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.

7:52 AM PT: FL-13: Candidates running in the Florida special to replace Bill Young filed pre-election fundraising reports on Thursday night, covering the period between Jan. 1 and Feb. 19, and once again, Democrat Alex Sink swamped Republican David Jolly. Sink raised a massive $1.3 million while Jolly took in $639,000, but the cash-on-hand gap is even wider. Sink still had $972,000 in the bank for the stretch run, compared to just $182,000 for Jolly.

But why does that matter, you might ask, since Karl Rove and the gang are spending like crazy? The answer is that FCC rules mandate that campaigns get preferential TV ad rates compared to outside groups like American Crossroads. Indeed, the Obama campaign was able to get much more bang for its buck by making use of this rule, spending less than the GOP but airing more spots overall. Sink is riding that same advantage, since she's buying airtime at a discount—perhaps around 30 percent less than what super PACs might pay. And that will count for a lot in this very expensive race.

8:22 AM PT: AZ-Gov: Sheesh. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is still saying she might try to upend Arizona's term limits laws and seek a third term in office this year, even though the election cycle is already well underway and a plethora of GOP hopefuls has been running to succeed her for some time. A Brewer bid would inevitably be met with legal challenges by her rivals, and indeed, she might have to file a lawsuit herself if election authorities refuse to put her on the ballot. Time, however, is really running out (if it hasn't already).

Ever since Brewer began making noises about this possibility long ago, political observers speculated that it was a merely a way for her to stave off lame-duckitis. So Brewer's recent remarks ("It's a little like letting go of your baby"—creepy) might represent one final grasp at relevance, since she's promised a decision right around now. If she does try to stand and fight, though, she could be in for a seriously messy internecine fight.

9:00 AM PT: AZ-07, -09: For the third time this cycle, a Democratic member of Congress is reportedly considering seeking re-election in a seat held by a retiring colleague, though this latest story is very thing. According to a local news report, freshman Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is "rumored" to be thinking about switching over to Rep. Ed Pastor's much bluer 7th District, instead of running again in the swingy 9th. That pattern is very similar to what we saw not long ago with California Reps. John Garamendi and Julia Brownley, but ultimately, both wisely decided to stay put.

And there are good reasons for Sinema to do so as well. Sinema, who was once a spokesperson for Ralph Nader's presidential campaign, has rather shamelessly migrated to the right in recent years, and she even joined the conservative Blue Dog Coalition just last month. So she'd have a hard time winning a Democratic primary in a very liberal district like the 7th, a race that's already attracted considerable attention.

While Sinema doesn't face the easiest of re-election campaigns in the 9th (we currently rate the contest Lean Democrat), her challengers so far haven't shown themselves to be particularly strong. Sinema probably has a better chance of winning the general in AZ-09 than the primary in AZ-07. Democrats have to hope she realizes this herself, since the 9th would become a very difficult hold if she abandons that seat.

9:31 AM PT: CA-17: Democracy for America has released a new poll from PPP showing Democratic Rep. Mike Honda (whom they've endorsed, as has Daily Kos and many other progressive organizations) leading the field in his bid for re-election, but the head-to-head matchups were asked in a few different ways, so there isn't one single topline to report. When party labels are included in a primary scenario, Honda leads Republican Vanila Singh 45-29, with his more prominent and well-financed Democratic challenger Ro Khanna actually trailing with 26.

Without party labels, Honda's lead is even bigger: He crushes Khanna 62-27, while Singh is at a distant 11 percent. But note that PPP was able to come up with these separate results only by using a split sample, which means that the number of respondents in each case was below the traditionally accepted minimum of 300 (270 for the first matchup, 235 for the second). However, in both cases, Honda's margin is so wide that he's still outside the margin of error, which is around plus-or-minus 6 percent in each case.

PPP also asked about two different general election matchups (both with party labels). Honda wins both of those as well: 61-39 over Khanna and 69-31 over Singh. One thing you've probably noticed by now, though, is that DFA and PPP didn't offer respondents the option to say they're undecided. This is a choice we've always criticized in the past, since it forces voters to make up their minds when they may not be ready to do so yet and it can therefore yield misleading data. It's emphatically not a best practice, and it's one that clients and pollsters alike should eschew.

But if this polling is nevertheless accurate, it points to an intriguing option for Honda, one which we've alluded to in the past. In that first primary matchup, which more accurately reflects what the actual ballot will look like, Singh actually edges Khanna, and Honda would simply flatten her in November in this heavily blue district. Honda may therefore want to consider ratfucking on Singh's behalf, to ensure she squeaks past Khanna in the primary, in much the same way fellow California Democrat Juan Vargas successfully did in 2012.

Khanna's considerable war chest will make it a lot harder to do so, and these kind of shenanigans might also make goo-goo types queasy. But hey, this is the system California voters chose for themselves, and this is one of its consequences.

9:58 AM PT: AZ-07: The Democratic primary in Arizona's suddenly open (and dark blue) 7th District could wind up being as crazy as the one clear across the country in Virginia's 8th, if the list of potential candidates considering the race is anything to go by. In addition to state Rep. Ruben Gallego, who announced his entry immediately after Rep. Ed Pastor said he'd retire, two others are also already in: Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox (a heavyweight name) and state Sen. Steve Gallardo.

But a zillion more folks say they're looking at bids, according to the Arizona Republic, including Phoenix City Councilors Daniel Valenzuela, Michael Nowakowski, and Laura Pastor (Ed's daughter); state House Minority Leader Chad Campbell; former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon; Avondale Mayor Marie Lopez Rogers; and Rev. Jarrett Maupin, a civil rights activist. Also receiving Great Mentioner treatment is state Rep. Catherine Miranda. Pastor, meanwhile, says he likely won't endorse a successor.

10:15 AM PT: IA-01: Unexpected and strange, but nevertheless good news for Iowa Democrats: Republican state Rep. Walt Rogers, who led the GOP pack (albeit not impressively) in fundraising last quarter, has decided to drop out and seek re-election to the legislature instead. That leaves two businessman in the Republican primary, Rod Blum and Steve Rathje, both of whom have raised pitifully so far. The five candidates seeking the Democratic nomination haven't wowed anyone with their fundraising prowess either, but they've done better than their GOP counterparts.

10:32 AM PT: KS-Sen: After considering the race for many months, Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor has decided to run for Senate, giving Democrats a credible candidate. Unfortunately, Kansas being Kansas, Taylor's odds are very long. A recent PPP poll showed him trailing GOP Sen. Pat Roberts 48-32, and he takes the same vote share against tea partier Milton Wolf, who leads 33-32. Taylor would need an absolutely catastrophic Republican primary in order to have a shot, though given the hostilities between Wolf and Roberts, it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. And Wolf may yet get some more help in bashing Roberts, seeing as the Tea Party Express just endorsed him. So Taylor at least has reason to keep his fingers crossed—all of them.

10:49 AM PT: SC-Gov: The RGA is once again going in early to a state you'd think would be lower on their list of defensive priorities. First it was Wisconsin, where the group has reportedly spent $1 million on behalf of Gov. Scott Walker, and now it's South Carolina, where they're set to shell out $200,000 on an as-yet unreleased ad to prop up Gov. Nikki Haley. Of course, what we don't know is whether the RGA has some bad seekrit polls that show these seats in unexpected jeopardy, or whether they're getting involved now to prevent them from becoming more competitive later.

11:08 AM PT: NC-Sen: One of the nuttiest nutbars that ever nutted up the joint, Tim D'Annunzio, is looking to re-nut in 2014. You may remember D'Annunzio as the 2010 GOP hopeful in NC-08 who so worried his own party that they put out a contract on his political life, calling him "unfit for public office at any level." And just how nuts is D'Annunzio? This nuts:

In Hoke County divorce records, his wife said in 1995 that D'Annunzio had claimed to be the Messiah, had traveled to New Jersey to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed God would drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland and found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona. A doctor's evaluation the following month said D'Annunzio used marijuana almost daily, had been living with another woman for several months, had once been in drug treatment for heroin dependence and was jailed a couple times as a teenager.
Republicans were able to thwart him in the primary that year, though they lost the general election anyway. But now, after another disastrous run last cycle in a different, deep blue district, D'Annunzio is back to mess things up for the GOP yet again. That's because Tim-diana Jones is seeking the Libertarian nomination for Senate, and if he's successful, he could draw just enough votes away from the eventual Republican nominee to save Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan's bacon.

Amusingly, though, D'Annunzio first has to win a Libertarian primary against a party activist named Sean Haugh who has run for office before. Maybe the Libs are panicking now, too, and perhaps they'll go all-out to stop D'Annunzio, just like the Republicans once did. It would certainly be amusing to watch them try. (And no, I'm pretty sure we've never written about a Libertarian primary before.)

11:23 AM PT (David Jarman): WA-01: If you're like me, when you heard that someone named Pedro Celis was running for Congress, the first thing you thought was, "Well, at least he already has lots of campaign t-shirts in circulation."

Vote for Pedro shirt

Pedro Celis is a retired Microsoft executive, and he's running against freshman Dem Suzan Del Bene in Washington's 1st district, which is probably the closest thing that Washington has to a swing district. His former job means that he probably has at least some self-funding capacity (he was Mitt Romney's in-state campaign co-chair in 2012), and also that it's this district's first-ever battle between two ex-MSFT execs.

Celis seems to be coming at this from an old-school moderate Republican perspective -- he was a strong backer of Washington's state-level DREAM Act, which was just signed into law this month -- which may play well in the affluent Eastside suburban portions of the district. But it's not likely to be an asset in the more rural portions of this district, in the counties further north, which is where most of the Republicans left in the district are found. There's already a more tea-flavored Republican from further north in the race (Ed Moats, a former Snohomish County Council legislative aide), so Celis might need to spend a lot just to get out of the top 2 primary.

11:25 AM PT: MI-Sen: For the second time this campaign, Republican Terri Lynn Land seems to have no idea what her position on Obamacare is. On Thursday, Land said she "applauds" Michigan's decision to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which might seem like a politically sensible position, except for the fact that previously said she wants to repeal Obamacare in its entirety.

But how did she come to that extremist position in the first place? Last year, you may recall, Land declared that we were "past" the idea of defunding the ACA and instead said we have to "fix" the law. But later that same day, she flip-flopped to join the standard conservative view that Obamacare must be repealed. So if you're counting, She's now expressed four different stances on the healthcare law:

• I supported defunding Obamacare.

• We're past defunding now—we need to now fix Obamacare.

• I support repealing the Obamacare law if we can get it repealed.

• I applaud Gov. Rick Snyder for expanding Medicaid under Obamacare.

Land makes Mitt Romney look like a model of consistency.

11:32 AM PT: MI-12: As expected, Democrat Debbie Dingell, the wife of retiring Rep. John Dingell, has launched her campaign for her husband's House seat. Meanwhile, Democratic state Rep. Rebekah Warren says she's forming an exploratory committee to look at a bid of her own. If Warren were to go for it, a new joint poll from Republican firm Revsix and Democratic outfit Mainstreet Strategies on behalf of Inside Michigan Politics shows Dingell leading 56-22 in a two-way primary matchup. In a kitchen-sink scenario, Dingell still cruises, taking 51 percent while Warren takes 16 and a trio of other state legislators is in the low single digits.

11:47 AM PT: OK-05: Former GOP state Sen. Steve Russell, who is most famous for helping to capture Saddam Hussein, has decided to run for the seat left open by Rep. James Lankford's bid for Senate. Russell joins a field that includes several other Republican office-holders and one elected Democrat, state Sen. Al McAffery.

11:56 AM PT: SD-Sen: Republican-turned-independent former Sen. Larry Pressler is somehow managing to air a stunty new ad that features grainy footage of him turning down a bribe from an FBI agent during the Abscam scandal in 1980. Pressler's hook is the recent movie American Hustle, which he mentions by name because it's based on Abscam, and he plans to run the ad during the Academy Awards. As you might expect, there's no word on the size of the buy, and the "I approve this message" disclaimer also lacks a photo or video of Pressler (as is required).

There's also a new Rasmussen poll of the race, but they managed to forget about Pressler entirely. They find Republican ex-Gov. Mike Rounds leading former Democratic congressional staffer Rick Weiland 51-31.

12:03 PM PT: FL-13: Those outside groups are still determined to make up the shortfall, though. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is out with what may be their final ad, which features a fast-talking announcer who slams Alex Sink for (what else is new?) supporting Obamacare despite "deep cuts to Medicare Advantage." There's also a weird moment when the ad features a clip of Sink calling the ACA an "exciting prospect," but the narrator simultaneously utters those same words right on top of Sink. Why wouldn't you just let a candidate speak for herself?

12:20 PM PT: MS-Sen: Democratic ex-Rep. Travis Childers, who'd been considering a comeback bid for some time, has indeed decided to run for Senate this year. Childers is probably the strongest get the Democrats could hope for, but he still faces serious obstacles in deep red Mississippi. A November PPP poll showed him trailing GOP Sen. Thad Cochran 50-33, though he did fare better against Cochran's tea-flavored primary challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel, losing by a narrower 41-38 spread.

However, Democratic candidates typically have a high floor and a low ceiling in Mississippi politics, thanks to voting patterns that are extremely polarized along racial lines. Democrats can expect near-universal support among the state's black voters but a similar level of hostility from white voters. And since the Magnolia State is only about 37 percent black, the difficulty is clear. Even a McDaniel primary victory, which seems very possible, would probably not change the calculus sufficiently on its own.

Childers, though, has always seemed like a savvy pol, and he must have polling data that shows him with a path to victory. Of course, politicians are, like the rest of us, good at deceiving themselves (Bob Kerrey's 2012 Senate bid is a prime example), and Childers doesn't have much to lose. So he may well be embarking on a fool's errand, but there's at least some chance he knows something we do not.

12:22 PM PT: MS-04: The other congressional comeback news out of Mississippi isn't quite as uplifting for Democrats. Ex-Rep. Gene Taylor, who served a deep-red district as a Democrat for many years before getting turfed out in 2010, has indeed decided to run for his old seat as a Republican. Taylor had been considering the possibility for a while, even though he once said he would "feel like a prostitute" if he switched parties. At least Democrats can enjoy the possibility of some cat fud, as Taylor will have to mix it up with sophomore Rep. Steven Palazzo—the guy who defeated him four years ago—in the GOP primary.

12:39 PM PT (Darth Jeff): North Carolina: Filing closed Friday for the state's May 6 primary. In races where no one wins more than 40 percent of the vote, the top two candidates will advance to a July 15 runoff. The state has a list of candidates in contested primaries here.

Eight Republicans are jockeying to take on Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan: Speaker Thom Tillis, 2004 lieutenant governor nominee Jim Snyder, former Baptist State Convention President Mark Harris, veteran Heather Grant, doctor Greg Bannon, former Shelby Mayor William Alexander, and two Some Dudes. No one in Republican field is well known to voters, but recent polling suggests Tillis is the frontrunner. Daily Kos Elections rates the November general election as a tossup.  

A number of House primaries will also be worth watching. In the race to succeed Rep. Howard Coble in the Greensboro area NC-06, nine Republicans are duking it out. Only Rockingham County District Attorney Phil Berger Jr. raised any real money in the last fundraising quarter, and he looks like the clear favorite. Democratic hopes of winning this district are slim: Romney won 58-41 here, and Daily Kos Elections rates this as safely Republican. However, ex-UNC administrator Laura Fjeld displayed some unexpectedly strong fundraising for such a red district and may at least be worth keeping an eye on.  

In the southeastern NC-07, Democratic Rep. Mike McIntyre's retirement gives team red a very likely pickup in this conservative district. On the Republican side, former state Sen. and 2012 nominee David Rouzer faces New Hanover County Commissioner Woody White and veteran Chris Andrade. The Democratic nominee will likely be New Hanover County Commissioner Jonathan Barfield. Romney won 59-40 here, and Daily Kos Elections rates this as Safe Republican.

In the final open seat race over in NC-12, seven Democrats are in. In the primary to replace former Rep. and current Federal Housing Finance Agency head Mel Watt, the candidates are attorney Curtis Osborne, former Charlotte-Mecklenberg School Board Chairman George Battle, former Charlotte City Councilor and 2013 mayoral candidate George Mitchell, state Sen. Malcolm Graham, and state Reps. Alma Adams and Marcus Brandon, and Some Dude Rajive Patel. A special election primary to fill this vacant seat will be held concurrently with the regular primary. This seat was drawn to take in African American areas stretching from Greensboro to Charlotte and is safely Democratic at 79-21 Obama.

The state's 10 other House members (eight Republicans and two Democrats) are running again and most should have little to worry about in either the primary or general. One possible exception is NC-03 Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican with a libertarian streak. Jones faces a primary challenge from former Congressional aide William Griffin, who managed to out-raise him in the last quarter. Jones has turned back primary challenges over the years with ease, but this may be worth watching. In any case, this coastal 58-41 Romney seat should stay in GOP hands.

The one House member who looks to be in any general election danger is Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers in NC-02. Ellmers is likely to face Democrat Clay Aiken, who was on some singing show a while back. Aiken's celebrity status may give Democrats a shot here, but at 57-42 Romney this district is a tough slog: Daily Kos Elections rates it as Likely Republican.

12:43 PM PT: Meanwhile, the pro-Cochran super PAC Mississippi Conservatives is running new TV and radio ads lambasting McDaniel for his hemming and hawing over the idea of providing emergency relief for his own state after Hurricane Katrina. The TV spot features a clip of McDaniel (branded a "trial lawyer") saying a vote for Katrina relief would not have been "an easy vote to cast." The size of the combined buy is reportedly $100,000.

12:48 PM PT: IL-13: Physics professor George Gollin, who faces former judge Ann Callis in the March 18 Democratic primary, says he's spending another $48,000 to air a new TV ad. However, the spot has not yet been released.

12:52 PM PT: ID-02: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has endorsed GOP Rep. Mike Simpson, is running a new compare-and-contrast ad that blasts Simpson's primary challenger, attorney Brian Smith, as a "trial lawyer" who "stood in the way when conservatives tried to end junk lawsuits in Idaho." The second half praises Simpson as a "proven conservative who will take on the trial lawyers" as some over-the-top martial music plays in the background.

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 (8+ / 0-)

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

    by David Nir on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 06:00:16 AM PST

  •  Thank you for posting... (5+ / 0-)

    what we will see a lot of when NC's candidate filing is done.

    •  NC Filing closed at Noon today (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JacobNC, MichaelNY, CF of Aus

      and while there are plenty of nuts in the US Senate race:

      “If the American people want to do business as usual, it ain’t gonna be me,” said O’Neal, who’s refusing to accept any kind of donations for his campaign. His run will end Friday – the last day to file candidacy papers – if he’s not able to raise enough money to pay the $1,740 filing fee. He wanted to raise the money via furniture sales. Earlier this week, he declined to say how close he was.

      Besides O’Neal, there’s Edward Kryn, a 63-year-old retired physician from Canada. Kryn moved to Clayton and became a U.S. citizen nearly two decades ago after “assaults on human dignity” – primarily, abortions – started being practiced in Canada. Kryn filed candidacy papers on Tuesday.

      “The assault on religious freedoms in this country requires spokespeople,” Kryn said. “I offer myself as one of those spokespersons, if the party decides to see that I could be that individual.”

      Then there’s David Waddell, a 39-year-old plumber running on the Constitution Party platform, who gained national notoriety in early January when he resigned from his Indian Trail town council seat – with a letter he penned in Klingon, the language of a fictional extraterrestrial humanoid warrier species featured in the “Star Trek” series.

      http://www.newsobserver.com/...

      not 1 Democrat filed to run in NC-9 in Charlotte. Damned shameful.

      http://www.ncsbe.gov/...

      Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

      by bear83 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:24:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Many CT state legislators not running again (12+ / 0-)

    According to this article, four Connecticut state senators are not running for re-election. Sen. John McKinney (R) is running for Governor, while Sens. Gary LeBeau (D), Jason Welch (R), and Senate President Pro Tempore Don Williams (D) are all retiring from public service (at least temporarily).

    Of these four seats, LeBeau's will be the easiest hold. It contains dark-blue East Hartford (half the district), lighter-blue South Windsor and East Windsor, and light pink Ellington. Possible Republican candidates are Representatives Chris Davis of East Windsor and Bill Aman of South Windsor, but neither would play well in East Hartford, and Aman's running would result in an almost guaranteed Democratic pickup of his House seat. Reps Henry Genga and Tim Larson of East Hartford are the most likely Democratic candidates. This district voted around 65% for Obama in 2012, so any Democrat should be safe here.

    Williams' district also quite Democratic, voting around 61% for Obama in 2012. It stretches from Mansfield and Windham all the way to the northeast corner of the state. The three most likely Democratic candidates here are state reps Gregg Haddad (Mansfield), Susan Johnson (Windham), and Danny Rovero (Killingly). Republicans do not have any state representatives who live here. This district is also pretty safe for the Dems.

    Jason Welch defeated a longtime Democratic incumbent in 2010, and then won re-election very narrowly in 2012, so his district should be a top pickup opportunity. It voted around 54% for Obama in 2012. Democrats would do best with either of our two state reps in Bristol (Christopher Wright and Frank Nicastro), while the best Republican candidates would be state rep Whit Betts of Bristol or Ken Cockayne, the mayor of Bristol. This race could be very close.

    As for John McKinney, his district (based in Fairfield and stretching north to Newtown) is the most Republican of these four. It voted about 50/50 in 2012, and is more Republican downballot. The best Democratic candidates would be state rep Kim Fawcett or Fairfield First Selectman Michael Tetreau, while Republicans have three state reps here: Brenda Kupchick, Tony Hwang, and Mitch Bolinsky. This district probably starts out leaning Republican, but if wealthy, socially-liberal suburbanites start to sour on the Republicans, we could win this.

    (-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 28, 2014 at 06:44:12 AM PST

  •  MD Gov: Craig first on the air (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, LilithGardener, pademocrat

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

    David Craig will be the first gubernatorial candidate on the air in Maryland, ad run starts next month.

    NWOTSOTB but it's a radio ad slated to air on 2 talk radio stations in the Baltimore market. It's supposed to focus on his "vote yourself a raise" platform, i.e. getting rid of the income tax with no plan for how to make up the lost revenue, but it will have to be in the sales tax, so really it's a "vote yourself higher grocery bills" platform, because we know he's not going to come out in favor of higher corporate taxes...

  •  FCC Rule Described re Sink/Jolly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    If they haven't tried back when they controlled things, will they try if/when they control things again to destroy that rule you describe above? Seems like a no brainer, if you want to let Crossroads GPS and other groups run wild.

    "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 28, 2014 at 07:57:05 AM PST

    •  As you probably know the (0+ / 0-)

      Supreme Court is about to strike down individual contribution limits in McCutcheon. That would help them out a bit on this issue, but yes, this rule seems like the next thing to Court should take up and strike down in the name of free speech.

      CA-12, (-5.50, -6.77), originally CA-46

      by Jacques Kallis on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:15:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't know it was that close to anything. (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, I knew they had been hearing cases about this stuff, but I didn't know much beyond that.

        "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 28, 2014 at 08:18:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  guess who's running for NC-Sen as a Libertarian? (18+ / 0-)

    Tim D'Annunzio!

    he'll have to make it past Sean Haugh in the Libertarian primary (they get a primary as a qualified party in North Carolina)

    The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

    by RBH on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:59:53 AM PST

  •  4th Quarter GDP Revised Downward.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....from 3.2% to 2.4%.  The last hope the Democrats had to avoid a calamitous political environment in November was economic growth that was felt on Main Street that could help distract from the other issues that have drug Obama's approval rating to 41%.  Headlines of economic growth rates revised downwards by 25% are not helpful, and as George H.W. Bush could tell you, an economic surge right before the election rather than several months before doesn't translate to poll recovery.  Holding the Senate just got a lot harder with today's economic data revision.

    •  When we elected (19+ / 0-)

      you captain of the DKE Spirit Squad, we told you boisterous optimism was the name of the game. Between this and the fat thighs, I just don't know what to say anymore.

      "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 28, 2014 at 08:06:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wha? (9+ / 0-)

      It's not even on the news sites right now. No one pays attention to revisions of GDP growth. No one even knows what "good" GDP growth even is.

      You fundamentally misunderstand the effect this will have on the elections. And just what do you mean by "a lot harder"? Do we revise each Senate race downward a step (i.e. lean-D's to tossups, toss-ups to lean-R's, etc)?

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

      by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:16:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It Won't Be Today's Headline By Itself..... (0+ / 0-)

        It'll be eight months of accumulating headlines about a slowing economy....and more importantly, a voter base that will live the headline when they're less likely to have extra jangle in their pockets on the day they head to the polls.

        •  Well, who're they gonna vote for.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PassionateJus, CF of Aus

          the guys who wanna raise the minimum wage and put more jangle in their pockets, or the guys who don't believe minimum wage should even exist?

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

          by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:21:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Historically Speaking..... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gabjoh, MichaelNY, jncca

            ....they (being nonbase independent voters) will vote for the party that doesn't control the White House when the economy is slumping.  Definitely one of the more reliable metrics with voter patterns, and seems especially prescient given the defensive Senate playing field.  By all means the Dems should go full throttle litigating the minimum wage but I'm not sure that's gonna give them much cover in a low-growth economy when Senate control hinges on wins in places like Louisiana and Alaska.

          •  when it comes to the MinWage issue (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mark27, LordMike, MichaelNY

            it seems like that's an issue where people will generally support an increase, but it's not really going to increase turnout or determine votes for individual races.

            random note: It'd be a fun polling test to see how high a proposed minimum wage would need to be to get a majority opposing said minimum wage.

            And to answer the Q, a good portion of Americans aren't voting for anybody and that'll include a good portion of people who voted for Obama in Nov12. But the ones who are voting, well.

            The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

            by RBH on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:49:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  We also are seeing... (9+ / 0-)

          The federal deficit and unemployment rate shrink below pre-recession levels. That's a lot flashier than GDP growth.

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

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:21:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unemployment Rate Is Probably The Most Important.. (0+ / 0-)

            ....metric regarding voter perception of the economy, followed by GDP growth, and the federal deficit figure last.  So yes, if the unemployment rate keeps falling that will be a feather in the Dems' cap despite mediocre GDP growth, but I doubt Dems will get much traction saying that the deficit has fallen to "only $500 billion".

            •  Only $500 billion? (4+ / 0-)

              That's no pocket change.  Only the Dems can boast that they have a track record of cutting the annual deficits.  Bill Clinton now Obama as opposed to Bush, Bush and Reagan.  If they managed to cut it in half in 4 budget years, imagine what they could do in 4 more.  

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

              by DisNoir36 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:37:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Republican Rejoinder Will Be..... (0+ / 0-)

                ....that Obama's smallest deficit is still larger than any previous deficit in American history before Obama.  I don't think the deficit is a major issue in general when it comes to the kinds of voters who determine election outcomes, and it seems very unlikely that the "smallest deficit since Dubya" is gonna better position Arkansans to vote for Mark Pryor.

          •  Revised GDP numbers really have no bearing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PassionateJus

            other than to political geeks who already know who they're gonna vote for.  

            That's like revised job reports numbers.  Nobody even knows what they are.  

            If this election comes down to the economy, people will be voting for the side that wants to help them economically by say raising the minimum wages, decreasing their healthcare costs and so on.  They won't be voting for the side that is more concerned with a woman's uterus, banning abortion and birth control, preventing people from getting healthcare by voting 50 times to repeal it, discriminating against the gays, hating on the Hispanic immigrants and making it harder for African Americans and other minorities to vote.  

            Revised GDP reports don't register on the radar.

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

            by DisNoir36 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:34:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, It's Not Today's Headline..... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              It's the overall position of the economy heading into fall.  3.2% in Q4 set the incumbent party up much better for a tangibly strong economy in November than does 2.4%.

              •  Or you could look at it the other way (0+ / 0-)

                2.4% as a starting point with the economy going up from there has a FAR better trendline than starting out at 3.2% and either flatlining or going down.  

                Dems can run on the 'economy is improving all the time' as opposed to running on the 'economy could be better.'

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

                by DisNoir36 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:41:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Economic Growth That Comes Late..... (0+ / 0-)

                  .....in an election cycle isn't felt by the first Tuesday in November.  The economy grew at a very impressive rate in the 3rd quarter of 1992, but George H.W. Bush still had approval ratings in the 30s based on the perception of the bad economy.  And the fact that the current economy is being revised downward from an impressive growth rate to a very mediocre number doesn't bode well for the coming quarter, so even the economic growth three-pointer at the buzzer now seems less likely than it did last month.

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

                    The recession during the first Bush presidency fell on him as it happened within his presidency.  The cake was already baked.  

                    People, outside of the partisan ones who hate Obama anyway, know that the economy was in the shitter before Obama even set foot in office.  They don't hold him as accountable for the crappy economy and they see that it's improving ever so slowly (it would have improved even faster if the GOP weren't sabotaging it).  Plus Obama is not running and the congressional GOP who ARE running are polling in the single digits as far as favorability.  So as bad as congressional Dems may poll the GOP polls EVEN WORSE.  

                    Plus you're talking about revised GDP estimates a year out before elections.  It's not going to matter to anyone other than people looking to establish a false narrative this early out.  

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

                    by DisNoir36 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:55:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  This is high quality doom trolling (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, PassionateJus, CF of Aus

                You latch on to an isolated obscure data point for last year's economy and run wild with it.

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

                by DCCyclone on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:30:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Do you happen to know what stocks will (8+ / 0-)

          perform the best over the next 8 months too?

          ...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 28, 2014 at 08:47:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What expertise do you have in this, Mark? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, PassionateJus

          Are you an economist?  Do you do any kind of economic analysis professionally?

          There is not otherwise any consensus among economists on the direction of the economy.  In fact a lot of them have been predicting a strong 2014.

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

          by DCCyclone on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:26:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Seriously now, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, bythesea, MichaelNY

      I think the best option is to pound ahead with new economic plans. It looks like the administration is trying to do that with infrastructure, to some degree, but as I keep saying, the easiest route is to advocate for a payroll tax cut on both the employee and employer side. It gives Democrats in both red states and blue states something simple to run on, as it doesn't play into fears of big government, irresponsible spending, and all that.

      "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 28, 2014 at 08:17:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  calamitous? that's literally the only way we could (6+ / 0-)

      have avoided calamity? That is absolutely ridiculous.

      ...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 28, 2014 at 08:46:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  just a guess but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      i'm going to suspect people's economic perceptions are more based on how things are going around them than national numbers (GDP/Unemployment). The Unemployment percentage going down won't convince people that things are getting better more than when a long-term unemployed friend/family member can find work, for example. (Not even getting into how the unemployment percentage is not exactly comprehensive, but it isn't)

      There may be limits on the gains on either side purely because neither side could be perceived by some as doing much substantial about the whole job situation

      Anyways, it's not like the R ads about job losses and ACA will be effected by news. Or D ads on the other side.

      The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

      by RBH on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:12:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  With The Wall-Street-Takes-All Nature...... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gabjoh, MichaelNY

        ....of the economy since at least the dawn of this millennium, the spoils of even strong economic growth are so thinly dispersed that it's debatable whether the economy is gonna be a net positive for any incumbent (or incumbent party) in the foreseeable future.  Obviously the war in Iraq was the key issue in 2006, but even if that was a nonfactor, I'm not sure Bush would have been able to run on the statistically strong economy of the fall of 2006 and have it stick because the economy still didn't feel that great on Main Street even at the peak of the housing bubble.  With that in mind, if voters' perceptions are more based on their surroundings than national numbers as you suggest, it's hard to envision a situation anytime soon where somebody like Kay Hagan could run on the "great economy"....because what are the chances that the working-class neighborhoods of Greensboro and Fayetteville are gonna be active participants in that economic boom to the point of rewarding the incumbent as has been the historical metric?

        At least since 2000, it strikes me that the economy as a political issue can only hurt the incumbent....and it'll take a fundamental shift in the way things operate in the corporate boardroom to change that.

        •  Some of this rings true to me (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca, Zack from the SFV

          But then again, who won the 2012 election? So economic improvement, even in a still fairly shitty economy, does still matter.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:31:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama Didn't Really Run On The Economy Though.... (0+ / 0-)

            ....in a general sense there was some "things are getting better...let's stick with what's kinda/sorta working" to his campaign, but the centerpiece of Obama's re-election effort was disqualifying his opponent.  Reagan and Clinton didn't have to run those kinds of campaigns in their respective re-election efforts that were genuinely buoyed by an ascendant economy.

            •  That's really irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

              Carter tried to disqualify Reagan and had ammunition to use, but because the economy was so bad, Reagan won in a landslide. Even ignoring the issue of the Iran Hostage Crisis, which made things worse, had the voters felt the economy had gotten worse and not somewhat better during Obama's first term, he would have been defeated narrowly even if voters really disliked Romney.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 06:43:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  this is way off base (12+ / 0-)

      2.4% isn't as good as 3.2%, but it's still a healthy growth rate. When you look at the components of GDP there is nothing to worry about here.

      consumption: about 2/3 of the decline from the original estimate to the revision came here. The new estimate is that real consumption grew in the 4th quarter at a 2.55% annual rate, which is the best figure since the 1st quarter of 2012. The original 4q estimate of 3.34% looked fluky and unsustainable.

      fixed investment: this was revised up considerably. The new estimate is that it grew at a 3.82% annual rate (again, adjusted for inflation) in 4q which is solid.

      inventory accumulation: this was revised down. This is nothing to worry about. An increase in inventory accumulation usually just means that businesses overestimated demand and will produce less the following quarter as they run down their stocks of inventory.

      exports: this was also revised down. After the revision, real export growth in 4q was 9.42%, the best in 4 years.

      The 1st quarter GDP number matters only for what it indicates for the 2nd and especially the 3rd quarters which are closer to the election. This report had nothing that indicates trouble ahead. Consumption and exports still look strong, and investment looks better than in the initial estimate.

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

      by sacman701 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:17:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps you should read the whole report: (8+ / 0-)
      For all of 2013, the economy grew at a lackluster 1.9 percent, but analysts expect growth will rebound in 2014, possibly as high as 3 percent.
      http://bigstory.ap.org/...

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:32:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Read It..... (0+ / 0-)

        ....and it's in keeping with my hypothesis that 9th inning economic improvements, if they come to pass, aren't gonna phase an electorate with a baked-in impression of a moribund economy.  The fundamentals of the economy right now will have a much greater bearing on the electorate's impression of the economy than growth rates in the third quarter, particularly given that job growth is a lagging indicator of an improving economy.

        •  No one can perceive an increase in GDP (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LordMike, PassionateJus, askew

          Joe Six Pack in Iowa is completely unaffected by what the statistical rate of GDP growth is. Macroeconomics are not felt at the kitchen table.

          •  And they never will be (0+ / 0-)

            That is a very true statement, succinct and to the point.  Even with the Fox News/CNBC/Forbes of the world, people can't feel GDP growth.

            "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 28, 2014 at 11:47:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Which has always made me wonder... (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, James Allen, gabjoh, MichaelNY, jncca

              What exactly are people voting on, when they're voting on "the economy"? Surely macroeconomics matters in some sense. My own personal economic condition improved from 2008-09. Yet I was still pretty clear on the fact that the economy in general got worse. And if I were one of these oatmeal-headed voters who were torn over which party best represented my interests, that understanding surely could have affected my vote.

              On the other hand, I agree that abstract statistics alone don't make too much of a difference. So is it just a matter of how things get reported in the news media? Or is it primarily anecdotal for most folks -e.g., a factory gets shut down in their town and they assume everything's going to shit? Or what?

              •  Its probably your economy (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                But the "your" is the real deifning thing.  It might not be a factory shutting down per se, but something like the economy of you and those you care about.

                In your instance, you did better in 08-09 but I'm guessing your inner circle as a whole probably didn't (if it did, then you bust my theory)...particularly if you have a larger inner circle.  Then "your economy really didn't improve and probably did get worse.

                There's probably also a timing element, as you may have done better from 2008-09 but did you see that continuing/improving in the forseeable future or did you view it as temporary.

                "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 28, 2014 at 12:18:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The CW In 2012.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  ....was that among swing voters, the state of the economy nationally mattered more than in their state, so if the federal unemployment rate was declining, voters would be more likely to reward the incumbent even if there was still a higher unemployment rate in their region.  I'm about 50-50 on believing that.  I think the demographics of most modern swing voters (upscale suburban whites) disproportionately insulates them and their neighbors from the level of economic hardship other demographic groups are facing, so they probably are more likely to vote based on national economic numbers than the regional economic condition.  On the other hand, I think a swing voter in the West Virginia coalfields whose neighbors lost their jobs and blame it on Obama's war on coal is more likely to ultimately vote based on the regional economy than what's going on nationally.

                  •  I'm not sure that's conventional nor wisdom (0+ / 0-)

                    At any rate, with only 50 states, and more than half decidedly favoring one candidate or the other, it's hard to think we have enough data to say how a state's unemployment rate vis-a-vis the national average really could have impacted voters.

                    Even then, all we can do is go by polls, but we know how the voting went.  High unemployment states like RI and MI voted Dem, low unemployment states like TX voter GOP, and all other matters of combinations.

                    "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 28, 2014 at 01:15:59 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Not To Sound Too Snarky..... (0+ / 0-)

              ....but I am understanding right that the consensus here is that the state of the economy no longer matters in American elections?  When did this happen?

              •  there isn't a consensus here (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, CF of Aus

                but there are several different objections to your point:
                1) You're once again being pessimistic and saying that because of this one issue Democrats are doomed.
                2) You're not putting this news in its proper context.
                3) You're wrong about how voters view the economy.

                I don't necessarily agree with the last one, but those seem to be the arguments against yours.

                ...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 28, 2014 at 01:05:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not Sure How My Context Is Wrong..... (0+ / 0-)

                  ....another poster (sacman I believe) had some helpful additional figures that looked more promising, but I don't see any situation where a substantial 0.8% revision of GDP growth downward in an election year portends anything promising for the economy or the incumbent party's electoral prospects on the horizon.

                  Certainly the tone is different around here anytime GDP growth is revised upwards.  I don't think GDP revisions are only politically relevant when they tick upwards.

                  •  no, but you think we face calamity (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    when growth is revised from a higher level to a lower level of growth, though still significant growth.

                    ...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 28, 2014 at 01:22:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

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

                You're stating that a reduction in GDP growth is the most important of factors.  That of course is false.

                You keep citing the GDP growth not helping Bush in 1992, but you omit that unemplyment rose from throughout 1991 and peaked at 7.7% in June 1992 and was still 7.6% through September, the last month released in time to impact the election.  It wasn't that GDP growth was ignored per se, it's that it didn't translate into improvement in unemployment rate.  And that's often the case with GDP growth, it often picks up 6+ months before hiring.

                No one can even tell you what the difference is between 2.4% GDP and 3.2% GDP.  People can tell you what an increase in minimum wage means (more $$$), what a decrease in unemplyment means (hey I got a job) and so forth with other more tangible metrics.

                In fact you can't even translate GDP growth into a meaningful theory to most voters.  I mean if GDP had gone up 3.2% instead of 2.4%, how many more jobs does would that have created in Q4-2013?  No one can answer (people theorize, but they can't give real numbers), which is why it doesn't matter.

                "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 28, 2014 at 01:11:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I Said Unemployment Rate Was Most Important..... (0+ / 0-)

                  .....and that GDP growth was second place.  I also said that with GDP growth, the number itself wasn't relevant to Joe Sixpack voter, but the consequences of that number certainly are.  An economy growing at 3% produces tangible effects in employment growth, market growth, and (at least in the past before shareholders began gobbling up all private-sector gains), wage growth, that an economy growing at 2% does not.  And the multiplier effect bounty of an economy growing at 3% early in the year would be more likely to materialize later in the year (say, around election time) than would 3% growth that begins in the second half of the year.

                  •  Actually you've stated both (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    That lowered GDP growth will cause calamity in November and that lower unemployemnt will be a feather in Dems cap.  

                    You can't say that unemployment is the most important and then claim hugely decreased unemployment is just "a feather in the cap" while then saying a small revision in GDP will cause calamity.  Those 2 things just don't go together.  

                    No one is going to care about Q4 GDP growth when July-2014 unemployment goes below 6%.

                    "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 28, 2014 at 01:30:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I Said "If" Unemployment Keeps Going Down.... (0+ / 0-)

                      ....it would help the Democrats.  An unemployment rate at 6.2% isn't gonna single-handedly save Democrats from mediocre economic growth, but it'll hurt them less than if it's 7.2%.

    •  Sigh, Mark, this is silly (5+ / 0-)

      No one pays attention to revisions of past data.  There are no headlines coming out of that.

      Now, in reality revised data, after revisions are done, is far superior to initial data.

      But politically, revised data doesn't matter.  No one pays attention.

      This news is a nothingburger in public opinion.

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

      by DCCyclone on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:25:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You seem so...concerned. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CF of Aus
  •  2008 - 12 CVAP for current congressional seats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Wolf, Zack from the SFV

    A question:
    Has anyone out there calculated CVAPs for current congressional seats using the 2008 - 12 data that is available here -> CVAP DATA LINK
    Obviously I'm particularly interested in California.

    The documentation states that the data are tied to 2010 TIGER geographies.

  •  NY-21: Woolf's Campaign Responds to Me (4+ / 0-)

    I sent out some emails yesterday trying to learn more about this race and the selection process. I didn't really find out much, aside from petitions not starting until 3/4, whatever that means, although my emails were forwarded to his campaign. I felt like one of my comments about him not being the best option to a Democratic official in the area came across as kind of rude, despite the other nice things I said. I apologized right after I sent the response, but maybe that's the end of that.

    In any event, someone from his campaign for back to me today. Standard stuff, so nothing really big to report, except that I suggested he post an intro at the main page and then link to it here so he could raise more money. I also mentioned ActBlue. Maybe something good (i.e. lucrative) will happen to his campaign as a result, if he does post here. Couldn't hurt, right?

    But hey, now that I have email addresses to people involved, I can always make other awesome suggestions and mouth off if I am unhappy try to get more information. They dug their own graves here, huh? :]

    "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 28, 2014 at 08:28:47 AM PST

  •  Just so everyone knows.. (7+ / 0-)

    This is why electoral precedent, particularly the "midterm effect", doesn't necessarily mean anything. That and the fact that parties in power have lost seats in the midterm in every election ... except when a) a major catastrophe affected the world economy and destroyed the reputation of the party that caused it; and b) a government shutdown was precipitated out of sheer ideological rigidity.

    Sound familiar? Please proceed, pessimists.

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

    by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:39:11 AM PST

  •  Rasmussen-SD: Rounds+20 without Pressler (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBraden

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

    Seriously, when we get a SD poll it's 1) Rasmussen and 2) without Pressler?

    19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.

    by Tayya on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:42:24 AM PST

    •  I think that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Setsuna Mudo, bjssp

      any poll that includes 3rd parties is inherently going to miss more than other polls. It's easy to believe that Rounds is up +20. If Pressler were taking more than, say, 10%, then neither candidate would break far into the 40s just due to people saying "undecided".

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

      by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:48:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  if Pressler is going to get 10+%, (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32, bythesea, JBraden, MichaelNY, sulthernao

        not including him will almost certainly mean the poll is more off than including him.

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

        by James Allen on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:12:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't imagine Pressler gets close to 10% (0+ / 0-)

          on election day and though he'll probably poll higher than he gets, even polling that high would be surprising. He lost his last election 18 years ago and has since essentially switched parties in all but name.

          I really couldn't care less about SD poll results unless it shows Mike Rounds failing to clear the 35% runoff threshold in the primary, in which case we would probably be kicking ourselves for not having Stephanie Herseth Sandlin running, but even that is incredibly unlikely. This one's basically a repeat of ND-Sen 2010 just not at such a ridiculous margin.

          •  Why didn't he run as a Democrat? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BoswellSupporter, MichaelNY

            "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 28, 2014 at 09:22:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No kidding (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pademocrat, MichaelNY

              He could turf out Weiland in the primary and stand a serious chance at keeping this seat in play, particularly if Rounds' scandals catch up to him.

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

              by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:16:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

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

              Pressler probably still holds some conservative positions, he probably doesn't want to spar with the likes of Weiland.  Weiland may or may not take Pressler's positions out of context.  I assume Pressler doesn't want to deal with that kind of crap until a general election.  Just a theory.

                Unfortunately Pressler remembers an era when politics was calmer and not as constant, but unfortunately Pressler may be using that same playbook that doesn't work these days.  

              IA-2 Born, raised, currently reside.

              by BoswellSupporter on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:34:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Everyone here forgets Pressler was very unpopular (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, jncca, BoswellSupporter

                Tim Johnson kicked his ass.  And it was no surprise, even in conservative South Dakota the CW long before the election was that Pressler was in deep trouble.

                Pressler isn't some calm figure from calmer times.  He was an unpopular and disliked figure who couldn't hold his seat in a state that favored his party.

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

                by DCCyclone on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:34:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pressler is the only incumbent to lose his seat (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, DCCyclone

                  without scandal or extenuating circumstances while his party's presidential ticket simultaneously carried it in the post 1994 alignment era. Though admittedly Dole only won a plurality, but Tim Johnson still won a majority of the vote which was damn impressive at the time. No one has since accomplished that feat at the senate level and very few have at the house level in the last 20 years. I don't know what the particulars of that race were, but Pressler managed to lose by 2.6% while Dole was winning South Dakota by 3.5%

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

                  Pressler was unpopular.  I still consider 1996 to be a calmer time where there didn't seem to be this constant   campaign and 24-hour news cycle.  I never meant to imply that Pressler was popular.  

                  IA-2 Born, raised, currently reside.

                  by BoswellSupporter on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:47:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Internet & cable TV sorta changed that (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY, BoswellSupporter

                    The internet was still in its infancy, very little news and discussion shared online in '96, and cable TV news was limited to CNN.  I don't remember for sure when Fox News started, but it was a small audience early on, and I'm 99% certain MSNBC started in Clinton's second term.  And the business news channels and any other stuff just didn't exist.

                    So there wasn't a vehicle for constant politicking, it was still just a few outlets with scarce capacity controlled by corporate leadership and a small cottage industry of powerful commentators.

                    Thing is, for most of the voting public today, nothing has changed.  Politicians play to the 24-hour, non-stop culture of the internet and cable TV, but most voters ignore it and pay attention only to the same extent they did in the early 90s.  So the 24-hour noise machine is static to them, same as a TV channel that's off the air (for those of you too young to remember that, go watch the early 80s horror movie Poltergeist).  That's because they don't care about politics that much.  But politicians are afraid that ignoring the static of the perpetual political noise machine will get them in trouble if something surfaces and they're not on top of it to try to mute or amplify it, as the case may be, as what starts as static can metastasize into something that eventually reaches ordinary voters' attention.

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

                    by DCCyclone on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 06:51:54 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

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

                      I have a feeling that Pressler won't be able to adjust to that 24 hour noise machine.  South Dakota may or may not be a place that can tune it out.  I suspect they do a good job of tuning it out or else the "establishment" candidate Rounds would have a serious challenge to the GOP nomination.  

                      IA-2 Born, raised, currently reside.

                      by BoswellSupporter on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 03:57:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  MI-12 News (9+ / 0-)

    Debbie Dingelll officially launched her campaign today.

    http://www.freep.com/...

    State Sen. Rebekah Warren announced today that she's forming an exploratory committee.

    http://www.mlive.com/...

    Inside Michigan Politics released a poll done by MainStreet Strategies and Revsix.  It has Dingell leading Warren 51.13% to 15.68%.

    http://freepdfhosting.com/...

  •  did interfering in a primary cost a Republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    state rep her leadership position? SaoMagnifico posted the original story about how State Rep Julie Parrish (R-West Linn) was ousted from her position as deputy leader of House Republicans, and now there are some indicia of the reasons.

    link

    “There are people in the caucus that felt it was not appropriate for a caucus leader to be recruiting someone to run against another Republican in the primary,” [Dennis] Richardson said, referring to in-party strategizing around the soon-to-be-vacated seat in District 25.

    Nine-year House veteran Rep. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, announced her bid for Oregon Senate late last year. The same day, right-wing, Salem-area radio host Bill Post made a bid for her seat, and Richardson said Thatcher “recruited” Post for the position.

    According to Richardson, Parrish’s major misstep was not only backing, but similarly recruiting, Barbara Jensen, who announced her candidacy for representative of District 25 on Feb. 11.

    ...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 28, 2014 at 10:17:27 AM PST

  •  something interesting in Arkansas filing? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Jacob1145, WisJohn, MichaelNY

    one of the unique things about Arkansas ballots is that elected officials can put their current title on the ballot while running for re-election or for another office.

    For example, Mark Pryor will be on the ballot as "Senator Mark Pryor"

    But Tom Cotton won't be on the ballot as "Congressman Tom Cotton", just as "Tom Cotton"

    Then again, Congressional approval is like 15% on good days.

    Other Federal candidates carrying job titles to seek another office in Arkansas

    Mayor Jackie McPherson (D, AR-1), Representative Ann Clemmer (R, AR-2), Representative Bruce Westerman (R, AR-4).

    Tim Griffin is also using "Congressman Tim Griffin" while running for Lt. Governor

    The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

    by RBH on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:25:08 AM PST

  •  VA-SD20: Democrats already have a candidate (11+ / 0-)

    Martinsville mayor Kim Adkins has announced she is running for the 20th district Senate seat next year.

    http://www.roanoke.com/...

    30, pal of Foot Foot, VA-02 (resident), NJ-01 (my old ancestral home)

    by footfootfoot on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:37:13 AM PST

  •  Just saw a Corbett ad with an African American (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY

    saying "I stand by governor Corbett", blah, blah, blah. Now have to get ready for nine months of tv ads, he's got money to burn and the Koch types will help him out. It will b interesting to see if they have the effect Tom Wolf's ads apparently had in boosting his poll numbers in the Democratic field.

    •  "African Americans for Corbett" (4+ / 0-)

      Even though he wants to take your rights away when it comes to voting, essentially relegating them to second class citizen. Which is what the GOP as a whole want to do to blacks all over this country.

      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 28, 2014 at 11:14:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, MichaelNY, sulthernao, KingTag, JBraden, askew

        His education cuts are probably his worst action against AA's in PA, since the voter ID never got implemented and probably a good number of AA voters didn't even know the law existed.

        I can only hope his re-election race is as quixotic as I think it is.

        "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 28, 2014 at 01:54:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  More cuts to public education (5+ / 0-)

          so they can turn around and say the public schools are not working. They're not working because of your engineered cuts, that was targeted specifically for these schools so they can fail. Drive these schools into closure, young blacks and Latinos drop out of school, they end up resorting to a life of crime, and they end up being put in private prisons. Where the money that was suppose to go to their schools went to these private max security prisons instead.

          So when these people say jobs, jobs, jobs, what they really mean is jails, jails, jails.

          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 28, 2014 at 02:53:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "African Americans for Corbett" eh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        All two of 'em?  This sounds like it'll go over as well as the Gays for Bryan Fischer fan club.

  •  Kansas could be interesting (7+ / 0-)

    Perhaps interest in the GOV race, and the possibility of a Dem upset there, may increase turnout of the same demographic groups we'd need to stage an upset in Kansas Sen (of course that assumes Roberts loses the primary).  It is very unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibilities, that we end up with a MO/Akin or IN/Mourdock type situation...

    You never know!

  •  Report: Collin Peterson to Run for Re-Election in (27+ / 0-)

    http://politics.mn/...

    Sources close to Rep. Collin Peterson say he will definitely run for re-election in 2014.  After months of speculation that he would retire, and pressure from Republican groups, Peterson decided that to run for at least one more term because of the Republican spending so early in the race.  Expect public confirmation in the coming days from Peterson.

    Vote Democratic. We're not perfect-but they're NUTS! - Barney Frank

    by Minnesota Mike on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:43:29 AM PST

  •  KS: I wish Wichita mayor Carl Brewer had (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jacob1145, pademocrat, JBraden, MichaelNY

    run for something, especially governor. But anyway, we have solid candidates for Governor and Senator. Taylor will need a lot of help from the GOP, but that was going to be the case anyway.

    The fact that Taylor was unopposed for re-election as DA in 2012 in a county Romney narrowly won, makes me think he could be a strong candidate.

  •  MS-04: Taylor running as Republican (8+ / 0-)

    Gene Taylor has just told The Sun Herald that he is running as a Republican against Steven Palazzo for his old district.

    http://www.sunherald.com/...

    30, pal of Foot Foot, VA-02 (resident), NJ-01 (my old ancestral home)

    by footfootfoot on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:30:07 AM PST

  •  Politics of body parts: Clarity voter registration (4+ / 0-)

    I thought this would be interesting, so here's what I found:

    Name # Dem
    Patella 14 81.5%
    Ulna 49 76.7%
    Hair 11 75.9%
    Tissue 13 73.3%
    Navel 14 72.6%
    Heart 26 71.0%
    Belly 40 70.9%
    Lobe 11 70.4%
    Sole 61 70.2%
    Fat 179 69.9%
    Nail 210 69.4%
    Iris 69747 69.1%
    Gum 168 67.7%
    Back 57 67.0%
    Gut 20 66.3%
    Pinky 1224 66.2%
    Hip 44 65.8%
    Radius 10 65.7%
    Toe 79 64.7%
    Head 16 63.8%
    Ear 22 63.5%
    Freckles 18 63.5%
    Fatty 25 63.4%
    Mouth 11 63.0%
    Lung 589 62.8%
    Eye 19 61.4%
    Shin 2015 61.3%
    Lip 82 61.3%
    Achilles 496 61.0%
    Chin 4418 60.2%
    Ab 353 60.1%
    Bone 50 59.0%
    Palm 86 57.7%
    Hand 35 56.9%
    Pit 30 56.8%
    Temple 1727 55.2%
    Brain 2020 53.4%
    Jaw 74 53.2%
    Leg 14 46.0%
    Arch 1211 45.7%
    The average name was 64.1% Dem, and the average voter was 67.2% Dem. Obviously most of these people were not named after biological features; Iris, Pinky, Shin, Achilles, Chin, Ab, Temple and Arch are 'normal' names, and Patella is the unwitting spelling of Pat-Ella. Others, such as Navel, Sole, Nail, Hip, Radius and Pit, likely have nothing to do with biology either. I find it odd that there are 2020 'Brain's while only 26 'Heart's. Anyway, these names seem to fall within the normal continuum of names the Clarity compiled, mostly Dem-leaning uncommon names. Also, 40 people named 'Belly'???

    ME-01 (college) ID-01 (home) -4.75, -2.10

    by GoUBears on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:43:29 AM PST

    •  Belly could be short for Belle or Belinda? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal, not progressive. For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city.

      by jncca on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 06:03:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MS-SEN: Childers is running (25+ / 0-)

    Travis Childers has told the AP he is running for Senate.

    http://www.startribune.com/...

    30, pal of Foot Foot, VA-02 (resident), NJ-01 (my old ancestral home)

    by footfootfoot on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:55:58 AM PST

    •  Looking forward to losing with dignity (10+ / 0-)

      Any race without a credible challenger is a true shame, even if it's Mississippi.

      19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.

      by Tayya on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:57:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm going be an optimist and say it (11+ / 0-)

        will be a close race if McDaniel is the GOP nominee. And I think there is a good change he will be.

      •  Yep, unless we see a McDaniels meltdown (4+ / 0-)

        I'm thinking Childers loses something like 55-45 or 57-43 to McDaniels.  

        •  he'd do a lot better than that (11+ / 0-)

          Obama lost MS just 55-44. For the average MS swing voter (McCain/Taylor or McCain/Childers), Childers >>> Obama.

          In 2008 Childers won 54-44 while Obama was losing the district 62-38, so he got a good chunk of the white vote. I think Childers wins outright if he can get 25-30% of the white vote, as it should be relatively easy to turn out the black vote against a neo-Confederate.

          I might still start this lean R with McDaniel, but I think Childers would have a path to victory.

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

          by sacman701 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:36:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There'd also be a reason to invest in the race (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JBraden, MichaelNY

            which might help turn out voters more than they'd otherwise turn out. Normally, this wouldn't be much, but a few more points on top of an already solid performance could put him over the top.

            "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 28, 2014 at 12:47:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Lean R is super-optimistic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Zack from the SFV

            I'll want to see polling in the relatively likely event that McDaniel wins the primary despite his hemming and hawing about Katrina funding.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:59:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

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

            Turnout in Black areas will be much lower in 2014 then it was in 2012. Even more - i doubt we will see 2012 Black turnout for Obama again in the near future because of obvious reason (no Obama on ballot). And formerly "yellow dog whites" (populist and very social conservative) in North-East part of the state seem finally to go Republican "en masse" as well.

            Likely R with McDaniel, Safe R with Cochran. 40% floor, 45 - ceiling.

        •  McDaniels is a fucking nutcase (9+ / 0-)

          That's the only way to put it. He's one of the most radically conservative members of the State Senate and he a very recent entry onto the political scene, before that running an incendiary local talk radio show. If he manages to unseat Cochran in the Republican primary, I can gurantee shit is going to down in white North MS, which Cochran has provided a lot for and is really popular, and even parts of the coast and Jackson suburbs were more practically mindeded business conservatives have a slightly less small presence than elsewhere in the state.

          The person who tipped me off to Childers as the most likely candidate and who would be announcing this week, has always described McDaniels as someone practically guranteed to make some big Akin style fuck ups. It's good to be ready to benefit for when that happens.

          "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 28, 2014 at 01:01:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You really think it's an "if" McDaniels (0+ / 0-)

            Beats Cochran?  I'm seeing it as a near certainty at this point.

            •  Cochran is a living legend (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, gabjoh, KingofSpades, MichaelNY

              in Mississippi. He is Mississippi's version of Robert Byrd. His name is on many research centers, highways, and so on. He still has a lot of clout in the State Republican party, having been one of the integral figures in building it to begin with. Unlike Lugar was in Indiana, Cochran is in Mississippi all the time. I know more than one person, from different schools in different parts of the state, who had him as their High School graduation speaker. This is also a much smaller state, with a little less than half of Indiana's population and where Cochran has been around long enough to know most everybody. Defeating him is a monumental task, even if makes a few mild-mannered comments and doesn't seem interested in reactionary, virulent conservatism (which he isn't and likely won't pretend to be).

              "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 28, 2014 at 01:22:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Still, there's no denying his numbers are bad (6+ / 0-)

                Terrible in fact for a long-term incumbent.  The PPP poll from November 2013 showed 35% of republicans wanted Cochran and 55% want someone "more conservative."  And the terrible numbers were before outside right-wing groups really ramped up their attacks on Cochran.  

                Senator Lugar was a long-term incumbent and well regarded in Indiana and look what that got him - a 20 point beatdown to a hack like Mourdock.

                •  I think thats what happens when you stay (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, geoneb

                  in office for too long. Especially as a Republican running again. GOP primary voters are more keen to kick out their long term incumbent, while Dems most know when there time has come, and start to hang their boots up.

                  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 28, 2014 at 04:14:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  NY-21 Doheny endorsement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, Jorge Harris, MichaelNY

    I'm not sure if this got posted yesterday, nor am I sure how much it matters.

    Doheny got the Conservative party endorsement from Warren County, which is towards the southern end of NY-21.  I think It's less than 10% of the district's overall population so I have no idea how much it could matter in the battle between Doheny ad Stefanik for the Conservative Party line.

    http://poststar.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 28, 2014 at 11:57:40 AM PST

  •  TX-Gov (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, PassionateJus

    I'm not sure if this is a web video or a TV ad, but Wendy Davis has posted this ad to YouTube.

    The ad features a rape survivor criticizing Greg Abbott for associating himself with Ted Nugent. Additionally, the ad mentions (via white text on a black screen) Davis's push for legislation to expand the use of rape kits.

    There are three natural adversaries of the progressive movement: Republicans, the Democratic establishment, and the mainstream media

    by DownstateDemocrat on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07:17 PM PST

  •  NC Filing closed at noon (8+ / 0-)

    CONGRESS

    NC-09: Democrats fail.  Robert Pittenger gets a free ride to re-election despite having the second closest congressional race in the state in 2012.  This district is 56% Romney; meanwhile, the Republicans are able to get two people to run in the 80% Obama NC-12.

    NC-07, NC-08:  Traitors running on the Democratic tickets in these districts.  Barfield, who helped push McIntyre to retire in the 7th, and Antonio Blue, who ran a write-in campaign against Larry Kissell in 2012.  There is another Democrat challenging Barfield in NC-07, but he's a nobody and has no chance to win.  Therefore, although I don't vote in the 7th, as a native, I'm endorsing the Libertarian candidate for the general election.

    NC-10, NC-11:  Although they stand almost no chance of winning, Democrats have some good people running in these districts.  That is good.

    STATE SENATE

    NC-SD-1 [Bill Cook (R-Dare), running]:  Former Senator Stan White (D-Dare) is running.  He lost by only thirty votes in 2012 in this red district.  Hopefully he can make this race a very close one again.

    NC-SD-9 [Thom Goolsby (R-New Hanover), retiring]:  Elizabeth Redenbaugh is a decent candidate for the Democrats.  Not incredibly strong, but decent, and New Hanover Democrats cleared the field for her, which was smart.  Republican field is divided three ways.

    NC-SD-15 [Neil Hunt (R-Wake), retiring]:
    Fortunately, Democrats managed to land a pretty strong candidate for this district.  Former Raleigh Mayor Tom Bradshaw is running.  He was mayor in the 1970s but has had a long career working in state administrative offices since then.  He has high name rec because 15 miles of I-40 in Raleigh is named after him.

    NC-SD-19 [Wesley Meredith (R-Cumberland), running]:  Democrats have a decent candidate here.  Former state Rep. and prominent Fayetteville lawyer Billy Richardson is on the ballot.  This is a seat that Barack Obama won in 2012 and should not be in Republican hands.

    There are a couple of other seats that could potentially be in play but I just don't know enough about the Democratic candidates to make a judgement.  Then there were some negligences: not running candidates against Ralph Hise, Bob Rucho, or Buck Newton.  These are red seats but they should be at least put into play.  All of the counties in Hise's district have been represented by Democrats in the NC Senate within the last decade.

    STATE HOUSE

    I don't think I'm gonna wade into this just yet, but that would be a good topic for a diary if someone wanted to do it.

    •  Who filed against Chad Barefoot, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JacobNC, Setsuna Mudo, MichaelNY

      Tamara Barringer, Ronald Rabin, and Jim Davis? Anyone of stature or even a warm body? Letting Barefoot and Barringer go unchallenged would be a total joke. That's great news on Bradshaw, I was afraid we'd get a crappy candidate here given how they control all the downballot offices for the most part in the district.

      Anyway, someone filed against Phil Berger so my interest in filing is moot, but no one filed against Trudy Wade whose district we probably need to put into play to have a shot at a majority... fail.

      •  Actually, looks like Barefoot did get a decent (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Setsuna Mudo, MichaelNY

        opponent.  Sarah Crawford is a former staffer for David Price.

        Tamarra Barringer, not so much.  I can't find anything about her opponent, Bryan Fulghum, so he seems to be a Some Dude.

        Two Democrats filed against Rabin - one of whom lost the Democratic primary in 2012 for that Senate district, and the other lost a House race in 2012.  Not incredibly impressive candidates but at least Democrats have someone.

        Two Democrats filed against Davis also, Jane Hipps and Ron Robinson.

        Just skimming over the House filings, it looks like we've got a handful of good candidates, like Lisa Baker in northern Wake County, who ran in 2012 and got over 45% (although she was probably running pretty even with Obama).  A Cary town councilwoman is running against Tom Murray.  Kim Hanchette seems to be an okay candidate in the seat vacated by Jim Fulghum.  However, the candidate against Marilyn Avila doesn't seem to great - they lost an election to the Morrisville town council in 2013.  Morrisville is a pretty small town.

        In Charlotte, we've got the same candidate against Charles Jeter that we did last time - and that candidate, Robin Bradford, lost a 53% Obama district.  Not great.  Also, the candidate against Rob Bryan, district 88, doesn't seem to be very good either.  Google search returns nothing.

        Probably the best candidate we have in a red state house district is Brad Salmon.  Salmon almost beat Ronald Rabin in a very red Senate district, is running for House District 51 (Harnett/Lee).  The incumbent in that district, Mike Stone (R), also had a close race last cycle, winning with only 52%, despite Romney getting 59% in that district.  So I'm pretty optimistic about Salmon's chances there.

        But remember, Dems may be on defense in districts 6 and 119.

    •  NC Dems leave 45 legislative seats unopposed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JacobNC, Minnesota Mike, MichaelNY

      4 more than in 2012. Dems have 36 unopposed by the GOP - 6 more than in 2012.

      How the hell NC Democrats could leave NC-9 in Charlotte without a Democratic candidate I'll never understand - what a blunder by the state party and the DCCC.

      For NC House and Senate, gerrymandering has apparently put half of the seats out of reach for one party or the other. Only 89 of 170 total legislative seats (52%) are contested by both parties.

      In the NC Senate, where Republicans hold 33 of 50 seats, 29 seats are contested by both Democrats and Republicans, 9 seats have unopposed Democrats, and 12 have unopposed Republicans. Dems need a net gain of 9 seats to win back the majority.

      In the NC House, where Republicans hold 77 of 120 seats, only 60 seats are contested by both Democrats and Republicans, 27 seats have unopposed Democrats, and 33 seats have unopposed Republicans. Dems need a net gain of 18 seats to win back the majority.

      http://www.ncsbe.gov/...

      Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

      by bear83 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:11:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the great writeup! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JacobNC, Zack from the SFV, bjssp

      Not running anyone against Pittenger is horrible malpractice.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:04:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  About Childers: If McDaniel wins GOP primary does (10+ / 0-)

    conservative dem Childers have a shot? Seems improbable for Miss., but...

    Former Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS) "will be announcing he's running for the Senate, according to two sources familiar with his decision, giving Democrats a chance to capitalize on the Republican division within the state," National Journal reports.

     "Childers, a Blue Dog Democrat, held a solidly-Republican House seat from 2008 to 2010, proving his ability to win over conservative voters despite his Democratic affiliation. Democrats are hoping that conservative state senator Chris McDaniel topples longtime Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in a June primary - a development they believe will make the race highly competitive."

    •  I see this as a win-win (7+ / 0-)

      whether we win or lose.

      Every single day that passes I think more and more that Cochran will lose the primary to McDaniel.

      If Childers wins the seat, then we get another Democratic seat which is an obvious win.

      Even if he loses, the Republicans will have Sen. McDaniel, a noted Neo-Confederate who defeated longtime Mississippi statesman Thad Cochran. Dems will hammer Republicans on this, proving that Republicans are just too radical to put in control of government. I mean its one thing if your party is full of neo-confederates but to have them as elected officials in the United States Senate...how embarrassing.

    •  I don't think it's an "if" that McDaniel (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, TofG, MichaelNY

      Will win the primary at this point.  Cochran is DOA.  The final nail in his career was when he claimed he didn't know what the tea party was.  McDaniel is going to be the nominee.

      And no, McDaniel as the nominee doesn't give Childers much chance.  In fact even if McDaniel said something as stupid as Akin or Mourdock I still doubt Childers would win.  It would take a monumental meltdown for MS to elect even a conservative Dem like Childers tothe Senate.

      •  I don't know if the numbers support this (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, LordMike, bythesea, JBraden, MichaelNY

        Obama got within 11 points without trying at all, by getting good AA turnout mostly. If McDaniel is as racist as people say, it's conceivable that happens again. And I assume a guy like Childers can get more white votes than Obama.

        •  It's not a big swing in white vote (6+ / 0-)

          Regardless of what Dem is running.  In 2008 Musgrove only took 18% of the white vote to Obama's 11%.  Basing off the racial split from the 2008 election it looks like Childers would need somwhere in the high 20's of the white vote in order to win.  That's a tall order given how inelastic the MS white vote is.

          •  Different circumstances (7+ / 0-)

            1) Wicker wasn't a bad candidate, actually reasonably moderate - for a southern conservative, that is. Plus he was appointed, endorsed, and backed by Haley Barbour, another popular Republican in the state.

            2) There was a black guy at the top of the ticket. Think of it as "reverse coattails".

            3) McDaniel will be turfing out one of the most respected, if not the most respected, figure in MS politics. That is going to engender some seriously bad will among the demosaurs and moderate Republicans who traditionally vote Republican at the federal level.

            4) Travis Childers and Gene Taylor both received at least 30% of the white vote when they won. That means that 2/3rds of the white districts in MS are willing to vote for a Democrat for congress. Why not for senate?

            5) Neo-confederate musings may play well among the ultra-conservatives, but it will scare away the demosaurs.

            It's an Akin'ing waiting to happen in MS.

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

            by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 02:15:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you answered question 4 with question 2 (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Stephen Wolf, MichaelNY, DCCyclone, jncca

              They won't vote a Dem into the U.S. Senate because of they're terrified it'll embolden the President.  Same reason Taylor and Childers lost in 2010 without the President on the ballot.  Just because the President isn't on the ticket doesn't mean the race won't become a referendum on him.  

    •  I'd say MS.. (7+ / 0-)

      is a more likely flip for us than MI for the Republicans. In fact, I'd say our odds there are roughly equivalent to our odds in WV (slightly worse than that, but not nearly as bad as SD). It really depends on whether Cochran is willing to endorse McDaniel, Childers, or neither. If McDaniels, game over. If Childers, I'm telling ya now, I'm moving it to lean-R. If neither, I'd say it's likely-R. And I suspect he'll probably pull a Lugar and just stay out of it, with the implied "fuck-you" to McDaniel being weighty enough to sway some votes.

      The thing about the south is, we're heavily into voting for candidates - a person's name can go far down here. Childers doesn't have a brand like Landrieu or Pryor, but he is a familiar face, and he was apparently inoffensive enough to win MS-01 while a scary black dude was at the top of the ticket in 2008. And while it's come to my attention that Childers' opponent in all three races (special, runoff, and general) was damaged, can anyone seriously say that McDaniel isn't?

      The key statistic is to get about 30% of the white vote in order to be competitive. This is not impossible in MS - Childers did it three times in MS-01, and Gene Taylor ran up huge numbers of demosaurs in MS-04. I refuse to believe that people who were willing to vote en masse for these guys a scant five years ago are suddenly going to tell them to hit the street without giving them a second look. It just doesn't work like that. Not in the south. It may be that they vote for McDaniel anyway, but they will give Childers that second look.

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

      by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:49:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  again, MS-04 voted for Gene Taylor (6+ / 0-)

        because he was Gene Taylor, not because it was a Demosaur district. It's more comparable to UT-04 voting for Matheson - deep red, but voted for the person they knew anyway.

        ...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 28, 2014 at 02:00:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If Childers hugs Cochran's positions (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, MichaelNY

        highlights voters' outrage with the deselection of a respected Senator, runs as a DINO, and essentially turns the general election into an open primary with a Cochran surrogate vs a Tea Party candidate, I can see a path to victory.

        Of course, that depends on whether Cochran loses the primary, and whether he's bitter enough to endorse a DINO running as a surrogate version of him, over McDaniel.

        Yeah, Childers would be a one-term Senator who makes Joe Manchin look like Elizabeth Warren, but to get anyone from MS with a (D) next to their name is a gain.

        •  If Childers wins, by the time he's up again, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, Possible Liberal

          maybe the state has changed enough that he can run competitively and/or the MDP is in stronger shape. Neither would surprise me, and this as well as incumbency makes him competitive.

          "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 28, 2014 at 10:43:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think our odds of holding on in West Virginia... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, MichaelNY, askew

        Are at least slightly better than the conventional wisdom holds -- but other than that, I agree with you.

        Hopefully the Gulf Coast Democrats who passed on a bid will stump for Childers, as his path to victory hinges on not getting blown out in South Mississippi.

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

        by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:21:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

      very hard, but 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 28, 2014 at 02:41:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Various (0+ / 0-)

    California- They're getting a lot of rain, which they desperately needed. But that's flooded them. Always something, eh?

    MS-04: This is still pretty good news for anyone who prefers principled conservatism over radical anti-governance lunacy. Palazzo isn't even very popular with the Republican establishment, and Taylor long managed to get the strong support of broad segments of the Republican party even while running as a Democrat. While he may have switched parties, Taylor has never been the kind of person that takes marching orders, and his hatred of the national Republican party and its house leadership was always enough to keep him from switching parties. Taylor is also an opponent of social security and medicare privatization, repealing the inheritance tax, and is perhaps the only principled and consistent deficit hawk in Congress (meaning no tax cuts that raise the deficit onto of no spending that increases the deficit). He'll be way, way close to the center than Palazzo, and given how House Republicans are these days, he will probably be among the 5-7 least conservative Republicans.

    "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 28, 2014 at 01:33:56 PM PST

    •  When people change parties (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, Zack from the SFV

      they tend to move politically in the direction of their new party's mainstream. So I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for this case to be different. Nor do I give him much shot to beat Palazzo in a primary. You really think MS Republicans are gonna line up to support a former Democrat this year?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:15:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

        Again, evenin 2010, many still supported him.

        "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 28, 2014 at 05:38:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Rep. Kevin Brady to challenge Paul Ryan for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    the Ways and Means Chair.

    link.

    Brady is the #2 Republican in seniority on the W and M panel. But given Ryan's profile it seems unlikely that he would his bid for the chairmanship.

    If he did, ironically, I wonder if it would push Ryan into a presidential bid.

    •  unlikely that Ryan would lose his bid (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, uclabruin18, kleinburger

      for the chairmanship, I meant.

      Seniority doesnt mean as much to the GOP, as the article points out, and I like that about them. I wouldnt mind term limits for Dem chairs as well.

      •  I'd actually prefer (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32, LordMike, MichaelNY

        committee chairs elected by committee members. This was briefly floated when Baucus was screwing up health care. Still seems like a good idea, as it would make them more accountable. Most of the truly objectionable chairs are gone or going, but still worth doing.

        I mean, I realize why it's not that way. Democrats need to realize that the day of the all-powerful chairs are long over.

  •  Sitting at a coffee shop (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, gabjoh, MichaelNY

    In a pretty alternative, artsy neighborhood of my city. Two people are studying something at my long table. I hear the guy go, "You should know the President just released a budget. It's mostly a very liberal budget and pure politics for the election.

    Also, he's [their instructor?] is going to ask us about how Hagel is trying to dramatically cut the military's forces and how that might effect things in 2014."

    #lowinformationvoters

  •  It's going to be really funny... (11+ / 0-)

    And deeply, deeply satisfying if Travis Childers performs competently in the Senate race and Gene Taylor gets obliterated in the primary.

    I suppose he can always switch back to the Democratic Party and run for governor in a few years...

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

    by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:25:01 PM PST

    •  Palazzo may still be worst than Taylor (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, JBraden, Zack from the SFV

      His hypocrisy on Sandy funding was a thing to behold.

      This is a primary where we get to watch two unlikable people beat each other up, and I'll be happy with whichever one loses.

      Contributing Editor, Daily Kos Elections. 24, male, CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-02 (resident).

      by Jeff Singer on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:34:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree on #1.. (0+ / 0-)

      disagree strongly on #2. I like Gene Taylor, even if I disagree with him a lot on things. A guy like Taylor is smack dab in the middle of both parties. As much as he bucked the Democrats, he'll buck the Republicans just as much - if he's elected. And there's no telling how well he'll do.

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

      by Le Champignon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:51:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, this Ukraine thing is coming at a... (0+ / 0-)

    ....terrible time. It's clear that the West isn't going to do anything at all, but try and "look tough" without putting any teeth behind it, which will make Obama look really weak when the Russians pretty much occupy the Ukraine and spread out to create a new Iron Curtain.  Putin sure has Obama's number.  Everyone with a half a brain knew that Putin was going to invade after the Olympics, and NATO didn't even sail a ship in the region? Incompetence all around.

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:35:06 PM PST

    •  I forgot to add that this will not help Obama's... (0+ / 0-)

      ...approval, when the Russians pretty much flip him off the next few days.  Maybe Kerry can pull a miracle out of his hat, but this will sting for a few months, and we don't have a few months.  The president's approval needs to start going up now.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:38:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really don't think American voters will care (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, askew

        about what's going on in the Ukraine. If I sound tone deaf so be it, but I don't think voters would care about this in November. Ukraine is a very complex country, with long history of corruption, since getting independence in the early 90's. I don't know what you want Obama to do hear.

        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 28, 2014 at 03:47:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  *here (0+ / 0-)

          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 28, 2014 at 03:50:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  They won't "care" about it, per se... (0+ / 0-)

          ...but when Putin keeps laughing at the president and makes him look weak, it doesn't help his approval numbers, which hurts us downticket as well.

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:58:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You really think that? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, jncca, askew

            You think voters will go in the booth and based their decision on a President of a foreign country who they probably never even heard of, and he is "laughing" in our face when it comes to the affairs of another country, that most can't even point on a map? If you think that then so be it. But understand that's you. Overwhelming majority of Americans don't really care.

            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 28, 2014 at 04:03:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (0+ / 0-)

              What I think is that this issue will not help the president's attempts to improve his approval numbers for the fall elections.  If nothing else, it will be a distraction and a negative one at that.  Since presidential approval has a strong correlation with midterm success or failure, it is not helpful in any way, shape or form to us at all.

              GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

              by LordMike on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:29:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'd love to see poll numbers (6+ / 0-)

              on how many Americans think Ukraine is part of Russia right now. No, I don't think most Americans will really give a damn.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:18:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And they surely don't know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                that many "Ukrainian liberation activists" are not only fiercely anti-Russian, but very much anti-Semitic as well. You can frequently hear something along the lines "Get these fucking Moskals (Russians) and Judes (Jews) now!!!" (usually with bad consequences for "Moscals" and "Judes") from their mouth. Stepan Bandera was not only anti-Russian Ukraine nationalist, but notorious anti-Semite too...

                But all that goes far from American territory (but VERY close to Russian one) to have serious effect on american voter. Americam voter cares about his wallet and, may be, his borders.... In most cases - that's all.

          •  Oh, LordMike, that is silly (0+ / 0-)

            Putin can't make Obama look weak when no one cares about Ukraine in the first place, and few Americans know who "Putin" is.

            No this doesn't hurt.  It doesn't matter.

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

            by DCCyclone on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:51:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Ukraine doesn't hurt Obama, no one cares (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MetroGnome, MichaelNY, James Allen, askew

        This is a perfect example of an issue that makes political junkies completely myopic politically.

        Real talk:  virtually no one in America gives a shit about Ukraine.  As much attention as the media gives this, almost all voters still completely ignore it.

        This just doesn't matter to anyone at all.

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

        by DCCyclone on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:49:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree with both of you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BenjaminDisraeli

          First of all, as someone who went to Ukraine for part of my honeymoon last year (my wife's family is Jewish and left Ukraine in 1913), I have been following this situation intently for months.

          I disagree with LordMike mostly because he is talking in hyperbole and because Obama and our allies in the EU did almost as much as he could diplomatically when the crisis was unfolding during the Olympics The fact is that events went too fast for us to keep up with.

          That said I also disagree with your analysis (and usually I agree with you; you are one of the most level headed people here it seems).

          I think this situation could become the worst foreign policy crisis since the Bosnian War (with the exception of the Iraq Occupation of course). It only gets worse than Iraq if there are, god help us, shots fired between the US and Russia. My wife is in the National Guard so this type of stuff could hit close to home.

          This is still a major crisis (probably the biggest foreign policy crisis of Obama's presidency) and it may get really ugly in the next few weeks and months.

          For one thing there is the Budapest Memorandum, signed by Clinton, that states that, in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, the US and UK would come to their aid if their territorial integrity was ever violated.

          In the best case scenario therefore, we simply ignore a major  treaty and Putin sees that he can do whatever he wants. Other possibilities include Russia being kicked out of the G8 and major sanctions being imposed.

          In short, this is an ugly situation and things can escalate out of control quickly. If they do then yes, Obama's handling of the matter could effect this November's elections.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

          http://unterm.un.org/...

          •  We're not taking military action, period (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            There is zero chance Obama will allow U.S. troops to get involved.

            The only thing he would remotely consider is secret special ops, and CIA involvement.  But even that likely would be intelligence gathering, and maybe covertly providing some light assistance to whoever is deemed worthy.

            This is not going to blow up into anything.  It's precisely that Americans don't give a shit about Ukraine, combined with Obama's Democratic/liberal reflex toward military restraint (which I realize self-styled progressives will argue with, but yes in the big picture even Democrats that many progressives consider hawkish really show far more restraint than any Republican), that ensures that Obama will not consider involving troops.

            Russia, regardless of the merits and morals, is going to be allowed to do whatever it wants without any real pushback.  That's because the cost-benefit analysis compels that outcome for every country, regardless of anyone's desires.

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

            by DCCyclone on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 07:07:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Because a single ship (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, MetroGnome, askew

      would have done anything to deter Putin. Reading Twitter, it's amazing how people just want Obama to look hard but have no solutions to the situation. Unless you want us to get involved in yet another military conflict, rhetoric is all we got. And if Americans can't understand that, I don't give a shit.

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

      by uclabruin18 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:46:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is overstating it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, bythesea

      The situation in Ukraine is certain volatile but no one thinks there is the potential for any Russian military presence outside of Crimea. Although Crimea secession can't be ruled out (and that would certainly be plenty dramatic) it's hard to imagine that Russia would invade or occupy any other part of Ukraine.

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

      by okiedem on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:46:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bad stuff, Mike. (9+ / 0-)

      That could have been written by Bill Kristol.

      There's this weird sentiment that because Putin rules with an iron fist, that he is playing the geopolitical game masterfully.

      If you take the zero sum game perspective seriously, Putin is losing badly. Ukraine should be well within Russia's sphere of influence, but now it has a pro-EU (not pro-NATO) government. Imagine if Belgium had a pro-Russia/Eurasian Union government. That would be the equivalent. It's for this reason that the Russians are very nervous about Ukraine - they are losing where they should be winning easily.

      Impractical progressive Democrat.

      by redrelic17 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:55:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They won't be losing for long... (0+ / 0-)

        That pro-european government will certainly be overthrown.  The Russian military has already invaded.  what's to stop them from going all the way to Kiev?

        GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

        by LordMike on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:08:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whoa there, this isn't 1945 (8+ / 0-)

          Putin and his friends are oligarchs and corrupt me-firsters above all else. He's got economic relationships out the wazoo with Western Europe that would be crushed if he invaded Ukraine (let alone made it all the way to Kiev, which is essentially a western city that he'd have to annihilate to control). China has key relationships around there too, and this is maybe the only thing that would unite the U.S. and China together. Putin is amoral and vicious, but he's not stupid. He wouldn't do that in a million years.

        •  The Russian military is overrated (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          I highly doubt that those protesters who faced live bullets will just lie down and let the Russian military do what they want. If they tried to invade Kiev, I would expect them to have an extremely difficult time.

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

          by uclabruin18 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:15:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They kicked Georgia's behind. (0+ / 0-)

            I realize that the Ukraine is a much bigger country with tougher terrain, but they don't have a military that can compete with the Russians.  I suspect that Russia has been doing all it could to keep the Ukraine military weak for just such a scenario.

            GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

            by LordMike on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:26:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not the military but the people (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Guerilla warfare. Think of what the Chechens did in Grozny but with a much larger population. I think it's more likely that the Russians run back to their homeland with their tail in between their legs.

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

              by uclabruin18 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:32:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  last time Ukraine came up we were told (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, Darth Jeff, MichaelNY

      it was not an appropriate subject for the live digest.

      ...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 28, 2014 at 04:23:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm really interested in this, but... (0+ / 0-)

      How is it elections-related?

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

      by SaoMagnifico on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:06:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Between this (8+ / 0-)

      ...and that post on the GDP, above, I have headache about how much mainstream media "conventional wisdom" seems to be infecting this place.  It's kind of embarrassing.  This overthinking and fretting is so much a part of The Village psyche.  I was a fool, though, to think I could find refuge from that crap, here. lol

  •  Travis Childers . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen

    As a measure of just how conservative his politics are, he would probably be a fairly conservative Republican in a swing state like Virginia.  Not a moderate Republican, not a flame-throwing Tea Party type either, but a conservative, establishment type Republican.

    He's a gifted politician, but his sponsorship of gun legislation impacting the District of Columbia was too much heavy pandering for my tastes.  I get the idea of finding the most electable candidate for a given district or region, and gave money to his campaign in 2008.  But in 2014, I'll probably give more money to other candidates who are somewhat more moderate -- e.g. Lundergan Grimes, Michelle Nunn, Begich.

    •  Give money wherever you think it will (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone

      do the most good. But if Childers is running against a neo-Confederate, the ideological difference is vast. Anyway, I disagree with your claim. If he would really be a conservative Republican in Virginia, why on earth does he make it hard for himself by running as a Democrat in Mississippi?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:43:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Childers easily could be a Virginia Democrat (7+ / 0-)

        The thing about Childers is that he, like politically savvy Democrats in any conservative state or locale, simply emphasizes the issues where he's conservative at the expense of ones where he's more liberal.

        I have no doubt Childers is pretty liberal on a lot of things that are low-profile and don't matter to many people and don't make the news much.  I bet a close review of his voting record in Congress would establish that.  But abortion and guns and gays and a few other things are always in the news and always get attention, and he's going to emphasize stuff where by fortunate coincidence he holds the conservative view.

        There are still plenty of Democrats like Childers in Virginia.  They talk about what's safe to talk about wherever they live.  They don't fit in well with Democrats in Northern Virginia, where I am.  But they fit in well in western and central and southern Virginia, small towns and rural areas where conservatives dominate.

        There's a real difference between being broadly conservative versus being an a la carte conservative, and the latter types include a few who still feel comfortable as Democrats.

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

        by DCCyclone on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 07:45:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site