wondering what it'll take for Utah to moderate (0+ / 0-)

    a bit. A Mormon Democrat running for President or picked as VP (Tom Udall, maybe, though it doesn't have to be 2016)? Matheson winning a statewide race? From all the polls about issues, it seems that Utahns are in favor of relatively moderate/center-left stances, but are still overwhelmingly in favor of Republicans. So do we just need a statewide win or a national candidate that shows the Mormon voters that it's okay to vote for a Democrat?

    Because seriously, to smash the super-majority in the state legislature, we're going to have to pick up 31% Obama seats. To improve presidential numbers in those seats, we'll probably have to get voters to understand that it's okay to vote Democrat. Hence, we need a statewide win that proves that Dems can win in Utah, or a national Mormon Democrat that gives voice to the Mormons who are too scared/uninformed to switch parties, but who support moderate policies.

    This is a bit rambling, but what do you guys think?

    Leftist Mormon in Utah, Born in Washington State, live in UT-04 (Matheson).

    by Gygaxian on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:44:10 AM PST

  •  WATN: Tom Perriello joining State Department (10+ / 0-)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Good for him. I wonder who's going to take over at CAP now?

    •  I nominate Rush Holt! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      betelgeux, JBraden

      While "The leader of my center-left think thank offering policy proposals, talking point news and columns is a rocket scientist!" doesn't have the same ring to it, but hey, the man's gotta eat.

      Certainly beats the alternatives, which are Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney (she's back to being a Dem, believe it or not), and Alec Baldwin, now that his MSNBC show is no longer on the air.

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:23:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP Worried About Texas Turning Blue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBraden

    I don't quite agree with Kos' tweet, but this article is interesting.

    Key paragraphs:

    Today, Cornyn estimates he is spending about $100,000 a month on digital outreach...

    With the help of two young aides, Brendan Steinhauser and Josh Eboch — tech-friendly operatives who preach the gospel of campaign analytics as told in Sasha Issenberg’s book The Victory Lab — Cornyn has seen a big payoff from the increased voter-contact efforts and engagement on social media.

    Cornyn’s fan base on Facebook has exploded, rising at last count to more than 250,000 from about 27,000 in August. Since the summer, his campaign's email list has grown by some 250 percent since the summer, and the number of online donors has increased by more than 200 percent during the same period, according to figures provided by the campaign.

    ...

    Munisteri said there were no staff members dedicated to full-time minority outreach when he became party chairman. Today, thanks in part to the RNC money, there are nine: one focused on black voters, one conducting Asian outreach and seven working to court the rapidly growing Hispanic population.

    The jerk in me wants Stockman to win and then rely on, say, prayer and what have you in order to win. Maybe it didn't work to end the droughts, but you never know with elections.

    "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

    by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:13:56 AM PST

    •  I don't sense they are all that worried (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe some day, but not now.

    •  If he's spending $100,000 a month (3+ / 0-)

      on digital outreach and over half a million dollars later he's only got 250k fans on Facebook I think most people in social media would laugh. That's like paying $2.70 per Facebook like. You should fire your firm if that's the ROI you're getting on SEO outreach.

      I also enjoy the graf about minority outreach. Luckily they hired that Asian to get all the Asian voters! Because, you know, the Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Philippino, etc. are all one homogenous group that thinks the same way.

      I love articles like these. "Republicans Throwing Time and Money Into Field Game"

      ...because throwing huge sums of money at something is a TOTALLY different strategy than before.

      •  I wouldn't judge too quickly. (0+ / 0-)

        Assuming it's even halfway competent, it'll probably help them.

        That said, as I indicated above, I think there's only so much juice to squeeze here, although for different reasons.

        "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

        by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:56:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh I know it helps them. (0+ / 0-)

          Having 250k likes is much better than 27k. I'm just saying the ridiculously poor ROI is a systemic problem for Republicans. They throw piles of cash at something for such a small result.

          •  I also (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gabjoh

            wouldn't assume it's going to just Facebook-related stuff, but if a lot of is, holy crap...maybe a better method would be for him to crop of a picture of himself next to Beyonce or something.

            "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

            by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:19:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Like I said before (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stephen Wolf, WisJohn, JBraden, pademocrat

      I want Stockman to win this year so that we have an outside chance of making him sweat in 2020 with presidential turnout (and with a better Dem nominee).

  •  Charlie Crist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jorge Harris

    I finished his book last night. He seems sincere in identifying as a Democrat now, but I couldn't believe he was so naïve when he was in office as to trust that the full-on-loon Republican party would overlook his bi-partisanship and moderate stances.

  •  Wendy Davis Knows How To Campaign! (4+ / 0-)

    She has attacked her opponent for campaigning with admitted pedophile Ted Nugent.

    Awesome job putting Abbott on the defensive and reminding people why he is such a big creep!

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/..._

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/...

    •  Well, that's his music history. (0+ / 0-)

      But of course someone who calls Obama a "subhuman mongrel" is a human being who deserves to get shunned.

      It reminds me of H.P. Lovecraft's characterization of the members of the Cthulhu cult as savage Caribbean mongrels (and Lovecraft supported the intent of the KKK as well as the movie "Birth of a Nation" despite being from a racially progressive part of New England).

      “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

      by KingofSpades on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:19:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm afraid I don't see this mattering (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden, jncca

      Outside the loyal Democratic base, no one is going to care,  not even those who are offended.   Abbot himself cannot persuasively be painted as what center-right Texans would consider either racist or extremist.

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

      by DCCyclone on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:52:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCCyclone, pademocrat

        And I think it's very hard to argue that Davis knows how to campaign. Her campaign to this point has ranged from invisible to disastrous, which is not good considering that she couldn't make any mistakes if she was to have a chance.

        Still think she should have run for Lt. Governor. It's a powerful post, would have been easier to run for with the clown car GOP primary, and Davis would have been unusually able to fundraise for it. AND it would have left her in a good place to run in the future. When she loses this race by double digits. I'm afraid she'll vanish for good.

      •  It Might Matter (0+ / 0-)

        to suburban women, especially mothers.

        •  Again, no, they are center-right Texans (0+ / 0-)

          Suburban women, mothers and not, in Texas are more conservative than suburban women in Virginia.

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

          by DCCyclone on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 04:15:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let's get past that idea (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bjssp, DCCyclone

            The people that we're normally talking about when we're talking about suburban white woman are actually a little bit more qualified than that. In reality, we're talking about suburban white non-evangelical women, whom Democrats are in no election doing worse than 45% with in Texas. The key is to win them with 60%. These voters are about 17% of the total electorate, so moving those voters gets us a good amount.

            24 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 Feb 21, 2014 at 11:40:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  She'd be wiser to spend her time talking about (0+ / 0-)

      education and other things.

      "Once, at a formal dinner, when [a rich] guest complained about the cost of welfare programs for the poor, Buffett replied tartly, 'I'm a lot more concerned about welfare for the rich.'"--from a book on Warren Buffett

      by bjssp on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:01:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One Of Life's Biggest Mysteries To Me...... (6+ / 0-)

      .....is how a 70s rocker with one hit on the charts 35 years ago manages to make himself this relevant in the pop culture and political world lexicon nearly two generations after his prime.  I bet Toni Basil and Grover Washington, Jr. wish they taken a Ted Nugent marketing course back in 1982 on how to continue bringing in millions of dollars three decades after your exit from the Billboard charts.

  •  CA State Sen. Ron Calderon indicted (6+ / 0-)

    No link yet, just saw it breaking on KCAL 9.

    27, Male, CA-26, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:09:55 PM PST

  •  CA-33: Matt Miller (D) running as well. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BoswellSupporter

    Matt Miller, who's a fellow at the Center for American Progress, is announcing right now on MSNBC's The Cycle that he's running for Congress as well.

  •  NH-Sen: I still cant believe this is a possibility (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades

    http://www.unionleader.com/...

    I feel like Brown will certainly make the race more competitive, but seriously, I don't understand why he isn't getting flack in the media for even contemplating a run in NH.

    This really should be a ludicrous idea in our political system, but I'm guessing the beltway class just loves themselves some Scott Brown, so they'd make an exception for a good ole both-sides-are-at-fault centrist. I'm not saying it should be illegal to do this whole switcheroo, but we should certainly be giving considerable thought to what this means about our democracy, if being a member of congress is simply a job for "you" and not a service to the public.

  •  Jay Nixon not ruling out Presidential run (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, jj32, bythesea, sulthernao

    It seems completely out of nowhere but I feel like he's just saying he's there if the field is clear. If he's bringing this up maybe he's interested in a Senate run in 2016?

    Link

  •  Confession: I love to buy tires at Les Schwab (18+ / 0-)

    Barack Obama won 80 electoral votes in states that have a Les Schwab; Mitt Romney won only 21. Now look at the states that don't have a Les Schwab. Mitt Romney won 185 electoral votes; Barack Obama won 252.

    The split is clear. If you have a Les Schwab in your state, you are more likely to support a Democrat for president. If you don't, you won't. The remarkable overlay between Les Schwab America and the Obama states of America speaks to the remarkably divided state of the country. The self-sorting/silo-ing of America extends beyond what we read, watch, listen to, and eat -- it extends all the way to the tires we buy.

    (In case it wasn't clear what I'm talking about, I'm taking the piss out of this article, which is Chris at his Cillizzaiest.)

    Editor, Daily Kos Elections.

    by David Jarman on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:47:01 PM PST

  •  A thought on using probability analysis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jncca, CF of Aus, kleinburger

    for Senate races...a problem I see is that a lot of forecasters are extremely cautious in their rankings.  For instance, Cook has HI, MA, MN, CO, NH, and VA as being Likely Dem, rather than Safe as I have all six.  Forecasters often settle around a number like 85% for Likely seats.  With six Dem seats each rated as a 15% chance of flipping, there would be a strong likelihood that Democrats would lose at least one of them (the actual probability of a loss of at least one would be (1 - (0.85^6)), or 62%).

    Even if you rated all six as being 95% likely to be Dem holds, that still comes out to (1 - (0.95^6)) which is a 26% chance we lose at least one of those seats anyway.  I would bet against those odds in a second.

    Ultimately, this skews the picture for overall control of the chamber since only two GOP seats are even on the map.  All those Dem seats that pundits seem to think warrant only 80-90% confidence of holds make it seem like Republicans are just about guaranteed the chamber, just based on the huge number of Dem seats that aren't 100% safe.

    But in reality, it doesn't work like that.  In 2006, the fact that Republicans made a go at Maryland (Cardin) and New Jersey (Menendez) didn't help them keep the Senate (many pundits rated them tossups or just Lean Dem).  The fact that pundits kept seats like Washington (Cantwell), Nebraska (Nelson), Michigan (Stabenow), and Minnesota (Klobuchar) as Likely or even Lean Dem also didn't end up affecting the battle for control of the chamber, as they all turned into Dem landslides.

    In fact, I just went through the October 2006 Rothenberg Senate rankings and came up with the following based on his rankings (takeovers in bold, holds in plain, percentage indicates chance for Dems to win)

    PA: 85%
    WA: 85%
    NE: 85%
    MI: 85%
    MN: 85%
    MT: 60%
    RI: 60%
    OH: 60%
    MD: 60%
    VA: 50%
    MO: 50%
    TN: 50%
    NJ: 50%
    AZ: 15%

    Of those 14 competitively ranked seats, Democrats had to win 12 of them (presumably hold 6 and flip 6, which they ended up doing exactly).  Just by adding up the percentages, you get an expected win of 8.8 seats of this group, that is a net gain of only 2.8, leaving Democrats quite short of control.  The math to get the actual chance of Democrats winning 12 of those 14 is a bit complicated, but certainly well under 10%, just starting off with the fact we'd have to sweep all four of the 60% seats which mathematically we'd have only a 13% chance of doing.  And that's on top of having to sweep all 5 of the 85% seats which would be only a 44% chance of success in that bracket.

    I'd ballpark the final percentage chance of Dem control of the Senate at like 4% given the Rothenberg ratings that year, but I welcome someone with more than my cursory knowledge of probability to peg the exact number.

    Point being, if you want to play this numbers game, you've gotta actually start putting some "Likely" seats at 99% confidence, because keeping a bunch of them in the 80 to 90% range just screws up the overall rankings and makes it seem like there's a strong chance one of them will flip.

    I'm going through a bunch of archived ratings now and trying to find if there's actually ever been an example of a Senate race rated Likely hold flipping, or Likely takeover being held instead.  Haven't found one yet, and considering the sheer quantity of races rated as Likely every election, that points quite away from 85% or even 90% confidence, and towards 99% confidence.  Adjust your math accordingly.

    House races rated Likely occasionally do fool the forecasters, but they are often lightly polled, are more susceptible to late movement, and generally can go under the radar until the end.  Senate races aren't like that.  If a race is competitive, people know it.  So focus on the tossups when trying to analyze control of the chamber, and don't get caught up in the idea that a handful of Likely seats might actually affect the final result.

  •  CT State Rep Elaine O'Brien (D-HD-61) (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrPhillips, jj32, WisJohn, jncca

    passed away after a long battle with brain cancer. I got to meet Rep. O'Brien about a year ago after a public hearing about the state's budget. She struck me as a very intelligent and hard-working legislator, and answered all my questions, even though I wasn't a constituent of hers.

    I'm assuming a special election will be held within the next few months. She represented Suffield, East Granby, and Windsor. I don't know too much about local politics in these towns, but she defeated the Republican candidate for State Rep by about 5 percentage points in 2012, meaning the Special could be competitive.

    Proud Progressive Social Studies teacher. (-9.50, -8.05) "Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime."--Phil Plait

    by betelgeux on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:08:09 PM PST

  •  VRA gerrymandering diary preview (7+ / 0-)

    I'm working on analyzing how redistricting might have gone in 2012 without the VRA's section 2 requirement to draw majority minority districts, the conclusion of which is that it screws us over big time. Here's Georgia for instance:

     photo GAGOP12-2StateView_zps393977c8.png
     photo GAGOP12-2Summary_zps1b51234c.png

    (click through for larger images)

    In Georgia they can very easily reduce Democrats from 5 of 14 seats to just 2 without much chance at any others. In particular I've made all 12 Republican seats at least 58% Romney with Bishop's at 59%, Barrow's at 60% or 4% worse than his actual one with less of his old districts and incumbency which would have caused him to lose in 2012, and turned David Scott's seat from a safe one into a new one stretching south that's Safe R. The 8th district gets a few points more Democratic, but it's still marginally more Republican than the version Austin Scott won in 2010 and it's highly doubtful Jim Marshall would ever run again there. The 1st district contains more of Savannah and Barrow's old district, but it's also a little more Republican. By two party vote, Jim Martin lost all 12 GOP districts for senate in 2008 by 10% or more when he lost by just 3% and didn't break 40 in the runoff in any of them when he was losing by 15%. Roy Barnes also lost all 12 for governor by 13% or more in 2010.

    In short this one should go 12-2 every single time in the 2010s even with the demographic trends in places like Gwinnett County so long as there's not another 2000s style housing boom.

  •  CA-31: Rep. Becerra endorsed Reyes. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setsuna Mudo
  •  HI-Gov (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sapelcovits

    The idea that Hannemann might run as an independent makes me want to vomit.  What a bunch of sour grapes from a politician that clearly nobody wants to elect to anything anymore, after getting crushed by both Abercrombie and Tulsi Gabbard.  It would be pure spite for him to attempt an independent run for governor, and it would sadly give Duke Aiona a real opening.  I hope this once and for all rallies the Dem machine to Abercrombie, with their former champion now threatening to hand the election to a Republican.  Man I can't get over what a shitty move this is on Hannemann's part.  He'd be lucky to get 20% of the vote, but that's 20% I'd rather not see Abercrombie shed.

    •  Hannemann ticks me off (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sapelcovits

      Mostly because I want voters in any state (including Hawaii) to look at Mormon Democrats and go "yeah, I could vote for them". Hannmann hinders that ideal by being an opportunistic, overly conservative jerk.

      Leftist Mormon in Utah, Born in Washington State, live in UT-04 (Matheson).

      by Gygaxian on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 02:02:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  NH Sen PPP (for LCV) Shaheen 47 Brown 39 (11+ / 0-)

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:31:20 PM PST

  •  OR United For Marriage Hanging Onto Signatures (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen

    I'm on their email list and yesterday I received an email from them regarding the poll you mentioned, their 160,000 petition signatures and the Attorney General's decision.

    It also states that they are going to hold onto their petition signatures and see what the federal court does:

    "Today’s announcement puts us on a strong path to securing marriage for Oregon's loving, committed couples in the courts—which is why we have decided to hold on to our signatures pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit challenging Oregon’s marriage ban.

    To be clear: We’ve never been more committed to bringing the freedom to marry to all Oregonians—and we will win in 2014."

    So maybe they will submit the petitions, putting overturning Oregon's same sex marriage ban on the ballot in 2014; or maybe they won't. We won't know for several months I guess.

    http://www.oregonunitedformarriage.org/...

  •  NV-LG: Flores will announce her (9+ / 0-)

    campaign March 1st.

    http://blogs.rgj.com/...

    •  Massively important down-ballot race (8+ / 0-)

      as the article notes, Gov. Sandoval running for Senate in 2016 would effectively risk giving Democrats the trifecta again if Democrats win Lt. Gov.

      He may still say fuck it and run anyway, but there would be a lot of pressure on him staying put.

      Either way, winning Lt. Gov. this year sets Dems up nicely for winning governor in 2018.

      •  And then, hopefully (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCCyclone

        Democrats can revoke Nevada's right-to-work law.
        turnabout is fair play

        “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

        by KingofSpades on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 02:19:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That'd be great (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades

          But wasn't it passed by ballot initiative? As I recall, it passed with less than 1%. If that's the case, could the legislature just repeal it? I confess I know little about Nevada's state government.

          In any event, yes, Nevada and Michigan are very strong prospects for RTW repeal. Iowa is conceivable, and if trends continue, Virginia might be interesting to try, given the large concentration of federal workers in NoVA. Have to break the gerrymander first, and I have no idea if it's possible even with that, but if I were in charge of making such decisions I'd look hard at it.

          •  Oh, I didn't know the specifics. (0+ / 0-)

            If it was by ballot initiative, that's much trickier, unless it was a statutory ballot referendum (not a state constitution one).

            I haven't heard anything on VA, but James Allen said that the Governor can loosen restrictions on public employee unions no problem.

            “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

            by KingofSpades on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:15:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

      Dems have a very good shot at winning this. Especially when Republicans are going to have a most likely bruising primary, ione of them is Sue Lowden, what a joke she is.

      Had Masto ran though, she would had been an absolute shoo in.

      NY-9/NJ-10; Russians can give you arms but only the United States can give you a solution. -- Anwar Sadat

      by BKGyptian89 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 02:21:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  NV: Heller says that Sandoval may much prefer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCCyclone

    to return to the bench in some way rather than further pursue elected office past 2014: https://www.ralstonreports.com/...

    “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

    by KingofSpades on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:17:43 PM PST

    •  GOP will keep bugging him on a Senate run (0+ / 0-)

      They hate Reid so much they see Sandoval as their only chance at taking him out I fully expect the NRSC to make all kinds of promises to Sandoval in order to get him to run,

      •  Definitely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ArkDem14

        But I think if GOP doesnt control the Senate after 2014 or looks like they wont post-2016. Sandoval might not run. Being a governor or federal judge would be a more powerful position.

        And it's telling he said this to Heller, since senators make the recommendations for court appointments.

  •  MS-Sen: Cochran's remarks on Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, itskevin, sulthernao

    Presuming we're still in talks with Travis Childers, I think this might be the catalyst that gets him into the race. Couldn't have come at a better time, considering the filing deadline is so soon.

    TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

    by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:17:49 PM PST

    •  Cochran may bail last minute (0+ / 0-)

      In fact that's what I think he'll do. This guy is not making any attempt to go futher right. Remember Chambliss said he was indeed running for re-election before he ultimately baled out, well over a year before the filing dead. The deadline in Mississippi is next month.

      I won't be surprise if he ultimately says fuck it, and call it quits. Such a shame he'll be replace by a repugnant like Daniels, but after all this is Mississippi we are talking about.

      NY-9/NJ-10; Russians can give you arms but only the United States can give you a solution. -- Anwar Sadat

      by BKGyptian89 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:33:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A massive step back for the state (4+ / 0-)

        to go from Cochran to a neo-confederate.

        “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

        by KingofSpades on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:38:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I ran a simple demographic analysis.. (0+ / 0-)

        on Childers' vote totals in 2010. As I recall, he got something on the order of 25% of the white vote - in 2010, a really bad year. With 25% of the white vote, one can be competitive in MS, particularly if enough Cochran supporters are offended by McDaniel. The trick will be running up the white vote margin in Gene Taylor's and Travis Childers' old districts.

        It may be a longshot, less probable than even keeping WV, but it's still a greater-than-zero chance of taking it.

        The wildcard, as you allude, is Cochran himself. If Cochran is sufficiently pissed off by being turfed out by some upstart Tea Partier, who knows what he'll do? Cochran's a guy who cares a lot about his state, and often works deals to include pork. That's his shtick in the Senate. The question he'll be asking is, between Childers and McDaniel, who's going to secure pork for his state? The Democrat who believes in government largesse to some extent, or McDaniel the fire-and-brimstone Tea Partier?

        When he realizes the answer is the former, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he endorses Childers outright. Endorsements don't usually matter much in politics, but coming from the guy who practically founded the Mississippi Republican Party and who represented the state since Carter, I think it'll matter a bit more than we would expect. In a state as polarized as MS, breaking down that polarization even a little bit could be very helpful.

        TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

        by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:46:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We really need to get Childers and Chad Taylor (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, WisJohn, jncca, bjssp

      Anything we can do to put offensive pressure on the Republicans -- and ensure that their loopiest, wackiest Tea Partiers don't get a free ride even in red states.

      Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 05:15:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  New Alex Sink ad: (5+ / 0-)

    “The universe is big. It’s vast and complicated and ridiculous. And sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles.” -The Doctor

    by KingofSpades on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:22:11 PM PST

  •  A few random political questions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ModernDayWarrior

    1. In which Congressional District is Cyrus Habib's district located, and could have a chance at winning that Congressional seat one day?

    2. How good of a chance does Xavier Becerra have of becoming Minority Leader/Speaker in 2016 or whenever Pelosi retires?

    3. Assuming Begich keeps his seat in 2014, who are some possible Republican or Democratic challengers to Murkowski in 2016?

    4. If Brian Schatz loses his Senate seat in Hawaii in 2014, could he try to reclaim it in 2016, since the seat is up for election again then?

    5. Is Dianne Feinstein likely to retire in 2018 or Barbara Boxer in 2016?

    6. Besides North Carolina are there any gubernatorial races for 2016 that may get interesting?

    7. If Vitter wins the LA gubernatorial race, who will probably be appointed to his Senate seat, and who will seek it?

    8. Are there any interesting possible House retirements that will probably happen in 2016 instead of this year?

    9. Assuming Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) retires in 2016, who will probably replace him?

    10. Are there any Reps or Senators who might get caught in an ethics violation and have to resign/retire by 2016?

    I'm still working on that hypothetical future politics story I mentioned last month, so these were a few of the questions I had to make my story more interesting.

    Leftist Mormon in Utah, Born in Washington State, live in UT-04 (Matheson).

    by Gygaxian on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:16:46 PM PST

    •  My answers to 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gygaxian

      2. As Setsuna Mudo pointed out up-thread, Becerra had a falling-out with leadership during healthcare reform. I would guess Hoyer or Van Hollen would be the Speaker/Leader.

      4. I don't know much about Hawaii, but Ed Case and Mufi Hannemann are still running for things, so I don't see why not.

      5. I think DiFi will retire first. I'd say Boxer retires in 2022 (wow, that's only 8 yrs away!)

      6. MO, IN, WV. Nixon and Tomblin are term-limited, and both states are trending red, but we have good and capable benches. In Indiana, I thought I read recently that Pence might forgo another term. I'm not sure. Pence seemed to be a better legislator than he is as an executive.

      9. A Republican. :)

      Gay farm boy, 21, who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -5.12, -1.74, "No tears. Remember the laughter, stories and good times we shared."- My dad (1959-2013).

      by WisJohn on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:49:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How red Missouri can trend? (0+ / 0-)

        Some people keep saying that. Democrats as far as I see will still be competitive statewide downballot, and will always start with floor of 45-47%. I don't know how far red it can go, when people like Akin was too far of a rightwing nut to win in the state.

        NY-9/NJ-10; Russians can give you arms but only the United States can give you a solution. -- Anwar Sadat

        by BKGyptian89 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:41:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Fleming would almost certainly run (0+ / 0-)

      for Vitter's seat. Maybe Scalise too.

      "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 Feb 21, 2014 at 08:59:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Schatz loses (0+ / 0-)

      He probably goes for governor after Abercrombie.  Or bides his time and goes for the next open Senate seat.

    •  These are some good questions. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gygaxian

      I did some research to answer these, mainly because I've asked several of them myself.

      1. His state legislative district is split between districts 8 and 9. Rep Reichart in the 8th is 63 and it is a swingy-seat, so in the near future there's probably a small chance. In a wave year there's definitely a chance, as is there if it's an open seat, but otherwise probably not. The 9th is very Democratic (D+15) and has a young representative, so its highly unlikely he could win that one, at least in the near future.

      2. Based on comments above about him having a falling-out, probably not.

      3. For the Republicans there's always Joe Miller, again! Other than him, maybe Anchorage mayor Dan Sullivan, who I doubt would try to primary her? For the Democrats probably one of State Sens Hollis French, Bill Wielechowski, and Ethan Berkowitz. I'm sure there are other state legislators that I don't know about that could also run. State Sen Dennis Egan, State Senate Minority Leader Johnny Ellis, and State Rep Andy Josephson are also named by Wikipedia.

      4. If he loses this year I don't see him trying to primary her in 2016; in fact, I think he's more someone who would graciously bow out if asked to run, which really is too bad. Sadly there are no other statewide offices in Hawaii other than Governor, so it would probably be either him or Rep Gabbard that run in 2018, be it a term-limited Abercrombie or a sitting Aiona.

      5. Considering their ages, I'd say yes to DiFi retiring in 2018. If DiFi hadn't run in 2012, I'd say Boxer would retire in 2016, but considering than Boxer is the younger one I could see her running again in 2016 as opposed to retiring. Both would probably be replaced by representatives, but that's not completely guaranteed.

      6. Bullock in Montana should be competitive. The open seat in Missouri could be competitive, as could the open seat in West Virginia depending on the candidates for both parties. I forget what you're doing with Matheson, but there is the Utah race that year too. Both Pence in Indiana and Inslee in Washington could be in competitive races as well. And the Democratic primary in the open seat in Delaware could be interesting, but the seat wouldn't be competitive in a general election.

      7. It really depends on if he picks a place holder for the seat or not. If he does I could see a lot of Republicans running. If he doesn't pick a place holder, Reps Boustany and Fleming are possible picks, Fleming probably more likely. If it's an open seat, either or both of those two could run, as could Rodney Alexander, John Kennedy, Rep Scalise Former Rep Landry, Jay Dardenne, and Bill Cassidy if he loses in 2014. If he wins, though, Mary Landrieu would be a good candidate for the Democrats, as would Mitch Landrieu.

      8. Rangel (NY), Slaughter (NY), Young (AK), a lot of the Michigan delegation that probably won't retire anyway (Dingell, Conyers, Levin), McDermott (WA), Petri and Seisenbrenner (WI), LoBiondo (NJ), Peter King (NY), Pelosi and Boehner (unlikely), Tsongas (MA) maybe. The majority of those aren't that interesting, but there would probably be a few surprising ones in swing districts that tilt one way to try to keep them for the party in a presidential year as well as the usual age based ones.

      9. AG Luther Strange could run, as could any of the Representatives (Aderholt, Brooks, Roby, Rogers, Byrne, Bachus's successor). Any of the other statewide office holders could run, as could any number of state legislators. I'd bet a Representative or the AG though. No Democrats have a chance in Alabama.

      10. Grimm (NY), if he's re-elected in 2014. Sen Menendez could also have to resign by then, but I don't think he'd ever be in enough stuff to actually have to resign. Beyond those two it'd probably be someone who has stuff come up during or after the 2014 cycle. Maybe a representative who tries to run for president like McCotter.

      Hopefully these help!

    •  #6 - MO-Gov-2016 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jorge Harris, Gygaxian

      will probably match current AG Chris Koster (D) against former SoS Catherine Hanaway (R), both of which have already indicated they plan to run. Koster is probably favored. He won easily in 2012, whereas Hanaway hasn't held office since 2004, when she lost by five points to Robin Carnahan, even as the Dems lost at both the presidential and gubernatorial level. Should be an interesting race, though.

      26, male, Dem, born and raised in MO-08, currently living in MO-04.

      by ModernDayWarrior on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:45:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Getting Doheny off not as difficult as all that (0+ / 0-)

    The IP can just nominate him anywhere in the state post primary for a Judicial office and then the vacancy committee puts in anyone they want for the congressional race. The way of the accurately referred to corrupt IP is that they endorse most of the incumbents regardless of major party but in an open seat almost always endorse Republicans.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site